SR 02-22-2023 8A 202-001-01 / 400-001-03
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: February 22, 2023
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 55
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Study Session on Implementation of 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element
Programs
Recommended Action
To ensure that the City of Santa Monica remains in compliance and consistent with its
approved 6th Cycle Housing Element of the City’s General Plan, staff recommends that
the City Council discuss and provide direction on the policy questions presented in this
report regarding the Planning Commission’s recommended amendments to the
following:
• Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan;
• Bergamot Area Plan;
• Downtown Community Plan, and
• The City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Santa Monica
Municipal Code Chapters 9.01 to 9.52,
City Council is also being asked to discuss and provide direction on the following:
• Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Designation Map and the Official
Zoning Map for Consistent Designation of Parcels;
• Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for Consistency with State Law Updates
related to Housing Production and Minimum Parking Requirements; and
• Minor Clarifying Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Summary
On October 14, 2022, the State of California’s Housing and Community Development
Department (HCD) certified the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. The certified
Housing Element represents the City’s commitment to implement the Housing Element
programs. Council adoption of the amendments to the Land Use and Circulation
Element (“LUCE”), Bergamot Area Plan (“BAP”), Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”),
and Zoning Ordinance for consistency with the certified Housing Element is necessary
8.A
Packet Pg. 6
2 of 55
to ensure that the City remains in compliance with State Housing Element Law. This
first phase of Housing Element implementation focuses on the following programs
necessary to ensure compliance with the Housing Element that are most relevant to
housing production or are required for consistency with State law that is already in
effect. The programs are grouped as follows:
Program Name Implementation
Deadline
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
Program 1.A (By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects) 10/15/24
Program 1.B (Streamline the Architectural Review Process) 10/15/24
Rezoning for Housing
Program 1.F (Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards) 10/15/23
Program 1.J (Revising Development Standards for Housing Projects) 10/15/23
Program 2.C (Update the City’s AHPP - Part 1) 10/15/23
Program 2.D (Update Density Bonus Ordinance) 10/15/23
Program 4.A (Permit Multi-Unit Housing in Non-Residential Zones
where Currently Not Permitted)
10/15/24
Special Standards to Encourage Housing Production
Program 1.C (Incentivize Housing on Surface Parking Lots in
Residential Zones)
10/15/24
Program 2.A (Establish a Moderate-Income Housing Zoning Overlay) 10/15/24
Program 2.E (Affordable Housing on City-owned sites) 6/30/23 and
ongoing
Program 4.B (Housing on Surface Parking Lots Owned by
Community Assembly Uses),
10/15/24
Program 4.C (Incentives for Additional ADUs in R1 Zones) 10/15/24
Consistency with State Law (Regardless of Implementation Deadline, the following
are required for compliance with State Law already in effect)
Program 1.D (Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements for Housing
Projects) and Assembly Bill 2097 (“AB 2097”)
Program 1.G (Incentivize and Facilitate the Development of ADUs)
Program 4.E (Incentives for SB9 Units in R1 Zones)
Senate Bill 478 (SB 478) FARs in Multi-Unit and Mixed-Use Zones
Reconciliation of LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
State Density Bonus Law (Gov’t Code §§ 65915 et seq.)
SB 330/SB 8 - Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov’t Code §§ 65941.1,
65943, 66300)
AB 2011 (“Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022”
Housing Accountability Act (Gov’t Code § 65589.5) including
Builder’s Remedy
Other state laws listed under Housing Element Law (Gov’t Code
§65585(j))
8.A
Packet Pg. 7
3 of 55
Under the adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City committed to implementing
Programs 1F, 1J, 2C and 2D no later than October 15, 2023, and committed to
implementing the remaining programs listed above per their implementation deadlines.
Implementation of other Housing Element programs will be forthcoming in accordance
with the timelines adopted in the Housing Element. This report presents the proposed
amendments for the City Council’s review over one planned study session on February
14 (with public comment taken on all programs), that may be continued to February 22
in accordance with the following suggested schedule:
Date Discussion Topic
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (1A, 1B)
February 14 • Definition of a Housing Project
• Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
• Streamlined Architectural Design Review
Rezoning for Housing (1F, 1J, 2C, 2D, 4A)
February 14 • Development Standards – Zoning Ordinance, DCP, BAP,
LUCE
• Affordable Housing Production Program
• Density Bonus
Special Standards to Encourage Housing Production (1C, 2A, 2E, 4B, 4C)
February 14 or
February 22 if
continued by vote
of City Council
• Moderate Income Housing Overlay
• Housing on Community Assembly Sites
• Housing on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots
• Applicability of Zoning Ordinance for City-owned sites
Consistency with State Law (1D, 1G, 4E)
February 14 or
February 22 if
continued by vote
of City Council
• SB9 & ADUs
• Parking and AB2097
• SB 478 – Zoning in Multi-Unit Residential Districts
• Reconciliation of LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
At its February 1, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (2 absent) to
recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments with modifications
outlined in adopted Resolutions of Recommendation. The Planning Commission’s
recommendations have been fully incorporated into the redlines to the LUCE, BAP,
DCP, and Zoning Ordinance attached to this report but policy questions are highlighted
where staff is seeking confirmation on Council direction. More detail regarding the
Commission’s recommendation is provided in the Background section of this report.
8.A
Packet Pg. 8
4 of 55
As the Council reviews and discusses the redline amendments, policy questions have
been raised regarding the implementation of certain programs listed above. These
policy questions are highlighted because they differ from prior discussions with Council
and staff would like to confirm policy direction. These questions are summarized as
follows with further explanation associated with each respective program in this report:
1. Program 1.F (Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards)
a. For consistency with development standards established for housing
projects outside of Downtown, should the tier system in Downtown be
eliminated for housing projects?
b. In light of public comments from housing developers and the Planning
Commission expressing concern regarding project feasibility and State law
parameters (AB1505) related to inclusionary requirements that exceed
20%, should the affordable housing requirement for Downtown housing
project be lowered from 20% to 15% consistent with the remainder of the
city?
2. Program 1.J (Revising Development Standards for Housing Projects)
a. In addition to what is already required for Main Street and Montana
Avenue, should ground floor commercial use also be required in the
Neighborhood Commercial zones on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park
Boulevard?
3. Program 1.A (By Right Approvals for Housing Projects)
a. For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a
housing project in Downtown be amended to allow up to 33% non-
residential floor area?
b. For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a
“streamlined” housing project that is eligible for administrative approval in
Downtown be amended to allow up to 25% non-residential floor area?
c. Should the threshold for housing projects to qualify for the administrative
approval process be increased from 90,000 square feet (sf) to any parcel
over 1 acre, consistent with the remainder of the city?
4. Program 1.D (Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements for Housing)
8.A
Packet Pg. 9
5 of 55
a. Expanding on AB 2097 and for ease of implementation, should minimum
parking requirements be eliminated for all housing projects,
alterations/additions to multiunit dwelling buildings, and Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs) citywide, citywide except for R1 zones?
b. Should parking maximums within ½ mile of transit and for housing projects
outside of ½ mile of transit be eliminated outside of Downtown?
5. Program 2.A (Establish a Moderate-Income Housing Zoning Overlay “MHO”)
a. The MHO Overlay was originally proposed to apply only to half-mile from
the Expo Stations. Should the MHO Overlay be expanded citywide
instead excluding R1 and OP1 zoning districts?
b. Should MHO Projects allow some percentage of market rate units?
6. Program 4.E (Incentives for SB9 units in R1 zones)
a. Should SB9 projects be incentivized through development impact fee
waivers to include the Affordable Housing Fee, Transportation Impact Fee,
Parks & Recreation Development Impact Fee, and Childcare Linkage
Fee?
Background
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a series of discussions regarding implementation of
Housing Element programs on October 12, October 19, November 2, November 16,
November 30, December 7, and December 14, 2022 and January 18, 2023. On
February 1, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions to recommend
amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan, the
Bergamot Area Plan, the Downtown Community Plan, and the City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapters 9.01 to 9.52
to implement the first phase of implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element
programs noted above in the Summary.
As part of their recommendation, the Planning Commission also wanted to convey to
Council concerns regarding the following issues that should be further studied:
• Maintenance of live/work units for artists;
8.A
Packet Pg. 10
6 of 55
• Displacement protections in non-residential buildings for artists and others;
• Storefront widths in the Neighborhood Commercial zone districts in order to
promote small-scale, ground floor spaces; and
• Limitations on lot consolidation in the Neighborhood Commercial zone districts.
The Commission’s recommendation that Council amend the Zoning Ordinance, LUCE,
DCP, and BAP for consistency with the 6th Cycle Housing Element was preceded by a
robust discussion regarding whether rezoning the Neighborhood Commercial (“NC”)
District as required by the Housing Element was necessary to meet the goals of the
Housing Element and the need to protect commercial uses in the NC zones on Main,
Montana, Pico and Ocean Park Blvd, which the Commission viewed as an Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) issue. The Commission also had a robust discussion
regarding further upzoning of a small portion of the Bergamot Area Plan area, which
would increase the City’s overall housing capacity, as a tradeoff to potentially not
upzoning the NC zone.
In a letter to the City Council dated January 23, 2023 (Attachment F), the Commission
outlined its reasoning for seeking an amendment to the Housing Element to not rezone
the NC zone. Commission did not ultimately vote to recommend that Council proceed
with not upzoning the NC zone and upzoning a small portion of the Bergamot Area
Plan, background of their discussion is provided in this report. Staff expressed concern
regarding the Commission’s desire to recommend implementing in a manner that was
not consistent with the certified Housing Element as it would expose the City to risk of
falling out of compliance with its adopted Housing Element as early as October 2023. If
the City were to fall out of compliance for failure to rezone as contemplated in Program
1J, the City would be subject to consequences and penalties under State law, including
the option for developers to file applications for “builder’s remedy” projects, ineligibility of
grant funding, vulnerability to litigation from third parties, and enforcement actions by
the State, potentially resulting in substantial fines. In the course of the Commission’s
discussion, the Commission inquired about the process to amend the Housing Element
8.A
Packet Pg. 11
7 of 55
and thus, staff consulted with HCD staff who reviewed Santa Monica’s Housing Element
to request guidance on:
• The process to amend the Housing Element; and
• How HCD would review any proposed Housing Element amendment.
The key points are summarized below but in summary, it appears that not rezoning the
NC zone and further upzoning a portion of the Bergamot area beyond that already
stated in the certified Housing Element would likely be rejected by HCD. HCD’s
guidance is consistent with their review of prior drafts of the Housing Element (before
certification) where staff was directed to remove language regarding flexibility to
increase or decrease FAR/height in favor of actual commitments to rezoning. The
development standard tables in Programs 1F and 1J of the Housing Element reflect
those commitments and were approved by HCD.
Process to Amend the Housing Element
State law permits the City to submit a request to amend the Housing Element at any
time. If the City submitted a request to amend the recently certified Housing Element, it
would be subject to a seven-day notice period prior to submission to HCD and 60-day
review period by HCD after submission. The City would retain its certified Housing
Element status while the revised draft is being reviewed by HCD; however, any project
applications that qualify as “housing development projects” under the Builder’s Remedy
statute (Gov’t Code 65589.5(d)) may not be denied or conditionally approved to the
extent that the City’s zoning code conflicts with the certified Housing Element. If HCD
were to issue a favorable response to the request, the City would still be required to
follow the process set forth in the Zoning Ordinance to formally amend the Housing
Element. That process requires adoption of a Resolution of Intention, a public hearing
before the Planning Commission on its recommendation to the City Council, and a
public hearing before the City Council on formal adoption of the amendments.
Another factor to consider is whether, despite any amendments approved by HCD,
developers still have by-right authority under AB 2011 (effective July 1, 2023) to develop
8.A
Packet Pg. 12
8 of 55
housing in commercial zones. See Attachment H (Memo from City Attorney’s Office on
AB 2011).
How HCD Would Review Potential Amendments to the Certified Housing Element
It is staff’s understanding based on consultation with HCD, that HCD would focus on the
proposed amendments, and not reconsider all aspects of the Housing Element. HCD
would review the amendments through the lens of total housing capacity, distribution of
housing capacity across the city, impacts on the Suitable Sites Inventory, and – most
importantly – Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (“AFFH”). Notably, HCD
emphasized that its review of any amendment to the Housing Element would not be
solely about meeting the RHNA and total housing capacity. Opening new housing
choices in high opportunity areas was a significant component of HCD’s review to
determine the Housing Element’s compliance with AFFH requirements. This means
that distributing housing capacity in areas where housing has historically not occurred
(i.e. the northern and southern portions of the city, including Montana Avenue, Main
Street, Ocean Park Boulevard) was an important component of HCD’s certification of
Santa Monica’s Housing Element. Similarly, further upzoning of the Bergamot area
beyond that already stated in the certified Housing Element, resulting in
overconcentrating housing capacity in lower opportunity areas, such as the Bergamot
area, would likely also raise AFFH concerns.
HCD has confirmed that in areas where housing is a permitted use, and particularly in
areas where the City has committed to open up opportunities for housing, the floor area
ratio (“FAR”) and height standards must be feasible. This means that keeping existing
development standards in the NC, where housing is a permitted use and where the City
has committed to open up opportunities for housing as part of its AFFH strategy, which
have been shown to be infeasible, would not be allowed. Also, if housing were
prohibited as a use in the NC zone, which is currently allowed under the City’s Zoning
Ordinance, this could potentially be a violation of SB330’s prohibition on reducing the
intensity of land use compared to development standards in place as of January 2018.
8.A
Packet Pg. 13
9 of 55
Consequences of Not Implementing the Housing Element / Falling Out of Compliance
If the City does not meet the implementation deadlines in the Housing Element, the City
will be out of compliance and will not be able to be in compliance until rezoning is
completed and subject to the consequences detailed below.
Consequences of Being out of Compliance in Short Term
Gov’t Code
Section
Trigger
Point Summary
Housing
Accountability
Act: 65589.5(d)(1)
& (5)(B)
“Builder’s
Remedy” projects
• Housing
Element is out
of compliance
• Projects with at least 20% affordable to
60% AMI or 100% Moderate could be
proposed in excess of zoning or general
plan maximums
• Conditions cannot render the project
infeasible
Housing funding
programs
dependent on
Housing Element
compliance
• Housing
Element is out
of compliance
• Ineligible for funding programs where the
City has previously been awarded
funding for affordable housing such as
Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) and
Permanent Local Housing Allocation
(PLHA)
• Others include Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities program
(AHSC), SB1, and SB2
Consequences in Long Term
Gov’t Code
Section
Trigger
Point Summary
Senate Bill 35
(65400, 65582.1,
65913.4)
• Starting with April 1, 2023
Annual Progress Report
(APR) to HCD,
determination by HCD
that Santa Monica has
not issued sufficient
building permits to meet
pro-rated RHNA for
market rate units and
lower-income units
• Determination typically
made in June reviewing
data from January 1 –
December 1, 2022
• Requires ministerial approval
(no public hearing) for
projects that include
minimum percentage of
affordability and meet SB35
preconditions
o If Above Moderate (i.e.
market-rate) RHNA not
met then projects with at
least 10% affordability
o If Lower Income RHNA
not met than projects with
at least 50% affordability
• City can only impose
objective standards, including
8.A
Packet Pg. 14
10 of 55
Consequences in Long Term
Gov’t Code
Section
Trigger
Point Summary
for design review
The above table highlights primarily the City’s obligations to approve projects and
potential impacts to funding for affordable housing but it should be noted that being out
of compliance also means that the State can seek judicial relief in addition to imposing
substantial penalties and fines. As part of the 2021-2022 State budget, HCD created a
new Housing Accountability Unit to hold jurisdictions accountable for their housing
element commitments and compliance with State housing laws, as detailed
here.(https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/accountability-
enforcement.shtml).
Overview of Housing Element Programs
The adopted 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element represents a statement of Santa
Monica’s housing plan over the next eight years, and is built around four main
principles:
8.A
Packet Pg. 15
11 of 55
A key focus of the Housing Element programs is housing production, with substantial
emphasis on affordable housing production, to meet Santa Monica’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) as mandated by Government Code Section 65584.05. The
City’s 6th Cycle RHNA for the next 8 years is 8,895 units, of which 69% are to be
affordable units.
Table 1: Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle RHNA
Income Category RHNA Target
(# units)
% of
RHNA
Very Low 2,794 31%
Low 1,672 19%
Moderate 1,702 19%
Above Moderate 2,727 31%
Total 8,895 100%
In addition, the Housing Element applies an equity lens to housing production and
establishes a suite of programs to satisfy Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
requirements. Implementation of the Housing Element is being conducted in phases.
The first phase of implementation includes the following programs, which can be
organized into 4 general categories:
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
• Program 1.A (By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects)
• Program 1.B (Streamline the Architectural Review Process)
Rezoning for Housing
• Program 1.F (Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards)
• Program 1.J (Revising Development Standards for Housing Projects)
• Program 2.C (Update the City’s AHPP - Part 1)
• Program 2.D (Update Density Bonus Ordinance)
• Program 4.A (Permit Multi-Unit Housing in Non-Residential Zones where
Currently Not Permitted)
8.A
Packet Pg. 16
12 of 55
Special Standards to Encourage Housing Production
• Program 1.C (Incentivize Housing on Surface Parking Lots in Residential Zones)
• Program 2.A (Establish a Moderate-Income Housing Zoning Overlay)
• Program 2.E (Affordable Housing on City-owned sites)
• Program 4.B (Housing on Surface Parking Lots Owned by Community Assembly
Uses),
• Program 4.C (Incentives for Additional ADUs in R1 Zones)
Consistency with State Law
• Program 1.D (Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements for Housing Projects) and
Assembly Bill 2097 (“AB 2097”)
• Program 1.G (Incentivize and Facilitate the Development of ADUs)
• Program 4.E (Incentives for SB9 Units in R1 Zones)
• Senate Bill 478 (SB 478) FARs in Multi-Unit and Mixed-Use Zones
• Reconciliation of LUCE/Zoning Inconsistencies
• State Density Bonus (Gov’t Code §§ 65915 et seq)
• SB 330/SB 8 - Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov’t Code §§ 65941.1, 65943,
66300)
• AB 2011 (“Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022”
• Housing Accountability Act (Gov’t Code § 65589.5) including Builder’s Remedy
• Other state laws listed under Housing Element Law (Gov’t Code §65585(j))
The following provides a summary of these Housing Element programs and describes
what the proposed amendments to LUCE, DCP, BAP, and Zoning Ordinance would do.
The detailed redline changes to the LUCE, DCP, BAP, and Zoning Ordinance are
included as Attachments A-D.
8.A
Packet Pg. 17
13 of 55
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
Program 1.A By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects
Overview of Program: Uncertainty presented by a discretionary approval process is a
factor in whether to move forward with housing projects in light of other risks that are out
of the City’s control including land costs, construction costs, and lender requirements.
On March 10, 2020, the City Council adopted an emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance
(“IZO”) authorizing 100% affordable housing projects and Tier 2 housing projects
compliant with the HAA, to be reviewed and approved without a public hearing through
an Administrative Approval process. On January 25, 2022, Council voted to extend the
interim regulations, with the limitation that Tier 2 housing projects are administratively
processed if they are located on parcels of up to 43,560 sf (one acre). Program 1.A
would establish the by-right process for housing projects as set forth in the IZO on a
permanent basis, with the intent of achieving the City’s RHNA target and at minimum,
the Quantified Objectives in the Housing Element. This program ensures that certain
qualifying housing projects are streamlined for administrative by-right approvals.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.39, Administrative Approval, and
Chapter 9.40 Development Review Permit, of Zoning Ordinance; Chapter 9.10.050
Application Thresholds Table of the Downtown Community Plan
What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ As a result of the proposed amendments, the following projects would be subject to
an administrative review process:
• 100% affordable housing projects;
• Moderate Income Housing Overlay projects;
• Housing project providing at least 20% affordable units onsite located on a
nonvacant site that was identified in the 5th Cycle (2013-2021) Housing Element
suitable sites inventory.
8.A
Packet Pg. 18
14 of 55
• Streamlined housing projects on a parcel less than 43,560 sf (one acre),
including those that are granted modifications and waivers, consisting of any of
the following:
A. Residential units only
B. Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses
in which nonresidential uses do not exceed 25% of the total building
square footage and are limited to the first two floors of buildings that are
two or more stories
C. Transitional or supportive housing
➢ Make permanent the interim administrative process for housing projects, including a
community meeting requirement prior to submitting an application and posting of
decision within 14 days.
Definition of “Housing Project” and “Streamlined Housing” Project
The proposed amendments include a new definition of “Housing Projects” consistent
with how the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) defines a housing project as outlined
below:
A. Residential units only
B. Mixed use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with
no more than 33% of the square footage designated for non-residential use, or
C. Transitional or supportive housing
A Housing Project is entitled to the new development standards in the certified Housing
Element as established in Programs 1F and 1J.
Note that this is different from a new proposed local definition of a “Streamlined Housing
Project” which limits non-residential uses to no more than 25%. This streamlined
definition was adopted by Council on August 25, 2020, for the Downtown Community
Plan, and serves as an extra requirement for housing providers to include a higher
percentage of residential use in a project in order to qualify for an administrative
approval process.
8.A
Packet Pg. 19
15 of 55
Housing projects meeting the definition of a “Streamlined Housing Project” would be
reviewed through an administrative process. It should be noted that housing projects
that do not meet the streamlined housing project definition (i.e., nonresidential
development exceeds 25%) but are compliant with the HAA (i.e. housing projects with
nonresidential uses not exceeding 33%) would still receive HAA protections and other
incentives such as increased height/FAR, but instead would be processed through a
discretionary development review permit. This means that the City’s discretionary
review body (Planning Commission or City Council, on appeal) would have little ability
to disapprove a housing project with non-residential square footage above 25%.
Attachment E provides a summary of the kinds of requirements that apply to different
types of housing projects.
Policy Questions for Council:
• For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a
housing project in Downtown be amended to allow up to 33% non-residential
floor area?
• For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a
“streamlined” housing project that is eligible for administrative approval in
Downtown be amended to allow up to 25% non-residential floor area?
The DCP was adopted in 2017 with a singular definition of “housing project” limiting
non-residential uses to no more than 25% of a project’s floor area. At the time, this
unique definition was intended to spur housing development in Downtown by
incentivizing projects to include more housing in order to qualify for an administrative
process. Downtown housing projects also received greater FAR and height over
commercial development. Subsequent to the adoption of the DCP, Council initially
adopted an IZO that expanded the administrative process for housing projects in the
Downtown to the remainder of the city. However, in order to qualify for an
administrative process, housing projects in the remainder of the city could have up to
33% non-residential uses. This created an inconsistency between housing projects in
8.A
Packet Pg. 20
16 of 55
the Downtown and remainder of the city. As a result, the proposed amendments seek
to harmonize this inconsistency by:
• Creating a definition of “housing project” consistent with State law that allows up
to 33% non-residential uses and qualifies a housing project for greater FAR and
height
• Creation a definition of “streamlined housing project” that allows up to 25% non-
residential uses and qualifies a housing project for an administrative process
Policy Question for Council:
• Should the threshold for housing projects to qualify for the administrative
approval process be increased from 90,000 square feet (sf) to any parcel over
1 acre, consistent with the remainder of the city?
On August 25, 2020, the Council voted to amend the Downtown Community Plan to
allow Tier 3 housing projects to be processed by Development Review Permit instead of
Development Agreement. The threshold was established at 90,000 sf, which equates to
a 22,500 sf parcel (based on the maximum 4.0 FAR).
The Planning Commission recommends that for consistency and ease of
implementation, the current Downtown processing threshold of 90,000 sf in project size
should be changed to the 1-acre parcel size to match the rest of the City.
This would mean allowing administrative approval for housing projects on parcels of
less than 1 acre in Downtown. For housing projects on parcels of more than 1 acre, a
Development Review Permit would be required.
Staff conducted analysis to determine the effects of modifying the processing threshold
to 1 acre in the Downtown. There are 21 parcels in the Downtown that are 1 acre or
more – however, none of these are on the Suitable Sites Inventory and all appear to be
unlikely to be redeveloped, have existing entitlements already, or are City-owned as
shown in the table below.
8.A
Packet Pg. 21
17 of 55
Table 2: Downtown Parcels 1 acre or more
Address Use # Parcels ≥ 1 acre
395 Santa Monica Place Santa Monica Place 5
1133 Wilshire Miramar Hotel (redevelopment
project approved)
1
702-710 Wilshire Proper Hotel 1
500 Broadway Mixed Use Under Construction 1
710 Broadway Vons (approved project,
construction in process)
1
302 Colorado Former Sears building 1
1333 6th Street
Santa Monica YMCA 1
1216 2nd Street Church 1
1653 7th St USPS 1
5th/Colorado Big Blue Bus Yards 6
4th/Colorado City Expo LRT Station Site 1
1211 6th Street SGI building 1
# Parcels ≥ 1 acre in Downtown 21
In addition, there are no consolidated sites (i.e., combination of parcels) that are 1 acre
or more in the Downtown listed in the Suitable Sites Inventory. Based on staff’s
analysis, it is improbable that a housing project in the Downtown would meet the 1-acre
threshold criteria.
Staff disagrees with the Planning Commission recommendation due to absence of
policy direction from the City Council to establish a citywide 1-acre limit. Because there
are no 1-acre parcels in Downtown that would have a high probability to be redeveloped
for housing projects, Staff recommends keeping the existing streamlined processing
threshold in place since a 22,500 sf parcel in Downtown would be comparable to a 1-
acre site for the rest of the city.
Program 1.B: Streamline the Architectural Review Process
Overview of Program: This program in the Housing Element commits the City to
adopting new streamlining procedures, which would allow staff level design review for
smaller housing projects and expedited design review of larger housing projects by
shifting the design review process to before or concurrently with entitlement issuance.
8.A
Packet Pg. 22
18 of 55
The intent of this program is to reduce processing timelines and increase certainty for
housing providers.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.55 Architectural Review, of Zoning
Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do:
Proposed Process
➢ For Development Review Permit applications, formal design review would occur
prior to Planning Commission review for all Development Review Permit
Applications. This will create a more efficient and predictable process while
maintaining high quality design.
➢ For Administrative Approval (AA) projects, ARB review would occur concurrent with
entitlement review. The proposed front-loading of design review would provide the
ARB and members of the public the best opportunity to provide input while
streamlining the process for the development team, resulting in an expedited
process for housing production. In the instance of housing projects that qualify for
administrative approval, ARB approval would be allowed to occur if: 1) the project
has had one formal ARB hearing; 2) the applicant has submitted revisions in
response to the ARB comments; and 3) the project complies with all objective
standards. In this instance, it would make sense to issue the Administrative
Approval determination and allow the design review process to continue.
➢ For every project the ARB reviews, a statement of official action (“STOA”) will record
the decision. If the ARB approves the design for a project that is subject to Planning
Commission review and approval, the ARB STOA would be attached to the Planning
Commission STOA. The STOA for the ARB’s decision for a project subject to AA
review/approval would be attached to the entitlement.
➢ Modify the project thresholds to allow for administrative design approvals of:
• New buildings that:
8.A
Packet Pg. 23
19 of 55
o Do not exceed 10,000 square feet for multiple-unit dwelling projects located in
residential and Ocean Park zoning districts
o Do not exceed 7,500 square feet for all other projects, including commercial.
• New landscaping less than 1,000 square feet in area visible from the public right
of way
Rezoning for Housing
Program 1.F: Revise the Downtown Community Plan Development Standards to
Support Housing Projects
Overview of Program: The DCP was adopted in 2017 with a primary focus on producing
housing units at a range of sizes and affordability levels. Building from the LUCE, the
DCP established a 3-tier system for development and provided both development and
process incentives for housing projects through greater FARs relative to commercial
development. The tier system originated in the LUCE and was based on the principle
that increased development capacity granted by the City results in increased land
values. A tiered land use system would allow the City to capture some of the increased
land value through a community benefits system. The tier system creates a base tier of
FAR and building height with voluntary upper tiers where an applicant could request
additional FAR and height in exchange for providing community benefits such as
increased affordable housing and augmented impact fees. FARs/heights for housing
projects vary for each district in consideration of context and range from 1.5/39 ft for
Tier 1 to 4.0/84 ft for Tier 3. The DCP also eliminated minimum parking requirements.
8.A
Packet Pg. 24
20 of 55
Program 1.F calls for modifying development standards in the DCP to ensure they are
set at levels that can support the minimum AHPP requirements and to support feasible
housing projects. The Housing Element commits the City to establishing minimum
FARs/heights that range from 2.75/60 ft at Tier 1, 3.0/3.5 and 65-70 ft at Tier 2, and
4.0/84 ft at Tier 3.
Where the proposed amendments are: Table 4.2, Development Standards, of the
Downtown Community Plan
8.A
Packet Pg. 25
21 of 55
What the amendments would do:
Heights/FAR
➢ Delete existing Downtown tier system and establish a single set of FAR/height
standards for housing projects based on the standard from the highest available Tier
(either Tier 2 or Tier 3). Selection of the higher standard would ensure that there
would be no conflict with the adopted Housing Element.
➢ Increase FAR/height in the Wilshire Transition (WT) zoning district to 3.25 and 70
feet, respectively, for consistency with the rezoning occurring on the rest of Wilshire
Boulevard in the MUB zone
Table 3: Downtown Community Plan Districts - Development Standards
DCP Zone
Existing
Tier 1
w/Housing
Existing
Tier 2
w/Housing
Existing
Tier 3
w/Housing
NEW Housing Project
Standards
15% On-site/ 20% Off-
site Mixed Income
FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height
LT (east) 1.50 39' 2.25 50' - 3.00 65'
LT (west) 1.50 39' 2.75 60' - 3.00 65'
NV 2.25 39' 3.50 60' - 4.00 84'
BC (promenade) 2.25 39' 2.75 60' - 3.00 65'
BC (2nd and 4th) 2.25 39' 3.50 60' - 3.50 70’
TA 2.25 39' 3.50 60' 4.00 84' 4.00 84'
OT 2.25 39' 2.75 50' - 3.00 65'
WT 1.50 39' 2.25 50' - 3.25 70’
Policy Question for Council:
• For consistency with development standards established for housing projects
outside of Downtown, should the tier system in Downtown be eliminated for
housing projects?
Staff initially proposed that the tier system of FARs/heights be retained in the Downtown
Community Plan area in order to avoid an inconsistency with SB330’s prohibition on
downzoning. After further review, staff is now recommending elimination of the Tier
8.A
Packet Pg. 26
22 of 55
system for housing projects in the DCP area (with the tier system remaining for non-
housing projects) for the following reasons:
• Proposed Tier 1 FARs/Heights in the DCP would be the lowest in the City in
comparison to the Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts and Employment
Districts. This is inconsistent with the City’s long-standing vision that the
Downtown has the greatest density and diversity of uses, particularly housing.
• Elimination of the tier system for housing projects would simplify implementation
of State Density Bonus and entitlement processes for housing projects in the
Downtown and would increase consistency for housing projects throughout the
City.
• Retaining the tier system in Downtown would likely create greater incentive for
applicants to utilize Tier 1 FAR/heights with State Density Bonus rather than
pursuing Tier 2 or Tier 3 standards.
• This revised approach would be generally consistent with the Commission’s
direction to increase FARs/Heights in areas in close proximity to transit.
Active Ground Floor Design/Use
➢ Except in the Bayside Conservation (BC) district where active ground floor uses
would be required, housing projects are not required to provide ground floor
commercial.
Requirements Applied to Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
➢ For consistency, there would be uniform standards applied to multiple dwelling unit
projects throughout the City (including the Downtown). These standards include unit
mix requirements to encourage larger, family-size units and are discussed in
Program 1.J below.
Affordability Requirements
➢ Eliminate the Downtown’s current sliding scale of affordability requirements based
on height and establish a 15% on-site inclusionary requirement, or 20% for off-site
8.A
Packet Pg. 27
23 of 55
units, to be evenly split amongst affordability levels (e.g., 5% to very low-income,
5% to low-income, 5% to moderate income).
Policy Question for Council:
• In light of public comments from housing developers and the Planning
Commission expressing concern regarding project feasibility and State law
parameters (AB1505) related to inclusionary requirements that exceed 20%,
should the affordable housing requirement for Downtown housing projects be
lowered from 20% to 15% consistent with the remainder of the city?
Public comments and concerns have been expressed by housing developers and the
Planning Commission regarding the feasibility of establishing a minimum 20%
inclusionary requirement only in Downtown. Comments have cited changing market
conditions (e.g. construction costs, land costs, interest rates) and the effects of Measure
GS. Assembly Bill 1505 (“AB1505”) is a State law that took effect on January 1, 2018
and authorizes local jurisdictions to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance. AB1505
also established parameters for HCD to review ordinances that require more than 15%
inclusionary housing by requesting an economic feasibility study to ensure the
ordinance does not unduly constrain the production of housing. In order to address
these concerns and upon staff’s further review of AB1505, the proposed amendments
recommend setting the inclusionary requirement in Downtown to 15%, consistent with
the rest of the city.
As part of re-assessing feasibility, staff also reviewed the housing development pipeline
to better understand whether existing conditions are creating challenges for housing
production. Illustrating the different ways that individual developers are navigating the
current market conditions, there continues to be a healthy pipeline of housing projects
that are under construction, approved, or pending review. Many of these more recently
approved and pending market rate housing projects are typically 5-6 stories, providing
15%-20% onsite affordable units – a positive indicator for the City’s housing market.
This pipeline represents development interest even before the substantial upzoning
8.A
Packet Pg. 28
24 of 55
required by the certified Housing Element. A more detailed table showing housing
pipeline projects is shown in Attachment G. Note that these totals represent typical
market-rate, mixed income housing projects and do not include Builder’s Remedy
projects, 100% affordable housing projects and projects in multi-unit residential districts.
Table 4: Current Pipeline Housing Projects
Under Construction Approved Pending Review
Affordable 46 573 283
Market Rate 576 1,661 2,144
Total 622 2,234 2,427
Program 1.J Revise Development Standards to Incentivize Housing Projects over
Commercial Development
Overview of Program: This program calls for modifying development standards in the
Zoning Ordinance and Bergamot Area Plan to ensure they are set at levels that can
support the minimum AHPP requirements and to support feasible housing projects. The
Housing Element commits the City to establishing minimum FARs/heights that range
from 2.0/45 ft and 3.25/70 ft depending on the zone. As noted in the Housing Element,
rezoning for this program cannot establish FARs/heights that are lower than shown in
the adopted October 2022 Housing Element.
Table 5: Rezoning Mandated by Program 1.J: Development Standards
Zone District
Existing Tier 1
(Non-Housing
Projects)
Existing
Tier 1 Housing
Projects
Existing Tier 2
Housing Projects
PC Recommendation
Housing Project Standards
FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height
Mixed Use Districts
MUBL – N. of I-10 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 1.75 36’ 3.25 70’
MUBL – Pico 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 1.75 36’ 2.00 45’
MUBL – Pico w. of
Lincoln 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 1.75 36’ 2.50 55’
MUBL – Lincoln 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 1.75 36’ 2.50 55’
8.A
Packet Pg. 29
25 of 55
Zone District
Existing Tier 1
(Non-Housing
Projects)
Existing
Tier 1 Housing
Projects
Existing Tier 2
Housing Projects
PC Recommendation
Housing Project Standards
FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height
MUB 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/39’ 2.25 50’ 3.25 70’
GC (SMB) 1.00 2/32’ 1.25 N/A 1.50 35’ 3.25 70’
GC (Lincoln) 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 2.00 36’ 2.50 55’
GC (Pico) 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 2.00 36’ 2.00 45’
NC 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 2/32’ N/A N/A 2.25 50’
NC (Main) 0.75 2/27’ 1.00 2/27’ N/A N/A 2.50 55’
NC (Ocean Park) 0.75 2/32’ 1.00 2/32’ N/A N/A 2.50 55’
NC (Montana) 0.75 2/32’ 1.00 2/32’ N/A N/A 2.50 55’
Employment Districts
IC 1.00 2/32’ N/A N/A 1.75 3/45’ 3.00 65’
OC 1.50 2/32’ N/A N/A 1.75 3/45’ 2.75 60’
HMU 1.50 3/45’ N/A N/A 2.50 5/70’ 2.50 70’
Bergamot Area Plan
BTV 1.75 32’ 2.00 60' 2.50 75' 4.0 84’
MUC North of
Pennsylvania or
South of Expo
Bike path
1.50 32’ 1.70 47’ 2.20 75’ 3.25 70’
MUC 1.50 32’ 1.70 47' 2.20 57' 4.0 84’
CCS 1.50 32’ N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.50 55’
CCS - Parcels
bound by
Nebraska to
south,
Pennsylvania to
north, Berkeley to
east, and Stanford
to west
1.50 32’ N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.5 55’
CAC 1.00 32’ 1.00 60' 1.00 75' 2.50 55’
8.A
Packet Pg. 30
26 of 55
In addition to FAR and height, Program 1.J states that the City shall review and modify,
as necessary, standards and regulations that may be considered a constraint to housing
production.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.11 Mixed use and Commercial
Districts, Chapter 9.24 Employment Districts, Chapter 9.31 Standards for Specific Use
and Activities, and Chapter 9.23 Community Benefits of Zoning Ordinance
What the amendments would do:
Heights/FAR
➢ Eliminate the tier system for Housing Projects in non-residential zones
➢ Establish increased feasible heights and FARs that would apply only to Housing
Projects.
➢ To further incentivize affordable housing, 100% affordable housing projects are
provided increased height/FARs over market rate housing projects
Requirements Applied to Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
➢ Create new requirements applicable to multiple-unit dwelling projects. These
standards are applicable to all projects that propose two or more dwelling units
including:
• Unit Mix – To ensure that the City will continue to have an inventory of larger
sized units for families, modify the unit mix requirements to the following:
Proposed Citywide Unit Mix Requirement
Market Rate Units
Three-Bedrooms Minimum 10%
Two-Bedrooms Minimum 10%
Studios Maximum 15%
• Require assessment and air quality design features where health hazards may
exist for projects in proximity to I-10 freeway
• Replacement Requirements – Comply with applicable replacement requirements
including Government Code 66300(d) and State Density Bonus law
8.A
Packet Pg. 31
27 of 55
Other Development Standards Identified as Being a Barrier to Housing Production
➢ Maximum Ground Floor Height – Eliminate the 16’ maximum
➢ Maximum Building footprint – Apply the existing Tier 2 maximum allowable building
footprint to housing projects
➢ Active Ground Floor Design/Use – Except on Main Street and Montana Avenue
where active ground floor uses would be required and the Neighborhood
Commercial zone districts on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard where
residential and office uses would be prohibited, housing projects Citywide are not
required to provide ground floor commercial. Additional revisions to provide clarity
and ease of implementation.
➢ Daylight Plane – This standard is intended to regulate the massing of buildings in
commercial zones adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The existing standard
requires that buildings not project into a plane starting at 25 feet extending in at a
45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of the site. The standard is being
revised to increase the height at where it begins to 30 feet to be more consistent
with the potential maximum height of adjacent residential uses.
➢ Outdoor living Area - Remove 20% rooftop open space limitation; Revise common
outdoor living area dimensional standards for clarity and ease of implementation.
Community Benefits for Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects
➢ Would only apply to types of projects still subject to the tier system such as non-
housing projects in non-residential zones and housing projects in multi-unit
residential zones
➢ Modify the requirements for Tier 2 projects to:
• Reduce the unit mix requirement to a minimum of 10% for 3 bedrooms, 15% for 2
bedrooms, and no more than 15% for studios
• Delete average bedroom factor consistent with the amendments on standards for
multiple-unit dwelling projects
• Require the unit mix percentages for affordable housing units to correspond with
the provided market rate units.
8.A
Packet Pg. 32
28 of 55
Policy Question for Council:
• In addition to what is already required for Main Street and Montana Avenue,
should ground floor commercial use also be required in the Neighborhood
Commercial zones on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard?
In prior discussions regarding requiring ground floor commercial, the Council has
discussed providing more flexibility to allow ground floor residential units in housing
projects. Thus staff proposed removing the requirement for ground floor commercial
uses in all housing projects except for Main Street and Montana Avenue. The Planning
Commission’s discussion regarding the desire to maintain small-scale commercial
spaces in the Neighborhood Commercial zone led to the recommendation to also
require ground floor commercial use on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard.
This would provide less flexibility for housing projects and thus, staff does not agree
with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and is seeking the Council’s policy
direction on this issue.
Program 4.A Permit Multi-Unit Housing in Non-Residential Zones Where Not
Currently Permitted
Overview of Program: When the LUCE was adopted in 2010, its core growth strategy
was to encourage housing in close proximity to major transportation systems, such as
the Metro Expo Light Rail and transit corridors, and to protect the City’s residential
neighborhoods by discouraging development that would result in displacement of
tenants. The housing incentives were balanced with a plan to support the City’s
economic base by incentivizing retention of existing commercial and industrial space in
select areas of the City to support existing and growing businesses. This growth
strategy has resulted in new housing production largely in the Downtown and some
limited areas on the boulevards, but it has also perpetuated the historic patterns of
housing segregation that remain to this day.
8.A
Packet Pg. 33
29 of 55
Program 4.A is intended to promote the fair and equitable distribution of new housing
opportunities across the City. Program 4.A would add multi-unit housing as a permitted
use in areas where housing is currently prohibited – namely the Industrial Conservation
(IC), Office Campus (OC) and Creative Conservation Sector (CCS) zoning districts.
Program 4.A also states that the City will amend the Zoning Ordinance, LUCE, and BAP
to allow for higher maximum allowable FAR and height in areas that have historically
not permitted or accommodated housing – including the Neighborhood Commercial
(NC) zoning district.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.11 Mixed Use and Commercial
Districts, Chapter 9.24 Employment Districts, and Table 5.03(B) of Bergamot Area Plan
What the amendments would do
➢ Include multiple-unit housing as a permitted use in the Office Campus (OC),
Industrial Conservation (IC), and Conservation Creative Sector (CCS) districts.
Figure 1: Map of IC, OC, and CCS Zones
8.A
Packet Pg. 34
30 of 55
➢ In the Zoning Ordinance for the Civic Center (CC) district, remove the existing
restriction that permits housing only in mixed use projects.
➢ Establish Heights/FARs for housing in these zones where currently none exist
➢ Establish/revise development standards for housing projects in these zones,
consistent with those in the Mixed-Use Districts, including the following:
• No Maximum Ground Floor Height
• Pedestrian-oriented design requirements
• Open space requirements
➢ Permit other land uses such as retail and restaurant uses that would encourage the
creation of complete and supportive neighborhoods that serve new residents in the
OC, IC, and CCS districts
Program 2.C Update the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP)
Overview of Program: The City’s AHPP was enacted in 1998 and requires developers of
market-rate housing projects to contribute to affordable housing production. The current
8.A
Packet Pg. 35
31 of 55
AHPP requires developers to select from a “menu of options” to contribute to the AHPP,
with the percentage requirement varying depending on the affordability level of units
provided. Program 2.C of the Housing Element states that the City’s AHPP program
shall be amended to increase the number of affordable housing units at all income
levels within market rate projects. The program ensures that at least 15% of all new
multi-unit residential housing units are affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-
income households.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production
Program, of Zoning Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do
➢ Revise the thresholds by which on-site affordable housing units would be required
as shown below.
Table 6: Existing AHPP Requirements
Number of
Units
Affordable
Housing Fee
On-Site Minimum
Requirement
Off-Site Minimum
Requirement
Rental
Projects: 2
units or more
Option Option of:
• 10% Very Low
Income; or
• 20% Low Income; or
• 100% Moderate
Income
Option of:
• 10% Very Low
Income; or
• 20% Low Income;
or
• 100% Moderate
Income
Ownership
Projects: 4 -
15 units
N/A Option of:
• 20% Moderate
Income ownership
units; or
• 20% Low Income
rental units; or
• 10% Very Low Income
rental units
25% more units
Ownership
Projects: 16
units or more
N/A Option of:
• 25% Moderate
Income ownership
units; or
• 25% Low Income
25% more units
8.A
Packet Pg. 36
32 of 55
Number of
Units
Affordable
Housing Fee
On-Site Minimum
Requirement
Off-Site Minimum
Requirement
rental units; or
• 10% Very Low Income
rental units
Table 7: Proposed AHPP Requirements
Number of Units Minimum Requirement
0-5 units Pay the Affordable Housing Fee
6-19 units 15% affordable units for up to 80% AMI
20 units or more 15% affordable units with even distribution across
50% AMI, 80% AMI, and Moderate Income
➢ Remove the current “menu” option of affordability requirements and establish a 15%
affordability requirement for rental and ownership projects throughout the city,
including Downtown, with the affordable units distributed equally among all
affordable income levels (50% AMI, 80% AMI, and moderate). The even distribution
allows these projects to meet the City’s RHNA obligations across all affordable
income levels.
➢ Off-site option (for projects with 20 units or more) would increase to 20% for both
ownership and rental housing projects
• Greater flexibility for off-site inclusionary housing – specifically, allowing off-site
affordable housing anywhere in the City except in areas where there are larger
concentrations of affordable housing. Figure 9.64.060.A (Off-Site Affordable
Housing Prohibition Area) of the Zoning Ordinance redlines in Attachment B
shows where off-site affordable housing units cannot be located based upon
existing concentrations of affordable housing. The map covers the area generally
bound by the eastern City limit, Olympic Boulevard to the north, Lincoln
Boulevard to the west, and Pico Boulevard to the south. The map captures all of
the Pico neighborhood and parcels north of the I-10 freeway, which has the
highest concentration of affordable housing and has historically been the most
impacted from displacement pressures
8.A
Packet Pg. 37
33 of 55
➢ Modify the unit mix percentage for affordable two- and three-bedroom housing units
to be consistent with the unit mix percentage for the corresponding market rate
units.
Program 2.D Update Density Bonus Ordinance to Ensure Consistency with State
Law and Integration into the City’s Land Use System
Overview of Program: The State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code
Section 65915) (“SDBL”) provides bonuses and incentives to developers of qualified
housing projects if on-site affordable housing units are provided. The SDBL uses a
sliding scale that is based on the amount and income level of affordable units to
determine the amount of bonus that a developer may request. The maximum bonus
percentage is 50% under SDBL. Program 2.D would update the City’s local State
Density Bonus ordinance to ensure consistency with recent changes to SDBL and
integration with the City’s AHPP. This program will clarify how to apply State density
bonus law, including application of State density bonuses to floor area dedicated to
residential uses. In addition, the program will establish a voluntary by-right menu of
incentives & concessions that do not require following the process under Government
Code Section 65915(d) for approval.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.22 Density Bonus of Zoning
Ordinance
What the amendments would do:
➢ Make changes to density bonus ordinance reflecting the approach to implementing
State density bonus law established in new legislation AB 2334. This would include:
• Converting the base maximum allowable FAR to units to determine “base
density”
• Apply the maximum percentage of State density bonus eligible to the base
density based on the number and income level of affordable units provided
8.A
Packet Pg. 38
34 of 55
➢ Effectively count total AHPP requirement (i.e., 15%) as equivalent to the percentage
that achieves the highest bonus or number of incentives/concessions granted under
State density bonus law. For example, a project providing 15% on-site affordable
units split across income levels (e.g., 5% very low, 5% low, and 5% moderate)
would be eligible for 50% density bonus.
➢ Make clear that for any “housing development”, which for purposes of SDBL is a
development project with five or more residential units, including mixed-use
developments, subject to a tiered development standard system, the “maximum
allowable density” is the “maximum allowable density” for the project’s selected tier.
In other words, any project that meets the definition of a “housing development”,
including projects with more than 33% commercial floor area, that is subject to the
City’s tiered development system may apply SDBL to the selected tier for the
project, whether it is Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3. This revision is recommended in
response to AB2334, which expanded and clarified the definition of “maximum
allowable residential density” or “base density.” “Maximum allowable density” or
“base density” is used to calculate the density bonus and includes “a range of
density permitted”, meaning “the maximum number of units allowed by the specific
zoning range, specific plan, or land use element.” AB 2334 also prescribes the
method of calculating density bonus for form-based zoning (versus dwelling units per
acre density bonus) by (A) estimating the realistic development capacity of the site
based upon objective standards, and (B) maintaining the same average unit size
and other project details relevant to the base density study. According to HCD
technical staff, these changes are intended to clarify existing ambiguities in how to
calculate density bonus under SDBL for form-based zoning (e.g., like Santa
Monica’s tiered FAR development standards, which authorize a range of FARs in
consideration for additional community benefits). While there was ambiguity under
SDBL as to how density bonus should be calculated for form-based development
standards under SDBL pre-AB 2334, that ambiguity has now been eliminated.
➢ Housing developments would be eligible for incentives and concessions in
accordance with State density bonus law
8.A
Packet Pg. 39
35 of 55
➢ Establish new by-right menu of concessions and incentives that would provide relief
from key development standards such as setbacks, parcel coverage, building height,
unit mix, and maximum floor area.
Requests for incentives and concessions not on the by-right menu would require the
applicant to provide additional documentation, consistent with State density bonus law,
but would still be reviewed through an administrative process.
Note that on December 13, 2022, the City Council adopted Emergency Interim Zoning
Ordinance Number 2732 (IZO 2732) allowing 100% affordable housing projects within
one-half mile of a major transit stop that are entitled to unlimited density, additional 3
stories or 33 feet, and up to 4 incentives or concessions to also request additional
waivers or reductions in development standards. Although previously prohibited under
AB 1763, this is a process that State density bonus law authorizes the City to opt into
allowing. IZO 2732 excludes the Pico Neighborhood, as outlined in Figure 9.40.020.A
of the Zoning Ordinance, from this additional allowance. On January 10, 2023, Council
extended IZO 2732 to May 31, 2023.
AB2334 is the latest revision to State Density Bonus Law and took effect on January 1,
2022. The bill added a new concept of a “very low vehicle travel area” defined as, “an
urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, where the existing
residential development generates vehicle miles traveled per capita that is below 85
percent of either regional vehicle miles traveled per capita or city vehicle miles traveled
per capita. For purposes of this paragraph, “area” may include a travel analysis zone,
hexagon, or grid. For the purposes of determining “regional vehicle miles traveled per
capita” pursuant to this paragraph, a “region” is the entirety of incorporated and
unincorporated areas governed by a multicounty or single-county metropolitan planning
organization, or the entirety of the incorporated and unincorporated areas of an
individual county that is not part of a metropolitan planning organization.” This new
provision expands the areas where 100% affordable housing projects receive no limits
on density, an additional 3 stories or 33 feet, no minimum parking requirements, and up
8.A
Packet Pg. 40
36 of 55
to 4 incentives and concessions. This means that these allowances are now extended
beyond one-half mile of a major transit stop. Staff is conducting further analysis but it
appears that the “very low vehicle travel area” would apply to the entire city with the
exception of the R1 zone north of Montana Avenue and south of Pico Boulevard.
Special Standards to Encourage Housing Production
Program 1.C Incentivize Housing on Surface Parking Lots in Residential Zones
Overview of Program: There are approximately 108 residentially-zoned surface parking
lots that serve the adjacent boulevard-facing commercial uses. These existing surface
parking lots have density caps of 4-6 units regardless of the size of the property, which
limits their capacity for housing potential. In order to provide new housing choices and
affordability in high opportunity areas of the City, Program 1.C seeks to incentivize
housing production on surface parking lots in residential zones by establishing a special
set of development standards.
Where the proposed amendments are: Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots, of the Zoning Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Incentivize housing projects on surface parking lots in residential zones so long as
the project does not remove any existing dwelling units. Housing projects under this
program would receive special development standards including:
• Maximum Allowable Density: Maximum allowable density shall be based solely
on unit density calculations for the underlying residential district (i.e., removal of
residential unit caps). For parcels zoned R1, maximum allowable density shall be
based on 1 unit per 2,000 sf of area or 4 units, whichever is greater.
• Minimum Interior Side Setback: When the surface parking lot is redeveloped
together with the associated adjacent commercial parcel, no interior side setback
on the residential parcel is required from the shared parcel line or alley except as
required by Building Code.
8.A
Packet Pg. 41
37 of 55
• Parking: Any required parking removed from residential zoned parcel shall be
replaced in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
• Access: Allow access from the residential zoned parcel if commercial parking is
replaced.
Program 2.A Establish a Moderate-Income Housing Zoning Overlay
Overview of Program: The City’s RHNA includes an allocation for moderate income
units, which makes up 19% of the City’s RHNA. However, moderate income housing
projects do not qualify for density bonus and incentives in SDBL unless they are for-
sale. In addition, funding sources for 100% affordable projects generally focus on
households earning up to 80% AMI and do not provide funding for moderate-income
projects. To encourage the development of moderate-income housing, Program 2.A
would establish an overlay providing incentives for 100% moderate income housing
projects in at least three areas of the City such as Downtown area, Bergamot area, and
the immediate area around the 17th Street/Santa Monica College Expo LRT station.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.19, Moderate Income Housing
Overlay, of Zoning Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Establish a new Moderate Income Housing Overlay (MHO) District for moderate-
income (up to 120% AMI) housing projects that would apply Citywide, except in R1
and OP1 zoning districts.
➢ Establish tenant displacement protections for MHO projects that are based on SB9
protections
➢ Creates a new definition of “MHO dwelling unit” that decreases minimum size to 250
sf (instead of 375 sf)
• MHO dwelling units would be exempt from certain requirements of the City’s
AHPP, but retaining provisions such as income eligibility requirements and deed
restrictions.
8.A
Packet Pg. 42
38 of 55
➢ MHO projects may include up to 33% of total floor area as market rate units and/or
non-residential uses, no more than 25% of total units can be market rate units, and
the moderate income units must be spread evenly through the project.
➢ MHO projects would receive local incentives similar to State density bonus law and
be allowed special development standards including:
• Building Height: Increase of 33 feet above maximum building height for the
underlying zoning district
• Residential Density Bonus: Permission to request up to a 50% density bonus
• Concessions/Incentives: Up to four incentives and concessions
• Open Space: Required common outdoor area equivalent to requested density
bonus percentage. Applicant may substitute common outdoor living area in lieu
of minimum required private outdoor living area in an equivalent amount.
• Off-Street Parking: No minimum off-street parking requirements
Policy Question for Council:
• The MHO Overlay was originally applied only to half-mile from the Expo
Stations. Should the MHO Overlay be expanded citywide instead excluding R1
and OP1 zoning districts?
Prior discussions during the Housing Element regarding the MHO focused on locating
these projects within one-half mile of the Expo Stations. The reason was that proximity
to transit would be beneficial for MHO projects consisting of smaller minimum unit sizes
and the demographic likely to occupy these smaller units. In discussions with the
Planning Commission, there was concern that limiting the geography of where MHO
projects could locate could create an unnecessary barrier to the success of this new
program. As a result, the Planning Commission recommends expanding the MHO
Overlay to cover the entire citywide, except for R1 and OP1 zones. In order to ensure
that this would not have a negative impact on existing tenants, the Planning
Commission also recommends that there be displacement protections in place
consistent with what is required under SB9.
8.A
Packet Pg. 43
39 of 55
Policy Question for Council:
• Should MHO Projects allow some percentage of market rate units?
Prior discussions during the Housing Element regarding the MHO focused on a project
that was only moderate-income units but that allowed up to 33% non-residential floor
area. This definition mirrors the existing definition of 100% affordable housing projects
for lower income households. However, there is reason to consider more flexibility in
mix of uses for MHO projects because the typical funding sources for 100% affordable
housing projects is not present. Therefore, during discussions with the Planning
Commission the concept of allowing some market rate residential units in a MHO
project was raised as a means to increase the likelihood for a MHO project to be
developed.
Program 2.E Affordable Housing on City-Owned Sites
Overview of Program: This program commits City-owned sites for the production of
100% affordable housing, with consideration of other community-serving purposes,
including, but not limited, to green space, place making, and/ or community-serving
commercial and revenue generating uses. Under Program 2.E, the City must plan for a
minimum of 1,880 affordable housing units across available City-owned sites, which are
located throughout the city.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.01, Title Purpose and Authority, of the
Zoning Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Exempt the development of affordable housing on City-owned properties, subject to
a public process to be determined by the City Council and determination that the
project is consistent with the General Plan.
8.A
Packet Pg. 44
40 of 55
Full implementation of Program 2E will take place in accordance with the schedule for
release of Requests for Proposals for affordable housing on City-owned properties and
the adopted timelines in the Housing Element.
Program 4.B Housing on Surface Parking Lots Owned by Community Assembly
Uses
Overview of Program: A number of religious congregations in the City own surface
parking lots and have expressed interest in developing housing on their properties;
however, the existing Zoning Ordinance development standards severely limits the
housing potential of these sites. Many of the sites are located within high or highest
resource areas of the City. In order to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, Program 4B
seeks to promote the production of affordable housing on surface parking lots owned by
community assembly uses, including religious congregations. The program would
provide special incentivized standards for community assembly uses to develop
affordable housing on surface parking lots.
Where the proposed amendments are: Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots, of the Zoning
Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Create special development standards for housing projects on surface parking lots
associated with Community Assembly Uses
• To be eligible, Community Assembly Housing Projects must include at least 50%
of the total units as affordable to 80% AMI households.
• The project must include the retention, in part or all, of the existing Community
Assembly use and related ancillary uses
➢ Qualifying projects on Community Assembly sites would be afforded local
development incentives similar to those afforded to 100% affordable housing
8.A
Packet Pg. 45
41 of 55
projects under Government Code Section 65915 (State density bonus law),
including:
• Process: Projects shall be processed as Administrative Approvals
• Building Height: Increase of 33 feet above maximum building height for the
underlying zoning district
• Density: No limits to density
• Off-Street Parking: No minimum off-street parking requirements. Furthermore,
pursuant to State law AB 2244, replacement of existing parking for the
associated community assembly use shall not be required.
Program 4.C Incentives For Additional ADUs In R1-Zones
Overview of Program: Program 4.F addresses historically exclusionary single-unit
dwelling zones by encouraging and incentivizing the production of ADUs in single-unit
residential districts. Currently the City’s Zoning Ordinance allows the construction of 1
ADU and 1 Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) on a single unit parcel. Program 4.F
would allow an additional ADU to be constructed if the ADU is deed restricted as a
rental unit.
Where the proposed amendments are: Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, in the Zoning Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Allow for development of an additional ADU in the R1 Zoning district if the additional
ADU is deed restricted as a rental unit.
Programs for Consistency with State Law
Program 1.D Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements and Assembly Bill 2097
(“AB 2097”)
Overview of Program: Stringent parking requirements add significantly to the cost of
housing construction. In 2017, the City eliminated parking minimums in the Downtown
8.A
Packet Pg. 46
42 of 55
as part of the adoption of the Downtown Community Plan. Program 1.D calls for the
reduction of minimum parking requirements for housing projects. Since adoption of the
Housing Element, AB 2097 was passed, and took effect on January 1, 2023, which
prohibits the City from imposing minimum parking requirements for residential and
commercial developments (except for hotels) located within ½ mile of a major transit
stop.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.28 Parking, Loading, and Circulation
of the Zoning Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Eliminate minimum parking requirements for projects within one-half mile of major
transit stop consistent with new State law AB 2097
• Applies to both residential and commercial projects, except hotels/motels, and
with certain limited exceptions, based on findings, for qualified housing projects
• Would not exempt projects from complying with Coastal Zone parking
requirements. This means that AB2097 does not apply to projects in the Coastal
Zone and those projects would thus be subject to parking requirements
established by the California Coastal Commission.
8.A
Packet Pg. 47
43 of 55
Figure 2: Map showing ½ mile from Major Transit Stop (no minimum parking
requirements)
➢ Expanding on AB 2097, eliminate minimum parking requirements for all Housing
Projects, alterations/additions to multiunit dwelling buildings, and ADUs Citywide,
except in R1 zones, and to not establish parking maximums outside of Downtown
Figure 3: Approximate areas where parking minimums will continue to apply (R1, OP1)
8.A
Packet Pg. 48
44 of 55
➢ Allow parking displaced by ADUs and JADUs to be located in front half of a parcel
➢ Reduce the amount of existing parking that must be retained/replaced to 50% for
housing projects and additions/expansions to existing schools
Policy Question for Council:
• Expanding on AB 2097 and for ease of implementation, should minimum
parking requirements be eliminated for all housing projects,
alterations/additions to multiunit dwelling buildings, and Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) citywide, except for R1 zones?
The Planning Commission recommends that minimum parking requirements be
eliminated for all housing projects citywide except for R1 and OP1 zones. Housing
projects are a new definition in the proposed amendments as Section 9.52.020.1125
and defined as:
8.A
Packet Pg. 49
45 of 55
• Residential units only.
• Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in
which nonresidential uses do not exceed 33% of the total building square footage
and are limited to the first two floors of buildings that are two or more stories.
• Transitional or supportive housing.
Staff agrees with the Planning Commission however, since Council has not previously
given policy direction on this, the following options are presented for the Council’s
consideration:
• Option 1 – Planning Commission Recommendation as shown in Figure 3: Eliminate
minimum parking requirements for all housing projects citywide except for R1 zones
(other than those R1 parcels within half-mile of major transit stop per AB 2097)
o Policy Background: Based on mapping the geographic requirements of
AB2097 (i.e. half-mile from major transit stops) as shown in Figure 2,
approximately 73% of non-residential and multi-unit zoned parcels throughout
the city would have no minimum parking requirements. Those make up 84%
of all non-residential zoned parcels and 69% of multi-unit zoned parcels. The
boundaries of the half-mile from major transit stops ends up cutting through
the middle of multi-unit residential neighborhoods and some commercial
areas. This means that only 17% of remaining non-residential and multi-unit
zoned parcels would have minimum parking requirements creating
inconsistencies in minimum parking requirements for neighboring parcels.
For ease of implementation and in order to ensure equitable application of
parking requirements in similar areas throughout the city, the City Council
could consider eliminating minimum parking requirements for housing
projects in the remaining 17% of the non-residential and multi-unit zones.
• Option 2: Eliminate minimum parking requirement for all housing projects on non-
residentially zoned parcels as shown in Figure 4:
o Policy Background: As noted above, approximately 84% of the non-
residentially zoned parcels throughout the city would have no minimum
8.A
Packet Pg. 50
46 of 55
parking requirements. As an alternative to Option 1, the City Council could
consider eliminating minimum parking requirements for housing projects in
the remaining 16% of non-residentially zoned parcels.
Figure 4: Non-residentially zoned parcels (in red) outside of one-half mile from major
transit stop
Policy Question for Council:
• Should parking maximums within ½ mile of transit and for housing projects
outside of ½ mile of transit be eliminated outside of Downtown?
When minimum parking requirements were eliminated in the Downtown Community
Plan, maximum parking limits were established based upon the previous minimum
parking requirements. As a result, the DCP provides precedent of how the Council may
want to consider establishing possible maximum parking limits citywide. However, in
8.A
Packet Pg. 51
47 of 55
reviewing this issue, the Planning Commission recommended that parking maximums
be eliminated within ½ mile of transit to align with AB 2097 and for housing projects
outside of ½ mile of transit. The Commission’s intent was to provide applicants greater
flexibility in building the parking that is necessary to support a project, which could mean
no on-site parking but also not be constrained by parking maximums that might be
potentially too low. Within Downtown, the Commission agreed with staff that parking
maximums should remain given the Downtown’s unique conditions including thousands
of existing public and private parking spaces, much lower rates of vehicle ownership
compared to the remainder of the city based on American Community Survey data, and
a highly walkable and transit-accessible environment.
Program 1.G Incentivize and Facilitate The Development Of Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs)
Overview of Program: In 2020, the City adopted an ADU ordinance to incorporate State
law requirements for ADUs and further encouraged their development through
incentives such as exempting ADUs from parcel coverage or floor area calculations and
sets forth a ministerial approval process. As a result, ADUs have become an
increasingly popular way for property owners to add additional units to both single unit
and multi-unit parcels. HCD publishes an ADU handbook
(https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-and-research/accessory-dwelling-units) that is
periodically updated to reflect changes in legislation and also as cities encounter
implementation issues. Program 4.G is intended to further simplify the ADU permitting
process and sets forth a target of issuing building permits for 47 ADUs/year. As a point
of reference, the City issued 128 building permits for ADUs in 2022, bringing the
average number of ADUs permitted per year since 2018 to 70. These numbers
demonstrate that property owners continue to be interested in ADUs due to changes in
State law and the City’s local incentives.
Where the proposed amendments are: Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, of Zoning Ordinance
8.A
Packet Pg. 52
48 of 55
What the proposed amendments would do:
Ensure consistency with State law, which would include:
➢ Establish that existing and proposed multiple-unit dwellings may add two detached
ADUs
➢ Provide clarification regarding what is considered conversion and new construction
in association with parcels developed with multiple-unit dwellings
➢ Establish size limitations for conversion of existing detached accessory structures
➢ Specify requirements for permanent provisions of eating and cooking facilities.
➢ Provide flexibility regarding how the conversion of detached accessory structures for
ADUs in conjunction with multiple-unit dwellings are classified, allowing these
structures to count towards both the allowance of two newly constructed detached
ADUs and the conversion of existing non-livable space to at least one ADU, or up to
25% of the existing multiple-unit dwelling total unit count, whichever is greater.
Program 4.E New Housing Choice through Incentives for SB9 Units in R1 Zone
Neighborhoods
Overview of Program: Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), also known as the California Housing
Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is a state bill that requires cities to
ministerially allow one additional residential unit onto parcels zoned for single-unit
dwellings. Allowing homeowners proposing SB9 projects to also construct ADUs,
particularly on larger parcels, will increase new housing opportunities in high opportunity
areas and also promote place-based strategies for community revitalization by
increasing housing opportunities.
Program 4.E would adopt a local ordinance implementing SB9, which shall establish an
administrative process for duplex and lot split projects. The ordinance would include
strong incentives to densify larger parcels in R1-Zone neighborhoods by allowing
property owners on parcels of at least 10,000 sf to add ADUs as allowed under State
Law in addition to SB9 projects.
Where the proposed amendments are: Section 9.31.125 Duplexes and Lot Splits on
Parcels Zoned for Single Unit Residential
8.A
Packet Pg. 53
49 of 55
What the proposed amendments would do:
Section 9.31.125 of the Zoning Ordinance would establish standards, requirements, and
procedures for projects developed pursuant to SB9:
➢ The new regulations would apply to parcels located in the Single-Unit Residential
(R1) and Ocean Park Single-Unit Residential (OP1) zoning districts, and select
parcels within multi-unit residential districts that are limited to one single-unit
dwelling with the following restrictions:
• Location: The parcel cannot be located within a designated historic district or
contains a historic resource. In addition, if the parcel is located in a flood zone,
earthquake fault zone, or on a hazardous waste site, it must meet the
requirements specified in California Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B)-
(K). Other locational restrictions apply; however, these restrictions generally do
not apply to the City of Santa Monica (e.g., wildfire areas, wetlands, farmlands,
habitat conservation areas, etc).
• Residential Displacement: A SB9 project cannot alter or remove any of the
following types of housing:
o Deed restricted affordable housing;
o Rent-controlled housing or housing subject to any form of price control,
including units subject to California Statewide rent control and Santa Monica
rent control;
o Housing occupied by a tenant in the last three years; or
o Housing on parcels with an Ellis Act eviction in the last 15 years from date of
application submittal
➢ A permitted parcel may be developed with a duplex, be subdivided into two parcels,
or both, subject to these maximum unit counts:
• No Lot Split - Up to four units are permitted per parcel (must establish a duplex),
inclusive of ADUs
• Lot Split - Up to two units are permitted per parcel, inclusive of ADUs and JADUs
8.A
Packet Pg. 54
50 of 55
• On parcels 10,000 SF or greater - more than four units may be established,
inclusive of ADUs.
➢ Lots splits must meet the following requirements:
• The lot split cannot result in any parcel that is less than 1,200 sf or 40% of the
original parcel size
• Split parcels must have access to a public right-of way
• The parcel has not been previously split and is not adjacent to another lot split by
the same owner
• Owner must intend on living on one of the resulting split parcels for 3 years
➢ SB 9 development must meet the following requirements
• One parking space is required for each unit, unless the parcel is located within ½
mile of a major transit stop or there is a car share vehicle located within one
block of the parcel
• Minimum front setback of 4 feet is required
• Units established under SB9 cannot be rented for terms of 30 days or less
• Owner must intend on living in one of the units for 3 years (per Council direction
on March 15, 2022)
Policy Question for City Council
Should SB9 projects be incentivized through development impact fee waivers to
include the Affordable Housing Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, Parks &
Recreation Development Impact Fee, and Childcare Linkage Fee?
Unlike State law for ADUs, the SB9 statute did not require local jurisdictions to waive
impact fees for SB9 projects making ADUs a more attractive option to property owners.
The Planning Commission recommends waiving all development impact fees for SB9
projects as an incentive for their production. Since SB9 went into effect, the City has
received several inquiries but only 1 application for a SB9 project. According to a recent
study by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation, the impact of SB9 across
the State has thus far been limited and appears to have seen greater success in cities
with larger lot sizes. In cities with more ADU than SB9 activity, it appears that the
8.A
Packet Pg. 55
51 of 55
combination of State and local incentives have made ADUs a far more attractive option.
Major changes in ADU law were also initiated in 2017 provide over 5 years for
homeowners to understand and pursue this pathway for additional units whereas SB9 is
still fairly new. Thus, it is difficult to speculate on the financial impact of waiving impact
fees. Development impact fees that currently apply to SB9 projects are noted in the
following table.
Name of Impact
Fee
Use of Fees Applicability Cost
Affordable
Housing Fee
Fees go into City’s
Housing Trust
Fund to fund 100%
affordable housing
Construction of 2 or
more units; Does
not apply if existing
unit is retained
$39.12/sf (rental
units)
$45.70/sf (for-sale
units)
Transportation
Impact Fee
Fund
transportation
network
improvements
such as new
sidewalks,
crosswalks, traffic
signal upgrades,
bus stops,
transportation
demand
management, and
bicycle facilities
Addition of a
dwelling unit; Credit
given for removal of
existing units
$4,430.93/unit
Parks &
Recreation
Development
Impact Fee
Acquisition and
development of
open space,
parkland, and
recreation facilities
to meet demand
generated by new
development
Addition of a
dwelling unit; Credit
given for removal of
existing units
$5,333.41/unit
(Studio/1BR)
$8,590.44/unit
(2BR +)
Childcare Linkage
Program
Fund property
acquisition,
development, and
construction of
childcare facilities
in order to create
new childcare
spaces
Addition of a
dwelling unit; Credit
given for removal of
existing units $179.46/unit
8.A
Packet Pg. 56
52 of 55
Senate Bill 478 (SB 478) FARs in Multi-Unit and Mixed-Use Zones
SB478 was signed into law in September 2021 and became effective January 1, 2022.
The law establishes minimum standards on FAR and removes lot size requirements for
housing projects in multi-unit and mixed use zones. Specifically, cities cannot:
➢ Impose a FAR of less than 1.0 for housing projects that are 3-7 units
➢ Impose a FAR of less than 1.25 for housing projects that are 8-10 units
➢ Impose any other lot coverage requirements that would physically preclude a
housing project from achieving the FARs above
➢ Deny a housing project on an existing legal parcel on the sole basis that the parcel
does not meet minimum parcel size
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.08 Multi-Unit Residential Districts, and
Chapter 9.09 Ocean Park Districts of the Zoning Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Increase parcel coverage for Tier 1 projects in R2, R3, and R4 zoning districts to
50% and revise FARs where applicable to ensure that 3–7-unit housing projects
achieve the state-required FAR of 1.0.
➢ Allow 8-10 unit housing projects to have permitted increased parcel coverage as
necessary to ensure a FAR of 1.25 and revise FARs where applicable.
➢ Remove single unit dwelling as a permitted land use.
Reconciling LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
Approximately 40 parcels have been identified where there are inconsistencies between
the LUCE and the Zoning Map, of which 6 are on the Suitable Sites Inventory and 8 of
the 40 inconsistencies appear to be drafting errors. Reconciling these inconsistencies
between LUCE and Zoning Map are guided by State law. SB330 prohibits reducing
intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed under the
general plan, specific plan, and zoning ordinances in effect as of January 1, 2018
[Government Code Section 66300(b)(1)(A)]. State density bonus law also requires that
8.A
Packet Pg. 57
53 of 55
where the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the general
plan, the greater density standard shall prevail [Government Code Section 659195(o)].
Figure 5: Map showing Parcels with LUCE/Zoning Inconsistencies
Other Clarifying Amendments
In the course of preparing these proposed amendments, Staff identified areas in the
Zoning Ordinance that have repeatedly been misunderstood by applicants. The
proposed changes to R1 development standards do not change the meaning or
substance of the development standards but are simply being proposed to ensure
clearer understanding and reading of the language by staff and applicants:
8.A
Packet Pg. 58
54 of 55
➢ R1 Development Standards
• Parcel Coverage – Clerical revision regarding applicability of 55% parcel
coverage for existing dwellings proposing an addition to state that any existing
single-unit dwelling regardless of number of stories can be allowed 55% parcel
coverage.
• Upper-Story Stepbacks – Non-substantive edits and language clarifications for
ease of implementation and understanding.
• Vertical Wall Heights – Clarification regarding what types of vertical walls are
permitted above 23’ (roof gable, dormers, etc.).
Environmental Review
The proposed amendments to the LUCE, DCP, BAP, and Zoning Ordinance, LUCE
designation map, and Zoning Districting Map, LUCE designation map, and Zoning
Districting Map were analyzed as part of the 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [SCH No. 20212269242021] that was certified by
Council on October 12, 2021, with an Addendum to the EIR approved on October 11,
2022. These amendments implement the programs that were described and analyzed in
the 6th Cycle Housing Element EIR. Therefore, no further environmental
documentation is required.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Implementation of the proposed amendments are necessary to comply with the certified
Housing Element. If Santa Monica takes an action that is inconsistent with a certified
Housing Element and falls out of compliance with Housing Element law, the City would
be at risk of enforcement action from the State, up to and including judicial action, fines
of at least $10,000 per month, loss of eligibility for grants and state funding programs,
and loss of local control over land use decisions. The State has in recent years
demonstrated its willingness to take legal action to compel cities to bring their Housing
Elements into compliance.
8.A
Packet Pg. 59
55 of 55
Prepared By: Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A - LUCE Redlines
B. Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines
C. Attachment C - DCP Redlines
D. Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines
E. Attachment E - Summary of Applicability of Project Requirements for Housing
Projects
F. Attachment F -
Letter_from_Planning_Commission_to_City_Council_proposing_amendments_to
_the_Housing_Element_1-23-23 (1)
G. Attachment G - Summary of Pipeline Housing Projects
H. Attachment H - Memo to Councilmembers regarding AB 2011
I. Written Comments
J. PowerPoint Presentation
8.A
Packet Pg. 60
PRELIMINARY DRAFT REDLINES TO THE LUCE
LUCE
CHAPTER &
REVISED
PAGES
LUCE | REDLINE EDITS
2.1-8
Achieving
Community
Benefits
ACHIEVING COMMUNITY BENEFITS
The essence of the LUCE land use policy is to identify an allowable building height for each land use as a baseline. Proposed
development that requests additional height above the base will be subject to discretionary review and additional
requirements consistent with the community’s broader social and environmental goals. This approach is defined in three
tiers; the base tier (ministerial up to the discretionary review thresholds established by the Zoning Ordinance) and two
discretionary tiers. In most commercial areas of the City, including the major boulevards such as Wilshire Boulevard and
portions of Lincoln and Santa Monica Boulevards, the maximum base height (Tier 1 for a non-housing project without
providing community benefits is 32 feet (two stories). In these areas, a project with housing is eligible for a height
bonus above the base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by providing the percentage of required
affordable housing units on-site or within close proximity along the transit corridors. Thus the base height generally
ranges from 32 to 36 feet.
To be above the base height, new non-housing development must provide community benefits for the City and the
neighborhood. Under the LUCE, an applicant for a commercial projector mixed- use project requesting additional
height above the base, known as Tier 2, will need to provide community benefits that will be considered through a
discretionary permit or Development Agreement. Heights identified as Tier 3 require additional community benefits.
Several land use designations have a lower base height (Tier 1), a lower maximum height for Tier 2 and no Tier 3. The
exceptions are called out later in this chapter in the discussion of each land use designation.
The community identified the following five priority categories of Community Benefits.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2.1-9 1) Affordable and Workforce Housing The LUCE outlines requirements for housing that is affordable to lower-
income residents. Projects that include a significant amount of such housing achieve the highest level of community
benefit. The Plan also incentivizes workforce housing to provide additional units for employees who are increasingly
priced out of our community. To continue to foster diversity, it is important to create the conditions which allow
employees to live in the City. This reduces commuting, which contributes to air pollution, traffic congestion, and
global climate change. Workforce housing is an emerging sustainable policy for the City. Being able to live near
employment and transit significantly reduces vehicle miles traveled. Thus, this housing should be located near transit
and near existing job centers (e.g., hospitals, Santa Monica College, school district offices, and entertainment industry
centers). Businesses are encouraged to provide workforce housing for which priority is given to employees. Housing
Residential or mixed-use projects that provide affordable and workforce housing will be eligible for increased heights over
the base of 32–35 feet in recognition of the environmental and social benefits of such housing.
2.1-17
Goal LU10.4
LU10.4 Discretionary Review. Require a discretionary review process with community input for projects above the base height,
except for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Inclusion of community benefits and specific findings will be required for
conditional approval above the base height and density for non-housing projects.
2.1-17
Goal LU11
LU11.2 Expand Housing Opportunities. Expand housing opportunities by identifying and designating specific
infill areas along transit-rich boulevards and in the districts, including near Expo Light Rail stations and at transit
hubs. In these areas, new residential is desired to create complete neighborhoods and support sustainability goals.
Affordable housing shall be encouraged and incentivized on City-owned/publicly owned sites. Incentivize housing
development on existing surface parking lots serving commercial, community assembly, or other boulevard-facing
uses including the adaptive reuse and conversion of existing commercial buildings to residential use.
2.1-23
Goal LU15
LU15.20 Streetwall and Height Measurement. The zoning ordinance mayshall establish both a minimum and a
maximum height for the streetwall, as measured from the average grade on the sidewalk at the property line.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2.1-27, 29
Boulevards
B. Boulevards
The Boulevard designations define the activity along the existing corridors of the City. The designations allow for the
transformation of the auto-oriented boulevards into vibrant, diverse and attractive boulevards that support local- serving
retail, public spaces and a diversity of housing types (which is ministerial up to the discretionary review thresholds
established by the Zoning Ordinance). New non-housing development over the base height will require a discretionary
permit, community benefits, and capitalize on transit service to reduce vehicle trips. Housing shall be encouraged and
incentivized with development standards that support inclusionary affordable housing and create equitable opportunities
for housing production. It is envisioned that through incentives and requirements the boulevards will provide significantly
expanded opportunities for affordable and workforce housing, local-serving retail, open space and small floor-plate office
uses.
D. Employment and Commerce
Employment and commerce designations are for the areas of the City that provide space for continued employment
activities to ensure a robust economy that is essential in order for the City to continue to provide the high level of public
services that the community expects. The LUCE land use designations allow for the continuation of existing employment
activities, however may also allow for new housing opportunities. The 2009 Plan proposes a reduction in regional-serving
commercial uses, with the exception of healthcare, in favor of local- serving uses typically with a smaller floor plate. Land
use designations in this category include Industrial Conservation and Healthcare District.
2.1-35, 36,
Mixed-Use
Boulevard
Low
Development Parameters
Height and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) with associated setback and step back standards for the Mixed-Use Boulevard
Low designation are as follows:
NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the Mixed-Use Boulevard Low District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR.
A project will receive a 4-foot height bonus above the 32-foot base height, allowing for an additional floor of
housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified
in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up
to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, residential projects that provide community benefits may request a
height up to 36 feet and 1.75 FAR.
TIER 3 - ABOVE BASE - WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that include additional community benefits may request a
height up to 47 feet and 2.0 FAR if the project is located in an area designated Mixed-Use Boulevard Low on the
north side of Broadway, on the south side of Broadway west of the centerline of 20th Street, on Colorado west of
the centerline of 20th Street, or within an Activity Center boundary. 100% Affordable Housing projects and projects
which preserve a City-designated Landmark or Structure of Merit may request this additional height and FAR in all
areas designated Mixed-Use Boulevard Low. Projects with 100% residential above the ground floor may also
request this additional height and FAR within an area bounded by the south side of Broadway, the north side of
Colorado Avenue, 20th Street, and Cloverfield Boulevard.
▪ Proposals above the base height must provide the City with enumerated community benefits as identified in
the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter (on page 2.1-8). Housing and mixed-
use housing projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable units either on- or off- site. Other
projects will contribute applicable project mitigation fees for the purpose of addressing affordable housing
requirements.
HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ MUBL North of I-10: A housing project, as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s
Affordable Housing Production Program will receive a 4-foot may be developed up to 70 feet in height with a 3.25
FAR bonus above the 32-foot base height, ,allowing for an additional floor of housing., by building the required
affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing
Production Program for the project as a whole
▪ MUBL Pico Boulevard: A housing project, as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the
City’s Affordable Housing Production Program may be developed up to 45 feet in height with a 2.0 FAR
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceive development
incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum
height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also
include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable., and administrative review of affordable housing
projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ MUBL Pico Boulevard-west of Lincoln Boulevard, Lincoln Boulevard, Main Street: A housing project, as defined
in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program may be
developed up to 55 feet in height with a 2.5 FAR
▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
ALL PROJECTSTIERS
▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to
ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance.
▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting
side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance.
▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will
minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure
maximum light, air and sense of openness for the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass
above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance.
▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at
least 10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air
for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for
permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line
abutting the residential property or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-designated property, the
centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of the
site.
▪ For any existing auto dealers that expand without using the urban auto dealership format, a discretionary
process will be required.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2.1-37, 36,39
Mixed-Use
Boulevard
Development Parameters
Height and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) with associated setback and step back standards for the Mixed-Use Boulevard
designation are as follows:
100% Residential above the ground floor
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the Mixed-Use Boulevard District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A project will receive
a 7-foot height bonus above the 32-foot base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by building the
required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s
Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole (see Figures 6 and 7). A Tier 1 project is
ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance.
TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to
50 feet and 2.25 FAR. (see Figure 8)
▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the east side of Lincoln Boulevard, subject to a discretionary
review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 50 feet and 2.25 FAR.
▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the west side of Lincoln Boulevard, subject to a
discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 60 feet
and 2.75 FAR.
▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on Wilshire Boulevard west of Lincoln Boulevard,
subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 50
feet and 2.25 FAR
▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the east and west sides of Lincoln Bouelvard, 100% affordable
housing projects may request an additional ten feet of building height and 0.5 FAR above Tier 2 standards.
TIER 3 - ABOVE BASE - WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide additional community
benefits, may request a height of 55 feet and 2.75 FAR if the project is located in an area designated Mixed-Use
Boulevard within the area bounded by Colorado Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, 20th Street, and Cloverfield
Boulevard. 100% Affordable Housing projects and projects which preserve a City-designated Landmark or
Structure of Merit may request this additional height and FAR in all areas designated Mixed-Use Boulevard. (see
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Figure 9) Projects may also request a height up to 60 feet with a corresponding percentage decrease in FAR over 55’.
All Other Projects
NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT ▪ The base height in the Mixed-Use Boulevard District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR.
A project will receive a 3-foot height bonus above the 32-foot base height, allowing for an additional floor of
housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified
in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole (see Figures 6 and 7). A Tier 1
project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance.
TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may
request a height up to 45 feet and 2.25 FAR. (see Figure 8)
▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the east side of Lincoln Boulevard, subject
to a discretionary review process, as required by the Downtown Community Plan, projects
that provide community benefits may request a height up to 40 feet and 1.75 FAR.
▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the west side of Lincoln Boulevard and on Wilshire Boulevard
west of Lincoln Boulevard, subject to a discretionary review process or development agreement, as required by
the Downtown Community Plan, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 50 feet
and 2.25 FAR.
▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on Wilshire Boulevard west of Lincoln Boulevard,
subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a
height up to 40 feet and 1.75 FAR.
TIER 3 - ABOVE BASE - WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide additional community
benefits, may request a height of 55 feet and 2.75 FAR if the project is located in an area designated Mixed-Use
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Boulevard or within the area bounded by Colorado Avenue Olympic Boulevard, 20th Street, and Cloverfield
Boulevard. 100% Affordable Housing projects and projects which preserve a City-designated Landmark or
Structure of Merit may request this additional height and FAR in all areas designated Mixed-Use Boulevard. (see
Figure 9).
▪ Proposals above the base height must provide the City with enumerated community benefits as identified in
the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter. Housing and mixed-use housing
projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable units either on- or off- site. Other projects will
contribute applicable project mitigation fees for the purpose of addressing affordable housing requirements.
HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing
Production Program will receive a 4-foot may be developed up to 70 feet in height with a 3.25 FAR bonus above
the 32-foot base height, ,allowing for an additional floor of housing . by building the required affordable housing
units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production
Program for the project as a whole
▪ A housing project as defined in the Downtown Community Plan and within the Downtown Community Plan
Area shall have a base height of 70 feet and a 3.25 FAR on Wilshire Boulevard, and a base height of 65 feet and a
3.0 FAR on Lincoln Boulevard.
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceive development
incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FAR not to exceed the allowable maximum
height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking
requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may
also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable
housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
ALL PROJECTSTIERS
▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 10)
▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the
intersecting side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance.
(see Figures 8 and 9)
▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will
minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure
maximum light, air and sense of openness for the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass
above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance.(see Figures 8 and 9)
▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at least
10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air for
the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for
permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line
abutting the residential property or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-designated property, the
centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of
the site.(see Figure 11)
▪ For any existing auto dealers that expand without using the urban auto dealership format, a discretionary
process will be required.
2.1-40, 41,42
General
Commercial
Development Parameters
Height and FAR with associated setback and step back standards for the General Commercial designation are as
follows:
NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
Santa Monica Boulevard
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT ▪ The base height in the General Commercial portion of Santa Monica Boulevard is 32 feet
(2 stories) with a 1.25 FAR. For purposes of calculating FAR, below grade auto dealer facilities shall be excluded and
rooftop parking/ automobile storage shall be discounted by 50%. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary
review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figure 12)
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may
request a height up to 35 feet and 1.5 FAR. However, when design standards are adopted for the urban auto dealer
format, a ministerial process may be allowed. (see Figure 15)
▪ For any new and expanded auto dealers that do not use the urban auto dealership format, a discretionary
process will be required.
HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing
Production Program will receive a 4-foot may be developed up to 70 feet in height with a 3.25 FAR bonus above
the 32-foot base height, ,allowing for an additional floor of housing , by building the required affordable housing
units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production
Program for the project as a whole
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceive development
incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum
height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking
requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may
also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable
housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
Lincoln and Pico Boulevards
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT ▪ The base height in the General Commercial portion of Lincoln and Pico Boulevards is 32
feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A project will receive a 4-foot height bonus above the 32- foot base height, allowing
for an additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the
percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole.
A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see
Figure 13)
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may
request additional FAR up to 1.75. Projects that provide additional affordable housing may request a 2.0 FAR. (see
Figure 14)
▪ On Lincoln Boulevard south of I-10, existing, moderately-priced motels should have no limitation on the
number of stories so long as they comply with established height limits.
HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ Lincoln Boulevard: A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s
Affordable Housing Production Program, will receive a 4-foot may be developed up to 55 feet in height with a
2.50 FAR bonus above the 32-foot base height, ,allowing for an additional floor of housing , by building the
required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable
Housing Production Program for the project as a whole
▪ Pico Boulevard: A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s
Affordable Housing Production Program, may be developed up to 45 feet in height with a 2.0 FAR
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceived development
incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum
height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking
requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may
also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable
housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
ALL PROJECTSTIERS ▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing incentives, including:
building height not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any
development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing a reduction in
required ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
uses, as applicable; and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of
median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to
ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 16)
▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting
side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance.
▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will
minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure
maximum light, air and sense of openness for the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass
above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 14)
▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback 10
feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air for the
adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for permitted
projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line abutting the
residential property and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical toward the interior of the
site. (see Figure 17)
Lincoln and Pico Boulevards ▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects have a base height of 40 feet (4 stories) and 2.0 FAR,
inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing. Such projects will continue to be provided existing
incentives, including: flexibility in providing a reduction in required ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses, which
may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable; reduced parking requirements; and
administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50
units or less.
2.1-43, 44
Neighborhoo
d
Commercial
Development Parameters
Height and FAR with associated setback and step back standards for the Neighborhood Commercial designation
are as follows:
NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT ▪ The base height in the Neighborhood Commercial District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A project will
receive an additional 0.25 FAR (1.75 total FAR), by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with
the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a
whole. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning
Ordinance. (see Figure 18)
HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing
Production Program will receive a 4-foot may be developed at 50 feet in height with a 2.25 FAR bonus above the
32-foot base height, ,allowing for an additional floor of housing , by building the required affordable housing units
in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for
the project as a whole
▪ Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Montana Avenue: A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance
and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program may be developed at 55 feet in height
with a 2.5 FAR
All Tiers
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceive development
incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum
height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking
requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may
also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable
housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
Pico Boulevard ▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects have a base height of 40 feet (4 stories) and 2.0 FAR,
inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing. Such projects will continue to be provided existing
incentives, including: flexibility in providing a reduction in required ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses, which
may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable; reduced parking requirements; and
administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50
units or less.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2.1-45, 46,47
Bergamot
Transit
Village
Land Use Parameters
The Bergamot Transit Village designation allows for transit-oriented development and the presence of a world-class
creative arts center designed to foster Santa Monica’s important creative arts industry, including production and post-
production uses around the proposed Bergamot Light Rail Station.
New development incorporates human- scale elements, enhances the pedestrian environment, and is built to the
sidewalk with minimal or zero setback. New development provides convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to
the future Expo Light Rail station. Incentives are provided to create a significant number of affordable, workforce
and market- rate housing units, and public infrastructure in this area. The Transit Village designation is intended
to capitalize on the potential created by the large public investment in the regional transit system—a system designed
to take cars off regional roadways and local streets, helping the City to meet its GHG emission goals.
At the ground floor, uses that can maximize transit ridership such as creative office, retail, cultural, entertainment, and
public-serving are allowed. Above the ground floor, residential and creative office uses are allowed. However, the ratio
of residential to nonresidential uses should be 40/60. This designation also allows businesses that develop or provide
sustainable services and products that are appropriate for the City as well as businesses engaged in advanced research
and development.
Development Parameters
Height and FAR with associated setback and step back standards for the Bergamot Transit Village
designation are as follows:
NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT ▪ The base height in the Bergamot Transit Village District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.75 FAR. A project will
receive a 7-foot height bonus above the 32-foot base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by
building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the
City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the
discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figures 21 and 22)
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to
60 feet and 3.0 FAR. (see Figure 23)
TIER 3 - ABOVE BASE - WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process and an Area Plan, projects that provide additional community benefits,
may request a height up to 75 feet and 3.5 FAR. Significant variation in rooflines and building form is required with
specific standards to be included in the Bergamot Transit Village Area Plan. Pursuant to the plan, projects may also
request height up to 81 feet if there is a corresponding percentage decrease in FAR for the actual height above
75’. The ground floor floor-to- floor height above 13.5’ shall not be counted towards the overall height of the
building so long as it does not exceed an additional 5’. The average building height shall be a minimum of 10 feet
less than the maximum requested height. Development Agreements that have already had a float-up discussion or
have submitted a Development Agreement application prior to July 1, 2010 shall be allowed to proceed to formal
hearings and acted upon prior to the completion of the Area Plan, provided that the Development Agreement is
consistent with the LUCE. (see Figure 24)
▪ Proposals above the base height must provide the City with enumerated community benefits as identified
in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter. Housing and mixed-use housing
projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable units either on- or off- site. Other projects will
contribute applicable project mitigation fees for the purpose of addressing affordable housing requirements.
HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing
Production Program, will receive a 4-foot may be developed up to 84 feet in height with a 4.0 FAR bonus above
the 32-foot base height, ,allowing for an additional floor of housing , by building the required affordable housing
units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program
for the project as a whole
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceive development
incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum
height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking
requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also
include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable housing
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
.
ALL PROJECTSTIERS ▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing
incentives, including: building height not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier,
inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in
providing a reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community
services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable; and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a
maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to
ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 25)
▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting
side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figures 23 and 24)
▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that
will minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and
ensure maximum light, air and sense of openness for the general public. Guidelines or standards for the
building mass above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance. (see Figures 23 and 24)
▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback
at least 10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight
and air for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not
project, except for permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height
above the property line abutting the residential property or where there is an alley abutting the
residentially-designated property, the centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree
angle from vertical towards the interior of the site. (see Figure 26)
2.1-48, 49,50
Mixed-Use
Development Parameters
Height and FAR with associated setback and step back standards for the Mixed-Use Creative designation are
as follows:
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Creative NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT ▪ The base height in the Mixed-Use Creative District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR.
A project will receive a 4-foot height bonus above the 32-foot base height, allowing for an additional floor of
housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements
specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole. A Tier 1 project is
ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figures 27 and
28)
TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may
request a height up to 47 feet and 2.0 FAR. (see Figure 29)
TIER 3 - ABOVE BASE - WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that include additional community
benefits, may request a height up to 57 feet and 2.5 FAR. (see Figure 30)
▪ Proposals above the base height must provide the City with enumerated community benefits as identified
in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter. Housing and mixed-use housing
projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable units either on- or off- site. Other projects will
contribute applicable project mitigation fees for the purpose of addressing affordable housing requirements.
HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ MUC North of Pennsylvania Avenue Parcel Line or South of Expo Bike Path: A housing project as defined in the
Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, will receive a 4-foot
may be developed up to 70 feet in height with a 3.25 FAR bonus above the 32-foot base height, ,allowing for an
additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage
requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole
▪ MUC Remainder: A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable
Housing Production Program, may be developed up to 84 feet in height with a 4.0 FAR
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceive development
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum
height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking
requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may
also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable
housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
ALL PROJECTSTIERS ▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing
incentives, including: building height not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier,
inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in
providing a reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include
community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable; and administrative review of affordable housing
projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to
ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance or Bergamot Area
Plan. (see Figure 31)
▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting
side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance or Bergamot Area Plan. (see Figures 29 and 30)
▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will
minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure
maximum light, air and sense of openness for the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass
above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance or Bergamot Area Plan. (see Figures 29 and 30)
▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at least
10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air for the
adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for permitted
projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line abutting the
residential property or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-designated property, the centerline of the
alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of the site. (see Figure
32)
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2.1-53, 54,
Beach and
Oceanfront
Development Parameters
Height and FAR with associated setback and step back standards for the Beach and Oceanfront District designation
are as follows:
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT ▪ The base height in the Beach and Oceanfront District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A project will receive a 4 foot
height bonus above the 32 foot base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by building the required
affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing
Production Program for the project as a whole. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold
established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figures 33 and 34)
TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 47 feet
and 2.0 FAR. Projects that provide additional community benefits may request a 2.25 FAR. (see Figure 35)
▪ Proposals above the base height must provide the City with enumerated community benefits as identified in the “Five
Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter. Housing and mixed-use housing projects will be
required to provide a percentage of affordable units either on- or off- site. Other projects will contribute applicable project
mitigation fees for the purpose of addressing affordable housing requirements.
ALL TIERS ▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing incentives, including: building
height not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for
affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing a reduction in required ground floor
pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable; and
administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to ensure
the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 36)
▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting side
street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance.
(see Figure 35))
▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will
minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure maximum
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
light, air and sense of openness for the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass above the
streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 35)
▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at least 10
feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air for the adjacent
residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for permitted projections,
beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line abutting the residential property
or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-designated property, the centerline of the alley, and from that point,
extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of the site. (see Figure 37)
▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
2.1-54
Employment
&
Commerce:
Land Use Parameters
The Industrial Conservation designation is intended to provide an area where existing light industrial uses may
continue to serve the community. The designation also provides a place for the adaptive reuse of industrial buildings
into affordable workspace for artists and the creative industries. Over time, the district evolves into a center where
research and development offices and businesses that support the City’s sustainability objectives may locate.
Allowable land uses within this district include light industrial uses, including businesses engaged in design,
development, manufacturing, fabricating, testing, or assembly of various products, which will provide
employment for workers with various skills. Housing shall also be allowed in the district. This area also allows
incubator business opportunities, including sustainable industries that are appropriate for the City, as well as
small visual and performing arts studios. One hundred percent affordable housing is allowed in limited areas.
Additionally, auto dealers are allowed to locate storage and service facilities in this area. A discretionary approval
process may be implemented to authorize auto sales subject to a project-specific environmental review that
considers reasonably foreseeable land use changes within the Industrial Conservation District.
2.1-55
Employment
&
Commerce:
Development Parameters
Height and FAR with associated setback and step back standards for the Industrial Conservation designation
are:
NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Industrial
Conservation TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT ▪ The base height in the Industrial Conservation District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A Tier 1 project is
ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figure 38)
TIER 2 - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height
up to 45 feet and 2.25 FAR. (see Figure 39)
HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing
Production Program, will receive a 4-foot may be developed up to 65 feet in height with a 3.0 FAR bonus above
the 32-foot base height,allowing for an additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing
units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program
for the project as a whole
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing receive development
incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum
height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking
requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may
also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable
housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
ALL PROJECTSTIERS ▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing incentives,
including: building height not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any
development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing a reduction in
required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar
uses, as applicable; and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median
income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to
ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 40)
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting
side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 39)
▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will
minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure
maximum light, air and sense of openness for the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass
above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 39)
▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at
least 10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air
for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for
permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line
abutting the residential property or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-designated property, the
centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of
the site.
2.1-55,56, 57
Employment
&
Commerce:
Office
Campus
Vision
Areas designated as Office Campus provide for office and related uses in limited areas of the City. Housing shall
also be allowed in the district.
Land Use Parameters
The Office Campus designation is applied to limited areas of the City that are currently developed with substantial
office campus uses. and are not expected to change during the time horizon of this Land Use Element. No new
areas are designated with the Office Campus land use designation. Most properties within this designation are
largely controlled by Development Agreements. However, in the Airport Business Park, a Specific Plan will be
prepared by 2015 that will establish appropriate land uses. Typical uses may include retail, restaurants, a wide
range of office uses, research and development, and advanced technology.
Development Parameters
In the Airport Business Park, a Specific Plan is required before significant new development, other than housing
projects, may occur. The Specific Plan will establish appropriate development standards, however, the following
standards are applicable during the intervening period.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the Office Campus District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A Tier 1 project is
ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figures 41 and
42)
TIER 2 - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a
height up to 45 feet and 1.75 FAR.
(see Figure 43)
HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production
Program, may be developed at 60 feet in height with a 2.75 FAR.
ALL PROJECTSTIERS
▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to
ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure
44)
▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the
intersecting side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 43)
▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that
will minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and
ensure maximum light, air and sense of openness for the general public. Guidelines or standards for the
building mass above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 43)
▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at
least 10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air
for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line
abutting the residential property or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-designated property, the
centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of
the site. (see Figure 45)
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will receive development incentives, including but not limited to:
greater building height and FAR, reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground
floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable.
▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
2.1-57, 58
Healthcare
Mixed-Use
Land Use Parameters
The Healthcare Mixed-Use designation allows for a variety of uses that support the City’s two hospitals and ensures
that these uses are allowed to expand, while being sensitive to the surrounding residential neighborhoods in ways
that meet the healthcare needs of the City and the subregion.
Allowed uses include hospital and medical office uses, pharmacies, residential care, rehabilitation and outpatient clinics,
affordable, workforce and market-rate housing targeted at hospital employees, extended stay lodging for patient families,
and supporting retail uses.
Development Parameters
Development standards within the Healthcare Mixed-Use District are as established within the Hospital Area Specific
Plan (HASP). The HASP will be updated to adapt to changing conditions within the district.Zoning Code, a new HASP,
and/or, with respect to Providence Saint John’s Health Center, a Master Plan.
2.2-38
Goal N23
GOAL N23: Protect, preserve and enhance the Mid-City residential neighborhood and ensure compatible
design.
POLICIES:
N23.1 Develop a program to encourage the protection of existing single family and multi-family residential
properties in the Mid- City neighborhood. Options that could be explored include the following citywide actions:
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
▪ Developing a pattern book.
▪ Modifying development standards
▪ Modifying demolition regulations
▪ Establishing a TDR program for historic properties and courtyard housing
N23.2 Provide additional protections for areas within Mid-City that are adjacent to the proposed Healthcare District
and the Mixed- Use Creative District. Such protections could include:
▪ Protections for the neighborhood in the development of the Healthcare Specific Plan and the Area Plan for the
Mixed-Use Creative District Area Plan
▪ Working with the Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Saint John’s Health Center on the development of a
comprehensive circulation and parking strategy for the districts, employing aggressive Transportation Demand
Management programs to mitigate potential impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods
and providing enhanced parking enforcement in the neighborhoods
▪ Designating adjacent residential areas as Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts
▪ Requiring clear edges and additional landscaping between the districts and the neighborhoods
▪ Increasing connectivity between the districts and the neighborhoods through enhanced pedestrian and bicycle
facilities
▪ Ensuring that streets and sidewalks are recognized as important green open
space with improved quality and enhanced connectivity
N23.3 Develop a neighborhood improvement program for the Mid-City neighborhood
that would describe City programs and infrastructure improvement actions that are planned for the intermediate-term
and long- term periods. The improvements could include street lighting, sidewalks, and street trees.
2.4-8
Wilshire
Boulevard
WILSHIRE BOULEVARD GOALS AND POLICIES
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
GOAL B1: Transform Wilshire Boulevard from a vehicle dominated street into a livable, enhanced pedestrian open space that is
well served by transit and includes a local- serving mix of uses.
POLICIES:
B1.1 Establish Wilshire Boulevard as a dynamic mixed-use boulevard with a continuous landscaped center
median, an enhanced pedestrian experience and improved transit facilities and traffic circulation.
B1.2 Include a mix of uses in new and redeveloped projects including ground level local-serving retail and
neighborhood services. Land uses above the ground floor should predominantly include a wide range of market-
rate and affordable housing units. Small floor plate and local-serving office uses are encouraged on the south side
of Wilshire Boulevard within the boundaries of the Healthcare Mixed-Use District of the Healthcare Specific Plan
area.
B1.3 Existing automobile dealerships on Wilshire may remain as permitted uses and may expand if developed
according to the urban automobile dealership format as described for Santa Monica Boulevard. New automobile
dealerships are discouraged.
B1.4 Encourage mid-price range hotels along the boulevard.
B1.5 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.
B1.6 Ensure that buildings fronting Wilshire Boulevard have primary façades facing the boulevard and located
on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for
people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.
B1.7 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Ensure
that ground floor façades include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing
pedestrians.
B1.8 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along
the boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials and articulation to engage the eye.
B1.9 Ensure that new commercial or mixed- use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a
prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.
B1.10 Mostly limit gGround floor uses to with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent (non-
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.
B1.11 Ensure that mixed-use developments include active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with
residential as the predominant use located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if
designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and
fenestration. Medical uses may be located on the south side of Wilshire between Euclid Street and 24th Street.,
which is within the boundaries of the potential new HASP.
B1.12 Ensure that mixed-use areas contain a mix of local-serving retail (or healthcare uses within the
Healthcare Specific Plan boundaries of the Healthcare Mixed-Use District) and predominantly upper-level
residential uses to create distinct neighborhood environments with 17 hours per day/7 days per week pedestrian
activity.
B1.13 Offices and other limited pedestrian access uses are discouraged on the ground floor facing the boulevard.
Entrances to upper- level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.
B1.14 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit and major employment centers.
B1.15 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.
B1.16 Require new incentivized development above the base to participate in shared parking and
Transportation Demand Management strategies.
2.4-13
Santa
Monica
Boulevard
Land Use Parameters
(See chapter 2.1 Land Use Policy and Designations for further information.)
CLOVERFIELD TO 20TH STREET:
Mixed-Use Boulevard Low, Healthcare Mixed-Use, Institutional/Public Lands
The predominance of healthcare uses will continue to shape the personality and character of this segment of the
boulevard. New healthcare and support facilities, open spaces and additional community benefits are envisioned to
emerge over time. Additional open space in the form of a green corridor along the boulevard will assist in
accommodating the high volume of pedestrian traffic. Following repeal of the outdated Hospital Area Specific Plan, the
size, scale and intensity of development are established in the Zoning Code, and a Master Plan for Providence Saint
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
John’s Health Care Center. This sub-area of Santa Monica Boulevard is characterized by an enhanced, active
pedestrian environment with landscaped open space and pedestrian areas with ground floor patient-oriented retail
and “storefront” out-patient medical uses. Less intensive medical facilities and workforce housing designed to serve
employees in the healthcare industry will be located on upper floors. A parking district ensures adequate parking
and an efficient shared parking program. An integrated TDM program for the Healthcare District, including shuttles
to the Memorial Park Light Rail Station, will result in a substantial reduction in vehicle trips.
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL B4: Create an enhanced multi- modal, mixed-use boulevard that provides residents, employees and visitors with an inviting pedestrian
environment.
POLICIES:
B4.1 Ensure that buildings fronting Santa Monica Boulevard have their primary façades facing the boulevard and
located on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to support a lively streetscape with places for people
to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.
B4.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Include
enhanced materials and detailing where ground floor façades are perceived by passing pedestrians.
B4.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along the
boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials and articulation to engage the eye.
B4.4 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.
B4.5 Ensure that new commercial or mixed- use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a
prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.
B4.6 Mostly limit gGround floor uses to with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent (non-tinted)
display windows facing the sidewalk.
B4.7 Ensure that mixed-use developments have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with residential as
the predominant use located on the upper floors east of 23rd Street. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if
designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and
fenestration. Small floor plate, local-serving medical offices may also be located on the upper floors within the
Healthcare Mixed-Use designation.
B4.8 Offices and other limited pedestrian access uses are discouraged on the ground floor facing the boulevard.
Entrances to upper- level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
B4.9 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit and major employment centers.
B4.10 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.
B4.11 Require new incentivized development above the base height to participate in a shared parking district and
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies.
B4.12 Enhance the streetscape environment to create an inviting pedestrian environment.
B4.13 Improve pedestrian crosswalks along the length of the boulevard.
B4.14 Discourage north-south alley access to Santa Monica Boulevard and explore alternative routing.
2.4-19-26
“Broadway”
segments
including OC
district
(2.4-21)
Strategic Approach
To encourage the upgrading of the underutilized properties in this area, additional height above the base height
may be requested for projects that include community benefits, and housing projects will be provided with
additional height and FAR such as affordable housing, shared parking or open space. Additionally, this segment
within the Office Campus District may also provide a diversity of housing types. The height of new development
steps down toward adjacent residential properties. For all new developments, shared parking and participation in
area-wide TDM strategies is encouraged.
(2.4-24)
Strategic Approach
To enhance the pedestrian experience, ground level uses are encouraged to have display windows with exhibits that
represent the business, and vehicular access is discouraged from Broadway. Ground floor residential uses in limited
locations are required to be designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features
GOAL B6: Create an enhanced mixed-use, pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented boulevard that provides
residents, employees
and visitors with an inviting landscaped pedestrian environment.
POLICIES:
B6.1 Ensure that buildings fronting Broadway have their primary façades facing the boulevard and located on
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for
people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.
B6.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Ground floor
façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing pedestrians.
B6.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along the
boulevard.
Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials and articulation to engage the eye.
B6.4 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.
B6.5 Ensure that new commercial or mixed- use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a
prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.
B6.6 Limit ground floor uses to mostly active retail with generally continuous, transparent (non-tinted) display
windows facing the sidewalk.
B6.7 Ensure that mixed-use developments have active ground floor uses that face Broadway with predominantly
residential located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed in limited
areas if designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops,
patios, and fenestration.
B6.8 General office and other limited pedestrian access uses are discouraged on the ground floor facing
Broadway. Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.
B6.9 Affordable and workforce housing should be encouraged in proximity to transit and major employment
centers.
B6.10 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.
B6.11 Require new incentivized development above the base to participate in a shared parking district and
Transportation Demand Management strategies.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
B6.12 Enhance the streetscape environment to create an inviting pedestrian environment. The replacement of
character- defining streetscape elements, such as street lamps, should respect the existing character of the boulevard
to the greatest extent feasible, and be completed in accordance with City policy.
B6.13 Improve pedestrian crosswalks along the length of Broadway.
(2.4-26)
GOAL B7: Develop an integrated pattern of land uses along Broadway to preserve existing low-density residential
neighborhoods, create “incubator” spaces for the creative arts, and provide opportunities for affordable and workforce housing
to support nearby employment centers.
POLICIES:
B7.1 Preserve existing low-density residential neighborhoods east of 26th Street.
B7.2 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to major employment centers as a community
benefit.
B7.3 Encourage a mix of residential, small- scale retail and creative arts uses between 20th Street and
Lincoln Boulevard.
2.4-27-34
“Colorado”
segments
including OC
district
COLORADO AVENUE GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL B10: Create an enhanced mixed-use, pedestrian boulevard that provides residents, employees and visitors with an inviting
landscaped pedestrian environment.
POLICIES:
B10.1 Ensure that buildings fronting Colorado Avenue have their primary façades facing the street and located
on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for
people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.
B10.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Ground
floor façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing
pedestrians.
B10.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along
the boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials and articulation to engage the eye.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
B10.4 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.
B10.5 Ensure that new commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a
prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.
B10.6 Limit gGround floor uses to mostly with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent
(non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.
B10.7 Ensure that mixed-use developments have active ground floor uses that face Colorado Avenue with
predominantly residential located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if designed
in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and
fenestration. In the activity centers and Mixed-Use Creative designation, creative arts uses may also be located
on upper floors.
B10.8 General office and other limited pedestrian access uses are discouraged on the ground floor facing
Colorado Avenue. Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.
B10.9 Arts and entertainment uses are encouraged in a mixed-use pattern balanced with residential and
local-serving retail to create a complete neighborhood.
B10.10 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit and major employment centers.
B10.11 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.
B10.12 Require new incentivized development above the base to participate in a shared parking district and
Transportation Demand Management strategies.
B10.13 Enhance the streetscape to create an inviting pedestrian environment.
B10.14 Improve pedestrian crosswalks along the length of Colorado Avenue.
2.4-35-42
“Olympic”
segments
including OC,
IC districts
(2.4-38)
Strategic Approach
Policies encourage the retention of the existing light industrial, education and creative art uses and the
development of new buildings designed to facilitate “incubator” industrial space. While the preservation of
industrial uses is the priority for this area, a limited number of sites may be appropriate for100 percent affordable
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
a diversity of housing types should also be allowed in efforts to expand housing opportunities within this corridor.
(2.4-40)
Strategic Approach
The Industrial Conservation area preserves existing light industrial-type services and encourages similar new
uses. Additionally, this segment of Olympic Boulevard may also provide a diversity of housing types.Residential
uses are prohibited and building heights are limited; therefore, except for the enhanced streetscape and median,
the boulevard is expected to maintain its existing character. The sStreetscape enhancements for this area include
acknowledgements to the historic terminus of Route 66 at Olympic and Lincoln Boulevards.
OLYMPIC BOULEVARD GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL B15: Develop an integrated pattern of land uses along Olympic Boulevard to establish a new mixed-use district with
opportunities for affordable and workforce housing to support nearby employment centers, and an emphasis on the boulevard’s
close proximity to the Expo Light Rail line.
POLICIES:
B15.1 Ensure that buildings fronting Olympic Boulevard have primary façades facing the street and located
on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for
people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.
B15.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Ground
floor façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing
pedestrians.
B15.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along
the boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials and articulation to engage the eye.
B15.4 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.
B15.5 Ensure that new commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a
prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.
B15.6 In areas where residential uses are found to be appropriate and beneficial to the community along
Olympic Boulevard, the first residential floor mayshould be located one half level above the sidewalk and set
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
back to provide for privacy.
B15.7 Limit gGround floor uses to mostly with active retail shall be with generally continuous,
transparent (non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.
B15.8 Mixed-use developments should have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with
residential located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if designed in a pedestrian-
oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and fenestration. Entrances
to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, should be limited in length along the sidewalk. Uses engaged in the creative
arts may also be located on the upper floors within the Bergamot Transit Village and Mixed Use Creative
designations. Within the Industrial Conservation designation, light industrial uses may be also be located on the
upper floors.
2.4-52
Pico
Boulevard
PICO BOULEVARD GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL B18: Support a mixed-use pattern along the entire length of Pico Boulevard to establish a pedestrian-friendly transit
corridor with a series of activity nodes.
POLICIES:
B18.1 Prepare a Pico Boulevard Area Plan that provides detailed direction and an implementation strategy for
Pico Boulevard.
B18.2 Ensure that buildings fronting Pico Boulevard have their primary façades facing the street and located
on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for
people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.
B18.3 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience.
Ground floor façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing
pedestrians.
B18.4 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along
the boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials and articulation to engage the eye.
B18.5 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
B18.6 Ensure that new commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a
prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.
B18.7 Limit gGround floor uses to mostly with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent
(non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.
B18.8 Ensure that mixed-use developments have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with
residential as the predominant use located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if
designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and
fenestration. Small floor plate, local-serving offices may also be located on the upper floors within the
Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial designations.
B18.9 Discourage general office and other limited pedestrian access uses on the ground floor facing Pico
Boulevard. Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.
B18.10 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit and major employment
centers.
B18.11 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.
B18.12 Require new incentivized development above the base to participate in a shared parking district
and TDM strategies.
2.4-53-62
“Ocean Park”
segments
including OC
district
(2.4-54)
Strategic Approach
Santa Monica Airport/Business Park Specific Plan is prepared to transition the stand-alone office park into an
integrated part of the City. New roadways and pedestrian paths link the property to the City’s grid system,
enhance the boulevard, and connect to future uses at the airport property. Options include encouraging and
incentivizing housing development within the business park to improve its integration with the surrounding
residential neighborhood, and encouraging subterranean parking to free up land for buildings that define the
southern edge of the boulevard. The businesses on the north side of Ocean Park Boulevard are supported by
customers from the office park and surrounding neighborhoods, and parking standards are modified to reflect
the local origin of the customers. New development in the office park provides shared parking and participates in
TDM strategies. The landscaped median is maintained to minimize cut-through traffic to the northern residential
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
neighborhood.
(2.4-59-60)
GOAL B21: Establish Ocean Park Boulevard as a local-serving boulevard with distinctive neighborhood centers east of Clover
Park and around 17th Street,featuring land uses that cater primarily to the daily needs of the adjacent Sunset Park and Pico
neighborhoods, with improved transit, pedestrian and cycling routes.
POLICIES:
B21.1 Ensure that buildings fronting Ocean Park Boulevard have their primary façades facing the street and
located on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places
for people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.
B21.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Ground
floor façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing
pedestrians.
B21.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along
the boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials and articulation to engage the eye.
B21.4 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.
B21.5 Ensure that new commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a
prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.
B21.6 Limit gGround floor uses to mostly with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent
(non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.
B21.7 Ensure that mixed-use developments have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with
predominantly residential uses located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if
designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and
fenestration.
B21.8 Discourage general office and other limited pedestrian access uses on the ground floor facing Ocean Park
Boulevard. Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
B21.9 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit and major employment centers.
B21.10 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.
B21.11 Require new incentivized development above the base to participate in a shared parking district and
TDM strategies.
B21.12 Encourage the retention and aesthetic improvement of local businesses at neighborhood centers.
B21.13 Encourage a balance of dining, retail and service uses at the neighborhood centers.
B21.14 Encourage a proactive dialogue between property owners, tenants, developers and the surrounding
neighborhood to promote the enhancement of neighborhood centers around Ocean Park east of Clover Park and
around Ocean Park at 17th Street.
B21.15 In conjunction with a shared parking district and TDM strategies, adjust parking standards to ensure
the continued success of the many small businesses that serve the Pico, Ocean Park and Sunset Park
neighborhoods and Santa Monica Business Park.
B21.16 Evaluate parking requirements for local-serving uses and modify as appropriate to account for
customers who do not drive to the businesses.
2.4-61
Ocean Park
Boulevard
Goals and
Policies
GOAL B23: Create a specific plan for the Santa Monica Airport/Business Park that addresses the need for
greater connectivity to Ocean Park Boulevard with new buildings that address the street, create an active
pedestrian environment and complement the uses on the north side of the boulevard.
POLICIES:
B23.1 Develop a Santa Monica Airport/ Business Park Specific Plan to transition the stand-alone office park into
an integrated part of the City with new roadways and pedestrian paths linking the property to the City’s street grid
system, enhancing the boulevard and connecting to future uses at the airport property.
B23.2 Include buildings with active ground floor uses that address Ocean Park Boulevard in the
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
redevelopment of the office park.
B23.3 Ensure that buildings fronting Ocean Park Boulevard have their primary façade facing the
boulevard and located on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively
streetscape with places for people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are
encouraged.
B23.4 Convert surface parking for the Santa Monica Business Park to subterranean parking to make land available
for additional landscaping, gathering places and other amenities.
B23.5 Require new development above the base height in the office park to provide shared parking and
participate in TDM strategies.
B23.6 Encourage and incentivize housing development within the business park to improve its integration with
the surrounding residential neighborhood.
2.4-70
Lincoln
Boulevard
LINCOLN BOULEVARD GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL B25: Redevelop Lincoln Boulevard as a distinct and visually-cohesive mixed-use commercial boulevard.
POLICIES:
B25.1 As businesses turnover, encourage façade improvements such as clearly defined signage and storefront
glazing that are compatible with the character of the boulevard.
B25.2 Encourage mid-price range hotels and other visitor-serving uses on Lincoln Boulevard.
B25.3 Encourage aggregation of smaller parcels to facilitate sites to create an active mix of uses and provide
opportunities for shared parking in subterranean structures.
B25.4 In order to provide an incentive for redevelopment on Lincoln Boulevard, explore parking strategies
such as encouraging shared parking between adjacent properties and land uses and parking reductions in
association with parking districts.
B25.5 Ensure that buildings fronting Lincoln Boulevard have primary façades facing the street and located on
the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for people
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.
B25.6 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience.
Ground floor façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing
pedestrians.
B25.7 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along
the boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials and articulation to engage the eye.
B25.8 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.
B25.9 Ensure that new commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a
prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.
B25.10 Limit gGround floor uses to mostly with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent
(non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.
B25.11 Ensure that mixed-use developments have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with
residential or small floor plate, local-serving office uses located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses
may be allowed if designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances,
stoops, patios, and fenestration.
B25.12 General office and other limited pedestrian access uses are discouraged on the ground floor facing
Lincoln Boulevard. Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, should be limited in length along the sidewalk.
B25.13 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit and major employment centers.
B25.14 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.
B25.15 Require new incentivized development above the base height to participate in a shared
parking district and TDM strategies.
2.6-4
Industrial
Conservation
Industrial Conservation District The Industrial Conservation District incorporates land between Lincoln
Boulevard and Cloverfield Boulevard that has traditionally been zoned M-1, Industrial Conservation, and has
been occupied by light industrial and small commercial uses. This district responds to community concerns seeks
to preservethat small industrial uses and low-cost space for start-ups, “incubator” industries and community
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
District
narrative
services are being replaced by residential and studio uses. Although tThis conservation district intendswas
identified to to assure the stability of small industrial businesses within the City. housing is allowed in the district
in efforts to further equitable housing opportunities in the area, subject to air quality assessment and related design
measures. In general, residential uses are prohibited; however, a residential overlay has been established where
100 percent affordable housing projects could be permitted in selected areas.
2.6-13, 14
Goal D8
Policy D8.6,
D8.7
GOAL D8: Ensure that new and remodeled buildings in the Downtown District contribute to the pedestrian character of
Downtown and are compatible in scale with existing buildings and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
POLICIES:
D8.1 Locate the primary façades of buildings fronting the street at the property line or back side of the
sidewalk. However, to create a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, small landscaped gathering
spaces and plazas should be encouraged.
D8.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience.
Incorporate enhanced materials and detailing in ground floor façades where they will be perceived by passing
pedestrians.
D8.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along
the street. Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials, and articulation that creates shadow
patterns to engage the eye.
D8.4 Avoid buildings with uniformly flat roofs or cornices in order to create an interesting skyline.
D8.5 Create a prescribed building envelope for new commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential
districts with step backs to maintain the residential development’s access to light and air.
D8.6 Limit gGround floor uses to mostly with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent
(non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.
D8.7 Encourage mixed-use developments to have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with
residential or office uses located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if designed in a
pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and fenestration.
D8.8 Discourage offices and other limited pedestrian access uses on the ground floor facing the street. Limit the
length of entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
D8.9 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.
D8.10 Require new incentivized development to participate in shared parking and TDM strategies.
D8.11 Strip commercial development shall not be permitted. Encourage owners of existing strip commercial
developments to redevelop their properties.
2.6-44, 45
Industrial
Conservation
Strategic Approach
The industrial area east of Cloverfield Boulevard is reserved for the City Yards and waste management needs for
the foreseeable future; the City is initiating a master plan for the City Yards. The master planning process is based
upon the City Yards staying at their existing location. However, in the future, if the City Yards are ever relocated,
this area may be annexed to the Bergamot Transit Village District to provide expansion for the creative arts, park
space and residential uses. Between Cloverfield Boulevard and 17th Street, the district is devoted to traditional
industrial uses. However, some 100 percent affordable housing may be allowed . Private schools, other nonprofit
and community uses, and automobile storage and service facilities for auto dealerships continue to be allowed.
The area of the Industrial Conservation District west of Memorial Park is intendedreserved exclusively for
traditional small light industrial users. , and excludes residential uses. Restrictions to prohibit residential uses in
this area are necessary to preserve land for light industrial uses, and to avoid potential land use conflicts and
escalating land prices.
Housing is also allowed in the district in efforts to expand equitable housing opportunities in the area.
INDUSTRIAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL D27: Preserve and protect an industrial area, where traditional light industrial uses may prosper and new small businesses
can be incubated and supported.
POLICIES:
D27.1 Preserve and protect the existing industrial uses and allow for new light industrial uses to locate in the
Industrial Conservation District.
D27.2 Residential development is not permitted within the Industrial Conservation District with the exception
that limited 100 percent affordable housing may be allowed between 17th Street and Cloverfield Boulevard. The
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
location of such uses shall be carefully considered to avoid conflicts with existing industrial uses.
D27.23 Housing is permitted, however, Where residential buildings are developed within the industrial zone
they should shall be designed to accommodate and mitigate the impacts from nearby industrial uses and
highways, such as air quality measures.
D27.34 Existing schools and non-profit/ community uses are allowed to continue and expand, including
expansion onto other nearby properties in the Industrial Conservation District. Such expansion will be subject to
the Industrial Conservation Tier 2 discretionary process and development parameters. Rooftop areas used for
school activities shall not count in calculating FAR.
D27.45 Service facilities for automobile dealerships are a permitted use. A discretionary approval process may be
implemented to authorize auto sales subject to a project –specific environmental review that considers
reasonably foreseeable land use changes within the Industrial Conservation District.
D27.56 Encourage industries that provide locally-needed goods, that supply components required by other
local industries, or local services that create environmentally sustainable products.
D27.67 Encourage cultural and creative arts facilities and “incubator” uses to locate in the Industrial
Conservation District.
D27.78 Office uses are limited to those associated with the permitted light industrial use. Office uses may
not exceed 30 percent of the floor area of the permitted use.
D27.89 Opportunities to open 9th, 10th, 12th and Euclid Streets between Olympic Boulevard and
Colorado Avenue to vehicle and/or pedestrian travel are encouraged.
D27.910 Utilizing a variety of heights, forms and materials to create visual interest while maintaining the
traditional character of the area are encouraged. Building design should avoid uniformly flat roofs or
cornices in order to create an interesting skyline.
D27.101 Ground floor uses along the street are encouraged to place pedestrian entrances, storefronts
and offices along the front face of the building to create pedestrian interest.
2.6-55, 56
Main Street
MAIN STREET DISTRICT GOALS AND POLICIES
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
GOAL D31: Preserve and enhance the distinctive qualities of Main Street that allow it to be a vibrant local and regional shopping and
dining destination.
POLICIES:
D31.1 Main Street should accommodate a variety of commercial uses that provide daily necessities for
those living in the surrounding community and the greater Santa Monica area, and for tourists.
D31.2 Businesses and activities that provide distinctive experiences such as the California Heritage Museum,
community gardens, and the farmer’s market should be supported.
D31.3 A program of incentives that support the long-term vitality of small businesses shall be established.
D31.4 Uses that may adversely impact the adjoining neighborhoods, such as liquor stores, should be limited in
scope and location.
D31.5 Modifications to historic resources shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards,
preserving identified character- defining features of the resource
D31.6 Incentives shall be provided to promote the preservation and adaptive reuse of designated
landmarks and resources identified on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
D31.7 New construction design in the Neighborhood Commercial District shall be pedestrian-orientedcompatible
with the scale and character of the central portion of the Main Street commercial corridor.
D31.8 A comprehensive parking strategy that addresses the parking needs of businesses and the surrounding
neighborhood shall be formulated. The parking strategy should examine parking requirements for local-serving
uses and ensure that new businesses are allowed to occupy existing nonconforming commercial spaces.
D31.9 Solutions that increase parking availability, including encouraging the implementation of an
employee TDM program for existing and new businesses shall be explored.
D31.10 The bicycle and pedestrian connections between the Beach, Main Street, and the Ocean Park
neighborhood shall be improved to the extent feasible.
D31.11 The streetscape environment and pedestrian crosswalks should be enhanced along the length of the
street to create an inviting pedestrian environment.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
D31.12 Ensure that disincentives for new and existing restaurants on Main Street as well as other issues of
concern will be addressed in an updated Main Street Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance update.
GOAL D32:Ensure that the design of new and remodeled buildings on Main Street are pedestrian-oriented compatible with
thein scale and character with existing buildings and the surrounding residential neighborhood.
POLICIES:
D32.1 Buildings fronting on Main Street should have primary façades facing the street and be located on the
property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for people to
socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.
D32.2 Buildings shall be scaled to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping
experience. Ground floor façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived
by passing pedestrians.
D32.3 Buildings should be designed with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual
interest along the street. Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials, and articulation that creates
shadow patterns to engage the eye.
D32.4 Create an interesting skyline by avoiding uniformly flat roofs or cornices.
D32.5 New commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts shall be contained within a
prescribed building envelope with step backs designed to maintain access to light and air.
D32.6 Ground floor uses should be mostly limited to active retail with generally continuous, transparent
(non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.
D32.7 Mixed-use developments should have active ground floor uses that face the street with residential or
office development located on the upper floors. Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, should be limited
in length along the sidewalk.
D32.8 Offices and other limited pedestrian access uses are discouraged on the ground floor facing the street.
Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.
D32.9 Sidewalk dining shall be encouraged where it meets established criteria.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
D32.10 New incentivized development above the base should be required to participate in shared parking and
TDM strategies
2.6-59
Montana
Avenue
MONTANA AVENUE DISTRICT GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL D35: Ensure that the design of new and remodeled buildings on Montana Avenue are pedestrian-oriented with thecompatible
in scale and character with existing buildings and the surrounding residential neighborhood.
POLICIES:
D35.1 Locate primary façades fronting Montana Avenue with the face of the building located on the
property line or back side of the sidewalk. Encourage a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, such
as small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas.
D35.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Utilize
enhanced materials and detailing on the façades where they are in close proximity to the passing pedestrian.
D35.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along
the street. Utilize meaningful combinations of materials and articulation of building elements to create shadow
patterns to engage the eye.
D35.4 Avoid uniformly flat roofs or cornices in order to create an interesting skyline.
D35.5 Incorporate generally continuous, transparent (non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk in all
ground floor retail stores to create interest for the pedestrian. To limit blank walls or lengths of walls lacking
pedestrian interest, entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, are limited in length along the sidewalk.
D35.6 Mixed-use developments should have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with residential
or office development located on the upper floors.
D35.7 Limit the length of ground floor entrances and lobbies to upper-level uses to avoid breaks in the
pedestrian streetscape experience.
D35.8 Encourage sidewalk dining to establish a social environment along the street where it meets established
criteria.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2.6-61-63
Santa
Monica
Airport and
Business
Park District
Vision
No land use changes are proposed in the LUCE for the airport or the Santa Monica Business Park. However, in In anticipation
of the expiration of the “1984 Agreement” with the federal government regarding the future operations of the airport, a
Santa Monica Airport/Business Park Specific Plan is undertaken at the appropriate time. This specific plan also addresses the
potential to redevelop the business park, the interface with the neighborhood commercial along the north side of Ocean Park
Boulevard, and the integration with the future use of the airport. The specific plan calls for a new grid of streets that extends
the existing City grid of streets into the planning area. Through the establishment of a parking district, the existing expanse
of surface parking is replaced with shared, preferably underground, parking structures thus freeing up land for the roadway
system, new open space and for new mixed-use building sites that define the southern edge of Ocean Park Boulevard, and
result in a cohesive well planned environment. With the determination of the future of the airport operations, the
appropriate type of land uses are identified for the airport lands along with the planning of a new roadway system, transit
opportunities and infrastructure requirements. An important aspect of the specific plan is the interface with the adjoining
residential neighborhoods.
Strategic Approach
Due to the complexity of the issues and the lack of a defined future for the airport, no land use changes are
proposed for the airport or the Santa Monica Business Park. However, it is proposed that the City prioritize the
creation of a Santa Monica Airport/Business Park Specific Plan for both entities in anticipation of the expiration
of the “1984 Agreement” with the federal government in 2015. After that, use of the airport land will be a local
land use matter. The It is anticipated that a specific plan will explore the redevelopment potential of the Business
Park, its interface with the neighborhood commercial along the north side of Ocean Park Boulevard, and how the
area integrates with the future of the airport. The surface parking for the office park should be replaced with
residential housing and may consider shared parking structures that then create opportunities for a new access in
the form of a new street grid and pedestrian ways, open space and new infill projects. The specific plan will explore
the methods to integrate both sides of Ocean Park Boulevard into a well-designed neighborhood commercial
center, and the creation of a mixed-use neighborhood with a balance of jobs and housing. During the specific plan
process, the City will reexamine the land uses at the business park. and work with the Federal Aviation
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Administration, the State of California, the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission and the community
regarding the City’s compliance with legal requirements to operate the Santa Monica Airport through 2015.
AIRPORT AND BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL D36: Create and adopt a specific plan to transition the Santa Monica Business Park and the Santa Monica Airport from
stand-alone elements to neighborhoods integrated into the City.
POLICIES:
D36.1 The City shall work with the Federal Aviation Administration, the State of California, the Los Angeles
County Airport Land Use Commission, stakeholders and residents to address issues of mutual concern including,
but not limited to, safety and noise.
D36.2 With the exception of housing development, any Rredevelopment or substantial changes to the Santa
Monica Business Park should not be allowed until a specific plan is developed and approved. Prior to the
adoption of the new specific plan, development standards and uses for the business park shall be governed by
the Office Campus designation land use parameters.
D36.3 The Santa Monica Airport/ Business Park Specific Plan should set forth an appropriate mix of land uses as
well as establish a framework of vehicular roadways and pedestrian routes, open space and shared parking
facilities to create a complete neighborhood.
D36.4 The Santa Monica Airport/Business Park Specific Plan should interface carefully with adjoining commercial
uses and establish standards and guidelines to transition to the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
3.2
Community
Benefits
Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits:
The community identified the following five priority categories of community benefits:
1. New Affordable and Workforce Housing
For all projects with a housing component, in which a developer seeks to develop a project that is greater in
height than the base height of 32 feet, affordable housing or a contribution to the affordable housing fund shall
be required. The objective is to incentivize housing along the City’s commercial corridors where there is transit,
local-serving retail and an enhanced pedestrian environment, facilitating a complete neighborhood for a range
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
of socioeconomic levels. While affordable housing is identified as a primary community benefit, the provision
of a significantly higher percentage of workforce housing units is also a community benefit.
A project developer who chooses to provide affordable housing as part of the base project in accordance with
the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program will be entitled to
receive a height bonus of 3 feet for a total height of 35 feet.
2. GHG Emissions and Future Congestion Reduction Requirement
A developer who seeks to develop projects above the base heightmeeting specified criteria shall also be required
to provide additional Transportation Demand Management (TDM) trip reduction measures to address congestion and
GHG emission reduction. TDM incentive programs could include: bicycle facilities, shower facilities, dedicated shuttles,
flex cars, transit passes, parking cash-out programs, car-sharing programs, on-site transportation information, and shared
parking programs.
3. Community Physical Improvements
In certain parts of the City, the community benefits could address necessary or desired physical improvements
such as: reconnecting the street grid; quality pedestrian, biking and green connections; and additional ground
level open space, trees and wider sidewalks. It could also include improvements such as gathering places,
recreational open space and the provision of neighborhood-serving retail and services.
4. Social, Cultural and Educational Facilities This category of benefits could include space for preferred uses
such as child care, senior care, youth and teen services and educational uses. The community also endorsed
incentives for the provision of artist workspace and additional cultural venues celebrating Santa Monica’s arts and
cultural heritage.
5. Historic Preservation
This category of benefits could include adaptive reuse, sensitive restoration and treatment, compatible new
construction, and participation in a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. There are numerous factors in
assessing the type and extent of community benefit that must be provided. Benefits that merely meet or go slightly
beyond standard requirements for all projects, such as TDM or Green Building requirements, would not qualify as
community benefits. Benefits that are for the immediate neighborhood should also be considered in addition to those
that apply citywide
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
HOW THE LUCE ACHIEVES COMMUNITY BENEFITS
In addition to articulating the community’s long- term vision, the LUCE establishes the broad goals and policies that set
the framework for community benefits. In each land use designation, the Plan sets a base height and allowable
development intensity which permits quality lower-scale, generally ministerial, development. Using the citywide vision for
urban form, the Plan then sets a maximum height and intensity, even with provision of community benefits, along with
sensitive transitions to homes and neighborhoods. The specific standards and procedures for providing community
benefits will be incorporated into the revised Zoning Ordinance using the LUCE concepts.
The LUCE land use policy establishes a baseline building height for nonresidential land use designations. Any proposed
development that seeks to build above the base height in these non- residential areas of the City, except for100 percent
affordable housing projects, will be subject to a public review process and additional requirements consistent with the
community’s broader social and environmental goals. These additional requirements shall consist of the provision of
preferred uses, the incorporation of beneficial project design features, and/or compliance with additional development
standards. These design features and development standards may be traditional aesthetic zoning requirements or, in
many instances, be reasonably related to the amelioration of increased burdens placed on the City due to the increased
height. In most commercial areas of the City, including the major boulevards such as Wilshire Boulevard and portions of
Lincoln and Santa Monica Boulevards, the maximum height for a project without providing community benefits is 32
feet or two stories (the base height can go to three stories if a percentage of affordable housing is included). Above the
baseline height, new development must provide community benefits for the City and the neighborhood. Depending on
the project type and height, an applicant may pursue either a Development Review Permit or its equivalent or a
Development Agreement (DA).
The Community Shapes the Future: A Three-Tiered Approach
The Plan defines a comprehensive program that incentivizes new development above the a 32-foot established
base. A three-tiered approach, based on increments of height and floor area, defines additional requirements
consistent with the community’s broader social and environmental goals. While the specifics for each boulevard and
district are provided within each zoning designation, a general explanation of how the process will work for any project
is provided here.
Tier 1 – Base Height
The LUCE establishes a base of 32 feet (2 stories). heights. A project will receive a height bonus above the base
height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by providing the required affordable housing units on-site, or
within close proximity along the boulevard, in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Affordable Housing Production Program. While the 32-foot base accommodates 2 stories, the height available
with this incentive allows 3 stories. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold
established by the Zoning Ordinance. Even these ministerial projects may be subject to discretionary review
such as use permits, architectural review, historic resource review, etc
Tier 2– Height Above Base Height
In order to seek additional 1 height above the base, a project will be required to provide
additional community benefits. By maintaining discretionary control for a project over the ministerial base height,
the City is better positioned to ensure compliance with LUCE principles. The process will differ slightly depending
on the type of land use and the specific project as described below.
Commercial Projects
Unless a developer seeks a Development Agreement, a discretionary process will apply to all commercial projects
and mixed-use projects. Under the LUCE, applicants will be required to undergo a community participation
process. Approval of the project will require affirmative findings, including, but not limited to: (1) the project will
promote the general welfare of the community, (2) the project will not have unacceptable adverse effects on
public health or safety, and (3) in exchange for the privilege of being given additional height, the proposal must
provide the City with enumerated community benefits as previously identified in the “Five Priority Categories of
Community Benefits” section of this chapter.
Residential Projects
Except for deed-restricted 100 percent affordable housing projects, housing projects and mixed-use housing
projects shall be processed through a Development Agreement or a discretionary review process.
Housing and mixed-use housing projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable units either
on- or off-site. The proposal must also provide the City with enumerated community benefits as previously
identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter.
An alternative to this approach would be the establishment of an objective point-based incentive system.
However, this approach has not been recommended in the LUCE.
Tier 3 – Additional Height
In the few areas where additional project height above Tier 2 may be requested, the required process is a
Development Agreement to allow the City Council to ensure that these significant projects provide community
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
benefits as previously identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter.
Compared to the development review process, the Development Agreement process has greater public review
and participation, allows more flexibility to create high-quality projects and achieve greater community benefit,
providing the greatest discretionary control to the City. Housing and mixed-use housing projects will be required
to provide a percentage affordable units either on- or off-site. Other projects above the base height will
contribute applicable project mitigation fees, including affordable housing fees.
Housing projects as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be exempt from any Development Agreement processing
requirements.
One Hundred Percent Affordable Housing Projects
One hundred percent affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) of 50 or fewer
units will be processed ministerially.
Preservation of Historic Resource
When the project would preserve a City- designated landmark or structure of merit, the project may be reviewed
by a discretionary review process other than development agreement so long as project does not exceed the FAR
for Tier 2 projects.
3.3-2: The
LUCE
Housing
Policy
THE LUCE HOUSING POLICY
The overarching goal of the LUCE housing policy is to create significant new additional affordable housing
opportunities where few or none currently exist. These new housing opportunities are to be associated with transit
in a manner that enhances sustainability, creates complete neighborhoods and provides easy access to local
services. The Plan accomplishes this challenge in a variety of innovative ways, adding to the City’s substantial
Housing Element goals to maintain and produce a wide range of housing types and affordability by:
▪ Incentivizing the creation of new housing opportunities, especially affordable and workforce housing in
selected transit-accessible areas such as in Bergamot Transit Village, along the City’s boulevards and in activity
centers
▪ Transitioning regional-serving office and commercial potential growth into new housing opportunities
▪ Encouraging the creation of complete neighborhoods, locating new housing opportunities near transit and
within walking distance of local retail and services
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
▪ Establishing a maximum ministerial base building height of 32 feet and requiring that projects over the base
incorporate community benefits, with affordable housing identified as a primary community benefit
▪ Encouraging and incentivize housing development with development standards that support inclusionary
affordable housing creating equitable opportunities for housing production throughout the City.
▪ Encouraging and incentivizing the production of affordable housing on City-owned/publicly owned sites.
▪ Encouraging collaboration with schools, hospitals and utilities to make creative use of underutilized
institutional land for additional housing
▪ Considering separating, reducing, or eliminating parking requirements for new housing.
▪ Encouraging parking policy tools that facilitate housing affordability along with livability
▪ Promoting the creation of high-quality, livable housing with ground floor open space and connectivity to the
City’s walking and biking networks
▪ Protecting housing in existing neighborhoods by redirecting new residential investment pressure away from
the neighborhoods to appropriate locations along transit corridors and in the vicinity of the proposed Expo Light
Rail stations
▪ Conserving housing in existing neighborhoods through a series of programs such as Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay Districts, Transfer of Development Rights, new demolition requirements and modification of
development standards
This chapter identifies specific LUCE goals and policies for housing to ensure that Santa Monica has healthy,
diverse residential neighborhoods that provide a range of housing choices. In addition, it includes policies
addressing state requirements to reduce GHG emissions through integrated land use, housing and transportation
planning.
3.3-3, 4
Aggressively
Create New
Affordable
Housing
(3.3-4)
Aggressively Create New Affordable Housing
Affordable housing creation, the primary emphasis of the 2008–2014 and 2021-2029 Housing Elements, will
continue to be the City’s first housing priority and should not be supplanted by other housing efforts. Affordable
housing will be the focus of any direct City subsidies.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
The LUCE builds on these City policies by identifying clear incentives to create additional affordable and
workforce housing in conjunction with new development. Such process and development incentives will be
targeted to specific transit accessible locations on the boulevards and in the districts as a strategy for change in
those areas. New housing shall also be encouraged in high opportunity areas to ensure fair housing choices. This
approach requires that any project above the established base height must be accompanied by community
benefits, particularly affordable housing. These incentives are progressive in nature and are described below:
▪ Base Building Height up to 32 Feet – Current Affordable Housing Requirements: by-right base height to
32 feet will require compliance with existing Affordable Housing Production Program.
▪ Building Height up to 35 Feet through a 3-Foot Height Incentive (Additional Floor) –
Affordable Housing requirement on- or off-site along the boulevards: A project will receive a 3-foot height
bonus above the base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by providing the percentage of
required affordable housing units on-site or within close proximity along the corridor. The additional floor
could double the amount of both affordable and market-rate housing over the 32-foot base. This additional
floor provides a development bonus for affordable housing and provides the incentive for construction of
additional affordable housing on-site at a lower base.
▪ Building Height between 35–45 Feet – Incentivizes Affordable and Workforce Housing Beyond Minimum
Percentage: In order to request an additional 10 feet in height, allowing for a fourth floor of housing in locations
where this incentive applies, a housing or mixed-use housing project will be required to provide a percentage of
affordable housing units. In addition, workforce and/or more affordable housing units could be built as a community
benefits incentives requirement at this height.
▪ Higher Amount of Affordable Housing Incentivized above 45 Feet – An increased percentage of
affordable housing will be required in housing or mixed-use housing projects in order to request building
height above 45 feet in the limited locations where this incentive applies. Additionally, a greater amount of
affordable and/or workforce housing could be built as the community benefits incentive requirement at this
height.
▪ At any level, the number of affordable housing units required would be conversely related to the income
affordability level of the units, i.e., a smaller amount of low income affordable units would fulfill the requirement as
compared to a higher amount of moderate income affordable or workforce units, creating
the incentive for a project to include units at the lower end of the income affordability spectrum.
▪ Commercial projects above the base height will contribute all applicable project mitigation fees, including
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
affordable housing fees.
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing incentives, including:
up to a 50% density bonus in residential designations, inclusive of the State density bonus requirement; building
height in non-residential designations not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, or 40
feet where applicable; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing a reduction in required ground floor
pedestrian-oriented uses; and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of
median income only) with 50 units or less. One hundred percent affordable housing projects are defined as
housing in which one hundred percent of the dwelling units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement
approved by the City for occupancy by low or moderate income households. Such projects may also include non-
residential uses, as long as such uses do not exceed a maximum percentage of the floor area of the total project
to be established in the Zoning Ordinance.
Housing production will be incentivized by establishing development standards that support inclusionary housing
requirements, creating equitable opportunities for housing production throughout the City. Affordable housing overlay
districts will be evaluated, including moderate-income housing in targeted transit-accessible areas. The production of affordable
housing will also be encouraged on City-owned/publicly owned sites, and on existing surface parking lots serving
commercial, community assembly, or other boulevard-facing uses including the adaptive reuse and conversion of
commercial buildings to residential use. Potential reduction or elimination of parking requirements will be evaluated
for new housing.
3.3-11
Goal H1
GOAL H1: Initiate new programs and maintain existing programs to provide more affordable housing and
affordable housing opportunities within the City.
H1.1 Provide direct subsidies for the production of affordable housing.
H1.2 Maintain programs to require and encourage the production of affordable housing for very low-, low- and
moderate- income households.
▪ Require compliance with the Affordable Housing Production Program and seek additional opportunities to
increase the percentage of affordable housing as a component of for-sale and qualifying rental residential and
mixed-use housing projects.
▪ Incentivize affordable housing projects.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
H1.3 Incentivize the creation of new affordable housing opportunities
▪ Encourage affordable housing in transit- accessible areas.
▪ Create more affordable housing by transitioning the potential growth for regional- serving office and commercial
into new housing opportunities.
H1.4 Incentivize housing production including affordable housing by establishing feasible development standards that
support inclusionary housing requirements and create equitable opportunities for housing production throughout the
City. Provide more affordable housing units by offering a 3-foot bonus above the allowable base height permitting an
extra floor of housing at 35 feet in most districts.
H1.5 Encourage construction of affordable housing units on-site within the corridor or district.
H1.56 Consider allowing housing in all non-residential districts and Eencourage the production of affordable
housing throughout the Cityon the boulevards and in the districts. by requiring a percentage of affordable housing as
a pre-condition for consideration of height above the base.
H1.67 Encourage and incentivize the production of affordable housing on City-owned/publicly owned
sites.Incentivize additional affordable housing as a community benefit along the boulevards and in the districts.
H1.7 Incentivize housing development on existing surface parking lots serving commercial, community assembly, or
other boulevard-facing uses including the adaptive reuse and conversion of commercial buildings to residential use.
H1.8 Consider separating, or reducing, or eliminating parking requirements for new housing.
▪ De-couple the provision of parking so that renters or owners could choose to rent or buy parking spaces as a
separate transaction from the housing rental or purchase. This would facilitate more affordable options to
address the needs of middle-income workers.
▪ Continue to establish reduced parking requirements and explore pursuing additional parking reductions or
consider eliminating parking requirements for affordable all housing projects where appropriate.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3.3-12
Goal H2
GOAL H2: Identify additional opportunities to increase the amount of workforce housing in the City.
H2.1 Provide workforce housing to complement and augment Affordable Housing Program initiatives and
subsidies.
H2.2 Incentivize workforce housing as a community benefit along the boulevards and in the districts.
H2.3 Encourage workforce housing as a component of activity centers at locations accessible to transit.
H2.4 Consider separating, or reducing, or eliminating parking requirements for workforce housing.
▪ De-couple the provision of parking so that renters or owners could choose to rent or buy parking spaces as a separate
transaction from the housing rental or purchase. This would facilitate more affordable options to address the needs of
middle-income workers.
H2.5 Facilitate the efforts of major employers, such as hospitals, to create new workforce housing in the City.
H2.6 Explore ways to ensure that workforce housing, once created, remains an asset to the City. Covenants or deed
restrictions should be used to ensure that the housing remains affordable for an extended period of time.
3.3-14
Goal H6
GOAL H6: Incentivize new housing to be located in areas and produced in ways that reduce GHG emissions.
H6.1 Encourage housing to be located along transit corridors and close to transit stations.
H6.2 Encourage complementary uses and local services in conjunction with or adjacent to new housing, and locate
housing in close proximity to existing services.
H6.3 Encourage or facilitate the inclusion of complementary land uses not already present within a neighborhood
district such as grocery markets, daily services, and parks.
H6.4 Consider separating out, or reducing, or eliminating parking requirements for new housing near transit.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
H6.5 Establish minimum pedestrian and bicycle facility and connectivity standards in conjunction with new housing
development.
4.0-72
Goal T26
GOAL T26: Use parking policies to achieve housing affordability, congestion management and air quality
goals.
T26.1 Encourage shared parking and discourage reserved parking. Ensure that shared parking is open to all motorists,
regardless of whether they are customers, employees or tenants of a building, with the same parking prices, restrictions
and privileges as building occupants.
T26.2 Ensure that public parking prices reflect the true cost of automobile parking.
T26.3 Use a portion of revenues raised from parking charges to achieve more sustainable transportation choices including
transit, walking and biking.
T26.4 Adjust parking requirements for projects when it can be demonstrated that a lower parking demand is appropriate.
T26.5 Charge a fee when commercial developments remove public on-street parking for a driveway or other purpose.
T26.6 Use parking pricing as a tool to manage congestion.
T26.7 Consider allowing developers to meet their minimum parking requirements via shared parking between uses,
payment of in-lieu fees, or off-site parking within a reasonable walking distance.
T26.8 Encourage coordinated valet services to balance parking supply and demand.
T26.9 In all new multi-family development, seek to provide the option to purchase parking separately from residential
units to reduce the overall cost of housing.
T26.10 In one hundred percent affordable housing projects, consider allowing residential guest parking to be used to
meet parking requirements, or establishing thresholds under which parking would not be required, for on-site local-
serving retail and services.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
T26.11 If the owners and operators of properties can demonstrate that they have more parking than is actually necessary
to meet the needs of their various users (employees, visitors, etc.), consider developing parking efficiency strategies
that include leasing their surplus parking to help alleviate parking shortages and avoid development of unnecessary
parking.
▪ T26.12 Continue to establish reduced parking requirements and explore pursuing additional parking reductions or consider
eliminating parking requirements for all housing projects where appropriate.
5.0-10 Santa Monica Airport/Business Park Specific Plan, Streetscape Plan for Ocean Park Boulevard
Prior to 2015, the City should prepare a specific plan to set forth uses for the airport and a framework for land use decisions;
The Specific Plan for the Business Park should identify redevelopment opportunities and desired mix of uses for the business
park, utilization of surface parking area, land uses and enhancements for the north side of Ocean Park, and integration with future of
Santa Monica Airport, if known. A streetscape improvement plan for Ocean Park Boulevard, from Centinela to Lincoln Boulevards
should be explored at the same time, or earlier, that emphasizes pedestrian and bike safety, wider sidewalks, dedicated bike lanes
and green space.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.01
TITLE, PURPOSE, AND AUTHORITY
Sections:
9.01.010 Title and Authority
9.01.020 Purpose
9.01.030 Structure of Zoning Ordinance
9.01.040 Applicability
9.01.050 Special Development Standards for the Protection and Preservation of Historic
Resources
9.01.060 Fees
9.01.040 Applicability
A.General Rules for Applicability of Zoning Regulations.
1.Applicability to Property.
a.This Ordinance shall apply, to the extent permitted by law, to all property within the
corporate limits of the City and to property for which applications for annexation and/or
subdivisions are submitted to the City, including all uses, structures and land owned by any
private person, firm, corporation or organization, or the City or other local, State, or Federal
agencies.
b.Governmental Agencies. Any governmental agency shall be exempt from the provisions
of this Ordinance only to the extent that such property may not be lawfully regulated by
the City.
c.City Government Uses. City government uses, including, without limitation, fire stations,
police stations, and public safety facilities, may be permitted in any district subject to the
approval of a conditional use permit.
d.Projects That Include Affordable Housing on City-Owned Property. In accordance
with Program 2.E of the 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element, this Ordinance shall not
apply to property owned by the City when used for projects that include housing affordable
to 80% area median income (AMI) households, subject to a public process to be determined
by the City Council, and upon a determination that the project is consistent with the General
Plan. Any such exemption shall apply only for the life of the project approved in
accordance with this paragraph.
2.Compliance with Regulations. Except as provided in this Zoning Ordinance, land or buildings
may be used and structures may be erected or altered only in accordance with the following
provisions:
a.No new building shall be erected and no existing building shall be moved, altered, or
enlarged, nor shall any land, building or premises be used, designed, or attempted to be
used or designed for any purpose or in any manner other than a use listed in this Chapter,
as permitted in the district in which the land, building, or premises is located. The lawful
use or uses of all buildings, improvements, and premises existing in any district at the time
of the adoption of the ordinance codified in this Chapter may be continued except as
provided by this Chapter.
1
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
b. No building shall be erected nor shall any existing building be moved, reconstructed, or
structurally altered to exceed in height or floor area the limit established by this Chapter
for the district in which such building is located.
c. No building shall be erected nor shall any existing building be moved, altered, enlarged, or
rebuilt, nor shall any open spaces surrounding any buildings be encroached upon or
reduced in any manner except in conformity with the property development standards for
each district in which such building is located.
d. No yard or open space provided adjacent to any building for the purpose of complying with
the regulations of this Chapter shall be considered as providing a yard or open space for
any other building or structure.
e. No parcel or building shall be separated in ownership, or reduced in size in any manner, so
that:
i. Any separate portion shall contain a parcel area or parcel dimension less than the
minimum required for the district in which the property is located;
ii. Any yard area is reduced below the minimum required for the district in which the
project is located;
iii. The parcel fails to comply with any other requirement of this Chapter;
iv. Any portion of a parcel that is necessary to provide the required area per dwelling
unit is separated from the portion of the parcel on which the building is located.
f. No lot or parcel of land held under common ownership which does not meet the
requirements of the district in which it is located shall be separated in ownership or further
reduced in size in any manner.
g. A building or use may cross property lines only if:
i. The building site shall be subject to all requirements of this Chapter as though the
total area comprised in the site were a single parcel;
ii. A covenant by the owner(s) of the parcels shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator
and recorded with the County Recorder’s office before any use or combination of
parcels occurs. The covenant shall state the intention of the owner(s) to develop the
parcels as a single building site and shall be in the form required by the Zoning
Administrator.
h. A legally-created parcel of land existing prior to the effective date of this Ordinance having
less area, frontage, or dimensions than required by this Ordinance in the zoning district in
which the parcel is located, shall be considered a legal conforming parcel.
B. Relation to Other Regulations.
1. General. Where conflict occurs between the provisions of the Ordinance and any other
regulations, City ordinance, chapter, resolution, guideline, or regulation, the more restrictive
provisions shall control, unless otherwise specified. See, e.g., Section 9.56.270(F) (the State
Historic Building Code applies to alterations to historic resources and properties on the Historic
Resources Inventory).
2. Permit Streamlining Act. All actions taken by the decision-making body pursuant to this
Ordinance shall be consistent with the provisions of Government Ordinance Section 65920 et
seq. (the Permit Streamlining Act) to the extent applicable.
2
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3. Relation to Private Agreements. Where this Ordinance imposes greater restriction than imposed
by an easement, covenant, or agreement, this Ordinance shall control.
4. Relation to Prior Ordinance. The provisions of this Ordinance supersede all prior Zoning
Ordinances codified in Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and all prior amendments.
No provision of this Ordinance shall validate any land use or structure established, constructed,
or maintained in violation of the prior Zoning Ordinance, unless such validation is specifically
authorized by this Ordinance.
5. Application during Local Emergency. The City Council may authorize a deviation from a
provision of this Ordinance during a local emergency declared and ratified under the Santa
Monica Municipal Code.
C. Consistency with the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance and any amendment thereto shall be
consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the
adopted General Plan.
D. Effect on Previously Approved Projects and Projects in Progress. The following projects shall
have a vested right to proceed without complying with this Ordinance:
1. Previously Approved Development. The erection, construction, enlargement, demolition,
moving, conversion of, and excavation and grading for any building or structure for which a
valid permit or building permit was issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance and which
does not subsequently expire. A permit that does not contain an express limit on the time for
exercising the permit shall be deemed valid only if a building permit is obtained within one year
of the effective date of this Ordinance;
2. Development Agreement. Development in accordance with the terms and conditions of a
development agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 9.60 of the Municipal
Code prior to the effective date of this Ordinance;
3. Vesting Tentative Maps. Any residential project for which a vesting tentative map application
was determined complete prior to the effective date of this Ordinance; and
4. Applications for Projects in Progress. Any application for a Planning entitlement, except a
Development Agreement application, determined complete on or before April 15, 2015. (Added
by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2536CCS § 1,
adopted February 28, 2017)
3
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.02
ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS
Sections:
9.02.010 Establishment of Districts
9.02.020 Official Districting Map
9.02.030 Zoning District Boundary Determinations
9.02.010 Establishment of Districts
The City is divided into zoning districts of such number and character as are necessary to achieve
compatibility of uses within each district and implement the General Plan.
A. Base Zoning Districts. Base Zoning Districts into which the City is divided are established as shown
in Table 9.02.010.A, Base Zoning Districts.
TABLE 9.02.010.A: BASE ZONING DISTRICTS
Short Name/Map Symbol Full Name
Single-Unit Residential District
R1 Single-Unit Residential
Multi-Unit Residential Districts
R2 Low Density Residential
R3 Medium Density Residential
R4 High Density Residential
RMH Residential Mobile Home Park
Ocean Park Neighborhood Districts
OP1 Ocean Park Single-Unit Residential
OPD Ocean Park Duplex
OP2 Ocean Park Low Density Residential
OP3 Ocean Park Medium Density Residential
OP4 Ocean Park High Density Residential
Mixed-Use and Commercial Districts
MUBL Mixed-Use Boulevard Low
MUB Mixed-Use Boulevard
GC General Commercial
NC Neighborhood Commercial
Employment Districts
HMU Healthcare Mixed-Use
IC Industrial Conservation
OC Office Campus
Beach and Oceanfront Districts
OF Oceanfront
Public and Semi-Public Districts
CC Civic Center
PL Institutional/Public Lands
OS Parks and Open Space
Residential Mobile Home Park District
RMH
Residential Mobile Home Park
Bergamot Area Plan Districts
BTV Bergamot Transit Village
MUC Mixed Use Creative
4
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
CAC Conservation: -Art Center
CCS Conservation: Creative Sector
PPCO Pedestrian Priority Corridor Overlay
RP Retail Priority Overlay
Downtown Community Plan Districts
LT
NV
BC
TA
OT
WT
Lincoln Transition
Neighborhood Village
Bayside Conservation
Transit Adjacent
Ocean Transition
Wilshire Transition
Downtown Specific Plan Districts (to be determined as part of Specific Plan process)
Memorial Park Neighborhood Area Plan Districts (to be determined as part of Area Plan process)
B. References to Classes of Base Districts. Throughout the Ordinance, the following references apply:
1. “R District” or “Residential District” shall include the following Districts: R1 Single-Unit
Residential; R2 Low Density Residential; R3 Medium Density Residential; R4 High Density
Residential; OP1 Ocean Park Single-Unit Residential; OPD Ocean Park Duplex; OP2 Ocean
Park Low Density Residential; OP3 Ocean Park Medium Density Residential; OP4 Ocean Park
High Density Residential; or OF Oceanfront.
a. “Residential Low-Density District” shall include the following Districts: R1 Single-Unit
Residential; R2 Low Density Residential; OP1 Ocean Park Single-Unit Residential; OPD
Ocean Park Duplex; OP2 Ocean Park Low Density Residential.
b. “Residential Medium and High-Density Districts” shall include the following Districts: R3
Medium Density Residential; R4 High Density Residential; OP3 Ocean Park Medium
Density Residential; OP4 Ocean Park High Density Residential; RMH Residential Mobile
Home Park; or OF Oceanfront.
2. “Nonresidential District” shall include any base Zoning District except the Residential Districts
specified in subsection (B)(1) above.
C. Overlay Zoning Districts. Overlay Zoning Districts, one or more of which may be combined with
a base district, are established as shown in Table 9.02.010.B, Overlay Zoning Districts. The
regulations of an Overlay District govern in addition to or instead of the standards set forth in the
underlying base district as specified in the applicable Sections of this Ordinance.
TABLE 9.02.010.B: OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS
Short Name/Map Symbol Full Name
AC Activity Center
NC Neighborhood Conservation
A Off-Street Parking
BCH Beach
MHO Moderate Income Housing Overlay
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
5
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.04
RULES FOR MEASUREMENT
Sections:
9.04.010 Purpose
9.04.020 General Provisions
9.04.030 Fractions
9.04.040 Measuring Distances
9.04.050 Measuring Height
9.04.060 Determining the Number of Stories in a Building
9.04.070 Measuring Parcel Width and Depth
9.04.080 Determining Floor Area
9.04.090 Determining Floor Area Ratio
9.04.100 Determining Residential Parcel Coverage
9.04.110 Determining Parcel Frontage
9.04.120 Determining Residential Density
9.04.130 Determining Setbacks
9.04.140 Measuring Off-Street Parking Landscaping
9.04.150 Determining Eligibility for a Housing Project with Existing Structures
9.04.150 Determining Eligibility for a Housing Project with Existing Structures
For projects proposing a multiple-unit dwelling use on a parcel with an existing structure, to determine
whether the project meets the definition of a Housing Project for purposes of this Ordinance, the floor area
of the existing structure(s) that is dedicated to non-residential uses at the time of the application shall be
excluded.
6
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.07
SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
9.07.010 Purpose
9.07.020 Land Use Regulations
9.07.030 Development Standards
9.07.010 Purpose
The purposes of the “Single-Unit Residential” District are to:
A. Provide for single-unit housing on individual parcels at densities of one unit plus one accessory
dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit to suit the spectrum of individual lifestyles and
space needs and ensure continued availability of the range of housing opportunities necessary to
meet the needs of all segments of the community consistent with the General Plan and State law.
B. Preserve and protect the existing character and state of the City’s different residential neighborhoods
and the quality of life of City residents against potential deleterious impacts related to
development—traffic, noise, air quality, and the encroachment of commercial activities.
C. Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling.
D. Avoid overburdening public facilities, including sewer, water, electricity, and schools by an influx
and increase of people to a degree larger than the City’s geographic limits, tax base, or financial
capabilities can reasonably and responsibly accommodate.
E. Ensure that the scale and design of new development and alterations to existing structures are
consistent with the scale, mass, and character of the existing residential neighborhood.
F. Provide sites for institutional, residential, and neighborhood serving uses such as day care, parks,
and community facilities.
G. Promote the rehabilitation and long-term maintenance of existing buildings and structures.
The specific designation and additional purposes of the Single-Unit Residential District are:
R1 Single-Unit Residential. To provide areas for single-unit housing on individual parcels at densities of
one unit plus one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per legal parcel. In addition
to detached single-unit homesdwellings, accessory dwelling units, and junior accessory dwelling units, this
District provides for uses such as parks and family day care that may be integrated into a residential
environment. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2536CCS
§ 14, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 4, adopted September 8, 2020)
9.07.020 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.07.020 prescribes the land use regulations for Single-Unit Residential District. The regulations for
each district are established by the letter designations listed below. These designations apply strictly to the
permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review.
“P” designates permitted uses.
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with specific limitations
listed at the end of the table.
“CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use
Permit.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit.
7
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
“–” designates uses that are not permitted.
Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51, Use Classifications. Use classifications and sub-classifications not
listed in the table are prohibited. Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning
Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate
to, the principal uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses.
The table also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand
column refer to other Sections of this Ordinance.
TABLE 9.07.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Use Classification R1 Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types See sub-classifcationsclassifications below.
Single-Unit Dwelling P
Accessory Dwelling Unit P Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Unit
P Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units
Duplex MUP Only on parcels having not less than 6,000 square feet of area and a side
parcel line of which abuts or is separated by an alley from any R2, R3, or
R4 districtSection 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned
for Single-Unit Residential
Multiple-Unit Dwelling L(1) Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Family Day Care See sub-classifcationsclassifications below.
Large P Section 9.31.140, Family Day Care, Large
Small P
Residential Facilities See sub-classifcationsclassifications below.
Residential Care, Limited P Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities
Hospice, Limited P
Supportive Housing P
Transitional Housing P Section 9.31.110, Congregate and Transitional Housing
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care CUP
Child Care and Early Education
Facility
CUP Section 9.31.120, Child Care and Early Education Facilities
Bed and Breakfast CUP Within Designated Landmarks only.
Section 9.31.090, Bed and Breakfasts
Community Assembly CUP Section 9.31.100, Community Assembly
Community Gardens P
Park and Recreation Facilities,
Public
P
Schools, Public or Private CUP
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
City Bikeshare Facility P
Utilities, Minor P
Specific Limitations
(1) Permitted only on parcels with existing surface parking lots:
• Owned in whole or in part by a Community Assembly use in accordance with requirements of Section
9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots; or
• Associated with existing multiple-unit dwellings or commercial uses in accordance with requirements of
Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2536CCS § 15, adopted February 28,
2017; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 5, adopted September 8, 2020)
8
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9.07.030 Development Standards
Table 9.07.030 prescribes the development standards for the Single-Unit Residential (R1) District.
Additional regulations, including incentives for the retention of existing homes, are denoted with Section
numbers throughout the table. Specific R1 District design review criteria is located directly following the
table:
TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Parcel and Density Standards
Minimum Parcel Area (sq. ft.) 5,000
Maximum Parcel Area (sq. ft.) See Section 9.21.030(B)
Minimum Parcel Width (ft.) 50 For parcels bounded by the centerlines of
First Court Alley, Seventh Street, Montana
Place North Alley, and Adelaide Drive, the
minimum parcel width is 100 ft. and the
minimum parcel depth is 175 ft.
Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 100
Maximum Residential Allowable
Density
1 unit per parcel plus 1 accessory
dwelling unit and 1 junior accessory
dwelling unit subject to Section 9.31.025
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units shall be permitted
as provided in Section 9.31.125, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units
A duplex may shall be permitted as provided
in Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits
on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit
Residentialwith an MUP as provided in
Table 9.07.020
Maximum Parcel Coverage (% of Parcel Area)
One-story structure less than 18
ft. in height 50%
For parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft., a
maximum parcel coverage equaling 2,500
sq. ft. shall be permitted.
One-story structure 18 ft. or more
in height 45%
For parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft., a
maximum parcel coverage equaling 2,250
sq. ft. shall be permitted.
Two-story structure 45%
Parcel coverage shall be the sum of
ground floor parcel coverage and
second story parcel coverage.
For parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft., a
maximum parcel coverage equaling 2,250
sq. ft. shall be permitted with no more than
1,125 sq. ft. allowable on the second story.
Existing two-story structure with
addition
(Applies to projects that do not
result in a demolition as defined
in Chapter 9.25, Demolition and
Relocation.)
55%
For a two-story structure, parcel
coverage shall be the sum of ground
floor parcel coverage and second story
parcel coverage.
For parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft., a
maximum parcel coverage equaling 2,750
sq. ft. shall be permitted with no more than
1,375 sq. ft. allowable on the second story.
Building Form and Location
Maximum Number of Stories 2
Maximum Building Height (ft.)
Parcels up to 20,000 sq. ft. in
area
28 ft.
with no wall height above 23 ft.
Walls associated with roof structure design
such as gables and dormers are permitted
above 23 ft., provided such walls comply
with upper-story stepback requirements.
9
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Parcels greater than 20,000
sq. ft. in area and with a
front parcel line at least 200
ft. in length
• 28 ft. for flat roof
• 32 ft. for pitched roof
Projections into Height
Limits
See Section 9.21.060, Height Projections
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front Per Official Districting Map or 20 ft. if
not specified
Side - One-story structure
less than 18 ft. in height
10% of parcel width or 3.5 ft.,
whichever is greater, but no more than
15 ft. required
Side - Aggregate of both sides
for a two-story structure or
one-story structure 18 ft. or
more in height
30% of parcel width, but no more than
45 ft. required and each side shall be at
least 10% of the parcel width or 3.5 ft.,
whichever is greater
The aggregate side setback requirement does
not apply to the following:
• New structures on parcels that are 45 ft.
or less in parcel width
• Additions to existing structures on parcels
that are less than 50 ft. in width
• Structures on parcels less than 5,000 sq.
ft.
Rear 15 ft. from rear parcel line
Additional Minimum Stepbacks for Upper Stories
10
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Front Uupper-Sstory
sStepback
The sum of all stepback areas shall be
at least 1% of total parcel area and
comply with the following:
• Each stepback area shall have a
minimum depth of 3% of total parcel
depth and shall be measured from the
required front setback.
• Any stepback area exceeding 6% of
total parcel depth from the required
front setback shall not be included in
calculating compliance with this
standard.
• Any stepback area used to comply
with a side upper-story stepback
requirement shall not be included in
calculating compliance with this
standard.
• This standard shall apply to the
total front building elevation.The sum
of all stepback areas along the entire
front building elevation shall be at
least 1% of total parcel area and
comply with the requirements below.
However, if the entire upper story is
set back at least 3% of total parcel
depth from the required front setback,
no front upper-story stepback is
required.
• Each stepback area shall begin at
the required front setback and shall
comply with the following:
o The minimum stepback depth
shall be 3% of total parcel depth
and shall be measured from the
required front setback.
o The maximum stepback depth
shall be 6% of total parcel depth
and shall be measured from the
required front setback.
o Any stepback depth beyond 6%
of total parcel depth shall not be
included in calculating
compliance with this standard.
• Any stepback area used to comply
with a side upper-story stepback
requirement shall not be included in
calculating compliance with this
standard.
11
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Side uUpper-Sstory
Sstepbacks
The sum of all stepback areas shall be
at least 1% of total parcel area and
comply with the following:
• Each stepback area shall have a
minimum depth of 20% of total parcel
width and shall be measured from the
side parcel line.
• Any stepback area with a depth
exceeding 25% of total parcel width
from the side parcel line shall not be
included in calculating compliance
with this standard.
• Any stepback area used to comply
with a front upper-story stepback
requirement shall not be included in
calculating compliance with this
standard.
• This standard shall apply to each
total side building elevation.The sum
of all stepback areas on each side
building elevation shall be at least 1%
of total parcel area and comply with
the requirements below. However, if
the entire upper story is set back at
least 20% of total parcel width from
the side parcel line, no side upper-
story stepback is required for the
subject elevation.
• Each stepback area shall begin at
each respective minimum side
setback line and shall comply with
the following:
o The minimum stepback depth
shall be 20% of total parcel width
and shall be measured from the
side parcel line.
o The maximum stepback depth
shall be 25% of total parcel width
and shall be measured from the
side parcel line.
o Any stepback depth beyond 25%
of total parcel width shall not be
included in calculating
compliance with this standard.
• Any stepback area used to comply
with a front upper-story stepback
requirement shall not be included in
calculating compliance with this
standard.
12
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Sides—All portions of
buildings exceeding 23 ft. in
height
• No portion of a building other than
a permitted projection shall
intersect a plane commencing at 23
ft. in height at the minimum side
setback that extends at an angle of
45-degrees from the vertical toward
the interior of the site.
• The 23 ft. height measurement shall
be taken from the same reference
grade as determined for the subject
site pursuant to Section 9.04.050.
Upper-Story Outdoor Space
Maximum size of individual
balcony, terrace, deck, first-
story roof deck, or similar
outdoor space
3% of parcel area or 300 sq. ft.,
whichever is less
Individual balconies, terraces, decks, first-
story roof decks, or similar outdoor spaces
larger than 100 sq. ft. located in the rear half
of the parcel shall be set back a minimum
distance of 20% of the parcel width from the
side parcel lines.
Maximum size of roof deck
above second story
3% of parcel area or 300 sq. ft.,
whichever is less
Maximum of 1 per parcel with a 7 ft.
minimum setback from edges of building.
Openness and Use of Setbacks
Maximum Front Setback Paving (% of required front setback area)
Parcels 25 ft. or more in
width
50%
Parcels less than 25 ft. in
width
60%
Building Projections into
Setbacks
See Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks
Excavation for Lightwells, Stairwells, and Access to Subterranean Garages and Basements
Basements and subterranean
garages
No basement or subterranean garage
shall extend into any setback area,
except for any basement or garage
located beneath an accessory building
which is otherwise permitted within a
setback area, if such basement, semi-
subterranean, or subterranean garage is
located at least 5 ft. from any parcel
line
Lightwells and stairwells
• Side and rear setbacks may be
utilized for lightwells or stairways
to below-grade areas
• Excavated areas shall be set back a
minimum of 10% of the parcel
width from any parcel line
measured to the interior wall
surface of these excavated areas
• For parcels where the aggregate side
setback is not required, up to a total of 50
sq. ft. within the side and rear setbacks
may be utilized for lightwells or stairways
to below-grade areas.
• Retaining walls shall not be included in
calculations for these excavated areas.
Excavation for access
Excavation in the front setback area
for a driveway, stairway, doorway, or
other such element for access purposes
shall be no deeper than 3 ft. below
existing grade
Vehicle Accommodation
13
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Parking • See Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking
• Section 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development Standards
Driveways • On parcels less than 100 ft. in width, no more than one driveway permitted
• See Section 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development Standards
Incentives for Retention of Existing Homes
Building Additions Section 9.21.170, Building Additions Extending into Minimum Side Setbacks
Modifications to Development
Standards
Chapter 9.43, Modification and Waivers
Architectural Review
Architectural Review See Section 9.07.030(A)
Additional Standards
Accessory Buildings and
Structures
Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Affordable Housing Production
Program Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program
Basements Section 9.52.020.0230, Basement Definition
Duplexes and Lot Splits on
Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit
Residential
Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit
Residential
Fences, Walls, and Hedges Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Landscaping Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Located on Community
Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly
Surface Parking Lots
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Located on Residentially Zoned
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned
Surface Parking Lots
Off-Street Parking Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Private Tennis Courts Section 9.31.250, Private Tennis Courts
Projections from Buildings into
Minimum Setbacks
Section 9.21.110, Projections from Buildings into Minimum Setbacks
Projections into Height Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Projections
Refuse and Recycling Screening
and Enclosure
Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
A. Architectural Review.
1. Proposed development in the R1 Single-Unit District shall not be subject to architectural review
if it conforms to the development standards set forth above except as follows:
a. The Architectural Review Board shall review any proposed duplex pursuant to Section
9.55.140.
14
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
b. i. The Architectural Review Board shall review proposed development that is located
on a parcel with a grade differential of 12.5 feet or more between the front and rear
parcel lines, and associated with the following:
(a) New residential building; or
(b) A 50% or greater square foot addition to an existing dwelling unit.
ii. A proposed structure may be approved if its size, mass, and placement are found to
be compatible with improvements in the immediate neighborhood.
2. The Architectural Review Board shall review and may approve proposed development that does
not conform to the development standards set forth above as follows:
a. The Architectural Review Board shall review any proposed addition of 500 square feet or
less that is regarded as a third story that is located on a parcel with a grade differential of
12.5 or more between the front and rear parcel lines. The Architectural Review Board may
approve such an addition if the following findings of fact are made
i. The street frontage and overall massing are compatible with the existing scale and
neighborhood context;
ii. The addition does not enlarge the first-story of the existing residence such that a
nonconforming condition is expanded; and
iii. The properties in the immediate neighborhood will not be substantially impacted.
b. i. The Architectural Review Board shall review the following:
(a) Any proposed new structure on a parcel that is more than 45 feet in width that
does not comply with the minimum aggregate side setback but that is set back
a minimum of 10% of parcel width on each side;
(b) Any proposed addition to an existing structure on a parcel 50 feet or more that
does not comply with the minimum aggregate side setback but that is set back
a minimum of 10% of parcel width on each side;
(c) Any proposed two-story structure that does not conform to the standard set forth
above for additional minimum stepbacks for upper stories;
(d) Any proposed structure that does not conform to the standards for subterranean
garages and basements set forth in Table 9.07.030, Chapter 9.28 (Parking), and
Section 9.52.020.230 of this Code;
(e) Any proposed individual upper story balcony, terrace, deck, first-story roof
deck, or similar outdoor space that does not conform to the standard set forth
above;
(f) Any proposed structure with garage doors that face the public street, are located
within the front half of the parcel, and: (i) are not set back from the primary
façade facing the public street a minimum of 5 feet, or (ii) are more than 16 feet
in width; or
(g) Any proposed structure that includes a first-story porch or second-story balcony
that: (i) is open on at least three sides, (ii) has a height of no more than 14 feet,
including parapets and railings, (iii) projects into the minimum front setback,
and (iv) exceeds 50% of the front building width as measured at the front façade.
15
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
ii. The Architectural Review Board may approve a design modification set forth in this
subsection if the following findings of fact are made:
(a) There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the
property involved, including size, shape, topography, surroundings, or location
of the existing improvements or mature landscaping on the site;
(b) Granting the design modification will not be detrimental or injurious to the
property or to improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the
property is located;
(c) Granting the design modification will not impair the integrity and character of
surrounding context, or impact the light, air, open space, or privacy of adjacent
properties;
(d) If the design modification includes a modification or addition to a building on
the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, the modification or addition is
compatible with the building’s historic architectural character, does not result
in the removal of historic building features, and is consistent with the Secretary
of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation; and
(e) The design modifications comply with the criteria set forth in Section 9.55.140.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord.
No. 2520CCS § 9, adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2524CCS § 2, adopted July
28, 2016; Ord. No. 2536CCS § 2, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No.
2624CCS § 3, adopted November 12, 2019; Ord. No. 2628CCS § 2, adopted
January 28, 2020; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 6, adopted September 8, 2020)
16
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.08
MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Sections:
9.08.010 Purpose
9.08.020 Land Use Regulations
9.08.030 Development Standards
9.08.010 Purpose
The purposes of the “Multi-Unit Residential” Districts are to:
A. Provide for a variety of multi-unit housing types to suit the spectrum of individual lifestyles and
space needs and ensure continued availability of the range of housing opportunities necessary to
sustain a diverse labor force and meet the needs of all segments of the community consistent with
the General Plan.
B. Preserve and protect the existing character and state of the City’s different residential neighborhoods
and the quality of life of City residents against potential impacts related to development—traffic,
noise, air quality, and the encroachment of commercial activities.
C. Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling.
D. Avoid overburdening public facilities, including sewer, water, electricity, and schools by an influx
and increase of people to a degree larger than the City’s geographic limits, tax base, or financial
capabilities can reasonably and responsibly accommodate.
E. Ensure that the scale and design of new development and alterations to existing structures are
consistent with the scale, mass, and character of the existing residential neighborhood and provide
respectful transitions to minimize impacts on or disruptions to adjacent residential structures.
F. Provide sites for institutional, residential, and neighborhood serving uses such as day care, parks,
community facilities, and neighborhood stores that provide goods and services to support daily life
within walking distance of neighborhoods and complement surrounding residential development.
The specific designations and the additional purposes of the Multi-Unit Residential Districts are:
R2 Low Density Residential. This Zoning District is intended to provide areas for a variety of low-density
housing types. These include single-unit housing, duplexes, and triplexes, low-scale multi-unit housing,
townhouses, and courtyard housing with at least one unit for each 2,000 square feet of parcel area per unit
exclusive of City and State density bonuses. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units
are also permitted. In addition to low density residential development, this District provides for uses such
as transitional housing or hospice facilities, family day care, and neighborhood serving uses such as
childcare, neighborhood grocery stores, and community facilities that may be appropriate in a residential
environment.
R3 Medium Density Residential. This Zoning District is intended to provide areas for a variety of multi-
unit housing types with at least one unit for each 1,500 square feet of parcel area per unit exclusive of City
and State density bonuses or one unit for each 1,250 square feet of parcel area per unit, not including City
and State density bonuses, for projects that provide identified community benefits. Types of dwelling units
include single-unit housing, low- and medium-scale multi-unit housing, townhouses, courtyard housing,
and duplexes and triplexes. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are also permitted.
This District also provides for residential facilities such as transitional housing and hospice facilities, family
day care, and neighborhood serving uses such as childcare, neighborhood grocery stores, and community
facilities that may be appropriate in a residential environment.
17
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
R4 High Density Residential. This Zoning District is intended to provide areas for multi-unit housing at
greater intensities than other residential districts. Housing types include single-unit housing, three- to four-
story multi-unit housing projects, duplexes, and triplexes with at least one unit per 1,250 square feet of
parcel area per unit exclusive of City and State density bonuses or one unit per 900 square feet of parcel
area per unit, not including City and State density bonuses for projects that provide identified community
benefits. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are also permitted. This District also
provides for residential facilities such as assisted living, transitional housing, and hospice facilities, hotels,
family day care, and neighborhood serving uses such as childcare, neighborhood grocery stores, and
community facilities that may be appropriate in a residential environment. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS
§§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2649CCS § 7, adopted September 8, 2020)
9.08.020 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.08.020 prescribes the land use regulations for Multi-Unit Residential Districts. The regulations for
each district are established by letter designations listed below. These designations apply strictly to the
permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review.
“P” designates permitted uses.
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with specific limitations
listed at the end of the table.
“CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use
Permit.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit.
“–” designates uses that are not permitted.
Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51, Use Classifications. Use classifications and sub-classifications not
listed in the table are prohibited. Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning
Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate
to, the principal uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses.
The table also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand
column refer to other Sections of this Ordinance.
TABLE 9.08.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Use Classification
*For uses within specified areas, see Section
9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types See sub-classifications below.
Single Unit Dwelling P P P
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Duplex P P P
Multiple-Unit StructureDwelling P P P Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit Residential P P P Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
18
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.08.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Use Classification
*For uses within specified areas, see Section
9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Dwelling Projects
Single-Room Occupancy Housing P P P Section 9.31.330, Single Room
Occupancy Structures
Group Residential MUP MUP MUP
Congregate Housing P P P Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Senior Group Residential P P P Section 9.31.310, Senior Group
Residential
Elderly and Long-Term Care CUP CUP CUP
Emergency Shelters – CUP CUP Section 9.31.130, Emergency
Shelters
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.
Large P P P Section 9.31.140, Family Day Care,
Large
Small P P P
Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below.
Residential Care, General MUP MUP MUP Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Residential Care, Limited P P P Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Residential Care, Senior L (2)/MUP L (2)/MUP L (2)/MUP Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Hospice, General MUP MUP MUP
Hospice, Limited P P P
Supportive Housing P P P
Transitional Housing P P P Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care CUP CUP CUP
Child Care and Early Education Facilities CUP CUP CUP Section 9.31.120, Child Care and
Early Education Facilities
Community Assembly CUP CUP CUP
Community Gardens P P P
Cultural Facilities CUP CUP CUP Limited to Designated Landmarks
Park and Recreations Facilities, Public P P P
Schools, Public or Private CUP CUP CUP
Commercial Uses
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services See sub-classifications below.
Automobile Storage Use CUP (3) CUP (3) –
Section 9.31.070,
Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing,
and Storage
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing L (4)/CUP L (4)/CUP –
Section 9.31.070,
Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing,
and Storage
Food and Beverage Sales See sub-classifications below.
General Market CUP (5) CUP (5) CUP (5) Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
19
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.08.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Use Classification
*For uses within specified areas, see Section
9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Beverage Sales
Section 9.31.150, General Markets
in Residential Districts
Lodging See sub-classifications below.
Bed and Breakfast CUP CUP CUP
Within Designated Landmarks only.
Section 9.31.090, Bed and
Breakfasts
Hotels and Motels – – CUP
Mobile Food Truck Off-Street Venues – MUP (7) – Section 9.31.190, Mobile Food
Truck Off-Street Venues
Personal Services, Physical Training – L (9) –
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below.
General Retail Sales, Small-Scale – CUP (8) –
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
City Bikeshare Facility P P P
Utilities, Minor P P P
Specific Limitations:
(1) Reserved.
(2) Facilities for 6 or fewer residents are permitted by right. Other facilities require approval of a Minor Use Permit.
(3) Limited to automobile storage use associated with and adjacent to existing auto dealerships that were legally established before July 6,
2010, and according to the standards of Section 9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and Storage.
(4) Auto dealership uses existing as of July 6, 2010 are considered permitted uses. Expansions to existing dealerships in residential zones are
subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and must conform to the standards in Section 9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales,
Leasing, and Storage. New auto dealerships and expansions of existing dealerships inconsistent with Section 9.31.070 are prohibited.
(5) Only stores up to 2,500 square feet may be allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Stores must be located at least 300 feet
from another retail food and beverage services use.
(6) Reserved.
(7) Mobile food truck off-street venues shall only be located on the R3A overlay parcels located between Ocean Park Boulevard and Hill
Street along the east side of Neilson Way.
(8) Limited to bicycle and skate rental facilities along Ocean Front. Other general retail sales uses are not permitted.
(9) Limited to youth-serving studios of less than 3,000 square feet offering performing arts, dance, martial arts, physical exercise, and
similar types of instruction in buildings designed and constructed for commercial purposes across an alley from the Downtown district
subject to a passenger loading and drop-off plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2649CCS § 8, adopted September 8,
2020)
9.08.030 Development Standards
Table 9.08.030 prescribes the development standards for the Multi-Unit Residential Districts. Additional
regulations are denoted with Section numbers in the right-hand column or with individual letters in
parentheses. Section numbers refer to other Sections of this Article, while individual letters in parentheses
refer to subsections that directly follow the table.
TABLE 9.08.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Standard
*For development standards within
specified areas, see Section
9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Parcel and Density Standards
20
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.08.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Standard
*For development standards within
specified areas, see Section
9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Minimum Parcel Size (sq. ft.) 5,000 5,000 5,000
Maximum Parcel Size (sq. ft.) See
9.21.030(B)(C)
See
9.21.030(B)(C)
See
9.21.030(B)(C)
Minimum Parcel Width (ft.) 50 50 50
Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 100 100 100
Minimum Parcel Area (sq. ft.) per UnitMaximum Allowable Density
Tier 1—Base Standard
1 unit per 2,000
sq. ft. of parcel
area (or 4 total
units, whichever
is less)
1 unit per 1,500
sq. ft. of parcel
area (or 5 total
units, whichever
is less)
1 unit per 1,250
sq. ft. of parcel
area (or 6 total
units, whichever
is less)
For parcels consolidated to
provide courtyards, the
maximum allowable
number of units shall be
based on the total maximum
number of units allowed on
each of the parcels prior to
consolidation.
For projects eligible for
density bonus, see Section
9.22.050(C), Calculating
Base Density
Tier 2—With Provision of
Community Benefits NA 1,250 900 Chapter 9.23, Community
Benefits
100% Affordable Housing
Projects 1,500 1,250 900
Building Form and Location
Maximum Number of Stories
Tier 1—Base Standard 2 2 3
Tier 2—With Provision of
Community Benefits NA 3 4 Chapter 9.23, Community
Benefits
100% Affordable Housing
Projects
No limit on number of stories as long as building
complies with height limit.
Maximum Building Height (ft.)
Tier 1—Base Standard 30. See (B) 30. See (B) 30. See (B)
Tier 2—With Provision of
Community Benefits NA 40. See (B) 45. See (B) Chapter 9.23, Community
Benefits
100% Affordable Housing
Projects 30. See (B) 40. See (B) 45. See (B)
Maximum Parcel Coverage
Ground FloorMaximum Parcel
Coverage (% of Parcel Area) 4550 5050 5050
For projects with a base
density between 8 to 10
units, an increase in parcel
coverage shall be permitted
as necessary to ensure a
Floor Area Ratio of 1.25
Upper Stories (% of allowable
ground floor coverage) 90 - 2nd flr. 90 - 2nd/3rd flr.
80 - 2nd flr.
60 - 3rd flr.
50 - 4th flr.
21
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.08.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Standard
*For development standards within
specified areas, see Section
9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Additional Stories Authorized for
100% Affordable Housing Projects
(% of ground floor coverage)
90 90 50
Minimum Setbacks
Front (ft.) 20
See (C)(E)
20
See (C)(E)
20
See (C)(E)
Interior Side (ft.)—Parcels 50 feet
or more in width
8
See (E)
8
See (E)
8
See (E)
Interior Side (ft.)—Parcels less
than 50 ft in width
4, or 16% of
parcel width,
whichever is
greater. See (E)
4, or 16% of
parcel width,
whichever is
greater. See (E)
4, or 16% of
parcel width,
whichever is
greater. See (E)
Street Side (% of parcel width) 15
See (C)(E)
15
See (C)(E)
15
See (C)(E)
Rear (ft.) 15 15 15
Parking
See Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking and
9.28.120, Parking Design and Development
Standards
Transition Requirements Adjacent to
R1 District See (D) See (D) See (D)
Open Space & Landscaping
Minimum Outdoor Living Area per
Unit (sq. ft.)—Sites with Three or
More Units
Section 9.21.090, Outdoor
Living Area
Private 60 60 60
Total 150 150 100
Courtyards—Parcels over 99 feet in
width
No less than
10% of the total
parcel area.
See (F)
No less than
10% of the total
parcel area.
See (F)
No less than
10% of the total
parcel area.
See (F)
Minimum Planting Area (% of parcel
area) 30. See (G) 25. See (G) 20. See (G) Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Additional Standards
Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units
Accessory Structures Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Affordable Housing Production
Program Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program
Density Bonus Chapter 9.22 Density Bonus
Exceptions to Height Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Exceptions
Fences and Walls Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units
Landscaping Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
22
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.08.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Standard
*For development standards within
specified areas, see Section
9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Located on Community Assembly
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community
Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Located on Residentially Zoned
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially
Zoned Surface Parking Lots
Off-Street Parking and Loading Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Projections into Required Setbacks Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks
Refuse and Recycling Screening and
Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Screening Section 9.21.140, Screening
Signs Chapter 9.61, Signs
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
Refuse and Recycling Screening and
Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
A. Development Standards, Specified Areas. The following development standards shall govern in
the areas defined below.
1. For Multi-Unit Residential District parcels located north of the Pier and west of Ocean Avenue,
the following development standards shall apply in lieu of the corresponding land use regulations
specified in Table 9.08.020 and development standards specified in Table 9.08.030:
a. Uses.
i. Permitted Uses: One Single-Unit Dwelling per lot placed on a permanent foundation
(including Manufactured Housing); Accessory Dwelling Unit; Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit; Single-Room Occupancy Housing; Congregate Housing; Senior
Citizen Multiple-Unit ResidentialDwelling; Senior Group Residential; Family Day
Care, Small; Supportive Housing; Transitional Housing; Hospice, Limited; One-
Story Accessory Building and Structures up to 14 feet in height; Public Parks and
Playgrounds.
ii. Uses Subject to Minor Use Permits: Hospice, General; One-story accessory living
quarters up to 14 feet in height on parcels having a minimum area of 10,000 square
feet.
iii. Conditionally Permitted Uses: Bed and Breakfast; Day Care Center; Group
Residential; Residential Care Facility; Offices and Meeting Rooms for Charitable,
Youth, and Welfare Organizations; Schools.
b. Maximum Building Height. Maximum building height shall be 40 feet, except that:
i. No portion of the building may project beyond the site view envelope. The site view
envelope is a theoretical plane beginning mid-point at the minimum required beach
setback line and extending to a height of 30 feet, and then running parallel with the
23
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
side parcel lines to a point located 5 feet in height above the top of the Palisades bluff
immediately behind the pedestrian railing.
ii. No portion of the building above 23 feet for a flat roof, and 30 feet for a pitched roof
may exceed 30 feet in width. Multiple projections above 23 feet for a flat roof and 30
feet for a pitched roof shall be separated by a minimum 20-foot wide unobstructed
view corridor. No projections, connections, or mechanical equipment may be placed
in the view corridor.
c. Maximum Unit Allowable Density. For parcels 4,000 square feet or more, the maximum
unit density shall be one dwelling unit for each 1,500 square feet of parcel area, or 4 total
units, whichever is less. For parcels less than 4,000 square feet , no dwelling units shall be
permitted, except that one dwelling unit may be permitted on any legal parcel which existed
on September 8, 1988 or parcels 40 feet or less in width, one dwelling unit may be
permitted, . No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on a parcel 40 feet or less
in width. unless otherwise allowed in accordance with Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot
Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential. Accessory dwelling units and junior
accessory dwelling units established in accordance with Section 9.31.025 shall be deemed
to meet the allowable density for the parcel on which the accessory dwelling unit or junior
accessory dwelling unit is located.
d. Maximum Parcel Coverage. 50% of the parcel area. For projects with a base density
between 8 to 10 units, an increase in parcel coverage shall be permitted as necessary to
ensure a Floor Area Ratio of 1.25.
e. Front Yard Setback. The minimum required front yard setback shall be either 20 feet or
shall comply with the minimum front yard setback for the district as set forth in the Official
Districting Map, whichever area is greater. At least 30% of the building elevation above
14 feet in height shall provide an additional 5-foot average setback from the minimum
required front yard setback.
f. Beach Rear Yard Setback. 15 feet for parcels 100 feet or less in depth and 55 feet for parcels
over 100 feet in depth.
g. Side Yard Setback. The minimum required side yard setback shall be determined in
accordance with the following formula, except that for lots of less than 50 feet in width,
the minimum required side yard shall be 10% of the parcel width, but in any event not less
than 4 feet:
5′ + (stories x parcel width)
50′
At least 25% of the side elevation above 14 feet in height shall provide an additional 4-foot
average setback from the minimum required side yard setback.
h. Minimum Parcel Size. 5,000 square feet. Each parcel shall contain a minimum depth of
100 feet and a minimum width of 50 feet, except that parcels existing on September 8, 1988
shall not be subject to this requirement.
i. Development Review. Except for projects listed in Section 9.40.020(B), a development
review permit shall be required for any development of 10,000 square feet or more in floor
area.
24
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
ij. View Corridor. A structure with 70 square linear feet or more of frontage parallel to Pacific
Coast Highway shall provide an unobstructed view corridor between Pacific Coast
Highway and the ocean. The view corridor shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and 40
feet in height measured from the property line parallel to the Pacific Coast Highway.
jk. Parking. Uncovered parking may be located in the front half of the parcel and within the
minimum required front yard setback.
kl. Private Open Space. Any project containing 4 or more residential dwelling units shall
provide the following minimum open space: 100 square feet per unit for projects with 4 or
5 units, and 50 square feet per unit for projects of 6 units or more. For purposes of this
requirement, “residential dwelling unit” shall mean any unit 376 square feet in area or
larger. Affordable housing projects may substitute one square foot of common open space
for each square foot of required private open space.
lm. Projections into Beach Rear Yard Setback. For parcels 100 feet or less in depth, balconies,
decks, porches, and similar structures that are open and unenclosed on at least 2 sides shall
be allowed to extend to the rear property line in the beach rear yard setback but not within
the minimum side yard setbacks.
2. For Multi-Unit Residential District parcels bounded by Neilson Way to the east, Ocean Park
Boulevard to the south, Barnard Way to the west, and up to and including the parcels on the
north side of Wadsworth Avenue to the north, the following development standards shall apply
in lieu of the corresponding land use regulations specified in Table 9.08.020 and development
standards specified in Table 9.08.030:
a. Uses.
i. Permitted Uses: One Single Unit Dwelling per parcel on a permanent foundation
(including Manufactured Housing); one Duplex (including a detached second unit
when located on a parcel containing one Single Unit Dwelling) on any legal parcel
that existed on August 31, 1975; Accessory Dwelling Unit; Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit; Family Day Care, Small; Family Day Care, Large; Hospice, Limited;
Supportive Housing, Transitional Housing; Public Parks and Playgrounds.
ii. Uses Subject to Minor Use Permits: One-story accessory living quartersbuildings up
to 14 feet in height on parcels having a minimum area of 10,000 square feet, exclusive
of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units; Hospice,
General.
iii. Conditionally Permitted Uses: One-story accessory buildings over 14 feet in height
or two-story accessory buildings up to a maximum of 24 feet, exclusive of Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
b. Maximum Building Height. 2 stories, not to exceed 23 feet for a flat roof or 30 feet for a
pitched roof. A “pitched roof” is defined as a roof with at least 2 sides having no less than
one foot of vertical rise for every 3 feet of horizontal run. The walls of the building may
not exceed the maximum height required for a flat roof. There shall be no limitation on the
number of stories of any affordable housing project, as long as the building height does not
exceed the maximum number of feet permitted in this Section.
c. Maximum Unit Allowable Density. A minimum of one unit per 1,500 square feet of parcel
area for each dwelling unit, or 4 units total, whichever is less. However, one duplex shall
25
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
be permitted on any legal parcel that existed on August 31, 1975. Accessory dwelling units
and junior accessory dwelling units established in accordance with Section 9.31.025 shall
be deemed to meet the allowable density for the parcel on which the accessory dwelling
unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is located.
d. Maximum Parcel Coverage. 60% of the parcel area. For projects with a base density
between 8 to 10 units, an increase in parcel coverage shall be permitted as necessary to
ensure a Floor Area Ratio of 1.25.
e. Minimum Parcel Size. 3,000 square feet. Each parcel shall have a minimum depth of 100
feet and a minimum width of 30 feet, except that parcels already developed and existing
on September 8, 1988, shall not be subject to this requirement.
f. Front Yard Setback. 10 feet.
g. Rear Yard Setback. 15 feet.
h. Side Yard Setback. The minimum required side yard setback shall be determined in
accordance with the following formula, except that for lots of less than 50 feet in width,
the minimum required side yard setback shall be 10% of the parcel width, but in any event
not less than 4 feet:
5′ + (stories x lot width)/50′
i. Front Yard Paving. No more than 50% of the area of the required front yard setback,
including driveways, shall be paved.
j. Private Open Space. Any project containing 4 or more residential dwelling units shall
provide the following minimum open space: 100 square feet per unit for projects with 4 or
5 units, and 50 square feet per unit for projects of 6 units or more. For purposes of this
requirement, “residential dwelling unit” shall mean any unit 376 square feet in area or
larger. Affordable housing projects may substitute one square foot of common open space
for each square foot of required private open space.
k. Design Review. Pursuant to Section 9.55.170, all projects are subject to design review
subject to Chapter 9.55.
3. For Multi-Unit Residential District parcels bounded by Appian Way to the east, Vicente Terrace
to the south, Ocean Front Walk to the west, and Seaside Terrace to the north, the following
development standards shall apply in lieu of the corresponding land use regulations specified in
Table 9.08.020 and development standards specified in Table 9.08.030:
a. Uses.
i. Permitted Uses: Single-Unit Dwellings placed on a permanent foundation (including
Manufactured Housing); Multiple-Unit Dwellings; Accessory Dwelling Unit; Junior
Accessory Dwelling Unit; Single-Room Occupancy Housing; Congregate Housing;
Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit Residential; Senior Group Residential; Family Day
Care, Small; Supportive Housing; Transitional Housing; Hospice, Limited; One-
Story Accessory Building and Structures up to 14 feet in height; Public Parks and
Playgrounds.
ii. Uses Subject to Minor Use Permits: One-Story Accessory Living Quarters up to 14
feet in height on parcels having a minimum area of 10,000 square feet; Hospice,
General.
26
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
iii. Conditionally Permitted Uses: Bed and Breakfast; Day Care Center; Group
Residential; Residential Care Facility; Community Assembly; Emergency Shelter;
One-Story Accessory Buildings over 14 feet in height or Two-Story Accessory
Buildings up to a maximum of 24 feet; Offices and Meeting Rooms for Charitable,
Youth, and Welfare Organizations; Schools; Convenience Market; Bicycle and Skate
Rental Facilities; Underground Parking Structures provided the parcel was occupied
by a surface parking lot at the time of adoption of this Chapter, the parcel is not
adjacent to a parcel in the NC District, the ground level above the underground
parking structure is used for residential or public park and open space uses, the
structure is associated with an adjacent commercially zoned parcel, and the vehicle
access to the underground parking is from the commercially zoned parcel and as far
from the residentially zoned parcel as is reasonably possible.
b. Maximum Building Height. 2 stories, not to exceed 30 feet, except that there shall be no
limitation on the number of stories of any affordable housing project, as long as the building
height does not exceed 30 feet.
c. Maximum Floor Area Ratio. 1.0. For projects with a base density between 8 to 10 units, a
Floor Area Ratio of 1.25 is permitted.
d. Maximum Unit Allowable Density. For projects on parcels of 4,000 square feet or more,
one dwelling unit for each 1,500 square feet of parcel area shall be permitted, or 5 units
total, whichever is less. For parcels less than 4,000 square feet, no dwelling units shall be
permitted, except that one dwelling unit may be permitted if a single-unit dwelling existed
on the parcel on September 8, 1988, unless otherwise allowed in accordance with Section
9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Spits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential. Accessory
dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units established in accordance with Section
9.31.025 shall be deemed to meet the allowable density for the parcel on which the
accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is located.
e. Maximum Parcel Coverage. 50% of the parcel area. For projects with a base density
between 8 to 10 units, an increase in parcel coverage shall be permitted as necessary to
ensure a Floor Area Ratio of 1.25
f. Minimum Parcel Size. 5,000 square feet. Each parcel shall contain a minimum depth of
100 feet and a minimum width of 50 feet, except that parcels existing on September 8, 1988
shall not be subject to this requirement.
g. Front Yard Setback. The minimum required front yard setback shall be either 20 feet, or
shall comply with the minimum front yard setback for the district as set forth in the Official
Districting Map, whichever area is greater.
h. Rear Yard Setback. 15 feet.
i. Side Yard Setback. The minimum required side yard setback shall be determined in
accordance with the following formula, except that for lots of less than 50 feet in width,
the minimum required side yard setback shall be 10% of the parcel width, but in any event
not less than 4 feet:
5′ + (stories x lot width)/50′
27
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
j. Development Review. Except for projects listed in Section 9.40.020(B), a development
review permit shall be required for any development of 10,000 square feet or more in floor
area.
jk. Private Open Space. Any project containing 4 or more residential dwelling units shall
provide the following minimum open space: 100 square feet per unit for projects with 4 or
5 units, and 50 square feet per unit for projects of 6 units or more. For purposes of this
requirement, “residential dwelling unit” shall mean any unit 376 square feet in area or
larger. Affordable housing projects may substitute one square foot of common open space
for each square foot of required private open space.
kl. Upper-Level Stepback Requirements.
i. Additional Front Stepback Over 14 Feet in Height. For new structures or additions to
existing structures, any portion of the front building elevation above 14 feet
exceeding 75% of the maximum buildable front elevation shall be stepped back from
the front setback line an additional average amount equal to 4% of parcel depth, but
in no case resulting in a requirement stepback greater than 10 feet. As used in this
Section, “maximum buildable elevation” shall mean the maximum potential length
of the elevation permitted under these regulations, which includes parcel width or
length (as applicable), minus required minimum setbacks.
ii. Additional Side Stepback Over 14 Feet in Height. For new structures or additions to
existing structures, any portion of the side building elevation above 14 feet exceeding
50% of the maximum buildable side elevation shall be stepped back from the side
setback line an additional average amount equal to 6% of parcel width, but in no case
resulting in a required stepback greater than 10 feet.
iii. The upper-level stepback requirements may be modified subject to the review and
approval of the Architectural Review Board if the Board finds that the modification
will not be detrimental to the property, adjoining properties, or the general area in
which the property is located, and the objectives of the stepback requirements are
satisfied by the provision of alternative stepbacks or other features which reduce
effective mass to a degree comparable to the relevant standard requirement.
B. Additional Stepback at Upper Stories. The maximum building height shall not exceed 30 feet in
the R2 District, 40 feet in the R3 District, and 45 feet in the R4 District, and shall be subject to the
following standards:
1. R2 District. No portion of the building volume above 23 feet shall encroach into a daylight plane
starting at 23 feet above the front setback line and sloping upward at a 45-degree angle toward
the rear of the parcel. The 23-foot height measurement shall be taken from the same reference
grade as determined for the subject site pursuant to Section 9.04.050.
2. R3 District. No portion of the building volume above 35 feet shall encroach into a daylight plane
starting at 35 feet above the front setback line and sloping upward at a 45-degree angle toward
the rear of the parcel. The 35-foot height measurement shall be taken from the same reference
grade as determined for the subject site pursuant to Section 9.04.050.
3. R4 District. No portion of the building volume above 40 feet shall encroach into a daylight plane
starting at 40 feet above the front setback line and sloping upward at a 45-degree angle toward
the rear of the parcel. The 40-foot height measurement shall be taken from the same reference
grade as determined for the subject site pursuant to Section 9.04.050.
28
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4. The covered portion of all stories above the second story in any multi-unit structure shall be set
back an average of 10 feet from the second floor front façade.
C. Front and Side Setbacks.
1. The front yard setback on Arcadia Terrace and Seaview Terrace shall be 30 feet measured from
the center line of the walkway.
2. In the R2, R3, and R4 Districts, the street side setback shall be at least 15% of the parcel width
but no less than 6 feet and is not required to exceed 10 feet.
3. Where a corner parcel in an R2, R3, or R4 District abuts a parcel in an R1 District, the street side
setback shall be at least half of the required front setback in the adjacent R1 District.
D. Transition Requirements Adjacent to R1 District. Where an R2, R3, or R4 District adjoins an R1
District, the following standards apply:
1. The maximum height within 25 feet of an R1 District is 23 feet for a building with a flat roof. A
building with a pitched roof may be built to the maximum height.
2. The building setback from an R1 District boundary shall be 10 feet for interior side setbacks and
20 feet for rear setbacks.
3. A landscaped planting area, a minimum of 5 feet in width, shall be provided along all R1 District
boundaries. A tree screen shall be planted in this area with trees planted at a minimum interval
of 15 feet.
E. Special Project Design and Development Standards. The new construction of or new addition to
a principal building shall comply with the following standards:
1. Street-facing pedestrian entries shall not be located below grade, and any excavation to access
the entry shall be prohibited.
2. An additional 5-foot setback beyond the minimum front yard setback set forth in Section
9.08.030 is required for at least 25% of the width of the front façade. This setback shall be fully
integrated into the building through balconies, decks, or other elements that articulate the front
of the building.
3. All required setbacks set forth in Section 9.08.030 shall be open to the sky except for permitted
architectural projections contained in Section 9.21.110.
4. Mezzanines shall be concealed within the building and shall not appear as an additional story on
the exterior building façade.
5. An additional 2-foot average side yard setback from the minimum side setback requirement set
forth in Section 9.08.030 shall be provided at each story. Setback areas greater than 5 feet in
depth from the minimum side yard setback, or the area used to comply with the additional
setback requirements of this Section, shall not be used to satisfy compliance with this
requirement.
6. The allocation of allowable parcel coverage area shall be distributed to provide clear delineation
between individual units through: changes in wall plane, in plan or section; use of additional
stepbacks; use of decks or balconies; or other architectural and spatial manipulation. A change
in plane to differentiate individual units shall be a minimum of 12 inches. However, more than
one but no more than 3 units may be grouped together for the purpose of providing a shared
entry, balcony or other common exterior space.
29
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
F. Courtyards. Parcels having a width greater than 99 feet and located in the R2, R3, or R4 District
shall provide a courtyard on the lot. Courtyards shall comply with the following design criteria:
1. Courtyards shall be no less than 10% of the total lot area and in no case less than 1,000 square
feet with a minimum width and length of 18 feet measured parallel to the front and side parcel
lines. Required setback area shall not count toward the minimum width and length or 1,000
square foot requirement.
2. Courtyards shall be open to the sky, but may include permitted projections set forth in Section
9.21.110 for side yard projections. If mechanical or utility equipment is placed in the courtyard,
it shall be screened visually and acoustically and shall not encroach into the minimum courtyard
area.
3. A minimum of 50% of the courtyard’s perimeter shall be enclosed by a building.
4. Courtyards shall be visible and accessible from the sidewalk and each ground floor unit.
Courtyards shall be visible from the street with a minimum 10-foot wide opening that is open to
the sky. For openings less than 18 feet in width into courtyards, the depth of the opening shall
not exceed twice the width of the opening.
5. At least 50% of courtyard areas shall be planted pursuant to Sections 9.26.060 and 9.26.070.
Planting shall be at grade or in finished planters not exceeding 18 inches above finished grade.
At least one canopy tree in a tree well providing a minimum soil volume pursuant to Section
9.26.050(A)(3) shall be planted in all courtyards.
6. The majority of primary entrances to all ground floor units shall be accessed from the street
frontage or courtyard.
G. Planting Areas. The following areas shall be landscaped and may count toward the total area of site
landscaping required by Table 9.08.030.
1. Setback Areas Adjacent to Streets. All visible portions of a required setback area adjacent to a
street that are not used for driveways or walks shall be dedicated for planting areas or
landscaping. These areas shall be planted with the appropriate number and sizes of trees as
necessary to provide shade and to increase a project’s energy efficiency. Recreational vehicles,
utility trailers, unmounted camper tops, boats, cars, trucks, motorcycles, or other vehicles shall
not be parked or stored within a required planting or landscape area.
2. Interior Side Setback Areas. At least 50% of each required setback area shall be planting area,
except that for parcels less than 50 feet in width, 50% of any one interior side setback area shall
be planted.
3. Adjacent to R1 Districts. A continuous planting area having a minimum width of 5 feet is
provided along interior parcel lines when an R2, R3, or R4 District is adjacent to an R1 District.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS
§ 5, adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2536CCS § 17, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No.
2576CCS § 2, adopted June 12, 2018; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 9, adopted September 8, 2020)
30
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.09
OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS
Sections:
9.09.010 Purpose
9.09.020 Land Use Regulations
9.09.030 Development Standards
9.09.010 Purpose
The purposes of the “Ocean Park Neighborhood” Districts are to:
A. Maintain the Ocean Park neighborhood as an eclectic residential neighborhood that maintains its
identity as a beach-oriented community in the middle of a thriving urban environment.
B. Ensure that the scale and design of new or rehabilitated development is sensitive to the scale and
massing of existing adjacent structures and with the surrounding neighborhood context.
C. Provide for the maintenance and continuation of a mixture of residential building types that range
from older single-unit homes, duplexes, and triplexes to multi-unit housing.
D. Protect the quality of life of neighborhood residents against potential impacts related to
development—traffic, noise, air quality, and the encroachment of commercial activities.
E. Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling.
F. Avoid overburdening public facilities, including sewer, water, electricity, and schools, by an influx
and increase of people to a degree larger than the City’s geographic limits, tax base, or financial
capabilities can reasonably and responsibly accommodate.
G. Provide sites for institutional, residential, and neighborhood serving uses such as day care, parks,
community facilities, and neighborhood stores that provide goods and services to support daily life
within walking distance of neighborhoods and complement surrounding residential development.
The specific designations and the additional purposes of the Ocean Park Districts are:
OP1 Ocean Park Single Unit Residential. This Zoning District is intended to maintain areas where single
unit housing predominates. This District allows for single unit housing on individual parcels at densities of
one unit plus one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per legal parcel. In addition
to detached single unit dwellings, accessory dwelling units, and junior accessory dwelling units, this District
provides for uses such as parks and family day care that may be appropriate in a residential environment.
OPD Ocean Park Duplex Residential. This Zoning District is intended to maintain areas where single
unit and duplex residential uses predominate and is in particular, intended to preserve the unique
characteristics of the Copeland Court walk street. In addition to detached single unit dwellings, accessory
dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, and duplexes, this District provides for uses such as parks
and family day care, transitional housing, hospice facilities, and neighborhood serving uses such as
childcare and community facilities that may be appropriate in a residential environment.
OP2 Ocean Park Low Density Residential. This Zoning District is intended to provide a variety of low-
density housing types that reflects the distinct identity of the Ocean Park neighborhood. These types include
single unit dwellings, accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, duplexes and triplexes,
townhouses, and courtyard housing with at least 2,000 square feet of parcel area per unit exclusive of City
and State density bonuses. In addition to low density residential development, this District provides for uses
such as transitional housing or hospice facilities, family day care, and neighborhood serving uses such as
childcare, neighborhood grocery stores, and community facilities that may be appropriate in a residential
environment.
31
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
OP3 Ocean Park Medium Density Residential. This Zoning District is intended to maintain a variety of
multi-unit housing types with at least 1,500 square feet of parcel area per unit or 1,250 square feet of parcel
area per unit for projects that provide identified community benefits. Types of dwelling units include low-
and medium-scale single-unit dwellings, multiple-unit dwellings, townhouses, courtyard housing, duplexes,
triplexes, accessory dwelling units, and junior accessory dwelling units. This District also provides for
residential facilities such as transitional housing and hospice facilities, family day care, and neighborhood
serving uses such as childcare, neighborhood grocery stores, and community facilities that may be
appropriate in a residential environment.
OP4 Ocean Park High Density Residential. This Zoning District is intended to provide areas for multi-
unit housing at greater intensities than other Ocean Park Neighborhood districts. Housing types include
single-unit dwellings, three- to four-story multi-unit housing projects, duplexes, triplexes, accessory
dwelling units, and junior accessory dwelling units. This District also provides residential facilities such as
assisted living, transitional housing, and hospice facilities, family day care, hotels, and neighborhood-
serving uses such as childcare, neighborhood grocery stores, and community facilities that may be
appropriate in a residential environment. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015;
amended by Ord. No. 2536CCS § 18, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 10, adopted
September 8, 2020)
9.09.020 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.09.020 prescribes the land use regulations for Ocean Park Neighborhood Districts. The regulations
for each district are established by letter designations listed below. These designations apply strictly to the
permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review.
“P” designates permitted uses.
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with specific limitations
listed at the end of the table.
“CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use
Permit.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit.
“–” designates uses that are not permitted.
Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51, Use Classifications. Use classifications and sub-classifications not
listed in the table are prohibited. Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning
Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate
to, the principal uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses.
The table also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand
column refer to other Sections of this Ordinance.
TABLE 9.09.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS
Use Classification OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing
Types See sub-classifications below.
Single Unit Dwelling P P P P P
Accessory Dwelling
Unit P P P P P
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
32
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.09.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS
Use Classification OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations
Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit P P P P P
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Duplex –P P P P P
For OP1, see Section 9.31.125,
Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels
Zoned for Single-Unit Residential
Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Multiple-Unit
StructureDwelling –L(1) – P P P Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Senior Citizen
Multiple-Unit
Residential
–(L)1 – P P P
Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Single-Room
Occupancy Housing – – P P P Section 9.31.330, Single Room
Occupancy Structures
Group Residential – – MUP MUP MUP
Congregate Housing – – P P P Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Senior Group
Residential – L (2) P P P Section 9.31.310, Senior Group
Residential
Elderly and Long-
Term Care – – CUP CUP CUP
Emergency Shelters – – CUP CUP CUP Section 9.31.130, Emergency
Shelters
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.
Large P P P P P Section 9.31.140, Family Day
Care, Large
Small P P P P P
Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below.
Residential Care,
General – – MUP MUP MUP Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Residential Care,
Limited P P P P P Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Residential Care,
Senior L (2) L (2) L (3)/
MUP L (3)/MUP L (3)/MUP Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Hospice, General – MUP MUP MUP MUP
Hospice, Limited P P P P P
Supportive Housing P P P P P
Transitional Housing P P P P P Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Child Care and Early
Education Facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Section 9.31.120, Child Care and
Early Education Facilities
Community Assembly – – CUP CUP CUP Section 9.31.100, Community
Assembly
Community Gardens P P P P P
Cultural Facilities – CUP CUP CUP CUP Limited to Designated Landmarks
33
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.09.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS
Use Classification OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations
Park and Recreations
Facilities, Public P P P P P
Schools, Public or Private CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Commercial Uses
Food and Beverage Sales See sub-classifications below.
General Market – – CUP (4) CUP (4) CUP (4)
Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Section 9.31.150, General Markets
in Residential Districts
Lodging See sub-classifications below.
Bed and Breakfast – – CUP CUP CUP
Within Designated Landmarks
only.
Section 9.31.090, Bed and
Breakfasts
Hotels and Motels – – – – CUP
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
City Bikeshare Facility P P P P P
Utilities, Minor P P P P P
Specific Limitations:
Specific Limitations:
(1) Reserved.Permitted only on parcels with existing surface parking lots:
• Owned in whole or in part by a Community Assembly use in accordance with requirements of Section 9.31.196,
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots; or
• Associated with existing multiple-unit dwelling or commercial uses in accordance with requirements of Section
9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots.
(2) Limited to facilities for 6 or fewer residents; facilities for more than 6 residents not permitted.
(3) Limited to facilities for 6 or fewer residents. Facilities for more than 6 residents require a Minor Use Permit.
(4) Only stores up to 2,500 square feet may be allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Stores must be
located at least 300 feet from a commercial district with a food and beverage service use.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2536CCS § 19, adopted February 28,
2017; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 11, adopted September 8, 2020)
9.09.030 Development Standards
Table 9.09.030 prescribes development standards for Ocean Park Neighborhood Districts. Additional
regulations are denoted with Section numbers in the right-hand column or with individual letters in
parentheses. Section numbers refer to other Sections of this Article, while individual letters in parentheses
refer to subsections that directly follow the table.
TABLE 9.09.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS
Standard OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations
Parcel and Density Standards
Minimum Parcel Size (sq. ft.) 4,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Maximum Parcel Size (sq. ft.) See
9.21.030(B)
See
9.21.030(B)
See
9.21.030(B)
See
9.21.030(B)
See
9.21.030(B)
Minimum Parcel Width (ft.) 25 50 50 50 50
Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 80 100 100 100 100
Minimum Parcel Area (sq. ft.) per Unit
34
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.09.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS
Standard OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations
Tier 1—Base
StandardMaximum
Allowable Density
N/A1 unit
per parcel
2 units per
parcel
1 unit per
2,000 sq.
ft. of
parcel
area
1 unit per
1,500 sq.
ft. of
parcel
area
1 unit per
1,250 sq. ft.
of parcel
area
See (A)
For OP1, a duplex shall be
permitted as provided in
Section 9.31.125, Duplexes
and Lot Splits on Parcels
Zoned For Single-Unit
Residential.
For projects eligible for
density bonus, see Section
9.22.050(C), Calculating
Base Density
Building Form and Location
Maximum Number of Stories
Tier 1—Base Standard 2 2 2 See (B) 2 3
100% Affordable Housing
Projects 2 No limit
to stories
No limit
to stories
No limit
to stories
No limit to
stories
Maximum Building Height (ft.)
Base Standard—Flat Roofs;
Roofs Pitched Less Than 1:3 20 23 23 See
(B) 23 35
Pitched Roofs 27 30 30 See
(B) 30 35
The walls of the building
may not exceed the
maximum height required
for a flat roof
Maximum Parcel Coverage (% of Parcel Area)
Tier 1—Base Standard 50 50 50 50 50
55% for parcels less than 35
ft. in width in OP1
For projects with a base
density between 8 to 10
units, an increase in parcel
coverage shall be permitted
as necessary to ensure a
Floor Area Ratio of 1.25
100% Affordable Housing
Projects 60 60 60 60 60
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front
15 30 20 20 15 Except for OPD, a one-
story covered or uncovered
porch open on 3 sides may
encroach 6 ft. into the
required front setback if the
roof does not exceed a
height of 14 ft. and the
porch width does not
exceed 40% of the building
width at the front of the
building
[10, if
average of
adjacent
dwelling(s)
is 10 ft. or
less]
measured
from the
centerline of
the
walkway
[15, if
average of
adjacent
dwelling(s)
is 15 ft. or
less]
[15, if
average of
adjacent
dwelling(s)
is 15 ft. or
less]
[10, if
average of
adjacent
dwelling(s) is
10 ft. or less]
Side—Blank walls and walls
containing secondary
windows on parcels less than
50 ft. in width
Greater of 4 ft. or 10% of parcel width 3 ft. for parcels less than 35
ft. in width in OP1
35
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.09.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS
Standard OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations
Side—Blank walls and walls
containing secondary
windows on parcels 50 ft. or
more in width
See formula in (C)
Side—Walls containing
primary windows on parcels
less than 50 ft. in width
8 ft. setback from property line. 12 ft. of separation must
be maintained between primary window and any
adjacent structures
3 ft. for parcels less than 35
ft. in width in OP1
Side—Walls containing
primary windows on parcels
50 ft. or more in width
12 ft. See (C)
Street Side—Parcels less than
50 ft. in width
Greater
of 4 ft. or
10% of
parcel
width
See formula in (C) 3 ft. for parcels less than 35
ft. in width in OP1
Street Side—Parcels 50 ft. or
more in width See (C) 10 ft. See (C)
Rear 10 15 15 15 15
Parking See Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking and 9.28.120, Parking Design and
Development Standards
Minimum Spacing between
Buildings (ft.) – Buildings facing
each other on the same lot
– See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D)
Transition Requirements
Adjacent to OP1 or OPD
Districts
– – See (F) See (F) See (F)
Open Space & Landscaping
Minimum Outdoor Living Area
(sq. ft.) per Dwelling Unit
Section 9.21.090, Outdoor
Living Area
Private NA 60 60 60 60 Required only of projects
with 2 or more units
Total NA 150 150 150 100 Required only of projects
with 2 or more units
Minimum Planting Area (% of
parcel area) 25 25 25 25 20
See (G), Chapter 9.26,
Landscaping. Required only
of projects with 2 or more
units
Additional Standards
Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Structures Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Affordable Housing Production
Program Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program
Density Bonus Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus
Duplexes and Lot Splits on
Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit
Residential
Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit
Residential
Exceptions to Height Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Exceptions
Fences and Walls Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
36
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.09.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS
Standard OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations
Landscaping Section 9.09.030(G), Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Located on Community
Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly
Surface Parking Lots
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Located on Residentially Zoned
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned
Surface Parking Lots
Off-Street Parking and Loading Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Projections into Required
Setbacks Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks
Refuse and Recycling Screening
and Enclosure
Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Screening Section 9.21.140, Screening
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
Trash Screening and Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
A. Maximum Density. The following additional rules apply to the maximum residential density:
1. Calculation of Units—Remainder Parcel Area. An additional unit is allowed on a parcel if,
after calculating the allowed number of units based on the minimum required parcel area per
unit stated in Table 9.09.030 for the respective district, the excess parcel area equals or exceeds
the following:
a. 1,000 square feet in OP2.
b. 750 square feet in OP3.
c. 625 square feet in OP4.
2. Parcels Less Than 4,000 Square Feet. No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on a
parcel 4,000 square feet or less in area, unless otherwise permitted in accordance with Section
9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential..
3. Parcels over 10,000 Square Feet—OP2 District. In the OP2 District, the maximum density on
parcels that have an area of 10,000 square feet or more or a combined street frontage of 100 feet
or more shall be one dwelling unit for each 2,500 square feet of combined lot area, except where
100% of the proposed units are deed restricted for very low, low, middle, and/or moderate
income housing, in which case the density shall be one unit for each 2,000 square feet of parcel
area.
4. Parcels over 15,000 Square Feet—OP3 District. In the OP3 District, the maximum density on
parcels that have an area of 15,000 square feet or more or exceed a combined street frontage of
150 feet shall be one dwelling unit for each 2,000 square feet (OP3) of combined parcel area,
except where 100% of the proposed units are deed restricted for very low, low, middle, and/or
moderate income housing, in which case the density shall be one unit for each 1,500 square feet
of parcel area.
5. Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary in this subsection (A), accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units
37
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
established in accordance with Section 9.31.025 shall be deemed to meet the allowable density
for the parcel on which the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is located.
B. Maximum Height on Sloped Parcels—OP2 District. In the OP2 District, on upslope parcel where
the change in elevation is 10 feet or greater from the finished surface of the sidewalk adjacent to the
property line to the required rear setback line, the maximum allowable height for structures is:
1. One story and 14 feet in height for the first 15 feet of horizontal distance on the parcel measured
from the front parcel line.
2. 2 stories and 18 feet for a flat roof or 23 feet for a pitched roof for that portion of the structure
located between 15.1 feet and 30 feet from the front parcel line.
3. The maximum permitted height for structures beyond 30 feet from the front parcel line shall be
2 stories and 23 feet for a flat roof or 30 feet for structures with a pitched roof.
4. The finished grade shall be no more than 3 feet below or above the theoretical grade line at any
point adjacent to a building if excavation occurs. An opening to a garage may remain
unexcavated.
C. Front and Side Setbacks.
1. The front yard setback on Copeland Court shall be 30 feet measured from the center line of the
walkway.
2. The following formula shall be used to determine the required side setback for blank walls and
walls containing secondary windows. In the OP1 District, this formula shall also be used to
determine the required street side setback on lot parcels 50 feet or more in width. In the OP2,
OP3, and OP4 districts, it shall be used to determine the required street side setback on parcels
less than 50 feet in width. The setback is calculated as follows:
Setback (ft.) = 5′ + (stories x parcel width)
50′
3. Within the required side setback area for corner parcels 50 feet or greater in width, covered or
uncovered stairways or porches not exceeding 35% of the building frontage on the street side
may encroach up to 5 feet into the required side setback.
4. Within the required side or street side setback area for parcels 50 feet or greater in width, the
second floor side setback above a primary window shall not project more than 2 feet into the
required side setback.
D. Building Spacing. Buildings that face each other on the same lot shall be separated by the following
minimum distances:
1. 15 feet if one building has primary windows facing the other.
2. 25 feet when the windows of primary spaces in both buildings face each other on the ground or
second level, except 15 feet when they are visually separated by a solid wall or opaque fence
over 5 feet 6 inches in height.
3. 10 feet when secondary windows face each other or when a secondary window faces a blank
wall.
E. Roof Decks. The handrail surrounding a roof deck shall be set back a minimum of three feet from
the edge of the building at the side and rear yards.
38
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
F. Transition Requirements Adjacent to OP1 or OPD District. Where an OP2, OP3 or OP4 District
adjoins an OP1 or OPD District, the following standards apply:
1. The maximum height within 25 feet of an OP1 or OPD District is 23 feet for a building with a
flat roof and 27 feet for a building with a pitched roof.
2. The building setback from an OP1 or OPD District boundary shall be 10 feet for interior side
setbacks and 20 feet for rear setbacks.
3. A landscaped planting area, a minimum of 5 feet in width, shall be provided along all OP1 or
OPD District boundaries. A tree screen shall be planted in this area with trees planted at a
minimum interval of 15 feet.
FIGURE 9.09.030.F: TRANSITION REQUIREMENTS ADJACENT TO OP1 OR OPD
DISTRICT—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
G. Planting Areas. The following areas shall be landscaped, and may count toward the total area of
site landscaping required by Table 9.09.030.
1. Setback Areas Adjoining Streets. All visible portions of a required setback area adjoining a
street that are not used for driveways or walks shall be planting area or landscape. Recreational
vehicles, utility trailers, un-mounted camper tops, boats, cars, trucks, motorcycles, or other
vehicles shall not be parked or stored within a required planting or landscape area.
2. Interior Setback Areas. At least 50% of each required interior side setback and rear setback
shall be planting area having a minimum width of 7.5 feet adjoining a side or rear parcel line.
The width of a required planting area may be reduced to 3 feet in one side or rear setback area
adjoining a driveway or patio, and a nonresidential accessory structure may occupy a portion of
the planting area in a rear setback area.
3. Adjoining OP1 and OPD Districts. A continuous planting area having a minimum width of 5
feet shall be provided along interior parcel lines when an OP2, OP3, or OP4 District adjoins an
OP1 or OPD District. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended
by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 6, adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2524CCS § 3, adopted July 28,
2016; Ord. No. 2536CCS § 4, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 12, adopted
September 8, 2020)
39
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.10
DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Sections:
9.10.001 Incorporation of Downtown Community Plan Standards and Regulations
9.10.040 Land Use Regulations
9.10.070 Project Requirements for Tier 2 and Tier 3
9.10.001 Incorporation of Downtown Community Plan Standards and Regulations
Development standards for the Downtown Community Plan area are as prescribed in Chapter 4 of the
Downtown Community Plan adopted on [date]July 25, 2017, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Where Zoning Ordinance provisions are not specifically addressed by Chapter 4 of the Downtown
Community Plan, the Zoning Ordinance shall apply. Where there is conflict between compliance with
Chapter 4 of the Downtown Community Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4 of the Downtown
Community Plan shall control except where the conflicting Zoning Ordinance provision was adopted
through voter initiative in which case the initiative shall control. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2,
adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2551CCS § 3, adopted August 8, 2017)
9.10.040 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.10.040 prescribes the land use regulations for Downtown Districts. The regulations for each district
are established by letter designations below. These designations apply strictly to the permissibility of land
uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review.
“P” designates permitted uses.
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with specific limitations
listed at the end of the table.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit.
“CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use
Permit.
“—” designates uses that are not permitted.
Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51 (“Use Classifications”) of Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code (“Zoning Ordinance”). Use classifications and sub-classifications not listed in the table are prohibited.
Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and
customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal uses and which
are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses. The table also notes additional use
regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand column refer to other Sections of
this Ordinance.
TABLE 9.10.040 LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification LT NV
BC
(Promenade)
BC (2nd
& 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types See sub-classifications below.
Single Unit Dwelling L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P
Section 9.31.025
Accessory
Dwelling Units
40
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.10.040 LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification LT NV
BC
(Promenade)
BC (2nd
& 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Unit P P P P P P P
Section 9.31.025
Accessory Dwelling Units
and Junior
Accessory
Dwelling Units
Duplex P L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Multiple-Unit
StructureDwelling L(1)P L(3)P L(1) L(1) L(1)P L(1)P L(1)P
Section 9.31.195,
Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit
Residential L(1)P L(3)P L(1) L(1) L(1)P L(1)P L(1)P
Section 9.31.195,
Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Single-Room Occupancy
Housing L(1) L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Section 9.31.330,
Single Room
Occupancy
Structures
Group Residential MUP MUP,
L(3)
MUP,
L(1)
MUP,
L(1) MUP MUP MUP
Congregate Housing P MUP,
L(3) CUP, L(1) CUP,
L(1) MUP MUP MUP
Section 9.31.110,
Congregate and
Transitional
Housing
Senior Group Residential P MUP,
L(3)
MUP,
L(1)
MUP,
L(1)
MUP,
L(1)
MUP,
L(1)
MUP,
L(1)
Section 9.31.310,
Senior Group
Residential
Elderly and Long-Term
Care P L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Emergency Shelters L(6)/CU
P
L(6)/
CUP CUP/L(1)
L(1),
L(6)/
CUP
L(6)/
CUP
L(6)/
CUP
L(6)/
CUP
Section 9.31.130,
Emergency
Shelters
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.
Large L(1) L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Section 9.31.140,
Family Day Care,
Large
Small L(1) L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below.
Residential Care, General P L(3) L(1) L(1) P L(1) L(1) Section 9.31.270,
Residential Care
Facilities Residential Care, Limited P L(3) L(1) L(1) P L(1) L(1)
Residential Care, Senior P L(3) L(1) L(1) P L(1) L(1)
Hospice, General P L(3) L(1) L(1) P L(1) L(1)
Hospice, Limited P L(3) L(1) L(1) P L(1) L(1)
Supportive Housing P L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Transitional Housing P L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Section 9.31.110,
Congregate and
Transitional
Housing
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care L(1) L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Child Care and Early
Education Facilities P P L(1) P P P P
Section 9.31.120,
Child Care and
Early Education
Facilities
Colleges and Trade Schools,
Public or Private CUP L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Community Assembly L(7)/CUP CUP - P CUP L(1) L(7)/
41
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.10.040 LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification LT NV
BC
(Promenade)
BC (2nd
& 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
CUP
Community Gardens P P - P P P P
Cultural Facilities P P P P P P P
Hospitals and Clinics P P L(1) L(1) P - P
Park and Recreation Facilities,
Public P P P P P P P
Public Safety Facilities P P P P P P P
Schools, Public or Private CUP L(3) L(1) P P - CUP
Social Service Centers P P - P P P P
Section 9.31.350,
Social Service
Centers
Commercial Uses
Animal Care, Sales, and
Services See sub-classifications below.
Grooming and Pet Stores L(5)/CUP L(5)/
CUP L(5)/CUP L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
No more than 10
dogs or cats can
be kept overnight
Pet Day Care Services MUP MUP - MUP MUP MUP MUP
Veterinary Services MUP MUP - MUP MUP - MUP
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Service See sub-classifications below.
Alternative Fuels and
Recharging Facilities
CUP/
L(19)
CUP/
L(19) - - CUP/
L(19) - -
Automobile Rental L(10) L(10) L(10) L(10) L(10) L(10) L(10)
Automobile Storage Use - - - - - - -
New Automobile/Vehicle
Sales and Leasing
L(8),
L(5)/
CUP
L(8),
L(5)/
CUP
L(8), L(5)/
CUP
L(8),
L(5)/
CUP
L(8),
L(5)/
CUP
- -
Additions 7,500 sq ft or
less to Automobile/
Vehicle Sales and
Leasing buildings
existing as of 7/06/2010
L(20)/
MUP
- - - - - -
Section 9.31.070
Automobile/Vehi
cle Sales,
Leasing, and
Storage
Additions larger than
7,500 sq ft to
Automobile/Vehicle Sales
and Leasing buildings
existing as of 7/06/2010
L(20)/
CUP
- - - - - -
Automobile/Vehicle Repair,
Major
L(19) - - - - - -
Automobile/Vehicle Service
and Repair, Minor
L(19) - - - - - -
Automobile/Vehicle
Washing
L(19) - - - - - -
Service Station L(19) L(19) - - L(19) - -
Towing and Impound - - - - - - -
Banks and Financial
Institutions
See sub-classifications below.
Banks and Credit Unions L(4)/CU
P
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
- - L(4)/
CUP
L(4)/
CUP
L(4)/
CUP
Check Cashing Businesses - - - - - - -
Business Services L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
- L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
Commercial Entertainment and
Recreation See sub-classifications below.
Cinemas & Theaters, up to
99 seats
- CUP P P P - -
Cinemas & Theaters, more - - CUP CUP CUP - -
42
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.10.040 LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification LT NV
BC
(Promenade)
BC (2nd
& 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
than 99 seats
Convention and Conference
Centers
CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Large-Scale Facility L(21)/
CUP
L(21)/
CUP
L(21)/
CUP
L(21)/
CUP
L(21)/
CUP
L(21)/
CUP
-
Small-Scale Facility L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
Section 9.31.340
Small Scale
Facility
Fortunetelling P P P P P P P
Eating and Drinking
Establishments See sub-classifications below.
Bars/Nightclubs/Lounges CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
(10)
-
Restaurants, Full-Service,
Limited Service & Take-Out
(2,500 sq ft and smaller,
including Outdoor Dining
and Seating)
P P L(22) P P P P Section 9.31.040,
Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Restaurants, Full-Service,
Limited Service & Take-Out
(2,501 – 5,000 sq ft,
including Outdoor Dining
and Seating)
MUP P L(22) P P P MUP Section 9.31.280,
Restaurants,
Limited Service,
and Take-Out
Only
Restaurants, Full-Service,
Limited Service & Take-Out
(greater than 5,000 sq ft,
including Outdoor Dining
and Seating)
CUP P L(22) P P P CUP Section 9.31.200,
Outdoor Dining
and Seating
Equipment Rental - - - - L(5)/
CUP
- -
Food and Beverage Sales See sub-classifications below.
Convenience Market CUP L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
- Section 9.31.040,
Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Farmer’s Market CUP P P P P P P
General Market L(12)/
CUP
L(12)/
CUP
L(12)/
CUP
L(12)/
CUP
L(12)/
CUP
L(12)/
CUP
L(12)
/ CUP
Section 9.31.040,
Alcoholic
Beverage Sales Liquor Stores CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP -
Funeral Parlors and Mortuaries CUP - - - - - -
Instructional Services L(5)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/CU
P
L(1),
L(5)/CUP
L(5)/CU
P
L(5)/
CUP
L(1),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1),
L(5)/
CUP
Live-Work L(13) L(3)(13) L(1)(13) L(13) L(13) L(1)(13) L(13) Section 9.31.170,
Live-Work Units
Lodging See sub-classifications below.
Bed and Breakfast MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Section 9.31.090,
Bed and
Breakfasts
Hotels and Motels CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP,
L(19)
Maintenance and Repair
Services
L(5)/
CUP
- - - - - -
Nurseries and Garden Centers L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
- L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
- L(5)/
CUP
Section 9.31.220,
Outdoor Retail
Display and Sales
Offices See sub-classifications below.
Business and Professional L(14)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1) L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1)
43
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.10.040 LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification LT NV
BC
(Promenade)
BC (2nd
& 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
Creative L(14)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1) L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1)
Medical and Dental L(14)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1) L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1)
Walk-In Clientele L(14)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(5)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
Outdoor Newsstands MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Section 9.31.210,
Outdoor
Newsstands
Parking, Public or Private CUP CUP - CUP CUP,
L(11)
- CUP
Personal Services See sub-classifications below.
General Personal Services L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(1),
L(5)/CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
- L(5)/
CUP
Section 9.31.230,
Personal Service
Physical Training L(17),
L(5)/
CUP
L(17),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1),
L(17),
L(5)/CUP
L(17),
L(5)/
CUP
L(17),
L(5)/
CUP
L(17),
L(5)/
CUP
L(17),
L(5)/
CUP
Tattoo or Body Modification
Parlor
P P P P P P - Section 9.31.230,
Personal Service
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below.
Building Materials Sales
and Services
P - - - - - - Section 9.31.220,
Outdoor Retail
Display and Sales General Retail Sales, Small-
Scale
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
P L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
General Retail Sales,
Medium-Scale
CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP - CUP
General Retail Sales, Large-
Scale
- - - - - - -
Medical Marijuana
Dispensaries
CUP - - - - - - Section 9.31.185,
Medical
Marijuana
Dispensaries
Pawn Shops - - - - - - -
Swap Meets - - - - - - -
Industrial Uses
Artist’s Studio P P L(1) L(1) P P P
Commercial Kitchens - - - - CUP - -
Media Production See sub-classifications below.
Support Facilities L(14)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1) L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1)
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
Bus/Rail Passenger Stations P P P P P - P
City Bike Share Facility P P P P P P P
Communication Facilities See sub-classifications below.
Antennas and Transmission
Towers
- - - - - - -
Equipment within Buildings - - - - - - -
Light Fleet-Based Services - - - - MUP - -
Utilities, Major L(18) - - - - - -
Utilities, Minor P P P P P P P
44
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.10.040 LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification LT NV
BC
(Promenade)
BC (2nd
& 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
Specific Limitations:
(1) Limited to upper floors, and on the ground floor where the entire tenant space including the primary entry shall be located at least 50
feet from the front property line, except for residential units shall be limited to upper floors only.
(2) (Reserved)
(3) Between 4th and 47th Court, permitted in mid-block parcels on the ground floor and upper floors. On all other parcels, permitted
anywhere on the ground floor if the space has street frontage and was occupied by office on, or is vacant but was occupied by office
in the 12 months preceding, the date this Ordinance is effective; otherwise, permitted on upper floors and on the ground floor where
the entire tenant space including the primary entry is located at least 50 feet from the front property line.
(4) Permitted except no ground floor tenant space shall exceed 20 linear feet of ground floor street frontage without a Conditional Use
Permit.
(5) Permitted if within buildings existing as of the date the ordinance codified in this Chapter is effective. Permitted in new buildings,
except:
(a) No individual ground floor tenant space shall occupy more than 7,500 square feet of floor area and/or exceed 50 linear feet of
ground floor street frontage without a Conditional Use Permit.
(b) Ground floor tenant spaces in the Santa Monica Place are not subject to size limitations.
(6) Limited to shelters containing less than 55 beds; Conditional Use Permit required for emergency shelters with 55 or more beds.
(7) Any community assembly facility abutting a residential district shall require approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(8) Limited to alternative fuel vehicle automobile dealer showrooms only.
(9) (Reserved)
(10) Permitted as an ancillary use to support a primary use.
(11) Limited to public parking facilities only.
(12) General markets greater than 15,000 square feet require approval of a Conditional Use Permit, except general markets in the Mixed-
Use Boulevard district greater than 25,000 square feet require approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(13) If the commercial use requires a MUP or CUP, an application shall be required in accordance with SMMC, Chapter 9.41. Even if the
commercial use would otherwise be permitted, no such use shall be approved where, given the design or proposed design of the live-
work unit, there would be the potential for adverse health impacts from the proposed use on the people residing in the unit. An
example of a potential health impact is the potential for food contamination from users that generate airborne particulates in a unit
with an unenclosed kitchen.
(14) All new construction requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit or permitted if within buildings existing as of the date the
ordinance codified in this Chapter is effective, except:
(a) New additions of 50% or more additional square footage to an existing building at any one time, or incrementally, after the
effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter, requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(b) No ground floor, street-fronting, non-office or non-media production support facility use, non-medical or non-dental office use
tenant space shall be changed into an individual office use or a media production support facility use, or individual medical or
dental office use occupying more than 7,500 square feet of floor area and/or exceeding 50 linear feet of street frontage without the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(15) (Reserved)
(16) Limited to public parking facilities only.
(17) Youth-serving personal services, physical training requires review and approval of passenger loading and drop-off plan by the
Director.
(18) Limited to electric distribution substations.
(19) Limited to legally established existing uses as of the date this Specific Plan is effective.
(20) Auto dealerships existing as of July 6, 2010 are considered permitted uses. Expansions to existing dealerships conforming to the
urban auto dealership format standards in Section 9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing and Storage are permitted.
Expansions to existing dealerships of 7,500 square feet or less that do not conform to the urban auto dealership format standards shall
require an MUP. Expansions to existing dealerships larger than 7,500 square feet that do not conform to the urban auto dealership
formal standards shall require a CUP.
(21) No individual Fitness Center tenant space shall exceed 100 linear feet of ground floor street frontage without the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
(22) Restaurant, Limited-Service and Take-Out establishments with frontage on the Third Street Promenade and the following
characteristics shall be prohibited:
(a) More than 150 locations nationwide at the time that the application for the establishment is deemed complete by the City; and
(b) Characteristics, including but not limited to, orders placed at a walk-up window, counter, or machine; payment prior to food
consumption; and food served with disposable, one-time, or limited-use wrapping, containers, or utensils.
45
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
A. Conversion of Any Portion of an Eating and Drinking Establishment to Any Other New or
Expanded Use Located on the Ground Floor within the BC (Promenade) District.
1. The conversion of any portion of an eating and drinking establishment in existence as of the
effective date of this Plan to any other new or expanded use located on the ground floor within
the BC (Promenade) District shall obtain a Conditional Use Permit subject to the following
additional findings being made in the affirmative:
a. The proposed use would preserve the unique mixture of restaurants, retail, and
entertainment on the Third Street Promenade and maintain the vitality and diversity of the
Promenade;
b. The proposed use would retain at least 50% of the existing outdoor dining or 500 square
feet, whichever is greater;
c. For tenant spaces located on a corner, the eating and drinking establishment use must
remain entirely on the Third Street Promenade frontage. For tenant spaces not located on a
corner, the non-eating and drinking establishment use does not occupy more than 33% of
the Promenade frontage.. (Added by Ord. No. 2551CCS § 3, adopted August 8, 2017;
amended by Ord. No. 2606CCS § 4, adopted April 9, 2019; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 13,
adopted September 8, 2020; Ord. No. 2661CCS § 2, adopted January 26, 2021)
9.10.070 Project Requirements for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Projects
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to implement LUCE policies which require that as
development is approved above the base FAR and height, it must accompanied by a range of
community benefits from four priority categories: Affordable Housing, Trip Reduction and Traffic
Management, Community Physical Improvements, and Social and Cultural Facilities. In addition to
promoting the development of additional affordable housing and to maintaining existing City
programs that provide incentives for the production of affordable housing, these requirements are
intended to reduce the additional burdens more intense development allowed by the General Plan
will impose on the City by requiring applicants to pay additional fees to mitigate project impacts or,
in specific instances, allowing applicants to incorporate features into their projects.
B. Applicability.
1. Except for 100% Affordable Housing Projects, tThe requirements of this Chapter apply to all
non-housing projects involving new development and additions for which applicants propose to
exceed the Tier 1 maximum allowable base floor area or height allowed for Tier 1 projects. The
provisions of this Chapter establish the requirements under which additional floor area and
height may be allowed up to the Tier 2 or Tier 3 maximum standards established in the
Downtown Community Plan.
2. Pursuant to 9.10.030(D), Development Agreements and Planning Applications submitted on or
before November 11, 2016, shall have a vested right to proceed without complying with the
Downtown Community Plan except that they shall be subject to the following affordable
requirements:
a. 20% on-site affordable housing
b. 25% off-site affordable housing
C. Housing and Mixed-Use Residential Projects Qualifying Benefits for Projects with Residential.
An applicant seeking approval for a housing project that does not meet the definition under Section
9.52.020.1125 or mixed-use residential project that exceeds the base floor area ratio or height
allowed in the district where the project is located shall comply with the following requirements.
provide community benefits in each of the following categories.
1. Housing. All Tier 2 projects and Tier 3 projects must meet the following requirements:
46
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
a. Affordable Housing. Subject to the modifications contained in this Section 9.10.070, all of
the affordable units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 9.64. As set forth in Table
9.10.070.A, aApplicants proposing residential and mixed-use residential projects shall
incorporate on-site or off-site affordable housing units as set forth in Table 9.10.070.A. the
following:
i. A percentage of the total number of units in the project, corresponding with the height or
FAR of the project, shall be deed-restricted as on-site affordable housing units. Any
fractional affordable housing unit that results from this formula shall be provided as a
whole affordable housing unit (i.e., any resulting fraction shall be rounded up to be the next
larger integer).
TABLE 9.10.070.A: ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Height (Feet)
On-Site
Affordable
Housing %
Off-Site
Affordable
Housing %
On-Site Affordable Housing
% for Development
Agreements and Planning
Applications Complete on or
before 11/11/16
Off-Site Affordable Housing
% for Development
Agreements and Planning
Applications Complete on or
before 11/11/16
40-50 20% 25% 20% 25%
52 21% 26% 20% 25%
54 22% 27% 20% 25%
56 23% 28% 20% 25%
58 24% 29% 20% 25%
60 25% 30% 20% 25%
62 26% 31% 20% 25%
64 27% 32% 20% 25%
66 28% 33% 20% 25%
68 29% 34% 20% 25%
70-84 30% 35% 20% 25%
TABLE 9.10.070.A: ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Tier
On-Site Affordable
Housing %
Off-Site Affordable
Housing %
Tier 2 20% 25%
Tier 3 25% 30%
ii. Affordable housing units may be provided offsite pursuant to Section 9.64.060 except
that the total number of affordable housing units shall be increased to the percentage
of the total number of units in the project as set forth in Table 9.10.070.A. The off-
site affordable housing units shall meet the following conditions:
(1) The affordable housing units are owned in whole or part and operated by a non-
profit housing provider for the life of the project;
(2) The Final Construction Permit Sign Off or Certificate of Occupancy for the
affordable units is issued prior to or concurrently with the Tier 2 or qualifying
Tier 3 project residential or mixed-use residential project; and
(3) The location of the offsite location shall be within the boundaries of the
Downtown or within a one-quarter mile radius of the market rate units. The off-
site units may be located anywhere in the City except for within the area defined
47
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
in Figure 9.64.060.A, Off-Site Affordable Housing Prohibition Area, in Section
0.64.060, Off-Site Option.
iii. The total number of affordable housing units shall incorporate the affordability mix
specified in Table 9.10.070.B. Any fractional affordable housing units that result
from the percentage mix of total affordable housing units shall be aggregated into
whole affordable housing units (i.e., any resulting fraction shall be added to other
resulting fractions). The resulting whole units may be provided at 30%, 50%, 80%,
or Moderate-income household affordability levels.
TABLE 9.10.070.B. AFFORDABILITY
Affordability Level Affordability Mix for
Affordable Housing
Units in Tier 2
Projectsof Total
Number of Affordable
Housing Units
Affordability Mix for
Affordable Housing
Units in Tier 3
Projects
30% Income Household 20%
50% Income Household 20%10%5% 5%
80% Income Household 30%5% 10%
Moderate Income 30%10% 10%
TABLE 9.10.070.B. AFFORDABILITY
Affordability Level Affordability Mix for
Affordable Housing
Units in Tier 2
Projects
Affordability Mix for
Affordable Housing
Units in Tier 3
Projects
50% Income Household 10% 10%
80% Income Household 5% 10%
Moderate Income 5% 5%
iv. An affordable housing unit shall have a minimum total floor area of no less than the
average floor area of comparable market rate units in the project.
b. Unit Mix. Applicants proposing Tier 2 and Tier 3 residential and mixed-use projects shall
incorporate the following:
i. For market rate units:
(1) At least 150% of the units shall be three-bedroom units;
(2) At least 2015% of the units shall be two-bedroom units; and:
(3) No more than 15% of the units shall be studio units.;
(4) The average number of bedrooms for all of the market rate units combined shall
be 1.2 or greater; and
(54) Notwithstanding subsections (C)(2)(a)(i) through (iii) above, any fractional
housing unit less than 0.5 that results from this unit mix shall be rounded down
48
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
to the next lower integer. Any fractional housing unit of 0.5 or more that results
from this units mix shall be rounded up to the next larger integer.
ii. For affordable housing units:
(1) (1) The average number of bedroomsunit mix percentage for affordable two
and three bedroom for all of the affordable housing units shall be combined
shall be equal to or greater than the unit mix percentage required average
number of bedrooms provided for all of the corresponding market rate units
pursuant to subsection (C)(21)(ab) (i) of this Section;.
(1)(2) The unit mix percentage for studio affordable housing units shall not
exceed 15% of the total number of affordable units; and
(32) Affordable housing units shall be no smaller than the average size of comparable
market rate units in the project.
iii. The Director may grant a waiver from this unit mix requirement pursuant to the
requirements and procedures for Waivers in SMMC Chapter 9.43.
2. Transportation Impact Fee. All Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects shall pay an additional Transportation
Impact Fee (TIF) of 90% of the maximum allowable fee established in the Transportation Impact
Fee nexus study, for that portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed
by the Downtown Community Plan.
3. Open Space. All Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects shall pay an additional Parks and Recreation
Development Impact Fee of 90% of the maximum allowable fee established in the Parks and
Recreation Fee nexus study for that portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor
area allowed by the Downtown Community Plan.
4. Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee. All Tier 2 and Tier 3 commercial portions of
mixed-use projects shall pay a housing mitigation fee 23% above the base fee as required by
Chapter 9.68, Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee Program for that portion of the floor
area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by the Downtown Community Plan.
5. Transportation Demand Management. All Tier 2 and Tier 3 residential and mixed-use projects
shall include the following Transportation Demand Management measures in addition to those
required by Chapter 9.53, Transportation Demand Management:
a. For nonresidential components of projects, provide the following:
i. Bike valet, free of charge, during all automobile valet operating hours.
b. For residential components of projects, provide the following:
i. Free on-site shared bicycles intended for resident and guest use. This shall be optional
if Citywide bikeshare is available within a 2-block radius of the project site.
D. All Other Projects Qualifying Benefits. An applicant seeking approval for Tier 2 and Tier 3
projects up to 30,000 square feet that are not residential or mixed-use projects that exceed the base
floor area or height allowed in the district where the project is located shall provide community
benefits in each of the following categories.
1. Impact Fees.
a. Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee. Tier 2 and Tier 3 up to 30,000 square feet –
Projects shall pay a housing mitigation fee 23% above the base fee as required by Chapter
49
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9.68, Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee Program for that portion of the floor
area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by the Downtown Community Plan.
b. Transportation Impact Fee. Tier 2 and Tier 3 up to 30,000 square feet – Projects shall pay
an additional transportation impact fee (TIF) 23% above the base fee required by Chapter
9.66, Transportation Impact Fee Program, for that portion of the floor area above the
maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by the Downtown Community Plan.
c. Open Space. Tier 2 and Tier 3 up to 30,000 square feet. Projects shall pay an additional
parks and recreation development impact fee 23% above the base fee required by Chapter
9.67, Parks and Recreation Fee Program, for that portion of the floor area above the
maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by the Downtown Community Plan.
2. Transportation Demand Management. All Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects shall include the following
Transportation Demand Management measures in addition to those required by Chapter 9.53,
Transportation Demand Management: bike valet, free of charge, during all automobile valet
operating hours. (Added by Ord. No. 2551CCS § 3, adopted August 8, 2017; amended by Ord.
No. 2606CCS § 5, adopted April 9, 2019; Ord. No. 2648CCS § 2, adopted September 8, 2020)
50
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.11
MIXED-USE AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
Sections:
9.11.010 Purpose
9.11.020 Land Use Regulations
9.11.030 Development Standards
9.11.010 Purpose
The purposes of the “Mixed-Use and Commercial” Districts are to:
A. Transform auto-oriented boulevards and corridors into vibrant, diverse, and attractive corridors that
support a mix of predominantly residential uses along with pedestrian and neighborhood serving
uses in order to achieve an active social environment within a revitalized streetscape.
B. Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of currently underused sites consistent with
the General Plan.
C. Increase housing for all income levels along boulevards and encourage a mix of uses that promotes
convenience, economic vitality, fiscal stability, and a pleasant quality of life.
D. Establish design standards that improve the visual quality of development and create a unified,
distinctive, and attractive character along commercial and mixed-use corridors.
E. Provide appropriate buffers and transition standards between commercial and residential uses to
preserve both commercial and mixed-use feasibility and residential quality and provide a sensitive
transition between the commercial uses and neighboring residences.
The specific designations and the additional purposes of the Mixed-Use and Commercial Districts are:
MUBL Mixed-Use Boulevard Low. This Zoning District is intended to facilitate the transformation of
sections of boulevards into vibrant, highly walkable areas with broad, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, trees,
landscaping, and local-serving uses with new buildings that step down in relationship to the scale and
character of adjacent low density neighborhoods. Allowable ground floor uses include active, local-serving
retail, open spaces such as plazas, service-oriented commercial uses, and residential, and hotel uses in
limited areas. Residential development for all income levels is the predominant use above the first floor.
MUB Mixed-Use Boulevard. This Zoning District is intended to facilitate the transformation of
underutilized and auto-oriented sections of boulevards into vibrant, diverse, and attractive pedestrian
friendly mixed-use boulevards that support local-serving retail and a diversity of housing types. The Mixed-
Use Boulevard District provides an environment that will accommodate affordable, workforce, and market-
rate housing, stepping down in height and mass when adjacent to residential neighborhoods, as well as a
variety of local-serving uses. Allowable ground floor uses include local-serving retail uses, ground floor
open spaces such as small parks and plazas, service-oriented commercial uses, and some small-scale office
uses. Residential development for all income levels is the predominant use above the first floor in certain
locations. In parts of the District, especially along the south side of Wilshire, medical and dental offices are
allowed on all floors.
GC General Commercial. This Zoning District is intended to maintain areas for affordable and market
rate housing and a broad range of commercial uses that provide necessary daily services such as auto sales
and auto repair, convenience retail, hotels, hardware stores, and small restaurants while respecting adjacent
residential neighborhoods and established neighborhood commercial areas.
NC Neighborhood Commercial. This Zoning District is intended to maintain and enhance small-scale
neighborhood shopping districts that provide daily goods and services easily accessible from surrounding
51
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
residential neighborhoods while also serving a sub-regional role. This District provides for a scale and
character of development that is pedestrian-oriented and which tends to attract and promote a walk-in
clientele. Development within this District should maximize human-scaled elements while providing a
sensitive transition between these uses and neighboring residential areas. Ground floor uses include active,
local-serving retail and service commercial uses such as small restaurants, laundromats, dry cleaners,
beauty/barber shops, and clothing and grocery stores. Uses above the ground floor include residential,
commercial, and local-serving office uses. This District is comprised of four geographic areas:
Main Street. Main Street is a neighborhood commercial street that is home to many boutiques,
restaurants, and neighborhood-serving businesses. Main Street has both local and regional appeal,
providing an eclectic mix of activities that is unique to Southern California.
Ocean Park Boulevard. Ocean Park Boulevard is a local-serving boulevard with two vibrant,
neighborhood-serving commercial areas. The boulevard is a complete street for pedestrians, bicycles,
transit, and autos, with an enhanced streetscape and dining, retail, and service needs within walking
distance of the Sunset Park and Pico neighborhoods.
Pico Boulevard. Pico Boulevard is a local-serving, commercial boulevard that provides an enhanced
environment for pedestrians and includes a wider choice of local-serving retail, expanded mobility,
and shared parking.
Montana Avenue. Montana Avenue serves as a local, commercial, and entertainment street that also
draws regional visitors who enjoy its many cafés and boutique stores. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS
§§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.11.020 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.11.020 prescribes the land use regulations for Mixed-Use and Commercial Districts. The
regulations for each district are established by letter designations below. These designations apply strictly
to the permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review.
“P” designates permitted uses.
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with specific limitations
listed at the end of the table.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit.
“CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use
Permit.
“—” designates uses that are not permitted.
Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51 (“Use Classifications”) of Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal
code (“Zoning Ordinance”). Use classifications and sub-classifications not listed in the table are prohibited.
Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and
customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal uses and which
are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses. The table also notes additional use
regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand column refer to other Sections of
this Ordinance.
TABLE 9.11.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
Use Classification MUBL MUB GC NC Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types See sub-classifications below.
Single Unit Dwelling P P P P
52
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.11.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
Use Classification MUBL MUB GC NC Additional Regulations
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit p p p p
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Duplex P P P P
Multiple-Unit StructureDwelling P P P PL(1) Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit Residential P P P PL(1) Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Single-Room Occupancy Housing P P P P Section 9.31.330, Single Room
Occupancy Structures
Group Residential MUP MUP MUP MUP
Congregate Housing P P P P Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Senior Group Residential P P P P Section 9.31.310, Senior Group
Residential
Elderly and Long-Term Care P P P –
Emergency Shelters L(3)/CUP L(3)/CUP L(3)/CUP L(3)/CUP Section 9.31.130, Emergency
Shelters
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.
Large P P P P Section 9.31.140, Family Day
Care, Large
Small P P P P
Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below.
Residential Care, General P P P P Section 9.31.270, Residential
Care Facilities
Residential Care, Limited P P P P Section 9.31.270, Residential
Care Facilities
Residential Care, Senior P P P P Section 9.31.270, Residential
Care Facilities
Hospice, General P P P P
Hospice, Limited P P P P
Supportive Housing P P P P
Transitional Housing P P P P Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care P P P L(2)/CUP
Child Care and Early Education Facilities P P P L(2)/CUP Section 9.31.120, Child Care and
Early Education Facilities
Colleges and Trade Schools, Public or Private CUP CUP P CUP
Community Assembly L(18)/CUP L(18)/CUP L(18)/CUP L(18)/CUP
Community Gardens P P P P
Cultural Facilities P P P L(2)/CUP
Hospitals and Clinics – P CUP –
Park and Recreation Facilities, Public P P P P
Public Safety Facilities P P P CUP
Schools, Public or Private P CUP CUP P
Social Service Centers P P P P Section 9.31.350, Social Service
Centers
Commercial Uses
Animal Care, Sales, and Services See sub-classifications below.
53
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.11.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
Use Classification MUBL MUB GC NC Additional Regulations
Grooming and Pet Stores L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(2)/CUP No more than 10 dogs or cats may
be kept overnight
Pet Day Care Services MUP MUP MUP MUP
Veterinary Services MUP MUP MUP MUP
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Service See sub-classifications below.
Alternative Fuels and Recharging Facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP
Automobile Rental CUP MUP MUP – Section 9.31.050, Automobile
Rental
Automobile Storage Use L(4)/CUP – – –
New Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing – – CUP(6) –
Section 9.31.070,
Automobile/Vehicle Sales,
Leasing, and Storage
Additions 7,500 square feet or less to
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing
buildings existing as of 07/06/2010
L(5)/MUP L(5)/MUP L(5)/MUP –
Section 9.31.070,
Automobile/Vehicle Sales,
Leasing, and Storage
Additions larger than 7,500 square feet
to Automobile/
Vehicle Sales and Leasing buildings
existing as of 07/06/2010
CUP (5) CUP (5) CUP (5) –
Section 9.31.070,
Automobile/Vehicle Sales,
Leasing, and Storage
Automobile/Vehicle Repair, Major – – CUP –
Section 9.31.060,
Automobile/Vehicle Repair,
Major and Minor
Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair,
Minor CUP – CUP –
Section 9.31.060,
Automobile/Vehicle Repair,
Major and Minor
Automobile/Vehicle Washing – – CUP – Section 9.31.080,
Automobile/Vehicle Washing
Service Station CUP CUP MUP – Section 9.31.320, Service Stations
Towing and Impound – – CUP –
Banks and Financial Institutions See sub-classifications below.
Banks and Credit Unions L(2)/CUP L(2)/CUP L(2)/CUP L(2)/CUP
Check Cashing Businesses – – – –
Business Services L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(2)/CUP
Commercial Entertainment and Recreation See sub-classifications below.
Cinemas L(7) – – L(7)
Theaters L(8)/CUP L(8)/CUP L(8)/CUP L(8)/CUP
Convention and Conference Centers – CUP CUP –
Large-Scale Facility CUP CUP CUP -
Small-Scale Facility L(9)/CUP L(9)/CUP L(9)/CUP CUP (16) Section 9.31.340, Small-Scale
Facility, Game Arcades
Fortunetelling P P P P
Eating and Drinking Establishments See sub-classifications below.
Bars/Nightclubs/Lounges CUP CUP CUP - Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Restaurants, Full-Service, Limited Service
& Take-Out (2,500 square feet and smaller,
including Outdoor Dining and Seating)
P P P L(10)(11)
Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Section 9.31.280, Restaurants,
Limited Service and Take-Out
Only
Section 9.31.290, Restaurants
With Entertainment
Section 9.31.200, Outdoor Dining
and Seating
Restaurants, Full-Service, Limited Service MUP MUP MUP MUP (10)(11) Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
54
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.11.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
Use Classification MUBL MUB GC NC Additional Regulations
& Take-Out (2,501 – 5,000 square feet,
including Outdoor Dining and Seating)
Beverage Sales
Section 9.31.280, Restaurants,
Limited Service and Take-Out
Only
Section 9.31.290, Restaurants
With Entertainment
Section 9.31.200, Outdoor Dining
and Seating
Restaurants, Full-Service, Limited Service
& Take-Out (greater than 5,000 square
feet, including Outdoor Dining and
Seating)
CUP CUP CUP CUP (10)(11)
Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Section 9.31.280, Restaurants,
Limited Service and Take-Out
Only
Section 9.31.290, Restaurants
With Entertainment
Section 9.31.200, Outdoor Dining
and Seating
Equipment Rental – L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP –
Food and Beverage Sales See sub-classifications below.
Convenience Market CUP CUP CUP CUP Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Farmers Markets CUP CUP CUP CUP
General Market L(12)/CUP L(12)/CUP L(12)/CUP L(12)/CUP Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Liquor Stores CUP CUP CUP CUP Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Funeral Parlors and Mortuaries – CUP CUP –
Instructional Services L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(17)/CUP
Live-Work L(14) L(14) L(14) L(14) Section 9.31.170, Live-Work
Lodging See sub-classifications below.
Bed and Breakfast MUP MUP MUP MUP Section 9.31.090, Bed and
Breakfasts
Hotels and Motels CUP CUP CUP –
Maintenance and Repair Services L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(2)/CUP
Nurseries and Garden Centers L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(17)/CUP Section 9.31.220, Outdoor Retail
Display and Sales
Offices See sub-classifications below.
Business and Professional L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP
Creative L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP
Medical and Dental L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP
Walk-In Clientele L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP
Outdoor Newsstands MUP MUP MUP MUP Section 9.31.210, Outdoor
Newsstands
Parking, Public or Private CUP CUP CUP CUP
Personal Services See sub-classifications below.
General Personal Services L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(2)/CUP Section 9.31.230, Personal
Service
Personal Services, Physical Training L(19)(20) L(19)(20) L(19)(20) L(2)(20)/CUP
Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor P P P P Section 9.31.230, Personal
Service
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below.
Building Materials Sales and Services – – CUP – Section 9.31.220, Outdoor Retail
Display and Sales
55
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.11.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
Use Classification MUBL MUB GC NC Additional Regulations
General Retail Sales, Small-Scale L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(19)/CUP L(2)/CUP Section 9.31.220, Outdoor Retail
Display and Sales
General Retail Sales, Medium-Scale CUP CUP L(19)/CUP – Section 9.31.220, Outdoor Retail
Display and Sales
General Retail Sales, Large-Scale – – CUP – Section 9.31.220, Outdoor Retail
Display and Sales
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries CUP(15) CUP(15) CUP(15) – Section 9.31.185, Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries
Pawn Shops – – – –
Swap Meets – – CUP – Section 9.31.360, Swap Meets
Industrial Uses
Artist’s Studio P P P P
Commercial Kitchens – – CUP –
Media Production See sub-classifications below.
Support Facilities L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP L(21)/CUP
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
Bus/Rail Passenger Stations P P P P
City Bikeshare Facility P P P P
Communication Facilities See sub-classifications below.
Antennas and Transmission Towers – – CUP –
Equipment within Buildings – – P –
Light Fleet-Based Services – – CUP –
Utilities, Major – L(13) L(13) –
Utilities, Minor P P P P
Specific Limitations:
(1) Reserved.Limited to the upper floors and areas not subject to the Active Use Requirement in Section 9.11.030(A) for parcels located on
Main Street, Montana Avenue, Pico Boulevard, and Ocean Park Boulevard. Permitted on all floors for all other parcels.
(2) Limited to facilities with no more than 7,500 square feet of floor area and/or 40 linear feet of ground floor street frontage; greater area
and/or width requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(3) Limited to shelters containing less than 55 beds; Conditional Use Permit required for emergency shelters with 55 or more beds.
(4) Limited to automobile storage use associated with existing automobile dealerships selling new vehicles; otherwise, requires Conditional
Use Permit.
(5) Auto dealerships existing as of July 6, 2010 are considered permitted uses. Expansions to existing dealerships conforming to the Urban
Auto Dealership Format standards in Section 9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and Storage are permitted. Expansions to
existing dealerships that do not conform to the Urban Auto Dealership Format standards shall require a MUP or CUP.
(6) New auto dealerships may be allowed, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit, only on sites with frontage on Santa Monica
Boulevard between Lincoln Boulevard and 20th Street on Lincoln Boulevard between Interstate 10 and Santa Monica Boulevard. In other
locations, new automobile dealerships are not permitted.
(7) Limited to existing cinema buildings. New cinemas are not permitted.
(8) Limited to theaters with 75 or fewer seats. Theaters with more than 75 seats require Conditional Use Permit.
(9) Limited to exercise facilities (e.g., yoga, Pilates, martial arts, and dance studios) and arts instruction facilities. Other small-scale
commercial recreation uses require approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(10) Limited to restaurants with 50 or fewer seats.
(11) Limited to 2 restaurants greater than 2,500 square feet per block along Main Street. A block is defined as both sides of Main Street and
the adjacent sides of adjoining side streets. Portions of Main Street to be designated a “block” for the purpose of this Section are as
follows:
Block 1: South City limits to Marine Street.
Block 2: Marine Street to Pier Avenue.
Block 3: Pier Avenue to Ashland Avenue.
Block 4: Ashland Avenue to Hill.
Block 5: Hill to Ocean Park Boulevard.
Block 6: Ocean Park Boulevard to Hollister Avenue (total of four restaurants and bars permitted in this block).
Block 7: Hollister Avenue to Strand.
Block 8: Strand to Pacific.
Block 9: Pacific to Bicknell.
56
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.11.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
Use Classification MUBL MUB GC NC Additional Regulations
Block 10: Bicknell to Bay.
Block 11: Bay to Pico Boulevard.
North of Ocean Park Boulevard restaurants shall be subject to the following requirements:
• Only one restaurant on the east side of each block shall be permitted.
• No more than 200 seats per each block shall be permitted, except that no more than 400 seats shall be permitted in Block 6.
On-sale alcohol outlets may not exceed 12 in number north of Ocean Park Boulevard. Of the 12 total on-sale outlets, no more than 5
shall have on-sale general licenses.
Bars may not exceed 4 in number south of Ocean Park Boulevard, nor 2 in number north of Ocean Park Boulevard.
Existing uses and existing number of seats shall count toward the total number of bars and restaurants and seating requirements
permitted within the district.
(12) General markets greater than 15,000 square feet require a Conditional Use Permit. In the Neighborhood Commercial District,
establishments shall not exceed 25,000 square feet of floor area.
(13) Limited to electric distribution substations.
(14) If the commercial use requires a MUP or CUP, an application shall be required in accordance with Chapter 9.41. Even if the commercial
use would otherwise be permitted, no such use shall be approved where, given the design or proposed design of the live-work unit, there
would be the potential for adverse health impacts from the proposed use on the people residing in the unit. An example of a potential
health impact is the potential for food contamination from uses that generate airborne particulates in a unit with an unenclosed kitchen.
(15) Medical marijuana dispensaries are limited to the following locations:
• MUB District along Wilshire Boulevard between Lincoln Boulevard and Centinela Avenue;
• GC District along Santa Monica Boulevard between Lincoln Boulevard and 20th Street; and
• MUBL District along Santa Monica Boulevard between 23rd Street and Centinela Avenue.
(16) Limited to facilities of no more than 3,000 square feet of floor area.
(17) No individual tenant space in the NC District shall occupy more than 7,500 square feet of floor area and/or exceed 50 linear feet of
ground floor street frontage without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(18) Any community assembly facility abutting a residential district shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
(19) No individual tenant space in the MUBL, MUB, and GC Districts shall occupy more than 12,500 square feet of floor area and/or exceed
75 linear feet of ground floor street frontage without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(20) Youth-serving personal services, physical training requires review and approval of a passenger loading and drop-off plan by the
Director.
(21) Permitted if within buildings existing as of July 24, 2015, subject to the active use requirement in Section 9.11.030(A)(1), except:
• All new construction, including new additions of 50% or more additional square footage to an existing building at any one
time, or incrementally, after the effective date of this Ordinance, requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
• In the NC District, ground floor, street-fronting, tenant space occupied by non-media production, support facility uses shall not
be changed to an individual office use or media production, support facility use occupying more than 12,500 square feet of
floor area and/or exceeding 75 linear feet of street frontage without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
• In the NC District, no non-medical or non-dental office use tenant space shall be changed to an individual medical or dental
office use anywhere in an existing building occupying more than 7,500 square feet of floor area and/or exceeding 50 linear feet
of ground floor street frontage without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
• In the MUBL, MUB, and GC Districts, no non-medical or non-dental office use tenant space shall be changed to an individual
medical or dental office use anywhere in an existing building occupying more than 12,500 square feet of floor area and/or
exceeding 75 linear feet of ground floor street frontage without approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 2, adopted June 14, 2016;
Ord. No. 2521CCS § 1, adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2536CCS § 5, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2606CCS § 6,
adopted April 9, 2019; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 14, adopted September 8, 2020)
9.11.030 Development Standards
Table 9.11.030.A, Development Standards for Projects Not Meeting the Definition of a Housing Project,
prescribes the development standards for Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts. Additional regulations are
denoted with Section numbers in the right-hand column or with individual letters in parentheses. Section
numbers refer to other Sections of this Article, while individual letters in parentheses refer to subsections
that directly follow the table.
57
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.11.030.A: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS NOT MEETING THE DEFINITION OF HOUSING
PROJECT — COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
Standard MUBL MUB
GC
(Santa
Monica
Blvd)
GC
(Lincoln &
Pico
Blvds)
NC
NC
(Main
Street)
NC
(Ocean
Park Blvd
&
Montana
Ave)
Additional
Regulations
Parcel and Intensity Standards
Minimum Parcel Size (sq.
ft.) 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 5,000 5,000
See (E) 5,000
Minimum Parcel Width (ft.) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 150 150 150 150 100 100 100
Maximum FAR Section 9.04.080,
Determining FAR
Tier 1 — Base Standard 1.25 1.25 1.0 1.25 1.25 0.75 0.75
Tier 1 — Projects
Including On-Site
Affordable Housing in
Compliance with AHPP
1.5 1.5 1.25 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0
Chapter 9.64,
Affordable Housing
Production Program
Tier 2 — With Provision
of Community Benefits 1.75 2.25 1.5
1.75 (2.0 if
on-site
affordable
housing
provided)
NA NA NA Chapter 9.23,
Community Benefits
100% Affordable Housing
Projects 2.0 2.75 1.5 2.0
1.75; 2.0,
on Pico
Blvd only
1.25 1.25
Chapter 9.64,
Affordable Housing
Production Program
Building Form and Location
Maximum Building Height (stories/ft.) Section 9.04.050,
Measuring Height
Tier 1 — Base Standard 2/32′ 2/32′ 2/32′ 2/32′ 2/32′ 2/27′ 2/32′
Tier 1 — Projects
Including On-Site
Affordable Housing in
Compliance with AHPP
3/36′
3/39′ if
100%
residential
above
ground
floor, 3/35′
for all
other
projects
NA 3/36′ 2/32′ 2/27′ 2/32′
Chapter 9.64,
Affordable Housing
Production Program
Tier 2 —
With Provision of
Community Benefits
3/36′ 3/45′ 2/35′
3/32′
(3/36′ if
on-site
affordable
housing
provided)
NA NA NA Chapter 9.23,
Community Benefits
Tier 2—
With Provision of
Community Benefits and
100% Residential Above
the Ground Floor
No limit to
stories/36′
No limit to
stories/50′
No limit to
stories/35′
No limit to
stories/32′
(36′ if on-
site
affordable
housing
provided)
NA NA NA Chapter 9.23,
Community Benefits
58
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.11.030.A: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS NOT MEETING THE DEFINITION OF HOUSING
PROJECT — COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
Standard MUBL MUB
GC
(Santa
Monica
Blvd)
GC
(Lincoln &
Pico
Blvds)
NC
NC
(Main
Street)
NC
(Ocean
Park Blvd
&
Montana
Ave)
Additional
Regulations
100% Affordable Housing
Projects
No Limit
to
stories/47’
No Limit
to
stories/55’
No Limit
to
stories/35’
No Limit
to
stories/40’
No Limit
to
stories/32
’; 40’ on
Pico Blvd
Only
No Limit
to
stories/32’
No Limit
to
stories/32’
Chapter 9.64,
Affordable Housing
Production Program
Minimum Ground Floor
Height (ft.) 11′ 11′ 11′ 11′ 11′ 11′ 11′
Maximum Ground Floor
Height 16′ 16′ 16′ 16′ 16′ 16′ 16′
Maximum Building Footprint(sq. ft.)
Tier 1 25,000 25,000 25,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Tier 2 — With Provision
of Community Benefits 35,000 35,000 35,000 20,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Chapter 9.23,
Community Benefits
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Minimum Interior Side
and Rear—Adjacent to
Residential District
10 10 10 10 10 10
See (E) 10
Section 9.21.110,
Projections from
Buildings into
Minimum Setbacks
Parking See Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking and 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development Standards
Active Commercial Design See (A) See (A) See (A) See (A) See (A) See (A) See (A)
Pedestrian Oriented Design See (B) See (B) See (B) See (B) See (B) See (B) See (B)
Build-To Line,
Nonresidential Uses See (C) See (C) See (C) See (C) See (C) See (C) See (C)
Minimum Upper-Story Stepbacks (ft.)—Required Above Maximum the Ground Floor Height
Street-Facing Façades 5′ average 5′ average 5′ average 5′ average 5′
average 5′ average 5′ average
Daylight Plane Adjacent to
Residential District—Interior
Side and Rear Setbacks
See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D) Section 9.21.060,
Height Exceptions
Standards for Residential Uses
Minimum Outdoor Living
Area (sq. ft./unit)—Sites
with 3 or More Units
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Section 9.21.090,
Outdoor Living Area
Minimum Amount
Provided as Private
Outdoor Living Area (sq.
ft./unit)
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Section 9.21.090,
Outdoor Living Area
Additional Standards
Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Food Service Section 9.31.030, Accessory Food Service
Accessory Structures Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Affordable Housing
Production Program Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program
Automobile/ Vehicle Sales,
Leasing, and Storage Section 9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and Storage
Density Bonus Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus
Exceptions to Height Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Exceptions
Fences and Walls Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
59
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.11.030.A: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS NOT MEETING THE DEFINITION OF HOUSING
PROJECT — COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
Standard MUBL MUB
GC
(Santa
Monica
Blvd)
GC
(Lincoln &
Pico
Blvds)
NC
NC
(Main
Street)
NC
(Ocean
Park Blvd
&
Montana
Ave)
Additional
Regulations
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Landscaping and Street
Trees Subsection 9.11.030(F), Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects Located on
Community Assembly
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking
Lots
Off-Street Parking and
Loading Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Projections into Required
Setbacks Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks
Refuse and Recycling
Screening and Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Signs Chapter 9.61, Signs
Screening Section 9.21.140, Screening
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
Refuse and Recycling
Screening and Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Table 9.11.030.B, Development Standards For Projects That Meet the Definition of Housing Project,
prescribes the development standards for Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts. Additional regulations are
denoted with Section numbers in the right-hand column or with individual letters in parentheses. Section
numbers refer to other Sections of this Article, while individual letters in parentheses refer to subsections
that directly follow the table.
TABLE 9.11.030.B: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF HOUSING PROJECT — COMMERCIAL
AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
Standard
MUBL
(N. of
I-10)
MUBL
(Pico
Blvd)
MUBL
(Lincoln Blvd
& Main St)
MUB
GC
(Santa
Monica
Blvd)
GC
(Lincoln
Blvd)
GC
(Pico
Blvd)
NC
NC
(Main St, Ocean
Park Blvd, &
Montana Ave)
Additional
Regulations
Parcel and Intensity Standards
Minimum Parcel
Size (sq. ft.) 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 5,000 5,000
See (E)
Minimum Parcel
Width (ft.) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Minimum Parcel
Depth (ft.) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 100
Maximum FAR Section 9.04.080,
Determining FAR
60
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.11.030.B: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF HOUSING PROJECT — COMMERCIAL
AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
Standard
MUBL
(N. of
I-10)
MUBL
(Pico
Blvd)
MUBL
(Lincoln Blvd
& Main St)
MUB
GC
(Santa
Monica
Blvd)
GC
(Lincoln
Blvd)
GC
(Pico
Blvd)
NC
NC
(Main St, Ocean
Park Blvd, &
Montana Ave)
Additional
Regulations
Housing
Projects 3.25
2.0
(2.5 west
of
Lincoln
Blvd)
2.5 3.25 3.25 2.5 2.0 2.25 2.5
100%
Affordable
Housing
Projects
3.75
2.5
(3.0 west
of
Lincoln
Blvd)
3.0 3.75 3.75 3.0 2.5 2.75 3.0
Building Form and Location
Maximum Building Height (ft.) Section 9.04.050,
Measuring Height
Housing
Projects 70’
45’
(55’
west of
Lincoln
Blvd)
55’ 70’ 70’ 55’ 45’ 50’ 55’
100%
Affordable
Housing
Projects
80’
55’
(65’
west of
Lincoln
Blvd)
65’ 80’ 80’ 65’ 55’ 60’ 65’
Minimum
Ground Floor
Height (ft.)
11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’
Maximum Building Footprint (sq. ft.)
Housing
Projects 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 20,000 20,000 15,000 15,000
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Interior Side
and Rear —
Adjacent to
Residential
District
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
See (E)
Section 9.21.110,
Projections from
Buildings into
Minimum Setbacks
Active
Commercial
Design
See (A) See (A) See (A) See (A) See (A) See (A) See (A) See (A) See (A)
Pedestrian
Oriented Design See (B) See (B) See (B) See (B) See (B) See (B) See (B) See (B) See (B)
Build-To Line,
Nonresidential
Uses
See (C) See (C) See (C) See (C) See (C) See (C) See (C) See (C) See (C)
Minimum Upper-Story Stepbacks (ft.)—Required Above the Ground Floor
Street-Facing
Façades 5′ average 5′
average 5′ average 5′ average 5′ average 5′
average
5’
average
5′
average 5′ average
Daylight Plane
Adjacent to
Residential
District—Interior
Side and Rear
See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D) Section 9.21.060,
Height Exceptions
Standards for Residential Uses
61
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.11.030.B: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF HOUSING PROJECT — COMMERCIAL
AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
Standard
MUBL
(N. of
I-10)
MUBL
(Pico
Blvd)
MUBL
(Lincoln Blvd
& Main St)
MUB
GC
(Santa
Monica
Blvd)
GC
(Lincoln
Blvd)
GC
(Pico
Blvd)
NC
NC
(Main St, Ocean
Park Blvd, &
Montana Ave)
Additional
Regulations
Minimum
Outdoor Living
Area (sq.
ft./unit)—Sites
with 3 or More
Units
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Section 9.21.090,
Outdoor Living Area
Minimum
Amount
Provided as
Private
Outdoor
Living Area
(sq. ft./unit)
60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Section 9.21.090,
Outdoor Living Area
Additional Standards
Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Food Service Section 9.31.030, Accessory Food Service
Accessory Structures Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Affordable Housing Production Program Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program
Automobile/ Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and
Storage Section 9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and Storage
Density Bonus Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus
Exceptions to Height Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Exceptions
Fences, Walls, and Hedges Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Landscaping and Street Trees Subsection 9.11.030(F), Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located
on Community Assembly Surface Parking
Lots
Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Off-Street Parking and Loading Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Projections into Required Setbacks Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks
Refuse and Recycling Screening and
Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Signs Chapter 9.61, Signs
Screening Section 9.21.140, Screening
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
A. Active Ground Floor Design and Use and Design.
1. 1. Active Use Requirement. Except as exempted in subsection A(3), below, Tthe ground-
floor street frontage of buildings on defined cCommercial Bboulevards, within LUCE-
designated Activity Centers, and within Neighborhood Commercial Districts on Main Street and
Montana Avenue shall be required to have active use areas that accommodate commercial uses
and activities, subject to the following:
62
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
a. Active use areas are required to have a minimum average depth of 40 feet, but no less than
25 feet, for a minimum of 60% of the ground-floor frontage, to the maximum extent
feasible.
a. A minimum average depth of 40 feet, but no less than 25 feet, for a minimum of 60% of
the ground-floor frontage, to the maximum extent feasible.
bb. Within LUCE-designated Activity Centers, and Neighborhood Commercial Districts on
Main Street and Montana Avenue, uses within these active use areas shall be limited to the
following:
i. Cultural facilities;
ii. Food and beverage sales;
iii. Eating and drinking establishments;
iv. Grooming and pet stores;
v. Banks and credit unions;
vi. Business services;
vii. Commercial entertainment, recreation, and instructional services;
viii. General personal services and personal physical training;
ix. General retail sales; and
x. Childcare facilities.
(c.) In other commercial districts not identified in subsection (A)(1)(b), above, the following
uses and use categories are prohibited within these active use areas:
i. Residential; and
ii. Offices, with the following exceptions:
(1) Creative offices or offices with walk-in clientele, and
(2) Offices within a structure that was designed, approved, and
continuously used with office at the ground level, facing the street.
2. Active Commercial Design. Where an active use is required for new buildings, The the ground-
floor street frontage of new buildings on commercial boulevards shall be designed to
accommodate commercial uses and activities, subject to the following:
a. A minimum average depth of 40 feet, but in no case less than 25 feet, for a minimum of
60% of the ground-floor frontage.
ab. Minimum Floor-to-Floor Heights.
i. 11 feet in all districts.
(1) Ground-Floor Street Frontages Along Commercial Boulevards. The finished ground floor
level along the commercial boulevard shall not exceed 18 inches lower or higher than the
finished grade of the adjacent sidewalk.
c. (2) Sloped Ground-Floor Street Frontages Along Commercial Boulevards. On parcels
with a grade change of 10% or more along the length of the parcel line adjacent to the
commercial boulevard, the finished ground floor level along the commercial boulevard
63
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
shall not exceed 18 inches lower or 3 feet higher than the finished grade of the adjacent
sidewalk.
d. (3) Corner Parcels. For corner parcels located at the intersection of 2 commercial
boulevards, the requirements of subsection (A)(1) shall apply to the ground-floor street
frontages along both commercial boulevards.
e. ii. Loft spaces built within this area shall not exceed 30% of the total floor area of
the space consistent with the definition of mezzanine.
fc. Street Facing Facades. A minimum of 7050% of the each street facing façade facing a
commercial street shall be transparent and include windows, doors, and other openings
between 2.5 and 8 feet above finished grade. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall
have transparent glazing or openings that provide views into work areas, display areas,
sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into window displaying merchandise or
other items other than signs that are at least 3 feet deep. This requirement may be modified
by the Architectural Review Board if it can be demonstrated that the fulfillment of this
requirement materially interferes with the project’s ability to meet the requirements of
Municipal Code Chapter 8.36 – Energy Code.
FIGURE 9.11.030.A: STREET-FACING FAÇADES
bgd. A minimum of one pedestrian entrance facing the Ccommercial Bboulevardsstreet.
2.
3. Exemptions for Certain Housing Projects.
a. 100% Affordable Housing Projects. 100% Affordable Housing Projects are exempt from
the provision of subsection A, except that 100% Affordable Housing Projects within the
Neighborhood Commercial Districts on Main Street and Montana Avenue shall be subject
to subsection (A)(21)(a) and (b).
b. All Other Housing Projects. Except as provided below, Housing Projects on Commercial
Boulevards are exempt from the provisions of subsection (A).
64
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
i. Housing Projects located within the Neighborhood Commercial Districts on Pico
Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard are subject to subsection (A)(1)(a).
ii. Housing Projects on Commercial Boulevards shall be subject to the limitation on
office use set forth in subsection (A)(1)(c).
B. Pedestrian-Oriented Design.
1. No more than 20 feet or 40% of a building’s ground floor façade, whichever is less, may be
continuous blank or featureless linear street-level frontage.
2. New development shall incorporate the following design elements into the street-facing façades
at the ground floor level:
a. Street-Facing Facades
i. Articulated façades at the ground floor street frontage, which may include, but not
necessarily require, such measures as indentation in plane, change of materials in a
complimentary manner, sensitive composition and juxtaposition of openings and
solid wall and/or building frame and projecting elements such as awnings and
marquees to provide shade and shelter;
ii. b. Exterior lighting which provides for a secure nighttime pedestrian environment
by reinforcing entrances, public sidewalks and open areas with a safe level of
illumination which avoids off-site glare.
cb. Ground-Floor Street Frontages Along Commercial Boulevards. The finished ground floor
level along the Ccommercial Bboulevard shall not exceed 18 inches lower or higher than
the finished grade of the adjacent sidewalk.
dc. Sloped Ground-Floor Street Frontages Along Commercial Boulevards. On parcels with a
grade change of 10% or more along the length of the parcel line adjacent to the
Ccommercial Bboulevard, the finished ground floor level along the Ccommercial
Bboulevard shall not exceed 18 inches lower or 3 feet higher than the finished grade of the
adjacent sidewalk.
e. Corner Parcels. For corner parcels located at the intersection of 2 commercial boulevards,
the requirements of subsection (A)() shall apply to the ground-floor street frontages along
both commercial boulevards.
3. Residential uses at the ground floor street frontage shall incorporate planted areas, porches, front
stairs, and/or other elements that contribute to a pedestrian environment. Pedestrian-oriented
design elements may also include street furniture or other seating surfaces on private property
and design amenities scaled to the pedestrian such as awnings, drinking fountains, paseos,
arcades, colonnades, plazas, noncommercial community bulletin boards, public or private art,
and alternative paving materials in areas of pedestrian access.
4. When provided, storefront security grates or grilles shall be located inside exterior windows,
shall be retractable into pockets or overhead cylinders, and shall be completely concealed when
retracted.
65
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5. Alternatives to the requirements of this Section 9.11.030(B) may be approved if the Review
Authority finds that the proposed use has unique operational characteristics with which
providing the required windows and openings is incompatible, and street-facing building walls
will exhibit architectural relief and detail and be enhanced with landscaping in such a way as to
create visual interest at the pedestrian level.
C. Build-To Line, Nonresidential Uses. Buildings with nonresidential uses on the ground floor and
not facing a residential district shall be constructed no farther than 10 feet from the street facing
property line(s) for 70% of linear street frontage. This requirement may be waived or modified
subject to a discretionary approval upon finding that:
1. An alternative configuration can be approved based on the findings in Chapter 9.43,
Modifications and Waivers, and the objectives of the Design Guidelines; and
2. Entry courtyards, plazas, small parks, entries, outdoor eating and display areas, or other
uncovered areas designed and accessible for public use are located between the build-to line and
building, provided that the buildings are built to the edge of the courtyard, plaza, small park, or
dining area; and
3. The building incorporates an alternative entrance design that creates a pedestrian-oriented entry
feature facing the street.
D. Daylight Plane Adjacent to Residential Districts. Buildings shall not extend above a plane starting
at 2530 feet in height directly above the parcel line abutting any residentially-zoned parcel, or where
there is an alley, the centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending in at a 45-degree angle
from vertical toward the interior of the site. The 2530-foot height measurement shall be taken from
the same reference grade as determined for the subject site pursuant to Section 9.04.050.
FIGURE 9.11.030.D: DAYLIGHT PLANE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS—
COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
66
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
E. Parcels in the NC—Main Street District.
1. Use of Rear YardSetback. Commercial use in the required rear yard setback is not permitted.
Noncommercial uses and parking are permitted in the rear yard setback to the rear property line
on the ground level.
2. Use of Roof in Rear YardSetback. No portion of the first-floor roof within 15 feet of the rear
property line may be used for any purpose other than access for building maintenance and repair.
The remaining setback area may be privately used (not open to the public) if enclosed with a
solid 6-foot barrier.
3. Consolidation of Parcels.
a. Non-Housing Projects. Parcels shall not be consolidated nor shall parcels be tied if such
consolidation or parcel tie results in a parcel that exceeds 6,000 square feet in size.
b. Housing Projects. Parcels shall not be consolidated nor shall parcels be tied if such
consolidation or parcel tie results in a parcel that exceeds 15,000 square feet in size.
F. Planting Areas. The following areas shall be landscaped:
1. Setback Areas Adjoining Streets. All visible portions of a required setback area adjoining a
street that are not used for driveways or walks shall consist of planting areas, landscape, or
67
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
pedestrian amenities such as entry courtyards, plazas, entries, outdoor eating and display areas,
or other uncovered areas designed and accessible for public use.
2. Interior and Rear Setback Areas. At least 50% of each required interior side and rear setback
area shall be a planting area. The width of a required planting area may be reduced to less than
50% of the setback area but no less than 3 feet in width in one side or rear setback area adjoining
a driveway or when an approved nonresidential accessory structure occupies a portion of the
rear setback area.
3. Adjoining R1 Districts. A continuous planting area with a minimum width of 5 feet shall be
provided along interior parcel lines when a Mixed-Use and Commercial Districts adjoins an R1
or R2 District and is not separated by a public or private thoroughfare. (Added by Ord. No.
2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 7, adopted June 14,
2016; Ord. No. 2524CCS § 1, adopted July 28, 2016; Ord. No. 2576CCS § 3, adopted June 12,
2018; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 15, adopted September 8, 2020)
68
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.13
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Sections:
9.13.010 Purpose
9.13.020 Land Use Regulations
9.13.030 Development Standards
9.13.010 Purpose
The purposes of the “Employment” Districts are to:
A. Provide appropriately located areas for continued employment activities to ensure a robust economy
that is essential in order for the City to continue to provide the high level of public services that the
community expects.
B. Continue to diversify Santa Monica’s economic base by providing sites for incubator businesses,
creative industries, technology-based businesses, research and development, and professional
offices.
C. Provide a range of employment opportunities to meet the needs of current and future residents and
take advantage of the City’s location relative to regional roadway and transit systems.
D. Assure high-quality design and site planning of office and employment areas and support the
adaptive reuse of industrial buildings that contribute to the character of the City as a whole.
E. Encourage the development of employment mixed-use areas that create an opportunity to walk and
bike between businesses, employment, and residences.
F. Ensure that new industrial and office development is designed to minimize traffic and parking,
impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, and is appropriate to the physical characteristics of the site
and the area where the project is proposed.
The specific designations and the additional purposes of the Employment Districts are:
IC Industrial Conservation. This Zoning District preserves space for existing industrial uses that provide
a job base, affordable space for small-scale industrial and manufacturing businesses, and a center of
economic activity for the City. The District also provides a place for a diversity of housing types and the
adaptive reuse of industrial buildings into affordable workspace for artists and the creative industries.
Allowable land uses within this District include light industrial uses, including businesses engaged in
design, development, manufacturing, fabricating, testing, or assembly of various products, which provide
important community services and employment for workers with various skills. This District also allows
for housing, incubator business opportunities, including sustainable industries that are appropriate for the
City, as well as small visual and performing arts studios and theaters. One hundred percent affordable
housing is allowed in limited areas. Additionally, auto dealers are allowed to locate storage and service
facilities in this area.
OC Office Campus. This Zoning District is intended to provide for office and advanced technology uses,
scientific research, and administration, and limited manufacturing of related products which require large
expanses of floor area on large parcels. Additionally, this District provides a diversity of housing types.
Development intensity is intended to provide for office uses and other uses within a campus-like
environment that will be compatible with abutting residential neighborhoods, especially in terms of scale
and building mass.
HMU Healthcare Mixed Use. This Zoning District is intended to provide for the future orderly expansion
of the City’s hospitals and related health care facilities in order to meet the needs of both the community
and region while protecting the integrity of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The District fosters
69
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
the evolving needs of the healthcare community with expanded medical office uses and outpatient services
along with retail and non-medical services. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.13.020 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.13.020 prescribes the land use regulations for the Employment Districts. The regulations for each
district are established by letter designations below. These designations apply strictly to the permissibility
of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review.
“P” designates permitted uses.
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with specific limitations
listed at the end of the table.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit.
“CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use
Permit.
“—” designates uses that are not permitted.
Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51 (“Use Classifications”) of Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal
code (“Zoning Ordinance”). Use classifications and sub-classifications not listed in the table are prohibited.
Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and
customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal uses and which
are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses. The table also notes additional use
regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand column refer to other Sections of
this Ordinance.
TABLE 9.13.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Use Classification IC OC HMU Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types See sub-classifications below.
Single Unit Dwelling – – P
Accessory Dwelling Unit –P –P P
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit –P –P P
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Multiple-Unit StructureDwelling –P –P P Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit Residential –P –P P Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Single-Room Occupancy Housing – – P Section 9.31.330, Single Room
Occupancy Structures
Congregate Housing L (1) L (1) P Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Senior Group Residential CUP CUP P Section 9.31.310, Senior Group
Residential
Elderly and Long-Term Care – P P
Emergency Shelters L (2)/CUP L (2)/CUP L (2)/CUP Section 9.31.130, Emergency
Shelters
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.
70
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.13.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Use Classification IC OC HMU Additional Regulations
Small P P P
Large P P P Section 9.31.140, Family Day Care,
Large
Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below.
Residential Care, Limited P P P Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Residential Care, Senior P P P Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Hospice, Limited P P P
Supportive Housing P P P
Transitional Housing P P P Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care MUP P P
Child Care and Early Education Facilities MUP P P Section 9.31.120, Child Care and
Early Education Facilities
Colleges and Trade Schools, Public or Private – CUP –
Community Assembly CUP CUP CUP
Community Gardens P P P
Cultural Facility – – CUP
Hospitals and Clinics – – P
Park and Recreation Facilities, Public P P P
Public Safety Facilities MUP MUP P
Schools, Public or Private L (3)/CUP L (3)/CUP P
Social Service Centers MUP MUP P Section 9.31.350, Social Service
Centers
Commercial Uses
Animal Care, Sales, and Services See sub-classifications below.
Kennels CUP – –
Pet Day Care Services MUP – –
Veterinary Services P – –
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Service See sub-classifications below.
Alternative Fuels and Recharging
Facilities L (5)/CUP CUP –
Automobile Rental L (4) P – Section 9.31.050, Automobile
Rental
Automobile Storage Use CUP CUP –
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing CUP CUP –
Section 9.31.070,
Automobile/Vehicle Sales,
Leasing, and Storage
Automobile/Vehicle Repair, Major L (5)/CUP – –
Section 9.31.060,
Automobile/Vehicle Repair, Major
and Minor
Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair,
Minor L (5)/CUP – –
Section 9.31.060,
Automobile/Vehicle Repair, Major
and Minor
Automobile/Vehicle Washing CUP – – Section 9.31.080,
Automobile/Vehicle Washing
71
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.13.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Use Classification IC OC HMU Additional Regulations
Large Vehicle and Equipment Sales,
Service, and Rental CUP – –
Service Station L (5)/CUP CUP – Section 9.31.320, Service Stations
Towing and Impound L (5)/CUP – –
Banks and Financial Institutions See sub-classifications below.
Banks and Credit Unions –L(15) L (615) CUP
Business Services P L (6) P
Commercial Entertainment and Recreation See sub-classifications below.
Cinemas – – –
Theaters L (7)/CUP – –
Convention and Conference Centers – CUP –
Small-Scale Facility L (8)/CUP MUP (6) CUP Section 9.31.340, Small-Scale
Facility, Game Arcades
Large-Scale Facility L(16) L(16) -
Eating and Drinking Establishments See sub-classifications below.
Restaurants, Full-Service, Limited Service
& Take-Out, With Entertainment, With
Outdoor Eating Areas (2,500 SF and
smaller)
P L (6)P P
Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Section 9.31.280, Restaurants,
Limited-Service and Take Out
Section 9.31.290, Restaurants with
Entertainment
Section 9.31.200, Outdoor Dining
and Seating
Restaurants, Full-Service, Limited Service
& Take-Out, With Entertainment, With
Outdoor Eating Areas (2,501 – 5,000 SF)
– MUP (6) P
Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Section 9.31.280, Restaurants,
Limited-Service and Take Out
Section 9.31.290, Restaurants with
Entertainment
Section 9.31.200, Outdoor Dining
and Seating
Restaurants, Full-Service, Limited Service
& Take-Out, With Entertainment, With
Outdoor Eating Areas (Greater than 5,000
SF)
–P CUP (6)P P
Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Section 9.31.280, Restaurants,
Limited-Service and Take Out
Section 9.31.290, Restaurants with
Entertainment
Section 9.31.200, Outdoor Dining
and Seating
Equipment Rental P – P
Food and Beverage Sales See sub-classifications below.
Convenience Markets L (6) L (6) P
Farmers Markets CUP – –
General Markets L(17)/CUP L(17)/CUP -
Funeral Parlor and Mortuary – – CUP
Instructional Services L(18)/CUP L(18)/CUP -
Live-Work L (14) CUP L (14) Section 9.31.170, Live-Work
Offices See sub-classifications below.
Business and Professional L (9) P P
Creative P P –
72
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.13.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Use Classification IC OC HMU Additional Regulations
Medical and Dental – P P
Walk-In Clientele L (10) L (6) L (10)
Parking, Public or Private CUP CUP CUP
Personal Services See sub-classifications below.
General Personal Services –P L (6)P P Section 9.31.230, Personal Service
Personal Services, Physical Training –P L (6)P CUP
Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor P P P Section 9.31.230, Personal Service
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below.
Building Materials Sales and Services P – – Section 9.31.220, Outdoor Retail
Display and Sales
Firearms and Ammunition Sales – – –
General Retail Sales, Small-Scale CUP (11)P MUP (6)P P Section 9.31.220, Outdoor Retail
Display and Sales
General Retail Sales, Medium-Scale CUP CUP - Section 9.31.220, Outdoor Retail
Display and Sales
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries – – CUP Section 9.31.185, Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries
Industrial Uses
Artist’s Studio P P P
Commercial Kitchens P – –
Industry, General P CUP (12) –
Research and Development P CUP (12) P
Industry, Limited P CUP (12) –
Media Production P P –
Recycling Facility See sub-classifications below.
Recycling Collection Facility P – –
Recycling Processing Facility P – –
Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution See sub-classifications below.
Indoor Warehousing and Storage P – –
Outdoor Storage CUP (13) – –
Personal Storage P CUP – Section 9.31.240, Personal Storage
Wholesaling and Distribution P – –
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
Bus/Rail Passenger Stations P P P
City Bikeshare Facility P P P
Communication Facilities See sub-classifications below.
Antennas and Transmission Towers CUP – CUP Chapter 9.32, Telecommunication
Facilities
Facilities within Buildings CUP P CUP
Light Fleet-Based Services CUP – –
Utilities See sub-classifications below.
Utilities, Major P P –
Utilities, Minor P P P
73
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.13.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Use Classification IC OC HMU Additional Regulations
Specific Limitations:
(1) Limited to 100% affordable housing projects. For senior citizen multiple-unit residential projects in the Office Campus District that are
not 100% affordable approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required.
(2) Homeless shelters with less than 55 beds are permitted by right. Homeless shelters with 55 beds or more may be permitted with
application for and approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(3) Permitted if existing. New uses require approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(4) Limited to accessory automobile rental facilities located within automobile/vehicle repair use.
(5) Permitted if located 100 ft. or more from any residential use or district. Conditional Use Permit required if located within 100 ft. of a
residential use or district.
(6) Conditionally permitted as businesses that provide goods and services to employees on the premises. No more than 25% of the total
square footage of a development may be devoted to such businesses.
(7) Limited to theaters with 99 seats or less and 10,000 sq. ft. or less. Larger theaters require a Conditional Use Permit.
(8) Exercise facilities (e.g., yoga, Pilates, martial arts, and dance studios) permitted by right. Other small-scale commercial recreation uses
require a Conditional Use Permit.
(9) Permitted if existing or accessory to a primary permitted use on the same site and not exceeding 25 percent of the gross floor area of the
primary permitted use.
(10) Permitted if existing. New uses are not permitted.
(11) Limited to retail sales of goods manufactured on the premises provided that the floor space devoted to such use does not exceed 20% of
the gross floor area of the primary permitted use or 2,000 sq. ft., whichever is less.(Reserved)
(12) Such uses must be conducted within an enclosed building or an open enclosure screened from public view. In order to approve a
Conditional Use Permit, the review authority must make a finding that proposed uses are compatible with office and advanced
technological uses.
(13) Limited to outdoor storage of fleet vehicles if such vehicles are directly related to the primary operation on the site.
(14) If the commercial use requires a MUP or CUP, an application shall be required in accordance with Chapter 9.41. Even if the commercial
use would otherwise be permitted, no such use shall be approved where, given the design or proposed design of the Live-Work unit,
there would be the potential for adverse health impacts from the proposed use on the people residing in the unit. An example of a
potential health impact is the potential for food contamination from uses that generate airborne particulates in a unit with an unenclosed
kitchen.
(15) Limitation shall only apply to new construction and alterations to existing buildings that result in a combination or enlargement of tenant
spaces: Limited to facilities with no more than 7,500 square feet of floor area and/or 40 linear feet of ground floor street frontage
(16) Limited to indoor exercise facilities and bowling alleys.
(17) General markets greater than 15,000 square feet require a Conditional Use Permit.
(18) Limitation shall only apply to new construction and alterations to existing buildings that result in a combination or enlargement of tenant
spaces: No individual tenant space shall occupy more than 12,500 square feet of floor area and/or exceed 75 linear feet of ground floor
street frontage without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 36, adopted June 14, 2016;
Ord. No. 2649CCS § 16, adopted September 8, 2020)
9.13.030 Development Standards
Table 9.13.030.1, Development Standards for Projects Not Meeting the Definition of Housing Project,
prescribes the development standards for Employment Districts. Additional regulations are denoted with
Section numbers in the right-hand column or with individual letters in parentheses. Section numbers refer
to other Sections of this Article, while individual letters in parentheses refer to subsections that directly
follow the table.
TABLE 9.13.030.1: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS NOT MEETING THE DEFINITION OF
HOUSING PROJECT — EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Standard IC OC* HMU Additional Regulations
Parcel and Intensity Standards
Minimum Parcel Size
(sq. ft.) 15,000 15,000 7,500
Minimum Parcel
Width (ft.) 100 100 50
74
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.13.030.1: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS NOT MEETING THE DEFINITION OF
HOUSING PROJECT — EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Standard IC OC* HMU Additional Regulations
Minimum Parcel
Depth (ft.) 150 150 100
Maximum FAR Section 9.04.080, Determining
FAR
Tier 1 — Base
Standard 1.0 1.5 1.5
Tier 2 — With
Provision of
Community
Benefits
1.75 1.75 2.5 Chapter 9.23, Community Benefits
100% Affordable
Housing Projects 2.25 NA 2.5 Limited to 50 or fewer units
Building Form and Location
Maximum Building Height (stories/ft.) Section 9.04.050, Measuring
Height
Tier 1 — Base
Standard 2/32′ 2/32′ 3/45′
Tier 2 — With
Provision of
Community
Benefits
3/45’′
See (A) 3/45’′ 5/70′ Chapter 9.23, Community
Benefits
100% Affordable
Housing Projects
No limit to
stories/45 NA No limit to
stories/70 Limited to 50 or fewer units
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front and Corner
Side None None None
Interior Side and
Rear – Adjacent
to a Residential
District
15′.
See (B)
15′.
See (B)
15′.
See (B)
Parking Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking and 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development Standards
Minimum Ground -
Floor (Floor-to-
Floor) Height (ft.) for
Frontages on a
Boulevard
11′ 11′ NA
Maximum Ground-
Floor (Floor-to-Floor)
Height (ft.) for
Frontages on a
Boulevard
16′ 16′ NA
Minimum Upper-Story Stepbacks (ft.)—Required Above Maximum the Ground Floor Height
Street-Facing
Façades 5′ average 5′ average NA
Daylight Plane
Adjacent to
Residential District—
Interior Side and
Rear Setbacks
See (DC) See (DC) See (DC)
Standards for Multiple-Unit Dwellings
75
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.13.030.1: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS NOT MEETING THE DEFINITION OF
HOUSING PROJECT — EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Standard IC OC* HMU Additional Regulations
Minimum Outdoor
Living Area (sq.
ft./unit)—Sites with 3
or More Units
100 100 100 Section 9.21.090, Outdoor Living
Area
Minimum Amount
Provided as
Private Outdoor
Living Area (sq.
ft./unit)
60 60 60 Section 9.21.090, Outdoor Living
Area
Additional Standards
Accessory Dwelling
Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Food
Service Section 9.31.030, Accessory Food Service
Accessory Structures Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Affordable Housing
Production Program Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program
Density Bonus Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus
Exceptions to Height
Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Exceptions
Fences and Walls Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Landscaping Subsection 9.13.030(D), Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Located on
Community
Assembly Surface
Parking Lots
Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly
Surface Parking Lots
Off-Street Parking
and Loading Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Parking Structures
and Areas Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Projections into
Required Setbacks Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks
Refuse and Recycling
Screening and
Enclosure
Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Signs Chapter 9.61, Signs
Screening Section 9.21.140, Screening
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
Refuse and Recycling
Screening and
Enclosure
Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
76
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.13.030.1: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS NOT MEETING THE DEFINITION OF
HOUSING PROJECT — EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Standard IC OC* HMU Additional Regulations
* In those portions of the OC Districts adjacent to Ocean Park Boulevard, development of additional floor area for projects other than housing
projects that requires discretionary approval shall only be permitted after completion of a specific plan.
Table 9.11.030.2, Development Standard for Projects That Meet the Definition of Housing Project,
prescribes the development standards for Employment Districts. Additional regulations are denoted with
Section numbers in the right-hand column or with individual letters in parentheses. Section numbers refer
to other Sections of this Article, while individual letters in parentheses refer to subsections that directly
follow the table.
TABLE 9.13.030.2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF
HOUSING PROJECT — EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Standard IC OC HMU Additional Regulations
Parcel and Intensity Standards
Minimum Parcel Size
(sq. ft.) 15,000 15,000 7,500
Minimum Parcel
Width (ft.) 100 100 50
Minimum Parcel
Depth (ft.) 150 150 100
Maximum FAR Section 9.04.080, Determining
FAR
Housing Projects 3.0 2.75 2.5
100% Affordable
Housing Projects 3.5 3.25 3.0
Building Form and Location
Maximum Building Height (ft.) Section 9.04.050, Measuring
Height
Housing Projects 65’ 60’ 70’
100% Affordable
Housing Projects 75’ 70’ 80’
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Interior Side and
Rear – Adjacent
to a Residential
District
15′
See (B)
15′
See (B)
15′
See (B)
Parking Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking and 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development Standards
Pedestrian Oriented
Design for Housing
Projects
See (C) See (C) See (C)
Minimum Ground
Floor Height (ft.) 11′ 11′ NA
Minimum Upper-Story Stepbacks (ft.)—Required Above the Ground Floor
Street-Facing
Façades 5′ average 5′ average NA
Daylight Plane
Adjacent to
Residential District—
Interior Side and
Rear
See (D) See (D) See (D)
77
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.13.030.2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF
HOUSING PROJECT — EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
Standard IC OC HMU Additional Regulations
Standards for Multiple-Unit Dwellings
Minimum Outdoor
Living Area (sq.
ft./unit)—Sites with 3
or More Units
100 100 100 Section 9.21.090, Outdoor Living
Area
Minimum Amount
Provided as
Private Outdoor
Living Area (sq.
ft./unit)
60 60 60 Section 9.21.090, Outdoor Living
Area
Additional Standards
Accessory Dwelling
Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Food
Service Section 9.31.030, Accessory Food Service
Accessory Structures Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Affordable Housing
Production Program Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program
Density Bonus Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus
Exceptions to Height
Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Exceptions
Fences and Walls Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Landscaping Subsection 9.13.030(D), Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Located on
Community
Assembly Surface
Parking Lots
Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface
Parking Lots
Off-Street Parking
and Loading Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Parking Structures
and Areas Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Projections into
Required Setbacks Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks
Refuse and Recycling
Screening and
Enclosure
Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Signs Chapter 9.61, Signs
Screening Section 9.21.140, Screening
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
A. Maximum Heights. The following projects may have a maximum height of 4 stories, 45 feet:
78
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1. Projects involving the expansion of public or private elementary and secondary schools (Grades
K through 12) existing prior to September 8, 1988.
2. Entertainment-related facilities including sound stages, movie studios, editing facilities, post-
production facilities, set construction facilities and special effects facilities.
3. Theaters.
B. Use of Setbacks Adjacent to Residential Districts. The required setback area adjacent to a
Residential District shall not be used for parking or loading facilities, storage, or other commercial
or industrial purposes. A portion of the setback area, not to exceed 10 feet in width, may be used for
access to parking or loading areas no closer than 5 feet to the respective parcel line.
C. Pedestrian-Oriented Design for Housing Projects.
1. No more than 20 feet or 40% of a building’s ground floor façade, whichever is less, may be
continuous blank or featureless linear street-level frontage.
2. New development shall incorporate the following design elements at the ground floor level:
a. Street-Facing Facades
i. Articulated façades at the ground floor street frontage, which may include, but not
necessarily require, such measures as indentation in plane, change of materials in a
complimentary manner, sensitive composition and juxtaposition of openings and
solid wall and/or building frame and projecting elements such as awnings and
marquees to provide shade and shelter;
ii. Exterior lighting which provides for a secure nighttime pedestrian environment by
reinforcing entrances, public sidewalks and open areas with a safe level of
illumination which avoids off-site glare.
b. Ground-Floor Street Frontages Along Commercial Boulevards. The finished ground floor
level along the Commercial Boulevard shall not exceed 18 inches lower or higher than the
finished grade of the adjacent sidewalk.
c. Sloped Ground-Floor Street Frontages Along Commercial Boulevards. On parcels with a
grade change of 10% or more along the length of the parcel line adjacent to the Commercial
Boulevard, the finished ground floor level along the Commercial Boulevard shall not
exceed 18 inches lower or 3 feet higher than the finished grade of the adjacent sidewalk.
3. Residential uses at the ground floor street frontage shall incorporate planted areas, porches, front
stairs and/or other elements that contribute to a pedestrian environment. Pedestrian-oriented
design elements may also include street furniture or other seating surfaces on private property
and design amenities scaled to the pedestrian such as awnings, drinking fountains, paseos,
arcades, colonnades, plazas, noncommercial community bulletin boards, public or private art,
and alternative paving materials in areas of pedestrian access.
4. When provided, storefront security grates or grilles shall be located inside exterior windows,
shall be retractable into pockets or overhead cylinders, and shall be completely concealed when
retracted.
79
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5. Alternatives to the requirements of this Section 9.13.030(C) may be approved if the Review
Authority finds that the proposed use has unique operational characteristics with which
providing the required windows and openings is incompatible, and street-facing building walls
will exhibit architectural relief and detail and be enhanced with landscaping in such a way as to
create visual interest at the pedestrian level.
DC. Daylight Plane Adjacent to Residential Districts. Buildings shall not extend above a plane
starting at 25 30 feet in height directly above the parcel line abutting any residentially-zoned parcel,
or where there is an alley, the centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending in at a 45-degree
angle from vertical toward the interior of the site. The 2530-foot height measurement shall be taken
from the same reference grade as determined for the subject site pursuant to Section 9.04.050.
FIGURE 9.13.030.DC: DAYLIGHT PLANE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS—
EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
ED. Planting Areas. The following areas shall be landscaped.
1. Setback Areas Adjoining Streets. All visible portions of a required setback area adjoining a
street that are not used for driveways or walks shall be consist of planting area, or landscape., or
pedestrian amenities such as entry courtyards, plazas, entries, outdoor eating and display areas,
or other uncovered areas designed and accessible for public use.
80
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2. Adjoining Residential or Mixed-Use Districts. A continuous planting area with a minimum
width of 5 feet shall be provided along interior parcel lines when an Employment Ddistrict
adjoins a Residential or Mixed-Use District and is not separated by a public or private
thoroughfare. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord.
No. 2520CCS § 8, adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2576CCS § 4, adopted June 12, 2018; Ord.
No. 2649CCS § 17, adopted September 8, 2020)
81
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.14
OCEANFRONT DISTRICT
Sections:
9.14.010 Purpose
9.14.020 Land Use Regulations
9.14.030 Development Standards
9.14.010 Purpose
The purposes of the “Oceanfront” District are to:
A. Maintain and enhance the beach area as an important visitor-serving destination with lodging,
restaurants, shopping, and recreation that support it as a regional, national, and international tourist
destination.
B. Preserve the unique scale, character, and uses along the Ocean Front Walk and on the Santa Monica
Pier.
C. Protect the existing residential mix in the area while providing for coastal-related, lodging, dining,
recreation, and shopping needs of tourists and others in the oceanfront area. Conditionally permit
other uses such as office, new residential, and cultural uses.
D. Avoid the deleterious effects of uncontrolled growth and preserve the unique and diverse character
of the Santa Monica oceanfront by limiting the proliferation of excessive hotel, motel, and large
restaurant development in the oceanfront area. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June
23, 2015)
9.14.020 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.14.020 prescribes the land use regulations for the Oceanfront District. The regulations for each
district are established by letter designations listed below. These designations apply strictly to the
permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review.
“P” designates permitted uses.
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with specific limitations
listed at the end of the table.
“CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use
Permit.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit.
“–” designates uses that are not permitted.
Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51, Use Classifications. Use classifications and sub-classifications not
listed in the table are prohibited. Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning
Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate
to, the principal uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses.
The table also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand
column refer to other Sections of this Ordinance.
TABLE 9.14.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—OCEANFRONT DISTRICT
Use Classification OF Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types See sub-classifications below.
Single Unit Dwelling P
82
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.14.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—OCEANFRONT DISTRICT
Use Classification OF Additional Regulations
Accessory Dwelling Unit P Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling
Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit P Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling
Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Duplex P
Multiple-Unit Dwelling P Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects
Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit
Residential P Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects
Single-Room Occupancy Housing P Section 9.31.330, Single Room Occupancy
UsesStructures
Group Residential MUP
Congregate Housing P Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Senior Group Residential P Section 9.31.310, Senior Group Residential
Elderly and Long-Term Care P
Emergency Shelters CUP Section 9.31.130, Emergency Shelters
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.
Large P Section 9.31.140, Family Day Care, Large
Small P
Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below.
Residential Care, General P Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Residential Care, Limited P Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Residential Care, Senior P Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Supportive Housing P
Transitional Housing P Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care CUP
Child Care and Early Education Facilities CUP Section 9.31.120, Child Care and Early
Education Facilities
Cultural Facilities CUP
Park and Recreations Facilities, Public P
Schools P
Commercial Uses
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Service See sub-classifications below.
Automobile Rental MUP Section 9.31.050, Automobile Rental
Commercial, Entertainment, and Recreation See sub-classifications below.
Theaters L(1)
Convention and Conference Centers P
Small-Scale Facility P Section 9.31.340, Small-Scale Facility,
Game Arcades
Large-Scale Facility L(2)/CUP
Eating and Drinking Establishments See sub-classifications below.
83
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.14.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—OCEANFRONT DISTRICT
Use Classification OF Additional Regulations
Bars/Nightclubs/Lounges L(3)/CUP Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic Beverage
Sales
Restaurants, Full-Service including
Outdoor Dining and Seating P
Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic Beverage
Sales
Section 9.31.280, Restaurants, Limited
Service and Take-Out Only
Section 9.31.290, Restaurants With
Entertainment
Section 9.31.200, Outdoor Dining and
Seating
Chapter 9.20, Beach Overlay District
Restaurants, Limited Service and Take-
Out Only including Outdoor Dining
and Seating
P
Section 9.21.040, Alcoholic Beverage
Sales
Section 9.31.280, Restaurants, Limited-
Service and Take Out Only
Section 9.31.290, Restaurants With
Entertainment
Section 9.31.200, Outdoor Dining and
Seating
Chapter 9.20, Beach Overlay District
Food and Beverage Sales See sub-classifications below.
Convenience Markets P Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic Beverage
Sales
Farmers Markets MUP
General Markets L(4) Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic Beverage
Sales
Liquor Stores CUP Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic Beverage
Sales
Lodging See sub-classifications below.
Bed and Breakfast CUP Within Designated Landmarks only.
Section 9.31.090, Bed and Breakfasts
Offices See sub-classifications below.
Business and Professional L(5)/CUP
Creative L(5)/CUP
Walk-In Clientele L(5)/CUP
Parking, Public or Private CUP
General Personal Services MUP
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below.
General Retail Sales, Small-Scale P Section 9.31.220, Outdoor Retail Display
and Sales
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
City Bikeshare Facility P
Specific Limitations:
(1) Limited to theaters for live performances.
(2) Existing large-scale commercial, entertainment, and recreation facilities existing as of the date of this Ordinance are permitted. Any new
large-scale commercial, entertainment, and recreation facilities require approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(3) Bars, nightclubs, and lounges are only permitted on the Pier, on Oceanfront Walk, and within hotels.
(4) Limited to establishments with no more than 2,500 sq. ft. of floor area.
(5) Office uses on the ground floor street frontage may not exceed 25% of the parcel width or 1,000 sq. ft, whichever is less.
84
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2536CCS § 20, adopted February 28,
2017; Ord. No. 2606CCS § 7, adopted April 9, 2019; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 18, adopted September 8, 2020)
9.14.030 Development Standards
Table 9.14.030 prescribes the development standards for the Oceanfront District. Additional regulations
are denoted with Section numbers in the right-hand column or with individual letters in parentheses. Section
numbers refer to other Sections of this Article, while individual letters in parentheses refer to subsections
that directly follow the table.
TABLE 9.14.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—OCEANFRONT DISTRICT
Standard OF Additional Regulations
Parcel and Intensity Standards
Minimum Parcel Size (sq. ft.) 5,000
Minimum Parcel Width (ft.) 50′
Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 100′
Maximum Allowable Density;
Parcels along the Pacific Coast
Highway between the Santa
Monica Pier and the north City
limits
Parcels 4,000 sq. ft. or more: 1 dwelling unit per /1,500
sq. ft. of parcel area
Parcels less than 4,000 sq. ft.: 1 dwelling unit per /parcel
if existing, no new dwelling units
No more than 1 dwelling unit
shall be permitted on a parcel 40
ft. or less in width
Maximum FAR Section 9.04.080, Determining
FAR
Tier 1—Base Standard
1.5; 0.5 for parcels located along the Pacific Coast
Highway between the Santa Monica Pier and the north
City limits
Tier 2—With Provision of
Community Benefits 2.0 Chapter 9.23, Community
Benefits
100% Affordable Housing
Projects 2.25
Limited to 50 or fewer units;
Chapter 9.64, Affordable
Housing Production Program
Santa Monica Pier Maximum FAR
The Deauville site to the
north, Seaside Terrace to the
south, The Ocean Front
Walk to the west, and Ocean
Avenue to the east, except
parcels fronting on Ocean
Avenue
1.0
Parcels fronting on Ocean
Avenue 0.5
Maximum Parcel Coverage (%) 70; 50 on parcels along the Pacific Coast Highway
between the Santa Monica Pier and the north City limits
Building Form and Location
Maximum Building Height
(stories/ft.)
One story for newly constructed stand-alone restaurants
except for the Santa Monica Pier
Section 9.04.050 Measuring
Height
Tier 1—Base Standard
2/32′;
2/23′ (flat roof) or 2/30′ (pitched roof) for parcels
located along the Pacific Coast Highway between the
Santa Monica Pier and the north City limits
Tier 1—Projects Including
On-Site Affordable Housing
in Compliance with AHPP
3/36′ Chapter 9.64, Affordable
Housing Production Program
85
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.14.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—OCEANFRONT DISTRICT
Standard OF Additional Regulations
100% Affordable Housing
Projects No limit to number of stories/47′
Limited to 50 or fewer units;
Chapter 9.64, Affordable
Housing Production Program
Tier 2—With Provision of
Community Benefits 3/47′ Chapter 9.23, Community
Benefits
Tier 2—With Provision of
Community Benefits and
100% Residential Above the
Ground Floor
No limit to stories/47′ Chapter 9.23, Community
Benefits
Santa Monica Pier Maximum Building Height (stories/ft.) Section 9.04.050, Measuring
Height
The Deauville site to the
north, Seaside Terrace to the
south, The Promenade to the
west, and Ocean Avenue to
the east, including parcels
fronting on Ocean Avenue
2/30′
Amusement Rides on the
Santa Monica Pier
85 ft. for one Ferris wheel; 55 ft. for one roller coaster;
45 ft. for all other amusement rides
Street-Facing Façades (ft.)
Minimum Ground Floor
(Floor-to-Floor) Height for
Nonresidential Uses
11′
Maximum Ground Floor
(Floor-to-Floor) Height for
Nonresidential Uses
16′
Active Commercial Design See (A)
Pedestrian Oriented Design See (AB)
Exterior Lighting See (CD)
Minimum Setbacks (ft., measured from parcel line)
Street Frontage
5 ft. from street fronting parcel line except for 20 ft. on
Pacific Coast Highway between northern City limits and
Santa Monica Pier. See (BC)
Rear
15 ft. if adjacent to a residential use; 25 ft. for beach
rear setback on parcels over 100 ft. in depth located
along the Pacific Coast Highway between the Santa
Monica Pier and the north City limits
Side
If adjacent to a residential use, see (DE); for parcels
located along the Pacific Coast Highway between the
Santa Monica Pier and the north City limits, see (DE)
Minimum Upper-Story Stepbacks (ft.)—Required Above Maximum Ground Floor Height
Street-Facing Façades
At least 30% of the building elevation above the
maximum ground floor height shall provide an
additional 5-foot average setback from the minimum
required front yard setback
Daylight Plane Adjacent to
Residential Use—Interior Side
and Rear Setbacks
See (EF) Section 9.21.070, Height
Exceptions
View Corridors See (FG)
Standards for Residential Uses
86
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.14.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—OCEANFRONT DISTRICT
Standard OF Additional Regulations
Minimum Outdoor Living Area
(sq. ft./unit)—Sites with 3 or
More Units
100 Section 9.21.090, Outdoor Living
Area
Minimum Amount Provided
as Private Outdoor Living
Area (sq. ft./unit)
60
Additional Standards
Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Food Service Section 9.31.030, Accessory Food Service
Accessory Structures Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Affordable Housing Production
Program Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program
Density Bonus Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus
Exceptions to Height Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Exceptions
Fences and Walls Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Landscaping Subsection 9.14.030(H), Landscaping; Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Located on Community
Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly
Surface Parking Lots
Off-Street Parking and Loading Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Projections into Required
Setbacks Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks
Refuse and Recycling Screening
and Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Signs Chapter 9.61, Signs
Screening Section 9.21.140, Screening
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
Trash Screening and Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
A. Active Commercial Design. The ground-floor street frontage of buildings on commercial
boulevards intended to accommodate commercial uses and activities shall be subject to the
following:
1. A minimum average depth of 40 feet, in no case less than 25 feet, for a minimum of 60% of the
ground-floor frontage.
2. Minimum Floor-to-Floor Heights.
a. A minimum floor-to-floor height of 11 feet.
(i) Ground-Floor Street Frontages Along Commercial Boulevards. The finished ground
floor level along the commercial boulevard shall not exceed 18 inches lower or higher
than the finished grade of the adjacent sidewalk.
87
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
(ii) Sloped Ground-Floor Street Frontages Along Commercial Boulevards. On parcels
with a grade change of 10% or more along the length of the parcel line adjacent to
the commercial boulevard, the finished ground floor level along the commercial
boulevard shall not exceed 18 inches lower or 3 feet higher than the finished grade of
the adjacent sidewalk.
b. Loft spaces built within this area shall not exceed 30% of the total floor area of the space
consistent with the definition of mezzanine.
3. A minimum of 70% of the façade facing a commercial street shall be transparent and include
windows, doors, and other openings between 2.5 and 8 feet above finished grade. Openings
fulfilling this requirement shall have transparent glazing or openings that provide views into
work areas, display areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into window
displaying merchandise or other items other than signs that are at least 3 feet deep. This
requirement may be modified by the Architectural Review Board if it can be demonstrated that
the fulfillment of this requirement materially interferes with the project’s ability to meet the
requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 8.36, Energy Code.
4. A minimum of one pedestrian entrance facing the street.
AB. Pedestrian-Oriented Design. New development shall incorporate the following design elements
into the street-facing façades at the ground floor level:
1. Articulated façades at the ground floor street frontage, which may include, but not necessarily
require, such measures as indentation in plane, change of materials in a complimentary manner,
sensitive composition and juxtaposition of openings and solid wall and/or building frame and
projecting elements such as awnings and marquees to provide shade and shelter.
2. Ground-Floor Street Frontages. The finished ground floor level shall not exceed 18 inches lower
or higher than the finished grade of the adjacent sidewalk.
3. Sloped Ground-Floor Street Frontages. On parcels with a grade change of 10% or more along
the length of the parcel line adjacent to a street frontage, the finished ground floor level shall not
exceed 18 inches lower or 3 feet higher than the finished grade of the adjacent sidewalk.
42. Alternatives to the requirements of this Section 9.14.030(A) may be approved if the Review
Authority finds that the proposed use has unique operational characteristics with which
providing the required windows and openings is incompatible, and street-facing building walls
will exhibit architectural relief and detail and be enhanced with landscaping in such a way as to
create visual interest at the pedestrian level.
BC. Build-To Line, Nonresidential Uses. Except on Pacific Coast Highway between northern City
limits and Santa Monica Pier, buildings with nonresidential uses on the ground floor shall be
constructed no farther than 10 feet from the street facing parcel line(s) for 70% of linear street
frontage. This requirement may be waived or modified subject to a discretionary approval upon
finding that:
1. Entry courtyards, plazas, entries, outdoor eating and display areas, or other uncovered areas
designed and accessible for public use are located between the build-to line and building,
provided that the buildings are built to the edge of the courtyard, plaza, or dining area; and
2. The building incorporates an alternative entrance design that creates a welcoming entry feature
facing the street.
88
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
CD. Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting should provide for a secure nighttime pedestrian environment
by reinforcing entrances, public sidewalks and open areas with a safe level of illumination which
avoids off-site glare.
DE. Side Setback. The side setback shall be determined in accordance with the following formula, except
for parcels of less than 50 feet in width for which the side setback shall be 10% of the parcel width
but not less than 4 feet:
5′ + (stories x parcel width)
50′
For parcels located along the Pacific Coast Highway between the Santa Monica Pier and the north
City limits, at least 25% of the side elevation above 14 feet in height shall provide an additional 4-
foot average setback from the minimum side setback.
EF. Daylight Plane Adjacent to Residential Uses. Buildings shall not extend above a plane starting at
25 30 feet in height directly above the parcel line abutting any residentially-zoned parcel in
residential use, or where there is an alley, the centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending
in at a 45-degree angle from vertical toward the interior of the site. The 2530-foot height
measurement shall be taken from the same reference grade as determined for the subject site pursuant
to Section 9.04.050.
FIGURE 9.14.030.F: DAYLIGHT PLANE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL USES—
OCEANFRONT DISTRICTS
89
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
FG. View Corridors. For parcels located along the Pacific Coast Highway between the Santa Monica
Pier and the north City limits, any structure with 70 feet or more of frontage parallel to the Pacific
Coast Highway shall provide an unobstructed view corridor between Pacific Coast Highway and the
ocean. The view corridor shall be a minimum of 20 continuous feet in width measured from the
parcel line abutting and parallel to Pacific Coast Highway and shall remain unobstructed by any
structure or portion thereof.
GH. Landscaping. The following landscaping requirements apply.
1. Setback Areas Adjoining Streets. All visible portions of a required setback area adjoining a
street that are not used for driveways or walks shall consist of planting areas, landscape, or
pedestrian amenities.
2. Interior Setback Areas. At least 50% of each required interior side setback area and rear setback
area shall be planting area having a minimum width of 7.5 feet adjoining a side or rear parcel
line. The width of a required planting area may be reduced to 3 feet in one side or rear setback
area adjoining a driveway, and a nonresidential accessory structure may occupy a portion of the
planting area in a rear setback area. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23,
2015; amended by Ord. No. 2524CCS § 4, adopted July 28, 2016; Ord. No. 2576CCS § 5,
adopted June 12, 2018; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 19, adopted September 8, 2020)
90
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
91
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.15
PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC DISTRICTS
Sections:
9.15.010 Purpose
9.15.020 Land Use Regulations
9.15.030 Development Standards
9.15.010 Purpose
The purposes of the “Public and Semi-Public” Districts are to:
A. Provide areas for a wide range of public facilities, including parks and open space, educational
facilities, municipal offices, the Civic Center, museums or performance spaces, City yards, and other
public or quasi-public facilities.
B. Ensure that the development and operation of public and semi-public uses protects and enhances the
character and quality of life of surrounding residential areas.
C. Retain the beach as Santa Monica’s character-defining open space, preserving the area as a scenic
resource that serves as a local gathering place, and enhances the beach-going experience with limited
visitor-serving uses.
D. Ensure the provision of services and facilities needed to serve residents, businesses, and visitors and
maintain a high quality of life standard.
The specific designations and the additional purposes of the Public and Semi-Public Districts are:
CC Civic Center. This Zoning District is intended to be the cultural and institutional core of Santa Monica,
with a mix of high intensity government and cultural uses with significant gathering spaces and parks
combined with civic buildings and connections to the beach and Downtown areas. Commercial, retail,
office, affordable, workforce and market-rate housing, and community facilities such as early childhood
centers are also allowed in this mixed-use District. This District is consistent with the LUCE’s
Institutional/Public Lands land use designation.
PL Institutional/Public Lands. This Zoning District is for public or semi-public facilities, including
municipal offices, schools, libraries, museums, or performance spaces, cemeteries, corporation yards, utility
stations, and similar uses. This District is consistent with the LUCE’s Institutional/Public Lands land use
designation.
OS Parks and Open Space. This Zoning District is intended to preserve, enhance, and expand Santa
Monica’s existing open space, parks, beaches, and recreational areas, providing residents with easy access
to a relaxing, visually appealing amenity that provides opportunities for healthy recreation. This District is
applied to areas that will remain as parks or green open space, or be developed as such. Other allowed uses
in this designation include supporting structures such as recreation centers, gymnasiums, community
meeting facilities and small-scale retail uses that support outdoor recreation, such as restaurants,
refreshment stands, or sporting equipment and rental vendors. This District is consistent with the LUCE’s
Parks and Open Space land use designation. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.15.020 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.15.020 prescribes the land use regulations for Public and Semi-Public Districts. The regulations for
each district are established by letter designations listed below. These designations apply strictly to the
permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review.
“P” designates permitted uses.
92
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with specific limitations
listed at the end of the table.
“CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use
Permit.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit.
“–” designates uses that are not permitted.
Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51, Use Classifications. Use classifications and sub-classifications not
listed in the table are prohibited. Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning
Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate
to, the principal uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses.
The table also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand
column refer to other Sections of this Ordinance.
TABLE 9.15.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC DISTRICTS
Use Classification CC PL OS Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types See sub-classifications below.
Multiple-Unit Dwelling L (1) - -
Accessory Dwelling Unit P - - Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Unit
and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Multiple-Unit Dwelling P - - Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects
Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit
Residential L (1)P - - Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects
Single Room Occupancy Housing L (1) - - Section 9.31.330, Single Room Occupancy
Structures
Group Residential L (1) - -
Congregate Housing L (1) - - Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Senior Group Residential L (1) - - Section 9.31.310, Senior Group Residential
Emergency Shelters - P - Section 9.31.130, Emergency Shelters
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.
Large P P P Section 9.31.140, Family Day Care, Large
Small P P P
Residential Care Facilities See sub-classifications below.
Residential Care, General L (1) - - Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities
Residential Care, Limited L (1) - - Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities
Residential Care, Senior L (1) - - Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities
Hospice, General - - -
Hospice, Limited - - -
Supportive Housing L (1) - -
Transitional Housing L (1) - - Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care P P P
Cemetery - P -
93
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.15.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC DISTRICTS
Use Classification CC PL OS Additional Regulations
Child Care and Early Education
Facilities P P P Section 9.31.120, Child Care and Early
Education Facilities
Colleges and Trade Schools, Public or
Private L (3) P -
Community Assembly P P L (3)
Community Gardens - P P
Cultural Facilities P P P
Park and Recreations Facilities, Public P P P
Public Safety Facilities P P -
Schools, Public or Private L (3) P -
Social Service Centers P P -
Commercial Uses
Banks and Financial Institutions L (1) - -
Business Services L (1) - -
Commercial, Entertainment, and
Recreation See sub-classifications below.
Cinemas/Theaters - - MUP (3)
Convention and Conference
Centers P - -
Large-Scale Facility - - -
Small-Scale Facility - - - Section 9.31.340, Small-Scale Facility,
Game Arcades
Eating and Drinking Establishments See sub-classifications below.
Restaurants, Full-Service L (1) L (2) L (2) Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic Beverage Sales
Restaurants, Limited Service L (1) L (2) L (2) Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic Beverage Sales
Restaurants, Take-Out Only L (1) L (2) - Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic Beverage Sales
With Outdoor Eating Areas L (1) L (2) L (2) Section 9.31.200, Outdoor Dining and
Seating
Food and Beverage Sales See sub-classifications below.
Convenience Markets L (1) - - Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic Beverage Sales
Farmers Markets - P CUP
General Markets L (1) - - Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic Beverage Sales
Live-Work L (1) - - Section 9.31.170, Live-Work Units
Lodging See sub-classifications below.
Hotels and Motels CUP - -
Offices See sub-classifications below.
Business and Professional L (4)/CUP L (3) -
Creative L (4)/CUP - -
Walk-In Clientele L (4)/CUP - -
Parking, Public or Private L (3) P L (5)
General Personal Services L (1) - -
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below.
General Retail Sales, Small-Scale L (1) - - Section 9.31.220, Outdoor Retail Display
and Sales
Swap Meet MUP MUP MUP Section 9.31.360, Swap Meets
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
94
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.15.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC DISTRICTS
Use Classification CC PL OS Additional Regulations
Citywide Bikeshare Facility P P P
Communication Facilities See sub-classifications below.
Antennas and Transmission
Towers CUP CUP -
Equipment Within Buildings - P -
Utilities, Major - P -
Utilities, Minor - P -
Specific Limitations:
(1) Permitted as part of a mixed-use development. Residential uses not permitted on ground floor.
(2) Permitted only as an accessory to a primary use. Must be located within the same building as a primary use.
(3) Limited to public, quasi-public, or nonprofit establishments.
(4) Public, quasi-public, and nonprofit offices are permitted. Conditional Use Permit required for private offices.
(5) Limited to public parking for beach or park users.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 13, adopted June 14, 2016;
Ord. No. 2649CCS § 20, adopted September 8, 2020)
95
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.18
ACTIVITY CENTER AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION
OVERLAY DISTRICTS*
Activity Center Overlay District
* To be established by City Council through preparation of Area Plans for the Activity Center areas and
Development Agreements for each defined project. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23,
2015)
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
Chapter 9.19
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT*
* To be amended as the City Council establishes Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts in
accordance with Chapter 9.47. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
96
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.19
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATIONMODERATE INCOME HOUSING OVERLAY
DISTRICT*
TABLE OF CONTENTS* To be amended as the City Council establishes Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay Districts in accordance with Chapter 9.47. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1,
2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.19.010 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this Section is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by supporting the
development of housing that is affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of area median
income. The intent of this Section is to accommodate moderate income housing (MHO) projects through
increases in density, height, and relaxation of certain other zoning limitations for residential developments
in which all units are made affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of area median
income; to incentivize the reuse of existing buildings in order to create MHO Projects; to enable the
feasibility of MHO projects by allowing flexibility in unit mix and unit size in exchange for greater common
area living space; to enable MHO Projects to be permitted by right; and to apply such standards within the
MHO area, to support the Housing Element’s goals of supporting economic sustainability by creating
housing that accommodates an additional segment of the workforce, and achieve greater socioeconomic
diversity.
9.19.020 Definitions
A. Moderate Income Housing Overlay (MHO) means an overlay zoning district that sets forth
modified development standards within this chapter for residential developments Citywide, except
for parcels within the Single-Unit Residential (R1) zoning district, and in which all units are made
affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of area median income.
B. Moderate Income Housing Overlay (MHO) Dwelling Unit means a dwelling unit, as defined by
Section 9.52.020.0730, except that for purposes of this Chapter a dwelling unit shall be a minimum
of 250 square feet in size, if the dwelling unit is located within a MHO Project for which occupancy
is restricted to a MHO Eligible Household.
C. Moderate Income Housing Overlay (MHO) Eligible Household means a household whose gross
income exceeds the maximum income for an 80% income household and whose gross income does
not exceed 120% of the area median income, adjusted for household size, as published and
periodically updated by California Department of Housing and Community Development.
D. Moderate Income Housing Overlay (HMO) Project means a multiple-unit dwelling project
consisting of MHO Dwelling Units subject to the standards and restrictions set forth in this chapter.
A MHO Project may contain up to: (1) 33% of the project’s total floor area as market rate dwelling
units and/or non-residential uses that are otherwise permitted in the base zoning district; and (2) no
more than 25% of the total number of units as market rate units.
9.19.030 Applicability
A. The provisions set forth in this Section shall apply to MHO Projects within the MHO.
B. A MHO Project shall be permitted by-right if it meets all standards set forth in this chapter in place
of the requirements otherwise applicable in the underlying zoning district. Any development not
meeting all of the standards set forth in this chapter shall be subject to the requirements otherwise
97
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
applicable in the underlying zoning district.
C. A MHO Project pursuant to this section shall not include any alteration or demolition of any of the
following types of housing:
1. Deed restricted affordable housing;
2. Rent-controlled housing or housing subject to any form of price control, including, but
not limited to, units subject to the California statewide rent control law and Article XVIII
of the Santa Monica Charter, the City’s rent control law;
3. Housing occupied by a tenant in the last three years; or
4. Housing on parcels with an Ellis Act eviction in the last 15 years from date of application
submittal.
9.19.040 Standards for Eligibility and Rent
MHO dwelling units shall be exempt from Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program, except
for the following sections:
A. Section 9.64.110, Income Eligibility Requirements
B. Section 9.64.130, Deed Restrictions
9.19.050 Special Development Standards for MHO Projects
MHO Projects shall conform to the development standards of the underlying zoning district except as
modified by this Section.
A. Building Height. Projects shall receive a height increase of up to 33 feet above maximum building
height for the underlying zone district.
B. Residential Density Bonus. Projects shall be allowed to request up to a 50% density bonus.
C. Eligibility for Concessions/Incentives. Projects shall be eligible to request up to four incentives
and concessions pursuant to procedures set forth in Sections 9.22.060 and 9.22.080.
D. Eligibility for Waiver or Reduction of Development Standards. Projects shall be eligible to
request a waiver or reduction of development standards pursuant to procedures set forth in Section
9.22.070 and 9.22.080.
E. Open Space.
1. Projects shall provide an increase to minimum required outdoor living area in a percentage
equivalent to the density bonus requested pursuant to this Section.
2. Projects may substitute common outdoor living area in lieu of minimum required private
outdoor living area in an equivalent amount.
F. Minimum Off-Street Parking. MHO Projects shall not have minimum off-street parking
requirements.
G. Transportation Demand Management. In addition to those required by Chapter 9.53,
Transportation Demand Management, a MHO Project shall include the following Transportation
Demand Management measures:
1. A Transportation Allowance equivalent to at least 75% of the cost of a monthly regional transit
pass, in accordance with Section 9.53.130(B)(2)(c)(iv).
2. Free on-site shared bicycles intended for resident and guest use. This shall be optional if
Citywide bikeshare is available within a 2-block radius of the project site.
98
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
H. Air Quality Assessment Zone. MHO projects within the Air Quality Assessment Zone shall be
required to prepare a technical memorandum that describes the effectiveness of design features to
reduce exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a part of the early project design process.
Such memorandum shall be submitted at the time of project application and shall be subject to
review and approval by the Director prior to project approval.
99
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.21
GENERAL SITE REGULATIONS
Sections:
9.21.010 Purpose and Applicability
9.21.020 Accessory Buildings and Structures
9.21.030 Development on Multiple Parcels
9.21.040 Development on Parcels Divided by District Boundaries
9.21.050 Fences, Walls, and Hedges
9.21.060 Height Projections
9.21.070 Freestanding Structures
9.21.080 Lighting
9.21.090 Outdoor Living Area
9.21.100 Outdoor Storage
9.21.110 Projections from Buildings into Minimum Setbacks
9.21.120 Reflective Materials
9.21.130 Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
9.21.140 Screening
9.21.150 Solar Energy Systems
9.21.160 Swimming Pools and Spas
9.21.170 Building Additions Extending into Minimum Side Setbacks
9.21.180 Hazardous Visual Obstructions
9.21.190 Unexcavated Yard Areas
9.21.200 Residential Uses on Commercial Parcels Adjacent to Residential Districts
9.21.020 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Accessory structures shall conform to the same property development standards as main principal buildings
except as required by this Section. Accessory buildings in Residential Districts shall include, but not be limited
to, greenhouse and garden structures, storage sheds, workshops, garages, and other buildings that are detached
from the principal building. Accessory structures in Residential Districts shall include, but not be limited to,
unenclosed carports, gazebos, cabanas, or other similar structures; air conditioners, compressors, electric
vehicle charging equipment, pool and spa filters, or other mechanical equipment; barbecues; sinks and counters;
fountains; freestanding fireplaces; firepits; above ground swimming pools and spas; and other structures with
a fixed location that are detached from the principal building. Accessory structures greater than 14 feet in height
are not permitted. Accessory structures shall be erected, structurally altered, converted, enlarged, moved, and
maintained, in compliance with the following regulations:
A. Relation to Principal Buildings. An accessory building may only be constructed on a parcel with a
legally-permitted principal building. Except as may be provided under Santa Monica Municipal Code
6.20, Home-Sharing and Vacation Rentals, or for accessory dwelling units established in compliance
with Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, of this Code,
an accessory building shall be considered part of the principal building if the accessory building is
located less than 6 feet from the principal building or if connected to it by fully enclosed space.
B. Dwelling Units in Accessory Buildings. An accessory building on a parcel occupied or proposed to be
occupied by a single-unit or multiple-unit detached dwelling may only be used as a separate dwelling
unit in compliance with the requirements of Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units.
100
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
C. Accessory Buildings and Structures up to 14 Feet in Residential Districts. Accessory buildings and
structures not more than 14 feet or one story in height shall conform to the following standards:
1. Location.
a. Accessory buildings shall be located on the rear half of the parcel and shall not extend into the
minimum side yard setback except as authorized pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) below.
b. Accessory buildings no more than 14 feet in height may be located in the rear setback but shall
be located at least 5 feet from the rear parcel line. A garage or garage portion of such an
accessory building may extend up to one interior side parcel line within the rear 35 feet of a
parcel.
c. A garage or garage portion of an accessory building may extend to the rear parcel line abutting
an alley, provided that vehicle access is not taken from the alley. Where vehicle access is taken
from an alley, garages shall be set back at least 5 feet from the rear parcel line abutting said
alley.
d. Accessory buildings may be located in the rear setback and shall be located at least 15 feet
from the centerline of a rear alley.
e. Accessory structures shall not be located within any front or minimum side setback except as
expressly authorized below:
i. Fountains, fire pits, and similar ornamental landscape features not to exceed 42 inches in
height.
ii. Underground mechanical equipment.
iii. Electric vehicle charging equipment shall be permitted within any minimum side setback
but shall not be permitted within any minimum front setback.
2. Dimensions.
a. On a reversed corner parcel, accessory buildings shall not be located nearer to the street side
parcel line of such corner parcel than one-half of the front setback depth required on the key
parcel, nor be located nearer than 5 feet to the side parcel line of any key parcel.
b. Any accessory building on a through parcel shall not project into any front setback and shall
not be located in any minimum side setback.
3. Sloped Parcels.
a. Where the elevation of the ground at a point 50 feet from the front parcel line of a parcel and
midway between the side parcel lines differs 12 feet or more from the curb level, a private
garage, not exceeding one story nor 11 feet in height for a flat roof and one story nor 14 feet
in height for a pitched roof, may be located within the required front setback, provided that
every portion of the garage building is at least 5 feet from the front parcel line and does not
occupy more than 50% of the width of the front parcel line.
b. In all OP Districts, a garage or garage entrance on a parcel with an existing grade differential
of 10 feet or more between the midpoint of the front parcel line and the midpoint of the rear
parcel line may be set back a distance equal to the average garage setback of adjacent garage(s),
but not less than 5 feet, when the interior garage width does not exceed 20 feet and the height
does not exceed 11 feet for a flat roof and 14 feet for a pitched roof.
101
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4. Facilities. Except for accessory dwelling units established in compliance with Section 9.31.025,
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, accessory buildings may not
contain kitchens or full baths. An accessory building that is not an approved accessory dwelling unit
may contain a sink and toilet, but may not contain a shower or tub enclosure. A shower that is outside
and unenclosed is permitted.
D. Accessory Buildings over One Story or 14 Feet in Residential Districts. Accessory buildings that
exceed 14 feet or one story in height shall conform to the following standards:
1. Maximum Floor Area. The total floor area of an accessory building that exceeds 14 feet or one
story in height shall not exceed 650 square feet including any area approved for use as a garage. No
accessory building shall have a second floor that exceeds 250 square feet in size. Accessory dwelling
units are exempt from this requirement pursuant to Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
2. Maximum Building Height. The accessory building shall not exceed 2 stories or 24 feet in height.
3. Setbacks. The accessory building shall conform to all setback requirements of the Residential
District and the following requirements:
a. A one-story garage or the garage portion of an accessory building may extend into the rear
setback and may extend to one interior side property line on the rear 35 feet of a parcel.
b. The accessory building shall have the same minimum side setback requirement as the principal
building on the parcel, but in no case less than 5 feet.
c. The second story portion of an accessory building that is directly above the garage may extend
into the required rear setback but shall be no closer than 5 feet from the rear property line, and
may not extend into any minimum side setback.
E4. Exterior Features. In the Single-Unit Residential (R1) District, first-story roof decks, landings, upper
level walkways, and balconies on accessory buildings, not including accessory dwelling units, shall
not exceed 35 square feet in area and must be set back at least 25 feet from the side property line closest
to the structure, and at least 25 feet from the rear property line. Roof decks above the second story are
prohibited.
F5. Design Compatibility. The architectural design of the accessory building shall be compatible with the
design of the principal dwelling and surrounding residential development in terms of building form,
materials, colors, and exterior finishes.
6. G. Kitchen. The accessory building shall not contain a kitchen unless specifically permitted as
an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units.
7H. Full Bath. The accessory building may contain a sink, and toilet, but shall not contain and a shower
and/or tub enclosure. unless specifically permitted as an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Section
9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. A shower that is located
outside and unenclosed may be permitted.
I. 8. Renting. Except as may be permitted under Santa Monica Municipal Code 6.20, Home-Sharing
and Vacation Rentals, Nno accessory building shall be rented for any purpose or otherwise used as an
accessory dwelling unit unless specifically pursuant to Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units
and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015;
102
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
amended by Ord. No. 2536CCS § 9, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2624CCS § 4, adopted
November 12, 2019; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 22, adopted September 8, 2020)
9.21.060 Height Projections
No structure shall project above the height limits established in this Article except as specified in this
Section.
A. Building-Mounted and Attached Structures. Table 9.21.060 establishes the maximum permitted
projection(s) above the height limit of a building and into the daylight plane for structures that are
typically mounted or attached to a building. These projections are by right, with no discretionary permit
required. Table 9.21.060 also establishes limitations in the horizontal coverage of permitted projections.
Some allowances apply in all Zoning Districts while others are limited to specified Zoning Districts. In
the Single-Unit Residential (R1) District, allowed height projections into the minimum side stepback
areas above 23 feet shall be permitted. None of these projections shall permit occupiable space above
the height limit. The total aggregate coverage of projections shall not exceed 30% of a roof’s area. This
limitation shall not apply to solar energy systems (see Section 9.21.150).
103
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.21.060: ALLOWED PROJECTIONS ABOVE HEIGHT LIMITS
Structure
Maximum Aggregate Coverage
of Building’s Roof Area (%);
Other Locational Restrictions
Maximum Vertical Projection
(ft.) Above the Height Limit*
Projections Allowed in All Zoning Districts:
Skylights No limit 1 ft.
Skylights on flat roofs 30%; May not be located within
5 ft. of any edge of the roof 5 ft.
Chimneys, vent stacks 5% 5 ft.
Windscoops 5% 5 ft.
Solar energy systems located on a rooftop See Section 9.21.150 See Section 9.21.150
Antennas
One standard television receive-only
nonparabolic antenna and one vertical whip
antenna
10%; May not be located
between the building and any
street-facing parcel line
25 ft.
Other antennas See Chapter 9.32, Telecommunications Facilities
Parapets, fire escapes, catwalks, and open guard rails
required by law As required by law As required by law
Projections Allowed in All Districts Except R1 and OP-1 Districts:
Non-occupiable features such as steeples, spires,
towers, domes, and cupolas 10% 10 ft.
Rooftop features for outdoor living areas, such as
sunshade, open railings, trellises, and landscaping 25% 10 ft.
Elevator shafts 15% 18 ft.* above the roofline
Stairwells 25% 14 ft.* above the roofline
Mechanical rooms and enclosures 25% 12 ft.* above the roofline
Ventilating fans, water tanks, cooling towers, or
other equipment required to operate and maintain a
building, along with screening of such equipment
required by Section 9.21.140, Screening
Total area enclosed by all
screening may not exceed 30%
of roof area
12 ft.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 14, adopted
June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2576CCS § 6, adopted June 12, 2018; Ord. No. 2624CCS § 5, adopted November
12, 2019)
9.21.090 Outdoor Living Area
Required outdoor living areas to serve residential dwelling units shall be provided in accordance with this
Section.
A. Required Area, Location. Outdoor living area shall be provided according to the required minimum
area stated for the respective District in Division 2, Base and Overlay Districts. The required
minimum private outdoor living space area per dwelling unit shall be located and designed to serve
each unit. The remainder of required open space per unit shall be provided as either private open
space accessible to the unit or common open space accessible to all or multiple units on the site. No
more than 20 percent of the total area required for outdoor living space may be provided on a roof.
B. Facilities. Private outdoor living areas typically consist of balconies, decks, patios, fenced setbacks,
and other similar areas outside the residence. Common outdoor living areas typically consist of
landscaped areas, landscaped courts, walks, patios, swimming pools, barbeque areas, playgrounds,
turf, gardens, or other such improvements as are appropriate to enhance the outdoor environment of
the development.
104
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
C. Minimum Dimensions.Standards and Requirements
1. Private Outdoor Living Area.
a. Private outdoor living area located on the ground level (e.g., yards, decks, patios, )
shall be no less than 10 feet long by 4 feet deep. Private outdoor living area located
above ground level (e.g., balconies) shall be no less than 6 feet long by 4 feet deep.
b. For non-residentially zoned parcels, ground floor private outdoor living areas
adjacent to a street shall not be permitted to be enclosed with a fence, wall, or hedge
greater than 5 feet in height. Any portion of fences, walls, and hedges above 42 inches
in height shall be at least 50% visually transparent.
2. Common Outdoor Living Area.
a. Ground Floor or Podium Level. Common outdoor living area located on the ground
or podium level shall provide one space that is be at least 400 square feet with
minimum dimensions of no less than 20 feet in width and 15 feet in length.2015 by
20 feet in dimension.
b. Upper Story. Common outdoor living area located on an upper-story decks shall be
no less than 10 feet in width and by 10 feet in length in dimension. Roof decks shall
be no less than 15 by 15 feet in dimension.
c. Roof Decks. Common outdoor living area located on a roof shall be subject to the
following limitations and requirements:
i. Parcels less than 15,000 square feet: No size limitation, but any provided open
space shall be no less than 10 feet in width and 10 feet in depth.
ii. Parcels greater than 15,000 square feet: No more than 50% of provided common
open space can be located on a roof and shall be no less than 10 feet in width
and 10 feet in depth.
iii. Permanent shading shall be provided for a minimum of 50% of outdoor living
area.
D. Accessibility.
1. Private Outdoor Living Area. Private outdoor living area shall be accessible to only one living
unit by a doorway or doorways to a habitable room or hallway of the unit.
2. Common Outdoor Living Area. Common outdoor living area shall be accessible to all the
residents of the dwelling units on the parcel.
E. Usability. A surface shall be provided that allows convenient use for outdoor living and/or recreation
for the use of residents. Such surface may be any practicable combination of lawn, garden, flagstone,
wood planking, concrete, or other serviceable, dust-free surfacing. The slope shall not exceed 2
percent.
F. 100% Affordable Housing Projects. 100% Affordable Housing Projects in any district may
substitute common outdoor living area in lieu of minimum required private outdoor living area in an
equivalent amount. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
105
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9.21.110 Projections from Buildings into Minimum Setbacks
Table 9.21.110 sets forth the requirements for permitted projections from buildings into minimum setbacks
and the daylight plane. The types of projections and the limitations on such projections into minimum
setbacks and the daylight plane are permitted subject to Chapter 4.12, Noise; Section 9.31.180, Hazardous
Visual Obstructions; and compliance with the California Building Code as follows:.
Notwithstanding the standards below, the following shall apply:
• In the Single-Unit Residential (R1) District, only expressly authorized projections into the
minimum side stepback areas above 23 feet shall be permitted. Projections shall not be permitted
closer than 4 feet to any parcel line unless otherwise expressly authorized.
• Projections as listed below into existing, nonconforming setback areas shall be permitted only if
the projection does not extend closer to the parcel line than would be permitted if the setback area
conformed to current standards.
• In the Single-Unit Residential (R1) District, only expressly authorized projections into the
minimum side stepback areas above 23 feet shall be permitted.
The types of projections and the limitations on such projections into minimum setbacks are permitted
subject to Chapter 4.12, Noise; Section 9.31.180, Hazardous Visual Obstructions; and compliance with the
California Building Code as follows:
TABLE 9.21.110: ALLOWED PROJECTIONS FROM BUILDINGS INTO MINIMUM SETBACKS
Projections
Front
Setback
Street Side
Setback
Interior Side
Setback
Rear
Setback
Eaves, awnings, canopies, sun shades, sills, cornices,
belt courses, trellises, arbors, and other similar
architectural features (also permitted within R1 stepback
areas above 23 feet)
30 in. (no
closer than
1.5 ft. to
parcel line)
30 in. (no
closer than 1.5
ft, to parcel
line)
24 in. (no
closer than
1.5 ft. to
parcel line)
4 ft. (no
closer
than 1.5
ft. to
parcel
line)
Flues, chimneys, rain gutters, downspouts, and similar
vertical architectural projections not more than 5 ft. wide
parallel to the side setback and that do not exceed 20%
of the façade width
All setbacks:
18 in. for structures with conforming setbacks;
12 in. for structures with nonconforming setbacks
Patios, porches, platforms, decks, and other unenclosed
areas not covered by a roof or canopy and that may be
raised above the level of the adjacent setback but do not
extend more than 3 ft. above the average natural grade
except for guard rails to the extent legally required
6 ft. 6 ft.
No limit (can
extend to
parcel line)
No limit
(can
extend to
parcel
line)
In the R1 District, first-story porches and second-story
balconies open on 3 sides with a height of no more than
14 ft., including parapets and railings, that do not exceed
50% of the front building width measured at the front
façade
6 ft. Not permitted Not
permitted
Not
permitted
In the R1 District, stairs with no roof or canopy less than
3 ft. above finished grade associated with a first-story
front porch projection
4 additional
feet Not permitted Not
permitted
Not
permitted
Balconies, decks, porches, and similar structures that are
open, unenclosed on at least 2 sides 30 in. 30 in. Not
permitted 4 ft.
106
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.21.110: ALLOWED PROJECTIONS FROM BUILDINGS INTO MINIMUM SETBACKS
Projections
Front
Setback
Street Side
Setback
Interior Side
Setback
Rear
Setback
In any OP district, second floor decks, patios, or
balconies, covered or uncovered, adjacent to primary
living spaces
30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 4 ft.
Unroofed access facilities, including stairs and
wheelchair ramps, with a height, including railings, of
no more than 6 ft. above average natural grade
8 ft., but may extend any distance to accommodate
wheelchair ramps or similar ADA access facilities
Exterior access facilities leading to the second or higher
story of a building, including open or enclosed fire
escapes and open, unroofed fireproof outside stairways,
landings, exterior corridors, and wheelchair ramps. This
projection shall not be permitted within the R1 District
Not
permitted Not permitted
12 in. or 2 in.
per foot of
required side
setback,
whichever is
greater
4 ft.
Greenhouse windows and bay windows that are not
greater than 6 ft. wide parallel to the setback if all such
windows are cantilevered only and do not extend to the
ground level, provided the structure has a conforming
setback
18 in. 18 in. 18 in. 18 in.
Porte cocheres not more than 20 ft. long, not more than
14 ft. in height, including required railings or parapets,
and open on at least 2 sides
Not
permitted
No limit (can extend to parcel line) unless
limited by Building Code
Mailbox canopies not more than 10 ft. long 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 4 ft.
Air conditioners, compressors, hot tub motors, pool
filters, and other mechanical equipment
Not
permitted Not permitted Not
permitted
No limit
(can
extend to
parcel
line)
Detached structures and mechanical equipment See Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Water heaters enclosures and tankless water heaters Not
permitted
18 in. for structures with
conforming setbacks;
12 in. for structures with
nonconforming setbacks
No limit
(can
extend to
parcel
line)
Utility equipment including, but not limited to, gas,
water, and electrical meters
Not
permitted
(unless
required by
Building and
Utility
Codes)
18 in. for structures with
conforming setbacks;
12 in. for structures with
nonconforming setbacks
No limit
(can
extend to
parcel
line)
Electric vehicle charging equipment Not
permitted
No limit (can
extend to
parcel line)
No limit (can
extend to
parcel line)
No limit
(can
extend to
parcel
line)
Solar energy system equipment See Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 19, adopted June 14, 2016;
Ord. No. 2624CCS § 6, adopted November 12, 2019)
107
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.22
AFFORDABLE HOUSINGDENSITY BONUS AND INCENTIVES
Sections:
9.22.010 Purpose
9.22.020 Relation to Affordable Housing Production Program
9.22.030 Definitions
9.22.040 Eligibility
9.22.050 Density Bonus
9.22.060 Incentives and Concessions for Affordable Housing
9.22.070 Waiver or Reduction /Modification of Development Standards
9.22.080 Procedures
9.22.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the production of deed-restricted affordable housing, to
implement goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element
(“LUCE”) and Housing Element related to affordable housing production, and to establish procedures for
implementing the requirements of the State Density Bonus Law, as set forth in California Government Code
Chapter 4.3, Sections 65915 through 65918 (the “State Density Bonus Law”). (Added by Ord. No.
2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2649CCS § 23, adopted September 8,
2020)
9.22.020 Relation to Affordable Housing Production Program
Nothing in this Chapter shall be interpreted to modify or reduce the requirements of the City’s Affordable
Housing Production Program, Chapter 9.64, including, but not limited to, satisfaction of the affordable
housing obligation set forth in Section 9.64.040. Affordable housing units produced pursuant to the
Affordable Housing Production Program that meet the requirements of this Chapter shall be counted
towards eligibility for the density bonuses, incentives or concessions, and waivers or modifications
reductions of development standards set forth in this Chapter. (Added by Ord. No. 2649CCS § 24, adopted
September 8, 2020)
9.22.030 Definitions
As used in this Chapter:
A. “Affordable housing cost” means affordable housing cost as defined in Health and Safety Code
Section 50052.5.
B. “Affordable rent” means affordable rent as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053.
C. “Childcare facility” means a child daycare facility other than a family day care, including, but not
limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended daycare facilities and school age childcare centers.
D. “Common interest development” means common interest development as defined in Civil Code
Section 4100.
E. “Concession or incentive” means any of the following:
1. A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or
architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the
California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section
18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction
in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that
would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for
108
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for
rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in Government Code Section 65915(c).
2. Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office,
industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the
commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the
existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located.
3. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city
and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing
costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted
units to be set as specified in Government Code Section 65915(c).
F. “Density bonus” means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential
density as of the date of application for first planning entitlement or permit, or, if elected by the
applicant, a lesser percentage of density increase, including, but not limited to, no increase in density.
G. “Development standard” means a site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a
height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, a
minimum lot area per unit requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development
pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law,
policy, resolution, or regulation.
H. “Housing development” means a development project for five or more residential units, including
a mixed-use development. For purposes of this Chapter, “housing development” also includes a
subdivision or common interest development, as defined in Section 4100 of the Civil Code, approved
by the city and that consists of residential units or unimproved residential lots and either a project to
substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building to residential use or the
substantial rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling, as defined in Government Code
Section 65863.4(d), where the result of the rehabilitation would be a net increase in available
residential units.
I. “Located within one-half mile of a major transit stop” means that any point on a proposed
development, for which an applicant seeks a density bonus, other incentives or concessions, waivers
or reductions of development standards, or a vehicular parking ratio pursuant to this section, is within
one-half mile of any point on the property on which a major transit stop is located, including any
parking lot owned by the transit authority or other local agency operating the major transit stop.
IJ. “Lower income households” means lower income households as defined by Health and Safety
Code Section 50079.5.
JK. “Major transit stop” shall mean a major transit stop as defined in Public Resources Code Section
21155(b).
KL. “Maximum allowable residential density” or “base density” means the density maximum
number of units allowed under the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX of this Municipal Code (the
“Zoning Ordinance”), specific plan, and or the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), or, if a
range of density is permitted, means the maximum allowable densitynumber of units allowed by
for the specific zoning district, as set forth in Division 2 of the Zoning Ordinance, specific plan, or
and the LUCE applicable to the project. If the density allowed under the Zoning Ordinance is
inconsistent with the density allowed under the LUCE or a specific plan, the density provisions of
the LUCE, the greater shall prevail. If a housing development is subject to tiered development
standards, the “maximum allowable residential density” or “base density” shall mean the
maximum number of units allowed at the selected tier.
LM. “Moderate-income households” means moderate-income households as defined in Health and
Safety Code Section 50053.
109
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
MN. “Persons and families of moderate income” means persons and families of moderate income as
defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093.
O. “Shared housing building” means a residential or mixed-use structure, with five or more shared
housing units and one or more common kitchens and dining areas designed for permanent residence
of more than 30 days by its tenants. The kitchens and dining areas within the shared housing building
shall be able to adequately accommodate all residents. A “shared housing building” may include
other dwelling units that are not shared housing units, provided that those dwelling units do not
occupy more than 25 percent of the floor area of the shared housing building. A shared housing
building may include 100 percent shared housing units.
P. “Shared housing unit” means one or more habitable rooms, not within another dwelling unit, that
includes a bathroom, sink, refrigerator, and microwave, is used for permanent residence, that meets
the “minimum room area” specified in Section R304 of the California Residential Code (Part 2.5 of
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), and complies with the definition of “guestroom” in
Section R202 of the California Residential Code. If a local ordinance further restricts the attributes
of a shared housing building beyond the requirements established in this section, the local definition
shall apply to the extent that it does not conflict with the requirements of this section.
Q. “Total units” or “total dwelling units” means a calculation of the number of units that:
(i) Excludes unit(s) added by a density bonus awarded pursuant to this section or any local law
granting a greater density bonus; and
(ii) Includes unit(s) designated to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing
Production Program.
(iii) For purposes of calculating a density bonus granted pursuant to this section for a shared housing
building, “unit” means one shared housing unit and its pro rata share of associated common area
facilities.
NR. “Very low income households” means very low income households as defined in Health and
Safety Code Section 50105. (Added by Ord. No. 2649CCS § 25, adopted September 8, 2020)
S. “Very low vehicle travel area” means an urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census
Bureau, where the existing residential development generates vehicle miles traveled per capita that
is below 85 percent of either regional vehicle miles traveled per capita or city vehicle miles traveled
per capita. For purposes of this paragraph, “area” may include a travel analysis zone, hexagon, or
grid. For the purposes of determining “regional vehicle miles traveled per capita” pursuant to this
paragraph, a “region” is the entirety of incorporated and unincorporated areas governed by a
multicounty or single-county metropolitan planning organization, or the entirety of the incorporated
and unincorporated areas of an individual county that is not part of a metropolitan planning
organization.
9.22.040 Eligibility
A. Except as set forth in subsection B, a housing development project in a residential district shall be
eligible for a density bonus and additional incentives, concessions, waivers , and/or reductions of
development standards, and parking ratios as set forth in this Section.
1. The City will grant one density bonus, the amount of which shall be specified in Section
9.22.050, and, if requested by the applicant and consistent with the applicable requirements of
this Chapter, incentives and concessions, as set forth in Section 9.22.060(A) and (B), waivers
and or reductions of development standards, as set forth in Section 9.22.070, and parking ratios,
as described in Section 9.22.060(C), to the applicant of a housing development when the
applicant seeks and agrees to construct a housing development project that will, excluding any
units permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to this Chapter, contain at least any one
of the following:
110
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
a. 10% of the total units of the housing development, including shared housing building
development, for lower income households;
b. 5% of the total units of the housing development, including shared housing building
development, for very low income households;
c. A senior citizen housing development as defined in Section 51.3 and 51.12 of the Civil
Code or a qualifying mobile home park that limits residency based on age requirements for
older persons pursuant to Section 798.76 or 799.5 of the Civil Code For purposes of this
subparagraph, “development” includes a shared housing building development.;
d. 10% of the total units of a common interesthousing development as restricted affordable
units affordableare sold to persons and families of moderate income, provided that all units
in the development are offered to the public for purchase subject to the equity share and
restrictions specified in Government Code Section 65915(c)(2);
e. 10% of the total units of a housing development for transitional foster youth, as defined by
Section 66025.9 of the Education Code, disabled veterans, as defined by Section 18541 of
the Government Code, or homeless persons, as defined in the Federal McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301 et seq.) affordable at the same level as very
low income units;
f. 20% of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development that
meets the requirements of Government Code Section 65915(b)(1)(F); or
g. 100% of the total unitsall units in the development including total units and density bonus,
but exclusive of manager’s unit or units, are for lower income households, except that up
to 20% of the total units in the housing development, including total units and density
bonus units, may be for moderate-income households. For purposes of this subparagraph,
“development” includes a shared housing building development..; or
h. 100% Affordable Housing Projects as defined in Section 9.52.020.0050.
2. Land Donations. An applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or other residential
development approval that donates land to the City in accordance with Government Code
Section 65915(g) shall be eligible for a density bonus in accordance with the terms and
conditions of Government Code Section 65915(g).
3. Housing Development with Childcare Facility. An applicant that proposes to construct a
housing development that conforms to the requirements of subsection (A)(1) and that also
includes a childcare facility that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to the
project shall be eligible for a density bonus in accordance with the terms and conditions of
Government Code Section 65915(h).
B. Notwithstanding subsection A, an applicant that submits an application for housing development,
including a planning entitlement or permit, shall be ineligible for a density bonus or any other
incentive or concession under this Chapter if the housing development is proposed on a property that
includes a parcel or parcels that contains: (1) rental dwelling units that are, or, if the dwelling units
have been vacated or demolished in the 5-year period preceding the application, have been subject
to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons or families
of lower or very low income; (2) rental units that are controlled rental units pursuant to City Charter
Section 1800 et seq., subject to Civil Code Section 1947.12, or subject to any other form of State or
111
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
local rent or price control; or (3) units occupied by lower or very low income households, unless the
proposed housing development replaces those units, and either of the following applies:
1. The proposed housing development, inclusive of the units replaced pursuant to this Section,
contains affordable units at the percentages set forth in Section 9.22.050(B).
2. Each unit in the proposed housing development, exclusive of manager’s unit or units, is
affordable to, and occupied by, either a lower or very low income household.
C. For the purposes of this Section, “replace” shall mean either of the following:
1. If any dwelling units described in this Section are occupied on the date of application, the
proposed housing development shall provide at least the same number of units of equivalent size
to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons
and families in the same or lower income category as those households in occupancy. If the
income category of the persons household in occupancy is not known, it shall be rebuttably
presumed that lower income renter households occupied these units in the same proportion of
lower income renter households to all renter households within the jurisdiction, as determined
by the most recently available data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy database.
For unoccupied dwelling units described in subsection A in a development with occupied units,
the proposed housing development shall provide units of equivalent size to be made available at
affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same
or lower income category as the last household in occupancyin the same proportion of
affordability as the occupied units. If the income category of the persons inlast household in
occupancy is not known, it shall be rebuttably presumed that lower income renter households
occupied these units in the same proportion of lower income renter households to all renter
households within the jurisdiction, as determined by the most recently available data from the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy database.
All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole
number. The If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, the replacement units shall
be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years in accordance with Section
9.22.050(D). If the proposed development is for-sale units, the units replaced shall be subject to
Government Code Section 65915(c)(2).
2. If all dwelling units described in subsection A have been vacated or demolished within the 5-
year period preceding the application, the proposed housing development shall provide at least
the same number of units of equivalent size as existed at the highpoint of those units in the 5-
year period preceding the application to be made available at affordable rent or affordable
housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as
those persons and families in occupancy at that time, if known. If the incomes of the persons and
families in occupancy at the highpoint is not known, it shall be rebuttably presumed that low-
income and very low income renter households occupied these units in the same proportion of
low-income and very low income renter households to all renter households within the
jurisdiction, as determined by the most recently available data from the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy database. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up
to the next whole number. The If the replacement units will be rental, the replacement units shall
112
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years in accordance with
subsection 9.22.050(D). If the proposed development is for-sale units, the units replaced shall
be subject to Government Code Section 65915(c)(2).
3. Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), for any dwelling unit described in subsection A that is
or was, within the 5-year period preceding the application, a controlled rental unit pursuant to
City Charter Section 1800 et seq., a rental unit subject to Civil Code Section 1947.12, or a rental
unit subject to any other form of State or local rent or price control, and that is or was occupied
by persons or families above lower income, the City may require that replacement units must
either:
a. Be be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by,
low-income persons or families. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units
shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. If the proposed
development is for-sale units, the units shall be replaced subject to Government Code Section
65915(c)(2). ; and.
b. If applicable, Bbe replaced in compliance with City Charter Article XVIII, the City’s
Rent Control Law, provided that each unit described in this subsection (3) is replaced.
Unless otherwise required by the Rent Control Law , these units shall not be subject to a
recorded affordability restriction.
4. For purposes of this Section, “equivalent size” means that the replacement units contain at least
the same total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced.
D. Notwithstanding subsection A, a housing development project in any zoning district that will contain
100% of the total units, exclusive of manager’s unit or units, for lower income households, except
that up to 20% of the total units in the housing development may be for moderate-income households,
shall be eligible for any density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver or modification to which a
housing development project described in Section 9.22.040(A)(1)(g) is entitled. (Added by Ord. No.
2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2649CCS § 26, adopted September
8, 2020)
9.22.050 Density Bonus
A. An eligible applicant under Section 9.22.040 may seek a density bonus in the amounts set forth in
this Section and in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 9.22.080. Applicants may
request a lesser percentage of density increase than that which is available for a housing development
under this Section, including, but not limited to, no increase in density; however, the City shall not
be required to similarly reduce the number of units required to be dedicated pursuant to this Section
and Government Code Section 65915(b).
B. Determining Percentage Density Bonus Granted. The number of density bonus units to be granted
shall be determined as follows:
1. For housing developments that meet the criteria of Section 9.22.040(A)(1)(a), the density bonus
shall be calculated as follows:
Percentage Low-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
10 20
11 21.5
12 23
13 24.5
14 26
15 27.5
113
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
16 29
17 30.5
18 32
19 33.5
20 35
21 38.75
22 42.5
23 46.25
24 50
2. For housing developments that meet the criteria of Section 9.22.040(A)(1)(b), the density bonus
shall be calculated as follows:
Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
12 38.75
13 42.5
14 46.25
15 50
3. a. For housing developments that meet the criteria of Section 9.22.040(A)(1)(c), the density
bonus shall be 20% of the number of senior housing units.
b. For housing developments that meet the criteria of Section 9.22.040(A)(1)(e), the density
bonus shall be 20% of the number of the type of units giving rise to a density bonus under
that paragraph.
c. For housing developments that meet the criteria of Section 9.22.040(A)(1)(f), the density
bonus shall be 35% of the student housing units.
d. For 100% Affordable Housing Projects or housing developments that meet the criteria of
Section 9.22.040(A)(1)(g), the following shall apply:
i. Except as otherwise provided in clause (ii), the density bonus shall be 80% of the
number of units for lower income households.
ii. If the housing development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or
is located in a very low vehicle travel area in a designated county, there shall be no
maximum control on density.
4. For housing developments that meet the criteria of Section 9.22.040(A)(1)(d), the density bonus
shall be calculated as follows:
Percentage Moderate-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
10 5
11 6
12 7
114
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Percentage Moderate-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
13 8
14 9
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
31 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
35 30
36 31
37 32
38 33
39 34
40 35
41 38.75
42 42.5
43 46.25
44 50
5. An applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or other residential development
approval that donates land to the City in accordance with Government Code Section 65915(g)
shall be entitled to a density bonus as provided by Government Code Section 65915(g).
6. To calculate density bonus for housing developments that provide onsite affordable units in
accordance with Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program, all onsite affordable
units shall be counted as very low-income units up to the highest percentage of density bonus
granted under this Chapter 9.22 and State Density Bonus Law.
C. Calculating Base Density
1. In residential districts, the maximum allowable residential or base density, as defined in
9.22.030(L), shall be determined using dwelling units per acre.
115
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2. Except as provided in subsection (3) below, in non-residential districts which do not provide a
dwelling-units-per-acre standard for density, the maximum allowable residential or base density
shall be calculated by:
a. Estimating the realistic development capacity of the site based on the objective development
standards applicable to the project, including, but not limited to, floor area ratio, site coverage,
maximum building height and number of stories, building setbacks and stepbacks, public and
private open space requirements, minimum percentage or square footage of any nonresidential
component, and parking requirements, unless not required for the base project. Parking
requirements shall include considerations regarding number of spaces, location, design, type,
and circulation. Applicants may provide a base density study which the City shall accept,
provided that it includes all applicable objective development standards.
b. Maintaining the same average unit size and other project details relevant to the base density
study, except those development standards or requirements that may be modified by waiver
or concession to accommodate the bonus units, in the proposed project as in the study.
3. Notwithstanding subsection (2), for Downtown districts any housing development subject to with
tiered development standards, the maximum allowable residential density shall be based on the
maximum number of units allowed for the selected Tier in the zoning district under Tier 1. The
maximum allowable residential or base density shall be calculated by:
a. Estimating the realistic development capacity of the site based on the objective development
standards applicable to the project, including, but not limited to, floor area ratio, site coverage,
maximum building height and number of stories, building setbacks and stepbacks, public and
private open space requirements, minimum percentage or square footage of any nonresidential
component, and parking requirements, unless not required for the base project. Parking
requirements shall include considerations regarding number of spaces, location, design, type,
and circulation. Applicants may provide a base density study which the City shall accept,
provided that it includes all applicable objective development standards.
b. Maintaining the same average unit size and other project details relevant to the base density
study, except those development standards or requirements that may be modified by waiver
or concession to accommodate the bonus units, in the proposed project as in the study.
D. Calculating Density Bonus.
1. Density bonus shall be calculated by the following formula:
Density bonus = base density X percentage density bonus granted.
2. For the purposes of calculating the amount of the density bonus pursuant to subsection B, a
housing development is entitled to only one density bonus over maximum allowable residential
density or base density .and a An applicant who requests a density bonus must elect whether the
bonus shall be awarded on the basis of Section 9.22.040(A)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), or (g), or
(h). Density bonuses from more than one category may not be combined.
23. All density calculations resulting in fractional units will be rounded up to the next whole number.
3. For purposes of subsection B, “total units,” “total dwelling units,” or “total rental beds” does not
include units added by a density bonus pursuant to this Section or any provision of this Municipal
Code granting a greater density bonus.
116
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4. For the purpose of calculating a density bonus granted pursuant to this section for a shared
housing building, “unit” means one shared housing unit and its pro-rated share of associated
common area facilities.
5. For the purpose of calculating a density bonus, the residential units shall be on contiguous sites
that are the subject of one development application, but do not have to be based upon individual
subdivision maps or parcels. The density bonus shall be permitted in geographic areas of the
housing development other than the areas where the units for the lower income households are
located.
DE. Continued Affordability. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an applicant shall agree to
continued affordability of restricted affordable units in accordance with Government Code Section
65915(c) and Section 9.64.130 of this Code and the Administrative Guidelines adopted thereto.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2649CCS § 27,
adopted September 8, 2020)
9.22.060 Incentives and Concessions for Affordable Housing
A. An eligible applicant under Section 9.22.040 may request the following numbers of incentives or
concessions in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 9.22.080:
Minimum Percentage of Affordable Units Number of Incentives and
Concessions Permitted
• 5% Very Low,
• 10% Low, or
• 10% Moderate in for-sale developments
1
• 10% Very Low,
• 17% Low, or
• 20% Moderate in for-sale developments
2
• 15% Very Low,
• 24% Low, or
• 30% Moderate in for-sale developments
3
• 100% Affordable Housing Projects or projects
meeting the criteria of Section 9.22.040(A)(1)(g) 4
To determine the number of incentives and concessions for housing developments that provide
onsite affordable units in accordance with Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program,
all onsite affordable units shall be counted as very low-income units up to the highest amount of
incentives and concessions granted by this Chapter 9.22 and State Density Bonus Law.
B. By Right A requested iIncentives or cConcessions. Without following the procedures in Section
9.22.080, the Director shall approve requested incentives and concessions as follows may include
the following:
1. For Tier 1 housing developments in residential zones:
a. Up to a 15% deviation from one side setback requirement.;
b. Up to a 10% increase in first floor parcel coverage per floor and/or story (one concession
per floor and/or story).;
117
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
c. Up to a 15% deviation from rear setback requirements.
d. Up to one additional story and six feet of building height.
2. For Tier 2 housing developments in residential zones that meet the requirements of Section
9.23.030(A) of this Code: one or more of the Tier 2 incentives set forth in Table 9.08.030.For
housing developments in all non residential zones:
a. Up to an additional 11 feet of Building Height.
b. Up to a 10% reduction in Minimum Ground Floor height.
c. Up to a 50% decrease in private outdoor living area per unit, provided that an equivalent
amount is substituted for common outdoor living area.
d. Up to a 5% decrease in unit mix requirement for market rate units only.
e. Up to a 10% decrease in residential parking requirement.
f. Up to a 10% decrease in long-term residential bicycle parking.
g. Additional floor area to accommodate the density bonus units based on project’s average
unit size.
3. In addition to the above, for 100% Affordable Housing Projects or projects meeting the criteria
of Section 9.22.040(A)(1)(g) located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or located in a
very low vehicle travel area in a designated county:
a. Height increase of up to 3 additional stories, or 33 feet. This shall not count towards one
of the four incentives or concessions available for 100% Affordable Housing Projects or
projects meeting the criteria of Section 9.22.040(A)(1)(g).
C. By Right Parking Incentives. In addition to the above, an eligible applicant project under Section
9.22.040 shall be entitled to the parking incentives set forth in Government Code Section 65915(p).
D. Nothing in this Section limits or requires the provision of direct financial incentives for a housing
development, including the provision of publicly owned land by the City or the waiver of fees or
dedication requirements. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by
Ord. No. 2520CCS § 21, adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 28, adopted September 8,
2020)
9.22.070 Waiver or Reduction /Modification of Development Standards
A. An eligible applicant under Section 9.22.040 may in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Section 9.22.080 seek a waiver or modification reduction of any development standards that will
have the effect of precluding the construction of a housing development at the densities or with the
concessions or incentives permitted by this Chapter. The eligible applicant shall show that any
development standard requested to be waived or modified will have the effect of physically
precluding the construction of the housing development at the densities or with the concessions or
incentives permitted by this Chapter.
B. Except as provided in subsection C, aA proposal for the a waiver or reduction of development
standards pursuant to this Section shall neither reduce nor increase the number of incentives or
concessions to which the applicant is entitled pursuant to Section 9.22.060.
C. A housing development that: (i) receives a waiver from any maximum controls on density pursuant
to Section 9.22.050(3)(d)(ii) and up to three additional stories or 33 feet in height in accordance with
9.22.060(A)(4), and (ii) is not located in the Pico Neighborhood Area, as outlined in Figure
118
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9.40.020.A, shall be eligible for, and may receive, additional waivers or reductions of development
standards in accordance with this Section. Additional waivers or reductions of development
standards shall not include additional height or number of stories. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§
1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2649CCS § 29, adopted September 8, 2020)
C. A housing development that receives a waiver from any maximum controls on density pursuant to
Section 9.22.050(3)(d)(ii) shall not be eligible for, and shall not receive, a waiver or reduction of
development standards pursuant to this subdivision, other than as expressly granted under Section
9.22.050(3)(d)(ii).
9.22.080 Procedures
The following procedures shall govern the processing of a request for a density bonus, incentive,
concession, waiver, modificationreduction, or revised parking standard:
A. An application for a density bonus, incentive, or concession, waiver or reduction /, modification of
development standards, or revised parking standard pursuant to this Chapter shall be submitted with
the first application for approval of a housing development and processed concurrently with all other
applications required for the housing development. The application shall be submitted on a form
prescribed by the City and shall include at least the following information:
1. Site plan showing total number of units, number and location of affordable housing units, and
number and location of proposed density bonus units;
2. Target income of affordable housing units and proposals for ensuring affordability;
3. Description of any requested incentives or, concessions, waivers or modifications reduction of
development standards, or modified parking standards. For all incentives and or concessions that
are not included within the menu of incentives/ or concessions set forth in subsections B and C
of Section 9.22.060, the application shall include documentation a pro forma providing evidence
that the requested incentives and concessions result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and
actual cost reductions. The cost of reviewing any required pro forma or other financial data
submitted as part of the application in support of a request for an incentive/concession or
waiver/modification of developments standard, including, but not limited to, the cost to the City
of hiring a consultant to review said financial data, shall be borne by the developer. The pro
formadocumentation shall include all of the following items:
a. The identifiable and actual cost reduction achieved through the incentive or concession;
b. Evidence that the cost reduction allows the applicant to provide affordable units or
affordable sales prices; and
c. Other information documentation requested by the Director. The Director may require that
any pro formadocumentation include information regarding capital costs, equity
investment, debt service, projected revenues, operating expenses, and such other
information as is required to evaluate the pro formadeemed necessary by the Director.
4. For any requested waiver or reduction of a development standard, the applicant shall provide
evidence that the development standard for which the waiver or reduction is requested will have
the effect of physically precluding the construction of the residential project with the density
bonus incentives requested;
5. If a density bonus or concession is requested for a land donation, the application shall show the
location of the land to be donated provide proof of site control, and provide evidence that all of
119
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
the requirements and each of the findings included in Government Code Section 65915(g) can
be made; and
6. If a density bonus or concession is requested for a childcare facility, the application shall show
the location and square footage of the childcare facilities and provide evidence that all of the
requirements and each of the findings included in Government Code Section 65915(h) can be
made.
B. In accordance with State law, neither the granting of a concession, incentive, waiver, or modification
reduction, nor the granting of a density bonus shall be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a General
Plan amendment, Zoning Ordinance, Variance, or other discretionary approval.
C. For housing developments requesting an incentive or concession not included within the menu of
by-right incentives or concessions listed in subsections B and C of pursuant to Section 9.22.060 or a
waiver or modification reduction pursuant to Section 9.22.070, the following shall apply:
1. The Director shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the
Director makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
a. The incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to
provide for affordable housing costs as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety
Code, or for rents for the affordable units; or
b. The concession or incentive will have a specific adverse impact upon public health and
safety, or on the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California
Register of Historic Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development
unaffordable to low-income and moderate income households; or
c. The concession or incentive would be contrary to State or Federal law.
2. The Director shall grant the modification reduction or waiver or reduction if the development
standard will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a housing development
at the densities permitted under Section 9.22.050, or with the concessions or incentives permitted
under Section 9.22.060. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director shall not be required to
grant a modification waiver or reduction or waiver if:
a. The waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2)
of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical environment,
and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific
adverse impact;
b. The waiver or reduction would have an adverse impact on real property that is listed in the
California Register of Historical Resources;
c. The waiver or reduction would be contrary to State or Federal law. (Added by Ord. No.
2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2606CCS § 8, adopted
April 9, 2019; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 30, adopted September 8, 2020)
120
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.23
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Sections:
9.23.010 Purpose
9.23.020 Applicability
9.23.030 Qualifying Benefits
9.23.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish and describe regulations for implementing policies of the General
Plan intended to ensure that new development that is allowed to exceed the base height, density (in
Residential Districts), and floor area ratio (in Nonresidential Districts) allowed by the Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE), in return provide community benefits that enhance Santa Monica’s highly
valued community character.
More specifically, these regulations will implement LUCE policies, which require that, as development is
approved above the base floor area ratio and height, it must be accompanied by a range of community
benefits from 4 priority categories: Affordable Housing, Trip Reduction and Traffic Management,
Community Physical Improvements, and Social and Cultural Facilities. In addition to promoting the
development of additional on-site affordable housing and to maintaining existing City programs that
provide incentives for the production of affordable housing, these requirements are intended to reduce the
additional burdens more intense development allowed by the General Plan will impose on the City by
requiring applicants to pay additional fees to mitigate project impacts or, in specific instances, allowing
applicants to incorporate features into their projects. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June
23, 2015)
9.23.020 Applicability
Except for 100% Affordable Housing Projects, theThe requirements of this Chapter apply to all projects
involving new development and additions for which applicants propose to exceed the maximum base floor
area, height, or densities allowed for Tier 1 projects. The provisions of this Chapter establish the
requirements under which additional floor area or density and height may be allowed up to the Tier 2
maximum standards established in the General Plan and this Ordinance. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§
1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.23.030 Qualifying Benefits
An applicant seeking approval for a project that exceeds the base floor area or density or height allowed in
the district where the project is located (“Tier 2 projects”) shall provide community benefits in each of the
following categories.
A. Housing. All Tier 2 projects must meet the following requirements:
1. Affordable Housing. Applicants proposing residential and mixed-use projects shall incorporate
the following:
a. At least 50 percent more affordable housing units than would be required pursuant to Section
9.64.050. Any fractional affordable housing unit that results from this formula shall be
121
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
provided as a whole affordable housing unit (i.e., any resulting fraction shall be rounded up
to the next larger integer).
b. On-site affordable housing units shall be affordable to 30%, 50%, or 80% income
households depending on the percentage of affordable units being provided and shall not
include any Moderate Income units, as defined by Section 9.64.020. Subject to the
modifications contained in this Subsection (A), all of the affordable units shall comply with
the provisions of Chapter 9.64.
c. Affordable housing units required by this Subsection (A) may be provided offsite, pursuant
to Section 9.64.060, if the affordable housing units are owned in whole or part and operated
by a non-profit housing provider for the life of the project, and the Final Construction Permit
Sign Off or Certificate of Occupancy for the affordable units is issued prior to or
concurrently with the Tier 2 project.
2. Unit Mix. Applicants proposing residential and mixed-use projects shall incorporate the
following:
a. For market rate units:
i. At least 150% of the units shall be three-bedroom units;
ii. At least 2015% of the units shall be two-bedroom units;
iii. No more than 15% of the units shall be studio units;
iv. The average number of bedrooms for all of the market rate units combined shall be 1.2
or greater; and
v. Notwithstanding Subsections (A)(2)(a)(i-ii) above, any fractional housing unit less than
0.5 that results from this unit mix shall be rounded down to the next lower integer. Any
fractional housing unit of 0.5 or more that results from this unit mix shall be rounded up
to the next larger integer.
b. For affordable housing units:
i. The unit mix percentage for affordable two- and three-bedroom housing units shall be
equal to or greater than the unit mix percentage required for the corresponding market
rate units pursuant to subsection (A)(2)(a) of this Section. If the calculation results in
0.5 or more, the fraction shall be treated as a whole affordable housing unit.
ii. The unit mix percentage for studio affordable housing units shall not exceed 15% of the
total number of affordable units.
The average number of bedrooms for all of the affordable housing units combined shall be
equal to or greater than the average number of bedrooms provided for all of the market
rate units pursuant to Subsection (A)(2)(a) of this Section.
c. The Director may grant a waiver from this unit mix requirement pursuant to the
requirements and procedures for Waivers in Chapter 9.43.
d. The requirements of Subsection (A)(2) of this Section shall not apply to project applications
filed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.
.B. 3. Mitigation Fee. Applicants proposing non-residential and mixed-use projects shall pay a
housing mitigation fee 14 percent above the base fee as required by Chapter 9.68, Affordable
Housing Commercial Linkage Fee Program for that portion of the floor area above the maximum
Tier 1 floor area allowed by this Ordinance.Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee. All
Tier 2 Projects proposing non-residential and mixed-use projects shall pay a housing mitigation fee
14 percent above the base fee as required by Chapter 9.68, Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage
Fee Program, for that portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by this
Ordinance.
122
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
CB. Transportation Impact Fee. All Tier 2 Projects shall pay an additional Transportation Impact Fee
(TIF) 14 percent above the base fee required by Chapter 9.66, Transportation Impact Fee Program,
for that portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by this Ordinance.
DC. Open Space. All Tier 2 Projects shall either pay an additional Open Space Fee (OSF) 14 percent
above the base fee required by Chapter 9.67, Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee
Program, for that portion of the floor area above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed by this
Ordinance, or provide publicly accessible open space that complies with the following requirements.
1. Minimum area: 7,500 square feet of usable space.
2. Open space is owned, operated, and maintained by the developer or property manager in
accordance with an approved maintenance plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community and Cultural Services or his/her designee.
3. Each part of the open space shall be accessible from other parts of the open space without leaving
the open space area.
4. Open space shall be directly accessible from the sidewalk, and be accessible to persons with
disabilities.
5. Open space shall be on the ground level.
6. No more than 20 percent of the open space is occupied by open space-related above-grade
structures, such as pergolas or public restroom structures.
7. A minimum of 35 percent of the open space is planting area with grass, ground cover, bushes,
or trees. All trees shall be planted flush with the surrounding grade. The Urban Forester shall be
consulted as to the selection of these trees, their size, and the appropriate planter size to facilitate
the trees’ viability in the given urban conditions and microclimate.
8. The open space is open to the public, without charge, each day of the year from 6 a.m. to 11
p.m., except for temporary closures for necessary maintenance or public safety.
9. At a minimum, the following elements shall be included within the open space:
a. Trees and landscaping;
b. Seating;
c. Bike racks;
d. Refuse and Recycling Receptacles; and
e. Signage that include hours of operation.
ED. Transportation Demand Management. All Tier 2 Projects shall include the following
Transportation Demand Management measures in addition to those required by Chapter 9.53,
Transportation Demand Management:
1. For non-residential components of projects, provide the following:
a. A Transportation Allowance equivalent to at least 75% of the cost of a monthly regional
transit pass, in accordance with Section 9.53.130(B)(2)(b)(viii).
b. Bike valet, free of charge, during all automobile valet operating hours.
2. For residential components of projects, provide the following:
a. A Transportation Allowance equivalent to at least 75% of the cost of a monthly regional
transit pass, in accordance with Section 9.53.130(B)(2)(c)(iv).
123
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
b. Free on-site shared bicycles intended for resident and guest use. This shall be optional if
Citywide bikeshare is available within a 2-block radius of the project site. (Added by Ord.
No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 39,
adopted June 14, 2016)
124
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.28
PARKING, LOADING, AND CIRCULATION
Sections:
9.28.010 Purpose
9.28.020 Applicability
9.28.030 General Provisions
9.28.040 Calculating Off-Street Parking and Loading Spaces
9.28.050 Parking Requirements by Zoning DistrictReserved
9.28.060 Off-Street Parking
9.28.070 Location of Parking
9.28.080 Loading Spaces
9.28.090 Space-Efficient Parking
9.28.100 Accessible Parking
9.28.110 Unbundled Parking
9.28.120 Parking Design and Development Standards
9.28.130 Pedestrian Facilities
9.28.140 Bicycle Parking
9.28.150 Car and Van Pool Parking
9.28.160 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
9.28.170 Showers, Lockers, and Changing Rooms
9.28.180 Reduction of Required Parking
9.28.190 Alternate Compliance
9.28.020 Applicability
The requirements of this Chapter apply to the following.
A.New Buildings and Land Uses. On-site parking shall be provided according to the provisions of
this Chapter at the time any building or structure is erected or any new land use is established.
B.Addition, Enlargement of Use, and Change of Use of Non-Residential Uses in Existing Non-
Residential Buildings.
1.Except as provided in subsection (B)(2), a change of use shall provide the difference between
the required parking ratio for the proposed use and one automobile parking space per 300 square
feet.
2.Changes in use that create an increase of 3 or fewer required parking spaces, calculated in
accordance with subsection (B)(1), shall not be required to provide additional on-site automobile
parking according to the provisions of this Chapter. Bicycle parking shall be provided in
accordance with Section 9.28.140.
3.Existing parking shall be maintained and additional parking shall be required only for such
addition, enlargement, or change of use and not for the entire building or site. If the number of
existing parking spaces is greater than the requirements for such use, the number of spaces in
excess of the prescribed minimum may be counted toward meeting the parking requirements for
the addition, enlargement, or change in use.
4.A change in occupancy is not considered a change in use unless the new occupant is a different
use than the former occupant.
125
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
C. Additions, Alterations, and Enlargement of Use, and Change of Use of Residential Uses in of
Existing Residential Buildings.
1. For any new commercial, cultural, health, industrial, or commercial entertainment and recreation use
of an existing residential building, structure including any addition and enlargement of use, parking
spaces in the number specified in Section 9.28.060, Required Off-Street Parking, shall be provided
for the entire parcel.
21. For any new residential use that is not a multiple unit dwelling or educational use of in an existing
residential building or structure, if such that the new residential or educational use will require a
greater number of parking spaces as compared to the previous use, parking spaces in the number
specified in Section 9.28.060, Required Off-Street Parking, shall be provided for the new use.
2. Multiple Unit Dwellings. Additional parking shall be required for the proposed addition or alteration
if it increases the number of bedrooms of existing units.
3. Increased Number of Dwelling Units. The creation of additional dwelling units through the alteration
of an existing building or construction of an additional structure or structures requires the
provision of on-site parking to serve the new dwelling units in compliance with the provisions
of this Chapter. This requirement does not apply when sufficient on-site parking exists to provide
the number of spaces required for the existing and new dwelling units in compliance with all
applicable requirements.
D. Non-Residential Uses in Housing Projects
1. Non-Residential Uses in Housing Projects ocated in Office Campus Zoning Districts. No
minimum parking is required for uses within a housing project.
2. Non-Residential Uses in Housing Projects located in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning
Districts along Main Street and Montana Avenue. uses within a housing project shall be granted
a reduction of 10 spaces from the minimum parking requirement specified in Section 9.28.060,
Off-Street Parking.E. Residential Uses Added to Existing Commercial Development in Non-
Residential Zones
1. Residential uses added to a non-residentially zoned parcel where the existing commercial
use is being retained shall be granted a reduction of 10 spaces from the minimum parking
requirement specified in Section 9.28.060, Off-Street Parking.
Additions and Alterations to Residential Buildings. When an addition or alteration is proposed to
a residential building that does not currently provide parking in compliance with this Chapter, the
following regulations apply:
1. Multi-Unit Dwellings. Additional parking shall be required for the proposed addition or alteration if
it increases the number of bedrooms of existing units.
2. Increased Number of Dwelling Units. The creation of additional dwelling units through the
alteration of an existing building or construction of an additional structure or structures requires the
provision of on-site parking to serve the new dwelling units in compliance with the provisions of
this Chapter. This requirement does not apply when sufficient on-site parking exists to provide the
number of spaces required for the existing and new dwelling units in compliance with all applicable
requirements.
DE. Construction Timing. On-site parking facilities required by this Chapter shall be constructed or
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the uses that they serve. (Added by
Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 23, adopted
June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2624CCS § 8, adopted November 12, 2019)
126
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9.28.030 General Provisions
A. Existing Parking and Loading to be Maintained.
1. No existing parking and/or loading serving any use may be reduced in amount or changed in
design, location, or maintenance below the requirements for such use at the time it was entitled
unless equivalent substitute facilities are provided., with the exception of the following:
a. A new Housing Project is only required to maintain or replace at least 50% of the
existing on-site parking serving an existing use to be retained.
a.b. For additions, expansions, or alterations to existing schools, existing on-site parking
may be reduced by 50% to accommodate the proposed addition, expansion, alteration
if school land use is retained.
2. Within the Downtown Community Plan area, properties must maintain the maximum number of
parking spaces set forth in Table 9.28.060.
2.3. For Historic Resources, see Section 9.28.180(B).
B. Access. Access to parking for intended users, including employees, shall be available during all
business hours.
C. Assignment. Assignment of parking spaces to individual users or tenants within a mixed use and/or
multi-tenant project shall be prohibited except when such spaces are reserved for disabled parking,
car or vanpool users, car share vehicles, or residential units.
D. Application to All Parking. All parking provided must be in compliance with the standards set forth
in this Chapter.
E. Parking and Loading Operations Plan. Projects that result in greater than 40 provided parking
spaces, new private parking surface lots or structures, or projects that provide space-efficient parking
shall submit a Parking and Loading Operations Plan to the Director for review and approval before
issuance of any building permits. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015;
amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 24, adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2551CCS § 3, adopted August
8, 2017; Ord. No. 2576CCS § 7, adopted June 12, 2018)
9.28.040 Calculating Off-Street Parking and Loading Spaces
A. Rules for Calculating Required Spaces. The following rules shall be followed for calculating the
amount of off-street parking and loading spaces.
1. Rounding. Fractional space requirements totaling 0.5 or above shall be rounded up to the next
whole space after calculating the total number of required spaces. Rounding up shall not apply
to loading spaces; however, a minimum of one space shall be provided.
2. Residential Uses. For purposes of calculating off-street parking requirements for dwelling units,
all private living spaces including, but not limited to, dens, studios, family rooms, studies and
lofts shall be considered as “bedrooms” except that a maximum of one such room per unit shall
not count as a bedroom if it is less than 100 square feet in area. Kitchens, bathrooms, and one
living room per unit shall not be considered bedrooms. Semiprivate rooms shall not count as
bedrooms if they have no doors and a minimum 7-foot opening to adjacent living space. A loft
or mezzanine shall not count as a bedroom if the maximum width of the loft or mezzanine is less
than 7 feet.
3. Nonresidential Uses. Unless otherwise specified, the floor areas used to calculate the number of
off-street parking and loading spaces required for nonresidential uses shall include:
a. All floor area located above or below grade devoted to office, retail, service, or other
activities and uses, storage areas, restrooms, lounges, lobbies, kitchens, and interior
hallways and corridors, unless exempted by this Chapter; and
127
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
b. All outdoor areas that will accommodate a permanent activity that will generate a demand
for parking facilities in addition to that which is provided for principal activities and uses
within the building or structure.
4. Multiple Uses. When 2 or more principal uses are located on the same parcel, the estimated
parking demand shall be the sum of the estimated demand of the various individual uses
computed separately, in accordance with this Section, unless shared parking is approved
pursuant to Section 9.28.180.
5. Exclusions. Floor area devoted to the following shall not be included when determining required
parking and loading spaces:
a. Automobile parking;
b. Loading areas;
c. Driveways, drive aisles, ramps;
d. Bicycle parking;
e. Showers or locker areas not associated with a physical training, personal service or
instructional service; and
f. Outdoor dining and seating less than 200 square feet in size associated with restaurants.
65. Maximum Parking RequirementsLimitations. The maximum number of parking spaces
allowed shall be based on use type as listed in the table in Section 9.28.060, Off-Street Parking.
The following rules apply when calculating maximum parking requirements:
a. Multiple Uses. When 2 or more principal uses are located on the same parcel, the estimated
parking demand shall be the sum of the estimated demand of the various individual uses
computed separately, in accordance with this Section, unless shared parking is approved
pursuant to Section 9.28.180.
ab. Maximum Amount of Parking. When a use is subject to minimum parking requirements set
forth in Section 9.28.060, Off-Street Parking, Tthe maximum allowable amount of parking
shall be 2 spaces or 5%, more, whichever is greater, than the quantities specified in Section
9.28.060, except for permanent public parking. No additional parking is allowed in excess
of the quantities specified in Section 9.28.060 for the Downtown Community Plan area in
Section 9.28.060, Off-Street Parking. In order to obtain approval for permanent public
parking in excess of these maximum allowable amounts, a Conditional Use Permit
approved by the Planning Commission shall be required pursuant to Chapter 9.41, subject
to the following additional required findings:
i. Parking provided in excess improves the pedestrian, transit, and bicycle network;
ii. Vehicle movement on or around the project site associated with the excess parking
does not unduly impact pedestrian spaces or movement, transit service, bicycle
movement, or the overall traffic movement in the district;
iii. Accommodating excess parking does not degrade the overall urban design quality of
the project proposal;
iv. All above-grade parking is architecturally screened and the excess parking does not
diminish the quality and viability of existing or planned landscape enhancements; and
128
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
v. Where off-street parking is proposed that exceeds the maximum quantities specified,
such parking shall not be the principal use of the property.
bc. Replacement of Existing Parking. If a site contains existing surface parking that serves as
Code or permit-required parking for an off-site user, such parking spaces may be replaced
on-site as part of any redevelopment of the site, and such replacement parking shall not be
considered parking that exceeds the quantities specified in Section 9.28.060 for purposes
of subsection (A)(5)(b).
cd. Parking Requirements of Other Governmental Entities. Should parking above the
maximum be imposed by another governmental entity based on established minimum
parking requirements, and such additional parking was not simply requested by the
applicant, parking in the amount to meet the entity’s minimum requirements may be
allowed.
6. Minimum Parking Requirements.
a. Downtown Community Plan Area. There is no minimum parking requirement.
b. Citywide and Parking Overlay 1 Area. The minimum parking must comply with Section
9.28.060, except as elsewhere allowed in this Chapter. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2,
adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2551CCS § 3, adopted August 8, 2017)
9.28.050 Parking Requirements by Zoning District (Reserved)
To implement the parking policies of the General Plan, Zoning District parking requirements for those areas
in the immediate vicinity of high quality transit stations or stops and the Memorial Park Specific Plan area
differ from all other areas of the City. Figure 9.28.050 designates which areas constitute Parking Overlay
Area 1, as referenced in Table 9.28.060, which lists the off-street parking requirements for areas Citywide
(Excluding the Parking Overlay Area 1, Downtown Community Plan area, and Bergamot Area Plan area)
and for Parking Overlay Area 1.
FIGURE 9.28.050: PARKING OVERLAY AREAS
129
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2551CCS § 3, adopted
August 8, 2017; Ord. No. 2576CCS § 8, adopted June 12, 2018)
9.28.060 Off-Street Parking
Off-street parking shall be provided in the quantities specified in Table 9.28.060, except as otherwise
provided in this Chapter and Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units. If a proposed use is not listed in the table, the Director may determine appropriate parking
requirements.
A. Applicability.
1. Minimum off-street parking requirements are set forth in Table 9.28.060. Notwithstanding
the forgoing, minimum off-street parking requirements shall not apply to any of the
following:
a. Land uses within one-half mile of a Major Transit Stop, except the following:
i. Hotels and Motels
130
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
ii. Bed and Breakfasts
b. Outside of one-half mile of a Major Transit Stop, all land uses within a Housing
Project, except for those located within the Single-Unit Residential (R1) and Ocean
Park Single-Unit Residential (OP1) zoning districts.
c. Additions, alterations, and enlargement of residential uses in existing buildings,
including increases to the number of dwelling units and/or bedrooms.
d. All land uses within the Downtown Community Plan area.
2. Maximum off-street parking requirements are set forth in Table 9.28.060 for land uses
within the Downtown Community Plan and Section 9.28.040(A)(6)(a), above, for all other
areas within the City.
TABLE 9.28.060: PARKING REGULATIONS BY USE AND LOCATION
Land Use
Classification
Citywide (Excluding Parking
Overlay Area 1, Downtown
Community Plan Area, and
Bergamot Area Plan Area)
Projects Outside of One-Half
Mile of a Major Transit Stop
(minimum parking required)
Parking Overlay Area 1
Projects Within One-Half Mile of
a Major Transit Stop
(minimum parking required)
Downtown Community
Plan Area
(maximum parking allowed)
Residential Uses
Single-Unit Dwelling 2 spaces per dwelling unit N/A 2 spaces per dwelling unit
Accessory Dwelling
Unit 1 space per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unitN/A N/A
Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit N/A N/A N/A
Duplex, Multiple-
Unit Dwelling
(See Section
9.22.060(C), By
Right Parking
Incentives, for
alternative parking
ratios)
Market Rate Units:
Guest = 1 space per 5 units
Studio, no bedrooms = 1 space per
unit
1 bedroom = 1.5 space per unit
2 or more bedrooms = 2 spaces per
unit
Market Rate Units:
Guest = 1 space per 10 units
Studio, no bedrooms = 1 space per
unit
1 bedroom = 1 space per unit
2 or more bedrooms = 1.5 spaces
per unit N/A
Market Rate Units:
Guest = 1 space per 15 units
Studio, no bedrooms = 0.5 space
per unit
1 bedroom = 0.5 space per unit
2 or more bedrooms = 1 space per
unit
Deed Restricted Affordable Units:
Studio, no bedrooms = 0.5 space
per unit
1 bedroom = 0.75 space per unit
2 or more bedrooms = 1 space per
unit
Deed Restricted Affordable Units:
Studio, no bedrooms = 0.5 space
per unit
1 bedroom = 0.5 space per dwelling
unit
2 or more bedrooms = 1 space per
dwelling unit N/A
Deed Restricted Affordable Units:
Guest = 1 space per 30 units
Studio, no bedrooms = 0.25 space
per unit
1 bedroom = 0.25 space per unit
2 or more bedrooms = 0.5 space
per unit
Senior Citizen
Multiple-Unit
Residential
0.5 space per unit
Guest = 1 space per 5 units
Low and moderate income units =
0.25 space per unit
N/A 0.5 space per unit
Guest = 1 space per 6 units
Low and moderate income units =
0.25 space per unit
0.5 space per unit
Guest = 1 space per 6 units
Low and moderate income units =
0.25 space per unit
Single-Room
Occupancy Housing See Multiple-Unit Dwelling N/A See Multiple-Unit Dwelling See Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Group Residential 0.5 space per bed N/A 0.5 space per bed 0.5 space per bed
Congregate Housing 1 space per 5 beds N/A 1 space per 5 beds 1 space per 5 beds
Senior Group
Residential
0.5 space per unit
Guest = 1 space per 5 units
Deed restricted affordable = 0.25
space per unit
N/A 0.5 space per unit
Guest = none required
Deed restricted affordable = 0.25
space per unit
0.5 space per unit
Guest = none required
Deed restricted affordable = 0.25
space per unit
Elderly and Long-0.5 space per bed plus one visitor N/A 0.2 space per bed 0.2 space per bed
131
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.28.060: PARKING REGULATIONS BY USE AND LOCATION
Land Use
Classification
Citywide (Excluding Parking
Overlay Area 1, Downtown
Community Plan Area, and
Bergamot Area Plan Area)
Projects Outside of One-Half
Mile of a Major Transit Stop
(minimum parking required)
Parking Overlay Area 1
Projects Within One-Half Mile of
a Major Transit Stop
(minimum parking required)
Downtown Community
Plan Area
(maximum parking allowed)
Term Care space per 5 beds
Family Day Care
Large None required other than what is
required for the existing residence
N/A None required other than what
is required for the existing residence
None required other than what is
required for the existing residence
Small None required other than what is
required for the existing residence
N/A None required other than what
is required for the existing residence
None required other than what is
required for the existing residence
Residential Facilities
Residential Care,
General
If more than 6 residents = 0.5 space
per bed plus 1 visitor space per 5
beds
N/A If more than 6 residents = 0.5
space per bed plus 1 visitor space
per 5 beds
If more than 6 residents = 0.5
space per bed plus 1 visitor space
per 5 beds
Residential Care,
Limited
None required other than what is
required for existing residence
N/A None required other than what
is required for existing residence
None required other than what is
required for existing residence
Residential Care,
Senior
If more than 6 residents = 0.25
space per bed plus 1 visitor space
per 5 beds
N/A If more than 6 residents = 0.25
space per bed plus 1 visitor space
per 5 beds
If more than 6 residents = 0.25
space per bed plus 1 visitor space
per 5 beds
If less than 6 residents = none other
than what is required for the
existing residence
N/A If less than 6 residents = none
other than what is required for the
existing residence
If less than 6 residents = none
other than what is required for the
existing residence
Hospice, General
If more than 6 residents = 0.25
space per bed plus 1 visitor space
per 5 beds
N/A If more than 6 residents = 1
space per 5 beds
If more than 6 residents = 1 space
per 5 beds
If less than 6 residents = none other
than what is required for the
existing residence
N/A If less than 6 residents = none
other than what is required for the
existing residence
If less than 6 residents = none
other than what is required for the
existing residence
Hospice, Limited None required other than what is
required for the existing residence
N/A None required other than what
is required for the existing residence
None required other than what is
required for the existing residence
Supportive Housing
If more than 6 residents = 0.5 space
per bed plus 1 visitor space per 5
beds
N/A If more than 6 residents = 1
space per 5 beds
If more than 6 residents = 1 space
per 5 beds
If less than 6 residents = none other
than what is required for the
existing residence
N/A If less than 6 residents = none
other than what is required for the
existing residence
If less than 6 residents = none
other than what is required for the
existing residence
Transitional Housing None other than what is required for
residential type
N/A None other than what is
required for residential type
None other than what is required
for residential type
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care 1 space per 500 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 500 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
Child Care and Early
Education Facilities 1 space per 500 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 500 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
Colleges and Trade
Schools, Public or
Private
1 space per 80 sq. ft. of assembly or
classroom area or 1 space per every
4 fixed seats, whichever is greater
N/A 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of
assembly or classroom area or 1
space per every 5 fixed seats,
whichever is greater
1 space per 100 sq. ft. of assembly
or classroom area or 1 space per
every 5 fixed seats, whichever is
greater
Community Assembly 1 space for each 4 seats N/A 1 space for each 6 seats 1 space for each 6 seats
Cultural Facilities 1 space per 300 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 500 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
Emergency Shelters 1 space per 10 beds N/A 1 space per 10 beds 1 space per 10 beds
Hospitals and Clinics 1 space per 250 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 250 sq. ft. 1 space per 250 sq. ft.
Schools, Public or
Private
Elementary and Middle Schools:
2 spaces per classroom
N/A Elementary and Middle
Schools:
Elementary and Middle Schools:
1.75 spaces per classroom
132
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.28.060: PARKING REGULATIONS BY USE AND LOCATION
Land Use
Classification
Citywide (Excluding Parking
Overlay Area 1, Downtown
Community Plan Area, and
Bergamot Area Plan Area)
Projects Outside of One-Half
Mile of a Major Transit Stop
(minimum parking required)
Parking Overlay Area 1
Projects Within One-Half Mile of
a Major Transit Stop
(minimum parking required)
Downtown Community
Plan Area
(maximum parking allowed)
1.75 spaces per classroom
High Schools:
5 spaces per classroom
N/A High Schools:
4 spaces per classroom
High Schools:
4 spaces per classroom
Social Service Centers 1 space per 300 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 300 sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft.
Commercial Uses
Animal Care, Sales, and Services
Grooming and Pet
Stores See Retail Sales N/A See Retail Sales See Retail Sales
Kennel 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.
Pet Day Care
Services 1 space per 500 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.
Veterinary Services See Medical Office N/A See Medical Office See Medical Office
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Service
Alternative Fuels and
Recharging Facilities
2 spaces for self-service station N/A 2 spaces for self-service station 2 spaces for self-service station
1 space per 100 sq. ft. of retail N/A 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of retail 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of retail
Automobile Rental
1 space per 500 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
N/A 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of outdoor
rental storage area
N/A 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of
outdoor rental storage area
Automobile Storage
Uses 1 space N/A 1 space -
Automobile/Vehicle
Sales and Leasing
1 space per 300 sq. ft. for offices
plus
1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of net new
display area and requirements for
automobile repair where applicable
N/A 1 space per 300 sq. ft. for
offices plus
1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of net new
display area and requirements for
automobile repair where applicable
1 space per 300 sq. ft. for offices
plus 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of
net new display area and
requirements for automobile
repair where applicable
Automobile/Vehicle
Repair, Major and
Minor
1 space per 500 sq. ft. of non-
service bay floor area
N/A 1 space per 500 sq. ft. of non-
service bay floor area
1 space per 500 sq. ft. of non-
service bay floor area
2 spaces per service bay N/A 2 spaces per service bay 2 spaces per service bay
Automobile/Vehicle
Washing
2 spaces for each washing stall, not
including the stall
N/A 2 spaces for each washing stall,
not including the stall
2 spaces for each washing stall,
not including the stall
Service Station
2 spaces if self-service station N/A 2 spaces if self-service station 2 spaces if self-service station
1 space per 100 sq. ft. of retail N/A 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of retail 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of retail
Must follow requirements for repair
where applicable
N/A Must follow requirements for
repair where applicable
Must follow requirements for
repair where applicable
Banks and Financial Institutions
Banks and Credit
Unions
See Business, Professional, and
Creative Office
N/A See Business, Professional,
and Creative Office 1 space per 300 sq. ft.
Check Cashing
Businesses
See Business, Professional, and
Creative Office
N/A See Business, Professional,
and Creative Office N/A
Business Services See Business, Professional, and
Creative Office
N/A See Business, Professional,
and Creative Office
See Business, Professional, and
Creative Office
Commercial Entertainment and Recreation
Cinemas 1 space per 4 seats N/A 1 space per 4 seats
Up to 99 seats = 1 space for every
8 fixed seats
> 99 seats = 1 space for every 5
fixed seats
Theaters 1 space per 4 seats N/A 1 space per 4 seats See Cinemas
133
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.28.060: PARKING REGULATIONS BY USE AND LOCATION
Land Use
Classification
Citywide (Excluding Parking
Overlay Area 1, Downtown
Community Plan Area, and
Bergamot Area Plan Area)
Projects Outside of One-Half
Mile of a Major Transit Stop
(minimum parking required)
Parking Overlay Area 1
Projects Within One-Half Mile of
a Major Transit Stop
(minimum parking required)
Downtown Community
Plan Area
(maximum parking allowed)
Convention and
Conference Centers 1 space per 80 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 100 sq. ft. 1 space per 100 sq. ft.
Large-Scale
Facilities 1 space per 80 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 100 sq. ft. 1 space per 100 sq. ft.
Small-Scale
Facilities, less than
1,500 sq. ft.
1 space per 300 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 300 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
Small-Scale
Facilities, 1,500 sq.
ft. and more
1 space per 80 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 100 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
Instructional Services See Retail Sales N/A See Retail Sales See Retail Sales
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Bars/Nightclubs/
Lounges 1 space per 50 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 50 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
Restaurants, less
than 2,500 sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 500 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
Restaurants, 2,500 –
5,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 200 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 200 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
Restaurants, 5,000+
sq. ft. 1 space per 125 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 125 sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft.
Restaurant Outdoor
Eating Areas, less
than 200 sq. ft.
None N/A None None
Restaurant Outdoor
Eating Areas, 200 sq.
ft. and more
Same as required for restaurant type N/A Same as required for restaurant
type
Outdoor eating areas less than 500
sq. ft. = no additional parking.
Outdoor eating areas 500 sq. ft.
and more = same as required for
restaurant type.
Equipment Rental See Retail Sales N/A See Retail Sales See Retail Sales
Food and Beverage Sales
Convenience Market See Retail Sales N/A See Retail Sales See General Market
General Market less
than 2,500 sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 500 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
General Market
2,500-5,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 250 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 300 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
General Market
5,000+ sq. ft. 1 space per 250 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 300 sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft.
Liquor Stores See Retail Sales N/A See Retail Sales See General Market
Funeral Parlors and
Mortuaries
1 space per 80 sq. ft. or 1 space per
4 seats, whichever is higher
N/A 1 space per 100 sq. ft. or 1
space per 6 seats, whichever is
higher
1 space per 100 sq. ft. or 1 space
per 6 seats, whichever is higher
Live-Work 1 space per unit plus N/A 1 space per unit plus 1 space per 500 sq.ft.
1 guest space per unit N/A 1 guest space per unit -
Lodging
Bed and Breakfast 1 space per room plus parking
required for dwelling unit 1 space per room 1 space per room
Hotels and Motels 1 space per room plus 1 space per
200 sq. ft. of meeting and banquet
0.75 space per room plus 1 space
per 250 sq. ft. of meeting and
0.5 space per guest room plus 1
space for each 250 sq. ft. used for
134
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.28.060: PARKING REGULATIONS BY USE AND LOCATION
Land Use
Classification
Citywide (Excluding Parking
Overlay Area 1, Downtown
Community Plan Area, and
Bergamot Area Plan Area)
Projects Outside of One-Half
Mile of a Major Transit Stop
(minimum parking required)
Parking Overlay Area 1
Projects Within One-Half Mile of
a Major Transit Stop
(minimum parking required)
Downtown Community
Plan Area
(maximum parking allowed)
space banquet space
meetings and banquets.
Other uses such as bars,
restaurants, retail and services
which are open to the general
public shall provide parking as
required for the use at a rate ½ the
individual use.
Maintenance and
Repair Services See Retail Sales See Retail Sales See Retail Sales
Nurseries and
Garden Centers
Interior spaces see Retail Sales, plus Interior space see Retail Sales, plus Interior space see Retail Sales,
plus
1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of outdoor
display and storage area
1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of outdoor
display and storage area
1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of
outdoor display and storage area
Offices
Business,
Professional,
Creative, less than
2,500 sq. ft.
1 space per 300 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 500 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
Business,
Professional,
Creative, 2,500+ sq.
ft.
1 space per 300 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 450 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
Medical and Dental,
less than 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 300 sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft.
Medical and Dental,
1,000+ sq. ft. 1 space per 250 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 250 sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft.
Walk-In Clientele See Business, Professional, and
Creative Office
N/A See Business, Professional,
and Creative Office
See Business, Professional, and
Creative Office
Personal Services
General Personal
Services See Retail Sales N/A See Retail Sales See Retail Sales
Tattoo or Body
Modification Parlor See Retail Sales N/A See Retail Sales See Retail Sales
Physical Training See Retail Sales N/A See Retail Sales See Retail Sales
Retail Sales
Retail, less than
2,500 sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 500 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
Retail, 2,500 – 5,000
sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 300 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
Retail, 5,000 sq. ft. or
more 1 space per 300 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 300 sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft.
Maintenance and
Repair Services See Retail Sales N/A See Retail Sales
Nurseries and
Garden Centers
Interior spaces see Retail Sales, plus N/A Interior space see Retail Sales,
plus
1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of outdoor
display and storage area N/A 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of
outdoor display and storage area
Industrial Uses
Artist’s Studio 1 space per 400 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 400 sq. ft. 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft.
135
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
TABLE 9.28.060: PARKING REGULATIONS BY USE AND LOCATION
Land Use
Classification
Citywide (Excluding Parking
Overlay Area 1, Downtown
Community Plan Area, and
Bergamot Area Plan Area)
Projects Outside of One-Half
Mile of a Major Transit Stop
(minimum parking required)
Parking Overlay Area 1
Projects Within One-Half Mile of
a Major Transit Stop
(minimum parking required)
Downtown Community
Plan Area
(maximum parking allowed)
Commercial Kitchens 1 space per 300 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 300 sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft.
Industry, General 1 space per 400 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 400 sq. ft. N/A
Industry, Limited 1 space per 400 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. N/A
Media Production
1 space per 400 sq. ft. of studio
space
N/A 1 space per 400 sq. ft. 1 space per 500 sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of editing
space
1 space per 300 sq. ft. of
administrative space
Research and
Development 1 space per 300 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. N/A
Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution
Indoor Warehousing
and Storage 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. N/A
Personal Storage 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft. N/A
Wholesaling and
Distribution 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. N/A 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. N/A
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 43, adopted June 14, 2016;
Ord. No. 2536CCS § 8, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2551CCS § 3, adopted August 8, 2017; Ord. No. 2649CCS §
31, adopted September 8, 2020)
9.28.070 Location of Parking
Required off-street parking and loading spaces shall be located on the same parcel as the use they serve,
except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. Entrances to off-street parking and loading should be located
on a non-primary façade, except as described below. Where a parcel contains more than 1 street frontage,
the parking entrance should be located on the secondary street or alley. All efforts should be made to
eliminate the impacts of parking entrances on main thoroughfares and transit-oriented streets. The
requirements of this Section shall not apply to vehicles on display by an automobile dealer in a showroom
or approved outdoor area unless otherwise specified by the ordinance codified in this Section.
A. Above-Ground Parking.
1. Residential Districts. Parking shall be located in the rear half of the parcel and at least 40 feet
from a street-facing property line, except as provided below:
a. Single-Unit Residential Districts.
i. Required parking may be located in the front half of the parcel provided the parking
is located behind the primary first-story façade facing the street. Required parking in
the single-unit residential districts shall not be required to be located within an
enclosed garage; however, allowable garages may be located in the front half of the
parcel subject to the setback requirements of the Base District and the following:
i(1). Garage doors facing a public street shall be located at least 5 feet behind the
primary façade facing the street, and never less than the required Base District
setback.
136
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
ii(2). Projection into Front Yard Setback. In the R1 Single-Unit Residential District,
a one-story garage attached to the primary structure with a maximum height of
14 feet, including parapets and railings, a maximum length of 25 feet, and with
garage doors perpendicular to the public street, shall be allowed to project up to
6 feet into the required front yard if no alley access exists, but may not extend
closer than 20 feet to the front property line.
ii. Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. Parking displaced
by the establishment of an Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling
Unit may be relocated in the front half of the parcel and an existing curb cut may be
retained if parking meets dimensional requirements, hazardous visual obstruction
standards, and is not located on a no backout street.
b. Multi-Unit Residential Districts. Parking may be located in the front half of the parcel in
Multi-Unit Residential Districts provided that no part of a required front setback shall be
used for parking purposes.
c. Garage Openings and Doors.
i. Garage Opening Setback. Garage openings shall be located the following minimum
distances from parcel lines adjoining streets and alleys:
(1) Front-entry garage: 20 feet.
(2) Side-entry garage: 5 feet.
(3) Garage with alley access: 15 feet from centerline of alley.
(4) Narrow parcels: For garages with rear vehicular access from an alley and located
on a parcel 27 feet wide or less, the side setback adjacent to a street or another
alley may be reduced to 3 feet.
(5) A minimum 22-foot turning radius is required from the garage to the opposite
side of the street alley, drive aisle, or driveway.
ii. Garage Door Width. If a garage faces the front or street side parcel line, the garage
doors shall not be more than 18 feet wide. A door to a single space shall not be more
than 9 feet wide. Not more than 1 double garage may be entered from the side street
side of a corner or a reversed corner parcel. However, within the Single-Unit
Residential (R1) District, the following shall apply:
(1) Garage doors facing the public street may not exceed 16 feet in width unless
located in the rear half of the parcel except as provided in Section 9.07.030(A).
(2) On parcels 27 feet wide or less, no more than one garage door shall be permitted
facing the public street, and the garage door shall not exceed 9 feet in width.
d. Sloped Parcels. Garages may be located in the required front setback when the elevation
of the ground at a point 50 feet from the front parcel line and midway between the side
parcel lines differs 12 feet or more from the level of the curb or in all Ocean Park Districts
where there is a change in existing grade of 10 feet or more between the midpoint of the
front parcel line and the midpoint of the rear parcel line subject to the following:
i. Height shall not exceed 14 feet if a pitched roof, 11 feet for a flat roof, or 1 story;
ii. No portion of the garage may be closer than 5 feet from the front property line;
137
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
iii. The garage may not occupy more than 50 percent of the width of the front setback;
and
iv. In all Ocean Park Districts, a garage that complies with subsections (i) through (iii)
may be set back a distance equal to the average setback of garages on adjacent parcels
if the interior garage width does not exceed 20 feet.
e. Along the Pacific Coast Highway. Uncovered parking may be located in the front half of
the parcel and within the required front setback on parcel located along the Pacific Coast
Highway between the Santa Monica Pier and the north City limits.
f. Rooftop Parking. Rooftop parking is prohibited in all Residential Districts.
2. Mixed-Use and Non-Residential Districts.
a. Interior Side and Rear Setbacks. Above-ground parking that does not extend above the
first floor level may be located within required interior side and rear setback provided
above ground parking is set back a minimum of 5 feet from an interior parcel line adjacent
to a Residential District.
b. Rooftop Parking.
i. Rooftop parking is prohibited in the following areas:
(1) Neighborhood Commercial Districts; and
(2) Except as authorized in Section 9.31.070(D)(6), within 50 feet of Residential
Districts.
ii. Where permitted, rooftop parking areas shall be screened at their perimeters to
prevent light spill onto adjacent properties. Non-skid or other similar surface
treatment on both floors and ramps of the rooftop shall be required to prevent tire
squeals. In order to minimize noise and air impacts, exhaust vents and other
mechanical equipment shall be located as far from residential uses as feasible
consistent with Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code.
B. Subterranean Parking Structures.
1. Required Setbacks. A subterranean parking structure may be constructed and maintained in any
required setback area except in any required unexcavated areas.
2. Openings. All openings for ingress and egress facing the front parcel line shall be situated at or
behind the front building line of the main building. There shall be no more than 1 vehicular
opening facing the front parcel line for each main building. Pedestrian access openings are
permitted.
3. Crossing Property Lines. Development located on 2 or more separate parcels may share
common subterranean parking garages or link circulation between subterranean parking
facilities only if the parcels are combined pursuant to Section 9.21.030, Development on
Multiple Parcels.
C. Semi-Subterranean Parking Structures.
1. Front Setback. Semi-subterranean parking structures shall not be located within a required front
setback.
2. Side and Rear Setback.
138
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
a. On parcels less than 50 feet in width, a semi-subterranean parking structure may extend to
both property lines and to the rear property line.
b. On parcels having a width of 50 feet or greater, a semi-subterranean parking structure may
be constructed and maintained in any required side or rear setback area except in a required
unexcavated area.
3. Openings. All openings for ingress and egress facing the front parcel line shall be situated at or
behind the front building line of the main building. There shall be no more than 1 vehicular
opening facing the front parcel line for each main building. Pedestrian access openings are
permitted.
4. Parking Podium Height. The finished floor of the first level of the building or structure above
the parking structure shall not exceed 3 feet above the average natural, sloped average natural,
or theoretical grade of the parcel, except for openings for ingress and egress. (Added by Ord.
No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 25, adopted
June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2536CCS § 3, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2567CCS § 5,
adopted December 12, 2017; Ord. No. 2624CCS § 9, adopted November 12, 2019)
9.28.080 Loading Spaces
A. Purpose. Loading spaces are required to ensure adequate areas for loading purposes for all on-site
uses so that commercial and passenger loading activities will be conducted without negatively
affecting traffic safety or the quality of abutting public streets for people walking, bicycling, or
driving. Loading spaces also facilitate low-car-use lifestyles by supporting shared delivery and
passenger transportation services.
B. Applicability. The regulations in this Section shall apply to existing and proposed projects with new
buildings, additions, or changes of use, and shall govern design of both required and non-required
loading areas.
C. Submittal of Loading Plan. As part of the application for all applicable projects, a loading plan
shall be submitted. The plan shall include a site plan dimensioning all required and non-required
loading spaces and indicating the path of travel to the space and the path of travel for the goods or
passengers from the loading space. The approved loading plan shall be retained on-site at all times
and shall be made available to all site users.
D. Loading Space Dimensions. Loading spaces shall comply with the following standards, as required
in this Section. Loading spaces shall not count as parking spaces.
1. A standard loading space shall be at least 30 feet long, 12 feet wide, and have a clearance of 14
feet.
2. A semi-tractor trailer loading space shall be at least 65 feet long, 15 feet wide, and have a
clearance of 14 feet.
3. A passenger loading space shall be at least 18 feet long and 10 feet wide. Design should not
reduce pedestrian orientation of the site or increase the number of curb-cuts and shall not require
pedestrians to cross a driveway, parking aisle, alley, or street in order to reach the building
entrance. The spaces must be accessible without a fee, key, or access card and located as close
as practicable to the building entrance or passenger elevator.
E. Number of Loading Spaces Required. Projects shall provide loading spaces as follows:
1. Residential Only.
a. Projects with more than 50 units shall be required to provide 1 standard loading space.
139
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2. Commercial Only.
a. Projects with 2,500 or less square feet of floor area shall not be required to provide loading.
b. Projects with 2,501 to 7,500 square feet of floor area shall provide 1 passenger loading
space at grade or on the first parking level above or below grade. See SMMC
9.28.080.D.3[RF1].
c. Projects with 7,501 to 50,000 square feet of floor area shall provide 1 standard loading
space; however, if the use includes a market, restaurant, or other food sales and service of
more than 5,000 square feet of floor area, the required loading space shall be a semi-tractor
trailer loading space.
d. Projects with 50,000 or more square feet of floor area shall provide 1 passenger loading
space and one standard loading space; however, if the use includes a market, restaurant, or
other food sales and service of more than 5,000 square feet of floor area, the required
loading space shall be a semi-tractor trailer loading space.
3. Mixed-Use Projects. Mixed-use projects shall provide the required loading spaces for the use
that requires the greater number of loading spaces. If the number of required loading spaces for
the residential and commercial uses is equal, the loading space with the greater dimensional
requirements shall be required.
4. Schools and Day Care Centers. Schools and day care centers shall provide loading spaces based
on enrollment as follows:
Table 9.28.080.E.4: SCHOOLS AND DAY CARE CENTER LOADING SPACES
Enrollment (students) Loading Requirement
1-20 2 Passenger
21-60 4 Passenger
61-299 6 Passenger
1 Standard
300 and over 8 Passenger
1 Standard
In addition, uses of this type with less than 61 students and an on-site cafeteria or similar food
service shall provide one standard loading space.
5. All projects with more than 100,000 square feet of Commercial Use floor area: The Director
may require additional loading spaces based on the project’s needs and site feasibility.
F. Location of Loading Spaces. Loading areas shall be located as follows:
1. All loading facilities shall be provided off-street and within the subject property. The Director
may authorize up to one required on-street passenger loading space along a frontage curb for
certain designated times for schools and Child Care and Early Education Facilities.
2. Loading spaces shall be located adjacent to building door openings.
3. Loading spaces shall be situated to minimize interference with automobile, pedestrian, and
bicycle paths of travel.
4. Loading spaces shall be situated to avoid adverse impacts upon neighboring properties, including
noise pollution.
140
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5. Loading spaces shall be accessible from an alley, or if no alley is adjacent to the site, a minor
roadway.
6. Loading spaces shall be located in the required rear setback provided that it is not located in any
required landscaped area and provided that no portion of a street or alley is counted as part of
the required loading area.
G. Design of Loading Spaces.
1. Screening. Loading areas adjacent to residential uses or public streets or alleys shall be screened
or a design shall be provided for approval by the Director.
2. Identification. Loading areas shall be designed, laid out, and clearly marked as being distinct
from required parking spaces and aisles, unless the City approves the use of the parking area as
an undesignated overlay loading area during non-business hours.
3. Obstructions Prohibited. No walkway, mechanical equipment, utility, waste collection/disposal
receptacle, or other equipment or fixture may be placed in any loading area.
4. Wayfinding Signage. Loading space wayfinding signage is required for every site.
H. Loading Space(s) Driveways and Maneuvering Areas. Each on-site loading space required by this
Chapter shall be provided with driveways for ingress and egress and maneuvering space of the same
type and meeting the same criteria required for on-site parking spaces. Truck-maneuvering areas
shall not encroach into required parking areas, travelways, or street rights-of-way. This requirement
may be modified upon a finding by the Director that sufficient space is provided so that truck-
maneuvering areas will not interfere with vehicle and pedestrian circulation.
I. Exceptions for Buildings under 10,000 Square Feet. Notwithstanding the requirements of this
Chapter, a waiver or reduction in the number and/or dimensions of loading areas and spaces may be
permitted by the Director for projects that will result in a total of less than 10,000 square feet on the
property if it is determined that the only feasible location for a loading zone within the project
boundaries will detract from the project’s pedestrian orientation and thereby not meet the City’s
intent to create active, lively streetscapes.
J. Exceptions to Providing Semi-Tractor Trailer Loading. Notwithstanding the requirements of this
Chapter, if a project is adjacent to an alley and the Director determines that the provision of parking
for a semi-tractor trailer is not feasible, a 10-foot by 50-foot area parallel and adjacent to the alley
may be dedicated for loading and unloading. No projections may be permitted if they would
otherwise render the area inadequate for loading. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted
June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 26, adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2536CCS §
10, adopted February 28, 2017)
9.28.120 Parking Design and Development Standards
All off-street parking and loading areas except those used exclusively for stacked or valet parking, shall be
designed and developed consistent with the following standards.
A. The design, location or position of any parking layout, entry, driveway, approach or accessway from
any street or alley shall be approved by the Director.
B. Parking Access.
1. Driveways. Driveways must lead to parking spaces that comply with the design standards in this
Section and all other applicable standards.
a. Single-Unit Residential and Ocean Parking Single-Unit Residential Districts. Subject to
Section 9.28.120(B)(3), no more than one driveway to a public street is allowed on a parcel
141
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
with less than 100 linear feet of street frontage, and no more than 2 driveways to a public
street are allowed on a parcel with 100 linear feet or greater of street frontage.
b. All Other Districts. Subject to subsection (B)(3), the number of driveways shall not be
more than necessary to allow access in and out of a parcel and/or building.
2. Combined Entrances. Combining entrances for off-street parking with those for off-street
loading is permitted.
3. Alley Access. Access to parking areas shall be from alleys. Curb cuts are prohibited except where
a project site meets at least one of the following criteria:
a. The site has no adjacent side or rear alley having a minimum right-of-way of 15 feet.
Corner parcels with no adjacent side or rear alley must take access from the side street.
b. The average slope of a multi-unit residential parcel is at least 5 percent.
c. The Director determines that a curb cut is appropriate due to traffic, circulation, or safety
concerns.
d. Commercial properties may have nonresidential parking access from side streets.
4. Hazardous Visual Obstructions. Parking areas and access shall comply with Section 9.21.180,
Hazardous Visual Obstructions.
5. Gates. Gates across driveways shall be a minimum of 18 feet from the parcel line in all
Residential Multi-Unit and Commercial Districts, if access is not from an alley. For parking lots
or structures with more than 50 parking spaces, gates across driveways shall be a minimum of
36 feet from the parcel line, if access is not from an alley. Gates serving commercial uses that
are designed to be open at all times during the on-site business’ hours are exempt.
6. Shared Access. Nonresidential projects are encouraged to provide shared vehicle and pedestrian
access to adjacent nonresidential properties for convenience, safety, and efficient circulation. A
joint access agreement guaranteeing the continued availability of the share access between the
properties approved by the Director shall be recorded in the County Recorder’s office, in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney.
7. Street Access.
a. Parking areas of 4 or more spaces shall be provided with suitable maneuvering room so
that all vehicles therein may enter an adjacent street in a forward direction. Vehicles using
surface parking located within 25 feet of any alley may enter an adjacent alley by backing
out.
b. New parking spaces shall be designed to allow the vehicles to enter the adjacent street in a
forward direction on streets determined to be of specific characteristics where driving
forward is required as determined by the Director.
8. Turning Maneuvers. Use of a parking space shall not require more than 3 vehicle maneuvers
except as provided below.
a. Large Parking Areas. Parking areas with 20 or more parking spaces, up to 5 percent of the
total number of parking spaces, with a maximum of 10 spaces, may require 4 turning
maneuvers. Such spaces shall be distributed around the parking area(s) on the parcel.
142
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
b. Pacific Coast Highway. Parcels with frontage less than 100 feet on Pacific Coast Highway
may be able to access parking utilizing up to 4 maneuvers.
9. Driveway Width. Driveway width shall be maintained free and clear of all obstructions.
a. The minimum width of a driveway serving 1 to 2 residences is 10 feet. Maximum width is
14 feet.
b. The minimum width of a driveway or ramp serving a commercial property or a residential
property with more than 2 residences is as follows:
i. Parking areas with 1 to 20 Spaces. Single driveway at least 10 feet wide with a
minimum apron width pursuant to the provisions of SMMC Section 7.04.180.
ii. Parking areas with 21 to 40 Spaces. Double driveway at least 20 feet wide with a
minimum apron width pursuant to the provisions of SMMC 7.04.180.
iii. Parking areas with 41 or More Spaces. Number and type of driveway to be approved
by the Director based on considerations of safety, efficiency, and effectiveness.
c. Ramps for commercial properties must be 20 feet wide minimum to accommodate two-
way traffic.
d. The Director may reduce the driveway width as necessary and appropriate such that
circulation, traffic, and safety concerns are adequately addressed.
C. Dimensional Requirements. Minimum parking dimensions shall comply with the standards
approved by the Director.
1. Minimum Dimensions for Residential Garages and Carports. The width of any garage door
shall be at least 8 feet for a single space and at least 16 feet for 2 spaces. Garages and carports
serving residential uses shall be constructed to meet the following minimum inside dimensions
and related requirements.
a. A single car garage or carport: 11.5 feet in width by 18 feet in length.
b. A 2-car garage or carport: 20 feet in width by 18 feet in length, except a private 2-car
garage lawfully in existence on May 5, 1999 may be maintained if the garage serves a
single unit residence and has an unobstructed inside dimension of at least 18 feet in width
by 18 feet in length.
2. Parking Spaces. Minimum parking dimensions shall comply with the standards approved by the
Director. The area of any such space shall be exclusive of any driveways, aisles, and
maneuvering areas.
3. Motorcycle spaces. Motorcycle parking spaces shall be no less than 4 feet wide and 8 feet long
with an aisle width of no less than 10 feet.
4. Space Efficient Spaces. These requirements do not apply to parking spaces that qualify as space
efficient under Section 9.28.090.
5. Storage Areas. Storage areas may be located above the parking space provided that they do not
encroach into the length of the parking space by more than 3.5 feet and provided that the storage
area is at least 4.5 feet above the floor.
D. Parking Lot Striping. Except in a garage or carport containing 2 or fewer parking spaces, all
parking stalls shall be clearly outlined with striping, and all aisles, approach lanes, and turning areas
shall be clearly marked with directional arrows and lines as necessary to provide for safe traffic
143
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
movement. All parking spaces shall be clearly marked as compact, guest, carpool, or vanpool
parking, if applicable.
E. Circulation and Safety.
1. Visibility shall be assured for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists entering individual parking
spaces, circulating within a parking facility, and entering or leaving a parking facility. Exits from
any subterranean or semi-subterranean parking structure shall provide sight distances which
comply with standards established by the Director.
2. Parking lots shall be designed so that sanitation, emergency, and other public service vehicles
can provide service without backing out unreasonable distances or making other dangerous or
hazardous turning movements.
3. Separate vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems shall be provided where possible. Multi-
unit residential developments of 5 or more units must provide pedestrian access that is separate
and distinct from driveways. Parking areas for commercial and mixed-use developments that are
80 feet or more in depth and/or include 25 or more parking spaces must have distinct and
dedicated pedestrian access from the commercial use to parking areas and public sidewalks,
according to the following standards:
a. Connection to Public Sidewalk. An on-site walkway shall connect the main building entry
to a public sidewalk on street frontage. Such walkway shall be the shortest practical
distance between the main building entry and sidewalk, generally no more than 125 percent
of the straight-line distance.
b. Materials and Width. Walkways shall provide at least 5 feet of unobstructed width and be
hard-surfaced.
c. Identification. Pedestrian walkways shall be clearly differentiated from driveways, parking
aisles, and parking and loading spaces through the use of elevation changes, a different
paving material, or similar method.
d. Separation. Where a pedestrian walkway is parallel and adjacent to an auto travel lane, it
must be raised and separated from the auto travel lane by a raised curb at least 4 inches
high, bollards, or other physical barrier.
4. Parking areas provided shall be arranged so as to be safe and convenient.
F. Wheel Stops. Concrete bumper guards or wheel stops shall be provided for all unenclosed parking
spaces abutting landscaped areas, walls, or walkways. A 6-inch high concrete curb surrounding a
landscape area at least 6 feet wide may be used as a wheel stop, provided that the overhang will not
damage or interfere with plant growth or its irrigation. A concrete sidewalk may be used as a wheel
stop if the overhang will not reduce the minimum required walkway width.
G. Slope.
1. Areas used exclusively for parking, excluding ramps, shall be designed and improved with
grades not to exceed a 6.67 percent slope.
2. Slopes of all driveways and ramps used for ingress or egress of parking facilities shall be
designed in accordance with the standards established by the Director but shall not exceed a 20
percent slope. Profiles of driveway, ramp, and grade details must be submitted to the City
Parking and Traffic Engineer for approval whenever any slope exceeds 6 percent.
H. Landscaping. Up to 2 feet of the front of a parking space as measured from a line parallel to the
direction of the bumper of a vehicle using the space may be landscaped with ground cover plans
144
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
instead of paving. Landscaping of parking areas shall be provided and maintained according to the
standards of Chapter 9.26, Landscaping.
I. Surfacing. All driveways and parking areas shall be surfaces with a minimum thickness of 2 inches
of asphaltic concrete over a minimum thickness of 4 inches of base material or alternative equivalent
material approved by the Director. No unpaved area shall be used for parking.
J. Drainage. All parking areas shall be designed to meet the requirements of Chapter 7.10, Runoff
Conservation and Sustainable Management.
K. Screening. In addition to the requirements of Section 9.21.140, Screening, parking areas shall be
screened from view from public streets and adjacent parcels in a more restrictive district, according
to the following standards. Screening shall add to the visual diversity of the use and need not be an
opaque barrier.
1. Height. Screening of surface parking lots from adjacent public streets shall be a minimum of 3
feet and a maximum of 3.5 feet in height. Screening of parking lots along interior parcel lines
that abut Residential Districts shall be a minimum of 5 feet and a maximum of 6 feet in height,
except within the required front setback of the applicable Zoning District, where screening shall
be 3 feet in height.
2. Materials. Screening may consist of one or any combination of the methods listed below.
a. Walls. Low-profile walls consisting of brick, stone, stucco, or other quality durable
material approved by the Director, and including a decorative cap or top finish as well as
edge detail at wall ends. Plain concrete blocks are not allowed as a screening wall material
unless capped and finished with stucco or other material approved by the Director.
b. Fences. An open fence of wrought iron or similar material combined with plant materials
to form an opaque screen. Use of chain-link or vinyl fencing for screening purposes is
prohibited.
c. Planting. Plant materials consisting of compact evergreen plants that form an opaque
screen. Such plant materials must achieve a minimum height of 2 feet within 18 months
after initial installation.
d. Berms. Berms planted with grass, ground cover, or other low-growing plant materials.
L. Lighting. Public parking areas designed to accommodate 10 or more vehicles shall be provided with
a minimum of .05 foot-candle and a maximum of 3.0 foot-candles of light over the parking surface
during the hours of use from 1/2 hour before dusk and until 1/2 hour after dawn.
1. Lighting design shall be coordinated with the landscape plan to ensure that vegetation growth
will not substantially impair the intended illumination.
2. All artificial lighting used to illuminate a parking lot for any number of automobiles in any
District shall be arranged so that all direct rays from such lighting fall entirely within such
parking lot and be consistent with Section 9.21.080, Lighting.
M. Alternative Compliance. The Director may approve other screening plans, designs, and materials
of equal area and screening which satisfy the intent of the screening standards.
N. Alternative Parking Area Designs. Where an applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Director that variations in the dimensions otherwise required by this Section are warranted in order
to achieve environmental design and green building objectives, including, but not limited to,
achieving certification under the LEEDTM Green Building Rating System or equivalent, an
alternative parking area design may be approved.
145
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
O. Maintenance. Parking lots, including landscaped areas, driveways, and loading areas, shall be
maintained free of refuse, debris, or other accumulated matter and shall be kept in good repair at all
times.
P. Compact Parking. Compact parking must be evenly distributed in parking areas or levels; it may
not be located within 25 feet of an entrance/exit ramp from the public right- of -way, driveway or
ground floor pedestrian entrance. A maximum of 40 percent of parking spaces may be compact.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 27,
adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2536CCS § 12, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2551CCS §
3, adopted August 8, 2017; Ord. No. 2567CCS § 6, adopted December 12, 2017; Ord. No. 2606CCS
§ 12, adopted April 9, 2019)
9.28.180 Reduction of Required Parking
The following exemptions shall apply to the requirements of off-street parking and loading requirements.
A. Parking Overlay Area 2. Nonresidential properties located within Parking Overlay Area 2
identified in Figure 9.28.050 may be eligible to provide parking at the Parking Overlay Area 1 rates
specified in Table 9.28.060, Parking Regulations by Use and Location. The applicant shall have the
burden of proof for a reduction in the total number of required parking spaces, and documentation
shall be submitted substantiating the reasons for this requested parking reduction. Reduced parking
shall be approved only if:
1. Compliance with transportation demand management requirements is demonstrated, or sufficient
evidence is provided that the project will comply;
2. Documentation is provided to the satisfaction of the Director that the parking to be supplied will
meet the needs of the on-site uses; and
3. Additional requirements, restrictions, or agreements as deemed necessary by the Director are
included as a requirement(s) to ensure that the parking will satisfy the needs of the on-site uses.
By Right Parking Incentives Provided Under State Density Bonus Law. A project that is eligible
under Section 9.22.040, Eligibility, shall be entitled to the parking incentives set forth in Government
Code Section 65915(p).
B. City-Designated Historic Resources. For any principal or conditional use located in a City-
Designated Historic Resource, the required number of parking and loading spaces to be provided
and maintained shall be the same as the number of spaces that existed on the site on July 6, 2010.
Existing parking facilities associated with designated landmarks shall be maintained. Within the
Downtown Community Plan area, there shall be no minimum required number of parking or loading
spaces to be provided and maintained for any principal or conditional use located in a City-
Designated Historic Resource. Existing parking or loading serving a City-Designated Historic
Resource in the Downtown Community Plan area that was not required at the time the City-
Designated Historic Resource was originally entitled may be reduced without providing equivalent
substitute facilities when such a reduction is necessary to allow for an addition to the City-Designated
Historic Resource.
C. Car Share Spaces. Substitution of car-sharing spaces for required parking is allowed if all of the
following are met:
1. For every car-sharing parking space that is provided, the parking requirement is reduced by 2
spaces, up to a maximum of 25 percent of the required parking spaces, not to exceed 10 spaces;
and
2. A copy of the car-sharing agreement between the property owner and the car-sharing company
must be submitted with the building permit.
146
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
D. Off-Site Shared Parking. Shared parking is intended to provide an opportunity for multiple uses to
use parking facilities on separate properties more efficiently. Shared parking shall be permitted in
all nonresidential districts identified in Table 9.02.010-A, subject to the following:
1. The maximum allowable reduction in the number of spaces to be provided shall not exceed 25
percent of the sum of the number required for each use served and not reduce the total number
of spaces to less than 1 space for every 500 square feet of floor area in a commercial mixed-use
development.
2. An applicant for a permit for shared parking shall be required to submit data substantiating a
request for reduced parking requirements. The data shall include substantial evidence of the
demand and usage of the parking facility. A permit for shared parking shall describe the limits
of any area subject to reduced parking requirements and the reduction applicable to each use.
3. Permit Required—Shared Parking of Fewer Than 10 Spaces.
a. Shared parking of fewer than 10 parking spaces may be approved through an administrative
shared parking permit.
b. The applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Director of availability of
off-site parking, and that no on-site parking is available during the times when additional
off-site parking is requested.
4. Permit Required—Shared Parking of 10 or More Spaces.
a. Shared parking of 10 or more parking spaces in a private parking facility that is otherwise
limited to on-site parking may be approved through a Minor Use Permit. The Director may
establish additional conditions to further the intent of this subsection and ensure that
parking spaces needed for the primary on-site uses will be available during the hours
needed for their use.
b. Findings. The Director, or Planning Commission on appeal, may approve an application
for shared parking, in whole or in part, with or without conditions, only when all of the
following findings are made in an affirmative manner:
i. The operation of the requested shared parking permit at the location proposed and
within the time period specified will not adversely impact the primary use of the
parking facility for its intended on-site users, or otherwise endanger the public health,
safety, or general welfare.
ii. The shared parking permit sets forth the maximum number of shared parking spaces
that are being approved for use by off-site users that will be available during peak and
off-peak parking demand periods so as to ensure that a sufficient number of spaces
will be provided to meet the greater parking demand of the anticipated users.
iii. Additional requirements, restrictions or agreements, as deemed necessary by the
Director are included as a requirement(s) of the shared parking permit to ensure that
parking spaces needed for the primary on-site uses will be available during the hours
needed for their use.
iv. The off-site shared parking will not reduce parking for new development.
c. The Director shall prepare a written decision which shall contain the findings of fact upon
which such decision is based and all required conditions, if approved. Within 2 business
days from the date when the determination has been made concerning the application and
147
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
posted on the City’s website, the decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to property
owners and residents of property within a radius of 750 feet for which the shared parking
is requested. Copies of the decision shall also be provided to the Planning Commission.
d. Term of Permit. A shared parking permit shall be valid for a one-year period from the date
of issuance unless a different period is set by the Director, or the Planning Commission on
appeal, as a condition of granting the shared parking permit. The permit shall renew
automatically for additional 1-year periods unless the permit is modified or revoked in
accordance with subsection (D)(4)(f) of this Section.
e. Monitoring. The permit holder shall grant City staff access to the parking facility for the
purpose of verifying parking availability prior to issuing the permit as well as to allow
random monitoring after the permit is issued. The applicant shall submit an annual report
to the Director that includes a copy of current lease agreements for the parking facility that
is shared and shall submit data substantiating an ongoing request for reduced parking
requirements.
f. Modification or Revocation. The City may modify or revoke an approved Shared Parking
Permit in accordance with the following procedures:
i. If the Director receives evidence that the conditions of the permit have not been met,
or the permit granted is being or has recently been exercised contrary to the terms of
the approval or in violation of a specific statute, ordinance, law, or regulation, the
Director shall serve notice of these violations, either in person or by registered mail,
on the owner of the property and on the permit holder and shall provide the permit
holder with a reasonable opportunity to cure the violation(s).
ii. If the permit holder or property owner has not responded to the notice within 10 days
or the Director determines that the permit holder has failed to cure the violation, the
Director may refer the matter to a revocation hearing. Notice of hearing shall be
published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City and shall be
served either in person or by registered mail on the owner of the property and on the
permit holder at least 10 days prior to such hearing. The notice of hearing shall
contain a statement of the specific reasons for revocation.
iii. After the hearing, a shared parking permit may be revoked by the Director or by the
Planning Commission on appeal or review if any one of the following findings is
made:
(1) That the shared parking permit was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud; or
(2) That the conditions of the permit have not been met, or the permit granted is
being or has recently been exercised contrary to the terms of the approval or in
violation of a specific statute, ordinance, law, or regulation.
iv. A written determination of modification or revocation of the shared parking permit
shall be mailed to the property owner and the permit holder within 10 days of such
determination.
g. Appeals. Any person may appeal the approval, conditions of approval, denial, modification
or revocation of a shared parking permit to the Planning Commission if filed within 14
consecutive calendar days of the date the decision is made in the manner provided in
Chapter 9.37, Common Procedures.
148
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
E. On-Site Shared Parking. Facilities may be shared if multiple uses cooperatively establish and
operate parking facilities and if these uses generate parking demands primarily during hours when
the remaining uses are not in operation. (For example, if one use operates during evenings or
weekdays only.) The applicant shall have the burden of proof for a reduction in the total number of
required parking spaces, and documentation shall be submitted substantiating the reasons for this
requested parking reduction. Shared parking shall be approved only if:
1. A sufficient number of spaces are provided to meet the greater parking demand of the
participating uses.
2. Satisfactory evidence has been submitted by the parties operating the shared parking facility,
describing the nature of the uses and times when the uses operate so as to demonstrate the lack
of conflict between them.
3. Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions or other agreements as may be deemed
necessary by the Director are executed to assure that the required parking spaces provided are
maintained and uses with similar hours and parking requirements as those uses sharing the
parking remain for the life of the building.
F. Bicycle Parking. Substitution of non-required bicycle spaces for existing required automobile
parking spaces is allowed according to the following provisions:
1. Layout and design must meet bicycle parking Section 9.28.140(D) general requirements with
final layout and number to be approved by the Director.
2. For buildings with fewer than 10 automobile parking spaces, 1 existing required automobile
parking space may be replaced with 5 bicycle spaces if no other suitable location for bicycle
parking exists on the property as determined by the Director.
3. For every 5 bicycle spaces that are provided in the footprint of an existing required parking
space, automobile parking is reduced by 1 space, up to a maximum of 15 percent of the required
parking spaces.
4. This provision does not apply to single or 2-unit residential dwellings.
G. Motorcycle Parking. There shall be a credit of 1 automobile parking space for every 4 motorcycle
parking spaces provided, not to exceed 5 percent of the total number of automobile parking spaces
required.
H. Reduction of Required Parking Related to Governmental Requirements. Up to 3 parking spaces
may be reduced to accommodate governmental requirements upon approval by the Director, with
total loss of spaces to be minimized. Governmental requirements may include, but are not limited
to, refuse and recycling requirements, public utilities, and traffic safety requirements.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 10,
adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2551CCS § 3, adopted August 8, 2017; Ord. No. 2567CCS § 8,
adopted December 12, 2017)
149
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.31
STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC USES AND ACTIVITIES
Sections:
9.31.010 Purpose
9.31.020 Applicability
9.31.025 Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
9.31.030 Accessory Food Service
9.31.040 Alcoholic Beverage Sales
9.31.050 Automobile Rental
9.31.060 Automobile/Vehicle Repair, Major and Minor
9.31.070 Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and Storage
9.31.080 Automobile/Vehicle Washing
9.31.090 Bed and Breakfasts
9.31.100 Community Assembly
9.31.110 Congregate and Transitional Housing
9.31.120 Child Care and Early Education Facilities
9.31.125 Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential
9.31.130 Emergency Shelters
9.31.140 Family Day Care, Large
9.31.150 General Markets in Residential Districts
9.31.160 Home Occupation
9.31.170 Live-Work Units
9.31.180 Manufactured Housing
9.31.185 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
9.31.190 Mobile Food Truck Off-Street Venues
9.31.195 Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
9.31.196 Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking
Lots
9.31.197 Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking
Lots
9.31.200 Outdoor Dining and Seating
9.31.210 Outdoor Newsstands
9.31.220 Outdoor Retail Display and Sales
9.31.230 Personal Service
9.31.240 Personal Storage
9.31.250 Private Tennis Courts
9.31.260 Recycling Facilities
9.31.270 Residential Care Facilities
9.31.280 Restaurants, Limited-Service and Take-Out Only
9.31.290 Restaurants with Entertainment
9.31.310 Senior Group Residential
9.31.320 Service Stations
9.31.330 Single Room Occupancy Structures
9.31.340 Small-Scale Facility (Commercial Entertainment and Recreation), Game Arcades
9.31.350 Social Service Centers
9.31.360 Swap Meets
9.31.370 Temporary Uses and Seasonal Sales
150
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9.31.025 Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Notwithstanding the accessory structure standards of Section 9.21.020, accessory dwelling units and junior
accessory dwelling units shall be developed, located, and operated in accordance with the following
standards.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to allow and regulate accessory dwelling units and junior
accessory dwelling units in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and
65852.22 and, in doing so, to increase the supply of affordable housing in the City. This section shall
not be considered in the application of any City ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential
growth.
B. Accessory Dwelling Unit. Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) means an attached or detached
residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons
and that is located on a parcel with a proposed or existing primary single-unit or multi-unit dwelling.
An ADU shall contain a kitchen and full bathroom separate from the primary dwelling(s) and
accessible only to the inhabitants of the ADU. An ADU shall not have interior access to an existing
or proposed single-unit dwelling or unit within a multiple-unit dwelling and shall have exterior
access that is independent of that for any single-unit dwelling or unit within a multiple-unit dwelling.
An ADU may also be: (1) an efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1(b) of the Health and
Safety Code; or (2) a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety
Code. An ADU shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and
sanitation on the same parcel as the primary single-unit or multiple-unit dwelling is or will be
situated. Permanent provisions for eating and cooking shall include a room or area used for the
preparation and storage of food that includes at a minimum, but is not limited to, a sink, refrigerator,
and built-in stove or range top.
C. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. Junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) means a dwelling unit
that is no more than 500 square feet in size and is contained entirely within an existing or proposed
single-unit dwelling. A JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the
proposed or existing single-unit dwelling, but may also provide internal access, and shall include an
efficiency kitchen, which shall include: (1) a cooking facility with appliances; and (2) a food
preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the
JADU. A JADU may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the
existing structure. For purposes of providing service for water, sewer, or power, or for fire or life
protection, a JADU shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit.
D. ADU and JADU Uses Permitted By Right. An ADU or JADU that conforms to all standards of
this Section shall be permitted by right, shall be deemed to be consistent with the City’s General
Plan and zoning designation for the parcel on which the ADU or JADU is located, and shall be
deemed to meet the allowable density for the parcel on which the ADU or JADU is located.
E. Procedures. If an ADU or JADU complies with the requirements of this Chapter, development is
by right and only a building permit is required. Correction of nonconforming zoning conditions will
not be required as a condition of approval, except that the City is not prohibited from enforcing
compliance with applicable building standards in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section
17980.12. An application to create an ADU or JADU submitted with a permit application to create
a new dwelling on the parcel shall be acted upon when or before the application for the new dwelling
is acted upon. An application to establish or construct an ADU or JADU on a parcel that contains an
existing single-unit or multiple-unit dwelling shall be deemed complete approved if not acted on
within 60 days from the date that the application is complete, except that the applicant may request
a delay and the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay.
F. Establishment of ADUs and JADUs. An ADU or JADU that meets the requirements of this Section
may be established on any legal parcel that is zoned to allow for single-unit or multiple-unit dwelling
residential use and on which a primary single-unit dwelling or multiple-unit dwelling has been
151
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
previously established or is proposed to be established in conjunction with construction of the ADU
or JADU. Except as set forth in subsection (G) below, no more than one ADU and one JADU is
permitted per parcel.
G. Permitted ADUs and JADUs. Subject to the requirements set forth in this Section, the following
ADUs and JADUs shall be permitted as follows:
1. Parcel with Single-Unit Dwelling. One attached or detached ADU or and one JADU may be
constructed or established on any parcel on which a single-unit dwelling has been previously
established or is proposed to be constructed., except that one detached ADU permitted under
subsection (G)(1)(b) below and one JADU permitted under subsection (G)(1)(c) below may be
established or constructed and located on the same parcel.
a. Attached ADUs. One attached ADU may be established or constructed in conjunction with
an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling as follows:
i. An attached ADU may be newly constructed as an addition to an existing single-unit
dwelling;
ii. An attached ADU may be established within the footprint of a proposed single-unit
dwelling; or
iii. An attached ADU may be established by converting floor area of an existing single-
unit dwelling or attached accessory structure.
b. Detached ADU. One detached ADU may be constructed or established in conjunction with
an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling as follows:
i. A detached ADU may be newly constructed; or
ii. A detached ADU may be established by converting floor area of a legal existing
detached accessory structure.
c. JADU. One JADU may be constructed or established in conjunction with an existing or
proposed single-unit dwelling as follows:
i. A JADU may be established within the footprint of a proposed single-unit dwelling;
or
ii. A JADU may be established by converting floor area of an existing single-unit
dwelling.
2. Parcel with Existing Multiple-Unit Dwellings. One or more ADUs may be permitted on a parcel
with an existing or proposed multiple-unit dwelling as set forth in this subsection. ADUs
permitted under paragraphs (a) and (b) below may be located on the same parcel.
a. Conversion of Existing Multiple-Unit Dwelling Footprint to ADU(s). At least one ADU, or
up to 25% of the existing multiple-unit dwelling total unit count, whichever is greater, may
be established or constructed by converting floor area within an existing multiple-unit
dwelling or existing detached legal accessory structures.
b. Detached ADUs on Multiple-Unit Parcel. No more than 2 detached ADUs may be
established or constructed on a parcel with an existing or proposed multiple-unit dwelling
by converting an existing legal accessory structure or through new construction.
3. Parcel Within the Single-Unit Residential (R1) Zoning District. In addition to any ADU
permitted pursuant to (G)(1)(a) and (b), above, one additional detached ADU may be constructed
152
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
or established in conjunction with an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling as described
below:
a. The additional detached ADU is used as a rental unit subject to a deed restriction in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
b. The additional detached ADU may be newly constructed or may be established by
converting floor area of a legal existing detached accessory structure.
c. Any ADU permitted under this subsection shall be subject to all provisions set forth in this
Section.
H. Permitted Locations for Newly Constructed ADUs and JADUs. Newly constructed ADUs and
JADUs shall be located on a parcel as set forth in this subsection and subject to all applicable setback
requirements set forth in subsection (L) below.
1. Parcels with Single-Unit Dwellings.
a. An attached ADU or JADU may be located either in the front or rear half of the parcel.
b. A detached ADU shall be located on the rear half of a parcel.
c. A detached ADU shall be located a minimum of 6 feet from the existing single-unit
dwelling, as measured between exterior walls.
d. On a reverse corner parcel, an ADU or JADU shall not be located nearer to the street side
parcel line of such corner parcel than one-half of the front setback depth required on the
key parcel, nor be located nearer than 4 feet to the side parcel line of any key parcel.
e. On a through parcel, an ADU or JADU shall not project into any front setback except as
provided under subsection (K) below. Pursuant to Section 9.04.110(B), the front setback
borders the street primarily used as frontage by the majority of neighboring parcels.
2. Parcels with Multiple-Unit Dwellings.
a. A detached ADU may be located either in the front or rear half of the parcel, but shall be a
minimum of 6 feet from existing multiple-unit dwelling(s), as measured between exterior
walls.
b. On a reverse corner parcel, an ADU or JADU shall not be located nearer to the street side
parcel line of such corner parcel than one-half of the front setback depth required on the
key parcel, nor be located nearer than 4 feet to the side parcel line of any key parcel.
c. On a through parcel, an ADU or JADU shall not project into any front setback except as
provided under subsection (L) below. Pursuant to Section 9.04.110(B), the front setback
borders the street primarily used as frontage by the majority of neighboring parcels.
I. Standards for ADUs and JADUs Established by Converting Floor Area of Legal Existing
Structures. ADUs and JADUs established by converting floor area of legal existing structures shall
adhere to the following standards set forth in this subsection and subject to all applicable setback
requirements set forth in subsection (L) below.
1. Parcel with Single-Unit Dwelling.
a. Attached ADU. An ADU that is established by converting floor area of an existing single-
unit dwelling that is located in the front setback may only expand the footprint of the single-
unit dwelling up to 150 square feet into the front setback to accommodate ingress and
153
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
egress. An ADU that is established by converting floor area of an existing single-unit
dwelling that is not located within the front setback may expand the footprint beyond 150
square feet up to the total size permitted under subsection (J) below.
b. Detached ADU.
i. An ADU may be established by converting floor area within a legal existing accessory
structure or by reconstructing the ADU in the same location and to the same
dimensions as the original structure.
ii. Notwithstanding the size limitation in subsection (J), aAn ADU that is established by
converting floor area of a legal existing accessory structure may expand the footprint
of the existing accessory structure at least 150 square feet to accommodate ingress
and egress. An ADU may expand beyond 150 square feet if the addition or
enlargement is made to conform to all standards set forth in this Section and is a
minimum of 6 feet from the existing single-unit dwelling, as measured between
exterior walls. ADUs that expand beyond 150 square feet in accordance with these
provisions are subject to the size limitations in subsection (J).
iii. Notwithstanding the size limitation in subsection (J), aAn ADU that is established by
converting floor area of a legal existing accessory structures located in the front
setback may only expand the footprint up to 150 square feet into the front setback to
accommodate ingress and egress.
c. JADU. A JADU that is constructed or established by converting floor area of an existing
single-unit dwelling must be contained entirely within the footprint of the single-unit
dwelling. ay only expand the footprint up to 150 square feet to accommodate ingress and
egress, but in no case shall such expansion result in a JADU that exceeds 500 square feet.
2. Parcel with Multiple-Unit Dwelling—Conversion of Existing Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Footprint to ADU(s).
a. Conversion of Existing Multiple-Unit Dwelling Footprint to ADU(s).
At least one ADU, or up to 25% of the existing multiple-unit dwelling total unit count,
whichever is greater, may be established within the residential portions of existing
multiple-unit dwellings that are not used as livable space and are enclosed on at least 3
sides, such as storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if
each converted ADU complies with State building standards for dwellings. No additions
to or enlargements of the footprint of the existing multiple unit dwelling shall be permitted
to establish or construct ADUs in accordance with this paragraph.
b. Conversion of Existing Legal Accessory Structures to ADU(s).
ADUs may be established within existing residential portions of legal detached accessory
structures pursuant to (G)(2)(a) and (b), above.
J. Size. The following unit size limits apply to ADUs and JADUs:
1. The minimum size of an ADU or JADU is 220 square feet of floor area.
2. The maximum size of a detached or attached studio or one-bedroom ADU is 850 square feet of
floor area.
3. The maximum size of a detached or attached ADU with more than one bedroom is:
154
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
a. 1,000 square feet of floor area for parcels of less than 10,000 square feet; and
b. 1,200 square feet for parcels of 10,000 square feet or greater.
4. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing:
a. For attached ADUs, if there is an existing primary dwelling, Tthe total floor area of the
ADUof an attached ADU shall not exceed 50% of the existing floor area of the primary
dwelling, or the maximum size limits in subsections (2) and (3), whichever is greater.
a.b. For ADUs established by converting floor area of an existing legal accessory structure, the
size limitations set forth in subsection (I)(1)(b) shall apply.
65. The maximum size of a JADU is 500 square feet of floor area.
K. ADUs and JADUs Exempt from Floor Area and Parcel Coverage.
1. Floor area does not include ADUs and JADUs established in accordance with this Section shall
be excluded from floor area. See Section 9.04.080, Determining Floor Area.
2. Areas covered by or directly below ADUs and JADUs established in accordance with this
Section shall be excluded from the footprint area for purposes of determining parcel coverage.
See Section 9.04.100, Determining Residential Parcel Coverage. Areas directly below a fully-
enclosed second-story cantilever of an ADU or JADU shall not be considered part of the ground
floor footprint area for purposes of calculating ground floor parcel coverage.
L. Setbacks. An ADU or JADU shall adhere to the following setback requirements:
1. An ADU or JADU shall not be permitted within the front setback, however, when converting
floor area within an existing single-unit dwelling or a legal accessory structure located in the
front setback, an ADU or JADU may expand the footprint of said structure up to 150 square feet
to only accommodate ingress and egress as set forth in subsections (I)(1)(a)(i), (I)(1)(b)(iii), and
(I)(1)(c) above.
2. Side and rear setbacks of 4 feet, measured from parcel line, are required for an ADU or JADU,
except that:
a. An ADU or JADU constructed or established pursuant to subsection (G)(1)(a)(ii),
(G)(1)(a)(iii), (G)(1)(b)(ii), or (G)(1)(c) above shall be subject to side and rear setbacks
only as required for fire and safety if the ADU or JADU meets the following requirements:
i. The ADU or JADU is within the proposed space of a single-unit dwelling or existing
space of a single-unit dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion
of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing
accessory structure for purposes of accommodating ingress and egress;
ii. The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling;
and
iii. The JADU complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 65852.22.
b. No side or rear setback shall be required for an ADU or JADU constructed or established
pursuant to subsection (G)(1)(b)(ii) above.
c. An ADU or JADU may have a side and/or rear setback equivalent to the primary
dwelling(s) if the primary dwelling(s) are permitted to have a side and/or rear setback of
less than 4 feet.
155
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
M. Height. An attached ADU or JADU shall comply with the height limitations for the primary dwelling
unit to which it is attached. A detached ADU shall not exceed 2 stories or 24 feet in height.
N. Design Standards and Exterior Features. The exterior design features of an ADU or JADU ,
including building forms, materials, colors, exterior finishes, and landscaping, shall be compatible
in size, location, and appearance with the primary single-unit dwelling or multiple-unit dwelling on
the parcel and shall adhere to the following:
1. ADUs and JADUs are required to have independent exterior access separate from the primary
dwelling unit(s).
2. Within the R1 District, an attached ADU or JADU located entirely or partially on the second
story of a single-unit dwelling shall comply with all applicable stepback requirements set forth
in Section 9.07.030.
3. Upper-story outdoor spaces for attached ADUs and JADUs, such as first-story roof decks,
landings, upper level walkways, and balconies, shall conform to all standards set forth for the
primary dwelling unit(s).
4. Upper-story outdoor spaces for detached ADUs, such as first-story roof decks, landings, upper
level walkways, and balconies, shall not exceed an aggregate 35 square feet when located in the
Single-Unit Residential (R1) District or 60 square feet per ADU in all other districts, and shall
adhere to the restrictions set forth below. following restrictions: For purposes of this paragraph,
upper-story outdoor space necessary for minimum ingress and egress requirements will not be
considered when calculating the total aggregate square feet.
a. Upper-story outdoor spaces shall not be located on the side elevation closest to a side parcel
line, unless that side parcel line is adjacent to a public right-of-way or alley;
b. Upper-story outdoor spaces shall not be located on the rear elevation unless the ADU is
located outside the rear setback area of the primary dwelling unit(s);
c. When located on a permitted elevation, upper-story outdoor spaces shall be set back from
the side parcel line the same distance as the minimum side setback requirement for the
principal dwelling unit(s) on the parcel and shall be a minimum 5 feet from the rear parcel
line;
d. Roof decks above the second story are prohibited.
O. Application of Generally Applicable Municipal Code Provisions. Except as set forth in this
Section, an ADU or JADU shall conform to the height, setbacks, parcel coverage, floor area, and
other land use regulations and development standards of the district in which it is located and all
other applicable provisions of this Municipal Code, including, but not limited to, the provisions of
Article VIII, Building Regulations, and the provisions of Chapter 9.56, Landmarks and Historic
Districts.
P. Exemption. Notwithstanding anything set forth herein, the development and design standards set
forth in this Section shall not preclude the establishment of a detached or attached ADU with a floor
area of up to 800 square feet, side and rear setbacks of at least 4 feet, and a height of no more than
16 feet.
Q. Parking.
1. Required Parking. No parking shall be required for an ADU or JADU. If parking is provided,
the parking space One on-site parking space, which may be unenclosed, shall be provided for an
ADU. This space shall comply with all development standards set forth in Chapter 9.28, Parking,
Loading, and Circulation, and the requirements for the district in which the ADU or JADU is
located. A tandem parking space may also be used to meet the parking requirement for the
156
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
accessory dwelling unit and may be provided on an existing driveway. Parking shall not be
required for a JADU.
2. Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other parking required by this Section or Chapter 9.28 of this
Article, no parking space shall be required for an ADU in any of the following circumstances:
a. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, as defined by
Government Code Section 65852.2(j)(10);
b. The ADU is an individually designated historic resource or is located within an architecturally
and historically significant historic district;
c. The ADU is part of the existing or a proposed primary residence or an existing accessory
structure;
d. An on-street parking permit is required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU; or
e. A car share vehicle is located within one block of the ADU.
32. No Replacement. When parking areas including, but not limited to, a garages, carports,
uncovered parking spaces, or covered parking structures, is are demolished in conjunction with
the construction of an ADU or JADU or converted to an ADU or JADU, the eliminated off-
street parking spaces are not required to be replaced.
R. Owner-Occupancy Requirement.
1. An ADU is not subject to an owner-occupancy requirement.
2. A JADU is subject to an owner-occupancy requirement, except that a JADU that is owned by a
governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization is not subject to this requirement. With
respect to a JADU that is subject to an owner-occupancy requirement, a natural person with legal
or equitable title to the property that includes the JADU must reside on the property as the
person’s legal domicile and permanent residence.
S. Lease Terms. An ADU or JADU shall be subject to any restrictions or requirements for lease terms
that apply to all residential dwelling units in the City. In addition, except as may be permitted under
Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 6.20, Home-Sharing and Vacation Rentals, an ADU or JADU
shall not be used for rentals of terms of 30 days or less.
T. Limitations on Separate Sale.
1. Except as provided in subsection (2), below, Nno ADU or JADU may be sold or otherwise
conveyed separately from the parcel and the primary dwelling (in the case of a single-unit
dwelling) or from the parcel and all of the dwellings (in the case of a multiple-unit
dwelling).
2. Notwithstanding the prohibition in subsection (1), above, an ADU may be sold or conveyed
separately from the primary residence to a qualified buyer in accordance with the
provisions of Government Code Section 65852.26
U. JADU Deed Restriction. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a JADU, a deed restriction must
be recorded against the title of the property in the County Recorder’s office and a copy filed with the
Director. The deed restriction shall run with the land and bind all future owners. The form of the
deed restriction shall be provided by the Director and shall provide thatthe following:
1. The JADU may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling associated with the ADU or
JADU.
2. The JADU is restricted to the approved size and to other attributes allowed by this section.
157
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3. The deed restriction runs with the land and may be enforced against future property owners.
4. The deed restriction may be removed if the owner eliminates the JADU, as evidenced by, for
example, removal of the kitchen facilities. To remove the deed restriction, an owner may make
a written request of the Director, providing evidence that the JADU has in fact been eliminated.
Any building permits required in the removal must be approved by the Director’s determination.
The Director may then determine whether the evidence supports the claim that the JADU has
been eliminated. Appeal may be taken from the Director’s determination consistent with other
provisions of this Code. If the JADU is not entirely physically removed but is only eliminated
by virtue of having a necessary component of a JADU removed, the remaining structure and
improvements must otherwise comply with applicable provisions of this Code.
5. The deed restriction is enforceable by the City. Failure of the property owner to comply with the
deed restriction may result in legal action against the property owner, and the City is authorized
to obtain any remedy available to it at law or equity, including, but not limited to, obtaining an
injunction enjoining the use of the JADU in violation of the recorded restrictions or abatement
of the illegal unit. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by
Ord. No. 2536CCS §§ 16, 21, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2576CCS § 11, adopted
June 12, 2018; Ord. No. 2624CCS § 10, adopted November 12, 2019; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 32,
adopted September 8, 2020)
Chapter 9.31.125 Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential
The purpose of this section is to establish standards, requirements, and procedures for projects developed
pursuant to the regulations set forth in State Senate Bill 9 (SB9), and any successor legislation, with the
intent to increase access to housing by allowing the development of two residential units on parcels zoned
primarily for single-unit dwellings.
A. Applicability
This section shall apply to parcels located in the Single-Unit Residential (R1) and Ocean Park
Single-Unit Residential (OP1) zoning districts, and select parcels within Multi-Unit Residential
and Ocean Park Neighborhood zoning districts limited to one single-unit dwelling based on specific
limitations, including, but not limited to, density calculations and parcel size and/or dimensions.
Projects proposed pursuant to this section shall meet all of the following:
1. Location Requirements:
a. The parcel is located in an urbanized area or urban cluster, as defined by the Census
Bureau;
b. The parcel is not located within a designated historic district or does not contain a
historic resource;
c. The parcel is not located on a site identified in California Government Code Section
65913.4(a)(6)(B), (C), (I), (J), (K), which includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
i. Prime farmland, wetlands, land identified for conservation, land under
conservation easement, or habitat for protected species;
158
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
d. The parcel is not located on a site identified in California Government Code Section
65913.4(a)(6)(D), (E), (F), (G), (H), unless the development satisfies the
requirements therein, which includes, but is not limited to, the following:
i. Very high fire hazard severity zone, hazardous waste site, delineated
earthquake fault zone, 100-year floodplain, or regulatory floodway
2. Displacement Protections:
a. Projects shall not include alteration or demolition of any of the following types of
housing:
i. Deed restricted affordable housing;
ii. Rent-controlled housing or housing subject to any form of price control,
including, but not limited to, units subject to the California statewide rent
control law and Article XVIII of the Santa Monica Charter, the City’s rent
control law;
iii. Housing occupied by a tenant in the last three years; or
iv. Housing on parcels with an Ellis Act eviction in the last 15 years from date
of application submittal.
B. Permitted Projects
The following project types are permitted pursuant to this section:
1. Lot Split. A permitted parcel may be subdivided into two parcels pursuant to Section (D),
below.
2. Duplex. One duplex may be established or constructed on a permitted parcel pursuant to
Section (E), below.
3. Lot Split with single-unit dwelling or duplex. Single-unit dwellings and duplexes are
permitted to be established in conjunction with a lot split pursuant to Sections (D) and
(E), below.
C. Review Process.
1. Projects established under this Section shall be subject to a ministerial approval and
design review process as determined by the Director prior to submittal of a building
permit.
2. Lot splits shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 9.54, Land Divisions, except that
no Planning Commission hearing is required for the tentative map process.
D. Lot Split Standards and Requirements. Parcels subdivided pursuant to this Section shall
comply with the following standards and requirements:
1. Minimum Parcel Size. Parcels resulting from a permitted lot split shall be no smaller than
1,200 square feet and 40% of the original parcel size.
2. Minimum Parcel Dimensions. No minimum parcel width or depth.
3. Access. Access to a public right-of-way shall be provided for each resulting parcel.
4. Subdivision Limitations.
a. The subject parcel has not been previously subdivided pursuant to this section.
b. The subject parcel is not adjacent to another parcel that has been subdivided pursuant
to this Section by the same owner or any person acting in concert with the same
owner.
5. Owner Occupancy. Property owner shall intend to live on one of the resulting parcels for
three years after subdivision completion.
6. Process. Zoning conformance review and approval shall be required prior to submittal of
a building permit.
159
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
E. Development Standards and Requirements. Development established or constructed under this
Section shall comply with all of the following standards and requirements. Where provisions are
not specifically addressed, the standards of the underlying zoning district shall apply.
1. Land Uses. Permitted uses shall be limited to the following:
a. Single-Unit Dwelling
b. Duplex
c. Accessory Dwelling Unit
d. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
2. Maximum Unit Count.
a. No Lot Split. Up to four units are permitted per parcel. A duplex must be
established but no more than one duplex is permitted. The four permitted units
are inclusive of Accessory Dwelling Units pursuant to Section 9.31.025.
b. Lot Split. Up to two units are permitted on each parcel created by a lot split, of
which at least one single unit dwelling or a duplex must be established on each
parcel. The two permitted units are inclusive of Accessory Dwelling Units and
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units pursuant to Section 9.31.025, unless otherwise
permitted under Section 9.31.025(G)(3).
c. Parcels 10,000 SF or Greater. Notwithstanding subsection (i) and (ii), above, on
parcels 10,000 SF or greater, more than four units may be permitted per parcel,
inclusive of Accessory Dwelling Units pursuant to Section 9.31.025.
3. Minimum Front Setback. If a lot split results in a front parcel line that is adjacent to an
alley, no more than 4 feet is required.
4. Minimum Side and Rear Setbacks.
a. New Construction: 4 feet, except in the following circumstance:
i. In the case of a lot split, no setback shall be required from the newly
created interior parcel line provided that the structures meet fire and
safety standards.
b. Existing development or reconstruction in same location and dimensions may
retain nonconforming setbacks.
5. Guaranteed Unit Size. Notwithstanding standards set forth within this section or the
underlying zoning district, no standard shall preclude the establishment or construction of
two units of at least 800 square feet each.
6. Owner Occupancy. Property owner shall intend to live in one of the proposed units for
three years.
F. Parking. One parking space is required per unit established pursuant to this Section, except no
parking is required if any of the following applies:
1. The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit
corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or
a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code; or
2. There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel.
G. Rental and Sale Requirement. When two or more units are established under this section, at
least one of the units shall be either sold or used as a rental unit subject to a deed restriction in a
form approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit.
H. Lease Terms. Units created under this section shall not be used for rental terms of 30 days or
less.
I. Applicability of Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program. When an existing
dwelling unit is retained and only one unit is added under this Section, Chapter 9.64 would not
160
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
apply. When an existing dwelling unit is removed such that two units are constructed, the
Chapter 9.64 affordable housing fees would apply to the project.
J. Applicability of Chapter 9.65, Childcare Linkage Program, Chapter 9.66, Transportation
Impact Fee Program, and Chapter 9.67, Parks & Recreation Development Impact Fee
Program. Fees required by Chapter 9.65, Chapter 9.66, and Chapter 9.67 shall be waived for
units created pursuant to this section.
9.31.195 Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
The purpose of this section is to establish requirements for multiple-unit dwelling projects; however,.
100% affordable housing projects are exempt from Subsection (A) through (B) of this Section.
A. Unit Mix. Multiple-unit dwelling projects with more than 50 units shall incorporate the requirements
set forth below, except Tier 2 projects shall comply with Section 9.23.030(A)(2).
1. For market rate units:
a. At least 10% of the units shall be three-bedroom units;
b. At least 10% of the units shall be two-bedroom units;
c. No more than 15% of the units shall be studio units;
2. Affordable housing unit mix shall be governed by Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production
Program.
3. The Director may grant a waiver from this unit mix requirement pursuant to the requirements
and procedures for Waivers in Chapter 9.43.
B. Transportation Demand Management. Multiple-unit dwelling projects that meet the applicability
established in Section 9.53.030 shall include the following Transportation Demand Management
measures in addition to those required by Chapter 9.53, Transportation Demand Management:
1. For non-residential components of projects, provide the following:
a. A Transportation Allowance equivalent to at least 75% of the cost of a monthly
regional transit pass, in accordance with Section 9.53.130(B)(2)(b)(viii).
b. Bike valet, free of charge, during all automobile valet operating hours.
2. For residential components of projects, provide a Transportation Allowance equivalent to at
least 75% of the cost of a monthly regional transit pass, in accordance with Section
9.53.130(B)(2)(c)(iv).
C. Air Quality Assessment Zone. Multiple-unit dwelling projects within the Air Quality Assessment
Zone shall be required to prepare a technical memorandum that describes the effectiveness of design
features to reduce exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a part of the early project design
process. Such memorandum shall be submitted at the time of project application and shall be subject
to review and approval by the Director prior to project approval.
D. Unit Replacement Requirements. Multiple-unit dwelling projects shall comply with all applicable
residential unit replacement requirements including, but not limited to, Government Code Section
66300(d) and State Density Bonus law.
161
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9.31.196 Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking
Lots.
The purpose of this section is to promote fair housing opportunities throughout the City by
incentivizing multiple-unit dwelling projects on surface parking lots associated with existing
Community Assembly uses.
A. Applicability. This section shall apply to multiple-unit dwelling projects on surface parking
lots owned in whole or in part by a Community Assembly use, where at least a portion of
the existing Community Assembly use is retained.
B. Allowable Uses. The multiple-unit dwelling project may include the existing Community
Assembly use and related ancillary uses for the support or expansion of the Community
Assembly use.
C. Affordability Requirements. Multiple-unit dwelling projects shall include at least 50% of
total units affordable to 80% income households.
D. Affordable Units. The affordable housing units shall be owned in whole or in part and
operated by a nonprofit housing provider for the life of the project.
E. Building Height. Projects shall receive a height increase of up to 33 feet above maximum
building height for the underlying zone district. Projections that have already received up to
three additional stories or 33 feet in height in accordance with 9.22.060(A)(4), shall not be
eligible for additional building height pursuant to this Subsection.
F. Density. There shall be no limit to density.
G. Parking Requirements. There shall be no minimum parking requirements. Replacement of
existing parking for the associated community assembly use shall not be required.
H. Additional Requirements. Projects shall comply with the requirements set forth in Section
9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects.
I. Process. Projects shall be processed as Administrative Approvals pursuant to Chapter 9.39.
9.31.197 Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots
The purpose of this section is to incentivize new housing choices and affordability on underutilized
sites in high opportunity areas that would not displace existing tenants.
A. Applicability. This section shall apply to new multiple-unit dwelling projects on surface parking
lots in residential zones associated with existing multiple-unit dwelling or commercial uses.
B. Relationship to Chapter 9.16, “A” Off-Street Parking Overlay District. Where there is a
conflict between compliance with Chapter 9.16 and this section, the provisions of this section
shall control.
C. Retention of Existing Multiple-Unit Dwelling Use. Any new multiple-unit dwelling project
shall not remove any existing dwelling units.
D. Consolidation of Parcels. Residentially zoned parcels eligible under this section that are
associated with commercial uses shall be exempt from parcel consolidation restrictions in
Section 9.21.030(B), Development on Multiple Parcels.
162
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
E. Development Standards. Except as set forth below, all multiple-unit dwelling projects
developed on a surface parking lot shall be subject to the development standards required for the
underlying residential zone.
1. Maximum Allowable Density. Maximum allowable density shall be based solely on
unit density calculations for the underlying residential district. Any additional density
restrictions on maximum number of units for each district shall not apply. For parcels
zoned R1, maximum allowable density shall be calculated based on 1 unit per 2,000
square feet of parcel area, or four units, whichever is greater.
2. Minimum Interior Side Setback. When the surface parking lot is redeveloped together
with the associated adjacent commercial parcel, no interior side setback on the
residential parcel is required from the shared parcel line or adjacent alley except as
required by Building Code.
3. Daylight Plane. When the surface parking lot is redeveloped together with the
associated adjacent commercial parcel, no daylight plane shall be required for the
commercial parcel.
F. Parking. Pursuant to Section 9.28.030(A), any required parking that is removed from the
residential parcel to be developed shall be replaced.
G. Access. Notwithstanding Section 9.21.040(B), access to parking serving a nonresidential use
may be taken from a residentially zoned parcel if the required nonresidential parking is replaced.
H. Additional Requirements. Projects shall comply with the requirements set forth in Section
9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects.
163
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.39
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL
Sections:
9.39.010 Purpose
9.39.020 Applicability
9.39.0230 Application
9.39.040 Definitions
9.39.050 Special Procedures for Housing Projects
9.39.0360 Review and Decision
9.39.0470 Term, Extension, and Revocation
9.39.010 Purpose
Administrative Approval is intended to allow for the approval of projects which conform to the standards
established for the Zoning District and do not require discretionary review or approval by the Director,
Planning Commission, or City Council. An Administrative Approval provides for an administrative review
and assessment of the proposed development project to ensure compliance with in light of the explicit
standards contained in this the ChapterArticle 9 which have been designed to ensure that the completed
project will be in harmony with existing or potential development in the surrounding area, consistent with
the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June
23, 2015)
9.39.020 Applicability
A. A. Except as provided in subsection (B), an Administrative Approval shall be required prior
to issuance of any Building Permit for the development forof any of the following:
1. Housing Projects. For housing projects, all new construction and new additions to existing
buildings as follows:
a. 100% affordable housing projects;
b. Moderate Income Housing Overlay project, as defined in Section 9.12.020(D);
c. Streamlined housing project, as defined in Section 9.39.040 below, located on a parcel or
parcels that do not exceed 43,560 square feet in size, including projects that have been
granted modifications and waivers pursuant to Chapter 9.43, Modifications and Waivers;
or
d. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c), any housing project as defined by
65589.5(h)(2) providing at least 20% of the onsite units as affordable units located on a
nonvacant site that was identified in the 5th Cycle (2013-2021) Housing Element suitable
sites inventory.
2. Non-Housing Projects. For non-housing projects of more than 1,000 square feet, of more than
1,000 square feet of floor area for all new construction and new additions to existing buildings
located in Residential and Nonresidential Districts not otherwise subject to Zoning
Conformance Review or discretionary review;.that do not exceed the following:
a. Tier 1 maximum limits;
b. In Multi-Unit Residential Districts or Ocean Park Neighborhood Districts, 10,000 square
feet;
c. In Neighborhood Commercial and Oceanfront Districts, 7,500 square feet;
164
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
d. In Nonresidential Districts not specified in subsection (A)(2)(c) above, 15,000 square feet;
or
e. In the Pico Neighborhood Area as outlined in Figure 9.40.020.A, notwithstanding
subsection (A)(2)(b) through (d) above, and until the adoption of a Pico Neighborhood
Plan, 7,500 square feet.
3. Multiple-unit dwelling projects located on community assembly surface parking lots pursuant
to Section 9.31.196
B. No Administrative Approval and only a building permit shall be required for:
1. Any new single-unit dwellings or additions thereto in any zoning district;
2. Housing projects consisting of However, no Administrative Approval shall be required for
new construction and new additions to existing buildings located in the Multi-Unit Residential
Districts or, Ocean Park Neighborhood Districts that are no greater than 10,000 square feet; or
, or for any new single-unit dwellings or additions thereto in any zoning district.
3. Non-housing projects consisting of new construction and new additions to existing buildings
located in Residential and Nonresidential Districts no greater than 1,000 square feet.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2567CCS §
11, adopted December 12, 2017)
9.39.030 Application
Application for an Administrative Approval shall be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements
contained in Section 9.37.020, Application Forms and Fees.
9.39.040 Definitions
For purposes of this Chapter, “streamlined housing project” shall mean a project consisting of any of the
following:
A. Residential units only; or
B. Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential
uses do not exceed 25% of the total building square footage and are limited to the first two floors
of buildings that are two or more stories; or
C. Transitional or supportive housing.
9.39.050 Special Procedures for Housing Projects
A. For projects eligible for an Administrative Approval under 9.39.020(A)(1)(c), an applicant shall
conduct a community meeting to receive community input on the proposal. The community
meeting shall be conducted prior to submitting an application, with noticing and reporting as
required in guidelines adopted by the Director.
B. For projects eligible for an Administrative Approval under 9.39.020(A)(1)(a) through (d), within
14 calendar days after a decision is made, a copy of the written decision and project plans shall be
posted on the City’s website.
9.39.0630 Review and Decision
A. Following receipt of a decision from the Architectural Review Board, the Director shall issue a
determination on the Administrative Approval in accordance with this Chapter.
B. The Director shall issue an Administrative Approval if the proposed development conforms
precisely to applicable development standards, and does not require discretionary review or
approval as outlined in this Chapter, except to the extent modifications and waivers have been
granted pursuant to Chapter 9.43, Modifications and Waivers.
165
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
BC. The Director shall deny the Administrative Approval only if the development is not in compliance
with applicable development standards as outlined in this Chapter, except to the extent
modifications and waivers have been granted pursuant to Chapter 9.43, Modifications and Waivers.
D. C The Director shall prepare a written decision which shall contain the findings of fact upon
which such decision is based. A copy of the decision shall be sent mailed to the applicant at the
address shown on the application within 14 calendar days after the decision is made.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.39.0740 Term, Extension, and Revocation
The term of permit, exercise of rights, extension, and revocation for Administrative Approvals shall be in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 9.37, Common Procedures. (Added by Ord. No.
2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
166
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.40
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT
Sections:
9.40.010 Purpose
9.40.020 Applicability
9.40.030 Application
9.40.040 Procedures
9.40.050 Required Findings
9.40.060 Conditions
9.40.070 Term, Extension, Revocation, and Appeal
9.40.010 Purpose
A Development Review Permit is intended to allow the construction of certain projects for which the design
and siting could result in an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The permit allows for the following:
A. Review of the location, size, massing, and placement of the proposed structure on the site;
B. The location of proposed uses within the project;
C. An evaluation of the project with regard to fixed and established standards; and
D. A determination of whether the proposed siting and design should be permitted by weighing the
public need for the benefit to be derived from the proposed site plan use against the impact which it
may cause. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.40.020 Applicability
A. Except as provided in subsection (B), a A Development Review Permit approved by the Planning
Commission shall be required prior to issuance of any building permit for the development ofif any
of the following occurs:
1. Housing Projects. For housing projects, all new construction and new additions to existing
buildings as follows:
a. Any housing project that does not meet the applicability of an Administrative Approval
as set forth in Section 9.39.020(A)(1).
2. Non-Housing Projects. For non-housing projects, all new construction and new additions to
existing buildings that exceed the following thresholds:
a. Any project that exceeds Tier 1 maximum limits;
b. In Multi-Unit Residential Districts or Ocean Park Neighborhood Districts, All new
construction and new additions to existing buildings of more than 10,000 square feet;
of floor area located in Residential Districts
c. In Neighborhood Commercial and Oceanfront Districts, 7,500 square feet of floor area
in Neighborhood Commercial and Oceanfront Districts;
d. In Nonresidential Districts not specified in subsection (A)(2)(c) above, All new
construction and new additions to existing buildings of more than 15,000 square feet of
floor area located in Nonresidential Districts not specified in subsection (A)(2); or
e.
167
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Notwithstanding subsection (A)(3) above, all new construction of more than 30,000 square
feet of floor area of a development project containing no more than 15% commercial
floor area located in Nonresidential Districts not specified in subsection (A)(2);
5. In the Pico Neighborhood Area as outlines in Figure 9.40.020.A, nNotwithstanding
subsections (A)(2)(b) through (d)(4) above, and until the adoption of a Pico
Neighborhood Plan, all new construction and new additions to existing buildings of
more than 7,500 square feet of floor area located in the Pico Neighborhood Area.
FIGURE 9.40.020.A: PICO NEIGHBORHOOD AREA (AS OUTLINED)
B. The following types of projects are exempt from Development Permit Review requirements:
1. Single unit dwellings; and
2. 100% Affordable Housing Projects of 50 units or less. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2,
adopted June 23, 2015)
9.40.030 Application
Application for a Development Review Permit shall be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements
contained in Section 9.37.020, Application Forms and Fees. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted
June 23, 2015)
9.40.040 Procedures
A. Upon receipt in proper form of a Development Review Permit application, a meeting with the
Architectural Review Board shall be set to receive a recommendation on the design of the proposal.
168
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
B Following receipt of a decision recommendation of the Architectural Review Board, a public
hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set and notice of such hearing given in a manner
consistent with Section 9.37.050, Public Notice. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23,
2015)
9.40.050 Required Findings
Following a public hearing, the Director shall prepare a written decision which shall contain the Planning
Commission’s findings of fact upon which such decision is based. The Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal, shall approve or conditionally approve a Development Review Permit application in
whole or in part if all of the following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner:
A. The physical location, size, massing, setbacks, pedestrian orientation, and placement of proposed
structures on the site and the location of proposed uses within the project are consistent with
applicable standards; and are both compatible and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and
neighborhoods;
B. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos, bicycles, pedestrians, and multi-modal transportation
methods, including adequate parking and access standards;
C. The health and safety services (police, fire etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g., utilities) are sufficient
to accommodate the new development;
D. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code, General Plan, and any applicable
Specific Plan;
E. Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially significant environmental
impacts or any potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than
significant levels because of mitigation measures incorporated in the project or a Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been adopted;
F. The project promotes the general welfare of the community;
GE. The project has no unacceptable specific adverse effects impact on public health or safety; and
HF. The project provides Community Benefits consistent with Chapter 9.23. (Added by Ord. No.
2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 31, adopted June 14,
2016)
9.40.060 Conditions
In granting a Development Review Permit, the Review Authority or the Review Authority on appeal shall
require that the use and development of the property conform with a site plan, architectural drawings, or
statements submitted in support of the application, or in such modifications thereof, as may be deemed
necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and secure the objectives of the General
Plan and this Ordinance, and may also impose such other conditions as may be deemed necessary to achieve
these purposes and to support the findings of approval. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June
23, 2015)
9.40.070 Term, Extension, Revocation, and Appeal
The term of permit, exercise of rights, extension, revocation, and appeal for Development Review Permits
shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 9.37, Common Procedures. (Added by
Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
169
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.43
MODIFICATIONS AND WAIVERS
Sections:
9.43.010 Purpose
9.43.020 Applicability: Minor Modifications
9.43.030 Applicability: Major Modifications
9.43.040 Applicability: Waivers
9.43.050 Applicability: Fence, Wall, and Hedge Height Modifications
9.43.060 Procedures for Minor Modifications
9.43.070 Procedures for Major Modifications and Waivers
9.43.080 Procedures and Required Findings for Fence, Wall, and Hedge Height
Modifications
9.43.090 Required Findings for Minor Modifications
9.43.100 Required Findings for Major Modifications and Waivers
9.43.110 Appeals, Expiration, Extensions, and Modifications
9.43.020 Applicability: Minor Modifications
A. The provisions of this Section shall apply to specific development proposals that are for uses
permitted by right or by discretionary review in the District. In no case shall a minor modification
be granted pursuant to this Chapter to permit a use or activity that is not otherwise permitted in the
District where the property is located, nor shall a minor modification be granted that alters the
procedural or timing requirements of this Ordinance.
B. Subject to the requirements of this Chapter and except as provided in subsection (C) of this Section,
the Director may grant relief from no more than 2 of the following dimensional requirements:
1. Setbacks. Up to 10 percent of the required front, side, and rear setback standards.
2. Build-to Line. Up to 5 percent of the standards for building façade location.
3. Parcel Coverage. Up to 5 percent of the maximum amount of parcel coverage.
4. Height. Maximum height of buildings and structures, up to 5 percent or 2 feet, whichever is less.
The modified height shall not exceed the maximum height permitted in the applicable land use
district of the LUCE.
5. Transparency. Required ground-floor building transparency, up to 10 percent of minimum.
6. Parking, Loading, and Circulation. Modifications to dimensional standards that do not result
in a reduction of required parking and loading spaces.
7. Outdoor Living Area. Allow common outdoor living area to be substituted in lieu of minimum
required private outdoor living area in an equivalent amount. For the conversion of existing
commercial or industrial buildings to live-work units, allow a reduction in the minimum required
open space as necessary.
8. Bicycle Parking. Modification to the bicycle parking location requirements set forth in Section
9.28.140.
9. Parcel Lines. For corner parcels, consider the parcel line separating the narrowest street frontage
of the parcel from the street as the side parcel line.
170
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
109. Exclusions. Minor Modifications pursuant to this Chapter shall not be granted for the following
standards:
a. Parcel area, width, or depth;
b. Maximum number of stories;
c. Minimum or maximum number of required parking spaces;
d. Residential density; or
e. Maximum floor area ratio (FAR).
C. Subject to the requirements of this Chapter, the Director may grant relief from any of the dimensional
requirements specified in subsection B of this Section for properties containing a Historic Resource.
D. For any Minor Modification application filed concurrently with an application that is subject to
Planning Commission review, the Planning Commission may grant relief from any of the
dimensional requirements specified in subsection B of this Section. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS
§§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; Ord. No. 2606CCS § 13, adopted April 9, 2019)
9.43.030 Applicability: Major Modifications
A. The provisions of this Section shall apply to specific development proposals that are for uses
permitted by right or by discretionary review in the District. In no case shall a Major Modification
be granted pursuant to this Section to permit a new use or activity that is not otherwise permitted in
the District where the property is located, nor shall a major modification be granted that alters the
procedural or timing requirements of this Article.
B. Subject to the requirements of this Chapter and except as provided in subsection C of this Section,
the Director may grant relief from no more than 2 of the following requirements:
1. Setbacks. Up to 20 percent or 5 feet, whichever is less of the required front, side, and rear setback
standards.
2. Build-To Line. Up to 20 percent of standards for building façade location.
3. Parcel Coverage. Up to 10 percent of the maximum amount of parcel coverage.
4. Height. Maximum height of buildings and structures, up to 20 percent or 5 feet, whichever is
less. The modified height shall not exceed the maximum height permitted in the applicable land
use district of the LUCE.
5. Ground Floor (Floor-to-Floor) Height.
a. Minimum. Up to 1 foot of the required minimum ground floor (floor-to-floor) height.
b. Maximum. Up to 4 feet of the required maximum ground floor (floor-to-floor) height.
6. Landscaping. Up to 10 percent of the required landscaping.
7. Parcel Lines. For corner parcels, consider the parcel line separating the narrowest street frontage
of the parcel from the street as the side parcel line.
78. Exclusions. Major Modifications pursuant to this Chapter shall not be granted for the following
standards:
a. Parcel area, width, or depth;
b. Maximum number of stories;
c. Minimum or maximum number of required parking spaces;
d. Residential density; or
171
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
e. Maximum floor area ratio (FAR).
C. If the application for a Major Modification involves a project that includes the retention and
preservation of a structure or improvement that is a City-Designated Historic Resource, the Director
may grant relief from maximum building height, maximum number of stories, required setbacks,
maximum parcel coverage and building envelope requirements; permitted building height
projections; permitted projections in required yard areas; access to private open space; landscaping;
and provision of unexcavated yard areas.
D. For any Major Modification application filed concurrently with an application that is subject to
Planning Commission review, the Planning Commission may grant relief from any of the
dimensional requirements specified in subsection B of this Section. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS
§§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2576CCS § 13, adopted 6/12/18; Ord. No.
2606CCS § 14, adopted April 9, 2019)
9.43.040 Applicability: Waivers
A. The provisions of this Section shall apply to specific development proposals that are for uses
permitted by right or conditionally permitted in the District. In no case shall a waiver be granted
pursuant to this Section to permit a use or activity that is not otherwise permitted in the District
where the property is located, nor shall a waiver be granted that alters the procedural or timing
requirements of this Ordinance.
B. Subject to the requirements of this Chapter, the Director may grant waivers from the following
requirements specified in this Ordinance:
1. Upper-Story Stepbacks.
2. Build-To Lines.
3. Active Commercial Design Standards, including Transparency.
4. Active Use Requirement.
5. Unit Mix.
6. Pedestrian-Oriented Design Standards.(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23,
2015; amended by Ord. No. 2536CCS § 13, adopted February 28, 2017)
172
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.52
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Sections:
9.52.010 List of Terms
9.52.020 Definitions
9.52.010 List of Terms
30% Income Household
50% Income Household
60% Income Household
80% Income Household
100% Affordable Housing Project
Abandoned, Abandonment
Abutting, Adjoining, or Adjacent
Access
Accessory Building
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Accessory Food Service
Accessory Structure
Accessory Use
Act of Nature
Affordable Rent
Alley
Alteration
Arcade
Area Median Income (AMI)
Artist
Attic
Awning
Balcony
Base District
Base Height
Basement
Bathroom
Bay Window
Bedroom
Block
Buffer, Buffering
Building
Building, Accessory
Building, Principal
Building Code
Building Face
Building Envelope
Building Footprint
Building Height
Building Site
Build-To Line
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Canopy
Car Sharing
Carport
Change of Use
Clerestory
City
173
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
City Council
City Engineer
City-Designated Contributing Building or Structure
City-Designated Historic Resource
City-Designated Landmark
City-Designated Structure of Merit
CountyCommercial Boulevard
Conditionally Permitted
Construction
Corner Build-To Area
County
Courtyard
Cripple Wall
Curb Cut
Daylight Plane
Deck
Demising Wall
Demolition
Development
Development Agreement
Director
Disability
Discretionary Permit
District
Domestic Violence Shelter
Driveway
Dwelling
Dwelling Unit
Easement
Effective Date
Emergency
Entrance
Environmental Review
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Erect
Excavation
Façade
Façade, Street-Facing
Feasible
Fee
Fence
Floor Area
Floor Area Ratio
Footprint
Frontage, Street
Garage
Semi-Subterranean Garage
Subterranean Garage
Garage Sales
General Plan
Glare
Government Code
Grade
Average Natural Grade
Existing Grade
Finished Grade
Segmented Average Natural Grade
Theoretical Grade
174
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Ground Floor
Ground Floor Street Frontage
Habitation
Hazardous Materials
Height
Historic Resource
Historic Resources Inventory
Home Occupation
Household
Housing Project
Illegal Use
Intensity of Use
Intersection, Street
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
Kitchen
Landscape
Automatic Controller
Backflow Prevention Device
Groundcover
Hedge
Irrigation System
Landscaping
Moisture Sensing Device
Mulch
Plant Area
Lighting
Foot-Candle
Light Fixture
Shielded Fixture
Lightwell
Living Quarters
Loading Space
Loft
Lot
Maintenance and Repair
Major Transit Stop
Manufactured Housing
Mezzanine
Mixed-Use Development
Mobile Home Park
Natural Disaster
Nonconforming Building
Nonconforming Structure
Nonconforming Use
Open Space
Open Space, Common
Open Space, Private
Open Space, Usable
Outdoor Sales, Temporary and Seasonal
Outdoor Storage
Overlay District
Parapet
Parcel
Parcel, Corner
Parcel, Flag
Parcel, Key
Parcel, Reversed Corner
Parcel, Through
175
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Parcel Area
Parcel Depth
Parcel Frontage
Parcel Line
Parcel Line, Front
Parcel Line, Rear
Parcel Line, Side
Parcel Width
Parking Facility
Accessory Parking
Long-Term Parking
Parking, Bicycle
Long-Term Bicycle Parking
Short-Term Bicycle Parking
Parking Space, Off-Street
Accessible Parking
Car Share Parking
Independently-Accessible Parking
Shared Parking
Stacked Parking
Tandem Parking
Unbundled Parking
Valet Parking
Parking Structure
Semi-Subterranean
Subterranean
Patio
Paving
Permit
Permitted Use
Person
Person with a Disability
Planning Commission
Plaza
Podium
Port Cochere
Pre-Existing
Primary Use
Private Tennis Court
Project
Public Land
Public Resources Code
Qualified Applicant
Ramp
Reasonable Accommodation
Residential Use
Review Authority
Right-of-Way
Roof
Barrel Roof
Gambrel Roof
Hip Roof
Mansard Roof
Pitched Roof
Shed Roof
Roof Deck
Screening
Security Grate or Grilles
176
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Senior Citizen
Setback
Setback, Front
Setback, Rear
Setback, Side
Setback, Street Side
Sexually-Oriented Business
Shrub
Sidewalk
Sidewalk Café
Sign-Related Definitions
Site
Skylight
Solar Energy System
State Historical Building Code
Story
Street
Street Tree
Street Wall
Structural Alterations
Structure
Structure, Accessory
Structure, Main
Structure, Subterranean
Structure, Temporary
Subdivision
Swimming Pool
Temporary Structure
Trailer
Trash Screen/Enclosure
Unit
Use
Use, Accessory
Use, Primary
Use Classification
Use Permit
Use Type
Utilities
Vibration
View Corridor
Wall
Window
Primary Room Window
Secondary Room Window
Yard
Zoning Administrator
Zoning District
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2649CCS § 35, adopted September 8, 2020)
177
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9.52.020 Definitions
The following words or phrases as used in this Article shall have the following meanings:
9.52.020.0530 County. The County of Los Angeles
Commercial Boulevard. Commercial boulevards shall include the following:
A. Wilshire Boulevard between the eastern city limits and Ocean Avenue;
B. Santa Monica Boulevard between the eastern city limits and Lincoln Boulevard;
C. Broadway between the eastern city limits and Lincoln Boulevard;
D. Colorado Avenue between the eastern city limits and Lincoln Boulevard;
E. Olympic Boulevard between the eastern city limits and Lincoln Boulevard;
F. Ocean Park Boulevard between the eastern city limits and Lincoln Boulevard;
G. Pico Boulevard between the eastern city limits and Main Street; and
H. Lincoln Boulevard between the southern city limits and Wilshire Boulevard.
9.52.020.0565 County. The County of Los Angeles.
9.52.020.1125 Housing Project. A use consisting of any of the following:
1. Residential units only.
2. Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential uses
do not exceed 33% of the total building square footage and are limited to the first two floors of buildings
that are two or more stories.
3. Transitional or supportive housing.
9.52.020.1360 Major Transit Stop. Major transit stop as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; Ord. No. 2576CCS § 15, adopted June 12, 2018; Ord. No.
2649CCS § 36, adopted September 8, 2020)
178
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.55
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Sections:
9.55.010 Purpose
9.55.020 Definitions
9.55.030 Architectural Review Board—Membership
9.55.040 Guidelines and Standards
9.55.050 Reserved
9.55.060 Appointment and Term of Office
9.55.070 Rules
9.55.080 Officers, Election of Officers
9.55.090 Secretary
9.55.100 Meetings
9.55.110 Process for Establishment of Architectural Review Districts
9.55.120 Project Review by and Approval of Architectural Review Board
9.55.130 Procedure for Project ReviewApplications and Forms
9.55.140 Criteria
9.55.150 Site PlansReserved
9.55.160 Appeals
9.55.170 Architectural Review District Boundaries
9.55.180 Posting of Property
9.55.190 Administrative Design Approval
9.55.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing such
procedures and providing such regulations as are deemed necessary to preserve existing areas of natural
beauty, cultural importance; to assure that buildings, structures, signs or other developments are in good
taste, good design, harmonious with surrounding developments, and in general contribute to the
preservation of Santa Monica’s reputation as a place of beauty, spaciousness, and quality; to prevent the
development of structures or uses that are not of acceptable exterior design or appearance, are of inferior
quality, or are likely to have a depreciating effect on the local environment or surrounding area by reason
of appearance or value; to eliminate conditions, structures, or uses, which by reason of their effect tend to
degrade the health, safety, or general welfare of the community; and to provide a continuing source of
programs and means of improving the City’s overall appearance. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2,
adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1, adopted October 13, 2020)
9.55.020 Definitions
Definitions in Section 9.52.020 apply to the words and phrases used in this Chapter, except that, for
purposes of this Chapter, “Director” means the Director of the City’s Community Development Department
or designee. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS
§ 1, adopted October 13, 2020)
9.55.030 Architectural Review Board—Membership
An Architectural Review Board is hereby established which shall consist of 7 members. At least 2 of the
members shall be professional architects. Other members of the Architectural Review Board shall be
persons who, as a result of their training, experience, and attainments, are qualified to analyze and interpret
179
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
architectural and environmental trends and information, to appraise resource uses in light of the policies set
forth in this Chapter, and to be responsive to the social, aesthetic, recreational, and cultural needs of the
community. Other expertise such as conservation, recreation, design, landscaping, the arts, urban planning,
cultural-historical preservation, and ecological and environmental science shall, insofar as practicable, be
represented on the Architectural Review Board. The Landmarks Commission may select one of its members
to provide active liaison with the Architectural Review Board when the Architectural Review Board is
considering additions to or modifications of historic resources. The Landmarks Commissioner chosen shall
neither have a vote on the Architectural Review Board nor be eligible to be its chairperson. (Added by Ord.
No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1, adopted October 13,
2020)
9.55.040 Guidelines and Standards
The Architectural Review Board may, by resolution, establish guidelines and standards for its evaluation
of proposed developments within an architectural review district, to supplement the criteria in Section
9.55.140. Such guidelines and standards shall reflect and effectuate the purposes expressed by Section
9.55.010 and shall include, but need not be limited to, consideration of the following elements:
A. The integrity of neighborhood environments;
B. Existing local, social, aesthetic, recreational and cultural facilities, designs, and patterns within the
architectural review district;
C. The disparate elements of neighborhood communities within the architectural review district and the
architectural relationship of adjoining neighborhood communities; and
D. General patterns and standards of architectural development within the entire architectural review
district. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No.
2651CCS § 1, adopted October 13, 2020)
9.55.050 Reserved
9.55.060 Appointment and Term of Office
The members of the Architectural Review Board shall be subject to removal by motion of the City Council
by at least 5 affirmative votes. Except as otherwise provided in the City Charter, the members of the
Architectural Review Board shall serve for a term of 4 years, commencing on July 1 and until their
respective successors are appointed and qualified. The members first appointed to the Board shall so
classify themselves by lot that the term of one of their number shall expire on the next succeeding July 1,
and the balance of the Board shall be paired by lot and serve terms to such an extent as is necessary in order
that the terms of at least one such pair shall expire in each succeeding year. Thereafter, any appointment to
fill an unexpired term shall be for such unexpired period. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted
June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1, adopted October 13, 2020)
9.55.070 Rules
The Architectural Review Board shall adopt rules and regulations for the conduct of its business. Four
voting members shall constitute a quorum. The affirmative or negative vote of a majority of the entire
membership of the Architectural Review Board shall be necessary for it to take action. No item shall be
included on the consent calendar of the Architectural Review Board’s agenda unless all members agree to
the inclusion of such item. If any member of the Architectural Review Board objects to scheduling a
particular application on the Architectural Review Board’s consent calendar, said application shall be
removed from the consent calendar and set for public hearing, and the Architectural Review Board shall be
180
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
granted an additional 15 days to execute action on the application. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2,
adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1, adopted October 13, 2020)
9.55.080 Officers, Election of Officers
As soon as practicable following the appointment or reappointment of members each year, the Architectural
Review Board shall organize and elect from its own membership a Chairperson and a Chairperson Pro Tem.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1, adopted
October 13, 2020)
9.55.090 Secretary
The Director shall serve or appoint staff to serve as the official secretary to the Architectural Review Board.
The records of all proceedings and basis for all findings shall be available to the City Council and to the
public. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1,
adopted October 13, 2020)
9.55.100 Meetings
The Architectural Review Board shall meet at established intervals or as otherwise determined by the
Architectural Review Board, on regularly scheduled dates. Meetings shall be arranged in order to process
applications within the time required by this Chapter. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June
23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1, adopted October 13, 2020)
9.55.110 Process for Establishment of Architectural Review Districts
The Architectural Review Board upon its own motion may recommend to the City Council, after the review
and comment of the Planning Commission thereon, any commercial, industrial, residential, or other area,
or a combination of areas within the corporate boundaries of the City for inclusion in an architectural review
district. The City Council, upon such recommendation, or upon its own motion, may establish one or more
architectural review districts by ordinance, which may include any or all portions of the City. (Added by
Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1, adopted October
13, 2020)
9.55.120 Project Review by and Approval of Architectural Review Board
A. Except as provided by Section 9.55.190 on administrative approval, no building permit shall be
issued for any project in an architectural review district unless plans, elevations, or landscaping, have
been approved by the Architectural Review Board or on appeal by the Planning Commission. In
addition to those projects subject to administrative approval by the Director under Section 9.55.190,
the Architectural Review Board, under authority of Section 9.55.070 of this Chapter, may, by
resolution, authorize the Director to approve applications for building permits for minor or
insignificant projects in an architectural review district, so long as such projects do not defeat the
purposes and objectives of this Chapter.
B. No completed project that is subject to and receives the Architectural Review Board’s approval shall
receive a certificate of occupancy or final building inspection approval until the Director certifies
that such construction has complied with the conditions and restrictions, if any, imposed by the
Architectural Review Board or on appeal by the Planning Commission, and that the final
construction is in conformity with the plans approved by the Architectural Review Board or on
appeal by the Planning Commission.
181
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
C. Preliminary drawings of the design of a proposed project shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department for informal review so that an applicant may be informed of Architectural
Review Board policies prior to preparing for plan check submittal.
D. Plans or proposals that require a Development Review Permitan Administrative Approval shall first
be considered by the Architectural Review Board for a recommendation to the Planning Commission
on thedesign review approval pursuant to Section 9.55.140 for appropriateness and design quality
of proposed urban design elements, including, but not limited to, siting, massing, scale, circulation,
and general relationship to adjacent structures and the adjacent street prior to a determination by the
Director.
1. The Architectural Review Board’s design review approval shall occur after the Director’s
determination on the Administrative Approval if the project has met the following:
a. At least one Architectural Review Board design review approval hearing has
occurred;
b. The applicant has submitted revised plans in response to the Architectural Review
Board’s design review comments; and
a.c. The project conforms precisely to all applicable development standards and the
Administrative Approval determination by the Director is ready to be issued.
D. Following a determination by the Planning Commission or applicable review authority, plansE.
Plans or proposals that require a Development Review Permit shall thereafter, when appropriate,
be considered by the Architectural Review Board for a design review approval pursuant to Section
9.55.140 for appropriateness and design quality of proposed urban design elements, including, but
not limited to, siting, massing, scale, circulation, and general relationship to adjacent structures and
the adjacent street prior to a determination by the Planning Commission.
F. At the conclusion of a public hearing, or continued public hearing, the Architectural Review Board
shall issue a determination on an application. The Architectural Review Board shall be authorized
to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove exterior elevations, landscaping, and general
appearance and to impose such conditions as it believes reasonable and necessary, so long as any
such conditions are not in conflict with any of the conditions or requirements of the Planning
Commission or applicable review authority. The Architectural Review Board shall transmit its
determination to the applicable review authority in writing, including the reasons for the
determination, and the findings related to the criteria for the determination in Section 9.55.140.
EG. The Architectural Review Board also shall have the authority to undertake review and approval of
projects as authorized by the Zoning Ordinance or of sign permits as authorized by Chapter 9.61.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1,
adopted October 13, 2020)
9.55.130 Procedure for Project ReviewApplications and Forms
A. Preliminary sketches of the design of a proposed project may be submitted to the Community
Development Department for informal review so that an applicant may be informed of Architectural
Review Board policies prior to preparing working drawings.
B. The applicant for a building permit when subject to requirements of this Chapter shall submit to the
Community Development Department an application for Architectural Review Board approval. The
application shall include a site plan in accordance with Section 9.55.150, exterior elevations, and
such other data as will assist the Architectural Review Board in evaluating the proposed project.
Exterior elevation drawings shall be publicly available when Architectural Review Board agendas
are published.
C. Preliminary plans and elevations shall be drawn to scale and shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate
the nature and extent of the project and show in detail how it will conform to the provisions of this
Chapter. The first sheet of each set of plans shall give the street address of the project and the name
and address of the owner and the person who prepared the plans. The plot plan shall conform to
182
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Section 9.55.150. Submitted plans not in compliance with these requirements may be rejected by
the Director. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No.
2651CCS § 1, adopted October 13, 2020)A. An application shall be filed by a qualified
applicant.
B. The Director shall prepare and issue application forms and lists that specify the information that
will be required from applicants for design review subject to the provisions of this Chapter. The
Director shall require the submission of supporting materials as part of the application, including
but not limited to plans, concept diagrams, renderings, models, material samples or images of
materials, contextual drawings, massing diagrams and/or models, typical details, landscape plans,
and other items deemed necessary or relevant. Drawings and photographs demonstrating how the
proposal fits it the surrounding context including a neighbor profile, figure-ground diagrams, and
site plan. All material submitted becomes the property of the City, may be distributed to the public,
and shall be made available for public inspection. At any time upon reasonable request, and during
normal business hours, any person may examine an application and materials submitted in support
of or in opposition to an application in the Planning Division offices. Unless prohibited by law,
copies of such materials shall be made available at a reasonable cost.
C. The City Council shall approve by resolution a Municipal Fee Schedule that establishes fees for
permits, appeals, amendments, informational materials, penalties, copying, and other such items.
These fees may be amended by the City Council.
9.55.140 Criteria
A. The Architectural Review Board may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an application
submitted to it pursuant to Section 9.55.120 after consideration of whether the project complies with
the following criteria:
1. The plan for the proposed project is expressive of good taste, good design, and in general
contributes to the image of Santa Monica as a place of beauty, creativity, and individuality;
2. The proposed project is not of inferior quality such as to cause the nature of the local
neighborhood or environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value;
3. The proposed design of the project is compatible with developments on land in the general area;
and
4. The proposed project is in conformity with the effective guidelines and standards adopted
pursuant to this Chapter and all other applicable ordinances relating to the location and
appearance of the project involved.
B. If the Architectural Review Board finds that the project complies with the criteria in subsection A
above, the Architectural Review Board shall approve the application. The Architectural Review
Board may impose conditions when the proposed project does not comply with the above criteria
and any such conditions are limited to those that will bring the proposed project into conformity
therewith. If an application is disapproved, the Architectural Review Board shall detail in its
findings, as applicable, the criteria with which the project does not comply or the guidelines that are
violated. Any action taken by the Architectural Review Board in regard to a proposed project shall
be in writing and include findings, signed by the Chairperson, and a copy thereof shall be provided
to the applicant by email utilizing the email address provided on the application, in person, or by
United States mail, upon request.
183
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
C. A decision or order of the Architectural Review Board shall not become final until 10 days after the
date upon which a ruling has been made, unless an appeal is filed pursuant to Section 9.55.160.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1,
adopted October 13, 2020)
9.55.150 Site PlansReserved
A. A site plan shall be drawn to scale and shall indicate the following sufficiently for consideration of
urban design, visual, and safety factors:
1. Dimensions and orientation of the parcel;
2. Location of buildings and structures both existing and proposed;
3. Location of off-street parking and loading facilities;
4. Location of points of entry and exit for motor vehicles and internal circulation factors;
5. Location of walls and fences and the indication of their height and the materials of their
construction;
6. Indication of exterior lighting standards and devices adequate to review possible hazards and
disturbances to the public and adjacent properties;
7. Location and size of exterior signs, including any outdoor advertising;
8. A preliminary landscaping plan; and
9. Such other architectural and engineering data as may be required to permit necessary findings that
the project complies with the provisions of this Chapter. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2,
adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1, adopted October 13, 2020)
9.55.160 Appeals
The applicant or any interested person may appeal any ruling of the Architectural Review Board made
pursuant to this Chapter to the Planning Commission. Notice of any appeal from the ruling of the
Architectural Review Board must be filed within 10 days of the date that such ruling is made, and must be
accompanied by the fee established by the Santa Monica Municipal Code. When such an appeal is made
from a ruling of the Architectural Review Board, the Planning Commission shall set a hearing date within
30 days of the receipt of said notice of appeal. The Planning Commission shall hear the appeal at the earliest
practical date. The Planning Commission shall decide the appeal within 30 days after said hearing and shall
base its decision on the evidence submitted to it at said hearing and on the record from the Architectural
Review Board and such other records as may exist in the case. The decision of the Planning Commission
on any such appeal from a ruling by the Architectural Review Board shall be final. (Added by Ord. No.
2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1, adopted October 13, 2020)
9.55.170 Architectural Review District Boundaries
Pursuant to Section 9.55.110 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, an architectural review district is hereby
established. Said architectural review district shall be composed of all commercial, industrial, and
residential areas within the corporate boundaries of the City, with the exception of those areas designated
as R1 Districts by Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, and those structures for which a certificate
of appropriateness is obtained from the Landmarks Commission (or City Council on appeal) pursuant to
Chapter 9.56 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Noncontributing structures located within Historic
Districts shall be subject to architectural review unless otherwise exempted by the ordinance that establishes
procedures for the alteration of structures within the Historic District. Single-unit structures, including
accessory structures, in all districts in the City, except for those structures located in the area described in
184
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Section 9.08.030(A)(2), are also exempt from architectural review district boundaries. (Added by Ord. No.
2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1, adopted October 13, 2020)
9.55.180 Posting of Property
Within 10 days after an application for architectural review has been filed, the applicant shall post the
property with a preprinted sign or signs prepared by the City measuring 30 inches by 40 inches in size.
Except as set forth in this Section, the posting shall be in accordance with the requirements as to content,
location(s), number of signs, height, lettering and posting period as established by the Director to ensure
adequate notice. The application shall not be considered complete unless the site has been posted pursuant
to this Section. Landscape applications and applications subject to administrative approval under Section
9.55.190 are exempt from the requirements of this Section. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted
June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1, adopted October 13, 2020)
9.55.190 Administrative Design Approval
A. The Director is authorized to review and approve the following projects in an architectural review
district by administrative approval:
1. Additions to structures or accessory structures (other than those exempted from review by
Section 9.55.170) if the addition is either:
a. Behind an existing structure and not substantially visible from any public right-of-way
(other than an alley), except for structures located in the R1 (Single-Unit Residential)
District that are subject to review by the Architectural Review Board in accordance with
Section 9.07.030(A); or
b. Within an existing courtyard, not visible from the public right- of-way (other than an alley),
and maintains required and usable open space.
2. Additions to structures that are visible from a public right-of-way (other than an alley) if the
addition is:
a. Less than 1,000 square feet, consistent with the existing structure’s design and proportions,
and the structure is not located within the Downtown Community Plan area; or
b. Less than 5,000 square feet, consistent with the existing structure’s design and proportions,
and the structure is located within the Downtown Community Plan.
3.3. New buildings that:
a. Do not exceed 7,500 square feet.
b. Do not exceed 10,000 square feet and are new multiple-unit dwelling projects located in
Residential and Ocean Park zoning districts.
4. Mechanical and electrical equipment on an existing structure that is substantially screened from
view, and when required, rooftop screening on an existing structure that is in keeping with the
design of the existing structure.
45. Replacement of existing materials with similar or consistent materials, provided that the new
materials are of a comparable quality, texture, and craftsmanship as the existing structure.
56. Alterations to the design or materials of a façade of an existing structure if that structure is either:
185
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
a. Not located in the Main Street Neighborhood Commercial District or the BC (Promenade)
District with frontage along the Third Street Promenade; or
b. Located in the Main Street Neighborhood Commercial District or the BC (Promenade)
District with frontage along the Third Street Promenade, provided that the alterations are
consistent with the structure’s existing design.
67. New window frames, door frames, windows, and doors on existing structures, provided that the
new elements are of high quality and are consistent with the materials on the existing structure.
78. New awnings without signage that are not backlit and of a design and color consistent with the
existing structure, including any existing awnings.
89. New construction of and alterations to outdoor dining areas permitted under Section 9.31.200,
including, but not limited to, railings, awnings, lighting, and other structures and appurtenances
thereto.
910. New freestanding walls or extensions to existing freestanding walls that are consistent with
existing architecture.
1011. Landscape and irrigation plans for:
a. New landscaping less than 750 1,000 square feet in area that is visible from the public
right-of-way (other than an alley), conforms to the City’s landscaping standards, and
maintains existing mature trees wherever possible;
b. New landscaping that is not visible from the public right-of-way (other than an alley),
conforms to the City’s landscaping standards, and maintains existing mature trees wherever
possible; or
c. New landscaping for single-unit dwellings (other than those exempted from review by
Section 9.55.170) that conforms to the City’s landscaping standards.
1112. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this subsection A, the only projects subject to
administrative approval for existing structures on the historic resource inventory are projects
involving minor or insignificant alterations to the design or materials of a façade.
B. Any application for administrative approval pursuant to this Section shall comply with the
requirements of Section 9.55.130.
C. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an application submitted to it
pursuant to subsection A after consideration of whether the project complies with the criteria in
Section 9.55.140(A).
D. If the Director finds that the project complies with the criteria in Section 9.55.140(A), the Director
shall approve the application. The Director may impose conditions when the proposed project does
not comply with the criteria in Section 9.55.140(A) and any such conditions are limited to those that
will bring such project into conformity therewith; except, however, for any project submitted
pursuant to subsection (A)(3), the Director may reduce the height of the required screening based on
the placement of the equipment on the roof, the existing height of the subject building and
surrounding buildings, and the overall visibility of the equipment. If an application is disapproved,
the Director shall detail in its written findings, as applicable, the criteria with which the project does
not comply or the guidelines, if any, that are violated. Any action taken by the Director to
conditionally approve or deny a proposed project shall be in writing and include findings and
conditions, as applicable. A copy of the Director’s decision shall be provided to the applicant by
email utilizing the email address provided on the application, in person, or by United States mail,
upon request.
186
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
E. The Director’s decision shall be effective and final upon issuance and not subject to administrative
appeal.
F. No completed project that is subject to and receives the Director’s administrative approval shall
receive a certificate of occupancy or final building inspection approval until the Director certifies
that such construction has complied with the conditions and restrictions, if any, imposed by the
Director, and that the final construction is in conformity with the plans approved by the Director.
(Added by Ord. No. 2651CCS § 1, adopted October 13, 2020)
187
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.56
LANDMARKS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS
Sections:
9.56.010 Title
9.56.020 Purpose
9.56.030 Definitions
9.56.040 Landmarks Commission
9.56.050 Vacancies
9.56.060 Powers
9.56.070 Jurisdiction
9.56.080 Structure of Merit Criteria
9.56.090 Structure of Merit Designation Procedure
9.56.100 Landmark or Historic District Designation Criteria
9.56.110 Public Spaces
9.56.120 Landmark Designation Procedure
9.56.130 Historic District Designation Procedure
9.56.140 Alterations and Demolitions: Criteria for Issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness
9.56.150 Certificate of Appropriateness for Structures of Merit
9.56.160 Certificate of Economic Hardship
9.56.170 Certificate of Appropriateness/Certificate of Economic Hardship Procedure
9.56.180 Appeals
9.56.190 Maintenance and Repair
9.56.200 Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions
9.56.210 Ordinary Maintenance
9.56.220 Map
9.56.230 Voluntary Restrictive Covenants
9.56.240 Waiver
9.56.250 Extension of Certificate of Appropriateness
9.56.260 Recordation of Landmarks and Historic Districts
9.56.270 Preservation Incentives
9.56.280 CEQA Time Extensions
9.56.290 Third Street Neighborhood Historic District
9.56.300 Bay Craftsman Cluster Historic District
9.56.310 The San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartments Historic District
9.56.320 The 11th Street Historic District
9.56.330 The 4th Street Corner Historic District
9.56.140 Alterations and Demolitions: Criteria for Issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness
For purposes of this Chapter, the Landmarks Commission, or the City Council on appeal, shall issue a
certificate of appropriateness for any proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation,
demolition, in whole or in part, of or to a Landmark or Landmark Parcel, or of or to a Structure of Merit if
the Structure of Merit is subject to a deed restriction pursuant to Section 9.43.100(G)(9) or 9.64.030(C), or
of or to a building or structure within a Historic District if it makes a determination in accordance with any
one or more of the following criteria.
188
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
A. In the case of any proposed alteration, restoration, removal or relocation, in whole or in part, of or
to a Landmark or to a Landmark Parcel or upon a parcel that contains a City-designated Historic
Resource subject to a deed restriction pursuant to Section 9.43.100(G)(9) or 9.64.030(C), the
proposed work would not detrimentally change, destroy or adversely affect any exterior feature of
the Landmark or Landmark Parcel upon which such work is to be done.
B. In the case of any proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal or relocation, in whole or
in part, of or to a building or structure within a Historic District, the proposed work would not be
incompatible with the exterior features of other improvements within the Historic District, not
adversely affect the character of the Historic District for which such Historic District was designated,
or not be inconsistent with such further standards as may be embodied in the ordinance designating
such Historic District. For any proposed work to any building or structure whose exterior features
are not already compatible with the exterior features of other improvements within the Historic
District, reasonable effort shall be made to produce compatibility, and in no event shall there be a
greater deviation from compatibility.
C. In the case of any proposed construction of a new improvement upon a Landmark Parcel or upon a
parcel that contains a City-designated Historic Resource subject to a deed restriction pursuant to
Section 9.43.100(G)(9) or 9.64.030(C), the exterior features of such new improvement would not
adversely affect and not be disharmonious with the exterior features of other existing improvements
situated upon such Landmark Parcel.
D. The applicant has obtained a certificate of economic hardship in accordance with Section 9.56.160.
E. The Commission makes both of the following findings:
1. That the structure does not embody distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a
study of a period, style, method of construction or the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmanship and does not display such aesthetic or artistic quality that it would not reasonably
meet the criteria for designation as one of the following: National Historic Landmark, National
Register of Historic Places, California Registered Historical Landmark, or California Point of
Historical Interest.
2. That the conversion of the structure into a new use permitted by right under current zoning or
with a conditional use permit, rehabilitation, or some other alternative for preserving the
structure, including relocation within the City, is not feasible.
F. In the case of any proposed alteration, restoration, removal or relocation, in whole or in part, to
interior public space incorporated in a Landmark designation pursuant to Section 9.56.110, the
proposed work would not detrimentally change, destroy or adversely affect any interior feature of
the Landmark structure.
G. The Secretary of Interior’s Standards shall be used by the Landmarks Commission in evaluating any
proposed alteration, restoration, or construction, in whole or in part, of or to a Landmark, Landmark
Parcel, or to a Contributing Building or Structure within a Historic District.
H. Notwithstanding subsections (A) though (F) of this Section, a City-designated Historic Resource
protected by a deed restriction pursuant to pursuant to Section 9.43.100(G)(9) or 9.64.030(C) shall
not be relocated, removed, or demolished in contravention of the deed restriction. (Added by Ord.
No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.56.150 Certificate of Appropriateness for Structures of Merit
A. Except as provided in Section 9.56.140, a certificate of appropriateness shall not be required for the
alteration, restoration, construction or relocation of a Structure of Merit. However, the Architectural
Review Board or the Planning Commission shall take into consideration the fact that the building
has been designated a Structure of Merit in reviewing any permit concerning such structure.
B. Application for a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of a Structure of Merit shall be
made on a form furnished by the Department. An application shall be processed in accordance with
189
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
the same procedures set forth in Sections 9.56.170 and 9.56.180 of this Code and shall be reviewed
in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 9.56.140.
C. In an effort to agree to a means of historically preserving a Structure of Merit proposed for
demolition, the Landmarks Commission shall have the following powers:
1. During a one hundred and eighty day time period commencing from proper filing of an
application for certificate of appropriateness, the Commission may negotiate with the owner of
a Structure of Merit, or with any other parties, in an effort to agree to a means of historically
preserving the designated property. The negotiations may include, but are not limited to,
acquisition by gift, purchase, exchange, condemnation or otherwise of the Structure of Merit.
2. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the Commission shall have the power to extend the
required one hundred and eighty day time period to a duration not to exceed a three hundred and
sixty day time period in any case where the Commission determines that such an extension is
necessary or appropriate for the continued historical preservation of a Structure of Merit.
D. Notwithstanding subsection (C) of this Section, a Structure of Merit shall not be demolished in
contravention of a deed restriction recorded pursuant to Section 9.43.100(G) or 9.64.030(C). (Added
by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.56.190 Maintenance and Repair
A. Every owner, or person in charge, of a Landmark, a Structure of Merit protected by a deed restriction
pursuant to Section 9.43.100(G) or 9.64.030(C), or of a building or structure within a Historic
District, shall have the duty of keeping in good repair all of the exterior features of such Landmark,
Structure of Merit, or of such building or structure within a Historic District, and all interior features
thereof which, if not so maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior features of such
Landmark, or of such building or structure within a Historic District to deteriorate, decay, or become
damaged, or otherwise to fall into a state of disrepair. All designated buildings or structures shall be
preserved against such decay and be kept free from structural defects through the prompt repair of
any of the following:
1. Façades which may fall and injure members of the public or property.
2. Deteriorated or inadequate foundation, defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports,
deteriorated walls or other vertical structural supports.
3. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports or other horizontal members which age,
split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration.
4. Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations or floors,
including broken windows or doors.
5. Defective or insufficient weather protection for exterior wall covering, including lack of paint
or weathering due to lack of paint or other protective covering.
6. Any fault or defect in the building which renders it not properly watertight or structurally unsafe.
B. This Section 9.56.190 of this Chapter shall be in addition to any and all other provisions of law
requiring such Landmark, Structure of Merit protected by a deed restriction pursuant to Section
9.43.100(G) or 9.64.030(C) or such building or structure within a Historic District to be kept in good
repair. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
190
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9.56.200 Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions
Nothing contained in this Chapter shall prohibit the making of any necessary alteration, restoration,
construction, removal, relocation or demolition, in whole or in part, of or to a Landmark or Landmark
Parcel, or a Structure of Merit protected by a deed restriction pursuant to Section 9.43.100(G) or
9.64.030(C), or of or to a building or structure within a Historic District pursuant to a valid order of any
governmental agency or pursuant to a valid court judgment, for the purpose of remedying emergency
conditions determined to be dangerous to life, health or property. A copy of such valid order of any
governmental agency or such valid court judgment shall be filed with the Director of Planning and in such
cases, no certificate of appropriateness from the Landmarks Commission shall be required. (Added by Ord.
No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.56.210 Ordinary Maintenance
Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent ordinary maintenance or repair of any
exterior features of a Landmark, a Structure of Merit protected by a deed restriction pursuant to Section
9.43.100(G) or 9.64.030(C), or of a building or structure within a Historic District which does not involve
any detrimental change or modification of such exterior features. In such cases, the work must be approved
by the Landmarks Commission Secretary and no certificate of appropriateness from the Landmarks
Commission shall be required. The administrative determination is appealable to the Landmarks
Commission and shall be filed and processed in the same manner as a certificate of appropriateness.
Examples of this work shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
A. Construction, demolition or alteration of side and rear yard fences.
B. Construction, demolition or alteration of front yard fences, if no change in appearance occurs.
C. Repairing or repaving of flat concrete work in the side and rear yards.
D. Repaving of existing front yard paving, concrete work, and walkways, if the same material in
appearance as existing is used.
E. Roofing work, if no change in appearance occurs.
F. Foundation work, if no change in appearance occurs.
G. Chimney work, if no change in appearance occurs.
H. Landscaping, unless the Landmark designation specifically identifies the landscape layout, features,
or elements as having particular historical, architectural, or cultural merit. (Added by Ord. No.
2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
191
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 9.64
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION PROGRAM
Sections:
9.64.010 Findings and Purpose
9.64.020 Definitions
9.64.030 Applicability of Chapter
9.64.040 Affordable Housing Obligation
9.64.050 On-Site Option
9.64.060 Off-Site Option
9.64.070 Affordable Housing Fee
9.64.080 Land Acquisition
9.64.090 Fee Waivers
9.64.100 Pricing Requirements for Affordable Housing Units
9.64.110 Eligibility Requirements
9.64.120 Relation to Units Required by Rent Control Board
9.64.130 Deed Restrictions
9.64.140 Enforcement
9.64.150 Annual Report
9.64.160 Principles and Guidelines
9.64.170 Adjustments or Waivers
9.64.010 Findings and Purpose
The City’s affordable housing production program requires developers of market rate multi-familymultiple-
unit developments to contribute to affordable housing production and thereby help the City meet its
affordable housing need. As detailed in the findings supporting the ordinance codified in this Chapter, the
requirements of this Chapter are based on a number of factors including, but not limited to, the City’s long-
standing commitment to economic diversity; the serious need for affordable housing as reflected in local,
state, and Federal housing regulations and policies; the demand for affordable housing created by market
rate development; the depletion of potential affordable housing sites by market-rate development; and the
impact that the lack of affordable housing production has on the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s
residents including its impacts on traffic, transit and related air quality impacts, and the demands placed on
the regional transportation infrastructure. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.64.020 Definitions
The following words or phrases as used in this Chapter shall have the following meanings:
A. 30% Income Household means a household whose gross income does not exceed the 30% income
limits applicable to the Los Angeles-Long Beach Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, adjusted for
household size, as published and periodically updated by United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD).
B. 50% Income Household means a household whose gross income does not exceed 50% of the area
median income limits applicable to the Los Angeles-Long Beach Primary Metropolitan Statistical
Area, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated by HUD. 50% income
households include 30% income households.
C. 80% Income Household means a household whose gross income does not exceed 80% ofincome
limits applicable to the area median incomeLos Angeles-Long Beach Primary Metropolitan
Statistical Area, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated by HUD. 80%
income households include 50% income households.
192
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
D. Adjusted for Household Size means 70% adjustment for a household of one person, 80%
adjustment for a household of two persons, 90% adjustment for a household of three persons, 100%
adjustment for a household of four persons, 108% adjustment for a household of five persons, 116%
adjustment for a household of six persons, 124% adjustment for a household of seven persons, 132%
adjustment for a household size of eight persons. For households of more than eight persons,
adjustments shall be made in accordance with applicable HUD regulations.
E. Adjusted for Household Size Appropriate for the Unit means for a household of one person in
the case of a studio unit, two persons in the case of a one-bedroom unit, three persons in the case of
a two-bedroom unit, four persons in the case of a three-bedroom unit, and five persons in the case of
a four-bedroom unit.
F. Affordable Housing Fee means a fee paid to the City by a multi-familymultiple-unit project
applicant pursuant to Section 9.64.070 of this Chapter to assist the City in the production of housing
affordable to 30% income households, 50% income households, 80% income households, and
moderate-income households.
G. Affordable Housing Unit means a housingdwelling unit developed by a multi-familymultiple-unit
project applicant pursuant to Section 9.64.050 or 9.64.060 of this Chapter which will be affordable
to 30% income households, 50% income households, 80% income households, or moderate-income
households.
H. Affordable Housing Unit Development Cost means the City’s average cost to develop a unit of
housing affordable to 30% income households, 50% income households, 80% income households
or moderate income households.affordable housing.
I. Affordable Ownership Housing Cost. Affordable ownership housing cost means: For moderate
income households whose gross incomes exceed the maximum income limits for 80% income
households, “affordable housing cost shall not be less than 28%” as defined in Section 50052.5 of
the gross income of the household, nor exceed the product of 35% times 110% of the area median
income adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit.Health and Safety Code, as amended
from time to time in accordance with law.
J. Affordable Rent. Affordable rent means:
1. For 30% income households, the product of 30% times 30% of the area median income adjusted
for household size appropriate for the unit.
2. For 50% income households, the product of 30% times 50% of the area median income adjusted
for household size appropriate for the unit.
3. For 80% income households whose gross incomes exceed the maximum incomes for 50%
income households, the product of 30% times 60% of the area median income adjusted for
household size appropriate for the unit.
4. For moderate income households, the product of 30% times 110% of the area median income
adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit.
For purposes herein, affordable rent shall be adjusted as necessary to be consistent with pertinent
Federal or State statutes and regulations governing Federal or State assisted housing.
K. Area Median Income or AMI. Area median income or AMI means the median family income
published from time to time by HUD for the Los Angeles-Long Beach Metropolitan Statistical Area.
L. Dwelling Unit. One means dwelling unit as defined in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section
9.52.020.0730, or more rooms, designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living
quarters, with full cooking, sleepingany successor thereto, and bathroom facilities for the exclusive
use of a single household. Dwelling unit shall also include a unit in single-room occupancy
unitshousing, as defined in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.5251.020(A)(1)(d)(ii), or any
successor thereto.
193
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
M. Floor Area. Floor means floor area as defined in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section
9.52.020.0870, or any successor thereto.
N. Gross Income. Gross means gross income has the same meaning as provideddefined in Title 25,
Section 6914 of the California Code of Regulations, as amended from time to time, in accordance
with law.
O. HCD. The means the California Department of Housing and Community Development, or its
successor.
P. Housing Cost. Housing means housing cost has the same meaning as provideddefined in Title 25,
Section 6920 of the California Code of Regulations, as amended from time to time in accordance
with law.
Q. HUD. The means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, or its
successor.
R. Income Eligibility. Income eligibility is based upon the gross income of the household, including
the income of all wage earners, elderly or disabled family members, and all other sources of
household income.
SR. Market Rate Unit. A means a dwelling unit as tofor which the rental raterent or sales price is not
restricted by this Chapter.
TS. Moderate Income Household means a household whose gross income exceeds the maximum
income for an 80% income household and whose gross income does not exceed the lesser of: (1)
120% of the area median income, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated
by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); or (2) twice the income
limit for 50% income households, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated
by HUD.
UT. Multi-FamilyMultiple-unit Project. A multi-family means a multiple-unit residential
development, including, but not limited to, apartments, condominiums, townhouses or the multi-
familymultiple-unit residential component of a mixed-use project, for which City permits and
approvals are sought.
VU. Multi-FamilyMultiple-unit Project Applicant. Any means any person, firm, partnership,
association, joint venture, corporation, or any entity or combination of entities which seeks City
development permits or approvals to develop a multi-familymultiple-unit project.
WV. Multi-FamilyMultiple-unit Residential District. Any means any zoning district designated in the
City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as a multi-familymultiple-unit residential
district.
XW. Parcel. Parcel means parcel as defined in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.52.020.1530,
or any successor thereto.
YX. Rent. Rent has the same meaning means rent as provideddefined in Title 25, Section 6918 of the
California Code of Regulations, as amended from time to time in accordance with law.
Y. Utility Allowance means a reasonable allowance for utilities as published annually by the Santa
Monica Housing Authority.
Z. Vacant Parcel. A means a parcel in a multi-familymultiple-unit residential district that has no
residential structure located on it as of August 20, 1998, or which had a residential structure located
on it on that date which was subsequently demolished pursuant to a demolition order of the City. No
demolition of structures shall be permitted except in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code
Chapter 9.25 et seq. or any successor thereto. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June
23, 2015)
9.64.030 Applicability of Chapter
A. The obligations established by this Chapter shall apply to each multi-familymultiple-unit project
involving the construction of two or more multi-familydwelling units. Multi-family not including
Accessory Dwelling Units or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. Multiple-unit projects that have
194
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
received ministerial or discretionary planning approvals on or prior to July 26, 2013, shall be subject
to the provisions of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.64.010 et seq., as they existed on the
date of their approvals, except that pricing requirements for affordable housing units shall be
published by the City on an annual basis instead of adoption by resolution of the City Council. For
purposes of this Chapter, ministerial or discretionary planning approvals include, but are not limited
to: plan checks, variances, conditional use permits, administrative approvals, development review
permits, and development agreement ordinances.
B. No building permit shall be issued for any multi-family project unless such project has been approved
in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter.
C
B. Notwithstanding the above, a multi-familymultiple-unit rental housing project shall be subject to
Section 9.64.110 of this Chapter but shall not be subject to the other requirements of this Chapter if:
1. tThe project is secured by a regulatory agreement, memorandum of agreement, or recorded
covenant with the City valid for a minimum period of 5599 years; and the project is:
21. The project is Aa 100% affordable housing project, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal
Code Section 9.52.020.0050, that will be developed by a nonprofit housing provider receiving
financial assistance through one of the City’s housing trust fund programs.
C. Notwithstanding the above, a multiple-unit rental housing project shall be subject to Section 9.64.110
of this Chapter but shall not be subject to the other requirements of this Chapter if:
1. The project is secured by a regulatory agreement, memorandum of agreement, or recorded
covenant with the City valid for a minimum period of 55 years; and
2. The project isA a 100% affordable housing project, as defined by Santa Monica Municipal
Code Section 9.52.020.0050 that: (a) will be developed by a nonprofit housing provider
receiving financial assistance through the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; (b) will
comply with California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Regulations as set forth in California
Code of Regulations, Title 4, Sections 10300 and following, including minimum unit size
requirements set forth in Title 4, Section 10325(g)(1)(B); and (clocal, state, or federal funding
sources; (b) will comply with the funding source regulations; (c) includes unit sizes that are no
less than required by subsection 9.64.050(DE), unless expressly authorized by the funding
source; (d) includes rents that are no higher than the rents allowed under this Chapter unless
expressly authorized by the funding source; and (e) if the 100% affordable housing project
satisfies any affordable obligations for a market-rate project(s), the 100% affordable project
shall provide more affordable housing than would be required on site for the market-rate
project, and during the City’s review of the project, the nonprofit affordable housing provider
shall consult with the City regarding the category, round and type of tax creditsfunding being
sought.
D. A City-Designated Historic Resource designated landmark building or contributing structure to an
adopted Historic District that is retained and preserved on site as part of a multi-familymultiple-unit
project shall not be considered or included in assessing any of the requirements under this Chapter.
For a Structure of Merit, the applicant shall agree to record a deed restriction prior to issuance of
building permit for the project establishing that the Structure of Merit will be maintained for the life
of the project. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No.
2605CCS § 1, adopted April 9, 2019)
9.64.040 Affordable Housing Obligation
A. Except as provided in Section 9.23.030(A), all multi-familyno building permit shall be issued for
any multiple-unit project applicants shall complyunless such project has been approved in
195
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
accordance with the requirements ofstandards and procedures set forth in this Chapter in the
following manner:.
1. Multi-family project
B. All applicants for multi-family ownershipmultiple-unit projects of four or more units in multi-family
residential districts shall choosesatisfy the affordable housing obligation by choosing one of the two
following options:
a. Providing1. Provide affordable housing units on-site in accordance with Section
9.64.050;
b. Providing2. Provide affordable housing units off-site in accordance with Section
9.64.060.;
2. In addition to the options established in subsections (1)(a) and (b), all other multi-family project
applicants may also choose one of the following options:
a. Paying3. For projects of five units or less, pPay an affordable housing fee in accordance
with Section 9.64.070(A); or
b. Acquiring4. Acquire land for affordable housing in accordance with Section 9.64.080.
B. A multi-family projectC. An application for a multiple-unit project will not be determined complete
until the applicant has submitted a written proposal whichthat demonstrates the manner in which the
requirements of this Chapter will be met. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23,
2015)
9.64.050 On-Site Option
The following requirements must be met to satisfy the on-site provisions of this Chapter:
A. For ownership projects of at least four units but not more than 15 units in multi-family residential
districts, the multi-family project applicant agrees to construct at least: (1) 20% of the total units as
ownership units for moderate-income households at an Affordable Ownership Hosing Cost, or as an
alternative; (2) 20% of the total units as rental units for 80% income households at affordable rent if
these rental units are provided by the applicant in accordance with Civil Code Sections 1954.52(b)
and 1954.53(a)(2); (3) 10% of the total units as rental units for 50% income households at affordable
rent if these rental units are provided by the applicant in accordance with Civil Code Sections
1954.52(b) and 1954.53(a)(2); or (4) for projects with an application for a ministerial or discretionary
planning approval that is determined complete on or before March 26, 2019 or after February 28,
2022, 5% of the total units as rental units for 30% income households at affordable rent if these rental
units are provided by the applicant in accordance with Civil Code Sections 1954.52(b) and
1954.53(a)(2).
B. For ownership projects of 16 units or more in multi-family residential districts, the multi-family
project applicant agrees to construct at least: (1) 25% of the total units as ownership units for
moderate-income households at an Affordable Ownership Housing Cost, or as an alternative; (2)
25% of the total units as rental units for 80% income households at affordable rent if these rental
units are provided by the applicant in accordance with Civil Code Sections 1954.52(b) and
1954.53(a)(2); 15% of the total units as rental units for 50% income households at affordable rent if
these rental units are provided by the applicant in accordance with Civil Code Sections 1954.52(b)
and 1954.53(a)(2); or (4) for projects with an application for a ministerial or discretionary planning
approval that is determined complete on or before March 26, 2019 or after February 28, 2022, 10%
of the total units as rental units for 30% income households at affordable rent if these rental units are
provided by the applicant in accordance with Civil Code Sections 1954.52(b) and 1954.53(a)(2).
C. For all other multi-family applicants, the multi-family project applicant agrees to construct at least:
196
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1. Five percent of the total units of the project for 30% income households at affordable rent for
projects with an application for a ministerial or discretionary planning approval that is
determined complete on or before March 26, 2019 or after February 28, 2022;
2. Ten percent of the total units of the project for 50% income households at affordable rent;
3. Twenty percent of the total units of the project for 80% income households at affordable rent; or
4. One hundred percent of the total units of a project for moderate income households at affordable rent.A. An
applicant for a multiple-unit project of 6-19 units shall provide the following:
Within the Downtown Community Plan Area. 20% of total units as affordable to no more
than 80% income households.
Outside of the Downtown Community Plan Area. 15% of total units as affordable to no more than 80%
income households.
B. An applicant for a multiple-unit project of twenty units or more shall construct affordable housing
units pursuant to subsection A, above, which shall be divided equally among 50% income
households, 80% income households, and moderate income households. Any remainder units above
multiples of three shall be distributed to 50% income households first and 80% income households
second. For illustrative purposes, Table 9.64.050(C), below, provides examples of how distribution
would look for certain projects.
Table 9.64.050(C)
# of Affordable Units in the Project 50% AMI 80% AMI Moderate
Income
3 1 1 1
4 2 1 1
5 2 2 1
6 2 2 2
7 3 2 2
8 3 3 2
9 3 3 3
10 4 3 3
11 4 4 3
12 4 4 4
13 5 4 4
14 5 5 4
15 5 5 5
16 6 5 5
17 6 6 5
18 6 6 6
19 7 6 6
20 7 7 6
21 7 7 7
Additional affordable housing unit Allocate 1st Allocate 2nd Allocate 3rd
C. Fractions. Any
D. Except as provided in Section 9.23.030(A), any fractional affordable housing unit that results from
the formulas of this Section that is 0.755 or more shall be treated as a whole affordable housing unit
(i.e., any resulting fraction shall be rounded up to the next larger integer) and that unit shall also be
197
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
built pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Any fractional affordable housing unit that is less
than 0.755 can be satisfied by the payment of an affordable housing fee for that fractional unit only
pursuant to Section 9.64.070(BA)(2).
D. ) or by constructing all the mandatory on-site affordable units with 3 or more bedrooms.Income and
Rent Limits. The City shall make available a list of income levels for 30% income households, 50%
income households, 80% income households, and moderate income households, adjusted for
household size, the corresponding maximum affordable rents adjusted by household size appropriate
for the unit, and the minimum number of units required for 30% income households, 50% income
households, or 80% income households required for typical sizes of multi-familymultiple-unit
projects, which list shall be updated periodically.
E. Affordable Housing Unit Requirements.
1. The multi-familymultiple-unit project applicant may reduce either the size or interior amenities
of the affordable housing units as long as there are not significant identifiable differences
between affordable housing units and market rate units visible from the exterior of the dwelling
units; provided, that all dwelling units conform to the requirements of the applicable Building
and Housing Codes. However, except as provided in Section 9.23.030(A), each affordable
housing unit provided shall have at least 2 bedrooms unless:
1. The proposed project comprises at least 95% one bedroom units, excluding the manager’s unit,
in which case the mix percentage for affordable two- and three- bedroom housing units may be
one bedroom;
2. The proposed project comprises at least 95% zero bedroom units, excludingshall be equal to or
greater than the unit mix percentage for the corresponding market rate units. If the manager’s
unit, in which casecalculation results in 0.5 or more, the fraction shall be treated as a whole
affordable housing units may be zero bedroom units;
2. 3. The proposed project comprises zero and one bedroom units, excluding the manager’s unit,
in which case the.
The unit mix percentage for affordable studio housing units must be at least one bedroom units; or
3. 4. The multi-family project applicant has electedshall not to payexceed 15% of the total
number of affordable housing fee pursuant to Section 9.64.070(A)(2), in which case the
affordable housing units must be at least 3 bedroom units. units.
2.4. The design of the affordable housing units shall be reasonably consistent with the market rate
units in the project. An affordable housing unit shall have a minimum total floor area, depending
upon the number of bedrooms provided, no less than the following:
0 bedrooms 500 square feet 1 occupant
1 bedroom 600 square feet 1 occupant
2 bedrooms 850 square feet 2 occupants
3 bedrooms 1,800020 square feet 3 occupants
4 bedrooms 1,200 square feet 5 occupants
5. An affordable housing unit shall comply with minimum occupancy requirements as follows:
0 bedrooms 1 occupant
1 bedroom 1 occupant
2 bedrooms 2 occupants
198
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3 bedrooms 3 occupants
4 bedrooms 5 occupants
6. e. Affordable housing units in multi-family projects of 100 units or more must be evenly
disbursed throughout the multi-familymultiple-unit project to prevent undue concentrations of
affordable housing units.
F. All affordable housing units in a multi-familymultiple-unit project or a phase of a multi-
familymultiple-unit project shall be constructed concurrently with the construction of market rate
units in the multi-familymultiple-unit project or phase of that project.
G. On-site affordable housing units must be rental units in rental projects. In ownership projects, these
affordable housing units may be either rental units or ownership units..
H. Each multi-familymultiple-unit project applicant, or his or her successor, shall submit an annual
report to the City identifying which units are affordable units, the monthly rent (or total housing cost
if an ownership unit), vacancy information for each affordable unit for the prior year, verification of
income of the household occupying each affordable unit throughout the prior year, and such other
information as may be required by City staff.
I. A multi-familymultiple-unit project applicant in a residential district who meets the requirements of
this Section shall be entitled to the density bonuses, incentives or concessions, and waivers or
reductions of development standards and incentives provided by SectionSanta Monica Municipal
Code Chapter 9.22.030 or any successor thereto and the waiver/modification of development
standards provided by Section 9.22.040, or any successor thereto. A multi-family project applicant
in a commercial or industrial district shall be entitled to the development bonuses and incentives
provided in the Land Use and Circulation Element and implementing ordinances.
J. All residential developments providing affordable housing on site pursuant to the provisions of this
Section shall receive priority building department plan check processing by which housing
developments shall have plan check review in advance of other pending developments to the extent
authorized by law.
K. The City Council may by resolution establish compliance monitoring fees which reflect the
reasonable regulatory cost to the City of ensuring compliance with this Section when affordable
housing units are being initially rented or sold, when the required annual reports are submitted to the
City, and when the units are being re-sold or re-leased. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2,
adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 63, adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No.
2605CCS § 2, adopted April 9, 2019; Ord. No. 2622CCS § 1, adopted October 22, 2019; Ord. No.
2654CCS § 1, adopted October 27, 2020)
9.64.060 Off-Site Option
The following requirements must be met to satisfy the off-site option of this Chapter:
A. A. The multi-family project An applicant for ownership projectsa multiple-unit dwelling
project consisting of 420 or more units in multi-family residential districts shall agree to construct
255% more affordable housing units than the number of affordable housing units required by Section
9.64.050(A) and (B).
A.B. Fractions. Any fractional affordable housing unit that results from the formulas of this Section
that is 0.5 or more shall be treated as a whole affordable housing unit (i.e., any resulting fraction
shall be rounded up to the next larger integer) and that unit shall also be built pursuant to the
provisions of this Section. Any fractional affordable housing unit that is less than 0.5 can be satisfied
by the payment of an affordable housing fee for that fractional unit only pursuant to Section
9.64.070(A)(2).
C. B. For all other multi-family project applicants, the applicant shall agree to construct the same
number ofThe off-site affordable housing units as specified in Section 9.64.050(shall be affordable
to 80% income households or lower.
199
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
DC).
C. . The multi-familymultiple-unit project applicant shall identify an alternate site suitable for
residential housing which the project applicant either owns or has site control over (e.g., purchase
agreement, option to purchase, lease) subject to City review to ensure that the proposed development
is consistent with the City’s housing objectives and projects.
ED. The off-site units shallmay be located anywhere in the City except for within a one-quarter mile
radius of the market rate units. the area defined in Figure 9.64.060.A, Off-Site Affordable Housing
Prohibition Area, below.
Figure 9.64.060.A – Off-Site Affordable Housing Prohibition Area
200
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
FE. The off-site units shall satisfy the requirements of subsections (D) through (J) of Section 9.64.050.
GF. ThePooling Units/No Double Counting. If two or more market rate projects elect to use the off-site
option in a single project, the off-site affordable housing units in the project shall not countbe counted
twice towards the satisfaction of any affordable housing obligation that development of the
alternative site with market rate units would otherwise be subject to pursuant to this Chapter.
G. Exceptions to the location of the off-site units specified in this Section may be granted by the
Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis upon, but shall count towards eligibility for a showing
by the multi-family project applicant, based upon substantial evidence, that the location of off-site
units in a location different from that specifieddensity bonus in this Section better accomplishes the
goals of thisaccordance with Chapter, including maximizing affordable housing production and
dispersing affordable housing throughout the City 9.22.
HG. The off-site affordable units shall be owned in whole or part and operated by a nonprofit affordable
housing provider for the life of the project, and the Final Construction Permit Sign Off or Certificate
of Occupancy for the off-site affordable units shall be issued prior to or concurrently with the market-
rate housing project.
IH . The City Council may by resolution establish compliance monitoring fees which reflect the
reasonable regulatory cost to the City of ensuring compliance with this Section when affordable
housing units are initially being rented or sold, when the required annual reports are submitted to the
City, and when the units are being re-sold or re-leased. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2,
adopted June 23, 2015)
9.64.070 Affordable Housing Fee
A multi-familymultiple-unit project applicant eligible to meetmay satisfy the affordable housing obligations
established by this Chapter by paying an affordable housing fee shall pay the fee in accordance with the
following requirements:
A. A. Multiple-unit projects of five units or less based on the following formulaAn affordable
housing fee may be paid in accordance with the following formulas:
(
1. Affordable housing unit base fee) x (floor area of multi-familymultiple-unit
project;)
2B. Multi-familyMultiple-unit projects of six units or more with fractional affordable housing units of
less than 0.755 based on the formula established in Section 9.64.050 and 9.64.060:
(City’s affordable housing unit development cost) x (fractional percentage)
CB. For purposes of this Section, the affordable housing unit base fee shall be established by resolution
of the City Council. Commencing on July 1, 2006 and on July 1st of each fiscal year thereafter, the
affordable housing unit base fee shall be adjusted based on changes in construction costs and land
costs. The amount of the affordable housing fee that the multi-familymultiple-unit project applicant
must pay shall be based on the affordable housing unit base fee resolution in effect at the time that
the affordable housing fee is paid to the City.
DC. For purposes of this Section, the City’s affordable housing unit development cost shall be
established by resolution of the City Council. Commencing on July 1, 2007 and on July 1st of each
fiscal year thereafter, the City’s affordable housing unit development cost shall be adjusted based on
changes in construction costs and land costs. The affordable housing fee that the multi-
familymultiple-unit project applicant must pay shall be based on the affordable housing unit
development cost resolution in effect at the time of payment to the City.
201
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
ED. The amount of the affordable housing unit base fee may vary by product type (apartment or
condominium) and shall reflect, among other factors, the relationship between new market rate
multi-familymultiple-unit development and the need for affordable housing.
FE. The affordable housing fee shall be paid in full to the City prior to the City granting any approval
for the occupancy of the project, but no earlier than the time of building permit issuance.
GF. The City shall deposit any payment made pursuant to this Section in a reserve account separate from
the General Fund to be used only for development of affordable housing, administrative costs related
to the production of this housing, and monitoring and evaluation of this affordable housing
production program. Any monies collected and interest accrued pursuant to this Chapter shall be
committed within five years after the payment of such fees or the approval of the multi-
familymultiple-unit project, whichever occurs later. Funds that have not been appropriated within
this five-year period shall be refunded on a pro rata share to those multi-familymultiple-unit project
applicants who have paid fees during the period. Expenditures and commitments of funds shall be
reported to the City Council annually as part of the City budget process.
HG. An affordable housing fee payment pursuant to this Section shall not be considered provision of
affordable housing units for purposes of determining whether the multi-familymultiple-unit project
qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Government Code Section 65915. (Added by Ord. No.
2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.64.080 Land Acquisition
A. A multi-familymultiple-unit project applicant may meet the affordable housing obligations
established by this Chapter by making an irrevocable offer:
1. Dedicating land to the City or a non-profit housing provider;
2. Selling of land to the City or a non-profit housing provider at below market value; or
3. Optioning of land on behalf of the City or a non-profit housing provider.
Each of these options must be for a value at least equivalent to the affordable housing obligation
otherwise required pursuant to this Section.
B. The multi-familymultiple-unit project applicant must identify the land at the time that the
development application is filed with the City. Any land offered pursuant to this Section must be
located within one-quarter mile radius of the market rate units unless the multi-familymultiple-unit
project applicant demonstrates that locating the land outside of this radius better accomplishes the
goals of this Chapter, including maximizing affordable housing production and dispersing affordable
housing throughout the City. The City may approve, conditionally approve or reject such offers
subject to administrative guidelines to be prepared by the City Manager or designee. If the City
rejects such offer, the multi-familymultiple-unit project applicant shall be required to meet the
affordable housing obligation by other means set forth in this Chapter. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS
§§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.64.090 Fee Waivers
The Condominium and Cooperative Tax described in Section 6.76.010 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code or any successor thereto and the Park and Recreation Facilities Tax established in Chapter 6.80 of
Article 6 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or any successor thereto, the Transportation Impact Fee
required by Chapter 9.66, or any successor thereto, the Open Space Fee required by Chapter 9.67, or any
successor thereto, and the Childcare Linkage Fee required by Chapter 9.65, or any successor thereto, shall
be waived for required affordable housing units and for 30%, 50%, 80% and moderate-income dwelling
units developed by the City or its designee using affordable housing fee. However, any multi-
familymultiple-unit project applicant who elects to pay an affordable housing fee shall not be eligible for
any fee waiver under this Section. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
202
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9.64.100 Pricing Requirements for Affordable Housing Units
The City shall publish, on an annual basis, the 30%, 50%, 80%, and moderate -income household levels,
and affordable rents for affordable housing units, adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit.
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.64.110 Income Eligibility Requirements
A. Only 30%, 50%, 80% and moderate-income households shall be eligible to occupy or own and
occupy affordable housing units. The City shall develop a list of income-qualified households. Multi-
familyMultiple-unit project applicants shall be required to select households from the City-
developed list of income-qualified households, except applicants of ownership projects of four or
more units in the City’s multi-family residential zones may themselves select income-qualified
households which shall be subject to eligibility certification by the City.
B. The following individuals, by virtue of their position or relationship, are ineligible to occupy an
affordable housing unit:
1. All employees and officials of the City of Santa Monica or its agencies, authorities, or
commissions who have, by the authority of their position, policy-making authority or influence
over the implementation of this Chapter and the immediate relatives and employees of such City
employees and officials;
2. The immediate relatives of the applicant or owner, including spouse, children, parents,
grandparents, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, aunt,
uncle, niece, nephew, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law.
C. 3. For purposes of this Chapter, income eligibility is based upon the gross income of the
household, including the income of all adult wage earners including elderly or disabled family
members, and all other sources of household income from adults. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§
1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.64.120 Relation to Units Required by Rent Control Board
30%, 50%, 80% and moderate-income dwelling units developed as part of a market rate project, pursuant
to replacement requirements of the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, shall count towards the satisfaction
of this Chapter if they otherwise meet applicable requirements for this Chapter including, but not limited
to, the income eligibility requirements, deed restriction requirements, and pricing requirements. New
inclusionary units required by the Rent Control Board which meet the standards of this Chapter shall count
towards the satisfaction of this Chapter. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.64.130 Deed Restrictions
Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project meeting the requirements of this Chapter by providing
affordable units on-site or off-site, the multi-familymultiple-unit project applicant shall submitrecord deed
restrictions or other legal instruments setting forth the obligation of the applicant under this Chapter for
City review and approval. Such restrictions shall be effective for at least fifty-five55 years. In addition to
the administrative guidelines specifically required by other provisions of this Chapter, the City Manager or
designee shall be the designated authority to enter into recorded agreements with multi-familymultiple-unit
project applicants. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
203
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9.64.140 Enforcement
No building permit or occupancy permit shall be issued, nor any development approval granted, for a project
which is not exempt and does not meet the requirements of this Chapter. All affordable housing units shall
be rented or owned in accordance with this Chapter. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June
23, 2015)
9.64.150 Annual Report
The City Manager or designee, shall submit a report to the City Council on an annual basis which shall
contain information concerning the implementation of this Chapter. This report shall also detail the projects
that have received pPlanning approval during the previous year and the manner in which the provisions of
this Chapter were satisfied. This report shall further assess whether the provisions of Proposition R have
been met and whether changes to this Chapter or its implementation procedures are warranted. In the event
the provisions of Proposition R have not been met, the City Council shall take such action as is necessary
to ensure that the provisions will be met in the future. This action may include, but not be limited to,
amending the provisions of this Chapter or its implementation. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2,
adopted June 23, 2015)
9.64.160 Principles and Guidelines
The City Manager, or designee, shall develop guidelines to implement this Chapter, which guidelines shall
be subject to approval of the City Council. The guidelines shall include, but not be limited to, the
methodology for the establishment and periodic adjustment of the base fee and the affordable housing unit
development cost; for-sale affordable unit requirements, tenant and purchaser eligibility procedures; and
additional requirements for exercise of the off-site option and land acquisition option. (Added by Ord. No.
2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.64.170 Adjustments or Waivers
A. A multi-familymultiple-unit project applicant may request that the requirements of this Chapter be
adjusted or waived based on a showing that applying the requirements of this Chapter would
effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application
to the property.
B. To receive an adjustment or waiver, the applicant must submit an application to the City Manager or
designee, at the time the applicant files a multi-familymultiple-unit project application. The applicant
shall bear the burden of presenting substantial evidence to support the request and set forth in detail
the factual and legal basis for the claim, including all supporting technical documentation.
C. In making a determination on an application to adjust or waive the requirements of this Chapter, the
City Manager or designee, or City Council on appeal, may assume each of the following when
applicable:
1. The applicant is subject to the affordable housing requirementobligation of this Chapter;
2. The applicant will benefit from the inclusionary incentives set forth in this Chapter and the City’s
Municipal Code;
3. The applicant will be obligated to provide the most economical affordable housing units feasible
in terms of construction, design, location and tenure.
D. The City Manager or designee shall render a written decision within ninety days after a complete
application is filed. The City Manager’s or designee’s decision may be appealed to the City Council
if such appeal is filed within fourteen consecutive calendar days from the date that the decision is
204
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
made in the manner provided in Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.37, Common Procedures
of this Code, or any successor thereto.
E. If the City Manager or designee, or City Council on appeal, upon legal advice provided by or at the
behest of the City Attorney, determines that applying the requirements of this Chapter would
effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application
to the property, the affordable housing requirements shall be adjusted or waived to reduce the
obligations under this Chapter to the extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional result. If an
adjustment or waiver is granted, any change in the use within the project shall invalidate the
adjustment or waiver. If the City Manager or designee, or City Council on appeal, determines that
no violation of the United States or California Constitutions would occur through application of this
Chapter, the requirements of this Chapter remain fully applicable. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§
1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
205
8.A.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Attachment B - Proposed Amendments to the Downtown Community Plan
These changes to the DCP are proposed in addition to the changes adopted on March 10, 2020 per
Resolution 11239 (CCS) and August 25, 2020 per Resolution 11284 (CCS):
Section 2A.4, Entitlement and Tier System, page 28
The LUCE addresses the Downtown area from a broad policy perspective, outlining goals and objectives,
but defers the specific land-use standards to the Downtown Community Plan. The DCP implements a
modified version of the LUCE Tiering system, which provides distinct entitlement processes for projects of
certain sizes and/or land uses.
The DCP entitlement system differentiates between housing projects and commercial projects, and relies
upon process thresholds to crate distinct entitlement pathways for each project type, which are
summarized in Chapter 4, 9.10.050, Application Thresholds Table. Downtown housing projects are
strongly encouraged to support a strong economically diverse residential neighborhood component to
Downtown vitality. These are consequently provided more generous floor area thresholds than their
commercial counterpart. Housing projects are defined in Chapter 4, Standards and Regulations,
9.10.050.
• “Base” Projects Typically, developments that conform to Tier 1 standards are referred to as
“base” projects. Base projects must meet minimum project requirements for setbacks, design and open
space, and pay adopted fees for items such as affordable housing, trip reduction, cultural arts and child-
care fees. Projects that provide the required percentage of Affordable Housing Production Program
(AHPP) on-site are allowed an additional floor of housing for a maximum of three stories and 39 feet.
1. Housing Projects
Any streamlined housing project up to 75,000on sites less than 43,560 sq. ft. may be processed through
an administrative Administrative approvalApproval. Any housing project that meets the definition of
“housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act and that, consistent with the Housing
Accountability Act, complies with all applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards
and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the project application is deemed
complete, may be processed through an administrative approval up to the thresholds established by
Section 9.10.050.
2. Commercial Projects
Smaller commercial projects that conform to Tier 1 standards may be processed through an
Administrative Approval.
Development Review Projects
Certain Tier 2 commercial projects and certain Tier 3 housing projects on site that are 43,560 sf or greater
are permitted by Development Review Permit (DRP), allowing typical mixed-use housingthese projects to
be approved through discretionary review and a Planning Commission public hearing that gives
community members a venue to share thoughts and input on proposed projects. By law, Planning
Commission decisions are appealable to the City Council. The project requirements for Tier 2 and non-
negotiated Tier 3 housing projects are unique to Downtown. This system of project requirements is
intended to incentivize and place a priority on the development of housing in Downtown, implement
affordable housing requirements that result in a greater number and a more diverse unit mix, and ensure
greater discretionary review for larger housing projects and commercial projects. Two types of projects
qualify for Development Review Permits within the DCP.
1. Housing Projects on Sites 43,560 Square Feet or Greater
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment C - DCP Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Tier 2. Tier 2 housing projects are considered non-negotiated projects. These projects are required to
comply with affordable housing requirements and affordability mix as established in Chapter 4, Standards
and Regulations, 9.10.070 and must also contribute augmented fees at Tier 2 levels.
Tier 3. In the Transit Adjacent Zone only, larger hHousing projects that conform to Tier 3 height
standardsare larger than 90,000 sf are considered non-negotiated discretionary projects. These projects
are required to comply with affordable housing requirements and affordability mix as established in
Zoning Ordinance Section 9.10.070 and must also contribute augmented fees at Tier 3 levels.
2. Commercial All Other Projects Tier 2Between 10,000-30,000 SF.
Tier 2 non-residential projects between 10,000-30,000 square feet are considered non-negotiated
discretionary projects that must contribute to the community benefits program at Tier 2 levels.
Chapter 2A.4, page 29
Development Agreement Projects
Development Agreements are used to process specific properties where special conditions of size,
shape, geography or existing or desired development require particular attention and additional analysis.
This approach allows the city to address the specific physical conditions and challenges posed by these
sites and negotiate for significant benefits from larger individual development projects. In the Downtown
district, several project types will require a negotiated development agreement, regardless of proposed
height and tier, with negotiated community benefits approved by the City Council. Guidelines for on-site
benefits that are aligned with the community benefit priorities for Downtown are listed in Table 2A.4.
Commercial All Other Projects.
All Tiers. Non-residential commercialhousing projects greater than 30,000 square feet of floor
area shall be required to be processed through a development agreement. Under no
circumstances shall projects be considered for increases beyond height or FAR standards set
forth in this Plan.
All development agreement projects are expected to provide community benefits that contribute to
Downtown’s priorities and fees in excess of Tier 3 fee requirements. Table 2A.3 provides guidelines to
priority areas that should guide development agreement negotiations. These priority areas are a baseline
for further negotiation.
Chapter 4, page 177
These changes are proposed as part of implementation of the Housing Element Update:
9.10.050 Application Thresholds Table
Streamlined Housing Project All Other Projects
Administrative Approval Projects up to 75,000 sfSites
less than 43,560 sf
Less than 10,000 sf
Development Review Permit Tier 2 greater than 75,000 sf
Tier 3 Projects greater than
90,000 sfSites 43,560 sf or
greater
10,000 - 30,000 sf
Development Agreement N/A Greater than 30,000 sf
A. “Streamlined Housing Project” means a use consisting of any of the following:
1. Residential units only
2. Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential
uses do not exceed 25% of the total building square footage and are limited to neighborhood
commercial uses and to the first two floors of buildings that are two or more stories
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment C - DCP Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3. Transitional or supportive housing
B. Administrative Approval Review Procedures.
1. For projects eligible for an Administrative Approval under Table 9.10.050 and exempt from
Development Review Permit Requirements under 9.10.050(C)(1) or (2), an applicant shall conduct a
community meeting to receive community input on the proposal, which. The community meeting shall be
conducted prior to submitting an application, and with noticing and reporting on the community meeting
as required in guidelines adopted by the Director.
2. Following receipt of a recommendation decision from the Architectural Review Board, the Director shall
issue a decision determination on the Administrative Approval in accordance with SMMC Chapter 9.39.
C. Housing Exemptions. The following types of projects are exempt from Development Review Permit
requirements:
1) 100% Affordable Housing Projects
2) Tier 2 Streamlined Housing Projects – Streamlined housing projects on sites that are less than
43,560 sf including projects that have been granted modifications and waivers in accordance with
Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.43 Modifications and Waivers. that meet the definition of
“housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section
65589.5, (“Housing Accountability Act”) and that, consistent with the Housing Accountability Act,
comply with all applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria,
including design review standards, in effect at the time that the project application is deemed
complete, up to the thresholds established by the Zoning Ordinance.
9.10.030 Applicability and Relationship to Santa Monica Municipal Code and Other Regulations
A. Applicability. The Downtown Community Plan establishes the area’s regulations and standards
and shall guide all land use and development and circulation related decision-marking processes
for the Plan area.
B. Relationship to Santa Monica Municipal Code and Other Regulations
1. General. If provisions in the Downtown Community Plan and Article 9 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”) are in conflict, the provisions in the
Downtown Community Plan shall be applied. Where land use regulations, development
standards, administrative regulations, and general terms and definitions are not
specifically addressed by the Downtown Community Plan, Article 9 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”) shall be applied. Land use regulations for DCP
land use districts may be found in Chapter 9.10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
a. Projects that include affordable housing on City-Owned properties shall be
exempted from the Downtown Community Plan and Zoning Ordinance pursuant to
Section 9.01.040(A)(1)(d).
Chapter 4, page 178
9.10.060 Development Standards
Table 4.2 prescribes the development standards for Downtown districts. Additional regulations are
denoted with Section numbers in the right hand column or with individual letters in parentheses. Section
numbers refer to other Sections of this Ordinance, while individual letters in parentheses refer to
subsections that directly follow the table.
Table 4.2 Development Standards—Downtown Districts
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment C - DCP Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Standard LT (east)
LT
(west) NV
BC
(promen
ade)
BC
(2nd & 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
Parcel and Intensity Standards
Minimum
Parcel Size
(sq. ft.)
7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
Minimum Parcel Width
(ft.)
50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Minimum
Parcel Depth
(ft.)
150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Maximum FAR SMMC Section
9.04.080
Determining
FAR
Housing
Projects 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 3.00 3.25
SMMC Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
100%
Affordable
Housing
Projects
3.50 3.50 4.50 3.50 4.00 4.50 3.50 3.75
Tier 1 1.25 1.25 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.5
Tier 1 – With
Housing 1.5 1.5 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.5 Section
Tier 2 1.75 2.25 2.75 2.75 3.0 3.0 2.25 1.75
SMMC
Section
9.10.070
Project
Requirements
for Tier 2 and
Tier 3 Projects
Tier 2 – With
Housing 2.25 2.75 3.5 2.75 3.5 3.5 2.75 2.25 Section
9.10.070
Tier 2 with
Housing for
Parcels that
Front on Wilshire, not
located
adjacent to a
residential
district and
Have a LUCE
designation of
Downtown
Core
- - - - - - - 2.75
Tier 3
- - - - - 3.5 - -
SMMC
Section
90.10.070
Project
Requirements
for Tier 2 and
Tier 3 Projects
Tier 3 – With
Housing - - - - - 4.0 - -
100%
Affordable
Housing
Projects
2.75 3.25 4.0 3.25 4.0 4.0 3.25 2.75
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment C - DCP Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Standard LT (east)
LT
(west) NV
BC
(promen
ade)
BC
(2nd & 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
100%
Affordable
Housing
Projects—
Parcels that
front on
Wilshire
Boulevard,
are not
located
adjacent to a
residential
district, and
have a LUCE
designation of
Downtown
Core
- - - - - - - 3.25
Building Form and Location
Maximum Building Height (ft) SMMC
Section
9.04.050
Measuring
Height
Tier 1 – Base
Standard 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’
Housing
Projects
65’ 65’ 84’ 65’ 65’ 84’ 65’ 70’
100%
Affordable
Housing
ProjectsTier 1
– Housing
Projects
Including On-
Site
Affordable
Housing in
Compliance
with AHPP
75’39’ 75’39’ 94’39’ 75’39’ 75’39’ 94’39’ 75’39’ 80’39’
Tier 1 – Base
Standard 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’
Tier 2 40’ 50’ 60’ 60’ 60’ 60’ 50’ 40’
Tier 2 – With
Housing 50’ 60’ 60’ 60’ 60’’ 60’ 50’ 50’
Tier 2 with
Housing for
Parcels that
Front on
Wilshire, not
located
adjacent to a
residential
district and
Have a LUCE
designation of
Downtown
Core
- - - - - - - 60’
Tier 3 - - - - - 84’ - -
Tier 3 – With
Housing - - - - - 84’ - -
100%
Affordable
Housing
Projects
60’ 70’ 70’ 70’ 70’ 84’ 60’ 60’
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment C - DCP Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Standard LT (east)
LT
(west) NV
BC
(promen
ade)
BC
(2nd & 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
100%
Affordable
Housing
Projects—
Parcels that
front on
Wilshire
Boulevard,
are not
located
adjacent to a
residential
district, and
have a LUCE
designation of
Downtown
Core
- - - - - - - 70’
Height
Transitions to
Residential
Districts
See (A)
(1)
See (A)
(1) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A See (A)
(1)
Minimum
Ground Floor
Height
11’
Maximum
Ground floor
Height
16’ 16’ 16’ N/A 16’ 16’ 16’ 16’
Building Form Regulated by Building Type
Minimum
Stepbacks (ft)
Required
above Ground
Floor
15% of
façade
15% of
façade
15% of
façade N/A N/A 15% of
façade
15% of
façade
15% of
façade
See (C)(2)
Build to Line See (C)(1)
Minimum
Upper Level
Stepbacks
35% of façade, see (C)(3)
Minimum
Open Space
Varies by
lot width,
see
(B)(1)
Varies
by lot
width,
see
(B)(1)
Varies by
lot width,
see
(B)(1)
N/A
Varies by
lot width,
see
(B)(1)
Varies by
lot width,
see
(B)(1)
Varies by
lot width,
see (B)(1)
Varies by
lot width,
see (B)(1)
Minimum Side
Interior
15% of
façade,
see
(C)(5)
15% of
façade,
see
(C)(5)
15% of
façade,
see
(C)(5)
N/A
15% of
façade,
see
(C)(5)
15% of
façade,
see
(C)(5)
15% of
façade,
see (C)(5)
15% of
façade,
see (C)(5)
Minimum
Unbroken
Primary
Façade
Length
10’ wide by 5’ depth, see (C)(7)
Building
Frontage Line
(Ground Floor
Setback)
See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D)
See (D)
Minimum
Interior Side
and Rear –
Adjacent to
Residential
District
10’ see
(A)(1)
Illustr.
4.32
10’ see
(A)(1)
Illustr.
4.32
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
10’ see
(A)(1)
Illustr.
4.32
Rear Adjacent
to Alley 2’ for first 16’ of building height measured from rear property line
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment C - DCP Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Standard LT (east)
LT
(west) NV
BC
(promen
ade)
BC
(2nd & 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
Parking See SMMC Chapter 9.28 Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Active Design
Active Design See (E)
Pedestrian
Oriented
Design
See (E)
Additional Standards
Accessory
Dwelling Unit SMMC Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory
Food Service SMMC Section 9.31.030 Accessory Food Service
Accessory
Structures SMMC Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Affordable
Housing
Production
Program
SMMC Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program
Automobile/V
ehicle Sales,
Leasing, and
Storage
SMMC Section 9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and Storage
Bicycle
Parking SMMC Section 9.28.140, Bicycle Parking
Density Bonus SMMC Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus
Exceptions to
Height Limits SMMC Section 9.21.060, Height Exceptions
Fences,
Walls, and
Hedges
SMMC Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Home
occupation SMMC Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Junior
Accessory
Dwelling Units
SMMC Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Landscaping
and Street
Trees
SMMC Subsection 9.11.030(F), Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting SMMC Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit
Dwelling
Projects
SMMC Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Multiple-Unit
Dwelling
Projects
Located on
Community
Assembly
Surface
Parking Lots
SMMC Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Off-Street
Parking and
Loading
SMMC Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation
Refuse and
Recycling
Screening and
Enclosure
SMMC Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Signs SMMC Chapter 9.61, Signs
Screening SMMC Section 9.21.140, Screening
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment C - DCP Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Standard LT (east)
LT
(west) NV
BC
(promen
ade)
BC
(2nd & 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
Solar Energy
Systems SMMC Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems
Refuse and Recycling
Screening and
Enclosure
SMMC Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards
Sustainability SMMC Chapter 8.106, Green Building Standards Code
Chapter 4, Section C, page 184
A.BUILDING HEIGHT TRANSITION TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
1. In the Wilshire Transition District and along the east side of Lincoln Boulevard, buildings shall not
extend above a plane starting at 30 feet in height directly above the parcel line abutting any residentially
zoned parcel, or where there is an alley, the centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending in at a
45-degree angle from vertical toward the interior of the site, up to the maximum building height (see
Illustration 4.32). The 30 foot height measurement shall be taken from the same reference grade as
determined for the subject site pursuant to SMMC Section 9.04.050.
B. OPEN SPACE
1. Minimum Open Space Requirements, per (B)(2)
Lot width of 50 feet or less None
Lot width between 51 feet and 150 feet 20% total: 10% located at Ground Floor or
Podium at 1 or 2 Levels above Ground and 10%
without regulated location
Lot widths greater than 150 feet 5% total: 12.5% located at Ground Floor or
Podium at 1 or 2 Levels above Ground and 12.5%
without regulated location
The open space requirements established in this subsection B supersede the open space requirements
established in Section 9.21.090 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The minimum area required for open space is expressed as a percentage of the buildable area (i.e.
remaining parcel after required setbacks) and is based on lot width. Unless otherwise noted, this open
space may be public or private.
3. Required open space can be accommodated at-grade, on a podium one or two levels above the
ground floor, in private exterior balconies that are a minimum of 35 sf each, roof gardens, or any
combination thereof.
4. 25% of the overall open space required for a project must be designed as common open space.
5. Ground floor building setbacks resulting from compliance with subsection (D) shall not be counted
towards compliance with this requirement. Building setbacks that exceed the minimum requirement may
be included towards compliance with this requirement, provided any overhanging encroachments have a
minimum vertical clearance equivalent to the ground floor height requirement.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment C - DCP Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6. Stepbacks resulting from compliance with subsections (C)(2) and (C) (3) may be counted towards
compliance with this requirement
7. For lot widths greater than 50’ in width, the maximum height to width ratio of any Courtyard is 1.7:1
(e.g. a Courtyard within a 60’ tall structure must have a minimum dimension of 35’). Where sides of a
Courtyard are unequal in height, they may be averaged to determine the effective height. The minimum
Courtyard dimension on any side shall be 20 feet.
8. Projections and Encroachments into the Courtyard are permitted on all sides, provided that the
minimum dimension of 20’ is maintained.
9. Breaks in buildings required by Maximum Unbroken Primary Facade Length of subsection (C)(67),
shall count toward Open Space Requirements if it connects to an interior open space.
10. All visible portions of a required setback, not used for vehicular or pedestrian access to the building,
shall consist of hardscape, planting areas, and/or pedestrian amenities like entry courtyards, plazas,
entries, outdoor eating and display areas, or other uncovered areas designed and accessible for public
use.
C. BUILDING MODULATION STANDARDS
In order to modulate building mass and express a design concept, new buildings or additions to existing
buildings shall be designed in three dimensions on the front and sides to ensure light and air into
buildings and down to the street.
1. Build-To Line. Buildings with nonresidential uses on the ground floor and not facing a residential
district shall be constructed at the building frontage line for 70 percent of linear street frontage.
Building entries required to be recessed due to technical codes may be counted towards this
requirement. This requirement may modified upon finding that:
a. An alternative configuration can be approved based on the findings in Chapter 9.43.020, Minor
Modifications.
b. The alternative configuration meets the objectives of the DCP Design Guidelines.
c. Entry courtyards, plazas, small parks, entries, outdoor eating and display areas, or other
uncovered areas designed and accessible for public use are located between the build-to line and
building, provided that the buildings are built to the edge of the courtyard, plaza, small park, or
dining area; and
d. The building incorporates an alternative entrance design that creates a pedestrian-oriented entry
feature facing the street
2. Minimum Required Stepbacks Above Ground Floor.
a. Districts with 50 or 60 up to 70 feet Maximum Allowable Height Limit. Minimum required
stepbacks from the building frontage line are established above the ground floor. The Minimum
Required Stepback Above the Ground Floor and below 39 feet shall be 15% of the front façade
area. Stepbacks shall be a minimum of 5 feet and are not required to be open to the sky.
Projections into the required stepbacks are permitted pursuant to 9.10.120(A).
b. Districts with 84 Feet Maximum Allowable Height Limit. Minimum required stepbacks from the
building frontage line are established above the ground floor. The Minimum Required Stepback
Above the Ground Floor and below 60 feet shall be 15% of the front façade area. Stepbacks shall
be a minimum of 5 feet and are not required to be open to the sky. Projections into the required
stepbacks are permitted pursuant to 9.10.120(A).
c. Bayside Conservation District. In order to maintain a consistent streetwall, a stepback is not
required below 39 feet.
d. Corner Lots of 50 feet or Less in Width. All corner lots with a width of 50 feet or less are
permitted to measure stepbacks from the property line above the ground floor provided that: i. A
minimum ground floor height of 16 feet is provided. ii. No architectural structure, form or feature
including but not limited to, columns, piers, and wing walls shall occupy the ground floor setback
area.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment C - DCP Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3. Minimum Upper Level Stepbacks.
a. Bayside Conservation District and Districts with 50 feet or 60 up to 70 feet Maximum
Allowable Height Limit. Minimum required stepbacks from the building frontage line are
established for the upper levels of proposed buildings. The Minimum Upper Level Stepback
above 39 feet shall be 35% of the front façade area. Stepbacks shall be a minimum of 5 feet and
are not required to be open to the sky. Projections into the required stepbacks are permitted
pursuant to 9.10.120(A).
b. Districts with 84 feet maximum allowable height limit. Minimum required stepbacks from the
building frontage line are established for the upper levels of proposed buildings. The Minimum
Upper Level Stepback above 60 feet shall be 35% of the front façade area. Stepbacks shall be a
minimum of 5 feet and are not required to be open to the sky. Projections into the required
stepbacks are permitted pursuant to 9.10.120(A).
c. Corner lots of 50 feet or less in width. All corner lots with a lot width of 50 or less are permitted
to measure stepbacks from the property line above the ground floor provided that: i. A minimum
ground floor height of 16 feet is provided. ii. No architectural structure, form or feature including,
but not limited to, columns, piers, and wing walls shall occupy the ground floor setback area.
4. Alternative Stepback Compliance for Districts with 50 feet or 60 up to 70 feet maximum
allowable height limit. In order to provide flexibility for compliance with the stepback requirements in
subsections (C)(2) and (C)(3), the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Landmarks
Commission, whichever is the first reviewing authority of an application, may approve building modulation
above the ground floor for 25% of the front façade (on corner lots of 50 feet or less in width, the
stepbacks shall be measured from the property line) area subject to the following findingsmay be
approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 9.10.110, but shall be subject to only the
following finding:
a. The Planning Commission/Architectural Review Board/Landmarks Commission finds that tThe
alternative compliance creates a three dimensional frontage which reinforces the architectural
concept and is appropriate to its unique location and context.
5. Minimum Side Interior Stepback. A minimum of 15% of the exposed side interior building façade
area above 39 feet shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the side property line.
6. Alternative Side Interior Stepback Compliance for All Districts. In order to provide flexibility for
compliance with the side interior stepback requirements in subsection C(5), in all districts the side interior
stepback may be reduced to 12” provided that the open space requirements established in 9.10.060 B(1)
are increased to the following:
Lot width of 50 feet or less None
Lot width between 51 feet and 150 feet 25% total
Lot widths greater than 150 feet 30%
7. Maximum Unbroken Primary Façade Length
a. All new or modified buildings shall orient the primary façade to the Frontage line.
Secondary facades orient to the side and rear yards.
b. Corner buildings shall have a primary façade fronting each sidewalk
c. For facades that are greater than 150’, a break of 10% of the façade length with a 5 foot
minimum depth is required. This dimension can be broken into two breaks, provided each
break is greater than 5a minimum of 10 feet in width. The break must extend from above
the ground for 60 percent of the height of the project. The break is not required to be
continuous.
Chapter 4, Section E, page 191
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment C - DCP Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
E. PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED DESIGN STANDARDS.
Ground floor pedestrian orientation is required for all projects throughout the Downtown and where
applicable, shall be designed to accommodate commercial uses and activities. 100% Affordable Housing
projects are exempt from the provisions of this subsection (E).
1. Outdoor Dining. Dining areas may encroach into building setbacks as long as a minimum
unobstructed pedestrian pathway of 8’ in width is maintained. On 6th and 7th Streets, the minimum width
is 6’.
a. On the Promenade, dining may encroach up to 12 feet from the abutting property frontage to
accommodate outdoor dining. Uses located in the Promenade encroachment zone shall be in
accordance with approved Third Street Promenade outdoor dining standards and subject to an
encroachment permit.
2. Pedestrian-Oriented Frontage Design for New Development.
Where commercial space is required, the following shall apply:
a. Where commercial space is provided, aA minimum of 50’ depth of ground floor commercial space
shall be provided in the Lincoln Transition, Neighborhood Village, and Wilshire Transition Districts.
b. A minimum of 6550% of the Frontage shall be transparent and include windows, doors, and other
openings.
i. Sill height should be no higher than 2.5’ and head height should be no lower than 8’ above
finished grade.
ii. Openings shall have transparent glazing or openings that provide views into work, display, or
sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into windows displaying merchandise or items
other than signs. Such display windows shall be at least 3’ deep. This requirement may be
modified by the Architectural Review Board if it can be demonstrated that the fulfillment of this
requirement materially interferes with the project’s ability to meet the requirements of Municipal
Code Chapter 8.36 – The Energy Code.
c. Building Frontages shall be designed to be divided into 30 foot bays or less for commercial leasing
flexibility and functionality and to create a fine-grained rhythm along the street
3. Pedestrian-Oriented Ground Floor Design for New and Existing Development
All new development not required to have active commercial frontages shall include the following
pedestrian-oriented standards:
a. No more than 20% of a building’s street-level frontage, but in no case exceeding 75’, may be
continuously blank or featureless.
b. The following design elements shall be incorporated into the street-facing façades at the ground
floor level:
i. Variations in visual interest designed to be experienced by the pedestrian point of view, which
may include, but not necessarily require, such measures as, change of materials in a
complimentary manner, sensitive composition and juxtaposition of openings and solid wall
and/or building frame and projecting elements such as awnings and marquees to provide
shade and shelter;
ii. Exterior lighting which provides for a secure nighttime pedestrian environment by reinforcing
entrances, public sidewalks and open areas with a safe level of illumination which avoids off-
site glare;
c. Residential uses at the ground floor street frontage shall incorporate primary entries, which may
include planted areas, front stairs and/or other elements that contribute to a pleasant pedestrian
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment C - DCP Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
environment. Pedestrian-oriented design elements may also include street furniture or other
seating surfaces on private property and design amenities scaled to the pedestrian such as
awnings, drinking fountains, paseos, colonnades, plazas, noncommercial community bulletin
boards, public or private art and alternative paving materials in areas of pedestrian access.
d. Leasing galleries associated with a housing project shall not exceed 20 linear feet of ground floor
street frontage.
e. Glass with a visual transparency value of at least 65% shall be used at the ground floor level to
allow maximum visual access to the interior of buildings.
f.e. Mirrored and highly reflective glass shall not be permitted at any level of the structure.
g.f. Entries shall be spaced at a maximum of 100 feet.
h.g. Entries shall be articulated by one or more of the following: a canopy, awning or other covering,
signage, or recessed doorway.
i.h. When storefront security grates or grilles are provided, they shall be: located inside exterior
windows; retractable into pockets or overhead cylinders; and completely concealed when
retracted.
j.i. The Raised Terrace is a frontage type permitted in the Ocean Transition District. They are
defined by raised shop frontages with café dining in Zone 3, so the eye of the sitter is
approximately at level with walking passerby.
i. The raised platform shall be between 7 and 36 inches in height as measured from the
sidewalk grade.
ii. This type is suitable for Restaurant and Hotel uses.
iii. The floor to floor height of the Raised Terrace Frontage shall be between 16 to 21 feet tall as
measured from the terrace grade to the top of the finished floor.
iv. Fenestration shall be a minimum of 65% of the Facade’s first floor wall area.
v. Awnings shall only cover windows and doors.
vi. The dining area shall be enclosed with a permeable fence and or a row of planters to
delineate the space.
vii. Primary pedestrian access to upper stories with Ground Floor Active Frontages is flexible and
may be from the raised terrace, from a side, or any other pedestrian space.
k.j. Materials for fences, walls, and gates should be durable and complement the building and site
design. Vinyl shall not be used.
Section 2A, page 18
This chapter also includes a discussion of the process thresholds for various development types as well
as the required community benefits and fees. Housing, particularly Affordable Housing, is strongly desired
Downtown, and therefore encouraged through standards, such as 0.5 floor area ratio increase, and
process incentives. Private property owners and/ or developers should read this section before
commencement of design, to better understand what permit type to apply for, and what the City might
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment C - DCP Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
require from projects to meet the community’s long-term expectations. Community benefit formulas for
Tier 2 and non-negotiated Tier 3 non-housing projects are included in Chapter 4, Standards and
Regulations.
Section 2B, page 39
Bedroom Mix Requirements (see Zoning Ordinance)
Tier 2 and Tier 3 “average bedroom factor” requirements will result in a larger diversity of units within
Downtown.
Community Benefit Priorities – Negotiated Projects (see Chapter 2: Downtown Districts)
In addition to conforming to the Tier 2 and Tier 3 average bedroom factor requirements, negotiated
projects provide the opportunity to increase the number of larger units suitable for families to the
maximum extent feasible. These additional units could be paired with deed restrictions on rent to make
them affordable to workforce and middle-income households.
Incentives for Housing Construction (see Chapter 4: Standards and Regulations)
To encourage the production of housing Downtown, projects that meet the definition of “Housing Project”
as defined in Section 9.10.050 may qualify for a floor area ratio bonus of 0.5 FAR.
Section 2B, page 54
Action CCP1.1A Adopt DCP which anticipates at least 2500 new units in the Downtown area.
Lead Agency: City Council
Timeframe: 2017
Policy CCP1.5 Provide a 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR) bonus for qualifying mixed-use residential projects
within maximum FARs for each district.
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment C - DCP Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Chapter 4, page 71
The community’s expectation for the Bergamot Plan area to transition to an energetic, equitable and
sustainable new urban neighborhood is addressed through careful land use planning that is integrated
with circulation policies. Many of the land use policies in this section are implemented through the
Development Standards in Chapter 5 that govern scale, height, and permitted mix of uses or designed for
further development in later implementation phases. Maintaining the targets identified in the LUCE for the
balance of commercial and residential uses (60/40 in the Bergamot Transit Village and 50/50 in the
Mixed-Use Creative District) promotes a more walkable, less auto-dependent land use pattern that
meets the City’s broad social, economic and environmental goals. These integrated land use and
circulation policies will foster a neighborhood that is designed from the outset to support the City’s
broad Sustainable City Plan objectives to reduce the community’s carbon footprint and GHG emissions.
Chapter 4, Page 72
Bergamot Transit Village District
Development in the Bergamot Transit Village District (BTV) is directed to create the underlying urban fabric
for a new mixed-use neighborhood that supports a range of uses, activities, open spaces and built forms,
and which deeply integrates the new Bergamot Expo Station and the adjacent Bergamot art center into
community life. The district’s evolution into a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use destination containing jobs,
housing, retail, services, entertainment and open spaces will build upon Santa Monica’s long-standing
practice of crafting strong urban places.
Permitted Uses
This district allows for the creation of a vibrant concentration of retail and services, multi-family housing,
and creative employment and community gathering spaces, especially in proximity to transit. For the
Bergamot Transit Village, a mix of 60% commercial and 40% residential use is established as the target for
new development. The permitted densities for the Bergamot Transit Village were determined so as to
achieve a scale that is consistent with the community vision for a pedestrian-oriented district that provides
high quality open spaces, and that is oriented to and accessible by transit. Consequently, densities have
been reduced from those described in the LUCE. Permitted development densities are:
Tier I: 1.75 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Tier II: 2.0 FAR
Tier III: 2.5 FAR
Chapter 4, page 73
Figure 4.B.02 Map and Legend:
Bergamot Transit Village (BTV) FAR: 1.75, 2.0, 2.5; Housing Projects FAR:
4.0 Mixed Use Creative North of Pennsylvania or South of Expo Bike Path: FAR: 1.5, 1.7,
2.2; Housing Projects FAR: 3.25
Mixed Use Creative (MUC) FAR: FAR: 1.5, 1.7, 2.2; Housing Projects FAR: 4.0
Conservation: Art Center (CAC) Parcels over 100,000 SF, FAR: 1.0; Parcels under 100,000
SF, FAR: 1.0, 1.5, 2.5; Housing Projects FAR: 2.50
Conservation: Creative Sector (CCS) FAR: 1.5; Housing Projects FAR: 2.50
Chapter 4, page 75
Mixed-Use Creative District
The Mixed-Use Creative District (MUC) will emphasize the continuation of the area’s diverse creative and
cultural offerings. It will also encourage the infill of new, complementary uses as a way to provide a
more balanced and sustainable land use pattern that connects residents, employees and visitors to the
district, the neighboring BTV, the Bergamot Expo Station and the Bergamot art center. Existing uses are
encouraged to remain and will be bolstered by the balance of new creative arts jobs, housing affordable to
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
the workforce and supportive local-serving retail and services. In consideration to their size and the
character of existing development, smaller parcels will be developed at lower densities and smaller building
scales than those of the BTV District. As in the BTV, the Mixed-Use Creative District’s evolution as a
pedestrian-oriented environment is promoted through policies and standards. The eastern edge of the
MUC will also be easily accessible from the new Bundy Expo Station in the City of Los Angeles.
Permitted Uses
A mix of 50% commercial and 50% residential use is established as the target for new development in the
MUC District. The permitted densities for the MUC District were determined in order to achieve a scale that
is consistent with the community vision for a pedestrian-oriented district that provides high-quality open
spaces, and that is oriented to and accessible by transit. Consequently, densities have been reduced
from those described in the LUCE. Permitted development densities are:
Tier I: 1.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Tier II: 1.7 FAR
Tier III: 2.2 FAR
As described for the BTV, a blend of uses will be accommodated, including new affordable housing,
housing affordable to the workforce and market-rate housing. These housing types are more completely
described in Table 5.02 in Chapter 5.
Chapter 4, page 76
Conservation: Creative Sector District
Within the Conservation: Creative Sector (CCS) District, emphasis will be placed on small-scale creative
arts, media production, entertainment uses, digital technology, incubators, business services and
supporting uses, such as restaurants and cafés, and housing as defined in Table 5.02. To protect the
scale and character of this important creative cluster within the Plan area, permitted development densities
shall be limited to (Tier I) 1.5 FAR. This restriction is balanced by incentives that can assist creative
businesses in meeting their needs for a certain amount of on-site expansion.
Conservation: Art Center District
As an area-wide anchor for the creative sector, the Conservation: Art Center (CAC) District shall feature
uses which contribute to and enhance both the arts and cultural functions of the Bergamot art center and
the identity it establishes. These uses may include art galleries, studios, exhibition halls, performance
spaces, museums, restaurants and cafés, visitor accommodations and similar uses. Small-scale creative
office uses and housing are also permitted. Distinct densities in the Conservation: Art Center District are
based on parcel size, as described below:
Parcels over 100,000 SF
Tiers I-III: 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Parcels under 100,00 SF
Tier I: 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Tier II: 1.5* FAR
Tier III: 2.5* FAR
*0.5 FAR must be devoted to space for arts-related and arts-compatible uses. Artist live/work could be
considered provided the primary space is used for work.
8.A.d
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
BerettaRose Photography DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & LAND USE REGULATIONS 8.A.dPacket Pg. 339Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
146 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards 8.A.dPacket Pg. 340Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 147 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Development Standards and Land Use Regulations This section of the Plan sets out the Development Standards to ensure that all proposed development supports the goals and vision of the Plan as described in Chapter 4, Core Components. The Development Standards include the following sections, which provide a framework for the intended urban form and character, Section A: Land Use Regulations and Section B: Development Standards. The Land Use Regulations define permitted uses in the Bergamot Plan area. The Development Standards regulate new site and building development by establishing standards for intensity, building height, open space and other elements. Development standards include street‐based frontage standards, which regulate building frontages along existing and new streets to form adequate and pedestrian‐friendly street walls. If provisions in the Bergamot Area Plan and the Zoning Ordinance are in conflict, the provisions in the Bergamot Area Plan shall be applied. Where Zoning Ordinance provisions are not specifically addressed by the Bergamot Area Plan, the Zoning Ordinance shall be applied. Projects that include affordable housing on City‐Owned properties shall be exempted from 8.A.dPacket Pg. 341Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
148 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards the Bergamot Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance pursuant to SMMC Section 9.01.040(A)(1)(d). 8.A.dPacket Pg. 342Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 149 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards All projects in the Bergamot Plan area will undergo a City design review and permit process as required by the Zoning Ordinance. As discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, the LUCE sets out three tiers for new development in the Bergamot Plan Area. Tier I is baseline, by‐right development up to the discretionary review thresholds established by the Zoning Ordinance. Tier II and Tier III projects are allowed additional intensity and height if the associated development provides community benefits. Table 5.01 Key to Land Use Regulations Table Category Designator Category Description P Permitted uses L(#) Limited uses, which are permitted provided they comply with specified standards; for example, a limitation on floor area, indicated by a footnote in the use regulation table MUP Minor conditional uses, which require approval of a Minor Use Permit based on discretionary review conducted by the Planning and Community Development Director CUP Conditional uses, which require approval of a Conditional Use Permit based on discretionary review conducted by the Planning Commission ‐ Prohibited uses, which are not allowed in the district or overlay In addition to compliance with the requirements of this chapter, Tier II and Tier III projects shall comply with the following: Tier II • Record a deed restriction that requires the property owner and all building tenants to join and maintain membership in the TMA for the life of the project. This requirement shall be included in all leases. • Provide all Tier II requirements specified in the City’s Municipal Code, Article IX ( Zoning Ordinance). In order to ensure that new development at the Tier II level contributes to the identity and development of the Bergamot Plan area, Tier II level fees (beyond fees that are Code base requirements) shall be allocated to appropriate projects within the Bergamot Plan area to the extent feasible. • Notwithstanding the above, the Zoning Ordinance Update process will consider requiring that projects in the Bergamot Plan area pay a higher Transportation Impact Feet (TIF), to be allocated as above. Tier III Tier III applicants should review Chapter 4, Section B: Land Use for Community Benefits, and incorporate appropriate project components to satisfy the requirement to include substantial additional amenities that the community has prioritized in the Bergamot Plan area. Any fees collected shall be allocated to appropriate projects within the Bergamot Plan area. Actual project features shall be negotiated during the Development Agreement process. Allocation of Unused Fees If there are no potential projects that can utilize the Tier II fund contributions within five years of payment, the funds may be used for City projects outside the Plan area. A. LAND USE REGULATIONS Table 5.02 presents the land use regulations for the Bergamot Transit Village (BTV), Mixed‐Use Creative (MUC), Conservation: Art Center (CAC) and Conservation: Creative Sector (CCS) Districts, as well as the Pedestrian Priority Corridor (PPC) and Retail Priority (RP) Overlays (see Figure 5.01 for boundaries of the districts). Any other uses not included in the table are prohibited and covered by the general rule, which states that any uses not specifically authorized are prohibited. The key to the land use regulations table is found in Table 5.01. The new districts created in this Plan permit many of the uses that are permitted in the BTV and MUC districts defined in the LUCE. However, residential uses other than live/work units is prohibited in the Conservation ‐ Creative Sector District in order to conserve its creative arts character. There are also further use restrictions in the overlay districts in order to promote active streets. In the case of conflict between an underlying district and an overlay district, the overlay district standards shall prevail. However, additional residential uses are not permitted on properties in an overlay district with underlying Conservation‐CCS District zoning. Use classifications have been divided into residential uses or non‐residential uses (see Table 5.02). For land use definitions, please refer to the Zoning Ordinance. See also the table footnotes on page 138. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 343Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
150 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Table 5.02 Land Use Regulations DISTRICTS OVERLAYS Bergamot Transit Village (BTV) MU-Creative (MUC) Conservation: art Center (CAC) Conservation: Creative Sector (CCS) Pedestrian Priority Corridor (PPC) Retail Priority (RP) Residential Uses Dwelling, Single‐Unit ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Dwelling, Second UnitAccessory Dwelling Unit ‐P ‐P ‐P ‐P ‐P ‐P Dwelling, Duplex ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Elderly and Long‐Term Care P P CUP ‐ P ‐ Emergency Shelters P P CUP ‐ ‐ ‐ Existing Mobile Home Park ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Family Day Care, Small or Large P P CUP ‐ P P Group Residential (includes congregate, senior group, supportive) P P CUP ‐ P L(1) Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P Live/work P P CUP P P L(1) Multiple‐Unit StructureDwelling (includes senior, transitional, supportive) P P CUPP ‐P P L(1) Residential Care Facilities P P CUP ‐ L(1) L(1) Single‐Room Occupancy Housing P P CUP ‐ P L(1) Non-residential Uses Animal Care, Sales, and Services See subclassifications below. Kennels ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Grooming and Pet Stores P P P L(2) L(2) L(2) Pet Day Care Services MUP MUP ‐ MUP ‐ ‐ Veterinary Services MUP MUP ‐ MUP ‐ ‐ Artist's Studio P P P P P P Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Service ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Banks and Financial Institutions See subclassifications below. Banks and Credit Unions, < 5,000 sq. ft. P P ‐ P P P Banks and Credit Unions, > 5,000 sq. ft. CUP CUP ‐ CUP CUP CUP Check Cashing Businesses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Bicycle Rental and Share Stations P P P P P P Business Services P P P P L(2) L(2) College and Trade Schools, Public or Private CUP CUP CUP ‐ CUP ‐ 8.A.dPacket Pg. 344Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 151 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Districts overlays Bergamot Transit Village (BTV) MU‐Creative (MUC) Conservation: art Center (CAC) Conservation: Creative Sector (CCS) Pedestrian Priority Corridor (PPC) Retail Priority (RP) Commercial Entertainment and Recreation See subclassifications below. Cinemas & Theaters, up to 99 seats P P P P P CUP Cinemas & Theaters, more than 99 seats CUP ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Convention and Conference Centers See subclassifications below. Large‐scale, >= 25,000 sf CUP ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Small‐scale, < 25,000 sf CUP CUP CUP ‐ CUP CUP Commercial Kitchens CUP CUP ‐ CUP/L(1) CUP/L(1) CUP/L(1) Commercial Recreational Facilities, Large‐scale CUP ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Commercial Recreational Facilities, Small‐scale MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP/L(1) MUP/L(1) Communication Facilities See subclassifications below. Antennas and Transmission Towers MUP MUP ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Equipment/Facilities within Buildings CUP CUP ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Community Assembly CUP CUP CUP ‐ CUP CUP Community Gardens P P P P P MUP Cultural Facilities P P P P P P Day Care Centers P P ‐ P L(1) L(1) Eating and Drinking Establishments See subclassifications below. Bars/Nightclubs/Lounges CUP CUP MUP CUP CUP CUP Restaurants, Full or Limited Service, up to 50 seats (including accessory bar seats) P P P P P P Restaurants, Full or Limited Service, more than 50 seats (including accessory bar seats) P P P CUP P P Restaurants, Drive‐Through Facilities ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Restaurants, Accessory Live Entertainment P P P P P P Restaurants, Outdoor Eating Areas P P P P P P Equipment Rental MUP MUP ‐ MUP MUP ‐ Flex Vehicle Spaces, accessory L(7) L(7) L(7) L(7) L(7) L(7) Food and Beverage Sales L(8) L(8) CUP/L(2) CUP/L(2) L(2) L(2) Funeral Parlors and Mortuaries ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8.A.dPacket Pg. 345Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
152 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Districts overlays Bergamot Transit Village (BTV) MU‐Creative (MUC) Conservation: art Center (CAC) Conservation: Creative Sector (CCS) Pedestrian Priority Corridor (PPC) Retail Priority (RP) Hospitals and Clinics, <= 5,000 sq. ft. MUP MUP ‐ MUP ‐ ‐ Hospitals and Clinics, > 5,000 sq. ft. CUP CUP ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Industry, General ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Industry, Research and Development P P L(2) L(2) L(1) L(1) Industry, Limited P P L(2) L(2) P P Instructional Services P P L(5) L(5) L(1) L(1) Lodging See subclassifications below. Bed and Breakfast ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Hotels and Motels CUP CUP CUP ‐ CUP CUP Maintenance and Repair Services, <= 5,000 sq. ft. MUP MUP ‐ MUP ‐ ‐ Maintenance and Repair Services, > 5,000 sq. ft. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Media Production See subclassifications below. Movie or Recording Studio P P P P L(1) L(1) Support Facilities P P ‐ P L(6) L(6) Nurseries and Garden Centers P P ‐ ‐ MUP/L(4) MUP/L(4) Offices See subclassifications below. Business and Professional, <= 5,000 sq. ft. P P ‐ ‐ L(1) L(1) Business and Professional, > 5,000 sq. ft. CUP CUP ‐ ‐ CUP/L(1) CUP/L(1) Creative P P P P P L(1) Medical and Dental CUP CUP ‐ CUP CUP CUP Walk‐In Clientele P P ‐ ‐ P P Park and Recreation Facilities, Public P P P P P P Parking, Shared: New Standalone Public or Private P P P ‐ CUP CUP Personal Services See subclassifications below. General Personal Services P P ‐ P P P Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor MUP MUP ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Public Safety Facilities P P L(3) P P P Recycling Facilities, <= 5,000 sq. ft. CUP CUP ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8.A.dPacket Pg. 346Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 153 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Recycling Facilities, > 5,000 sq. ft. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Districts overlays Bergamot Transit Village (BTV) MU‐Creative (MUC) Conservation: art Center (CAC) Conservation: Creative Sector (CCS) Pedestrian Priority Corridor (PPC) Retail Priority (RP) Retail Sales, General See subclassifications below. Art Galleries P P P P P P Building Material Sales and Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Firearms and Ammunition Sales ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ General Retail Sales, < 15,000 sq. ft. P P P P L(2) L(2) General Retail Sales, > 15,000 sq. ft. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Pawn Shops ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Schools, Public or Private CUP CUP CUP ‐ CUP ‐ Social Service Centers P P ‐ ‐ MUP L(1) Swap Meet CUP CUP CUP ‐ ‐ ‐ Vehicle Rental, Accessory to Primary Use P P P ‐ ‐ ‐ Utilities See subclassifications below. Utilities, Major ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Utilities, Minor P P P P P P Warehousing, Storage and Distribution ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Footnotes: L(1) Not allowed on the ground floor for the first 40 feet of lot depth, except residential uses in the BTV/PPC Overlay District L(2) Limited to 4,000 sq. ft. or less. L(3) Limited to 15,000 sq. ft. or less. L(4) Nurseries and Gardens Centers permitted if all goods, except planted stock, are kept entirely within an enclosed building. L(5) Limited to arts related uses only. L(6) Not allowed on the ground floor for the first 40 feet of lot depth on Nebraska Avenue. L(7) Flex vehicle spaces within areas otherwise used for parking and not as a stand‐alone use. L(8) Limited to 4,000 sq. ft. or less. Notwithstanding, one (1) new food & beverage sales facility may be permitted in the Plan area, in either the BTV or MUC District, that exceeds the 4,000 square foot limit and may be a maximum of 15,000 square feet. B. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards in Table 5.03 are specific to the districts in the Bergamot Plan area. Certain standards are flexible to allow for architectural innovation if approved by the authorized review entity (see B.11 for Flexible Development Standards). B.1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum floor area ratios (FARs) for Tier I, Tier II and Tier III projects are established in Tables 5.03(A) & (B). In the Bergamot Plan area, floor area ratio 8.A.dPacket Pg. 347Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
154 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards includes only building area at or above grade. In circumstances where publicly accessible roads and pathways are negotiated, FAR will be calculated on the gross area of the project site. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 348Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
8.A.dPacket Pg. 349Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
154 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.1.01 Exemptions from FAR calculation. The following shall not be included in the FAR calculation. a. Below‐grade (subterranean) building area b. Open roof decks or covered roof decks that are more than 75% unenclosed c. Outdoor dining areas adjacent to the public right of way B.1.02 Low Income/Workforce Housing Units. For Notwithstanding any bonus provided by the State Density Bonus Law, SMMC Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus, housing projects, Tier I, and Tier II projects in the BTV and MUC Districts, for all units in a project above and beyond those required by the AHPP, A a FAR bonus shall be provided equivalent to 25% of the floor area constructed for affordable/ workforce housing, provided: a. The units contain at least one bedroom (no studios) b. At least 50% of the bonus residential units shall be deed‐restricted for affordability to a maximum of 80% area median income (AMI). The remainder shall be deed‐restricted for any affordability level up to 120% of AMI. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 350Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 155 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Table 5.03(A) Development Standards for Projects not Meeting the Definition of Housing Project Development Standards Bergamot Transit Village Conservation: Art Center MU-Creative Conservation: Creative Sector TIER Tier I Tier II Tier III Tier I Tier II Tier III Tier I Tier II Tier III Tier I Tier II Tier III HEIGHT LIMIT (SEE B.2) Standard (Variation) 32’ (39’) 60’ 75’ (86’) 32’ 60’ 75’ (86’) 32’ (36’) 47’ 57’ 32’ (36’) not allowed FAR (SEE B.1) Parcel >= 100,000 sf 1.75 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.70 2.2 1.5 not allowed Parcel < 100,000 sf 1.75 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5*** 2.5*** 1.5 1.70 2.2 1.5 not allowed REQUIRED MIX OF USES (SEE B.4) Parcels over 120,000 sf None None 50% Commercial/ 50% Residential None BUILDING MODULATION OF TOP FLOORS: PERCENTAGE OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT (SEE B.5) Max Height (Top Floor) 100% 90% 50% None 100% 75% 75% None Top Floor minus 1 Floor 100% 100% 90% None 100% 90% 90% None MAXIMUM FLOOR PLATE (SEE B.6) 35,000 sf 15,000 sf 25,000 sf 15,000 sf MINIMUM AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE (% OF SITE AREA) (SEE B.8) Site > 80,000 sf 20% 20% 25% None**** 15% 15% 20% 15%***** Site 40,000 sf ‐80,000 sf 15% 15% 20% 15% 12% 12% 15% 12%***** Site < 40,000 sf 10% 10% 15% 10% 7% 7% 10% 7%***** MINIMUM SIZE OF PRIMARY OPEN SPACE* 4,000 sf 4,000 sf 6,000 sf None**** 2,500 sf 4,000 sf 6,000 sf 2,500 sf ***** MINIMUM DEPTH AND MAxIMUMMAXIMUM WIDTH OF NON‐OFFICE COMMERCIAL (SEE B.9) Minimum Depth 40 feet None 40 feet None Frontage Width 15’ minimum 60’ maximum None 15’ minimum 60’ maximum None MAXxIMUM SIZE OF NON‐OFFICE COMMERCIAL** (SEE B.9) 15,000 sf 15,000 sf 15,000 sf 7,500 sf ACCESS AND PARkKING STANDARDS (SEE B.14) See Section 5.B.14 See Section 5.B.14 See Section 5.B.14 See Section 5.B.14 * On small parcels, if the minimum required size of the Primary Open Space is larger than the minimum required open space percentage, no Primary Open Space needs to be provided. ** Any retail space ranging from 10,000 sf to 15,000 sf requires any additional retail adjacent to the retail space to be 5,000 sf or less in size. *** 0.5 FAR must be devoted to space for arts‐related and arts‐compatible uses. Artist live/work could be considered provided the primary space is used for work. **** Open Space on City‐owned property shall be determined through a Development Agreement. ***** No open space requirement for additions to existing buildings in the Conservation ‐ Creative Sector District. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 351Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
156 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Table 5.03(B) Development Standards for Projects that Meet the Definition of Housing Project Development Standards Bergamot Transit Village Conservation: Art Center MU-Creative Conservation: Creative Sector HEIGHT Housing Projects 84’ 55’ 84’ (North of Pennsylvania Ave parcel line or South of Expo Bike Path – 70’) 55’ 100% Affordable Housing Projects 94’ 65’ 94’ (North of Pennsylvania Ave parcel line or South of Expo Bike Path – 80’) 65’ FAR (See B.1) Housing Project 4.0 2.50 4.0 (North of Pennsylvania Ave parcel line or South of Expo Bike Path – 3.25) 2.50 100% Affordable Housing Projects 4.5 3.0 4.5 (North of Pennsylvania Ave parcel line or South of Expo Bike Path – 3.75) 3.0 BUILDING MODULATION OF TOP FLOORS: PERCENTAGE OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT (SEE B.5) Max Height (Top Floor) 50% None 75% None Top Floor minus 1 Floor 90% None 90% None MAXIMUM FLOOR PLATE (SEE B.6) 35,000 sf 15,000 sf 25,000 sf 15,000 sf MINIMUM AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE (% OF SITE AREA)** (SEE B.8) Site > 80,000 sf 25% None 20% 15%***** Site 40,000 sf ‐80,000 sf 20% 15% 15% 12%***** Site < 40,000 sf 15% 10% 10% 7%* MINIMUM SIZE OF PRIMARY OPEN SPACE* 6,000 sf None 6,000 sf 2,500 sf * MINIMUM DEPTH AND MAXIMUM WIDTH OF NON‐OFFICE COMMERCIAL (SEE B.9) Minimum Depth 40 feet None 40 feet None Frontage Width 15’ minimum 60’ maximum None 15’ minimum 60’ maximum None MAXIMUM SIZE OF NON‐OFFICE COMMERCIAL** (SEE B.9) 15,000 sf 15,000 sf 15,000 sf 7,500 sf 8.A.dPacket Pg. 352Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 157 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards ACCESS AND PARKING STANDARDS (SEE B.14) See Section 5.B.14 See Section 5.B.14 See Section 5.B.14 See Section 5.B.14 * No open space requirement for additions to existing buildings in the Conservation ‐ Creative Sector District. ** On small parcels, if the minimum required size of the Primary Open Space is larger than the minimum required open space percentage, no Primary Open Space needs to be provided. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 353Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
158 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards CARMELINA AVENUE CENTINELA AVENUE FRANKLIN STREET WARWICK AVENUE BERKELEY STREET STANFORD STREET STEWART STREET STEWART STREET CLOVERFIELD BOULEVARD Land Use Districts The Bergamot Plan area is divided into four districts that emphasize creative arts and local employment opportunities, cultural enrichment, housing and supportive retail businesses. They differ in their physical character, scale and urban form. The Bergamot Transit Village and the Mixed‐Use Creative District support a wide range of uses and activities. The two Conservation Districts are delineated with specific uses, heights and densities that conserve their existing buildings and uses. Figure 5.01 Land Use Districts Districts Bergamot Transit Village (BTV) Pedestrian Priority Corridor (PPC)** Retail Priority on Ground Floor (RP)** *Overlays not to scale **Applies to first 40 feet of street frontage only COLORADO AVENUE COLORADO AVENUE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NEBRASKA AVENUE 8.A.dPacket Pg. 354Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 159 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards 0 200 400 600 Feet NORTHB.2 Height Limits Maximum building heights are established for Tier I, Tier II and Tier III projects in the Plan area (see Fig. 5.03 for District Building Heights). CARMELINA AVENUE Tier I sets the Base Height, Tier II allows for additional height above the Base Height if substantial community benefits are provided and Tier III allows for additional height above Tier II if additional substantial community benefits are provided. In the Transit Village District and Conservation: Art Center District, the maximum height permitted in Tier I is 32 feet, with additional height up to 39 feet for projects that include a housing component. For Tier II projects, the maximum height is 60 feet. For Tier III projects, a maximum building height of up to 75 feet is permitted, with additional height: • to 81 feet allowed if there is a corresponding percentage decrease in the FAR for the actual building height that is above 75 feet, and • up to 86 feet if the ground floor‐to‐floor height is increased from 13.5 feet up to 18.5 feet. STEWART STREET FRANKLIN STREET BERKELEY STREET STANFORD STREET CENTINELA AVENUE STEWART STREET WARWICK AVENUE Figure 5.02 Building Heights and Floor Area Ratios CLOVERFIELD BOULEVARD COLORADO AVENUE COLORADO AVENUE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NEBRASKA AVENUE 8.A.dPacket Pg. 355Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
160 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Not Permitted Not Permitted In the Mixed‐Use Creative District, the maximum height permitted in Tier I is 32 feet, with additional height up to 36 feet permitted for projects that build affordable housing units per the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program. For Tier II projects, the maximum height is 47 feet. For Tier III projects, a maximum building height of up to 57 feet is permitted. In the Conservation: Creative Sector District, only Tier I projects are permitted, with a maximum height of 32 feet, with additional height up to 36 feet for projects that include a live/work component. In the Bergamot Plan area, maximum permitted heights are measured in feet. Other standards use stories rather than a linear dimension to regulate height, including Standard B.3 Transitional Zones, B.5 Building Modulation of Top Floors and B.10 Street‐Based Frontage Standards. This is to provide flexibility to accommodate the different floor‐to‐floor dimensions for residential or commercial buildings. Additional height is permitted in all districts for 100% affordable housing projects as defined in SMMC Section 9.52.020.0050 and housing projects as defined in SMMC Section 9.52.020.1125. B.3 Transitional Zones Where Bergamot Plan area properties face existing residential properties outside the Plan area, the following standard applies. Note that this condition exists in only the following places: (1) facing across Colorado Avenue, (2) facing across Exposition Boulevard and (3) facing alleys between Franklin and Berkeley and between Berkeley and Stanford. Street Frontage. Properties facing across Colorado Avenue and Exposition Boulevard: • Colorado Avenue and Exposition Boulevard are defined as the Complete Street street type (see Figure 5.10). For this street type, the build‐to line is defined as 5 feet back from the property line. • For the first three stories in height, 100% of the building is permitted to be built to the build‐to line. The height of three stories is assumed to be no more than 36 feet. • For the next story, a minimum of 75% of the building shall be set back 10 feet or more from the build‐to line. The height of four stories is assumed to be no more than 47 feet. • For the following story, a minimum of 75% of the building shall be set back 20 feet or more from the build‐to line. The height of five stories is assumed to be no more than 57 feet. • Properties in this district (Mixed‐Use Creative) have a maximum height of 57 feet. Rear Yard. Properties facing alleys between Franklin Street and Berkeley Street and between Berkeley Street and Stanford Street: • Building walls facing alleys shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from property line. • Properties in this district (Conservation: Creative Sector) have a maximum height of 36 feet. Figure 5.03 Transitional Zone ‐ Street Frontage Figure 5.04 Transitional Zone ‐ Rear Yard 8.A.dPacket Pg. 356Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 161 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards 8.A.dPacket Pg. 357Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
162 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.4 Mix of Uses B.4.01 Ratio for Large Projects. For parcels of over 120,000 square feet in area, projects shall provide a mix of commercial and residential uses as shown in Table 5.03. The ratio is expressed in floor area and can vary from the ratio up to 10% in either direction for flexibility. The mix of uses can be achieved as vertical mixed‐use (on top of each other) or horizontal mixed‐use (in neighboring buildings) (see Figure 5.05 for illustration). B.4.02 Ground Floor Commercial. Residential projects shall have a commercial component on the ground floor along street types that require active ground floors (see B.10 Street‐ Based Frontage Standards). B.5B.4 Building Modulation of Top Floors The top two floors of new Tier II or Tier III projects, or housing projects buildings shall adhere to set standards for maximum footprint. They are limited to a percentage of the largest floor plate in the building, which may or may not be the ground floor. One‐ and two‐story buildings are exempt from these standards (see Table 5.03 and refer to Figure 5.06 for illustration). B.6B.5 Maximum Building Floor Plate B.6.01 In order to create an attractive and pleasant environment that is respectful of human scale, floor plates of new buildings are limited to the maximum square footage set in Table 5.03. Figure 5.05 Mix of Uses Figure 5.06 Building Modulation of Top Floors Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 3 90% 50% 75% 75% 100% 90% 90% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% Figure 5.07 Maximum Building Floor Plate Vertical Residential Park Modern Building ‐ Seattle, WA. Source: Build LLC SF floor plates (permitted) 8.A.dPacket Pg. 358Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 163 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.7B.6 Restrictions on Parcel Aggregation B.7.01 In the Conservation: Creative Sector District only, existing parcels may not be aggregated with other parcels to create larger parcels. B.8 Open Space Standards These standards require open space for all projects except where exemptions are indicated. Larger open space with additional amenities may be proposed as a Community Benefit for Tier II and III projects. Figure 5.08 Open Space Configurations Usable Open Space Primary Open Space Primary Open Space Usable Open Space B.8.01 Minimum Area. All projects (except for existing buildings in the Conservation ‐ Creative Sector District) are required to provide a minimum amount of open space on‐site. The minimum amount of open space depends on the District, the size of the development site and the Building Tier, as set forth in Table 5.03 (see Figure 5.08 for illustration). B.8.02 Required Dimensions: Primary Open Spaces 40’ Min. able Open Space ared Street vel Lanes mary Open Space Usable Open Space Primary Open Space shall have a minimum average dimension of 40 feet in two opposing directions (see Figure 5.08 for examples of open space configurations). B.8.03 Tier III Design Requirements: For Tier III projects, each project is required to design the open space required in B.8.01 as publicly accessible and usable open space, and shall include at least one Primary Open Space. Primary Open Space is defined as a special open space or plaza that is the most significant in the overall identity of the project. Every applicant shall identify the Primary Open Space in submittal documents. B.8.04 Accessibility and Visibility: All open space shall be directly accessible and visible from a public right‐of‐way, shall be at ground level and open to the sky, except as permitted in B.8.12. B.8.05 Lighting: Illumination levels in open spaces are required to maintain one horizontal foot candle across all walkable and seating areas in the open space, and along sidewalks adjacent to the open space. B.8.06 Amenities: Usable open space shall include the provision of trees and human‐scaled seating, landscaping, shading and lighting to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board. B.8.07 Mid‐block Pedestrian Connections: Mid‐block pedestrian connections shall comply with the following: a. The minimum width shall be 16 feet. If the connection serves as fire access, minimum width shall be determined by the Building Code. b. At least one circulation path that is a minimum of 8 feet in width, with amenities such as seating, lighting and trees. Min. Min. Us Pr 8.A.dPacket Pg. 359Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
164 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards c. Mid‐block connections may count towards the open space requirement provided they are designed as usable open space and are designed and maintained to exclude automobile traffic. B.8.08 Connection with the Sidewalk: Where open spaces front onto a street, they shall connect to the sidewalk at grade level. Minor changes of elevation of no more than 2 feet are permitted within the first 15 feet back from the edge of sidewalk. Changes of elevation of no more than 4 feet are permitted, provided that the elevated area is located at least 15 feet from the sidewalk. Sunken plazas shall be no more than 18 inches below the street level. All must meet federal ADA guidelines. B.8.09 Placement of Elements Along Sidewalk Frontage: At least 50% of the linear sidewalk frontage of a Primary Open Space is required to be unobstructed by fixed elements, including walls or planters higher than 42 inches, fixed trash receptacles or elements that are permitted elsewhere in the open space. This zone of unobstructed open space shall extend back from the property line a minimum of 15’. Seating, including fixed seating, is permitted in this zone. B.8.10 Active Uses: In order to activate and enliven open space areas, the following shall be required. Active uses are defined in Section B.10 Street‐Based Frontage Standards. a. No less than 50% of building frontages adjacent to Primary Open Spaces shall be composed of active uses, as measured in a linear direction along the perimeter. b. Active uses, open spaces and entries shall be oriented to the Primary Open Space. c. Active uses are permitted to spill out into Primary Open Space if they provide seating and shading. B.8.11 Open Space Furniture and Other Elements: Open space furniture and other elements are permitted to occupy up to a maximum of 40% of the area of a plaza or open space. Allowable features include such items fixed or movable seating, plantings, lights, signage and trash receptacles. B.8.12 Awnings and other Coverings: Permanent coverings associated with buildings, including awnings and bridges, and/or freestanding canopies, such as band shells, shall not cover more than 25% of the square footage of the open space, and shall have a minimum clearance of 8 feet. If overhanging a fire access lane, minimum clearance for coverings shall be established by the Building Code. B.8.13 Primary Open Space – Prohibited Elements: The following shall not be permitted in or directly adjacent to a Primary Open Space. a. Mechanical Systems: Building mechanical systems shall not be exhausted within or at the perimeter of Primary Open Spaces. Mechanical intakes on adjacent building walls shall be installed at a minimum height of 15 feet above the open space grade. b. Auto‐related Elements: Garage entrances, driveways, parking spaces and loading docks. c. Trash or other solid waste storage facilities. B.8.14 Plant Species Types and Irrigation: For planting, trees and irrigation, refer to the City of Santa Monica’s Landscaping Standards. Also, see Chapter 7, Street Standards, for an approved list of tree species by street. B.8.15 Residential Entries: Entries to individual residential units are permitted in open spaces, if they are recessed by at least 5 feet from public or publicly‐accessible private walkways and sidewalks. B.8.16 Ground floor Windows: Glazing on the ground floor shall be transparent and non‐reflective. B.8.17 Fences, Walls and Hedges: Fences, walls and hedges within Primary Open Spaces are permitted with a maximum height of 42 inches. B.8.18 Art Center Open Space: Existing and new development on both the City‐owned parcel and other parcels within the Conservation: Art Center will share open space and contribute to its construction and maintenance as determined in a Development Agreement. Configuration, size and other design parameters will also be determined in the Development Agreement. B.8.19 Off‐Site Alternative: With approval through a discretionary process, 50% of the required open space is allowed to be provided off‐site if it is held in permanent trust as publicly accessible, and if it is located in the Bergamot Plan area. B.9 Minimum Depth of Retail Space Where projects provide spaces for retail establishments at the ground floor, these spaces shall comply with the standards set forth in Table 5.03. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 360Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 165 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards STEWART STREET CARMELINA AVENUE BERKELEY STREET STANFORD STREET CENTINELA AVENUE FRANKLIN STREET STEWART STREET WARWICK AVENUE B.10 Street‐Based Frontage Standards This section provides street‐based frontage standards for each street type included in the Plan. The standards ensure an integrated approach to the public realm by relating the frontage type of new development to the street type that the building faces. A certain percentage of the external building wall is required to meet the frontage line (build‐to line) to define the street wall. The standards for each street type are designed to be compatible with the character, use and width of the street. The standards in this section govern new construction, remodels, additions and open space on private land. Standards for design and construction of the street right‐of‐way in the Bergamot Plan area can be found in Chapter 7, Street Standards and Guidelines. Street types include Complete Streets, Flexible Streets, Shared‐Space Streets, Landscape Emphasis Streets, and Pedestrian/Bike‐Ped Paths (see Figure 5.09). B.10.1 Integration of Project Features. Tier II and III projects shall integrate on‐site community benefits, such as cultural and community facilities, so that they are consistent with the intent of these standards. CLOVERFIELD BOULEVARD Figure 5.09 Street Frontage Types Complete Street Landscape Emphasis Street Flexible Street Pedestrian Path Shared‐Space Street Pedestrian Priority Corridor* COLORADO AVENUE COLORADO AVENUE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NEBRASKA AVENUE 8.A.dPacket Pg. 361Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
166 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.10.2 Projects with more than one street frontage. Where projects front on two or more streets, the following hierarchy should be followed. From the higher ranked to the lower ranked (first to last) as listed below, both the main and pedestrian entrances of buildings should face 1) Pedestrian Priority Corridor, 2) Flexible Street, 3) Landscape Emphasis Street, 4) Traditional Complete Street, 5) Shared‐Space Street, and 6) Pedestrian Path or Alley. Project applicants should determine the primary façade orientation for their project and indicate it in their application. Main building entries and Primary Open Spaces should be oriented to the higher street in the hierarchy. B.10.3 First Two Stories at Frontage Line. Because the first two stories of a building define the quality of the pedestrian experience, a minimum percentage of the first two stories of all building façades of a project must be located at the build‐to line. Building recesses within 12 feet of the build‐to line are considered for this purpose to be located at the build‐to line. Any stories above the first two floors are not required to adhere to the frontage line (see Table 5.04). One‐story façade frontages qualify if they have a height of 24 feet or greater, as determined by the Director of Planning & Community Development or his/her designee. Accessory buildings, such as kiosks are exempt from this standard. Definitions of Standards: Active Ground Floor: Active Ground Floor uses include retail, restaurant, services, residential (if individual unit entries are oriented along the frontage), lobby entries, offices (if fenestration is provided), workshops (if entries are oriented along the frontage), live/work and community gathering spaces. The minimum percentage established in Table 5.08 refers to the amount of active uses that must occupy the first floor of the building along the street frontage, as expressed in linear feet. Build‐to Line: The build‐to line is set by each street type as a distance to the property line. The building’s front façade is to be built on the build‐to line. Building recesses of up to 12 feet back from the build‐to line are permitted, if they are occupied by landscaping or usable open space. Fenestration at Ground Floor: Exterior walls of ground floor uses facing and within 125 feet of the street frontage line (build‐to line) shall include windows, doors or other openings in the building wall area located between 2.5 and 7 feet above ground level (see Table 5.04 for minimum percentage of fenestration per street type). Ground Floor Height: The minimum Ground Floor Height is established in Table 5.04, measured from the top of the ground floor to the top of the next floor above. Façade Height at Frontage Line: Minimum and maximum façade heights are established per street frontage type and district and are expressed by the number of stories (see Table 5.04, and Section B.2 Height Limits in the Development Standards). Building setbacks (B.5 Building Modulation of Top Floors) shall be observed above this height. See Figure 5.06. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 362Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 167 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Table 5.04 Street Frontage Standards STREET FRONTAGE STANDARDS FLEXIBLE STREET COMPLETE STREET* SHARED SPACE STREET* LANDSCAPE EMPHASIS STREET* PEDESTRIAN PATH ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR MIN. % OF ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR 75% 50% 50% 25% 25% MIN. % OF FENESTRATION AT GROUND FLOOR 75% 50% 50% 50% 50% MIN. GROUND FLOOR‐ TO‐FLOOR HEIGHT 18’ 15’ 12’ 15’ NA BUILDING MASS FAÇADE HEIGHT AT FRONTAGE LINE** Minimum = 2 Stories Max (BTV) = 5 Stories Max (MUC) = 3 Stories Minimum = 2 Stories Max (BTV) = 5 Stories Max (MUC) = 3 Stories Minimum = 1 Story Max (BTV) = 5 Stories Max (MUC) = 3 Stories Minimum = 2 Stories Max (BTV) = 5 Stories Max (MUC) = 4 Stories NA MIN. % OF FIRST 2 STORIES OF BUILDING AT FRONTAGE LINE 90% 70%*** 75% 75% 50% NA BUILD‐TO LINE Property Line Set Back 5’ from Property Line Property Line Set Back 10’ from Property Line NA * On streets within the Pedestrian Priority Corridor, Street Frontage Standards are equivalent to Flexible Street Standards ** BTV = Bergamot Transit Village (5 Stories = Maximum 60’) MUC = Mixed‐Use Creative District (3 Stories = Maximum 36’) *** When usable and publicly accessible open space is provided along the street frontage on Nebraska Avenue 8.A.dPacket Pg. 363Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
168 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Street Type Descriptions and Additional Standards: B.10.A Flexible Street Intent: The Flexible Street type is a pedestrian‐oriented activity street. In the Mixed‐Use Creative District, the Flexible Street type includes parcels facing Nebraska Avenue. In the Transit Village, the Flexible Street type includes a new extension of Nebraska Avenue. As shown in Figure 5.9, the Flexible Street standards also apply to all new development facing the Pedestrian Priority Corridor. These streets will have ground floor frontages with the highest percentage of active uses in the Bergamot Plan area. Retail activities are concentrated along this corridor, along with other varied uses, including creative offices and live/work studios. The Flexible Street type streets will have the most continuous street walls in the Bergamot Plan area, punctuated by green open spaces enhanced by restaurants and cafés. Because this corridor belongs to both the Transit Village and the Mixed‐Use Creative District, the maximum height of the buildings varies (see Table 5.03 and see Figure 5.10 for illustration). B.10.A.01 The build‐to line is defined as at the property line. B.10.A.02 The first and second floors of the building shall be oriented parallel to the frontage line. The upper floors are encouraged but not required to follow the same orientation. Figure 5.10 Flexible Street B.10.A.03 Entries to individual residential units are permitted if there is a recess of at least 5 feet from the sidewalk. B.10.A.04 Up to 30% of frontage along the Flexible Street may be publically accessible open space. This open space should be the project’s Primary Open Space. Also see Open Space Standards in Section B. B.10.A.05 Parking areas or garages are not permitted to front on the street. B.10.A.06 To reduce the number of curb‐cuts, no entries to parking areas or garages shall be located on the Pedestrian Priority Corridor, unless no other right‐of‐way access exists, as determined by the Planning & Community Development Director or his/her designee. B.10.A.07 Garage entrances, driveways, parking spaces, loading docks and solid waste storage facilities are not permitted along the Flexible Street type streets. B.10.A.08 Glazing shall be transparent and non‐ reflective. B.10.A.09 Walls and fences along the street frontage shall have a maximum height of 42 inches. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 364Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
8.A.dPacket Pg. 365Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
164 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.10.B Complete Street Intent: While the Complete Street type in the Bergamot Plan area applies to streets that are focused on carrying vehicular traffic, these streets will accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic as well. Development along these streets should create a pleasant pedestrian environment by means of street improvements, building entries, entry courts and interesting frontages. Complete Street frontages are not expected to have a significant amount of retail, but should have mostly active uses and a continuous street wall (see Figure 5.11 for illustration). B.10.B.01 The build‐to line is defined as being set back 5 feet from the property line to provide more width for sidewalks and landscaping. B.10.B.02 The first two floors of the building shall be oriented parallel to the frontage line. The upper floors are encouraged but not required to follow the same orientation. B.10.B.03 Main entrances should be oriented to the street. Entries to individual residential units are permitted if there is a recess of at least 5 feet from the sidewalk. B.10.B.04 Up to 25% of frontage along a Complete Street may be publicly accessible open space. Primary Open Space oriented to Complete Streets can be offset from the street, but visible and direct access should be provided. Also see Open Space Standards in Section B.8. B.10.B.05 Parking areas at or above grade shall be screened from the frontage street by active uses. B.10.B.06 Entries to parking areas or garages are permitted along Complete Street type streets. Driveways shall be grouped together to minimize curb cuts, and limited such that there is no more than one curb cut per 100 feet. Figure 5.11 Complete Street B.10.B.07 Glazing shall be transparent and non‐ reflective. B.10.B.08 The maximum height of walls and fences along the street frontage is 42 inches, and they shall be designed to add visual interest to the pedestrian experience. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 366Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 165 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.10.C Shared‐Space Street Intent: The Shared‐Space Street type in the Bergamot Plan area applies to streets that allow pedestrians, bicyclists and automobiles to share space (see Chapter 7, Section D Shared‐Space Street). The pace of the Shared‐Space Street will be slow and leisurely. A mix of uses that are as flexible as possible will provide an environment for multimodal and interpersonal mixing and mingling: workers and residents, artists and teachers. Development standards for Shared‐Space Streets are intended to support the innovative and more intimate character of this street type (see Figure 5.12 for illustration). B.10.C.01 The build‐to line is defined as at the property line. B.10.C.02 The first floor of the building is encouraged but not required to be oriented parallel to the frontage line. B.10.C.03 Retail uses should front on the street and/ or be located at the corners of buildings (see Retail Standards in Section B.9). B.10.C.04 Up to 25% of frontage along a Shared‐ Space Street may be publicly accessible open space. This open space shall directly connect to the street and complement the streetscape. Active uses should frame these open spaces whenever possible. Also see Open Space Standards in Section B.8. B.10.C.05 Parking areas or garages are not permitted to front the street. B.10.C.06 The number and size of entries to parking areas or garages shall be minimized on Shared‐Space Streets, and their design should be integrated with the streetscape. B.10.C.07 Loading docks and solid waste storage facilities are not permitted along the Shared‐Space Street. B.10.C.08 Glazing shall be transparent and non‐ reflective. B.10.C.09 Walls and fences along the street frontage shall have a maximum height of 42 inches. Figure 5.12 Shared‐Space Street 8.A.dPacket Pg. 367Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
166 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.10.D Landscape Emphasis Street Intent: The Landscape Emphasis Street type consists of a section of Olympic Boulevard between Stewart and Centinela, which will be a green boulevard. Because the scale of Olympic Boulevard is large and it is a primarily auto‐oriented street in this area, the buildings on this frontage should be balanced by more generous landscaping (see Figure 5.13 for illustration). B.10.D.01 The build‐to line is defined as being set back 10 feet from the property line to allow for landscaping and sidewalks. For buildings not parallel to the property line, the minimum setback of 10 feet applies to the building corner closest to the property line. B.10.D.02 Along Olympic Boulevard, buildings are not required to be oriented parallel to the frontage line. B.10.D.03 Where there are not active ground floor uses, the setback shall be landscaped with attractive, drought‐tolerant vegetation and structures shall include a well‐ detailed building façade that responds to the pedestrian scale. B.10.D.04 Major building entrances shall face the street. B.10.D.05 Retail uses shall front the street and be located at building entries or building corners. Also see Retail Standards in Section B.9. B.10.D.06 Entries to individual residential units are permitted if there is a recess of at least 5 feet from public walkways or sidewalks. B.10.D.07 Up to 50% of frontage along the Landscape Emphasis Street may be dedicated to open space. Primary Open Space for the Landscape Emphasis Street type can be offset from the street, but visible and direct access should be provided. Also see Primary Open Space Standards in Section B.8. B.10.D.08 Parking areas or garages are not permitted to front on the street. B.10.D.09 No entries to parking areas or garages shall be located on the Landscape Emphasis Street, unless no other right‐of‐ way access exists. B.10.D.10 Glazing on the ground floor shall be transparent and non‐reflective. B.10.D.11 The maximum height of walls and fences along the street frontage is 42 inches, and they shall be designed to add visual interest to the pedestrian experience. Figure 5.13 Landscape Emphasis Street 8.A.dPacket Pg. 368Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 167 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Figure 5.14 Pedestrian Path B.10.E Pedestrian Path/Bike‐Ped Path Intent: The Pedestrian Path and Bike‐Ped Path throughway type in the Bergamot Plan area applies to a network of internal and through‐block connections. It also applies to new development along the Expo Regional Bike Path and along alleys. New development along any Pedestrian Path/Bike‐Ped Path is required to be arranged so as to make the path feel safe, active and inviting. Pedestrian Path/Bike‐Ped Paths of different developments should be interconnected to form a network throughout the area (see Figure 5.14 for illustration). B.10.E.01 For Tier III projects, all new development shall provide a through‐block publically accessible Pedestrian Path or Bike‐Ped Path as shown on the Bergamot Street Network map. This can be combined with required fire access. B.10.E.02 Active uses, open spaces and entries along Pedestrian Path/Bike‐Ped Paths shall be oriented to the Pedestrian Path/Bike‐Ped Path. B.10.E.03 Garage entrances, driveways, parking spaces, loading docks and solid waste storage facilities are not permitted along Pedestrian Path/Bike‐Ped Paths. B.10.E.04 Fences along Pedestrian Path/Bike‐Ped Paths up to 42 inches are only permitted if made of a sufficiently transparent material for natural surveillance of the path. For example, fences can be metal pickets spaced apart. Chain link fencing is discouraged. Operable gates (open to the private side) must be provided. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 369Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
168 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.11 Flexible Development Standards In unique circumstances, a proposed project may support the life and activities of the sidewalk and community even though it cannot meet the Development Standards. Projects that cannot meet the Development Standards should still be considered, if the authorized review entity determines that a flexible approach to design promotes design creativity, architectural innovation and the vital sidewalk life and activity of both the site of the project and the overall street setting. See table 5.05 for mandatory and flexible design standards following this track. When design flexibility is sought, the following considerations must be established and stated as findings by the appropriate review entity. a. That meeting all development standards will prevent physical innovation in mixed‐use development and/or building design; Table 5.05 Flexible Development Standards b. That the proposed design reinforces and enhances the establishment of mixed‐ use pedestrian‐oriented environment and sidewalk life in the Transit Village and Mixed‐ Use Creative Districts; c. That the proposed design supports local uses, including, but not limited to the provision of housing, daily community needs and/or services, and/or public open space and green connections to adjoining neighborhoods; d. That the proposed design integrates features and amenities, including, but not limited to wider sidewalks, landscaping and trees and/or arts and cultural uses; and e. That, where relevant, the proposed design maintains solar access for existing, adjacent or adjoining residential land uses. B.12 Non‐Conforming Uses and Standards The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica includes regulations governing modification and expansion of non‐conforming buildings and uses. Properties in the Bergamot Plan area are subject to those regulations with the exception of the following provisions. These provisions are intended to support Bergamot Area Plan goals by allowing existing non‐ conforming buildings and uses to remain and adapt to changing needs while retaining desired architectural character. B.12.01 Bergamot Transit Village/Mixed‐Use Creative District Pedestrian access: If a building is repurposed with a conforming use but has an existing uninterrupted façade of over 300 feet in length and previously contained a use not permitted in this plan (non‐ conforming use), the building shall be modified to provide a pedestrian throughway at the ground level, with a minimum 12 feet in width and minimum height clearance of 12 feet. The pedestrian throughway entrance shall be located not less than 300 feet from the nearest perpendicular street and shall be visible from the sidewalk. All throughways shall be perpendicular to the two longest building sides and shall not be considered floor area for purposes of calculating FAR. Landscaping that meets the intent of the Design Guidelines shall be provided subject to Architectural Review Board approval. The throughway shall be well‐lit, remain visually unobstructed and shall be maintained per the approved landscape plan. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MANDATORY FLEXIBLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) • HEIGHT LIMITS • TRANSITIONAL HEIGHT ZONES • MIX OF USES • BUILDING HEIGHT MODULATION OF TOP FLOORS • MAXIMUM BUILDING FLOOR PLATE • OPEN SPACE STANDARDS • RETAIL DESIGN STANDARDS • STREET‐BASED FRONTAGE STANDARDS • 8.A.dPacket Pg. 370Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 169 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.12.02 Conservation: Creative Sector (CCS) and Conservation: Art Center (CAC) Districts a. The addition of mezzanines within the envelope of a building in existence as of January 1, 2013 shall not count as floor area for the purpose of calculating FAR. b. The State Historic Building Code may be applied to buildings in existence as of January 1, 2013, with all determinations subject to approval of the City’s Building Official. B.13 Bergamot Area Plan Special Signage Chapter 4.D, Art and Culture sets forth goals and policies for the Plan area that seek to build on the area’s creative and historic assets; promote the area’s continued evolution “with a unique, creativity‐based identity;” and attract “creative entrepreneurs that contribute to the area’s economic health.” These Special Signage standards address the Art and Culture goals in this plan by allowing flexibility from the city‐ wide sign code for unique business identification signage that achieves more interest and diversity, and which contributes to the overall creative identity of the area as described and defined elsewhere in the Plan. Signs that may exceed the Sign Code’s specifications, which generally ensure reasonable and visible signs in the city, are desirable and appropriate for the districts that comprise the Plan area, provided certain specific, objective standards are still met. In general, sign permits in the Bergamot Plan area shall be issued subject to the standards and process set forth in the Municipal Code (SMMC 9.52 ‐ Sign Code). However, the size and locational restrictions of SMMC 9.52.140, sign type restrictions of SMC 9.52.150 and the area restrictions in SMMC 9.52.160 may be modified for Bergamot Area Plan Special Signage, based on criteria that will be added to the sign code. B.13.01 Adopt Bergamot Area Plan Special Signage provisions in Santa Monica sign code. B.14.A Parking and Loading Standards and Transportation Demand Management This section includes standards applicable to all projects within the Plan area for automobile and bicycle parking, as well as participation in trip reduction strategies. The automobile parking standards begin with requirements for non‐residential uses, followed by residential uses and then by regulations that are generally applicable and not based on land use. This is followed by bicycle parking and loading standards for all uses. The last sub‐section institutes requirements related to establishment and participation in Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and the Transportation Management Association (TMA). B.14.A Automobile Parking Requirements Parking requirements shall be set forth in Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation, of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Bergamot Plan‐specific automobile parking minimums and maximums have been developed for commercial and residential uses, with the long‐term goal of developing an average parking supply rate of 2.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet at full build‐out. Where 8.A.dPacket Pg. 371Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
170 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards parking is referred to as “shared,” the intention is that it is designed and operated in a way that allows its use by those living or working on the property where the parking is provided, by those living nearby or employed in other area businesses, and by visitors to the area who are not there on a regular basis. The parking requirements are different depending on the implementation phase of the Bergamot Plan. Three phases are assumed—the first at Plan adoption, the second at 2,500 net new spaces, and finally when a minimum of 5,000 net new spaces have been built— with parking rates ratcheting down to ensure that the target rate is achieved at build‐out. It is assumed that parking demand will be higher in the early years of district development than in later years, based on aggressive area‐wide implementation of TDM and achievement of vehicle trip reduction targets through stronger transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Also, it is assumed that early projects will provide more parking to allow for sharing with adjacent uses. Over the long run, the total commercial parking ratio should not be more than 2.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet. In the short run, individual projects may be higher, up to 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet. “Net New Spaces” are defined as the total increased number of off‐street parking spaces built in the whole Bergamot Plan area above the base number that is documented in this Plan. Where reserved parking is necessary, parking may be reserved for residential tenants of a building or for off‐ site users at the property owner’s discretion. In shared parking spaces, signage designating specific users shall not be allowed. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 372Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 171 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Commercial Parking Standards: The definition of commercial uses in the Bergamot Plan area includes all uses that are non‐residential. Grouping retail, office, creative businesses and supporting services under the broad definition of a commercial use allows simplified parking standards, and facilitates the opportunity for district‐wide shared parking among land uses of different sizes and peak and non‐peak hours of commuting. Commercial standards are summarized in Tables 5.06 and 5.07. See also sub‐section B14.A.07 for parking requirements applicable to changes of use in an existing building and sub‐sections B.14.A.03 and B.14.A.04 for exemptions for minor additions and in the Conservation districts. Table 5.06 Tier 1 & Tier 2 Bergamot Plan Area Commercial Parking Reqirements per 1,000 Square Feet REQUIRED MAXIMUM WITH VOLUNTARY SHARED PARKING At Plan Adoption 2.0 4.0, of which no more than 2.0 may be reserved At 2,500 Net New Spaces 2.0 3.0, of which no more than 1.5 may be reserved At 5,000 Net New Spaces 0.0 2.0, of which no more than 1.0 may be reserved Table 5.07 Tier 3 Bergamot Plan Area Commercial Parking Reqirements per 1,000 Square Feet B.14.A.01 Parking Requirements At Plan Adoption a. Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects: 2.0 parking spaces per 1000 SF shall be required, which may be reserved or voluntarily shared with the public. More than 2.0 spaces/thousand square feet shall be permitted up to a maximum 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet per Table 5.05, provided that the additional portion over 2.0 per 1000 SF shall be shared with the public. b. Tier 3 projects: A minimum of 2.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet are required. Of the 2.0 required spaces, a minimum of 1.0 space per 1000 SF shall be shared and a maximum of 1.0 space per 1000 SF may be reserved. No more than 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet shall be built, and a maximum of 2.0 spaces may be reserved. i. Notwithstanding the above, the number of existing parking spaces in a Tier 3 project in excess of the required 2.0 per 1000 SF, may be maintained for the use of on‐site tenants for the first five years following initial occupancy, after which 50% of those spaces shall also be shared in the same manner as the other shared spaces. B.14.A.02 Parking Requirements At 5,000 Net New Spaces: Once 5,000 net new spaces have been constructed, no minimum amount of parking is required for Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 projects; however, the following shall be instead required: a. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall join the Transportation Management Association (TMA) and record a deed restriction agreeing to require all building tenants to become members of the TMA for not less than 25 years; b. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall remit an additional payment to the TMA for the operation and maintenance of shared parking facilities and implementation of vehicle trip reduction measures in an amount to be determined by resolution of the City Council in compliance with applicable law; and c. Required TMA membership shall be included as a separate line item in all applicable leases. REQUIRED MAXIMUM At Plan Adoption 2.0, of which at least 1.0 must be shared 4.0, of which no more than 2.0 may be reserved At 2,500 Net New Spaces 2.0, of which at least 1.0 must be shared 3.0, of which no more than 1.5 may be reserved At 5,000 Net New Spaces 0.0 2.0, of which no more than 1.0 and no more than 50% of any parking provided may be reserved 8.A.dPacket Pg. 373Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
172 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.14.A.03B.14.A.01 Exemption, Minor Additions: Additions of up to 500 square feet of gross floor area to existing buildings are exempt from the parking requirements, but may not reduce the number of parking spaces already provided on the property in completing the project. This exemption may only be applied once to a property. Projects receiving this exemption shall provide secure bicycle parking as required by Table 5.11. B.14.A.04 Exemptions, Conservation Districts: Notwithstanding the above, the following exemptions from the parking requirements shall apply for buildings in existence as of January 1, 2013 in: a. The Conservation: Creative Sector (CCS) District: i. Additions up to 2,500 square feet, provided that the project does not remove more than 50% of the exterior walls and structural supports and that the project does not reduce the number of parking spaces already provided on the property. ii. The addition of mezzanines as defined in the Zoning Ordinance within the existing building envelope. b. The Conservation: Art Center (CAC) District: The addition of mezzanines within the existing building envelope. c. Projects exempted from providing automobile parking per (a) and (b) above shall provide secure bicycle parking as required by Table 5.11. d.a. Prior to issuance of building permits for projects utilizing the parking exemption in a conservation district, the applicant shall join the TMA and record a deed restriction agreeing to require all building tenants to become members of the TMA for not less than 25 years. Required TMA membership shall be included as a separate line item in all applicable leases. B.14.A.05B.14.A.02 Use of Tandem or Stacked (including mechanically‐stacked) Spaces: Tandem and/ or stacked parking shall be permitted for non‐ residential uses with the condition that valet parking, or automated vehicle release for stacked parking, is provided during all hours of operation. Tandem spaces shall have a minimum size of 8.5 feet by 34‐36 feet. B.14.A.06B.14.A.03 Charging for Parking Required: a. Cost to be Unbundled: All commercial parking spaces shall be unbundled from the cost of a leased commercial space, and the cost of the parking space shall be included as a separate line item in the commercial space lease. b. Parking Pricing: All shared parking spaces shall be priced at an hourly or daily rate per B.14.A.15. If shared parking spaces are leased on a monthly basis, the monthly rate shall not be less than twenty (20) times the applicable daily rate. The rate charged to local employees may vary from those of park‐and‐ride transit users in order to prioritize TMA business needs. A variable parking rate for off‐peak hours may also be introduced. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 374Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 173 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.14.A.07 Parking for Changes of Use of Existing Buildings: When the use of a building in existence as of January 1, 2013, or portion thereof, is proposed to change to a different commercial use or residential use, the following shall apply: B.14.A.08 For projects changing the use of up to 5,000 square feet of floor area: The project shall retain the existing number of parking spaces, except as permitted in sub‐section B.14.A.18. B.14.A.09 For projects changing the use of more than 5,000 square feet of floor area: Parking shall be provided at the greater of: a) retention of the existing number of parking spaces, or b) the requirement for the entire property per Tables B.14.A.10 5.06 and 5.07. Only in the case that retained parking is in excess of the parking requirements of this plan may parking spaces be converted for bicycle parking per sub‐section B.14.A.18. B.14.A.11 Changes of use through multiple applications within a five‐year period shall be considered as one cumulative project for purposes of this section. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 375Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
172 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Residential Parking Standards: All residential uses are assumed to consist of multi‐ family units of various size and number of bedrooms. By having both a base parking requirement and a maximum, developers can build the right amount of parking to serve each development. Residential standards are summarized in Tables 5.08 and 5.09. See SMMC Chapter 9.22, State Density Bonus, for alternative parking ratios. B.14.A.12 Parking Requirements at Plan Adoption a. Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects: For both residential rental and for‐sale projects, a minimum of 1.5 spaces per residential unit shall be provided, regardless of unit size or number of bedrooms, and 1.0 space per unit must be reserved. No more than 2.0 spaces per unit shall be built, of Table 5.08 Tier 1 & Tier 2 Bergamot Plan Area Residential Parking Reqirements per Unit REQUIRED MAXIMUM WITH VOLUNTARY SHARED PARKING At Plan Adoption 1.5, of which at least 1.0 must be reserved 2.0, of which no more than 1.5 may be reserved At 5,000 Net New Spaces 1.0 1.5, of which no more than 1.0 may be reserved Table 5.09 Tier 3 Bergamot Plan Area Residential Parking Reqirements per Unit REQUIRED MAXIMUM At Plan Adoption 1.5, of which at least 1.0 must be reserved and 0.5 must be shared 2.0, of which no more than 1.5 may be reserved At 5,000 Net New Spaces 1.0, which must be shared 1.5, of which no more than 0.5 may be reserved which only 1.5 spaces may be reserved. b. Tier 3 projects: For both residential rental and for‐sale projects, a minimum of 1.5 spaces per unit shall be provided regardless of unit size or number of bedrooms. Of the 1.5 required spaces, a minimum of 0.5 spaces per unit shall be shared and a maximum of 1.0 space per unit shall be reserved. No more than 2.0 spaces per unit shall be built, of which only 1.5 spaces may be reserved. B.14.A.13 Parking Requirements at 5,000 Net New Spaces: Once 5,000 net new spaces have been constructed, Tier 1 and Tier 2housing projects must provide a minimum of 1.0 space per unit, which may be reserved or shared. Tier 3 projects must provide a minimum of 1.0 space per unit of shared parking. B.14.A.10 B.14.A.04 Tandem Parking Prohibited: Residential tandem parking shall not be permitted. B.14.A.11 B.14.A.05 Charging for Parking Required: a. Cost to be Unbundled: Payment for residential parking spaces shall be unbundled from the cost of rent or purchase, except in the case of for‐sale units with 3 bedrooms or more, which are allowed to include 1 parking space in the base cost of the unit. b. Parking Pricing: All parking spaces shall be priced at an hourly or daily rate per B.14.A.15. If parking spaces are leased on a monthly basis, the monthly rate shall not be less than twenty (20) times the applicable daily rate. The rate charged to residents and TMA members may vary from those of park‐and‐ride transit users in 8.A.dPacket Pg. 376Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 173 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards order to prioritize resident needs. A variable parking rate for off‐peak hours may also be introduced. c. Parking for Deed‐Restricted Affordable Units: For deed‐restricted affordable units, the tenant may choose to either receive one parking space, which shall be included within the unit’s affordable rent level, or receive a rent discount equivalent to half the amount charged for monthly lease of a parking space, in exchange for not receiving a parking space. Tenants of affordable units shall not be permitted to sub‐ lease their parking spaces. B.14.A.12 B.14.A.06 On‐street Parking Permits Prohibited. All residential projects shall record deed restrictions stating that residents shall not participate in surrounding preferential parking districts. This restriction shall be included in all residential leases. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 377Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
174 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards General Parking Standards: B.14.A.13 Alternatives to Providing On‐site Parking at 2,500 Net New Parking Spaces: As an alternative to providing a project’s required parking on‐site, applicants may fulfill their minimum parking requirements by joining the Transportation Management Association (TMA), recording a deed restriction agreeing to require all building tenants to become members of the TMA for not less than 25 years, and including a separate line item in all leases requiring TMA membership. In addition, applicants shall comply with one of the following: a. Shared Parking with lease: Submitting a shared parking agreement with the owner(s) of one or more parking facilities within 1,000 linear feet, agreeing to share parking that had previously been reserved for the use of on‐site tenants that is demonstrated to be underutilized based on a parking demand study. The agreement should stipulate provisions regarding access to, use of and management of the designated spaces. In order to ensure that the applicant is adhering to the agreement, a monitoring and enforcement process will need to be established. b. Shared Parking without lease: Demonstrating that with the completion of the proposed project and that of other projects with building permits issued and under construction within 1,000 linear feet of the subject property, the average non‐residential parking ratio of all properties within 1,000 linear feet will be at or above 2.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet; and I. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicants shall also remit an additional payment to the TMA for the operation and maintenance of shared parking facilities and implementation of vehicle trip reduction measures that will serve the project in an amount to be determined by resolution of the City Council in compliance with applicable law. c. For changes of use in an existing building and projects with a gross floor area of 15,000 square feet or less: Prior to issuance of building permits, payment of a per‐space in‐lieu fee to be used for vehicle trip demand‐reducing improvements in the Bergamot Plan area as determined by resolution of the City Council in accordance with applicable law. d. For Projects with a gross floor area of 15,000 square feet or more: Prior to issuance of building permits, payment of a per‐space in‐ lieu fee for up to 50% of the total number of spaces required to be used for improvements in the Bergamot Plan area as determined by resolution of the City Council in accordance with applicable law. B.14.A.14 B.14.A.08 Carsharing Spaces: Once a carshare provider is present in Santa Monica, the following shall apply: a. Tier I and II: one required parking space may be used as a carsharing space for the first 50‐200 residential units plus one additional space for every additional 200 units. For non‐residential uses, one required parking space may be used as a carsharing space for every 50 required parking spaces. b. Tier III: Development agreements for Tier III shall require carsharing spaces with a minimum of one space for every 200 residential units and one space for every 50 non‐residential spaces. Carsharing spaces may be redesignated as shared parking if there is no longer a carshare provider present in Santa Monica. B.14.A.15 B.14.A.09 Parking Pricing: In all Plan area parking lots established after Plan adoption, a minimum daily parking fee of not less than $8 shall be charged, with the hourly rate not more than 1/8th the daily rate. This rate shall be adjusted annually based on the CPI rate utilized by the City. To achieve a balanced parking system and optimal utilization targets, the fee shall be adjusted upward from the minimum for high demand street segments and facilities, as determined by the Director of Planning & Community Development or his/her designee, to promote turnover in the most frequently utilized street segments and facilities. B.14.A.16 B.14.A.10 Technology for Shared Parking: Pay station technologies that accept credit cards, debit cards and pay‐by‐phone shall be installed in all shared parking facilities. Parking facilities shall have auditable payment and utilization technologies, including automated 8.A.dPacket Pg. 378Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 175 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards utilization counting and the ability to distinguish between different parking users, with utilization data 8.A.dPacket Pg. 379Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
174 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Table 5.10 06 Ridesharing and Zero‐Emission Vehicle Parking Requirements updated and transmitted in real time for use by third parties. Parking facilities shall be designed and constructed to accommodate necessary current or future access controls. B.14.A.17B.14.A.11 Designated Parking Spaces: Developments that provide shared and/or commercial parking shall provide designated parking for zero‐emission vehicles with EV recharging capability and carpool/vanpool vehicles, as shown in Table 5.10. These spaces shall be included in the minimum required parking. EV recharging may be fee based. B.14.A.18B.14.A.12 Conversion of automobile spaces to bicycle parking: For existing buildings, required automobile parking spaces may be replaced with bicycle parking at a minimum ratio of one automobile parking space for every eight short‐term, five long‐term or six combined short‐ and long‐term bicycle parking spaces. No more than 10% of the total number of automobile parking spaces on the property may be replaced in this manner. For buildings with fewer than 10 automobile parking spaces, one required automobile parking space may be replaced in this manner if no other suitable location for bicycle parking exists on the property as determined by the Director of Planning & Community Development or his/ her designee. B.14.A.19B.14.A.13 Driveway Location: Driveways shall not be permitted if alley access is available. B.14.A.20B.14.A.14 Parking Access: A parking access plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Director of Planning & Community Development or his/ her designee that demonstrates satisfaction of the following: a. Appropriate number and location of entries and exits b. Minimal conflict with pedestrian and bicycle paths of travel c. Adequate internal circulation d. Access control designed to accommodate peak demand without causing vehicle queuing in the public right‐of‐way e. Signage for drivers and pedestrians B.14.B Bicycle Parking Standards Providing an adequate supply of bicycle parking at all destinations is critical in the Plan area to encourage bicycle use and reduce auto travel for all types of trips. Requirements in Table 5.11 are broken down into short‐ and long‐term parking requirements. Short‐ term bicycle parking is designed for parking needs of less than three hours, while long‐term bicycle parking is designed for parking needs over three hours. B.14.B.01 Commercial Use Requirements: All new buildings or structures, substantial remodels, additions and changes of use to an existing building shall provide bicycle facilities per Table 5.11. Total Number of Shared and Commercial Parking Spaces Provided Number of Required Carpool/ Vanpool Spaces Number of Zero- Emission Spaces 0—9 0 0 10—25 1 1 26—50 2 2 51—75 3 3 76—100 4 4 101—150 6 5 151—200 8 8 201 and over At least 4% of total At least 4% of total 8.A.dPacket Pg. 380Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 175 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.14.B.02 Residential Requirements: All new buildings or structures and substantial remodels with five or more dwelling units shall provide bicycle facilities per Table 5.11. Hotel guest rooms and work/live units shall also be subject to the residential requirements. B.14.B.03 Mixed‐Use Requirements: In instances where a building contains components of more than one of the aforementioned categories, the requirements shall be based on the sum of the individual uses per Table 5.11. B.14.B.04 Design Requirements: a. Short‐term bicycle parking shall be provided using bicycle racks that are securely anchored to the ground and to which the bicycle frame and at least one wheel can be securely locked to the rack. Table 5.11 07 Bike Parking Standards b. Long‐term parking shall be fully enclosed to protect bicycles from weather. Acceptable installations include, but are not limited to: bicycle rooms, bike cages, attended roofed/ indoor bicycle facilities and bike lockers. Unattended shared facilities shall include racks designed per (a), above. B.14.B.05 Location: a. All required bicycle racks shall be located as close as practicable to the entrance of the facility served. Short‐term bicycle racks must be located no more than 25 feet from a primary building entrance. b. Not less than 10% of the required short term bicycle parking or four spaces, whichever is more, must be provided on site. In lieu of providing the remainder of the short‐term parking on site, the applicant may either: i. Install the remaining required bike racks in the public right‐of‐way with a location and design subject to review and approval by the City. A deed restriction shall be recorded requiring the property owner to maintain the off‐site bike racks for the life of the project. ii. Pay a fee per space to be established by City Council resolution including the cost of rack and installation. The City will install racks in the most appropriate location and configuration near the subject property per the Street Standards (see Chapter 7). B.14.B.06 Signage: Where bicycle parking is not visible from the street, clear and visible signage leading to the bicycle parking shall be provided. B.14.B.07 Lighting: All bicycle parking and facilities shall be provided with lighting to provide high visibility, subject to approval of Director of Planning & Community Development or his/ her designee. Lighting shall be maintained in operational conditions at all times. BIKE PARKING SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM SHOWERS PERSONAL LOCKERS REQUIREMENT (MINIMUM 4 SPACES REQUIRED) REQUIREMENT (MINIMUM 4 SPACES REQUIRED) USE Restaurant 1 per 1000 sf 1 per 2000 sf 1 unisex per 40,000 sf and 1 additional for each 20,000 75% of total longer term spaces provided Retail ‐ Gen Food and Grocery 1 per 1000 sf 1 per 3000 sf 1 unisex per 40,000 sf and 1 additional for each 20,000 75% of total longer term spaces provided Retail 1 per 1000 sf 1 per 3000 sf 1 unisex per 40,000 sf and 1 additional for each 20,000 75% of total longer term spaces provided Office 1 per 5000 sf 1 per 900 sf 1 unisex per 40,000 sf and 1 additional for each 20,000 75% of total longer term spaces provided Hotel 8 per room 0.25 1 unisex per 40,000 sf and 1 additional for each 20,000 75% of total longer term spaces provided Multi‐family without private garages 0.1 per bedroom 1 per bedroom 8.A.dPacket Pg. 381Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
176 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.14.C Loading Standards: Loading spaces are required to ensure adequate areas for loading purposes for all on‐site uses so that commercial and passenger loading activities will be conducted without negatively affecting traffic safety or the quality of abutting public streets for people walking, bicycling or driving. Loading spaces also facilitate low‐car‐use lifestyles by supporting shared delivery and passenger transportation services. B.14.C.1 Applicability, General: The regulations in this section shall apply to all projects with new buildings, additions or changes of use, and shall govern design of both required and non‐required loading areas. B.14.C.2 Applicability, Conservation: Creative Sector (CCS): For additions or changes of use in existing buildings in the CCS District, existing loading areas shall be maintained, but the project shall not be required to meet the standards of this section. B.14.C.3 Submittal of Loading Plan: As part of the application for all applicable projects, a loading plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Director of Planning & Community Development or his/her designee. Projects utilizing existing loading in the CCS district per B.14.C.2 above shall also submit a loading plan. The plan shall include a site plan dimensioning all required and non‐required loading spaces and indicating the path of travel to the space and the path of travel for the goods from the space. The approved loading plan shall be retained on‐site at all times and shall be made available to all site tenants. B.14.C.4 Loading space dimensions: Loading spaces shall comply with the following standards, as required in this section. a. Standard A: If a Standard A space is required, the dimensions shall be at least 40 feet long, 12 feet wide, and have a clearance of 14 feet. b. Standard B: If a Standard B space is required, the dimensions shall be at least 65 feet long, 15 feet wide, and have a clearance of 14 feet. c. Standard C: If a Standard C space is required for passenger loading, the dimensions shall be at least 18 feet long and 10 feet wide. Design should not reduce pedestrian orientation of the site or increase the number of curb‐cuts. B.14.C.5 Number of loading spaces required: Projects shall provide loading spaces as follows: a. Primarily Residential: Projects with residential uses that contain less than 50,000 square feet of non‐residential floor area shall provide loading spaces based on the number of dwelling units as follows: i. Less than 100 dwelling units: 1. One Standard A space is required; however, if the use includes a market, restaurant or other food sales and service of more than 5,000 square feet, the required loading space shall be Standard B. 2. One Standard C space (passenger loading) is encouraged. The space must be accessible and located as close as practicable to the building entrance or passenger elevator without a key or access card from the street. ii. 100 or more dwelling units: 1. One Standard A space is required; however, if the use includes a market, restaurant or other food sales and service of more than 5,000 square feet, the required loading space shall be Standard B. 2. One Standard C spaces (passenger loading) are required. The spaces must be accessible and located as close as practicable to the building entrance or passenger elevator without a key or access card from the street. b. Primarily Commercial: Projects with residential uses and more than 50,000 square feet of non‐ residential floor area shall provide loading spaces as follows: i. Two Standard A spaces are required; however, if the use includes a market, restaurant or other food sales and service of more than 5,000 square feet, one of the two spaces shall be Standard B. ii. One Standard C spaces (passenger loading) are required. The spaces must be accessible without a key or access card from the street and located as close as practicable to the building entrance or passenger elevator. c. Commercial Only: Projects with no residential uses shall provide loading spaces based on project size as follows: i. Less than 50,000 square feet of floor area: 1. One Standard A is required; however, if the use includes a market, 8.A.dPacket Pg. 382Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 177 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards restaurant or other food sales and service of more than 5,000 square feet, the required loading space shall be Standard B. ii. 50,000 square feet or more of floor area: 1. One Standard A space is required 2. One Standard B space is required d. All Projects with more than 100,000 square feet of Commercial Use: The Director of Planning & Community Development or his/her designee may require additional loading spaces based on the project’s needs and site feasibility. B.14.C.6 Location of Loading Spaces: All loading facilities shall be provided off‐street and within the subject property. Loading areas shall be located as follows: a. Adjacent to building door openings providing loading access. b. Situated to ensure that the loading facility can be screened from adjacent streets as much as possible and minimizes interference with pedestrian and bicycle paths of travel. c. Situated to avoid adverse impacts upon neighboring properties. d. Accessible from an alley, of if no alley is adjacent to the site, a minor roadway. B.14.C.7 Design of Loading Spaces. a. Screening. Loading areas adjacent to residential uses or public streets or alleys shall be screened and enclosed with a solid masonry wall, at least 6 feet in height and of a design approved by the Director of Planning & Community Development or his/her designee. b. Identification. Loading areas shall be designed, laid out, and clearly marked as being distinct from required parking spaces and aisles, unless the City approves the use of the parking area as an undesignated overlay loading area during non‐business hours. c. Obstructions Prohibited. No walkway, mechanical equipment, utility, waste collection/disposal receptacle, or other equipment or fixture may be placed in any loading area. B.14.C.8 Off‐Site Loading Alternative for Existing Buildings: The use of off‐site loading to satisfy the loading requirements when a change of use is proposed in an existing building may be permitted in compliance with the following standards. a. Location. All off‐site loading spaces shall be located within 750 feet of legal walking distance measured from the primary loading entrance to the off‐site loading location. b. Design and improvement standards. All off‐ site loading spaces shall conform to the same standards of access, configuration, location, and size required above. c. Identification of facility. The loading area must be clearly marked and conspicuously identified. d. Terms of off‐site loading. A City‐approved covenant shall be recorded that includes a description of the off‐site loading, a requirement that the owner of the separated lot maintain the required loading for the life of the use to which it is covenanted, a requirement that the tenant or occupant of the use for which loading is required submit annually to the Director of Planning & Community Development or his/her designee a confirmation of the continuing terms of the off‐site loading plan, and a provision for liquidated damages to be paid by the applicant or tenant to the City for violations of the conditions of approval. B.14.C.9 Loss of off‐site spaces: In the event the covenanted loading spaces are no longer available for a project’s use, the following shall be required: a. Notification to the City. The owner or operator of the business or property that uses the approved off‐site loading space shall immediately notify the Director of Planning & Community Development or his/her designee of any change of ownership or use of the property for which the spaces are required, and of any termination or default of the agreement between the parties. b. Effect of termination of agreement. Upon notification that a lease for required off‐ site loading has terminated, the Director of Planning & Community Development or his/ her designee shall determine a reasonable time in which one of the following shall occur: i. Substitute loading is provided that is acceptable to the Director of Planning & Community Development or his/her designee; or ii. The size or capacity of the use is reduced in proportion to the loading spaces lost. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 383Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
178 | CITY OF SANTA MONICA Land Use Regulations and Development Standards 8.A.dPacket Pg. 384Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
BERGAMOT AREA PLAN | 179 Land Use Regulations and Development Standards B.14.C.10 Exceptions for New Buildings under 25,000 square feet. Notwithstanding the requirements of this chapter, a waiver or reduction in the number and/or dimensions of loading zones may be permitted by the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee for projects that will result in a total of less than 25,000 square feet on the property if it is determined that the only feasible location for a loading zone within the project boundaries will detract from the project’s pedestrian orientation and thereby not meet the Bergamot Area Plan’s intention to create active, lively streetscapes. B.14.D TDM & TMA Establishment: The establishment and continuing maintenance of the Transportation Management Association (TMA) is a high implementation priority for the success of this Plan. Projects that meet certain thresholds described elsewhere in this Chapter are required to join the TMA, while other property owners and tenants are encouraged to join and participate based on incentives and benefits that the TMA will offer. The following requirements shall be met in all applicable projects: B.14.D.01 The City shall establish a TMA with authority to implement the Bergamot Area Plan requirements pertaining to trip reduction through transportation demand management. Responsibilities of the TMA shall include, but are not limited to: operation of all shared parking subject to the TMA program; providing signage, real‐time information and other wayfinding mechanisms; coordinating and offering programs to promote biking, walking and other trip reduction strategies; data collection; and coordination of pricing for parking. The TMA shall actively engage existing and future parking lot and garage owners to lease, sell, or make spaces publicly–accessible in order to be added to the district’s pool of shared parking. B.14.D.02 All projects with new construction or that include additions to existing buildings in excess of 5,000 square feet shall be required to do the following: a. The applicant and/or property owner shall join the TMA and shall ensure that all tenants are TMA members for the first 25 years from date of final inspection or certificate of occupancy. b. The applicant shall submit for the approval of the Director of Planning & Community Development or his/her designee a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that complies with the City’s TDM requirements. 8.A.dPacket Pg. 385Attachment: Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Attachment E - Housing Projects Applicability and Requirements Table
Based on Proposed Amendments
Housing Project Type Definition Entitlement Applicability of Standards for Specific Housing Max Allowable FAR/Height
Active Ground Floor Use?
Active Ground Floor Design?
Pedestrian Oriented Design?
Unit Mix TDM Air Quality Assessment
For Mixed Use and Commercial Zones Only
Chapters 9.39 and 9.40 Chapter 9.31.195
DCP, BAP, Chapters 9.11, 9.13
Section 9.11(A)(1);
DCP 9.10.040
Section 9.11(A)(2); DCP Chapter 4.E
Chapters 9.11, 9.13, DCP Chapter 4.E
Housing Project (25% to 33% nonresidential) (Section 9.52.020.1125)
• Residential units only.
• Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential uses do not exceed 33% of the total building square footage and are limited to the first two floors of buildings that are two or more stories.
• Transitional or supportive housing.
-DRP -AA if site is 5th Cycle HE site with 20% affordable
Yes, if at least 50 units Yes, if at least 16 units
Yes Varies by zone Exempt; except for Main and Montana Policy
Question: Should the active ground floor use requirement also apply to NC Ocean Park and Pico?
Exempt; except for Main and Montana Policy
Question: Should the active ground floor use requirement also apply to NC Ocean Park and Pico?
Yes
Streamlined Housing Project (no more than 25% nonresidential)
(Section 9.39.040)
• Residential units only • Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential uses do not exceed 25% of the total building square footage and are limited to the first two floors of buildings that are two or more stories
• Transitional or supportive housing
• Must be on a parcel that does not exceed 43,560 square feet in size
-AA
Yes, if at least 50 units Yes, if at least 16 units
Yes Varies by zone (same as Housing Project)
Exempt; except for Main and Montana
Exempt; except for Main and Montana
Yes
8.A.e
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment E - Summary of Applicability of Project Requirements for Housing Projects (5610
Housing Project Type Definition Entitlement Applicability of Standards for Specific Housing Max Allowable FAR/Height
Active Ground Floor Use?
Active Ground Floor Design?
Pedestrian Oriented Design?
Unit Mix TDM Air Quality Assessment
For Mixed Use and Commercial Zones Only
DCP Streamlined Housing Project (no more than 25% commercial)
(DCP Section 9.10.050)
• Residential units only
• Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential uses do not exceed 25% of the total building square footage and are limited to the first two floors of buildings that are two or more stories
• Transitional or supportive housing
Policy
Question: Should the AA threshold be established at less than 90,000 sf project size or a site size of less than 1 acre?
Yes Yes, if at least 16 units
Yes Varies by zone Only for Bayside Conservation zoning district
Only for Bayside Conservation zoning district
Yes
100% Affordable Housing Project (Section 9.52.020.0050)
• Housing projects with a minimum of 25% of the units deed restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by 60% Income Households or less and the remainder of the housing units are deed restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by 80% Income Households or less.
• May include nonresidential uses not to exceed 33% of the project’s total floor area.
AA Exempt Exempt Yes Unlimited FAR/Extra 33 feet above base
Exempt; except for Main and Montana Policy Question: Should the active ground floor use requirement also apply to NC Ocean Park and Pico?
Exempt; except for Main and Montana
Yes but exempt in Downtown
Moderate Income Overlay Project (Section 9.19.020)
• A multiple-unit dwelling project on a non-residential zoned parcel in the MHO, where each dwelling unit is an MHO Dwelling Unit affordable to households earning up to 120% of area median income.
• May include up to 33% of total floor area as market rate units and/or non-residential uses,
AA Exempt Yes, if at least 16 units
Yes 50% density bonus/Extra 33 feet above base
Exempt Policy Question: Should the active ground floor use requirement also apply to NC Ocean Park and Pico?
Exempt Policy Question: Should the active ground floor use requirement also apply to NC Ocean Park and Pico?
Yes
8.A.e
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment E - Summary of Applicability of Project Requirements for Housing Projects (5610
Housing Project Type Definition Entitlement Applicability of Standards for Specific Housing Max Allowable FAR/Height
Active Ground Floor Use?
Active Ground Floor Design?
Pedestrian Oriented Design?
Unit Mix TDM Air Quality Assessment
For Mixed Use and Commercial Zones Only
no more than 25% of total units can be market rate units,
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots
(Section 9.31.196) • Must be on surface parking lots owned in whole or in part by a Community Assembly use.
• At least 50% of total units affordable to 80% income households.
AA Yes, if at least 50 units Yes, if at least 16 units
Yes Unlimited FAR/Extra 33 feet above base
Exempt, if no more than 33% of project is non-residential
Exempt, if no more than 33% of project is non-residential
Yes
Other Multiple-Unit Dwelling Project (more than 2 units but not meeting definitions above)
• Not defined as housing project (i.e., more than 33% non-residential)
Based on size threshold Yes, if at least 50 units Yes, if at least 16 units
Yes Same as commercial projects
Yes Yes Yes
AA = Administrative Approval DRP = Development Review Permit
8.A.e
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment E - Summary of Applicability of Project Requirements for Housing Projects (5610
Planning Commission
January 23, 2023
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main St
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Honorable Councilmembers:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council request the approval
of the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to
amend Program 1J of the City’s certified Housing Element (2021-2129) in order to
meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives and to protect small,
locally owned businesses and service providers The proposed amendment would
fine-tune the program by retaining the City’s long-term commitment to providing
access to housing opportunity while ensuring we maintain complete
neighborhoods that provide access to economic opportunity and address vehicle
miles traveled concerns. Specifically, the proposed amendment would retain the
existing heights and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in the Neighborhood Commercial
Districts (NC) on Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana
Avenue, rather than increasing them as proposed in the current language of
Program 1J.
The Planning Commission also recommends that the City request HCD’s guidance
as to whether the SSI should be amended to remove the thirteen properties in the
Neighborhoods Commercial District and to add (a) Replacement Site(s) that is
(are) necessary to compensate for the 165 housing units projected for development
in the NC District.
This request for approval to amend Program 1J is based on the following:
1. The Commission understands that the State is concerned about
accomplishing AFFH goals by upzoning the NC Districts. The City has found
through on-going analysis that this upzoning is not necessary to accomplish
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098
8.A.f
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment F - Letter_from_Planning_Commission_to_City_Council_proposing_amendments_to_the_Housing_Element_1-23-23
2
the City’s RHNA goals nor to further AFFH objectives. The City believes that
AFFH goals are being reached in all the neighborhoods served by the NC
Districts, or will be reached through the implementation of new programs
mandated by the Housing Element.
2. The upzoning of our NC districts will cause the displacement of locally owned
businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to residents.
In fact, the loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will be in direct
conflict with AFFH objectives. Many of these small businesses are minority-
owned. Further, NC Districts currently offer entrepreneurial opportunities for
local residents, many of whom are people of color.
3. Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would remove the requirement
that the ground floors of new projects on Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards
include commercial space. This proposed zoning change recognizes the
inability of local businesses to afford the rents in these new buildings and the
fact that these two neighborhood commercial streets would not attract
sufficient regional interest to attract non-local retailers, which could afford
the new, higher rents. The result of this would be the removal of all convenient,
walkable commercial opportunities in Sunset Park and the Pico
neighborhood.
4. The NC Districts include many designated Landmarks and other significant
historic resources. This fact reduces the overall development capacity of NC
areas.
5. A Replacement Site that can accommodate more than the 165 units
projected for the upzoned NC areas has been identified. With even greater
capacity than those sites, it will actually increase the number of affordable
and market rate units produced during the 6th Cycle.
6. The Replacement Site will locate new residents close to the Expo Light Rail
Line, offering access to numerous job nodes throughout the region. Access to
high quality transit is critical to the economic health of many residents,
especially lower incomes.
Data Demonstrating AFFH in Neighborhood Commercial Districts
The proposed Housing Element amendment will not have negative impacts on the
State’s AFFH requirements because each neighborhood surrounding the NC zones
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098
8.A.f
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment F - Letter_from_Planning_Commission_to_City_Council_proposing_amendments_to_the_Housing_Element_1-23-23
3
currently offers or will offer a variety of housing types and affordability levels during
the 6th Cycle.
Main Street
The NC district on Main Street is the major commercial area serving residents of
Ocean Park. The historically red-lined Ocean Park community has always provided
a variety of housing types and a range of affordability levels. Community
Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM), Santa Monica’s most prolific affordable
housing development nonprofit established with a seed grant from the City of Santa
Monica in 1982, owns and operates 343 affordable housing units on 22 sites across
Ocean Park. Of these units, 44 are on Main Street, just north of Main Street’s NC
District. Across the street from this CCSM project on Main Street is a mixed income
rental housing project with approximately 60 units. This existing housing has been
developed using the zoning standards of the General Commercial District, which
has a lower FAR and height limit than that proposed in the Housing Element for the
NC portion of Main Street.
There are approximately 170 units of deed restricted affordable rental units for
seniors in Ocean Park.
According to the 2021 Santa Monica Rent Control Board Annual Report, 4,684 rental
units in Ocean Park are subject to local rent control (17% of the citywide total). The
median monthly Maximum Allowable Rents for these units range from $1,521 for a
studio apartment to $2,466 for a three-bedroom apartment. These rents are
affordable to moderate income households and include units with long term
tenants and those that have been decontrolled to market rate levels.
The feasibility of developing housing with the existing NC development standards
has been demonstrated by a recently approved market rate rental housing project
with ground floor retail in the NC District. This project demonstrates that housing can
be feasibly developed with a retail component on this NC portion of Main Street.
Ocean Park is a diverse community from the standpoint of income levels and
demographics. John Muir Elementary School is located in Ocean Park and serves
the majority of children who live in that community. It is currently closed for
remediation purposes. When in operation, the school is a Title I school, meaning at
least thirty five percent (35%) of its students are from families living at or near the
poverty level. Forty seven percent (47%) of the students are from low-income
families. John Muir is also racially and ethnically integrated with almost sixty percent
(60%) of students identifying as non-white.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098
8.A.f
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment F - Letter_from_Planning_Commission_to_City_Council_proposing_amendments_to_the_Housing_Element_1-23-23
4
The Ocean Park housing market also includes many single-family houses and
condominiums with values well into the millions of dollars.
The City believes that upzoning the NC District on Main Street is unnecessary
because Ocean Park is already a model community for meeting AFFH objectives.
Ocean Park Boulevard
The NC area on Ocean Park Boulevard is the major neighborhood commercial
district for the Sunset Park community with locally owned businesses and necessary
community retail and essential services. A common misperception about the Sunset
Park community is that it is primarily populated by single family homeowners in R1
districts. Similar to Ocean Park, Sunset Park offers a wide variety of housing choices
and affordability levels. There are approximately 7,000 housing units in Sunset Park.
Of these, 2,634 are on R1 properties, and 3,309 are rentals subject to local rent
control. The median Maximum Allowable Rents for these rent-controlled units
range from $1,140 for a studio to $2,298 for a three-bedroom unit. These rents are
affordable to low and/or moderate-income households. CCSM owns and operates
310 deed restricted affordable rental units in Sunset Park. The balance of the units in
Sunset Park (747) are condominiums and post-1978 apartments.
Another interesting fact about Sunset Park is that one of its two elementary schools
(Will Rogers) is among the most ethnically and racially diverse schools in the district.
It serves the Pico and Sunset Park neighborhoods west of 17th Street. Thirty three
percent (33%) of the students identify as white, forty five percent (45%) as Hispanic,
nine percent (9%) as black, and thirteen percent (13%) as members of other
racial/ethnic groups. Will Rogers is designated as a Title I school. John Adams Middle
School, which serves the Pico Neighborhood, Sunset Park and Ocean Park is also a
Title 1 school. No feasibility analysis showing the need to increase FAR and height in
the NC District of Ocean Park Boulevard was performed, but existing conditions
demonstrate the district’s ability to offer housing opportunity at a wide range of
affordability.
Montana Avenue
The Montana Avenue NC district is the major neighborhood commercial area for
the neighborhoods north of Montana Avenue and between Montana Avenue and
Wilshire Boulevard. Although the north of Montana neighborhood is primarily R1 with
extremely high property values, it is bound by streets with hundreds of units of multi-
family housing. The certified Housing Element proposes furthering AFFH objectives
in the R1 District north of Montana through active encouragement of ADU
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098
8.A.f
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment F - Letter_from_Planning_Commission_to_City_Council_proposing_amendments_to_the_Housing_Element_1-23-23
5
construction and enactment of zoning changes that encourage the development
of duplexes using SB9.
The neighborhood between Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard is almost
entirely developed with multi-family housing and has the highest percentage of the
City’s rent-controlled housing supply (6,012 units). These rent-controlled units are
affordable to and serve all income groups.
Pico Boulevard
Businesses in the Pico Boulevard NC District serve residents of the Pico
Neighborhood and the northern section of Sunset Park with a variety of affordable
retail and service options. Although designated a High Resource Area like the rest of
the city, the Pico Neighborhood is home to its lowest income and most rent
burdened residents. The neighborhood also has the highest concentration of
people of color and is the community most at risk because of gentrification and its
resulting displacement. Planning for this area is a delicate balance between
encouraging diversity and protecting existing residents and the commercial
facilities that serve them.
Beginning with the Pico Neighborhood Community Plan in 1983, the residents of the
Pico Neighborhood have advocated for fair housing, appropriate
commercial/industrial development, to reduce crime, support youth, and for public
services in their district. Spurred by new energy from the community in 2016, the city
began an update of the Pico Neighborhood Plan that focused specifically on the NC
district. Community advocates brought strong support for maintaining and
supporting the ethnic and cultural character of the Pico Neighborhood, protecting
residents from displacement, and developing new ways to support business
opportunities for local entrepreneurs in the NC district on Pico Boulevard. In 2019,
targeted adjustments were made to the city’s zoning regulations for NC on Pico
Boulevard to support local economic development. For example, a community
kitchen that supports seed businesses in food service is under construction. The City
also gives micro-grants to local entrepreneurs seeking to start small businesses.
And, a Protecting Our Diversity program provides rent subsidies for Pico
Neighborhood residents.
The Pico Neighborhood also includes an area north of the I10 Freeway, which was
severed from the southern portion of the neighborhood by construction of the Santa
Monica Freeway in the 1960s. It encompasses the Bergamot Plan area where
hundreds of new mixed income housing units are expected because of the
upzoning planned for in the City’s Housing Element. This is also where the proposed
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098
8.A.f
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Attachment F - Letter_from_Planning_Commission_to_City_Council_proposing_amendments_to_the_Housing_Element_1-23-23
6
Replacement Site is situated. This aggressive development scenario will maintain
the cultural and economic diversity in the Pico Neighborhood, while adding a robust
program of new housing choices adjacent to transit.
Conclusion
The Neighborhood Commercial District zones support Santa Monica’s most diverse
communities with locally owned, legacy businesses that have been serving their
neighborhoods for decades. Many of these businesses are minority owned. These
businesses include laundromats, shoe repair shops and affordable grocery stores,
restaurants, and family entertainment options The Venice Family Clinic is located in
the NC District of Pico Boulevard. Its displacement would eliminate affordable
health care for the many lower income families in the community. NC areas define
“community” for many current and future residents of Santa Monica at all income
levels. Business owners are also neighbors who often know their customers by
name. They provide daily neighborhood gathering opportunities, support for
neighborhood organizations and schools, and job opportunities for local youth and
Santa Monica College students.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requires a holistic approach to meeting
housing needs and providing neighborhood-serving and affordable businesses,
employment opportunities, and the kind of community cohesion that ensures safe
and vibrant places for people at all income levels in Santa Monica. The city’s
Neighborhood Commercial districts on Main Street, Pico Boulevard, Montana
Avenue and Ocean Park Boulevard provide these opportunities. The Commission
believes that protecting these resources is consistent with AFFH objectives.
Sincerely,
Jim Ries, Chair
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098
8.A.f
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment F - Letter_from_Planning_Commission_to_City_Council_proposing_amendments_to_the_Housing_Element_1-23-23
Approved Projects
Project ID Address Street ZONING Site Size FAR Stories
Market Rate Units SRO Affordable Housing Total Units Affordability % studio 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed
18ENT-0283 1323 5th St NV 7.496 3.50 6 8 35 9 52 20%/15%* 41 7 2 2 19ENT-0041 1338-1342 5th St NV 14.985 3.50 6 20 80 20 120 20%/15%* 94 16 6 4
19ENT-0042 1415-1423 5th St TA 14.961 4.00 8 32 79 23 134 20%/15%* 93 27 8 6
18ENT-0211 1425-1427 5th St TA 15 4.00 8 92 92 25% 60 18 14
19ENT-0039 1437 5th St TA 7.489 4.00 8 14 38 11 63 20%/15%* 46 10 4 3 16ENT-0143 1313-1325 6th St NV 15 3.10 6 64 64 11% 9 32 13 10 19ENT-0040 1437 6th St NV 7.5 3.50 6 35 8 9 52 20%/15%* 41 7 2 2 18ENT-0200 1238 7th St NV 7.486 3.50 6 37 37 100% 24 8 5 21ENT-0027 1448 7th St NV 7.5 3.50 5 15 5 20 25% 8 12 18ENT-0212 1514 7th St TA 7.493 4.00 8 50 50 100% 33 10 7 18ENT-0210 1543-1547 7th St TA 14.962 4.00 8 75 25 100 25% 65 20 15 18ENT-0206 1557 7th St TA 7.481 4.00 8 14 35 10 59 20%/15%* 41 11 4 3
21ENT-0269 1634 20th IC 19.8 3.95 7 78 78 100% 38 21 19
18ENT-0229 501 Broadway TA 14.975 4.00 8 75 19 94 20% 61 19 14
20ENT-0241 710 Broadway TA/LT 4.0/2.75 4.0/2.75 8 196 84 280 30% 42 107 103 43 18ENT-0199 601-609 Colorado Ave TA 22.5 4.00 8 104 36 140 25% 91 28 21 18ENT-0129 711 Colorado Ave TA 7.48 4.00 7 56 56 100% 24 26 6 17ENT-0297 1707 Cloverfield BTV 74.065 1.85 4 58 5 63 8% 8 28 16 11 20ENT-0011 1512 Euclid St MUBL 7.5 1.45 3 8 2 10 11% 16ENT-0102 1318 Lincoln Blvd MUB 14.982 2.25 5 39 4 43 8% 2 25 10 6 20ENT-0048 1427-31 Lincoln Blvd LT 15 2.25 5 24 6 30 20% 17 8 5
8.A.g
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Attachment G - Summary of Pipeline Housing Projects (5610 : Housing Element
15ENT-0266 1430-1444 Lincoln Blvd MUB 30 2.75 5 100 offsite 100 offsite 14 50 21 15 16ENT-0098 1437-1443 Lincoln Blvd MUB 15.044 2.25 5 34 6 40 15% 1 22 9 8
11DEV-014 1650-1660 Lincoln Blvd MUB 31.065 2.25 5 90 8 98 8% 2 60 22 14
16ENT-0117 3030 Nebraska Ave MUC 74.185 1.42 4 174 9 183 5% 153 26 4
11DEV-003 1133 Ocean Ave OT 190.9 2.60 8 60 offsite 60 offsite 15ENT-0300 1828 Ocean Ave OF 45.12 1.81 4 67 16 83 15% 52 19 12 15ENT-0297 1921 Ocean Front Walk OF 23.258 1.65 4 22 offsite 22 offsite 12 7 3 13DEV-004 101-129 Santa Monica Blvd OT 82.5 2.95 8 75 25 100 25% 12 55 23 10 16ADM-0050 2901-2907 Santa Monica Blvd MUBL 19.122 1.50 3 44 7 51 15% 49 2 20ENT-0311 2906-2918 Santa Monica Blvd MUBL 28.309 2.25 4 79 9 88 8% 44 38 3 3 18ENT-0182 1618 Stanford MUC 19.969 1.70 5 43 4 47 8% 6 23 10 8
Pending Projects
Project ID Address Street ZONING Site Size FAR Stories
Market Rate Units SRO Affordable Housing Total Units Affordability % Studio 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 22ENT-0082 1553-1555 4th St TA 14.997 2.87 5 54 6 60 15% 32 28 22ENT-0028 1302 6th St NV 18.4 3.50 6 73 7 80 9% 12 40 16 12 18ENT-0136 1437 7th St NV 14.991 3.50 6 52 13 65 20% 4 38 13 10 18ENT-0362 525 Colorado Ave TA 7.5 4.00 7 30 10 40 20% 22ENT-0037 1527-1547 Lincoln Blvd LT 37.455 2.25 5 106 8 114 7% 13 64 21 16 22ENT-0073 2601-2645 Lincoln Blvd MUBL 203.25 2.25 5 468 53 521 10% 91 229 201 0 22ENT-0034 216-234 Pico Blvd MUBL 55.689 2.25 5 167 19 186 8% 89 64 33 0
22ENT-0203 700 Santa Monica Blvd NV 15 3.50 5 45 15 60 25% 39 12 9
8.A.g
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment G - Summary of Pipeline Housing Projects (5610 : Housing Element
21ENT-0261 825 Santa Monica Blvd GC 22.5 1.88 4 52 4 56 7% 1 42 11 2 22ENT-0061 1801 Santa Monica Blvd GC 22.3 3.00 6 81 15 96 15% 17 56 23
22ENT-0062 1819 Santa Monica Blvd GC 22.7 3.00 6 81 15 96 15% 19 54 23 0
22ENT-0014 1902-1908 Wilshire Blvd MUB 22.5 2.25 5 71 offsite 71 offsite 10 34 16 11
22ENT-0056 2025 Wilshire Blvd MUB 18.5 2.25 4 46 offsite 46 offsite 7 22 10 7 22ENT-0170 2501 Wilshire Blvd MUB 30.8 2.25 4 71 offsite 71 offsite 12 38 16 12 22ENT-0308 2600 Wilshire Blvd MUB 23.1 2.20 4 40 5 45 15% 24 17 4 21ENT-0035 1101 Wilshire Blvd MUB 22.489 3.03 6 82 11 93 15% 73 20 22ENT-0206 407 Colorado Ave TA 15 2.98 5 54 6 60 15% 32 28 22ENT-0249 1524 7th St TA 15 4.00 9 170 43 213 20% 203 8 2 22ENT-0012 2537 Lincoln Blvd GC 19.2 2.25 4 44 5 49 10% 15 18 16 21ENT-0093 3025 Olympic MUC 68.6 2.30 6 306 39 345 11% 277 68
21ENT-0228 1931 Wilshire Blvd MUB 25.5 2.25 5 51 9 60 15% 9 30 12 9
Under Construction Projects
Project ID
Address Street ZONING Site Size FAR Stories
Market Rate Units SRO
Affordable Housing
Total Units
Affordability % Studio 1bdrm 2bdrm 3bdrm 17ENT-0275 1235 5th St NV 7.35 3.50 5 18 5 23 20% 2 13 5 3 19ENT-0256 1348 10th St GC 5 1.00 2 1 0 1 0% 1 13DEV-008 500 Broadway TA 67.5 4.00 7 249 offsite 249 offsite 35 123 66 25
17ENT-0095 2225 Broadway MUBL 9.7 1.75 3 13 2 15 8% 2 6 2 3
17ENT-0096 1450 Cloverfield MUBL 19.6 1.75 3 32 3 35 8% 4 16 8 6
12DEV-017 1560 Lincoln Blvd MUB 37.5 2.73 5 80 20 100 20% 7 39 44 10
8.A.g
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment G - Summary of Pipeline Housing Projects (5610 : Housing Element
16ENT-0035 2903-2931 Lincoln Blvd GC 32.277 1.84 4 43 4 47 8% 6 19 15 7 18ENT-0038 2822 Santa Monica Blvd MUBL 28.487 1.75 3 46 4 50 8% 6 24 12 8
16ENT-0115 601-611 Wilshire Blvd MUB 14.952 2.25 4 37 3 40 8% 5 20 9 6
19ENT-0028 2729 Wilshire Blvd MUB 7.5 1.25 2 8 1 9 8% 9
18ENT-0244 3223 Wilshire Blvd MUB 19.5 2.25 4 49 4 53 8% 8 26 11 8
8.A.g
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Attachment G - Summary of Pipeline Housing Projects (5610 : Housing Element
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmembers, City Manager
FROM: David Martin, Director of Community Development Jing Yeo, Planning Manager, Community Development Doug Sloan, City Attorney Susan Cola, Assistant City Attorney
Heidi von Tongeln, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Advisory Unit
DATE: January 22, 2023
RE: AB 2011
Assembly Bill No. 2011 (Chapter 647, Statutes of 2022)(“AB 2011”) is a new state housing law that: (i) added new annual reporting requirements; (ii) added enforcement authority for violations of state housing laws enacted in 2022; and (iii) added new development
rights for housing developers under the “Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022”. I. New Reporting Requirements
AB 2011 added new requirements to the City’s annual report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), including (i) progress on meeting the City’s share of regional housing needs for extremely low income households, (ii) the number of housing applications received in the prior year and whether each application was subject to a ministerial or discretionary approval process, (iii) the number of units of
housing demolished; and (iii) information tracking the number of development applications submitted under the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 65400) This bill also gave HCD new authority to determine that the annual progress report is
deficient within 90 days of receipt and provides the City with 30 days to cure the deficiency. II. New Enforcement Authority for Violations of New State Housing Laws
AB 2011 gave additional authority to HCD to notify the California Attorney General of violations of new state housing laws, including (i) the failure to submit a compliant annual report to HCD after notice and opportunity to cure, (ii) imposing mandatory parking minimums contrary to specified laws, and (iii) violation of the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 65585)
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Attachment H - Memo to Councilmembers regarding AB 2011 (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
AB 2011
Page 2 of 8
III. The Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 AB 2011 added new Chapter 4.1 (Cal. Gov’t Code 65912.11 et seq.) (titled the “Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022), which becomes effective July 1, 2023 and
sunsets on January 1, 2033.
While the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 intends to build on and greatly accelerate the recent efforts by the state to facilitate the construction of more affordable housing, its utility is questionable given the new labor requirements imposed
on housing developers as a condition to utilizing its by-right development benefits. The
City, in its currently effective interim zoning ordinance (“IZO”) and anticipated up-zoning for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, has already provided similar or higher thresholds for by-right development, but without the costly and onerous labor requirements of this new law. Therefore, there is no evident economic incentive for developers to utilize this new
by-right development authority in the City.
Though the utility of this law is doubtful, given its complexity, we have provided a summary of its major components, below.
Approval process:
This law would require housing to be “by right” if it conforms to the provisions below regarding affordability, location, objective standards, and labor. In being by right, it would not be subject to the City’s discretionary approval process and would be exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act. The City would still be able to apply objective
standards and design review processes as long as they do not conflict with the provisions in the law and do not preclude development of the housing. Affordability requirements:
This law requires at least 15 percent of new rental units be affordable to lower-income
households or, alternatively, 8 percent for very-low income households, or, alternatively, 5 percent for extremely-low income households. Affordable rental units would be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units.
This law also offers a for-sale owner-occupied alternative that requires 30% of the units
be affordable to moderate-income households or, alternatively, 15% of the units be affordable to lower-income households. Affordable for-sale owner-occupied units would be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 45 years.
Location requirements:
This law facilitates the development of two kinds of housing – 100-percent affordable housing, and mixed-income housing. To qualify to utilize the by right provisions of this law, both kinds of housing projects must be located in zones where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use (defined as “a use that may occupy more than one-third of
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Attachment H - Memo to Councilmembers regarding AB 2011 (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
AB 2011
Page 3 of 8
the square footage of designated use on the site and does not require a conditional use permit.”) Mixed-income housing projects would be limited to sites that abut a “commercial corridor,” which is a local road with a right-of-way of 70 to 150 feet (generally, four to six lanes), and has frontage along the commercial corridor of a minimum of 50 feet.
Qualifying commercial corridors in the City are included in the following zoning districts.
MUBL Mixed-Use Boulevard Low. This Zoning District is intended to facilitate the transformation of sections of boulevards into vibrant, highly walkable areas with broad, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, trees, landscaping, and local-serving uses with new buildings that step down in relationship to the scale and character of adjacent low density
neighborhoods. Allowable ground floor uses include active, local-serving retail, open spaces such as plazas, service-oriented commercial uses, and residential and hotel uses in limited areas. Residential development for all income levels is the predominant use above the first floor.
MUB Mixed-Use Boulevard. This Zoning District is intended to facilitate the
transformation of underutilized and auto-oriented sections of boulevards into vibrant,
diverse, and attractive pedestrian friendly mixed-use boulevards that support local-serving retail and a diversity of housing types. The Mixed-Use Boulevard District provides an environment that will accommodate affordable, workforce, and market-rate housing, stepping down in height and mass when adjacent to residential neighborhoods, as well
as a variety of local-serving uses. Allowable ground floor uses include local-serving retail
uses, ground floor open spaces such as small parks and plazas, service-oriented commercial uses, and some small-scale office uses. Residential development for all income levels is the predominant use above the first floor in certain locations. In parts of the District, especially along the south side of Wilshire, medical and dental offices are
allowed on all floors.
GC General Commercial. This Zoning District is intended to maintain areas for affordable and market rate housing and a broad range of commercial uses that provide necessary daily services such as auto sales and auto repair, convenience retail, hotels, hardware stores, and small restaurants while respecting adjacent residential
neighborhoods and established neighborhood commercial areas.
NC Neighborhood Commercial. This Zoning District is intended to maintain and enhance small-scale neighborhood shopping districts that provide daily goods and services easily accessible from surrounding residential neighborhoods while also serving a sub-regional role. This District provides for a scale and character of development that
is pedestrian-oriented and which tends to attract and promote a walk-in clientele. Development within this District should maximize human-scaled elements while providing a sensitive transition between these uses and neighboring residential areas. Ground floor uses include active, local-serving retail and service commercial uses such as small restaurants, laundromats, dry cleaners, beauty/barber shops, and clothing and grocery
stores. Uses above the ground floor include residential, commercial, and local-serving office uses. This District is comprised of four geographic areas:
Main Street. Main Street is a neighborhood commercial street that is home to many boutiques, restaurants, and neighborhood-serving businesses. Main Street has both local
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Attachment H - Memo to Councilmembers regarding AB 2011 (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
AB 2011
Page 4 of 8
and regional appeal, providing an eclectic mix of activities that is unique to Southern California.
Ocean Park Boulevard. Ocean Park Boulevard is a local-serving boulevard with two vibrant, neighborhood-serving commercial areas. The boulevard is a complete street for
pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and autos, with an enhanced streetscape and dining, retail,
and service needs within walking distance of the Sunset Park and Pico neighborhoods.
Pico Boulevard. Pico Boulevard is a local-serving, commercial boulevard that provides an enhanced environment for pedestrians and includes a wider choice of local-serving retail, expanded mobility, and shared parking.
Montana Avenue. Montana Avenue serves as a local, commercial, and entertainment
street that also draws regional visitors who enjoy its many cafés and boutique stores.
IC Industrial Conservation. This Zoning District preserves space for existing industrial uses that provide a job base, affordable space for small-scale industrial and
manufacturing businesses, and a center of economic activity for the City. The District also provides a place for the adaptive reuse of industrial buildings into affordable workspace for artists and the creative industries. Allowable land uses within this District include light industrial uses, including businesses engaged in design, development, manufacturing, fabricating, testing, or assembly of various products, which provide important community
services and employment for workers with various skills. This District also allows incubator business opportunities, including sustainable industries that are appropriate for the City, as well as small visual and performing arts studios and theaters. One hundred percent affordable housing is allowed in limited areas. Additionally, auto dealers are allowed to locate storage and service facilities in this area.
OC Office Campus. This Zoning District is intended to provide for office and advanced technology uses, scientific research, and administration, and limited manufacturing of related products which require large expanses of floor area on large parcels. Development intensity is intended to provide for office uses and other uses within a
campus-like environment that will be compatible with abutting residential neighborhoods, especially in terms of scale and building mass. HMU Healthcare Mixed Use. This Zoning District is intended to provide for the future orderly expansion of the City’s hospitals and related health care facilities in order to meet
the needs of both the community and region while protecting the integrity of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The District fosters the evolving needs of the healthcare community with expanded medical office uses and outpatient services along with retail and non-medical services. Lincoln Transition (LT). This Zoning District is intended to facilitate the transformation of underutilized and auto-oriented sections of Lincoln Boulevard into a vibrant, diverse, and pedestrian-friendly mixed-use boulevard that supports local-serving retail and a diversity of housing types. The Lincoln transition District provides an environment that will accommodate housing and mixed-use development that steps down in height and
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Attachment H - Memo to Councilmembers regarding AB 2011 (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
AB 2011
Page 5 of 8
mass when adjacent to residential neighborhoods to the east, and provide a variety of commercial uses. Allowable ground floor uses include local-serving retail uses, ground floor open spaces such as small parks and plazas, service-oriented commercial uses, and some small-scale office uses with housing on upper building floors.
Bayside Conservation (BC Promenade). This Zoning District is intended support the existing mix of pedestrian-oriented retail, restaurant, and services on the Third Street Promenade and maintain the human‐scale environment created by the buildings, representing the traditional height and scale of the early 20th century. Some of these buildings retain their historic façades at ground level or on upper building floors. Newer
building forms are required to be set back at upper floors to maintain the Promenade’s
historic scale. Bayside Conservation (2nd and 4th Streets). This Zoning District is intended to preserve the ambiance of this well‐loved, human-scaled environment along 2nd and 4th Streets in the Downtown. This District supports a lively mix of active storefronts, restaurants,
pedestrian-oriented services with the opportunity for housing and office uses on upper
building floors. This District promotes adaptive re-use of existing buildings and maintenance of the traditional storefront development pattern at the ground floor. Neighborhood Village (NV). This Zoning District is intended to maintain the existing mix
of housing and commercial uses and provide more opportunities for local serving
pedestrian‐activating uses to activate the street. Ground floor residential uses are desired
for mid‐block projects, and all new uses should be incorporated in a way that respects
existing residential uses in the District.
Transit Adjacent (TA). This Zoning District is intended to support increased activity near the Expo Light Rail. This area includes large properties adjacent to the freeway and the light rail station that can accommodate a broad mix of uses and services such as local
and regional serving retail, multifamily housing, Class‐A office, creative employment,
hospitality uses, and community gathering spaces. This District provides a mix of
convenient goods and services in proximity to transit serving residents and visitors so they may shop on their walk to and from the station. Additional employment sites are accommodated near transit so employees may commute to and from work via light rail to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips associated with office and other employment uses. Wilshire Transition (WT). This Zoning District is intended to support the smaller, local serving uses that provide easily accessible goods and services to the surrounding neighborhood and also to provide opportunity for housing above the ground floor of new development. The proposed scale for the District is established to be complementary to its urban context in the Downtown and provide new buildings that are consistent with the
scale of nearby residential uses. Ocean Transition (OT). This Zoning District is intended to promote public and private enhancements to make Ocean Avenue a more consistently enjoyable walking experience and more integrated into the larger Downtown multi‐modal circulation network. Standards
for the District support the overall improvement of the pedestrian experience, restaurants
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Attachment H - Memo to Councilmembers regarding AB 2011 (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
AB 2011
Page 6 of 8
with outdoor dining, small-scale retail and services, and housing and office uses on upper floors. All Zones in the Bergamot Area Plan
Development Prohibitions:
This law includes provisions that would preclude development on environmentally unsafe or sensitive area, per previously established objective standards. It would also require development to occur within infill areas, which would help reduce commutes and, commensurately, greenhouse gas emissions.
To protect existing communities, projects would not be allowed to demolish existing housing, with the exception of housing that is owner-occupied by a higher income household that chooses to sell their property to enable a development of greater density. Additionally, the development could not lead to the demolition of a historic structure,
including City-designated historic resources.
Objective Standards:
To utilize the by right provisions of this law, housing projects would need to meet the objective standards specified in the law. All projects would need to be multi-family projects where no more than one-third of the space can be for a non-residential use.
For 100-percent affordable projects, the residential density would need to meet or exceed the density considered geographically appropriate for affordable housing projects in Housing Element Law. Generally, that density is 30 units per acre in urban areas, 20 units per acre in suburban areas, and 10 units per acre in rural areas. The site must otherwise
meet the local government’s height limits, objective zoning standards, and objective
design review standards.
Mixed-income housing projects would need to meet or exceed the density and height standards in the table below. These standards are distinguished by the type of community, width of the commercial corridor, and proximity to transit. The local
government may allow higher densities and height limits at their discretion.
Location Metropolitan Jurisdiction Non-Metropolitan Jurisdiction
Minimum
Project
Density
Minimum
Project
Height
Minimum Project
Density
Minimum
Project
Height
Commercial corridor with
a width of 70’ to 100’
40 units/acre 35 feet 30 units/acre 35 feet
Commercial corridor with
a width of 100’ to 150’
60 units/acre 45 feet 50 units/acre 45 feet
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Attachment H - Memo to Councilmembers regarding AB 2011 (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
AB 2011
Page 7 of 8
Commercial corridor
within ½ mile of a major
transit stop
80 units/acre 65 feet 70 units/acre 65 feet
For reference, the following table shows the up-zoning mandated by the certified 6th Cycle
Housing Element:
Citywide Rezoning
Zone FAR Height
MUBL – N. of I-10 3.25 70’
MUBL – Pico 2.00 45’
MUBL – Pico w. of Lincoln 2.50 55’
MUBL – Lincoln 2.50 55’
MUB 3.25 70’
GC (SMB) 3.25 70’
GC (Lincoln) 2.50 55’
GC (Pico) 2.00 45’
NC 2.25 50’
NC (Main) 2.50 55’
NC (Ocean Park) 2.50 55’
NC (Montana) 2.50 55’
IC 3.00 65’
OC 2.75 60’
HMU 2.50 70’
Downtown Rezoning
LT (East) 3.00 65’
LT (West) 3.00 65’
NV 3.50 65’
BC (Promenade) 3.00 65’
BC (2nd and 4th) 3.50 65’
TA 3.50 65’
OT 3.00 65’
WT 3.00 65’
Bergamot Area Plan Rezoning
BTV 4.0 84’
MUC North of
Pennsylvania or South of
Expo Bike Path
4.0 84’
MUC 4.0 84’
CCS 2.50 55’
CAC 2.50 55’
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Attachment H - Memo to Councilmembers regarding AB 2011 (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
AB 2011
Page 8 of 8
Mixed-income projects must meet specified setback standards regarding any frontages along the commercial corridor, any side street, and rear property lines. These setback standards are designed to focus the development along the commercial corridors, and away from the rear of the property.
The City may not require parking for mixed-income projects, except that projects must meet requirements around accessible parking for people with disabilities, electric vehicle parking spaces, and bicycle parking. Developers would be allowed to determine the amount of parking needed to meet the demands of the new residents.
Prevailing Wage Requirements:
This law would require compensation consistent with standards in place for public works projects by requiring projects to pay prevailing wages. The prevailing wage encompasses an hourly pay, as well as compensation for other benefits should the employer not provide them, including health care, vacation, and pension.
This law includes an enforcement component by the Labor Commissioner, an underpaid workers, or a joint labor-management cooperation committee established under federal law. These provisions would help bolster enforcement capacity of the labor standards and help ameliorate concerns about wage theft.
This law requires that all contractors on projects of 50 or more units participate in a state-
approved apprenticeship program or request the dispatch of apprentices from a program.
This law allows for a locally negotiated Collective Bargaining Agreement to supersede the labor provisions in this law.
Given the potential impacts of these labor requirements on housing development
feasibility, this law tasks HCD with undertaking two studies (one before January 1, 2027 and one before January 1, 2033) to determine the outcomes of this law. This law also
tasks local government (e.g., the City) with monitoring prevailing wage compliance of
these projects.
8.A.h
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Attachment H - Memo to Councilmembers regarding AB 2011 (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Friday, February 10, 2023 10:54 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de
la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com; clarethomasdo@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A -- Study Session re Housing Element implementation
EXTERNAL
February 10, 2023
To: Mayor Davis and Council members
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A: Study Session on Implementation of the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing
Element Programs
It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that "make" the Sunset Park
neighborhood.
Please do not throw these businesses to the wolves by allowing the upzoning of the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) districts on those two streets.
Below is a letter which the FOSP Board sent to the Planning Commission on this topic in January, including a
list of some of the neighborhood-serving small businesses in each of the NC segments on the south side of Pico
Blvd. and on Ocean Park Blvd.
Thank you for your consideration.
*****************************************************************************
January 16, 2023
To: Planning Commission
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 1/18/23 agenda items 9-A
https://www.smgov.net/departments/pcd/agendas/Planning-Commission/2023/20230118/a20230118.htm
Item 7.A 02/14/23
1 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
The FOSP Board supports the letter in agenda item 9-A from Planning Commissioners Nina Fresco, Leslie
Lambert, and Jim Ries.
We are particularly interested in retaining the existing heights and FARs in the Neighborhood Commercial
districts on Ocean Park Blvd., and the south side of Pico Blvd. rather than increasing them, as proposed in the
certified Housing Element.
Upzoning of our NC districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd. has the strong potential to displace locally-
owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to Sunset Park residents.
The loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will also be in direct conflict with Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives.
The Issue: Upzoning of Sunset Park’s Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District from a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) and 32’ maximum height to an FAR of 2.50 and 55’ height.
The NC districts are the following areas on
- Ocean Park Blvd. from 16th to 18th: Merrihew's Sunset Gardens, Hair Brains beauty salon, Ghisallo (bread
baked on the premises), Bicycle Workshop, Santa Monica Yoga, Bob's Market, Yoga-urt (plant-based soft
serve), Antequera Bakery, Edelweiss Flower Boutique, Goods LA (handcrafted artisan goods from around the
world), Quinnie & B – A Tiny Toy Shoppe, Local Kitchen & Wine Bar, Thyme Café & Market, Café Bolivar
- Ocean Park Blvd. from roughly 25th Street to Centinela: OP Market, Ocean Park Pharmacy, Classic
Tailors, Juice Crafters, Blossom Vietnamese, Bubble Boba, National Mailbox Center/FedEx, two tailor shops,
Bubble Boba, The Counter, Il Forno Trattoria, Hurry Curry of Tokyo, Menchie’s Frozen Yogurt, Crimson
(Mediterranean kabobs), a small UPS store, Caruso Enzo Custom Tailor
- Pico Blvd. south side from Euclid to 16th: Andy’s Cleaners, Cosmoprof (cosmetics), Byron Woodley Tire,
Nostalgia Bar & Lounge
- Pico Blvd. from 20th to 31st: Campos Famous Burritos, Tel’s Barber Shop (3 generations of barbers), Santa
Monica Lock & Safe, Kick/Goju Ryu Karate, Westwood Appliances, Lo/Cal Coffee & Market, Sundance
Physical Therapy, Wilson Brothers Appliance Repair, Z Garden Mediterranean, Lunetta, Sunset Car Wash,
Gilbert's El Indio, Paws & Effect Pet Spa, Tim Clarke Design, Eco Heads Salon, Laura's Nails
Selected Sites Inventory (SSI) – The SSI is part of the Housing Element and lists properties “likely” to be
redeveloped as housing during the Element’s term (from now until 2029). Sites are listed using HCD’s site
selection criteria.
There are 203 properties on the City’s SSI, of which 13 are in Neighborhood Commercial Districts. 12
are on Pico Blvd. and one is on Ocean Park Blvd. (the NE corner of 17th & OPB). The total housing unit
capacity, if the SSI sites are developed, is 13,000+ units. Of these, only 165 are in the NC Districts.
The Housing Element calls for the upzoning of 1,171 acres along the boulevards, in Bergamot, and
Downtown. Of these, only 71 are in NC Districts.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
2 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. is unnecessary to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals.
1. 50% of Sunset Park households have annual incomes at or below the Moderate Income level.
2. Two Sunset Park schools (Rogers & JAMS) qualify for the Title 1 Federal lunch program, meaning that at
least 35% of students are from families at or below the Federal poverty level. The majority of students in both
schools are children and youth of color.
3. Of the approximately 7,000 housing units in Sunset Park, 3,309 are rent controlled apartments with median
rents affordable to households at moderate income and below; 2,645 are single family houses; and the
remainder are condominiums or post-1979 apartment units.
4. The required (LUCE) specific plan to be prepared for the Santa Monica Business Park will focus on mixed
income housing, which makes new housing in NC unnecessary.
Impacts of Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. and south side of Pico Blvd.
1. Displacement of locally owned businesses, a number of which are minority owned.
2. Loss of the commercial district altogether since ground floor commercial space will not be required for
new projects given the likely unmarketability of this space for neighborhood serving businesses.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
3 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jeanne Laurie <jeannelaurie@msn.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 11, 2023 9:19 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FOSP Bd: City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A -- Study Session re Housing Element
implementation
EXTERNAL
I’ve lived in Santa Monica for 32 years. Every year there is more sadness watching what was
such a small business and residential neighborhood town turn into a cold, impersonal
heartless town.
So many mom and pop and small businesses have been forced out.
Is all of this really necessary? Was Roy Disney right when he said that developers are the
cocaine to city councils?
Are strong arm tactics the rule of the day? Did you all vote for Trump? No regard for
humanity or people.
Please consider the points made by Zina Josephs in her email to the city council.
Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: zinajosephs@aol.com
To: councilmtgitems@smgov.net , caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov ,
christine.parra@santamonica.gov , gleam.davis@santamonica.gov ,
jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov , lana.negrete@santamonica.gov ,
oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov , phil.brock@santamonica.gov
Cc: zinajosephs@aol.com, clarethomasdo@aol.com
Sent: 2/10/2023 10:54:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: FOSP: City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A -- Study Session re Housing Element
implementation
February 10, 2023
To: Mayor Davis and Council members
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A: Study Session on Implementation of the 6th Cycle (2021-2029)
Housing Element Programs
Item 7.A 02/14/23
4 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that "make" the Sunset
Park neighborhood.
Please do not throw these businesses to the wolves by allowing the upzoning of the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) districts on those two streets.
Below is a letter which the FOSP Board sent to the Planning Commission on this topic in January,
including a list of some of the neighborhood-serving small businesses in each of the NC segments on
the south side of Pico Blvd. and on Ocean Park Blvd.
Thank you for your consideration.
*****************************************************************************
January 16, 2023
To: Planning Commission
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 1/18/23 agenda items 9-A
https://www.smgov.net/departments/pcd/agendas/Planning-
Commission/2023/20230118/a20230118.htm
The FOSP Board supports the letter in agenda item 9-A from Planning Commissioners Nina Fresco,
Leslie Lambert, and Jim Ries.
We are particularly interested in retaining the existing heights and FARs in the Neighborhood
Commercial districts on Ocean Park Blvd., and the south side of Pico Blvd. rather than increasing them,
as proposed in the certified Housing Element.
Upzoning of our NC districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd. has the strong potential
to displace locally-owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to Sunset Park
residents.
The loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will also be in direct conflict with Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives.
The Issue: Upzoning of Sunset Park’s Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District from a 1.0 Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) and 32’ maximum height to an FAR of 2.50 and 55’ height.
The NC districts are the following areas on
Item 7.A 02/14/23
5 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
- Ocean Park Blvd. from 16th to 18th: Merrihew's Sunset Gardens, Hair Brains beauty salon, Ghisallo
(bread baked on the premises), Bicycle Workshop, Santa Monica Yoga, Bob's Market, Yoga-urt (plant-
based soft serve), Antequera Bakery, Edelweiss Flower Boutique, Goods LA (handcrafted artisan
goods from around the world), Quinnie & B – A Tiny Toy Shoppe, Local Kitchen & Wine Bar, Thyme
Café & Market, Café Bolivar
- Ocean Park Blvd. from roughly 25th Street to Centinela: OP Market, Ocean Park Pharmacy,
Classic Tailors, Juice Crafters, Blossom Vietnamese, Bubble Boba, National Mailbox Center/FedEx,
two tailor shops, Bubble Boba, The Counter, Il Forno Trattoria, Hurry Curry of Tokyo, Menchie’s
Frozen Yogurt, Crimson (Mediterranean kabobs), a small UPS store, Caruso Enzo Custom Tailor
‐ Pico Blvd. south side from Euclid to 16th: Andy’s Cleaners, Cosmoprof (cosmetics), Byron Woodley
Tire, Nostalgia Bar & Lounge
- Pico Blvd. from 20th to 31st: Campos Famous Burritos, Tel’s Barber Shop (3 generations of barbers),
Santa Monica Lock & Safe, Kick/Goju Ryu Karate, Westwood Appliances, Lo/Cal Coffee & Market,
Sundance Physical Therapy, Wilson Brothers Appliance Repair, Z Garden Mediterranean, Lunetta,
Sunset Car Wash, Gilbert's El Indio, Paws & Effect Pet Spa, Tim Clarke Design, Eco Heads Salon,
Laura's Nails
Selected Sites Inventory (SSI) – The SSI is part of the Housing Element and lists properties “likely” to
be redeveloped as housing during the Element’s term (from now until 2029). Sites are listed using
HCD’s site selection criteria.
There are 203 properties on the City’s SSI, of which 13 are in Neighborhood Commercial
Districts. 12 are on Pico Blvd. and one is on Ocean Park Blvd. (the NE corner of 17th & OPB). The
total housing unit capacity, if the SSI sites are developed, is 13,000+ units. Of these, only 165 are in the
NC Districts.
The Housing Element calls for the upzoning of 1,171 acres along the boulevards, in Bergamot, and
Downtown. Of these, only 71 are in NC Districts.
Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. is unnecessary to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals.
1. 50% of Sunset Park households have annual incomes at or below the Moderate Income level.
2. Two Sunset Park schools (Rogers & JAMS) qualify for the Title 1 Federal lunch program,
meaning that at least 35% of students are from families at or below the Federal poverty level. The
majority of students in both schools are children and youth of color.
3. Of the approximately 7,000 housing units in Sunset Park, 3,309 are rent controlled apartments with
median rents affordable to households at moderate income and below; 2,645 are single family houses;
and the remainder are condominiums or post-1979 apartment units.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
6 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
4. The required (LUCE) specific plan to be prepared for the Santa Monica Business Park will focus
on mixed income housing, which makes new housing in NC unnecessary.
Impacts of Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. and south side of Pico Blvd.
1. Displacement of locally owned businesses, a number of which are minority owned.
2. Loss of the commercial district altogether since ground floor commercial space will not be
required for new projects given the likely unmarketability of this space for neighborhood serving
businesses.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
7 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Katharine Dreyfuss <kitdreyfuss@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 11, 2023 2:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Upzoning Neighborhood Commercial Districts
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members:
I am writing to you in response to having received the following alert from my neighborhood association.
This Tuesday night, February 14, the City Council will be discussing upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial
districts of the city, which includes Montana Avenue.
Upzoning would mean allowing higher, more dense development on Montana between 7th and 17th streets. The
current streetscape of low-slung, two-story buildings could be replaced by four-story (or with 'density bonus’, even
five-story) projects.
Montana is a successful and eclectic street, with many locally-owned, neighborhood-serving businesses. Upzoning
will attract larger chains that can afford larger spaces and higher rents. Over time, this will lead to Montana Avenue
becoming more homogenized, replacing what makes it unique and special to our neighborhood and to our city with
the same generic buildings and nationwide chains we see everywhere else.
I hope that you will be very careful in selecting Neighborhood Commercial districts which might actually need
upzoning. Montana Avenue continues to be home to a tantalizing variety of individually owned and operated
businesses, which serve not only their neighborhood but also tourists from around the world. When traveling to other
countries, I have been surprised by squeals of admiration from people who learned where I am lucky enough to
live. Montana Avenue has businesses which already produce steady tax funds for our city, and does not need the
kind of "improvement" you have in mind.
Please use careful discretion as you contemplate replacing unique and flourishing Neighborhood Commercial
districts. Bigger is not necessarily better.
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Sincerely,
Kit Dreyfuss
Item 7.A 02/14/23
8 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:danilobach <danilobach@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 11, 2023 12:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Council Agenda Item 7: Study session, 2/14/23
EXTERNAL
To help protect yMicrosoft Office pautomatic downlopicture from the
Dear Mayor Gleam and Council Members,
The NOMA Board supports the concepts previously expressed in the letter sent by several members
of the Planning Commission asking the City Council to request the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) amend the City’s certified Housing Element to enhance
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).
The request asks to "retain the existing heights and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in the Neighborhood
Commercial Districts (NC) on Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana
Avenue rather than increasing them as proposed" in the certified Housing Element. This is
acknowledgement that the upzoning of our NC districts has the strong potential to displace locally
owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to residents. The letter
cautions that "In fact, the loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will be in direct conflict with
AFFH objectives."
The letter clearly states the need to maintain our Neighborhood Commercial Districts in order to
provide essential services to residents. The last major zoning update (2015) considered increasing
the height and FARs for the neighborhood commercial districts and decided that these were not
warranted and should remain resident serving commercial areas.
Neighborhood Commercial Districts each have a unique feel which is vital to Santa Monica, its
residents and business community. They provide a special mix serving us all. We would be
substantially poorer as a community if we were to lose their distinctive nature and local ownership.
The NOMA Board urges the City Council to seek a modification in the City’s certified Housing
Element to protect the Neighborhood Commercial Districts.
Thank you.
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
9 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Jimmy Richards <jrjram7@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 11, 2023 10:22 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 6-Public Comment on the Housing Element
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council,
I'm writing to encourage you to take the recommendation of the Planning Commission and submit an application to the
State of California to modify the Santa Monica approved Housing element so that the city can avoid Up‐Zoning all
commercial districts uniformly.
Main Street in Ocean Park, for example, falls into the category of Neighborhood Commercial Zone (NC Zone). It currently
allows for base heights of 32 ft for buildings. The new Housing Element would allow building heights to
effectively double, and if there is a 100% affordable housing project that height can increase by 33% more. What would
happen to Main Street with 55 ‐100 feet tall buildings, all in the name of fair housing? What is fair about that? What is
necessary about that? (The population of Santa Monica is not growing, and Ocean Park in particular, is already greatly
diverse economically, with rent control throughout the neighborhood).
Here's something the Housing element from the state of California does not take into consideration: People seek out
Santa Monica, and in particular, Ocean Park from all over the state, the country and the world. Main Street, Ocean
Park is beachside living. Its very character and identity connotes the sound, smell, feel and sight of the Ocean, along
with a Sunday stroll in the sun on Main Street. Nobody came here, either 60 years ago or today to live, work and walk in
the shadows of 100 foot commercial buildings or affordable housing buildings. The entirety of Main street from Bay to
Pier could one day be in the shade everyday after 1 pm. So much for the beach side neighborhood...so much for the very
essence of what draws people here.
I'm asking you to protect our residential neighborhoods ‐ Main Street, Montana Avenue, Ocean Park Blvd & Pico blvd.
Preserve the NC zone, don't destroy the very character, charm and appeal of Santa Monica. Submit an application to
modify the Housing element to avoid Up‐zoning all commercial districts uniformly.
I'm asking you to protect Ocean Park. Ocean Park is special and I strongly unequivocally urge you to not upzone.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jim Richards
Ocean Park Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
10 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Traci Wallace <traciwallace@earthlink.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 8:14 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
As a homeowner in the Sunset Park neighborhood I urge you to discontinue discussion of and vote against any
“upzoning” of the city’s Neighborhood Commercial Districts. We are already witnessing great change to the
landscape and character of our small city and as a resident who pays taxes, owns a business, and raised a family
here in Santa Monica I am saddened to see it beginning to lose its unique identity. My husband and I chose to live
here as opposed to other areas of Los Angeles because of its small-town feel and the attention to community and
the residents' interests and needs. We have wonderful, eclectic locally-owned businesses in our Ocean Park and
Pico commercial districts and I am dismayed to think of those areas changing due to the Council allowing higher
buildings and the possibility of larger chain stores that can pay the higher rents that such “upzoning” will likely
bring.
We most definitely do not need homogeneity and more of the generic types of businesses that that can be found
elsewhere; Santa Monica is a unique part of LA and trying to preserve our non-high-rise, non-commercial nature will
allow us to remain close as a community, feel greater peace and sustain a closer tie to our natural
surroundings. I certainly hope that you as our elected representatives would hope to keep it that way.
Sincerely,
Traci Wallace, Ph.D.
1731 Dewey Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
11 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Steven Madick <smadick@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 8:08 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; ana.negrete@santamonica.gov; Christine
Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:upzoning the streets
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I moved to this part of Santa Monica for its eclectic non‐Planned community feel.
This includes the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make the
Sunset Park neighborhood special.
Please do not change the feel of our neighborhood by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
districts on these two streets.
My Dad moved from Boyle Heights to live in this area in the 1940’s and I came back for the same reason, the eclectic
charm and uniqueness that Santa Monica holds that is not found anywhere else.
Having lived in many places before being able to settle here, I saw the “upzoning” that stole the charm and
homogenized many cities. Maybe it’s considered progress to become like every other city but I am not looking for
singularity,
Thank you for taking into consideration the opinions of those who already live here and have struggled along side the
city during turbulent times. Please take into account our voices, the voices of those living here now.
Regards,
Steven Madick
Item 7.A 02/14/23
12 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:willy knicker <willyk52@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 8:03 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear council memebers,
The struggle to keep our neighborhood livable and 'local' seems never ending.
The proposal to 'upzone' on the agenda almost certainly did not originate from the residents or
businesses'
that would suffer the consequnces of these changes.
Being able to walk to and bike to local shops such as 'Campos Famous Burritos' (here for more
than 40 years) are
things that makes Santa Monicaa special place to live.
This proposal will make Santa Monica less of a special place.
Look at who supports the proposal and who opposes the proposal.
thanks
Item 7.A 02/14/23
13 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:William Purdy <billpurdy@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 7:59 AM
Cc:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick; FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
It's discouraging to constantly have to battle the out right greed and selfishness of commercial developers in our
beloved Santa Monica. It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make
the Sunset Park neighborhood special.
Please don't destroy these businesses by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on these two
streets. Going from two to five stories is quite a leap and a terrible idea in every way. Please stop this awful
planning idea.
Bill Purdy
Sunset Park Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
14 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Karla Klarin <ksklarin@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 7:58 AM
To:Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council‐
Please do not upzone Ocean Park or Pico. This is a neighborhood, where I have lived for 35 years and raised my
children. This is a home, NOT a money making opportunity. Will anyone ever think of Lincoln Blvd. as a home? No.
Please don't do the same thing to our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Karla Klarin
‐‐
karlaklarin.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
15 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Jeffrey Gordon <jeffgordon99@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 7:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick
Subject:Resident Comment on Item 7a City Council Agenda 2/14/2023
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I write to strongly support protecting our neighborhood streets—Pico, Main Street, Ocean Park and Montana—and to
oppose upzoning them. In this regard I agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and urge the City Council
to maintain existing heights and densities on these streets.
Upzoning these streets would lead to the destruction of many existing buildings containing vital small businesses serving
our community many of which businesses would not return, the raising of rents and the resultant increase in chain non‐
local stores.
We need to protect our small businesses and support “buy local.” We need to maintain our unique and beloved
neighborhood streets so important to our quality of life and wellness as a city.
Thank you,
Jeff Gordon
Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
16 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:D'Orsogna, Maria-Rita R <dorsogna@csun.edu>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 10:17 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose "Housing Element" along Montana Ave, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd, Main Street
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilperson of the City of Santa Monica,
my name is Maria D'Orsogna, I am a math professor at CSUN and I live in Santa Monica,
my home for more than 20 years.
I urge you to oppose changes to the zoning codes in Santa Monica to accommodate the so‐called "Housing
Element" as demanded by the State of California.
This proposition calls for adding an astonishing 9,000 new units in our city through massive up‐zoning, without
any real thought on how this would impact traffic, water consumption, walkability/bike‐ability, quality of life,
pollution, beauty. Among the targeted areas are the so‐called NC zones (low rise Neighborhood Commercial
zones), such as Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd, and Montana Avenue. The current maximum height
allowed here is 32 feet. The new proposal would allow the maximum height to reach 65 feet for housing
projects (double!) and to a monstruous 98 feet for 100% affordable housing projects (triple!)
Since one story is roughly 10 feet, this means we would even see big boxes up to 9 or 10 stories tall!
You must oppose this. You must.
Our beloved quaint streets dotted with small, family‐owned, diverse business that give Santa Monica most of
its charm, history and beauty will be destroyed. Tourism will suffer, people will leave, whatever is left of our
mom‐and‐pop economy will be completely decimated. Commercial rents will increase (see Manhattan!) to
levels that only big national brand chains will be able to afford, essentially driving out small businesses and
preventing any new start‐up ones from even trying.
Do we really want to displace locally owned businesses to incorporate yet another CVS?
We have the highest sales taxes in the area, so people will not come to shop along Montana or Main Street
unless there is something special about what these areas offer and that cannot be replicated elsewhere.
There is nothing necessary about this, and it is misguided to force Sacramento mandates on our small, unique
little town.
All this upzoning will only benefit developers and promote harmful gentrification that will hurt the
communities we think we are helping, especially those who live close, are limited in their mobility, and rely on
lower priced services in smaller buildings, for example, along Pico Blvd. We already have super tight rules on
rent control, protections for seniors and programs to help rent‐burdened families. We also already have many
diverse mixes of housing types that accommodate all levels of incomes. Many neighborhoods are already
Item 7.A 02/14/23
17 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
extremely diverse, such as along Pico Blvd and Ocean Park. We don't need to destroy our city as there is really
no need for any of this.
These are facts:
Santa Monica had 91,000 residents in 1999.
Santa Monica had 91,000 residents in 2021.
There has been no substantial change in our population in the last 20 years.
Please protect residential neighborhoods ‐ Main Street, Montana Avenue, Ocean Park Blvd & Pico Blvd
by preserving the NC zone without destroying the essence of this city.
Sincerely
Maria R D'Orsogna, PhD
Item 7.A 02/14/23
18 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 9:59 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de
la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com; David Martin; David White
Subject:City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A: Housing Element Implementaion -- Lot consolidation
EXTERNAL
February 12, 2023
To: Mayor Davis and Councilmembers
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A -- Housing Element Implementation Study Session
On page 67 of the Zoning Ordinance redlines, the lot consolidation limits for the purpose of new projects
applies only to Main Street Neighborhood Commercial.
For non-housing projects, the maximum square footage resulting from lot consolidation is 6,000 sq
ft.
For housing projects, it's 15,000 sq ft. But again, the current language only applies to Main Street.
This seems to indicate that a developer could tie together parcels on Pico Blvd. or Ocean Park
Blvd. to develop a large project, wiping out an entire block of businesses.
This "lot consolidation" language should apply to ALL Neighborhood Commercial Districts.
Thank you for your consideration.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
19 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:sean meehan <sean@somafilms.tv>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 9:53 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:Up-zoning of Ocean Park and Pico
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am writing to you to register my staunch opposition to the upcoming proposal to re‐zone Ocean Park and the south
side of Pico Blvd from two storey to five storey buildings. Our family only recently moved to this area during the
pandemic from a busier part of Los Angeles — precisely because we sought a quieter, more community minded lifestyle
— and we have found that here in Sunset Park. To re‐zone these areas means ultimately stripping away the charm and
character that makes this area so unique in the greater Los Angeles area. It will almost certainly lead to the loss of many
of the eclectic small businesses in the area.
History matters. Community matters. And most of all, people matter. Please don’t put profit before our community.
We have just found this wonderful pocket of the world and we have become friendly with many of the business owners,
particularly along Ocean Park. I would ask you to consider that unique communities like the one we have here are
fragile things. We watched with dismay as the community and camaraderie of our last neighborhood rapidly evaporated
due to the adoption of exactly the kind of proposal that is before you now.
This amazing community, once lost, will never be regained. I urge you to reject this harmful proposal.
Sincerely,
Sean Meehan.
Sunset Park resident.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
20 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Crystal Reed <chreed@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 9:31 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 item 7A
EXTERNAL
Please do not allow upzoning of Ocean Park Blvd. We in Sunset Park along OP are already going to be overwhelmed by
the significantly increased traffic and parking issues from the project underway on Lincoln at Ashland, and then literally a
couple blocks away, at Lincoln and Ocean Park, the monstrous Gelson's project that is planned to begin soon.
Our neighborhood is already being destroyed. I'm not taking about the aesthetics of larger buildings, I'm talking about
the impact on livability from rapidly doubling (or more) the population of areas with no traffic mitigation and
inadequate parking requirements attached to new construction.
It's not a way to force alternative modes of transportation. I take care of my 81‐year old father. I can't just lug
him around by bicycle or bus. Other people have children, or businesses that require use of their cars. Making
the city less drivable doesn't make it better, it makes it worse. Making the city less parkable doesn't make it
better, it makes it worse. I understand that there is pressure from the state to build units, but doing so
without planning to accommodate the traffic from those additional residents just makes the city worse. That's
it. It's not an upgrade, it's a downgrade. It's time to stop doing that to our city.
Crystal Reed
2817 11th Street
Native, lifelong SM resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
21 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Ilya Haykinson <haykinson@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 9:11 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A — support for upzoning
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
As in my prior letter in January, I urge the council to support the upzoning of the Neighborhood Commercial districts. As
a resident of Sunset Park I appreciate the services that I get from the commercial districts, but I would also like the city
to use the opportunity to increase the density in these areas. The creation of mixed use spaces is something I would like
the city to encourage, and I look forward to the new residents and businesses we would welcome to our area over time.
I know that some neighbors have concerns about the potential for existing businesses to be displaced. I think this is a
real concern, so I would suggest that the city council consider partially mitigating this by providing existing tenants with
a "continuity initiative". The council could mandate something like:
* if a structure along the corridor is replaced with one offering commercial space, commercial tenants in the existing
space must be given right of first refusal to lease new space
* an existing tenant should be offered a 5 year lease at a price no more than 125% of their existing lease, with limits on
price increases for lease renewals
There may be other approaches that balance the desire to retain existing businesses with the need to revive the
commercial districts and gradually replace them with the denser spaces that we need to be creating in our
neighborhoods. I am sure that change will come, but as a local resident I am very much looking forward to these kinds of
changes.
Best regards,
‐ilya haykinson
Item 7.A 02/14/23
22 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Ursula Fox <umkfox@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 8:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis
Subject:Re: 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
On Feb 12, 2023, at 8:51 AM, Ursula Fox <umkfox@gmail.com> wrote:
Please, do not upzone the neighborhood commercial district on Ocean Park Blvd and the south side of
Pico Blvd.
Thanks.
Ursula Fox
31st St Santa Monica, 90405
umkfox@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
23 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Ursula Fox <umkfox@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 8:52 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Please, do not upzone the neighborhood commercial district on Ocean Park Blvd and the south side of Pico Blvd.
Thanks.
Ursula Fox
31st St Santa Monica, 90405
umkfox@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
24 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jeff <jeffgordon99@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 1:16 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick
Subject:Item 7a, City Council Agenda, 2/14/2023
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I previously wrote to support the Planning Commission’s recommendation opposing up zoning on Pico, Montana, Main
Street and Ocean Park.
I now have leaned that the zoning update before you would only place limits on lot consolidations on Main Street, but
not Montana, Pico or Ocean Park. I strongly oppose these exclusions and support also including these three
neighborhood streets in the limits on lot consolidations.
Lot consolidations could have the same negative impacts on these streets as up zoning, driving out local businesses,
increasing chains and decreasing the character and feel of our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Jeff Gordon
Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
25 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Mark Ford <yomarkford@me.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 12:51 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:Reid Thompson
Subject:City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A, Protect Neighborhood Serving Streets
EXTERNAL
Honorable Council Members,
Please use your authority to protect Santa Monica’s unique Main and Montana Streets and
portions of Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards from ever higher buildings and more
density. Greater density and taller buildings would inevitably result in loss of their sunny
walkable appeal and neighborhood serving businesses.
Apply to the State to modify our City’s Housing Element to exempt these Neighborhood
Commercial Districts from upzoning. Upzoning would allow significantly taller buildings than
these streets currently host. Resulting increasing rents would drive out small, local
businesses.
Main Street in particular is a draw for many Santa Monica visitors and tourists. Its one and
two story low rise buildings, many historic and beautiful, create an appealing destination for
them. Please don’t lose that. Certainly there are a few places in our City where we can afford
to save a bit of what was and is special about Santa Monica. Main Street is one.
We moved to Santa Monica this year and bought a historic home on 3rd Street because of the
special characteristics and charm of Main St. and Ocean Park. If that charm is lost, we will
move our family elsewhere.
Mark Ford
Resident 2623 3rd St 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
26 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:wendy way <wendywayaway@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 11:06 AM
To:Bea Nemlaha
Cc:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Re: City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A; Protect Neighborhood Serving Streets
EXTERNAL
Hey!
all the letters to the city council have been great. I sent one yesterday and heard back from Phil Brock who is definitely
on board with protecting Main Street.
Have a great weekend,
Wendy
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 12, 2023, at 11:02 AM, Bea Nemlaha <tobea@nottobe.com> wrote:
Honorable Council Members,
Please use your authority to protect Santa Monica’s unique Main and Montana
Streets and portions of Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards from ever higher
buildings and more density. Greater density and taller buildings would inevitably
result in loss of their sunny walkable appeal and neighborhood serving
businesses.
Apply to the State to modify our City’s Housing Element to exempt these
Neighborhood Commercial Districts from upzoning. Upzoning would allow
significantly taller buildings than these streets currently host. Resulting increasing
rents would drive out small, local businesses.
Main Street in particular is a draw for many Santa Monica visitors and tourists. Its
one and two story low rise buildings, many historic and beautiful, create an
appealing destination for them. Please don’t lose that. Certainly there are a few
places in our City where we can afford to save a bit of what was and is special
about Santa Monica. Main Street is one.
Bea Nemlaha,
Item 7.A 02/14/23
27 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
43 year Ocean Park Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
28 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Bea Nemlaha <tobea@nottobe.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 11:03 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A; Protect Neighborhood Serving Streets
EXTERNAL
Honorable Council Members,
Please use your authority to protect Santa Monica’s unique Main and Montana Streets and
portions of Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards from ever higher buildings and more
density. Greater density and taller buildings would inevitably result in loss of their sunny
walkable appeal and neighborhood serving businesses.
Apply to the State to modify our City’s Housing Element to exempt these Neighborhood
Commercial Districts from upzoning. Upzoning would allow significantly taller buildings than
these streets currently host. Resulting increasing rents would drive out small, local
businesses.
Main Street in particular is a draw for many Santa Monica visitors and tourists. Its one and
two story low rise buildings, many historic and beautiful, create an appealing destination for
them. Please don’t lose that. Certainly there are a few places in our City where we can afford
to save a bit of what was and is special about Santa Monica. Main Street is one.
Bea Nemlaha,
43 year Ocean Park Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
29 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Adam Cohen <adam@superdelicious.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 10:39 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com; Damla Dogan
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
As a long time resident, community leader (South Of Pearl Community Organization) and heavy local school supporter,
I’m begging for your help. I believe we voted for most of your to support the community. With Upzoning the community
begins to be erased… precipitously. My neighborhood frequents the local businesses proudly. But the Upzoning
development on the horizon will not only change the face of the community… it will ERASE IT.
We are open to change, improvements, making money for the city. However, this is too much. We know all of you on he
City Council care about our community. We know you have families. We know you love Santa Monica as we do. I think
we can all see the writing on the wall… local businesses will be decimated by this change. It doesn’t take a Wharton
School degree to figure this out.
Please please please allow us to talk this through and please do not allow this monumental change to a community
already looking at colossal change on the horizon (the Lincoln and Ocean Park development which will increase the
community population by 20%). Please hear us out. We love our community and want to keep that aspect… a
community.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Adam Cohen
Cedar Street
Adam Cohen Super Delicious
6121 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite G
Hollywood, CA 90038
adam@superdelicious.net
O: (323) 785-2660
Item 7.A 02/14/23
30 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Ryan Olson <ryan.t.olson@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 10:28 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/2023 Agenda Item 7-A
EXTERNAL
I am writing to support the upzoning of Neighborhood Commercial areas on Ocean Park and Pico boulevard. As a Sunset
Park resident, I look forward to the increased vitality that more local residents will bring to the area. Further, I think that
the good things already happening on these two streets would only be enhanced by more flexibility allowing mixed use
development along these two corridors that are well served by public transit and bike lanes.
Ryan Olson
1021 Pine St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
6581‐36(310) 7
Item 7.A 02/14/23
31 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Lulu Cafe <zone4rez@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 2:01 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
To the City Council,
Please protect Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue from upzoning
and lot consolidation.
If you truly want residents to use fewer car trips, you will refrain from chasing any more small,
neighborhood-serving businesses out of Santa Monica. Far too many have already left. Items I used
to shop for here, I now have to drive to West LA, Venice, or farther to find.
If you allow this item to pass, you will have clearly demonstrated that your stated goals of reducing
car usage, and of making SM more walkable are not sincere, but just political gaslighting.
Thank you,
Glenna Dumey
Item 7.A 02/14/23
32 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Steven Novak <stevenovak@earthlink.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 1:58 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:14 Feb 23 Agenda Item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members --
I have been living in Ocean Park since 1990 and, in local elections, have voted for quite a few of you.
I am concerned about this so-called "upzoning" discussion of Ocean Park Blvd. and the south side of Pico
Blvd, the idea being to replace locally owned one- and two-story buildings with more vertical, multi-story
projects with higher rents.
Approving this idea would likely attract national chains and transform what is now a uniquely local look into a
just-like-any-other-place-in-the-country-nothing-special look.
I am strongly against this idea as, in my view, this would represent a step backward, not forward. Besides
resulting in an uglier aesthetic, the denser, more vertical development would absolutely result in increased
traffic congestion.
Please shoot down this idea immediately.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Item 7.A 02/14/23
33 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Steve Novak
Ocean Park
Item 7.A 02/14/23
34 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:John Levy <jmlevy19@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 1:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
My family and I live in Sunset Park. One of the reasons we have chosen to put down roots and raise our
children here is the neighborhood's character. It is the small locally‐owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and
Pico Blvd. that make the Sunset Park neighborhood special. Please do not throw these businesses to the
wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on these two streets.
Yours,
John Levy
2673 33rd St.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
35 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Tina <tlc1014e@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 1:27 PM
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
PLEASE STOP STOP STOP !!!
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ALREADY
Many of you have lived in and seen the changes that have been made to Santa Monica and to the
Sunset Park Neighborhood over the years. PLEASE, if you live in the area, take a walk, if you live
outside the area, take a drive and stand in front of one or two of the small businesses in these
neighborhoods and envision the change you'll see if the upzoning recommendation is passed.
So much of the charm of Santa Monica has already been chiseled away which originally made the
city so lovely and special. Please let's not continue on that path by ultimately sending the wrecking
ball into these areas to do away with these small neighborhood businesses which make these areas
so special -- when they are gone, they are gone as are those who've been the proprietors for decades
who know their customers by name and know their children and grandchildren as well because at
both ends, LOYALTY has been key. 'Mom & Pop" shops are almost gone, we must stand up for
those left and the small business owners still able to make a living due to the business given them by
residents in these neighborhoods and are essential in the Sunset Park Neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Tina Cox
Item 7.A 02/14/23
36 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mary Hubbell <hubbellmary@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 3:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Councilmembers;
I urge you to protect our neighborhood commercial districts. Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd., Pico Blvd., and Montana
Ave. are what makes our town unique and appealing to residents and visitors alike.
Please don’t allow the destruction of these local treasures, small businesses, and iconic walkable streets from
destructive upzoning.
Also, please don’t allow developers to consolidate lots to build even larger developments on these streets.
Thank you for your commitment to preserving our quality of life.
Mary Hubbell
Ocean Park
Sent from Mary's iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
37 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Brooks <elizabeth@mail2brooks.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 2:44 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:February 14, 2023 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
First of all, as a Santa Monica resident for thirty year, I want to thank you for your dedication and service to our
beautiful Santa Monica.
For many happy years I have lived in my townhouse on 11th Street just south of Montana and have never wanted to
live anywhere else.
Alas, if the proposed “upscaling,” goes through, it will change our neighborhood enormously and not for the better. I
drive through areas
defined by high rise apartment and commercial buildings on either side of the street (e.g. Wilshire Blvd. in Westwood)
and give thanks
that I live where I do.
Please be a good citizen, as well as a valued public official, and protect our friendly neighborhoods, small businesses,
and lovely walkable streets.
PLEASE DO NOT go forward with the plan to “upzone” Montana Avenue, Main Street and Ocean Park and Pico
Boulevards. PLEASE DO NOT
allow lot consolidation for Montana Avenue, and Ocean Park and Pico Boulevards. Please keep our precious Santa
Monica precious.
Most sincerely,
Elizabeth Brooks, Ph.D.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
38 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:phil traill <philtraill@mac.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 2:42 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please please protect our neighborhoods by keeping the current zoning and by not allowing lot consolidation.
Many thanks
Phil Traill
SM Resident for 17 years
Item 7.A 02/14/23
39 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Jon Amsden <thewriterscoach@verizon.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 2:40 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:"Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd.
EXTERNAL
To: The Santa Monica City Council
From: Dr. Jon Amsden, PhD. (London Econ)
The proposed "upzoning" of Ocean Park Blvd. and other streets in Santa Monica is
disastrous concept, and one that only multibillionaire corporations would consider. The
undersigned was vigorous participant in the campaign to make Santa Monica a truly
democratic city based on good will and social equality. The so-called "upzoning" of Ocean
Park Blvd. and other city locations would basically sell the city's democratic and socially
progressive realities to the "big money." The City Council must throw out the above-
mentioned billionaire's project ASAP!
Sincerely,
Jon Amsden
Item 7.A 02/14/23
40 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Nikki F <ncf1551@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 2:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
To the Mayor and Council Members of Santa Monica,
I urge you to protect the Pico, Montana, Ocean Park, and Main St neighborhoods and small
businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation as recommended by the
Planning Commission in their letter of January 23, 2023.
The people who elected you are depending on you to protect the city from developers and preserve
the integrity and infrastructure of Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Nikki Fernandez
1138 16th St, Apt 6
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
41 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Peter Altschuler <altschuler@wordsworthandco.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 2:17 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:It's rare when...
EXTERNAL
… the Planning Commission, rather than capitulate to developers, sides with residents’ interests. Its recommendation to
maintain the scale of the Neighborhood Commercial Districts on Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, and Montana
Avenue is well‐reasoned and based on community needs.
If those districts are “upzoned,” it’s easy to envision the outcome: just look at the Third Street Promenade. What used to
be a mecca for local merchants and mom‐and‐pop businesses lost all of its character when those stores were forced out.
Now, the Promenade is comprised of national/international chains with no local “flavor” or commitment, and they still
lack the allure to keep them viable. The empty storefronts are a blight.
Residents rely on the grocers, laundromats, restaurants, clothing stores, cobblers, pharmacies, and bike shops that line
the NC districts, and housing mandates can be met without destroying the character of long‐established community
shopping districts. Underutilized areas of Santa Monica, such as the one‐time light manufacturing district north of
Olympic between Stewart and Centinela, is far more conducive to housing, given its open space (parking lots) and
proximity to the Expo Line at Bergamot Station and Big Blue Bus routes, and the area’s clear need for service
businesses.
Do not amend Program 1J. It is a direct route to community character assassination.
p
Item 7.A 02/14/23
42 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Fae Horowitz and Al Linton <faeandal@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 2:13 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Sunset Park is home to us, and has been since the last century. We are
appalled to learn about the changes proposed in the above mentioned
Agenda Item. These changes would turn our warm, beloved, charming
and most importantly user friendly neighborhood into a cold, traffic
snarled commercial nightmare. Our neighborhood isn't broken. Why do
you feel a need to "fix" it? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE VOTE NO.
We Beseech You.
Fae Horowitz
Al Linton
Item 7.A 02/14/23
43 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Loni Rush <Loni@pmbllc.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 3:57 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:What are you doing
EXTERNAL
To our city???
It is deplorable and we need some partially sensible leadership before it totally falls apart.
I am here just 15 years and the change is frightening.
With good intentions,
Loni Rush
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
44 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Marc Primiani <mprimiani@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 3:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
City council members,
I agree with the findings of the Santa Monica Planning Commission that it is unnecessary to up zone the four Santa
Monica neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd and Montana Avenue
for the reasons set forth in its 1/23/24 letter to the city council.
“The upzoning of our NC districts will cause the displacement of locally owned businesses that provide affordable retail
and essential services to residents. In fact, the loss of these neighborhood‐serving businesses will be in direct conflict
with AFFH objectives. Many of these small businesses are minority owned. Further, NC Districts currently offer
entrepreneurial opportunities for local residents, many of whom are people of color.”
I further believe that this approach will not have negative impacts on the city’s ability to meet the State’s AFFH
requirements.
Please reject any proposal to up zone these districts and preserve our city’s local businesses. Let’s not go down the road
of the 3rd Street Promenade.
Marc Primiani
Santa Monica resident for over 27 years
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
45 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Brenda Anderson <brendaanderson3942@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 3:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I support the Planning Commission recommendation to protect our City Streets and keep the neighborhood character
intact. We need the small shops and businesses that provide local services to we, the residents.
Small businesses are the life blood of our city and make it possible to maintain the community feeling that comes from
having places to interact, one on one, with our neighbors and shop owners.
I urge you to keep the current zoning and please DO NOT allow lot consolidation.
Respectfully,
Brenda Anderson
475 24th St
Santa Monica 900402
Item 7.A 02/14/23
46 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Ron Part <ron.part@me.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 3:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I recently read about the proposal to “upzone” certain Santa Monica business streets so larger and taller commercial
buildings can be built. I am really shocked that our elected officials would even consider allowing more and higher
buildings here when we already have poor electricity, constant traffic, little water, 30% commercial vacancy rates, and a
tremendous problem with crime, drugs, and the homeless. The massive ugly apartments that have already been built
have made Santa Monica a worse place to live. We don’t need to double down on this mistake by doing the same thing
again, only for business.
Sincerely,
Ronald Part
Sent from my iPad
Item 7.A 02/14/23
47 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Shane Peters <smpipefitter@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 3:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Save OPBlvd and Pico
EXTERNAL
Please protect City from onslaught of over Development Please
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
48 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:riverfred1@gmail.com
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 3:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Upzoning for Montana Ave.
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The upzoning bill for Montana will destroy the character and charm of Montana Ave. it will create chain stores, more
construction, congestion, etc. etc.
Preserve our neighborhood and say no to developers and their offers. Can you for once keep S M a small beach town as
we are fast becoming another high density no charm town run by developers.
Also, keep in mind the residents are totally against the enlargement of the Carlthorp School. They cheated on their
parking and converted it to an event center.
Obviously they cannot be trusted.
Sincerely,
Fred Alexander
Item 7.A 02/14/23
49 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Hoover <annkbowman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 3:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Lana
Negrete; Christine Parra
Cc:David White; Susan Cline; David Martin; Jing Yeo
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 7.A.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and Esteemed Council Members -
Please respect the well-reasoned recommendation of your Planning Commissioners to not upzone our NC areas (Pico
and Ocean Park Boulevards, Main Street and Montana Avenue). These streets, chock-full of small local businesses, are
the heart of what makes Santa Monica livable, diverse, and unique. Upzoning them is unlikely to produce appreciable
new housing and is particularly unlikely to generate much affordable housing. Failure to protect these last remaining
areas of unique charm and character would cause irreparable harm for conceivably very little.
No Councilmember who advocates to upzone the NC areas will ever again be able to credibly maintain that they
care about the health of our small businesses and the character of our unique little City.
In that spirit, I ask this current City Council to challenge legally NOW the State's unfunded, outsized RHNA mandate (and
the Builder's Remedy) in every creative and new way possible to bring it back in line with past RHNA cycle targets. This
current mandate is anti-climate, anti-livability, anti-water self sufficiency, anti-resource conservation, anti-net zero
emissions, anti-biodiversity, anti-sunshine, anti-neighborhoods, anti-small businesses, anti-architectural character, anti-
smart local planning, anti-local control, anti-fiscal responsibility, & anti-sanity - it is "anti" in every way possible except for
developers and the construction industry and should have been pushed back on at the appropriate time. The fault for not
doing that lays (A) at the feet of City Staff particularly Jing Yeo, and (B) at the feet of Mayor Gleam Davis who is the only
remaining Councilmember on the dais from the time when the past Council rejected a challenge. And now here we are.
For shame.
Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Santa Monica resident
26+ years
Item 7.A 02/14/23
50 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nancy Hyland <nhyland@me.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 5:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:No “upzoning” in Ocean Park
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmember -
I am writing to urge you not to allow lot consolidation on Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana
Avenue. If you and your fellow Santa Monica City Council members approved this it would allow developers to
consolidate lots and build larger, mega projects on these Streets. These four walking Streets contain most of
the neighborhood-serving, affordable businesses we residents use in our daily lives – local food stores and
restaurants, laundromats, shoe repair and pharmacies, all within a short distance of our homes. As a long term
resident who owns a house on Highland Avenue, just off Ocean Park, I know how much I and my family and
my neighbors rely on these local businesses – they are a vital part of the fabric of our community that
contribute to making Santa Monica feel special.
We urge you to not allow these areas to be “Upzoned”, which would allow these unique neighborhood Streets
to be developed with new five or six-story projects. The resulting demolition of existing buildings would displace
and eliminate most of the essential neighborhood-serving businesses and negatively impact our community
and our quality of life.
Thank you for your consideration,
Nancy Hyland
2715 Highland Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
nhyland@me.com
⢆⢇⢈⢉⢊⢋⢌⢍
Item 7.A 02/14/23
51 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Nancy Hyland <nhyland@me.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 5:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:No “upzoning” in Ocean Park
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmember -
I am writing to urge you not to allow lot consolidation on Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana
Avenue. If you and your fellow Santa Monica City Council members approved this it would allow developers to
consolidate lots and build larger, mega projects on these Streets. These four walking Streets contain most of
the neighborhood-serving, affordable businesses we residents use in our daily lives – local food stores and
restaurants, laundromats, shoe repair and pharmacies, all within a short distance of our homes. As a long term
resident who owns a house on Highland Avenue, just off Ocean Park, I know how much I and my family and
my neighbors rely on these local businesses – they are a vital part of the fabric of our community that
contribute to making Santa Monica feel special.
We urge you to not allow these areas to be “Upzoned”, which would allow these unique neighborhood Streets
to be developed with new five or six-story projects. The resulting demolition of existing buildings would displace
and eliminate most of the essential neighborhood-serving businesses and negatively impact our community
and our quality of life.
Thank you for your consideration,
Nancy Hyland
2715 Highland Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
nhyland@me.com
⢆⢇⢈⢉⢊⢋⢌⢍
Item 7.A 02/14/23
52 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Tim Whalen <teepeew@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 5:01 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I have been a resident of Sunset Park for 25 years, and Santa Monica for more than 40. I write to express my
opposition to the upzoning of the neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street,
Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. These districts on these streets
contain the only remaining neighborhood character, charm, and human scale in Santa
Monica. I know the LUCE is no longer a guiding principle, but one of its promises was the
preservation of neighborhood character. Upzoning will destroy the sense of place, history, and
community that resides in these districts. Further, these pedestrian districts include
essential neighborhood services that will disappear if these districts are upzoned. I hope you will
follow the Planning Commission's recommendation and vote to preserve these irreplaceable
character defining commercial districts.
Sincerely yours,
Tim Whalen
Santa Monica 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
53 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Barbara King <nabbers333@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 4:46 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
We agree with the Planning Commission and urge the City Council to
protect these neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the
current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation.
“Upzoning” would allow these unique Streets to be developed with new five or six-story
projects. The resulting demolition of existing buildings would displace and eliminate most of the
essential neighborhood-serving businesses. They would be replaced with higher rent tenants
like chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life and
increasing traffic and parking woes.
Also being considered is whether to allow lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard,
Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue. If approved this would allow developers to consolidate
lots and build larger, mega projects on these Streets.
When our Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes it made a strong, well-
supported recommendation to Council against upzoning these Streets and urged the Council
to keep the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts. Read the
Planning Commission letter here:
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=14074&MeetingID=1353
These four walking Streets contain most of the neighborhood-serving, affordable businesses
residents use in their daily lives – local food stores and restaurants, laundromats, shoe repair and
pharmacies, all within a short distance of people’s homes. Residents don’t just rely on them – they
are a vital part of the fabric of our community that contribute to making Santa Monica feel
special.
We urge you as our representatives to protect these Streets.
Barbara King and Robert McNab
4th Street
Santa Monica
Item 7.A 02/14/23
54 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Beatrice Felix <felix.beatrice@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 4:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please do not agree to UPZONING and to the consolidation of properties to allow and
encourage large developments.
I have been a resident in Sta Monica since 1977 and seen what the influx of larger
retail/commercial establishments has been - and it's not improved our quality of life or the
fabric of the community. Look at the huge vacant stores on the Promenade and Wilshire
where we once had a vibrant local retail corridor.
I agree with the Planning Commission and urge the City Council to protect these
neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot
consolidation.
We are already facing impenetrable traffic which impedes access to and from the freeway.
This will only get worse when the LINCOLN/Broadway complex is completed. We are
choking the city and making it a nightmare for the people who live and work here.
Please vote NO on UPZONING and consolidation. As the Planning commission wrote in
January, it's not necessary to meet the AFFH objectives and it'll simply diminish the quality
of life in our city.
Sincerely,
Beatrice Felix
Item 7.A 02/14/23
55 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:GARY <writer629@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 4:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
As a longtime resident, I urge you to vote no on the proposed up-zoning of Main Street,
Ocean Park Blvd., Pico Blvd and Montana Avenue.
This won't enhance life, it will work to wreck the neighborhoods we love.
Sincerely,
Gary Gurner
Item 7.A 02/14/23
56 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Liz Bell <lizmacbell@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 4:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a--up zoning of major streets
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am a resident of Santa Monica. I’m writing to urge you NOT to allow up zoning of the
major streets covered by this item. We need to preserve neighborhoods of Santa Monica, not to
turn them over to developers intent on reaping their financial gain, but destroying everything we
value about Santa Monica in the process.
Thank you.
Lizbeth Bell
1434 18th St.
90404
lizmacbell@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
57 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jim Bernstein <sitcomjim@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 6:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I have been a resident of our beautiful city for over 30 years. One thing that I love about Santa Monica is that it still feels
like a small town where I often run into friends in our local shops.
It is for that reason that I am very concerned about the proposal to increase the height of commercial buildings in the
Pico‐Ocean Park area. I strongly urge you to vote against the proposal to upzone the Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
districts on these two streets.
Sincerely,
James Bernstein
Santa Monica, CA
Item 7.A 02/14/23
58 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Fish2000 <fish2000@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 6:18 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Lana
Negrete; Christine Parra; David White; Susan Cline; David Martin; Jing Yeo
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 7.A.
EXTERNAL
Please do not vote to upzone the NC areas.
Sincerely,
Laura Lim
Santa Monica resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
59 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Leanna Primiani <lprimiani@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 6:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
City council members,
I agree with the findings of the Santa Monica Planning Commission that it is unnecessary to up zone the four Santa
Monica neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd and Montana Avenue
for the reasons set forth in its 1/23/24 letter to the city council.
“The upzoning of our NC districts will cause the displacement of locally owned businesses that provide affordable retail
and essential services to residents. In fact, the loss of these neighborhood‐serving businesses will be in direct conflict
with AFFH objectives. Many of these small businesses are minority owned. Further, NC Districts currently offer
entrepreneurial opportunities for local residents, many of whom are people of color.”
I further believe that this approach will not have negative impacts on the city’s ability to meet the State’s AFFH
requirements.
Please reject any proposal to up zone these districts and preserve our city’s local businesses. Let’s not go down the road
of the 3rd Street Promenade.
Leanna Primiani
Santa Monica resident for over 23 years
Leanna Primiani
310‐948‐8616
https://play.reelcrafter.com/LeannaPrimiani/MusicByLeannaPrimianiSL
https://www.tiktok.com/@composerleanna
leannaprimiani.com
“You can if you think you can."- Nikki
Item 7.A 02/14/23
60 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:David Lappen <dlappen@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 5:43 PM
To:David Lappen
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica has some charming walking neighborhoods. We happen to live near one ‐ Montana Ave. Ocean Park is
another great one. Please don't ruin them by upscaling or allowing lot consolidation. These actions will drive out the
small merchants and restaurants in favor of national chains. If successful, it will increase car traffic, pollution, and
noise. If it isn't successful, it will create a lot of vacancy that will depress the area.
Please preserve Santa Monica's local charm and reject upscaling and lot consolidation.
David Lappen
625 19th Street
Item 7.A 02/14/23
61 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Jo Baxter <jobaxter@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 5:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda item 7a
EXTERNAL
No upzoning in Santa Monica!
Please protect our neighbourhoods and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and NOT allowing lot
consolidation!
Thank You,
Jo Baxter
90402
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
62 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Andrew Wilder <andrew@andrewwilder.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 5:13 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick
Subject:Item 7A: Don't upzone our wonderful walk streets
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I agree with the Planning Commission and Friends of Sunset Park:
Please protect our neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the current zoning, and by
not allowing lot consolidation along Ocean Park Blvd., Pico Blvd., Main St, and Montana Ave.
Upzoning of our Neighborhood Commercial districts has the strong potential to displace locally-
owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to residents. In a country
where giant chains have taken over and homogenized just about everything, our small, locally-
owned businesses help make Santa Monica so special. Please don't let that be destroyed.
The loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will also be in direct conflict with Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Andrew Wilder
Sunset Park
Item 7.A 02/14/23
63 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Susan Cope <susan.waller.cope@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 5:12 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please do not "upzone" Montana Avenue, Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd or Pico.
They are some of the few shopping and dining areas in this already over‐crowded city which still possess a modicum of
human scale.
Already there are incursions, like the west side of Main Street between Hill and Ashland where a dark building sneaked
in an extra story.
Thank you,
Susan Cope
susanwallercope@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
64 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ed Harker <ewillhark@netscape.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 10:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council 2.14.23 - Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
Please accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and DO NOT UP-ZONE our cherished Santa Monica
neighborhoods, along Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd and Montana Ave.
We are an amazing city because we have been able to maintain a quality of life that depends on local businesses on a
modest scale that are personable, responsive and responsible to the particular concerns and needs of our
residents. Bigger is NOT better.
We do not want to lose what makes us a great place to live, and a great place for residents from other parts of the
Southland to visit: welcoming, familiar not franchise, and full of unique character and local color. Don't turn us into a
crowded, gridlocked, factory of a city.
We love Santa Monica and urge you to preserve the character that has made us want to stay here as our permanent
home.
Again, bigger is NOT better, it's more impersonal, insensitive, unfriendly.
Resident since 1984,
Ed Harker
Item 7.A 02/14/23
65 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 9:59 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council 2/14 Mtg. - Item 7A - Maintain NC districts to support small businesses and residential
local shopping
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Gleam and Council Members,
The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board supports the concepts previously
expressed by several members of the Planning Commission asking the City Council to request the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) amend the City’s certified
Housing Element to enhance Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).
The request asks to "retain the existing heights and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in the
Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NC) on Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico
Boulevard and Montana Avenue rather than increasing them as proposed" in the certified
Housing Element. This is acknowledgement that the upzoning of our NC districts has the
strong potential to displace locally owned businesses that provide affordable retail and
essential services to residents. The letter cautions that "In fact, the loss of these
neighborhood-serving businesses will be in direct conflict with AFFH objectives."
The letter clearly states the need to maintain our Neighborhood Commercial Districts in
order to provide essential services to residents. The last major zoning update (2015)
considered increasing the height and FARs for the neighborhood commercial districts
and decided that these were not warranted and should remain resident serving
commercial areas.
Also being considered is whether to allow lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard
and Montana Avenue. The Zoning Ordinance redline outlines (pg. 67) the lot consolidation limits only
for new projects on Main Street NC. This implies that a developer could consolidate parcels on Pico
Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard and Montana Avenue to develop a large project, wiping out an
entire block of local and small businesses. If approved, this would allow developers to consolidate lots
and build larger, mega projects on these Neighborhood Commercial streets, pricing and pushing out
local and small businesses that create the unique aspects to our neighborhoods.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
66 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Neighborhood Commercial Districts each have a unique feel which is vital to Santa Monica, its
residents and business community. They provide a special mix serving us all. We would be
substantially poorer as a community if we were to lose their distinctive nature and local ownership.
We urge the City Council to seek a modification in the City’s certified Housing Element to protect the
Neighborhood Commercial Districts in maintaining their existing FAR and heights and protect them
ALL from lot consolidation enablement.
Thank you,
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Board of Directors
Item 7.A 02/14/23
67 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Metin Mangir <mangir.metin@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 9:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Please do NOT upzone Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please heed the advice of Planning Commission, and
do NOT upzone Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue
Metin Mangir, PhD
SM resident for 34+ years
Item 7.A 02/14/23
68 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Curt Jordan <curtjordan@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 3:14 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:No on upzoning and lot consolidation
Council members:
Please vote no on upzoning and lot consolidation.
Curt Jordan
1328 2nd St Apt 203
Santa Monica CA 90401
Item 7.A 02/14/23
69 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:David Guth <davidGuth@earthlink.net>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 12:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
Councilmember:
Upzoning in Santa Monica is essential, only for for low-income housing.
Any upzoning of a commerical district must restrict all of the additional square footage to low-income housing.
We have many more jobs in Santa Monica than we have housing units. We have no need for additional
commercial space. We need more affordable housing. After you get housing, in all affordability levels, in
balance with jobs you can add commercial square footage to our City.
Additionally, existing traffic congestion must be decreased by requiring abundant, not adequate, abundant
parking under the new construciton, so that all street parking can be removed to add traffic lanes to the affected
district. Widening the street should also be considered. If traffic studies show that widening the street by a lane
will decrease traffic congestion more than adding an additional story, then taller buildings (on a lot narrowed to
add a lane to the street) should be encouraged. Again, any and all additional square footage should be devoted
to the type of structure most in need in Santa Monica, low-income housing.
If it’s not economic for private developers to build what the City of Santa Monica needs, leave bad enough
alone. Don’t make it worse. If you’re standing in a hole, first stop digging. Then, find a way out. One way out
is to allow developers to build small units, to rent for the same cost per square foot as larger units. It’s not a
surprise that minimum-wage workers have to live in smaller spaces than $100k/year tech workers.
Summary: Upzoning should be allowed only to solve traffic congestion and our shortage of low-income
housing.
Be Healthy!
David Guth, Santa Monica Resident and Voter
26 Village Pkwy
90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
70 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Tara Barauskas <tbarauskas@communitycorp.org>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 8:16 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda 2/14/23 - support for item 11A
Importance:High
EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable Mayor Davis and Members of the City Council,
Community Corp. is a nonprofit affordable housing provider here in Santa Monica. For over 40 years, we have improved
lives and neighborhoods by providing permanent, high quality affordable housing for over 1,900 households of modest
means. We strongly support Item 11A, declaration of a state of emergency of homelessness for the City of Santa Monica.
Homelessness is at crisis levels, and without bold, intentional action, the problem will continue to get worse. The
measures stated within the measure are all appropriate to take significant steps towards improving the issues and
helping people who are vulnerable and need stability. We strongly urge you to vote yes on this declaration and pave the
way for bold actions to help people as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Tara
Tara Barauskas, LEED AP
Executive Director
Community Corporation of Santa Monica
1423 2nd Street, Suite B
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 394‐8487 ext. 133
tbarauskas@communitycorp.org
www.communitycorp.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and
work.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
71 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Mary Duprey <mary.duprey@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 7:53 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
Please do not upzone the Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. commercial districts. Our city is already
way too dense with five story buildings being constructed everywhere. It is getting unbearable.
In addition it may displace many very important locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and
Pico Blvd. that make the Sunset Park neighborhood special.
Please do not throw these businesses to the wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on these
two streets.
Thank you,
Mary Duprey, Santa Monica resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
72 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:45 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Council Agenda Item 7: Study session, 2/14/23
From: Noma Boardmember <nomaboard@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2023 11:52 AM
To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock
<Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis <Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Jesse Zwick
<Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Council Agenda Item 7: Study session, 2/14/23
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Gleam and Council Members,
The NOMA Board supports the concepts previously expressed in the letter sent by several members
of the Planning Commission asking the City Council to request the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) amend the City’s certified Housing Element to enhance
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).
The request asks to "retain the existing heights and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in the Neighborhood
Commercial Districts (NC) on Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana
Avenue rather than increasing them as proposed" in the certified Housing Element. This is
acknowledgement that the upzoning of our NC districts has the strong potential to displace locally
owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to residents. The letter
cautions that "In fact, the loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will be in direct conflict with
AFFH objectives."
The letter clearly states the need to maintain our Neighborhood Commercial Districts in order to
provide essential services to residents. The last major zoning update (2015) considered increasing
the height and FARs for the neighborhood commercial districts and decided that these were not
warranted and should remain resident serving commercial areas.
Neighborhood Commercial Districts each have a unique feel which is vital to Santa Monica, its
residents and business community. They provide a special mix serving us all. We would be
substantially poorer as a community if we were to lose their distinctive nature and local ownership.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
73 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
The NOMA Board urges the City Council to seek a modification in the City’s certified Housing
Element to protect the Neighborhood Commercial Districts.
Thank you.
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
74 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Gmail <normadesmond99@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/24 agenda item7-A
EXTERNAL
Please do not upzone Ocean ParkBlvd, Pico Blvd, Montana Ave and Main Street. We DO NOT want our small businesses
to be gone!
Norma Maister
Sent from my iPad
Item 7.A 02/14/23
75 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:richard mccann <mccann472002@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Upzones Tuesday nite
EXTERNAL
Say NO NO NO to upzoning!!
Richard McCann
2704 11thSt #1
Santa Monica 90405
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Item 7.A 02/14/23
76 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Lori Petitti <loripetitti@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:28 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Council Members,
My family has lived in the Sunset Park area on 21st Street between Pico and Ocean Park for over 30 years. We love our
neighborhood and want to keep it walking friendly, family friendly and small business oriented.
The Issue: Upzoning of Sunset Park’s Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District from a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
and 32’ maximum height to an FAR of 2.50 and 55’ height.
We are particularly interested in retaining the existing heights and FARs in the Neighborhood Commercial districts
on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd., rather than increasing them, as proposed in the certified Housing Element.
Upzoning of our NC districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd. has the strong potential to displace locally-owned
businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to Sunset Park residents. We have supported these
businesses for years and want to continue to walk to them and not worry about increasing amounts of traffic.
Thank you for hearing our voices and we hope you do the right thing.
Lori Petitti
Item 7.A 02/14/23
77 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Samuel Harwood <sharwood@gm.slc.edu>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:44 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I am writing to express my emphatic opposition to any "upzoning" or lot consolidation on Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd,
Pico Blvd or Montana Ave.
I grew up in Santa Monica and went to John Muir and John Adams. Words can't express how invaluable it was to grow
up with the fabric of a community, with local stores and institutions where people recognized you and cared about you
and looked out for you. Upzoning and lot consolidation would eliminate this community infrastructure now and for
future generations by displacing current neighborhood businesses and making it impossible to establish others like
them. The fabric of the community which makes those neighborhoods special would be dissolved.
Please support these neighborhoods. Maintain the current zoning codes and oppose any lot consolidation.
Thank you,
Samuel Harwood
Item 7.A 02/14/23
78 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:ivana letica suvak <Goods@goodsla.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:19 AM
To:Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick;
councilmtgitems; Phil Brock
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com; Darko Suvak
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you today as a Sunset Park resident of 23 years and a very concerned business owner.
It came to my attention that you will be discussing the change in zoning in the area of Ocean Park Blvd and Pico Blvd at
the February 14th meeting and I would like to say a few words about our Sunset Park neighborhood.
We opened our shop “Goods" at 1748 Ocean Park Blvd 14 years ago and I watched the street blossom into a beautiful
neighborhood for locals and customers from across town looking for unique shops, restaurants, cafes and businesses.
We pride ourselves in being here for our community.
We are here for our local schools, we help them with their fundraisers.
We employ local young adults, minorities, students, single mothers...showcase local artisans, help local farmers with
their produce and so much more.
Small businesses like ours and others on Ocean Park and Pico Blvd are essential to our economy, to vibrancy of our
neighborhood, to uniqueness of Santa Monica.
That’s what makes Sunset Park so special.
We are for progress but not at the expense of small businesses and the people that live here.
This is an urgent plea to resist the developers alarming appetite and to seriously listen to your residents “ heartbeat”.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Ivana Suvak
GOODs
1748 Ocean Park Blvd
Santa Monica CA 90405
310.392.3922
www.goodsLA.com
Follow us on Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/goods.la/
Be our fan on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/GoodsLA/
Item 7.A 02/14/23
79 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Item 7.A 02/14/23
80 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Vernice Hankins
From:oboogie@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 10:48 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:up zoning
EXTERNAL
no up zoning please. horrible idea.
mark Benenson
Item 7.A 02/14/23
81 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
10
Vernice Hankins
From:Robert Brown <rcbee44@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 10:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council‐
The idea of raising the heights of buildings on Ocean Park and the South side of Pico is an
extinction event. I urge you to reject this idea. It will permanently destroy the most wonderful
things we have in Santa Monica….sky and light. Unlike so many cities, we are lucky to live in a
more horizontal world. Lower building creates a sense of spaciousness. If the city were to allow
higher building we’d create dark canyons & wind tunnels that would change our city forever. The
other consequence would be a loss of all of the unique Mom & Pop stores that give our
neighborhoods so much character. It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park
Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make the Sunset Park neighborhood special. Please do not
destroy these businesses by upzoning the neighborhood commercial districts on these
two streets.
Thank you,
Robert Brown
E: rcbee44@gmail.com
M: 310.795.5353
Item 7.A 02/14/23
82 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Shannon Duerst <shannon.duerst@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:20 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Hello,
Please protect the 'four walking Streets'.
We cannot allow lot consolidation and larger, mega developments.
The traffic is already out of control with the new structures on Lincoln. We need to try and maintain our quality of life.
Thank you.
‐‐
Best,
Shannon Duerst
206‐979‐9228
Item 7.A 02/14/23
83 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Zar Eskin <eeskin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:09 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline
Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject:Support for Planning Commission Housing Element Modifications
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am Eleazar Eskin, a professor and department chair at UCLA and longtime Santa Monica resident. I also grew up in
Santa Monica and am a proud alumni of Franklin, Lincoln and Santa Monica Highschool (overlapping with Oscar!).
I strongly urge the council to implement the modifications to the housing element that are recommended by the
planning commission letter sent to the council. These modifications are critical to ensure the survival of local businesses
and economic recovery. I believe that current Montana, Ocean Park, Main Street and Pico which are currently zoned NC
are true Santa Monica treasures and must be preserved. I strongly believe that the majority of residents as well as the
residents of the new 9000+ units that will be created will agree with this sentiment and strongly support these changes.
Of course changing the housing element will require amending the approved element and working with the HCD for
state approval. While the staff report is skeptical that the upzoning of the Bergamot area to compensate for keeping
current zoning in NC areas will not be approved, it is clear that with effort by the council and the city staff, a compromise
can be worked out with the state which will both preserve the NC zones as well as add even more needed housing. This
skepticism should not be a reason not to act.
Finally, I want to remind the city council that elected officials are accountable to the voters. Imagine if there was a
referendum on whether or not to replace the current charming business districts on Main st, Ocean Park, and Montana
avenue with 10 story structures. I would venture that it would receive less than 10% of the vote. For those of you who
believe in representing the interests of the residents, it is your duty to make these changes despite the additional work it
will require to negotiate with the state to obtain a solution that works for everyone and balances the needs of additional
housing with preserving the character of the city.
Sincerely,
Eleazar Eskin
Item 7.A 02/14/23
84 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Susan Helmick <susan.helmick@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:09 AM
To:Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine
Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please do not destroy our neighborhood shopping. Small businesses and restaurants in our shopping districts are part of
what makes out city special. We are already overwhelmed with high rises that are destroying our seaside city.
Susan Helmick
305 San Vicente Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 7.A 02/14/23
85 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:metin mangir <metinmsm@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:55 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please heed the advice of Planning Commission, and
do NOT upzone Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue
Metin Mangir, PhD
SM resident for 34+ years
Item 7.A 02/14/23
86 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Metin Mangir <mangir.metin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:54 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please heed the advice of Planning Commission, and
do NOT upzone Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue
Metin Mangir, PhD
SM resident for 34+ years
Item 7.A 02/14/23
87 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Janet Heinle <janetheinle@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:47 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:refer to 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
WE URGE YOU; the City Council MUST protect these neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the current zoning
and not allowing lot consolidation. STOP DESTROYING WHAT WE LOVE IN THIS TOWN!
Janet Heinle
90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
88 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Popenoe <cris@popenoe.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Keep Montana Ave zoning as it is
EXTERNAL
I live on 17th a block south of Montana and am definitively opposed to the idea of allowing taller, more dense buildings
and chain stores on the street. My dog and I walk it every day and we’re enjoying the interesting independent, friendly
shops.
Cris Popenoe
cris@popenoe.com
917‐566‐8770
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
89 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:SUSAN AMINOFF <samin96@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7A
EXTERNAL
We agree with the Planning Commission and urge the City Council to protect small businesses on
neighborhood streets like Ocean Park Blvd, Montana Ave. etc. by keeping the current zoning and not
allowing up zoning and lot consolidation.
Thank you,
Susan and Howard Aminoff
Item 7.A 02/14/23
90 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Vernice Hankins
From:synergy386@icloud.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:33 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please protect our very special streets and do not allow this agenda to go through.
Esther Cameron
909 Arizona Ave.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
91 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:rbelinsky@me.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:18 AM
To:Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline
Torosis; Phil Brock
Cc:councilmtgitems; editor@smmirror.com; editor@smobserver.com
Subject:Upzoning Montana Ave. 2023
Importance:High
EXTERNAL
Dear Council
I understand that this is being considered on February 14, 2023. Given that it is
Valentine’s Day, consider the love of Montana Ave. I have been a proud Santa
Monica resident for over 29 years. My family and friends shop and dine on
Montana Ave. (Montana Avenue | Santa Monica – A charming 10-block, family-
friendly destination in Santa Monica, home to more than 150 boutiques,
restaurants, & services.
This is what makes Montana charming and the ONLY place I shop and dine. Don’t
destroy this legacy of what old Santa Monica is and always was. We DON’T need
big box retailers and chains. We don’t need more housing on Montana. Just say
no the greed (developers want this, backed by SMRR).
Upzoning would mean allowing higher, more dense development on Montana
between 7th and 17th streets. The current streetscape of low-slung, two-story
buildings could be replaced by four-story (or with density bonus’, even five-story)
projects.
Montana is a successful and eclectic street, with many locally-owned,
neighborhood-serving businesses. Upzoning will attract larger chains that can
afford larger spaces and higher rents. Over time, this will lead to Montana Avenue
becoming more homogenized, replacing what makes it unique and special to our
neighborhood and to our city with the same generic buildings and nationwide
chains we see everywhere else.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
92 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Say yes to love and simplicity. Say no to greed and overbuilding.
Russ Belinsky
Santa Monica Resident and President of Save our Santa Monica (SOS)
Item 7.A 02/14/23
93 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Jason Ballantine <edit@jasonballantine.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:16 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
please please please
NO UPZONING to Ocean Park Blvd
create more housing along Lincoln if need be
Regards,
Jason Ballantine
SM resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
94 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Joan Grossman <joang736@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:15 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Up zoning
EXTERNAL
I very strongly urge you to not allow this up, zoning to go forward. Part of the charm and lovability of Santa Monica are
these streets as they are now, for walking, supporting, small businesses and enjoying Santa Monica
Joan Grossman
Joang736@verizon.net
424‐268‐4498
Item 7.A 02/14/23
95 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Liz Mersky Salem <lmersky@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:02 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Lana
Negrete; Christine Parra
Cc:David White; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting 2.14
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and Esteemed Council Members:
Please do not vote to upzone the NC areas.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Salem
25 year Santa Monica resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
96 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Daniel Galamba <galambadb@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana
Negrete; Christine Parra; Daniel Galamba
Subject:Feb 14, 2023 City Council Agenda Item 7a: Please keep the current zoning and not allow lot
consolidation
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please do not upzone Santa Monica’s Neighborhood Commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park
Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. Doing so will destroy these neighborhoods and drive many if not most
of the small businesses out of business.
I also urge you not to allow lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue. If
approved this would allow developers to consolidate lots and build larger, mega projects on these streets and we don't
need this. We need to preserve our neighborhoods' character.
While I tend to agree with the Planning Commission on this matter, I disagree with their recommendation that a
replacement site that can accommodate more than the 165 units projected for the upzoned Neighborhood Commercial
areas has been identified in the MidCity area. This is just dumping the burden of the 165 units on the people who live in
the MidCity area and also creates more traffic, congestion and gridlock on Cloverfield Blvd, 26th St, Centinela Blvd, etc.
that then affects everybody who lives in the area including those people who live north of Montana Ave who rely on
these streets to get to work on the Santa Monica Freeway. Instead, the burden of the 165 units should be distributed
throughout the city thus minimizing the effects of increased traffic. This shouldn't be difficult to do. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
MidCity Neighbors Board Member
Item 7.A 02/14/23
97 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Michele Belkind <michele555@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:No high rises in Ocean Park
EXTERNAL
Hello.
We are long time residents of Ocean Park. It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that
make the Sunset Park neighborhood special. Please do not throw these businesses to the wolves by upzoning the
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on these two streets.
Honestly, the only reason I could think you would allow it is if you were receiving money in your pockets to do so.
There are no proper ingress/egress options for all the expected traffic you would be inviting. Ocean Park Blvd is
now a 1 lane street.
Please take our concerns under consideration,
The Belkind Family
Oak Street
90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
98 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Jim Estes <jestes233@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Honorable members of the Santa Monica City Council:
I am writing to implore you not to consider up zoning the streets of Montana Ave, Pico Blvd, Ocean Park Blvd and Main
Street. These are the only remnants left of what was a wonderful warm, neighborhood‐friendly beach community.
Turning these streets into 5‐story corridors would be detrimental to small businesses that have strived to make an
existence in this city. Many parts of Santa Monica are already being changed into 5‐8 story condo/apartment
megastructures. We need to save what is left of our identity.
Please do not take away these truly iconic streets/neighborhoods.
Jim Estes
233 Alta Ave
Item 7.A 02/14/23
99 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Tom Hall <tomthemaverick@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:39 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick
Subject:Agenda Item 7a - 2.14.23 City Council mtg - I oppose this item
EXTERNAL
I oppose the City Agenda Item 7a that would “upzone” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include
Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue (“Streets”).
Thank you,
Tom
Tom Hall
933 Ocean Avenue #2
Santa Monica, CA 90403
310/613‐1415
Let's Connect on Linked In
We can even hook up on Facebook
Item 7.A 02/14/23
100 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
10
Vernice Hankins
From:Andrew Turman <aturman@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:36 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Up zoning in Ocean Park
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmember -
Please don’t allow lot consolidation in and around Ocean Park. If Santa Monica City Council members approve
this it would allow developers to build oversized mega projects which would destroy the character of our
area. These walking Streets contain most of the neighborhood-serving, affordable businesses we residents
use in our daily lives – local food stores and restaurants, laundromats, shoe repair and pharmacies. More
importantly, they are scaled to the neighborhood, and they are personable.
As a long term resident who owns a house on Highland Avenue, just off Ocean Park, I know I can head
to Wilshire Blvd or downtown Santa Monica or Lincoln Blvd for larger commercial businesses. These are all
still extremely close. It’s important to maintain some difference between the larger commercial corridors and
the more local walking streets of residential neighborhoods.
We urge you to not allow these areas to be “Upzoned”, which would allow these unique neighborhood Streets
to be developed with new five or six-story projects.
Thank you,
Andrew Turman
2715 Highland Ave
Santa Monica
Item 7.A 02/14/23
101 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
11
Vernice Hankins
From:Emily Froelich Levy <emily.froelich@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:21 AM
To:Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la
Torre; Lana Negrete
Subject:Re: 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
My family and I live in Sunset Park. One of the reasons we have chosen to put down roots and raise our
children here is the neighborhood's character. It is the small locally‐owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and
Pico Blvd. that make the Sunset Park neighborhood special. Please do not throw these businesses to the
wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on these two streets.
Best,
Emily Levy
2673 33rd St
Item 7.A 02/14/23
102 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Debra Winchester <winched@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 11:55 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City council agenda 7a
EXTERNAL
Hello,
It makes no sense to "upzone" along Pico, Ocean Park and Montana avenues when the city has been unable to maintain
vibrant commercial businesses within already built streets like the 3rd St Promenade (not to mention 2nd and 4th
streets) and Main Street. The focus should be on filling the existing infrastructure before lining developers pockets to
create more commercial properties. Please examine why so many buildings remain empty in these existing commercial
area. What can be done to bring in tenants that would be patronized by locals and tourists? The Promenade has been a
ghost town for too long.
Thank you,
Debra Winchester
Item 7.A 02/14/23
103 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Mudita Bahadur <muditabaha@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 11:38 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 Agenda Item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Hello City Council members,
I have been a resident of Sunset park for over 20 years. I enjoy the neighborhood feel and the small locally-
owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. are integral to our neighborhood experience. Please do not
run-out our mom-and-pop sops by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on these two streets. It
will destroy the family friendly nature of this area, and make it more like the promenade, which is already devastated
from the big-box stores all leaving.
Thank you,
Mudita and Gavin Bahadur
2442 23rd Street
310-463-7913
Item 7.A 02/14/23
104 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Deb Estes <daestes@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 11:33 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Upzoning
Importance:High
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members:
I am writing to beseech you not to consider up‐zoning the streets of Montana Ave, Pico Blvd, Ocean Park Blvd, and Main
Street. These are the only streets left of what was a wonderful, warm, neighborhood‐friendly beach community; the
city I grew up in and returned to after going away to school. Turning our streets into 5‐story corridors would be
detrimental to small businesses that have strived to make an existence in this city. Many parts of Santa Monica are
already being changed into 5‐8 story condo/apartment megastructures. We need to save what is left of our identity.
Please do not take away these truly iconic streets/neighborhoods.
Deborah A. Estes
233 Alta Avenue
310‐319‐9990
‐‐
Item 7.A 02/14/23
105 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:jennifer chia <jenchia2001@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 11:23 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: No on Upzoning
EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: jennifer chia <jenchia2001@hotmail.com>
Date: February 13, 2023 at 11:03:36 AM PST
Subject: No on Upzoning
Dear City Council members,
We are agree with the Planning
Commission and will urge the City
Council to protect these
neighborhood and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation.
‘NO’ on Upzoning which will destroy our neighborhood environment especially Main Street, Ocean Park
Blvd, Pico Blvd and Montana Ave where is a lovely aera to the residents.
We don’t needed more traffic, more
pollution…….let’s keep it
“LESS IS MORE” !
Sincerely,
Jennifer and David Chia
621 12th Street
Santa Monica,
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
106 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:ckovner@aol.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:55 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please do not upzone Pico, Montana, Main St and Ocean Park. We already have too much
development in SM and tons of empty buildings. It is ruining the character of our neighborhood.
Thank you.
Chloe Ballatore
Item 7.A 02/14/23
107 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Noma Boardmember <nomaboard@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:47 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox
Subject:2/14/23 Agenda item 7: Addendum to NOMA letter
EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Dear Mayor Davis and Council Members,
On closer reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance redlines, we note that on page 67 (item E) the lot
consolidation limits for the purpose of new projects applies only to Main Street Neighborhood Commercial.
This seems to suggest that parcels could be combined in other Neighborhood Commercial districts
(i.e., Pico Blvd., Ocean Park Blvd, Montana Avenue) to develop larger projects that could
effectively wipe out entire blocks of present shops and services.
These limits on lot consolidation should apply to all Neighborhood Commercial Districts and this
item so corrected.
Thank you.
The NOMA Board
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
108 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:clare m <clayahmary@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:45 AM
To:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis;
councilmtgitems; christine.perra@santamonica.gov
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
hello - as a longtime resident of Sunset Park living on Ocean Park Boulevard, I ask that you please
do NOT upzone the commercial districts on Pico and Ocean Park Boulevard. We've already lost
valuable diverse businesses due to the pandemic, and wonderful small businesses like Antequera
Mexican Bakery or Cafe Bolivar could be lost, and woman-owned businesses like Thyme Cafe and
Market could also be lost, to name a few. These are also safe, walkable areas with lots of families,
schools and elderly residents, and I shudder to think of the traffic impacts and potential for pedestrian
injury/death increasing with the higher volume of cars - we have lots of school children who walk our
neighborhoods to/from school, play in the soccer fields across from Bob's, as well as students walking
to/from Santa Monica College. Please keep our area safe, diverse and vibrant for residents and foot
traffic!
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Clare McCaffrey
Item 7.A 02/14/23
109 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:jamiegrossman@mac.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:33 AM
To:Gleam Davis; Council Mailbox; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick; rosis@santamonica.gov;
councilmtgitems; parra@santamonica.gov; Lana Negrete
Subject:DO NOT UPZONE Santa Monica's Neighborhood Streets
EXTERNAL
Do not mess with what is current working and only getting more people out.
1. Changing the zoning on Ocean Park will be a nightmare, there is already too much traffic and with 2 schools in
the area more accidents area going to occur.
2. Ocean Park is filled with family owned and operated businesses, and this is what makes the areas so special and
when people pay 3+ mm for a home it’s the neighborhood and community that excites them.
3. We have way too many high rises on that are either already on Lincoln or will be going up. It’s important to fill
these locations before adding more.
4. Since pulling seating on the streets on main street, people go to Main Street. While there is still a good deal of
vacancies, this area now has a life and is now a place people come to from other areas. Asking small businesses
to pay more for the outdoor seating is going to put them out of business and only hurt the street more as it will
be empty once again.
Solution Options:
Convert all the empty office spaces into residential. This would be so much more cost effective, environmentally
friendly, and not change the structure of our beautiful city.
The empty restaurant on Ocean Park and Centinela should be converted asap.
Make the Santa Monica Mall into residential on the top floor. The mall is empty with a ton space and parking is already
available.
If you change the zoning to allow all the development the issues you will be ruining this amazing community. You have
so many issues that need to be addressed with the developments today.
Please do not pass this bill‐ and do not take away our Main Street parklets requesting small businesses to pay fees that
cannot afford. We must look after our own.
Jamie Grossman,
Concerned Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
110 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Don Wollman <dww1031@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:31 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please protect our small businesses and our streets. Once you change the nature and character of the city, there’s no
going back.
Don Wollman
Item 7.A 02/14/23
111 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
10
Vernice Hankins
From:Burt Goldstein <music@burtgoldstein.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:28 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:In re: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Member,
Happy Valentine’s Day! (I hope your vote today does not render this greeting ironic! ;) )
I will be following your vote on the above named agenda item 7a regarding upzoning.
For reasons I have emailed you in the past, I will be watching to see if you represent me by
VOTING AGAINST ALL AND ANY UPZONING,
or other measures likely to result in higher buildings, consolidation of lots, increased crowding and traffic.
BTW, if you have a link to the latest study of transit times in Santa Monica, I would be grateful if you could send it to me.
Thanks,
Burt Goldstein
2511 California Ave
Item 7.A 02/14/23
112 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Barbara Kaplan <barbara@kckarchitects.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:05 PM
To:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 Agenda Item 7-A
EXTERNAL
February 13, 2013
To : City Council
From: Barbara Kaplan, ARB Housing Task Force Representative
RE: 2/14 /23 Agenda Item 7‐A
I am writing in support of the request of the Planning Commissioners Nina Fresco, Leslie Lambert and Jim Ries to retain
the existing heights and FARs in the Neighbourhood Commercial districts of Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd., rather than
increasing them, as proposed in the certified Housing Element.
I was an ARB representative to the Housing Task Force and my contribution in suggesting Ocean Park pertained only to
the Business Park as a potential site for developing housing, not the Boulevard. That was possibly misconstrued in the
final Housing Element. The required (LUCE) specific plan to be prepared for the Santa Monica Business Park will focus on
mixed income housing.
Upzoning of our NC districts on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. has the strong potential to displace locally owned
businesses that provide affordable real and essential services to Sunset Park residents. In addition to threatening
walkability and displacement of locally owned businesses, there is the threat of loss of the commercial districts
altogether since ground floor commercial space will not be required for new projects given the likely unmarketability of
this space for neighborhood serving businesses.
Upzoning of Sunset Park's Neighborhood Commercial Districts is unnecessary to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing Goals. 50% of Sunset Park households have annual incomes at or below the Moderate Income level. Two Sunset
Park Schools, Will Rogers and JAMS qualify for the Title 1 Federal lunch program, meaning that at least 35% of students
are from families at or below the Federal poverty level. 3,309 housing units are rent controlled of 7,000 housing units in
Sunset Park.
Thanks for addressing this issue
Barbara Kaplan
Barbara Kaplan | KCK ARCHITECTS
2526 Eighteenth Street
Item 7.A 02/14/23
113 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310 | 452 | 7505
www.kckarchitects.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
114 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Halina Alter <vineland52@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Member Brock, Davis, DeLaTorre, Negrete, Parra ,Torosis and Zwick,
I am writing to you at this time to voice my opposition to the proposed zoning changes that will affect several areas in Santa Monica.
I write this as a 39, almost 40 year resident of Santa Monica. We moved to our present home in 1983 because of the community, its schools, its
values and a desire to live a life different than the one we had in New York City prior to our relocating to the west coast in 1977. Over these
past years I have watched the neighborhoods change, and although change is always inevitable, we must understand that it has
consequences. I remember with nostalgia Fireside Market and Rocky the cashier with his open bag of cookies for any child that came his way,
the curly fries at Suzy Q’s, and purchasing what we needed for our family at the local stores. I have seen Montana Avenue evolve to a series of
upscale stores where mattresses can cost more than $20,000, where a simple child’s dress is over $100, and where we see one empty store
front after the other in rotation. Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard, Pico Avenue, and Ocean Park Boulevard are also all potential
areas for zoning changes that will affect the already poorer quality of life for those who live nearby. Parking is difficult, traffic is a nightmare, and
the number of unhoused individuals needing services continues to increase. Changing the zoning in all of these areas where there is not an
infrastructure to support this is a poor decision. Our police, fire and EMT responses are already slow, our city services are far less responsive
than ever, our libraries are shuttered more days than they should be, our water resources are at a critical level, and our quality of life is
changing constantly and not for the better. These changes will make it worse for all of us.
I arrived in the Los Area in 1977 after I graduated from medical school and as a physician, I always felt that I was a “steward” for the health of
the people I took care of. When I needed help to ensure the best possible outcome for my patients, I sought expert opinion from those outside
of my area of expertise, and I followed the recommendations consistently. You too should think of yourself as a “steward” for the residents of
Santa Monica and if your experts - those that are on the Planning Commission - are telling you that this is a poor choice, you should heed their
well thought out and objectively based advice.
Sincerely yours,
Halina K Alter
734 23 Street
Santa Monica, Ca 90402
Item 7.A 02/14/23
115 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 11:57 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Feb 14th meeting / Item 6 / Public Comment on Housing Element
From: Karen Blechman <kblech@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2023 6:11 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra
<Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Jesse Zwick
<Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis <Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Feb 14th meeting / Item 6 / Public Comment on Housing Element
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmembers,
Neighborhood Commercial streets such as Montana Avenue, Main Street and sections of Ocean Park Boulevard and Pico
Boulevard are pedestrian-friendly centers for their respective neighborhoods. They are human-scale which makes them
comfortable areas to shop, dine, and connect with friends and neighbors.
I live a couple of blocks from Main Street and chose to live in this Ocean Park neighborhood because of the walkability.
When I first moved here, Main Street was experiencing hard times and I’ve seen the street go through many phases over
the years. I believe it is because of the sense of place created by the architecture, the relatively low and quite eclectic
buildings, that it has remained an attractive, walkable street which is beginning to flourish once again. If it lost its current
zoning Main Street would no longer be the open, sunny space where one can enjoy strolling the sidewalks and
participating in the life of the street. It would become Any Street, Any Town.
All these Neighborhood Commercial zoned streets are treasured by local residents. Please do as the Planning
Commission recommends. Let’s keep the Neighborhood Commercial zoning!
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Karen Blechman
Resident of Santa Monica for 44 years
Item 7.A 02/14/23
116 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 11:57 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Feb 14th, Item 6, Public Comment on Housing Element
From: wendy way <wendywayaway@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2023 6:05 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra
<Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Jesse Zwick
<Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis <Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Feb 14th, Item 6, Public Comment on Housing Element
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council
I am writing you to request that you submit an application to the State of California to modify the Santa Monica
approved housing element so the City of Santa Monica can avoid Up‐Zoning all commercial districts uniformly... this
includes Main Street, Ocean Park area, Montana Avenue and Pico Blvd.
As Joni Mitchell once sang..."Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got til' it's gone? They paved
paradise and put up a parking lot..."
Well I do know 'what we got' and I want to protect these areas of our historic beauty in this quaint beachside
community of Santa Monica. It makes absolutely no sense to allow huge, tall commercial buildings to line the
streets...people from all areas of our state, country and the world come to experience and enjoy the uniqueness and
charm of Santa Monica and its sweet buildings, businesses and restaurants.
Thank you!
Wendy Way
(Ocean Park Resident)
Item 7.A 02/14/23
117 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Scott Sakamoto <pscottcam@me.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 11:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Council Members,
My family has lived in the Sunset Park area on 21st Street between Pico and Ocean Park for over 30
years. We love our neighborhood and want to keep it walking friendly, family friendly and small
business oriented.
The Issue: Upzoning of Sunset Park’s Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District from a 1.0 Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) and 32’ maximum height to an FAR of 2.50 and 55’ height.
We are particularly interested in retaining the existing heights and FARs in the Neighborhood
Commercial districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd., rather than increasing them, as proposed
in the certified Housing Element.
Upzoning of our NC districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd. has the strong potential
to displace locally-owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to Sunset
Park residents. We have supported these businesses for years and want to continue to walk to
them and not worry about increasing amounts of traffic.
Thank you Scott Sakamoto -resident of SM for 29 years!
Item 7.A 02/14/23
118 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Don't change the zoning
From: Jamie Grossman <maxineandleo0507@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 10:37 AM
To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock
<Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Jesse Zwick
<Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; rosis@santamonica.gov <rosis@santamonica.gov>; councilmtgitems
<councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>; parra@santamonica.gov <parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete
<Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Don't change the zoning
EXTERNAL
Do not mess with what is currently working and getting more people out.
1. Changing the zoning on Ocean Park will be a nightmare, there is already too much traffic and with 2 schools in
the area more accidents are going to occur.
2. Ocean Park is filled with family‐owned and operated businesses, and this is what makes the areas so special
when people pay 3+ mm for a home it’s the neighborhood and community that excites them.
3. We have way too many high rises that are either already on Lincoln or will be going up. It’s important to fill
these locations before adding more.
4. Since pulling seating on the streets on main street, people go to Main Street. While there is still a good deal of
vacancies, this area now has a life and is now a place people come to from other areas. Asking small businesses
to pay more for outdoor seating is going to put them out of business and only hurt the street more as it will be
empty once again.
Solution Options:
Convert all the empty office spaces into residential ones. This would be so much more cost‐effective, and
environmentally friendly, and not change the structure of our beautiful city.
The business park that is largely empty now up on Ocean Park east of clover park could create so much housing
inventory .... so many of the small businesses up there have had to close because they lost so much $$$ when everyone
started working from home.
The empty restaurant on Ocean Park and Centinela should be converted asap.
Make the Santa Monica Mall into a residential on the top floor. The mall is empty with a ton of space and parking is
already available.
If you change the zoning to allow all the development issues you will be ruining this amazing community. You have so
many issues that need to be addressed with the developments today.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
119 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Please do not pass this bill when there is so much space already not being used to it's fullest. Do not take away our Main
Street parklets requesting small businesses to pay fees that cannot afford. We must look after our own.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
120 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:harry_gordon1307@yahoo.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:NOMAboard@gmail.com
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I am a long-term Santa Monica resident writing to you to urge you to stop the up zoning
of the NC districts. I patronize many of the business in these zones. I get my hair cut,
use a bank, get laundry done, purchase bread, dine at small eateries, and buy garden
supplies, to mention some of the services I and my family currently use. We don't want
to lose them.
We do not need higher buildings, bigger businesses and greater density in our already
overcrowded city.
Please respond to the residents and small businesses, not to large moneyed interests.
Follow your planning commission. Keep the NC zoning as it is.
Harris Gabel
Montana Ave.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
121 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
From: Phyllis Chavez <chavez_art@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 12:18 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis
<Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete
<Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis
<Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Jesse Zwick <Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>
Subject: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council:
As a resident and a voter, I am deeply concerned about Upzoning our unique streets, Ocean Park Blvd,
Montana, and Pico Blvd.
I don't want to change the unique feel of these neighborhoods. We have been fighting to keep Santa
Monica as Santa Monica, not a copy of every other neighborhood with only high rent, chain stores that
would destabilize our neighborhoods. The thought of and the mental picture it creates is disturbing.
We enjoy a lovely quality of life here. We want to keep it that way. We don't want more traffic problems
or parking problems.
We don't want tall, oversized buildings. We want neighborhoods where we can shop local and buy
local. Our quality of life will be reduced by these unwanted and unnecessary changes.
Keep our existing heights is essential. We don't want or need 5 or 6 story buildings. We want to support
the businesses that we love and buy local. Our Planning Commission even wants the same.
Please honor your constituents, please keep our neighborhoods livable, walkable, unique and stable. We
are not against change but totally oppose the idea of additional density and reduction of our quality of life.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Chavez
Sunset Park
Item 7.A 02/14/23
122 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Item 7.A 02/14/23
123 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Leslie Brothers <leslie.brothers@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I am writing to encourage the City Council NOT to upzone neighborhood commercial districts on Main Street, Ocean
Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. Were these streets to be developed with bigger buildings, the
quality of life for those in the neighborhood would be markedly diminished. Santa Monica residents value being able to
walk to, and support, small local businesses. And we want buildings sized at human scale in our neighborhoods, not 5 or
6 story buildings.
Leslie Brothers
937 12th St., #110
Santa Monica 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
124 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Helen Lau <helentl@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Re: Objection for the up zone
EXTERNAL
To: Council members
(1) Please do not approve upzone for the Santa Monica.
(2) More importantly, need a clear and well‐resourced summary of this current challenge from the Santa
Monica Coalition for a Livable City.
Please do not approve the recommended‐up zone the NC areas.
Residents
Helen Lau
601 15th street Santa Monica,
CA90402
Item 7.A 02/14/23
125 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Robert Kaplan <robert157@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:13 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council agenda item --- 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I write to share my strong disapproval of any effort to “upzone” any part of Santa Monica. Enough is enough
with all the over-development.
How much more traffic and parking problems do you expect residents to endure? How many more
neighborhood mom and pop businesss that serve me and my neighbors do you want to destroy? Do you want
more of the city to be owned and controlled by gigantic REITS or Developers?
I agree with the Planning Commission and urge the City Council to protect neighborhoods and small businesses
by keeping the current zoning and not allowing “upzoning” and lot consolidation.
Thank you. Robert
Item 7.A 02/14/23
126 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Vernice Hankins
From:MICHAEL KATZ <mjkatz1@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:11 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:up zoning
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my distress over the proposed up zoning in Santa Monica, as referenced in 2.14.23 City Council
Agenda Item 7a. Specifically, I live near Montana and would hate to see larger buildings put in there. They would rob the
area of its charm, make everything more expensive and make parking impossible. I would hope you would leave
Montana Ave. alone and pay attention to Wilshire Blvd. The area where I normally go, Wilshire from 23rd St. to 13th St.
is strewn with homelessness, vacant buildings and gang graffiti. I see no efforts by the city to do anything about that.
Sincerely,
Michael Katz
1132 19th St. #6
Santa Monica
Item 7.A 02/14/23
127 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
10
Vernice Hankins
From:Sam Somafilms <sam@somafilms.tv>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
To Whom it May concern,
I would like to register my objection to the upzoning of Ocean Park Bvde and Pico Bvde.
This is yet another shameless grab by developers to destroy another quiet peaceful neighbourhood. I would like to know
how many of these greedy developers actually live in our lovely neighbourhood ? I am sure not many as they never
seem to destroy their local areas.
We recently moved to this area to take advantage of the locally owned businesses as well as the peace and quiet.
Our teenage daughter and her friends regularly frequent the local restaurants and cafes and feel incredibly safe walking
around the neighbourhood.
As a resident of Sunset Park I am a concerned about our house losing value if this shameless land grab gets passed. And
will be consulting a lawyer in the event of it passing.
Thank you.
Sam McGarry
Item 7.A 02/14/23
128 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
11
Vernice Hankins
From:MILES WATKINS <mileswatkins@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:06 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
We vehemently oppose “upzoning" Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts. We agree
with the Planning Commission and urge you to protect these neighborhoods and small
businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation.
Protect our Santa Monica quality of life and the well-being of our local businesses.
Sincerely,
Miles & Jocelyn Watkins
Miles Watkins
502 9th Street
Santa Monica, California
(310) 666‐1073
Item 7.A 02/14/23
129 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Main St Housing Plan
From: cliffordawright51@gmail.com <cliffordawright51@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 9:10 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Main St Housing Plan
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council of Santa Monica
I am opposed to any change to the Main St and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning. I
would like to keep the livable city of Santa Monica livable and keep Main Street a low-rise
street.
Sincerely,
Clifford A. Wright
2607 2nd St. Apt 2
Santa Monica, CA
Item 7.A 02/14/23
130 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Selena Kingsley <sjkingsley2@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Protect Our Neighborhoods!
EXTERNAL
I live in Ocean Park, and I am writing to strongly oppose any action to upzone Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico
Boulevard, and Montana Avenue.
Given that I will be immediately impacted when/if the bowling alley project on Pico goes forward, this issue is
particularly important to me. We need to keep the existing density and building heights in not only our residential areas,
but our commercial ones as well.
I urge you to protect our neighborhoods, the people call them home, and the small businesses that work so hard to
remain viable within them.
Thank you,
Selena Kingsley
Item 7.A 02/14/23
131 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Dave C. <davec3137@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2.14.23 City Counsel Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I understand the city counsel will be discussing whether to up zone certain commercial districts including Main St, Ocean Park
Blvd, Pico Blvd and Montana Ave. This would allow developers to consolidate lots and build large buildings that would cater to
chain stores and evict our local businesses.
We love our local businesses and strongly urge you to keep the current zoning. Our local food stores, restaurants,
laundromats, pharmacies, etc. are a vital part of the fabric of our community.
Thanks,
Dave Childs
Sunset Park
Item 7.A 02/14/23
132 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Abby Arnold <abby@abbyarnold.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant,
local serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an
alternative, it should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing
Element. Please stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be
accommodated--this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a
housing shortage. Bad city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've
needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
Abby Arnold
abby@abbyarnold.com
668 Marine Street
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
133 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Don't upzone Neighborhood Commercial districts
From: J Conf <JFSJunk@outlook.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2023 6:43 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Don't upzone Neighborhood Commercial districts
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
Please, please, please, DO NOT upzone the Neighborhood Commercial districts, including Montana
Avenue between 7th and 17th streets. Montana Avenue is the ONLY avenue in Santa Monica that is
still special! It is practically the ONLY reason I can still bare to live in Santa Monica! Please don't ruin
this, too!
Everywhere else has been overrun with dense high rises, homeless encampments, and expensive
and well-financed national chain stores. For instance, see what happened to the Third Street
Promenade, which is now a no-go zone. Another example, consider the effects of the well-
intentioned Expo Line, which now unloads a daily caravan of homeless people on our streets--many,
many of whom have decided to live on same streets. Think before you do these things!
I have many happy memories of Montana Avenue. I've gathered with local neighbors here for
Saturday morning coffees for YEARS! I cherish the Montana Library. I LOVE browsing in the local
boutiques. I just made friends with the owner of the Montana Clock Shop, who's been there for
years! I bought hand-made winter scarves and face masks, when those were just coming out.
You're always saying, "Buy Local!" Well, how are we supposed to do this if you keep destroying the
local businesses?
Please DON'T upzone any more parts of Santa Monica. Everywhere you do it, is ruined. Stop!
Sincerely,
Julie Fallon
a 30-year resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
134 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Upzoning for Montana Ave.
From: riverfred1@gmail.com <riverfred1@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 3:07 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Upzoning for Montana Ave.
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The upzoning bill for Montana will destroy the character and charm of Montana Ave. it will create chain stores, more
construction, congestion, etc. etc.
Preserve our neighborhood and say no to developers and their offers. Can you for once keep S M a small beach town as
we are fast becoming another high density no charm town run by developers.
Also, keep in mind the residents are totally against the enlargement of the Carlthorp School. They cheated on their
parking and converted it to an event center.
Obviously they cannot be trusted.
Sincerely,
Fred Alexander
Item 7.A 02/14/23
135 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Please no UPZONING
From: Linda Shayne <lindashayne@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 9:36 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Please no UPZONING
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Person ‐
We have enough EMPTY low‐rise buildings ‐‐
Please NO UPZONING ‐‐
Preserve the integrity of Santa Monica. Stop overcrowding of buildings that we don't not need and will cause
environmental problems and turn us into the Marina Del Rey ‐‐
which we are not.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Linda Shayne
longtime Santa Monica
840 21st St. # D
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
136 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: DO NOT UPZONE Santa Monica's Neighborhood Streets
From: jamiegrossman@mac.com <jamiegrossman@mac.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 10:32 AM
To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock
<Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Jesse Zwick
<Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; rosis@santamonica.gov <rosis@santamonica.gov>; councilmtgitems
<councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>; parra@santamonica.gov <parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete
<Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>
Subject: DO NOT UPZONE Santa Monica's Neighborhood Streets
EXTERNAL
Do not mess with what is current working and only getting more people out.
1. Changing the zoning on Ocean Park will be a nightmare, there is already too much traffic and with 2 schools in
the area more accidents area going to occur.
2. Ocean Park is filled with family owned and operated businesses, and this is what makes the areas so special and
when people pay 3+ mm for a home it’s the neighborhood and community that excites them.
3. We have way too many high rises on that are either already on Lincoln or will be going up. It’s important to fill
these locations before adding more.
4. Since pulling seating on the streets on main street, people go to Main Street. While there is still a good deal of
vacancies, this area now has a life and is now a place people come to from other areas. Asking small businesses
to pay more for the outdoor seating is going to put them out of business and only hurt the street more as it will
be empty once again.
Solution Options:
Convert all the empty office spaces into residential. This would be so much more cost effective, environmentally
friendly, and not change the structure of our beautiful city.
The empty restaurant on Ocean Park and Centinela should be converted asap.
Make the Santa Monica Mall into residential on the top floor. The mall is empty with a ton space and parking is already
available.
If you change the zoning to allow all the development the issues you will be ruining this amazing community. You have
so many issues that need to be addressed with the developments today.
Please do not pass this bill‐ and do not take away our Main Street parklets requesting small businesses to pay fees that
cannot afford. We must look after our own.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
137 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Jamie Grossman,
Concerned Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
138 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:36 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: NC Zoning
From: TW <lalizard@mac.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:23 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: NC Zoning
EXTERNAL
I am a 35 year resident of Ocean Park Santa Monica.
Please keep Main Street a low rise street and leave Main Street and NC zoning the way it is.
Thank You Thomas Weidlein
Item 7.A 02/14/23
139 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:36 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Keep Main Street a low rise street
From: First Step Nursery School <firststepsantamonica@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 6:36 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Keep Main Street a low rise street
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
Main street is only charming because of its older small beautiful buildings. They are simple but they are quaint and if
they are lost to large ugly boxes no one will come to Main Street because it won't be the same. It will lose it's charm and
be an eyesore.
Please reconsider this horrible decision.
Hillary Bedell
First Step Nursery School
2650 Second Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310)399‐8118
www.firststepnurseryschool.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
140 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Main St
From: GLENDA CALLANEN <ggcallanen@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 3:15 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Main St
EXTERNAL
Please leave NC zoning unchanged for Main Street, which is already too congested and has insufficient parking
Glenda Callanen
2712 Third St
Item 7.A 02/14/23
141 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Main Street Zoning
From: Faustino Garza <Faustino_Garza@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 9:08 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Main Street Zoning
EXTERNAL
My wife and I support any and all modifications necessary to the State Housing Plan in order to
leave Main Street building height limits as they are now. No tall buildings on Main Street,
please. Not sure how this got by our Planning staff and City Council on the original submission
to the State.
Enough is enough. Stop ruining our City.
Faustino Garza
Sunset Park
Item 7.A 02/14/23
142 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Main Street
From: Joyce Gorelik <joyceg23@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 2:38 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Main Street
EXTERNAL
I want to keep Main Street the way it is. Low buildings and shops. No high rise buildings!!!
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
143 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Main Street
From: Guy G <gbgorelik24@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 11:30 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Main Street
EXTERNAL
Keep Main Street small!
Item 7.A 02/14/23
144 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Main St. zoning
From: Peter Spelman <pspelman829@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 10:23 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Main St. zoning
EXTERNAL
2/7/23
Hello Council members:
I am a 45 year resident of Ocean Park and I am writing to ask you to keep Main Street a low‐rise
street and leave the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning the way it has been.
Thank you.
Peter Spelman
730 Marine St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
145 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:33 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: In support of keeping Main St's NC zoning
From: Mark and Pamela <johnsonymi@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 9:42 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: In support of keeping Main St's NC zoning
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As concerned residents of Ocean Park, we are writing in very strong support of maintaining the NC zoning on Main
Street (and other similar areas) by modifying the submitted Housing Element. The NC zoning adopted only a handful of
years ago has served the neighborhood well, encouraging walking and biking. We recognize the pressing need for more
affordable housing but we do not believe the up‐zoning of these areas is the most strategic way to achieve it. Up‐
zoning is more likely to result in both gentrification and the loss of the neighborhood character, including, crucially, the
small business that even now struggle in the rent in these areas — many storefronts current sit empty, and larger
building demanding higher rent will, we believe, lead to large corporate business (at best) that will leave Santa Monica
feeling more like Newport Beach. In addition, our narrow streets, so friendly to pedestrians, are not suitable for the
sort of density along LA’s larger boulevards.
We do recognize the need to add affordable housing, and we support the proposal to use the current parking lots in the
neighborhood for that purpose. Our own property rent controlled. And, we support adding height and density along
the train line.
Thank you for your careful stewardship of our beloved city.
Best,
Pamela Hieronymi and Mark Johnson
—————————————
Mark Johnson and Pamela Hieronymi
johnsonymi@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
146 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:33 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: up zoning
From: Karla Klarin <ksklarin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 9:12 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: up zoning
EXTERNAL
Dear SM Council‐
Please keep Main Street the way it is. I have lived three blocks from Main Street for 35 years and it is "neighborhood". It
is a treasure the way it is, it is not just another money‐making opportunity for development interests. It is OUR
neighborhood, not a slot machine.
Thank you, Karla Klarin
‐‐
karlaklarin.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
147 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Danielle Charney <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:59 PM
To:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject:City Council Agenda Item 7a 2/14/2023
EXTERNAL
PLEASE DO NOT UPZONE PICO BLVD-MONTANA AVE AND OCEAN PARK BLVD.. DO NOT
allow these distinctive Streets to be developed with new five or six-story
projects. The resulting demolition of existing buildings would displace and eliminate most of the
essential neighborhood-serving businesses. They would be replaced with higher rent tenants like
chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life and
increasing traffic and parking woes AND MORE STRESS ON US ALL...
DO NOT ALLOW LOT CONSIDERATION for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and
Montana Avenue. WE DO NOT NEED more mega projects in our once gentle town that had
style and soul that is disappearing daily.
The Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes it made a strong, well-
supported recommendation to Council AGAINST upzoning these Streets and urged the Council
to keep the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts. Read the
Planning Commission letter here:
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=14074&MeetingID=1353
These four walking Streets contain most of the neighborhood-serving, affordable businesses
residents use in their daily lives – local food stores and restaurants, laundromats, shoe repair and
pharmacies, all within a short distance of people’s homes. Residents don’t just rely on them – they
are a vital part of the fabric of our community that contribute to making Santa Monica feel special.
I agree with the Planning Commission and urge the City Council to protect these
neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot
consolidation.
Our City Council needs to listen to our voices. If you agree it is important to “buy local” and support
our small businesses and maintain the quality of these walkable Streets.
You have allowed "staff' and special interests to destroy so much in the deal made long ago to bring
Expo here. Please no more . Stop it now.
Danielle Charney
Resident since 1982
Item 7.A 02/14/23
148 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Dana Borowsky <dana@lighthouseconsulting.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Stop more housing !!!!
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not do anything to support new housing --- our streets are so packed and about to
get worse with all the new housing projects. STOP STOP STOP ANY NEW HOUSING.... WE
ALREADY SPEND FOR A LITTLE CITY A LOT OF MONEY ON REHAB/TRANSITION
WHICH IS GREAT !!!! NO MORE !!!!!!!!!!
Thank you,
Dana Borowsky
dana@lighthouseconsulting.com
958 18TH ST UNIT 1
SANTA MONICA, California 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
149 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Liliya Jones <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant,
local serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an
alternative, it should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing
Element. Please stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be
accommodated--this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a
housing shortage. Bad city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've
needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
Liliya Jones
liliyadjones@gmail.com
923 5th st, Apt 3
Santa Monica , California 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
150 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:sjwisewoman@verizon.net
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:48 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Jesse
Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to NOT allow "upzoning" in our neighborhoods. The City has allowed so much of what used to be wonderful
neighborhoods to be destroyed with a ridiculous amount of development and poor planning. STOP! Please protect
residents and small businesses from big money. Too much has already been lost.
Sincerely,
Sandra Weisman
Item 7.A 02/14/23
151 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:45 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: UPZONING
From: Kenneth Legaux <kjlegaux@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 12:44 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis
<Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete
<Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis
<Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Jesse Zwick <Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>
Subject: UPZONING
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:
As a resident of Ocean Park Blvd and a voter, I am deeply concerned about Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd,
Montana, and Pico Blvd.
I don't want to change the unique feel of these neighborhoods.
We enjoy a lovely quality of life here. We want to keep it that way. We don't want more traffic problems
or parking problems. We want neighborhoods where we can shop local and buy local. Our quality of life
will be reduced by these unwanted and unnecessary changes.
Keep our existing heights is essential. We want to support the businesses that we love and buy
locally. Our Planning Commission even wants the same.
We are not against change but totally oppose the idea of additional density and reduction of our quality of
life.
Sincerely,
Kenneth J Legaux
Sent from Outlook
Item 7.A 02/14/23
152 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Keep Main Street Low-Rise
From: Sherri Robinson <sherrimariex@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2023 7:45 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Keep Main Street Low‐Rise
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
Please keep Main Street, Santa Monica a low-rise development only.
This Ocean Park area is unique in today's world and climate. I dare say, the wealth of preservation will prove
beyond measure to far out weigh the gold rush of high rising. Of late, I have noticed New York license plates daily
in and through the Santa Monica area. Being of New York myself, I can tell you, the country's higher end income
individuals and young families are choosing their home investments to be in places like the quinter areas of Santa
Monica because of the existing peaceful and beautiful environment.
Please give stability a chance- Please keep Main Street a low rise area.
Thank you,
Sherri Robinson
2624 3rd Street, #8
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
153 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: keep small businesses on main street. please.
From: Grace Gabe <gracepgabe@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: keep small businesses on main street. please.
EXTERNAL
as a resident in santa monica for many years i am very concerned about losing the village look and character of our city.
bit by bit it is being eaten away by high rise
commercial buildings, condos and hotels etc.
please keep the quality of having small businesses alive on main street.
thank you
grace gabe, M.D.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
154 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:36 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Keep Santa Monica Main Street a low-rise street
From: Vanessa McLean <vanessamcleanishere@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 4:42 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Keep Santa Monica Main Street a low‐rise street
EXTERNAL
Hello‐
I’m a longtime resident of Santa Monica/Ocean Park.
I am writing to express my hope that Santa Monica remains a low‐rise street.
Allowing an "up zone" and taller buildings will take away from the beauty, charm and history of Main St.
Thank you‐
Vanessa McLean
Item 7.A 02/14/23
155 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Cookie Neil <cneil1144@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my concern that you are considering (1) up‐zoning and (2) allowing lot consolidation on Montana
Avenue, Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd and Pico Blvd.
My husband and I live 1 block from Montana Avenue and are very familiar with the charming qualities of the street. As
far as I can determine, up‐zoning and lot consolidation would be a positive for real estate developers but would add
nothing positive to the quality of the shopping environment for the citizens.
I encourage you in the strongest possible terms to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission as outlined
in its letter to you dated January 23, 2023 and reject the up zoning and lot consolidation.
Respectfully,
Marjorie “Cookie” Neil
900 Euclid Street, Apt 208
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Sent from Cookie’s iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
156 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Daniela Hummel <daniela@vialosangeles.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica City Council:
My name is Daniela Hummel and I am a resident of North Montana. I am writing in against agenda
item 7a, that is, against the “upzoning” of Montana Ave, Main St, Pico Blvd and Ocean Park Blvd.
These streets are peaceful, walkable commercial gems of Santa Monica. For residents and tourists
alike, the small business “vibe” of the streets are why they are so charming. Whereas 3rd Street
Promenade is a relative disaster at the moment, Montana, Pico, Main and Ocean Park are safe and
special pockets of the city.
“Bigger is better” does not apply here. Upzoning would destroy what makes the area special. There is
a community that has been created around these small businesses. How many more walkable streets
on the Westside are going to be destroyed?
The city can accomplish its AFFH goals elsewhere and ought to seek an alternative that would
preserve the integrity of its most precious commercial areas.
Thank you for your consideration,
Daniela Hummel
Item 7.A 02/14/23
157 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:kelly@roosterpatch.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:RE: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Hi I'm writing to let you know that I am against “upzoning” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include
Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. In addition I'm also opposed to lot
consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue.
I feel that upzoning and lot consolidation will hurt the neighborhood serving, affordable businesses that residents use
every day. Additionally I'm very concerned about all the congestion, construction pollution and general environmental
effects all these potential changes will have in regards to the health and safety of my family and my young children.
These potential changes are difficult for small businesses and the resident community and I feel will have long term
negative health & safety impacts.
Thanks,
Kelly (Santa Monica Resident)
Item 7.A 02/14/23
158 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Tom Stringer <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please listen to Leslie Lambert's Planning expertise on this issue. Don't turn our commercial
boulevards into the five-story mixed-use walls of West L.A.
Thank you,
Tom Stringer
Resident of Sunset Park
Tom Stringer
tdstringer@aol.com
1655 Ashland Avenue
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
159 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Jason Mastbaum <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
First we were going to upzone the R1 neighborhoods as part of the housing element process.
Now the planning commission has decided that even upzoning NEXT to R1 neighborhoods is
unacceptable. How can we tell HCD we're promoting AFFH when we won't take even the
tiniest of steps to end our history of exclusionary zoning? Why are we risking getting our
housing element decertified to protect exclusionary zoning when AB 2011 is going to upzone
these neighborhoods anyhow?
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant,
local serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an
alternative, it should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing
Element. Please stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be
accommodated--this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a
housing shortage. Bad city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've
needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
Jason Mastbaum
Jason Mastbaum
jason.mastbaum@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
160 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
4th St
SANTA MONICA, California 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
161 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Cynthia Rose <cynthia@berettarose.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:01 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant,
local serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an
alternative, it should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing
Element. Please stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be
accommodated--this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a
housing shortage. Bad city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've
needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
Cynthia Rose
cynthia@berettarose.com
1453 Stanford Street #D
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 7.A 02/14/23
162 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Info@smclc.net
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Please Oppose Upzoning and Lot Consolidation on Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd, and
Montana Ave
EXTERNAL
February 13, 2023
TO: City Council
FROM: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (“SMCLC”)
RE: 2.14.23 Agenda Item 7a – Oppose Upzoning and Lot Consolidation on Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd, and Montana Ave
We urge you to support the Planning Commission’s recommendations and not upzone, or allow lot consolidation, in the
neighborhood‐ serving districts on Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd, and Montana Ave.
These streets currently have an eclectic mix of neighborhood‐serving, affordable businesses that residents use in their daily lives –
local food stores and restaurants, laundromats, shoe repair and pharmacies, all within a short distance of people’s homes. Residents
don’t just rely on them – they are a vital part of the fabric of our community that contribute to making Santa Monica feel special.
Allowing these unique, walkable streets to be developed with new five or six‐story projects, with the resulting demolition of existing
buildings, would displace and eliminate most of these essential businesses, replacing them with higher rent tenants like chain stores.
This would destabilize these neighborhoods, reduce residents’ quality of life, and destroy the special qualities that make these
streets destinations both for residents and tourists.
Santa Monica has always encouraged residents to “buy local” and support our small businesses. To do that we must maintain the
quality of these walkable streets, and not undermine the ability of these businesses to survive.
Please reject attempts to upzone or allow lot consolidation in these neighborhood‐serving commercial districts.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
163 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Item 7.A 02/14/23
164 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Philip Schwartz <philschwartzdp@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:19 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Agenda Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Regarding the proposed changes to our Neighborhood Business Districts on Montana Ave, Ocean Park Blvd,
Main St. and Pico Blvd, we whole‐heartedly REJECT THESE PROPOSED CHANGES! The Planning Dept itself
rejects these proposed changes:
".......Specifically, the proposed amendment would retain the
existing heights and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in the Neighborhood Commercial
Districts (NC) on Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana
Avenue, rather than increasing them as proposed in the current language of
Program 1J."
The last thing that these four neighborhood business streets need is a five‐ or six‐ story high building, with a
"Target" or similar national chain store on the ground floor!
We URGE you to accept the recommendations of the Planning Dept to REJECT any changes to these streets!
Respectfully,
Philip D Schwartz, Treasurer
909‐911 Arizona Ave HOA
Item 7.A 02/14/23
165 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Gerda Newbold <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:16 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant,
local serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an
alternative, it should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing
Element. Please stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be
accommodated--this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a
housing shortage. Bad city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've
needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
Gerda Newbold
gnewbold@gmail.com
225 12th Street
Santa Monica, California CA
Item 7.A 02/14/23
166 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Miriam Alpern <mkalpern@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
As a long time resident of Santa Monica, I strongly encourage you to vote down the upzoning initiative effecting
Montana Ave., Main Street, Ocean Park and Pico boulevards. I am also against the lot consolidation the Council is
considering for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue.
If approved this would allow developers to consolidate lots and build larger, mega projects on these Streets.
Santa Monica’s charm lies largely in our locally owned family businesses. We don’t want our hometown to become
a sea of national chain stores with no possibility for the local mom and pops to compete. Please protect the
integrity and spirit of our city - our home.
Thank you.
‐ Miriam
Item 7.A 02/14/23
167 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Item 7.A 02/14/23
168 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Item 7.A 02/14/23
169 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Item 7.A 02/14/23
170 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Item 7.A 02/14/23
171 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Item 7.A 02/14/23
172 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jessica Wilkins <jwilkinsmitchell@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:50 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:NO upzoning Item 7a city council meeting 2/14/23
EXTERNAL
PLEASE NO UPZONING!!!!!
Santa Monica is NOT Manhattan NY!! Please preserve family business culture and stop efforts to destroy its beauty by
over building!!!!!
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
173 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
From: Daniela Hummel <daniela@vialosangeles.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 1:10 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica City Council:
My name is Daniela Hummel and I am a resident of North Montana. I am writing in
against agenda item 7a, that is, against the “upzoning” of Montana Ave, Main St, Pico
Blvd and Ocean Park Blvd.
These streets are peaceful, walkable commercial gems of Santa Monica. For residents
and tourists alike, the small business “vibe” of the streets are why they are so
charming. Whereas 3rd Street Promenade is a relative disaster at the moment,
Montana, Pico, Main and Ocean Park are safe and special pockets of the city.
“Bigger is better” does not apply here. Upzoning would destroy what makes the area
special. There is a community that has been created around these small businesses.
How many more walkable streets on the Westside are going to be destroyed?
The city can accomplish its AFFH goals elsewhere and ought to seek an alternative that
would preserve the integrity of its most precious commercial areas.
Thank you for your consideration,
Daniela Hummel
Item 7.A 02/14/23
174 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: City Council Agenda Item 7a 2/14/2023
From: Danielle Charney <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 12:59 PM
To: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra
<Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis <Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Jesse Zwick
<Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; councilmtgitems
<councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan
<Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>
Subject: City Council Agenda Item 7a 2/14/2023
EXTERNAL
PLEASE DO NOT UPZONE PICO BLVD-MONTANA AVE AND OCEAN PARK BLVD.. DO NOT
allow these distinctive Streets to be developed with new five or six-story
projects. The resulting demolition of existing buildings would displace and eliminate most of the
essential neighborhood-serving businesses. They would be replaced with higher rent tenants like
chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life and
increasing traffic and parking woes AND MORE STRESS ON US ALL...
DO NOT ALLOW LOT CONSIDERATION for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and
Montana Avenue. WE DO NOT NEED more mega projects in our once gentle town that had
style and soul that is disappearing daily.
The Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes it made a strong, well-
supported recommendation to Council AGAINST upzoning these Streets and urged the Council
to keep the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts. Read the
Planning Commission letter here:
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=14074&MeetingID=1353
These four walking Streets contain most of the neighborhood-serving, affordable businesses
residents use in their daily lives – local food stores and restaurants, laundromats, shoe repair and
pharmacies, all within a short distance of people’s homes. Residents don’t just rely on them – they
are a vital part of the fabric of our community that contribute to making Santa Monica feel special.
I agree with the Planning Commission and urge the City Council to protect these
neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot
consolidation.
Our City Council needs to listen to our voices. If you agree it is important to “buy local” and support
our small businesses and maintain the quality of these walkable Streets.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
175 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
You have allowed "staff' and special interests to destroy so much in the deal made long ago to bring
Expo here. Please no more . Stop it now.
Danielle Charney
Resident since 1982
Item 7.A 02/14/23
176 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Rayne Laborde Ruiz <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant,
local serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an
alternative, it should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing
Element. Please stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be
accommodated--this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a
housing shortage. Bad city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've
needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
Rayne Laborde Ruiz
Rayne Laborde Ruiz
rayneblaborde@gmail.com
1241 5th St Apt 409
Santa Monica, California 90401
Item 7.A 02/14/23
177 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Phillip Tate <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:01 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Hi - I’m a Sunset Park resident and I am writing in support of housing on the boulevards. One
of the great things about Santa Monica is the unique local businesses. Those businesses
need population density to survive. Having housing over the businesses will ensure our
boulevards thrive and continue to support our residents.
Additionally, adding housing will help activate the areas which helps prevent crime. Finally,
most of the traffic in SM is caused by people driving in and out for work. Having more housing
will enable people to live closer to where they work - less traffic and less greenhouse gases.
To that end, if you are considering a downzone of the boulevards, please make sure to
adequately study the greenhouse gas impact of that decision.
Thank you,
Phillip Tate
Phillip Tate
philliptate@hotmail.com
3212 18th Street
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
178 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Marissa Charles <info@marissacharles.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:56 PM
To:Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de
la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject:Re: Concern about Ocean Park Blvd zoning plans
EXTERNAL
*Please bear the views and desires of Ocean Park and Pico Blvd residents in mind when you make this decision. We
don’t want this and will be very disappointed if it goes ahead.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 1:51 PM Marissa Charles <info@marissacharles.org> wrote:
Hello All,
As an Ocean Park Blvd resident for more than eight years I’m extremely concerned about any plans to change the
zoning requirements on this street and Pico Blvd in Santa Monica.
Allowing 5 story buildings would drive our current ground floor and 2 story unique businesses out of the area.
What makes my community special — the very reason why I live here — is the quaint, village feel. I have friends who
travel across town just to go to the restaurants and coffee shops in the area and to shop.
I hold business meetings at our little eateries.
Changing the zoning in the area (I suspect for profit) will alter the very nature of this community and will rob it of its
heart, soul and what makes it special. If I wanted to live in an area overgrown with McMansion apartment complexes I
would have stayed in Venice or moved to Downtown LA.
Please bear the views and desires of Ocean Park and Pico Blvd residents when you make this decision. We don’t want
this and will be very disappointed if it goes ahead.
Thanks,
Marissa Charles
‐‐
Marissa Charles
Writer/Editor
Mobile: 1 310 463 8164
www.marissacharles.org
Check me out on Facebook and Twitter!
‐‐
Marissa Charles
Writer/Editor
Mobile: 1 310 463 8164
www.marissacharles.org
Item 7.A 02/14/23
179 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Check me out on Facebook and Twitter!
Item 7.A 02/14/23
180 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Marissa Charles <info@marissacharles.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:52 PM
To:Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de
la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject:Concern about Ocean Park Blvd zoning plans
EXTERNAL
Hello All,
As an Ocean Park Blvd resident for more than eight years I’m extremely concerned about any plans to change the zoning
requirements on this street and Pico Blvd in Santa Monica.
Allowing 5 story buildings would drive our current ground floor and 2 story unique businesses out of the area.
What makes my community special — the very reason why I live here — is the quaint, village feel. I have friends who
travel across town just to go to the restaurants and coffee shops in the area and to shop.
I hold business meetings at our little eateries.
Changing the zoning in the area (I suspect for profit) will alter the very nature of this community and will rob it of its
heart, soul and what makes it special. If I wanted to live in an area overgrown with McMansion apartment complexes I
would have stayed in Venice or moved to Downtown LA.
Please bear the views and desires of Ocean Park and Pico Blvd residents when you make this decision. We don’t want
this and will be very disappointed if it goes ahead.
Thanks,
Marissa Charles
‐‐
Marissa Charles
Writer/Editor
Mobile: 1 310 463 8164
www.marissacharles.org
Check me out on Facebook and Twitter!
Item 7.A 02/14/23
181 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
From:Michael Grandcolas
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Please support the Planning Commission"s Proposal to modify the Housing Element to keep NC zoning as is and
not up zone it.
Date:Monday, February 6, 2023 9:50:42 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council
I'm a condo owner and have lived in Ocean Park for 35 years.
I urge you to support the Planning Commission's Proposal asking you to submit an
application to the State of California to formally modify our approved Housing
Element to make it more attuned to our actual City neighborhood needs.
Specifically, to keep NC zoning as is and not up zone it.
The current NC zoning is important to retain the unique walkable character of Ocean
Park and Main Street with its many small businessesand to also retain the unique footprint and architecture of Main St. in Ocean Park.
Regards
Michael Grandcolas
Item 7.A 02/14/23
182 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
From:barbara@barbarateitelbauminsurance.com
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:RE City Council to retain the current NC zoning of Main Street and Ocean Park
Date:Monday, February 6, 2023 12:29:50 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council
I'm a condo owner and have lived in Ocean Park for 28 years.
I urge you to support the Planning Commission's Proposal asking you to submit an
application to the State of California to formally modify our approved HousingElement to make it more attuned to our actual City neighborhood needs.
Specifically, to keep NC zoning as is and not up zone it.
The current NC zoning is important to retain the unique walkable character of Ocean
Park and Main Street with its many small businessesand to also retain the unique footprint and architecture of Main St. in Ocean Park
Barbara Teitelbaum
Item 7.A 02/14/23
183 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Carter Rubin <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant,
local serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an
alternative, it should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing
Element. Please stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be
accommodated--this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a
housing shortage. Bad city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've
needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
Carter Rubin
carter.rubin@gmail.com
, California
Item 7.A 02/14/23
184 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Natalya Zernitskaya <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant,
local serving retail experience.
Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an alternative, it should be done in addition
to what's already been included in the Housing Element. Please stop treating new housing
like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated--this attitude and the policies that
result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage. Bad city leadership across the
state has prevented the housing we've needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to
change course.
Our City has regularly passed ordinances that limited what kinds of housing can be built and
where, and we are not alone in continually downzoning. We've seen the resulting housing
crisis due to these actions so we cannot continue down the path of downzoning throughout
our city and expect our housing crisis to improve.
Thank you,
Natalya
Natalya Zernitskaya
nzernitskaya@gmail.com
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 7.A 02/14/23
185 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Item 7.A 02/14/23
186 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steve Berman <sbermo@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please don't upzone”Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main
Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue (“Streets”).
Thank you,
Steve Berman
933 5th Street
Item 7.A 02/14/23
187 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Connie Stewart <conniej625@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick; Christine Parra
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica purports to want walkable neighborhoods, and that’s what we have
along Ocean Park Boulevard. I can stroll to two grocery stores, a nursery, a yoga
studio, a toy store, a florist, a couple gift shops, several restaurants and a trendy
bread bakery. I can get my bike serviced at the Bicycle Workshop and have coffee
down the street while I wait.
I’ve counted dozens of people in line to buy bread at Jyan Isaac bakery, 1620
Ocean Park Boulevard. Last Sunday morning, about 30 people queued up for
brunch at Layla, the new bagel cafe next door. Ghisallo draws a steady crowd with
its creative pizzas and salads. Thyme offers high-quality takeout food as well as
dine-in options. Down the street, Local Kitchen provides upscale dining. Across the
boulevard, Bolivar’s sells arupas, coffee, baked goods and lighter fare. The
boulevard is thriving.
Now, however, the city proposes to upzone much of the boulevard, as well as other
charming areas like Montana and Main Street. If you do, say goodbye to walkable
neighborhoods. Our small independent businesses will get squeezed out, their
buildings demolished to make way for denser development.
Even if the new buildings reserve the ground floor for commercial use, years-long
construction will force out the current businesses. Instead of a vibrant
neighborhood, we’ll have a shopping desert.
I’ll be driving to grocery stores rather than wheeling my granny cart to Bob’s or
Gelson’s. I’ll need to get my bike serviced at a larger store like Helen’s. With
Merrihew’s Sunset Gardens gone, I’ll have to drive to Armstrong’s on Wilshire, or
perhaps Anawalt’s in West LA.
Santa Monica used to be a real community, with hardware stores, a plucky
newspaper, and down to earth shops. Today, Santa Monica Place and the
Promenade cater to tourists, not locals.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
188 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
The neighborhood shopping districts are what make this city livable for residents.
Please don’t convert Santa Monica into another car-dependent cookie-cutter
suburb.
Connie Stewart
1229 Cedar Street
Sent from my iPad
Item 7.A 02/14/23
189 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: 2/14/23 Meeting - Agenda Item #7
From: Andrew Allison <andrewallison04@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Jesse Zwick <Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis
<Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock
<Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: 2/14/23 Meeting ‐ Agenda Item #7
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I am a resident of the North of Montana neighborhood. My family lives in a detached single‐family home within 1,000
feet of the Montana commercial corridor, and I write in support of liberalizing the zoning on Montana Avenue, including
allowing the construction of more homes and more businesses in multi‐story buildings.
My family relies on Montana Avenue for its groceries, restaurants, cafes, bakeries, medical offices, hair salons, clothing
boutiques, dry cleaners, ice cream shops, and physical fitness establishments. We chose to live in this area because the
presence of these businesses allows us to walk and bike for more of our trips, limiting our carbon footprint, reducing the
amount of car traffic in our city, and improving our health.
As a taxpayer, I also appreciate that the presence of these businesses keeps my taxes lower than they otherwise would
be, and helps to pay for the infrastructure that makes our neighborhood great.
When these businesses succeed, my neighborhood succeeds and our experience as residents is enhanced. It's hard to
think of something more beneficial to these businesses than the Council allowing more potential customers to live
nearby.
These businesses and amenities likely would not exist if they were not adjacent to the multi‐family residences of the
Wilshire‐Montana neighborhood. Let's learn from that success.
I understand that some might be concerned that changing the zoning to enable the building of more homes on Montana
Avenue might lead to the replacement of our unique small businesses by national chains. The way to prevent that
outcome is to ensure that the costs of building and operating a business on Montana Avenue are as low as possible.
Remove minimum parking requirements, so businesses can have smaller footprints. Eliminate other regulations that
only allow large‐floorplate projects to pencil out. Don't take the counter‐productive step of trying to help our
neighborhood businesses by limiting the number of customers they serve.
Thanks for your attention to this letter and for your service.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
190 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Sincerely,
Andrew Allison
Item 7.A 02/14/23
191 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Evann Grey <evanngrey@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:58 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/2023 City Council Agenda Item 7A
EXTERNAL
I strongly oppose upzoning of our neighborhood business districts.
Increasing the size and scale of the development on these streets will
increase the already heavy traffic flow, but most importantly will destroy the
small independent businesses that we know, love, and support, and that are
part of the fabric of our neighborhoods and community.
Santa Monica has already lost so much in the past couple of decades. Please just stop.
Evann Grey
1038 9th Street
SM 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
192 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Gonzalo Ugarteche <gonzalo@trulovepost.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:58 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam
Davis
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I am reaching out to all of you to let you know that I, as well as my family, all being residents of Santa Monica in the
ocean park area, oppose the change to upzone Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial district including Main Street,
Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.
I believe that is very important to buy locally in my neighborhood. Please protect these streets.
Best regards.
Gonzalo Ugarteche
Item 7.A 02/14/23
193 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Julie Greenfield <jugree888@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:57 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; jesse.zwick@smgov.net; Lana
Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject:City Council Agenda item 7a 2/14/23
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I STRONGLY oppose the upzoning of Pico Blvd. I’m concerned about the wiping out of small businesses there‐ businesses
I often frequent. The charm of Santa Monica is being threatened and our city is already so crowded. . Be sure my
neighbors and I will oppose this and won’t go down without a fight. I have been a resident here for 24 years.
Thank you for your consideration.
Julie Greenfield
Item 7.A 02/14/23
194 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Dennis Gibbens <dennis@dga-inc.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:friendsofsp@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 Agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear All,
Please DO NOT pass the Upzoning Proposal along Ocean Park or Pico Blvds. I have been a tenant in the 1600 block of
Ocean Park Blvd. for 29 years now. The exisƟng character of the street is what the people who live, work and
frequent/shop in this area want. This is mostly a small, locally‐owned business community. Our community is a special
one, developed over generaƟons.
I urge you all to please vote NO on the proposed upzoning in our Neighborhood Commercial District.
Thank you!
Dennis Gibbens
Dennis Gibbens
Dennis Gibbens Architects
1634 Ocean Park Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 90405
dennis@dga-inc.com
T. 310.452.8438
F. 310.452.8437
Item 7.A 02/14/23
195 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Elliot Gordon <elliotkgordon1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposed "upzoning" proposal on the
February 14 agenda that will impact Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards in the Sunset Park neighborhood. While the goals
of the proposed upzoning may be laudable, the likely adverse effects are anything but. These business sections of the
neighborhood provide a multitude of services in a friendly atmosphere on a human scale that will likely be lost. Not only
locally owned restaurants and cafes, but a variety of services including markets, gift shops, tailors, framing stores, hair
salons, etc. These are the types of places that allow us to live our daily lives in Sunset Park without having to get into a
car or patronize chain stores, the only kind of franchises likely to be able to afford space if the upzoning occurs.
Therefore, I respectfully request that the council reject the proposed upzoning and preserve what makes Sunset Park
such a wonderful and special place to live, work and enjoy the best of what our city offers.
Thank you,
Elliot Gordon
33rd Street
Item 7.A 02/14/23
196 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Robert Posek <rposek@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:48 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 agenda item 7A,,(oppose upzoning)
EXTERNAL
To the mayor and councilmembers,
My wife and I are very disturbed by the possibility of upzoning neighborhood commercial districts and demolishing
existing buildings including those on Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. We live near
the Montana Avenue district area, and have, for over thirty years, enjoyed shopping in the many unique stores.
The resulting demolition would eliminate most of these shops, increase rents, and likely replace existing local businesses
with chain stores, The increased density would also increase parking and traffic, resulting in a reduction of the resident's
quality of life. Your decisions will directly impact our neighborhoods negatively if you elect to go forward with the
upzoning as proposed.
Please remember that your duty is to represent your residents and not those of the developers
(Forward Santa Monica) and other vested interests, whose motives are purely economic.
Again, I urge you to take the recommendations of several of the Planning Commissioners and protect these
neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation.
Sincerely,
Robert & Linda Posek
Santa Monica residents
Item 7.A 02/14/23
197 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Ken Scopp <ken@scopp.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:46 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Upzoning
EXTERNAL
I oppose the upzoning proposal
Best,
Ken
Kenneth N. Scopp, CFP, RFC, CLTC
CA Lic.#0486957
Scopp & Associates, inc.
1112 Montana Avenue
#906
Santa Monica, CA 90403
(310)893-6091
ken@scopp.net
Member: Center for Tax Strategies and Resource, Forum 400, International Association of
Registered Financial Consultants, MDRT, Doctors Academy of Economics, Certified In Long
Term Care, (CLTC)
“The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward.”
- John Maynard Keynes
A PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL PLANNING PRACTICE
310-893-6091... Fax 310-893-6099
Cell 310-486-6879
EMAIL: ken@scopp.net
www.scoppassociates.com
ASK US ABOUT OTHER FINANCIAL SERVICES WE PROVIDE!
Your Financial Resource for Personal & Business Planning
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is neither
intended nor written to be used, and cannot be used, to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or to
promote, market or recommend to anyone a transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
THE FOREGOING DOCUMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL
This message and the foregoing documents are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which they are addressed. It
may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any
Item 7.A 02/14/23
198 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
10
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify me immediately by replying to this email or by telephone (310) 893-6090 and delete the original transmission and its
attachments without reading them or saving them to disk or otherwise. Thank you.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
199 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Debbie Travis <travalato@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Our Neighborhoods
EXTERNAL
Please help preserve what little is left of our precious Santa Monica neighborhoods! The upcoming vote to up zone
Ocean Park, parts of Pico and the Montana neighborhoods is not necessary and will raise rents for small business and
leave only big chains who can afford it.
We voted you in to preserve our quaint beach town or what little is left for our families. Please vote NO on upzoning!!!
Thank you,
Debbie Travis
A proud Santa Monica resident
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
200 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Becky Boyle <beckyboyle@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am hearing you are considering "upzoning" Santa Monica's neighborhood commercial districts that include Main, Ocean
Park, Pico and Montana.
It's bad enough that Lincoln is the debacle it is, add into that all the same projects already on 7th, 5th, etc... There is no need
to further destroy the livelihoods of our small business owners (the heart of so much) and further erode the character of the
community. The madness must stop. To replace them with higher rent tenants the likes of chain stores, destabilizing the
neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life and increasing traffic and parking woes, the lack of sun actuallly be able to
hit "sunny Santa Monica" due to building height enhancements.... It's not ok. It must stop. There are vancancies that exist if
people want them. This isn't going to solve the home‐affordablity issue, it's only going to serve to destroy the culture and
character of Santa Monica which has already taken a very substantial hit in the last few years.
I prefer to buy local and support small business owners. I hope you care about your current community too. I implore you to
put your current constituents above lobbyists and possible future constiuents. We've had it with the mega‐apartment mode
that has not filtered but stormed this little town. Show us you actually care, show us you are also "pro‐Santa Monica" vs "pro‐
developers". Show us you're worthy of representing us.
Thank you,
Becky Boyle
1038 9th St. Apt. E
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
201 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Jane Dempsey <janedempsey@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:RE: City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A -- Study Session re Housing Element implementation
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I totally agree with the Friends of Sunset Park letter regarding this matter sent to the Planning Commission in
January.
It really is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make the Sunset Park/Pico
neighborhoods special.
Please do not throw these businesses to the wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on
these two streets.
Thank you,
Jane Dempsey
Item 7.A 02/14/23
202 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Lisa Siegel <lisamsiegel5889@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:14 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Upzoning: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
“Upzoning” would allow unique streets in Santa Monica -- including Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and
Montana Avenue -- to be developed with new five or six-story projects. The resulting demolition of existing buildings
would displace and eliminate most of the essential neighborhood-serving businesses. It would destabilize the
neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life and increasing traffic and parking woes.
I am a long time customer of the businesses along Ocean Park Boulevard, especially the restaurants, the yoga
studio and Bob's Grocery Store. It would be a terrible loss to those of us who have durable relationships with our
local vendors. To destroy the neighborhood and raise the rents would add nothing to our quality of life. In fact, it
would destroy our quality of life. Bigger is not better. It enriches only the developers.
When the Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes it made a strong, well-supported recommendation
to Council against upzoning these streets and urged the Council to keep the existing heights and densities in these
neighborhood commercial districts.
The City Council needs to hear our voices. I support local small businesses and want to maintain the lovely quality
of life along these Santa Monica streets and neighborhoods.
Lisa Siegel
Item 7.A 02/14/23
203 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Tregg Rustad <tregg@treggrustad.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I live and work in Sunset Park and I’m concerned about the potential rezoning of Pico Blvd and Ocean Park Blvd in
discussion. I think it’s vital to all of us that live in the neighborhood to support the small business in this area, as we use
them daily, and I feel this should be a priority. Also, I feel strongly that the max height should be 4 stories, with required
retail space on the bottom/ground level so the small business can continue to support our community. Also, it’s
important to consider traffic impact caused by these changes and to make sure enough parking for each building is
required, or no one can park and visit the businesses. I drive my kids to SMASH every day down Pico Blvd and the traffic
is terrible most mornings.
Thank you for your time.
Tregg Rustad
Item 7.A 02/14/23
204 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Suzan Filipek <suzanfilipek@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:08 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:
I am asking you to please not “upzone” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main
Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue (“Streets”).
It's important to buy local and continue to have these charming businesses and streets that make Santa
Monica the community it is, and why people want to live and visit here.
Also being considered is whether to allow lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and
Montana Avenue. If approved this would allow developers to consolidate lots and build larger, mega projects
on these Streets.
When the Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes it urged the Council to keep the existing
heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts:
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=14074&MeetingID=1353
These four walking Streets serve residents in their daily lives – local food stores and restaurants, laundromats,
shoe repair and pharmacies, all within a short distance of our homes. And they help make Santa Monica feel
special.
Please keep the current zoning and not allow lot consolidation.
Thank you
Suzan Filipek
421 Marine Street
Santa Monica, 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
205 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Allison Dollar <allisondollar@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a - NO to upzoning the heart of Santa Monica's neighborhoods
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I'm writing regarding agenda item 7a for tomorrow, February 14, 2023. NO NO NO NO on upzoning.
The downside to upzoning these streets vastly outweighs any very short‐term and very small gains in allowing it.
Upzoning is pernicious. It erodes social connections to the economic community and completely erodes neighborhood
loyalty. Even worse, it undermines new economic business models and any space for entrepreneurship. Even if we
collectively decide that quality of life has no value, we shouldn't agree to limit the kinds of business that could flourish in
Santa Monica.
I continue to be shocked at the lack of imagination and paucity of modern business savvy that allows these measures
any credence. These policies evince 20th century thinking. And here we are 20% into the 21st!! What about new forms
of corporate, sponsorships, work/live spaces, R&D centers, other ways to support tourism? Why why why be so foolish
and short sighted? Or is it laziness?
Upsizing in this instance is a death sentence for the burgeoning digital media community fueling local business, and for
other forms of lifestyle offerings, as well as basic service businesses that make up the fabric of daily life. Should we live
here and leave to shop at other neighborhoods in SoCal?
Just say no. And think of better ways to raise the tax base and revenue.
Thank you.
Allison Dollar
Ocean Park
allisondollar@gmail.com
310 428 5079
Item 7.A 02/14/23
206 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:laura houston <laurahouston7999@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City of Santa Monica,
I am against the proposal to upzone Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean
Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. This is a bad idea. It will increase traffic and change the look of
our remaining neighborhoods that are mom and pop stores. We don't need the rest of the city to look like the rest of the
ugly high-rise buildings near the Promenade. The planning commission has already recommended against it------please
listen to them!
Sincerely,
Laura Houston
21-year resident of Santa Monica in the Sunset Park neighborhood
Item 7.A 02/14/23
207 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Jeremy Bamberger <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:30 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
I'm going to make this exceedingly simple, and less diplomatic than my fellow pro-housing
kin. I am an urbanist and architect of multi-family housing who lives in Ocean Park, where
Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd., and Lincoln Ave. are a part of my neighborhood. The Housing
Element is explicit in "further forwarding fair housing" in resource-rich environments, and we
all know that Bergamot is a direct overlay with Santa Monica's historic redmaps, while the
above-mentioned commercial corridors are in wealthier parts of town. I have many
professional relationships with those at HCD and others at the state level, and so if this
request goes through, I will make it abundantly clear to HCD that this is in direct contrast to
further forwarding fair housing, and will recommend that they deem Santa Monica's Housing
Element to be non-compliant, re-awakening the builder's remedy as an appropriate tool
resolve inappropriate politicking around producing housing.
Thank you,
Jeremy Bamberger
jermberg@gmail.com
140 Julian Ave, 306
San Francisco, California 94103
Item 7.A 02/14/23
208 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Karen Lucente <kplucente@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:30 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I understand you are meeting on this item this week. I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed upzoning
of NC districts.
We agree with the Planning Commission's letter showing how it will cause further displacement of locally owned
businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to our local community, businesses that are currently
owned by individuals, and many minority‐owned ones. It will ruin the street to allow four and five‐story development
because all the small businesses will be replaced by chains. Surely we would end up losing local treasures like the Aero
theater, too.
They have outlined all the ways these districts already serve the community and meet the objectives needed.
Please reconsider.
Thank you,
Karen Lucente
514 7th St, Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 7.A 02/14/23
209 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:hhartlaw@gmail.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:30 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:hhartlaw@gmail.com
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Hello Council members,
I just learned about the proposal to upzone Pico, Ocean Park, Main Street and Montana. I live and work in Venice (a
block over from Santa Monica) but spend most of my time (and dollars) in Santa Monica.
The idea of upzoning these areas is honestly criminal! Big chains and multi‐story businesses on Montana and Main street
would completely destroy the feel of these walkable shopping districts (not to mention parking is already awful). The
same holds true for Ocean Park. The neighborhoods around these areas already have to deal with the overflow of
parking. And if the bigger stores push the local retailer and service providers out, locals will have to get in their cars,
which will negatively impact the desirability of these areas.
It already congested enough on Lincoln in the areas of giant apartment buildings. That area has completely lost its
charm. If let the virus of upzoning spread, only the developers will win.
Thanks for listening!
Heidi Hart
811 Commonwealth Ave
Venice, CA 90291
Item 7.A 02/14/23
210 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:rml <rml@cyberiamedia.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:26 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Regarding 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a: I agree with the Planning Commission and urge and City Council to
protect these neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation.
I live on 22nd St in Ocean Park.
Thanks.
richard levine
principal & creative director
cyberiamedia | LinkedIn | behance | vimeo
T| 310.392.6100 M| 310.717.5190
Item 7.A 02/14/23
211 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Brenda Lent <rblent@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:26 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Upzoning
EXTERNAL
Please DO NOT vote to up zone the NC areas.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
212 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Betsy Katz <betsyjkatz@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I strongly I oppose the proposed up zoning of Santa Monica’s unique neighborhood commercial districts (Main St, Ocean
Park Bl, Pico Bl and Montana Av).
Allowing 5 and 6 story buildings would destabilize these neighborhoods by demolishing existing (and beloved)
businesses and replacing them with higher rent chain stores and bringing with them more traffic and huge parking
issues.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Betsy Katz
3016 Ruskin St
Santa Monica 90405
310‐415‐0130
Item 7.A 02/14/23
213 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Rose Shoshana <rose@rosegallery.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:41 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Saving Small Businesses!
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Small businesses are what gives a city its vitality and
liveliness. The plan you are considering will destroy,
not only livelihoods of the small business owners and
their employees, it will also kill the energy of the
communities of Ocean park, Main Street, Pico and
Montana. This plan goes against everything Santa
Monica stands for, a city for the people, not just big
developers who care nothing about communities.
Please do not let this go through.
Sincerely, Rose Shoshana, a small business owner
at Bergamot Station.
--
Rose Shoshana
ROSEGALLERY
Bergamot Station Art Center
2525 Michigan Avenue B-7
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Ph. 310.264.8440
rose@rosegallery.net
www.rosegallery.net
Item 7.A 02/14/23
214 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Jan Bailey <goldeniii@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:39 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Council Members:
I am very concerned as to what you're planning for our beautiful Santa Monica. I've lived here for 30 years and am
dismayed as to the unbridled crime and violence on the streets of Santa Monica. I can no longer walk down Main Street
or on the Promenade as it isn't safe. Unless corruption is afoot, I fail to understand why this is allowed. Why?
I urge you to vote NO on Upzoning Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue. Should
you vote for 7a, know that you will destroy a once‐beautiful, friendly, and safe city that is struggling as it is.
Please keep Santa Monica safe.
Thank you,
Jan Bailey
Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
215 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:AnitaMarie Laurie <AnitaMarie@sitrick.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Santa Monica Council Members:
I choose to live in Santa Monica after living in Malibu and Santa Barbara for many years. I choose Santa Monica because
it is a City that values neighborhood, small business and family. For the last 29 years I have enjoyed our beautiful
community and have purchased two homes, married and raised a family here.
With that, I urge the current City Council to respect and support the recommendation of our Planning Commissioners
to retain the existing heights and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in the Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NC) on Main Street,
Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue, rather than increasing them as proposed in the current
language of Program 1J.
Please do the right thing and maintain what residents and visitors to our City love by maintaining the existing height and
FAR for the NC Districts on Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd., Pico Blvd. and Montana Avenue.
Sincerely,
Anita‐Marioe Hill Laurie
Santa Monica Homeowner
Resident 29 years
Anita‐Marie Laurie
Sitrick And Company
11999 San Vicente Blvd., Penthouse
Los Angeles, CA 90049
310‐788‐2850 office
310‐663‐3036 mobile
Item 7.A 02/14/23
216 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Roger Lent <rlldds73@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:36 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Upzoning
EXTERNAL
Please DO NOT vote to upzone the NC areas.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
217 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:agave8@yahoo.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:36 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:No to Zoning change.
EXTERNAL
We want struct zoning. Not allowing taller buildings.
Keep Santa Monica small and neighborhoods friendly. Ocean Park and Pico residents say HELL NO TO THIS.
Ken
Item 7.A 02/14/23
218 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Sanjay Shah <heysanjay@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:No no Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Hello, upzoning Ocean Park Blvd is a terrible idea. Strongly oppose. Why would council members want to destroy the
one of the very reasons Santa Monica is great? Keep our buildings short and our businesses small.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
219 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Kate DiMento <ktdimento@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:I Oppose “Upzoning”
EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern:
I’m writing to let you know that I oppose “upzoning” in Santa Monica. In my opinion, there are far too many new five
and six story resident buildings being currently built.
Thanks so much for your consideration and for all your continued efforts on behalf of our great city.
All best,
Katie DiMento
Santa Monica Resident since 1997
Item 7.A 02/14/23
220 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Larissa Field <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
enough with the bullshit housing for homeless people it’s ridiculous. The streets are already
congested. Traffic is a nightmare, and crimes have never been higher since you want to
house all these degenerates enough with it I can’t stand seeing my city go to crap I’ve been
here 50 years and you guys have destroyed it
I’m disgusted enough with the crimes and the free housing for all these losers we need more
police getting these aholes off the street and sending them elsewhere! you have already built
so much housing and much of it remains empty. That’s enough stop turning into an apartment
empire
Larissa Field
larissafield@hotmail.com
657 Raymond Ave
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
221 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Debbie Travis <travalato@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:14 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I oppose item 7a vehemently! Let’s keep Santa Monica a Beach community, not a string of dense housing with high small
business rents!!!!
Thank you,
Chet Badalato
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
222 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Jean L Gottlieb <jlgottlieb@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:13 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Small businesses
EXTERNAL
Need our support! Please leave pico and ocean park boulevard and montana Ave alone!
Otherwise, you will continue to eliminate any charm left in Los Angeles.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
223 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Linda Balter <linda@baltertax.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council Members,
I am vehemently opposed to the upzoning of our local neighborhoods, parƟcularly the Sunset/Ocean Park
neighborhoods. It would absolutely destroy our small business owners and the residents who enjoy a quiet, less‐
congested and non‐touristy environment.
The residents of Santa Monica supported our local businesses in these neighborhoods throughout the pandemic to keep
them from closing permanently. It was extremely important to us for our social, emoƟonal and economic wellbeing
during CoVid, and it conƟnues to be a priority for me. These local districts are an integral part of our community and I
do not want to see them displaced for a noisy, traffic‐congested, pricey and overdeveloped community. I try to walk or
bike to these areas when I can, but I now have mobility issues that force me to rely on my car at Ɵmes. Parking on Ocean
Park has become more difficult with the new businesses coming in and building parklets. I would be especially
devastated to see Thyme Café, Bob’s Market and my yoga studio, Santa Monica Yoga, shut down. Most of the local
businesses have been here for 20‐plus years and it would be a shame to lose them.
Please, please, please, reconsider this zoning change and keep our neighborhoods for the residents’ quality of life!
Respecƞully yours,
Linda Balter
Item 7.A 02/14/23
224 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:John Talbert <j.talbert@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:53 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Please vote against upzoning
EXTERNAL
Please vote against upzoning. We need to maintain our walkable streets and support local, family-owned
businesses.
We need to keep the existing height and density in these neighborhood commercial districts.
I live near Main Street. I also shop on Ocean Park Blvd and Montana.
John Talbert
2960 Neilson Way #202
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
225 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:ejs2514 <ejs2514@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:52 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:Housing element amendment
EXTERNAL
Please approve the proposed upzoning of the Bergamot Plan area Replacement Site at 1757 Stanford Street, as
requested by the property owner.
Please reject the proposal to undo existing upzoned areas along Main, Montana, Pico, and Ocean Park.
As a resident of Sunset Park, both Ocean Park and Pico need upzoning for increased pedestrian/retail activity and
vitality. Significantly, retail uses are consistent with upzoning, and neighborhood commercial (NC) zoning uses can be
incorporated as street level occupancies within new developments (example: the recent development at 28th and Pico).
Best wishes
Ed Salisbury
2514 30th Street
Santa Monica
Item 7.A 02/14/23
226 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Erin Shachory <erinshachory@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:50 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica city council,
No "upzoning" in Santa Monica neighborhood commercial districts!
In the modern world, every city and every town has begun to look like everywhere else. I was recently in Austin, TX,
and was shocked and dismayed to see an Aviator Nation and Sunlife Organics on what used to be the very nexus of
South Congress, which was the very reason for the city's tagline "Keep Austin Weird." As much as I love those
places in my hometown of Los Angeles, I don't want Austin to look like LA... or Paris... or anywhere else.
And so it is with Ocean Park Boulevard in Santa Monica. I have loved this area for decades because it single-
handedly reminds me that Santa Monica is not just "Silicon Beach" or yet another millionaire's playground but an
area where young families can grow and where you can "buy local" and get your bike fixed and take yoga from *the*
OG Santa Monica yoga hub. In a town that is obnoxiously self-important and pretentious, Ocean Park Boulevard
between 14th and 18th remains gloriously local. There is NOTHING like leaving Julian Walker's morning yoga class
on a Sunday, grabbing a coffee at Thyme Cafe, and padding over to Bob's for a few essentials while kids and grown
ups alike play soccer on the field across the street.
You have the power to stop this commodification of air space and retain the special quality of your city. If you
choose to approve "upzoning" because of money, power and greed, shame on you. Your children and generations
to come will suffer long after you've had your pay-out. I hope that money is a comfy bedfellow, because selling out
the walkable streets of Santa Monica would make it hard for me to sleep at night. I wouldn't want to have to justify
this choice to my family or my conscience.
With a clear conscience, I implore you: Do the right thing. Protect the citizens of Santa Monica by protecting
the intangible things that make the city so special!!
Kindly,
Erin Shachory
Item 7.A 02/14/23
227 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Lynne Schlosstein <68lynnes@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:45 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear
I understand the City Council will be discussing whether to up zone certain commercial districts including Main St, Ocean
Park Blvd, Pico Blvd and Montana Ave. This would allow developers to consolidate lots and build large buildings that
would cater to chain stores and evict our local businesses.
We love our local businesses and strongly urge you to keep the current zoning. Our local food stores, restaurants,
laundromats, pharmacies, etc. are a vital part of the fabric of our community.
Thanks,
Lynne Schlosstein
Item 7.A 02/14/23
228 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:lmarreola <lmarreola@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:41 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2-14-23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers.
Please follow your Planning Commision's recommendation and don't upzone Ocean Park Blvd. Or Tio Pico Blvd for all the
reaso stated in Friends of Sunset Park's letter to Planning Commission on Jan. 16, 2023 regarding 1‐18‐23 Agenda Item
9‐A.
Also, do not allow lot consolidation on those Boulevards.
I don't get it. If the state tells cities to ruin neighborhoods and quality of life, we must stand up to the state.
Respectfully,
Carol and Larry Arreola,
Lifelong Sunset Park residents
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
229 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nicole Rousseau <holanicole@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:zoning
EXTERNAL
there is not enough public transportation to allow more buildings and our streets are impossible to drive and to park.
What does the city do to increase the number of buses ?
Please stop increasing the density if we can’t move around.
Thank you .
Nicole Rousseau
Item 7.A 02/14/23
230 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Richard Pietruska <rpietruska@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I oppose these changes to the neighborhood streets and up zoning these streets.
Please protect the smaller neighborhood businesses and maintain the quality of these walkable streets.
Sincerely,
Richard Pietruska
3131 6th St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
231 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Rashmi Mullur <rsmullur@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:19 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:Ravi
Subject:Re: City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a residents of Santa Monica for several years, we oppose any proposition to “upzone” Santa Monica’s neighborhood
commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd and Montana Avenue.
Please maintain existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts.
Rashmi Mullur & Ravi Aysola
2670 33rd St
Item 7.A 02/14/23
232 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Amy Tavel <amytavel@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:18 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:[TIMELY]: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a Opposition
EXTERNAL
Hi there,
To whom it may concern, my name is Amy Tavel, and I am writing to express my strong opposition to "upzoning" the
Ocean Park and Pico neighborhoods in Santa Monica, California. I am a seven year resident of Santa Monica, CA and
have solely lived on 21st and Ocean Park Blvd as well as just off of18th Street + Pico Blvd (my current residence). I love
this neighborhood with all of my heart and have truly grown to value all of the wonderful local businesses, quiet
neighborhoods, kind neighbors, as well as the safety and peace of mind that this wonderful community within Santa
Monica has provided over the last seven years.
One of the main reasons I have wanted to stay in this neighborhood is because of how wonderfully local this area feels,
and particularly because it does not contain larger mega projects & buildings in the neighborhood, unlike what I have
found to be the case at The Promenade and surrounding nearby areas. The Promenade feels dangerous to walk around
in at nearly all hours of the day and feels way too dense to the point that it removes the joy of being around that area.
The Ocean Park / Sunset Park / Pico neighborhood is the one area of Santa Monica that still truly feels like there is room
to breathe fresh air and not feel like you're surrounded by overly dense populations and high buildings on every block.
That is part of the charm of Santa Monica and what draws people here to begin with. Replacing the infrastructure along
these streets with five or six story projects would remove the integrity of "protecting local businesses" and "Shopping
local" that Santa Monica always has vocalized as important to support. Like the story goes with every massive
development, over a short period of time you'll see these tenants being priced out and replaced with chain stores ‐ ones
that often exist in other neighborhoods not far from here. Respectfully, why would anyone travel to Santa Monica just
to stay in a high rise with a view that'll be blocked by another high rise and filled with stores they can also find from
where they came?
This neighborhood would not be the same without my morning walk to Lo/cal coffee, Love & Bolivar cafes, Local pizza &
wine bar, Brooke Rodd, Bob's Market, Merrihew's, Jyan Isaac's, Santa Monica Yoga, and all of the other wonderful
tenants that occupy the spaces along Ocean Park and Pico Blvd.
Ocean Park alone already has too much traffic, and the city is already overdeveloping on Lincoln Blvd with those tall
apartment complexes, creating a massive gridlock and so much traffic that that area is already becoming a massive pain
to have to drive through. There are also already enough high‐rise buildings popping up and down Pico Blvd. And on
Lincoln, there is non‐stop horn‐honking, increased air pollution from continual car exhaust, absolutely nowhere to park
your car, and an overwhelming amount of stimulation in those intersections that further point to the absolutely
imperative need to maintain the walkable neighborhoods within Santa Monica.
I strongly urge you to reconsider your stance on "upzoning" Santa Monica's commercial districts and please, leave them
local and free from money‐grabbing developers. These developers predominantly do not even live in these
neighborhoods, and do not care about the negative impact it will have on the community, only on the positive financial
impact it will have on their bank accounts. Once you destroy all of the integrity of the neighborhoods, you can never get
it back.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
233 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Santa Monica Yoga was the studio that helped me recover from an ankle surgery and re‐gain my mobility when my
family wasn't in California to support me. Lo/cal coffee is the coffee shop where the employees feel like family. It's time
we do right by the businesses that make Santa Monica feel like the beautiful community that it is.
Please let me know if any next steps are needed from me to continue verbalizing my opposition to "upzoning" and
confirm receipt of this email.
I appreciate your time and energy reading my email.
Your local Santa Monica resident,
Amy Tavel | 317.441.7104
Item 7.A 02/14/23
234 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Katharine Dreyfuss <kitdreyfuss@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:18 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:NC Zoning
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members:
Please retain current NC Zoning if our state approves amending the Housing Element.
Thank you for taking responsibility in support of a healthy Santa Monica.
Best,
Kit Dreyfuss
Item 7.A 02/14/23
235 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Joe Lemieux <josephlemieux40@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:16 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Council Member,
As a resident of Santa Monica for over twenty years I absolutely oppose upzoning a and consolidating the lots.
Please do not let Santa Monica be taken over by chains and larger mega business. Some of the small business owners
that would be forced to leave Santa Monica have been desr friends to me.
I urge you to vote in good conscious.
Santa Monica Resident,
Joseph LeMieux
Item 7.A 02/14/23
236 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:W Burrell <web.burrell@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Greetings Council Members,
Please protect the local streets so that they remain the
wonderful neighborhoods that those of us who live in Santa
Monica appreciate so much.
Please DO NOT UPZONE Montana Ave., Ocean Park Blvd., and
Pico Blvd.
Thank you in advance for your support.
Sincerely,
William Burrell
‐‐
Item 7.A 02/14/23
237 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Jean L Gottlieb <jlgottlieb@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:14 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Small businesses need our support! Please leave pico and ocean park boulevard and montana Ave alone!
Otherwise, you will continue to eliminate any charm left in Los Angeles.
Thank you.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
238 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:David Luboff <dluboff@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
I am wriƟng to you to express in the strongest terms my opposiƟon to the proposal to upzone the
commercial blocks on Ocean Park Boulevard. I am opposed to any such upzoning, as well as any
proposal to consolidate individual storefronts into mega‐stores.
Sunset Park is one of the most delighƞul neighborhoods in Santa Monica, and its small businesses are
a major contributor to the character of the neighborhood. I can’t tell you how many Ɵmes we have
patronized these businesses, including Bob’s Market, Santa Monica Yoga, Ghisallo, the Thyme Café
and Market, the Antequera Bakery, Café Bolivar, Merrihew’s Sunset Garden, and Edelweiss flower
shop, to menƟon only a few. Small businesses such as these are the life blood of the
neighborhood. Replacing them with cookie‐cuƩer chain stores and outrageously priced bouƟques
would do an unforgivable disservice to the residents and to others who have enjoyed shopping at the
local businesses and strolling the boulevard and surrounding residenƟal areas.
Nor can I count the number of Ɵmes that we have enjoyed reading in the Fairview branch of the Santa
Monica Public Library, which also would be adversely impacted by the consequences of altering the
complexion of the neighborhood.
Upzoning and consolidaƟon would destroy the character of the enƟre area. It would add
unsustainable traffic flows to a city which already is terribly congested. Spillover parking will make it
difficult, if not impossible, for residents and their guests to park. Don’t forget the many children who
aƩend John Adams Middle School and who use the athleƟc fields to play soccer, at the Ɵmes of peak
traffic on Ocean Park Boulevard. Are we to endanger their lives with even more unnecessary traffic?
Why destroy this beauƟful neighborhood? To saƟsfy the unquenchable greed of developers who care
nothing for Santa Monica’s residents? To fill its commercial space with corporate retail outlets that
have taken over so many other commercial zones in Santa Monica and surrounding ciƟes? Ask
yourselves: What good is this going to do the people who elected you – the people whom you are
pledged to serve?
I implore you to support the well‐thought‐out recommendation by the Santa Monica Planning
Commission – the experts who have done the research and upon the Council should rely. I urge you
to follow their recommendations against upzoning. Maintain the existing density levels. Maintain the
Item 7.A 02/14/23
239 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
existing height limits. The fate of this neighborhood – and the quality of life of Santa Monica – are in
your hands.
Sincerely,
David Luboff
Item 7.A 02/14/23
240 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Famili, Anita <AFamili@manatt.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis;
Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a - DO NOT SUPPORT UPZONING OCEANPARK AND PICO
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:
I voted reelected and elected for the first Ɵme most of you.
I a 12 year Santa Monica resident and homeowner with three children who have gone through or our in Santa
Monica Schools. I wholeheartedly DO NOT SUPPORT upzoning Ocean Park, Pico, Main St and Montana. We leŌ
the home we built on California Avenue and 6th Street because the massive development brought more traffic
and unaffordable housing. A 3 minute drive because 15 to 20 minutes, the small businesses were replace with
retail and restaurant chains and the community quality loss. We felt like we were living in New York City, not a
So Cal beach town.
And so we sought refuge in one of the few sensible parts of town, Sunset Park. Please follow the advice of the
planning commission and do not allow upzoning on Ocean Park, Pico, Main St and Montana. NOT ALL
DEVELOLPMENT IS GOOD DEVELOPMENT.
We already have a downtown area where this type of scale is taking over, not to menƟon the proposed
massive development at Lincoln and Ocean Park. We need to protect the small businesses that make Santa
Monica neighborhoods special and unique. And please don't ignore the inevitable traffic issues. There are
THREE schools (Will Rogers, JAMS and Grant) that children and families have to cross Ocean Park to get to five
days a week. While you might not live in this neighborhood, I implore you to sit on any of those commercial
core doors along Ocean Park and watch the number of pedestrians nearly run over. The same is true for
children and families crossing Pico to get to these schools or to Edison.
Upzoning would hurt all the small businesses who get pushed out when these developments come along. It is
important to “buy local” and support local small businesses and maintain the quality of these
walkable/bikeable streets. Where will we all shop when Bob’s is replaced for a trendy mixed‐use
development? It is incumbent upon you to be thoughƞul and stop the insane overbuilding.
As was stated by Commissioner and former Chair of the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, and a Past
Commissioner, Commission on the Status of Women, Nicole Phillis in the SM Mirror
hƩps://smmirror.com/2021/07/sma‐r‐t‐column‐blind‐upzonings‐false‐promise/
“Basic economic principles based on land values alone suggest that the primary beneficiaries of upzoning will
be developers, who will undoubtedly sweep in and redevelop properƟes, sell at a greater value to more upper
middle class professionals, who typically far exceed the area median income (AMI) for the region—all the while
acceleraƟng gentrificaƟon.”
Item 7.A 02/14/23
241 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
The false promise of upzoning to provide more affordable housing is laid bare when one considers how badly
the glut of market rate, luxury housing has failed to produce affordable housing in our City. Upzoning relies on
free market principles for the creaƟon of housing, which will almost always skew the economics toward luxury,
high value residences, especially where, as here, lot values alone oŌen exceed $2 million. It is not lost on me
that many of the rent controlled properƟes that we’ve lost to the Ellis Act in areas zoned for mulƟfamily
residences have actually been redeveloped either as luxury condos or single family homes. This again
underscores the fundamental flaw of upzoning as a panacea: when we leave the producƟon of affordable
housing to the free market in a highly desirable area like Santa Monica or Culver City, upzoning rarely produces
affordable residenƟal opportuniƟes for working families.”
Best regards,
Anita Famili
Sunset Park Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
242 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Marty Smith <ms.martysmith@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; laana.negret@santamonica.gov; Christine Parra;
carolinetorosis@santamonica.gov; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
My husband and i have lived in the Sunset Park area for 30+years and are very disturbed and
concerned about the "upzoning" being considered for our district as well as others in Santa Monica.
We have voted for many of you in the past and would certainly appreciate you listening and taking
into account what your constituents feel about this particular matter.
We are staunch supporters of buying local and supporting our small businesses and are firmly
opposed to this
possible change in our (as well as the others) neighborhood. There has already been more and more
large scale development forcing small businesses out of the area and making for rent increases and
parking nightmares.
We are registering our strong opposition to these changes and ask that you please take our concerns
as well as
many others into account as you explore and vote on this.
Thank you,
Ms. Marty Smith and Gary Becker
Item 7.A 02/14/23
243 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:wendie olshan <olshwko@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:45 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Feb. 14 Meeting - Agenda item 7A
EXTERNAL
We strongly oppose any upzoning for Montana Ave., Ocean Park Blvd, and Pico Blvd. These streets are a lifeline for the
adjacent neighborhoods and each respective street listed helps to create a neighborhood community commercial
district. There are many independent and small businesses along these streets that provide important affordable
services within walking distance of the surrounding neighborhoods. Destruction of these important, affordable,
necessary services in order to increase the density will destroy the communities that patronize them. There would be
no longer be basic services as the rental prices in these mega projects are too high for small businesses to sustain. The
council keeps hammering us with the need for 'affordable' housing, but when you build these mega projects and try to
make housing 'affordable', there is no place for the people who live in the 'affordable' housing to shop and access
essential services.
Please DO NOT UPZONE these areas!
Thank you for your consideration.
Wendie & Steve Olshan
Residents of SM for 45+ years.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
244 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Vivian Rothstein <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:44 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
After working for over 10 years in services to homeless people in Santa Monica, I learned
how critical housing is for a stable, healthy life -- for unhoused and housed residents alike! It
seems like a no-brainer, but somehow there is debate about whether we need more housing
in Santa Monica and L.A. County or not. And to keep it away from our commercial areas.
I live in the Sunset Park area and walk, shop, and dine on Ocean Park Blvd. This street, as
others in Santa Monica, would do very well with mixed use housing/commercial projects.
More people would be frequenting the shops, and the streets would be more lively. While I
value the small businesses that operate currently on these commercial streets, without
adequate housing nearby, they can't prosper.
Don't let our city focus on preserving the status quo. Instead, please govern with the vision
we need to move into the future together, housed.
Vivian Rothstein
Vivian Rothstein
Vivroth46@gmail.com
1107 Pacific St.
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
245 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Graham Rigby <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:43 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant,
local serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot shouldn't be an
alternative, it should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing
Element. Please stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be
accommodated -- this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a
housing shortage. Bad city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've
needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
~Graham
Graham Rigby
rigby.graham.e@gmail.com
651 Grant St, Apt 3
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
246 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Megan Zemke <meganzemke@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:42 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I am a resident of Sunset Park and am strongly opposed to “Upzoning” for Ocean Park Boulevard and Pico
Boulevard.
I am opposed to changing these unique streets to be developed with new five or six-story projects. It would result in
the demolition of existing buildings, and would displace and eliminate most of the essential neighborhood-serving
businesses. They would be replaced with higher rent tenants like chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods,
reducing residents’ quality of life and increasing traffic and parking woes.
I am also opposed to allowing lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue. I
am opposed to allowing developers to consolidate lots and build larger, mega projects on these Streets.
When the Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes it made a strong, well-supported recommendation
to Council against upzoning these Streets and urged the Council to keep the existing heights and densities in these
neighborhood commercial districts. I urge you to take the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
It’s important to “buy local” and support local small businesses and maintain the quality of these walkable Streets.
Please do not destroy Santa Monica as we know and love it.
Megan Zemke
Sunset Park Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
247 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Richard Dellamora <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage. Allowing more housing in
Bergamot shouldn't be an alternative; it should be done in addition to what's already been
included in the Housing Element. Bad urban and suburban leadership across the state has
prevented the housing we've needed to be built for decades. Now is our chance to change
course.
I fully agree with the statement in the above paragraph as they refer to some lots on Pico and
Ocean Park Blvds, not to mention Broadway and other important east-west thoroughfares in
central and downtown Santa Monica. But I am very concerned about doing away with existing
buildings and stores on streets such as Montana and Ocean Park that have individual
character (such as on O.P.B. between 16th and 17th Streets) and are ripe for development
plus pedestrian activity such as Thyme, the new vintage bread store a couple of doors down
Thyme, plus the new, independently owned bagel place next to the bakery. The two newest
places have 'taken off' immediately with residents, and Thyme itself is a first-rate example of
successful local ownership.
There are similar venues on Montana such as the now well established Caffe Luxxe at
Montana and 9th and the immediately successful (and versatile) Bardonna at 16th and
Montana.
Places like the ones I've mentioned offer first rate local environments, for those who live here
and casual visitors as well. Can't we both densify and protect what is unique and highly
Item 7.A 02/14/23
248 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
desirable about Santa Monica without resorting to destructive excessive zoning as the State
is encouraging at the corner of Lincoln and OCP Boulevard?
Thank you for listening. Please note that I drive to breakfast every morning in SM and run
virtually all my daily errands within the city limits. I recently moved back to SM after being
away for the past 15th months precisely so that I could enjoy on a daily basis the sort of
places that I am mentioning.
Thank you for your attention, and please remember that one-size-fits-all solutions when
complexity is required can produce quick action together with permanent negative
consequences.
Richard Dellamora
Richard Dellamora
rdellamora@verizon.net
1015 3rd Street Apt. 4 Santa Monica
SANTA MONICA, California 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
249 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
10
Vernice Hankins
From:Holly <hollywoodnt@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis;
Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I’d like to share a thought on 2/14/23 Agenda Item 7a. Please follow the advice of the planning commission
and do not allow upzoning on Ocean Park, Pico, Main St and Montana. We already have a downtown area
where this type of scale is taking over. We need to protect the small businesses that make Santa Monica
neighborhoods special and unique.
Upzoning would hurt all the small businesses who get pushed out when these developments come along. It is
important to “buy local” and support local small businesses and maintain the quality of these walkable/bikable
streets.
As was stated by Commissioner and former Chair of the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, and a Past
Commissioner, Commission on the Status of Women, Nicole Phillis in the SM Mirror
hƩps://smmirror.com/2021/07/sma‐r‐t‐column‐blind‐upzonings‐false‐promise/
“Basic economic principles based on land values alone suggest that the primary beneficiaries of upzoning will
be developers, who will undoubtedly sweep in and redevelop properƟes, sell at a greater value to more upper
middle class professionals, who typically far exceed the area median income (AMI) for the region—all the while
acceleraƟng gentrificaƟon.”
The false promise of upzoning to provide more affordable housing is laid bare when one considers how badly
the glut of market rate, luxury housing has failed to produce affordable housing in our City. Upzoning relies on
free market principles for the creaƟon of housing, which will almost always skew the economics toward luxury,
high value residences, especially where, as here, lot values alone oŌen exceed $2 million. It is not lost on me
that many of the rent controlled properƟes that we’ve lost to the Ellis Act in areas zoned for mulƟfamily
residences have actually been redeveloped either as luxury condos or single family homes. This again
underscores the fundamental flaw of upzoning as a panacea: when we leave the producƟon of affordable
housing to the free market in a highly desirable area like Santa Monica or Culver City, upzoning rarely produces
affordable residenƟal opportuniƟes for working families.”
Thank you
Holly Mosher
1707 Hill St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
250 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Leslie Bogart <leslieyog12@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 5:17 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make the Sunset Park
neighborhood special.
Please do not throw these businesses to the wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on
these two streets.
This goes for Montana Ave as well.
PLEASE save the beautiful vibe that Ocean Park bl and Pico bl have.
Do NOT allow 3-5 story buildings to replace our sweet shops.
Thank you!
Leslie
Leslie Bogart
leslieyog12@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
251 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Emily (Gelber) Frumkin <emily.gelber@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 5:13 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a: OPPOSE
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am a resident of Sunset Park Santa Monica (Mom and licensed therapist) and writing to ask that you Oppose
proposed upzoning of Ocean Park Blvd.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Emily
‐‐
Emily Frumkin, MSW, LCSW, RYT-200
Item 7.A 02/14/23
252 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Stephanie Rasband <stephr123@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 5:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/2023 Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I am a 3rd generation native to Sunset Park. I went to Rogers, Adams, Samohi and UCLA. I live 2
doors down from where my grandmother's house was in the 30's, 40's and part of the 50's. The mere
notion that developers would be able to come into these areas and replace what are charming low
profile storefronts that provide the Sunset Park neighborhood with places to do the things of daily life
such as market and get our shoes fixed with tall, cement, metal and glass structures is heartbreaking
to me. I am sure it is to the other residents of the neighborhood, I have seen what has happened to
Lincoln Blvd. with Von's going away and leaving the homes around there north and south without a
supermarket to shop at. My mother was in Silver Crest pm 5th street for a time and they all shopped
at Vons. Now Von's will be this tiny pop up market in the lobby of a huge building. We can't have that
in Ocean Park, or Pico neighborhoods. Who could afford the prices that would go with that overhead
for the market?
The City has lost track of what Santa Monica is at heart. It has lined Lincoln and Ocean Ave with
cookie cutter high rent ugly cement and glass apartments that make it look like the Soviet Union.
Everything looks exactly the same for blocks and blocks. It looks institutional, not residential. No
more! And please please NOT in the Sunset Park, or Pico corridor neighborhoods let alone the charm
and attractiveness of Montana Ave.
Leave our neighborhoods with character. Take the high rent agenda elsewhere. No one who grew up
here would ever even consider these notions as good for the city. It's depressing.
Thank you,
‐‐
Dr. Stephanie Rasband
Item 7.A 02/14/23
253 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Grafton Harper <graftonharper@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 5:00 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Cnl Meeting 2/14/2023 Item &A Do not allow changes to NC districts that eliminate local
businesses
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I am a resident of Santa Monica and I do not want my Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park
Boulevard and Montana Avenue to be upzoned which will eliminate small and local businesses. Neither do I want a
change in zoning to allow lots on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard or Montana Avenue to be consolidated which
also will eliminate small and local businesses that provide residential needs.
Every time I turn around, the City Council appears to be at war with the residents who elect them. They seem to pass
items which encourage density, reward developers, and punish residents with increased congestion reduced services
and decreased quality of living. Anything a resident wants to do in Santa Monica is met with bureaucracy and
resistance. While developers seem to get anything they want at residents' expense.
You are running contrary to the electorate. You need to pay attention to the people who put you where you are, not
new investors in Santa Monica.
Thank‐you for supporting local and small businesses,
Grafton
____________________________
Grafton S. Harper
graftonharper@gmail.com (My new inbox as of 12/2018)
Lost track of me?
Permanent Forwarding available at grafton.harper.1998@anderson.ucla.edu
Item 7.A 02/14/23
254 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:sweetrsngs@aol.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:58 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick; sweetrsngs@aol.com
Subject:Hello and thank you! Re: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Re: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Hello and thank you!
Please NO more "upzoning" for our Santa Monica community!
Our streets of Montana Ave, Ocean Park Blvd, Main St., Pico Blvd NEED "These four walking Streets
containing most of the neighborhood-serving, affordable businesses residents use in their daily lives
– local food stores and restaurants, laundromats, shoe repair and pharmacies, all within a short
distance of people’s homes. Residents don’t just rely on them – they are a vital part of the fabric of
our community that contribute to making Santa Monica feel special!!! "
Thank you! I have lived in Santa Monica for 42 years and have seen enough "upzoning"
already. Please preserve what we have left as is!
Thank you!
A concerned resident.
Michèle Vice
Item 7.A 02/14/23
255 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Aaron Furlong <aaronfurlong@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 5:40 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Zoning OP and Pico
EXTERNAL
Hello Councilmembers and fellow Santa Monica citizens!
Just a quick note to let you know that I am against upzoning our neighborhoods. I cherish our small town feel and the
small businesses that line our streets. I can name at least a sixteen that we frequent on a regular basis. Please don't take
that away from us. Upzoning Pico and Ocean Park will force these small businesses out and negatively impact our
community. Let's keep the densification in the downtown area and more commercial corridors like Wilshire, Santa
Monica Blvd and Lincoln. Let those areas be the cookie cutter business districts, and allow the remaining neighborhoods
like Montana, Pico and OP keep their charm, small businesses and unique community feel.
I don't have the money or lobbying of developers nor the political weight of SMRR but hopefully I still have a voice that
counts. Please hear me.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Aaron Furlong
Santa Monica resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
256 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Joanne Leslie <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 5:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
I love one block from Pico Blvd. in the Sunset Park neighborhood. I have no objection to more
housing being built on Pico Blvd. In fact, our whole region needs more housing, especially
affordable housing and I am proud to be part of the YIMBY contingent. Please do not support
the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood Commercial boulevards.
We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more housing on these
boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local serving retail
experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an alternative, it should be done
in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element. Please stop treating new
housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated--this attitude and the
policies that result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage. Bad city leadership
across the state has prevented the housing we've needed to be built for decades, n ow is our
chance to change course.
Thank you,
Joanne Leslie
pjoleslie@gmail.com
1351 Grant St.
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
257 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Edith Brogan <edithbrogan@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 5:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; oscar.delatorres@santamonica.gov; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda
EXTERNAL
As a Sunset Park resident I strongly oppose upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. It will
completely ruin our neighborhood. We are already experiencing mega mansions
built to accommodate more people than are parking places. Upzoning will take
away all our special shops, restaurants and obliterate views. It will not be a
neighborhood worth living in.
Respectively, Edith Brogan
22nd Street resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
258 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Yaffa Lerea <yaffalea@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Ocean Park "Upzoning"
EXTERNAL
To my city council members ‐
As a 27‐year resident of the Ocean Park neighborhood, I am writing to urge you to strongly oppose any
"upzoning" of our beloved, friendly Santa Monica neighborhood commercial districts.
Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd, and Pico Blvd have local businesses that the residents frequent and love ‐ we do
NOT want those door to door storefront businesses replaced by chain stores or multi‐level buildings. What
makes Santa Monica special is the light, the air, and the local feel ‐ please do NOT let that be destroyed
with any "upzoning" changes!
Thank you for being attentive to the interests of your constituents.
Best,
Yaffa Lerea
Resident of Santa Monica
Item 7.A 02/14/23
259 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellis Kirschenbaum <elliskirsch@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:friendsofsp@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
I have personally patronized two dozen of the businesses that would be jeopardized if the proposed zoning rules are
approved
and 5 story buildings allowed. There is room for a great deal of business expansion under the current zoning rules that
allow for 2 stories
because so many of the existing buildings are one story. The proposal is not necessary and ultimately destructive of our
neighborhood.
It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make
the Sunset Park neighborhood special.
Please do not throw these businesses to the wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on
these two streets.
Sincerely,
Ellis Kirschenbaum
Item 7.A 02/14/23
260 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Dwight Flowers <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 5:59 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local
serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an alternative, it
should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element. Please
stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated--this
attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage. Bad
city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've needed to be built for
decades, now is our chance to change course. As an architect and planner I have followed the
LUCE process and the Downtown Community Plan and feel that more housing density along
the boulevards will help accommodate the need and better support commercial activity along
major corridors.
Thank you, Dwight Flowers AICP
Dwight Flowers
dwightflowers1@gmail.com
1400 California Ave.
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
261 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Lois Lambert <lois@loislambertgallery.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 5:58 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose
EXTERNAL
I oppose the proposed upzoning in Santa Monica Lois Lambert Lois Lambert Gallery Gallery of Functional Art
2525 Michigan Ave E3
Santa Monica, CA. 90404
310.829.6990
Lois@loislambertgallery.com
Loislambertgallery.com
Galleryoffunctionalart.com
Ourgallerystore.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
262 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Abraham Jennings <jennings_abraham@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 5:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I agree it’s important to “buy local” and support local small businesses and maintain the quality
of these walkable Streets, please protect these Streets!
Abraham Jennings
https://ajbuildinc.shutterfly.com/
Item 7.A 02/14/23
263 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Rich Goldberg <rich@vert-ent.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 5:52 PM
To:Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline
Torosis; Phil Brock
Cc:councilmtgitems; editor@smmirror.com; editor@smobserver.com
Subject:RE: Upzoning Montana Ave. 2023
EXTERNAL
Dear Council
I understand that this is being considered on February 14, 2023. Given that it is
Valentine’s Day, consider the love of Montana Ave. I have been a proud Santa
Monica resident for over 29 years. My family and friends shop and dine on
Montana Ave. (Montana Avenue | Santa Monica – A charming 10-block, family-
friendly destination in Santa Monica, home to more than 150 boutiques,
restaurants, & services.
This is what makes Montana charming and the ONLY place I shop and dine. Don’t
destroy this legacy of what old Santa Monica is and always was. We DON’T need
big box retailers and chains. We don’t need more housing on Montana. Just say
no the greed (developers want this, backed by SMRR).
Upzoning would mean allowing higher, more dense development on Montana
between 7th and 17th streets. The current streetscape of low-slung, two-story
buildings could be replaced by four-story (or with density bonus’, even five-story)
projects.
Montana is a successful and eclectic street, with many locally-owned,
neighborhood-serving businesses. Upzoning will attract larger chains that can
afford larger spaces and higher rents. Over time, this will lead to Montana Avenue
becoming more homogenized, replacing what makes it unique and special to our
neighborhood and to our city with the same generic buildings and nationwide
chains we see everywhere else.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
264 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Say yes to love and simplicity. Say no to greed and overbuilding.
Rich Goldberg and Valerie Cabrera
Item 7.A 02/14/23
265 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Lila Yomtoob <lilabird@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 5:48 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 agenda stem 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica city council,
My name is Lila Yomtoob and I am owner and operator of an apartment building in Santa Monica. My family has been
here in Santa Monica since 1988.
I understand you’re considering changing the zoning on a number of streets that would allow for taller buildings to be
built. I would like to voice my opinion that I strongly oppose this for several reasons.
Zoning changes will encourage land sales which will close down many of the independent stores that are left in Santa
Monica. Mom and pop shops are the fabric of any city and should be preserved.
From what I can tell, the city infrastructure will not be able to handle any more occupancy. With all of the building that’s
been going on over the last five years and is yet to come, I have not seen any changes in the infrastructure, except for
some bike lanes that make the roads even smaller. While I’m all for the bike lanes, our streets are becoming more
congested. I sit in traffic longer than I ever have, and this, along with the uptick in population, are making Santa Monica
more crowded and diminishing the quality of life.
Allowing the zoning change will just raise the already inflated price of real estate, and will deter the diversity that makes
any city great.
I sincerely hope that you do not rezone any more streets in Santa Monica, there’s already been enough.
Thank you,
Lila Yomtoob
917‐887‐8535
Item 7.A 02/14/23
266 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Drnoelle1@gmail.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:26 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Ocean Park upzoning project
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
I am a Sunset Park home owner, today I received several emails from local businesses on Ocean
Park which I patronize. I am posted my voice in complete disagreement to this project. Why would we
chase out local business owners, only to have chain stores come in their place because they won't be
able to afford higher rents? Where will all the traffic go? With new builds means more vehicles, we
are already so overwhelmed it's insane. I don't understand this city why are you considering a build in
a neighborhood that can't possibly sustain the impact.
Unhappy resident
Noelle Rodriguez
"More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness"
Charlie Chaplin
Item 7.A 02/14/23
267 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Deutsch, Helen <hdeutsch@humnet.ucla.edu>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:no upzoning
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I have lived and paid taxes in the Sunset Park neighborhood since 2006. I am extremely distressed to hear of the plans
for upzoning Pico and Ocean Park. As a longtime patron of many small businesses on both of these streets, I am writing
to urge you NOT to upzone them and ruin the many wonderful small businesses that make our neighborhood so special.
Many thanks, Helen Deutsch
2445 28th St., Unit E, Santa Monica, 90405
Sent from Mail for Windows
Item 7.A 02/14/23
268 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Paul Dunn <pdnn@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica city council member‐
I writing to urge you to reject the proposals for upzoning and lot consolidation on Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard,
and Montana Avenue.
When I moved to Santa Monica 22 years ago, one of the major factors in my decision to move here was the human scale
of the city. Since then the city has been on a trajectory to become the mini‐me of Los Angeles.
Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue are unique features of Santa Monica that make it a livable
city with a reputation as a great place to live and worthwhile to visit. Wilshire Blvd is becoming a canyon of congestion
and obstructed views that would be a tragic model to impose on these remaining “Santa Monica” areas. We need the
small businesses like the ones on Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue that are supportive of the
residents. Please acknowledge the value of these city assets and reject upzoning and lot consolidation.
Sincerely,
Your neighbor
Paul Dunn
1141 17th St. #4
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
269 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Kait Urrutia <kaiturrutia@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Hello City Council Members,
I cannot express enough how important it is to the Sunset Park community to NOT be upzoned. Our neighborhood is
special and our small businesses are important to us. If I wanted to live on the promenade, I would ;)
Thanks for listening!
Kaitlyn Urrutia
Item 7.A 02/14/23
270 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:ADAM DAWSON <adam322@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick; Christine Parra
Cc:friendsofsp@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members:
Santa Monica brags that it has and promotes walkable neighborhoods. That's certainly the
case along Ocean Park Boulevard.
We can and do walk or bike to grocery stores, coffee bars and a yogurt shop with enough
sense to call itself Yoga-Urt — coincidentally borrowing the
joke I’ve used with my wife for years when she heads to class at Santa Monica Yoga.
Farther down the boulevard, Il Forno is like part of the family. We’ve watched the waiters age
along with us, though of course we prefer to believe
we are aging imperceptibly. We patronize Ocean Park Pharmacy, where we get personal
service from a pharmacist who remembers our names
—and who has the best greeting-card selection on the Westside.
A similar situation plays out on the south side of Pico Boulevard. Although it has a ways to go
to be charming, Pico offers small businesses more
reasonable rents that they won’t find in trendy areas. It also hosts local treasures like
McCabe’s and Gilbert's el Indio.
But now, the city proposes to upzone much of Ocean Park and Pico boulevards, as well as
areas like Montana Avenue and Main Street.
Neighborhoods like these are a large part of what attracted all of us to Santa Monica in the
first place.
If upzoning happens, walkable neighborhoods will go the way of Henshey’s and the Tudor
House.
Small independent businesses will be squeezed out as their buildings are demolished to
make way for greater density. More city corridors
will become crowded with Soviet-style apartment blocks, as 14th Street and Lincoln
Boulevard are fast becoming.
What will become of Santa Monica’s character?
Item 7.A 02/14/23
271 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Even if these new buildings reserve the ground floor for commercial use, years-long
construction, inevitably higher rents and parking issues
will force out current businesses and eliminate any independent merchants. Instead of
vibrant neighborhoods with a virtual rainforest of eclectic
shopping and dining, we’ll be living in a shopping desert. People will take to their cars to run
errands, increasing the city’s carbon footprint
and undermining our quality of life.
Santa Monica used to be a real community, with hardware stores, an ambitious little
newspaper and down-to-earth shops. Today, the mall
and Promenade cater to tourists, not locals. Neighborhood shopping districts are what make
this city livable.
If it is the state that is mandating this change it is way past time to move our state legislators
to join the fight to preserve what makes
Santa Monica the unique place that it is.
Thank you.
Adam Dawson
Item 7.A 02/14/23
272 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Colin Maduzia <colinmaduzia@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:11 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis;
Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I strongly support the guidance provided by the planning commission to not allow upzoning on Ocean Park, Pico, Main St
and Montana. I am in support of changes in zoning to enable more housing units in the city. But the plan needs to be
realistic and emphasize:
Retaining walkable businesses (including commercial space on the first floor of any multi‐story buildings)
Zoning that takes into consideration the neighborhood scale
o 3‐4 stories of residential above commercial would already be a dramatic change to place like Montana
and Ocean Park
o There is only one lane of traffic in each direction on these roads. The traffic is already quite gridlocked
on Ocean Park during rush hour, especially when SMC is in session.
o Removing retail and adding units will only compel residents to get in their cars to make purchases they
could now make by foot. It will exacerbate traffic issues and cause more pollution in a city that prides
itself on its sustainability practices.
Hopefully you have been able to review points made by Commissioner and former Chair of the Santa Monica Rent
Control Board, and a Past Commissioner, Commission on the Status of Women, Nicole Phillis in the SM
Mirror https://smmirror.com/2021/07/sma‐r‐t‐column‐blind‐upzonings‐false‐promise/
“Basic economic principles based on land values alone suggest that the primary beneficiaries of upzoning will be
developers, who will undoubtedly sweep in and redevelop properties, sell at a greater value to more upper middle
class professionals, who typically far exceed the area median income (AMI) for the region—all the while
accelerating gentrification.”
The false promise of upzoning to provide more affordable housing is laid bare when one considers how badly the
glut of market rate, luxury housing has failed to produce affordable housing in our City. Upzoning relies on free
market principles for the creation of housing, which will almost always skew the economics toward luxury, high
value residences, especially where, as here, lot values alone often exceed $2 million. It is not lost on me that many
of the rent controlled properties that we’ve lost to the Ellis Act in areas zoned for multifamily residences have
actually been redeveloped either as luxury condos or single family homes. This again underscores the
fundamental flaw of upzoning as a panacea: when we leave the production of affordable housing to the free
market in a highly desirable area like Santa Monica or Culver City, upzoning rarely produces affordable residential
opportunities for working families.”
Item 7.A 02/14/23
273 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Thank you for your consideration and service to our city.
‐‐
Colin Maduzia
1725 Hill Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310.923.2757
colinmaduzia@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
274 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:alice gordon <alicegordon@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:50 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Council Members,
I am a Santa Monica resident living at 1257 12th St. Apt. 11 and I oppose the changes proposed to upzoning and
combining lots. Please consider keeping Santa Monica’s charm. The city and residents have suffered enough.
Thank you,
Alice Gordon
Sent from Mail for Windows
Item 7.A 02/14/23
275 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Jacob Wasserman <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:48 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A: Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not block much-needed housing by downzoning our Neighborhood Commercial
boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more housing on
these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local serving
retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot shouldn't be an alternative; it should be
done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element. Please do not heed
the voices treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated—
this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage.
After decades of rising rents, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
Jacob Wasserman
90403
Jacob Wasserman
JacobLWasserman@gmail.com
1027 11th Street, Apartment C
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
276 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Soledad Ramos <soledad@trulovepost.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:44 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
Please tomorrow don’t vote to replace the current 2 story buildings. Please don’t change the Zoning code for Sunset
park area
Soledad Ramos
Resident: 2609 Cloverfield blvd
310 927 1811
Item 7.A 02/14/23
277 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Soledad Ramos <soledad.ramos.1977@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:42 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:NO CHANGE ZONING
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
Please tomorrow don’t vote to replace the current 2 story buildings. Please don’t change the Zoning code for Sunset
park area Soledad Ramos
Resident: 2609 Cloverfield blvd
310 927 1811
Item 7.A 02/14/23
278 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Suzanne Watson <soarthumbs@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:34 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Oh, please protect our neighborhoods: Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue by
voting against “upzoning”. The promenade and downtown Santa Monica are just blocks from my home. For decades,
those areas were my “go to” to everything. Now, you can’t drag me there with a tractor. There is no personality,
ambiance, light, or SOUL. My gosh PLEASE don’t ruin the historic neighborhoods mentioned above.
Thank you.
Suzanne Watson
(Forty‐year resident)
Item 7.A 02/14/23
279 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:hpewriter@yahoo.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Agenda item 7a 2/14/23
EXTERNAL
Upzoning of the remaining neighborhood commercial districts that still retain a small town appeal, like Montana
Avenue, would be a huge mistake. Tourists come to these Santa
Monica shopping areas to experience something they can't find in giant malls. Residents depend on them for necessar
y everyday items: shoe repair, drug stores, specialty food
stores. Lincoln Boulevard is already ruined with its wall of high rise apartment buildings. Downtown has been turned int
o a homeless habitat. Empty stores dominate the Third Street
Promenade, Fourth Street and Main Street. For once, listen to the residents
and your own Planning Commission and reject the upzoning.
Thank you,
Harriet P. Epstein
Item 7.A 02/14/23
280 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Meri Weingarten <meribw@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:11 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please protect small businesses and the culture of Santa Monica. Do not upzone OPB, Main Street, Pico, or Montana
Ave.
Meri Weingarten
SM Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
281 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:katethomas56@aol.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:NO upzoning!
EXTERNAL
I am a resident of Sunset Park and patronize the local small stores that line Ocean Park
Ave. The neighborhood is cohesive and community-based as we can interact on a
human scale with each other. There are plenty of larger stores to go shopping at in
Shopping Centers such as Century City if we want to have that experience. However,
our day-to-day lives are enmeshed by the small-scale, entrepreneurial spirit of our local,
smaller shops that even now struggle to pay rent. Please vote against up-zoning our
neighborhoods.
Sincerely
K Schlesinger
2614 Euclid St
Santa Monica 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
282 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Margy Yuspa <margy.yuspa@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:50 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
Last weekend (like most weekends), I walked up and down Ocean Park Blvd thinking how much I enjoy my wonderful
neighborhood and the feeling that has been established by seeing neighbors and friends at the local shops. Today I was
horrified to learn that Ocean Park Blvd is under review for development. I have lived in this neighborhood for 20 years
and truly treasure the feeling of community. I have seen Ocean Park grow into an amazing place. Large development, in
my opinion, has wiped out the beach culture of Santa Monica that I love so much. I don’t enjoy the Promenade
anymore, it feels deserted and downright scary in much of downtown and much of Santa Monica’s charm has already
been eliminated.
Please don’t take away what we are clinging to over in the Ocean Park and Pico neighborhoods. It’s some of the last
vestiges of real community in Santa Monica. People know each other and we know the people that work here too.
Relationships like these are the foundation of success of cities and civilizations. Over‐development can quickly lead to a
loss of civility and safety.
Thank you for reading this and taking the time to consider a person who feels very attached to the amazing community
she lives in.
Best,
Margy Yuspa
Item 7.A 02/14/23
283 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Rebecca McLucas <mclegs@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:23 PM
To:jesse.zwick@santamonica.go; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre;
Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; councilmtgitems
Subject:Opposition to Upzoning the neighborhood streets of SMC
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I wanted to express my strong desire to oppose the upzoning the neighborhood streets of SMC – specifically Main
street, Pico, Ocean Park and Montana. The parking, traffic are already a nightmare for residents. There is a strong love
for keeping LOCAL business’ in SMC. The taxes that we pay are already hideously high and would just force out more
long time residents. The homelessness is undeniably not solvable and this decision will only takes us backwards making
property values even more unattainable. There is nothing positive to doing this other then a straight up money grab,
which SMC does not need at this time.
VOTE NO!
Rebecca and Jason Dodd
Sent from Mail for Windows
Item 7.A 02/14/23
284 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Alejandro Umansky <alejandro.umansky@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmember,
It would be a terrible mistake to change the zoning density for Pico and Ocean Park Blvd.
We have a great neighborhood. And plenty of traffic. This is not the solution to the housing issue. Keep it two stories,
and plenty of units can be added with the current zoning.
Sincerely,
Alejandro Umansky (Sunset Park resident, 90405).
Danielle Umansky
Chloe Umansky
Madeline Umansky
‐‐
Alejandro Umansky
3435 Ocean Park Blvd. #107-412
Santa Monica, CA 90405-3301
(c) 310.413.5235
Item 7.A 02/14/23
285 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Julie Millett <juliemillett@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:16 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:
I am writing to urge Council to NOT "upzone" Santa Monica's neighborhood commercial districts. Ocean Park Blvd, Pico
Ave, Montana Avenue, and Main Street are a few of the only areas left in our beloved City that maintain any sort of
character. We do not want larger mega projects.
I think it is critical to Buy Local and I do so whenever possible.
I agree with the Planning Commission's recent recommendation to your Council against upzoning these streets. I urge
you to follow their recommendation to keep the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial
districts.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Julie Millett
Santa Monica Resident since 2001
Item 7.A 02/14/23
286 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
February 13, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California
RE: ITEM 7
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete and Councilmembers:
The Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of the red lines implementing the upzoning
of the Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NC). This recommendation is made to ensure compliance with
the certified Housing Element and to avoid another round of “Builder’s Remedy” projects. The
Commission also recommends that the City apply to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) to amend the Housing Element in order to retain existing zoning in the Neighborhood
Commercial Districts. While this application is pending with HCD, the City will remain in compliance with
its Housing Element and therefore exempt from the Builder’s Remedy.
The following summarizes the discussion points raised at Commission hearings and research that has been
conducted subsequent to those hearings. I am also attaching the Commission-approved letter requesting
the Housing Element amendment. It contains demographic and other information about the four
impacted neighborhoods. Also attached is a “white paper”, prepared by Commissioner Fresco, which
reports on the findings of numerous research studies that assess the social and economic impacts of the
upzoning of neighborhood commercial districts on the communities they serve.
Upzoning NC districts will result in the displacement of successful, locally owned businesses that have
served their surrounding neighborhoods for years and are often owned by people of color or women.
These business districts have the lowest commercial vacancy rates in the city, which proves their
sustainability even through a pandemic. It also demonstrates their value in a walkable community setting.
A recent walk through of these districts found that Neighborhood Commercial districts have vacancy rates
between 7-10% while The Promenade has a much higher vacancy rate of 28%.
Requiring relocation of existing businesses into new ground floor commercial spaces, at rents they can
afford, would seriously compromise project feasibility and would likely be viewed by HCD as a
development constraint. Paying relocation expenses to existing businesses will not solve the
displacement problem and is a bit meaningless given there are limited, affordable commercial areas in
the city to which these businesses could feasibly relocate. It would also remove them from their customer
base, which accounts for their success.
Existing NC zoning allows for the development of new two to three story mixed use buildings or three
to six stories with density bonuses. Given the frequency of density bonus applications being seen by the
City, and the high land costs in these business districts, it is a safe assumption that developers will opt for
density bonus projects. We believe this existing and permitted development model to be exactly the “soft
density” model that is being promoted by organizations such as Livable Communities.
According to staff, the State is requiring that housing production must be feasible in all districts for
which housing is a permitted use. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that housing choices are
Item 7.A 02/14/23
287 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
available throughout the city with a focus on areas where new housing has not occurred, presumably due
to infeasibility. First, there is no State Law requiring this other than the one applicable to SSI properties.
Second, no feasibility analyses were performed, using the new AHPP income distribution, for Pico
Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard or other smaller NC areas. The need to upzone these streets is an
extrapolation from the analyses done for Main and Montana. Notwithstanding this fact, the 13 NC parcels
on the SSI (5 development sites, 165 units) are on Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards. Third, four affordable
housing projects are either recently completed or are under construction in the Pico NC District, which
questions the infeasibility conclusion underlying the upzoning. The nonprofit developers of three of these
four projects used the density bonus program. One has a ground floor space reserved for community
entrepreneurial use (Pico and 19th Street), which is exactly the type of commercial development requested
by the Pico community during the Wellbeing Project pubic process in 2018 and 2019.
The rationale for upzoning NC areas is that housing production on the “south side” (Ocean Park and
Sunset Park) and the “north side” (north of Montana) is not providing the array of housing choices
required by the State’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. The Commission
believes this to be an inaccurate assessment. On the south side, during the first two years of the 6th Cycle
Housing Element, 886 rental units and 23+ condominiums have either been recently completed or are in
the pipeline. This represents about ten percent (10%) of the City’s RHNA goal. Of the 886 rental units, 103
are or will be affordable to extremely low, very low and low income households. On the north side,
hundreds of ADU’s have been completed or are in the pipeline. The Commission has also proposed zoning
amendments that facilitate the development of SB9 duplexes, including the waiver of impact fees for all
such projects. (The State has accepted ADU’s and SB9 duplexes as a development strategy for north of
Montana in light of the very high land costs in that area.)
The demographic and housing supply diversity, already existing in south side neighborhoods, is described
in the attached letter from the Planning Commission.
Upzoning Neighborhood Commercial Districts could potentially destroy existing, successful,
neighborhood-serving business areas. These business districts offer thousands of local residents, at all
income levels. with walkable and affordable retail and service options. They include locally owned
laundromats, barber shops, family-owned restaurants and bakeries, affordable coffee houses that serve
as community gathering spots, florists, and bicycle repair services. We believe it is a safe assumption that
few, if any, of these businesses could afford the rents in new buildings. And these new rents are essential
for project feasibility.
The general appeal of walkable and affordable local businesses is that they create unique safe spaces
where quantitative diversity becomes genuine integration. This attracts developers who see it as an
amenity to new development. A cycle begins where large floor plate, high price tag new spaces,
inaccessible to small local businesses of all stripes, are filled with deep-pocketed corporate businesses.
Community-based economic resources are replaced with business that no longer serve all classes of
people. Livelihoods are lost, homes are lost, property values rise all around, and Santa Monica’s remaining
diverse residents with generations of family history in the city will experience a new wave of systemic
displacement. Global application of upzoning disproportionately targets ethnic, racial, cultural and low-
income groups who have historically experienced discrimination because they are in the way of
zoning regulations passed in the guise of “the greater good.” Citywide upzoning without certain
strategic omissions represents the next wave of systemic racism.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
288 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Santa Monica prides itself on being a walkable and sustainable community. The very successful NC
business districts embody that value. Neighborhoods consist of housing, well-maintained public parks and
good schools, access to transit and jobs, and accessible, affordable business districts. From the beginning
of the Housing Element process, the Planning Commission was clear about protecting neighborhoods
while focusing much needed housing production on major boulevards, the Downtown and Bergamot, all
of which have the highest transit accessibility in the city.
The Commission fully appreciates the magnitude of the housing crisis, which is why it recommended
upzoning 1,171 acres that could accommodate 13,600 new housing units (153% of our RHNA goal). To
assert that the Commission is in any way anti-housing is absurd. However, the Commission does not
support the displacement of hundreds of locally owned businesses that serve tens of thousands of
residents and the potential erasure of any business district on Ocean Park or Pico as a price it is willing
to pay. Nor does it support the redevelopment of these business districts with five to seven story
buildings with 85% of the new units available to those who can afford higher rents than those currently
in the surrounding neighborhoods. This scenario is not the legacy that many on the Commission wish
to leave for Santa Monica.
Thank you for your consideration and your service to Santa Monica.
Respectfully submitted,
Leslie Lambert, Planning Commissioner
2 attachments
.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
289 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
The Social Justice Case for a Housing Element Amendment that Maintains Santa
Monica’s Longstanding and Effective Neighborhood Commercial Zoning
I. Executive Summary
This report addresses Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) issues supporting a proposed
amendment to Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Housing Element that would retain the existing zoning in
Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard, Main Street, and
Montana Avenue. The Santa Monica Planning Commission believes that in order to Affirmative
Further Fair Housing we must preserve access to opportunity in Neighborhood Commercial districts
by resisting displacement of existing affordable a culturally significant small businesses with highly
upscaled and corporate commercial tenants. Upzoning would undermine decades of targeted
economic development efforts and risk the loss of existing opportunities for locally owned small
businesses, which will cause displacement and disruption in Santa Monica’s historically diverse
neighborhoods. Furthermore, well-established local-serving retail hubs create an environment that
fosters genuine integration of different populations without forcing them to assimilate, an
important social justice concern. And they make Santa Monica’s residential districts walkable,
complete neighborhoods.
Zone Pre-HE (Requested)
Height
Pre-HE (Requested)
FAR
Current HE Height Current HE FAR
NC (includes Pico) 32’ 1.5 50’ 2.25
NC (Main only) 27’ 1.0 55’ 2.50
NC (OP Blvd only) 32’ 1.0 55’ 2.50
NC (Montana only) 32’ 1.0 55’ 2.50
Neighborhood Commercial districts provide services and access to small business opportunity that
go hand-in-hand with fair housing. They make our neighborhoods walkable, thus sustainable; they
provide services necessary for quality of life, and perhaps most importantly result in community
meeting places that bring people face to face in a manner that makes the quantitative diversity we
get from a variety of housing types meaningful. Furthermore, the loss of these businesses can lead
to displacement of low-income and ethnic communities through both economic hardship and
feelings of adversity and exclusion. Each of Santa Monica’s four Neighborhood Commercial districts
has evolved with a unique character that reflects the community it serves. When people have
access to opportunity to open a small business near where they live, they cater to well-understood
tastes and local needs as a key to their success. They create hospitable places that can where
diverse groups eat, play and shop shoulder-to-shoulder, bringing us closer to true, meaningful
integration. And, local businesses employ locals. If Neighborhood Commercial areas are upzoned,
new business starts must weigh the risk of displacement due to gentrification against financial and
human capital investment; if the risk is too great, opportunity evaporates. New construction is built
Item 7.A 02/14/23
290 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
with larger floor plates designed to appeal to corporate tenants who look better on loan paperwork
than small businesses. Legacy businesses fall into the shadows of the big new establishments,
forcing them to assimilate to a new standard they struggle to keep up with or die out. Studies of the
impacts of gentrification in Neighborhood Commercial districts on local diversity, outlined in more
detail below, warn us to proceed with caution.
Neighborhood Commercial Districts are part of the economic engine that will help the city recover
from significant economic losses in the past few years. A comparison of new business licenses and
vacancy rates in NC zones versus those in Santa Monica’s traditional economic center, the Third
Street Promenade, show that our NC districts, with vacancies in 7-10% of ground floor spaces
versus the 28% vacancy rate on the Promenade, are bouncing back from the Covid-19 downturn,
leading the way back to prosperity. We cannot afford to disrupt what took decades to establish in
our vibrant Neighborhood Commercial areas. With commercial growth critical to the city’s recovery
from a significant financial crisis immediately followed by Covid-19 and rioting in our downtown, we
must rely on NC districts while we work to bring the Promenade back into bloom again. Keeping
that engine going, achieving goals for diversity, equity, and inclusion, and most importantly,
providing development capacity for our fair share of housing including a variety of housing types
that increase housing opportunity in Santa Monica’s eight square miles, requires a zoning scalpel,
not an axe.
II. Introduction
As the Planning Commission worked through the drafting of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Housing
Element, feasibility studies suggested that any commercial zone in the city, if upzoned to 55 feet (an
increase of two to three stories citywide) could feasibly support inclusionary affordable housing.
Upzoning across the city uniformly in this way also provided enough capacity to the parcels on our
Suitable Site Inventory (SSI) to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) with a modest
buffer. The Planning Commission, critical of such a boiler-plate approach to planning, envisioned a
more nuanced, holistic approach to upzoning that would more dramatically incentivize housing
production in places that would not disrupt existing residential areas full of rent controlled
apartments, and which employs additional planning principals along with housing policy. Nor would
the approach the Planning Commission had in mind disrupt the community amenities in
Neighborhood Commercial districts that are important to quality of life and economic opportunity,
consistent with AFFH protocols. By doubling the capacity of most of the city’s commercial districts
(adding three or four stories instead of two or three), we replaced baseline feasibility with
profitability in those areas, a true incentive, and maintained the affordability and livability in our
mixed-income residential districts. But we were not able to fine tune zoning standards to reflect this
program in the time we had before the initial HCD filing deadline for the Housing Element.
At its February 2, 2002, hearing, with a response from HCD on certification of our adopted Housing
Element still pending, the Planning Commission had completed its homework. A detailed discussion
Item 7.A 02/14/23
291 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
on distribution of capacity took place. Commissioners agreed on a plan to go much higher than 55’
on our widest boulevards where there are no residents living under rent control to displace and
included over 70% of the likely sites listed on our Suitable Sites Inventory (SSI), a list of properties
likely to turn over in the next eight years. This approach increased capacity of our SSI to 153% of the
RHNAs 8895 new unit target, a significantly larger buffer, and it dramatically increased the
likelihood that the already prime development sites on the SSI will in fact turn over and provide
housing. All this while not raising height in the Neighborhood Commercial zones that could trigger
catastrophic disruption in the city’s most active commercial areas and most diverse residential
areas.
In its February 8, 2022, rejection letter, HCD found many faults with Santa Monica first Housing
Element submission, of which the non-specific zoning commitment was just one. The Planning
Commission-endorsed upzoning plan was further studied and became part of Santa Monica’s
subsequently certified Housing Element, but with one key change that the Commissioners did not
realize made it into the final, certified draft. The Neighborhood Commercial districts were also
upzoned, which the Commission for AFFH, social justice, and other important planning reasons had
intended to leave as is. This reversion is the requested amendment to the Housing Element: to
return NC zones to their former state, otherwise they will have to be upzoned in the course of
implementation in order to remain in compliance. Restoring NC zones will result in a 1% change in
unit capacity of our SSI sites. A replacement site can be added to the SSI if HCD considers it
necessary for approval.
Below is a documented argument for why this is good planning, the best thing for Fair Housing and
diversity in Santa Monica, a way to secure the city’s economic strength, and is part of a robust
approach to providing rich incentives for construction of copious amounts of new homes without
constraint.
III. Meeting Santa Monica’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Beyond
Santa Monica’s NC districts cover a total of 71 acres, comprising only 6% of the 1171 acres that have
been upzoned as part of 6th Cycle Housing Element implementation to build the 8895 homes
required by its RHNA. Housing has been made legal and feasible in every part of the City where it is
safe to live. The upzoned areas, which include virtually every other commercial, industrial, and
mixed-use zone in the city have been dramatically upzoned, doubled in many cases to ensure not
just feasibility for housing but profitability as an added incentive. Some areas have been upzoned
even beyond what we proposed in our Housing Element. This shifting of capacity was an intentional
strategy of the Planning Commission to ensure that neighborhoods, including the NC districts that
run through them, home to rent-controlled tenants and local businesses, including long-time legacy
business, are not disrupted by the wave of new growth we are inviting to Santa Monica. This
approach makes housing not just feasible, but attractive and likely in the incentivized areas, and
ensures a yield of the maximum possible number of inclusionary affordable units in each project. It
is likely that this capacity incentive could lead owners of sites not on the SSI to rethink their plans
Item 7.A 02/14/23
292 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
and choose to build housing as well, adding to the regional supply and perhaps exceeding our
housing production requirement.
The Selected Sites Inventory of the Housing Element lists 203 properties of which 13, less than 2%
are in Neighborhood Commercial zones. The 13 SSI properties in NC districts represent 165 units
after upzoning, about 1% of the 13,600-unit potential of all of Santa Monica’s SSI sites. Twelve of
the SSI parcels in NC zones, comprise 5 development sites on Pico Boulevard, and one more site is
on Ocean Park Boulevard. In spite of how miniscule an impact the 13 Neighborhood Commercial
sites have on our demonstrated capacity to build, we have identified a replacement site for the SSI
that could yield more units, should HCD determine that is a necessary condition of approval. This
would involve further upzoning in the Bergamot Area of the city, our longstanding industrial zone
that according to the Housing Element plan will become a new residential high-rise district adjacent
to transit. While traditionally thought to be associated with the historically red-lined Pico
Neighborhood, it was in fact entirely industrial during that period without housing, presenting
enormous housing opportunities for us to meet today’s crisis.
IV. In Small High-Demand Cities, Market Rate Housing Price Filter Effects Negatively
Impact Cultural, Race and Income Diversity Locally
Policy on how to solve the urgent housing crisis in California and beyond relies on a series of well-
documented quantitative studies that generally conclude that all housing is good housing, and the
more the better. Increasing availability at any price point that can get funding and be built will
relieve pressure on regional markets overall and will create housing opportunity for lower income
people down the line as wealthier tenants abandon older housing stock in order to enjoy the
amenities of new construction. This idea is known as the supply effect, or filtering down. The
affordable housing released from market pressures down the line does not generally appear
adjacent to market rate new construction but materializes in other parts of the region over a few
years as five or six people have moved into housing vacated in sequence by those who moved into
the newest units. This movement of tenants from one home to the next is referred to as a
“migration chain” in the study entitled The Effect of New Market-Rate Housing Construction on the
Low-Income Housing Market.1 Author Evan Mast shows that for every 100 market-rate units
constructed in major urban centers, 17 low-income units were made available in low-income areas
in the region. Mast studied twelve major cities in the United States, each with a dense metropolitan
core and a surrounding region of neighborhoods catering to a range of housing markets.2 The
smallest city he studied, Minneapolis, has a population of 429,954, and a metropolitan area of 7962
1 The Effect of New Market-Rate Housing Construction on the Low-Income Housing Market, by Evan Mast, Upjohn Institute
Working Paper 19-307. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research, 2019
2 In particular, Mast studied the following cities. They are listed with their populations as of the 2020 census. Atlanta (498,715),
Boston (675,647), Chicago (2,746,388), Dallas (1,304,379), Denver (715,522), Houston (2,304,580), Minneapolis (429,954), New
York (8,804,190), Philadelphia (1,603,797), Seattle (737,015), San Francisco (815,201), and Washington (689,545).
Item 7.A 02/14/23
293 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
square miles. The largest city he studied was New York with a population of 8,804,190 and a
metropolitan area of 300.5 square miles. By comparison, Santa Monica has a population of 91,105
and a total land area of 8.3 square miles. It is this density and compactness, the lack of a
surrounding “metropolitan area” with a range of housing markets within the city of Santa Monica
that highlights a major drawback to this particular approach to mitigating the state-wide housing
crisis in a manner that promotes equity and inclusion here in Santa Monica. None of the affordable
units released down the migration chain due to market rate housing built in Santa Monica, or
anywhere else for that matter, will be in Santa Monica. The housing market in our small city is just
too homogeneous.
Mast himself acknowledges his findings point to a regional effect and may have different impacts
locally. This is an important fact to consider and plan for, because with only 8.3 square miles, all of
Santa Monica is local. Furthermore, Mast reports on the “shortcomings of market mechanisms”
once the chain reaches low-income markets several links down the line. Units in low-income areas
relieved of market pressure by increased supply of market-rate housing might not actually be low
cost “because the private market will not provide housing at below marginal cost.” So, when the
units appear in a low-income area, it is likely that costs are already down as far as they are likely to
go. But more importantly, when people who can afford to leave a low-cost area move up the chain
to newer units, their spending goes with them which can have “important amenity effects. . . such
as reduced retail options, school closures, or increased crime” in their old neighborhoods. This
basically means that the low-income units that become available can be in areas that manifest
some of the more intractable problems associated with poverty. Applied to Santa Monica’s 8.3
square miles in particular, this means the new market rate development in the wrong places could
displace Santa Monica’s fragile low-income population, which enjoys the many advantages of living
in a very high resource city and segregate them in run-down low resource areas outside of Santa
Monica. Mast encourages us to take heed and remember that his findings are a regional effect that
is “geographically diffuse” and “new buildings could have different effects on their immediate
neighborhood, where they may change amenities or demographic composition.” In Santa Monica
we have to be strategic in how we distribute market-rate incentives in order to ensure the results
reflect our goals for equity and social justice.
In an often-quoted paper entitled Supply Skepticism: Housing Supply and Affordability, analysis
looks at if available land in a tight land market should be reserved for affordable housing, whether
the migration chain works, if there will ever be enough supply to meet demand, and if the spillover
effect of new construction leads to displacement.3 Supply Skepticism relies on the positive
conclusions of Mast’s study by stressing what he found to be generally true, “additions to the
housing stock in one submarket can fairly quickly affect prices and rents in other submarkets by
alleviating competition that would otherwise be diverted to those submarkets.” But in Santa
Monica’s 8.3 square miles, a high resource city with barely discernable interconnected submarkets,
this plays out differently, just as Mast warned. Instead, Santa Monica experiences the “filtering up”
3 Supply Skepticism: Housing Supply and Affordability, Vicki Been, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Katherine O’Reagan, NYU Furman
Center, NYU Furman School of Law, 2018
Item 7.A 02/14/23
294 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
effect where vacated units are all upgraded to market rents. Vacancy in Santa Monica equals
gentrification even without redevelopment. Supply Skepticism addresses this by advising subsidized
housing programs to fill the gap. But in the meantime, displacement is causing catastrophic change
to individuals and families, many of whom are people of color who have been subject to racist land
use policies and practices and have made Santa Monica their home for generations. While Supply
Skepticism asserts that “adding supply may raise neighborhood rents in some cases, but neither
theory nor empirical evidence suggest that will be the norm,” in Santa Monica, it is always the
norm.
The Assessment of Fair Housing in Appendix I to the 6th Cycle Housing Element (AFFH Assessment)
asserts that “displacement of residents due to economic pressure is a significant factor to
Segregation.” It further states that this displacement due to gentrification is widespread in Santa
Monica, impacting “low- moderate- and middle-income families and long-time elderly residents,”
which is just about everyone.4 Rent controlled apartments have been Santa Monica’s major source
of unsubsidized affordable housing for decades. Tenants of those units, according to the AFFH
Assessment, are “disproportionately members of protected classes.” In order to reverse the trend
towards an ever wealthier and whiter community from border to border, Santa Monica has to be
strategic. For these reasons, the Planning Commission’s approach to upzoning in order to
accommodate its RHNA and incentivize new housing in general has been focused on areas that
don’t include concentrations of rent-controlled properties, or the Neighborhood Commercial areas
through their centers that provide services and amenities.
Santa Monica’s AFFH Assessment states that there have not been Racially or Ethnically
Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) in Santa Monica since 1990, for over 30 years. There are no
concentrations of deteriorated or abandoned properties in the city because vacated parcels are
quickly absorbed by the city’s high-priced, high-demand real estate market. Regionally, residents
displaced by redevelopment and gentrification are a “major contributing factor to R/ECAPs,” but
since Santa Monica doesn’t have any R/ECAPs, our displaced low- moderate- and middle-income
families and long-time elderly residents, which disproportionally represent people in protected
classes, are being pushed out of the city and landing in new segregated areas elsewhere in the
region.
Taking advantage of the regional effects of the migration chain, while attempting to divert the
negative effects it could have locally, is the key advantage of the strategic approach to the upzoning
proposed by the Planning Commission, a critical piece of which is to leave Neighborhood
Commercial zones as they have always been. 100% Affordable Housing Projects can still occur in NC
without upzoning, and already have. Local and state density bonuses have and will continue to
ensure that the maximum heights affordable housing providers need to take full advantage of the
funding sources available to them is allowed. Our RHNA requires 66% of our housing allocation to
be deed restricted affordable, so the approach is careful not to impinge upon feasibility of 100%
4 Santa Monica 6th Cycle Housing Element, Appendix I, Assessment of Fair Housing, City of Santa Monica Housing and Economic
Development and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil rights under Law, City of Santa Monica, April 1, 2020
Item 7.A 02/14/23
295 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
affordable housing projects, which can tip the balance. Upzoning NC districts is not necessary for
affordable housing production.
A report published by the California State Legislative Analyst, Mac Taylor, entitled Perspectives on
Helping Low-Income Californians Afford Housing, asserts that “more private development is
associated with less displacement,” but by displacement, a strictly quantitative measure is used: the
number of low-income units and whether population numbers of low-income residents decline
faster relative to the overall population of an area.5 On a strictly numerical basis, it is possible to
maintain the number of low-income housing units in Santa Monica because of laws requiring
inclusionary affordable housing and the replacement of demolished low-income units on new
housing sites. But this measure of displacement does not account for the lives of actual people,
many of whom are people of color who have been displaced over and over again by racist laws and
policies, who are in fact still being displaced by market rate development and are forced to move to
new low-income, segregated areas in the region far from home and family. Quantitative diversity
measures applied this way create a new policy that works like the old systemically racist policies we
are trying to expunge from our laws. Its clears the way to move vulnerable groups out of the way on
the name of progress. It was the same in the 1950s, when eminent domain proceedings that robbed
people of color of home and investments was justified with the promise of public housing projects.
It was all for their own good back then too.
Santa Monica is a very high resource area from end to end. Even the Pico Neighborhood where our
most rent burdened residents reside, is a high resource area. In Santa Monica, every vacated unit
city-wide is upgraded and up priced. Affordable units that become available down the “migration
chain” as people move into newly constructed buildings appear somewhere else in the region, not
in Santa Monica. Thus, the idea that we must open up every piece of land to dense housing
regardless of the value of the current use, going well above and beyond what the RHNA requires us
to build, will harm the city by thwarting our goals of diversity, equity and inclusion.
We have shown that Santa Monica will be able to meet the housing production required by its
RHNA and will be able to contribute the regionally effective supply effect from building market-rate
housing in appropriate places without building more housing where it will do more harm than good.
Next is a discussion of how maintaining existing Neighborhood Commercial districts can contribute
to true, economic, cultural, and racial diversity in Santa Monica.
V. Upzoning Neighborhood Commercial Districts Leads to Displacement
A number of studies are available on the impact of gentrification of Neighborhood Commercial
districts on low-income communities, on community diversity, and on communities characterized
by ethnic, cultural, or racial populations that have experienced discrimination. This information
5 Perspectives on Helping Low-Income Californians Afford Housing, by Mac Taylor, California Legislative Analyst Office, 2016
Item 7.A 02/14/23
296 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
weighs heavily on social justice concerns related to incentivizing dramatic change in Neighborhood
Commercial districts in Santa Monica.
A Solon Magazine article by sociology professor at the University of Denver, Ellen Berrey, who has
written extensively on diversity sums up the term this way: “diversity is how we talk about race
when we can’t talk about race. It has become a stand-in when open discussion of race is too
controversial or — let’s be frank — when white people find the topic of race uncomfortable.”6
When we allow our laws and policies for creating housing diversity to be based on a quantitative
analysis, as in the Taylor analysis above, that erases the real-life, direct impacts on communities of
color and the economically disadvantaged. We are once again erasing them from the conversation,
and our city’s history. This purely quantitative approach disregards individuals, seeing them only as
faceless place holders, robbing them of opportunities for generational wealth and the opportunity
to choose to stay where they are, rather than limit that choice to where they will move until the
next cycle of “colorblind” programs and policies moves them again. Unless lawmakers are sensitive
to the real time impacts of new programs on living breathing community members, we are not
making lives better.
When our laws tell us that we must Affirmative Further Fair Housing, they are directing us to look
beyond just housing production and develop policies that make our neighborhoods diverse and
inclusive and to ensure they provide housing opportunity for all. The resulting policies can’t just be
focused on making areas that are filled with mostly white people less white but must also make
herculean efforts to avoid harming and disrupting the lives of non-white people in the path of these
changes who define diversity and have already endured enough harm and disruption. In her 2007
master’s degree thesis, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration: A Case Study of the Pico
Neighborhood in Santa Monica, CA, Deirdre Pfeiffer found Santa Monica’s Pico Neighborhood to be
an integrated neighborhood with a fragile balance of white and non-white residents.7 Pfeiffer found
that the strong sense of community fostered by the stable population has been an important
contributing factor to maintaining long-term integration. Generational family ties, long-term
neighbors and a feeling of “roots” does as much to attract new non-white residents as it does to
keep others from moving away. Buildings and units are not diverse, people are. Pfeiffer credits the
city’s rent control ordinance and affordable housing programs for making it possible for low-income
people and non-whites to stay in the area. Longtime residents in the Pico Neighborhood today
remain connected to family and friends who were displaced by the construction of the Santa
Monica Freeway, which bisected the neighborhood over a half-century ago. To this group, the
painful displacement of hundreds of families for the freeway is not history, remaining a visceral
cloud on their current lives.
A PhD dissertation, Integration without Assimilation: Black Social Life in a Diverse Suburb, by Alan V.
Grigsby examines what diversity looks like in the famously integrated Shaker Heights, Ohio suburb
6 Diversity is for White People: The Big Lie Behind the Well-Intended Word, by Ellen Berry, www.solon.com, October 26, 2015
7 The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration: A Case Study of the Pico Neighborhood in Santa Monica, CA, Dierdre Pfeiffer, A thesis
submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Urban Planning, University of California,
Los Angeles, 2007
Item 7.A 02/14/23
297 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
just outside of Cleveland.8 Grigsby examines what meaningful diversity could look like once people
are brought together, and concludes that access to housing alone creates only statistical
integration, and will not foster the kind of true integration that chips away at the lasting effects of
long-term, systemic racism in America. That comes when people have a chance to interact in places
where they all feel a sense of belonging so they can start to see each other as individuals.
Neighborhood Commercial businesses that cater to specific local tastes can create environments
where different kinds of people feel comfortable enough to connect, which leads to progress.
Corporation-run business, he found, do not have the flexibility or adaptability to serve this purpose.
Grigsby observes that many Black Americans are emotionally guarded outside of safe spaces among
others who share their experiences with “racial microaggressions,” even in supposedly non-racist
environments. He also notes that pressure towards cultural assimilation engenders feelings of
personal disenfranchisement; people need to be who they are and must feel welcomed for there to
be genuine integration. Grigsby concludes that quantitative integration without avenues for true
connectivity such as welcoming local businesses, leads to “micro segregation,” which is a zero-sum
change.
Taking it a step further, Steven Tuttle’s paper Producing Diverse and Segregated Spaces: Local
Businesses and Commercial Gentrification in Two Chicago Neighborhoods, focusses not only on the
role Neighborhood Commercial districts play in genuine integration, but also observes the impacts
on racial segregation and integration of gentrifying Neighborhood Commercial districts. It begins
with the alienation of long terms residents where they once belonged and ends with financial
pressures forcing them out.9 Tuttle’s study took place in two Latino neighborhoods in Chicago,
where he looked at “third places” in their gentrifying neighborhood commercial districts.
Functioning like Grigsby’s welcoming local establishments, “third places” are not home, not work,
but a third place that is neutral, safe territory. Tuttle observed both segregated and integrated
businesses and identified factors that enable them to function as truly integrated places that are
welcoming to a range of groups. He saw that low rent cultural enclaves are targets for gentrifiers
who see “local flavor” and “authenticity” as an amenity that will enhance the value of their new
businesses or developments. The new businesses and developments themselves catered to
neighborhood newcomers and did not feel hospitable to those who were already there. To make
matters worse, these businesses replaced local legacy businesses that had catered to them, causing
feelings of exclusion. Tuttle studied only locally owned businesses because “compared to national
chains, locally owned businesses are more closely tied to local communities, more dependent upon
them, and are more conducive to socializing.” As the neighborhood transitioned into gentrification,
Tuttle encountered with greater frequency long-time residents referring to new businesses as “not
for me” indicating a growing sense of alienation in an area where they once felt like they belonged.
As more legacy businesses shuttered, disorientation was replaced with anger and the seeds of a
8 Integration without Assimilation: Black Social Life in a Diverse Suburb, by Alan V. Grigsby, A dissertation submitted to the
Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Sociology of the College of Arts and Sciences, July 19, 2018
9 Producing Diverse and Segregated Spaces: Local Businesses and Commercial Gentrification in Two Chicago Neighborhoods, by
Steven Tuttle, Department of Sociology, Loyola University, Chicago, City & Community, American Sociological Association,
Washington DC, December 2020
Item 7.A 02/14/23
298 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
10
race and class protest. While it is possible for any business owner to intentionally cater to a range of
populations by creating a safe space with a variety of offerings, it is a rare occurrence among those
who rent spaces in gentrifying new development. Developers focus on securing the highest and
best use in pro forma that secure financing, which means attracting deep-pocketed chain stores,
who have a corporate structure to respond and conform to. Tuttle also notes that, “increasing
neighborhood-level diversity does not seem to necessarily result in increased integration as
segregation may remain at smaller levels of analysis,” which is the same concept as the “micro-
segregation” reported by Grigsby. To the whites, the differences between the new and old
businesses is just about taste and cost, but to the Latino residents in the communities Tuttle
studied, the new businesses represent exclusion, the erasure of cultural identity, and finally
displacement.
In her study of commercial gentrification in Santa Ana, California, Carolina Sarmiento looks more
specifically at how progressive goals for increasing income or racial diversity as part of commercial
gentrification actively provides justification for displacement of immigrant and other local
businesses by “positioning them as . . . backward.”10 Sarmiento observed in Santa Ana that
“[p]lanning and development actors in this case failed to recognize the value of cultural and
economic community networks while also diverting attention and resources away from immigrant-
serving businesses.” Roughshod efforts at creating diversity can just as easily wipe out diversity
through displacement, which Sarmiento observed can be intentional or unintentional depending on
the actor. Intentional or not, such consequences are supported by programs that use quantitative
benchmarks without considering individuals and small businesses directly impacted in the field.
Sarmiento critiques the way diversity is reflected in planning policy where “color blindness”
becomes a virtue that “favor[s] status-quo privileges,” in other words, perpetuating systemic racist
practice by supporting values that are legacies of systemic racism. For example, when new high-
value businesses create an environment where legacy business must assimilate to survive, they are
forced to betray their unique founding cultural characteristics which are undervalued. “Third
spaces” in an increasingly competitive business environment disappear. The people associated with
them leave the area where there is nothing left for them, just as they did a generation ago when
communities were shattered by eminent domain proceedings. Sarmiento shows that diversity
policies when applied without regard for those most directly impacted, become just another
mechanism for the displacement and segregation of communities of color who are still seen today
by overt racists and those who have unconsciously internalized generations of racist indoctrination
as bad for property value. As goals for diversity become part of planning policy, we have to be very
deliberate to ensure that Black, Mexican, low-income, and other groups not part of the white,
gentrified population don’t continue to struggle for equity and inclusion with “diversity” at the
center of the onslaught. A terrible irony.
Like everywhere else, in Santa Monica charm, authenticity, and ethnic flavor in Neighborhood
Commercial districts are seen as amenities for new infill development taking advantage of the gap
10 Not diverse enough? Displacement, diversity discourse, and commercial gentrification in Santa Ana, California, a majority-
Mexican city, by Carolina Sarmiento, Urban Studies: An International Journal of Research in Urban Studies, 2022
Item 7.A 02/14/23
299 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
11
between current and potential land values. Land value rises, floor plates enlarge, corporate tenants
take over, and the charm, authenticity, and ethnic flavor they came for is destroyed as local
businesses are priced out. Yes, new market rate apartment buildings will bring in new housing types
to these districts, but at what cost? Does that housing diversity really lead to meaningful population
diversity when placed on strips that run through Santa Monica’s established residential
neighborhoods? The evidence shows that imposing “diversity” in this way can be destructive, doing
more harm than good in promoting social justice. The imposition of too much market rate
development in Neighborhood Commercial districts, which are the seams that tie our mixed-income
residential districts together is an engine of displacement. It becomes the axe that destroys what it
meant to create. It destroys “third spaces” where genuine integration has a chance to develop,
sending different groups back to their corners, reverting to “micro-segregation.” Evidence shows
that hospitable “third spaces” outside of the structures of home and work require a concerted
effort by business owners invested in the community to cultivate. The insertion of new gentrified
businesses appears to gentrifiers as presentation of more choices but to the pre-gentrification
residents they are an ominous harbinger of the next displacement.
Quantified diversity based on exogenous indicators unsupported by thoughtful programs and finely
tuned zoning can break up communities. Leaving NC zones as they are so they continue to
incentivize thriving local businesses and continue to provide the possibility for affordable housing is
a start. In a high resource, high-demand city like Santa Monica, we have already met the market
rate component of our RHNA in proposed projects before we have even implemented our new
Housing Element policies, but we are significantly behind in development of deed-restricted
affordable units. Over production of market-rate housing, which is a line easily crossed, in our
sensitive residential districts moves the city further away from true diversity to place of all wealthy
White people. The city’s low-income community, which in many cases includes the city’s people of
color are seeing their fears of yet another displacement born out, as community members
representing generations of Santa Monicans are pushed out or flee to outlying areas.
VI. Santa Monica’s Four Unique Neighborhood Commercial Districts
Pico Boulevard
“The [Pico Boulevard] business improvement district, paired with the award-winning
nonprofit Beautify Earth, has adorned buildings here with a variety of striking murals. The
people bustling through the area are equally diverse, drawn to a mix of small galleries, live
music venues, shops and a variety of restaurants offering temptations for almost any palate.
Accessible from the three Metro Expo Line stations in town, Pico ends at the beach and links
Santa Monica High School, Santa Monica College and Virginia Avenue Park, where a
beloved Santa Monica farmers market takes place each Saturday,”
Item 7.A 02/14/23
300 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
12
– Santa Monica Visitor Information11
Since the 1910s, Santa Monica’s non-whites were segregated to an area in up the middle of the city,
which they shared with industrial uses including five major brickyards, where many of them were
employed. Over the decades, two Neighborhood Commercial strips evolved, one on Broadway and
one on Olympic Boulevard where locally owned businesses thrived. Churches, social clubs,
restaurants and barbershops tied the community together, which held strong and resilient in the
face of racism through the support of those commercial and social institutions. When the Santa
Monica Freeway bisected the neighborhood in the 1960s evicting 550 households from the area
through eminent domain and cutting the neighborhood commercial districts off from what was left
of those it was built to serve, the long-standing social networks crumbled. Today those stretches of
Broadway and Olympic Boulevard have more parking lots than buildings. Through various zoning
initiatives, single unit dwellings in what remained of the original segregated zone were replaced
with apartment buildings in order the accommodate more families moving in from other parts of
the city as a result of other condemnation initiatives. This area, between the freeway and Pico
Boulevard is what we call the Pico Neighborhood today. The 1970s were a particularly difficult time
for the shattered community. Those who were left behind endured crime, gangs, and poverty. It
took decades for the strength of the old, unifying social structures to rebuild. The Pfeiffer study
outlined above profiles this modern, rebuilt era of the Pico Neighborhood. Eradicating systemic
racism means recognizing when we are repeating history.
Pico Boulevard evolved as the new Neighborhood Commercial district and remains the heart of its
surrounding community today. The Pico Neighborhood is Santa Monica’s most diverse and
integrated district. It enjoys a number of politically active, outspoken groups seeking social justice.
Upzoning of Pico Boulevard is in direct conflict with city policy established in 1983 in response to
the original advocacy from the neighborhood during the 1980s when progressive Santa Monica
emerged, and re-affirmed several times over the decades, including as recently as 2019. The goals
of these policies are to improve conditions in the Pico Neighborhood and protect the city’s most
rent burdened residents from displacement. Housing Element AFFH guidance directs cities to make
a “diligent effort to include all economic segments of the community” in outreach. For decades,
Santa Monica has been hearing from residents of the Pico Neighborhood seeking support and city
services long lacking in that district and presenting the need to protect economic opportunities for
their constituents on their main commercial street, Pico Boulevard. Above all, they wish to keep
running their businesses and stay in their homes. After decades of segregation, discrimination, and
disruption through eminent domain, exclusionary zoning practices, red-lining, and other racist real
estate practices, gentrification is just another form of displacement. But unlike in the 1960s when
the destruction of the community gathering places on the area’s local commercial boulevards
resulted in poverty and chaos, in the present real estate environment, it will mean erasure. Plans to
provide new services for residents of the Pico Neighborhood that will provide economic opportunity
have only recently started to show results with a community kitchen to help support seed
businesses (coming soon), and a Protecting Our Diversity program providing rent subsidies for Pico
11 https://www.santamonica.com/experience-santa-monica/neighborhoods/
Item 7.A 02/14/23
301 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
13
Neighborhood residents. The benefits of small-business micro-grants, another new city program,
will end at the micro level if affordable retail spaces for them to grow into that are close to their
customer bases are no longer extant. Since 2020, 22% of the businesses in Pico’s NC district have
newly opened, and 44% have been in business there for ten years or more. A notable 27% of the
businesses in Pico’s NC district have been serving for over 20 years.
Some Santa Monica neighborhoods are already diverse, and in particular the Pico Neighborhood,
which was formerly segregated, has become significantly mixed income and mixed race and
ethnicity over time. The city’s AFFH Assessment notes that “[e]thnic enclaves in particular may help
immigrants build a sense of community and adapt to life in the U.S. The businesses, social networks,
and institutions in ethnic enclaves may help immigrants preserve their cultural identities while
providing a variety of services that allow them to establish themselves in their new homes.” This
idea has been well documented in ethnographic studies. The particularly high percentage of legacy
businesses on Pico Boulevard is a reflection of the well-established community there, which is in
constant danger of displacement.
Main Street
Like the tides of the Pacific just a few blocks away, Main Street is characterized by a slow
shift in personalities. By day, it’s a favorite of up-at-dawn locals, who come for breakfast or
coffee after a sunrise surf session or to patronize the eclectic collection of businesses with
their dogs and children in tow. Visitors can join in, easily filling an afternoon at laid-back
patio-lined cafés and indie boutiques. In the evening, trendy restaurants and watering holes
glow with a lively mix of options for nightlife lovers.
– Santa Monica Visitor Information
Main Street serves the historically redlined Ocean Park Neighborhood in Santa Monica. The location
of Santa Monica’s first African American church, the Ocean Park Neighborhood has been home to a
varied and eclectic population of Blacks, Mexicans, poor people, LGBTQ, Jewish Holocaust survivors,
and immigrants of all kinds. When the effects of redlining and disinvestment began to lift in the
1970s, Ocean Park improved quickly. This was in large part to the Ocean Park Redevelopment
Project, which razed nine square blocks of affordable dwellings and replaced them with luxury hi-
rise towers, displacing 1200 low-income households. Several highway improvements also took place
in Ocean Park including the widening of the streets the led from the freeway to the new towers.
These changes displaced more residents and devalued the properties of several others, including
the African American church, by taking twelve feet of frontage from several blocks of parcels. On
the heels of those events, Ocean Park became ground zero of Santa Monica’s nationally recognized
progressive movement. Among literally dozens of social service programs that started in the
neighborhood was Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM), Santa Monica’s most prolific
affordable housing development nonprofit to this day, established with a seed grant from the City
of Santa Monica in 1982. CCSM owns and operates 343 affordable housing units on 22 sites across
the Ocean Park Neighborhood. Additionally, there are approximately 170 units of deed restricted
Item 7.A 02/14/23
302 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
14
affordable rental units for seniors in Ocean Park. According to the 2021 Santa Monica Rent Control
Board Annual Report, 4,684 rental units in Ocean Park are subject to local rent control (17% of the
citywide total, on 10% of the land area of the city).12 The neighborhood elementary school is racially
and ethnically integrated with almost sixty percent (60%) of students identifying as non-white.
Ocean Park’s proximity to the beach contributes significantly to its appeal, putting constant
displacement pressure on low-income and long-term residents. This results in the highest risk of
turnover of rent controlled units affordable to low- and moderate-income residents in the city
according to the city’s AFFH Assessment. The affordable, locally owned, and community serving
businesses on Main Street still serve people of all income levels who rub shoulders there in a true
“third space” community-building environment. Many of the businesses are found in Main Street’s
33 historic resources, which help attract clientele from all over the region to make the street a
success. A BID and a strong Merchants Association have worked hard to keep Main Street vital
through the city’s economic downturn and subsequent Covid-19 shutdown impacts. Today Main
Street enjoys a respectably low 9.4% vacancy rate among its ground floor commercial spaces
(compared to approximately 28% vacancy on the Third Street Promenade).13 Of the current
business licenses issued in the Main Street NC by the City of Santa Monica, 35% have started up
since 2020, and 36% are legacy business in place for ten years or more.14 In this time of economic
stress for brick-and-mortar shopping streets, Main Street remains a vibrant and appealing place of
authentic diversity because everyone feels welcome. Main Street is also vital to the struggling
economy of the city because of its rate of recovery. Immediately adjacent to the west of Main
Street is a large city-owned site, currently serving as parking lots. A program in the 6th Cycle
Housing Element will provide over 600 100% affordable deed-restricted housing units there. The
residents of those units will also be served by the businesses in the NC zone on Main Street if they
remain affordable. With careful planning, we can maintain the mix of businesses, so it continues to
have something for everyone.
Ocean Park Boulevard
Ocean Park Boulevard boasts an authentic local vibe, a crop of talked-about restaurants and
“Where did you get that?!” boutiques and shops. Accentuated by spacious Clover Park, the
neighborhood is also home to Barker Hangar, which has hosted many awards shows like the
Kids’ Choice Awards, People’s Choice Awards and more; the Santa Monica Airport and
Ruskin Group Theatre Co.; and the Museum of Flying as well as neighboring Spitfire Grill. The
airport’s observation decks, eco-friendly gardens and twice-monthly antiques market are
also big draws.
– Santa Monica Visitor Information
Ocean Park Boulevard’s Neighborhood Commercial district is in the Sunset Park Neighborhood. Its
vibrant businesses serve immediate neighbors as well as drawing patronage from the Pico
12 Santa Monica Rent Control Board Annual Report, City of Santa Monica, California, 2021,
https://santamonica.gov/departments/rent-control
13 Main Street Merchants Association
14 Business License Spreadsheet, Santa Monica Department of Economic Development, 2022
Item 7.A 02/14/23
303 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
15
Neighborhood and citywide. Sunset Park was the last area of the city to see development, which
began very slowly in the 1920s primarily with small bungalow courts that appeared near the new
Santa Monica Airport and its primary user, Douglas Aircraft. The airfield was considered a
recreational site, so it included a golf course and a shooting range, which were profitably managed
by the city to help pay for the land. In spite of these amenities, development didn’t take off in
Sunset Park until the 1930s when FHA loans made home ownership accessible, but only if the loan
applicant was Caucasian. In the 1960s after deed restrictions could no longer stop them, some
pioneering middle class Blacks from the Pico Neighborhood began to move into homes in Sunset
Park, though the area remains predominantly White. Today there are approximately 7,000 housing
units in Sunset Park. Of these, 3,309, 47%, are rentals subject to local rent control and affordable to
people of low and moderate incomes. These units are primarily located adjacent to the
Neighborhood Commercial zone. The two elementary schools in Sunset Park, which also serve the
Pico Neighborhood, are among the most ethnically and racially diverse schools in the city.
Immediately adjacent to theeastern portion of Ocean Park Boulevard’s Neighborhood Commercial
zone is an area of about 55 acres zoned as Office Conservation (OC). This is an area that has never
allowed residential development in the past, but as part of the implementation of Santa Monica’s
6th Cycle Housing Element will not only allow housing but will incentivize housing projects with
enhanced capacity. The new residents in OC will be served by the vibrant neighborhood businesses
nearby. Of all the businesses operating in the Ocean Park Boulevard NC zone, 27% have been added
since 2020, and 39% have been in operation for ten years or more. The vacancy rate of 7% reflects
standards of a healthy business district.
Montana Avenue
Montana Avenue, which sits at the city’s northern edge, is home to a stretch of more than
150 restaurants and retailers. Though it’s just a short walk from Downtown Santa Monica, it
feels removed from the hustle and bustle of the Promenade and Pier. Late-night options may
be limited, but from sunrise to sunset, a steady stream of shoppers browse the surrounding
storefronts amid a relaxed crowd of A-list celebrities, out-of-towners and parents pushing
strollers, none of whom seem in a hurry to leave the wealth of juice bars, latte vendors and
outdoor cafés.
–Santa Monica’s Visitor Information
Montana Avenue, like Main Street has regional appeal, making it a valued piece of our local
economy. It is the connecting fabric between the highest of the high resource neighborhoods of the
city, North of Montana (NOMA), and the Wilmont Neighborhood. Wilmont is home to 10,481 rent-
controlled apartments affordable to low and moderate incomes, comprising 38.2% of the city’s total
rent-controlled housing stock. Montana Avenue provides a number of shopping and dining choices,
which bring residents from a number of different backgrounds together in a welcoming “third
space” environment. Much of the appeal is attributed to the long-nurtured atmosphere of
community created through several annual events hosted by its BID and Merchant’s Association. Of
active business licenses on Montana Avenue, 26% were granted since 2020. Legacy businesses in
place for ten years or more comprise 37% of the licenses, and the NC district has about a 10%
Item 7.A 02/14/23
304 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
16
vacancy rate, which indicates that like the other three NC districts in the city it too is making great
strides towards full economic recovery that can help carry the city through a very difficult financial
period. Through robust incentive programs in the 6th Cycle Housing Element for ADU’s, lot splits,
and duplex development, housing opportunity in the North of Montana district will increase over
the next several years. Ensuring that this growing area will remain a complete neighborhood served
by a well-established commercial street will help the city achieve sustainability goals by reducing
car trips as the next-closest commercial street in the city is a half-mile to a mile or more away from
most residents.
VII. Conclusion
A strategic effort to retain the long-standing zoning in Santa Monica’s Neighborhood Commercial
districts on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard, Main Street, and Montana Avenue was omitted
in the final certified Housing Element, but is critical to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in the
city. For diversity to be meaningful, it must be qualitative. In an increasingly White and wealthy city
like Santa Monica, that means protecting actual people and actual local business from
displacement. Using only statistics to measure displacement dehumanizes at risk residents and
subjects ethnic, racial, and cultural communities to yet another involuntary exodus from the city.
We can’t be selective about which racist narratives we respond to. Single-unit zoning had terrible
racist implications in the past, and global upzoning today will be just as harmful. Existing locally
owned small businesses thrive in well-established local-serving retail hubs that make Santa
Monica’s residential districts walkable, complete neighborhoods and are the driving force for Santa
Monica’s future economic health.
Nina Fresco
February 2023
Item 7.A 02/14/23
305 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
February 13, 2023
Re: Neighborhood Commercial Zoning
Dear Santa Monica City Council:
We urge you stick with our Housing Element promises. Allowing housing in more areas of Santa Monica,
including next to our highest resourced neighborhoods by legalizing apartments on streets like Ocean
Park and Montana, was a central pillar of our Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
commitments. To back out now, just four months after our Housing Element was certified, and after
more than two years of public process putting our Housing Element together, violates state housing
laws, will likely trigger the ire of HCD, and potentially risks bringing the Builder’s Remedy back to Santa
Monica.
As City Staff has explained, Santa Monica’s Housing Element was previously rejected multiple times
because of insufficient efforts to address AFFH requirements. HCD did not believe we were doing
enough to address historic patterns of segregation and discrimination and implored us to do more.
So City Council made a compromise. There wouldn’t be any rezonings in single-family neighborhoods
but instead on parcels NEXT TO single-family neighborhoods. Main, Montana, Ocean Park, and Pico
(along Sunset Park). These parcels have some of the highest retails rents in the city and almost all of
them abut single-family homes which sell for $3M+, and along Montana $5M+. By legalizing new mixed-
income housing on parcels next to these homes, Santa Monica made a decision to create housing
opportunities for more people. No longer would newcomers need at least $3 million dollars or more to
live near these streets.
This plan met state law requirements. But now we’re trying to take another bite at the apple by re-
opening our Housing Element. And unlike last time, this attempt to change our Housing Element is
being done with no meaningful effort to consult local businesses, no effort to consult all economic
segments of the Santa Monica community, and certainly no effort to come up with an alternative
AFFH plan to address historic patterns of segregation and discrimination. Instead, all we see is a rushed
and panicked attempt to avoid following through with our own promises.
HCD has specific requirements for AFFH. These requirements are clearly laid out in multiple publicly
available documents on HCD’s website. Requirements include robust analysis on existing patterns and
trends, ample outreach to all economic segments of the community, and “meaningful, frequent, &
ongoing community participation” with groups such as community-based organizations, lower income
Item 7.A 02/14/23
306 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
community members, and households that include persons in protected classes. This attempt to back
out of our Housing Element promises satisfies none of these requirements.
HCD AFFH Guidance - Examples
Item 7.A 02/14/23
307 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Based on HCD’s prior rejections of our Housing Element, and based on HCD’s publicly available AFFH
guidance, we believe this effort to back out of our Housing Element promises is doomed to fail.
Especially after Staff has said they’ve discussed with HCD and HCD said they will very likely say no.
And remember – AB2011 will do much of this anyway. When paired with Density Bonus Law, a builder
submitting a project under AB2011 can achieve up to 4-6 stories of height along our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. So even if HCD says yes (which we are confident they won’t) you still will have
accomplished nothing because AB2011 creates similar opportunities anyways.
Housing Element law is complex. If we make any mistake with implementation, Santa Monica could
quickly fall out of compliance and become subject to the Builder’s Remedy once again. Knowing this,
why would we devote our limited staff resources toward an effort that will almost certainly fail? In Santa
Monica Forward’s view, better to have Staff focus on faithfully implementing our Housing Element so
we do not fall out of compliance once again.
Sincerely,
Santa Monica Forward
Resources
1. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_webinar_slides.pdf
2. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-
2021.pdf
3. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-
memos/docs/ab686_summaryhousingelementfinal_04222020.pdf
Item 7.A 02/14/23
308 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Dear Mayor Davis, Vice Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council request the approval of the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to amend Program 1J of
the City’s certified Housing Element (2021-2129) in order to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH) objectives and to protect small, locally owned businesses and service providers
The proposed amendment would finetune the program by retaining the City’s long-term
commitment to providing access to housing opportunity while ensuring we maintain complete
neighborhoods that provide access to economic opportunity and address vehicle miles traveled
concerns. Specifically, the proposed amendment would retain the existing heights and Floor Area
Ratios (FAR) in the Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NC) on Main Street, Ocean Park
Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue, rather than increasing them as proposed in the
current language of Program 1J.
The Planning Commission also recommends that the City request HCD’s guidance as to whether
the SSI should be amended to remove the thirteen properties in the Neighborhoods Commercial
District and to add (a) Replacement Site(s) that is (are) necessary to compensate for the 165
housing units projected for development in the NC District.
Finally, the Commission recommends that the City request HCD’s approval for adoption of an
Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) for the purpose of upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial
Districts and meeting the October 2023 deadline for implementing Program 1J of the Housing
Element. The IZO would be worded to sunset upon the earlier of (i) the amendment of the
Housing Element if HCD approves the amendment, in which case the existing zoning for NC
Districts would remain; or (ii) the adoption of permanent Zoning Ordinance amendments to
upzone the NC District if HCD denies the amendment request.
This request for approval to amend Program 1J is based on the following:
1. The Commission understands that the State is concerned about accomplishing AFFH goals
by upzoning the NC Districts. The City has found through on-going analysis that this
upzoning is not necessary to accomplish the City’s RHNA goals nor to further AFFH
objectives. The City believes that AFFH goals are being reached in all the neighborhoods
served by the NC Districts, or will be reached through the implementation of new
programs mandated by the Housing Element..
2. The upzoning of our NC districts will causethe displacement of locally owned businesses
that provide affordable retail and essential services to residents. In fact, the loss of these
neighborhood-serving businesses will be in direct conflict with AFFH objectives. Many of
these small businesses are minority-owned. Further, NC Districts currently offer
entrepreneurial opportunities for local residents, many of whom are people of color.
3. Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would remove the requirement that the ground
floors of new projects on Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards include commercial space. This
proposed zoning change recognizes the inability of local businesses to afford the rents in
Item 7.A 02/14/23
309 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
these new buildings and the fact that these two neighborhood commercial streets would
not attract sufficient regional interest to attract non-local retailers, which could afford the
new, higher rents. The result of this would be the removal of all convenient, walkable
commercial opportunities in Sunset Park and the Pico neighborhood.
4. The NC Districts include many designated Landmarks and other significant historic
resources. This fact reduces the overall development capacity of NC areas.
5. A Replacement Site that can accommodate more than the 165 units projected for the
upzoned NC areas has been identified. With even greater capacity than those sites, it will
actually increase the number of affordable and market rate units produced during the 6th
Cycle.
6. The Replacement Site will locate new residents close to the Expo Light Rail Line, offering
access to numerous job nodes throughout the region. Access to high quality transit is
critical to the economic health of many residents, especially lower incomes.
Data Demonstrating AFFH in Neighborhood Commercial Districts
The proposed Housing Element amendment will not have negative impacts on the State’s AFFH
requirements because each neighborhood surrounding the NC zones currently offers or will offer
a variety of housing types and affordability levels during the 6th Cycle.
Main Street
The NC district on Main Street is the major commercial area serving residents of Ocean Park. The
historically red-lined Ocean Park community has always provided a variety of housing types and
a range of affordability levels. Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM), Santa Monica’s
most prolific affordable housing development nonprofit established with a seed grant from the
City of Santa Monica in 1982, owns and operates 343 affordable housing units on 22 sites across
Ocean Park. Of these units, 44 are on Main Street, just north of Main Street’s NC District. Across
the street from this CCSM project on Main Street is a mixed income rental housing project with
approximately 60 units. This existing housing has been developed using the zoning standards of
the General Commercial District, which has a lower FAR and height limit than that proposed in
the Housing Element for the NC portion of Main Street.
There are approximately 170 units of deed restricted affordable rental units for seniors in Ocean
Park.
According to the 2021 Santa Monica Rent Control Board Annual Report, 4,684 rental units in
Ocean Park are subject to local rent control (17% of the citywide total). The median monthly
Maximum Allowable Rents for these units range from $1,521 for a studio apartment to $2,466
for a three-bedroom apartment. These rents are affordable to moderate income households and
include units with long term tenants and those that have been decontrolled to market rate levels.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
310 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
The feasibility of developing housing with the existing NC development standards has been
demonstrated by a recently approved market rate rental housing project with ground floor retail
in the NC District. This project demonstrates that housing can be feasibly developed with a retail
component on this NC portion of Main Street.
Ocean Park is a diverse community from the standpoint of income levels and demographics. John
Muir Elementary School is located in Ocean Park and serves the majority of children who live in
that community. It is currently closed for remediation purposes. When in operation, the school
is a Title I school, meaning at least thirty five percent (35%) of its students are from families living
at or near the poverty level. Forty seven percent (47%) of the students are from low-income
families. John Muir is also racially and ethnically integrated with almost sixty percent (60%) of
students identifying as non-white.
The Ocean Park housing market also includes many single-family houses and condominiums with
values well into the millions of dollars.
The City believes that upzoning the NC District on Main Street is unnecessary because Ocean Park
is already a model community for meeting AFFH objectives.
Ocean Park Boulevard
The NC area on Ocean Park Boulevard is the major neighborhood commercial district for the
Sunset Park community with locally owned businesses and necessary community retail and
essential services. A common misperception about the Sunset Park community is that it is
primarily populated by single family homeowners in R1 districts. Similar to Ocean Park, Sunset
Park offers a wide variety of housing choices and affordability levels. There are approximately
7,000 housing units in Sunset Park. Of these, 2,634 are on R1 properties, and 3,309 are rentals
subject to local rent control. The median Maximum Allowable Rents for these rent-controlled
units range from $1,140 for a studio to $2,298 for a three-bedroom unit. These rents are
affordable to low and/or moderate-income households. CCSM owns and operates 310 deed
restricted affordable rental units in Sunset Park. The balance of the units in Sunset Park (747) are
condominiums and post-1978 apartments.
Another interesting fact about Sunset Park is that one of its two elementary schools (Will Rogers)
is among the most ethnically and racially diverse schools in the district. It serves the Pico and
Sunset Park neighborhoods west of 17th Street. Thirty three percent (33%) of the students
identify as white, forty five percent (45%) as Hispanic, nine percent (9%) as black, and thirteen
percent (13%) as members of other racial/ethnic groups. Will Rogers is designated as a Title I
school. John Adams Middle School, which serves the Pico Neighborhood, Sunset Park and Ocean
Park is also a Title 1 school. No feasibility analysis showing the need to increase FAR and height
in the NC District of Ocean Park Boulevard was performed, but existing conditions demonstrate
the district’s ability to offer housing opportunity at a wide range of affordability.
Montana Avenue
Item 7.A 02/14/23
311 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
The Montana Avenue NC district is the major neighborhood commercial area for the
neighborhoods north of Montana Avenue and between Montana Avenue and Wilshire
Boulevard. Although the north of Montana neighborhood is primarily R1 with extremely high
property values, it is bound by streets with hundreds of units of multi-family housing. The
certified Housing Element proposes furthering AFFH objectives in the R1 District north of
Montana through active encouragement of ADU construction and enactment of zoning changes
that encourage the development of duplexes using SB9.
The neighborhood between Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard is almost entirely
developed with multi-family housing and has the highest percentage of the City’s rent-controlled
housing supply (6,012 units). These rent-controlled units are affordable to and serve all income
groups.
Pico Boulevard
Businesses in the Pico Boulevard NC District serve residents of the Pico Neighborhood and the
northern section of Sunset Park with a variety of affordable retail and service options. Although
designated a High Resource Area like the rest of the city, the Pico Neighborhood is home to its
lowest income and most rent burdened residents. The neighborhood also has the highest
concentration of people of color and is the community most at risk because of gentrification and
its resulting displacement. Planning for this area is a delicate balance between encouraging
diversity and protecting existing residents and the commercial facilities that serve them.
Beginning with the Pico Neighborhood Community Plan in 1983, the residents of the Pico
Neighborhood have advocated for fair housing, appropriate commercial/industrial development,
to reduce crime, support youth, and for public services in their district. Spurred by new energy
from the community in 2016, the city began an update of the Pico Neighborhood Plan that
focused specifically on the NC district. Community advocates brought strong support for
maintaining and supporting the ethnic and cultural character of the Pico Neighborhood,
protecting residents from displacement, and developing new ways to support business
opportunities for local entrepreneurs in the NC district on Pico Boulevard. In 2019, targeted
adjustments were made to the city’s zoning regulations for NC on Pico Boulevard to support local
economic development. For example, a community kitchen that supports seed businesses in food
service is under construction. The City also gives micro-grants to local entrepreneurs seeking to
start small businesses. And, a Protecting Our Diversity program provides rent subsidies for Pico
Neighborhood residents.
The Pico Neighborhood also includes an area north of the I10 Freeway, which was severed from
the southern portion of the neighborhood by construction of the Santa Monica Freeway in the
1960s. It encompasses the Bergamot Plan area where hundreds of new mixed income housing
units are expected because of the upzoning planned for in the City’s Housing Element. This is also
where the proposed Replacement Site is situated. This aggressive development scenario will
Item 7.A 02/14/23
312 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
maintain the cultural and economic diversity in the Pico Neighborhood, while adding a robust
program of new housing choices adjacent to transit.
Conclusion
The Neighborhood Commercial District zones support Santa Monica’s most diverse communities
with locally owned, legacy businesses that have been serving their neighborhoods for decades.
Many of these businesses are minority owned. These businesses include laundromats, shoe
repair shops and affordable grocery stores, restaurants, and family entertainment options The
Venice Family Clinic is located in the NC District of Pico Boulevard. Its displacement would
eliminate affordable health care for the many lower income families in the community. NC areas
define “community” for many current and future residents of Santa Monica at all income levels.
Business owners are also neighbors who often know their customers by name. They provide daily
neighborhood gathering opportunities, support for neighborhood organizations and schools, and
job opportunities for local youth and Santa Monica College students.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requires a holistic approach to meeting housing needs and
providing neighborhood-serving and affordable businesses, employment opportunities, and the
kind of community cohesion that ensures safe and vibrant places for people at all income levels
in Santa Monica. The city’s Neighborhood Commercial districts on Main Street, Pico Boulevard,
Montana Avenue and Ocean Park Boulevard provide these opportunities. The Commission
believes that protecting these resources is consistent with AFFH objectives.
Sincerely,
Jim Ries, Chair
Item 7.A 02/14/23
313 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Beverly Gray <beverlygray@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
As 30-year residents of Sunset Park, we are dismayed by the proposed upzoning measure that would
significantly increase building heights on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd. We have long been glad
that we live in a friendly community where local shop owners can thrive. On an almost weekly basis,
we patronize Ocean Park Pharmacy, The UPS Store, and Executive Cleaners. We enjoy our nights
out at restaurants like Il Forno, The Counter, Society Kitchen, and Crimson. We buy bread at Jyan
Isaac, coffee at Estate, and flowers at Edelweiss. We would not want to see these local merchants
and restaurateurs displaced by impersonal big-box storres, nor would we be comfortable with the
increased traffic that bigger buildings would certainly bring.
Please consider the needs of this family-centric neighborhood and reject this ill-conceived proposal.
Many thanks!
Beverly and Bernie Bienstock
2618 31st Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
314 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Janet Alison Hoskins <jhoskins@usc.edu>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:51 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra
Subject:I oppose Upzoning Ocean Park
EXTERNAL
Dear City of Santa Monica leaders,
I have been a resident of Santa Monica since 1989, and oppose upzoning areas like Ocean park, which have many
valuable local businesses. I love walking to Bobs, to Santa Monica yoga, to Thyme and to many other small shops that
keep the character of Santa Monica friendly and accessible. If we lose that character, we lose what is best about our
city.
Sincerely,
Janet Hoskins
1118 Marine Street
Santa Monica 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
315 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:dvoren@verizon.net
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:44 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I am very opposed to upzoning business districts on Ocean Park Blvd. in Santa Monica.
Thank you,
Joyce Dvoren
Santa Monica resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
316 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Jasmin Manner <jasmin.manner@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I just learned about the upzoning project in my Ocean Park and Pico Blvd neighborhood and am shocked! I bought a
condo in this neighborhood for the sole reason that it is a very walkable neighborhood with beautiful small businesses.
Upzoning would destroy small businesses and the charming appearance of the neighborhood.
Please do not support the upzoning of Santa Monica in this neighborhood!
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jasmin Manner
--
Jasmin Manner
cell: +1(480)280-4420
email: jasmin.manner@yahoo.com
profile: www.linkedin.com/in/mannerjasmin
Item 7.A 02/14/23
317 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:David Blackman <davidmaxblackman@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am a 20 year resident of the Ocean Park and Sunset Park area. I know you are considering changing the development
requirements to allow taller buildings. I strongly believe it will have a negative impact on our community. I urge you to
keep the current requirements and not allow the taller buildings in this neighborhood.
I'm certainly not against progress or development, but one of the great attributes of Santa Monica is its local,
community feel. One of the reasons my family loves living here is we run into our neighbors at Bob's Market, my son's
soccer team at Ghisallo, schoolmates at the library, and all the other local businesses. This gives us a real feeling of
home and a sense of community. Santa Monica is already facing enough issues with overcrowding, traffic, crime and
how to successfully tackle the many unhoused people living here. We're hoping the council uses its time and energy to
take on the multitude of existing problems and not destroying community and creating new ones.
Thank you for the time and consideration.
Best,
David Blackman
Item 7.A 02/14/23
318 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Lian Gill <lian.b.gill@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:26 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de
la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject:2/14 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica since 1983, we oppose any proposition to “upzone” Santa Monica’s neighborhood
commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd and Montana Avenue.
Please maintain existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts.
Lian Gill
Item 7.A 02/14/23
319 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Sylvie Rokab <sylviero@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a - NO upzoning
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
It was brought to my attention that you are planning to discuss whether to “upzone” Santa Monica commercial districts
such as Main Street, Ocean Park, Pico Blvd, and Montana.
I strongly disagree with the idea of upzoning our commercial streets. What makes our city precious is the small town
feel, the sense of community, and the small businesses whose owners we know by name.
Please don’t allow the spirit of our neightborhoods to be replaced by a metropolis design that would turn us all Santa
Monicans into mere numbers on crowded streets.
Thank you for your careful consideration,
Sylvie
"Let the beauty of what you love be what you do. There are a thousand ways to kneel and kiss the earth" Rumi
Sylvie Rokab, M.A. (she/her)
Mindfulness Teacher / Nature Therapy Guide / Filmmaker
P. +1-310-570-7374
Santa Monica, CA, USA
Land of the Tongva People
www.lovethynature.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
320 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:A. Harewood <aharewood@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers:
It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make the Sunset Park
neighborhood special. Please do not throw these businesses to the wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) districts on these two streets. Upzoning of our NC districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd.
has the strong potential to displace locally-owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to
Sunset Park residents. The loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will also be in direct conflict with
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives. We do not have to keep “growing” until we block out the
sun!
Adrian Harewood
Santa Monica resident and homeowner since 1980
Item 7.A 02/14/23
321 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Kate Beauchene <k8beauchene@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:11 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Greetings city council members,
I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the proposed “upzoning” of Santa Monica’s neighborhood
commercial districts that includes Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.
The demolition of existing buildings that this would entail would displace and eliminate most of the essential
neighborhood-serving businesses that I have depended upon and made use of most of my life. The
subsequent replacement of the aforementioned business with higher-rent tenants like chain stores, would
undoubtedly destabilize the surrounding neighborhoods, thus reducing residents’ quality of life, increasing
traffic and parking woes. Further gentrifying the downtown areas of our formerly idyllic beach town would
degrade its character and dilute its diversity. Not to mention obscuring the ocean views that are
a quintessential part of our beautiful city.
Sincerely,
Kate Beauchene
Kate Beauchene, MA, LPC, LPCC
Clinical Psychology PhD Candidate
k8beauchene@gmail.com
(310) 804‐3634
Pronouns: she, her, hers
Item 7.A 02/14/23
322 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:David White; Susan Cline; David Martin; Jing Yeo
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 7.A.
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
I support the position of SMCLC in the email below and ask that you do NOT upzone our
Neighborhood Commercial zones. Your own Planning Commission has told you this is a bad move
for our neighborhoods. Planning Commissioner Leslie Lambert told FOSP that it was a "staff error" to
have included this in the Housing Element. I doubt that. This is the same staff that brought us the A-
Lot conversions and to this day we still have not been told who made that change. I also urge you to
direct the City Manager to investigate who is responsible for these continued "errors" that go against
the residents and the direction of City Council.
I also support the request by NEN not to allow the increased lot consolidations in Neighborhood
Commercial that will bring in larger retailers and make spaces unaffordable to small businesses.
Finally, the parking off Main Street must be maintained and not converted to housing in order for Main
Street to survive.
All three of these are needed to maintain and preserve our neighborhoods as required by the LUCE.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City <info@smclc.net>
To: "nhkolhoff@yahoo.com" <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 01:43:59 PM PST
Subject: URGENT ACTION: Protect our neighborhood streets from UP-ZONING!
February 12, 2023
Dear SMCLC supporter,
Item 7.A 02/14/23
323 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
This Tuesday the City Council will be discussing whether to “upzone” Santa Monica’s neighbor
“Upzoning” would allow these unique Streets to be developed with new five or six-story proje
with higher rent tenants like chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents
Also being considered is whether to allow lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Bo
When our Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes it made a strong, well-suppo
commercial districts. Read the Planning Commission letter here:
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=14074&MeetingID=1353
These four walking Streets contain most of the neighborhood-serving, affordable businesses residents us
just rely on them – they are a vital part of the fabric of our community that contribute to making Santa
We agree with the Planning Commission and will urge the City Council to protect these neighb
The City Council needs to hear our voices. If you agree it’s important to “buy local” and support these sm
protect these Streets.
Please refer to 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a in your email subject line and send it to:
CouncilMtgItems@santamonica.gov, phil.brock@santamonica.gov, gleam.davis@santamonica.gov, oscar
Thank you,
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors to sign up for updates and join in our efforts.
Santa Monic
Item 7.A 02/14/23
324 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Anne Coscarelli <anne.coscarelli@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Upcoming
EXTERNAL
Dear city council members,
I understand that you would like to take under consideration the idea of being allowed to have taller buildings on pico
and Ocean Park Boulevard in the Sunset Park area. I live in this area and I’m totally opposed to this idea. This will take
away some of the mom and pop type stores that exist there that many of us are used to shopping at and supporting
locally. It will also change the nature of the neighborhood as well as bring in hire traffic to an area that is dense with
schools in which parents and children are walking the neighborhood all the time. We are not supportive of this action. In
fact, we are strongly opposed to it in our household. Many of my neighbors have expressed the same kinds of issues and
do not want this to happen. Please vote now on this proposal.
We feel that there is already too much large development around the city, and it has changed the nature of the city in
which we live and not for the better. The traffic is getting much worse and we do not want buildings taller than two
stories in our neighborhoods in the commercial districts. Please note that I am writing but I speak for many people that I
know in the neighborhood.
Anne Coscarelli
1120 Grant street
Item 7.A 02/14/23
325 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Charles Fox <catkinsonfox@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council Agenda item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please restrain the "upzoning" of the present Santa Monica areas. Retail has not been a great winner for us over the
almost 50 years we have lived here. And it certainly doesn't lend any charm or neighborhood feeling when it's suddenly
as many as three stories higher. "Tokyo on the Pacific" is a description we have been dreading to see applied correctly to
us ever since we escaped that monstrosity of a city to settle here.
Don't louse it up, no matter how much is offered. There are better ways to earn what we need.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
326 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Valerie Alter <valerie.alter@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:59 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I write in connection with 2/14/23 agenda item 7‐A and in opposition to upzoning on Pico and Ocean Park. I have lived
in Santa Monica since 1983, and in Sunset Park specifically since 2008.
One of the things that we love about our neighborhood is its walkability and our access to family‐owned shops and
restaurants‐‐for example, Gilbert's, Blossom, Lunetta, Lazy Daisy, and Vito, where my family has gone for 30+
years. These restaurants are part of our local community. When we needed hot chocolate for 24 to bring to a holiday
party at Grant Elementary, Starbucks wouldn't do it. We called Lo/Cal Coffee with less than an hour to spare. Originally,
they said they couldn't make it work, but then the barista pulled my number off the caller ID, called me back, and said
they'd figured out a way to help us ‐‐ could I come by in 20 minutes? This is what makes Sunset Park unique. The
proposed upzoning has the potential to threaten these local businesses and the character of our neighborhood. We
don't need more big‐box retailers or massive chain restaurants.
Moreover, traffic in our neighborhood is already at a choking point. We cannot go east on a weekday after
3:30. Sometimes we drop our daughter off at JAMS for soccer practice, and the traffic is so horrendous on both Pico and
Ocean Park‐‐and even Pearl Street, which is supposed a residential street, not a rush ‐hour thoroughfare‐‐that we park
midway through the 1.6‐mile drive home and walk because there is so much traffic. Our infrastructure is not built to
withstand the density that the proposed upzoning would entail, and we don't need it. We have a 7.7% vacancy rate
right now.
Please do not upzone our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration,
Valerie Alter
Item 7.A 02/14/23
327 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Robert Konecki <rkonecki@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:39 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:Zina Josephs
Subject:“2/14/23 agenda item 7-A”
EXTERNAL
We urge you to call or email City Council members right now to express your opinion on upzoning Ocean Park
Blvd. and the south side of Pico Blvd.
Please put “2/14/23 agenda item 7-A” in the subject line or your email.
Send to:
CouncilMtgItems@santamonica.gov, phil.brock@santamonica.gov, gleam.davis@santamonica.gov, oscar.d
elatorre@santamonica.gov, [mailto:lana.negrete@santamonica.gov,%20]lana.negrete@santamonica.gov,
[mailto:christine.parra@santamonica.gov,%20]christine.parra@santamonica.gov, caroline.torosis@santamonica
.gov, jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov
Emails must be received before 12 noon on Tuesday, February 14.
Please cc us at FriendsofSP@yahoo.com so we can track our neighborhood response.
Tell our Councilmembers what makes our local businesses special to you and your family and how you feel about
upzoning the streets.
Sample short email:
It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that
make the Sunset Park neighborhood special.
Please do not throw these businesses to the wolves by upzoning the
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on these two streets.
Below is the letter the FOSP Board sent to the Planning Commission back in January with more detail. Feel free to
include the information in your email.
Thank you! Robert Konecki and Merlee Konecki
Santa Monica Residents since 1968
1325 Sunset ave.
SM.CA. 90405
Tel 310 392 0901
Santa Monica Residents since 1968
Robert W. Konecki
Mobile: 310-570-3024
Item 7.A 02/14/23
328 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
skype: robert.konecki4
emails: rkonecki@hotmail.com rwkfinancial40@hotmail.com
DISCLAIMER: Sender is a Consultant and makes no warranties or representations as to the Client, Buyer,Seller and/or
Contemplated Transaction. All due diligence is the responsibility of the Client, Buyer and/or Seller. This E‐mail letter and
the attached related documents are never to be considered a solicitation for any purpose in any form or
content. Upon receipt of these documents, the Recipient hereby acknowledges this Disclaimer. If acknowledgment is
not accepted, Recipient must return any and all documents in their original receipted condition to Sender. This
electronic communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Codified at 18 U.S.C
1367,2510‐2521, 2701‐2710 , 3121‐3126 . Also see: http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glbsub1.htm Gramm‐Leach‐
Bliley Act 15 USC, Sub chapter1, Sec. 6801‐
Item 7.A 02/14/23
329 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:ALICE WEXLER <alicewexler43@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:39 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2.14.23 City Counciul Agenda item 7a
EXTERNAL
I am writing to support the recommendation of the Santa Monica City council to oppose upzoning the commercial
streets of Santa Monica! We need our local businesses that are accessible to walkers and bikers as well as drivers!
These are the businesses that make Santa Monica such a desirable place to live and work! Please vote against upzoning
these streets and spoiling our neighborhoods!
Thank you!
Alice Wexler, Santa Monica resident at 1930 Ocean Avenue, SM 90405. Resident since 1994.
‐‐
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
(20% discount code CUP20) https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the‐analyst/9780231202787
Item 7.A 02/14/23
330 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:kelly capp <kellycapp@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
We agree with the Planning Commission and will urge the City Council to protect these neighborhoods and
small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation.
Thank you,
Kelly Snopek
Item 7.A 02/14/23
331 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Sharon Everitt <sharonpolito@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
As a 20 year resident of the Sunset Park neighborhood, I speak for myself and my family in opposing the ‘upzoning’ of
Ocean Park Blvd.. This area is already at capatcity. There is nowhere to park on weekends, and there are lines around
the block for two of the new restaurants. Adding more traffic or construction to this area is unteneable without
increasing street sizes and building city run parking structures.
The city continues to grow in vertical size without any concern to incrased number of car trips and lack of parking.
Building vertically also impacts natural light, space, and privacy for existing tenants and owners. There is no upside to
this ‘upzoning’ for residents of the city ‐ the only benefit is to create more money for taxes and generate profits for
developers.
Please put an stop to this uncontrolled growth.
Thank you,
Sharon Everitt
1360 Ashland Ave. Santa Monica
Item 7.A 02/14/23
332 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Helen Corrigan <hcorrigan24@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:
I want to register my opposition to "upzoning" Santa Monica's main commercial arteries of Main Street, Montana
Avenue, Pico Boulevard, and Ocean Park Boulevard with new five or six‐story projects. Upzoning allows for the
introduction of big box stores and increased heights that will destroy the unique character of Santa Monica that draws
tourists and locals to these neighborhoods and is an ongoing source of income for the city.
Enough commercial development for now! Let's not become Downtown Los Angeles. No more mega projects on Ocean
Park, Pico, or Montana.
Please protect our walkable streets and local businesses. We're counting on you.
Sincerely,
Helen Corrigan
2500 4th Street #8
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
333 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Judy Branfman <branfman@ucla.edu>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:18 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis;
Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock
Subject:Feb 14, 2023 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I’m writing to oppose any ‘upzoning’ on our unique small business centers, specifically Pico, Ocean Park, Main, and
Montana. These are special places to shop and visit, where you can ‘buy local’ and even ride your bike to do your
errands. These areas attract both local residents and many out‐of‐towners. The example of downtown Santa Monica,
where I live, should be enough to prevent any thought of upzoning elsewhere – dark sterile streets under towering
buildings, an overabundance of (empty) upscale housing, a complete lack of affordable amenities, and, every day, fewer
small, local businesses.
There are many problems with the upzoning proposal. One is the false promise of affordable housing. It’s easy to see
how the glut of market rate, luxury housing has failed to produce enough affordable housing in Santa Monica ‐ and
many of the rent controlled properties lost to the Ellis Act in areas zoned for multifamily residences have actually been
redeveloped either as luxury condos or single family homes.
In addition it seems the city has only limited lot consolidation on Main street but are leaving the other areas open for
free‐for‐all over‐development.
We need to value the scale of life and small business districts we have in Santa Monica. You must think much more
creatively about providing the NEEDED housing and community life in Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Judy Branfman
Santa Monica CA 90401
Item 7.A 02/14/23
334 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Tim Hanson <timhans@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:17 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:CouncilMtgItems@santamonica.gov, phil.brock@santamonica.gov, gleam.davis@santamonica.gov,
oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov, lana.negrete@santamonica.gov,
christine.parra@santamonica.gov, caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov, jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
Please do not approved the upzoning of Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. With the loss
of so many local businesses and the rampant construction of high density high-priced mixed use developments, we have already lost
so much of what made Santa Monica special and liveable. Please do not continue this trend. Protect Main Street, Ocean Park
Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.
Thank you,
Tim Hanson
Strand St.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
335 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Lynn Sturgis <lasturgis58@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:51 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
As an almost 30 year Santa Monica resident, I’m writing you to show my opposition to any change in zoning for the
Ocean Park, Pico, Main or Montana Street commercial neighborhoods.
I understand that when the Planning Commission recently reviewed these proposed changes it made a strong, well‐
supported recommendation to Council against upzoning these streets and urged the Council to keep the existing heights
and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts
Part of the charm of our little city is it’s small neighborhoods. Please preserve them.
Lynn Sturgis
2427 Pearl Street
Sent from my iPad
Item 7.A 02/14/23
336 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Sim Borodach <sborodach2@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 4:01 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Please do not psas this! I attend incredible yoga sessions at Santa Monica Yoga. I love it there. THe neighborhood is
quaint. Keep SM small as much as possible!
Thank you for your hard and dedicated work!
Item 7.A 02/14/23
337 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Psk.susan <psk.susan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:58 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
City Council Members,
It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make the Sunset Park
neighborhood special.
Please do NOT throw these businesses to the wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on
these two streets.
Thank you,
Susan Kagiwada
homeowner of 2509 23rd Street Santa Monica 90405
Partial list of Sunset Park businesses:
Ocean Park Blvd. from 16th to 18th:
Merrihew's Sunset Gardens
Hair Brains salon
Ghisallo (bread baked on the premises)
Bicycle Workshop
Santa Monica Yoga
Bob's Market
Yoga-urt (plant-based soft serve)
Antequera Bakery
Edelweiss Flower Boutique
Goods LA (handcrafted artisan goods from around the world)
Quinnie & B – A Tiny Toy Shoppe
Local Kitchen & Wine Bar
Thyme Café & Market
Café Bolivar
Ocean Park Blvd. from roughly 25th Street to Centinela:
OP Market
Ocean Park Pharmacy
Classic Tailors
Juice Crafters
Blossom Vietnamese
Bubble Boba
National Mailbox Center/FedEx
The Counter
ll Forno Trattoria
Hurry Curry of Tokyo
Item 7.A 02/14/23
338 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Menchie’s Frozen Yogurt
Crimson (Mediterranean kabobs)
Enzo Caruso Custom Tailor
Pico Blvd. south side from Euclid to 16th:
Andy’s Cleaners
Cosmoprof (cosmetics)
Byron Woodley Tire
Nostalgia Bar & Lounge
Pico Blvd. from 20th to 31st: to Centinela:
Campos Famous Burritos
Tel’s Barber Shop (3 generations of barbers)
Santa Monica Lock & Safe
Computer Business Center (computer repair)
Kick/Goju Ryu Karate
Westwood Appliances
Lo/Cal Coffee & Market
Lazy Daisy Cafe
Sundance Physical Therapy
Wilson Brothers Appliance Repair
Z Garden Mediterranean
Lunetta
Sunset Car Wash
Gilbert's El Indio
Paws & Effect Pet Spa
Tim Clarke Design
Eco Heads Salon
Laura's Nails
January 16, 2023
To: Planning Commission
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 1/18/23 agenda items 9-A
Study Session on Implementation of the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Programs
Agenda
The FOSP Board supports the letter in agenda item 9-A from Planning Commissioners Nina Fresco, Leslie Lambert,
and Jim Ries.
We are particularly interested in retaining the existing heights and FARs in the Neighborhood Commercial districts
on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd., rather than increasing them, as proposed in the certified Housing Element.
Upzoning of our NC districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd. has the strong potential to displace locally-owned
businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to Sunset Park residents.
The loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will also be in direct conflict with Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH) objectives.
The Issue: Upzoning of Sunset Park’s Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District from a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Item 7.A 02/14/23
339 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
and 32’ maximum height to an FAR of 2.50 and 55’ height.
The NC districts are the following areas on
Ocean Park Blvd. from 16th to 18th: Merrihew's Sunset Gardens, Hair Brains beauty salon, Ghisallo (bread
baked on the premises), Bicycle Workshop, Santa Monica Yoga, Bob's Market, Yoga-urt (plant-based soft
serve), Antequera Bakery, Edelweiss Flower Boutique, Goods LA (handcrafted artisan goods from around
the world), Quinnie & B – A Tiny Toy Shoppe, Local Kitchen & Wine Bar, Thyme Café & Market, Café
Bolivar
Ocean Park Blvd. from roughly 25th Street to Centinela: OP Market, Ocean Park Pharmacy, Classic Tailors,
Juice Crafters, Blossom Vietnamese, Bubble Boba, National Mailbox Center/FedEx, Bubble Boba, The
Counter, Il Forno Trattoria, Hurry Curry of Tokyo, Menchie’s Frozen Yogurt, Crimson (Mediterranean
kabobs), a small UPS store, Caruso Enzo Custom Tailor
Pico Blvd. south side from Euclid to 16th: Andy’s Cleaners, Cosmoprof (cosmetics), Byron Woodley Tire,
Nostalgia Bar & Lounge
Pico Blvd. from 20th to 31st: Campos Famous Burritos, Tel’s Barber Shop (3 generations of barbers), Santa
Monica Lock & Safe, Kick/Goju Ryu Karate, Westwood Appliances, Lo/Cal Coffee & Market, Sundance
Physical Therapy, Wilson Brothers Appliance Repair, Z Garden Mediterranean, Lunetta, Sunset Car Wash,
Gilbert's El Indio, Paws & Effect Pet Spa, Tim Clarke Design, Eco Heads Salon, Laura's Nails
Selected Sites Inventory (SSI) – The SSI is part of the Housing Element and lists properties “likely” to be
redeveloped as housing during the Element’s term (from now until 2029). Sites are listed using HCD’s site selection
criteria.
There are 203 properties on the City’s SSI, of which 13 are in Neighborhood Commercial Districts. 12 are on Pico
Blvd. and one is on Ocean Park Blvd. (the NE corner of 17th & OPB). The total housing unit capacity, if the SSI sites
are developed, is 13,000+ units. Of these, only 165 are in the NC Districts.
The Housing Element calls for the upzoning of 1,171 acres along the boulevards, in Bergamot, and Downtown. Of
these, only 71 are in NC Districts. (This is an overstatement of NC capacity, given the number of historic resources
and rent controlled housing in them.)
Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. is unnecessary to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals.
1. 50% of Sunset Park households have annual incomes at or below the Moderate Income level.
2. Two Sunset Park schools (Rogers & JAMS) qualify for the Title 1 Federal lunch program, meaning that at least
35% of students are from families at or below the Federal poverty level. The majority of students in both schools are
children and youth of color.
3. Of the approximately 7,000 housing units in Sunset Park, 3,309 are rent controlled apartments with median
rents affordable to households at moderate income and below; 2,645 are single family houses; and the remainder
are condominiums or post-1979 apartment units.
4. The required (LUCE) specific plan to be prepared for the Santa Monica Business Park will focus on mixed
income housing, which makes new housing in NC unnecessary.
Impacts of Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd.
1. Displacement of locally owned businesses, a number of which are minority owned.
2. Loss of the commercial district altogether since ground floor commercial space will not be required for new
projects given the likely unmarketability of this space for neighborhood serving businesses.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
340 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:davidaleal <davidaleal@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:51 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject: “2/14/23 agenda item 7-A”
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I just received a very distressing memo about agenda item 7-A requesting upzoning
buildings along Ocean Park from two stories to five stories. At present our city is
completely overbuild. Downtown Santa Monica is a excellent example of overbuilding
in our community. It is next to impossible to drive anywhere around downtown Santa
Monica. Half of the available storefront on the Promenade are closed. In addition
Lincoln Blvd is home to massive development. So many of the small unique
businesses have been run out of our city. There are many of us who have lived in this
community when Ocean Ave was home to rows of beach bungalows. While progress
and development is inevitable, it should be handled with care and consideration for the
integrity of the community. That community includes the small businesses that are
being run out of town in droves. So much of what made our community one of the
jewels of LA is lost. It is time to treat this city with the love and tenderness it deserves
and cease mass development.
The last city council election was a statement from the people that they did not like how
our city was being managed. We voted out many of the incumbents with the optimism
that new members would actually act in the best interest of their constituents, and not
the developers.
With Consideration,
Davida Raffa
Long time resident over 43 years
It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make the
Sunset Park neighborhood special.
Please do not throw these businesses to the wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) districts on these two streets.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
341 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:ANGELA DEMOTT <angelademott@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:49 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Angela de Mott
tel. 310.450.7025
www.angelademott.com
PLEASE listen to the Planning Commission and protect our neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the current
zoning that protects us, and doesn’t allow lot consolidation enabling larger mega projects.
Why do you think we chose to live here? We love our walking streets and local businesses which we count on.
We don’t want your overbuilt projects crowding us in with even more traffic and air pollution. Upzoning new five or six
story projects will decimate the character of our neighborhoods!
Sincerely,
Angela deMott
2338 21st. St.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
342 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:48 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de
la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com; aagrs@aol.com; jeannelaurie@msn.com; jbmlaw@hotmail.com;
clarethomasdo@aol.com; fospairport@rocketmail.com; nhkolhoff@yahoo.com; omglaw@gmail.com;
pdonald@me.com
Subject:FOSP: City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A -- OPPOSE upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial
districts
EXTERNAL
February 13, 2023
To: Mayor Davis and Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A: Study Session on Implementation of the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing
Element Programs
Agenda: https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com//Citizens/detail_meeting.aspx?ID=1353
The FOSP Board supports the January 23rd letter from the Planning Commission in Attachment F and opposes
upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Main Street, Montana Avenue, and especially on the two
Neighborhood Commercial districts in our neighborhood: Ocean Park Blvd. and the south side of Pico Blvd.
It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and and the south side of Pico Blvd. that "make"
the Sunset Park neighborhood.
Please do not throw these businesses to the wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
districts.
We want to retain the existing heights and FARs in the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Blvd.
and Ocean Park Blvd., rather than increasing them, as proposed in the certified Housing Element.
Upzoning of our NC districts has the strong potential to displace locally-owned businesses that provide
affordable retail and essential services to Sunset Park residents.
The loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will also be in direct conflict with Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives.
The Issue: Upzoning of Sunset Park’s Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District from a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) and 32 ft maximum height to an FAR of 2.50 and 55 ft maximum height.
The NC districts in our neighborhood are the following areas on:
Item 7.A 02/14/23
343 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Ocean Park Blvd. from 16th to 18th: Merrihew's Sunset Gardens, Ghisallo (wood fire pizza and bread baked
on the premises), Hair Brains salon, Brooke Rodd Boutique, Wild Moon Kids, Bicycle Workshop, Santa
Monica Yoga, Bob's Market, Yoga-urt (plant-based soft serve), Antequera Bakery (Mexican breads, cakes,
cookies, and tamales), Edelweiss Flower Boutique, Goods LA (handcrafted artisan goods from around the
world), Quinnie & B – A Tiny Toy Shoppe, Local Kitchen & Wine Bar, Thyme Café & Market, The First
School (relationship-based, developmental preschool & transitional kindergarten), and Café Bolivar (coffee,
sandwiches & South American arepas)
Ocean Park Blvd. from roughly 25th Street to Centinela: OP Market, Ocean Park Pharmacy, Classic
Tailors, Juice Crafters, Blossom Vietnamese, Bubble Boba, Miyako Sushi, National Mailbox Center/FedEx,
The Counter, Il Forno Trattoria, Hurry Curry of Tokyo, Menchie’s Frozen Yogurt, Crimson (Mediterranean
kabobs), a small UPS store, and Caruso Enzo Custom Tailor
Pico Blvd. south side from Euclid to 16th: Cosmoprof (cosmetics), Byron Woodley Tire, and Nostalgia Bar &
Lounge
Pico Blvd. from 20th to 31st: Campos Famous Burritos, Tel’s Barber Shop (3 generations of barbers), Santa
Monica Lock & Safe, Kick/Goju Ryu Karate, Westwood Appliances, Lo/Cal Coffee & Market, Sundance
Physical Therapy, Wilson Brothers Appliance Repair, Z Garden Mediterranean, Lunetta, Sunset Car Wash,
Gilbert's El Indio, Paws & Effect Pet Spa, Tim Clarke Design, Eco Heads Salon, and Laura's Nails
Selected Sites Inventory (SSI) – The SSI is part of the Housing Element and lists properties “likely” to be
redeveloped as housing during the Element’s term (from now until 2029). Sites are listed using HCD’s site
selection criteria.
There are 203 properties on the City’s SSI, of which 13 are in Neighborhood Commercial Districts. 12
are on Pico Blvd. and one is on Ocean Park Blvd. (the NE corner of 17th & OPB). The total housing unit
capacity, if the SSI sites are developed, is 13,000+ units. Of these, only 165 are in the NC Districts.
The Housing Element calls for the upzoning of 1,171 acres along the boulevards, in Bergamot, and
Downtown. Of these, only 71 are in NC Districts.
Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. is unnecessary to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals.
1. 50% of Sunset Park households have annual incomes at or below the Moderate Income level.
2. Two Sunset Park schools (Rogers & JAMS) qualify for the Title 1 Federal lunch program, meaning that at
least 35% of students are from families at or below the Federal poverty level. The majority of students in both
schools are children and youth of color.
3. Of the approximately 7,000 housing units in Sunset Park, 3,309 are rent controlled apartments with median
rents affordable to households at moderate income and below; 2,645 are single family houses; and the
remainder are condominiums or post-1979 apartment units.
4. The required (LUCE) specific plan to be prepared for the Santa Monica Business Park will focus on mixed
income housing, which makes new housing in NC unnecessary.
Impacts of Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd.
1. Displacement of locally owned businesses, a number of which are minority owned.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
344 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
10
2. Loss of the commercial district altogether since ground floor commercial space will not be required for
new projects given the likely unmarketability of this space for neighborhood serving businesses.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
345 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
11
Vernice Hankins
From:David Finch <davidmfinch@me.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:45 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Against upzoning
EXTERNAL
Hello! We live in the Sunset Park neighborhood and are against upzoning; this would greatly erode
the charm of the neighborhood as well as disrupt well‐established local businesses. Thank you for
your consideration.
David, Nancy and Michael Finch
Item 7.A 02/14/23
346 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
12
Vernice Hankins
From:Georgia Jessup <gljessup@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:44 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Upzoning
EXTERNAL
Please vote NO, SM is being destroyed by developers! We are better than this.
Georgia Jessup
SM
Item 7.A 02/14/23
347 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Louise Stanton <ava@avalouisestanton.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:41 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please don't over load the Bergamot area with more housing. We are already a housing dense
area, and we don't need more traffic on our residential streets. Housing on big commercial
streets that are built for traffic would be much better and housing on these boulevards can
address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local serving retail experience.
Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an alternative, it should be done in addition
to what's already been included in the Housing Element. Please stop treating new housing like
it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated--this attitude and the policies that result
from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage. Bad city leadership across the state has
prevented the housing we've needed to be built for decades, now is our chance to change
course.
Thank you,
Louise Stanton
ava@avalouisestanton.com
1640 Berkeley St
Santa Monica, California 90404
Item 7.A 02/14/23
348 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Allon Percus <allon.percus@cgu.edu>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:43 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please maintain the city's Housing Element that allows for more housing on our commercial
boulevards. Santa Monica urgently needs this, in order to address our housing crisis while
allowing people to live in close proximity to their local shopping and retail needs.
I support building more housing in the Bergamot area, but this should be in addition to and not
instead of what is currently in the Housing Element.
Our housing situation is desire and our sprawl is untenable. We have an opportunity to help
solve both problems. Let's please take advantage of it and not turn back the clock on our city's
Housing Element.
Sincerely,
Allon Percus
Allon Percus
allon.percus@cgu.edu
1105 Centinela Ave.
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
349 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:John Zinner <john@zinnerconsultants.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council:
As a former Planning Commissioner and long-time resident, I urge that the Council not support
the proposal to downzone our Neighborhood Commercial boulevards.
Santa Monica needs to do everything it can address the housing shortage, especially for
affordable housing. More housing around Bergamot should be added to the current Housing
Element, not a substitute. This city has terrible traffic, partially because of the lopsided
jobs/housing balance. Only new housing can address this and many other needs.
Thank you,
John Zinner
John Zinner
john@zinnerconsultants.com
528 21st Place
Santa Monica, California 90402
Item 7.A 02/14/23
350 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Neil Cohen <storeroad@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:00 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
To the Councilmembers,
Stop it, please: stop it. Re: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a, please follow the lead of the Planning Commission and
do NOT upscale Montana Ave, Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard or Pico.
I ask you to take a five minute drive west to West Los Angeles/Brentwood and 'experience' Wilshire Boulevard between
Bundy and Federal - years ago there were abundant small shops and there was street life, but now among the mega-
developments there is nothing here that is 'human scale' and thus there is no pedestrian life to be found. West of "Big 5"
along Wilshire, among the 'consolidated' parcels and their large dull buildings it is a virtual dead cityscape only broken up
by ramps to underground parking garages. Is this what we want for Santa Monica?
As a Santa Monica resident since 1988, and a business license holder, please do not UPSCALE our walkable
neighborhood streets; if we upscale and allow for parcel consolidation you know the result will be the driving out our
remaining small businesses that work so hard to serve our communities.
Thank you,
Neil Cohen
California Avenue
Item 7.A 02/14/23
351 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Babak Mozaffari <bm@contactbm.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 3:50 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local
serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an alternative, it
should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element. Please
stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated--this
attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage. Bad
city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've needed to be built for
decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
Babak Mozaffari
bm@contactbm.com
525 Santa Monica Blvd, 404
Santa Monica, California 90401
Item 7.A 02/14/23
352 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:danielle moosbrugger <daniellemoosbrugger@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 7:44 AM
To:Phil Brock
Cc:Caroline Torosis; christine.parra@santaminica.gov; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick;
lana.negrete@santamonica.go; Oscar de la Torre
Subject:Re-Zoning of Ocean Park Blvd and Pico blvd
Hello all,
I am a lifelong resident, born and raised in Santa Monica. I am also a small business owner in Santa Monica. I would like
to express my STRONG disapproval of the rezoning of Ocean Park Blvd and Pico Blvd to allow structures to be permitted
to go up higher for housing projects.
As you know, replacing small businesses on Ocean Park Blvd and Pico Boulevard would force the current established
businesses to go out of business. The rents would skyrocket; look at our downtown Santa Monica area now! Empty
units, no one can afford the rent. Homeless people scattered amongst the residents and visitors. The downtown
businesses stay for short periods of time and then have to leave because the rent is so high. People that live here love
the small mom and pop businesses. The business owners are also residents many just down the street from their
businesses. There are businesses on Ocean Park that took many years just to get all the permits and had to come up
with how much money???? just to get a little a tiny bagel shop put in. If Ocean Park is rezoned big corporations are
going to come in and tempt the owners with a big pay out to sell their property. That means all the people that just
established their businesses will have to leave. It will also increase rates on everything that would be sold for the new
businesses coming in to offset their rent. there are just so many reasons I am strongly opposed from this happening.
Please listen to the people that live here and vote for you.
Sincerely,
Danielle Moosbrugger
2618 16th street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
‐‐
Danielle Moosbrugger
@danielle_moosbruggerjewelry
www.daniellemoosbrugger.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
353 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Jamie Grossman <maxineandleo0507@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:38 AM
To:Gleam Davis; Council Mailbox; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick; rosis@santamonica.gov;
councilmtgitems; parra@santamonica.gov; Lana Negrete
Subject:Don't change the zoning
Do not mess with what is currently working and getting more people out.
1. Changing the zoning on Ocean Park will be a nightmare, there is already too much traffic and with 2 schools in
the area more accidents are going to occur.
2. Ocean Park is filled with family‐owned and operated businesses, and this is what makes the areas so special
when people pay 3+ mm for a home it’s the neighborhood and community that excites them.
3. We have way too many high rises that are either already on Lincoln or will be going up. It’s important to fill
these locations before adding more.
4. Since pulling seating on the streets on main street, people go to Main Street. While there is still a good deal of
vacancies, this area now has a life and is now a place people come to from other areas. Asking small businesses
to pay more for outdoor seating is going to put them out of business and only hurt the street more as it will be
empty once again.
Solution Options:
Convert all the empty office spaces into residential ones. This would be so much more cost‐effective, and
environmentally friendly, and not change the structure of our beautiful city.
The business park that is largely empty now up on Ocean Park east of clover park could create so much housing
inventory .... so many of the small businesses up there have had to close because they lost so much $$$ when everyone
started working from home.
The empty restaurant on Ocean Park and Centinela should be converted asap.
Make the Santa Monica Mall into a residential on the top floor. The mall is empty with a ton of space and parking is
already available.
If you change the zoning to allow all the development issues you will be ruining this amazing community. You have so
many issues that need to be addressed with the developments today.
Please do not pass this bill when there is so much space already not being used to it's fullest. Do not take away our Main
Street parklets requesting small businesses to pay fees that cannot afford. We must look after our own.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
354 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Nancy Richler <rednancy@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 12:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:FEB14 2023 City Council Agenda Item 7a : OPPOSE upzoning
As your constituent, I urge you to vote NO regarding concerns covered in Item 7a on the FEB 14, 2023 agenda.
I have lived in Ocean Park for 41 years. I urge Council to OPPOSE "upzoning" our neighborhood commercial districts,
ESPECIALLY Main St. and Ocean Park Blvd.
OCEAN PARK is Santa Monica's ORIGINAL NEIGHBORHOOD. I tend to agree with the Planning Commission that we need
to keep the current zoning and NOT allow lot consolidation so we can preserve the charm of this special area.
While these items are under consideration, I'm wondering what visions you may have to encourage and extend the art‐
vibe we feel on the vibrant thriving Abbot Kinney Blvd.
Respectfully,
Nancy Richler
Santa Monica, Ocean Park resident for 41 years
Item 7.A 02/14/23
355 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Neal Payton <npayton@tortigallas.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 1:42 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
I am a resident of 1211 Grant Street, in the Sunset Park neighborhood. I am also an architect
and urban designer, and in that role had the opportunity to be the City's principal consultant on
the Downtown Community Plan.
However, today I write to urge you to not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to
downzone the City's Neighborhood Commercial boulevards. These underdeveloped
boulevards hold the possibility of significant capacity to address the housing shortage without
disrupting the residential neighborhoods behind them. Moreover, more residential density and
mixed-use development along these corridors, will actually help create the critical mass to
create more walkable neighborhoods and a more vibrant serving retail experience.
The City's corridors are actually fairly wide, and allowing taller buildings along them will
provide a more coherent edge condition and a better sense of 'spatial enclosure' which will
actually make walking more pleasant, especially, if the buildings are setback to allow at least
15' from curb to building face. and are accompanied by street trees. Additional housing along
these boulevards will also provide more 'eyes on the street' a key component Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED).
It is my understanding that the alternative being floated is to allow more housing in Bergamot.
While I also support more housing there as well, particularly to leverage the value of the LRT
station, this is not an alternative, but part of a larger strategy, i.e., both/and.
In thinking of new housing, we might consider how it can support the making of a sustainable
urban environment. A shorthand way to think of this is with the four Ds: Density, Diversity,
Design and Destination. If we treat the addition of new housing according to these four criteria,
we have the potential, to make a more walkable, equitable, sustainable, diverse, and vibrant
Item 7.A 02/14/23
356 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
city than we have a present. So, let's stop treating new housing, as something to run from, but
something to embrace.
Thank you,
Neal I. Payton, FAIA
Neal Payton
npayton@tortigallas.com
1211 GRANT St
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
357 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:greg chasen <gchasen@chasenarc.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 2:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Allow more housing on Neighborhood Commercial boulevards! Allow these streets to evolve
into vibrant walkable neighborhoods filled with both residents and more local businesses. My
own neighborhood close to downtown has been positively transformed by nearby mixed use
development - allowing me to walk and bike to take care of most of my daily needs - reducing
traffic and pollution. More housing is needed so my own kids can live in the area - legalize
more housing everywhere!
Thank you,
Greg Chasen
greg chasen
gchasen@chasenarc.com
1318 10th St
santa monica, California 90401
Item 7.A 02/14/23
358 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:fabrizio giorgi <giorgifabri@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Re: Upzone Oppostion
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council Members,
I oppose “upzoning” on Ocean Park Blvd, Montana Ave, and Main Street. I support the small businesses and want to
maintain the quality of these walkable streets. I urge you to protect these streets. I also oppose the personal guarantee
and water waste capital fee imposed on restaurants who want to continue to provide outdoor seating options for their
patrons on these streets.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Fabrizio Giorgi
1352 HILL ST
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
359 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Kirsten Campisi <kjcamp03@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:18 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick
Subject:Upzone Oppostion
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council Members,
I oppose “upzoning” on Ocean Park Blvd, Montana Ave, and Main Street. I support the small businesses and want to
maintain the quality of these walkable streets. I urge you to protect these streets. I also oppose the personal guarantee
and water waste capital fee imposed on restaurants who want to continue to provide outdoor seating options for their
patrons on these streets.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Campisi
1352 HILL ST
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
360 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:smanes1@aol.com
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please oppose any "upzoning" of Ocean Park Blvd. We are proud of the
small businesses in our area (specifically between 16th and 18th Streets),
and certainly don't want high rises to be built instead, which would change
the whole feel and atmosphere of our neighborhood to the point that we
would not want to live there any longer! Thank you. Stephen Manes and
Dr. Marta Vago (2929 16th Street, Santa Monica)
Item 7.A 02/14/23
361 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Julia Pratt <juliampratt@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:05 PM
To:Julia Pratt
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
As a life long Santa Monica resident I am writing to express my OPPOSITION to the upzoning of our neighborhood
commercial districts.
Julia Pratt‐Elkus
Item 7.A 02/14/23
362 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Katy MacLeod <katy_macleod@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2023 8:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Lana
Negrete; Christine Parra
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 7.A.
Dear Mayor Davis and Esteemed Council Members,
As a long time Santa Monica resident, please respect the Planning Commission and do not vote to upzone our
NC areas (Pico, Ocean Park, Main Street and Montana Avenue). Having 5‐ 6 story buildings in these areas will
threaten local businesses, livability, air quality, conservation, water sustainability and so much more. Let's
keep the character and livability of our great city. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Catherine "Katy" MacLeod
13 Year Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
363 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Anne Giammarco <AnniePatriceGia@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:35 AM
To:Phil Brock
Cc:Gleam Davis
Subject:Zoning Project
Good morning,
I recently read about a meeting for a new zoning project that would make 2 story buildings into 5 story projects on Pico
& Ocean Park Blvd.
A great part of the appeal of our area are the small Mom & Pop shops which have acquired great followings, and are
also wonderful for tourism.
I definitely do not want to see higher buildings in our area. It would be physically unattractive, potentially block some
views, and harm community businesses that have worked so hard to stay afloat. Plus, locals would not want the noises
of construction as projects like this can take a lot of time.
Please keep our buildings as they are and do not go through with this zoning project.
Thank you kindly!
Annie
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
364 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:ml.verville@verizon.net
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council Meeting 2/14/23 - Item 7A - Do not allow changes to NC districts that will eliminate
local and small businesses.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica and Sunset Park, I do not want my Neighborhood Commercial
districts on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard and Montana Avenue to be upzoned which
will eliminate our unique small and local businesses. Neither do I want a change in zoning to
allow lots on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard or Montana Avenue to be consolidated
which also will eliminate small and local businesses that provide for residential needs.
You have repeatedly stated the value of our small neighborhood businesses. I often hear that
we want a walkable city. Please do not implement destructive policies that will eradicate
these walkable resident resources in the name of the absurd RHNA targets that Council, and
this Mayor, had the opportunity to contest and chose not to.
Respectfully,
Marc Verville
Sunset Park
Item 7.A 02/14/23
365 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:ml.verville@verizon.net
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:43 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council Meeting 2/14/23 - Item 7A - Do not allow changes to NC districts and Parking behind
Main Street that will eliminate our historic local and small businesses.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
As a resident of Santa Monica and Sunset Park, I do not want my Neighborhood Commercial
districts on Main Street to be upzoned. I also implore you not to eliminate the parking lots
between Main Street and Neilson Way. Effecting such changes will eliminate our walkable
unique small and local businesses.
Main Street is the definition of a walkable city district. Please do not implement destructive
policies that will eradicate these walkable resident resources in the name of the absurd RHNA
targets that Council, and this Mayor, had the opportunity to contest and chose not to.
Respectfully,
Marc Verville
Sunset Park
Item 7.A 02/14/23
366 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Gretchen Goetz <ggoetzdesign@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:39 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:David Goetz
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a 35 year Sunset Park home owner on Pine Street near 14th Street, I strongly oppose “upzoning” on Ocean Park Blvd
and Pico Blvd.
We need to protect and support our unique, local businesses and the existing heights and densities of our neighborhood
commercial districts.
Our neighborhood is walkable, livable, friendly and seemingly thriving.
Please do not support upzoning that would drastically change that!
Thank you,
Gretchen Goetz
Gretchen Goetz
t 310‐452‐4278
c 310‐386‐2240
ggoetzdesign@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
367 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Clare Driscoll <cdriscollca@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:36 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am a resident in the Ocean Park area, and I agree with the Panning Commission and urge the City Council to protect
these neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation.
Please keep our neighborhoods unique and local with our small businesses and retain what makes Santa Monica special.
Sincerely,
C. Driscoll
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
368 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Megan FitzGerald <mfoodstylist@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:33 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers:
It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make the Sunset Park
neighborhood special. Please do not throw these businesses to the wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) districts on these two streets. Upzoning of our NC districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd.
has the strong potential to displace locally-owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to
Sunset Park residents. The loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will also be in direct conflict with
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives. We do not have to keep “growing” until we block out the
sun!
Megan FitzGerald
Santa Monica resident and homeowner since 1980
Item 7.A 02/14/23
369 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Catherine Gentile <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local
serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an alternative, it
should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element. Please
stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated--this
attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage. Bad
city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've needed to be built for
decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
Catherine Gentile
Catherine Gentile
cathiegentile1953@gmail.com
1128 Ocean Park Blvd., #312
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
370 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Wendy Dembo <wendydembo@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a -- Don't Ruin Santa Monica
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Sunday morning I walked with my friend on Montana Avenue. I returned some books to the library. We got a coffee at
one place and then a bagel at another. I ran into one of my neighbors and chatted with her. And my friend saw her son's
soccer coach. We stopped to chat. We commented on how lovely it is to walk on Montana Avenue. Besides walking on
the beach or on La Mesa, it is one of my favorite walks in Santa Monica. Montana Avenue has
character, interesting stores, and cute cafes. They are not all multinational chain stores.
I walked 12 blocks to the Aero on Saturday night to see "Boogie Nights" in 70mm. Paul Thomas Anderson spoke before
the screening.
If you upzone Montana, the first thing that will go will be the Aero. Which would be a huge loss to Santa Monica and
really the Westside.
Ocean Park from 18th to 16th street has become a destination. There are now great coffee, pizza, and bread spots.
Lincoln from the 10 up to Broadway and beyond, is not an enjoyable place to walk. It is a canyon of boxy buildings. It has
no character. My friends, who live close enough to walk to the new Trader Joe's, drive to the one on 23rd and Wilshire.
That whole area is void of character and community. For a friendly beach community, it is incredibly dystopian. Were
City Planners involved at all?
There is so much empty commercial real estate in Santa Monica. We don't need any more. We do need more housing,
but we don't need expensive housing that people from other countries use as a place to park their money.
I live on 21st and California. In the near future, there are going to be three new GIGANTIC buildings on Wilshire near me.
It is going to create so much more traffic on 20th street (where by the way, there is still no left turn light from Wilshire
onto 20th. It is so dangerous).
Wilshire, Santa Monica, and Lincoln Boulevards are already being turned into homogeneous ugly blocks of 4 and 5‐story
buildings with empty first floors.
Please don't take away what little character Santa Monica still has.
Please oppose the upzoning.
Thank you,
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
371 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Item 7.A 02/14/23
372 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Susan Alinsangan <hellosusan@me.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:Zina Josephs
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Please do not upzone our neighborhood commercial districts on Ocean Park Boulevard and Pico Boulevard.
These small, locally‐owned businesses are an intrinsic part of our Sunset Park community. They primarily serve our
neighborhood on a daily basis. By up‐zoning you’ll force out these small businesses that are the backbone of our local
economy‐‐and our community. And in their place we’ll get the types of businesses that can actually afford the kind of
overhead a new 5‐story building would charge. Businesses that don’t enrich or contribute to our neighborhood and we
really don’t need around the corner: like a Gap, or Lululemon. Maybe even a Sephora.
And calling Ocean Park a boulevard is a misnomer if there ever was one. Ocean Park is ONE LANE in each direction. With
5‐story buildings on both sides it will appear as if it were a wide alley. And there goes that iconic Ocean Park view driving
west toward the ocean. 10‐20 years from now people will wonder why the street is even named Ocean Park.
I understand that Santa Monica needs more housing, but what we need is more “affordable” housing. New construction
has so far not provided that. Case in point: 2903 Lincoln Boulevard, 47 units of which FOUR are affordable housing.
Those aren't compelling numbers, and that’s just one example. I’m sure that if we look at other Santa Monica new
housing construction data we might find more truths. And I’m not sure how new construction on Ocean Park and Pico
could or would, buck this seeming trend.
So if we’re looking to get creative with zones, let’s look at re‐zoning some office buildings that have an over‐abundance
of available space. What about zoning some of that existing infrastructure for residential (entire buildings can be a
combination live/work zone) and letting some of the go‐getter developers wrap their heads around that?
I also get that the idea is to flood the city with so much housing that it forces the per unit price down. But other cities
have tried this and failed. New York, San Jose, Maimi, Boulder, San Diego, Portland, Washington D.C., Austin, San
Francisco and many other cities have discovered one common truth: the same tide raises all boats. Said another way:
the same rising cost of living raises all costs. Even housing.
While much of the nation is embroiled in a housing shortage, we’re not likely to come out of it soon. Especially here in
Santa Monica. Who wouldn’t want to live in a beach city? We should play the long game and build‐‐but we need to build
for posterity not out of anxiety. Because like the saying, as long as we build, they will come. And people will keep coming
because Santa Monica is a nice place to live, so our housing shortage woes will never end.
Turning Ocean Park and Pico Boulevard into literally, Ravine Street is not conducive to “populous felix in urbe felici” or
“a happy people in a happy city”.
Otherwise known as the motto for the City of Santa Monica.
Kind Regards,
Susan Alinsangan
Item 7.A 02/14/23
373 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Amy Anderson <ananderson27@outlook.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline
Torosis
Subject:Item 7A - Housing Element Study Session
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,
Congratulations to staff and to Council for moving so expeditiously to implement the programs in the City’s State‐
approved Housing Element. Item 11A captures why quick adoption of the zoning and regulatory changes recommended
by the Planning Commission are crucial – we are in a housing affordability crisis. Decades of underbuilding and policies
discouraging housing growth mean that all sorts of households struggle to find housing options. It’s great that Santa
Monica recognizes how it can play a role in easing both the local and regional housing shortage with these new rules.
I’m proud to be part of a community that is leading in the adoption of pro‐housing regulations. Recognizing that ‐
‐ Where someone lives is the greatest determinant of economic outcomes,
‐ Living in a high‐resource community, like Santa Monica, offers unparalleled opportunity for families and
individuals to thrive, and
‐ Building housing in our jobs‐rich city can reduce traffic and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
I urge you to approve the official recommendation of the Planning Commission, including upzoning of Montana, Main,
Ocean Park and Pico. These are ideal locations for new residential development, given their adjacency to transit and
services, and the increased business and vibrancy that new residents could bring to these streets.
Thanks.
Amy Anderson
Item 7.A 02/14/23
374 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Troy Parr <troyparr@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
I am writing to voice my opposition to the upzoning of commercial districts up for consideration.
We do not need additional 5 story cookie cutter massive buildings. Santa Monica is quickly becoming an unrecognizable
mass of giant apartment/commercial buildings. Our city is losing its charm to these oversized developments. We need to
support our small businesses and stop replacing them!!
Sincerely,
Troy Parr
(Voter)
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
375 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Lora Cicconi <chicones77@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Hi,
I am a Sunset Park resident writing about the above agenda item to allow more commercial
development on South Pico and Ocean Park Blvds. I strongly urge you to keep the current zoning
limitations, since any more development will push out local businesses which are already
struggling. I personally visit many local businesses on both streets, including Thyme Cafe at least
once a week, Merrihew's Gardens every couple of months, Beadahs, as well as my capoeira studio,
Capoeira Besouro. I love going to each of these places, especially my capoeira studio. If you aren't
familiar with it, Capoeira Besouro is an amazing community space on 21st and Pico. Mestre Batata
used to have his studio on 29th and Ocean Park for many years before the rent became too high,
then he moved to a far inferior space in Venice for five years, and I feel so lucky to have him back in
Santa Monica in a beautiful space on Pico. The rent is high, but he is able to make it work but renting
the space out to other local dance instructors (salsa, hip hop) and even some photographers when he
is not using it. Everyone who comes by absolutely loves the studio, and those of us who attend class
regularly are really like a large family--it brings people together from all different walks of life with this
one shared interest. People often walk by and see us playing music and dancing and want to join in,
especially on Saturdays with the farmers market across the street. I am almost certain that Capoeira
Besouro and other local businesses would not be able to afford this neighborhood if it became
overtaken by 5-story buildings that only big companies could afford to rent. Please keep this
neighborhood a place where local businesses that bring communities together still have a chance.
I'm happy to answer any questions if it would be helpful.
Sincerely,
Lora Cicconi
3108 Pearl Street
Item 7.A 02/14/23
376 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Susan Freiman Ross <susanfreimanross@me.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; ocar.delatorre@santamonica.gov; Lana Negrete; Christine
Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Proposed Zoning Changes to Montana Avenue
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members Brock, Davis, DeLaTorre, Negrete, Parra ,Torosis and Zwick,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed zoning changes to Montana Avenue. A proud
Santa Monica resident, I have lived walking distance from Montana Avenue for nearly four
decades. My children were raised here, in what once was a sweet, modest neighborhood, and
now I’m helping rear my grandchildren in this area as well.
Our neighborhood has changed vastly over these past years. I have watched gas stations give way
to shopping plazas, our hardware store become a nationally known retail store, and local diners
replaced by Starbucks. Sadly, the children’s bookstore we used to frequent, the toy store, and
most of the children’s clothing boutiques have given way to mattress stores, hydration therapy
stations, facial salons, waxing salons and nail salons.
Although I bemoan the loss of the sweetness Montana Avenue held for me, it still has the feel of a
unique, fairly safe neighborhood, even though whereas it was a rarity to see a homeless person,
now it is commonplace. Another concerning change I’ve noticed is that traffic has increased
significantly on Montana Avenue. It has become much more dangerous to cross the street, and
finding a parking spot is nearly impossible, especially since we lost spaces to outdoor dining
venues.
Most importantly, please keep in mind that there are two large elementary schools and two
preschools on Montana Avenue, making the stretch from 7th to 24th Street very heavily trafficked
by young children, especially during drop off and pick up times. Well over a thousand children are
either walking, riding bikes, riding scooters, being pushed in strollers or being driven to these
Montana Avenue schools.
Increasing the volume of businesses and/or residential units along this already busy corridor is
highly ill advised. We have already lost so much of what has made our neighborhood safe and
special. Encouraging increased density will increase traffic and will further decrease our safety and
potentially put our children at greater risk.
I urge you to make the responsible decision to protect our children and to preserve our
neighborhood for future generations.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
377 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
10
Thank you,
Susan Freiman Ross
Retired Santa Monica‐Malibu Unified School District Special Education Teacher
Long Term Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
378 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
11
Vernice Hankins
From:JANET RICHARDSON <janetcrichardson@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 9:48 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Upzoning Montana Avenue
EXTERNAL
To All City Council Members and The City Manager:
I’m so against upzoning on Montana Avenue, and the negative impact that will have.
Further, lack of parking is already a nightmare for residents near Montana Avenue. This just makes a bad situation even
worse.
‐Why would you allow an increase in height? Because that’s what developers want?
‐With so many empty and shut‐down businesses in Santa Monica, why would you add more commercial space? That is
extremely irresponsible.
‐Most of the apartments just South of Montana Avenue don’t provide adequate parking, and it’s a nightmare for
residents. Why would you make matters even worse for residents?
Have some respect for the residents you supposedly represent. Do not increase height restrictions on Montana Avenue.
Janet Richardson
Item 7.A 02/14/23
379 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nora Reynolds Lerer <reynoldslerer@me.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 11:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear council members;
I support the recommendations made by the Planning Commission, to not allow the upzoning of the areas of Main
Street, Pico and Montana.
I urge the City Council to protect our neighborhoods and businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot
consolidation.
Please stop the destruction of our beach community and neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Nora Lerer
Santa Monica, Ca.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
380 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Bernice Glenn <btglenn1@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 11:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Protect ALL of our neighborhoods!
EXTERNAL
We who have lived in Santa Monica have used our local business for many years. We lost some of them when the
Downtown Mall opened its gate to national and world wide chains that do not serve the Santa Monica population!!!
They do not serve our local demographics! They do not serve tourists who do not need to see stores that are open
nationwide.
We need our LOCAL restaurants LOCAL clothing stores and LOCAL services!!!! Local serves not only those of us who LIVE
IN SANTA MONICA, BUT ALSO PROVIDE A SANTA MONICA EXPERIENCE TO OUR VISITORS.
I have lived in Santa Monica for fifty years and seen the Downtown degraded to a host of chain restaurants and clothing
stores that have no attachment to Santa Monica, and has become a hollow version of its past presence.
I have seen a hidden racist and higher income preference for the Montana district in its open Montana library choice
over libraries in lower income and mixed white brown and Black demographics.
I have seen a Santa Monica Council that persisted over time in calling the brown/black demographics evenly mixed
throughout the City, even when the US Cencus clearly showed otherwise!
While some Council members are breaking the old Council members voting preferences, the Santa Monica City Council
needs to work on major long‐term planning for all of Santa Monica needs and issues: and work with planners who have
the knowledge and education in these areas that members are lacking.
Bernice Glenn
a 50 year resident in Ocean Park, Santa Monica who has seen the degredation of the Downtown Mall,
and the preference of Council for North of Arizona solutions over the districts Pico and south!
Item 7.A 02/14/23
381 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:MinnieT's <minniets@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 11:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
To All Whom it May Concern,
We at Minnie T's are strongly opposed to the "Upzoning" of Ocean Park Blvd. As a shop owner at 1624 Ocean Park Blvd
for 10 years, I have cultivated a clientele that is predominately local and have experienced a unique sense of community
that is slowly being wiped out of Los Angeles with each new redevelopment project. I can honestly say that all who come
in our store, whether local or coming from across LA, are strongly against this proposal. Please think of the community
and the wishes of all those involved and vote against this soulless venture.
As our good neighbors at Santa Monica Yoga so perfectly put it, "Upzoning” would allow these unique Streets to be
developed with new five or six-story projects. The resulting demolition of existing buildings would displace and
eliminate most of the essential neighborhood-serving businesses. They would be replaced with higher rent tenants
like chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life and increasing traffic and
parking woes.
To allow this to happen would be a tragedy.
Best Regards,
Barbara Phillips, Stacy Wright, Cari Cantrell
1624 Ocean Park Blvd
Santa Monica CA, 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
382 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Carolyn Cohen <2carolyncohen@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Council agenda item 7A
EXTERNAL
Regarding the proposal to change and “up zone” several of out favorite walking streets: I think it’s a terrible idea. It will
eliminate the charm, add to traffic and take away our desire to buy local. Please don’t do this
Thank you
Concerned citizen,
Carolyn Cohen
Stanford street 90404
Sent from my iPad
Item 7.A 02/14/23
383 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Adam Gross <afgross@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I’m writing to strongly oppose upzoning along Pico and Ocean Park, which is being discussed
as 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A. I have lived between Pico and Ocean Park since 2008 and watched
traffic get worse and local businesses slowly go out of business and be replaced with empty
storefronts. New buildings have not filled their ground floor retail with small businesses and usually
sit empty, which is not just my observation but is supported by the 7.7% vacancy rate. This upzoning
will not result in a vibrant local street culture.
Traffic now spills onto Pearl every night while Ocean Park and Pico are filled. These aren’t local
residents but commuters leaving Santa Monica. Building larger buildings won’t result in these people
leaving comfortable homes to move into expensive and cramped Santa Monica apartments. Instead,
it will result in more traffic.
Please do not upzone our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Adam Gross
Item 7.A 02/14/23
384 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Lisa Priestley <priestley.lisa@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:46 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de
la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc:friendsofsp@yahoo.com
Subject:Oppose Upzoning Neighborhood Commercial zones - 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A: Study Session on
Implementation of the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Programs
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
It has just been brought to my attention that the city council is considering upzoning several neighborhood
commercial zones including my direct neighborhood bordered by Pico and Ocean Park Blvds. My husband and
I who have lived in this neighborhood since the early 1990s STRONGLY OPPOSE upzoning the Neighborhood
Commercial districts - 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A: Study Session on Implementation of the 6th Cycle (2021-
2029) Housing Element Programs Agenda. And AGREE with the letter submitted by the Friends of Sunset Park
and other neighborhood businesses.
The upzoning in our community especially on the two Neighborhood Commercial districts in our neighborhood:
Ocean Park Blvd. and the south side of Pico Blvd will harm our neighborhood local businesses and is
unnecessary. We agree as stated by FOSP that “It is the small locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd.
and and the south side of Pico Blvd. that "make" the Sunset Park neighborhood.” Please do not give away our
community to developers and greed by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts.
Please leave the height restrictions as they stand rather than increasing them, as proposed in the Housing
Element. Upzoning will push out small locally-owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential
services to Sunset Park residents not to mention many of these have been part of the community for many
years.
We agree with FOSP letter :
The loss of these neighborhood businesses will also be in direct conflict with Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH) objectives. The Issue: Upzoning of Sunset Park’s Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
District from a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and 32 ft maximum height to an FAR of 2.5 and 55 ft maximum
height.The NC districts in our neighborhood are the following areas on:
Ocean Park Blvd. from 16th to 18th: Merrihew's Sunset Gardens, Ghisallo (wood fire pizza and bread baked on
the premises), Hair Brains salon, Brooke Rodd Boutique, Wild Moon Kids, Bicycle Workshop, Santa Monica
Yoga, Bob's Market, Yoga-urt (plant-based soft serve), Antequera Bakery (Mexican breads, cakes, cookies,
and tamales), Edelweiss Flower Boutique, Goods LA (handcrafted artisan goods from around the world),
Quinnie & B – A Tiny Toy Shoppe, Local Kitchen & Wine Bar, Thyme Café & Market, The First School
(relationship-based, developmental preschool & transitional kindergarten), and Café Bolivar (coffee,
Item 7.A 02/14/23
385 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
sandwiches & South American arepas) Ocean Park Blvd. from roughly 25th Street to Centinela: OP Market,
Ocean Park Pharmacy, Classic Tailors, Juice Crafters, Blossom Vietnamese, Bubble Boba, Miyako Sushi,
National Mailbox Center/FedEx, The Counter, Il Forno Trattoria, Hurry Curry of Tokyo, Menchie’s Frozen
Yogurt, Crimson (Mediterranean kabobs), a small UPS store, and Caruso Enzo Custom Tailor Pico Blvd. south
side from Euclid to 16th: Cosmoprof (cosmetics), Byron Woodley Tire, and Nostalgia Bar & Lounge Pico Blvd.
from 20th to 31st: Campos Famous Burritos, Tel’s Barber Shop (3 generations of barbers), Santa Monica Lock
& Safe, Kick/Goju Ryu Karate, Westwood Appliances, Lo/Cal Coffee & Market, Sundance Physical Therapy,
Wilson Brothers Appliance Repair, Lazy Daisy, Z Garden Mediterranean, Lunetta, Sunset Car Wash, Gilbert's
El Indio, Paws & Effect Pet Spa, Tim Clarke Design, Eco Heads Salon, and Laura's Nails Selected Sites
Inventory (SSI) – The SSI is part of the Housing Element and lists properties “likely” to be redeveloped as
housing during the Element’s term (from now until 2029). Sites are listed using HCD’s site selection
criteria.There are 203 properties on the City’s SSI, of which 13 are in Neighborhood Commercial Districts. 12
are on Pico Blvd. and one is on Ocean Park Blvd. (the NE corner of 17th & OPB). The total housing unit
capacity, if the SSI sites are developed, is 13,000+ units. Of these, only 165 are in the NC Districts.The
Housing Element calls for the upzoning of 1,171 acres along the boulevards, in Bergamot, and Downtown. Of
these, only 71 are in NC Districts. Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. is unnecessary to meet Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing goals. 1) 50% of Sunset Park households have annual incomes at or below the Moderate Income
level. 2) Two Sunset Park schools (Rogers & JAMS) qualify for the Title 1 Federal lunch program, meaning that
at least 35% of students are from families at or below the Federal poverty level. The majority of students in both
schools are children and youth of color. 3) Of the approximately 7,000 housing units in Sunset Park, 3,309 are
rent controlled apartments with median rents affordable to households at moderate income and below; 2,645
are single family houses; and the remainder are condominiums or post-1979 apartment units. 4) The required
(LUCE) specific plan to be prepared for the Santa Monica Business Park will focus on mixed income housing,
which makes new housing in NC unnecessary. Impacts of Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. 1) Displacement of
locally owned businesses, a number of which are minority owned. 2) Loss of the commercial district altogether
since ground floor commercial space will not be required for new projects given the likely unmarketability of this
space for neighborhood serving businesses.
Although housing MAY be an issue there are already many new developments and the upzoning in these
areas will cause more harm than benefits FOR THE COMMUNITY! Please put the community, both residents
and long time contributing local businesses ahead of this push for unwarranted development in our already
congested neighborhood.
Sincerely
Residents
Elizabeth Priestley & John Wintersteller
2250 23rd Street
Santa Monica.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
386 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Tracy Lewis <tracybexplore@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:34 PM
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Council Member:
I am a longtime Sunset Park resident who is very concerned about any potential change in zoning for Santa Monica. I
am very against 2‐story buildings being demolished and replaced by 5‐story projects. We need to protect and support
the existing businesses on Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd and Montana Ave! Please protect Santa Monica's small businesses,
local residents and the character and uniqueness of our community by voting NO to this zoning change!
Sincerely,
Tracy Lewis
71 VIllage Pkwy,
Santa Monica, 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
387 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jenny Steadman <jennyschmidt78@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:16 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City council 2/14 agenda item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear representatives,
I’m a 22 year resident of ocean park and a 5 year resident of the Montana Ave area. I can assure you my neighbors
agree with me. To upzone ocean park, pico, and Montana is to destroy the remaining charms of our coastal city. Those
streets are not downtown but they are for locals and small businesses. If you want giant multiplexes you should focus
on the promenade and leave our local, small businesses alone. It doesn’t make any sense to create that traffic,
congestion, and invite a bunch of chain stores while the promenade remains a disaster.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Steadman
Item 7.A 02/14/23
388 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Teri Meyer <tmshopsalotla@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:17 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Upzoning Sunset Park
EXTERNAL
To All Parties Involved,
I’m writing you this morning at 1:00am because I am very troubled by the idea of upzoning my community. I have lived
on Oak Street between 17th & 18th street for 56 years street and I am greatly opposed to this idea. This is my
community and all of the businesses on OP that would be affected by the upzoning are apart of our daily life. We
support all of the small businesses. Goods, all of Brook Rodd stores. The Mexican Bakery, Santa Monica Yoga. We eat
at Local and Thyme, get out pizzas from Ghisallo and get our fresh bread from Juan Isaac and just recently bagels from
laylas. All of these small business are supported by my neighbors and the community. Closing any of these small
business would be losing a part of Sunset Park. Please vote NO on the upzoning.
Kindly,
Teri Meyer
Have a nice day!!!!
Have a nice day!!!!
Item 7.A 02/14/23
389 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Lynn Gephart <lynngephart@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:50 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members -
When my family first moved to Sunset Park, it was very specifically the proximity to Bob’s Market that sold us. I can’t
imagine Sunset Park without Tel’s, Merrihew’s and others. It’s these small locally-owned independent businesses
along Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make the Sunset Park neighborhood special.
I ask you to retain the existing heights and FARs in the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean
Park Blvd., rather than increasing them, as proposed in the certified Housing Element.
Not every square inch of Santa Monica needs to be filled with 5 story mixed use projects.
Thank you,
Lynn Gephart
Item 7.A 02/14/23
390 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:A NORRIS <amezzo@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:50 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear council members:
I am a 45 year resident of Santa Monica, a small business owner jn the Ocean Park neighborhood, a resident of the
Montana Ave neighborhood, and a voter. My family members are also small business owners in Santa Monica.
I strongly urge you to VOTE NO to any upzoning jn our city - especially not in Santa Monica’s neighborhood
commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue
(“Streets”). These four walking Streets contain most of the neighborhood-serving, affordable businesses residents
use in their daily lives – local food stores and restaurants, laundromats, shoe repair and pharmacies, all within a
short distance of people’s homes. Residents don’t just rely on them – they are a vital part of the fabric of our
community that contribute to making Santa Monica feel special.
We are already witnessing the over crowding, traffic issues, and building projects that DO NOT FIT OUR CITY’s
personality, people, or priorities. These neighborhoods and streets are among the last that make our city unique.
We’ll be watching your votes carefully.
Sincerely,
A. Norris
Item 7.A 02/14/23
391 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Kathleen Murphy <kathleenmurphyphotographer@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:31 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members
We are a Santa Monica family living in Sunset Park since 2001. Our
three children have attended SMASH, SAMO, and SMC schools. We shop
at local stores and eat at local restaurants. We drive, bike, skate and
walk all over town. I am writing to you about the upzoning of Ocean
Park Blvd, Pico Blvd, Main Street, and Montana Ave. We do not want it.
It will destroy the way of life in Santa Monica as we know it. Too
crowded, too many people, too many cars, increase in crime. We will
loose the local businesses we frequent and cherish. All these things are
bad. We are counting on you to protect our local streets.
Sincerely
Kathleen Murphy & Francis Whitebloom
Item 7.A 02/14/23
392 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Lerer <elerer@elizabethlerer.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:22 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Item 7. Zoning NC Districts
EXTERNAL
Re: Neighborhood Commercial Districts
Dear Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,
Please take the recommendation of the Planning Commission and make a request to amend the
approved Housing Element so the city can avoid upzoning all commercial districts uniformly. This
request should not put the city out of compliance.
Will YOU stand up, push back and negotiate with the State in order to protect our residential
neighborhoods?
Please make your individual positions on this issue clear.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
393 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Rosemary Sostarich <r.sostarich@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:03 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council mtg 2/24/23. Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Gleam and Council Members.
I am contacting you regarding agenda item 7A. Please maintain the NC districts to support small businesses and
residential shopping.
Thank you,
Rosemary Sostarich
Santa Monica Resident
Rosemary Sostarich
Item 7.A 02/14/23
394 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Amy Fraz <liviandme46@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:02 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:change of zoning
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I am a resident of Santa Monica and I do not want my Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico
Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard and Montana Avenue to be upzoned which will eliminate small and
local businesses. Neither do I want a change in zoning to allow lots on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park
Boulevard or Montana Avenue to be consolidated which also will eliminate small and local businesses
that provide residential needs.
Thank‐you for supporting local and small businesses,
‐‐
Amy F
Item 7.A 02/14/23
395 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Oak OConnor <oakoconnor@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 6:55 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick; FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda 7-A.
EXTERNAL
Ocean Park Blvd ‐ Sunset Park area is a wonderful family oriented neighborhood.
This beautiful stretch of small businesses and our neighbor hood market is flourishing happily without turning it over to
real estate developers without a need..
Downtown Santa Monica has many commercial vacancies. We don’t need the same here. Fill those first.
Traffic is already at it’s peak and commuters race down residential side streets during “rush” hours.
Please do not change the zoning of this area for the sake of a minority of few big bucks investors. The residents within a
3.5 mile circumference would be burdened by this over development.
No one who lives near this proposed area needs or wants 5 story commercial buildings.
James Oak OConnor
2117 Oak Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
oakoconnor@mac.com
310-993-3589
Item 7.A 02/14/23
396 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Ostrom <emo229@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 6:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:“2/14/23 agenda item 7-A”
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please, why do we constantly jump to "more is better" mentality"? 3rd Street Promenade, at first a success - but
then rents emptied out local businesses. Once gone, chain stores took over the Promenade - now they have
exited, leaving a sad and mainly empty shell of itself. The Santa Monica Mall was shifted to high end, huge
businesses. Who did it serve? Not the community, neighborhood - empty abandoned store fronts shout the
failure.
During COVID, so many areas of our city fell apart. Not the Ocean Park and Pico Corridor. Small beloved
local businesses were supported by our community. Our neighborhood continues to thrive.
A true community is not just about capitalism. Along with our successful commercial district, our true community
thrives with trust, inclusion, opportunity, and a feeling of belonging and being safe. That's what we are. Do not
destroy this. Please, do NOT upzone the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts to these two streets.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Ostrom
2519 21st Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
397 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Robin Mitchell <rmcobalt@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 6:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members
I live on Euclid Street just south of Ocean Park Boulevard. I have lived in this neighborhood for over
40 years. It is my home and community. I love the neighborhood and the character of this
community.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE NO TO UPZONING OCEAN PARK AND PICO.
There is already more traffic than the community can bear. You have approved the construction of an
enormous complex at Lincoln and Ocean Park that will bring even more traffic and congestion into the
neighborhood.
Ocean Park Blvd, especially between 16th and 20th Street is already impacted but it has character
and that character must be maintained. It is a major part of what makes living here special.
Upzoning this area is not progress, but a change of attitude and is not welcome.
Robin Mitchell
2614 Euclid Street
Apartment E
Santa Monica CA 90405
I agree:
“Upzoning” would allow these unique Streets to be developed with new five or six-story
projects. The resulting demolition of existing buildings would displace and eliminate most of
the essential neighborhood-serving businesses. They would be replaced with higher rent
tenants like chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life
and increasing traffic and parking woes.
Also being considered is whether to allow lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico
Boulevard, and Montana Avenue. If approved this would allow developers to consolidate lots
and build larger, mega projects on these Streets.
When the Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes it made a strong, well-
supported recommendation to Council against upzoning these Streets and urged the Council
to keep the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
398 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
The City Council needs to hear our voices. If you agree it’s important to “buy local” and
support local small businesses and maintain the quality of these walkable Streets, please
email the City Council by noon on Tuesday February 14, and tell them to protect these Streets.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
399 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:janet carpenter <artenviro1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 6:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Agenda 7a
EXTERNAL
I am opposed to the up zoning of Ocean Park. We need low density neighborhoods with small local businesses.
Janet Carpenter
2415 28th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
400 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:DARLENE VOGEL <dvogel1223@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 6:15 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick
Subject:Please protect our street from upzoning
EXTERNAL
Hello , I’m sure you won’t read this since you’ll be inundated with emails , but the community has spoken and we don’t
want any upzoning on our quaint streets of Santa Monica . We need to save our appeal of small town communities with
small business and not replace with big retailers and big buildings .
Keep ocean park , main st , pico and Montana the way they are . Save our city and our small businesses.
Thank you.
Darlene Vogel
Sunset park
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
401 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Shana Kaplan <Shana@wolffurban.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 5:14 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Protect our neighborhood streets from UP-ZONING!
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:
Please vote no on upzoning and lot consolidation. Please do not ruin our special city.
Shana Kaplan
922 14th Street
SM 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
402 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Dr. Anna Rogers <beagle.family@gte.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 5:01 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:A sound rejection of Item 7
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to you this morning to strongly urge and, as a longtime active resident and participant in city
affairs, insist that you reject in every way Item 7, the potential plan to “upzone” several streets including
Montana Avenue. Absurd and unnecessary 4, 5 or more story buildings among this street being forced upon
residents of our city would inevitably turn a quiet, pedestrian friendly street enjoyed by neighbors and tourists
alike into a clogged, constricted pipe of traffic, noise, gridlock and over-densification that gets thinner with time
until it bursts. No one benefits-no one is helped nor entertained, no one prospers other than the special interest
corporations and individuals who seem to have purchased a great deal of our property over time. They do not
live here. They could care less about the safety and quality of life of actual residents. But they would benefit
financially to the greatest extent. And this is where the ethics of priorities present themselves.
Several of you know this information to be true and will thankfully reject this damaging and unrealistic
intention. However, there are some whose minds are already made up and closed tight despite the valid and
consistent objections of residents who have lived in our small city for anywhere from a few years to many
decades. You do them more than a disservice to ignore, disrespect, and dismiss the credible concern and advice
of the people, particularly those with longtime experience in the areas of housing, local and state governance,
responsible, progressive development, and preserving what remains of the city’s architectural and cultural
history. Our comparatively smaller locally-owned, neighborhood-serving businesses are cherished and enjoyed
by many, while the diverse nature of both new and long standing restaurants and shops are ideal for individuals,
families and visitors. Many memories of walking along the streets, looking in windows, meeting friends and
shopping for unusual items you would never have found in a large commercial chain store have been and will
continue to be made.
To be clear, no one is “afraid,” misinformed, or possessing whatever demographic or political stereotype that
will most likely be thrown in their direction for opposing this potential catastrophe. In asking you to follow your
respective consciences, it is already obvious from past experience that some will be true to their oath of office
and some will look the other way to please donors and others who live outside of Santa Monica. The actual
consideration of such a flawed concept is not progressive in any sense of the word. Instead, this machination for
financial gain under the guise of progress or a twisted version of problem-solving represents many giant steps
backwards into an eventual over-densified debacle with consequences for which you would not want to be
responsible. Please think for yourself on this one, and remember that our 8 square miles represent a very small
town, regardless of the enormous profit to be made by the exceptionally wealthy few who see our beachside
home as a financial trophy and ignore the actual people living and working within city limits.
Sincerely,
Anna M. Rogers, Ph.D.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
403 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Lauri Fraser <laurifraser2@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:45 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; Lauri Fraser
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
.
Please refer to 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a in your email subject line and send it to:
Dear City Council Members,
I am a concerned resident and citizen of Sunset Park. I was born in Los Angeles and have been a
resident of Santa Monica for over two decades. I say this because I have seen lots of changes and
unfortunately the building and development of our precious city of Santa Monica has made it almost
impossible to do business or dine, or shop, due to over development and traffic and lack of parking.
PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW this to happen to Ocean Park Blvd. This is the last pocket of peace in Los
Angeles. So far it is still civilized. More development, high rises, over‐flowing parking lots may mean
more income for the developers and it will also bring in more traffic, and crime. Our neighborhood is
still a neighborhood. We are
PLEASE consider the human condition before you go for the dollar instead of the people.
Thank you for your time
Most sincerely,
Lauri Fraser
‐‐
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chapelle Villas HOA ‐
Owners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ChapelleVillas‐
Owners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ChapelleVillas‐
Owners/C53B7E9D‐95D9‐4A41‐A6CA‐FC2451332D64%40laurifraser.com.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
404 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Karen Sampson <kes1498@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:44 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Opposition to 2/14/23 City Council Agenda 7a
EXTERNAL
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to "upzoning" Montana Avenue.
I believe strongly in supporting the local businesses on Montana Avenue, and in maintaining the quality and walkability
of the area. From my understanding, "upzoning" would allow a level of development on Montana Avenue that would
destroy the very character and charm of this neighborhood where I shop, eat, and spend a lot of my time. I don't own a
car, so living within walking distance of this low‐key, quiet, and very safe neighborhood commercial district is a big part
of what makes my day‐to‐day life not only possible but also enjoyable. Allowing the personality of this neighborhood to
be stripped away in favor of commercial interests would be a terrible disservice to not only everyone who lives in or
spends time visiting the area but also to the city itself.
It was my dream for many years to move to Santa Monica; I came back year after year to vacation in the area with my
daughter, which is how I knew it was where I wanted to live out the rest of my life. Working remotely due to Covid gave
me a window of opportunity, and I made the move here exactly two years ago. Other than its proximity to the ocean,
the north of Wilshire/Montana Avenue area's walkability, suburban feel, and safety are the main reasons I relocated
here.
Frankly, I'm incredibly upset to hear that the city is willing to consider substantially altering the essential composition,
look, feel, and experience of Montana Avenue ‐‐ all for profit and money. Doing so would make Montana Avenue
indistinguishable from so many other areas of the city, stuffed to the brim with chain stores and high rises and traffic. If
you allow developers to combine lots and build five‐ or six‐story buildings on Montana Avenue, it will no longer BE
Montana Avenue.
I sincerely hope the Santa Monica City Council will think long and hard about this issue and its long‐term implications.
Please don't destroy the essence of the very place I longed for years to ‐‐ and now happily do ‐‐ call "home."
Sincerely,
Karen Sampson
Proud Santa Monica resident (for now)
Item 7.A 02/14/23
405 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Tracy Kahaner <kahanerr@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:43 AM
To:Shana Kaplan
Cc:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Re: Protect our neighborhood streets from UP-ZONING!
EXTERNAL
AMEN!
On Feb 14, 2023, at 5:13 AM, Shana Kaplan <Shana@wolffurban.com> wrote:
Dear Councilmembers:
Please vote no on upzoning and lot consolidation. Please do not ruin our special
city.
Shana Kaplan
922 14th Street
SM 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
406 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Danny Guggenheim <dbg20@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:37 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
We are strongly opposed to the proposal to upzone in our Sunset Park neighborhood.
We have lived in Sunset Park for 17 years, and have children attending Grant and JAMS. The existing character of our
neighborhood would be forever changed for the worse by the NC upzone proposal for Ocean Park and Pico. We and our
kids regularly walk around the neighborhood, visiting our favorite locally‐owned small businesses along Pico and Ocean
Park, including Ghisallo, SM Yoga, Bob’s Market, Local Kitchen, Thyme Market, Blossom, Il Forno, Vito, Olympia Club
barber shop, Lunetta, Gilbert’s and Lares. Our neighborhood revolves around the sense of community anchored by (1)
our strong public schools to which many students walk or ride bikes, and (2) flourishing small businesses to which many
of us walk or bike, with owners and staff who live among us, welcome us and participate and support our community
activities ‐ all mostly in the sunshine with a sense of openness and (usually) light traffic thanks to the low density and
low building heights.
Many of those who choose to move into (or stay) in these neighborhoods despite rising costs cite the uniqueness of the
neighborhood and local community that revolve around these features. More density and higher building heights would
be devastating to the Sunset Park identity and character ‐ there would be new development just for development’s
sake, necessarily increasing the costs of operating, which will push out the small businesses and bring in large national
businesses who can afford to operate without profits in desirable locations. This would also have the hugely
detrimental, depressing, and irreversible effect of our main streets ‐ often lined with students, families and other
residents going about their day on foot or on bikes, often with their pets ‐ being transformed from bright and airy
corridors to industrial‐like, uninviting, and unsafe‐feeling areas that are deprived from sunshine, open sky and
transparency. We don’t want to turn into downtown!
Several of you campaigned in front of our schools, introducing yourselves to parents who had walked or biked to school
with their kids, petting our dogs, and telling us how you’re just like us and share a vision for preserving and enhancing
our neighborhood and community, and want to focus the Council’s attention on the needs of our city’s residents. How
then could you even consider this proposal? Don’t forget who put you in office (hint: it wasn’t the staff who live outside
of SM), or what you said to us in person to get our votes ‐ we certainly have not forgotten ‐ and it would be a major
betrayal of trust to now decide to pull the rug out from under us by upzoning the NC districts on Pico and Ocean Park.
Respectfully,
Daniel Guggenheim
Sunset Park resident since 2006
Item 7.A 02/14/23
407 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Mimi Brown <mooie48@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:21 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/24/23 agenda item 7a
EXTERNAL
I am writing this email to indicate my very strong opposition to the "upscaling" proposition for Ocean Park Blvd and other
Santa Monica neighborhoods. I am a 30 year resident of the Sunset
Park area of Santa Monica. I patronize the local businesses. I also am concerned about the traffic in my
neighborhood. This proposal would make the traffic situation even worse than
it already is. Please vote NO . Thank you. Mimi Brown 310 963-7588
Item 7.A 02/14/23
408 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:RONNA JOSEPH <ronnaahj@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:06 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
I am a home owner in the Ocean Park area of Santa Monica. I live on Hill Street. I am horrified at the notion of up‐zoning
the area of Ocean Park Blvd. Please do not allow this over commercializing over populating to take over this street that
has so many charming businesses.
NO on up zoning.
Thank you,
Ronna Joseph
Sent from my iPad
Item 7.A 02/14/23
409 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sarah A Spitz <sasco1900@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:11 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:NO TO UPZONING
EXTERNAL
On this Valentine’s Day, do NOT break the hearts of Santa Monicans by approving upzoning in commercial districts.
There HAS TO BE A BETTER WAY to meet the state’s requirements than complete displacement of neighborhood‐serving
small businesses, increasing traffic (BAD for the environment so not in line with sustainability goals) and HIGHER RENTS
and PARKING PROBLEMS.
Do not give in to the pressure to create a Santa Monica no one recognizes!
NO ON COMMERCIAL ZONE UPZONING!
Sarah Spitz, KCRW Producer/Publicity Director (retired)
Culture writer, The Canyon Chronicle (current)
Former “Culture Watch” columnist, Santa Monica Daily Press (2011‐2020)
UC/CE LA County Master Gardener (2006‐active); Certified Master Food Preserver (2011‐2014)
Food Forward Kitchen Cabinet Advisory Board www.foodforward.org
CERT (Community Emergency Response Team 10) Santa Monica Volunteer
Item 7.A 02/14/23
410 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:09 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: 5 story building code Pico ocean park?
From: pattyhmj <pattyhmj@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 5:06 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: 5 story building code Pico ocean park?
EXTERNAL
Dear City Santa Monica's council members.
Hearing about a new code to be voted on for 5 Story building Pico Ocean Park? Is this correct?
Please keep the code the same The impact would be disasterious in our area of dense schools and walking streets.
Please do not add to crowding and construction...this is why we voted you in to keep taller buildings out and keep our
area safe.
Thank you
Patty
68 years in Santa Monica local resident.
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 7.A 02/14/23
411 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:billie williams <billiejoewilliams@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:09 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please Vote NO on Agenda Item 7a
I strongly oppose the suggested upzoning and expansion in these areas.
Billie Williams
24th Street
90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
412 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:09 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Keep Montana and Main Street as is!
From: Katherine Reuter <kereuter@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 4:21 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Keep Montana and Main Street as is!
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
Santa Monica's charm, and economic and tourist draw come from the City's charming neighborhood districts.
Please see if there is anything you can do with the State zoning requirements to especially keep Main Street and
Montana just as they are, and any new construction is in line with the current buildings. Are these historical zones?
If not these should be.
Thank you,
Katherine Reuter
1210 Grant Street
90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
413 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Sara Sluss <sara.sluss@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:46 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please DO NOT “upzone” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean
Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. Please leave neighborhoods intact. Not every building, every
block needs replacement with multi story buildings. We need neighborhoods that feel like neighborhoods. We need
our existing local businesses, not chain stores. These businesses survived a pandemic. Please do not kill them off
with overdevelopment.
Thank you.
Sara Sluss
2129 Glencoe
Venice, CA
Item 7.A 02/14/23
414 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Janis Flax <janisflax56@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:43 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Please don’t up-zone Santa Monica!!
EXTERNAL
Save Bobs’s Market, Save Santa Monica Yoga, Save Yoga‐urt!
Do not get rid of the small businesses that make Santa Monica a neighborhood!
Please!!!
Janis Flax
2694 31st Street
Santa Monica 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
415 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:43 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:Ann Maggio
Subject:2/14/23 Council Meeting - Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Show me a city where chain stores and vanity spaces didn't take over retail and restaurant spaces when cities
upzoned and I'll sell you a bridge to Mars for a dollar.
NO DOUBLEWIDE LOTS!
Moral bankruptcy could lie in the majority and if Gleam has her way she'll gut the folks fighting to
make home ownership a reality for the renters in this town.
Thanks in advance to those of you who will vote NO on the upzoning of Montana, Pico and OP Blvd.
You already know there is little to NO OPEN SPACE within walking distance for the vast majority of SM
children because they live in apartments and have no yards. So, WHERE WILL THEY PLAY?
Your individual decisions have been made so on with your charade.
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ‐ Albert Einstein
Item 7.A 02/14/23
416 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Paula Kayton <pekayton@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:36 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please do NOT vote to up‐zone Santa Monica commercial districts including Montana Avenue, Main Street, Ocean Park
and Pico Boulevard. We, who live in Santa Monica, need to be able to be listened to and do NOT approve of this
possibility. Please protect the current streets and businesses.
Paula Kayton
722 Adelaide Place
Santa Monica 90402
Item 7.A 02/14/23
417 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:BStolier <billiam101@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I have recently become aware of the “upzoning” and lot consolidation recommendation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico
Boulevard, and Montana Avenue. As a
40+ year resident and homeowner in Ocean Park, we vehemently oppose this idea. It will completely ruin the unique
character and charm of these neighborhoods and
turn them into cookie‐cutter retail chain abominations.
Horrible, horrible, horrible idea and a ghastly mistake.
We are not opposed to growth and density, but these are not the places to do it. Leave the larger development to
Lincoln Blvd and downtown Santa Monica.
Thank you for listening and please don’t ruin these unique neighborhoods and the unique local businesses.
William Stolier
Kathy Weber
2707 Highland Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
418 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellen Hiura <ellen.hiura@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:31 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda item 7a
EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Dear Council Member(s):
As long term Santa Monica homeowners in Sunset Park, we wish to express our vehement opposition to up zoning on
Ocean Park Bl, Main St and Montana Ave.
Sincerely,
Ellen and Howard Hiura
Item 7.A 02/14/23
419 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:12 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Housing element amendment
From: ejs2514 <ejs2514@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 3:52 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Housing element amendment
EXTERNAL
Please approve the proposed upzoning of the Bergamot Plan area Replacement Site at 1757 Stanford Street, as
requested by the property owner.
Please reject the proposal to undo existing upzoned areas along Main, Montana, Pico, and Ocean Park.
As a resident of Sunset Park, both Ocean Park and Pico need upzoning for increased pedestrian/retail activity and
vitality. Significantly, retail uses are consistent with upzoning, and neighborhood commercial (NC) zoning uses can be
incorporated as street level occupancies within new developments (example: the recent development at 28th and Pico).
Best wishes
Ed Salisbury
2514 30th Street
Santa Monica
Item 7.A 02/14/23
420 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:12 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: No upzoning
From: Richard Orton <laxlon@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:01 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: No upzoning
EXTERNAL
I've lived in Santa Monica since 1970 and I don't want the council to vote for increased density this would involve. We
already have 10,000 people per square mile and it is crowded enough.
Don't make it worse.
Richard Orton
Ocean Park
Item 7.A 02/14/23
421 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:11 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
From: Faustino Garza <Faustino_Garza@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 7:40 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
As a 35‐year homeowner and resident of Santa Monica, I wish to express my strong opposition
to any proposal to "upzone" our commercial district walk‐streets: Ocean Park Ave; Montana
Ave; Main Street, and Pico Blvd.
I also oppose any proposal for "lot consolidation" along Ocean Park Blvd; Pico Blvd and
Montana Ave.
Such proposals would lead to the closing of many, if not most, of our remaining local
businesses while turning over these sites to corporate investment and development.
I urge you to enact policies to maintain existing heights and densities along these streets,
which are vital to maintaining any remaining local character to our city.
We've had more than enough destruction of our quality of life.
Faustino Garza
Sunset Park
Item 7.A 02/14/23
422 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Item 7.A 02/14/23
423 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:joey brighton reynolds <joeyreynolds@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:09 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A -- OPPOSE upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial districts
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
I have lived on Ocean Park Blvd (and 14th) for almost 17 years. I love my sweet, quiet neighborhood. I love the small
town feeling that it still has. I OPPOSE upzoning any neighborhood in Santa Monica and especially mine.
Thank you and sending some extra love on this Feb 14th.
Joey Brighton Reynolds
Life Coach with a side of woowoo
ACC, CPC, ELI‐MP
www.joeybrightonreynolds.com
Join me on Tuesdays…
Item 7.A 02/14/23
424 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Erin Jones <eejonesy2001@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:03 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I oppose the proposed upzoning of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main
Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.
If you allow these unique streets to be developed with new five or six‐story projects, what will happen
to our loved and valued small businesses? Santa Monica Yoga, Bob’s Market, Merrihew’s, Rita’s Rags,
Art’s Table, Caffe Luxxe to name only a few!
It saddens me to think of these charming streets losing their homey neighborhood feel, with tall
buildings blocking out the sun and with traffic to match Lincoln Boulevard. No thank you!
When the Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes it made a strong, well‐supported
recommendation to Council against upzoning these Streets and urged the Council to keep the existing
heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts.
Let our long‐standing business maintain their foothold ‐ please honor their contributions to our City!
Let Santa Monicans continue to support our treasured small businesses, and enjoy the walkability of our
neighborhood commercial districts!
Find another solution to the housing mandates!
Erin Jones
Wilmont Neighborhood Resident and Avid Walker
Item 7.A 02/14/23
425 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:nancy GOODSTEIN <nancygoodstein@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:03 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Upzoning in Santa Monica
EXTERNAL
Currently the city of Santa Monica already struggles to protect and maintain its homes and businesses. Upzoning would
invite investors whose motivation is to make money, not create community. Even if it does not lead to empty buildings
and unfinished projects, which is likely, it still is very likely to lack the charm and personality which draws tourists,
businesses and residents. There will be increased traffic, and even higher crime rates and disenchantment with what
used to be the city others aspired to be. Invest in our current residents and business owners to encourage organic
growth which will inherently is built upon both capital and heart. That is what makes a great city and community. That is
real vision.
Sincerely,
Nancy Goodstein
310‐709‐1839
Item 7.A 02/14/23
426 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Linda Larson <lindalarson26@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:01 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick; FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 Agenda Item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Counsel members,
I have been living in Sunset Park since 1988. I moved to this area with my two daughters because of the walking distance
to schools, Clover Park, Bob’s Market, Sunset Gardens Nursery, the Fairview Library, and the various shops and cafes
within the immediate area. These smaller businesses are the HEART of our neighborhood. Families thrive on the
familiarity and convenience of these things. Our “smaller, independent" businesses have provided us community and
opportunities to engage with and support one another. Allowing for the development and construction of larger
buildings along Ocean Park Blvd. would destroy what is loved, appreciated and important to our community.
PLEASE do not promote a zoning change to this area.
A Zoning change would be damaging to this neighborhood and the people who live here.
Please VOTE AGAINST a change to the Zoning Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Linda Larson
Item 7.A 02/14/23
427 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Brent Cohen <brentc123@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
We are writing to ask that you do your job to protect our city’s neighborhoods and small businesses. I urge you to follow
the Planning Commission’s recommendations to keep current zoning and NOT allow lot consolidation on Main Street
Ocean Park Boulevard Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.
It’s time the city shows more care and consideration to its residents and spend less time, money and attention catering
to developers.
Thank you.
‐ Brent & Wendy Cohen, 2254 Cloverfield Blvd.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
428 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Esther Hickman <estherheidi@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:57 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Cnl. meeting 2/14/23 - Item 7A- Do not allow changes to NC districts that will eliminate local
and small businesses + a master plan
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
Please do not authorize the upzoning or any zoning change to Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Boulevard,
Ocean Park Boulevard and Montana Avenue which will irreversibly harm small and local businesses.
Making it more profitable for developers to transform our industrial and commercial zones into residential/mixed used
housing could make for a more elegant transition. Other cities throughout the world have successfully adopted this
model. Santa Monica can accommodate far more density while keeping it's beautiful beach side facade, attracting
people from all over the world.
Please help reverse the reputation that Santa Monica doesn't support local and small businesses and that Santa Monica
adopts a provincial view when it comes to master city planning.
‐‐
Esther Hickman (Pico Neighborhood Resident)
310.600.7306
Item 7.A 02/14/23
429 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Nancy Ong <nong618@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:55 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Upzoning
EXTERNAL
Please, please vote against upzoning and stop the “Manhattanization” of Santa Monica! We have enough apartment
buildings replacing businesses already, which no one can afford, and creating a traffic nightmare and do not need to
destroy the diversity of our neighborhoods further. SLOW DOWM all these changes and see the ramifications of projects
already in development before doing any more. Nancy Ong
Item 7.A 02/14/23
430 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Margaret Bach <mnlbach@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:35 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Jesse
Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Cc:NOMABoard@gmail.com
Subject:Item 7: Housing Element and Neighborhood Commercial
EXTERNAL
To the City Council,
For the well‐being of our community, neighborhoods, and our local small businesses, I urge you to refrain from any
upzoning to the neighborhood commercial zoning designation. Any increase in heights and density along our treasured
shopping districts would have a deleterious effect on their viability and role as neighborhood‐serving businesses. Small
businesses would be priced out of the market with the higher rents that would result from new developments ‐‐ thus
creating a double‐whammy: for residents and for our valued local businesses.
Surely there is a way of satisfying the requirements of the Housing Element without sacrificing our neighborhood
commercial districts.
Please listen to the voices of your constituents, the residents of Santa Monica, and reject any modifications to the
Neighborhood Commercial zoning now in place.
Sincerely,
Margaret Bach
Item 7.A 02/14/23
431 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Esther Hickman <estherheidi@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:33 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine
Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Item 7A: Prioritize Affordable Home Ownership Opportunities
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor David and Members of the City Council,
While all of these city planning decisions are made I hope that Santa Monica can lead the way in affordable
homeownership opportunities for current resident renters. This has been done in many ways throughout the
country. We don't even have to reinvent the wheel but we could be West coast leaders. So many incredible
models! TORCA 2 is brilliant, 80/20 developments, Industrial/Commercial Conversions with 80/20 models, Habitat for
Humanity partnerships, Land lease models on church and city owned land. Endless. Let's think 20% Affordable Deed
Restricted Units. Why should all the wealth be consolidated with developers and non‐profit affordable housing
corporations. Why aren't we empowering our renters to become homeowners or worse yet, they keep their rent
control units and buy investment properties outside of Santa Monica. Let's empower people to pay property taxes in
Santa Monica. AND you don't need to upzone or change zoning in Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico
Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard and Montana Avenue which will irreversibly harm small and local businesses. There is
plenty of land and opportunity and sustainable city planning with your leadership!
THANK YOU!
Esther Hickman
310.600.7306
Item 7.A 02/14/23
432 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:kbenk2u@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:29 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
It is the small locally owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make Sunset Park neighborhood
special. I have lived in this neighborhood /community for over 29 years and my daily walks are so inspiring. I love the
locally owned business that create this community, along with the engaged residents.
As I see it. there would be no benefit nor is there a need for upzoning in this community.
Karyn Benkendorfer
2027 Euclid Street, Apt. F
90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
433 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Mathew Millen <matmillen@msn.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:27 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Oscar de La Torre; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra
Subject:2/14 #11A STOP DUMPING REGIONAL SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE PICO NEIGHBORHOOD
EXTERNAL
Stop Dumping Regional Social Services In the Historically Segregated Pico Neighborhood
The Pico Neighborhood has the following Regional Social Service Programs
1. CLARE Fdn residential housing for substance abusers
2. Salvation Army residential housing for substance abusers
3. Two Ocean Park Community Center 55 bed homeless shelters
4. Two facilities The Manor housing for the mentally ill (whose residents have committed 2 murders)
5. 55 Unit 4 story homeless housing at 14th and Michigan w/ 5 parking spaces for residents, across the
street from a pre school
6. 84 Unit SEVEN STORY HIGH homeless housing w/ 26 parking spaces at 1634 20th St. 1 block from
Crossroads school (architectural renderings look like the LA County Jail)
7. City developed low income housing projects on almost every block that the State of Calif. Dept of
Housing determined "perpetuated segregation"
IF THE CITY INTENDS TO USE THIS DECLARATION OF AN EMERGENCY TO APPLY FOR FUNDS TO HOUSE THE
HOMELESS WHO COME HERE FROM
EVERYWHERE, THERE MUST BE A PROHIBITION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE PROJECTS IN THE PICO
NEIGHBORHOOD. We have more than our fair share, now the Wilshire to San Vicente Blvd
neighborhood can provide these services. if the City wants more facilities., build a 7 story homeless housing
project on Montana Ave if the Council wants more Regional homeless housing.
The City should offer our highly paid grant applicant staff to other cities so those cities can provide homeless
housing. Call La Canada Flintridge, San Marino, Bradbury,
Arcadia, Cerritos, Altadena, Rancho Palos Verdes, Manhattan, Redondo and Hermosa Beach and assist those
cities in applying for grant money to build homeless housing.
Mathew Millen
16th St. 90404
Item 7.A 02/14/23
434 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Angelique Glennon <angelique90403@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:17 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Cnl. meeting 2/14/23 - Item 7A- Do not allow changes to NC districts that will eliminate local
and small businesses.
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I am a resident of Santa Monica and I do not want my Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park
Boulevard and Montana Avenue to be upzoned which will eliminate small and local businesses. Neither do I want a change in
zoning to allow lots on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard or Montana Avenue to be consolidated which also will eliminate
small and local businesses that provide residential needs.
Thank‐you for supporting local and small businesses,
Angélique Glennon
Santa Monica
Item 7.A 02/14/23
435 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Kathy KelleherMcCarthy <kathykelleher@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:10 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:re: Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd and the south side of Pico Blvd.
EXTERNAL
February 14, 2023
To: Santa Monica City Council
RE: 1/18/23 agenda item 7-A
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
It is the small, locally-owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd that make Sunset Park
neighborhood unique and wonderful for people who live here but also patrons who come
for the particular small town feel of OP Blvd and south of Pico. I am a 30+ year homeowner
of Sunset Park. I’m particularly interested in retaining the existing heights and FARs (Floor
Area Ratio) in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park
Blvd., rather than increasing them, as proposed in the certified Housing Element.
Upzoning our NC districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd. could potentially displace
locally-owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to Sunset
Park residents.
The loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will also be in direct conflict with
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives.
The Issue: Upzoning of Sunset Park’s Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District from a 1.0
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and 32’ maximum height to an FAR of 2.50 and 55’ height.
The NC districts in Sunset Park are
Ocean Park Blvd. between 16th and 18th (Merrihew's Sunset Gardens, Bob's
Market, etc.), and between 25th Street and Centinela (Ocean Park Pharmacy,
National Mailbox Center, tailor shops, numerous small restaurants, UPS, etc.)
Item 7.A 02/14/23
436 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
South side of Pico Blvd. between Euclid and 16th, and between 20th and 31st
(Campos Famous Burritos, Superfast Copying, Sunset Car Wash, Gilbert's El
Indio, Paws & Effect dog grooming, Laura's Nails, etc.)
Selected Sites Inventory (SSI) – The SSI is part of the Housing Element and lists
properties “likely” to be redeveloped as housing during the Element’s term (from now until
2029). Sites are listed using HCD’s site selection criteria.
There are 203 properties on the City’s SSI, of which only 13 are in Neighborhood
Commercial Districts. 12 are on Pico Blvd. and one is on Ocean Park Blvd. (the NE corner
of 17th & OPB). The total housing unit capacity, if the SSI sites are developed, is 13,000+
units. Of these, only 165 are in the NC Districts.
The Housing Element calls for the upzoning of 1,171 acres along the boulevards, in
Bergamot, and Downtown. Of these, only 71 are in NC Districts.
Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. is not necessary to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
goals.
1. 50% of Sunset Park households have annual incomes at or below the Moderate
Income level.
2. Two Sunset Park schools (Rogers & JAMS) qualify for the Title 1 Federal lunch
program, meaning that at least 35% of students are from families at or below the
Federal poverty level. The majority of students in both schools are children and
youth of color.
3. Of the approximately 7,000 housing units in Sunset Park, 3,309 are rent
controlled apartments with median rents affordable to households at moderate
income and below; 2,645 are single family houses; and the remainder are
condominiums or post-1979 apartment units.
4. The required (LUCE) specific plan to be prepared for the Santa Monica
Business Park will focus on mixed income housing, which makes new housing in
NC unnecessary.
Impacts of Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd.
1. Displacement of locally owned businesses, a number of which are minority
owned.
2. Loss of the commercial district altogether since ground floor commercial space
will not be required for new projects given the likely unmarketability of this space
Item 7.A 02/14/23
437 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
for neighborhood serving businesses. (This could include the Bob’s Market
property, which is currently for sale.)
Conclusion -- To reiterate, I support the letter from the 3 Planning Commissioners
regarding retaining the existing FAR and height limit in the Neighborhood Commercial
areas of Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Kelleher McCarthy
1206 Grant St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
438 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Jan Cherubin <jancherubin22@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:10 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Upzoning
EXTERNAL
Hi Council People,
I'm a longtime resident of Sunset Park and I'm concerned about the plan for Santa Monica that
involves upzoning. What's good for Pico Boulevard is not necessarily good for Ocean Park
Boulevard. Pico with its tire stores, gas stations, and motels could use more housing and a
vibrant street life. But Ocean Park Boulevard already provides housing for diverse income levels,
with a mix of locally-owned retail shops that serve the neighborhood. Please don't paint with
such a broad brush. Why not upzone Pico and see how that goes? That makes more sense than
bulldozing so many neighborhoods and paving them with good intentions.
Sincerely,
Jan Cherubin
1710 Oak Street
Santa Monica 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
439 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Peter Spelman <pspelman829@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:45 AM
To:Bea Nemlaha
Cc:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Re: City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A; Protect Neighborhood Serving Streets
EXTERNAL
Hello All:
I totally and completely agree with Ms. Nemlaha's comments. Please do your part to keep this little section of Santa
Monica as beautiful and people‐friendly as it has always been.
Thank you.
Peter Spelman
45 year Ocean Park resident
730 Marine St.
SM 90405
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 11:02 AM Bea Nemlaha <tobea@nottobe.com> wrote:
Honorable Council Members,
Please use your authority to protect Santa Monica’s unique Main and Montana Streets and
portions of Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards from ever higher buildings and more
density. Greater density and taller buildings would inevitably result in loss of their sunny
walkable appeal and neighborhood serving businesses.
Apply to the State to modify our City’s Housing Element to exempt these Neighborhood
Commercial Districts from upzoning. Upzoning would allow significantly taller buildings than
these streets currently host. Resulting increasing rents would drive out small, local
businesses.
Main Street in particular is a draw for many Santa Monica visitors and tourists. Its one and
two story low rise buildings, many historic and beautiful, create an appealing destination for
them. Please don’t lose that. Certainly there are a few places in our City where we can afford
to save a bit of what was and is special about Santa Monica. Main Street is one.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
440 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Bea Nemlaha,
43 year Ocean Park Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
441 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:BC <bcc333@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:45 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a - Please NO to Upzoning!
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
The city has allowed developers to consolidate lots and build larger, mega projects on our streets for
at least the last 10 years.
We urge the City Council to please protect OUR neighborhood and small businesses by keeping the
current zoning and NOT allowing lot consolidation.
Sincerely,
Billy
Item 7.A 02/14/23
442 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Will von Bernuth <wvonbe@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council,
As a long time Santa Monica resident I am concerned about the proposal to upzone neighborhood commercial districts
such as Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd., Pico Blvd., and Montana Ave. I'm also concerned with the proposal to allow lot
consolidation in these areas.
I'd like to voice my opposition to these proposals and am glad to hear the city planning commission is also opposed to
them.
I enjoy the local feel and flavor of these communities and believe with upzoning local merchants and eateries will be
forced out due to higher rents. I also believe 5 and 6 story buildings will block out the open feel and nature of these streets
leaving us with dark corridors.
These street are wonderful places for our community to shop, eat, and lead our daily lives. I do not want to see them
upzoned and I do not want lot consolidation to be approved.
Thank you for your time,
Will von Bernuth
Item 7.A 02/14/23
443 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Kathy Knight <kathyknight66@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2-14/23 Agenda Item 7-A
EXTERNAL
February 13, 2023
To: Council Members Phil Brock, Gleam Davis, Oscar Delatorre, Lana Negrete, Christine Parra,
Caroline Torosis, Jesse Zwick
From: Kathy Knight and Joe Faris,
Sunset Park Residents on Oak St. for 36 years
kathyknight66@gmail.com
(310) 613‐1175
PLEASE DO NOT approve ANY change in the allowed height of the Neighborhood
Commercial Districts on Ocean Park Blvd., Pico Blvd. or Montana Ave. Such a change
could end up up with our wonderful neighborhood business districts ruined by the businesses
taken out and up to 5 story high residential buildings with retail on the bottom. Our local
businesses that we love would not be able to survive in such an environment.
Such a plan is also very bad for the following reasons:
1. There has not been proper notification to our local Neighborhood Commercial District businesses on Ocean Park
Blvd. Today, February 13, 2023, I and another person walked Ocean Park Blvd. between
16th St. and 18th St. We talked to representatives in most of the businesses. We were surprised
to learn that all the businesses except one did NOT KNOW about this proposal!
They were shocked and upset by the news.
2. There needs to be full disclosure to each business in these NCD’s of what is being proposed.
3. These neighborhood businesses are very popular with the local population. Today on our walk,
Bob’s Market at 17th St. was totally full inside and the parking lot was totally full.
Thyme Cafe in the same block was jammed at lunch time. We had to go back later
to talk to them.
4. Having these NCD’s cuts down on car trips. We can WALK to these businesses. We walk
to Bob’s Market every other day to do shopping. We not only get our healthy organic food there,
but we also get good exercise in walking that keeps us in very good health.
AGAIN, PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO OUR WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
Thank you.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
444 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Item 7.A 02/14/23
445 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:lflaten4@gmail.com
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:41 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Upzoning Pico Blvd/Ocean Park Blvd.
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I and my husband have lived in our home on Cloverfield Blvd. since 1971. We have witness the continual building in
Santa Monica.
I write to ask you NOT to up zone Pico Blvd and Ocean Park Blvd. To have no more than 2 stories in these areas helps
maintain some sense
of community and livability. There are already so many multi storied buildings built or under construction in the city.
When they are completed and occupied, I can only guess at the difference in traffic and congestion.
Leave at least some areas with limitation of 2 stories and DO NOT UPZONE parts of Pico Blvd … and Ocean Park Blvd.
Also the plans for the Gelson’s market area are so inhuman in skill and size. City Council needs to protect our city.
Thank you for your attention to my thoughts.
Sincerely,
Leota Flaten
Item 7.A 02/14/23
446 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Kelley McIntosh <kmac@zakhill.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers –
I am a business owner in Santa Monica, with offices located on Ocean Park Blvd and a hom eowner in the Sunset
Park neighborhood, just off Pico Blvd.
I oppose the upzoning of the Neighborhood Commercial districts on these two streets. It is the sm all locally-
owned businesse s on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make the Sunset Park neighborhood special. There
are plenty of com m ercial areas within the city limits alre ad y prepared for the businesses upzoning attracts,
whereas Santa Monica depends on maintaining the intimate neighborhoods like Sunset Park, Pico Blvd and
Ocean Park Blvd, that support locally-owned sm all and eclectic businesses. It’s what makes Santa Monica a
wonderful hom e and an exciting destination for others.
Please do not throw locally-owned businesses to the wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
districts on these two streets.
Thanks,
Kelley
Kelley McIntosh
SM small business owner and Sunset Park resident
310-460-6096
kmac@zakhill.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
447 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Karen Croner <kcroner@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:37 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:Charles Andrews
Subject:Upzoning
EXTERNAL
I am writing to oppose up zoning on Ocean Park and Main Street. It is a strong community that absolutely depends on
our small mom and pop shops. I also firmly believe that Mayor Gleam should recuse herself from voting on this the
because her husband is a real estate lawyer who makes money from development in Santa Monica. I don’t know if any
others on CC profit from development but they should also recuse themselves if they do. If any CC members were
elected from developer funds and they vote for Upzoning, it will become time for a criminal investigation into bribery.
Do the right thing. Save Ocean Park blvd and Main Street so that Santa Monica is a special city that people will want to
visit. Keep it special and Santa Monica will be profitable again. Which you all desperately need.
Thank you,
Karen Croner and Jonathan Feldman
Santa Monica residents.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
448 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jackie Stansbury <jvstansbury@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:52 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
No upzoning! The density in our city has become unsustainable. Protect our existing small businesses and the
quality of life for our residents.
Overdevelopment of a seaside community will NEVER lead to affordable housing. You will be creating
problems, not solving them.
Sincerely,
Jackie Stansbury
Jackie Stansbury
jvstansbury@gmail.com
(310) 339-9417
Item 7.A 02/14/23
449 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:JC <kcl@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:52 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
In regards to today’s agenda item 7a, I urge the City Council to please protect these neighborhood and small
businesses by keeping the current zoning and NOT allowing lot consolidation.
Thank You!
Jacqueline
Item 7.A 02/14/23
450 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Korin Tarin <korintarin@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:49 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Objection to "upzoning: Montana Ave
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I would like to voice my objection to the possible plan to change the zoning on Montana Ave to anything more than the
2 stories currently allowed. I believe time and money would be better spent doing something about the already built
Third Street Promenade, just a thought.
Thank you for your time,
Korin Tarin
Item 7.A 02/14/23
451 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Karen M. Fisher <karen@fisherdesigncompany.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:49 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de
la Torre; Phil Brock
Cc:Karen M. Fisher
Subject:FOSP: City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A -- OPPOSE upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial
districts February 13, 2023
EXTERNAL
The FOSP Board supports the January 23rd letter from the Planning Commission in Attachment F and opposes upzoning
the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Main Street, Montana Avenue, and especially on the two Neighborhood
Commercial districts in our neighborhood: Ocean Park Blvd. and the south side of Pico Blvd. It is the small locally‐owned
businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and the south side of Pico Blvd. that "make" the Sunset Park neighborhood. Please do not
throw these businesses to the wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts. We want to retain the
existing heights and FARs in the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Blvd. and Ocean Park Blvd., rather
than increasing them, as proposed in the certified Housing Element. Upzoning of our NC districts has the strong
potential to displace locally‐owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to Sunset Park
residents. The loss of these neighborhood‐serving businesses will also be in direct conflict with Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives. The Issue: Upzoning of Sunset Park’s Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District from a 1.0
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and 32 ft maximum height to an FAR of 2.5 and 55 ft maximum height. The NC districts in our
neighborhood are the following areas on: Ocean Park Blvd. from 16th to 18th: Merrihew's Sunset Gardens, Ghisallo
(wood fire pizza and bread baked on the premises), Hair Brains salon, Brooke Rodd Boutique, Wild Moon Kids, Bicycle
Workshop, Santa Monica Yoga, Bob's Market, Yoga‐urt (plant‐based soft serve), Antequera Bakery (Mexican breads,
cakes, cookies, and tamales), Edelweiss Flower Boutique, Goods LA (handcrafted artisan goods from around the world),
Quinnie & B – A Tiny Toy Shoppe, Local Kitchen & Wine Bar, Thyme Café & Market, The First School (relationship‐based,
developmental preschool & transitional kindergarten), and Café Bolivar (coffee, sandwiches & South American arepas)
Ocean Park Blvd. from roughly 25th Street to Centinela: OP Market, Ocean Park Pharmacy, Classic Tailors, Juice Crafters,
Blossom Vietnamese, Bubble Boba, Miyako Sushi, National Mailbox Center/FedEx, The Counter, Il Forno Trattoria, Hurry
Curry of Tokyo, Menchie’s Frozen Yogurt, Crimson (Mediterranean kabobs), a small UPS store, and Caruso Enzo Custom
Tailor Pico Blvd. south side from Euclid to 16th: Cosmoprof (cosmetics), Byron Woodley Tire, and Nostalgia Bar & Lounge
Pico Blvd. from 20th to 31st: Campos Famous Burritos, Tel’s Barber Shop (3 generations of barbers), Santa Monica Lock &
Safe, Kick/Goju Ryu Karate, Westwood Appliances, Lo/Cal Coffee & Market, Sundance Physical Therapy, Wilson Brothers
Appliance Repair, Lazy Daisy, Z Garden Mediterranean, Lunetta, Sunset Car Wash, Gilbert's El Indio, Paws & Effect Pet
Spa, Tim Clarke Design, Eco Heads Salon, and Laura's Nails Selected Sites Inventory (SSI) – The SSI is part of the Housing
Element and lists properties “likely” to be redeveloped as housing during the Element’s term (from now until 2029). Sites
are listed using HCD’s site selection criteria. There are 203 properties on the City’s SSI, of which 13 are in
Neighborhood Commercial Districts. 12 are on Pico Blvd. and one is on Ocean Park Blvd. (the NE corner of 17th & OPB).
The total housing unit capacity, if the SSI sites are developed, is 13,000+ units. Of these, only 165 are in the NC Districts.
The Housing Element calls for the upzoning of 1,171 acres along the boulevards, in Bergamot, and Downtown. Of these,
only 71 are in NC Districts. Upzoning Ocean Park Blvd. is unnecessary to meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals.
1) 50% of Sunset Park households have annual incomes at or below the Moderate Income level. 2) Two Sunset Park
schools (Rogers & JAMS) qualify for the Title 1 Federal lunch program, meaning that at least 35% of students are from
families at or below the Federal poverty level. The majority of students in both schools are children and youth of color.
3) Of the approximately 7,000 housing units in Sunset Park, 3,309 are rent controlled apartments with median rents
affordable to households at moderate income and below; 2,645 are single family houses; and the remainder are
Item 7.A 02/14/23
452 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
condominiums or post‐1979 apartment units. 4) The required (LUCE) specific plan to be prepared for the Santa Monica
Business Park will focus on mixed income housing, which makes new housing in NC unnecessary. Impacts of Upzoning
Ocean Park Blvd. 1) Displacement of locally owned businesses, a number of which are minority owned. 2) Loss of the
commercial district altogether since ground floor commercial space will not be required for new projects given the likely
unmarketability of this space for neighborhood serving businesses.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
453 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Julie Kim <julieykim@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:49 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:Edmund Kim
Subject:Proposed Upzoning of SM Commercial Districts
EXTERNAL
Good morning,
As residents of Santa Monica, we respectfully request that the City Council VOTE AGAINST upzoning the commercial
districts nestled in our residential neighborhoods. We understand the extreme pressure you must be under to build
bigger/taller buildings to address the housing shortage and parking issues. However, doing so would come at a huge
cost to our community.
We used to live in New York City and raised our young children surrounded by dangerous traffic, loud honking and
fumes from cars and trucks, the constant noise of construction, and crowds of people visiting soulless chain stores. It
was a stressful place to raise our kids. And despite the swarms of people around us, it was easy to feel lonely.
When we moved to Santa Monica 8 years ago, we were delighted to join a lovely community that values peacefulness
and civility. We got to know our local store owners and became regulars at local coffee shops and restaurants. Today,
we often run into people we know while walking, and the friendly atmosphere of the shops along Pico, Main Street,
Ocean Park and Montana encourages us to stop and chat. Montana Avenue is especially wonderful with its annual
traditions that bring the community together, such as the Art Walk and winter holiday celebration. Such a tradition
would be logistically impossible due to congestion if Montana Avenue were built up with enormous box stores and
apartment complexes.
As you already know, Santa Monica is very special because it's a city but still a livable place. We can still feel a sense of
community when leisurely walking by the shops and restaurants near our homes. Please don't fall prey to the view that
upzoning is inevitable or represents "progress." Our residents' sense of connection and collective mental health matter
as well. We hope you too have felt the joys of walking along our streets and agree with us that Santa Monica's
neighborhoods deserve to be protected. Thank you, as always, for your hard work.
Best regards,
Julie & Edmund Kim
Item 7.A 02/14/23
454 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Bruce Leddy <bruce.leddy@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:47 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick;
Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject:ITEM 7 A. - SUPPORT
EXTERNAL
Mayor and Councilmembers -
I urge you to support the Planning Commission's recommended amendment to the Housing Element which
would omit Neighborhood Commercial areas from upzoning. These are some of the last remaining areas in our
city that have character and appropriate scale and would be destroyed by the development upzoning would
allow.
Contrary to what the Santa Monica Forward group has convinced its members, this amendment is NOT anti-
housing. It is not in any way dodging our responsibility to address the serious housing crisis or meet our state-
mandated needs. The amendment applies to 71 acres throughout the city (Main Street, Montana, etc.) and
leaves the other 1171 acres of boulevards, Downtown, and Bergamot to be upzoned. These upzoned areas
have capacity for over 13,000 units of development, well beyond the state's requirements.
We face a sea change of development in this city, due to the state's mandates. This amendment is a chance
for Santa Monica to at least retain the smallest of control over how and where the onslaught of development
will take place, allowing small businesses to survive while retaining some of the unique character of our city.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bruce Leddy
23 year Santa Monica resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
455 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Judy Kramer <abaglady46@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:46 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Fw: 2/14 /2023 City Council agenda item 7a
EXTERNAL
These are terrible things listed below. Santa Monica is being ruined. This wonderful city that I have lived in
for 40 years is becoming something that is difficult to watch happen. We don't need bigger buildings and
complexes. We have enough traffic and congestion and difficult parking. I know you want everyone to ride
transit and bikes but that is not the reality. The unique streets with small businesses, restaurants and
shopping are what makes Santa Monica special. Don't continue to allow it to be spoiled.
Please don't pass upzoning !!!!
Judy Kramer
1325 Pine Street
Help save small businesses on Ocean Park and Pico
Oppose Proposed Upzoning
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
This Tuesday, February 14, the Santa Monica City Council will be discussing whether to
“upzone” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean
Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.
If you are a Santa Monica resident, please let your city council members know that you
oppose this change.
“Upzoning” would allow these unique Streets to be developed with new five or six-story
projects. The resulting demolition of existing buildings would displace and eliminate most of
the essential neighborhood-serving businesses. They would be replaced with higher rent
tenants like chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life
and increasing traffic and parking woes.
Also being considered is whether to allow lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico
Boulevard, and Montana Avenue. If approved this would allow developers to consolidate lots
and build larger, mega projects on these Streets.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
456 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
When the Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes it made a strong, well-
supported recommendation to Council against upzoning these Streets and urged the Council
to keep the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts.
The City Council needs to hear our voices. If you agree it’s important to “buy local” and
support local small businesses and maintain the quality of these walkable Streets, please
email the City Council by noon on Tuesday February 14, and tell them to protect these Streets.
Please refer to 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a in your email subject line and send
it to:
CouncilMtgItems@santamonica.gov
phil.brock@santamonica.gov,
gleam.davis@santamonica.gov
oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov
lana.negrete@santamonica.gov
christine.parra@santamonica.gov
caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov
jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov
Item 7.A 02/14/23
457 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Wendy Murray <pennygreenlane@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:11 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Council meeting for today. Item 7A
EXTERNAL
> Please consider the quality of life in our town and don’t let developers destroy our ability to buy locally and support
small businesses on Ocean park Boulevard.
> Once it has gone, we can never get it back.
> Please protect our communities in your council meetings.
> Sincerely,
> Wendy Murray
Item 7.A 02/14/23
458 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Planning Commission
January 23, 2023
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main St
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Honorable Councilmembers:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council request the approval
of the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to
amend Program 1J of the City’s certified Housing Element (2021-2129) in order to
meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives and to protect small,
locally owned businesses and service providers The proposed amendment would
fine-tune the program by retaining the City’s long-term commitment to providing
access to housing opportunity while ensuring we maintain complete
neighborhoods that provide access to economic opportunity and address vehicle
miles traveled concerns. Specifically, the proposed amendment would retain the
existing heights and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in the Neighborhood Commercial
Districts (NC) on Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana
Avenue, rather than increasing them as proposed in the current language of
Program 1J.
The Planning Commission also recommends that the City request HCD’s guidance
as to whether the SSI should be amended to remove the thirteen properties in the
Neighborhoods Commercial District and to add (a) Replacement Site(s) that is
(are) necessary to compensate for the 165 housing units projected for development
in the NC District.
This request for approval to amend Program 1J is based on the following:
1. The Commission understands that the State is concerned about
accomplishing AFFH goals by upzoning the NC Districts. The City has found
through on-going analysis that this upzoning is not necessary to accomplish
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 7.A 02/14/23
459 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
the City’s RHNA goals nor to further AFFH objectives. The City believes that
AFFH goals are being reached in all the neighborhoods served by the NC
Districts, or will be reached through the implementation of new programs
mandated by the Housing Element.
2. The upzoning of our NC districts will cause the displacement of locally owned
businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to residents.
In fact, the loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will be in direct
conflict with AFFH objectives. Many of these small businesses are minority-
owned. Further, NC Districts currently offer entrepreneurial opportunities for
local residents, many of whom are people of color.
3. Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would remove the requirement
that the ground floors of new projects on Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards
include commercial space. This proposed zoning change recognizes the
inability of local businesses to afford the rents in these new buildings and the
fact that these two neighborhood commercial streets would not attract
sufficient regional interest to attract non-local retailers, which could afford
the new, higher rents. The result of this would be the removal of all convenient,
walkable commercial opportunities in Sunset Park and the Pico
neighborhood.
4. The NC Districts include many designated Landmarks and other significant
historic resources. This fact reduces the overall development capacity of NC
areas.
5. A Replacement Site that can accommodate more than the 165 units
projected for the upzoned NC areas has been identified. With even greater
capacity than those sites, it will actually increase the number of affordable
and market rate units produced during the 6th Cycle.
6. The Replacement Site will locate new residents close to the Expo Light Rail
Line, offering access to numerous job nodes throughout the region. Access to
high quality transit is critical to the economic health of many residents,
especially lower incomes.
Data Demonstrating AFFH in Neighborhood Commercial Districts
The proposed Housing Element amendment will not have negative impacts on the
State’s AFFH requirements because each neighborhood surrounding the NC zones
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 7.A 02/14/23
460 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
currently offers or will offer a variety of housing types and affordability levels during
the 6th Cycle.
Main Street
The NC district on Main Street is the major commercial area serving residents of
Ocean Park. The historically red-lined Ocean Park community has always provided
a variety of housing types and a range of affordability levels. Community
Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM), Santa Monica’s most prolific affordable
housing development nonprofit established with a seed grant from the City of Santa
Monica in 1982, owns and operates 343 affordable housing units on 22 sites across
Ocean Park. Of these units, 44 are on Main Street, just north of Main Street’s NC
District. Across the street from this CCSM project on Main Street is a mixed income
rental housing project with approximately 60 units. This existing housing has been
developed using the zoning standards of the General Commercial District, which
has a lower FAR and height limit than that proposed in the Housing Element for the
NC portion of Main Street.
There are approximately 170 units of deed restricted affordable rental units for
seniors in Ocean Park.
According to the 2021 Santa Monica Rent Control Board Annual Report, 4,684 rental
units in Ocean Park are subject to local rent control (17% of the citywide total). The
median monthly Maximum Allowable Rents for these units range from $1,521 for a
studio apartment to $2,466 for a three-bedroom apartment. These rents are
affordable to moderate income households and include units with long term
tenants and those that have been decontrolled to market rate levels.
The feasibility of developing housing with the existing NC development standards
has been demonstrated by a recently approved market rate rental housing project
with ground floor retail in the NC District. This project demonstrates that housing can
be feasibly developed with a retail component on this NC portion of Main Street.
Ocean Park is a diverse community from the standpoint of income levels and
demographics. John Muir Elementary School is located in Ocean Park and serves
the majority of children who live in that community. It is currently closed for
remediation purposes. When in operation, the school is a Title I school, meaning at
least thirty five percent (35%) of its students are from families living at or near the
poverty level. Forty seven percent (47%) of the students are from low-income
families. John Muir is also racially and ethnically integrated with almost sixty percent
(60%) of students identifying as non-white.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 7.A 02/14/23
461 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
The Ocean Park housing market also includes many single-family houses and
condominiums with values well into the millions of dollars.
The City believes that upzoning the NC District on Main Street is unnecessary
because Ocean Park is already a model community for meeting AFFH objectives.
Ocean Park Boulevard
The NC area on Ocean Park Boulevard is the major neighborhood commercial
district for the Sunset Park community with locally owned businesses and necessary
community retail and essential services. A common misperception about the Sunset
Park community is that it is primarily populated by single family homeowners in R1
districts. Similar to Ocean Park, Sunset Park offers a wide variety of housing choices
and affordability levels. There are approximately 7,000 housing units in Sunset Park.
Of these, 2,634 are on R1 properties, and 3,309 are rentals subject to local rent
control. The median Maximum Allowable Rents for these rent-controlled units
range from $1,140 for a studio to $2,298 for a three-bedroom unit. These rents are
affordable to low and/or moderate-income households. CCSM owns and operates
310 deed restricted affordable rental units in Sunset Park. The balance of the units in
Sunset Park (747) are condominiums and post-1978 apartments.
Another interesting fact about Sunset Park is that one of its two elementary schools
(Will Rogers) is among the most ethnically and racially diverse schools in the district.
It serves the Pico and Sunset Park neighborhoods west of 17th Street. Thirty three
percent (33%) of the students identify as white, forty five percent (45%) as Hispanic,
nine percent (9%) as black, and thirteen percent (13%) as members of other
racial/ethnic groups. Will Rogers is designated as a Title I school. John Adams Middle
School, which serves the Pico Neighborhood, Sunset Park and Ocean Park is also a
Title 1 school. No feasibility analysis showing the need to increase FAR and height in
the NC District of Ocean Park Boulevard was performed, but existing conditions
demonstrate the district’s ability to offer housing opportunity at a wide range of
affordability.
Montana Avenue
The Montana Avenue NC district is the major neighborhood commercial area for
the neighborhoods north of Montana Avenue and between Montana Avenue and
Wilshire Boulevard. Although the north of Montana neighborhood is primarily R1 with
extremely high property values, it is bound by streets with hundreds of units of multi-
family housing. The certified Housing Element proposes furthering AFFH objectives
in the R1 District north of Montana through active encouragement of ADU
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 7.A 02/14/23
462 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
construction and enactment of zoning changes that encourage the development
of duplexes using SB9.
The neighborhood between Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard is almost
entirely developed with multi-family housing and has the highest percentage of the
City’s rent-controlled housing supply (6,012 units). These rent-controlled units are
affordable to and serve all income groups.
Pico Boulevard
Businesses in the Pico Boulevard NC District serve residents of the Pico
Neighborhood and the northern section of Sunset Park with a variety of affordable
retail and service options. Although designated a High Resource Area like the rest of
the city, the Pico Neighborhood is home to its lowest income and most rent
burdened residents. The neighborhood also has the highest concentration of
people of color and is the community most at risk because of gentrification and its
resulting displacement. Planning for this area is a delicate balance between
encouraging diversity and protecting existing residents and the commercial
facilities that serve them.
Beginning with the Pico Neighborhood Community Plan in 1983, the residents of the
Pico Neighborhood have advocated for fair housing, appropriate
commercial/industrial development, to reduce crime, support youth, and for public
services in their district. Spurred by new energy from the community in 2016, the city
began an update of the Pico Neighborhood Plan that focused specifically on the NC
district. Community advocates brought strong support for maintaining and
supporting the ethnic and cultural character of the Pico Neighborhood, protecting
residents from displacement, and developing new ways to support business
opportunities for local entrepreneurs in the NC district on Pico Boulevard. In 2019,
targeted adjustments were made to the city’s zoning regulations for NC on Pico
Boulevard to support local economic development. For example, a community
kitchen that supports seed businesses in food service is under construction. The City
also gives micro-grants to local entrepreneurs seeking to start small businesses.
And, a Protecting Our Diversity program provides rent subsidies for Pico
Neighborhood residents.
The Pico Neighborhood also includes an area north of the I10 Freeway, which was
severed from the southern portion of the neighborhood by construction of the Santa
Monica Freeway in the 1960s. It encompasses the Bergamot Plan area where
hundreds of new mixed income housing units are expected because of the
upzoning planned for in the City’s Housing Element. This is also where the proposed
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 7.A 02/14/23
463 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Replacement Site is situated. This aggressive development scenario will maintain
the cultural and economic diversity in the Pico Neighborhood, while adding a robust
program of new housing choices adjacent to transit.
Conclusion
The Neighborhood Commercial District zones support Santa Monica’s most diverse
communities with locally owned, legacy businesses that have been serving their
neighborhoods for decades. Many of these businesses are minority owned. These
businesses include laundromats, shoe repair shops and affordable grocery stores,
restaurants, and family entertainment options The Venice Family Clinic is located in
the NC District of Pico Boulevard. Its displacement would eliminate affordable
health care for the many lower income families in the community. NC areas define
“community” for many current and future residents of Santa Monica at all income
levels. Business owners are also neighbors who often know their customers by
name. They provide daily neighborhood gathering opportunities, support for
neighborhood organizations and schools, and job opportunities for local youth and
Santa Monica College students.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requires a holistic approach to meeting
housing needs and providing neighborhood-serving and affordable businesses,
employment opportunities, and the kind of community cohesion that ensures safe
and vibrant places for people at all income levels in Santa Monica. The city’s
Neighborhood Commercial districts on Main Street, Pico Boulevard, Montana
Avenue and Ocean Park Boulevard provide these opportunities. The Commission
believes that protecting these resources is consistent with AFFH objectives.
Sincerely,
Jim Ries, Chair
DocuSign Envelope ID: D16F72E0-A1F0-47B9-BE82-68935D932098 Item 7.A 02/14/23
464 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Justine Lowe <justinel70@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:20 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra;
caroline.torosis@satnamonica.gov; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 city council agenda item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members
As a 15 year resident of Santa Monica, I strongly oppose the ‘up‐zoning’ of our local streets and urge our council
members to protect the community of local small businesses that we all enjoy and love on a daily basis.
Sincerely
Justine Lowe
2117 Navy Street
Santa Monica
Item 7.A 02/14/23
465 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:lindalhall1000@gmail.com
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:28 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilors:
I am writing to oppose the so called UPZONING in the Ocean Park, Main Street, Pico Blvd and Montana Avenue areas.
This idea will take all the small businesses away and be a complete bland blot on our community.
What we have left is wonderful – we do not need lot consolidation selling the same items that you can get anywhere in
the U.S.
We need individualism . We need small, restaurants/cafes that people have worked so hard for us during the pandemic
– we need the small shops and local supermarket.
Thank you for considering.
Yours sincerely,
Linda Hall Hiscock
1330 Pine Street
Santa Monica, 90405
P.S. Jesse Zwick: Hi Jesse – this is Linda (volunteer from the Saturday Pico Farmers Market)
Hope none of this goes through.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
466 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Blair Khosla <blairkhosla@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:26 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I, Katherine Khosla, a Santa Monica resident, oppose upzoning Santa Monica’s
neighborhood commercial districts that includes Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico
Boulevard and Montana Avenue. l urge you to keep the existing heights and densities in these
neighborhood commercial districts.
I also oppose lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana
Avenue.
Thank you,
Katherine Khosla
Item 7.A 02/14/23
467 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Perry Holmes <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:24 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
I am a renter living in the Ocean Park neighborhood and I am writing to register my support for
more housing in my neighborhood and in Santa Monica in general.
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local
serving retail experience.
Thank you,
Perry Holmes
wpholmes@gmail.com
511 Pier Ave
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
468 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Gretchen Humbert <humdoozi@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:23 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis;
Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock
Subject:Subject: 2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I strongly support the guidance provided by the planning commission to not allow upzoning on Ocean Park, Pico, Main St
and Montana. I am in support of changes in zoning to enable more housing units in the city. But the plan needs to be
realistic and emphasize:
Retaining walkable businesses (including commercial space on the first floor of any multi‐story buildings)
Zoning that takes into consideration the neighborhood scale
o 3‐4 stories of residential above commercial would already be a dramatic change to places like Montana
and Ocean Park
o There is only one lane of traffic in each direction on these roads. The traffic is already quite gridlocked
on Ocean Park during rush hour, especially when SMC is in session.
o Removing retail and adding units will only compel residents to get in their cars to make purchases they
could now make by foot. It will exacerbate traffic issues and cause more pollution in a city that prides
itself on its sustainability practices.
Hopefully, you have been able to review points made by Commissioner and former Chair of the Santa Monica Rent
Control Board, and a Past Commissioner, Commission on the Status of Women, Nicole Phillis in the SM
Mirror https://smmirror.com/2021/07/sma‐r‐t‐column‐blind‐upzonings‐false‐promise/
“Basic economic principles based on land values alone suggest that the primary beneficiaries of upzoning will be
developers, who will undoubtedly sweep in and redevelop properties, sell at a greater value to more upper middle‐
class professionals, who typically far exceed the area median income (AMI) for the region—all the while
accelerating gentrification.”
The false promise of upzoning to provide more affordable housing is laid bare when one considers how badly the
glut of market‐rate, luxury housing has failed to produce affordable housing in our City. Upzoning relies on free
market principles for the creation of housing, which will almost always skew the economics toward luxury, high‐
value residences, especially where, as here, lot values alone often exceed $2 million. It is not lost on me that many
of the rent‐controlled properties that we’ve lost to the Ellis Act in areas zoned for multifamily residences have
actually been redeveloped either as luxury condos or single‐family homes. This again underscores the
fundamental flaw of upzoning as a panacea: when we leave the production of affordable housing to the free
market in a highly desirable area like Santa Monica or Culver City, upzoning rarely produces affordable residential
opportunities for working families.”
Item 7.A 02/14/23
469 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Thank you for your consideration and service to our city.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
470 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Rachel Harms <rharms@ix.netcom.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:re 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members
I am a 28‐year resident of Santa Monica and I am writing to tell the city council that I strongly oppose the
“upzoning” of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street,Ocean
Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.
As I watch Santa Monica's decline into bland and mediocre overdevelopment, it breaks my heart. I urge the City council
to protect these neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation. I
am deeply concerned about Santa Monica becoming even more homogenized, replacing what makes it unique and
special with the same generic buildings and nationwide chains we see everywhere else.
The priority of the City Council should be to support resident's quality of life, our local businesses and to preserve the
character of Santa Monica. I urge you to do the right thing and not to sell out the place we all call home.
Thank you.
Rachel Harms
Item 7.A 02/14/23
471 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:DENNY KENNEDY <kennedydenny@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:31 AM
Subject:UPZONING
EXTERNAL
Please DO NOT “upzone” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park
Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. Please leave neighborhoods intact. Not every building, every block
needs replacement with multi story buildings. We need neighborhoods that feel like neighborhoods. We need our
existing local businesses, not chain stores. These businesses survived a pandemic. Please do not kill them off with
overdevelopment.
Sincerely,
Denny Kennedy
Item 7.A 02/14/23
472 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Rachel Harms <rharms@ix.netcom.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:re 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members
I am a 28‐year resident of Santa Monica and I am writing to tell the city council that I strongly oppose the
“upzoning” of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street,Ocean
Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.
As I watch Santa Monica's decline into bland and mediocre overdevelopment, it breaks my heart. I urge the City council
to protect these neighborhoods and small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation. I
am deeply concerned about Santa Monica becoming even more homogenized, replacing what makes it unique and
special with the same generic buildings and nationwide chains we see everywhere else.
The priority of the City Council should be to support resident's quality of life, our local businesses and to preserve the
character of Santa Monica. I urge you to do the right thing and not to sell out the place we all call home.
Thank you.
Rachel Harms
Item 7.A 02/14/23
473 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:DENNY KENNEDY <kennedydenny@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:31 AM
Subject:UPZONING
EXTERNAL
Please DO NOT “upzone” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park
Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. Please leave neighborhoods intact. Not every building, every block
needs replacement with multi story buildings. We need neighborhoods that feel like neighborhoods. We need our
existing local businesses, not chain stores. These businesses survived a pandemic. Please do not kill them off with
overdevelopment.
Sincerely,
Denny Kennedy
Item 7.A 02/14/23
474 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:phillis dudick <phdphillis@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:44 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis;
Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock
Cc:phillis dudick
Subject:ITEM 7 (UPZONING) 2/14/23
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor Davis and City Councilmembers:
As a longtime Santa resident who would be affected by upzoning, I strongly oppose the upzoning of Montana Avenue,
Main Street, Pico Blvd, and Ocean Park Blvd.
These iconic corridors play a huge role in the quality of life of these unique neighborhoods, character of Santa Monica
and long standing relationships with mom and pop businesses serving our communities.
A walk to a tea garden, a market, a shoe repair, or stop by for Taco Tuesday, or an ice cream cone makes it a
"neighborhood". Please do not allow Montana, Main, Pico or Ocean Park to be destroyed by upzoning and lot
consolidation. It is important that limits on lot consolidations apply to all!
These areas not only benefit residents, but restaurants and other small businesses attract tourists and clientele from
other areas as well. This is not to mention tour buses I have seen highlighting Main Street and Montana Avenue for
visitors to Santa Monica/LA area. Evidently, there is a story to show and tell.
These "neighborhood" venues must be preserved as "essential" to Santa Monica.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Phillis Dudick
San Vicente Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
475 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Claudia Seizer <ilove4xys@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:43 AM
To:Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra;
councilmtgitems; Oscar de la Torre
Subject:Council Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Hello City Council,
My name is Claudia Seizer and I am a long time resident in the Ocean Park area, Sunset Park. I have been following and
understand that you are coming up with ideas for “upzoning” Ocean Park Boulevard. I really am hoping to persuade you
to look that through once again. I completely understand the need for housing, our cousin has worked for the city of
Santa Monica in this specific area and has explain to us the necessity.
With that said, I still persuade you not to up zone, Ocean Park Boulevard. We have John Adams Middle School, Will
Rogers Elementary, and SMC traffic, that we the residents, deal with on a daily basis. I understand SMC is now hybrid,
which has alleviated maybe a quarter of the traffic. But traffic is still an issue, and with traffic, car, accidents, and
frustrated drivers. Since the pandemic, the city cut crossing guards, and those kids crossing Ocean Park with all the
traffic already is always an issue. As you can see, in reports of how many accidents have occurred just at 16th and Ocean
Park Boulevard. Therefore, bringing more cars to run up and down a one lane road is just not feasible idea.
I once again, urge you to please look at other areas. I have a business on 14th and Broadway. There are many areas
around Broadway and Colorado that can actually be a better idea for housing.
Thank you a long time resident and parent of school children.
Claudia Seizer
Item 7.A 02/14/23
476 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Ruthann Lehrer <ruthannpreserves@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse
Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Subject:Item 7a
EXTERNAL
February 14, 2023
City Council Agenda Item 7a
Honorable Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,
This letter supports the position of the Planning Commission regarding the retention of the Neighborhood
Commercial zoning on Main Street, Montana Avenue, Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard.
There is an abundant supply of alternative sites in other areas of Santa Monica to fulfill our housing mandates
without destroying those unique enclaves of local business activity and pedestrian life that make Santa Monica
an enjoyable place to live and visit.
Main Street contains a concentration of designated landmarks that create a highly distinctive presence in the
City. Its visual character, small scale, and collection of local businesses make it an attractive place to explore.
It’s a vibrant and interesting walk street, an important asset to Santa Monica and should be stabilized, not
threatened.
Montana Avenue offers a similar vibrant pedestrian environment, with many small businesses and a strong
sense of place. It’s one of the City’s most appealing visitor attractions, vital to the revival of our tourism
industry. It’s a community gathering place, with services for locals as well as attractive to a broader public.
The Neighborhood Commercial areas of Pico and Ocean Park Boulevard contain small locally‐owned
businesses serving their local residential neighborhoods as well as allowing diverse businesses to flourish. Pico
Boulevard Neighborhood Commercial supports our most integrated neighborhood. These places are
important community assets, that could be wiped out with the proposed upzoning.
Remember place‐making? This is an important planning concept that identifies those special places that are
physical, social and economic assets. Those few Neighborhood Commercial areas in Santa Monica that support
pedestrian activity, local businesses and diversity should be protected in our zoning code. They serve local
residents as well tourists.
Setting aside these few Neighborhood Commercial zones from potential building activity with large retail
floorplates that will displace local businesses deserves your support. Fortunately, such a decision will not
jeopardize the abundant opportunities for new housing construction in other locations. Please support the
Housing Element amendment proposed by the Planning Commission.
Thank you for your consideration.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
477 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Ruthann Lehrer
Resident, Northeast Neighborhood
Item 7.A 02/14/23
478 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Bradley Ewing <bradleywewing@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de
la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject:7A - Neighborhood Commercial
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,
I urge the council to follow through with the Neighborhood Commercial upzoning that is promised in our submitted,
compliant Housing Element.
Refusing to follow through on these changes is a total abandonment of Santa Monica's commitment to Affirmatively
Further Fair Housing (AFFH). AB 686 requires cities to take "deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve
disparities resulting from past and current patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities." If we wish to
undo past patterns of segregation, that requires us to take deliberate steps to ensure new housing opportunities are
available in neighborhoods that have historically produced little to no housing.
Upzoning Main, Montana, etc. has been in the Housing Element since June 2021. It was added after the Planning
Commission and then City Council abandoned plans to add more housing in NOMA and Sunset Park. HCD told us that we
needed to do more for AFFH so the Planning Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council decided to upzone Main,
Montana, Ocean Park, and Pico to add new housing opportunities in areas of the city that haven't accommodated
housing before.
Almost all of the parcels being downzoned as part of this proposal adjoin single‐family neighborhoods. Homes that are
worth $2M+, and in NOMA easily $5M+. So after abandoning rezonings of R1 neighborhoods, we're now talking about
abandoning rezonings of parcels next to R1 neighborhoods. This doesn't affirmatively further fair housing!
AFFH is about creating housing opportunities where there were none before, it says nothing about business
displacement. If the city wants to mitigate business displacement, we can and should create programs to ease
disruption to business owners (AB2011 is one model on how to do this, requiring commercial space on smaller parcels is
another). That does not give us an out to prevent housing!
The Planning Commission's letter claims we are already AFFH in these neighborhoods. If this were true, why did HCD
reject an earlier draft of our housing element over insufficiently AFFH? The statistics cited in their letter are incorrect
and misleading: landlords are allowed to reset Maximum Allowable Rents under the city's vacancy decontrol law and
almost all of them do! The MAR of my first apartment here was $1600/month when I moved out; it's $2300 today. The
affordable rents paid by longtime tenants in rent controlled units are not available to newcomers.
Reneging on our commitments to the state opens the door to another Builder's Remedy opportunity, allowing unlimited
size and density on any parcel in the city (including R1 and the NC corridors).
If we want to retain our local control, we need to exercise local responsibility.
Best,
Brad Ewing
Item 7.A 02/14/23
479 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:bobbie sheets <bobbiesheets@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:01 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
To Whom it May Concern:
PLEASE DO NOT “upzone” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main
Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. Please leave neighborhoods
intact. Not every building, every block needs replacement with multi story buildings. We need
neighborhoods that feel like neighborhoods. We need our existing local businesses, not chain stores.
These businesses survived a pandemic. Please do not kill them off with overdevelopment.
Thank you,
Bobbie Sheets
Item 7.A 02/14/23
480 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Janet Chesne <pleasenotspam@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:01 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Vote No on upzoning and lot consolidation// 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Please don't tear down present small business locations and erect more multistory buildings. We are losing the small
beach town character of Santa Monica. It could become just a Lego city of 5 story buildings and more traffic, probably
with no parking spaces. People who live here don't want that. I am shocked and sorry to learn that you are considering
moving more in that direction. Please think of Santa Monica's future.
Janet Chesne
Santa Monica resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
481 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Nancy M <nancym@netzero.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra;
�caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
To: Commissioners
From: Nancy Morse
Re: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Please do not increase height and density of any of the neighborhoods in Santa Monica, as this will change the character
of the areas. An increase in height will reduce the air and sunlight which are assets to the community. An increase in
density will require infrastructure that I'm not sure Santa Monica has such as water and sewer.
The small businesses and walking streets serve not only locals, but are a draw for visitors.
The Neighborhood Serving Districts are unique areas of Santa Monica, and have been considered special to the city for
years. It would be a shame to destroy that.
Sincerely,
Nancy Morse
Item 7.A 02/14/23
482 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:murchiedon@verizon.net
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:
Every time the city comes up with one more thing to disrupt the lives of its citizens - - residents and
small businesses alike - - I think things couldn’t get any worse. Now we have a proposal to densify
four main thoroughfares of Santa Monica and yes, things are getting worse. The lot consolidation
and planned mega development on these arteries can only intensify the traffic, noise, air pollution
and overall frustration, even misery, of living and working in those zones. As a 90-year-old resident
who’s seen the city continually eat away at itself over the years, I strongly
support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council to OPPOSE the
proposed changes!
Donald Murchie
2338 21st St.
Santa Monica 90405
(310) 450-8639
Item 7.A 02/14/23
483 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:betzi richardson <betzir77@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:54 AM
To:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7A on February 14 Agenda
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and Council Members,
I am completely opposed to the proposed upzoning in Item 7A on your Agenda for tonight’s meeting.
Please Do Not Do This!!!
I am a resident of Santa Monica and I highly value our small and local businesses. Please do not
upzone the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard and
Montana Avenue. That will diminish if not completely destroy the neighborhood feel and our
accessibility to small businesses. Also, please refrain from allowing the consolidation of lots on Pico
Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard or Montana Avenue. This will eliminate access to our highly valued
small and local businesses.
Thank-you for supporting local and small businesses and acting to preserve our neighborhoods,
Betzi Richardson
916 15th St. #9
Santa Monica,
CA 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
485 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Elaine Vukadinovich <E.Vukadinovich@musickpeeler.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:53 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members:
This email is to inform you that I oppose the “upzoning” of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts including,
but not limited to, Montana Ave., Pico Blvd., Main Street and Ocean Park Blvd. The change in character would displace
and eliminate most of the unique, essential local businesses that serve our neighborhoods and would act to price those
local small businesses out, replacing them with large, higher rent tenants like chain stores and mega projects. We, the
residents, do not need this type of development. We already have enough traffic and density and chains. Please help
keep the unique character of our neighborhoods and do not further destabilize the neighborhoods by allowing such
development. Please keep the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts.
Sincerely,
Elaine Vukadinovich
Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
486 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
8
Vernice Hankins
From:John <johnhiscock@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:52 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilors:
I am writing to oppose the so called UPZONING in the Ocean Park, Main
Street, Pico Blvd and Montana Avenue areas.
This idea will take all the small businesses away and be a bland blot on
our community.
What we have is wonderful – we do not need lot consolidation or chain
stores selling the same items that you can get anywhere in the U.S.
We need individualism . We need small restaurants/cafes that people
have worked so hard for us during the pandemic – we need the small
shops and local supermarket.
Thank you for considering.
Yours sincerely,
Item 7.A 02/14/23
487 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
9
John Hiscock.
Pine Street, Santa Monica
‐‐
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/John_Hiscock/
www.johnhiscock.blogspot.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
488 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Janet Chesne <pleasenotspam@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:01 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Vote No on upzoning and lot consolidation// 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
Please don't tear down present small business locations and erect more multistory buildings. We are losing the small
beach town character of Santa Monica. It could become just a Lego city of 5 story buildings and more traffic, probably
with no parking spaces. People who live here don't want that. I am shocked and sorry to learn that you are considering
moving more in that direction. Please think of Santa Monica's future.
Janet Chesne
Santa Monica resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
489 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Nancy M <nancym@netzero.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra;
�caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
To: Commissioners
From: Nancy Morse
Re: 2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Please do not increase height and density of any of the neighborhoods in Santa Monica, as this will change the character
of the areas. An increase in height will reduce the air and sunlight which are assets to the community. An increase in
density will require infrastructure that I'm not sure Santa Monica has such as water and sewer.
The small businesses and walking streets serve not only locals, but are a draw for visitors.
The Neighborhood Serving Districts are unique areas of Santa Monica, and have been considered special to the city for
years. It would be a shame to destroy that.
Sincerely,
Nancy Morse
Item 7.A 02/14/23
490 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:murchiedon@verizon.net
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:
Every time the city comes up with one more thing to disrupt the lives of its citizens - - residents and
small businesses alike - - I think things couldn’t get any worse. Now we have a proposal to densify
four main thoroughfares of Santa Monica and yes, things are getting worse. The lot consolidation
and planned mega development on these arteries can only intensify the traffic, noise, air pollution
and overall frustration, even misery, of living and working in those zones. As a 90-year-old resident
who’s seen the city continually eat away at itself over the years, I strongly
support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council to OPPOSE the
proposed changes!
Donald Murchie
2338 21st St.
Santa Monica 90405
(310) 450-8639
Item 7.A 02/14/23
491 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Carol Lemlein <carol@smconservancy.org>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Tom Cleys
Subject:City Council Item 7A, February 14, 2023, Study Session on Implementation of 6th Cycle (2021-2029)
Housing Element Programs
Attachments:2023-02-14 City Council Item 7A-Santa Monica Conservancy Comments.docx
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
Please see attached letter from the Santa Monica Conservancy Board regarding this item and the treatment of the
Neighborhood Commercial areas in the requested zoning changes..
Thank you,
Carol Lemlein
Vice President
Santa Monica Conservancy
Email: carol@smconservancy.org
Mobile: 310.729.1165
Item 7.A 02/14/23
492 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:betzi richardson <betzir77@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:54 AM
To:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7A on February 14 Agenda
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and Council Members,
I am completely opposed to the proposed upzoning in Item 7A on your Agenda for tonight’s meeting.
Please Do Not Do This!!!
I am a resident of Santa Monica and I highly value our small and local businesses. Please do not
upzone the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Pico Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard and
Montana Avenue. That will diminish if not completely destroy the neighborhood feel and our
accessibility to small businesses. Also, please refrain from allowing the consolidation of lots on Pico
Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard or Montana Avenue. This will eliminate access to our highly valued
small and local businesses.
Thank-you for supporting local and small businesses and acting to preserve our neighborhoods,
Betzi Richardson
916 15th St. #9
Santa Monica,
CA 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
493 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Elaine Vukadinovich <E.Vukadinovich@musickpeeler.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:53 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members:
This email is to inform you that I oppose the “upzoning” of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts including,
but not limited to, Montana Ave., Pico Blvd., Main Street and Ocean Park Blvd. The change in character would displace
and eliminate most of the unique, essential local businesses that serve our neighborhoods and would act to price those
local small businesses out, replacing them with large, higher rent tenants like chain stores and mega projects. We, the
residents, do not need this type of development. We already have enough traffic and density and chains. Please help
keep the unique character of our neighborhoods and do not further destabilize the neighborhoods by allowing such
development. Please keep the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts.
Sincerely,
Elaine Vukadinovich
Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
494 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Marianne O'Donnell <marianne@well.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:03 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Council,
I'm writing to oppose the City considering upzoning Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include
Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. Each of these districts include many small
local businesses, which are a critical component of our neighborhoods character, vibrancy, and safety. They are loved by
our community, and an integral part of our social, cultural, and consumer life.
Upzoning would allow these unique streets to be consolidated into large lots, for the type of behemoth developments
that have already defaced Downtown, making it a ghastly, unsafe place to visit, with too many dead ground‐floor fronts.
Is this Santa Monica's desire future? No.
The resulting demolition of existing buildings would displace and eliminate most of the essential neighborhood‐serving
businesses. They would be replaced with higher rent tenants like chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing
residents’ quality of life, bringing further hardship to low‐income residents, and increasing traffic and parking issues.
It would fly in the face of City Hall's "We are Santa Monica" and "Buy Local" campaigns, prompting the community to
buy online instead, or drive miles to find the items, and community feel, they need. Too many essential small businesses
have been lost already.
A recent Staff Report quoted: "The City has taken responsibility to act locally and address the risks of climate change,
drought, extreme heat, social injustice and economic volatility by integrating sustainable practices across our
organization and knitting sustainability into the fabric of our community." And yet, City Hall keeps doing the exact
opposite, by increasing social injustice with its discriminatory initiatives, including the skewed selection of development
sites; increasing economic volatility and vulnerability, by destroying local businesses and initiatives; and turning our
beloved city into an unsustainable dystopia, with increased traffic, noise, pollution, crime, and incivility ‐‐ as well as
putting unsustainable pressure on its limited resources (energy, utility, infrastructure, public services.)
When the Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes, it made a strong, well‐supported recommendation to
the Council against upzoning these streets, and urged the Council to keep the existing heights and densities in these
neighborhood commercial districts.
We urge you to follow the Planning Commission recommendation.
A final word: Santa Monica Airport is an ideal site to build housing in a sustainable, vibrant manner, rather than the
cramped developments that suffocate our neighborhoods. The argument that this is not legally feasible no longer holds;
it is no longer audible, when our very own State tramples local laws and ordinances, with all neighborhoods except the
airport bearing the brunt of their diktat. Santa Monica does not need a Central Park: it needs to remain livable, with
development and green areas distributed throughout the entire city. It's high time this development option be revisited.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
495 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Thank you for your consideration.
Marianne O'Donnell
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
496 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Pam Hall <pamhall@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:04 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Lana
Negrete; Christine Parra; David White; Susan Cline; David Martin; Jing Yeo
Subject:No UpZoning
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and Council Members,
Please do not vote to upzone the NC areas. We look to you for your support. This is an urgent issue for our city's future.
Sincerely,
Pamela Hall
Santa Monica Resident
48 years
Item 7.A 02/14/23
497 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:lee wolfort <lwolfort@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:24 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am a long time resident of Santa Monica and I am writing to tell the city council that I strongly oppose
the “upzoning” of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park
Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. I urge the City council to protect these neighborhoods and
small businesses by keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation. I am deeply concerned
about Santa Monica becoming more homogenized, replacing what makes it unique and special with the same
generic buildings and nationwide chains we see everywhere else. I want to support local businesses and
preserve the character of Santa Monica.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter,
Lee Wolfort
Item 7.A 02/14/23
498 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Randolph Wright <rwright969@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:20 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:02/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:
I strongly oppose the "upzoning" of our neighborhood commercial districts, including but not limited to
Main Street and Ocean Park Blvd. Please protect these streets!
Randolph Wright
2607 6th St
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
499 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Julian Billings <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:19 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a SERIOUS housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local
serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an alternative, it
should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element. And in
fact, we should be upzoning everywhere.
PLEASE stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated-
-this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage.
Bad city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've needed to be built for
decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
Julian Billings
jabillings@gmail.com
1129 Lincoln Blvd Apt 4
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
500 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:bobhall1@verizon.net
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:16 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Lana
Negrete; Christine Parra; David White; Susan Cline; David Martin; Jing Yeo
Subject:No Upzoning
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and Council Members,
Please do not vote to upzone the NC areas. We look to you for your support. This is an urgent issue for our city's future.
Sincerely,
Robert Hall
Santa Monica Resident
48 years
Item 7.A 02/14/23
501 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Kimberly Headstrom <kheadstrom@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:16 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
To the City Council,
I am a resident of Santa Monica and love the small town feel of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that
include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. It’s important to “buy local” and
support the local small businesses and maintain the quality of these walkable Streets. I am against “upzoning” these
streets. It’s important to have some variety in cities and if they all “upzone" there will be no character across our city as
well as it will make it difficult for small business to continue.
Kimberly Headstrom
Long time Santa Monica Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
502 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:lerussell24@gmail.com on behalf of Lauren Russell <lrussellquain@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:14 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A -- OPPOSE upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial districts
Zoning Changes Not Acceptable
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please note that as residents of Sunset Park, Santa Monica we are
strongly opposed to the zoning changes to our beloved neighborhood of
Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. Losing the current skyline to add five
story buildings is an architectural fiasco, a traffic inducing nightmare and
will negatively impact the quality of life of the neighbors living close by
and the small businesses that operate here.
The only way we knew about this potential project was via Next‐door.
The City Council should have made this upcoming vote/proposal more
public. Have any studies been done on traffic and air pollution
consequences if this proposal passes? Nobody I know is for adding taller
buildings, adding traffic and density to already ridiculously crowded
streets, which are often nearly impassible during various hours.
Please note our total opposition to this proposal. We are voters.
Sincerely,
Lauren and Kenneth Quain
Item 7.A 02/14/23
503 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Maire Byrne <maire@thymecafeandmarket.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:10 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local
serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an alternative, it
should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element. Please
stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated--this
attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage. Bad
city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've needed to be built for
decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
Maire Byrne
maire@thymecafeandmarket.com
1630 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405
Santa Monica, California 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
504 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Raquel Vallejo <raqvallejo310@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:34 AM
To:carolyn.torosis@smgov.net; Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; jesse.zwick@smgov.net;
lana.negrete@smgov.bet; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject:NO REZONING
EXTERNAL
Dear council member:
How long have you lived in Santa Monica? What do you love about Santa
Monica?
Me, I’ve lived here’d 25 years. As a student, then a single professional and as
the last 18 years as a mom of 2 students who are now both at Samohi.
What I love about our city is mostly our Sunset Park Neighborhood - but also
the various parts of the city we can choose to visit. The beach, of course, the
restaurants and shopping districts, especially those with local flavor, “Mom
and Pop”, and spaces where we can gather and still appreciate the
surroundings. What I love less and less about our city is the growing TRAFFIC
and CONGESTION, especially in our continually developing downtown, and the
loss of what Santa Monica used to look like. What is incredibly disturbing to me
is the looming transition of Gelsons into a massive development that will no
doubt exacerbate the high traffic on Ocean Park and Lincoln and put a strain on
our resources, especially water and our schools.
AND NOW, we learn our city council is considering further traffic exacerbation
and loss of our city’s charm and culture and these mom and pop stores BY
REZONING our Ocean Park, Pico, and Montana districts? ENOUGH!
WHATEVER GAIN is to be had by such a seismic transition of these districts is
far outweighed by the lasting loss to our City and neighborhoods. Keep
downtown downtown and stop with the expansion of higher and larger
structures, and denser areas - and traffic saturation. It’s NOT
SUSTAINABLE. And it’s not worth losing our Santa Monica.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
505 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:ann major <annsomersmajor@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:33 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am OPPOSED to“upzoning” Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park
Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. I am not a Santa Monica resident, but the low buildings and local
neighborhood shops create a lovely shopping and dining experience and have encouraged me and my husband to spend our
money in these charming areas instead of closer areas of Los Angeles. I encourage a “no” vote on upzoning!
Thank you,
Ann Major
3726 Boise Ave. Los Angeles 90066
Item 7.A 02/14/23
506 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Patricia Nakao <pattinakao@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:33 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Item 7A upzoning
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am a longtime resident and voter of Sunset Park.
I am 100% AGAINST upzoning in my local community on Ocean Park Boulevard, Main Street and Pico, as well on
Montana.
Please DO NOT cave to the financial incentives of others who will profit while changing the character of our beloved city.
Upzoning would have a devastating impact on our local small businesses, as well as the special charm of Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Patricia Nakao
Danny Nakao
1321 Hill Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
507 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Ashley Karubian <ashleymchristensen@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:please upzone!
EXTERNAL
I just received an email lamenting the possible changes to the major commercial streets in SM. This frustrates me,
because how are we supposed to solve our housing / unhoused issues if we don't build more units?! YES PLEASE TO
DENSITY! Obviously we want local retailers to stay put and benefit from the extra people and foot traffic their
businesses will eventually enjoy. My hope is that these redevelopments are zoned thoughtfully, with provisions to limit
the chain stores and/or rethink the economics of the development so the rents allow for smaller shops. No one wants a
street full of bank retail outposts, but we also need to reorient to saying YES to change and progress.
Side note: please don't let this happen. LA is ugly enough with all the chain malls. These developments are an
opportunity to do something appealing and different.
Thank you,
Ashley
Item 7.A 02/14/23
508 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Sherna Berger-Gluck <shernabergergluck@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:29 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:Sherna Berger-Gluck
Subject:Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I strongly urge you to maintain the character of the streets/neighborhoods in Santa Monica, and not "upzone,"
the areas on Ocean Park Blvd, Pico and Montana. Allowing greater heights and densities would transform the
character of these neighborhoods and transform the character and charm of these areas, rendering them into
the same monotonous, uniformity of so many other neighborhoods in LA County.
Sherna Berger Gluck
404 San Vicente Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 7.A 02/14/23
509 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Alison Perchuk <alison.perchuk@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:37 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Proposed Upzoning
EXTERNAL
I oppose upzoning of Ocean Park & Montana Boulevards.
These street are vibrant pedestrian, shopping, service, and dining zones precisely because of their small scale and slower
traffic.
We should promote larger developments on Olympic, Wilshire, Santa Monica, San Vicente: streets that already have
larger scale in architecture and in roadway. Before building new commercial & live/work spaces, we should ensure full
occupancy of existing commercial areas, like the now woefully empty Third Street Promenade ‐‐ the previous, local,
query and vibrant iteration of which was destroyed by development 20 years ago. Conversion of existing structures is
also important before building more.
‐‐
Dr. Alison L. Perchuk
Professor of Art History
California State University Channel Islands
One University Drive
Camarillo CA 93012
alison.perchuk@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
510 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject:Upzone of all of SM
EXTERNAL
Plan for all of us.
Ellen Hannan
Item 7.A 02/14/23
511 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Michele Perrone <micheleperrone@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:41 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Clerk Mailbox
Subject:Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Hello City Council,
I am writing in complete support of the letter to you from SMCLC dated January 23, 2023 regarding Item #7a. You are
addressing this issue tonight.
Please do everything in your power to stop ANY upzoning in our neighborhoods. It is unfair to take any more away from
our city, most especially in our neighborhoods. What’s next?
Some of you already know that I am against increasing density overall, which means including downtown. While I
(hopefully) have a little moment of your attention… I do support adaptive reuse of existing buildings. There are so many
empty stores, SM Place is a ghost town. Have there been studies turning any of this into residential?
Thank you for your time!
Michele Perrone
Ocean Park Resident since 1997
Santa Monica Resident since 1991
Item 7.A 02/14/23
512 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mimi Archie <mimiarchie@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:49 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Hello
As I long time Santa Monica resident. I oppose upzoning of our local neighborhoods. It is so important to maintain
and support local small businesses and the quality of these walkable business locations. Please stop the over
development of our city.
Thank You!
M. Archie
Item 7.A 02/14/23
513 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Bill Elswick <belswick@companyv.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:52 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Oppose upzoning of Montana Ave
EXTERNAL
Hi,
I'm writing to oppose any upzoning of Montana Avenue. The neighborhood is already too dense, and the overflow
parking for the existing businesses impacts residents for many blocks in all directions. Upzoning would certainly make
Montana Avenue and the surrounding neighborhoods even more congested than they currently are. The council needs
to stand up for the residents that elected them.
Bill Elswick
917 Eleventh Street
Item 7.A 02/14/23
514 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:John Murdock <jbmlaw@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:54 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:ZinaJosephs@aol.com
Subject:No to upzoning NC in Sunset Park.
EXTERNAL
We the residents do not need or want upzoning of the NC strips in Sunset Park. Your 2018 interim zoning
ordinance included a directive and policy to preserve "neighborhood character". Upzoning would in fct
destroy the existing character of the neighborhood.
Thank you,
John Murdock
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
tel. (310) 450‐1859
Item 7.A 02/14/23
515 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:JOHN BUCKINGHAM <jlegb@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:54 AM
To:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la
Torre; councilmtgitems
Subject:2.14.23 Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Council members,
I am imploring you to take the advice of our Planning Commission ‐ DO NOT allow our local neighborhoods to be
upzoned!! Santa Monica residents deserve to have at least a few neighborhoods that still serve local residents, many of
whom are older.
Greedy developers (you all know who they are!) have plenty of areas to overdevelop. Don’t let them destroy what is left
of our city. Traffic is already a nightmare for cars and cyclists and rents (both commercial and residential) are off the
charts.
Please use some common sense for once and vote to keep these neighborhood streets a true “neighborhood.”
John Buckingham
Linda Buckingham
Sent from my iPad
Item 7.A 02/14/23
516 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Katherine Newall <katherinecnewall@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:56 AM
To:Katherine Newall
Cc:carolyn.torosis@smgov.net; Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; jesse.zwick@smgov.net;
lana.negrete@smgov.bet; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject:NO REZONING
EXTERNAL
How long have you lived in Santa Monica? What do you love about Santa
Monica? I’ve lived here as a young teen of a divorced immigrant mother
who had no family, but the Santa Monica community. And now I continue to
live here as a mother of three children now taking care of my elder
mother….so I would say for the last 50+ years. I have been an active
member of the community supporting the schools, youth sports and
community leaders.
What I love about our city is mostly our Sunset Park Neighborhood - but
also the various parts of the city we can choose to visit. The beach, of
course, the restaurants and shopping districts, especially those with local
flavor, “Mom and Pop”, and spaces where we can gather and still appreciate
the surroundings. What I love less and less about our city is the growing
TRAFFIC and CONGESTION, especially in our continually developing
downtown, and the loss of what Santa Monica used to look like. What is
incredibly disturbing to me is the looming transition of Gelsons into a
massive development that will no doubt exacerbate the high traffic on
Ocean Park and Lincoln and put a strain on our resources, especially water
and our schools.
AND NOW, we learn our city council is considering further traffic
exacerbation and loss of our city’s charm and culture and these mom and
pop stores BY REZONING our Ocean Park, Pico, and Montana
districts? ENOUGH! WHATEVER GAIN is to be had by such a seismic
transition of these districts is far outweighed by the lasting loss to our City
and neighborhoods. Keep downtown downtown and stop with the expansion
of higher and larger structures, and denser areas - and traffic saturation. It’s
NOT SUSTAINABLE. And it’s not worth losing our Santa Monica.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
517 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
What about making this a CITY that people want to live in and raise their
children and give back…now you are STRIPPING us of the opportunity to
have small business flourish, community members old and young meet live
and work together because Seniors will not be able to afford to live here -
and they will be too scared to walk down such congested streets.
I urge you to listen to the community and preserve the CITY I love.
Katherine Caulfield Newall
Item 7.A 02/14/23
518 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Bruce Brown <bbrown@bob-inc.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am a long time resident of Sunset Park (40 years) and my wife and I have a deep connection to Pico and Ocean Park
Blvd stores and essential businesses that are walkable and accessible in our neighborhood. Any changes such as are
being considered (UpZoning) go against the way our neighborhood is as the Very Livable Santa Monica people love.
Thank you, Bruce
Bruce F Brown
1333 Pine St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
bbrown@bob-inc.com
C/ 310-351-5149
Lic. 523683
Item 7.A 02/14/23
519 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:George Ferrell <jesebus@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:55 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2-14-23 Agenda Item 7-A
EXTERNAL
I urge council members to reject the Planning Departments recommendation to upzone the
commercial streets of Main Street, Pico Boulevard, Montana Avenue, and Ocean Park
Boulevard. These commercial streets are about the only thing Santa Monica left in Santa Monica, the
only thing left that is imbedded in the local community and serves or is owned by or employs
neighborhood residents. Of course, doing what best serves residents may not be the highest priority
for many council members. For those who do place the highest value on what benefits residents of
Santa Monica, I urge you to not upzone these commercial streets.
George Ferrell
338 15th Street
Item 7.A 02/14/23
520 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
(310) 451-3669
February 14, 2023
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item 7-A (Study Session on Implementation of Various 6th Cycle
Housing Element Programs)
Program 2D: Update Density Bonus (SMMC ch. 9.22)
Program 1A: Streamlined Approvals
Our client: Santa Monica Housing Council
LASC Case No. 22STCV11610
Our File No. 639.67
Dear Councilmembers:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Council (“SMHC”).
I am writing on the subject of density bonuses, as well as streamlining for housing
projects.
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW IMPLEMENTATION
The City’s obligation to comply with State Density Bonus Law (Gov’t Code
§§ 65915, et seq.) is set forth in the Third Cause of Action in SMHC’s pending lawsuit.
(Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STCV11610.)
The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance is codified in Chapter 9.22 of the Zoning
Ordinance. It does not presently comply with State law. Since the filing of SMHC’s
lawsuit, the City has been considering amendments needed to comply with State
Density Bonus Law. Those amendments are reflected on pages 108-120 of the Zoning
Ordinance redlines listed as Attachment B of your Staff Report.
The City appears to be on the verge of making substantial progress towards
belatedly bringing its density bonus ordinance into compliance with State law. However,
at least two concerns remain.
One is with the City’s failure to adopt a scheduled end-date for processing
density bonus applications. (See Zoning Ordinance § 9.22.080.) As currently drafted,
there is no deadline by which the City will make a determination on a project’s density
bonus application once it has been filed, deemed complete and reviewed for code
compliance.
kutcher@hlkklaw.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
521 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023
Page 2
The second has to do with the overbroad and overreaching nature and scale of
supporting documentation called for from applicants to establish the basis for granting
incentives/concessions. (See Zoning Ordinance § 9.22.080(A)(3)(c).) The California
Court of Appeal has clearly held: “The applicant is not required to prove the requested
incentives will lead to cost reductions; the incentive is presumed to result in cost
reductions and the city bears the burden to demonstrate otherwise if it intends to deny
the incentive.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego, 74 Cal. App. 5th 755, 770 (2022).)
To come into compliance with State law, the City needs to address both of these
issues. State Density Bonus Law is binding on charter cities such as Santa Monica.
(Gov’t Code § 65918.) And State Density Bonus Law “shall be interpreted liberally in
favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.” (Gov’t Code
§ 65915(r).)
In this regard, the State Legislature has formally declared and codified its
intentions with regard to State Density Bonus Law:
The Legislature finds and declares that the intent behind the
Density Bonus Law is to allow public entities to reduce or
even eliminate subsidies for a particular project by allowing a
developer to include more total units in a project than would
otherwise be allowed by the local zoning ordinance in
exchange for affordable units. It further reaffirms that the
intent is to cover at least some of the financing gap of
affordable housing with regulatory incentives, rather than
additional public subsidy
It is therefore the intent of the Legislature to make
modifications to the Density Bonus Law by the act adding
this subdivision to further incentivize the construction of very
low, low-, and moderate-income housing units. It is further
the intent of the Legislature in making these modifications to
the Density Bonus Law to ensure that any additional benefits
conferred upon a developer are balanced with the receipt of
a public benefit in the form of adequate levels of affordable
housing. The Legislature further intends that these
modifications will ensure that the Density Bonus Law creates
incentives for the construction of more housing across all
areas of the state.
(Gov’t Code § 65915(t)(1) & (2).)
Item 7.A 02/14/23
522 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023
Page 3
A. The City Must Establish Procedures And Timelines For Approving
Density Bonus Applications.
The first deficiency in the draft redlines has to do with the apparently sensitive
issue of adopting timelines for processing density bonus applications. In this regard,
State Density Bonus Law clearly requires as follows:
In order to provide for the expeditious processing of a
density bonus application, the local government shall do all
of the following:
(A) Adopt procedures and timelines for processing a
density bonus application.
(Gov’t Code § 65915(a)(3)(A); emphasis added.)
This unambiguous requirement comes directly from State law.
The City’s “procedures” for processing density bonus applications are set forth on
pages 119-120 of the Zoning Ordinance redlines. Among other procedures, the draft
redlines state: “The [Planning] Director shall grant the concession or incentive required
by the applicant unless [certain narrow findings can be made] based upon substantial
evidence [in the record]” (9.22.080(C)(1)), and also state: “The [Planning] Director shall
grant the waiver or reduction if the development standard will have the effect of
physically precluding the construction of a housing development at the densities
permitted” (9.22.080(C)(2)). However, the redlines state nothing about timelines for
rendering these decisions.
This deficiency means that density bonus projects are held in limbo in Santa
Monica. Like SMHC, the Planning Commission was concerned with this lack of
accountability and raised it multiple times during their public hearings. Also keep in mind
that Housing Element Program 1A and your February 14 Staff Report discuss
“streamlining” the review process for housing projects, but apparently City Staff
contends that “streamlining” means no public hearings but does not mean reaching a
timely decision.
In order to comply with State law, Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance Chapter 9.22
in general, and Section 9.22.080 in particular, need to set forth a timeline or timelines
for decision-making. It does no good to have a timeline for deeming an application
complete and for reviewing an application for code compliance, but not for determining
the amount of the eligible density bonus or the adequacy of the supporting information
to approve incentives, concession, waivers or reductions of development standards.
Per State law:
Item 7.A 02/14/23
523 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023
Page 4
(D)(i) If the local government notifies the applicant that the
application is deemed complete pursuant to
subparagraph (C), [it shall then] provide the applicant
with a determination as to the following matters:
(I) The amount of density bonus, calculated pursuant
to subdivision (f), for which the applicant is
eligible.
(II) If the applicant requests a parking ratio pursuant
to subdivision (p), the parking ratio for which the
applicant is eligible.
(III) If the applicant requests incentives or
concessions pursuant to subdivision (d) or
waivers or reductions of development standards
pursuant to subdivision (e), whether the applicant
has provided adequate information for the local
government to make a determination as to those
incentives, concessions, or waivers or reductions
of development standards
(ii) Any determination required by this subparagraph shall
be based on the development project at the time the
application is deemed complete. The local
government shall adjust the amount of density bonus
and parking ratios awarded pursuant to this section
based on any changes to the project during the
course of development.
(Gov’t Code § 65915(a)(3)(D).)
Right now, there is no timetable for the City to render decisions on density bonus
applications. And density bonus requests are in limbo for long periods of time without a
decision being made. By comparison, for discretionary projects that are exempt from
CEQA, the Permit Streamlining Act requires decisions to be made within 60 days from
the exemption determination. (Gov’t Code § 65950(a)(5).)
The City should set forth a similarly expeditious timeline for granting density
bonus applications. (See Gov’t Code § 65915(a)(3) (“In order to provide for the
expeditious processing of a density bonus application”; emphasis added).) Regardless
of City Staff’s resistance, the City must establish a timeline for its own decision-making
on density bonus applications in order to comply with State Density Bonus Law.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
524 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023
Page 5
B. Section 9.22.080(A)(3)(c) Of The Draft Redlines Runs Afoul Of Caselaw
Limiting A City’s Ability To Require Applicants To Demonstrate
Economic Feasibility (As Distinct From Cost Savings) To Justify
Concessions/Incentives Under Density Bonus Law.
State Density Bonus Law provides as follows:
A local government shall not condition the submission,
review, or approval of an application pursuant to this chapter
on the preparation of an additional report or study that is not
otherwise required by state law, including this section.
(Gov’t Code § 65915(a)(2); emphasis added.)
As to density bonus requests for concessions or incentives, they are to be
evaluated based on “identifiable and actual cost reductions.” (See Gov’t Code
§ 65915(d)(1)(A).) The criterion is cost savings, not economic feasibility.
On September 28, 2021, the California Court of Appeal held as follows:
A local ordinance is preempted if it conflicts with the density
bonus law by increasing the requirements to obtain its
benefits. [Citation omitted.] The ordinance here does so; it
conflicts with the state density bonus law to the extent that it
requires an applicant to demonstrate that an incentive is
needed to make the project “economically feasible.” It is
therefore preempted by state law. [Footnote omitted.]
(Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles, 69 Cal. App. 5th 549, 558. See also Bankers Hill 150,
supra, 74 Cal. App. 5th at 774 (“the Density Bonus Law does not require a developer to
establish that the requested incentives and waivers are necessary to ensure financial
feasibility”).)
The Zoning Ordinance redlines partially address this restriction on the City’s
purview by striking the Zoning Ordinance’s past unlawful requirement for a project pro
forma. However, even with this change, Section 9.22.080(A)(3)(c) still crosses the line.
As proposed, it purports to give Planning Staff overly broad and overreaching latitude to
seek project financial information far beyond “cost savings” as a basis for granting
concessions and incentives. This is not lawful.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
525 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023
Page 6
Please turn to page 119 of the Zoning Ordinance redlines. The redlines on that
page read in pertinent part as follows:
An application for a density bonus, incentive, or concession,
waiver or reduction /, modification of development standards,
or revised parking standard pursuant to this Chapter shall be
submitted with the first application for approval of a housing
development and processed concurrently with all other
applications required for the housing development. The
application shall be submitted on a form prescribed by the
City and shall include at least the following information:
* * *
3. Description of any requested incentives or, concessions,
waivers or modifications reduction of development
standards, or modified parking standards. For all
incentives and or concessions that are not included
within the menu of incentives/ or concessions set forth in
subsections B and C of Section 9.22.060, the application
shall include documentation a pro forma providing
evidence that the requested incentives and concessions
result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost
reductions. The cost of reviewing any required pro forma
or other financial data submitted as part of the
application in support of a request for an
incentive/concession or waiver/modification of
developments standard, including, but not limited to, the
cost to the City of hiring a consultant to review said
financial data, shall be borne by the developer. The pro
forma documentation shall include all of the following
items:
a. The identifiable and actual cost reduction achieved
through the incentive or concession;
b. Evidence that the cost reduction allows the applicant
to provide affordable units or affordable sales prices;
and
c. Other information documentation requested by the
Director. The Director may require that any pro
forma documentation include information regarding
Item 7.A 02/14/23
526 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023
Page 7
capital costs, equity investment, debt service,
projected revenues, operating expenses, and such
other information as is required to evaluate the pro
forma deemed necessary by the Director.
The wording of (a) and (b) is fine. But the wording of (c) highlighted in yellow
goes far beyond cost savings and strays again into financial feasibility and must be
stricken to comply with established caselaw. Capital costs, equity investment, debt
service, projected revenues, and operating expenses have nothing to do with cost
savings, and instead relate to financial feasibility, which is exactly what the Court in
Schreiber held to be unlawful. Subsection (c) should be deleted in its entirety.
STREAMLINING HOUSING PROJECTS
As drafted, the review and decision-making process for Administrative Approval
("AA") applications does not establish any timetable for City Staff to issue their
ministerial decision to approve an AA for a housing or mixed-use housing project.
(See draft Zoning Ordinance § 9.39.060 at pages 165-166 of Attachment B.) Moreover,
the draft Zoning Ordinance adds the requirement to obtain Architectural Review
Board (“ARB”) approval prior to the City approval of the AA, which could easily add
more time (as well as upfront cost) rather than result in streamlining.
A. To Better Implement Housing Element Program 1.A, The Zoning
Ordinance Redlines Should Establish Actual Deadlines By Which The
City Will Issue Its Ministerial Approvals Of New Housing Projects.
We contend that not having any deadline for completing review of AA
applications for housing projects is the exact opposite of the meaning of the term
“streamlining.” Instead, it is anti-streamlining. That is not consistent with the purpose
and intend of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
B. By Contrast, The Zoning Ordinance Formerly Had A 90-Day Deadline For
Review And Decision On Administrative Approval Applications.
In contrast to the current lack of any timetable proposed in the draft Zoning
Ordinance, the City’s 1988 Zoning Ordinance committed to a clear 90-day timetable for
issuing decisions on all Administrative Approval applications:
Item 7.A 02/14/23
527 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023
Page 8
C. A Timetable For Approval Of Administrative Approval Projects Is
Needed.
As discussed above, an open-ended application process runs counter to
streamlining and counter to the urgent need for expedited housing production.
The City Council should insist on revising Section 9.39.060 to establish
reasonable deadlines for decision-making on AA applications for housing projects.
Overall, these decisions should take no longer than 60-90 days once an AA application
for a housing project is deemed complete. To be fair to City Staff, this deadline could
exclude any time during which the applicant is asked to respond to City requests for
additional information from the applicant concerning the project.
Following are suggested timetables:
1. For Housing Projects of 150 units or less, the City has 60 days from the
application being deemed complete to issue the AA.
2. For Housing Projects exceeding 150 units, the City has 90 days from the
application being deemed complete to issue the AA.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
528 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
Santa Monica City Council
February 14, 2023
Page 9
3. The time periods in #1 and #2 above are tolled while City is waiting for an
applicant to respond to a City request for a project revision necessary for the
project to conform with the Zoning Code or to provide other legally required
information.
Imposing the above time periods for review and processing of AAs should not be
burdensome on the City as the Housing Accountability Act already requires the City to
notify the applicant within 30 days (for projects of 150 units or less) or 60 days (for
projects of more than 150 units) if the City considers the project to be inconsistent with
the Code. (Gov’t Code § 6589.5(j)(2).) Thus, the above time periods allow an additional
30 days (with tolling for any time period required for the applicant to respond) beyond
when the City is required to identify any Code inconsistencies to approve the project.
In addition to the above, time periods for processing of AA applications for
housing projects, including the time period for the City to respond to an applicant's
resubmittal and/or schedule a hearing before the Architectural Review Board, should be
tracked by the City and the City Council should receive periodic reporting (quarterly or
at least annually) tracking the City's actual timelines for processing and approval of AAs
for housing projects.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the City Council should direct City Staff to come up with
an expeditious timeline for rendering decisions on density bonus applications.
Furthermore, the City Council should direct City Staff to remove the unlawful terms
relating to financial feasibility from Section 9.22.080(A)(3)(c).
In addition, the City should further ensure the streamlining of housing projects as
outlined in this letter.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:sna
cc: David White
David Martin
Jing Yeo
Douglas Sloan
Heidi von Tongeln
Michelle Hugard
SMHC Board of Directors
Item 7.A 02/14/23
529 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Donna Gregory <dgcom@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:00 PM
To:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; lana.negrete@monica.gov; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Cc:Hamilton Sterling
Subject:City Council Agenda item 7A for Feb. 14th meeting
EXTERNAL
We have lived in the Sunset Park neighborhood for over 40 years, first as renters and subsequently as owners. Over
these four decades, we have enjoyed seeing a wonderfully changing mix of mom and pop businesses and services evolve
along Ocean Park Boulevard between 16th and 18th.
As the zoning currently stands, we enjoy a vibrant commercial corridor. Upzoning the corridor would drastically reduce
the quality of life in the neighborhood. Traffic and parking are already growing problems. In addition, placing a high
density residential building in this area would further erode the quality of life here.
It has taken decades to progress to this vibrant community. Destroying it just as it has gotten off the ground would
countermand the State’s goals for both current and new residents. Please do not let this happen to our neighborhood.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
530 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:John Zemke <zemkejohn@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de
la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject:Re: City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I am a resident of Sunset Park and am strongly opposed to “Upzoning” for Ocean Park Boulevard and Pico
Boulevard.
I am opposed to changing these unique streets to be developed with new five or six-story projects. It would
result in the demolition of existing buildings, and would displace and eliminate most of the essential
neighborhood-serving businesses. They would be replaced with higher rent tenants like chain stores,
destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life and increasing traffic and parking woes.
I am also opposed to allowing lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana
Avenue. I am opposed to allowing developers to consolidate lots and build larger, mega projects on these
Streets.
When the Planning Commission recently reviewed these changes it made a strong, well-supported
recommendation to Council against upzoning these Streets and urged the Council to keep the existing heights
and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts. I urge you to take the recommendation of the
Planning Commission.
Ocean Park Blvd is heavily congested from the ocean to Bundy throughout much of the day. Lincoln Boulevard
is jammed. 23rd street operates at a crawl. There are already big developments being built (on Lincoln at
Ashland) or in the works (Ocean Park/Lincoln /Gelsons) that will have a huge impact on the quality of life in our
too-rapidly growing city. Despite studies that may have been done we do not have any real idea how these
massive projects will negatively impact our neighborhood. It seems the height of foolishness and poor,
insensitive planning to be thinking of upzoning Ocean Park boulevard at this moment in time.
It’s important to “buy local” and support local small businesses and maintain the quality of these walkable
Streets. Please do not destroy Santa Monica as we know and love it.
I’m hoping that the greed of developers (who don’t live here, only care about making money) does not yet
again win out over the people who’ve chosen to live in Santa Monica and build their lives here, raise families,
contribute to the community.
John Zemke
3030 Paula Dr
Item 7.A 02/14/23
531 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Bronwyn Poole / Touch Interiors <Bronwyn@touchinteriors.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis;
Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock
Subject:PLS. NO TO UPZONING OCEANPARK AND PICO
EXTERNAL
To our valuable Council Members,
I have lived in Santa Monica since 2014 and recently bought our home on 14th & Hill Street with my husband
and 3 children in 2021.
I urge your to not allow the upzoning Ocean Park, Pico, Main St and Montana.
We need to protect the small businesses that make Santa Monica neighborhoods special and unique. Not to
mention the inevitable traffic issues.
If you need to meet state mandates for affordable housing then consider creating a corridor along Wiltshire in
keeping with Westwood.
PLEASE DO NOT RUIN OUR BEACHSIDE HAVEN.
Kind Regards,
Bronwyn Poole ‐ 310 661 0627
www.touchinteriors.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
532 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Craig Hamilton Hamilton <chamilton@cannondesign.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
We need to support opportunities to provide more housing in Santa Monica and the Housing
Element is a step in the right direction.
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local
serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot, shouldn't be an alternative, it
should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element.
New housing on the boulevards will actually improve the boulevards. New residents living on
streets like Ocean Park Boulevard in Sunset Park, where I live will support the kind of local
serving retail and restaurants that I'd like to see more of.
Thank you,
Craig Hamilton
Craig Hamilton Hamilton
chamilton@cannondesign.com
2524 25th St
SANTA MONICA, California 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
533 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:George Gleason <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:12 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local
serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot shouldn't be an alternative, it
should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element. Please
stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated--this
attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage. New
housing will only help Santa Monica to grow and be a more inclusive community.
Restrictive policies across the state have prevented the housing we've needed to be built for
decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
George
George Gleason
gleason.george@gmail.com
811 20th St
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
534 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:rhona attwater <adeelforu@live.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:12 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:VOTE NO!!
EXTERNAL
My parents came to Santa Monica in the early 50's from the UK. I was born in '59. We lived in the Ocean Park
area where rents were cheap and the area at the time was considered a dump. My brother and I, who is a
retired SM firefighter were raised in Santa Monica. Our lives have revolved around this City for many years. I
raised my own children here and am a Santa Monica property owner. We are all absolutely disgusted at the
overdevelopment that is taking place around us and the total disregard for what is best for the residents and
taxpayers of Santa Monica. The overdevelopment must stop. It can not be allowed to creep onto Ocean Park,
Montana or Pico. Upzoning these areas will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and
the residents of these areas that will trickle down all of us. It's horrific what you've allowed to happen to
Lincoln Blvd. Don't allow this to happen to what is left of our quaint 8 square mile city. Do what's right and
VOTE NO to upzoning!!
Rhona Attwater
Item 7.A 02/14/23
535 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Rosa Hogle <hoglerosa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2.14.23 City Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
We have lived in Sunset Park on Pearl Street since 1956. We patronize the shops and restaurants
on Ocean Park Blvd, and Pico Blvd and Montana Avenue.
PLEASE DO NOT DEVELOPE AND DESTROY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
Thanks,
William and Rosa Hogle
Item 7.A 02/14/23
536 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Gavin Scott <gavin.scott@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Nicola Scott
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
My wife Nicola and I live in Sunset Park and strongly agree with the Planning
Commission's urging that you protect our neighborhoods and local small businesses by
keeping the current zoning and not allowing lot consolidation.
Sincerely,
Gvin and Nicola Scott
Item 7.A 02/14/23
537 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:bill weiner <billsw222@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:46 PM
To:Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline
Torosis; councilmtgitems
Cc:kate@northofmontana.com
Subject:Montana Ave upzoning - NO
EXTERNAL
Please do not include Montana Ave. in your upzoning plans. Montana Ave survives because of its
smallness, its small town feel. It is not in the same league as a Pico Blvd. Main street or Ocean Park
Blvd or the other major shopping streets. It is narrower and less dense by its very geography, it’s walk
and shop nature. You will increase the parking on local streets, crowds in a residential area, more
crime and less appealing for the many locally owned, neighborhood serving businesses that are here
now. We do not need large chain stores that can pay more for larger spaces.
We already have districts that lend themselves to multi-story developments: Wilshire Blvd, Lincoln Blvd, Santa
Monica Blvd, as well as the more commercial parts of major streets such as 4th, 7th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and
20th.
Leave Montana Ave the way it is.
Bill Weiner
Item 7.A 02/14/23
538 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Vincent Licassi <reallyvincent@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:43 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Up-zoning Ocean Park
EXTERNAL
Dear city councilmembers,
Please do not vote to up‐zone the Ocean Park district. There has long been small business grassroots entrepreneurship
there ‐ recent efforts from new businesses has increased the vibrancy of this quaint area of town that is on the upswing
and has potential to continue to do so. It’s nice to walk there now and then as I live in the area. If I want to frequent any
kind of big business, I can drive there within a 5‐ 10 minutes ‐ that said, I stay away from Lincoln Boulevard (crowded
with lack of parking), which has lots of semi high‐rise, multi‐use buildings that are barren of the personality that had
given Santa Monica it’s unique charm. I don’t need more in my immediate neighborhood. If we voted on it, I’m sure my
friends and neighbors would agree with me. The traffic on Ocean Park is one lane each way ‐ plus the bike lanes (which
are appreciated). But the traffic is backed up every day. A lot of people passing through use Ocean Park as an alternate
route going east and west, to and from the freeway ‐ there is a lot of speeding already. It would be reckless to try to
increase the load on our current transportation system in this area. (Main Street also has a lovely charm ‐ I feel the same
about that.) Your votes will mean a lot for us in this neighborhood. Certainly increased tax revenues will make it
tempting to build and build and build but let’s ask the people ‐ we pay the taxes, vote and know what is needed!
Thank you, Vincent Licassi
Item 7.A 02/14/23
539 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Larry E. Verbit <lverbit@dhvlaw.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Upzoning Montana
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilpersons,
I have been a resident of and homeowner on the 1000 block of 9th and 10th streets since 1987. I am
strongly opposed to the upzoning of Montana avenue which is a local neighborhood shopping
street. To allow higher density and building on that block is absurd and an act against the residents
of the neighborhood who pay taxes to support the city.
You’re really trying to drive out those who sought refuge in a wonderful and quiet community. Now
this type of action, along with the City’s nonfeasance, basically resulting in misfeasance by not timely
filing a development plan with the state risks a 12 story apartment building planned for my 1000 10th
street block. This will drive our prices down, cast shade on multiple residents of 9th, 10th and 11
streets and make parking impossible. How can you have let the City be so ingnorant to such impact
resulting from timely failures.
Very truly yours,
Larry Verbit
Selected by Thomson Reuters as a 2016 - 2023 Southern California Super Lawyer®
Law Offices of Larry E. Verbit
6922 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 300
Hollywood, CA 90028
Telephone: 323/469-6400
Cell: 310/486-4141
Email: lverbit@dhvlaw.com
Website: www.dhvlaw.com
This message and its attachment are sent by a lawyer and may contain information that is confidential and protected
by privilege from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from printing, copying,
forwarding or saving this message and any attachments. Please delete this message and attachments without
printing, copying, forwarding or saving them and kindly notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
540 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:yelena sonkin <yelenasonkin@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:30 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
I am SM resident for more them 30 years and I oppose this Upzoning change that includes Main Street, Ocean Park
Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue.
thank you
Yelena Sonkin
Item 7.A 02/14/23
541 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kendra Desai <kendraleah23@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Hi Council Members,
I am writing to express my concern for the proposal to upzone Santa Monica's neighborhood commercial districts. I
strongly disagree with the idea of upzoning our neighborhoods. My hope is that we can maintain the quality of these
walkable streets by keeping local small businesses. Santa Monica is already getting crowded and there are a large
number of high‐rise apartment buildings already being built. This is only going to create more traffic and worse air
quality. I have small children and we love Santa Monica for its small neighborhood feel. Please protect our
neighborhoods!!!
Thank you,
Kendra
KENDRA LEAH DESAI
310.980.7507
Item 7.A 02/14/23
542 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Debra Jean <creativemuse711@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:UPZONG on Montana Ave
EXTERNAL
Dear City of Santa Monica Council Members;
I am adamantly opposed to the upzoning on Montana Avenue (and in all neighborhoods in our beautiful city).
I urge you to oppose this.
Thank you.
Debra Rawdin
Santa Monica 90401
Item 7.A 02/14/23
543 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Perry Friedrich <phfriedrich@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Feb 14 2023 City Council Agenda item 7a
EXTERNAL
My wife and I have lived in Santa Monica for over 40 years and STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed upzoning of our city’s
commercial districts and the proposal to allow lot consolidations for Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd and Montana Avenue.
The character of our city has already been diminished by overdevelopment. Skyrocketing utility rates are making Santa
Monica less affordable. Increasing demand for water, sewer, gas and electric will only exacerbate the problem. I’m a
retired CPA who has worked with developers for most of my career and know they only care about density which allows
them to increase profitability. None of them ever live in the projects they develop or have any sympathy of the
problems their project create in the local communities.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
544 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Amanda Robertson <aen.robertson@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:57 PM
To:Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock;
councilmtgitems
Cc:Caroline Torosis
Subject:Please vote NO on upzoning
EXTERNAL
This will destroy the unique small town feel Santa Monica is famous for. It will destroy the family friendly environment
we all strive for and pay huge amounts of property taxes for. This should be reserved for downtown Santa Monica only.
If Bobs on OP was forced into the ground floor of a steel and glass building, all hope is lost for our beautiful beach side
city. PLEASE VOTE NO ON LOT CONSOLIDATION AND UPZONING ESPECIALLY ON OCEAN PARK AND MONTANA. It will
destroy everything we have created together.
Amanda Robertson (310) 614‐8071
Please excuse any typos! Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
545 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Roger Young <rogereyoung@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:No "Up Zone"
EXTERNAL
Do not destroy the "village" atmosphere of SM.
Roger Young
Resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
546 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Natalya Zernitskaya <nzernitskaya@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:43 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline
Torosis; David White
Subject:2/14/2023 City Council Agenda Item 7A- Public Comment
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, and City Councilmembers,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the implementation of our City’s 6th Cycle Housing
Element for 2021-2029. At a high level, I am writing to urge you to implement zoning changes, as we agreed to
in our Housing Element, so that we can not only meet our RHNA requirements, but so we can continue on our
path toward making Santa Monica a City that genuinely reflects our values.
The staff report for Item 7A lays out a number of discussion topics and questions that you will need to opine
on. Before I provide my feedback on the specific questions raised in the staff report, I feel that I need to
comment on the “hot topic” that I am sure you’ve received many emails on from community members on urging
you to seek an amendment to our approved Housing Element to limit upzoning of certain neighborhood
commercial districts based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
I understand and support the underlying premise of seeking to protect small businesses and neighborhood-
serving retail, but I do not believe that the proposed method of limiting new housing in these districts is the
appropriate path forward. If our goal is to protect small businesses and create new opportunities for business
owners from marginalized backgrounds, as the City Council, you can implement other policies that would allow
for displaced businesses to return (within certain parameters) or create incentives to provide under-market
rents to certain types of businesses/business owners. The possibilities are vast, and we have not yet
sufficiently explored them. The types of businesses that we are looking to protect and encourage can and
should co-exist alongside homes. In fact, proximity to homes can help businesses succeed and when we allow
for new possibilities, architects can design creative and aesthetically pleasing buildings that create exciting
opportunities and benefit all of us.
Outside of the exploration of other ways to support a thriving business community, as stated in the staff report
“it appears that not rezoning the NC zone and further upzoning a portion of the Bergamot area beyond that
already stated in the certified Housing Element would likely be rejected by HCD.” (emphasis added)
We do not want to put ourselves at risk of our housing element being de-certified and once again becoming
subject to all of the potential consequences of having a non-compliant housing element, including once again
opening ourselves up to additional builder’s remedy projects. With our limited resources and time, we should
follow through on implementing the policy changes we committed to in our Housing Element.
With regards to the remaining discussion topics and questions laid out in the staff report, my suggestions are
below:
Program 1.F (Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards) - We should eliminate the tier system for
housing in Downtown. As we know, 20% of 0 is 0 and if our inclusionary requirements are too high for
projects to pencil, we will not get any housing at all, including deed-restricted affordable housing. The
inclusionary zoning requirement in Downtown should be lowered to 15%. Consistency in our zoning
codes citywide will also help make the development process more predictable, which will reduce costs
Item 7.A 02/14/23
547 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
at the project level and may even help reduce the per-unit costs to renters and homeowners who will
live in these new homes.
Program 1.J (Revising Development Standards for Housing Projects) - As you consider whether ground
floor commercial use should be required for Neighborhood Commercial zones on Pico Boulevard and
Ocean Park Boulevard, I urge you to consider the practical outcomes of such a requirement and
explore the nuances of the topic including asking the following questions: Should this requirement be a
blanket requirement for all new buildings? Should it apply only in cases when a new project is replacing
a building with commercial space on the ground floor? Could this be a flexible requirement that could
potentially allow for more live/work units for people like artists?
Program 1.A (By Right Approvals for Housing Projects) - As for program 1.F above, the standards for
Downtown should be consistent with the zoning standards citywide.
Program 1.D (Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements for Housing) - At a high level, we should
eliminate parking minimums and institute parking maximums citywide. In order to be consistent with AB
2097, we must eliminate parking minimums in the areas shown on the map on page 43 in the staff
report, but knowing what we know about the high costs of parking and in order to align with our values,
we should go a step further and eliminate parking minimums city-wide. We should not eliminate parking
maximums, and we should institute parking maximums citywide as well. An off-street parking spot
routinely adds $30,000-$100,000 to the cost of a new housing project and takes up valuable space that
we could use for homes, for businesses, or for other community-serving needs. We should prioritize
people over cars and we can show that by eliminating parking minimums.
Program 2.A (Establish a Moderate-Income Housing Zoning Overlay “MHO”) - We should expand the
MHO citywide, but we should not exclude R1 or OP1 zoning districts, although we may want to include
some considerations if it is applied in those areas. If we are truly serious about alleviating the strains of
high housing costs on Santa Monica residents and meeting our RHNA requirements, it does not make
sense to exclude a majority of the City’s land. We should also allow for some inclusion of market-rate
units as an incentive to create more housing in projects built under this policy.
Program 4.E (Incentives for SB9 units in R1 zones) - We should make it easier for people to transform
their single-family homes into what works for their families and help incentivize gentle increases to
density through development impact fee waivers for SB9 projects. We should also go a step further and
re-examine our development impact fees for projects that have smaller numbers of units and for ADUs.
Additionally, although the specific issue is not before you today, we should consider allowing deferral of
development impact fees as it would help reduce development costs in the long-term, allowing for lower
per-unit costs.
All people deserve access to safe, stable, affordable, and accessible homes. Please follow through on
implementing the programs and zoning changes we agreed to in our HCD-certified Housing Element so that
Santa Monica can meet its RHNA requirements and live up to our values of equity, inclusivity, sustainability,
and accessibility.
I appreciate your careful consideration of the issues before you today and look forward to listening to your
discussion this evening.
Sincerely,
Natalya Zernitskaya
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
nzernitskaya@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
548 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:John Okulick <okulick@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:39 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose upcoming
EXTERNAL
Vote no on item 7A
Sent from John's iPhone.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
549 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jeffrey Prince <jeffreysmuse@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Please Keep Supporting Sustainability in our amazing city!
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
As a long‐time Santa Monica resident, CERT Team member and Community Garden Volunteer (Ishihara Learning Garden
and the new Marine Park Garden), I want to thank you for your continued support in addressing climate change and
sustainability issues.
I also hope you will continue all efforts to expand urban agricultural projects that promote community gardens and their
educational components.
Everyone benefits from these efforts!
Thank you again,
Jeffrey Prince
‐‐
Jeffrey Prince
(310) 770-8656
"Music is what feelings sound like." - Author Unknown
Item 7.A 02/14/23
550 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Eden Kusmiersky <edenkusmiersky@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Importance:High
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members:
I am a longtime resident of Santa Monica, living just off of Ocean Park Bl\oulevard for 25 years. I vehemently
oppose the proposed “upzoning” of Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts, including our very special
Ocean Park Boulevard. These proposed changes would bring an end to the local small businesses that are the
heart of our neighborhood - the rents would preclude the small bakeries, restaurants, shops, architecture offices,
and other small businesses. The street is welcoming to the local residents and the Will Rogers Elementary and John
Adams Middle School students.
These neighborhood-serving businesses would invariably be replaced with higher rent tenants like chain stores,
destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life and increasing traffic and parking woes.
We do not want bigger buildings or consolidated lots on Ocean Park Boulevard.
We agree with the Planning Commission's well-supported recommendation against upzoning these Streets and
instead keeping the existing heights and densities in these neighborhood commercial districts.
Respectfully,
Eden Kusmiersky
1321 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
551 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Reza Shapouri <reza@shapouri.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick; Caroline
Torosis
Cc:Kate@northofmontana.com
Subject:Upcoming vote on up-zoning four of our neighborhoods
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Tonight you will be discussing and forming an opinion on whether to upzone four of our neighborhood
commercial districts: Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. We already
have districts that lend themselves to multi‐story developments: Wilshire Blvd, Lincoln Blvd, Santa Monica
Blvd, as well as the more commercial parts of major streets such as 4th, 7th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 20th.
I’m asking you to please keep Main St, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd, and Montana Ave. as the few last shopping
areas to keep its old Santa Monica charm and character. We are powerless against the commercial builders
who have infiltrated Santa Moinca using the “builder’s remedy” to erect buildings up to 10 stories high. Let’s
not allow these unique walk and shop streets to turn into tall corridors of generic large chain stores, blocking
out sunlight and small businesses from thriving. If there is anything worth preserving in our seaside town, it’s
these districts!
Thank you,
Reza Shapouri
Shapouri Consulting, Inc.
Mobile: +1‐310‐266‐9816
Reza@Shapouri.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
552 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Cynthia Hill <zakchill@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:57 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com; Cynthia Hill
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers –
I am a business owner in Santa Monica, with offices located on Ocean Park Blvd and a hom eowner in the Sunset
Park neighborhood, just off Pico Blvd.
I oppose the upzoning of the Neighborhood Commercial districts on these two streets. It is the sm all locally-
owned businesses on Ocean Park Blvd. and Pico Blvd. that make the Sunset Park neighborhood special. There
are plenty of com m ercial areas within the city limits alre ad y prepared for the businesses upzoning attracts,
whereas Santa Monica depends on maintaining the intimate neighborhoods like Sunset Park, Pico Blvd and
Ocean Park Blvd, that support locally-owned sm all and eclectic businesses. It’s what makes Santa Monica a
wonderful hom e and an exciting destination for others.
Please do not throw locally-owned businesses to the wolves by upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
districts on these two streets.
Thanks,
Cynthia Hill
Cynthia HIll
SM small business owner and Sunset Park resident
310-399-4000
Item 7.A 02/14/23
553 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Burt Goldstein <burtgoldsteinmusic@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Carol Dickinson
Subject:City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Member:
Please vote down any and all proposals to upzone or consolidate lots or otherwise facilitate further large-scle development.
I have read the article at:
https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/February-
2023/02_13_2023_Council_Caught_in_a_Tight_Spot.html
We are ALL in a “tight spot” here in Santa Monica.
That is why residents oppose further development and overcrowding.
The cost of possible State and developer litigation, with its uncertain outcome, should be weighed against the cost of rolling
over and upzoning ourselves, with its certain depredation of living standards for us.
At the very least, litigation could delay development. “Injustice delayed is injustice denied (for a while)”.
This might provide some breathing room and the possibility of change at the State level as other communities put pressure on
the State in defense of their right to zone themselves.
The alternative is certain oincrease in overdevelopment.
Burt Goldstein
On Feb 14, 2023, at 10:41 AM, Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Northeast Neighbors and friends,
Tonight, Santa Monica City Council will be holding a study session to implement
our city's Housing Element, which has already been approved by Council and
includes upzoning four commercial boulevards (Main Street, Montana Ave, Pico Blvd,
and Ocean Park Blvd). But opposition to this element in the Housing Element has been
Item 7.A 02/14/23
554 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
mounting among residents, small business owners, members of the Planning
Commission and Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City.
Defending the zoning increase in the Housing Element are City Planning Department
staff who have expressed fears that such changes could place the City's certified
Housing Element in jeopardy and risk rejection by the State Housing and Community
Development (HCD) with potentially dire consequences.
Below is an article in the LookOut. You can watch the Council meeting live tonight at
https://www.youtube.com/user/Citytv16santamonica
The Agenda with Written Comments submitted to Council on Agenda Item 7-A can be
accessed at
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1353
Tricia
Santa Monica LOOKOUT - Council Caught in a Tight
Spot on Development
February 13, 2023 -- The City Council on Tuesday will face a volatile political dilemma --
change the unique nature of Santa Monica's four Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts or
open the floodgates to virtually unchecked State-sanctioned development.
https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/February-
2023/02_13_2023_Council_Caught_in_a_Tight_Spot.html
Item 7.A 02/14/23
555 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Joan Sekler <joan.sekler@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:50 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam
Davis; Kristin McCowan; Council Mailbox; info@smrr.org
Subject:Feb 14 City Council Agenda Item 7A regarding Upzoning
EXTERNAL
As Santa Monica residents, we strongly oppose the upzoning of Montana, Pico, Ocean Park and Main St. This will further
prevent low and middle income people to rent and to shop on their incomes.
We need to downzone these areas, otherwise, Santa Monica will just turn into a city for the wealthy!
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
556 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Rochelle Siegel <rtortorete@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:46 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
As a 20 years plus Westside resident, I urge you to vote no in the choice to “upzone” Santa Monica’s
neighborhood commercial districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana
Avenue. Please leave neighborhoods intact. Not every building, every block needs replacement with multi story
buildings. We need neighborhoods that feel like neighborhoods. We need our existing local businesses, not chain
stores. Please protect the soul and "sense of place" in Santa Monica.
Rochelle Siegel
cel 310‐902‐0159
______________
Item 7.A 02/14/23
557 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Matt Elkus <melkus01@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:45 PM
To:Matt Elkus
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
As a current Santa Monica resident and concerned citizen, I believe you should OPPOSE the upzoning of our
neighborhood commercial districts.
Thanks,
Matt Elkus
Item 7.A 02/14/23
558 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:45 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Agenda Item 7 - Study Session Housing Element
From: Laurel Overman <laurel.overman@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:02 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Agenda Item 7 ‐ Study Session Housing Element
EXTERNAL
I am against up zoning Montana, Ocean Park, Main Street and Pico.
It’s a false choice to say you either up zone or we will have the “builder’s remedy” throughout the city.
UP ZONE ANOTHER AREA. The area that should be up zoned is Wilmont from 4th Street east to 20th Street.
This is rent control Area G and the most populous SMRR voting base. Wilmont Area G and NOMA have historically allied
to downzone Wilmont because NOMA doesn’t want the traffic in their neighborhood that will come from increased
Wilmont development.
As a voting block, Wilmont and NOMA have ganged up on the southern portion of the city for 40 years, keeping SMRR in
power.
In 1990, before Prop R was voted in, the density in Wilmont was 8 units on a 7500 square foot lot. Prop R downzoned it
to 5 units and it has been downzoned again to 3 units. The limited new construction is $2M+ condominiums.
At 8 units per lot, more affordable condominiums could be built. The people want 3 bedroom condominiums for
families. Families in this area will send their kids to our public schools and the tax base will be increased.
Any renter who is truly low income would automatically go to the head of the line for a new rent restricted unit.
I have been in my current location on 7th Street for 30 yers. The “low income” renters are all long‐stayers who don’t
work — or work very little — because their rent is so cheap they don’t have to.
My next door neighbor will tell you she is a poor grandmother. In reality, she is a 50% owner in another rent controlled
building in Santa Monica which she operates illegally. Under AirB&B. Hers is not an unusual situation,
When developing the boulevards was initially voted in, then Council Member Kevin McKeown stated that developing the
boulevards would provide 20 years worth of our housing needs for the Housing Element.
So, in 20 years, you are going to have to upzone the multi‐family areas anyway. Why not have a more balanced plan?
You should have the Planning Department present a plan view of the city with the boulevards built out with 4 and 5
story buildings with low density residential in between. It’s going to look like a wall of overhead rail lines lining the
Item 7.A 02/14/23
559 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
streets.
Thank you.
Laurel Overmaan
953 7th Street
SM 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
560 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:45 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
From: rick salzman <ricksalz@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:13 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: 2/14/23 agenda item 7‐A
EXTERNAL
Hi--I am a long time resident of Sunset Park. I urge you to leave the Pico Blvd and Ocean Park Blvd development
standards as is. There are many small local business establishments which make this neighborhood feel like a
neighborhood
Please do not upzone the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts on these streets.
Thank you.
Rick Salzman
1109 Pearl St
Item 7.A 02/14/23
561 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Jan Brilliot <janbrilliot@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Upzoning commercial areas.
EXTERNAL
For 35 years I ran a business on Montana Ave. It was very successful (I sold and retired in 2008) I would attribute my
success to hard work and a vision but also to the fact that it existed in a low key friendly neighborhood where business
owners and employees knew our clients and cared about them. It wasn’t just about the bottom line $$$.
I am afraid the City of Santa Monica has not learned this lesson from the failing Promenade and now wants to try again
on the smaller neighborhood commercial streets.
Please do not vote to upzone these neighborhood commercial districts. Do not support this mistaken vision. Vote NO.
Jan Brilliot
former owner Weathervane II
Item 7.A 02/14/23
562 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellen Mark <ellenmark93@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine
Parra
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A: Study Session on Implementation of the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing
Element Programs
Importance:High
EXTERNAL
To Mayor Davis and Council members:
Please retain the existing heights and FARS in the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Ocean Park Blvd, and the south
side of Pico Blvd., rather than increasing as proposed in the certified Housing Element.
Small businesses need our protection, and our neighborhoods need them!
Sincerely,
Ellen Mark
Navy St.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
563 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Tony Harris <iamtonyharris@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Janis Flax
Subject:No rezoning Ocean Park and Pico!
EXTERNAL
Please vote NO on rezoning Ocean Park and Pico. I am a homeowner on 31st Street and Ocean Park and I am strongly
against this money grab and surely unpopular idea. Please register my voice.
Tony Harris
2526 31st Street
Item 7.A 02/14/23
564 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Donna <sternbergdancers@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
As a long time Santa Monica resident one of the things I value most are the distinct neighborhoods with their small
stores and restaurants. It makes the city seem like an oasis in the midst of the sprawling megalopolis of Los
Angeles. Upzoning Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial districts would destroy that and lose the uniqueness that
makes Santa Monica special. It would become like any other street and shopping district in Los Angeles, full of large
chain stores with no character. Chain stores can go to Third Street Promenade, which many have left, without
destroying our neighborhood shopping areas. I shop locally because there are stores that aren’t in a zillion other places,
if those stores go out of business I would have no incentive to shop here. Tax dollars would be lost and city revenue
would decrease.
I urge you to vote no to the upcoming proposal. Keep Santa Monica full of charming small businesses and restaurants.
Thank you.
Donna Sternberg
Donna Sternberg & Dancers
Artistic Director
www.dsdancers.com
310-260-1198
Item 7.A 02/14/23
565 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Neighborhood Commercial
From: Thomasine Rogas <teharvin@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:52 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Neighborhood Commercial
EXTERNAL
As a tour guide I regularly come down Main Street in a bus with people from Canada, UK, and other
parts of the USA.
This has given me a unique opportunity to experience just how special our Main Street is.
PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE IT!
Thomasine Rogas
110 Ocean Park Blvd #214
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 7.A 02/14/23
566 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Amanda Kerner <amandakerner@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Alan Kerner; Amanda Kerner
Subject:We LOVE all of our local business. They are necessary to the quality of life for our community!
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
More is not better. We need you to support our quality of life!
We love our small local businesses please give them all the support that they need to thrive so they can serve
our community.
We do not support - upzoning our Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Thank you for your service and thank you for listening to the people's concerns,
Amanda and Alan Kerner
1761 Sunset Avenue
Santa Monica CA 90405
310.452.0658
310-261.7798
amandakerner@gmail.com
kerners@aol.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
567 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Ben Swett <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:01 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Housing on our Boulevards - More, Not Less! (please at least skim)
EXTERNAL
Council Comments ,
Dear Friends:
Please don't downzone commercial boulevards. That would be going EXACTLY THE WRONG
DIRECTION on housing.
Some of parts of them have housing already - and those are vital areas, full of life and
services. There is housing on Montana, Ocean Park & Wilshire already --- and it hasn't ruined
or hurt those areas - the new housing on Eastern SM blvd has brought life and services to that
area.
Look at the new services and vibrancy that's come with new(ish) housing in downtown santa
monica.
Housing is not bad or evil. Housing = Good. More Housing = Good.
Housing is nothing to fear.
People fear change. Housing is fine. We need it as a state, a region, a city ... and we're
required to add it as a city. The NIMBYs want ... what? Roll back the clock? Pull up the
Drawbridge?
Why would you restrict housing, anywhere, when we need more of it, so desperately? Just
because people who are unhappy and fearful anyway think it's going to .... do what, exactly?
We got a message from NOMA saying Montana is at risk of "becoming homogenized,
replacing (specialness) with generic buildings and nationwide chains." and that we should be
alarmed. Ridiculous. (and several nationwide chains on Montana already: californa closests;
citibank, wells fargo, whole foods, william sonoma; Menchies, Panda Express; Starbucks,
Item 7.A 02/14/23
568 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Drybar, Kiehls, Massage Place, Chase Bank; Coldwell Banker, Compass Realty; Engel and
volkers; One West Bank (pavillions (safeway corp) union bank, etc ).
You need to add something like 9,000 units, right? So add them at Bergmont, AND the airport
someday - AND boulevards. Please be grown ups about this, do your jobs, and be kindly, firm
and understanding towards the fearful. They'll be fine. You'll be fine.
We need housing, period. More housing will IMPROVE our commercial boulevards.
If you read this, thanks. If you get it, please hold the line. It's time to grow up. Please change
direction on "fear of housing" and show leadership - thank you.
Thank you,
Ben Swett
90402
Ben Swett
bswett@gmail.com
614 San Vicente
Santa Monica, California 90402
Item 7.A 02/14/23
569 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Noma Boardmember <nomaboard@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:01 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Council Agenda Item 7: Study session, 2/14/23
EXTERNAL
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Dear Mayor Gleam and Council Members,
The NOMA Board supports the concepts previously expressed in the letter sent by several members
of the Planning Commission asking the City Council to request the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) amend the City’s certified Housing Element to enhance
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).
The request asks to "retain the existing heights and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in the Neighborhood
Commercial Districts (NC) on Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana
Avenue rather than increasing them as proposed" in the certified Housing Element. This is
acknowledgement that the upzoning of our NC districts has the strong potential to displace locally
owned businesses that provide affordable retail and essential services to residents. The letter
cautions that "In fact, the loss of these neighborhood-serving businesses will be in direct conflict with
AFFH objectives."
The letter clearly states the need to maintain our Neighborhood Commercial Districts in order to
provide essential services to residents. The last major zoning update (2015) considered increasing
the height and FARs for the neighborhood commercial districts and decided that these were not
warranted and should remain resident serving commercial areas.
Neighborhood Commercial Districts each have a unique feel which is vital to Santa Monica, its
residents and business community. They provide a special mix serving us all. We would be
substantially poorer as a community if we were to lose their distinctive nature and local ownership.
The NOMA Board urges the City Council to seek a modification in the City’s certified Housing
Element to protect the Neighborhood Commercial Districts.
Thank you.
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
570 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Pico Blvd Santa Monica <picoblvdsm@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:Sharon@Paws-Effect.com
Subject:City Council 2/14/23 agenda item 7-A; Protect Neighborhood Serving Streets
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please use your authority to protect Santa Monica’s Pico Boulevard from higher-sized buildings, and more
density.
Pico Boulevard is Santa Monica’s longest ‘working boulevard’, starting at the beach and running 3 miles up to
Centinela Avenue at the 10. There is a unique concentration of family-owned small businesses, many second-
and third-generation, along with national supermarkets, specialty shops, professional offices, gyms, bars and
restaurants, non-profits, Santa Monica College, and community open spaces Virginia Ave Park. This mix is
how Pico Boulevard survived the recent pandemic, and continues to attract more small businesses to the
neighborhood.
Nearly half of all businesses on Pico Boulevard are professional offices in areas such as law, healthcare,
real estate and property management, financial services, general contracting, creative production, and non-
profits.
Food and drink businesses (excluding exclusively retail-based businesses) also have a strong presence on
Pico Boulevard, including coffee shops, bakeries, bars, and restaurants like Lunetta, Upper West and The
Brixton
Personal services such as hair salons and barbers, massage, fitness, laundry and other services are also
common, as are retail businesses for a wide variety of goods including groceries, liquor, clothing, sporting
goods, general merchandise, and many auto repair and tire shops.
Some of Pico Boulevard’s many legacy businesses include McCabe’s Guitar Shop, the Morgan-Wixson
Theatre, Rae’s Diner, and Gilbert’s El Indio restaurant.
Retail anchors include Trader Joe’s, the 99 Cent Store, Rite Aid, Walgreens, and Whole Foods 365.
Pico’s newest businesses in 2022 are small and/or independent, including Adriana’s Hair Studio, Nostalgia
Bar, In2Scuba, Vela Massage and Go Get Em Tiger, opening June 2023.
Please apply to the State to modify our City’s Housing Element to exempt this Neighborhood Commercial
District from upzoning. Upzoning would allow significantly taller buildings than Pico Boulevard can currently
host, and disrupt its thriving small business community. Resulting increasing rents would drive out the small,
local businesses that are the backbone of this district’s economy.
Thank you.
Sharon Town Lee
Chair
Pico Improvement Organization
Item 7.A 02/14/23
571 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
7
picoblvdsm@gmail.com
‐‐
Dana Moorehead
Merchant Engagement Director
Pico Improvement Organization
picoblvdsm@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
572 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Outdoor dining
From: Jen Liles <jenniferrliles@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:22 PM
To: gleam.davis@cityofsantamonica.gov <gleam.davis@cityofsantamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Outdoor dining
EXTERNAL
Hi to whoever may actually read this!
I’m writing to say horribly sad it is that the city is making it so difficult for our beloved restaurants to continue outdoor
dining, specifically Crudo e Nudo in Santa Monica.
Main Street has been dead for years, and the pandemic outdoor dining project brought it back to life. We got to know
the owners well while they opened, and know they truly care for the city, sustainability, community and more.
Making it so difficult for businesses to save outdoor dining is absolutely baffling to me. We live in Southern California!
We want to eat outside! What do you save, like 3 parking spots? Don’t we pay enough in taxes to keep programs like
this running?
Restaurants have suffered enough and so have angelenos. Please reconsider the recent measures you have put into
place.
Thanks,
Jen
Item 7.A 02/14/23
573 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: MAIN STREET OUTDOOR DINING - NO to personal guarantee and water waste capital facility fee
From: Brooke Oliver <brooke.k.oliver@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:21 PM
To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: MAIN STREET OUTDOOR DINING ‐ NO to personal guarantee and water waste capital facility fee
EXTERNAL
Hello City of Santa Monica,
As a resident of Santa Monica for the past 10 years and Los Angeles resident for 30, I have seen businesses go to die on
Main Street. Over the past 3 years since Santa Monica opened up the streets of Main Street for outdoor dining, there
has been a new wave of life and interest on the street. It has become a nice place to dine, walk, gather with friends and
find new places to eat/shop. Where in the past it was a sleepy street, quiet during the day with almost only indoor
dining (some with dining off the street in dark outdooer patios). Such a shame when we live in such a beautiful place
with great weather year round.
It has come to my attention by business owners on Main Street that the city is now requiring new fees for business
owners making it impossible for them to survive.
I am asking you to remove the personal guarantee and the water waste capital facility fee entirely from your new
contract. Save these companies who saved the city during the pandemic. Keep local businesses alive.
Respectfully,
Santa Monica Resident Brooke Oliver
Item 7.A 02/14/23
574 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: We should be helping restaurants
From: Kevin Tyler <kevinctyler2@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:13 PM
To: gleam.davis@santamonica.com <gleam.davis@santamonica.com>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: We should be helping restaurants
EXTERNAL
My partner and I chose to live in Santa Monica because of how charming and walkable the Main St corridor seemed. As
soon as we saw it, we envisioned all of the outdoor dinners we could walk to, sitting under the lights lining our street.
Now, the city has decided to take aim at an industry left hobbling throughout and after the pandemic: neighborhood
restaurants.
In 2021, according to Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, visitor spending on meals was Alonso’s $160m and over $60m
was spent on beverages ‐ each a fraction of 2019/pre‐pandemic levels. ($343m and $146m, respectively.
That means restaurants are working double time to claw themselves back to profit, while enduring extreme hiring
difficulties and other obstacles. The City of Santa Monica should be assisting these vital businesses, not harming them.
As a prominent destination for business, families, and others, our dining scene deserves support from the municipality it
serves.
As a tax payer, I’m asking you to consider removing the personal guarantee and the water waste capital faculty fee so
these restaurants can get back on their feet and continue serving the residents and tourists in our neighborhood.
Thank you.
Kevin Tyler.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
575 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Cheryl LaMee <cheryllamee@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:34 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
Hello City Council:
Upzoning Pico, Main, Ocean Park and Montana is not called for at this time. We have plenty of open
storefronts (take a look at 3rd St as an example) and we need to address immediate eyesores before we
create more havoc in our beautiful city.
Kind Regards,
Cheryl
‐‐
Cheryl LaMée
c | 512-968-2506
e | cheryllamee@gmail.com
Item 7.A 02/14/23
576 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:sally landau <sallylandau@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:"upzoning" of Pico and Ocean Park Boulevard
EXTERNAL
I’m unable to attend tonight’s City Council meeting, so I’m taking this time to share my feelings and thoughts about
increasing zoning in my neighborhood on Ocean Park Boulevard and West Pico.
In years past, I’ve co‐managed an architecture firm and fully understand the need for space requirements and
neighborhood upgrades, not to mention increased revenue for the City.
However, the blocks under consideration are occupied by small business owners that greatly contribute to the
community and enrich our lives. Many of us shop and dine often in establishments that will be affected by their removal.
In fact, some are so popular, they attract people from all over Los Angeles County.
The speculation that 5‐story behemoths will transform our neighborhood is chilling, and because of the anticipated
much higher rents, the developers will only be able to sign leases with mighty chain stores (at which I rarely shop) or fast
food restaurants (where I do not eat).
I’m sure you’re considering many aspects of this potential zoning change, perhaps some I’m unaware of, but from my
point of view, it would be a travesty for the neighborhood I have lived in for 18 years and hold dear.
Thank you,
Best regards,
SALLY LANDAU
2444 25th Street
Santa Monica CA 90405
“Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken.”
Oscar Wilde
“I dwell in possibility.”
Emily Dickenson
“Curiosity is the cure for boredom. there is no cure for curiosity.”
Dorothy Parker
Item 7.A 02/14/23
577 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Item 7.A 02/14/23
578 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Barbara Fuchs <fuchsbar@humnet.ucla.edu>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 6:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Item 7A- Support Housing on our Neighborhood Commercial Boulevards
Council Comments ,
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Negrete, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council,
Please do not support the calls to ask the state to allow us to downzone our Neighborhood
Commercial boulevards. We have a serious housing shortage and should be allowing more
housing on these boulevards to address the housing shortage and create a more vibrant, local
serving retail experience. Allowing more housing in Bergamot shouldn't be an alternative;
instead, it should be done in addition to what's already been included in the Housing Element.
Please stop treating new housing like it is some kind of evil that needs to be accommodated--
this attitude and the policies that result from it are exactly why we have a housing shortage.
Bad city leadership across the state has prevented the housing we've needed to be built for
decades, now is our chance to change course.
Thank you,
Barbara Fuchs
Barbara Fuchs
fuchsbar@humnet.ucla.edu
1068 Yale St.
Santa Monica, California 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
579 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Jane <itisdone9999@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 8:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:NO on Up-Zoning our Neighborhood Commercial Districts
Dear City Council Members,
I am asking - pleading with you DO NOT Up-Zone our Neighborhood Commercial Districts!!
Please STOP with the over building and destroying the unique neighborhood charm of Santa Monica!
Stop it!
For the past 25 years I have lived less than a block of Montana Ave, I raised my son here - Please don't destroy this lovely
neighborhood, OUR HOME by building 6-story buildings!
Enough with the over building in Santa Monica!!!
Stop destroying Santa Monica!
Stop making destroying Santa Monica's charm!!
People over Profit!!
Prioritize the quality of life for Santa Monica residents!
P.S. I VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION!
Thank you.
Jane Tucker
Long time Resident of Santa Monica, Parent and Voter
Item 7.A 02/14/23
580 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Rachel Maguire <rmag2002@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2023 10:26 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick
Subject:2.14.23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Hello‐
As a homeowner in Santa Monica, I am opposed to “upzoning" of the Santa Monica’s neighborhood commercial
districts that include Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. I am also opposed to lot
consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Montana Avenue.
Santa Monica is currently being overrun by big projects and taller buildings. We need to preserve the charm and
diversity that still exists.
Thank you for your time.
Rachel Maguire
101 California Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90403lean
Item 7.A 02/14/23
581 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Sue Edwards <brassfam@earthlink.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:15 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Dear Councilmembers:
Again, please protect Pico, Main, Ocean Park, and Montana from upzoning by requesting a modification to the City’s
Housing Element regarding NC Zones.
In addition, please oppose lot consolidation on Pico, Ocean Park, and Montana, as well as Main.
We have come to a crossroads in terms of development in our city.
Please consider that upzoning and lot consolidation will have profound and negative effects on our local environment,
sustainability, and quality of life for future generations of Santa Monica residents, workers, and visitors.
Thank you.
Sue Edwards
Item 7.A 02/14/23
582 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Caoimhe Whitebloom <caoimhewhitebloom@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 5:28 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:FriendsofSP@yahoo.com
Subject:2/14/23 agenda item 7-A
Hello,
My name is Caoimhe Whitebloom and I have grown up in Santa Monica. There are a lot of things changing in our city
now, some things for the better but some for the worse. Upzoning the Neighborhood Commercial districts on Ocean
Park Blvd and Pico Blvd would hurt Santa Monica and our locally owned small businesses in a hugely detrimental way.
The businesses that would replace them would be large corporate chains that you can find anywhere else in the states
and we would loose what makes us unique.
I patron many of the business on Ocean Park and Pico weekly, if not daily. Bob’s Market, Thyme Cafe, Santa Monica
Yoga, The Counter, Lunetta, Gilbert’s, and so many more make Santa Monica the amazing place it is and if we lose them,
which is what will definitely happen if this item goes through, then we might as well be any other boring city in
California.
Please understand that the gravity of this decision.
Thank you,
Caoimhe Whitebloom
Item 7.A 02/14/23
583 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Kristin Kreiger <kristinkreiger@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:45 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
Hello Council members,
Please do not “Upzone” more streets in Santa Monica, allow lot consolidation on Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico
Boulevard and Montana Avenue.
It is vitally important to support our small businesses which are being so driven out of business in all the country
by large buildings and enormous chain stores.
Please, please, please make your votes for the local people. Thank you.
Kristin Kreiger
Item 7.A 02/14/23
584 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Victoria Schlue <vlara16@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:19 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
I’m a Santa Monica resident and strongly feel that Ocean Park Blvd, Main St, Pico Blvd, and Montana Ave need to be
protected against upzoning and lot consolidation. It’s important to support local small businesses and maintain the
quality of these walkable streets in our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Victoria Schlue
Sunset Park resident
Item 7.A 02/14/23
585 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Jenee Castellanos <jeneecastellanos@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council Agenda Item 7a
Council members,
I'm writing as a resident of Santa Monica for almost 20 years, and as a voter and tax payer, I am voicing my opposition to
the proposed "upzoning" of our retail areas of the city.
Support small business, support your residents, listen to your residents.
Protect the integrity of Santa Monica and do not upzone these areas. This city is over developed as it is.
Thank you,
Jenée Castellanos
Item 7.A 02/14/23
586 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Thomas Polson <tpolson@3dpaint.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 City Council Agenda Item 7a
To the city council,
I'm a 25+ resident in Santa Monica who lives near Montana and has an office on Main St. I strongly oppose the zoning
change. We need to preserve these areas as they are some of the few remaining walkable neighborhoods in Los
Angeles.
Traffic and parking are already a problems and I'm sure you've heard all the arguments. It is time to do what is right and
preserve the things that make Santa Monica special.
Thomas Polson
Item 7.A 02/14/23
587 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Steve Housden <stephen.a.housden@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:14 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
We will not stand for Ocean Park Blvd becoming a dark, depressing canyon like you've created on parts of
Lincoln. This over simplistic (greed based, imho) approach to "The Housing Crisis™" has never and will never
solve the issues it purports to. It is --at best-- misguided, wasteful, and an assault on those of us who have set
down roots here over decades.
Steve Housden
Item 7.A 02/14/23
588 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kat Blandino <katblandino@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:48 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Item 7A Santa Monica City Council 2.14.23
EXTERNAL
Dear Elected Officials and Mayor Davis,
I implore you to hear from the people you are elected and responsible to serve.
I write to you regarding item 7A on tonights (2.14.23) city council agenda. We the people do not want to upzone our
neighborhood commercial streets (Montana, Main, Pico and Ocean Park) please stop with the overdevelopment that is
destroying our city, our quality of life and the future of Santa Monica for our children.
I understand that there are personal agendas at play and the machine that is Santa Monica politics including SM Dem
Club and SMMRR is why we have Gleam Davis as Mayor once again and Council Member Torosis and Council Member
Zwick holding seats but it is time to realize that you don’t own this city and it’s residents won’t allow you to destroy our
neighborhoods.
We are working, living and raising our children here. Many have lived here far longer than I have but what we all have in
common is a love for this iconic city. Please stop destroying it. Please stop making it unsafe to live in, impossible to park
anywhere and devoid of the basic amenities needed. Please listen to the people you are elected to serve.
We do not want a consolidation of lots and large mega projects happening. We want to support local businesses and live
in a thriving neighborhood community.
Please stop destroying our city.
I stand with the planning commission and what is outlined in their letter.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=14074&Meeting
ID=1353__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!pgsPNx9CSRMiF9r73wRUrcFIiFnbM6R5NCfgjgI3SwXAumXrfGqV5a_2VgjaI45QitF1wDxe
11riQu0LRzrwDYrNn9xQkAj1$
Please vote to keep the current zoning and not allow lot consolidation.
Thank you for your time and service,
Kat Blandino
Sunset park resident and parent to elementary and middle school children in our district.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7.A 02/14/23
589 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Mitchell, Jonathan <jmitch5@lausd.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:47 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Re: Please vote NO upzoning Item 7a city council meeting 2/14/23
EXTERNAL
PLEASE vote NO on upzoning Item 7a city council meeting tonight2/14/23
We do not want our city destroyed by overdevelopment. The shade and eyesore of tall buildings on these
quaint streets that still have family run businesses is the foundation of our city. Please do not ruin it any more
than recent development has already done!!!!
Thank you,
Jono Mitchell
Santa monica, 90403
Item 7.A 02/14/23
590 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:banafsheh@shapouri.com
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:53 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick
Cc:Kate@northofmontana.com
Subject:Upcoming vote on up-zoning four of our neighborhoods
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Tonight you will be discussing and forming an opinion on whether to upzone four of our neighborhood commercial
districts: Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico Boulevard and Montana Avenue. We already have districts that lend
themselves to multi‐story developments: Wilshire Blvd, Lincoln Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd, as well as the more commercial
parts of major streets such as 4th, 7th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 20th.
I’m asking you to please keep Main St, Ocean Park Blvd, Pico Blvd, and Montana Ave. as the few last shopping areas to
keep its old Santa Monica charm and character. We are powerless against the commercial builders who have infiltrated
Santa Moinca using the “builder’s remedy” to erect buildings up to 10 stories high. Let’s not allow these unique walk
and shop streets to turn into tall corridors of generic large chain stores, blocking out sunlight and small businesses from
thriving. If there is anything worth preserving in our seaside town, it’s these districts!
Thank you,
Dr. Banafshe Bayati MD
1450 10th Street, Suite 305
Santa Monica, Ca. 90401
424.348.3800 Office
833.974.2032 Fax
www.smobgyn.com
This email message, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential, and prohibited from disclosure under applicable law. if you are not the
intended recipient, please delete/destroy all electronic and har copies of this email immediately and notify the sender that the email
was sent in error.
Item 7.A 02/14/23
591 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Carmen Joseph <carmenjoseph@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 5:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:2/14/23 Agenda item 7a
EXTERNAL
I am a concerned Sunset Park resident of 22 years. I have been a regular customer of Bob’s Market, Santa Monica Yoga
and Merrihew’s Sunset Gardens as well as many other businesses on Ocean Park, Pico and Montana Avenue. I have
been heartened to see the recent small businesses thriving on Ocean Park lately. I feel like our little neighborhood is
starting to thrive. The prospect of “up zoning” will undermine all the positive growth in this area. Pushing out long‐term
small businesses for denser, high‐rents doesn’t make sense.
I am not a NIMBY person. I desperately want to house the unhoused and to provide much needed affordable housing. I
worry about these small businesses being forced out if there are rent increases. The last thing that small commercial
areas need are more large corporate retail stores and restaurants. I want to support small business and affordable
housing.
Please vote no on up zoning. This will destroy our small residential areas by changing the commercial landscape.
Thank you.
Carmen Joseph
2101 Pearl Street
Item 7.A 02/14/23
592 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jero Books & Templet Co. <jero.book@gte.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 5:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:Re: Protect our neighborhood streets from UP-ZONING! NO and NO to these Projects!!
EXTERNAL
Hello,
We have been S.M. residents since 1978 and have also opposed the Miramar and now the Gelson Project at Lincoln and Ocean
Park. Enough is Enough!! No to these Projects that will do more to Harm our city then help in anyway!! Traffic Sucks
already!! Mary & Jerry Rojeski
“Upzoning” would allow these unique Streets to be developed with new five or six-story
projects. The resulting demolition of existing buildings would displace and eliminate most of the
essential neighborhood-serving businesses. They would be replaced with higher rent tenants like
chain stores, destabilizing the neighborhoods, reducing residents’ quality of life and
increasing traffic and parking woes.
Also being considered is whether to allow lot consolidation for Ocean Park Boulevard, Pico
Boulevard, and Montana Avenue. If approved this would allow developers to consolidate lots and
build larger, mega projects on these Streets.”
Item 7.A 02/14/23
593 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Gerald Zelinger <doodalin@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 5:17 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Subject:City Council Agenda Item 7a
EXTERNAL
To Council-members,
I have lived in Santa Monica most of my life.
I have seen Montana Avenue evolve from laundromats, gas stations and upholstery shops to a street of good
restaurants, shops and now a bookstore.
To propose gutting our walking streets and neighborhoods for more ugly high-rise, non-descript architecture and make
Main Street, Ocean Park Blvd., Pico, Montana and other low density shopping streets into what Lincoln Blvd. is becoming
would be a tragic end to the Santa Monica Community.
As a former business owner told me when he was closing Weathervane for men on Montana Ave. (and moving to
Laguna) a few years ago “Santa Monica is not beachy anymore”.
If Santa Monica loses its “beachy-ness” Santa Monica will lose its unique desirability and say
“by-by” to tourists and visitors.
Gerald Zelinger
Item 7.A 02/14/23
594 of 594 Item 7.A 02/14/23
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
P.O. BOX 653 SANTA MONICA, CA 90406
310-496-3146 www.smconservancy.org
February 14, 2023
City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA. 90401
Re: City Council Item 7A, February 14, 2023, Study Session on Implementation of 6th Cycle (2021-
2029) Housing Element Programs
Dear City Council,
We salute the city’s diligent efforts to meet Santa Monica’s housing goals, particularly regarding
affordable housing. However, we are concerned about some recommendations in the current
proposal that upzone neighborhood commercial districts, threatening some of our most valuable
community assets.
We are commenting on the section of the Staff Report which refers to Planning Commission
discussions as to whether rezoning the Neighborhood Commercial (“NC”) district to 55 feet in
height with a 2.5 FAR as required by the Housing Element was necessary to meet the goals of the
Housing Element. We are very concerned about the impact on the character of the Main Street,
Montana Avenue, and the Pico and Ocean Park Boulevard NC districts.
Main Street is one of Santa Monica’s most appealing pedestrian streets with unique character and distinctive historical ambience. Importantly, it contains a very high concentration of designated
landmarks: the Mendota block, the Elks Club, the Biedler-Heuer Building, the Ocean Park Library, the first Roy Jones house, the Merle Norman Building, the Parkhurst Building, the Horizons West
Surf Shop. This is an unusually dense group of identified and protected historic resources compared with other commercial streets. Additionally, it’s directly adjacent to the Third Street
Historic District.
The proposal to allow 55 ft. high heights on Main Street potentially threatens its existing
streetscape scale and viability. The existing height limit of 32 ft. should be maintained, and lot consolidation should not be allowed. This staff-proposed zone change is not needed for our
overall housing production goals and will only undermine one of our strongest neighborhood commercial areas.
We look to the LUCE for guidance on goals and policies for our neighborhood commercial areas; here is what it says about Main Street:
Goal D31: Preserve and enhance the distinctive qualities of Main Street that allow it to be a
vibrant local and regional shopping and dining destination.
Goal D32: Ensure that new and remodeled buildings on Main Street are compatible in scale and
character with existing buildings and the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Montana Avenue presents a similar unique pedestrian-oriented street with special character and
small-scale businesses. Several historic resources are listed on the Historic Resource Inventory.
The eastern part contains older apartment buildings that have been identified in the HRI as the
Montana Avenue Multi-Family Residential Historic District. As with the San Vicente Courtyards
Historic District, they contain primarily affordable rental housing. For Montana Avenue, the
LUCE contains a set of goals targeted to protecting and enhancing its high-quality pedestrian and
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
2
retail environment, such as Goal D35: Ensure that new and remodeled buildings on Montana Avenue are compatible in scale and character with existing buildings and the surrounding
residential neighborhood.
Pico Boulevard is where a concentration of the city’s locally owned legacy businesses serve our
most integrated neighborhood. Disruption of the delicate balance of Mexican eateries, small entertainment venues and practical services by displacement and construction of new, large
ground-floor-plate retail that attracts corporate tenants will erase decades of living histories of Mexican and African American businesses and families who have been in Santa Monica for
generations.
Ocean Park Boulevard has become a thriving hub of small businesses in a setting representative of
the historic character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Large floorplate new retail spaces affordable only to corporate tenants would not be marketable in such a small “inside Santa
Monica” neighborhood, likely wiping out the district all together.
The City’s major commercial corridors and other parts of the City have underutilized potential for
new housing opportunities. Please do not affirm zoning changes to Main Street, Montana Avenue and parts of Ocean Park and Pico Boulevards that threaten their future survival.
Thank you for your consideration.
Tom Cleys
President of the Board
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
3
8.A.i
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))
City CouncilHousing Element Implementation Study Session
February 22, 2023
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Tonight's Agenda
•Study Session on Implementation of Housing Element Programs
•Commitments to implement by October 15, 2023
•Most relevant to housing production
•Consistency with existing State law
•Overview of Implementation of Housing Element Programs
•Parts 1&2: Streamlining and Rezoning Programs
•Parts 3&4: Special Programs to Encourage Housing and Consistency with
State Law
•Discussion guided by 11 Key Policy Questions for Council
Consideration
•Highlighted because they differ from prior Council discussions or direction
•Need to confirm policy direction
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Why Implement the Housing Element?
•Housing Element certified on October 14, 2022
•Certified Housing Element represents City’s contractual
commitment to the State to implement Housing Element
programs
•It is possible to fall out of compliance with Housing Element law
for failing to implement Housing Element programs by deadlines
cited in Housing Element
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Planning Commission Recommendation
•Planning Commission held discussions October 2022 –February 2023
•Commission voted 5-0 (2 absent) to recommend that Council adopt proposed
amendments to LUCE, BAP, DCP, and Zoning Ordinance consistent with the
certified Housing Element
•Upzoning Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and not further upzoning Bergamot Area
Plan was the Planning Commission’s final recommendation
•Due to extensive discussion and prior letter from Planning Commission, background
provided in staff report regarding Commission's robust discussion on whether to rezone
the NC District and further upzone a small portion of the Bergamot Area Plan
•Consultation phone calls with HCD on December 19, 2022 and
February 17, 2023
•Housing Element amendment process
•How HCD would review a potential amendment
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
How HCD Would Review Potential Housing Element Amendment
•Review would focus on proposed amendments through lens of:
•Total housing capacity
•Impacts on the Suitable Sites Inventory
•Distribution of housing capacity across the city
•Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
•Emphasized that review would not solely be about meeting RHNA and
total capacity
•AFFH is about opening possibility of new housing choices in high
opportunity areas and was significant component of HCD’s review
•Standards must not be a constraint on housing production
•Keeping existing development standards in the NC zone would be a continued
constraint on housing
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Process to Amend Housing Element
•HCD can provide preliminary technical assistance feedback through letter but would need to
receive details of a proposal to revise certified Housing Element
•Steps to Amend Housing Element –Timeline dependent on HCD requests for additional
information/analysis and timelines for review
1.City Council provides direction to staff to prepare revised draft
2.Would need to assess compliance with California Environmental Quality Act
3.Staff prepares revised draft (prior amendment resulted in extensive process due to multiple
consultations with HCD)
4.Revised draft presented to Planning Commission for recommendation –not required by Zoning
Ordinance (must be posted for public review for at least 7 days before PC hearings)
5.Revised draft reviewed by Council for direction to submit to HCD
6.HCD 60-day review period of revised draft –there is no guarantee that HCD will issue a "draft in
compliance" letter after first review
7.If HCD issues "draft in compliance" letter
•Draft presented to Planning Commission for formal recommendation to City Council
•City Council adoption of revised Housing Element
•HCD 60-day review period to certify revised adopted Housing Element
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Out of Compliance -Consequences
Immediate short-term consequences•Re-open potential for filing of "builder's remedy" projects•Loss of funding for affordable housing
Long-term consequences
•SB35 determination based on building permits issued relative to pro-rated RHNA
•If Above Moderate RHNA not met –streamlined process for projects with at 10% affordability
•If Lower Income RHNA not met –streamlined process for projects with at least 50% affordability
•Requires ministerial approval process for housing projects that include these affordability levels
State can also seek judicial relief and impose penalties and fines
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Housing Element Programs Study Session Topics
Date Discussion Topic
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (1A,1B)
February 22 (continued
from February 14)
•Definition of a Housing Project
•Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
•Streamlined Architectural Design Review
Rezoning for Housing (1F,1J,2C,2D,4A)
February 22 (continued
from February 14)
•Development Standards –Zoning Ordinance,DCP,BAP,LUCE
•Affordable Housing Production Program
•Density Bonus
Special Standards to Encourage Housing Production (1C,2A,2E,4B,4C)
February 22 (continued
from February 14)
•Housing on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots
•Moderate Income Housing Overlay
•Housing on Community Assembly Sites
•Applicability of Zoning Ordinance for City-owned sites
Consistency with State Law (1D,1G,4E)
February 22 (continued
from February 14)
•Parking and AB2097
•SB9 &ADUs
•SB 478 –Zoning in Multi-Unit Residential Districts
•Reconciliation of LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
Program 1.A (By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects)
Program 1.B (Streamline the Architectural Review Process)
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects
•Make permanent process thresholds in IZO 2692–expires May 31, 2023
What Amendments Would Do:
•By-Right Approvals (No public hearings) for:
•100% Affordable housing projects
•Moderate Income Housing Overlay Projects
•Housing projects on 5th Cycle HE sites inventory that include at least 20% of units on-site as
affordable to lower-income households [Government Code Section 65583.2(c)]
•Streamlined housing projects
•Outside of Downtown: Housing projects on parcels less than 43,560 sf ( 1 acre)
•Downtown: Housing projects that do not exceed 90,000 sf
•Require community meeting and posting of decisions on website as part of
administrative processing of housing projects
Objective: Provide Approval Certainty for Housing Providers
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
New Definitions of “Housing Project” vs “Streamlined Housing Projects”
•Housing Project•Based on definition in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
•Residential units only•Mixed use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with no more than 33% of floor area designated for non-residential use•Transitional or supportive housing•Benefit
•Receives the increased FAR/height for housing projects•Requires public hearing but City would have little ability to disapprove
•Streamlined Housing Project
•Based on definition that originated in the Downtown Community Plan
•Citywide: Streamlined Housing Projects of no more than 25%non-residential on sites less than 1
acre (consistent with IZO on January 25, 2022)
•DCP: Streamlined Housing Projects of no more than 25%non-residential and up to 90,000 sf•Benefit•Receives the increased FAR/height for housing projects•No public hearing for having more residential floor area
Prior
Council
Direction
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Definition of Downtown “Housing Project”
•YES means:
•Downtown housing projects allowed up to 33% non-residential floor area for increased height/FAR instead of existing 25% non-residential floor area
•Housing projects citywide are treated the same
Policy Question #1
For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a housing project in Downtown be amended to
allow up to 33% non-residential floor area consistent with the Housing Accountability Act?
•NO means:
•Housing projects treated differently for increased FARs/heights
•Citywide: Limited to 33% non-residential
•Downtown: Limited to 25% non-residential
•No real policy reason to differentiate in this manner
PC/Staff Recommendation
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Definition of Downtown "Streamlined" Housing Project
•YES means:
•No change to DCP for housing projects to qualify for no public hearings
•Streamlined housing projects citywide are treated the same
Policy Question #2
For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a “streamlined”housing project that is eligible
for administrative approval in Downtown be amended to allow up to 25% non-residential floor area?
•NO means:
•Creating a new maximum percentage of non-residential floor area for Downtown housing project in order to qualify for no public hearings
•Confusing implementation
PC/Staff Recommendation
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Downtown Streamlined Process Thresholds
•Prior Council Action
•DCP amended to allow administrative approvals of housing projects that are less than 90,000 sf (equates to 22,500 sf site or essentially 3 parcels)
•Planning Commission Recommendation
•Increase threshold for no public hearings to 1 acre parcel size, consistent with rest of city
•Analysis
•21 Downtown parcels of 1 acre or more
•None on Suitable Sites Inventory (i.e. high probability of turnover) due to existing entitlements or are City-owned
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Downtown Streamlined Process Thresholds
•YES means:
•Housing projects on sites 1 acre or more would be subject to public hearing
•No sites likely to meet this criteria in Downtown
Policy Question #3
Should the administrative approval threshold for housing projects in Downtown be changed from 90,000 square feet
(sf) project size to a site size of 1 acre, consistent with the remainder of the city?
•NO means:
•No change to existing Downtown process thresholds
•Projects of 90,000 sf or less would have no public hearing (equates to approximately 22,500 sf parcel)
Staff RecommendationPC Recommendation
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Streamlined Design Review + Objective Design Standards
•Increase staff level approval for
smaller housing projects
•Expedite design review for larger
projects
•Ensure design review cannot
unreasonably delay housing project
approval (e.g. # of hearings, time
limits)
•Develop objective design standards
•Will be brought forward in Summer
2023
Objective: Streamline Housing Approvals
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Streamlined Design Review
•What the Amendments Do
•Design review aligned with entitlement review for more efficient processing
•Projects with public hearing
•Design review occurs before Planning Commission
•Projects with no public hearing
•Design review occurs before determination is issued
•Increased staff approval authority
•Up to 10,000 sf in residential districts
•Up to 7,500 sf everywhere else
•SB330 time limitations
•Code compliance comments issued within 30 or 60 days depending on size of project
•5 hearing limit
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Rezoning for Housing
Program 1.F (Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards)
Program 1.J (Revise Development Standards for Housing Projects)
Program 4.A (Permit Multi-Unit Housing in Non-Residential Zones
where Currently not Permitted)
Program 2.C (Update the City’s AHPP)
Program 2.D (Update Density Bonus Ordinance)
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards
Rezoning for Housing Projects
•Increase maximum FAR and Height in all zones
•Eliminate tiers for housing projects
Remove Constraints
•Allow housing on ground-floor except in Bayside Conservation zone (Promenade, 2nd & 4th St)
•Apply uniform standards for unit mix requirements consistent with remainder of City
•Modify other development standards that were identified to be constraints
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
•What the Amendments Do
•Heights/FAR
•Eliminate tier system for housing
projects and establish single set of
FAR/height standards based on
higher of Tier 2 or Tier 3
•Increase Wilshire Transition (WT)
zone to 3.25 and 70 feet to match
rezoning for rest of Wilshire Blvd
Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
DCP
Existing
Tier 1
w/Housing
Existing
Tier 2
w/Housing
Existing
Tier 3
w/Housing
NEW Housing
Project
Standards
15% On-site/ 20%
Off-site, evenly
split
FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height
LT (east)1.50 39'2.25 50'-3.00 65'
LT (west)1.50 39'2.75 60'-3.00 65'
NV 2.25 39'3.50 60'-4.00 84'
BC
(Promenade)2.25 39'2.75 60'-3.00 65'
BC (2nd and
4th)2.25 39'3.50 60'-3.50 70’
TA 2.25 39'3.50 60'4.00 84'4.00 84'
OT 2.25 39'2.75 50'-3.00 65'
WT 1.50 39'2.25 50'-3.25 70’
Existing vs. New Housing StandardsDowntown Community Plan
Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
•YES means:
•No more tiers for housing projects across commercial zones in City
•Downtown housing projects are provided a single set of FAR/height standards, simplifying implementation
Policy Question #4
For consistency with development standards established for housing projects outside of Downtown, should the tier
system in Downtown be eliminated for housing projects?
•NO means:
•Existing 3-tier system would be retained
•Applicants most likely seek SDB off Tier 1
•Tier 1 FARs/heights in the Downtown would be lower than rest of City
PC/Staff Recommendation
Downtown Tier System
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
•What the Amendments Do
•Affordability Requirements
•Eliminate Downtown’s current
sliding scale of affordability
requirements tied to building
height and replace with uniform
15% on-site inclusionary
requirement
Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards
Height (Feet)On-Site
Affordable Housing
Off-Site
Affordable Housing
40-50 20%25%
52 21%26%
54 22%27%
56 23%28%
58 24%29%
60 25%30%
62 26%31%
64 27%32%
66 28%33%
68 29%34%
70-84 30%35%
Existing Downtown Affordable Housing Requirements
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Downtown Affordability Requirement
•Public comments from housing developers and Planning Commission concerned about
establishing minimum 20% inclusionary requirement in Downtown
•Comments have cited changing market conditions (e.g. construction costs, land costs, interest rates) and
potential effects of Measure GS
•AB1505
•Established parameters for HCD’s review of ordinances that require more than 15% affordability
•Can request review of economic feasibility study to ensure that inclusionary requirement does not
constrain housing
•Analysis
•Market conditions are out of City’s control and will change constantly
•Considering State law and shifting market conditions, best to establish uniform inclusionary housing requirement citywide
•Healthy pipeline of typical mixed-use, mixed-income housing projects that support 15% inclusionary
requirement as evidence of development interest at this level
•Under Construction –622 units
•Approved –2,234 units
•Pending Review –2,427 units
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Downtown Affordability Requirement
•YES means:
•Housing projects across the City have the same on-site inclusionary requirement at 15%
Policy Question #5
In light of public comments from housing developers and the Planning Commission expressing concern regarding
increased development/construction costs and State law parameters (AB1505) related to inclusionary requirements
that exceed 15%, should the affordable housing requirement for Downtown housing project be lowered from 20% to
15% consistent with the remainder of the city?
•NO means:
•Housing projects in the Downtown must include 20% on-site affordable units as compared to 15% in the remainder of the City
•Invites HCD review of Downtown inclusionary requirement
PC/Staff Recommendation
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Revise Development Standards for Housing Projects
Rezoning for Housing Projects
•Increase maximum FAR and Height in all
commercial zones
•Eliminate tiers for housing projects
•Allow residential uses in zones where
currently not permittedRemove Constraints
•Allow housing on ground-floor except on
Main and Montana
•Apply uniform standards for unit mix
requirements consistent with remainder
of City
•Modify other development standards that
were identified to be constraints
•In zones with housing as a newly
permitted use, allow other land uses such
as retail/restaurant to support the
introduction of residential uses
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Revise Development Standards for Housing Projects
Housing
previously
not allowed
Zone District Existing Tier 1 (Non-Housing Projects)Existing Tier 1 Housing Projects Existing Tier 2 Housing Projects RecommendedHousing Project Standards
FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height
Mixed Use Districts
MUBL –N. of I-10 1.25 2/32’1.50 3/36’1.75 36’3.25 70’
MUBL –Pico 1.25 2/32’1.50 3/36’1.75 36’2.00 45’
MUBL –Pico w. of Lincoln 1.25 2/32’1.50 3/36’1.75 36’2.50 55’
MUBL –Lincoln 1.25 2/32’1.50 3/36’1.75 36’2.50 55’
MUB 1.25 2/32’1.50 3/39’2.25 50’3.25 70’
GC (SMB)1.00 2/32’1.25 N/A 1.50 35’3.25 70’
GC (Lincoln)1.25 2/32’1.50 3/36’2.00 36’2.50 55’
GC (Pico)1.25 2/32’1.50 3/36’2.00 36’2.00 45’
NC 1.25 2/32’1.50 2/32’N/A N/A 2.25 50’
NC (Main)0.75 2/27’1.00 2/27’N/A N/A 2.50 55’
NC (Ocean Park)0.75 2/32’1.00 2/32’N/A N/A 2.50 55’
NC (Montana)0.75 2/32’1.00 2/32’N/A N/A 2.50 55’
Employment Districts
IC 1.00 2/32’N/A N/A 1.75 3/45’3.00 65’
OC 1.50 2/32’N/A N/A 1.75 3/45’2.75 60’
HMU 1.50 3/45’N/A N/A 2.50 5/70’2.50 70’
CAC 1.00 32’1.00 60'1.00 75'2.50 55’
Existing vs. New Housing Standards –Mixed Use and Employment Districts
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Equitable Distribution of Housing Capacity across Santa Mnica
2.555’
2.0
45’
3.0
65’
2.75
60’
2.5
55’
2.555’
2.25
50’
2.2550’
2.555’
3.2570’
2.570’
2.5
55’
2.7560’
•Adding housing as a
permitted use in areas
where it has been
prohibited
•Office Campus and
Industrial Conservation
•AFFH -Upzone for housing
potential in areas that
have not accommodated
housing in the past
•Main Street, Montana,
Ocean Park Boulevard,
Office Campus, and
Industrial Conservation
Map of FAR/Height -Citywide
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Map of Height/FAR -Bergamot Area Plan
4.0
84’
2.50
55’
2.5055’
4.084’
4.0
84’
2.5055’
2.50
55’
4.0
84’
3.2570’
3.25
70’
Zone District
Existing Tier 1
(Non-Housing Projects)
Existing
Tier 1 Housing Projects
Existing Tier 2
Housing
Projects
Recommeded
Housing Project
Standards
FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height
BTV 1.75 32’2.00 60'2.50 75'4.0 84’
MUC North of
Pennsylvania or South
of Expo Bike path
1.50 32’1.70 47’2.20 75’3.25 70’
MUC 1.50 32’1.70 47'2.20 57'4.0 84’
CCS 1.50 32’N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.50 55’
CAC 1.00 32’1.00 60'1.00 75'2.50 55’
Existing vs. New Housing StandardsBergamot Area Plan
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Ground Floor Commercial Requirement in NC Zone
•YES means:
•Housing projects in the NC zone
on Pico Boulevard and Ocean
Park Boulevard would continue
to be required to have
commercial uses on the ground
floor
•Inconsistent with prior Council
direction to increase flexibility
for ground floor residential
Policy Question #6
In addition to what is already required for Main Street and Montana Avenue, should ground floor commercial also be
required in the Neighborhood Commercial zones on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard?
•NO means:
•Greater flexibility for housing
projects –allow option for
ground floor housing or
commercial uses
Staff RecommendationPC Recommendation
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Update the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program
•Eliminate current menu option
•Establish minimum 15% inclusionary requirement for new housing projects
•Increase threshold to at least 6 units where on-site units are required
Objective: Ensure that the AHPP provides housing developers viable options for compliance
# of Units Minimum Requirement
0-5 units Pay fee
6-19 units 15% affordable units for up to 80% AMI
20 or more units 15% affordable units with even distribution across
VLI, LI, and moderate income
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Update the City’s AHPP
Off-Site Option for Projects with 20 units or more
•Require off-site % to be higher than on-site (i.e., 20%)
•Off-site may be located anywhere in City except in
areas with existing high concentrations of affordable
housing. Map captures Pico neighborhood and
parcels north of I-10.
Area Where Off-Site Affordable
Housing is Prohibited
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Update State Density Bonus
•State Density Bonus (SDB) Projects entitled to % increase in density bonus based on percentage of on-site affordable units
•SDB projects are eligible for concessions/incentives and waivers or modifications of development standards
•100% affordable housing projects in low vehicle travel areas do not have maximum density controls
Excerpt from State Density Bonus table (Gov Code 65915)
Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
12 38.75
13 42.5
14 46.25
15 50
Objective: Ensure consistency with State law
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Update the City's Density Bonus Ordinance
•Convert FAR to units to determine “base” density for which affordable requirements are based
•Example: A project with a maximum 2.5 FAR has a base density of 100 units, of which 15% are very low-income units.
State Density Bonus law allows 50% bonus so 100 units X 50 % bonus = 150 units
•Create “by-right menu” of incentives and concessions to request relief for certain development standards
•Off-menu incentives may still be requested for any development standard
What the Amendments Would Do
Base Density for
Housing Project
(converted from FAR)
State Density Bonus
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
State Density Bonus –General Guidelines
•Eligibility to use State Density Bonus (must comply with ALL)
1.Base project has at least 5 units
2.Replacement of all existing low/very low-income units or rent control units
3.Project meets minimum AHPP requirements
•Qualifying projects may utilize incentives, concessions, or waivers regardless of whether
the projects incorporates density bonus units
•When there are inconsistencies between the ZO and LUCE, the greater density prevails
•Removes unit caps in multi-unit residential districts (R2/R3/R4/OPD/OP2/OP3/OP4)
•As mandated by HCD, State Density Bonus law should be integrated into City’s AHPP
•Total AHPP requirement (i.e. 15%) would be counted as equivalent to the percentage that achieves the highest bonus or number of incentives/concessions granted under State density bonus law.
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Council Discussion –Parts 1 & 2
6 Policy Questions:
1.For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a housing project in Downtown be amended to allow up to 33% non-residential floor area consistent with the Housing Accountability Act?
2.For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a “streamlined”housing project that is eligible for administrative approval in Downtown be amended to allow up to 25% non-residential floor area?
3.Should the threshold for housing projects to qualify for the administrative approval process be increased from 90,000 square feet (sf) to a 1 acre parcel, consistent with the remainder of the city?
4.For consistency with development standards established for housing projects outside of Downtown, should the tier system in Downtown be eliminated for housing projects?
5.In light of public comments from housing developers and the Planning Commission expressing concern regarding project feasibility and State law parameters (AB1505) related to inclusionary requirements that exceed 20%, should the affordable housing requirement for Downtown housing project be lowered from 20% to 15% consistent with the remainder of the city?
6.In addition to what is already required for Main Street and Montana Avenue, should ground floor commercial use also be required in the Neighborhood Commercial zones on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard?
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Special Standards to Encourage Housing
Program 1.C (Incentivize Housing on Surface Parking Lots in Residential Zones)
Program 2.A (Establish a Moderate Income Housing Zoning Overlay)
Program 2.E (Affordable Housing on City-owned Sites)
Program 4.B (Housing on Community Assembly Sites)
Program 4.C (Incentives for Additional ADUs in R1)
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Incentivize Housing on Surface Parking Lots in Residential Zones
Incentivize housing on underutilized sites that would not displace existing residential tenants
•Applicable to surface parking lots in residential zones
•~100 sites identified (16 with high potential for redevelopment)
•Cannot remove existing dwelling units
•Development Incentives:
•Maximum Allowable Density: Based on unit density for underlying residential district
•Minimum Interior Side Setback: None required when parking lot redeveloped together with adjacent commercial parcel
•Parking: Any required parking removed must be replaced.
•Access: Allow access from the residential zoned parcel
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Moderate Income Housing Overlay
120% AMI Targeted to ½ mile radius around Expo Transit Stations
•Must be 100% moderate-income units
•Projects limited to max 33% non-residential square
footage per Housing Accountability Act
•Development incentives
•Extra 33 feet above base height
•50% density bonus above base FARs
•Up to 4 incentives/concessions
•No minimum parking requirements
•Flexibility in unit size/mix in exchange for additional
common area amenities
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Moderate Income Housing Overlay
•What the Amendments Do
•Citywide MHO Overlay except in R1 and OP1 zones
•Establish tenant displacement protections based on SB9 requirements
•New definition of "MHO Dwelling Unit" that reduces minimum unit size to
250 sf from 375 sf
•MHO Projects can include up to 33% of total floor area as market rate
units and/or non-residential uses
•No more than 25% of total units can be market rate
•Receive local incentives
•Building Height –Additional 33 feet above maximum building height
•Local Density Bonus of 50%
•Local Concessions/Incentives -up to four incentives and concessions
•Open Space –flexibility in providing common and private outdoor space
•No Minimum Parking Requirements
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Moderate Income Housing Overlay
•YES means:
•MHO projects would be
permitted Citywide, except in
R1 and OP1, but with tenant
displacement protections
Policy Question #7
The MHO Overlay was originally applied only to half-mile from the Expo Stations. Should the MHO Overlay be
expanded citywide instead excluding R1 and OP1 zoning districts?
•NO means:
•MHO would only apply to
non-residential parcels within
½ mile of Expo Stations
PC/Staff Recommendation
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Moderate Income Housing Overlay
•YES means:
•Provides flexibility in land uses to
support MHO projects due to
lack of public funding sources
•In addition to the allowance for
non-residential use, MHO
projects would be permitted:
•To have market rate units for up
to 33% of total floor area with no
more than 25% of total units as
market rate
Policy Question #8
Should MHO Projects allow some percentage of market rate units?
•NO means:
•MHO project would only be
permitted to include 33% non-
residential floor area
•No flexibility to allow market rate
units
PC/Staff Recommendation
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Applicability of ZO to City-Owned Sites
•Development of affordable housing on City-owned properties exempt from
Zoning Ordinance
•Subject to a public process to be determined by the City Council and determination that
the project is consistent with the General Plan.
Sites Unit Capacity Notes
Parking Structure 3 104 RFP already released
Wilshire Parking Lots (3)130 RFP planned for 2023
4th Street and Arizona 362 Bank leases don’t terminate until 2026
Bergamot Arts Center 707 Property management agreement until
April 2027. Annual leases with 30
businesses that renew each calendar
year until redevelopment
Main Street Parking Lots 577 Replacement parking will be necessary
(Coastal Zone)
Total 1,880
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Incentivize Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots for Production of Affordable Housing
•Approximately 41 identified sites
•7 sites with high potential for redevelopment
•Must retain existing Community Assembly Use
•Projects must include at least 50% affordable
units affordable to 80% AMI households
•Development incentives
•Processed as Administrative Approvals
•Extra 33 feet above base height
•Unlimited density
•No minimum parking requirements
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Consistency with State Law
Program 1.D (Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements & AB 2097)
Program 1.G (Incentivize & Facilitate Development of ADUs)
Program 4.E (Incentives for SB9 Units in R1 zones)
Senate Bill 478
LUCE /Zoning Map Inconsistencies
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
Commits the City to reducing minimum
parking requirements for housing
projects
o AB 2097 was signed into law and took
effect January 1, 2022
o Eliminates minimum parking
requirements for all projects (except
hotels/motels) within ½ mile of major
transit stop
o Unclear if AB2097 overrides Coastal zone
parking requirements (awaiting Coastal
Commission guidance on this issue)
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
•YES means:
•All housing projects in the City
(except in R1) would not be subject
to min parking requirements
•Ensure equitable application of
minimum parking requirements in
limited remaining non-residential
and multi-unit zoned parcels
outside of ½ mile of major transit
•Approx. 73% of non-residential and
multi-unit zoned parcels in the City are already within ½ mile of major transit
Policy Question #9
Expanding on AB 2097 and for ease of implementation, should minimum parking requirements be eliminated for all
housing projects, alterations/additions to multi-unit buildings, and ADUs citywide, except for R1 zones?
PC/Staff Recommendation
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
Policy Question #9
Expanding on AB 2097 and for ease of implementation, should minimum parking requirements be eliminated for all
housing projects, alterations/additions to multi-unit buildings, and ADUs citywide, except for R1 zones?
•NO means:
•Housing projects within ½ mile of major
transit stop would have no minimum
parking requirements
•Housing projects outside of ½ mile of
major transit stop would be subject to
existing Parking Overlay 1 parking
requirements
•Council could also consider:
•Eliminating minimum parking requirements for housing projects only in commercial zones
citywide (shown on map)
•Providing parking relief for housing units
added to existing commercial properties (e.g.
10 space credit)
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
•YES means:
•There would be no maximums to
limit how much parking could be
built outside of the Downtown
•Flexibility for housing provider to
provide the parking that is
necessary for project
Policy Question #10
Should parking maximums within ½ mile of transit and for housing projects outside of ½ mile of transit be eliminated
outside of Downtown?
•NO means:
•Maximum parking limits would be
established, similar to the
Downtown
PC/Staff Recommendation
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Incentivize Development of ADUs
•Develop ADU Accelerator program
•ADU user-friendly handbook
•Illustrative floor plan ideas for ADUs
•Update ADU Ordinance for consistency with State law
•Aim to issue building permits for an average of 47 ADUs/year
Objective: Streamline approvals and facilitate development of ADUs
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Incentivize Development of ADUs
What the Amendments Would Do
•Update ADU Ordinance (SMMC Section 9.31.025) based on latest guidance
from HCD ADU Handbook:
o Existing and proposed multiple-unit dwellings may add two detached ADUs
o Size limitations for conversion of existing detached accessory structures
o Clarification regarding what is considered conversion and new construction in
association with parcels developed with multiple-unit dwellings
•Language added regarding what is required to be included for permanent
provisions for eating and cooking facilities
•Other non-substantive clerical revisions for ease of implementation
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
New Housing Choice & Affordability in High Opportunity Areas –Additional ADUs
ADU Incentive Program within the R1 Zone District
•Existing: Maximum number of units on R1 parcel is three
•Proposed: One additional ADU if the property owner is willing to deed restrict one of the ADUs as a rental unit
•Program helps achieve affirmatively furthering fair housing by providing more affordable rental housing opportunities within the R1 zone district
Existing: 1 SFR + 1 JADU + 1 ADU
Proposed: 1 SFR + 1 JADU + 1 ADU + 1 deed-restricted ADU
Objective: Increase equitable access to all neighborhoods through nominal density increases that may lower barrier to housing access
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Provide New Housing Choices and Affordability in High Opportunity Areas -SB9
•Adopt SB9 ordinance
•Administrative process with no public
hearing
•Strong incentives for R1 Zone parcels
of at least 10,000 sf to add ADUs in
addition to SB9 units
•Would allow potentially up to 6+ units
through multi-step process
Objective: Increase equitable access to all neighborhoods through small increases that may lower barrier to housing access in high opportunity neighborhoods
**Illustrative scenario intended to assist in understanding of how
SB9 might be used and not intended to represent all possible
scenarios under SB9**
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
SB9 Ordinance based on Council direction from March 15, 2022
What the Amendments Would Do
•SB 9 Pre-Qualifications
LOCATION RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT PARCEL CANNOT BE LOCATED IN:
(unless meeting specified requirements)
Located in R1, OP1, and select
parcels within multi-unit residential
districts that are limited to one
single-unit dwelling
Cannot alter or demolish:
•Deed restricted or rent-controlled housing
•Housing occupied by a tenant in the last 3
years
•Housing on parcels with an Ellis Act eviction
in the last 15 years
Cannot be located within:
•An historic district or contain a historic
resource
•Prime farmland, wetlands, conservation
land/easement, protected species habitat,
etc.*
*not generally applicable to Santa Monica
Very high fire hazard zone
Hazardous waste site
Earthquake fault zone
Floodplain/floodway
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
SB9 Ordinance based on Council direction from March 15, 2022
What the Amendments Would Do
•SB 9 Project types
SB9 unit
Primary Unit
Primary Unit
2. Duplex1. Lot Split
Primary Unit
3. Combination
SB9 unit
SB9 unit
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
SB9 Ordinance based on Council direction from March 15, 2022
What the Amendments Would Do
•Ministerial review process
•Lot split requirements:
•Minimum parcel size and dimensions
•Access
•Subdivision limitations
•Owner occupancy requirements
•Process
•Development standards and requirements:
•Land uses limitations
•Maximum unit count
•Minimum front setback for alley parcel lines
•Minimum side/rear setbacks
•Guaranteed unit size
•Owner occupancy requirements.
•No parking for projects within ½ mile of
transit
•Rental/sale requirements and lease terms
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
What the Amendments Would Do
•No lot split scenario
•Less than 10,000 SF = Max. 4 units
•Greater than 10,000 SF = More than 4 units are permitted (based on Council direction from March 15, 2022)
SB9 unit
Primary Unit
Primary Unit
2. Duplex with ADUs1. Duplex
SB9 unit
SB9 unit
ADU
Primary Unit
2 units 3 units 4 units
Primary Unit
SB9 unit
ADU
ADUADU
5 units
ADU
ADU(conversion)
> 10,000 sf
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
What the Amendments Would Do
•Lot Split Scenarios
•Less than 10,000 SF = Max. 4 units
•Greater than 10,000 SF = More than 4 units are permitted (based on Council direction from March 15, 2022)
3. Combination
SB9 unit
Primary Unit
1. Lot Split
2 units
Primary Unit
2. Lot Split with ADUs
SB9 unit
ADU
ADU
4 units
Primary Unit
SB9 unit
SB9 unit
4 units
Primary Unit SB9 unit
SB9 unit
ADU
4 units
Primary Unit SB9 unit
SB9 duplex
ADU
> 10,000 sf
SB9 unit
ADU
SB9 duplex
ADU ADU
8-10 units
ADU(conversion)
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
•YES means:
•All impact fees would be waived for
SB9 projects
•Would equalize SB9 projects with
ADUs where impact fees are not
allowed to be charged per State
law
•Would create fee inequity with
similar projects in multi-unit zones
where there are no fee waivers in
place
Policy Question #11
Should SB9 projects be incentivized through development impact fee waivers to include the Affordable Housing Fee,
Transportation Impact Fee, Parks & Recreation Development Impact Fee, and Childcare Linkage Fee?
•NO means:
•Impact fees would apply to SB9
projects
•If 1 unit is retained -approx. up to $12,000
in impact fees
•If existing units are demolished and
replaced with 2 units –fees will depend on
size of units
•Affordable housing fee would only
apply when 2 units are constructed
(does not apply if existing unit is
retained)
•Other impact fees already have built-
in credit for removal of existing units
PC Recommendation Staff Recommendation
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
State Law Consistency –SB478
Overview of SB478
•Guarantees minimum FAR
based on # of units proposed
•3-7 units –Minimum 1.0 FAR
•8-10 units –Minimum 1.25 FAR
•Cannot impose lot coverage
requirements that would
physically preclude a housing
project from achieving FARs
•Cannot deny a housing
project on an existing legal
parcel on the sole basis that
parcel does not meet
minimum parcel size
What the amendments would do
•Increase parcel coverage for Tier 1 projects
in multi-unit residential zones to 50%
•Would increase parcel coverage for 2-unit
projects
•Prohibit single-unit dwellings so as to not to
incentivize under development
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
•Approximately 40 parcels identified
with inconsistency between LUCE
land use designation and Zoning
classification
•6 parcels are on SSI
•Proposed amendments guided by
State law
•SB330 prohibits reducing intensity of
land use below what was in effect as
of January 1, 2018
•State density bonus law requires that
where there is inconsistency between
General Plan land use designation and
Zoning, that greater shall prevail
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120
Council Discussion –Parts 3 & 4
5 Policy Questions:
7.Should the MHO Overlay be expanded citywide instead excluding R1 and OP1 zoning districts?
8.Should MHO Projects allow some percentage of market rate units?
9.Expanding on AB 2097 and for ease of implementation, should minimum parking requirements be eliminated for all housing projects, alterations/additions to multiunit dwelling buildings, and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) citywide, except for R1 zones?
10.Should parking maximums within ½ mile of transit and for housing projects outside of ½ mile of transit be eliminated outside of Downtown??
11.Should SB9 projects be incentivized through development impact fee waivers to include the Affordable Housing Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, Parks & Recreation Development Impact Fee, and Childcare Linkage Fee?
8.A.j
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5610 : Housing Element Implementation (120