SR-100896-8A
8A
.
rG
,
It
f:atty\muni\strpts\mjm\scndunts
City council Meeting 10-8-96
Santa Monica, Californi8CT 0 8 1996
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Interim Ordinance Permitting Second Units In
MUlti-Family Districts And Prohibiting Second units
In The R1 And OP1 Distrlcts Subject To A Limited
Exception For Units Intended And Used To House
Parents And Children Of The Property Owner
INTRODUCTION
At its meeting of September 24, 1996, the city Council evaluated
proposed local standards for second units in single family
districts of the City pursuant to Government Code section
65852.2. That section establishes various options for municipal
standards governing second units in single-family and multi-
famlly zones. The options lnclude adopting local standards for
second units in such zones, prohibiting such units ln designated
areas, totally prohibiting such units in single family zones
based upon specified findings, and taking no action thereby
al16wing state standards to govern. The Council received
extensive input in the form of publlC testimony and letters from
City resldents. Concerns raised by the public included
alteration of the character of residential neighborhoods,
increased density and congestion, noise, overburdening of
services and infrastructure, increased traffic and parking
problems and security risks. Based upon public input and its own
deliberations, the Council directed staff to draft an ordinance
1
8A
OCT 0 8 1996
--"'--
--=~....-......... -
prohibiting second units in single family residential districts.
staff was also asked to evaluate whether a limited hardship
exception should be included in that ordinance. The accompanying
ordinance fulfills the Council's direction.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the Council's direction, the proposed ordinance
prohibits second units in single family residential districts.
This prohibition is based on a lengthy set of findings. They
describe the city's commitment to the goal of providing
affordable housing and its need to preserve the city's character
and residents' quality of life by protect1ng against increased
density in those limited areas of the City which are least
developed.
As proposed by staff, the prohibition is not total. Instead, a
limited exception is included for situations in which the second
unit is intended for and used for housing a child or a parent of
the owner-occupant of the single family residence and in which
substantlal hardship can be established. The proposed
exceptlon is limited to parents and children because a very
narrow exception seemed to staff to be most consistent with the
Counc1l's instructions. Given its limited nature, the proposed
exception would likely not result in the construction of a
substantial number of new second units in single family
districts. So, the concerns raised by residents would likely not
2
be lmplicated. Moreover, including such an exception will serve
to avoid the harshness attendant upon a total prohlbition.
The ordinance would also serve to emphasize two important aspects
of city policy. As noted above, the text enunciates and
describes the city's commitment to fostering affordable housing.
Additionally, the ordinance clarifies existing law on second
units in mUlti-family districts by listing the many districts of
the city in which second units are allowed and by specifying
standards which apply to such units.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council approve the proposed
interim ordinance on first reading.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
3
f:atty\muni\laws\mjm\scndunts
city council Meeting 10-8-96
Santa Monica, california
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(CCS)
(city Council series)
INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA PROHIBITING SECOND
DWELLING UNITS IN THE R-1 AND OP-1 ZONING DISTRICTS
SUBJECT TO LIMITED EXCEPTIONS, CLARIFYING THE ALLOWANCE OF
SECOND UNITS IN MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
AND SPECIFYING STANDARDS FOR SECOND UNITS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs and Purpose. The city Council finds
and declares:
(a) Government Code section 65852.2 establishes
requirements for the adoption of municipal standards applicable
to second units in single-family and multi-family zones. It
provides that, within 120 days after receiving the first
application for such a unit, a city may either: (1) adopt an
ordlnance allowlng for second units subJect to local standardsj
or (2) prohibit second units based upon findings specified in
section 65852.2. If a city fails to exercise either of these
options, then state standards specified in section 65882.2 apply.
(b) A principle goal of Government Code Section 65852.2 is
to ensure that all California cities make adequate provision for
affordable housing.
1
(c) The city of Santa Monica fully supports this goal. The
city has a long-standing commitment to the provision of
affordable housing, and the City successfully effectuates this
commitment through extraordinary effort manifest in various city
laws, policies and programs.
(d) The City's voters have adopted initiative measures
which ensure the protection of affordable housing in the city.
The Rent Control Charter Amendment, adopted in 1979, has as its
primary purpose the protection of affordable housing. Similarly,
Proposltion R, adopted by the voters in 1990, mandates that
thirty percent of all housing units constructed each year in the
city must be affordable.
(e) The city's zoning laws and policies include substantial
incentives for the production of afford~ble housing, including
height and density bonuses and reduced parking requirements.
Additionally, unlike many cities' zoning laws, Santa Manica's
permits some form of residential use in all of the City's zones,
including commercial and industrial. The only exception is the
City'S park zone, which is limited to the City'S parks.
(f) The Clty operates a number of programs which facilitate
the production of affordable housing. These include loans to
prlvate, for-profit developers and owners and funding to non-
profit agencies to acquire or construct housing units.
(g) The City also funds many social service programs which
provide emergency shelter, transitional housing and permanent and
2
supportive housing to individuals and families with very low
incomes.
(h) These and other laws, policies and programs have
resulted in the preservation and production of an extraordinary
number of affordable units within the Clty. The presence of
these units has allowed a very substantial number of low and
moderate income households to live in the city notwithstanding
its prime location and high real estate values. Census data
shows that sixty percent of the city's households have low or
moderate incomes.
(i) At the same time as it has worked to ensure the
preservation and production of adequate affordable housing, the
City has also striven to protect residents' quality of life
within the City by maintaining a balance between the conflicting
community needs. However, the preservat10n of this balance has
been a difficult task because of certain unique characteristics
of the city which are a function of its location and history.
(j) Santa Monica is a coastal City, in a prime location,
bordered by the City of Los Angeles to the north, east and south.
The land area of the City is small -- just 8 square miles -- and
the population 1S approximately 90,000. Thus, the city is very
dense. Moreover, the combination of an oceanside location, fine
cllmate, and the availability of urban facilities, services and
entertainments make Santa Monica an extremely desirable place to
work or visit -- just as it is a very desirable place to live.
Consequently, a large number of non-residents come into the City
3
to work or recreate. On weekdays, approximately 300,000 people
are present within the city. On weekends, the number swells to
as high as 500,000. Thus, population density and congestion both
pose slgnificant threats to the quality of life in Santa Monica.
(k) The city's density 1S, in significant part, a function
of its zoning. Since 1922, a relatively large portion of the
city has been zoned mUlti-family; and a significant portion has
been zoned commercial. Consequently, for many decades, a
relatively small percentage of property within the city has been
zoned for single family residences. Thus, there are very few
neighborhoods within the city which are neither densely developed
nor periodically congested.
(l) The density and congestion of the City and the threat
which they pose to quality of life is magnified by the lack of
open space. The City has relatively little parkland; and the
parks Wh1Ch do exist are very heavily used for a variety of
purposes. These purposes include sports leagues and special
events, both of which draw large crowds and generate substantial
noise. The beach provides open space. However, this open space
is utilized by tens and even hundreds of thousands of persons
living throughout the Southern California region. Thus, very
little space within the city is peaceful and quiet.
(m) Even the limited portions of the city which are zoned
single family experience unusual problems with noise, traffic and
parking for several reasons. The hundreds of thousands of people
who work in the City and visit it use the city's residential
4
streets for travel and parking. AdditionallYI tens of thousands
of commuters drive through the city each work day to gain access
to the Santa Monica Freeway; and this number is increasing due to
extensive development to the south of the City's border. These
workers, visitors, and commuters impact noise levels, air quality
and traffic in the City's R-1 and other residential
ne~ghborhoods. Moreover, in portions of the City, the commercial
zones which run along the city's major east-west thoroughfares
are adjacent to R-l neighborhoods. The quality of residential
life in these neighborhoods is impacted by the large numbers of
persons patronizing the businesses in these zones, which include
restaurants, coffee houses and night clubs. Moreover, in the R-1
neighborhoods of the city, a substantial number of second units
already exist. Some of these were built as "accessory units" and
are not permitted for dwelling. others were simply built without
permits. Many of these units have been utilized as rental units
and are therefore protected under the city's Rent Control Charter
Amendment. Taken together, these factors mean that the City's
single faml1y neighborhoods are already denser, noisier, and more
subject to parking and traffic problems than their zoning
designations would indicate.
(n) On June 18, 1996, the city received its first
application for a Conditional Use Permit for a second unit on a
property zoned for single family use.
(0) On August 13, 1996, pursuant to the requirements of
Government Code Section 65852.2, the City council directed city
5
staff to prepare an ordinance regulating second units in the R-1
district and directed the Planning commission to review and
comment on the proposed ordinance. In response, Staff proposed
an ordinance, and the Planning Commission conducted a public
hear1ng on the proposed ordinance on September 11, 1996.
(p) The proposed ordinance, together with modifications
suggested by the Planning Commission, came before the city
council at its meeting of September 24, 1996; and the Council
conducted a public hearing.
(q) In the course of that hearing, a significant number of
city residents expressed their concerns about permitting the
development of additional second units in the R-1 district. Many
others expressed their concern by letter. Those concerns
1ncluded: increased noise, increased air pollution, security
risks, the creation and exacerbation of traffic and parking
problems, inordinate demand on the infrastructure of older
neighborhoods which were planned and built to be R-1, and the
lack of quiet, peaceful spaces in the community. A much smaller
number of speakers favored allowing second units in the single
family districts. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council
deliberated on the available options and directed staff to
prepare an ordinance which would prohibit second units in the R-1
district only.
(r) Based upon the foregoing, the city Council finds that
permitting the development of additional second units in the
city's limited R-1 districts would adversely impact the public
6
health, safety and welfare. Such development would significantly
erode the quality of life for residents of R-l districts in Santa
Monica. It would, among other things, exacerbate problems
resulting from the city's overall density and the unusually large
number of persons who work within the City, visit it for
recreation, and travel thought it. These problems include noise,
traffic, and a shortage of parking. Such development would also
adversely affect quality of life by reducing those limited
neighborhoods within the city which afford the possibility of a
relatively tranquil environment and thereby serve as havens for
city residents who walk, jog, and ride bicycles on their quiet
streets, using the streets in much the same way as parks.
(s) The city council also finds and declares that it has
been city policy to allow second units in the multi-family
residential district, and permitting such units effectuates the
City's and the state's policy of encouraging the development of
affordable housing.
(t) The purpose of this ordinance is to conform with the
requirements of state law relating to second units in areas zoned
for single-family and mUlti-family residences; to clarify the
allowance of second units in some areas of the City, while
protecting the character of the single family residential
districts; and to provide reasonable design and development
standards and procedures to foster and protect the public health,
safety, welfare and aesthetic interests of the City. The City
Council is mindful of the possibility that this ordinance may
7
limit housing opportunities in the region. However, in view of
the many City laws, policies and programs which have successfully
fostered affordable housing opportunities in the City, and in
view of the extent and success of those efforts relative to
efforts made by other cities in the region, any impact of this
ordinance upon regional housing needs will likely be negligible.
(u) Pursuant to the City's Zoning ordinance, further formal
action is needed by both the Planning Commission and the city
council to effectuate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
regulate second units in accordance with the provisions of this
Ordinance. Should the city not adopt an ordinance prior to
October 16, 1996, pursuant to state law the conditional use
permit application would be automatically approved if it complied
with minimal state standards. Should second units become sUbject
to automatic approval under state law, development incompatible
with the provlsions of this Ordinance will occur, which would
adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and
its citizens, as described above.
(v) For these reasons, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal
Code Section 9.04.20.16.060, the City Council finds that an
interim ordinance is necessary because there exists a current and
immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and
the automatic approval of second units 1ncompatible with the
standards of this interim ordinance would result in a threat to
public health, safety, or welfare.
8
SECTION 2. Def1nitions. As used in this Ordinance, these
words have the following definitions:
(a) "Second unit" means an attached or detached residential
dwelling unit which provides complete independent living
facilities for one or more persons and which is located or
established on the same lot on which a single family residence 1S
located. A second unit shall contain permanent provisions for
living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. "Second unit"
shall also include an efficiency un1t, as defined in Section
17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and a manufactured home,
as defined in section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
(b) "Existing second unitll means a second unit which was
developed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. An
existing second unit shall be considered as either "legal non-
conforming," if it conformed to the standards existing at the
time it was developed, or as IInon-permitted," if it was developed
in a manner inconsistent with the applicable standards in effect
at the time of development.
SECTION 3. Applicability. The provisions of this Ordinance
apply to existing non-permitted second units and to the
development of all new second units. Existing legal non-
conforming second units may remain, subject to the provisions of
Subchapter 9.04.18 of the Zoning Ordinance.
9
SECTION 4. Permitted Districts. Notwithstanding any
provisions of the Municipal Code to the contrary, second units
shall be permitted in all mUlti-family residential zoning
districts subject to the requirements of Section 5 below. Second
units shall not be permitted in the R-1 and OP-1 zoning
districts, unless a hardship can be shown and the second unit
meets the regulations of section 6 below.
SECTION 5. Second Units in the MUlti-family Residential
Zoninq Districts. This Ordinance clarifies existing City
practice with respect to second units in the multi-family zoning
districts. Notwithstanding anything in the Municipal Code to the
contrary, second units shall be allowed in the following multi-
family residential zoning districts according to the following
standards:
(a) R2R. An attached second unit, and a detached second
unit when located on a parcel containing one single family home,
shall be considered a "duplex," and shall be permitted in all
circumstances in which development of a duplex would be
permitted, subject to compliance with the property development
standards of the district.
(b) R2, R3, R4, RVC, OP-Duplex, OP-2, OP-4, and R3R. A
second unit shall be considered a "multi-family" use, and be
permitted, subject to compliance with the underlying property
development standards of the district in which the property is
located.
10
(c) R2B. Development of a second unit shall be considered
a permitted use, subject to compliance with the property
development standards of the district.
(d) Parking requirements. Parking requirements for second
units in multi-family zoning districts shall be the same as
parking requlrements for other multifamily dwelling units under
the Zoning Ordinance. Pursuant to Government Code Section
65852.2{e), the City Council finds that tandem parking for lots
greater than 30 feet in width, and park1ng in the front one half
of the parcel, are not otherwise permitted for residential uses
anywhere else in the jurisdiction.
SECTION 6. Hardship Exemption for Second Units in the R-1
and OP-l. A Use Permit may be granted for a second unit in the
R-1 and OP-1 zoning districts if the unit is intended and used
solely for occupancy by a parent or child of the resident
property owner and that owner demonstrates that substantial
hardship to the owner and the occupant{s) will result from denial
of the permit. Such units must also comply with the following:
(a) Use Permit required. A Use Permit shall be required
for any second unit. The Use Permit shall be processed in
accordance with the provisions of Part 9.04.20.11 of the Zoning
Ordinance. No Use Permit shall be granted unless the second unit
complies with the provisions of this ordinance, and unless the
findings required by Part 9.04.20.11 are made. A Use Permit
11
application shall be subJect to the standard fee for Use Permits
as set by resolution of the city Council.
(b) Occupancy and sale limitations. The owner of record of
the parcel shall reside on the parcel on which the second unit is
located, in either the main dwelling unit or the second unit. A
second unit may be occupied as a residential dwelling unit, and
the Use Permit shall be valid only if and for so long as this
condition, and the hardship requirements described in subsection
(a) are satisfied. The second unit lS not intended for, and
shall not be offered for, sale separately from the main dwelling
unit.
(c) Lot size. Second units may be developed on any legal
parcel of 5000 square feet or more in the R-1 and OP-1 Districts.
Second units may not be developed on parcels less than 5000
square feet in area.
(d) Density. Second units may be developed on parcels
which contain no more than one existing single-family residence.
(e) Maximum and Minimum unit size. Second units may
contain a maximum of 650 square feet of floor area and a minimum
of 220 square feet of floor area.
(f) Parcel coverage. The parcel coverage of the second
unit shall count toward total parcel coverage. The entire parcel
shall conform to the parcel coverage limitation of the R-1 or
OP-1 Distr1cts as applicable.
(g) parkinq requirements. For second units, one parking
space per bedroom shall be required, with a minimum of one space
12
per second unit. Tandem parking shall not be permitted unless
the parcel upon which the second unit is located is less than 30
feet in width. Parking shall not be located in the front one
half of the parcel. Pursuant to Government Code section
65852.2(e), the City Council finds that tandem parking for lots
greater than 30 feet in width, and parking in the front one half
of the parcel, are not otherwise permitted for residential uses
anywhere else in the jurisdiction.
(h) Second units attached to the main dwellinq. Except as
otherwise provided above, the second unit shall comply with all
the property development standards for the main dwelling.
(1) Detached second units. In addltion to the requirements
set forth above, detached second units shall comply with the
following:
(1) One story detached second unit in a building which
is fourteen feet or less in height: The entire building in which
such second unit is located shall comply with the requirements
applicable to accessory structures set forth in Zonlng Ordinance
Section 9.04.10.02.100, subsections (a), (b), (c), (d) I and (e)
and with the requirements for accessory living quarters set forth
in Zoning Ordinance Section 9.04.12.080, subsections (c), Cd), and
(g) .
(2) Detached second unit in a building which is over
one story or exceeds fourteen feet in height: The entire
building in which such second unit is located shall comply with
the requirements appllcable to accessory structures set forth in
13
Zoning Ordinance section 9.04.14.110, subsections (a), (c), (d),
( e), and ( g) .
(j) Desiqn standards.
(1) The exterior design of the second unit shall be
substantially compatible with that of the main dwelling in terms
of building forms, materials, colors, exterior finishes and
landscaping. The parcel shall retain a single-family appearance
and the second unit shall be integrated into the design of the
existing lmprovements on the property.
(2) The second unit shall be clearly subordinate to
the main dwelling unit on the parcel by size, location and
appearance.
(3) The entrance to the second unit shall not be on
the front or street side yard.
(4) The addresses of both units shall be displayed in
a manner as to be clearly visible from the street.
(k) Conversion of existinq structures.
(1) Garaqe conversions. The creation of a second unit
through conversion of all or a portion of a garage shall be
prohibited unless at least two parking spaces in a garage are
provided for the main dwelling, in addition to the parking
required by this Ordinance for the second unit, and all other
provisions of this Ordinance are met.
(2) Guest quarters and non-qaraqe accessory buildinq
conversions. The creation of a second unit through conversion of
all or a portion of a guest quarters or non-garage accessory
14
building shall be allowed if parking required by this Ordinance
for the second unit is provided, and all other provisions of this
Ordinance are met.
(3) Conversion of existinq floor area of the main
dwellinq. The creation of a second unit through conversion of
part of the existing floor area of the main dwelling shall be
allowed, provided it does not result in the floor area of the
main dwelling being less than 150% of the floor area of the
second unit, or in violatlon of the standards of the Uniform
Building Code or Uniform Housing Code.
(1) Deed Restrictlon. Prior to issuance of a building
permit, or in the case of an existing second unit, within 45 days
following the effective date of approval of a Use Permit, the
applicant shall record a deed restriction with the County
Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney setting forth
the requirements of this Ordinance, including the applicable
occupancy and sale restrictions. This deed restriction shall run
with the land.
SECTION 7. Compliance with other laws. Except as modified
by this Ordinance, a second unit must meet the requirements of
the zoning ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and all other
relevant federal, state, and local requirements.
SECTION 8. Fees for second units. For purposes of
determining fees and other requirements, a second unit shall be
15
considered an additional unit on the parcel, and fees shall be
determined in accordance with Government Code Section 66000.
SECTION 9. Compliance with this Ordinance by existing non-
permitted second units. All existing non-permitted second units
must comply with the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 10. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of
this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 11. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and
every section, Subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether
any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared
lnvalid or unconstitutional.
16
SECTION 12. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or
effect 45 days from its adoption, unless extended in the manner
required by law.
SECTION 13. This Ordinance lS declared to be an Interim
Ordinance adopted pursuant to section 9.04.20.16.060 of the
Zoning Ordinance. It is necessary for preserving the public
health, safety, or welfare, and the reasons for its adoption are
set forth in the Findings and Purpose section of this Ordinance.
SECTION 14. The Mayor shall sign and the city Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The city Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption.
This Ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~
MARSHA J S MOUTRIE
City Attorney
17
113/133/96 13=59
Z 3113 649 3536 WORLD FOOD SALES
131
Hohrrl M. Burn"
3001 17th Sl
Santa MOIUl'li, ( ^ H040iJ
October 3, 1996
Paul Rosenstein. MAyor
The City of Santa MonicR. CA
] 685 Main Sl.
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Dear Mr. Mayor:
It has been broughllo my aHention that there \\-ill be d puhli(' hearing
on the JS&Ut" of permitting rental unitf, on single family H.I zoned lots.
Due to other C'onmlitnlcnts 1 will be UllHble to Httcnd that heHring
Howevel~, I would like to register fllY intc~nsc oppo~ition to MJ~h a
prQPosal. 1 re('endy moved to Santa MOllU'{.i ironl Northern CHlifornia and
my wife and I chose Santa Monie{t to live pleC1M'ly 1'01 the charader of
its neighborhoods, particularly Sun~ct Park.
Please do not peInlit the- ctddil10n of tl"'Cc stilllding rental UI1H~, t1mo{hel~-
in-laws" or anything other than !';tingle famIly structures In }{-] J.:onrd
neil,1}lborhoods.
Thank you
,necreIy. ~
L~~-~-
Rohr11 M. Bt1rn~
Oct-04-96 07:40A
P.OI
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
CITY HALL
1685 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA
CALIFORNIA 90401
WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ALLOWI~G A RENTAL
UNIT ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, ZONED R-l. WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY
THAT SUCH A PROPOSAL WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC AND NOISE IN A
NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THERE ARE ALREADY PPOPOSALS TO DECREASE
TRAfFIC UTILIZING ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS, SPEED EU~PS AND
PARKING PERMITS. THE RESIDENTS OF SUNSET P~RK, MANY OF WHOM
ARE INVOLVED IN THE -NEIGqBORHOOD WATCH" PROGRAM WOULD FIND
IT A BURDEN TO MONITOR THE ADDITIONAL FOOT AND AUTO TRAFFIC.
WE DO NOT SUPPOR~ THIS MEASURE IN ANY FORM.
CHARLOTTE BRUMBAUGH
1337 HILL STREET
SANTA MONICA
CALIFORNIA 90405
RICHARD ~ SUSAN TREDICK
1331 HILL STREET
SANTA MONICA
CALIFORNIA 90405
/ I .
I ij , '
( tJ,"LlAL-tIi
I ~ /~
--< I '
-.-vk tl"I..LZU.~
i,J
ff}j~- )/~
- -~
SS5.&CQL --r~ct
OCTOBER 4 1996
10/03.'96 THr 16:13 FAX 310 828 1890
LIZ SOIO II\C.
"i:LJVV.a.
Dan Chapman! Laz SOlO
1014 24th Street
Santa Monica. CA 90403
10/3/96
Mayor and City Council,
Dear Sirs,
I, and my wife, are vehemently against any proposal to allow the constnJction of rental
units on R-llots. We live in such a lot OUr neighborhood is a good neighborhood
because it made up offami1ies who care about one another. If you. allowed the
CODStruction of rental units in our neighborhood, YOU WOUlD DESTROY IT
First" we are located close to Wih.biTe Boulevard and we have a great deaJ of traffic
through our neighborhood. An increase in density means more traftj~ which means the
children in our block will. be m even greater danger There are over a dozen children on
our block and we are e3Cpectmg sooa I don't want this to be a problem for my child.
Secondly. the health of the neighborhood will suffer It will become more crowded and
dirty. Lastly, the ~rs.!C of the neiahborhood wiD suffer. With straDge people mo\ling in
and out. there is an increassed oppportunity for crime
Let us be clear. this proposal is a bad and dangerous idea We moved to Santa Monica to
enjoy its good neighborhoods and schools This proposal will destroy all of it. What is
more important the good healtI\ ~iy and welf8re of sinsJe fiunily home neighbOJhoods,
or the greed of a few selfiRh homeownen? Decide wisely. I don't tbinlr you want to be
k:r1own as the politicians who destroyed single fimily neigbborhoods in Sama Monica
Sincerely.
Dan Chapman, Liz SOlo
V~
?jPv
/-
L...! ~-; ;f~,i. ,t, J 1'1 'l (.
;. ~t'-{~r
) -";t.,"
'"..--7",'
I ) j 7 '/,_
, '~ ,M.-<"'r,........
-"
io'- ~... ..-<:-i-t..-.#'
096
r:'TJ _ ....,
)t~~--:l
c -.. .( 4-
;'';- .:tt./ {., ": ~ /
7 J. /
,:,.;....;<..-{. 'y:- rx~ti...; i.>..J/ /'
t ,
71L"""'-v..--.2::<: -
'I
- ::-. ~.~ "",.,r
/
L- ~ ~ I hi: I~ ;:-t{; ,~- d:L-nL/'../
f
/)
//,,' --1 i'
~ _~k"""
/~~~y~--
-.
....~~--
/ c--L_
---'",+
./
~/~ v'''v-; c/---'--~ ~ (.)1
.. '- --<:-
/1 C ;~,y.t .(7~ 6-L .I _//J~
-t' :- "----L---4..-/:'"
2-
/
""'1 -/~.-- -' ~Z;- -,[/ !/~ /:..~---...:j
-P'T.- -<' --{-<~ :74
'.I
. .,
...-:7'_, c: t' e ^--
C-/.... -e:--c;: ~ ~ -:.c" /.;;;'
, / 7
.c.;~~
/'
~'.(, -D---:' -;;.-J/: ,,: ';: ~ A ('{-~~4./
/
1..-d>''--~:'-<' ,/....... -t.c~ .-i/~-> / ?.'l--.J ,{//?-/ l?,~~' f":.'>t -:-.rt'. ..c:.-?-c'.-t---L~ ~,
~-
j
L7~.:..- ~'z<A-.<"~--..f-~
.I /
..J ;/...1:-/ .....-'t(:!A1: ~-
--- -
c--e. Ct7'f!'~ '.....~L.c-..-
, .
".-: ~..~_ I. ~ -!.-
-'-' 'fC.> '--
/
(.:"'_-4r...."\- ~~ 0('~--n L {.~
'T
"it,-- --7~t. '"r;:c l~'~L ;:i...-/.-t.-)'!. ";~.;(,,,!.-,,'---;"z. ..-' ct-:n--
-r-....lZ--~ 1.. "'-
/
./ .,. y;- ." .J:-.(
j
.I~L,.r{'\"l~L
I..-r'f'~ ~~_
y.:2--~ - i ~~~
'i'j
--'\
7'" i,r-
s.f'-"P'"" ~~{ _-!,.....L :.-
....
-- ---
/~--.::
r
~
... ~~~.._~----~
"7.
.-~.-.....1. ~~
r'-'
..
<:... a--:. !.-..,--<:-:- / / {.!~:-- ~,C'-, ,_.:'^ __ :.< >_-c-
...
--~-:./ Z /1-0
.!.,L .I _./ , ,/, I h..-
>' _ -,-_[,.-~.J"_
~ '!--
-i L ~ /~. ~L I_{.~ J-'";.,...
J~t. ~L.:,,-L=IC.?-.-~
/i t. i ~ tt-...:'...'c'1--t- i.~ PCL-"- (2-L--""L
j
.J
-,
- . -
_&~ .1...
, "
~lw
J
~ ~ :L._:.J;/ .)1
- t /-~ -
~. ~..;,. j-)~ ~. /i ~ .,<1::
..,- '" -___ __~ 4~~
- -
:'U.i.~r~ ~~t~_~.l'~ L- __f_':"'-~~_L-
~
'-
~t-~~t:
.-'1 ' /~" j :-.-
--,';0...4 -~-,,'d~
(,l~
,
LL-
eft :<- -t--~.-
---
-t.;' -t.. <--7'(..
J
J~'( ~ L -11.6<- -7 _d. '- <.
.:: 't~
.<"_'C
...i-~-
//-/'~' -
_,-{ --"i.- ~ _{ 7-t...~___- .
J //
c-
'-\(. <-{<j..~~ -:.-<--Ld ~ t ,;ti /
'!~ t1 t:f7f-c ,< '
"':.r- :71.+_
'--
<-" ~"'''-~ :L';;~7"~!---ci-L.--;
/ /
: ./( ~ ~. L --L .:: -c, "tc -L--' - ~.:v t <"/; .~,<------ j--!.-{.'Z:. "~.Y - z:;--U\--"-~~
JV;'A.--1--'~
-~-.A.-.{ ~ rI- ~
~ ....
-.....
:;},
) J !
I" (. -n ...- ~ ~i>f.'_i' -((-t. ./ _ ""--.;-Y- -1. .:4 2 ,
V' '"" c--<.. <,,~_",-' . < - ~ .- rL 7 "--. .-r'-'____
"/ .
Z?Lc::..... it:: ~ -~i. . ^ h ::--.<--1; (' "" t J -)-:'r~ 1.~-r; ce~ . ~
;r-l".,..(. ;;. (.;1. i- f~ . t.k -4 --Lk J/-:d- (-L:-.,-~-d -;:';.A /.r< <~
',." . //" ,'~ ~ ,," - --' 4 /" 4 .J..? ,; '-. /A //"
~. ~:L L-t-- t.~ ~.<---< t.. _1. '"' ....-r4 l' -......- "-~..rPa- , ~/_______
"1 : /~ I _ --' _ .""7", ~_
~~"9...__-,:t/.. c.c4.. J''':---t-_.L--t.--!.~-C-~ -. _''''':: C < ..
. :' ~
,~~~t'':':f-4& -!.!-- -.:.:'L-:r!-.;-;:.e.....A. r---? c-:.. ':1;;
t't-< e.. .{-L--i .<:-
-,
.;;. -----
~~4 ~ l.---:t.~
L;.,..~~ '. / ;;,<>z,. (LT(L.-<:: z. e... ~ L y ~"-- 1; .c '-t: <.! C ~/_
II'
., ... -
._~"! V"c.-- --::_'-d"-~ ....cd; C4-CG--/~ ,,:"~ 4-/~~
~:- - .;.~ f ~L/C -L...::: -;' 1/ ....--~- "'&-:...L ~ ~ C~A../.!:-
~~-cL:-~JV
I
/-"-..A" j .#' f: ./ -"'" E"" "1'.../ ~ j /"4' ":-
...~.. ~ ~~ -'" V ........-!'.......... ..;....._ __ ~- _:r.~ F "....'-4~-
/
t ~_<- -fA.." :-"7':"'" .,( ,
<f- .J;. .;..."r ~-:."'::.~~ ~ l:..~ _r( ~ _1::---:-- -" --c: ~ ---:!.-C.. 7* t..: U-.-...J ~ 4.-- --L
L.2-~:~...- {.L-~~~/
ii..~- ~t
~~
:..~~-.,::/ ~-i~{..,....~- ~L _
t::~:'" LULLc<--c:: '--4-V ~/~ ~
/ .
.J..-~ .--!-;. ~ ci" --'4. ~ =i) r"~~~ -? /~ z -1:tM> ./..L~ e!L'
~ /1 4 i /l
~>G~_L~L- j./i t.' /:.---t..X 1'-f~j cd -: /~-C:~T
~- ,
-~ -::r_." ,- ~~ - ' -7 ---'--- - . ,;/~-L
~'-c?X<-' -""--c;~
(J' /~\~.~- ~C1
/~,1V\-v L-L .,::'!:L 1:tn--; .7'-
~ L/I.L'-'.~'
.(~-rv .J'( - ..1 U f/.'"-r::..r
/1 C. q - ~ c tit- ~-
)/-
~~ ~~~-
L
xfn'_rv~ -
'J?~1. /1-.
/ , (~-"Lr~ ~ --<i-z L - -" ,.~
c;&~Z ~
,.:
... '
~~ ~,~
'_,j '. "'-:i
~ <y
~ -'::;'" \
, ., ''-J
~
~
"\.I
-l.i
1
':::'
..
v
,
","
.~
~
-,,1
,.-... '
, \
~
,..).
,
~
~
\
~
",
, -~
~
...)
~
~~.,
- ,
/
: -.. ....
. '.J
'-~
"
-;....J
~
~,
'J -;.
>
~
'y
~
-'I
"
.,
':
,~i
'-J
~
-'
,,-J
.~
--.'
...
~
o
~
~-
- ~,~
.:~
.;;
~
'V
~ .~
X ~
t-- .
~-~~.
\'~ .
,~ y
\
~
...
\'"'-
'.J
I ()- J, 't.
1~,fH i
Pa-J~
f).J1A ht~~4e..~'.,..
). 4NIf ~ ~ ~~ c;PJ.d :t...
~~/p~~~~
Art __~r~
.7- vr<-p 'I- -.I ~ o~j#uI ,
A ~ tk.,t',.iiP -t ~~"",...u~
~ " 1~;;..;;t ".;0 ~~"C.1 ~ j?- 1.4.t.l-
f{J~,R;r. I
-:::::- - --
(.oj" ~ ~ (j?' ;~-'.,
~!~rf/#7~~~~
.;to ~ ~ ~7 ;.-/~~~ ,.,-~
;t;;;~
. ~...vt at /.. ~ ~
~ .A-....~I'~~~ ~ ~ ~~
~
A'
I<~~
Bob And
1311 8 Carol ICMIn
811111": Avenue
. CA 90405 tl //r I':) J
- I
10 03/96 23:16
"0"310 828 3692
JIm Ko.LSrUQ
.. VU'..L
James E. KoIsrud
1021 23rc1 stnet
santa Monica. CA 90403
October 3. 1996
Mayor and City Council
Second Floor. City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Momca, CA 90401
Dear Mayor and City Council-
via fax: 310458.1621
We ate writmg to exp~~ our belief that allowing rental L1nits In R.1 zoned areas will
cert.ainly impair the safety, healtl1 and welfare of our neighborhoods In addrllon. the general
quality of life and our property values will also suffer.
Please do not snow rental unrts on single family lots.
Sincerely,
~:~~
~~
$ookhl Ro
3'~1J
FAX. 31~
JkolsrwdCllX..netr:om com
OCT 04 '96 11=12AM PROJECT MGMT
P.l
Mayor Paul Rosenstein
& City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monics, CA
90401
October 4, 1996
PLEASE DO NQIALLOW RENTAL UNITS ON R-1 LOTS
I understand that the issue of allowing rental units on R-1 lots up for consideration at a
public hearing on Tuesday. October 8. Our safety I health and welfars will definitely be
affected if the homes In our neighborhood added rental units ThIs would definitely
Increase congestions, traffic and crime In our neighborhood
We already have to deal with ali the traffic and congestIon from Santa Monica Cjty
College, and we can see all of the crime which occurs on the streets adjacent to Pico
Boulevard which have renta1 units Aliowing rental units on R.1 10tS]$ a step in the
wrong direction, please do not allow this to happen to our neighborhood,
Thank You,
;?#~
Mati and Milvl Lean
1205 Pacific St
Santa Monica, CA
9040~
Past.lt'. brand fax transmlttal memo 7671 [,. of pages' I
To AfA_ ~Cr" (",..~t. Fro", MATi LAM
Co- Co.
Dept. phone'
Fu 11 (~(()) '11'8- /I ;.( !"Ill ~
Rex and Doris Minter
1731 Pier Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Hon. Paul Rosenstein
Mayor, city of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Mayor Rosenstein,
We have been residents of Santa Monica since 1943 and the owners of
a single family residence in an R1 district since 1960.
Although we wanted to attend the hearing held September 24, 1996,
we were unable to do so, therefore, we take this method of
expressing our opposition to any change in the Rl zoning ordinance
which would permit "second dwelling units" in the Rl district.
Santa Monica has limited single family residential zoning at this
time. Any further erosion of this type of zoning will adversely
impact upon the city, i. e. parking, already at a premium, will
become an increased problem.
A Santa Monica without inviolate single family districts would not
be a city. It would only be a bedroom for Los Angeles.
We urge you to oppose any attempt to permit legal "2nd dwelling
units" in the R1 districts.
Sincerely,
~/O -(] cJ}-Yl""; -hA .
~~ ~ ~_~-L ~__C'------<
Doris J. Minter
C-~72. ~! /~~~
~. Minter
",eu.. L.lTe i Lon NBrsnun
'iI" 310 395-, 1 99
;nil 0'3196
-::,;,j 40 I-'M ...: t!./,j
LORI NAFSHUN
315 Tenth Street
Santa :L\fonica,. California 90402
(310) 393-8551
(310) 395-1199 FAX
October 3, 1995
The Mayor and City Council of Santa Monica
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica. California 90401
Dear Mayor & City Council:
I am due to delivery my baby the day before the October 8 Council Meeting,
so because of my probable absence, I am writing to strongly protest the
usage of rental property on R~1 lots.
Allowing rental property in residential neighborhoods will increase the
noise, traffic and decrease the sanctity of what a neighborhood should be.
Vve already are in danger of loosing the rusticness of our community by
allowing large concrete slab type houses (with no yard space) to replace
quaint old homes. To add rental property access just takes us one step
closer to Manhattan Beach I chose to live in Santa Monica because It isn~t
an overcrowded beach town, at least not yet.
I know parts of the R1 code well enough to know that changes that upset
the balance and general feel of the single family neighborhood are not
supposed to be permitted. I can think of nothing that would affect the
overall amb:ance of a reSidential community more than additional parking
problems. large backyard structures, overcrowded schools, more trash,
and more construction
Please, let's try to keep the R1 parts of Santa Monica neighborhood
friendly.
Sincerely,
c:ftu~
Lori Nafshu n
, ~
'96 S:P 30
~ - ,.-
Norman C. Peterson
350 16th Street
Santa MOnica, CA 90402
(310) 395 - 7633
September 27, 1996
...,.... ! Or
CIty Clerk of Santa MOnica. M~ Stewart
Santa MOnica City Hall
1685 Mam Street
Santa MOnica, CA
Dear Ms Stewart,
Please dlstnbute a copy of the enclo::.ed letter to COllncIl members Ruth Ebner, Ken Genser,
Asha Greenberg, and Robert Holbrook
Many Thanks
Smcerely yours,
~
I
I
/-J~
vy~ ~/
a.-J
/
1 f
~yJ
I
I
?c~
{71
, ...
Norman C Peterson
350 16th Street
Santa Momca, CA 90402
(310) 395 - 7633
September 27, 1996
To. Santa Momca CIty CouncIl rv1embers:
Ruth Ebner
Ken Genser
Asha Greenberg
Robert Holbrook
Dear CouncIl Member
The great maJonty of the resIdents of the Rl resIdentIal dlstnct III Santa Momca applaud your
vote m regard to draftmg an OrdInance banmng second dwellIng UnIts on propertIes In the Rl
dIStrICtS. Your thought and VISIOn are much apprecIated We profoundly hope that when the
Ordmance IS presented for approval. It IS passed mto law
If the State reqUIres a "Shov"ll1g" 111 regard to thIS ban, I respectfully suggest that the deSIres of
the cluzens IS a sIgmficant fact It 1) what the mass. of the people want that should control
Please recall that In 1984 (If memory <;erves correctly) when thIS Issue came up before and was
much publICIZed, the pubhc response 111 OpposItIon was so large that the heanng had to be
relocated from the Council Chambers to the Santa Momca CIVIC AudItonum.
Smcerely yours,
~C?~
2618- 32nc Stre~t
Santa HDnic<~, CA 90405
9-19-96
RE: "SECOND m-JELLING UNITS"
city Council, City Ball
1685 MaIn Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear City Council:
I have loved O\'lniny my home 1n Santa ManiLCl ::::incc 19::;']' L li~'~
in a vonderful R1 single family dwelling and have enjoyed the
surroundings of a RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. Should all thIS change
with SECOND DWELLING UNITS, there will be an Influx of people
and cars. Our AIR, ROADS and SCHOOLS WILL BE GREATLY AFFECTED.
The city is only eIght square miles 'big' and we need quiet lovely
home areas where familys uill know they live In a VERY SPECIAL CITY!'
PLEASE LET US KEEP OUR CITY BEAUTIFUL BY MAINTAINING THE R 1 STATUS.
I rec2ived the NOTICE OF DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED EMERGENCY INTERIM
ORDIUANC'E ESTABLI SHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND l\ USE PI:Plll T
REQUIREMENT FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN THE rITY OF SANTA MONICA
Duly yesterday, September 18th. I have had very little time to
contact ot~er neighbors and to prepare a very important letter
to you.
May this small voice be heard. I vould love to be there at the
meeting but can not due to an important commitment.
Host .)3incerely, V ~ ...-....-
/~~;:?i:.~
CHARLOTTE M. SCHNAARS
OCTOBER 3, 1996
REGARDING A SECOND MEETING TAKING PLACE ON OCTOBER 8, 1996, THE
ABOVE LETTER OF 9-19-96 WRITTEN BY ME EXPLAINS HOW I FEEL ABOUT
THE DISAPPERANCE OF LOVELY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND NEIGHBORHOODS! r!
From Dalla M Spel<tor To S M Mayor & City Council
Dalll 1 D/3i96 Time 11 39 42
Page 1 of 2
(]):JvfS
~..,
.),
FACSI1tfILE
COVER PAGE
DATE: October 3. 1996
TIME: 11 :38 A.M
TO: Santa Monica Mayor
FAX: 458. 1621
FROM: Dalia ~1. Spektor. ph.D.
PHONE: (310) 392 .7433
FAX: phone before sending
RE: SINGLE . FAMILY Ul'I'ITS
CC: SANTA MONICA CITY COU~CIL
MESSAGE:
PLEASE STOP MORE CONSTRUCTION
STOP REDUCING THE SIZE OF OPEN SPACES.
KEEP SINGLE HOUSES .-\S SINGLE EVERYWHERE.
WE NEED SUN AND LIGHT THAT CONSTRUCTION
REDUCES
WE DO NOT NEED MORE BUILDINGS OF ANY TYPE,
A~-ryWHERE.
September 30, 1996
City Council of Santa Monica
l685 Maln Street
Santa Monlca, Ca. 90401
Ruth Ebner
Robert Holbrook
Asha Greenberg
Ken Genser
Judy Abdo
Paul Rosensteln
Pam O'Conner
I'm wrltlng you (for the flrst tlme ln my four year resldency) to
urge you to conslder the posltive aspects of "granny flats" In
Santa Monlca.
Two weeks ago my mother was told her eyes would slowly fall
her. If she could move lnto a "flat", lt would relleve flnancial
and emotlonal stress for both of us. She would not lmpact the
environment. It's the same klnd of JOYous solutlon the Rosman's
are seeklng.
These same kinds of economlC and emotional stresses have a
greater lmpact lf the Clty has to deal wlth them: by "extending"
my famlly fewer social services wlll be required and my mother
and I wlll have a higher quallty of life.
I understand that the ma]Orlty of the COUDC1I feels there are
speclal Clrcumstances that wlll exempt the Clty from the state
"granny flat" requlrement. I also understand there was not a
large turnout at the publlC meetlng that was held. I hope my
letter and other publlC response wlll conVlnce you of the need to
allow such housing.
Slncerely,
Llnda Wheatman
2512-24th Street
Santa Monlca, Ca. 90405
work (3l0)453-2l77
OCT-~4-~6 FRI 11:26 AM J~ G+ ZUKOR
3113 3959353
F.01
JAMES R. ZtJKOR
609 A.lta Avenue
SantQ. Monica. Califo:rn1a 90402
October 4, 1996
Mayor and City CO'.mcil.
City of Santa ~onica
1685 Main Street
Santa Kcnica, CA 904D1
Dear Sir or ~adaMI
This is to express our Oppo8~tlon to the proposal to
per~it rental Jnits on R-l lots.
The reason ~ar~1 if not most, of us who have chosen to
live in nelghborhcods zoned for s:r~le homes is the
tranquility and privacy such neighborhoods p~ovide.
It is easy to see how hlghlY people value solch at"trlbutes
by the prer'li:Jm one m~lst :pay to live where homes are
protected by single-r~s:dence zoning.
The current uropcsal wo~ld haie an especially harsh i~TIact
.lpon residential homes and lots su.ch as ou:n~~ which ab;.lt
an alley. The c~rrent proposal would convert the alley
into another thoro~gfifare serv~cing the units which
would now be per~itted. The occupants of such units can
be expected to have the sa~e traffic in guests, deliverles
and service providers as anyone else.
Alleys ~ere designed to provide access fer garages, garbage,
utilities and emergency services, not for use by party
g~ests a~d delivery trucks, as well as the additlonal cars
of the occupants of the new Qnits.
Inevitably the new occupants will create the normal nOlses
of everyday living: parties, TV, music and the like.
Ha~.[ing a street at both the front and rear of our property
substantially would iffipair the privacy and ~ranquility
wh~ch justj~ied the large investment W~ rrade in p~rchasing
our home.
(It wo~ld be eve~ worse if two-story structures were permitted.
Slnce most homes are deslgned with the assumption of privacy
to the reaT1 our oedroons and living roo~s would be exposed
to the windows ar.d lights from across the alley. )
Please prese~ve our ~e~ghborhood oy rejecting the current
proposal.
~' --
Ji!~~
G'Q:el.a Z Llkor
Oct-OB-96 OB:53A Gary D Becker,MD
310-452-0267
P.Ol
1320 Pacific Street
Santa Momca. CA 90405
October 8. 1996
Mayor and eny Cound
City of Santa MOllica
1685 Main Street
Santa MOnIca. r A 90401
Dear Sirs
\Ve have been residents of Santa Monica SInce 1972 It IS dlstressmg to watch our once
qUlet neIghborhood detenorate with the Increased SIze and traffic of Santa ~1omca College
and development oflow mcome housmg and office buddmgs In the Immediate and
adjacent areas Traffic IS unbearably crowded and unacceptably slow In our area at thiS
point We who live here have to tolerate increasing stop signs and bamers 10 "control" the
wIld driving of Immature c.oUege students and harned workers rushmg to the freeway
home
To be able to park our cars on the street now costs an extra $15 DO/year WIth Increasmg
frequency, street parked cars on Pacific are vandahzed and pollee can do nothmg
RobberIes and gunshots are happening more often and now Just blocks away
We say NO to rental units on R-1Iots. NO NO NO In addition to
Increasing an eXIsting traffic and parking problem, these renters have
no Investment In the commUnity and further corrupt the intimacy and
safety of our neighborhood Rental units and occupants wrll cause
more problems ~ increasing demands on fire, pOlice, adding more
pollution. sewage, and consuming more of our precIous water supply
Ownership brings a vested interest In the City, community, and
neighborhood Renters of these types of units will be transient, taking
advantage of us with no thought to long term effects.
Sincerely.
~ '~o.ik-J1 r:ub.c- d...1/~-01~
ElaIne Radford BU~k~r
Gary 0 Becker
OCT. 7.~335 11:51P~
NEC 51RNDRRD5 (81a)840-4(~1
IiI.,). ::l00
r..l
October 7, 1996
Mayor of the City of Santa Monic~
City Counc11 Members
city Hall
1685 Main street, Second Floor
Santa Monica, CA 9040l
(VIA fAX 310 458-1621)
RE~ R-l Rental Un~ts
~his letter is to add my voice to the group of
concerned homeowners a~d residents of Santa Monica,
against the pending Movement to increas~ the density
and population of our city. Ohe of the most
attractive elements of Santa Monica has always been
it's pleasant residantial nature. ThlS includes back
yards and green space to rais~ and nurture our
families and children. If We allow people to build
e~tra ur.its for rental purposes in the residential
areas, the feeling and freedoro of space ~ill be lost.
Our city is one of the most d~sirabls in the Los
Ange:es area, for tha very ~ea50n of lt~ residential
neighborhoods. If ~e give this adva~tage up for
rental oppo~tunities, we will be losing wuch more to
~ncrea$ed traffic, potential fo~ cr~Me, noise and
crowded neighborhoods. Let's ke~p for Santa Monica
what has al~ays ~ade 1t appeallnq: :t's quali~y
neighborhoods.
I was born and had b~sic education in Sa~ta Monica,
and plan on staying here. I even have the potential
space to add a ~ental ~nit~ but will sacrif~ce what
income this c~~:d provide ln favor of the privacy and
security affordad by the residential environment.
~ plead ~ith you to keep Santa MOhica's single~family
neighborhoods and prohibit the second unit proposal.
I
I
,.
90~02
-, .-,
~ .
.' ,
,
(310/395-1992 or S18j840-4197)
Carole Currey
451 Twentieth Street
Santa Monica, California 90402
(310) 393-3463
4 October 1996
Mayor and City CouncIl
Second Floor, City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Single-Family Dwelling Zoning R-1
Dear Mayor Rosenstein and Members of the Council
I regret that I will be out of town Tuesday and unable to attend the Council
meetmg I did, however, attend the Council's prevIous hearing on thiS subject and
commend the Council for ItS deCISion to prohibit second dwellmgs In single-dwelling
zOning Council members certainly heard numerous arguments, and, undoubtedly will
receive more persuasive documentation at the next heanng
As a non-attorney, I question "How, legally, can a 'Single-Family Dwellmg, R- l'
property contain two dwellings and stili qualify as a 'Smgle-Famlly Dwelling, R-1'
property?" It appears to me that a zOning change IS taking place which IS In non-
com pllance With the property deeds and legal descnptlons of such properties In Santa
MOnica
I trust the good Wisdom of the CounCil Will prevail, and that the Council Will
decide, again, to ban two dwellings within single-family dwelling R-1
zoning
~.I;k?
Carole Currey /"
. -
I
"
~~~
~~ ~ ~-1r c&~~~c
Jf.cs" ~. ~T
~ );n.o~J cfJ 9{)i-ol
;2. ?> I /.f ;;L b.E: ~
;~ ntt~1 Cfl 909 CJ y
[J~3) Iff?6
C?~ ~ jV 0 (}Y1- ~ ~~ _/f;
~ -;zL d.'A>XL~~ oJ ~- h
~~ ~ ~ Ynu~.
1!tu-~~~ ~
I ...
to . d ''~101
uregory J. Golden
Carol J. Golden
528 25th Street
Santa Monica~ CA 90402
October 7, ] 996
Mayor of Santa 1vlonica
City Council of Santa Monica
Dear Mayor and City Counci]~
1 am writing to you to express concern over a recent memorandum that was
circulated in my neighborhood regarding rental units on R-l lots.
I strongly urge you to NOT approve this measure for the follov,.ing reasons:
1. There will be an increase ill traffic and congestion.
2. With the mcrease In people comes the increase m cnmc and unfamiliar
people in the area.
3. Overcrowding of the lugh quality schools in the area.
4. The increase in cars parked on the streets.
and,
5. Over built lots.
Unfortunely, my work precludes me from attending the council meeting, but I
wanted to express my disapproval of rental umts on R-l properties. Let's keep the
charm in Santa Monica, VOTE NO.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Gre~~
10'd ~c98 SS9 ~1c
v~:81 9S61-~D-~JO
1':: :: :
l .: - ."
ow ": ~ I
~ . :! "
Whitney Green
711 Tenth Street
Santa Monica, Ca. 90402
(310) 395-2939
October 7, 1996
Fax to Mayor and City Council
110458-1621
To \-Vhorn It May Concern:
I am a resident ot Santa Monica livmg in a beautiful smgle family
neighborhood north of ~:1:ontana. Prior to buying this home, I lived south
of Montana and north of Wilshire in one of the last remairnng cottages and
...andwlched between the apartments that proliferate there.
I would urge the CIty CounCIl to preserve the few single family
neighborhoods left. in our wonderful city. I love Santa !\.-lonica and think It
i., vital to maintain the flavor of diverse neighborhoods~ including the
"Iower density" one north of l\lontana. There are alot of us already
-;queel..ed into tbe .,mall amollnt or acreage that constitutes Santa Nlonica and
I think we may destroy what is unique and valuable by ever IncreaSIng its
population.
The lots (mosi of them SO'X150') are small alnd already suffer from
lax buildmg codes that have permitted giant houses to be stuffed onto these
small sites. The idea of a second residence behind every house wIll double
cars and nOlse and dog., and garbage and jeez - please resist those parties
who are trymg to double our housing (And by the way, who does want to
do this and why'}??) It IS a bad idea'
~/~
8 >,
. ,
TODD 8: PAMELA GOODMAt~
319 NINTH STR:EET SANTA MONiCA. CAUJ:'ORrHA 90402-1925
310.458 .3262
October 6, 1996
Mr. Mayor and City Council Members
C1ty Hall
1685 Ma~n street
Santa Monica, Ca 90401
Dear Mr. Mayor and city council Members,
I am writing you to express my deep concern on the
importance of maintaining R1 lots in Santa Monica without
"backyard rental units." Although I am sure you are familiar
w1th most of the key p01nts regarding this 1ssue, I would
11ke to share three factors that are s~gn~f~cant to our
neighborhood.
The legalization of the "backyard rental" in Santa
Monica would impact the density- of the ne~ghborhood. Th1s
~ncreased density would certainly lead to increased noise and
reduced green space. More people, more buildings, and more
cars reduce the quality of life for all inhabitants.
Increased trafflC w111 result with the endorsement of
the "backyard rental." Add1t1onal traff1C 15 a potential
threat to children and pets. Extra street activity
compromises the peaceful neighborhood environment. More
traffic comb1ned with reduced green space degrades air
qual1ty. Add~t10nal cars 1n the neighborhood will require
more places to park
The acceptance of the "backyard rental" in Santa Monica
R1 lots wlll inflame the park1ng problem w~th1n the
nelghborhoods. Currently, street park1ng 18 often dlfficult
for guests. Also, residential alleys are often filled with
illegally parked cars. These cars parked in the alley reduce
accessibility to one's own garage. Additional cars parked 1n
alley cause undo hazards to emergency and C1ty vehicles.
-page 1-
TODD AND PAMELA GOODMAN
319 NIHil-i STREET SANTA MOHleA. CALIFORNiA 90402-1925
310 . 458 . 3262
Let's not eliminate Santa Monica's single family
neighborhoods. Backyard rentals w~ll increase density, bring
more trafflc and create more parking congestlon within the
neighborhood. Addltlonal "backyard rental units" wlll
compromise the safety, quality, and integrity of our few
rewainlng family neighborhoods.
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Goodman
Pamela Good..'t\an
~
~~ "
FROM : GREENSPUN
P~ONE NO. 310 394 1252
Oct. 07 1996 11:17PM P2
PRAIRIE
MEDICAL
aGROUP'r~
October 7. 1996
Mayor and City Council
City of Santa Monica
City Hall
Santa Monica. California
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
We would like to join the many Santa Monica residents objecting to
the proposal to allow a rental unit on R-l lots. We do so because we
are concerned with the increa~ed crowding and noise likely to occur
unless the city council votes to prohibit thu;..
Santa Monica has been blessed with a diversity of housing. Rental
umts dominate a large portion of the city while low income and more
affluent single family residences are also in abundance. Those of us
lucky enough to have invested in R-I housing did so because of the
increased privacy and space this neighborhood provides. Our
investment did not come cheap Many have taken large mortgages
and worked extremely hard to pay them off. Allowing rental
properties would change forever the atmosphere we have sought for
ourselves and our children. The City Council must protect our
neighborhoods.
Richard and Ann Greenspun
357 17th Street
Santa Monica~ California
.... -. -- - -
2825 Santa Moniea BlVd Su.te 301, Santa Monica, CA 90404 (310}829-3130 FAX (310)828-9156
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
INTER-DEPARTl\1ENT MEl\fO
DATE
October 7. 1996
TO
Mayor & Councllmembers
FROM
Lionel Grem
2943 V rrgmm Avenue
Santa MOllIca, CA 90404
(310) 829-3373
SUBJECT
CouncIl Agenda Item 8A - 10/8/96 Meeung
Mr Grem call the Connell OffIce to regIster hIS Opposltlon to a CIty
Ordmanee that would allow second dwelhng umts III the R-l zomng dlstnct
U~I-~~-~b NUN ~L:5b ~N ~~ANK J GRUBER
3110 :;;2610 ::.::. C<iI!.
t'"".~J.
- ...
f
Frank J. Gruber
415 Marin.e Street
Santa .Monica~ Caurornla 90405
3103923879 fu: 3tO 452 3369
- I
October 7J' 1996
., ~
r
r;
;': ~~ -.
TO: Mayor and City Council
CC: Suzanne FrIck
RE: Second~Units
i
;
i
i
i
-
( fOol"'
V.JJ
The action of the City Council on September 24 requesting that Staff prepare
findings and an ordinance prohibiting second-umts in the City's R-l districts
surprised me As a member of the Planning Commission I had carefully studied
this issue and I believe Staff's original recommendation, to adopt an ordmance with
local standards, IS the correct way to proceed. I believe the course the Council is
taking is a mistake
It is undeniable that Santa Monica has done a lot to create affordable housing. It is
true that if our R-l zones, particularly those located away from commercial districts
and/or major, transit-served streets, were somehow to be intensively developed (on
the order of our multi-family districts), then the amount of traffic in those
neJghborhoods and in the city might increase measurably. It also goes without
saying that people who hve in R-l neighborhoods are proud of their neighborhoods
(Just as residents of neighborhoods with mixed housing are proud of theirs), and
that some R-1 reSidents belIeve second~units will change the character of their
neIgh borhoods for the worse.
Nonetheless, Council should resist the pres.sure to prohibit second-units. When all
is said and done, the City ca..."'1.not make the necessary fmdmgs, within the meaning
and intent of the law.
· The evidence presented to Council at the September 24 meeting was
anecdotal and often contradicted by other testimony.
· The conclusory language of the proposed ordinance that second-units
would "significantly erode the qualIty of hfe for resldents of R-l districts" -IS
consistent neither with any facts cited in support nor wi th the fact that people all
over Santa Monica live quHe welt with excellent quality of life, in neIghborhoods
WIth much higher density than anything possible under the State1s second-units law
and with extremely varied housing.
· Since second-units would not increase the amount of development
allowed on a parcel, the traffic and environmental woes predIcted by opporlents of
second-units may still be created by the expansion and rebuilding of single-family
homes, a process thilt goes on all the tIme.
The City is also making a mistake in challenging the state lav.... By now Santa
MOnIca must realize that the State has authority over housing, and Council should
OCT-07-96 MON 1212:37 PM FRANK J GRUBER
31121 26121 5!!57:2
P.02
Mayor and City Council- Second.Units
October 7, 1996
Page 2
recogruze the City's responsibilities under the la.w. Santa :Monica has paId the price"
in legal fees, for trying to go its own way before. It is not fair to make the majority of
taxpayers (renters and homeowners) in the City who do not live in R.l districts pay
the price for defending an ordinance that will likely be thrown out by the courts,
when reasonable and effective alternahves are avaIlable to the City to protect the
valid mterests of residents of the R-l districts.
IronIcally, this is not the first time in the past year that Santa r.,llonica's land-use laws
have been affected by state law: but when Sacramento intervened in rent control,
the City realized it had to go along. The City adapted to the new law as best it could
That is the approach we should take to the state law on second.units
The Council can protect our local mterests while remammg true to the
requirements and spirit of the law
. The law enables a city to preserve the character of a single-famIly dIstrict by
the use of design standards.
· The use of second-units does not increase the amount of development
allowed on a parcel
· \Ne have other means to alleviate problems that may conceivably be
created by second-units.
I hope the Council will reconsider r and return to the approach onginally proposed
bv Staff,
.I
Finally, on a phIlosophIcal note, permit me to poil't out that this whole problem
hIghhghts the fact that smgle-use zoning is the most drastic regulation of properly
rights employed by any local government-much more drastic, for instar.cel than
rent control or restrictions on denstty. Whtle the R-l neighborhoods in our fair city
are to some degree integrated into the urban fabric, due to their proxlmity to
downtown, in general single-use zoning has been the legal baSiS of suburban sprawl
and the destruction of America's CIties The state iaw is a reasonable modifIcation of
smgle-us~ zoning that will not harm the character of R-l zones. It will not turn
those dIstncts mto cro\vded, multi-famIly neighborhoods Single-use zoning is not
consistent with a "less IS more" philosophy of government and anyone who IS in
favor of "less governmenfl cannot conSIstently be m favor of single-use zoning.
~ 0-88- ~ 996 9 3d~t 1
FROH THE GUPFIELDS 310 3941308
p 2
707 15th Street
Santa Monica. Ca. 90402
October 8. 1996
Mayor and City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa r.tlonlca. CA. 90401
Dear 1\1"r. Rosenstein and Members of the City Council:
We are dismayed at t.lJe proposal to allow rental units on all R-l
lots in the CIty. The Increased traffic we are already experiencing on
15th Street as a result of the popularity of the market "\Vild Oats" has
already presented qUIte a problem for our family. Every weekend. we
are unable to back our cars out of our own driveway, because the
driveway Is blocked by people ,,,"ho are careless or in a hurry to leave
their ver.J.c1es. Although it goes agaInst the grain. we have had to leave
rather unpleasant notes on people's cars. and. in two instances. we
have had to call the pohLe to ticket people who left their cars blocking
us in for hours. The likelihood of more cars in the neighborhood as a
result of an increased number of rental units would intensify this
problem.
\Ve urge you to reconsider this proposal Vislt 15th Street on a
Saturday afternoon, If you want to see what Increased traffic can do to
a "quiet" neighborhood.
sm~
~~v i
Joan and Bill Gumeld
Cct 3. If)q6
~pvor & City 80uncil
City of SentF Monice.
1685 Mc:in Street
Sent~ ~.~~nlcp. eft.
Voters have confidence in the intergrity
1";: nd wi s d 0 rr 0 !' ~ 11. e :: ant p : ~ :m i c ~ 8 t t Y Co IJ n c !. 1.
?le8~~ aonlt CFst e ShRG0W ~n this
celief by vtting for ~EntFl units on R-l lots.
S"ntB t::-mice hES en'Jugh trEffic, p!Ork:ing
proclemE, n~lse end 2 st~ry buildings D:ocking jut
view, sunlignt, 'nd pir.
Keep UD the good work.
CJ. -
~~:1/f
3-eorp- H')~t
~--~-
L~(//~'.~
Helen Eolt
lC34 H~ rVE'rd
SL nte IJ1antcF.
Gf.. (lC40"3
Oct-07-96 ll:35A
P.Ol
To the Mayor and CIty Council,
I am wntmg to express my support for the current measure which would allow rental units
in Santa Monica I have never written before about any measure, on a local or national
level, however I was enthusiastIc about thIs plan that I felt I should make my suppon for It
absolutely clear
1 wIll haply look forward to supponing any elected official who supports the plan to allow
homeowners to convert back properties mto rental units, (or as In my case. units to be
used fer live in child care help)
Claude and Mary Knobler
2234 25th Street
Santa Monica
Phone 310392.3306
Fax 310399-7583
Mayor Paul Rosenstein
City of Santa MOnica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA
90401
October 4, 1996
PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW RENTAL UNITS ON R-1 LOTS
I understand that the Issue of allOWing rental units on R-1 lots up for consideration at a
pUblIc hearIng on Tuesday, October 8 Our safety, health and welfare Will definitely be
affected If the homes In our neighborhood added rental units ThiS would definitely
Increase congestions, traffic and crime In our neighborhood
We already have to deal With all the traffiC and congestion from Santa MOnica City
College, and we can see all of the crime which occurs on the streets adjacent to PICO
Boulevard whIch have rental units AllOWing rental Units on R-1 lots IS a step In the
wrong direction, please do not allow thiS to happen to our neighborhood
Thank You,
~~
Mati and Mllvl Laan
1205 PaCifiC St
Santa MOnica, CA
90405
,
- 1
;
, . '
.1-.
", I
i
\ ~;;::- ~
.--
10/07/96 11'30
u
Schaffer & Lax
1lI002/002
STEPHEN A. AND JENNIFER S. LAX
'320 GRANT STREET
SANTA MONICA, CAUFORNIA 90406
(310) 392-7886
October 7, 1996
VIA FACSIMilE
The Hon. Paul Rosenstein
Mayor, City of Santa MOnica
and Members of the City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Dear Mayor Rosenstein and Council Members:
We are opposed to allowing any rental units on properties zoned R-1 Those
Units would harm our neighborhood's public safety, health and welfare. In a
neighborhood such as Sunset Park, which consists primarily of small single-family
residences on small lots. the addItion of rental Units would seriousfy impact parking
and create problems with traffic and noise. Two-story units would undermme the
eXisting character of the neighborhood.
SALlmem2
Please Insure the continued vltaltty of our neig
these rental units.
~~f~~!l~~b ~~.~4 31U3S48081
J::k1RV ~EDERER
P4GE 01
.11
I I
III
I
I
I I
L
Jerry Lederer
Real Estate Broker
352 f1th Slre.t,
Sanltl Manica1 CA 00402
(3fO) 393-0880
FAX · (310) 394-808.
D8t.e:J~.Lf6_______ ___
I
I
I
j
,
J
~
To: &'L~~_12 _Cc-Lc;;Jz.~~CL~
Co.Na.e__~~~~~~~__
Fax · _ _ ,,__..f~[.:/...P".-2.../_____
.of paQes ( includin~ this p,,>_L_-
COII.ents L~~gB~f2.~E-L..:G:E.~~
~~~#d..#-~_~t#..1T~ ~74-;f$/~t.~d "7
L/@_QQAL /_d~{:.Q~_dM~~___
c:-- ---
u-dJ.J -i(=; .1..12~~ _s~~Z-~ .dg:.ff_.a!er..~I
~4!eP'-~JL~~~d~f..~_~r)
w/LtC. ~6?J'-7C ~v</E,.,J"//~cC ~/,A?E
/~/fo6c:.c>t1s AJt!)/ SC;;-: /fA/./) /,..{/c;e!€?J se=./)
.
f
J
,
a
f
,
I I ~
7Z-~/c 71/ULJ /,~/;.v'6- /,..eo6~S_ -- ~
~-~ ~
~ -...,.- ~ y-,.>. - ~ -~~ ---- -
fJ:)owthw Loul
1044 cJlatlTaul ~hu.t
c:Eanta d1.:(C'tU!:a, CaLifC''r.nla 00403
.- :{;f- /. A -". ~
. },'~ p//~J ~4 <'
k u,../'" l.:
F .
/i/~ ~
/}" 1}/2?~~1 ~~f~6/
ltc, /~C F . _1:' c
t/ ,r-;r- V///~
~Q ~C~r.1-'~ r-d'< ~V7r~ /ti U---t:f17-V--
~# to.~ ?~./} /'~. _ Ii .. /?// /
M~ ,,~ If-..-, ~ 7X/L,.~~ :.~--r ~
1'rZ~//vv7k ~fi~ ~.
1::7./ ~ La-- I t1/ L-~ ~--;t,L -
~cVJJ~~~~~~~ cX:~
Jt~ /. t:/cZ--U~ Actt~ ~~# A~--=--- 7
ijf /' ~:J""/
-6 ---lid.-t.- tC y.;~ c/ C-1-;; ,~f C~2//( t.L~ /l-- 14:l.; ,
-cti~ ~ :l;k-/e -? /t-k-/. 7 c~ le/' ~j- -( /"
("" 'i/ C< ;>~..L- c.' ~"
(. ~1 {[-;-c-I .(t ,../c: /; '7' ~f2q L...
;Lc /--z.o h .J, 1 c--L r -
,- !/ I ~/
/r:llc 0 /~ /A
l.L l.2- F.,:. ..z---;;:tL -l a _, / . (.'(c,
_j .. _' ) L.L(' cf /
v: L-t " C<. c: l..-l-- /. ~<-7~ A./ I / f,~
I ~_ fi-'Y'- {,. "VI/ ~-07J-z-- q~..___
{lll/( _'z{ -fi6~-C- C {'Lf'{L~{ L '- (~ ,;Jcq~r) . ___ . c'; L..L-- ~<.. 7r-/
r'{ .. i-J I}C., L-{--"l t.. ( lLC-UfT.;{ [eL..2...- .r- 7t--tvf::.. ;:f- '-
(/ , ~c- _ 1 ,
~~..L--Le --.{'
... --~ -- .-- - -~ ~ .......,..... ....-.-
/~
}JVC&
~-
JI. ....12cl~- ~..~ fLu0:'[{ ?AL#
... t // . i
u ~ //~ ' / i /J __ :::/
)7/~/ ~ r{/~~c.--- /U?-r0~~~ \ ~ q~--wL-
J-- /\ ./
J [,
i / V /
'_/ " a.. - - //. -
-1-/A{.~ ///_?'- . ~7 - ~~~ . ~() K "
," - '/
~/~k~ Ct~?( 17~--'T 'l/ /~J24-
/-:e-~.. .,,:r<-;-;6~:.{. c"L~ft. ~ cc ,. cl
..)~f 0- U :/
v;/
r,
~~ C<i-t.j/
~! ~2~~ ~ :4f~
II..,JI...,p........ IIJ"'T........... ,....~...........,.
GRA1\.:-JY DOC - 10 596
October 5. 1996
~,Iayor & Crty CounCil
Santa ~lo11lca. CA
A~ homeo\\ners 111 a 5mgle famIly area. we ar~ pOSitiVely opposed to the so called
"Gram}'.-- umts
Our streets ar~ already Impacted enough by eXlst111g nearby apartment bUlldmgs We do
not \\ant extra car~ c10ggmg our street and Jocke~lllg for parkmg space m front of our
home
Santa ~loll1ca already has a very large percentage of Its housmg devoted to rental umts
\'"e hope ~ou Will put forth your best efforts to mamtam the R-l areas as smgle famtly
structures
SIncerely
Donald & Helen :\lacEachem
1818 H1l1 St
Sant<'l :\Iomca. c.-\ 90405
/7 /71; ~ (: /~ ~
. /. .f::::,.J,/..-of
..... '/~// F.A(~/(T/ ':f ._.-(.J/./
~ / : 7
/r" .. j) ~~/) "-7 /~ . t>
, 3-~-Jo- ''<'~<// / / :.:--7/ ':-4~..z:.I '"
f
/"
! 4 4
-:- ~~/~~- ) --/..,<.----:: ~~~ .
.---./ &' ' --'.~ .~
/", .~
y .. /~ //~,
?~~~. // --&-::?'---f ~;:/.J/~
---===---~
---'
.,
//
.' /.
/.~J #~./
/
/"., --4 /"/..--1 .i
.;?:-z.--~
€:.--<::Y
~t-~
,
--t~- /~~- ~ /C /: .;;7 ..-:1 /- _ .f ~,;/. > /J.--) //' /- /
I .....< -, -, "./ .;r'''-_ ../ ~.7;~. /~ ..--;~.<.../~ //.4 j V~y":' ~-~ .-?'----z~ /" r~?/./ rY
J ,'.-i-J /. ( / C/~ ~/ ./ /1
./y /'c/ 7...-/ ./ / /1 ~.~/ I .d... / J
.. .-{7 ~ "7 /-".:'j'e_/ /A~~~- ,/' Y.r ,~~...> . if A""""/~-;r ~ n . ---/;.i! ~_fl~. & ___7"
-~ r-~.__.... ,../'..' r -if r~ {/ /~/~'-- ~
/<........Y' J i' / / ~ ---.? I ('
~--7 /~/7"--d.Y-.-- .. '~~j~ /..../..:-6/ O:::J~ /~~;--7~ ~
-y~~ .-??~
A < ~
/.7 ~
~L!> :;0' /'E-2-;>.---2'--r-/"j
I. ;/ /1 [ ----
___,v . i" .
/v :.~MJ
'" ." I- /./ %.
_=,.4--' ../ ~ -':J ---? ...-
'.. ~. / ../": ... ~
/1 '.I.
./ T}rh
'-7'"-1-/' .. // <.[ ; (
/-, F'
/y-1C'-7-:?t..'2_/'////; "'<:'-...t.~
-
'------ :.:'
~ __:.t-/>~J
/
~~
y- "),j .
-;:r __./~_____./
~~
---
(" /"
/r#- ":.
)~'/---:--2.YJ-L/
~
:~ </; <Z-/'
I
::Z--;Z:,-2-.rC '-/
/~ L---~.::.-J
~//-~~~~._Jr
"
./f ..
/~:
~
J
"'-__'i
I
...
;? _____ .{f_/.
---~ ./--<---
1/
../v.... .r/----~ ::::....--r~ --
~___. ../ _- r__.J.....
....-:.....
/-:;;:;-'
--; ~-<: . cJ~
J
'--i~~;J ~ lj"rJ
~f/
-.4. .J '
// I <:-~7~i
/" /.-/ ---:?'---.-- ---./A-/ ..
/~::,-~--y ,e?
/:
I /~
.~~-/ /J?-~
//
0~ /:
(-r / ~/,
_------;.~~.. __ r,
/'
.2--</
5-/~'
/7
. ff
'----J!A ,c
r'~_
//1\
., II / "
r~L~:; 4'
./
I
q/
//7
f~
~~fr(~/
p,
'-7
K,--~
........
/-/
,'---
/~?r
../ /
I ('...q--'/
/1. / /
'~-'-../ ___~~C/)
~ /J~
,,~,
~,' / /
,~ + .-.-~~~
1
,/
/<':.-C;"k ,;~;-, r/'
'-- ~ /, ',/
;,0
hr--/' a ~~~J
c
J 7:
/
/;v:/Z~~
Y
--- ./
~ / ";'. ft
/~ /~J:~~
/,7
~----v~~ ~7-?~:::)
. ,
"01 j
/~
~-,.-/ ,!
/ Ii 0
-/- ',.. /7
" u
,
./
~~---~"
/
Y'-:k2-~
J ~
f' ,
.-4'........-: ~
----- / ,
f';;--/ -, .
/
//
-//-;'- >-><' -~" 7-
/
/' ~
~~~~-~,
~
" ;7---- '
7 // ~
Mrs Kelvin H Pack
2506 20th St
Santa Momca, CA 90405
/
/
/ /
- I.~ "'
~,L/~
L.------"
'\
j
/0--/
./.~/
Y
....-y ~7
,./; -
/,
.J /'
~~~~
<----,
J/
,
r I
J
. 1.1 i ~
/" r--- .... I
! !/ J i
fUlCnn;-
I ~(" 7 'On"
I /.::;;:tr)
! r.- -----
:"rT-. ~
! { ;
~~-
Mr &1\/lrs Rc\bert RICCI
2312-25 St
Santa Momca, Ca 90405
October 5_ 1996
Mayor and Clt\' Council
. -
City Hall
1685 Mam Street
Santa l'vfomca, ea 90401
Dear Mayor and COlIDCll :tv1embers.
Please be ad'1.sed that the members of the RICCI family strongly
disapprove of any proposeu changes to the current zomng ordmance In the
re";ldentlal R-l areas~ that would allow granny or rental unIts to be developed
on smgle famIl~ lots
Not only \\ 111 It lend Itselfto the detenoratlOn of the re\y remammg
re$ldentlal area,,; 111 Santa Iv10mca but It \\111 add to the current street parkmg
problems It would also mcrease the flow of strangers commg and gomg mto
our nelghborhood~ ThIS proposed alterath.m of the current zonmg will
tore"er change the character of Santa Momca Please presence what \ye all
love
Smcerely,
Robert RiccI
.LU/UII"l:lO
'.
':.L.U')
-g',).LU "l:l'l ll:lUil
;:)il.'I.;:)UJ~
To the Honorable Mayor and Cm- CO'.1ncll of Santa Moruca
We llvc at 1..J07 Carhle A'\c ill Santa MOIUca. We ",ere shocked to learn of your consIderatIon
of allOWlll8 rental umts In the smgle-fam1ly area of thJ.s Citl Needless to sa}, people", ho invested 1ll
SIngle fannly homes and who dIe takmg the financIal nsk of theIr mvestm.ents dtd not antICIpate there
neighborhoods bemg turned lito a muIu hOUSlng area Among other reasons, aUowmg rental umts lUll
lleg,at1'\ely affect the health safety and ",dfare of the area due to the foUowmg
1 The lots In Santa Moruca are small Homes are already ovetbullt m the area
.-'\llOV-lng rental U1IltS ~1n use up further open space changmg the character of the
area We need more open space 10 Santa MODlca, not less
2 The streets In my area are ~' over congested WIth traffic It IS unsafe to cross
streets and often the m-eets are filled WIth park cars AllOWIng rental UIllts \y1U
cause more cars onto the streets Since many homeowners already do not use there
garages or they have no room for ackhuona1 cars Renters also mean more VISItOrs
whicb will add to the traffic congesuon Overall, the mcrease III population and
cars >\111 cause nOIse poUUUOlllD the smg!e fanuly areas
~ The qmet e11JO)11lem of the area '0\-111 be permanently damaged.
I hope the coune1l will coru;Ider the deSlle5 of the netghborhood as the pruna.ry concern We lne
here, we are r.using our fanllhes here If ~e wanted to !t\;e and raISe OUI fannI} In a mulu fannlJ area.. we
had that optIon Smce ,",e did not choose that opuon. please do not force n on us
Respectfully,
if ~ ~a-,...~ .
o.<.Wl qJ ?
Laune and Gary Samson
1407 Carlyle Ave
Santa Mowca 90-102
Norman C. Peterson
350 16th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
(310) 395 - 7633
September 27. 1996
To. Santa MOnica CIty CouncIl Members'
Ruth Ebner
Ken Genser
Asha Greenberg
Robert Holbrook.
Dear CounCIl Member.
The great maJonty of the resIdents of the RI reSIdentIal dIstnct in Santa Monica applaud your
vote In regard to draftmg an Ordmance banmng second dwelling umts on properties in the Rl
dIstncts. Your thought and vlSlOn are much appreciated We profoundly hope that when the
Ordinance IS presented for approval, It IS passed mto law
If the State reqUIres a "Showmg" In regard to thIs ban, I respectfully suggest that the desires of
the citizens is a sIgmficant fact It IS what the mass of the people want that should control.
Please recall that in 1984 (If memory serves correctly) when this Issue came up before and was
much publicized. the public response In Opposltlon was so large that the hearing had to be
relocated from the CouncIl Chambers to the Santa MOnIca CIVIC Auditorium.
Smcerely yours.
?c?~
~u'u~'~u 1~~ U~ ~~ ~~~ J~U ~~v ~(~~
ll~ l.~!..
~'VL.I.l.
FAX
I Date
10108196
I Number of Dages IncIMdTng cover sheet
TO:
Mayor & City CounCIl
FROM:
Stephen & Diana Sodaro
503 15th Street
Santa Monica 90402
Phone
Fax Phone 458.1621
Phone
Fax Phone 310.445.2791
I Subject:
Residential Rental Units
REMARKS: CSl Urgent
o For your review D Reply ASAP 0 Please Comment
I am unable to attend the meeting tonight
I am opposed to allowing rentals as part of the R-1 zoning laws and regulations We do not
need or want rentals In our neighborhood Montana Avenue shopping has already created
great congestion on the first two blocks north of Montana
Allowing rentaJ units to become part of our R-1 neighborhood will increase traffic and
transients We do not want any more of either
Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this note and for your No Vote In this matter
DCT-08-199E 08.24 FROM
TO
13104581621
P.01
October 8, 1996
Dear Mayor and C1ty Council Members:
I live North of Montana and am ~n !Yll SU~Dort o~gran~ flats on
R-l Lots. It ~s ridiculous to assume that those nerghbors that -
choose to occupy their existing guest houses or choose to build
one will affect the safecy, health or welfare of the rest of us.
r invite those attempting to ban granny flats to show you the
statistics correlating crim~ with granny flats, or to show you
that the health (c'mon!) of granny flat area residents is
affected or that the welfare is at risk in those neighborhoods.
Let's be realistic.
new, have kids that
~ot have the luxury
Letfs get with 1t.
People have to take care of their elders
live at home wh~le going to college AND do
of being empty nesters This is the 90's.
Margi Somers
337 15th St.
90402
.
o cl- ,3 lLAG
{
~w N\(AjDr-r Crt'/ couf/)c;1 J
I ItVYt o.p'{)1JS~ 10 O(\OWt\AQ
f'~l UtA ltS <J.V\. ec::u:JA Sl~.-J
-l aVl'\ l\~ (d:. I VJ0! t ~ ~LS
tPooW L()JJ5g ca"AC\e::,t10Vl 1.' Vi~e&
CAf~ I ~ C ct ht\ OfJ-Ucxzrt,U ct \Y\Q ~
\Ne OWVl ().. hOvY)-e ~ +ee \ ~ 0
Sa~ m~V\l<:.cL 0~f---v\ v~
w/\J ~ ~\ ~ ~ ~~ law
1<; p /,G~se& ; W ~ 1):) --m f) 1
~1 OM 1 .
U6J'\,UO- ~cfY\QA
c963u ~~ Sf .
StV\R ~c.al~'
q()~O'~
.
-
, .-
, -
""7
I !JQ:-
.
J Stuart Meisner Ph D
To
From
Date
Re
11126 San Vlcenle Blvd SUite 680
Los Angeles CA 900019
~1a:or and elt) CouncIl
Stuart !\leisner and Peggy T onkonogy
October 4. 1996
Rental U111ts on R-Ilots
'Ve strongly oppose rental umts on R-llots 'Ye are concerned that a1el1ness to crunmals
,",ould b~ redu.:ed by an l11crease In strangers enternng and leav111g from the alle\ or street The
mcreased traffic v"ould reduce sat~ty for our) oung chIld as well
GARY B. TORPY
503 23rd Street
Santa Monica, California 904002
October 4, 1996
VIA TELECOPIER &
FIRST CLASS MAIL
(310)458-1621
~...- -----...-
Mayor, City of Santa Monica
City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Rental Units In The R-1 Zone
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members:
Please note my opposition to the implementation of any ordinance supporting constructIOn
of rental housmg m the R-l zone. I senously doubt that the city would have much difficulty
in finding that its situation is unique and that implementatIOn of the state guidelines
governing second units would impose an extreme hardship upon a city which has done more
than its share to encourage development of more affordable housing.
To begin with, over 75% of the city's housing stock consists of apartments Many of these
apartments and other housing provided by the city since 1979 meets affordable housing
guidelines. Moreover, there are other portions of the CIty for which additional affordable
housing is planned and which are better able to support additional density. The city also
accommodates numerous Los Angeles and other residents who travel to the coastal and
entertainment areas that the city offers all addmg to the traffic and other mfrastructure
problems experienced by the City of Santa Monica.
The City of Santa Moruca IS umque and It is highly unlikely that the state legislation was
intended to impose second units in the R-l zone of a cIty with the unique mfrastructure and
condItIons present in the Qty of Santa Moruca. The imposition of an ordinance permittmg
rental units in the limited R-l areas of the city is not consIstent with good planning or good
government.
~k
~)dtL ~ /9fb
~ -U1- ')1~}>>~ ~ ~~ C-f)a~-J
, aJ1f)t~~ ~~ ~t~ 1 ,~d
~0v,i;:~~. ,~-t~;J ~~ -0 ~
-htv'J; -i::-!zJUldkA~tL ~~."ki::
:=JJu';'i J8.,~ lh.n~tL-~ m~.wM&~.
/l~ .4/) o.~ ~/f'vCAUaL AA ~d-4M)
C~:J;i4;~ G/v'vl. c.Ju/v"..t"
Wv-~v-/ flU"'\. A-{~ h tL
J/1t-ck~tL ))J-iJi h ctMu'Y>\.P_L 1)./ ~,
(f JW/~~ V"1 d~~~ ~U~ ~&~ k /J-1JMlJ
~:J;;~' i;!:!t ,~~U~;t ~~~ ~
~~{)hW'dJ ,-W-J1 .ttar<l. --k ~z AJ:{1 M-ck
~~~l
(j~, cU~4: iuMi h-~ 7l~
~ CL j~r.1il.J /i1A_#~
.,~.Tramer ~ ~~:ZY-UL-, b3 /\ if
~ 633 26th St , f !
.' Santa Mo",~ 0. 90402 ~I 9-r JJJ:;ij- c//'Ia1~ '3 ~-f1 "
l..i ~
~~t /-.-~'\.
,1>
/
/-
/
/"
,
'--
{
J:
/J ;.....-J.-/ ~
/"1-.:-.... -1..-cJ
/
,-
,.
.1
/'
Plder van .den Steenboven
..;. '\ " . ..( ,.
16{)5--.{Jeorgl~dAve.
Santa Moniea.. Cal.fol'llia. 90402
.'
... r_
"--
-.
, I
/
- ,.....
'-:: /
---{ .-"
.i---:i.. {.~ - - . c', [j:: "
, .-{
,
(:--
~ i ,oJ- .~
<'
/
I
. -,
,
- (' -
/
- ~
.../
(
/
~
'- --
A;~-
./
.'(/
-:-
...
/'
,,-
i
./
~d
J
/'
/./C
-(
-<'
/
/'
~ ~ ~-..
...c;:
< .-
,/
~\~
_~ -f/
- /-
I
,,-
L""
-C, {
~L-c {:~
j ,./:
f
/
-~J;
fj
< ,
,.
-;7 ~_{ -c
/
- /,
~-
".
.--
l !
"
,.,.
W~I-~~-i~~o 8~ j~
t-' 1J1
October 8, 1996
VIA FAX 310-458-1621
Mayor and City Councd
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Attn Mayor and CIty Council
In referen~e to allow rental units on ., R-llo~ I am opposed to this consideration. Our
neighborhood with City College is already a congested and noisy area all the weekdays. Please
I
let US have some peace and ql,11et at least: on the weekends
There are enough rental units in our area, Please keep rentals to those areas. Why hotch-potch
the whole city?
Thank J07for your conSideration,
t/(;~. I
E Varady
1302 Pearl 5tr
Santa Menica. CA 90405
TOTAL P.01
9-/::fIc-OL/6H -
~)~4-CIf
ckf 1Ji~ '1c:f.0.5
;'
4u 1fu, 61Ci~,.6l
):;J2t/JV A{/~ >,~.;bJ ~ Uu.A/
.'. )~i...e ~ 0- p)lefr--LU41f->
, 1Iv?, if! V\ - I j!~_tl-~
dk ~fB-}-'}-r~ti k-JIA.~
. '~I' ;tV'.-R.h-~~ &~-('''-F ",
~~~ ]( 11k/f'~ C#.iva-iY21iA
~c~ /!f1;!ti c:J}at4
~: ~~ .effe~r'1jj!j,.v-7lt-w
~eEJl'..P- ev 1\ - 1- (l.- ~ .'
f.Jl~~~/ /7~~-!tiR-~
. 17J ~~
~V-I5U' -' .~ht.jh
. ' ~K!o'- tt.)(C0'vt-' -,,~. ':g
~,.O t/'~"''-'utin
4. 1996
11 rental
ea
nelubers
;ly
gerate
sea
1
t
th:al---,--------/ _ ~.,,-.:re-- ...-/- - ._~="c- - ~ - _----~=R"m ,- .
_ ~"en now ,ome f et and who do . mgether with th moved
~~t kmg for even sho 0 us never have th not c\:en live m thc ose who park
auld make th' . rt penods of ti e pn\.1Iege of u' area, means
IS sItuation much \va me. and certain]v lh smg the street
Very truly yours. rse. - e new proposal
")
~~ 1
v') I- ~
~....~~
~
-~-~~
c:1 ~ ,;;t fL .v~ ~
~~z. :?a..,~~_ d ,9". jLa <
/ --
);~ ~~ ycfi~~~~! ,
~ ,/~~ ~~/~~ ~ e~<~
~ "7' a-ZZz-<~ ,:;(-"-< e?~ ~"'<7 ~~
~.# :f~~ d-~".L~~~~~,4_
k~~~~, ~~~~ h#A,!/~'
~c-.,,~ . ,/ ~_"__ Z~ ~--J~~~~
~~4~~~c:~a-a~ ~cL~
tf/~~ d~~~~ _ i
tf. &~ ~~d" .-L~~~~~
<?- ~. 7.-/~-~ d.-t..~~,~
, ~~~~~c-~,~-<p, ,
a/~,-, /~ /k: Zi... r-' ~<-<-~~
.;;;C!~ ~~~7) ~~~,
;7 --'. v ~ ?~
;:~ ~7 //'
'-' ~t:4Z.-- ~ WA-~
From . EPIC ~JLSON
Oct 07.1996 03:20 PM
P01
ERIC WJ J SON
1319 PEARL <. I kl I:T
~Al'\TA MONIC ~ ; " '10405
(3 1 0 l "5;: ., '.,o
FAX TRANSMISSION
7 1996
-~.
-,
Date' 7 October 1996
To: The Mayor of Santa MOnica
Members of the Santa Monica CIty (;ouncil.
I shall not be able to attend the public hearing on Tuesday, October B.
I would like to let you know my opinion, however I would be very much opposed
to allowing people to start opening up rental unrts on my street
This is currently a Single-family neighborhood and I feel that It should remain as
such. Once extra people start coming into the neighborhood, once extra
bUildings start going up, our street wili no longer have the atmosphere and safety
that it has now.
Please take my opinion Into acoount. And thank you for always being so
attentive to the needs of the citizens of Santa Monica. I think; the way this city is
run is, by and large, exemplary, and I WISh to thank you for your efforts.
Sincerely,
F" _ .., 1.
OCT - =3 - 9 6 T U..E 7' : 'rfLECOPIER COVER L~;Tr~R
DA TE:
Ocr OS~~" ., TlME:
(6z.. /I r-1
;;)1/0- 'IS"I~ 1621
.... r-- -
TO: _~p,iC'1~_.f C!Tf (,;;;..,t:H.. t>~ :f.M. FAX NO.
COMPANY NAME Mjf-y~ f Or-nGt:- __ ~.
. ., --- --
FROM: JJ!.6r ., rf~~ *~Mfl;:~./ FA.'f( NO. ($,18) 70?-3862
rM#'f" Mtr1Ct;tt,/'l S I,J(A;J/:/ IV"
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS _...1 ~ PAGES INCLUDJNG THrS COVER
LETTER.
NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES OF THIS OOClTh-fENT, PLEASE
CALL (818) 709..(J277.
-- ;,0o~~a ~~. ~~ f'lt.4 ~,
- --~-~- ~~~I~~~7S
_____.iL~ -r"/.ff-?~~d}N~l;.-. "J. c
_ ~J,.d- W~ ~ ~ Mo t4 iL'~
~~-~k:z-~. ;l:;Y-1i4ud ~ ~. 14. ~t1<{/)-J~~ ~! It.,
--1if.s.rAt-__t/#!l> _~~ :ku/~i/q!>~I:Dw ~ Ikt?l<<yt~r/
__ ~. 4?f /;Y1W~L(_~~. p~ ~ tiP ~,~ ~"
- ~~1-!,::'-, _~--dL;h>II'~t.: ~ M11.U."" -i m-1 hcllV~'(J/.I
I ~ 51 1/.... v.. 3 -d .., /
______ ~L.Ji~-RAr j8le,.., tJ....f?V ? Z?.-Z4 .. '" 1\ .~ . '""1~
~____ ?AN'''X 4' UA-~~kNr _SA~Wk ~$/, ~24~'r. ~l~ 11.
~~ ~
~ ~.,tj:!j ~ J'rplIW
B \Admin\Fak 6-92
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADD T08 A
OCT 0 8 t996
MEl\10RANDUM:
DATE:
10/8/96
TO:
CIty CouncIl n
Soma Ramos~L
FROM:
SIJBJECT:
R -1 ReSIdentIal Zonmg
--------------------------------------~-----
------~-------------------------------------
Carolyn and Norman Green called to VOlce theIr strong OpposItIon to "granny flats or second
umts" III resIdennal areas These uruts. they feel, wIll add more traffic to already congested
streets and Increase parkmg demand
They are unable to attend tomght's meetIng
Carolyn and Norman Green
2674 34th Street
Santa MOllIca, CA 90405
(310) 450-8885
OCT 0 8 1996
ADD TO
8A
Lli I:..J-a L I laOLo;:;'l1
_ \".J I V} -oJV-vVVJ
8 October 1 996
Mayor and City Council:
We have been following this Issue with great interest but are
unable to attend the meeting this evening. However, we are
appalled that rental units would be legally approved In our R-l
neighborhoods. Here are our thoughts on the matter.
Our neighborhoods already have enough problems with people
who illegally rent Units In back of their houses, run bUSinesses
out of their homes such as day-care centers and home owners
(or renters) who falsely nepotlze our neighborhoods by renting
rooms to their fictive "relatives", etc.
Let's get back to baSIC thinking. Apply the concept of Simple
geometric progression. In this case, Increase the population,
expotentlahze the problems. We are maxed out already.
For example, how can we make a Neighborhood Watch Program
work when we have a semi-transient population? We already
have Crime, drugs, gangs and heavy traffiC flow problems. Don't
the Santa MOnica Police have enough to do. Do we really need to
lean on our Infrastructure yet more heavily. Isn't the law of
diminishing returns still operating.
We need to address the problems above, not generate a more
friendly milieu for them to grow In. BUSiness and development
Interests as usual are trYing to advance the cause of
ghettolzatlon In order to make a profit. We said NO to the
Airport ProJect, NO to the Big Hotel, and NO we won't sell the
Boardwalk either'
We bought our home In Santa MOnica In 1 983 and Intend to stay.
Sincerely,
Linda L. Hasten
Charlie Martin
2606 33rd Street
file: IIh
l)f': 8
10-08-1996 10:37PM FROM Montana Deslgns TO 4581621 P.01
&- -f: tp...(.4C ,~/ '-1 ""/ i I t'- r; l!t" ~ r ~ "': (c i ~ / -, -
I v
-H~' 'I ~~ ~~V
jO/S"'- a1 S.r
o .
'-Jatyvl~ 0'Y'''-'J.A~ e.$... <7 t/ 'f 03
,&, ~ ~ lJ"1M-J'U~~
~ ~ ~ ~-r~ b....
$il/6-L6 Ffhr1fLy - uJ4.-~yJ-~
= f.
1_ _ c:1 ~,/J IJ ".H /J rft- ~:fi~ h 4/~v-'
~-CU{.Ji2J I ~ -1jTZ-r
~ ~ t ~ ;lvYd wP"<- ~ v-"..l;:/ Av~
..JtMd d A- ~ 1'vtY-rrcfp
/JJL- /Y-u-I ~ u..jd ~ f~'-~
A~ (: .. ~J_ _ f..~L k~
t.V'~~ ~~ tV'....r2., ~ JV'J- J./'~f'.J--r-
~ ~ 'S, I-f....(.l......e- .Lrn' r -M'h4, ~
hu-?r IJvf ~ J~ nutJ k~
---
\\ 1/
~ (I f
f( (( !f~ln
10-08-1996 11:44RM FROM La' SPEC [NO, Inc.
TO
13104581621
F=l.01
October B, 1996
To. Santa Monica Council and Attomey
Fax' 310458-1621
Ref. Additional Rental Units In R1.Resldences
Any suggestIon to aHew single room or guest house rentals in Santa Monica R1- areas
Will strongly be protested
Do not take us wrong YQl) will be moved from power
~}~.
DorIce Melamed
412 10th St.
...............
. r
8 ,.--i-
~ ~ .
October 8, 1996
To: Santa Monica City Council
Ref: Room Rantal in Residences
S T U P I D
Is the only way I can express my feelings for your
possible action.
DO NOT DO ITA
'"
lamed
10th St.
10"d
lc9t8::il'01D
O.L
"~UI 'aNI ~3dS ,ei WOd~ Wd~p:cl 9661-80-01
p;.:.-
V::_ ,_
Iii ~ .;..
t ,
;:p~
P.R. Mallen
426 Palisades Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90402
(310)393-2169
"96 DC -8 P 1
4.
..~:... i A ti; Itl~: i.I I
October 8, 1996 .
M~Ylt?)- -/J '/fOSl? >1.(; rein
City Council, CIty Hall
1685 MaIn Street
Santa MonIca, CA 90401
RE: INTRUSIO:-I OF ZONING ON R1 ZONED AREA ON PALISADES AVE.
AND ALLEY, ABUTTING R4 AKD COr-fHERCIAL BETh'EEN 4TH STREET AND
7TH STREET BACKING UP FROM ~ONTANA AVE.
I. CIty perml t t lng paper con ta Iners and la rger meta 1 trash
contaIners to be statIoned In rIght-away In alley full tIme.
TI. The contaIners and theIr effect reduces width of the
alley to approxImately ]3 feet - both lanes.
III. The reduced access or rIght-away 4~J to the fact
fireplugs for our area are located In alley affects our
fIre protectIon and rIght of access for needed and proper
legal access.
IV. Pdrklng In alley has not been enforced - parkIng SIgn
not replaced. (They have been called In several times.)
V. On SIte receivIng and pIck-up not enforced In Commercial
Areas - res~ltIng In alley beIng used for large
semI-trucks USIng alley from 7th to 4th streets.
(ApproxImately twelve or more tImes per day.)
VI. 426 PalIsades dwelling has IndIVIdual unIts on the right
and left Sldes and across thG alley two and three story
unIts bUIlt to the property lIne - elIMInatIng all
prIvacy In yard area.
VII. Uncontrolled use of paper contalners, trash and garbage
containers In alle~ such as ~19s not closed,and loose 10
trafflC lanes.~.Afjvv-;~~.tHf r,.p->-r~ ~ R.1 ~.
VIII.All ltems and more have Intruded on R1 zoned prlvacy and
safety.
IX. Cut-off tt"afflC and hIgh speeds froll', 7th to 4th street
In alley and on Pall sades Ave - not controlled. (Speeds
are hIghly excessIve.)
X. The Hallen famIly has a need for a handlcapped and
Parents UnIt.
XI. Garages for cars used for other purposes than cars -
PalIsades Ave. 7th to 4th used for parkIng from
cowmercial areas on Montana Ave.
XII. Rl Property should have a stepped-up zonIng where it
abuts hlgher denSIty O~ adjOInIng property.
Please conSIder a return
use of alley In letter
10/8/96.
answer on unsafe condltlons and
dated 9/22/96 (attached) and
~
~~t1f#/~
','
P H. Mallen
426 Palisades Ave
Santa MOnica, CA 90402
(310) 393-2169
September 22, 1996
City CounCIl. City Hall
1685 rv'arn Street
Santa MonIca. CA 90401
RE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & A USE PERMIT REQUIREIVIENT FOR SECOND
DWELLiNG UNITS IN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
As a R1 property owner In Santa Monica since t1e 1940's and a resident Since 1955, I support an
ordinance which Wlf[ allow a second dwel1lng unit on smgle family zoned property My support IS
qualJied with regard to past practices which allowed second dwelling units. regulations which
unreasonably constrain R 1 owners and Properties Immediately adjacent to CommerCial and Multl-
Fa;rlty dlstncts
Property wlth1n the R 1 distriCt. where my home IS located. on the south side of Palisades Ave,
betvveen 4" & r street. IS Immediately adjacent to both Commerc1al and Multi-Family districts
along MO'1tana Ave Seccr:d dwelling units already eXist on several of the R 1 lots on my block
Failure to establish reasonable standards ard use permit reqUlremen~s for the remaining property
owners would be inconsistent with established practices Clear standards would proVide the
same opportunity to the rema1nng owners and remove t'18 resentment of eXlstmg Illegal units
allml'led by the City of Santa MOPi';a
COr1merCla~ & Multi-Family property along Montana has been allowed to ercroacf1 on the privacy
al""fd qUiet & peaceful use cf the R 1 property on PalIsades Ave Constructron of the Montana
properties has been allowed to the property lines along the alley Traffic, tras~l receptacles and
de'I'/E'ry vehicles are a constant nu'sance Safe access on and off rr.y property along the alley, IS
a cO'1stant concern Park'ng requirements for the Monta'la properties has only resulted In
Pa'Isades Ave becoming 3 full t'me parking lot for bus,ness employees and tenant vehicles
Construction of 3 story apartment bUI!dlngs up to the property !tne at the alley has been permitted
These apartments look down IfI to our yards. encroaching on the reasonable expectation of qUiet
p'Nacy
Ar,y ordinance established for second dwelling units must not furt~er encroach on the R1 property
owner R 1 property adjacent to Commercial and ~v1u[tl-Famlly prcperty where owners Wish to
construct a second dwel!lf1g unit on their property are entitled to the same priVileges granted to the
adpcent property Setbacks. he'ghts. location, size and parking requirements for R1 second
dwelling un'ts must be consistent the adjacent proper'y
L.'
I support the establishment of a reasonable ordinance which prOVides R 1 owners With the
opoortunlty to fully enJoy their J::nvacj and regain some Of the encroachment by non R 1 zoned
properties
~~fI/J1~
Patrick H Malien
-.!/~<
/ {;.
.-r <.
(- \
I: ./ -_-CI'"\..-lt
LINDA MORRA
31121451217286
P.I2I1
,I
1 ~
1,1 :
. i- ~
;i ~
. Jf ~
;j
i'f
1 ~ - -
'3 -
"3{-
'I -
'i
I ~~
..
"
1Jir ~ 61j- f
!J~:--r/~ N~
'L6/j :3 Z fJf) ~ SN ~i
~~- ,~~dJ.J-4Jt
; ~
1-
I(/IJ~ (JA-f < ~~
~ ~4 ~ rei-
/ ~.
~~H~.
",I'
~"'I
- ~ ,
kl
tiff
F,=--i-
f
,l
.. ~
, -
~
i
-r
~-; ~ .... 8
: - ,
,)
~il
-' ~~
)I =_
;r: :
if -
,
f
From: PM.0
310 394 6313
To:
10/09/96 10:59 P. 001
RICHARD R. PARK
135 - 17Lh Street
Santa Montei. CalJJornla 90402
~lOJ ..~94-{)088
~'\ ~J\o..l=-lr (:1..Vo..~ C.i+y (.:.c,(.l1l\c..~ I :
t lk\~k~ i'r is (1.. W i clea.. t~ oj(ow
~--€.-l.I\tcJ) L4"~ t.s -to be.-. plClC.d i ~'\ S.l ~~l~ .g1."t.1~tl
V\ t~ ((J h l-l,O\- ~~\ c:' 0 cOs ·
.... 2~(;l-4..-.(-b\ f\-1.~~k~' 1~ o..O..t'odL~1 ~ cf 1i-r....e.
IIV\o5. t ct;.oV\5>t:;..Q y pOf~cLte'& Qye..a,s ~e~t- uf tttf?
FZot....kj e~.. ~LU:e.._z.1V\~ lJ'l..1.oc-€... p~ple... II,.". IS. \l\c5\
c, (\00 J hJ en, -r r "'- -F-f I c.. j \"10\ ":;,e.., Crl V';\e I S tr ...us
C t~~~ l.t:: r.~ ~~LO Lv ~ -t k p:u kc"\:'~ c..:.u-.':;:;> C\\-~ -t -~U- obV.W1J5
r'~" VI,Y' 1'.k~ t GOo uJJ \ vl c... r- ~ e. '
L^-"" ra"v..i t \O-r- p~--Ofl~ lA.X\.{k:\ ~ L-lf c.\ VItO
d n t).1 V\ d r-i \./ ~ I..0L'\..!~ l.A.; (") uj J d ~ c.:k al.>€- -tt t>-- Se C.L .q-l ty
~ ceO f::'" va c. y ; n :',; '~~ e... ~ 1M" \ 7 VI e ~ bot'" L~oGldc;.
'0\1\e o~ +~ VVtt..:::::.t- LA-V\seH-ltvtj (1.~W~
c-t: -r-t,-, ~ f)'(ofD-xJJ i ~ t~{~ ClI\c.e--- " t-~s. dOV\e.,
j t (' o....V\\.",'.r lQ€- Ll._I..JOIA.L j + -r"f.uL I d-ea tf.....lrf/\~
(j t l. 1'" t~ cc.. J t 't ~ 6 'f- ~ -t (\. f',.Jt el..-\, I co.... 1- hL
r e v,tt~ LU\'l't \~€.Jr\i IA.J t"l~ 3.T VlC\\e -~(A ~i l Y V1oU.se
r.::' r .>1 d ~ b ~ (). Vltyr!A e..r c, .ls.~ ~:...; lrI ere .: fvrrlt m e"-l
\'"'" (1;..( ~ e... I ),. V',.I\\ .~ 0'J.. (.:~ I
~o--~
p ()/lA.
COAST TO COAST
COPS
COH8UL'rAHTS
Jobn pomposello
(310) 829-4654
1018 24th St.
Santa MOnica, CA 90603
To; Mayor and City Council
From; Jolm Pomposel1o and Famil~'
Subject: R-l Lots
TO Whom It May COI1cern:
I've been a law enforcement officer and crime consultant
for over 30 years. I've seen neighborhood crime increase
when rental units are a'ITailable in single family a.reas;
~t'5 sad but it's true.
The Mayor and City Council members are doing a fine job of
making Santa Mon~ca a workable city for us. Please don't
make the mistake of letting R-l Lots come into effect.
Neigrillorhocds a.re frail and susceptible to outside
influences. . ~ Just a little crime and people will move
out and home values will go dO'.ffl. So let's keep Santa
r"lon~ ca saf e and happy.
Thank you,
I r .".
, 'J/ /'
c=-J~ T C~.ifj~
A
'"'
From TERENCE A WONG WIMC
Fax 1 (310) 392-B605
Fax 4581621
10 09 24 10/8j96 Page 1 of 1 Log 197
TO Mayor & C ry CQun~11 Santa ~""'J'1iCa City
r:ayor and C~ty Counc~l
Tuesday, Oct 8 Keet~ng
SubJect: Do not allow re~ta16 un~ts ~n R-l lots
Dear co~~c~l wembers,
I am a res~dent ~n Sunset Par~. I chose the locat~on of my property because
l~ was ~es~de~tlal and less dense populat~on-w~se and car parking-wise than
portlons of the Clty that were R-2 or R-3 whlch allow for apartments or
mul tlple un~ t.s .
The Sunset park area has already been try~ng to reduce the trafflc levels ~n
the nel~hb0rhood.
Please ccnslder my vote of "no" agalnst allo';lo7ing rental un~ts on all R-l lots.
: am not ~n favor of rental un~ts In R-l lots.
Slncerely,
Terence
Terence Hong
2930 Pearl Street
Santa Honlca, Ch
~
8 "~, -",
~
,
?i
It:'
~
~~~/'9~
cZ ~~)~.~) ':/J': I ~
/ /
~ . ~~- .
~ _..,.--Ii c~. ~
c -~..-/~ d2~ /99'~ flLJ~~ ,.U pv.. ,
-M...~~ ~. ~ .
~~.;f/~~~.~ ~~~~
.-- 0 .~ A~~ ~ ,
\ 1d:~U J ~ ~r~bl~II__ / \.O~~
.~_J-_/7t_L;- ~ .dL ~ eJ..> 7
'~o~~~~y~'~~~w
r~~ ~a..u / ?~.? -<<~ ~ ~. ~~
~~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ .AA~ ~~ --td-
/
o<~:t>~ -_~/4~~J ~~ --Y2~ ~~.
~ ~~~~ -
_~ ~~ ~ ~,e./~ .;'[~~~
(/tJ-~ /f'~~ A ~,~~'~~~&
4:- o:t~.,;~ 02Jj~c*: tJ.,0~~ ~,;);,.. ~
'-=- !. \ --#. /;.. \
f";-/~~ ~ ~ ~ 1::i
\. /.;' ...
~~ rI' __ -,../) l""
r/k1 -rA-.-c~L::: ~~~ ~/ -
_-rL:~'-" ~~~ /.: f~~ ~ . '~.-..,
'--1'~.~~7-A .~
_/ r _ "r ~y //1' aA.-<...~ ~ ~. ) I ~~
Cl.<%' ~.&rr ~r . ~ - /j ~ ~
/"7';' '/ ~ ~. A [/~~....H ~ ".I'":1n......A
A"~ '~~:~'. c., ---1-- ~) r---~~
J'~~ /' . _~"~~' ,,::..P'~, ,
__ ~ /.A.L~L"k-- /J~~~ ~
C~-c) ~~ ~~~J'-:-~- fh ~ ~' ,- ~
.-d&.~~' ~d~i-y--? ~~ ~~..kL.b
At-v ~4'jd A<-~< AJ A-<-~ .-...J,'
~.du~~~1 ~
.....rJv ~ ~ .-<_f..20 .~...I'L ~ ;t tCe...r.-J
..-rJ ~ .d ".r,.e.-...-l ~ ~/1, /'2-1
-'7j~;r .#Jc:>(,rn ~-~d ~ V?,~~
~#I-p~ . Cs.jjct; ~ ~ ~ ~iMJ
c~1..u' - " ~ ~ ~ ~
~~y), )~i,~Ci~~
-<"'A ~ /
/'~- I .
-- I. ....
T ) ... ...
--/
~
(.7~~:~. ~~ 72G~ AJ1 ~~:,~
~~~ ~~~~~ '17~~~
4 ~-J-~"1-#4.s4J~ t7~
~ d~.~~ f)...:" ~,....~ lJ? ~
4.y~. .d:u~~~ c1!j;- ~~ eU.-..eJ,
(~~ ~ ___~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ r2~
, / /" l' /)
...--. y ~. /? . o. Y.c (:.t- ---/ ~ - ~~
:.~, ,~ ~ ~ r-. 'A.:p ~~
/I . Ii '-i). (;.' y/
',I -t~.L ~-<~. '#~ 7~ ~
~'~~~ ~ I ~~_
,/ r ~ /~,F . /i,.J. r.-- ,.,; } It
.:UL.",-,.~.L-v~./f! AejL!J..-~ ~ IJ
~.~ /7'-~ /V. p.J. ~~
, / . - ~ V
/)
C.~.~~-
~~riJJ(J 7f2;b
~ .~/7" c:t ~ ~~
(~ft~~
~.
L!a- 9 or:> '7' 60-
October 7, 1996
Mayor of the city of Santa Monica
C1ty Council Merr.bers
C1ty Hall
1685 Main street, Second Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(VIA FAX 310 458-1621)
RE: R-1 Rental Units
This letter 1S to add ~y VOice to the group of
concerned homeowners and residents of Santa Monica,
against the pendIng move~ent to- increase the density
and populat1on of our city. One of the most
attractive ele~ents of Santa Monica has always been
it's pleasant residential nature. This includes back
yards and green space to raise and nurture our
faM1lies and children. If we allow people to build
extra units for rental purposes in the resldentlal
areas, the feeling and freedom of space will be lost.
Our C1ty 1S one of the nost desirable 1n the Los
Angeles area, for the very reason of its resIdential
neIghborhoods. If we gIve thIS advantage up for
rental opportun1ties, ~e will be losing much more to
increased traffIc, potentIal for criMe, noise and
crowded neighborhoods. Let's keep for Santa MonIca
what has always made 1t appealing: It's quality
neighborhoods.
I was born and had baSIC education In Santa Monica,
and plan on staY1ng here. I even have the potentlal
space to add a rental unlt, but will sacrifice what
incoffie thIS could provIde In favor of the privacy and
securlty afforded by the reSIdentIal enVIronment.
I plead WIth you to keep Santa Monica's slngle-family
nelghborhoods and prohibit the second unIt proposal.
/
I
/
!
~
90402
(310/395-1992 or 818/840-4197)
October 4, 1996
Mayor & City COImcll
Santa MonIca, CA
.t\.s homeowners In a smgle famIly area, we are posItively opposed to the so called
.'Grannv" umts
-'
Our streets are already unpacted enough by eXlstmg nearby apartment bmldmgs. 'Ve do
not want extra cars cloggmg our street and JockeYIng for parking space In front of our
home
Santa Monica already has a very large percentage of Its housing devoted to rental UlUts
We hope YOll '\.viH put forth yom be:-,t efforts to mamtain the R-1 areas: &; single famtly
structures
Sincerely
- 0~/J1~!::L-.
Donald & Helen MacEachern
1818 Hill St
Santa Momra, CA 90405
.._~
W,- E. ~":'Ll t- ~ 1:"
:418 - ~~nd Street
Sant~ MonlCd. CA g0405
Ph (310) 450 ~97J
[)c t .-:-b cy ~1. 1 '~'O:Ib
N~mbers of the City Counr]l
i-= 1 t Y H.::i 1 l
1855 N2t 1 n st: r- eet
Santa Mnn1ca~ CA
I:;ent 1 E'fP-en:
I ::;trc.nqly LLI"JG' you i:;,) -:'1:)]:"!052 tr'E' p,'-'pc'<o:.ed plan ti) all'-'LJ
c;,ddltlc-naJ llv'i'""l9 unlt"~; t,) en':"("'-L::t,:.h up'-,!, the ~'1 slnglt:?
famJly Yf:>stclentJ;-d clr'~l<O, Jr'1 ~)~"nt3 !'10lil.:a.
Any Increase 1n the density of populatIon wlll automatlc-
ly ri?du,-e thE' qL'o.d Lty of l,fc=' HI the ':I+;Y"
n~Jen <~p<"....ce wLll be YC"'duced by buddlf10 over the l]mltE'd
y-=\rd ar8-' l,Jh [,-h nc',J 2", I !:'"{:'.-'. lh 1 S <.Ji 11 1"~0Ul t Ln ".-ec1u, I n~]
the f-"pvll'onll.t~pt,:<lly :,ensli"1'.i2 "gr-E,--'en" dr'(?B '.JhlCh 1~ n,.",1,.)
-'"-it 0:\ mln] mum"
53lft<l ]"k,n 1':--' hcl~, been C1 t3.irllJ V Cir- lerlc,?tJ city.
nf-=".:<d pi.-?'}' 2i>'ei -",",t ,....':'fTH'"'T T,:, bUIld ,,-~ddf~d un]t~
FZlm]1'1 ~Tof1ccl ltits '..}~ll E'I"1Cr",_-,;-,ch UP":'1i the L..nd
cI1'ldr~r'~ re~~8at]CEr~ a1~ t1~me~
ChIld \'" en
on S 1 ng l e
f '_'I)'"
Fuyt.hf:~Y 1t ,:;hould lJ~? not~rj tb;3-(- ,3ddE'cl cler'~:;lt'/ ':,f h,::"us-lr,g
Clllt.':lflI-3tJCCi11/ '..nIL aelel to l~he r":lr~ 11""19 problem I,.}hl..:h
E?i.lst"o, 11"1 ;:;,-1nG","l j-<j':'IlI'-.'"-i" '::'dded h')US-,lllg Will I-i~,-Ve thp
8ffc;..:t I:,f z,ddlllSi Il1,::'til}' m')....e vC'htcl€?s. On(o: add1GICnal unlt
W j 1 1 i- to'M 1 i ":::, t 1 '~ :1. 1 ] '! 3d/-! -':'I-+~ \f eh ] .-:: 1 E' ; j:ll U -::';"1 P 2.- i \I. Lt.
jC):: !'i'':ltecj 2'lb'-.'\!E !!JCYF-,::'SPc! ,'?"uti)fn,.:,bjles \.-Jl11 -:'l't.:.matll':i~\llly
InC r" e~'tse t Y ,~1 f r 1 (. 1 f1 t:!,.? F--l f dfilj 1"y Y e~,] dent t d 1 p':.-r t Il"'il '--.f
Santa Mnn1r~n fY3ff1r IS now a problem and a ("onceyn to
1 C'( 01 r !C:'"-, 1 dell t,~. t"'f[:-i r.h,=d t r ~t f F L '.- ,".' -;. 1 L C ."=\U<~P m()"r- (-'? po] ut 1 (..., "'
l^Jhy C '-'firr' ,-,till d ')U i- P i- ':,b 1 ~~!Ti~-" ' ,
f:'\s a l'-i?':ld(~nt .)f S;'iql-,~l ~'1Cof""lI'>< Slrl'_f:' 19':;:'1 ",nd d '':':,n,:e;--np.d
pr- t)P E-~ r" t y [_Iwn:t.~ r- j e:tO ;:-1 J n '!::-~ t t- ("in g}:/ [l f- ~Ji-? Y'':I!J t I_I ,-,/ L 9 "_-qr I')U ==~} '/
':IP!=""S>? plc:'n~, [,-, -<-t~[ju".:e the rnl-i-?[]l ,~"~, 01 t-he f-o'l l"nlnq"
Sln,:.;:>yely,
.(// /'" '
.(.f /~~~",,---,"/f if!
/. __ #;..." vi.... ~
fAI t lildln E-, P':'Ul" ~ e
If !~I i
~>L.- / - l _ . J i, I
, C/ 4,1"", c--.!- 'Y-
10-08-1996 01:59PM FPOM La' SPEC IND, Inc.
TO
October 8, 1996
To' Santa Monica City Council
Ref: Single Room Rental in Resldences
A 1000 NO
-
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO 8
NO WAY:> NO HOW, NO CHANCE
Shanel Melamed
412 10th 8t
13104581621 P.01
OCT 08 '96 02:42PM BRENTWOOD CAMERA SHOP
P.l
FAX 310 ~5B-1621
501 e~th Street
Santa Manica, CA SO~02
Octobe~ at 1996
Mayor end Citu Council
Cit~ Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa MonieD, CA 90~Ol
Dear Members!
8
You have before you the deci~ion wh~ther or not to p~oh1bit
rental units on R-l lots. I wl~h to point out that such prohibi-
tion is needed to prevent degradation of public safety, health
and welfare of these residing in our cit~ts R-l a~e8s, and there
is still another ~e89on for the prohibition.
The introduction of ~ent81 unit5 within present R-l areAS
would inc~e8se the burden on our police end gecurit~ forces,
the problem being alread~ such that private forces are maintained
in 50me erees to keep order and to hold crime at a reasonable
level. To increase the population would call for mo~e security
fo~ces without any assurance of prese~ving public safety.
To int~oduce mc~e residents into present R-l areas will
lcad up ~ewer fecilities beuond pr8~ent flows. In recent YBa~e,
th6~e have been 5eve~al nearby occurrences of exce~sive flows in
sewers such as to cause overflo~s inside house~. The sewer
sustems cannot be subJected to outflow fro~ rental units without
causing more frequent gewe~ prOblems of th1s type, and consequent
risk to the health of all re~iaent9.
R-l rBs~dents pay 10 initial invsstment, upkeep and taxe~
to live in quiet, pleS58nt area5. Te increase substsnt1ally the
populatlon of these arsas by allowing rental unlts ~1thl" is to
deprivB the present owners of the welfare they sought by coming
to Santa Monica. Everyone understands this, even though
"welFare" remains undefined.
The8e are the reasons for p~ohlblting rental unlt~ in
R-l under the state law a5 reportee. But the city should be ~aLY
1n taking private pLcpe~ty rlghts in the name of the general
convanlenCe w1thout compensatlng the eXlsting lando~neLs fo~ the
rcduct10n In p~c~erty value that wDuld ~nSU8. The ~anctiQn ~r
the state would not protect the citij From the consequences of
actlon prohibited by federal courts.
(~~~tfU1I~.
~C~BO~
VILLRGE.ROADSHOW
1D:13102825339
OCT 08'96
12:51 No.009 P.Ol
\ \ ....
\ \\\~~'
\ \~>ij'
\~U
~~'
VILLAGE ROADSHOW PICTURES
To:
!vfayor and City Council
PhOne"
GRF(lOlt'l' COOTE
Pre.~.dtt'1
Date:
October 4, , 996
8K , <f4, S / (,. 7 I Fax # :1 'i' l-
-------~-------~----------------~---------------------------
Dear Mayor.
I understand that there h a thought of allowing backyald u:ntaJ
units in Santa Monica and I wjsh to protest in the strongest way
possible.
Santa Monica's Rl lots do not a) have the available land space b) the
streets do not have the parking capacity c) !<.quee7ing buildings into
these small blocks will be achieved at the expense of trees and
airspace.
Thi~ i!{ an amazingly bad initiative and as a re~ident and taxpayer I
will aclively campaign agalllst anyone who supports the issue.
1 will alsu gladly fmancially f:upport any opposition to this.
;
VILlACE ROADSHOW PICTURES (UtA-liNe.
21 21 Avenue or ttle StMs, SIite 15<;10. Los MgClI1!:l. CalifQrnla USA 90067
Phone 1310) 282-5300. Fi'l,ll(31 01 282.S;339
10/08/1996 15:46
13104530302
ISU BOB GABRIEL CO.
PAGE 01
__ 1_
'111
Bob Gabriel Co. Insurance
Independently Owned and Operated Since 1936
2325 Wilshire BOJ!evard · Post Office Box 62Q . Sa.'llti Monica, C!- 90406-0620
Tel (310) 829-0305
Fax (310) 453-0302
LA (213) 870.1467
...:
D.ATF.~ jt~i fkj <1 ~
. / -,
10: (Name of Firm) --f1Fr- ~ OJ s f'(\
FAX!OIBEll: 31 D tj~ __ /_~ u~1
t
I OF PAGES (L'1cluding Cover) D IV ,q.._ _
Ai-.i:OOION: Yn. A lJ f.) f<. A N ()
t
....
FRCtI: LtJ U l S e. rJ nn-Bo ~
(' i j-~ (' 0 UNC'; L
,!3-~t:TL
~
HE:
~-rn.-L
~
~
~
(\-1
-- -
Iv (; ~, ,.,J (~DI"- Jloo e(s
'~_'_ _ Q n. k
q - -
S:OR.
MESSAGE: L.u,~ . W~ ~ ~_ _ cS M.' $" ~~ f)1.~-<
01 1<:--4 1(<./3 6-- R 2. ~~.. 'V'--'~ . (} _(1.._n __I ( u-lk'J lu
I , _' - u " / V I. _ ~ - _ V
~ .~"\.jI) \'l\U--U C'_lL.'--LL~ r'",.t.~ . ~__ /' ~ ~ , .
J/J cMi'O ilLL..~ ~ ,.0 q ~ M .?tJ. (..'"tfT1J .~
~.fY\\Q...T()/~' <<'-~~A.I- k~~
~,_~ r<JIM~~.~ _'" - , I --or -
- - I Bo-I ~ ~ t}-t ~ ti t _ Pi et Q/UJ:.Q
IF 'IOU EXPRRTRr<<.:.I!; ANY PRO.BlatS wrm "nITS TR~IC>>l~ PUASE CAlL US AT:
(310) 829-0305
..
.l.4.,k. __ It-R e. A CA,-. N S r A-flJ'1 Mto vJJfW\rC ~
E~_N-n. L ut.u_n LA) ~/NCLe -~tt.cJ
1
St)Nl~(--
I
The :ullonnation contained in this transmission is priv1.1eged and conf~dential.
It is intended only for the use of the individ1_,~1 or entity named above. If
the reader of this messa.ge is not the intended recipient, you are hereby noti-
fied that any dissemination and dlstriQutJ..on pr cotlyilU'; of this C61\unmication is
strictly proh1b1ted. If you receive this communicatlon in error, it is requested
that you please notify us immediately by t~lephone. THANK YOU.
,~
~
,">,
~
~
~ 'I.'
~~~
" . "-
.....\ '~.'
~. ~
"\'. . ~..'
\l
i~:~
'\~ \
,~\ j
\S\
"\
\\
, \
o
~
~\
1\" ~
c-;.'
~
'"
f\
f'\
~
\,:.
'~ \
.'i\ "
,;~
~, ~ -
~\ ~
~~
:>
1&
~
~~.
:zt:;;
-iNO
~....ili
~g~
~(/)~
;l""Cl
nm."
:a>omr-
-o-l!ij
~ e
'r ;x
~
~
{'~ ~
/t!,. ,", 6
.... -
(
h~ /'/ /
< 1'"
MJj
..... i~;.:-1'.....
- ,
c ~
/) "-;7
,---c..e:r=:-"
/~
..J
"-~~~~ ....~ ~..;
.i~/
.((
d~
----ct-
L~ -77~ C c!~' "_'~"h':: <C~
L"? 6.J---""J't:---<.... _ -~ 7<:..
_ /,;~ 4 'C
~I/./
/// ",'- .r.:::t:: '" ~
~---c:... ~? ;-(! _ /
\
~4'?C
"
/~-
O//~ , ~
;>r~<r~J L r
~ -c-6:-/~(
~'i.
:/
-~--
/
~
-:::::;L~:
..-#/
/<::.- ;:-~<' d~7
~
"--
r;../
/j~,/
~ ~.:..-
r
t /- *> ,-
ck-:x..#-' ~..c: ",;..:--,-
_-,c- -c- _-~
/
r) .-
F_?
,,~.
,
_ - C:-: '?*" ~-
- ,
~ :/.'
-(/;::/
Afl-e--tC
L~t./
.........-c--<~
.____;&. ~ -c-..
-/ ~
--=__ /~ -? _i.- . .
----.-:--<_.u_ > ~
.*' (j
_--I.S- <.;',
--<~
~_/--
.(..7~
~ -
fl -f:' _________--< -.!C- -<' ->?' -C ~~~
, - I .
/ /' // / / .~r /
,-""'i/ ,/A: 'i- 4-- d-:.......... '- ~<: 6~ c ~-
"':""--AII
..-< ~ .-<: -.-
,-
/
~~d
.- y:/
." -?C#'.- --XL (<!:;
r, /
. J If --?::
/fh:L--lAfC...:-k.. ./ ~/'- ~ .-:.l-. '-_ -~ /~':
I. /.;
(..C)--:JC<..~ 1./e-,~ (~{. ':'-1~.J~
,J
//
j/""
.;:. <.. '"
/
-/
r
~ c <:. :..
;;:
/.> /~-;r/:
~ - //
--" L/' /' .
~-::r _ ~.......~ ./ =- ..;:. .c.-,-;;-::& V
~.' c:
/-
. . - --"-
/' /.
{"'t ~.f-~___.--af.:: ~/
, /
/C .v~'
...-~ .....1:-...... {..._ .A'"_
___ ::7 &- ~{; <-__
......."
-'
J~""':.:' f-:'<"<- 't: ;'1' '--::
1/
i
- .,
I
~~~
..../,~ ~,. C' J;.- {.-.~ {c-,
/" ..-'j'"
'-~I
- _/ ~ ,
./.- -'~ ~~
I
/
?~ /
i f, i...., _. ,..' /
___ --=-~ L-"JI;~
,
81996
--
/ .'. ...
~ -L-
< (. /'7
~-""::' '----'~__-~ c -/<' -
-~
..........,,;.
-7
"'
,.--::
;:3'/
/" .....::: --
-'~..... ~~t_
. ....\c:- ~ ~ .&;.>
To the Mayor and City Council,
I am wntmg to express my support for the current measure wluch would allow rental units
m Santa Mornca I have never wntten before about any measure, on a local or natIonal
level, however I was enthusiastIc about tlus plan that I felt I should make my support for it
absolutely clear
I Will haply look fonvard to supportmg any elected official who supports the plan to allow
homeowners to convert back properties mto rental umts. (or as m my case, umts to be
used for live In cluld care help)
)
Claude and Mary Knobler
2234 25th Street
Santa MOnIca
Phone 310392-3306
Fax 310 399-7583
.r,;T'r
Jf ,.~
~
...
10-08-1996 04:08PM FROM James H Frank
TO
4581621
P.01
October 8, 1996
TO~ Mayor and City Council of
the City of Santa Monica
FROM: James H. Frank
Carolyn Green
Frank Orlando
2678 34th St.
2674 34eh St.
2682 34th St.
1r 1r * * 1t BY FAX * * ... * *
The undersigned feel that the allowance of a rental unit on
each sIngle-family lot ln the CIty (R-l zoning) would have a
serious and permanent detrimental affect in R-l
neighborhoods. Parking, already at a premium, would become
even more difficult. Additional stress would be placed on an
already overburdened water, sewer and refuse system. Traffic
would increase. endangering citizens and contributing to
pollution and noise. Open areas and green space would be
repl~ced with constructions.
in short, the entire reasoning behino R-I zoning would be
negated, neutralizlng the purposes for WhlCh var10US types
of zoning were created in the first place. Our beautiful
neighborhoods would be dest~oyed and our environment harmed,
resultlng In a vast diminution in property values upon which
tax revenues are baaed.
To allow such changes in R-l zoning regulations would be to
lnvite disaster in furtherance of the political agenda of a
selfish few. We are absolutely and vehemently opposed to
such changes.
We
thank you fo~ur consideration.
_ILJ~/
/ JAMES N1>RANk---
riJdJLu
CAROLYN-!REEN ...
~~~~
. FRANK ORLANDO
~
,,':;, ,
. "-
\ --
-----
.. !"
\
10-08-1996 04.18PM FROM La' SPEC !ND, Inc.
TO
13104581621
P.01
October 8, 1996
To' s.urta Monica CounciJ Members
and Local Attorney
Ref AlloW1ng Rental Unit On Each Smgle Family Lots
You are probably the most self centered City Council and attorney in history of Santa Monica.
You have bmited R.l1ots by means of limited buddmg heIght, limited width - extra set backs,
broited max.imum percentage of lot can be constructed. No street lighting Side v.,.alk
maintenance to be paid by homeowners. etc etc Now you want to put more people In homes
you restncted Not only thts IS wrong decision, its stupid I can't wait for next local election to
vote ag~inst those members that look out for their own interest
~..:
~~ ---
OCT-04-1996 15: 45 FROM MI~4~ AND MOLLOY'
TO
45l:l1b~1
r'.~':'
GARY B. TORPY
503 23n1 Street
Santa Monica, California 904002
October 4, 1996
VlA TELECOPIER &
FIRST q ASS MAIL
(310)458--1621
Mayor, City of Santa Monica
Oty Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Moni~ California 90401
Re: Rental Units In The R-J Zone
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members:
Please note my opposition to the implementation of any ordinance supporting construction
of rental housing in the R-l zone. I seriously doubt that the city would have much difficulty
in finding that its situation is unique and that implementation of the state guidelines
governing second units would impose an extreme hardship upon a city which has done more
than its share to encourage development of more affordable housing.
To begin with, over 75% of the city'S housing stock consists of apartments. Many of these
apartments and other housing provided by the city since 1979 meets affordable housing
guidelines. Moreover, there are other portions of the city for which additional affordable
housing is planned and which are better able to support additional density. The city also
accommodates numerous Los Angeles and other residents who travel to the coastal and
entertainment areas that the city offers all adding to the traffic and other infrastructure
problems experienced by the City of Santa Monica.
The City of Santa Monica is unique and it is highly unlikely that the state legislation was
intended to impose second units in the R-l zone of a city with the unique infrastructure and
conditions present in the City of Santa Monica. The imposition of an ordinance pennitting
rental units in the limited R-l areas of the city is not consistent with good planning or good
government.
Norman C. Peterson
350 16th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
(310) 395 - 7633
September 27. 1996
To. Santa MOnica CIty CouncIl Members'
Ruth Ebner
Ken Genser
Asha Greenberg
Robert Holbrook.
Dear CounCIl Member.
The great maJonty of the resIdents of the RI reSIdentIal dIstnct in Santa Monica applaud your
vote In regard to draftmg an Ordmance banmng second dwelling umts on properties in the Rl
dIstncts. Your thought and vlSlOn are much appreciated We profoundly hope that when the
Ordinance IS presented for approval, It IS passed mto law
If the State reqUIres a "Showmg" In regard to thIs ban, I respectfully suggest that the desires of
the citizens is a sIgmficant fact It IS what the mass of the people want that should control.
Please recall that in 1984 (If memory serves correctly) when this Issue came up before and was
much publicized. the public response In Opposltlon was so large that the hearing had to be
relocated from the CouncIl Chambers to the Santa MOnIca CIVIC Auditorium.
Smcerely yours.
?c?~