SR 12-06-2016 13B 13.B
December 6, 2016
Council Meeting: December 6, 2016 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson -Warren, City Clerk , Records & Elections Services
Department
Date : December 6, 2016
13.B Request of Councilmembers McKeown and Davis that Council direct staff
to explo re the procedural steps necessary to establish voter approval
requirements for development exceeding the general plan, the adopted
zoning code, or some other specified threshold, and/or require a super -
majority Council vote on projects exceeding specified parameters, and
return to Council and the community with information for possible future
actions, including policy changes, resolutions, ordinances, and Council -
initiated ballot measures.
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Hoover <annkbowman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, December 02, 2016 10:32 AM
To:Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; councilmtgitems
Cc:Rick Cole; Elaine Polachek; Council Mailbox; David Martin; Mirror Editor;
editor@smdp.com
Subject:December 6th Council Mtg -- Items 13.b. and 13.c. -- THANK YOU - Extremely
important topics to discuss!
Dear Kevin, Gleam and Sue --
Many thanks to you three for putting two ke y topics on the December 6th Council agenda -
Item 13.b. -- To Kevin & Gleam - I believe many in the community w ould be gratified if the Council
puts in place
a method to formalize and mandate more community input through voter approval (or similar
measures)
in the development process where projects exceed zoning. No one was surprised that LV failed
given
the deluge of negative campaigning agai nst it. On the Pro side, th ere simply wasn't money enough
to
counteract what was filling up peopl e's mail boxes, no matter how many citizen volunteers were on
the phones
and out on the streets. So MANY thanks - I look forward to seeing what staff and the Council may
come up
with.
Item 13. c. -- And to Kevin and Sue -- Yes, yes, ye s - Council and the City definitely need to look into
Neil Shekhter's
business activities and determine whether or not NM S is the sort of deve lopment partner the City
should continue to favor
going forward. (I for one am in favor of keeping our noses clean). THANK YOU!
Wishing each of you the happiest of Holiday Seas ons and thank you so much for listening to the
community and
for your responsive leadership!
Best,
Ann Hoover
310-560-9902
Development heavy discussions schedul ed for Dec. 6 council meeting
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
2
Development heavy discussions
scheduled for Dec. 6 council meeting
The decisions before City Council at their Dec. 6 meeting are as
important as ever, but a pair of requests from ...
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
2 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, December 05, 2016 3:38 PM
To:Tony Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day;
Kevin McKeown Fwd
Cc:councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; David Martin
Subject:FW: Voter approval of development: my concerns
Council ‐
Please see the email below re: item 13b on tomorrow’s agenda.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Kent Strumpell [mailto:kentstrum@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 1:54 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Voter approval of development: my concerns
Re: Staff Report 2231
Dear Council Members,
I emphatically trust all of you on th e Council and your appointees on our commissions to make the final
decision on large developments, and not the voters of Santa Monica. That was the primary reason that I opposed
LV. Large developments are invariably complicated propos als with numerous benefits and tradeoffs that need
to be carefully weighed. In the ma ny years that I have followed your disc ussions on these matters I have been
continually impressed with the diversity of interrelated factors that you have to weigh in coming to a decision.
The work you do requires familiarity with myriad as pects of government, finance, law, social and
environmental issues (to name a few), copious amounts of time and impartiality. Even with that, it is clear that
the votes that the Council has to make are sometimes painfully difficult.
And your deliberations are not done in a vacuum. Ou r city offers numerous opportunities for input and
consultation. From public notices, workshops and heari ngs (on big proposals), lette rs and emails, commission
meetings, editorial opinions, multiple Council meetings a nd even ex parte discussions. There are ample ways
for citizens to have their voices heard. I have never felt that my point of view was not being considered on
items I have communiticated to you about, even if the decision went contrary to my recommendation.
To leave the final call on large projects to a public vote, su bject, as we have seen repeatedly, to simplistic, often
deceptive negative campaigns is not a good way to make co mplex, important decisions. Isn’t this why we have
representative government? Your ability to make t houghtful, well-informed decisi ons on complex issues is
exactly why I support you and your colleagues on City Council.
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
3 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
2
I have a prior commitment this Tuesday otherwise I w ould attend your meeting to ex press these views publicly.
Warmest regards,
Kent Strumpell
1211 Michigan Ave.
Santa Monica
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
4 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, December 05, 2016 3:58 PM
To:Tony Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day;
Kevin McKeown Fwd
Cc:councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; David Martin
Subject:FW: Dec. 6 council discussion - no more initiatives
Council ‐
Please see the email below re: item 13B on tomorrow’s agenda.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Grace Phillips [mailto:gracesadye@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 1:55 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Dec. 6 council discussion ‐ no more initiatives
Dear Council Members,
I am concerned that you are scheduling another developm ent restriction initiative conversation mere weeks after
the LV campaign tore our City into two distinct camps.
Clearly, there are politics at play here. The voters we ighed in with an unconditional "No." We are exhausted.
Please give us some time to recover as a community be fore throwing things into Council agendas so that you
can make some political point to the Yes On LV backers.
In particular, I am deeply concerned that you continue to listen to some community voices more than others.
The community participated in a te n-year open, transparent and public conversation about ho we wanted our
city to look. That was the LUCE.
Since then, you on Council have kowtowed and made c oncessions to various Nim by neighborhood groups with
LUCE amendments, and adopted zoning codes that ar e stricter than those e nvisioned by the LUCE.
I participated in the writing of the LUCE. I did not pa rticipate in the writing of LV, nor will I be asked to
participate in the writing of whatever in itiative you seem to be planning already.
If you want to redo the LUCE, and see how the community may have ch anged its ideas, please redo a full
public process. Voter initia tives are based on spin and misinformation, as was the case with LV. You are about
to undermine a public process with a paternalistic and private one.
If you want our voices included, incl ude all of them. Not just the B oomer-heavy neighborhood groups, who are
staffed by full-time retirees. The rest of us deserve to have our voices h eard as well -- not everyone can spend
Tuesday nights at Council meetings since we ha ve kids and jobs, but we still deserve a voice.
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
5 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
2
Best,
Grace Phillips
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
6 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Noma Boardmember <nomaboard@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 05, 2016 4:59 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Rick Cole
Subject:Item 13B - City Council meeting, Dec. 6, 2016
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Dear Mayor Vazquez and City Council Members,
We support the Request of Councilmembers McKeown and Da vis that staff be instructed to study and report back on
procedural steps to be taken to prepare information for possible future action as described in their Request. We urge
however that voter approval be considered for projects at lower height or densi ty than required by our present general
plan, zoning code, or a height threshold of greater than 4 st ories, as setting an increased density threshold or greater
height threshold could negatively impact areas for which a lesser density or height would be more desirable and
recommended.
Sincerely,
The NOMA Board
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
7 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nancy Morse <nancym@netzero.net>
Sent:Monday, December 05, 2016 7:33 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:12/6/2016 Agenda Item 13B: Development
To: City Council
From: Nancy M. Morse
Subject: 12/6/2016 Agenda Item 13B: Development
I appreciate that Councilmembers McKeown and Davis have brought this item up for discussion. It shows respect for the
concerns of a large percentage of Santa Monica citizens. Although measure LV lost, it received a sizeable number of
votes. I hop e the terms of LV will be considered in staff directive.
It is important for council members to realize they represent all citizens, not supporters or those who think like them.
Nancy M. Morse
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
8 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1
Vernice Hankins
From:John Cyrus Smith <johncysmith@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2016 2:20 AM
To:Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Sue Himmelric h; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Terry
O’Day; Pam OConnor; Rick Cole; Clerk Mailbox
Subject:Council Agenda Item 13.B. Voter Approval for development
Dear Council Members,
First of all I'd like to thank Council members McKeown and Davis for re questing this item, and to Council
member Himmelrich for bringing it up months ago. Its c onsideration and eventual passage, in some form, will
go a long way to healing the divide our city experienced over Measure LV.
I know I speak for many residents who believe it's time for our city to find a way to give residents a more direct
say in the amount and scale of growth. Our 84-foot height limit has served the c ity well since 1984. One could
even say it has enabled our city to thrive like few othe rs in the country, and is alr eady substantially higher than
most any other California coasta l city. Therefore I propose five points for your consideration:
1) Keep the 84-foot limit in place, city wide. It's futile to think this or futu re Councils will lowe r it, but at least
keep it where it is. Every project. Nothing higher.
2) If the Council is going to consider bigger projects, those projects should require a 5-2 super-majority of
Council support for passage, AND be put to voters. An additional step would be to mandate this for ANY
project requiring a DA.
3) This item must include discussi on of how it might impact the DSP. Th e current DSP appears to encourage
the approval of bigger projects as long as a developer provides a set of pre-ordained community benefits. Please
re-think this approach. Establishing a cookie-cutter, "This-for-that" process will eventually provide too much of
one benefit and not enough of others as developers seek the least-expensive way to gain approval.
4) This Item 13.B is the perfect time to begin demandi ng more affordable housing in any approved project. Why
just 20%? Why not 30?
5) In a perfect world, the Council would establish a new height limit below the current 84-foot limit, and
demand more affordable housing. Anythi ng higher would require a super-maj ority and be put before voters.
At least that's how I see it.
Respectfully,
John C. Smith
1 3.B. Request of Councilmembers McKeown and Davis that Council direct staff to
explore the procedural steps necessary to establish voter approv al requirements for
development exceeding the general plan, the adopted zoning code, or some other
specified threshold, and/or require a super-majority Council vote on projects exceeding
specified parameters, and return to Counc il and the community with information for
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
9 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
2
possible future actions, including policy ch anges, resolutions, ordinances, and Council-
initiated ballot measures.
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
10 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2016 12:57 PM
To:Tony Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day;
Kevin McKeown Fwd
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Item 13 B. Meeting Dec. 6th
Council ‐
Please see the email below re: Item 13B on tonight's agenda.
Thank you,
Stephanie
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐
From: Dwight Flowers [mailto:dwightflowers1@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 12:53 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Item 13 B. Meeting Dec. 6th
Members of the City Council:
I will be un able to attend the meeting tonight but want to express my serious concern about the request by
Councilmembers McKeown
and Davis to address new development review requirements which in
effect pick up on the LUVE initiative which was soundly defeated in the recent election.
Please do not pursue this issue so soon after a diff icult election controversy. I campaigned and voted against the L/V
initiative and supported the role of our elected city council in managing the development process.
To subject planning review and development regulations to frequent and constant voter approval would be
unworkable and unresponsive to the long ter m needs of Santa Monica in accommodating affordable housing and
economic benefits. There may be some improvements in the planning process to be considered in the coming year but
now is not the time to take on such divisive issues. We need ample time to evaluate the situation and sh ould not be
under any pressure during the near future.
Sincerely, Dwight Flowers AICP
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
11 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Hoover <annkbowman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, December 02, 2016 10:32 AM
To:Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; councilmtgitems
Cc:Rick Cole; Elaine Polachek; Council Mailbox; David Martin; Mirror Editor;
editor@smdp.com
Subject:December 6th Council Mtg -- Items 13.b. and 13.c. -- THANK YOU - Extremely
important topics to discuss!
Dear Kevin, Gleam and Sue --
Many thanks to you three for putting two ke y topics on the December 6th Council agenda -
Item 13.b. -- To Kevin & Gleam - I believe many in the community w ould be gratified if the Council
puts in place
a method to formalize and mandate more community input through voter approval (or similar
measures)
in the development process where projects exceed zoning. No one was surprised that LV failed
given
the deluge of negative campaigning agai nst it. On the Pro side, th ere simply wasn't money enough
to
counteract what was filling up peopl e's mail boxes, no matter how many citizen volunteers were on
the phones
and out on the streets. So MANY thanks - I look forward to seeing what staff and the Council may
come up
with.
Item 13. c. -- And to Kevin and Sue -- Yes, yes, ye s - Council and the City definitely need to look into
Neil Shekhter's
business activities and determine whether or not NM S is the sort of deve lopment partner the City
should continue to favor
going forward. (I for one am in favor of keeping our noses clean). THANK YOU!
Wishing each of you the happiest of Holiday Seas ons and thank you so much for listening to the
community and
for your responsive leadership!
Best,
Ann Hoover
310-560-9902
Development heavy discussions schedul ed for Dec. 6 council meeting
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
2
Development heavy discussions
scheduled for Dec. 6 council meeting
The decisions before City Council at their Dec. 6 meeting are as
important as ever, but a pair of requests from ...
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
2 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, December 05, 2016 3:38 PM
To:Tony Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day;
Kevin McKeown Fwd
Cc:councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; David Martin
Subject:FW: Voter approval of development: my concerns
Council ‐
Please see the email below re: item 13b on tomorrow’s agenda.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Kent Strumpell [mailto:kentstrum@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 1:54 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Voter approval of development: my concerns
Re: Staff Report 2231
Dear Council Members,
I emphatically trust all of you on th e Council and your appointees on our commissions to make the final
decision on large developments, and not the voters of Santa Monica. That was the primary reason that I opposed
LV. Large developments are invariably complicated propos als with numerous benefits and tradeoffs that need
to be carefully weighed. In the ma ny years that I have followed your disc ussions on these matters I have been
continually impressed with the diversity of interrelated factors that you have to weigh in coming to a decision.
The work you do requires familiarity with myriad as pects of government, finance, law, social and
environmental issues (to name a few), copious amounts of time and impartiality. Even with that, it is clear that
the votes that the Council has to make are sometimes painfully difficult.
And your deliberations are not done in a vacuum. Ou r city offers numerous opportunities for input and
consultation. From public notices, workshops and heari ngs (on big proposals), lette rs and emails, commission
meetings, editorial opinions, multiple Council meetings a nd even ex parte discussions. There are ample ways
for citizens to have their voices heard. I have never felt that my point of view was not being considered on
items I have communiticated to you about, even if the decision went contrary to my recommendation.
To leave the final call on large projects to a public vote, su bject, as we have seen repeatedly, to simplistic, often
deceptive negative campaigns is not a good way to make co mplex, important decisions. Isn’t this why we have
representative government? Your ability to make t houghtful, well-informed decisi ons on complex issues is
exactly why I support you and your colleagues on City Council.
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
3 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
2
I have a prior commitment this Tuesday otherwise I w ould attend your meeting to ex press these views publicly.
Warmest regards,
Kent Strumpell
1211 Michigan Ave.
Santa Monica
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
4 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, December 05, 2016 3:58 PM
To:Tony Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day;
Kevin McKeown Fwd
Cc:councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; David Martin
Subject:FW: Dec. 6 council discussion - no more initiatives
Council ‐
Please see the email below re: item 13B on tomorrow’s agenda.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Grace Phillips [mailto:gracesadye@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 1:55 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Dec. 6 council discussion ‐ no more initiatives
Dear Council Members,
I am concerned that you are scheduling another developm ent restriction initiative conversation mere weeks after
the LV campaign tore our City into two distinct camps.
Clearly, there are politics at play here. The voters we ighed in with an unconditional "No." We are exhausted.
Please give us some time to recover as a community be fore throwing things into Council agendas so that you
can make some political point to the Yes On LV backers.
In particular, I am deeply concerned that you continue to listen to some community voices more than others.
The community participated in a te n-year open, transparent and public conversation about ho we wanted our
city to look. That was the LUCE.
Since then, you on Council have kowtowed and made c oncessions to various Nim by neighborhood groups with
LUCE amendments, and adopted zoning codes that ar e stricter than those e nvisioned by the LUCE.
I participated in the writing of the LUCE. I did not pa rticipate in the writing of LV, nor will I be asked to
participate in the writing of whatever in itiative you seem to be planning already.
If you want to redo the LUCE, and see how the community may have ch anged its ideas, please redo a full
public process. Voter initia tives are based on spin and misinformation, as was the case with LV. You are about
to undermine a public process with a paternalistic and private one.
If you want our voices included, incl ude all of them. Not just the B oomer-heavy neighborhood groups, who are
staffed by full-time retirees. The rest of us deserve to have our voices h eard as well -- not everyone can spend
Tuesday nights at Council meetings since we ha ve kids and jobs, but we still deserve a voice.
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
5 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
2
Best,
Grace Phillips
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
6 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Noma Boardmember <nomaboard@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 05, 2016 4:59 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Rick Cole
Subject:Item 13B - City Council meeting, Dec. 6, 2016
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Dear Mayor Vazquez and City Council Members,
We support the Request of Councilmembers McKeown and Da vis that staff be instructed to study and report back on
procedural steps to be taken to prepare information for possible future action as described in their Request. We urge
however that voter approval be considered for projects at lower height or densi ty than required by our present general
plan, zoning code, or a height threshold of greater than 4 st ories, as setting an increased density threshold or greater
height threshold could negatively impact areas for which a lesser density or height would be more desirable and
recommended.
Sincerely,
The NOMA Board
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
7 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nancy Morse <nancym@netzero.net>
Sent:Monday, December 05, 2016 7:33 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:12/6/2016 Agenda Item 13B: Development
To: City Council
From: Nancy M. Morse
Subject: 12/6/2016 Agenda Item 13B: Development
I appreciate that Councilmembers McKeown and Davis have brought this item up for discussion. It shows respect for the
concerns of a large percentage of Santa Monica citizens. Although measure LV lost, it received a sizeable number of
votes. I hop e the terms of LV will be considered in staff directive.
It is important for council members to realize they represent all citizens, not supporters or those who think like them.
Nancy M. Morse
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
8 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1
Vernice Hankins
From:John Cyrus Smith <johncysmith@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2016 2:20 AM
To:Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Sue Himmelric h; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Terry
O’Day; Pam OConnor; Rick Cole; Clerk Mailbox
Subject:Council Agenda Item 13.B. Voter Approval for development
Dear Council Members,
First of all I'd like to thank Council members McKeown and Davis for re questing this item, and to Council
member Himmelrich for bringing it up months ago. Its c onsideration and eventual passage, in some form, will
go a long way to healing the divide our city experienced over Measure LV.
I know I speak for many residents who believe it's time for our city to find a way to give residents a more direct
say in the amount and scale of growth. Our 84-foot height limit has served the c ity well since 1984. One could
even say it has enabled our city to thrive like few othe rs in the country, and is alr eady substantially higher than
most any other California coasta l city. Therefore I propose five points for your consideration:
1) Keep the 84-foot limit in place, city wide. It's futile to think this or futu re Councils will lowe r it, but at least
keep it where it is. Every project. Nothing higher.
2) If the Council is going to consider bigger projects, those projects should require a 5-2 super-majority of
Council support for passage, AND be put to voters. An additional step would be to mandate this for ANY
project requiring a DA.
3) This item must include discussi on of how it might impact the DSP. Th e current DSP appears to encourage
the approval of bigger projects as long as a developer provides a set of pre-ordained community benefits. Please
re-think this approach. Establishing a cookie-cutter, "This-for-that" process will eventually provide too much of
one benefit and not enough of others as developers seek the least-expensive way to gain approval.
4) This Item 13.B is the perfect time to begin demandi ng more affordable housing in any approved project. Why
just 20%? Why not 30?
5) In a perfect world, the Council would establish a new height limit below the current 84-foot limit, and
demand more affordable housing. Anythi ng higher would require a super-maj ority and be put before voters.
At least that's how I see it.
Respectfully,
John C. Smith
1 3.B. Request of Councilmembers McKeown and Davis that Council direct staff to
explore the procedural steps necessary to establish voter approv al requirements for
development exceeding the general plan, the adopted zoning code, or some other
specified threshold, and/or require a super-majority Council vote on projects exceeding
specified parameters, and return to Counc il and the community with information for
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
9 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
2
possible future actions, including policy ch anges, resolutions, ordinances, and Council-
initiated ballot measures.
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
10 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2016 12:57 PM
To:Tony Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day;
Kevin McKeown Fwd
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Item 13 B. Meeting Dec. 6th
Council ‐
Please see the email below re: Item 13B on tonight's agenda.
Thank you,
Stephanie
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐
From: Dwight Flowers [mailto:dwightflowers1@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 12:53 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Item 13 B. Meeting Dec. 6th
Members of the City Council:
I will be un able to attend the meeting tonight but want to express my serious concern about the request by
Councilmembers McKeown
and Davis to address new development review requirements which in
effect pick up on the LUVE initiative which was soundly defeated in the recent election.
Please do not pursue this issue so soon after a diff icult election controversy. I campaigned and voted against the L/V
initiative and supported the role of our elected city council in managing the development process.
To subject planning review and development regulations to frequent and constant voter approval would be
unworkable and unresponsive to the long ter m needs of Santa Monica in accommodating affordable housing and
economic benefits. There may be some improvements in the planning process to be considered in the coming year but
now is not the time to take on such divisive issues. We need ample time to evaluate the situation and sh ould not be
under any pressure during the near future.
Sincerely, Dwight Flowers AICP
Item 13-B
12/06/2016
11 Item 13-B
12/06/2016
2633 Lincoln Blvd., #513, Santa Monica, CA 90405
December 6, 2016
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Support of Item 13 -B
Dear Council M embers,
We are thankful that Councilmembers McKeo wn and Davis introduced item 13 -B on your December 6
Agenda. The SMRR membe rship has officially taken positions in the last 6 months on this matter.
At the July 31, 2016 SMRR Convention the membership adopted the following motion:
SMRR does not support the Residocracy initiative, and instead wants the steering committee,
commu nity and City Council to work on a measure requiring voter approval of any project proposed
beyond the standards of a City Council approved zoning code.
Previously, on May 1, 2016 the membership adopted the following 2016 platform planks:
D. SMRR suppor ts ensuring the continued prosperity of our local economy while protecting the
community from excessive development and the traffic it generates. SMRR is committed to
protecting residential neighborhoods from intensification of nearby commercial developmen t.
9. With respect to commercial boulevards outside the Downtown, SMRR generally supports the
City Council approved Zoning Code standards in effect as of April 2016, which allow maximum
heights of only three or four stories.
10. With respect to Downtow n Santa Monica, SMRR generally supports the standards that have
been in place in the Downtown since 1984.
11. We strongly object to the proposals for excessively massive hotel projects, and especially
projects combining hotels with luxury condos along Oc ean Avenue.
12. SMRR is committed to giving the community greater assurance that these standards will be
adhered to, including by means of a possible ballot measure.
We hope your referral to staff will include these parameters.
V ery truly yours,
Patricia Hoffman Denny Zane
Co -Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights Co -Chair, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights
Serving the Needs of
All Santa Monica Residents
Since 1979
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Evelyn salem <evesalem@msn.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:41 PM
To:Gleam Davis; ted winterer; Ted Winterer; To ny Vazquez; Terry O’Day; David Martin;
Clerk Mailbox
Subject:Building density
Dear Council
The new year brings with it a promise of fresh beginnings I hope that you will look at the plans for new buildings again.
You will consider the hyper density that developers are proposing especially for downtown. There is no place for people
to congregate or run to if a natural or man made disaster should befall us. We are already at saturation and the
beautiful plans of developers some of whom already are being prosecuted should not delude you. Just please say no.
Put a moratorium on all massive projects. You owe it to all who elected you to protect their wellbeing and safety.
Respectfully
Evelyn salem
Sent from my iPhone