SR 01-09-2018 8A
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 24
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: City Planning Division Priorities
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the City Council review and provide guidance on setting the
upcoming City Planning Division priorities.
Executive Summary
The adoption of the Downtown Community Plan in 2017 marked a major milestone and
added to the list of significant implementation efforts completed since the adoption of
the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) in 2010. These efforts include the
completion of the Bergamot Area Plan, the Bike Action Plan, the Pedestrian Action Plan
and the Zoning Ordinance Update. While substantial progress towards LUCE
implementation has been made over the last seven years, there are additional Area
Plans and ordinance updates that are necessary to fulfill the vision of the LUCE. In
addition to the implementation projects recommended by the LUCE, there are new
initiatives directed by City Council as well as major Development Agreement projects
that are pending Planning Commission and City Council review.
This report summarizes pending policy and development projects, provides a general
timeline of when these projects can be completed (Attachment A), and presents a
recommended prioritization of these work items for Council discussion. While these
projects involve collaboration between various City Divisions and Departments, they are
primarily led by the City Planning Division within the Planning and Community
Development Department. In addition to staffing the policy and implementation projects
in this report, the City Planning division is also responsible for the processing of all
development permit applications including Planning Commission review, Landmarks
2 of 24
Commission review, Architectural Review Board, Zoning Administrator and building
permit plan check. Therefore, it is necessary to consider these priorities and schedules
in the context of the “day to day” work of the City Planning division and the capacity of
the division to complete these projects while also maintaining its significant
administrative functions and processing of numerous Development Review permits,
Administrative Approvals and plan checks. Further, after approval of projects, there are
typically three rounds of plan check followed by managing issues that arise through
construction and occupation of new buildings. With a handful of staff assigned to the
strategic planning and design and historic preservation function, there are
approximately eight planners assigned full-time to development review, which includes
processing planning applications, plan checks, staffing the counter, responding to
phone inquiries, and reviewing business licenses. Due to volume and emerging division
needs, small teams of planners normally assigned to development review are assigned
to augment strategic planning and design/historic preservation projects.
3 of 24
It should also be borne in mind that planning is not an end in itself. The goal of land use
and transportation planning is to help shape great places, whether they be districts,
neighborhoods or streets. The identification of ambitious and laudable goals does not
automatically produce results. It is critically important that planning be grounded in the
capacity of City government and private real estate market forces and property owners
to actually implement adopted policies. The City of Santa Monica already has a backlog
of implementation activities, projects and initiatives. By focusing on the highest
priorities for future land use planning and mobility enhancements, the City can produce
practical, achievable policy guidance for public and private investment in the years
ahead. This is the highest and best use of limited staff and financial resources.
This report divides the Division’s upcoming priorities into three sections, and provides a
fourth section on alignment with citywide priorities:
I) Policy Plans and Ordinance Updates: The first section consists of major policy
implementation efforts that were called for in the LUCE or subsequent policy
documents, or are necessary due to legal requirements or outdated
ordinances. These include the Pico Neighborhood Plan, the Memorial Park
Neighborhood Plan, the Local Coastal Program Update, the Gateway Master
Plan, the Landmarks Ordinance Update, and an update to the City’s Travel
Demand Forecast Model and adoption of CEQA thresholds compliant with CA
Senate Bill 743.
II) Council Directed Research: The next section includes five items that have been
directed by City Council, primarily through the approval of “13 Items,” for staff
and Planning Commission review and possible action by the Council. These
include review of the R1 Development Standards, review of the Bergamot Area
Plan to consider the percentage of housing required in specific developments,
amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit the conversion of hotel rooms to
residential units in the Proposition S Overlay area, and review of the
development standards and entitlement processes for housing projects on the
4 of 24
commercial boulevards and in the Bergamot area to incentivize housing over
commercial development.
III) Major Development Agreements: The third section of this report provides a
summary and status update of four major Development Agreement projects
currently pending. These include the Phase Two Master Plan for Providence
Saint John’s Health Center, the proposed mixed-use project at 4th/5th and
Arizona, the redevelopment of the Miramar Hotel, and the proposed Ocean
Avenue Hotel project located on the northeast corner of Santa Monica Boulevard
and Ocean Avenue.
IV) Alignment of Division Workplan with Council Priorities: The final section of this
report demonstrates how the City Planning Division’s ongoing work efforts align
with the five strategic goals of the City Council. This section also looks at the
Council-directed research through the lens of citywide priorities as a means to
help the Council provide feedback on The City Planning Division’s proposed
workplan priorities.
Planning Commission Discussion
On December 13, 2017, staff presented these priorities to the Planning Commission.
The Commission voted 6-0 to prioritize the following:
1) Pico Neighborhood Plan
2) SB743 CEQA implementation
3) Landmarks Ordinance update
4) R-1 Interim Zoning Ordinance standards
5) Options for housing on the boulevards and in the Bergamot area
The Commission identified these as key areas of focus given competing demands. The
Commission also based its recommended priorities on the principle of preservation,
which is why the Pico Neighborhood Plan, Landmarks Ordinance update, and review of
R-1 standards rose to the top. Staff had originally proposed only a very targeted zoning
effort for the Pico Zoning District that would directly address recent requests from the
5 of 24
Pico Neighborhood Association. However, in their discussion and in response to public
testimony at the meeting, the Commission indicated a broader scope to the Pico Zoning
District would be appropriate. This discussion drew from the Commission’s prior review
of Pico Neighborhood goals in June 2016 and LUCE Goal N11, which calls for
protections for Pico Neighborhood and the Boulevard through an area planning
process. This would mean that staff could proceed with the Pico Neighborhood Plan in
two phases – immediate zoning changes as Phase 1 and a broader interdepartmental
implementation effort as Phase 2 that would include a more intensive public
engagement process. This is described in more detail in the next section of this report.
SB743 is required and the production of housing remains a City priority. In order to
ensure that there is sufficient capacity for these priorities, the Commission
recommended delaying the Gateway Master Plan.
I. POLICY PLANS/ORDINANCE UPDATES
Pico Neighborhood Plan
The Pico Neighborhood Plan is a budgeted planning effort ($150,000) intended to
address concerns within the Pico neighborhood. Bounded by the I-10 Freeway to the
north, Pico Boulevard to the South, Centinela to the east, and 7th Street to the west, this
planning area integrates the residential neighborhood of R2 and R1 District households
with the commercial Boulevard. While there is a desire for a comprehensive approach
to addressing concerns about enhancing quality of life, minimizing displacement of
longtime residents and retaining neighborhood character through a range of activities
that may include housing policies, cultural-based planning initiatives, economic
development incentives, crime and safety interventions, circulation enhancement
recommendations and environmental/landscaping improvements, experience has
shown that land use planning tools are not ideal for tackling such challenges. The staff
recommend a narrower approach led by PCD to address zoning issues related
specifically to protection of neighborhood character and retaining affordable housing. If
the Council wishes to pursue a more comprehensive approach, staff recommends this
be a multi-departmental effort outside the scope of setting PCD priorities.
6 of 24
To ensure community participation in the land use planning effort, the bulk of the budget
will be used to conduct multi-lingual outreach. Planning staff is already at work
organizing and conducting dozens of meetings with staff from across many City
departments to understand the context of current City services offered to Pico residents
and businesses. Future outreach will involve various neighborhood organizations,
residents, community groups, places of worship, cultural associations, business
improvement districts and other stakeholders. Outreach and technical analysis will help
staff to develop zoning revisions.
Anticipated Timeline
Staff intends to expedite analysis and recommendations for land use planning changes
beginning with an in-house evaluation of potential zoning ordinance updates to provide
a context-specific framework for development in Pico similar to standards that were
established for the Ocean Park neighborhood. These may include revisiting the Mixed
Use Boulevard Low zoning on Pico Boulevard, evaluating rules for combining
residentially-zoned lots in the Pico Neighborhood, and a review of the appropriateness
of Parking Overlay 2 parking requirements between Lincoln and 11th Street. Staff
expects to bring forward this Zoning Analysis to Planning Commission in the second
half of 2018. Community outreach for the Pico Plan will begin in early 2018.
Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan (MPNP)
The Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan was launched in 2013 to design a framework for
the rezoning of approximately 70 acres of formerly industrial land centered on the Expo
Light Rail station at 17th Street and Colorado. Several outreach events were conducted
in 2013-2014, and a presentation was made to the Planning Commission in July 2014.
A planning framework was drafted in late 2014, which ties together a desire for
additional housing in this area, as well as new streetscape concepts that address
permeability, landscaping, and the presence of a regional transit connector in close
proximity to Santa Monica College and the city’s two hospitals. Due to competing
priorities for staff time on the Downtown Community Plan, a public draft of the Memorial
Park Neighborhood Plan was not completed.
7 of 24
The appropriate level of environmental review necessary to address potential changes
in land use proposed by the MPNP is currently being evaluated.
Anticipated Timeline
Staff anticipates the need to rework and enrich the draft document to make it relevant to
today’s regulatory environment, and to work closely with the Community and Cultural
Services Department throughout the re-design process of Memorial Park, which will
begin in early 2018. Outreach to re-establish communications with area stakeholders
and the community at large about the MPNP can begin simultaneously. It is anticipated
that the Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan and required environmental analysis will be
completed in the first half of 2019.
Local Coastal Program Update
The Local Coastal Program Update is being funded through a combination of Coastal
Commission grants and local funds and consists of two parts – a Land Use Plan (LUP)
and Implementation Plan (IP). Over the past two years, staff has been working closely
with Coastal Commission staff to discuss and resolve key policy issues with respect to
coastal access, new development, and the new science of sea level rise.
Anticipated Timeline
It is expected that a public draft of the LUP will be released for public review in early
2018, followed by Council review and an application to the Coastal Commission for final
plan adoption. Once the LUP has been substantially completed, staff will start the IP,
otherwise known as the “coastal zoning ordinance.” It is anticipated that it will take up to
24 months to complete City review of the IP.
Gateway Master Plan
The Gateway Master Plan is a funded planning effort that will address comprehensive
planning for the area adjacent to the I-10 Freeway that links Downtown to the Civic
Center and Samohi. There is a unique opportunity for strengthening connections over
the freeway right of way. This would provide multiple benefits, including:
8 of 24
Seamlessly link the historic Downtown and historic Civic Center, removing a
visual and physical divide
Allow for better freeway entry and exiting in the often congested traffic
bottlenecks
Provide access to peripheral parking opportunities that could reduce vehicular
impacts on the Downtown core
Provide a framework for design and access for adjacent properties
Development of the Gateway Master Plan will be an open process facilitated by staff,
and include participation from the community, land owners and decision-makers as
priorities for the area are refined. This key location should become an experience that
reflects the city’s values of community, sustainability and pride of place.
Anticipated Timeline
As established in the Downtown Community Plan, properties within the Gateway Master
Plan boundaries may only request Tier 2 height and FAR until the earlier of 2021 or the
completion of the Gateway Master Plan. In order to meet the timeline established in the
DCP, staff would need to initiate the process for the Gateway Master Plan in the first
half of 2018.
Landmarks Ordinance Update
The Landmarks Ordinance was adopted in 1976 and has not been comprehensively
updated since its inception. Since that time, application of the ordinance to a variety of
preservation projects has revealed some ambiguities in language that would benefit
from clarification. The Landmarks Commission has long advocated for a
comprehensive update to the ordinance to provide clarity on implementation and to also
explore new directions, such as the potential for a second tier of designation. The
Commission has identified a list of issues over a number of years that would be the
starting point for the ordinance update.
9 of 24
Anticipated Timeline
Given other priorities, staff will likely start work on a comprehensive update to the
Landmarks Ordinance in the second half of FY2018/19. The ordinance update will be a
joint effort between City Planning and the City Attorney’s office.
SB743 Implementation
In the next couple of years, transportation review required under CEQA will change as a
result of the adoption of California Senate Bill 743 (SB743). SB743 will require the City
to adjust the way it conducts CEQA-mandated transportation analysis. The State’s
published CEQA Guidelines indicate that the City will be required to use vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) as the metric for transportation analysis under CEQA. VMT measures
the total distance traveled (in miles) between the origin and destination of a trip and as
such, captures the full extent of vehicle travel on the roadway network (VMT = Trip Rate
x Trip Length). VMT is a more appropriate metric for assessing transportation impacts
on the environment, because it is related to greenhouse gas emissions, the
development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.
Currently, output data of the City’s Travel Demand Forecast Model (TDFM) is used to
generate Level of Service (LOS) analysis as formerly required under CEQA. Since 2008
the Model also has calculated VMT for informational purposes, but not as a threshold of
significance for transportation impacts under CEQA. To comply with the anticipated
CEQA Guidelines under SB743, the TDFM will need to be calibrated to use VMT to
assess transportation impacts. Furthermore, the City will have to establish new
transportation review procedures and adopt new VMT-based traffic impact thresholds to
replace the existing LOS impact thresholds.
Anticipated Timeline
City Council approved a contract with Fehr + Peers in October 2017 to update the
TDFM with the 2017 citywide transportation counts, and to recalibrate the model based
on network changes and horizon year land uses. Fehr + Peers will also assist with
development of some of the SB743 review guidelines and thresholds. Community
engagement is anticipated to educate the public regarding this change and establishing
10 of 24
new transportation analysis thresholds, including a public workshop, focus groups and a
number of public hearings.
The project will begin with updating and recalibrating the Model from January to
September 2018. This work includes steps to complete traffic counts and quality
assurance, develop horizon year forecasts, update the physical network, update and
calibrate, and to evaluate TDM and VMT Performance.
Following the Model update, staff will work on developing transportation review
guidelines and thresholds from July 2018 through April 2019. This phase will include
tasks to develop CEQA significance thresholds, develop planning-level transportation
metrics, and develop guidelines for transportation review of projects.
II. COUNCIL DIRECTED RESEARCH (“13 ITEMS”)
R1/Single Family Residential Development Standards
As part of the adoption of the zoning ordinance update, Council directed staff to further
research neighborhood-specific zoning changes that would address the unique
character of neighborhoods. The Planning Commission wrote a letter to the City
Council requesting review of the R1 zoning standards. Staff has received complaints
from neighborhood groups and individual residents expressing concern about the size
of new homes. In nearly all cases, staff has found the new homes of concern to comply
with existing zoning regulations for single-unit dwellings. A previous update to the R1
standards addressed “mansionization” concerns in 2000. Staff has received complaints
regarding recent renovations/additions and the redevelopment of older housing stock.
These have raised questions regarding the appropriateness of the existing R1 zoning
standards. While the R1 standards have been in place for many years, existing homes
typically do not represent the maximum buildable envelope resulting in a mismatch
between new homes and existing homes. An update to the R1 zoning standards would
require a significant public engagement process regarding the appropriate character
and scale of new construction and additions in R1 neighborhoods.
11 of 24
Anticipated Timeline
It is expected that staff could begin work on a comprehensive update to the R1
standards in the second half of FY2018/19. In the meantime, if directed by Council, an
interim zoning ordinance that takes a more surgical approach to strategically address
specific R1 zoning standards that would regulate the size of new home construction
pending completion of a comprehensive update could be completed in the first half of
2018.
Amendment of Bergamot Area Plan to Increase Percentage of Required Housing
The Bergamot Area Plan (BAP) encompasses an area that includes a large amount of
the city’s office space and includes the heart of the city’s creative industries with
approximately 8,000 workers. The BAP established a required land use mix in the
Mixed Use Creative zoning district of 40% residential and 60% non-residential with an
allowance to vary by 10% in either direction. Since the adoption of the BAP, completed
or under construction projects include the following:
12 of 24
Project Address Land Use Entitled By
Agensys DA 1800 Stewart
Avenue
Research and
Development
1988 Zoning
Ordinance
Village Trailer Park
DA
2930 Colorado
Avenue
362 units housing
24,893 sf retail and
creative office
1988 Zoning
Ordinance
Colorado Creative
Studios DA
2834 Colorado
Avenue
192,000 sf creative
office
1988 Zoning
Ordinance
Pen Factory 1681 26th Street 203,816 sf creative
office
2013 Bergamot
Area Plan
As demonstrated by the above table, only one of the mentioned projects was approved
under BAP regulations. However, the DA’s approved under the 1988 Zoning Ordinance
did provide some of the infrastructure enhancements identified in the BAP for those
sites as negotiations were ongoing simultaneously with the development of the Plan.
The Pen Factory project was entitled as a Tier 1 addition of 7,499 square feet
converting the vacant industrial space to creative office. The only other project to have
been approved (but not constructed) since the adoption of the BAP is an approximately
600-space private parking structure at 2941 Michigan Avenue.
In the years subsequent to the adoption of the Bergamot Area Plan, staff has heard
from the development community that the BAP does not contain sufficient height and
FAR incentives to attract housing or commercial development, and that uncertainty and
project risk weigh heavily on larger projects. Minimal differences in the FAR allowance
between Tier 1 and Tier 2 do not provide incentives to produce housing or projects that
could contribute community benefits to the area’s transformation. And, while the BAP
did identify certain properties as ripe for Tier 3 mix-use development projects, the
uncertainty of the development agreement process has led many owners to maintain
their properties “as-is.” To the extent that there is interest in creating housing incentives
13 of 24
similar to those created in the DCP, further study and environmental analysis is required
in order to determine necessary amendments.
Anticipated Timeline
Staff expects to be able to initiate work in the first half of FY2018/19. This effort would
likely be folded into any options brought forward to encourage housing production on
the boulevards.
Explore Tools to Encourage Housing Production on the Commercial Boulevards and in
the Bergamot Area and Disincentivize 100% Commercial Projects
As part of the adoption of the Downtown Community Plan, Council gave further direction
to also study incentives for housing production citywide on the commercial boulevards
and the Bergamot area. It is likely that work on this item would be combined with any
updates to the BAP designed to encourage housing production discussed above. It is
likely that fully exploring this direction would also precipitate amendments to the
Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) ordinance if not a comprehensive
update to the AHPP. Establishing a framework similar to the DCP will require additional
economic feasibility analyses in addition to outreach. In relation to the issue of housing
on the boulevards, staff has included a map (Attachment B) showing the under
construction, approved, and pending housing projects throughout the City.
Anticipated Timeline
Staff expects to be able to initiate work in first half of FY2018/19.
Amendment of Zoning Ordinance to Prohibit Conversion of Existing Hotel Rooms to
Residential Uses in the Proposition S Overlay Area
A recent change in ownership of one of the hotels in the City prompted inquiries from
Council and the community as to the intentions of the new owners, who converted a
hotel to for-sale condominiums in another city. New hotels are prohibited in the Prop S
overlay area and therefore, the importance of preserving existing hotels has been
underscored. There has been no indication of any interest in converting existing hotel
rooms to residential uses nor are there any pending applications for such a conversion.
14 of 24
Anticipated Timeline
Staff proposes to bring this forward with the “Bucket 3” package of zoning ordinance
discussions in the third quarter of 2018.
Explore Ordinance Denying New Discretionary Permits of Entitlements on Properties
Where Ongoing Violations Remain Unresolved
There have been occasional instances where a property has outstanding Municipal
Code violations but the property owner/applicant submits an application for a new
permit. In these situations, Council has expressed concern that by issuing new permits,
the applicant is not incentivized to abate the Code violation.
Anticipated Timeline
Staff proposes to bring this forward with the “Bucket 3” package of zoning ordinance
discussions in the third quarter of 2018.
III. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Providence Saint John’s Health Center Phase Two Master Plan & Development
Agreement Amendment (2121 Santa Monica Boulevard)
The Providence Saint John’s Health Center (PSJHC) Phase Two Project development
agreement amendment includes a master plan process that will comprehensively review
the circulation, land use, parking, and development potential for the Health Center’s
north and south campuses located on Santa Monica Boulevard between 20th and 23rd
Streets. A procedural amendment to the development agreement was approved on
April 25, 2017 and established a framework that resulted in the following:
Changed the South Campus Master Plan to a Phase Two Project Master Plan
encompassing all of Phase Two development, on both the North and South
Campuses.
15 of 24
Changed the Development Agreement to require approval of the Phase Two
Project Master Plan prior to approval of the individual Development Review
Permits for Phase Two Project buildings.
Required a phasing plan and performance schedule for significant project
components such as infrastructure, circulation improvements, and community
benefits.
Established the City Council as the decision-making body for the Phase Two
Project Master Plan.
Required that all Phase Two development be consistent with the approved
Phase Two Project Master Plan.
Staff and the applicant team have completed their first-round review and discussion of
the Phase Two Project circulation plan and started the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the Phase Two Project with release of a Draft EIR for public review anticipated
at the end of 2018.
Anticipated Project Review Timeline
Substantive Master Plan Review and Community Benefits Negotiations – 2018
EIR Public Review Draft – 4th quarter 2018
Planning Commission Hearings – 1st quarter 2019
City Council Hearings – 3rd quarter 2019
Development Review Permits for new John Wayne Cancer Institute, Child &
Family Development Center, and replacement housing (Scenario A) or West
Ambulatory & Acute Care Building and replacement housing (Scenario B) – 4th
quarter 2019
Plaza at Santa Monica (4th/5th and Arizona)
The proposed Plaza at Santa Monica project is a public/private partnership located on
City-owned land. The current project proposal conforms to the limitations in the DCP at
16 of 24
a height of 129’ and consists of office, hotel, retail, and cultural uses. A large public
plaza intended to provide space for a seasonal skating rink and other year-round
programming is a key feature of the project.
The site is identified as one of three Established Large Sites in the Downtown
Community Plan. The project requires both negotiations on terms of the ground lease
with the developer and a development agreement. The project is currently in the
environmental analysis phase with the Draft EIR anticipated to be released for public
review in 2nd quarter 2018. Per Council direction, the Draft EIR will be studying a range
of eight project alternatives that include significantly different configurations for
development of the site, particularly ones that envision a larger component of public
space in the form of a central park or plaza for Downtown. Complimentary circulation
alternatives are also part of the environmental analysis, including consideration of
partial or periodic closure of Arizona. Formal hearings are anticipated to commence at
the Planning Commission towards the end of 2018.
Anticipated Project Review Timeline
EIR Public Review Draft – 2nd quarter 2018
Planning Commission Hearings – 4th quarter 2018
City Council Hearings – 2nd quarter 2019
Miramar Hotel Mixed-Use Project (1133 Ocean Avenue)
The proposed Miramar Hotel Mixed-Use Project Development Agreement application
was originally submitted in April 2011 to comprehensively redevelop the existing Santa
Monica Fairmont Miramar Hotel as a new approximately 550,000 SF (2.9 FAR) mixed-
use hotel with the following key components:
265 guest rooms
food, beverage, meeting, and spa facilities
retail space along Wilshire Boulevard
17 of 24
approximately one-acre open space area at the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and
Ocean Avenue
up to 120 condominiums
up to 40 affordable housing units at 1127 2nd Street
approximately 484 on-site subterranean parking spaces
Preservation of the site’s Landmark Moreton Bay Fig Tree
Preservation/rehabilitation of the Landmark Palisades Building
Following Planning Commission’s review of the conceptual plans in February 2012, the
City provided direction regarding desired design parameters for the site and potential
priority community benefits to be negotiated, and authorized staff to initiate development
agreement negotiations with the applicant for the proposed project in April 2012. The
project design was revised by the applicant team and resubmitted in 2013. At that time,
the design strategy for the site focused on constructing a significantly taller, new
building at the center of the site (approximately 262’ tall) with open space and reduced
building heights on the perimeter of the property. While City staff initiated work on the
EIR for the project in 2013, that work along with City review of the revised project design
was put on hold pending completion of the Downtown Community Plan (DCP).
The Council adopted the DCP in August 2017 and included an Established Large Sites
Overlay for three individual project sites in the Downtown. The DCP requires that
projects for these three sites be processed as a development agreement and comply
with specific development parameters (building height, floor area, and open space). For
the Miramar Hotel site, the maximum building height for the project site is 130’ and a
maximum floor area ratio of 3.0.
It is anticipated that the applicant will submit revised project plans during the first quarter
of 2018 that address programmatic changes and design concept revisions compliant
with the DCP’s Established Large Sites Overlay regulations. Following initial review of
these revised plans, City staff will resume its preparation of the Draft EIR for the project,
including hosting a second EIR Scoping Meeting for the new project design.
18 of 24
Anticipated Project Review Timeline
Submit Revised Project Plans – 1st quarter 2018
EIR Scoping Meeting for Revised Project – 1st quarter 2018
Substantive Project Review and Community Benefits Negotiations – 2018
through 1st quarter 2019
EIR Public Review Draft – 1st/2nd quarter 2019
Planning Commission Hearings – 3rd quarter 2019
City Council Hearings – 1st quarter 2020
Ocean Avenue Hotel (101 Santa Monica Boulevard)
A Development Agreement application was submitted in February 2013 for a proposed
mixed-use hotel, cultural, retail, and residential development at the northwest corner of
Santa Monica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue (“Ocean Avenue Project”). The applicant
hosted a Community Meeting to introduce the proposed project in March 2013 which
was followed by the Architectural Review Board’s conceptual discussion of the proposal
in August 2013. Following completion of the Community Meeting, City review of the
project was put on hold pending completion of the Downtown Community Plan. For the
Ocean Avenue Hotel site, the adopted DCP specifies a 130’ maximum building height
for the site and a maximum floor area ratio of 4.0.
The applicant submitted revised project plans last month that address programmatic
changes and design concept revisions compliant with the DCP’s Established Large
Sites Overlay regulations. Key components of the revised project include:
115-room hotel with meeting room and banquet space;
79 residential rental units, comprised of 19 new rent-controlled units to replace
existing on-site units, 42 market rate units, and 18 affordable units;
Ground-floor restaurant and retail space;
Cultural/museum campus with open space;
Publically-accessible roof-top observation deck;
19 of 24
Subterranean parking;
Retention and rehabilitation of two, on-site designated City Landmark structures.
The applicant is scheduled to host a second Community Meeting to introduce the
revised project design on January 11, 2018. Following initial review of the project plans,
preliminary conceptual review will be scheduled at the Landmarks Commission and/or
the Architectural Review Board during the first quarter of 2018. It is anticipated that
Float-Up Discussions at Planning Commission and City Council will be completed by
the third quarter of 2018 followed by initiation of environmental review for the project.
Anticipated Project Review Timeline
Community Meeting – 1st quarter 2018
ARB/Landmarks Conceptual Review – 1st quarter 2018
Planning Commission Float-Up Discussion – 2nd quarter 2018
City Council Float-Up Discussion – 3rd quarter 2018
EIR Scoping Meeting – 4th quarter 2018
Substantive Project Review and Community Benefits Negotiations – 2019
EIR Public Review Draft – 4th quarter 2019
Planning Commission Hearings – 3rd quarter 2020
City Council Hearings – 1st quarter 2021
IV. ALIGNMENT OF WORKPLAN WITH COUNCIL PRIORITY AREAS
(STRATEGIC GOALS)
In order to connect desired outcomes to the day-to-day work of city government, the
City Council identified five council priority areas, or Strategic Goals, that are expected to
have short-term impact on community safety, quality of life, and prosperity.
20 of 24
Based on best practices from municipalities across the country, Santa Monica is now
using an approach to workplan development and budgeting that connects the work of
City Departments to a new Framework and SaMoStat. This process aligns departmental
work efforts, measures outcomes, and ultimately ensures that the City delivers these
services effectively and a transparent manner. The Framework is built around its long-
term commitment to sustainability infused with its new Wellbeing Index, Santa Monica’s
custom measurement tool that provides an understanding of wellbeing in our
community. The Framework is built on the core beliefs, visions, and structures of these
two exciting and groundbreaking approaches. The five strategic goals connect to these
outcome areas through a matrix. They are the key drivers that will allow us to achieve
outcomes for residents of and visitors to Santa Monica.
21 of 24
Based on these descriptions of the five priority areas, the following matrix has been
developed to guide the Council’s discussion on focus areas for the City Planning
Division. The matrix demonstrates where individual planning efforts or Council directed
research aligns with Council priorities.
Council
Strategic Goals
INCLUSIVE
AND
DIVERSE
COMMUNITY
MOBILITY THE
AIRPORT HOMELESSNESS
LEARN
AND
THRIVE
Policy Plans
Pico Neighborhood
Plan X X X
Memorial Park
Neighborhood Plan X X X
Local Coastal
Program Update
(Required by law)
X X
Gateway Master Plan X
Landmarks Ordinance
SB743 Implementation
(Required by law) X
Council Directed Research
R1 Standards
Bergamot Housing
and Use Mix X
Housing Production on
Boulevards X
Hotel/Condo in Prop S
Overlay
Denying Permits for
Properties with
Unresolved Code
Violations
22 of 24
The Council’s strategic goals formed the basis for how staff prioritizes the work of the
City Planning Division, especially those that require staff and funding resources. A
second framework for organizing priorities is based on ongoing legal requirements.
This would allow projects such as the Local Coastal Program Update, Housing Element,
and SB743 guidelines to be brought forward. A third framework is based the urgency of
issues to be addressed. For example, staff has been bringing forward clarifications to
the zoning ordinance in response to questions raised in the course of project review and
implementation. As these changes directly affect the daily work of the division, these
have been prioritized.
CONCLUSION
This report presents an overview of the strategic plans, land use policies, and major
development agreements that are the City Planning Division’s priorities for the next two
years. The significant volume of “day to day” work requires the majority of staff to be
devoted to the Division’s development review function. Similarly, each of the projects in
this report requires a significant investment in staff time, consultant time, and public
engagement. Therefore, some of the strategic plans and comprehensive ordinance
updates in addition to the major development agreements have been prioritized so that
projects can be completed in a timely manner responsive to Council’s direction. Council
directed-research is incorporated into the workplan as appropriate, but based on the
Council’s strategic goals, staff would prioritize work on the creation of housing
incentives on the boulevards and within the Bergamot Plan area. Due to the ongoing
construction in R1 neighborhoods that continues to generate community concern, if
directed by Council, staff could prepare an interim zoning ordinance in short order that
could put in place temporary regulations pending a comprehensive update.
As noted in this report, staff has organized priorities based upon the following
framework:
1. Council adopted Strategic Goals
2. Legally required policy documents
3. Urgency of issue and impact on daily work
23 of 24
Based on this framework, staff has prioritized the Division’s work as described in the
table below, which has been formatted to show a comparison of the Planning
Commission’s recommended priorities. As this table demonstrates, the Pico
Neighborhood Plan is the division’s top strategic planning priority, followed by the
required SB743 Implementation.
City Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Commission Recommendation
1. Pico Neighborhood Plan
1. Pico Neighborhood Plan
2. SB743 Implementation
2. SB743 Implementation
3. Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan 3. Landmarks Ordinance Update
4. Local Coastal Program Update 4. R1 Standards
5. Gateway Master Plan 5. Options to Encourage Housing on the
Boulevards
6. Options to Encourage Housing on the
Boulevards and in the Bergamot area
7. Landmarks Ordinance Update
The remainder of the strategic plans and Council-directed research will be included in
the work plan as capacity allows. In these instances, staff has been reviewing interim
options that might allow bringing forward changes sooner while reserving a larger effort
for subsequent years.
Major developments projects also have a natural stagger however, processing of these
applications requires a significant investment of interdepartmental staff time, time for
environmental review, and community engagement. As all the development
agreements are anticipated to generate public interest, it should be noted that staff
devoted to processing the projects will not be able to devote attention to other potential
priorities, such as the Landmarks Ordinance update.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
24 of 24
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared By: David Martin, Director
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A City Planning Workplan Priorities Schedule
B. Attachment B Housing Projects Map
C. Written Comments
D. Powerpoint
2
02
1
20
18
2
02
0
2
01
9Q1 Q1 Q1-Q2Q2Q2Q3Q3 Q3 - Q4Q4Q4
EIR Public Draft
EIR Public Draft
ARB/Landmarks Float up PC Float up
CC Float up
Scoping Mtg
EIR Public Draft
JWCI/CFYC Permits
Major
Private
Projects
Miramar Hotel
Ocean Ave. Hotel
4th/5th Arizona
Providence St. John’s
PC Hearing PC
PC Hearing PC
PC Hearing PC CC Hearing CC
CC Hearing CC
CC Hearing CC
Policy
& City
Projects
Project Scoping Action Plan Adoption Pursue ImplementationGateway Plan
CITY PLANNING DIVISION MAJOR PROJECT TIMELINE
Ongoing Community Outreach on Vision
VISIONINGPC PCCC CC
2nd Scoping
Meeting
Submit Revised
Project Plans
Community
Meeting
Submit Revised
Project Plans
PC Hearing PC CC Hearing CCEIR Public Review DraftProject Review and Community Benefit Negotiations
Project Review and Community Benefit Negotiations
Project Review and Community Benefit Negotiations
TRADEOFFS COMMUNITY PREFERENCE
SB743
R1 Standards
Landmarks Ord.
Bergamot/Blvd.
Housing
Adoption PC CCUpdate and Calibrate TDFM Ongoing Community Outreach
Develop Guidelines and Thresholds
Memorial Park
Neighborhood
Plan & CEQA
Review Draft Plan Refine and Adopt
Ongoing Community Outreach
PC Hearing PC CC Hearing CC PC CC
EIR PreparationEIR Scope Development
Pico Plan Zoning PC CCCommunity Outreach
Mixed-Use Boulevard Residential DistrictsParking
Initiate
Initiate
Initiate
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ruthann Lehrer <ruthannpreserves@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 6, 2018 2:45 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Tony
Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; councilmtgitems
Cc:David Martin; Jing Yeo
Subject:Item 8A on Jan. 9 agenda
January 6, 2018
Re: Item 8A
Honorable Mayor Winterer and Councilmembers,
This is a plea for your endorsement of the Landmarks Ordinance update as a priority for 2018.
The need for this update has been requested by the Landmarks Commission for well over a decade. There are a
number of items that require clarification, and some impediments for property owners need to be removed. The
Landmarks Commission has worked on their recommendations over the years, so that today there is a framework
for action that is ready to go. Given this background, the demand on planning staff time is relatively small. And,
much of the work will be done by the City Attorney’s office.
I don’t understand why there were no “x” marks in the grid for Policy Plans aligned with Council Strategic Goals
under “inclusive and diverse community” and “learn and thrive.”
In addition, improved historic preservation tools will interface with the Pico Neighborhood Plan, as preservation
will likely be a fundamental principal for this community.
The Planning Commission understood this in their recommendations to you. And the DCP calls for updating the
Landmarks Ordinance as a short-term priority.
Please don’t let this important priority get lost in the shuffle! Remember that historic preservation is a core
community value in the LUCE.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ruthann Lehrer
Item 8-A 01/09/18
1 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Donald Murchie <Murchiedon@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 9:36 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:1/9/18 Agenda Item 8-A
Dear City Council,
We heartily support in principle and content the requested Emergency Interim Ordinance pertaining to oversize
mansions, with specific reference to houses that are:1) out of scale with lot size, 2) diminish privacy and block
the light of neighboring homes and 3) appear repetitive in style and character.
On our block alone (21st St. between Pearl and Ocean Park) there are three such homes recently built by the
same developer. Trying to contact the builder was like a shell game. All three are nearly identical in design,
scale, color, and landscaping (including illegal Mexican feather grass). These buildings are much too large in
proportion to their respective lot size and, usually occupied by small single families. We see an
accelerating tendency for the city to to approve such enormous homes.
We don't object to 2-story homes per se - - there are several on our block, including ours, that are compatible
with one another and don’t use up a majority of the lot. There's a clear difference between these houses and the
developers’ mega-mansions that are overtaking our city, ruining our neighborhood’s character.
Respectfully,
Donald Murchie and Angela de Mott
2338 21st St.
Santa Monica, 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
2 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mikael Kreuzriegler <mikael.kreuz@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:38 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Mikael Kreuzriegler
______________________
MIKAEL KREUZRIEGLER
mikael@kreuzriegler.com
http://www.kreuzriegler.com
Vienna (0664) 335 85 84
Los Angeles (310) 402-3496
Item 8-A 01/09/18
3 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Vikki Smyth <vikki@vikkismyth.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:40 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on the
Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities
in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the
Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff
continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Vikki
Item 8-A 01/09/18
4 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:phyllis donaldson <phyldonaldson@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 7, 2018 5:58 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council 1/9/18 agenda item 8-A
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I support an Emergency Interim Ordinance which would include a modest reduction in lot coverage
for 2-story homes (single story home lot coverage would remain the same), and incentives for
homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes.
30th Street between Pico and Pearl is adding one over-sized rebuilt home after another. Despite
their size, these big homes do not bring in large families. A six-bedroom two-story house next door is
rented to a family of two from Pakistan. That type of occupancy seems to be the norm on our
street. What do investors plan for in the future for these over-sized supposedly one-family buildings?
Charles R. Donaldson
Item 8-A 01/09/18
5 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:nmoreno@steinberginjurylawyers.com
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:33 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you --
Nikki Moreno
Item 8-A 01/09/18
6 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Miles Cotton <miles@santamonicarugby.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:34 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Importance:High
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you –
Miles Cotton
Santa Monica Rugby Club
Get all the latest SMRC apparel at http://shop.santamonicarugby.com
Please support our generous sponsors:
Bud Light: http://www.budlight.com/
Ye Olde King's Head Pub http://www.yeoldekingshead.com/
Canterbury US: http://www.canterburyus.com/
Follow @SaMoRugbyClub on Twitter
Like Santa Monica Rugby Club and Santa Monica Youth Rugby on Facebook
Item 8-A 01/09/18
7 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Vikki Smyth <vikki@vikkismyth.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:40 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on the
Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities
in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the
Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff
continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Vikki
Item 8-A 01/09/18
8 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Martial Chaput <martial.chaput@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:39 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Regards,
Martial Chaput
Item 8-A 01/09/18
9 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nicky Ferguson <nicky.a.ferguson@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:41 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Council Mailbox
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon
as possible.
Thank you --
Nicole Ferguson
Sent from my iPhone
Item 8-A 01/09/18
10 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Doug Mirner <dgmirner@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:42 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Doug Mirner
Item 8-A 01/09/18
11 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Emily Doyle <murphdoyle@me.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:43 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I would like to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report. The
playing fields are important to a large number of families (and voters) in this community.
I respectfully request that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. The idea of
pushing the item off as long as possible in the hopes that the field project will lose support does an
incredible disservice to the community. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields
until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects. Please accelerate the timeline
for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Emily Doyle
Item 8-A 01/09/18
12 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Laurie Charchut <laurie.charchut@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:44 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Laurie and Tom Charchut
Item 8-A 01/09/18
13 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Dominic Riebli <dominic.riebli@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:44 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a concerned and active participant in Santa Monica Youth athletics, I request that the issue of the
Civic Center Field receive attention under Agenda Item 8.A. Please move the Civic Center Sports
Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities.
Sincerely,
Dominic Riebli
Head Coach, Santa Monica Youth Rugby
Director of Rugby, University of Southern California
Item 8-A 01/09/18
14 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kilian Kerwin <kkerwin@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:47 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Kilian Kerwin
3300 Airport Ave #2
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
15 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Dan Flynn <dfflynn@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:47 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Dan Flynn
--
Dan Flynn
(908) 247 9081
Item 8-A 01/09/18
16 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Erica Sin <e.sintastic@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:49 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Erica Sin
Item 8-A 01/09/18
17 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Maryanne LaGuardia <maryanne.laguardia@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:49 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 8A, January 9, 2017
I notice that playing fields are nowhere in the Staff Report for this item. Since we have gotten (of late) repeated
assurances that the Civic Center Field is going forward, its absence from the report concerns me.
We've been down this road before and watched this project get back burnered practically into oblivion until another
resident uprising has to take place to get your attention. My concern, shared by others who have long worked to bring
this field to fruition, is that its absence from official, approved, prioritized Planning Division matters renders it subject to
back burnering yet again.
This isn't paranoia. It is two decades of experience speaking. The Civic Center field should specifically be on that list.
Thank You,
Maryanne LaGuardia
Item 8-A 01/09/18
18 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Maria Zepeda <mzepeda@jppusa.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:50 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez;
gleam.davis@smgov.ne; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
MARIA ZEPEDA
Item 8-A 01/09/18
19 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:AnitaMarie Laurie <AnitaMarie@sitrick.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:52 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond (well beyond the original 2 year old timetable)
while Staff continues to work on other projects that voters have not prioritized. Please accelerate the
timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Anita-Marie Laurie
Homeowner
Anita-Marie Laurie
Sitrick And Company
11999 San Vicente Blvd., Penthouse
Los Angeles, CA 90049
310.788.2850 office
310.663.3036 mobile
anitamarie@sitrick.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
20 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:LYDIA MURARO <lydiamuraro@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:53 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Lydia Muraro
--
Lydia Muraro
(818) 216-7378 mobile
(310) 394-7114 home
Item 8-A 01/09/18
21 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Andrew Warne <ausfrog@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:54 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Andrew Warne
Item 8-A 01/09/18
22 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Joe Walsh <golfwallah@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:54 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Kindest regards,
Joe Walsh
Item 8-A 01/09/18
23 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Archie Galbraith <archiegalbraith@hotmail.co.uk>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:56 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Item Missing from Agenda Item:8A, City Council Meeting: January9, 2018
Dear City Council:
I am aware that the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond are subject to discussion in the
above mentioned Council Meeting. It seems that the Staff Report which guides this discussion has
omitted mention of the provision of community playing fields. This omission will allow for the continued
delay and obfuscation of this issue as current commitments are open to re-prioritization and change
before the proposed 2021 delivery date of publicly available playing fields.
As a Youth Coach at Santa Monica Rugby Club I recruit, train and support children in this area from the
ages of 7 to 17 to engage in organized sports activities. The lack of suitable facilities within the city of
Santa Monica means that we have had to relocate our activities to Playa Vista.
We are making an effort to promote Santa Monica based community activities for children of all genders,
races and economic positions in the area. The provision of suitable playing fields is crucial to not just the
children involved and their parents, but to the strength of the diverse community of Santa Monica. We
have had to ask our members to travel outside the area on a regular basis. When we invite other
communities to play rugby, we have to tell them that the City of Santa Monica cannot accommodate them
- we are a Santa Monica youth program with no "home" in Santa Monica.
Please reconsider the priorities of this Agenda Item to include the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial
Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site. Accelerating the delivery date of these
developments will be a significant improvement for the 100's of Santa Monica residents that are involved
in Santa Monica Rugby Club.
Regards,
Archie Galbraith
Item 8-A 01/09/18
24 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Karen M Fisher <karen@fisherdesigncompany.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Council Meeting Item 8.A. - Playing Fields
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing
fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields
until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you!
Regards,
Karen
*****
Karen M. Fisher
2325 27th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405 M 310-600-1040
Item 8-A 01/09/18
25 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Andrew Browning <ahb3@me.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:00 AM
To:Maryanne Laguardia
Cc:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:Re: Item 8A, January 9, 2017
Hi All,
I am in agreement with Maryanne Laguardia.
While we have seen the timeline from the City Manager’s office, not seeing it in the list of planning priorities
(even if only as a matter of course) is concerning. The field sports community has accepted that the City is
earnestly moving forward with the field and by adding it to the list of priorities we can more easily continue
along those lines with confidence.
Warm regards,
Andrew Browning
On Jan 8, 2018, at 10:49 AM, Maryanne LaGuardia <maryanne.laguardia@gmail.com> wrote:
I notice that playing fields are nowhere in the Staff Report for this item. Since we have gotten
(of late) repeated assurances that the Civic Center Field is going forward, its absence from the
report concerns me.
We've been down this road before and watched this project get back burnered practically into
oblivion until another resident uprising has to take place to get your attention. My concern,
shared by others who have long worked to bring this field to fruition, is that its absence from
official, approved, prioritized Planning Division matters renders it subject to back burnering yet
again.
This isn't paranoia. It is two decades of experience speaking. The Civic Center field should
specifically be on that list.
Thank You,
Maryanne LaGuardia
Item 8-A 01/09/18
26 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Paul Spacey | FC England <paul@fcengland.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:00 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you
Paul
(on behalf of 300+ players and parents at our Santa Monica based club)
Paul Spacey
Director of Coaching
(310) 403‐7166
www.FCEngland.Com
Non‐Profit 501(c)(3) Youth Soccer Club
Item 8-A 01/09/18
27 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:leisle bartley <leisle.bartley@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:02 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Leisle Bartley
Item 8-A 01/09/18
28 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Robert Hacker <bobbyhacker@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:02 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9. 2018 - Agenda Item: 8A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Robert A. Hacker
Item 8-A 01/09/18
29 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Brad Segal <bradsegal11@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:03 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
I am a parent of 3 kids all whom grew up in Santa Monica. We have participated in many of the different sports that use the
fields, specifically baseball and softball. I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond and
cannot believe that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report. Especially since this keeps kids busy,
engaged and out of trouble.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on
the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while
Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both
sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you
Brad Segal
1337 Hill Street,
SM CA 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
30 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Wendy Dembo <dembo@sprynet.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:05 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
I am writing you, yet again! When will you realize that the Civic Center Field is important to your
constituents? I have written. I have gone to meetings. I have had my daughter stay up way past her
bedtime to go to Council meetings to make sure that we get a Civic Center field as promised. Our
children need a field! And you have promised again and again that we will get one. But yet again, I
am writing to you again.
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
With regret and great concern,
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica resident and voter
2021 California Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 8-A 01/09/18
31 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Russ Goodman <RGOODMAN@Sares-Regis.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:06 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:FW: [SMRC Golden Dolphins] URGENT - Council Meeting Item 8.A. - City Council
Please Prioritize Playing Fields!
Importance:High
Russell A. Goodman
Partner
SARES‐REGIS Group
rgoodman@sares‐regis.com
(805) 604‐7101
996 S. SEAWARD AVENUE
VENTURA, CA 93001
City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Russell Goodman
Founding member of Santa Monica Rugby Club 1973 and still active.
The Club continues to make a great contribution to the health and happiness of Santa Monica’s youth and young adults
Get all the latest SMRC apparel at http://shop.santamonicarugby.com
Please support our generous sponsors:
Bud Light: http://www.budlight.com/
Item 8-A 01/09/18
32 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Ye Olde King's Head Pub http://www.yeoldekingshead.com/
Canterbury US: http://www.canterburyus.com/
Follow @SaMoRugbyClub on Twitter
Like Santa Monica Rugby Club and Santa Monica Youth Rugby on Facebook
--
Get all the latest SMRC apparel at http://shop.santamonicarugby.com
Please support our generous sponsors:
Bud Light: http://www.budlight.com/
Ye Olde King's Head Pub http://www.yeoldekingshead.com/
Canterbury US: http://www.canterburyus.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "smrc-golden-dolphins" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to smrc-golden-
dolphins+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to smrc-golden-dolphins@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/smrc-golden-
dolphins/003201d388af%249bab5e70%24d3021b50%24%40santamonicarugby.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
33 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Shawn Lee <slee8888@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:06 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Cheers
Shawn Lee
Item 8-A 01/09/18
34 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steve Rogers <mooserogers@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:11 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting January 9 2018 -- Agenda Item 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures,
we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but
notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do
not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for
completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Steve Rogers
1123 Stanford St
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 8-A 01/09/18
35 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Warner <warnerejsj@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:11 AM
To:Ted Winterer; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez;
Kevin McKeown Fwd; councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Warner
Item 8-A 01/09/18
36 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Costas Philippou <cosph@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:16 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you
Costas Philippou
Item 8-A 01/09/18
37 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jainee Eccleston <nolongerje@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:17 AM
To:Ted Winterer; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue
Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Cc:David Martin; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; rickcole@smgov.net
Subject:Please prioritize the playing fields at the Civic Center
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing
and procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018
and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of
priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top
priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and
beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you --
Jainee Eccleston
Item 8-A 01/09/18
38 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
9HUQLFH+DQNLQV
)URP -DLQHH(FFOHVWRQ QRORQJHUMH#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW 0RQGD\-DQXDU\ $0
7R 7HG:LQWHUHU FRXQFLOPWJLWHPV .HYLQ0F.HRZQ)ZG 7RQ\9D]TXH] *OHDP'DYLV 6XH
+LPPHOULFK 3DP2&RQQRU 7HUU\2·'D\
&F 'DYLG0DUWLQ .DUHQ*LQVEHUJ 6XVDQ&OLQH ULFNFROH#VPJRYQHW
6XEMHFW 3OHDVHSULRULWL]HWKHSOD\LQJILHOGVDWWKH&LYLF&HQWHU
5H &LW\&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ -DQXDU\ $JHQGD,WHP $
'HDU&LW\&RXQFLO
$VUHVLGHQWVWDNHKROGHUVLQ6DQWD0RQLFDGLUHFWO\DIIHFWHGE\FKDQJHVLQSROLF\WLPLQJ
DQGSURFHGXUHVZHZDQWWRFRPPHQWRQWKH3ODQQLQJ'LYLVLRQOLVWRISULRULWLHVIRU
DQGEH\RQG:HFRXOGQ¶WKHOSEXWQRWLFHWKDWSOD\LQJILHOGVDUHQRZKHUHLQWKHOLVWRI
SULRULWLHVLQWKH6WDII5HSRUW
:HDUHDVNLQJWKDW&RXQFLOLQVWUXFW6WDIIWRPRYHWKH&LYLF&HQWHU6SRUWV)LHOGDQGWKH
0HPRULDO3DUNH[SDQVLRQRIGLDPRQGVRQWKH)LVKHU/XPEHU6LWHWRWRS
SULRULWLHV([LVWLQJWLPHOLQHVIRUWKHVHSURMHFWVZRXOGQ¶WUHVXOWLQILHOGVXQWLODQG
EH\RQGZKLOH6WDIIFRQWLQXHVWRZRUNRQRWKHUSURMHFWVWKDWZHGRQRWFRQVLGHUWREHDV
LPSRUWDQW3OHDVHDFFHOHUDWHWKHWLPHOLQHIRUERWKVSRUWVILHOGSURMHFWVIRUFRPSOHWLRQDV
VRRQDVSRVVLEOH
7KDQN\RX
-DLQHH(FFOHVWRQ
Item 8-A 01/09/18
39 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:robbie sikora <rs@robbiesikora.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:17 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, I want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of
priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on
the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while
Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both
sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you
robbie sikora
Gibson International
m: 310.710.5214
o: 310.622.7414
CalBRE# 01410979
Item 8-A 01/09/18
40 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ofer Grossman <ofergro@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:18 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, I
would like to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion
of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in
fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
While this may not be a project that produces significant tax revenue or is of import to the many developers
who seem to be able to get the Planning Division’s attention and priority on a regular basis his is an important
issue to residents of the City. Those who live here and vote here. I urge you to act on this project now, so as
to dispel the image that residents have that they come second to the special interests that seem to be able to
drive the City’s agenda.
Please prioritize this project.
Thank you --
Ofer Grossman
1115 Hill Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
41 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jason L. Rapp <jason.rapp@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:20 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Last year, Mayor Winterer threw out the first pitch of the season for Pony Baseball, which now seems like an empty gesture considering the
lack of action and priority placed by the City on sports fields. Please prioritize the building of a new field at the Civic Center and
expanding the fields at Memorial Park.
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on the
Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities
in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the
Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff
continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Jason Rapp
714 21st Place
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 8-A 01/09/18
42 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Brett Henderson <bhenderson3053@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:21 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Brett Henderson
Item 8-A 01/09/18
43 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Joanne Forsyth <joanneforsyth@bhmove.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:22 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Joanne Forsyth
Item 8-A 01/09/18
44 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:David Edward <dce@ojaioil.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:23 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible
Once you install the fields, the kids can start using them but they can never use them so long as the
fields are blocked with one delay after another. It just needs to get done.
Thank you.
David Edward
Item 8-A 01/09/18
45 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:carpio.daniel.a@gmail.com on behalf of Daniel A. Carpio <carpio@dunnpi.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:28 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Council Meeting Item 8.A.
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
--
Daniel A. Carpio, Esq.
Dunn, Carpio & Turner
854 Pico Blvd.,
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Carpio@dunnpi.com
Office: (310) 393-2769
Fax: (310) 396-7575
This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or
other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your
system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message
containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of
this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
46 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:sonya stepanovich <sonyastep@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:29 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you —
Sonya Stepanovich
Item 8-A 01/09/18
47 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:31 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
From: sonya stepanovich [mailto:sonyastep@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 11:29 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET>; Kevin
McKeown Fwd <kevin@mckeown.net>; Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis
<Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor
<Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Karen Ginsberg <Karen.Ginsberg@SMGOV.NET>; Susan Cline
<Susan.Cline@SMGOV.NET>; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 ‐ Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you —
Sonya Stepanovich
Item 8-A 01/09/18
48 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Playing field
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Lisa Johansson Wessel [mailto:lisaneil1@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 11:23 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Kevin McKeown Fwd <kevin@mckeown.net>; Gleam Davis
<Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>;
Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Playing field
Dear Council
Please prioritize the moving forward of the playing field at the Civic Center.
Santa Monica College gets their Early Childhood Lab at the Civic Center. Why? It seems there would be so many other
places they could have the child care facility.
Samohi needs a playing field. Samohi is right across from the Civic Center. Why is this such a struggle? Why was the plan
for the playing field not submitted to the Costal commission at the same time as the child hood lab and City Hall building
were?
Please do the right thing. Make the playing field happen.
Thank You
Lisa Johansson
Santa Monica City Citizen
Item 8-A 01/09/18
49 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steve Friedman <sfriedman@kohlbm.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:36 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Fields for our children and community
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
If you have any children that play sports of any kind you must know that field space is a huge problem. You
have the abilities now to create for more field space.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you --
Steven Friedman
508 Ashland Ave
Santa Monica
Item 8-A 01/09/18
50 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Seve Woods <sevewoods@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:41 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Seve Woods
Item 8-A 01/09/18
51 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Guido Scassellati Sforzolini <scassell@usc.edu>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:42 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; Rick Cole
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Guido Scassellati Sforzolini
Item 8-A 01/09/18
52 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:44 AM
To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Gleam Davis
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: City Council 1/9/18 agenda item 8-A
Council –
Please see the email below regarding item 8a.
Best,
Estefania
From: phyllis donaldson [mailto:phyldonaldson@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 7, 2018 6:00 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: City Council 1/9/18 agenda item 8‐A
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I support an Emergency Interim Ordinance which would include a modest reduction in lot coverage
for 2-story homes (single story home lot coverage would remain the same), and incentives for
homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes.
30th Street between Pico and Pearl is adding one over-sized rebuilt home after another. Despite
their size, these big homes do not bring in large families. A six-bedroom two-story house next door is
rented to a family of two from Pakistan. That type of occupancy seems to be the norm on our
street. What do investors plan for in the future for these over-sized supposedly one-family buildings?
Charles R. Donaldson
Item 8-A 01/09/18
53 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Hank Antosz <hank@simpartners.net>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Playing fields at the Civic Center
Dear Elected Officials, I hope as representatives of the families of Santa Monica you will realize the importance of no
longer delaying and will prioritize the playing fields at the Civic Center. Shouldn’t the families and the health and well
being of the children be a top priority not special construction interests?
Item 8-A 01/09/18
54 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:rachel@unixindustriesinc.com
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:12 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you
Rachel Hsu
__________________________________
Rachel W. Hsu
Unix Industries, Inc.
301 Arizona Ave. Ste. 304
Santa Monica, CA 90401
U.S.A.
310-395-1494 Phone
310-395-0502 Fax
310-383-5988 Mobile
www.unixindustriesinc.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
55 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Robert Cleere <cleererob@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:17 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Rob.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
56 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Hoover <annkbowman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:18 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer;
Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Tony Vazquez
Cc:Rick Cole; David Martin; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; Ruth Fragoso; John Cyrus Smith;
Albin Gielicz; Deborah Cohen; Lori Brown; Kurt Schwengel; Maryanne LaGuardia; Alan
Toy 2
Subject:January 9, 2017 City Council Meeting - Item 8.A.
Dear Mayor Winterer and City Council Members --
As you know, Civic Center Field advocates are contacting you today to remind you that the Civic Center Field
and the diamonds at Memorial Park are tip top priorities for many in our community. Accordingly, we were
disappointed not to see the Civic Center Field on the Planning Department priorities list for your consideration
and discussion tomorrow evening.
If the field was not included/agendized for your discussion tomorrow, we hope that was merely an oversight as,
like the field, a number of projects on the list are already in progress.
Although the Civic Center Field has a timetable and the project technically falls under the purview of
Community and Cultural Services, the situation is more complex than that and, in addition to public works
involvement, planning is involved as well because of parking issues and the other projects going on in
the immediate area, e.g., the Early Childhood Lab School and the new City Services
Building. Planning, in fact, is taking the lead on interfacing with the Coastal Commission vis a vis
approval for the field, is involved along with public works with an amendment to the Civic Center
Specific Plan pertaining to the field, and is responsible for overall planning of that area, which has
many moving parts. Several of the projects on the list for your consideration have the potential to
impact the field and, bottom line, prioritization of other projects within any of these departments
impacts field projects because staff resources are finite.
Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate to comment on fields as a priority for planning at this time
and ask Council please to not oversimplify this issue for our community.
In addition, as we have expressed before at all key junctures, we truly are grateful to Council, to Staff
and to City Manager Cole for the progress made to date on the Civic Center Field. May it continue on
to completion as soon as possible, possibly with an expedited timetable as we discussed late last
year with staff. In the meantime, we thank you wholeheartedly for all you have done so far and for all
you will continue to do to help bring this field to fruition.
And, as we have offered many times in the past, please don't hesitate to reach out if we may be of assistance in
any way.
Thank you again and best wishes --
Ann Hoover
Co-Chair, SAMOHI PTSA Civic Center Task Force
Item 8-A 01/09/18
57 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Item 8-A 01/09/18
58 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Rob Cleere <mensrecruitment@santamonicarugby.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:19 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Rob.
Get all the latest SMRC apparel at http://shop.santamonicarugby.com
Please support our generous sponsors:
Bud Light: http://www.budlight.com/
Ye Olde King's Head Pub http://www.yeoldekingshead.com/
Canterbury US: http://www.canterburyus.com/
Follow @SaMoRugbyClub on Twitter
Like Santa Monica Rugby Club and Santa Monica Youth Rugby on Facebook
Item 8-A 01/09/18
59 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kathy Kane <kathykane@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:20 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you —
Kathy Cody
6th Street, Santa Monica.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
60 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:John Turner <john.c.turner.04@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:30 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, I want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of
priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on
the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while
Staff continues to work on other projects that I do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports
field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
John Turner
Item 8-A 01/09/18
61 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Gerry Haker <ghaker@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Civic Field
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you --
Gerry, Ken and Lorenzo Haker
Item 8-A 01/09/18
62 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Victoria <vicsonn@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:45 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Victoria Robinson
Item 8-A 01/09/18
63 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:mrm924@verizon.net
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:51 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on the
Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities
in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the
Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff
continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Monica Moore- native resident of Santa Monica
Item 8-A 01/09/18
64 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sarah Taylor <sarah.taylor01@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:52 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Sarah Taylor
Item 8-A 01/09/18
65 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Joseph Matarazzi <jmatarazzi@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:56 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council,
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, I want
to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I couldn’t help but notice that
playing fields are nowhere on the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion
of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in
fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that I do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Joseph Matarazzi
Item 8-A 01/09/18
66 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Iain Herriott <Iain.Herriott@arup.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:09 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you
Iain Herriott
Iain Herriott
Mechanical | Engineer
Arup
12777 West Jefferson Boulevard Suite 100 Building D Los Angeles CA 90066 USA
t: +1 310 578 4400 d: +1-310-578 2893
www.arup.com
Explore innovation in the built environment on Doggerel
Arup makes Fortune’s list of companies that “Change the World”
____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for viruses and acceptability of content
Item 8-A 01/09/18
67 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Robin McCallum <robinmccallum@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Council Mailbox
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Robin McCallum
Item 8-A 01/09/18
68 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Daniel Hobbs <daniel@hobbs.nu>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:13 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial
Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Daniel Hobbs
Item 8-A 01/09/18
69 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Emad Hashim <emadbusiness@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:28 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Emad Hashim
Item 8-A 01/09/18
70 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Riaz Fredericks <mensheadcoach@santamonicarugby.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:38 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you
--
Riaz Fredericks
Head Coach
310-4306674
Santa Monica Rugby Club
Get all the latest SMRC apparel at http://shop.santamonicarugby.com
Please support our generous sponsors:
Bud Light: http://www.budlight.com/
Ye Olde King's Head Pub http://www.yeoldekingshead.com/
Canterbury US: http://www.canterburyus.com/
Follow @SaMoRugbyClub on Twitter
Like Santa Monica Rugby Club and Santa Monica Youth Rugby on Facebook
Item 8-A 01/09/18
71 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nick Rucka <tetsu_jin@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:44 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Nicholas Rucka
Item 8-A 01/09/18
72 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Matt Edelman <matt.e.edelman@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:48 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields
are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Best,
Matt
_______________
Matt Edelman
(310) 770‐7194
Item 8-A 01/09/18
73 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steven Bagnara <sbagnara@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 2:44 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg;
Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Steve Bagnara
DGA Asst. Director
310-308-2113 Cell
ichat/email: sbagnara@gmail.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
74 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jonny Gray <Jonathan.Gray@controlrisks.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 2:49 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Signed By:Jonathan.Gray@controlrisks.com
Dear City Council
As a stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, I
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I couldn’t help but
notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that are not considered to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
The fact that the City cannot provide sufficient playing fields for the residents and their children is a
major concern. For example, Santa Monica Rugby Club has never been able play its “home” games
in Santa Monica. It is a D1 club of which the city should be proud and supportive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Rugby_Club
Santa Monica United has to play most of its “home” soccer games outside of Santa Monica.
So this is a sad state of affairs which could be rectified tomorrow.
With best wishes
Jonny
Jonny Gray
Senior Partner
Control Risks
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: +1 213 996 7576
Mob: +1 213 400 8853
controlrisks.com – the specialist risk consultancy | creating secure, compliant and resilient organizations | resolving critical issues and crises |
providing insight and intelligence to realize opportunities
Connect with us: LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube | Instagram | Facebook | WeChat
This email contains confidential information intended for the use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email,
please notify the sender and delete the information from your system.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
75 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Item 8-A 01/09/18
76 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:James Duncan <jwalterduncanv@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 2:51 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
James Duncan
Item 8-A 01/09/18
77 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Thane Roberts <robertsthane@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 2:58 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Thane Roberts AIA
SM Resident & SMa.r.t. Member
Item 8-A 01/09/18
78 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steven Johnson <swjohnsonla@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 3:01 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Planning Priorities and Playing Fields
"Our beliefs and our attention are the same fact."
-- William James
The "City Planning Division Priorities" submission (Agenda Item: 8.A for January 9) makes no specific
mention of the sports fields development at Memorial Park, nor the sports field at the Civic Center.
This seems like an important missing couple of details, because the Planning document does mention the
Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan, and the Gateway Master Plan is inclusive of Samohi and the Civic Center.
The most important part of the Memorial Park Neighborhood is the park itself, so leaving out any mention of
the expansion and development of playing fields at that location risks losing sight of that priority.
As well, any Gateway and Civic Center planning prioritization document that leaves out the long-promised
Civic Center field, feels like an intentional effort to de-prioritize or eliminate this requirement.
Santa Monica should be accountable to its current residents FIRST.
Much of the priority of this Planning document feels like projects to benefit developers, business and non-
residents.
To keep faith with the children of Santa Monica, and to put residents first, please explicitly include the playing
fields near the top of the list of planning priorities.
"Out of sight, out of mind. The absent are always wrong."
-- Thomas à Kempis
If the fields are not called out specifically in the prioritization document, then clearly you are saying they are
not a priority.
Thank you.
Steven Johnson
1740 Pine St., Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
79 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Mary Durst <edurst@usc.edu>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 3:45 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; tony.vasquez@smgov.net;
Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures,
we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but
notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do
not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion
as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Elizabeth Durst
___________________________
Elizabeth Durst, PhD
Assistant Professor (Teaching)
The Writing Program
University of Southern California
Item 8-A 01/09/18
80 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Michelle Demeo <michelledemeo@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 4:19 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Michelle Sikora
310 913 0623
Item 8-A 01/09/18
81 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:W Dean Wallace <pdewallace@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 4:21 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg;
Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Importance:High
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I was
informed that playing fields are not in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am joining my fellow residents in asking that Council request Staff to move the Civic Center Sports
Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top
priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while
Staff continue to work on other projects that may not be as important. I ask that you please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Dean Wallace
2424 31st Street
Item 8-A 01/09/18
82 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Vitaly V. Kresin <kresin@usc.edu>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 4:22 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
It has been brought to the attention of Civic Center Sports Field supporters like myself that there is a
highly unfortunate omission on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond: the playing
fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
Please instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. If you, as City Council Members, consider these
to be highly important to the residents of the city, the City Staff should be instructed accordingly.
Conversely, if you find that there is no need to adjust the Report's priority list, that will be direct
admission by you to the residents that, despite many words and resolutions, your true priorities lie
somewhere very different.
As the existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond, an
acquiescence to the Staff concentrating only on other projects would speak volumes about your true
commitment to the promised field. To correct this, please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Vitaly Kresin
Santa Monica
Item 8-A 01/09/18
83 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Muir, Boyd <Boyd.Muir@umusic.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 4:26 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council,
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I would like to ask that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial
Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond. while Staff continue to work on other projects
that are not as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion
as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Boyd Muir
Item 8-A 01/09/18
84 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:RICHARD LANER <rlranch9@att.net>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 4:45 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Please send to:
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Richard Laner
Item 8-A 01/09/18
85 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Joe Nuccio <joenuccio@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 5:02 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council Members,
I am a third‐generation Santa Monica resident and father of a fourth‐generation daughter, who is a 7th grader at JAMS.
We've participated and volunteered in multiple youth sport programs through‐out the city for many years and will
continue to do so for the rest of our lifetimes.
That our community needs more sports playing fields is, as I understand it, a fact generally accepted by the City Council
and resident community.
Please know the need is acute, and do whatever you can to accelerate some relief in the form of the proposed Civic
Center Sport Field.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joe Nuccio
714 Lincoln Blvd 90402
joenuccio@gmail.com
310‐266‐6817
Item 8-A 01/09/18
86 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Shine <ktshine@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 5:09 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Jeff Shine
Item 8-A 01/09/18
87 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Chuck Hoover <chuck.hoover@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 5:09 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a Santa Monica resident directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, I want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I noticed that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
Please instruct Planning staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in
fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Also, Planning staff should be instructed to work with CCS and public works to accelerate the
timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you very much for all the progress to date on the Civic Center Sports Field. I look forward to its
completion and are very grateful for your continued support of this project.
Thank you --
Chuck Hoover
Item 8-A 01/09/18
88 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Katharine Dreyfuss <kitdreyfuss@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 5:37 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Fwd: URGENT - Council Meeting Item 8.A. - Please ask City Council to Prioritize Playing
Fields!
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Katharine Dreyfuss]
Item 8-A 01/09/18
89 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:J <jruud@bmbuildersla.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 6:16 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
John Ruud
Santa Monica Resident
U‐18 Head Coach, Santa Monica Youth Rugby
BM Builders / BMG
M: 310‐418‐3092
www.bmbuildersla.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
90 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steven Nevius <stevennevius@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 6:31 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Steven Nevius
"The Magicians" Picture Editor
Mobile: 310-490-2248
stevennevius@gmail.com
www.stevenneviuseditor.com
..
..
¸. ><(((*>
¸•`
≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈
¸.•*`) .˚
¸.•´ ( ¸.•´
..
.. do something new.
..
Item 8-A 01/09/18
91 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Diane Watanabe <dianewatanabe@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 6:35 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Council Meeting Item 8.A.
Re: City Council Meeting January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a 30-year resident and stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in
policy, timing and procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of
priorities for 2018 and beyond. The playing fields are not in the list of priorities in the
Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top
priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and
beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Diane Watanabe
Diane Watanabe
O: (310) 434-4314
C: (310) 779-7286
Item 8-A 01/09/18
92 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mike Crawford <michaelroycrawford@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 6:56 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
This is getting ridiculous. How many years do we need to wait for a promised field? Kids could be playing sports there today.
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Mike Crawford
2132 21st St Santa Monica
Item 8-A 01/09/18
93 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Danny Guggenheim <dbg20cu@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:01 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica with 2 girls going through SMMUSD, I am directly affected by
changes in policy, timing and procedures, so want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for
2018 and beyond - in particular, the absence of playing fields from the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
On behalf of my family, I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 (or likely beyond, if this continues to be ignored as a priority),
which is not appropriate or fair to us residents and our kids given the delay to date. Please accelerate the
timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Danny Guggenheim
2614 31st Street, SM, CA 90405
(310) 890-0346
Item 8-A 01/09/18
94 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Marc Stcherbina <marcstitch@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:12 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you and kind regards,
Marc Stcherbina
2210 3rd St, Apt 111
Santa Monica CA, 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
95 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Cheryl Clark <ccspygirls@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:13 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Importance:High
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Cheryl Clark
2450 25th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
96 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Brian Lawlor <brianlawlor3@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:23 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline
Subject:Playing Fields
Dear City Council,
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Brian Lawlor
SMRC House Captain
(617) 413-8656
Item 8-A 01/09/18
97 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:John Mosley <jlmosley@bu.edu>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:44 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
John Mosley
Item 8-A 01/09/18
98 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Paige Bombacie <paigelbombacie@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:45 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
--
Paige Bombacie
Item 8-A 01/09/18
99 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Michael Young <mikeyoungtv@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:48 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Mike Young
733 Hill Street,
Santa Monica,
90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
100 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jason O Mara <omaramail@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 8:09 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Jason O’Mara
U14 Youth Coach, Santa Monica Rugby Club
Item 8-A 01/09/18
101 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jane Wall <walljane@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 8:26 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Susan Cline; David Martin; karen.ginsburg@smgov.net
Subject:URGENT - Council Meeting Item 8.A. - Please City Council Prioritize Playing Fields!
Thank jane
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and
beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the
Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing
timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues
to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the
timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Jane Rainsford
Item 8-A 01/09/18
102 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
January 6, 2018 City Council 1685 Main Street Santa Monica CA 90401 Re: City Planning Priorities Dear Mayor and City Council, A public discussion of city planning priorities is simply good governance and I am pleased to be part of the discussion. As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing, and procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond.
Neighborhoods:
First priority should be plans that affect neighborhoods. The LUCE places protecting neighborhoods as a primary focus of all planning efforts. Sadly, since the LUCE was approved in 2010, there has been little focus on neighborhoods that was initiated by the Planning department. The San Vicente historic district protecting courtyards apartments and condos was brought forward by grassroots neighbors. Likewise, residents are asking for a revision and downsizing of R1 zoning standards in light of the growing size of new and remodeled homes throughout the city. The need for special zoning for the Pico neighborhood was raised during the Zoning update in 2014 because of the accelerating tear downs of older affordable homes and apartments, which displaced residents unable to afford higher rents, and replacement with expensive condos and apartments near the Expo line. Commercial intrusion into neighborhoods is a disturbing trend. Former apartment buildings in Wilmont have been and seek conversion into boutique hotels and private schools in Mid-Cities and Pico neighborhoods disrupt traffic and quiet enjoyment of homes nearby. The Pico Zoning District and Memorial Park Neighborhood Plans, which include an update of R1 development standards, should be first priorities for Planning Division, Planning Commission, and City Council. These neighborhood plans and the R1 development standards work together to protect neighborhood character and retain affordable housing. R1 development standards are integral parts of neighborhood planning in both the Pico and Memorial Park neighborhoods, which are at immediate risk of losing affordable housing along with neighborhood
Item 8-A 01/09/18
103 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
character. Work on these plans should begin immediately. This fits with the
inclusive and diverse community priority. Mobility:
We need traffic and parking plan. We have a bike plan and a pedestrian plan, but no overall plan for the cars, buses, deliveries and ride share. Surveys of residents have underlined the need for a comprehensive traffic plan. The implementation of SB743 is needed for the traffic impacts analysis in required environmental reports and is directly related to the mobility priority. This work has already begun with the hiring of consultants in 2017 and won't require city staff until at least the third quarter on 2018 and continue into 2019. State guidelines are not yet developed and implementation is unlikely for the next couple of years. SB 743 may be a part of this overarching plan, but should not be a priority over it. This work dovetails with the council priority of mobility. Ordinance Updates: Third, the Downtown Specific Plan highlighted the need for an update to the
Landmarks Ordinance because so many potential landmarks are in its boundaries. This ordinance dates back to 1976 and the time is ripe for a much-needed update that should begin by midyear 2018 to avoid losing potential landmark structures. A draft landmarks ordinance was completed, but not acted on 10 years ago, which may help move the process along quickly. Residents have asked city planners for over two years to create an ordinance that
would eliminate waivers, variances and CIP exceptions where property
owners have not honored existing Development Agreements, Transportation
Demand regulations or other city agreements. The problem is known and city planners can surely finish their input to the city attorney in the first quarter of this year if council sees this as a priority. The Local Coastal Program has been in process for the past two years with a first quarter 2018 release date for the Land Use Plan, which will be followed by the coastal zoning ordinance. The city has worked well with the Coastal Commission for the past 20 years without an implementation plan and there is no reason to complete this ordinance ahead of Pico, Memorial, Landmarks or other pressing ordinances. Since the Bergamot Area Plan was adopted in 2013 and the Zoning updates for
boulevards in 2015, these projects are a low priority. Housing development in these areas may be slower because of the recent rush to build near the Expo line downtown. According to the pending projects list associated with the December 13 Staff Report there are 18 residential mixed use projects in the downtown area compared with 7 similar residential developments on the boulevards and 1
Item 8-A 01/09/18
104 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
residential project in Bergamot. It is too early to tell if the boulevards or Bergamot need further incentives. Missing Priorities: A playing field at the civic center has been part of the civic center plan since 2005, yet newer projects (ECLS and the new city services building have taken planning priority. The current plan anticipates 4 years before a field may be constructed; this timeline pushes a simple field behind more complicated projects unnecessarily. The Need for more open space in the form of actual parkland has been pushed back ignoring the fact that Santa Monica has one of the lowest open space ratios in Los Angeles County. A possible park bond has been tabled in favor of a city services bond. Parks and open space need to be considered and prioritized as we move forward, especially on projects on public land Development decisions made by a 4 to 3 vote of council continue to be a problem. The proposed super majority of 5 to 7 will not fix the roots of the problem. Residents are overwhelmed by developers’ access to council members and individual special interests seeking developer dollars. This is the basis of the toxic divide over development in the city. Residents want a vote on projects on public
land, a basic tenet of democracy.
Development Agreements: Last priority is major development agreements, which require significant planning and legal staff time and involve community meetings and environmental reports. These projects asking for custom contracts with the city are by design a long-term process. The four hotels pending on the planning project list voluntarily held back on resubmitting plans for several years (4-7). St. John’s hospital asked more time to complete plans first submitted twenty years ago (1998). These projects should only take staff time after the other priorities are in process. It is important to note that according to the 2017-2019-city budget, the city-planning department had 26 full time planning employees with an additional 20 employees working on mobility. In addition, city planning uses consultants extensively in developing plans, ordinances and traffic strategies. I think the workload of plans and updates is within their capability and look forward to working with them to improve Santa Monica’s quality of life for residents, employees, and tourists. Sincerely, Mary Marlow Ocean Park Resident
Item 8-A 01/09/18
105 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Cc: Rick Cole, City Manager Planning Commission David Martin, Planning Director Lane Dilg, City Attorney
Item 8-A 01/09/18
106 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Anne Saldo <annesaldo@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 8:57 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com; deargerald99@gmail.com
Subject:City Council 1/9/18 agenda item 8-A
Attachments:Emergency Interim Ordinance.pdf
Gerald & Anne Saldo
1004 Wilson Place
Santa Monica, CA 90405
January 8, 2018
Santa Monica City Council
Re: City Council 1/09/18 Agenda Item 8‐A
Honorable City Council Members:
We are in support of the Emergency Interim Ordinance requested by the NOMA and FOSP Boards, and concur
that it should include the following considerations:
1) A modest reduction in lot coverage for 2‐story homes.
2) Incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes.
We are concerned about the increasing number of demolition permits and over‐sized, over‐priced houses
being constructed in Santa Monica. We are alarmed by the upsized mansions where rent‐controlled
bungalows and modest family homes once existed. We are not anti‐redevelopment. We applaud the
maintenance and renewal of the neighborhoods ‐ in an orderly and thoughtful manner. However, we see
speculators come in and build gigantic homes which not only loom over their neighbors but also drive up
property prices far beyond affordable limits. Time and again, we see LUCE variances being approved despite
citizen concerns.
We do not think that developers will lose interest in Santa Monica any time soon, and we believe that they
should be held to high standards which will support community wellbeing. We urge the City Council to adopt
the Emergency Interim Ordinance. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gerald & Anne Saldo
Item 8-A 01/09/18
107 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Cc: Board, FOSP
Item 8-A 01/09/18
108 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jamie Dunham <jamie.dunham@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 9:06 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing
and procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018
and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of
priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing
timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff
continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Jamie Dunham
Item 8-A 01/09/18
109 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mark Ruvelson <groovyruvy1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 9:41 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon
as possible.
Thank you,
Mark Ruvelson
Item 8-A 01/09/18
110 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Peter Mao <peter.mao@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:49 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Peter Mao
1115 20th St. #2
90403
Item 8-A 01/09/18
111 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sonja Berrios <sonja.berrios@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:49 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that I do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects
for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Sonja Berrios
Item 8-A 01/09/18
112 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jonathan Berrios <jonathan.berrios@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:53 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that I do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects
for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Jonathan Berrios
Item 8-A 01/09/18
113 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Gabriel Berrios <gabriel.berrios@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:54 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that I do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects
for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Gabriel Berrios
Item 8-A 01/09/18
114 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Karen Kushi <kbkushi@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:54 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; Rick Cole
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields
are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Karen and Hisao Kushi
Item 8-A 01/09/18
115 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Lorenzo Berrios <lorenzo.berrios@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:55 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that I do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects
for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Lorenzo Berrios
Item 8-A 01/09/18
116 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jane Tucker <jtucker9999@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:02 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan
Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible. MAKE OUR CHILDREN A
PRIORITY - KEEP YOUR WORD.
Thank you,
Jane Tucker
20+ year resident of Santa Monica
P.S. I VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION.
Jane Tucker, MA, ALSP
Healing Heart Pet Loss
Support and comfort during grief and loss of your Pet
http://www.healingheartpetloss.com/
Item 8-A 01/09/18
117 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mr. Perry <unltdvp@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:03 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as time-sensitive. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Manny Perry
(Parent of a Santa Monica Rugby Club player)
Item 8-A 01/09/18
118 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:William Schoene <williamschoene@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:12 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg;
Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:Civic Center Playing Field
Council:
Unless you show a real commitment to the Civic Center playing field by getting it off its "four more years" back burner, it
will be apparent that you have no genuine intention of ever getting it built. Why do SamoHi kids and other would‐be
field users have no priority at all, even after waiting all these years? Please, don't let this playing field become a
perennial joke!
Item 8-A 01/09/18
119 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Victoria Wilson <victoriawilson29@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:15 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as time-sensitive. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Victoria Wilson
--
Victoria Wilson
Client Partnerships Executive
JBCconnect
P 310-601-7231
M 310-720-0720
Item 8-A 01/09/18
120 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:art is the answer <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:46 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; CIVIC FIELD;
Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As
a
resident
of this City for over 36 years, I am saddened that another promise
made to residents has again been delayed, possibly
will
never come to fruition. It was scheduled to break ground by the
summer of 2018. The Civic Center Field would be an asset for
residents of all ages and certainly more important than yet another
hotel or expensive condo or apartment complex, all of which take
priority in our City
and are primary on the list of what matters to the City. If you ask
the residents, most will tell you they have no use for more hotels,
expensive over-priced apartment complexes or multi-million dollar
condo complexes.
We need new priorities.
The
playing fields are nowhere on the list
of what is important
in the Staff report.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
121 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
I am
asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports
Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher
Lumber site to top priorities.
I am asking
that you keep your word to residents.
You say how much you care about residents but like all else in life,
actions speak far louder than words.
Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for
completion as soon as possible.
Please show us the residents matter in this town.
Danielle Charney
Resident of a town I barely recognize now..
for over 36 years... what a terrible job you have all done to our town....
Item 8-A 01/09/18
122 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 8:11 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Jan 9, 2018 Agenda Item 3A - Approval of Nov.28, 2017 Minutes
From: Ann Maggio [mailto:annmaggio@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 9:12 PM
To: Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown
<Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>;
Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez
<Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; CIVIC FIELD <fieldatcivic@gmail.com>; Ann Maggio Thanawalla
<annmaggio@gmail.com>
Subject: Jan 9, 2018 Agenda Item 3A ‐ Approval of Nov.28, 2017 Minutes
Dear Santa Monica City Council and City Manager,
Approving the November 28th Meeting Minutes is a curious step provided the public has not been
made aware of any response from the Coastal Commission regarding Item 3.M. - Civic Center Parking
Study. It appears the parking study has moved forward without a response to benefit the public's
contention that it was not needed in order for the City to file the Civic Center Field's permit
application with the Coastal Commission.
The Civic Center Parking Study's scope is overly arching and the duration potentially years long. Any
reasonable person paying attention to our City Planning Dept.'s proposed list of Priority Projects,
appearing as Agenda Item 8A for this same meeting, can easily surmise that the details of the
contract awarded to Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers Inc. to prepare a Parking Study for
Development of the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Fields is being used to serve the needs for at
least two of the projects prioritized in Agenda Item 8A's Attachment A City Planning Workplan Priorities Schedule. These include the Gateway Master Plan and
the Local Coastal Plan.
The public should not be mislead by the environmental requirements (CEQA) necessary to carry out
the various plans put forth by city planners or any misrepresentation/wrongful allocations to the
various funding sources. Both concerns should be reviewed and made transparent to resident tax
payers. Please reconsider approving these minutes until the following two actions occur:
1. This matter can be investigated for competing plans environmental and funding sources and
any potential errors and/omissions should be corrected.
2. Approval of June 27th Minutes. Minutes containing Agenda Item - 8.A. Civic Center
Multipurpose Sports Field Feasibility Study and Economic Analysis Findings and Options for
Next Steps, are still unapproved. We are concerned about the fact that the Sept 12th Council
Minutes containing Agenda Item 3K - The SWIP PROJECT - a project that has a direct impact
on the Civic Center Field timeline - was approved for both the funding source and city manager
contract engagement and approval process while the city sits on a Coastal Commission permit
Item 8-A 01/09/18
123 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
application for the Civic Field. The public cannot follow the work being done at City Hall as the
causal effects of unapproved Jun 27th Minutes leave us wondering what took place. Please
represent us with order and transparency.
Thank you,
Ann
& Sam
Thanawalla
Item 8-A 01/09/18
124 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Laura <fish2000@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 9:02 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields
are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Laura Lim
Item 8-A 01/09/18
125 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:elena estrin <efestrin@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 9:53 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:1/9/18 agenda item 8 A
Dear City Council Members:
We are long time residents of the Pico Neighborhood and understand that the City Council will be addressing setting
priorities for the Planning Commission including the Pico Neighborhood Plan. We are requesting that the development
of the plan be inclusive of community input beyond including the Pico Neighborhood Association as they do not
represent the majority of the residents in the area that will be impacted.
Thank you
Elena Estrin
Steve Kandell
Item 8-A 01/09/18
126 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Dan Cobbett <dcobbett75@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:02 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council 1/9/18 agenda item 8-A
Dear members of the City Council,
I am a resident of Santa Monica, and I've lived in the Sunset Park area for 13 years.
I would like to indicate my support for an emergency interim ordinance which would reduce the maximum lot
coverage for a 2 story home, and add incentives for homeowners to remodel instead of demolishing and
replacing their homes.
A lot of the new homes that are replacing the original homes in this neighborhood are too big, way out of scale
with the existing homes. I'm not against people being able to replace an older smaller home with something
larger, but I feel that there has to be some common sense restrictions on the size and footprint of these new
homes.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Dan Cobbett
2267 31st St
Santa Monica, CA
Item 8-A 01/09/18
127 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Anne Gillmore-Pizzuto <agpizzuto@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:07 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Anne G.Pizzuto
Item 8-A 01/09/18
128 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:MAP Assistant <mapassist@mapstrategic.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:20 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Myles Henry Asa Pritchard
Financial Advisor | Managing Director
MAPStrategic Wealth Advisors
A Member of Advisory Services Network, LLC
12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
OFFICE: 310.601.4095
FAX: 310.388.5484
WEBSITE: www.mapstrategic.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
129 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:44 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown;
Terry O’Day; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Ted Winterer
Cc:Clerk Mailbox; Ann Maggio Thanawalla; CIVIC FIELD
Subject:Jan 9, 2018 Agenda Item 8-A
Dear City Council,
As resident stakeholders, we are not in agreement with the Planning Departments priorities for the
upcoming year. We have ZERO interest in the Gateway Master Plan. This plan will increase
our commute times by funneling even more traffic onto Lincoln Blvd., an exacerbated traffic &
pollution cluster further impacting the area that is already planned for a Road Diet. The GAMP also
attempts to park cars at the Civic and kill the Civic Center Field. Council comments and staff
machinations attempting to move our field to the GAMP through a series of grant applications and
sidebar directives is an entanglement we're asking you address at tonight's meeting.
Our requests for Planning Priorities are as follows:
1. Pico Neighborhood Plan with R1 Standards that are in alignment with new State
CEQA Draft
2. A park at 4th/5th/Arizona
3. The Civic Center Field
4. Expansion of Diamonds - not removal or soccer - at Memorial Park
We need plans prioritizing:
a city wide circulation study
a resident center circulator that is NOT Downtown centric
a moratorium on acceptance of grant money until an ordinance is written that prohibits
acceptance as a beleaguered excuse for delaying plans for residents
more open space - using land we have, not have to create
a plan to protect the neighborhoods, not commercialize them
a Landmarks Ordinance THIS YEAR
A limit on singular Development consolidation and investigation into Real Estate Investment
Trusts being granted DA's and variances. Hold them to code and give no more
An end to saying Yes to Developer Agreements. Direct Planning staff to focus on the real
needs and not coddle developers asking for more than what's written in our code.
Lastly, we'd like accountability of all the plans, big and small, made available to the public in the form
of a Master Document.
Identification of the following information should be included in tabbed format:
Project Names & Timelines
Interdepartmental information with contact info tabs
Item 8-A 01/09/18
130 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Dates - prioritized and intersectional/crossover project concerns
Piggybacking on earmarked studies with cost allocations explained and line item account
information provided
New Info - laws/codes/regulations impacting the project
Labor Cost Associations for each plan
RFP information and accessibility
Thank you,
Ann
and Sam
Thanawalla
Item 8-A 01/09/18
131 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:44 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown;
Terry O’Day; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Ted Winterer
Cc:Clerk Mailbox; Ann Maggio Thanawalla; CIVIC FIELD
Subject:Jan 9, 2018 Agenda Item 8-A
Dear City Council,
As resident stakeholders, we are not in agreement with the Planning Departments priorities for the
upcoming year. We have ZERO interest in the Gateway Master Plan. This plan will increase
our commute times by funneling even more traffic onto Lincoln Blvd., an exacerbated traffic &
pollution cluster further impacting the area that is already planned for a Road Diet. The GAMP also
attempts to park cars at the Civic and kill the Civic Center Field. Council comments and staff
machinations attempting to move our field to the GAMP through a series of grant applications and
sidebar directives is an entanglement we're asking you address at tonight's meeting.
Our requests for Planning Priorities are as follows:
1. Pico Neighborhood Plan with R1 Standards that are in alignment with new State
CEQA Draft
2. A park at 4th/5th/Arizona
3. The Civic Center Field
4. Expansion of Diamonds - not removal or soccer - at Memorial Park
We need plans prioritizing:
a city wide circulation study
a resident center circulator that is NOT Downtown centric
a moratorium on acceptance of grant money until an ordinance is written that prohibits
acceptance as a beleaguered excuse for delaying plans for residents
more open space - using land we have, not have to create
a plan to protect the neighborhoods, not commercialize them
a Landmarks Ordinance THIS YEAR
A limit on singular Development consolidation and investigation into Real Estate Investment
Trusts being granted DA's and variances. Hold them to code and give no more
An end to saying Yes to Developer Agreements. Direct Planning staff to focus on the real
needs and not coddle developers asking for more than what's written in our code.
Lastly, we'd like accountability of all the plans, big and small, made available to the public in the form
of a Master Document.
Identification of the following information should be included in tabbed format:
Project Names & Timelines
Interdepartmental information with contact info tabs
Item 8-A 01/09/18
132 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Dates - prioritized and intersectional/crossover project concerns
Piggybacking on earmarked studies with cost allocations explained and line item account
information provided
New Info - laws/codes/regulations impacting the project
Labor Cost Associations for each plan
RFP information and accessibility
Thank you,
Ann
and Sam
Thanawalla
Item 8-A 01/09/18
133 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:47 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: City Council 1/9/18 agenda item 8-A
January 8, 2018
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 1/9/18 agenda item 8-A – Planning priorities
Dear Mayor Winterer and City Council members:
The Board of Friends of Sunset Park is pleased to participate in a public discussion of city planning
priorities. As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing,
and procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Department list of priorities for 2018 and
beyond.
It appears that staff may have chosen its priorities based on ideology rather than on data and the
needs of residents. The LUCE, however, places protecting neighborhoods as a primary focus of all
planning efforts.
Based on Council’s Strategic Goals, the following are our top priorities. (Since we don’t know how
much staff time each item takes, we are listing our full priorities below.)
1) the Pico Neighborhood Plan and R1 Standards update (including an Emergency Interim
Ordinance with a modest reduction in lot coverage for 2-story homes while 1-story lot
coverage remains the same, plus incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish
and replace their homes),
2) a park at 4th/5th and Arizona,
3) the Civic Center Sports Field, and
4) expansion of baseball diamonds at Memorial Park.
In addition:
MOBILITY
Item 8-A 01/09/18
134 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Vehicle Plan - This is the most important thing for Staff to do first to improve mobility. Just as
Los Angeles’ Mobility Plan 2035 includes a Vehicle Enhanced Network, Santa Monica must
acknowledge that motor vehicles need to flow through our streets and do the same. LA’s plan
states, “In response to the need to accommodate regional traffic to and from the freeways on
city streets, the Vehicle Enhanced Network (VEN) was developed to identify corridors that will
remain critical to vehicular circulation and to balance regional and local circulation needs. …
The overall intent of the VEN is to provide streets that prioritize vehicular movement and offer
safe, consistent travel speeds and reliable travel times.”
Staff should start by extending LA’s VEN into Santa Monica and conducting a thorough study
of circulation throughout the City. Furthermore, it appears that SB 743 would require such an
analysis and vehicle plan in order to regulate vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is the new
state metric for mobility.
Parking Plan - In conjunction with identifying the desired flow of vehicles in and out of the City,
Staff needs to develop a parking plan along those routes.
Shuttle - Residents have been asking for a local circulator bus since BBB routes don’t serve
enough residents within Santa Monica.
No GAMP - At this point, the GAMP cannot be made a priority because Staff has
neither conducted a full circulation study nor created a vehicle plan. Therefore, we cannot
know if that is the highest and best use of resident funds, especially since the project is
expected to be exorbitantly expensive and benefit primarily commercial interests.
Open Space - The inevitable consequence of increased development is decreased mobility.
Therefore, we prioritize maintaining open space instead of more development. The cumulative
impact of overdevelopment is destroying our City.
DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION
Pico Neighborhood, Memorial Park Neighborhood, and R1 Plans - The Pico Zoning
District and Memorial Park Neighborhood Plans, which include an update of R1 development
standards, should be top priorities. These neighborhood plans and the R1 development
standards work together to protect neighborhood character and retain affordable housing. R1
development standards are integral parts of neighborhood planning in both the Pico and
Memorial Park neighborhoods, which are at immediate risk of losing affordable housing along
with neighborhood character. Work on these plans should begin immediately.
No Additional Housing Generation - Residents do NOT want to prioritize housing generation
per Planning Commission and Staff recommendations. We just did the 2015 zoning ordinance
update for the boulevards and the 2013 area plan for Bergamot. Those need to be allowed to
play out before we know if there is an issue.
Stop commercialism in residential neighborhoods - We oppose allowing commercial uses
to intrude in residential neighborhoods. The LUCE was supposed to preserve the character of
our residential neighborhoods, and encroachment of commercial uses into the residential
neighborhoods both alters the character and displaces residents.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
135 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
3
Landmarks Update - We believe the Landmarks Ordinance should be updated, but we don’t
expect this to be a large undertaking since a draft was done 10 years ago.
HOMELESSNESS
Mental Health - In any DA with St. John’s, require that provision of additional mental health
services be a community benefit.
Pico Neighborhood, Memorial Park Neighborhood and R1 Plans - See above in Diversity
and Inclusion. Preservation of existing neighborhoods will keep residents in their homes.
LEARN AND THRIVE
Park at 4th/5th and Arizona - Residents overwhelmingly want a park here on our public
land. We do not want a hotel/office complex.
Sports Field at the Civic Center - For twelve years, residents have been urging the City to
build the field. We understand that Staff doesn’t consider this a planning priority issue, but we
are concerned that the timeline for the sports field, as extended by Staff, now takes longer than
some of the items being discussed Tuesday. We believe the sports field should be
accelerated and built as soon as possible.
Memorial Park Plan - More baseball diamonds at Fisher Lumber were promised in 2004 but
still don’t exist. We didn’t see the Memorial Park Plan mentioned as a priority, and it should
be. Furthermore, the expansion of the diamonds does not need to wait for the Memorial Park
Neighborhood Plan to occur.
On-Site Day Care - In lieu childcare fees are just kicking the can down the road and not
mitigating the full impact of new commercial development. Instead, all large employers should
be required to supply their own on-site child care instead of paying in lieu fees.
PNA, Mid-City, and R1 Plans - See above in Diversity and Inclusion. Preservation of existing
neighborhoods will help children thrive and create better learning environments.
MISSING GOAL: PUBLIC SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT
Public safety and enforcement of existing rules - This should be a priority because the City
is adding so much density and development into such a small area. It’s a drain on resources
and, if the City isn’t capable of enforcement at existing levels, it shouldn’t continue to expand,
especially with conditional development that requires even more monitoring and enforcement.
Developer/Owner Accountability - Staff was directed almost two years ago to draft an
ordinance stating that property owners out of compliance would get no new entitlements. So
far, staff has not even begun to draft such an ordinance. In the meantime, resident groups
have determined that the ordinance should be broadened to apply to owners/developers and
Item 8-A 01/09/18
136 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
4
not be limited to a specific project. This would ensure that a developer out of compliance on
one project could not move forward on a different project while still out of compliance. The
ordinance should apply to all developments with shared beneficial ownership.
Development Concentration Limits - The City should cap the square footage a developer
can develop in the City. It is fiscally unsound for our City to have ownership concentrated
among a few landowners. While ownership itself cannot be prevented, limits on development
can be put in place.
MISSING GOAL: OVERALL PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AND USE OF RESIDENT
RESOURCES
Transparency and clear public process with residents around community benefits –
Require that community benefits prioritize Santa Monica residents. For example, require all
new large developments to include on-site daycare for children of employees, rather than
allowing in-lieu fees. This would keep children near their parents and reduce impacts to
adjacent residents, traffic, and parking.
Public Vote on Public Land - Staff and Council shouldn’t be able to give away our dwindling
public land resources to SMC, a hotel developer, or any other use without a vote of the
residents.
Moratorium on Exceptions - There must be a moratorium on all waivers, variances,
exceptions, CUPS, and any other deviations from zoning in the Pico Neighborhood, Memorial
Park Neighborhood, Bergamot Area, and R1 neighborhoods in advance of those plans being
updated. Any changes that are made cannot be reversed and could result in irreparable
harm. The neighborhoods must be preserved prior to the completion of the plans.
DO NOT WORK ON: In order to ensure that our priorities are met, we do not want Staff time being
spent on these projects:
Local Coastal Plan - The Local Coastal Program has been in process for the past two years,
with a first quarter 2018 release date for the Land Use Plan, which will be followed by the
coastal zoning ordinance. The city has worked well with the Coastal Commission for the past
20 years without an implementation plan and there is no reason to complete this ordinance
ahead our other priorities.
Housing on the Boulevards – The city just did the ZOU in 2015. That was a huge battle,
which the residents already feel they lost because the boulevards were up-zoned, so we do
not want to redo this again only 2 years later.
Housing in the Bergamot Area – The Bergamot Area Plan was just approved in 2013. We
don’t agree that this is a problem. Let’s build out what was approved and then see if there’s a
problem that needs addressing.
GAMP - See above under Mobility. There is no justification for spending time or money on this
project without a complete Vehicle Plan following a full circulation study.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
137 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
5
DAs. We have no interest in DAs because Staff often fails to negotiate community benefits
that actually seem to benefit the community or balance the impact of the development. We
don’t need even more large hotels in the city, and our public land at 4th/5th and Arizona should
be a park.
Finally, as residents and taxpayers, we want a timeline for each project, not just the for the ones staff
prioritized, and including the projects we have listed above. We also want to know how much staff
time and outside contractor time and expense is required for each project. Any thorough and
thoughtful analysis of priorities requires all of this information.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
138 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Laura O'Neill <laura@gpaconsulting-us.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:51 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Meeting Item 8A - City Planning Division Priorities
Attachments:Letter to PC re Planning Department Priorities - 12-11-17.doc
Dear Esteemed Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
I urge you to consider making the Landmarks Ordinance update a higher priority for Planning Staff than is recommended
in the Staff Report and associated schedule. The Commission and interested members of the public have been waiting
decades for the City to commit to appropriate revisions to the ordinance, which has not been updated since the 1970s.
With the completion of the LUCE, Zoning Ordinance updates, and the Downtown Community Plan, it is more imperative
than ever that the Landmarks Ordinance be updated. Waiting till 2019 to even initiate revisions would be incredibly
disappointing to many, as it will take many months, possibly years, after initiation to get a full draft before Council for
approval. I strongly believe the ordinance update should be initiated in 2018, with the involvement of the Landmarks
Commission subcommittee already in place.
I am very sympathetic to the heavy workload of Planning Staff at this time, but in a prosperous city like ours, a heavy
workload should not mean postponing or dragging out very necessary city business. Instead, it should mean hiring an
adequate number of capable staff to complete the work in a timely fashion, or setting in place funding to hire qualified
consultants for the overflow work. Our hard‐working and dedicated residents deserve to have sufficient city staff to
meet their needs.
For the record, I am the current Chair of the Landmarks Commission; however, I am writing this letter to you as a private
resident, not as an official representative of the Commission. At our meeting in November, the Landmarks Commission
designated me, Commissioner Margaret Bach, and Chair Pro Tempore Dolores Sloan to represent us to the Planning
Commission at their December 13th meeting; however, the enabling motion neglected to include representation at the
subsequent City Council hearing on the subject. Thus, we are precluded from providing comment on this item on your
agenda as official representatives. In lieu of commenting as a full city body, I have opted to comment in my individual
capacity. I have also attached the Landmarks Commission’s letter to the Planning Commission, dated December 11,
2018, in case it has not been included in your meeting materials.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
LAURA O’NEILL
Senior Architectural Historian | laura@gpaconsulting‐us.com
617 S. Olive Street, Suite 910
Los Angeles, CA 90014
(310) 792‐2690
www.gpaconsulting‐us.com
El Segundo • Los Angeles
Sacramento • San Luis Obispo
Item 8-A 01/09/18
139 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 11:19 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Nada Shamonki; Brian O'Neil
Subject:January 9, 2018 City Council Meeting - Request for Introduction of Motion for
Reconsideration re Zoning Ordinance Change SMMC Section 9.28.070(A)
Dear City Council -
I support the request by Gandara Park Neighborhood for a motion to reconsider the legislative action taken by
the City Council on December 12, 2017, Agenda Item 7D, Second Reading and Adoption of An Ordinance
Adopting Changes, Corrections, and Clarifications to the City's Zoning Ordinance, Chapters 9.01 Through
Chapter 9.52 of Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, pursuant to Rule 12(g) of the Council Rules of
Order and Procedure. I incorporate their entire comment below herein by reference.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that this request is consistent with the comment you will be receiving
from the Board of FOSP and other resident Neighborhood Groups relating to Item 8A that there should be a
moratorium on all exceptions, variances, one-off changes, CUPs, etc. prior to the completion of the Pico Zoning
District, Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan and R1 Standards. To make such piecemeal changes in the
meantime will only destroy the character of the neighborhoods, which violates the LUCE goal of preservation
of neighborhood character.
Thank you.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
From: Nada <nshamonki@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 12:39 AM
To: Ted Winterer; gleam.davis@smgov.net; pam.oconnor@smgov.net; terry.oday@smgov.net;
kevin.mckeown@smgov.net; tony.vazquez@smgov.net; sue.himmelrich@smgov.net; councilmtgitems@smgov.net
Cc: Brian Patrick O'Neil; Nada
Subject: January 9, 2018 City Council Meeting ‐ Request for Introduction of Motion for Reconsideration re Zoning
Ordinance Change SMMC Section 9.28.070(A)
Dear Councilmembers,
We are writing to request the introduction at the January 9, 2018 City Council meeting of a motion to
reconsider the legislative action taken by the City Council on December 12, 2017, Agenda Item 7D, Second
Reading and Adoption of An Ordinance Adopting Changes, Corrections, and Clarifications to the City's Zoning
Item 8-A 01/09/18
140 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Ordinance, Chapters 9.01 Through Chapter 9.52 of Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, pursuant to
Rule 12(g) of the Council Rules of Order and Procedure.
We take particular issue with the change to SMMC Section 9.28.070(A) (p. 3.75), which changes the required
parking for Single‐Unit Residential Districts. The current law requires that parking in a Single‐Unit Residential
District shall be located within an enclosed garage. The change modified the ordinance as follows: “Required
parking for all other permitted use classifications in the Single‐Unit Residential district shall not be required to
be located within an enclosed garage.” Accordingly, all homes in Single‐Unit Residential Districts that that are
operated as businesses—such as family day cares, residential facilities, supportive housing, transitional
housing, adult day care, preschools, bed and breakfasts, and other uses as listed in Table 9.07.020 of the
SMZO—can remove the garages by right. This would effectively re‐zone each of these homes for business and
commercial uses, because it could be cost prohibitive for future buyers who wanted to use the home as a
dwelling since they would have to rebuild the demolished garages. In other words, once the garage is
removed, a dwelling in an R‐1 zoned district will be removed from the market, diminishing the existing housing
stock. The City already suffers from removal of affordable housing (i.e., rent controlled housing), and this
ordinance change will unquestionably decrease all housing, including the remaining affordable housing.
Moreover, this change will predominately impact less affluent neighborhoods, where homes generally have
detached garages rather than attached garages.
This change in the ordinance was mischaracterized as “Zoning Ordinance Clean‐Up” in the Executive Summary
in the December 5, 2017 City Council Report presented before the first reading, which stated “The proposed
changes identified in this report are intended to provide clarification of standards, provide consistency
between regulations, and eliminate any potential confusion in the application of standards without
significantly altering the standards and regulations within the Zoning Ordinance.” In reality, the change to
SMMC Section 9.28.070(A) (p. 3.75) did, in fact, significantly alter the standards and regulations within the
Zoning Ordinance because it undermines and changes the purpose of having Single‐Unit Residential Units.
The December 5, 2017 City Council Report Recommended Action (Printout) incorrectly states that the changes
are “categorically exempt” from CEQA because the “evidence in the record” allegedly shows that “it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed changes may have a significant effect on the
environment.” Stating that there is no possibility that the change to SMMC Section 9.28.070(A) (p. 3.75) may
have a significant effect on the environment is both nonsensical and belied by the language of the very change
that has gone into effect. With regard to CEQA, when the revised LUCE was adopted in 2015, it underwent a
CEQA review for the land use impacts of the 2015 proposed changes. However, the SMMC Section 9.28.070(A)
did not undergo a CEQA review for the land use impacts. Reconsideration is warranted to ensure that the
appropriate review of land use impacts is undertaken according to CEQA, including but not limited to CEQA
Sections 15125, 15183(a), 15378. Based on the evidence in the record, it can be seen with certainty that there
is no possibility that the change will not have a significant effect on the environment.
This zoning ordinance change was introduced under cover of night, hidden within other proposed changes,
and presented without any public reading or proper notice, seemingly to give the Applicant and the Staff an
advantage in the Appeal filed by Residents for the Preservation of Gandara Park Neighborhood to the Planning
Commission Statement of Official Action Approving Applications for Conditional Use Permit 17ENT‐0075,
Variance 17ENT‐0147, & Fence/Wall Modification 17ENT‐0148 for 2953 Delaware Ave. See Policy Discussion
Items #22 (“The issue was identified by staff upon review of an application for a Child Care Facility within the
R1 Single‐Unit Residential District.”) This governing by subterfuge is not only morally and ethically improper, it
also strips residents of their due process rights and does away with the notion of a transparent process for
developing city policy.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
141 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
3
We urge the City Council to withdraw the zoning ordinance change until a proper study is conducted, including
the appropriate CEQA analysis, to determine the potential negative impacts this change will have on Single‐
Unit Residential Districts.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that members of the City Council introduce a motion for reconsideration
for the reasons set forth herein.
Best regards,
Nada Shamonki
Member and Representative of the
Residents for the Preservation of Gandara Park Neighborhood
Item 8-A 01/09/18
142 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
9HUQLFH+DQNLQV
)URP 1LNNL.ROKRII QKNROKRII#\DKRRFRP!
6HQW 7XHVGD\-DQXDU\ $0
7R &RXQFLO0DLOER[ FRXQFLOPWJLWHPV .HYLQ0F.HRZQ)ZG 7RQ\9D]TXH] *OHDP'DYLV
6XH+LPPHOULFK 3DP2&RQQRU 7HUU\2·'D\ 7HG:LQWHUHU
&F 1DGD6KDPRQNL %ULDQ2
1HLO
6XEMHFW -DQXDU\ &LW\&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ5HTXHVWIRU,QWURGXFWLRQRI0RWLRQIRU
5HFRQVLGHUDWLRQUH=RQLQJ2UGLQDQFH&KDQJH600&6HFWLRQ $
'HDU&LW\&RXQFLO
,VXSSRUWWKHUHTXHVWE\*DQGDUD3DUN1HLJKERUKRRGIRUDPRWLRQWRUHFRQVLGHUWKHOHJLVODWLYHDFWLRQWDNHQE\
WKH&LW\&RXQFLORQ'HFHPEHU$JHQGD,WHP'6HFRQG5HDGLQJDQG$GRSWLRQRI$Q2UGLQDQFH
$GRSWLQJ&KDQJHV&RUUHFWLRQVDQG&ODULILFDWLRQVWRWKH&LW\
V=RQLQJ2UGLQDQFH&KDSWHUV 7KURXJK
&KDSWHU RI$UWLFOH RIWKH6DQWD0RQLFD0XQLFLSDO&RGHSXUVXDQWWR5XOH J RIWKH&RXQFLO5XOHVRI
2UGHUDQG3URFHGXUH,LQFRUSRUDWHWKHLUHQWLUHFRPPHQWEHORZKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFH
)XUWKHUPRUH,ZRXOGOLNHWRSRLQWRXWWKDWWKLVUHTXHVWLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHFRPPHQW\RXZLOOEHUHFHLYLQJ
IURPWKH%RDUGRI)263DQGRWKHUUHVLGHQW1HLJKERUKRRG*URXSVUHODWLQJWR,WHP$WKDWWKHUHVKRXOGEHD
PRUDWRULXPRQDOOH[FHSWLRQVYDULDQFHVRQHRIIFKDQJHV&83VHWFSULRUWRWKHFRPSOHWLRQRIWKH3LFR=RQLQJ
'LVWULFW0HPRULDO3DUN1HLJKERUKRRG3ODQDQG56WDQGDUGV7RPDNHVXFKSLHFHPHDOFKDQJHVLQWKH
PHDQWLPHZLOORQO\GHVWUR\WKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHQHLJKERUKRRGVZKLFKYLRODWHVWKH/8&(JRDORISUHVHUYDWLRQ
RIQHLJKERUKRRGFKDUDFWHU
7KDQN\RX
5HJDUGV
1LNNL.ROKRII
6DQWD0RQLFD5HVLGHQW
&ƌŽŵ͗EĂĚĂфŶƐŚĂŵŽŶŬŝΛŚŽƚŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϴ͕ϮϬϭϴϭϮ͗ϯϵD
dŽ͗dĞĚtŝŶƚĞƌĞƌ͖ŐůĞĂŵ͘ĚĂǀŝƐΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ͖ƉĂŵ͘ŽĐŽŶŶŽƌΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ͖ƚĞƌƌLJ͘ŽĚĂLJΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ͖
ŬĞǀŝŶ͘ŵĐŬĞŽǁŶΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ͖ƚŽŶLJ͘ǀĂnjƋƵĞnjΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ͖ƐƵĞ͘ŚŝŵŵĞůƌŝĐŚΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ͖ĐŽƵŶĐŝůŵƚŐŝƚĞŵƐΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ
Đ͗ƌŝĂŶWĂƚƌŝĐŬKΖEĞŝů͖EĂĚĂ
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϵ͕ϮϬϭϴŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůDĞĞƚŝŶŐͲZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨDŽƚŝŽŶĨŽƌZĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƌĞŽŶŝŶŐ
KƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞŚĂŶŐĞ^DD^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϵ͘Ϯϴ͘ϬϳϬ;Ϳ
ĞĂƌŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͕
tĞĂƌĞǁƌŝƚŝŶŐƚŽƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƚŚĞŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĂƚƚŚĞ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϵ͕ϮϬϭϴŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŽĨĂŵŽƚŝŽŶƚŽ
ƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞůĞŐŝƐůĂƚŝǀĞĂĐƚŝŽŶƚĂŬĞŶďLJƚŚĞŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůŽŶĞĐĞŵďĞƌϭϮ͕ϮϬϭϳ͕ŐĞŶĚĂ/ƚĞŵϳ͕^ĞĐŽŶĚ
ZĞĂĚŝŶŐĂŶĚĚŽƉƚŝŽŶŽĨŶKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĚŽƉƚŝŶŐŚĂŶŐĞƐ͕ŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚůĂƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJΖƐŽŶŝŶŐ
Item 8-A 01/09/18
143 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
KƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕ŚĂƉƚĞƌƐϵ͘ϬϭdŚƌŽƵŐŚŚĂƉƚĞƌϵ͘ϱϮŽĨƌƚŝĐůĞϵŽĨƚŚĞ^ĂŶƚĂDŽŶŝĐĂDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽĚĞ͕ƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽ
ZƵůĞϭϮ;ŐͿŽĨƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝůZƵůĞƐŽĨKƌĚĞƌĂŶĚWƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞ͘
tĞƚĂŬĞƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌŝƐƐƵĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŽ^DD^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϵ͘Ϯϴ͘ϬϳϬ;Ϳ;Ɖ͘ϯ͘ϳϱͿ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĨŽƌ^ŝŶŐůĞͲhŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐ͘dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůĂǁƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĂƚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŝŶĂ^ŝŶŐůĞͲhŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů
ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐŚĂůůďĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŶĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞŵŽĚŝĨŝĞĚƚŚĞŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĂƐĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗͞ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĨŽƌĂůůŽƚŚĞƌƉĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĚƵƐĞĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞ^ŝŶŐůĞͲhŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐŚĂůůŶŽƚďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽ
ďĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŶĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘͟ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐůLJ͕ĂůůŚŽŵĞƐŝŶ^ŝŶŐůĞͲhŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĂƚĂƌĞ
ŽƉĞƌĂƚĞĚĂƐďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐͶƐƵĐŚĂƐĨĂŵŝůLJĚĂLJĐĂƌĞƐ͕ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶĂů
ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ĂĚƵůƚĚĂLJĐĂƌĞ͕ƉƌĞƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͕ďĞĚĂŶĚďƌĞĂŬĨĂƐƚƐ͕ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƵƐĞƐĂƐůŝƐƚĞĚŝŶdĂďůĞϵ͘Ϭϳ͘ϬϮϬŽĨƚŚĞ
^DKͶĐĂŶƌĞŵŽǀĞƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐďLJƌŝŐŚƚ͘dŚŝƐǁŽƵůĚĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞůLJƌĞͲnjŽŶĞĞĂĐŚŽĨƚŚĞƐĞŚŽŵĞƐĨŽƌďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂŶĚ
ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƵƐĞƐ͕ďĞĐĂƵƐĞŝƚĐŽƵůĚďĞĐŽƐƚƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚŝǀĞĨŽƌĨƵƚƵƌĞďƵLJĞƌƐǁŚŽǁĂŶƚĞĚƚŽƵƐĞƚŚĞŚŽŵĞĂƐĂ
ĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞLJǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞƚŽƌĞďƵŝůĚƚŚĞĚĞŵŽůŝƐŚĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞƐ͘/ŶŽƚŚĞƌǁŽƌĚƐ͕ŽŶĐĞƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞŝƐ
ƌĞŵŽǀĞĚ͕ĂĚǁĞůůŝŶŐŝŶĂŶZͲϭnjŽŶĞĚĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚǁŝůůďĞƌĞŵŽǀĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŵĂƌŬĞƚ͕ĚŝŵŝŶŝƐŚŝŶŐƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ƐƚŽĐŬ͘dŚĞŝƚLJĂůƌĞĂĚLJƐƵĨĨĞƌƐĨƌŽŵƌĞŵŽǀĂůŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ;ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ƌĞŶƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůůĞĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐͿ͕ĂŶĚƚŚŝƐ
ŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĐŚĂŶŐĞǁŝůůƵŶƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶĂďůLJĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞĂůůŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘
DŽƌĞŽǀĞƌ͕ƚŚŝƐĐŚĂŶŐĞǁŝůůƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂƚĞůLJŝŵƉĂĐƚůĞƐƐĂĨĨůƵĞŶƚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͕ǁŚĞƌĞŚŽŵĞƐŐĞŶĞƌĂůůLJŚĂǀĞ
ĚĞƚĂĐŚĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞƐ͘
dŚŝƐĐŚĂŶŐĞŝŶƚŚĞŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞǁĂƐŵŝƐĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝnjĞĚĂƐ͞ŽŶŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞůĞĂŶͲhƉ͟ŝŶƚŚĞ džĞĐƵƚŝǀĞ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ
ŝŶƚŚĞĞĐĞŵďĞƌϱ͕ϮϬϭϳŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůZĞƉŽƌƚƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚƌĞĂĚŝŶŐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐƚĂƚĞĚ͞dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
ĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƌĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĐůĂƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐLJ
ďĞƚǁĞĞŶƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞĂŶLJƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůĐŽŶĨƵƐŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚ
ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJĂůƚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŽŶŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͘͟/ŶƌĞĂůŝƚLJ͕ƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŽ
^DD^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϵ͘Ϯϴ͘ϬϳϬ;Ϳ;Ɖ͘ϯ͘ϳϱͿĚŝĚ͕ŝŶĨĂĐƚ͕ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJĂůƚĞƌƚŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ
ŽŶŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞďĞĐĂƵƐĞŝƚƵŶĚĞƌŵŝŶĞƐĂŶĚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŚĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨŚĂǀŝŶŐ^ŝŶŐůĞͲhŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ͘
dŚĞĞĐĞŵďĞƌϱ͕ϮϬϭϳŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůZĞƉŽƌƚZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚĐƚŝŽŶ;WƌŝŶƚŽƵƚͿŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚůLJƐƚĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ
ĂƌĞ͞ĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĐĂůůLJĞdžĞŵƉƚ͟ĨƌŽŵ YďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞ͞ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŝŶƚŚĞƌĞĐŽƌĚ͟ĂůůĞŐĞĚůLJƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚ͞ŝƚĐĂŶďĞ
ƐĞĞŶǁŝƚŚĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚLJƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽƉŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŵĂLJŚĂǀĞĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĞĨĨĞĐƚŽŶƚŚĞ
ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͘͟^ƚĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽƉŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŽ^DD^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϵ͘Ϯϴ͘ϬϳϬ;Ϳ;Ɖ͘ϯ͘ϳϱͿŵĂLJ
ŚĂǀĞĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĞĨĨĞĐƚŽŶƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚŝƐďŽƚŚŶŽŶƐĞŶƐŝĐĂůĂŶĚďĞůŝĞĚďLJƚŚĞůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞǀĞƌLJĐŚĂŶŐĞ
ƚŚĂƚŚĂƐŐŽŶĞŝŶƚŽĞĨĨĞĐƚ͘tŝƚŚƌĞŐĂƌĚƚŽ Y͕ǁŚĞŶƚŚĞƌĞǀŝƐĞĚ>h ǁĂƐĂĚŽƉƚĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϱ͕ŝƚƵŶĚĞƌǁĞŶƚĂ
YƌĞǀŝĞǁĨŽƌƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞϮϬϭϱƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞ^DD^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϵ͘Ϯϴ͘ϬϳϬ;Ϳ
ĚŝĚŶŽƚƵŶĚĞƌŐŽĂ YƌĞǀŝĞǁĨŽƌƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ͘ZĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŝƐǁĂƌƌĂŶƚĞĚƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ
ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨůĂŶĚƵƐĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŝƐƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶĂĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽ Y͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐďƵƚŶŽƚůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽ Y
^ĞĐƚŝŽŶƐϭϱϭϮϱ͕ϭϱϭϴϯ;ĂͿ͕ϭϱϯϳϴ͘ĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŝŶƚŚĞƌĞĐŽƌĚ͕ŝƚĐĂŶďĞƐĞĞŶǁŝƚŚĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚLJƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞ
ŝƐŶŽƉŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞǁŝůůŶŽƚŚĂǀĞĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĞĨĨĞĐƚŽŶƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͘
dŚŝƐnjŽŶŝŶŐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĐŚĂŶŐĞǁĂƐŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐĞĚƵŶĚĞƌĐŽǀĞƌŽĨŶŝŐŚƚ͕ŚŝĚĚĞŶǁŝƚŚŝŶŽƚŚĞƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ͕
ĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĂŶLJƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĂĚŝŶŐŽƌƉƌŽƉĞƌŶŽƚŝĐĞ͕ƐĞĞŵŝŶŐůLJƚŽŐŝǀĞƚŚĞƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚĂŶĚƚŚĞ^ƚĂĨĨĂŶ
ĂĚǀĂŶƚĂŐĞŝŶƚŚĞƉƉĞĂůĨŝůĞĚďLJZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ'ĂŶĚĂƌĂWĂƌŬEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚŽĨKĨĨŝĐŝĂůĐƚŝŽŶƉƉƌŽǀŝŶŐƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůhƐĞWĞƌŵŝƚϭϳ EdͲϬϬϳϱ͕
sĂƌŝĂŶĐĞϭϳ EdͲϬϭϰϳ͕Θ&ĞŶĐĞͬtĂůůDŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶϭϳ EdͲϬϭϰϴĨŽƌϮϵϱϯĞůĂǁĂƌĞǀĞ͘^ĞĞWŽůŝĐLJŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶ
/ƚĞŵƐηϮϮ;͞dŚĞŝƐƐƵĞǁĂƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚďLJƐƚĂĨĨƵƉŽŶƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨĂŶĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĂŚŝůĚĂƌĞ&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ
Zϭ^ŝŶŐůĞͲhŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘͟ͿdŚŝƐŐŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐďLJƐƵďƚĞƌĨƵŐĞŝƐŶŽƚŽŶůLJŵŽƌĂůůLJĂŶĚĞƚŚŝĐĂůůLJŝŵƉƌŽƉĞƌ͕ŝƚ
ĂůƐŽƐƚƌŝƉƐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞŝƌĚƵĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƌŝŐŚƚƐĂŶĚĚŽĞƐĂǁĂLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŶŽƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƚƌĂŶƐƉĂƌĞŶƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĨŽƌ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĐŝƚLJƉŽůŝĐLJ͘
Item 8-A 01/09/18
144 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
tĞƵƌŐĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůƚŽǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƵŶƚŝůĂƉƌŽƉĞƌƐƚƵĚLJŝƐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ
ƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ YĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͕ƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůŶĞŐĂƚŝǀĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŚŝƐĐŚĂŶŐĞǁŝůůŚĂǀĞŽŶ^ŝŶŐůĞͲ
hŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐ͘
ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐůLJ͕ǁĞƌĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůLJƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƚŚĂƚŵĞŵďĞƌƐŽĨƚŚĞŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐĞĂŵŽƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞĂƐŽŶƐƐĞƚĨŽƌƚŚŚĞƌĞŝŶ͘
ĞƐƚƌĞŐĂƌĚƐ͕
EĂĚĂ^ŚĂŵŽŶŬŝ
DĞŵďĞƌĂŶĚZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞŽĨƚŚĞ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ'ĂŶĚĂƌĂWĂƌŬEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ
Item 8-A 01/09/18
145 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:DB2024DB <db2024db@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 11:46 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
I couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the
Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Please work with CCS and public works to accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects
for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you
Item 8-A 01/09/18
146 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Tony Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson-
Warren
Subject:Letter to Council re Agenda item 8A, Jan. 9, 2018 - Planning Priorities
To: City Council
From: Tricia Crane & Amy Aukstikalnis
Jan. 9, 2017
Re: Planning Priorities, Agenda Item 8A
Dear City Council,
In response to the Planning Division’s proposed priorities for 2018 enumerated in Agenda item 8A, offered here
is an alternative for your consideration, a list that better reflects the priorities of resident stakeholders in the City
of Santa Monica. The resident Priorities are identified here in terms of how they align with City Council’s
Strategic Goals.
Mobility
A Car Plan / Parking Plan is long overdue:
The City first needs to research and present for public discussion a citywide traffic and circulation plan
before any expenditure of staff time or public resources on exploring whether the Gateway Master Plan
(GAMP) should be a priority. Further, SB 743 appears to require a Car Plan that includes vehicle miles
traveled as the metric for mobility. Our city needs a comprehensive Car Plan first.
Learn & Thrive
A Plaza with a park is the best use of our public land at 4th and Arizona for year-round recreational
programming;
Item 8-A 01/09/18
147 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
A sports field as promised at the Civic Center will meet an identified need for open space;
Community Benefits must benefit the community:
There should be a transparent and public process with residents about community benefits that are truly
beneficial. Large new development should be required to provide onsite childcare / daycare services for
employees instead of pushing facilities into neighborhoods.
Diversity & Inclusion
Commercialism in residential neighborhoods should be stopped.
The LUCE calls for the preservation of neighborhoods and current policies and practices do not deliver
on that promise. Increased housing production on the boulevards is not a priority for residents. Housing
production was addressed in the 2015 ZO.
Moratoriums are needed on waivers, variances, exceptions and CUPs where there are anticipated Plans
such as those discussed for R1, Pico. Mid-City should have its own Plan that addresses the need for a library
and park.
Not included here are Homelessness and the Airport given that programs and policies outside of Planning that
are currently in place to address those Council Strategic Goals.
As City Council discusses each of the Planning Division priorities, it is important that the discussion include
costs and funding. It is important for the community to hear a full discussion of each “priority” presented, one
that focuses on data, not ideology.
Thank you
Tricia Crane & Amy Aukstikalnis
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public record for Agenda Item 8A, City Council meeting of Jan. 9,
2018
Item 8-A 01/09/18
148 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Leslie Lambert <leslielambert92@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: January 9 Agenda Item 8A
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Leslie Lambert <leslielambert92@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:05 PM
Subject: January 9 Agenda Item 8A
To: Ted Winterer <ted.winterer@smgov.net>, Gleam Davis <gleam.davis@smgov.net>,
kevin.mckeown@smgov.net, Tony Vazquez <tony.vazquez@smgov.net>, terry.oday@smgov.net, Pam
OConnor <pam.oconnor@smgov.net>, sue.himmelrich@smgov.net
Cc: clerk@smgov.net
Dear Mayor Winterer and Councilmembers:
As a 22-year Sunset Park homeowner, I urge you to expedite adoption of an emergency ordinance to redress the
heightened activity of demolition of existing single family homes in our R1 districts and their replacement with
new dwellings that are destroying our neigborhoods' scale and character. I understand that nothing can be done
regarding the non-contextual design of these homes, at least on an emergency basis, but there are measures to be
taken to address their size. There are almost 80 demolition permits in process or approved just within the north
of Montana and Sunset Park neighborhoods. This is a situation of crisis proportions in my opinion. My street,
Ashland Avenue, is looking more and more like an Orange County suburb due to the proliferation of out of
scale and poorly designed two-storey homes.
Please direct staff to return with an emergency ordinance that limits lot coverage for the ground floor of two-
storey homes in R1 districts to 30% and establishes a uniform 28' height limit in R1 districts. Ideally, this draft
emergency ordinance should be ready for public hearing at your January 23 meeting.
Please also direct staff to provide for the development of Accessory Dwelling Units, which would likely not be
built under the development standards being considered as part of the emergency ordinance. I truly believe that
we will not see new ADU's added if we limit lot coverage to 30%. This of course would be contrary to City
policies regarding incentivizing ADU development and potentially violates the spirit if not the letter of AB2299
(Bloome), now codified in Section 65852.6 of the California Government Code.. There are those who propose
that this ADU provision be delayed until the permanent "mansionization" Zoning Code revisions are
considered. I do not believe that we can afford to forestall the development of ADU's until this ordinance is
ready for adoption. Please act now.
I propose that the following language be included in the emergency ordinance:
Properties on which the Accessory Dwelling Units exist or are proposed shall be subject to the lot
coverage maximums in the existing Zoning Code except: (i) Any two-storey primary residence on such
properties shall not exceed the lot coverage maximum in this Emergency Ordinance (30%); and (ii) No
residential structures on such properties shall exceed the height limit set forth in this Emergency
Ordinance (28').
Item 8-A 01/09/18
149 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
I understand that staff may have difficulty preparing findings to support this ADU "carve out" in the time being
given them. I am therefore proposing a set of findings that were prepared for this purpose by Jane Blumenfeld,
former LA City Planning Deputy Director and a participant in the drafting of AB2299. I will send these
findings in a separate email.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
150 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Planning Commission
Report
Planning Commission Meeting: December 13, 2017
Agenda Item: 7-A
To: Planning Commission
From: David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development
Jing Yeo, City Planning Division Manager
Subject: City Planning Division Priorities
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and comment on upcoming City
Planning Division priorities.
Executive Summary
The adoption of the Downtown Community Plan earlier this year marked a major
milestone and added to the list of significant implementation efforts completed since the
adoption of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) in 2010. These efforts include
the completion of the Bergamot Area Plan, the Bike Action Plan, the Pedestrian Action
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance Update. While substantial progress towards LUCE
implementation has been made over the last seven years, there are additional Area Plans
and ordinance updates that are necessary to fulfill the vision of the LUCE. In addition to
the implementation projects recommended by the LUCE, there are new initiatives directed
by City Council as well as major Development Agreement projects that are pending
Planning Commission and City Council review.
This report summarizes pending policy and development projects and provides a general
timeline of when these projects can be completed with existing staff and financial
resources. While these projects involve collaboration between various City divisions and
Departments, they are primarily led by the City Planning division within the Planning and
Community Development Department. In addition to staffing the policy and
implementation projects in this report, the City Planning division is also responsible for
the processing of all development permit applications including Planning Commission
review, Landmarks Commission review, Architectural Review Board, Zoning
Administrator and building permit plan check. Therefore, it is necessary to consider these
priorities and schedules in the context of the “day to day” work of the City Planning division
and the capacity of the division to complete these projects while also maintaining its
significant administrative functions and processing numerous Development Review
permits, Administrative Approvals and plan checks. Further, after approval of projects,
Item 8-A 01/09/18
151 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
there are typically three rounds of plan check followed by managing issues that arise
through construction and occupation of new buildings. With a handful of staff assigned
to the strategic planning and design and historic preservation function, there are
approximately eight planners assigned full-time to development review, which includes
processing planning applications, plan checks, staffing the counter, answering phone
calls, and reviewing business licenses. Due to volume and emerging division needs,
small teams of planners normally assigned to development review are assigned to
augment strategic planning and design/historic preservation projects.
A complete list of pending Development Agreement, Development Review and
Administrative Approval applications is included in Attachment A.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
152 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
3
This report divides the Division’s upcoming priorities into three sections, and provides a
fourth section on alignment with citywide priorities:
I) Policy Plans and Ordinance Updates: The first section consists of major policy
implementation efforts that were called for in the LUCE or subsequent policy
documents, or are necessary due to legal requirements or outdated
ordinances. These include the Pico Zoning District, the Memorial Park
Neighborhood Plan, the Local Coastal Program Update, the Gateway Master
Plan, the Landmarks Ordinance Update, and SB743 Implementation.
II) Council Directed Research: The next section includes four items that have
been directed by City Council, primarily through the approval of “13 Items”, for
staff and Planning Commission review and possible action by the Council.
These include review of the R1 Development Standards, review of t h e
Bergamot Area Plan to consider the percentage of housing required in specific
developments, amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit the conversion
of hotel rooms to residential units in the Proposition S Overlay area and review
of the development standards and entitlement processes for housing projects
on the commercial boulevards and in the Bergamot area to incentivize housing
over commercial development.
III) Major Development Agreements: The third section of this report provides a
summary and status update of four major Development Agreement project
currently pending. These include Phase 2 of St. Johns Medical Center, the
proposed mixed-use project at 4th/5th and Arizona, the redevelopment of the
Miramar Hotel and the proposed Ocean Avenue Hotel located on the northeast
corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue.
IV) Alignment of Division Workplan with Council Priorities: The final section of this
report demonstrates how the City Planning Division’s ongoing work efforts align
with the five strategic goals of the City Council. This section also looks at the
Council directed research with the lens of citywide priorities as a means to help
the Planning Commission provide feedback on areas of focus.
I. POLICY PLANS/ORDINANCE UPDATES
Pico Zoning District
The Pico Zoning District is intended to address immediate concerns regarding
preservation of neighborhood character through zoning standards. Bounded by the I-10
Freeway to the north, Pico Boulevard to the South, Centinela to the east and 7th Street to
the west, this planning area integrates the residential neighborhood of R2 and R1
households with the commercial Boulevard.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
153 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
4
Anticipated Timeline
In response to written requests from the Pico Neighborhood Association and Council
direction, the Pico Zoning District will include an in-house evaluation of potential zoning
ordinance updates to directly address issues raised by the PNA including revisiting the
MUBL zoning on Pico Boulevard, rules for combining residentially zoned lots in the Pico
Neighborhood, and a review of the appropriateness of Parking Overlay 2 parking
requirements between Lincoln and 11th Street. Staff expects to bring forward initial zoning
options to Planning Commission and City Council in the first half of 2018.
It is anticipated that any zoning changes will be completed by the end of 2018.
Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan
The Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan was launched in 2013 to design a framework for
the rezoning of approximately 70 acres of formerly industrial land centered on the Expo
Light Rail station at 17th Street and Colorado. Several outreach events were conducted
in 2013-2014, and a presentation was made to the Planning Commission in July 2014. A
planning framework was drafted in late 2014, which ties together a desire for additional
housing in this area, as well as new streetscape concepts that address permeability,
landscaping, and the presence of a regional transit connector in close proximity to Santa
Monica College and the city’s two hospitals. Due to competing priorities for staff time on
the Downtown Community Plan, a public draft of the Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan
was not completed.
An Environmental Impact Report that evaluates the Plan’s proposed land use and
development changes is potentially required to complete this project.
Anticipated Timeline
Staff anticipates the need to rework and enrich the draft document to make it relevant to
today’s regulatory environment, and to work closely with the Community and Cultural
Services Department throughout the re-design process of Memorial Park, which will begin
in early 2018. Outreach to re-establish communications with area stakeholders and the
community at large about the MPNP can begin simultaneously. It is anticipated that the
Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan and required environmental analysis will take
approximately eight months and be completed in third quarter 2018.
Local Coastal Program Update
The Local Coastal Program Update is being funded through a combination of Coastal
Commission grants and local funds and consists of two parts – a Land Use Plan (LUP)
and Implementation Plan (IP). Over the past two years, staff has been working closely
with Coastal Commission staff to discuss and resolve key policy issues with respect to
coastal access, new development, and the new science of sea level rise.
Anticipated Timeline
It is expected that a public draft of the LUP will be released for public review in early
2018. Once the LUP has been substantially completed, staff will start the IP, otherwise
known as the “coastal zoning ordinance”.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
154 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
5
Gateway Master Plan
The Gateway Master Plan is a funded planning effort that will address the comprehensive
planning for the area adjacent to the I-10 Freeway that links Downtown to the Civic Center
and Samohi. There is a unique opportunity for strengthening connections over the
freeway right of way. This would provide multiple benefits, including:
Seamlessly link the historic Downtown and historic Civic Center, removing a visual
and physical divide
Allow for better freeway entry and exiting in the often congested traffic bottlenecks
Provide access to peripheral parking opportunities that could reduce vehicular
impacts on the Downtown core
Provide a framework for design and access for adjacent properties
Development of the Gateway Mater Plan will be an open process facilitated by staff, and
include participation from the community, land owners and decision-makers as priorities
for the area are refined. This key location should become an experience that reflects the
city’s values of community, sustainability and pride of place.
Anticipated Timeline
As established in the Downtown Community Plan, properties within the Gateway Master
Plan boundaries may only request Tier 2 height and FAR until the earlier of 2021 or the
completion of the Gateway Master Plan. This Gateway Master Plan will be a joint effort
between several divisions within PCD including City Planning, Mobility, and Traffic
Engineering. Staff is currently discussing process options to allow the community to
evaluate potential uses and benefits of Gateway projects.
Landmarks Ordinance Update
The Landmarks Ordinance was adopted in 1976 and has not been comprehensively
updated since its inception. Since that time, application of the ordinance to a variety of
preservation projects has revealed some ambiguities in language that would benefit from
clarification. The Landmarks Commission has long advocated for a comprehensive
update to the ordinance to provide clarity on implementation and to also explore new
directions, such as the potential for a second tier of designation. The Commission has
identified a list of issues over a number of years that would be the starting point for the
ordinance update.
Anticipated Timeline
Given other priorities, staff will likely start work on a comprehensive update to the
Landmarks Ordinance in FY2018/19. The ordinance update will be a joint effort with City
Planning and the City Attorney’s office.
SB743 Implementation
In the next couple of years, transportation review required under CEQA will change as a
result of the adoption of California Senate Bill 743 (SB743). SB743 will require the City of
Santa Monica to adjust the way it conducts CEQA-mandated transportation analysis in
the upcoming 1-2 years, following adoption of the Final Guidelines, which were released
Item 8-A 01/09/18
155 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
6
in November 2017. The State’s published CEQA Guidelines indicate that the City will be
required to use VMT as the metric for transportation analysis under CEQA. VMT
measures the total distance traveled (in miles) between the origin and destination of a trip
and as such, captures the full extent of vehicle travel on the roadway network (VMT =
Trip Rate x Trip Length). VMT is a more appropriate metric for
assessing transportation impacts on the environment, because it i s r e l a t e d
to greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks,
and a diversity of land uses.
Currently, output data of the City’s Travel Demand Forecast Model is used to generate
Level of Service (LOS) analysis as formerly required under CEQA. Since 2008 the Model
also has calculated VMT for informational purposes, but not as a threshold of significance
for transportation impacts under CEQA. To comply with the anticipated CEQA Guidelines
under SB743, the TDFM will need to be calibrated to use VMT to assess transportation
impacts. Furthermore, the City will have to establish new transportation review
procedures and adopt new VMT-based traffic impact thresholds to replace the
existing Level of Service (LOS) impact thresholds.
Anticipated Timeline
City Council approved a contract with Fehr + Peers in October 2017 to update the Travel
Demand Forecast Model with the 2017 citywide transportation counts, and to recalibrate
the model based on network changes and horizon year land uses. Fehr + Peers will also
assist with development of some of the SB743 review guidelines and thresholds.
Community engagement is anticipated to educate the public regarding this change and
establishing new transportation analysis thresholds, including a public workshop, focus
groups and a number of public hearings.
The project will begin with updating and recalibrating the Model from January 2018 to
September 2018. This work includes steps to complete traffic counts and quality
assurance, develop horizon year forcecasts, update the physical network, update and
calibrate, and to evaluate TDM and VMT Performance.
Following Model update, staff will work on developing transportation review guidelines
and thresholds from July 2018 through April 2019. This phase will include tasks to
develop CEQA significance thresholds, develop planning-level transportation metrics,
and develop guidelines for transportation review of projects.
II. COUNCIL DIRECTED RESEARCH (“13 ITEMS”)
R1/Single Family Residential Development Standards
As part of the adoption of the zoning ordinance update, Council directed staff to further
research neighborhood-specific zoning changes that would address the unique character
of neighborhoods. The Planning Commission wrote a letter to the City Council requesting
review of the R1 zoning standards. Staff has received complaints from neighborhood
groups and individual residents expressing concern about the size of new homes. In
Item 8-A 01/09/18
156 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
7
nearly all cases, staff has found the new homes of concern to comply with existing zoning
regulations for single-unit dwellings. A previous update to the R1 standards addressed
“mansionization” concerns in 2000. Staff has received complaints regarding recent
renovations/additions and the redevelopment of older housing stock. These have raised
questions regarding the appropriateness of the existing R1 zoning standards. While the
R1 standards have been in place for many years, existing homes typically do not
represent the maximum buildable envelope resulting in a mismatch between new homes
and existing homes. An update to the R1 zoning standards would require a significant
public engagement process likely including a re-visioning of the appropriateness
character and scale of new construction and additions in R1 neighborhoods.
Anticipated Timeline
It is expected that staff could begin work on a comprehensive update to the R1 standards
in FY2018/19. However, an interim zoning ordinance that takes a more surgical approach
to strategically address specific R1 zoning regulations that would regulate the size of new
home construction pending completion of a comprehensive update could potentially be
completed by the second quarter of 2018.
Amendment of Bergamot Area Plan to Increase Percentage of Required Housing
The Bergamot Area Plan (BAP) encompasses an area that includes a large amount of
the city’s office space and includes the heart of the city’s creative industries with
approximately 8000 workers. The BAP established a required land use mix in the Mixed
Use Creative zoning district of 40% residential and 60% non-residential with an allowance
to vary by 10% in either direction. Since the adoption of the BAP, completed or under
construction projects include the following:
Project Address Land Use Entitled By
Agensys DA 1800 Stewart Avenue Research and
Development
1988 Zoning
Ordinance
Village Trailer Park
DA
2930 Colorado
Avenue
362 units housing
24,893 sf retail and
creative office
1988 Zoning
Ordinance
Colorado Creative
Studios DA
2834 Colorado
Avenue
192,000 sf creative
office
1988 Zoning
Ordinance
Pen Factory 1681 26th Street 203,816 sf creative
office
2013 Bergamot
Area Plan
As demonstrated by the above table, only one of the mentioned projects was approved
under BAP regulations, though the DA’s did provide some of the infrastructure
enhancements identified in the BAP for those sites as negotiations were ongoing
simultaneously with the development of the Plan. The Pen Factory project was entitled
as a Tier 1 addition of 7,499 square feet converting the vacant industrial space to creative
office. The only other project to have been approved (but not constructed) since the
adoption of the BAP is an approximately 600-space private parking structure at 2941
Michigan Avenue. Pending projects include a Tier 2 mixed-use housing projects at 3030
Item 8-A 01/09/18
157 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
8
Nebraska Avenue that includes a significant amount of subterranean floor area designed
to be within Tier 1 building height.
In the years subsequent to the adoption of the Bergamot Area Plan, staff has heard from
the development community that the BAP does not contain sufficient height and FAR
incentives to attract housing or commercial development, and that uncertainty and project
risk weigh heavily on larger projects. Minimal differences in the FAR allowance between
Tier 1 and Tier 2 do not provide incentives to produce housing or projects that could
contribute community benefits to the area’s transformation. The uncertainty of the
development agreement process for Tier 3 projects has led many property owners of
large parcels identified in the BAP as ripe for mixed-use development to maintain their
properties “as-is.” To the extent that there is interest in creating housing incentives similar
to that created in the DCP, further study and environmental analysis would be necessary
in order to determine necessary amendments.
Anticipated Timeline
Staff expects to be able to begin work in early 2019 but this effort would also likely be
folded into any options brought forward to encourage housing production on the
boulevards.
Amendment of Zoning Ordinance to Prohibit Conversion of Existing Hotel Rooms to
Residential Uses in the Proposition S Overlay Area
A recent change in ownership of the Loews hotel prompted inquiries from Council and the
community as to the intentions of the new owners, who converted a hotel to for-sale
condominiums in another city. New hotels are prohibited in the Prop S overlay area and
therefore, there is interest in preserving existing hotels. There has been no indication of
any interest in converting existing hotel rooms to residential uses nor are there any
pending applications for such a conversion.
Anticipated Timeline
As there are no pending applications for conversion of existing hotel rooms, this zoning
ordinance amendment does not have the same level of urgency as other amendments
that are affecting active projects or proposals. Staff could bring this forward with the
“Bucket 3” package of zoning ordinance discussions or as its own discrete amendment.
Staff expects to be able to bring forward potential options for consideration in the third
quarter of 2018.
Explore Tools to Encourage Housing Production on the Commercial Boulevards and in
the Bergamot Area and Disincentive 100% Commercial Projects
As part of the adoption of the Downtown Community Plan, Council gave further direction
to also study incentives for housing production citywide on the commercial boulevards
and the Bergamot area. Is it likely that work on this item will combine with any updates
to the BAP given the common thread of establishing a framework that will encourage
housing production. It is likely that fully exploring this direction will also precipitate
Item 8-A 01/09/18
158 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
9
amendments to the AHPP ordinance if not a comprehensive update to the AHPP.
Establishing a framework similar to the DCP will require additional economic feasibility
analyses in addition to outreach with the development community.
Anticipated Timeline
Staff expects to be able to initiate this effort in FY2018/19.
Explore Ordinance Denying New Discretionary Permits of Entitlements on Properties
Where Ongoing Violations Remain Unresolved
There have been occasional instances where a property has outstanding Municipal Code
violations but the property owner/applicant submits an application for a new permit. In
these situations, Council has expressed concern that by issuing new permits, the
applicant is not incentivized to abate the Code violation. Staff would need to research the
legal parameters regarding this issue with the City Attorney’s office.
Anticipated Timeline
Staff expects to begin research on options in 2018.
III. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Providence Saint John’s Health Center Phase Two Development Agreement Amendment
(2121 Santa Monica Boulevard)
The Providence Saint John’s Health Center (PSJHC) Phase Two Project development
agreement amendment includes a master plan process that will comprehensively review
the circulation, land use, parking, and development potential for the Health Center’s north
and south campuses located on Santa Monica Boulevard between 20th and 23rd Streets.
A procedural amendment to the development agreement was approved on April 25, 2017
and established a framework that resulted in the following:
Changed the South Campus Master Plan to a Phase Two Project Master Plan
encompassing all of Phase Two development, on both the North and South
Campuses.
Changed the Development Agreement to require approval of the Phase Two
Project Master Plan prior to approval of the individual Development Review
Permits for Phase Two Project buildings.
Required a phasing plan and performance schedule for significant project
components such as infrastructure, circulation improvements, and community
benefits.
Established the City Council as the decision-making body for the Phase Two
Project Master Plan.
Required that all Phase Two development be consistent with the approved Phase
Two Project Master Plan.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
159 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
10
Staff and the applicant team have completed its first-round review and discussion of the
Phase Two Project circulation plan and preparation the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the Phase Two Project has also commenced with release of a Draft EIR for
public review anticipated at the end of 2018.
Anticipated Project Review Timeline
Substantive Master Plan Review and Community Benefits Negotiations – 2018
EIR Public Review Draft – 4th quarter 2018
Planning Commission Hearings – 1st quarter 2019
City Council Hearings – Summer 2019
Development Review Permits for new John Wayne Cancer Institute, Child &
Family Development Center, and replacement housing (Scenario A) or West
Ambulatory & Acute Care Building and replacement housing (Scenario B) – Fall
2019
Plaza at Santa Monica (4th/5th and Arizona)
The Plaza at Santa Monica project is a public/private partnership located on City-owned
land. The project is proposed at 129’ and consists of office, hotel, retail, and cultural uses.
A large public plaza intended to provide space for a seasonal skating rink and other year-
round programming is a key feature of the project.
The site is identified as one of three Established Large Sites in the Downtown Community
Plan. The project requires both negotiations on terms of the ground lease with the
developer and a development agreement. The project is currently in the environmental
analysis phase with the Draft EIR anticipated to be released for public review in 2nd quarter
2018. Per Council direction, the Draft EIR will be studying a range of project and
circulation alternatives. Formal hearings are anticipated to commence at the Planning
Commission towards the end of 2018.
Anticipated Project Review Timeline
EIR Public Review Draft – 2nd Quarter 2018
Planning Commission Hearings – 4th Quarter 2018
City Council Hearings – 2nd Quarter 2019
Miramar Hotel Mixed-Use Project (1133 Ocean Avenue)
The proposed Miramar Hotel Mixed-Use Project Development Agreement application
was originally submitted in April 2011 to comprehensively redevelop the existing Santa
Monica Fairmont Miramar Hotel as a new approximately 550,000 SF (2.9 FAR) mixed-
use hotel with the following key components:
265 guest rooms
food, beverage, meeting, and spa facilities
retail space along Wilshire Boulevard
approximately one-acre open space area at the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and
Ocean Avenue
up to 120 condominiums
Item 8-A 01/09/18
160 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
11
up to 40 affordable housing units at 1127 2nd Street
approximately 484 on-site subterranean parking spaces
Preservation of the site’s Landmark Moreton Bay Fig Tree
Preservation/rehabilitation of the Landmark Palisades Building
Following Planning Commission’s review of the conceptual plans in February 2012, the
City provided direction regarding desired design parameters for the site and potential
priority community benefits to be negotiated, and authorized staff to initiate development
agreement negotiations with the applicant for the proposed project in April 2012. The
project design was revised by the applicant team and resubmitted in 2013. At that time,
the design strategy for the site focused on constructing a significantly taller, new building
at the center of the site (approximately 262’ tall) with open space and reduced building
heights on the perimeter of the property. While City staff initiated work on the EIR for the
project in 2013, that work along with City review of the revised project design was put on
hold pending completion of the Downtown Community Plan (DCP).
The Council adopted the DCP in August 2017 and included an Established Large Sites
Overlay for three individual project sites in the Downtown. The DCP requires that projects
for these three sites be processed as a development agreement and comply with specific
development parameters (building height, floor area, and open space). For the Miramar
Hotel site, the maximum building height for the project site is 130’ and a maximum floor
area ratio of 3.0.
It is anticipated that applicant will submit revised project plans during the first quarter of
2018 that address programmatic changes and design concept revisions that comply with
the DCP’s Established Large Sites Overlay regulations. Following initial review of these
revised plans, City staff will resume its preparation of the Draft EIR for the project,
including hosting a second EIR Scoping Meeting for the new project design.
Anticipated Project Review Timeline
Submit Revised Project Plans – 1st quarter 2018
EIR Scoping Meeting for Revised Project – 1st quarter 2018
Substantive Project Review and Community Benefits Negotiations – 2018 through
1st quarter 2019
EIR Public Review Draft – 1st/2nd quarter 2019
Planning Commission Hearings – Summer 2019
City Council Hearings – 1st quarter 2020
Ocean Avenue Hotel (101 Santa Monica Boulevard)
A Development Agreement application was submitted in February 2013 for a proposed
mixed-use hotel, cultural, retail, and residential development at the northwest corner of
Santa Monica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue (“Ocean Avenue Project”). The originally-
proposed project, designed by Gehry Partners, LLP, included the f o l l o w i n g k e y
components:
125-room hotel with meeting room and banquet space;
Item 8-A 01/09/18
161 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
12
19 new rent-controlled apartments to replace existing on-site units;
Up to five new affordable on-site rental units;
22 condominium units;
Ground-floor restaurant and retail space;
Three-building cultural/museum campus with open space;
Publically-accessible roof-top observation deck;
Three-level subterranean parking garage with approximately 460 spaces; and
Retention and rehabilitation of two, on-site designated City Landmark structures.
The applicant hosted a Community Meeting to introduce the proposed project in March
2013 which was followed by the Architectural Review Board’s conceptual discussion of
the proposal in August 2013. Following completion of the Community Meeting, City review
of the project was put on hold pending completion of the Downtown Community Plan. The
Council adopted the DCP in August 2017 and included an Established Large Sites
Overlay for three individual project sites in the Downtown. The DCP requires that projects
for these three sites be processed as a development agreement and comply with specific
development parameters (building height, floor area, and open space). For the Ocean
Avenue Hotel site, the maximum building height for the project site is 130’ and a maximum
floor area ratio of 4.0.
It is anticipated that applicant will submit revised project plans during the 4th quarter of
2017 that address programmatic changes and design concept revisions that comply with
the DCP’s Established Large Sites Overlay regulations. The applicant is scheduled to
host a second Community Meeting to introduce the revised project design on January 11,
2018. Following initial review of the project plans, preliminary conceptual review will be
scheduled at the Landmarks Commission and/or the Architectural Review Board during
1st quarter 2018. It is anticipated that Float-Up Discussions at Planning Commission and
City Council will be completed by 3rd quarter 2018 followed by initiation of environmental
review for the project.
Anticipated Project Review Timeline
Submit Revised Project Plans – 1st quarter 2018
Community Meeting – 1st quarter 2018
ARB/Landmarks Conceptual Review – 1st quarter 2018
Planning Commission Float-Up Discussion – 2nd quarter 2018
City Council Float-Up Discussion – 3rd quarter 2018
EIR Scoping Meeting – end of 2018
Substantive Project Review and Community Benefits Negotiations – 2019
EIR Public Review Draft – end of 2019
Planning Commission Hearings – 3rd quarter 2020
City Council Hearings – 1st quarter of 2021
Item 8-A 01/09/18
162 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
13
IV. ALIGNMENT OF WORKPLAN WITH COUNCIL PRIORITY AREAS
(STRATEGIC GOALS)
In order to connect desired outcomes to the day-to-day work of city government, the City
Council identified five council priority areas, or Strategic Goals, that are expected to have
short-term impact on community safety, quality of life, and prosperity.
Based on best practices from municipalities across the country, Santa Monica is now
using an approach to workplan development and budgeting that connects the work of City
Departments to a new Framework and SaMoStat. This process aligns departmental work
efforts, measures outcomes, and ultimately ensures that the City delivers these services
Item 8-A 01/09/18
163 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
14
effectively and a transparent manner. The Framework is built around its long-term
commitment to sustainability infused with its new Wellbeing Index, Santa Monica’s
custom measurement tool that provides an understanding of wellbeing in our community.
The Framework is built on the core beliefs, visions, and structures of these two exciting
and groundbreaking approaches. The five strategic goals connect to these outcome areas
through a matrix- They are the key drivers that will allow us to achieve outcomes for the
residents of and visitors to Santa Monica.
Based on these descriptions of the five priority areas, the following matrix has been
developed to guide the Planning Commission’s discussion on focus areas for the City
Planning Division. The matrix demonstrates where individual planning efforts or Council
directed research aligns with Council priorities.
Council
Strategic Goals
INCLUSIVE
AND
DIVERSE
COMMUNITY
MOBILITY THE
AIRPORT HOMELESSNESS
LEARN
AND
THRIVE
Policy Plans
Pico Zoning District X
Memorial Park
Neighborhood Plan X X X
Local Coastal
Program Update
(Required by law)
X X
Gateway Master
Plan X
Landmarks
Ordinance
SB743
Implementation
(Required by law)
X
Council Directed Research
R1 Standards
Bergamot Housing
and Use Mix X
Housing Production
on Boulevards X
Item 8-A 01/09/18
164 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
15
Council
Strategic Goals
INCLUSIVE
AND
DIVERSE
COMMUNITY
MOBILITY THE
AIRPORT HOMELESSNESS
LEARN
AND
THRIVE
Hotel/Condo in Prop
S Overlay
Denying Permits for
Properties with
Unresolved Code
Violations
The Council’s strategic goals formed the basis for how staff prioritizes the work of the City
Planning Division, especially those that require staff and funding resources. A second
framework for organizing priorities is based on ongoing legal requirements. This would
allow projects such as the Local Coastal Program Update, Housing Element, and SB743
guidelines to be brought forward. A third framework is based the urgency of issues to be
addressed. For example, staff has been bringing forward clarifications to the zoning
ordinance in response to questions raised in the course of project review and
implementation. As these changes directly affect the daily work of the division, these
have been prioritized.
CONCLUSION
This report presents an overview of the strategic plans, land use policies, and major
development agreements that are City Planning priorities for the next two years. The
significant volume of “day to day” work requires the majority of staff to be devoted to the
Division’s development review function. Similarly, each of the projects in this report
requires a significant investment in staff time, consultant time, and public engagement.
Therefore, some of the strategic plans and comprehensive ordinance updates in addition
to the major development agreements have been prioritized so that projects can be
completed in a timely manner responsive to Council’s direction. Council directed
research is incorporated into the workplan as appropriate but based on the Council’s
strategic goals, staff would prioritize work on the creation of housing incentives on the
boulevards and within the Bergamot Plan area. Due to the ongoing construction in R1
neighborhoods that continues to generate community concern, staff could propose an
interim zoning ordinance in short order that could put in place temporary regulations
pending a comprehensive update.
As noted in this report, staff has organized priorities based upon the following framework:
1. Council adopted Strategic Goals
2. Legally required policy documents
3. Urgency of issue and impact on daily work
Item 8-A 01/09/18
165 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
16
Based on this framework, staff has prioritized the Division’s work in the following manner:
1. Pico Zoning District
2. SB743 Implementation
3. Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan
4. Local Coastal Program Update
5. Gateway Master Plan
6. Options to Encourage Housing on the Boulevards
The remainder of the strategic plans and Council-directed research will be included in the
work plan as capacity allows. In these instances, staff has been reviewing interim options
that might allow bringing forward changes sooner while reserving a larger effort for
subsequent years.
Major developments projects also have a natural stagger however, processing of these
applications requires a significant investment of interdepartmental staff time, time for
environmental review, and community engagement. As all the development
agreements are anticipated to generate intense public interest, it should be noted that
staff devoted to processing the projects will not be able to devote attention to other
potential priorities, such as the Landmarks Ordinance update. This is an area where
staff seeks direction as to how these efforts should be prioritized.
Attachments
A. Pending Projects List
B. City Planning Major Projects Calendar
Item 8-A 01/09/18
166 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
ATTACHMENT A
PENDING PROJECTS LIST
Item 8-A 01/09/18
167 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
1
4t
h
/
5
t
h
&
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
90
4
0
1
1
3
0
1
4
t
h
S
t
14
D
E
V
0
0
3
8/
1
2
/
1
4
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Of
f
i
c
e
/
H
o
t
e
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
EI
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐1
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
1
4
8
'
‐4
2
0
,
0
0
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐4
8
u
n
i
t
s
(
4
2
,
0
0
0
s
f
)
‐2
0
9
,
0
0
0
s
f
o
f
f
i
c
e
‐2
0
0
h
o
t
e
l
r
o
o
m
s
(
1
1
7
,
0
0
0
s
f
)
‐1
2
,
0
0
0
s
f
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
‐4
0
,
0
0
0
s
f
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐1
1
0
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
42
0
,
0
0
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
8
S
t
u
d
i
o
s
(
1
7
%
)
22
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
4
6
%
)
14
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
9
%
)
4
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
8
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
48
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
(
1
0
0
%
)
Comm. Mtg: 9/8/14 ARB Float Up: 12/5/14 PC Float Up: 6/3/15 CC Float Up: 10/20/15 PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDJing Yeo
2
12
3
5
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
D
a
v
i
d
F
o
r
b
e
s
Hi
b
b
e
r
t
f
o
r
J
A
M
N
A
N
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
L
P
90
4
0
1
1
2
3
5
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
13
D
E
V
0
0
9
10
/
8
/
2
0
1
3
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
0
'
‐
2
4
,
1
7
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
2
7
u
n
i
t
s
(
2
2
,
5
0
5
S
F
)
‐
1
,
3
6
0
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
2
4
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
24
,
1
7
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
10
S
t
u
d
i
o
s
(
3
7
%
)
15
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
5
6
%
)
2
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
7
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
St
u
d
i
o
s
‐
4
5
6
‐
5
0
5
S
F
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
7
4
5
‐
9
4
6
S
F
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
1
0
5
0
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDGrace Page
3
13
2
3
5
t
h
S
t
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
e
s
s
e
O
t
t
i
n
g
e
r
fo
r
N
M
S
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
3
2
3
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
0
8
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
9
8/
2
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
0
'
‐
2
4
u
n
i
t
s
‐
3
,
3
4
1
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
3
3
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
24
,
2
7
9
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
2
‐
S
t
u
d
i
o
13
‐
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
5
‐
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
4
‐
3
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
TB
D
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
1
‐
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
1
‐
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDTravis Page
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
1 Item 8-A 01/09/18
16
8
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
4
13
4
2
5
t
h
S
t
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
e
s
s
e
O
t
t
i
n
g
e
r
fo
r
N
M
S
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
3
4
2
5
t
h
S
t
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
0
3
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
8
8/
2
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
0
'
‐
5
1
u
n
i
t
s
‐
5
4
,
5
6
4
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
7
7
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
48
,
6
2
5
6
‐
S
t
u
d
i
o
26
‐
1
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
11
‐
2
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
8
‐
3
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
TB
D
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
2
‐
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
2
‐
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDTravis Page
5
14
2
5
5
t
h
S
t
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
a
t
t
B
e
a
n
f
o
r
14
2
5
5
N
M
S
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
1
4
2
5
5
t
h
S
t
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
1
6
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
5
4
8/
1
1
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
7
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
8
4
'
‐
7
5
u
n
i
t
s
‐
9
,
6
8
9
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
59
,
3
2
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
TB
D
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
TB
D
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRussell Bunim
6
13
2
5
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
3
2
5
6
t
h
S
t
12
D
E
V
0
0
5
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
4
3
5/
3
/
2
0
1
2
re
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
6/
2
5
/
1
5
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
Fi
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
1
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
Ex
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
6
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
5
9
'
‐
4
4
,
9
4
4
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
6
1
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
4
,
7
3
0
S
F
)
‐
1
0
,
2
1
4
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
1
3
6
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
44
,
9
4
4
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
17
s
t
u
d
i
o
s
(
2
8
%
)
28
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
4
6
%
)
16
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
6
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
St
u
d
i
o
‐
4
0
1
S
F
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
5
6
6
S
F
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
7
5
4
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
5
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
(
8
%
)
Comm. Mtg: 8/30/12 Comm. Mtg #2: 2/25/16 ARB Float Up: 4/4/16 PC Float Up: 4/20/16 PC Hearing: 10/18/17 CC Hearing: 11/28/17Paul Foley
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 2Item 8-A 01/09/18
16
9
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
7
14
3
7
7
t
h
S
t
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
B
C
M
1
4
3
7
7
t
h
St
r
e
e
t
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
1
4
3
7
7
t
h
S
t
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
2
9
8/
1
8
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
0
'
‐
6
0
u
n
i
t
s
‐
1
0
,
1
4
0
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
9
1
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
44
,
7
3
5
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
TB
D
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
TB
D
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDGrace Page
8
15
4
3
7
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
5
4
3
7
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
6
9
15
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
5
6/
3
0
/
1
5
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
Un
i
t
M
i
x
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
6
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
8
4
'
‐
4
4
,
8
8
2
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
6
2
u
n
i
t
s
(
4
1
,
2
6
5
S
F
)
‐
3
,
6
1
7
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
8
5
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
44
,
8
8
2
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
9
s
t
u
d
i
o
s
(
1
5
%
)
30
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
4
8
%
)
14
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
2
%
)
9
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
5
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
St
u
d
i
o
‐
3
1
5
S
F
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
5
3
0
S
F
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
8
0
0
S
F
th
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
9
6
5
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
5
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
(
8
%
)
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRussell Bunim
9
60
3
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ho
t
e
l
/
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
6
0
3
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
LP
90
4
0
1
6
0
3
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
A
v
e
13
D
E
V
0
0
2
1/
8
/
1
3
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
:
Ho
t
e
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
7
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
9
'
2
"
‐
2
3
,
6
2
5
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
6
3
h
o
t
e
l
r
o
o
m
s
(
2
2
,
4
9
7
s
f
)
‐
1
,
1
2
8
S
F
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
‐
5 1
su
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
pa
r
k
i
n
g
sp
a
c
e
s
23
,
6
2
5
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pending: Resubmitted as hotel project.Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDTBD
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 3Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
0
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
10
50
1
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
5
0
1
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
(P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Cy
c
l
e
)
12
D
E
V
0
1
8
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
4
12
/
0
6
/
1
2
re
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
8/
2
2
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
U
n
i
t
M
i
x
a
n
d
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
5
1
,
4
8
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
6
5
u
n
i
t
s
(
4
6
,
8
8
0
S
F
)
‐
6
,
0
4
0
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
1
5
4
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
51
,
4
8
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
13
s
t
u
d
i
o
(
2
0
%
)
21
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
3
2
%
)
24
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
3
7
%
)
7
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
1
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
8
s
t
u
d
i
o
4
0
0
‐
4
6
0
S
F
5
l
o
f
t
s
t
u
d
i
o
6
1
0
‐
6
6
0
S
F
9
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
5
7
0
‐
6
9
0
S
F
12
l
o
f
t
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
6
6
0
‐
9
0
0
S
F
24
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
7
8
0
‐
9
3
0
S
F
7
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
9
7
0
‐
1
0
8
0
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
10
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
5
%
)
3
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
5
%
)
Comm. Mtg: 7/25/13 ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: NA PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDPaul Foley
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 4Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
1
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
11
Wy
n
d
h
a
m
H
o
t
e
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
Fe
l
c
o
r
/
N
P
M
(
S
P
E
)
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
1
2
0
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
13
D
E
V
0
0
5
7/
6
/
1
3
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
:
Ho
t
e
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
1
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
1
9
5
'
‐
1
7
0
,
1
0
4
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
2
1
1
H
o
t
e
l
R
o
o
m
s
(
1
0
4
,
2
5
8
s
f
)
‐
2
5
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
(
4
3
,
0
9
2
s
f
)
‐
1
3
,
6
8
4
s
f
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
‐
3
,
6
0
0
s
f
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
5
,
4
7
0
s
f
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
‐
1
8
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p ar
k
i
n
g s
p ac
e
s
17
0
,
1
0
4
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
5
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
15
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
5
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Comm. Mtg: 9/26/13 ARB Float Up: 1/6/14 PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDJing Yeo
12
52
5
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
B
C
P
5
2
5
Co
l
o
r
a
d
o
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
5
2
5
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
12
D
E
V
0
1
2
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
re
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
8/
1
6
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
TB
D
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐7
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
8
4
'
‐5
5
u
n
i
t
s
‐3
,
6
7
7
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐1
2
5
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
41
,
1
4
5
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
49
s
t
u
d
i
o
(
6
4
%
)
14
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
8
%
)
14
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
8
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
St
u
d
i
o
s
‐
3
6
6
‐
4
1
3
S
F
.
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
4
8
2
‐
5
8
6
S
F
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
8
0
3
‐
8
7
6
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
8
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
s
t
u
d
i
o
s
(
1
0
%
)
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDPaul Foley
13
60
1
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
6
0
1
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
Av
e
.
(
F
r
i
t
t
o
M
i
s
t
o
)
12
D
E
V
0
1
9
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
5
3
12
/
6
/
2
0
1
2
re
s
u
b
m
i
t
e
d
8/
2
2
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
U
n
i
t
M
i
x
&
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐6
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
8
4
'
‐6
7
,
5
0
7
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐1
0
0
u
n
i
t
s
(
5
2
,
9
9
8
S
F
)
‐9
,
5
2
5
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐1
5
3
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
67
,
5
0
7
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
20
S
t
u
d
i
o
(
2
0
%
)
50
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
20
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
0
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
No
t
y
e
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
15
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
5
%
)
5
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
c
o
m
e
5
%
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRussell Bunim
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 5Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
2
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
14
14
3
1
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Mi
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
A
R
Y
A
,
L
P
90
4
0
4
1
4
3
1
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
Av
e
13
D
E
V
0
0
1
1/
8
/
1
3
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
T
B
D
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
3
‐
4
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
4
7
'
‐
4
4
,
9
0
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
5
0
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
8
s
t
u
d
i
o
/
1
2
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
)
‐
1
0
,
4
7
5
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
2
,
1
1
0
S
F
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
‐
1
4
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p ar
k
i
n
g s
p ac
e
s
44
,
9
0
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
3
8
s
t
u
d
i
o
,
1
2
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
St
u
d
i
o
‐
5
0
0
S
F
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
9
0
0
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
8
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
5
%
)
Pending ‐ applicant considering redesign Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRussell Bunim
15
13
1
8
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
3
1
8
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
13
D
E
V
0
0
6
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
1
8/
6
/
2
0
1
3
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
U
n
i
t
M
i
x
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
3
‐
6
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
0
'
‐
4
1
,
2
5
3
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
6
0
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
8
,
6
4
0
S
F
)
‐
2
6
1
3
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
1
6
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
41
,
2
5
3
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
11
s
t
u
d
i
o
(
1
8
%
)
31
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
5
2
%
)
12
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
0
%
)
6
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
0
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
Av
e
r
a
g
e
s
i
z
e
:
S
t
u
d
i
o
=
4
0
7
S
F
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
6
0
2
S
F
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
8
5
7
S
F
th
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
8
7
0
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
6
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
0
%
)
3
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(15
%
)Pending DR submitted ‐ to be withdrawn Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDScott Albright
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 6Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
3
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
16
14
3
0
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
4
3
0
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
Bl
v
d
.
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
6
6
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
5
2
6/
2
5
/
1
5
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
T
i
e
r
2
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
TB
D
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
5
0
'
‐
6
7
,
2
3
7
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
1
0
0
u
n
i
t
s
(
6
1
,
3
2
7
S
F
)
‐
5
,
9
1
0
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
2
5
5
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
67
,
2
3
7
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
25
s
t
u
d
i
o
(
2
5
%
)
50
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
5
0
%
)
25
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
5
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
6
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
1
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
6
%
2
v
e
r
y l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
2
‐
b
e
c
r
o
o
m
2
%
Comm. Mtg: 3/23/16 ARB Float Up: 4/4/16 PC Float Up: 4/20/16 PC Hearing: 10/18/17 CC Hearing: 11/28/17Paul Foley
17
14
4
3
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
4
4
3
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
12
D
E
V
0
0
7
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
4
2
6/
7
/
1
2
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
U
n
i
t
M
i
x
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
3
‐
6
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
0
'
‐
4
1
,
2
4
8
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
6
0
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
7
,
2
0
0
S
F
)
‐
1
5
7
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
41
,
2
4
8
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
11
s
t
u
d
i
o
(
1
8
%
)
31
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
5
2
%
)
12
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
0
%
)
6
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
0
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
St
u
d
i
o
(
2
6
5
‐
3
0
0
S
F
)
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
3
2
8
‐
3
5
9
S
F
)
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
4
6
2
‐
5
2
9
S
F
)
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
6
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
0
%
)
3
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
5
%
)
Pending DR submitted ‐ to be withdrawn Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: N/A PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDGrace Page
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 7Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
4
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
18
Mi
r
a
m
a
r
H
o
t
e
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
O
c
e
a
n
Av
e
n
u
e
L
L
C
,
c
/
o
M
S
D
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
90
4
0
3
1
1
3
3
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
/
10
1
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
11
D
E
V
0
0
3
4/
2
8
/
1
1
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
EI
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
2
1
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
3
2
0
'
‐
5
6
8
,
9
4
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐4
9
,
3
8
4
S
F
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐2
6
5
h
o
t
e
l
r
o
o
m
s
‐
b
a
n
q
u
e
t
s
p
a
c
e
/
d
i
n
i
n
g
/
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐u
p
t
o
1
2
0
c
o
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
u
n
i
t
s
‐u
p
t
o
4
0
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
r
e
n
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
‐o
n
‐
s
i
t
e
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
M
o
r
e
t
o
n
B
a
y
F
i
g
T
r
e
e
‐
4
8
4
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p ar
k
i
n
g s
p ac
e
s
56
8
,
9
4
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Comm. Mtg: 6/6/11 ARB Float Up: N/A*PC Float Up: 2/8/12; 2/22/12 CC Float Up: 4/24/12 PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBD *Preceded current processRoxanne Tanemori
19
23
4
P
i
c
o
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
:
G
R
T
Po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
90
4
0
5
2
3
4
P
i
c
o
B
l
v
d
12
D
E
V
0
2
2
(B
o
w
l
i
n
g
A
l
l
e
y
)
12
/
1
1
/
1
2
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
T
B
D
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
3
‐1
0
0
,
2
4
5
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐9
1
u
n
i
t
s
(
8
0
,
1
4
5
S
F
)
‐2
0
,
1
0
0
S
F
(
9
,
0
0
0
S
F
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
‐2
6
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
10
0
,
2
4
5
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
45
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
4
9
%
)
46
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
5
1
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
:
6
1
5
S
F
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
:
9
0
0
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
9
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
0
%
)
3
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
%
)
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRoxanne Tanemori
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 8Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
5
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
20
Oc
e
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(G
e
h
r
y
H
o
t
e
l
)
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
.
D
a
v
i
d
P
a
u
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
0
1
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
Bl
v
d
.
13
D
E
V
0
0
4
2/
2
8
/
1
3
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
M
u
s
e
u
m
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
2
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
2
5
5
'
‐
3
3
8
,
6
9
5
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
1
2
5
H
o
t
e
l
R
o
o
m
s
‐
2
2
c
o
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
s
a
n
d
2
4
r
e
n
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
‐
g
r
o
u
n
d
‐
f
l
o
o
r
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
a
n
d
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
3
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
/
m
u
s
e
u
m
c
a
m
p
u
s
/
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
‐
p
u
b
l
i
c
l
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
r
o
o
f
‐
t
o
p
o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
c
k
‐
o
n
‐
s
i
t
e
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
2
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
C
i
t
y
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
‐
4
6
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
33
8
,
6
9
5
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
12
s
t
u
d
i
o
(
2
6
%
)
7
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
5
%
)
27
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
5
9
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
19
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
n
t
‐
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
u
p
t
o
5
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
re
n
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
(
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
n
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
ye
t
)
Comm. Mtg: 3/21/13 ARB Float Up: 8/5/13 PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRoxanne Tanemori
21
To
y
o
t
a
D
e
a
l
e
r
s
h
i
p
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
i
k
e
Su
l
l
i
v
a
n
/
T
o
y
o
t
a
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
90
4
0
4
1
5
3
0
S
a
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
12
D
E
V
0
1
6
11
/
2
9
/
1
2
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
:
A
u
t
o
D
e
a
l
e
r
s
h
i
p
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
1
‐
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
3
2
'
‐
5
5
,
4
5
4
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
55
,
4
5
4
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
PROJECT ON HOLD Comm. Mtg: 3/14/13 ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDTony Kim
22
18
0
2
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
l
u
s
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
90
4
0
4
1
8
0
2
S
a
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
09
D
E
V
0
0
1
12
/
1
0
/
0
9
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
,
T
i
e
r
2
Us
e
:
Au
t
o
d
e
a
l
e
r
/
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
/
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐
3
‐
s
t
o
r
y
/
3
5
'
‐
3
3
,
7
1
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐2
3
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
8
,
6
1
0
S
F
)
‐1
3
,
5
9
0
S
F
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
a
u
t
o
d
e
a
l
e
r
s
h
o
w
r
o
o
m
‐
1
,
3
9
0
S
F
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
/
c
a
f
é
‐
1
3
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
33
,
7
1
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
16
S
t
u
d
i
o
(
7
0
%
)
4
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
7
%
)
1
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
4
%
)
2
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
9
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Pending DR submitted ‐ to be withdrawn Comm. Mtg: 12/2/10 ARB Float Up: NA*PC Float Up: 2/16/11 CC Float Up: NA*PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBD *Preceded current processSteve Mizokami
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 9Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
6
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
23
21
2
1
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
S
a
i
n
t
J
o
h
n
'
s
He
a
l
t
h
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
o
u
t
h
Ca
m
p
u
s
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
Sa
i
n
t
J
o
h
n
'
s
H
e
a
l
t
h
Ce
n
t
e
r
90
4
0
4
2
1
2
1
S
a
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
15
E
N
T
‐
0
0
6
8
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
3
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
4
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
5
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
6
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
7
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
8
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
9
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
1
0
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
1
2
3/
3
1
/
1
5
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
,
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
,
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
P
e
r
m
i
t
,
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Us
e
:
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
a
n
d
h
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
re
s
e
a
r
c
h
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
c
h
i
l
d
c
a
r
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
c
a
m
p
u
s
,
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
co
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
,
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
,
h
e
a
l
t
h
‐
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
a
n
d
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
1
0
m
u
l
t
i
‐
f
a
m
i
l
y
u
n
i
t
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
on
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
c
a
m
p
u
s
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
‐U
p
t
o
7
9
9
,
0
0
0
S
F
79
9
,
0
0
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
TB
D
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
TB
D
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
TB
D
Comm. Mtg: 7/30/15 ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: 4/27/16 CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRoxanne Tanemori
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 10Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
7
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
P
E
R
M
I
T
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
To
t
a
l
S
F
UN
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
PR
O
C
E
S
S
S
T
A
T
U
S
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
1
Me
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
o
j
d
e
h
Me
m
a
r
z
a
d
e
h
90
4
0
4
1
4
1
9
1
9
t
h
S
t
16
A
D
M
‐
0
0
7
0
6/
2
7
/
2
0
1
6
5,
3
4
2
s
f
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
o
f
f
i
c
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5,
3
4
2
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
U
n
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
G
i
n
a
S
z
i
l
a
k
2
3‐
u
n
i
t
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Co
n
d
o
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
4
3
6
P
i
e
r
L
P
90
4
0
5
4
3
6
P
i
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
16
A
D
M
‐
0
0
7
3
7/
5
/
2
0
1
6
3
u
n
i
t
c
o
n
d
o
i
n
O
c
e
a
n
P
a
r
k
‐2
s
t
o
r
y
/
2
2
'
1
1
"
‐3
u
n
i
t
s
‐6
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
3,
4
9
7
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
U
n
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
R
u
s
s
e
l
l
Bunim
3
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
o
h
n
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
90
4
0
5
3
2
8
0
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
16
A
D
M
‐
0
0
8
8
9/
1
5
/
2
0
1
6
3,
8
9
8
s
f
m
i
x
e
d
‐
u
s
e
3,
8
9
8
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
U
n
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
G
i
n
a
S
z
i
l
a
k
4
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
e
r
r
o
l
d
Ep
s
t
e
i
n
90
4
0
4
1
7
1
8
2
0
t
h
S
t
17
A
D
M
‐
0
0
0
4
1/
2
4
/
2
0
1
7
1,
1
8
9
s
f
a
u
t
o
b
o
d
y
p
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
s
h
e
d
1
,
1
8
9
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
U
n
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
G
i
n
a
S
z
i
l
a
k
5
3‐
u
n
i
t
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Co
n
d
o
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
A
V
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
L
L
C
90
4
0
5
1
2
2
S
t
r
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
17
A
D
M
‐
0
0
2
6
4/
3
/
2
0
1
7
3‐
u
n
i
t
C
o
n
d
o
‐2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
2
9
.
8
6
F
T
‐3
u
n
i
t
s
‐6
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
4,
9
1
5
.
7
5
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
U
n
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
G
r
a
c
e
P
a
g
e
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S :
PE
N
D
I
N
G
A
A
'
s
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
11Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
8
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
P
E
R
M
I
T
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
To
t
a
l
S
F
UN
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
PR
O
C
E
S
S
S
T
A
T
U
S
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S :
PE
N
D
I
N
G
A
A
'
s
6
2‐
s
t
o
r
y
m
i
x
e
d
‐
u
s
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
1
2
3
8
7t
h
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
1
2
3
8
7
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
17
A
D
M
‐
0
0
3
1
4/
1
1
/
2
0
1
7
2‐
s
t
o
r
y
m
i
x
e
d
‐
u
s
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ad
d
7
,
4
8
6
s
f
‐7
u
n
i
t
s
(
6
,
4
0
8
s
f
)
‐8
5
4
s
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐2
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
s
7,
4
2
1
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
2
2
‐
B
R
;
5
3
‐
B
R
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
v
i
e
w
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
Rocque
7
AA
f
o
r
d
u
p
l
e
x
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
2
0
1
6
C
A
EA
T
L
L
C
90
4
0
5
2
2
1
5
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
17
E
N
T
‐
0
1
0
4
6/
2
9
/
2
0
1
7
2
n
e
w
u
n
i
t
s
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
v
i
e
w
C
a
r
y
F
u
k
u
i
8
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
/
r
e
m
o
d
e
l
t
o
4
‐
un
i
t
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
GO
L
A
Y
,
K
E
C
I
A
90
4
0
5
2
8
1
7
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
17
E
N
T
‐
0
1
5
9
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
7
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
/
r
e
m
o
d
e
l
‐
4
‐
u
n
i
t
a
p
t
.
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
v
i
e
w
J
a
m
e
s
Combs
9
3,
9
9
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
c
r
e
a
t
i
v
e
of
f
c
i
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
n
se
c
o
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
27
0
0
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
IN
C
90
4
0
4
2
7
0
0
P
e
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
a
Av
e
.
17
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
4
8/
2
4
/
2
0
1
7
3,
9
9
0
s
q
f
t
.
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
3
,
9
9
0
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
v
i
e
w
I
v
a
n
L
a
i
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
A
A
'
s
‐
T
o
t
a
l
S
F
26
,
2
6
3
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
12Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
9
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
P
E
R
M
I
T
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
UN
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
PR
O
C
E
S
S
S
T
A
T
U
S
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
1
19
2
1
O
c
e
a
n
F
r
o
n
t
W
a
l
k
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
H
a
n
k
K
o
n
i
n
g
fo
r
A
l
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
90
4
0
1
1
9
2
1
O
c
e
a
n
F
r
o
n
t
W
a
l
k
(f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
k
n
o
w
n
a
s
19
2
0
O
c
e
a
n
W
a
y
)
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
9
7
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
9
8
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
9
9
09
/
0
1
/
1
5
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐4
5
,
3
1
7
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐2
3
u
n
i
t
s
(
4
1
,
6
8
2
s
f
)
‐1
,
9
7
0
s
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐4
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
(
4
7
'
)
‐6
2
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
‐R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
M
a
j
o
r
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
h
e
i
g
h
t
of
s
t
r
e
e
t
f
a
c
i
n
g
f
a
c
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
1
5
f
e
e
t
t
o
1
2
f
e
e
t
‐R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
M
i
n
o
r
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
e
l
i
m
i
n
i
a
t
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
1
0
%
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
b
i
k
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
1
0
‐
fo
o
t
‐
l
o
n
g
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
1
0
%
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
bi
k
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
s
‐R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
W
a
i
v
e
r
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
se
t
b
a
c
k
f
r
o
m
1
0
f
e
e
t
t
o
2
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
s
t
r
e
e
t
f
a
c
i
n
g
pa
r
c
e
l
l
i
n
e
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
44
,
6
8
9
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
19
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
8
3
%
)
4 t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
7
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
1
,
7
1
0
s
f
th
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
2
,
2
9
0
s
f
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N/
A
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
:
8
/
2
5
/
1
6
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
7
/
3
1
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
T
B
D
Russell Bunim
2
18
2
8
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
H
a
n
k
K
o
n
i
n
g
fo
r
A
l
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
90
4
0
1
1
8
2
8
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
15
E
N
T
‐
0
3
0
0
15
E
N
T
‐
0
3
0
1
15
A
D
M
‐
0
0
3
8
09
/
0
1
/
1
5
Us
e
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐8
9
,
4
2
8
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐8
3
u
n
i
t
s
(
8
4
,
1
2
7
s
f
)
‐
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
4
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
u
n
i
t
s
f
r
o
m
1
9
2
0
O
c
e
a
n
F
r
o
n
t
w
a
l
k
‐5
,
3
1
0
s
f
o
f
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
o
m
m
o
n
a
r
e
a
‐4
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
(
4
7
'
)
‐2
8
7
s
e
m
i
‐
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
12
7
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
n
‐
s
i
t
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
C
a
s
a
D
e
l
M
a
r
)
‐R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
M
a
j
o
r
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
h
e
i
g
h
t
of
s
t
r
e
e
t
f
a
c
i
n
g
f
a
c
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
1
5
f
e
e
t
t
o
1
2
f
e
e
t
‐R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
M
i
n
o
r
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
o
f
pr
i
v
a
t
e
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
l
i
v
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
i
n
t
o
c
o
m
m
o
n
l
i
v
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
fo
r
3
7
u
n
i
t
s
89
,
9
9
7
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
50
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
6
0
%
)
20
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
4
%
)
13
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
6
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
8
0
9
s
f
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
1
,
2
0
7
s
f
th
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
1
,
5
0
0
s
f
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
12
u
n
i
t
s
@
5
0
%
A
M
I
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
:
8
/
2
5
/
1
6
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
7
/
3
1
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
T
B
D
Russell Bunim
3
20
2
0
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
a
r
k
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
LL
C
90
4
0
4
2
0
2
0
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
06
D
R
0
0
7
/
06
T
M
0
2
1
15
E
N
T
‐
0
3
1
0
07
/
1
8
/
0
6
Us
e
:
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
‐ 2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
3
3
f
e
e
t
‐ 2
1
u
n
i
t
s
‐ 4
7
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
31
,
7
1
1
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
21
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
0
0
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
12
0
8
‐
1
6
2
4
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
2 v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
t
w
o
‐
be
d
r
o
o
m
u
n
i
t
s
(9.
5
%
)
PC
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
5
/
2
8
/
1
4
*
*c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Russell Bunim
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S :
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
R
'
s
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
13Item 8-A 01/09/18
18
0
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
P
E
R
M
I
T
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
UN
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
PR
O
C
E
S
S
S
T
A
T
U
S
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S :
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
R
'
s
4
12
4
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
We
l
l
n
e
s
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
1
9
2
5
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
LA
L
L
C
90
4
0
4
1
2
4
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
16
E
N
T
‐
0
0
4
8
(
D
R
)
16
E
N
T
‐
0
0
4
9
(
C
U
P
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
B
e
i
n
g
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
4/
7
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
: M
e
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐3
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
4
5
f
e
e
t
‐1
1
0
,
5
0
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐6
5
,
0
0
0
s
f
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
&
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
‐1
6
,
5
0
0
s
f
C
l
i
n
i
c
‐1
4
,
0
0
0
s
f
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
‐7
,
5
0
0
s
f
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
v
e
r
e
d
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
s
‐21
8
+
pa
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
11
0
,
5
0
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N/
A
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
T
B
D
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
T
B
D
Russell Bunim
5
29
0
3
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
L
o
t
7
LL
C
90
4
0
5
2
9
0
3
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
16
E
N
T
‐
0
0
3
4
(
C
U
P
)
16
E
N
T
‐
0
0
3
5
(
D
R
)
3/
2
4
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
: M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
Ex
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐4
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
3
6
f
e
e
t
‐6
1
,
3
2
2
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐4
4
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
8
,
8
6
6
s
f
)
‐2
2
,
4
5
6
s
f
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐1
4
4
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
CU
P
i
s
f
o
r
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
s
a
l
e
s
61
,
3
2
2
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
7 ‐
S
t
u
d
i
o
21
‐
1
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
9 ‐
2
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
7 ‐
3
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
2 ‐
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
2 ‐
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
1
1
/
2
1
/
1
6
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
/
1
0
/
1
8
Michael Rocque
6
16
5
0
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
1
6
5
0
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
NM
S
L
L
C
90
4
0
4
1
6
5
0
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
16
E
N
T
‐
0
0
7
3
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
7
5/
2
5
/
2
0
1
6
(i
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
:
mis
s
i
n
g
T
D
M
pl
a
n
)
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐6
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
5
0
f
e
e
t
‐1
0
0
u
n
i
t
s
(
6
3
,
3
2
5
s
f
)
‐6
,
5
6
9
s
f
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐1
4
5
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
69
,
8
9
4
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
10
s
t
u
d
i
o
55
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
20
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
15
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
8 u
n
i
t
s
@
3
0
%
A
M
I
4 o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
4 t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
5
/
1
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
/
1
7
/
1
8
Scott Albright
7
14
4
3
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
e
s
s
e
O
t
t
i
n
g
e
r
fo
r
L
u
x
e
1
4
4
1
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
1
4
4
3
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
16
E
N
T
‐
0
0
9
8
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
4
2
7/
2
1
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
5
0
f
e
e
t
‐4
3
u
n
i
t
s
‐7
6
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
‐3
,
5
9
8
s
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
33
,
8
4
3
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
5 s
t
u
d
i
o
22
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
10
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
6 t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
4 u
n
i
t
s
@
3
0
%
A
M
I
2 t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
2
o
n
e
‐be
d
r
o
o
m
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
1
1
/
7
/
1
6
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
2
/
1
3
/
1
7
Grace Page
8
16
6
5
A
p
p
i
a
n
W
a
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
h
y
l
e
L
P
90
4
0
1
1
6
6
5
A
p
p
i
a
n
W
a
y
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
1
2
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
1
3
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
1
4
8/
4
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
N
/
A
‐3
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
4
0
f
e
e
t
‐3
u
n
i
t
s
‐6
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
6,
0
3
2
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
3 ‐
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
TB
D
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
T
B
D
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
T
B
D
Liz Bar‐El
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
14Item 8-A 01/09/18
18
1
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
P
E
R
M
I
T
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
UN
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
PR
O
C
E
S
S
S
T
A
T
U
S
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S :
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
R
'
s
9
13
1
8
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
e
s
s
e
O
t
t
i
n
g
e
r
fo
r
N
M
S
1
3
1
8
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
1
3
1
8
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
0
2
7/
2
8
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
5
0
f
e
e
t
‐4
3
u
n
i
t
s
‐3
,
2
2
4
s
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐7
0
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
33
,
7
0
3
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
5 S
t
u
d
i
o
23
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
9 t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
6 t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
2 t
w
o
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
2 on
e
be
d
r
o
o
m
30
%
AM
I
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
5
/
2
2
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
/
1
7
/
1
8
Scott Albright
10
60
1
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
e
s
s
e
O
t
t
i
n
g
e
r
fo
r
N
M
S
6
0
1
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
6
0
1
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
90
4
0
1
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
1
5
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
5
5
8/
4
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐4
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
5
0
f
e
e
t
‐4
3
u
n
i
t
s
‐6
,
5
8
9
s
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐7
0
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
32
,
8
9
1
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
6 S
t
u
d
i
o
23
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
8 t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
6 t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
2 t
w
o
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
2 o
n
e
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
4
/
1
7
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
2
/
1
3
/
1
7
Russell Bunim
11
30
3
0
N
e
b
r
a
s
k
a
A
v
e
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
a
t
t
B
e
a
n
f
o
r
Ne
b
r
a
s
k
a
S
t
u
d
i
o
s
L
L
C
90
4
0
4
3
0
3
0
N
e
b
r
a
s
k
a
A
v
e
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
1
8
8/
1
1
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
1
‐3
‐
4
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
3
9
f
e
e
t
‐1
7
7
u
n
i
t
s
‐6
6
,
1
0
0
s
f
c
r
e
a
t
i
v
e
o
f
f
i
c
e
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
24
‐
S
t
u
d
i
o
11
6
‐
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
29
‐
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
7 ‐
3
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
10
‐
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
3 ‐
2
be
d
r
o
o
m
30
%
AM
I
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
T
B
D
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
T
B
D
Grace Page
12
18
0
2
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
.
Tie
r
2
‐
2
‐
S
t
o
r
y
a
u
t
o
de
a
l
e
r
90
4
0
4
1
8
0
2
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
.
17
E
N
T
‐
0
1
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
0
1
7
Us
e
:
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
‐ r
e
t
a
i
l
/
o
f
f
i
c
e
TB
D
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N/
A
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
T
B
D
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
T
B
D
Scott Albright
13
40
1
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
Tie
r
2
‐
A
d
d
3
c
o
n
d
o
s
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
90
4
0
2
4
0
1
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
.
17
E
N
T
‐
0
1
3
8
8/
1
/
2
0
1
7
Us
e
:
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
M
C
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
9
/
1
1
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
s
t
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
2
0
1
8
Steve Mizokami
14
22
2
5
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
9
0
4
0
4
2
2
2
5
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
17
E
N
T
‐
0
0
9
5
6/
2
2
/
2
0
1
7
U
s
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
T
B
D
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐1
6
u
n
i
t
s
‐3
,
1
0
0
s
f
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
M
a
j
o
r
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
gr
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
h
e
i
g
h
t
16
,
0
5
8
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
1
0
/
2
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
/
1
0
/
1
8
Liz Bar‐El
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
15Item 8-A 01/09/18
18
2
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
P
E
R
M
I
T
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
UN
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
PR
O
C
E
S
S
S
T
A
T
U
S
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S :
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
R
'
s
15
14
5
0
C
l
o
v
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
9
0
4
0
4
1
4
5
0
C
l
o
v
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
6
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
7
3
4
‐
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
)
34
,
2
9
6
s
q
.
f
t
.
Ti
e
r
2
,
3
5
'
h
e
i
g
h
t
34
,
2
9
6
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
1
0
/
2
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
/
1
0
/
1
8
Liz Bar‐El
16
29
2
9
P
i
c
o
B
l
v
d
.
9
0
4
0
5
2
9
2
9
P
i
c
o
B
l
v
d
.
3
/
9
/
2
0
1
7
N
e
w
2
‐
s
t
o
r
y
18
,
0
0
0
s
f
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
v
e
r
2
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
pa
r
k
i
n
g
18
,
0
0
0
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
8
/
2
1
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
/
1
0
/
1
8
Michael Rocque
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
D
R
s
‐
T
o
t
a
l
S
F
51
4
,
5
8
2
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
16Item 8-A 01/09/18
18
3
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
18
ATTACHMENT B
CITY PLANNING DIVISION MAJOR PROJECT CALENDAR
Item 8-A 01/09/18
184 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
0
2
1
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
2
0
1
9Winter Winter Winter-SpringSpringSpringSummerSummer Summer - FallFallFall
EIR Public Draft
EIR Public Draft
ARB/Landmarks
Float up PC Float up
CC Float up
Scoping Mtg
EIR Public Draft
JWCI/CFYC Permits
Major
Private
Projects
Miramar Hotel
Ocean Ave. Hotel
4th/5th Arizona
Providence St. John’s
PC Hearing PC
PC Hearing PC
PC Hearing PC CC Hearing CC
CC Hearing CC
CC Hearing CC
MPNP & CEQA
Policy
& City
Projects
Review Draft Plan
Project Scoping Action Plan Adoption Pursue Implementation
Refine and Adopt
Pico Plan
Gateway Plan
Zoning PC CC
CITY PLANNING DIVISION MAJOR PROJECT TIMELINE
Ongoing Community Outreach
Community Outreach
PC Hearing PC CC Hearing CC PC CC
Ongoing Community Outreach on Vision
VISIONINGPC PCCC CC
2nd Scoping
Meeting
Submit Revised
Project Plans
Community
Meeting
Submit Revised
Project Plans
PC Hearing PC CC Hearing CCEIR Public Review DraftProject Review and Community Benefit Negotiations
Project Review and Community Benefit Negotiations
Project Review and Community Benefit Negotiations
TRADEOFFS COMMUNITY PREFERENCE
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Bergamot Housing
Blvd. Housing
AHPP
R1 Standards
Landmarks Ord.
SB743 Adoption PC CCUpdate and Calibrate TDFM Ongoing Community Outreach
Develop Guidelines and Thresholds
EIR PreparationEIR Scope Development
Mixed-Use Boulevard Residential DistrictsParking
Item 8-A 01/09/18
185 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Leslie Lambert <leslielambert92@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:16 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; tony.vasquez@smgov.net
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Proposed Findings for ADU inclusion in the Mansionization Eemergency Ordinance
I submit the following proposed findings to support the allowance for ADU construction in the proposed Emergency Ordinance dealing with
mansionization.
California’s housing production is not keeping pace with demand. As affordability becomes more problematic, people drive longer distances
between home and work, double and triple up to share space, or become part of the state’s enormous homeless population.
>
> In 2016 the State legislature adopted AB 2299 and SB 1069, recognizing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as an important affordable
housing option that is essential to meeting the State’s growing housing crisis.
>
> Accessory dwelling units provide part of the solution to the housing crisis, as they are the only source of housing that can be added in
existing developed communities
> within a year at an affordable price, with no public money.
>
> The state legislature found that ADUs can provide housing for elderly parents, grown children, renters, caregivers, people with disabilities,
young parents, and others who need and are unable to afford housing in cities throughout the state.
>
> Other affordable housing projects, which require the use of public money, take several years to construct and cost approximately $500,000
per unit today.
>
> ADUs provide a cost effective means of increasing the supply of rental housing in a community without changing the character of a
neighborhood and without requiring payment for land or the construction of costly new infrastructure (roads, sewers, schools, structured
parking, elevators, etc).
>
> ADUs can provide housing for seniors who are particularly vulnerable to the high cost and lack of availability of housing options. ADUs
allow seniors to “age in place,” enjoy a high quality of life, and live independently and affordably, but in close proximity to family members
and caregivers. Empty nesters can remain in their neighborhoods by moving into a smaller ADU and renting their larger existing home to
pay their mortgage.
>
> For all of these reasons, the California State Legislature adopted AB 2299 and SB1069 in order to facilitate and encourage the construction
of accessory dwelling units in California.
>
> AB 2299 and SB 1069 was intended to further restrict local control over ADUs for the purpose of allowing property owners more
flexibility to build ADUs through new construction or through the conversion of existing permitted garages.
>
> The State laws became effective on January 1, 2017, establishing new, more flexible standards for regulating ADUs, eliminating barriers
and local impediments, requiring all California cities to ministerially permit accessory dwelling units in all single family (and some
multifamily) zones and to issue such permits within 120 days.
>
> The two laws also permit California jurisdictions to adopt their own local ordinances, provided such laws do not unreasonably restrict the
ability of homeowners in those cities to create ADUs and as long as such ordinances permit at least an efficiency unit. AB 2299 and SB
1069 stipulate that local ordinances that do not align with state law will be “null and void," unless they are in compliance with the state
provisions.
>
> Providing an allowance (a “bonus”) of 5% of lot area for an ADU in Santa Monica would limit the size of ADUs, without unreasonably
restricting their construction and would therefore, not undermine or conflict with the intent of State law. Unreasonably restricting the ability
of homeowners to create ADUs is contrary to the intent of State law and may subject local agencies to legal action.
>
> In the 2017 legislative session, the State legislature adopted two additional ADU bills, AB229 and SB494. Based on lessons learned
through the implementation of the two previous laws, the two new state laws were intended to further clarify, add additional flexibility,
Item 8-A 01/09/18
186 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
reduce barriers, better streamline the approval process and expand capacity to accommodate the development of ADUs.
>
Item 8-A 01/09/18
187 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: January 9 Agenda Item 8A
From: Leslie Lambert [mailto:leslielambert92@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:06 PM
To: Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day
<Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich
<Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: January 9 Agenda Item 8A
Dear Mayor Winterer and Councilmembers:
As a 22-year Sunset Park homeowner, I urge you to expedite adoption of an emergency ordinance to redress the
heightened activity of demolition of existing single family homes in our R1 districts and their replacement with
new dwellings that are destroying our neigborhoods' scale and character. I understand that nothing can be done
regarding the non-contextual design of these homes, at least on an emergency basis, but there are measures to be
taken to address their size. There are almost 80 demolition permits in process or approved just within the north
of Montana and Sunset Park neighborhoods. This is a situation of crisis proportions in my opinion. My street,
Ashland Avenue, is looking more and more like an Orange County suburb due to the proliferation of out of
scale and poorly designed two-storey homes.
Please direct staff to return with an emergency ordinance that limits lot coverage for the ground floor of two-
storey homes in R1 districts to 30% and establishes a uniform 28' height limit in R1 districts. Ideally, this draft
emergency ordinance should be ready for public hearing at your January 23 meeting.
Please also direct staff to provide for the development of Accessory Dwelling Units, which would likely not be
built under the development standards being considered as part of the emergency ordinance. I truly believe that
we will not see new ADU's added if we limit lot coverage to 30%. This of course would be contrary to City
policies regarding incentivizing ADU development and potentially violates the spirit if not the letter of AB2299
(Bloome), now codified in Section 65852.6 of the California Government Code.. There are those who propose
that this ADU provision be delayed until the permanent "mansionization" Zoning Code revisions are
considered. I do not believe that we can afford to forestall the development of ADU's until this ordinance is
ready for adoption. Please act now.
I propose that the following language be included in the emergency ordinance:
Properties on which the Accessory Dwelling Units exist or are proposed shall be subject to the lot
coverage maximums in the existing Zoning Code except: (i) Any two-storey primary residence on such
properties shall not exceed the lot coverage maximum in this Emergency Ordinance (30%); and (ii) No
residential structures on such properties shall exceed the height limit set forth in this Emergency
Ordinance (28').
Item 8-A 01/09/18
188 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
I understand that staff may have difficulty preparing findings to support this ADU "carve out" in the time being
given them. I am therefore proposing a set of findings that were prepared for this purpose by Jane Blumenfeld,
former LA City Planning Deputy Director and a participant in the drafting of AB2299. I will send these
findings in a separate email.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
189 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
190 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
191 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
192 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
193 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
194 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
195 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
196 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
197 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
198 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
199 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
200 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
201 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
202 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:amezzo@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:21 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Agy & Sean Norris
Item 8-A 01/09/18
203 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Liza Lerche Jensen <lizalerchejensen@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Kevin McKeown Fwd; tony.vaxquwz@smgov.net;
Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council members
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Liza and Palle Jensen
Item 8-A 01/09/18
204 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:edouard Naud <edd.naud@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:22 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing
and procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018
and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of
priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top
priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and
beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion
as soon as possible.
Thank you
Edd Naud
3111 3rd street, Apt 7
90405 Santa Monica,
Item 8-A 01/09/18
205 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jamie Cullen <jamie.corneliusgroup@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:30 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear Councilmembers:
As business owner and Westside resident I am very interested in the expansion of athletic field facilities in
Santa Monica.
I understand that the council has numerous initiatives and projects to consider, but would like to see the
expansion of athletic fields become a priority for the council.
Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Jamie Cullen
Cornelius Group, Inc.
dba Cornelius Construction
11728 Dorothy St., Unit 103
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Cell: 310-991-3242,
jamie.corneliusgroup@gmail.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
206 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Daniel Benjamin <dpb@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:32 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council,
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields
are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Daniel Benjamin
Item 8-A 01/09/18
207 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Maria Loya <mloyadlt@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:18 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue
Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; councilmtgitems; Pam OConnor
Cc:Rick Cole; David Martin; Clerk Mailbox; Jennifer Kennedy; Jason Parry; Richard
McKinnon; Amy Anderson; Leslie Lambert; Nina Fresco; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Lane
Dilg; p-n-a-board@yahoogroups.com; Oscar De La Torre; PNA SM
Subject:Agenda Item 8A
Dear City Council,
In response to the Planning Division’s proposed priorities for 2018 enumerated in Agenda item 8A.
The PNA Board is writing this letter to support the staff’s recommendation to prioritize the Pico
Neighborhood Zoning District.
With the the light rail in Santa Monica and the push for Transportation Oriented Development (TOD)
our residents continue be threatened by new commercial development, traffic, increase in air pollution
and by a relentless housing market that continues to generate significant rent increases and high
priced condominiums that very few residents can afford. Residents from the Pico neighborhood and
Mid-City Neighbors have been disproportionately impacted by development and therefore need
additional zoning rules that will protect the scale and character of both neighborhoods. The PNZD
was unanimously approved in June 2015 however the creation and implementation was delayed
because of other planning priorities. Since then we continue to lose our affordable housing stock to
commercial development and market rate condos. We look forward to working with City staff to enact
the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
We also support the other neighborhood groups that are advocating for a mobility and parking plan,
tangible community benefits for residents such as an increase in open public space like a sports field
at the Civic Center. In terms of the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP), the PNA Board also agrees with
other neighborhood groups that the City must first research and present for public discussion a
citywide traffic and circulation plan before any expenditure of staff time or public resources on
exploring whether the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP) should be a priority.
Additional recommended areas of study for the Pico neighborhood Zoning District
PNZD Boundaries
We would like to advocate that the PNZD boundaries includes the traditional boundaries of the Pico
Neighborhood (west of Centinela, north of Pico Blvd, east of 7th Street. and south of Colorado Blvd.)
and the overlapping areas within the Mid-City Neighborhood, one-half mile radius from the 26th
Street/Bergamot and 17th Street/Santa Monica College Expo Stations.
Protecting Housing Stock- One of the biggest challenge for our neighborhood is the threat of land
speculation and it’s impact on our neighborhood’s character and demographics. Study creating
zoning rules that will discourage the use of commercial business in residential neighborhoods that will
result in the loss of housing stock
Item 8-A 01/09/18
208 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Maintain RMH zoning for Mountain View and Village Trailer Park
According to State Law, it must remain an RMH zone if there are 2 or more units still on the parcel.
There are in fact 10 remaining lots and they are all locked in per a contract that is expected to go for
50 years. Therefore, it is our understanding that the Stanford parcel should revert back to an RMH
Zoning designation with regard to the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
Colorado Ave. Zoning Designation-The city is designating 2930 Colorado Ave as a mixed use
commercial zone. The City changed the zoning from RMH to Mix-use when they approved the
project. According to use, the largest parcel, OFF COLORADO, is being used as a mixed use.
However, the smaller parcel, OFF STANFORD, is still a Mobile Home park.
Thank you
PNA Board of Directors
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public record for Agenda Item 8A, City Council meeting
of Jan. 9, 2018
Item 8-A 01/09/18
209 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Agenda Item 8A
From: Maria Loya [mailto:mloyadlt@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:18 PM
To: Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez
<Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich
<Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; councilmtgitems
<councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox
<Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Jennifer Kennedy <Jennifer.Kennedy@SMGOV.NET>; Jason Parry
<Jason.Parry@SMGOV.NET>; Richard McKinnon <Richard.McKinnon@SMGOV.NET>; Amy Anderson
<Amy.Anderson@SMGOV.NET>; Leslie Lambert <Leslie.Lambert@SMGOV.NET>; Nina Fresco
<Nina.Fresco@SMGOV.NET>; Mario Fonda‐Bonardi <Mario.Fonda‐Bonardi@SMGOV.NET>; Lane Dilg
<Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>; p‐n‐a‐board@yahoogroups.com; Oscar De La Torre <odelatorre16@yahoo.com>; PNA SM
<pna90404@gmail.com>
Subject: Agenda Item 8A
Dear City Council,
In response to the Planning Division’s proposed priorities for 2018 enumerated in Agenda item 8A.
The PNA Board is writing this letter to support the staff’s recommendation to prioritize the Pico
Neighborhood Zoning District.
With the the light rail in Santa Monica and the push for Transportation Oriented Development (TOD)
our residents continue be threatened by new commercial development, traffic, increase in air pollution
and by a relentless housing market that continues to generate significant rent increases and high
priced condominiums that very few residents can afford. Residents from the Pico neighborhood and
Mid-City Neighbors have been disproportionately impacted by development and therefore need
additional zoning rules that will protect the scale and character of both neighborhoods. The PNZD
was unanimously approved in June 2015 however the creation and implementation was delayed
because of other planning priorities. Since then we continue to lose our affordable housing stock to
commercial development and market rate condos. We look forward to working with City staff to enact
the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
We also support the other neighborhood groups that are advocating for a mobility and parking plan,
tangible community benefits for residents such as an increase in open public space like a sports field
at the Civic Center. In terms of the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP), the PNA Board also agrees with
other neighborhood groups that the City must first research and present for public discussion a
citywide traffic and circulation plan before any expenditure of staff time or public resources on
exploring whether the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP) should be a priority.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
210 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Additional recommended areas of study for the Pico neighborhood Zoning District
PNZD Boundaries
We would like to advocate that the PNZD boundaries includes the traditional boundaries of the Pico
Neighborhood (west of Centinela, north of Pico Blvd, east of 7th Street. and south of Colorado Blvd.)
and the overlapping areas within the Mid-City Neighborhood, one-half mile radius from the 26th
Street/Bergamot and 17th Street/Santa Monica College Expo Stations.
Protecting Housing Stock- One of the biggest challenge for our neighborhood is the threat of land
speculation and it’s impact on our neighborhood’s character and demographics. Study creating
zoning rules that will discourage the use of commercial business in residential neighborhoods that will
result in the loss of housing stock
Maintain RMH zoning for Mountain View and Village Trailer Park
According to State Law, it must remain an RMH zone if there are 2 or more units still on the parcel.
There are in fact 10 remaining lots and they are all locked in per a contract that is expected to go for
50 years. Therefore, it is our understanding that the Stanford parcel should revert back to an RMH
Zoning designation with regard to the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
Colorado Ave. Zoning Designation-The city is designating 2930 Colorado Ave as a mixed use
commercial zone. The City changed the zoning from RMH to Mix-use when they approved the
project. According to use, the largest parcel, OFF COLORADO, is being used as a mixed use.
However, the smaller parcel, OFF STANFORD, is still a Mobile Home park.
Thank you
PNA Board of Directors
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public record for Agenda Item 8A, City Council meeting
of Jan. 9, 2018
Item 8-A 01/09/18
211 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:McKenzie, Eirlys <EGD@msk.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 3:22 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a Santa Monica resident directly affected by changes Planning Division priorities, I want to comment on the
Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. The playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in
the Staff Report!!
Santa Monica citizens have repeatedly shown that we want our City representatives to make the Civic Center
Sports Field a priority. I ask again that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to TOP PRIORITY.
Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 or later, while Staff continues to work on
other projects that we do not consider to be as important.
Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Eirlys McKenzie
Santa Monica, 90403
Item 8-A 01/09/18
212 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
213 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
214 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
215 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
216 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
217 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
218 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
219 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
220 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
221 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
222 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
223 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
224 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
225 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:amezzo@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:21 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Agy & Sean Norris
Item 8-A 01/09/18
226 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Liza Lerche Jensen <lizalerchejensen@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Kevin McKeown Fwd; tony.vaxquwz@smgov.net;
Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council members
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Liza and Palle Jensen
Item 8-A 01/09/18
227 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:edouard Naud <edd.naud@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:22 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing
and procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018
and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of
priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top
priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and
beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion
as soon as possible.
Thank you
Edd Naud
3111 3rd street, Apt 7
90405 Santa Monica,
Item 8-A 01/09/18
228 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jamie Cullen <jamie.corneliusgroup@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:30 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear Councilmembers:
As business owner and Westside resident I am very interested in the expansion of athletic field facilities in
Santa Monica.
I understand that the council has numerous initiatives and projects to consider, but would like to see the
expansion of athletic fields become a priority for the council.
Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Jamie Cullen
Cornelius Group, Inc.
dba Cornelius Construction
11728 Dorothy St., Unit 103
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Cell: 310-991-3242,
jamie.corneliusgroup@gmail.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
229 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Daniel Benjamin <dpb@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:32 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council,
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields
are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Daniel Benjamin
Item 8-A 01/09/18
230 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Maria Loya <mloyadlt@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:18 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue
Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; councilmtgitems; Pam OConnor
Cc:Rick Cole; David Martin; Clerk Mailbox; Jennifer Kennedy; Jason Parry; Richard
McKinnon; Amy Anderson; Leslie Lambert; Nina Fresco; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Lane
Dilg; p-n-a-board@yahoogroups.com; Oscar De La Torre; PNA SM
Subject:Agenda Item 8A
Dear City Council,
In response to the Planning Division’s proposed priorities for 2018 enumerated in Agenda item 8A.
The PNA Board is writing this letter to support the staff’s recommendation to prioritize the Pico
Neighborhood Zoning District.
With the the light rail in Santa Monica and the push for Transportation Oriented Development (TOD)
our residents continue be threatened by new commercial development, traffic, increase in air pollution
and by a relentless housing market that continues to generate significant rent increases and high
priced condominiums that very few residents can afford. Residents from the Pico neighborhood and
Mid-City Neighbors have been disproportionately impacted by development and therefore need
additional zoning rules that will protect the scale and character of both neighborhoods. The PNZD
was unanimously approved in June 2015 however the creation and implementation was delayed
because of other planning priorities. Since then we continue to lose our affordable housing stock to
commercial development and market rate condos. We look forward to working with City staff to enact
the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
We also support the other neighborhood groups that are advocating for a mobility and parking plan,
tangible community benefits for residents such as an increase in open public space like a sports field
at the Civic Center. In terms of the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP), the PNA Board also agrees with
other neighborhood groups that the City must first research and present for public discussion a
citywide traffic and circulation plan before any expenditure of staff time or public resources on
exploring whether the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP) should be a priority.
Additional recommended areas of study for the Pico neighborhood Zoning District
PNZD Boundaries
We would like to advocate that the PNZD boundaries includes the traditional boundaries of the Pico
Neighborhood (west of Centinela, north of Pico Blvd, east of 7th Street. and south of Colorado Blvd.)
and the overlapping areas within the Mid-City Neighborhood, one-half mile radius from the 26th
Street/Bergamot and 17th Street/Santa Monica College Expo Stations.
Protecting Housing Stock- One of the biggest challenge for our neighborhood is the threat of land
speculation and it’s impact on our neighborhood’s character and demographics. Study creating
zoning rules that will discourage the use of commercial business in residential neighborhoods that will
result in the loss of housing stock
Item 8-A 01/09/18
231 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Maintain RMH zoning for Mountain View and Village Trailer Park
According to State Law, it must remain an RMH zone if there are 2 or more units still on the parcel.
There are in fact 10 remaining lots and they are all locked in per a contract that is expected to go for
50 years. Therefore, it is our understanding that the Stanford parcel should revert back to an RMH
Zoning designation with regard to the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
Colorado Ave. Zoning Designation-The city is designating 2930 Colorado Ave as a mixed use
commercial zone. The City changed the zoning from RMH to Mix-use when they approved the
project. According to use, the largest parcel, OFF COLORADO, is being used as a mixed use.
However, the smaller parcel, OFF STANFORD, is still a Mobile Home park.
Thank you
PNA Board of Directors
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public record for Agenda Item 8A, City Council meeting
of Jan. 9, 2018
Item 8-A 01/09/18
232 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Agenda Item 8A
From: Maria Loya [mailto:mloyadlt@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:18 PM
To: Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez
<Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich
<Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; councilmtgitems
<councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox
<Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Jennifer Kennedy <Jennifer.Kennedy@SMGOV.NET>; Jason Parry
<Jason.Parry@SMGOV.NET>; Richard McKinnon <Richard.McKinnon@SMGOV.NET>; Amy Anderson
<Amy.Anderson@SMGOV.NET>; Leslie Lambert <Leslie.Lambert@SMGOV.NET>; Nina Fresco
<Nina.Fresco@SMGOV.NET>; Mario Fonda‐Bonardi <Mario.Fonda‐Bonardi@SMGOV.NET>; Lane Dilg
<Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>; p‐n‐a‐board@yahoogroups.com; Oscar De La Torre <odelatorre16@yahoo.com>; PNA SM
<pna90404@gmail.com>
Subject: Agenda Item 8A
Dear City Council,
In response to the Planning Division’s proposed priorities for 2018 enumerated in Agenda item 8A.
The PNA Board is writing this letter to support the staff’s recommendation to prioritize the Pico
Neighborhood Zoning District.
With the the light rail in Santa Monica and the push for Transportation Oriented Development (TOD)
our residents continue be threatened by new commercial development, traffic, increase in air pollution
and by a relentless housing market that continues to generate significant rent increases and high
priced condominiums that very few residents can afford. Residents from the Pico neighborhood and
Mid-City Neighbors have been disproportionately impacted by development and therefore need
additional zoning rules that will protect the scale and character of both neighborhoods. The PNZD
was unanimously approved in June 2015 however the creation and implementation was delayed
because of other planning priorities. Since then we continue to lose our affordable housing stock to
commercial development and market rate condos. We look forward to working with City staff to enact
the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
We also support the other neighborhood groups that are advocating for a mobility and parking plan,
tangible community benefits for residents such as an increase in open public space like a sports field
at the Civic Center. In terms of the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP), the PNA Board also agrees with
other neighborhood groups that the City must first research and present for public discussion a
citywide traffic and circulation plan before any expenditure of staff time or public resources on
exploring whether the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP) should be a priority.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
233 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Additional recommended areas of study for the Pico neighborhood Zoning District
PNZD Boundaries
We would like to advocate that the PNZD boundaries includes the traditional boundaries of the Pico
Neighborhood (west of Centinela, north of Pico Blvd, east of 7th Street. and south of Colorado Blvd.)
and the overlapping areas within the Mid-City Neighborhood, one-half mile radius from the 26th
Street/Bergamot and 17th Street/Santa Monica College Expo Stations.
Protecting Housing Stock- One of the biggest challenge for our neighborhood is the threat of land
speculation and it’s impact on our neighborhood’s character and demographics. Study creating
zoning rules that will discourage the use of commercial business in residential neighborhoods that will
result in the loss of housing stock
Maintain RMH zoning for Mountain View and Village Trailer Park
According to State Law, it must remain an RMH zone if there are 2 or more units still on the parcel.
There are in fact 10 remaining lots and they are all locked in per a contract that is expected to go for
50 years. Therefore, it is our understanding that the Stanford parcel should revert back to an RMH
Zoning designation with regard to the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
Colorado Ave. Zoning Designation-The city is designating 2930 Colorado Ave as a mixed use
commercial zone. The City changed the zoning from RMH to Mix-use when they approved the
project. According to use, the largest parcel, OFF COLORADO, is being used as a mixed use.
However, the smaller parcel, OFF STANFORD, is still a Mobile Home park.
Thank you
PNA Board of Directors
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public record for Agenda Item 8A, City Council meeting
of Jan. 9, 2018
Item 8-A 01/09/18
234 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:McKenzie, Eirlys <EGD@msk.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 3:22 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a Santa Monica resident directly affected by changes Planning Division priorities, I want to comment on the
Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. The playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in
the Staff Report!!
Santa Monica citizens have repeatedly shown that we want our City representatives to make the Civic Center
Sports Field a priority. I ask again that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to TOP PRIORITY.
Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 or later, while Staff continues to work on
other projects that we do not consider to be as important.
Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Eirlys McKenzie
Santa Monica, 90403
Item 8-A 01/09/18
235 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Carlos Gutierrez <cagutierrez1961@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 4:56 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam
OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:URGENT - Council Meeting Item 8.A. - Please ask City Council to Prioritize Playing
Fields!
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Carlos Gutierrez
Item 8-A 01/09/18
236 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sandie Hill <sandie725@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 5:16 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Sandra Y. Hill
(310) 251-9552
Item 8-A 01/09/18
237 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ruthann Lehrer <ruthannpreserves@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 6, 2018 2:45 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Tony
Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; councilmtgitems
Cc:David Martin; Jing Yeo
Subject:Item 8A on Jan. 9 agenda
January 6, 2018
Re: Item 8A
Honorable Mayor Winterer and Councilmembers,
This is a plea for your endorsement of the Landmarks Ordinance update as a priority for 2018.
The need for this update has been requested by the Landmarks Commission for well over a decade. There are a
number of items that require clarification, and some impediments for property owners need to be removed. The
Landmarks Commission has worked on their recommendations over the years, so that today there is a framework
for action that is ready to go. Given this background, the demand on planning staff time is relatively small. And,
much of the work will be done by the City Attorney’s office.
I don’t understand why there were no “x” marks in the grid for Policy Plans aligned with Council Strategic Goals
under “inclusive and diverse community” and “learn and thrive.”
In addition, improved historic preservation tools will interface with the Pico Neighborhood Plan, as preservation
will likely be a fundamental principal for this community.
The Planning Commission understood this in their recommendations to you. And the DCP calls for updating the
Landmarks Ordinance as a short-term priority.
Please don’t let this important priority get lost in the shuffle! Remember that historic preservation is a core
community value in the LUCE.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ruthann Lehrer
Item 8-A 01/09/18
1 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Donald Murchie <Murchiedon@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 9:36 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:1/9/18 Agenda Item 8-A
Dear City Council,
We heartily support in principle and content the requested Emergency Interim Ordinance pertaining to oversize
mansions, with specific reference to houses that are:1) out of scale with lot size, 2) diminish privacy and block
the light of neighboring homes and 3) appear repetitive in style and character.
On our block alone (21st St. between Pearl and Ocean Park) there are three such homes recently built by the
same developer. Trying to contact the builder was like a shell game. All three are nearly identical in design,
scale, color, and landscaping (including illegal Mexican feather grass). These buildings are much too large in
proportion to their respective lot size and, usually occupied by small single families. We see an
accelerating tendency for the city to to approve such enormous homes.
We don't object to 2-story homes per se - - there are several on our block, including ours, that are compatible
with one another and don’t use up a majority of the lot. There's a clear difference between these houses and the
developers’ mega-mansions that are overtaking our city, ruining our neighborhood’s character.
Respectfully,
Donald Murchie and Angela de Mott
2338 21st St.
Santa Monica, 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
2 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mikael Kreuzriegler <mikael.kreuz@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:38 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Mikael Kreuzriegler
______________________
MIKAEL KREUZRIEGLER
mikael@kreuzriegler.com
http://www.kreuzriegler.com
Vienna (0664) 335 85 84
Los Angeles (310) 402-3496
Item 8-A 01/09/18
3 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Vikki Smyth <vikki@vikkismyth.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:40 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on the
Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities
in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the
Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff
continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Vikki
Item 8-A 01/09/18
4 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:phyllis donaldson <phyldonaldson@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 7, 2018 5:58 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council 1/9/18 agenda item 8-A
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I support an Emergency Interim Ordinance which would include a modest reduction in lot coverage
for 2-story homes (single story home lot coverage would remain the same), and incentives for
homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes.
30th Street between Pico and Pearl is adding one over-sized rebuilt home after another. Despite
their size, these big homes do not bring in large families. A six-bedroom two-story house next door is
rented to a family of two from Pakistan. That type of occupancy seems to be the norm on our
street. What do investors plan for in the future for these over-sized supposedly one-family buildings?
Charles R. Donaldson
Item 8-A 01/09/18
5 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:nmoreno@steinberginjurylawyers.com
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:33 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you --
Nikki Moreno
Item 8-A 01/09/18
6 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Miles Cotton <miles@santamonicarugby.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:34 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Importance:High
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you –
Miles Cotton
Santa Monica Rugby Club
Get all the latest SMRC apparel at http://shop.santamonicarugby.com
Please support our generous sponsors:
Bud Light: http://www.budlight.com/
Ye Olde King's Head Pub http://www.yeoldekingshead.com/
Canterbury US: http://www.canterburyus.com/
Follow @SaMoRugbyClub on Twitter
Like Santa Monica Rugby Club and Santa Monica Youth Rugby on Facebook
Item 8-A 01/09/18
7 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Vikki Smyth <vikki@vikkismyth.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:40 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on the
Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities
in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the
Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff
continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Vikki
Item 8-A 01/09/18
8 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Martial Chaput <martial.chaput@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:39 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Regards,
Martial Chaput
Item 8-A 01/09/18
9 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nicky Ferguson <nicky.a.ferguson@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:41 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Council Mailbox
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon
as possible.
Thank you --
Nicole Ferguson
Sent from my iPhone
Item 8-A 01/09/18
10 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Doug Mirner <dgmirner@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:42 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Doug Mirner
Item 8-A 01/09/18
11 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Emily Doyle <murphdoyle@me.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:43 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I would like to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report. The
playing fields are important to a large number of families (and voters) in this community.
I respectfully request that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. The idea of
pushing the item off as long as possible in the hopes that the field project will lose support does an
incredible disservice to the community. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields
until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects. Please accelerate the timeline
for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Emily Doyle
Item 8-A 01/09/18
12 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Laurie Charchut <laurie.charchut@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:44 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Laurie and Tom Charchut
Item 8-A 01/09/18
13 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Dominic Riebli <dominic.riebli@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:44 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a concerned and active participant in Santa Monica Youth athletics, I request that the issue of the
Civic Center Field receive attention under Agenda Item 8.A. Please move the Civic Center Sports
Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities.
Sincerely,
Dominic Riebli
Head Coach, Santa Monica Youth Rugby
Director of Rugby, University of Southern California
Item 8-A 01/09/18
14 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kilian Kerwin <kkerwin@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:47 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Kilian Kerwin
3300 Airport Ave #2
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
15 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Dan Flynn <dfflynn@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:47 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Dan Flynn
--
Dan Flynn
(908) 247 9081
Item 8-A 01/09/18
16 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Erica Sin <e.sintastic@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:49 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Erica Sin
Item 8-A 01/09/18
17 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Maryanne LaGuardia <maryanne.laguardia@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:49 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 8A, January 9, 2017
I notice that playing fields are nowhere in the Staff Report for this item. Since we have gotten (of late) repeated
assurances that the Civic Center Field is going forward, its absence from the report concerns me.
We've been down this road before and watched this project get back burnered practically into oblivion until another
resident uprising has to take place to get your attention. My concern, shared by others who have long worked to bring
this field to fruition, is that its absence from official, approved, prioritized Planning Division matters renders it subject to
back burnering yet again.
This isn't paranoia. It is two decades of experience speaking. The Civic Center field should specifically be on that list.
Thank You,
Maryanne LaGuardia
Item 8-A 01/09/18
18 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Maria Zepeda <mzepeda@jppusa.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:50 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez;
gleam.davis@smgov.ne; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
MARIA ZEPEDA
Item 8-A 01/09/18
19 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:AnitaMarie Laurie <AnitaMarie@sitrick.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:52 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond (well beyond the original 2 year old timetable)
while Staff continues to work on other projects that voters have not prioritized. Please accelerate the
timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Anita-Marie Laurie
Homeowner
Anita-Marie Laurie
Sitrick And Company
11999 San Vicente Blvd., Penthouse
Los Angeles, CA 90049
310.788.2850 office
310.663.3036 mobile
anitamarie@sitrick.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
20 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:LYDIA MURARO <lydiamuraro@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:53 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Lydia Muraro
--
Lydia Muraro
(818) 216-7378 mobile
(310) 394-7114 home
Item 8-A 01/09/18
21 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Andrew Warne <ausfrog@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:54 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Andrew Warne
Item 8-A 01/09/18
22 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Joe Walsh <golfwallah@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:54 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Kindest regards,
Joe Walsh
Item 8-A 01/09/18
23 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Archie Galbraith <archiegalbraith@hotmail.co.uk>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:56 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Item Missing from Agenda Item:8A, City Council Meeting: January9, 2018
Dear City Council:
I am aware that the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond are subject to discussion in the
above mentioned Council Meeting. It seems that the Staff Report which guides this discussion has
omitted mention of the provision of community playing fields. This omission will allow for the continued
delay and obfuscation of this issue as current commitments are open to re-prioritization and change
before the proposed 2021 delivery date of publicly available playing fields.
As a Youth Coach at Santa Monica Rugby Club I recruit, train and support children in this area from the
ages of 7 to 17 to engage in organized sports activities. The lack of suitable facilities within the city of
Santa Monica means that we have had to relocate our activities to Playa Vista.
We are making an effort to promote Santa Monica based community activities for children of all genders,
races and economic positions in the area. The provision of suitable playing fields is crucial to not just the
children involved and their parents, but to the strength of the diverse community of Santa Monica. We
have had to ask our members to travel outside the area on a regular basis. When we invite other
communities to play rugby, we have to tell them that the City of Santa Monica cannot accommodate them
- we are a Santa Monica youth program with no "home" in Santa Monica.
Please reconsider the priorities of this Agenda Item to include the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial
Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site. Accelerating the delivery date of these
developments will be a significant improvement for the 100's of Santa Monica residents that are involved
in Santa Monica Rugby Club.
Regards,
Archie Galbraith
Item 8-A 01/09/18
24 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Karen M Fisher <karen@fisherdesigncompany.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Council Meeting Item 8.A. - Playing Fields
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing
fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields
until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you!
Regards,
Karen
*****
Karen M. Fisher
2325 27th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405 M 310-600-1040
Item 8-A 01/09/18
25 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Andrew Browning <ahb3@me.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:00 AM
To:Maryanne Laguardia
Cc:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:Re: Item 8A, January 9, 2017
Hi All,
I am in agreement with Maryanne Laguardia.
While we have seen the timeline from the City Manager’s office, not seeing it in the list of planning priorities
(even if only as a matter of course) is concerning. The field sports community has accepted that the City is
earnestly moving forward with the field and by adding it to the list of priorities we can more easily continue
along those lines with confidence.
Warm regards,
Andrew Browning
On Jan 8, 2018, at 10:49 AM, Maryanne LaGuardia <maryanne.laguardia@gmail.com> wrote:
I notice that playing fields are nowhere in the Staff Report for this item. Since we have gotten
(of late) repeated assurances that the Civic Center Field is going forward, its absence from the
report concerns me.
We've been down this road before and watched this project get back burnered practically into
oblivion until another resident uprising has to take place to get your attention. My concern,
shared by others who have long worked to bring this field to fruition, is that its absence from
official, approved, prioritized Planning Division matters renders it subject to back burnering yet
again.
This isn't paranoia. It is two decades of experience speaking. The Civic Center field should
specifically be on that list.
Thank You,
Maryanne LaGuardia
Item 8-A 01/09/18
26 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Paul Spacey | FC England <paul@fcengland.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:00 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you
Paul
(on behalf of 300+ players and parents at our Santa Monica based club)
Paul Spacey
Director of Coaching
(310) 403‐7166
www.FCEngland.Com
Non‐Profit 501(c)(3) Youth Soccer Club
Item 8-A 01/09/18
27 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:leisle bartley <leisle.bartley@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:02 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Leisle Bartley
Item 8-A 01/09/18
28 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Robert Hacker <bobbyhacker@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:02 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9. 2018 - Agenda Item: 8A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Robert A. Hacker
Item 8-A 01/09/18
29 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Brad Segal <bradsegal11@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:03 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
I am a parent of 3 kids all whom grew up in Santa Monica. We have participated in many of the different sports that use the
fields, specifically baseball and softball. I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond and
cannot believe that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report. Especially since this keeps kids busy,
engaged and out of trouble.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on
the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while
Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both
sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you
Brad Segal
1337 Hill Street,
SM CA 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
30 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Wendy Dembo <dembo@sprynet.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:05 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
I am writing you, yet again! When will you realize that the Civic Center Field is important to your
constituents? I have written. I have gone to meetings. I have had my daughter stay up way past her
bedtime to go to Council meetings to make sure that we get a Civic Center field as promised. Our
children need a field! And you have promised again and again that we will get one. But yet again, I
am writing to you again.
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
With regret and great concern,
Wendy Dembo
Santa Monica resident and voter
2021 California Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 8-A 01/09/18
31 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Russ Goodman <RGOODMAN@Sares-Regis.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:06 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:FW: [SMRC Golden Dolphins] URGENT - Council Meeting Item 8.A. - City Council
Please Prioritize Playing Fields!
Importance:High
Russell A. Goodman
Partner
SARES‐REGIS Group
rgoodman@sares‐regis.com
(805) 604‐7101
996 S. SEAWARD AVENUE
VENTURA, CA 93001
City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Russell Goodman
Founding member of Santa Monica Rugby Club 1973 and still active.
The Club continues to make a great contribution to the health and happiness of Santa Monica’s youth and young adults
Get all the latest SMRC apparel at http://shop.santamonicarugby.com
Please support our generous sponsors:
Bud Light: http://www.budlight.com/
Item 8-A 01/09/18
32 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Ye Olde King's Head Pub http://www.yeoldekingshead.com/
Canterbury US: http://www.canterburyus.com/
Follow @SaMoRugbyClub on Twitter
Like Santa Monica Rugby Club and Santa Monica Youth Rugby on Facebook
--
Get all the latest SMRC apparel at http://shop.santamonicarugby.com
Please support our generous sponsors:
Bud Light: http://www.budlight.com/
Ye Olde King's Head Pub http://www.yeoldekingshead.com/
Canterbury US: http://www.canterburyus.com/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "smrc-golden-dolphins" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to smrc-golden-
dolphins+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to smrc-golden-dolphins@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/smrc-golden-
dolphins/003201d388af%249bab5e70%24d3021b50%24%40santamonicarugby.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
33 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Shawn Lee <slee8888@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:06 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Cheers
Shawn Lee
Item 8-A 01/09/18
34 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steve Rogers <mooserogers@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:11 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting January 9 2018 -- Agenda Item 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures,
we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but
notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do
not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for
completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Steve Rogers
1123 Stanford St
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 8-A 01/09/18
35 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Warner <warnerejsj@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:11 AM
To:Ted Winterer; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez;
Kevin McKeown Fwd; councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Warner
Item 8-A 01/09/18
36 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Costas Philippou <cosph@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:16 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you
Costas Philippou
Item 8-A 01/09/18
37 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jainee Eccleston <nolongerje@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:17 AM
To:Ted Winterer; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue
Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day
Cc:David Martin; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; rickcole@smgov.net
Subject:Please prioritize the playing fields at the Civic Center
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing
and procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018
and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of
priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top
priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and
beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you --
Jainee Eccleston
Item 8-A 01/09/18
38 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
9HUQLFH+DQNLQV
)URP -DLQHH(FFOHVWRQ QRORQJHUMH#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW 0RQGD\-DQXDU\ $0
7R 7HG:LQWHUHU FRXQFLOPWJLWHPV .HYLQ0F.HRZQ)ZG 7RQ\9D]TXH] *OHDP'DYLV 6XH
+LPPHOULFK 3DP2&RQQRU 7HUU\2·'D\
&F 'DYLG0DUWLQ .DUHQ*LQVEHUJ 6XVDQ&OLQH ULFNFROH#VPJRYQHW
6XEMHFW 3OHDVHSULRULWL]HWKHSOD\LQJILHOGVDWWKH&LYLF&HQWHU
5H &LW\&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ -DQXDU\ $JHQGD,WHP $
'HDU&LW\&RXQFLO
$VUHVLGHQWVWDNHKROGHUVLQ6DQWD0RQLFDGLUHFWO\DIIHFWHGE\FKDQJHVLQSROLF\WLPLQJ
DQGSURFHGXUHVZHZDQWWRFRPPHQWRQWKH3ODQQLQJ'LYLVLRQOLVWRISULRULWLHVIRU
DQGEH\RQG:HFRXOGQ¶WKHOSEXWQRWLFHWKDWSOD\LQJILHOGVDUHQRZKHUHLQWKHOLVWRI
SULRULWLHVLQWKH6WDII5HSRUW
:HDUHDVNLQJWKDW&RXQFLOLQVWUXFW6WDIIWRPRYHWKH&LYLF&HQWHU6SRUWV)LHOGDQGWKH
0HPRULDO3DUNH[SDQVLRQRIGLDPRQGVRQWKH)LVKHU/XPEHU6LWHWRWRS
SULRULWLHV([LVWLQJWLPHOLQHVIRUWKHVHSURMHFWVZRXOGQ¶WUHVXOWLQILHOGVXQWLODQG
EH\RQGZKLOH6WDIIFRQWLQXHVWRZRUNRQRWKHUSURMHFWVWKDWZHGRQRWFRQVLGHUWREHDV
LPSRUWDQW3OHDVHDFFHOHUDWHWKHWLPHOLQHIRUERWKVSRUWVILHOGSURMHFWVIRUFRPSOHWLRQDV
VRRQDVSRVVLEOH
7KDQN\RX
-DLQHH(FFOHVWRQ
Item 8-A 01/09/18
39 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:robbie sikora <rs@robbiesikora.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:17 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, I want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of
priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on
the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while
Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both
sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you
robbie sikora
Gibson International
m: 310.710.5214
o: 310.622.7414
CalBRE# 01410979
Item 8-A 01/09/18
40 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ofer Grossman <ofergro@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:18 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, I
would like to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion
of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in
fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
While this may not be a project that produces significant tax revenue or is of import to the many developers
who seem to be able to get the Planning Division’s attention and priority on a regular basis his is an important
issue to residents of the City. Those who live here and vote here. I urge you to act on this project now, so as
to dispel the image that residents have that they come second to the special interests that seem to be able to
drive the City’s agenda.
Please prioritize this project.
Thank you --
Ofer Grossman
1115 Hill Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
41 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jason L. Rapp <jason.rapp@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:20 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Last year, Mayor Winterer threw out the first pitch of the season for Pony Baseball, which now seems like an empty gesture considering the
lack of action and priority placed by the City on sports fields. Please prioritize the building of a new field at the Civic Center and
expanding the fields at Memorial Park.
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on the
Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities
in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the
Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff
continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Jason Rapp
714 21st Place
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 8-A 01/09/18
42 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Brett Henderson <bhenderson3053@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:21 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Brett Henderson
Item 8-A 01/09/18
43 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Joanne Forsyth <joanneforsyth@bhmove.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:22 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Joanne Forsyth
Item 8-A 01/09/18
44 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:David Edward <dce@ojaioil.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:23 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible
Once you install the fields, the kids can start using them but they can never use them so long as the
fields are blocked with one delay after another. It just needs to get done.
Thank you.
David Edward
Item 8-A 01/09/18
45 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:carpio.daniel.a@gmail.com on behalf of Daniel A. Carpio <carpio@dunnpi.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:28 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Council Meeting Item 8.A.
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
--
Daniel A. Carpio, Esq.
Dunn, Carpio & Turner
854 Pico Blvd.,
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Carpio@dunnpi.com
Office: (310) 393-2769
Fax: (310) 396-7575
This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or
other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your
system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message
containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of
this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
46 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:sonya stepanovich <sonyastep@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:29 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you —
Sonya Stepanovich
Item 8-A 01/09/18
47 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:31 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
From: sonya stepanovich [mailto:sonyastep@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 11:29 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET>; Kevin
McKeown Fwd <kevin@mckeown.net>; Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis
<Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor
<Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Karen Ginsberg <Karen.Ginsberg@SMGOV.NET>; Susan Cline
<Susan.Cline@SMGOV.NET>; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 ‐ Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you —
Sonya Stepanovich
Item 8-A 01/09/18
48 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Playing field
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Lisa Johansson Wessel [mailto:lisaneil1@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 11:23 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Kevin McKeown Fwd <kevin@mckeown.net>; Gleam Davis
<Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>;
Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Playing field
Dear Council
Please prioritize the moving forward of the playing field at the Civic Center.
Santa Monica College gets their Early Childhood Lab at the Civic Center. Why? It seems there would be so many other
places they could have the child care facility.
Samohi needs a playing field. Samohi is right across from the Civic Center. Why is this such a struggle? Why was the plan
for the playing field not submitted to the Costal commission at the same time as the child hood lab and City Hall building
were?
Please do the right thing. Make the playing field happen.
Thank You
Lisa Johansson
Santa Monica City Citizen
Item 8-A 01/09/18
49 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steve Friedman <sfriedman@kohlbm.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:36 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Fields for our children and community
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
If you have any children that play sports of any kind you must know that field space is a huge problem. You
have the abilities now to create for more field space.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you --
Steven Friedman
508 Ashland Ave
Santa Monica
Item 8-A 01/09/18
50 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Seve Woods <sevewoods@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:41 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Seve Woods
Item 8-A 01/09/18
51 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Guido Scassellati Sforzolini <scassell@usc.edu>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:42 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; Rick Cole
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Guido Scassellati Sforzolini
Item 8-A 01/09/18
52 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:44 AM
To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Gleam Davis
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: City Council 1/9/18 agenda item 8-A
Council –
Please see the email below regarding item 8a.
Best,
Estefania
From: phyllis donaldson [mailto:phyldonaldson@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 7, 2018 6:00 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: City Council 1/9/18 agenda item 8‐A
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I support an Emergency Interim Ordinance which would include a modest reduction in lot coverage
for 2-story homes (single story home lot coverage would remain the same), and incentives for
homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes.
30th Street between Pico and Pearl is adding one over-sized rebuilt home after another. Despite
their size, these big homes do not bring in large families. A six-bedroom two-story house next door is
rented to a family of two from Pakistan. That type of occupancy seems to be the norm on our
street. What do investors plan for in the future for these over-sized supposedly one-family buildings?
Charles R. Donaldson
Item 8-A 01/09/18
53 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Hank Antosz <hank@simpartners.net>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Playing fields at the Civic Center
Dear Elected Officials, I hope as representatives of the families of Santa Monica you will realize the importance of no
longer delaying and will prioritize the playing fields at the Civic Center. Shouldn’t the families and the health and well
being of the children be a top priority not special construction interests?
Item 8-A 01/09/18
54 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:rachel@unixindustriesinc.com
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:12 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you
Rachel Hsu
__________________________________
Rachel W. Hsu
Unix Industries, Inc.
301 Arizona Ave. Ste. 304
Santa Monica, CA 90401
U.S.A.
310-395-1494 Phone
310-395-0502 Fax
310-383-5988 Mobile
www.unixindustriesinc.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
55 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Robert Cleere <cleererob@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:17 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Rob.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
56 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Hoover <annkbowman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:18 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer;
Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Tony Vazquez
Cc:Rick Cole; David Martin; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; Ruth Fragoso; John Cyrus Smith;
Albin Gielicz; Deborah Cohen; Lori Brown; Kurt Schwengel; Maryanne LaGuardia; Alan
Toy 2
Subject:January 9, 2017 City Council Meeting - Item 8.A.
Dear Mayor Winterer and City Council Members --
As you know, Civic Center Field advocates are contacting you today to remind you that the Civic Center Field
and the diamonds at Memorial Park are tip top priorities for many in our community. Accordingly, we were
disappointed not to see the Civic Center Field on the Planning Department priorities list for your consideration
and discussion tomorrow evening.
If the field was not included/agendized for your discussion tomorrow, we hope that was merely an oversight as,
like the field, a number of projects on the list are already in progress.
Although the Civic Center Field has a timetable and the project technically falls under the purview of
Community and Cultural Services, the situation is more complex than that and, in addition to public works
involvement, planning is involved as well because of parking issues and the other projects going on in
the immediate area, e.g., the Early Childhood Lab School and the new City Services
Building. Planning, in fact, is taking the lead on interfacing with the Coastal Commission vis a vis
approval for the field, is involved along with public works with an amendment to the Civic Center
Specific Plan pertaining to the field, and is responsible for overall planning of that area, which has
many moving parts. Several of the projects on the list for your consideration have the potential to
impact the field and, bottom line, prioritization of other projects within any of these departments
impacts field projects because staff resources are finite.
Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate to comment on fields as a priority for planning at this time
and ask Council please to not oversimplify this issue for our community.
In addition, as we have expressed before at all key junctures, we truly are grateful to Council, to Staff
and to City Manager Cole for the progress made to date on the Civic Center Field. May it continue on
to completion as soon as possible, possibly with an expedited timetable as we discussed late last
year with staff. In the meantime, we thank you wholeheartedly for all you have done so far and for all
you will continue to do to help bring this field to fruition.
And, as we have offered many times in the past, please don't hesitate to reach out if we may be of assistance in
any way.
Thank you again and best wishes --
Ann Hoover
Co-Chair, SAMOHI PTSA Civic Center Task Force
Item 8-A 01/09/18
57 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Item 8-A 01/09/18
58 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Rob Cleere <mensrecruitment@santamonicarugby.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:19 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Rob.
Get all the latest SMRC apparel at http://shop.santamonicarugby.com
Please support our generous sponsors:
Bud Light: http://www.budlight.com/
Ye Olde King's Head Pub http://www.yeoldekingshead.com/
Canterbury US: http://www.canterburyus.com/
Follow @SaMoRugbyClub on Twitter
Like Santa Monica Rugby Club and Santa Monica Youth Rugby on Facebook
Item 8-A 01/09/18
59 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Kathy Kane <kathykane@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:20 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you —
Kathy Cody
6th Street, Santa Monica.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
60 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:John Turner <john.c.turner.04@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:30 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, I want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of
priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on
the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while
Staff continues to work on other projects that I do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports
field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
John Turner
Item 8-A 01/09/18
61 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Gerry Haker <ghaker@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Civic Field
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you --
Gerry, Ken and Lorenzo Haker
Item 8-A 01/09/18
62 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Victoria <vicsonn@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:45 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Victoria Robinson
Item 8-A 01/09/18
63 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:mrm924@verizon.net
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:51 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on the
Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities
in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the
Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff
continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Monica Moore- native resident of Santa Monica
Item 8-A 01/09/18
64 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sarah Taylor <sarah.taylor01@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:52 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Sarah Taylor
Item 8-A 01/09/18
65 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Joseph Matarazzi <jmatarazzi@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 12:56 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council,
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, I want
to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I couldn’t help but notice that
playing fields are nowhere on the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion
of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in
fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that I do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Joseph Matarazzi
Item 8-A 01/09/18
66 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Iain Herriott <Iain.Herriott@arup.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:09 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Thank you
Iain Herriott
Iain Herriott
Mechanical | Engineer
Arup
12777 West Jefferson Boulevard Suite 100 Building D Los Angeles CA 90066 USA
t: +1 310 578 4400 d: +1-310-578 2893
www.arup.com
Explore innovation in the built environment on Doggerel
Arup makes Fortune’s list of companies that “Change the World”
____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for viruses and acceptability of content
Item 8-A 01/09/18
67 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Robin McCallum <robinmccallum@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Council Mailbox
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Robin McCallum
Item 8-A 01/09/18
68 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Daniel Hobbs <daniel@hobbs.nu>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:13 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial
Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Daniel Hobbs
Item 8-A 01/09/18
69 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Emad Hashim <emadbusiness@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:28 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Emad Hashim
Item 8-A 01/09/18
70 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Riaz Fredericks <mensheadcoach@santamonicarugby.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:38 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you
--
Riaz Fredericks
Head Coach
310-4306674
Santa Monica Rugby Club
Get all the latest SMRC apparel at http://shop.santamonicarugby.com
Please support our generous sponsors:
Bud Light: http://www.budlight.com/
Ye Olde King's Head Pub http://www.yeoldekingshead.com/
Canterbury US: http://www.canterburyus.com/
Follow @SaMoRugbyClub on Twitter
Like Santa Monica Rugby Club and Santa Monica Youth Rugby on Facebook
Item 8-A 01/09/18
71 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nick Rucka <tetsu_jin@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:44 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Nicholas Rucka
Item 8-A 01/09/18
72 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Matt Edelman <matt.e.edelman@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 1:48 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields
are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Best,
Matt
_______________
Matt Edelman
(310) 770‐7194
Item 8-A 01/09/18
73 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steven Bagnara <sbagnara@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 2:44 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg;
Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Steve Bagnara
DGA Asst. Director
310-308-2113 Cell
ichat/email: sbagnara@gmail.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
74 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jonny Gray <Jonathan.Gray@controlrisks.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 2:49 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Signed By:Jonathan.Gray@controlrisks.com
Dear City Council
As a stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, I
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I couldn’t help but
notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that are not considered to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
The fact that the City cannot provide sufficient playing fields for the residents and their children is a
major concern. For example, Santa Monica Rugby Club has never been able play its “home” games
in Santa Monica. It is a D1 club of which the city should be proud and supportive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Rugby_Club
Santa Monica United has to play most of its “home” soccer games outside of Santa Monica.
So this is a sad state of affairs which could be rectified tomorrow.
With best wishes
Jonny
Jonny Gray
Senior Partner
Control Risks
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: +1 213 996 7576
Mob: +1 213 400 8853
controlrisks.com – the specialist risk consultancy | creating secure, compliant and resilient organizations | resolving critical issues and crises |
providing insight and intelligence to realize opportunities
Connect with us: LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube | Instagram | Facebook | WeChat
This email contains confidential information intended for the use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email,
please notify the sender and delete the information from your system.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
75 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Item 8-A 01/09/18
76 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:James Duncan <jwalterduncanv@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 2:51 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
James Duncan
Item 8-A 01/09/18
77 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Thane Roberts <robertsthane@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 2:58 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Thane Roberts AIA
SM Resident & SMa.r.t. Member
Item 8-A 01/09/18
78 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steven Johnson <swjohnsonla@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 3:01 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Planning Priorities and Playing Fields
"Our beliefs and our attention are the same fact."
-- William James
The "City Planning Division Priorities" submission (Agenda Item: 8.A for January 9) makes no specific
mention of the sports fields development at Memorial Park, nor the sports field at the Civic Center.
This seems like an important missing couple of details, because the Planning document does mention the
Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan, and the Gateway Master Plan is inclusive of Samohi and the Civic Center.
The most important part of the Memorial Park Neighborhood is the park itself, so leaving out any mention of
the expansion and development of playing fields at that location risks losing sight of that priority.
As well, any Gateway and Civic Center planning prioritization document that leaves out the long-promised
Civic Center field, feels like an intentional effort to de-prioritize or eliminate this requirement.
Santa Monica should be accountable to its current residents FIRST.
Much of the priority of this Planning document feels like projects to benefit developers, business and non-
residents.
To keep faith with the children of Santa Monica, and to put residents first, please explicitly include the playing
fields near the top of the list of planning priorities.
"Out of sight, out of mind. The absent are always wrong."
-- Thomas à Kempis
If the fields are not called out specifically in the prioritization document, then clearly you are saying they are
not a priority.
Thank you.
Steven Johnson
1740 Pine St., Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
79 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Mary Durst <edurst@usc.edu>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 3:45 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; tony.vasquez@smgov.net;
Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures,
we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but
notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do
not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion
as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Elizabeth Durst
___________________________
Elizabeth Durst, PhD
Assistant Professor (Teaching)
The Writing Program
University of Southern California
Item 8-A 01/09/18
80 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Michelle Demeo <michelledemeo@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 4:19 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Michelle Sikora
310 913 0623
Item 8-A 01/09/18
81 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:W Dean Wallace <pdewallace@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 4:21 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg;
Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Importance:High
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I was
informed that playing fields are not in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am joining my fellow residents in asking that Council request Staff to move the Civic Center Sports
Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top
priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while
Staff continue to work on other projects that may not be as important. I ask that you please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Dean Wallace
2424 31st Street
Item 8-A 01/09/18
82 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Vitaly V. Kresin <kresin@usc.edu>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 4:22 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
It has been brought to the attention of Civic Center Sports Field supporters like myself that there is a
highly unfortunate omission on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond: the playing
fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
Please instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. If you, as City Council Members, consider these
to be highly important to the residents of the city, the City Staff should be instructed accordingly.
Conversely, if you find that there is no need to adjust the Report's priority list, that will be direct
admission by you to the residents that, despite many words and resolutions, your true priorities lie
somewhere very different.
As the existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond, an
acquiescence to the Staff concentrating only on other projects would speak volumes about your true
commitment to the promised field. To correct this, please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Vitaly Kresin
Santa Monica
Item 8-A 01/09/18
83 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Muir, Boyd <Boyd.Muir@umusic.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 4:26 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council,
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I would like to ask that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial
Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond. while Staff continue to work on other projects
that are not as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion
as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Boyd Muir
Item 8-A 01/09/18
84 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:RICHARD LANER <rlranch9@att.net>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 4:45 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Please send to:
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Richard Laner
Item 8-A 01/09/18
85 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Joe Nuccio <joenuccio@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 5:02 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council Members,
I am a third‐generation Santa Monica resident and father of a fourth‐generation daughter, who is a 7th grader at JAMS.
We've participated and volunteered in multiple youth sport programs through‐out the city for many years and will
continue to do so for the rest of our lifetimes.
That our community needs more sports playing fields is, as I understand it, a fact generally accepted by the City Council
and resident community.
Please know the need is acute, and do whatever you can to accelerate some relief in the form of the proposed Civic
Center Sport Field.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joe Nuccio
714 Lincoln Blvd 90402
joenuccio@gmail.com
310‐266‐6817
Item 8-A 01/09/18
86 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Shine <ktshine@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 5:09 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Jeff Shine
Item 8-A 01/09/18
87 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Chuck Hoover <chuck.hoover@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 5:09 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a Santa Monica resident directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, I want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I noticed that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
Please instruct Planning staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in
fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Also, Planning staff should be instructed to work with CCS and public works to accelerate the
timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you very much for all the progress to date on the Civic Center Sports Field. I look forward to its
completion and are very grateful for your continued support of this project.
Thank you --
Chuck Hoover
Item 8-A 01/09/18
88 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Katharine Dreyfuss <kitdreyfuss@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 5:37 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Fwd: URGENT - Council Meeting Item 8.A. - Please ask City Council to Prioritize Playing
Fields!
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Katharine Dreyfuss]
Item 8-A 01/09/18
89 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:J <jruud@bmbuildersla.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 6:16 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
John Ruud
Santa Monica Resident
U‐18 Head Coach, Santa Monica Youth Rugby
BM Builders / BMG
M: 310‐418‐3092
www.bmbuildersla.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
90 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steven Nevius <stevennevius@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 6:31 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Steven Nevius
"The Magicians" Picture Editor
Mobile: 310-490-2248
stevennevius@gmail.com
www.stevenneviuseditor.com
..
..
¸. ><(((*>
¸•`
≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈
¸.•*`) .˚
¸.•´ ( ¸.•´
..
.. do something new.
..
Item 8-A 01/09/18
91 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Diane Watanabe <dianewatanabe@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 6:35 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Council Meeting Item 8.A.
Re: City Council Meeting January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a 30-year resident and stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in
policy, timing and procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of
priorities for 2018 and beyond. The playing fields are not in the list of priorities in the
Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top
priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and
beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as
soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Diane Watanabe
Diane Watanabe
O: (310) 434-4314
C: (310) 779-7286
Item 8-A 01/09/18
92 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mike Crawford <michaelroycrawford@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 6:56 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
This is getting ridiculous. How many years do we need to wait for a promised field? Kids could be playing sports there today.
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Mike Crawford
2132 21st St Santa Monica
Item 8-A 01/09/18
93 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Danny Guggenheim <dbg20cu@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:01 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica with 2 girls going through SMMUSD, I am directly affected by
changes in policy, timing and procedures, so want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for
2018 and beyond - in particular, the absence of playing fields from the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
On behalf of my family, I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 (or likely beyond, if this continues to be ignored as a priority),
which is not appropriate or fair to us residents and our kids given the delay to date. Please accelerate the
timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Danny Guggenheim
2614 31st Street, SM, CA 90405
(310) 890-0346
Item 8-A 01/09/18
94 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Marc Stcherbina <marcstitch@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:12 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you and kind regards,
Marc Stcherbina
2210 3rd St, Apt 111
Santa Monica CA, 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
95 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Cheryl Clark <ccspygirls@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:13 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Importance:High
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Cheryl Clark
2450 25th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
96 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Brian Lawlor <brianlawlor3@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:23 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline
Subject:Playing Fields
Dear City Council,
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Brian Lawlor
SMRC House Captain
(617) 413-8656
Item 8-A 01/09/18
97 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:John Mosley <jlmosley@bu.edu>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:44 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
John Mosley
Item 8-A 01/09/18
98 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Paige Bombacie <paigelbombacie@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:45 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to comment on
the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list
of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds
on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond
while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for
both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
--
Paige Bombacie
Item 8-A 01/09/18
99 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Michael Young <mikeyoungtv@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 7:48 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Mike Young
733 Hill Street,
Santa Monica,
90405
Item 8-A 01/09/18
100 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jason O Mara <omaramail@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 8:09 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Jason O’Mara
U14 Youth Coach, Santa Monica Rugby Club
Item 8-A 01/09/18
101 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jane Wall <walljane@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 8:26 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Susan Cline; David Martin; karen.ginsburg@smgov.net
Subject:URGENT - Council Meeting Item 8.A. - Please City Council Prioritize Playing Fields!
Thank jane
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and
beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the
Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing
timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues
to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the
timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Jane Rainsford
Item 8-A 01/09/18
102 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
January 6, 2018 City Council 1685 Main Street Santa Monica CA 90401 Re: City Planning Priorities Dear Mayor and City Council, A public discussion of city planning priorities is simply good governance and I am pleased to be part of the discussion. As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing, and procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond.
Neighborhoods:
First priority should be plans that affect neighborhoods. The LUCE places protecting neighborhoods as a primary focus of all planning efforts. Sadly, since the LUCE was approved in 2010, there has been little focus on neighborhoods that was initiated by the Planning department. The San Vicente historic district protecting courtyards apartments and condos was brought forward by grassroots neighbors. Likewise, residents are asking for a revision and downsizing of R1 zoning standards in light of the growing size of new and remodeled homes throughout the city. The need for special zoning for the Pico neighborhood was raised during the Zoning update in 2014 because of the accelerating tear downs of older affordable homes and apartments, which displaced residents unable to afford higher rents, and replacement with expensive condos and apartments near the Expo line. Commercial intrusion into neighborhoods is a disturbing trend. Former apartment buildings in Wilmont have been and seek conversion into boutique hotels and private schools in Mid-Cities and Pico neighborhoods disrupt traffic and quiet enjoyment of homes nearby. The Pico Zoning District and Memorial Park Neighborhood Plans, which include an update of R1 development standards, should be first priorities for Planning Division, Planning Commission, and City Council. These neighborhood plans and the R1 development standards work together to protect neighborhood character and retain affordable housing. R1 development standards are integral parts of neighborhood planning in both the Pico and Memorial Park neighborhoods, which are at immediate risk of losing affordable housing along with neighborhood
Item 8-A 01/09/18
103 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
character. Work on these plans should begin immediately. This fits with the
inclusive and diverse community priority. Mobility:
We need traffic and parking plan. We have a bike plan and a pedestrian plan, but no overall plan for the cars, buses, deliveries and ride share. Surveys of residents have underlined the need for a comprehensive traffic plan. The implementation of SB743 is needed for the traffic impacts analysis in required environmental reports and is directly related to the mobility priority. This work has already begun with the hiring of consultants in 2017 and won't require city staff until at least the third quarter on 2018 and continue into 2019. State guidelines are not yet developed and implementation is unlikely for the next couple of years. SB 743 may be a part of this overarching plan, but should not be a priority over it. This work dovetails with the council priority of mobility. Ordinance Updates: Third, the Downtown Specific Plan highlighted the need for an update to the
Landmarks Ordinance because so many potential landmarks are in its boundaries. This ordinance dates back to 1976 and the time is ripe for a much-needed update that should begin by midyear 2018 to avoid losing potential landmark structures. A draft landmarks ordinance was completed, but not acted on 10 years ago, which may help move the process along quickly. Residents have asked city planners for over two years to create an ordinance that
would eliminate waivers, variances and CIP exceptions where property
owners have not honored existing Development Agreements, Transportation
Demand regulations or other city agreements. The problem is known and city planners can surely finish their input to the city attorney in the first quarter of this year if council sees this as a priority. The Local Coastal Program has been in process for the past two years with a first quarter 2018 release date for the Land Use Plan, which will be followed by the coastal zoning ordinance. The city has worked well with the Coastal Commission for the past 20 years without an implementation plan and there is no reason to complete this ordinance ahead of Pico, Memorial, Landmarks or other pressing ordinances. Since the Bergamot Area Plan was adopted in 2013 and the Zoning updates for
boulevards in 2015, these projects are a low priority. Housing development in these areas may be slower because of the recent rush to build near the Expo line downtown. According to the pending projects list associated with the December 13 Staff Report there are 18 residential mixed use projects in the downtown area compared with 7 similar residential developments on the boulevards and 1
Item 8-A 01/09/18
104 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
residential project in Bergamot. It is too early to tell if the boulevards or Bergamot need further incentives. Missing Priorities: A playing field at the civic center has been part of the civic center plan since 2005, yet newer projects (ECLS and the new city services building have taken planning priority. The current plan anticipates 4 years before a field may be constructed; this timeline pushes a simple field behind more complicated projects unnecessarily. The Need for more open space in the form of actual parkland has been pushed back ignoring the fact that Santa Monica has one of the lowest open space ratios in Los Angeles County. A possible park bond has been tabled in favor of a city services bond. Parks and open space need to be considered and prioritized as we move forward, especially on projects on public land Development decisions made by a 4 to 3 vote of council continue to be a problem. The proposed super majority of 5 to 7 will not fix the roots of the problem. Residents are overwhelmed by developers’ access to council members and individual special interests seeking developer dollars. This is the basis of the toxic divide over development in the city. Residents want a vote on projects on public
land, a basic tenet of democracy.
Development Agreements: Last priority is major development agreements, which require significant planning and legal staff time and involve community meetings and environmental reports. These projects asking for custom contracts with the city are by design a long-term process. The four hotels pending on the planning project list voluntarily held back on resubmitting plans for several years (4-7). St. John’s hospital asked more time to complete plans first submitted twenty years ago (1998). These projects should only take staff time after the other priorities are in process. It is important to note that according to the 2017-2019-city budget, the city-planning department had 26 full time planning employees with an additional 20 employees working on mobility. In addition, city planning uses consultants extensively in developing plans, ordinances and traffic strategies. I think the workload of plans and updates is within their capability and look forward to working with them to improve Santa Monica’s quality of life for residents, employees, and tourists. Sincerely, Mary Marlow Ocean Park Resident
Item 8-A 01/09/18
105 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Cc: Rick Cole, City Manager Planning Commission David Martin, Planning Director Lane Dilg, City Attorney
Item 8-A 01/09/18
106 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Anne Saldo <annesaldo@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 8:57 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com; deargerald99@gmail.com
Subject:City Council 1/9/18 agenda item 8-A
Attachments:Emergency Interim Ordinance.pdf
Gerald & Anne Saldo
1004 Wilson Place
Santa Monica, CA 90405
January 8, 2018
Santa Monica City Council
Re: City Council 1/09/18 Agenda Item 8‐A
Honorable City Council Members:
We are in support of the Emergency Interim Ordinance requested by the NOMA and FOSP Boards, and concur
that it should include the following considerations:
1) A modest reduction in lot coverage for 2‐story homes.
2) Incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes.
We are concerned about the increasing number of demolition permits and over‐sized, over‐priced houses
being constructed in Santa Monica. We are alarmed by the upsized mansions where rent‐controlled
bungalows and modest family homes once existed. We are not anti‐redevelopment. We applaud the
maintenance and renewal of the neighborhoods ‐ in an orderly and thoughtful manner. However, we see
speculators come in and build gigantic homes which not only loom over their neighbors but also drive up
property prices far beyond affordable limits. Time and again, we see LUCE variances being approved despite
citizen concerns.
We do not think that developers will lose interest in Santa Monica any time soon, and we believe that they
should be held to high standards which will support community wellbeing. We urge the City Council to adopt
the Emergency Interim Ordinance. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gerald & Anne Saldo
Item 8-A 01/09/18
107 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Cc: Board, FOSP
Item 8-A 01/09/18
108 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jamie Dunham <jamie.dunham@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 9:06 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing
and procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018
and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of
priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing
timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff
continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Jamie Dunham
Item 8-A 01/09/18
109 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mark Ruvelson <groovyruvy1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 9:41 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we
want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice
that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects
wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not
consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon
as possible.
Thank you,
Mark Ruvelson
Item 8-A 01/09/18
110 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Peter Mao <peter.mao@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:49 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Peter Mao
1115 20th St. #2
90403
Item 8-A 01/09/18
111 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sonja Berrios <sonja.berrios@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:49 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that I do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects
for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Sonja Berrios
Item 8-A 01/09/18
112 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jonathan Berrios <jonathan.berrios@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:53 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that I do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects
for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Jonathan Berrios
Item 8-A 01/09/18
113 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Gabriel Berrios <gabriel.berrios@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:54 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that I do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects
for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Gabriel Berrios
Item 8-A 01/09/18
114 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Karen Kushi <kbkushi@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:54 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich;
Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; Rick Cole
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields
are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Karen and Hisao Kushi
Item 8-A 01/09/18
115 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Lorenzo Berrios <lorenzo.berrios@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 10:55 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a resident stakeholder in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, I want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. I
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that I do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects
for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Lorenzo Berrios
Item 8-A 01/09/18
116 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jane Tucker <jtucker9999@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, January 8, 2018 11:02 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan
Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible. MAKE OUR CHILDREN A
PRIORITY - KEEP YOUR WORD.
Thank you,
Jane Tucker
20+ year resident of Santa Monica
P.S. I VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION.
Jane Tucker, MA, ALSP
Healing Heart Pet Loss
Support and comfort during grief and loss of your Pet
http://www.healingheartpetloss.com/
Item 8-A 01/09/18
117 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mr. Perry <unltdvp@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:03 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as time-sensitive. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Manny Perry
(Parent of a Santa Monica Rugby Club player)
Item 8-A 01/09/18
118 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:William Schoene <williamschoene@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:12 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg;
Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:Civic Center Playing Field
Council:
Unless you show a real commitment to the Civic Center playing field by getting it off its "four more years" back burner, it
will be apparent that you have no genuine intention of ever getting it built. Why do SamoHi kids and other would‐be
field users have no priority at all, even after waiting all these years? Please, don't let this playing field become a
perennial joke!
Item 8-A 01/09/18
119 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Victoria Wilson <victoriawilson29@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:15 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as time-sensitive. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Victoria Wilson
--
Victoria Wilson
Client Partnerships Executive
JBCconnect
P 310-601-7231
M 310-720-0720
Item 8-A 01/09/18
120 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:art is the answer <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:46 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; CIVIC FIELD;
Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As
a
resident
of this City for over 36 years, I am saddened that another promise
made to residents has again been delayed, possibly
will
never come to fruition. It was scheduled to break ground by the
summer of 2018. The Civic Center Field would be an asset for
residents of all ages and certainly more important than yet another
hotel or expensive condo or apartment complex, all of which take
priority in our City
and are primary on the list of what matters to the City. If you ask
the residents, most will tell you they have no use for more hotels,
expensive over-priced apartment complexes or multi-million dollar
condo complexes.
We need new priorities.
The
playing fields are nowhere on the list
of what is important
in the Staff report.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
121 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
I am
asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports
Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher
Lumber site to top priorities.
I am asking
that you keep your word to residents.
You say how much you care about residents but like all else in life,
actions speak far louder than words.
Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for
completion as soon as possible.
Please show us the residents matter in this town.
Danielle Charney
Resident of a town I barely recognize now..
for over 36 years... what a terrible job you have all done to our town....
Item 8-A 01/09/18
122 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 8:11 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Jan 9, 2018 Agenda Item 3A - Approval of Nov.28, 2017 Minutes
From: Ann Maggio [mailto:annmaggio@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 9:12 PM
To: Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown
<Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>;
Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez
<Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; CIVIC FIELD <fieldatcivic@gmail.com>; Ann Maggio Thanawalla
<annmaggio@gmail.com>
Subject: Jan 9, 2018 Agenda Item 3A ‐ Approval of Nov.28, 2017 Minutes
Dear Santa Monica City Council and City Manager,
Approving the November 28th Meeting Minutes is a curious step provided the public has not been
made aware of any response from the Coastal Commission regarding Item 3.M. - Civic Center Parking
Study. It appears the parking study has moved forward without a response to benefit the public's
contention that it was not needed in order for the City to file the Civic Center Field's permit
application with the Coastal Commission.
The Civic Center Parking Study's scope is overly arching and the duration potentially years long. Any
reasonable person paying attention to our City Planning Dept.'s proposed list of Priority Projects,
appearing as Agenda Item 8A for this same meeting, can easily surmise that the details of the
contract awarded to Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers Inc. to prepare a Parking Study for
Development of the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Fields is being used to serve the needs for at
least two of the projects prioritized in Agenda Item 8A's Attachment A City Planning Workplan Priorities Schedule. These include the Gateway Master Plan and
the Local Coastal Plan.
The public should not be mislead by the environmental requirements (CEQA) necessary to carry out
the various plans put forth by city planners or any misrepresentation/wrongful allocations to the
various funding sources. Both concerns should be reviewed and made transparent to resident tax
payers. Please reconsider approving these minutes until the following two actions occur:
1. This matter can be investigated for competing plans environmental and funding sources and
any potential errors and/omissions should be corrected.
2. Approval of June 27th Minutes. Minutes containing Agenda Item - 8.A. Civic Center
Multipurpose Sports Field Feasibility Study and Economic Analysis Findings and Options for
Next Steps, are still unapproved. We are concerned about the fact that the Sept 12th Council
Minutes containing Agenda Item 3K - The SWIP PROJECT - a project that has a direct impact
on the Civic Center Field timeline - was approved for both the funding source and city manager
contract engagement and approval process while the city sits on a Coastal Commission permit
Item 8-A 01/09/18
123 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
application for the Civic Field. The public cannot follow the work being done at City Hall as the
causal effects of unapproved Jun 27th Minutes leave us wondering what took place. Please
represent us with order and transparency.
Thank you,
Ann
& Sam
Thanawalla
Item 8-A 01/09/18
124 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Laura <fish2000@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 9:02 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields
are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Laura Lim
Item 8-A 01/09/18
125 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:elena estrin <efestrin@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 9:53 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:1/9/18 agenda item 8 A
Dear City Council Members:
We are long time residents of the Pico Neighborhood and understand that the City Council will be addressing setting
priorities for the Planning Commission including the Pico Neighborhood Plan. We are requesting that the development
of the plan be inclusive of community input beyond including the Pico Neighborhood Association as they do not
represent the majority of the residents in the area that will be impacted.
Thank you
Elena Estrin
Steve Kandell
Item 8-A 01/09/18
126 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Dan Cobbett <dcobbett75@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:02 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council 1/9/18 agenda item 8-A
Dear members of the City Council,
I am a resident of Santa Monica, and I've lived in the Sunset Park area for 13 years.
I would like to indicate my support for an emergency interim ordinance which would reduce the maximum lot
coverage for a 2 story home, and add incentives for homeowners to remodel instead of demolishing and
replacing their homes.
A lot of the new homes that are replacing the original homes in this neighborhood are too big, way out of scale
with the existing homes. I'm not against people being able to replace an older smaller home with something
larger, but I feel that there has to be some common sense restrictions on the size and footprint of these new
homes.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Dan Cobbett
2267 31st St
Santa Monica, CA
Item 8-A 01/09/18
127 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Anne Gillmore-Pizzuto <agpizzuto@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:07 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Anne G.Pizzuto
Item 8-A 01/09/18
128 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:MAP Assistant <mapassist@mapstrategic.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:20 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Myles Henry Asa Pritchard
Financial Advisor | Managing Director
MAPStrategic Wealth Advisors
A Member of Advisory Services Network, LLC
12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
OFFICE: 310.601.4095
FAX: 310.388.5484
WEBSITE: www.mapstrategic.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
129 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:44 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown;
Terry O’Day; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Ted Winterer
Cc:Clerk Mailbox; Ann Maggio Thanawalla; CIVIC FIELD
Subject:Jan 9, 2018 Agenda Item 8-A
Dear City Council,
As resident stakeholders, we are not in agreement with the Planning Departments priorities for the
upcoming year. We have ZERO interest in the Gateway Master Plan. This plan will increase
our commute times by funneling even more traffic onto Lincoln Blvd., an exacerbated traffic &
pollution cluster further impacting the area that is already planned for a Road Diet. The GAMP also
attempts to park cars at the Civic and kill the Civic Center Field. Council comments and staff
machinations attempting to move our field to the GAMP through a series of grant applications and
sidebar directives is an entanglement we're asking you address at tonight's meeting.
Our requests for Planning Priorities are as follows:
1. Pico Neighborhood Plan with R1 Standards that are in alignment with new State
CEQA Draft
2. A park at 4th/5th/Arizona
3. The Civic Center Field
4. Expansion of Diamonds - not removal or soccer - at Memorial Park
We need plans prioritizing:
a city wide circulation study
a resident center circulator that is NOT Downtown centric
a moratorium on acceptance of grant money until an ordinance is written that prohibits
acceptance as a beleaguered excuse for delaying plans for residents
more open space - using land we have, not have to create
a plan to protect the neighborhoods, not commercialize them
a Landmarks Ordinance THIS YEAR
A limit on singular Development consolidation and investigation into Real Estate Investment
Trusts being granted DA's and variances. Hold them to code and give no more
An end to saying Yes to Developer Agreements. Direct Planning staff to focus on the real
needs and not coddle developers asking for more than what's written in our code.
Lastly, we'd like accountability of all the plans, big and small, made available to the public in the form
of a Master Document.
Identification of the following information should be included in tabbed format:
Project Names & Timelines
Interdepartmental information with contact info tabs
Item 8-A 01/09/18
130 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Dates - prioritized and intersectional/crossover project concerns
Piggybacking on earmarked studies with cost allocations explained and line item account
information provided
New Info - laws/codes/regulations impacting the project
Labor Cost Associations for each plan
RFP information and accessibility
Thank you,
Ann
and Sam
Thanawalla
Item 8-A 01/09/18
131 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:44 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown;
Terry O’Day; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Ted Winterer
Cc:Clerk Mailbox; Ann Maggio Thanawalla; CIVIC FIELD
Subject:Jan 9, 2018 Agenda Item 8-A
Dear City Council,
As resident stakeholders, we are not in agreement with the Planning Departments priorities for the
upcoming year. We have ZERO interest in the Gateway Master Plan. This plan will increase
our commute times by funneling even more traffic onto Lincoln Blvd., an exacerbated traffic &
pollution cluster further impacting the area that is already planned for a Road Diet. The GAMP also
attempts to park cars at the Civic and kill the Civic Center Field. Council comments and staff
machinations attempting to move our field to the GAMP through a series of grant applications and
sidebar directives is an entanglement we're asking you address at tonight's meeting.
Our requests for Planning Priorities are as follows:
1. Pico Neighborhood Plan with R1 Standards that are in alignment with new State
CEQA Draft
2. A park at 4th/5th/Arizona
3. The Civic Center Field
4. Expansion of Diamonds - not removal or soccer - at Memorial Park
We need plans prioritizing:
a city wide circulation study
a resident center circulator that is NOT Downtown centric
a moratorium on acceptance of grant money until an ordinance is written that prohibits
acceptance as a beleaguered excuse for delaying plans for residents
more open space - using land we have, not have to create
a plan to protect the neighborhoods, not commercialize them
a Landmarks Ordinance THIS YEAR
A limit on singular Development consolidation and investigation into Real Estate Investment
Trusts being granted DA's and variances. Hold them to code and give no more
An end to saying Yes to Developer Agreements. Direct Planning staff to focus on the real
needs and not coddle developers asking for more than what's written in our code.
Lastly, we'd like accountability of all the plans, big and small, made available to the public in the form
of a Master Document.
Identification of the following information should be included in tabbed format:
Project Names & Timelines
Interdepartmental information with contact info tabs
Item 8-A 01/09/18
132 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Dates - prioritized and intersectional/crossover project concerns
Piggybacking on earmarked studies with cost allocations explained and line item account
information provided
New Info - laws/codes/regulations impacting the project
Labor Cost Associations for each plan
RFP information and accessibility
Thank you,
Ann
and Sam
Thanawalla
Item 8-A 01/09/18
133 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:47 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: City Council 1/9/18 agenda item 8-A
January 8, 2018
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 1/9/18 agenda item 8-A – Planning priorities
Dear Mayor Winterer and City Council members:
The Board of Friends of Sunset Park is pleased to participate in a public discussion of city planning
priorities. As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing,
and procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Department list of priorities for 2018 and
beyond.
It appears that staff may have chosen its priorities based on ideology rather than on data and the
needs of residents. The LUCE, however, places protecting neighborhoods as a primary focus of all
planning efforts.
Based on Council’s Strategic Goals, the following are our top priorities. (Since we don’t know how
much staff time each item takes, we are listing our full priorities below.)
1) the Pico Neighborhood Plan and R1 Standards update (including an Emergency Interim
Ordinance with a modest reduction in lot coverage for 2-story homes while 1-story lot
coverage remains the same, plus incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish
and replace their homes),
2) a park at 4th/5th and Arizona,
3) the Civic Center Sports Field, and
4) expansion of baseball diamonds at Memorial Park.
In addition:
MOBILITY
Item 8-A 01/09/18
134 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Vehicle Plan - This is the most important thing for Staff to do first to improve mobility. Just as
Los Angeles’ Mobility Plan 2035 includes a Vehicle Enhanced Network, Santa Monica must
acknowledge that motor vehicles need to flow through our streets and do the same. LA’s plan
states, “In response to the need to accommodate regional traffic to and from the freeways on
city streets, the Vehicle Enhanced Network (VEN) was developed to identify corridors that will
remain critical to vehicular circulation and to balance regional and local circulation needs. …
The overall intent of the VEN is to provide streets that prioritize vehicular movement and offer
safe, consistent travel speeds and reliable travel times.”
Staff should start by extending LA’s VEN into Santa Monica and conducting a thorough study
of circulation throughout the City. Furthermore, it appears that SB 743 would require such an
analysis and vehicle plan in order to regulate vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is the new
state metric for mobility.
Parking Plan - In conjunction with identifying the desired flow of vehicles in and out of the City,
Staff needs to develop a parking plan along those routes.
Shuttle - Residents have been asking for a local circulator bus since BBB routes don’t serve
enough residents within Santa Monica.
No GAMP - At this point, the GAMP cannot be made a priority because Staff has
neither conducted a full circulation study nor created a vehicle plan. Therefore, we cannot
know if that is the highest and best use of resident funds, especially since the project is
expected to be exorbitantly expensive and benefit primarily commercial interests.
Open Space - The inevitable consequence of increased development is decreased mobility.
Therefore, we prioritize maintaining open space instead of more development. The cumulative
impact of overdevelopment is destroying our City.
DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION
Pico Neighborhood, Memorial Park Neighborhood, and R1 Plans - The Pico Zoning
District and Memorial Park Neighborhood Plans, which include an update of R1 development
standards, should be top priorities. These neighborhood plans and the R1 development
standards work together to protect neighborhood character and retain affordable housing. R1
development standards are integral parts of neighborhood planning in both the Pico and
Memorial Park neighborhoods, which are at immediate risk of losing affordable housing along
with neighborhood character. Work on these plans should begin immediately.
No Additional Housing Generation - Residents do NOT want to prioritize housing generation
per Planning Commission and Staff recommendations. We just did the 2015 zoning ordinance
update for the boulevards and the 2013 area plan for Bergamot. Those need to be allowed to
play out before we know if there is an issue.
Stop commercialism in residential neighborhoods - We oppose allowing commercial uses
to intrude in residential neighborhoods. The LUCE was supposed to preserve the character of
our residential neighborhoods, and encroachment of commercial uses into the residential
neighborhoods both alters the character and displaces residents.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
135 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
3
Landmarks Update - We believe the Landmarks Ordinance should be updated, but we don’t
expect this to be a large undertaking since a draft was done 10 years ago.
HOMELESSNESS
Mental Health - In any DA with St. John’s, require that provision of additional mental health
services be a community benefit.
Pico Neighborhood, Memorial Park Neighborhood and R1 Plans - See above in Diversity
and Inclusion. Preservation of existing neighborhoods will keep residents in their homes.
LEARN AND THRIVE
Park at 4th/5th and Arizona - Residents overwhelmingly want a park here on our public
land. We do not want a hotel/office complex.
Sports Field at the Civic Center - For twelve years, residents have been urging the City to
build the field. We understand that Staff doesn’t consider this a planning priority issue, but we
are concerned that the timeline for the sports field, as extended by Staff, now takes longer than
some of the items being discussed Tuesday. We believe the sports field should be
accelerated and built as soon as possible.
Memorial Park Plan - More baseball diamonds at Fisher Lumber were promised in 2004 but
still don’t exist. We didn’t see the Memorial Park Plan mentioned as a priority, and it should
be. Furthermore, the expansion of the diamonds does not need to wait for the Memorial Park
Neighborhood Plan to occur.
On-Site Day Care - In lieu childcare fees are just kicking the can down the road and not
mitigating the full impact of new commercial development. Instead, all large employers should
be required to supply their own on-site child care instead of paying in lieu fees.
PNA, Mid-City, and R1 Plans - See above in Diversity and Inclusion. Preservation of existing
neighborhoods will help children thrive and create better learning environments.
MISSING GOAL: PUBLIC SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT
Public safety and enforcement of existing rules - This should be a priority because the City
is adding so much density and development into such a small area. It’s a drain on resources
and, if the City isn’t capable of enforcement at existing levels, it shouldn’t continue to expand,
especially with conditional development that requires even more monitoring and enforcement.
Developer/Owner Accountability - Staff was directed almost two years ago to draft an
ordinance stating that property owners out of compliance would get no new entitlements. So
far, staff has not even begun to draft such an ordinance. In the meantime, resident groups
have determined that the ordinance should be broadened to apply to owners/developers and
Item 8-A 01/09/18
136 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
4
not be limited to a specific project. This would ensure that a developer out of compliance on
one project could not move forward on a different project while still out of compliance. The
ordinance should apply to all developments with shared beneficial ownership.
Development Concentration Limits - The City should cap the square footage a developer
can develop in the City. It is fiscally unsound for our City to have ownership concentrated
among a few landowners. While ownership itself cannot be prevented, limits on development
can be put in place.
MISSING GOAL: OVERALL PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AND USE OF RESIDENT
RESOURCES
Transparency and clear public process with residents around community benefits –
Require that community benefits prioritize Santa Monica residents. For example, require all
new large developments to include on-site daycare for children of employees, rather than
allowing in-lieu fees. This would keep children near their parents and reduce impacts to
adjacent residents, traffic, and parking.
Public Vote on Public Land - Staff and Council shouldn’t be able to give away our dwindling
public land resources to SMC, a hotel developer, or any other use without a vote of the
residents.
Moratorium on Exceptions - There must be a moratorium on all waivers, variances,
exceptions, CUPS, and any other deviations from zoning in the Pico Neighborhood, Memorial
Park Neighborhood, Bergamot Area, and R1 neighborhoods in advance of those plans being
updated. Any changes that are made cannot be reversed and could result in irreparable
harm. The neighborhoods must be preserved prior to the completion of the plans.
DO NOT WORK ON: In order to ensure that our priorities are met, we do not want Staff time being
spent on these projects:
Local Coastal Plan - The Local Coastal Program has been in process for the past two years,
with a first quarter 2018 release date for the Land Use Plan, which will be followed by the
coastal zoning ordinance. The city has worked well with the Coastal Commission for the past
20 years without an implementation plan and there is no reason to complete this ordinance
ahead our other priorities.
Housing on the Boulevards – The city just did the ZOU in 2015. That was a huge battle,
which the residents already feel they lost because the boulevards were up-zoned, so we do
not want to redo this again only 2 years later.
Housing in the Bergamot Area – The Bergamot Area Plan was just approved in 2013. We
don’t agree that this is a problem. Let’s build out what was approved and then see if there’s a
problem that needs addressing.
GAMP - See above under Mobility. There is no justification for spending time or money on this
project without a complete Vehicle Plan following a full circulation study.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
137 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
5
DAs. We have no interest in DAs because Staff often fails to negotiate community benefits
that actually seem to benefit the community or balance the impact of the development. We
don’t need even more large hotels in the city, and our public land at 4th/5th and Arizona should
be a park.
Finally, as residents and taxpayers, we want a timeline for each project, not just the for the ones staff
prioritized, and including the projects we have listed above. We also want to know how much staff
time and outside contractor time and expense is required for each project. Any thorough and
thoughtful analysis of priorities requires all of this information.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
138 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Laura O'Neill <laura@gpaconsulting-us.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:51 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Meeting Item 8A - City Planning Division Priorities
Attachments:Letter to PC re Planning Department Priorities - 12-11-17.doc
Dear Esteemed Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
I urge you to consider making the Landmarks Ordinance update a higher priority for Planning Staff than is recommended
in the Staff Report and associated schedule. The Commission and interested members of the public have been waiting
decades for the City to commit to appropriate revisions to the ordinance, which has not been updated since the 1970s.
With the completion of the LUCE, Zoning Ordinance updates, and the Downtown Community Plan, it is more imperative
than ever that the Landmarks Ordinance be updated. Waiting till 2019 to even initiate revisions would be incredibly
disappointing to many, as it will take many months, possibly years, after initiation to get a full draft before Council for
approval. I strongly believe the ordinance update should be initiated in 2018, with the involvement of the Landmarks
Commission subcommittee already in place.
I am very sympathetic to the heavy workload of Planning Staff at this time, but in a prosperous city like ours, a heavy
workload should not mean postponing or dragging out very necessary city business. Instead, it should mean hiring an
adequate number of capable staff to complete the work in a timely fashion, or setting in place funding to hire qualified
consultants for the overflow work. Our hard‐working and dedicated residents deserve to have sufficient city staff to
meet their needs.
For the record, I am the current Chair of the Landmarks Commission; however, I am writing this letter to you as a private
resident, not as an official representative of the Commission. At our meeting in November, the Landmarks Commission
designated me, Commissioner Margaret Bach, and Chair Pro Tempore Dolores Sloan to represent us to the Planning
Commission at their December 13th meeting; however, the enabling motion neglected to include representation at the
subsequent City Council hearing on the subject. Thus, we are precluded from providing comment on this item on your
agenda as official representatives. In lieu of commenting as a full city body, I have opted to comment in my individual
capacity. I have also attached the Landmarks Commission’s letter to the Planning Commission, dated December 11,
2018, in case it has not been included in your meeting materials.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
LAURA O’NEILL
Senior Architectural Historian | laura@gpaconsulting‐us.com
617 S. Olive Street, Suite 910
Los Angeles, CA 90014
(310) 792‐2690
www.gpaconsulting‐us.com
El Segundo • Los Angeles
Sacramento • San Luis Obispo
Item 8-A 01/09/18
139 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 11:19 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Nada Shamonki; Brian O'Neil
Subject:January 9, 2018 City Council Meeting - Request for Introduction of Motion for
Reconsideration re Zoning Ordinance Change SMMC Section 9.28.070(A)
Dear City Council -
I support the request by Gandara Park Neighborhood for a motion to reconsider the legislative action taken by
the City Council on December 12, 2017, Agenda Item 7D, Second Reading and Adoption of An Ordinance
Adopting Changes, Corrections, and Clarifications to the City's Zoning Ordinance, Chapters 9.01 Through
Chapter 9.52 of Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, pursuant to Rule 12(g) of the Council Rules of
Order and Procedure. I incorporate their entire comment below herein by reference.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that this request is consistent with the comment you will be receiving
from the Board of FOSP and other resident Neighborhood Groups relating to Item 8A that there should be a
moratorium on all exceptions, variances, one-off changes, CUPs, etc. prior to the completion of the Pico Zoning
District, Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan and R1 Standards. To make such piecemeal changes in the
meantime will only destroy the character of the neighborhoods, which violates the LUCE goal of preservation
of neighborhood character.
Thank you.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
From: Nada <nshamonki@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 12:39 AM
To: Ted Winterer; gleam.davis@smgov.net; pam.oconnor@smgov.net; terry.oday@smgov.net;
kevin.mckeown@smgov.net; tony.vazquez@smgov.net; sue.himmelrich@smgov.net; councilmtgitems@smgov.net
Cc: Brian Patrick O'Neil; Nada
Subject: January 9, 2018 City Council Meeting ‐ Request for Introduction of Motion for Reconsideration re Zoning
Ordinance Change SMMC Section 9.28.070(A)
Dear Councilmembers,
We are writing to request the introduction at the January 9, 2018 City Council meeting of a motion to
reconsider the legislative action taken by the City Council on December 12, 2017, Agenda Item 7D, Second
Reading and Adoption of An Ordinance Adopting Changes, Corrections, and Clarifications to the City's Zoning
Item 8-A 01/09/18
140 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Ordinance, Chapters 9.01 Through Chapter 9.52 of Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, pursuant to
Rule 12(g) of the Council Rules of Order and Procedure.
We take particular issue with the change to SMMC Section 9.28.070(A) (p. 3.75), which changes the required
parking for Single‐Unit Residential Districts. The current law requires that parking in a Single‐Unit Residential
District shall be located within an enclosed garage. The change modified the ordinance as follows: “Required
parking for all other permitted use classifications in the Single‐Unit Residential district shall not be required to
be located within an enclosed garage.” Accordingly, all homes in Single‐Unit Residential Districts that that are
operated as businesses—such as family day cares, residential facilities, supportive housing, transitional
housing, adult day care, preschools, bed and breakfasts, and other uses as listed in Table 9.07.020 of the
SMZO—can remove the garages by right. This would effectively re‐zone each of these homes for business and
commercial uses, because it could be cost prohibitive for future buyers who wanted to use the home as a
dwelling since they would have to rebuild the demolished garages. In other words, once the garage is
removed, a dwelling in an R‐1 zoned district will be removed from the market, diminishing the existing housing
stock. The City already suffers from removal of affordable housing (i.e., rent controlled housing), and this
ordinance change will unquestionably decrease all housing, including the remaining affordable housing.
Moreover, this change will predominately impact less affluent neighborhoods, where homes generally have
detached garages rather than attached garages.
This change in the ordinance was mischaracterized as “Zoning Ordinance Clean‐Up” in the Executive Summary
in the December 5, 2017 City Council Report presented before the first reading, which stated “The proposed
changes identified in this report are intended to provide clarification of standards, provide consistency
between regulations, and eliminate any potential confusion in the application of standards without
significantly altering the standards and regulations within the Zoning Ordinance.” In reality, the change to
SMMC Section 9.28.070(A) (p. 3.75) did, in fact, significantly alter the standards and regulations within the
Zoning Ordinance because it undermines and changes the purpose of having Single‐Unit Residential Units.
The December 5, 2017 City Council Report Recommended Action (Printout) incorrectly states that the changes
are “categorically exempt” from CEQA because the “evidence in the record” allegedly shows that “it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed changes may have a significant effect on the
environment.” Stating that there is no possibility that the change to SMMC Section 9.28.070(A) (p. 3.75) may
have a significant effect on the environment is both nonsensical and belied by the language of the very change
that has gone into effect. With regard to CEQA, when the revised LUCE was adopted in 2015, it underwent a
CEQA review for the land use impacts of the 2015 proposed changes. However, the SMMC Section 9.28.070(A)
did not undergo a CEQA review for the land use impacts. Reconsideration is warranted to ensure that the
appropriate review of land use impacts is undertaken according to CEQA, including but not limited to CEQA
Sections 15125, 15183(a), 15378. Based on the evidence in the record, it can be seen with certainty that there
is no possibility that the change will not have a significant effect on the environment.
This zoning ordinance change was introduced under cover of night, hidden within other proposed changes,
and presented without any public reading or proper notice, seemingly to give the Applicant and the Staff an
advantage in the Appeal filed by Residents for the Preservation of Gandara Park Neighborhood to the Planning
Commission Statement of Official Action Approving Applications for Conditional Use Permit 17ENT‐0075,
Variance 17ENT‐0147, & Fence/Wall Modification 17ENT‐0148 for 2953 Delaware Ave. See Policy Discussion
Items #22 (“The issue was identified by staff upon review of an application for a Child Care Facility within the
R1 Single‐Unit Residential District.”) This governing by subterfuge is not only morally and ethically improper, it
also strips residents of their due process rights and does away with the notion of a transparent process for
developing city policy.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
141 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
3
We urge the City Council to withdraw the zoning ordinance change until a proper study is conducted, including
the appropriate CEQA analysis, to determine the potential negative impacts this change will have on Single‐
Unit Residential Districts.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that members of the City Council introduce a motion for reconsideration
for the reasons set forth herein.
Best regards,
Nada Shamonki
Member and Representative of the
Residents for the Preservation of Gandara Park Neighborhood
Item 8-A 01/09/18
142 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
9HUQLFH+DQNLQV
)URP 1LNNL.ROKRII QKNROKRII#\DKRRFRP!
6HQW 7XHVGD\-DQXDU\ $0
7R &RXQFLO0DLOER[ FRXQFLOPWJLWHPV .HYLQ0F.HRZQ)ZG 7RQ\9D]TXH] *OHDP'DYLV
6XH+LPPHOULFK 3DP2&RQQRU 7HUU\2·'D\ 7HG:LQWHUHU
&F 1DGD6KDPRQNL %ULDQ2
1HLO
6XEMHFW -DQXDU\ &LW\&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ5HTXHVWIRU,QWURGXFWLRQRI0RWLRQIRU
5HFRQVLGHUDWLRQUH=RQLQJ2UGLQDQFH&KDQJH600&6HFWLRQ $
'HDU&LW\&RXQFLO
,VXSSRUWWKHUHTXHVWE\*DQGDUD3DUN1HLJKERUKRRGIRUDPRWLRQWRUHFRQVLGHUWKHOHJLVODWLYHDFWLRQWDNHQE\
WKH&LW\&RXQFLORQ'HFHPEHU$JHQGD,WHP'6HFRQG5HDGLQJDQG$GRSWLRQRI$Q2UGLQDQFH
$GRSWLQJ&KDQJHV&RUUHFWLRQVDQG&ODULILFDWLRQVWRWKH&LW\
V=RQLQJ2UGLQDQFH&KDSWHUV 7KURXJK
&KDSWHU RI$UWLFOH RIWKH6DQWD0RQLFD0XQLFLSDO&RGHSXUVXDQWWR5XOH J RIWKH&RXQFLO5XOHVRI
2UGHUDQG3URFHGXUH,LQFRUSRUDWHWKHLUHQWLUHFRPPHQWEHORZKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFH
)XUWKHUPRUH,ZRXOGOLNHWRSRLQWRXWWKDWWKLVUHTXHVWLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHFRPPHQW\RXZLOOEHUHFHLYLQJ
IURPWKH%RDUGRI)263DQGRWKHUUHVLGHQW1HLJKERUKRRG*URXSVUHODWLQJWR,WHP$WKDWWKHUHVKRXOGEHD
PRUDWRULXPRQDOOH[FHSWLRQVYDULDQFHVRQHRIIFKDQJHV&83VHWFSULRUWRWKHFRPSOHWLRQRIWKH3LFR=RQLQJ
'LVWULFW0HPRULDO3DUN1HLJKERUKRRG3ODQDQG56WDQGDUGV7RPDNHVXFKSLHFHPHDOFKDQJHVLQWKH
PHDQWLPHZLOORQO\GHVWUR\WKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHQHLJKERUKRRGVZKLFKYLRODWHVWKH/8&(JRDORISUHVHUYDWLRQ
RIQHLJKERUKRRGFKDUDFWHU
7KDQN\RX
5HJDUGV
1LNNL.ROKRII
6DQWD0RQLFD5HVLGHQW
&ƌŽŵ͗EĂĚĂфŶƐŚĂŵŽŶŬŝΛŚŽƚŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂLJ͕:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϴ͕ϮϬϭϴϭϮ͗ϯϵD
dŽ͗dĞĚtŝŶƚĞƌĞƌ͖ŐůĞĂŵ͘ĚĂǀŝƐΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ͖ƉĂŵ͘ŽĐŽŶŶŽƌΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ͖ƚĞƌƌLJ͘ŽĚĂLJΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ͖
ŬĞǀŝŶ͘ŵĐŬĞŽǁŶΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ͖ƚŽŶLJ͘ǀĂnjƋƵĞnjΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ͖ƐƵĞ͘ŚŝŵŵĞůƌŝĐŚΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ͖ĐŽƵŶĐŝůŵƚŐŝƚĞŵƐΛƐŵŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ
Đ͗ƌŝĂŶWĂƚƌŝĐŬKΖEĞŝů͖EĂĚĂ
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϵ͕ϮϬϭϴŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůDĞĞƚŝŶŐͲZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨDŽƚŝŽŶĨŽƌZĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƌĞŽŶŝŶŐ
KƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞŚĂŶŐĞ^DD^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϵ͘Ϯϴ͘ϬϳϬ;Ϳ
ĞĂƌŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͕
tĞĂƌĞǁƌŝƚŝŶŐƚŽƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƚŚĞŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĂƚƚŚĞ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϵ͕ϮϬϭϴŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŽĨĂŵŽƚŝŽŶƚŽ
ƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞůĞŐŝƐůĂƚŝǀĞĂĐƚŝŽŶƚĂŬĞŶďLJƚŚĞŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůŽŶĞĐĞŵďĞƌϭϮ͕ϮϬϭϳ͕ŐĞŶĚĂ/ƚĞŵϳ͕^ĞĐŽŶĚ
ZĞĂĚŝŶŐĂŶĚĚŽƉƚŝŽŶŽĨŶKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĚŽƉƚŝŶŐŚĂŶŐĞƐ͕ŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚůĂƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJΖƐŽŶŝŶŐ
Item 8-A 01/09/18
143 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
KƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕ŚĂƉƚĞƌƐϵ͘ϬϭdŚƌŽƵŐŚŚĂƉƚĞƌϵ͘ϱϮŽĨƌƚŝĐůĞϵŽĨƚŚĞ^ĂŶƚĂDŽŶŝĐĂDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽĚĞ͕ƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽ
ZƵůĞϭϮ;ŐͿŽĨƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝůZƵůĞƐŽĨKƌĚĞƌĂŶĚWƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞ͘
tĞƚĂŬĞƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌŝƐƐƵĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŽ^DD^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϵ͘Ϯϴ͘ϬϳϬ;Ϳ;Ɖ͘ϯ͘ϳϱͿ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĨŽƌ^ŝŶŐůĞͲhŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐ͘dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůĂǁƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĂƚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŝŶĂ^ŝŶŐůĞͲhŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů
ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐŚĂůůďĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŶĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞŵŽĚŝĨŝĞĚƚŚĞŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĂƐĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗͞ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĨŽƌĂůůŽƚŚĞƌƉĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĚƵƐĞĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞ^ŝŶŐůĞͲhŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐŚĂůůŶŽƚďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽ
ďĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶĂŶĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘͟ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐůLJ͕ĂůůŚŽŵĞƐŝŶ^ŝŶŐůĞͲhŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĂƚĂƌĞ
ŽƉĞƌĂƚĞĚĂƐďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐͶƐƵĐŚĂƐĨĂŵŝůLJĚĂLJĐĂƌĞƐ͕ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶĂů
ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ĂĚƵůƚĚĂLJĐĂƌĞ͕ƉƌĞƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͕ďĞĚĂŶĚďƌĞĂŬĨĂƐƚƐ͕ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƵƐĞƐĂƐůŝƐƚĞĚŝŶdĂďůĞϵ͘Ϭϳ͘ϬϮϬŽĨƚŚĞ
^DKͶĐĂŶƌĞŵŽǀĞƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐďLJƌŝŐŚƚ͘dŚŝƐǁŽƵůĚĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞůLJƌĞͲnjŽŶĞĞĂĐŚŽĨƚŚĞƐĞŚŽŵĞƐĨŽƌďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂŶĚ
ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƵƐĞƐ͕ďĞĐĂƵƐĞŝƚĐŽƵůĚďĞĐŽƐƚƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚŝǀĞĨŽƌĨƵƚƵƌĞďƵLJĞƌƐǁŚŽǁĂŶƚĞĚƚŽƵƐĞƚŚĞŚŽŵĞĂƐĂ
ĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞLJǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞƚŽƌĞďƵŝůĚƚŚĞĚĞŵŽůŝƐŚĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞƐ͘/ŶŽƚŚĞƌǁŽƌĚƐ͕ŽŶĐĞƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞŝƐ
ƌĞŵŽǀĞĚ͕ĂĚǁĞůůŝŶŐŝŶĂŶZͲϭnjŽŶĞĚĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚǁŝůůďĞƌĞŵŽǀĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŵĂƌŬĞƚ͕ĚŝŵŝŶŝƐŚŝŶŐƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ƐƚŽĐŬ͘dŚĞŝƚLJĂůƌĞĂĚLJƐƵĨĨĞƌƐĨƌŽŵƌĞŵŽǀĂůŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ;ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ƌĞŶƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůůĞĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐͿ͕ĂŶĚƚŚŝƐ
ŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĐŚĂŶŐĞǁŝůůƵŶƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶĂďůLJĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞĂůůŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘
DŽƌĞŽǀĞƌ͕ƚŚŝƐĐŚĂŶŐĞǁŝůůƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂƚĞůLJŝŵƉĂĐƚůĞƐƐĂĨĨůƵĞŶƚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͕ǁŚĞƌĞŚŽŵĞƐŐĞŶĞƌĂůůLJŚĂǀĞ
ĚĞƚĂĐŚĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚŐĂƌĂŐĞƐ͘
dŚŝƐĐŚĂŶŐĞŝŶƚŚĞŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞǁĂƐŵŝƐĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝnjĞĚĂƐ͞ŽŶŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞůĞĂŶͲhƉ͟ŝŶƚŚĞ džĞĐƵƚŝǀĞ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ
ŝŶƚŚĞĞĐĞŵďĞƌϱ͕ϮϬϭϳŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůZĞƉŽƌƚƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚƌĞĂĚŝŶŐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐƚĂƚĞĚ͞dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
ĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƌĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĐůĂƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐLJ
ďĞƚǁĞĞŶƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞĂŶLJƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůĐŽŶĨƵƐŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚ
ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJĂůƚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŽŶŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͘͟/ŶƌĞĂůŝƚLJ͕ƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŽ
^DD^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϵ͘Ϯϴ͘ϬϳϬ;Ϳ;Ɖ͘ϯ͘ϳϱͿĚŝĚ͕ŝŶĨĂĐƚ͕ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJĂůƚĞƌƚŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ
ŽŶŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞďĞĐĂƵƐĞŝƚƵŶĚĞƌŵŝŶĞƐĂŶĚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŚĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨŚĂǀŝŶŐ^ŝŶŐůĞͲhŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhŶŝƚƐ͘
dŚĞĞĐĞŵďĞƌϱ͕ϮϬϭϳŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůZĞƉŽƌƚZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚĐƚŝŽŶ;WƌŝŶƚŽƵƚͿŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚůLJƐƚĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ
ĂƌĞ͞ĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĐĂůůLJĞdžĞŵƉƚ͟ĨƌŽŵ YďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞ͞ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŝŶƚŚĞƌĞĐŽƌĚ͟ĂůůĞŐĞĚůLJƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚ͞ŝƚĐĂŶďĞ
ƐĞĞŶǁŝƚŚĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚLJƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽƉŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŵĂLJŚĂǀĞĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĞĨĨĞĐƚŽŶƚŚĞ
ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͘͟^ƚĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽƉŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŽ^DD^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϵ͘Ϯϴ͘ϬϳϬ;Ϳ;Ɖ͘ϯ͘ϳϱͿŵĂLJ
ŚĂǀĞĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĞĨĨĞĐƚŽŶƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚŝƐďŽƚŚŶŽŶƐĞŶƐŝĐĂůĂŶĚďĞůŝĞĚďLJƚŚĞůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞǀĞƌLJĐŚĂŶŐĞ
ƚŚĂƚŚĂƐŐŽŶĞŝŶƚŽĞĨĨĞĐƚ͘tŝƚŚƌĞŐĂƌĚƚŽ Y͕ǁŚĞŶƚŚĞƌĞǀŝƐĞĚ>h ǁĂƐĂĚŽƉƚĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϱ͕ŝƚƵŶĚĞƌǁĞŶƚĂ
YƌĞǀŝĞǁĨŽƌƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞϮϬϭϱƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞ^DD^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϵ͘Ϯϴ͘ϬϳϬ;Ϳ
ĚŝĚŶŽƚƵŶĚĞƌŐŽĂ YƌĞǀŝĞǁĨŽƌƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ͘ZĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŝƐǁĂƌƌĂŶƚĞĚƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ
ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨůĂŶĚƵƐĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŝƐƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶĂĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽ Y͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐďƵƚŶŽƚůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽ Y
^ĞĐƚŝŽŶƐϭϱϭϮϱ͕ϭϱϭϴϯ;ĂͿ͕ϭϱϯϳϴ͘ĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŝŶƚŚĞƌĞĐŽƌĚ͕ŝƚĐĂŶďĞƐĞĞŶǁŝƚŚĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚLJƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞ
ŝƐŶŽƉŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞǁŝůůŶŽƚŚĂǀĞĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĞĨĨĞĐƚŽŶƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͘
dŚŝƐnjŽŶŝŶŐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĐŚĂŶŐĞǁĂƐŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐĞĚƵŶĚĞƌĐŽǀĞƌŽĨŶŝŐŚƚ͕ŚŝĚĚĞŶǁŝƚŚŝŶŽƚŚĞƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ͕
ĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĂŶLJƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĂĚŝŶŐŽƌƉƌŽƉĞƌŶŽƚŝĐĞ͕ƐĞĞŵŝŶŐůLJƚŽŐŝǀĞƚŚĞƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚĂŶĚƚŚĞ^ƚĂĨĨĂŶ
ĂĚǀĂŶƚĂŐĞŝŶƚŚĞƉƉĞĂůĨŝůĞĚďLJZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ'ĂŶĚĂƌĂWĂƌŬEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚŽĨKĨĨŝĐŝĂůĐƚŝŽŶƉƉƌŽǀŝŶŐƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůhƐĞWĞƌŵŝƚϭϳ EdͲϬϬϳϱ͕
sĂƌŝĂŶĐĞϭϳ EdͲϬϭϰϳ͕Θ&ĞŶĐĞͬtĂůůDŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶϭϳ EdͲϬϭϰϴĨŽƌϮϵϱϯĞůĂǁĂƌĞǀĞ͘^ĞĞWŽůŝĐLJŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶ
/ƚĞŵƐηϮϮ;͞dŚĞŝƐƐƵĞǁĂƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚďLJƐƚĂĨĨƵƉŽŶƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨĂŶĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĂŚŝůĚĂƌĞ&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ
Zϭ^ŝŶŐůĞͲhŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘͟ͿdŚŝƐŐŽǀĞƌŶŝŶŐďLJƐƵďƚĞƌĨƵŐĞŝƐŶŽƚŽŶůLJŵŽƌĂůůLJĂŶĚĞƚŚŝĐĂůůLJŝŵƉƌŽƉĞƌ͕ŝƚ
ĂůƐŽƐƚƌŝƉƐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞŝƌĚƵĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƌŝŐŚƚƐĂŶĚĚŽĞƐĂǁĂLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŶŽƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƚƌĂŶƐƉĂƌĞŶƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĨŽƌ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĐŝƚLJƉŽůŝĐLJ͘
Item 8-A 01/09/18
144 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
tĞƵƌŐĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůƚŽǁŝƚŚĚƌĂǁƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƵŶƚŝůĂƉƌŽƉĞƌƐƚƵĚLJŝƐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ
ƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ YĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͕ƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůŶĞŐĂƚŝǀĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŚŝƐĐŚĂŶŐĞǁŝůůŚĂǀĞŽŶ^ŝŶŐůĞͲ
hŶŝƚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƐ͘
ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐůLJ͕ǁĞƌĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůLJƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƚŚĂƚŵĞŵďĞƌƐŽĨƚŚĞŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐĞĂŵŽƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞĂƐŽŶƐƐĞƚĨŽƌƚŚŚĞƌĞŝŶ͘
ĞƐƚƌĞŐĂƌĚƐ͕
EĂĚĂ^ŚĂŵŽŶŬŝ
DĞŵďĞƌĂŶĚZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞŽĨƚŚĞ
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ'ĂŶĚĂƌĂWĂƌŬEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ
Item 8-A 01/09/18
145 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:DB2024DB <db2024db@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 11:46 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
I couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
I am asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the
Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Please work with CCS and public works to accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects
for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you
Item 8-A 01/09/18
146 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam
OConnor; Tony Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson-
Warren
Subject:Letter to Council re Agenda item 8A, Jan. 9, 2018 - Planning Priorities
To: City Council
From: Tricia Crane & Amy Aukstikalnis
Jan. 9, 2017
Re: Planning Priorities, Agenda Item 8A
Dear City Council,
In response to the Planning Division’s proposed priorities for 2018 enumerated in Agenda item 8A, offered here
is an alternative for your consideration, a list that better reflects the priorities of resident stakeholders in the City
of Santa Monica. The resident Priorities are identified here in terms of how they align with City Council’s
Strategic Goals.
Mobility
A Car Plan / Parking Plan is long overdue:
The City first needs to research and present for public discussion a citywide traffic and circulation plan
before any expenditure of staff time or public resources on exploring whether the Gateway Master Plan
(GAMP) should be a priority. Further, SB 743 appears to require a Car Plan that includes vehicle miles
traveled as the metric for mobility. Our city needs a comprehensive Car Plan first.
Learn & Thrive
A Plaza with a park is the best use of our public land at 4th and Arizona for year-round recreational
programming;
Item 8-A 01/09/18
147 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
A sports field as promised at the Civic Center will meet an identified need for open space;
Community Benefits must benefit the community:
There should be a transparent and public process with residents about community benefits that are truly
beneficial. Large new development should be required to provide onsite childcare / daycare services for
employees instead of pushing facilities into neighborhoods.
Diversity & Inclusion
Commercialism in residential neighborhoods should be stopped.
The LUCE calls for the preservation of neighborhoods and current policies and practices do not deliver
on that promise. Increased housing production on the boulevards is not a priority for residents. Housing
production was addressed in the 2015 ZO.
Moratoriums are needed on waivers, variances, exceptions and CUPs where there are anticipated Plans
such as those discussed for R1, Pico. Mid-City should have its own Plan that addresses the need for a library
and park.
Not included here are Homelessness and the Airport given that programs and policies outside of Planning that
are currently in place to address those Council Strategic Goals.
As City Council discusses each of the Planning Division priorities, it is important that the discussion include
costs and funding. It is important for the community to hear a full discussion of each “priority” presented, one
that focuses on data, not ideology.
Thank you
Tricia Crane & Amy Aukstikalnis
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public record for Agenda Item 8A, City Council meeting of Jan. 9,
2018
Item 8-A 01/09/18
148 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Leslie Lambert <leslielambert92@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: January 9 Agenda Item 8A
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Leslie Lambert <leslielambert92@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:05 PM
Subject: January 9 Agenda Item 8A
To: Ted Winterer <ted.winterer@smgov.net>, Gleam Davis <gleam.davis@smgov.net>,
kevin.mckeown@smgov.net, Tony Vazquez <tony.vazquez@smgov.net>, terry.oday@smgov.net, Pam
OConnor <pam.oconnor@smgov.net>, sue.himmelrich@smgov.net
Cc: clerk@smgov.net
Dear Mayor Winterer and Councilmembers:
As a 22-year Sunset Park homeowner, I urge you to expedite adoption of an emergency ordinance to redress the
heightened activity of demolition of existing single family homes in our R1 districts and their replacement with
new dwellings that are destroying our neigborhoods' scale and character. I understand that nothing can be done
regarding the non-contextual design of these homes, at least on an emergency basis, but there are measures to be
taken to address their size. There are almost 80 demolition permits in process or approved just within the north
of Montana and Sunset Park neighborhoods. This is a situation of crisis proportions in my opinion. My street,
Ashland Avenue, is looking more and more like an Orange County suburb due to the proliferation of out of
scale and poorly designed two-storey homes.
Please direct staff to return with an emergency ordinance that limits lot coverage for the ground floor of two-
storey homes in R1 districts to 30% and establishes a uniform 28' height limit in R1 districts. Ideally, this draft
emergency ordinance should be ready for public hearing at your January 23 meeting.
Please also direct staff to provide for the development of Accessory Dwelling Units, which would likely not be
built under the development standards being considered as part of the emergency ordinance. I truly believe that
we will not see new ADU's added if we limit lot coverage to 30%. This of course would be contrary to City
policies regarding incentivizing ADU development and potentially violates the spirit if not the letter of AB2299
(Bloome), now codified in Section 65852.6 of the California Government Code.. There are those who propose
that this ADU provision be delayed until the permanent "mansionization" Zoning Code revisions are
considered. I do not believe that we can afford to forestall the development of ADU's until this ordinance is
ready for adoption. Please act now.
I propose that the following language be included in the emergency ordinance:
Properties on which the Accessory Dwelling Units exist or are proposed shall be subject to the lot
coverage maximums in the existing Zoning Code except: (i) Any two-storey primary residence on such
properties shall not exceed the lot coverage maximum in this Emergency Ordinance (30%); and (ii) No
residential structures on such properties shall exceed the height limit set forth in this Emergency
Ordinance (28').
Item 8-A 01/09/18
149 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
I understand that staff may have difficulty preparing findings to support this ADU "carve out" in the time being
given them. I am therefore proposing a set of findings that were prepared for this purpose by Jane Blumenfeld,
former LA City Planning Deputy Director and a participant in the drafting of AB2299. I will send these
findings in a separate email.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
150 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Planning Commission
Report
Planning Commission Meeting: December 13, 2017
Agenda Item: 7-A
To: Planning Commission
From: David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development
Jing Yeo, City Planning Division Manager
Subject: City Planning Division Priorities
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and comment on upcoming City
Planning Division priorities.
Executive Summary
The adoption of the Downtown Community Plan earlier this year marked a major
milestone and added to the list of significant implementation efforts completed since the
adoption of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) in 2010. These efforts include
the completion of the Bergamot Area Plan, the Bike Action Plan, the Pedestrian Action
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance Update. While substantial progress towards LUCE
implementation has been made over the last seven years, there are additional Area Plans
and ordinance updates that are necessary to fulfill the vision of the LUCE. In addition to
the implementation projects recommended by the LUCE, there are new initiatives directed
by City Council as well as major Development Agreement projects that are pending
Planning Commission and City Council review.
This report summarizes pending policy and development projects and provides a general
timeline of when these projects can be completed with existing staff and financial
resources. While these projects involve collaboration between various City divisions and
Departments, they are primarily led by the City Planning division within the Planning and
Community Development Department. In addition to staffing the policy and
implementation projects in this report, the City Planning division is also responsible for
the processing of all development permit applications including Planning Commission
review, Landmarks Commission review, Architectural Review Board, Zoning
Administrator and building permit plan check. Therefore, it is necessary to consider these
priorities and schedules in the context of the “day to day” work of the City Planning division
and the capacity of the division to complete these projects while also maintaining its
significant administrative functions and processing numerous Development Review
permits, Administrative Approvals and plan checks. Further, after approval of projects,
Item 8-A 01/09/18
151 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
there are typically three rounds of plan check followed by managing issues that arise
through construction and occupation of new buildings. With a handful of staff assigned
to the strategic planning and design and historic preservation function, there are
approximately eight planners assigned full-time to development review, which includes
processing planning applications, plan checks, staffing the counter, answering phone
calls, and reviewing business licenses. Due to volume and emerging division needs,
small teams of planners normally assigned to development review are assigned to
augment strategic planning and design/historic preservation projects.
A complete list of pending Development Agreement, Development Review and
Administrative Approval applications is included in Attachment A.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
152 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
3
This report divides the Division’s upcoming priorities into three sections, and provides a
fourth section on alignment with citywide priorities:
I) Policy Plans and Ordinance Updates: The first section consists of major policy
implementation efforts that were called for in the LUCE or subsequent policy
documents, or are necessary due to legal requirements or outdated
ordinances. These include the Pico Zoning District, the Memorial Park
Neighborhood Plan, the Local Coastal Program Update, the Gateway Master
Plan, the Landmarks Ordinance Update, and SB743 Implementation.
II) Council Directed Research: The next section includes four items that have
been directed by City Council, primarily through the approval of “13 Items”, for
staff and Planning Commission review and possible action by the Council.
These include review of the R1 Development Standards, review of t h e
Bergamot Area Plan to consider the percentage of housing required in specific
developments, amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit the conversion
of hotel rooms to residential units in the Proposition S Overlay area and review
of the development standards and entitlement processes for housing projects
on the commercial boulevards and in the Bergamot area to incentivize housing
over commercial development.
III) Major Development Agreements: The third section of this report provides a
summary and status update of four major Development Agreement project
currently pending. These include Phase 2 of St. Johns Medical Center, the
proposed mixed-use project at 4th/5th and Arizona, the redevelopment of the
Miramar Hotel and the proposed Ocean Avenue Hotel located on the northeast
corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue.
IV) Alignment of Division Workplan with Council Priorities: The final section of this
report demonstrates how the City Planning Division’s ongoing work efforts align
with the five strategic goals of the City Council. This section also looks at the
Council directed research with the lens of citywide priorities as a means to help
the Planning Commission provide feedback on areas of focus.
I. POLICY PLANS/ORDINANCE UPDATES
Pico Zoning District
The Pico Zoning District is intended to address immediate concerns regarding
preservation of neighborhood character through zoning standards. Bounded by the I-10
Freeway to the north, Pico Boulevard to the South, Centinela to the east and 7th Street to
the west, this planning area integrates the residential neighborhood of R2 and R1
households with the commercial Boulevard.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
153 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
4
Anticipated Timeline
In response to written requests from the Pico Neighborhood Association and Council
direction, the Pico Zoning District will include an in-house evaluation of potential zoning
ordinance updates to directly address issues raised by the PNA including revisiting the
MUBL zoning on Pico Boulevard, rules for combining residentially zoned lots in the Pico
Neighborhood, and a review of the appropriateness of Parking Overlay 2 parking
requirements between Lincoln and 11th Street. Staff expects to bring forward initial zoning
options to Planning Commission and City Council in the first half of 2018.
It is anticipated that any zoning changes will be completed by the end of 2018.
Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan
The Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan was launched in 2013 to design a framework for
the rezoning of approximately 70 acres of formerly industrial land centered on the Expo
Light Rail station at 17th Street and Colorado. Several outreach events were conducted
in 2013-2014, and a presentation was made to the Planning Commission in July 2014. A
planning framework was drafted in late 2014, which ties together a desire for additional
housing in this area, as well as new streetscape concepts that address permeability,
landscaping, and the presence of a regional transit connector in close proximity to Santa
Monica College and the city’s two hospitals. Due to competing priorities for staff time on
the Downtown Community Plan, a public draft of the Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan
was not completed.
An Environmental Impact Report that evaluates the Plan’s proposed land use and
development changes is potentially required to complete this project.
Anticipated Timeline
Staff anticipates the need to rework and enrich the draft document to make it relevant to
today’s regulatory environment, and to work closely with the Community and Cultural
Services Department throughout the re-design process of Memorial Park, which will begin
in early 2018. Outreach to re-establish communications with area stakeholders and the
community at large about the MPNP can begin simultaneously. It is anticipated that the
Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan and required environmental analysis will take
approximately eight months and be completed in third quarter 2018.
Local Coastal Program Update
The Local Coastal Program Update is being funded through a combination of Coastal
Commission grants and local funds and consists of two parts – a Land Use Plan (LUP)
and Implementation Plan (IP). Over the past two years, staff has been working closely
with Coastal Commission staff to discuss and resolve key policy issues with respect to
coastal access, new development, and the new science of sea level rise.
Anticipated Timeline
It is expected that a public draft of the LUP will be released for public review in early
2018. Once the LUP has been substantially completed, staff will start the IP, otherwise
known as the “coastal zoning ordinance”.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
154 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
5
Gateway Master Plan
The Gateway Master Plan is a funded planning effort that will address the comprehensive
planning for the area adjacent to the I-10 Freeway that links Downtown to the Civic Center
and Samohi. There is a unique opportunity for strengthening connections over the
freeway right of way. This would provide multiple benefits, including:
Seamlessly link the historic Downtown and historic Civic Center, removing a visual
and physical divide
Allow for better freeway entry and exiting in the often congested traffic bottlenecks
Provide access to peripheral parking opportunities that could reduce vehicular
impacts on the Downtown core
Provide a framework for design and access for adjacent properties
Development of the Gateway Mater Plan will be an open process facilitated by staff, and
include participation from the community, land owners and decision-makers as priorities
for the area are refined. This key location should become an experience that reflects the
city’s values of community, sustainability and pride of place.
Anticipated Timeline
As established in the Downtown Community Plan, properties within the Gateway Master
Plan boundaries may only request Tier 2 height and FAR until the earlier of 2021 or the
completion of the Gateway Master Plan. This Gateway Master Plan will be a joint effort
between several divisions within PCD including City Planning, Mobility, and Traffic
Engineering. Staff is currently discussing process options to allow the community to
evaluate potential uses and benefits of Gateway projects.
Landmarks Ordinance Update
The Landmarks Ordinance was adopted in 1976 and has not been comprehensively
updated since its inception. Since that time, application of the ordinance to a variety of
preservation projects has revealed some ambiguities in language that would benefit from
clarification. The Landmarks Commission has long advocated for a comprehensive
update to the ordinance to provide clarity on implementation and to also explore new
directions, such as the potential for a second tier of designation. The Commission has
identified a list of issues over a number of years that would be the starting point for the
ordinance update.
Anticipated Timeline
Given other priorities, staff will likely start work on a comprehensive update to the
Landmarks Ordinance in FY2018/19. The ordinance update will be a joint effort with City
Planning and the City Attorney’s office.
SB743 Implementation
In the next couple of years, transportation review required under CEQA will change as a
result of the adoption of California Senate Bill 743 (SB743). SB743 will require the City of
Santa Monica to adjust the way it conducts CEQA-mandated transportation analysis in
the upcoming 1-2 years, following adoption of the Final Guidelines, which were released
Item 8-A 01/09/18
155 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
6
in November 2017. The State’s published CEQA Guidelines indicate that the City will be
required to use VMT as the metric for transportation analysis under CEQA. VMT
measures the total distance traveled (in miles) between the origin and destination of a trip
and as such, captures the full extent of vehicle travel on the roadway network (VMT =
Trip Rate x Trip Length). VMT is a more appropriate metric for
assessing transportation impacts on the environment, because it i s r e l a t e d
to greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks,
and a diversity of land uses.
Currently, output data of the City’s Travel Demand Forecast Model is used to generate
Level of Service (LOS) analysis as formerly required under CEQA. Since 2008 the Model
also has calculated VMT for informational purposes, but not as a threshold of significance
for transportation impacts under CEQA. To comply with the anticipated CEQA Guidelines
under SB743, the TDFM will need to be calibrated to use VMT to assess transportation
impacts. Furthermore, the City will have to establish new transportation review
procedures and adopt new VMT-based traffic impact thresholds to replace the
existing Level of Service (LOS) impact thresholds.
Anticipated Timeline
City Council approved a contract with Fehr + Peers in October 2017 to update the Travel
Demand Forecast Model with the 2017 citywide transportation counts, and to recalibrate
the model based on network changes and horizon year land uses. Fehr + Peers will also
assist with development of some of the SB743 review guidelines and thresholds.
Community engagement is anticipated to educate the public regarding this change and
establishing new transportation analysis thresholds, including a public workshop, focus
groups and a number of public hearings.
The project will begin with updating and recalibrating the Model from January 2018 to
September 2018. This work includes steps to complete traffic counts and quality
assurance, develop horizon year forcecasts, update the physical network, update and
calibrate, and to evaluate TDM and VMT Performance.
Following Model update, staff will work on developing transportation review guidelines
and thresholds from July 2018 through April 2019. This phase will include tasks to
develop CEQA significance thresholds, develop planning-level transportation metrics,
and develop guidelines for transportation review of projects.
II. COUNCIL DIRECTED RESEARCH (“13 ITEMS”)
R1/Single Family Residential Development Standards
As part of the adoption of the zoning ordinance update, Council directed staff to further
research neighborhood-specific zoning changes that would address the unique character
of neighborhoods. The Planning Commission wrote a letter to the City Council requesting
review of the R1 zoning standards. Staff has received complaints from neighborhood
groups and individual residents expressing concern about the size of new homes. In
Item 8-A 01/09/18
156 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
7
nearly all cases, staff has found the new homes of concern to comply with existing zoning
regulations for single-unit dwellings. A previous update to the R1 standards addressed
“mansionization” concerns in 2000. Staff has received complaints regarding recent
renovations/additions and the redevelopment of older housing stock. These have raised
questions regarding the appropriateness of the existing R1 zoning standards. While the
R1 standards have been in place for many years, existing homes typically do not
represent the maximum buildable envelope resulting in a mismatch between new homes
and existing homes. An update to the R1 zoning standards would require a significant
public engagement process likely including a re-visioning of the appropriateness
character and scale of new construction and additions in R1 neighborhoods.
Anticipated Timeline
It is expected that staff could begin work on a comprehensive update to the R1 standards
in FY2018/19. However, an interim zoning ordinance that takes a more surgical approach
to strategically address specific R1 zoning regulations that would regulate the size of new
home construction pending completion of a comprehensive update could potentially be
completed by the second quarter of 2018.
Amendment of Bergamot Area Plan to Increase Percentage of Required Housing
The Bergamot Area Plan (BAP) encompasses an area that includes a large amount of
the city’s office space and includes the heart of the city’s creative industries with
approximately 8000 workers. The BAP established a required land use mix in the Mixed
Use Creative zoning district of 40% residential and 60% non-residential with an allowance
to vary by 10% in either direction. Since the adoption of the BAP, completed or under
construction projects include the following:
Project Address Land Use Entitled By
Agensys DA 1800 Stewart Avenue Research and
Development
1988 Zoning
Ordinance
Village Trailer Park
DA
2930 Colorado
Avenue
362 units housing
24,893 sf retail and
creative office
1988 Zoning
Ordinance
Colorado Creative
Studios DA
2834 Colorado
Avenue
192,000 sf creative
office
1988 Zoning
Ordinance
Pen Factory 1681 26th Street 203,816 sf creative
office
2013 Bergamot
Area Plan
As demonstrated by the above table, only one of the mentioned projects was approved
under BAP regulations, though the DA’s did provide some of the infrastructure
enhancements identified in the BAP for those sites as negotiations were ongoing
simultaneously with the development of the Plan. The Pen Factory project was entitled
as a Tier 1 addition of 7,499 square feet converting the vacant industrial space to creative
office. The only other project to have been approved (but not constructed) since the
adoption of the BAP is an approximately 600-space private parking structure at 2941
Michigan Avenue. Pending projects include a Tier 2 mixed-use housing projects at 3030
Item 8-A 01/09/18
157 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
8
Nebraska Avenue that includes a significant amount of subterranean floor area designed
to be within Tier 1 building height.
In the years subsequent to the adoption of the Bergamot Area Plan, staff has heard from
the development community that the BAP does not contain sufficient height and FAR
incentives to attract housing or commercial development, and that uncertainty and project
risk weigh heavily on larger projects. Minimal differences in the FAR allowance between
Tier 1 and Tier 2 do not provide incentives to produce housing or projects that could
contribute community benefits to the area’s transformation. The uncertainty of the
development agreement process for Tier 3 projects has led many property owners of
large parcels identified in the BAP as ripe for mixed-use development to maintain their
properties “as-is.” To the extent that there is interest in creating housing incentives similar
to that created in the DCP, further study and environmental analysis would be necessary
in order to determine necessary amendments.
Anticipated Timeline
Staff expects to be able to begin work in early 2019 but this effort would also likely be
folded into any options brought forward to encourage housing production on the
boulevards.
Amendment of Zoning Ordinance to Prohibit Conversion of Existing Hotel Rooms to
Residential Uses in the Proposition S Overlay Area
A recent change in ownership of the Loews hotel prompted inquiries from Council and the
community as to the intentions of the new owners, who converted a hotel to for-sale
condominiums in another city. New hotels are prohibited in the Prop S overlay area and
therefore, there is interest in preserving existing hotels. There has been no indication of
any interest in converting existing hotel rooms to residential uses nor are there any
pending applications for such a conversion.
Anticipated Timeline
As there are no pending applications for conversion of existing hotel rooms, this zoning
ordinance amendment does not have the same level of urgency as other amendments
that are affecting active projects or proposals. Staff could bring this forward with the
“Bucket 3” package of zoning ordinance discussions or as its own discrete amendment.
Staff expects to be able to bring forward potential options for consideration in the third
quarter of 2018.
Explore Tools to Encourage Housing Production on the Commercial Boulevards and in
the Bergamot Area and Disincentive 100% Commercial Projects
As part of the adoption of the Downtown Community Plan, Council gave further direction
to also study incentives for housing production citywide on the commercial boulevards
and the Bergamot area. Is it likely that work on this item will combine with any updates
to the BAP given the common thread of establishing a framework that will encourage
housing production. It is likely that fully exploring this direction will also precipitate
Item 8-A 01/09/18
158 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
9
amendments to the AHPP ordinance if not a comprehensive update to the AHPP.
Establishing a framework similar to the DCP will require additional economic feasibility
analyses in addition to outreach with the development community.
Anticipated Timeline
Staff expects to be able to initiate this effort in FY2018/19.
Explore Ordinance Denying New Discretionary Permits of Entitlements on Properties
Where Ongoing Violations Remain Unresolved
There have been occasional instances where a property has outstanding Municipal Code
violations but the property owner/applicant submits an application for a new permit. In
these situations, Council has expressed concern that by issuing new permits, the
applicant is not incentivized to abate the Code violation. Staff would need to research the
legal parameters regarding this issue with the City Attorney’s office.
Anticipated Timeline
Staff expects to begin research on options in 2018.
III. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Providence Saint John’s Health Center Phase Two Development Agreement Amendment
(2121 Santa Monica Boulevard)
The Providence Saint John’s Health Center (PSJHC) Phase Two Project development
agreement amendment includes a master plan process that will comprehensively review
the circulation, land use, parking, and development potential for the Health Center’s north
and south campuses located on Santa Monica Boulevard between 20th and 23rd Streets.
A procedural amendment to the development agreement was approved on April 25, 2017
and established a framework that resulted in the following:
Changed the South Campus Master Plan to a Phase Two Project Master Plan
encompassing all of Phase Two development, on both the North and South
Campuses.
Changed the Development Agreement to require approval of the Phase Two
Project Master Plan prior to approval of the individual Development Review
Permits for Phase Two Project buildings.
Required a phasing plan and performance schedule for significant project
components such as infrastructure, circulation improvements, and community
benefits.
Established the City Council as the decision-making body for the Phase Two
Project Master Plan.
Required that all Phase Two development be consistent with the approved Phase
Two Project Master Plan.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
159 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
10
Staff and the applicant team have completed its first-round review and discussion of the
Phase Two Project circulation plan and preparation the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the Phase Two Project has also commenced with release of a Draft EIR for
public review anticipated at the end of 2018.
Anticipated Project Review Timeline
Substantive Master Plan Review and Community Benefits Negotiations – 2018
EIR Public Review Draft – 4th quarter 2018
Planning Commission Hearings – 1st quarter 2019
City Council Hearings – Summer 2019
Development Review Permits for new John Wayne Cancer Institute, Child &
Family Development Center, and replacement housing (Scenario A) or West
Ambulatory & Acute Care Building and replacement housing (Scenario B) – Fall
2019
Plaza at Santa Monica (4th/5th and Arizona)
The Plaza at Santa Monica project is a public/private partnership located on City-owned
land. The project is proposed at 129’ and consists of office, hotel, retail, and cultural uses.
A large public plaza intended to provide space for a seasonal skating rink and other year-
round programming is a key feature of the project.
The site is identified as one of three Established Large Sites in the Downtown Community
Plan. The project requires both negotiations on terms of the ground lease with the
developer and a development agreement. The project is currently in the environmental
analysis phase with the Draft EIR anticipated to be released for public review in 2nd quarter
2018. Per Council direction, the Draft EIR will be studying a range of project and
circulation alternatives. Formal hearings are anticipated to commence at the Planning
Commission towards the end of 2018.
Anticipated Project Review Timeline
EIR Public Review Draft – 2nd Quarter 2018
Planning Commission Hearings – 4th Quarter 2018
City Council Hearings – 2nd Quarter 2019
Miramar Hotel Mixed-Use Project (1133 Ocean Avenue)
The proposed Miramar Hotel Mixed-Use Project Development Agreement application
was originally submitted in April 2011 to comprehensively redevelop the existing Santa
Monica Fairmont Miramar Hotel as a new approximately 550,000 SF (2.9 FAR) mixed-
use hotel with the following key components:
265 guest rooms
food, beverage, meeting, and spa facilities
retail space along Wilshire Boulevard
approximately one-acre open space area at the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and
Ocean Avenue
up to 120 condominiums
Item 8-A 01/09/18
160 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
11
up to 40 affordable housing units at 1127 2nd Street
approximately 484 on-site subterranean parking spaces
Preservation of the site’s Landmark Moreton Bay Fig Tree
Preservation/rehabilitation of the Landmark Palisades Building
Following Planning Commission’s review of the conceptual plans in February 2012, the
City provided direction regarding desired design parameters for the site and potential
priority community benefits to be negotiated, and authorized staff to initiate development
agreement negotiations with the applicant for the proposed project in April 2012. The
project design was revised by the applicant team and resubmitted in 2013. At that time,
the design strategy for the site focused on constructing a significantly taller, new building
at the center of the site (approximately 262’ tall) with open space and reduced building
heights on the perimeter of the property. While City staff initiated work on the EIR for the
project in 2013, that work along with City review of the revised project design was put on
hold pending completion of the Downtown Community Plan (DCP).
The Council adopted the DCP in August 2017 and included an Established Large Sites
Overlay for three individual project sites in the Downtown. The DCP requires that projects
for these three sites be processed as a development agreement and comply with specific
development parameters (building height, floor area, and open space). For the Miramar
Hotel site, the maximum building height for the project site is 130’ and a maximum floor
area ratio of 3.0.
It is anticipated that applicant will submit revised project plans during the first quarter of
2018 that address programmatic changes and design concept revisions that comply with
the DCP’s Established Large Sites Overlay regulations. Following initial review of these
revised plans, City staff will resume its preparation of the Draft EIR for the project,
including hosting a second EIR Scoping Meeting for the new project design.
Anticipated Project Review Timeline
Submit Revised Project Plans – 1st quarter 2018
EIR Scoping Meeting for Revised Project – 1st quarter 2018
Substantive Project Review and Community Benefits Negotiations – 2018 through
1st quarter 2019
EIR Public Review Draft – 1st/2nd quarter 2019
Planning Commission Hearings – Summer 2019
City Council Hearings – 1st quarter 2020
Ocean Avenue Hotel (101 Santa Monica Boulevard)
A Development Agreement application was submitted in February 2013 for a proposed
mixed-use hotel, cultural, retail, and residential development at the northwest corner of
Santa Monica Boulevard and Ocean Avenue (“Ocean Avenue Project”). The originally-
proposed project, designed by Gehry Partners, LLP, included the f o l l o w i n g k e y
components:
125-room hotel with meeting room and banquet space;
Item 8-A 01/09/18
161 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
12
19 new rent-controlled apartments to replace existing on-site units;
Up to five new affordable on-site rental units;
22 condominium units;
Ground-floor restaurant and retail space;
Three-building cultural/museum campus with open space;
Publically-accessible roof-top observation deck;
Three-level subterranean parking garage with approximately 460 spaces; and
Retention and rehabilitation of two, on-site designated City Landmark structures.
The applicant hosted a Community Meeting to introduce the proposed project in March
2013 which was followed by the Architectural Review Board’s conceptual discussion of
the proposal in August 2013. Following completion of the Community Meeting, City review
of the project was put on hold pending completion of the Downtown Community Plan. The
Council adopted the DCP in August 2017 and included an Established Large Sites
Overlay for three individual project sites in the Downtown. The DCP requires that projects
for these three sites be processed as a development agreement and comply with specific
development parameters (building height, floor area, and open space). For the Ocean
Avenue Hotel site, the maximum building height for the project site is 130’ and a maximum
floor area ratio of 4.0.
It is anticipated that applicant will submit revised project plans during the 4th quarter of
2017 that address programmatic changes and design concept revisions that comply with
the DCP’s Established Large Sites Overlay regulations. The applicant is scheduled to
host a second Community Meeting to introduce the revised project design on January 11,
2018. Following initial review of the project plans, preliminary conceptual review will be
scheduled at the Landmarks Commission and/or the Architectural Review Board during
1st quarter 2018. It is anticipated that Float-Up Discussions at Planning Commission and
City Council will be completed by 3rd quarter 2018 followed by initiation of environmental
review for the project.
Anticipated Project Review Timeline
Submit Revised Project Plans – 1st quarter 2018
Community Meeting – 1st quarter 2018
ARB/Landmarks Conceptual Review – 1st quarter 2018
Planning Commission Float-Up Discussion – 2nd quarter 2018
City Council Float-Up Discussion – 3rd quarter 2018
EIR Scoping Meeting – end of 2018
Substantive Project Review and Community Benefits Negotiations – 2019
EIR Public Review Draft – end of 2019
Planning Commission Hearings – 3rd quarter 2020
City Council Hearings – 1st quarter of 2021
Item 8-A 01/09/18
162 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
13
IV. ALIGNMENT OF WORKPLAN WITH COUNCIL PRIORITY AREAS
(STRATEGIC GOALS)
In order to connect desired outcomes to the day-to-day work of city government, the City
Council identified five council priority areas, or Strategic Goals, that are expected to have
short-term impact on community safety, quality of life, and prosperity.
Based on best practices from municipalities across the country, Santa Monica is now
using an approach to workplan development and budgeting that connects the work of City
Departments to a new Framework and SaMoStat. This process aligns departmental work
efforts, measures outcomes, and ultimately ensures that the City delivers these services
Item 8-A 01/09/18
163 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
14
effectively and a transparent manner. The Framework is built around its long-term
commitment to sustainability infused with its new Wellbeing Index, Santa Monica’s
custom measurement tool that provides an understanding of wellbeing in our community.
The Framework is built on the core beliefs, visions, and structures of these two exciting
and groundbreaking approaches. The five strategic goals connect to these outcome areas
through a matrix- They are the key drivers that will allow us to achieve outcomes for the
residents of and visitors to Santa Monica.
Based on these descriptions of the five priority areas, the following matrix has been
developed to guide the Planning Commission’s discussion on focus areas for the City
Planning Division. The matrix demonstrates where individual planning efforts or Council
directed research aligns with Council priorities.
Council
Strategic Goals
INCLUSIVE
AND
DIVERSE
COMMUNITY
MOBILITY THE
AIRPORT HOMELESSNESS
LEARN
AND
THRIVE
Policy Plans
Pico Zoning District X
Memorial Park
Neighborhood Plan X X X
Local Coastal
Program Update
(Required by law)
X X
Gateway Master
Plan X
Landmarks
Ordinance
SB743
Implementation
(Required by law)
X
Council Directed Research
R1 Standards
Bergamot Housing
and Use Mix X
Housing Production
on Boulevards X
Item 8-A 01/09/18
164 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
15
Council
Strategic Goals
INCLUSIVE
AND
DIVERSE
COMMUNITY
MOBILITY THE
AIRPORT HOMELESSNESS
LEARN
AND
THRIVE
Hotel/Condo in Prop
S Overlay
Denying Permits for
Properties with
Unresolved Code
Violations
The Council’s strategic goals formed the basis for how staff prioritizes the work of the City
Planning Division, especially those that require staff and funding resources. A second
framework for organizing priorities is based on ongoing legal requirements. This would
allow projects such as the Local Coastal Program Update, Housing Element, and SB743
guidelines to be brought forward. A third framework is based the urgency of issues to be
addressed. For example, staff has been bringing forward clarifications to the zoning
ordinance in response to questions raised in the course of project review and
implementation. As these changes directly affect the daily work of the division, these
have been prioritized.
CONCLUSION
This report presents an overview of the strategic plans, land use policies, and major
development agreements that are City Planning priorities for the next two years. The
significant volume of “day to day” work requires the majority of staff to be devoted to the
Division’s development review function. Similarly, each of the projects in this report
requires a significant investment in staff time, consultant time, and public engagement.
Therefore, some of the strategic plans and comprehensive ordinance updates in addition
to the major development agreements have been prioritized so that projects can be
completed in a timely manner responsive to Council’s direction. Council directed
research is incorporated into the workplan as appropriate but based on the Council’s
strategic goals, staff would prioritize work on the creation of housing incentives on the
boulevards and within the Bergamot Plan area. Due to the ongoing construction in R1
neighborhoods that continues to generate community concern, staff could propose an
interim zoning ordinance in short order that could put in place temporary regulations
pending a comprehensive update.
As noted in this report, staff has organized priorities based upon the following framework:
1. Council adopted Strategic Goals
2. Legally required policy documents
3. Urgency of issue and impact on daily work
Item 8-A 01/09/18
165 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
16
Based on this framework, staff has prioritized the Division’s work in the following manner:
1. Pico Zoning District
2. SB743 Implementation
3. Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan
4. Local Coastal Program Update
5. Gateway Master Plan
6. Options to Encourage Housing on the Boulevards
The remainder of the strategic plans and Council-directed research will be included in the
work plan as capacity allows. In these instances, staff has been reviewing interim options
that might allow bringing forward changes sooner while reserving a larger effort for
subsequent years.
Major developments projects also have a natural stagger however, processing of these
applications requires a significant investment of interdepartmental staff time, time for
environmental review, and community engagement. As all the development
agreements are anticipated to generate intense public interest, it should be noted that
staff devoted to processing the projects will not be able to devote attention to other
potential priorities, such as the Landmarks Ordinance update. This is an area where
staff seeks direction as to how these efforts should be prioritized.
Attachments
A. Pending Projects List
B. City Planning Major Projects Calendar
Item 8-A 01/09/18
166 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
ATTACHMENT A
PENDING PROJECTS LIST
Item 8-A 01/09/18
167 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
1
4t
h
/
5
t
h
&
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
90
4
0
1
1
3
0
1
4
t
h
S
t
14
D
E
V
0
0
3
8/
1
2
/
1
4
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Of
f
i
c
e
/
H
o
t
e
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
EI
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐1
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
1
4
8
'
‐4
2
0
,
0
0
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐4
8
u
n
i
t
s
(
4
2
,
0
0
0
s
f
)
‐2
0
9
,
0
0
0
s
f
o
f
f
i
c
e
‐2
0
0
h
o
t
e
l
r
o
o
m
s
(
1
1
7
,
0
0
0
s
f
)
‐1
2
,
0
0
0
s
f
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
‐4
0
,
0
0
0
s
f
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐1
1
0
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
42
0
,
0
0
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
8
S
t
u
d
i
o
s
(
1
7
%
)
22
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
4
6
%
)
14
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
9
%
)
4
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
8
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
48
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
(
1
0
0
%
)
Comm. Mtg: 9/8/14 ARB Float Up: 12/5/14 PC Float Up: 6/3/15 CC Float Up: 10/20/15 PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDJing Yeo
2
12
3
5
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
D
a
v
i
d
F
o
r
b
e
s
Hi
b
b
e
r
t
f
o
r
J
A
M
N
A
N
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
L
P
90
4
0
1
1
2
3
5
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
13
D
E
V
0
0
9
10
/
8
/
2
0
1
3
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
0
'
‐
2
4
,
1
7
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
2
7
u
n
i
t
s
(
2
2
,
5
0
5
S
F
)
‐
1
,
3
6
0
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
2
4
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
24
,
1
7
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
10
S
t
u
d
i
o
s
(
3
7
%
)
15
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
5
6
%
)
2
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
7
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
St
u
d
i
o
s
‐
4
5
6
‐
5
0
5
S
F
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
7
4
5
‐
9
4
6
S
F
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
1
0
5
0
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDGrace Page
3
13
2
3
5
t
h
S
t
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
e
s
s
e
O
t
t
i
n
g
e
r
fo
r
N
M
S
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
3
2
3
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
0
8
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
9
8/
2
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
0
'
‐
2
4
u
n
i
t
s
‐
3
,
3
4
1
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
3
3
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
24
,
2
7
9
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
2
‐
S
t
u
d
i
o
13
‐
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
5
‐
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
4
‐
3
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
TB
D
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
1
‐
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
1
‐
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDTravis Page
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
1 Item 8-A 01/09/18
16
8
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
4
13
4
2
5
t
h
S
t
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
e
s
s
e
O
t
t
i
n
g
e
r
fo
r
N
M
S
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
3
4
2
5
t
h
S
t
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
0
3
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
8
8/
2
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
0
'
‐
5
1
u
n
i
t
s
‐
5
4
,
5
6
4
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
7
7
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
48
,
6
2
5
6
‐
S
t
u
d
i
o
26
‐
1
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
11
‐
2
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
8
‐
3
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
TB
D
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
2
‐
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
2
‐
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDTravis Page
5
14
2
5
5
t
h
S
t
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
a
t
t
B
e
a
n
f
o
r
14
2
5
5
N
M
S
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
1
4
2
5
5
t
h
S
t
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
1
6
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
5
4
8/
1
1
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
7
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
8
4
'
‐
7
5
u
n
i
t
s
‐
9
,
6
8
9
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
59
,
3
2
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
TB
D
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
TB
D
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRussell Bunim
6
13
2
5
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
3
2
5
6
t
h
S
t
12
D
E
V
0
0
5
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
4
3
5/
3
/
2
0
1
2
re
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
6/
2
5
/
1
5
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
Fi
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
1
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
Ex
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
6
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
5
9
'
‐
4
4
,
9
4
4
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
6
1
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
4
,
7
3
0
S
F
)
‐
1
0
,
2
1
4
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
1
3
6
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
44
,
9
4
4
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
17
s
t
u
d
i
o
s
(
2
8
%
)
28
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
4
6
%
)
16
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
6
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
St
u
d
i
o
‐
4
0
1
S
F
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
5
6
6
S
F
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
7
5
4
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
5
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
(
8
%
)
Comm. Mtg: 8/30/12 Comm. Mtg #2: 2/25/16 ARB Float Up: 4/4/16 PC Float Up: 4/20/16 PC Hearing: 10/18/17 CC Hearing: 11/28/17Paul Foley
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 2Item 8-A 01/09/18
16
9
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
7
14
3
7
7
t
h
S
t
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
B
C
M
1
4
3
7
7
t
h
St
r
e
e
t
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
1
4
3
7
7
t
h
S
t
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
2
9
8/
1
8
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
0
'
‐
6
0
u
n
i
t
s
‐
1
0
,
1
4
0
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
9
1
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
44
,
7
3
5
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
TB
D
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
TB
D
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDGrace Page
8
15
4
3
7
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
5
4
3
7
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
6
9
15
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
5
6/
3
0
/
1
5
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
Un
i
t
M
i
x
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
6
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
8
4
'
‐
4
4
,
8
8
2
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
6
2
u
n
i
t
s
(
4
1
,
2
6
5
S
F
)
‐
3
,
6
1
7
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
8
5
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
44
,
8
8
2
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
9
s
t
u
d
i
o
s
(
1
5
%
)
30
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
4
8
%
)
14
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
2
%
)
9
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
5
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
St
u
d
i
o
‐
3
1
5
S
F
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
5
3
0
S
F
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
8
0
0
S
F
th
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
9
6
5
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
5
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
(
8
%
)
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRussell Bunim
9
60
3
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ho
t
e
l
/
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
6
0
3
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
LP
90
4
0
1
6
0
3
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
A
v
e
13
D
E
V
0
0
2
1/
8
/
1
3
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
:
Ho
t
e
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
7
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
9
'
2
"
‐
2
3
,
6
2
5
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
6
3
h
o
t
e
l
r
o
o
m
s
(
2
2
,
4
9
7
s
f
)
‐
1
,
1
2
8
S
F
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
‐
5 1
su
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
pa
r
k
i
n
g
sp
a
c
e
s
23
,
6
2
5
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pending: Resubmitted as hotel project.Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDTBD
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 3Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
0
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
10
50
1
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
5
0
1
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
(P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Cy
c
l
e
)
12
D
E
V
0
1
8
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
4
12
/
0
6
/
1
2
re
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
8/
2
2
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
U
n
i
t
M
i
x
a
n
d
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
5
1
,
4
8
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
6
5
u
n
i
t
s
(
4
6
,
8
8
0
S
F
)
‐
6
,
0
4
0
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
1
5
4
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
51
,
4
8
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
13
s
t
u
d
i
o
(
2
0
%
)
21
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
3
2
%
)
24
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
3
7
%
)
7
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
1
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
8
s
t
u
d
i
o
4
0
0
‐
4
6
0
S
F
5
l
o
f
t
s
t
u
d
i
o
6
1
0
‐
6
6
0
S
F
9
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
5
7
0
‐
6
9
0
S
F
12
l
o
f
t
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
6
6
0
‐
9
0
0
S
F
24
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
7
8
0
‐
9
3
0
S
F
7
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
9
7
0
‐
1
0
8
0
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
10
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
5
%
)
3
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
5
%
)
Comm. Mtg: 7/25/13 ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: NA PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDPaul Foley
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 4Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
1
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
11
Wy
n
d
h
a
m
H
o
t
e
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
Fe
l
c
o
r
/
N
P
M
(
S
P
E
)
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
1
2
0
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
13
D
E
V
0
0
5
7/
6
/
1
3
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
:
Ho
t
e
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
1
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
1
9
5
'
‐
1
7
0
,
1
0
4
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
2
1
1
H
o
t
e
l
R
o
o
m
s
(
1
0
4
,
2
5
8
s
f
)
‐
2
5
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
(
4
3
,
0
9
2
s
f
)
‐
1
3
,
6
8
4
s
f
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
‐
3
,
6
0
0
s
f
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
5
,
4
7
0
s
f
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
‐
1
8
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p ar
k
i
n
g s
p ac
e
s
17
0
,
1
0
4
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
5
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
15
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
5
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Comm. Mtg: 9/26/13 ARB Float Up: 1/6/14 PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDJing Yeo
12
52
5
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
B
C
P
5
2
5
Co
l
o
r
a
d
o
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
5
2
5
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
12
D
E
V
0
1
2
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
re
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
8/
1
6
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
TB
D
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐7
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
8
4
'
‐5
5
u
n
i
t
s
‐3
,
6
7
7
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐1
2
5
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
41
,
1
4
5
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
49
s
t
u
d
i
o
(
6
4
%
)
14
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
8
%
)
14
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
8
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
St
u
d
i
o
s
‐
3
6
6
‐
4
1
3
S
F
.
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
4
8
2
‐
5
8
6
S
F
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
8
0
3
‐
8
7
6
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
8
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
s
t
u
d
i
o
s
(
1
0
%
)
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDPaul Foley
13
60
1
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
6
0
1
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
Av
e
.
(
F
r
i
t
t
o
M
i
s
t
o
)
12
D
E
V
0
1
9
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
5
3
12
/
6
/
2
0
1
2
re
s
u
b
m
i
t
e
d
8/
2
2
/
1
6
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
U
n
i
t
M
i
x
&
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐6
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
8
4
'
‐6
7
,
5
0
7
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐1
0
0
u
n
i
t
s
(
5
2
,
9
9
8
S
F
)
‐9
,
5
2
5
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐1
5
3
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
67
,
5
0
7
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
20
S
t
u
d
i
o
(
2
0
%
)
50
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
20
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
0
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
No
t
y
e
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
15
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
5
%
)
5
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
c
o
m
e
5
%
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRussell Bunim
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 5Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
2
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
14
14
3
1
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
A
v
e
Mi
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
A
R
Y
A
,
L
P
90
4
0
4
1
4
3
1
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
Av
e
13
D
E
V
0
0
1
1/
8
/
1
3
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
T
B
D
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
3
‐
4
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
4
7
'
‐
4
4
,
9
0
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
5
0
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
8
s
t
u
d
i
o
/
1
2
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
)
‐
1
0
,
4
7
5
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
2
,
1
1
0
S
F
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
‐
1
4
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p ar
k
i
n
g s
p ac
e
s
44
,
9
0
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
3
8
s
t
u
d
i
o
,
1
2
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
St
u
d
i
o
‐
5
0
0
S
F
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
9
0
0
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
8
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
5
%
)
Pending ‐ applicant considering redesign Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRussell Bunim
15
13
1
8
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
3
1
8
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
13
D
E
V
0
0
6
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
1
8/
6
/
2
0
1
3
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
U
n
i
t
M
i
x
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
3
‐
6
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
0
'
‐
4
1
,
2
5
3
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
6
0
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
8
,
6
4
0
S
F
)
‐
2
6
1
3
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
1
6
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
41
,
2
5
3
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
11
s
t
u
d
i
o
(
1
8
%
)
31
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
5
2
%
)
12
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
0
%
)
6
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
0
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
Av
e
r
a
g
e
s
i
z
e
:
S
t
u
d
i
o
=
4
0
7
S
F
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
6
0
2
S
F
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
8
5
7
S
F
th
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
8
7
0
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
6
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
0
%
)
3
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(15
%
)Pending DR submitted ‐ to be withdrawn Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDScott Albright
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 6Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
3
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
16
14
3
0
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
4
3
0
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
Bl
v
d
.
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
6
6
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
5
2
6/
2
5
/
1
5
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
T
i
e
r
2
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
TB
D
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
5
0
'
‐
6
7
,
2
3
7
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
1
0
0
u
n
i
t
s
(
6
1
,
3
2
7
S
F
)
‐
5
,
9
1
0
S
F
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
2
5
5
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
67
,
2
3
7
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
25
s
t
u
d
i
o
(
2
5
%
)
50
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
5
0
%
)
25
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
5
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
6
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
1
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
6
%
2
v
e
r
y l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
2
‐
b
e
c
r
o
o
m
2
%
Comm. Mtg: 3/23/16 ARB Float Up: 4/4/16 PC Float Up: 4/20/16 PC Hearing: 10/18/17 CC Hearing: 11/28/17Paul Foley
17
14
4
3
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
4
4
3
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
12
D
E
V
0
0
7
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
4
2
6/
7
/
1
2
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
U
n
i
t
M
i
x
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
3
‐
6
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
6
0
'
‐
4
1
,
2
4
8
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
6
0
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
7
,
2
0
0
S
F
)
‐
1
5
7
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
41
,
2
4
8
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
11
s
t
u
d
i
o
(
1
8
%
)
31
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
5
2
%
)
12
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
0
%
)
6
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
0
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
St
u
d
i
o
(
2
6
5
‐
3
0
0
S
F
)
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
3
2
8
‐
3
5
9
S
F
)
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
4
6
2
‐
5
2
9
S
F
)
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
6
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
0
%
)
3
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
5
%
)
Pending DR submitted ‐ to be withdrawn Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: N/A PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDGrace Page
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 7Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
4
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
18
Mi
r
a
m
a
r
H
o
t
e
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
O
c
e
a
n
Av
e
n
u
e
L
L
C
,
c
/
o
M
S
D
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
90
4
0
3
1
1
3
3
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
/
10
1
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
11
D
E
V
0
0
3
4/
2
8
/
1
1
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
:
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
EI
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
2
1
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
3
2
0
'
‐
5
6
8
,
9
4
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐4
9
,
3
8
4
S
F
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐2
6
5
h
o
t
e
l
r
o
o
m
s
‐
b
a
n
q
u
e
t
s
p
a
c
e
/
d
i
n
i
n
g
/
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐u
p
t
o
1
2
0
c
o
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
u
n
i
t
s
‐u
p
t
o
4
0
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
r
e
n
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
‐o
n
‐
s
i
t
e
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
M
o
r
e
t
o
n
B
a
y
F
i
g
T
r
e
e
‐
4
8
4
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p ar
k
i
n
g s
p ac
e
s
56
8
,
9
4
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Comm. Mtg: 6/6/11 ARB Float Up: N/A*PC Float Up: 2/8/12; 2/22/12 CC Float Up: 4/24/12 PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBD *Preceded current processRoxanne Tanemori
19
23
4
P
i
c
o
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
:
G
R
T
Po
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
90
4
0
5
2
3
4
P
i
c
o
B
l
v
d
12
D
E
V
0
2
2
(B
o
w
l
i
n
g
A
l
l
e
y
)
12
/
1
1
/
1
2
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
T
B
D
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
3
‐1
0
0
,
2
4
5
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐9
1
u
n
i
t
s
(
8
0
,
1
4
5
S
F
)
‐2
0
,
1
0
0
S
F
(
9
,
0
0
0
S
F
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
‐2
6
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
10
0
,
2
4
5
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
45
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
4
9
%
)
46
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
5
1
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
:
6
1
5
S
F
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
:
9
0
0
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
9
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
0
%
)
3
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
%
)
Comm. Mtg: TBD ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRoxanne Tanemori
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 8Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
5
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
20
Oc
e
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(G
e
h
r
y
H
o
t
e
l
)
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
.
D
a
v
i
d
P
a
u
l
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
90
4
0
1
1
0
1
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
Bl
v
d
.
13
D
E
V
0
0
4
2/
2
8
/
1
3
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
H
o
t
e
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
M
u
s
e
u
m
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
‐
2
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
2
5
5
'
‐
3
3
8
,
6
9
5
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐
1
2
5
H
o
t
e
l
R
o
o
m
s
‐
2
2
c
o
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
s
a
n
d
2
4
r
e
n
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
‐
g
r
o
u
n
d
‐
f
l
o
o
r
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
a
n
d
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐
3
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
/
m
u
s
e
u
m
c
a
m
p
u
s
/
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
‐
p
u
b
l
i
c
l
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
r
o
o
f
‐
t
o
p
o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
c
k
‐
o
n
‐
s
i
t
e
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
2
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
C
i
t
y
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
‐
4
6
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
33
8
,
6
9
5
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
12
s
t
u
d
i
o
(
2
6
%
)
7
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
5
%
)
27
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
5
9
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
19
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
n
t
‐
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
u
p
t
o
5
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
re
n
t
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
(
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
n
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
ye
t
)
Comm. Mtg: 3/21/13 ARB Float Up: 8/5/13 PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRoxanne Tanemori
21
To
y
o
t
a
D
e
a
l
e
r
s
h
i
p
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
i
k
e
Su
l
l
i
v
a
n
/
T
o
y
o
t
a
o
f
S
a
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
90
4
0
4
1
5
3
0
S
a
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
12
D
E
V
0
1
6
11
/
2
9
/
1
2
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
:
A
u
t
o
D
e
a
l
e
r
s
h
i
p
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
1
‐
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
3
2
'
‐
5
5
,
4
5
4
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
55
,
4
5
4
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
PROJECT ON HOLD Comm. Mtg: 3/14/13 ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: TBD CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDTony Kim
22
18
0
2
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
l
u
s
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
90
4
0
4
1
8
0
2
S
a
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
09
D
E
V
0
0
1
12
/
1
0
/
0
9
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
,
T
i
e
r
2
Us
e
:
Au
t
o
d
e
a
l
e
r
/
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
/
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐
3
‐
s
t
o
r
y
/
3
5
'
‐
3
3
,
7
1
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐2
3
u
n
i
t
s
(
1
8
,
6
1
0
S
F
)
‐1
3
,
5
9
0
S
F
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
a
u
t
o
d
e
a
l
e
r
s
h
o
w
r
o
o
m
‐
1
,
3
9
0
S
F
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
/
c
a
f
é
‐
1
3
0
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
33
,
7
1
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
16
S
t
u
d
i
o
(
7
0
%
)
4
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
7
%
)
1
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
4
%
)
2
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
9
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
o
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
No
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
y
e
t
Pending DR submitted ‐ to be withdrawn Comm. Mtg: 12/2/10 ARB Float Up: NA*PC Float Up: 2/16/11 CC Float Up: NA*PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBD *Preceded current processSteve Mizokami
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 9Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
6
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
D
E
V
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
U
N
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
A
F
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
2 PROCESS STATUS 3 PLANNER
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1
:
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
A
G
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
S
23
21
2
1
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
S
a
i
n
t
J
o
h
n
'
s
He
a
l
t
h
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
o
u
t
h
Ca
m
p
u
s
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
Sa
i
n
t
J
o
h
n
'
s
H
e
a
l
t
h
Ce
n
t
e
r
90
4
0
4
2
1
2
1
S
a
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
15
E
N
T
‐
0
0
6
8
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
3
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
4
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
5
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
6
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
7
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
8
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
0
9
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
1
0
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
1
2
3/
3
1
/
1
5
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
,
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
,
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
P
e
r
m
i
t
,
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Us
e
:
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
a
n
d
h
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
re
s
e
a
r
c
h
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
c
h
i
l
d
c
a
r
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
c
a
m
p
u
s
,
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
co
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
,
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
,
h
e
a
l
t
h
‐
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
a
n
d
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
1
0
m
u
l
t
i
‐
f
a
m
i
l
y
u
n
i
t
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
on
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
c
a
m
p
u
s
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
‐U
p
t
o
7
9
9
,
0
0
0
S
F
79
9
,
0
0
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
TB
D
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
TB
D
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
TB
D
Comm. Mtg: 7/30/15 ARB Float Up: TBD PC Float Up: 4/27/16 CC Float Up: TBD PC Hearing: TBD CC Hearing: TBDRoxanne Tanemori
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
Page 10Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
7
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
P
E
R
M
I
T
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
To
t
a
l
S
F
UN
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
PR
O
C
E
S
S
S
T
A
T
U
S
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
1
Me
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
o
j
d
e
h
Me
m
a
r
z
a
d
e
h
90
4
0
4
1
4
1
9
1
9
t
h
S
t
16
A
D
M
‐
0
0
7
0
6/
2
7
/
2
0
1
6
5,
3
4
2
s
f
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
o
f
f
i
c
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5,
3
4
2
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
U
n
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
G
i
n
a
S
z
i
l
a
k
2
3‐
u
n
i
t
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Co
n
d
o
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
4
3
6
P
i
e
r
L
P
90
4
0
5
4
3
6
P
i
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
16
A
D
M
‐
0
0
7
3
7/
5
/
2
0
1
6
3
u
n
i
t
c
o
n
d
o
i
n
O
c
e
a
n
P
a
r
k
‐2
s
t
o
r
y
/
2
2
'
1
1
"
‐3
u
n
i
t
s
‐6
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
3,
4
9
7
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
U
n
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
R
u
s
s
e
l
l
Bunim
3
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
o
h
n
Ha
m
i
l
t
o
n
90
4
0
5
3
2
8
0
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
16
A
D
M
‐
0
0
8
8
9/
1
5
/
2
0
1
6
3,
8
9
8
s
f
m
i
x
e
d
‐
u
s
e
3,
8
9
8
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
U
n
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
G
i
n
a
S
z
i
l
a
k
4
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
e
r
r
o
l
d
Ep
s
t
e
i
n
90
4
0
4
1
7
1
8
2
0
t
h
S
t
17
A
D
M
‐
0
0
0
4
1/
2
4
/
2
0
1
7
1,
1
8
9
s
f
a
u
t
o
b
o
d
y
p
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
s
h
e
d
1
,
1
8
9
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
U
n
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
G
i
n
a
S
z
i
l
a
k
5
3‐
u
n
i
t
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Co
n
d
o
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
A
V
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
L
L
C
90
4
0
5
1
2
2
S
t
r
a
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
17
A
D
M
‐
0
0
2
6
4/
3
/
2
0
1
7
3‐
u
n
i
t
C
o
n
d
o
‐2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
2
9
.
8
6
F
T
‐3
u
n
i
t
s
‐6
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
4,
9
1
5
.
7
5
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N
/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
U
n
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
G
r
a
c
e
P
a
g
e
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S :
PE
N
D
I
N
G
A
A
'
s
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
11Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
8
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
P
E
R
M
I
T
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
To
t
a
l
S
F
UN
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
PR
O
C
E
S
S
S
T
A
T
U
S
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S :
PE
N
D
I
N
G
A
A
'
s
6
2‐
s
t
o
r
y
m
i
x
e
d
‐
u
s
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
M
S
1
2
3
8
7t
h
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
1
2
3
8
7
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
17
A
D
M
‐
0
0
3
1
4/
1
1
/
2
0
1
7
2‐
s
t
o
r
y
m
i
x
e
d
‐
u
s
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ad
d
7
,
4
8
6
s
f
‐7
u
n
i
t
s
(
6
,
4
0
8
s
f
)
‐8
5
4
s
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐2
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
s
7,
4
2
1
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
2
2
‐
B
R
;
5
3
‐
B
R
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N
/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N
/
A
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
v
i
e
w
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
Rocque
7
AA
f
o
r
d
u
p
l
e
x
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
2
0
1
6
C
A
EA
T
L
L
C
90
4
0
5
2
2
1
5
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
17
E
N
T
‐
0
1
0
4
6/
2
9
/
2
0
1
7
2
n
e
w
u
n
i
t
s
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
v
i
e
w
C
a
r
y
F
u
k
u
i
8
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
/
r
e
m
o
d
e
l
t
o
4
‐
un
i
t
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
GO
L
A
Y
,
K
E
C
I
A
90
4
0
5
2
8
1
7
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
17
E
N
T
‐
0
1
5
9
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
7
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
/
r
e
m
o
d
e
l
‐
4
‐
u
n
i
t
a
p
t
.
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
v
i
e
w
J
a
m
e
s
Combs
9
3,
9
9
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
c
r
e
a
t
i
v
e
of
f
c
i
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
n
se
c
o
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
27
0
0
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
IN
C
90
4
0
4
2
7
0
0
P
e
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
a
Av
e
.
17
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
4
8/
2
4
/
2
0
1
7
3,
9
9
0
s
q
f
t
.
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
3
,
9
9
0
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
:
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
v
i
e
w
I
v
a
n
L
a
i
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
A
A
'
s
‐
T
o
t
a
l
S
F
26
,
2
6
3
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
12Item 8-A 01/09/18
17
9
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
P
E
R
M
I
T
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
UN
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
PR
O
C
E
S
S
S
T
A
T
U
S
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
1
19
2
1
O
c
e
a
n
F
r
o
n
t
W
a
l
k
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
H
a
n
k
K
o
n
i
n
g
fo
r
A
l
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
90
4
0
1
1
9
2
1
O
c
e
a
n
F
r
o
n
t
W
a
l
k
(f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
k
n
o
w
n
a
s
19
2
0
O
c
e
a
n
W
a
y
)
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
9
7
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
9
8
15
E
N
T
‐
0
2
9
9
09
/
0
1
/
1
5
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐4
5
,
3
1
7
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐2
3
u
n
i
t
s
(
4
1
,
6
8
2
s
f
)
‐1
,
9
7
0
s
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐4
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
(
4
7
'
)
‐6
2
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
‐R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
M
a
j
o
r
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
h
e
i
g
h
t
of
s
t
r
e
e
t
f
a
c
i
n
g
f
a
c
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
1
5
f
e
e
t
t
o
1
2
f
e
e
t
‐R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
M
i
n
o
r
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
e
l
i
m
i
n
i
a
t
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
1
0
%
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
b
i
k
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
1
0
‐
fo
o
t
‐
l
o
n
g
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
1
0
%
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
bi
k
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
s
‐R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
W
a
i
v
e
r
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
se
t
b
a
c
k
f
r
o
m
1
0
f
e
e
t
t
o
2
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
s
t
r
e
e
t
f
a
c
i
n
g
pa
r
c
e
l
l
i
n
e
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
44
,
6
8
9
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
19
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
8
3
%
)
4 t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
7
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
1
,
7
1
0
s
f
th
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
2
,
2
9
0
s
f
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N/
A
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
:
8
/
2
5
/
1
6
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
7
/
3
1
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
T
B
D
Russell Bunim
2
18
2
8
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
H
a
n
k
K
o
n
i
n
g
fo
r
A
l
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
90
4
0
1
1
8
2
8
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
15
E
N
T
‐
0
3
0
0
15
E
N
T
‐
0
3
0
1
15
A
D
M
‐
0
0
3
8
09
/
0
1
/
1
5
Us
e
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐8
9
,
4
2
8
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐8
3
u
n
i
t
s
(
8
4
,
1
2
7
s
f
)
‐
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
4
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
u
n
i
t
s
f
r
o
m
1
9
2
0
O
c
e
a
n
F
r
o
n
t
w
a
l
k
‐5
,
3
1
0
s
f
o
f
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
o
m
m
o
n
a
r
e
a
‐4
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
(
4
7
'
)
‐2
8
7
s
e
m
i
‐
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
12
7
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
n
‐
s
i
t
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
C
a
s
a
D
e
l
M
a
r
)
‐R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
M
a
j
o
r
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
h
e
i
g
h
t
of
s
t
r
e
e
t
f
a
c
i
n
g
f
a
c
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
1
5
f
e
e
t
t
o
1
2
f
e
e
t
‐R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
M
i
n
o
r
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
o
f
pr
i
v
a
t
e
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
l
i
v
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
i
n
t
o
c
o
m
m
o
n
l
i
v
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
fo
r
3
7
u
n
i
t
s
89
,
9
9
7
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
50
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
6
0
%
)
20
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
2
4
%
)
13
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
6
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
on
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
8
0
9
s
f
tw
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
1
,
2
0
7
s
f
th
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
‐
1
,
5
0
0
s
f
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
12
u
n
i
t
s
@
5
0
%
A
M
I
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
:
8
/
2
5
/
1
6
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
7
/
3
1
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
T
B
D
Russell Bunim
3
20
2
0
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
a
r
k
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
LL
C
90
4
0
4
2
0
2
0
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
06
D
R
0
0
7
/
06
T
M
0
2
1
15
E
N
T
‐
0
3
1
0
07
/
1
8
/
0
6
Us
e
:
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
‐ 2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
3
3
f
e
e
t
‐ 2
1
u
n
i
t
s
‐ 4
7
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
31
,
7
1
1
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
21
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
(
1
0
0
%
)
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
12
0
8
‐
1
6
2
4
S
F
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
2 v
e
r
y
l
o
w
i
n
c
o
m
e
t
w
o
‐
be
d
r
o
o
m
u
n
i
t
s
(9.
5
%
)
PC
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
5
/
2
8
/
1
4
*
*c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Russell Bunim
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S :
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
R
'
s
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
13Item 8-A 01/09/18
18
0
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
P
E
R
M
I
T
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
UN
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
PR
O
C
E
S
S
S
T
A
T
U
S
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S :
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
R
'
s
4
12
4
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
We
l
l
n
e
s
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
1
9
2
5
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
LA
L
L
C
90
4
0
4
1
2
4
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
16
E
N
T
‐
0
0
4
8
(
D
R
)
16
E
N
T
‐
0
0
4
9
(
C
U
P
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
B
e
i
n
g
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
4/
7
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
: M
e
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
I
R
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐3
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
4
5
f
e
e
t
‐1
1
0
,
5
0
0
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐6
5
,
0
0
0
s
f
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
&
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
‐1
6
,
5
0
0
s
f
C
l
i
n
i
c
‐1
4
,
0
0
0
s
f
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
‐7
,
5
0
0
s
f
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
v
e
r
e
d
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
s
‐21
8
+
pa
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
11
0
,
5
0
0
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N/
A
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
:
N/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N/
A
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
T
B
D
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
T
B
D
Russell Bunim
5
29
0
3
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
L
o
t
7
LL
C
90
4
0
5
2
9
0
3
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
16
E
N
T
‐
0
0
3
4
(
C
U
P
)
16
E
N
T
‐
0
0
3
5
(
D
R
)
3/
2
4
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
: M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
Ex
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐4
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
3
6
f
e
e
t
‐6
1
,
3
2
2
s
f
t
o
t
a
l
‐4
4
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
8
,
8
6
6
s
f
)
‐2
2
,
4
5
6
s
f
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐1
4
4
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
CU
P
i
s
f
o
r
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
s
a
l
e
s
61
,
3
2
2
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
7 ‐
S
t
u
d
i
o
21
‐
1
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
9 ‐
2
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
7 ‐
3
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
2 ‐
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
2 ‐
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
1
1
/
2
1
/
1
6
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
/
1
0
/
1
8
Michael Rocque
6
16
5
0
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
1
6
5
0
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
NM
S
L
L
C
90
4
0
4
1
6
5
0
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
16
E
N
T
‐
0
0
7
3
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
6
7
5/
2
5
/
2
0
1
6
(i
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
:
mis
s
i
n
g
T
D
M
pl
a
n
)
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐6
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
5
0
f
e
e
t
‐1
0
0
u
n
i
t
s
(
6
3
,
3
2
5
s
f
)
‐6
,
5
6
9
s
f
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐1
4
5
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
69
,
8
9
4
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
10
s
t
u
d
i
o
55
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
20
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
15
t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
8 u
n
i
t
s
@
3
0
%
A
M
I
4 o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
4 t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
5
/
1
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
/
1
7
/
1
8
Scott Albright
7
14
4
3
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
e
s
s
e
O
t
t
i
n
g
e
r
fo
r
L
u
x
e
1
4
4
1
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
1
4
4
3
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
16
E
N
T
‐
0
0
9
8
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
4
2
7/
2
1
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
5
0
f
e
e
t
‐4
3
u
n
i
t
s
‐7
6
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
‐3
,
5
9
8
s
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
33
,
8
4
3
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
5 s
t
u
d
i
o
22
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
10
t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
6 t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
4 u
n
i
t
s
@
3
0
%
A
M
I
2 t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
2
o
n
e
‐be
d
r
o
o
m
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
1
1
/
7
/
1
6
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
2
/
1
3
/
1
7
Grace Page
8
16
6
5
A
p
p
i
a
n
W
a
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
h
y
l
e
L
P
90
4
0
1
1
6
6
5
A
p
p
i
a
n
W
a
y
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
1
2
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
1
3
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
1
4
8/
4
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
N
/
A
‐3
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
4
0
f
e
e
t
‐3
u
n
i
t
s
‐6
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
6,
0
3
2
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
3 ‐
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
TB
D
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
T
B
D
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
T
B
D
Liz Bar‐El
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
14Item 8-A 01/09/18
18
1
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
P
E
R
M
I
T
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
UN
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
PR
O
C
E
S
S
S
T
A
T
U
S
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S :
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
R
'
s
9
13
1
8
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
e
s
s
e
O
t
t
i
n
g
e
r
fo
r
N
M
S
1
3
1
8
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
1
3
1
8
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
B
l
v
d
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
0
2
7/
2
8
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
5
0
f
e
e
t
‐4
3
u
n
i
t
s
‐3
,
2
2
4
s
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐7
0
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
33
,
7
0
3
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
5 S
t
u
d
i
o
23
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
9 t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
6 t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
2 t
w
o
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
2 on
e
be
d
r
o
o
m
30
%
AM
I
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
5
/
2
2
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
/
1
7
/
1
8
Scott Albright
10
60
1
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
e
s
s
e
O
t
t
i
n
g
e
r
fo
r
N
M
S
6
0
1
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
L
L
C
90
4
0
1
6
0
1
W
i
l
s
h
i
r
e
B
l
v
d
90
4
0
1
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
1
5
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
5
5
8/
4
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐4
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
5
0
f
e
e
t
‐4
3
u
n
i
t
s
‐6
,
5
8
9
s
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
‐7
0
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
32
,
8
9
1
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
6 S
t
u
d
i
o
23
o
n
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
8 t
w
o
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
6 t
h
r
e
e
‐
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
2 t
w
o
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
2 o
n
e
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
4
/
1
7
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
2
/
1
3
/
1
7
Russell Bunim
11
30
3
0
N
e
b
r
a
s
k
a
A
v
e
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
a
t
t
B
e
a
n
f
o
r
Ne
b
r
a
s
k
a
S
t
u
d
i
o
s
L
L
C
90
4
0
4
3
0
3
0
N
e
b
r
a
s
k
a
A
v
e
16
E
N
T
‐
0
1
1
8
8/
1
1
/
2
0
1
6
Us
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
‐
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
E
x
e
m
p
t
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
1
‐3
‐
4
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
/
3
9
f
e
e
t
‐1
7
7
u
n
i
t
s
‐6
6
,
1
0
0
s
f
c
r
e
a
t
i
v
e
o
f
f
i
c
e
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
24
‐
S
t
u
d
i
o
11
6
‐
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
29
‐
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
7 ‐
3
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
10
‐
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
3
0
%
A
M
I
3 ‐
2
be
d
r
o
o
m
30
%
AM
I
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
T
B
D
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
T
B
D
Grace Page
12
18
0
2
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
.
Tie
r
2
‐
2
‐
S
t
o
r
y
a
u
t
o
de
a
l
e
r
90
4
0
4
1
8
0
2
S
a
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
B
l
v
d
.
17
E
N
T
‐
0
1
2
2
7/
2
0
/
2
0
1
7
Us
e
:
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
‐ r
e
t
a
i
l
/
o
f
f
i
c
e
TB
D
Un
i
t
M
i
x
:
N/
A
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:
N/
A
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
T
B
D
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
T
B
D
Scott Albright
13
40
1
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
Tie
r
2
‐
A
d
d
3
c
o
n
d
o
s
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
90
4
0
2
4
0
1
O
c
e
a
n
A
v
e
.
17
E
N
T
‐
0
1
3
8
8/
1
/
2
0
1
7
Us
e
:
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
M
C
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
9
/
1
1
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
s
t
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
2
0
1
8
Steve Mizokami
14
22
2
5
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
9
0
4
0
4
2
2
2
5
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
17
E
N
T
‐
0
0
9
5
6/
2
2
/
2
0
1
7
U
s
e
:
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
e
t
a
i
l
CE
Q
A
S
t
a
t
u
s
:
T
B
D
LU
C
E
T
i
e
r
:
2
‐1
6
u
n
i
t
s
‐3
,
1
0
0
s
f
r
e
t
a
i
l
‐R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
M
a
j
o
r
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
gr
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
h
e
i
g
h
t
16
,
0
5
8
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
1
0
/
2
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
/
1
0
/
1
8
Liz Bar‐El
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
15Item 8-A 01/09/18
18
2
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
NA
M
E
/
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
Z
I
P
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
/
P
E
R
M
I
T
#
F
I
L
E
D
A
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
TO
T
A
L
S
F
UN
I
T
M
I
X
,
S
I
Z
E
A
N
D
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
PR
O
C
E
S
S
S
T
A
T
U
S
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
T
A
M
O
N
I
C
A
M
A
J
O
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S :
PE
N
D
I
N
G
D
R
'
s
15
14
5
0
C
l
o
v
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
9
0
4
0
4
1
4
5
0
C
l
o
v
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
6
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
7
3
4
‐
u
n
i
t
s
(
3
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
)
34
,
2
9
6
s
q
.
f
t
.
Ti
e
r
2
,
3
5
'
h
e
i
g
h
t
34
,
2
9
6
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
1
0
/
2
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
/
1
0
/
1
8
Liz Bar‐El
16
29
2
9
P
i
c
o
B
l
v
d
.
9
0
4
0
5
2
9
2
9
P
i
c
o
B
l
v
d
.
3
/
9
/
2
0
1
7
N
e
w
2
‐
s
t
o
r
y
18
,
0
0
0
s
f
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
v
e
r
2
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
s
u
b
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
pa
r
k
i
n
g
18
,
0
0
0
AR
B
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
:
8
/
2
1
/
1
7
PC
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
1
/
1
0
/
1
8
Michael Rocque
Pe
n
d
i
n
g
D
R
s
‐
T
o
t
a
l
S
F
51
4
,
5
8
2
12
/
7
/
2
0
1
7
16Item 8-A 01/09/18
18
3
of
23
7
Item 8-A 01/09/18
18
ATTACHMENT B
CITY PLANNING DIVISION MAJOR PROJECT CALENDAR
Item 8-A 01/09/18
184 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
0
2
1
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
2
0
1
9Winter Winter Winter-SpringSpringSpringSummerSummer Summer - FallFallFall
EIR Public Draft
EIR Public Draft
ARB/Landmarks
Float up PC Float up
CC Float up
Scoping Mtg
EIR Public Draft
JWCI/CFYC Permits
Major
Private
Projects
Miramar Hotel
Ocean Ave. Hotel
4th/5th Arizona
Providence St. John’s
PC Hearing PC
PC Hearing PC
PC Hearing PC CC Hearing CC
CC Hearing CC
CC Hearing CC
MPNP & CEQA
Policy
& City
Projects
Review Draft Plan
Project Scoping Action Plan Adoption Pursue Implementation
Refine and Adopt
Pico Plan
Gateway Plan
Zoning PC CC
CITY PLANNING DIVISION MAJOR PROJECT TIMELINE
Ongoing Community Outreach
Community Outreach
PC Hearing PC CC Hearing CC PC CC
Ongoing Community Outreach on Vision
VISIONINGPC PCCC CC
2nd Scoping
Meeting
Submit Revised
Project Plans
Community
Meeting
Submit Revised
Project Plans
PC Hearing PC CC Hearing CCEIR Public Review DraftProject Review and Community Benefit Negotiations
Project Review and Community Benefit Negotiations
Project Review and Community Benefit Negotiations
TRADEOFFS COMMUNITY PREFERENCE
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Bergamot Housing
Blvd. Housing
AHPP
R1 Standards
Landmarks Ord.
SB743 Adoption PC CCUpdate and Calibrate TDFM Ongoing Community Outreach
Develop Guidelines and Thresholds
EIR PreparationEIR Scope Development
Mixed-Use Boulevard Residential DistrictsParking
Item 8-A 01/09/18
185 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Leslie Lambert <leslielambert92@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:16 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; tony.vasquez@smgov.net
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Proposed Findings for ADU inclusion in the Mansionization Eemergency Ordinance
I submit the following proposed findings to support the allowance for ADU construction in the proposed Emergency Ordinance dealing with
mansionization.
California’s housing production is not keeping pace with demand. As affordability becomes more problematic, people drive longer distances
between home and work, double and triple up to share space, or become part of the state’s enormous homeless population.
>
> In 2016 the State legislature adopted AB 2299 and SB 1069, recognizing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as an important affordable
housing option that is essential to meeting the State’s growing housing crisis.
>
> Accessory dwelling units provide part of the solution to the housing crisis, as they are the only source of housing that can be added in
existing developed communities
> within a year at an affordable price, with no public money.
>
> The state legislature found that ADUs can provide housing for elderly parents, grown children, renters, caregivers, people with disabilities,
young parents, and others who need and are unable to afford housing in cities throughout the state.
>
> Other affordable housing projects, which require the use of public money, take several years to construct and cost approximately $500,000
per unit today.
>
> ADUs provide a cost effective means of increasing the supply of rental housing in a community without changing the character of a
neighborhood and without requiring payment for land or the construction of costly new infrastructure (roads, sewers, schools, structured
parking, elevators, etc).
>
> ADUs can provide housing for seniors who are particularly vulnerable to the high cost and lack of availability of housing options. ADUs
allow seniors to “age in place,” enjoy a high quality of life, and live independently and affordably, but in close proximity to family members
and caregivers. Empty nesters can remain in their neighborhoods by moving into a smaller ADU and renting their larger existing home to
pay their mortgage.
>
> For all of these reasons, the California State Legislature adopted AB 2299 and SB1069 in order to facilitate and encourage the construction
of accessory dwelling units in California.
>
> AB 2299 and SB 1069 was intended to further restrict local control over ADUs for the purpose of allowing property owners more
flexibility to build ADUs through new construction or through the conversion of existing permitted garages.
>
> The State laws became effective on January 1, 2017, establishing new, more flexible standards for regulating ADUs, eliminating barriers
and local impediments, requiring all California cities to ministerially permit accessory dwelling units in all single family (and some
multifamily) zones and to issue such permits within 120 days.
>
> The two laws also permit California jurisdictions to adopt their own local ordinances, provided such laws do not unreasonably restrict the
ability of homeowners in those cities to create ADUs and as long as such ordinances permit at least an efficiency unit. AB 2299 and SB
1069 stipulate that local ordinances that do not align with state law will be “null and void," unless they are in compliance with the state
provisions.
>
> Providing an allowance (a “bonus”) of 5% of lot area for an ADU in Santa Monica would limit the size of ADUs, without unreasonably
restricting their construction and would therefore, not undermine or conflict with the intent of State law. Unreasonably restricting the ability
of homeowners to create ADUs is contrary to the intent of State law and may subject local agencies to legal action.
>
> In the 2017 legislative session, the State legislature adopted two additional ADU bills, AB229 and SB494. Based on lessons learned
through the implementation of the two previous laws, the two new state laws were intended to further clarify, add additional flexibility,
Item 8-A 01/09/18
186 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
reduce barriers, better streamline the approval process and expand capacity to accommodate the development of ADUs.
>
Item 8-A 01/09/18
187 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: January 9 Agenda Item 8A
From: Leslie Lambert [mailto:leslielambert92@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12:06 PM
To: Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day
<Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich
<Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: January 9 Agenda Item 8A
Dear Mayor Winterer and Councilmembers:
As a 22-year Sunset Park homeowner, I urge you to expedite adoption of an emergency ordinance to redress the
heightened activity of demolition of existing single family homes in our R1 districts and their replacement with
new dwellings that are destroying our neigborhoods' scale and character. I understand that nothing can be done
regarding the non-contextual design of these homes, at least on an emergency basis, but there are measures to be
taken to address their size. There are almost 80 demolition permits in process or approved just within the north
of Montana and Sunset Park neighborhoods. This is a situation of crisis proportions in my opinion. My street,
Ashland Avenue, is looking more and more like an Orange County suburb due to the proliferation of out of
scale and poorly designed two-storey homes.
Please direct staff to return with an emergency ordinance that limits lot coverage for the ground floor of two-
storey homes in R1 districts to 30% and establishes a uniform 28' height limit in R1 districts. Ideally, this draft
emergency ordinance should be ready for public hearing at your January 23 meeting.
Please also direct staff to provide for the development of Accessory Dwelling Units, which would likely not be
built under the development standards being considered as part of the emergency ordinance. I truly believe that
we will not see new ADU's added if we limit lot coverage to 30%. This of course would be contrary to City
policies regarding incentivizing ADU development and potentially violates the spirit if not the letter of AB2299
(Bloome), now codified in Section 65852.6 of the California Government Code.. There are those who propose
that this ADU provision be delayed until the permanent "mansionization" Zoning Code revisions are
considered. I do not believe that we can afford to forestall the development of ADU's until this ordinance is
ready for adoption. Please act now.
I propose that the following language be included in the emergency ordinance:
Properties on which the Accessory Dwelling Units exist or are proposed shall be subject to the lot
coverage maximums in the existing Zoning Code except: (i) Any two-storey primary residence on such
properties shall not exceed the lot coverage maximum in this Emergency Ordinance (30%); and (ii) No
residential structures on such properties shall exceed the height limit set forth in this Emergency
Ordinance (28').
Item 8-A 01/09/18
188 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
I understand that staff may have difficulty preparing findings to support this ADU "carve out" in the time being
given them. I am therefore proposing a set of findings that were prepared for this purpose by Jane Blumenfeld,
former LA City Planning Deputy Director and a participant in the drafting of AB2299. I will send these
findings in a separate email.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
189 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
190 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
191 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
192 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
193 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
194 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
195 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
196 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
197 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
198 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
199 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
200 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
201 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
202 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:amezzo@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:21 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Agy & Sean Norris
Item 8-A 01/09/18
203 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Liza Lerche Jensen <lizalerchejensen@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Kevin McKeown Fwd; tony.vaxquwz@smgov.net;
Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council members
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Liza and Palle Jensen
Item 8-A 01/09/18
204 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:edouard Naud <edd.naud@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:22 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing
and procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018
and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of
priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top
priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and
beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion
as soon as possible.
Thank you
Edd Naud
3111 3rd street, Apt 7
90405 Santa Monica,
Item 8-A 01/09/18
205 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jamie Cullen <jamie.corneliusgroup@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:30 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear Councilmembers:
As business owner and Westside resident I am very interested in the expansion of athletic field facilities in
Santa Monica.
I understand that the council has numerous initiatives and projects to consider, but would like to see the
expansion of athletic fields become a priority for the council.
Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Jamie Cullen
Cornelius Group, Inc.
dba Cornelius Construction
11728 Dorothy St., Unit 103
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Cell: 310-991-3242,
jamie.corneliusgroup@gmail.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
206 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Daniel Benjamin <dpb@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:32 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council,
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields
are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Daniel Benjamin
Item 8-A 01/09/18
207 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Maria Loya <mloyadlt@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:18 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue
Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; councilmtgitems; Pam OConnor
Cc:Rick Cole; David Martin; Clerk Mailbox; Jennifer Kennedy; Jason Parry; Richard
McKinnon; Amy Anderson; Leslie Lambert; Nina Fresco; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Lane
Dilg; p-n-a-board@yahoogroups.com; Oscar De La Torre; PNA SM
Subject:Agenda Item 8A
Dear City Council,
In response to the Planning Division’s proposed priorities for 2018 enumerated in Agenda item 8A.
The PNA Board is writing this letter to support the staff’s recommendation to prioritize the Pico
Neighborhood Zoning District.
With the the light rail in Santa Monica and the push for Transportation Oriented Development (TOD)
our residents continue be threatened by new commercial development, traffic, increase in air pollution
and by a relentless housing market that continues to generate significant rent increases and high
priced condominiums that very few residents can afford. Residents from the Pico neighborhood and
Mid-City Neighbors have been disproportionately impacted by development and therefore need
additional zoning rules that will protect the scale and character of both neighborhoods. The PNZD
was unanimously approved in June 2015 however the creation and implementation was delayed
because of other planning priorities. Since then we continue to lose our affordable housing stock to
commercial development and market rate condos. We look forward to working with City staff to enact
the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
We also support the other neighborhood groups that are advocating for a mobility and parking plan,
tangible community benefits for residents such as an increase in open public space like a sports field
at the Civic Center. In terms of the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP), the PNA Board also agrees with
other neighborhood groups that the City must first research and present for public discussion a
citywide traffic and circulation plan before any expenditure of staff time or public resources on
exploring whether the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP) should be a priority.
Additional recommended areas of study for the Pico neighborhood Zoning District
PNZD Boundaries
We would like to advocate that the PNZD boundaries includes the traditional boundaries of the Pico
Neighborhood (west of Centinela, north of Pico Blvd, east of 7th Street. and south of Colorado Blvd.)
and the overlapping areas within the Mid-City Neighborhood, one-half mile radius from the 26th
Street/Bergamot and 17th Street/Santa Monica College Expo Stations.
Protecting Housing Stock- One of the biggest challenge for our neighborhood is the threat of land
speculation and it’s impact on our neighborhood’s character and demographics. Study creating
zoning rules that will discourage the use of commercial business in residential neighborhoods that will
result in the loss of housing stock
Item 8-A 01/09/18
208 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Maintain RMH zoning for Mountain View and Village Trailer Park
According to State Law, it must remain an RMH zone if there are 2 or more units still on the parcel.
There are in fact 10 remaining lots and they are all locked in per a contract that is expected to go for
50 years. Therefore, it is our understanding that the Stanford parcel should revert back to an RMH
Zoning designation with regard to the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
Colorado Ave. Zoning Designation-The city is designating 2930 Colorado Ave as a mixed use
commercial zone. The City changed the zoning from RMH to Mix-use when they approved the
project. According to use, the largest parcel, OFF COLORADO, is being used as a mixed use.
However, the smaller parcel, OFF STANFORD, is still a Mobile Home park.
Thank you
PNA Board of Directors
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public record for Agenda Item 8A, City Council meeting
of Jan. 9, 2018
Item 8-A 01/09/18
209 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Agenda Item 8A
From: Maria Loya [mailto:mloyadlt@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:18 PM
To: Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez
<Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich
<Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; councilmtgitems
<councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox
<Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Jennifer Kennedy <Jennifer.Kennedy@SMGOV.NET>; Jason Parry
<Jason.Parry@SMGOV.NET>; Richard McKinnon <Richard.McKinnon@SMGOV.NET>; Amy Anderson
<Amy.Anderson@SMGOV.NET>; Leslie Lambert <Leslie.Lambert@SMGOV.NET>; Nina Fresco
<Nina.Fresco@SMGOV.NET>; Mario Fonda‐Bonardi <Mario.Fonda‐Bonardi@SMGOV.NET>; Lane Dilg
<Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>; p‐n‐a‐board@yahoogroups.com; Oscar De La Torre <odelatorre16@yahoo.com>; PNA SM
<pna90404@gmail.com>
Subject: Agenda Item 8A
Dear City Council,
In response to the Planning Division’s proposed priorities for 2018 enumerated in Agenda item 8A.
The PNA Board is writing this letter to support the staff’s recommendation to prioritize the Pico
Neighborhood Zoning District.
With the the light rail in Santa Monica and the push for Transportation Oriented Development (TOD)
our residents continue be threatened by new commercial development, traffic, increase in air pollution
and by a relentless housing market that continues to generate significant rent increases and high
priced condominiums that very few residents can afford. Residents from the Pico neighborhood and
Mid-City Neighbors have been disproportionately impacted by development and therefore need
additional zoning rules that will protect the scale and character of both neighborhoods. The PNZD
was unanimously approved in June 2015 however the creation and implementation was delayed
because of other planning priorities. Since then we continue to lose our affordable housing stock to
commercial development and market rate condos. We look forward to working with City staff to enact
the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
We also support the other neighborhood groups that are advocating for a mobility and parking plan,
tangible community benefits for residents such as an increase in open public space like a sports field
at the Civic Center. In terms of the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP), the PNA Board also agrees with
other neighborhood groups that the City must first research and present for public discussion a
citywide traffic and circulation plan before any expenditure of staff time or public resources on
exploring whether the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP) should be a priority.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
210 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Additional recommended areas of study for the Pico neighborhood Zoning District
PNZD Boundaries
We would like to advocate that the PNZD boundaries includes the traditional boundaries of the Pico
Neighborhood (west of Centinela, north of Pico Blvd, east of 7th Street. and south of Colorado Blvd.)
and the overlapping areas within the Mid-City Neighborhood, one-half mile radius from the 26th
Street/Bergamot and 17th Street/Santa Monica College Expo Stations.
Protecting Housing Stock- One of the biggest challenge for our neighborhood is the threat of land
speculation and it’s impact on our neighborhood’s character and demographics. Study creating
zoning rules that will discourage the use of commercial business in residential neighborhoods that will
result in the loss of housing stock
Maintain RMH zoning for Mountain View and Village Trailer Park
According to State Law, it must remain an RMH zone if there are 2 or more units still on the parcel.
There are in fact 10 remaining lots and they are all locked in per a contract that is expected to go for
50 years. Therefore, it is our understanding that the Stanford parcel should revert back to an RMH
Zoning designation with regard to the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
Colorado Ave. Zoning Designation-The city is designating 2930 Colorado Ave as a mixed use
commercial zone. The City changed the zoning from RMH to Mix-use when they approved the
project. According to use, the largest parcel, OFF COLORADO, is being used as a mixed use.
However, the smaller parcel, OFF STANFORD, is still a Mobile Home park.
Thank you
PNA Board of Directors
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public record for Agenda Item 8A, City Council meeting
of Jan. 9, 2018
Item 8-A 01/09/18
211 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:McKenzie, Eirlys <EGD@msk.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 3:22 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a Santa Monica resident directly affected by changes Planning Division priorities, I want to comment on the
Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. The playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in
the Staff Report!!
Santa Monica citizens have repeatedly shown that we want our City representatives to make the Civic Center
Sports Field a priority. I ask again that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to TOP PRIORITY.
Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 or later, while Staff continues to work on
other projects that we do not consider to be as important.
Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Eirlys McKenzie
Santa Monica, 90403
Item 8-A 01/09/18
212 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
213 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
214 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
215 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
216 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
217 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
218 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
219 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
220 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
221 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
222 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
223 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
224 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
Item 8-A 01/09/18
225 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:amezzo@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:21 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are
nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Agy & Sean Norris
Item 8-A 01/09/18
226 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Liza Lerche Jensen <lizalerchejensen@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Kevin McKeown Fwd; tony.vaxquwz@smgov.net;
Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council members
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Liza and Palle Jensen
Item 8-A 01/09/18
227 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:edouard Naud <edd.naud@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:22 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing
and procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018
and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of
priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top
priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and
beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as
important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion
as soon as possible.
Thank you
Edd Naud
3111 3rd street, Apt 7
90405 Santa Monica,
Item 8-A 01/09/18
228 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jamie Cullen <jamie.corneliusgroup@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:30 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin; fieldatcivic@gmail.com
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear Councilmembers:
As business owner and Westside resident I am very interested in the expansion of athletic field facilities in
Santa Monica.
I understand that the council has numerous initiatives and projects to consider, but would like to see the
expansion of athletic fields become a priority for the council.
Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Jamie Cullen
Cornelius Group, Inc.
dba Cornelius Construction
11728 Dorothy St., Unit 103
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Cell: 310-991-3242,
jamie.corneliusgroup@gmail.com
Item 8-A 01/09/18
229 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Daniel Benjamin <dpb@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:32 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council,
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and procedures, we want to
comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We couldn’t help but notice that playing fields
are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park expansion of
diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until
2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects that we do not consider to be as important. Please
accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Daniel Benjamin
Item 8-A 01/09/18
230 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Maria Loya <mloyadlt@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:18 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue
Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; councilmtgitems; Pam OConnor
Cc:Rick Cole; David Martin; Clerk Mailbox; Jennifer Kennedy; Jason Parry; Richard
McKinnon; Amy Anderson; Leslie Lambert; Nina Fresco; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Lane
Dilg; p-n-a-board@yahoogroups.com; Oscar De La Torre; PNA SM
Subject:Agenda Item 8A
Dear City Council,
In response to the Planning Division’s proposed priorities for 2018 enumerated in Agenda item 8A.
The PNA Board is writing this letter to support the staff’s recommendation to prioritize the Pico
Neighborhood Zoning District.
With the the light rail in Santa Monica and the push for Transportation Oriented Development (TOD)
our residents continue be threatened by new commercial development, traffic, increase in air pollution
and by a relentless housing market that continues to generate significant rent increases and high
priced condominiums that very few residents can afford. Residents from the Pico neighborhood and
Mid-City Neighbors have been disproportionately impacted by development and therefore need
additional zoning rules that will protect the scale and character of both neighborhoods. The PNZD
was unanimously approved in June 2015 however the creation and implementation was delayed
because of other planning priorities. Since then we continue to lose our affordable housing stock to
commercial development and market rate condos. We look forward to working with City staff to enact
the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
We also support the other neighborhood groups that are advocating for a mobility and parking plan,
tangible community benefits for residents such as an increase in open public space like a sports field
at the Civic Center. In terms of the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP), the PNA Board also agrees with
other neighborhood groups that the City must first research and present for public discussion a
citywide traffic and circulation plan before any expenditure of staff time or public resources on
exploring whether the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP) should be a priority.
Additional recommended areas of study for the Pico neighborhood Zoning District
PNZD Boundaries
We would like to advocate that the PNZD boundaries includes the traditional boundaries of the Pico
Neighborhood (west of Centinela, north of Pico Blvd, east of 7th Street. and south of Colorado Blvd.)
and the overlapping areas within the Mid-City Neighborhood, one-half mile radius from the 26th
Street/Bergamot and 17th Street/Santa Monica College Expo Stations.
Protecting Housing Stock- One of the biggest challenge for our neighborhood is the threat of land
speculation and it’s impact on our neighborhood’s character and demographics. Study creating
zoning rules that will discourage the use of commercial business in residential neighborhoods that will
result in the loss of housing stock
Item 8-A 01/09/18
231 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Maintain RMH zoning for Mountain View and Village Trailer Park
According to State Law, it must remain an RMH zone if there are 2 or more units still on the parcel.
There are in fact 10 remaining lots and they are all locked in per a contract that is expected to go for
50 years. Therefore, it is our understanding that the Stanford parcel should revert back to an RMH
Zoning designation with regard to the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
Colorado Ave. Zoning Designation-The city is designating 2930 Colorado Ave as a mixed use
commercial zone. The City changed the zoning from RMH to Mix-use when they approved the
project. According to use, the largest parcel, OFF COLORADO, is being used as a mixed use.
However, the smaller parcel, OFF STANFORD, is still a Mobile Home park.
Thank you
PNA Board of Directors
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public record for Agenda Item 8A, City Council meeting
of Jan. 9, 2018
Item 8-A 01/09/18
232 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Agenda Item 8A
From: Maria Loya [mailto:mloyadlt@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 2:18 PM
To: Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez
<Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich
<Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; councilmtgitems
<councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox
<Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Jennifer Kennedy <Jennifer.Kennedy@SMGOV.NET>; Jason Parry
<Jason.Parry@SMGOV.NET>; Richard McKinnon <Richard.McKinnon@SMGOV.NET>; Amy Anderson
<Amy.Anderson@SMGOV.NET>; Leslie Lambert <Leslie.Lambert@SMGOV.NET>; Nina Fresco
<Nina.Fresco@SMGOV.NET>; Mario Fonda‐Bonardi <Mario.Fonda‐Bonardi@SMGOV.NET>; Lane Dilg
<Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>; p‐n‐a‐board@yahoogroups.com; Oscar De La Torre <odelatorre16@yahoo.com>; PNA SM
<pna90404@gmail.com>
Subject: Agenda Item 8A
Dear City Council,
In response to the Planning Division’s proposed priorities for 2018 enumerated in Agenda item 8A.
The PNA Board is writing this letter to support the staff’s recommendation to prioritize the Pico
Neighborhood Zoning District.
With the the light rail in Santa Monica and the push for Transportation Oriented Development (TOD)
our residents continue be threatened by new commercial development, traffic, increase in air pollution
and by a relentless housing market that continues to generate significant rent increases and high
priced condominiums that very few residents can afford. Residents from the Pico neighborhood and
Mid-City Neighbors have been disproportionately impacted by development and therefore need
additional zoning rules that will protect the scale and character of both neighborhoods. The PNZD
was unanimously approved in June 2015 however the creation and implementation was delayed
because of other planning priorities. Since then we continue to lose our affordable housing stock to
commercial development and market rate condos. We look forward to working with City staff to enact
the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
We also support the other neighborhood groups that are advocating for a mobility and parking plan,
tangible community benefits for residents such as an increase in open public space like a sports field
at the Civic Center. In terms of the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP), the PNA Board also agrees with
other neighborhood groups that the City must first research and present for public discussion a
citywide traffic and circulation plan before any expenditure of staff time or public resources on
exploring whether the Gateway Master Plan (GAMP) should be a priority.
Item 8-A 01/09/18
233 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
2
Additional recommended areas of study for the Pico neighborhood Zoning District
PNZD Boundaries
We would like to advocate that the PNZD boundaries includes the traditional boundaries of the Pico
Neighborhood (west of Centinela, north of Pico Blvd, east of 7th Street. and south of Colorado Blvd.)
and the overlapping areas within the Mid-City Neighborhood, one-half mile radius from the 26th
Street/Bergamot and 17th Street/Santa Monica College Expo Stations.
Protecting Housing Stock- One of the biggest challenge for our neighborhood is the threat of land
speculation and it’s impact on our neighborhood’s character and demographics. Study creating
zoning rules that will discourage the use of commercial business in residential neighborhoods that will
result in the loss of housing stock
Maintain RMH zoning for Mountain View and Village Trailer Park
According to State Law, it must remain an RMH zone if there are 2 or more units still on the parcel.
There are in fact 10 remaining lots and they are all locked in per a contract that is expected to go for
50 years. Therefore, it is our understanding that the Stanford parcel should revert back to an RMH
Zoning designation with regard to the Pico Neighborhood Zoning District.
Colorado Ave. Zoning Designation-The city is designating 2930 Colorado Ave as a mixed use
commercial zone. The City changed the zoning from RMH to Mix-use when they approved the
project. According to use, the largest parcel, OFF COLORADO, is being used as a mixed use.
However, the smaller parcel, OFF STANFORD, is still a Mobile Home park.
Thank you
PNA Board of Directors
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public record for Agenda Item 8A, City Council meeting
of Jan. 9, 2018
Item 8-A 01/09/18
234 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:McKenzie, Eirlys <EGD@msk.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 3:22 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As a Santa Monica resident directly affected by changes Planning Division priorities, I want to comment on the
Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. The playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in
the Staff Report!!
Santa Monica citizens have repeatedly shown that we want our City representatives to make the Civic Center
Sports Field a priority. I ask again that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the
Memorial Park expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to TOP PRIORITY.
Existing timelines for these projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 or later, while Staff continues to work on
other projects that we do not consider to be as important.
Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Eirlys McKenzie
Santa Monica, 90403
Item 8-A 01/09/18
235 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Carlos Gutierrez <cagutierrez1961@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 4:56 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam
OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:URGENT - Council Meeting Item 8.A. - Please ask City Council to Prioritize Playing
Fields!
Re: City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Carlos Gutierrez
Item 8-A 01/09/18
236 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sandie Hill <sandie725@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 9, 2018 5:16 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer
Cc:Rick Cole; Karen Ginsberg; Susan Cline; David Martin
Subject:City Council Meeting: January 9, 2018 - Agenda Item: 8.A
Dear City Council:
As resident stakeholders in Santa Monica directly affected by changes in policy, timing and
procedures, we want to comment on the Planning Division list of priorities for 2018 and beyond. We
couldn’t help but notice that playing fields are nowhere in the list of priorities in the Staff Report.
We are asking that Council instruct Staff to move the Civic Center Sports Field and the Memorial Park
expansion of diamonds on the Fisher Lumber Site to top priorities. Existing timelines for these
projects wouldn’t result in fields until 2021 and beyond while Staff continues to work on other projects
that we do not consider to be as important. Please accelerate the timeline for both sports field
projects for completion as soon as possible.
Thank you --
Sandra Y. Hill
(310) 251-9552
Item 8-A 01/09/18
237 of 237 Item 8-A 01/09/18