SR 02-09-2021 13D 13.D
February 9, 2021
Council Meeting: February 9, 2021 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services
Department
Date: February 9, 2021
13.D Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council
authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to
Senator Wiener and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through
lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
13.D
Packet Pg. 407
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
In the last legislative session, Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco introduced SB
902, seeking to limit local land use authority related to housing in “jobs-rich” areas, to
allow, but not require, local governments to adopt zoning ordinances that bypass
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for housing developments of up to
10 units per parcel in transit- or jobs-rich area, or an urban infill site. Senator Wiener
reintroduced the bill as SB 10 at the start of the current legislative session. As drafted,
SB 10 would allow, but not require, cities to permit midrise, medium-density housing on
sites that are within one-half mile of a major transit stop, on a high-quality bus corridor,
or within a jobs-rich, high-opportunity neighborhood close to key job centers without
affordability requirements or sensitivity to the character of existing neighborhoods. SB
10 also provides that zoning ordinances adopted in accordance with its provisions shall
not constitute a project for purposes of CEQA. If enacted, SB 10 would undermine local
land use authority by imposing state legislation on local government agencies and
municipalities. The legislation has the potential to negatively impact cities that do not
elect to use the zoning tool created by the bill. If a neighboring city were to pass an
ordinance rezoning a parcel for such a project along the City border, residents would be
impacted but would be unable to voice their concerns with the ordinance via the CEQA
review process. Additionally, SB 10’s definition of “jobs-rich areas” is unclear, and SB
10 leaves the determination of what constitutes a “jobs rich area” to the Department of
Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning and Research. The
bill also allows a City Council to override voter-approved initiatives, an attack on our
108-year-old right to initiative
For these reasons, Council Members Brock, Parra, and de la Torre ask that the City
Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to Senator Wiener opposing SB 10 as
drafted, and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in
Sacramento.
13.D.a
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Oppose SB10 (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Noma Boardmember <nomaboard@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 9:23 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Kristin McCowan;
Phil Brock; chistine.parra@smgov.net; oscardelatorre@smgov.net; Lane Dilg
Subject:Subject: Items 13C and 13D
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers,
The NOMA Board writes in enthusiastic support of Item 13-C on the agenda for February 9, 2021 , the Request
of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to
SB 9 to be sent to State Senator Atkins, and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in
Sacramento.
We further support and urge approval of accompanying Item 13-D, the Request of Councilmembers Brock,
Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to State
Senator Wiener, and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento
SB 9 and SB 10 take local control away from our community and offer no quotas or assurances for construction of
more affordable housing, which is their presumed purpose. They are ill-conceived bills already called into question
and outdated by a pandemic and re-assessment of our housing needs. They are environmentally dubious, if not
unsound, and will unleash the forces of speculation and gentrification at the expense of our existing neighborhoods
and residents. We urge you to oppose them both.
Respectfully,
The NOMA Board
Item 13.D 02/09/21
1 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
Item 13.D 02/09/21
2 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:email <sherkush@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 9:02 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 per Agenda Items 13C & 13D, Feb. 9, 2021 Council meeting
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
I am writing to urge the Santa Monica City Council to vote in support of these items on your agenda
for Feb. 9, 2021:
13-C: Authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and
direct staff to oppose this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
13-D: Authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener
and direct staff to oppose this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Don't let our state legislature take over the zoning of our city. These bills are wrong-headed.
Sincerely,
Sherrill Kushner
Item 13.D 02/09/21
3 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Ben Mayne <ben.l.mayne@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 8:33 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Items 13C & 13D
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
I hope the council will support SB9 and SB10 to increase the supply of housing across the state. Allowing for more dense
housing is important to reduce the rising homelessness as well as an important climate change issue. Anyone serious
about either of those problems needs to be building housing as fast as possible.
Thank you,
Ben Mayne
Santa Monica, 90404
Item 13.D 02/09/21
4 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:nancykless <nancykless@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 8:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:SB 9 & 10
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
I oppose SB 9 and SB 10. I have been a Santa Monica homeowner for many years. Santa Monica has
become over developed and extremely congested which has resulted in a lower quality of life for residents.
While I understand that people need affordable housing, I believe there are better solutions.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S8, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone
Item 13.D 02/09/21
5 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 8:30 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:NE Neighbors Requests Council OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 per Agenda Items 13C & 13D, Feb. 9, 2021
Council meeting
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
The people of Santa Monica elected you to make policy for our small city, not to bow
down to state legislators who seek to take control of our land use regulations.
All members of the Santa Monica City Council should vote in support of the following
items on the Council Agenda for Feb. 9, 2021:
13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize
the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and
direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize
the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and
direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will
generate greater affordability. There is no truth to this “trickle down” approach to
zoning and certainly no good reason for city leaders to abdicate their leadership and
allow the legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
6 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
7
SB 9 – the so-called “duplex bill” - actually seeks to change single-family zoning
to 6-unit zoning -- not duplexes. The trick is that SB 9 works hand-in-hand with the
existing ADU law, AB 68, which already allows duplexes almost everywhere in single
family areas, i.e., large attached granny flats on the side of houses, or a separate
house in the yard, are already allowed.
SB 10 by Wiener would allow developers build 10-unit luxury apartments on
parcels in low-density areas, poor and rich. SB 10 will send land costs sky-high and
gentrify and displace thousands of people.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB
9 and SB 10.
Our City needs to take a leadership position to stop the legislature from doing the
bidding of land speculators.
We must continue as a city to preserve the existing affordable housing and to support
only that legislation that will respect and support local zoning and leadership, creating
access to housing, not profits for land speculators.
Respectfully,
Tricia Crane, Chair
and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Item 13.D 02/09/21
7 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Caroline Denyer <cdenyerla@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 8:26 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject: re SB 9 & SB 10!! Please Support items 13-C and 13- D
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
Honorable Councilmembers,
13‐C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of
opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins, and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying
efforts in Sacramento.
13‐D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of
opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener, and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying
efforts in Sacramento
Caroline and Andrew Denyer
Santa Monica residents.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.D 02/09/21
8 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Andrew Wilder <andrew@andrewwilder.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 12:26 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown
Subject:Items 13-C and 13-D: Oppose SB9 and SB10
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and Councilmembers,
Although I am in favor of significantly increasing affordable housing in Santa Monica, we should
maintain local control of our zoning and our neighborhoods. Moreover, the community should
always have an opportunity to review and comment on any proposed projects or zoning changes.
Thank you for opposing SB9 and SB10, and for taking steps to stop them. Please do send those
letters of opposition to Sacramento, and lobby the state government to stop this overreach!
Sincerely,
Andrew Wilder
90405
Item 13.D 02/09/21
9 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:T GROSSMAN <tina.grossman@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 12:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Request Council OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 per Agenda Items 13C & 13D,
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
Stand up to the State takeover of our city!
The people of Santa Monica elected you to make policy for our small city, not to bow down to state
legislators who seek to take control of our land use regulations.
All members of the Santa Monica City Council should vote in support of the following items on the Council
Agenda for Feb. 9, 2021:
13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign
a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill
through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign
a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this
bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will generate greater
affordability. There is no truth to this “trickle down” approach to zoning and certainly no good reason for
city leaders to abdicate their leadership and allow the legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
SB 9 – the so-called “duplex bill” - actually seeks to change single-family zoning to 6-unit zoning -- not
duplexes. The trick is that SB 9 works hand-in-hand with the existing ADU law, AB 68, which already
allows duplexes almost everywhere in single family areas, i.e., large attached granny flats on the side of
houses, or a separate house in the yard, are already allowed.
SB 10 by Wiener would allow developers to build 10-unit luxury apartments on parcels in low-density
areas, poor and rich. SB 10 will send land costs sky-high and gentrify and displace thousands of people.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB 9 and SB 10.
We must continue as a city to preserve the existing affordable housing and to support only that legislation
that will respect and support local zoning and leadership, creating access to housing, not profits for land
speculators.
Thank you
Tina Grossman
90405
Item 13.D 02/09/21
10 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Matthew Stevens <mastevens0131@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 11:46 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 13.D.
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and members of City Council:
I'm a bit bewildered to see opposition to SB 10. It makes me think the sponsors of Item 13.D never bothered to read the
language of SB 10.
If SB 10 passes, its provisions would be entirely optional. SB 10 is an opt‐in bill that would have no impact on Santa
Monica unless Council, by a majority vote, decides to take advantage of its provisions. It's an additional tool FOR YOU.
Moreover, the content of SB 10 is relatively innocuous. It's just a CEQA streamlining bill. There is near
unanimous consensus that more apartments near jobs, transit, and in urban infill areas is good for the environment yet
California law still requires environmental review for such projects. SB 10 eliminates this unnecessary roadblock. But
again, only if a local jurisdiction chooses.
Also, I am also concerned by the "Background and Discussion" document attached to the agenda item for Item 13.D. It is
not an accurate description of SB 10 and is filled with misleading and out of context information. Was this produced by
city staff? If not, I think that needs to be clearly stated. In this case, I do not believe it was produced by city staff because
I found identical text in an agenda report from the city of Rancho Palos Verdes last week. Available here:
https://rpvca.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2823
Please vote no on Item 13.D.
Thank you,
Matt Stevens
Item 13.D 02/09/21
11 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:DiaryofTieira Ryder <tie.ryder@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 11:45 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Please support Agenda Items 13C & 13D! This housing crisis has gone on long enough
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica has intentionally created displacements on the Westside by refusing to build
enough affordable housing for local, long term residents. Landlords currently have the upper hand
and it seems like the council is not working in the best interest of everyone, just those that are
well off and already secure in their homes. Our right to housing has been denied, please support
both agenda items Agenda Items 13C & 13D that will allow for more housing!
Best,
Tieira
www.HTWWS.org
Item 13.D 02/09/21
12 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
Item 13.D 02/09/21
13 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
5
Item 13.D 02/09/21
14 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Ben Swett <Ben@benswett.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 10:11 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Items 13C & 13D
EXTERNAL
Guys:
A quick note:
1. Santa Monica is not an island unto itself
2. We are part of the region, and part of the county ‐ we share the problems, and also the benefits
3. It is immoral and impractical to become the "Pull up the Drawbridge" city
4. We need to support these bills, not work against them.
5. You're focused on "residents" ‐ let's remember future residents, too ‐ people who are not yet born, people who
will live here ... where will our children live when they get older?
Please support SB10 and the other weiner bills.
Please stay true to the values of Santa Monica by working towards more housing, instead of against.
Thank You.
Ben Swett
614 San Vicente Blvd ‐ 90402
Item 13.D 02/09/21
15 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Grace Phillips <gracesadye@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 10:03 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda items 13C and 13D
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please do not allow three newly elected members to NIMBY locally‐supported state efforts to increase housing
everywhere in the state. Santa Monica has always been a progressive leader on affordable housing and should not
swerve from that position in the worst homelessness crisis we have ever experienced.
Oscar: driven on Centinela lately? You think we have too much housing?
Phil: This is not what we elected you for. We want MORE housing, not less.
We are watching what you do on these state bills.
Best, Grace Phillips
Item 13.D 02/09/21
16 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Robert Posek <rposek@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 9:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan
Subject:Council meeting 2/9/2021, Items 13-C, 13-D
EXTERNAL
To members of the Santa Monica City Council,
At this week's meeting, Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre will request that our Mayor sign a letter
in opposition to SB 9 and SB10.
I urge you to support this recommendation. Both bills, while purporting to increase the amount of affordable housing in
our state, will only add more high and market rate units, which is one of the reasons these bills have such strong support
from developers.
Given our current economic situation, I believe that our City has done a commendable job in addressing affordable
housing. We, as a city do not need to be told by Sacramento what is best for us and will be punished if we do not
conform to their mandates. I for one strongly disagree with Senator Wiener's proclamation that "R‐1 districts are
immoral". I see nothing immoral with wanting to raise our families in a safe comfortable environment.
An alternative to both of these misguided bills, a bill introduced by Mr. Portantino, to consider adaptive reuse of
commercial properties would provide cheaper readily available solutions to our current housing shortage.
Again, I urge you to support a letter in opposition to both SB 9 and SB 10 and send a strong message to legislators in
Sacramento that you are listening to the residents whom you represent.
Sincerely,
Robert Posek
Item 13.D 02/09/21
17 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Sara Gersen <sara.gersen@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 9:41 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Items 13C & 13D
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
As a Santa Monica resident and recent homeowner (after many years of renting), I urge you to vote "No" on Agenda
Items 13C and 13D at the upcoming city council meeting. We are in the midst of a housing crisis that is causing untold
suffering for our fellow Californians. I personally believe that radical reforms are necessary to make California housing
affordable again, rebuild our middle class, and foster the dense, walkable neighborhoods that can make a dent in the
climate crisis and improve quality of life. But there is nothing radical about SB9 or SB10. These are incremental,
common‐sense measures. The bills are the very lowest of low‐hanging fruit in California's fight against the climate
crises. I beg you not to attempt to block even these small steps in the right direction.
Thank you,
Sara Gersen
Item 13.D 02/09/21
18 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mario Fonda-Bonardi <mario@fbharchitects.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 3:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support for item 13 C (Oppose SB9) and 13 D (oppose SB10)
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members
Our City needs to protest the steal of local control by these two (among many) Senate bills:
13C OPPOSE SB9
This bill REQUIRES that Cities allow the ministerial approval (eg no public hearing) of subdividing lots in the R‐1 zone into
two distinct sellable and buildable lots.
Side and rear setbacks may be shrunk to 4'. This allows two story buildings to be placed ridiculously close to their
neighbors also eliminating any rear yard privacy for their neighbors. Typical side setbacks in R‐1 lots are currently 5 to 8
feet depending on lot width and 20’ rear
The City could not require any setbacks, density or other design criteria that would preclude the construction of 2 units.
While the two way lot split sounds harmless, notice that the splitting of the lot could still allow (but not require) the two
new lots to have a main house plus a Junior ADU (less than 500 sq ft) each. In this manner an R‐1 lot could turn into 4
effective units. In addition the two new R‐1 lots could be, in their turn, split into two more (as long as the remaining lots
were at least 1200 sq ft). With their junior ADUs now you would have effectively 8 units with possibly a 16 car parking
load on the street, because when installing ADUs the parking requirement is essentially eliminated. Typical Santa
Monica lots are 7500 sqft.
Like all these recent Weiner bills the State is not required to assist cities in meeting any additional utility,
infrastructure, or school expenses created by the the densification caused by these lot splits.
Like all these recent Weiner bills the City is not required to do a CEQA review of these splits even if the 7000 R‐1 lots in
Santa Monica potentially so divided would increase the population of the City a minimum of 15% and up to 30%.
13D OPPOSE SB10
This ALLOWS a City to pass and ordinance upzoning any parcel of any size to be split ministerially into 10 units without a
hearing. This proposal SPECIFICALLY gives City Council the right to overturn ANY voter initiative, for example the Airport
to Park conversion or for example what happened with Hines. Apart from its densification 10 unit clause, ITS PURPOSE
IS TO GIVE LEGAL COVER TO A ROGUE CITY COUNCIL, WHO HAD BEEN CORRUPTED, TO OVERTURN ANY VOTER
INITIATIVE. its a supremely anti democratic initiative.
Like all these recent Weiner bills the State is not required to assist cities in meeting any additional utility,
infrastructure, or school expenses created by the the densification caused by this upzone.
Like all these recent Weiner bills the City is not required to do a CEQA review of these splits even if the 7000 R‐1 lots in
Santa Monica potentially so divided would increase the population of the City a minimum of 55% and up to 110%.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
19 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
This bill gives exceptional power to City council. The SM City council person can be elected for about $100,000 each so
for $400,000 anyone can upzone the entire City regardless of the will of the voters, the LUCE etc. This is a dangerous
time bomb.
CONCLUSION
SB9 is a bazooka aimed at the R‐1 sites which have no idea whats aimed at them. SB10 is a nuclear missile aimed at the
entire City with a launch code in the hands of 4 rogue council people. Both should be vigorously opposed by our
Sacramento lobbyist.
Thanks you for your positive consideration of this request.
Mario Fonda‐Bonardi AIA
Mario@fbharchitects.com
310‐699‐0374
Item 13.D 02/09/21
20 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 2:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Ann Maggio Thanawalla
Subject:SUPPORT Agenda Items 13C & 13D to OPPOSE SB9 & SB10
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
The people of Santa Monica elected you to make policy for our small city, not to bow down to state legislators who seek
to take control of our land use regulations.
All members of the Santa Monica City Council should vote in support of the following items on the Council Agenda for
Feb. 9, 2021:
13‐C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of
opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying
efforts in Sacramento.
13‐D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of
opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying
efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will generate greater affordability. There is
no truth to this “trickle down” approach to zoning and certainly no good reason for city leaders to abdicate their
leadership and allow the legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
SB 9 – the so‐called “duplex bill” ‐ actually seeks to change single‐family zoning to 6‐unit zoning ‐‐ not duplexes. The trick
is that SB 9 works hand‐in‐hand with the existing ADU law, AB 68, which already allows duplexes almost everywhere in
single family areas, i.e., large attached granny flats on the side of houses, or a separate house in the yard, are already
allowed.
SB 10 by Wiener would allow developers to build 10‐unit luxury apartments on parcels in low‐density areas, poor and
rich. SB 10 will send land costs sky‐high and gentrify and displace thousands of people.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB 9 and SB 10. We must continue
as a city to preserve the existing affordable housing and to support only that legislation that will respect and support
local zoning and leadership, creating access to housing, not profits for land speculators.
Thank you,
Ann & Sam Thanawalla
Santa Monica Residents and Voters
Item 13.D 02/09/21
21 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Mcieply <mcieply@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 1:40 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:State zoning takeover
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members, The people of Santa Monica elected you to make policy for
our small city, not to bow down to state legislators who seek to take control of our land use regulations. All
members of the Santa Monica City Council should vote in support of the following items on the Council Agenda
for Feb. 9, 2021: 13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the
Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and direct staff to reinforce opposition to
this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento. 13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la
Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and
direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento. Both SB9 and SB 10 are
based on the unproven notion that greater density will generate greater affordability. There is no truth to this
“trickle down” approach to zoning and certainly no good reason for city leaders to abdicate their leadership and
allow the legislature to take over the zoning of our city. SB 9 – the so-called “duplex bill” - actually seeks to
change single-family zoning to 6-unit zoning -- not duplexes. The trick is that SB 9 works hand-in-hand with the
existing ADU law, AB 68, which already allows duplexes almost everywhere in single family areas, i.e., large
attached granny flats on the side of houses, or a separate house in the yard, are already allowed. SB 10 by
Wiener would allow developers build 10-unit luxury apartments on parcels in low-density areas, poor and rich.
SB 10 will send land costs sky-high and gentrify and displace thousands of people. Santa Monica City Council
needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB 9 and SB 10. We must continue as a city to
preserve the existing affordable housing and to support only that legislation that will respect and support local
zoning and leadership, creating access to housing, not profits for land speculators.
Thank you, sincerely,
Michael Cieply
1221 Marguerita Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90402
310-995-6412
Item 13.D 02/09/21
22 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Ferris Gluck <girltunes@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 1:17 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:Please protect our city and OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 per Agenda Items 13C & 13D, Feb. 9, 2021 Council
meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
I strongly concur with the following letter sent to you by Tricia Crane, Chair & the Board of Northeast Neighbors around
February 8, 2021:
The people of Santa Monica elected you to make policy for our small city, not to bow down to state legislators who seek to
take control of our land use regulations.
All members of the Santa Monica City Council should vote in support of the following items on the Council Agenda for
Feb. 9, 2021:
13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of
opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts
in Sacramento.
13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of
opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying
efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will generate greater affordability. There is no
truth to this “trickle down” approach to zoning and certainly no good reason for city leaders to abdicate their leadership
and allow the legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
SB 9 – the so-called “duplex bill” - actually seeks to change single-family zoning to 6-unit zoning -- not
duplexes. The trick is that SB 9 works hand-in-hand with the existing ADU law, AB 68, which already allows duplexes
almost everywhere in single family areas, i.e., large attached granny flats on the side of houses, or a separate house in
the yard, are already allowed.
SB 10 by Wiener would allow developers build 10-unit luxury apartments on parcels in low-density areas, poor and
rich. SB 10 will send land costs sky-high and gentrify and displace thousands of people.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB 9 and SB 10.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
23 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
6
Our City needs to take a leadership position to stop the legislature from doing the bidding of land speculators.
We must continue as a city to preserve the existing affordable housing and to support only that legislation that will respect
and support local zoning and leadership, creating access to housing, not profits for land speculators.
-------------------
I would also like to add that the pandemic has demonstrated that high density living significantly increases the risk of
spreading deadly viruses. All of the proposed legislation therefore goes against good public health policy.
Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Item 13.D 02/09/21
24 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
7
Vernice Hankins
From:B Onofre <beredeambo1@yahoo.com> on behalf of bomailbox1-pna@yahoo.com
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 12:43 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:PNA Requests Council OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 per Agenda Items 13C & 13D, Feb. 9, 2021
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
The people of Santa Monica elected you to make policy for our small city, not to bow down to state legislators
who seek to take control of our land use regulations.
We ask all members of the Santa Monica City Council to vote in support of the following items on the Council
Agenda for Feb. 9, 2021:
13‐C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign
a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill
through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
13‐D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign
a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill
through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will generate greater affordability.
There is no truth to this “trickle down” approach to zoning and certainly no good reason for city leaders to
abdicate their leadership and allow the legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
SB 9 – the so‐called “duplex bill” ‐ actually seeks to change single‐family zoning to 6‐unit zoning ‐‐ not
duplexes. The trick is that SB 9 works hand‐in‐hand with the existing ADU law, AB 68, which already allows
duplexes almost everywhere in single family areas, ie., large attached granny flats on the side of houses, or
a separate house in the yard, are already allowed.
SB 10 by Wiener would allow developers build 10‐unit luxury apartments on parcels in low‐density areas,
poor and rich. SB 10 will send land costs sky‐high and gentrify and displace thousands of people.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB 9 and SB 10.
We must continue as a city to preserve the existing affordable housing and to support only that legislation that
will respect and support local zoning and leadership, creating access to housing, not profits for land
speculators.
Respectfully,
Pico Neighborhood Board
Item 13.D 02/09/21
25 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
8
Berenice Onofre, Ed.D.
bomailbox1‐mtg@yahoo.com
Item 13.D 02/09/21
26 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Bradley Ewing <bradleywewing@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 6:49 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Items 13C & 13D
EXTERNAL
It is deeply disappointing to see councilmembers propose opposition to SB9 and SB10. Santa Monica has lagged in new
housing construction for decades; it has not kept up with natural population growth, even less so considering job and
tourism growth over the same period. The current affordability crisis is directly rooted in this artificial scarcity and
impacts most Santa Monicans who do not have the privilege of being securely housed or inheriting a seven figure rental
property.
SB9 is a means to tackle the housing shortage and reckon with our racist past. Single family only zoning is explicitly a
product of white supremacy; white supremacists crafted it with racial covenants to keep non‐whites out of desirable and
high‐resource areas. These neighborhoods (such as North of Montana) are some of the wealthiest and most segregated
in the country today. Keeping these areas closed to new homes all but guarantees that opportunity will be reserved for
the disproportionately white and wealthy few. Santa Monica should be looking toward progressive cities in
Northern California that are going even farther than the modest SB9; Sacramento and Berkeley are moving forward with
zoning changes that would enable fourplexes on any single family lot.
The opposition to SB10 is even more ludicrous. It is asinine to claim that an opt‐in legislation to streamline missing
middle housing approval is an attack on "local control." Moreover, this is a tool that the city should look into using to
reduce the cost of new housing and create affordability. Up to 40% of the cost for fully affordable housing in Los Angeles
is due to permitting costs and bad‐faith lawsuits; this bill directly addresses those costs which is exactly what the city
needs to squeeze more desperately needed housing out of our already limited funds!
Best,
Brad Ewing
Item 13.D 02/09/21
27 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:ml.verville@verizon.net
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 5:18 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Council Mailbox
Subject:Support for item 13C (Oppose SB9) and 13D (Oppose SB10)
Importance:High
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members
Our City needs to protest the blanket upzoning and attempted elimination of local control by
the draft Senate bills SB9 and SB10 (among many others).
SUMMARY
To be clear, upzoning will only serve to increase land costs in the city, further reducing
affordability and accelerating gentrification. Allowing upzoning will have immediate adverse
economic impacts to the city from immediate spikes in land costs. It will be a fundamental
mistake that will be impossible to reverse. As a Sunset Park R1 homeowner, I do not want to
see my land value increase due to upzoning because I know the damage it will do to my city.
In short, these bills will achieve the exact opposite of your stated goals of increasing
affordability in the city.
As the data submitted into the Santa Monica City Council public record on December 12, 2020
demonstrated, housing rental rates have soared 77% over the past 10 years (~5x the rate of
inflation) despite both over‐production and vacancies of between 4,000 and 4,500 in each year
according to the CA department of Finance.
Moreover, given the City’s challenged financial circumstances, these bills recklessly assign to
the city 100% of the incremental utility, infrastructure, and school district expenses created by
the proposed upzoning‐driven densification. How much densification? These splits on the
7,000 R‐1 lots in Santa Monica potentially would increase the population of the City a
minimum of 55% and up to 110%. In addition, given the city’s precarious resource situation,
these bills exempt this densification from CEQA review.
These bills are toxic and antithetical to the interests and wellbeing of the residents of Santa
Monica.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
28 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
As our representatives, I ask that you both oppose these bills and work towards their defeat.
13C OPPOSE SB9
This bill REQUIRES that Cities allow the ministerial approval (e.g. no public hearing) of
subdividing lots in the R‐1 zone into two distinct sellable and buildable lots.
Side and rear setbacks may be shrunk to 4'. This allows two story buildings to be placed
ridiculously close to their neighbors also eliminating any rear yard privacy for their neighbors.
Typical side setbacks in R‐1 lots are currently 5 to 8 feet depending on lot width and 20’ rear
The City could not require any setbacks, density or other design criteria that would preclude
the construction of 2 units.
While the two way lot split sounds harmless, notice that the splitting of the lot could still allow
(but not require) the two new lots to have a main house plus a Junior ADU (less than 500 sq ft)
each. In this manner an R‐1 lot could turn into 4 effective units. In addition the two new R‐1
lots could be, in their turn, split into two more (as long as the remaining lots were at least
1200 sq ft). With their junior ADUs now you would have effectively 8 units with possibly a 16
car parking load on the street, because when installing ADUs the parking requirement is
essentially eliminated. Typical Santa Monica lots are 7500 sq. ft.
13D OPPOSE SB10
This ALLOWS a City to pass and ordinance upzoning any parcel of any size to be split
ministerially into 10 units without a hearing. This proposal SPECIFICALLY gives City Council the
right to overturn ANY voter initiative, for example the Airport to Park conversion or for
example what happened with Hines. In its ability to OVERTURN ANY VOTER INITIATIVE, this bill
is the apogee of a supremely anti‐democratic initiative. Given what the country has just
experienced, this would be an unconscionable attack on the fundamental state Constitutional
rights of the residents.
This bill gives exceptional power to City council. The SM City council elections have been
susceptible to high campaign funding expenditures. With the elimination of the checks and
balances that voter initiatives impose, vested interest can field candidates for pennies on the
dollar that can then upzone the entire City at will, regardless of the will of the voters, the LUCE
etc. To say that this is a dangerous time bomb is a gross understatement.
CONCLUSION
Item 13.D 02/09/21
29 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
SB9 will destabilize R‐1 neighborhoods without warning. SB10 will destabilize the entire city
through the elimination of any democratic checks and balances. Both should be vigorously
opposed by you and our Sacramento lobbyist.
Thank you for your positive consideration of this request to protect your residents.
Marc L. Verville
Native Santa Monican
Resident ‐ Sunset Park
Item 13.D 02/09/21
30 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Denise Anderson-Warren
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 4:34 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Request for Council to OPPOSE SB 9 and SB10 per Agenda Items 13c and 13d Feb. 9, 2021
From: Kathy Knight <kathyknight66@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 4:18 PM
To: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Kristin McCowan
<Kristin.McCowan@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Christine Parra
<Christine.Parra@SMGOV.NET>; Denise Anderson‐Warren <Denise.Anderson‐Warren@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Request for Council to OPPOSE SB 9 and SB10 per Agenda Items 13c and 13d Feb. 9, 2021
EXTERNAL
February 8, 2021
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members:
Please keep the policy for land use in our city under our City control. Please do not place this control in the hands of
state legislators that want to take over our City's land use, and who do not live here.
We are asking that all members of the Santa Monica City Council vote in support of the following items on the Council
Agenda for Feb.9, 2011:
13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of
opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying
efforts in Sacramento.
13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of
opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through
lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will generate greater affordability. There
is no truth to this “trickle down” approach to zoning and certainly no good reason for city leaders to abdicate their
leadership and allow the legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
SB 9 – the so-called “duplex bill” - actually seeks to change single-family zoning to 6-unit zoning -- not
duplexes. The trick is that SB 9 works hand-in-hand with the existing ADU law, AB 68, which already allows
duplexes almost everywhere in single family areas, i.e., large attached granny flats on the side of houses, or
a separate house in the yard, are already allowed.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
31 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
6
SB 10 by Wiener would allow developers to build 10-unit luxury apartments on parcels in low-density areas,
poor and rich. SB 10 will send land costs sky-high and gentrify and displace thousands of people.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB 9 and SB 10.
Our City needs to take a leadership position to stop the legislature from doing the bidding of land speculators.
We must continue as a city to preserve the existing affordable housing and to support only that legislation that will
respect and support local zoning and leadership, creating access to housing, not profits for land speculators.
Thank you,
Kathy Knight and Joe Faris
1122 Oak St., Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 613-1175
Item 13.D 02/09/21
32 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Kathy Knight <kathyknight66@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 4:26 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Items - Request for Council to OPPOSE SB 9 and SB10 per Agenda Items 13c and 13d Feb. 9,
2021
EXTERNAL
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kathy Knight <kathyknight66@gmail.com>
Subject: Request for Council to OPPOSE SB 9 and SB10 per Agenda Items 13c and 13d
Feb. 9, 2021
Date: February 8, 2021 at 4:18:29 PM PST
To: phil.brock@smgov.net, Gleam Davis <gleam.davis@smgov.net>,
oscar.delatorre@smgov.net, "sue.himmelrich" <sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>,
kristin.mccowan@smgov.net, Councilmember Kevin McKeown <kevin.mckeown@smgov.net>,
christine.parra@smgov.net, Denise Anderson-Warren <Denise.Anderson-Warren@smgov.net>
February 8, 2021
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members:
Please keep the policy for land use in our city under our City control. Please do not place this control in
the hands of state legislators that want to take over our City's land use, and who do not live here.
We are asking that all members of the Santa Monica City Council vote in support of the following items
on the Council Agenda for Feb.9, 2011:
13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to
sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and direct staff to reinforce
opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to
sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and direct staff to reinforce
opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will generate greater
affordability. There is no truth to this “trickle down” approach to zoning and certainly no good reason
for city leaders to abdicate their leadership and allow the legislature to take over the zoning of our
city.
SB 9 – the so-called “duplex bill” - actually seeks to change single-family zoning to 6-unit
zoning -- not duplexes. The trick is that SB 9 works hand-in-hand with the existing ADU law, AB 68,
Item 13.D 02/09/21
33 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
8
which already allows duplexes almost everywhere in single family areas, i.e., large attached granny
flats on the side of houses, or a separate house in the yard, are already allowed.
SB 10 by Wiener would allow developers to build 10-unit luxury apartments on parcels in low-
density areas, poor and rich. SB 10 will send land costs sky-high and gentrify and displace
thousands of people.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB 9 and SB
10.
Our City needs to take a leadership position to stop the legislature from doing the bidding of land
speculators.
We must continue as a city to preserve the existing affordable housing and to support only that
legislation that will respect and support local zoning and leadership, creating access to housing, not
profits for land speculators.
Thank you,
Kathy Knight and Joe Faris
1122 Oak St., Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 613-1175
Item 13.D 02/09/21
34 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nancy Morse <nancym@netzero.net>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 8:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:Agenda Item 13-D
EXTERNAL
To: City Council
From: Nancy Morse
Subject: Agenda Item 13‐D
Please support this measure. The city should oppose SB 10 as it allows the state, not local communities, to determine
zoning. Zoning should be a local issue. What works in one community, or part of a community, may not work in another.
Santa Monica worked hard for its current zoning regulations. SB 10 will change that.
‐Nancy
Item 13.D 02/09/21
35 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Nancy Morse <nancym@netzero.net>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 8:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:Agenda Item 13-C
EXTERNAL
To: City Council
From: Nancy Morse
Subject: Agenda Item 13‐C
Please support this measure. The city should oppose SB 9 as it allows the state, not local communities, to determine
zoning. Zoning should be a local issue. What works in one community, or part of a community, may not work in another.
Santa Monica worked hard for its current zoning regulations. SB 9 will change that.
‐Nancy Morse
Item 13.D 02/09/21
36 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Bob Taylor <rtaylarch@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 7:44 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Agenda 2/9/21 Item's 13 C & D
EXTERNAL
Ref: City Council Agenda 2/9/21 Item's 13 C & D
Honorable Council Members;
I trust that we all share the understanding that every community has its own unique character, environment, and needs,
and that a one size fits all solution to livable planning for such diverse cities as Joshua Tree, Mammoth Mountain, Santa
Monica, or San Francisco, etc., is both inappropriate and foolhardy. Yet the State Legislature is attempting to foist upon
every community in the state a mandate that premises that very notion. I’m confident that you all have read and
understand the content of the two Senate bills, SB 9 AND SB 10, so I needn’t labor thru all of the potential political and
environmental damage they are capable of producing if approved. You well know that they are developer driven,
designed only to increase their bottom line, and will not be the solution to an affordable housing issue.
While one or more of you will likely argue that there is a “housing crisis” and the need to build is the only solution to
affordability, I defy you to produce one community, especially a high land value community, that has ever built its way
to affordability. The “affordability crisis” that does exist isn’t because of a lack of housing units or their availability, it is
because of the underlying economic inequity that is built into our culture by those that sit in government and make the
inappropriate decisions that have driven the wealth to the top few percent, decimating the middle class, and further
crushing those of the lowest income level. An example might be the gentrification transition we have seen in Santa
Monica, and the migration out of many long time residents of lower income over the last 10‐15 years.
SB 9 & 10, are not going to solve affordability, and with more people moving out of state than moving in, one has to
further question the motivations of those that drive these, and the myriad of similar, developer bills that are and have
been attempted. Please join with the three that placed these issues on the agenda, and the residents you represent,
and support their request that the mayor write to the State Senate and demand opposition to these onerous bills. It is
the right thing to do for your city, and for those who live and work here.
Bob Taylor, AIA
Resident
Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow
A Co‐founder of OPA
EXCERPT FROM AGENDA ITEM 13
C. Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign
a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and direct staff to reinforce opposition to
this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.Revised Attachment Background
Item 13.D 02/09/21
37 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
Staff Report Printout a. Oppose
SB9 D. Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that
Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10
to be sent to Senator Wiener and direct staff to reinforce
opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Revised Attachment
Staff
Report
Printout a. Oppose
SB10
Item 13.D 02/09/21
38 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Leslie Lambert <leslielambert92@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 12:43 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine
Parra; Phil Brock
Subject:Item 13.E.
EXTERNAL
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the action being proposed in Item 13.G. Specifically, the proposal to
oppose Senate Bill 10 and to direct the City's lobbying efforts accordingly. Although a member of the Planning
Commission, I am writing this as an individual and 42‐year resident of Santa Monica. I am also writing as a strong
advocate for the production of new housing in the city and the adoption and submission of a compliant Housing
Element. I recommend that the City take a support position on SB10 if certain amendments are made regarding the
inclusion of affordable housing requirements and exemption of properties owned by land trusts or conservancies and
those that have a designated historic resource status. My reasons for opposing the recommendation in 13.E. are as
follows:
1. In taking a position on SB10 the Council should acknowledge that the provisions of SB10, regarding CEQA exemption
for certain zoning amendments, are entirely discretionary. In short, the State is not telling the City that such an
ordinance must be adopted. That decision is left entirely to the local jurisdiction.
2. The interpretation that exempting such ordinances from CEQA removes public input is wrong. The adoption of any
ordinance by the City Council requires public hearings, and any such ordinance is subject to referendum. Many of us
know that applying CEQA to housing projects and the rules governing them often opens the door to frivolous lawsuits
filed by those in opposition to new housing. I have seen this happen over and over again during my years in the
affordable housing field. The time lost as a result of these legal actions, which are usually unsuccessful, adds to the
already high cost of producing housing.
3. If the City Council opts to use the authority in SB10, should it pass, and if the resulting zoning amendment is in
compliance with the LUCE, CEQA would not apply to the ordinance anyway since it would be covered by the program EIR
that was certified for the LUCE. This interpretation should be confirmed by the City Attorney.
4. If adoption of the zoning amendment authorized by SB10 is not in conformance with the LUCE, then a LUCE
amendment would be necessary, and that may trigger CEQA. That would remove the major objection of those opposing
SB10.
I strongly recommend that the City adopt a position to support SB10 if it is amended to incorporate renter and
vulnerable community protections, realistic inclusionary requirements; and exemptions for designated historic
resources and open space owned by land trusts or conservancies.
In conclusion, the purpose of this bill is to further housing production by eliminating a barrier that often impedes
housing production. There is no language in the bill that precludes public participation through the normal hearing
process. Further, the provisions of the bill are entirely voluntary.
Thank you for your consideration.
Leslie Lambert, Sunset Park Resident
Item 13.D 02/09/21
39 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Item 13.D 02/09/21
40 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 8:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: City Council 2/9/21 items 13-C, 13-D, and 13-E -- SUPPORT!
EXTERNAL
February 8, 2021
To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: Support for 2/9/21 agenda items 13-C, 13-D, and 13-E
The FOSP Board wholeheartedly supports these three agenda items.
13-C: Support for the agenda item -- Opposition to SB 9 -- It would allow 6 to 8 units where 1 home now
stands, with no garage or yard required. SB 9 is an attack on home ownership, Latino suburbs, South L.A., the Inland Empire, all coastal cities, and a long list of working-class homeowner neighborhoods from Paramount to
Lynwood to Alhambra. Corporate rental giants, given the upzoning-and-demolition allowed by SB 9, could
swarm communities. 10,000 homes in San Fernando Valley are apparently already owned by rental corporations.
13-D: Support for the agenda item -- Opposition to SB 10 – It would let cities ignore CEQA in order to allow 10-unit pricey market-rate apartments almost anywhere (i.e., in areas that are transit rich, jobs rich, and
“urban infill,” however those terms are defined). It would also allow a City Council to override voter-approved
initiatives (including Measure LC?), an attack on our 108-year-old right to initiative.
13-E: Support for retaining former City Manager Lamont Ewell of Ralph Andersen & Associates to provide executive search services for the position of City Manager for the City of Santa Monica. While City Manager here, Mr. Ewell instituted the annual “Can We Talk” events each fall, in each neighborhood, to get
input from residents on city budget priorities. He was renowned for treating everyone with respect, and his
motto for customer service was “Doing the Right Thing Right!”
“Praised for Healing Fractured Relationships, City Manager Lamont Ewell Steps Down”
Item 13.D 02/09/21
41 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
1/21/2010 – Santa Monica Daily Press
https://www.smdp.com/praised-for-healing-fractured-relationships-city-manager-lamont-ewell-steps-
down/75846
Item 13.D 02/09/21
42 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:George Ferrell <jesebus@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 9:33 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Items 13-C and 13-D
EXTERNAL
I urge all council members to vote in favor of agenda items 13-C and 13-D. SB 9 and SB 10 would devastate our
community and countless families who have spent lifetimes sacrificing to invest in their homes. The arrogance of state
legislators such as Atkins, Wiener, and Bloom is staggering. Like a two-year old knocking over blocks, in one swoop they
want to wipe out what generations of residents have sacrificed to build and to do so without community hearings,
confirming research by experts, or examples from other communities. In other words, it is just their opinion. And, that is
good enough. If it fails, what the hell, it is only homeowners that suffer. To these legislators homeowner seem to be the
enemy. Do you agree with Atkins, Wiener, and Bloom?
George and Peggy Ferrell
338 15th Street
Item 13.D 02/09/21
43 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Matthew Stevens <mastevens0131@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 8:52 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Phil Brock; Oscar
de la Torre; Christine Parra
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 13.C - Really?
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and members of City Council:
Item 13.C is one of the most absurd proposals I've seen in Santa Monica yet.
Santa Monica has limited political capital in Sacramento. Similarly, our lobbyist has limited time. A reasonable person
would assume we'd spend our limited capital, and use our lobbyist's limited time, in a way that benefits the most
number of Santa Monica residents possible. That is most certainly not the case here.
SB 9 is a duplex bill. 80% of Santa Monica residents live in multi‐family housing. Do you really think the 80% of Santa
Monica residents who live in multi‐family housing care one bit whether the state legalizes duplexes on R1 lots?
Opposing duplexes does not extend California's eviction moratorium. Opposing duplexes does not help renters pay back
rental debt. Opposing duplexes does not speed up EDD benefits. And opposing duplexes certainly does not help Santa
Monica secure more state and federal aid which would allow us to restore very valuable city services cut during the
pandemic. All of these are items that our lobbyist should be focusing on. But instead, you are considering sending our
lobbyist on a NIMBY goose chase to oppose a bill which already secured enough votes to pass last session and was
stymied at the end only by a lack of time.
I'm not asking you to take a position on SB 9. I just want you to not waste city resources on what will almost certainly be
a fruitless effort to oppose it. Please, take your jobs seriously, and focus on the issues that matter most right now.
Duplexes are not on that list.
Regards,
Matt Stevens
Item 13.D 02/09/21
44 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Michael Jolly <mpers1971@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 8:49 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support for item 13 C (Oppose SB9) and 13 D (oppose SB10)
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members
I am asking my City to protest these two bills:
Our City needs to protest the blanket upzoning and attempted elimination of local control by the draft Senate bills SB9
and SB10 (among many others).
SUMMARY
Upzoning will increase land costs in the city, reduce affordability and accelerate economic gentrification. I believe these
bills will achieve the exact opposite of your stated goals of increasing affordability in the city.
As the data submitted into the Santa Monica City Council public record on December 12, 2020
demonstrated, housing rental rates have soared 77% over the past 10 years (~5x the rate of inflation)
despite both over-production and vacancies of between 4,000 and 4,500 in each year according to the
CA department of Finance.
Considering the City’s challenged financial circumstances, how are these additional infrastructure costs going to be
reconciled? The city would be responsible? How can that possibly be implemented with the budget being so out of
balance?
The Bottom Line is that any zoning and densification changes should have to be approved by the neighborhood
residents. That's the democratic process and these decisions will negatively impact locals permanently! It is only fair that
the rights, interests and wellbeing of both the current and the long term residents (voters) and taxpayers of Santa
Monica be a priority.
13C OPPOSE SB9
This bill REQUIRES that Cities allow the ministerial approval (e.g. no public hearing) of subdividing lots in the R‐1 zone
into two distinct sellable and buildable lots.
Side and rear setbacks may be shrunk to 4'. This allows two story buildings to be placed ridiculously close to their
neighbors also eliminating any rear yard privacy for their neighbors. Typical side setbacks in R‐1 lots are currently 5 to 8
feet depending on lot width and 20’ rear
The City could not require any setbacks, density or other design criteria that would preclude the construction of 2 units.
While the two way lot split sounds harmless, notice that the splitting of the lot could still allow (but not require) the two
new lots to have a main house plus a Junior ADU (less than 500 sq ft) each. In this manner an R‐1 lot could turn into 4
effective units. In addition the two new R‐1 lots could be, in their turn, split into two more (as long as the remaining lots
were at least 1200 sq ft). With their junior ADUs now you would have effectively 8 units with possibly a 16 car parking
load on the street, because when installing ADUs the parking requirement is essentially eliminated. Typical Santa
Monica lots are 7500 sq. ft.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
45 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
13D OPPOSE SB10
This ALLOWS a City to pass any ordinance upzoning any parcel of any size to be split ministerially into 10 units without a
hearing. This proposal SPECIFICALLY gives the City Council the right to overturn ANY voter initiative, for example the
Airport to Park conversion or for example what happened with Hines. In its ability to OVERTURN ANY VOTER INITIATIVE,
this bill is the apogee of a supremely anti‐democratic initiative. Given what the country has just experienced, this would
be an unconscionable attack on the fundamental state Constitutional rights of the residents.
This bill gives exceptional power to the City council which is against the residents interests. With the elimination of the
checks and balances that voter initiatives impose, vested interests can field candidates for pennies on the dollar that can
then upzone the entire City at will, regardless of the will of the voters, the LUCE etc. This is a disaster just waiting to
happen!
CONCLUSION
SB9 will destabilize R‐1 neighborhoods without warning. SB10 will destabilize the entire city through the elimination of
any democratic checks and balances. Both should be vigorously opposed by you and our Sacramento lobbyist.
Thank you for your consideration of this request to protect your residents and for doing the right thing for the future of
the City of Santa Monica.
‐‐
Michael Jolly
Business Owner,
Property Owner and Long term Resident
Sent from MacBook on Gmail
Electronic Privacy Notice: This email, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered by electronic
communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient,
please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this
information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and
then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
46 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
Denny Zane
2402 3rd St., #106
Santa Monica, CA 90405
I urge the Santa Monica City Council to oppose SB 9 (Atkins). SB 9 is an attempt by the State of
California to up-zone of R1 neighborhoods throughout the state, ostensibly to enable more
multifamily housing development during a housing affordability crisis. Proponents argue that
this new housing development will enhance prospects for housing affordability in the future.
It is easy to understand why developers and those with an economic interest in market rate
housing might accept those arguments and support this bill. It is also easy to understand why
the world of Wall Street private equity firms would support this bill, especially those who
purchased tens of thousands of foreclosed single-family homes during the Great Recession.
Community members interested in solving the affordable housing crisis should oppose SB 9. It
will make matters worse.
There is no provision for affordability at all in SB 9 nor any protection for low and moderate
income renter occupants of existing R1 housing. Nothing in SB 9 ensures that any affordable
housing will ever get built .
On the contrary. SB 9 is much more likely to become an engine of displacement for households
now living as renters in those very homes scooped up by Wall Street during the Great
Recession. Many such households will be families of color in east Los Angeles County or central
and south Los Angeles where foreclosures during the Great Recession occurred in far greater
numbers. These families can be easily evicted to make way for ready redevelopment of these
sites and very significant profit taking.
This displacement could create a dramatic shift in the racial and ethnic composition and
character of these neighborhoods. We should object loudly and oppose SB 9, which would be
the enabler of this process.
Supporters of SB 9 would have you believe that any “expansion of housing supply”
automatically translates into a downward pressure on housing costs. Santa Monica’s
experience demonstrates the contrary.
Santa Monica has for years implemented one of the most successful affordable housing
production programs in California, a result of the City’s intentional affordable housing policies
and intentional investments in affordable housing.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
47 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
The city has also consistently met its market rate housing development targets, as measured by
its consistent ability to exceed state RHNA allocations for “Above-Moderate-Income-Housing.”
Despite this “success,” a much enhanced supply of new market rate housing in the city has not
yielded reduced rents in uncontrolled units. Instead, this new development has attracted a
higher income population, given the city a more expensive character, and served as a pressure
driving local housing prices up. This gentrification of the city has meant some neighborhoods in
Santa Monica, like our downtown, “boast” among the highest rents in the region for never-
controlled or decontrolled rental units.
In addition, this market rate development drives up local land costs and makes development of
genuine affordable housing more difficult. SB 9 will contribute to a worsening of this dynamic.
There are some local opponents who object to SB 9 because of the potential for disruption of
their neighborhood character. I am sympathetic to those concerns, especially when one can
see no valid social objective being accomplished here that would offset the damage of
displacement of families of color in other neighborhoods of Los Angeles County.
Sincerely,
Denny Zane
Santa Monica resident
Former Santa Monica Mayor
Item 13.D 02/09/21
48 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Judith Bloom <jabloom1@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:21 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Please halt upzoning and density push!!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
The people of Santa Monica elected you to make policy for our city.
I urge all members of the Santa Monica City Council to support the following items on the Council Agenda for
Feb. 9, 2021:
13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a
letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through
lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a
letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill
through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will generate greater affordability.
There is no truth to this “trickle down” approach to zoning and certainly no good reason for city leaders to
abdicate their leadership and allow the legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
SB 9 – the so-called “duplex bill” - actually seeks to change single-family zoning to 6-unit zoning -- not
duplexes. The trick is that SB 9 works hand-in-hand with the existing ADU law, AB 68, which already allows
duplexes almost everywhere in single family areas, i.e., large attached granny flats on the side of houses, or a
separate house in the yard, are already allowed.
SB 10 by Wiener would allow developers build 10-unit luxury apartments on parcels in low-density areas, poor
and rich. SB 10 will send land costs sky-high and gentrify and displace thousands of people.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB 9 and SB 10.
Sincerely,
Judith Bloom
Lifelong Santa Monica Resident
Item 13.D 02/09/21
49 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:sheri silverton <sheri.silverton@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:55 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda items 13C & 13D
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am a long time Santa Monica resident. I am writing in to ask you to oppose SB9 and SB10. I worked hard and saved in
order to live in my neighborhood and these two bills will make it possible for developers to ruin it.
I think a letter of opposition from our City will send a message to state legislators to oppose it.
Yours Truly
Sheri Silverton
633 24th st, Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 13.D 02/09/21
50 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Ann Hoover <annkbowman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:24 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock;
Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis
Cc:Denise Anderson-Warren; David Martin; Jing Yeo; George S. Cardona; Susan Cline; Lane Dilg
Subject:City Council Meeting - February 9, 2021 - SUPPORT Items 13.C. and 13.D - Letters from City of SM to
oppose over-reaching senate bills
EXTERNAL
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public Record for Agenda Items 13.C. and 13.D.,
City Council meeting of February 9, 2021. Thank you!
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
Please vote in support of the following items on the Council Agenda for Feb. 9, 2021:
13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize
the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and
direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize
the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and
direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will generate
greater affordability. There is no truth to this “trickle down” approach to zoning and
certainly no good reason for city leaders to abdicate their leadership and allow the
legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous
opposition to both SB 9 and SB 10.
Our City needs to take a leadership position to stop the legislature from doing the
bidding of land speculators.
We must continue as a city to preserve the existing affordable housing and to support
only that legislation that will respect and support local zoning and leadership, creating
access to housing, not profits for land speculators.
Sincerely,
Item 13.D 02/09/21
51 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
Ann Hoover
Resident, 25 years
Item 13.D 02/09/21
52 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Nancy Ong <nong618@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:24 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:SB9 and SB10
EXTERNAL
Plrease , please oppose these Bills and let Santa Monica control our city, not the State.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
53 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Barbars King <kingbees444@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:55 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose SB9 and SB10
EXTERNAL
The Council
Must vote to opposeSB9 and SB10 and remain control of our city.
Barbara King
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.D 02/09/21
54 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
7
Vernice Hankins
From:John Keefer <johnkeefer@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:No on SB9 and SB10
EXTERNAL
I oppose SB9 and SB10. Please vote no.
Thank you,
John
Item 13.D 02/09/21
55 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Leslie Lambert <leslielambert92@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:10 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra;
Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject:Item 13.C.
EXTERNAL
I urge the City Council to support SB 9, which is identical to SB 1120 from the last legislative session. The bill would
require cities to allow duplexes in R1 districts, lot splits of R1 parcels such that two duplexes could be constructed,
while providing important protections for renters , rent controlled housing, and other specified categories of protected
properties.
The purpose of SB9 is the same as SB1120, and is expressed in the bill analysis:
This bill "promotes small‐scale neighborhood residential development by streamlining the process for a homeowner to
create a duplex or subdivide an existing lot in all residential areas. This policy builds upon prior successful Accessory
Dwelling (ADU) law, which led to a 63% increase in ADU permit requests in the first two years alone. Additionally, the
policy leverages valuable but previously untapped resources, such as developed but underutilized land, while building
valuable equity for homeowners.
SB9 proposes no more density than that already allowed in State Law under the ADU statutes. The difference is that
SB9 does not establish a maximum square footage for either of the duplex units. This would allow for more habitable
housing for families. Further, ADU's cannot be sold whereas SB9 would allow for two homeowner units on a
parcel. Housing units built under the authority of SB9 could well serve the "missing middle" income households whose
housing needs are not being met by our existing housing market.
I have several observations about the proposal contained in Item 13.C. My concern also applies to Item 13.E. I am
concerned that these proposals represent a "shotgun", reflexive response to State housing legislation. If
Councilmembers wish to reject all State "intrusion" into the City's housing policy prerogatives, then those individuals
are faced with more than fifty years of State legislation to undo. Asserting local control over all housing matters, with
no State involvement, is comparable to the former President's response to the COVID pandemic, i.e. let the states
handle it. We are living with how well that turned out.
The State of California has a presumptive role in addressing the housing shortage the entire state is experiencing. It
requires a State response. I am concerned that some Councilmembers will ask their fellow Councilmembers to reject all
measures with the words "State" and "housing" in them. This is not a constructive approach. The City must have a
comprehensive housing legislation strategy and must be sure to have a seat at the table when legislative changes are
proposed. Taking an "oppose" position on legislation from the get‐go will leave us out of future discussions, and will,
frankly, undermine the City's well earned reputation as a pro‐housing community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Leslie Lambert, Sunset Park Homeowner and R1 District Resident
Item 13.D 02/09/21
56 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Fred Alexander <riverfred1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:11 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:My vote
EXTERNAL
I oppose SB9 and SB10
Regards,
Fred Alexander, SM resident
Item 13.D 02/09/21
57 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
10
Vernice Hankins
From:Peter SteenOlsen <bluespartan@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:22 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose SB9 and SB10
EXTERNAL
Oppose SB9 and SB10
Local governance matters.
Regards
Peter J. SteenOlsen
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.D 02/09/21
58 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
11
Vernice Hankins
From:James Weatherford <outlook_CC259E1FFC1C09D8@outlook.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:26 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose SB9 and SB1
EXTERNAL
DON’T LET THE STATE DICTATE LOCAL POLICY.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Item 13.D 02/09/21
59 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
12
Vernice Hankins
From:GMail <pjlynass@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:22 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Vote no SB9 & SB10
EXTERNAL
Keep the power in the city of Santa Monica not the State.
Regards,
Patrick’s iPhone
Item 13.D 02/09/21
60 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clare Fields-Flood <mshickory@outlook.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Sb9 and Sb10
EXTERNAL
I am urging you, the council members , to please oppose Sb9 and Sb10.
Leave zoning and input on what happens in Santa Monica to those that live in Santa Monica.
Thank you for your time and attention and your efforts toward opposing Sb9 and Sb10,
Clare
Item 13.D 02/09/21
61 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Denise Anderson-Warren
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:30 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: Council Agenda Items
From: Wendy Overmire <wendyovermire@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021, 9:08 AM
To: Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Denise Anderson‐Warren; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra
Subject: Council Agenda Items
EXTERNAL
As a 50-year resident of Santa Monica, I STRONGLY oppose the bills SB9 and SB10 which are before the
council for consideration. These bills, if passed, will irreparably alter residential neighborhoods of Santa
Monica.
PLEASE vote NO on these two bills.
Respectfully,
Wendy Overmire
Item 13.D 02/09/21
62 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:02 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Item 13 C - Urging Opposition to SB 9
Attachments:Denny Zane re SB 9.docx
From: dennyzane@aol.com <dennyzane@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 7:22 PM
To: Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; kristen.mccowan@smgov.net; Councilmember Kevin McKeown
<Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Christine Parra
<Christine.Parra@SMGOV.NET>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@SMGOV.NET>; Phil Brock
<Phil.Brock@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: RE: Item 13 C ‐ Urging Opposition to SB 9
EXTERNAL
Please accept my letter urging the Santa Monica City Council to oppose SB 9.
Denny Zane
310-570-5870
dennyzane@aol.com
Item 13.D 02/09/21
63 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Gisela Friedman <gisela428@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:16 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock;
Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis
Cc:Denise Anderson-Warren; David Martin; Jing Yeo; George S. Cardona; Susan Cline; Lane Dilg
Subject:City Council Meeting - February 9, 2021 - SUPPORT Items 13.C. and 13.D - Letters from City of SM to
oppose over-reaching senate bills
EXTERNAL
City Clerk: Please include this letter in the Public Record for Agenda Items 13.C. and
13.D., City Council Meeting of February 9, 2021
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
Please vote in support of the following items on the Council Agenda for Feb. 9, 2021:
13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize
the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and
direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize
the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and
direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will generate
greater affordability. There is no truth to this “trickle down” approach to zoning and
certainly no good reason for city leaders to abdicate their leadership and allow the
legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous
opposition to both SB 9 and SB 10.
We must continue as a city to preserve the existing affordable housing and to support
only that legislation that will respect and support local zoning and leadership.
Sincerely,
Gisela Friedman
Resident, 17 years
Item 13.D 02/09/21
64 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Joanne Pittard <joannedpittard@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:30 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda items February 9, 2021
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am a citizen of the city of Santa Monica for more than 50 years and I am requesting the following:
Please preserve local control of Santa Monica land use. Do not allow the State government to dictate how our local
lands are used. I believe it is item 13c and 13d on your agenda tonight.
Please oppose SB9 and SB10.
Thank you ....Joanne D Pittard
Item 13.D 02/09/21
65 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Jennifer French <jen440@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:34 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:I urge you to oppose SB9 and SB10.
EXTERNAL
Preserve local control of our land use. Support Agenda Items 13C & 13D. vote unanimously to oppose SB9 and SB10.
Thank you
Jennifer French
Jen440@gmail.com
310‐770‐4479
Sent from my iPad
Item 13.D 02/09/21
66 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Cathy Larson <fospairport@rocketmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:05 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra
Subject:Support Item 13-C and Item 13-D
EXTERNAL
13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins, and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener, and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento
Request Councilmembers approve direction to direct staff to craft official position of the City of Santa Monica to oppose
SB 9 and SB 10. It would be folly to support local control over standards of development.
I am particularly concerned how SB 10 would allow a mechanism to override voter approved ballot measures and by-pass
CEQA requirements.
Cathy Larson
Santa Monica Resident
Item 13.D 02/09/21
67 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Matthew Stevens <mastevens0131@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:31 AM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Phil Brock; Oscar
de la Torre; Christine Parra
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 13.C.
EXTERNAL
"Deed restrictions provide for single‐family construction and protects against racial hazards."
That is how a redlining map of Santa Monica from the 1930s described North of Montana. Racial and ethnic minorities
were barred from living in the neighborhood. White people only, as a matter of law.
That legacy persists. Today, North of Montana is 80% white whereas Los Angeles County is 70% people of color. That is
because North of Montana, still today, just like the 1930s, allows only one housing type ‐ single family homes. And the
price of single family homes puts them out of reach for almost everyone who isn't white and who doesn't have the
benefit of family wealth built over many decades through racist housing policies. Systemic racism ‐ alive and well in
Santa Monica.
I would like for this to be included in the record for 13.C tonight. And I would also like those who vote yes on 13.C to
reckon with this history. Why is single‐family only zoning so important to protect when single‐family only zoning was
created with the specific purpose of keeping racial and ethnic minorities away?
Item 13.D 02/09/21
68 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:D'Orsogna, Maria-Rita R <dorsogna@csun.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:23 AM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Lane Dilg;
councilmtgitems; Denise Anderson-Warren
Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject:Protect our city and OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 per Agenda Items 13C & 13D, Feb. 9, 2021 Council meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear councilpersons,
first, thank you to the newly elected cohort in your midst for finally working in the real interest
of SM residents and for presenting these items for discussion.
Some background: I have lived here for 18 years now, and the downward trend of this city
even before COVID‐19 and in terms of lower quality of life, anti‐democratic decision making, exorbitant cost of
living, is palpable. Anti‐districting stances that have cost us millions, increased traffic, developers running
amok, the debacle of May 31st, 2020, homelessness exploding, are all things that come to mind that have
occurred over the past few years. Some of this is not directly your fault, but a lot of it reflects poor decision
making, lack of transparency and thick conflicts of interest on the part of the old guard.
So, I hope that this time around the more established councilpersons among you, starting from the mayor, will
come to your senses and do all that is in your power to stop the crazy ideas that Senator Anthony Wiener and
his cohort are imposing on California. Specifically, I would like to request that you work to stop SB9 and SB10
and all other SBs that are meant to densify an already squished city. Please support the following:
13-C: Sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and make sure our city-wide
opposition to this bill is HEARD in Sacramento.
13-D: Sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and make sure our city-
wide opposition to this bill is heard in Sacramento.
Why are these bills bad? For the same reason that EVERY SINGLE PREVIOUS BILL OF THIS KIND WAS BAD IN
YEARS PAST: because we are already too dense, because don't want or need Sacramento to dictate how we
live or build, because the idea that density=affordability is manifestly not true, because traffic and pollution
will increase, because we are not set up to be Manhattan.
I hope you realize the magnitude and the levels of devastation that Weiner's proposals would bring. SB9
would have the effect of CHANGING SINGLE FAMILY ZONING TO 6 UNITS! On the other hand, SB10 would
de facto allow for 10-UNIT APARTMENTS IN LOW DENSITY AREAS! Do you not see that these are
ploys for the developers (that fund Wiener) to turn everything they see into a lucrative high-rise? Of
course, as we know from experience past, most of these units will be luxury units, leading to
Item 13.D 02/09/21
69 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
gentrification and the displacement of entire communities, specifically poor ones who will never be
able to afford said units.
Social justice and racial equity should not just be slogans, they should be reflected in our decisions
and values.
So please be actively engaged in saving Santa Monica, for all residents. Please work in our interest and not in
the interest of the people that fund Wiener's pockets.
Sincerely,
Maria R D'Orsogna, PhD
Associate Director,
Institute for Pure and Applied Math (UCLA)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
70 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Tom Chou <tctc208@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:35 AM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Lane Dilg; councilmtgitems; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:Protect our city and OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 per Agenda Items 13C & 13D, Feb. 9, 2021
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
The people of Santa Monica elected you to make policy for our small city, not to bow down to state legislators who seek
to take control of our land use regulations.
All members of the Santa Monica City Council should vote in support of the following items on the Council Agenda for
Feb. 9, 2021:
13‐C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of
opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying
efforts in Sacramento.
13‐D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of
opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying
efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will generate greater affordability. There is
no truth to this “trickle down” approach to zoning and certainly no good reason for city leaders to abdicate their
leadership and allow the legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
SB 9 – the so‐called “duplex bill” ‐ actually seeks to change single‐family zoning to 6‐unit zoning ‐‐ not duplexes. The trick
is that SB 9 works hand‐in‐hand with the existing ADU law, AB 68, which already allows duplexes almost everywhere in
single family areas, i.e., large attached granny flats on the side of houses, or a separate house in the yard, are already
allowed.
SB 10 by Wiener would allow developers build 10‐unit luxury apartments [urldefense.proofpoint.com] on parcels in low‐
density areas, poor and rich. SB 10 will send land costs sky‐high and gentrify and displace thousands of people.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB 9 and SB 10.
Our City needs to take a leadership position to stop the legislature from doing the bidding of land speculators.
M. Nicola Lanci
Santa Monica, Ocean Park resident
Item 13.D 02/09/21
71 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:D'Orsogna, Maria-Rita R <dorsogna@csun.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:42 AM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Lane Dilg;
councilmtgitems; Denise Anderson-Warren
Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Subject:Re: Protect our city and OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 per Agenda Items 13C & 13D, Feb. 9, 2021 Council
meeting
EXTERNAL
PS: There was a mistake, his name is Scott Wiener, not Anthony.
Here is the amended letter.
Sincerely,
Maria
From: D'Orsogna, Maria‐Rita R <dorsogna@csun.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:23 AM
To: sue.himmelrich@smgov.net <sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>; kevin.mckeown@smgov.net
<kevin.mckeown@smgov.net>; kristin.mccowan@smgov.net <kristin.mccowan@smgov.net>; gleam.davis@smgov.net
<gleam.davis@smgov.net>; lane.dilg@smgov.net <lane.dilg@smgov.net>; councilmtgitems@smgov.net
<councilmtgitems@smgov.net>; Denise.Anderson‐Warren@smgov.net <Denise.Anderson‐Warren@smgov.net>
Cc: phil.brock@smgov.net <phil.brock@smgov.net>; christine.parra@smgov.net <christine.parra@smgov.net>;
oscar.delatorre@smgov.net <oscar.delatorre@smgov.net>
Subject: Protect our city and OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 per Agenda Items 13C & 13D, Feb. 9, 2021 Council meeting
Dear councilpersons,
first, thank you to the newly elected cohort in your midst for finally working in the real interest
of SM residents and for presenting these items for discussion.
Some background: I have lived here for 18 years now, and the downward trend of this city
even before COVID‐19 and in terms of lower quality of life, anti‐democratic decision making, exorbitant cost of
living, is palpable. Anti‐districting stances that have cost us millions, increased traffic, developers running
amok, the debacle of May 31st, 2020, homelessness exploding, are all things that come to mind that have
occurred over the past few years. Some of this is not directly your fault, but a lot of it reflects poor decision
making, lack of transparency and thick conflicts of interest on the part of the old guard.
So, I hope that this time around the more established councilpersons among you, starting from the mayor, will
come to your senses and do all that is in your power to stop the crazy ideas that Senator ScotWiener and his
cohort are imposing on California. Specifically, I would like to request that you work to stop SB9 and SB10 and
all other SBs that are meant to densify an already squished city. Please support the following:
Item 13.D 02/09/21
72 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
13-C: Sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and make sure our city-wide
opposition to this bill is HEARD in Sacramento.
13-D: Sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and make sure our city-
wide opposition to this bill is heard in Sacramento.
Why are these bills bad? For the same reason that EVERY SINGLE PREVIOUS BILL OF THIS KIND WAS BAD IN
YEARS PAST: because we are already too dense, because don't want or need Sacramento to dictate how we
live or build, because the idea that density=affordability is manifestly not true, because traffic and pollution
will increase, because we are not set up to be Manhattan.
I hope you realize the magnitude and the levels of devastation that Weiner's proposals would bring. SB9
would have the effect of CHANGING SINGLE FAMILY ZONING TO 6 UNITS! On the other hand, SB10 would
de facto allow for 10-UNIT APARTMENTS IN LOW DENSITY AREAS! Do you not see that these are
ploys for the developers (that fund Wiener) to turn everything they see into a lucrative high-rise? Of
course, as we know from experience past, most of these units will be luxury units, leading to
gentrification and the displacement of entire communities, specifically poor ones who will never be
able to afford said units.
Social justice and racial equity should not just be slogans, they should be reflected in our decisions
and values.
So please be actively engaged in saving Santa Monica, for all residents. Please work in our interest and not in
the interest of the people that fund Wiener's pockets.
Sincerely,
Maria R D'Orsogna, PhD
Associate Director,
Institute for Pure and Applied Math (UCLA)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
73 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Carol Dickinson <caroldickinson@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:39 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Items 13C and 13D
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I oppose SB9 AND SB10. We need to preserve local control of our land use. Please vote against these two terrible
Senate bills that would ruin our city!
Sincerely,
Carol Dickinson
Item 13.D 02/09/21
74 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Santa Monica Forward <santamonicaforward@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Christine Parra; Lane Dilg; George S. Cardona; Clerk Mailbox
Subject:Council Meeting Items 13 C & 13 D: 54 Signatures Opposing these items - SM Forward & AHLA
Letter
Attachments:02082021-ForwardAHLALetter- Items 13C & 13D - SB9 & SB10.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and members of the Santa Monica City Council,
Please find attached a letter from Santa Monica Forward, Abundant Housing L.A., and 54 members of the
Santa Monica Community asking you to please vote "no" on Agenda Items 13 C and 13 D.
Sincerely,
Abby Arnold and Carl Hansen Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
Leonora Camner Executive Director, Abundant Housing L.A.
54 Members of the Santa Monica Community (See Attached)
‐‐
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.
SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 13.D 02/09/21
75 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
February 9, 2021
Re: Council Agenda Items 13C & 13D
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and members of the Santa Monica City
Council:
Santa Monica Forward, Abundant Housing LA, and the undersigned members of the Santa
Monica Community strongly oppose Items 13C & 13D on your agenda.
We were disappointed to see councilmembers recommend that the city oppose two important
state housing bills (SB 9 and SB 10). Santa Monica Forward supports both of these bills. We
are in the midst of a housing crisis that has created a tremendous burden for many Santa
Monicans and we need policies like SB 9 and SB 10 to begin to resolve it. Santa Monica can’t
solve the housing crisis on its own, but statewide legislation can help ensure that there will be
adequate housing for current and future generations. If anything, we should be supporting
these bills.
Please vote “no” on Agenda Items 13 C and 13 D.
Sincerely,
Abby Arnold and Carl Hansen
Co-chairs, Santa Monica Forward
Leonora Camner
Executive Director, Abundant Housing L.A.
54 Members of the Santa Monica Community (See Attached)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
76 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
--------------------
54 people have signed a petition asking you to support housing affordability by voting
no on items 13 C & 13 D.
You can view each petition signer and the comments they left you below.
1. Aaron Ordower (ZIP code: 90402)
2. Ashley Powell (ZIP code: 90402)
3. Barbara Filet (ZIP code: 90404)
4. Babak Mozaffari (ZIP code: 90401)
5. Ben Mayne (ZIP code: 90404)
6. ben swett (ZIP code: 90402)
Guys - don't "pull up the drawbridge" - we are not a separate island .... let's be part of
the solution, not oppose it!
7. Carter Rubin (ZIP code: 90404)
8. Catherine Gentile (ZIP code: 90405)
9. Craig Boreth (ZIP code: 90403)
10. Cynthia Rose (ZIP code: 90404)
11. David Bailey (ZIP code: 90403)
12. Debbie Mulvaney (ZIP code: 90403)
13. beth edelstein (ZIP code: 90405)
14. Elena Christopoulos (ZIP code: 90401)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
77 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
15. Ernie Powell (ZIP code: 90010)
16. David Fenn (ZIP code: 90025)
17. Frank Gruber (ZIP code: 90405)
These bills are reasonable. SB9 elaborates current ADU law, and SB10 merely
gives a local city councils the right to do something. No reason to oppose.
18. Barbara Fuchs (ZIP code: 90403)
19. Gregory Leavitt (ZIP code: 85022)
As a 4th generation Santa Monican who had to leave the state to become a homeowner
I support any initiative to allow cities to build more housing. The the ageist and racist
zoning laws have engineered a housing shortage creating a bubble of false value.
These zoning laws are both economically irresponsible and environmentally disastrous.
The amount of privilege involved in defending single family housing in an area where
rent is more than half the median wage is staggeringly selfish and destructive to the
community.
20. Gil Leib (ZIP code: 90403)
21. Grace Phillips (ZIP code: 90405)
22. Gwynne Pugh (ZIP code: 90405)
23. Ilya Haykinson (ZIP code:
90405)
24. Hendrik (Hank) Koning (ZIP
code:90403)
25. Genrikh Skoblov (ZIP
code:90401) no comments
26. Jason Islas (ZIP code: 90404)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
78 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
27. Jason Mastbaum (ZIP
code: 90403)
28. Jeremy Bamberger (ZIP
code:90405)
29. Jill Boberg (ZIP code:
90405)
30. John Zinner (ZIP
code: 90402)
31. Kathy Seal (ZIP
code:90405)
32. Leonora Camner (ZIP
code:90403)
33. Lily Pettinato (ZIP
code: 90404)
34. Mark Yetter (ZIP
code: 90403)
35. Pam O'Connor (ZIP
Item 13.D 02/09/21
79 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
code: 90403)
36. Michelle Stevens (ZIP
code: 90403)
37. Matthew Stevens (ZIP
code: 90403)
38. Michael Walzman (ZIP
code: 90402)
39. Natalya Zernitskaya (ZIP
code:90404)
40. Bill Parent (ZIP code:
90403)
41. Jason Parry (ZIP
code: 90405) 42.
Randi Parent (ZIP
code:90403)
43. abby arnold (ZIP
code: 90401)
44. Sara Gersen (ZIP code: 90404)
45. Sean Youssefi (ZIP code: 90404)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
80 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
46. Sean Stevens (ZIP code: 90405)
I would like to be able to afford a home one day.
47. Shaila Chopra (ZIP code: 90404)
Homeowners deserve flexibility maximize the value of their properties. Expediting
the building of small apartment buildings will help mitigate the housing crises in
Santa Monica. We desperately need more supply.
48. Silvia Estrada (ZIP code: 90405)
49. Sam Ludwig (ZIP code: 90403)
50. Terry O'Day (ZIP code: 90404)
51. Thomas Hand (ZIP code: 90401)
We have a housing mafia interested only in their property values, while the poor can
no longer afford rent in any part of town. Housing is a human right.
52. Tieira Ryder (ZIP code: 90064)
Our right to housing has been denied. We need affordable housing and we
needed it yesterday!
53. Wade Killefer (ZIP code: 90404)
54. Carl Hansen (ZIP code: 90403)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
81 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Denise Anderson-Warren
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:59 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Protect our city and OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 per Agenda Items 13C & 13D, Feb. 9, 2021
From: Tom Chou <tctc208@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:35 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis
<Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Lane Dilg <Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>; councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET>;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@SMGOV.NET>;
Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@SMGOV.NET>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@SMGOV.NET>; Denise Anderson‐Warren
<Denise.Anderson‐Warren@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Protect our city and OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 per Agenda Items 13C & 13D, Feb. 9, 2021
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
The people of Santa Monica elected you to make policy for our small city, not to bow down to state legislators who seek
to take control of our land use regulations.
All members of the Santa Monica City Council should vote in support of the following items on the Council Agenda for
Feb. 9, 2021:
13‐C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of
opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying
efforts in Sacramento.
13‐D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of
opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying
efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will generate greater affordability. There is
no truth to this “trickle down” approach to zoning and certainly no good reason for city leaders to abdicate their
leadership and allow the legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
SB 9 – the so‐called “duplex bill” ‐ actually seeks to change single‐family zoning to 6‐unit zoning ‐‐ not duplexes. The trick
is that SB 9 works hand‐in‐hand with the existing ADU law, AB 68, which already allows duplexes almost everywhere in
single family areas, i.e., large attached granny flats on the side of houses, or a separate house in the yard, are already
allowed.
SB 10 by Wiener would allow developers build 10‐unit luxury apartments [urldefense.proofpoint.com] on parcels in low‐
density areas, poor and rich. SB 10 will send land costs sky‐high and gentrify and displace thousands of people.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB 9 and SB 10.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
82 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Our City needs to take a leadership position to stop the legislature from doing the bidding of land speculators.
M. Nicola Lanci
Santa Monica, Ocean Park resident
Item 13.D 02/09/21
83 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Danielle Charney <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems; George S. Cardona; Lane Dilg
Subject:Request Council OPPOSE SE9 & SB10 per Agenda Items13C713D
EXTERNAL
Subject: Request Council OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 per Agenda Items 13C & 13D, Feb. 9, 2021 Council meeting
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
The people of Santa Monica elected you to make policy for our small city, not to bow down to state legislators who seek to take control of our
land use regulations.
All members of the Santa Monica City Council should vote in support of the following items on the Council Agenda for Feb. 9, 2021:
13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be
sent to Senator Atkins and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be
sent to Senator Wiener and direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will generate greater affordability. There is no truth to this
“trickle down” approach to zoning and certainly no good reason for city leaders to abdicate their leadership and allow the legislature to take
over the zoning of our city.
SB 9 – the so-called “duplex bill” - actually seeks to change single-family zoning to 6-unit zoning -- not duplexes. The trick is that SB 9 works
hand-in-hand with the existing ADU law, AB 68, which already allows duplexes almost everywhere in single family areas, i.e., large attached
granny flats on the side of houses, or a separate house in the yard, are already allowed.
SB 10 by Wiener would allow developers build 10-unit luxury apartments on parcels in low-density areas, poor and rich. SB 10 will send
land costs sky-high and gentrify and displace thousands of people.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB 9 and SB 10.
We must continue as a city to preserve the existing affordable housing and to support only that legislation that will respect and support local
zoning and leadership, creating access to housing, not profits for land speculators.
Do not knuckle under to Bloom and his crowd who have destroyed this City.
Danielle Charney
Resident since 1982
Item 13.D 02/09/21
84 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Sally Reinman <sallyreinman@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 12:15 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock;
oscar.delatorre@smgov.com; kristin.mccowan@smgov.com; christine.parra@smgov.com;
councilmtgitems
Subject:Feb. 9 , 2021, SOAR Requests Oppose SB9 and SB10 per Agenda Items 13 C and 13 D
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
We ask that you vote to support items 13 C and 13 D on the Council Agenda Feb. 9, 2021, which oppose SB9 and SB 10.
Local leadership, our general plan and zoning should determine how to provide housing that fits within our community
and meets reasonable objectives set by the state. These bills would allow bypasses to all of the above.
Sincerely,
Sally Reinman representing
SOAR (South Ocean Avenue Residents)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
85 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Bill Elswick <belswick@octavar.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 12:08 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Items 13.C and 13.D - Oppose SB9 and SB10
EXTERNAL
I support the requests in items 13.C and 13.D on tonight's agenda.
Please write the letters to oppose SB 9 and SB 10.
Planning and Zoning decisions should be made locally, not dictated by the State.
Thanks,
‐‐Bill Elswick
917 Eleventh Street
Item 13.D 02/09/21
86 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:16 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Oscar de la Torre;
Phil Brock; Christine Parra
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Proposed letter in Opposition to State Bills SB 9 and SB10
Council‐
Please see the below email regarding SB 9 & SB 10.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Samuel Tolkin <tolkinarch@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:09 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Proposed letter in Opposition to State Bills SB 9 and SB10
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Sue Himmelrich, Council Members Kevin McKeown, Kristin McCowan and Mayor ProTem Gleam Davis,
As an architect and urban planner with many years of experience in planning and urban design, I urge you all to support
item 13 C and 13 D on the Councils agenda for February 9th, as requested by Council members Brock.
Parra and de la Torre. SB 9 and SB 10 are bills if passed that will eviscerate the existing zoning in our City and by doing
so destroy the fabric of our neighborhoods.
They will not resolve the issue of lack of so-called affordable housing in our state as they do not really address the
root causes.
They will, however, among other things strain the capacities of our existing infrastructure including our roads,
sewers, water, electric capacities.
They will make it more difficult if not impossible to ever reach the Council's stated goal of energy independence by
increasing demand as well as
such unintended consequences as complicating solar access for existing and new structures.
You can not delay.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
87 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Sincerely,
Samuel M. Tolkin.
Principal Architect
Tolkin Architects & Earth-Eco Systems
Background
Item 13.D 02/09/21
88 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Robin Nydes <robin@nydes.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:14 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:2/9/21 City Council Meeting - Item 13d
EXTERNAL
Agree
Robin Nydes
506 Palisades Ave
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Marc Primiani <broondog@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM
Subject: 2/9/21 City Council Meeting ‐ Item 13d
To: Kristin.McCowan@smgov.net <Kristin.McCowan@smgov.net>, christine.parra@smgov.net
<christine.parra@smgov.net>, gleam.davis@smgov.net <gleam.davis@smgov.net>, kevin.mckeown@smgov.net
<kevin.mckeown@smgov.net>, oscar.delatorre@smgov.net <oscar.delatorre@smgov.net>, phil.brock@smgov.net
<phil.brock@smgov.net>, sue.himmelrich@smgov.net <sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>
City council members,
At the city council meeting tonight, I understand that you will be discussing the request of council members Brock, Parra
and de la Torre that the Mayor sign a letter to Senator Wiener opposing SB 10 as drafted, and direct staff to reinforce
opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
I firmly believe that Senator Wiener’s repeated introduction of legislation such as SB 10 is misguided. The ability to zone
land use must remain under local control so that decision making is retained to reflect the needs of the community. I
fully support the opposition to SB10 and ask that the city council move forward with authorizing the Mayor to oppose
this legislation by written letter and lobbying efforts.
Thank you.
Marc Primiani
514 Alta Avenue
‐‐
Marc Primiani
‐‐
Marc Primiani
Item 13.D 02/09/21
89 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Marc Primiani <broondog@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 12:52 PM
To:Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown;
Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Sue Himmelrich
Subject:Fwd: 2/9/21 City Council Meeting - Item 13d
EXTERNAL
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Marc Primiani <broondog@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:46 PM
Subject: 2/9/21 City Council Meeting ‐ Item 13d
To: Kristin.McCowan@smgov.net <Kristin.McCowan@smgov.net>, christine.parra@smgov.net
<christine.parra@smgov.net>, gleam.davis@smgov.net <gleam.davis@smgov.net>, kevin.mckeown@smgov.net
<kevin.mckeown@smgov.net>, oscar.delatorre@smgov.net <oscar.delatorre@smgov.net>, phil.brock@smgov.net
<phil.brock@smgov.net>, sue.himmelrich@smgov.net <sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>
City council members,
At the city council meeting tonight, I understand that you will be discussing the request of council members Brock, Parra
and de la Torre that the Mayor sign a letter to Senator Wiener opposing SB 10 as drafted, and direct staff to reinforce
opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
I firmly believe that Senator Wiener’s repeated introduction of legislation such as SB 10 is misguided. The ability to zone
land use must remain under local control so that decision making is retained to reflect the needs of the community. I
fully support the opposition to SB10 and ask that the city council move forward with authorizing the Mayor to oppose
this legislation by written letter and lobbying efforts.
Thank you.
Marc Primiani
514 Alta Avenue
‐‐
Marc Primiani
‐‐
Marc Primiani
Item 13.D 02/09/21
90 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:City Council 2/9/21 item 13-C: SB 9 Fact Sheet -- It's not a Duplex Bill!
EXTERNAL
September 9, 2021
To: Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members From: Zina Josephs
RE: 2/9/21 agenda item 13-C
FACTS: SB 9 allows 6 units without public input where 1 single-family home now stands. It ends single-
family zoning statewide, overriding city powers.
SB 9, a return of the divisive SB 1120 which died in Sacramento in 2020, is soon heading to hearings before the legislature.
SB 9 is not, as misreported by media outlets, a “duplex” bill. It is a radical density experiment, unheard of in the U.S. Oregon is about to launch its experiment with duplexes on single-family lots. SB 9 allows three times that
level of density on your streets.
In 2020, even the respected League of Cities misunderstood SB 1120, not realizing the fine print allows 6-unit density without hearings. Now some legislators are waking up to its copycat, SB 9.
SB 9 lets developers choose from 3 upzoning scenarios, without public hearing or public review:
4 stand-alone houses or 2 duplexes where 1 home stands now;
6 units, a mix of houses, duplexes and granny flats, where 1 home stands now;
8 units, a mix of houses, duplexes and granny flats unless a city rejects that plan
How can this possibly fit on a lot?
Item 13.D 02/09/21
91 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
SB 9 works hand-in-hand with existing ADU law, or Accessory Dwelling Unit law, to quickly multiply upward from a simple “duplex” to 6 units, and even 8 units;
No garage required, just 1 parking “space” per unit, to squeeze in extreme density;
No parking required within ½ mile of major transit, or in a designated historic district, or when the
Accessory Dwelling Unit is part of another building;
No yard required, just 4-foot setbacks, crowding up against neighbors;
SB 9 allows speculators to create this density on lots as small as 1,200 sq. feet;
Whether poor, working-class or well-off, from South L.A. to Santa Barbara to Oakland, homeowners would lose all say over the zoning of the street they put their savings into.
Top scholars agree that such state-ordered upzoning will drive land costs very high, and in turn housing
costs will spiral upward, not down.
Please see below if you wish to understand the complex “Three Scenarios” mechanisms of SB 9, missed even by
the League of Cities, and missed by California’s largest media outlets* in 2020 when this bill was titled SB
1120 — and died on the Assembly floor.
___________________________________________
SB 9’s Three Scenarios
Analysis by Livable California Volunteer Attorneys and Urban Planners Lead author: Retired attorney
Nick Waranoff
December 2020
SB 9 would allow 8 units where there is now one lot (one parcel). A city, however, would not be required to approve more than 6 units. Here is how this would happen:
1. SB 9 would add Govt Code section 65852.21 (allowing 2 units on a single parcel in a single-family residential zone [the so-called “duplex” provision, but in reality a “two residential units” provision]) and Govt
Code 66411.7 (the lot-split provision).
a.) The two residential units on one parcel provision authorizes two residential units on a single lot in a single-family residential zone.
b.) The lot-split provision authorizes a single lot to be split into two lots of equal size.
c.) An application to do either or both of these is processed ministerially, by right.
d.) There is no requirement for affordable housing and no CEQA review.
2. Under existing law, there is also a right to one Accessory Dwelling Unit and one Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit per parcel (Govt Code 65852.2).
Item 13.D 02/09/21
92 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
a.) An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) can be attached, or detached from an existing home, or a conversion of an existing space such as a garage. A local agency is prohibited from establishing a maximum size of an ADU of less than 850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet if the ADU contains more than one bedroom. When ADUs are
created through the conversion of a garage, carport or covered parking structure, replacement off-street parking spaces cannot be required by the local agency (Gov. Code 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(D)(xi)).
b.) A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) can be created within the walls of a proposed or existing single-
family residence or garage and shall contain no more than 500 square feet.
c.) A local agency can limit the places within its jurisdiction where ADUs can be located, only based on the
adequacy of water and sewer service, and the impacts on traffic flow and public safety, if the agency chooses to pass an ordinance.
d.) “Although cities and counties are mandated to permit ADUs and JADUs, they are not required to adopt
ADU and JADU ordinances. However, any city/county that does adopt an ADU ordinance, must submit the ordinance to HCD [California Dept. of Housing and Community Development] within 60 days.”
e.) There is no requirement that an ADU or a JADU be limited to affordable housing.
3. Under SB 9, three allowed densities, of 4 units to 8 units would be allowed on what is one lot today. The
three scenarios are:
a.) Scenario One (4-unit density): The “two residential units” provision of SB 9 (sometimes mistakenly called the “duplex” provision, but not limited to “duplexes”) is invoked but not the lot-split provision: The single lot
can now have two free-standing houses, two townhouses, or a duplex. There is no requirement as to whether the two residential units be a “duplex,” or attached to each other, or free-standing. In addition, an ADU and a JADU are allowed as of right on the parcel. Total 4 units: “Two residential units” plus an ADU and a JADU on a
single lot.
b.) Scenario Two (6-unit density): The lot-split provision of SB 9 is invoked, but not the “two residential units” provision allowed on each of the two new lots. One lot becomes two lots. Each lot can have one free-standing house or townhouse, PLUS an ADU and a JADU. Total 6 units: “Two residential units” plus two
ADUs and two JADUs, on a single lot that has been halved into two lots.
c.) Scenario Three (8-unit density): Both the lot-split provision and the “two residential units” provision are
invoked. One lot becomes two lots. Each lot can have two free-standing houses or townhouses, PLUS each lot
is entitled to an ADU and a JADU. Total 8 units: Four “residential units” plus two ADUs and two JADUs,
on a single lot that has been halved into two lots.
Note regarding Scenario Three: Under SB 9, a city is not required to approve an ADU or a JADU where both the lot-split provision and “two residential units” provision are invoked.
So a city could limit the eight-unit scenario to four housing units on what was formerly one parcel (one lot). See proposed section 65852.21(e), part of the “two residential units” provision, that would provide, “Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 [the existing ADU law referenced above], a local agency shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this section
[the two residential units section] and the authority contained in Section 66411.7 [the lot-split section]” and
proposed section 66411.7(h), part of the proposed split-lot section, that would provide, “Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 [the existing ADU law], a local agency shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this section and the authority contained in Section 65852.21 [the two residential units section].
Item 13.D 02/09/21
93 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
Source: Livable California
Item 13.D 02/09/21
94 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:17 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Oscar de la Torre;
Phil Brock; Christine Parra
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: SB9 and SB10
Council‐
Please see the below email regarding SB 9 & SB 10.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: aimeekg@aol.com <aimeekg@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 4:21 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: SB9 and SB10
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please sign on to OPPOSE SB9 and SB10 in Sacramento. These bills will eviscerate single-family neighborhoods as we
know them. Just as trickle-down economics has not worked, neither will trickle-down housing. We cannot build our way
out of the California housing crisis, which was created by a multitude of issues, not simply zoning. These bills will harm
Santa Monica and our ability to chart our own future, and should be opposed.
Thank you,
Aimee Knutson Goldberg
Item 13.D 02/09/21
95 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:17 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Phil Brock;
Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Oppose SB9
Council‐
Please see the below email regarding SB 9.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Ray and Dina Johnson <rayndina@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 12:20 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Oppose SB9
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
Please oppose SB9 and SB10. They will ruin Santa Monica.
Raymond and Nadina Johnson
944 Yale St
Item 13.D 02/09/21
96 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:42 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre;
Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; councilmtgitems
Cc:Lane Dilg
Subject:Board of Wilmont Requests City Council OPPOSE SB 9 & SB 10 by SUPPORTING Agenda Items 13C &
13D at 2/9/2021 Council Meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
As we were just reminded in the review of the FY 2019-21 Biennial Budget,
Affordability is one of the City's six priority areas. We have learned through the past 10
years that building more market rate housing DOES NOT improve affordability of
housing as well as they don't come under rent control. We need to focus on keeping
people in their housing, find ways to help people afford housing such as Section 8
vouchers and the POD program, use adaptive reuse of retail/commercial buildings for
housing, stop tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with luxury housing,
expand rent control where we can, promote ADUs and junior ADUs and continue to
fight to maintain local control over housing policy.
The Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) requests the
Santa Monica City Council vote in support of the following items on the Council
Agenda for Feb. 9, 2021:
13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize
the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and
direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize
the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and
direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB 9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will
generate greater affordability. There is no truth to this “trickle down” approach to
zoning and certainly no good reason for our city to abdicate its leadership and allow
the legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
SB 9 – the so-called “duplex bill” - actually seeks to change single-family zoning
to 6-unit zoning -- not duplexes. The trick is that SB 9 works hand-in-hand with the
existing ADU law, AB 68, which already allows duplexes almost everywhere in single
Item 13.D 02/09/21
97 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
family areas, i.e., large attached granny flats on the side of houses, or a separate
house in the yard, are already allowed.
SB 10 would allow developers to building 10-unit luxury apartments on parcels in
low-density areas, poor and rich. SB 10 will send land costs sky-high and gentrify and
displace thousands of people. From our analysis, it would also allow a City Council
to override voter-approved initiatives, such as Measure LC, an attack on an 108-year-old
right of initiative in the State of California.
We request the Santa Monica City Council stand together in unanimous opposition to
both SB 9 and SB 10.
Thank-you,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh, Chair
and the Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
98 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:news4jd@verizon.net
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:Agenda Items 13C and 13D, February 9 Council Meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
Please protect Santa Monica and oppose SB9 and SB10.
Thank you.
John Dahl
Yale Street, Santa Monica
Item 13.D 02/09/21
99 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Joe Antognini <joe.antognini@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:59 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Comment on Agenda items 13C and 13D
EXTERNAL
Dear councilmembers,
I am a resident of Santa Monica and I write in opposition to agenda items 13C and 13D and instead urge you
to support SB9 and SB10.
SB9 and SB10 are modest efforts to help rein in housing costs which have grown out of control in our
city. Property ownership is key to growing a vibrant, stable community. But the lack of new housing has led to
an explosion in housing prices which has locked out the younger members of our community from the stability
that property ownership provides.
Some councilmembers have argued that local control of housing production is necessary to ensure that it can
be done with minimal disruption to the community. But this is only true if local governments can demonstrate
that they can responsibly plan for future generations. Santa Monica has not been able to do this and it has
been reflected in our rents and a median home price of $1.7 million. When homes are not built, the older
members of the community may see no disruption --- by and large their homes are bought and paid for. But
the younger members of the community who do not already own homes find it more and more expensive, and
many of us, particularly the most vulnerable, are eventually forced to move away, leaving us all worse off.
SB9 only allows for two homes to be built where before there could only be one. There will be no skyscrapers
next to ranch homes. Just another home for a neighbor who otherwise might have had to move away from our
community. And SB10 is an opt-in bill anyway --- if the city does not wish to participate it does not have to.
Best regards,
Joseph Antognini
2677 Centinela Ave, Unit 203
Item 13.D 02/09/21
100 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Lerer <elerer@elizabethlerer.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Items 13C and 13D
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please unanimously oppose SB9 and SB10.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Item 13.D 02/09/21
101 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:zimtar@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems; info@christineparra.com; commissionerbrock@gmail.com; odelatorre16
@yahoo.com; sue.himmelrich@gmail.com; kristin.mccowan@gmail.com; Kevin McKeown Fwd;
gleam.davis@gmail.com
Subject:SB 9 FACT SHEET. Yes on 13 C
EXTERNAL
Subject: SB 9 FACT SHEET/ACTION SHEET: WAY BEYOND A DUPLEX BILL
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image
SB 9 FACT SHEET/ACTION SHEET: IT’S NOT A DUPLEX BILL FOLKS!
ACTION: Please share the below facts with your community members now!
Later, we’ll ask you to alert legislators.
FACTS: SB 9 allows 6 units without public input where 1 single-family
home now stands. It ends single-family zoning statewide, overriding city
powers.
SB 9, a return of the divisive SB 1120 which died in Sacramento in 2020, is soon
heading to hearings before the legislature.
SB 9 is not, as misreported by media outlets, a “duplex” bill. It is a radical density
experiment, unheard of in the U.S. Oregon is about to launch its experiment with
Item 13.D 02/09/21
102 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
5
duplexes on single-family lots. SB 9 allows three times that level of density on
your streets.
In 2020, even the respected League of Cities misunderstood SB 1120, not
realizing the fine print allows 6-unit density without hearings. Now some
legislators are waking up to its copycat, SB 9.
SB 9 lets developers choose from 3 upzoning scenarios, without public hearing
or public review:
4 stand-alone houses or 2 duplexes where 1 home stands now;
6 units, a mix of houses, duplexes and granny flats, where 1 home stands
now;
8 units, a mix of houses, duplexes and granny flats unless a city rejects that
plan
How can this possibly fit on a lot?
SB 9 works hand-in-hand with existing ADU law, or Accessory Dwelling Unit
law, to quickly multiply upward from a simple “duplex” to 6 units, and even 8
units;
No garage required, just 1 parking “space” per unit, to squeeze in extreme
density;
No parking required within ½ mile of major transit, or in a designated
historic district, or when the Accessory Dwelling Unit is part of another
building;
No yard required, just 4-foot setbacks, crowding up against neighbors;
SB 9 allows speculators to create this density on lots as small as 1,200 sq.
feet;
Whether poor, working-class or well-off, from South L.A. to Santa Barbara to
Oakland, homeowners would lose all say over the zoning of the street they put
their savings into.
Top scholars agree that such state-ordered upzoning will drive land costs very
high, and in turn housing costs will spiral upward, not down.
Please see below if you wish to understand the complex “Three Scenarios”
mechanisms of SB 9, missed even by the League of Cities, and missed by
California’s largest media outlets* in 2020 when this bill was titled SB 1120 —
and died on the Assembly floor.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
103 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
6
___________________________________________
SB 9’s Three Scenarios
Analysis by Livable California Volunteer Attorneys and Urban Planners
Lead author: Retired attorney Nick Waranoff
December 2020
SB 9 would allow 8 units where there is now one lot (one parcel). A city,
however, would not be required to approve more than 6 units. Here is how this
would happen:
1. SB 9 would add Govt Code section 65852.21 (allowing 2 units on a single
parcel in a single-family residential zone [the so-called “duplex” provision, but in
reality a “two residential units” provision]) and Govt Code 66411.7 (the lot-split
provision).
a.) The two residential units on one parcel provision authorizes two residential
units on a single lot in a single-family residential zone.
b.) The lot-split provision authorizes a single lot to be split into two lots of equal
size.
c.) An application to do either or both of these is processed ministerially, by right.
d.) There is no requirement for affordable housing and no CEQA review.
2. Under existing law, there is also a right to one Accessory Dwelling Unit
and one Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit per parcel (Govt Code 65852.2).
a.) An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) can be attached, or detached from an
existing home, or a conversion of an existing space such as a garage. A local
agency is prohibited from establishing a maximum size of an ADU of less than
850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet if the ADU contains more than one
bedroom. When ADUs are created through the conversion of a garage, carport or
covered parking structure, replacement off-street parking spaces cannot be
required by the local agency (Gov. Code 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(D)(xi)).
b.) A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) can be created within the walls of a
proposed or existing single-family residence or garage and shall contain no more
than 500 square feet.
c.) A local agency can limit the places within its jurisdiction where ADUs can be
located, only based on the adequacy of water and sewer service, and the
impacts on traffic flow and public safety, if the agency chooses to pass an
ordinance.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
104 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
7
d.) “Although cities and counties are mandated to permit ADUs and JADUs, they
are not required to adopt ADU and JADU ordinances. However, any city/county
that does adopt an ADU ordinance, must submit the ordinance to HCD [California
Dept. of Housing and Community Development] within 60 days.”
e.) There is no requirement that an ADU or a JADU be limited to affordable
housing.
3. Under SB 9, three allowed densities, of 4 units to 8 units would be
allowed on what is one lot today. The three scenarios are:
a.) Scenario One (4-unit density): The “two residential units” provision of SB 9
(sometimes mistakenly called the “duplex” provision, but not limited to
“duplexes”) is invoked but not the lot-split provision: The single lot can now have
two free-standing houses, two townhouses, or a duplex. There is no requirement
as to whether the two residential units be a “duplex,” or attached to each other, or
free-standing. In addition, an ADU and a JADU are allowed as of right on the
parcel. Total 4 units: “Two residential units” plus an ADU and a JADU on a
single lot.
b.) Scenario Two (6-unit density): The lot-split provision of SB 9 is invoked,
but not the “two residential units” provision allowed on each of the two new lots.
One lot becomes two lots. Each lot can have one free-standing house or
townhouse, PLUS an ADU and a JADU. Total 6 units: “Two residential units”
plus two ADUs and two JADUs, on a single lot that has been halved into
two lots.
c.) Scenario Three (8-unit density): Both the lot-split provision and the “two
residential units” provision are invoked. One lot becomes two lots. Each lot can
have two free-standing houses or townhouses, PLUS each lot is entitled to an
ADU and a JADU. Total 8 units: Four “residential units” plus two ADUs and
two JADUs, on a single lot that has been halved into two lots.
Note regarding Scenario Three:
Under SB 9, a city is not required to approve an ADU or a JADU where both the
lot-split provision and “two residential units” provision are invoked. So a city could
limit the eight-unit scenario to four housing units on what was formerly one parcel
(one lot). See proposed section 65852.21(e), part of the “two residential units”
provision, that would provide, “Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 [the existing
ADU law referenced above], a local agency shall not be required to permit an
accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within
this section [the two residential units section] and the authority contained in
Section 66411.7 [the lot-split section]” and proposed section 66411.7(h), part of
Item 13.D 02/09/21
105 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
8
the proposed split-lot section, that would provide, “Notwithstanding Section
65852.2 [the existing ADU law], a local agency shall not be required to permit an
accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within
this section and the authority contained in Section 65852.21 [the two residential
units section].
*The Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune,
Cal Matters, and other media did not understand the fine print in SB 1120 before
publishing “duplex” stories in 2020 that dramatically downplayed this radical
experiment, underway nowhere in the U.S.
Livable California is a non-profit statewide group of community leaders, activists and local elected officials. We believe in local answers
to the housing affordability crisis. Our robust fight requires trips to Sacramento & a lobbyist going toe-to-toe with power. Please donate
generously to LivableCalifornia.org here.
Livable California
2940 16th Street
Suite 200-1
San Francisco, CA 94103
United States
If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
106 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Joseph Block <caronblock@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:SB9 and SB10
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
My husband and I urge you to oppose these bills. We can and should build affordable housing without destroying
existing neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Caron and Joe Block
Caron
Item 13.D 02/09/21
107 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
10
Vernice Hankins
From:Denise Anderson-Warren
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Oppose SB 9 & SB 10
From: rscohen1414@gmail.com <rscohen1414@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:35 PM
To: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Kristin McCowan
<Kristin.McCowan@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Christine Parra
<Christine.Parra@SMGOV.NET>; Denise Anderson‐Warren <Denise.Anderson‐Warren@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Oppose SB 9 & SB 10
EXTERNAL
I have lived in Santa Monica for 30 years. I oppose SB 9 and SB 10 thus I support Agenda Items 1‐C & 13‐D scheduled to
be heard at the City Council meeting today, February 9,2021.
Ronald Cohen
1049 22nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 13.D 02/09/21
108 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Denise Anderson-Warren
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:38 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Oppose SB 9 & SB 10
From: rscohen1414@gmail.com <rscohen1414@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:35 PM
To: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Kristin McCowan
<Kristin.McCowan@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Christine Parra
<Christine.Parra@SMGOV.NET>; Denise Anderson‐Warren <Denise.Anderson‐Warren@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Oppose SB 9 & SB 10
EXTERNAL
I have lived in Santa Monica for 30 years. I oppose SB 9 and SB 10 thus I support Agenda Items 1‐C & 13‐D scheduled to
be heard at the City Council meeting today, February 9,2021.
Ronald Cohen
1049 22nd Street
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 13.D 02/09/21
109 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Joseph Block <caronblock@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:SB9 and SB10
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
My husband and I urge you to oppose these bills. We can and should build affordable housing without destroying
existing neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Caron and Joe Block
Caron
Item 13.D 02/09/21
110 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:news4jd@verizon.net
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:Agenda Items 13C and 13D, February 9 Council Meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
Please protect Santa Monica and oppose SB9 and SB10.
Thank you.
John Dahl
Yale Street, Santa Monica
Item 13.D 02/09/21
111 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Joe Antognini <joe.antognini@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:59 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Comment on Agenda items 13C and 13D
EXTERNAL
Dear councilmembers,
I am a resident of Santa Monica and I write in opposition to agenda items 13C and 13D and instead urge you
to support SB9 and SB10.
SB9 and SB10 are modest efforts to help rein in housing costs which have grown out of control in our
city. Property ownership is key to growing a vibrant, stable community. But the lack of new housing has led to
an explosion in housing prices which has locked out the younger members of our community from the stability
that property ownership provides.
Some councilmembers have argued that local control of housing production is necessary to ensure that it can
be done with minimal disruption to the community. But this is only true if local governments can demonstrate
that they can responsibly plan for future generations. Santa Monica has not been able to do this and it has
been reflected in our rents and a median home price of $1.7 million. When homes are not built, the older
members of the community may see no disruption --- by and large their homes are bought and paid for. But
the younger members of the community who do not already own homes find it more and more expensive, and
many of us, particularly the most vulnerable, are eventually forced to move away, leaving us all worse off.
SB9 only allows for two homes to be built where before there could only be one. There will be no skyscrapers
next to ranch homes. Just another home for a neighbor who otherwise might have had to move away from our
community. And SB10 is an opt-in bill anyway --- if the city does not wish to participate it does not have to.
Best regards,
Joseph Antognini
2677 Centinela Ave, Unit 203
Item 13.D 02/09/21
112 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Lerer <elerer@elizabethlerer.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Items 13C and 13D
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please unanimously oppose SB9 and SB10.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Item 13.D 02/09/21
113 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:zimtar@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems; info@christineparra.com; commissionerbrock@gmail.com; odelatorre16
@yahoo.com; sue.himmelrich@gmail.com; kristin.mccowan@gmail.com; Kevin McKeown Fwd;
gleam.davis@gmail.com
Subject:SB 9 FACT SHEET. Yes on 13 C
EXTERNAL
Subject: SB 9 FACT SHEET/ACTION SHEET: WAY BEYOND A DUPLEX BILL
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Image
SB 9 FACT SHEET/ACTION SHEET: IT’S NOT A DUPLEX BILL FOLKS!
ACTION: Please share the below facts with your community members now!
Later, we’ll ask you to alert legislators.
FACTS: SB 9 allows 6 units without public input where 1 single-family
home now stands. It ends single-family zoning statewide, overriding city
powers.
SB 9, a return of the divisive SB 1120 which died in Sacramento in 2020, is soon
heading to hearings before the legislature.
SB 9 is not, as misreported by media outlets, a “duplex” bill. It is a radical density
experiment, unheard of in the U.S. Oregon is about to launch its experiment with
Item 13.D 02/09/21
114 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
7
duplexes on single-family lots. SB 9 allows three times that level of density on
your streets.
In 2020, even the respected League of Cities misunderstood SB 1120, not
realizing the fine print allows 6-unit density without hearings. Now some
legislators are waking up to its copycat, SB 9.
SB 9 lets developers choose from 3 upzoning scenarios, without public hearing
or public review:
4 stand-alone houses or 2 duplexes where 1 home stands now;
6 units, a mix of houses, duplexes and granny flats, where 1 home stands
now;
8 units, a mix of houses, duplexes and granny flats unless a city rejects that
plan
How can this possibly fit on a lot?
SB 9 works hand-in-hand with existing ADU law, or Accessory Dwelling Unit
law, to quickly multiply upward from a simple “duplex” to 6 units, and even 8
units;
No garage required, just 1 parking “space” per unit, to squeeze in extreme
density;
No parking required within ½ mile of major transit, or in a designated
historic district, or when the Accessory Dwelling Unit is part of another
building;
No yard required, just 4-foot setbacks, crowding up against neighbors;
SB 9 allows speculators to create this density on lots as small as 1,200 sq.
feet;
Whether poor, working-class or well-off, from South L.A. to Santa Barbara to
Oakland, homeowners would lose all say over the zoning of the street they put
their savings into.
Top scholars agree that such state-ordered upzoning will drive land costs very
high, and in turn housing costs will spiral upward, not down.
Please see below if you wish to understand the complex “Three Scenarios”
mechanisms of SB 9, missed even by the League of Cities, and missed by
California’s largest media outlets* in 2020 when this bill was titled SB 1120 —
and died on the Assembly floor.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
115 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
8
___________________________________________
SB 9’s Three Scenarios
Analysis by Livable California Volunteer Attorneys and Urban Planners
Lead author: Retired attorney Nick Waranoff
December 2020
SB 9 would allow 8 units where there is now one lot (one parcel). A city,
however, would not be required to approve more than 6 units. Here is how this
would happen:
1. SB 9 would add Govt Code section 65852.21 (allowing 2 units on a single
parcel in a single-family residential zone [the so-called “duplex” provision, but in
reality a “two residential units” provision]) and Govt Code 66411.7 (the lot-split
provision).
a.) The two residential units on one parcel provision authorizes two residential
units on a single lot in a single-family residential zone.
b.) The lot-split provision authorizes a single lot to be split into two lots of equal
size.
c.) An application to do either or both of these is processed ministerially, by right.
d.) There is no requirement for affordable housing and no CEQA review.
2. Under existing law, there is also a right to one Accessory Dwelling Unit
and one Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit per parcel (Govt Code 65852.2).
a.) An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) can be attached, or detached from an
existing home, or a conversion of an existing space such as a garage. A local
agency is prohibited from establishing a maximum size of an ADU of less than
850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet if the ADU contains more than one
bedroom. When ADUs are created through the conversion of a garage, carport or
covered parking structure, replacement off-street parking spaces cannot be
required by the local agency (Gov. Code 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(D)(xi)).
b.) A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) can be created within the walls of a
proposed or existing single-family residence or garage and shall contain no more
than 500 square feet.
c.) A local agency can limit the places within its jurisdiction where ADUs can be
located, only based on the adequacy of water and sewer service, and the
impacts on traffic flow and public safety, if the agency chooses to pass an
ordinance.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
116 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
9
d.) “Although cities and counties are mandated to permit ADUs and JADUs, they
are not required to adopt ADU and JADU ordinances. However, any city/county
that does adopt an ADU ordinance, must submit the ordinance to HCD [California
Dept. of Housing and Community Development] within 60 days.”
e.) There is no requirement that an ADU or a JADU be limited to affordable
housing.
3. Under SB 9, three allowed densities, of 4 units to 8 units would be
allowed on what is one lot today. The three scenarios are:
a.) Scenario One (4-unit density): The “two residential units” provision of SB 9
(sometimes mistakenly called the “duplex” provision, but not limited to
“duplexes”) is invoked but not the lot-split provision: The single lot can now have
two free-standing houses, two townhouses, or a duplex. There is no requirement
as to whether the two residential units be a “duplex,” or attached to each other, or
free-standing. In addition, an ADU and a JADU are allowed as of right on the
parcel. Total 4 units: “Two residential units” plus an ADU and a JADU on a
single lot.
b.) Scenario Two (6-unit density): The lot-split provision of SB 9 is invoked,
but not the “two residential units” provision allowed on each of the two new lots.
One lot becomes two lots. Each lot can have one free-standing house or
townhouse, PLUS an ADU and a JADU. Total 6 units: “Two residential units”
plus two ADUs and two JADUs, on a single lot that has been halved into
two lots.
c.) Scenario Three (8-unit density): Both the lot-split provision and the “two
residential units” provision are invoked. One lot becomes two lots. Each lot can
have two free-standing houses or townhouses, PLUS each lot is entitled to an
ADU and a JADU. Total 8 units: Four “residential units” plus two ADUs and
two JADUs, on a single lot that has been halved into two lots.
Note regarding Scenario Three:
Under SB 9, a city is not required to approve an ADU or a JADU where both the
lot-split provision and “two residential units” provision are invoked. So a city could
limit the eight-unit scenario to four housing units on what was formerly one parcel
(one lot). See proposed section 65852.21(e), part of the “two residential units”
provision, that would provide, “Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 [the existing
ADU law referenced above], a local agency shall not be required to permit an
accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within
this section [the two residential units section] and the authority contained in
Section 66411.7 [the lot-split section]” and proposed section 66411.7(h), part of
Item 13.D 02/09/21
117 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
10
the proposed split-lot section, that would provide, “Notwithstanding Section
65852.2 [the existing ADU law], a local agency shall not be required to permit an
accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within
this section and the authority contained in Section 65852.21 [the two residential
units section].
*The Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune,
Cal Matters, and other media did not understand the fine print in SB 1120 before
publishing “duplex” stories in 2020 that dramatically downplayed this radical
experiment, underway nowhere in the U.S.
Livable California is a non-profit statewide group of community leaders, activists and local elected officials. We believe in local answers
to the housing affordability crisis. Our robust fight requires trips to Sacramento & a lobbyist going toe-to-toe with power. Please donate
generously to LivableCalifornia.org here.
Livable California
2940 16th Street
Suite 200-1
San Francisco, CA 94103
United States
If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
118 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Christine E. Donald <trevordonald@webtv.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
EXTERNAL
I oppose the two state bills SB9 and SB10. No attempt should be made to override Santa Monica zoning and allow for
the huge amount of development proposed in the next few years. We are a small city and our development should be
under local control.
Thanks, Christine Donald
Item 13.D 02/09/21
119 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:55 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Phil Brock; Oscar de
la Torre; Kristin McCowan; councilmtgitems
Cc:Lane Dilg
Subject:Wilmont Board SUPPORTS a Focus on Residents' Needs for 3rd St. Promenade Plan - Agenda 4A,
Council Mtg. 2/9/21
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
As the Council moves through its study session tonight the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board
would like to point out several considerations the Council might think about regarding residents' needs with the 3rd St.
Promenade.
Historically, Santa Monica did a biannual Resident Satisfaction Survey. The last one done was in 2013. These
surveys were conducted by an independent research firm polled households reflecting the city's key
demographics (including age, ethnicity, income and residence status).about the quality of city services and
issues of concern. These surveys were statistically valid and represented the variety of residents in the
city. Since these statistically valid surveys were contracted for, the city has proceeded with online and event‐
based surveys that don't focus on residents, are not statistically valid and cherry pick information from the data,
not actually analyze it and produce fact‐based conclusions.
o Return to the use of Biannual Resident Satisfaction Survey and include the 3rd St. Promenade in that
survey to identify needs and wants from residents. The 2012 City Council agenda had the survey cost at
less than $31,000.
Given the pandemic, the climate change issues of out‐of‐state/out‐of‐country visitors coming to
Santa Monica and in support of buy local, we should continue to work diligently to identify what
will bring residents to the 3rd Street Promenade to again buy in our City.
Ensure that the changes and incentives provided (change in use of land, change in zoning height and density
of land) discussed and proposed with the 35 landlords generate the appropriate revenue for the City and draw
for residents. The cost/benefit of incentives should also support the city climate goals including:
Zero Net Carbon Buildings
Achieve 100% renewable grid electricity
Install 100 MW of local solar energy
Reduce fossil fuel use 20% in existing buildings
Discourage fossil fuels in new buildings
Zero Waste
Divert 95% of materials from landfills
Sustainable Mobility
Convert 50% of local trips to foot, bike, scooter or skateboard
Convert 25% of commuter trips to transit
Convert 50% of vehicles to electric or zero emission
Water Self‐Sufficiency
Achieve water self‐sufficiency by 2023
Climate Ready Community
Coastal Flooding Preparedness
Item 13.D 02/09/21
120 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
3
Low Carbon Food & Ecosystems
Understand and realistically discuss changes in revenue sources and customer‐types. Be crystal clear what a
change from local retail i.e., sales tax revenue to new types of uses/heights e.g., entertainment, music, online
buying vs. local buying will yield, are Chamber of Commerce businesses going to continue to focus on a "visitor"
model where fresh eyes come every week vs. locals, what type of money will the City need to provide for new
3rd Promenade and will the city discuss what it needs to generate in revenue to cover resident services vs. what
businesses can generate if they continue on a "visitor" model focus vs. a strong focus on resident products and
services which supports an authentic city.
We look forward to the discussion and hope that a resident focus is not just asked for, but provided by this new vision
for the Promenade. And many of us do remember fondly the 1989 promenade with Benita Frites, Yankee Doodles and
Gotham Hall.
Thank‐you,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh and
the Board of Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
121 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:50 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Request Council OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 by Supporting Agenda Items 13C & 13D, Feb. 9, 2021 Council
meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
I support the email below of NE Neighbors and incorporate it here in its entirety.
I ask you to support 13C and 13D to oppose SB 9 and SB 10, respectively. Both of these measures
would permanently alter our city in a detrimental way. In addition, there is no funding for this and
these changes require additional, expensive infrastructure that we cannot afford.
Density is not the same as affordability, and trickle down development does not work.
Thanks,
Nikki Kolhoff
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:30 AM
Subject: NE Neighbors Requests Council OPPOSE SB9 & SB10 per Agenda Items 13C & 13D, Feb. 9, 2021 Council
meeting
To: Agenda Items <councilmtgitems@smgov.net>, <phil.brock@smgov.net>, Gleam Davis <gleam.davis@smgov.net>,
<oscar.delatorre@smgov.net>, sue.himmelrich <sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>, <kristin.mccowan@smgov.net>,
Councilmember Kevin McKeown <kevin.mckeown@smgov.net>, <christine.parra@smgov.net>, Denise Anderson-Warren
<Denise.Anderson-Warren@smgov.net>
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
The people of Santa Monica elected you to make policy for our small city, not to bow
down to state legislators who seek to take control of our land use regulations.
All members of the Santa Monica City Council should vote in support of the following
items on the Council Agenda for Feb. 9, 2021:
13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize
the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and
direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
122 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
5
13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize
the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and
direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will
generate greater affordability. There is no truth to this “trickle down” approach to
zoning and certainly no good reason for city leaders to abdicate their leadership and
allow the legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
SB 9 – the so-called “duplex bill” - actually seeks to change single-family zoning
to 6-unit zoning -- not duplexes. The trick is that SB 9 works hand-in-hand with the
existing ADU law, AB 68, which already allows duplexes almost everywhere in single
family areas, i.e., large attached granny flats on the side of houses, or a separate
house in the yard, are already allowed.
SB 10 by Wiener would allow developers build 10-unit luxury apartments on
parcels in low-density areas, poor and rich. SB 10 will send land costs sky-high and
gentrify and displace thousands of people.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB
9 and SB 10.
We must continue as a city to preserve the existing affordable housing and to support
only that legislation that will respect and support local zoning and leadership, creating
access to housing, not profits for land speculators.
Respectfully,
Tricia Crane, Chair
Item 13.D 02/09/21
123 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
6
and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
Item 13.D 02/09/21
124 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Rick Cicetti <rcicetti@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:44 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Re: SB9 & SB10
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council,
I strongly oppose SB 9 & SB 10 and I emphatically request you do the same in protecting our Santa Monica!!!
Thank you in advance.
Respectfully,
Richard Cicetti
43 year Santa Monica resident
Item 13.D 02/09/21
125 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Marc Abraham <m.abraham@strike-ent.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:43 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan;
Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:tonight's agenda
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council members,
IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE SANTA MONICA
CITY COUNCIL VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMING UP
TONIGHT ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA FOR FEB. 9, 2021:
13-C: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize
the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 9 to be sent to Senator Atkins and
direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
13-D: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra, and de la Torre that Council authorize
the Mayor to sign a letter of opposition to SB 10 to be sent to Senator Wiener and
direct staff to reinforce opposition to this bill through lobbying efforts in Sacramento.
Both SB9 and SB 10 are based on the unproven notion that greater density will
generate greater affordability. There is no truth to this “trickle down” approach to
zoning and certainly no good reason for city leaders to abdicate their leadership and
allow the legislature to take over the zoning of our city.
SB 9 – the so-called “duplex bill” - actually seeks to change single-family zoning
to 6-unit zoning -- not duplexes. The trick is that SB 9 works hand-in-hand with the
existing ADU law, AB 68, which already allows duplexes almost everywhere in single
family areas, i.e., large attached granny flats on the side of houses, or a separate
house in the yard, are already allowed.
SB 10 by Wiener would allow developers build 10-unit luxury apartments on
parcels in low-density areas, poor and rich. SB 10 will send land costs sky-high and
gentrify and displace thousands of people.
Santa Monica City Council needs to stand together in unanimous opposition to both SB
9 and SB 10.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
126 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
9
Our City needs to take a leadership position to stop the legislature from doing the
bidding of land speculators.
We must continue as a city to preserve the existing affordable housing and to support
only that legislation that will respect and support local zoning and leadership, creating
access to housing, not profits for land speculators.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Marc Abraham
927 Berkeley Street.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
127 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:zimtar@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; gleam.davis@gmail.com; kristin.mccowan@gmail.com;
info@christineparra.com; odelatorre16@yahoo.com; commissionerbrock@gmail.com;
sue.himmelrich@gmail.com
Subject:Yes on item 13 D, Oppose SB 10
EXTERNAL
We can't allow a ballot measure approved by the voters to be overturned without another vote
of the people.
SECTION 1.
Section 65913.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65913.5.
(a) (1) Notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances enacted by the
jurisdiction, including restrictions enacted by a local voter initiative, that
limit the legislative body’s ability to adopt zoning ordinances, a local government may pass an
ordinance to zone a parcel for up to 10 units of residential density per parcel, at a height specified by
the local government in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in one of the following:
Item 13.D 02/09/21
128 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
Copycat Lan Use Bills of 2021
SB 9 (2021) = SB 1120 (2020)
Seeks to kill single-family zoning
SB10 (2021) = SB 902 (2020)
Seeks to invalidate all voter-approved land use initiatives
A presentation by Livable California
9 January 2021
Item 13.D 02/09/21
129 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
130 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
SB 9 (Atkins-Wiener): Copycat of SB 1120 seeks to kill single-family zoning!
1)SB 9 upzones all single-family streets, NOT to allow duplexes, but to allow
construction of 4, or 6, or 8 units of density where 1 home now stands.
2)4-unit and 6-unit projects will be allowed "by right," no input from the
community or city.
3)8-unit projects provide some leeway to cities to say NO, case by case.
4)SB 9 is a gift to market-rate rental giants to overrun homeowner areas. It is not
for our millions of Californians needing affordable housing.
5)SB 9 ends public hearings for multiple homes on single-family lots in the
coastal zone.
Item 13.D 02/09/21
131 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
132 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Item 13.D 02/09/21
133 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
SB 9 is nearly identical to SB 1120. The below headlines in 2020
described a ''duplex'' bill and all were wrong. Poor reporting nearly
allowed SB 1120 to become law.
•Los Angeles Times 8/26/20, "Would allow a duplex on most single-family parcels"
•San Francisco Chronicle 5/21/20,"Easier to split lots and convert homes into duplexes"
•San Diego Union-Tribune 9/1/20, "Allowed duplexes on most single-family lots"
•Cal Matters 9/2/20, "Allow duplexes where previously only one home could be built"
•The Real Deal 8/26/20, "SB 1120 Would Allow Duplexes in Suburbia"
Item 13.D 02/09/21
134 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
135 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
136 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
137 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
138 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
139 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
140 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)
Item 13.D 02/09/21
141 of 141 Item 13.D 02/09/21
13.D.b
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Written Comments (4445 : Opposition to SB10)