SR 02-23-2021 13A 13.A
February 23, 2021
Council Meeting: February 23, 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 23, 2021
13.A Request of Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor pro tem McCowan, and
Councilmember McKeown that the Council direct staff, in preparation for
the Housing Element, to 1) explore options for locally controlled zoning
whereby housing opportunities are expanded, including housing affordable
to moderate-income families and individuals, and resultant increases in
land value are captured by the community to guarantee significant truly
affordable deed-restricted lower-income housing production; 2) ask all
public entities to review highest/best use for their current properties
throughout Santa Monica and specifically demand that the State of
California commit the DMV site at Cloverfield and Colorado as a suitable
site for deed-restricted affordable housing development in Santa Monica’s
housing element; 3) explore options to prohibit altogether, or to at a
minimum strongly disincentivize, commercial development on sites
suitable for residential development in Santa Monica; and 4) incorporate
into the Santa Monica Zoning Code the provisions of SB 899 (2019-2020),
which would make it easier for congregations and non-profits to build
affordable housing on their properties.
13.A
Packet Pg. 303
Explanation of intent on land value capture, Councilmember item 13.A.— not a staff report
Under current law, when the value of the underlying property is increased by land-use
entitlements, that increased value goes entirely to the landowner. The increase in value can be
significant, and comes on top of the direct benefit conferred by the entitlement; some may see
it as an unearned profit accruing to an individual or corporation at the expense of the public.
We have seen eye-opening instances of newly entitled properties in our city being sold at great
profit thanks to the granted approvals — without anything having to be actually built. Such
transactions demonstrate that current law can disadvantage our community as a whole,
siphoning significant capital to private profit and encouraging real estate speculation rather
than productive investment.
Given that the increased land value reflects enhancements to the desirability of our community
achieved over many years through shared public and private investment in infrastructure and
services, it seems unfair and unwise that under current practice all this increased value goes to
the individual property owner and none is recouped by the community that made it possible.
This item directs City staff to explore ways in which Santa Monica residents, and the community
generally, could gain a fair share of socially generated land-value increases, to the benefit of all.
Some of the captured value could help fund deed-restricted truly affordable housing, for
instance, or be directed to help make available more housing affordable to middle-income and
workforce buyers and renters.
It is understood that reasonable profit motivation must be maintained to fuel economic
investment, and this item proposes specifically that we examine how profits generated by our
land-use decisions can be equitably shared by our community, instead of being taken by
individuals as unearned windfall profits.
13.A.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: land value item explanation_02232021 (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:T <tie.ryder@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 21, 2021 7:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:ITEM 13A , ITEM 8
Attachments:ProposalSantaMonicaAirport.TieiraRyder.7394-ND.pdf;
ProposalSantaMonicaAirport.TieiraRyder.7394-ND2.pdf
EXTERNAL
ITEM 13A
The Santa Monica airport should be included in the upcoming housing cycle so that an affordable, walkable
community can be created for working class families, individuals, seniors, students, and those living with
disabilities. The city should be challenging the FAA to close the airport SOONER not later. To see the
airport space, a space that seems to be incorrectly zoned intentionally, go mostly unused during a
pandemic is truly disappointing. If the city can challenge the FAA to close the airport by January 2022, the
city could begin preparing for a new community that the working class deserves. Every PERSON on the
Earth has a right to safe, clean, and affordable housing. Please reconsider the closure of the airport!
60,000 or more people are unhoused in LA, we can't have a "playground for the wealthy" at the airport
space for their cars and airplanes as locals struggle to secure housing! I believe Asm. Richard Bloom has
introduced a bill to repeal article 34 which should***/could*** take care of measure LC. Challenge the
FAA, partner with LA City to create a walkable community with the full acres of the airport including the 17
acres they own.
https://htwws.org/santamonicaairport/
"Efforts to Address Homelessness including Local and Regional Strategies"
Regarding ITEM 8, #2
People in the field addressing unhoused residents should be allies of our unhoused neighbors that have experience likely
in Social work or have just shown concern for the unhoused community. I'm not sure how a "Park Ambassador" can help
someone dealing with deeper internal issues related to housing and/or substance dependency issues. I believe we need
social workers in the field,actively assisting neighbors with their health related needs and also working to get them into
interim housing. If the council feels necessary, the social worker can have a safety/security team member with them.
Also please keep in mind that everyone who is unhoused is not dealing with health related or substance dependency
issues, many of the new homeless/car dwellers we see are dealing with economic hardship. Consider parking lot
temporary shelters if necessary to save money until federal funds arrive. Stabilize the working class to prevent more
homelessness and it should be done quickly.
Thank You for your time.
‐‐
Best,
Tieira R.
www.HTWWS.org
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
Affordable Homeownership
-Affordable, reasonably priced homeownership for working class residents in the Santa
Monica, Venice, & Mar Vista zip codes. Mar Vista runs into the Bundy campus, a map
has been provided at the very bottom of the post.
-Free standing, small to mid sized bungalow style homes
-free standing or connected townhomes
-There would be residency requirements of the cities mentioned above but also Los
Angeles in general, my recommendation is at least 10 years.
-Would request priority consideration for displaced ADOS families from the city of
Santa Monica or any of the neighboring beach cities. Would ask for a 30%
consideration as a “RIGHT TO RETURN”. (Pls google the history of displaced
Black families in Santa Monica, Venice, and/or Manhattan Beach if you
need more info.)
-The community would likely function as a community land trust, where residents
of the community retain ownership and agree to resell requirements of the homes to
avoid land sharks from overtaking the community. Homes would also likely
operate similarly to that of homes that are part of HOA’s. TBD.
-The community will set the price point for the homes, including up to what salary
should be considered to purchase a home in the community. My recommendations
are working class residents in the $30,000-$130,000 price range.
-Ownership would be subject to credit union or bank approval for financing if
necessary. There may be a consideration for a rental option that turns into
ownership.
2/19/21, 2:27 PMPage 10 of 20 Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
(See similar project that the city of San Pedro is creating
https://urbanize.city/la/post/heres-plan-redevelop-rancho-san-pedro)
Affordable Housing Rentals
-Reasonably priced affordable apartments for lower and middle income earners. The
recommended height for apartment buildings is 4-5 stories. Rent would need to match
the average wage of the essential worker in mentioned cities. Rent should not take
more than 30% of an essential workers income.
-Affordable bachelors, studios, 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms
– As with affordable homeownership, the rental units & placements would be for
various types of community members but especially keeping in mind our essential
workforce, students, seniors, and those living with disabilities.
-Student apartments will be bachelor sized apartments with smaller fridge and MUST
have a kitchen area sink and small area to put a hot plate (or something similar) so
they can cook if needed. (Similar to this https://urbanize.city/la/post/micro-unit-
apartment-building)
-There would be residency requirements with the exception of students who may be
coming into the city for college.
– a set “affordability rental rate” will be set for all income levels but priority will
be given to those that fall within the lower to middle income bracket and workers that
have established residency from mentioned cities. The current housing model in LA
places limits on how much income a person can earn once they are in affordable
housing, the petitioner does not believe in setting income “restrictions” for working
class residents once they are living in the community. This can be explored more with
the community. The author does not believe in limiting how much a person can make.
2/19/21, 2:27 PMPage 11 of 20 Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
More info on the proposed community as a whole
-Consideration of small business placements within the community, offering them
affordable rental options. Would ask for priority consideration of small
businesses that were greatly impacted by the pandemic.
– Keep park space within the walkable community.
-For students, possibly offer a Blue line bus during the school week that meets
them outside of the student apartment area and takes them to campus. (cut down on
traffic congestion because students wouldn’t need to drive)
-For students consider a meal plan option that is part of housing. EX: $50 a month
for two meals a day, Monday-Friday, breakfast and lunch.
-Student campus should have it’s own small park area that has a WIFI and
outdoor/indoor workspace for them.
-Create a “development fund” for the housing project, city/state will obviously
offset some of the costs. ( Will share more info on this as soon as possible)
-Request consideration for golf courses closure(s) as well as other vacant
land plots and buildings that have potential use for affordable housing that
is community owned and suits apartments, condos, townhomes, small
and/or tiny homes for locals. Request more interim housing and healthcare sites
on the westside.
-The bigger goal is to adopt a housing policy for each city in California with
cities close to each other coordinating the affordable housing effort,
interim housing included, much better than it currently is! Again, a local,
working class housing advocate from the community should lead the effort
in partnership with the city planning teams. They will be the voice for the
2/19/21, 2:27 PMPage 12 of 20 Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
When the Santa Monica airport closes, which is hope-
fully sooner than later….
!01/27/2021 -"No Comments
When the Santa Monica airport closes, which is hopefully
sooner than later, it should be used for affordable
housing for long term residents on the Westside! (Granted
the land isn’t too toxic to live on) The location is perfect for an affordable,
walkable residential community that includes free standing
bungalows (small to mid-sized), townhomes, mid-rise condos and
apartments for working class residents on the westside, students,
seniors, and those living with disabilities.
PROGRESSIVE
2/19/21, 2:30 PMPage 2 of 20 Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
(Author does not own the rights to the photos attached, via social media. All rights
reserved to original owners)
2/19/21, 2:30 PMPage 3 of 20 Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
To be clear, this community would include both affordable rental
options as well as homeownership options. Priority for housing
would be reserved for residents that met income requirements in Santa
Monica, Mar Vista, and Venice! This effort should be led by an
affordable housing advocate from one of the cities mentioned,
someone that falls within the working class and has the best
interest of the local community in mind. The advocate would
be working in partnership with the cities mentioned as well as
local residents of said cities. The goal for affordable housing
rentals would be to set an “affordable market rental rate” that
never exceeds 30% of a full-time, working class residents
income.
“Starting at about $600 per month for a studio, rents in the Los Angeles Eco
Village are less than half the price of some comparable apartments nearby,
and prices aren’t raised unless community members agree to it. That’s possible
because the land beneath the co-op is owned by the Beverly/Vermont
Community Land Trust, which has pledged to make the land permanently
affordable regardless of rising housing prices.”
https://laist.com/2021/02/02/community-land-trusts-los-angeles-affordable.php
An email that I received from a member of the Santa Monica planning
team regarding use of the airport in the upcoming October 2021 housing
cycle
“Hi , Thanks for sharing your proposal and thoughts for the airport. Please
note that since the airport is slated to close at the end of 2028 and conversion
2/19/21, 2:30 PMPage 4 of 20 Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
to any other use would take time, the airport is not realistically
being considered in the planning for the 6 cycle Housing Element
Update (October 2021 – July 2029). It will most certainly be a
consideration in the following housing element cycle (beyond
2029). However, to get to that point, there will need to be a public process
around the future of the airport given the significant community interest and
varying views on its future use so I hope you will continue on to be engaged in
that separate effort.”
Quotes from LA Times article regarding the Santa Monica airport
“The opening of a the 227-acre site on the Westside — in close proximity to
jobs, good schools and transit — is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
Housing has to be a part of the equation.
“Since the 1980s, Santa Monica has approved the construction of
millions of square feet of office space, transforming it into a hub for both
the tech and entertainment industries, with a daytime population that swells
by more than 150,000 people. But this explosive job growth has not been
accompanied by a proportional increase in housing units.”
“Santa Monica’s estimated population of 92,478 residents in 2019 was only a
blip above what it was in 1970, when 88,289 people called the city home. This
growing imbalance between jobs and housing has created a massive influx of
daily commuters into Santa Monica (even well-compensated tech employees)
who either can’t find or can’t afford housing near these job centers. Meanwhile,
population in neighboring jurisdictions has swelled, displacing lower-
income residents. The result is more and more commuters crowding the
freeways from increasingly distant parts of Southern California.”
th
2/19/21, 2:30 PMPage 5 of 20 Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
The plan to turn Santa Monica Airport into a park is irresponsible. The Westside needs
housing
(By the way, most of the office buildings mentioned in the LA times article
above in Santa Monica have been empty for over a year during the
pandemic, they lay empty as residents head to the streets or to their
cars/vans to sleep)
The current housing crisis is literally wiping out and pushing
the middle class in California into poverty! In the last 10 years,
rent has gone up well over 65% in the city of Los Angeles, in that same
amount of time the number of unhoused residents increased by at least
50%! There are currently 60,000+ unhoused residents in the city of
LA and the median income can no longer afford a rent controlled
studio in cities like Santa Monica!
2/19/21, 2:30 PMPage 6 of 20 Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Scott Wolfe <scott.a.wolfe@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 22, 2021 2:17 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Councilmember Kevin
McKeown; Christine Parra
Subject:Council Meeting 2021/02/23 - Public Comment for Item 13.A
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I am leaving this as a public comment for the City Council Feb 23rd meeting Item 13.A.
I applaud the efforts of Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan and Councilmember McKeown to review
land use and zoning codes as a way to address affordable housing.
In your research, I would like to also make a suggestion to review and keep an eye on AB 387 introduced by
CA State Assembly Member Alex Lee of District 25. The Social Housing Act of 2021 would establish a new
Department of Housing and Community Development that is much needed in the State.
In conjunction with the concept of Social Housing, I would like to suggest that the City reimagines what can be
done with the Santa Monica Airport after closure in 2028. We have an opportunity to utilize 215 acres of land
for Social Housing.
With an expansion of the Santa Monica Housing Trust Fund or a similar Public Land Trust, the city could
develop the land into beautiful and equitable affordable housing for low income and very low income
households. Housing that can be rent controlled to only cover maintenance costs.
I am of the belief that Social Housing is the solution for addressing housing inequality and affordability long-
term. Social Housing is the norm in other parts of the world and is successful in elevating the people out of
poverty. Vienna, Austria is a prime example of where Social Housing is not only the norm, but a large part of
the societal fabric. Nearly 60% of Viennese live in Social Housing. Housing that provides the same comforts
that we all take for granted.
Imagine Santa Monica setting the example for California and the US that well funded Social Housing is the
answer for our future. That everyone deserves to live in comfort and safety and not just shoved into cheaply
built “Public Housing” that closely resemble prisons.
Housing is a Human Right
Thank you
Scott Wolfe
Sunset Park Santa Monica Resident
Articles relevant to Social Housing:
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/11/beautiful-public-housing-red-vienna-social-housing
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vienna-affordable-housing-paradise_n_5b4e0b12e4b0b15aba88c7b0
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
2
https://www.npr.org/local/305/2020/02/25/809315455/how-european-style-public-housing-could-help-solve-the-
affordability-crisis
Videos relevant to Social Housing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVuCZMLeWko
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrDflyccNxQ
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
February 23, 2021
Subject: City Council meeting, 2/23/21- Item 13.A 1) – … resultant increases in
land value are captured by the community…
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
The 13.A request’s first element is outlined as:
1) Explore options for locally controlled zoning whereby housing opportunities
are expanded, including housing affordable to moderate-income families
and individuals, and resultant increase in land value are captured by the
community to guarantee significant truly affordable deed-restricted lower-
income housing production.
In reading the above agenda item element and the “Explanation of intent on land
value capture” attachment, neither one provided any explanation of what kind of
“value” was being discussed.
I am disappointed in the lack of clarity, explanation or even examples of what this
“value” capture will be.
RECOMMENDATION: The City issue a comprehensive white paper, two weeks
prior to this Council item, so we are left with more than 72 hours to read,
evaluate and comment on this proposal.
Currently, the vague of idea of some improvement, project or economic
environment would occur in the City, County or State e.g., great park at the
airport, improvement at the beach and beach lots or SB 9 or SB 10 passes that
increase the value of land only raises more questions which need to be answered
in the requested white paper:
• Who determines the “value” increase?
• What methodology is used to determine the “improvements” driving land
value increase?
• Is this proposal just a process to up zone the City and sell those rights to
developers? How does that keep our City AFFORDABLE, one our key City
priorities since the gentrification of the City only makes it less affordable?
• What is the appeal process?
• What added bureaucracy must be put in place to manage this process?
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
• What is the voter control in the process?
• How does the City propose to capture any “hypothetical value” increase?
o If this is done through a property tax increase, how can that be done
by the City in defiance of state law? How can it be done without the
vote of the people since it is a tax increase?
o If this is done when the land is sold, isn’t this just a capital tax, like
when a stock or mutual fund is sold? Again, how can it be done
without the vote of the people?
This use of City resources to explore a policy of potentially massive value
appropriation from residents’, landlords’ and businesses’ property value in
response to a manufactured RHNA number is wasteful at best.
We need staff working on essential services and improving efficiency and
effectiveness throughout the City. It now appears that the City is proposing
penalizing the residents for these taxpayer-funded improvements. Taking the
analogy even further, we are a beachfront City. Has the value of the views,
breezes and vistas been taken into consideration all ready or will that be added to
our land value?
The City should partner with residents to focus and achieve results on Keeping
Neighborhoods Safe, Reduce Homelessness and Disaster Preparedness. And
please focus our staff and resources on that as well.
Thank-you,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh, Chair
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Jason Islas <jason.islas@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 1:35 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra; Oscar de
la Torre; Kristin McCowan; councilmtgitems; Denise Anderson-Warren; Lane Dilg
Subject:Item 13 A: Commercial properties and housing
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council,
Thank you for considering ways to increase much‐needed new housing in the city. I want to express my strong belief
that any effort you direct staff to look into that you make sure to take special care as to not inadvertently pursue a
policy that will suppress housing growth.
Any policy staff should pursue should be aimed at increasing the total number of affordable housing as part of mixed‐
income projects. As we learned in Downtown Santa Monica, too high a percentage required for affordable units in new
projects yields zero new housing, affordable or market‐rate. That is not an outcome we can afford, especially given
Santa Monica's RHNA requirement.
Thank you.
Jason Islas
(310) 977‐0645
jasonislas.com
LinkedIn
Twitter
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:ml.verville@verizon.net
Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 12:54 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Oscar de
la Torre; Kristin McCowan; councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council - Feb 23, 2021 Meeting Agenda Item 13A - Unacceptable Land Tax Position
Importance:High
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
I am very disappointed at the quiet introduction of a potentially highly significant resident
policy such as an administratively determined “value capture” as a Council agenda Item
13. The complete absence of resident outreach and consultation prior to introduction of such
an item reflects a complete breakdown of the relationship with the residents that have elected
this council.
Moreover, the introduction of this item is an admission by the Council that unfettered market
upzoning will increase property costs, further decreasing affordability. This is diametrically
opposite to stated policy. One part of the answer is therefore no upzoning!
The fact that there are a myriad of ways to intelligently zone for affordability that meets all
community needs, and that have already been implemented in cities such a Cambridge, MA,
indicates that this is not about affordability at all but about land investment value and
potential taxation.
The improvements discussion in the posted ”explainer” is a red herring because the value
increases have been because of SM’s coastal location and global capital investment
forces. Our streets could be paved of dirt and the housing values would still be what they
are. This means that the “improvements value add” argument is completely fictitious and any
ascribed “value” completely arbitrary.
This use of City resources to explore a policy of potentially massive value appropriation from
residents’, landlords’ and businesses’ property value, using the unsupported, contested and
manufactured RHNA numbers, is simply disingenuous and unacceptable.
This furthering of the adversarial relationship between the city and its residents is also
unprecedented. The residents are paying taxes to enable the City and its staff to work on
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
2
essential services and improving efficiency and effectiveness throughout the entire City for the
benefit of all residents.
If the city is really interested in affordable housing, the city must demonstrate that it is mindful
of actual policies that serve the entire community’s interests, including those of real
affordable housing. As much as the City has demonstrated its dislike for doing so, the city
must partner with the residents to focus on improving the livability of our historic town.
Furthering the current highly adversarial relationship with the residents can only frustrate
those mutually shared goals.
Thank‐you,
Marc L. Verville
Resident, Sunset Park
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 12:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Kristin McCowan; Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra;
Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:City Council 2/23/21 agenda item 13-A
EXTERNAL
February 23, 2021
To: City Council
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 2/23/21 agenda item 13-A
1) "Explore options for locally controlled zoning whereby housing opportunities are expanded, including housing
affordable to moderate-income families and individuals, and resultant increase in land value are captured by
the community to guarantee significant truly affordable deed-restricted lower-income housing production."
What does the phrase about capturing increases in land value (in this ungrammatical run-on sentence) mean?
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Peter <pbosen@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Meeting Feb 23, Agenda item 13.
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
Regarding Agenda item 13:
Adding to Santa Monica’s already generous amount of affordable housing does nothing for the vast
majority of the city’s renters paying market rate rents. They have no chance of getting below market
city provided housing. What would make a real, meaningful benefit would be allowing those renters to
buy their apartments. Then, instead of the landlord making million dollars in appreciation, the renters
would. They would build equity, be safe from eviction, and become much more committed to the city.
They would gain that most important of things - a permanent HOME.
To do this the city must bring back the Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment, or TORCA.
Before it was allowed to lapse by the city council, it allowed thousands of renters to buy their
apartments, and the vast majority have been eternally grateful for that amazing opportunity.
A lifetime of renting dooms poor families to a retirement of poverty, when if they owned
their home it would provide a way towards a comfortable retirement.
There should also be research into adding affordable for-sale units in condo developments to allow
lower income residents to be able to buy their own homes, and thus gain a foothold on home-
ownership and the huge benefits it brings.
Building ever more rental housing in the city just dooms ever more renters to a lifetime without owning
their own home. The city should prioritize condo construction, and stop demanding higher fees and
extra parking for condos.
Peter Borresen
Santa Monica
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
Re: City Council Agenda 2/23/2021 Item 13A
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and members of the City
Council,
We support a proactive approach to ensuring that the City of Santa Monica will meet
its housing target for the 6th Cycle RHNA/Housing Element process. The City should
explore various methods for creating sufficient housing for our community.
With regard to the suggestions laid out in Item 13A, the League specifically supports
the recommendation to incorporate the provisions of SB 899 (2019-2020) into the
Santa Monica Zoning Code, which would make it easier for congregations and non-
profits to build affordable housing on their properties.
The League of Women Voters of California supported SB 899 (2019-2020) and we
have enclosed their letter of support for your reference.
Sincerely,
Natalya Zernitskaya
President
League of Women Voters of Santa Monica
Attachment: SB 899 (Wiener) LWVC Support Letter
OFFICERS
President
Natalya Zernitskaya
Vice President, Program
Barbara Inatsugu
Secretary
Sharon Hart
Treasurer
Karen Carrey
DIRECTORS
Cathie Gentile
Camille Hannant
Ann Williams
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
August 17, 2020
VIA Online Portal to Author and Assembly Committee on Appropriations
The Honorable Scott Wiener
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SB 889 (Wiener) – Housing: Educational and Religious Institutions – SUPPORT
Dear Senator Wiener:
The League of Women Voters California (LWVC) writes in support of SB 899, which would
ease barriers to educational and religious institutions building affordable homes on their
own property. This bill requires local permitting agencies to review applications to
develop such homes in a ministerial fashion, thus exempting them from both conditional
use permits and CEQA analysis.
This bill is one of many steps needed to satisfy California’s need for affordable homes.
The coronavirus pandemic and new economic uncertainties are making that growing
need increasingly visible to the public.
Lowering the cost of land, as this bill does, reduces a substantial barrier preventing the
development of affordable homes. The bill permits construction of such homes on
excess land in urban areas already owned by religious organizations and private non-
profit educational institutions. About 38,000 additional acres of land throughout the
state, about the area of Stockton, will become available for homes on passage.
Permitting will take less time and money as local agencies must review applications
without lengthy rezoning hearings or expensive CEQA proceedings.
The new homes must comply with local objective design standards, so they should fit
into existing neighborhoods. In addition, there are significant renter protections against
displacement and short-term rentals are prohibited in these new developments.
The League of Women Voters of California strongly supports SB 899 as an important step
toward ameliorating California’s housing crisis.
Sincerely,
Carol Moon Goldberg
President
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 5:27 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Oscar de la Torre;
Phil Brock; Christine Parra
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Need to kill this subsection in 13A
Council‐
Please see the email below in regards to item 13a on tonight’s agenda.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: jp@rpgla.com <jp@rpgla.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 2:34 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Need to kill this subsection in 13A
EXTERNAL
1. explore options for locally controlled zoning whereby housing opportunities are
expanded, including housing affordable to moderate-income families and
individuals, and resultant increases in land value are captured by the community
to guarantee significant truly affordable deed-restricted lower-income housing
production;
It was strictly the actions of the City Council/City Staff that allowed the problem
refenced in the Item 13A to occur. ANY LAND USE ATTORNEY OR SEASONED RE
BROKER COULD HAVE ANTICIPATED SUCH AN OUTCOME. There are easy ways to
eliminate the problem without resorting to what will be found to be a taking.
One of the things I see happening here is an up-zoning of R1 which will destroy those
neighborhoods. To allow the City to arbitrability TAX a property owner for an action
created by the taxing agency is abhorrent. Guaranteed that the City will need a 100
member City Attorney department to keep up with the litigation.
Joseph Palazzolo
REAL PROPERTY GROUP
310-453-6350 ph
jp@rpgla.com
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)
2
CA DRE License #00660889
This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and is confidential. If the reader of this
message and any attachments is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, distribution, or copying of the material is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender promptly and delete this message and any attachments.
Item 13.A 02/23/21
02/23/21 Item 13.A 02/23/21
13.A.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Written Comments (4457 : Housing Element preparation)