The URL can be used to link to this page

SR 08-22-2023 1ABoard Con)nued Kathy Irby Commercial Bank of California Jeff Jarow Par Commercial Paula Larmore Harding, Larmore, Kutcher & Kozal LLP Charlie Lopez- Quintana ETC Hotels Pam O’Connor Consultant Janet Rimicci UCLA Health Eddie Guerboian Jeweler Neil Carrey ABorney Jose Aalvarado Cruise Jeremy Rawitch RAND Fred Hulls Quantgene Heather GiH AcHvision Elnie VannaJm Cedars Sinai Addie VanGessel Tavern on Main Gina Gribow EKA Public Affairs Jessica Rincon Le Merigot Hotel Vee Gomez Beach Yoga SoCal Dave Rand Rand, Pastor, Nelson, LLP Board Execu)ves Chair Younes Atallah Regent Santa Monica Beach Past Chair Greg Morena The Albright Treasurer Len Lanzi Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP Vice-Chair Michael Ricks Providence Saint John’s Health Vice-Chair Julia Ladd Macerich/Santa Monica Place Vice-Chair DusJn Peterson Fairmont Miramar Hotel & Bungalows Vice-Chair Jasson CrockeP SNAP Inc. Vice-Chair Celia Fisher Beach Moms Vice-Chair Dr. Kathryn Jeffery Santa Monica College Board Members Craig Babington Morley Builders Andrew BarreP-Weiss Good RX Dom Bei SM Firefighters Rudy Flores SM Police Officers Jeffrey Fritz Coldwell Banker August 14, 2023 Santa Monica City Council Santa Monica City Manager 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear City Council Members and City Manager David White: We are wriJng on behalf of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce to express our strong opposiJon to the proposed mandatory minimum wage increase for hotel workers to $30 per hour. We know that such a significant wage hike will have severe and unintended consequences for both the hotel industry and the broader local Santa Monica economy. To fully understand the consequences of such acJon, we request a comprehensive economic impact report. An economic report will assess and demonstrate the potenJal effect on hotel businesses, employment levels, and the overall economic landscape of our community (including restaurants and local businesses). An unbiased and data-driven evaluaJon of the impact would provide valuable insights to guide the decision-making process, ensuring that the interests of both workers and businesses are considered. We acknowledge the importance of fair compensaJon for workers and recognize the value they bring to the hospitality industry and to our city. We know that our Santa Monica hotels carefully consider fair and appropriate wages for their highly-valued workers. However, we would like to emphasize that the Jming of this proposed wage increase is parJcularly ill-suited given the ongoing recovery efforts of hotel businesses from the devastaJng impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. AddiJonally, we offer our Chamber services as a trusted convener to host town halls to provide clear and compelling feedback directly from businesses on this issue. It is essenJal, before making any binding council decision, to hear the potenJally devastaJng consequences of such a large wage increase at such a vulnerable Jme in economic and community recovery. In conclusion, we kindly urge you to reconsider the proposed mandatory hotel-worker minimum wage increase to $30 per hour. We request that the City conduct a comprehensive economic report and take a measured approach to wage adjustments to ensure a balanced and sustainable outcome. Respeciully SubmiPed, Judy Kruger Younes Atallah President & CEO Chair of Board Item 1 08/22/23 1 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 1 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 1 Vernice Hankins From:Kelly Simon <ksimon522@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 14, 2023 9:25 PM To:Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; David White; Susan Cline; Caroline Torosis Cc:Tricia Crane Subject:Fwd: City Council must revisit decision that allowed this Extreme Development next to Douglas Park EXTERNAL Dear City Council ‐ I live on 26th street not far from this proposed development I have lived in my single family home for 22 years & I frequently use Douglas Park. A four story 71 housing unit building would be big enough ‐ and a huge change for this corner. In my opinion an 8 story building on this corner is INSANE!! It’s just TOO Big! Please don’t allow this to happen to my neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Kelly Simon 26th street resident & active voter Begin forwarded message: From: Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com> Subject: City Council must revisit decision that allowed this Extreme Development next to Douglas Park Date: August 14, 2023 at 8:47:39 PM PDT To: Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com> To: <Caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov>, Jesse Zwick <jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov>, <christine.parra@santamonica.gov>, Lana Negrete <lana.negrete@santamonica.gov>, Phil Brock <phil.brock@santamonica.gov>, Oscar de la Torre <oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov>, <gleam.davis@santamonica.gov>, <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>, Cc: David White <david.white@santamonica.gov>, <susan.cline@santamonica.gov> Still posted on the site ‐ initial proposed plan for 2501 Wilshire with four stories and 71 housing units: Item 1 08/22/23 2 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 2 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 2 Current proposal with eight stories (84 feet) and 170 housing units presented in the "community meeting": Dear City Council, City Manager, and City Staff, Given that the City has incorporated the State density bonus into the Zoning Ordinance, what is the rationale for allowing it to also be tied to the Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP)? We ask that the City Council revisit their approval of the entitlement process for this and all AHPP / Density Bonus projects. We want our City Council to explain their decision that allowed for this massive project. Why did Staff propose and Council approve this level of development in our neighborhood? Item 1 08/22/23 3 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 3 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 3 Families already have trouble finding parking to bring children to play at Douglas Park. This project is too big, too tall and must be stopped before our city is built out beyond recognition. Tricia Crane and the Board of Northeast Neighbors Item 1 08/22/23 4 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 4 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 1 Vernice Hankins From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 14, 2023 8:24 PM To:Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; David White; Susan Cline Subject:City Council must revisit decision that allowed this Extreme Development next to Douglas Park EXTERNAL Still posted on the site ‐ initial proposed plan for 2501 Wilshire with four stories and 71 housing units: Current proposal with eight stories (84 feet) and 170 housing units presented in the "community meeting": Item 1 08/22/23 5 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 5 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 2 Dear City Council, City Manager, City Staff, Given that the City has incorporated the State density bonus into the Zoning Ordinance, what is the rationale for allowing it to also be tied to the Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP)? We ask that the City Council revisit their approval of the entitlement process for this and all AHPP / Density Bonus projects. We want our City Council to explain their decision that allowed for this massive project. Why did Staff propose and Council approve this level of development in our neighborhood? Families already have trouble finding parking to bring children to play at Douglas Park. This project is too big, too tall and must be stopped before our city is built out beyond recognition. Tricia Crane Chair, Northeast Neighbors Item 1 08/22/23 6 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 6 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 1 Vernice Hankins From:Melanie Landsberg <barmel@verizon.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:57 PM To:Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; David White; Susan Cline Subject:Fwd: City Council must revisit decision that allowed this Extreme Development next to Douglas Park EXTERNAL Dear City Council, City Manager, and City Staff, Given that the City has incorporated the State density bonus into the Zoning Ordinance, what is the rationale for allowing it to also be tied to the Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP)? We ask that the City Council revisit their approval of the entitlement process for this and all AHPP / Density Bonus projects. We want our City Council to explain their decision that allowed for this massive project. Why did Staff propose and Council approve this level of development in our neighborhood? Which members of City Council voted for this? Families already have trouble finding parking to bring children to play at Douglas Park. This project is too big, too tall and must be stopped before our city is built out beyond recognition. Thank you. Melanie Landsberg 610 23rd Street Item 1 08/22/23 7 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 7 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 1 Vernice Hankins From:Karen Kushi <kbkushi@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:14 PM To:Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; David White; Susan Cline Subject:City Council must revisit decision that allowed this Extreme Development next to Douglas Park EXTERNAL Still posted on the site ‐ initial proposed plan for 2501 Wilshire with four stories and 71 housing units: Current proposal with eight stories (84 feet) and 170 housing units presented in the "community meeting": Item 1 08/22/23 8 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 8 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 2 Dear City Council, City Manager, and City Staff, Given that the City has incorporated the State density bonus into the Zoning Ordinance, what is the rationale for allowing it to also be tied to the Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP)? We ask that the City Council revisit their approval of the entitlement process for this and all AHPP / Density Bonus projects. We want our City Council to explain their decision that allowed for this massive project. Why did Staff propose and Council approve this level of development in our neighborhood? Which members of City Council voted for this? Families already have trouble finding parking to bring children to play at Douglas Park. This project is too big, too tall and must be stopped before our city is built out beyond recognition. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS and need more explanation. This reminds me of the huge ficus trees that was planted on our small stretch of California Ave. Great idea at the time - shade, oxygen, greenery! TERRIBLE long term decision - No sunlight, roots that Item 1 08/22/23 9 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 9 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 3 have gotten into our plumbing and ruined the sidewalks and streetlights that are covered, leaving dangerous conditions at night and now they are all dying and plan to be removed ዏዐዑዒዓዔዕዖ Please don’t continue to make short term decisions without thinking of long term goals and aesthetics! Please support your constituents this time! Best, Karen Kushi Item 1 08/22/23 10 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 10 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 4 Vernice Hankins From:HEIDI JO COREY <hjc777@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:02 PM To:Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; David White; Susan Cline Cc:Heidi Jo Corey Subject:2501 Wilshire Project EXTERNAL Dear City Council, City Manager, and City Staff, Please explain this massive change for the 2501 Wilshire Project. In December 2021 this project was presented as 4 stories and 70 units. The community and neighbors are requesting transparency and understanding how this got voted in and turned into 8 stories and 170 units? Please explain how this was able to double without any of the neighbors and community knowing about this until now? Did Santa Monica City Council approve this? Were you aware of what you were approving and the impact this would have on our community and the ability for people to enjoy a Douglas Park? This project is completely outrageous and unacceptable. Eight stories is way too high for Wilshire Blvd! Or any Boulevard in Santa Monica. As a 25 year, resident of Santa Monica and living across the street from Douglas Park. I need to understand what decisions are being made and how this can be fixed. I am requesting that the city Council re‐look at and understand what exactly was approved? Please, meet with us and explain how this project double and what can be done to fix this now? Thank you, ᕼEIᗪI ᒍO ᑕOᖇEY Item 1 08/22/23 11 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 11 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 1 Vernice Hankins From:Chloe Brooks-Lao <chloebrookslao@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2023 8:08 AM To:Planning Cc:Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems; David White; Susan Cline Subject:2501 Wilshire EXTERNAL I’m a home owner living at 2415 Washington Avenue and wriƟng to object to the proposed change to add an addiƟonal 4 stories and 104 more residenƟal units addiƟon to the pending project at 2501 Wilshire. The addiƟon calls for 0 addiƟonal parking spaces and would bring the total residenƟal units to 187. Some speciﬁc reasons are: 1) PopulaƟon density ‐ present day, the area is currently densely populated and is already pending another 6 story project at 2600 Wilshire (caddy corner to the 2501 project). This would further stress the area 2) Parking ‐ the addiƟonal 4 stories again adds over a 100 residenƟal units and not a single parking spot for these new units (per the developer on the 8/9 zoom call). The neighborhood is also home to Douglas park, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods and Erewon drawins even more people to the area which already stresses the street parking. 3) AestheƟc ‐ an 8 story apartment build adjacent to single family homes is out of line with the current landscape and would be an eye sore Thank you, Chloe Brooks‐Lao Northeast Santa Monica Resident Sent from my iPhone Item 1 08/22/23 12 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 12 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 2 Vernice Hankins From:D'Orsogna, Maria-Rita R <dorsogna@csun.edu> Sent:Wednesday, August 16, 2023 5:34 PM To:Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; David White; Susan Cline Subject:Re: City Council must revisit decision that allowed this Extreme Development next to Douglas Park EXTERNAL Dear all, I second every word of this email. You are elected to work for the residents, not for the developers. Why are you allowing all this? What are we going to do about: traffic, parking, water consumption, open space? And no, nobody will take the train because it is full of homeless people and quite often a scary ride. By approving or even closing an eye or two on these monsters you are destroying this city. Maria From: Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 8:54 PM To: Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com> Subject: City Council must revisit decision that allowed this Extreme Development next to Douglas Park To: <Caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov>, Jesse Zwick <jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov>, <christine.parra@santamonica.gov>, Lana Negrete <lana.negrete@santamonica.gov>, Phil Brock <phil.brock@santamonica.gov>, Oscar de la Torre <oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov>, <gleam.davis@santamonica.gov>, <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>, Cc: David White <david.white@santamonica.gov>, <susan.cline@santamonica.gov> Still posted on the site ‐ initial proposed plan for 2501 Wilshire with four stories and 71 housing units: Item 1 08/22/23 13 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 13 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 3 Current proposal with eight stories (84 feet) and 170 housing units presented in the "community meeting": Dear City Council, City Manager, and City Staff, Given that the City has incorporated the State density bonus into the Zoning Ordinance, what is the rationale for allowing it to also be tied to the Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP)? We ask that the City Council revisit their approval of the entitlement process for this and all AHPP / Density Bonus projects. We want our City Council to explain their decision that allowed for this massive project. Why did Staff propose and Council approve this level of development in our neighborhood? Families already have trouble finding parking to bring children to play at Douglas Park. Item 1 08/22/23 14 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 14 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 4 This project is too big, too tall and must be stopped before our city is built out beyond recognition. Tricia Crane and the Board of Northeast Neighbors Item 1 08/22/23 15 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 15 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 5 Vernice Hankins From:Diana Williams <williams.diana@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 16, 2023 2:51 PM To:Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; David White; Susan Cline Subject:compromise re 2501 Wilshire Project EXTERNAL Dear City Council, City Manager, and City Staff, As a nearby homeowner, I have an interest in any development at 2501 Wilshire. I actually welcome some development, as it seems to me that all of the corners at the intersection of 26th and Wilshire are long overdue for some (especially the southern corners). With the housing crisis the way it is, there is no excuse for devoting so much land to a single story strip mall and a surface parking lot. With that said, the northwest corner of 26th and Wilshire is already the busiest of the four corners by far, and while it could be activated further, I don't believe an 8 story building with a supermarket is the way to go. Two years ago, I had no issue with the proposed four story development. I thought that my neighbors' concerns about the potential impact on traffic and parking could easily be alleviated in the following ways:  first, by making stronger connections between the area and the Expo Line (the 43 bus runs so infrequently as to be inconsequential except for the most desperate and the crosswalk signal at 26th & Olympic is optimized for cars, not pedestrians going to and from the train, and there is literally no legal place to connect between cars/rideshare and the Bergamot expo line station except the parking lot that is only accessible from Michigan)  second, by raising the prices for preferential street parking permits so that car‐owning residents of the new development would have little incentive to get them instead of buying a dedicated spot in their building garage  third, by prioritizing the already‐planned improvements to Wilshire, adding the concrete curb extensions sooner rather than later. It is my understanding that the newly announced project includes a grocery store. I am mystified by this, as the corner is a short walk from four grocery stores: Erewhon, Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, and Bristol Farms. Given that the City has incorporated the State density bonus into the Zoning Ordinance, what is the rationale for allowing it to also be tied to the Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP)? I ask that the City Council revisit their approval of the entitlement process for this AHPP / Density Bonus project. I want our City Council to explain their decision that allowed for this massive project. Why did Staff propose and Council approve this level of development? Which members of City Council voted for this? Thank you, Diana Williams Item 1 08/22/23 16 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 16 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 6 Vernice Hankins From:JAMIE ANN VAN NOTE <jamieann@g.ucla.edu> Sent:Tuesday, August 15, 2023 8:39 PM To:Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; David White; Susan Cline Subject:2501 wilshire EXTERNAL Dear City Council, City Manager, and City Staff, I am writing you as a 20 year home owner and avid voter to express my concern regarding your approval of the below plan. Still posted on the site ‐ is the initial proposed plan for 2501 Wilshire with four stories and 71 housing units: And the Current proposal with eight stories (84 feet) and 170 housing units presented in the "community meeting": Item 1 08/22/23 17 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 17 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 7 Given that the City has incorporated the State density bonus into the Zoning Ordinance, what is the rationale for allowing it to also be tied to the Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP)? We ask that the City Council revisit their approval of the entitlement process for this and all AHPP / Density Bonus projects. We want our City Council to explain their decision that allowed for this massive project. Why did Staff propose and Council approve this level of development in our neighborhood? Which members of City Council voted for this? Families already have trouble finding parking to bring children to play at Douglas Park. This project is too big, too tall and must be stopped before our city is built out beyond recognition. I will look forward to a reply from each of you. All the best, Jamie Van Note Item 1 08/22/23 18 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 18 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 1 Vernice Hankins From:Carol Dickinson <caroldickinson@verizon.net> Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2023 10:49 PM To:Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; David White; Susan Cline; councilmtgitems Subject:N0 to 2501 Wilshire Project EXTERNAL Dear City Council, City Manager and City Staff, The 2501 Wilshire Project is a behemoth comprised of 170 units that will ruin the character of our neighborhood. As a longƟme resident of 25th Street, I am shocked that such a monstrosity could be plunked down into our exisƟng neighborhood of one and two‐story buildings. It will not only destroy the enjoyment of our homes, but will also impact the many children and adults who visit Douglas Park on a daily basis. The traffic, congesƟon, parking problems and loss of sunlight will be devastaƟng. This is not progress. This is pure greed of an uncaring developer who has no regard for our community. Please stop this assault and support the current residents. Sincerely, Carol Dickinson 1030 25th Street Santa Monica Item 1 08/22/23 19 of 19 Item 1 08/22/23 Item 1 08/22/23 19 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 1 Vernice Hankins From:Justin Murphy <justinjoemurphy@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 16, 2023 10:09 AM To:Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; David White; Susan Cline Subject:NO to 2501 Wilshire Project Dear City Council, City Manager, and City Staff, Given that the City has incorporated the State density bonus into the Zoning Ordinance, what is the rationale for allowing it to also be tied to the Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP)? We ask that the City Council revisit their approval of the entitlement process for this and all AHPP / Density Bonus projects. We want our City Council to explain their decision that allowed for this massive project. Why did Staff propose and Council approve this level of development in our neighborhood? Which members of City Council voted for this? Families already have trouble finding parking to bring children to play at Douglas Park. This project is too big, too tall and must be stopped before our city is built out beyond recognition. Justin Murphy Santa Monica resident living one block from the proposed unnecessary monstrosity. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office preventeddownload of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free.www.avg.com Item 1 08/22/23 20 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 2 Vernice Hankins From:glandi5670@aol.com Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2023 10:42 AM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Representative Ted Lieu; santamonicamidcityneighbors@gmail.com Subject:Strong Opposition to Proposed Development Project at 2501 Wilshire Blvd Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the proposed development project at 2501 Wilshire Blvd. This ill-conceived project, with its eight-story height and inclusion of retail shops on the ground floor, poses a grave threat to the harmony and character of our neighborhood. I implore you to consider the concerns of the community and reject this ill-fated proposal. Firstly, the inclusion of an eight-story structure in a predominantly low-rise area is utterly inappropriate and out of touch with the existing urban fabric. This project threatens to overshadow the surrounding homes and disrupt the aesthetic appeal that defines our neighborhood. The addition of more retail shops is equally misguided. Our neighborhood does not require more retail establishments, especially when considering the saturation of such businesses in the vicinity. This would only exacerbate the issue of excessive commercial development and potentially lead to vacant storefronts, detracting from the appeal of our community. The proposed supermarket within the development is yet another superfluous element. We currently have four supermarkets within walking distance of the site, rendering the addition redundant and unnecessary. Instead of addressing a genuine need, this aspect of the project further contributes to the project's lack of practicality. Furthermore, the potential traffic and congestion resulting from this project cannot be underestimated. The already strained traffic situation in the area would be worsened by the increased influx of visitors to the retail spaces and supermarket. This poses risks to pedestrian safety, road congestion, and the overall quality of life for residents. It is of utmost importance to note that at the recent virtual meeting between the developers and the local residents, approximately 100 participants were present on the Zoom call. Astonishingly, not a single individual expressed support for this project. This unanimous disapproval speaks volumes about the unsuitability of the proposed development. As elected representatives, your duty is to prioritize the voices of the citizens who elected you and who entrust you to safeguard the welfare of our community. It is absolutely essential that you consider the opinions of your constituents and respect their wishes. If the overwhelming sentiment of the people who placed you in office is in opposition to this project, it is your responsibility to heed their concerns and stand against the developers who seem intent on disregarding the welfare of our community. I implore you to reject the proposed development at 2501 Wilshire Blvd in light of its ill-conceived nature, its adverse impact on traffic and congestion, and the overwhelming opposition expressed by Item 1 08/22/23 21 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23 3 the residents of our neighborhood. The future of our community depends on your willingness to listen to the very people who entrusted you with their votes. Sincerely, Gary Landi A 26th St resident Item 1 08/22/23 22 of 22 Item 1 08/22/23