Residents tell Disabilities Commission developers and city process left out required ADA parking and accessible housing

At its December meeting the Santa Monica Disabilities Commission heard a lengthy public comment from a resident who said a proposed remodel at 909–911 Montana Avenue initially included an on-site ADA (disabled) parking spot that later disappeared from revised plans.

The commenter (identified in the meeting as Sean Delgario) told commissioners the developer and its architects later submitted new plans and argued technical and feasibility constraints precluded the ADA space. "They then presented a new set of plans suggesting that technical and feasibility would preclude them from the aforementioned ADA spot," he said, adding that he had discussed the issue with city staff and felt the exception had been applied inconsistently because it typically applies to commercial buildings, not residential ones.

Delgario also described procedural concerns at the Landmark Commission, including a narrow attendance count during a prior hearing and conflicting statements from city staff, and alleged broader problems at the property including delayed permits and property-management issues. Commissioners asked clarifying questions, summarized the concerns, and noted the commission’s limited authority over land-use permitting but said they would get the complaint on the record.

Separately, the commission read into the record a written public comment from Candice Bond, a former planning department employee who said she suffered a seizure and spinal injury and is now in a wheelchair. Bond wrote that her landlord and the city's staff (including ADA coordinator Blake Stavros, referenced in the submission) have told her portable ramps and other accommodations are not acceptable for the building and that it is "not safe for me to return to my home." The chair confirmed the letter was placed on the record and noted that non-agenda public comments are heard but that the commission has guardrails on acting directly on individual landlord–tenant disputes.

The commission did not take formal action on either item at the meeting. Commissioners suggested pathways for follow-up (for example, contacting the Housing Commission or city staff who handle ADA accommodations) and said they would consider whether further agenda items or ad hoc work was appropriate to address systemic enforcement or policy gaps.