SR 11-01-2022 8G
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 1, 2022
Agenda Item: 8.G
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services
Department
Subject: Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of
residents’ concerns about the “Builder’s remedy” permits just filed for 1,000s
of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate and up to 15 stories, that
the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal counsel to
conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City’s legal
options and remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable
laws. The law firm hired to conduct this review shall be selected by the City
Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it deems useful to its
legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed
officials. (Continued from 10/25/2022)
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comments
8.G
Packet Pg. 266
1
Vernice Hankins
From:metzel74@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Michael Etzel <metzel74@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 22, 2022 5:26 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Michael Etzel
Sincerely,
Michael Etzel
2400 Beverley Ave Santa Monica, CA 90405‐3761 metzel74@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:cclemons88@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Cynthia Clemons <cclemons88
@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 22, 2022 4:12 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Cynthia Clemons using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots
pro‐housing organization.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Clemons
5000 San Vicente Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90019‐2914 cclemons88@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:liliyadjones@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Liliya Jones
<liliyadjones@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 22, 2022 4:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Liliya Jones using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots pro‐
housing organization.
Sincerely,
Liliya Jones
923 5th St Apt 3 Santa Monica, CA 90403‐2646 liliyadjones@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:David <heflindavid.l@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 23, 2022 11:39 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Council Members,
There is a real housing crisis in our state and it’s up to our cities to support all forms of new housing developments to
help solve it. I encourage all of you to please throw your support behind the builders remedy projects and to not be
afraid of change. We need our cities to be open to all not just the wealthy few.
Sincerely,
David Heflin
Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clerk Mailbox
Sent:Sunday, October 23, 2022 4:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Item 16 I "Builders' Remedy" on Oct 25 agenda
From: Victor Fresco <v.fresco2@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 3:43 PM
To: Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>;
Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis
<Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office
<manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Item 16 I "Builders' Remedy" on Oct 25 agenda
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmember.
Whether or not you support building thousands of additional housing units is not the issue you are being asked to
decide.
The issue you must decide is whether the City officially supports the circumventing of its community’s carefully crafted
and agreed upon zoning codes, which took years to establish and included thoughtful input from Santa Monica's
stakeholders.
You are now being asked whether or not you support a developer’s use of a loophole to disregard the entire endeavor
of city planning.
Allowing major, community‐impacting projects to move forward by way of a loophole is fundamentally undemocratic. It
says that the democratic process that was used to establish our community's goals can be easily discarded.
Governing by loophole is not good governance.
Victor Fresco
Item 16.I
10/25/22
5 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:ejs2514 <ejs2514@verizon.net>
Sent:Sunday, October 23, 2022 5:19 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Builder's remedy projects
EXTERNAL
The proposed builder’s remedy projects are exactly the type of development needed as we transition to sustainable
living. Adding density along major streets is an excellent first step, and these projects satisfy this approach.
The fact that the builder’s remedy provision is being used shows that we need to get serious about adding housing
throughout Santa Monica. Those who have become enriched by housing scarcity should not be in control of the process.
It might be useful for complaining residents to recall the Santa Monica of 100 years ago. Back then, bean and strawberry
farmers were probably critical of the ticky-tack homes being built, and the smoke spewing cars that the new homeowners
would drive. These are the very homes where many residents now live (and complain!).
Thank you.
Ed Salisbury
2514 30th Street
Santa Monica
Item 16.I
10/25/22
6 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:B Leddy <bruce.leddy@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 11:57 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:10-25-22 Agenda Item 16i - SUPPORT
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers - I urge you to support Item 16i, to pursue appropriate counsel in response to recent
egregious "builders remedy" development projects. While the City does need to build significant housing in
response to the RHNA requirements of the state, such development should be undertaken thoughtfully and
carefully, with input from Council and the community, and not left to profit-motivated developers. The
"builders remedy" loophole has never been tested in court, and I am confident that counsel with knowledge
and expertise in this area of law can be successful in protecting the rights of our city to determine its best path
forward to a sustainable and balanced future.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bruce Leddy
22 year Santa Monica resident
Item 16.I
10/25/22
7 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Lerer <elerer@elizabethlerer.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 12:55 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:David White; Douglas Sloan; Council Mailbox
Subject:Item 16-I Please Support an Independent Legal Review of 'Builder's Remedy' Options
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please vote to support an independent legal analysis to determine recourse regarding the development project
applications submitted under the “Builder’s remedy”.
I urge the City Council to obtain knowledge of what options are available.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Item 16.I
10/25/22
8 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Garland Allen <garallenlaw@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 1:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Farrokh
Subject:We support the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I re builder's remedy applications
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers: Farrokh Allen and Garland Allen, residing at
the address below, hereby register our support for the action
advocated in Agenda Item 16.1
2722 Washington Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tel: 310‐260‐1288 310-968-4139
Item 16.I
10/25/22
9 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Ariella Er-Kohen <ariella_erkohen@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 1:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support for item 16.I
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
As a Santa Monica resident, I wholeheartedly support the item below.
Councilmember Discussion Item 16.I:
Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of residents’ concerns about
the “Builder’s remedy” permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate
and up to 15 stories, that the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal
counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and
remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law firm hired to conduct
this review shall be selected by the City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it
deems useful to its legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed
officials.
Respectfully,
Ariella
Item 16.I
10/25/22
10 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Suzanne Hunt <suzannemrode@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 1:30 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Agenda Item 16.1.- Hire Counsel
EXTERNAL
We strongly support this action listed below.
Councilmember Discussion Item 16.I:
Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of residents’ concerns about
the “Builder’s remedy” permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate
and up to 15 stories, that the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal
counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and
remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law firm hired to conduct
this review shall be selected by the City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it
deems useful to its legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed
officials.
Suzanne and Brian Hunt
Santa Monica Residents ‐ Northeast
Item 16.I
10/25/22
11 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Danielle Charney <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 1:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; Clerk Mailbox; Council Mailbox
Subject:Item 16.1
EXTERNAL
It is outrageous that staff‐ JingYeo, Rachel Kwok and all of Martin's
department who worked on this, and have ignored the residents needs
in favor of development and land‐use attorneys are concerned since they
started working for this City. They have always bent over backwards to
faciliate the projects of Rand,Nelson, Paster and Harding/ Larmore over
the needs of our City. They only care about their salaries and too fat
pensions. They all need to be fired, NOW.. every single person who
worked on thisd, buried it in the massive document and failedt o alert
Council in time. But what is wrong with Council and legal? These three
awful sleazy lawyers formed this new agency in April to take advantage of
the loophole. Tell me no one knew this? If not WHY NOT?
I fully support this item and a stop to selling our City out by staff who
can't do a thing but run it into the ground.
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city
governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential
challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review
indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies
under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning
staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even
though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.
SMCLC and neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what
occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.
Item 16.I
10/25/22
12 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
Danielle Charney
Fed up with it all
Do something for christ's sake
this is total bullshit
Item 16.I
10/25/22
13 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:henry antosz <hankantosz@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 1:53 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Subject 16.1
EXTERNAL
My wife( Fran Ginsberg) and I as residents of Santa Monica whole heartedly support the action advocated in Agenda
16.1.
Thank you, Henry Antosz
Item 16.I
10/25/22
14 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Evelyn salem <evesalem@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:09 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Builder’sremedy
EXTERNAL
Allowing thousands of units without the proper environmental, earthquake, demands in traffic, utilities, public services,
schools etc.would be sheer irresponsibility.
As persons responsible for our safety and quality of life you cannot allow this to happen.
Evelyn Salem
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.I
10/25/22
15 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Impact of Late Housing Element
From: Heather Gould <hsgould@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2022 3:23 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: david.white@sm.gov <david.white@sm.gov>
Subject: Impact of Late Housing Element
EXTERNAL
Dear All…My family has lived in Santa Monica since 1966.
I read, with considerable dismay, the 10/13/22 article in the Santa Monica Daily Press about the late 2021 Housing
Element revision and the 12 projects submitted during the builder’s remedy process.
How and why did this happen? (At best, it seems like an epic failure of communication.).
What are you doing about it?
Did the development at Lincoln and Ocean Park benefit from the late Housing Element and, if so, why the lack of
transparency?
Thank you. Heather Gould
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.I
10/25/22
16 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: City Council this must be stopped
From: riverfred1@gmail.com <riverfred1@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 9:23 AM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: City Council this must be stopped
EXTERNAL
October 17, 2022
Dear SMCLC Supporter,
At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14
applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These
applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and
densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was
finalizing its revised Housing Element.
The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t
approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.
To say residents and council members are deeply concerned about this developer
ambush and have questions that must be answered is an understatement. We need
an immediate analysis of the legal options and remedies available to the City to respond
to these filings, and to explore potential avenues to reject them.
This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable
development in our city are already peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done
to prevent this. They're also suggesting that building this much overwhelmingly market-
Item 16.I
10/25/22
17 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
rate housing goes a long way to meet the State’s required affordable housing mandates.
But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the 6,168
affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly market-rate units
by 2028!
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good
city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications
pending a review of potential challenges to them under all applicable
laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s
legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these
applications.
We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by
City planning staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck
with these projects even though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows
and ignore relevant state law.
SMCLC and neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal
analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council
hearing on October 25th.
If you agree, please write to the City Manager, David White, at
david.white@santamonica.gov, City Attorney douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov, and City
Council at council@smgov.net and support these actions.
Thank you,
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors to sign up for updates
and join in our efforts.
Item 16.I
10/25/22
18 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Outrage at "builder's remedy"
From: Jeanne Laurie <jeannelaurie@msn.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2022 10:54 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Zina Josephs <zinajosephs@aol.com>
Subject: Outrage at "builder's remedy"
EXTERNAL
October 16, 2022
To: Mayor Himmelrich, City Council members, and City Manager White
From: Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
RE: Builder's remedy
It is time to listen to the people. We expect the city council to listen to the residents, not just
developers, who don’t live in Santa Monica.
Santa Monica residents are extremely upset about the “builder’s remedy” permits that were
recently filed for nearly 5,000 new housing units, in buildings as tall as 15 stories.
This is outrageous, goes against everything our 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element stood
for, and takes away control over the future of our city.
We urge the City Council to hire outside legal counsel (with expertise in relevant land use
laws) to conduct an independent review and then present the Council with options and
remedies.
Our hope is that the remedies will include using applicable law to reject these proposed
development projects.
Sent from Mail for Windows
Item 16.I
10/25/22
19 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Developers trying to ignore our zoning: Will the City rollover?
From: Ed Harker <ewillhark@netscape.net>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:08 AM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: info@smclc.net <info@smclc.net>
Subject: Fwd: Developers trying to ignore our zoning: Will the City rollover?
EXTERNAL
I completely agree with SMCLC's complaint, Oct. 17, 2022, below.
Don't be ambushed and pushed around by windfall profit developers who have no interest in the quality of our lives here
in Santa Monica. We are counting on you to serve your residents!
Urgently,
Ed Harker
2029 20th St.
-----Original Message-----
From: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City <info@smclc.net>
To: ewillhark@netscape.net
Sent: Mon, Oct 17, 2022 9:10 am
Subject: Developers trying to ignore our zoning: Will the City rollover?
October 17, 2022
Dear SMCLC Supporter,
At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14
applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These
applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and
Item 16.I
10/25/22
20 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was
finalizing its revised Housing Element.
The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t
approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.
To say residents and council members are deeply concerned about this developer
ambush and have questions that must be answered is an understatement. We need
an immediate analysis of the legal options and remedies available to the City to respond
to these filings, and to explore potential avenues to reject them.
This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable
development in our city are already peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done
to prevent this. They're also suggesting that building this much overwhelmingly market-
rate housing goes a long way to meet the State’s required affordable housing mandates.
But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the 6,168
affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly market-rate units
by 2028!
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good
city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a
review of potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are
impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal
rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by
City planning staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck
with these projects even though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows
and ignore relevant state law.
SMCLC and neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal
analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council
hearing on October 25th.
If you agree, please write to the City Manager, David White, at
david.white@santamonica.gov, City Attorney douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov, and City
Council at council@smgov.net and support these actions.
Thank you,
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors to sign up for updates
and join in our efforts.
Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City | 1112 Montana Ave. #174, Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 16.I
10/25/22
21 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
Unsubscribe ewillhark@netscape.net
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by info@smclc.net in collaboration with
Try email marketing for free today!
Item 16.I
10/25/22
22 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: development
From: a t <niftyripple@mac.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:03 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: development
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I disagree with the City’s approach regarding the applications to build projects that exceed the city’s zoning heights and
densities. These projects should not be allowed to proceed based on a technical loophole. Better to reject them and let
this play out in court than have the city roll over and approve them despite the flagrant disregard of our final housing
element which they represent.
Please do not drop the ball on this.
Thank you,
Andrew Turman
2715 Highland Ave
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 16.I
10/25/22
23 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Developers trying to ignore our zoning:
From: Gavin Scott <gavin.scott@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:02 AM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; nicolajbs@gmail.com <nicolajbs@gmail.com>
Subject: Developers trying to ignore our zoning:
EXTERNAL
October 17, 2022
Dear Councilors and City Manager
We were shocked to learn that two developers have filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing
units in Santa Monica that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities,.
The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the State
last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.
We need an immediate analysis of the legal options and remedies available to the City to respond to these
filings, and to explore potential avenues to reject them.
We urge you not to take any further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of
challenges to them under all applicable laws.
We also think you should hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights
under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of city planning staff have told council
members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though they massively exceed what
Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.
We urge the Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.
Yours sincerely,
Gavin and Nicola Scott
1801 Marine Street
Santa Monica
CA 90405
Item 16.I
10/25/22
24 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Oct 25th Council meeting/ Don't ignore the zoning
From: Phyllis Chavez <chavez_art@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 9:52 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Oct 25th Council meeting/ Don't ignore the zoning
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am losing confidence in you, Mr. White and Mr. Sloan. We cannot ignore the zoning and we cannot let
the developers steamroll us and set the rules!
Talk about being shocked!! I was floored to find out that two developers had filed 14 applications to build
THOUSANDS of new housing units in Santa Monica! These applications are for projects that greatly exceed
our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was
finalizing its revised Housing Element. NO!!
The city needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of
potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s
initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and
remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
Please take action. I don't want to be "stuck" and when did developers start making decisions for us?
So concerned!
Phyllis Chavez
Santa Monica
Item 16.I
10/25/22
25 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: over-development
From: Karla Klarin <ksklarin@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 9:39 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: over‐development
EXTERNAL
PLEASE DO NOT LET DEVELOPERS DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH OUR CITY. They pocket big money and walk away to
their homes in Malibu, Brentwood or wherever. They don't care if our city is crammed full of apartments, traffic and
noise. They don't care if we don't have enough supermarkets (bye bye Gelsons). I do care. I've lived here most of my
life, I've raised my children here and I care a lot.
Please take care of residents first and foremost.
Karla Klarin
‐‐
karlaklarin.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
26 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Massive ball drop needs correction
From: Gabrielle <4agreenfire@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 9:35 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas
Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Massive ball drop needs correction
EXTERNAL
Dear representatives,
As a long time resident of Sunset Park, I am saddened that no factual or legal analysis seems to be underway to counter
the actions of the two developers that have submitted fourteen applications to build thousands of new housing units in
Santa Monica that greatly exceed City height and density zoning regulations. I ask that you take this up at the next
Council hearing on October 25th. Please explore all options to reject these applications as these massive developments
would be nothing but a blight on the Santa Monica community.
I am in agreement with the SMCLC that the following actions should be taken without delay:
I expect no less from you all,
Item 16.I
10/25/22
27 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
9
Gabrielle de Benedictis
1130 Pearl St., SM, 90405
Item 16.I
10/25/22
28 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Alarming Rapid Over-Development of our community
From: Steve Gorlin <spyraljones@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:39 AM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Douglas
Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Alarming Rapid Over‐Development of our community
EXTERNAL
To David White, Douglas Sloan, the Santa Monica City Council and whomever it may concern:
As a concerned resident, I have been shocked by the amount of real estate development going on as of late. But what is
even more shocking is that the future development projects look as if they will result in the images from some dystopian
fever dream.
If you care about Santa Monica then please do something about irresponsible quick decision over‐development of Santa
Monica:
1. Take no further action to process any of recently filed applications pending a review of
potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial
review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies
under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
We don't have to live by the false narrative that nothing can be done! South Pasadena stopped the freeway from being
built through the city. We can oppose irrational zoning and building laws imposed on the city that don't make any sense
for a livable future of Santa Monica.
Let's not let the city turn into this:
Item 16.I
10/25/22
29 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Sincerely,
Steven Gorlin
Santa Monica Resident
2228 3rd. St. Apt. 9
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.I
10/25/22
30 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: I Continue To Oppose The CIty's Over-Development and Seek Your Position on the Following
Issues
From: privatesurfer2002@yahoo.com <privatesurfer2002@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:33 AM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: I Continue To Oppose The CIty's Over‐Development and Seek Your Position on the Following Issues
EXTERNAL
Hi,
Have your positions on the proposals mentioned in this email available?:
Sincerely,
Burt Goldstein
SM Resident Since 1993
——
October 17, 2022
Dear SMCLC Supporter,
At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to
build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly
exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the
City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element.
The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the
State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.
To say residents and council members are deeply concerned about this developer ambush and have
questions that must be answered is an understatement. We need an immediate analysis of the legal
options and remedies available to the City to respond to these filings, and to explore potential avenues to
reject them.
This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city are
already peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done to prevent this. They're also suggesting that
building this much overwhelmingly market-rate housing goes a long way to meet the State’s required
affordable housing mandates. But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the
6,168 affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly market-rate units by 2028!
Item 16.I
10/25/22
31 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
4
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of
potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s
initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and
remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff
who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though they
massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.
SMCLC and neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what
occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.
If you agree, please write to the City Manager, David White, at david.white@santamonica.gov, City
Attorney douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov, and City Council at council@smgov.net and support these
actions.
Thank you,
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
Item 16.I
10/25/22
32 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: RE developers & 1,000s of new housing units in SM
From: MEILISA THOMPSON <meilisa@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:25 AM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: RE developers & 1,000s of new housing units in SM
EXTERNAL
Hello Mr. White and Mr. Sloan,
We are family of four that has lived here for over 20 years–homeowners, graduates from SMASH, a valedictorian
candidate and National Merit scholarship student from SAMO, the other a straight‐A and USTA‐ranked tennis player, a
forensic and child psychiatrist, and an artist from Ten Woman Gallery on Main St.
The reasons to leave Santa Monica keep coming and seem to multiply... "two developers had filed 14 applications
to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica.”
In our time, SM has welcomed crime so common every resident we know has been effected, inhumane care
of mentally ill people wandering around, and LIES from developers building gigantic luxury buildings to meet
some housing mandates...a law they backed (that apparently doesn't apply to all of SM fairly).
"incomes above $1 million — residents who represent only about one-half of 1% of all tax returns filed in the
state but collectively pay about 40% of all California personal income taxes.” (LA Times, 4/22)
We do not plan to stay in Santa Monica because it's objectively not a nice place to live anymore.
Not sure how to say how we feel better than this:
Item 16.I
10/25/22
33 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Please take immediate action to restrict/reject recent application for overdevelopment of Santa
Monica
From: omglaw@gmail.com <omglaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:19 AM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Please take immediate action to restrict/reject recent application for overdevelopment of Santa Monica
EXTERNAL
At last week’s Council meeting we (the residents of Santa Monica) were shocked to learn that two developers had
filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects
that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as
the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element.
The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the State last
year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority. If this is true, how on earth did this come to pass and
who is going to take responsibility for this error and how will they take corrective action to address this potentially
huge blunder.
To say residents and council members are deeply concerned about this developer ambush and have
questions that must be answered is an understatement. We need an immediate analysis of the legal options and
remedies available to the City to respond to these filings, and to explore potential avenues to reject them.
This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city are already
peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done to prevent this. They're also suggesting that building this
much overwhelmingly market-rate housing goes a long way to meet the State’s required affordable housing
mandates. But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the 6,168 affordable mandate,
our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly market-rate units by 2028! Moreover, the high and rising
vacancy rates in Santa Monica, both residential and commercial, clearly demonstrate that building more
(particularly market-rate units) does not translate into higher housing rates and certainly, with such high
commercial vacancies, translate into sustainable housing.
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential
challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review
indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies
under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff who have
told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though they massively exceed
what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.
Item 16.I
10/25/22
34 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
7
We are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.
Please give this outrageous situation your urgent, focused and persistent attention.
Thank you,
Ofer Grossman
1115 Hill Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.I
10/25/22
35 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: ZONING INFRACTIONS
From: Martyn Burke <martynb@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:12 AM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: ZONING INFRACTIONS
EXTERNAL
Please NOT approve any development projects that contravene existing zoning regulations.
We do not want to become Miami Beach.
And especially no 15 story towers.
We are requesting from you:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a
review of potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they
are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s
legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these
applications.
Martyn Burke
Laura Morton
Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica
Item 16.I
10/25/22
36 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Two developers - 14 applications - NO, FIGHT BACK
From: Rachel Harms <rharms@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 12:04 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Two developers ‐ 14 applications ‐ NO, FIGHT BACK
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members
At last week’s Council meeting I was shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of
new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and
densities, (one is for a 15‐story building).
I urge the City to take the following steps:
* Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential challenges to them
under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review indicates.)
* Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable
laws to reject these applications.
I strongly agree with my local neighborhood groups and am appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what
occurred and am urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.
Sincerely,
Rachel Harms
28 year Santa Monica resident, homeowner, SM business owner, taxpayer and voter
Item 16.I
10/25/22
37 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: housing development applications + zoming laws
From: Lila Yomtoob <lilabird@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:55 AM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: housing development applications + zoming laws
EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is Lila Yomtoob. I live in and manage a 6 unit apartment building here on 25th street near Broadway that
belongs to my family. We have been in Santa Monica since 1988.
Today I received an email from SMCLC regarding the status of zoning and 14 applications that include a 15 story building.
I think you know of which I speak.
I urge you to closely consider what these developments will do to our city. From what it sounds like, they will not
increase diversity, equity and quality of life ‐ things that every city and society needs right now.
I do hope you are poised to make decisions that are good for the collective future of our citizens, not just the
pocketbooks of the wealthy.
Thank you for your time,
Lila
Lila Yomtoob
917‐887‐8535
Producer ‐ Transformative Hope: Asian American Elders Respond to Racism
Executive Producer ‐ The Light Ahead
Writer/Director ‐ Ellie and Martina
www.yomtoob.com
(she/her)
Item 16.I
10/25/22
38 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Pending Building Projects
From: Eric Shapiro <eric1944@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:19 AM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Pending Building Projects
EXTERNAL
I live (and own a condo) on Yale Street near Colorado Ave.
I am worried about the 3,968 housing units that are scheduled to be built
in the city. Two of those projects are a 12 story and a 15 story project
that will have a devastating impact on my street.
As I understand it this situation exists because the City sent in a defective
housing plan to the State. I suggest that the City find a means to undo
the damage and that the City investigate how an unacceptable housing
plan was filed.
Thank you,
Eric Shapiro
Item 16.I
10/25/22
39 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Development in Santa Monica
From: Stanley Rubin <rubin.stanley@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:12 AM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Development in Santa Monica
EXTERNAL
At last week’s Council meeting I was appalled to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build
thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our
City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was
finalizing its revised Housing Element.
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of
potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s
initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and
remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
Stanley Rubin (40 year resident of Santa Monica)
2522 Washington Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 16.I
10/25/22
40 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Developers Application to build thousands of new housing
From: Bridget Terry <bridge1237@me.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:48 AM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Developers Application to build thousands of new housing
EXTERNAL
At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14
applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These
applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and
densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was
finalizing its revised Housing Element.
The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t
approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.
To say residents and council members are deeply concerned about this developer
ambush and have questions that must be answered is an understatement.We need
an immediate analysis of the legal options and remedies available to the City to respond
to these filings, and to explore potential avenues to reject them.
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good
city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a
review of potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are
impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal
rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
Please employ these steps as of the next city council.
Bridget Terry
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16.I
10/25/22
41 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:23 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Insane overdevelopment
From: Thunder Levin <tlevin@southbridgefilms.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:41 AM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Insane overdevelopment
EXTERNAL
I stand with SMCLC and other community groups in opposing the latest spate of outsized housing developments that
violate city zoning ordinances. I urge the city to hire outside counsel to explore all legal avenues to stop these
developments that will destroy our community.
Santa Monica is already overbuilt with unaffordable housing. The city should allow ONLY affordable housing units to be
built from this time forward. If necessary, stand against the literally insane state mandates and developer overreach,
not only in court, but on the ground. Utilize SMPD and whatever other forces at your disposal to physically prevent
construction of any developments that do not meet Santa Monica zoning and codes.
This is our last gasp. If we don’t stop this now, Santa Monica will become just Downtown L.A. West. We cannot allow
that. If you must physically stand against the state with force, then that’s what you must do. You’ve already allowed
this disaster to proceed much too far. It’s time to draw a line in our increasingly paved over sand. THIS FAR – NO MORE.
With kindest regards,
Thunder Levin
2407 Fourth St. #7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310‐392‐8331
310‐999‐1831 cell
TLevin@southbridgefilms.com
Virus-free.www.avast.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
42 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Builder's remedy development applications may not be valid
From: Daniel Galamba <galambadb@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 2:25 PM
To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra
<Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich
<Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Daniel Galamba
<galambadb@hotmail.com>
Subject: Builder's remedy development applications may not be valid
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Per the Santa Monica Lookout article copied below, in February 2022 the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) found that the Housing Element the City submitted was not in compliance and gave it until October
15, 2022 to comply. The City's Housing Element was approved by the State on October 14, 2022 before the October 15
deadline. Therefore it is my opinion that any builder's remedy development applications submitted before October 15,
2022 are not valid and should not be approved. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
_____________________________________
City Officials Caught Off Guard by Flurry of Development Submissions
By Jorge Casuso
October 13, 2022 ‐‐ Santa Monica's biggest housing provider has rushed plans into the City's development pipeline to
build more than 4,000 units that require little public input, dealing a massive blow to local slow‐growth activists who
were caught off guard by the move.
The City Council's failure to submit a compliant Housing Element to State officials by last year's October deadline paved
the way for WSC and NMS Properties to submit plans over the past several weeks to build 11 mostly high‐rise buildings
that bypass the City's zoning code and general plan.
The proposed projects, as well as another by a different developer, add a total 3,968 units, 829 of them affordable.
About half would be in a 15‐story residential tower at 330 Nebraska Avenue with 1,600 market rate units and 400
Item 16.I
10/25/22
43 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
affordable units.
Attorney Dave Rand, who represents NMS and WSC, said plans for two more projects were turned in on Thursday before
the final deadline on Saturday for the City to submit the revised Housing Element approved by the Council Tuesday.
Mayor Sue Himmelrich sees a positive side to the proposals, which include 20 percent affordable housing and have
alarmed slow‐growth activists and been celebrated by housing advocates.
"If I don't sound as upset, it's because these (proposed projects) have more affordable housing than anything we (the
City) could do," Himmelrich said. "If you don't mind affordable housing, it's not as horrible as they say."
The developers' rush to meet Friday's filing deadline caught Councilmember Phil Brock, who leads the slow‐growth
Change faction on the Council, by surprise.
"We're all just taken aback," Brock said Thursday. "Obviously I was like, 'What the hell.' Why didn't they tell us as a
Council so we could do something to combat this."
Brock said he only learned on Thursday about the "builder's remedy" provision in State law that allows developers of
projects with 20 percent of the units affordable to lower‐income households to bypass the City's zoning laws if the
Housing Element is not in compliance.
Some slow‐growth activists have "searched reports for housing (issued) for the last ten months and nobody has
mentioned the 'builder's remedy,'" Brock said. "It was a non issue."
Mayor Himmelrich counters that the Council had been informed by City staff of the provision in the State's Housing
Accountability Act (HAA) and the consequences of failing to submit a certified Housing Element.
"We knew about the developer's remedy," she said. "We knew that it was a possibility they would be able to do that. All
the cities knew the biggest weapon were these developer remedies."
Ironically, the developers' use of the "builder's remedy" is the direct result of the Council's efforts to rely on non‐profit
housing providers using City‐owned land and homeowners adding auxiliary rental units to meet its State‐mandated
housing quota ("Council Cautiously Approves Housing Plan," October 13, 2021).
The five Council members who approved the Housing Element last October ‐‐ including Himmelrich and Brock ‐‐ were
trying to avoid relying on private developers that provide "inclusionary units" in large market‐rate projects.
The plan ‐‐ which was opposed by Councilmembers Gleam Davis and Kristin McCowan ‐‐ backfired.
In February, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) found that the Housing Element the City
submitted was not in compliance and gave it until October 15 to comply ("City's Housing Element Fails to Comply,"
February 11, 2022).
Rand, whose advice became highly sought by developers this week after counseling NMS and WSC, said City staff
members have repeatedly advised the Planning Commission and City Council about the consequences of not complying,
although the colloquial term "builder's remedy" was not used.
"Staff has addressed this every step of the way that this is a consequence," said Rand, a land use attorney with Rand
Pastor & Nelson LLP. "This consequence has been at the top of the list. There were absolutely warnings."
Rand said the projects submitted by NMS and WSC, if approved, will give a major boost to Santa Monica's efforts to
Item 16.I
10/25/22
44 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
build affordable housing, although only the initial step has been taken.
"This is a huge amount of affordable housing," he said. "It's a huge dent that doesn't require a huge subsidy and public
land. It's a massive public benefit."
Rand noted that although the proposed projects are not in the Coastal Zone, which requires a much more onerous
approval process, the projects still have a long way before they can be built.
"If these are to be built, there's a lot that has to happen," Rand said. "For those that are concerned, the sky is not
falling."
Item 16.I
10/25/22
45 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Developers Rampant
From: Phyllis Sorter <pjsorter@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 3:40 PM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Developers Rampant
EXTERNAL
As a lifelong resident of Santa Monica, I am appalled that city officials who ought to protect the interests of Santa
Monica residents are allowing themselves to be played by developers who are rushing to create a mini‐Manhattan in our
little beach city. (15 stories, really?). The city’s failure to follow through on the Housing Element last year opened the
door to the trickster developers, but that failure should not be compounded by throwing up your hands, saying “There’s
nothing we can do about it.” Outside legal counsel with the competence to deal with this situation should be hired, and
in the meanwhile, the city should not go along docilely with the developers’ schemes. Apart from the loss of
neighborhood‐serving businesses, such as those at the corner of Ocean Park and Lincoln, how will the city’s independent
water supply survive under this onslaught? The best think that can be said is that it came to light before the upcoming
election so that residents can consider who is competent to run this city.
Phyllis Johnston
143 Hart Avenue
Santa Monica
Item 16.I
10/25/22
46 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Stop pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city
From: girltunes <girltunes@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 2:38 PM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Assemblymember.Bloom@assembly.ca.gov
<Assemblymember.Bloom@assembly.ca.gov>; Senator.Allen@senate.ca.gov <Senator.Allen@senate.ca.gov>
Subject: Stop pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city
EXTERNAL
(sorry for duplicate - I forgot to add subject heading in previous email)
I stand with Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City regarding the following urgent concerns:
At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications
to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that
greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and
comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element.
The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by
the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.
To say residents and council members are deeply concerned about this developer ambush and
have questions that must be answered is an understatement. We need an immediate analysis of
the legal options and remedies available to the City to respond to these filings, and to explore potential
avenues to reject them.
This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city
are already peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done to prevent this. They're also
suggesting that building this much overwhelmingly market-rate housing goes a long way to meet the
State’s required affordable housing mandates. But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as
affordable. To meet the 6,168 affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly
market-rate units by 2028!
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city
governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of
potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s
initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and
remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
Item 16.I
10/25/22
47 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
6
We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning
staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even
though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.
SMCLC and neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of
what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October
25th.
==========
Additionally, the fact that we don't have the water to provide for all of these new projects should be
taken into account and therefore warrant a halt to any new housing construction until adequate water
resources are available.
Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Item 16.I
10/25/22
48 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw:
From: girltunes <girltunes@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 2:32 PM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Assemblymember.Bloom@assembly.ca.gov
<Assemblymember.Bloom@assembly.ca.gov>; Senator.Allen@senate.ca.gov <Senator.Allen@senate.ca.gov>
Subject:
EXTERNAL
I stand with Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City regarding the following urgent concerns:
At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications
to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that
greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and
comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element.
The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by
the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.
To say residents and council members are deeply concerned about this developer ambush and
have questions that must be answered is an understatement. We need an immediate analysis of
the legal options and remedies available to the City to respond to these filings, and to explore potential
avenues to reject them.
This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city
are already peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done to prevent this. They're also
suggesting that building this much overwhelmingly market-rate housing goes a long way to meet the
State’s required affordable housing mandates. But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as
affordable. To meet the 6,168 affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly
market-rate units by 2028!
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city
governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of
potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s
initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and
remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
Item 16.I
10/25/22
49 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
8
We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning
staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even
though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.
SMCLC and neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of
what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October
25th.
==========
Additionally, the fact that we don't have the water to provide for all of these new projects should be
taken into account and therefore warrant a halt to any new housing construction until adequate water
resources are available.
Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Item 16.I
10/25/22
50 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: question
From: Andy Liberman <teachins1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:58 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: question
EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Council:
Of the 5,000 new apartments said to be added to Santa Monica, what percentage are for low and moderate income
units?
Thanks.
Andrew Liberman
Santa Monica resident
Item 16.I
10/25/22
51 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
10
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: The Destruction of My Home Town
From: A Crown <acrown405@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 1:25 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: The Destruction of My Home Town
EXTERNAL
I am a native resident homeowner, and I am disgusted with my so‐called governors. The rampant and unregulated over‐
development in Santa Monica is thoroughly unacceptable and unsustainable.
I support SMCLC's position regarding the recent developer dump of building applications:
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential challenges to them
under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable
laws to reject these applications.
If no remedy is found to curtail this further giveaway to self‐serving and sociopathic developers, Santa Monica will not
only be known around the world as The Home of the Homeless, but as The City That Sold Itself Out to the One Percent.
Sincerely,
Alvin Crown
2344 30th St, 90405
Item 16.I
10/25/22
52 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
11
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Overdevelopment
From: Carol Skowlund <carol.skowlund@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 12:32 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Overdevelopment
EXTERNAL
Please, please stop the overdevelopment in our city.
Thank you,
Carol Skowlund
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.I
10/25/22
53 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: 14 New applications for housing by developers in Santa Monica
From: Sally Allen <sallyjane.allen@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 10:41 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: 14 New applications for housing by developers in Santa Monica
EXTERNAL
Dear council members,
Please read the letter I recently received from SMCLC, dated Oct 17.
Rightly so, SMCLC and neighborhood groups such as my own, Sunset Park, are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal
analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.
Sincerely,
Warren Allen
1011 Pine St
Item 16.I
10/25/22
54 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Approval of too many Residential Buildings
From: Madi Hertz <srahertz@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:17 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Approval of too many Residential Buildings
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
At this time, our city has had enough. For years, we have been the butt of roughshod practices by
the developers, who only worry about how they can make a profit. They are using the bogus
state mandate, which we should have fought originally, to roll over the city zoning laws and
get what they want. This has accelerated in recent years and now has reached an apex.
They do not have the city's residents at heart. No developer ever does!
With that in mind, please do the following:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential
challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review
indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies
under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
Thank you,
Madeleine Hertz
2326 California Ave.
949-412-4118
Item 16.I
10/25/22
55 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Developers trying to ignore our zoning: Will the City rollover?
From: kartichoke@aol.com <kartichoke@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 9:09 PM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Developers trying to ignore our zoning: Will the City rollover?
EXTERNAL
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My Santa Monica neighbors and I totally agree with SMCLC's opinions below. Immediately hire
experienced outside legal counsel and stop these outrageous actions by developers.
Kay Ward
Dr. Eleanor Blumenberg
-----Original Message-----
From: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City <info@smclc.net>
To: kartichoke@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 17, 2022 9:10 am
Subject: Developers trying to ignore our zoning: Will the City rollover?
October 17, 2022
Dear SMCLC Supporter,
At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14
applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These
applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and
densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was
finalizing its revised Housing Element.
Item 16.I
10/25/22
56 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
4
The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t
approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.
To say residents and council members are deeply concerned about this developer
ambush and have questions that must be answered is an understatement. We need
an immediate analysis of the legal options and remedies available to the City to respond
to these filings, and to explore potential avenues to reject them.
This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable
development in our city are already peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done
to prevent this. They're also suggesting that building this much overwhelmingly market-
rate housing goes a long way to meet the State’s required affordable housing mandates.
But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the 6,168
affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly market-rate units
by 2028!
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good
city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a
review of potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are
impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal
rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by
City planning staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck
with these projects even though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows
and ignore relevant state law.
SMCLC and neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal
analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council
hearing on October 25th.
If you agree, please write to the City Manager, David White, at
david.white@santamonica.gov, City Attorney douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov, and City
Council at council@smgov.net and support these actions.
Thank you,
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors to sign up for updates
and join in our efforts.
Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City | 1112 Montana Ave. #174, Santa Monica, CA 90403
Unsubscribe kartichoke@aol.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
57 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
5
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by info@smclc.net in collaboration with
Try email marketing for free today!
Item 16.I
10/25/22
58 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw:
From: Edna Torbati <ednatorbati@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 4:31 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject:
EXTERNAL
My name is Edna Torbati and residing in Santa Monica for more than 36 years. This town is completely different than
before and so much traffic and full of homelessness and makes it difficult to live here . Please stop more building and
higher prices and 15th story buildings. I really appreciate it if considering it thanks
Item 16.I
10/25/22
59 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:26 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Developers Ignoring City Zoning requirements
From: Rebecca Nunnelee <rebecca.nunnelee@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 7:10 PM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Developers Ignoring City Zoning requirements
EXTERNAL
I respectfully ask that you take immediate action to stop developers who have recently filed 14 applications to build
thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica, most of which are for projects which exceed the City’s zoning heights
and densities.
Please do the following:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of
potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s
initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and
remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
As a long-time resident of Santa Monica (over 30 years), I have become increasingly concerned about the
issue of overdevelopment and the disappearing skyline. These disrespectful and greedy developers have
come to believe they can do anything they want in the City of Santa Monica - encountering no restraints if
they persist long enough.
Please take this threat seriously!
Sincerely
Rebecca Nunnelee
Item 16.I
10/25/22
60 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
8
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Acting on Developers ignoring our zoning
From: Judith Claire <clairety@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 6:21 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Acting on Developers ignoring our zoning
EXTERNAL
Hi City Council Members,
I just received an alarming email from SMCLC stating that 2 developers are planning to build projects that exceed our
City’s zoning height and density. They’re claiming our City’s Housing element wasn’t approved by the State last year, so
we’ve lost our zoning authority.
I was shocked to hear statements were made by city planning staff that we are stuck. I don’t know who these people
are, or if it’s just one person who is or isn’t competent.
This also brings up the question if our City Council, or those involved in putting together the Housing element just
moseyed along and ignored the deadline and if the legal team did not flag the consequences of not submitting on time.
Or if the developers are just toxic and trying to create a greedy loophole that doesn’t exist. I request an investigation
into who or what created this colossal mess.
Nevertheless, here we are. We fight a lot of things, like the airport and voting by district. This is important
This is something we need to fight, despite what someone on the planning staff said. Please hire the experienced
outside counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable state laws to reject these
applications.
Sincerely,
Judith Claire
Item 16.I
10/25/22
61 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Need for legal counsel for 14 development projects
From: Suzanne Verge <vergesuzanne@me.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 4:40 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Need for legal counsel for 14 development projects
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmembers,
We need answers regarding the recently submitted 14 development projects.
The City needs to immediately to take steps to restore our confidence in good city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of
potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s
initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and
remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
Thank you for being a public servant and representing our city,
Suzanne Verge
Resident of Santa Monica
vergesuzanne@me.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
62 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Developer Applications
From: Sandy Weisman <sjwisewoman@verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 12:55 PM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Developer Applications
EXTERNAL
Dear Mr. White, Mr. Sloan and City Council members,
It’s incredibly discouraging to see our city being destroyed literally on a daily basis by the unsustainable growth you
are allowing to happen.
You have a duty to find every resource available to reject these most recent developer applications. As
recommended by SMCLC:
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential
challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review
indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies
under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
Sincerely,
Sandra Weisman
1102 11th St.
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 16.I
10/25/22
63 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Last Week's City Council Meeting
From: glandi5670@aol.com <glandi5670@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 4:01 PM
To: glandi5670@aol.com <glandi5670@aol.com>
Subject: Last Week's City Council Meeting
EXTERNAL
It has come to the attention of SM residents that at last week’s Council meeting two developers had
filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are
for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building)
and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element
Neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred and
are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential
challenges to them under all applicable laws.
2.Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and
remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
SM citizens believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City
planning staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these
projects even though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant
state law.
Thank you.
Gary Landi, long time SM resident.
Item 16.I
10/25/22
64 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Concerned with Recent Real Estate Projects that Exceed SM's Zoning Laws
From: Will von Bernuth <wvonbe@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 3:49 PM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Concerned with Recent Real Estate Projects that Exceed SM's Zoning Laws
EXTERNAL
To David White, Douglas Sloan, and the Santa Monica City Council:
I recently learned that two developers submitted 14 applications to build thousands of units across multiple complexes
that exceed Santa Monica's zoning laws. Including one filing for a 15 story building. As a long time Santa Monica resident,
this concerns me greatly.
I urge the city to seriously look into these applications and not let them move forward without proper investigation. To that
end I would like to see the city do two things:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential challenges to them
under all applicable laws.
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all
applicable laws to reject these applications.
I know some in the city government believe these developments and others are foregone conclusions but isn't that what
the city government is for? To protect the interest of its residents and not those of outside parties? To make sure Santa
Monica is developed in a sustainable and livable way? To serve as a central point of singular, thoughtful, and powerful
advocacy where an individual resident could not? Otherwise, what is the point of the city government?
To that end, it is the city's duty to investigate these issues fully and not simply deem them a foregone conclusion.
I hope to hear a positive update on this matter soon as I know myself and many other Santa Monica residents are very
concerned with the issue.
Regards,
Will von Bernuth
Item 16.I
10/25/22
65 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Another Developer Attack?
From: Philip Schwartz <philschwartzdp@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 3:16 PM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Another Developer Attack?
EXTERNAL
At last week’s Council meeting I was shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands
of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights
and densities, (one is for a 15‐story building) and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing
Element.
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:
Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential challenges to them
under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review indicates.)
Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable
laws to reject these applications.
Respectfully,
Philip D Schwartz, Treasurer
909‐911 Arizona Ave. HOA
Item 16.I
10/25/22
66 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: New Builder's Remedy Development Projects
From: Faustino Garza <Faustino_Garza@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>
Subject: New Builder's Remedy Development Projects
EXTERNAL
To all Santa Monica City Council Members
CC: David White, City Manager; Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
I write to you as a 35‐year homeowner and resident of Santa Monica to voice my strong objections to the
massive new development projects that have evaded our City’s standards and controls through the “Builder’s
Remedy” application process.
According to recent news reports, three projects of 15 stories, 12 stories and 11 stories already have been
approved under this process. The height and density of these projects are outrageous. Another nine projects
are reported to be trying to squeeze through before our City gets a Housing Element approved by the State.
Not only will these horrendous projects drastically change the character of our small beach city, they will
significantly worsen the quality of life for us residents. Each of the 4,800 new units to be built by these
projects will require water, power, sewer and garbage services, as well as police, fire and ambulance services. And
each will generate more traffic onto our already‐crowded streets. We residents will be the ones to suffer the
overload.
The State has taken over our City and our rights of choice because we did not respond in time with an acceptable
housing plan.
How did this happen? Our Council owes us residents an answer.
It would appear that perhaps our City Council was not aware of this arcane “Builder’s Remedy” loophole. Yet,
developers knew. If so, I would fault our City Attorney for not adequately advising the Council and now we are all
left to suffer for this omission. If this is the case, I would suggest that the City Attorney and other lead attorneys in
his office be immediately dismissed and replaced with more capable counsel.
And I urge City Council to energetically challenge and resist the development of these “Builder Remedy” projects.
Faustino Garza
Item 16.I
10/25/22
67 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
6
Sunset Park
Item 16.I
10/25/22
68 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: More Big Developer Shenanigans
From: emiltonmyers@verizon.net <emiltonmyers@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 4:30 PM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: More Big Developer Shenanigans
EXTERNAL
October 18, 2022
Dear Santa Monica City Council Member,
Obviously, this was copied and pasted from an email I received from the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable
City. Whilst my political leanings are distinctly progressive, my passion to preserve the quiet, friendly Santa
Monica to which I moved nearly forty years ago is emphatically retrogressive.
At last week’s Council meeting I was shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build
thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed
our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City
Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element.
The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the
State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.
To say residents and council members are deeply concerned about this developer ambush and have
questions that must be answered is an understatement. We need an immediate analysis of the legal
options and remedies available to the City to respond to these filings, and to explore potential avenues to
reject them.
This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city are
already peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done to prevent this. They're also suggesting that
building this much overwhelmingly market-rate housing goes a long way to meet the State’s required
affordable housing mandates. But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the
6,168 affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly market-rate units by 2028!
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of
potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s
initial review indicates.)
Item 16.I
10/25/22
69 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
8
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and
remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
I believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff who
have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though they
massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.
Your constituent,
Ted Myers
1610 California Ave.
B
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 16.I
10/25/22
70 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
9
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa
Monica.
From: Brian (3ribG) <thirdrib@g.ucla.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 3:14 PM
To: Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica.
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern:
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in
good city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a
review of potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are
impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal
rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made
by City planning staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re
stuck with these projects even though they massively exceed what Santa Monica
zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.
Outrageous. We are so overwhelmed with development. The city must stop this.
Brian P. Juarez
Item 16.I
10/25/22
71 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
10
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa
Monica.
From: Kathy Corvo <dogsday3@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 2:29 PM
To: Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica.
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern:
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of
potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s
initial review indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and
remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff
who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though they
massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.
Outrageous. We are so overwhelmed with development. The city must stop this.
Kathy Corvo
Item 16.I
10/25/22
72 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: NMS/WS 16 Projects
From: Danielle Charney <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 11:35 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; David
White <David.White@santamonica.gov>
Subject: NMS/WS 16 Projects
EXTERNAL
It is outrageous that this has been allowed ‐ and
oddly probably helped by Staff to happen.
every single one of these people ‐ everyone involved needs to be vetted‐
fired and denied their
pensions ..
no excuses.. staff has been allowed by Council.
to run this City literally into the ground..
stop this any way you can.. let it go to lawsuits ..
just stop it and fire everyone involved..
every single person in Planning needs to go
who failed us..
Danielle Charney
Item 16.I
10/25/22
73 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
From: lauren.clifford@everyactioncustom.com <lauren.clifford@everyactioncustom.com> on behalf of Lauren Akmaeva
<lauren.clifford@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 6:07 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica ‐ Agenda item 16. I
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
As a Santa Monica resident, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and
to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Lauren Akmaeva using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots
pro‐housing organization.
Sincerely,
Lauren Akmaeva
201 San Vicente Blvd Apt 17 Santa Monica, CA 90402‐1530
lauren.clifford@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
74 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:30 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Hire Outside Counsel
From: George Ferrell <jesebus@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 9:25 PM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Hire Outside Counsel
EXTERNAL
At the next meeting of the City Council the Council should vote to hire outside counsel to determine
how the city can prevent the proposed construction that does not meet existing zoning requirement
that the city attorney and manager says must be allowed because of the botched Housing-Element
application. This fiasco results from the incompetence of the city manager and city
attorney. Obviously the city council can no longer rely on either of these employees to provide
competent service to our city. Both should be fired, and outside counsel should be hired until
competent leadership can take over. These two are in way over their heads.
George Ferrell
338 15th Street
Item 16.I
10/25/22
75 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:30 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
From: metzel74@everyactioncustom.com <metzel74@everyactioncustom.com> on behalf of Michael Etzel
<metzel74@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 5:26 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica ‐ Agenda item 16. I
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Michael Etzel
Sincerely,
Michael Etzel
2400 Beverley Ave Santa Monica, CA 90405‐3761
metzel74@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
76 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:30 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
From: cclemons88@everyactioncustom.com <cclemons88@everyactioncustom.com> on behalf of Cynthia Clemons
<cclemons88@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 4:11 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica ‐ Agenda item 16. I
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Cynthia Clemons using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots
pro‐housing organization.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Clemons
5000 San Vicente Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90019‐2914
cclemons88@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
77 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:30 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Gelson's Development
From: Mary De La Rosa <marymdlr@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 9:50 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Gelson's Development
EXTERNAL
Please work tirelessly to undo the horrible situation you have created. Environmental and social impact is disastrous.
Climate change is real. Water shortage is real. Overdevelopment and overbuildling is not acceptable in our
community.. We do not want it. Why aren't you listening to the voters. I know the state is demanding more housing,
but you failed to circumvent and appeal their ruling. Now you must act and do whatever you have to do to remedy this
situation.
‐‐
Mary De La Rosa
Item 16.I
10/25/22
78 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
7
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:29 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Developers trying to ignore SMC zoning
From: MARA GOTTESMAN <marag@ucla.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 1:33 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Developers trying to ignore SMC zoning
EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the City Council,
I was disturbed to read about this:
"At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands
of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning
heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised
Housing Element."
"... 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the 6,168 affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000
mainly market-rate units by 2028!"
As you are undoubtedly aware, Santa Monica is already overcrowded and is bogged down in excessive traffic and is
dealing with increased crime rates. Not to mention dwindling resources, where will the city get more water to support such
a large increase in population?
I agree with neighborhood groups who believe an outside counsel review is necessary because of statements made by
City planning staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though
they exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.
Please support this idea and help stop the destruction of our beautiful little city by greedy outside developers who have no
interest in the smooth functioning of the city.
Mara Gottesman
City resident for over 42 years
Item 16.I
10/25/22
79 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
From:Council Mailbox
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: read Ted Winterer email below from 2015 re NMS (now WS) history -- also see the attachment re monies "No on LV" contributions
Date:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:34:42 PM
From: Sherry Martini <sherryannmartini@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 8:29 PM
To: Ted Winterer <tedwinterer@gmail.com>
Cc: Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Jesse Zwick <hello@jessezwick.com>; Karen Croner
<kcroner@mac.com>; lana.negrette@smgov.net <lana.negrette@smgov.net>; Christine Parra
<Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan
<Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Jon Katz <tmbjon@gmail.com>; Jing Yeo <Jing.Yeo@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Residocracy <armen@residocracy.org>; Gleam Davis <gleam.davis@gmail.com>; Da
Lacounty Info <info@da.lacounty.gov>
Subject: Re: read Ted Winterer email below from 2015 re NMS (now WS) history -- also see the attachment re monies "No
on LV" contributions
EXTERNAL
YIMBY website advising current/ future developers how to use the "builder's remedy" and even
offering FUNDING:. Better Call Saul folks.
"We can connect you to investors who want to fund Builders Remedy projects. Please fill out our
form, and also email sonja@yimbylaw.org."
But and paste below and full link attached below.
Is this even legal for a lobbyist group to connect future developers to investors. What are
the names of the investors who will help fund the development?
Housing ElementCompliance — Campaign f...
DO
HOW DO I USE IT?
Standard SB 330 application. Many cities have their own applications, but they all collect the same
information.
Include a letter with your application that explains that you are aware this is a Builder’s Remedy
project. Here is a sample letter, from us, that you can adapt.
Item 16.I
10/25/22
80 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
YIMBY Law Builders Remedy Notice
{date} Dear Local Municipality, YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase th...
Submit information about your project to us here. Make sure to indicate that it is a Builder’s
Remedy project, and we will also send a letter to the city, basically the same as your letter, letting
the city know that we are tracking their processing of your project.
Submit a project — YIMBY Law
Nominate Project
Item 16.I
10/25/22
81 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
Many ABAG cities, including San Francisco and Palo Alto, are NOT on track for compliance. We expect
these cities to be out of compliance starting February 1, 2023 and they will stay out of compliance at
least until May 2023, and probably much longer."
FUNDING IS AVAILABLE:
We can connect you to investors who want to fund Builders Remedy projects. Please fill out our form,
and also email sonja@yimbylaw.org.
Builders Remedy — YIMBY Law
Builders Remedy — YIMBY Law
On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 11:20:03 AM PDT, Sherry Martini <sherryannmartini@yahoo.com> wrote:
And as to future harm that may be caused by these mandates - beyond NMS we now have CYPRESS. I ask that you read below
which I copied from Cypress' webpage a few months back where they brag about capitalizing on the 2006-2008 housing crisis.
Anyone who is part of Santa Monica Forward (and maybe you are not, I don't know) is helping these folks? Can you not see a
problem with the statements from the Cypress website posted below? How can we make sure that we don't have another NMS
MONOPOLY in our City.
Item 16.I
10/25/22
82 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
Can you understand how new council members might not have had enough information and that rather than blaming them you will
fight to protect our city from folks like NMS and others who brag about capitalizing on a prior housing crisis?
I don't know who to blame. I don't blame the City. I don't blame the council members. The whole thing is a big bag of wrong. I
just want to try and fix it so that NMS and folks like them don't completely destroy our city while they seek riches and power.
Will you join me?
---- Forwarded Message -----
From: Sherry Martini <sherryannmartini@yahoo.com>
To: sue.himmelrich@smgov.net <sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>; paul.mcdougall@hcd.ca.gov <paul.mcdougall@hcd.ca.gov>;
Leonora Camner <leonora.camner@smgov.net>; lana.negrette@smgov.net <lana.negrette@smgov.net>; Christine
Parra <christine.parra@smgov.net>; Gleam Davis <gleam.davis@gmail.com>; David White
<david.white@smgov.net>; Phil Brock
<phil.brock@smgov.net>; oscar.delatorre@smgov.net <oscar.delatorre@smgov.net>; Kristin McCowan
<kristin.mccowan@smgov.net>; Corey Smith <corey@sfhac.org>; editor@smdp.com <editor@smdp.com>;
Editor santamonicalookout.com <editor@santamonicalookout.com>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022, 09:29:20 AM PST
Subject: Just heard Cypress Equity will be working on "done deal" Gelson's project
Mayor Sue and hopefully Councilperson Lana will take a deep look at this:
Just heard that Cypress Equity (also known as CEI) is going to be working with Balboa on the massive Gelson's
project which five TEN STORY units with only 53 "deed restricted" units and the remaining 468 to be "market rate'.
Then I went to Cypress site and found that they have SIX MORE projects lined up in Santa Monica which I've cut
and copied from their website, lest it disappear, after sending this. You might want to look quick as there are photos
of the properties, which I assume, like the Gelson's project, are a "done deal". Most have only a tiny amount of
"deed restricted" housing and one is 200 units with 384 parking spaces (how is that helping climate change?) and 21
"deed restricted" units. Some of these six projects have "off site deed restricted" units, which feels like a form of
segregation of the very wealthy who will be able to afford these stated luxury units vs. the "money challenged" who
will live in the supposed deed restricted units.
I am hoping you did a little research on the CEO of Cypress. I did. Here is some of his background from his own
webpage: Again, look fast because it's alarming and I would think he would want to change it asap. I've printed out
the pages though so, if you need a copy I can send to you.
His below bio posted on the Cypress Equity page does not sound like someone who cares about folks struggling with
housing. It sounds like he is someone who boasts about profiting from folks struggling with housing-- like those who
lost their homes "in the hardest hit areas of the country" during the crash of 2008. When I read that, my heart
skipped a beat -- literally. And based on Sorochinsky's stated claim to having a "development pipeline of over
9,000 luxury apartments with projected value in excess of $5 Billion" [bolding emphasis added] it is clear his focus
is on profits, not those struggling with housing.
"Michael Sorochinsky Founder & Chief Executive Officer
As Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Michael Sorochinsky is the visionary of CEI and the
driving force behind the company’s real estate portfolio. Michael’s investment strategies,
business philosophy, and transaction execution diligence has brought about substantial
annualized returns to equity.
From 2001 through 2005 Michael focused CEI’s investments in the value-add multifamily
space, purchasing over 70 properties comprising of 3,500 apartment units and retail.
In late 2006, Michael began to notice significant stress on the credit markets and by
2007 advised his partners to start selling properties. Under Michael’s leadership, CEI
successfully sold approximately 80% of its portfolio for significant gains prior to the
crash of 2008. In 2008 through 2010, Michael focused CEI’s investments on purchasing
blocks of distressed single family homes in some of the hardest hit areas in the country
as well as investing in real estate related operating companies.
In 2010, before large numbers of developers jumped into the multifamily development
game, Michael saw an opportunity to build Class A apartments in top cities around the
US and led CEI to amass a development pipeline of over 9,000 luxury apartments with
Item 16.I
10/25/22
83 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
SANTA MONICA, CA
114 Residential Units 8,800 SF. of Retail Space
SANTA MONICA, CA
71 Residential Units 3,700 SF. of Retail Space
SANTA MONICA, CA
200 Residential Units 8,100 SF. of Retail Space
SANTA MONICA, CA
46 Residential Units 4,600 SF. of Retail Space
The proposed project consists of a 5-story mixed-use building across two
structures including 200 residential units (including 21 deed-restricted
affordable units), ground floor neighborhood-serving retail space, and 3 levels
of subterranean parking with 384 total parking spaces and 301 total bicycle
parking spaces. The proposed height of the project is 58 feet.
2025 WILSHIRE
The proposed project consists of a 4-story mixed-use building including 71
residential units (including 11 off site deed-restricted affordable units), ground
floor neighborhood-serving retail space, and 2 levels of subterranean parking
with 143 total parking spaces and 91 total bicycle parking spaces. The
proposed height of the project is 50 feet.
234 PICO
The proposed project consists of a 5-story mixed-use building including 114
residential units (including 8 onsite deed-restricted affordable units and 21
offsite deed-restricted affordable units), ground floor neighborhood-serving
retail space, and 1 level of subterranean parking with 98 total parking spaces
and 192 total bicycle parking spaces. The proposed height of the project is 50
feet.
1902 WILSHIRE
projected value in excess of $5 Billion in ten top Markets." [bold emphasis added]
Anyway, look at the additional Cypress projects in the pipeline listed below (copied and pasted from Cypress'
website), and consider then in addition to the massive 500 units or so at Gelson's where Cypress will partner with
Balboa. Go to the Cypress website link posted below and look at the pictures of this projects while they are still
there.
I also fear that Cypress will become like NMS (now WS or whatever they call themselves), developing a monopoly in
our city that will drive the "market rate" even higher than it is now, which is more than a low or middle income person
or family can afford. But this will definitely bring more folks with lots of disposable income into the City for the tech
and similar markets and as has occurred since 2017, drive more and more people into homelessness and housing
insecurity, deprive elderly and families with children of green open spaces and fresh air, and with all the new parking
spaces (totalling far more than the actual apartment count), create more greenhouse gases in a very small area.
[Note to Councilman Lana to start: I really appreciated your very earnest take on Leonora and I agree with you that
she is well-intentioned. But I feel she has not done the research. Please do your own research. Go find those
"deed restricted units" within the multitude of luxury housing that has gone up. Go find out what they are charging for
"market rate" rents in those units. Look at their advertising online -- much of it is discriminatory in nature. Also, if all
these folks are paid to advocate for these wealthy developers under the name of "affordable housing", they are
lobbyists. They just are.]
1537 LINCOLN
On Thursday, October 20,
2022 at 10:51:31 AM PDT,
Sherry Martini
Item 16.I
10/25/22
84 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
SANTA MONICA, CA
40 Residential Units 6,338 SF. of Retail Space
SANTA MONICA, CA
82 Residential Units 18,000 SF. of Retail Space
2501 Wilshire is located at the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and 25th Street in
Santa Monica. Located in a prime residential neighborhood, the project is
directly adjacent to Douglas Park and surrounded by trendy restaurants and
bars. Additionally, the beautiful Santa Monica beaches are accessible via a
short drive or leisurely bike ride.
The community will feature 70 multifamily residences consisting of studio,
one-, two- and three-bedroom apartment homes, with an additional 12 luxury
townhomes. Apartment interiors are equipped with best-in-class finishes and
high-end appliances. The amenities will include a rooftop deck, two interior
courtyards, a community room, and community serving retail on the ground
floor.
And opponents cannot place the project at Lincoln and Ocean Park boulevards --
which includes 468 market rate and 53 affordable units -- before local voters as a
referendum, since no legislative action will be taken.
Cypress Equity Investments - Real Estate Projects
Cypress Equity Investments - Real Estate Projects
CEI has been executing ground-up and value-add real estate projects
601 Wilshire is located at the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and 6th Street in
Santa Monica’s highly desirable downtown neighborhood. The community is
surrounded by boutique shops, trendy restaurants and is a short drive from
the beautiful Santa Monica beaches.
The community features 40 residences, consisting of studio, one-, two- and
three-bedroom apartment homes. Apartment interiors are equipped with best-
in-class finishes and high-end appliances. The amenities include an
expansive rooftop deck with views of the ocean, self-serve package room, co-
working area, pet spa and central courtyard.
2501 WILSHIRE
The proposed project consists of a 4-story mixed-use building including 46
residential units (including 7 off site deed-restricted affordable units), ground
floor neighborhood-serving retail space, and 2 levels of subterranean parking
with 101 total parking spaces and 86 total bicycle parking spaces. The
proposed height of the project is 42 feet.
601 WILSHIRE
Item 16.I
10/25/22
85 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
in all asset classes, with primary focus on
Cypress Equity Investments - Real Estate Projects
CEI has been executing ground-up and value-add real estate projectsin all asset classes, with primary focus on ...
<sherryannmartini@yahoo.com> wrote:
Good morning Ted,
I just read your letter to the Santa Monica Outlook where you infer that it was abundantly clear that if we did not approve a housing
element by a date and time certain NMS et al could do pretty much anything they wanted in this city as long as it was at least
80/20% affordable and in proper zone. You quote ONE sentence from the staff report as evidence:
“the City could lose control over certain land use decisions related to housing projects if it fails to adopt or maintain
a compliant housing element.”
Ted, do you believe that one sentence in possibly hundreds of pages of a staff report is an adequate written warning of what just
happened?
Then you state:
"In addition, if one watches the video of that meeting, at about the 36-minute mark Planning Manager Jing Yeo
showed a PowerPoint slide with this warning about producing a non-compliant document: 'Failure to implement
Housing Element still allows housing projects with at least 20% affordable units to proceed even if they exceed
Zoning/LUCE.'"
Ted, so one Power Point Slide and the wording within it is sufficient to warn council members of just happened?
You then say, "And of course Ms. Yeo noted this possibility in her accompanying oral presentation." What exactly did
she say? I'm not sure why you did not provide that as well, because I understand it was quite short. What needed to
be said was if you don't approve this by such and such an EXACT date and EXACT time then developers WILL BE
ALLOWED (not "could" per the one sentence in the staff report) to build ANYTHING they want in the city, no
matter what, as long as it is 80%/20% affordable and in the right zone.
Since you took the time to write a public letter, why don't you provide us also with the EXACT LANGUAGE that
Ms. Yeo provided to counsel along with the one sentence in the staff report and the one slide. I think that's
important for anyone writing a public letter accusing folks.
Ted, you then further infer that we should have relied on Leonora Camner, the paid head of Abundant Housing LA, who does not
deny that she would like Santa Monica to be full of high rises like "Tokyo" -- she confirmed that to me in person when I met with
her, and Carl Hansen, earlier this year.
"One can go back even further and find this correspondence from a housing advocacy group attached to the June
15th, 2021 staff report: 'Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, cities without a compliant housing element lose
the ability to deny 20% below-market-rate (BMR) projects on the basis of local zoning.'"
Relying on Leonora or YIMY groups for accurate information -- even if it was accurate this time -- is like relying on any agenda-ized
group. You only get their take and not the full story. It's like relying on Santa Monica Next or Santa Monica Observed for real
news. They always tell only their agenda and neglect anything that does not serve them.
Ted, below are some email discussions re had re NMS, which I think exhibit how hard it was for you and council to navigate the
Item 16.I
10/25/22
86 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
complex issues presented re NMS, etc.
And based on the past with NMS, some of which you document below, I think we need to join other cities in suing re the
mandates. It's really no different than the Shenkman lawsuit.
Shenkman was a bully and SCAG is a political-ized, lobbyied to the hilt bully not caring or understanding the real reasons for
homelessness and despair. I just won't have it.
At this point, I have no choice but to vote for one candidate I do not care for at all -- Armen. Because I can't allow developer and
tech based groups to rule my City while falsely claiming they care about homeless folks as they drive up the cost for everything
and make our city unlivable. As citizens, we only have a say in local politics -- the place we live. So, don't decry me for using my
only power - an email.
Also, before you judge other folks ability to stop folks like NMS, take a look at the past. You know I'm not a Phil apologist, but I just
want truth.
And here's the link to you full letter to Santa Monica Outlook.
Clear Warnings Council Could Lose Local Control Over Development
Clear Warnings Council Could Lose Local Control
Over Development
Sherry
On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 09:25:34 AM PDT, Sherry Martini <sherryannmartini@yahoo.com> wrote:
To be more clear:
Here is Ted Winterer's response to my 2015 email directly below (and I am thankful that he responded and a fan of Ted's). Then
below that is Ted's response to my 2017 email.
"Ted Winterer <ted.winterer@smgov.net>
To:sherryannmartini@yahoo.com,Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET
Cc:gnewbold@gmail.com
Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 7:14 PM
Sherry,
That YouTube video, like a lot of material on the Internet, should be taken with a grain of salt.
It was produced by a resident on 2nd Street who was incensed that, after years of parking his motorcycle
overnight for free in a public structure, was told he'd have to start paying like everyone else. So he had an ax
to grind.
The CCSM building on 2nd in which he resides is a rehab of an existing building which had no parking -- 60%
of CCSM properties are adaptive reuse of existing buildings.
He and every other tenant who signed a lease at the building were advised in advance there is no onsite
parking. The lease terms clearly spell this out. People lived there for years, using mass transit available
throughout downtown, without a fuss until this filmmaker caused a ruckus.
We did subsequently make parking at the public structure available at a reduced rate to low income, disabled
residents. But everyone had agreed to the deal: affordable housing with no parking in an area where the 3
am to 5 am street sweeping makes street parking impossible.
Ted
Item 16.I
10/25/22
87 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
Ted Winterer
Santa Monica City Council
Then below that is
On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 09:13:30 AM PDT, Sherry Martini <sherryannmartini@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Sherry Martini [sherryannmartini@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 8:26 AM
To: Rick Cole
Cc: Ted Winterer; Gerda Newbold
Subject: Horrible Situation for low-income, disabled Santa Monicans - I hope this is fixed! Ted Winterer comments about NMS.
Hi Rick,
Please take the time to watch this video if you haven't already. It so clearly portrays what is going on in this City.
There is so much talk by the City and Santa Monica Forward about helping low income peolpe and building affordable housing, but
this video illustrates better than any words I can write that this is just not true.
And the fact that two more NMS properties were blessed by City Staff and just approved by the Planning Commission
reinforces that point. When I wrote Ted Winterer, who I voted for, about the fact that NMS "affordable housing" was not
affordable at all, but a complete sham, he wrote as follows: "First of all, the NMS "affordable"units are a joke and not
part of City affordable housing policy -- they were exploiting a loophole in our code which allowed them to
develop and market apartments which were supposedly affordable but in reality were market rate rentals -- one
of the first things I did when elected was close that loophole, since it gave our affordable housing a black eye."
So why did the City bless these two new NMS properties and allow them to build above what the zoning laws
allow, when NMS gave the city a "black eye" and was terribly dishonest? How can you possibly trust them.
Something is deeply wrong here.
Ted Winterer <ted.winterer@smgov.net>
To:Sherry Martini
Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:24 PM
Because we changed the rules five years ago which allowed them to utilize a
loophole in our code to get admin approval for 100% mod income micro
apartments. They pulled seven pending projects after I initiated that change.
It was confusion wrought by the completely legal development and marketing of
those apartments which led some to believe they were the core of our affordable
housing production when quite the opposite is true.
With these projects we get at 45 income-restricted senior apartments of the same
size and amenities as the market rate units with services provided by WISE and a
rent-free apartment for elder abuse victims. Applicants will come off the City's
waiting list for affordable housing and income levels and rents monitored on a
regular basis, as is the practice with all of our affordable housing.
And, of course, we facilitate the land swap for the site for our new downtown fire
station so our first responders survive an earthquake.
Ted
Item 16.I
10/25/22
88 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
Ted WintererMayorSanta Monica City Council
From: Sherry Martini <sherryannmartini@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 11:20:18 PM
To: Ted Winterer; Sue Himmelrich; Kevin McKeown Fwd
Subject: Why has no one addressed the issues the City and residents have have with NMS?
Why has no one addressed the issues the City and residents have have with NMS? How can you trust that they will
not give our "affordable housing" a black eye as Ted wrote to me many years ago.
NMS NO ON LV Contributions:
https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-
Documents/AgendaDocuments/Comment%20Letters/2017/August/01-3%20Martini%20(items%203,4).pdf
On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 09:01:59 AM PDT, Sherry Martini <sherryannmartini@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jon, was it satire when you posted on Facebook's SMPPP page: "So, are Lana, Phil, and the
others not paying attention to staff reports (I watched these presentations occur during council
meetings they attended), or are they intentionally doing the bidding of major developers?"[full
quote below]
If so, actually, can post where in the staff reports the "builder's remedy" is explained so that a
lay person can understand the implications. And as you know, NMS/WS etc., whatever they
call themselves now, have a history of funding Santa Monica Forward backed measures and
candidates, which I am assuming as the head of the Santa Monica Democratic Club, you
know.
And Jesse, you know that the folks supporting you, Affordable Housing's Leonora Camner and
Santa Monica Forward's Carl Hansen both are happy with Tokyo-like buildings in our City
(confirmed that to me in person) and believe high rises are one of ways to solve the
"affordable" housing problem. They also seem to not have a problem with the "market rate"
luxury housing going up everywhere, which drives up the costs for fixed income and elderly
and also makes it impossible for anyone who would live in the handful of true "affordable" units
to live in a meaningful way. It's like living in a palace as a servant. Jesse, I don't imagine you
can relate to this, but you should at least try and understand it.
So, let's just be clear about who is supporting big developers and businesses like NMS/WS,
etc. etc.
Also, question for City Attorney: How do we allow NMS/WS, etc. and Cypress (8 or 9 projects
int he works I believe) to monopolize our City. Are there not laws against that. And see my
separate email re my discussion with former City Councilmember Ted Winterer about NMS
giving the city a BLACK EYE, but we still gave them float ups back when we had the power to
stop them.
Jon's full quote:
"Great commentary by SM City Council candidate Jesse Zwick on how the conservative
“Change Slate” candidates bungled the Housing Element process this cycle and, through their
Item 16.I
10/25/22
89 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
inaction, actually caused us to lose control of our zoning code with the state approving huge
development projects including a 15-story building. So are Lana, Phil, and the others not
paying attention to staff reports (I watched these presentations occur during council meetings
they attended), or are they intentionally doing the bidding of major developers?"
Item 16.I
10/25/22
90 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Steve Barnett <stevenmcb@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 2:46 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:I Support passing Agenda Item 16.I
EXTERNAL
Good day.
As 32 year residents of Santa Monica, from an apartment to a house, we heartily endorse the proposals in
Agenda Item 16.I:
"Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of residents’ concerns about the
“Builder’s remedy” permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate and up to 15
stories, that the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a
thorough review and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and remedies, including rejecting
the applications under all applicable laws. The law firm hired to conduct this review shall be selected by the
City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it deems useful to its legal review and be given full
cooperation by staff and elected and appointed officials."
Please prevent traffic from becoming untenable and keep developments in keeping with the city’s unique character.
Regards,
Steve Barnett and Pamela Winn Barnett
Item 16.I
10/25/22
91 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Stephen Bergauer <sbergauer194@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 3:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Comment - 10/25 Council Meeting - Item 13.I
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers:
I am writing to urge you to oppose item 13.I.
Santa Monica faces an enormous imbalance between jobs and housing. We are a dynamic business hub, home to Snap,
Hulu, and Activision. But because we refuse to build more housing, our city’s population more than doubles each day
with commuters driving here for work because they cannot afford to live any closer. This increases traffic, hurts the
environment, and degrades our quality of life.
In one swoop, these projects would build more more housing and more deed‐restricted affordable housing than
Santa Monica has built in the past decade ‐ all at zero public cost. These buildings are located downtown or near the
Expo line and will help decrease our car dependency and revitalize neighborhoods near the 10. They will increase our
property tax base and bring new residents who live and shop here, at a time when many storefronts are vacant and our
libraries are only open limited hours.
It’s disheartening to see Council plan to ignore the City Attorney’s advice and waste our tax dollars on fighting these
projects that would do so much good for our city. As a renter in this city, I ask you to do the right thing, follow state law,
and oppose this fool’s errand.
Thank you for your time.
Stephen Bergauer
Item 16.I
10/25/22
92 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:jules redlich <jules.redlich@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 3:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Agenda Item 16.1
EXTERNAL
As Santa Monica residents residing within 100 feet of Wilshire Blvd., we support Agenda
Item 16.1.
Jules Redlich
Joan Redlich
Aimee Hunter
Item 16.I
10/25/22
93 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Shari Phillips <shariphillips2@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 3:42 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:RE: Agenda Item 16.1
EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Council Members,
I support Council Members Brock, Parra, and de la Torre to hire legal counsel to conduct a thorough review,
including a report outlining the city’s legal options and remedies AND also reject the building applications of
NMS and WSC. This is very important because if they’re allowed to build these massive structures they will
continue, along with other developers, until the very personality and fiber of this city is gone forever.
Thank you for your consideration,
Shari Phillips
Item 16.I
10/25/22
94 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:blase51@aol.com
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 3:40 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Request to have Council allow further study on housing density increase in Santa Monica
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As an over 35 year resident and seeing the great recent changes to the quality of life here in Santa
Monica I, like my neighbors, are very concerned.
In the wake of residents’ concerns about the “Builder’s remedy” permits just filed for 1,000s of new
housing units, overwhelming market rate and up to 15 stories, I request as a resident of Santa Monica
who is deeply concerned about the increase in traffic and strain on our aging infrastruction that the
Council study the matter further.
I request that the City Attorney hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough
review and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and remedies, including rejecting the
applications under all applicable laws. The law firm hired to conduct this review selected by the City
Council should have the power to obtain documents it deems useful to its legal review and be given
full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed officials.
Please help preserve the character of Santa Monica by studying the impact of the housing density
before permitting these projects to go forward.
Kind Regards,
Maria Blase
448 Adelaide Dr
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 16.I
10/25/22
95 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Philip Schwartz <philschwartzdp@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 4:17 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock
Subject:Item 16.1
EXTERNAL
We would respectfully urge the Council to adopt item 16.1, demanding that the City hire outside counsel to
provide a thorough review and issue a report regarding the last‐minute submission of permit applications for
the construction of over 1000 market‐rate housing units. Some of these applications would also have the City
approve a completely unjustified zoning variance for a fifteen‐story building.
We have to ask ourselves exactly when ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!......are the City's resources not strained enough
now??
Cordially,
Philip D Schwartz, Treasurer
909‐911 Arizona Ave HOA
Item 16.I
10/25/22
96 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 5:30 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: City Building allowance
From: JUDITH SPECTOR <judith0623@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 3:29 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: City Building allowance
EXTERNAL
Dear Sirs,
I have been a resident of Santa Monica since 1981.
The city we moved to is no more, unfortunately.
Your new allowance for TOO MANY buildings, and buildings that are way higher than allowed will ruin the long time
admired aspect of this beautiful place.
It will increase the number of residents who need assistance in all kinds of ways: schools, hospitals, overcrowded
streets,
Transportation, mental health availability, elder services, etc.
It will drive away tourists, will drive away young families, making the city a dying city rather than a young and vibrant
place with restaurants, shopping and walking areas.
it will increase pollution, homelessness, crime and dirt
and it will make unbearable demands on the Fire Department and Police Department .
Please, sirs, respect the character of this city!
respect the citizens who worked hard to make it what it is!
Respect the will of the people who live here, rather than the plans of developers whose sole purpose is to enrich
themselves!
I thank you respectfully,
Judith Spector
1139 Stanford Street
From my little phone that is often hiding from me
Judy
Item 16.I
10/25/22
97 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Drew Traglia <drew@drewtraglia.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 5:47 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:In support of October 25 Agenda Item 16.I
EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern,
I writing to urge the City's support of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre's proposal in
Councilmember Discussion Item 16.I scheduled for the October 25th, 2022 City Council meeting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Drew Traglia
24th Street
Item 16.I
10/25/22
98 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:wendylamm711@aol.com
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 5:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members.
I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I to:
1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential
challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review
indicates.)
2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies
under all applicable laws to reject these applications.
I believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning
staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even
though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.
I am appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to
take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city
governance.
Wendy Lamm
Item 16.I
10/25/22
99 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Judy Hopkins <judy90403@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 6:55 PM
To:council@santamonica.gov; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject:Council Mtg. 10/24/22 - SUPPORT ITEM 16.l to hire outside legal counsel to determine the city's
legal options and remedies concerning "builder's remedy" submissions
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
I am very concerned by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred regarding the "builder's remedy"
submissions. I believe that outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning
staff to council members and the press that we are "required" to proceed with these submissions. These permit
submissions massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows, ignore relevant state law and are based on a rejection
by HCDD with NO ABILITY OR TIME to resolve misunderstandings of data and policy BEFORE the "builder's remedy"
could be initiated.
I strongly support Councilmember Discussion Item 16.l, Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the
wake of residents' concerns about the "Builder's remedy" permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units,
overwhelmingly market rate and up to 15 stories, that the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal
counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City's legal options and remedies, including
rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law firm hired to conduct this review shall be selected by the
City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it deems useful to its legal review and be given full
cooperation by staff and elected and appointed officials.
Thank‐you for your attention to this important matter.
Judy Hopkins
844 7th St. #7
SM 90403
Item 16.I
10/25/22
100 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Gemma Corfield <gemmacorfield@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 7:13 PM
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; Council Mailbox
Subject:Council Member Discussion Item 16.1 Stopping Builder’s Remedy
EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Members,
I support Council Members Brock, Parra, and de la Torre to hire outside legal counsel to conduct a
thorough review,
including a report outlining the city’s legal options and remedies AND also reject the building applications of
builders,
NMS and WSC. This is very important because if they’re allowed to build these massive structures they will
continue,
along with other developers, until the very personality and fiber of this city is gone forever.
PLEASE PLEASE don’t allow our city to be ruined by greedy developers.
Many thanks
Gemma Corfield
Item 16.I
10/25/22
101 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Amani Abou-Zamzam MBA <amania@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 10:03 PM
To:David White; Douglas Sloan; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I
EXTERNAL
I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I to:
Councilmember Discussion Item 16.I:
Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of residents’ concerns about
the “Builder’s remedy” permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate
and up to 15 stories, that the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal
counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and
remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law firm hired to conduct
this review shall be selected by the City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it
deems useful to its legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed
officials.
Thanks, Amani
Amani Spielman SM resident
amania@mac.com 310.780.0881
Item 16.I
10/25/22
102 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:brandx3@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Richard Brand <brandx3@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 5:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Richard Brand using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots pro-
housing organization.
Sincerely,
Richard Brand
1528 6th St Santa Monica, CA 90401-2552 brandx3@icloud.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
103 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:fxbhaley@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Haley Feng <fxbhaley@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 5:06 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Haley Feng using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots pro-
housing organization.
Sincerely,
Haley Feng
3155 S Sepulveda Blvd Apt 102 Los Angeles, CA 90034-4220 fxbhaley@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
104 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:brett.hollenbeck@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Brett Hollenbeck
<brett.hollenbeck@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 5:06 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Brett Hollenbeck using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots
pro-housing organization.
Sincerely,
Brett Hollenbeck
4431 Purdue Ave Los Angeles, CA 90230-5155 brett.hollenbeck@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
105 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:mcns.777@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Mariana Mellor <mcns.777
@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 5:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
As a mother of 3 boys and understanding how crucial housing is to raise a family, I write to urge you to embrace
Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new
affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Mariana Mellor using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots
pro-housing organization.
Sincerely,
Mariana Mellor
768 Tuolumne Ave Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-4250 mcns.777@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
106 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:mbrehove@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Matthew Brehove
<mbrehove@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 5:17 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Matthew Brehove using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots
pro-housing organization.
Sincerely,
Matthew Brehove
1250 N Mentor Ave Apt 12 Pasadena, CA 91104-2986 mbrehove@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
107 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
6
Vernice Hankins
From:Parthokalyani@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Partho Kalyani
<Parthokalyani@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 5:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Partho Kalyani using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots pro-
housing organization.
Sincerely,
Partho Kalyani
11764 Idaho Ave Unit 102 Los Angeles, CA 90025-6768 Parthokalyani@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
108 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:ddenell@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of D.Denell Gibson <ddenell@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 10:10 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by D. Denell Gibson using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots
pro-housing organization.
Sincerely,
D. Denell Gibson
2810 W Slauson Ave Apt 9 Los Angeles, CA 90043-2583 ddenell@abundanthousingla.org
Item 16.I
10/25/22
109 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:daniel.brockert@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Daniel Brockert
<daniel.brockert@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 10:52 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica. It's time for Santa Monica to move
forward, not stubbornly cling to the past.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
It's time to stop holding California back and making it the laughingstock of the rest of the country.
Personally sent by Daniel Brockert using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots
pro-housing organization.
Sincerely,
Daniel Brockert
11630 Hamlin St Apt 5 North Hollywood, CA 91606-2568 daniel.brockert@yahoo.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
110 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:rebecca.cannara@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Rebecca Cannara
<rebecca.cannara@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 11:54 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Rebecca Cannara using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots
pro-housing organization.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Cannara
1638 Franklin St Santa Monica, CA 90404-4206 rebecca.cannara@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
111 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:howthewestws@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Tieira Ryder
<howthewestws@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 12:49 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Best,
Tieira
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://htwws.org/__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!tq7Km34CALlY_Dnwu71vp7SM7h6rucEXx81L
A6X59JyIiLJ1GhfwwuaktPMVvZqu0YRDBubOmmTGt-A2W41C7xA6fnEW0NMNBxLkUhV518A$
Sincerely,
Tieira Ryder
3826 Grand View Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90066-4406 howthewestws@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
112 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
5
Vernice Hankins
From:elenach@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Elena Christopoulos
<elenach@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 1:06 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Elena Christopoulos using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots
pro-housing organization.
Sincerely,
Elena Christopoulos
1528 6th St Santa Monica, CA 90401-2552 elenach@icloud.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
113 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:hughmartinez@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Hugh C Martinez
<hughmartinez@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 23, 2022 9:56 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Hugh C Martinez using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots
pro-housing organization.
Sincerely,
Hugh C Martinez
677 S Marengo Ave Apt 4 Pasadena, CA 91106-3662 hughmartinez@hotmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
114 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:jmatute@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Juan Matute <jmatute@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 8:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council,
ڴڵڶڴڵڶHCD is watching you ڴڵڶڴڵڶ.
All agenda items, discussions at council meetings, and actions by City Council will be used as evidence for future
determinations of whether or not Santa Monica is compliant with implementation of its Housing Element under the
Housing Accountability Act. The 1990 Housing Accountability Act's provisions have gifted Santa Monica 1000 affordable
units toward HE compliance. If the City of Santa Monica entangles any questions of fact regarding the city's RHNA
allocation, commitment to HE zoning implementation, commitment to meeting state affirmatively furthering fair
housing guidance, along with its questions of law regarding GOV 65589.5(d), the City's implementation of the HE will be
seen in bad faith and the Builder's Remedy will re-activate. That's a very high risk to take, since the next re-opening of
the builder's remedy will be more public and will have happened after developers had time to assemble multiple R1 lots,
which could bring 10 to 15 story housing projects in to neighborhoods currently zoned for single family homes.
For those looking back on the public record in 2 years once the HE is deemed non-compliant and the Builder's Remedy
re-opened, know that this council was warned of the risks. The actions they took were either a gamble or responsible,
given the understanding of risks.
--
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Juan Matute using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots pro-
housing organization.
Sincerely,
Juan Matute
1435 26th St Unit 10 Santa Monica, CA 90404-3051 jmatute@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
115 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Grafton Harper <graftonharper@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 24, 2022 11:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; council@santamonica.gov
Subject:Council Mtg. 10/24/22 - SUPPORT ITEM 16.l to hire outside legal counsel to determine the city's
legal options and remedies concerning "builder's remedy" submissions
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
I am very concerned (appalled) by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred regarding the "builder's
remedy" submissions. I believe that outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City
planning staff to council members and the press that we are "required" to proceed with these submissions. These
permit submissions massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allow, ignore relevant state law and are based on a
rejection by HCDD with NO ABILITY OR TIME to resolve misunderstandings of data and policy BEFORE the "builder's
remedy" could be initiated.
I strongly support Councilmember Discussion Item 16.l
Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of residents' concerns about the "Builder's
remedy" permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate and up to 15 stories, that the
Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report
regarding the City's legal options and remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law
firm hired t conduct this review shall be selected by the City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it
deems useful to its legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed officials.
Thank-you for your attention to this important matter.
____________________________
Grafton S. Harper
graftonharper@gmail.com (My new inbox as of 12/2018)
Lost track of me?
Permanent Forwarding available at grafton.harper.1998@anderson.ucla.edu
Item 16.I
10/25/22
116 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:33 AM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin
McCowan; councilmtgitems
Cc:David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject:Council Mtg. 10/25/22 - Support item 16.l to hire outside legal counsel to address "builder's
remedy" submissions via legal options and remedies regarding it.
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board is very concerned by the lack of any factual or legal
analysis of what occurred regarding the "builder's remedy" submissions. We believe that outside counsel review is
imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff to council members and the press that we are
"required" to proceed with these submissions. These permit submissions massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning
allow, ignore relevant state law and are based on a rejection by HCDD with NO ABILITY OR TIME to resolve
misunderstandings of data and policy BEFORE to the "builder's remedy" being initiated. Given the number of housing
elements rejected by HCDD in the past year with no appeal or timely discussion prior to the "builder's remedy"
submissions it is clear that an investigation of the reasons for the HCDD rejections should be studied and determined
why historical and current Housing Element methodologies and approaches were so widely rejected and whether
subjective or objective criteria was used.
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board of Directors strongly support Councilmember Discussion
Item 16.l
Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of residents' concerns about the "Builder's
remedy" permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate and up to 15 stories, that the
Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report
regarding the City's legal options and remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law
firm hired to conduct this review shall be selected by the City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it
deems useful to its legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed officials.
Thank-you for your attention to this important matter.
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Board of Directors
Item 16.I
10/25/22
117 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Item 16.I
10/25/22
118 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:46 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject:Council Mtg. 10/25/22 - ITEM 16.l - SUPPORT - Hire outside legal counsel to determine the city's
legal options and remedies concerning "builder's remedy" submissions
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
I am appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred regarding the "builder's remedy"
submissions. I believe that outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning
staff to council members and the press that we are "required" to proceed with these submissions. These permit
submissions massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allow, ignore relevant state law and are based on a rejection
by HCDD with unclear and subjective criteria and NO ABILITY OR TIME to resolve misunderstandings of data and policy
BEFORE the "builder's remedy" could be initiated.
I strongly support Councilmember Discussion Item 16.l
Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of residents' concerns about the "Builder's
remedy" permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate and up to 15 stories, that the
Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report
regarding the City's legal options and remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law
firm hired t conduct this review shall be selected by the City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it
deems useful to its legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed officials.
Thank-you.
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Item 16.I
10/25/22
119 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:59 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Council Member Discussion Item 16.1 Stopping Builder’s Remedy
From: Gemma Corfield <gemmacorfield@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 7:12 PM
Cc: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas
Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Council Member Discussion Item 16.1 Stopping Builder’s Remedy
EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Members,
I support Council Members Brock, Parra, and de la Torre to hire outside legal counsel to conduct a
thorough review,
including a report outlining the city’s legal options and remedies AND also reject the building applications of
builders,
NMS and WSC. This is very important because if they’re allowed to build these massive structures they will
continue,
along with other developers, until the very personality and fiber of this city is gone forever.
PLEASE PLEASE don’t allow our city to be ruined by greedy developers.
Many thanks
Gemma Corfield
Item 16.I
10/25/22
120 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:59 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
From: brett.hollenbeck@everyactioncustom.com <brett.hollenbeck@everyactioncustom.com> on behalf of Brett
Hollenbeck <brett.hollenbeck@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:06 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Brett Hollenbeck using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots
pro-housing organization.
Sincerely,
Brett Hollenbeck
4431 Purdue Ave Los Angeles, CA 90230-5155
brett.hollenbeck@gmail.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
121 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
From: brandx3@everyactioncustom.com <brandx3@everyactioncustom.com> on behalf of Richard Brand
<brandx3@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:01 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Richard Brand using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots pro-
housing organization.
Sincerely,
Richard Brand
1528 6th St Santa Monica, CA 90401-2552
brandx3@icloud.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
122 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
4
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:58 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Stopping "Builder's remedy"
From: Shari Phillips <shariphillips2@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 4:31 PM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: RE: Stopping "Builder's remedy"
EXTERNAL
Dear City Manager David White, City Attorney Douglas Sloan, and SM City Council,
I support Council Members Brock, Parra, and de la Torre in their request to hire outside legal counsel to
conduct a thorough review, including a report outlining the city’s legal options and remedies AND also reject
the building applications of builders, NMS and WSC. This is very important because if they’re allowed to build
these massive structures they will continue, along with other developers, until the very personality and fiber of
this beautiful city is gone forever.
Thank you for your consideration,
Shari Phillips
Item 16.I
10/25/22
123 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:03 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
From: mhayes23@everyactioncustom.com <mhayes23@everyactioncustom.com> on behalf of Michael Hayes
<mhayes23@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 6:24 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Michael Hayes using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots pro-
housing organization.
Sincerely,
Michael Hayes
933 N Benton Way Los Angeles, CA 90026-3825
mhayes23@fordham.edu
Item 16.I
10/25/22
124 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:02 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I
From: Amani Abou-Zamzam MBA <amania@mac.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 10:02 PM
To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I
EXTERNAL
I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I to:
Councilmember Discussion Item 16.I:
Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of residents’ concerns about
the “Builder’s remedy” permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate
and up to 15 stories, that the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal
counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and
remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law firm hired to conduct
this review shall be selected by the City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it
deems useful to its legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed
officials.
Thanks, Amani
Amani Spielman SM resident
amania@mac.com 310.780.0881
Item 16.I
10/25/22
125 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:01 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Proposed 4,562 Housing Units
From: Carol Dickinson <caroldickinson@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 8:58 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Proposed 4,562 Housing Units
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council,
Please hire experienced outside legal counsel to analyze the legal options and remedies that the City can take to
reject the sixteen proposed developments that were submitted during the Builder’s Remedy window. We residents of
Santa Monica desperately need your help to stop these huge projects that exceed what our zoning rules allow. We
should not rely on comments by City Planning Staff that nothing can be done about this matter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol Dickinson
Item 16.I
10/25/22
126 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:John Ellis <john@johnellisphoto.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:09 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda #16 Save Pickleball
EXTERNAL
Hello City Council,
Pickleball is the fastest growing sport in the United States and world. Please reconsider your approach toward Pickleball
at Memorial Park.
Santa Monica need more dedicated Pickleball Courts. Dozens of people each day, and hundreds each week play at
Memorial Park.
Please save our courts as we could lose them for many years depending on how you plan construction.
1: Courts are in good shape as is.
2: Pickleball barely meets current demands and demand is growing.
3: Find more places to build dedicated Pickleball Courts in Santa Monica.
4: Pickleball grew during pandemic, spans age ranges, appeals to millennials, baby-boomers
and beyond.
5: Pickleball promotes health, is outdoors, appeals to teens and young adults (Crossroads
currently uses courts, I imagine other high schools will too)
6: Pickleball is accessible and invites all socio-economic and racial groups
7: Former boxers, volleyball, ping-pong, basketball and other athletes eventually find Pickleball
as a ‘go-to’ sport.
8: Think about future demand of Pickleball and broad-based appeal of the growing sport.
9: Parking and other issues about space should be addressed more holistically, then tearing
down good courts
10: Build MORE dedicated Pickleball courts throughout the City of Santa Monica.
I’m a retired teacher, former ARB member and have never seen a
sport ‘bring together’ community in such a strong way as pickle
Item 16.I
10/25/22
127 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
ball. Political, age, race seem to disappear, and sport, friendly
competition, friendship and community building occur naturally.
http://www.johnellisphoto.com
310 994 6469
Item 16.I
10/25/22
128 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Daniel Galamba <galambadb@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:20 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin
McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Daniel Galamba
Subject:City Council Meeting October 25, 2022 Item 16.I.-Please Support: Council ask the City Attorney to
hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the
City’s legal options and remedies
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I request that you support this item that the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal counsel to
conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and remedies, including rejecting the
Builders' Remedy applications under all applicable laws.
I believe that these Builders' Remedy applications are not valid and should not be approved. In February 2022 the State
extended the deadline for the approval of the City's Housing Plan to October 15, 2022 and the City's Housing Plan was
approved by the State before this new deadline. Therefore Builders' Remedy applications before October 15, 2022 are
not valid and should not be approved.
If the original deadline of October 15, 2021 could not be extended then the State wouldn't have done so in their
February 2022 letter. Also it is not realistic to assume that a city's initial submittal of a Housing Plan will be approved by
the State because give-and-take and iteration is required before final approval. The Builders' Remedy and fines from the
State are intended to punish a city that refuses to cooperate with the State and this was not the case for our City of
Santa Monica. The City negotiated with the State in good faith and our Housing Plan was approved by the State before
the State's extended deadline of October 15, 2022.
Also if the State's extended deadline of October 15, 2022 was not valid then why didn't developers come in with their
Builders' Remedy applications in February 2022 after the State issued their letter? Instead these Builders' Remedy
applications came in just a few weeks before the extended October 15, 2022 deadline.
All of the actions above and several more indicate to me that Builders' Remedy applications before October 15, 2022 are
not valid and can not be approved. Therefore appropriate outside legal counsel is needed to conduct a thorough review
and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and remedies including rejecting the Builders' Remedy applications
under all applicable laws. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 16.I
10/25/22
129 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:danilobach <danilobach@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:16 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Item 16.I on 10/25/22 Council agenda
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I join with the many other concerned residents of our city to urge the Council instruct the City Attorney
to hire outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review of the punitive, so-called 'Builders remedy'
Santa Monica is said to be now facing and to conduct a study of the City’s legal options and
remedies, including rejecting all applications pending until the issue is appropriately resolved. The law
firm hired to conduct this review should of course be selected by the City Council and empowered to
obtain all relevant documents and full cooperation of staff and city officials.
Respectfully,
Danilo Bach
Item 16.I
10/25/22
130 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Joe Antognini <joe.antognini@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:26 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda item 16-I
EXTERNAL
Dear city councilmembers,
I urge you to reject the request of several councilmembers to hire legal counsel regarding the "Builder's
Remedy." This is a meritless request that will waste the City's resources on frivolous legal fees.
Due to the City Council's failure to pass a compliant housing element, a number of developers have applied for
permits to construct new housing in Santa Monica in accordance with the law. I understand that several city
councilmembers are upset with this fact. Nevertheless, if those councilmembers wished to prevent this from happening,
they had multiple opportunities to pass a compliant housing element. City staff, other councilmembers, and ordinary
citizens all warned them of the consequences of failing to pass a compliant housing element. They chose to ignore
those warnings and are now reaping the consequences of their choices. The City Council should accept this fact
rather than fruitlessly throwing our money at lawyers who will be paid handsomely for telling you exactly the
same thing.
Setting aside the bumbling manner in which the City has found itself in a place where it is forced to permit
these new developments, I also urge the City Council to reconsider their negative attitude to
development. Santa Monica has failed to allow adequate housing to be constructed for nearly fifty years and
as a consequence around 80% of the people who work in the city do not live here. This is not because they do
not want to live in Santa Monica, but because they cannot afford to live in a city where the median home price
is more than $1.6 million. These are individuals who serve and contribute to our community in a variety of
ways. It is a shame that Santa Monica has shut them out for so long.
Joe Antognini
2677 Centinela Ave, Unit 203
Item 16.I
10/25/22
131 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
From: elenach@everyactioncustom.com <elenach@everyactioncustom.com> on behalf of Elena Christopoulos
<elenach@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 1:05 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City
resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.
In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are
reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision
of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase
desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.
State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant
Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in
support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation!
Personally sent by Elena Christopoulos using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots
pro-housing organization.
Sincerely,
Elena Christopoulos
1528 6th St Santa Monica, CA 90401-2552
elenach@icloud.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
132 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:11 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Continued parking on driveway aprons in the City of Santa Monica
From: Winnie Wechsler <wechsler.winnie@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:59 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Continued parking on driveway aprons in the City of Santa Monica
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council:
Our family has been residing on 12th Street since 1996, and for the past 26 years we have parked one
of our cars in the “driveway apron” in front of our home. We are extremely careful about parking our
car so that it does not in any way block the sidewalk or interfere with the street and the weekly street
cleaning. So, we are perplexed as to the rationale for the City of Santa Monica to suddenly decide that
this parking practice will no longer permitted as of 11/1/22. There has been no explanation for the
change in policy, which will certainly lead to more congestion on our block.
My understanding is that the City of Los Angeles has a similar ordinance to SMMC section 3.12.380, but
that “parkway” is defined as the area of "the public right-of-way not intended for vehicular use between
the sidewalk and the curb.” Based on that definition, the City of Los Angeles allows the owner of a property with a
driveway apron to park on that apron as long as the vehicle doesn’t block the sidewalk or stick out into
the street. The same is true for Unincorporated L.A. County and Malibu.
Allowing driveway apron parking has not and will not infringe on the rights of pedestrians, who do not walk on the
parkways. So given all this, please reconsider this decision to enforce this regulation as it relates to parkways,
whose benefits to homeowners and neighborhoods have proven worthwhile for decades and outweigh any negative
impact on the community.
Sincerely,
Winnie Wechsler & Jeffrey Wasserman
521 12th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
310-415-7283
Item 16.I
10/25/22
133 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:11 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Driveway Apron Parking When Not Blocking Street or Sidewalk
-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Hunt <spencerhunt@ascendantstudios.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:48 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Driveway Apron Parking When Not Blocking Street or Sidewalk
EXTERNAL
Please align Santa Monica’s new driveway apron rules with Los Angeles and Malibu so that cars can park on aprons that
are wide enough so that a parked car does not stick out onto the road or into the sidewalk. I do not understand why
Santa Monica needs to be exceptional on established rules held by our neighbors.
My apron at 1012 Pearl St. is wide enough to accommodate a car where the car fits between sidewalk and curb. I do not
understand why you would take away a parking spot that has never been needed by the city for any service work in a
neighborhood that can regularly be filled with cars to the point where I have to park on a different street.
Parking in an apron that is wide enough for a car does not infringe on pedestrians or street activity. Nor has it historically
had any impact on city services. It’s also allowed in our neighboring communities. Taking this away seems capricious and
bureaucratic - neither characteristic is what I expect from my local government.
I have called the parking enforcement to discuss this, who referred me to the city manager. I left a message at the city
manager’s office more than a week ago and have yet to receive a call back.
Thank you for your consideration,
Spencer and Nancy Hunt
35 year residents of Pearl St in Santa Monica
Item 16.I
10/25/22
134 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
3
Vernice Hankins
From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:11 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Apron parking
From: Bronwyn Barkan <bbarkan123@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Apron parking
EXTERNAL
Dear members of the City Council,
I am writing to urge you to amend the municipal code to permit driveway apron parking so long as it does not block the
sidewalk or stick out into the street. This amendment would put the code in line with the city of LA, unincorporated LA, and
the city of Malibu. Thank you for making this common sense decision.
Sincerely,
Bronwyn Barkan
(resident Sunset Park)
Item 16.I
10/25/22
135 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ro Fad <rfadakar@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:29 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; R Fad
Subject:Stopping Huge Building Projects in SM - Council vote Tomorrow
EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Members,
I support Council Members Brock, Parra, and de la Torre to hire outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review,
including a report outlining the city’s legal options and remedies AND also reject the building applications of builders, NMS
and WSC. This is very important because if they’re allowed to build these massive structures they will continue, along
with other developers, until the very personality and fiber of this city is gone forever.
Thank you for your consideration,
--
Rozita Fadakar
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16.I
10/25/22
136 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Santa Monica Forward <santamonicaforward@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:41 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 13-I, Builders Remedy
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Council members:
On behalf of Santa Monica Forward, I want to urge you to NOT spend our taxpayer funds on a lawsuit challenging the
so-called Builders Remedy law. You were not willing to spend even $100,000 on an investigation of a serious breach of
confidentiality of your executive session, and many of you gave reasons about taking funds away from other important
City needs. The lawsuit you propose is expected to cost well over $1 million. What would that money mean for our local
merchants, residents, and visitors?
We note that your staff warned you at least four times about the consequences for failing to submit a compliant
housing element:
· Dec 15, 2020 Staff Report: Warned of SB35 consequences (overruling of local zoning and planning authority)
· June 21, 2021: Staff warns council that out of compliance means any developer can build a 20% low-income /
100% moderate income project (this is the "Builder's Remedy")
· October 12, 2021: Staff warns council *again* about the Builder's Remedy consequences.
· April 26, 2022: Staff warns council *again* about the Builder's Remedy consequences.
In addition, there were many public comments (written and spoken at Council) from residents and pro-housing
advocacy groups identifying glaring deficiencies in the housing element (HCD flagged many of these same reasons in
their rejection letter).
The Council-appointed Planning Commission was clearly aware of the consequences of a non-compliant housing
element.
Santa Monica Forward has been aware of this law for several years. Throughout our work for a compliant housing
element the consequences have been foundational to our advocacy. We wrote to you as early as June 15, 2021 about
the Builders Remedy. Our only goal all along was for Santa Monica to stop resisting the state and adopt a Housing
Element that would be approved by HCD.
It is time for the Council to accept its responsibility to provide its share of housing opportunities rather than fighting the
mandate. We stand ready to support you in that endeavor.
Abby Arnold and Carl Hansen
Co-Chairs
Santa Monica Forward
Item 16.I
10/25/22
137 of 137 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8.G.a
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Written Comments (5456 : Builders Remedy Permits)