SR 05-09-2023 11C
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 9, 2023
Agenda Item: 11.C
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration
Subject: Consideration of a Settlement Agreement between the City of Santa Monica
and WS Communities, LLC and its affiliates (“WS”), consistent with the City’s
6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element for applicants that have asserted
eligibility for processing under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision of the
Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), California Government Code section
65589.5(d)
Recommended Actions
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding that no subsequent environmental review is required pursuant to
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines:
a. CEQA Guideline §15378(b) and (c); Pub. Res. Code § 21065
b. CEQA Guideline § 15061(b)(3)
c. CEQA Guideline § 15168, 15162
2. Approve the Settlement Agreement between the City of Santa Monica and WS,
the owners of the following properties: 1437 6th Street, 601 Colorado Avenue,
1518-24 7th Street, 1443 Lincoln Boulevard, 3030 Nebraska Avenue, 2901 Santa
Monica Boulevard, 1415-27 5th Street, 1557 7th Street, 1238 7th Street, 1925
Broadway, 1433-37 Euclid Street, 1238-42 10th Street, 1007 Lincoln Boulevard,
and 1038 10th Street.
Discussion
On May 9, 2023, the Santa Monica City Council will consider approval of a Settlement
Agreement with WS, the owners of the following properties: 1437 6th street, 601
Colorado Avenue, 1518-24 7th Street, 1443 Lincoln Boulevard, 3030 Nebraska Avenue,
2901 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1415-27 5th Street, 1557 7th Street, 1238 7th Street,
1925 Broadway, 1238-1242 10th Street, 1007 Lincoln Boulevard, 1038 10th Street. The
Settlement Agreement addresses the status of thirteen pending applications filed by WS
to develop housing under the provisions of the Builder’s Remedy statute of the HAA
11.C
Packet Pg. 1452
2 of 7
(Government Code Section 65589.5(d)) (the “BR Projects”). See Attachment A. The
City and owners disagree on the applicability of the Builder’s Remedy statute.
On April 11, 2023, the City Council adopted the ordinances necessary to implement the
certified Housing Element, in conjunction with the Housing Element Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) [SCH No. 2020100575] that was certified by Council on October
12, 2021, with an Addendum to the EIR approved on October 11, 2022. Consequently,
the parties have elected to settle various disputes involving the BR Projects and
unrelated litigation. Specifically, the parties have agreed to settle pending litigation
against each other pertaining to the City’s leasing ordinance (requiring leasing periods
of no less than one year) and alleged violations of consumer and tenant protection laws
by the City against certain of the WS affiliates. The Settlement Agreement provides
financial benefits for three recently displaced tenants of 1242 10th Street and
guarantees them the right to return. The Settlement Agreement would also authorize the
transfer of 20 deed-restricted affordable units from 1560 Lincoln Blvd to 1038-42 10th
Street.
The Settlement Agreement also includes a completely optional component that the City
is under no obligation to pursue and that provides reciprocal benefits to the parties
independent of the other provisions of the Settlement Agreement discussed above.
Under the optional provisions, the City may adopt an ordinance that contemplates WS’s
use of the ministerial development process already authorized in the Housing Element
implementing ordinance adopted on April 11, 2023 in conjunction with the following local
incentives that would allow (i) a 15% inclusionary requirement f or the development of
off-site affordable housing units, giving the owners more flexibility to pool off-site
affordable housing units into one 100% affordable housing project to satisfy off -site
inclusionary requirements for multiple market-rate projects, (ii) the grant of State density
bonus waivers and concessions for the market rate projects as if the off-site units were
provided on-site, and (iii) an increase in the Downtown Community Plan maximum
parking requirement from 0.5 to 1.0 spaces. If adopted, these incentives would further
facilitate the owners’ voluntary use of the ministerial development process previously
authorized in the April 11, 2023 ordinance rather than the Builder’s Remedy.
11.C
Packet Pg. 1453
3 of 7
As part of the Settlement Agreement, the owners’ have the o ption to suspend the BR
Project applications, and, instead, file thirteen new multi-family housing projects that
would qualify for ministerial approvals under the ordinances implementing the certified
Housing Element adopted on April 11, 2023 with the additional incentives authorized by
the State Density Bonus Law and, potentially, the local incentives discussed above if
the City Council elects to ultimately adopt the ordinance. If WS elects to file the
ministerial administrative approval applications in lieu of the Builders Remedy projects
the City would process the new applications on an expedited basis. The thirteen BR
Project applications would be permanently withdrawn if the ministerial approvals are
granted. The BR Project Applications for 1038 10th Street, 1238-42 10th Street, and
1007 Lincoln Blvd would be withdrawn without replacement applications. The BR
Project Application for 1433-47 Euclid Street would remain outside the Settlement
Agreement and proceed through the discretionary review process.
The overall result is that WS will utilize the Housing Element implementing ordinances
with expedited processing rather than the Builder’s Remedy statute to develop housing,
and the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional
housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element. Additionally, three tenants
will have the right to return to their units with financial compensation.
Environmental Review
The Settlement Agreement is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. [“CEQA”] and 14 Cal. Code of
Regulations Sections 15000 et seq. [“CEQA Guidelines”]) because it is not a “Project”
pursuant to CEQA Section 21065 and 21080 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
Under these provisions, a “Project” under CEQA involves agency action that has a
potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
11.C
Packet Pg. 1454
4 of 7
The Settlement Agreement involves neither a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment. First, the resolution of litigation does not cause any
direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts, nor does providing
tenant benefits including financial benefits or the right to return. Second, the transfer of
the deed restriction for the 20 Affordable Units from 1560 Lincoln Blvd to 1038 -42 10th
Street would not involve any changes to the number of units provided or result in an y
new construction and would only cause the deed restriction to be recorded against a
different existing residential property. Therefore, no direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect environmental impacts would result from recording the deed restriction fo r a
different property. Third, the Settlement Agreement’s expedited processing mandate
would have no possible environmental implications and is merely a procedural and
administrative benefit associated with the ministerial process already adopted for certa in
housing projects as part of the Housing Element Update related ordinances. Thus,
nothing in the Settlement Agreement would increase potential development intensity or
capacity or result in any foreseeable direct or indirect environmental impacts.
Finally, the optional ordinance would also not result in direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect environmental impacts. At this time, the adoption of the ordinance is optional
and therefore speculative and subject to the discretion and independent judgement o f
City decision makers. Even if the City ultimately adopts the ordinance, the Settlement
Agreement requires consistency with the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Based upon this analysis, the following findings are made to support the determination
that the Settlement Agreement is not a Project and therefore not subject to CEQA:
1) Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15378(b) and (c); CEQA Section 21065 ,
the Settlement Agreement is not a Project because it contemplates a process for
approving housing projects that are already subject to ministerial approvals and
proposed at intensities already permitted through the Housing Element and analyzed
under the Housing Element EIR and Addendum; settles litigation, provides tenant
benefits, and transfers affordability covenants from one site to another. The Settlement
Agreement only establishes processing parameters, does not contemplate increased
11.C
Packet Pg. 1455
5 of 7
development rights, and does not confer any benefits that have either a direct or indirect
effect on the environment.
In addition, even if the Settlement Agreement is considered subject to CEQA, it is
subject to the commonsense exemption under CEQA Guideline §15061(b)(3). The
commonsense exemption under CEQA applies where it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. As described above the Settlement
Agreement would not result in any direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
environmental impacts.
Additionally, the following findings are also made to support the determination that the
Settlement Agreement is exempt from CEQA:
2) Pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15061(b)(3) the approval of the Settlement
Agreement does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment because it contemplates a process for approving housing projects that are
already subject to ministerial approvals and proposed at intensities already permitted
through the Housing Element and analyzed under the Housing Element EIR and
Addendum; settles litigation, provides tenant benefits, and transfers affordability
covenants from one site to another. The Settlement Agreement only establishes
processing parameters, does not contemplate increased development rights, and does
not confer any benefits that have an effect on the environment.
Based upon this analysis, the following findings are made to support the determination
that no subsequent environmental review is required:
3) CEQA Guideline § 15168; 15162 based on a determination that the Settlement
Agreement is consistent with implementation of the 2021 -2029 6th Cycle Housing
Element, which actions were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [SCH
No. 2020100575] that was certified by Council on October 12, 2021 w ith an Addendum
to the EIR approved on October 11, 2022.
11.C
Packet Pg. 1456
6 of 7
a) No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require
major revisions of the previous EIR and Addendum due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects. In this case, there are
no changes to the project.
b) No substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the
previous addendum due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects. In this case, no substantial changes have
occurred.
c) There is no new information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time of the previous EIR and Addendum that the
project will have significant effect not discussed in the EIR and Addendum.
Based upon these findings, it has been determined that no further env ironmental
documentation is required for approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
October 11, 2022 Adoption of Resolution Amending the 6th Cycle (2021-2029)
Housing Element to the City’s General Plan and Approval of
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element
February 22 and
February 28, 2023
Study Session on Implementation of 6th Cycle (2021-2029)
Housing Element Programs
March 21, 2023 and
April 11, 2023
Adoption of a finding that various amendments necessary to
implement the City’s Certified 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing
Element were analyzed as part of the 2021-2029 6th Cycle
Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
Addendum, and no further review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required.
11.C
Packet Pg. 1457
7 of 7
First and Second Reading, as required: Adoption of
ordinances for amendments to the LUCE, DCP, BAP, and
Zoning Ordinance, LUCE designation map, and Zoning
Districting Map, LUCE designation map, and Zoning
Districting Map implementing Certified 6th Cycle (2021-2029)
Housing Element programs.
Effective Date of Action
The Settlement Agreement would take effect immediately upon execution of the
document by all parties.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared By: Susan Cola, Assistant City Attorney
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A - Project List
B. October 11, 2022 City Council Meeting (Web Link)
C. February 22, 2023 City Council Meeting (Web Link)
D. February 28, 2023 City Council Meeting (Web Link)
E. March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting (Web Link)
F. April 11, 2023 City Council Meeting (Web Link)
G. ITEM.11.C.Written Comments
H. PowerPoint Presentation
11.C
Packet Pg. 1458
Attachment A
List of Pending Builder’s Remedy Applications Owned by WS Communities LLC
Pending Builder's Remedy Projects
Owned by WS Communities LLC,
May 2023
Site Size (sf)Total
Proposed
Units
Affordable
Units
# of
Stories
Proposed
Project
FAR
Preliminary
SB330
Application #
Formal
(Development
Review Permit)
Application #
Preliminary
Application
Submittal
Date
Formal
(Development
Review Permit)
Application
Submittal Date
1925 Broadway 30,000 405 81 18 10.91 22ENT-0259 23ENT-0031 10/7/2022 2/28/2023
1007 Lincoln Blvd 7,500 95 19 15 n/a 22ENT-0268 23ENT-0066 10/13/2022 4/7/2023
1038 10th St 7,500 95 19 14 n/a 22ENT-0269 23ENT-0065 10/13/2022 4/7/2023
1238-1242 10th St 15,000 200 40 18 n/a 22ENT-0266 23ENT-0055 10/11/2022 3/29/2023
1433 Euclid St***15,000 200 40 18 10.48 22ENT-0267 23ENT-0022 10/11/2022 2/10/2023
1518-1524 7th St 22,500 200 40 11 6.34 22ENT-0249 23ENT-0041 9/30/2022 3/9/2023
1441-1443 Lincoln Blvd 15,000 170 34 16 9.32 22ENT-0251 23ENT-0009 9/30/2022 1/16/2023
2901 Santa Monica Blvd 19,125 190 38 12 6.45 22ENT-0256 23ENT-0051 10/6/2022 3/24/2023
3030 Nebraska (aka 3000 Nebraska Ave)142,721 1601 321 15 6.55 22ENT-0257 23ENT-0050 10/6/2022 3/24/2023
1238 7th St 7,500 75 15 10 4.125 22ENT-0258 22ENT-0312 10/7/2022 12/9/2022
1433-1437 6th St 15,000 170 34 16 8.1 22ENT-0247 22ENT-0319 9/30/2022 12/22/2022
1425 5th St (aka 1435 5th St)37,500 375 75 13 6.35 22ENT-0255 23ENT-0056 10/6/2022 3/29/2023
1557 7th St (aka 707 Colorado Ave)22,500 200 40 16 6.28 22ENT-0254 23ENT-0028 10/6/2022 2/23/2023
601 Colorado Ave 22,500 200 40 15 8.1 22ENT-0248 23ENT-0012 9/30/2022 1/19/2023
Total 4176 836
***Project owned by WS Communities LLC and not subject to the Settlement Agreement between the City of Santa Monica and WS Communities LLC.
11.C.a
Packet Pg. 1459 Attachment: Attachment A - Project List (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Beatrice Felix
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information
in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:11:44 PM
EXTERNAL
All our elected leaders,
Santa Monica residents want to understand the ramifications of this settlement and
want the Council to understand them BEFORE approving any settlement. Please do
not rush this through and continue to choke our city with unbrideled growth at the
expense of your constituents and to line the pockets of developers. It's already out of
hand - let's get things under control.
Let's recognize that this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the
City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this
settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
Its impacts will be far reaching for generations.
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate
answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if
this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and
when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.
Thank you.
Beatrice Felix
Thomas Hartman
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1460 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Sil Richardson
To:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick;
councilmtgitems
Subject:: City Council mtg. 5/9: Item 11C - SUPPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING BUILDER"S REMEDY
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:42:33 PM
EXTERNAL
> Members,
>
> I live on 2nd Street in the Wilmont neighborhood and I support and hope you vote yes on the settlement
agreement with WS Communities. I appreciate that the agreement has 1038 10th Street, 1238-42 10th Street and
1007 Lincoln Blvd being withdrawn for BR projects and will not have replacement applications.
>
> I still am concerned about the other 10 WS Communities projects and STRONGLY REQUEST that the council
have city staff outline for these buildings that would qualify for ministerial approval what would be maximum
height and FAR, maximum number of units possible, number of affordable units and parking allowed for all these
projects BEFORE voting on the settlement.
>
> Finally, as a member of a community with over 80% rental units, I want the city to ensure that the 20 deed-
restricted affordable units between transferred from 1560 Lincoln Blvd. to 1038-42 10th Street DO NOT
DISPLACE ANY RENT CONTROL RESIDENTS. The worst thing we can do is lose rent-control units/residents
to displacement because of the builder's remedy debacle.
> Thank-you,
>
> Silvana Richardson
>
> The city council meeting that has this settlement agreement for discussion
>
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1461 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 3:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC
builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for
the public to weigh in.
From: Brian (3ribG) <thirdrib@g.ucla.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:44 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>; Jesse Zwick
<Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis <Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>;
coundilmtgitems@santamonica.gov <coundilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Cc: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; David Martin
<David.Martin@santamonica.gov>
Subject: FW: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11‐C Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11‐C to settle 13 WSC builder’s
remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
EXTERNAL
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project
sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When
the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a
"builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units
citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and
oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there
were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of
his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for
tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns
14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight
the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the
city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built
and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there
needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding,
almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1462 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
2
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical
information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the
settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s
regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the
actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver
of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require
mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including
increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within
the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these
sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the
builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website
at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a
builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what
this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval
process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to
determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally
proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be
built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new
housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy
chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units
and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon
the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete
information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest
before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to
these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is
approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these
expedited projects would come online.
Thank you.
Here's SMCLC's letter:
Brian P Juarez -
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1463 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
3
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1464 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 3:02 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of
critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
From: CHERI DICKINSON <texart68@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:53 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>; Jesse Zwick
<Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis <Caroline.Torosis@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>; David Martin
<David.Martin@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11‐C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information
in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
EXTERNAL
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites
will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news
broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's
remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was
widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these
projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were
good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest
priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for
tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14
builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the
construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the
city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and
what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to
be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an
afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical
information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is
in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1465 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
2
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the
City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without
giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and
waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could
require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents,
including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects
come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of
these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in
comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website
at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a
builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining
what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the
approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible to
determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally
proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be
built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new
housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy
chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units
and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon
the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete
information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest
before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to
these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is
approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these
expedited projects would come online.
Thank you.
Cheri Dickinson
2268 22nd st
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1466 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 3:08 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose 11-C - Staff Administrative Item to Settle Builder's Remedy projects
EXTERNAL
To: City Council
From: Northeast Neighbors
Re: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11-C, Council meeting of May 8, 2023
Dear City Council,
The Board of Northeast Neighbors supports the SMCLC letter to Council (below) expressing grave
concerns about the Staff recommendations in Agenda Item 11-C.
We share the views and advice of SMCLC that Council should not allow any settlement with WS to be
pursued without first engaging in a rigorous exploration and explanation to the community of what the
impact will be as well as what alternatives may be pursued.
Thank you.
Tricia Crane, Chair
and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
May 8, 2023
To: City Council
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC)
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of
critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1467 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
2
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its “builder’s remedy” project sites
will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news
broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a “builder’s
remedy” statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was
widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these
projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were
good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest
priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s
Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14
builder’s remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the
construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega development agreement - the biggest one in the city’s
history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what
the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a
more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an
afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical
information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is
in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s
regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual
numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any
environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including
increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the
next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these
sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s
remedy numbers posted on the City’s website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-
remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s
remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the
City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1468 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
3
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval
process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It’s impossible to
determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed
or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this
settlement to satisfy the State’s requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on
the City’s website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable
units for each project so the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon the
Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete information
to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving
it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC’s predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these
issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why
it’s in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it’s anticipated that these expedited projects
would come online.
Thank you.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Hadley, Richard <Richard.Hadley@lmu.edu>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 3:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Opposition to Staff Administrative Item 11-C
EXTERNAL
I am RICHARD HADLEY (I am a resident of the city of Santa Monica, CA)
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of
critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites
will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news
broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's
remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was
widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these
projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were
good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest
priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for
tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14
builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the
construction of 1000s of housing units.
THANK you.
RICHARD HADLEY
-----
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1470 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:ErikLerner@gmail.com
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 3:19 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Administrative Item 11-C re BUILDER'S REMEDY
EXTERNAL
Re: Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects
The council must take whatever action is necessary to maintain local control and require all projects including WSC’s to
CONFORM COMPLETELY TO THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE EXISTING ZONING CODE.
Erik Lerner, Architect
25 Village Parkway
Santa Monica CA 90405
310 729 4597
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Nikki F <ncf1551@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 3:19 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I stand with the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City to oppose Staff Administrative item 11-
C.
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers
to the questions raised by SMCLC in their letter of May 8, 2023.
Regards,
Nikki C. Fernandez
1138 16th St, Apt. 6
Santa Monica, CA 90403
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1472 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Philip Schwartz <philschwartzdp@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 3:29 PM
To:Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Kristin McCowan; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock;
Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Against Agenda Item 11-C
EXTERNAL
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project
sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When
the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a
"builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units
citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and
oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there
were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of
his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for
tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns
14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight
the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the
city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built
and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there
needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding,
almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical
information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the
settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the
City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without
giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and
waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could
require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents,
including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects
come online within the next few years;
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
2
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of
these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in
comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website
at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a
builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining
what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the
approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to
determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally
proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be
built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new
housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy
chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units
and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon
the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete
information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest
before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to
these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is
approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these
expedited projects would come online.
Signed
Philip D Schwartz, Treasurer
909-911 Arizona Ave HOA
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1474 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Ed Harker <ewillhark@netscape.net>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 3:38 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council, City Clerk et al,
I agree very strongly, passionately, with this letter below from SMCLC objecting to your settlement
allowing 'builder's remedy'.
Please don't give the developers free reign on the size or design of their properties. They are here to
make huge windfall profits, not to improve either our city or our state. Play hardball when negotiating
what percentage of units will be affordable housing.
Thank you,
Ed Harker
SM resident since 1984
see below:
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical
information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will
have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last
September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to
construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition.
Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects.
https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good
legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities
was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s
Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14
builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the
construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the city's
history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the
real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more
open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an
administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
2
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical information
that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests
of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s
regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the
actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include
expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any
environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents,
including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come
online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these
sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the
builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website at
https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a
builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what
this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval
process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to
determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally
proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be
built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new
housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy
chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units
and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon
the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete
information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest
before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to
these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is
approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these
expedited projects would come online.
Thank you.
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC)
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Daniel Galamba <galambadb@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 3:52 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; councilmtgitems; Daniel Galamba
Subject:City Council Meeting May 9, 2023: Please Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to oppose Staff Administrative Item 11‐C until critical information is provided and the public can weigh in on
this proposed settlement. This settlement doesn’t say what would be built under this agreement including each
project’s size, height, and number of units and how it would differ from the over 4000 units and up to 20‐story projects
originally filed. Residents want to understand the ramifications of this settlement and want the Council to understand
them before approving any settlement. There is lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for
the public to weigh in on any proposed settlement.
Last Fall residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these Builders Remedy projects. In response, the
City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the
filings once formal applications were filed. Furthermore, these Builder Remedy projects may not be valid because the
State extended the deadline for the City to have their plan approved to October 15, 2022 and the City met this extended
deadline. Therefore, Builder Remedy applications before October 15, 2022 are not valid and should not be approved.
WSC is using the Builders Remedy to ramrod their projects through when their applications are not valid to begin with.
At this point it's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built. Is it what was
originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? How much affordable housing will be built under this
settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3 of the required new housing be affordable? WSC is asking to City
to approve a pig‐in‐a‐poke when their Builders Remedy applications aren't valid to begin with. Please don't do this.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Noma Boardmember <nomaboard@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 3:53 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; lana.grete@santamonica.gov;
carolyn.torosis@santamonica.gov; jessie.zwick@santamonica.gov; Phil Brock; councilmtgitems
Cc:David White; doug.sloan@santamonica.gov; David Martin; Susan Cline;
susan.kola@santamonica.gov; Zina Josephs; emvandenburgh@gmail.com; Tricia Crane
Subject:Subject: NOMA Opposes item 11-C
EXTERNAL
To help protect yMicrosoft Office pautomatic downlopicture from the
NOMA Board’s Opposition to Item 11‐C on May 9, 2023 Council Agenda
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
The Board of the North of Montana Neighborhood Association writes to support the letter of the Santa Monica Coalition
for a Livable City and also to OPPOSE Staff Administrative Item 11‐C and its recommendation for our City to settle 13
massive WSC “Builder’s Remedy” projects based on the absence of the most elementary information on the settlement:
The staff report lacks fundamental information necessary for even a rudimentary assessment of the settlements,
including the number of units that would be subject to expedited, ministerial review while waiving environmental
review, the sizes of the units, heights of the buildings and how many units are affordable vs. market rate.
We note that under RHNA about 2/3rds must be affordable. We also note that the proposed future review of these
massive projects apparently would be without public engagement and no necessary guardrails are disclosed.
The staff report fails to discuss the impacts and burdens on our already stretched City of these additional projects,
such as on water, police, fire, traffic, and size of staff.
Lacking all of this vital information the public has been deprived of any meaningful input as to this item.
We urge the Council not to approve this item and that the settlement agreement be made public as well as the
necessary facts for both the Council and the public to have meaningful input. These projects are so large and would
likely have such an important impact on our City that nothing less is appropriate.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
2
NOMA Board
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1479 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:gayle harbor <gayleharbor@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 4:04 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of
critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project
sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When
the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a
"builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units
citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and
oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there
were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of
his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for
tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns
14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight
the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the
city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built
and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there
needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding,
almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical
information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the
settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the
City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without
giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and
waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could
require mitigations;
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1480 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
2
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents,
including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects
come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of
these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in
comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website
at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a
builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining
what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the
approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible to
determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally
proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be
built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new
housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy
chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units
and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon
the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete
information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest
before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to
these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is
approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these
expedited projects would come online.
Sincerely,
Gayle Harbor
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1481 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 4:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Builders REmedy with WSC - 11C
From: GARY <writer629@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 4:27 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>; Jesse Zwick
<Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis <Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White
<David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; David Martin
<David.Martin@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Builders REmedy with WSC
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Et Al,
I urge you to reconsider this very nebulous agreement with WSC over 14 properties of
theirs.
Building thousands of apartments will only add more congestion to already crowded
areas. And this agreement raises more questions than it answers.
Sincerely,
Gary Gurner
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1482 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Brenda Anderson <brendaanderson3942@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 4:36 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder's remedy projects
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I strongly object to the inclusion of Item 11‐C that is represents a settlement with a developer that would not say what is
to be built under the agreement. You must be more open about what the proposed agreement includes and how it will
affect our City. Your own City Attorney hired outside counsel who advised that the City Council should give a high
priority to keeping the public informed about proposed developments. This item does just the opposite. It has the
appearance of trying to sneak something into approval without the opportunity for residents to weigh in.
Please direct Staff to give details about exactly what they are advising so residents will know, too.
Brenda Anderson
475 24th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1483 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Tatiana Khmilinina <tatiana@yyk.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 5:13 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; Yakov Zelkin
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical
information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in
EXTERNAL
To the members of the City Council:
Want to urge the City Council to hold off on a settlement with the developer until it clearly states:
- what would be built under this agreement
- how it would differ from the over 4000 units and up to 20-story projects originally filed
- what our City will look like if this settlement is approved
- why it's in the interests of the City to approve it
- when these expedited projects would come online
The residents need to understand the ramifications of this settlement and want the Council to
understand them BEFORE approving any settlement.
Thank you,
Tatiana Khmilinina and Yakov Zelkin
310-800-8222 / 310-800-5500
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1484 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Jack Fry <smokyjack@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 5:31 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Staff Administrative Item 11-C
EXTERNAL
I have read the letter that the Santa Monic Coalition for a Livable City as submitted to the City Council, and I am in
total agreement with the concerns expressed in that letter.
How can the proposed housing to be built be accepted by the council when no numbers of housing units, especially
affordable housing units are given?
How can the council approve such a plan when no estimates of effects on our infrastructure are included? Elements
of our infrastructure are already under stress with the amount of daily influx of traffic which currently clogs our
streets causing what should be a 20 minute drive to complete an errand take an hour or more.
How can the council approve a proposal that fails to specify how many units, how many stories, actual locations of
projects are being planned?
To protect the best interests of Santa Monica residents, the council must reject this proposal until a more detailed
version is forthcoming.
Jack F. Fry
2423 23rd Street
Santa Monica, CA
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1485 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Jennifer Perito <jen@jenniferperito.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 5:31 PM
To:Gleam Davis
Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:Builder's Remedy Settlement
EXTERNAL
To The City Council of Santa Monica,
I’m writing to STRONGLY OBJECT to the staff recommendation that the City Council approve a settlement of the 13
“builder’s remedy"
project sites throughout the city of Santa Monica!!
As a 50 year resident of Santa Monica, I am flabbergasted that the city would even consider these behemoth projects
that have absolutely no place in the skyline of our beautiful city. The very nature and charm of SM would be dealt a
devastating blow if these buildings are allowed to be
built. The environmental impact of these monstrous projects would be virtually incalculable, not to mention the harm it
would visit on those
who live in the immediate vicinities. Our city is already experiencing historic congestion ‐ how in the world can it possibly
absorb the addition
of this many additional units?!
The City Council must protect our beloved city and its citizens from the disastrous effects of rampant, ill‐conceived over‐
development ‐ if we don’t, we risk losing the unparalleled beauty that is Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Perito
1231 9TH ST (#6)
Santa Monica, CA 90401
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1486 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Selena Linkous <selenalinkous@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 5:54 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical
information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
EXTERNAL
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project
sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When
the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a
"builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units
citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and
oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there
were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of
his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for
tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns
14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight
the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the
city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built
and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there
needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding,
almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical
information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the
settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s
regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the
actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include
expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any
environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents,
including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come
online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these
sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1487 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
2
builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website at
https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a
builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what
this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval
process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to
determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally
proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be
built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new
housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy
chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units
and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon
the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete
information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest
before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to
these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is
approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these
expedited projects would come online.
Thank you
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1488 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Leslie Lambert <leslielambert92@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 5:58 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar De La Torre; Phil Brock; Jesse Zwick; Caroline
Torosis
Subject:Item 11C
EXTERNAL
I encourage the City Council to approve the Settlement Agreement between WS Properties and the City, which is
included on your May 9, 2023 Agenda as Item 11C. I am writing as an individual rather than as a representative of the
Planning Commission.
I support this action because it will expedite the production of new housing in Santa Monica. Execution of this
Settlement Agreement will provide much needed housing opportunities for new and existing residents and will also
contribute to the City's meeting its RHNA goals in a timely manner,
It is very important to understand that the twelve INDIVIDUAL WS Properties projects could submit twelve new project
applications on June 1 and get exactly what they are asking for in the Settlement Agreement. Specifically, new sections
9.39.020 and 9.39.040 of the amended Zoning Ordinance fully entitle "Streamlined Housing Projects", on sites of less
than one acre in size, to processing through the Administrative Approval process. This new ZO language becomes
effective on June 1, 2023 and is in furtherance of Program 1A of our certified Housing Element. Program 1A requires
amendment of the ZO to ensure by right processing of housing projects that are code compliant. (Modifications per the
ZO do not disqualify a project from being considered code compliant.) Again, all twelve WS Properties' projects are code
compliant,on parcels less than an acre in size, and are therefore "Streamlined Housing Projects". They will therefore be
eligible for Administrative Approval on June 1.
It is my understanding that the only departure from the standard Administrative Approval process is the Settlement
Agreement's provision that these twelve projects be expedited by the City rather than going through the 12‐18 month
entitlement process. I would hope that we are all supportive of expediting entitlement review and getting housing in the
ground sooner rather than later.
In my opinion, the Settlement Agreement is a win‐win situation for the City. It will result in building housing faster as
well as demonstrating a good faith effort to comply with the Housing Element. I am frankly confused by objections
raised by members of the community since WS Properties already will have the rights set forth in the Settlement
Agreement on June 1.
Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to Santa Monica.
Leslie Lambert
.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1489 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Customer Service <ruthann6shanley@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 6:59 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov.net; Caroline
Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; council@smgovt.net; David White;
Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:RE: Oppose Staff Admins. Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder's remedy projects for lack of critical
information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
EXTERNAL
The proposed settlement with WS Communities will have a BIG impact on Santa Monica residents for
GENERATIONS to come.
I have lived here 45 yrs., and I cannot BELIEVE how this city is being destroyed. We might as well
be living in NY.
Last yr., this developer filed applications for 14 projects under "builders remedy" statute to build
OVER 20 stories high and over 4000 units city wide.
There was MUCH opposition. Residents urged the city to get outside council and OPPOSE these
projects.
https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-117-22.html
City attorney retained outside council who advised there were good LEGAL grounds to CONTEST the
filings once FORMAL APPLICATIONS were filed, and to keep Council
and public informed.
In SPITE of this, last Thursday, city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for
TOMORROW'S Council meeting as thought it were just a ROUTE ITEM.
BUT this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14
builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement
apparently would GREENLIGHT the construction of 1,000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement-the BIGGEST ONE IN
THE CITY's HISTORY! There needs to be a high degree of DISCLOSURE
asa to WHAT is BEING BUILT and what the REAL-LIFE BENEFITS and BURDENS to the
community will be implemented. There needs to be a more OPEN and TRANSPARENT
process and sufficient NOTICE than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an Administrative Item
to an ALREADY PACKED Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT. It OMITS
critical information that is necessary for the Council AND THE PUBLIC to
weigh in to determine if the settlement is in the INTERESTS of SANTA MONICA BEFORE approving
it.
KEY DEFICIENCES in the staff report include:
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1490 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
2
1. Stating that "the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City's regional
housing needs, as planned in its certified"Housing Element" without giving the actual numbers.,
including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include EXEDITED
processing, MINISTERIAL review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver
of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including
increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these
projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what exactly will be built on any of these sites (the
heights and number of units, including affordable units), in
comparison to the builder's remedy numbers posted on the City's website at:
https:://http://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18 stories)would remain a builder's remedy
project and be excluded from the settlement without
explaining what this means (is the City reserving it's legal right to disapprove it?); amd
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process
(this is, in essence, a development agreement).
ABSENT THIS CRITICAL INFORMATION, THE COUNCIL SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD.
It is impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built-is it what was
originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified,
how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's
requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder's remedy chart on
the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the
total HEIGHT, NUMBER of units and AFFORDABLE units for each project so the public is kept
informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are RELYING upon
the CITY COUNCIL to do the work, to ask the hard questions,
and to demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable,
and in the City's best interest before approving it.
This is even MORE important here, given the well-known HISTORY of WSC's predecessor (NMS).
Please DO NOT MOVE FORWARD with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers
to these issues and you can explain to residents what our
City will LOOK LIKE if t his settlement is approved, WHY it's in the interests of the City to approve it,
and WHEN it's anticipated that these expedited projects
would come online.
Thank you.
Ruthann Shanley, Scott Shanley, Sarah Shanley
45 yrs. resident of Santa Monica
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Sterling Long-Colbo <sterlinglongcolbo@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 7:12 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose builder's remedy
EXTERNAL
May 8, 2023
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11‐C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in
the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge
impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this
developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20
stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel
and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10‐17‐22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds
to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and
the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting
as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one‐off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy
sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega‐development agreement ‐ the biggest one in the city's history. Given this,
there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real‐life benefits and burdens to the
community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice
than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
2
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical information that is
necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica
before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as
planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing
units;
Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include expedited processing, ministerial
review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise
could require mitigations;
Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including increased City costs and strain
on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years;
Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of
units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website at
https://www.santamonica.gov/builders‐remedy;
Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18‐stories) would remain a builder’s remedy project and be
excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?);
and
Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a
development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council
actually would be approving to be built ‐ is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And
how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the
required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as
to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is
kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon the Council to do the
work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this
settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it. This is even more important here, given the
well‐known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can
explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to
approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
3
Thank you.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:emsmail135@gmail.com
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 7:28 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject:Vote NO on 11C
EXTERNAL
Hello City Council,
Please vote no on agenda item 11C, which would green light a tremendous amount of development without sufficient
transparency, information, public input, or equitable planning.
I also object to the fact that this agreement will allow so‐called inclusionary housing units to be located offsite. This is an
ongoing problem in Santa Monica that undermines the creation of affordable housing that would otherwise
affirmatively further fair housing. We can do better.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Very best wishes,
Michelle Gray
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1495 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Jessica Wilkins <jwilkinsmitchell@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 7:34 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of
critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
EXTERNAL
Please oppose!
Jessica Wilkins
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1496 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Gina Novish <gina429@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 8:02 PM
To:Caroline Torosis
Cc:info@smclc.net; councilmtgitems
Subject:Vote No on Builder’s Remedy
EXTERNAL
Please vote no on the Builder’s Remedy. As a long‐time resident living near the new building housing the Trader Joe’s at
the corner of Wilshire and 23rd Street, I can tell you how invasive, congested, destructive and dangerous the
neighborhood is now that it is there. It absolutely changed the character of the neighborhood. Building without concern
for the residents of the city changes the character of Santa Monica is irresponsible. Please vote NO tomorrow.
All the best,
Gina Nowysz Reichardt
Sent from space
gina429@gmail.com
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1497 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Rosvita Rauch <rmrauch@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 8:19 PM
To:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical
information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in
EXTERNAL
To Our Elected Leaders
Santa Monica residents want the opportunity to fully understand the ramifications of this settlement
and want the Council to understand them BEFORE approving any settlement. Please do not rush this
through and continue to choke our city with unbridled growth at the expense of your constituents and
to line the pockets of developers. It's already out of hand - let's get things under control.
Let's recognize that this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site.
WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would
greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units. Its impacts will be far reaching for
generations.
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these
issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like IF this settlement is approved,
why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited
projects would come online.
Thank you,
Rosvita Rauch
(used with permission of Beatrice Felix)
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1498 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Katharine Dreyfuss <kitdreyfuss@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 8:20 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose item 11-C
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members and colleagues,
I am writing to urge that you refuse to settle for WSC's "Builder's Remedy" Projects until crucial information omitted in
the staff report has been provided, and sufficient time has been allowed for the public to weigh in on this complicated
proposition. You are already receiving, so I will not repeat, the public's detailed complaints about the specific omissions
in the staff's glib overview of the actual plans. Please acknowledge that the residents of your city need much more
clarity about these proposed developments before you sign off on them on our behalf.
Thank you for your open‐minded and conscientious attention to my request.
Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1499 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:lmarreola <lmarreola@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 8:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:ITEM 11-C May 9 2023
EXTERNAL
We oppose staff's administrative Item 11‐C.we agree with Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City letter to City Council
dated May 8,2023
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1500 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Joan Moschovakis <joan.rand@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 8:56 PM
To:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox; Gleam Davis
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Builders Remedy
EXTERNAL
To the City Council:
There is a lot of uncertainty (and a lot of ignorance) among Santa Monica residents about how our city will be
transformed if thousands of units of housing are soon to be built willy‐nilly using Builders' Remedy. Well‐constructed
five‐story apartment buildings on the main streets may enhance our city, provided they include sufficient on‐site
parking. Duplexes and triplexes on large residential lots make sense. Granny flats and ADUs, which used to be
officially unrentable, are now (at last) legal to rent. Certainly we need more affordable housing.
But isolated 10‐ or 15‐story apartment buildings would be eyesores, anywhere in town, given that our commercial and
residential buildings are mostly one‐to‐three stories high. Please give us the details, and then give citizens a week or
two to think about just what WSC will build under the proposed settlement, before you sign off on it.
Thank you,
Joan Moschovakis
721 24th Street
Santa Monica, 90402
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1501 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:EvanHandler.com <Evan@EvanHandler.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 9:11 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:NMS/WS Communities settlement
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council
I am a recent Santa Monica resident and business owner, a current patron of numerous businesses, and a parent of a
student at a Santa Monica private school. It has just come to my attention that a meeting will be held on May 9th to
consider a potential settlement between the city and NMS/WS Communities. It is troubling that so little notice has been
given to the public about this proposed settlement. I am writing to urge the Council to postpone consideration of this
settlement until more residents, business owners, workers, as well as other affected parties, have sufficient time to
assess the potential impacts of the settlement on their lives, their businesses, and their children’s schools.
In fact, my understanding is that it was the city’s failure to be in state compliance under the builder’s remedy provision that
has allowed discussion of any development to even occur. The negative results of this failure should not fall to the city’s
residents, businesses, and school children to bear (nor should the city invite the negative publicity that would result from
failing to give those parties adequate time to assess, and give feedback about, any proposed settlements). I again urge
the City Council to postpone consideration of this settlement so that further education, investigation, and discussion can
occur.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Evan Handler
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1502 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Ann Hoover <annkbowman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 9:12 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc:David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta
Subject:05-09-23 Council Meeting - Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s
remedy projects
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:
I echo every concern expressed in the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City's letter to you and accordingly oppose
Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report
and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to the many issues such a
settlement raises for our community and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is
approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would
come online.
Thank you -
Ann Bowman
Resident 26+ years
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1503 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:Laura Baril <1laurabaril@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 9:16 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:New Roads Development
EXTERNAL
We would like to ask the city to postpone consideration of the settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities
New Roads could be impacted by the development next door, we would like you to reconsider postponing of the
settlement until the school and the broader community have sufficient time to assess the potential impacts of the
settlement.
Thanks,
Laura Baril
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1504 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1
Xavier Mota
From:David Abramis <dabramis@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 8, 2023 9:26 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Iris Souza
Subject:Postpone consideration of settlement between the City and NMS/WS
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members:
We are homeowners and residents of the City of Santa Monica and we are very concerned about your plans to consider
approval of a settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities on 5/9/2023. In particular, we are quite unclear
about how the New Roads school would be impacted by the development next door.
We're sorry for the last‐minute nature of this email, but we only just found out about this. We wish we could attend
your meeting to make our voices clear, but work and childcare prevent our attendance
‐‐ so this email will have to suffice.
Bottom line, we need more time to assess the potential impacts of this settlement. Please, at minimum, hold off on
your approval.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
David Abramis and Iris Souza
2642 33rd St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1505 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:MARY ANN KELLOGG
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Mary Ann Kellogg; Tony Whitman
Subject:Approve the settlement agreement between the city of Santa Monica and WS Communities, LLC and its affiliates
WS under”Builders Remedy”
Date:Sunday, May 7, 2023 7:29:14 PM
EXTERNAL
Subject: Approve the settlement agreement between the city of Santa Monica
and WS Communities, LLC and its affiliates WS under”Builders Remedy”
To whom it may concern,
Our family is thrilled to see that the SM City Council supports a
settlement with WS communities, LLC by putting an end to the
pursuit of constructing 2 new 14 story apartment buildings at 1038
10th St. and 1007 Lincoln Boulevard. We believe that this decision
will have a positive impact on the Wilmont neighborhood as well as
the wider Santa Monica community.
Thank you for your support in this matter and for your ongoing
commitment to making Santa Monica a wonderful place to live.
Sincerely,
Mary Ann Kellogg
Tony Whitman
Sent from my iPad
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1506 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:John Murdock
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:fospairport@rocketmail.com; Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City
Subject:BR proposed Settlement? Item 11.C
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 12:49:13 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:
I have reviewed the Staff Report for the "consideration of a settlement" with WS, and do not
find the actual text of the Settlement Agreement attached anywhere. All we have is a
summary of the proposed terms, which are vague in the extreme. It is hard to determine what
benefit the city gets and equally as hard to decipher what WS gets from this, other than
"expedited approval" of its projects if it "elects" to choose the existing process rather than the
BR process. And there are some individual tenat settlements, which should not in ay way be a
part of this package. This is like a high-low poker game with the developer having a lock on
low. What does "expedited approval" actually mean? And why is the WS entity allowed to
"elect" which route it will take, even after the city has given its "consideration" by adopting an
undisclosed-terms ordinance allowing this to happen? This is a strange settlement proposal,
to say the least. For one thing, it contemplated allowing the "ghettoization" of affordable
units by transferring them all to one building rather than spreading them out among the 13
buildings among the market rate units. Does the city want to resurrect its past history of
ghettoing the affordable housing and place them all in one place, say, somewhere in or near
the Pico corridor, away from stylish Wilshire Blvd units? .Please explain the rationale for this
bonus being delivered to WS. Without the actual text of the agreement, the public is unable to
intelligently comment on the impacts, which leads to the question whether this notice
complies with the Brown Act. . And claiming that a broad-brush agreement to give "expedited
review" to 13 projects throughout the city with purported CEQA "exemptions" is not likely to
stand up in court.
John B. Murdock
Attorney at Law
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
tel. (310) 450-1859
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1507 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Thunder Levin
To:Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; councilmtgitems
Subject:Builder"s Remedy Settlement
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:18:28 PM
EXTERNAL
To the City Council,
I’m am writing to object, in the most strenuous terms possible, ANY settlement with the “Builder’s
Remedy” developer(s) before the details of such settlements have been revealed publicly and the
residents of Santa Monica have had a chance to comment. Moreover, I’m implore you to take
whatever actions are available to prevent these developments entirely AND to fight the State of
California’s utterly insane 9000 unit mandate.
Allowing these developments will utterly destroy whatever beachside character remains to Santa
Monica and take already impassable traffic and make it utterly impossible. Our small city will grind
to a halt and our city services will collapse under the strain of this many new homes. The city simply
doesn’t have the water, electrical, or education infrastructure to support this many new residents,
and building more tall building will shadow their neighbors rendering rooftop solar useless and
further increasing our carbon footprint.
I would encourage the council to think outside the box, up to and including deny any and all building
permits for structures exceeding current zoning limits and using the SMPD to physically prevent
construction. The well-intentioned but hopelessly misguided State mandates should be fought, and
if necessary, ignored. They do not have the right overturn our own community standards. Go rogue
if need be. Fight. And never, never give up.
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 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Lisa Lipman
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council mtg. 5/9: Item 11C - SUPPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING BUILDER"S REMEDY
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 10:18:04 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I live on 10th Street in the Wilmont neighborhood and I support and hope you
vote yes on the settlement agreement with WS Communities. I appreciate that the
agreement has 1038 10th Street, 1238-42 10th Street and 1007 Lincoln Blvd
being withdrawn for BR projects and will not have replacement applications.
I still am concerned about the other 10 WS Communities projects and
STRONGLY REQUEST that the council have city staff outline for these
buildings that would qualify for ministerial approval what would be maximum
height and FAR, maximum number of units possible, number of affordable units
and parking allowed for all these projects BEFORE voting on the settlement.
Finally, as a member of a community with over 80% rental units, I want the city
to ensure that the 20 deed-restricted affordable units between transferred from
1560 Lincoln Blvd. to 1038-42 10th Street DO NOT DISPLACE ANY RENT
CONTROL RESIDENTS. The worst thing we can do is lose rent-control
units/residents to displacement because of the builder's remedy debacle.
Thank-you,
Lisa Lipman
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:mdosti
To:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick;
councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council mtg. 5/9: Item 11C - SUPPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING BUILDER"S REMEDY
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 10:49:25 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I live on 4th Street in the Wilmont neighborhood and I support and hope you vote yes on the settlement
agreement with WS Communities. I appreciate that the agreement has 1038 10th Street, 1238-42 10th
Street and 1007 Lincoln Blvd being withdrawn for BR projects and will not have replacement applications.
I still am concerned about the other 10 WS Communities projects and STRONGLY REQUEST that the
council have city staff outline for these buildings that would qualify for ministerial approval what would be
maximum height and FAR, maximum number of units possible, number of affordable units and parking
allowed for all these projects BEFORE voting on the settlement.
Finally, as a member of a community with over 80% rental units, I want the city to ensure that the 20
deed-restricted affordable units between transferred from 1560 Lincoln Blvd. to 1038-42 10th Street DO
NOT DISPLACE ANY RENT CONTROL RESIDENTS. The worst thing we can do is lose rent-control
units/residents to displacement because of the builder's remedy debacle.
Thank-you,
Marya Dosti
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:E C
To:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick;
councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council mtg. 5/9: Item 11C - SUPPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING BUILDER"S REMEDY
Date:Saturday, May 6, 2023 7:59:27 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I live on 10th Street in the Wilmont neighborhood and I support and hope you vote yes on the settlement agreement
with WS Communities. I appreciate that the agreement has 1038 10th Street, 1238-42 10th Street and 1007 Lincoln
Blvd being withdrawn for BR projects and will not have replacement applications.
I still am concerned about the other 10 WS Communities projects and STRONGLY REQUEST that the council
have city staff outline for these buildings that would qualify for ministerial approval what would be maximum
height and FAR, maximum number of units possible, number of affordable units and parking allowed for all these
projects BEFORE voting on the settlement.
Finally, as a member of a community with over 80% rental units, I want the city to ensure that the 20 deed-restricted
affordable units between transferred from 1560 Lincoln Blvd. to 1038-42 10th Street DO NOT DISPLACE ANY
RENT CONTROL RESIDENTS. The worst thing we can do is lose rent-control units/residents to displacement
because of the builder's remedy debacle.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Cazenave
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Lori Dreischmeier
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council mtg. 5/9: Item 11C - SUPPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING BUILDER"S REMEDY
Date:Sunday, May 7, 2023 7:04:02 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Member,
I live on 10th Street in the Wilmont neighborhood and I support and hope you vote yes on the settlement agreement
with WS Communities. I appreciate that the agreement has 1038 10th Street, 1238-42 10th Street and 1007 Lincoln
Blvd being withdrawn for BR projects and will not have replacement applications.
I still am concerned about the other 10 WS Communities projects and STRONGLY REQUEST that the council
have city staff outline for these buildings that would qualify for ministerial approval what would be maximum
height and FAR, maximum number of units possible, number of affordable units and parking allowed for all these
projects BEFORE voting on the settlement.
Finally, as a member of a community with over 80% rental units, I want the city to ensure that the 20 deed-restricted
affordable units between transferred from 1560 Lincoln Blvd. to 1038-42 10th Street DO NOT DISPLACE ANY
RENT CONTROL RESIDENTS. The worst thing we can do is lose rent-control units/residents to displacement
because of the builder's remedy debacle.
Thank you,
Lori
1044 10th Street HOA
--
Lori L. Dreischmeier
Lori.LD@gmail.com
310-880-8203, mobile
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Jill Roffis
To:Gleam Davis
Cc:Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council Mtg. 5/9: Item 11C - SUPPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING BUIILDER"S REMEDY
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 9:02:22 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I live on 6th Street in the Wilmont neighborhood and I support and hope you vote yes on the
settlement agreement with the WS Communities. I appreciate that the agreement has 1038
10th Street and 1007 Lincoln Blvd being withdrawn for BR projects and will not have
replacement applications.
I still am concerned about the other 10 WS Communities projects and STRONGLY
REQUEST that the council have city staff outline for these buildings that would qualify for
ministerial approval what would be maximum height and FAR, maximum number of units
possible, number of affordable units, and parking allowed for all projects BEFORE voting on
the settlement.
Finally, as a member of the a community with 80% rental units, I want the city to ensure that
the 20 deed-restricted affordable units between transferred from 1560 Lincoln Blvd, to 1038-
42 10th Street DO NOT DISPLACE ANY RENT CONTROL RESIDENTS. The worse thing
we can do is lose rent-control units/residents to displacement because of the builder’s remedy
debacle.
Thank you,
Jill Roffis
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Council Mailbox
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: City Developement - 11C
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 2:25:31 PM
From: Jero Books & Templet Co. <jero.book@gte.net>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:44 PM
To: Jesse Zwick <Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis <Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra
<Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Re: City Developement
EXTERNAL
I agree with the statements below, there is Enough Development as it is Now, and traffic is Bad!! Mary Rojeski 38 yr resident of S.M.
SMCLC's letter:
May 8, 2023
To: The City Council
gleam.davis@santamonica.gov, phil.brock@santamonica.gov, christine.parra@santamonica.gov, lana.negrete@santamonica.gov, jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov, caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov, oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov, council@smgov.net
CC: City Clerk councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov, david.white@santamonica.gov, douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov, david.martin@santamonica.gov
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed
applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects.
https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public
informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the
community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing
units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could
require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website at
https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?);
and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how
much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept
informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this settlement is
reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it,
and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.
Thank you.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1514 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Council Mailbox
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 2:29:05 PM
Attachments:Blue.png
Facebook.png
Top Agent Network - Verified Member.png
1_Email Signature_Kate Bransfield.png
From: Kate@SantaMonicaListings.com <Kate@SantaMonicaListings.com>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:28 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects
EXTERNAL
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for
lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Dear Council,
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy"
project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to
come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14
projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and
over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire
outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-
22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that
there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and
one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for
tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC
owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would
greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in
the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is
being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if
implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient
notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already
packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits
critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if
the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant
portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified
Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the
number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public
scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts
which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its
residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all
of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on
any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable
units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s
website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy ;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would
remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement
without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to
disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of
the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.
It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be
built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified,
how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to
satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be
affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the
builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with
the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the
public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents
are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to
demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this
settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it.
This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have
adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our
City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the
City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would
come online.
Thank you.
Kate
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Estates DirectorGlobal Luxury SpecialistCalDRE # 01218699310.395.1133Kate@SantaMonicaListings.comwww.SantaMonicaListings.comColdwell Banker Realty1608 Montana AvenueSanta Monica, 90403
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Council Mailbox
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Please do not approve the “Builder’s Remedy” Settlement with WSC until critical information is provided and Public can weigh in - 11C
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 2:27:11 PM
From: Kara Fox <karafox@me.com>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:11 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>; Jesse Zwick <Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis <Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>;
Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; David Martin <David.Martin@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Please do not approve the “Builder’s Remedy” Settlement with WSC until critical information is provided and Public can weigh in
EXTERNAL
How can you allow one single developer ruin our city???? This does not make sense. Please protect us, don’t destroy us. Thank you. Kara Fox, 14th street, Santa Monica
Begin forwarded message:
From: Beatrice Felix <felix.beatrice@yahoo.com>Subject: Fw: Council votes TOMORROW: SMCLC Urges Council NOT to approve the “Builder’s Remedy” Settlement with WSC until critical information is provided and Public can weigh in
Date: May 8, 2023 at 1:05:00 PM PDTTo: Thomas Hartman <thartman@iqmagic.net>, Julie Kirst <jkmailtalk@yahoo.com>, Sarah Ann Lewis <slewis@miraclemileadvisors.com>, Ann 2417 Hill Lewis <annlewis1111@gmail.com>, Elaine Gervasi <egervasi5@gmail.com>, Djsantamonica<djsantamonica@aol.com>, Kara Fox <karafox@me.com>, Rose Youssefi <rose.youssefi@gmail.com>, Emma Sanchez <emmasanchez.us@gmail.com>, Rosvita Rauch <rmrauch@gmail.com>, Lena Grossman <lenagrossman@gmail.com>, Daly Robert<rd11@me.com>Reply-To: Beatrice Felix <felix.beatrice@yahoo.com>
gleam.davis@santamonica.gov, phil.brock@santamonica.gov, christine.parra@santamonica.gov, lana.negrete@santamonica.gov, jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov, caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov, oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov, council@smgov.net
CC: City Clerk councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov, david.white@santamonica.gov, douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov, david.martin@santamonica.gov
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1518 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Sharon Toriello
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:GELSON LOT.
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 12:58:49 PM
EXTERNAL
YOU HAVE ALREADY NARROWED OUR DRIVING BY ELIMINATING ONE LANE
IN EACH DIRECTION ON OCEAN PARK. NOW YOU ARE PROPOSING 551 UNITS
AT THE CORNER OF LINCOLN AND OCEAN PARK. HOW DO YOU EXPECT US
TO GET OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO GO ANYWHERE ONCE THIS IS
DONE? WHERE IS THE TRAFFIC SUPPOSED TO GO? YOU ARE MAKING OUR
COMMUNITY UNLIVABLE.
sharon toriello 2918 6th st. #1 santa monica, ca. 90405 310-399-1044.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1519 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Linda Sypien
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:I oppose the 13 builder’s remedy projects
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 2:05:48 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please note: I oppose the Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s
remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time
for the public to weigh in.
Thank you!
Linda Sypien
2nd St, Santa Monica
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1520 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:oodfay48@gmail.com
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject:Item 11 -C
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:07:10 PM
EXTERNAL
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have
adequate answers to important issues so you can explain to residents what
our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the
interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these
expedited projects would come online.
The public needs to be informed on such a large massive building matter.
Thank you Lou Steiner
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1521 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:janet rt
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:07:20 PM
EXTERNAL
May 8, 2023
To: The City
Council gleam.davis@santamonica.gov, phil.brock@santamonica.gov, christine
.parra@santamonica.gov, lana.negrete@santamonica.gov, jesse.zwick@santa
monica.gov, caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov, oscar.delatorre@santamonica.
gov, council@smgov.net
CC: City
Clerk councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov, david.white@santamonica.gov, dou
glas.sloan@santamonica.gov, david.martin@santamonica.gov
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy
projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time
for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's
remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its
residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that
this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy"
statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units
citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire
outside counsel and oppose these
projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City
Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal
applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the
Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the
Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a
routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over
one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this
settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing
units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the
biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of
disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens
to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open
and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an
afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1522 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.
It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to
weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before
approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a
significant portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned
in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers,
including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites,
which include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding
public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to
adverse impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and
its residents, including increased City costs and strain on
infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next
few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be
built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units,
including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy
numbers posted on the City’s website
at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories)
would remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the
settlement without explaining what this means (is the City
reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as
part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development
agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move
forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be
approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being
modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built
under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the
required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the
builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement
with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so
the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents
are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to
demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this
settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it.
This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1523 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our
City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the
City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects
would come online.
Thank you.
Janet Tunick
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1524 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:info@smclc.net
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Item 11-C: SMCLC Urges Council NOT to approve “builder’s remedy” settlement until critical information provided
and public review
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 10:40:08 AM
EXTERNAL
May 8, 2023
To: The City Council gleam.davis@santamonica.gov, phil.brock@santamonica.gov,
christine.parra@santamonica.gov, lana.negrete@santamonica.gov, jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov,
Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov,
oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov, council@smgov.net
CC: City Clerk councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov, David.white@santamonica.gov,
Douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov, David.martin@santamonica.gov
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical
information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its “builder’s remedy” project sites will have a
huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that
this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a “builder’s remedy” statute to construct buildings as high
as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside
counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal
grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the
Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council
meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder’s
remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of
housing units.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1525 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega development agreement - the biggest one in the city’s history. Given
this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and
burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and
sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council
agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical information that is
necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica
before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional housing
needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number
of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include expedited processing,
ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse
impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including increased City
costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights
and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on
the City’s website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s remedy project
and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right
to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in
essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It’s impossible to determine what the
Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If
modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State’s
requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City’s
website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so
the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon the Council to do the
work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this
settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it. This is even more important here, given
the well-known history of WSC’s predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you
can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it’s in the interests of the
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1526 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
City to approve it, and when it’s anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.
Thank you.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1527 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Linda Shayne
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de
la Torre; Council Mailbox; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:OPPOSE Staff Admin Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC for LACK of CRITICAL INFO
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 2:01:02 PM
EXTERNAL
May 8, 2023
From: LINDA SHAYNE (resident and business owner in the city of Santa Monica,
CA)
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy
projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time
for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's
remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents
for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this
developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy"
statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide
there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside
counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-
22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City
Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal
applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council
and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council
agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one
site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this
settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing
units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the
biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of
disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens
to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open
and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an
afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.
It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to
weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before
approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1528 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified
Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the
number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public
scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse
impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its
residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if
all of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built
on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including
affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted
on the City’s website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories)
would remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the
settlement without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its
legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part
of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move
forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be
approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified?
If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this
settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new
housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the
builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with
the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the
public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents
are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to
demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this
settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it.
This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have
adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our
City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the
City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would
come online.
Thank you.
LINDA SHAYNE
resident of Santa Monica, CA
310-486-5400
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1529 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Susan Suntree
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:07:55 PM
EXTERNAL
May 8, 2023To: The City Council
gleam.davis@santamonica.gov, phil.brock@santamonica.gov, christine.parra@santamonica.gov, lana.negrete@santamonica.gov, jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov, caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov, oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov, council@smgov.net
CC: City Clerk councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov, david.white@santamonica.gov, douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov, david.martin@santamonica.gov
FROM: SUSAN SUNTREE
1223 11th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401
DEAR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL: I SUPPORT THE POSITION OUTLINED IN THE FOLLOWING LETTER. PLEASE STAND FIRM FOR SENSIBLE PLANNING AND PROCEDURES.
SINCERELY, SUSAN SUNTREE
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had
filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose theseprojects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the
public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the
community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approvingit.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing
units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could
require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website at
https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And
how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is keptinformed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this settlement isreasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approveit, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.
Thank you.
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1530 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Danielle Charney
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information
in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:04:18 PM
EXTERNAL
I AM COPYING THIS LETTER FROM SMCLC BECAUSE NOBODY SAYS IT BETTER..
BUT I ADD THAT THIS CITY HAS ALLOWED NMS/WS TO PRETTY MUCH RUIN THIS
TOWN WITH IT'S UGLY BUILDINGS AND DISHONEST PRACTICES..THEY WERE
CONVICTED IN COURT REGARDING THIS AND YOU STILL ALLOW THEM TO WALK
ALL OVER US...THEY ARE THE LOWEST OF THE LOW -ONLY LOWER ARE THEIR
SLIMY ATTORNEYS..
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's
remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents
for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this
developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy"
statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide
there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside
counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-
22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City
Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal
applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council
and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council
agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one
site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this
settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing
units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the
biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of
disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens
to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open
and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an
afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.
It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to
weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before
approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant
portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1531 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the
number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public
scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts
which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its
residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all
of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on
any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable
units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s
website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would
remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement
without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to
disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of
the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's
impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be
built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified,
how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to
satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be
affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the
builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with
the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the
public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents
are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to
demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this
settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it.
This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have
adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our
City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the
City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would
come online.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1532 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:LAWRENCE ROBINSON
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information
in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:24:08 PM
EXTERNAL
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's
remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents
for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this
developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy"
statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide
there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside
counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-
22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City
Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal
applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council
and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council
agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one
site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this
settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing
units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the
biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of
disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens
to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open
and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an
afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.
It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to
weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before
approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant
portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified
Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the
number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public
scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts
which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1533 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all
of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on
any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable
units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s
website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would
remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement
without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to
disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of
the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's
impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be
built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified,
how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to
satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be
affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the
builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with
the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the
public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents
are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to
demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this
settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it.
This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have
adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our
City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the
City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would
come online.
LR
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1534 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Mary Hubbell
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Council Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:30:01 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers;
I urge you to oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects. I agree with all of the statements in the letter from The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) – see below.
The City needs to be fighting the destruction of our City at every level.
Concerned resident,
Mary Hubbell
Ocean Park
May 8, 2023
To: The City
Council gleam.davis@santamonica.gov, phil.brock@santamonica.gov, christine.parra@santamonica.gov, lana.negrete@santamonica.gov, jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov, caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov, oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov, council@smgov.net
CC: City Clerk councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov, david.white@santamonica.gov, douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov, david.martin@santamonica.gov
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed
applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these
projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will
be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the
City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving
the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver
of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require
mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents,
including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come
online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of
these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to
the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website
at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a
builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what
this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the
approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to
determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed
or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this
settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on
the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable
units for each project so the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon the
Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete information
to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it.
This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these
issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why
it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects
would come online.
Thank you.
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1535 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Suzanne Verge
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information
in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 2:00:55 PM
EXTERNAL
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy
projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the
public to weigh in.
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until we have adequate
answers and the Council can explain to residents what our City will look like if this
settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when
it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.
With gratitude,
Suzanne Verge
Santa Monica resident
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1536 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Kate@SantaMonicaListings.com
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 2:27:39 PM
Attachments:Blue.png
Facebook.png
Top Agent Network - Verified Member.png
1_Email Signature_Kate Bransfield.png
EXTERNAL
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack
of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy"
project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to
come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14
projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and
over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire
outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that
there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and
one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for
tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC
owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would
greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in
the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being
built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And
there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply
adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council
agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical
information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the
settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion
of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing
Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number of
affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny),
and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which
otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its
residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of
these projects come online within the next few years;
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1537 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on
any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable
units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s
website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy ;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would
remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement
without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to
disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of
the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's
impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built -
is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And
how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the
State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s
remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total
height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept
informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are
relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to
demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this settlement
is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it. This is even
more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have
adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City
will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to
approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come
online.
Thank you.
Kate
Estates DirectorGlobal Luxury SpecialistCalDRE # 01218699310.395.1133Kate@SantaMonicaListings.comwww.SantaMonicaListings.comColdwell Banker Realty1608 Montana AvenueSanta Monica, 90403
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1538 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1539 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Bridget Terry
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information
in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 2:31:26 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Council —
I join with The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City’s letter to you
regarding Administrative Item 11-C. Please insist on trnasparency for
your constituent residents of Santa Monica before voting on this.
Thank you.
Bridget Terry
Santa Monica resident
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1540 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Lisa Test, OTD, OTR/L
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose Staff Admistrative Item 11-c
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 2:59:25 PM
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern
I strongly oppose the settlement agreement.
There has not been sufficient time for the public to weigh in on this. Pleaseconsider the impact on us Santa Monica residents. There is little value to us andour view points to a livable city.
Again, city council should be taking into account us as residence. There seems tobe priority for business with little regard to those who live here.
Kindly,
Lisa Test
Grant Street, Santa Monica
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1541 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Paul Berman
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Opposition to Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical
information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 2:13:47 PM
EXTERNAL
I am opposed to changing the character of Santa Monica from a beach community
into a city of high rises. Please do not vote in support of Staff Administrative item 11-
C.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Paul Berman
Resident and business owner in Santa Monica
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1542 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Neal Wilde
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Please do NOT approve the “Builder’s Remedy” Settlement with WSC
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:47:39 PM
EXTERNAL
Please oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical
information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Thank you.
Neal Wilde
Santa Monica resident
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1543 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Michelle Page
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Please, this is important: Stop the madness!
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:29:24 PM
EXTERNAL
May 8, 2023To: The CityCouncil gleam.davis@santamonica.gov, phil.brock@santamonica.gov, christine.parra@santamonica.gov, lana.negrete@santamonica.gov, jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov, caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov, oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov, council@smgov.net
CC: City Clerk councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov, david.white@santamonica.gov, douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov, david.martin@santamonica.gov
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed
applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose theseprojects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the publicinformed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community
will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require
mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website
at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how muchaffordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, andin the City’s best interest before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, andwhen it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.
Thank you.
A Michelle Page
--
My Blog: NepalDog.typepad.com
My website: NepalDog.com
The complete Los Angeles Times article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-dogs24apr24,1,2996307.story
www.NepalDog.com
310.828.2628 Land line - no texting
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1544 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Sarah Lewis
To:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox;
Gleam Davis
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Proposed settlement of 13 WSC “builder’s remedy” projects
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:44:48 PM
EXTERNAL
Hello,
You have received a letter from the The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC)
opposing the settlement of 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects.
Such a settlement merits far greater detail of communication than has been provided so far and
in fact the staff report lacks significant important information commensurate with projects of
this size.
I add my voice to those of other concerned Santa Monica residents and support the vigorous
opposition to this proposed settlement.
Regards,
Sarah Lewis
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1545 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Jero Books & Templet Co.
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Re: City Development OR Not
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:30:53 PM
EXTERNAL
I agree with the statements below, there is Enough Development as it is Now, and traffic is Bad!! Mary Rojeski 38 yr resident of S.M.
SMCLC's letter:
May 8, 2023
To: The City Council
gleam.davis@santamonica.gov, phil.brock@santamonica.gov, christine.parra@santamonica.gov, lana.negrete@santamonica.gov, jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov, caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov, oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov, council@smgov.net
CC: City Clerk councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov, david.white@santamonica.gov, douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov, david.martin@santamonica.gov
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed
applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects.
https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public
informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the
community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing
units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could
require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website at
https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?);
and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how
much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept
informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this settlement is
reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it,
and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.
Thank you.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1546 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Rose Shoshana
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick;
Caroline Torosis; David White; douglas.sloane@santamonica.gov; David Martin
Subject:Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical
information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:08:15 PM
EXTERNAL
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have
adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what
our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the
interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these
expedited projects would come online.
Respectfully, Rose Shoshana, rosegallery
Bergamot Station Arts Center
-- Rose ShoshanaROSEGALLERYBergamot Station Art Center2525 Michigan Avenue B-7Santa Monica, CA 90404Ph. 310.264.8440rose@rosegallery.netwww.rosegallery.net
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1547 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Callene Momtazee
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:Luthern Williams; Evelyn Hou; Isabel Aranda; Emily Alexander; Jason Parry; councilmtgitems; Susan Cola; David
White
Subject:Request for Postponement of Item 11c Proposed Settlement with WS Communities
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 11:39:31 AM
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers-
I am writing as the a trustee member of the New Roads School’s
Board of Trustees regarding the proposed settlement with WS
Communities. My son Jack attended New Roads School grades
7-9 until this year.
As you may be aware, New Roads serves students grades
Kindergarten through 12th. Central to the school’s mission is the
idea that diversity and equity in education serve the common
good and the full development of each young person’s potential.
As part of its pursuit of this principle, the school has invested
more than $120 million in financial aid for 40-50% of its student
body annually since its founding in 1995, all without an
endowment. Last year, 23% of the graduating seniors were the
first person in their families to pursue a college degree in the
United States.
The school’s campus is located at 3131 Olympic Blvd and shares
nearly 500 feet of property line with the property at 3030
Nebraska, site of one of the Builders Remedy applications. How
this matter is resolved will significantly impact New Roads and
the surrounding neighborhood. We request that you postpone
consideration of the settlement to allow the school and the
entire community sufficient time to fully review the terms,
consider the impacts, and potentially propose modifications
that protect the health and wellbeing of children in Santa
Monica.
I am grateful for your attention to the school’s circumstances and
our request. I would be happy to address any questions you may
have.
Sincerely,
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1548 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Callene Momtazee, Trustee
New Roads School Board of Trustees
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1549 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Gerson, Jody
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:lwilliams@newroads.org; evelynlhou@gmail.com; arandam@usc.edu; EAlexander@tafattorneys.com;
parryj@gte.net; councilmtgitems; Susan Cola; David White
Subject:Request for Postponement of Item 11c Proposed Settlement with WS Communities
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 12:32:48 PM
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers-
I am writing you all regarding the proposed settlement with WS Communities. I am the Chairman &
CEO of Universal Music Publishing Group, which is headquartered in Santa Monica, a member of the
Board of Trustees at New Roads School, and the proud mother to a son, who is a New Roads
graduate and a daughter who is a current student there. Both of which, I’ve watched flourish in life
from the phenomenal education and experience they’ve had at New Roads.
New Roads is located in Santa Monica and shares nearly 500 feet of property line with the property
at 3030 Nebraska, which is site of one of the Builders Remedy applications. The school serves
students of all ages and backgrounds from kindergarten – 12th grade. Diversity and equity in
education are at the core of New Roads mission. As part of its pursuit of this principle, the school has
invested more than $120 million in financial aid for nearly half of the student body annually since its
founding in 1995, all without an endowment. Last year over 20% of the graduating seniors were the
first person in their families to pursue a college degree in the United States.
How this matter is resolved will significantly impact New Roads and the surrounding
neighborhood. We request that you postpone consideration of the settlement to allow the school
and the entire community sufficient time to fully review the terms, consider the impacts, and
potentially propose modifications that protect the health and wellbeing of children in Santa Monica.
I am grateful for your attention to the school’s circumstances and our request.
Sincerely,
Jody Gerson
Chairman & CEO, Universal Music Publishing Group
New Roads School Board of Trustees
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1550 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:alan hoffman
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:Luthern Williams; Evelyn Hou; arandam@usc.edu; EAlexander@tafattorneys.com; parryj@gte.net;
councilmtgitems; Susan Cola; David White
Subject:Request for Postponement of Item 11c-Proposed Settlement with WS Communities
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 12:04:20 AM
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers:
I am writing as the Board Chair-Elect of New Roads School’s Board of Trustees regarding
the proposed settlement with WS Communities.
As you may be aware, New Roads serves students grades Kindergarten through 12th.
Central to the school’s mission is the idea that diversity and equity in education serve the
common good and the full development of each young person’s potential. As part of its
pursuit of this principle, the school has invested more than $120 million in financial aid for
40-50% of its student body annually since its founding in 1995, all without an endowment.
Last year, 23% of the graduating seniors were the first person in their families to pursue a
college degree in the United States.
The school’s campus is located at 3131 Olympic Blvd and shares nearly 500 feet of
property line with the property at 3030 Nebraska, site of one of the Builders Remedy
applications. How this matter is resolved will significantly impact New Roads and the
surrounding neighborhood. We request that you postpone consideration of the
settlement to allow the school and the entire community sufficient time to fully
review the terms, consider the impacts, and potentially propose modifications that
protect the health and wellbeing of children in Santa Monica.
I am grateful for your attention to the school’s circumstances and our request. I would be
happy to address any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Alan Hoffman
Board Chair-Elect
New Roads School Board of Trustees
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1551 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Robin Shakeshaft
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:settlement with WS Communities
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 2:27:43 PM
EXTERNAL
To: The City Council
May 8, 2023
Please do not enter into any settlement with WS Communities until residents of Santa Monica have
been given the opportunity to view the proposed settlement and to comment on it.
At the present rate of building development, and traffic congestion, Santa Monica is likely to become
unlivable in the near future.
Robin Shakeshaft
1325 Maple St.
Santa Monica 90405.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1552 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Michele Perrone
To:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox;
Gleam Davis
Cc:David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; councilmtgitems
Subject:Vote NO on Item 11-C May 9th
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 2:07:16 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am in agreement with the letter you received from SMLC stating their opposition to staff item 11-C coming up for
vote tomorrow, Tuesday May 9, 2023. Their reason being lack of critical information in the staff report and
insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michele Perrone
Ocean Park resident since 1997
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1553 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Robert
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:WSC Settlement
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 1:16:27 PM
EXTERNAL
I am urging you NOT to make this settlement deal. Let's keep Santa Monica livable with
adding even more density.
Robert Illes
1021 12th St, Santa Monica, CA 90403
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1554 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Elizabeth Lerer
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Item 11. C. - Please oppose until more is known
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:52:51 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Please oppose staff administrative item 11. C.
Do not hastily settle with a greedy and corrupt developer.
Request more information to ensure a wise and thoughtful decision will be the
result of any potential settlement.
Many are aware that the rules of land use of recent has been and will increasingly
be dictated by the state. Good faith local communities such as Santa Monica
deserve the right to self determination.
City Councilmembers, please do more to honor our unique and blessed location.
Please stand with our community to steward our beloved and targeted city and
protect us from corrupt and greedy developers.
Stop selling the City of Santa Monica short.
Finally, PLEASE join efforts to place an initiative on the 2024 ballot that will
restore local control of land use.
Dear City Council, PLEASE endorse the Our Neighborhood Voices. Santa Monica
has and will continue to do more than our share to build housing. Please stop the
giveaway to developers.
https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com/endorse/
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Santa Monica resident
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1555 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
ANGEL LAW
2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205
Santa Monica, CA 90405-5269
Tel: (310) 314-6433
angellaw.com
May 9, 2023
City of Santa Monica
Attn: City Council of the City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Via Email to gleam.davis@santamonica.gov; phil.brock@santamonica.gov;
christine.parra@santamonica.gov; lana.negrete@santamonica.gov;
jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov; Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov;
oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov; councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
Re: Request to Continue Item 11.C, Consideration of a Settlement Agreement between the City of
Santa Monica and WS Communities, LLC and its affiliates
Dear Mayor Davis and Councilmembers:
Angel Law represents New Roads School (NRS), the immediate neighbor to the east of the project
proposed at 3030 Nebraska Avenue (Project). On behalf of NRS, we request that Item 11.C, which
wasn’t agendized until May 4, be continued to a later date, first and foremost in order to allow for
the timely and full public release of the settlement agreement. Neither NRS nor any other major
public stakeholder can comment on an agreement the terms and conditions of which are not made
part the agenda packet or the minimum 72-hour advance written Brown Act notice requirement.
The staff report for Item 11.C lacks transparency. Most concerning, not only does it not provide the
proposed settlement agreement for public review and comment; also, it makes no effort to provide
at least a summary description of the alternatives to the builder’s remedy projects agreed with WS
Communities. And yet the settlement contemplates that all alternatives but one, including the
development adjoining NRS, are to be treated as ministerial projects exempt from further public
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1556 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023
Page 2
review, including review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Troubling as the
builder’s remedy project proposed for 3030 Nebraska Avenue may be, NRS struggles to find
solace in a mysterious, nondescript “new multi-family housing project[] that would qualify for
ministerial approval[],” and avoid the need for CEQA compliance under the deal now
recommended for the city council’s approval. As shown below in a screenshot taken from the City
of Santa Monica’s (City) open data portal, the nondescript new development at 3030 Nebraska
Avenue would be located on the site of an abandoned clay mine.
A City staff report from February 14, 1995, states:
“Clay mining operations since the early 1900’s in the central portion of the City resulted in
excavations which were backfilled with uncompacted fills (in some cases utilized as landfill)
which may result in differential settlement and hazardous waste and explosive gas
hazards.”
Given the location of these operations, with a toxic legacy including arsenic and lead, NRS has a
compelling interest in protecting the health and safety of its over 500 students, its faculty and its
staff, and in assuring that any redevelopment of the 3030 Nebraska Avenue property will not
expose student, faculty or staff to any substances buried in the onsite soils hazardous to their
health and well-being. Without independent environmental investigations and review involving
NRS, we cannot rest assured that redevelopment will not adversely impact our human community.
Closed Session and Notice
We object to the scheduling of the closed session concerning the very litigation (the City-WS
Communities litigation) that the proposed settlement agreement would settle, before agenda item
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1557 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023
Page 3
11.C is heard. As it is presented in the staff report, the litigation settlement agreement paves the
road for significant new development throughout the City (albeit less than the builder’s remedy
projects) -- 13 individual projects. How can the council separate limited allowable closed session
subject matter from required open session subject matter while the closed session on the WS
Communities litigation and agenda item 11.C are inextricably related and overlap? In Trancas
Property Owners Assn. v. City of Malibu, the Second District Court of Appeal held that Malibu
violated the Brown Act when it conferred in closed session with its city attorney on a settlement
allowing a developer in pending litigation over a subdivision project to circumvent public hearing
requirements of zoning laws. The court emphasized the Brown Act’s unequivocal prohibition
against closed sessions, “[e]xcept as expressly authorized” (Gov. Code, § 54962); and the rule that
Government Code section 54956.9 (allowing, under specified limitations, for closed council
sessions with the city attorney to confer over litigation), like the Brown Act’s other exceptions to its
general requirements of local legislative openness, “are to be narrowly construed, having in mind
the general spirit of the act (see § 54950). [Fn.]” (Trancas Property Owners Assn. v. City of Malibu
(2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 172, 185 (“Trancas”), italics added; accord, Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility
Dist. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1079-1080.)
The open meeting exemption for conferring with counsel over litigation “cannot be construed to
empower a city council to take or agree to take, as part of a non-publicly-ratified litigation
settlement, action that by substantive law may not be taken without a public hearing and an
opportunity for the public to be heard. As a matter of legislative intention and policy, a statute that
is part of a law enacted to assure public decisionmaking, except in narrow circumstances, may not
be read to authorize circumvention and indeed violation of other laws requiring that decisions be
preceded by public hearings, simply because the means and object of the violation are settlement
of a lawsuit.” (Trancas, 138 Cal. App. 4th at p. 186.)
Again, at the very least, the required public hearing on the proposed settlement agreement must
occur before the closed session. But, even so, how can a meaningful public hearing proceed when
the agreement at issue hasn’t even been disclosed as part of the agenda item. Why not? The City
Council and the public — all affected stakeholders — must have an opportunity to see, review and
comment on the terms of the agreement before it is signed and binds the City.
A continuance will serve the interests of public accountability with no apparent downside for WS
Communities. We haven’t been told why this settlement must be approved today and not a day
later. This item should not come back unless the development projects it proposes in lieu of the
builder’s remedy projects are publicly disclosed. The one-page attachment to the staff report, listing
the addresses of the builder’s remedy projects that WS Communities may now withdraw tells us
nothing about the projects to be put forth instead. It is not enough for staff to say density or
intensity of uses will be lower, especially when what will be proposed for approval are a dozen
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1558 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023
Page 4
ministerial projects without any public development permit review hearings, thus excluding public
participation.
Circumvention of CEQA through Expedited Ministerial Approvals
The staff report contends that new projects, replacing builder’s remedy projects, would qualify for
ministerial review. However, even if an administrative approval is labeled as “ministerial” for the
redevelopment of the 3030 Nebraska Avenue property, it would still involve administrative
judgment, i.e. discretion in how to handle contaminated soils, and how to lessen impacts to air
quality and public health, inter alia. “[A] municipality's classification of a certain approval process as
ministerial is not conclusive.” (Friends of Westwood v. City of L.A. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 270
(“Friends of Westwood”).)
Under the City’s new Housing Element-implementing ordinances, the Planning and Community
Development Director (Director) has discretionary authority for modifications and waivers of
development standards:
“The Director shall issue an Administrative Approval if the proposed development
conforms precisely to applicable development standards, except to the extent
modifications or waivers have been granted pursuant to Chapter 9.43,
Modifications and Waivers.” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.39.060(B), boldface added.)
Minor Modifications: “…the Director may grant relief from no more than 2 of the
following dimensional requirements. ...” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.43.020(B), boldface
added.)
Major Modifications: “…the Director may grant relief from no more than 2 of the
following requirements. …” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.43.030(B), boldface added.)
Waivers: “…the Director may grant waivers from the following requirements
specified in this Ordinance…” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.43.040(B), boldface added.)
This language suggests discretionary review to “modify this project in ways which would have
mitigated environmental problems an EIR might conceivably have identified.” (Friends of
Westwood, 191 Cal. App. 3d at p. 273.)
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1559 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023
Page 5
Circumvention of CEQA Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The staff report portrays the proposed settlement agreement as an approval-in-concept and
endorsement of a massive overall development project consisting of 13 individual WS
Communities projects. This appearance raises concerns over the cumulative impacts of the 13
projects. While we understand that the settlement agreement does not issue individual ministerial
permits (not yet), not the least considering the speed with which it is being rushed to the City
Council, it certainly puts “ ‘bureaucratic and financial momentum’ ” (Save Tara v. City of West
Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 130) behind otherwise reasonably foreseeable projects.
In Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Commission, the Second District Court of
Appeals warned that “cumulative environmental impacts may be disguised or minimized by [an
individual developer’s] filing numerous, serial applications….” (Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South
Valley Area Planning Com. (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1346.) In other words, a developer and
a lead agency must heed “the mandate of CEQA that environmental considerations do not become
submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones -- each with a minimal potential impact
on the environment -- which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” (Bozung v. Local
Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283-284.)
Conclusion
To ask for a continuance is not asking for much. We respectfully request that the city council
continue the matter so we may explore resolution of the issues of specific concern to NRS. We
were given no opportunity to do so.
Sincerely,
ANGEL LAW
Cooper Kass
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1560 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
ANGEL LAW
2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205
Santa Monica, CA 90405-5269
Tel: (310) 314-6433
angellaw.com
May 9, 2023
City of Santa Monica
Attn: City Council of the City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Via Email to gleam.davis@santamonica.gov;phil.brock@santamonica.gov;
christine.parra@santamonica.gov;lana.negrete@santamonica.gov;
jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov;Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov;
oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov;councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov
Re: Request to Continue Item 11.C, Consideration of a Settlement Agreement between the City of
Santa Monica and WS Communities, LLC and its affiliates
Dear Mayor Davis and Councilmembers:
Angel Law represents New Roads School (NRS), the immediate neighbor to the east of the project
proposed at 3030 Nebraska Avenue (Project). On behalf of NRS, we request that Item 11.C, which
wasn’t agendized until May 4, be continued to a later date, first and foremost in order to allow for
the timely and full public release of the settlement agreement. Neither NRS nor any other major
public stakeholder can comment on an agreement the terms and conditions of which are not made
part the agenda packet or the minimum 72-hour advance written Brown Act notice requirement.
The staff report for Item 11.C lacks transparency. Most concerning, not only does it not provide the
proposed settlement agreement for public review and comment; also, it makes no effort to provide
at least a summary description of the alternatives to the builder’s remedy projects agreed with WS
Communities. And yet the settlement contemplates that all alternatives but one, including the
development adjoining NRS, are to be treated as ministerial projects exempt from further public
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1561 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023
Page 2
review, including review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Troubling as the
builder’s remedy project proposed for 3030 Nebraska Avenue may be, NRS struggles to find
solace in a mysterious, nondescript “new multi-family housing project[] that would qualify for
ministerial approval[],” and avoid the need for CEQA compliance under the deal now
recommended for the city council’s approval. As shown below in a screenshot taken from the City
of Santa Monica’s (City) open data portal, the nondescript new development at 3030 Nebraska
Avenue would be located on the site of an abandoned clay mine.
A City staff report from February 14, 1995, states:
“Clay mining operations since the early 1900’s in the central portion of the City resulted in
excavations which were backfilled with uncompacted fills (in some cases utilized as landfill)
which may result in differential settlement and hazardous waste and explosive gas
hazards.”
Given the location of these operations, with a toxic legacy including arsenic and lead, NRS has a
compelling interest in protecting the health and safety of its over 500 students, its faculty and its
staff, and in assuring that any redevelopment of the 3030 Nebraska Avenue property will not
expose student, faculty or staff to any substances buried in the onsite soils hazardous to their
health and well-being. Without independent environmental investigations and review involving
NRS, we cannot rest assured that redevelopment will not adversely impact our human community.
Closed Session and Notice
We object to the scheduling of the closed session concerning the very litigation (the City-WS
Communities litigation) that the proposed settlement agreement would settle, before agenda item
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1562 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023
Page 3
11.C is heard. As it is presented in the staff report, the litigation settlement agreement paves the
road for significant new development throughout the City (albeit less than the builder’s remedy
projects) -- 13 individual projects. How can the council separate limited allowable closed session
subject matter from required open session subject matter while the closed session on the WS
Communities litigation and agenda item 11.C are inextricably related and overlap? In Trancas
Property Owners Assn. v. City of Malibu, the Second District Court of Appeal held that Malibu
violated the Brown Act when it conferred in closed session with its city attorney on a settlement
allowing a developer in pending litigation over a subdivision project to circumvent public hearing
requirements of zoning laws. The court emphasized the Brown Act’s unequivocal prohibition
against closed sessions, “[e]xcept as expressly authorized” (Gov. Code, § 54962); and the rule that
Government Code section 54956.9 (allowing, under specified limitations, for closed council
sessions with the city attorney to confer over litigation), like the Brown Act’s other exceptions to its
general requirements of local legislative openness, “are to be narrowly construed, having in mind
the general spirit of the act (see § 54950). [Fn.]” (Trancas Property Owners Assn. v. City of Malibu
(2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 172, 185 (“Trancas”), italics added; accord, Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility
Dist. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1079-1080.)
The open meeting exemption for conferring with counsel over litigation “cannot be construed to
empower a city council to take or agree to take, as part of a non-publicly-ratified litigation
settlement, action that by substantive law may not be taken without a public hearing and an
opportunity for the public to be heard. As a matter of legislative intention and policy, a statute that
is part of a law enacted to assure public decisionmaking, except in narrow circumstances, may not
be read to authorize circumvention and indeed violation of other laws requiring that decisions be
preceded by public hearings, simply because the means and object of the violation are settlement
of a lawsuit.” (Trancas, 138 Cal. App. 4th at p. 186.)
Again, at the very least, the required public hearing on the proposed settlement agreement must
occur before the closed session. But, even so, how can a meaningful public hearing proceed when
the agreement at issue hasn’t even been disclosed as part of the agenda item. Why not? The City
Council and the public — all affected stakeholders — must have an opportunity to see, review and
comment on the terms of the agreement before it is signed and binds the City.
A continuance will serve the interests of public accountability with no apparent downside for WS
Communities. We haven’t been told why this settlement must be approved today and not a day
later. This item should not come back unless the development projects it proposes in lieu of the
builder’s remedy projects are publicly disclosed. The one-page attachment to the staff report, listing
the addresses of the builder’s remedy projects that WS Communities may now withdraw tells us
nothing about the projects to be put forth instead. It is not enough for staff to say density or
intensity of uses will be lower, especially when what will be proposed for approval are a dozen
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1563 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023
Page 4
ministerial projects without any public development permit review hearings, thus excluding public
participation.
Circumvention of CEQA through Expedited Ministerial Approvals
The staff report contends that new projects, replacing builder’s remedy projects, would qualify for
ministerial review. However, even if an administrative approval is labeled as “ministerial” for the
redevelopment of the 3030 Nebraska Avenue property, it would still involve administrative
judgment, i.e. discretion in how to handle contaminated soils, and how to lessen impacts to air
quality and public health, inter alia. “[A] municipality's classification of a certain approval process as
ministerial is not conclusive.” (Friends of Westwood v. City of L.A. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 270
(“Friends of Westwood”).)
Under the City’s new Housing Element-implementing ordinances, the Planning and Community
Development Director (Director) has discretionary authority for modifications and waivers of
development standards:
x“The Director shall issue an Administrative Approval if the proposed development
conforms precisely to applicable development standards, except to the extent
modifications or waivers have been granted pursuant to Chapter 9.43,
Modifications and Waivers.” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.39.060(B), boldface added.)
xMinor Modifications: “…the Director may grant relief from no more than 2 of the
following dimensional requirements. ...” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.43.020(B), boldface
added.)
xMajor Modifications: “…the Director may grant relief from no more than 2 of the
following requirements. …” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.43.030(B), boldface added.)
xWaivers: “…the Director may grant waivers from the following requirements
specified in this Ordinance…” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.43.040(B), boldface added.)
This language suggests discretionary review to “modify this project in ways which would have
mitigated environmental problems an EIR might conceivably have identified.” (Friends of
Westwood, 191 Cal. App. 3d at p. 273.)
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1564 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023
Page 5
Circumvention of CEQA Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The staff report portrays the proposed settlement agreement as an approval-in-concept and
endorsement of a massive overall development project consisting of 13 individual WS
Communities projects. This appearance raises concerns over the cumulative impacts of the 13
projects. While we understand that the settlement agreement does not issue individual ministerial
permits (not yet), not the least considering the speed with which it is being rushed to the City
Council, it certainly puts “ ‘bureaucratic and financial momentum’ ” (Save Tara v. City of West
Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 130) behind otherwise reasonably foreseeable projects.
In Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Commission, the Second District Court of
Appeals warned that “cumulative environmental impacts may be disguised or minimized by [an
individual developer’s] filing numerous, serial applications….” (Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South
Valley Area Planning Com. (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1346.) In other words, a developer and
a lead agency must heed “the mandate of CEQA that environmental considerations do not become
submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones -- each with a minimal potential impact
on the environment -- which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” (Bozung v. Local
Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283-284.)
Conclusion
To ask for a continuance is not asking for much. We respectfully request that the city council
continue the matter so we may explore resolution of the issues of specific concern to NRS. We
were given no opportunity to do so.
Sincerely,
ANGEL LAW
Cooper Kass
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1565 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:janine autolitano
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information
in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:46:48 AM
EXTERNAL
So, the city is being held hostage by a developer, while being under thethumb of the state? Rolling over is not an option. Do not give in to a convicted criminal bullying you to ruin the city welove.AND NO off-site options EVER!The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy"project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations tocome. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 storiesand over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city tohire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.htmlIn response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council thatthere were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed,and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda fortomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSCowns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently wouldgreenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest onein the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what isbeing built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be ifimplemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficientnotice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an alreadypacked Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omitscritical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine ifthe settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of theCity’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” withoutgiving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1566 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), andwaiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise couldrequire mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents,including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects comeonline within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any ofthese sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparisonto the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s websiteat https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain abuilder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining whatthis means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of theapproval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible todetermine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what wasoriginally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordablehousing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of therequired new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedychart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number ofunits and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relyingupon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate andcomplete information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City’sbest interest before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-knownhistory of WSC's predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequateanswers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if thissettlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it'santicipated that these expedited projects would come online.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1567 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Gray Benoist
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Support of SMCLC Letter to the City Council
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:05:03 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects
for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to
weigh in.
I live at 1255 10th St, across the street from the Builders Remedy project planned for
1242 10th St. The impact of this project on the nature and safety of our
neighborhood is certain to be drastically negative. The corner of Arizona and 10th St
is already treacherous for pedestrians and dog walkers and another 200 or so
residents living on the block, will be mind blowingly unhealthy for me and my
neighbors.
The City Council put us into this situation with their careless approach in the
development of a compliant Housing Element and thereby a negotiation with WSC is
now, unfortunately for every Santa Monican, required, however I can not allow any
such settlement to be determined without public participation and transparency.
Sincerely,
Gray Benoist
1255 10th St #301
Santa Monica CA
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1568 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Stephen Billington
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Tomorrow evening’s meeting
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 9:58:54 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am a resident of Santa Monica and a teacher at New Roads School on 3131 Olympic Blvd, a
close neighbor of the proposed development settlement between the NMS/WS communities. I
am writing to ask that you please postpone any decision so that our school has time to more
fully understand and assess the implications of the settlement.
Thank you,
Stephen Billington
1102 Stanford St, Santa Monica, CA 90403
--
Stephen Billington, D.M.A. (he/him)
K-12 Music Director
Herb Alpert Campus
3131 Olympic Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90404
(310) 828-5582
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1569 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Kim Blish-Ewen
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Please postpone settlement City vs NMS/WD
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:25:35 AM
EXTERNAL
To Whom it May Concern,
Hello. I am a Santa Monica native. I grew up here and am now raising my children here. I
have 14 year old twins that attend the middle school at New Roads. It is my understanding that
a major development project is happening right next door to our charming school. We are sad
to see the independently owned businesses we frequent go away, and my husband will be
losing his office space that he rents in one of the buildings set to be demolished.
While there is nothing we can do to keep the existing establishments in place, we do kindly
request that you postpone your decision for the approval of the settlement between the City
and NMS/WS Communities. Delaying this decision will give New Roads and the surrounding
neighbors time to appropriately assess and prepare for the affect the project will have on the
community as far as construction is concerned. I am not alone in wanting what is best for my
children and having time to make sure they are safe and secure is very important. I appreciate
your consideration.
Thank you,
V. Kim Blish-Ewen
1450 Harvard St.
(310) 386-2957
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1570 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Nathalie Bouville
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:NewRoads school versus City
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:27:58 AM
EXTERNAL
Hello,
On behalf of the New roads school community, i wask you that you please postpone consideration of the
settlement.
Hoping that you will hear my voice,
Best regards,
Nathalie Bouville
Consultant
+ 1 (310) 290 0056
https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathaliebouville/
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1571 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Brianna Tenhouten
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David
White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; COUNCIL@santamonica.gov
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:From: ROSEGALLERY, RE: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for
lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:06:46 AM
EXTERNAL
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's
remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents
for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this
developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy"
statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide
there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside
counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-
22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City
Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal
applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council
and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council
agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one
site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this
settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing
units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the
biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of
disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens
to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open
and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an
afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda. It is
imperative that residents have concrete information, and understand
the repercussions, when it comes to an agreement on this scale.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.
It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to
weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before
approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1572 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant
portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified
Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the
number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public
scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts
which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its
residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all
of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on
any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable
units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s
website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would
remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement
without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to
disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of
the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Without this critical information, the Council should not move
forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be
approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified?
If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this
settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new
housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the
builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with
the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the
public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents
are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to
demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this
settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it.
This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
ROSEGALLERY is asking that you do not move forward with any
settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues
and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this
settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1573 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come
online.
--
Brianna TenhoutenROSEGALLERY2525 Michigan Avenue B-7Santa Monica, CA 90404Ph. 310.264.8440www.rosegallery.net
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1574 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Jonathan Broida
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Proposed Development Adjacent to New Roads School on agenda for 5/9/23
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:55:02 AM
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern-
My name is Jonathan Broida. My family has one child currently at New Roads School in Santa
Monica, and in the near future, our younger son will also attend New Roads School. We have
become aware of a proposed development project adjacent to the New Roads Campus. From
my understanding, this came to be due to extenuating circumstances, but it seems to be on a
rather fast-paced schedule. Being that this will have a large impact on the local community,
and especially on a large population of children, who will potentially be exposed to all of the
dangers and disruptions of construction in such close proximity, we are writing to you today to
ask that you consider postponing consideration of this settlement until the community, as well
as the school, have a chance to more accurately and completely assess the potential impacts
of the settlement. It is my understanding that the school only learned of this agenda item last
week, and have not yet had sufficient time to confer with legal counsel and best consider a
response. We hope you will consider this request. Please feel free to reach out if you have
any questions about more specifically why we are concerned with this project. Sadly, being
that I will be at work until well into the evening today, I will not be able to attend this meeting
myself. But I believe we will have representatives from the Board of New Roads School there,
along with legal council.
Kindly,
Jonathan Broida
Parent of a 3rd Grade Student in Santa Monica
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1575 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Bruce Brown
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 9:51:52 PM
Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.png
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please read the below letter and note the critical information located in it:
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy
projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time
for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's
remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents
for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this
developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy"
statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide
there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside
counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-
22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City
Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal
applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council
and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council
agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one
site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this
settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing
units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the
biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of
disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens
to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open
and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an
afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.
It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to
weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before
approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1576 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant
portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified
Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the
number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public
scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts
which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its
residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all
of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on
any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable
units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s
website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would
remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement
without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to
disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of
the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's
impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be
built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified,
how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to
satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be
affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the
builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with
the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the
public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents
are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to
demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this
settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it.
This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have
adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our
City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the
City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would
come online.
Thank you.
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
Thank you, Bruce
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1577 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Bruce F Brown
1333 Pine St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
bbrown@bob-inc.com
C/ 310-351-5149
Lic. 523683
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1578 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:JOHN BUCKINGHAM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:NO to builders remedy project!!!!
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 12:39:32 PM
EXTERNAL
We are stunned that the city staff chose to put this shady builders remedy item on tonight’s council meeting agenda.
Haven’t you realized that residents DO NOT want massive development in our city? It’s time to start listening to
what we want and STOP pushing your utopian unworkable ideology down our throats.
This builders remedy is a shady unscrupulous way for greedy developers to make millions - on the backs of those
here who try to navigate this already overpopulated city.
Do you have any details about how this would work? No, you do not.
VOTE NO ON THIS BUILDERS REMEDY!!!!
Linda and John Buckingham
Sent from my iPad
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1579 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Claudia Reisenberger
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Item: Settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:10:21 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a long time resident and business owner in Santa Monica, I would like to reach out to you
and ask that you postpone consideration of the settlement between the City and NWS / WS
Communities to a later council meeting date.
This settlement will impact the local community, and as such it is important that the
community be given information about the potential settlement, and enough time to review
what it would ultimately mean for all of us. As an engaged citizen, I feel it is my right and
duty to get information so that I have a chance to weigh in with my perspective as the council
makes important decisions.
Thank you,
Claudia Reisenberger
claudia reisenberger
merge___conceptual design
1618 ocean park blvd
santa monica, ca 9o4o5
p 31o 581 5343
c 31o 266 1354
www.mergeconceptualdesign.com
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1580 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Michele Cole
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Staff Adminisrative Item 11-C
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:20:23 AM
EXTERNAL
I oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s
remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and
insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
thank you
Michele Cole
Santa Monica Resident
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1581 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Council Mailbox
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical
information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:05:15 AM
From: Don Coscarelli <coscarelli@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:43 AM
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>; Jesse Zwick <Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis
<Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>;
Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack
of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
EXTERNAL
I'm against this deal and I have been a 32 year resident of Santa Monica. I'm with SMCLC and
hope you will read their letter.
Please vote against and hold these developers to account.
Thank you.
Donald Coscarelli
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's
remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents
for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this
developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy"
statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide
there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside
counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-
22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City
Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal
applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council
and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council
agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one
site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this
settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing
units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the
biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of
disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens
to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1582 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an
afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.
It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to
weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before
approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant
portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified
Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the
number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public
scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts
which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its
residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all
of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on
any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable
units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s
website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would
remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement
without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to
disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of
the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's
impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be
built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified,
how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to
satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be
affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the
builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with
the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the
public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents
are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to
demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this
settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it.
This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have
adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our
City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1583 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would
come online.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1584 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Collette Ehrich
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Objection to Builders Remedy Projects
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:27:16 AM
EXTERNAL
I am adamantly against allowing the builder's remedy project sites. Allowing projects that can
have such a negative impact on Santa Monica residents is unacceptable, Before any
settlements are reached the Santa Monica community should be made aware of what will be
allowed to be built in our City.
I live on a quiet residential street in mid-city. One of these projects will be acccross the street
from my building. We are a street of no more than 3 stories and the notice on this site states
we will be getting a 20 story building of 400 units.
I cannot imagine this being allowed. I would think the environmental impact of such a project
would be detrimental. 400 units means more than 400 people on one small site. Additionally
despite Santa Monica being a walking city most people need cars and most couples and
families own more than one car. Adding that many cars to one residential block will
negatively affect parking and traffic and would also necesitate traffic and additional
infrastructure such as traffic lights which currently do not exist. Additionally the cross street
has a bike lane and is used as a safe area for bikers. Adding over 400 commuters will
negatively affect this bike thoroughfare.
Do what you have to do to fight this atrocity and keep Santa Monica safe for its residents.
Collette Ehrich
1255 10th Street Resident and Santa Monica voter
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Neda Farahvash
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:postpone consideration of the settlement.
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:46:45 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council of Santa Monica,
I am a parent of a 2nd and 6th graders at the New Roads School. My children have been at this
school since Kindergarten.
I recently learned that the SM City Council plans to discuss approving a settlement with
NMS/WS Communities at this evening's Council meeting. This is an important decision that
will have long lasting ramifications for our community.
There has not been sufficient time granted for members of the community and affected
businesses, schools, and service organizations to fully consider the impacts and provide
thoughtful , constructive feedback on the matter. As such, I’d encourage the council to
postpone any decision until all constituents have time to evaluate and respond.
Sincerely
Neda
--
Neda Farahvash
Labyrinth Design studio
Tel: (818) 274 4456
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:George Ferrell
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:10:30 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:We oppose the staff's recommended settlement concerning the builder'sremedy projects. The terms of the settlement are not clear, and there hasbeen insufficient time to study the report. We urge you to reject therecommendation from the staff.Peggy and George Ferrell338 15th Street
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Alexa Fischer
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Request to postpone consideration of the settlement next to New Roads School
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:51:02 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
It has been brought to my attention that an agenda item relating to the proposed settlement
between the City and NMS/WS Communities will be discussed at tonight's meeting. I am urgently
requesting that you postpone this agenda item to give the New Roads community ample time to review
the details of the proposed settlement and the impact that it has on the adjacent New Roads School
community.
As a Santa Monica resident and business owner for the last twenty years, as well as a parent of two
children at New Roads, I have witnessed the explosive growth of our city. It is with great concern that I
see yet another development proposal, next to a school no less, without a detailed consideration for the
negative impact it would have (health, noise, etc) on the adjacent school body.
Please POSTPONE the consideration of the settlement until our community can have adequate time to
convene and review its contents.
I will be attending tonight's meeting.
Thank you for your consideration,
Alexa Fischer
Alexa Fischer, Creator + CEO
write: alexa@wishbeads.com
connect: @Wishbeads.official
manifest: wishbeads.com
NEW free training course: alexafischer.com
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Mark Franks
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Settlement between Santa Monica and NMS/WS Communties
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:42:30 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
As a former resident of Santa Monica, current resident of Los Angeles, and current faculty
member of New Roads School, I ask that you postpone consideration of the
settlement between the city and the NMS/WS Communities. I understand part of this
development regards the property next to New Roads campus. Thank you for considering.
Mark Franks
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1589 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Council Mailbox
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Staff Administrative Item 11-C
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:11:01 AM
From: Faustino Garza <Faustino_Garza@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:06 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Staff Administrative Item 11-C
EXTERNAL
I hereby voice my objection to staff's proposal to settle 13 WSC Builder's Remedy Projects due
to insufficient information in the staff report and insufficient time to poll residents' opinions.
These projects are out of scale and do not comply with our city's building standards.
Furthermore, they will have a highly negative impact on traffic, infrastructure and the quality
of living of residents that already live here.
I strongly oppose these projects and urge City Council to find ways to stop them from going
forward.
Faustino Garza
Santa Monica Homeowner and Resident of 35 years
Ocean Park
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1590 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Gemma Corfield
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 6:28:37 AM
EXTERNAL
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed
applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects.
https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public
informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the
community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require
mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website at
https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how
much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept
informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable,
and in the City’s best interest before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it,
and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.
Thank you.
gemma corfield
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1591 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:jim gerstley
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:May 9 Council item 11-C WSC Remedy Projects Settlement
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:54:14 AM
EXTERNAL
Please oppose the staff recommendation for settlement of 13 WSC Remedy Projects.
I agree with SMCLC.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's
remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for
generations to come.
the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there
were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed,
and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the
Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a
routine item. But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City
over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this
settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest
one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as
to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community
will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process
and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative
item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously
deficient.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant
portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified
Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the
number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public
scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts
which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its
residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all
of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on
any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable
units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s
website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would
remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1592 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to
disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of
the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's
impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be
built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified,
how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to
satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be
affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the
builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with
the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the
public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents
are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to
demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this
settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it.
This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have
adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our
City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the
City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would
come online.
Thank you
James Gerstley
Santa Monica 90403
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1593 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:les gibbs
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Stop the Builders Remedy
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:57:01 AM
EXTERNAL
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Council Mailbox
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: I have serious concerns about future large building projects in Santa Monica destroying our quality of life and the city
personality
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:06:11 AM
From: Ed Hallen <eh2012@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:51 AM
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>; Jesse Zwick
<Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis <Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre
<Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White
<David.White@santamonica.gov>; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; David Martin
<David.Martin@santamonica.gov>
Cc: cityclerkcouncilmtgitems@santamonica.gov <cityclerkcouncilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
Subject: I have serious concerns about future large building projects in Santa Monica destroying our quality of life
and the city personality
EXTERNAL
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy
projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time
for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's
remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its
residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that
this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy"
statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units
citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire
outside counsel and oppose these
projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City
Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal
applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the
Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council
agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over
one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this
settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing
units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the
biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of
disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens
to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open
and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an
afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.
It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to
weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before
approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant
portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified
Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the
number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public
scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts
which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its
residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all
of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built
on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including
affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted
on the City’s website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would
remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement
without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to
disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part
of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move
forward.It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be
approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being
modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built
under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the
required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the
builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement
with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so
the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents
are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to
demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this
settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it.
This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have
adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our
City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the
City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects
would come online.
Thank you.
Ed Hallen
1231 9th Street
Santa Monica
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1596 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:keyh1@yahoo.com
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information
in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:43:59 AM
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
I opposed the settlement of the WSC builder's remedy project as it currently stands due to a lack of
information (it's not clear what is approved and/or will be approved) and a lack of time for the public to
weigh in.
As illustrated by SMCLC, some of the key missing information is:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional
housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers,
including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include expedited
processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review
as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including
increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next
few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the
heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy
numbers posted on the City’s website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s remedy
project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City
reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process
(this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Thus, the current proposed settlement does not say what would be built under the agreement and does
not say how it differs from the original proposal.
Additionally, this proposal was placed on the city council agenda just last Thursday. Less than a week is
not enough time for the public to weigh in.
As such, I urge you to reject Item 11-C to settle the 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects as it currently
stands. There is simply not enough information about what will be built, how it will be built, how it will
impact the city, and not enough time for the public to weigh in.
Best,
Kelly
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1597 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Jeff Kitchen
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Please postpone settlement of development next to New Roads School
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 9:31:08 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Council,
As a longtime resident of Santa Monica I want to ask that the council postpone settlement of
the development being considered adjacent to New Roads School so that all the potential
impacts can be properly studied and considered.
Thank you,
Jeff Kitchen
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1598 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Nikki Kolhoff
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:14:57 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
I agree with the email below from SMCLC and urge you to reject a settlement regarding WSC's builder's remedy projects.
Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
May 8, 2023
To: The CityCouncil gleam.davis@santamonica.gov, phil.brock@santamonica.gov, christine.parra@santamonica.gov, lana.negrete@santamonica.gov, jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov, caroline.torosis@santamonica.gov, oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov, council@smgov.net
CC: City Clerk councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov, david.white@santamonica.gov, douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov, david.martin@santamonica.gov
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filedapplications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these
projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the publicinformed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the communitywill be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require
mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website
at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much
affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, andin the City’s best interest before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and
when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.
Thank you.
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1599 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Brian Lasky
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical
information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 10:25:44 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
In addition to what others have said I am writing to oppose a settlement agreement with the WSC
builders.
If what I hear it true, then why would you enter into an agreement without defined goals and guidelines.
To think they will in good faith do what is best for the City is just foolishness. Time and time again,
developers have taken advantage of City Hall and exercise loopholes to get what they want.
I am not opposed to all settlement agreements, and i do think it is a good idea, but define the parameters
and criteria first. Otherwise we are just giving them a blank check and continue to be taken advantage of
by developers.
Ask yourself, would you ever have a contractor work on your house on a major project without knowing
the full scale of work and cost estimate. The same should be true here.
Thank you for your time.
Brian Lasky
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1600 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Rodney Liber
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Phil Brock
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C / Settlement
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:35:51 AM
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:
Transparency and proper consideration is essential in decisions that will impact our city
for decades.
Please postpone any decision on new epic sized developments until all the avenues
forward have been sufficiently reviewed.
Thank you.
Rodney Liber
Commercial Property Owner
Santa Monica, CA
Rodney Liber | SantaMonicaCreative | 310.567.1000 | rodneyliber@gmail.com
This email and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify
the sender immediately, and delete this email from your system.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1601 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Ellen Mark
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre;
councilmtgitems
Cc:David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle WSC builder"s remedy projects for lack of critical information in
the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 12:27:09 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Coucilmembers,
I OPPOSE STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 11-C (WSC "builder's remedy") without
further disclosure of what would be built under this agreement.
Residents want to understand, and want the Council to understand, what the ramifications are
BEFORE approving anything related to this settlement.
Sincerely,
Ellen Mark
Sunset Park resident
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1602 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Brandon Marlowe
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Phil Brock; Christine
Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; Ross Furukawa; Santa Monica
Coalition for a Livable City
Subject:Builder"s Remedy Settlement = NO
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:13:00 AM
EXTERNAL
Hello All and Good Morning;
It appears to this 30-year resident that the proposed Builder’s Remedy settlement reeks of laziness,
incompetence, deceit and corruption.
You choked on the Housing Element, allowing this mess to begin with.
You now seek to sweep your failure under the rug while further burnishing your credentials with the
masters you really serve – the developers. At the expense of, as usual, the people who live here.
Since you don’t seem to care to understand I will explain it to you;
There should be a separate commission to figure this mess out. What if any elements of the
builder’s remedy projects should be included in the Housing Element compliance and what
does that overall plan look like.
And for God’s sake how will you police / ensure that the affordable portion actually occurs.
And is it enough?!?!
For those who are new to the party there was a DECADE in Santa Monica where none of the
approved affordable housing actually happened because (in the words of a former Mayor)
“we didn’t have a mechanism for it”. How cowardly. How incompetent. How sickening.
Is there an adult in the room? Anybody?
Bueller?
Brandon Marlowe
Ocean Park
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Marwa Bernstein
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Letter in support of postponing the NMS settlement
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:41:27 AM
EXTERNAL
Hello,
I recently learned that the SM City Council plans to discuss approving a settlement
with NMS/WS Communities at this evenings Council meeting. This is an important
decision that will have long lasting ramifications for our community. There has not
been sufficient time granted for members of the community and affected businesses,
schools, and service organizations to fully consider the impacts and provide
thoughtful , constructive feedback on the matter. As such, I am asking the council to
postpone any decision until all constituents have time to evaluate and respond.
Marwa Bernstein
Co head of the Parent Village of New Roads School
msbernst@yahoo.com
646.382.7454
www.marwabernstein.com
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Prashant Mehrotra
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Prashant Mehrotra; Gauri Kolhatkar
Subject:NMS/WS settlement
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:03:40 AM
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern, we are writing to you as both a resident of the city of Santa Monica
(and in the case of prashant, also working in Santa Monica) regarding the settlement btw the
City of Santa Monica and NMS/WS that include new property developments in the Santa
Monica neighborhood by Nebraska Avenue and Centinela Avenue.
We are writing to express concern around the impact to the nearby buildings, including the
future development of the property next to the New Roads School campus and suggest that it
would be beneficial to postpone the consideration of the settlement and delay the discussion
until all interested parties have had more time to understand the potential impact of the
development on the adjacent properties.
Best regards,
Prashant Mehrotra & Gauri Kolhatkar
2612 Washington Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90403
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Nicola Meyer
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Please postpone consideration of the settlement
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 10:04:52 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am a 45 year resident of Santa Monica with a 24 year career as a teacher in Santa Monica. I teach at Carlthorp
School and have a middle school child at New Roads. I have a vested interest in the keeping Santa Monica the
lovely town it always has been. I am requesting that you please postpone consideration of the settlement. New
Roads is a phenomenal school and the children who go there are quite literally the future of Santa Monica. Please let
them know that you care about their well-being and respect the needs of children and the school over developers
who prioritize money over community.
Respectfully,
Nicky Meyer
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Hope Mineo
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Santa Monica City Council Meeting tonight
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 1:36:46 PM
Importance:High
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
This email is about the Santa Monica City Council meeting tonight and consideration of approval of a
settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities. Part of the proposed settlement is the
development of a property next to New Roads School. Until we know how New Roads will be impacted by
the development next door we agree with the New Roads Board of Trustees request that the City Council
postpone its consideration of the settlement. The school and the broader community need sufficient time
to assess the potential impacts of the settlement. Please give us this time and do not approve the
settlement tonight,
Thank you,
1112 Montana Ave
Santa Monica, 90403
Hope Mineo (she/her)
310-480-0707
Women Rise in a World That Listens
Co-founder/coCEO - script.kitchen
www.script.kitchen
Executive Director - Motion Picture Industry Institute (MPii)
www.mpii.org
ED/Founder - 2000Dames
www.2000dames.net
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/hope-mineo-34aa525a/
Twitter - https://twitter.com/hopemineo?lang=en
Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/hopemineo/
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Nancy
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose City Council Item 11-C 5/9/23
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:22:45 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
We oppose settling with WSC without full disclosure and review of what will
actually be built and the impacts to city infrastructure and its residents.
Wes & Nancy Hicks
Santa Monica residents
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Neda Farahvash
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Postpone consideration of the settlement of NMS Development adjacent to New Roads Schoo
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:51:00 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council of Santa Monica,
I am a parent of a 2nd and 6th graders at the New Roads School. My children have been at this
school since Kindergarten.
I recently learned that the SM City Council plans to discuss approving a settlement with
NMS/WS Communities at this evening's Council meeting. This is an important decision that
will have long lasting ramifications for our community.
There has not been sufficient time granted for members of the community and affected
businesses, schools, and service organizations to fully consider the impacts and provide
thoughtful , constructive feedback on the matter. As such, I’d encourage the council to
postpone any decision until all constituents have time to evaluate and respond.
Sincerely
Neda
--
Neda Farahvash
Labyrinth Design studio
Tel: (818) 274 4456
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Nishat Alikhan
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Regarding Agenda Item 11C for May 9th City Council Meeting
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:57:02 AM
EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica City Council Members,
I am Nishat Alikhan. I work at New Roads School. In regards to the May 9th, 2023 City
Council Meeting's agenda item 11C and in consideration of my role, and in the best interest of
the over 500+ students and 100+ adults that attend New Roads School daily, I ask that you
postpone consideration of the settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities which
will allow the school time to fully understand what this development will be and how it will
impact the physical and mental health, safety, and security of our student body as well as the
safety and security of my colleagues and myself. Potential impacts of such a development
include the increased congestion on already busy streets, increased inaccessibility of safe
pathways to and from the metro station which would potentially impact student and faculty
accessibility to the quality education and/or their place of employment at New Roads School.
Furthermore, we often spend time outdoors enjoying the beautiful Southern California weather
engaging in the process of teaching and learning, utilizing nearby Gandara Park regularly for
sports practices, and the school and community need time to better understand the scope of the
development and the potential impact to student and adult health, especially those with asthma
which can be exacerbated by impacted air quality especially during construction periods.
Thinking about all of these factors, (the health impacts, the increased congestion to
already busy streets, the inaccessibility to the metro station, the likelihood of losing access to
Gandara Park), I strongly urge the Santa Monica City Council to postpone its consideration of
the settlement. I have taught and attended schools adjacent to development zones and have
first-hand experience with the adverse impact on nearby school communities.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Best Regards,
Nishat Alikhan
7th Grade Science Educator
New Roads School
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:RICHARD ORTON
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Builders remedy is bad for Santa Monica
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 11:05:56 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear councilmembers, please do not approve the builders remedy proposal for SantaMonica. The proposed
buildings will be the ruination of the city.
The housing shortage that we have here in Santa Monica and all over California is of affordable housing. While the
builders remedy offer some affordable housing, the bulk of it is expensive, highly profitable, market rate housing,
which lines the builders pockets, but doesn’t solve our problem and will create other problems.
Please don’t approve this dreadful concept.
Richard Orton
Ocean park
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:GERRY OWEN
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Objection to Agenda item
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 3:46:39 PM
EXTERNAL
My wife and I would like to register an objection to Agenda Item 11-C. The proposal for such a building would
dramatically change the character of the neighborhood where no other building is higher than 3 stories. It would
dwarf the Broad Theater complex which is the cultural heart of this area. Not to mention the increased foot and car
traffic. Wilshire Boulevard is being resurfaced and right turn only corners being constructed with safety as the
intent, a building of this size in the middle of this neighborhood would undermine the safety intent.
Thank you for your attention,
Gerry and Linda Owen
911 Arizona Ave
Santa Monica
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Pouya Payan
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:NMS Development Adjacent to New Roads School
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 1:09:11 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council of Santa Monica,
I am a parent of a 2nd and 6th graders at the New Roads School. My children have been at this
school since Kindergarten.
I recently learned that the SM City Council plans to discuss approving a settlement with
NMS/WS Communities at this evening's Council meeting. This is an important decision that
will have long lasting ramifications for our community.
There has not been sufficient time granted for members of the community and affected
businesses, schools, and service organizations to fully consider the impacts and provide
thoughtful , constructive feedback on the matter. As such, I’d encourage the council to
postpone any decision until all constituents have time to evaluate and respond.
Sincerely
Pouya
--
Neda Farahvash
Labyrinth Design studio
Tel: (818) 274 4456
--
Pouya Payan
Labyrinth Design Studio Inc.
T 818.200.5005
E pouya@labyrinth-ds.com
1600 Sawtelle Blvd. #230
Los Angeles, CA, 90025
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Peter Altschuler
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Builders remedy projects
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:53:27 AM
EXTERNAL
There are numerous contentious issues involving the pending claims of builders remedy
projects.
The first is that the ability to claim builders remedy status is not supported by the facts: Santa
Monica did not fail to comply with the State’s zoning modifications; the first submission
simply did not meet the State’s parameters, and the City was given time to submit a revision,
which was approved. The lack of approval of the first submission did not constitute the type of
failure that would permit builders remedy developments.
On a constitutional level, the State has imposed mandates by fiat. There was no input from any
of the cities that are now required to construct set numbers of new housing units. That violates
the State constitution and federal guidelines dating back to “taxation without representation.”
The more pressing situation is the Council’s consideration of a staff report recommending
settlement of multiple builders remedy projects. There is nothing in the specifications of those
projects that indicate how many units will be built, how many will qualify as affordable
(which is the objective and intent of State law), what the burden on the City budget will be to
provide services for new residential buildings, what the benefits to WS Communities (the
developer of 14 builders remedy sites) will be, and why community input is being avoided.
Given the scale of some of the proposed buildings, it is vital to understand the environmental
impact, the departure from State-approved zoning, and the City Staff’s reasoning for
recommending approval of such amorphous proposals. I expect the Council and City
management to demand specific answers before approving any builders remedy claims and to
continue to pursue legal remedies to prevent them from being built.
p
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:andrew rose
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:Luthern Williams; Evelyn Hou; Isabel Aranda; Emily Alexander; Jason Parry; councilmtgitems; Susan Cola; David
White
Subject:Request for Postponement of item 11c "Proposed Settlement with WS Communities"
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:38:10 AM
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Council-members,
My name is Andy Rose and have been a resident of Sunset Park since 1995. My wife and I
raised our two kids here and we all love living in Santa Monica. Our two children have
attended New Roads School since kindergarten. One is now a junior in college and the other is
in ninth grade. I serve as a Board member of New Roads School and I chair the Campus
Advancement Task Force, having worked on our campus needs for 9 years.
I have genuine concerns about the plan to expedite the approval of WS properties 3131
Nebraska with insufficient review of impact on the neighbors. It is our understanding that the
city has a complex challenge here and many passionate stake-holders. We appreciate that the
city is trying to ensure the building(s) will conform to current code height and density, but we
can not feel our school is secure without a full review of the 3131 Nebraska’s impact on our
kids and neighbors.
Please postpone consideration of the WS Properties settlement until there has been time to
review the plan so we can work together to ensure the safety and well-being of our k-12
community and neighbors.
Andy Rose
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Diane Rose
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:NMS/WS Settlement
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 9:35:09 PM
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am a resident of Santa Monica (1620 Ashland Avenue) as well as the leader of a non-profit, Cool Shul, which has its offices located in Santa
Monica. I am also a long time parent at New Roads School.
I humbly ask you to postpone the discussion of a settlement with the NMS/WS communities at tomorrow’s council meeting. The effect of the
development at the NMS Nebraska site will no doubt change the lives of our New Roads students, teachers and staff forever — during
construction and in the aftermath of whatever is built there. We, as a community, are extremely concerned about the environmental impacts of
construction at that site on our children, who run from grades K to 12. We are also concerned about the noise from construction, the effect new
housing will have on the flow of traffic on Nebraska, as well as how the finished product will affect our campus. We are aware there is also a
preschool off Nebraska that will be affected deeply.
With so many concerns, we simply ask for this agenda item to be delayed so that there is ample time to research the impacts of construction at
this site on the Nebraska neighborhood.
Thank you so very much for your time and for all you do for this incredible city of ours.
Sincerely,
Cantor/Rabbi Diane Rose
Diane Rose
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.coolshul.org__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!oyErqN9HDOm2Z4h0UOILDPM52UYo3aixWiw5qR317uNAo-
FEIwA7mCwTTt-BmC6Hq3ZlRPVX6oj4RlN44MfBRSywy7o$
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1616 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Annabelle Sadler
To:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc:David White; councilmtgitems; Douglas Sloan
Subject:A letter for the council..
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 10:56:05 PM
EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica Council,
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder's remedy projects for
lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy"
project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to
come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14
projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over
4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside
counsel and oppose these projects.
https://smclc. net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that
there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and
one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for
tomorrow's Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC
owns 14 builder's remedv sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would
greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in
the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being
built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And
there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply
adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical
information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the
settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that "the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the
City's regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element" without
giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include
expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any
environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents,
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1617 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these proiects come
online within the next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of
these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to
the builder's remedy numbers posted on the City's website
at https://www.santamonica. gov/builders-remedy.;
1. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a
builder's remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining
what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
2. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the
approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible to
determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was
originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much
affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement
that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder's
remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height,
number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying
upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and
complete information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City's
best interest before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-
known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate
answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if
this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when
it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.
Thank you.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1618 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Caroline Smukler
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Settlement between City and NMS/WS Communities
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:59:47 AM
EXTERNAL
Good morning! I am writing regarding with regards to the settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities.
As a resident of Santa Monica I am requesting that you postpone consideration of the settlement. I am very
considered about the proposed future development that will impact New Roads School and the surrounding
community.
Thank you for taking this into consideration.
Sincerely,
Caroline Smukler (Santa Monica Resident)
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1619 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Steve O
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Postpone Settlement Decision
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:06:56 AM
EXTERNAL
I recently learned that the SM City Council plans to discuss approving a settlement with
NMS/WS Communities at this evenings Council meeting. This is an important decision that
will have long lasting ramifications for our community. There has not been sufficient time
granted for members of the community and affected businesses, schools, and service
organizations to fully consider the impacts and provide thoughtful , constructive feedback on
the matter. As such, I’d encourage the council to postpone any decision until all constituents
have time to evaluate and respond.
Regards,
Steve Oliver
2309 26th St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
(206)310-2901
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1620 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Alexa Stone
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Tonights meeting - please delay settlement!
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 4:45:50 PM
EXTERNAL
To Whom it May Concern,
I recently learned that the SM City Council plans to discuss approving a settlement with
NMS/WS Communities at this evenings Council meeting. This is an important decision that
will have long lasting ramifications for our community. There has not been sufficient time
granted for members of the community and affected businesses, schools, and service
organizations to fully consider the impacts and provide thoughtful , constructive feedback on
the matter. As such, I’d encourage the council to postpone any decision until all constituents
have time to evaluate and respond.
Best Regards,
Alexa Stone, New Roads parent
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1621 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick;
councilmtgitems
Cc:David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; Susan Cola
Subject:City Cnl. Mtg. 5/9/2023 - Item 11C - WSC Settlement Agreement
Date:Monday, May 8, 2023 11:27:02 PM
EXTERNAL
wilmontlogo.jpg
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council members,
As Wilmont Board members we strongly support the WSC/NMS Settlement Agreement
element that outlines the BR Project Applications for 1038 10th Street, 1238-42 10th
Street, and 1007 Lincoln Blvd. would be withdrawn without replacement applications.
In Wilmont - 1038 10th St. on the west side of 10th between California and
Washington is a two story apt. building. Initial BR application proposed a 12 story
building and final BR application proposed a 15 story building
In Wilmont - 1007 Lincoln Blvd. on the east side of Lincoln between California and
Washington is a two story apt. building. Initial BR application proposed a 12 story
building and final BR application proposed a 14 story building.
On the southern border of Wilmont - 1238-42 10th Street on the southern border of
Wilmont are two, two story apt. buildings. Initial BR application proposed a 12 story
building and final BR application proposed a 18 story building.
Given that, we are gravely concerned about the 10 other applications that will come
under ministerial review as well as 1433 Euclid (BR final app. - 18 stories) which will not
be subject to the Settlement Agreement. We would request that the WSC/NMS Settlement
Agreement CLEARLY OUTLINE the following BEFORE voting on the Settlement
Agreement:
For 10 ministerial review projects (1925 Broadway - final BR app. - 18 stories; 1518-
1524 7th St. - final BR app. - 11 stories; 1441-1443 Lincoln Blvd. - final BR app. - 16
stories; 2901 Santa Monica Blvd. - final BR app. - 12 stories; 3030 Nebraska (aka 3000
Nebraska Ave.) - final BR app. - 15 stories; 1238 7th St. - final BR app. - 10 stories;
1433-1437 6th St. - final BR app. - 16 stories; 1425 5th St. (aka 1435 5th St.) - final BR
app. - 13 stories; 1557 7th St. (aka 707 Colorado Ave.) - final BR app. - 15 stories; 601
Colorado Ave.) update the BR chart on the Planning Department's website with the
maximum height, FAR, maximum number of units possible, number of affordable units
and parking allowed for all these projects BEFORE voting on the Settlement
Agreement to ensure that the City Council and public know what can actually be
built on these sites.
Outline and dollarize the corresponding burdens/costs to the city and its residents,
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1622 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
including infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years
Will the 1433 Euclid WSC project remain a builder's remedy project? Will it be
excluded from the settlement without an explanation of what that means?
Presentation and review by city council of a copy of the proposed Settlement
Agreement is required as part of any approval process
Thank-you.
Wilmont Board of Directors
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1623 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Ari Vena
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Public Records Request - settlement with NMS/WS Communities
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:50:39 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I would like the following comments to be added to the public record:
I was recently informed that the Santa Monica City Council plans to discuss approving a settlement with NMS/WS
Communities at this evening's City Council meeting. This is a very important decision that will have long lasting
ramifications for our community. There has not been sufficient time granted for members of the community and
affected businesses, schools, and service organizations to fully consider the impacts and provide thoughtful,
constructive feedback on the matter.
As a long time member of the New Roads School community I am requesting that the council postpone any decision
until all constituents have time to evaluate and respond.
Thanks so much for your time and consideration.
All best,
Ari Vena
Co-Head of Parent Village
New Roads School
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1624 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Melissa Ward
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; councilmtgitems
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:40:12 AM
EXTERNAL
TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have
adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what
our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the
interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these
expedited projects would come online. To do so would be unconscionable.
As a full time resident and former business owner in Santa Monica for
close to forty years, I have plead with you to take responsibility in
stopping this move to destroy our fair city and community.
Thank you,
Melissa award
1107 21st Street B
Santa Monica
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1625 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Will von Bernuth
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council
Mailbox
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject:Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information
in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:42:42 AM
EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
I opposed the settlement of the WSC builder's remedy project as it currently stands due to a lack of
information (it's not clear what is approved and/or will be approved) and a lack of time for the public to
weigh in.
As illustrated by SMCLC, some of the key missing information is:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional
housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers,
including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include expedited
processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review
as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including
increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next
few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the
heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy
numbers posted on the City’s website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s remedy
project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City
reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process
(this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Thus, the current proposed settlement does not say what would be built under the agreement and does
not say how it differs from the original proposal.
Additionally, this proposal was placed on the city council agenda just last Thursday. Less than a week is
not enough time for the public to weigh in.
As such, I urge you to reject Item 11-C to settle the 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects as it currently
stands. There is simply not enough information about what will be built, how it will be built, how it will
impact the city, and not enough time for the public to weigh in.
Regards,
Will
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1626 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Elizabeth Yazdany
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Development adjacent to New Road"s School
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:49:10 AM
EXTERNAL
City Council Members,
I respectfully request that you postpone consideration of the settlement until the school and
broader community have time to assess the potential impacts. As a parent of a child
attending New Road's School I can say that the area is already heavily congested. These
children need a safe and quiet environment for their learning. This school is a K-12 school,
serving the youngest of children and it is also a school that supports children with
neurodiversity. New Road's is one of the few schools in Los Angeles that offers a "spectrum
program" for children who are on the autism spectrum. Having increased congestion and more
importantly construction noise would be particularly difficult for our youngest children
and our children on the spectrum. I humbly ask that you take these children into
consideration when making your decision to postpone.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Yazdany
(Parent)
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1627 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
To:councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; David White; Douglas Sloan
Cc:clarethomasdo@aol.com; zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: City Council 5/9/23 item 11-C -- OPPOSE
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:04:30 AM
EXTERNAL
May 9, 2023
To: Mayor Davis and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset ParkRE: 5/9/23 agenda item 11-C -- OPPOSE
The FOSP Board SUPPORTS the letter below from the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City and OPPOSES Staff Administrative Item 11-C and its recommendation for the city to settle over thirteen (13) WSC
"builder’s remedy" projects for the following reasons:
1) The staff report lacks critical information. 2) The public has not had sufficient time to weigh in on this issue.
We urge you NOT to move forward with any settlement with WSC at this time.
Thank you for your consideration.
**************************************************************************
May 8, 2023
To: City Council
gleam.davis@santamonica.gov, phil.brock@santamonica.gov, christine.parra@santamonica.gov, lana.negrete@santamonica.gov, jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov, Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov,
oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov, council@smgov.net
CC: City Clerk
councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov, David.white@santamonica.gov, Douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov, David.martin@santamonica.gov
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its “builder’s remedy” project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When
the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a “builder’s remedy” statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units
citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his
highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.
In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.
But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder’s remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight
the construction of 1000s of housing units.
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega development agreement - the biggest one in the city’s history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built
and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost
as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is
in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.
Key deficiencies in the staff report include:
1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual
numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental
review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;
3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the
next few years;
4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s
remedy numbers posted on the City’s website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;
5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is
the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).
Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It’s impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally
proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State’s requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be
affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City’s website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and
affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.
When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete
information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC’s
predecessor (NMS).
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is
approved, why it’s in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it’s anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.
Thank you.
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1628 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Amy Marston
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Little Dolphins by the Sea Objections to Agenda Item 11-C
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 3:30:41 PM
Attachments:LD objections May 9 2023.pdf
EXTERNAL
May 9, 2023
By Email
RE: Item-11C, Little Dolphins by the Sea’s Objections and Comments to the Settlement Agreement and 3030
Nebraska Avenue Project
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council:
Little Dolphins by the Sea ("LD") is a preschool located at 1812 Stanford Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404 and is in
close proximity to a proposed development project located at 3030 Nebraska Avenue (the "Project").
LD hereby OPPOSES the Project and the proposed agreement involving the City of Santa Monica, its City Council
and/or Planning Department with WS Communities and its affiliates, which is totally devoid of environmental
review, among other concerns. Our students are very young children who are sensitive receptors and any
construction and development that would adversely impact them, as well as the surrounding environs and our local
community of residents and businesses, should be given meaningful evaluation so that the potentially significant
adverse impacts on these constituents are identified and assessed as is legally required.
Agenda Item 11-C was only just introduced on May 4 for a meeting scheduled for May 9 – the approval process for
the Project itself and the Settlement Agreement agendized for approval at today’s City Council’s meeting has been
orchestrated with no transparency and in an accelerated manner designed to circumvent environmental review and
silence public outcry due to the legal concerns surrounding the manner in which the Project was approved at the
outset. This Project will be situated between two schools (New Roads and LD) and introduces serious concerns
regarding impacts on traffic, air quality, safety, noise and aesthetics, among other issues – all of which the
Settlement Agreement seeks to eliminate review of in their entirety.
LD urges the City Council to table Item 11-C on the May 9, 2023 Agenda to allow LD, our neighbors and our
consultants sufficient time to review the Project and to assess the potentially adverse environmental impacts and all
other public health and welfare issues arising therefrom.
Thank you,
Margarita Pagliai
Founder/Executive Director
Little Dolphins by the Sea
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1629 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Sent on behalf of Margarita Pagliai by:
Amy Marston
Preschool Director
Little Dolphins by the Sea Preschool
littledolphins.org
O: 310.998.0011
C: 805.338.6104
LIC # 197415833 + 197415834
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1630 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
From:Margarita Pagliai
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Little Dolphins by the Sea Objections to Agenda Item 11-C
Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 3:22:55 PM
Attachments:Letter to City Council
EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council:
Little Dolphins by the Sea ("LD") is a preschool located at 1812 Stanford Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404 and is in
close proximity to a proposed development project located at 3030 Nebraska Avenue (the "Project").
LD hereby OPPOSES the Project and the proposed agreement involving the City of Santa Monica, its City Council
and/or Planning Department with WS Communities and its affiliates, which is totally devoid of environmental
review, among other concerns. Our students are very young children who are sensitive receptors and any
construction and development that would adversely impact them, as well as the surrounding environs and our local
community of residents and businesses, should be given meaningful evaluation so that the potentially significant
adverse impacts on these constituents are identified and assessed as is legally required.
Agenda Item 11-C was only just introduced on May 4 for a meeting scheduled for May 9 – the approval process for
the Project itself and the Settlement Agreement agendized for approval at today’s City Council’s meeting has been
orchestrated with no transparency and in an accelerated manner designed to circumvent environmental review and
silence public outcry due to the legal concerns surrounding the manner in which the Project was approved at the
outset. This Project will be situated between two schools (New Roads and LD) and introduces serious concerns
regarding impacts on traffic, air quality, safety, noise and aesthetics, among other issues – all of which the
Settlement Agreement seeks to eliminate review of in their entirety.
LD urges the City Council to table Item 11-C on the May 9, 2023 Agenda to allow LD, our neighbors and our
consultants sufficient time to review the Project and to assess the potentially adverse environmental impacts and all
other public health and welfare issues arising therefrom.
Thank you,
Margarita Pagliai
Founder/Executive Director
Little Dolphins by the Sea
--
—
Margarita Pagliai
Head of School / Founder
e: mpagliai@sevenarrows.org
o: (310) 230-4900
c: (310) 600-6839
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1631 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1632 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
May 9, 2023
By Email
RE: Item-11C, Little Dolphins by the Sea’s Objections and Comments to the Settlement Agreement and 3030
Nebraska Avenue Project
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council:
Little Dolphins by the Sea ("LD") is a preschool located at 1812 Stanford Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404 and is in
close proximity to a proposed development project located at 3030 Nebraska Avenue (the "Project").
LD hereby OPPOSES the Project and the proposed agreement involving the City of Santa Monica, its City Council
and/or Planning Department with WS Communities and its affiliates, which is totally devoid of environmental
review, among other concerns. Our students are very young children who are sensitive receptors and any
construction and development that would adversely impact them, as well as the surrounding environs and our local
community of residents and businesses, should be given meaningful evaluation so that the potentially significant
adverse impacts on these constituents are identified and assessed as is legally required.
Agenda Item 11-C was only just introduced on May 4 for a meeting scheduled for May 9 – the approval process for
the Project itself and the Settlement Agreement agendized for approval at today’s City Council’s meeting has been
orchestrated with no transparency and in an accelerated manner designed to circumvent environmental review and
silence public outcry due to the legal concerns surrounding the manner in which the Project was approved at the
outset. This Project will be situated between two schools (New Roads and LD) and introduces serious concerns
regarding impacts on traffic, air quality, safety, noise and aesthetics, among other issues – all of which the
Settlement Agreement seeks to eliminate review of in their entirety.
LD urges the City Council to table Item 11-C on the May 9, 2023 Agenda to allow LD, our neighbors and our
consultants sufficient time to review the Project and to assess the potentially adverse environmental impacts and all
other public health and welfare issues arising therefrom.
Thank you,
Margarita Pagliai
Founder/Executive Director
Little Dolphins by the Sea
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.
May 9, 2023
11.C.g
Packet Pg. 1633 Attachment: ITEM.11.C.Written Comments (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Location Details Case No.
3030 Nebraska Avenue/3025 Olympic
Boulevard (“Nebraska/Olympic”)
1601 units/15 stories 23ENT –0050
1925 Broadway 405 units/18 stories 23ENT –0031
1435 5th Street 375 units/13 stories 23ENT –0056
1518-1524 7th Street 200 units/11 stories 23ENT –0041
601 Colorado Avenue 200 units/15 stories 23ENT –0012
707 Colorado Avenue/1557 7th Street 200 units/16 stories 23ENT –0028
2901 Santa Monica Boulevard 190 units/12 stories 23ENT –0051
1435-1437 6th Street 170 units/16 stories 22ENT –0319
1441-1443 Lincoln Boulevard 170 units/16 stories 23ENT –0009
1238 7th Street 75 units/10 stories 22ENT –0312
1238-1242 10th Street
(“1242 10th Street”)
200 units/18 stories 23ENT –0055
1007 Lincoln Boulevard 95 units/15 stories 23ENT –0066
1038 10th Street 95 units/14 stories 23ENT –0065
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1634 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
WS
OBLIGATIONS
•WS TO SUSPEND AND WITHDRAW 13
BUILDER’S REMEDY PROJECTS
•IF REFILED, 8 PROJECTS WOULD BE CODE
CONFORMING PROJECTS
•IF REFILED, 3030 NEBRASKA AVENUE
WOULD BE CODE CONFORMING
PROJECTS WITH < 1 ACRE LOTS
•3 PROJECTS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT
REFILING
•WS TO PROVIDE RELOCATION RIGHTS TO 3
FORMER TENANTS WITH RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE AND RENT REDUCTIONS
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1635 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
CITY
OBLIGATIONS
•FUTURE CONSIDERATION (WITH NO OBLIGATION
TO APPROVE) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT
INCENTIVES
•INCREASE PARKING MAXIMUMS IN THE DCP
AREA FROM 0.5 TO 1.0 SPACES PER UNIT.
•ALLOW OFF-SITE OPTION FOR AFFORDABLE
UNITS
•REDUCTION FROM 20 TO 15%
INCLUSIONARY
•CREDIT FOR OFF-SITE UNITS FOR STATE
DENSITY BONUS PURPOSES
•EXPEDITED MINISTERIAL PROCESSING TIMELINES IF
APPLICATIONS ARE FILED
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1636 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
MUTUAL
OBLIGATIONS
•DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF NMS’S
PENDING CIVIL CASE AGAINST CITY,
CHALLENGING CITY’S LEASING REGULATIONS
•CITY’S AND RCB’S DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE OF PENDING CIVIL CASE AGAINST
1238 10TH STREET, LLC
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1637 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
FREQUENTLY
ASKED
QUESTIONS
FAQ 1.
HOW CAN THE CITY STATE THAT THE HOUSING
BUILT BY WS WILL SATISFY A SIGNIFICANT
PORTION OF THE CITY’S REGIONAL HOUSING
NEEDS AS PLANNED IN ITS CERTIFIED
HOUSING ELEMENT WITHOUT GIVING
ACTUAL NUMBERS, INCLUDING THE NUMBER
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS?
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1638 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
RESPONSE
TO FAQ 1.
•THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE DEVELOPMENT ALREADY PLANNED IN THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT AND ALLOWED BY CURRENT CODE.
•THE HEIGHTS AND FARS ARE ALREADY ALLOWED BY CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT. STATE DENSITY BONUS UNITS ARE ALREADY MANDATED BY STATE LAW.
•BECAUSE NO APPLICATIONS ARE PENDING, THE CITY HAS NO WAY TO CALCULATE THE NUMBER OF UNITS FOR EACH PROJECT WITH CERTAINTY. HOWEVER, THE CITY CAN SHOW THE “BOX” REQUESTED UNDER THE BUILDER’S REMEDY VERSUS THE “BOX” ALLOWED UNDER CURRENT CODE, WHICH WILL NOT CHANGE WITH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT APPROVAL.
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1639 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
FAQ 2.
HOW CAN THESE PROJECTS BE
APPROVED WITH EXPEDITED
PROCESSING AND WITHOUT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW?
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1640 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
RESPONSE
TO FAQ 2.
•THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATIVE
APPROVALS FOR HOUSING PROJECTS THAT DO NOT
REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OR CEQA REVIEW
SINCE 2020.
•THE HOUSING ELEMENT CERTIFIED BY THE STATE
COMMITS TO STREAMLINING THE ADMINISTRATIVE
APPROVAL PROCESS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE MORE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
•ON APRIL 11, 2023, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED
THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
HOUSING PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH THE
HOUSING ELEMENT.
•THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DOES NOT CHANGE
THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS.
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1641 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
FAQ 3.
HOW CAN THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT BE APPROVED
WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THE
BURDENS TO THE CITY AND ITS
RESIDENTS, INCLUDING INCREASED
CITY COSTS AND STRAIN ON
INFRASTRUCTURE?
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1642 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
RESPONSE
TO FAQ. 3
•THE EIR ANALYSIS FOR THE HOUSING
ELEMENT ALREADY CONSIDERED IMPACTS
OF NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
•IF THE REFILED PROJECTS ARE PURSUED BY
WS, THESE PROJECTS WILL BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CONTEMPLATED
IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT EIR
•THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DOES NOT
CHANGE THE CITY’S NORMAL REVIEW
PROCESS FOR ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING
PERMIT, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE
REVIEW BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES.
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1643 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
FAQ 4.WHAT DOES IT MEAN IF THE 1433
EUCLID AVENUE PROJECT REMAINS
A BUILDER’S REMEDY PROJECT?
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1644 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
RESPONSE
TO FAQ 4.
•1433 EUCLID AVENUE APPLICATION WILL
PROCEED THROUGH THE DISCRETIONARY
REVIEW PROCESS IF THE DEVELOPER ELECTS
TO PROCEED.
•THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXPRESSLY
RESERVES THE CITY’S RIGHT TO APPROVE,
DISAPPROVE, OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVE
THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE CITY’S
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WILL BE SUBJECT
TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE HOUSING
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (INCLUDING THE
BUILDER’S REMEDY STATUTE).
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1645 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
FAQ 5.
HOW CAN THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT BE APPROVED
WITHOUT DISCLOSING WHAT CAN
ACTUALLY BE BUILT ON THESE SITES
IN COMPARISON TO THE BUILDER’S
REMEDY PROJECTS, INCLUDING THE
AFFORDABLE UNITS?
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1646 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
RESPONSE
TO FAQ 5.
THERE ARE NO PENDING APPLICATIONS FILED
FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL
PROJECTS, SO WE DO NOT KNOW THE UNIT
SIZES, ETC., OR WHETHER THE DEVELOPER
WILL UTILIZE THE ENTIRE BOX OR EVEN
DENSITY BONUS.
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1647 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
FAQ. 6
IS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT?
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1648 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
RESPONSE
TO FAQ 6.
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT
DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANY SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT AND DOES NOT AUTHORIZE
ANY CHANGES TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED BY COUNCIL
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1649 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
FAQ 7.
Why doesn’t the City just
ignore the Builder’s
Remedy projects or sue
the State to challenge Builder’s Remedy?
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1650 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
THE CAO
OBTAINED 3
LEGAL
OPINIONS
•ALL 3 OPINED:
•THE CITY HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO REFUSE TO
PROCESS A PENDING BUILDER’S REMEDY
APPLICATION
•THE RISKS OF REFUSING TO PROCESS A PENDING
BUILDER’S REMEDY APPLICATION ARE WRIT OF
MANDATE, CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES UNDER STATE
AND FEDERAL LAW (CIVIL RIGHTS), OTHER STATE
LAW REMEDIES (CAL. GOV’T CODE 65585(J))
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1651 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
STATE LAW
PLACES THE
BURDEN OF
PROOF ON THE
CITY
IN ANY ACTION TAKEN TO CHALLENGE
THE VALIDITY OF A DECISION BY A CITY
TO DISAPPROVE A PROJECT OR
APPROVE A PROJECT WITH A
CONDITION THAT THE PROJECT BE
DEVELOPED AT A LOWER DENSITY, THE
CITY BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF
THAT ITS DECISION CONFORMED TO THE
CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE
HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (CAL.
GOV’T CODE SECTION 65589.5)
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1652 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
THE STAKES ARE
HIGH BECAUSE
…
•Recent court opinions disfavor denials of
housing development under the Housing
Accountability Act due to state policy
favoring housing and perceived
NIMBYISM.
•The State Attorney General has become
much more active in enforcing State
housing laws.
•The City faces penalties at the minimum
rate of $10,000 dollars per month or
violation of state housing laws and a
minimum of $10,000 per housing unit if
the City fails to approve a housing
development under the Housing
Accountability Act.
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1653 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
May 9, 2023
Settlement Agreement
Projects Summary
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1654 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Settlement Agreement -Builder’s Remedy Projects
Settlement Agreement Projects
•601 Colorado Ave
•3030 Nebraska Ave (aka 3000 Nebraska Ave)
•2901 Santa Monica Blvd
•1925 Broadway
•1557 7th St (aka 707 Colorado Ave)
•1518 -1524 7th St
•1441 -1443 Lincoln Blvd
•1433 -1437 6th St
•1425 5th St (aka 1435 5th St)
•1238 7th St
Projects that will be Withdrawn
•1238-1242 10th St
•1007 Lincoln Blvd
•1038 10th St
Not Subject to Settlement Agreement
•1433 Euclid St
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1655 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element: 601 Colorado Ave
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1656 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element: 3030 Nebraska Ave (aka 3000 Nebraska Ave)
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1657 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element: 2901 Santa Monica Blvd
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1658 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element: 1925 Broadway
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1659 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:1557 7th St (aka 707 Colorado Ave)
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1660 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:1518 -1524 7th Street
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1661 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:1441 -1443 Lincoln Blvd
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1662 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:1433 -1437 6th St
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1663 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:1425 5th St (aka 1435 5th St)
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1664 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:1238 7th St
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1665 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Project to be Withdrawn: 1238 –1242 10th St
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1666 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Project to be Withdrawn: 1007 Lincoln Blvd
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1667 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Project to be Withdrawn: 1038 10th St
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1668 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Project Not Subject to Settlement Agreement: 1433 Euclid St
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1669 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)
Summary
11.C.h
Packet Pg. 1670 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5756 : NMS Settlement)