Letter to the City of Santa Monica 2022.04.27 — Santa Monica City Council, October 25, 2022

We have been retained by Wilshire and 11th, LLC (“Applicant”) in connection with the Applicant’s proposed six-story, 67.5 foot building that will provide 93 homes (including 11 homes at below market rate affordable rents to Very Low Income (“VLI”) households), 6,200 square feet (“sf”) of ground floor restaurant/retail space, and 600 sf of outdoor dining area (“Project”), at 1101 Wilshire Boulevard (“Project Site”) in the City of Santa Monica, California (“City”).

Our West Coast Land Use & Environmental Practice Group has special focus on enforcing California’s recently reformed housing production laws, such as the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), Gov. Code § 65589.5, the State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”), Gov. Code § 65915, et seq., and Housing Element Law, Gov. Code § 65580, et seq. These laws, as you know, strongly support the approval of housing developments such as the Project. In particular, we briefed and argued California Renters Legal Advoc. & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal. App. 5th 820, the leading published authority on the HAA.

We understand that that City staff has informed the Applicant that staff will disapprove the Project as proposed, and refuse to grant the Project one of the incentives to which it is entitled under the SDBL, without making any of the findings that the law requires. As set forth herein, any such action would be unlawful. Nothing in the SDBL authorizes this approach, and recent case law affirms that the SDBL imposes strict burdens of proof on cities that seek to deny these requests, and substantial liability upon cities that fail to meet those burdens.

Roxanne Tanemori
April 27, 2022

Page 2 ends

#156781051_v2
The purpose of this letter is to (1) document the Applicant’s request for incentives pursuant to the SDBL (2) to describe the City’s obligations to grant incentives pursuant to SDBL; and (3) to describe the application of State housing laws, including Housing Element Law and the HAA.

We hope City staff will work with the Applicant bring this important project to the City of Santa Monica, and help fulfill the City’s obligations under the law and to ensure the Project Site is developed for desperately needed housing, especially for lower-income households. If it will not, please be advised that we are prepared to take any and all action necessary, including litigation if necessary, to protect the Applicant’s rights and to enforce state housing law.

I. The Project Satisfies both the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program and State Density Bonus Law Affordable Housing Requirements.

As described supra, the Project’s 11 homes for Very Low Income households satisfy the City’s inclusionary housing requirements and also qualify the Project for the SDBL. The City’s Affordable Housing Production Program (“AHPP”) requires projects to make available 10 percent of the total units to VLI households in order to satisfy inclusionary housing requirements. Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) § 9.64.050(C)(2). The SDBL requires projects to provide 15 percent of a project’s “base” units (prior to applying a density bonus) for VLI households in order to qualify for a 50 percent density bonus. Gov. Code § 65915(f)(2).

The Project’s VLI homes would satisfy and exceed the AHPP’s Tier 1 affordability requirements (93 total units x 10% = 9.3 or 10 units1
), satisfying the City’s requirement. SMMC §

9.64.050(A). The Project also satisfies the SDBL’s 15 percent VLI requirement (62 base units x 15% = 9.3 or 10 units2). Because the Project would make 15 percent of the base density (i.e., pre density bonus project) available to VLI households, the Project is eligible for a 50 percent density bonus under the City’s interim density bonus policy as approved by the City Council.

Gov. Code § 65915(b)(2).

II. The Application of State Density Bonus Law
As very recent case law specifically affirms, “[w]hen a developer meets the requirements of the Density Bonus Law, a local government is obligated to permit increased building density, grant incentives, and waive any conflicting local development standards unless certain limited exceptions apply.” Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 763 (emphasis added). The SDBL defines an incentive3 as “[a] reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements,” Gov. Code § 65915(k)(1), and further defines a “development standard” to specifically include a

1 An affordable housing calculation that results in a fractional affordable housing fractional requirement that is less than 0.75 may be satisfied through the payment of an affordable housing fee or through the provision of an affordable housing unit. SMMC § 9.64.050. In this instance, the Applicant has opted to provide an on-site affordable unit to satisfy this requirement.
2 All density calculations resulting in a fractional units are rounded up. Gov. Code § 65915(f)(5). 3 “Incentive” and “Concession” are coterminous and so for simplicity’s sake this letter generally uses the term “incentive.”
Roxanne Tanemori
April 27, 2022

Page 3 ends

#156781051_v2
“height limitation, setback requirements, floor area ratio, and onsite open-space requirement.” Gov. Code sec. 65915(o)(1) (emphasis added). SDBL provides that a city “shall grant… incentives or concessions” if requested by an applicant where the applicant proposes to construct a housing development that will contain a specified percentage of affordable units. Gov. Code § 65915(b)(1). These incentives must be granted unless the City can make specific written findings that the grant of the incentive (A) would not result in an identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide affordable housing costs, (B) would have a specific, adverse impacts upon public health and safety, the physical environment, or historic resources, or (C) would be contrary to state or federal law. Gov. Code § 65915(d)(1).

Since 15 percent of the “base” project will provide affordable homes to Very Low Income households, the Project is entitled to up to three incentives. Gov. Code § 65915(d)(2)(C). As present proposed, Project seeks only two incentives: (1) a height increase of 28.5 feet or three stories; and (2) additional FAR up to 3.04.

To date, City staff has refused to process the Project application, stating that it will simply deny the second of these requested incentives, without making the findings that would allow the City to do so. In a recent communication from staff, the City has taken a position that the requested FAR increase “does not appear to be consistent with the intent of an incentive for a density bonus project in a district that does not have traditional measures for maximum density controls.

More specifically, permitting a request for additional FAR over the 50% density bonus provided by State DBL to achieve cost reductions to provide for the project’s affordable housing would result in the ability for any applicant to seek unlimited FAR/density.” Email from Roxanne Tanemori, City of Santa Monica. As set forth infra, this simply is not the case. Moreover, nothing in this letter suggests the City is basing this conclusion on the only legally relevant question, which is whether the City has met its burden of proof to demonstrate that one of the narrow grounds to disapprove the requested incentive are present.

Staff’s position is inconsistent with SDBL, and other housing laws that are intended to spur housing production.

A. The City Bears the Burden in Justifying a Refusal to Grant an Incentive.

Density Bonus Law is to “be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.” Gov. Code § 65915(r). Courts have interpreted very similar language in other housing laws to narrowly constrain local authority and to require that any difficult questions of interpretation default towards the interpretation that creates the most housing. See, e.g., California Renters, 68 Cal. App. 5th at 836; Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2021) 63 Cal. App. 5th 277, 297.

Here, when a project applicant provides the requisite number of affordable homes consistent with SDBL, a city or county must grant the requested incentive unless the city or county can make a “written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:

Roxanne Tanemori
April 27, 2022

Page 4 ends

#156781051_v2
(A) The concessions or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for affordable housing costs…or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (B) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impacts, as defined in subdivision (d) or Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to lowincome and moderate-income households. (C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.” Gov. Code § 65915(d)(1). None of the circumstances delineated above apply to the present case, and the City has never argued that they do.

It is important to note that although previous iterations of SDBL required project applicants to submit certain financial information to support a request for incentives and waivers, such requirements have been removed by state law and therefore preempts localities from requiring such information. Effective in 2017, the Legislature amended the Density Bonus Law specifically to eliminate the authority of cities to reject a requested incentive on the grounds that “[t]he concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs.” Stats.2016, ch. 758 (A.B.2501), § 1; see also Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346; see also Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549, 555; Gov. Code § 65915(a)(2) (“A local government shall not condition the submission, review, or approval of an application pursuant to this chapter in the on the preparation of an additional report or study that is not otherwise required by state law, including this section”).

In Schreiber, 69 Cal.App.5th at 556, the Court of Appeal held that the SDBL requires the City to grant incentives unless the city makes affirmative findings that the requested incentives do not result in cost reductions, or the incentives would have specific adverse impacts on public health, safety, the physical environment, or any property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Specifically, it is up to the city to overcome a presumption that the incentive would result in cost reductions, whereas prior language required the incentives to be “financially sufficient.”4
Despite the fact that the law is clear that a project applicant need not submit a report evidencing that any incentive is necessary to achieve cost reductions, here the Applicant has provided such evidence, which was provided to the City on August 23, 2021.5 The City cannot now deny this Project without effectively refuting the evidence submitted by Applicant.

4 Stats.2016, ch. 758 (A.B.2501), § 1
5 Letter to Roxane Tanemori, Planning Division from Dave Rand (August 23, 2021).

Roxanne Tanemori
April 27, 2022

Page 5 ends

#156781051_v2
To summarize, then: an FAR increase is expressly listed in the statute as an incentive for which an applicant may apply. Gov. Code § 65915(d), (o)(1). Case law – both very recent and longstanding – firmly reinforce that an incentive may only be disapproved if the City meets its burden of proof to make certain specific findings. Schreiber, 69 Cal.App.5th at 556; Wollmer, 193 Cal. App. 4th at 1346. By contrast, there is no case law of which we are aware that could support a city’s decision to disapprove a requested incentive without making any of the limited findings in statute. Courts have repeatedly declined to read into the SDBL limitations on the scope of the law that are not contained in its text. See, e.g., Bankers Hill 150, 74 Cal. App. 5th at 775; Wollmer, 193 Cal. App. 4th at 1346-47 (rejecting arguments that SDBL should be read to limit a developer’s ability to propose a project with amenities that render the project unable to comply with objective standards; enforcing city’s requirement to grant SDBL waivers unless statutory criteria are satisfied). This would be the case even under ordinary rules of interpretation. But in light of the statute’s express direction that it must be “interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units,” Gov. Code § 65915(r), there should be no doubt that disapproving a clearly available incentive without making any of the required findings would expose the City to substantial litigation risk.

B. The City’s Justification for Denying Additional FAR Do Not Withstand Scrutiny.

The foregoing alone is dispositive. But independently of this, we also note that the City’s stated rationale for disapproving the incentive does not withstand scrutiny.

The City’s February 18, 2022 communication rationalized that “permitting a request for additional FAR over the 50% density bonus provided by State DBL to achieve cost reductions to provide for the project’s affordable housing would result in the ability for any applicant to seek unlimited FAR/density.”6 This simply is not the case. As set forth supra, following the City’s approach to calculating density, the “base” project consists of 62 homes, and the FAR requested, although in excess of the City’s normal standard, only allows 93 homes to be built. This is not “unlimited” density. It is, rather, only the density to which the Project is entitled under the SDBL.

The City, we understand, calculates “density” only in terms of FAR (despite the significant tension this creates with the text of the SDBL, which specifically provides that density calculations are made in terms of units, see Gov. Code § 65915(f), and with the Planning & Zoning Law, which specifically distinguishes FAR as a metric of building “intensity” that is distinct from “density,” which is a measure of population, see Office & Planning & Research, General Plan Guidelines, Ch. 4, at pp. 47-47). As City staff puts it, the City does not “have traditional measures for maximum density controls.” This is largely a problem of the City’s own making, but in any event case law has long established an appropriate approach to calculating SDBL density bonuses, incentives and waivers when a city does not follow “traditional measures.” See Wollmer, 193 Cal.App.4th at 1345; Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2009) 179

6 Email to Dave Rand from Roxanne Tanemori (February 18, 2022).

Roxanne Tanemori
April 27, 2022

Page 6 ends

#156781051_v2
Cal. App. 4th 933, 942 (both cases affirming City of Berkeley’s approach by calculating the number of dwelling units in a “base project” and in a bonus project, even though the City of Berkeley does not calculate density through the traditional measure of allocating each parcel a specific number of dwelling units per acre). Specifically, as set forth supra, a city can calculate a “base” project through application of its standard land use controls (here, yielding a 62-home “base” project). Then an applicant is entitled to a density bonus (here, 50%, allowing a 93-home project), as well as the applicable number of incentives (here, three), and an unlimited number of waivers of all standards that would physically preclude the Project, as designed, with the incentives requested. Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1). Bankers Hill 150, 74 Cal. App. 5th at 775.

Under this approach, the Project is entitled to waive any FAR limit that would preclude the development of a 92-home project. Under no circumstances can the Project, as designed, with reasonably sized homes, fit within the City’s FAR limit. See ibid. (“city may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes “amenities” beyond the bare minimum of building components”) (emphasis added).

The FAR increase could be characterized in the alternative as a “waiver” - but in no event can the FAR increase be lawfully denied.

C. The City Would Be Liable for Disapproving the Incentive or Waiver.

The SDBL provides applicants with a private right of action for an applicant to initiate judicial proceedings to challenge SDBL incentive or waiver denials, to enforce the requirements of the law, and to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from the City if forced to do so. Gov. Code § 65915(d)(3), (e)(1). The City’s refusal to process the Project application consistent with state law requirements would expose the City to these and other forms of liability.

III. Disapproving the Project Would Imperil the City’s Ability to Bring Itself Into Compliance with Housing Element Law.

We are also mindful that the City is currently out of the compliance with Housing Element Law, as determined by HCD after completing its review of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. As a part of the most recent Regional Housing Needs Assessment, the City must plan for an 8,897 residential units, inclusive of 2,794 VLI units.7 Blocking this Project would significantly imperil the City’s ability to meet these goals and to otherwise come into compliance with Housing Element Law.

A. Removal of Governmental Constraints
In its own Housing Element adopted last year, the City has recognized a litany of issues that act as a constraint to the provision of housing, including the SMMC’s inconsistency with SDBL.

7 SCAG Letter, p. 3. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785 Roxanne Tanemori
April 27, 2022

Page 7 ends

#156781051_v2
Housing Element, p. E-18. The City has proposed to “update the density bonus ordinance… to clarify how to apply State density bonus law in the City’s Commercial and mixed-use districts that do not have density controls, including the application of State density bonuses to floor area dedicated to residential uses. Housing Element, p. 23. This shows that the difficulties the Applicant has encountered using the SDBL are well known to the City.

Further, HCD was not satisfied with the level of analysis provided by the City in its 6th Cycle Housing Element and has determined that the City’s most recently adopted Housing Element does not comply with Housing Element Law. In particular, HCD concluded that the City’s analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints for the provision of housing was insufficient and advised the City to “identify and analyze all relevant land-use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should analyze land-use controls independently and cumulatively with other land-use controls. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints.” HCD Letter, p. 7 (emphasis added). Precluding the Project because of the City’s unusual approach to density bonuses would require the City to disclose this additional constraint on housing production. Failure to do so may keep the City from coming into compliance with Housing Element Law.

B. No Net Loss Requirements
Housing Element Law also requires local agencies to specify in its Housing Element an inventory, which shall specify for each site the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing. Gov. Code § 65583.2(c). Remarkably, despite the City’s refusal to process the Project, the Project Site features in the City’s “Report on Suitable Sites” (Appendix F) multiple times.8 In Appendix F, the City represents that there are a number of projects pending approval that would provide a total of 42 VLI units, 11 of which would be provided through the approval of the Project, consistent with the Project application. Housing Element, p. F-36; see also p. F-21.

Additionally, the City has identified the Project Site as site that is capable of achieving a 3.03 FAR for a total of 93 residential units, when utilizing density bonus law. 9 Housing Element, p.

F-38. It appears the City wants to have it both ways - by representing to the state that there is some certainty that the Project will be processed and approved in the manner requested by the Applicant, and at the same time refusing to process the Project application, thereby effectively resulting in a denial of the Project.

8 City of Santa Monica, 6th Cycle Housing Element. Available at: https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HousingElement-Update-2021-to-2029/Adopted%20Appendix%20F%20SSI%20Report%20Clean%20Complete.pdf 9 We note that the City’s analysis of the maximum FAR at the Project Site is just slightly less than 3.04 FAR requested by the Applicant.

Roxanne Tanemori
April 27, 2022

Page 8 ends

#156781051_v2
Failure to process the Project application, or otherwise approve the Project as proposed (and presented in the Housing Element) would violate Housing Element Law’s “No Net Loss” requirements. Under the No Net Loss rule, a City cannot take action or deny a project described in its Housing Inventory Analysis unless the City can make the written findings, supported by substantial evidence that both of the following circumstances are present:
(A) The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element.
(B) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. The finding shall include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level.

Gov. Code § 65863. The City cannot enjoy the benefit of making representations to the state that the Project Site will yield 93 residential units, including 11 VLI units, and then devise ways to effectively deny the Project as proposed.

Moreover, the Applicant’s FAR request (which the City characterizes as “unlimited”) is below the FAR currently contemplated as part of the City’s Housing Element related re-zoning effort.

Based on the redlines and staff reports circulated to the Planning Commission and City Council to date, staff proposes increasing the baseline FAR in the MUB zone where the site is located to

2.75:1, with 15% of the units reserved for a blend of affordable housing levels (i.e., 5% Very Low Income, 5% Low Income and 5% Moderate). This proposed affordability requirement would entitle this applicant to a 20% density/FAR increase under the State Density Bonus Law above the increased 2.75:1 baseline FAR, to 3.3:1 (2.75 X 1.20 = 3.3:1 FAR). The Applicant’s proposed FAR -- which only slightly exceeds 3:1 -- is not only limited in scope but also actually below the targeted FAR increases City staff have proposed as part of a battery of zoning changes necessary for the City to comply with State Housing Element law and meet its RHNA mandates.

The Planning Department’s recent communication to the City Council dated April 24, 2022 indicates that to overcome HCD’s most recent objections to the City’s approved Housing Element the City will need to make even more significant changes to increase zoned capacity throughout the City to meet the RHNA. In this context, the City cannot credibly argue that this applicant’s modest FAR increase of 3:1 in the MUB zone cannot be approved on the grounds that it represents a request for “unlimited” density.

IV. Failure to Process the Project Application Would Violate the Housing Accountability Act
Roxanne Tanemori
April 27, 2022

Page 9 ends

#156781051_v2
A. The Housing Accountability Act Narrows a Local Agency’s Ability to Deny Projects that are Consistent With All Applicable, Objective General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Standards and Criteria.

The California Legislature has found and declared that a lack of housing “is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California,” and that “[t]he excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(a). As a result, the Legislature has recently enacted and reformed numerous State laws that strongly support approval of developments such as the Project, and that narrowly circumscribe cities’ authority to deny or significantly condition the approval of such projects.

By refusing to process the Project application, the City is effectively denying the Project, in violation of the HAA. HAA “imposes a substantial limitation on the government’s discretion to deny a permit” for housing. N. Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, 234 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2002), aff’d, 526 F.3d 478 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation omitted). This law strongly compels cities to approve housing developments that are consistent with the plans that cities have previously adopted. In recent case law, the California Court of Appeal has emphasized that the HAA must “be interpreted and implemented to ‘afford the fullest possible weight’ to the approval of housing.” California Renters, 68 Cal. App. 5th at 894 (quoting Gov.

Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L)).

Here, the Project is a “housing development project” as defined in the HAA because it is a “[m]ixed-use development[] consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least twothirds of the square footage designated for residential use.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2). The Project also complies with all “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete,” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1).10 The HAA “deems a project consistent with applicable objective standards ‘if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude’” that the project complies. California Renters, 68 Cal.App.5th at 894 (quoting Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4)). To the extent the Project conflicts with any density standard, the Project’s affordable homes entitle the Applicant to a density bonus pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, Gov. Code § 65915, and this density bonus is disregarded for purposes of considering whether a project complies with objective standards under the HAA. See Gov.

Code § 65589.5(j)(3).

Moreover, the Project is also now “deemed” to satisfy all objective standards, because the deadline to provide written documentation of any inconsistency has now passed.11 See Gov.

Code § 65589.5(j)(2); cf. Ruegg & Ellsworth, 63 Cal.App.5th at 327 (enforcing nearly identical “deemed to satisfy” requirement in Gov. Code § 65913.4). The conclusion that the Project

10 As noted, the Project application was submitted on February 21, 2021, and supplemented on August 23, 2021. 11 The Applicant is actually entitled as a matter of law to even greater deviations from City-adopted standards with the provision of up to three incentives, but has opted to only seek two incentives.

Roxanne Tanemori
April 27, 2022

Page 10 ends

#156781051_v2
complies with the City’s objective standards established as a matter of law. We understand that the Applicant submitted a complete application for the Project on February 11, 2021, and supplemented the application on August 23, 2021.12 From either date, the 30-day deadline to provide written documentation of inconsistency with objective standards has now expired.

When, as here, a housing development project complies with objective standards, a city’s authority to disapprove the application is extremely narrow. A local agency cannot disapprove a project - or reduce its density - unless the agency meets the burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the project would have an unavoidable impact on public health or safety. Gov. Code § 65589.5(i)-(j). A finding of public health or safety impacts must be a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A). A city is required to further affirmatively prove that there are no feasible means of addressing such “public health” and “safety” impacts other than rejecting or reducing the size of the Project. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B). Unsurprisingly, the State Legislature recently emphasized its expectation that this type of “public health or safety” condition would “arise infrequently.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(3). Here, there is no evidence – much less the required preponderance of the evidence – that this Project could cause any unavoidable public health or safety impact. As a result, the City’s action in effectively disapproving the Project – or requiring it be reduced in size – would violate the HAA.

B. Similar to State Density Bonus Law, the Housing Accountability Act Provides a Robust Set of Legal Remedies Which Create a Significant Incentive for Private Parties to Enforce It.

The HAA contains a robust set of enforcement remedies, which the Legislature has recently made even stronger. If a reviewing court finds that the City has violated the HAA’s provisions, the Act provides that, in addition to ordering compliance with the Act, a court “shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner . . . except under extraordinary circumstances . . ..” Gov. Code §65589.5(k) (emphasis added); see also Honchariw, 218 Cal.App.4th at 1037. The Act also directs courts to order cities to pay fines if the court concludes the city acted “in bad faith.” Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (l). In addition to any other remedies provided for, in a case of bad faith court “shall multiply the fine…by a factor of five.” Id. Further, an unusually broad range of plaintiffs can sue to enforce the HAA. The Applicant may sue to enforce the act, but even if the Applicant declines to pursue legal action, “any person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the development,” or a housing organization, can also sue cities for violating the HAA. Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (k). Housing organizations regularly bring HAA actions against jurisdictions that have disapproved, or even

12 Letter to City of Santa Monica, dated August 23, 2021.

Roxanne Tanemori
April 27, 2022

Page 11 ends

#156781051_v2
reduced the density of, a housing development project protected by the HAA. See, e.g., California Renters, 68 Cal. App. 5th 820.

V. Conclusion
In summary, we remain concerned that the City is not complying with various housing laws inclusive of State Density Bonus Law, Housing Element Law, and the Housing Accountability Act which have been enacted to in favor of provision housing and removing governmental constraints that hinder the provision of such housing. We urge the City to act urgently and process the Project application consistent with such laws.

Very truly yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Jennifer L. Hernandez
Daniel R. Golub
Paloma Perez-McEvoy
cc: Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Susan Cola, Interim City Attorney
Wilshire and 11th, LLC
Dave Rand

Santa Monica City CouncilOctober 25, 2022

Santa Monica City Council
October 25, 2022