Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, October 25, 2022

1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Michael Etzel <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 5:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

In the last few weeks, applications for 16 housing projects totaling nearly 5,000 units, roughly 1000 of which are reserved for low income homes, have been filed with the City of Santa Monica under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). These projects represent a tremendous opportunity to increase desperately needed housing supply in the City – particularly affordable housing with no required public subsidy.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Clemons
5000 San Vicente Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90019‐2914 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Liliya Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 4:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I

Sincerely,
Liliya Jones
923 5th St Apt 3 Santa Monica, CA 90403‐2646 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: David <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Council Members,
There is a real housing crisis in our state and it’s up to our cities to support all forms of new housing developments to help solve it. I encourage all of you to please throw your support behind the builders remedy projects and to not be afraid of change. We need our cities to be open to all not just the wealthy few.

Sincerely,
David Heflin
Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Clerk Mailbox
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 4:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Item 16 I "Builders' Remedy" on Oct 25 agenda From: Victor Fresco <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 3:43 PM
To: Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>
Cc: Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 16 I "Builders' Remedy" on Oct 25 agenda

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmember.

Whether or not you support building thousands of additional housing units is not the issue you are being asked to decide.

The issue you must decide is whether the City officially supports the circumventing of its community’s carefully crafted and agreed upon zoning codes, which took years to establish and included thoughtful input from Santa Monica's stakeholders.

You are now being asked whether or not you support a developer’s use of a loophole to disregard the entire endeavor of city planning.

Allowing major, community‐impacting projects to move forward by way of a loophole is fundamentally undemocratic. It says that the democratic process that was used to establish our community's goals can be easily discarded.

Governing by loophole is not good governance.

Victor Fresco
Item 16.I
10/25/22
5 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: ejs2514 <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 5:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Builder's remedy projects

EXTERNAL
The proposed builder’s remedy projects are exactly the type of development needed as we transition to sustainable living. Adding density along major streets is an excellent first step, and these projects satisfy this approach.

The fact that the builder’s remedy provision is being used shows that we need to get serious about adding housing throughout Santa Monica. Those who have become enriched by housing scarcity should not be in control of the process.

It might be useful for complaining residents to recall the Santa Monica of 100 years ago. Back then, bean and strawberry farmers were probably critical of the ticky-tack homes being built, and the smoke spewing cars that the new homeowners would drive. These are the very homes where many residents now live (and complain!).

Thank you.

Ed Salisbury
2514 30th Street
Santa Monica
Item 16.I
10/25/22
6 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: B Leddy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10-25-22 Agenda Item 16i - SUPPORT

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers - I urge you to support Item 16i, to pursue appropriate counsel in response to recent egregious "builders remedy" development projects. While the City does need to build significant housing in response to the RHNA requirements of the state, such development should be undertaken thoughtfully and carefully, with input from Council and the community, and not left to profit-motivated developers. The "builders remedy" loophole has never been tested in court, and I am confident that counsel with knowledge and expertise in this area of law can be successful in protecting the rights of our city to determine its best path forward to a sustainable and balanced future.

Thank you for your consideration.

Bruce Leddy
22 year Santa Monica resident
Item 16.I
10/25/22
7 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Lerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 12:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan; Council Mailbox
Subject: Item 16-I Please Support an Independent Legal Review of 'Builder's Remedy' Options

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please vote to support an independent legal analysis to determine recourse regarding the development project applications submitted under the “Builder’s remedy”.

I urge the City Council to obtain knowledge of what options are available.

Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Item 16.I
10/25/22
8 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Garland Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 1:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Farrokh
Subject: We support the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I re builder's remedy applications

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers: Farrokh Allen and Garland Allen, residing at the address below, hereby register our support for the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.1
2722 Washington Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tel: 310‐260‐1288 310-968-4139
Item 16.I
10/25/22
9 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Ariella Er-Kohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 1:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for item 16.I

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
As a Santa Monica resident, I wholeheartedly support the item below.

Councilmember Discussion Item 16.I:

Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of residents’ concerns about the “Builder’s remedy” permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate and up to 15 stories, that the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law firm hired to conduct this review shall be selected by the City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it deems useful to its legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed officials.

Respectfully,
Ariella
Item 16.I
10/25/22
10 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Suzanne Hunt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 1:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Agenda Item 16.1.- Hire Counsel

EXTERNAL
We strongly support this action listed below.

Councilmember Discussion Item 16.I:

Suzanne and Brian Hunt
Santa Monica Residents ‐ Northeast
Item 16.I
10/25/22
11 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Danielle Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 1:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; Clerk Mailbox; Council Mailbox Subject: Item 16.1

EXTERNAL
It is outrageous that staff‐ JingYeo, Rachel Kwok and all of Martin's department who worked on this, and have ignored the residents needs in favor of development and land‐use attorneys are concerned since they started working for this City. They have always bent over backwards to faciliate the projects of Rand,Nelson, Paster and Harding/ Larmore over the needs of our City. They only care about their salaries and too fat pensions. They all need to be fired, NOW.. every single person who worked on thisd, buried it in the massive document and failedt o alert Council in time. But what is wrong with Council and legal? These three awful sleazy lawyers formed this new agency in April to take advantage of the loophole. Tell me no one knew this? If not WHY NOT? I fully support this item and a stop to selling our City out by staff who can't do a thing but run it into the ground.

The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.

SMCLC and neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.

Item 16.I
10/25/22
12 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Danielle Charney
Fed up with it all
Do something for christ's sake
this is total bullshit
Item 16.I
10/25/22
13 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: henry antosz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 1:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject 16.1

EXTERNAL
My wife( Fran Ginsberg) and I as residents of Santa Monica whole heartedly support the action advocated in Agenda

16.1. Thank you, Henry Antosz
Item 16.I
10/25/22
14 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Evelyn salem <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Builder’sremedy

EXTERNAL
Allowing thousands of units without the proper environmental, earthquake, demands in traffic, utilities, public services, schools etc.would be sheer irresponsibility.

As persons responsible for our safety and quality of life you cannot allow this to happen.

Evelyn Salem
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.I
10/25/22
15 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Impact of Late Housing Element
From: Heather Gould <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2022 3:23 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Impact of Late Housing Element

EXTERNAL
Dear All…My family has lived in Santa Monica since 1966.

I read, with considerable dismay, the 10/13/22 article in the Santa Monica Daily Press about the late 2021 Housing Element revision and the 12 projects submitted during the builder’s remedy process.

How and why did this happen? (At best, it seems like an epic failure of communication.).

What are you doing about it?
Did the development at Lincoln and Ocean Park benefit from the late Housing Element and, if so, why the lack of transparency?
Thank you. Heather Gould
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.I
10/25/22
16 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: City Council this must be stopped
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 9:23 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council this must be stopped

EXTERNAL

October 17, 2022
Dear SMCLC Supporter,
At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element.

The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.

To say residents and council members are deeply concerned about this developer ambush and have questions that must be answered is an understatement. We need an immediate analysis of the legal options and remedies available to the City to respond to these filings, and to explore potential avenues to reject them.

This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city are already peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done to prevent this. They're also suggesting that building this much overwhelmingly marketItem 16.I 10/25/22
17 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 rate housing goes a long way to meet the State’s required affordable housing mandates.

But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the 6,168 affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly market-rate units by 2028!
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

SMCLC and neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.

If you agree, please write to the City Manager, David White, at [email protected], City Attorney [email protected], and City Council at [email protected] and support these actions.

Thank you,
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff

Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors to sign up for updates and join in our efforts.

Item 16.I
10/25/22
18 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Outrage at "builder's remedy"
From: Jeanne Laurie <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2022 10:54 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Cc: Zina Josephs <[email protected]>
Subject: Outrage at "builder's remedy"

EXTERNAL
October 16, 2022
To: Mayor Himmelrich, City Council members, and City Manager White From: Jeanne Laurie
Sunset Park
RE: Builder's remedy
It is time to listen to the people. We expect the city council to listen to the residents, not just developers, who don’t live in Santa Monica.

Santa Monica residents are extremely upset about the “builder’s remedy” permits that were recently filed for nearly 5,000 new housing units, in buildings as tall as 15 stories.

This is outrageous, goes against everything our 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element stood for, and takes away control over the future of our city.

We urge the City Council to hire outside legal counsel (with expertise in relevant land use laws) to conduct an independent review and then present the Council with options and remedies.

Our hope is that the remedies will include using applicable law to reject these proposed development projects.

Sent from Mail for Windows

Item 16.I
10/25/22
19 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Developers trying to ignore our zoning: Will the City rollover? From: Ed Harker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:08 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Developers trying to ignore our zoning: Will the City rollover?

EXTERNAL
I completely agree with SMCLC's complaint, Oct. 17, 2022, below.

Don't be ambushed and pushed around by windfall profit developers who have no interest in the quality of our lives here in Santa Monica. We are counting on you to serve your residents! Urgently,
Ed Harker
2029 20th St.
-----Original Message-----
From: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City <[email protected]> To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, Oct 17, 2022 9:10 am
Subject: Developers trying to ignore our zoning: Will the City rollover?

October 17, 2022
Dear SMCLC Supporter,
At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and Item 16.I
10/25/22
20 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element.

The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

SMCLC and neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.

If you agree, please write to the City Manager, David White, at [email protected], City Attorney [email protected], and City Council at [email protected] and support these actions.

Thank you,
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors to sign up for updates and join in our efforts.

Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City | 1112 Montana Ave. #174, Santa Monica, CA 90403 Item 16.I
10/25/22
21 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Unsubscribe [email protected]
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by [email protected] in collaboration with
Try email marketing for free today!
Item 16.I
10/25/22
22 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: development
From: a t <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:03 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: development

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I disagree with the City’s approach regarding the applications to build projects that exceed the city’s zoning heights and densities. These projects should not be allowed to proceed based on a technical loophole. Better to reject them and let this play out in court than have the city roll over and approve them despite the flagrant disregard of our final housing element which they represent.

Please do not drop the ball on this.

Thank you,
Andrew Turman
2715 Highland Ave
Santa Monica CA 90405
Item 16.I
10/25/22
23 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Developers trying to ignore our zoning:

From: Gavin Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:02 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Cc: Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Developers trying to ignore our zoning:

EXTERNAL
October 17, 2022

Dear Councilors and City Manager

We were shocked to learn that two developers have filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities,.

The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.

We need an immediate analysis of the legal options and remedies available to the City to respond to these filings, and to explore potential avenues to reject them.

We urge you not to take any further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of challenges to them under all applicable laws.

We also think you should hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of city planning staff have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.

We urge the Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.

Yours sincerely,
Gavin and Nicola Scott
1801 Marine Street
Santa Monica
CA 90405
Item 16.I
10/25/22
24 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Oct 25th Council meeting/ Don't ignore the zoning From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 9:52 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Oct 25th Council meeting/ Don't ignore the zoning

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am losing confidence in you, Mr. White and Mr. Sloan. We cannot ignore the zoning and we cannot let the developers steamroll us and set the rules!
Talk about being shocked!! I was floored to find out that two developers had filed 14 applications to build THOUSANDS of new housing units in Santa Monica! These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element. NO!!
The city needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

Please take action. I don't want to be "stuck" and when did developers start making decisions for us? So concerned!
Phyllis Chavez
Santa Monica
Item 16.I
10/25/22
25 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: over-development
From: Karla Klarin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 9:39 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: over‐development

EXTERNAL
PLEASE DO NOT LET DEVELOPERS DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH OUR CITY. They pocket big money and walk away to their homes in Malibu, Brentwood or wherever. They don't care if our city is crammed full of apartments, traffic and noise. They don't care if we don't have enough supermarkets (bye bye Gelsons). I do care. I've lived here most of my life, I've raised my children here and I care a lot.

Please take care of residents first and foremost.

Karla Klarin
‐‐
karlaklarin.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
26 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Massive ball drop needs correction
From: Gabrielle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 9:35 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Massive ball drop needs correction

EXTERNAL
Dear representatives,
As a long time resident of Sunset Park, I am saddened that no factual or legal analysis seems to be underway to counter the actions of the two developers that have submitted fourteen applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica that greatly exceed City height and density zoning regulations. I ask that you take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th. Please explore all options to reject these applications as these massive developments would be nothing but a blight on the Santa Monica community.

I am in agreement with the SMCLC that the following actions should be taken without delay:

I expect no less from you all,
Item 16.I
10/25/22
27 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
9 Gabrielle de Benedictis
1130 Pearl St., SM, 90405
Item 16.I
10/25/22
28 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Alarming Rapid Over-Development of our community From: Steve Gorlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:39 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>
Subject: Alarming Rapid Over‐Development of our community

EXTERNAL
To David White, Douglas Sloan, the Santa Monica City Council and whomever it may concern:

As a concerned resident, I have been shocked by the amount of real estate development going on as of late. But what is even more shocking is that the future development projects look as if they will result in the images from some dystopian fever dream.

If you care about Santa Monica then please do something about irresponsible quick decision over‐development of Santa Monica:

1. Take no further action to process any of recently filed applications pending a review of potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review indicates.)

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

We don't have to live by the false narrative that nothing can be done! South Pasadena stopped the freeway from being built through the city. We can oppose irrational zoning and building laws imposed on the city that don't make any sense for a livable future of Santa Monica.

Let's not let the city turn into this:

Item 16.I
10/25/22
29 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Sincerely,
Steven Gorlin
Santa Monica Resident
2228 3rd. St. Apt. 9
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.I
10/25/22
30 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: I Continue To Oppose The CIty's Over-Development and Seek Your Position on the Following Issues
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:33 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: I Continue To Oppose The CIty's Over‐Development and Seek Your Position on the Following Issues

EXTERNAL
Hi,
Have your positions on the proposals mentioned in this email available?:

Sincerely,
Burt Goldstein
SM Resident Since 1993
——
October 17, 2022
Dear SMCLC Supporter,
At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element.

The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.

This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city are already peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done to prevent this. They're also suggesting that building this much overwhelmingly market-rate housing goes a long way to meet the State’s required affordable housing mandates. But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the 6,168 affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly market-rate units by 2028! Item 16.I
10/25/22
31 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

SMCLC and neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.

If you agree, please write to the City Manager, David White, at [email protected], City Attorney [email protected], and City Council at [email protected] and support these actions.

Thank you,
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
Item 16.I
10/25/22
32 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: RE developers & 1,000s of new housing units in SM From: MEILISA THOMPSON <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:25 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]> Cc: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: RE developers & 1,000s of new housing units in SM

EXTERNAL
Hello Mr. White and Mr. Sloan,
We are family of four that has lived here for over 20 years–homeowners, graduates from SMASH, a valedictorian candidate and National Merit scholarship student from SAMO, the other a straight‐A and USTA‐ranked tennis player, a forensic and child psychiatrist, and an artist from Ten Woman Gallery on Main St.

The reasons to leave Santa Monica keep coming and seem to multiply... "two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica.” In our time, SM has welcomed crime so common every resident we know has been effected, inhumane care of mentally ill people wandering around, and LIES from developers building gigantic luxury buildings to meet some housing mandates...a law they backed (that apparently doesn't apply to all of SM fairly). "incomes above $1 million — residents who represent only about one-half of 1% of all tax returns filed in the state but collectively pay about 40% of all California personal income taxes.” (LA Times, 4/22) We do not plan to stay in Santa Monica because it's objectively not a nice place to live anymore.

Not sure how to say how we feel better than this:

Item 16.I
10/25/22
33 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Please take immediate action to restrict/reject recent application for overdevelopment of Santa Monica
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:19 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Please take immediate action to restrict/reject recent application for overdevelopment of Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
At last week’s Council meeting we (the residents of Santa Monica) were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element.

The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority. If this is true, how on earth did this come to pass and who is going to take responsibility for this error and how will they take corrective action to address this potentially huge blunder.

This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city are already peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done to prevent this. They're also suggesting that building this much overwhelmingly market-rate housing goes a long way to meet the State’s required affordable housing mandates. But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the 6,168 affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly market-rate units by 2028! Moreover, the high and rising vacancy rates in Santa Monica, both residential and commercial, clearly demonstrate that building more (particularly market-rate units) does not translate into higher housing rates and certainly, with such high commercial vacancies, translate into sustainable housing.

The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

Item 16.I
10/25/22
34 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
7 We are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.

Please give this outrageous situation your urgent, focused and persistent attention.

Thank you,
Ofer Grossman
1115 Hill Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 16.I
10/25/22
35 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: ZONING INFRACTIONS
From: Martyn Burke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:12 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: ZONING INFRACTIONS

EXTERNAL
Please NOT approve any development projects that contravene existing zoning regulations.

We do not want to become Miami Beach.

And especially no 15 story towers.

We are requesting from you:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

Martyn Burke
Laura Morton
Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica
Item 16.I
10/25/22
36 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Two developers - 14 applications - NO, FIGHT BACK From: Rachel Harms <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 12:04 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Two developers ‐ 14 applications ‐ NO, FIGHT BACK

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members

At last week’s Council meeting I was shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15‐story building).

I urge the City to take the following steps:

* Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review indicates.) * Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

I strongly agree with my local neighborhood groups and am appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred and am urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.

Sincerely,

Rachel Harms
28 year Santa Monica resident, homeowner, SM business owner, taxpayer and voter Item 16.I
10/25/22
37 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: housing development applications + zoming laws From: Lila Yomtoob <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:55 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: housing development applications + zoming laws

EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is Lila Yomtoob. I live in and manage a 6 unit apartment building here on 25th street near Broadway that belongs to my family. We have been in Santa Monica since 1988.

Today I received an email from SMCLC regarding the status of zoning and 14 applications that include a 15 story building.

I think you know of which I speak.

I urge you to closely consider what these developments will do to our city. From what it sounds like, they will not increase diversity, equity and quality of life ‐ things that every city and society needs right now.

I do hope you are poised to make decisions that are good for the collective future of our citizens, not just the pocketbooks of the wealthy.

Thank you for your time,
Lila
Lila Yomtoob
917‐887‐8535
Producer ‐ Transformative Hope: Asian American Elders Respond to Racism Executive Producer ‐ The Light Ahead
Writer/Director ‐ Ellie and Martina
www.yomtoob.com
(she/her)
Item 16.I
10/25/22
38 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Pending Building Projects
From: Eric Shapiro <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:19 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Pending Building Projects

EXTERNAL
I live (and own a condo) on Yale Street near Colorado Ave.

I am worried about the 3,968 housing units that are scheduled to be built in the city. Two of those projects are a 12 story and a 15 story project that will have a devastating impact on my street.

As I understand it this situation exists because the City sent in a defective housing plan to the State. I suggest that the City find a means to undo the damage and that the City investigate how an unacceptable housing plan was filed.

Thank you,
Eric Shapiro
Item 16.I
10/25/22
39 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Development in Santa Monica
From: Stanley Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:12 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Development in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
At last week’s Council meeting I was appalled to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element.

The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

Stanley Rubin (40 year resident of Santa Monica)
2522 Washington Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 16.I
10/25/22
40 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Developers Application to build thousands of new housing From: Bridget Terry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:48 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Developers Application to build thousands of new housing

EXTERNAL
At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element.

The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.

To say residents and council members are deeply concerned about this developer ambush and have questions that must be answered is an understatement.We need an immediate analysis of the legal options and remedies available to the City to respond to these filings, and to explore potential avenues to reject them.

The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

Please employ these steps as of the next city council.

Bridget Terry
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16.I
10/25/22
41 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Insane overdevelopment
From: Thunder Levin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:41 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Insane overdevelopment

EXTERNAL
I stand with SMCLC and other community groups in opposing the latest spate of outsized housing developments that violate city zoning ordinances. I urge the city to hire outside counsel to explore all legal avenues to stop these developments that will destroy our community.

Santa Monica is already overbuilt with unaffordable housing. The city should allow ONLY affordable housing units to be built from this time forward. If necessary, stand against the literally insane state mandates and developer overreach, not only in court, but on the ground. Utilize SMPD and whatever other forces at your disposal to physically prevent construction of any developments that do not meet Santa Monica zoning and codes.

This is our last gasp. If we don’t stop this now, Santa Monica will become just Downtown L.A. West. We cannot allow that. If you must physically stand against the state with force, then that’s what you must do. You’ve already allowed this disaster to proceed much too far. It’s time to draw a line in our increasingly paved over sand. THIS FAR – NO MORE.

With kindest regards,

Thunder Levin
2407 Fourth St. #7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310‐392‐8331
310‐999‐1831 cell
[email protected]

Virus-free.www.avast.com
Item 16.I
10/25/22
42 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Builder's remedy development applications may not be valid From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 2:25 PM
To: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Cc: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Subject: Builder's remedy development applications may not be valid

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Per the Santa Monica Lookout article copied below, in February 2022 the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) found that the Housing Element the City submitted was not in compliance and gave it until October 15, 2022 to comply. The City's Housing Element was approved by the State on October 14, 2022 before the October 15 deadline. Therefore it is my opinion that any builder's remedy development applications submitted before October 15, 2022 are not valid and should not be approved. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
_____________________________________
City Officials Caught Off Guard by Flurry of Development Submissions

By Jorge Casuso
October 13, 2022 ‐‐ Santa Monica's biggest housing provider has rushed plans into the City's development pipeline to build more than 4,000 units that require little public input, dealing a massive blow to local slow‐growth activists who were caught off guard by the move.

The City Council's failure to submit a compliant Housing Element to State officials by last year's October deadline paved the way for WSC and NMS Properties to submit plans over the past several weeks to build 11 mostly high‐rise buildings that bypass the City's zoning code and general plan.

The proposed projects, as well as another by a different developer, add a total 3,968 units, 829 of them affordable.

About half would be in a 15‐story residential tower at 330 Nebraska Avenue with 1,600 market rate units and 400 Item 16.I
10/25/22
43 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 affordable units.

Attorney Dave Rand, who represents NMS and WSC, said plans for two more projects were turned in on Thursday before the final deadline on Saturday for the City to submit the revised Housing Element approved by the Council Tuesday.

Mayor Sue Himmelrich sees a positive side to the proposals, which include 20 percent affordable housing and have alarmed slow‐growth activists and been celebrated by housing advocates. "If I don't sound as upset, it's because these (proposed projects) have more affordable housing than anything we (the City) could do," Himmelrich said. "If you don't mind affordable housing, it's not as horrible as they say." The developers' rush to meet Friday's filing deadline caught Councilmember Phil Brock, who leads the slow‐growth Change faction on the Council, by surprise.
"We're all just taken aback," Brock said Thursday. "Obviously I was like, 'What the hell.' Why didn't they tell us as a Council so we could do something to combat this."
Brock said he only learned on Thursday about the "builder's remedy" provision in State law that allows developers of projects with 20 percent of the units affordable to lower‐income households to bypass the City's zoning laws if the Housing Element is not in compliance.

Some slow‐growth activists have "searched reports for housing (issued) for the last ten months and nobody has mentioned the 'builder's remedy,'" Brock said. "It was a non issue." Mayor Himmelrich counters that the Council had been informed by City staff of the provision in the State's Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and the consequences of failing to submit a certified Housing Element. "We knew about the developer's remedy," she said. "We knew that it was a possibility they would be able to do that. All the cities knew the biggest weapon were these developer remedies." Ironically, the developers' use of the "builder's remedy" is the direct result of the Council's efforts to rely on non‐profit housing providers using City‐owned land and homeowners adding auxiliary rental units to meet its State‐mandated housing quota ("Council Cautiously Approves Housing Plan," October 13, 2021).

The five Council members who approved the Housing Element last October ‐‐ including Himmelrich and Brock ‐‐ were trying to avoid relying on private developers that provide "inclusionary units" in large market‐rate projects.

The plan ‐‐ which was opposed by Councilmembers Gleam Davis and Kristin McCowan ‐‐ backfired.

In February, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) found that the Housing Element the City submitted was not in compliance and gave it until October 15 to comply ("City's Housing Element Fails to Comply," February 11, 2022).

Rand, whose advice became highly sought by developers this week after counseling NMS and WSC, said City staff members have repeatedly advised the Planning Commission and City Council about the consequences of not complying, although the colloquial term "builder's remedy" was not used. "Staff has addressed this every step of the way that this is a consequence," said Rand, a land use attorney with Rand Pastor & Nelson LLP. "This consequence has been at the top of the list. There were absolutely warnings." Rand said the projects submitted by NMS and WSC, if approved, will give a major boost to Santa Monica's efforts to Item 16.I
10/25/22
44 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 build affordable housing, although only the initial step has been taken. "This is a huge amount of affordable housing," he said. "It's a huge dent that doesn't require a huge subsidy and public land. It's a massive public benefit."
Rand noted that although the proposed projects are not in the Coastal Zone, which requires a much more onerous approval process, the projects still have a long way before they can be built. "If these are to be built, there's a lot that has to happen," Rand said. "For those that are concerned, the sky is not falling."
Item 16.I
10/25/22
45 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Developers Rampant
From: Phyllis Sorter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 3:40 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Developers Rampant

EXTERNAL
As a lifelong resident of Santa Monica, I am appalled that city officials who ought to protect the interests of Santa Monica residents are allowing themselves to be played by developers who are rushing to create a mini‐Manhattan in our little beach city. (15 stories, really?). The city’s failure to follow through on the Housing Element last year opened the door to the trickster developers, but that failure should not be compounded by throwing up your hands, saying “There’s nothing we can do about it.” Outside legal counsel with the competence to deal with this situation should be hired, and in the meanwhile, the city should not go along docilely with the developers’ schemes. Apart from the loss of neighborhood‐serving businesses, such as those at the corner of Ocean Park and Lincoln, how will the city’s independent water supply survive under this onslaught? The best think that can be said is that it came to light before the upcoming election so that residents can consider who is competent to run this city.

Phyllis Johnston
143 Hart Avenue
Santa Monica
Item 16.I
10/25/22
46 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Stop pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city From: girltunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 2:38 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Stop pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city

EXTERNAL
(sorry for duplicate - I forgot to add subject heading in previous email) I stand with Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City regarding the following urgent concerns:

At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element.

The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.

This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city are already peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done to prevent this. They're also suggesting that building this much overwhelmingly market-rate housing goes a long way to meet the State’s required affordable housing mandates. But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the 6,168 affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly market-rate units by 2028!
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

Item 16.I
10/25/22
47 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
6 We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.

SMCLC and neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.
==========
Additionally, the fact that we don't have the water to provide for all of these new projects should be taken into account and therefore warrant a halt to any new housing construction until adequate water resources are available.

Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Item 16.I
10/25/22
48 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw:

From: girltunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 2:32 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject:

EXTERNAL
I stand with Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City regarding the following urgent concerns:

The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.

This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city are already peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done to prevent this. They're also suggesting that building this much overwhelmingly market-rate housing goes a long way to meet the State’s required affordable housing mandates. But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the 6,168 affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly market-rate units by 2028!
The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

Item 16.I
10/25/22
49 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8 We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.

Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Item 16.I
10/25/22
50 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
9 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: question
From: Andy Liberman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:58 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: question

EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Council:

Of the 5,000 new apartments said to be added to Santa Monica, what percentage are for low and moderate income units?
Thanks.

Andrew Liberman
Santa Monica resident
Item 16.I
10/25/22
51 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
10 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: The Destruction of My Home Town
From: A Crown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 1:25 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: The Destruction of My Home Town

EXTERNAL
I am a native resident homeowner, and I am disgusted with my so‐called governors. The rampant and unregulated over‐ development in Santa Monica is thoroughly unacceptable and unsustainable.

I support SMCLC's position regarding the recent developer dump of building applications:

The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

If no remedy is found to curtail this further giveaway to self‐serving and sociopathic developers, Santa Monica will not only be known around the world as The Home of the Homeless, but as The City That Sold Itself Out to the One Percent.

Sincerely,
Alvin Crown
2344 30th St, 90405
Item 16.I
10/25/22
52 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
11 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Overdevelopment
From: Carol Skowlund <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 12:32 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Overdevelopment

EXTERNAL
Please, please stop the overdevelopment in our city.

Thank you,
Carol Skowlund
Sent from my iPhone
Item 16.I
10/25/22
53 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: 14 New applications for housing by developers in Santa Monica From: Sally Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 10:41 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: 14 New applications for housing by developers in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear council members,
Please read the letter I recently received from SMCLC, dated Oct 17.

Rightly so, SMCLC and neighborhood groups such as my own, Sunset Park, are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.

Sincerely,
Warren Allen
1011 Pine St
Item 16.I
10/25/22
54 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Approval of too many Residential Buildings From: Madi Hertz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:17 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Approval of too many Residential Buildings

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
At this time, our city has had enough. For years, we have been the butt of roughshod practices by the developers, who only worry about how they can make a profit. They are using the bogus state mandate, which we should have fought originally, to roll over the city zoning laws and get what they want. This has accelerated in recent years and now has reached an apex.

They do not have the city's residents at heart. No developer ever does! With that in mind, please do the following:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

Thank you,
Madeleine Hertz
2326 California Ave.
949-412-4118
Item 16.I
10/25/22
55 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Developers trying to ignore our zoning: Will the City rollover? From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 9:09 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Developers trying to ignore our zoning: Will the City rollover?

EXTERNAL
Ladies and Gentlemen:

My Santa Monica neighbors and I totally agree with SMCLC's opinions below. Immediately hire experienced outside legal counsel and stop these outrageous actions by developers.

Kay Ward
Dr. Eleanor Blumenberg
-----Original Message-----
From: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City <[email protected]> To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, Oct 17, 2022 9:10 am
Subject: Developers trying to ignore our zoning: Will the City rollover?

Item 16.I
10/25/22
56 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

SMCLC and neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.

If you agree, please write to the City Manager, David White, at [email protected], City Attorney [email protected], and City Council at [email protected] and support these actions.

Thank you,
Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors to sign up for updates and join in our efforts.

Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City | 1112 Montana Ave. #174, Santa Monica, CA 90403 Unsubscribe [email protected]
Item 16.I
10/25/22
57 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
5 Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by [email protected] in collaboration with
Try email marketing for free today!
Item 16.I
10/25/22
58 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw:

From: Edna Torbati <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 4:31 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject:

EXTERNAL
My name is Edna Torbati and residing in Santa Monica for more than 36 years. This town is completely different than before and so much traffic and full of homelessness and makes it difficult to live here . Please stop more building and higher prices and 15th story buildings. I really appreciate it if considering it thanks Item 16.I
10/25/22
59 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Developers Ignoring City Zoning requirements From: Rebecca Nunnelee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 7:10 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Developers Ignoring City Zoning requirements

EXTERNAL
I respectfully ask that you take immediate action to stop developers who have recently filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica, most of which are for projects which exceed the City’s zoning heights and densities.

Please do the following:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

As a long-time resident of Santa Monica (over 30 years), I have become increasingly concerned about the issue of overdevelopment and the disappearing skyline. These disrespectful and greedy developers have come to believe they can do anything they want in the City of Santa Monica - encountering no restraints if they persist long enough.

Please take this threat seriously!
Sincerely
Rebecca Nunnelee
Item 16.I
10/25/22
60 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Acting on Developers ignoring our zoning
From: Judith Claire <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 6:21 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Acting on Developers ignoring our zoning

EXTERNAL
Hi City Council Members,
I just received an alarming email from SMCLC stating that 2 developers are planning to build projects that exceed our City’s zoning height and density. They’re claiming our City’s Housing element wasn’t approved by the State last year, so we’ve lost our zoning authority.

I was shocked to hear statements were made by city planning staff that we are stuck. I don’t know who these people are, or if it’s just one person who is or isn’t competent.

This also brings up the question if our City Council, or those involved in putting together the Housing element just moseyed along and ignored the deadline and if the legal team did not flag the consequences of not submitting on time.

Or if the developers are just toxic and trying to create a greedy loophole that doesn’t exist. I request an investigation into who or what created this colossal mess.

Nevertheless, here we are. We fight a lot of things, like the airport and voting by district. This is important This is something we need to fight, despite what someone on the planning staff said. Please hire the experienced outside counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable state laws to reject these applications.

Sincerely,
Judith Claire
Item 16.I
10/25/22
61 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
9 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Need for legal counsel for 14 development projects From: Suzanne Verge <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 4:40 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Need for legal counsel for 14 development projects

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmembers,
We need answers regarding the recently submitted 14 development projects.

The City needs to immediately to take steps to restore our confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

Thank you for being a public servant and representing our city, Suzanne Verge
Resident of Santa Monica
[email protected]
Item 16.I
10/25/22
62 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Developer Applications
From: Sandy Weisman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 12:55 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Developer Applications

EXTERNAL
Dear Mr. White, Mr. Sloan and City Council members,
It’s incredibly discouraging to see our city being destroyed literally on a daily basis by the unsustainable growth you are allowing to happen.

You have a duty to find every resource available to reject these most recent developer applications. As recommended by SMCLC:

The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

Sincerely,
Sandra Weisman
1102 11th St.

Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 16.I
10/25/22
63 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Last Week's City Council Meeting
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 4:01 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Last Week's City Council Meeting

EXTERNAL
It has come to the attention of SM residents that at last week’s Council meeting two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element Neighborhood groups are appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.

1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential challenges to them under all applicable laws.

2.Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

SM citizens believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.

Thank you.

Gary Landi, long time SM resident.

Item 16.I
10/25/22
64 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Concerned with Recent Real Estate Projects that Exceed SM's Zoning Laws From: Will von Bernuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 3:49 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerned with Recent Real Estate Projects that Exceed SM's Zoning Laws

EXTERNAL
To David White, Douglas Sloan, and the Santa Monica City Council:

I recently learned that two developers submitted 14 applications to build thousands of units across multiple complexes that exceed Santa Monica's zoning laws. Including one filing for a 15 story building. As a long time Santa Monica resident, this concerns me greatly.

I urge the city to seriously look into these applications and not let them move forward without proper investigation. To that end I would like to see the city do two things:

1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential challenges to them under all applicable laws.

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

I know some in the city government believe these developments and others are foregone conclusions but isn't that what the city government is for? To protect the interest of its residents and not those of outside parties? To make sure Santa Monica is developed in a sustainable and livable way? To serve as a central point of singular, thoughtful, and powerful advocacy where an individual resident could not? Otherwise, what is the point of the city government? To that end, it is the city's duty to investigate these issues fully and not simply deem them a foregone conclusion.

I hope to hear a positive update on this matter soon as I know myself and many other Santa Monica residents are very concerned with the issue.

Regards,
Will von Bernuth
Item 16.I
10/25/22
65 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Another Developer Attack?
From: Philip Schwartz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 3:16 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Another Developer Attack?

EXTERNAL
At last week’s Council meeting I was shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15‐story building) and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element.

The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review indicates.) Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

Respectfully,
Philip D Schwartz, Treasurer
909‐911 Arizona Ave. HOA
Item 16.I
10/25/22
66 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: New Builder's Remedy Development Projects
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]> Subject: New Builder's Remedy Development Projects

EXTERNAL
To all Santa Monica City Council Members
CC: David White, City Manager; Douglas Sloan, City Attorney I write to you as a 35‐year homeowner and resident of Santa Monica to voice my strong objections to the massive new development projects that have evaded our City’s standards and controls through the “Builder’s Remedy” application process.

According to recent news reports, three projects of 15 stories, 12 stories and 11 stories already have been approved under this process. The height and density of these projects are outrageous. Another nine projects are reported to be trying to squeeze through before our City gets a Housing Element approved by the State.

Not only will these horrendous projects drastically change the character of our small beach city, they will significantly worsen the quality of life for us residents. Each of the 4,800 new units to be built by these projects will require water, power,sewer and garbage services, as well as police, fire and ambulance services. And each will generate more traffic onto our already‐crowded streets. We residents will be the onesto suffer the overload.

The State hastaken over our City and our rights of choice because we did not respond in time with an acceptable housing plan.

How did this happen? Our Council owes usresidents an answer.

It would appear that perhaps our City Council was not aware of this arcane “Builder’s Remedy” loophole. Yet, developers knew. Ifso, I would fault our City Attorney for not adequately advising the Council and now we are all left to suffer for this omission. If thisisthe case, I would suggest that the City Attorney and other lead attorneysin his office be immediately dismissed and replaced with more capable counsel.

And I urge City Council to energetically challenge and resist the development of these “Builder Remedy” projects.

Faustino Garza
Item 16.I
10/25/22
67 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
6 Sunset Park
Item 16.I
10/25/22
68 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: More Big Developer Shenanigans
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 4:30 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: More Big Developer Shenanigans

EXTERNAL

October 18, 2022
Dear Santa Monica City Council Member,
Obviously, this was copied and pasted from an email I received from the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City. Whilst my political leanings are distinctly progressive, my passion to preserve the quiet, friendly Santa Monica to which I moved nearly forty years ago is emphatically retrogressive.

The developers claim that they can proceed because the City’s Housing Element wasn’t approved by the State last year so Santa Monica has allegedly “lost” its zoning authority.

This is even more urgent because those who are pushing rapid, unsustainable development in our city are already peddling the false narrative that nothing can be done to prevent this. They're also suggesting that building this much overwhelmingly market-rate housing goes a long way to meet the State’s required affordable housing mandates. But it doesn’t – providing only 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the 6,168 affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly market-rate units by 2028! The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

1. Take no further action to process any of these filed applications pending a review of potential challenges to them under all applicable laws (if they are impermissible, as SMCLC’s initial review indicates.)
Item 16.I
10/25/22
69 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
8 2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

I believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.

Your constituent,
Ted Myers
1610 California Ave.

B
Santa Monica, CA 90403

Item 16.I
10/25/22
70 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
9 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica.

From: Brian (3ribG) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 3:14 PM
To: Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica.

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern:

The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

Outrageous. We are so overwhelmed with development. The city must stop this.

Brian P. Juarez

Item 16.I
10/25/22
71 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
10 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica.

From: Kathy Corvo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 2:29 PM
To: Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica.

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern:

The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications. We believe outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though they massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.

Outrageous. We are so overwhelmed with development. The city must stop this.

Kathy Corvo
Item 16.I
10/25/22
72 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: NMS/WS 16 Projects
From: Danielle Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 11:35 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>
Subject: NMS/WS 16 Projects

EXTERNAL
It is outrageous that this has been allowed ‐ and
oddly probably helped by Staff to happen.
every single one of these people ‐ everyone involved needs to be vetted‐ fired and denied their
pensions ..
no excuses.. staff has been allowed by Council.
to run this City literally into the ground..
stop this any way you can.. let it go to lawsuits ..
just stop it and fire everyone involved..
every single person in Planning needs to go
who failed us..

Danielle Charney
Item 16.I
10/25/22
73 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Lauren Akmaeva <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 6:07 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica ‐ Agenda item 16. I

Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
As a Santa Monica resident, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Lauren Akmaeva
201 San Vicente Blvd Apt 17 Santa Monica, CA 90402‐1530 [email protected]
Item 16.I
10/25/22
74 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Hire Outside Counsel
From: George Ferrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 9:25 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Hire Outside Counsel

EXTERNAL
At the next meeting of the City Council the Council should vote to hire outside counsel to determine how the city can prevent the proposed construction that does not meet existing zoning requirement that the city attorney and manager says must be allowed because of the botched Housing-Element application. This fiasco results from the incompetence of the city manager and city attorney. Obviously the city council can no longer rely on either of these employees to provide competent service to our city. Both should be fired, and outside counsel should be hired until competent leadership can take over. These two are in way over their heads.

George Ferrell
338 15th Street
Item 16.I
10/25/22
75 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Michael Etzel <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 5:26 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica ‐ Agenda item 16. I

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation! Personally sent by Michael Etzel
Sincerely,
Michael Etzel
2400 Beverley Ave Santa Monica, CA 90405‐3761
[email protected]
Item 16.I
10/25/22
76 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Cynthia Clemons <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 4:11 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica ‐ Agenda item 16. I

Sincerely,
Cynthia Clemons
5000 San Vicente Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90019‐2914
[email protected]
Item 16.I
10/25/22
77 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Gelson's Development
From: Mary De La Rosa <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 9:50 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Gelson's Development

EXTERNAL
Please work tirelessly to undo the horrible situation you have created. Environmental and social impact is disastrous.

Climate change is real. Water shortage is real. Overdevelopment and overbuildling is not acceptable in our community.. We do not want it. Why aren't you listening to the voters. I know the state is demanding more housing, but you failed to circumvent and appeal their ruling. Now you must act and do whatever you have to do to remedy this situation.
‐‐
Mary De La Rosa
Item 16.I
10/25/22
78 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Developers trying to ignore SMC zoning
From: MARA GOTTESMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 1:33 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Developers trying to ignore SMC zoning

EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the City Council,
I was disturbed to read about this:
"At last week’s Council meeting we were shocked to learn that two developers had filed 14 applications to build thousands of new housing units in Santa Monica. These applications are for projects that greatly exceed our City's zoning heights and densities, (one is for a 15-story building) and comes just as the City Council was finalizing its revised Housing Element."
"... 20% of these units as affordable. To meet the 6,168 affordable mandate, our City would have to approve 30,000 mainly market-rate units by 2028!"
As you are undoubtedly aware, Santa Monica is already overcrowded and is bogged down in excessive traffic and is dealing with increased crime rates. Not to mention dwindling resources, where will the city get more water to support such a large increase in population?
I agree with neighborhood groups who believe an outside counsel review is necessary because of statements made by City planning staff who have told council members as well as the press that we’re stuck with these projects even though they exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows and ignore relevant state law.

Please support this idea and help stop the destruction of our beautiful little city by greedy outside developers who have no interest in the smooth functioning of the city.

Mara Gottesman
City resident for over 42 years
Item 16.I
10/25/22
79 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: read Ted Winterer email below from 2015 re NMS (now WS) history -- also see the attachment re monies "No on LV" contributions Date: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:34:42 PM
From: Sherry Martini <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 8:29 PM
To: Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
Cc: Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Karen Croner <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Jon Katz <[email protected]>; Jing Yeo <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Residocracy <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Da Lacounty Info <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: read Ted Winterer email below from 2015 re NMS (now WS) history -- also see the attachment re monies "No on LV" contributions

EXTERNAL
YIMBY website advising current/ future developers how to use the "builder's remedy" and even offering FUNDING:. Better Call Saul folks.
"We can connect you to investors who want to fund Builders Remedy projects. Please fill out our form, and also email [email protected]."
But and paste below and full link attached below.

Is this even legal for a lobbyist group to connect future developers to investors. What are the names of the investors who will help fund the development? Housing Element
Compliance — Campaign f...

DO
HOW DO I USE IT?
Standard SB 330 application. Many cities have their own applications, but they all collect the same information.

Include a letter with your application that explains that you are aware this is a Builder’s Remedy project. Here is a sample letter, from us, that you can adapt.

Item 16.I
10/25/22
80 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
YIMBY Law Builders Remedy Notice
{date} Dear Local Municipality, YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 nonprofit corporation, whose mission is to increase th...

Submit information about your project to us here. Make sure to indicate that it is a Builder’s Remedy project, and we will also send a letter to the city, basically the same as your letter, letting the city know that we are tracking their processing of your project.

Submit a project — YIMBY Law
Nominate Project
Item 16.I
10/25/22
81 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
Many ABAG cities, including San Francisco and Palo Alto, are NOT on track for compliance. We expect these cities to be out of compliance starting February 1, 2023 and they will stay out of compliance at least until May 2023, and probably much longer."
FUNDING IS AVAILABLE:

We can connect you to investors who want to fund Builders Remedy projects. Please fill out our form, and also email [email protected].

Builders Remedy — YIMBY Law
Builders Remedy — YIMBY Law
On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 11:20:03 AM PDT, Sherry Martini <[email protected]> wrote:

And as to future harm that may be caused by these mandates - beyond NMS we now have CYPRESS. I ask that you read below which I copied from Cypress' webpage a few months back where they brag about capitalizing on the 2006-2008 housing crisis.

Anyone who is part of Santa Monica Forward (and maybe you are not, I don't know) is helping these folks? Can you not see a problem with the statements from the Cypress website posted below? How can we make sure that we don't have another NMS MONOPOLY in our City.

Item 16.I
10/25/22
82 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
Can you understand how new council members might not have had enough information and that rather than blaming them you will fight to protect our city from folks like NMS and others who brag about capitalizing on a prior housing crisis? I don't know who to blame. I don't blame the City. I don't blame the council members. The whole thing is a big bag of wrong. I just want to try and fix it so that NMS and folks like them don't completely destroy our city while they seek riches and power.

Will you join me?
---- Forwarded Message -----
From: Sherry Martini <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Leonora Camner <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Phil Brock
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Corey Smith <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Editor santamonicalookout.com <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022, 09:29:20 AM PST
Subject: Just heard Cypress Equity will be working on "done deal" Gelson's project Mayor Sue and hopefully Councilperson Lana will take a deep look at this:

Just heard that Cypress Equity (also known as CEI) is going to be working with Balboa on the massive Gelson's project which five TEN STORY units with only 53 "deed restricted" units and the remaining 468 to be "market rate'.

Then I went to Cypress site and found that they have SIX MORE projects lined up in Santa Monica which I've cut and copied from their website, lest it disappear, after sending this. You might want to look quick as there are photos of the properties, which I assume, like the Gelson's project, are a "done deal". Most have only a tiny amount of "deed restricted" housing and one is 200 units with 384 parking spaces (how is that helping climate change?) and 21 "deed restricted" units. Some of these six projects have "off site deed restricted" units, which feels like a form of segregation of the very wealthy who will be able to afford these stated luxury units vs. the "money challenged" who will live in the supposed deed restricted units.

I am hoping you did a little research on the CEO of Cypress. I did. Here is some of his background from his own webpage: Again, look fast because it's alarming and I would think he would want to change it asap. I've printed out the pages though so, if you need a copy I can send to you.

His below bio posted on the Cypress Equity page does not sound like someone who cares about folks struggling with housing. It sounds like he is someone who boasts about profiting from folks struggling with housing-- like those who lost their homes "in the hardest hit areas of the country" during the crash of 2008. When I read that, my heart skipped a beat -- literally. And based on Sorochinsky's stated claim to having a "development pipeline of over 9,000 luxury apartments with projected value in excess of $5 Billion" [bolding emphasis added] it is clear his focus is on profits, not those struggling with housing.
"Michael Sorochinsky Founder & Chief Executive Officer
As Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Michael Sorochinsky is the visionary of CEI and the driving force behind the company’s real estate portfolio. Michael’s investment strategies, business philosophy, and transaction execution diligence has brought about substantial annualized returns to equity.

From 2001 through 2005 Michael focused CEI’s investments in the value-add multifamily space, purchasing over 70 properties comprising of 3,500 apartment units and retail.

In late 2006, Michael began to notice significant stress on the credit markets and by 2007 advised his partners to start selling properties. Under Michael’s leadership, CEI successfully sold approximately 80% of its portfolio for significant gains prior to the crash of 2008. In 2008 through 2010, Michael focused CEI’s investments on purchasing blocks of distressed single family homes in some of the hardest hit areas in the country as well as investing in real estate related operating companies.

In 2010, before large numbers of developers jumped into the multifamily development game, Michael saw an opportunity to build Class A apartments in top cities around the US and led CEI to amass a development pipeline of over 9,000 luxury apartments with Item 16.I
10/25/22
83 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22

SANTA MONICA, CA
114 Residential Units 8,800 SF. of Retail Space

SANTA MONICA, CA
71 Residential Units 3,700 SF. of Retail Space

SANTA MONICA, CA
200 Residential Units 8,100 SF. of Retail Space

SANTA MONICA, CA
46 Residential Units 4,600 SF. of Retail Space
The proposed project consists of a 5-story mixed-use building across two structures including 200 residential units (including 21 deed-restricted affordable units), ground floor neighborhood-serving retail space, and 3 levels of subterranean parking with 384 total parking spaces and 301 total bicycle parking spaces. The proposed height of the project is 58 feet. 2025 WILSHIRE
The proposed project consists of a 4-story mixed-use building including 71 residential units (including 11 off site deed-restricted affordable units), ground floor neighborhood-serving retail space, and 2 levels of subterranean parking with 143 total parking spaces and 91 total bicycle parking spaces. The proposed height of the project is 50 feet.
234 PICO
The proposed project consists of a 5-story mixed-use building including 114 residential units (including 8 onsite deed-restricted affordable units and 21 offsite deed-restricted affordable units), ground floor neighborhood-serving retail space, and 1 level of subterranean parking with 98 total parking spaces and 192 total bicycle parking spaces. The proposed height of the project is 50 feet.
1902 WILSHIRE
projected value in excess of $5 Billion in ten top Markets." [bold emphasis added] Anyway, look at the additional Cypress projects in the pipeline listed below (copied and pasted from Cypress' website), and consider then in addition to the massive 500 units or so at Gelson's where Cypress will partner with Balboa. Go to the Cypress website link posted below and look at the pictures of this projects while they are still there.

I also fear that Cypress will become like NMS (now WS or whatever they call themselves), developing a monopoly in our city that will drive the "market rate" even higher than it is now, which is more than a low or middle income person or family can afford. But this will definitely bring more folks with lots of disposable income into the City for the tech and similar markets and as has occurred since 2017, drive more and more people into homelessness and housing insecurity, deprive elderly and families with children of green open spaces and fresh air, and with all the new parking spaces (totalling far more than the actual apartment count), create more greenhouse gases in a very small area. [Note to Councilman Lana to start: I really appreciated your very earnest take on Leonora and I agree with you that she is well-intentioned. But I feel she has not done the research. Please do your own research. Go find those "deed restricted units" within the multitude of luxury housing that has gone up. Go find out what they are charging for "market rate" rents in those units. Look at their advertising online -- much of it is discriminatory in nature. Also, if all these folks are paid to advocate for these wealthy developers under the name of "affordable housing", they are lobbyists. They just are.]
1537 LINCOLN
On Thursday, October 20,
2022 at 10:51:31 AM PDT,
Sherry Martini
Item 16.I
10/25/22
84 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22

SANTA MONICA, CA
40 Residential Units 6,338 SF. of Retail Space

SANTA MONICA, CA
82 Residential Units 18,000 SF. of Retail Space
2501 Wilshire is located at the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and 25th Street in Santa Monica. Located in a prime residential neighborhood, the project is directly adjacent to Douglas Park and surrounded by trendy restaurants and bars. Additionally, the beautiful Santa Monica beaches are accessible via a short drive or leisurely bike ride.

The community will feature 70 multifamily residences consisting of studio, one-, two- and three-bedroom apartment homes, with an additional 12 luxury townhomes. Apartment interiors are equipped with best-in-class finishes and high-end appliances. The amenities will include a rooftop deck, two interior courtyards, a community room, and community serving retail on the ground floor.

And opponents cannot place the project at Lincoln and Ocean Park boulevards -- which includes 468 market rate and 53 affordable units -- before local voters as a referendum, since no legislative action will be taken.

Cypress Equity Investments - Real Estate Projects
Cypress Equity Investments - Real Estate Projects
CEI has been executing ground-up and value-add real estate projects 601 Wilshire is located at the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and 6th Street in Santa Monica’s highly desirable downtown neighborhood. The community is surrounded by boutique shops, trendy restaurants and is a short drive from the beautiful Santa Monica beaches.

The community features 40 residences, consisting of studio, one-, two- and three-bedroom apartment homes. Apartment interiors are equipped with bestin-class finishes and high-end appliances. The amenities include an expansive rooftop deck with views of the ocean, self-serve package room, coworking area, pet spa and central courtyard. 2501 WILSHIRE
The proposed project consists of a 4-story mixed-use building including 46 residential units (including 7 off site deed-restricted affordable units), ground floor neighborhood-serving retail space, and 2 levels of subterranean parking with 101 total parking spaces and 86 total bicycle parking spaces. The proposed height of the project is 42 feet.
601 WILSHIRE
Item 16.I
10/25/22
85 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
in all asset classes, with primary focus on
Cypress Equity Investments - Real Estate Projects
CEI has been executing ground-up and value-add real estate projects in all asset classes, with primary focus on ...
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning Ted,
I just read your letter to the Santa Monica Outlook where you infer that it was abundantly clear that if we did not approve a housing element by a date and time certain NMS et al could do pretty much anything they wanted in this city as long as it was at least 80/20% affordable and in proper zone. You quote ONE sentence from the staff report as evidence:
“the City could lose control over certain land use decisions related to housing projects if it fails to adopt or maintain a compliant housing element.”
Ted, do you believe that one sentence in possibly hundreds of pages of a staff report is an adequate written warning of what just happened?
Then you state:
"In addition, if one watches the video of that meeting, at about the 36-minute mark Planning Manager Jing Yeo showed a PowerPoint slide with this warning about producing a non-compliant document: 'Failure to implement Housing Element still allows housing projects with at least 20% affordable units to proceed even if they exceed Zoning/LUCE.'"
Ted, so one Power Point Slide and the wording within it is sufficient to warn council members of just happened? You then say, "And of course Ms. Yeo noted this possibility in her accompanying oral presentation." What exactly did she say? I'm not sure why you did not provide that as well, because I understand it was quite short. What needed to be said was if you don't approve this by such and such an EXACT date and EXACT time then developers WILL BE ALLOWED (not "could" per the one sentence in the staff report) to build ANYTHING they want in the city, no matter what, as long as it is 80%/20% affordable and in the right zone.

Since you took the time to write a public letter, why don't you provide us also with the EXACT LANGUAGE that Ms. Yeo provided to counsel along with the one sentence in the staff report and the one slide. I think that's important for anyone writing a public letter accusing folks.

Ted, you then further infer that we should have relied on Leonora Camner, the paid head of Abundant Housing LA, who does not deny that she would like Santa Monica to be full of high rises like "Tokyo" -- she confirmed that to me in person when I met with her, and Carl Hansen, earlier this year.
"One can go back even further and find this correspondence from a housing advocacy group attached to the June 15th, 2021 staff report: 'Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, cities without a compliant housing element lose the ability to deny 20% below-market-rate (BMR) projects on the basis of local zoning.'" Relying on Leonora or YIMY groups for accurate information -- even if it was accurate this time -- is like relying on any agenda-ized group. You only get their take and not the full story. It's like relying on Santa Monica Next or Santa Monica Observed for real news. They always tell only their agenda and neglect anything that does not serve them.

Ted, below are some email discussions re had re NMS, which I think exhibit how hard it was for you and council to navigate the Item 16.I
10/25/22
86 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
complex issues presented re NMS, etc.

And based on the past with NMS, some of which you document below, I think we need to join other cities in suing re the mandates. It's really no different than the Shenkman lawsuit.

Shenkman was a bully and SCAG is a political-ized, lobbyied to the hilt bully not caring or understanding the real reasons for homelessness and despair. I just won't have it.

At this point, I have no choice but to vote for one candidate I do not care for at all -- Armen. Because I can't allow developer and tech based groups to rule my City while falsely claiming they care about homeless folks as they drive up the cost for everything and make our city unlivable. As citizens, we only have a say in local politics -- the place we live. So, don't decry me for using my only power - an email.

Also, before you judge other folks ability to stop folks like NMS, take a look at the past. You know I'm not a Phil apologist, but I just want truth.

And here's the link to you full letter to Santa Monica Outlook.

Clear Warnings Council Could Lose Local Control Over Development Clear Warnings Council Could Lose Local Control
Over Development
Sherry
On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 09:25:34 AM PDT, Sherry Martini <[email protected]> wrote:

To be more clear:

Here is Ted Winterer's response to my 2015 email directly below (and I am thankful that he responded and a fan of Ted's). Then below that is Ted's response to my 2017 email.
"Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
To:[email protected],[email protected]
Cc:[email protected]
Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 7:14 PM
Sherry,
That YouTube video, like a lot of material on the Internet, should be taken with a grain of salt.

It was produced by a resident on 2nd Street who was incensed that, after years of parking his motorcycle overnight for free in a public structure, was told he'd have to start paying like everyone else. So he had an ax to grind.

The CCSM building on 2nd in which he resides is a rehab of an existing building which had no parking -- 60% of CCSM properties are adaptive reuse of existing buildings.

He and every other tenant who signed a lease at the building were advised in advance there is no onsite parking. The lease terms clearly spell this out. People lived there for years, using mass transit available throughout downtown, without a fuss until this filmmaker caused a ruckus.

We did subsequently make parking at the public structure available at a reduced rate to low income, disabled residents. But everyone had agreed to the deal: affordable housing with no parking in an area where the 3 am to 5 am street sweeping makes street parking impossible.

Ted
Item 16.I
10/25/22
87 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
Ted Winterer
Santa Monica City Council
Then below that is
On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 09:13:30 AM PDT, Sherry Martini <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Sherry Martini [[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 8:26 AM
To: Rick Cole
Cc: Ted Winterer; Gerda Newbold
Subject: Horrible Situation for low-income, disabled Santa Monicans - I hope this is fixed! Ted Winterer comments about NMS.

Hi Rick,
Please take the time to watch this video if you haven't already. It so clearly portrays what is going on in this City.

There is so much talk by the City and Santa Monica Forward about helping low income peolpe and building affordable housing, but this video illustrates better than any words I can write that this is just not true.

And the fact that two more NMS properties were blessed by City Staff and just approved by the Planning Commission reinforces that point. When I wrote Ted Winterer, who I voted for, about the fact that NMS "affordable housing" was not affordable at all, but a complete sham, he wrote as follows: "First of all, the NMS "affordable"units are a joke and not part of City affordable housing policy -- they were exploiting a loophole in our code which allowed them to develop and market apartments which were supposedly affordable but in reality were market rate rentals -- one of the first things I did when elected was close that loophole, since it gave our affordable housing a black eye." So why did the City bless these two new NMS properties and allow them to build above what the zoning laws allow, when NMS gave the city a "black eye" and was terribly dishonest? How can you possibly trust them.

Something is deeply wrong here.

Ted Winterer <[email protected]>
To:Sherry Martini
Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:24 PM
Because we changed the rules five years ago which allowed them to utilize a loophole in our code to get admin approval for 100% mod income micro apartments. They pulled seven pending projects after I initiated that change.

It was confusion wrought by the completely legal development and marketing of those apartments which led some to believe they were the core of our affordable housing production when quite the opposite is true.

With these projects we get at 45 income-restricted senior apartments of the same size and amenities as the market rate units with services provided by WISE and a rent-free apartment for elder abuse victims. Applicants will come off the City's waiting list for affordable housing and income levels and rents monitored on a regular basis, as is the practice with all of our affordable housing.

And, of course, we facilitate the land swap for the site for our new downtown fire station so our first responders survive an earthquake.

Ted
Item 16.I
10/25/22
88 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
Ted Winterer
Mayor
Santa Monica City Council
From: Sherry Martini <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 11:20:18 PM
To: Ted Winterer; Sue Himmelrich; Kevin McKeown Fwd
Subject: Why has no one addressed the issues the City and residents have have with NMS? Why has no one addressed the issues the City and residents have have with NMS? How can you trust that they will not give our "affordable housing" a black eye as Ted wrote to me many years ago.

NMS NO ON LV Contributions:
https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NSDocuments/AgendaDocuments/Comment%20Letters/2017/August/01-3%20Martini%20(items%203,4).pdf On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 09:01:59 AM PDT, Sherry Martini <[email protected]> wrote:

Jon, was it satire when you posted on Facebook's SMPPP page: "So, are Lana, Phil, and the others not paying attention to staff reports (I watched these presentations occur during council meetings they attended), or are they intentionally doing the bidding of major developers?"[full quote below]
If so, actually, can post where in the staff reports the "builder's remedy" is explained so that a lay person can understand the implications. And as you know, NMS/WS etc., whatever they call themselves now, have a history of funding Santa Monica Forward backed measures and candidates, which I am assuming as the head of the Santa Monica Democratic Club, you know.

And Jesse, you know that the folks supporting you, Affordable Housing's Leonora Camner and Santa Monica Forward's Carl Hansen both are happy with Tokyo-like buildings in our City (confirmed that to me in person) and believe high rises are one of ways to solve the "affordable" housing problem. They also seem to not have a problem with the "market rate" luxury housing going up everywhere, which drives up the costs for fixed income and elderly and also makes it impossible for anyone who would live in the handful of true "affordable" units to live in a meaningful way. It's like living in a palace as a servant. Jesse, I don't imagine you can relate to this, but you should at least try and understand it.

So, let's just be clear about who is supporting big developers and businesses like NMS/WS, etc. etc.

Also, question for City Attorney: How do we allow NMS/WS, etc. and Cypress (8 or 9 projects int he works I believe) to monopolize our City. Are there not laws against that. And see my separate email re my discussion with former City Councilmember Ted Winterer about NMS giving the city a BLACK EYE, but we still gave them float ups back when we had the power to stop them.

Jon's full quote:
"Great commentary by SM City Council candidate Jesse Zwick on how the conservative “Change Slate” candidates bungled the Housing Element process this cycle and, through their Item 16.I
10/25/22
89 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
inaction, actually caused us to lose control of our zoning code with the state approving huge development projects including a 15-story building. So are Lana, Phil, and the others not paying attention to staff reports (I watched these presentations occur during council meetings they attended), or are they intentionally doing the bidding of major developers?" Item 16.I
10/25/22
90 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Steve Barnett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 2:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I Support passing Agenda Item 16.I

EXTERNAL
Good day.

As 32 year residents of Santa Monica, from an apartment to a house, we heartily endorse the proposals in Agenda Item 16.I:
"Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of residents’ concerns about the “Builder’s remedy” permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate and up to 15 stories, that the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law firm hired to conduct this review shall be selected by the City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it deems useful to its legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed officials." Please prevent traffic from becoming untenable and keep developments in keeping with the city’s unique character.

Regards,
Steve Barnett and Pamela Winn Barnett
Item 16.I
10/25/22
91 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Stephen Bergauer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 3:27 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comment - 10/25 Council Meeting - Item 13.I

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers:

I am writing to urge you to oppose item 13.I.

Santa Monica faces an enormous imbalance between jobs and housing. We are a dynamic business hub, home to Snap, Hulu, and Activision. But because we refuse to build more housing, our city’s population more than doubles each day with commuters driving here for work because they cannot afford to live any closer. This increases traffic, hurts the environment, and degrades our quality of life.

In one swoop, these projects would build more more housing and more deed‐restricted affordable housing than Santa Monica has built in the past decade ‐ all at zero public cost. These buildings are located downtown or near the Expo line and will help decrease our car dependency and revitalize neighborhoods near the 10. They will increase our property tax base and bring new residents who live and shop here, at a time when many storefronts are vacant and our libraries are only open limited hours.

It’s disheartening to see Council plan to ignore the City Attorney’s advice and waste our tax dollars on fighting these projects that would do so much good for our city. As a renter in this city, I ask you to do the right thing, follow state law, and oppose this fool’s errand.

Thank you for your time.

Stephen Bergauer
Item 16.I
10/25/22
92 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: jules redlich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 3:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Agenda Item 16.1

EXTERNAL
As Santa Monica residents residing within 100 feet of Wilshire Blvd., we support Agenda Item 16.1.

Jules Redlich
Joan Redlich
Aimee Hunter
Item 16.I
10/25/22
93 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Shari Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 3:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: Agenda Item 16.1

EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Council Members,
I support Council Members Brock, Parra, and de la Torre to hire legal counsel to conduct a thorough review, including a report outlining the city’s legal options and remedies AND also reject the building applications of NMS and WSC. This is very important because if they’re allowed to build these massive structures they will continue, along with other developers, until the very personality and fiber of this city is gone forever.

Thank you for your consideration,
Shari Phillips
Item 16.I
10/25/22
94 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 3:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to have Council allow further study on housing density increase in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As an over 35 year resident and seeing the great recent changes to the quality of life here in Santa Monica I, like my neighbors, are very concerned.

In the wake of residents’ concerns about the “Builder’s remedy” permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelming market rate and up to 15 stories, I request as a resident of Santa Monica who is deeply concerned about the increase in traffic and strain on our aging infrastruction that the Council study the matter further.

I request that the City Attorney hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law firm hired to conduct this review selected by the City Council should have the power to obtain documents it deems useful to its legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed officials.

Please help preserve the character of Santa Monica by studying the impact of the housing density before permitting these projects to go forward.

Kind Regards,
Maria Blase
448 Adelaide Dr
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 16.I
10/25/22
95 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Philip Schwartz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 4:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock
Subject: Item 16.1

EXTERNAL
We would respectfully urge the Council to adopt item 16.1, demanding that the City hire outside counsel to provide a thorough review and issue a report regarding the last‐minute submission of permit applications for the construction of over 1000 market‐rate housing units. Some of these applications would also have the City approve a completely unjustified zoning variance for a fifteen‐story building.

We have to ask ourselves exactly when ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!......are the City's resources not strained enough now??
Cordially,
Philip D Schwartz, Treasurer
909‐911 Arizona Ave HOA
Item 16.I
10/25/22
96 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: City Building allowance
From: JUDITH SPECTOR <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 3:29 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: City Building allowance

EXTERNAL
Dear Sirs,
I have been a resident of Santa Monica since 1981.

The city we moved to is no more, unfortunately.

Your new allowance for TOO MANY buildings, and buildings that are way higher than allowed will ruin the long time admired aspect of this beautiful place.

It will increase the number of residents who need assistance in all kinds of ways: schools, hospitals, overcrowded streets,
Transportation, mental health availability, elder services, etc.

It will drive away tourists, will drive away young families, making the city a dying city rather than a young and vibrant place with restaurants, shopping and walking areas.
it will increase pollution, homelessness, crime and dirt and it will make unbearable demands on the Fire Department and Police Department .

Please, sirs, respect the character of this city!
respect the citizens who worked hard to make it what it is! Respect the will of the people who live here, rather than the plans of developers whose sole purpose is to enrich themselves!
I thank you respectfully,
Judith Spector
1139 Stanford Street
From my little phone that is often hiding from me
Judy
Item 16.I
10/25/22
97 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Drew Traglia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: In support of October 25 Agenda Item 16.I

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern,
I writing to urge the City's support of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre's proposal in Councilmember Discussion Item 16.I scheduled for the October 25th, 2022 City Council meeting.

Thank you for your consideration.

Drew Traglia
24th Street
Item 16.I
10/25/22
98 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members.

I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I to:

2. Hire experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of our city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject these applications.

I am appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred and are urging Council to take this up at the next Council hearing on October 25th.

The City needs to immediately take these steps to restore residents’ confidence in good city governance.

Wendy Lamm
Item 16.I
10/25/22
99 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Judy Hopkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 6:55 PM
To: [email protected]; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan Subject: Council Mtg. 10/24/22 - SUPPORT ITEM 16.l to hire outside legal counsel to determine the city's legal options and remedies concerning "builder's remedy" submissions

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
I am very concerned by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred regarding the "builder's remedy" submissions. I believe that outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff to council members and the press that we are "required" to proceed with these submissions. These permit submissions massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allows, ignore relevant state law and are based on a rejection by HCDD with NO ABILITY OR TIME to resolve misunderstandings of data and policy BEFORE the "builder's remedy" could be initiated.

I strongly support Councilmember Discussion Item 16.l, Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of residents' concerns about the "Builder's remedy" permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate and up to 15 stories, that the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City's legal options and remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law firm hired to conduct this review shall be selected by the City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it deems useful to its legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed officials.

Thank‐you for your attention to this important matter.

Judy Hopkins
844 7th St. #7
SM 90403
Item 16.I
10/25/22
100 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Gemma Corfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 7:13 PM
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; Council Mailbox Subject: Council Member Discussion Item 16.1 Stopping Builder’s Remedy

EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Members,
I support Council Members Brock, Parra, and de la Torre to hire outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review,
including a report outlining the city’s legal options and remedies AND also reject the building applications of builders,
NMS and WSC. This is very important because if they’re allowed to build these massive structures they will continue,
along with other developers, until the very personality and fiber of this city is gone forever.

PLEASE PLEASE don’t allow our city to be ruined by greedy developers.

Many thanks
Gemma Corfield
Item 16.I
10/25/22
101 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Amani Abou-Zamzam MBA <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 10:03 PM
To: David White; Douglas Sloan; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject: I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I

EXTERNAL
I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I to:

Councilmember Discussion Item 16.I:

Thanks, Amani
Amani Spielman SM resident
[email protected] 310.780.0881
Item 16.I
10/25/22
102 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Richard Brand <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Richard Brand
1528 6th St Santa Monica, CA 90401-2552 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
103 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Haley Feng <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Haley Feng
3155 S Sepulveda Blvd Apt 102 Los Angeles, CA 90034-4220 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
104 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Brett Hollenbeck <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Brett Hollenbeck
4431 Purdue Ave Los Angeles, CA 90230-5155 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
105 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Mariana Mellor <mcns.777 @everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, As a mother of 3 boys and understanding how crucial housing is to raise a family, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Mariana Mellor
768 Tuolumne Ave Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-4250 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
106 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
5 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Matthew Brehove <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Matthew Brehove
1250 N Mentor Ave Apt 12 Pasadena, CA 91104-2986 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
107 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
6 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Partho Kalyani <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Partho Kalyani
11764 Idaho Ave Unit 102 Los Angeles, CA 90025-6768 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
108 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of D.Denell Gibson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 10:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
D. Denell Gibson
2810 W Slauson Ave Apt 9 Los Angeles, CA 90043-2583 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
109 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Daniel Brockert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 10:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica. It's time for Santa Monica to move forward, not stubbornly cling to the past.

Personally sent by Daniel Brockert using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots pro-housing organization.

Sincerely,
Daniel Brockert
11630 Hamlin St Apt 5 North Hollywood, CA 91606-2568 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
110 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Rebecca Cannara <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Cannara
1638 Franklin St Santa Monica, CA 90404-4206 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
111 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Tieira Ryder <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 12:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because our city lacked a legally compliant Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation! Best,
Tieira
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://htwws.org/__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!tq7Km34CALlY_Dnwu71vp7SM7h6rucEXx81L A6X59JyIiLJ1GhfwwuaktPMVvZqu0YRDBubOmmTGt-A2W41C7xA6fnEW0NMNBxLkUhV518A$ Sincerely,
Tieira Ryder
3826 Grand View Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90066-4406 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
112 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
5 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Elena Christopoulos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 1:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Elena Christopoulos
1528 6th St Santa Monica, CA 90401-2552 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
113 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Hugh C Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 9:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Hugh C Martinez
677 S Marengo Ave Apt 4 Pasadena, CA 91106-3662 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
114 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Juan Matute <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 8:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, ڶڵڴڶڵڴHCD is watching you ڶڵڴڶڵڴ.

All agenda items, discussions at council meetings, and actions by City Council will be used as evidence for future determinations of whether or not Santa Monica is compliant with implementation of its Housing Element under the Housing Accountability Act. The 1990 Housing Accountability Act's provisions have gifted Santa Monica 1000 affordable units toward HE compliance. If the City of Santa Monica entangles any questions of fact regarding the city's RHNA allocation, commitment to HE zoning implementation, commitment to meeting state affirmatively furthering fair housing guidance, along with its questions of law regarding GOV 65589.5(d), the City's implementation of the HE will be seen in bad faith and the Builder's Remedy will re-activate. That's a very high risk to take, since the next re-opening of the builder's remedy will be more public and will have happened after developers had time to assemble multiple R1 lots, which could bring 10 to 15 story housing projects in to neighborhoods currently zoned for single family homes.

For those looking back on the public record in 2 years once the HE is deemed non-compliant and the Builder's Remedy re-opened, know that this council was warned of the risks. The actions they took were either a gamble or responsible, given the understanding of risks.
--
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Juan Matute
1435 26th St Unit 10 Santa Monica, CA 90404-3051 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
115 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Grafton Harper <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 11:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; [email protected] Subject: Council Mtg. 10/24/22 - SUPPORT ITEM 16.l to hire outside legal counsel to determine the city's legal options and remedies concerning "builder's remedy" submissions

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
I am very concerned (appalled) by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred regarding the "builder's remedy" submissions. I believe that outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff to council members and the press that we are "required" to proceed with these submissions. These permit submissions massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allow, ignore relevant state law and are based on a rejection by HCDD with NO ABILITY OR TIME to resolve misunderstandings of data and policy BEFORE the "builder's remedy" could be initiated.

I strongly support Councilmember Discussion Item 16.l
Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of residents' concerns about the "Builder's remedy" permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate and up to 15 stories, that the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City's legal options and remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law firm hired t conduct this review shall be selected by the City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it deems useful to its legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed officials.

Thank-you for your attention to this important matter.
____________________________
Grafton S. Harper
[email protected] (My new inbox as of 12/2018)
Lost track of me?
Permanent Forwarding available at [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
116 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:33 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject: Council Mtg. 10/25/22 - Support item 16.l to hire outside legal counsel to address "builder's remedy" submissions via legal options and remedies regarding it.

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board is very concerned by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred regarding the "builder's remedy" submissions. We believe that outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff to council members and the press that we are "required" to proceed with these submissions. These permit submissions massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allow, ignore relevant state law and are based on a rejection by HCDD with NO ABILITY OR TIME to resolve misunderstandings of data and policy BEFORE to the "builder's remedy" being initiated. Given the number of housing elements rejected by HCDD in the past year with no appeal or timely discussion prior to the "builder's remedy" submissions it is clear that an investigation of the reasons for the HCDD rejections should be studied and determined why historical and current Housing Element methodologies and approaches were so widely rejected and whether subjective or objective criteria was used.

Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board of Directors strongly support Councilmember Discussion Item 16.l
Request of Councilmembers Brock, Parra and de la Torre, in the wake of residents' concerns about the "Builder's remedy" permits just filed for 1,000s of new housing units, overwhelmingly market rate and up to 15 stories, that the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City's legal options and remedies, including rejecting the applications under all applicable laws. The law firm hired to conduct this review shall be selected by the City Council and shall have the power to obtain documents it deems useful to its legal review and be given full cooperation by staff and elected and appointed officials.

Thank-you for your attention to this important matter.

Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)
Board of Directors
Item 16.I
10/25/22
117 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Item 16.I
10/25/22
118 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:46 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan Subject: Council Mtg. 10/25/22 - ITEM 16.l - SUPPORT - Hire outside legal counsel to determine the city's legal options and remedies concerning "builder's remedy" submissions

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
I am appalled by the lack of any factual or legal analysis of what occurred regarding the "builder's remedy" submissions. I believe that outside counsel review is imperative in part because of statements made by City planning staff to council members and the press that we are "required" to proceed with these submissions. These permit submissions massively exceed what Santa Monica zoning allow, ignore relevant state law and are based on a rejection by HCDD with unclear and subjective criteria and NO ABILITY OR TIME to resolve misunderstandings of data and policy BEFORE the "builder's remedy" could be initiated.

Thank-you.

Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Item 16.I
10/25/22
119 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Council Member Discussion Item 16.1 Stopping Builder’s Remedy From: Gemma Corfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 7:12 PM
Cc: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Council Member Discussion Item 16.1 Stopping Builder’s Remedy

PLEASE PLEASE don’t allow our city to be ruined by greedy developers.

Many thanks
Gemma Corfield
Item 16.I
10/25/22
120 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Brett Hollenbeck <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:06 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I

Sincerely,
Brett Hollenbeck
4431 Purdue Ave Los Angeles, CA 90230-5155
[email protected]
Item 16.I
10/25/22
121 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Richard Brand <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 5:01 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I

Sincerely,
Richard Brand
1528 6th St Santa Monica, CA 90401-2552
[email protected]
Item 16.I
10/25/22
122 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 7:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Stopping "Builder's remedy"
From: Shari Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 4:31 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Stopping "Builder's remedy"

EXTERNAL
Dear City Manager David White, City Attorney Douglas Sloan, and SM City Council, I support Council Members Brock, Parra, and de la Torre in their request to hire outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review, including a report outlining the city’s legal options and remedies AND also reject the building applications of builders, NMS and WSC. This is very important because if they’re allowed to build these massive structures they will continue, along with other developers, until the very personality and fiber of this beautiful city is gone forever.

Thank you for your consideration,
Shari Phillips
Item 16.I
10/25/22
123 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Michael Hayes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 6:24 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I

Sincerely,
Michael Hayes
933 N Benton Way Los Angeles, CA 90026-3825
[email protected]
Item 16.I
10/25/22
124 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I From: Amani Abou-Zamzam MBA <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 10:02 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; councilmtgitems <[email protected]> Subject: I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I

EXTERNAL
I SUPPORT the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I to:

Councilmember Discussion Item 16.I:

Thanks, Amani
Amani Spielman SM resident
[email protected] 310.780.0881
Item 16.I
10/25/22
125 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Proposed 4,562 Housing Units
From: Carol Dickinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 8:58 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed 4,562 Housing Units

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council,
Please hire experienced outside legal counsel to analyze the legal options and remedies that the City can take to reject the sixteen proposed developments that were submitted during the Builder’s Remedy window. We residents of Santa Monica desperately need your help to stop these huge projects that exceed what our zoning rules allow. We should not rely on comments by City Planning Staff that nothing can be done about this matter.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Carol Dickinson
Item 16.I
10/25/22
126 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: John Ellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda #16 Save Pickleball

EXTERNAL
Hello City Council,
Pickleball is the fastest growing sport in the United States and world. Please reconsider your approach toward Pickleball at Memorial Park.

Santa Monica need more dedicated Pickleball Courts. Dozens of people each day, and hundreds each week play at Memorial Park.

Please save our courts as we could lose them for many years depending on how you plan construction. 1: Courts are in good shape as is.
2: Pickleball barely meets current demands and demand is growing. 3: Find more places to build dedicated Pickleball Courts in Santa Monica. 4: Pickleball grew during pandemic, spans age ranges, appeals to millennials, baby-boomers and beyond.
5: Pickleball promotes health, is outdoors, appeals to teens and young adults (Crossroads currently uses courts, I imagine other high schools will too) 6: Pickleball is accessible and invites all socio-economic and racial groups 7: Former boxers, volleyball, ping-pong, basketball and other athletes eventually find Pickleball as a ‘go-to’ sport.
8: Think about future demand of Pickleball and broad-based appeal of the growing sport. 9: Parking and other issues about space should be addressed more holistically, then tearing down good courts
10: Build MORE dedicated Pickleball courts throughout the City of Santa Monica.

I’m a retired teacher, former ARB member and have never seen a sport ‘bring together’ community in such a strong way as pickle Item 16.I
10/25/22
127 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 ball. Political, age, race seem to disappear, and sport, friendly competition, friendship and community building occur naturally. http://www.johnellisphoto.com
310 994 6469
Item 16.I
10/25/22
128 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Daniel Galamba
Subject: City Council Meeting October 25, 2022 Item 16.I.-Please Support: Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and remedies

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I request that you support this item that the Council ask the City Attorney to hire appropriate outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and remedies, including rejecting the Builders' Remedy applications under all applicable laws.

I believe that these Builders' Remedy applications are not valid and should not be approved. In February 2022 the State extended the deadline for the approval of the City's Housing Plan to October 15, 2022 and the City's Housing Plan was approved by the State before this new deadline. Therefore Builders' Remedy applications before October 15, 2022 are not valid and should not be approved.

If the original deadline of October 15, 2021 could not be extended then the State wouldn't have done so in their February 2022 letter. Also it is not realistic to assume that a city's initial submittal of a Housing Plan will be approved by the State because give-and-take and iteration is required before final approval. The Builders' Remedy and fines from the State are intended to punish a city that refuses to cooperate with the State and this was not the case for our City of Santa Monica. The City negotiated with the State in good faith and our Housing Plan was approved by the State before the State's extended deadline of October 15, 2022.

Also if the State's extended deadline of October 15, 2022 was not valid then why didn't developers come in with their Builders' Remedy applications in February 2022 after the State issued their letter? Instead these Builders' Remedy applications came in just a few weeks before the extended October 15, 2022 deadline.

All of the actions above and several more indicate to me that Builders' Remedy applications before October 15, 2022 are not valid and can not be approved. Therefore appropriate outside legal counsel is needed to conduct a thorough review and write a report regarding the City’s legal options and remedies including rejecting the Builders' Remedy applications under all applicable laws. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba

Item 16.I
10/25/22
129 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: danilobach <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject: Item 16.I on 10/25/22 Council agenda

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I join with the many other concerned residents of our city to urge the Council instruct the City Attorney to hire outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review of the punitive, so-called 'Builders remedy' Santa Monica is said to be now facing and to conduct a study of the City’s legal options and remedies, including rejecting all applications pending until the issue is appropriately resolved. The law firm hired to conduct this review should of course be selected by the City Council and empowered to obtain all relevant documents and full cooperation of staff and city officials.

Respectfully,
Danilo Bach
Item 16.I
10/25/22
130 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Joe Antognini <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 16-I

EXTERNAL
Dear city councilmembers,
I urge you to reject the request of several councilmembers to hire legal counsel regarding the "Builder's Remedy." This is a meritless request that will waste the City's resources on frivolous legal fees.

Due to the City Council's failure to pass a compliant housing element, a number of developers have applied for permits to construct new housing in Santa Monica in accordance with the law. I understand that several city councilmembers are upset with this fact. Nevertheless, if those councilmembers wished to prevent this from happening, they had multiple opportunities to pass a compliant housing element. City staff, other councilmembers, and ordinary citizens all warned them of the consequences of failing to pass a compliant housing element. They chose to ignore those warnings and are now reaping the consequences of their choices. The City Council should accept this fact rather than fruitlessly throwing our money at lawyers who will be paid handsomely for telling you exactly the same thing.

Setting aside the bumbling manner in which the City has found itself in a place where it is forced to permit these new developments, I also urge the City Council to reconsider their negative attitude to development. Santa Monica has failed to allow adequate housing to be constructed for nearly fifty years and as a consequence around 80% of the people who work in the city do not live here. This is not because they do not want to live in Santa Monica, but because they cannot afford to live in a city where the median home price is more than $1.6 million. These are individuals who serve and contribute to our community in a variety of ways. It is a shame that Santa Monica has shut them out for so long.

Joe Antognini
2677 Centinela Ave, Unit 203
Item 16.I
10/25/22
131 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:56 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Elena Christopoulos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 1:05 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I

Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Elena Christopoulos
1528 6th St Santa Monica, CA 90401-2552
[email protected]
Item 16.I
10/25/22
132 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Continued parking on driveway aprons in the City of Santa Monica From: Winnie Wechsler <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:59 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Subject: Continued parking on driveway aprons in the City of Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council:

Our family has been residing on 12th Street since 1996, and for the past 26 years we have parked one of our cars in the “driveway apron” in front of our home. We are extremely careful about parking our car so that it does not in any way block the sidewalk or interfere with the street and the weekly street cleaning. So, we are perplexed as to the rationale for the City of Santa Monica to suddenly decide that this parking practice will no longer permitted as of 11/1/22. There has been no explanation for the change in policy, which will certainly lead to more congestion on our block.

My understanding is that the City of Los Angeles has a similar ordinance to SMMC section 3.12.380, but that “parkway” is defined as the area of "the public right-of-way not intended for vehicular use between the sidewalk and the curb.” Based on that definition, the City of Los Angeles allows the owner of a property with a driveway apron to park on that apron as long as the vehicle doesn’t block the sidewalk or stick out into the street. The same is true for Unincorporated L.A. County and Malibu.

Allowing driveway apron parking has not and will not infringe on the rights of pedestrians, who do not walk on the parkways. So given all this, please reconsider this decision to enforce this regulation as it relates to parkways, whose benefits to homeowners and neighborhoods have proven worthwhile for decades and outweigh any negative impact on the community.

Sincerely,
Winnie Wechsler & Jeffrey Wasserman
521 12th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
310-415-7283
Item 16.I
10/25/22
133 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Driveway Apron Parking When Not Blocking Street or Sidewalk -----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Hunt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:48 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Subject: Driveway Apron Parking When Not Blocking Street or Sidewalk

EXTERNAL
Please align Santa Monica’s new driveway apron rules with Los Angeles and Malibu so that cars can park on aprons that are wide enough so that a parked car does not stick out onto the road or into the sidewalk. I do not understand why Santa Monica needs to be exceptional on established rules held by our neighbors.

My apron at 1012 Pearl St. is wide enough to accommodate a car where the car fits between sidewalk and curb. I do not understand why you would take away a parking spot that has never been needed by the city for any service work in a neighborhood that can regularly be filled with cars to the point where I have to park on a different street.

Parking in an apron that is wide enough for a car does not infringe on pedestrians or street activity. Nor has it historically had any impact on city services. It’s also allowed in our neighboring communities. Taking this away seems capricious and bureaucratic - neither characteristic is what I expect from my local government.

I have called the parking enforcement to discuss this, who referred me to the city manager. I left a message at the city manager’s office more than a week ago and have yet to receive a call back.

Thank you for your consideration,
Spencer and Nancy Hunt
35 year residents of Pearl St in Santa Monica
Item 16.I
10/25/22
134 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Apron parking
From: Bronwyn Barkan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Subject: Apron parking

EXTERNAL
Dear members of the City Council,
I am writing to urge you to amend the municipal code to permit driveway apron parking so long as it does not block the sidewalk or stick out into the street. This amendment would put the code in line with the city of LA, unincorporated LA, and the city of Malibu. Thank you for making this common sense decision.

Sincerely,
Bronwyn Barkan
(resident Sunset Park)
Item 16.I
10/25/22
135 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ro Fad <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:29 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; R Fad Subject: Stopping Huge Building Projects in SM - Council vote Tomorrow

EXTERNAL
Dear SM City Members,
I support Council Members Brock, Parra, and de la Torre to hire outside legal counsel to conduct a thorough review, including a report outlining the city’s legal options and remedies AND also reject the building applications of builders, NMS and WSC. This is very important because if they’re allowed to build these massive structures they will continue, along with other developers, until the very personality and fiber of this city is gone forever.

Thank you for your consideration,
--
Rozita Fadakar
Santa Monica Resident
Item 16.I
10/25/22
136 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 13-I, Builders Remedy

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Council members:

On behalf of Santa Monica Forward, I want to urge you to NOT spend our taxpayer funds on a lawsuit challenging the so-called Builders Remedy law. You were not willing to spend even $100,000 on an investigation of a serious breach of confidentiality of your executive session, and many of you gave reasons about taking funds away from other important City needs. The lawsuit you propose is expected to cost well over $1 million. What would that money mean for our local merchants, residents, and visitors?
We note that your staff warned you at least four times about the consequences for failing to submit a compliant housing element:
· Dec 15, 2020 Staff Report: Warned of SB35 consequences (overruling of local zoning and planning authority) · June 21, 2021: Staff warns council that out of compliance means any developer can build a 20% low-income / 100% moderate income project (this is the "Builder's Remedy") · October 12, 2021: Staff warns council *again* about the Builder's Remedy consequences. · April 26, 2022: Staff warns council *again* about the Builder's Remedy consequences.

In addition, there were many public comments (written and spoken at Council) from residents and pro-housing advocacy groups identifying glaring deficiencies in the housing element (HCD flagged many of these same reasons in their rejection letter).

The Council-appointed Planning Commission was clearly aware of the consequences of a non-compliant housing element.

Santa Monica Forward has been aware of this law for several years. Throughout our work for a compliant housing element the consequences have been foundational to our advocacy. We wrote to you as early as June 15, 2021 about the Builders Remedy. Our only goal all along was for Santa Monica to stop resisting the state and adopt a Housing Element that would be approved by HCD.

It is time for the Council to accept its responsibility to provide its share of housing opportunities rather than fighting the mandate. We stand ready to support you in that endeavor.

Abby Arnold and Carl Hansen
Co-Chairs
Santa Monica Forward
Item 16.I
10/25/22
137 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 12:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: runaway development
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 8:36 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>
Cc: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]> Subject: runaway development

EXTERNAL
Dear Mr White:

As homeowners in Sunset Park, we’re alarmed by the impending development activity in the city.

Not only are these developments going to change for the worse the quality of life here, it’s unclear where the water to meet the needs of 20-30,000 additional residents will come from.

We seem to be at the beginning of a once in a thousand years megadrought. 20,000 people times 100 gallons per day per person is 2 million gallons per day— doesn’t that give you pause? We urge the engagement of experienced outside legal counsel to conduct a review of the city’s legal rights and remedies under all applicable laws to reject the recent development applications.

Michael Sieverts and Kim Baer
1121 Hill Street SM 90405
310-804-8069 cell

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT[S]. This message may contain privileged and confidential information which is protected by law. If the reader is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please accept our apologies. Please notify the sender immediately by reply email or telephone and permanently delete the original message and all attachments from your system.

Item 16.I
10/25/22
138 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Beth B <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 12:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: On Future Housing Plans Within Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Hello there,
My name is Beth Barks. I am 19 years old and have been researching solutions for housing homeless individuals over the past few months. Recently, I found an article in the LA Times speaking on Scott Walter proposing the building of 4,500 new apartment units within the city of Santa Monica. Walter has proposed this idea due to the Santa Monica City Council failing to properly offer their own plan to address housing issues in the last 8 years.

The Builder's Remedy is an existing California Law that Walter's invoked correctly. Spending money to attempt to countersue Walter and stop the building of these units for the simple reason of "keeping Santa Monica looking like a beach town" is frankly ridiculous. Housing prices in Santa Monica are already nearly double that of average home prices in LA County, with rent standing around $1,000 above the average rent rate as well. Your citizens cannot afford their homes, nor can they find enough vacant homes that they could rent.

At this point, Santa Monica will soon become a home for homeless individuals who could never imagine being able to afford one of the $1.9 million beach houses that your city is so proud of. Don't force yourselves to pay nearly $300,000,000 in fines for not doing the simple thing of offering housing in your city. Think of the people who live there rather than the shoestring idea of a beach city. You still have Santa Monica Pier, which is more of a tourist attraction than a show of your beach-living life. Build the buildings, see a population boost and economy boost from more people working in the city. Think morally rather than government-like; you won't keep your seats, otherwise.

Respectfully,
Beth Barks
College Student
Item 16.I
10/25/22
139 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 12:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16.I Builders Remedy

EXTERNAL
Strongly favor stopping opportunistic development b.s. by whatever means are necessary.

Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica 90403
Item 16.I
10/25/22
140 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Miles Freeman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 12:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment Regarding Agenda Item 16.I (October 25, 2022 Meeting)

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I write regarding Agenda Item 16.I on the agenda for the City Council's October 25, 2022 meeting. Agenda Item 16.I indicates that the City Council may seek to hire outside counsel to review legal options regarding the recent use of the "Builder's Remedy" mechanism to construct additional housing in Santa Monica.

As a resident of Santa Monica, I am submitting this comment to respectfully register my strong opposition to such a decision. Hiring outside counsel is frequently an expensive and time-consuming endeavor in the best of circumstances. And to do so here to explore "options" with respect to the use of the Builder's Remedy would be a poor use of city funds and resources. The Builder's Remedy is a mechanism created by state law to ensure that sufficient housing is constructed to meet California's needs. This mechanism has been invoked because the city has not authorized a sufficient amount of housing. The City Council should not spend city resources on hiring outside counsel to explore ways to avoid or limit the scope of such laws. These laws are intended to redress decades of underdevelopment and serve to encourage good governmental practices regarding zoning. Respectfully, expensive outside counsel and potential future litigation to thwart or limit the Builder's Remedy are not the answer here.

In closing, please do not use city resources to hire outside counsel for this purpose. Thank you.

Best regards,
Miles D. Freeman
Item 16.I
10/25/22
141 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Pauline McPeake <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 1:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 16F and 16I
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I'm a 12-year Santa Monica resident and in the Santa Monica workforce. 16F: I oppose using tennis courts for pickleball during after-school hours at Memorial Park. Our children rely on these public spaces to practice the sports they participate in at school. In addition, schools without the resources of a private tennis court use these courts as an extension of their sports programs. Please keep these tennis courts as tennis courts and prioritize the youth and schools' need for them as such. 16I: Please do not block our community's desperately needed affordable housing. Blocking this initiative is a misuse of taxpayer money and puts our city in financial jeopardy.

Thank you for considering the viewpoints of your constituents.

Respectfully,
Pauline McPeake
Item 16.I
10/25/22
142 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 2:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: I support the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I From: girltunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 12:30 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: I support the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.I

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council; City Manager, David White; City Attorney Douglas Sloan I strongly support the action advocated in Agenda Item 16.1:

Councilmember Discussion Item 16.I:

Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Item 16.I
10/25/22
143 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Attorney Mailbox; David White
Subject: City Council Agenda 10/25/2022 - Item 16I

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and City Councilmembers, With regards to Item 16I on the October 25th, 2022 Agenda, I urge you to reject the proposal and focus on complying with state law and focus on implementing the housing element that was adopted in the last City Council meeting on October 11th.

I understand the urge to swiftly react when there is an outcry from constituents and see this as an opportunity for community education on vital issues of importance to our City. I agree that our City should have been able to direct where we wanted these new homes to be situated but unfortunately, as the City Council chose not to adopt a compliant housing element, we temporarily lost control over our local zoning. Santa Monica is not alone in this situation. Cities across Southern California are beginning to see the harsh ramifications from not producing sufficient housing over the past several decades.

The consequences of not complying with state law in this situation could cost our City up to $228 million in fines alone, not including attorney fees, the costs of staff time, or the opportunity costs of ignoring the actual issues Santa Monicans are facing today to pursue a losing legal fight against the state.

First, I would like to take a step back and review how we came to be in this situation with 16 pending projects that our City is unable to reject under state law without facing significant fiscal (and other) penalties.

The colloquially-known “builders’ remedy” has been part of state law for over 30 years as part of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). The HAA was originally passed in 1982. However, this is the first time that we are seeing it be more widely utilized for several reasons:
• The builder’s remedy only comes into play if and when a jurisdiction’s housing element is out of compliance. Between our last housing element process and this one, there have been significant updates to state laws pertaining to housing, as laid out below. • The RHNA/Housing Element process is completed in 8-year cycles and prior to our 2021-2029 Housing Element, Santa Monica submitted its previous Housing Element in 2013 (see:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements/docs/santa_monica_5th_draft090313.pdf) • Between 2013 and 2021, there has been an increased awareness and understanding of the dire harms of California’s housing crisis (as described in the California Legislative Analyst’s Office Report issued March 17, 2015: https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.pdf) • Because of an increased focus on the causes and consequences of California’s housing crisis, state legislators passed amendments to strengthen the Housing Accountability Act in 2016 and 2017, including streamlining certain approvals of new housing development, as covered by the Santa Monica Daily Press in 2016 (see: https://smdp.com/2016/06/10/how-a-state-bill-could-bypass-santa-monicazoning-rules/ and https://smdp.com/2016/06/27/state-budget-provides-development-incentives/ ) • The state also passed additional laws that not only strengthened the HAA and placed limitations on certain jurisdictions’ abilities to limit housing production but also added significant consequences for jurisdictions that do not comply with Housing Element law Item 16.I
10/25/22
144 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 o For example, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (See:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB330) If the Council chooses to move forward with the proposal in Agenda Item 16I to seek ways to delay or deny these “builder’s remedy” projects, the outcome could be disastrous for our City and the ramifications would reverberate across the state. We do not want to become yet another example of what happens when cities deny housing (see: https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Member-Engagement/ProfessionalDepartments/City-Attorneys/Library/2021/21-Spring/5-2021-Spring;-Kautz-Siegel-New-HousingLegislatio.aspx) The City Council received multiple warnings of the potential consequences for not passing a compliant housing element and I fear that the severity of the situation we are in may not be fully recognized at this time. If our City were to try to deny any or all of the proposed projects, we would be opening ourselves up to legal action by “the applicant, a person eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization.” The likely outcome of rejecting or delaying could result in the following, as detailed in the HCD memo on the Housing Accountability Act issued September 2020 (see:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/hcd-memoon-haa-final-sept2020.pdf [pages 15-17]) • Per the HAA, if the plaintiff in such legal action prevails, the City would have to grant approval within 60 days and pay an amount as determined by the court to the plaintiff (if the plaintiff is the project applicant) for costs incurred due to the delay of a local agency. • If the jurisdiction fails to comply with the order within 60 days, “the court must impose a fine on the local government. The minimum fine that may be imposed is $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project as proposed on the date the application was deemed complete.” (emphasis added).
• “Court-imposed fines begin at $10,000 per housing unit and could be much higher. If the court determines the local government acted in bad faith, the fine is multiplied by five. This equates to a minimum fine of $50,000 per unit.” (emphasis added)
I urge you to please reject the proposal submitted in Item 16I on this evening’s agenda so that we do not put our city at risk of up to $228 million or more in fiscal damages, once again losing local control, or any of the other potential outcomes not yet foreseen due to this precarious and short-sighted proposal.

Sincerely,
Natalya Zernitskaya
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
[email protected]
Item 16.I
10/25/22
145 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: perri chasin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 16.1

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am a longtime Santa Monica resident (32 years) who is outraged that the City Council is considering hiring outside legal counsel after the council failed to heed the advice of city staff and housing experts regarding the construction of local affordable housing. Using taxpayer monies to fight this new the Builder’s Remedy permits housing project is appalling.

Sincerely,
Perri Chasin
SM resident
Item 16.I
10/25/22
146 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Matt Stauffer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Matt Stauffer
908 S Hobart Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90006-1273 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
147 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Drew Glicker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Drew Glicker
7523 Hollywood Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90046-2856 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
148 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of David Barboza <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

State law allows these projects to exceed General Plan and zoning limits because Santa Monica lacked a legally compliant Housing Element. I am in full support of Builder's Remedy housing projects and believe the city council should be in support, too. Santa Monica needs more homes and affordable homes, not wasteful litigation! I reviewed Santa Monica's draft Housing Element for Abundant Housing LA and learned that the median single-family home in the city sells for about $4 million. The status quo is deeply, deeply broken and the city cannot claim to live up to its progressive ideals unless it becomes an economically inclusive place. Ending the housing shortage is a critical part of that work.

Personally sent by David Barboza using Abundant Housing LA's Advocacy Tool. Abundant Housing LA is a grassroots prohousing organization.

Sincerely,
David Barboza
7239 Comstock Ave Unit C Whittier, CA 90602-1353 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
149 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Michael de Villiers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 5:10 PM
To: Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 16.I: Builders' Remedy Approvals

EXTERNAL
Council Members:

I’m writing to protest your decision to attempt to block the default approval of housing units by Builders’ Remedy and also to use City funds for outside counsel to do so.

You know this is reckless action that could result in huge fines.

California has determined Santa Monica’s share of needed houses according to scientific logic. We are transit-, jobs-, schools- and amenities rich and we must do our part to add housing to cut further sprawl.

Santa Monica needs this housing and is obligated to allow it. Please drop this reckless action and allow staff to revise the Housing Element to meet state law so that future project applications can follow due-process approval as soon as possible.

Thank you
Michael de Villiers
1115 Arizona Avenue
Item 16.I
10/25/22
150 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Michael Hayes <mhayes23 @everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 6:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Michael Hayes
933 N Benton Way Los Angeles, CA 90026-3825 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
151 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
2 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Nancy Barba <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:13 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Nancy Barba
9069 Carson St Culver City, CA 90232-2502 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
152 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
3 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Kevin Zelaya <kevz21189 @everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Kevin Zelaya
1139 S Rimpau Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90019-1812 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
153 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
4 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of William Wright <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, California needs more housing. Los Angeles County needs more housing. Los Angeles County NEEDS more housing in SANTA MONICA, especially since you have so many jobs located there! I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
William Wright
734 E Kensington Rd Los Angeles, CA 90026-4427 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
154 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22
5 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected] on behalf of Andy May <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support Builder's Remedy projects in Santa Monica - Agenda item 16. I Dear City Council Public Comment Santa Monica City Council, I write to urge you to embrace Builder's Remedy projects, support housing of all types, and to not waste precious City resources and funds fighting new affordable housing opportunities in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Andy May
1901 N New Hampshire Ave Los Angeles, CA 90027-1818 [email protected] Item 16.I
10/25/22
155 of 155 Item 16.I
10/25/22

Santa Monica City CouncilOctober 25, 2022

Santa Monica City Council
October 25, 2022