ITEM11.C.Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, May 9, 2023

From: Beatrice Felix
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:11:44 PM

EXTERNAL
All our elected leaders,
Santa Monica residents want to understand the ramifications of this settlement and want the Council to understand them BEFORE approving any settlement. Please do not rush this through and continue to choke our city with unbrideled growth at the expense of your constituents and to line the pockets of developers. It's already out of hand - let's get things under control.

Let's recognize that this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.

Its impacts will be far reaching for generations.

Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.

Thank you.

Beatrice Felix
Thomas Hartman
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Sil Richardson
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: : City Council mtg. 5/9: Item 11C - SUPPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING BUILDER"S REMEDY Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:42:33 PM

EXTERNAL
> Members,
>
> I live on 2nd Street in the Wilmont neighborhood and I support and hope you vote yes on the settlement agreement with WS Communities. I appreciate that the agreement has 1038 10th Street, 1238-42 10th Street and 1007 Lincoln Blvd being withdrawn for BR projects and will not have replacement applications. >
> I still am concerned about the other 10 WS Communities projects and STRONGLY REQUEST that the council have city staff outline for these buildings that would qualify for ministerial approval what would be maximum height and FAR, maximum number of units possible, number of affordable units and parking allowed for all these projects BEFORE voting on the settlement.
>
> Finally, as a member of a community with over 80% rental units, I want the city to ensure that the 20 deedrestricted affordable units between transferred from 1560 Lincoln Blvd. to 1038-42 10th Street DO NOT DISPLACE ANY RENT CONTROL RESIDENTS. The worst thing we can do is lose rent-control units/residents to displacement because of the builder's remedy debacle. > Thank-you,
>
> Silvana Richardson
>
> The city council meeting that has this settlement agreement for discussion >
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 3:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

From: Brian (3ribG) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:44 PM
To: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; David Martin <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11‐C Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11‐C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

EXTERNAL
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.

This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement - the biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
2 Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;

2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;

3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years;

4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website
at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;

5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City’s best interest before approving it. This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

Thank you.

Here's SMCLC's letter:

Brian P Juarez -
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
3 ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 3:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

From: CHERI DICKINSON <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:53 PM
To: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Cc: David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; David Martin <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11‐C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient. It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
2 Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

Thank you.

Cheri Dickinson
2268 22nd st
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Tricia Crane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 3:08 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose 11-C - Staff Administrative Item to Settle Builder's Remedy projects

EXTERNAL
To: City Council
From: Northeast Neighbors
Re: OPPOSE Agenda Item 11-C, Council meeting of May 8, 2023 Dear City Council,
The Board of Northeast Neighbors supports the SMCLC letter to Council (below) expressing grave concerns about the Staff recommendations in Agenda Item 11-C.

We share the views and advice of SMCLC that Council should not allow any settlement with WS to be pursued without first engaging in a rigorous exploration and explanation to the community of what the impact will be as well as what alternatives may be pursued.

Thank you.

Tricia Crane, Chair
and the Board of Northeast Neighbors
May 8, 2023
To: City Council
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
2 The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its “builder’s remedy” project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a “builder’s remedy” statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder’s remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.

This proposed settlement is essentially a mega development agreement - the biggest one in the city’s history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
3 6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It’s impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State’s requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable? Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City’s website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it’s in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it’s anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.

Thank you.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Hadley, Richard <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 3:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to Staff Administrative Item 11-C

EXTERNAL
I am RICHARD HADLEY (I am a resident of the city of Santa Monica, CA) Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

THANK you.

RICHARD HADLEY
-----
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 3:19 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Administrative Item 11-C re BUILDER'S REMEDY

EXTERNAL
Re: Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects The council must take whatever action is necessary to maintain local control and require all projects including WSC’s to CONFORM COMPLETELY TO THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE EXISTING ZONING CODE.

Erik Lerner, Architect
25 Village Parkway
Santa Monica CA 90405
310 729 4597
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Nikki F <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 3:19 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I stand with the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City to oppose Staff Administrative item 11- C.

Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to the questions raised by SMCLC in their letter of May 8, 2023.

Regards,
Nikki C. Fernandez
1138 16th St, Apt. 6
Santa Monica, CA 90403
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Philip Schwartz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 3:29 PM
To: Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Kristin McCowan; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Against Agenda Item 11-C

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
2 4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Signed
Philip D Schwartz, Treasurer
909-911 Arizona Ave HOA
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Ed Harker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 3:38 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council, City Clerk et al,
I agree very strongly, passionately, with this letter below from SMCLC objecting to your settlement allowing 'builder's remedy'.

Please don't give the developers free reign on the size or design of their properties. They are here to make huge windfall profits, not to improve either our city or our state. Play hardball when negotiating what percentage of units will be affordable housing.

Thank you,
Ed Harker
SM resident since 1984
see below:

Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Thank you.

Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC)
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 3:52 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; Daniel Galamba
Subject: City Council Meeting May 9, 2023: Please Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to oppose Staff Administrative Item 11‐C until critical information is provided and the public can weigh in on this proposed settlement. This settlement doesn’t say what would be built under this agreement including each project’s size, height, and number of units and how it would differ from the over 4000 units and up to 20‐story projects originally filed. Residents want to understand the ramifications of this settlement and want the Council to understand them before approving any settlement. There is lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in on any proposed settlement.

Last Fall residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these Builders Remedy projects. In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed. Furthermore, these Builder Remedy projects may not be valid because the State extended the deadline for the City to have their plan approved to October 15, 2022 and the City met this extended deadline. Therefore, Builder Remedy applications before October 15, 2022 are not valid and should not be approved.

WSC is using the Builders Remedy to ramrod their projects through when their applications are not valid to begin with.

At this point it's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built. Is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? How much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3 of the required new housing be affordable? WSC is asking to City to approve a pig‐in‐a‐poke when their Builders Remedy applications aren't valid to begin with. Please don't do this.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Noma Boardmember <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 3:53 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Phil Brock; councilmtgitems Cc: David White; [email protected]; David Martin; Susan Cline; [email protected]; Zina Josephs; [email protected]; Tricia Crane Subject: Subject: NOMA Opposes item 11-C

EXTERNAL
To help protect y
Micro so ft Office p
auto matic downlo
picture from the
NOMA Board’s Opposition to Item 11‐C on May 9, 2023 Council Agenda

Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,

The Board of the North of Montana Neighborhood Association writes to support the letter of the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City and also to OPPOSE Staff Administrative Item 11‐C and its recommendation for our City to settle 13 massive WSC “Builder’s Remedy” projects based on the absence of the most elementary information on the settlement:

 The staff report lacks fundamental information necessary for even a rudimentary assessment of the settlements, including the number of units that would be subject to expedited, ministerial review while waiving environmental review, the sizes of the units, heights of the buildings and how many units are affordable vs. market rate.  We note that under RHNA about 2/3rds must be affordable. We also note that the proposed future review of these massive projects apparently would be without public engagement and no necessary guardrails are disclosed.  The staff report fails to discuss the impacts and burdens on our already stretched City of these additional projects, such as on water, police, fire, traffic, and size of staff.  Lacking all of this vital information the public has been deprived of any meaningful input as to this item.

We urge the Council not to approve this item and that the settlement agreement be made public as well as the necessary facts for both the Council and the public to have meaningful input. These projects are so large and would likely have such an important impact on our City that nothing less is appropriate.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
2 NOMA Board
smnoma.org
[email protected]
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: gayle harbor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 4:04 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
2 3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years;

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

Sincerely,
Gayle Harbor
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 4:31 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Builders REmedy with WSC - 11C
From: GARY <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 4:27 PM
To: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; David Martin <[email protected]>
Subject: Builders REmedy with WSC

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Et Al,
I urge you to reconsider this very nebulous agreement with WSC over 14 properties of theirs.

Building thousands of apartments will only add more congestion to already crowded areas. And this agreement raises more questions than it answers.

Sincerely,
Gary Gurner
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Brenda Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 4:36 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder's remedy projects

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I strongly object to the inclusion of Item 11‐C that is represents a settlement with a developer that would not say what is to be built under the agreement. You must be more open about what the proposed agreement includes and how it will affect our City. Your own City Attorney hired outside counsel who advised that the City Council should give a high priority to keeping the public informed about proposed developments. This item does just the opposite. It has the appearance of trying to sneak something into approval without the opportunity for residents to weigh in.

Please direct Staff to give details about exactly what they are advising so residents will know, too.

Brenda Anderson
475 24th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Tatiana Khmilinina <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 5:13 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; Yakov Zelkin Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in

EXTERNAL
To the members of the City Council:

Want to urge the City Council to hold off on a settlement with the developer until it clearly states:
- what would be built under this agreement
- how it would differ from the over 4000 units and up to 20-story projects originally filed - what our City will look like if this settlement is approved - why it's in the interests of the City to approve it
- when these expedited projects would come online
The residents need to understand the ramifications of this settlement and want the Council to understand them BEFORE approving any settlement.

Thank you,
Tatiana Khmilinina and Yakov Zelkin
310-800-8222 / 310-800-5500
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Jack Fry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 5:31 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Staff Administrative Item 11-C

EXTERNAL
I have read the letter that the Santa Monic Coalition for a Livable City as submitted to the City Council, and I am in total agreement with the concerns expressed in that letter.

How can the proposed housing to be built be accepted by the council when no numbers of housing units, especially affordable housing units are given?
How can the council approve such a plan when no estimates of effects on our infrastructure are included? Elements of our infrastructure are already under stress with the amount of daily influx of traffic which currently clogs our streets causing what should be a 20 minute drive to complete an errand take an hour or more.

How can the council approve a proposal that fails to specify how many units, how many stories, actual locations of projects are being planned?
To protect the best interests of Santa Monica residents, the council must reject this proposal until a more detailed version is forthcoming.

Jack F. Fry
2423 23rd Street
Santa Monica, CA
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Jennifer Perito <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 5:31 PM
To: Gleam Davis
Cc: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Builder's Remedy Settlement

EXTERNAL
To The City Council of Santa Monica,
I’m writing to STRONGLY OBJECT to the staff recommendation that the City Council approve a settlement of the 13 “builder’s remedy"
project sites throughout the city of Santa Monica!!
As a 50 year resident of Santa Monica, I am flabbergasted that the city would even consider these behemoth projects that have absolutely no place in the skyline of our beautiful city. The very nature and charm of SM would be dealt a devastating blow if these buildings are allowed to be
built. The environmental impact of these monstrous projects would be virtually incalculable, not to mention the harm it would visit on those
who live in the immediate vicinities. Our city is already experiencing historic congestion ‐ how in the world can it possibly absorb the addition
of this many additional units?!
The City Council must protect our beloved city and its citizens from the disastrous effects of rampant, ill‐conceived over‐ development ‐ if we don’t, we risk losing the unparalleled beauty that is Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Perito
1231 9TH ST (#6)
Santa Monica, CA 90401
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Selena Linkous <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 5:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
2 builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Thank you
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Leslie Lambert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 5:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar De La Torre; Phil Brock; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 11C

EXTERNAL
I encourage the City Council to approve the Settlement Agreement between WS Properties and the City, which is included on your May 9, 2023 Agenda as Item 11C. I am writing as an individual rather than as a representative of the Planning Commission.

I support this action because it will expedite the production of new housing in Santa Monica. Execution of this Settlement Agreement will provide much needed housing opportunities for new and existing residents and will also contribute to the City's meeting its RHNA goals in a timely manner, It is very important to understand that the twelve INDIVIDUAL WS Properties projects could submit twelve new project applications on June 1 and get exactly what they are asking for in the Settlement Agreement. Specifically, new sections

9.39.020 and 9.39.040 of the amended Zoning Ordinance fully entitle "Streamlined Housing Projects", on sites of less than one acre in size, to processing through the Administrative Approval process. This new ZO language becomes effective on June 1, 2023 and is in furtherance of Program 1A of our certified Housing Element. Program 1A requires amendment of the ZO to ensure by right processing of housing projects that are code compliant. (Modifications per the ZO do not disqualify a project from being considered code compliant.) Again, all twelve WS Properties' projects are code compliant,on parcels less than an acre in size, and are therefore "Streamlined Housing Projects". They will therefore be eligible for Administrative Approval on June 1.

It is my understanding that the only departure from the standard Administrative Approval process is the Settlement Agreement's provision that these twelve projects be expedited by the City rather than going through the 12‐18 month entitlement process. I would hope that we are all supportive of expediting entitlement review and getting housing in the ground sooner rather than later.

In my opinion, the Settlement Agreement is a win‐win situation for the City. It will result in building housing faster as well as demonstrating a good faith effort to comply with the Housing Element. I am frankly confused by objections raised by members of the community since WS Properties already will have the rights set forth in the Settlement Agreement on June 1.

Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to Santa Monica.

Leslie Lambert
.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Customer Service <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 6:59 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; [email protected]; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; [email protected]; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject: RE: Oppose Staff Admins. Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder's remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

EXTERNAL
The proposed settlement with WS Communities will have a BIG impact on Santa Monica residents for GENERATIONS to come.

I have lived here 45 yrs., and I cannot BELIEVE how this city is being destroyed. We might as well be living in NY.

Last yr., this developer filed applications for 14 projects under "builders remedy" statute to build OVER 20 stories high and over 4000 units city wide.

There was MUCH opposition. Residents urged the city to get outside council and OPPOSE these projects.
https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-117-22.html
City attorney retained outside council who advised there were good LEGAL grounds to CONTEST the filings once FORMAL APPLICATIONS were filed, and to keep Council and public informed.

In SPITE of this, last Thursday, city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for TOMORROW'S Council meeting as thought it were just a ROUTE ITEM.

BUT this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would GREENLIGHT the construction of 1,000s of housing units.

This proposed settlement is essentially a mega-development agreement-the BIGGEST ONE IN THE CITY's HISTORY! There needs to be a high degree of DISCLOSURE asa to WHAT is BEING BUILT and what the REAL-LIFE BENEFITS and BURDENS to the community will be implemented. There needs to be a more OPEN and TRANSPARENT process and sufficient NOTICE than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an Administrative Item to an ALREADY PACKED Council agenda.

Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT. It OMITS critical information that is necessary for the Council AND THE PUBLIC to weigh in to determine if the settlement is in the INTERESTS of SANTA MONICA BEFORE approving it.

KEY DEFICIENCES in the staff report include:

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
2 1. Stating that "the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City's regional housing needs, as planned in its certified"Housing Element" without giving the actual numbers., including the number of affordable housing units;

2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include EXEDITED processing, MINISTERIAL review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;

4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what exactly will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units), in comparison to the builder's remedy numbers posted on the City's website at:
https:://http://www.santamonica.gov/builders-remedy;

5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18 stories)would remain a builder's remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without
explaining what this means (is the City reserving it's legal right to disapprove it?); amd

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

ABSENT THIS CRITICAL INFORMATION, THE COUNCIL SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD.

It is impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built-is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable? Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder's remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total HEIGHT, NUMBER of units and AFFORDABLE units for each project so the public is kept informed.

When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are RELYING upon the CITY COUNCIL to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City's best interest before approving it.

This is even MORE important here, given the well-known HISTORY of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

Please DO NOT MOVE FORWARD with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will LOOK LIKE if t his settlement is approved, WHY it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and WHEN it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.

Thank you.

Ruthann Shanley, Scott Shanley, Sarah Shanley
45 yrs. resident of Santa Monica
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Sterling Long-Colbo <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 7:12 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose builder's remedy

EXTERNAL
May 8, 2023
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11‐C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10‐17‐22.html In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

But this is NOT a one‐off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.

This proposed settlement is essentially a mega‐development agreement ‐ the biggest one in the city's history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real‐life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;
Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;
Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years; Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder’s remedy numbers posted on the City’s website at https://www.santamonica.gov/builders‐remedy;
Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18‐stories) would remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and
Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built ‐ is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
3 Thank you.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 7:28 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Vote NO on 11C

EXTERNAL
Hello City Council,
Please vote no on agenda item 11C, which would green light a tremendous amount of development without sufficient transparency, information, public input, or equitable planning.

I also object to the fact that this agreement will allow so‐called inclusionary housing units to be located offsite. This is an ongoing problem in Santa Monica that undermines the creation of affordable housing that would otherwise affirmatively further fair housing. We can do better.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Very best wishes,
Michelle Gray
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Jessica Wilkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 7:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

EXTERNAL
Please oppose!
Jessica Wilkins
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Gina Novish <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 8:02 PM
To: Caroline Torosis
Cc: [email protected]; councilmtgitems
Subject: Vote No on Builder’s Remedy

EXTERNAL
Please vote no on the Builder’s Remedy. As a long‐time resident living near the new building housing the Trader Joe’s at the corner of Wilshire and 23rd Street, I can tell you how invasive, congested, destructive and dangerous the neighborhood is now that it is there. It absolutely changed the character of the neighborhood. Building without concern for the residents of the city changes the character of Santa Monica is irresponsible. Please vote NO tomorrow.

All the best,
Gina Nowysz Reichardt
Sent from space
[email protected]
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Rosvita Rauch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 8:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in

EXTERNAL
To Our Elected Leaders
Santa Monica residents want the opportunity to fully understand the ramifications of this settlement and want the Council to understand them BEFORE approving any settlement. Please do not rush this through and continue to choke our city with unbridled growth at the expense of your constituents and to line the pockets of developers. It's already out of hand - let's get things under control.

Let's recognize that this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site.

WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units. Its impacts will be far reaching for generations.

Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like IF this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.

Thank you,
Rosvita Rauch
(used with permission of Beatrice Felix)
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 8:20 PM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose item 11-C

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members and colleagues,
I am writing to urge that you refuse to settle for WSC's "Builder's Remedy" Projects until crucial information omitted in the staff report has been provided, and sufficient time has been allowed for the public to weigh in on this complicated proposition. You are already receiving, so I will not repeat, the public's detailed complaints about the specific omissions in the staff's glib overview of the actual plans. Please acknowledge that the residents of your city need much more clarity about these proposed developments before you sign off on them on our behalf.

Thank you for your open‐minded and conscientious attention to my request.

Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: lmarreola <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 8:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 11-C May 9 2023

EXTERNAL
We oppose staff's administrative Item 11‐C.we agree with Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City letter to City Council dated May 8,2023
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Joan Moschovakis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 8:56 PM
To: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Builders Remedy

EXTERNAL
To the City Council:

There is a lot of uncertainty (and a lot of ignorance) among Santa Monica residents about how our city will be transformed if thousands of units of housing are soon to be built willy‐nilly using Builders' Remedy. Well‐constructed five‐story apartment buildings on the main streets may enhance our city, provided they include sufficient on‐site parking. Duplexes and triplexes on large residential lots make sense. Granny flats and ADUs, which used to be officially unrentable, are now (at last) legal to rent. Certainly we need more affordable housing.

But isolated 10‐ or 15‐story apartment buildings would be eyesores, anywhere in town, given that our commercial and residential buildings are mostly one‐to‐three stories high. Please give us the details, and then give citizens a week or two to think about just what WSC will build under the proposed settlement, before you sign off on it.

Thank you,
Joan Moschovakis
721 24th Street
Santa Monica, 90402
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: EvanHandler.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: NMS/WS Communities settlement

EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council
I am a recent Santa Monica resident and business owner, a current patron of numerous businesses, and a parent of a student at a Santa Monica private school. It has just come to my attention that a meeting will be held on May 9th to consider a potential settlement between the city and NMS/WS Communities. It is troubling that so little notice has been given to the public about this proposed settlement. I am writing to urge the Council to postpone consideration of this settlement until more residents, business owners, workers, as well as other affected parties, have sufficient time to assess the potential impacts of the settlement on their lives, their businesses, and their children’s schools.

In fact, my understanding is that it was the city’s failure to be in state compliance under the builder’s remedy provision that has allowed discussion of any development to even occur. The negative results of this failure should not fall to the city’s residents, businesses, and school children to bear (nor should the city invite the negative publicity that would result from failing to give those parties adequate time to assess, and give feedback about, any proposed settlements). I again urge the City Council to postpone consideration of this settlement so that further education, investigation, and discussion can occur.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Evan Handler
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; Susan Cline; Anuj Gupta Subject: 05-09-23 Council Meeting - Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

I echo every concern expressed in the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City's letter to you and accordingly oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to the many issues such a settlement raises for our community and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.

Thank you -
Ann Bowman
Resident 26+ years
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Laura Baril <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: New Roads Development

EXTERNAL
We would like to ask the city to postpone consideration of the settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities New Roads could be impacted by the development next door, we would like you to reconsider postponing of the settlement until the school and the broader community have sufficient time to assess the potential impacts of the settlement.

Thanks,
Laura Baril
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: David Abramis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Iris Souza
Subject: Postpone consideration of settlement between the City and NMS/WS

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members:

We are homeowners and residents of the City of Santa Monica and we are very concerned about your plans to consider approval of a settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities on 5/9/2023. In particular, we are quite unclear about how the New Roads school would be impacted by the development next door.

We're sorry for the last‐minute nature of this email, but we only just found out about this. We wish we could attend your meeting to make our voices clear, but work and childcare prevent our attendance ‐‐ so this email will have to suffice.

Bottom line, we need more time to assess the potential impacts of this settlement. Please, at minimum, hold off on your approval.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
David Abramis and Iris Souza
2642 33rd St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: MARY ANN KELLOGG
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Mary Ann Kellogg; Tony Whitman
Subject: Approve the settlement agreement between the city of Santa Monica and WS Communities, LLC and its affiliates WS under”Builders Remedy”
Date: Sunday, May 7, 2023 7:29:14 PM

EXTERNAL
Subject: Approve the settlement agreement between the city of Santa Monica and WS Communities, LLC and its affiliates WS under”Builders Remedy” To whom it may concern,
Our family is thrilled to see that the SM City Council supports a settlement with WS communities, LLC by putting an end to the pursuit of constructing 2 new 14 story apartment buildings at 1038 10th St. and 1007 Lincoln Boulevard. We believe that this decision will have a positive impact on the Wilmont neighborhood as well as the wider Santa Monica community.

Thank you for your support in this matter and for your ongoing commitment to making Santa Monica a wonderful place to live.

Sincerely,
Mary Ann Kellogg
Tony Whitman
Sent from my iPad
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: John Murdock
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City Subject: BR proposed Settlement? Item 11.C
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 12:49:13 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:

I have reviewed the Staff Report for the "consideration of a settlement" with WS, and do not find the actual text of the Settlement Agreement attached anywhere. All we have is a summary of the proposed terms, which are vague in the extreme. It is hard to determine what benefit the city gets and equally as hard to decipher what WS gets from this, other than "expedited approval" of its projects if it "elects" to choose the existing process rather than the BR process. And there are some individual tenat settlements, which should not in ay way be a part of this package. This is like a high-low poker game with the developer having a lock on low. What does "expedited approval" actually mean? And why is the WS entity allowed to "elect" which route it will take, even after the city has given its "consideration" by adopting an undisclosed-terms ordinance allowing this to happen? This is a strange settlement proposal, to say the least. For one thing, it contemplated allowing the "ghettoization" of affordable units by transferring them all to one building rather than spreading them out among the 13 buildings among the market rate units. Does the city want to resurrect its past history of ghettoing the affordable housing and place them all in one place, say, somewhere in or near the Pico corridor, away from stylish Wilshire Blvd units? .Please explain the rationale for this bonus being delivered to WS. Without the actual text of the agreement, the public is unable to intelligently comment on the impacts, which leads to the question whether this notice complies with the Brown Act. . And claiming that a broad-brush agreement to give "expedited review" to 13 projects throughout the city with purported CEQA "exemptions" is not likely to stand up in court.

John B. Murdock
Attorney at Law
1209 Pine Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
tel. (310) 450-1859
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Thunder Levin
To: Council Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; councilmtgitems Subject: Builder"s Remedy Settlement
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:18:28 PM

EXTERNAL
To the City Council,
I’m am writing to object, in the most strenuous terms possible, ANY settlement with the “Builder’s Remedy” developer(s) before the details of such settlements have been revealed publicly and the residents of Santa Monica have had a chance to comment. Moreover, I’m implore you to take whatever actions are available to prevent these developments entirely AND to fight the State of California’s utterly insane 9000 unit mandate.

Allowing these developments will utterly destroy whatever beachside character remains to Santa Monica and take already impassable traffic and make it utterly impossible. Our small city will grind to a halt and our city services will collapse under the strain of this many new homes. The city simply doesn’t have the water, electrical, or education infrastructure to support this many new residents, and building more tall building will shadow their neighbors rendering rooftop solar useless and further increasing our carbon footprint.

I would encourage the council to think outside the box, up to and including deny any and all building permits for structures exceeding current zoning limits and using the SMPD to physically prevent construction. The well-intentioned but hopelessly misguided State mandates should be fought, and if necessary, ignored. They do not have the right overturn our own community standards. Go rogue if need be. Fight. And never, never give up.

Thunder Levin
2407 Fourth St. #7
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-392-8331
310-999-1831 cell
[email protected]
Virus-free.www.avast.com
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Lisa Lipman
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council mtg. 5/9: Item 11C - SUPPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING BUILDER"S REMEDY Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 10:18:04 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I live on 10th Street in the Wilmont neighborhood and I support and hope you vote yes on the settlement agreement with WS Communities. I appreciate that the agreement has 1038 10th Street, 1238-42 10th Street and 1007 Lincoln Blvd being withdrawn for BR projects and will not have replacement applications.

I still am concerned about the other 10 WS Communities projects and STRONGLY REQUEST that the council have city staff outline for these buildings that would qualify for ministerial approval what would be maximum height and FAR, maximum number of units possible, number of affordable units and parking allowed for all these projects BEFORE voting on the settlement.

Finally, as a member of a community with over 80% rental units, I want the city to ensure that the 20 deed-restricted affordable units between transferred from 1560 Lincoln Blvd. to 1038-42 10th Street DO NOT DISPLACE ANY RENT CONTROL RESIDENTS. The worst thing we can do is lose rent-control units/residents to displacement because of the builder's remedy debacle.

Thank-you,
Lisa Lipman
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: mdosti
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council mtg. 5/9: Item 11C - SUPPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING BUILDER"S REMEDY Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 10:49:25 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I live on 4th Street in the Wilmont neighborhood and I support and hope you vote yes on the settlement agreement with WS Communities. I appreciate that the agreement has 1038 10th Street, 1238-42 10th Street and 1007 Lincoln Blvd being withdrawn for BR projects and will not have replacement applications.

Thank-you,
Marya Dosti
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: E C
To: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council mtg. 5/9: Item 11C - SUPPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING BUILDER"S REMEDY Date: Saturday, May 6, 2023 7:59:27 PM

Thank you,
Elizabeth Cazenave
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Lori Dreischmeier
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council mtg. 5/9: Item 11C - SUPPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING BUILDER"S REMEDY Date: Sunday, May 7, 2023 7:04:02 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Member,
I live on 10th Street in the Wilmont neighborhood and I support and hope you vote yes on the settlement agreement with WS Communities. I appreciate that the agreement has 1038 10th Street, 1238-42 10th Street and 1007 Lincoln Blvd being withdrawn for BR projects and will not have replacement applications.

Thank you,
Lori
1044 10th Street HOA
--
Lori L. Dreischmeier
[email protected]
310-880-8203, mobile
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Jill Roffis
To: Gleam Davis
Cc: Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems Subject: City Council Mtg. 5/9: Item 11C - SUPPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING BUIILDER"S REMEDY Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:02:22 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I live on 6th Street in the Wilmont neighborhood and I support and hope you vote yes on the settlement agreement with the WS Communities. I appreciate that the agreement has 1038 10th Street and 1007 Lincoln Blvd being withdrawn for BR projects and will not have replacement applications.

I still am concerned about the other 10 WS Communities projects and STRONGLY REQUEST that the council have city staff outline for these buildings that would qualify for ministerial approval what would be maximum height and FAR, maximum number of units possible, number of affordable units, and parking allowed for all projects BEFORE voting on the settlement.

Finally, as a member of the a community with 80% rental units, I want the city to ensure that the 20 deed-restricted affordable units between transferred from 1560 Lincoln Blvd, to 1038- 42 10th Street DO NOT DISPLACE ANY RENT CONTROL RESIDENTS. The worse thing we can do is lose rent-control units/residents to displacement because of the builder’s remedy debacle.

Thank you,
Jill Roffis
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: City Developement - 11C
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:25:31 PM
From: Jero Books & Templet Co. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:44 PM
To: Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]> Subject: Re: City Developement

EXTERNAL
I agree with the statements below, there is Enough Development as it is Now, and traffic is Bad!! Mary Rojeski 38 yr resident of S.M.

SMCLC's letter:

May 8, 2023
To: The City Council
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] CC: City Clerk [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable? Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

Thank you.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:29:05 PM
Attachments: Blue.png
Facebook.png
Top Agent Network - Verified Member.png
1_Email Signature_Kate Bransfield.png
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:28 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects

EXTERNAL
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Dear Council,
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-

22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.

It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

Thank you.

Kate
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
Estates Director
Global Luxury Specialist
CalDRE # 01218699
310.395.1133
[email protected]
www.SantaMonicaListings.com
Coldwell Banker Realty
1608 Montana Avenue
Santa Monica, 90403
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Please do not approve the “Builder’s Remedy” Settlement with WSC until critical information is provided and Public can weigh in - 11C Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:27:11 PM
From: Kara Fox <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:11 PM
To: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; David Martin <[email protected]> Subject: Please do not approve the “Builder’s Remedy” Settlement with WSC until critical information is provided and Public can weigh in

EXTERNAL
How can you allow one single developer ruin our city???? This does not make sense. Please protect us, don’t destroy us. Thank you. Kara Fox, 14th street, Santa Monica Begin forwarded message:

From: Beatrice Felix <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Council votes TOMORROW: SMCLC Urges Council NOT to approve the “Builder’s Remedy” Settlement with WSC until critical information is provided and Public can weigh in Date: May 8, 2023 at 1:05:00 PM PDT
To: Thomas Hartman <[email protected]>, Julie Kirst <[email protected]>, Sarah Ann Lewis <[email protected]>, Ann 2417 Hill Lewis <[email protected]>, Elaine Gervasi <[email protected]>, Djsantamonica <[email protected]>, Kara Fox <[email protected]>, Rose Youssefi <[email protected]>, Emma Sanchez <[email protected]>, Rosvita Rauch <[email protected]>, Lena Grossman <[email protected]>, Daly Robert <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Beatrice Felix <[email protected]>
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] CC: City Clerk [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Sharon Toriello
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: GELSON LOT.

Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 12:58:49 PM

EXTERNAL

YOU HAVE ALREADY NARROWED OUR DRIVING BY ELIMINATING ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION ON OCEAN PARK. NOW YOU ARE PROPOSING 551 UNITS AT THE CORNER OF LINCOLN AND OCEAN PARK. HOW DO YOU EXPECT US

TO GET OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO GO ANYWHERE ONCE THIS IS DONE? WHERE IS THE TRAFFIC SUPPOSED TO GO? YOU ARE MAKING OUR COMMUNITY UNLIVABLE.
sharon toriello 2918 6th st. #1 santa monica, ca. 90405 310-399-1044.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Linda Sypien
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: I oppose the 13 builder’s remedy projects
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:05:48 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please note: I oppose the Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Thank you!
Linda Sypien
2nd St, Santa Monica
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: [email protected]
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject: Item 11 -C
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:07:10 PM

EXTERNAL
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to important issues so you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.

The public needs to be informed on such a large massive building matter.

Thank you Lou Steiner
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: janet rt
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:07:20 PM

EXTERNAL
May 8, 2023
To: The City
Council [email protected], [email protected], christine [email protected], [email protected], jesse.zwick@santa monica.gov, [email protected], oscar.delatorre@santamonica. gov, [email protected]
CC: City
Clerk [email protected], [email protected], dou [email protected], [email protected] From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these
projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.

It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.

Thank you.

Janet Tunick
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: [email protected]
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Item 11-C: SMCLC Urges Council NOT to approve “builder’s remedy” settlement until critical information provided and public review
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 10:40:08 AM

EXTERNAL
May 8, 2023
To: The City Council [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
CC: City Clerk [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its “builder’s remedy” project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a “builder’s remedy” statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
This proposed settlement is essentially a mega development agreement - the biggest one in the city’s history. Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented. And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
City to approve it, and when it’s anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.

Thank you.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Linda Shayne
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: OPPOSE Staff Admin Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC for LACK of CRITICAL INFO Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:01:02 PM

EXTERNAL
May 8, 2023
From: LINDA SHAYNE (resident and business owner in the city of Santa Monica, CA)
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.

It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

Thank you.

LINDA SHAYNE
resident of Santa Monica, CA
310-486-5400
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Susan Suntree
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:07:55 PM

EXTERNAL
May 8, 2023
To: The City Council
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] CC: City Clerk [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] FROM: SUSAN SUNTREE
1223 11th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401
DEAR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL: I SUPPORT THE POSITION OUTLINED IN THE FOLLOWING LETTER. PLEASE STAND FIRM FOR SENSIBLE PLANNING AND PROCEDURES.

SINCERELY, SUSAN SUNTREE
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable? Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

Thank you.

Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Danielle Charney
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:04:18 PM

EXTERNAL
I AM COPYING THIS LETTER FROM SMCLC BECAUSE NOBODY SAYS IT BETTER..

BUT I ADD THAT THIS CITY HAS ALLOWED NMS/WS TO PRETTY MUCH RUIN THIS TOWN WITH IT'S UGLY BUILDINGS AND DISHONEST PRACTICES..THEY WERE

CONVICTED IN COURT REGARDING THIS AND YOU STILL ALLOW THEM TO WALK ALL OVER US...THEY ARE THE LOWEST OF THE LOW -ONLY LOWER ARE THEIR SLIMY ATTORNEYS..

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.

It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

1. Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: LAWRENCE ROBINSON
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:24:08 PM

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.

It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
residents, including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years;

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

LR
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Mary Hubbell
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:30:01 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers;
I urge you to oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects. I agree with all of the statements in the letter from The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) – see below.

The City needs to be fighting the destruction of our City at every level.

Concerned resident,
Mary Hubbell
Ocean Park
May 8, 2023
To: The City
Council [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] CC: City Clerk [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable? Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

Thank you.

Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Suzanne Verge
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:00:55 PM

EXTERNAL
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until we have adequate answers and the Council can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.

With gratitude,
Suzanne Verge
Santa Monica resident
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: [email protected]
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:27:39 PM
Attachments: Blue.png
Facebook.png
Top Agent Network - Verified Member.png
1_Email Signature_Kate Bransfield.png

EXTERNAL
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable? Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

Thank you.

Kate
Estates Director
Global Luxury Specialist
CalDRE # 01218699
310.395.1133
[email protected]
www.SantaMonicaListings.com
Coldwell Banker Realty
1608 Montana Avenue
Santa Monica, 90403
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Bridget Terry
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:31:26 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear Council —
I join with The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City’s letter to you regarding Administrative Item 11-C. Please insist on trnasparency for your constituent residents of Santa Monica before voting on this.

Thank you.

Bridget Terry
Santa Monica resident
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Lisa Test, OTD, OTR/L
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose Staff Admistrative Item 11-c
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:59:25 PM

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern
I strongly oppose the settlement agreement.

There has not been sufficient time for the public to weigh in on this. Please consider the impact on us Santa Monica residents. There is little value to us and our view points to a livable city.

Again, city council should be taking into account us as residence. There seems to be priority for business with little regard to those who live here.

Kindly,
Lisa Test
Grant Street, Santa Monica
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Paul Berman
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:13:47 PM

EXTERNAL
I am opposed to changing the character of Santa Monica from a beach community into a city of high rises. Please do not vote in support of Staff Administrative item 11- C.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Paul Berman
Resident and business owner in Santa Monica
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Neal Wilde
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please do NOT approve the “Builder’s Remedy” Settlement with WSC Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:47:39 PM

EXTERNAL
Please oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Thank you.

Neal Wilde
Santa Monica resident
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Michelle Page
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Please, this is important: Stop the madness!
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:29:24 PM

EXTERNAL
May 8, 2023
To: The City
Council [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] CC: City Clerk [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable? Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

Thank you.

A Michelle Page
--
My Blog: NepalDog.typepad.com
My website:NepalDog.com
The complete Los Angeles Times article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-dogs24apr24,1,2996307.story www.NepalDog.com
310.828.2628 Land line - no texting
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Sarah Lewis
To: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Proposed settlement of 13 WSC “builder’s remedy” projects Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:44:48 PM

EXTERNAL
Hello,
You have received a letter from the The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) opposing the settlement of 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects.

Such a settlement merits far greater detail of communication than has been provided so far and in fact the staff report lacks significant important information commensurate with projects of this size.

I add my voice to those of other concerned Santa Monica residents and support the vigorous opposition to this proposed settlement.

Regards,
Sarah Lewis
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Jero Books & Templet Co.

To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: City Development OR Not
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:30:53 PM

EXTERNAL
I agree with the statements below, there is Enough Development as it is Now, and traffic is Bad!! Mary Rojeski 38 yr resident of S.M.

SMCLC's letter:

The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable? Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

Thank you.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Rose Shoshana
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White; [email protected]; David Martin Subject: Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:08:15 PM

EXTERNAL
Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.

Respectfully, Rose Shoshana, rosegallery
Bergamot Station Arts Center
--
Rose Shoshana

ROSEGALLERY
Bergamot Station Art Center
2525 Michigan Avenue B-7
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Ph. 310.264.8440
[email protected]
www.rosegallery.net
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Callene Momtazee
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Cc: Luthern Williams; Evelyn Hou; Isabel Aranda; Emily Alexander; Jason Parry; councilmtgitems; Susan Cola; David White
Subject: Request for Postponement of Item 11c Proposed Settlement with WS Communities Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 11:39:31 AM

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and CouncilmembersI am writing as the a trustee member of the New Roads School’s Board of Trustees regarding the proposed settlement with WS Communities. My son Jack attended New Roads School grades 7-9 until this year.

As you may be aware, New Roads serves students grades
Kindergarten through 12th. Central to the school’s mission is the idea that diversity and equity in education serve the common good and the full development of each young person’s potential.

As part of its pursuit of this principle, the school has invested more than $120 million in financial aid for 40-50% of its student body annually since its founding in 1995, all without an endowment. Last year, 23% of the graduating seniors were the first person in their families to pursue a college degree in the United States.

The school’s campus is located at 3131 Olympic Blvd and shares nearly 500 feet of property line with the property at 3030 Nebraska, site of one of the Builders Remedy applications. How this matter is resolved will significantly impact New Roads and the surrounding neighborhood. We request that you postpone consideration of the settlement to allow the school and the entire community sufficient time to fully review the terms, consider the impacts, and potentially propose modifications that protect the health and wellbeing of children in Santa Monica.

I am grateful for your attention to the school’s circumstances and our request. I would be happy to address any questions you may have.

Sincerely,
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
Callene Momtazee, Trustee
New Roads School Board of Trustees
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Gerson, Jody
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; councilmtgitems; Susan Cola; David White Subject: Request for Postponement of Item 11c Proposed Settlement with WS Communities Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 12:32:48 PM

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and CouncilmembersI am writing you all regarding the proposed settlement with WS Communities. I am the Chairman & CEO of Universal Music Publishing Group, which is headquartered in Santa Monica, a member of the Board of Trustees at New Roads School, and the proud mother to a son, who is a New Roads graduate and a daughter who is a current student there. Both of which, I’ve watched flourish in life from the phenomenal education and experience they’ve had at New Roads.

New Roads is located in Santa Monica and shares nearly 500 feet of property line with the property at 3030 Nebraska, which is site of one of the Builders Remedy applications. The school serves students of all ages and backgrounds from kindergarten – 12th grade. Diversity and equity in education are at the core of New Roads mission. As part of its pursuit of this principle, the school has invested more than $120 million in financial aid for nearly half of the student body annually since its founding in 1995, all without an endowment. Last year over 20% of the graduating seniors were the first person in their families to pursue a college degree in the United States.

How this matter is resolved will significantly impact New Roads and the surrounding neighborhood. We request that you postpone consideration of the settlement to allow the school and the entire community sufficient time to fully review the terms, consider the impacts, and potentially propose modifications that protect the health and wellbeing of children in Santa Monica.

I am grateful for your attention to the school’s circumstances and our request.

Sincerely,
Jody Gerson
Chairman & CEO, Universal Music Publishing Group
New Roads School Board of Trustees
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: alan hoffman
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Cc: Luthern Williams; Evelyn Hou; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; councilmtgitems; Susan Cola; David White
Subject: Request for Postponement of Item 11c-Proposed Settlement with WS Communities Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 12:04:20 AM

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers:

I am writing as the Board Chair-Elect of New Roads School’s Board of Trustees regarding the proposed settlement with WS Communities.

As you may be aware, New Roads serves students grades Kindergarten through 12th.

Central to the school’s mission is the idea that diversity and equity in education serve the common good and the full development of each young person’s potential. As part of its pursuit of this principle, the school has invested more than $120 million in financial aid for 40-50% of its student body annually since its founding in 1995, all without an endowment.

Last year, 23% of the graduating seniors were the first person in their families to pursue a college degree in the United States.

I am grateful for your attention to the school’s circumstances and our request. I would be happy to address any questions you may have.

Sincerely,
Alan Hoffman
Board Chair-Elect
New Roads School Board of Trustees
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Robin Shakeshaft
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: settlement with WS Communities
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:27:43 PM

EXTERNAL
To: The City Council
May 8, 2023
Please do not enter into any settlement with WS Communities until residents of Santa Monica have been given the opportunity to view the proposed settlement and to comment on it.

At the present rate of building development, and traffic congestion, Santa Monica is likely to become unlivable in the near future.

Robin Shakeshaft
1325 Maple St.

Santa Monica 90405.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Michele Perrone
To: Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; councilmtgitems Subject: Vote NO on Item 11-C May 9th
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:07:16 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am in agreement with the letter you received from SMLC stating their opposition to staff item 11-C coming up for vote tomorrow, Tuesday May 9, 2023. Their reason being lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Michele Perrone
Ocean Park resident since 1997
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Robert
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: WSC Settlement
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:16:27 PM

EXTERNAL
I am urging you NOT to make this settlement deal. Let's keep Santa Monica livable with adding even more density.

Robert Illes
1021 12th St, Santa Monica, CA 90403
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Elizabeth Lerer
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Item 11. C. - Please oppose until more is known Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:52:51 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Please oppose staff administrative item 11. C.

Do not hastily settle with a greedy and corrupt developer.

Request more information to ensure a wise and thoughtful decision will be the result of any potential settlement.

Many are aware that the rules of land use of recent has been and will increasingly be dictated by the state. Good faith local communities such as Santa Monica deserve the right to self determination.

City Councilmembers, please do more to honor our unique and blessed location.

Please stand with our community to steward our beloved and targeted city and protect us from corrupt and greedy developers.

Stop selling the City of Santa Monica short.

Finally, PLEASE join efforts to place an initiative on the 2024 ballot that will restore local control of land use.

Dear City Council, PLEASE endorse the Our Neighborhood Voices. Santa Monica has and will continue to do more than our share to build housing. Please stop the giveaway to developers.
https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com/endorse/
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lerer
Santa Monica resident
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023

ANGEL LAW
2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205
Santa Monica, CA 90405-5269
Tel: (310) 314-6433
angellaw.com
May 9, 2023
City of Santa Monica
Attn: City Council of the City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Via Email to [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Re: Request to Continue Item 11.C, Consideration of a Settlement Agreement between the City of Santa Monica and WS Communities, LLC and its affiliates Dear Mayor Davis and Councilmembers:

Angel Law represents New Roads School (NRS), the immediate neighbor to the east of the project proposed at 3030 Nebraska Avenue (Project). On behalf of NRS, we request that Item 11.C, which wasn’t agendized until May 4, be continued to a later date, first and foremost in order to allow for the timely and full public release of the settlement agreement. Neither NRS nor any other major public stakeholder can comment on an agreement the terms and conditions of which are not made part the agenda packet or the minimum 72-hour advance written Brown Act notice requirement.

The staff report for Item 11.C lacks transparency. Most concerning, not only does it not provide the proposed settlement agreement for public review and comment; also, it makes no effort to provide at least a summary description of the alternatives to the builder’s remedy projects agreed with WS Communities. And yet the settlement contemplates that all alternatives but one, including the development adjoining NRS, are to be treated as ministerial projects exempt from further public ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023

Page 2 ends

review, including review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Troubling as the builder’s remedy project proposed for 3030 Nebraska Avenue may be, NRS struggles to find solace in a mysterious, nondescript “new multi-family housing project[] that would qualify for ministerial approval[],” and avoid the need for CEQA compliance under the deal now recommended for the city council’s approval. As shown below in a screenshot taken from the City of Santa Monica’s (City) open data portal, the nondescript new development at 3030 Nebraska Avenue would be located on the site of an abandoned clay mine.

A City staff report from February 14, 1995, states:
“Clay mining operations since the early 1900’s in the central portion of the City resulted in excavations which were backfilled with uncompacted fills (in some cases utilized as landfill) which may result in differential settlement and hazardous waste and explosive gas hazards.”
Given the location of these operations, with a toxic legacy including arsenic and lead, NRS has a compelling interest in protecting the health and safety of its over 500 students, its faculty and its staff, and in assuring that any redevelopment of the 3030 Nebraska Avenue property will not expose student, faculty or staff to any substances buried in the onsite soils hazardous to their health and well-being. Without independent environmental investigations and review involving NRS, we cannot rest assured that redevelopment will not adversely impact our human community.

Closed Session and Notice
We object to the scheduling of the closed session concerning the very litigation (the City-WS Communities litigation) that the proposed settlement agreement would settle, before agenda item ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023

Page 3 ends

11.C is heard. As it is presented in the staff report, the litigation settlement agreement paves the road for significant new development throughout the City (albeit less than the builder’s remedy projects) -- 13 individual projects. How can the council separate limited allowable closed session subject matter from required open session subject matter while the closed session on the WS Communities litigation and agenda item 11.C are inextricably related and overlap? In Trancas Property Owners Assn. v. City of Malibu, the Second District Court of Appeal held that Malibu violated the Brown Act when it conferred in closed session with its city attorney on a settlement allowing a developer in pending litigation over a subdivision project to circumvent public hearing requirements of zoning laws. The court emphasized the Brown Act’s unequivocal prohibition against closed sessions, “[e]xcept as expressly authorized” (Gov. Code, § 54962); and the rule that Government Code section 54956.9 (allowing, under specified limitations, for closed council sessions with the city attorney to confer over litigation), like the Brown Act’s other exceptions to its general requirements of local legislative openness, “are to be narrowly construed, having in mind the general spirit of the act (see § 54950). [Fn.]” (Trancas Property Owners Assn. v. City of Malibu (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 172, 185 (“Trancas”), italics added; accord, Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility Dist. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1079-1080.)
The open meeting exemption for conferring with counsel over litigation “cannot be construed to empower a city council to take or agree to take, as part of a non-publicly-ratified litigation settlement, action that by substantive law may not be taken without a public hearing and an opportunity for the public to be heard. As a matter of legislative intention and policy, a statute that is part of a law enacted to assure public decisionmaking, except in narrow circumstances, may not be read to authorize circumvention and indeed violation of other laws requiring that decisions be preceded by public hearings, simply because the means and object of the violation are settlement of a lawsuit.” (Trancas, 138 Cal. App. 4th at p. 186.)
Again, at the very least, the required public hearing on the proposed settlement agreement must occur before the closed session. But, even so, how can a meaningful public hearing proceed when the agreement at issue hasn’t even been disclosed as part of the agenda item. Why not? The City Council and the public — all affected stakeholders — must have an opportunity to see, review and comment on the terms of the agreement before it is signed and binds the City.

A continuance will serve the interests of public accountability with no apparent downside for WS Communities. We haven’t been told why this settlement must be approved today and not a day later. This item should not come back unless the development projects it proposes in lieu of the builder’s remedy projects are publicly disclosed. The one-page attachment to the staff report, listing the addresses of the builder’s remedy projects that WS Communities may now withdraw tells us nothing about the projects to be put forth instead. It is not enough for staff to say density or intensity of uses will be lower, especially when what will be proposed for approval are a dozen ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023

Page 4 ends

ministerial projects without any public development permit review hearings, thus excluding public participation.

Circumvention of CEQA through Expedited Ministerial Approvals The staff report contends that new projects, replacing builder’s remedy projects, would qualify for ministerial review. However, even if an administrative approval is labeled as “ministerial” for the redevelopment of the 3030 Nebraska Avenue property, it would still involve administrative judgment, i.e. discretion in how to handle contaminated soils, and how to lessen impacts to air quality and public health, inter alia. “[A] municipality's classification of a certain approval process as ministerial is not conclusive.” (Friends of Westwood v. City of L.A. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 270 (“Friends of Westwood”).)
Under the City’s new Housing Element-implementing ordinances, the Planning and Community Development Director (Director) has discretionary authority for modifications and waivers of development standards:
 “The Director shall issue an Administrative Approval if the proposed development conforms precisely to applicable development standards, except to the extent modifications or waivers have been granted pursuant to Chapter 9.43, Modifications and Waivers.” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.39.060(B), boldface added.)  Minor Modifications: “…the Director may grant relief from no more than 2 of the following dimensional requirements. ...” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.43.020(B), boldface added.)
 Major Modifications: “…the Director may grant relief from no more than 2 of the following requirements. …” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.43.030(B), boldface added.)  Waivers: “…the Director may grant waivers from the following requirements specified in this Ordinance…” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.43.040(B), boldface added.) This language suggests discretionary review to “modify this project in ways which would have mitigated environmental problems an EIR might conceivably have identified.” (Friends of Westwood, 191 Cal. App. 3d at p. 273.)
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023

Page 5 ends

Circumvention of CEQA Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The staff report portrays the proposed settlement agreement as an approval-in-concept and endorsement of a massive overall development project consisting of 13 individual WS Communities projects. This appearance raises concerns over the cumulative impacts of the 13 projects. While we understand that the settlement agreement does not issue individual ministerial permits (not yet), not the least considering the speed with which it is being rushed to the City Council, it certainly puts “ ‘bureaucratic and financial momentum’ ” (Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 130) behind otherwise reasonably foreseeable projects.

In Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Commission, the Second District Court of Appeals warned that “cumulative environmental impacts may be disguised or minimized by [an individual developer’s] filing numerous, serial applications….” (Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Com. (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1346.) In other words, a developer and a lead agency must heed “the mandate of CEQA that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones -- each with a minimal potential impact on the environment -- which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283-284.)
Conclusion
To ask for a continuance is not asking for much. We respectfully request that the city council continue the matter so we may explore resolution of the issues of specific concern to NRS. We were given no opportunity to do so.

Sincerely,

ANGEL LAW
Cooper Kass
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023

Page 2 ends

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023

Page 3 ends

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023

Page 4 ends

ministerial projects without any public development permit review hearings, thus excluding public participation.

Circumvention of CEQA through Expedited Ministerial Approvals The staff report contends that new projects, replacing builder’s remedy projects, would qualify for ministerial review. However, even if an administrative approval is labeled as “ministerial” for the redevelopment of the 3030 Nebraska Avenue property, it would still involve administrative judgment, i.e. discretion in how to handle contaminated soils, and how to lessen impacts to air quality and public health, inter alia. “[A] municipality's classification of a certain approval process as ministerial is not conclusive.” (Friends of Westwood v. City of L.A. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 270 (“Friends of Westwood”).)
Under the City’s new Housing Element-implementing ordinances, the Planning and Community Development Director (Director) has discretionary authority for modifications and waivers of development standards:
x “The Director shall issue an Administrative Approval if the proposed development conforms precisely to applicable development standards, except to the extent modifications or waivers have been granted pursuant to Chapter 9.43, Modifications and Waivers.” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.39.060(B), boldface added.) x Minor Modifications: “…the Director may grant relief from no more than 2 of the following dimensional requirements. ...” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.43.020(B), boldface added.)
x Major Modifications: “…the Director may grant relief from no more than 2 of the following requirements. …” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.43.030(B), boldface added.) x Waivers: “…the Director may grant waivers from the following requirements specified in this Ordinance…” (Ordinance 2742, § 9.43.040(B), boldface added.) This language suggests discretionary review to “modify this project in ways which would have mitigated environmental problems an EIR might conceivably have identified.” (Friends of Westwood, 191 Cal. App. 3d at p. 273.)
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
City of Santa Monica
City Council
May 9, 2023

Page 5 ends

Sincerely,

ANGEL LAW
Cooper Kass
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: janine autolitano
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:46:48 AM

EXTERNAL
So, the city is being held hostage by a developer, while being under the thumb of the state?
Rolling over is not an option.

Do not give in to a convicted criminal bullying you to ruin the city we love.

AND NO off-site options EVER!
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

2. Setting forth significant benefits to WSC in developing these sites, which ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
include expedited processing, ministerial review (precluding public scrutiny), and waiver of any environmental review as to adverse impacts which otherwise could require mitigations;

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Gray Benoist
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Support of SMCLC Letter to the City Council
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:05:03 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

I live at 1255 10th St, across the street from the Builders Remedy project planned for 1242 10th St. The impact of this project on the nature and safety of our neighborhood is certain to be drastically negative. The corner of Arizona and 10th St is already treacherous for pedestrians and dog walkers and another 200 or so residents living on the block, will be mind blowingly unhealthy for me and my neighbors.

The City Council put us into this situation with their careless approach in the development of a compliant Housing Element and thereby a negotiation with WSC is now, unfortunately for every Santa Monican, required, however I can not allow any such settlement to be determined without public participation and transparency.

Sincerely,
Gray Benoist
1255 10th St #301
Santa Monica CA
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Stephen Billington
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Tomorrow evening’s meeting
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:58:54 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am a resident of Santa Monica and a teacher at New Roads School on 3131 Olympic Blvd, a close neighbor of the proposed development settlement between the NMS/WS communities. I am writing to ask that you please postpone any decision so that our school has time to more fully understand and assess the implications of the settlement.

Thank you,
Stephen Billington
1102 Stanford St, Santa Monica, CA 90403
--
Stephen Billington, D.M.A. (he/him)
K-12 Music Director
Herb Alpert Campus
3131 Olympic Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90404
(310) 828-5582
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Kim Blish-Ewen
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please postpone settlement City vs NMS/WD
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:25:35 AM

EXTERNAL
To Whom it May Concern,
Hello. I am a Santa Monica native. I grew up here and am now raising my children here. I have 14 year old twins that attend the middle school at New Roads. It is my understanding that a major development project is happening right next door to our charming school. We are sad to see the independently owned businesses we frequent go away, and my husband will be losing his office space that he rents in one of the buildings set to be demolished.

While there is nothing we can do to keep the existing establishments in place, we do kindly request that you postpone your decision for the approval of the settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities. Delaying this decision will give New Roads and the surrounding neighbors time to appropriately assess and prepare for the affect the project will have on the community as far as construction is concerned. I am not alone in wanting what is best for my children and having time to make sure they are safe and secure is very important. I appreciate your consideration.

Thank you,
V. Kim Blish-Ewen
1450 Harvard St.
(310) 386-2957
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Nathalie Bouville
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: NewRoads school versus City
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:27:58 AM

EXTERNAL
Hello,
On behalf of the New roads school community, i wask you that you please postpone consideration of the settlement.

Hoping that you will hear my voice,
Best regards,
Nathalie Bouville
Consultant
+ 1 (310) 290 0056
https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathaliebouville/
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Brianna Tenhouten
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; [email protected] Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: From: ROSEGALLERY, RE: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:06:46 AM

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.

It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Without this critical information, the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

ROSEGALLERY is asking that you do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it's in the interests of the City to approve ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.
--
Brianna Tenhouten

ROSEGALLERY
2525 Michigan Avenue B-7
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Ph. 310.264.8440
www.rosegallery.net
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Jonathan Broida
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Proposed Development Adjacent to New Roads School on agenda for 5/9/23 Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:55:02 AM

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concernMy name is Jonathan Broida. My family has one child currently at New Roads School in Santa Monica, and in the near future, our younger son will also attend New Roads School. We have become aware of a proposed development project adjacent to the New Roads Campus. From my understanding, this came to be due to extenuating circumstances, but it seems to be on a rather fast-paced schedule. Being that this will have a large impact on the local community, and especially on a large population of children, who will potentially be exposed to all of the dangers and disruptions of construction in such close proximity, we are writing to you today to ask that you consider postponing consideration of this settlement until the community, as well as the school, have a chance to more accurately and completely assess the potential impacts of the settlement. It is my understanding that the school only learned of this agenda item last week, and have not yet had sufficient time to confer with legal counsel and best consider a response. We hope you will consider this request. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions about more specifically why we are concerned with this project. Sadly, being that I will be at work until well into the evening today, I will not be able to attend this meeting myself. But I believe we will have representatives from the Board of New Roads School there, along with legal council.

Kindly,
Jonathan Broida
Parent of a 3rd Grade Student in Santa Monica
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Bruce Brown
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:51:52 PM
Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.png

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please read the below letter and note the critical information located in it:

Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.

It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

Thank you.

Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
Thank you, Bruce
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
Bruce F Brown
1333 Pine St.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
[email protected]
C/ 310-351-5149
Lic. 523683
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: JOHN BUCKINGHAM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: NO to builders remedy project!!!!
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 12:39:32 PM

EXTERNAL
We are stunned that the city staff chose to put this shady builders remedy item on tonight’s council meeting agenda.

Haven’t you realized that residents DO NOT want massive development in our city? It’s time to start listening to what we want and STOP pushing your utopian unworkable ideology down our throats.

This builders remedy is a shady unscrupulous way for greedy developers to make millions - on the backs of those here who try to navigate this already overpopulated city.

Do you have any details about how this would work? No, you do not.

VOTE NO ON THIS BUILDERS REMEDY!!!!
Linda and John Buckingham
Sent from my iPad
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Claudia Reisenberger
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item: Settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:10:21 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a long time resident and business owner in Santa Monica, I would like to reach out to you and ask that you postpone consideration of the settlement between the City and NWS / WS Communities to a later council meeting date.

This settlement will impact the local community, and as such it is important that the community be given information about the potential settlement, and enough time to review what it would ultimately mean for all of us. As an engaged citizen, I feel it is my right and duty to get information so that I have a chance to weigh in with my perspective as the council makes important decisions.

Thank you,
Claudia Reisenberger
claudia reisenberger
merge___conceptual design
1618 ocean park blvd
santa monica, ca 9o4o5
p 31o 581 5343
c 31o 266 1354
www.mergeconceptualdesign.com
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Michele Cole
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Staff Adminisrative Item 11-C
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:20:23 AM

EXTERNAL
I oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.
thank you
Michele Cole
Santa Monica Resident
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:05:15 AM
From: Don Coscarelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:43 AM
To: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

EXTERNAL
I'm against this deal and I have been a 32 year resident of Santa Monica. I'm with SMCLC and hope you will read their letter.

Please vote against and hold these developers to account.

Thank you.

Donald Coscarelli
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.

Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.

It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
City to approve it, and when it's anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Collette Ehrich
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Objection to Builders Remedy Projects
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:27:16 AM

EXTERNAL
I am adamantly against allowing the builder's remedy project sites. Allowing projects that can have such a negative impact on Santa Monica residents is unacceptable, Before any settlements are reached the Santa Monica community should be made aware of what will be allowed to be built in our City.

I live on a quiet residential street in mid-city. One of these projects will be acccross the street from my building. We are a street of no more than 3 stories and the notice on this site states we will be getting a 20 story building of 400 units.

I cannot imagine this being allowed. I would think the environmental impact of such a project would be detrimental. 400 units means more than 400 people on one small site. Additionally despite Santa Monica being a walking city most people need cars and most couples and families own more than one car. Adding that many cars to one residential block will negatively affect parking and traffic and would also necesitate traffic and additional infrastructure such as traffic lights which currently do not exist. Additionally the cross street has a bike lane and is used as a safe area for bikers. Adding over 400 commuters will negatively affect this bike thoroughfare.

Do what you have to do to fight this atrocity and keep Santa Monica safe for its residents.

Collette Ehrich
1255 10th Street Resident and Santa Monica voter
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Neda Farahvash
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: postpone consideration of the settlement.

Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:46:45 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council of Santa Monica,
I am a parent of a 2nd and 6th graders at the New Roads School. My children have been at this school since Kindergarten.

I recently learned that the SM City Council plans to discuss approving a settlement with NMS/WS Communities at this evening's Council meeting. This is an important decision that will have long lasting ramifications for our community.

There has not been sufficient time granted for members of the community and affected businesses, schools, and service organizations to fully consider the impacts and provide thoughtful , constructive feedback on the matter. As such, I’d encourage the council to postpone any decision until all constituents have time to evaluate and respond.

Sincerely
Neda
--
Neda Farahvash
Labyrinth Design studio
Tel: (818) 274 4456
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: George Ferrell
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:10:30 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

We oppose the staff's recommended settlement concerning the builder's remedy projects. The terms of the settlement are not clear, and there has been insufficient time to study the report. We urge you to reject the recommendation from the staff.

Peggy and George Ferrell
338 15th Street
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Alexa Fischer
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Request to postpone consideration of the settlement next to New Roads School Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:51:02 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
It has been brought to my attention that an agenda item relating to the proposed settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities will be discussed at tonight's meeting. I am urgently requesting that you postpone this agenda item to give the New Roads community ample time to review the details of the proposed settlement and the impact that it has on the adjacent New Roads School community.

As a Santa Monica resident and business owner for the last twenty years, as well as a parent of two children at New Roads, I have witnessed the explosive growth of our city. It is with great concern that I see yet another development proposal, next to a school no less, without a detailed consideration for the negative impact it would have (health, noise, etc) on the adjacent school body.

Please POSTPONE the consideration of the settlement until our community can have adequate time to convene and review its contents.

I will be attending tonight's meeting.

Thank you for your consideration,
Alexa Fischer
Alexa Fischer, Creator + CEO
write: [email protected]
connect: @Wishbeads.official
manifest: wishbeads.com
NEW free training course: alexafischer.com
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Mark Franks
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Settlement between Santa Monica and NMS/WS Communties Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:42:30 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
As a former resident of Santa Monica, current resident of Los Angeles, and current faculty member of New Roads School, I ask that you postpone consideration of the settlement between the city and the NMS/WS Communities. I understand part of this development regards the property next to New Roads campus. Thank you for considering.

Mark Franks
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Staff Administrative Item 11-C
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:11:01 AM
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:06 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Staff Administrative Item 11-C

EXTERNAL
I hereby voice my objection to staff's proposal to settle 13 WSC Builder's Remedy Projects due to insufficient information in the staff report and insufficient time to poll residents' opinions.

These projects are out of scale and do not comply with our city's building standards.

Furthermore, they will have a highly negative impact on traffic, infrastructure and the quality of living of residents that already live here.

I strongly oppose these projects and urge City Council to find ways to stop them from going forward.

Faustino Garza
Santa Monica Homeowner and Resident of 35 years
Ocean Park
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Gemma Corfield
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 6:28:37 AM

EXTERNAL
The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable? Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

Thank you.
gemma corfield
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: jim gerstley
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: May 9 Council item 11-C WSC Remedy Projects Settlement Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:54:14 AM

EXTERNAL
Please oppose the staff recommendation for settlement of 13 WSC Remedy Projects.

I agree with SMCLC.

The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come.
the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item. But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.

Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

5. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

Thank you
James Gerstley
Santa Monica 90403
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: les gibbs
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Stop the Builders Remedy
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:57:01 AM

EXTERNAL
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: I have serious concerns about future large building projects in Santa Monica destroying our quality of life and the city personality
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:06:11 AM
From: Ed Hallen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:51 AM
To: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>; Douglas Sloan <[email protected]>; David Martin <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: I have serious concerns about future large building projects in Santa Monica destroying our quality of life and the city personality

EXTERNAL
From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these
projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.

It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

This is even more important here, given the well-known history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

Thank you.

Ed Hallen
1231 9th Street
Santa Monica
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: [email protected]
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:43:59 AM

EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
I opposed the settlement of the WSC builder's remedy project as it currently stands due to a lack of information (it's not clear what is approved and/or will be approved) and a lack of time for the public to weigh in.

As illustrated by SMCLC, some of the key missing information is:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Thus, the current proposed settlement does not say what would be built under the agreement and does not say how it differs from the original proposal.

Additionally, this proposal was placed on the city council agenda just last Thursday. Less than a week is not enough time for the public to weigh in.

As such, I urge you to reject Item 11-C to settle the 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects as it currently stands. There is simply not enough information about what will be built, how it will be built, how it will impact the city, and not enough time for the public to weigh in.

Best,
Kelly
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Jeff Kitchen
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please postpone settlement of development next to New Roads School Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:31:08 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Council,
As a longtime resident of Santa Monica I want to ask that the council postpone settlement of the development being considered adjacent to New Roads School so that all the potential impacts can be properly studied and considered.

Thank you,
Jeff Kitchen
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Nikki Kolhoff
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:14:57 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
I agree with the email below from SMCLC and urge you to reject a settlement regarding WSC's builder's remedy projects.

Regards,
Nikki Kolhoff
Santa Monica Resident
May 8, 2023
To: The City
Council [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] CC: City Clerk [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable? Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

Thank you.

Victor, Diana, Sherrill and Jeff
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Brian Lasky
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 10:25:44 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council -
In addition to what others have said I am writing to oppose a settlement agreement with the WSC builders.

If what I hear it true, then why would you enter into an agreement without defined goals and guidelines.

To think they will in good faith do what is best for the City is just foolishness. Time and time again, developers have taken advantage of City Hall and exercise loopholes to get what they want.

I am not opposed to all settlement agreements, and i do think it is a good idea, but define the parameters and criteria first. Otherwise we are just giving them a blank check and continue to be taken advantage of by developers.

Ask yourself, would you ever have a contractor work on your house on a major project without knowing the full scale of work and cost estimate. The same should be true here.

Thank you for your time.

Brian Lasky
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Rodney Liber
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C / Settlement Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:35:51 AM

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council:

Transparency and proper consideration is essential in decisions that will impact our city for decades.

Please postpone any decision on new epic sized developments until all the avenues forward have been sufficiently reviewed.

Thank you.

Rodney Liber
Commercial Property Owner
Santa Monica, CA
Rodney Liber | SantaMonicaCreative | 310.567.1000 | [email protected] This email and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this email from your system.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Ellen Mark
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin
Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle WSC builder"s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 12:27:09 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear Coucilmembers,
I OPPOSE STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM 11-C (WSC "builder's remedy") without further disclosure of what would be built under this agreement.

Residents want to understand, and want the Council to understand, what the ramifications are BEFORE approving anything related to this settlement.

Sincerely,
Ellen Mark
Sunset Park resident
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Brandon Marlowe
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Cc: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; Ross Furukawa; Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City
Subject: Builder"s Remedy Settlement = NO
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:13:00 AM

EXTERNAL
Hello All and Good Morning;
It appears to this 30-year resident that the proposed Builder’s Remedy settlement reeks of laziness, incompetence, deceit and corruption.

You choked on the Housing Element, allowing this mess to begin with.

You now seek to sweep your failure under the rug while further burnishing your credentials with the masters you really serve – the developers. At the expense of, as usual, the people who live here.

Since you don’t seem to care to understand I will explain it to you; There should be a separate commission to figure this mess out. What if any elements of the builder’s remedy projects should be included in the Housing Element compliance and what does that overall plan look like.

And for God’s sake how will you police / ensure that the affordable portion actually occurs.

And is it enough?!?!
For those who are new to the party there was a DECADE in Santa Monica where none of the approved affordable housing actually happened because (in the words of a former Mayor) “we didn’t have a mechanism for it”. How cowardly. How incompetent. How sickening.

Is there an adult in the room? Anybody?
Bueller?
Brandon Marlowe
Ocean Park
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Marwa Bernstein
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Letter in support of postponing the NMS settlement Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:41:27 AM

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I recently learned that the SM City Council plans to discuss approving a settlement with NMS/WS Communities at this evenings Council meeting. This is an important decision that will have long lasting ramifications for our community. There has not been sufficient time granted for members of the community and affected businesses, schools, and service organizations to fully consider the impacts and provide thoughtful , constructive feedback on the matter. As such, I am asking the council to postpone any decision until all constituents have time to evaluate and respond.

Marwa Bernstein
Co head of the Parent Village of New Roads School
[email protected]
646.382.7454
www.marwabernstein.com
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Prashant Mehrotra
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Prashant Mehrotra; Gauri Kolhatkar
Subject: NMS/WS settlement
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:03:40 AM

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern, we are writing to you as both a resident of the city of Santa Monica (and in the case of prashant, also working in Santa Monica) regarding the settlement btw the City of Santa Monica and NMS/WS that include new property developments in the Santa Monica neighborhood by Nebraska Avenue and Centinela Avenue.

We are writing to express concern around the impact to the nearby buildings, including the future development of the property next to the New Roads School campus and suggest that it would be beneficial to postpone the consideration of the settlement and delay the discussion until all interested parties have had more time to understand the potential impact of the development on the adjacent properties.

Best regards,
Prashant Mehrotra & Gauri Kolhatkar
2612 Washington Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90403
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Nicola Meyer
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please postpone consideration of the settlement Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 10:04:52 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am a 45 year resident of Santa Monica with a 24 year career as a teacher in Santa Monica. I teach at Carlthorp School and have a middle school child at New Roads. I have a vested interest in the keeping Santa Monica the lovely town it always has been. I am requesting that you please postpone consideration of the settlement. New Roads is a phenomenal school and the children who go there are quite literally the future of Santa Monica. Please let them know that you care about their well-being and respect the needs of children and the school over developers who prioritize money over community.

Respectfully,
Nicky Meyer
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Hope Mineo
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica City Council Meeting tonight
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 1:36:46 PM
Importance: High

EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council,
This email is about the Santa Monica City Council meeting tonight and consideration of approval of a settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities. Part of the proposed settlement is the development of a property next to New Roads School. Until we know how New Roads will be impacted by the development next door we agree with the New Roads Board of Trustees request that the City Council postpone its consideration of the settlement. The school and the broader community need sufficient time to assess the potential impacts of the settlement. Please give us this time and do not approve the settlement tonight,
Thank you,
1112 Montana Ave
Santa Monica, 90403
Hope Mineo (she/her)
310-480-0707
Women Rise in a World That Listens
Co-founder/coCEO - script.kitchen
www.script.kitchen
Executive Director - Motion Picture Industry Institute (MPii) www.mpii.org
ED/Founder - 2000Dames
www.2000dames.net
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/hope-mineo-34aa525a/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/hopemineo?lang=en
Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/hopemineo/
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Nancy
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Oppose City Council Item 11-C 5/9/23
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:22:45 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
We oppose settling with WSC without full disclosure and review of what will actually be built and the impacts to city infrastructure and its residents.

Wes & Nancy Hicks
Santa Monica residents
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Neda Farahvash
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Postpone consideration of the settlement of NMS Development adjacent to New Roads Schoo Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:51:00 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council of Santa Monica,
I am a parent of a 2nd and 6th graders at the New Roads School. My children have been at this school since Kindergarten.

Sincerely
Neda
--
Neda Farahvash
Labyrinth Design studio
Tel: (818) 274 4456
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Nishat Alikhan
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Regarding Agenda Item 11C for May 9th City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:57:02 AM

EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica City Council Members,
I am Nishat Alikhan. I work at New Roads School. In regards to the May 9th, 2023 City Council Meeting's agenda item 11C and in consideration of my role, and in the best interest of the over 500+ students and 100+ adults that attend New Roads School daily, I ask that you postpone consideration of the settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities which will allow the school time to fully understand what this development will be and how it will impact the physical and mental health, safety, and security of our student body as well as the safety and security of my colleagues and myself. Potential impacts of such a development include the increased congestion on already busy streets, increased inaccessibility of safe pathways to and from the metro station which would potentially impact student and faculty accessibility to the quality education and/or their place of employment at New Roads School.

Furthermore, we often spend time outdoors enjoying the beautiful Southern California weather engaging in the process of teaching and learning, utilizing nearby Gandara Park regularly for sports practices, and the school and community need time to better understand the scope of the development and the potential impact to student and adult health, especially those with asthma which can be exacerbated by impacted air quality especially during construction periods.

Thinking about all of these factors, (the health impacts, the increased congestion to already busy streets, the inaccessibility to the metro station, the likelihood of losing access to Gandara Park), I strongly urge the Santa Monica City Council to postpone its consideration of the settlement. I have taught and attended schools adjacent to development zones and have first-hand experience with the adverse impact on nearby school communities.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Best Regards,
Nishat Alikhan
7th Grade Science Educator
New Roads School
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: RICHARD ORTON
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Builders remedy is bad for Santa Monica
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 11:05:56 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear councilmembers, please do not approve the builders remedy proposal for SantaMonica. The proposed buildings will be the ruination of the city.

The housing shortage that we have here in Santa Monica and all over California is of affordable housing. While the builders remedy offer some affordable housing, the bulk of it is expensive, highly profitable, market rate housing, which lines the builders pockets, but doesn’t solve our problem and will create other problems.

Please don’t approve this dreadful concept.

Richard Orton
Ocean park
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: GERRY OWEN
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Objection to Agenda item
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 3:46:39 PM

EXTERNAL
My wife and I would like to register an objection to Agenda Item 11-C. The proposal for such a building would dramatically change the character of the neighborhood where no other building is higher than 3 stories. It would dwarf the Broad Theater complex which is the cultural heart of this area. Not to mention the increased foot and car traffic. Wilshire Boulevard is being resurfaced and right turn only corners being constructed with safety as the intent, a building of this size in the middle of this neighborhood would undermine the safety intent.

Thank you for your attention,
Gerry and Linda Owen
911 Arizona Ave
Santa Monica
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Pouya Payan
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: NMS Development Adjacent to New Roads School
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 1:09:11 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council of Santa Monica,
I am a parent of a 2nd and 6th graders at the New Roads School. My children have been at this school since Kindergarten.

Sincerely
Pouya
--
Neda Farahvash
Labyrinth Design studio
Tel: (818) 274 4456
--
Pouya Payan
Labyrinth Design Studio Inc.

T 818.200.5005
E [email protected]
1600 Sawtelle Blvd. #230
Los Angeles, CA, 90025
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Peter Altschuler
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Builders remedy projects
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:53:27 AM

EXTERNAL
There are numerous contentious issues involving the pending claims of builders remedy projects.

The first is that the ability to claim builders remedy status is not supported by the facts: Santa Monica did not fail to comply with the State’s zoning modifications; the first submission simply did not meet the State’s parameters, and the City was given time to submit a revision, which was approved. The lack of approval of the first submission did not constitute the type of failure that would permit builders remedy developments.

On a constitutional level, the State has imposed mandates by fiat. There was no input from any of the cities that are now required to construct set numbers of new housing units. That violates the State constitution and federal guidelines dating back to “taxation without representation.” The more pressing situation is the Council’s consideration of a staff report recommending settlement of multiple builders remedy projects. There is nothing in the specifications of those projects that indicate how many units will be built, how many will qualify as affordable (which is the objective and intent of State law), what the burden on the City budget will be to provide services for new residential buildings, what the benefits to WS Communities (the developer of 14 builders remedy sites) will be, and why community input is being avoided.

Given the scale of some of the proposed buildings, it is vital to understand the environmental impact, the departure from State-approved zoning, and the City Staff’s reasoning for recommending approval of such amorphous proposals. I expect the Council and City management to demand specific answers before approving any builders remedy claims and to continue to pursue legal remedies to prevent them from being built. p
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: andrew rose
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre Cc: Luthern Williams; Evelyn Hou; Isabel Aranda; Emily Alexander; Jason Parry; councilmtgitems; Susan Cola; David White
Subject: Request for Postponement of item 11c "Proposed Settlement with WS Communities" Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:38:10 AM

EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Council-members,
My name is Andy Rose and have been a resident of Sunset Park since 1995. My wife and I raised our two kids here and we all love living in Santa Monica. Our two children have attended New Roads School since kindergarten. One is now a junior in college and the other is in ninth grade. I serve as a Board member of New Roads School and I chair the Campus Advancement Task Force, having worked on our campus needs for 9 years.

I have genuine concerns about the plan to expedite the approval of WS properties 3131 Nebraska with insufficient review of impact on the neighbors. It is our understanding that the city has a complex challenge here and many passionate stake-holders. We appreciate that the city is trying to ensure the building(s) will conform to current code height and density, but we can not feel our school is secure without a full review of the 3131 Nebraska’s impact on our kids and neighbors.

Please postpone consideration of the WS Properties settlement until there has been time to review the plan so we can work together to ensure the safety and well-being of our k-12 community and neighbors.

Andy Rose
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Diane Rose
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: NMS/WS Settlement
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:35:09 PM

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am a resident of Santa Monica (1620 Ashland Avenue) as well as the leader of a non-profit, Cool Shul, which has its offices located in Santa Monica. I am also a long time parent at New Roads School.

I humbly ask you to postpone the discussion of a settlement with the NMS/WS communities at tomorrow’s council meeting. The effect of the development at the NMS Nebraska site will no doubt change the lives of our New Roads students, teachers and staff forever — during construction and in the aftermath of whatever is built there. We, as a community, are extremely concerned about the environmental impacts of construction at that site on our children, who run from grades K to 12. We are also concerned about the noise from construction, the effect new housing will have on the flow of traffic on Nebraska, as well as how the finished product will affect our campus. We are aware there is also a preschool off Nebraska that will be affected deeply.

With so many concerns, we simply ask for this agenda item to be delayed so that there is ample time to research the impacts of construction at this site on the Nebraska neighborhood.

Thank you so very much for your time and for all you do for this incredible city of ours.

Sincerely,
Cantor/Rabbi Diane Rose
Diane Rose
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.coolshul.org__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!oyErqN9HDOm2Z4h0UOILDPM52UYo3aixWiw5qR317uNAoFEIwA7mCwTTt-BmC6Hq3ZlRPVX6oj4RlN44MfBRSywy7o$ ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Annabelle Sadler
To: Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox Cc: David White; councilmtgitems; Douglas Sloan
Subject: A letter for the council..

Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 10:56:05 PM

EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica Council,
Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder's remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its "builder's remedy" project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come. When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a "builder's remedy" statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects.
https://smclc. net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22html
In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow's Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site. WSC owns 14 builder's remedv sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

1. Stating that "the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City's regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element" without giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;

3. Failing to identify any of the corresponding burdens to the City and its residents, ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
including increased City costs and strain on infrastructure if all of these proiects come online within the next few years;

4. Failing to disclose to the Council or the public what actually will be built on any of these sites (the heights and number of units, including affordable units) in comparison to the builder's remedy numbers posted on the City's website at https://www.santamonica. gov/builders-remedy.;

1. Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder's remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and

2. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward.It's impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State's requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder's remedy chart on the City's website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

When a development agreement as momentous as this one occurs, residents are relying upon the Council to do the work, to ask the hard questions, and to demand accurate and complete information to ascertain whether this settlement is reasonable, and in the City's best interest before approving it. This is even more important here, given the wellknown history of WSC's predecessor (NMS).

Thank you.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Caroline Smukler
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Settlement between City and NMS/WS Communities Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:59:47 AM

EXTERNAL
Good morning! I am writing regarding with regards to the settlement between the City and NMS/WS Communities.

As a resident of Santa Monica I am requesting that you postpone consideration of the settlement. I am very considered about the proposed future development that will impact New Roads School and the surrounding community.

Thank you for taking this into consideration.

Sincerely,
Caroline Smukler (Santa Monica Resident)
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Steve O
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Postpone Settlement Decision
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:06:56 AM

EXTERNAL
I recently learned that the SM City Council plans to discuss approving a settlement with NMS/WS Communities at this evenings Council meeting. This is an important decision that will have long lasting ramifications for our community. There has not been sufficient time granted for members of the community and affected businesses, schools, and service organizations to fully consider the impacts and provide thoughtful , constructive feedback on the matter. As such, I’d encourage the council to postpone any decision until all constituents have time to evaluate and respond.

Regards,
Steve Oliver
2309 26th St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
(206)310-2901
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Alexa Stone
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Tonights meeting - please delay settlement!
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 4:45:50 PM

EXTERNAL
To Whom it May Concern,
I recently learned that the SM City Council plans to discuss approving a settlement with NMS/WS Communities at this evenings Council meeting. This is an important decision that will have long lasting ramifications for our community. There has not been sufficient time granted for members of the community and affected businesses, schools, and service organizations to fully consider the impacts and provide thoughtful , constructive feedback on the matter. As such, I’d encourage the council to postpone any decision until all constituents have time to evaluate and respond.

Best Regards,
Alexa Stone, New Roads parent
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; Susan Cola Subject: City Cnl. Mtg. 5/9/2023 - Item 11C - WSC Settlement Agreement Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 11:27:02 PM

EXTERNAL
wilmontlogo.jpg
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council members,
As Wilmont Board members we strongly support the WSC/NMS Settlement Agreement element that outlines the BR Project Applications for 1038 10th Street, 1238-42 10th Street, and 1007 Lincoln Blvd. would be withdrawn without replacement applications.

In Wilmont - 1038 10th St. on the west side of 10th between California and Washington is a two story apt. building. Initial BR application proposed a 12 story building and final BR application proposed a 15 story building In Wilmont - 1007 Lincoln Blvd. on the east side of Lincoln between California and Washington is a two story apt. building. Initial BR application proposed a 12 story building and final BR application proposed a 14 story building.

On the southern border of Wilmont - 1238-42 10th Street on the southern border of Wilmont are two, two story apt. buildings. Initial BR application proposed a 12 story building and final BR application proposed a 18 story building.

Given that, we are gravely concerned about the 10 other applications that will come under ministerial review as well as 1433 Euclid (BR final app. - 18 stories) which will not be subject to the Settlement Agreement. We would request that the WSC/NMS Settlement Agreement CLEARLY OUTLINE the following BEFORE voting on the Settlement Agreement:

For 10 ministerial review projects (1925 Broadway - final BR app. - 18 stories; 1518- 1524 7th St. - final BR app. - 11 stories; 1441-1443 Lincoln Blvd. - final BR app. - 16 stories; 2901 Santa Monica Blvd. - final BR app. - 12 stories; 3030 Nebraska (aka 3000 Nebraska Ave.) - final BR app. - 15 stories; 1238 7th St. - final BR app. - 10 stories; 1433-1437 6th St. - final BR app. - 16 stories; 1425 5th St. (aka 1435 5th St.) - final BR app. - 13 stories; 1557 7th St. (aka 707 Colorado Ave.) - final BR app. - 15 stories; 601 Colorado Ave.) update the BR chart on the Planning Department's website with the maximum height, FAR, maximum number of units possible, number of affordable units and parking allowed for all these projects BEFORE voting on the Settlement Agreement to ensure that the City Council and public know what can actually be built on these sites.

Outline and dollarize the corresponding burdens/costs to the city and its residents, ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
including infrastructure if all of these projects come online within the next few years Will the 1433 Euclid WSC project remain a builder's remedy project? Will it be excluded from the settlement without an explanation of what that means? Presentation and review by city council of a copy of the proposed Settlement Agreement is required as part of any approval process
Thank-you.

Wilmont Board of Directors
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Ari Vena
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Records Request - settlement with NMS/WS Communities Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:50:39 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I would like the following comments to be added to the public record:

I was recently informed that the Santa Monica City Council plans to discuss approving a settlement with NMS/WS Communities at this evening's City Council meeting. This is a very important decision that will have long lasting ramifications for our community. There has not been sufficient time granted for members of the community and affected businesses, schools, and service organizations to fully consider the impacts and provide thoughtful, constructive feedback on the matter.

As a long time member of the New Roads School community I am requesting that the council postpone any decision until all constituents have time to evaluate and respond.

Thanks so much for your time and consideration.

All best,
Ari Vena
Co-Head of Parent Village
New Roads School
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Melissa Ward
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin; councilmtgitems Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:40:12 AM

EXTERNAL
TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

As a full time resident and former business owner in Santa Monica for close to forty years, I have plead with you to take responsibility in stopping this move to destroy our fair city and community.

Thank you,
Melissa award
1107 21st Street B
Santa Monica
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Will von Bernuth
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Council Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; David White; Douglas Sloan; David Martin Subject: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:42:42 AM

As illustrated by SMCLC, some of the key missing information is:

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Thus, the current proposed settlement does not say what would be built under the agreement and does not say how it differs from the original proposal.

Additionally, this proposal was placed on the city council agenda just last Thursday. Less than a week is not enough time for the public to weigh in.

Regards,
Will
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Elizabeth Yazdany
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Development adjacent to New Road"s School
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 9:49:10 AM

EXTERNAL
City Council Members,
I respectfully request that you postpone consideration of the settlement until the school and broader community have time to assess the potential impacts. As a parent of a child attending New Road's School I can say that the area is already heavily congested. These children need a safe and quiet environment for their learning. This school is a K-12 school, serving the youngest of children and it is also a school that supports children with neurodiversity. New Road's is one of the few schools in Los Angeles that offers a "spectrum program" for children who are on the autism spectrum. Having increased congestion and more importantly construction noise would be particularly difficult for our youngest children and our children on the spectrum. I humbly ask that you take these children into consideration when making your decision to postpone.

Respectfully,
Elizabeth Yazdany
(Parent)
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: [email protected]
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; David White; Douglas Sloan Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: FOSP: City Council 5/9/23 item 11-C -- OPPOSE
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:04:30 AM

EXTERNAL
May 9, 2023
To: Mayor Davis and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 5/9/23 agenda item 11-C -- OPPOSE
The FOSP Board SUPPORTS the letter below from the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City and OPPOSES Staff Administrative Item 11-C and its recommendation for the city to settle over thirteen (13) WSC "builder’s remedy" projects for the following reasons:
1) The staff report lacks critical information.
2) The public has not had sufficient time to weigh in on this issue.

We urge you NOT to move forward with any settlement with WSC at this time.

Thank you for your consideration.
************************************************************************** May 8, 2023
To: City Council
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
CC: City Clerk
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From:The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) www.SMCLC.net Re: Oppose Staff Administrative Item 11-C to settle 13 WSC builder’s remedy projects for lack of critical information in the staff report and insufficient time for the public to weigh in.

The proposed settlement with WS Communities (WSC) over 13 of its “builder’s remedy” project sites will have a huge impact on Santa Monica and its residents for generations to come.When the news broke last September that this developer had filed applications for 14 projects under a “builder’s remedy” statute to construct buildings as high as 20 stories and over 4000 units citywide there was widespread opposition. Residents urged the city to hire outside counsel and oppose these projects. https://smclc.net/DevIgnoreZoning10-17-22.html In response, the City Attorney retained outside counsel who advised the City Council that there were good legal grounds to contest the filings once formal applications were filed, and one of his highest priorities was to keep the Council and the public informed.

In spite of this, last Thursday city staff placed a settlement item on the Council agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting as though it were just a routine item.

But this is NOT a one-off settlement between a developer and the City over one site.WSC owns 14 builder’s remedy sites throughout the City and this settlement apparently would greenlight the construction of 1000s of housing units.

This proposed settlement is essentially a mega development agreement - the biggest one in the city’s history.Given this, there needs to be a high degree of disclosure as to what is being built and what the real-life benefits and burdens to the community will be if implemented.And there needs to be a more open and transparent process and sufficient notice than simply adding, almost as an afterthought, an administrative item to an already packed Council agenda.

Unfortunately, the staff report recommending settlement is seriously deficient.It omits critical information that is necessary for the Council and the public to weigh to determine if the settlement is in the interests of Santa Monica before approving it.

Key deficiencies in the staff report include:

1.Stating that “the housing built by the owners will satisfy a significant portion of the City’s regional housing needs, as planned in its certified Housing Element” without giving the actual numbers, including the number of affordable housing units;

5.Stating that the 14th WSC project on Euclid (200 units/18-stories) would remain a builder’s remedy project and be excluded from the settlement without explaining what this means (is the City reserving its legal right to disapprove it?); and

6. Failing to provide a copy of any proposed settlement agreement as part of the approval process (this is, in essence, a development agreement).

Absent this critical information the Council should not move forward. It’s impossible to determine what the Council actually would be approving to be built - is it what was originally proposed or is it being modified? If modified, how? And how much affordable housing will be built under this settlement to satisfy the State’s requirement that 2/3s of the required new housing be affordable?
Moreover, it should be relatively easy for the planning staff to update the builder’s remedy chart on the City’s website as to the proposed settlement with the total height, number of units and affordable units for each project so the public is kept informed.

Please do not move forward with any settlement with WSC until you have adequate answers to these issues and you can explain to residents what our City will look like if this settlement is approved, why it’s in the interests of the City to approve it, and when it’s anticipated that these expedited projects would come online.

Thank you.

ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Amy Marston
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Little Dolphins by the Sea Objections to Agenda Item 11-C Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 3:30:41 PM
Attachments: LD objections May 9 2023.pdf

EXTERNAL
May 9, 2023
By Email
RE: Item-11C, Little Dolphins by the Sea’s Objections and Comments to the Settlement Agreement and 3030 Nebraska Avenue Project
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council:

Little Dolphins by the Sea ("LD") is a preschool located at 1812 Stanford Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404 and is in close proximity to a proposed development project located at 3030 Nebraska Avenue (the "Project").

LD hereby OPPOSES the Project and the proposed agreement involving the City of Santa Monica, its City Council and/or Planning Department with WS Communities and its affiliates, which is totally devoid of environmental review, among other concerns. Our students are very young children who are sensitive receptors and any construction and development that would adversely impact them, as well as the surrounding environs and our local community of residents and businesses, should be given meaningful evaluation so that the potentially significant adverse impacts on these constituents are identified and assessed as is legally required.

Agenda Item 11-C was only just introduced on May 4 for a meeting scheduled for May 9 – the approval process for the Project itself and the Settlement Agreement agendized for approval at today’s City Council’s meeting has been orchestrated with no transparency and in an accelerated manner designed to circumvent environmental review and silence public outcry due to the legal concerns surrounding the manner in which the Project was approved at the outset. This Project will be situated between two schools (New Roads and LD) and introduces serious concerns regarding impacts on traffic, air quality, safety, noise and aesthetics, among other issues – all of which the Settlement Agreement seeks to eliminate review of in their entirety.

LD urges the City Council to table Item 11-C on the May 9, 2023 Agenda to allow LD, our neighbors and our consultants sufficient time to review the Project and to assess the potentially adverse environmental impacts and all other public health and welfare issues arising therefrom.

Thank you,
Margarita Pagliai
Founder/Executive Director
Little Dolphins by the Sea
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
Sent on behalf of Margarita Pagliai by:

Amy Marston
Preschool Director
Little Dolphins by the Sea Preschool
littledolphins.org
O: 310.998.0011
C: 805.338.6104
LIC # 197415833 + 197415834
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
From: Margarita Pagliai
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Little Dolphins by the Sea Objections to Agenda Item 11-C Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 3:22:55 PM
Attachments: Letter to City Council

EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council:

Thank you,
Margarita Pagliai
Founder/Executive Director
Little Dolphins by the Sea
--
—
Margarita Pagliai
Head of School / Founder
e: [email protected]
o: (310) 230-4900
c: (310) 600-6839
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
May 9, 2023
By Email
RE: Item-11C, Little Dolphins by the Sea’s Objections and Comments to the Settlement Agreement and 3030 Nebraska Avenue Project
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council:

Thank you,
Margarita Pagliai
Founder/Executive Director
Little Dolphins by the Sea
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023
ITEM 11.C.

May 9, 2023

Santa Monica City CouncilMay 9, 2023

Santa Monica City Council
May 9, 2023