Location Details Case No.
3030 Nebraska Avenue/3025 Olympic
Boulevard (“Nebraska/Olympic”)
1601 units/15 stories 23ENT – 0050
1925 Broadway 405 units/18 stories 23ENT – 0031
1435 5th Street 375 units/13 stories 23ENT – 0056
1518-1524 7th Street 200 units/11 stories 23ENT – 0041
601 Colorado Avenue 200 units/15 stories 23ENT – 0012
707 Colorado Avenue/1557 7th Street 200 units/16 stories 23ENT – 0028 2901 Santa Monica Boulevard 190 units/12 stories 23ENT – 0051 1435-1437 6th Street 170 units/16 stories 22ENT – 0319
1441-1443 Lincoln Boulevard 170 units/16 stories 23ENT – 0009 1238 7th Street 75 units/10 stories 22ENT – 0312
1238-1242 10th Street
(“1242 10th Street”)
200 units/18 stories 23ENT – 0055
1007 Lincoln Boulevard 95 units/15 stories 23ENT – 0066 1038 10th Street 95 units/14 stories 23ENT – 0065
WS
OBLIGATIONS
• WS TO SUSPEND AND WITHDRAW 13
BUILDER’S REMEDY PROJECTS
• IF REFILED, 8 PROJECTS WOULD BE CODE
CONFORMING PROJECTS
• IF REFILED, 3030 NEBRASKA AVENUE
WOULD BE CODE CONFORMING
PROJECTS WITH < 1 ACRE LOTS
• 3 PROJECTS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT
REFILING
• WS TO PROVIDE RELOCATION RIGHTS TO 3
FORMER TENANTS WITH RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE AND RENT REDUCTIONS
CITY
OBLIGATIONS
• FUTURE CONSIDERATION (WITH NO OBLIGATION
TO APPROVE) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT
INCENTIVES
• INCREASE PARKING MAXIMUMS IN THE DCP
AREA FROM 0.5 TO 1.0 SPACES PER UNIT.
• ALLOW OFF-SITE OPTION FOR AFFORDABLE
UNITS
• REDUCTION FROM 20 TO 15%
INCLUSIONARY
• CREDIT FOR OFF-SITE UNITS FOR STATE
DENSITY BONUS PURPOSES
• EXPEDITED MINISTERIAL PROCESSING TIMELINES IF
APPLICATIONS ARE FILED
MUTUAL
OBLIGATIONS
• DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF NMS’S
PENDING CIVIL CASE AGAINST CITY,
CHALLENGING CITY’S LEASING REGULATIONS
• CITY’S AND RCB’S DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE OF PENDING CIVIL CASE AGAINST
1238 10TH STREET, LLC
FREQUENTLY
ASKED
QUESTIONS
FAQ 1.
HOW CAN THE CITY STATE THAT THE HOUSING
BUILT BY WS WILL SATISFY A SIGNIFICANT
PORTION OF THE CITY’S REGIONAL HOUSING
NEEDS AS PLANNED IN ITS CERTIFIED
HOUSING ELEMENT WITHOUT GIVING
ACTUAL NUMBERS, INCLUDING THE NUMBER
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS?
RESPONSE
TO FAQ 1.
• THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DOES NOT
CONTEMPLATE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE
DEVELOPMENT ALREADY PLANNED IN THE CITY’S
HOUSING ELEMENT AND ALLOWED BY CURRENT
CODE.
• THE HEIGHTS AND FARS ARE ALREADY ALLOWED BY
CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT. STATE DENSITY BONUS
UNITS ARE ALREADY MANDATED BY STATE LAW.
• BECAUSE NO APPLICATIONS ARE PENDING, THE CITY
HAS NO WAY TO CALCULATE THE NUMBER OF UNITS
FOR EACH PROJECT WITH CERTAINTY. HOWEVER,
THE CITY CAN SHOW THE “BOX” REQUESTED UNDER
THE BUILDER’S REMEDY VERSUS THE “BOX”
ALLOWED UNDER CURRENT CODE, WHICH WILL
NOT CHANGE WITH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
APPROVAL.
FAQ 2.
HOW CAN THESE PROJECTS BE
APPROVED WITH EXPEDITED
PROCESSING AND WITHOUT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW?
RESPONSE
TO FAQ 2.
• THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATIVE
APPROVALS FOR HOUSING PROJECTS THAT DO NOT
REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OR CEQA REVIEW
SINCE 2020.
• THE HOUSING ELEMENT CERTIFIED BY THE STATE
COMMITS TO STREAMLINING THE ADMINISTRATIVE
APPROVAL PROCESS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE MORE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
• ON APRIL 11, 2023, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED
THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
HOUSING PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH THE
HOUSING ELEMENT.
• THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DOES NOT CHANGE
THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS.
FAQ 3.
HOW CAN THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT BE APPROVED
WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THE
BURDENS TO THE CITY AND ITS
RESIDENTS, INCLUDING INCREASED
CITY COSTS AND STRAIN ON
INFRASTRUCTURE?
RESPONSE
TO FAQ. 3
• THE EIR ANALYSIS FOR THE HOUSING
ELEMENT ALREADY CONSIDERED IMPACTS
OF NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
• IF THE REFILED PROJECTS ARE PURSUED BY
WS, THESE PROJECTS WILL BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CONTEMPLATED
IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT EIR
• THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DOES NOT
CHANGE THE CITY’S NORMAL REVIEW
PROCESS FOR ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING
PERMIT, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE
REVIEW BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES.
FAQ 4.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN IF THE 1433
EUCLID AVENUE PROJECT REMAINS
A BUILDER’S REMEDY PROJECT?
RESPONSE
TO FAQ 4.
• 1433 EUCLID AVENUE APPLICATION WILL
PROCEED THROUGH THE DISCRETIONARY
REVIEW PROCESS IF THE DEVELOPER ELECTS
TO PROCEED.
• THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXPRESSLY
RESERVES THE CITY’S RIGHT TO APPROVE,
DISAPPROVE, OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVE
THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE CITY’S
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WILL BE SUBJECT
TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE HOUSING
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (INCLUDING THE
BUILDER’S REMEDY STATUTE).
FAQ 5.
HOW CAN THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT BE APPROVED
WITHOUT DISCLOSING WHAT CAN
ACTUALLY BE BUILT ON THESE SITES
IN COMPARISON TO THE BUILDER’S
REMEDY PROJECTS, INCLUDING THE
AFFORDABLE UNITS?
RESPONSE
TO FAQ 5.
THERE ARE NO PENDING APPLICATIONS FILED
FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL
PROJECTS, SO WE DO NOT KNOW THE UNIT
SIZES, ETC., OR WHETHER THE DEVELOPER
WILL UTILIZE THE ENTIRE BOX OR EVEN
DENSITY BONUS.
FAQ. 6
IS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT?
RESPONSE
TO FAQ 6.
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT
DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANY SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT AND DOES NOT AUTHORIZE
ANY CHANGES TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED BY COUNCIL
FAQ 7.
Why doesn’t the City just
ignore the Builder’s
Remedy projects or sue
the State to challenge
Builder’s Remedy?
THE CAO
OBTAINED 3
LEGAL
OPINIONS
• ALL 3 OPINED:
• THE CITY HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO REFUSE TO
PROCESS A PENDING BUILDER’S REMEDY
APPLICATION
• THE RISKS OF REFUSING TO PROCESS A PENDING
BUILDER’S REMEDY APPLICATION ARE WRIT OF
MANDATE, CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES UNDER STATE
AND FEDERAL LAW (CIVIL RIGHTS), OTHER STATE
LAW REMEDIES (CAL. GOV’T CODE 65585(J))
STATE LAW
PLACES THE
BURDEN OF
PROOF ON THE
CITY
IN ANY ACTION TAKEN TO CHALLENGE
THE VALIDITY OF A DECISION BY A CITY
TO DISAPPROVE A PROJECT OR
APPROVE A PROJECT WITH A
CONDITION THAT THE PROJECT BE
DEVELOPED AT A LOWER DENSITY, THE
CITY BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF
THAT ITS DECISION CONFORMED TO THE
CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE
HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (CAL.
GOV’T CODE SECTION 65589.5)
THE STAKES ARE
HIGH BECAUSE
…
• Recent court opinions disfavor denials of
housing development under the Housing
Accountability Act due to state policy
favoring housing and perceived
NIMBYISM.
• The State Attorney General has become
much more active in enforcing State
housing laws.
• The City faces penalties at the minimum
rate of $10,000 dollars per month or
violation of state housing laws and a
minimum of $10,000 per housing unit if
the City fails to approve a housing
development under the Housing
Accountability Act.
May 9, 2023
Settlement Agreement
Projects Summary
Settlement Agreement - Builder’s Remedy Projects
Settlement Agreement Projects
• 601 Colorado Ave
• 3030 Nebraska Ave (aka 3000 Nebraska Ave)
• 2901 Santa Monica Blvd
• 1925 Broadway
• 1557 7th St (aka 707 Colorado Ave)
• 1518 - 1524 7th St
• 1441 - 1443 Lincoln Blvd
• 1433 - 1437 6th St
• 1425 5th St (aka 1435 5th St)
• 1238 7th St
Projects that will be Withdrawn
• 1238-1242 10th St
• 1007 Lincoln Blvd
• 1038 10th St
Not Subject to Settlement Agreement
• 1433 Euclid St
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:
601 Colorado Ave
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:
3030 Nebraska Ave (aka 3000 Nebraska Ave)
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:
2901 Santa Monica Blvd
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:
1925 Broadway
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:
1557 7th St (aka 707 Colorado Ave)
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:
1518 - 1524 7th Street
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:
1441 - 1443 Lincoln Blvd
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:
1433 - 1437 6th St
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:
1425 5th St (aka 1435 5th St)
Builder’s Remedy Application vs. Housing Element:
1238 7th St
Project to be Withdrawn: 1238 – 1242 10th St
Project to be Withdrawn: 1007 Lincoln Blvd
Project to be Withdrawn: 1038 10th St
Project Not Subject to Settlement Agreement: 1433 Euclid St Summary