State discouraged with city’s stance on housing policy
The state is cracking down on how Santa Monica creates its housing policies.
Every five years the state requires the city to submit its housing goals and objectives to make sure there aren’t too many impediments to building new housing.
But after approving the city’s policies last December, the state tacked on an extra requirement — any ordinance that would affect how housing is built in the city must be sent to the state’s department of housing and community development for review.
In a letter obtained by the Daily Press, Cathy E. Creswell, deputy director of the state department of housing and community development, said she’s concerned with how the city submits one housing plan to be approved by the state but then makes major changes to it afterwards.
The letter specifically mentions an ordinance under consideration by the city council that would require all developers building apartments downtown to go through a thorough public review and planning process.
Currently, small apartment complexes under 7,500 square feet only need approval from the city’s building department. Obtaining permits can take as little as six months.
But under the proposed city ordinance, all projects would be treated the same — an approval process that could take as long as two years, depending on the size of the project.
“We’re concerned about the imposition of a new regulation on the downtown area, where much of the city’s new development is expected to occur,” Creswell said. “It appears development can occur there currently, but if this new ordinance is enacted new constraints could be added.”
Suzanne Frick, the director of the city’s planning department, said concern over the ordinance is wrongly placed. She said the city isn’t trying to make the process more difficult for developers, adding that the ordinance would open the process of building more apartments downtown to the public and allow residents a chance to have their concerns heard by developers and city officials.
“We want to do this because the community and the council are concerned that far too many development projects are moving through the system without public review and comment,” she said. “(Council members) felt residents weren’t being given the opportunity to comment on projects that could negatively affect their neighborhoods and given a chance to make changes to those projects.”
And instead of preventing development, Frick said most residents turn out to make suggestions about how to improve the project.
“Generally speaking, when we have the hearings residents aren’t there to kill the project, they are there to make sure it addresses their concerns and doesn’t become a problem in the future,” she said.
Santa Monica-based land use attorney Chris Harding said the city’s ordinance would make building new apartments in Santa Monica more costly and discourage developers from building new housing here because it would create a sense of uncertainty whether they could get planning commission approval.
“The city tends to do their housing policy changes through emergency ordinances,” Harding said. “They make changes without going through the careful process required in the state’s amendment process.”
And small residential developers said the already swamped planning commission would become grid-locked with more projects to review. They described the delays as already contributing $30,000 to $40,000 in extra costs, which only increases home costs and rent.
“If the things go fast and finishes quickly it costs everybody less,” said Shahab Ghods, an architect working on multiple projects throughout the city. “The planning will take so long, it’s another way of discouraging people from building housing and living in Santa Monica.”
City officials are challenging the state on whether the department has the right to review changes to its housing policies., arguing there is no precedent for such a process.
Deputy City Attorney Barry Rosenbaum has sent the state a series of legal arguments about why the city should not have to comply with the department’s requirements.
Rosenbaum said he would not comment on possible litigation or release the arguments he made to the state, other than to say he is still waiting for the state’s response.
“Basically, we need to show the state that this proposed ordinance wouldn’t act as a constraint,” he said.
However, state officials said it is standard practice for the department to review changes cities make to their housing policies, and they were surprised at the tone of Santa Monica’s letter.
“I was discouraged with the language in Mr. Rosenbaum’s letter,” Creswell said. “I thought we had come to an understanding with the city, so I was a little surprised at the tone of their letter.”
Creswell said the department will respond to Rosenbaum’s letter in the next few weeks.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 13, 2002. Read the original PDF.