.
Feedback

Blog | Not Enough Affordable Housing in Village Trailer Park Plan

Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City joins in the legal objections raised by Attorney Sue Himmelrich that a development agreement violates the city's Affordable Housing Production Program.

In addition to the serious objections Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City previously raised to the City Council's approval of the Development Agreement for the Luzzatto Village Trailer Park project, SMCLC joins in the legal objections raised by attorney Sue Himmelrich at the City Council hearing on November 13th and as supplemented by the written comments submitted thereafter (contained below).

Specifically, SMCLC believes that in order for the city to be in compliance with its Affordable Housing Production Program ("AHPP"), it must:

  1. Reject the Development Agreement as written for its failure to correctly calculate the affordable housing required for this site zoned RMH and considered to be a multi-family district when the AHPP was adopted; and
  2. Direct staff to recalculate the affordable housing replacement requirements for the site so that 25% of the units are affordable under the law.

For a city that prides itself on the production of affordable housing, and Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights elected council members who have run repeatedly on the issue of protecting and creating affordable housing in Santa Monica, this should not even require discussion.  

The council should also inquire of staff whether it conducted any independent review as to whether this site historically has been considered a multi-family housing district at the time the AHPP was adopted and subsequent to the adoption; or whether staff relied upon and simply incorporated the developer's affordable housing calculations into the staff report without any such determination.

Diana Gordon for SMCLC

__________________________________________________________________

Comments from attorney Sue Himmelrich, a 20-year resident of Santa Monica and an attorney with Western Center on Law and Poverty:

We would like to amplify our comments last night and emphasize once again that the Village Trailer Park development agreement, if approved in its current form, is a violation of the City's Affordable Housing Production Program. The following analysis assumes that everything in staffs' report at pages 13-14 otherwise is correct and that the law is as stated in the attached Planning Department chart published on the city's website. We specifically note that despite staff's statement to the contrary, RMH, as Village Trailer Park is zoned, clearly is a "multi-family zone." We have prepared a chart set forth below illustrating our discussion if this is more convenient for the council members.

The proposed project consists of 216 condominiums and 161 apartments.

16 apartments are slated to be affordable, leaving a balance of (161-16) = 145 apartments

Staff says that the donation of land and parking spaces satisfies affordable housing requirement for 136 condominiums,* leaving a balance of 80 condominiums.

Staff then calculates that 80 condominiums plus 145 apartments is 225 units and that at a 10% affordable unit requirement, that equates to an affordable housing requirement of 23 units.

The Affordable Housing law says that for condominiums, there is a 25% affordable unit requirement.  That means the 80 remaining condominiums require 20 units by themselves, not 8 as in the Staff calculation.  And, even if 10% is the right figure for the apartments, the 161 apartments require another 16.1 affordable units, making the total requirement 36 affordable units.

Even under staff analysis, only 23 are being provided.  So, the proposal does not meet the requirements of the affordable housing statute even if everything in the Staff report was correct.

Not only is the math incorrect, we believe that staff's analysis violates the policy behind the Santa Monica Affordable housing statute,to treat the donated land and parking spaces as satisfying the affordable housing obligation.  This is because the land being donated cannot be developed into affordable housing until the life estate of certain existing tenants expires, which could be in the very distant future.  There also is nothing to assure an affordable housing development legally can or practically will occur even then.  To add insult to injury, the landlord continues to profit from the 30 donated parking spaces until the undetermined date when any affordable housing can be built.  A theoretical affordable housing project in the distant future cannot properly satisfy the requirements of the Santa Monica Affordable housing statute, and is not the equivalent of either cash or building affordable housing units as part of the developer's own project.

*This calculation is actually incorrect because the fee payment option for condominiums effective 11/10/ 2012 is $33.30. This means that the actual number of square feet that is eliminated by the ³cash² payment of $3.9 million is, using staff¹s numbers, $3.9 million divided by $33.30 per square foot or 117,117 square feet, or 76% of Building B, which equals 129 condos rather than 136.

MISTAKEN STAFF CALCULATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT

Total Project Units:  216 Condos
161 Apts

Units covered by donations: 136 Condos

Affordable units required: 80 condos @ 10% - 8 Affordable

145 apts @ 10% 14.5 Affordable

225 units         22.5 Affordable

LEGALLY REQUIRED CALCULATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT

Total Project Units: 216 Condos\  161 Apts

Units covered by donations:  136 Condos

Affordable units required: 80 condos @ 25%   20    Affordable

161 apts @ 10%  16.1 Affordable

241 units         

36.1 Affordable

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Santa Monica Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Eddie Greenberg May 8, 2013 at 09:09 pm
Thank you Marilyn Wexler. I totally agree with all that you have said in this eloquent letter. SMPDRead More have done well in DUI checkpoints for the past few years and they are appreciated for doing so. We are all better off for their efforts!
Aaron Mirsky April 11, 2013 at 06:26 pm
Great letter! Mr. Hill, you have a wonderful perspective and attitude. I am relatively new hear, myRead More family moved to Santa Monica in 1976. I cherish my memories at Santa Monica Beach and hope to continue to "refresh my soul" for many years to come.
Steven Rosen April 10, 2013 at 01:43 pm
Beautiful letter and I under his perspective. But I think if you look at the Quality of Life from aRead More generic standpoint (if there is such a thing), I don't think we headed in an upward trajectory. I cannot imagine more traffic, and new skyline created by tall buildings and newly-required traffic management to make the Quality of Life better for any of us.
Stodj April 9, 2013 at 04:41 pm
Lovely comment. I sense from your letter a new perspective on why this growth is happening, besidesRead More the $ involved, everyone needs to refresh their souls in this time of history and Santa Monica does that...at least at the beach where, hopefully, building will not progress. We do need to focus on halting the height of buildings as that will seriously change the environment here. Thanks, Michael.
karen April 11, 2013 at 11:02 pm
I left Santa Monica in 1987. I went to Samohi and Lincoln, worked at Sears and loved the small townRead More feel. Yes it's changed, but so has everywhere else. If my kids were young enough to drag along I would move there in a heartbeat. If you don't like it anymore, don't visit. I don't really understand why anyone would write to a local media outlet and complain about the town. How insulting. I'll take SM over the Bay area (talk about expensive!) any day.
SantaMonicaNative April 8, 2013 at 07:02 pm
Continued (sorry) The city changes. More people, more housing needed. More people more cars, moreRead More traffic, more trash, more dogs. Next we get the commercial builders who see Santa Monica as a cashbox. In city where 10 stories is tall, we get money hungery people who don't live here, who think 20 stories is better. That's where we are now. A turning point in the city. Once you build them you can't take them back. The city will change even more with the Expo line. We can't stop change, we can't restrict building except through zoning. We can temper it. What we can do is shop locally to save the few local businesses that remain and call City Hall on over ambitious projects. Speak up! It's frustrating-they don't listen but eventually they can be voted out. Don't let Santa Monica turn into Beverly Hills by the sea. We need normal businesses we can afford. Places to eat that you don't need a loan. Stop voting for group politics, read the ballot, get involved, even if only on a personal level. Know your city, don't just complain.
SantaMonicaNative April 8, 2013 at 06:47 pm
My parents loved Santa Monica, the first place i remember was a huge old house on 4th and MontannaRead More which had been subivided into units. If my parents had kept all the properties they owned in this city, i'd be rich. That said i must admit i still love Santa Monica. Go back to any city you grew up in and you will be shocked by the change. Part of the change has to do with the congested state if Caliornia. There are more people, no doubt of that. The other thing is memory tends to blur the facts. The things that matter to an adult are meaningless to a child. There are so many things that have disppeared from this city but they have been replaced by other things. Nothing but bugs are ixed in amber,cities can't be. In addition to that, Santa Monica has not grown in a natural fashion. The City Council has intervened in the natural growth of the city with laws, taxes and programs to fashion a city THEY want, not necessarily what would have been. The city has been pushed into a schitzophrenic combination of high ideals and directed outcomes. Rent control remade the city, changing it from a city with children and families to single renters. Vacancy decontrol helped to change that. Mom and pop owners are almost gone. Few small businesses can exist here, they can't compete with chains The city favors tenants over landlords, lawyers are expensive so properties get sold, torn down and replaced by multiple units. Low income housing increases the density of neighborhoods.
Steve Herbert April 10, 2013 at 08:12 pm
Many folks say the biking is not for them, therefore it can't work for everyone. What should theyRead More should say is it may not work for them but if a larger percentage of those who can ride would, the total numberof drivers would be reduced as more of them are out of their cars and riding bikes. Also consider if you can afford to drive a car you very likely can afford an electric bike. These "hybrids" are a nice blend of an electric motor with a bicycle which can provide as much or as little assistance as the rider prefers. As they still qualify as bikes so you can use and benefit from the bike lanes, but as they are electric they can help those with arthritis, sciatica and other people make the impossible, possible.
RJ April 9, 2013 at 06:18 pm
...ditto Paul!
RJ April 9, 2013 at 06:17 pm
.....Barbara, you forgot to add the need to eliminate about half of the population in Santa MonicaRead More before one could "rediscover" the sleepy beach town it used to be. Then don't forget the other "bike riders" that drive just a crazy as some automobile drivers....failing to abide by the rules of the road...and law! Unfortunately city officials have been trying to squeeze 10 pounds of garbage into 5 pound bags for the last 20 years....then come up with bright ideas like proposing to build movie theaters that enter/empty right on to 4th Street at Arizona (after tearing down the City parking garage) were we all know every idiot that has been issued a driver's license will stop and hold up traffic to drop off their kids...only to return to do it all over again when picking them up. Heaven forbid their kids have to walk from a block away where the parent could avoid blocking traffic on one of the busiest main thoroughfare streets in the city. I’m sure you could come up with many more examples of the most insane development that has happened or is proposed to happen. So Barbara......where is that area with "no congestion"???
Jonathan Friedman April 10, 2013 at 04:08 am
Good luck Jessica. Watch out for Jerry.
unknownauthor April 10, 2013 at 01:47 am
Don't correct it Jerry - it's very you and we all knew what you meant- and it was fine
Jerry Rubin April 10, 2013 at 01:16 am
CORRECTING my previous comment: Welcome Jessica!
Chris Loos April 4, 2013 at 04:00 pm
When the Expo line is complete and people start using it to travel back and forth from Santa MonicaRead More to DTLA, I think the idea of going without a car (or getting by with 1 car per household instead of 2) will seem mainstream to many more people.
Michael April 4, 2013 at 03:33 pm
3) Getting folks to part with their cars is like forcing divorce upon a couple rapturously in loveRead More 40 minute commute from Santa Monica to Downtown LA on the Expo Line!! Where do I sign up? I will be one of the first to move to a residence within walking distance of a Santa Monica Expo Station. If not having a parking space makes my rent cheaper I have no problem selling my car.
Chris Loos April 4, 2013 at 01:43 pm
Great article Juan!
Glenn E Grab March 30, 2013 at 02:12 pm
last week it took me 1 hour and 15 minutes to go from Sepulveda and Culver to the Lemlee Theatre onRead More 2nd street at 3:30 on Sunday afternoon...I can ride my bike there in 30 minutes...the only reason I took my car was because I went with two friends...one of whom was temporarily on crutches..we griped at him the whole evening..
mimi March 29, 2013 at 02:22 am
There is another travel option for the disabled called Access Services. They transport all over losRead More angeles and neighboring suburbs. You may want to check them out. You are fortunate to have a friend who transports you around instead of riding with WISE, which you dislike.. You could be of great help to your friend if you used Google Directions (before you leave home) to find various routes to your destination. I am familiar with the Chez Jay location on Ocean Ave. There are better and worse ways to get there. I suggest you choose better. Of course, this requires advance planning and a bit of home work. Think of all the aggravation you will save yourself and your friend. The choice is yours.
Dan Charney March 29, 2013 at 02:21 am
Well said- I never go downtown - haven't for almost ten or more years- once every few years I go toRead More the Genius Bar- take the bus-( which no longer runs on my street)- I have been going to Chez Jay almost 40 years or more- I used to work out on the bluffs- can't do any shopping anywhere near Wilshire or Montana- I can walk to Main - get my groceries at night- what is happening here is no different than what is happening in Congress and to our entire country- the rich are doing as they wish - the rest of us can die- the building that will be gone soon will be any with low income tenants and shabby houses- all gone