City Sued Over Program to Limit Simultaneous Construction

By Jorge Casuso

The city failed to conduct the required environmental analysis when it restricted the number of construction projects that can be built at one time in multi-family districts, according to a lawsuit filed in Superior Court last week.

The suit targets an emergency ordinance extended by the City Council last month that limits construction or substantial remodeling to one project within a 500-foot radius. The ordinance - which was extended for 18 months -- also limits projects to one per block if the block is longer than 500 feet.

Filed on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Council by land use attorney Chris Harding, the lawsuit claims that the city failed to address "a serious imbalance between employment and housing" when it voted to restrict construction of new residential units. The city, the lawsuit said, provided nearly 76,500 jobs in 1990 but was home to only 50,400 employed residents.

"The imbalance exacerbates traffic and air quality problems, both locally and regionally, because workers are forced to live further away from their jobs and must therefore commute longer distances to and from work," according to the suit. "These commuters clog roadways and contribute significantly to traffic and air quality problems."

Traffic and air quality are two of the "most critical" areas of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the suit said.

"It is highly unusual for a City Staff Report to completely omit discussion of CEQA in connection with proposed land use legislation," according the suit.

City officials declined to comment on the lawsuit. "I have no comment," said Mayor Ken Genser. "I haven't seen the lawsuit."

Shortly before voting to extend the ordinance - which passed 5-2 on April 11 - Genser called the measure "an important and relatively simple ordinance to increase the quality of life." The mayor said the ordinance simply said that "there can't be too much construction at one time."

But Harding, who questioned the need for a Construction Rate Program, warned the council that the measure placed constraints on development and could be open to legal challenge.

"We have fundamental concerns," Harding said. "This is a poorly designed, anti-development and anti-housing measure."

The suit also challenges the ordinance - which exempts affordable housing projects and structures requiring seismic upgrades -- on the grounds that, in some circumstances, aspects of the measure "threaten to effect temporary takings of individual properties."

The Construction Rate Program, according to the suit, does not "provide for compensation to be awarded to persons who are denied all economically viable use of their property, at least temporarily, by reason of being prohibited from proceeding with development."

The suit also challenges that the measure's 18-month prohibition against issuing a second building permit within the established radius.

"The record demonstrates that construction projects do not normally require 18 months to complete, and, moreover, much of the final construction activity has little or no impact on adjacent residents," the suit said.

Because the Santa Monica Housing Council -- a group that includes builders, architects and housing providers -- would not be awarded monetary damages if the suit succeeds, the suit asks for attorneys fees.