Monterey Park Housing Limit Pains Developers

A ceiling on housing construction is jeopardizing plans by two partners, architect Tien Chu and former auto shop owner Iong Chen, to construct an 11-unit apartment building here.

Unless the City Council changes a Planning Commission recommendation, their apartment plans will be shelved this year, if not forever, because of a voter-enacted limit on the number of housing units that may be built in Monterey Park each year.

“We feel so frustrated,” Chu said. “We bought the lot already. We put $300,000 cash on the lot and now we may have to hold the project to next February for the next allotment (of rights to build housing). And then maybe we won’t get that allotment either.”

The problem that confronts Chu and seven other developers with pending projects is a housing ceiling enacted by voters in 1982 to slow the city’s growth by limiting housing construction to 100 units annually through 1992.

The ceiling has never been enforced until now because the number of proposed housing units has always been below the limit.

But critics of the ceiling say its impact has been felt all along because it has scared away major developers, who are unwilling to invest in projects that may fail solely because of a growth limit.

“We’re not going to build in this town,” said Frank Venti, a developer who is a partner in Monterey Views, a proposal for the construction of 101 single-family homes on 30 acres in the hills west of Atlantic Boulevard. Venti said he and his partners have canceled their building plans and are trying to sell the property, but cannot interest buyers because of Monterey Park’s growth restrictions, which bar any single developer from building more than 20 houses or condominiums a year.

The land was offered at auction in May, but failed to draw an acceptable bid, Venti said.

Venti said that because many experienced developers avoid the city, Monterey Park is “getting cruddy development. They have some of the ugliest looking condos you’ll ever see.”

Venti and his partners filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court in an effort to overturn the growth limit and a companion initiative that requires voter approval for any zone change involving more than an acre. The Superior Court upheld the city ordinances, but the ruling is being appealed.

Irv Gilman, a former councilman who was active in the campaign for the slow-growth initiative, said backers had thought it would both curb growth and improve the quality of new housing.

“I think we had high hopes in the beginning,” he said, “but the number (of housing units allowed yearly) was too high. Look down some streets and it’s condo after condo.”

Gilman said the initiative came too late. The peak of condominium construction was in 1978-79 when building permits were issued for 827 units.

Henry Terashita, city community development director, said the 100-unit annual limit, established by voters in June, 1982, became effective in 1983. Terashita said many developers avoided the ceiling by rushing in to obtain building permits in 1982, which could be used at any time within two years.

The city issued permits for 282 housing units, mostly condominiums, in 1982, and only 80 in 1983 and 83 in 1984.

The city accepts housing plans in January and February of each year, and if there are still allotments available, reopens applications in July. This year, rights to build 50 housing units were still available in July, but developers submitted plans for 64 units.

The City Council will decide at its meeting at 7:30 p.m. Monday which developers will be allowed to go ahead with projects. If the council follows the Planning Commission’s recommendations, the city will approve six developments and reject the apartments proposed by Chu and Chen’s Huntington Terrace Partnership on lots at 115 and 119 N. Huntington Ave. and nine housing units proposed by Thomas Chuang for 125 and 127 S. Moore Ave.

The initiative that set the housing limit cited the need to preserve the community’s character, safeguard air quality, ensure adequate police and fire protection, protect views from obstruction, avoid burdens on water and sewage systems and control traffic. After the initiative was approved, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing criteria giving preference to developments with the least harmful impact on air quality, traffic and other problems.

Proposed projects are graded on a point system. For example, a project that has 70% of its area in yards and open space can qualify for 10 points, while one that has 40% in open space earns only 7 points.

Terashita said most of the rating system is based on measurable criteria, such as distances to fire stations or freeways or the number of units to be built per acre. But projects also are rated in two categories that involve subjective judgment. Two points can be earned for “architectural design features (that) enhance the neighborhood.” Four points can be gained if the “landscaping features are integrated with the design of the buildings and enhance the neighborhood.”

Ratings by the city staff and Planning Commission gave the eight projects that will be considered by the council Monday night from 35 to 46 points each under the objective criteria, leaving most of the proposals close enough in ranking to make the subjective criteria--landscaping and architecture--decisive.

Chu said his apartment project ranked fifth on the objective criteria, but eighth and last after the Planning Commission graded architectural design and landscaping. The City Council will consider the commission’s recommendations, but can revise the rankings.

The construction limit does not apply to replacement housing. Thus, a builder who tears down two houses can build two housing units without obtaining a development allotment.

In addition, the city has a separate procedure for projects involving four housing units or less. Twenty of the 100 housing units each year are reserved for these small projects and permits are given on a first-come, first-served basis. There are currently 18 allotments available for projects of four units or less.

Mayor Rudy Peralta said one developer suggested that the city take the 18 unused allotments for small projects and award them to large-project developers. This would mean that all the developers with pending projects could receive allotments, but Peralta said he does not think the city should change the system.

Juggling allotments to allow more development would be “contrary to the mood of the city,” the mayor said.