R-8668
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 8668
(C~ty Counc~l Ser1es)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADOPTING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica adopted its existing
Housing Element on January 25, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the City Program and Pol~cy Development Div~sion
began in 1988 to develop mater~als for the revis~on of the
Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on November 9, 1988, the C~ty conducted a duly
not~ced,
open Commun~ty Forum to el1cit publ~c comments
concerning hous~ng needs and issues in Santa MOn1Caj and
WHEREAS, on March 29, 1989, a duly not1ced spec1al ]01nt
meet1ng of the Plann1ng and Housing Commissions was held to
review and comment upon the preliminary draft Hous~ng Element;
and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 1989, a duly noticed, open Commun~ty
Meeting was held to el1cit publ1C comment on the Draft Housing
Element; and
WHEREAS, 1n July, 1989, the Draft Housing Element was
vV..-..J
- 1 -
.
.
transmitted to the State Department of Houslng and Communlty
Development ("HCDIO) for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 1989, HeD transmltted to the Clty its
comments upon the draft Houslng Element; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 1989, the City transmltted to HCD a
response which addressed the comments provided by HCDi and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 1989, the Planning CommlSSlon
conducted a duly noticed public hearlng on the draft Houslng
Element and forwarded a recomrnendatlon to the Clty Councll to
approve the Houslng Element; and
WHEREAS,
on November 30,
1989 the Housing ComrnlSSlon
conducted a duly noticed publlC meeting on the Houslng Element
and forwarded a recommendatlon to the Clty Councll to approve the
Housing Elementi and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 1990, the City Councl.l conducted a
duly notlced public hearl.ng on the Draft Housl.ng Element where lt
considered the comments of the Houslng Commlsslon, Plannlng
commission, and HCD and approved the Draft Houslng Element, wlth
modificatlons; and
WHEREAS, on Aprll 17, 1990, the City transml.tted the
roodl.fied Draft Housing Element to HCD for review and comment; and
~
VU.J"v
- 2 -
.
.
WHEREAS,on June 7,1990, HCD transmitted to the City ~ts
comments upon the mod~f~ed Draft Hous~ng Element; and
WHEREAS,an December 30, 1991 the C~ty transm~tted to HeD a
response addressing HCD's comments along w~th a madif~ed Draft
Housing Element reflecting the suggested changesi and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1992, HCD transm~tted to the City
new and add~tional comments on the mod~fied Draft Houslng
Element; and
WHEREAS, on August 31, 1992 the City transmitted to HCD a
response to the State's comments along with a further mod~f~ed
Draft Hous~ng Element; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 1992 HCD transm~tted to the City ~ts
add~tional comments on the modlfled Draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 1993 the C~ty transmltted to HCD a
response to the State's additional comments; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 1993 the Plannlng Comm~SSlon conducted
a duly notlced publ~c meet~ng on the Housing Element and
forwarded a recommendation to the Clty council to approve the
Hous~ng Element; and
WHEREAS, the city Counc~l on September 28, 1993 conducted a
~ -. ...,
UVJJ'
- 3 -
.
.
duly noticed publ~c hearlng on the Housing element; and
WHEREAS, the City Counc~l has cons~dered the comments of the
Cal~fornia State Department of Hous~ng and Commun~ty Development;
and
WHEREAS, the Clty Council has fully considered the Flnal
Environmental Impact Report on the proposed Housing Element,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The document attached hereto marked Exhibit A is
hereby approved and adopted as the Housing Element of the General
Plan for the Clty of Santa Monica.
SECTION 2. As detalled below, conslstent W.lth Government
Code Sectlon 65585(f} (2}, the C.lty Council finds that the Houslng
Element substantlally complies wlth the requirements of Artlcle
10.6 of the Government Code desplte the latest flndlngs submitted
to the City on October 16, 1992 by HCD.
V\JJJ3
- 4 -
.
.
(a) HCD concluded that the Houslng Element lS not In
compliance wlth Government Code Sectlon 65583(c) (1) because It
falls to adequately demonstrate that the Clty can accommodate the
majorlty of ltS reglonal housing needs on sltes havlng
redevelopment potentlal. However, the Clty Councll flnds that
the Houslng Element substantlally compIles Wl th Sectlons
65583 (cl (~) and 65583 (a) (3). More speclflcally:
(1) Government Code Sectlon 65583(a) (3) requlres
that the houslng element lnclude "an lnventory of land suitable
for resldential development, lncludlng vacant sltes and sites
having potentlal for redevelopment. II ThlS provlsion means
what it says, l.e., sites ldentlfied under thls sectlon must have
the potential for resldential development, whether the sltes be
vacant or underdeveloped. Recent amendments to HouSlng Element
Law demonstrate the correctness of this interpretation.
Effectlve January 1, ~993, Assembly Blll No. 2707 added
Government Code Sectlon 65583.1 WhlCh provldes in relevant part
that HCD ''In evaluatlng a proposed or adopted hous1ng element for
conslstency Wl th state law, may allow a local government to
1dentify adequate sites, as requ1red pursuant to Section 65583,
by a variety of methods, lncluding, but not llm1ted to,
redeslgnatlon of property to a more 1ntense land use category and
lncreas1ng the density allowed within one or more categorles..."
Thus, this law allows a city to count upzoned sltes 1n its
inventory without any showing that these sites will actually be
redeveloped to the hlgher allowable density. ThlS is preclsely
ijU}.~J
- 5 -
.
.
what the C~ty has done 1n
resident~ally zoned s~tes which
denslty under eX1stlng zon1ng.
Its Inventory by ldentlfYlng
can be redeveloped to a hlgher
(2) HCD's posit1on that the inventory of land
suitable for residentlal development must reflect the number of
units that are lIkely to be bUllt durlng the five (5) year perlod
of the housing element flnds no support In the spec1f1c language
of the statute or case authority interpreting this provIsion. If
the Legislature had intended such a restrictive approach to this
category, it would have so specified. For instance, Section
65583 (b) (2) expressly provldes that the statement of the
communIty's quantIfled obJectIves shall be the maximum number of
housing unlts that can be constructed, rehab1l1tated, and
conserved over a flve year perlod. (See also Sectlon 65583 (c)
(reqUIrIng that a five year program of actlon be established).
However, the language In SectIon 65583 (a) (3) is quite dIfferent
("SItes havlng the potentlal foJ:' J:'edevelopment") with no 1:1::1e
parameteJ:' speclfled. This dIfference In language WIthIn the same
statutory scheme must be given effect.
(3) The purpose of Sectlon 65583(a)(3) IS not to
reqUIre a CIty to deSIgnate only those sites Wh1Ch the CIty
expects 101111 redevelop durlng the flVe year per10d of the hOUSIng
element update. That purpose is served by SectIon 65S83(b) (2).
The purpose Section 65S83(a) (3) 1S simply to demonstrate that the
city's zonIng and Infrastructure would support the number of
v v j " J
- 6 -
.
.
units mandated by a c~ty's RRNA numbers.
(4) Wh~le ~t may have been appropr~ate for the
land ~nventory analysl.S of the Draft Hous~ng Element to have
cons~dered all underdeveloped resl.dent~al sltes In ltS lnventory
(resulting in 7,769 multi-family units) See 8uena Vista Gardens
v. Clty of San Oieqo, 175 Cal. App. 3d 289, 300-01, 220 Cal.
Rptr. 732, 738 (1985)), the Clty was more conservatlve In ~ts
approach. It only included underdeveloped propert~es that had
not recycled since 1960, sltes with a more realistlc potent~al
for recycl1.ng glven their age and underutlllzatlon. Thus, the
C1.ty identif1.ed the potential for 4,428 dwelhng unlts to be
developed 1.n resldent~al mult~-fam~ly zones based on th~s
crlterJ.a.
(5) There ~s also sJ.gnlflcant underdeveloped
property 1.n the Clty's commerclal zones ~n whJ.ch residential
development is permltted. The Clty conservatlvely determined
that J.f only 10 percent of th~s future development In commercJ.al
distr1.cts 1.S residentJ.al, 2,458 new dwell1.ng units could be
constructed. The Clty has recently approved new commercJ.al
development standards allow~ng a density bonus for mJ.xed
residential/commercial development whlch wJ.ll lncrease the
IJ.kel1.hood that resJ.dential development w1.11 occur 1n commer1cal
d~str~cts.
(6)
RCD
lncorrectly contends that Sectlon
u V .' . J.
- 7 -
.
.
65583 (c) (1)
requires the c~ty to demonstrate that ~t can
accommodate the maJor~ty of ~ts reg~onal houslng needs on sltes
having redevelopment potent~al during the flve-year per~od of the
Housing Element.
See also Section 65583 (b) (2) .
The C~ty has,
however, ident~fied adequate sltes to meet ~ts hous~ng goals as
requlred by Section 65583(c) (1).
(7) For the forego~ng reasons, the City Councll
flnds that it has met ltS legal requlrement of ldentlfYlng
adequate sites In the Clty to accommodate its falr share of
houslng as establlshed by RHNA.
(b) HCD also concluded that the Houslng Element is out
of compllance with Government Code Sectlon 65583(c) (I) because lt
does not contain programs to faCllltate market-rate development.
The city Councll f~nds that this characterizatlon of the Houslng
Element is erroneous.
(1) The Draft Houslng Element does contaln
speclflC programs to encourage pr~vate-sector recycllng. Program
A-1-a is intended to encourage the product~on of housing in
commercial
districts.
Program A.I. a
has
recently
been
implemented with the adoption of Ordlnance #1687, WhlCh permlts
residential uses by right 1n most commercial distrlcts, reduces
allowable FAR's for commerc1al development, and provldes for an
FAR bonus of approximately 30 percent for residential uses in
most commercial districts.
Program A-l-g calls for recycllng
\J V ~.
'"'
....
- 8 -
.
.
certain
portions
of
commerc~al
and
~ndustr~al
areas
to
res~dential use.
(2) S~nce the C~ty has 1dent~f~ed adequate s~tes
to meet ~ts RHNA obl~gat~ons, the C1ty ~s not legally requ~red to
enact additional programs ~n th~s area.
(c) HCD further found that the Hous~ng Element 1S not
in compliance with Government Code Section 65583(c} (3) because it
fails to adequately describe or evaluate the comb1ned effects of
c~ty
regulations
on
recycl1ng
potent1al
and
res1dential
development.
However, the City Counc~l f1nds that the Hous~ng
Element IS In complIance wIth SectIon 65583(c) (3) as follows:
(1) HCD's content1on that the Draft Housing
Element fa~ls to analyze the combined effect of the Rent Control
Law and the CIty's ~nclus1onary hous1ng ordInance on future
development ~s inaccurate and based on a m1sunders~and~ng of the
City'S laws.
The Draft Hous~ng Element conta1ns extensIve
analysis of both these programs.
Further, the "comb1ned effect"
of these two laws does not operate as a constraint on the
development of new housing.
(2) A property owner seeking to redevelop a
property Wh1Ch lS currently improved with res1dential units
sUbJect to the Rent Control Law ("controlled unIts") has two
completely viable opt1ons.
VU J
'"
.-.1
- 9 -
.
.
(1) A property owner deS1rJ.ng to redevelop
resJ.dentJ.al property can seek a Category D removal permJ.t from
the Rent Control Board. The Rent Control Board has J.ssued a
signifJ.cant number of such permJ.ts. Under a Category 0 removal
permit, a property owner must agree to replace the eXJ.stJ.ng
number of controlled units WJ.th an equal number of replacement
rental units sJ.mJ.larly subject to the Rent Control Law's
establJ.shed rent level. The remainder of the units constructed
on the site can be market-rate unJ.ts. In the vast ma]orJ.ty of
cases, there would be no addJ.tlonal affordable unlts required
pursuant to the Clty'S InclusJ.onary Hous1ng ordJ.nance. The
requ1site number of affordable un1ts would have been provlded
pursuant to the removal permit and the CJ.ty's Inclusionary
Housing ordJ.nance prov1des that rent control unlts fultlll the
affordable housing requJ.rements of the ordJ.nance.
(J.i) Alternatively, an owner desJ.rJ.ng to
redevelop hls/her property may go out of the res1dential rental
business altogether pursuant to the EllJ.s Act, Government Code
Section 7060 et seq, demolJ.sh the eXJ.stJ.ng controlled unJ.ts, and
redevelop the property with condominlums to whatever density is
allowed under the City'S eX1stJ.ng zon1ng standards. Pursuant to
the City's Inclus10nary Hous1ng ord1nance, only 30% of the new
units, excludlng state densJ.ty bonus units, would need to be
affordable to low and moderate lncome households. An economJ.c
analysis of this ordlnance demonstrated that condominium
development projects remained economically vlable wlth a 30%
U!J J '. ...
- 10 -
.
.
inclus10nary houslng requ1rement.
In Santa Mon1ca, the average property w1thdrawn from
the rental buslness pursuant to the Ellis Act conta1ned Just over
4 rental units and has been redeveloped w1th Just over 6
condomln1ums. In most cases, the property owner has developed 5
units as authorlzed under current denslty standards and
constructed an additional State density bonus un1 t. In these
circumstances, the City's Inclusionary Housing ordinance would
only impose an obligation to provide one affordable housing unlt.
In short, the resulting development would contain six units, flve
of Wh1ch would be market-rate and one of Wh1Ch would be
affordable. The econonuc analys1s performed by Clty staff
supports the concluslon that proJects of thlS nature are
econom1cally v1able.
(3) The C1ty 1S required to ensure not only that
hous1ng 1S construc~ed 1n the Clty, but that a slgn1f1cant
portlon of the constructed housing is affordable. Indeed,
according to the City'S RHNA requirements, no less than 61
percent of the C1ty's housing obllgatlon must be affordable to
very low, low and moderate 1ncome households. It has been the
C1ty'S experlence that the free market w1ll not prov1de thlS
housing on its own accord and, glven the paucity of matching
state and federal funds avallable to the Clty, the C1ty's ability
to ltself construct affordable housing is signlficantly
constralned.
VVJ.')
- 11 -
. .
(4) The Clty Council f1nds that unless 1t has a
strong lnclusionary hous1ng ord1nance 1n place Wh1Ch requ1res
that such houslng be bUllt on-slte 1n most lnstances, the amount
of affordable hous1ng in this Cl ty wlll contlnue to be vastly
outpaced by market-rate development.
Moreover, glven the built-
out nature of this Clty, such new development wlll come at the
expense of the Clty'S eXlsting affordable houslng stock.
(5) The City Councll also flnds that HCD has
focused exclusively on the need for total houslng production
while ignor1ng the effect of that productlon on the City's equal
obligatlon
to
preserve
and
provide
affordable
housing
opportunitles.
Furthermore, the Clty Council finds that Houslng
Element Law supports the Clty'S more balanced approach.
(6) The Clty Councl1 flnds that the Clty'S Rent
Control Law and Incluslonary Houslng ordlnance serve critlcally
important Clty houslng pol1cles.
Moreover, Houslng Element Law
clearly authorlzes programs of thlS nature.
In particular,
Government Code Sectlon 65583 (c) (4) provldes that the element
should "conserve and improve the conditlon of the eXlsting
affordable houslng stock, Wh1Ch ~ay lnclude ways to mltigate the
loss of dwelllng unlts demollshed by publlC or private actsj" and
artlcle shall be construed to be a .
provldes "Nothlng 1n this
repeal of any authority
Government Code Sect10n 65589(b)
which may exist of a local government to impose rent controls or
restrictlons on the sale of real property." Furthermore,
lt has
n
V V J '. v
- 12 -
.
.
long been estab11shed that 1nclus10nary ord1nances wh1ch requ1re
that a spec1fic percentage of units w1th1n a new res1dent1al
development be made affordable const1tute leg1t1mate
implementat10n measures des1gned to 1ncrease the ava1lable supply
of affordable hous1ng. See Twa1n Harte Homeowners v. County of
Tuolumne, 136 cal. App. 3d 664, 70S, 186 Cal. Rptr. 233, 259
(1982).
(d) HCD additionally concluded that the Hous1ng
Element is not 1n compliance with Section 65583{c) (1) due to 1tS
condit1onal use perm1t requ1rement for condom1n1ums. However,
the City council f1nds that the Hous1ng Element 1S 1n comp11ance
with Sect10n 65533 (c) (l) . Government Code Sect10n 65583 (c) (1)
only requires the e11mination of the cUP process for mult1-family
housing where the 1nventory of adequate s1tes ident1f1ed pursuant
to Sect10n 65583 (a) (3) 1S 1nadequate. The C1ty has 1dentlf1ed
adequate sltes as d1scussed 1n Sect10ns 2(a) (1) through 2(a) (7)
above.
(e) Finally, Hcn determlned that the Hous1ng Element
is not in compliance with Governmental Code Section 65583(c) (2)
because the Houslng Element programs are 1nsuff1clently speclfic
in terms of timing, fundlng sources, and irnplel'1entatlon.
However, the City counc1l flnds that the Housing Element is 1n
compllance wlth Sect10n 6SS8J(c) (2) as follows:
(1) With respect to t1melines for implementation
\l \J ! '. ,
- 13 -
.
.
of these programs, Table 33 of the Draft Houslng Elemen~ provldes
an lmplementatlon schedule for each of the P.ouslng Element
programs.
(2) Wlth respect to fundlng sour~es and costs,
the programs wlll be ac~ompllshed utlllzlng eXlstlng staff
resources under current department budgets, unless otherWlse
speclfled In the programs or In !able 33 of the Houslng Element.
(3) Flnally, several of the Draft Houslng Element
programs have been revlsed to meet the remalnlng speclflc
concerns ralsed by HCD by provldlng more speclflc lnformatl.on
concernlng tlmlng of lmplementatlon and by lncorporatlng more
speclflC lmplementatlon actlons.
SECTION 3. The Clty Cler~ shall cert~fy to the adoptlon of
thlS Reso~utlon, and the~ce:orth and thereafter the same shall be
In full for~e and effec~.
APPROVED AS :0 FORM:
~L)~
rJ~seo~ La~rence
~tlng Clty A~torney
legal/hec2
VUJ
'i
.v
- 14 -
.
.
Aclop'.ed and approved this
28th
day of Seuternber
,1993.
~~f
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 8668 was duly adopted at a
mteti:1g of the City Council on the 28th day of September
,1993 by the
following vote:
A1'ES: Abdo, Genser, Olsen, Vazquez
NOES: Greenberg, Holbrook
AlISTAIN: Rosenstein
AlISENT:
ATTEST:
..:.----- --.-"~ -~-
~~- ..-..... ----
J1:ti~eh</
- City Clerk r:J