SR-414-002 (15)
f .
"
e
e
fit( ,OO~
Cle/M -.2
JUN 2 G \tIS
C/ED:HD:AS:Wp
Redevelopment Agency Meeting 6/25/85
Santa MonIca, CalIfornIa
TO:
Redevelopment Agency
FROM:
Agency Staff
SUBJECT: RecommendatIon to Allocate Funds to Support the
RehabIlItatIon of 175 Ocean Park Boulevard
INTRODUCTION
ThIS report transmits InformatIon and recommendatIons concernIng
the support of the rehabIlItatIon of twenty-two affordable hous-
lng unIts at 175 Ocean Park Boulevard. The report descrIbes the
preVIOUS actIon taken by the CIty Council to provIde InterIm sup-
port for thIS proJect, and recommends that the Redevelopment
Agency approve the expenditure of $121,663 from the tax alloca-
tlon bond proceeds allocated for support of housIng for thIS
proJect.
BACKGROUND
Over the past several year s the Redeve lopment Agency, Park I ng
AuthorIty, and CIty CounCIl have been workIng WIth the HOUSIng
AuthorIty of the County of Los Angeles (HACOLA) and the U.s. De-
partment of HOUSIng and Urban Development (HUD) to rehabIlitate
the apartment bUIldIngs at 175 Ocean Park Boulevard. In the last
two months HACOLA and HUD had Issued requests for bIds for con-
- 1 -
rev lews and negot iatl ons
~/R",--2.
jUM 2 5 1_
structlon,
and had entered
Into cost
1 . "
e
e
wIth the lowest bIdder. Imnledlately before the May 28, 1985 CIty
CouncIl meeting the staff learned that the proJect would not be
able to proceed unless the CIty or the Redevelopment Agency could
provIde addItIonal funds to supplement the HUD funds reserved for
the rehabIlItatIon. SInce thIS Item could not be placed on the
Redevelopment Agency specIal meetIng agenda for the May 28, 1985
IlteetIng, and SInce HUD had establIshed a deadll ne of that date
for the sIgnIng of all of the construction contract documents,
the City CouncIl authorIzed the CIty Manager to advance, on be-
half of the Redevelopment Agency, the funds necessary to
rehabIlItate the property at 175 Ocean Park Boulevard. The CIty
Counc 11 also dl rected s taf f to return at the next regular Re-
development Agency meetIng WIth a recommendatIon of a redevelop-
ment fund account for thIS expendIture.
As of this date, the CI ty has not yet transferred the funds to
the HousIng AuthorIty of the County of Los Angeles. AccordIngly,
1 t IS recommended that the Redevelopment Agency pay the money
dIrectly to HACOLA to avoId the need to reImburse the CIty. Funds
are ava llable for th 1 S expendl ture In the Ocean Park proJect
fund. A total of $2.5 ulllllon of Ocean Park Redevelopment ProJ-
ect funds have been allocated foe the development of affordable
housIng In the Ocean Park area. Therefore, It IS reconm~nded that
the Redevelopment Agency approve the expendIture of $121,663 from
thIS allocatIon for the payment of necessary rehabIlItatIon costs
- 2 -
:*". "
e
e
to the HousIng AuthorIty of the County of Los Angeles. These Re-
development Agency funds wIll be expended In lIeu of the expendi-
ture of General Fund monIes authorized by the CIty CounCIl on May
28, 1985.
FINANCIAL / BUDGETARY IMPACT
SufficIent funds are budgeted In the Ocean Park Off-SIte HousIng
account (18-720-263-535-90S) for the recommended expendIture.
Upon approval of the Redevelopment Agency $121,663 shall be ex-
pended from thIS account when necessary to pay the HousIng Au-
thorlty of the County of Los Angeles as descrIbed In thIS report.
No further budgetary actIon IS necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Redeve 10pIIlent Agency approve the ex-
pendIture of $121,663 for construction costs to rehabIlItate the
property at 175 Ocean Park Boulevard as descrIbed In thIS report.
Prepared By:
Ann SewIll, HousIng Program Manager
Peggy Gardels, ActIng DIrector
Department of CommunIty & EconomIC Development
- 3 -
""
.. .
.
e
e
41)1) 10 PA"2
JU. 2 5 t98S
:i~
Junell.1985
1"0 City Covt\Sd M(lynbas a.nd
To Those Concerned,
Some hme ago I submltted a petlhon for Preierentlal Parklng fol' the
resIdents l.ll our area of Californ1a and Fourth Street.s. I recleved a letter
from the C1ty Parkmg &: Traihc Eng:meer lnformlng me of h.1.s proposal.
The proposal 1,S for evemng and Sunday parluug at $10.00 a mouth 10 Lots
3 and 4. The letter explamed that "We cannot sell a perm1t for a reduced
fee for daytlIne par bug 1U these lots. These lots were bUllt to pr onde off-
street parklng for area bUJnness not for resIdential uses. fl.
Unfortuoatly. tb.1s proposal doesn1t really address our problem. The
fact 1.5 that mC!it of the workers 10 the area (mcludIng the new 12 storey
bUIldmg acr ass the street) wDuld rather park ior iree on the street than
use the metered lot. In our bUIldIng of 86 UnIts there ..re only 11 spaces
for residents (at a fee) . and al.most half are used by management. Many
of our resldeuts are elderly, some hve on flxed Incomes, iilnd same wo:rlc
at nIght; WIth the recent raIse of the flues for parklng vlOlations and the
new lugher rates for the meters many of us {lOd a 6traln on our wallets
aud our appreclationf the quahty of h.ie here.
We have notlced that there are dillerent policies for dilierent tots,
some offer 3 hours free. some offer a annual rate of $100 ($10 a month,
at the beach). We feel that thlS ubeach rateU could offer a compramlSe
that both the city and we resIden.ts would be able to call "preferentIal".
(Ewn the bank recogn1sed 1tlS ol:i:lgatlOn to the neighborhood resIdents by
offerIng ItJ$ lot ior free durIng non-workIng hours. {the same poheyas
the CltyJS proposal, but for free}.
SQ~ it is wlth great hope that you take thlS to heart. and rule in
favour of a truly f1pre!erentlal'l parkIng pohcy for the reEl1dents (and
voter s) of Santa M Oo.lca.
Thank you
Sincerdy
Ja~r~
Charmont Apartments
1114 4th St. #15
Santa MonIca, CA 90403
-,. - ~.
'~r'i-ln
., '-N Vi il\;'....
r" .)
6c: ~ d l i r
MIl'
~.
"
- -- - "-..~.Lf:)
~ - - J} '^
. - ;'.:J"U
.~ ~ . ':~ : j1f
401>10111-.:t..
jU~ 2 5 \tIS