SR-APPENDIX H (2),
'
V. HOUSING OBJECTIVES, GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGR~MS
,
The Housin~ Elem~nt pro~ides a statement of the comm.unity's Qoals, quant~fied objecti~•es.
, and policies relative to the rnamtenance, preser~~at~or~. improvement. and de~•elopment of
housing This sect~vn of the Housing Element is also deszgned tv satisfy the requzrement af
California State law (Section 67~83(b}(1))
' This section hzghlights the ~e~- housing issues factng the Cin- u°hich are addrzssed ~n this
Santa ~:lonica Hous~~ Element L'pdate (Element lipdate) Given the expected availab~litr.-
ofresources. the Gzh'~s overall quanF~fied ob~ectn-es for housing product~on, rehabilitatian.
~ and assistance are set forth for the plannina penod FinaIlv, the Cit~-'~ housing goals_
policies and prog~-ams are presented. inelud~n~ a future action plan for the 1998-2003
planning per~od. as summanzed in the Pro6ram Summary Table V-2
'
A. SUMMARY" OF KEY HOLSING ISSUES
' Santa Monica faces a nny~ad of complex housing issues, and housmg funds for constrnct~on
and rehab~litauon are shnnking, particularly from federal and state sources Lnderstandin~
, these issues is crzt~cal to mak~ng the d~fftcult polic~- decisions to create cost-eff~et~~~e
~ousin~ The previous Secuons II and TII contain a comprehensive e~~aluat~on of housing
needs and potentiai ~overnmental anid non-aovernmental constraints in Santa Monica, the
' ke~- issues are bnefl~ summanzed belov~•
' 1. Effects of Costa-Hav~~kins ~%acancy De-control Regulation
The C~t~~ of Santa Momca adopted a rent control law ~n ~ 979 and current~~~ has ar: 3nventor~~
' af approximately ~0,000 rent-controlied uaaxts Rent control has been an important
mecha.n~sm for zxzamtainin~ housing affordabilrt3- m Santa lbloruca Adoption of the Costa-
Hati~°kins Rental Housing Act ~n the FaII of 199~ ~~~ the state leais~ature, ho~;~e~°er, brouaht
about stateu~-~de de-control af rent-controlled housing upon ~•acanc~ $y Januan• 1999. the
~ Costa-Hai~lc~ns Act «-i11 el~minate any limits on rent increases that ma}° be char~ed when a
tenant vol~tarily~ vacates an aparrment unFt ar ~s evacted for nan-pay-rne~t of rent Vacanc~~
de-control v~~ill be phased-in sa that rents ma~~ be razsed up to twa times upon volun~ar~~
1 vacane~~ unt~l January 1999, when full vacancy de-control goes into effect Upon occupanc~~
by a nesu tenant, units w-ill be re-controlled until ~acated again
~ In the first eight n:ionths of imptementataon of the vacanc~- de-control regulation ~n Santa
'1~omca, over 3,000 unats ha~~e applied far rent increases_ Further rent increases as vacancies
occur ~~-~11 drive up the rent le~~els in the C1#~~ The effects of Costa-Hawkins are being
~ evaluated extensi~-ely as part of th~s Element Lpc~ate. The Cit~- is dey~sing artechanisms to
m~tieate the impacts of Costa-Hav4-kins
,
' Ciry• of Sa~ta Montca Housing Ob~ectives.
Housing Eiement V-1 Goals, Pohcaes, and Pro~am~
'
~
1
~
~
'
~
1
~
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
'
1
1
F. StiMMARY 4F PROGRa..II Z1~xPLEMENTATION
In s~mma.n,~'. of the 42 housing programs eti°aluated in this Section, two progxams has~e been
fullv implemented betu~een 1989 and 1996, and nme programs ha~e been determined to be
no ionger relevant for the 1998-200 i Elerr~ent. The remaining proQrams have been fne-tuned
and~'ar expanded to better address the housing needs of Sar~ta N1or~ca residents and to
respond to the C~n-'s deta~Ied reti~~eu- of its existing programs, policies, and reaulations ~e~~~
pro~rams have also been created to au~ment existma programs to address the Cin's housin~
issues m a comprehens~ve strategy.'
- The Cit~ has also reviewed its past ~erformance under the i 383 Ho~s~ng Element, as part of the
Re-evaluat~on of the 1993 Element {refer to Append~x F j
C~~y of Santa Mon~ca Revieu• of Housuig EleFnent
Housing E~emenE IV-34 PaSt Performance
,
1
'
'
~
,
'
'
'
1
'
'
'
'
,
1
1
'
'
,
1
t
1
'
t
'
'
1
'
'
'
E. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
GOAL E-i: PROh•iOTE THE PARTICIPaTION OF CITIZE~~S, COM1~UI~ITY
GROIiPS, AND GO~'ERNhZENTAL. AGENCIES I~i HOtiSING ?~:~TD COM~iL~1ITY
DEVELOPI~~ENT ACT~VITIES
Program E-l.a: Gir-z «~idzspread and timel~~ nouce of Gi~- cons~derat~on of land
de~-eloprnent proposals and changes in housinQ programs or regulat~ons goti~ermn~ housing
or land det~elopment y
Progress to Date: `~'he Cit~° expanded the notice requirements for public hearin~s
concerning site-specific de~-eloprnents or housinQ program matters to incIude bath
propert}~ aw~ners and tenants and to ens~ar~ that ali res~dents or ov~~ers «~ithln 50Q feet
are informed of the hearing In add~tion to direct rr~ail not~ces, up~omma heannas are
advertised rn local new~spapers The availabilitti of further informat~on in Span~sh ~s
mdicated m these newspager ads City Council meet~n~s are broadcast to the publ~c by
radio and on locaI cable stations Plannin~ Commission meet~n~s are also axred on the
local ca~le stat~on The C~t~° has installed the Public Electronic Network (PEN) ti~hich
makes available to the public v~a the Interriet_ ~Vorld Wide W'eb and other modem
net~-orks ~nformatian about deyelopment proposals. upcommg hearings. and C~t~c~
reguIations
Through £un~ng support b~ the City. tl~e Netghborhood Support Center (NSC) ~-orks
c~osely v~ith neighborhoad associations to no~fi~- residents of issues }aertainxng to land
de~~elopment and cl~an~es m hous~n¢ pro~ram pohcizs and regu~at~ons tl~uro~gh regular
distribut~on of neiahborhood new-sletter and b~~ conductin~ public fon~ms to discuss
rele~-ant issues.
The City ti~~rll contrnue to rmplement thrs program as Program 8 a- l~lainiain a Crti_en
:~~otifieatron Program rn the 1998-2Q03 Element
' Program E-1.b: Pro~~ide far penodic review- of housing policy~
Progress to Date: The Cit~~ has made pro~ress in implementation of all of the pro~ams
, identified in the ~993 Hausmg Element This Element represznts a camprehensive
rev~e~~ of the Cin's hausing strategrv and policy, and a refinement and expansion of
exisung programs as appropriate In addition, the Cit~~ undergoes annual reviev~• of its
' CDBG. rental rehabilitation_ and z-edevelopment ta~ incremen.t fiu~ded hous~ng and
communin- deti~e~opment praarams
, The City~ tiwtld continue to rmplement thts program as Program 8 b- Conduct Houstng
Element Review in the 1998-2003 Element
'
' City of Santa ~~omca Review of Ho~sina Element
Housing ~lement ~V-33 Past Performance
'
preparat~on af management pfans to assist in the monitonng of operat~ng conditions
Add~tionally, ~he Caty complies w~th PubIic Resource Code. Section 210$1 6(CEQA}
tivhich dtctates that i~ adapt a monitonn~ proaram to ensure imp~ementation of
mitrgation zneasures appro~~ed as part of a pro~ect for ~~luch an EiR has heen prepared
Cons~stent v~-ath tl~s Section. v~°here feasible, th~ Cih~ adopts mztigation mzasures as
conditions of appro~~al to further ensure their implementauon
The C~t~ has approved sixteen (16) Develogment A~eements for sgec~fic iar6e, phased
developments The Cit~ annuall~~ morutors the requireinents approved in these
De~elopment Agreements to ensure angoing compl~ance
This is a standard Crty policy ~mplerrtented through a~arrery• of housing pragrams, and rs
therefore not i~zcluded in the 1998-2003 Element
Program D-l.d: Coastal zone developments shal~ conforr3r~ ~~irh rele~~ant state la«~.
~rogress to Date: Althouah the Cm- has prepared a Local Coastal Plan (LCP). and
port~ons of the Land C.1se Plan (~~-hich are mcarporated ~}~t}un the LCP) ha~~e been
appro~-ed b~- the State Coastal Commission. the entire LCP has not ~et been approl~ed
Therefore; a~l coastal zone projects must be revie~-ed by the Coastal Commassion_ as
well as b}~ the C~t~~. Staff informs all applicants of the requirements of coastal zane
development and refers them to the Coastal Cammission for furt~-ier infarmation
This is a standard Crty po7icy implemented through a varrety of housing programs, and is
therefore not included in the 1998-200.i Element
Program D-l.e: Balance empZo~ment oppartumties m the City v~ith the su~ply of housina
to ensure that people ti~,~ho work in t~ie Cit~• have a reasonable opportunrtl• to ii~c~e there and
do not ha~~e to commute long distances and contribute to regional traffic congestion and air
pollution.
Progress to Date: The City has adopted an Office Development Mitrgation Program
whach requires de~~elopers of new eommercial office space an excess of 1~,000 square
feet or add~tions to ex~st~ng der~elopments zn excess of 10,0~0 square feet to e~ther (1)
provicie lo« mcome housing and open gark space, or (2) pa~= the City an in-Iieu fee to
be used for such efforts Fees rece~ved far housing under tlne prograrz~ ha~e been
allocated to the Cin~~ide Housing Trust Fund Betv4een 1986 - May 1996. an
est~mated 53,61Q.3~9 has been collected in o~ce mrtigation fees for housing
Also, since 199.i. the Cit~ has pernartted the de~-elopment of residential uses in most
eommercial districts_ resulting in over 250 multi-fam~ly~ Luuts developec~ through March
1996. TYus polic~~ promotes the rntegrat~on of res~dential and commercial uses. helpina
to rnmim~ze tra~rel distances betv~~een home; u~ork. and sen~ices
1'he Crry ~vrll conttnue to rmplement this program as Pragram ' e- lifaintain an O_ffrce
Development l~itrgation Program an the 1998-2003 Element
Cit~ of Santa Mo~uca Rev~ew of Hnusuig Element
Hovsm~ Element I~'-3? Past Perfornzance
,
'
'
1
'
'
1
1
1
'
'
,
i
1
1
t
'
,
'
,
1
Department also offers a number of other crirne preventfon and communitti~ r~lations
, programs as ~;'el~ as educatiana~ materials for residents
The Ciry ti~°rll contcnue to of,fer a range o{nerghborhood sa, fetti~ programs through the Pohce
, Department 7'hts program has now become Program ' a- Provide a Reszdential
:~ erghbaf•hood Safen~ Program in the 1998-~003 Element
' Pragram D-1.b: Revie~- exist~ng ar~d de~~elog new programs for ener~i~ and v~~ater
conser4 ation v
' Progress to Date: S~nce 1990, the Cit~~ has ianpl~mented the Bay Saver Retrofit
Pro~am As part of this proQram. residential property o~nners can receive a S l OQ rebate
per bathroom to retrofit v~-ith a low-flov~- toilet and shower~ead Alterna~ively-, for a fee
' of $3~ the C~ty ~~zll retrofit residenual bathrooms ti~1th ultra-lov~~ flo~r to~~ets and
showerneads The Revof~t proQram for res~dential prapert~es ended ~n June 1996 after
' achieving the Cm~'s goa! to reno~t ~0% of alI res~dent~al toi~ets. which ~ncluded
approximately ~9.400 to~lets In Fiscal Year 1992-1993. the City adopted a Retrofit
Upon Sale program which requires existing propert~es to retrofit all ~oilets and
showerheads pnar to iransfer of title Th~s pzogram ~as resulted in the retrofit of
' approxinaatel~: I,600 homes_ Also, the Crt~ contin~es to charge a Develapment
~litigation Fee on ne~• developrnent, the proceeds af which are used to pay for the
retrofimng of pubhc facilitzes ~n the Cit~~ and to offset anj' ~ncrease in water usage frorn
' ihe new~ deti-elapFnent The Cit~~ also offers outreach and educat~onal pzo~rrams These
~nclude a horne audit to ass~st res~dents in identifi.~in~ «~a~-s to consen~e water a~d
y r
workshops on drought-tolerant landscaping
'
T~e City enforces State la~T regardin~ minimum insulation requirezxients for ne~~
canstruction Bath Sauthern Calxfornia Edrson and The Gas Coznpan~- implement
' energy cansen~ation programs, part~cularl~- for low~-inconne house~olds, that are
avaalable to Santa ~iontca residents
' Consen-arion of the Crt~.°'s ener~, titi-ater, and other errvrronmental resources is an on-going
Ciry polrcy Thrs pragram has heen mod f ed to becarne Program 7 e-'~laintain Ener~- and
a~ater Conservatron Progf-ams in the 1998-?003 Element In addrnon, the City• has adopted
' a Sustarrrable City Program whzch rnclude~ the developme~t of a set of Sustainable Burldrng
Development GuadelTnes (Program % d) to address methods to achreve the burldzng-relared
targets ofthe Sustarna8le Ciry Program
,
,
'
'
Program D-1.c: Provide for enfarcement af permrt requiremenis to ens~re that the
mit~gation of ad<<erse im~acts af neu- deve~vpment is effecErve.
Progress to Date: The City enforces plannmg permrt requirements t3uough the pian
check and mspectaon processes. Conditions of approval first are assessed durin~ plan
check. prior to the issuance of a building permit, final inspections are cond~cted to
ensure irnplementat~on of condrtions ~T~'here apprapnate_ the City~ rec~uires the
Caty of Santa Mos~aca Aevie~s of Housme Element
Housmg Elemenc I~ -31 Past Performance
'
,
In September ~ 994, the Ciry prepared the .qssessment of Impedrrnents 1o Farr Houstf2g
Choice irr the City ofSantali~fonica, ~i~uch anal~~zes the need for add~tional fair hous~ng
pro~ams The findangs of the report indicated that current sen-ices in the Grtj~ are
satisfactorL~ and accessible, and that most compla.ints to the Fair Housmg L~nit re~ard
discnmination a~ainst families v~~rth children as r~qu~red by Federal Law-, in 1996.
the Cit~- re1-ie«-ed and updated the Fair Housir~~ Assessment report
The C~t~- adopted Ordinance ~1812 in 199~ to provide added ev~ction protect~on ta
tenanEs v~:ith domestic partners ~Zore specificall~~, this ordi~ance establishes a
procedure for fil~ng an ":~fficiavrt of Damestic Parmers~up" v~Yth the Citr- Clerk's Office,
and prohibrts e~~iction of any tenant on the basis that he~she has breached the rental
agreezx~en.t as a result of ari mcrease in the num.ber of occupants due to the doxnestac
partnership of the occupant
Thrs program contrnues to be an ap~roprrate housrng program for Santa ~Llonrca, thts
program has now become Program 6 a-?Llainraen Fair Housing Programs rn the 1998-2003
Element
Program C-2.b: Require that all subdiv~s~ons and other Ciry approyed de~~elopments
prohibit discnminatian.
Progress to Date: The Cih- imposes as a standard condit~on of subdivision ~nap
appro4a~ the inclusion ofants-discnminat~on clauses m the condztians, cavenants, and
restr~ctians for the pro~ect All subd~visions approved sFnce 1980 have contaxned th~s
ciause
This program rs required by Ci1y ordinance and therefore, has not been included rn the
199$-2003 Element as an rndependent housing program
D. BALANCE HOUSI~TG GOALS WITH OTHER CITY GOALS
GOAL D-1: PRONIOTE QUALITY HOLTSING AND ~TEIGHB~RH40DS
Program D-l.a: Offer programs to maintain and enhance residential safett~
Pragress to Date: The Police Department offers a ran~e of residential safety programs
Through the Res~dential S~curity Surve~~ program, the Police Department prov~des
assessrraen.ts of home securin~ and offers suggestions on how to malce tmprovements
Operation identificat~on encourages residents to engra~•e valuable items u~th an ID
nu~nber to ass~st in ~he recoti-ery of stolen propem- The Crt;~' also cont~nues ta pramate
the formation of neiahborhood ~atch groups, and has provided annual arants to ~.e
Neig~borhood Su~port Center {~iSC) to provide technical assistance in developing
Ne~ghbarhood V-'atch groups, convenin~ neighbozhood and cammun~t~- forums on
public safety i~sues, and linkages ~-zth the Santa ~on.~ca Police Department_ Presentl3-_
there are approximatel~~ 300 Neighborhood Watch Black Captains. The Pol~ce
~
t
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
1
'
'
~
'
'
'
C~~}• of Santa Mosuca Review of Housing Elemenc t
Housmg Element IV-30 Pas[ Performance
'
,
'
adrnirustered trurough the Sa.nta Vlomca Pol~ce Department's Homeless Lia~son ProEram
' (HLP) and through ~cean Park Communit~- Center's Outreach Team
Ihe Crty's orT-garng policy rs to provrde housrng assistance and supportrve serl~ices for
' resrdents with special needs, rncludrng persons tivrth drsabilitres and homeless rndrrrduals
T'his program has been e_rpanded to become Program ~ b-_Ylaantain a Comrnunity
Development Grant Program in the 1998-200.3 Elernent io improve coordination amang a
' ~:arie~y~ of Ciry programs and Activrtces
, Program C-l.d: flssist lo~;~ and moderate ~ncome households to purchas~ their rental un~ts
as condommFUms
' Progress to Dafe: As c~iscussed, a tax is paid to the City upon the sale of each unit
converted pursuant to TORCA In June 1992. the citizens adopted an amendment to
TORCA (Proposition K) uluch pro~c~ides that up to 50 percent of the revenues frorn tlvs
' ta~: is to be used to assist lo«~ and moderate fncome tenants to purchase or impro~-e the~r
TORCA uruts The Crty established the TORC:4 Shared Appreciation Loan Program
pursuant to Proposit~on K L:nder the pro~ra~n, the Crt;~~ ma~ make Shared Appreciation
loans to persons living in apartments v4laich are being com~erted to condominiums ti~ho
' could ~at othen~~asz afford to purchase zhe~r uruts The amount of t~e laan a~~ailable
from the Cin- depends on household mcome and the s~ze and price of the umt Upon
sale or transfer, the owner repa~-s the loan and w~ll share any increase ~n the ~~alue of the
' propert}' tii°ith the Crt;~ As of June 1996, #he city had collected approximatel~ $3 8
million for the TORCA loan pro~ram As of Au~st 1996, tl~e Cit~- has funded 201oans
for a total of $1,124.8~0, this results in a Crt~• cantribution of about SSQ.~QO per un~t
' The a~~eraee sales przce of asszsted un~ts ti~as about $114,000 ~~~hich is affordable to
median and moderate ~ncome households.
' This program has been expanded to become Program ~ c- lla:ntarn a Homebuyers
Assrstance Progr•am rn the 1998-3003 Element to explore addrttonal optrons-resourees for
homeownersh~p asststance
'
G~AL C-2: ELIMINATE DISCRI~~~NATIOV IN REl`TTAL QR FaR-SALE
' HOLTSItiG Ul~ THE BASIS OF RACE, RELIGI4N, NATIOI\AL OR~G~N, SEX,
SEXUAL PREFERENCE, AGE, DISABILITY, FA:VIILY STATUS, AIDS, OR
OTHER SUCH CHARACTERISTICS.
' Progrann C-2.a: Continue to ez~force fair housing Iaws
' Prpgress to Date: The CFn~ Attorne~'s Office thraugh its Dn~iszon of Consumer
Affairs, along with ather ~overnnneni agencies, enfarces the fair housing la~~s In
addition, ~'est Side Fair Housing prov°rdes counseline and invest~gates compiaints of
discnmination ~n Santa Momca It also offers trairung and ec~ucatton to propem- ov~~ers
' regardin~ fair housing laws
' Ciry' of Santa Monica Review of Housm~ Element
Housmg Element N-29 Past Performance
'
~-auchers. 6?7 (63 percent) are under lease to elderl}~, disabled_ or handicapped
households
SM~-LA has cansistentl~• maintained a 9~ percent or greater lease-up rate. and n~pically
has a Sect~on S«-a~tzng last of a~~er tu-o 1-ears for rnost household n-~es.
This program contrnues to be an approprrate mechanism to pt-ovzde rental assistance to the
very loi~ income households in SanLa ~~lonrca This prob am has been included as Program
S a-_tlarntain a Sectton 8 Rental Assrstance and Housing ~'oucher Program rn the 1998-
2003 Element
Program C-l.b: Continue to vperate the home access program
Progress to Date: The Human Sen~ices D~vision adz~ninisters a grant to the ~'G'ests~de
Center for Independent Li~•ing to provide home access modzficat~ons for persons w-~th
a disab~l~t~~ This proaram assists Santa Monica disabled res~dents who wish to remain
in their current homes but rec{uire accessibility modificat~ons to their homes (such as
~rab ba~rs. wheelchair ramps, accessible hardu-are, and other related improvements)
The Ciii%'s on-gorng polici~ rs to provade housrng assistance and supportitie servrces for
resrdents tiv:th special needs, rncludrng the disabled and homeless This prograrn has been
expanded to become Program ~ b-,~fa:ntain a Commun:ry• Development Gt-ant Progt-am in
the 1998-2003 Elen:ent to rmprove coardrnation among a varrety of Ctt}~ programs and
acttti~rtres
Prosram C-1.c: Pra~ide assjstance to homeless indi~-iduals and households to find
temporar~- shelter in cold or inclement weather
Progress to Date: The L~os Angeles Count~~ admimsfers an emergenc}- Cold Weather
Shelter prograrz~. ut~~i~~n~ the West Los Angeles and Cul~~er City arrzaor~es This
program is currently a~~axlable 70 ~ays a year (mid-~Tovember through rr~id-Maxch).
Santa l~lonica homeless service pro~~iders ser4 e as uitake srtes for bus transportation to
the armories an a nightly ba51S for this program The Cin- was instrumental in
expandm~ the at ailabilin~ of this pragra;n b~- advacating for a continuous-rught shelter
program as opposed to a sporadic program that ~~as act~vated contmgent on «~eather
conditians onl~~ The continuo~s-n~ght model ~~~as new~ly implemented in 199~ The
program serves approximate~~~ 300 homeless mdir-~duals nightly.
In addition, as discussed un~er Program A-2.c, the Cit~- de~eloped and opened the 1D0-
bed S~VIO SHEL emergenc~- homeless shelter in September 1994. This program serves
approximately ~04 horne~ess persons az~uall~•_
Thraugh a twent~-year aareement v~~th~ the Bay ~I~ew Holiday Inn, the Cin recerves 365
hotel ~~ouchers per year for homeless ~ndi~iduals at~d famzl~es These vouchers are
C~ty of Santa ~'Iomca Review of Housuig Element
Housuxg Element I~'-28 Past Performance
~
'
1
1
'
1
'
1
1
1
1
~
1
,
1
,
~
~
~
~
1
C. HOtiSI\G ASS~ST~NCE
' Quantified 4bjectives
' The Cit~-`s houszng assastance abjecti~~es as set forth in the 1993 Hausing Element ~-ere to
continue to provide rental assistance to 758 lar~er income households and to inerease the
num}~er of households rece~ti~~n~ assistance commensurate ~Gith federal funding The ~oal
, «~as also to assist in the pra~~isian of sen-~ces to the hame~ess as needed. includina pras~ision
of emergenc}- ass2stance to an at~era~e of I500 per;ons eackz month In addit~on, the ~oa~
w-as to facilitate the de~,~elopment of emergenc~- shelters and consmtct 7~ units af transitzon.al
' housin~ ~s indicated und~r the "Progress to Date'' for each of these speczf c pro;rams, t~e
Cin~ has met or exceeded all of its hous;na assistance goals for the pnor plann~ng period
' The follo~vfng presents the Cit;~`s pro~ress ~n zmplement~ng its 1993 Housing Element
pro~rams related to housing assistance. and describes the effect~veness and continued
appropriateness of each pro~arn for the 1998-2003 planning period
' GOAL C-1: PROVIDE HOUSING ASSISTANCE TO LOW A1~~D ~~ODER~TE
INCO~IE HOUSEHOLDS IN NEED
' Prug~-am C-l.a: Continue ta suppart and participate m the Section S Rental Assistance and
Housing V oucher pro~rams
~ Progress to Date: The Santa Manlca Housing Authont-~• (SN1HA} admimsters t~-o
rental subsidy programs: tYie Section 8 Exastin; Hausina Certificate Pro;ram and the
' Section S Hous~ng Voucher Progratn With~n these Section 8 Proarams, the S11~THA
recei~~es funds for specif c groups
~ • Shelter Plus Care provFdes rental ass~stance for permanent hous~ng an~ case
managernent to ~omeless indn-idua~s ~;~ith disabilrties arid their families
This assistance is auned at the trad~t~onalh~ hard-to-hause homeless wl~o are
' substance abusers, living ~ith AIDS. ar ha~-e severe mental disabilities
• Famrly Unrfication proti-~des housing to families for va~hom the Public Child
' ti~'eifare A~ency has determined that the lack of adequate housing is a
pnman- factor m erther the ianminent placement of the household's
chi~d/cluidren zn out-of-home care or m the delay of dischar~ng ta the family
a cl~uld/children fram out-of-home care
~ Famil ~ Sel -Su icienc coordinates the use of housina assistance v~~th other
• 1 .f .~ 3' a
' funds to enable househalds to achieye economic independence and self-
sufficienc~•
~ As of March 1996, the S~I~LA admirustered a tor.al of 7~7 SecEion 8 cert~ficates and 2~3
Sect~an 8 vouchers In addrtion, the SUIIiA also administers 172 earthquake certificates
which are scheduled to expire on June 30, 199d :Among aIl the certificates and
~ Cin- o#' Santa Mamca Review of Hausu-g Element
Housing Element IV-27 Past Pe~rformance
~
of a propert~ tax reduction pro~am pursua.r~t to Government Co~e Authori~ation (the
11~1iIls Act)
I'he Cit~~ cornpleted the third and final phase of its historic resources sur~~ev in 1994
In ~ddiuon, xt conducted an update of its histonc resources inventon~ to take mto
account the dama~e to identified buildings, subsequent to tl~.e Northridge Earthquake
in JanuarS- 1994 ~lso, the Cit~~ has ~nrtiated implementation of the propem--ta.x
reduct~on pro~ram {Mills Act cantracts}
The Cth: titi~rll conttnue to rmplement this program as Program ' 8- Protitde Htstorzc
Preset-vation Programs rn the ~998-2003 Element
Program B-2.e: Rent board staff, c}7th the assistance of Crty staff. ~~-i11 work to provide
infor~nataon to residentiat propert}~ o~~ers concernmg Rent Control Soard procedures for
increasFn~ rents to pay for capital improvements.
Progress to Date: C1t}: staff worked ~~ith tl~e Rent Contro~ Ageney staff to d~sseminate
mfonx~ation to residential propem~ owners concernmg procedures and opportunities ta
fund capxta~ zmprovements throngh petrtfons far rent increase
In add~tson to the regular capiEal ~rnprovement rent increases, the Rent Contral Boazd
establ~shed a process to respond to the large number of owners appl}7n~ for earthquake-
related rent increases linder the Q-permxt process. Rent Control did not require the net
aperatmg zncome anaivsis v4hich is fundarriental to the reguiar capital impro~~ement
increase process. More than 1,04D earthquake-related increase petitions were filed
bett~-een January 1994 at~d June 1995, ~~~hen the fihng period ended Increases have
been authanzed for more than 6.a04 umts Repa~r costs appro~~ed in petitions have
exceeded ~20.400,OD0.
In addrtion, the Rent Control Board passed regulat~on 4113B. Mitigat~on of Potent~aily
Hazardous Structures. This ent2tles o~vners to a rent increase over ~ne-half (U?) of the
amortized portion of qualifi?ing expenditures far soft-star~ and seismic retrofitting.
Although applieations are no longer accepted far Q Petiirons. applications are strll accepred
for .1~litrgation of Potentially Hazardous Structt~res to compensate ativners for the cost of
retrofittrng ~'his program has become Program -~ d an the 1998-2003 Element
,
,
~
'
'
i
~
'
'
~
~
'
i
~
~
1
~
C~ty of Sanca Momca Review of Ho~tsyng Element ~
Housing Element IV-2b Past Performance
'
,
1
non-ductile concrete buzldin~s. incarporating approx~matel~~ 1,000 d~~elling u~ts. also
, ha~~e been retrofitted Also, eig,~t unreinforced mason~r~° residential buildmgs «~ere
upgraded The effects af these retrofit programs upon the cost of rental housin~ is
evalnated in Section II-C 5
, The Cin° iti~rll cannnue to enfvrce the Burldrng and Safen~ Cades ~hrs program has notiti~
become Program =~ c-:1laintain a Housrng Code Enforcement Program Tn the 1998-200.3
, E'lement ~n additron. Program ~ d-:Llaantaan an Earrhquake Retro~tnng Program has been
~ncluded rn the 1998-2003 Element to address earthqzrake recoi'ery~ activrttes
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
~
'
Program B-2.c: E~~aluate the targeting of rehabilitat~on programs to ensure that all areas in
need of assistance are bemg adequatel~~ ser~-ed_ and encourage the use af ~~olunteers in
rehabilrtation efforts
Progress ta Date: The Crt~•'s 1993 Housin~ Element identif ed this as a potential ne~~•
program Currently the Cit~~ tarsets its rehabilitat~on efforts pnz~aarily to the Pico
neighborhood, but ot~er areas of the Czty may also need assistance Ex~ansion of the
rehabilitat~on program to other areas m need has not yet occurred, but is still appropnate
far e~~aluat~on.
As part of the 1998-?003 Element update, the City has restructured rts rehabrlrtataon efforis
Tivo rehabtlttatton pragrams hme been included rn the Element - Program 4 a- Explore
Establishing a;1~lultr-Family li~'eighhorhood Improvement Program and Program 4 h-
r~fainlarn a Lotiy Income Residenttal Reparr Program
Prngram B-2.d: Encourage the preser~auon of archrtecturallti and histoncallY- si~mficant
neighborhoods and buildings
Pragress to Date: The Cit~~ adopted a Landanarks and Histonc Distncts Ordinance in
1976. establishu~g the Landmarks Commission and delegatin~ to the Commission the
authont~- to des~gnate landmarks and make reco~unendatians to the City~ Council for
histor~c distrFCts Since 1976. the Crt~° has cond~cted a histonc resources in~~entor}~
encon:xpassing ma~or portions of the Cit~-. designated ~~ Iandmarks, and establ~shed one
historic distnct
Established in 1990. the Th~rd Street Netghborhood Histonc District is composed
pnmaril`~ of a mix of s~ngle-famil~- and mult~ple-family dv~rellmg units Anti~ dezn.ol~non
of or ma~or alteratian to a desi~nated landmark or to a contribut~ng suucture w-ithin the
Historic District requires Landmarks Camnn~ss~on appro~al
In July,199 i~he Cit~- Counc~l amended the Landmarks and Histonc Distzicts Ordinance
to proti~ide for incent~ves to encoura;e owners of desi~nated properties to maintain and
preserve their structures These incent~~~es ~nclude ~Iimination of certain fees. such as
bi.ulding permrt fees, admirustrative planning fees, and Certificate of Appropnateness
fees, and pro~ision of ancentii~es includma par~ng incentives, and the implementation
C~t~ of Santa Momca Ae~~ew of Housfng Element
Aousmg Element IV-2~ Past Performance
~
i~~TZile rhrs pro~ am tit~as not part o{the 1993 Housing Element, the Crty conducted the at-rrsk
housrng analysrs in complrance ti~~rth the federal Consolidated Plan regulatrons The City
tia°rlI ~ontrnue to rrrzplement this program as Pr•ograrrr 3 d-~'acrlaiate the Preservation o{At-
Rrsk Housing rn the 1998-2003 Element
GOAL B-2: PROalrI4TE THE REHABILITATION A~1D COnT~NUED
i~iAIn TE1~ ~NCE OF EXISTIti G HOUSIn G ~'~'HERE~L'ER FE ASISLE
Progrann B-2.a: Continue to implement a housFn~ rehab~lrtat~on program
Progress to Date: The CFty- currentlz- designates over 44 percent of rts annua.l
Comnn.umtG Development Block Grant for housmg pro;rams, including a~location of
$327,400 {~Y 199~!96) to the Res~dent~al Rehab~Iitation Pro~ram to proti~ide subsidies
for minor rehabil~ta.tion to loti~~ mcome households While the fec~eral Rental
Rehabilitat~on Program ti~~s discantinued in I99?; and subsequently replaced by~ HO~1E
and redevelopment set-aside fiu~dmg sources, remaining funding under this pro~ram is
st~ll being used to assist rehabilitation of tlie C~tv's rental housin~ stock Detaxled
acco~nplishments under ~oth the Rental Rehabilrtat~on Pro~ram an~ HOME program
are discussed earlier under Program A-2.e
The City u~rll contanue to presen~e rFS e.ristrng housang stock through the provisron of
rehahilatatron assisfance The Caty rs rn rhe process af madtfj•~ing the handyworker
rehabrlitation program to 8etter address the chang~ng needs of the community (See the new
Program ~ b-~'llaintaln a Low Income Residentral Repair Prograrrr) In addition, the Caty
rs considering the adoprion of a neiv rehabrlrtation program to address suhstandard mulfi-
family resrdentaal burldrngs (see Program ~_a - Explore Estabdash:ng a~~~ulti-Famalv
:~'eighborhood Improvement Program)
Prugram B-2.b: Enforce housin~ health and safet~~ codes
Progress to Date: The Building and Safet~- Di~-ision resgonds to cornplaints of
~-iolations of Crty build~n~ codes and provides inspections and notices to propem~
ov~,~ers to bring their un~ts into compl~ance. This is at~ ongoing program
Dunns the 1989-1996 plannm~ period, the Ciry hired tt~°o new zoning inspec~ors ta
increase responsrveness to zonm~ complain~ts The availabxlity~ of the zorung ir~spectors
increased the t~me that builduig inspectors could allocate to in~esugating houszng code
~-iolation compla.inu
In response to the build~ng da~nage incurred from the 1994 Narthndge Ea~-~hquake, the
CZty adopted a cornprehensive set of seismic upgrade regulations Ordinance ~1748,
adopted m 1994, requires retraf ttm~ of a ~ ariet~~ of potentially hazardous structures
wzthin 1-4 ~eazs. depending on the buiiding's occupant load_ Smce adoption of these
mandatory retrofit pro~ams. 489 properties {3.200 dw°ellfng unuts); representing 3~°~0
af those m need of improvement, have met the soft-stor~~ retrofit requirements Eighty
,
r
,
,
,
'
'
,
'
~
'
,
'
~
~
'
~
Ciry of Santa Monica Review of Housu2g Element '
Hous~ng Element IV-24 Past Performance
'
,
~
'
1
'
'
'
'
'
'
The Cm~ has also lon~ nnainta.~ned housin~ ant~-discnmmat~on protections, «,•hich
among other prohibiuons. prevents a tenant from bein~ e~-icted if the tEnant has
increased the number of occupants in the tenant's umt due to marriaae or ha~~ing
chzldren ~
Ordinance l~0 1&2? adopted b~~ ~he Cin~ Council in 199~ also prohibits e~ictions
because a tenant has established a domestic partnership
Qrdinance No 1$~9, adopted by~ the Cit~~ Council in 1996. prohibrts specified farms of
conduct b}' a landlord if done maliciousl~~ These include {a) reducing housing
servic~s. (b) reducin~ znamtenance. {c) failing to perform repairs and exercise due
dzli~ence;n completina repairs. and (dj seelnn~ to teraninate a tenancy~ m bad farth
The C~h, wr1l contcnue to implement thrs program under Progr~am 3 c-_~Iaantam a Tenant
Evtction Protectron Program m rhe 1998-2003 Elemeni
Program B-l.g; Protect the supply of umts affordable to the lowest incorne tenants r~~hile
permitting landlords to ~ncrease ret-enues from their rental property throu~h the Incenti~~e
Hous~ng Proaram
Progress ta Date: This program permrts o~-ners of rental propem° to raise the rent on
a valuntar~l~- vacated tuut b~- settin~ as~de another unit for the excl~zsf~~e use of a low or
~~ery lo«• income tenant The amount of the rent increase is tied to the ~-alue of the set
aside--that is a higher increase is permitted for a very lou~ income ded~cated ~nrt The
goal is to increase access to rent controlled units for ~~erv low mcame households
I As of Apni 1, 1996, 37 properties u7th 438 total uruts are participating m the Incentive
Honsm~ Pro~ram. T"~ere are 112 ded~cated unrts {30 Io~~~ and 82 verv lo~r income) and
' 110 incenti~-e units.
F~ith the advent offull ~:acancy de-control in ~999 under the Costa-Hrnvlcins regulatran, thrs
' program ~~crll no longer provide ftnanctal tncentives to the owner and therefore has been
removed from the 1998-2003 Element
~
~
'
,
'
Program B-I.h: Presen~e the Ci~'s existing in~ento~ of assisted housmg and continue to
monitar the status of assisted pro~ects at-nsk of canverting to market rate
Progress to Date: As part of the Consolidated Plan, efforts. the C~n- has compiled an
in~~entory of assisted housing pro~ects_ Tlaxs zn~~entory is u~cluded as Table II-20 zn
Sect~on a- Housing Needs and Resources of this Element As part of this Element,
the City has identitied the assisted housing pro~ects at-risk af con~~ertm~ to market rate
and evaluated the at-nsk potential of these pro~ects These at-nsk pro~ects are identified
in Table II-? I .
Cit~~ af Sar~ta ~Ioruca
Hous2ng Element
I V-23
Rer•iew of Housing Element
Past Perfarmance
1
rebuilding, implementatian of a l~iuliifarn~I}- Earthquake Repair Loan Program;
adoption of the Earthquake Recover~~ Rede~•elopment Pro~ect; and adoption of spec~aI
rent control pro~-zsions for removal permrts u~rth associated replacement housing
obligations
I~Z~ale one-for-one replacement of rental units zs na longer required rn Santa _~ionrca, the
Crty facilrtates the pf•ovision of replacement housrng througl~ a varlety of housrng programs
Thrs prograrrr rs therefore no longer necessary {or the I998-2003 Element
Program B-l.e: Per~rut conversion of controlled rental uruts to limite~ equit~- cooperat~~~es
~~-ithout tnti-oluntar~~ displacement of ter~ants or loss of affordabi~iry
Progress to Date: The Tenant O~~~ners~up Riahts Charter Amendnaent {TQRCA)
permits conversion of rental propert~es to limrted eqiutt~ cooperat~ves, sub~ect to a set
of conditfons that pratect the nghts of tenants who do not r~vant to participate in the
pragram and preserves the affordabihn~ af the ~ts. In 1993, the Cari~ published a
comprehensi~~e study of com~ersions occumna under TORCA to evaluate v~~hether the
o~jectives of TORCA (as defned in the Charter Amendrnent} were being met The
stud~• sho«~ed that as of Jantaar~•. i 992, conversion applications had been submitted far
2a~ pro~ects includ;ng 2?10 un~ts At that t~me, about half of the conver~ion
applicat~ons had been approj~ed b~- the City Council. v4h~le 70 per~ent had recei~ved
plann~n; commission approval T'he stud~- sho~~ed that the median sales pnce of a o~e-
bedroom conversion E~-as appro~imatel~• 594,~OQ «l-~le the med~an sales pnce of a n~ o-
bedroom con~.lers~on was approximatel~~ ~ 134,OQ0 These pnces v~~ere affordable to
median and moderate income househalds, respectit•ely. As of June 30, 1996. 32~
properties (3,214 units) ha~e been approved for con~~ersion Of these, 2~I properties
(1.;48 unrts) have been sold as condomimums.
Since eommencing July 1, 1996. no neH~ TORCA applicaiion are ~erng accepted 7'hrs
progj•rrm has been removed fram rhe 1998-20Q3 Element
Prograui B-I.f: Limit the circumstances under which current tenants may be e~~icted from
their ur~ts_
Progress to Date: The Rent Cornral Lati~ Charter Amendment l~mrts the grounds on
which a tenar~t rna~• be evicted to "~us# cause " The grounds for evictaon ~nelude (1}
occt~pa~c~ by the ou~er or h~s!her immediate famil~-, {2) demolrtian or eon~er~ion of
the pro}~ert~~ after obta.~ning a remo~~al permit from the Baard, (3) failure to pa}- rent, and
(4) refizsal b~~ the tenant to provxde reasanabie access £or necessar~ repairs and
unpro~~ements Tenants can also be evicted when the ov4~er seeks to withdrav~- ihe
entire property from the renta~ housing market pursuant to the Ellis Act Certain of
these evictions enritle the tenanE tb reCeive relocat~on ass~stance from the tenant's
landlord. Additionall`-. loti~~er mcame, Ellis Act displacees are gi~~en pnont~- for Section
S and housing vaucher programs
,
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
,
,
~
,
,
1
C~ry of Santa h4onsca Rev~ew of Housmg Element t
Housing EtemenE IV-22 Past PerTormarice
'
,
'
Element, an extensne evaluarron o{rhe Cr~~'s renr control removal permzr requirenrents was
' conducted and zt ~w~as concluded that these regurrements do nar constttute an acrual
governmental corastrarnl ta housrng development
1
'
'
1
,
,
'
t
'
'
,
Prograxn B-l.b: Protect rental housinQ b}` limitin~ thz coniersion of rental unrts to mar~et-
rate condomfmums and cooperatives y
Progress to Date: The Cit;a° adopted the Tenant O«nership Rights Charter Arriendment
(TORC~) in 1984 that allo~s t~.e con~~zrsion of ren~al units to tenant o~~-nership only
if tr~a-thards or more of the bu~ldin~'s tenants agree to the converszan and one-half or
more intend to bu~r their un~ts Tenants not choos~ng to participate in their building
conversian a.re guaranteed the nght to sta~~ in their units under both TORCA and the
CrtY's Rent Control Lati~- The Charter Amendment w•as modified in 1990 to specify that
TORCA is the only- mechanisrn for con~-ersion
Commencing July 1. 1996, no neiv TORC4 applicatrons can be accepted by the Crt~-
Hota~ever, the City~ x~ill continue to en{orce the tenant prorection pr•QVrsrans in the Charter
Amendment to protect teruants of converted bualdrngs who choose not to purchase thetr unzts
(see Fhe netiti' ~rogram 3 c-_Liaaratarn a Tenant Evtetaon Protechon ~rogram in rhe 1998-
2003 Elementj
Program B-]..c: Protect eaist~ng mobrle hornz parks b~~ continuzng the mobile home pack
zone (MHP} designation and other local zonmg policiES.
Pragress to Date: The Cit}- has two older mobile harne parks These parks v~~ere
onginally established as an intenm use pursuant to a condrtional use permit. In order
#o protect these parks. the Cit~ subsequently created a mob~le horne park zone (:~~HP)
and rezoned these parks MHP The tenant assoc~at~on at one of tnese parks is presently-
seekmg to purchase the park, with City assistance and convert the park ta tenant
ow-nership In Fiscal Year 1995,'9b. thz Cit~• pravided a~270.400 predevelopment loan
to ~he tenant assoc~ation ta assess the feasibil~ty of the purchase.
T'hrs program w~ll be modified and arreplemented as Program 3 b- ProTection of fYlohile
Home Park Tenar~fs rn the 1998-2003 Element
' Program B-1.d: Require replacement af rental units (muhifamily, single roorn accupancy
hotels, etc } proposed for demolition, con~~ersion or other remot~als, and replacernent ~zth
erther residential or nonresidential development
'
'
1
Progress io Date: The Cit~~ no longer requires the one-for-ane replacement of rental
units remo~~ed from the housing stock However, tl~te Cit}~ i~as adapted a senes of
special programs and pracedures to facilitate replacement of un~ts remoyed as a result
of the Northtxdge earthquake T'hese include adoption of an Earthquake Recovery• Act
Ordinance to streamline permitting procedures and pro~-ide addrtional zncenti~es for
Ciry of Santa Momca
Housing Element
I V-21
Revrew of Housma Elemenc
Past Performance
'
unats Hot~e~~er. the City° has not specifcall~~ purchased land to land-bank far future
affoz-dable housin~ use.
~and-banking rs drffrcult grven the high cost of land rn Santa _l~fonica, the limrted sites
available, and p~ogram gurdeknes that restract the use of Federal and State funds for land-
bankzng Thrs program has heen removed from the 1998-2003 Element
B. HOUSING CO:~~SERVATION A~iD II~TPROVEME\iT
Quantified Objectives
The City's housu~g consenat2on and ~mpror•ement ob~ecnres set forth in the 1993 Housing
Elemen~t r~-ere to assist 500 hauseholds Re~1e«- of houszna assistance records indicate an
average of I00 rehabiiitat~on grants w°ere provided ann~ally~ in the Pico \ eaQhborhood for
needed impror-ements to both single and rriuln-fam~l~• uruts In addition, rhirteen acqufsition
and rehabilitaUon pro~ ects. totaling 243 un~ts, have been undertaken dunng the pnar planning
per~od in ~oint cooperation between CCSI~t and thz Cit~ The I`TOrthridge Earthqnake has
also resulted ~n siQnifcant rehabilrtation acti~•ity m the City, fostered b~~ rehab~litation
ass~stance made available through the i~1ERL pro~ram_ In summan~. the Cxty weIl exceeded
its ob~ec~ives for housin; rehabilitat~on
The follov-.7ne presents the Cit}~'s pragress ~n impiementmg rts 1993 Housing Eleinent
programs related ~o ~ousing conservat2on and ut~pra~Tement. and describes the effectiveness
and continued appropna~eness of each ~rogram for the 1998-200~ planning per~od_
GO.AL B-1: PROTECT THE EXISTING SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOti SI~"G
Program B-l.a: Continue to suppon the Rent Cantrol Charter Amendment
Progress to Date: C~ti~ens of Santa Monica adopted the Rent Control La~~ in 1979 and
an amendment reaffirming and clanf~~ng rt in 19$4 The purpose of the Rent Control
Lavr• is to maintain the affordable Y~ousin~ stock in the Cxt~~ to protect tenants frotn
un~ust evict2ans The 1995 Tenant Sur~e;- documents a medkan rent of ~600 for rent-
controIled uruts ~ Saz~ta Mon~ca. cornpared to med~an rents of ~733 for rent-cantrolled
unxts and $800 for uncontrolled uruts in West Los Angeles based on a 1993 Tenarit
Survey Rent control has been the ma~or factar in preser~~ing the affordability of
existing rental housin~ m tl~e Crt~. The Cit~• has continued to support the Rent ControI
Law°
Passage of ihe Costa-Haks~krns vacancy de-control regulation has the potentaal to remove a
suhstantral number of units from the a{forduble hoirsrng rrrventory rn Santa il~fonrca T'he
patennal impacts of thrs legislatron have been extensrveli~ evaluated as part of the 1995-2003
Element To address the rmpacts of rhe Costa-~Iawkrns ~1ct, a new program, Program 3 a-
Develap a Costa-Hawkins ~'l~Iitigataon Program, has been tncluded tn the 199&-2043
Element. -vhich tivill replace the prevrous Program B-I a Additronallv, as part of thzs
City of Santa ~4onica Re~7ew of Honsuig Element
Housmg Element IV-2Q PasE Performance
,
'
'
'
'
'
1
'
1
'
'
~
1
'
'
'
'
1
1
1
'
lativ and moderate rncome households asscng TORC-~ funds and ?L~ortgage Credrt Certrficates
' (~i~iCCs1
' Pragram A-2.g: Develap a densit~- bonus program to encourage the production af housin~
affordable to low and moderate income persons
' Frogress to Date: In addit2on to the State densrt~° bonus pravisions (described under
Pro~am ? b in Sect~on V), the Cin~ am~ndEd the ZomnQ Ordinance in 199~ to clarifi~
existm; Cin- incenti~~es far affordable housma. «-h~ch xnclude
' • An elimmat~on of the restnction on the number of floors for 1~0 percent
affordable housm~ pro~ects_ provided that the height daes not exceed the
max~munn limit in the applicablc zone distnct
' ~n additional densi ~ bonus for 1 QO ercent affordable housina ro ects
• ~ l~ ~ P J
' • A ten-foot hei~ht bonus for 1 QO percent affordable housxna proj ects in non-
residential zones, 4
' • An F~R bonus as an ~ncenti~-e for resident~al deveIopment in coznamezcxal
zones,
' • Relaxed densit;~ restnctians for congregate housing, SRO's, homeless
she~ters. and transitional housin~.
' • Rela.ued parking requirements far I00 percent affordable, conaregate, and
senior housmg as ~-e1~ as SRO's and homeless shelters; and
' • Dens~ty bonuses of up to 74, 75, and 100 percent in the Ocean Park and
l~orth of Wilshire zoning districts for I00 percent affordable housina
pro}ects
1
'
'
'
1
,
The Ciry has evaluated its local densrtv bonus rncentives as part ofthrs Element update, and
rs assessrng possrble modifieations to certazn deveiopment standards to facalirate
achievement of the full densit}.~ rncrease This program (wrth refinements) remarns
~rpproprrate for the 1998-2Q03 Element, and is now defrned as ~rogram Z b- 1.~arntarn a
Densrty Bonus Program
Program A-2.h: Develop a land-banking pro~ram to ensure availabilrty of land for
affardable housing as the City builds aut
Progress to Date: The City has facilFtated ~he de~-elopment of two pro~ects that have
im-olved Iong-term land leases on exisUng Crt~~-o~-ned land. In particular. the Cinr has
extended a~a-year ~and lease to both Pro~ect ?Vev~° Hope, consistina of 25 apartment
umts for persons w-~th HTV!~IDS. ax~~ Second Street Center, consisting of 44 SRQ
City of Santa hiomca Review° of Housm~ Element
Housing Element IV-19 Past Performance
'
C 5 of th~s E~ement Between 1947 and 2002. the Crt~- estin~ates that
approximatelv ~2 2 mill~on wzll be a}~ailable ta t~e Cit~° throu~h the
repayTnent of MERL loans
As described above. the Crt~ has been successfu~ ;n utilizin~ a varietS~ of fundzn~
sources to groduce affordable housinQ in rts Jur~sdiction Table II-20 in Sectzon 1'I -
Housing 1'~~eeds and .Resourees provzdes an inventory of completed pro~ects and
Table III-3 in Sectaon III - Potential Constraints on Housrng Production and
Consenatron conta.ins a hst of pro~ects currentl}~ under development
YYith the hrgh cost of housing develo~ment and shrrnking_fundrng resources. the Cr1~.~ tir~ll
contrnue to aggressively pursue a variety of housmg funds ~o fac~litate the de~~elopmenr of
aff ~ordat~le housing 1'his program hrrs nou~ hecame Program 2 d- Provide Funding to ~ssist
in Hausrng Production in the 199&-Z003 Element
Program A-2.f: Invest~ga~e creative progra~ns to leverage the efFectiveness of citY financ~na
for housing programs y
Progress to Date: The Ci#v has successfully leveraged funds from a vanet}~ of State and
Federal pro~ams as ~~ell as frorn the conventional lenders.
Affordable Housrng Program (AHP) The AHP prvgram ~s sponsored by the
Federal Home Loan Bank to pravide belov~~ market interest rate loans and
grants ta develapers of a#~'ordai~le housing. The Ciiy has expanded the
number of conventional lenders participating in lacal affordable ho~smg
pra~ects.
Insr~runonal or Conventional Lenders/Banks The C~tY uorked u-~th
conw~entional lenders and participated as a lender ir~ pro~ects wrth
con~-ent~onal lenders m funding local affordable housin~ projects Some of
those institu#ronal lenders includz Bank of America Connmunrtv
Development Bank, First Tntsrstate Banlc, First ~Iat~onwide Banlc, Wells
Fargo Bank. Horne Savings, anc~ First Federal Bank
Low Incame Hausing Tax Credit (LIHI"C) The California Tax Credit
Allocation Cornmitt~e (TCAC) two low~ income hausmg tax
cred~t programs -- a federal ar~d a state program Srx affordable hausmg
projects have recei~~ed ta~c credrt allocations from TCAC for the construct~on
of 199 umts sen~ng very Iow and 10~4 incozne households
The Ctty will cont:nue to e.rplore creatatie financang mechanrsms to facilatate housing
development m the City To improve its effectrveness. rlirs program has been expanded to
hecame Program 2 e- Explore Alternatave Affordable Houszng Finance Programs rn the
1998-2003 Element In addrtron, the City has included a new program, Program ~ c-
l~faintarn a Homebzn°ers Assistance Program, to expand homeownershrp opportunztzes for
,
1
'
t
,
1
'
1
'
1
'
1
'
'
'
1
'
Cny of Sanra ivton~ca Re~~iew of Housin~ Element '
Housmg Element IV-F8 Past Performance
,
'
1
As of June 1996, the Crtti~ had callected approximatelv $7 7 million ~n
' T~RCA ta.~ revenues This praga-am i~ pro~ected to ~enerate approximateh°
$3 rnillion during the 1998-2003 plannin~ period ~
, • Redevelopment Pro~ects The Ciri- of Santa ~~omca has estabt~shed four
redevelopmen~ pro~ect areas These areas include I) the Ocean Par~C lA
Rede~-elopment ,4rea_ 2) the Ocean Park J.B Rede~-elopment ~,rea: 3)
' Do«nto~~-n Rede~-elopment Area, and 4) the Earthquake Recoti~ere~
Redevelopment Pro~ec~ ~rea Und~F State la~~, #he Cit}~ is required to set
aszde at least ?0 percent of their tax increment reven~es from these
' redeveIopment pro~ects to assist in tYxe producnon of housing affordable to
Ia~~ and moderate mcome households The nan-earthquake redevelopment
pro~ect areas generate appro~imately ~=~~0,000 per ~~ear in set-aside funds far
affordable housing
' The Earth uake Recore ~ Rede`~elo ment Pro ect Area was ado ted in June
~ ~ P J P
' 1994 in response to the Januan- 17_ 1994 Northndge earthquake The main
purpose of the Plan is to pro~.~ide financial assistance to affected propem~
ovvners and tenants and re~~rtalize those azeas of the Cit~~ most affecied b~ the
earthquake :4mong the ch~ef goals of the plan are residential housm;
' revitalization and the impro~~ement and expansion of the comrntu~ty's supply
of low• and moderate income housing. Ti~is pro~eet is expected to generate
approximateh• $2 2 rrullion in set-aside fiu~ds during the i998-2003 planning
' period
• Inclustonan~ Housrng Program Fees!Housi~rgProduction Proposiuon R and
' rts implernenting ordinance require 30 percent of nev~- multi-family units to
be affordable to low- and moderate-~ncome households and at least ~0
percent of the inclus~onary units to be affordable to low-ineome households
' The implementing ordinance also allows the payrnent of an in-~ieu fee under
certain circumstances
' • O~ce Development ~Iztigarion Program 1~e C~ty~ h~as adopted an o#~ce
development mrtigation program which requ~res develapers of ne~~°
commercial affice space in excess of 1~,000 square feet or addrtzons to
' existulg del~elopments in excess of 10,000 square feet ta erther prov~de loc~-
zncome housing or pay an m-lieu fee. Currentl;~, there are approx~atel~ $~ 6
million in the O#fice MitiEation Pro~ram accoum
'
1
,
1
'
The _~~ulti-Family Earthquake Reparr Loan Program (~IER~.j- In response
to the January 17. 1944 1`orthrid~e earthquake, the City estabi~shed the
NiERL Proaram to assist in rebuildzn~ the housin~ stock_ The program is
funded through federa~ HL D morues made a~~ailabie to Santa A~Ion~ca throu~
the Emergenc~ Supplemental Appropnatians Act_ includin~ approximatelt-
$8.4 million in HOI~TE funds and $2~ inillion ~n CDBG funds. The HO~1E
funds can be used for rehabzlrtahon. acc}uisrtion, construct~on and
reconstruction of housing. This program is desenbed Fn detail u~ Section II-
Crty of Santa Momca
Hausing Element
IV-17
Review of Hausmg Elemen[
Past Perfarmance
Lo~~ Income Housrng I~rrx Credrts Tne Californ~a Tax Credit r'~llocatian
Committee (TCAC) aciministers t~~o lo«- ~ncome housing tax credit progrrams
- a federal and a state prograrn S~ affardable housma pro~ects have rece~ved
tax credit allocauons from TCAC far the cons~ructxon of ~ 99 un~ts sen~in~
~-ery low and Io.~r- income households_ These include 1) Clor~~erfield
Connznunih- PazYners (2020-2030 C1o4erfield) -$362.869 of ta~: credrt
investment funds ~~~ere used to rehabil~tate and const~ct a total af ~2 ~nrts
servina ~~erF-1o«- and moderate income households 2) Garcia Apa.rtments
Partnership (1 ~=~4 Berkele~• Street, 1828 17th Street. ~ 968 I9th S~eet_ ar~d
1747 15th Street) - 51.3~6750 af tax credit zn~•estment funds ~i-ere used to
construct ~0 ne~° units ser~-ing ~erv low and loti~- income hauseholds Garcia
Apartments is a scattered-srte pro~ect consist~ng of four pro~ects 3) ~jir~inia
V~llage Partnershzp (2~2~ Virginia Avenue) -$828,368 of tax cred~t
investment funds were used to construct 12 nez~- umts serving very low and
low income households 4) Second Street Center Partr~ership (1423 Second
Street} -$1.913.''~2 of tax credrt int~estmen~t funds were ~sed to canstruct 44
nev~~ unrts sen-~ng ~ery low and lov4- income households 5} 81 ~ Ashland
Partnershxp - 53,285,266 of ta_x credrt in~-estment funds rr~ere nsed ta
construct 4~ ne«- famil~- units sening ~~ery lo«- and lou- income households
6) Step Up an Second (li28 Second Street) -$1,~37,~48 of tax credit
investment funds u-ere used to constn~et ~6 units sen~Fng very low income
households
in addit~on to federal and state pro~ams, the C~tS~ has created fi~~e Iocal progxams which
produce revenues that are dedicated to product~on of affordable housxng_ These
programs are identified belo«~
Local Programs
Tenant Ownership Ri~hts Charter Amendment Tax Revenues The Cii~-
adopted the Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amenciment (TQRCA) in
1984. TQRCA allow s the converszon of rental umts to ownership if tw-o-
thirds or more of the b~~ding's tenants agree to the conversion and one-half
vr more intend to buy their u~ts. A TORCA tax is paid to the Crty upon the
sale of eaeh con~-erted unrt. As of Jul~ 1, 199b. no addrtional TORCA
appl~cat~ons can be accepted.
In June 1492, the citizens of Santa Vlanica adapted an amendment to
TORCA (Propasrtion K} «-l~uch germits the City to use Up to ~4 pereent of th~
revenues from the TORCA taa for the de~-elopment of affordable housing
The Crt~- is currenth- developing tnzst fund guidel~nes for this program So
far. the anl~ use of these funds has been a shelter pro~eet sponsored by
OPCC The remaming ha.If of these re~~enues must be used to assist low and
maderate incozne tenants to purchase or improve their TORCA ~nits. Thzs
mortga~e assistance pro~ram is descnbed in Pro~am 7 c in Secnon V of tlus
Element
~
'
1
'
1
'
1
1
'
1
'
1
1
1
1
~
'
City of Santa Mo~uca Re~ iew of Housing Element '
Housins Element IV-16 Past Performance
1
,
'
'
'
'
'
1
'
'
'
Secrron 8 Rental .~ssrstance and Housing L'ouchers Santa ?~~ionica
partic~pates ~n the Sechpn 8 Ren#aI Assistance and Housing ti~ oucher
pro~rams funded bti- the #~ederal aovernrnent These are the onl~ programs
designed to pro~-ide assistance to households to occupy existing pr~vatel~-
o«ned un~ts bv supplementina thezz r~nt pa~~ents to rraalce up the difference
betti~°een ~ 0 percent of income and the market re~t. Th~ Ci~~ began
administenng t~e program itself on Januar~- 1. 1989, in an effort to Fnake it
more responsi~~e to tlze needs of ~ocal residents Appraximatel~ one thousand
(1.000) Sa~ta Ntonica households are currentl~° recei~°ing assistance und~F this
program
Rental Rehabrlatatron Program Under the federal Rental Rehabilitahon
Prograrn. the Cit~~ has received an a~-erage ~1Q0.~00 each }~ear since 198~
to assist the private owners of rental housing (50 per cent or more of w~uch
is occupied by low• mcome househol~.s) to rehabi~itate their unrts v4°hile
ma~ntaanmg rents at an affordable ieti~el. Since 1989, 103 rental units haz-e
been rehabalrtated ~n the City under this program Although the Rental
Rehabilitation program ~-as terminated by HUD in 1992, funds rema~nxn~
from the program are snll being used to complete the rehabilrtation of tu-o
pro~ects xn the Cit~-, including 24 umts at 3 Vicente Terrace and 63 unrts at
19~9 Cloverfield The City ~ill continue to proVZde for multi-family
rehabilitatior~ activit~zs b}' nQn-profits through implementatian of the 1~1ERL
program, and t~rou~h a proposed neti~- N~ulti-Familti~ Neighbvrhood
Improvement Pro~am (Program 4.a1
• Caltforma Housing Rehabilitation Progi-am ,(CHRP) ~631,660 from th~s
' program v4as used to snpplement a permanent loan from the City for the
acquisrtzon and rehabilitatfon of 1 S uruts loca#ed at 103 S Second Street Tius
program has been terminated b~• the State
' • Srate Rental Housrng Construcrron Pragram (RHCPj 52,817.000 funds
went toward permanent new construction loan for 81 ~ Ashland (4~ ~amiiy
' unzts) completed in 199~; ~~16.02~ towards development of the I2-unrt
VIr~n~a VFllage proJect; and $1.419,~ 17 for the acc~nisitioru' rehabilitatfon of
Garcia Apartments, a 3D-unit project consisun; of a m~x of very lo~~- and Io~~-
' income uru#s Garcia Apartments is a scattered-site pro~ect consistmg of four
pro~ects This program has been termmated b~~ the State
' • ~Iousing Development Actron Grant rHODAG~ The Cit~~ mceived a grant of
5778,000 fram the federal Department of Housma and Urban I3evelopment
and used these fun~s to extend a permanent loan for the construct~on of 43
' units {OP-~3) of housing affordable to lav~~er income ~ouseholds_ Thzs
program has been terrnrnated b~ Hti D.
' • Calrfornirx De{erred Payment Rehabrl rtatcon Loan Pt-ob am (DPRLP~ The
City receivzd S200.000 for the acquisrtion and rehabilitahon of a 2~-umt
project at 3 Vicente Terrace This program has been terminate~ hy~ the State
' Cit~- of Santa Monica Rev~ew of Housing Element
Hauszng Element IV-15 Past Performance
~
~
ho~sing production. rzfer to Tabl~ II-20 for an im~entor~~ of the C~n's existmg publicly
assisted housing pro~e~ts
Federal and State Programs
HG~D Sectron 811 Pragram S2 ~ million has heen pledged to Pro~ect ~ev~
Hope to gro~-ide 25 ~ts of supportxti~e housing for persons t~-rth HIV::~IDS.
w-~th pro~ect cons~rucuon anticipated beginnmg ~n late 1996
HL~D SecFron 202 Senior Housmg Pr~ogt~am One Section 20? pro~ect was
recently completed in the City and three other~ are pending The Retirement
Hous~ng Foundation sponsored a 72-~t Section 202 project located at I 12~-
1131 T~hird Street «~l~ch received approximately $4 m~llion m HL D funding
and vt~as completed in 1942 The pending pro~ects include the Up.~azd
Bound-sponsor~d 70-unit pro~ect proposed for ]O11 I lih Street has recei~-ed
a fianding resen~atian af approximately $5 2 mtllion. the VO?~-spansored 4Q-
unit pro~ect praposed for 2$07 L~ncoln Boulevard has recei~ed a fund~ng
reservat~on of approximately ~2 98 m~llion; and. a 6b-unit pro~ect lvcated at
1116-1142 ~th Street sponsored b}~ the Jeti~zsh Federat~on CounciI has
receit~ed a fundma resen~ation of approximately $4 9 nnillzon.
Housing 4pportunxt~es for Peapde with ~IDS (I~OPWA) In 199~, $937.000
in HOPWA funds `n~ere corrimitted to Project 1Vew Hope, described above
Supportiti~e Housing In 199~, the Crt;~ reee~ved $1 4 rra~il~on thraugh the
HUD Supportive HousinQ Program to pro~zde a~a expanded case mariagement
and peer support program over a three-year peraod
HO.L~E Program Funds recerved b}~ the Cit~~ from this program have been
comrnitted to three pro~ects. These inciude a~.rant of $990,04Q t~ assist in
the acquisition and rehabihta.taon af 22 units at 102~ 12th Street, a$9a7_D00
grant to assist ln the acquisition and rehab~litation of 26 SRO uauts at 1205
Pico Boulevard. and, a 5400.000 grant to New Directfons. a pro~ect located
in V4'est Los Angeles which w~ll provide emergency. transitional and
s~pportive hous~ng to i~5 veterans The annual HOME Frogram grant for
FY 46!97 is $623,000
Communrry Develapment Block Grant The Crty receives approximately $1 6
million (FY 9~~96 grant a~~~ard) annuaily in Commuruty Development Block
Grant funds Of the total FY 96/97 grant amount, approxunately S3~0,000
is allocated to support the development of affordable housing Fn addition,
approximately~ ~3?7,000 is allocated ta the Resident~al Rehabilitation
Prograrn which is used to provide assistance to low-~ncome househ~Ids
an~`or propert~~ ou~ers renting to a majonty of Io~--incor~e households foz
rninor rehabilrtation
'
'
~
'
~
'
,
1
,
~
'
'
'
~
'
~
C~ty of Santa Monica Revzew of Housine Element ~
Hpusine Elemenc IV-14 Past Perfarmance
'
~
'
The City- wrll contrnue to assrst local non prafit houscng and sen:ice prol~rders to address the
' b otis-rng issue of homelessness in Sania :~fonrca Thts program titi~tll contrnue to be
implemented as Program 2~ - Facilitate the Proviston of EmergencJ-. Transittorzal. crnd
Permaneret Housing far the Homeless zn the 199$-?003 Element
'
Program A-2.d: Promote the use of air riQhts above cit~~-o~ned or otl~er publicl~~ o~~ned
, land for affor~able housing
Progress to Date: Dur~n~ the prior planning penod, the C~t~~ amended its Zoning
' Ordanance to ciarif~.- the authorizauon of air nghts subdi~:isions Since 3uly 1989, t«-o
air nghts pro~ects either har•e been completed or are in progress These pro~ects are as
follows
i • 112~ 7~hrrd Srreet The C~ty sold the air rights abo<<e a Ciri°-or~ned parking
lot to the Rehrement Housing Foundation for the de~-elopment ot a 72-unrt
senfor housina pro}ect fi~nded under the HL~ Section 202 program The
' residences are constructed above a Crt}--o~ned parktn.g structure Th~s
pro~ect was completed in 1992.
' • ! I16-II~6 Fourth Street The Cin has enterec~ into an Op#ion to Purchase
Agreement K~th the Fourth Street Senior Ci#~zen Housir-g Corporauon to sell
the air r~ghts abot-e the parktng lot for the de~~eloprnent of a b6-~nrt senior
' hous~n~ pro~ect Tl~s pro~ect w~ll be smular ta the 1125 Third Street pro~ect
~n that thz residences w-~ll be constructed above a newl~- constructed park~n~
structure.
~ • Second Street Center: In addition, the Cin• en#ered into a~ound lease ~~-~th
CCSVI for the de~=elopment of a~4-unit SRO pro}ect at 1423 Second Street
~ Tax cred~ts. Cinr Trust funds. AHP Prograrn funds and a small canvent~onal
loan «-ere used to fund this pro~ect.
~ Thrs program has been h~ghly effectave :n crearing addrtional s:tes for a{fordable housing
de~:elopment The Ctty' tit~t1l contrnue to implement thrs program as Program 2 f- Explore
the Use of Ciry'-Owned~Publiclv-Q-~vned Land for ~ffordr~ble Housrng tn the 1998-?003
Elernent
'
~ Program A-2.e: Participate ~n state arxd federal low and moderate income housin~
pro~ams, and develop local sources of funds far ~ousin;.
' Progress to Dr~te: Since Ju~~ I989. the City has participated in or appIied far the
follo~zng federal or state grants and progzarns, and ut~hzed local func~s ~o ass~st lov~- and
maderate uicame households A detailed descnption of each of these pro~ams,
including eligible act~r7t~es and fundu~g a~~ailab~liri~, is included in Apgend~x D of t~is
~ Element In addition, to re~zew the Crtti-'s accomglishments «~th re~ards to affordable
t City of Santa Mon~ca Revie~~ of Housing Elemenc
Housing Element IV-13 Pas[ Performance
~
,
• H~'D Shelter Plus Care In 1994. the Cit~~ recei~-ed a fi~-e-year federal grant
in the aznount of $4_2 mxll~on for rental certzficates serv~n2 approx~matel}-
100 hvmeIess persons annuall~~ This program is bemg ac~in~ster~d thrau~h
the Santa R~onica Houszn~ Authonty
• Step Lp on Second In 1993, the Cit~: pro~~ided a housing loar~ to assist 5tep
Lp on Second xn developin~ 3b single-room accupancy (SRO) housin~ unrts
This pro~ected rn~as completr:d in 1994
• L•`ptit°ard Bound In 1996. the CitF• pro~-ided a housing loan to dev~lap 22
wruts of transtt~onal housing for hor~eless families and c~uldren This pro~ect
is currently under~a~~ and is antici~ated to beg~n construction in the ~~7nter
of 1997
• There have been a number of other homeless case mat~asezxxent and
supportive serr.~ices pro~rams irnplemented since 1989 that have strengthened
the Crt~'s ab~l~t~• to place hoEneless individuals and families in perrnanen.t
housing These mclude: the develo~ment of a Coordmated Case
Management Program. the establishment of a new homeless empla~-ment
project, the SH'~~'ASHL4CK program that pro~Fdes sho~.~ers, ~ockers, and
Iaundry facilFt~es. and a food ser~~7ce ~ ob training a~d em}~loy-ment placement
program
In 1996_ the City~ receFVed a~ 1_~ imllion grant through HUD Suppart~ve
Hous~ng Program to expazxd the computer s~~stem for the Coordznated Case
Ulanagement Pragram over a three-year penod.
Federal Emergency~ Shelter G~ants (FESG) ~ Both City-funded and non-City
funded homeless sen~ce providers app~v directly for this funding The Cin=
asszsts these providers in therr appl~cations ~i~th local enviro~unenta~ reaiev4
and apprvval, certification oF local approval, and ~=erificat~on of site control.
In June 1994, the City permanent~~- adopted the pro~risions of Irnerun Ord~nance ~1635.
The Cit~-'s Zomng Ordinance perm~ts bl~ nght a va.nety of spec~al needs housing,
includ~ng transitional housing, single roorn occupancy (SRO) hous~ng and domestic
ti~iolence shelters, in all multi-famiIy~ res~dential distncts; permits homeless shelters
under » beds, domestic ~iolence shelters. transrt~onal hausin~, and SRO's (among
other special needs uses) b~° nght in the RVC, BCD, C2. C3. C3C. C4, C6. CM, CP,
C~, BSC, ~~I, and LVISD co~nercia~ zones, and, provides for reduced parking
requirements for shelters and transit~onal hous~~ (amon~ other speciai needs uses. such
as congregate care and semor housing) In June 1993, the Crtv aFnended the Zoning
Ordinance to al~ow homeless shelters of less than » beds as permitted uses, and
shelters of >> beds or more w~th a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the BCD. C?. C3_
C3C, C4, C5. C5, C:VI, and CP zones, as ~~~ell as the B5C. VII. and LMSD zones The
CC zone permits shelters of an~~ size
'
'
~
,
~
'
i
'
'
i
,
'
~
~
'
~
Ci[y of Santa Momca Review of Housing Element ~
Housing Element IV-]2 Past Performance
'
,
'
,
,
'
'
'
~
'
'
1994, ~~~ith a$411.727 prede~•elopment loan and a$1.331?~2 pzrmanent
loan from tl~e Cit}~. Step Up compieted construction of a 36-umt single-room
occupanc~,~ b-.ulding The faczlin~ is located at 1328 Second Street and houses
a~nmistrati4•e off ces of Step Up as ~~~ell as pro~-iding permanent hausmQ for
36 mentaIlv disabled persons V
The Caty~ wrdl contrnue to provrde assastance to non pro~t hou_rrng deti~elopers to {r~cilrtaie the
development o{af{ordable hoissing This progranr has notiti become Program 2 c- Proti°rde
Assrstance to ~'on-Profrts rn the .1998-?003 Element
Program A-2.c: Stud~' arad deti:elop pro~rams to address the hous~n~ needs of the growing
populatzon of homeless people in Santa Monica
Progress to Date: In March 1991, the Santa Monica Cin- Couneil appainted a
Community~ Task Forcz on Homelessness The Task Force w-as given the mandate to
formulate recommendatfons on immediate and long-terrn acnon for the CitS- to better
respond to the gro~4~ng cnsis of homelessness in Santa Momca This culm~nated in a
report entitled "The Santa ?~lomca Task Force on Homelessness A Call to r'icnan,"
which provides an acuon plan for the de~eloprnent of a tiy7de ran;e of homeless pol~cies
and pro~rams. includin~ the development of emergency, transrtional, and permanen~
housmg for homeless ind~~~iduals and fam~lies The Cir~~ }ured a Hameless Caordmator
to dereiop policies and programs to address the problems of homelessness in Santa
Monica and to uark in close partnership wrth local service pro~-iders
The Cit~- provided assistance to the fol~ouring list of homeless pragrarns and ser~ices
' betr~~een 1989 and 1996 {Refer to Table II-11 for a detailed inventor5° of homeless
services and facilities in the Cit~- )
' • SA 1.10SHEL Emergency Shelter In 1994, the Cin- de~-eloped a 100-bed
emergency homeless shelter located at ~4~ Oly7npic Boule~~ard The Crty
wa~ti~ed Zoning Orduiance req~urements {includin~ rec~uirement to obtair~ a
~ CUP) and Czty permrt fees to expedzte de~eiopnnent of the Shelter Operation
of the s~elter began ~n September 1994 azad it is currentiy operated b~~ the
Salvation Army through an operaung grant prov~ded b}~ the Cit~~ Thas
' prograrn ser~~es approxirnately ~00 homeless persons annuall}~
• :~~ew Dtrec~rons Irt 199~, the City provided a housing loan to Net~~~
~ Dirzct~~ns ta develop x muitj-purpase housing pra~ect for homeless ~~eterans
This pr~ject is a 15b-~ed tra.nsitional,'permanent hous~ng facilrt~ located on
the grounds of the West Los :~ngeles Veterans Administration Development
of this project is currently underway and is ant~cipated to be completed by
' Spnng of 1997
• Ocean Park Communzty Cenfer - 2`urning Point The Crty prati-~dec~ a cap~tat
~ grant ta deve~flp an additianal 24 bec~s of a total of » transitional housin6
beds This pro~ect was completed and opened fn 199~ ~
~ Crty of Santa hsonica Revfew of Hausing Element
Housuze Elemen[ IV-11 Past Performance
~
housmg proJect propased far 1 ll 6-11~6 Fourth Street. T'his pro~ect secured
a HLJD Section 202 Pro~'am fund resen at~on in September 1993 The Cit}-
has made a~2~.000 predez-elopment loan to this pro~ect and is cons~dering
a permanent loan The pro~ect xs cwnren~t~~- in the process of obtaxning
plamm~~ approrals
Y°olunteers of Ameraca (b'0.4j Valunteers of .~merica, Inc is a national.
pnti~ate non-profit orgaruzahon incorporat~d in 1896 for the purpose of
providing services at the local le~el in communities across the natian VOA
has completed three senior HliD Sect~on 202-funded housing pro~ects in the
Lo5 ~.ngeies area totaling 230 units V 4A ~s the sponsor of the ~0-unxt,
HUD Secrion 202-fiulded seruor housing pro~ect proposed for 2807 Lmcoln
Boulevard. «~hich has recei~~ed Gir;- planiuna appro~~als and is lilcel~ to begin
construction in early- 1997 T~e Crt~~ has made a permanent funding
commrtment ta this pro~ect totaling 5475.000
Pro~ect?~rex~ Hope Project New Hope, Inc ~s a Los Angeles-based non-profit
or~anization incorporated in 1994 for the purpose of build~ng affordable
housing for persons disabled due to aIDS,'HN Pro~ect New Hope is
c~rrentl~~ in prec3eveiopment on a 2~-unit support~ve housing pro~ect at 16~7
Appian ~'a~. Tl~e City~ has made a$215,000 preder~~elopment Ioan and a
$900,000 permanent loa.n to this pro~ect. This project is anticipated to begln
construct~on in late 199b.
Up1~~ard Bound Upu~ard Bound House (liBH) ~~~as incorporated as a non-
denominational ~41C(3) in 1990 for the purposes of develaping affordable
Y~ousmg This Santa Manica-based nonprofit is c~rrently in prede~~elopment
on two pro~ects on ~and o~ned by the Methodist Church of Santa Manica.
UBH pra~oses to construct a 70-unit affordable semor pro~ect at 1011 l lth
Street and a 22-unit trans~taonaJ housing project for homeless families at 1020
12th Street The Caty has coinFnitted 5817,OD0 in permanent ioan funds to the
senior }~ro~ect on 1~th Street and $990.000 in permanent loan funds to a
transitianal projeet for families on 12th Street The transrtional pro~ect is
sched~led to begin construction the summer of 1996 and the semar pro~ect
the «7nter of 1997
1~`e~~ Dzrectrorr.s ~ew Directians, Inc. is a u~est Los Ange~es-~ased SO1C(3)
non-profit orgamzation established ta provide a fuli specm~m of qual2ty
transrtional housing and dnig and alcohol rehabilitation to homeless ~-eterans
Ne~~ Directians I5 currently in predeveloprnent on a 1~6-bed
trans~t~onal~'pezmanent houszng facilrty on the grounds of the West Los
Angeles Veterans Admmistrauon grounds The Cit}- has committed
5404,QOD m permanent laan funds to this pro~ect
Step ~.~p on Second Step Up on Second, Inc Fs a Santa Monica-based
501 C(3} non-profit vrgamzation estabIished in 1986 to provide a ~-arieti~ of
basic and supportive sen-ices to mentalty ill homeless persons In. Decembez
C~ty of Santa Momca Reviev~ of Hous~ng Element
Hovsing Element IV-1 D Past Performance
,
i
'
~
'
'
'
'
,
'
~
~
~
~
i
'
'
'
'
,
'
The City's rnclusronary housing requirements har:e been extensrvelv eti~aluated to assess
' tit~hether changes should he made fo the Inclusionary Housrng Program The anal}srs,
summara~ed rn Secfion .lI $, coneluded that the Crry's Inclustonary Housing Program
consnautes a potenttal constrain~ to the producttof~ of houszng In response to thrs poteratial
~ constraint, the Crry~ is proposrng as,t~art af us action plan under Program 2 a, eonszderaiton
o{amendmenTs to the Cih-'s Inclusronary~ Housrng Prob am rhese amendments may° rnclude
expansion ofthe in-lreu fee option, as ti1~e11 as other provrsrons to provtde greater• program
~ flexrbilrh° ~ncreasing the circumstances under tis~hich in-lteu fees may be paid tit~ill Itkely
result rn more rn-lreu fee berng paid to the City T'he Crty is also praposing a~rogram
(Program 2 kj to increase the Citi.-'s Article 34 authoratJ.~ to create greater flexrbrl ih in the
' use of these and otherv{unds. for faeilrtatiot~ of the praductron ofaffordable housrng
' PrograFn A-2.b: Support the efforts of pm-ate, non-profit com~muntt~~ det~~eloprnent
carporations
Progress to Date: Since 1989. the Cit}~ has supported the efforts af a vanet~~ of non-
' pro~t ho~sing developrnent corporat~ans. bath local and nat~onal These mclude.
• Ocean Park Community Cenrer (OPCCj O~'GC zs a Santa A~lamca-based
~ ~Q 1 C(~ j non-pro~t organizat~on establzshed io provFde a comprehensi~-e arrav
of s~pport sen7ces ~nclud.xng, but nat luni#ed to, outreach, case management,
transrtional housing, and cnsis inten•ention services to lo~~° income and
' horneless mdi~~iduais In the Fall af i995; 4PCC u-;th Cit}- financial
assistance, completed the canstructian of a~5-bed transrtional housing
pro~ect sernng homeless adult inen and ~~amen_
' • Cammunrty Corporation of Sanra ,l~on~ca TCCS11~1j CCS~1 ~ti-as estabhshed
~n. 1982 to de~-elop, purchase and xenovate, or facilrtate the constructio~ of
~ housin~ affordable to households of Io~~ and moderate incame As of
Octoi~er 1996, CCSM was operating 567 new and rehabilitated unrts zn. the
Ci~ty for rental to ~~ery law-, Io« and mo~erate income persons Of the ~67
, existing units; 234 were completed betv~=een 1989 and 1996
• Retirement I~ousing Foundation Founded ~n 196I to meet the tncreasmg
I demand for affordable housing for senior citizens, R~tirement Hausxng
Foundation is recognized as one of the foremost nonprofit spansors of
retirement hous~ng in the nation. currentl~r operating nearly 12.000 untts of
, housing for the elderly in carnmuruties across the nation The Ciry assisted
RHF in the development of a 72-unrt, HliD Section 202-funded senior
housmg pro~ect located at 1121-113~ Third Street, completed in 1992
~ • 11~enorah Housrng Foundution of the Jewrsh Federatran Councii (JFG~ of
Greater Los ~ngeles The Menorah Housin~ Foundat~on ~-as for~ned in 1969
to promate and build affordable se~ior citizen housing in the Los :~ngeles
' area The Foundation eurrentl~~ o~~ns and~or manages $79 d~~elhng units in
the Los Angeles area and is the sponsor of a 66-umt ven-lo~- income seruor
! Ciry of Santa Vloruca Review of Housm~ Element
Housuig Element IV-9 Past Performance
'
~
~
In addition. the Cit~~'s Human Ser~~ices Dx~~ision administers a grant to the ~~'eststde
Center for Independent Li~~ing to pro~~ide nome access modificauons for persons «~th ~
a disabiliri~ This program serves approximatelr• 36 households annuail~~
Other ne«- special needs housing programs established since 1989 include '
• Shelter Plus Care (deseribed in Program A-2 c)
• Famil~~ Self Suffici~nc~ (descnbed in Pragram G 1 a} '
• Fartiil~~ Lnzfzcat~on (descnbed m Program C-1 a)
Aiso, the Crty has assisted in financmg numerous familv housing pro~ects hui~t b~ '
CCSM (refer to Tab~e II-20)_ Since July 1989. a~otal of 164 affordable uruts in 11
pro~ects have been det-eloped for families
The City will cvntinue to facr7ztate affordable housmg developrrrent for famrlres wrth childf-en '
and hauseholds titi~ith specral needs To rmprove rts effectzveness, this program has been
expanded to 8ecome Program 2 h- F'acilitate the Development of Houszng for Familres with ~
Chrldren and Program 2 r- Facrlrtate the Development and ,Llaintenance of S~ecial ?4~eeds
I~oustng tn the 1998-ZQ03 Element ta address the specific houstng needs of these groups
GOAL A-2: Il\ CREASE THE SUPPLY OF HOLTSIi1TG AFF4RDABLE TO LO~~ ~
AND 1~I4DERATE I'~C4ME PER50N5
Program A-2.a: De~elop an~nclusion~-;~ zonuig program requinng 30°fo of aIl new multi- ~
fam~lv uruts to be affordable to low• and moderate incoane househo~~s Of these unrts, SQ%
must be affordable to lo«° income households and ~0°io must be affordable to moderate ~
income households
Progress to Date: In November ~ 990, Santa Monica voters approved Propositron R. ~
Under Propositian R 30% of all ne«~1~~ constructed multf-faanily units in prolects ~vrth
tvvo or more untts, including rental and o~i~ner uriits, are requ~red to be affardable to-law
(6D% County rnedian income) and nr~oderate (100% County~ median income} income ~
households Of the affordable uz~its, at least ~0% rnust be affordable to lo~~ mcome
households and the remav~der must be affordable to moderate-income households. The
Proposition allows C~ty Council discreuon in implementation of this measure_ The ~
imglementation ordinance for Proposition R was adopted in March 1992.
Suice Febn~ary 11, 1992, planning appro~~als ha~~e been obtained for 23 pro~ects totaling '
326 uiuts Amon~ these approved pxo~ects, t~ro pro~ects containing a totai of two
market rate units and 46 on-srte low ~ncome uruts have been issued a Certificate o~
Occupar~cy, and another nine pro~ects containing a total of 2b ~narket rate unrts; 6 on- '
site low-income ~its, and ~7 on-srte moderate-income unrts were issued a Building
Permit Of the remaimn~ 12 pro~ects that have nat received either a certificate of
OGCUp~iI1C~~ or building permrt, 8 are still actn-e (160 unitsj, and 4 have exp~red (12
units} ,
Ci[y of Santa Monica Review of Housmg Element '
HDL151I1g ~lement Iti -8 Past Performance
'
,
'
~
~
1
,
'
'
1
'
'
~
'
'
~
,
'
~
Program A-i.f: ~'l7~en a~rt is ~w7thdra~n frorri the housing stack. or the Iandlord reco~-ers
possession of a unrt and tenant relocation assistance is appropriate, the Sa.nta '~lonjca
~-lunicipal Code (Chapter $B. ~-ticle IV". Sect~ons 48~~ throuah ~862) requires that the
landlard pa~- a relocat~an fee for each urut based upon ~the size of the tuut an additional fez
is reqmred zf one or more a~the tenants is a ser~or (62 or o~~er), disabled, or a minor Tn lieu
of providin~ financial relocation ass~stance, the land~ord ma~- instea.cl provide actua~ ph~-sical
relocation, as lona as the tenant is arnenable to the relocauan and the new unrt is comparable
to the ori~~nal unzt
Progress to Date: The Cit~- continues to monitor cornpliance ~~~~th the Tenant
Relocat~on Assistance Ordinance
The Cit3~ wr1l contanue to mon[tor complrance tivrth thrs ordinance Thrs prograrn has now
become Program ~ d- renant Relocatron Assistance rn the 1998-2003 Element In addatron,
thrs Element recommends a neia~ housing Program 5 e-~.~plore Establtshrng a Temporary
Relocataon Progf-am to provide housing assistance to tenants ti~-ho are temporaril y displaeed
Program A-1.g: Invest~gate thz feasibilit~- of rezoning nan-residential areas far residential
use in order to mit~~ate the effects of downzonin~ in other areas.
Progress to Date: In 1993, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to condinonall~
permrt res~dential de~~elopment in the Special Office Cammercial {C~} and Industr~al
Consen ation (~~i l) Dismcts, and to permit residential uses in most other commeresal
distncts (BCD, CP, RVC. CM, C2, C3, C3C, C~. C6) In 199~, the Crt}~ established the
Light Ma~ufacturing and 5tudio District (L1~1SD) to replace a portion of the V11 district
The LMSD permits studia li~ e~work uses, «hile preservin~ existing laght mdustrial uses
and providing a location for studio-related uses, such as film anci. music production and
post-productian facilities The City also peranits residential de~elopment in the
commercial Ba~~side Commercial Distnct (BSC) d~stnct, which it established ~n early
1996
Thrs program has been fully rmplerrrented. and rs no longer appropriate for the .~998-2003
Element
Program A-1.h: Maintain, impro~~e; and develap housing for households v~~ith special
needs, espec~ally large famihes, families ~r-ith small children, the ei~.erly, and the d~sabled
Progress ta Date: T~.e Czh~'s Commun~tt- axid Cultural Sen~ices Department and
Hous~n~ Dmision prov~des mformation and referral services far households w7th spec~al
housing needs During the 1992i93 Fiscal Year. the Cin~ adopted regulations to relax
densrtr bonus requirements and pro~-ide for reduced parkin~ reqt~ire~nents for semor
group hot~sing pro~ects
Ciiy of Santa hiomca
Housing Element
IV-7
Rev~ew of Housma Element
Past Performance
'
,
,
Program A-l.c: Pro~ide ar~ expedrted and coordinated permit system
Progress ta Date: The C~t~• has de~~eloped a computerized data base, kno~~-~r~ as '
"Permzts_" conta~nxng mformatian on each parcel of larid m the C~t~-, including
infarxnatxon on an~~ proposed be~ilding or de~~elapment pro~ect and the status of the '
reviet~ process Informahon is now retrie~-ab~e b~~ address_ assessor's parcel number.
or iocat~on The Crty uses the "Permits" data base to facilita~e the permit p~ocess b}~
tracking the status and progress of applications A~eographic information system '
(GIS) also is m use for long-range plannmg proJects. Use of the "Permits" data base
and GIS unpro~'es the mternal coord~nation of perm~t processing and represents the first
step tow~ards impro~~ina the process for the publ~c ~
This program contrnues to be appropraate for promotrng hausing productron It has been
modtfied to become Program 1 b- Streamlrne Permtt Appraval Processes in the 1998-2003 ,
Element rn arder to improve ~r-ogram effecttveness
Program A-l.d: Define critena for Architectural Re~-~eu~ Board (A.RB) act~ons_ '
Progress to Date: The Cary has refned its development standards in the R2 anc~ R3
zones to ensure compatibility u-ith the archrtecturai re~-xew pro~rams More ~
specificalI~-, the Zonuig Ordinance now mandates second- and thxrd-floor stepbacks to
ensure architectural articula~ion and adequate light and air to units_
17xe Crty will coniinue to rmplement the archrtectural rei~rew gu:delrnes Thts program has '
notiti~ hecome Program 1 e-;i~Iatntain Architecturai Revaeu- Gurdelmes and Development
Compatibrlrty rn 1he 1998-2003 Element '
Pragram A-I.e: Where De~-eloprnent A~reements are appropr~ate for large. phased '
development pro~ects, encourage the incl~sion of ineasures in the agreerrient to ezacoura~e
pzepay-ment of housing in-Iieu fees or other actfons to increase the supply of affordable
housir~g commensurate .~~ith the impact of the pro~ect '
Pragress to Date: In 1995, the Cit~~ amended a de~elopn~ent aareement to perrnit the
construction ofbetween 36~.000 and 89~.D00 square feet of residential space, either for '
rent ar purchase_ ~,zthout the requiremer~t of a Condittonal Use Penmit_ All rr~oderate-
income uiuts and half of the low-mcome tuuts required under the Citv's Inclusionary
Housing Ordinar~ce will be pra~=ided on site
'
~'he Cit}~ tivrll cont:nue to utilize deyelopment agreements as a mechanasm to facilitate
affordable housing productron This program has nov~~ become Program 2 g- Foster '
Housing Development Through the i~se of Development Agreements an the 1998-?003
Element
'
Ciry of 5anta b•ioruca Rev~ew of Housing Element ~
Housmg Element IV-6 Past Perforrnance
'
,
'
d~smcts and pro~~ide for an F.AR banus of appro~unatel~- 30 percent for residential uses
~ on large parce~s m most commercial aistrzefs
Thts pr•ogram contrnues to be appropriate {or promoting housing productton Ho~~ ever. as
, part of thrs Element, a detailed analysrs of certain City residennal development standards
ancl development revieiv procedures was canducted to evaluate u~hether these standards and
pracedures operated as constraints to the productton of housing (refer to memoranda
' contained rn the Technrcal:3ppend~rj Thrs program has been modrf ed rn the 1998-Z003
Element to become Program 1 a- Assess and Revase. I~7~ere Approprrate, Crry Regulatary
Reqt~irements, r~nd sets forth an actian plan for h~rther evaluation and potennal reti~isaan ta
' ahe follou~rng Crty development standards and proeedures 1) condominium revie~a°
procedures, 2i mulr~ famclti~ parkrng standards. 3~ off=site rnfrastructure rmproverrzents, and
4j rnclusianary° housrng progf-am provrsions
' Pro ram A-1.b: Reviet~• the ~m act af ro osed ardinances assessments. and fees on
g P P P ~ _
~ housing affordabiiity and availabtliri~
Progress to Date: The Crty prepared a stud~ of rts permit processing and developm.ent
fees to determ~.ne ~~~hetl~er theS• are reasonable zn light of the costs of providing services
' In 7uly 1992. the Cit}~ adopted an ordFnance (~=163~) that allow~s plaruiang fee warvers
and expedrted development revie~ for pro~ects containmg 100 perce~t affordable
hous~ng
' The Cih- has also aaoptea an Ordinance (~1~98) to proE~zt~e ~onger terms for a1~
planning permits for affardable hausin~ pro~ects ta fac~Iitate the developrnent of such
, uses in the Crty.
The City also adopted Ordinance 1834 m December 199~ This ordinance codifies the
~ State densrty bonus la~~~ and requires at least a 2~ percent densit~• ban~s when lav~~er
income or senaor incorne ha~sing umts are pro~~ided in accordance w~th the
requirements of the 5tate law- It also specifies addrtional regulatory mcenti~ es
' including par~ng reducuons and reduced setback and Iot covera~e requirements Also
in 199~, the Crtv adopted an ordinance that created the Li~it Manufactunng and Studio
Distnct (LMSD), which permits lzve/tir-ork studio uses The follo«~ing yeaz, the Cin-
, established the Bay-side Commere~al Distnct (BSC) whiclz offers height banuses and
FAR iuncenti~'es for residentxal de~'elop~rtent in the downtown. Also ~n 1996, the CrtS~
amended rhe densit~ standard in the R2B zorung distnct to allow homes to be de~-elopec~
~ on substandard lots (less than 4.000 sq.ft.) ~~here these lots exisied Iegaily prior to
1988
' This progf-am continues to l~e appropriate_{or promoting houstng~roduction Hou~ever, to
be more effecttve, thrs prog~-am has been modrfred and merged ~t~ifh Program .A-1 b ta
become Program 1 a- Assess and Revise. i3jhere Appropriate, City Regulcrtory Requirements
' in the 1998-2003 Element
, Cic~ of Santa Monica Re~•~ew of Hous~n; Element
Hous~g EIemenE IV-5 Past Performance
'
,
Furthermore, some of the housing stock in Santa Monica mcurred substa.ntzai dama~e during
the 1994 tiorthndgz Earthquake ~I~iuch of the City's hous~n~ resources. both financxal and
staff resources. as v~-e11 as pni~ate developznen.t efforts, ha~~e sxnce been dedxcated to
rehabilrtat~ng~retrofitting the uruts. (Refer to Sectron 11'- Housrng:~~eeds and Resources for
earthquake recover}~ act;~~ities.)
T~BLE IV-2
HOUSING LfiYT GROWTH 199~-1996
Cin~ ~'atal T of Un~ts
as af 1'1;1996 Total T of Units
t990 Census \et Gro~a~th
1990-1996
RHNA °,'o Actual
to RHNA
Santa Vionica 48268 47,7~3 ~1~ .i.220 16 0°.0
Culver Ciry• 17,116 I6.9~3 l 73 1.3li 13 2°;0
Los Anaeles 1.323,0~~ 1,299_963 25.092 129,100 i9 4°io
Manhattan Beach 1=3,997 14,b95 302 1,088 ?~ 8°%
Redondo Beach 28,'98 28?20 ~7$ .i,032 19 1%
L~%est Holly~~ood 2~,075 ?3,821 2~4 668 3$ 0°~0
~Iote 1996 housmg units estimates have been ad~usted for demolition_
Sources
1 1996 housing umt estEmatzs obtained from the State Depamnent of Finance
2 1990 Census
3 Re~ional Housmg Needs Assessment (RHNA), SCAG
The ~olla~~ing section descnbes the Czty's progress in lmplementm~ 1ts 1993 Housfng
Element programs related to housing praduction, presen~atian; and rnaintenance. and
descnbes the effectiveness and continued appropriateness of each pragram for the future
i 998-2043 planning period
GQAL A-1: PRQI~IOTE THE CO~'STRUCTION OF NEW HOL?SING FOR ALL
INCOME GROL~PS.
Program A-1.a: Periodic review and re~~isaon of planning, zoning, and development
regulations to ensure an adequate suppl4• of sites ~or a ~~ar~ety of haus~n~ types and pnces.
Progress ro Date: In 3uly 1992, the Cit~ appro~ ed an interim ordznance to fac~lrtate 1 ~0
percent affordable and special needs housfng thrau~h a~-arien~ of relaxed development
regulaUons and ~ncenti~~es, includin~ reductions in parking requ~rements, fee «~aivers,
expedrted development re~-ie~~-, a height bonus, an augznented density bonus, and other
provisions These measures were adopted on a per~nanent }aasis Fn Ordmances 1687
(June 22, 1993} and I750 (June 28, I994) In July 199=, the Crty Council adopted new
dez-elopment standards that define residential uses as permitted in most commercial
'
'
~
'
'
,
~
'
~
'
'
~
,
,
'
'
Crty of Santa Momca Reti~iew of Housu~~ ~le~nent i
Housing Element IV-4 PaSt Performance
1
,
'
TABLE IV-1
' 1489-1998 HOLSII~G PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES
Al~D ACCO':VIPLISH'~ZENTS
1
'
~
~
~
'
1993 SCAG D~velop- De<<elop-
Incorrie Gategor~~ Hous~na Reaional ment ment Pendmg 1989-1998
Element Hausmg 7ulv 1989 Autr 1994 De~elop- Accom-
Ob~ective~ I~eeds ta to ments pl~shments
.lssessment .Tuly~ 199~ Vlar 1995
(~) ~') (~) C~} tsj ~~-=~-;)
Ver~:• Low~ Income 173 369 ~a 121 57 23~
(0-~fl% Counn Med-an)
Law Income (~ncluded ~n 78~ 164 3 l~6 323
(~ I-$0% Caunty Vledian) Very Low~
Income}
Vloderate Income 173 61 ~ 287 12 l21 420
[8I-120° o Countr~ ;V[ed~an)
UpperIncome $04 1,2~1 ~~S 2~ T38 ~21
(~ 120% Counrv Viedian)
Total hauseholds 1.1~0 .i,220 862 165 472 1,449
I For cons~stencti~ wi#l~ ~ts Inclasionary Hous-ng Program. the C~n's 1993 Housmg £lement ~dent~fie~
, quantified ob~ectives Tor very lou• mcome ~ousehalds, defis-ed as households earn~a up ta 60
percent of Caunfi~ medfan. and low income households, defined as households earntn~ benvzen 61
and $0 percent of Counry med~an
, ~
Also, s~nce 1990, a comb~nat~on of the ~ 994-9~ recession, t.~ie 1992 civil disturbances in Los
~ Angeles, changes in residential real estate lendin~ practices follow7ng the national sa~ings
and loaxx scandal, changes in the resident~al ~nsurance market reiated to the earthquake, an
explosion in foreclosures by lenders. and increasin~ constructian defect litiQation. have
comb~ned to severel~~ dampen the real estate mazket in Southern Califortua_ These factors
' ha~-e resulted m relati~~el~I staanant hausin~ production throughout the 1990s Tl~s slou~
do«~n an the economy is highli~hted by the difference betv4~een tlze high rate of hous~ng
grow-th pro~ected b~ the 198g RHNA and the limrted amount of this grow-th uhich has
' actually occurred As show°n izz Table IV-2, Santa Vlonica's net housing unrt growrth
represented 16 percent of rts RHNA At the low end. Cul~-er Crty's net growth represented
on15~ I3 percent af rts RH~~A. and atthe ~ugh end, ti'Vest Hollyv4~ood accomplished 38 percent
~ of its RHNA `{Tt should be noted that Table ~V-2 reflects net grav~~h ad~usted far
demoIit~on. so that actual gross un~t production is ~reater than that reflected in the table.}
'
' ' Attempu u•ere made to collect spec~fc fnformation re~ard~na these cities' affordable housina production
b}• tar~et mcome aroups. Itone of these cit~es mamta~ns affordable housing records in a s}•stemat~c
manner, and none was able to prov~de an inventory of such hous~na
' Cit_r• af Santa Momca Rev~ew of HousmL Element
Housuig Elemeut IV-3 Past Pertorrnance
~
~
reports indicate that as of Apnl 1996. there were a total of 4"12 wuts in the pro~ect pipeline.
mciudzng 24$ umts «-ith building permtts and 22~ umts v~7th planning approvals Se~~eral
of thes~ pro~ects are 104 percent affordable, and rnost include ~rther an on- or off-site
~nclusionan~ housinQ component ~f the tatal 472 uruts pend;ng, approx~matel~- ~7 units wnll
be affazdable to ~-en~ la~- ~ncozne {up to ~D percen:t Caunt~~ Med~an Farn~ly Incame (~~FI}),
1 ~6 units for lo~n~ incame (up to 60 percen~ I~g'I), and 121 units for n~oderate income (up to
140% I~ZFI) Aggregating tYtese pending pro~ects w7th the 1.027 units alread~• produced
dunng this plamm~a penod results in a total of 1.499 unrts anticipated to be accompl~shed
durin~ 1984-1998 This antieapated level of housing production does not account for
denaoi~tian activ~ues betu~een 1989 and 1998, and therefore. represents a garass incrzase ~n
the hausm~ stack The 1993 HausFng Element obj ecnve of 1,1 ~0 housing unrts, howeti er.
represents a net increase zn hausin~ V~'hen demoIiUOn is accounted far, the Crtc most
probabl~~ ti~-ilI fall short of its hausmg objective of 1.150 unrts for the 19$9-199$ penod This
discrepanc~~ bet~veen the City's objecti~es and actual housing productian is Iar~ely a result
of the non-got-ernmental consuaurts on housing produCtion discussed pre~-~ously. particularly
land eost and the dampened reaI estate market Tlaese factors will be further discussed in
this sect~on
The City's identifiec~ share of regional housing needs (RH'~1A} as allocated by t~e Southern
Califvrn~a Association of Governrnents (SCAG) for the 1989-1998 penod was 3.220 units -
~69 ver~-la~- mcome uruts (up ta ~4 percent MFI), 78~ lov~~ income units (up to SO percent
RZFI); 61 ~ m.oderate xncome unrts (up ta 120 percent I~~FI). and 1.251 upper income umts
{mare than 124 percent MFI) As presented in Table IV-1, a gross total of 1,499 un~ts are
actually expected to be prvduced durxng th~s period. representan.g approximatel~~ half of t~e
Citv's RHNA.
Se~~eral factors caused the le~el of housing production in the City to fall short of the City's
RH~TA allocat~an F~rst. the Cin-'s altacat~on ~~as unrealisticallv high The methodoIo~ r
utalfzed by SCAG to develop this a~locat~on was flawed because rt did not account for the
uruque charactenst~cs of the City, but rather took a sinaular approach for the entire region
Niore specificall~~, the methodology did not dzfferentiate between d~nsel}~ populated and
bu~lt-out communities like Santa Mon~ca and communities v~~hich can accommodate
substanhal additional growth. This fa~lure to differentiate between cities penalizes cities
which are already bu~lt-out and ~:stablishes unrealistic RHI~iA numbers for these
commu.mties As discussed preti~ousl~. the City is part~cularl~~ concemed abou# the vacancy
rate assumptions and the household gro~=th forecast used in SCAG's madel
Ciry of Santa Monica Review of Housiug Element
Hous~.ng Eiement IV-2 Past Performance
~
~
~
~
'
~
'
'
'
1
~
'
'
'
1
~
'
'
i
~
YV. REVIER' OF HOUSING ELEMENT PAST PERF~RMANCE
~
To de~~elap appropnate pro~rams to address the hous~n~ issues ~dentifed ~n this 1998-2003
' HousinQ Element Update. Crt3- staff ha~~e revieu~ed the housmg pro~rams adopted as part of
rts last {1943} Housing Element. and evaluated the effecti~~eness of these prograFns in
deli~ermg housing sen•ices
' By reti ie«~ng the progress zn implementation af the adopted pro;rarns_ the effectiven:ess of
the iast element, and the cont;nuzd appropnateness of these idennfied programs. a
' comprehensive housin~ progrann. starategF- has been de~eloped The strategy is presented in
the final sect~on of th~s Element
, A. HOUSING PR4DUCTION
Quantif~ed Objectives
' The Cin's 1993 Housing Element established a housing production ob1ective of 1.150 new
hausing umts, including 173 lo~~er Zncome unfts (D-b0 percent 11~1edian Family ~ncome
' ('vIFI}} and I73 moderate income unrts (60-100% I~iFI} While the ELeFnenfs productzon
objectives an~inally co~ered tt~e 1989-1994 plamm~g peTTOd, these ah~ectives have now been
extended to 1998 based on d~rection frorn the State Department of Housina and Communrty
' De~~elopment io reflect the rey ised hous~ng element cycle Revie~ of "certificates of
occupancy" issued be#v~~een July 1989 and Apnl 1996 indicates a total of L027 un~ts w-ere
produced. Table IV-I shows the distributzon of these unxts by iz~come category-
' Two levels of anal~~ses ~~~ere performed to determine the affordabilin~ le~-els of units
produced bet~,~een 1989-1996 First, staffcompiled an in~entory of all pro~ects contaimng
' unzts «-~th affordabil~h:~ restr~ct~ons, mcluding mclus~onar}~ umts, publicl~ assisted "100%
affordable" pra~ects, pra~ects sub~ect to affordabil~t~ restrictians urnder rent control
replaceFnent housing requrrements. azxd otb.er rniscellaneous un.~ts w-~th affordability
co~~enants :~ total of 336 deed-restricted affordable units vvere identified, and assigned to
, the agprapnate affordabilin~ category
' A second level o#' analysis w-as then canduct~d af the rema2ning net 691 market-rate unrts
produced dunng the 1989-1996 penod to assess affardabilin~ leve~s Of these umts, 383
~~~ere condomtniu~ns with sales prices aboti°e the Ievel of affordabilitG• to moderate income
hausehalds The balance. 348 units, were apartments. and staff estimates that ~6 unrts (1 ~
, percent} probably rent v~~thin the range of affordab~lity for low inconrze hauseholds {up to
S93$ for two-bedroom unrt), and the rernaimn~ 262 (8~ percent) fall ~yithin the ra~zQe of
affordability to moderate income households (up ta $1,40b for two bedrootn unit} This
, estimated income spIrt is based on ac~Gertised rents for 1Q0 twa-bedroom, non-rent controIled
apartments disbursed throughout the Cit~~_
' ~n addit~on to pro~ects issued certificates of occupancy pnor to April 199b, add~t~ona~
projects v~.~ll be completed wzthin the July 199$ planrung honzon Re~zew~ of pro~ect ~Eatus
~ City of Santa Mozuca Review of Housing Elemene
Hausing Element IV-~ Past Performance
'
,
'
~
~
'
'
,
'
~
~
1
~
'
'
i
1
i
1
1
handbook of interdepartmental reg~iations and sen~ices to giude applicants throu~h ~he
develop;rtent appro~~al process. the zmprovement and expans~an of the extsting computenzed
pearnit trackmg system. and the develapmen~ of public access~biirt}~ to the system For
further discussion, refer to the Technical Appendix entitled `~Cumulative Effects of Five Cit~°
of Santa Vlonica Requirements on Vlulti-Family Housing Pro~}ects as a~otential or Actual
Constraznt on the Developanent of Housxng.
~
'
'
1
'
'
'
'
~
'
'
'
'
,
'
~
1
C~tv of Santa Manica Patenhal Constraints on '
Housing Eleznent III-42 Housmg Producnon and Conservation
'
,
1
complained about the t~me required to complete the apprai~al process, the most frequent
' comments included heanng postponements; and extra costs for multiple appearances by
consultants. due to the Iack of a fuil heann~ bady {reduced margzn for a w7r~nin~ ~ ote). or
because less than a quorum of the hearin; body was present at the scheduled tsme, the
, scheduling complicat~ons of needing to go through rnult~ple public hearings and their appeai
processes (such as the Rent Control Boazd. Planning Commission or City Council and
Arclutectural Rev~e~i' Board), and the de~ree to «hich deci~ion-makers in all publ~c hearin~s
' seem to accord great v~-e~ght to the opimons of non-specialists, usually pro~ect neighbors.
w~ho razsz concerns that applicants consider to be lackang in teci~rucal merrt
, ,1~~ecesstty for Costly Qutsade Experts at Every Stage
Project applicants expressed concem about the added cost for technical expertise to complete
' ea~h step of tl~e City's approval process. particularl~ costs fvr legal caunsel
OutCOmes
,
The cuna~zlat~ve effects of these concerns lead to the fol~awing o~tcomes, according to some
of tlie mterviewees
'
• Hagh Degree of Uncertarnty Durrng the Approval Process TIZe rnulhple publie
hearings reqwred far mulU-family projects {larger pro~ects of all kinds and all
, condomuuums), e~en though they may no~v be conducted concurrently~ rather than
sequentially, strll means that an applicant does not know z~hether a pro~ect ~~11 be
approved until all steps have been ~ompleted. This uncertainty, some inten~ev~=ees
' ind~cate, ca~ses them to tak~ extra expenditures to ensure pro~ect approral;
expensive persuasion (such as legal counsel and other car3sultants to ens~ire pro~ect
approvat, exhibits for the p~blic hearuzg) in order ta better ensure approval of the~r
' pro~ects This adds to the general frustration with the process, and may resnlt ~n
unintended pricing cansequences as de~elopers seek a higher financial ret~u-n for
the perceived higher nsk associated wrth the Crty's approval process
, '
• Barrrers to _ilarket Entrance T
o the de~ee that the Git4's process is percenred
by deve~opers as particularly dxfficult, sorne inten.~iewees belteve, the comgetit~ve
~ forces that would ~end to keep costs and pnces in check are distorted This is
be~ause those who successfuily na~7gate the process, part~cuIarly if the~ laave large
projects. have a sigruficant compet~tive edge over those wha cannot. In other
'
' cases, the perceived cornplexity of tlte City
s process may discourage sonie ver~~
capable developers w~th other options from even attempting to seek approrals for
' m~lti-faanily pzo~ects in the City
Tt is impossible to determine how prevalen~ similar feelings to thase expressed above exist
v~i~h respect to applicants and other participants ~n the develapment proeess However, the
' City has incl~ded seti~eral measures in rts Action Plan under Proeram 1 b to take steps toward
address~ng at least so~ne of these concerns These measures include the development o:F a
' Cyty of Santa Mon~ca Potential Constramts an
~Iousm~ Element III-41 Housma Product~on and Canservanon
'
and total developnrxent cost) that as about three tunes the loss for the base case (-
$6$4,882 tis -$216,961}, and alrnost no res~dual land value ($3 31 vs $46.13)
ShouId market condrtions improve to the point wheFe the no-requirements hase
case were to become fmancially feasible; ~he analysis suggests that the cwm.ulahve
Effects of the fi~e City requirernents would render a pro~ect like the one modeled
in tl~e u~th-requirements scenano to becorne finaneFall~~ infeasible
Quatitative Effects af the City~'s Five Prngratns
Thro~gn inteniews w~th app~cants, consultants, real estate profess~onals and others, the
Czty's consultant also explored sub~ecttve opinions regardmg ihe development process in tl3e
City The inter-,~ewrs did not constitute a scien#~fic samplmg, and at times, th~ opimons
expressed were duectly at odds «zth the facts_ The consultan.t concluded that the subjective
feelings reported regarding #he develapment pracess did not canstitute a constramt, but did
to sorne degree_ reflect a non-quantifiable affect on the willin~ness of the pri~ate sector to
develop nezv mult~-family housing in Santa Monica The themes expressed in these op~ruons
are summanzed belaw:
Contrnuous Change in Develapment Regulatrons and the .4pproval Process
Manz interviewees e~ressed :n particular frustration v~-ith the degree of conhnuous change
ul the Cit~'s zoning regulattons, rent control regulations, and pro~ect approval procedures
o~er the past decade For some, ttus w-as a particular problem u~hen their proj ect w~as cau~ht
between changes.
,Fncompatrble Development Standards
Some tnterviewees noted perceived direct conflicts betv~~een ~~anous sectians af the Ciry's
zoning regulations, or the inabilit~l to take advantage of vanous mcentives that were intended
~o promote ne~ housing de~elapment, or confl~cts between the City's zonin.g regulations and
the Rent Cantrai Board's reguiations Wrth respect ta zor~ng regulations, there is some
valt~~ty ta thFS concern, as noted earlier in the discussion of the cumulatave property
deyelopment standards lirr~rtation In ather cases, the concez~n reflects tt~e fact that serial
revisian to the zoning ordinance has resulted in a situation where re~lations that aff'ect a
panc~ular pro~ect aze now scattered throughout the ordmance, and cannot be found clearly
in one or tv-=a sect~ons Accarding to #hose who expressed this concern. this increases the
chance that some unportant requ~rements w711 ~e missed in the early pro~ect planning sta.ges,
z~ecessrtat~ng a costl~~ correction when ~t is dzscovered at a later date
Costly Delays in the Discretionary Approval Process
Frustration v4~as expressed w~th the amot~nt of tune required to na~zgate the approval process,
particularly publ~c hearines Althaugh HR&A's analysts deFnonstrates that median
processing times are not out of ~e ord~nary, these represent the midpoint of a range, and by
definit~on_ this means that half of the pro~ects exceed the znedian Amang those who
City of Santa Monica Potentia! Constramts on
Housmg Elemenf III-40 Housmg Production and Conservarion
,
'
'
~
'
1
1
1
1
'
'
,
'
1
'
'
,
1
,
1
'
reflects all five requirements «-as co~npared ~i-~th one that has none of rhem The "with-
' requirements" and ~~no-requirements ' base case scenar~os ~sed tn thts comparison are based
on tv~-o-lot condomzn~um pro~ects m the North of ~'~'ilshire neighborhood that ~~as rezaned
from Ri to ~V4'-R2
t The companson of the rii-o scenarios indicates the follo~i°ing
'
'
'
'
,
,
1
'
1
,
~
'
'
'
The ~~o-Requarements Base Case Scenarro iljould Cost ~bout 20 Percent .~1ore to
Develop Under the 1~V4'-R2 de~.~elopment standards_ the ~.~-ith-req~irements
scenario ~.~ould be a n~o-ston~ buildmg configuration ~,zth smaller averaae market
rate unit sizes, mciuding four affordable umts u7th 8~0 square feet eachy Tk~e no-
requ~rements base case i~~ould feature 13 market rate units v~~tl~ rrtore ~eneraus
ati-erage flaor areas (1,»4 s f ti s 1_~ 11 s f for the market zate units) rn a three-
sto~- confiQuration The larger base case scenario would #herefore be more
e~pensn-e to construct t}~at the smaller with-requirements scenario (~l 6 miliion
~s_ $1 ~ mfll~on in hard construction cost} ~~en the cost of land, financing and
soft casts are added, the tatal developFnent cost of the larger no-requirements
scenar~o exceeds that for the v~7th-requirements scenano bj~ about 20 percent (S~ 2
~rzxll~on ~~s 53 5 rnzll~an, inciuding tand)
The Y'alue o{tlxe l~~o-Requirements Base Case Scenarro at Cornpletion Is :'~'early
~D Percent Higher than ihe I~ith-Requirements Scenario Both scenanos are 13-
unit pro~ects, but tne ~vtth-requirements scenario ~ncludes nine market rate and
four affordable units. which u~ould have to b~ sold at prices substantiall~- belo~i-
market rate. accord~ng ~o the Cit~•'s ~nclusionan• hausing pragram. All I3 umts
~n the no-requiremenu base case are maxket rate umts Thus, the total proceeds
from sale of the umts, «•hich ~s a function of sale price per square foot, for
develop~ng tYte no-requ~rements base case scenario are considerabli~ greater than
the proceeds that could be achie~: ed from tl~e w-~th-reqwrements (~4 3 million ~~s.
~3 1 mill~on. or +; 8 7%)
~~nder Current :~Iarkel Conditions. Hou~ever, Ihe •'4'o-Requtrements Scenario Is
'I~ot Frnancially Feasible Even v~~ith all market rate t~nrts, the larger no-
rec~u~rernents scenar~o does not generate enough sale proceeds to offse~ the cost of
sales arid total de~ elopment c~sts to leave any profit rnargin, compared r~-~th a
minimuzn ~0 percen.t protit margin. thres~old for a feasible proJect Further, the
economics of the no-requirements scenario z~~ould~ustifi gayin6 a land purchase
pncz equal to only tv~ o-t~urds of the assumed askina pnce for land. Tlaus, the base
case scenano_ ~~th none of the f ve Crt3- requirements. ~s nat feasible under current
and pro~ected near-term market condrtions.
• The ~~'rth-Requirements Scenarro ~~ields a:~l~easurably i~%orse ~inaneral Feastbrlrry
Result, But L~'nder Current _Llarket Condattons. thrsAmaunts to a"_1~lore ~1~egative "
Srtuataon The same assumptions about the market applied to the ~7th-
requizernents scenario results in a loss (i.e , totai sale graceeds less the cast of sales
Ciry af Santa Mamca PotenLal Constrvnts nn
Housing Element III-39 Housmg Productio~ and Conservation
'
,
'
Ranked Sevenrh Oatt of 10 Jurisdretrons The Cin-'s approval of about 1,200 un.its.
~~°hen expresszd as a rat~o per 1.000 population. exceeded onl~~ Hermosa Beach and '
Manhattan Beach dunng this period Santa Momca. like three otl~er compansan
crties, added units ~i~hile losin~ populatzon
Benti-een 199G and 1945. Ho~s~eyer, Santa h'omca ~s ~verage ~lultt famrl}° BuiIdcng ~
Permats per 1, 000 Population Ranked Second ~4mong ~ll 10 Comparrson
Jurisdretions Durmg this more recent pzriod, wla~ch includes the 1991-93 '
recession and a dramatic red~ct~on ~n multi-farr~ily construction actii7ty in the
Co~nty, Santa Nlonica's permit pe~'onnance, expressed in per capfta terms, «~as
second aril}~ to Long Beach. because of near~v flat popu~ation groti;~th at the sarne '
t~m.e that permits «~ere taken out on nearly 1,000 multz-fam~i~~ umts
Over the Entire Decade (19$.5-199~j, S~rnFa _i~fomca Ranked m the _~Itddle of the ~
10 Jurtsdictions m?I~fultr famlly Units ~~ith Permils Per 1000 Papulatron, hut ~~ as
First When ~,~nrfs ii~rth ~ermrts flre Compared wrth Popxelatron Groti~.°Th Due to
a population lass dunng the first half of the decade and nearl~r flat gopu~ation '
~ro~-th ~unn6 the second ha~f Santa Monica's ratio of ne«~ units to net nev~~
residents was~bF- far the highest among all 10 ~urisdictians. nearly eight multi-
fannily un~ts jn perm~ts f~r e~~ery new- resident The second place ~unsdictaon, '
Hermosa Beach. ~ssued permits at the rate of~ust o~-er one multi-family° un~t per
z~e«- resident
L's:n State De artment o Finance Data on Po latzon Growth and ,l~fulti famrly ~
g P .f Pu
I~ausrng Grox~th over rhe 199Q-199~ Period. the Increase rn Santa :i~lonrca's
Multr famrly Stock Relatrve to Grotiti~th zn the Crty's Populafion over the Same ~
Pe~xod. T~'as Second ~nly to Long Beach
These indices da nat appear to unpl~ that overall the Cit~-'s regulaton~ scheme constitutes a i
constraint on the production of housing
Fis~anciad ~'easi6ilrt~> Implieations of the Five City Requirements '
As another approach to examinin~ cumulative impact, the Crt~J's consultan.t also examined '
in more deta.il the combined effect of five Cat~~ pro~rams on the financzal feasibility of
housing production These five grograms are. rezomn;, the Cond~tional Use Permrt
requirement for condomin;um development, the Rent Control rerno~~al process, the Rent ~
Contral Ellis Act w-~thdrav~~a1 pracess, and the Inclusionarn Housing Program.
The fi~~e Santa Maruca requirements do not all apply to e~er~ multi-farrul}~ pro~ect, bnt rather '
in combznatians. degending upon tenure ty~pe (i e. apartment versus condomimum), lacatian
(e.g., ins~de or autside the four re-zoned areas), and ~~hether ren.t-controlled unrts exist on
a site intended for redevelopment An a~ferage candom.inium project is affected b;- more of
these requzrernents than an average apartment project To test tne finar~c~al feasibility '
impacts of the comhination of the five Citv r~quirements, a condoanimum scenario that
C~ty~ of 5anta evlonica Potent~al Constramts on ~
Housm~ Element III-.i8 ~-[ousm4 Produchon and Conservation
'
'
'
Stnct t~melines appl~ to pre~~ent the histonc des~~ation pzocess frorn bezng used to stall ne~~
' development For instance, once an appIicatzon :for landmark designation i; filed, a Farmal
Consideration Public Hearing must be conducted ~-rthm 64 daz°s in order to detez~ine if the
application ments further cons~deration
,
'
'
'
'
'
~
'
i
'
,
~
1
Furihermare. the Element attennpts ta balance the need to accommodate new• development
and rec~~cling on the one hand ~~~th the goal to preser~°e and protect existin~ housxng on the
other Goal ~ 0 of the Element states. "Pro~note the rehabi~rtation and contmued matntenance
of e~cistmg housma " Program 7 b- Histonc Preser~-ation Enforcement fs intendzd to support
this goal _
To facilitate the presen~ation of designated stz-uctures. the C~tt~ has recently creat~d seE~~ral
presert~ation incentiti-es for o~vners of desi~nated properties_ These incentives include- the
elimination of hu~ld~xza perm~t fees, administrative plannjng fees. and Certificate of
Appropriateness fees. the pro~is~on of parkin~ incentives, and the imp~ementauon of a
property tax reduction grogram puzsuant to Go~-ernment Code authonzation {the Mxlls Act)
The Cit~~ has facilitated the presenation of one histonc smxcture usmg mcenti~~es autharized
under the Mills Act
The C~ty's Landmarks arad Historic Distncts ~rdznance may serve as a patential constramt
to hous~n~ praduct~on. How~ever. ~~Zth onl}° ~ 1 residences affected, the ordxnance does not
represent a st~ficant constramt to de~lelopment, and pro~~ides a mechasusm to maintain and
impro~~e the Cit~~'s remaining stock of histonc horc~es
13. Cumulati~~e Effects of Five City Programs/Requirements
In addit~on to examinin~ ~~vhether specific gavernmental poIicies, practices, or regulattons
constrtute a constraint on the production n~aa~ntenance. or improvement of housing, the C~tF~
examined the cumulative impact of potential govemmental constramts This anal~~sis ~s
diseussed belo«-
Santa Monica's 1'I~fulti-Family Production Record Compared With Other Cities in the
Immediate Housing Markei Area
One «rav to assess the degree to which Santa l~Ionica's requ~rements mav be har~ng some
adz~erse+impact on rnult~-farnily ~iausin~ production is to compare the City's production
record ~izth other cit~es ~n the same general housing market that do not have Santa Ngonica's
unique mix o:F requirements As a threshold matter. if Santa Monica's multi-famzly
prod~ctian is slgmficantl;~ lower than that of these other~unsdictions, the Czn~'s regulaton=
regime would be impl~cated as one possible cause
' • Be~x~een 198~ and 1989, i3'hich Covers Los Angeles Count}~'s Peak l~ultr famaly
Construction Years, Santa 1Vlorrica s Average per Capita Burldrng Permrt Rate
' Ciry of Sanra ~vlon~ca Poteni~al Constraints on
Housin~ Element III-37 Housmg Production and Conservauon
'
exclusn~eiy to the North af V4'ilsh~re area, u~hich compnses onl~° seven percent of the Cit~-'s
residentzall~- zoned land, and is an area of higher-cost land in the C~t~~
As a result of the ~orthndge earthquake_ extenst~-e repair and recanstructaan is in progress
Eartlaquake rebuild~ng is not sub~ect to the Const~ructzan. Rate Program
This program represents an attempt b}- the Caty to balance the goal of ~romotin~ the
cons~n.ict~on of ne~~ nousing for all income groups (Ho~sizzg Efemez~t, Goal :~_1) ~~~th the
goaI of protectxna the qualin~ of l~fe m all resident~at neighborhoods {Ob~ect~~~e 1.1, Land Use
E~ement) Furtfiermore. because this program affects a smal~ prapomon of the City's
zesidentiall~ zaned area. rt represents a minimal barrier to ne~r de~~elopment. Thus far. no
pro~ects ha~~e been delayed as a result of this program and therefore, this program does not
canstftute a constraint to housing de~-elopment The Const~ruct~on Rate 1'rograzn does not
hati~e a direct effect on the maintenance or tmprovement of the Cit}-'s housing stock
12. Laadmarks and Histo~ric Districts Ordinance
The Cit~~ adopted a Landmarks and Histonc Distncts Ordmance in I976; establishing the
Landmarks Cammission and delegating to the Commiss~on tiie authont}= to designate
Iandmarks and make recomrnendations to the Cit~ Conncil for histonc districts. The
Landrnark Ordinance is des~gned. m part, to protect unprovernents and areas ~-hich represent
elements of the City's cultural, sacial. economic. polit~cal and architectural history It seeks
to safe~uard the Cit~~'s h~stonc, aesthetic and cultural heritage as embodied and reflected in
such ~mprovements and areas.
Since ~he adopt~on of the Lan~riarks and Histonc Districts Ordmance, thz Crts~ has
desi~nated 31 la.ndmarks and established one histonc dismct, the T~hird Street Neighborhood
Histonc District Betv4~een landmark des~gnations and the Th~rd Street ~Teighbarhood
Histonc Distnct, ~ 1 residences (47 properties} ha~~e been desi~nated either as la.ndmarks or
conmbutmg lustonc strucnues This represents an a~erage of about 2_5 resident~al structures
per }~ear o~'er a 2p-year penod In terms of the o~'erall number of desigr~ated res2dential
properties, as ~~eii as the rate of these des~gnations, the Landmarks and Histanc Distncts
Ordinance has impacted re~ati<<elv fe~- prapert~es and therefore daes not represent a
si~ificant barner to new development The ~ast zna~ont~- of these pzoperties (36 of 47) are
located in the Thard Street Ne~ghborhood Hxstonc Disin.ct_ In rt~any cases, existing densities
exceed or equal allowable densities (g~nerally 2-~ units} in this distr~ct
,
'
'
1
'
'
1
'
'
t
'
,
~
,
~
'
'
Cin• of Santa Momca Potential Constra-nts on '
Housmg Element III-36 Hous~n~ Product~on and Conservahon
'
,
'
The Cin's study conclucied that if market condit~ons ~~ere to impro~e to the pomt «~here the
~ base cases u~ere feasib~e, the rnclus~onan~• housing program ~r~oul~ render them infeasible
The Ciri-, therefore classifies the inclusionan~ housing pro~ram as a potential, but not an
actual constraint to housing production The Inciusionar~' Housing Program does not bear
' a direct relationship to housuig mamtenance or improvernent For deta~led analysis, refer to
the Technical Appendix entitled "Assessment of the Cit~~'s Inclusionar;- Housing Pro~ram
(Ordmance lb 15) as a Patential or Actual Constraint on the Development of Housmg'~
'
1
1
,
t
'
~
1
'
'
'
'
1
'
As part of the Ciri°'s action plan under Program 2 a- Marntain an Inclustonrxrv Housing
Program. t~e Cii~• is proposmg amendments to rts Inclvs~onar~- Housing Program in order
to help suppart hous~ng production. «-hile comp~}~ina w7th Prapos~tion R Potentral changes
rr~av include expanding the in-lxeu fee optian, pra~.~zding zoning incentives to construet
affordable ut~ts on-site, satisfr~n~ inclusionanr obligations by meetina requirements of the
State dens~t}- bonus la~- andr~ar tax-exempt bond-financina, and re`~ising in-lieu fee
calculauon and threshold fflr on-site affordable unrts The C~t~- zs activel~~ en~aaed in this
process of modifi-ing the ~nclusionan.~ houszng ordinance Subsequent to Cauncil directian
zn J~ly, 1997, the C~t~° enlasted the professional senices of HR&A to assist in the
der-elopznent of alterna~i~•es to Ord~nance 161 ~ Six conceptuai alternatities were zdentified
and refined through ~-orkshops, study sessions afad publzc hearin~s. i~iore specif cally. a
PubIic Vvorkshop was held September 7. 1997 tlnat xncluded an open house segment where
panc~Fpants view ed an.d commented on d2spla}- panels that explained the current Inclusiona~°
Program and possible conceptual alternatFVes. A presentanac~ ~~~tth graup discussion about
th.e existing Inclus~onary I'rogram and conceptual alternatives ~~~as con~ucted Subsequentl~-,
PubIic Hearrng arid Study~ Sessions c~ ere eonducted at the September ~ d, 1997. Februan~ 25
and Ma~-ch 4, I99$ Plann~g Co~nmission meetmgs_ at the Septernber 18, 1997, ~ebrua,n~ 19
ar~d March 5, ~998 Hous~ng Cornmissian mee~n~s and at the October 7, 1997 Crty Council
meet~ng
11. Constructian Rate Program
In 1990, as part of the adoptzon of ne«~ zoninQ rzgulations for the ~lorth of ~'4~ilshire area, the
Ciri~ establ~shed the Constructxon Rate Pragxarn This pro~am limits the number af ne«~
multi-familv residentia~ pro~ects simultaneouslv under construction ~-~thin any gx`~en block
area. ~~1are specificall~, projects af tr~~o or more d~-ellings are Iimrted to one pro~ect per
black or wrth~n 300 lznear feet in the north and sauth directzon of the project The t~rne limit
applies for a penod of eigY~t mon.tk~s from the issuance of the builduig permrt.
The purpose af the Construction Rate Program is to reduce the potential for the disruptz~~e
effects af construcnon--noise. trafFic, ~nd dust--on a given block area In recent ~-ears. the
North of '~'4'ilshire nei~hborhood has been dispraportianatel~~ s~bjected to the disruptive
effects of construction. E~~arranring the special provisions of the Construction Rate Program
The program does not proh.abit ne~.r development; rather, i~ staggers develapznent so as to
reduce the concentration of construction effects on a gi~-en area This program applies
C~ty of Santa Monica Potennal Constramts on
Housut; Element III-3~ Housm~ Produci~on and ConsenatEOn
'
,
'
~callectivel~•, the Cit~'s "inc~us~onan- housin~ progzam"') pro~~ide c~etatled directz~~es on
~-ano~s implernentaiion requ~rements. These zncIude condztions under ti;~hieh a$~ 1_000 (in ~
1992 dallars) per-affordable unit fee maz- be paid to the Cin~ m lieu of pro~~id~ng the
affordable ~uuts on s~te, a schedule of the number of affordable uruts that must be pror~-ided
for ~-anous sizes of pro~ects, ~-~th subtotals of the un~ts that must be affardable to "lou.- '
mcome" ho~seholds and `'nnoderate-ancorne"' hous~holds, limits on renter and i~user
eligibiliri- for t~e inclus~onarv units. details about the sxze and distribut~on of the affardable
unrts in the pro~ect; resmctxons on the resale pnce of an affordable for-sale urut, on-going '
morutonn~ requirements ta ensure that the occupants of affordable ~aruts are income-eli~ib3e.
a c~eed restrxction concernin; the affordable housin~ obligation; and an annual report
documenhng w~hether Proposition R's reqw_rements ha~-e been met d~nQ the pret•ious year ~
The analy'sis of these inclusionar}- housm~ requirements canducted for the Cit~ indicate the
fallow~in; key findings• ~
The Crty's rnclusionar,v housang prograrrr rs generally consistent tit~ith similar
pragrams tn 63 other Calrfornia~urrsdtcirons. but d~ers in some rmportant ways '
These dafferences are that it has one of the lughest mclusionary~ percentages (30%),
it has one of the lo~vest project size thresholds (a two-unrt pro~ect}, zt provides only
l~mrted options to on-site placement of the mclus~onary- units (~ e_, does rzot ~nclude '
land dedication, off-s~te placement or cred~t transfers}, rts in-lieu fee option is
a~ailable only under verv restnctive circumstances; and it has no `~hardship
exemption" provision to reduce or waive the requirement on a demonstration flf '
pra3ect infeasibiiFry
~.~nder current and near-term market conditaons. average apartment crnd '
condomtnrum pro~ects rn the R2 Drstrict ofFhe City are not financrally feasrhle
ti,:lthout the inclusaonar~% hausrng reqaltrement The analysis of four condomuuum
and four apartment pro~ect scenar~os (all two-bedroom unrts assumed} that co~Id '
be developed in the R2 Distrfct under a ran~e of ati-erage land cost and
rern~purchase price c~rcumstances, and assuming all of the requu'ements and costs '
that ~~~ould agply, e_rcept the inclusionarv ~ousing pro~ram and the State densrt~
honus requirement rt tnggers. found t~iat all of the scenanos ~~elded negative
financial resu.~ts, such that an e~perienced and ~~ell-informed developer or propem~
ow-ner would not undertake projects simifar to the scenanos tested '
The inclusronary hottsr~rg ~rog~-am has a sagnrficant adyerse effect on pro~ect ~
feasYbility, hut under current mat'ket condiirons this makes them `~more negative "
V47hen the same pro~ect scenanos w-ere tested x-~rh the ~nclus~onan~ housing
program a.r~d State density bonus, there vs-as a measurably substantial negat~ve t
financial effect cornpaxed with the "base" cases, but under current market
conditions this means the~ are "more neQahve." The inclusionan~ program is not
a factor toda}~ ar in the near tern~ that renders an otherw~se feasible pro~ect
infeasible '
Crty of Santa Momca Potentiai Cons~amts on ~
Hous~na Element III-3~ Housma Prvduction and Conservat~on
~
1
,
The Cit~c- concludzd that the Rent Control Board's remoti~al permjt reQulations are not an
~ actual constraint to hous~ng production because neither their procedural requirements, nor
theu- substant~ve requirements, add extra costs to de~-elopment that ti~ould render axi a~~erage
replacemen~ mult~-famil~- pro~ect financiall~ mfeasible The discretionar~~ nature of the
' remoti~al permit processes do. 3~owerer. m~~o~ve a degree of uncertaint~~ about the likzlihoad
of securing all necessa~- Czn• appro~-als for a n~~~- multi-famii~- pro~ect. and hence the
remo~:al permit reffulations are a potentxal canstraint to housintr production. Hot~eE-er. these
~ removal permit reaulataons assist m preser~-ing the Cat~~'s ex;st~n~ stock of affordable rental
housing, pro~-~dine some protection against rnazket pressures for replacement of apartments
For detailed discuss~on, refer to the Tec3~nical Appendix ent~tled "Assessment of the Cit~-'s
' Rent Control Remo~~al Penxa~ts as a Potential or ~ctual Constraint on the Derelopanent of
Housing "
' 10. Proposition R and Inclusionary Housing Prngram
, Approved b~~ voters in 1992. Proposit~an R requires that 34 percent of the housing produced
in t~e Cin~ each ~~ear be "affordable'' to lo«~- and moderate-income housenolds.5 Ordtn.ance
1615 and rts subsequent amendments (hereanafter "Ordmance 1615") ~nnplements Proposition
' R and is the latest in a senes of related requirements #o `"~nciude" affordable housin~ ~n ne~~~
market-rate multi-famil~- pro~ects, dat~n~ from the Cit}-'s 19$3 Hous~ng Etement
' The City has a responsibilinr to address the needs of its residents from all social and
econorr~ic ~oups for decent. affordable housina T'he Crt~~ meets its responsibility_ in part,
thrvuah iu mcIus~onar}~ housing ordinance This ordinance seeks to ensure that net~~ hausing
' ~~iil meet the needs of all of the crty-'s residents and that the econamicall~• diverse population
of t}~e Cin~ ~~ll be mainta~ned_ It vvas specificall~ intended to achie~~e this goal by
promotmg rhe develogmen.t of housxng for lo~~~ and moderate income households
' As stated, the Inclus~onan Hous~ng Ordmance ~mplements the requtrements of Proposition
R This proposrtion r~~as motivated by a concern that the great ma~orinr of nev~- housing being
' bu~it xn the C~t~- ~~as l~ury condominiums affarciable onl~- to tlae «~ealthy By requinng that
at least thim• percent (30°/a} of all new housino built in the Cit~- each ~-ear be affardable.
Proposition R ensures that the Citj~'s housing policy reflects a cantinued commitment to
' econom~c d~vers~t~~ in our communrt~•
Ozdinance 161 ~ requires that each new multi-famil~~ pro~ ect of more than tu~o uiuts meet this
' requ~rer~ent. "Affordable'' rents and condorniruum purcnase pnces are calculated each year
by Cit~- staff based on income thresholds set bv the U.S Department af Housing ar~d Urban
Develaprnent (HUD). Ordinance 16 i~ and a Ciri~ Council-approved admanistrati~~e ~uide
'
~ [inder Proposrtron R'7ow mcome household" means a household with an mcome not etceeding 60°ia
' of the Los An~eles Countrr median ~ncome, ad~usted b}~ fam~Ey s~ze. and "moderate lncome househaId"
means a household u•~th an income not exceedina 100°~b pf the Los An~eles Counh% rr~ed~an ~ncome,
adjusted b}~ fam~lv siae
' C~ry of Santa A~ianica Potential Constramu on
Hous~na Element IIT-33 Housing Production and Conservat~on
~
,
ti-ananis. CQ and DQ) CategorS- B had the lowest approval rate because it requ~res
that the applicant first app1~- for a rent ~ncrease_ and if successful. the Categon- B
remo~~al perrnit is demed
The approt~al processrng trrne for a removal permit rs not a burden on replacement
multr fcrmill~ pro~ects The analysFS also sho~~-ed that the avera~e time to complete
the processing of most remoz~al permrts ( I DO-1 l ~ da~-s for aIl but Cate~orF° B) is
not s~~ruficantl~- dffferent from the t~me needed to process plannmg approvals for
a ne~ condomuuum project (median af 90 das~s). the mos~ frequent nTpe of multi-
famiiv replacement pro~ect, and these pracesses may no~~~ run concurrently~
~Ithough fees for consultant.s to assist tit~rth the removal permit process are
generally hrgher than for the Ellis Act process, total processzng costs do nat
threaten the frnancral feasrbrlity of a replacemenl multi family pro~ect The
ana~~~sis further shou-ed that althQUgh the discretianary nature of these perrnits
typicall~- im~ol~~es a hi~her let-el of applicant expendrtures for legal counsel and
other professional assistance than the mare ministenal Ellis ~ct w-~thdrawal
process, the ~asts for an ati-erage project (about $10A00} are not si~ificant in
terms of the o~erall de~-elopment costs for an averag~ reglacement apartment or
condomzmum pra~ect.
Removal permrts are only requrred for controlled rental housing The removal
permit requirements do not applz- to residential devElopment of propert5• that daes
not cantam control~ed rental units For instance, removal pern~rt is generall~~ not
required for residen#ial de~~elopment ~n the City's commercial zones v~rh~ch no~~
allo~i~ residential as a matter of right
1`he Ellrs Act preempts the removal permrt requarement Remo~~a1 per~uts are not
ret~uired for the redeveiopment of controlled rental propert~: if the propert~~ ;s
v~,-ithdral~r~n firom the rental rr~arket pursuant to the Ell~s Act VG'hile the Ellis Act
resmcts the redeveloprnent of neu- apartments, the co~struction far o~i~ership
housmg after an El~is ~ct ~~-rthdrati~•al is not restricted ~~~ the Act
Substantive eosts are also not stgnrf cant On average, the Boa.rd did not iznpose
costt; substantive conditions of removal permit approval, except for Categor~ D
remo~-al perimrts ~n these cases, post-approval restnctions on the prapem~ are
specified m the regulation, and it can be assumed that these are nat unduly~ costly,
because they° are voluntaril~• entered znto by an applicant for r.his removat permit
categor5-.
~;'nder current and near-term market condrtrons, atierage apartmenF pro~ects in the
RZ Distrret are nat~nancially feasible even Lyithout a Category D replacement
requiremenr
i
'
~
i
~
~
'
~
i
~
i
'
'
'
~
i
Crty of Santa ~+Ionica Potential Constramts on '
Housmg Element FII-32 Housmg Production and Conservat~on
,
,
~
'
~
,
'
'
'
~
i
'
i
'
i
~
'
'
'
demolished oi~er 1,300 rental units and con~:erted hundreds of otl~ers into condommiums
The shartaae of housinE unrts resulted in a low~ ~-acanc~~ rate and rapidI~• nsin~ rents and
constituted a serious ho~sing problem, endanaenna thz public health and «-elfare of Santa
~lanica tenants The Rent Cantrol Law~ ~~as adopted as an amendment to the Cit~° Charter
~n. 1979 to protect tenants fram arbitrary evictzons and excessit-e rent mcreases. and to
maintain the Cin~'s affordable hous~ng stock The ia~~- achie~~es these aoaIs b~~ establishina
e~-rction controls. controllin~ rents, and xegulat~na the remo~~ai of renta~ housing uruts from
the market ControIlin~ rents to a reasonable leti°el, limrting e~-~ct~ons, and reaulating
rema~~als substant~allti• a1levFate hardshrps to Santa I~lanica tenants Smce the Rent Control
Law is part of the Cit~ Charter, changes to this la«- can onl~- be made by a ma~onty voxe o~
the zlectarate.
Chapter 5 af the Rent Contral Regulations specifies ~he procedures and necessan~ findxnas
that the Board must make before it z~ ill ~rant one of four ~`remo~-a1 permrt" categaries. t~~a
of ti~h~ch now also mciude special vartat~ons to facilitate tepair and reconstniction af
buildmgs that were damagzd dunng the 199~ Northrid6e earthquake. The four remo~~al
per;nit categones are
• Category~ A{repealed in 1994). for situations ~n v~•hich rt can be dernonstrated that
a landlord ~s unable to collect the current Maxim~m Ailovt-able Rent (MAR) for
a unrt,
• Category B. for srtuations in which zt can be demonstrated that the cuz~rent'_VLAR
for the rental umts does not provide a"fair return" and the landlord cannot rent the
untts at the rent necessarv to achiez-e a fatr return,
• Categosy C(and the earthquake recover~~-related CQ yersion). ~3-hen ~t can be
c~emonstrated th.at controlled rentai units are ~~uninhabitable," and cannot be made
hab~table m an "econom~cally feasible" manner; and
• Category D{and the zarthquake reco~ery-related DQ ti~ersxon), ~hen the propert;-
va~ill be redeveloped w-~th a new multz-family rer~tal project. and the propertti~ ow~er
agrees to, anno~ng other things, contanu~n.g ~urisdiction af the Rent Control Law
over the replacement rental uruts, and that no more than 15 percent of the unrts in
t~-ie ne~~• pro~ect ~~111 rent a~ pnces '`affordable" to "low-incom~ " households.
Additional units are not controlled and are not usually included when irnpasing the
I ~ percent ~'eq~arement
An analysis of these remo~~al perm~~ requirements w~as conducted for the Citq. Key fndi~gs
include the foilov«ng
• ~'wo-thirds ofall remoyal permit applicattons hm~e been approved Althou~h all
of these rernoval pe~znits are discreuonar}- and place the burden of proof on the
applicant. overall the Board ~ ranted these permrts m two out of three cases The
appro~-al rate «~as Yughest ~or Categorv C and D(and their earthquake recoverr~:
C~t~~ of Sa~ta Mon~ca Potertt~al Constraints on
Housin= Element III-31 Hous~n~ Production and Conservat~on
~
,
~3,OQ0. Togethez, these costs are not siQnificant. in that the~~ v~'ould not cause an
othen;~ise feasible a~~erage replacement project ta become inteasible
I~he Board's regulation imposes some restr'tcttans on renting a neu~ condominrum
af er a rent-controlled apartmenl burldrng has been x~ithdt-awn under the Ellrs Act
The ne«~ unrts rna~- not be rented u-ithm five vears after the v~~rthdrawal becomes
effective, although this restrictron probabl~~ does not apply to an ~ndzvidual
condomimum unit once it has been sold. These lim~ts may~ make it financiall~t-
unattract~ve to sorne praperty o~~ers to construct ne«° replacement
condamim~uns, because the~- ~r-ould be barred from renting them at rnarket rate
betv~een completion of construction and the first sale of the unit This is a
potential constraint ~n that rt ma~ affect the eash flo~i~ of some replacement
pro~ects during pre-sale, or the wlllingness of some buyers to purchase uruts ~t is
also probabl~~ a temporan- situatran until Januan~ I. 1999, when the Costa-
Ha~~-k~ns RentaI Housmg Act renr~.oves al~ caps on tY~e amount of rent that ma5- be
charged for ti~oluntaril~~ vacated unrts There are more stnngent requirerrtents far
those who use the Ellis Act ~o "go out of the rental business," but then constnict
a ne~~~ apartment ~uilding m place of the existmQ rent-controlled apartment
buildin~, conuary to the intenC of the Act
Y"ery fetiv lvithdrawn properties hat~e heen replaced by nex~ multi famrly housing
detielopments Of the 207 w~thdraw:n propertses that did not retum to rent control,
2$ (14%) praperties have recei~~ed a Certificate of Qccupanc~: for a replacement
development project, af which 24 have been fvr housina pro~ects The substant~al
number flf Eilis ~~thdrav~:al prvperties were in commercxal zones and d~d not need
new Certificate of Occupancy for struct~zre to be put to another use.
The Cit~- conciuded that the Rent Control Board's Ellis Act regulat~on is nat an actual
constraznt to housing product~on because nei~er its procedural requirements, nor 1ts
substanuti-e rec~uirements. add extra casts to de~elopment that «-ould render an average
replacement condomi~um pro~ect finaziciatly infeas~ble Furthermore. under the Ellis Act,
the City can require the property flwzierto meet certain condrttons ~efore removuig the ~ts.
but cannot campel the o~,ner to maintain the propem~ as rerttal housing The Ellis Act does.
ho~~ever, represent an actual constraint to the preser~ation of the City's ex~sung stock of
affordable rental housuig, since it facilitates the rema~•al of viable rental units from ~he
market and thexr replacement ~ith non-rzntaf housing S~nce the City's rent controlled
housing stock is affor~able, removal of th~s stock from the rental market pursuant ta the E~Ixs
act has resulted in a s~eiuficant loss af affordable housing. For detaifed discussion. refer eo
tl~e Techn~caI Appendi~ ent~tled "Assessment of th~ Rent Control Board's Ellis Act Removal
Permit Process as a Potential or Actual Contraant on the Develapment of Housxng_'"
9. Rent Control Removal Permits
In the iate 1974's the Czty v-~as confronted b~~ a severe shortage of rts housmg stock
precipjtated in Iaree measure b~° a 15-rnonth penod durmg which Santa iVlonrca landlords
Ciry of Sarita Monica Potential Constrain#s on
Hous~n~ ~lement III-30 Housmg Productton and Conservat~on
~
,
~
,
'
~
~
~
'
'
i
i
i
~
'
'
~
~
,
'
'
'
i
,
i
i
,
i
~
i
'
~
7. Article 3~
Article 3~ of thz staEe coz~sutut~on requxres that anj~ lov~~ rent housm~ project dzveioped,
constructed, ar acquired b} a public agency m.ust first be appraved by a ma~onri~ O~tY~e v0#ezs
li~~mg ~n that jurisdiction Rec~uiring such publzc appror-al can act as a barrier to th.e
development of affordable housul~ In compliance ~~ith this art~cle, the ~-oters of the Ciri-
of Santa l~lonica appro~-ed a referendum (Proposition I~) ~n 1978 authonzing the Cin to
"develop, finaz~ce, or rehabilitate_ but not o«~n or operate within the Cit~-, houssng for rental
to lo~~~ and moderate income persons, no less than 50 percent of which shall be resen~ed for
persons age 60 or older. not to exceed in tatal throu~out the Cm~. 1 percent of the d«-elling
units in the Cfty~ " Arncle ~~ does not bear a~irect relationship to housin~ maintenance or
imprQVement The Crt1- ~s proposxna a neu- program (Pro~ram 2 k} ta seek #o tncrease the
Crty's authonty under Articie 34 to provide added fle~ibihh- m producm~ affardable housmg
$. Ellis Act
Tk~e Ellis Act, adopted in 1986. guarantees the riQht of a propertm- o«ner ta "go out of the
rental business,"" consistent with the requirements of the Act The City of Santa tiionica Rent
Control Board {"Board"} ~hen adopted procedures for exercising this nght. and its
"~~~fhdra~z~al'' i-ules and ~rocedures ha~-e e~~ol~-ed over time in response to ~udic~al
tnterpretat~ons af the ~1ct and expenence. Satisfying tlze Rent Control Baard's requirements
for «•ithdrati~-ing rent-controlled units is a prerequisite for receiving final pernuts to construct
a replacetrient developmen~ pro~ect on the property, including a ne~~~ condominium
development
An in-depth analj-sis of the Ellis Act uzthdra~z~al requirement was conducted for the Crt;~-
Ke~- finc€in;s include the folio«~ng
The process rs largely rrarnasterial Ail applications f led to date l~ave been
approved, ~ess they~ were w~thdrawn b~~ the applicant
It takes ahout twa months to complete the ~~ifhdra~val process The txz~ne needed
to process a w7thdravtirai application {median of ~9 days) fai~s «-ithin the time frame
needed to process an average replacement condam~nium pro~ect (about 90 da~~s}
• There are no fees to process an Ellrs Act tit~ithdrmcal. but pavment o{relacatron
~ fees for lotiver-income tenants :s required, and marry applicants engage legal
caunsel to rrssist zi~ith the wrthdrmval process The w~thdrau-al process does not
, requ~re pa~~nent of any filing or apglica~on process~n~ fees Under a separate Crty~
ordinance. the applicant must. ho~~~ever, pa~;• relocation fees rangm~ frarn ~3,000
to $5,500 to exfsting tenant househalds v~~ho self-ident~fc~ and pro~.lide supportmg
documentation that dxey are "lou~-~ncome " This rhould arziount to abaut 59,2~0
' for an average six-unit buzld~n~ shat includes some sez~oz crt~zen hauseholds The
averabe cost of Iegal couzisel to assist ~~ith the application is reportedl~~ iess than
, C~ri- of Santa Mon~ca Potential Constramts on
Haus~n~ Element III-29 Housmg Product~on and Conservation
'
,
~Zore specificall~~, the CtiP requirement allo«-s the reti~iew afr the Iocation of the proposed
usz. deszgn, conf'i¢uration of ~mpro~~ements, and potenual impact on the surroundin~ area
from the proposed use B;~ provid~na for dzscretionazti• r~~~ie«~ af condornirnum pro~ects
through the CUP process, the City is able to more effect~vel~~ cQntrol the desi~n and srte
la~°out of pro~ects to enhance compaubflit~- u°ith the surroundin~ nei~borh.ood
tln ana~~~s~s of the CUl' application process 1~~as conducted for the Cin as part of this
Element Key° findings include the fallovs,~ing
_~~early alI CUP applications for netiy~ condominrums hati~e been approved Over
the 1989-199~ penod, almost all (SS°iv) of the condoznuuum CUPs v-were appro~-ed
and ~-ern few° ~;~ere appealed from the Plaruung Cornmission to the Crty Council
~tverage processing trme for the C~:'P and related apprayals are not burdensome
on the feas~baltty of ne~i, eondomrniums The tirrte needed to prepare and process
a CUPr's~bdi~ision map application through the Plamm~g Comm~ssion is about 9Q
days for an avera4e condomin~um project, and this is generally consistent «~th
other junsdic~ions in the competitive ho~sing ~narket. most of w~h.ich a~so require
some discretionary permit in addition to a subdivision nnap m ordzr to appro~-e a
nev~ condom~mum.
Procedural costs are alsa ~ot burdensome on pro~ect feastbtlity The costs for
lega~, architectura~ and engineer~ng assistance and application pracessing costs
{~ncluding t~e cost of a trafFc studv for a Mrtigated Ne~ahve Declaxation) are not
a significant s~rri {about $I2,700) in terms of tota~ de~~elopment costs for an
average new sik-zuut condomini~un pro~ect.
Conditions of C~.~P approval for an uverage proJecF do not threaten pro~ecF
feasihilrty An analysis of candxti~ns of appro~'aI imposed by the Crty- on 32
randaanl}~ selected zesidential condomunum applications found that the condrtions
of appro~ al imposed on ttte app~zcahons d~d not add si~ificantly and ad~-ersely ta
the cost of developing an ar-erage ne«~ condominium
The stud~~ concluded that the City's CUP requ~rernent for new- condo~ninium pra~ects is not
an actaal constra~nt because neither the procedurai nor substantive requirezxxents vf the CUP
process add extra development costs that ~-ould render an average condominium pro~ect to
become finar~cially infeasible In most cases, the CL'P procedurai and substant~ve
requirements u~ould appl~~ to the subdi~ision map appra~-a1 process e~~en if there were no
CL~P requirement The discretionar~~ nature of the CL;P process does, however. add a
measure of uncenainty to the approval process, and the study concluded that ihis is a
potent~aI constraint to housing development The City's CUP requirements do not directl3~
impact ~ousing maintenance or improvement For further an.alysxs, refer to Techmcai
Append~x entftled '`Assessment of the City-'s Condihonal U se Permrt Requirement for New
Condominivms as a Potential or Actual Constramt on the De~~eloprnent of Housmg.~'
Crt~ of Santa Mor,ica Potenua! Canstrair-ts on
Hausm~ ~lement III-28 Hous~n~ Production and Conservauon
,
,
,
~
'
i
~
~
,
~
~
~
~
'
~
'
'
~
,
1
Reviev~~ of the em°irozunental impacts of proposed develapment under the Caiifornia
~ En~•ironmental Qualin~ Act (CEQA) can also zncrease the nme and cost of processin~
developnr~ent applications Residential pro3ects «-hzch xnt~olve no d~scretionaz~- perrnrt
{apartment deti~elapnrient less than the Dei•elopment Revie~.~ thre~hold} are not sub~ect to
~ CEQA Condom~n~um de~~eloprrient. ~~-hich rec~uires bath a CtiP and subdivision map aze
sub~ect to CEQA_ Small condamimum pro~ects mati~ be w~thin categorica.l exemption and
require no initial stud~• or EIR. If a full EIR is required, the processing time can be as much
' as six months Tne Cit~~ makes e~:er~° effort to focus the em•rronmental re~~ieu~ on the ke~~
~ssues applicable ta the pro~ect
~ Projects Itequiring Discretiotrary Review
' Recogn~zing the difficu~t~- in desi~nin~ attract~E-e infill development. the Cin~'s Zoning
Ordinance requires d~screuonar5° revie~i~ far all condominium prajects as w•elI as all
apartment pro~ects that exceed the deveIopment re~-iew thresholds. The applicant submits
' site plans. floor pIans, landscapm~ plans, buildina and streetscape elevations. and other
required studaes for rer~~ie1~- The de~~elopment permrt applicatton is reviev~ ed by the Plaruuna
Commfssion, and design re~~ieva~ ~s undertaken concurrentl~ b~~ the Arch~tectural Revie~l
, Board (_ARB) The standards for rev~eu; and approval of these permits provide flex~bilitv
in order to ensure compat~bil~t~~ vaztY~ the ti-anen- af development st~~les and nez~hborhoads
in the Cit~~ As a means of assistFng development appl~cants m understanding the Cit;~•'s
' re~-iev~- proc~dures. the C~ty is in the }~rocess of develop2ng a handbook of interdepartmental
reQUlat~ons and sen-fees to gu~de appIicants throuah the development approval process
' Conditional Use Fermit Procedures for ,'~'ew Condominiums
Since 1980, Santa ~ionica has req~.ured the approval of a CUP. in ac~dition to approvai of a
' subdivision mag. before a r~e«~ reszdential condominium can be constructed in rhe C~ty The
CUP requires a sepazate permit application and a public heartng before the Cit}~'s P~anning
, Cammission, whose decision may be appealed bt- ari~~ mterested party to the Cin~ Cou~cil.
The CLFF appl~cation and hearin~ are processed simultaneously v~1th the applicatian and
pubhc heanng req~ed for a subdi~~ision rnap The Plamm~~ Commissior~, or Ctt~' Council
~ on appeal, must make spec~fic findinDs of fact. and may attach condrtions to its approval of
the CUP. in adc~rtion to req~ired findmgs and conditions that apply to a tentative subditi~sion
map.
~ T'he Crt~-'s current CUP reqwrement for condoz~nim~s was adoptea at a time vvhen rnan}-
}~ropert}~~ oti;~ners ~-ere in the process of coz~verting apartments to condominiums. or
' proposmg to demol~sh apartments and replace thern w7th new condom~mums. Cit~~ decis~on
r~alcers believed t3iat the addit~onal requirement for approval of a CUP to de~Telop or conv~rt
a candom~niurn pravided addrtional protections not available throu~h preG•ious Cin-
' ordinances
' Ciry of 5anta Ivlon~ca Potential Consu~amts on
Housin~ Element III-2? Hovsmg Product~an and Consenat~on
'
,
In addrtian to standard processing fees, Santa NSonrca charges the fol~o~~~n~ fzesi'taxes for
ne~~° residential de~~elapment ~
.Schaal Fee -~1.72 per square foot of gross habitable area (one time fee)
Park and Recreation Tax -$2~0 per unrt (one tame tax)
Condominium Tax - S 1,000 per unit (one time tax}
Plaru~ing and ~onxng revie~;- fees are ti~ai~~ed for 144 percent affardable housina pro~ects. and
Pa~-k,~Recreation and Condominium taxes axe wa2~-ec~ for inclusionan° umts and lov~-,'mod
umts built usins in-lieu fees ~
According to the financial feasibilat~~ anaiysis conducted as part of this Element, the sum of
Cit~- fees and charges (platuung fees, construction fees, and taxes) accounts for a significant
porhon of to~al mulU-famil5- pro~ ect development costs, ~oth m dzrect cost terms and in terms
of the financfng costs ~n the eig~t ~rojects tested in the feasibil~ty analys~s. these fees and
char~es acco~nt for ~~ ~ to $16 per square foot, or from $15,500 to ~20.40D pzr unit.
Ho~r•ever. the analF~sis concludes that e~en remoti~ing these fees anc~ charges ent~rely- w°o~ild
nat render art~ of the tested development scenarios feasibIz As prevlously discussed, the
high Iand cost in Santa Monica is the o~emdmg constraint to housing development in the
Cit}~ The Ciry-'s de~~elopment fees do not d~rectly impact haus~ng maintenance or
improvement For further analysis of the City's fees and chaxges, refer to the Techn~cal
Appendix emitled `_Assessment of the Crty's Inclus~onar~° Housing Program (Ordunance
161 ~} as a Potential or Actual Constraint an the Develapment of Housang."
6. Process'rng and Permit Procednres
Local eovernments can discourage housing construction by increasing the ti~ne and
uncertainty in~ol~~ed in gaimng development approval to the point that the costs of
pracessmg (includin; carry~ng costs on the praperty) make the pro~ect unecono~nical, or the
complexi~y~ and length of the prvicess discourage all but the most motn~ated of developers
For housin~, per~nrts may be necessan~ from a variett- of departments, such as a permit to
remoti-e rental units from the Rent Con~rol Board, and Plamm~g Commission approval of a
subdivision map and s~te plan I`onetheless, processing t~me for residential projects in Santa
Momca is not excessi~e Non-discretionar;- pro}ects located outside the coastal zone can
complete the re~~eu- process tn three to four months. All others average six to seven months
The actual review time is dependent on the size and location of the pro~ect, and ~.~hether it
is designed to meet City standards or m~~ol~~es requests for deviations from development
standards
Deyelopment occurnng v4~thin the coastal zone is required to obtain appraval of a coastal
deti~elopment perm~t frorn the California Coasta~ Commission, because the City's Local
Coastal Plan has noi been appro~~ed by the Commission_ Some Coastal Commission
de~~elopment guidelines are more strfngent than those adopted b~- the Cin~.
C~t}' of Santa Momca Po~enhal Constramu on
Hous~ng EIement III-26 Housin~ Producnon an~ Conservanan
,
,
~
~
,
'
~
1
1
'
i
~
~
~
'
~
~
'
1
'
The Cit~~ conducts an annual assessment of rts fees to ensure thev reflect the actual cost of
' provit~ing sen~ices Also_ ine C~~~ attempts to keep ~ts fees in line ~~~th similar ~iansdictions
Review~ of fees ch.arged by fi~•e surroundxn~ c~mm~ues indicate that Santa il~ionica's CLTP
applacation fee is haah compared to the fees char~ed by Culver Crt~-. A-lanhattan Beach.
, Redondo Beach. and ~'~~est Holl«~~ood. but is an lzne v~7th that eharged bS- the Crt~- of Los
:~ngeles (refer to :~ppendrx E) Santa ~ionica's fees far s~te plan.%det-elopment revieti~~ and
plan checking are also the hi~hest amon~ the surroundin~ comznunitaes In terms of building
~ permit fees, howz~~er. Santa Vlon~ca fares the lov~~est per $ i 04,OOQ of buildmg ~-aluauon for
multi-familL pro~ects among the surroundm~ communities In fact, the Cin-'s buzlding permit
fees are the ~ov~~est among the 87 crties rn Los ~ngeles Counn~ 0~-erall, the C~t~~'s fees are
' ;enerally con.s~stent ~~zth other cines ~'
' TABLE III-7
CITY OF SAhT~ MOnTICA
PLAl.v'~i'VG-REL?~TED FEES FOR RESIDE\TIAL DEVELOPMENT
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
~
Fee Fee Schedule
Arch~tectvral Rev~e.~•
<=10.000 sfaddition, ~-1SAOO R~li• $363 78
14,000- sf addinon. 1~,000+ ne«~ ~634 02
Cond~t~onal Use Permzc
~-~04 sf S1_361 59
5U0-~.OaO sf S2.052 78
5,0011 sf S2.7;; 5 i
Deed Restr~ction $~63 78
Development A~eement $10,0~0
Deveiopment Review S3.398 7;
Tentative ~ap 51.637 02
Final Map ~649 61
General Plan Arriendment ~3.637 83
Reduced Parkma Permit ~1_0~9 38
Plan Check
<=101 sf $103 94
101-500 sf 5259 85
~00-~_000 sf ~1~ 75
~,OU1+ sf $~71 67
Yard Mod~fication.Nariance $1.0~9 38
Source Ciry of 5anta Monica, Plann~n; Drv~sion, July 1996
,
' ; Most u~estside ~unsduttons ha~e ~ot adopsed taxes related to res~dentsal developmer~t Therefore_ a
comparison oftaxes or~ res~dennal de~~elopment ~n Santa Mon~ca with ather~urisdret~ons ~s not ~ncluded
~n the comparat~ve analvsis of development fees canta~ned u~ Append~x E
, C~t;~ of 5anta Mon2ca Potential Constra~nts on
Hausing Element III-2~ Housing Production and Conservation
,
i
~. On-Site and Off-Site Improvements
V~'hile Santa Momca is fiil~~ developed ~~7th its prima~-~~ infrastructure systems in place,
up~ading of such s}°stems is somenmes necessary to accommoda~e ne«~ de~-elopment_ as
part of the build~ng permit process, the Cin- can require the pro~.-ision of on-site and off-srte
improti~errients necessrtated b~- the de~~elapment. such as irnproti~ements to alieys. curbs and
gutters, streets, side«.•alks and street l~ghts. and utilin~ undergrounding. According to the
Cin='s Entiiror~mental and Public «'arks l~lanagemEnt Department. the avera~e cost af aff-srte
impro~:ements can be g~nerall~- est~mated at l 0 percez~t of the buzldin~ permit valuation The
cost of such improz-ements ma~~ increase the cos# of de~~elopment, u~hich tivouid uit~mately
be passed through to future tenants or oti~~ners ~~%hile these costs do not account for the
difference be~ween a feasible and in feasibiti prro~ect, as a means af addressrng tius issue, this
Element u~c~udes a new pro~a~n to assess the feasibi~ity of modifi~ing off-s~te improvement
regu~rerrtents to reduce housing de~=elopment cost_
4ne infrastructure capaciry limrtat~on «~~ich could patentially ~mpact development in the
Cit~,l relates to sewage treatment Sewa~e from the CinT of Santa Monica is treated at the
Hyperion Se~vage Treatrnent Piant operated by the Cit~ of Los :Angeles_ The Cit~; of Los
~-ngeles has determined that the plant is operaung at or ~~en~ near rts full capacrty, and has
asked alI ~urisdict~ons ~~~h~ch send setivaQe to the H}~rpenan plant to l~mrt the rate of increase
of wastew~ter flo~zng to the plant unt~l such tune as expansion and improvement of the plant
can be accomplished Ho~~~ever. the Cit~~ has nei~er reached rts allocated se~.;~er capacit~- to
date
5. Fees and Taxes
Development fees and taxes charged b~ ~ocal go~-eznz~nents contribute to the cost of hausing
Santa ~lonica charges a~~ar~e~~ of plan~ing-related fees to offset the costs assocxated with
permit processing Fees ~~~hich ma~~ be charaed include• Condit~on.al Lse Permrt (CUP)
applicat;on fee (for example, condomm~ums). administrative appro~al application fee,
development re~~ieti~° permit applycat~on fee, negatiye declarat~on preparat~on fee. tentative
and final map application fees, architzctura~ re~~iev~- application fee, plan checks fees for
processmg by the Cit~~'s Planning Dn~ision. Buiiding and Safety Division, and Envrronmental
and Public Vi~orks Mana~ement Departrnent, and deed-restrictlon application fee for
~nclu5ianar~~ houssng units
Table III-7 lis~s the Crty's adapted planning-related fees for residential develapment. V47ien
a pro~ect requires multiple appl~canons, the C~t~~ places a cap on the combzned planning fees
ta be paid In addit~on to planning fees, constructaon-related fees are also charged to mitigate
a development's impact suci~ as: off-s~te rmpro4ements (discussed earlier}; sewer fees; «~ater
rr~e~er fees_ fire Iine #'ees; and public proper[}- pet~mit fees
~
,
'
'
'
1
'
'
'
'
~
~
,
~
1
'
C~ty of Santa Nion~ca Potentia! Constramts on '
Hous~ng Element III-2a Hous~ng Product~on and Conservat~on
'
,
,
Residential code enforcement in Santa l~•Iamca is perf~rmed on a complaint baszs_ Git~
' records sha« of the 242 complaints filed during FY 199~. onl}- eiaht remained unresolr-ed
at vear's end and requ~red referral ~o the Crt~~ Attorne}-'s Office for fui-ther ac#ion The Ci~
tnes to resol~-e code ~-~oiatxons "~zchout d~splacin~ res~dents _
1 American wrth Disabilities Acf (ADA)
, The Cit~~'s buildin~ code requires ne~; residentia~ construction to comgl~° ~z-ith the federal
American with Disabilrties Act (_ADA} ADA pravisions include requ2rements far a
minimum percentaQe of units in ne«- d~~elopments ta be fully accessible to the ph~~sicali`-
, disabled. Prov~sion of full~~ accessib~e un~ts ma~ also increase the o~•erall pra~ect
develapment co5ts Hotive~~er_ like the UBC_ enforcement of ADA requirements is not at the
discretion of the Cit~°. but is mandated under federal Iar~
, Compliance ~-ith buildin~ cade and ADA requ~rements does increase tY~e cost of housing
production. and can also impact the ~~iabilm- of rehabzlrtation of older properties required to
t be brou~lzt up to current code standards. To the extent the increase ~n cost rnakes the cost
of housing production or rehabilrtation economicallti~ infeasibfe. then rt could sen°e a; a
constraint to housi~~ production or presen-at~on. Ho~tiever, these regulations pro~ide
' minimum standazds that must be complied ~~-ith in order to ensure the developrnent of safe
and accessible housin;
' .Seismic Safety
In response to the 199~ Northridge earthquake, the Cit~- adopted po~icies requ~nng
, retrofitting of "potent~all~~ hazardaus" str~ctures, including unreinforced ~asonr~- structures,
soft-ston- construc~ion. t~lt-~p pre-cas# concrete bu~Idings, steel-frame b~~ldings, and non-
ductile,'re~nforced pre-cast concrete frame bu~Idings An estir~aated 14,000 multi-famiiy units
' have been identified as soft-story constxuction. representing SS percent of the identi~ed
potentially hazardous s~ructures in the Cin~ These soft-stor} units v4~11 be requrred to be
retrofitted to the current earthquake buildm; code design standards no later than 199$. As
' a means of offsemng the retrofit costs to the propertm o~rner, the Rent Control Agency allow°s
for a~0 percent pass throu~h of retrofit costs to the pro~ect tenants through rent increases
' Retrofit costs on soft-star}~ buildin~s m Santa ~Ioniea airerage S6,800 per structure. ti~~th a
cost ran~e of ~~,OQO -~12,000. Accordin~ to Rent Controi staff, eng~neenng costs can be
amortized over a fi~~e-year period and other retrofimn~ costs can be amortized o~-er a 20-yeaz
' period Based on these amortizatian schedules, the average 7-unit bu~lding ~r~th retrofittin~
casts of $6,800 v4~ould be entitled to rent increases of S3 ger uniE per month
, Overall. the Ci~'s reirofit requirements for se~smic safet~~ axe not considexec~ a constraznt to
l~ousing presen~anon as the allo~~able rent pass-throughs and a~~aalabilrtt- of MERL loans can
be used to s~~nificantly off-set retrofittmg costs. AddrtionalIy. over the long-term_ seismic
' upgrading wzll in turn aid in the preser~,~at~on and maintenance of the Cin's hausxng stock
, C~n~ of Santa Momca Potent~al Consn-amts on
Housing Element III-23 Housm¢ Producnan and Conservation
~
,
family pro~ect is n~t feasihle under current and pro~ected near-term market
conditions, and although the rezonmg makes the financial situation of these
proton.fpes "inore negati~~e_" the rezonin¢s themselves aze not the difference
bet«~een a feasible and an infeasible proJect Along ~an Vicente Boule~~ard,
ho«~ever. a project developed under the pre _ that wouId notiti~
appl`- is probabl5- feasible, but a pro~ect de~~eloped under ~he rezoned standards is
not Th~s :s a constraznt in this area, but rt affeets a relativel}' small number of
uruts compared ~i7th the Ci~-'s regional `'fa~.x share" housin~ eoal. and thus ~s not
a constraint from a Crt51~7de perspechve.
• In sum, the rezonings are a potentral. but not an actual constraint Even
considenng that the rezaninas caused an aggre~ate reduct~on in the de~~elopment
potential of four areas of the Crt~ (i e_, about 740 unrts). the Cin- staff estimates
that ~ere ~s a supply of sites a~~ailable in the City that ~s more than sufficient to
accQmmodate the estimate of the Cit~~s "fair share" of re~ronal housuig need. The
rezonzng on San V~cente BouIet-ard that renders an ati~erage pro~ect inf~aszble,
applies to anly a very sma~l part of th~ Cit±c~ s residentially zoned area, and thus
daes not si~ficantl~• affect the Cit~~'s abilit~• to aclue~~e ~ts "fair share" of regianal
housing need. Thus, ~-hatever de8ree of hindrance in future housing production
the rezonin~s may have caused, the rezon~ngs alone w711 not cause a s~gnificant
a~verse impact on the City's ab~lity to achieve its regjonal fair share target for the
1998 - 2403 planrung per~od_
For deta.zled discussion, refer to I'echnical Apgendix entitled `:~ssessment of Four Laxge-
Scale Residential Rezorung Actions as a Potential or Actual Canstraint on the Development
of Housing "
3. Codes and Enforcement
A var~et}~• of build~g and safery codes, while adapted far the purposes of preserving public
health and safety, and ensunn~ the construct~on of safe and decent housing, have the
potential to increase the cost of hous~ng constructian or n.aaintenance.
Uniform Building Code
Santa Mamca is currently vsing the 1994 edit~on of the Uniform Bzulding Code (LJBC) w-ith
local amendments, and adopts updates as the Cade is amended. Ihe UBC contains minimum
building reqi,urements for such ~ssues as znsulation to achieve an intenor noise level of 43
dBA, as well as installat~on of deviceslfixtures that reduce energy° consumpt~on While the
Cit}- is required to enforce the UBC, campliance may somet~mes increase the cost of housmg
praductaon
Cin~ of Santa 1~1on~ca Potential Constramts on
Hous~ng Element III-22 Hozasma Production and Conservat~on
t
'
'
1
'
,
,
,
,
'
t
'
1
1
'
~
i
1
,
'
and San ti'ieente, the ekist~na development star~dards resulted ~n large monolithic structures
' w~ith little or no relat~onship to the existing _ In alI the areas rezoned. ne~-
de~-elopment shifted n~ighborhoods a~~~a~- from mixed dens~tzes to more un~form higher
density der~~elopments out of seale and proportion to the ne~ahborhaad
'
'
,
1
'
~
1
'
,
,
'
~
1
1
'
Although t~e rzzorungs ma~° have reduced permitted ~ensities. the rezorungs accomplished
other Ci#~• goals conta~ned in the Land Use Element and Housing Element These goals
related to the protect~on and presen ation of the existuzg affardable housin~ stock. protectzon.
of the scale and character of existmg resrdzntial neighborhoods, maintenance of the
econoznic and soc~al diversit~- u1 the commumt~-, and reduction of em-iranmental impacts ~n
res~dent~al ne~~hborhoods
An az~alysis of these four rezonin; actrons v~~as canducted for the Cxty as part of this Element
Keti• fndings mclude the follo~~ing
The rezomngs all mean fetiver allotvable unrts per pro~ect For an avera~e pro~ect
that m~ght be proposed in each rezoned area, fewer units can no~~~ be burlt than
v4ere allowed at the time the rezonin~ ~~as initiated. and fevt-er than would be the
case if the gre-rezorung distnct st~ll applied, but «zth the specEfic regulations that
now ex~st far those dismcts This dow~v4°ard ad~ustment is the praduct of chan~es
in ~he m~irr~um ailov~-able number of umts per parcel and changes to the formulas
that define the maximum allowable develop~ent envelope
The rezonangs resi~lt in an aggt-egate reductron of about ?=~0 urats tiyorth of
probahle multi famrly housrng development potenital, hirt thrs reducrron rs not
slgnrfrcant compared tivrth Crry staffs estrmaie of the number of net netii- multa-
family untts that ean be developed elseit°here in the City The rezonings reduced
the housin~ praduction potential b~~ 740 un2ts according to Cit~- staffs estimate
The CiMt's analysis ind~cates that there is a suppl~- of sites (e.~ ,~~acant,
underutilized and nonresidential sites an which dwelling uFUts ma~~ be constructed}
in the City that can accommodate realisucallv 4,Ob8 units. ~ncludmg the remaining
potential Zn the four rezoned areas Thus, the 74Q unrts r~~orth of foregone
de~•elopment potential caused by the four rezon~ngs resulted in a 1~ percent
reduction ~n realistic development potential (i.e . 4;Q68 + 740 pre-rezoning units
~ s 4,Ob8 post-rezaning un~ts) Inasmuch as the ~.068 unrts worth of post-rezonzng
realistic development potent~al exceeds the estimate of th~ Crt~~'s fair share of
re~;onal housing need (i e. 2.4a0 -~.ZaO urats}, this reduction in development
potentfal caused b~ th.e xezonings v4ould not sigr~ificantl~ affect the Ci~'s abzl~ty
to achieve rts fair share target
• ~1lthough the rezonings have an adi~erse e fect on the feasibality of average
pro~ects, thts pmounts to makrng them ' more negatrve " under current market
condrtions In the Ocean Par~: commun~tv. alon~ t~e relevant section of Ocean
Park Boule~~ard and En the ~Tarth of VL%ilsh~re nei~hborhood, a prototypical mult~-
City of Santa Man~ca Potential Constramts On
Hous~n~ EleEnent III-21 Housing Producnon and Conservatton
,
,
Hergfit Bonus: 100 percent affordable hausing pro~ects in non-res~dent~aI zones
are eligibie for he~ght bonus of ten (10} feet sub~ect ta consistency- x~th General
Plan Land Use Elemen.t
Augmented De~sin~ Bonus: In addition to the State-mandated densin= bonus. the
ordinance pro~~ides for an additional densiri- bonus equal to the State densin- bonus
for 100-percent af~ordab~e housm~ proJects. Thus, if a pra~ect uere eligible for a
two-urut bonus, an addrtional tt~°o ur~ts ~~s-ould be possible through tlus prar.~ision_
Reduced Parking Reqt~irements: The Zoning Qrdinaztce contains reduced
parl~ng req~.urements for affordable hous~ng. senior housing, shelters, congregate
care housmg, and transitzonal l~ous~ng. For exampie, deed-restncted one-bedroorr~
units req~re one space per unit rather than the t~~~o normall~- rec~uired_ ~~~hile deed-
restricted ri~-o-bedroom unats require 1 S spaces per unit rather than two spaces per
un2t
Floor Areu Bonus: 100 percent affordable housing pro~ects located in non-
res~dentxal zones are elig2ble fvr a 50 percent floor area bon~s {50 percen.t of F aR
devoted to the un~ts)
2. Effects of Neighborhood Rezonings
Between 1987 and 1993, the Cit~~ CounciI adopted rev~sed development stancta~-ds zn four
areas of the Cit}- These four areas consisted of the Ocean Park nei;hborhood area, the ~orth
o~ Wilsiure Resident~al area, Ocean Park Boulevard betv~~ezn Lu~coIn and 25th Street and San
Vicente Boulevard between Ocean A~~enue and Seventh Street An understanc~in~ of the
histaricaI context of these changes provzdes ~nsight as to their importance to the commun~t~-
Eac~ of the rezo~ngs attempted to control out of scale de~ elopment, protect t~ze quality and
inte~ity of e~sung residential neighborhoods and minirruze potent~al em~ironrnental impacts
caused b5~ increased resident~al densities Tn both the Ocean Park and North of W~lshtre
neighborhaods there «-as a rapid rate of ne~- restdent~al developFnent attnbutable to the
feat~res of the ne~ghhorhoods such as proximiti• to the ocean, diversit}• in the ne~ghborhood
and accessibiht~~ to commercial areas. \rluch of the neu- developrnent altered the character
and scale of ex~sting nei~hborhoods, in some cases, destroytng the very~ qualities that
attracted ne~~ res~dents in the first place
In the axea North of V~~ilshire, perm~tt~d resident~al densaties w•ere 35 arid 48 units to the acre
in contrast to actual densit~es ti~•htch were 42 and ~7 units to acre Tlus neighborhood w~as
one of the most dense areas in the Crty and experienc~ng related problems such as pazk~ng
shortages. increased noise and d~srupt~ons, and tr~c congest~on. In Ocean Park, the uniq~e
mi?cture of sin;le fazniiv }~orr~es. ciuplexes. tnplexes and histoncally significant structures
were rapidly bemg replaced b~~ large m~lti-fami~~r development On Ocean Park Boulevard
Ciry of Santa Monica Potential Constrainu on
Housmg Element 1I1-20 Housing Product~on ar~d Conservation
'
'
~
'
'
'
'
'
'
1
'
'
'
'
~
'
'
i
,
'
The resultma se~~en un~ts is difficult to arrange in a t~~~o-ston ~mld~ng ~~loreo~-er. based on
' a un~t size of 1_2~4 squar~ feet for apartments and 1.~DO square feet far condommiums. the
site cannot accommodate the required 16 parking spaces Further. the buildable en~-elope
does not leati-e enough floor azea to fully accamm.odate ~~o-bedroom mazket rate apart~ments
' or candomimums of the umt size stated abave_
To resoltie these prob~ems_ a der•eloper u~ould probabl~ scale back the pro~ec# to six units
' (f~~e base units plus one of the t~~~o allol~ed densin- bonus unitsl_ includin~ one affordable
urut Under some circumstances_ assu~ning all twa-bedroom unzts and a unit size of 1.2~0
' square feet for ap~ents and 1,400 square feet for condamm~ums, a de~~eloper ma~~ not be
able to full;~• ut~lize the Stat~-authoriz~d densit~- bonus
' As a rneans of addressmg this issue. the Ciri- is proposing a net~~ program (Program -'_.b -
Vlaintain a Density Bonus Prograrri) as part of the EIe~nent to study ~ts de~c~elopment
standards ~r-hich affect the building envelope and to consider rej-asions to such standards as
' appropnate. For a more detazled d~scussion of propern- development standard limitat;ons;
refer to the Technical Appendix entrtled `:Analysis of the R2 Dismct Buildabie Envelope_"
t Additiana! Zoning Incentives for Afforda6le and Speeial ?~'eeds Housing
The effect of the Cin's land use controls are spec~ficall}~ ameliorated for affordab~e housxng
, by various zoning ordinance provisions The Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance contams
numerous incentives specificall;~ designed to facil~tate the dev~lopment of affardable and
special needs housing, including s~nior and senior group housing_ trans~Ezonaf hausmg.
' SRQs, eon~eaate housin~, emergency shelters, and housmg for lo~- and moderate mcorne
households These ~ncenti~-es include
'
,
,
'
'
,
'
Planning Fee Waiver Plaz~ng and Zonm~ re~~~ew fees are «-arved for pro}ects
that are 100 percent deed-restricted for affardable housing.
Speciar111~eeds Housing 6y Right in Residential Zones: Senior and seniar graup
housing. ~ransitional housin~, SRO housing_ congregate housinQ, and domestic
~~iolence shelters are permitted by right rn all multi-famil5= residential dismcts
Special:~'eeds Housing 6y Right in Commercial Zones: Single-famil~r hous~ng.
rnuiti-family housing. shelters of less than ~5 beds, domesuc violence shelters,
cangregate housfng. transitional housing, single room occupancy housing. sen~or
housinb, and1`or seruor ~oup hausing are germitted b~~ n~ht vn the BCD, BSC, C2,
C3. C3C, C4, C6, CM. and CP zones
Exemption from Story Limit: 100 percent affardable hot~sing pro~ects from the
applicable lunrts on the number of stories Such pra~ects are exempt subjec~ to
applicable hei~ht l~m~ts in each zone
C~t;~ of Santa Mon~ca
Hous~ng Element
Potential Constra~nts on
III-19 Housin~ Producuon and Conser~auon
~
,
Yard Setbacks: Lse of setback requirements is one mechanism to provide for Iandscap~ng
an.d open space for resident~al development. Ho~-ever, large setback requirements d~minish
the area of the lot avaiiable far de~°elopment Table III-6 lists the Santa Monica Zoning
Qrdinance reqnirements for min~xnum setbaeks for resident~al det=elopments
In comparFSOn to the _ communrties. Santa Momca has the highest setback
requirements for all residential zones (see ~ppendix E} The differences in setback
requ~rez~nents ran~e from fi~~e to ten feet. or 30 to 70 percent hiaher than the surrounduig
commuruties Ho~i~e~.~er, the Zoning ~.dm~mstrator has ~e discretion to grax~tt a ~-ariance in
front, side, and rear ~°ard setbacks for pro~ects canforFning to the State densrtti- bonus
guidelines_ NSore specif call~~, encroachment of up to 1 S percent of one side ~~ard setback,
and up to 1 ~ percent of either the front or rear vard setback is permitted.
TABLE III-6
VIINIML;M SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
Res~dent~al Distr~ct Front Yard Rear Yard
Smgle-Famiiy (R1) 20 ft 25 ft
Lotiti• Density Multi-Family (R2) IO f[ l5 fc
Med~um Densxty Multi-Fam~h• {Ri) 1~ ft ]0 ft
Hi~h Denstty Multi-Family (R4) 20 ft 1~ ft
Cumulative Properly Development Standards Limitations
While the City`s xesident~al development standards, considered separately, are not unduly
burdensome compared to other surraundmg camrnunities. there are scenanos where tile
effects of these standards ~r-orkin~ cwnulanvely. could sen~e as a constr~unt to hausmg
de~~elopment
As part v#~this Element update, an anal~~sis was conducted of m~imtun acnievabie building
en~~elope m the Crt}'`s RZ D~strict. The R2 District v~~as chosen because tl~te prepanderance
of pro~ects proposed in the Cin~ in recent vears u-ere located in this district; and because the
R2 Drstrict has the Iar~est number of sites where new deveIopment appears likeh- in the
future. The analysis concludes that the current building em~elope standards and parking
standard limit the maximtun achievable number of units m some development scenarios
The standard R2 lot ~n Santa Monica is 7,a00 square feet. providzng fi~e d«elling un.xts b~-
right The C~t~'s inclusionar;~~ housing ordinance requires that one unit of a base fi~e-umt
pro~ect be affordable ta a law-income household. This, in tum, tnggers the State densii~~
~vnus req~.urement. A densrty bonus of at least 25 percent on top of tl~e five base units adds
another two unrts. ~or a total of seti•en allowable unrts_
C~ty~ of Santa Mon~ca Potennal Constraints on
Housin; Element III-]S Housu3g Product~on and Conservation
,
,
'
'
'
~
,
'
'
~
'
1
'
~
~
'
'
,
,
'
1
t
'
t
'
'
1
~
~
'
'
Parlung Requ~rements: Santa Vlamca's Zon~n~ Ordmance requ~res parlang to be calculated
on a per bedroom bas~s Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinar~ce. t~~-o parl:ina spaces in a garage
are required far a single-fam~ly residence For multi-famil~r rental housing, the parking
requirements are- 1 covered space per studio'efficieneZ~ unrt. 1 ~~paces per one-bedroom
umt; and 2 spaces per unit u-ith tuo or more bedrooms The parkang requirements for
condornmiums are s~ightl~~ higher than those for rental hou~m~ 1 co~~ered space per
studio~`efficienc`- unit. and 2 spaces per umt «;~ith onz or more bedrooms
To facilitate the development of particular iti~pes of hous~g and to reflect rhe actual parking
demands created b~- these developments, the CFt~- has adopted reduced parkin~ requirements
far senior housing. shelters, congxeQate housing_ transitional housing. and afforda~le housing
~enerally~ These "as of riai~t" parkmg standards are des~gnzd to address the unique nature
of each of these housina types For example_ affordable. deed-restricted one-bedroorn units
are required to have 1 space per u~ut rather than 1~ for apartments and 2.0 for condam~mzuns
as requ~red, sumlarl}', affordable_ deed-restncted ri~•o-bedroom umts are requ~r~d to ha~~e 1 5
spaces ~er unit, a reduction from the star~aara ~'-space requirerrient Parlcing requ~rerrients
for senior group hous~ng are reduced from 1 space per ~nrt to 0 5 spaces per unrt, and ma;~
be reduced further to 42~ spaces per unit for un~ts restricted to lou~ and moderate inconrie
households Cin' policies also estahlish a standard of Q_S space per un~t for marke#-rate SRO
(single room occupancy} projects and 0_2~ space per umt for SROs affordable to lo~~ and
moderate income households
Appendix E pro~~ides a comparison of parlcing requirements adopted by Santa Monica ar~d
b~- the surroUndin~ commuix~~ties In comparison, Santa Monica has the secand lo~~~est
parking requirerr~ent for m~lt~-family rental housing arriong the six commu~ities researched;
the Cit~ of Las Angeles has the lowest mult~-fami~y parlang requirement. For condomiruum
un~ts, Santa Monica's parking requirements are hF~her than those adop~ed bt~ the cities af
V4'est Holl;•u-ood and Las Angeies, but are lo~~er than t~ose adapted b~~ the cities of Cul~~er
Cin-, Redondo Beaeh. and Manhattan Beach Parkm~ requirements for sin~le-family
res~dences are fairly compazable across the six communrt~es Santa Momca's guest parkin~
requiremen~ are the lawest among the six commun~ties e~~aluated
, Ho~rever, in anatyzang the financial feasil~i3rty- a£a t;pic~l m~lti-fa~uly housmg t~eveloprz~ent
on a 7,~04-lot in the R2 zone, sa~ne issues anse. First. the recentl~~ enacted reduction in
parking zequirements for affordable units mav not be realized due to the requirement of
' another part of the zanin~ code which requires fractional spaces of 0~ or more to be rounded
up to the next r.vhole number of spaces Second. rh~ comb3ned effect of the park~ng and
envelope standards estabhshed by ~he City~ could limrt the maximum achie~-able number of
' units in some development scenarios This cumulative effect is discussed in detail Iater in
this section.
'
' C~ty af Santa Momca Potential ConstraEnts on
Hous~ne Element III-] 7 Hoas~n~ Producuon and Conservat~on
'
,
The Cit~~ fiu~ther fac~litatES the development of homeless and specia~ needs hausing through
a~•ariety of zon~n~ and re~ulatar~:- de~~elopment ~ncentives These include special housing
de~~eloprrient standards (Sec 9 04 16 14 030} includin~ height and densit}~ bonuses; reduced
setback requirements, and reduced unexca~ated area requirer~nents. reduced parking
req~irements (Sec 9 0~ 10 OS 040). and glanning fee c~-ai~~ers
Residential Development Standurds
The Cm-'s reszdential developmem standards contain several pra~~isions which m~ght affect
housxng affoxdabzIat~~, zncluding rr~axi~nurri lot co~erage requ~rernents, l~mits on permitted
number of stanes, front yard setback requirements for multi-famil~~ deyelopment_ a
discretionan~ reviev4~ process far multi-family projects exceeding specific site review~
thresho~ds. and reduced allaw~able densrties in some nei~hborhoods The follov4ring
discussion examines these deve~opment standards as well as Iacal regulatzons that senTe to
address potential barriers to the prot~ision of housmg_ For the purposes of ca~rtparison;
residen-txal de~.~elopment standards adopted b~- several surrounding communities (Gulver City',
~~~est HoIly-~~~ood, Redonda Beach, Manhattan Beach. and Los Angeles) were researched
Appendtx E of #his Element summarxzes the residential development standards for these
cornmunfues
Lot Coz~erage anc~ Stor~- Limitations: Apart from densfty speczfied in the zomng
ordinance, tu~o standards that may affsct t~e nunnber af units that can be constructed on a
gi~~e~ lot are max~mum lot caveraae and height limits Santa i~iomca s zoning ordinar~ce
restricts the aFnount of Iot area tliat may be covered bv de~e~opment to ~0 percent in all zanes
(except R1 u-here the maxfmwm lat covera~e is 40 percent), and limits the heiaht of R2
de~-elopment to 2 stories (30 feet). R3 ta 3 stanes (~0 feet), and R4 to ~ stones (4~ feet)
In part to mit~~ate the effect of these lat coverage requirements upon affardable haus~ng, the
Cit;~• has adopted standards that give the Zaning r~,dministrator the authority~ to grant an
increase in parcel co~~eraee br up to ten percent of the parc~l area for pro~ects conforming
La state densrty bonus guidelines The City- has also adopted a provision to exempt 100
percent affordable housing pro~ects from applicable limits on the number of stories. provxded
that the height remains witlun the applica~le limit in feet
Santa Moruca's rzsiden~ia~ heiaht limits far single-famil~' and low density muIti-faznil~
residential zones are generally comparable to those adopted by surrounding commurz~ties
In medium density and lugh densit~ multi-fam3ly residentia] zones, Santa ~onica's hei~ht
Iimits are similar to those adopted by the Cit~~ of VVest Hollywooc~. and slgnificant~y hieher
than those adopted b}~ the crties of Culver City, Redondo Beach. and 11~ianhattan. Beach (see
Appendix E). As can be expected for a}~~hl}~ urbanized area, the City of Los Angeles has
si~ntficantl~~ greater ~e~ght hmrts than anti~ of the surveyed ~urisd~ctrons.
'
1
1
'
'
1
1
'
1
'
~
~
'
'
'
'
C~ry ofSanta h1on2~a Potential Cons~amts on '
Hous~n~. Element III-lb Housmg Production and Canservanon
'
,
'
and protect ex~st~n~ mobilehome parks as de~~elopments that offer alternatzre t~pes of
' residential Luuts and opporturunes for a:ftardable hausing The Cm°'s ri~-o mobilehQnrke parks
~ad onginallS~ been established as an intenm use requiring a conditional use permit
~ Transitional Housing, Emergene~ Shelters and Other Special l~eeds Housing: Table
r~r-s il~ustrates tne Cin~'s ele~~en prit~ac-}~- resrdentiat zanm6 districts and a~lotiiab~e
homeless-related residential uses {Table III-3 delineates the same for the Cit~~'s non-
' resident~al distncts} Ti1e Crt~'s zonrna ordinance specificall~~ pro~'ides for trans~tional
housing in all rts multi-famil}~ residential zones, as w-ell as in ali ~ts commercial zones
Homeless shelters are condrtionally permitted m six residentaal distncts, and ~n all non-
t residential zones except for one Th.e C~ty also specifically pro~-ides for hospice facilrties and
domestic violence sheIters m all res~dential zones, and Single Room Oceupancies fn all
multi-famil~ zone districts
' T ABLE III-~
, HOMELESS AnD OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
IN RESIDE'~TTIAL DISTRICTS
'
'
,
~
'
'
'
'
,
t
r
L
~ 't:
~
~ J
V L
~ j
~
S ~ ~ ~
Q U ~
~ ~
Zane Distr~cts
'~'
~
~
p
~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~ z
iJ~ °
~ _ ~
w
R1 S~ngle Family / /
R2R Low Densiry Duple~ / /
R2 Low Densit~• Multi-Residential J / / /
R3 Vled~um Density Multrfarrfil}• J d / CUP /
R4 H~gh Dens2ty M~Iri-fam2ly / J ./ CliP /
RVC Residential-V~simr Commercia] / / / CL`P /
OP-1 Ocean Park Suig[e Family / /
OP-D Ocean Park Duplex / J
OP-2 Ocean Park Low• Mult~-Residennal / / / CliP J
OP-3 Ocean Park Med~um Niult~-Ftesident~al / d / ~LP /
OP--~ Ocean Park High ~Ault~-Res~dent~al ~/ f ~ CliP f
Ctty of Santa Monica
Housins Elerr~ent
/- Permitted - ~at permirted
C[:P - Cond~uonaE
Patential Cons~a~nts on
III-1~ Houszna Producnon and Conservanon
~
,
'
TasLE rir-a
AFFORD,ABLE HOtiSING PROJECTS DEVELOPED '
IN CO~Z':VIERCIAL ZONES AS OF 4CT4BER 1.,1996
Locat~on No/Ty-pe of tinits Status -
142~ Second Street 44 SRO units Certificate of Occupanc~ Granted
1328 Second Street 36 5R0 umts Certificate of Occupancy Granted
815 A;hland Avenue 4~ fam~f~~ unrts Certificate of Occupancy Granted
~~41 5t~ Street 3~ low~er-income units Pendine Plamm~g Appro4als
1445 ~Fh 5treet 33 lower-income units Pend~ne Planri-ng Approvals
1128-I I44 ~th Street ~2 low~er-mcome umts Pendme Plann~ng Appror•als
1637 ~,ppian ti'4'ay ~~ Io~~•er-~ncome un~ts Planc~~n~ ~pprorals Granted
2807 Lincoln Blvd 4b Iower-~ncoine unrts Plamm~~ Approvals Granted
1 l44 12th Street I7 total umts (mciudinQ 4
lo«-er-mcorne umts) Lnder Construction
1422 7th 5treet ?8 mod~rate-mcocr~e unrts C;nder Construcnon
1430 7th S~eet 28 moderate-income unrts Under Canstruction
1422 6th Streec 28 moderate-mcame unzts Under Canstruction
Total Lnits 389 Un~ts
'
,
'
'
~
~
Source C~ty of Santa Mon~ca Hous~ng Diviston_ October 1946 '
Provisions for a Yariety of Housing Types
1
Housina element iaw spec~fies that ~unsdichans rnust identify~ adeguate sites ta be made '
available throu¢h appropraate zonm~ and de~~eIapment standards to encourage the
dzvelopment of a varrety of t~pes of housing for all income levels, includin~ multi-farnil~~
rzntal housing, factor~--~auil~ housing, mobilehames. emeraenc~~ shelters, and trarisit~onal
housing. While thzs section on Land lise Controls along u-~th the earlier chapter an the '
Cin~"s Residential Site inventor~~ addresses pra~isions ~'oz multi-famil~ ho~smg, the
f~llouing paragraphs w-ill more specificall~~ descr~be the City's pro~isions for factory-btult
housing, mobilehornes, emergenc~~ shelters, transihona~ housing, and other horneless-re~ated '
housing
Factory-Built Housing: Pursuant to State lav~°. the Crty expIicithr persnrts manufactured ~
housing placed on a permanent #'aundation in all rts residential zanes. Such h~using is
suh~ect to the same development standards and desi~n re~ie~~ criteria as st~ck-bu~lt housing
as set forth by the zaning dismct '
i~Iobilehomes: T'he City has established a mobilei~ome pax3~ zone as a aneans of protect~n~
mobilehomes m its jurisdiction_ As stated in the City~'s Zonin~ Ordinarice, `~he R-VIH '
District is intended to irnplernent policies contained v~zthin the Land Use Element ta preserve
Gty of Santa Monica Potential Constrainu on ,
HousmQ Element ITI-14 Ho~smg Product~on and Conservat~on
t
,
1
' T~BLE III-3
RESIDENTZAL DEVELOPMEVT IN NON-RES~DEI~TIAL DISTR~CTS
, ~ I
'
'
i
1
'
'
1
'
'
'
'
~
'
1
i
Zone D~str~cts
~=
~ I +.+
v
~ Q
H
O
~
i - x
_ s
V !
Sd
:J
~ ~ f
~ _ ~
~ ~
^~
r~/~ y
^ L
"~
G
i O ~
~ U
~
~ i ~
~~~
~~
L L
J~ .Ii
1
~ i
.7
~ ~
N ~
~v : n
v ~
L i
:.~ ~
~ u
~~~
~~
:I I ry~
C~ C.i
~ I U
C ' ~
.~.. I ..r
BCD Broadu~ay Commercial j/ / r~ ~/ ~/ ~/ j i/ / / ~ CUP
CP Commerc~al Professior~al ! / ~ / ~ / : / / / / / I CUP
RVC Residentiaf-V~srtor Cotnmercial I~~ / I/ / ~/ / rI ; ~
CM via~n Street Special Commercia[ / / . ~ i N ' d / ~ / / ' / C~P
CC Cir~ic Center' ~ / ~ ; / i ~ ; - ; r/ ' ~/
C2 Nei~hborhood Commercial' / ! / / / d d : ~/ / +/ CUP
C3 Dov~-ntowr Commerc~al /~/ r r / / ~/; / tiI CCJP
GC Dowrto~n Overlav / ~ / / ~ / / d -/ ~ / ~ / i C[iP
C~ Hi~hwa.~ Comrnerc~a]' ' -~ / ; / ; / ° / ~ / ~/ ~ d ~ /
I CUP
C~ Spec~ai ~ffice Commercial CUP /~ ~/ / /~/ C~~ I CUP
; / CliP
C6 Boulevard Commercial' ; i/ ~ / i / /
~ ~/ ': / / ' / ~/ CUP
BSC Bayside Commerczal i/ ~ ; / ~ / / / / ~ / / GUP
Lh15 D L~ght Manufactur~ng and =/ j ~/ :/ i ~/ d~ . l ~/ ; CUP
Stad~o' ~ I ~ . ` - '
~ €
~ I
Ml
Industr~al Conservat~on ~ CUP I~' / i/ •
/
i/ /' GUP CUP
f CUP
/ Perm~~ted
CUP Condrt~onal Use Perm3t Required -= Not Permitted
Notes
1 ~errnmed uses as spec~fied in the Civ~c Center Specific Plan Flar~ permrts iive;ia•ork space,
indicated on ma~x as artist snad~os
? Mul~i-family res~dentjal ~s permitted ~n the C? Neighborhoa~ Commerc~a! Dist alan~ Montan a
_ Multi-family~ resident~al is permrtted m the C4 Hiahw~av Commerc~al Dist alonQ L~ncofn~Pico
~ Mnlti-fam~ly~ residennal is permitted m the C6 Boulevard Commerc~al Dismct alon~ V4`ilshEre
5 Arf-s~ Studios are permrtted in LyISD Light ~Sanufactur~n' and St~d~o Dismct w•here not more
t~an ~0 percent of the space is residenual
C~t~~ of 5anta Nion~ca
Hous~ng Element
Potential Constra~nts on
III-l~ Hous~na Producuan and Conservanon
'
~
fulfillFnent of the Crty's s.219 unrt reQional needs require~nents are n.ot dependent upon
increased development rn these zones
Second units ~tiould not add signifcant~v- to the City's housing stoek. Even if the
Cin~ «ere ta 1Fberalize rts second unrt ord~nance, rt is unl~kel~- t~at second unrts would
have a s~~nificant ~mpact on the ne«,~ housmg stock during this p~anning period The
nna~orrt~- af requests for second units in single-family dzstncts wauld l~ke1~- be foz
le~alization o#' existing "bootleg" uiuts and not fox the construction of new houszng
llriiiS
Second units wou~d not provide affordable rental honsing. The Citti• does not
believe that neti~ly constructed second unrts would necessarily be affordable. The Crty
has no abilst}~ to control tY~e rents on these unrts ~der the Rent Control Ordinance as
the~• w-ould be exemgt as ne~~~ construction, and these units are also not sub~ect ta
Propos~tion R Inclusionary' Housina requirements Data pro~ ide~ by the Rent Control
Board trackin~ the rent levels of unrts decontrolIed as a result of Costa-Hawkins
derzaonstrates that tk~ese unrts are losmg their affordab~litv G~~°en the rent levels
commanded for these umts_ there is no reason to believe that neti~~l~~ constructed second
unrts would be offered at affordable rents
Beca~se of these cansxderations, tl~e City does not consider second units to be an integraI parl
of Santa Monica's overall program s~rate~~ to proactively ass~st in both product~on and
pres~r~~auon of affardable housing
Provrsians for Housing in 1Van-Residential Zones
In addit~vn to the range of residential zonina distncts described abo~re, the Cih' allows a
vanetr of resident~a! de~~elopment in non-resfdential zones {refer to Table III-3) Mare
spec~f cally, multi-family hous~ng is permztted by nght zn BCD, CP, RVG, Ch~, C2_ C3
C3C_ C4, C6, arid BSC ~stncts Suci~ housang is also cond~tionall~~ permitted in the MI and
C~ distncts llrToreover. ~n several districts. the Crty offers speciat ~ncentives for housing
In the C3, C3C, and CM districts, an~~ floor area de~oted to residential use is eligible to
receive a~:4R (Floor !~rea Ratio) d~sco~nt of SO percent In BCD, C2. C4. and C6 distncts_
the Crty offers tncreased density if at lea.st 3Q percent af the FAR is residential_
The Cit~~ has been successful in encouragina residentiaE development in its commercial
zones, r.~-it~ 2~5 utvts constructed bet~reen July 1989 and March 1996, both w~thm free-
standin~ multz-fama~y de~~eiopments and as mixed-use projects integrated w•ith
retaiLkestaurant and/or office uses Of these, three pro~ects tataling 12~ uruts are 100
percent affordab~e to lo« and moderate income households (14~°/a of Count~r median
uicome) In additian, as illustrated in Table III-4, nine more affordable pro~ects, totaiing
26~ addrtional unrts, are in the de~~elopment process in commerciat zones
1
'
t
~
,
1
1
1
'
i
'
~
~
~
~
'
City af Santa Momca Potent~a3 Constramts on '
Housmg Element III-12 Housina Producnon and Conservat~on
'
~
'
1
'
1
'
~
,
'
'
~
'
'
'
~
1
~
'
Provrsions.for Second Units
Seco~td units are defned as an atta.ched or detached dv4e~ling unrts which pro~~ides complete,
independent l~~~ng facilities for one or mor~ persons including permanent prot-isians for
li~=mg. sleepin~, cooking and sanitation, located on the sa~me lot on as t~e prirna~-y st~nictwre
On October 1~, 1996_ the Santa I~~omca Crtv Councrl adopted an intenm ordinance making
the findzngs zequxred b~-1a«~_ clanfy7ng the existin¢ palicy of allo"~n~ second un~ts m multi-
family disuzcts These circumstances xnc~ude alloti~~ances for ;econd umts ~n single-famil~°
zones for the use of dependents of rhe propem- awner. such as elderl}~ relati1-es or ph~ sicalli~
or mentall~~ disabled adult children, or care gir~~ers of the propem- o«~ners or dzpendents of
the propert}• o«:ner; such as health care pro~-iders This ordmance represents a modification
of the Cin~'s previaus regulations which precluded development of second units in the Rl
and OP1 districts under an~~ eircumstances
The Crt~' Conncil's polic~° to ljmrt pro~-isions for second uruts in single-famil~° zones is based
on their concern ~or preserv~n~ the qualit~~ af life ~n those limited singie-famil~~
neie~borhoods remauitng ~n tY~e cammunit~~ Residentfal streets ~n the Cit~-'s R-1 and OP1
c~istricts are a~readv impacted br #raffic and park~ng from the hundreds of thousands of
people who v~-ork in the crt5-, visft the city, or comrnute ou~ of the cit~~ on a dail}~ basis In
addit~an, in portions of the crty, the commerc~al zones which run along the cit~~'s ma~or east-
«est thorou~fares are adaacent to R-1 neighborhoods. and further impact the qualit}° of l~fe
in these n.e~ahborhoods w~th traffic; noise and parkmg spillo~~er :Vloreover. a substantial
number of second unrts alread~- exist fn the cit~-~ s R-1 nei~hbarhoads, bu~lt erther as
`'accessory un~ts'' and nat permrtted for d~.~~ellmg. or built allegall~~ ti~-ithout permrts Taken
together, these factors resu~t in single famil~• ne~ghborhoods which are already noisxer. and
more subject to par~un~ and trafFic prabiems than their zoxung designations ~vould indicate
During publ~c hearings held before the Plann~ng Commission and Crt~~ Cotu~cil in Sept~mber
and October 1996 on the CitF~'s proposed interirn second unit ordinance. a s~gnificant nu~nber
of residents exgressed the~r concerns about perm~ttulg the deti-eIopment of additiar~al second
uruts in the R-1 and OP1 d~stncts These concerns included. the creatzon and exacerbation
of traffic and parkin~ problems. mordinate demand an the infrastructure of older
neighborhoods planned ta accommodate R-T densrties; increased noise, increased atr
pollutfon, security- nsks. and the ~ack of qu~et, peaceiul spaces m the comrnunzt~~ The Cit~-
increased au pollut2on. securit~~ risks. and the lack of quiet. peaceful spaces xn the
commumtF° The City~ Council's policy decisaon to l~mit the clrcu~nstances under u-hich
second unFts are permjtted m singie fami~y zones reflects the consensus a~ publ~c opinian
presented bath orally and in wnting at these public heanngs
The limitatjon of second unrts in the R1 and OP1 dismcts is nat view•ed as a constra~n# upon
~e develapment of housmg for all income ~evels ~n Santa I1~lonica for the fo~low-~na reasans:
Adequate sites are not dependent an second units. The C~h~~s resident~al srte
inventory for the 1948-2003 period canta~ned in Szct~on II D of the element
demonstrates the Crt}' has adequatel}- zoned land at appropriate densities to fulfill rts
reg~onal hous~ng grow-th needs b~~ zncome leti-el ~'ith onl~~ 16 ur~rts of the Santa
Mamca's over 4.000 unit grow-ti~ patential occumng in the R1 and OP1 d~stncts,
C~t;~• of 5anta Momca Potential Constramts on
Housin~ Element III-i 1 Housmg Production and Conser~~ation
~
1
TABLE III-2
EXISTItiG ZO~TIVG DESIG~iATIUNS
Zone Types
Commerctal
Reside~t~ai
R1- S~ngle Family Res~dem~al
R2A- Low,• Dens~tti' Dupiex
R2 - Lo4;• Densiry ti4ultiple Fam~ly Residentiai
R2B - Low Dznsit;~ Multiple Fam~l;• Residentiaf Seach D~str~ct
R.i - Med~um Dens~ty Mult~ple Farnil~• Resident~al
1~R - Med~urn Densi~' hlulttple Famil~• Coastal Res-dent~al Dismct
R~ - H~;h Densiry Vlultiple Famii~~ Residential
OP I- Ocexn Park Sinale Fam~l~~ Residential
QPDU - Ocean Park Duplex Residential
OP2 - Ocean Park Low~ Mu1t~ple Family° Residenual
OP3 - Ocean Park Medium Mutt~ple Residential
OP~ - Ocean Park H~gh Multiple Fam~ly Residential
R2-NW - Lo~v Densit~• Multiple Famcly~lVorth of Wilshire
R3-NVV -~4edium Densrty Multigle Family:'I~orth of V4'ilshtre
RVG - Res~denual-V~srtor Cammercial
R~UIH - Res~denual Mobile Home Park
Industrial
Civic
Parics
Airport
Beach and Beach ParkmQ`
TOTAL
Percentof
Acres Cih- Total
S37 1 S 40°%
1.6$8 ~1 ~3°ro
1Q 0 18°ro
976 1$I7%
14 0 26%
18~ .i 40%
? 0 0~%
?? 0 ~0%
15 0 28%
~ 0 14°ro
26.i ~ 89%
11 0 20%
?S 0 ~2%
224 4 17%
84 I ~6%
7O 1 JO°r0
l l Q ?~%
~7' 7 ~7%
53 0 98°io
14I ? 62%
] 99 .i.70°10
16~ 3 ~5°.b
~_~70 100 00°0
T Beath and beach parkmg areas are not xoned
Source City of Santa Monrca, City-wzde GIS. Jar~uary 1997
The R2 zone. one of the Crt~~'s lo~est density and most pre~•alen~ zone distnc~s, pxo~°ides for
a mmimum densrty of 1,~fl0 square feet per unit. or the equi~alent of approxunately 29 umts
per acre Tlus densit~- exceeds the 2~ unrt per acre benchmark typicalIy utflized by the State
Departm~nt of Housm~ and CommUnity Development (HCD) as the minimum densrt~~
t~reshold necessary to achieve housin~ affordab~e to lo~~er zncome househoIds in ~rbanizecl
areas. Furtlzermore. the Cit~~'s expenence has sho~n that most mult~-famil~~ pro~ects qualif;~
for ~he State densit;.~ bonus rvhen fulfill~ng ;nclusionar;~ housing ob~igations on-site The
Cit~-'s highest dens~ty multi-family zone district_ R~, proti~des for a rnirumum density of 900
square feet per unit, the equi~~alent of approximately 4$ ur~its per acre In compar~son w-ith
most Southem Califomia~ur~sdictions, Santa 1~ion~ca is both zoned and developed at higher
overal~ residential densrties
,
~
~
~
'
~
~
'
'
~
,
'
'
~
'
~
C-ty of Santa hlomca Potentzal Constraints on ,
Hous~g Element III-1~ Housmg Prod~ction and Conservation
i
,
1
1. Land Use Contrals
~ The Cin- re~ulates ti~te ty~pe. locat~on, densit~-, and scale of residennal development pnmaril~-
through the Zonmg Ordinance In general. the Crt;~'s zanm~ re~ulations are deszgned to
balance the goal of prot~~ding affordable housin~ opportunrtzes far all income groups with
' the ~oals of protecting the health ar~d safety of residents and preserE~ing the character and
intear~ry af e?c~sting nei~hborhoods
' Overview of Zoning Categories and Densities
, Based on existing (149b} zomn~ designauons. 3.61~ acres of }and in Santa lbionica arz
devoted to resident~al uses. representin~ b7 percent af thz Cin's land area ~refer to Table III-
2} Commercial zoning distnets also permrt residential de<<elopment (discussed m detail
iater}. providm~ an additional 13 percent (709 acres) of the Cfttr's land area for residential
' uses. Table E-~ in Appendix E provides a companson of residential iand use allocation
among several ~vestside/south bay ~ur~sdictians Including residentral uses permitted by nght
in cammercial zones. Santa ~1on~ca has designated tY~e largest proport~or~ o~ its Iand ~or
' residential uses among the six cammuruties ez°aluated Resident~al zomng distncts in Santa
Monica include the follow~ing.
' R1 Szngle Famzly Resident~al--one ~nrt pez parcel
R2R Low- Denszt~ Duplex--mznzmum 1,~00 square feet of lot area per umt
R2 Law Density N1ult~ple Resident~al--mirumum 1,~~0 square feet af lot area per
u~t
' R2B Low Densrty Viultiple Resideniial Beach District - one du-elling umt per
1.~00 sc~uare feet of Iot area on lots larger than 4,000 square feet
~ R3 N1ed~um Density Mu~tiple Famzly Restdentiai--minimum 1.2~D square feet
af lot area per unrt
R3R ~iedi~n Dens~ty Multiple Family~ Coastal Residential Dxstrict - one dwellin~
umt per 1:?00 square feet of iat area on lots iar~er than 4_040 square feet
' R4 Hi~h Densit~T _1~[ultiple Famiiy Resident~al--rriiFUmurn 900 square feet of lot
area per unrt
OP 1 ~cea.c~ Park Smgle Family Residential--one unit per lot, no secon.d unrts
, OPDL' Duplex Residential--two un~ts per lot
OP2 Ocean Park Lov-w '_vlult~ple Residentaal--one d~r-e~lin~ per 2.000 square feet of
' lot area
OP3 Ocean Park Medium Mult~ple Residential--one urut per 1.~00 square feet of
lot area
~ OP4 Oeear~ Park High Niultiple Resident~al--one unit per 1?~0 square feet of lot
area
,
'
' Cin~ of Santa Mon~ca
Housin~ Element
~
Potenhal Constramts on
[II-9 Housin~ Product~on and Conservatxon
,
B. POTE~ITIAL GOVERVMEl~TAL CONSTRAI\TS
Th~s secnon of the EIement evaluates «~hether an~~ go~-ernment regulation ~n Santa l~ian~ca
acts as a constra~nt to the product~on, maintenancz, or impravement of housing for all income
groups. In assessmg ~°hether a cin~ pro~ram operates as an actuaI constraint on housan~
production, this Element uses the follav~~ng defin~tion of "actual goti ernmental constxaint"
:~ program will constrtute an actual ~overnmental constraint on ne~~~
haus~ng product~on wrthin the meatun~ of Government Code ~
6~~83(a}(4) if the program, either indn-idually ar in combinat~on ~~-~th
other goi-ernmental programs, has a sxgz~.ficant adv~rse impact on the
Cit~~'s abiliry to meet rts fair share of ~he reaional need for additianal
housin~ determ~ned in accordance ~n°ith the Sautherz~ California
Assaciatian of Go~-ernments' regional housing need ailocauon process
Operatzonall~•, this Element interprets this definit~on to mean that a"constraint" is a Cit~-
poltct- or program that substantialiy interferes .~-cth the abilit~~ of the market to praduce ne«~
housEn~ in Santa Monica. as measured hv the Crt~ pro~am's ;mpact on the econamic
feasibilrty of an average pzoject that «-ould be undertaken by a reasonably expenenced and
~ell-informed propert~ ow~ner ar develaper.
Local governxnent can affect the production of housing in a vanety of ~4a}~s, zncluding
~~rrxrt~n~ the land designated for residential de~-elapment and.~or the densit~es at uThich that
de~~eloprnent can occur, imposing fees ar exacttons (park and recreation taaces, permit
processing fees, etc ), and rzquinng len~h~- re~ie«~ periods pnor to approval or denial of a
pro~ect_ Ho~~:ever, rt xs important ta recb~uze that the ~oal of produc~ng addit~onaI hous~ng
may at t~m.es conflict ~~7th other Crty~ goals, such as the des~re to provide sufficient open
space and recreat~on facilities, the des2re to protect unique en~~ironmental features and
histonc resources, and the desire to ensure the health and safett~ of the C~t~'s res~dents by
maintairnng the current le~-e1 of commumt`- services and infrastn3.cture Additional~}-,
housing production goals rnay conflict wlth housxng goals related to the presen~ation and
main~enance of the existing housing stock_ and the provision of affordable hvusing far ali
econorn~c segn:ients of the community The Cin-'s ex~enence has been that wzthout
governmental reguIat~on. affordable housin~ has not been produced by the marketplace when
exist~ng hausing is rec5-cled Ihe need for hausin~ praduction for alI econornic segment of
the comrnuniri- must be balanced against these other Crty gaals I~his Element exammes the
effect of existin~ ~a~emmental regulataons on overali housmg production. the presen~ation
and maintenar~ce of existing housmg, and the proviszan of affordable nausang
'
'
'
~
'
~
'
'
'
~
~
,
~
~
,
~
City of Santa 14ionica Potent3al Constraints on '
Housm~ Eleme~t III-$ Housmg Producnon and Conservat~on
'
,
,
,
~ Tract
TABLE III-1
DISPOSITIOh OF HOl~7E PURCH_ASE LQANS ~YD
H~RZE IMPRO~~ ENIENT LOA~ S BY CENSL S TR.~CT
Tract Home P~rchase Loans Hom~ Irnprovement Loans
l~ll"W[lC
Ler•el' Appl'n Orib % Or-g Appl'n Or~g % Orig
7012 O1 Lpper 1?~ 74 60 2°io 17 1Q 58 8°io
~ 7012 0? L"pFef ~~ .i4 64 2°•'0 17 9 52 9°,'0
701~ O1 ~pper I~4 78 ~$?% 2~ I1 ~7 S°•o
?O1~ OQ Upper 59 28 ~' S°'o 11 4 ~6 4°•'0
, 7Q1~ O1 Upper 59 ~~ 5; 5°0 27 21 77 8°,0
7U16 Q1 Upper 96 62 6~15°,% 3~ 39 ~7 6°io
, 70? 1 00 L~pper 15~ 75 ~0 4°:0 12 ~ 41 7°io
7022 O1 L:pper 66 ~2 63 b°,% I6 ]0 62 5°.0
7022 Q2 UPPer 63 39 6i 9°~o I7 ID 58 $°~o
' 702~ 0~ Lpper 1?? 68 >j 7% .i 1 I7 ?~ 8°;0
Tota[ lipper Income 925 S.i4 ~7 7°% 20.'[ 116 ~6 9°~0
, ~o>> oz ?~1~ddle 54 l9 3~ 2% 6 l 16 7°,0
7~15 02 M~ddle ~2 18 ~6 ~°.0 4 4 100 0%
~016 02 M~ddle 46 ~0 6~ 2% 9 4 ~l~ 4°.0
' 7017 O1 lbl~ddle 42 21 ~D 0°iu S 4 SQ4°o
7U17 02 Ibl~ddle 10 6 b0 0°,/0 2 0 0 0%
~ 7019 00 M~ddle 3 1 3~ .i°~o 4 Z ~0 0%
7020 00 M~ddle 105 ~b ~~ ~°.0 1~ 8 53 3°e
' Total Middle In~ome
'M 24?
3~ 1 ~ 1
9 ~ 1?O'o
34 3% 4$
8 23
~ ~7 9%
62 ~°
~n
7018.41 Low~
od 1 ,
7018 0? Low~IMad 25 1 ~ ~0 4% ; 3 66 7%
' To~al Law;"Mod Incame 61 ;? 52 ~°~b 11 7 b3 6°~b
C~iy I'oial 1?7$ 717 56 1°/a 26~ I46 5] 5°%0
Abbre^iat~ons Appl'n = Applications, On~ = Onginat~ons
~ Notes
1 Tract ~ncome le~~el as d~termmed by FFIEC
Low~`Mod = census tract tivuh med~an farny~}~ income less than 80 percent of Counn~ MFI
' Middle = census tract wrth med~an famjl~- income betvveen 80 and 120 percent of Count~~ MFI
Upper = census txact with med~an farn~ly mcom~ above 12fl percent of Counh~ MFI
2 Onamat~ons = Ioans approved by th e lendma inst~tuuons and purchased b~~ the applicants
! Source HMDA data collected b.~ the Federal Fmancial Insntuuons Examinat~on Counc~l [FFI~C). 199~,
and #abu[ated usmQ the PeerTrax sofn~•are de~~eloped by the CenTrax Group
,
' C~zy° of 5anta Montca Potenual Gonstra~nts on
Housing Element lII-7 Hausmg Procluct~on and Canservat~on
~
,
'
In coneius~on. w~h~le mortgage and home impro~~ement ~nancmg, and construction ~nancins
are generall}~ a~~ailable_ the cast and future accessibil~~- of financing could serve as potential ,
constraints to home purchase/impro~ement and housina praduction_
.~
,
1
i
1
1
1
i
i
1
!
~
1
i
C~t~~ of 5anta Mon~ca Potennal Constramts o~ '
Housing ~lement III-6 Hous2n~ Producrion and Conservation
'
,
'
'
,
'
'
'
~
i
'
,
i
~
'
~
'
'
'
l~tortgage and home ~mprovement lendin~ patterns in 5anta :~lonica aze reflectn~e of the
Ci~'s hous~ng market A ma~ant~~ of the for-sale housmg m Santa Nionxca fs concentrated
in uppzr incorne census tracts. and as a result, approximatel}r three-quarters of the
applications m 1994 (7'D/a of t~e horne purchase loans and 78% o~ the home impro~err~ent
loans) v~-ere for housing uruts located m these upper ~ncame tracts In contrast, for Los
An~e~es County, on1~- 54 percent of home purchase Roa~ apglicatians and =~9 percent of the
haine xmprovement Ioan appl~cations ~~•ere for housing un~ts in upper income tracts
4riffination rates for home purchase loans and horr~e impro~•ement loans in upper rncome
tracts in Santa Moruca .~~ere ~8 percent and ~7 percent. respecti~~el`~, approximately n}o
percent above the Cityv«de a~~erage. Compared «-ith Santa Momca, upper income tracts i~
the Count~~ had a hi~her ori~inahon rate at 62 percent for nome pru~chase loans and a similar
onQinat~an rate at ~7 percent for home improvement Ioans.
Significantl}° fe«~er households applied for loans for housin~ units located in mtddle rncome
census tracts in the Czty {23% of home purchase appl~catxons and 18% of hame
improvem.ent applzcatzons)_ i~~ith the ar-erage loan o~~inauon rates m these tracts the lo~;~est
in the Citti• - 52 percent far home purehase laans arid 48 percent for home improvement
loans In contrast, county~~~de applications for housin.~ located in middle income tracts
represented about one-third of total applications_ In cornpar~son, the County had a h~ghez
origina~ion rate for both home purchase ioans (64%) and hame improvement loans (~2%)
With lim~ted home purchase opportuniEZes in tne Cit~~'s lower incorxie nei~hborhoods. the
Cin-'s tw°o HIb1DA designated lotii~%'mod incame tracts had onl~ bI ap~l~eations for home
purchase loans and 11 applicat~ans for ~ame zmprovement loans. representina approaimatel~~
4 percent of the total loan appiicatians.'' The a~-erage loan ongination rate for honne purchase
loans in the low/mod tracts, a~ 53 percent, v~°as slightlv higher than that in the middle-income
tracts_ The average loan origination rate for home improveinent loans in t.~.e low/mod tracts
was the highest in the City (b=~%); however. this rate can be misleadin~ due to the lirrirted
number (~ 2) of appltcants_ In campa.ns4n, Los AngeZes Countt-• had a sigr~f cantly- higher
groportion of loan applications ~nrtiated for uruts xn the low%mod traeu ~pproximate~y 16
percent of allloan applications in the Count;~ v~-ere for units Iocated in the law/mod tracts_
Ongination rates far hvme purchase and horne impro~~ement loans in the Coun~'s low/mod
tracts ~r~ere ~b percent and 45 percent. respect~~el~•
In summary, onguiatran ra#es for home purchase loans in Santa Monica are generalls-lawer
than County-w~de averages, regardless of tl~e mcome of the census tract Th2s is likel}~ due
in part to the overall higher prrce of housmg in Santa Ivlonica reiative to the Counn~ as a
uhole, wrth fewer applicants quahfymg for ~nortgages Interestmgl~-, lo~n or~gination rates
did not var~~ dramat;cally based on census tract income. ind~cating that at least in general
access to credit is not sigmficantly affected b~ geo~aphic location in the Ci~~ And finall~.
ongmatian rates for home ~mprovement loans ~~ere consistentl~~ lugher in Santa Moruca than
Count~°-wide averages, although they shawed sigrufieant ~ ariation based on tract ~ncome.
' 'These HMDA srat~st~cs do not i~nc3ude aovernment-backed loans, w~hich could result m more laans ~n thz
~ou~;~mod areas
C~ty of Santa htonzca Potential Consuamts on
Hovsing Element III-~ Housing Productzon and Conservation
i
,
Mortgage and Hame Improvement Financing
I'he cost and a~~ailabili~~ of financina can impact a nousehoid's abilit~~ to purchase a home
or to perform necessar~- maintenance and repa~rs Loans for purchase of a ne«° home range
betv~•een approximately 8 and 9 percent for a fixec~ rate ~oan vs~th a 30-~-ear term. Interest
rates fluc~uate ~.t~zth the national economy, and can have a dramatic impact on hous~ng
affordability For examp~e, a 1% increase 1n interest rate can cause the monthly pal~rnent for
the atierage-pnce home in Santa ~iomca to increase b~- $2~Q, and the rrcor~thly- payment for
the average-pnce condominium to increase by $17~ This reduces the num~er of households
v~-ho can qualify to purci~ase a home m the Crt~~
L~kew-~se_ an inerease in canstruction financmg costs translates tnto hlgher rents or sales
prices wh~ch ~nust be charged to reco~;er the cost of product~on, and less ~ikelihood that
housing will be produced
In addition to the cost of financmg, ihe ati~aiiabiliry of martgage financing can also serve as
a constraint to the provision of housin~ Man~- communities have experEenced a lendine
pattern ~.~here hauseholds looking to purchase a home m lou- and moderate income
neighbarhoods have a more diffcult time obta~rung financing than in upper ~ncome areas.
The Communiri- Reinvestment Act {CRA) is intended to encourage certain regulated
finar~cial instrtutions to help meet th~ credit needs af their entue communitres, ~ncluding lo~y
and Fnoderate income nei~hbarhoods In tandem ti~-~th tl~e CRA. the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Aet {H~.~DA) requ~res Ienders to disclose informat~on an the disposition of home
loan applications and on the race ar national origin, gender, and ar~ual incame of ~oan
appi~cants. H1~1DA data are comp~Ied b5~ the Federal Financial Instztutions Examinatton
CounczI (FFIEC} The HMDA data also ident~fies the income characterist~cs of the census
tracts in v41hich dweiling unrts are located, based an the follov~-ing FFIEC definrtions.
L4'V~'~ivIOD for traets w~th med~an family income (MFI} less than 8Q percent of the VIFI
for the l~ietropolitan Stat~stical ?irea (1~iS ~),
?v1IDDLE for tracts u~rh rxied~an fanul~ income between 8Q and 120 p~rcent of the MFI
far the MSA, and
UPPER for tracts ~r~th median family income abave I20 percent of the MFI for the
MSA.
Based on 1994 H~vIDA data far the Cin~. Table III-1 illustrates the disposrtion of home
purchase at~d home impFOVement loans b~- census tract. As shown in thts table, ihere were
a total of 1,278 app~icati~ns for home purchase loans and 263 appl~cations far home
impro~~ement loans Cinz~~de, the on~anat~on rate.~~as ~6 1 percent for home purchase Ioans
and SS ~ percent for home zmprovement loans '-
~
'
~
'
r
'
1
1
'
i
,
,
~
r
~
' The HVIDA datx cateaor~zes the dispositian of a loan appi~cat~on as OrEd2nated, Not Accepted. Demed, ~
V~'ithdra~~n, or Closed Qr~ginatcon af a loan refers to a loan not only approved by the lender but also
accepted by the borrow•er Origmation rate refers to the rano of anamate~ loans to the tota6 number of
appEications y
City of Santa Momca Potential Constraints on ,
Housina ~lement III-4 Housing Product~an and Conservation
~
,
'
'
~
'
1
'
'
'
'
,
1
'
~
~
'
1
~
cost range {south of Pico Boulevard), the average per square foot land costs ran~z between
~40 to S4~ from Iareer to smaller parcels
The feas~biht~ anal~-sis indicates that for Iarge apanment projects, feas~b~lit~- is achieved
«,~hen land cost is no more than S20 per square foot For lar;er condommxuzn pro~ects, the
maximum ~and cost that produces an acceptable return for the de~°etaper is S3~ per square
foot Gi~~en this dispant~ betwe~n actual land casts and the land cast requ~red ta achie~°e
financial feasibilrt~-, on~~- pzo~ects with special circumstances can achieve econamtc
feasibilztF° Such condit~ans could mclude unusuall~-low• Iand eost. unusuall~- high rents~'sales
prices, belo~~ market-rate financina, andior significant red~ctions in construction or other
de~ elopment casts ~
~n conclusion, land casts sfgni~cantl}~ unpact the financral feasibilrty of housmg development
in ~he City, and therefore constitute an actual constratnt to housing produchon_ HiQh land
costs affect not onl~~ the financial feasibil~ry of acquzring underutilized parcels w~th exist~n;
sin;le- and rnulti-fam~ly unrts for the purpose of rec~cl~n~ ta higher densities, but also the
feasibiii~~ of acquirin~ suc~i parcels for rehabilrtation and reuse of structures for housmg
However, by dascouraging resident~a.~ redevelopment and aequisation.!rehabilitation actz~l~ties.
high land costs in the City have the effect of encouragin~ the preservat~on of exist~ng
housing For further discussion of land costs, refer to the f~llot«ng Technzcal Appendices
"Assessment af the Cm-"s Inclusionan~- Housing Pro~ram (Ordznance 1615) as a Potent~al
or Actual Constraint on the Development of Housing.'' and "Cumulati~~e Effects af Five Cin-
of Sar~ta ~Ianica Requirements on Mult~-Family Housin~ Pro~ects as a Patential or Actual
Const~-a~nt on the De~°elopment of Housing "
3. A~ ailability of Financimg
Construction Financing
Pnar to the recession and siQru~icant changes in lendin~ practices fo~lov~:in~ the sati~ings and
loan scandals vf the late 1980s and early 1990s, rt ti~°as not uncommon for developers to
receive loams for I00 percent or mare of a pro~ect'$ estimated future value_ Nou~,
construction axtd perrnanent loans are almast never avaiiable for the ty~es o#' muIti-family
development projects that are t~~pica~ m Santa Manica fvr more than 7~ percent of the future
project ~alue. Th~s meaxis that deti•elopers rnust usual~y put up at Ieast 2~ percent of the
pro~ect ~Talue, either in tl~e form of land or cash The developer may have to conmbute more
than 2~ percent of the pro~ect cost if the total cost is mare than 73 percent of the estimated
future value of the pro~ect or 1f net operatFng income is less than 1.15 tames the amount of
the loan payment Although there is no har~ and fast threshold for hovv much equin is too
much before a project would be deerr~ed infeas~ble, the l~~her the proport~on of eq~ity
required abave 2~ percent, the more unllkely~ a de~~elaper would proceed wrth the project
Not on15~ would it requue more up-front cash, but higher equrty contnbution also means a
pro~ect must be able to ach~eve an e~-en hi~her talue at completion in order to generate the
net cash flow needed to meet the minunum acceptable cash-on-cash return threshold
C~ry af Sarrta Monica
Hous~n~ ~lement
Potent~al Constramts on
III-3 Housm~ Producuon and Conservat~on
~
,
number and qualit}- of amenities offered This zncludes such a~vious iteFns as fireplaces.
s«-irnming pools, and tenms courts, as ~~~e11 as the ~ess obv~ous deciszons an the grade of
carpetmg and tiles used. tSpes of appliances and light fixtures, and the c~ualit~~ of cabinetrv
and ~~roadi~~ar~ Based on Cin: consultant's ~nte~~ze~~s «rith locaI residcnt~al contractors
acuvz m Santa Moruca, a~-erage mult~-farz~il~• con~t~uct~on costs in Santa ~ionica ranqe fram
$40 to $7~ per sq~are foot, and up to $64 to $82 per square foot if one lec-e~ of urnder~round
parking is required Th~s range ass~es that larger pro~ects achie~-e certain economies af
scale and cost slightly less per square foot. and that condomtniums are somewhat morE costly
to construct per square foot than apartments Accord~ng to the Constnzction Tndustr~°
Research Board. construction cost per square foot for a sin;le-famFly home ranges betv4~een
$60 and $100
V6'hile eanstruction costs t}p~cal~~ compr~se a si~nificant portion of the total deeelopment
costs of a housmg pro~ect, these costs aze fairl~~ cons~stent throughaut Los An~eles Count~•
and therefare, «ould not appear to cons~rtute a~n actual cons~ramt to housing proc~uction ~n
Santa iVlanica
2. Land Cost
Hiah land eosts, comb~ned ~~th the da~mpened real estate market, represent the ovemding
factors that affect the feasibilit;- of residential development m the Cite- Pr~ces of multi-
family sites have nsen srnce the late 1980's ta a ie~~e~ that is unsupported b~~ current average
rents and condomin~ur~n sales prices. ?hese substant~al land pnces have persisted in spite of
a se~~erely vveakened real estate market resuitin~ fram a combinataon af the 1990-93
recessian, changes m comrnercial lendmg practices. the Northridge earthquake, and other
factors. Due to these conditlons, a financial feasFbiIrty analysis conducted b~° HR&A on
"prototypical" apartment and condomamum pro~ects in Santa Monica conciudes that none
of tl~ese projects are financialI}~ feasible under current market conditions'
The muIti-famil~ pro~ect financial feasibiliri~ analys~s denves land cost mformatian from the
fallov4zng sources: recent condomiruum arad apartment sales. sales hstings, recent appraisals
prepared for the City's belov4~-market zate earthqual:e recoven~ laan program. a~praisaIs
prepared for afforr~able housin~ pro,~ects. and expert opimon Based on this input, typical
land costs in the CitS~ can he aeneralized as fo~lo~}s At the high cost end of the spectrum
(north of u'ilshire Boulerard_ but nat Ocean A~-enue ar San Vicente Boulevard), the a~erage
per square foot land cost is $7~ for srnaller parcels and $70 for Iarger parcels At the ~o~~-
The fmanc~al feas~biIin~ anal}~s~s evaluates four prototyp~cal apartment pro~ects and four condom~n~um
pro~ects in the City's R2 dismct, under the development scenarios botii w~th and ~v~thout the Cit;~s
~nclus~oRar}~ ho~s-ng requ~rements The s~mulat~on model estunates the costs, income, rate of retum.
profit and other vsd~cators that an expenenced and ~vell-informed propern~ ow~ner or de~eloper_ or the~r
lender «•ould cons~der m eva~uatin4 pro~ect feas~b~l~ty All of these assnmpt~ons used ~n the model for
each group of scenar~os, mcluding those related to the physica] development of each aparnnent and
candommium pro~ect scenar~o. construct~on-related cosu, financmg cosu. pro~ect incocne and pro,~ect
feasibzlity, are ~ncladed at part of the Technical Append~x to th~s Element
1
'
'
'
'
1
1
'
'
'
~
'
'
'
t
,
C~ry of Sa~ta Mon~ca Potenhal Consu-amts on ~
Hous~ng Element III-2 Hoasing Production and Conservat~on
,
,
'
III. POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS ON HOUS~NG PRQDUCTION ~"D
' CUNSERVATID'~i
t The provision of a~ec~uate and affordable housing is affected bv both market conr~rtions ancf
aa~-ernmental programs and regulations Housing Element lavt~ requires a cm~ to examine
potennal and actual ~ot~ernmental and ~on-gavernmental constra~nts to the ma~ntenance,
' Fmpro~-ement, and de~~elopment of houszng for ali income le~~els Po#ential non-
~oi-ernmental constraints include the price of Iand, the cos# of eonstruction, and the
ati-ailability of financing Potential governmental constraints include land use controls,
' btuld~ng codes and their enforcement; site zmprovemen~ fees and ather exactions, an~ local
processing and ~ermit procedures
' As part of the 1998-2003 Housing Element tipdate. HR&A perforrned extens~~~e anal}~sis of
the impact that various governmental regulations in the Cin~ i~aj~e on hous~ng producti~n.
The conclusia~xs of this anal~~sis are presented in Element The detailed analysis rtself is
' presented in a sepa~rate document -- "Technic~l ~ppendix ~" The central conclus~on of this
analysis is that eurrent market conditions -- 3argely high land costs combu~ed w-~th a
dampened real estate market -- are a pnmarv consu-aint to the development of housing in the
, Cit~-. These market cond~taons render the dz~-zlopment of the average inulti-famih~
development pro~ect in the Cit~ infeasible G~yen these ~ondit~ons, special circumstanczs
are general~ti• required to make a pra~ect financ~all~- feasible, such as unusually low land cost,
, unusuallj- ht~ rent~sales pnces, belou~ market-rate financmg, and/or sa~ificant reduci~ons
zn construction or other del~elapment costs Certain city policies/regulauons such as its
inclusionary- housing program and rezonings const~tute potential constraints to housing
' praductian That is, these pmgrazns negahyel~~ impac~ pro~ect feasibilit}~ on a per-square-foot
basis However_ rt is market condit~ons, not the Cm~~s pohcies and cegulations, ~~'hich at #he
present tirrie actua11~- constrazn housing production
' A. N411~'-GOVER~1~xENT9L CONSTRAINTS
' High land arid construction costs, as v~~ell as market finar~cing all contribute to the cost af
housin~, and potentiall~~ hinder the product~on of new- and affordable umts Potential non-
go~ ernmental constraints are lazgely dete~ned by market condit~ons, over w~hich local
1 ~urisdictians ha~re lrttle control Direct public subs~dies that Iov4er the costs of housing
de~elopment, such as land urrte-dow~~ and interest subsit~ies, are the most effectis~e and
probabl}- the onl~~ way for local governments tv lessen the impacts of tt~ese mazket
I condrtions
' i. conSt~cr~o~ c4St
Construct~on casts can ~ar~~ w7del~~ according Fo the type of development, w~ith mult~-fam~i~-
~ housing ~enerally ~ess expensive ~a canstruct than single-fa~mil}- housing However. there
is a w~ide variation u~zthin each construct~on tti~pe depending on the size of the unit and the
' Crty of Santa Monica Pote~tial Constramts on
Housmg Element III-1 Hausin~ Producrion and Conservanon
~
,
~
1
'
'
1
~
1
1
,
,
~
~
1
'
~
~
,
,
~~lonica, together ~•ith sorz~e ut~lat~- compantes sez~~xn~ the Cit~-, has sponsored a ~anet~- af
programs to encourage energ~~ conservation
Southern Ca~ifarnia Edison (SCE) has developed se~-erai energ~~ canser~-ation programs for
residential custorzxers. Residezaual programs include a toll-free ener~~~ cansen:-ation acf~on
line. axr condrtioning off-peak cycl~n~ pro~rarn. res~dent~al ener~~ sun~eys. and cash rebates
for the installation of energv efficient appiiances such as evaporative coolers, air
conditaoners, heat pumps, and heat pump ~~~ater heaters Addit~onall~~_ special utilrt~- rates are
a~-ailable to resident~al customers in arder to encourage energy- cansen-ation SCE also
created the "R'elcome Horr~e" incenti~-e program ~~~hicn tar~ets the resident~al netir
construchon ~ndustry to encoura~e the building of hames, candomar~ums. and apartment
buildinQs that surpass mimmum state standard~ (Title 2~) far ener~~ efficienc;-
Ctu~rendy the Ci~~ co-sponsors the Fluorescent Bulh Retrofit Program v~-~th SCE A~aalable
to law-income households_ tl~s program proti~ides up to six fluarescent light bulbs to bath
renters and homeowners Fluorescent bulbs use 7~ percent less electricrty than regular
incandescent bulbs
Southern California Gas s}~onsors energy~ consen~atzon progranas as ~-e11_ Southern
Calffornla Gas sponsors a Rebate Program and a Low Income Direct Assistance Program.
Under tl~e Rebate Program, the cornpany ~rov~des rebates to customers for caull:ing, w-eather
smipping, attic insulauon. forced air furnaces, ~~-ater heater blankets, and duct vr,-raps.
Customers must install dev~ces that meet rninimurn standards zn order to qualify for the
rebate Under the Lo~;~ Incorne Direct Assistance Pro~ram, Southern Calrforrna Gas prati~ides
direct assistance to lo«--income custorners for the same types of ener~~ conservation devices
that are promvted under the Rebate Pragram So~thern Ca~ifornia Gas also sponsors the
Appliance Repair anc~ Replacement Program to ass~st la~-income customers in replacing
malfunctiomna or inefficient furnaces, stoves, or water heaters
In ~ 994, the CitSr adopted the Susta~able Ci~- Pr baram. vvh~ch pro~~ides guid~nQ pnnciples
for environmental decisions and sets targets for safeguardina and enhancing enviranmental
resaurces In fiuthezance of this program, the Cit~~ is m the process of developing
Sustainable Burlding De~-elopment Guidelines The G~idelines «~ll mclude design ad~iee
for residential as «~ell as commercial buildings to achie~-e buiIdmg-related envuonmental
conservation targets of the Sustainable Crt~- Program
The City is also Fn the prac~ss of de~elop~ng var~ous o~hex ne~- energ4• conservat~on
programs includ~ng cred~ts programs and retrafit ~rograms In addition to these measwres,
the Grty mon~#ars compliance ~~ith ail Title 24 ener~~ evnservatson standards appl~~abie to
new residentFal deve~opment zn the Cit~~_ ,
One potent~al method for consen~ing ener~ involyes the preservation, rehahilrtation. and/or
adaptn~e re-use of existing b~.uldmas Re-using existing huildings can save substant~al ener~t-
costs tlia.t vvould otherw~se have been expended on the production of ne~° buildin~ materials
~Sany of the City~'s Housing Element pro~ams are onented to~~ard the preservation of
existing housing (see Sect~on V.C)
Cin= of Santa 14f on~ca
Housin~ Element II-9~3
,
~
'
'
'
~
'
'
'
'
'
1
'
1
1
'
,
1
Housmg Needs and Resources
,
,
1
In contrast. the household ~ow-th level that ~vould be required b~- the "Catch-Up ahzrnat~i-e
' has no histoncal przcedent in #he Cit~- Consequentl~-, there is no basis to belie~-e that the
Cit~° ~~~i11 ~nake up the household gro~~-th `~defiert ' tha~ ~~as occasioned by the sez~ere
economic recession. atzd other calamities that befall th~s re6ion in the earh to mid 1990's
, As noted_ the intermediate alternat~~-e follo~;~s the basic merhodoloey utilized b~~ SCAG Tne
City is w11~in~ to utilize tl~s methodolo~-. ar~d the resu~ts established b~- this approach_ onh~
t for the puipose of establishui~ rts fair share estimate :n the absence of a~azr share allacat~on
being prepared b~~ SCAG. For the reasons d~scussed immediately- l~elo~-. the Cit~- disa~ees
~~~~th the methodolagti and certam of the assurnptions utilized b}~ SCAG Consequentl~~,
, should SCAG undertake to prepare a fair share allocatton for the Cm-, the City reser~res the
n~ht to challen~e the methodolo~~ and assumpuons previously ut~lized by SCAG and to seek
to persuade SC~G that other approaches are more a~propnate
' ~. Santa Mon~ca's Disa reement wrth SCAG Methodolo ~
g ~
' The Cit~ believes that the methodolo~- utilized by ~CAG m the past to establish the fair
share allocatian is fla~~ed because it does not account for the umque characteristics of each
communit~. but rather takes a sin~lar approach far the entzre reQion Niore specificall}~, the
' methodolob does not differentiate bet«-een densel~~ populated and built-aut communmes
hke Santa l~~oruca i~-h~ch can accommodate lamrted groti~~h and commumt~es which are ]ess
built-out and therefore can accommodate significant addrtiona! grow~th
' The C~n° ~s panc~ularly concerned ~.~~ith the household gro~~th factors and the vacancy rate
assurnpnons used m the SCAG madel Most notable, the pro~ected kzousehold ~ro~~h rates
' that have previouslti- been proJected b~ SCAG a~re signifcantl~~ higher than the actual
hausehold ~oti~~th rates obsen~ed b~~ the City For instance. SCAG~s adopted 1944 forecast
en~zsioned an a~-erage annual grow~th of ~92 households bet~veen 1990 and ?000 During the
' past plann~ng penod (19$9-199~}. the household gro~r-th estimated usin~ SCAG's
methodolo~r w'as I,338_ while the actual grov~th ~~as 180 households This excess
deanonstrates the magnitude of the error ~n the SCAG assumptions E~-en with a modest
' economic reco~er~~, the Crty does not bel~e~~e that the projected annual grow-th rate af 39?
hQUSeholds can be achieved
, The SC~G methodolflg~' also assumes ~hat a vacancy rate of ~°10 (multi-family llIlltS} 15
considered necessare for a health~~ funct~omn~ housing market Thzs assumption does not
take mto considerat~on that the Cit~~ is an urbanized area v4~th relatnelv lova~er rates of ne~-
constructaon The Cit~- ma~ntains that a lov~~er ~-acancv rate should be cons~dered normal and
' should not indicate a need for add~tional housxng wnu.ts_
' F. EVERGY CONSER~'ATION
~ Under State law, the Housing Element must ~nclude an analys~s of oppo~tunines far ener~~
cansen-auon wzth respect to resident~al de~elopment. This sectzon descnbes the various
energy conservation pro~'ams and assistance a~~ailable to Santa Momca residents Santa
' City of Santa ~.1on~ca
Hous~ng Element II-93 HousmQ \eeds and Resources
1 `
,
,
Tabie II-34
Estimate af Santa ~•lanica's Fair Share of Regianal Housing I~eed, VVith Potential
Credits for Overpa~-ment Reduction and SheEter Beds,
B~ Household Income Group, -
far Three Alternati~-e Househald Gro~•th Forecasts, 1998-2003
Percent of L_A. Countr- ~ied~an Familv Income
~
Calculat~on Categor}•
0-34% 31-SQ% 5l-SO% 81-95°10 96- 120+% Total'
120°/a
FAIR SHARE BASED ON CO~`TI_~~'UED LOC9L TRE.?~`DSHOL~SEHOLD GROW7N FDRECAST
Fair Share (fram Table I-2$)
Ow-ners 10 10 16 8 8 126 174
Renters 302 235 ?7~ ]64 ]68 ~49 1.739
Tatal' 3 i' 246 287 172 176 72~ 1,918
Overpa~~rnent Credrt
Owners (~) (li) (122) 0 0 0 {139}
Renters (219~ (61) t2751 0 0 D ~~6
Total' (22~) (?4) (397} 0 D 0 {69~)
Shetter Beds Credrt
Ou~rters 0 0 a 0 0 0 0
Renters (92~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~
Tatal ` {92) 0 4 0 0 0 (92}
Net Fair 5~are Est~nate
Owners ~ (~) {10~} 8 S 126 40
Renters ~ 174 (5} I64 168 599 1.091
Tocal' (~3) 1,'2 ( l 10} I 72 176 ?2~ L I 31
`~otals may not sUm prec~sely due to mtemal roundm~
Source HRR;A
'
1
'
,
,
'
'
,
,
'
'
4. Cit~~ Adoption of Fair Share Based on Return t~ SCAG A~rerage Haasehold
Growth Forecas~ '
~'ith the ca~~eat discussed ~beloj;~, for purpases of tlus Element_ the Cit~ adopts tlze
intermediate approach (Retumta SCAG Average) as the Cat~=`s fair share estima#e. ~zthout
taking credit for overpa5ment r~:duction and shelter beds Ttus approach utilizes the general
conceptua~l mode~ for forecastin~ household ~ov4-th adopted b} SCAG but assumes that the
City will not achie~~e the level af ~o~~h necessar~- far the Cit~- ta achieve the tatal
households erou~h projected by SCAG tn 1994. The tnterrriedzate approach also assumes
that the rnodest economic recoven• presentl~~ underw~ay w~ill continue This assumpuon
appears to be consis~en~ u-ith reliable econorn~c forecasters_
C~ri; of Santa Monica
Housing £lement II-92 Hotismg Needs and Resources
'
'
~
'
t
i
~
'
'
'
1
1
1
'
1
'
,
t
1
'
'
'
'
,
Table II-3a
Estimate of Santa Monica's Fair Share af Regional Housing Need, V4itn Patential
Credits for 0ti-erpa~•ment Reduct~on and Shelter Beds,
B~~ Household Income Group,
for Three ~lternatir-e Househald Growth Forecasts, 1998-2003
Percent of L A. CountF ~Iedian Famil~ Incorne
Calculation Categon•
0-3Q%
31-50%
51-SO%
S1-95%
96-
]20+% Total'
120%
FAIR SHARE BASED Ov SCAG C9 TCH-C'P HOCSEHOL~ GROT~G'TH FORECAST
Fa~r 5hare (from Table II-31)
Owners b~ 68 ill ~8 ~6 S~13 L198
Renters 791 616 707 ~28 ~~9 1.~67 4.5~9
TotaI' 8>j 684 818 48~ 495 2.d10 ~.74'
Or•erpa~ment Credit
O~~ners (~j (~3) (122) 0 0 D (1391
Renters t219~1 6~1,~ (2~~) Q fl 0 ~5
Total~ (224'1 (74) (397) D 0 0 (b95)
Shelter Beds Cred~t
Owners 0 0 0 0 D 0 0
Renters (92~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~
7otal' {92) 0 0 0 0 0 (92)
Net Fair Share Estunate
Ou~ners ~9 55 (11) ~b ~6 84; 1,0~9
Renters ~79 ~5~ 432 ~?S 4~9 1.~67 3_901
Total' ~39 610 42l ~8~ 49~ Z_4I0 4,960
FAIR SHARE BASED ON RET"GR.~' TO SC_9G AVERAGE HOL~SEHOLD GROi3~TH FORECAST
Fazr Share (from Table II-3i)
O.ti~ners 26 28 ~S 23 23 342 a86
Renters ~75 370 425 257 264 9~1 2.733
Total SO1 398 ~70 280 287 I?S~ 3,219
Dverpayment Credit
O~~ners [~) (13) {l22} D 0 0 (139)
Renters (219~ ~ ?7~ 0 ~ 0 (~56)
Tatal' (224) (74) (;97} 0 0 0 (695)
Shelter Bzds Credit
Owners Q 0 0 0 0 0 0
Renters (92) 0 0 0 0 0 ~
Total' (92) 0 0 0 0 0 (92)
Net Fair Share Estunate
Owners 2 i 15 {77) 2; 2; ;42 347
Renters 164 309 1~0 257 264 441 2.08~
Total` I8~ 3?~ 73 280 28' 1,284 2.~32
Cm~ af Santa Niomca
Housin~ Element
II-91
Housina Needs and Resources
'
~
Possihle Credrts Against the Fair Sh are Targets
Recent Housing Elemen~ reform legfslation and discussions by SGAG's Reaional Housing ,
~Ieec~s Assessment Adcison Cammittee, have ~ntroduced the possibilx~y~ that ~urisdictions
~~~h~ch can demonstrat~ perfortx~ance on som.e housrng dimensions ma~~ be entitled to a ~
"credit ' acauist their fair share obli~ation There are ri~~o areas Zn whieh Santa Moruca could
receive sueh credrts These are (a) the degree to «~h~ch the Cm~'s Rent Con~ol La~~ has held
do~~-n the proportion of lor~~-er-yncom.e househalds ~~$o o~~erpay for housing costs_ and (b) the ,
Cit~~'s contnbution of shelter beds for the ho~neless
Reduced Payment Burden Among Lower-Xncome Households. ~naly-sis of 1990 census ~
data. indicates ~hat_ w~th the e~ception of hauseholds in the 31-50 pereen~ af inedian famil;~
income categon-, the prapar~ion of lo~er-income households ~~~ho "overpa~~" ~or housmg
costs is lov~~er in Santa 11~omca than in Los ~geles County as a u-~ole Stated another r~-a~•.
~f the Count~~ rates of o~~erpatiinent applied in Santa Monica. about 695 more lower-zncome '
Santa Nlonica households would have overpaid for ho~sina costs than was actuali~ the case
Thus, the Citc~ rmght be eligi~le for a credat of 69~ umts against rts fair share allocation for
this performance on reducin~ payment b~den amon~ lo~ er-income households '
Proportion o. f Shelter Bedr. Based on the nuzz~ber of shelter beds currently ~n Santa. Monica,
the Cit~ might also be eligible for a credFt of 92 ven= low incarne rental units that couid be
applied to the Cit~~'s regional fair share of nev~- units for renter househalds in the 0-30 percent
of ~ned~an income categary_
Table II-30 shor~~~s that, includ~ng these cred~ts, Santa Monica's "fair share" of regional
housing need durina the 1998-2003 Housin~ E~ement Update planning per~od falls between
about ~,400 units (Fu115CAG Catch-up Alternatave ero~~-th forecast) and about I,lOD unrts
(Continued Local Trends Altemative ~ro~~th forecast}
'
1
1
,
,
'
'
'
~
C~~• af Santa Monica '
Housm~ Element Ii-90 Housin~ Needs and Resources
'
,
'
1
,
1
1
,
'
'
,
,
'
,
~
1
'
1
,
'
Distriburion of Fair Share Target by Income Category~. Based on a combination of the
1994 income group distnbuhon and SCAG's impaction-a~-oidance approach of mo~~ina each
~urisdiction 25 percent of the w~as- tar~-ard the regional a1-eraQe number of lov~°er-income
households. and distrzbutin~ the "other"' un~ts ~nto oti~-ners aiad renters accordm~ ta their
relati~e progortions. results m the distnbution sho~~~n in Table II-29 #or eacl~ of the three
"fair share" esurnates based on alternat~~~e househoid gro~rth farecasts
Table II-29
Estimate of Santa Monica's Fair Share of Regional Housing':~ieed,
B~- Household Income Group, for Three ~lternative Household Gro~~th Foreeasts.
1998-2QU3
Percent of L.A. Caun#y hled~an FamilF~ Income
Ten ~re
0-3Q%
3I-50%
51-80°10
81-95%
96-120°l0
120+%
Total'
FAIR SHARE BASED ON SCAG CATCH-L' P HOGSEHOLD GRO~i'TH FORECAST
Owners 6~3 6$ 111 ~6 56 843 1.198
Rsnters 79] 616 707 428 439 1,~b7 4.549
Total' S~~ b8~ 818 485 495 2_~1Q ~.7~7
Cuinulatt~•e Total~ 8~5 1.~;9 2,3~7 2.8~2 3.337 ~,747
FAIR SHARE BASED Oe~T RE~L`R>' TO SCAG AVERAGE HOL'SEHOLD GROW7'H FORECAST
Owners 2b 38 ~5 23 23 342 487
Renters ~75 3?0 ~2? 257 26~ 94I 2.7~2
~ota3' Sa1 398 47~ 280 287 1,283 3?i9
Cumulati~~e Total ~0] 899 ~.369 l,fi~t9 1_936 3,219
FAIR SHARE BASED ON CO:'~TI.~+~'ED LOCAL TRE•VDS HO~7SEAOLD GRO[3~"TN FORECAST
O~ti~ner 10 10 16 8 8 126 179
Renters 3Q2 236 270 164 168 ~99 i,739
Total' 312 246 287 t 72 176 72~ 1.918
Cumu[atrve Total' 312 ~57 84~ 1_O1? 1,19~ 1,918
~ Totals may not sum prec~sel~• due to mternaE roundmg
Source HRcRA
City of Santa Moniea
HOUSI31°_ Element
II-89
Hous~na Needs and Reso~rces
1
~nother alternative adopts an zntermediate assurr~pt~on bet~~~een the gro~-th rate ~mplied bi-
the SC~G Catch-Up Alternative and the Continued Local Trends Alterna#zve The
interrnediate Retuzn to SC?~G Average ?,ltemati~ e assuznes that household growth «-~11, b~
1998. return ta the a~•era~e annual ~ro~.-th rate forecasted b~~ SCAG for the 1990-?003
penod, but that the ~`deficrt'' accrued durzng the firs# part of the decade v~,~ilt not be made up
b~~ 2003 It assumes that the ze~oaest economic reco~~ery no;~• 2n ej~iaence persrsts, ar~d that
the Cit~~'s annual household gro~-th rate t~~ill incr~ase to match the 13-year (1990-2003)
average of 342 nev~~ households per r~eaz implied bl~ the SCAG forecast, or a tatal of 1,710
additiona~ households (or occupied housing ututs) from 1998 to 20~3 Estimates of the
Crt5•'s fair sha~-e af future regaonal housing need are ~ncluded far all three hausel~old gro~~-th
forecasts
Ideal Yacancy Rute. In past fazr share esttmates for the regiaz~, SCAG has used a fi~~e
percent ~-acanc~- rate as tkze zndicator for an appropr~ate balance betv~~een demand and suppl~-
of haus~ng In addition to this ~-acaric~- rate, an alternatiti~e method under cansideration bti-
SCAG at the time tne RH~1A process ~~as suspendec~ «~as also evaluated In this second
method the optianal vacanc~• rate is assumed to ~.~an by~ the leiel af a co~nrnun~ri-'s ~~olume
of new construction, ~~ rth higher normal z-acancies in areas ~rzth a lot of new canstruction
and lav~-er narmal j~acancies ~n area~ v~7th lou construction. This relarionship is based an the
reasoning t}~at ne~~ unrts take time to be absorbed T~e altern~at~ve ~~acancy rate is
tmplemented b~ fitting a regression of vacanc~- rates agamst new construction rates to find
out what leti-el of i~acan~~ should be considered "normal" for each area For ur~anized areas
«-~th relati~~el~ low°er rates of neti~ construction, like Santa Momca, this aIternatit-e l~as the
effect of praducinQ a lower fair sha;-e number_ tiT~'hile acknov~ledging the tectimcal ment of
the alternative vacancy approach. SCAG staff mdicated that it was more lakel}~ than not that
the flat rate approach v~-ould be used in the next reaaonal fair share allocatian This est~~nate
for Santa Monica, therefore, utilizes the more consenative flat five percent vacancy rate for
the final estimate Tt~e anai~~sis does. how~eyer, include the alternative ~~acancy estamate to
~llustrate the possible range ~~t~~n ~~~hich Santa'~1or~~ca's fair share faI~s
Replacernent Requiremen~ The fa~r slaare estimate utilizes a demolit~on replacement factor
of 4 2 percent per year, the three-y-ear avera~e approach used bti- SCAG, us2n~ 1992-95 DOF
data for Santa Moruca_=' By comcic~ence, this rate exactly matches the factor HCD
recommends for State~~~de use The total replacement req~irement is est~mated to be ~8~
unrts.
Total Constructian Requirement. ,Combming all of the preceding factors, it zs estimated
that Santa Monica's fair share target for the 1998-2003 planing genod falls v~-ithin a range
that ~cludes a h~gh of ~,747 unrts (SCAG Gatch-up altemati~~e honsehold gx-ow-th forecast},
which is regarded as very unrealzsnc for the reasans noted above. a more p~ausible mic~poEnt
of 3.219 units (Return to SCAG A~~erage altemat~ye household grou-th forecast}, and lo.~- of
1,918 uruts (Continued Local Trends alternative household gra.~rth foreeast), should recent
trends persist into the next Houszng Element planning penod
-` The 1992-9~ per~od was used ta avoid the skewme effects of the NorthrEdge earthquake The
demolit~ons associated w•~th that earthquake do not beg~n show~n~ up until after DOF"s January~ 1,
1995 data for the C~n~
Cxty of Santa Momca
Housing Element II-88 Hous~ng Needs and Resources
'
'
~
~
1
1
t
'
'
'
'
,
,
,
1
t
'
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Figure II-11
Annual Estimated and Projected Net Hou~ing Additions
Recorded Mid-Year for the Preceding 12 Months
soo --
800 -
, 70fl
I
' 6d0
~
~
500 -
~ao -
300 -
~oa -
1QD -
0 -
1990 i99i 1992 1993 1994 1995 iS96 1997 1988 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
^ SCAG Catchup fmpl~ed ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
~ SCAG Ann~aa Averags Projected
~ Recent Trends fn Housing AddH3ons
_
._
~ Contmuation of 5-year Average ___ .__. _. _...
_
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
• ~ •
__
~
~
~
~c
~
~
~
~
~
•
7/22~36 Cha1t-anrrual growth rev 86
,
'
~-hich did not ~-arrant their use in lieu of the census estimaies Thus, th~ fair share estimate
assumes a~-acancr rate of 2.77 percent in the for-saie housin~ stock; 2 35 gercent m the '
rental stock, and 3 68 percent in the Crty°'s total housin~ stock as "other" vacant unrts
Comparing HCD's "ideal" vaeancy rates ~~,~i~h those assumed for Jul~ 1_ 1998. indicates a '
total existing housin~ supplv "defic~t'~ of 842 un~ts in Santa Vlonica. reflectxng a surplus of
100 sin~le-fam21~~ umts (i e, hiaher-than-require~ vacancies) and a deficit of 942 for-rent
un~ts (lo~er-than-needed vacancies) '
Future Housing :~~eed
Househald Growth Forecas~ A ke~- component of the fair share est~mate is the assumptton '
about household grou-th over the plann~ng perzod SCAG's adopted 1994 forecast; ~i-hich
was prepared mid-u•a~- throu~h the recent recession and before the fiiIl effects af the
Northnd~e earthquake «~ere kno~n. envisioned a total flf 48,80~ hauseholds in Santa ~4onica '
as of the year 2000. or an avera~e annual ~ow•th of 392 households betv~°een 1990 and 2000
The Department of F~nance est~mates that over #he 199Q-96 penod (i e.. o~er half the decade)
the City actualh~ ~alned an at~erage of only 49 households per yeaz ' this same '
annuaI rate of grourth to 7uly 1, 1998 means the Cit~ would need to add 804 net new
households per year to reach the forecas~ for 2003.=~ or about erght times the number of
households actually added in each of the last six years Th~s "SCAG Caich-Up Altemative'` '
is lughly unlikely in viev~- af the Crty's gro~~~th rate ot-er the past several decades. In fact,
the revised regional forecast no~.~ m preparat~an at SCAG re~-~ses the City's year 2000
forecast do~~~nu~ard ~
In ~~few of this, tu~o altemative forecasts to 2U43 u~ere considered for this regionai fair share
estimate, ~~luch are compared uith the SCAG Catch-Up Alternati~°e in Figure II-I1 on the '
follo~°ing page in terms of housine units One alternati~~e is that household ~o~th from
I996 to 2fl03 ~~11 eont~nue at the same average annual rate of actual househflld gror~~h from
1990 to 1996 Th~s "Cont~nued Local T'rends Aitemative-' groduces the lowest ~ou-th over ~
the pro~ectzon penod Its future rate of gro~~-fh is based on actual household grov4~th o~~er the
past five yea.rs, ~ncludin~ ~e 1990-I 993 recess~on and o~her factars that adversel~ affected
the Southern Californ~a real estate maricet, and v4hose influence may persist into the early '
~•ears of the 1998-2003 planaun~ period
'
~
'
`0 SCAG's forecast is publ~shed for ID-~•ear t-me ~ncrements (e ;. 199~, 2d0~ and 2010) The forecast '
for 2003 ~~as den~ed from a stra~ght-ltne tnterpolat~on between the forecast for Santa Monica
ho~seholds 3n the vear 2000 and m 201 U
Clh• of Santa Monica ' '
Housm~ Element II-86 Housin~ Needs and ResoUrces
'
,
'
The Crt~ of Santa Nlonica's 1993 Housing Element ~;as based on SCAG"s 1988 Re~aanal
' Housin~ Needs Assessment {RHNA} allocation. ~Y~ich included a fafr share 6oa1 of
producing ~,220 net ne~i~ unrts. abaut 42°fo of r~~~xch r~ere intended for lov~~er-mcame
hauseholds. during the 1989-1994 planning per~od Sarxta :1~1o~nxca concluded that SC~G's
' hausehold grow-th estimate for #he Cit~' from 1989 to 1994 (from 45.7~1 to ~7,480} u-as
unrealtsticall~ high, and chase to plan instead for a housing ob~ecti~-e tar~e# of 1.I ~0 units
The Cin''s skept~cis~n of the SCAG forecast has been borne out b~~ actual chaz~ge in the
, number of Santa hianica househol~s SCAG no« estimates th.at Santa Momca actuall~- had
4~.921 household in 199~. for an increase of 1 SO households since 1989. ~nstead of the
forecasted ~ncrease of 1,3~8 households on wluc~ the 1988 RH~1~ «~as based
' 3. The 1998-2043 Santa h~onica Fair Share Estimate
'
'
'
'
1
~
'
'
'
1
1
'
The fair share estimate far the Crt~- of Santa Moruca for tl-ie 199$-2403 plannin~ penod was
developed usmg the same basic calculation approach used bi~ SCAG for the 19$S Re~lonal
Housins Needs Assessment, but us~ng more current data from the 1990 cens~s. po st- ~ 990
data fram the D~parttnent of Finance. and SCAG's 1994 regional aro~ith forecast_
The princ~pal steps in pzepanng rhe estzmate were the follo~~ng
E.ristrng Housing ~'4~eed
Size and Composi~ion of the Citr's Occupied Housing Stack on July 1, 1998 Tke
calculation be~ins with an estimate of the Cit~~'s occupied housing stock (i.e . number of
households) on Ju1~- 1, t998. This was estimated b~- pro~ect~ng for«~ard the average changz
in the Cin's stock between Apnl, 199Q (the L'.S. Census estunate} and 7anuary 1. 1996. and
adjusting to 3ulti- 1, according ta data prepared by the Department of F~nance {DOF) This
resulted in an est~mate of 48,296 occupied housing units m the Cit~- as of July 1. 1998. Of
this total. it is estima~ed that there w111 be 12.38~ o~r~ner-accupted units and 32,98~ renter-
occupled unrts
Household Income Distribution. Consistent v~7th SCAG's approac~_ it is estimated that the
distribution af households b~~ mcome exoups a~~er the planning penod u~ll ~e the same as the
d~stributxon found in the 1990 census These axe 18 1 percent lov4•er-income ou~ners and
S 1 9 percent moderate- and upper-mcome o~-ners, 42 3 percent Io~-er-income renters and
57 7 percent moderate- and upper-income renters Usxng Publ~c Use M~crodata Sample data
from the 1990 census. a more prec~se dzstt7bution «-as then nnade of the proportion of
households a~ each of the hausehold incorne thresholds used for housing programs in Santa
Nionica
Vacuncy Rates. Also consrstent «~th SCAG~s approaeh, rt~-as further assumed that the
v°acanc~ rates for single-family homes, multi-family un~ts and other housin~ {i e., seasanal
d~iellings) would be the same an Jul~~ 1. 1998 as they ~-ere in 1990, accordin~ to the U S
Census Other sources of post-census racanc~~ rate data ~~ere in~~estigated. ~ncluding idle
util~ty meters and sun~eys of unoccupxed unrts conducted b~ tk~e li.S Postal Senice. but it
w~as concluded that each alternative data source had senous methadological «~eaknesses
Crty of Santa Vlomca
Hous~na Element II-8~ Housing Needs and Resources
'
discussxons v--ith jurisdiciion representati~-es B~- the ~ ear 2000, the most recently adopted
SC aG regzanai growrth forecast predicts tha~ Santa Moruca w711 have a popt~lat~on of 98.23~;
a total of 48_80~ households and 8~.767 ~obs The household ~ro«-th forecast is equi~~alent
to an a~~erage of 39~ rae~- hauseholds each ~~ear over this 10-~-ear period The 1994 SCAG
reg~onal gro~wth forecast is na~~ in the process of being re~~ised and extended to the }-ear
?020 The baseline pra~ectzon ~ssued ~n February- 1996 includes 48,7~~ Santa Monica
households ~n the ~-ear 2000, or ~0 feu-er households than the adopted 1994 forecast
SC.aG's Appraach to Estimating "Exisiing Housinb 1Veed"
In przv~ous fair share allocatior~s SCAG has defined "existFng housing n~ed'' ~n terms of t~~a
factors T'he first is the nuznber of lav~~er-incozne households m eacYa ~urisdict2on ~-ho are
currentl}~ "o~erpa~°~ng" for housing (i.e., paying more ~han tl~e Federally-defaned threshold
of 30% of household income}, b.~ tenure t~pe (z.e., renters and owners) SCAG"s procedure
has i~een to assume. for lack of an~~ more ce.~rent data. ~at the dis~nbution of households bt
income and b~~ overpa~~rnent status are the same as the most recent decennial census Thus,
bath the 19$3 and 1988 allocations assumed the household tncome dis~butzorzs fo~uad ~n the
1980 census Accordmg to SCAG_ Santa ~lonica had 11,1871ower-~ncome househalds who
«ere "overpa~~ng'" for ho~sing costs in 1980. mcluding 482 o~~-ners and 10,70~ renters
These proportians «ere a~pl~ed to the 198$ estamate of Santa iVloruca's total fair share of
regionaI housing need for the 1989-1994 Ho~sin~ Element planning periad
The second factor used to estimate existang housFng need is the number of housin~ ~.uuts that
~vo~ld have to be added to the ~ur~sdiction's housing stock to mamtain a healthy balance
be~veen occupied and vacant units in the housing rnarket. HCD establishes a~~acancy ra.te
of tti~o percent for single-fam~l}~ homes and five percent for multi-fam~ly uruts as tl~e ideal
thresholds far a well-funct~onuig housmg market To the extent that exist~ng vacar~c~• rates
fall belaw these benchmarks, additional units need to be constructed as part of tt~e regiona~
fair share aIlocat~on In 198$. SCAG determined that Santa ~o~ica had a vaeancv rate-
related housing "defic~t.'' due to sub-paz- ~~acanc~~ rates, of 840 uruts ,
Th e Esiimafe of Future Housing :'~ eed
SCAG has previously estimated each ~unsd~ct~on's future housing need in terms of f~ur
factors: (a) the ntunber of uc~ts needed to accommodate forecasted household gro«-th. (b} the
number of umts needed to replace demolitions due to attnnan ~n the housino stock (i.e., fire
damage, obsolescence, redevelopment and conversians to non-housing uses), (c) maintairung
an ideal vacancy rate for a w-e11-funct~oning housuig market, and (d) an ad~ustment to avo~d
an over-concentratxon of lo~~er-~coxne households in any one ~urisd~ctFOn
The future need for hausing based on household exo~}-th is derived from SCAG's re~onal
gro~-rh forecast HCD recornmends a flat rate factor of 0 2 percent for replacement. but
SCAG has used instead the average rate of demolrtron in each~urisd~ction for the three years
immed"zatel~~ precedmg the inrt~al year of tY~e fair s~are ailocation periad. The ideal ~~acanc5~
rates are the same as those noted abave Avoiding over-unpaction v4~as accomplished in 198$
b}' mo~-ing each junsdict~on"s fair share al~oca~ion 2~ percent of the ~-a~~ to~vard the regional
average proportion of lower-income households ,
C~n• of Santa Mon~ca
Hous~n~ Element Ii-8~ Housm~ Needs and Resources
~
1
'
~
'
'
,
~
'
'
'
'
'
,
~
1
~
~
~
~
,
~~s own estimate of the C~t~°'s fair share of regional hausina need Inasmuch as HCD Y~as
' pre~-iousl~~ ap~ro~ed SCAG's approach to makin~ fair share allocations. the estimate for
Santa I~1an~ca's Elernent ~s mtend~d to be consistent ~~•ith the appraach SC_~G uould have
used had the Le¢islature funded rt tfl do so
' ` -
2. O~en~iew of the SCAG Fair Share A~Iacation Process
, Briefly stated, a locaI ~unsdictian's "fair share" of regional housing need is the number of
addrtional d~~elline unrts that ~~zll need ta be constructed in the~uns~etion in order ta hanse
the anticxpated ~rov~rth in the number of h.ouse~.olds. replace e~pected demolitfons and
' conversxans of housmg units to non-housin~ uses, and achieve a future vacanci- rate that
ailot~-s for the health~- fnnctiorung of th~ haus~ng market, o~-er a specified time period This
fa.2r share must be allacated b~~ four household income categories used in Federal and State
t housing programs -- very low~-income. low-~ncome, ~noderate-~ncome and upper-income ~~
The ailocations are further ad~usted to avo~d an aver-concentration of lo~s~~er-income
~ households in an~% one j~rtsdict~on. The fair share allocauan m~ust also eonsider the existin~
"deficit^ of housing need due to the number af Iow-er-income households ~°ho are currentl~~
pa~~~ng more than 3D percent af their mcomes for housin~ costs, which is the l~mit used b~~
the Federal government to define «-hen houstnQ ~s "affordable ''
' SCA G's Regional Growth Foreeast
' In the process of making ~unsdiction-specific alIocations, Councils of Government must
consider market demand for housing. emplay-ment opportumtres, the a~~ailability of suitable
srtes ar~d publlc facilaties, commut~n~ patterns, t~pe and tenure of housing need, and the
' housina need of farm workers. In the SCAG re~ion, these factors are all explicitiy talcen into
account in tlZe preparanon of SCAG's regional growth forecast. wluch is the basis not only
for the Re~ional Housing Needs Assessment. but also for the Air Qualit~ Mana~eznent Plan
' prepared by the South Coast air Qualit~- Manager~ent District. and SCAG's Regional
Transportatian Plan The reaional forecast Qf population, household an~ employment grow~ th
is developed e~ ery fe~- years by SCAG usmg sophasticated car~puter models
'
'
'
'
~
'
For the m.ost recent official forecast, adopted m April, 199~, SCAG relied on the resuits of
the 199d census. among other data. and the DRr111-L'EMPAL forecasting models.'~ These
are ~~o spanal interaction rnodels desi~ned ta pro~act small-area dzstributions of emplosment
an~ housin~, and to capture the interaction of transportation an~ land use variables The
models' growrth allocations to each junsdiction are then fine-tuned througn re~iev~~
's These are defined operationally as househoids earnm~ up to 54°~0, SO%. 120% or more than 12Q°.b of
the Los ~ngeles Countv med~an fantih~ ~ncome, respectn~el}~. wrth ad~ustrr~ents for fa~nily size
Applicable mcome ti-resholds are publfshed each year b~~ the ~` S 17egartment af Housing and Urban
~evelopment and HCD "jlery low•-income" and "iow-income"' households ar~ also referred to
collecnvelv as `lou-er-mcome'' househoEds
79 "DRAM'' stands for Distributed Res~dential Allocat~on Model, "EMPAL" siands for Employment
Allocatian Model
Crtv of Santa'Viomca
Hous~na Element II-$3 I-~oustn~ Needs and Resources
'
E. FtiTURE HQUSING 11~EEDS'6
1. Background #o San#a'~ionica's "Fair Share" Hovsing Need Estimate
Calzforma's HousinQ Elerx~.ent la«- requires that each elty and count~~ develop local hous~ng
programs deszgned to rneet ~ts "fair share'~ of existm~ and future housing needs far a~l
mcome gzoups, as determined b}- the~urisdiction's Councii of Go~~ernments. ~~•hen prepaYUlg
the State-mandated Housing E~zment af its General Plan~ This "fair share" allocation
concep~ seeks ta ensure that each~urisdZCtivn accepts respons~balit~- far the houszng needs of
not onl~- rts resident populanon_ but also for those households ti~-ho might reasanabh be
expected to reside ~;ztfun the~uris~ction, particulaxly lo«~er-~ncome households, «~ere thzre
a varieh~ and choice of housing accornmadations appropnate to their needs
In the six-count~• Souihern Califomza reaion. v~~hich mcludes Santa ~lvnica and all other
incorporated cities and unincorporated areas in Los :4tiaeles Counn~. the a~enc~- responsible
for assigmng these faFr share tar~ets to each ~unsc~iction is the 5outhem Cal~farnia
Association vf Govemments {SCAG) The fa~r share allocat~on process beg~ns w~th the State
Departrnent of Finance's pro~ectian of S~ate«~de housing demand for a fi~-e-~~ear planmn6
per~od, ~•hich is then apportLOned b}' the State Department of Housin~ and Community
De~~elopment (HCD) a~non~ each of thz State's official regions Councils of Government.
such as SCAG (or HCD itself if a re~ion does not have a Council of Goti=ernments) then
further allocate its ass~gned regiona~ shares amon¢ its member~urisdictions
Jurisdiction-specific fair si~arz allocations were prepared by SCf1G in 1983 and ir~ 1988 ''
SCAG was sclaeduled to prepare a ne« R~gional ~Iousmg l~ieeds Assessment m 1993,
co~~ering the 1944-1999 planiung per~od SCAG's ability to do so. hov~re~er, is dependent
on the StatE L~gislature appropnating funds for rt. hecause thzs obl~gation has been
determined to be a State-mandated local prooram for r~h~ch compensation is required under
the State Const~tut~on In 1992_ ho~r-ever, the Legislature chose not to pravide funds for such
manc~ated acti~rties SCAG (and ti~e other Councils of Government tl;roughout the State)
has taken the positron that v4ithout these reqnired funds. ~ts obligation to prepare a ne~r "fair
share" allocatron for member~unsc~ictzons in Southern Califorz~a. xnclud~na Santa Mon~ca.
is suspended. 5ubsequent legislation was ac~opted in 1993 to postpone the due dates for the
neat round o~' Housing Element updates (i e_. ta Jtuae ~4, 1996 in the SCAG region) in
recognitian of the inabil~tt- of Councils of Governments to produce the requ~red fair share
allacations, but no funds to prepare the fair share calculation v~°ere pro~~ided In Apni 1995.
the Leg~slature postponed the Southern Cal~farnia due date for anather two yeazs, but still
d~d not provide funds far the fair share calcuiation process
Desprte this situat~on, 5anta Moauca ~as e~ected to proceed w7th an update af its Housing
Eiement no~- to address ~he new• 1998-2003 planning period It has also elected to prepare
Santa :~ion~ca's "Fair Share" Howing Need Est~mate was pregared bv HR&A See Techmcal
Append~x
' The 19&3 vers~on wa5 called the Regional Hous~ng Allocat~on 1~1ode1. the 198$ ~ersion was called
the Regianal Hous~ng i~eeds Assessment
C.ity~ of Santa Monica
Hous~n; Element II-82 Houstn4 ~leeds and Resaurces
~
~
'
~
'
'
'
~
~
'
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
'
'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'~'AIiLC 1[-28
C1TY [)F tiAN'I'A MC)NIC:A
1998-20[l3 INVF,NT()RY ()F A1)EQIJA'['E ~[T1+,4
Devclop~i~e~~t on
Vacant l.unii Ucvc~upmcni on
EJndcrutilized Laud ~)evclupmer~l ou
Non-Rcsidcntial !'rnjccly
~nder
Totf~l
Zone Uistrir.t
cres
ILfS
Thco-
rcti~al
I)cvelop-
ment (L)U)
Rcafislic
Development
(UU) Sites
~~~~ Dcvcfop~e~ent Itc.llltitlC
1)cvclupiti~eut
~ryU~
R- t{ 1 du/parcel} 3 GO I G l G
It-2 {29 du/~c) G43 172 4,1R2 I,RO3 75 2,US0
k-3 (3S du/ac) 2 2p 77 59~1 200 GG 343
R-4 (48 dii/ac) (} 70 34 279 I 1 4S
(3P-Uupkex
(2 du/parccl) 8 6 G
OP-2 {22 du/nc) U l4 3 72U 38Z '385
(.?P-3 (29 du/~~c) I ~1 5 5
OP-~ (35 clti/~c) 231 S 5
C`arnmcrci,il /.cmcs 797 6(i 8G3
S cc~fic Yla~~S 35U 35U
TUTAI~S 13.~ 3b2 6,032 2,412 I,147 2(17 A,OGR
CiEy of Saq~a Monica
I lo~isti~~ f;Ecmcnt II-81 I lotisi~i~ Needs ariil ltesources
,
~
6. Summan of Residential De~~elopment Po~ential
Table II-2$ surz~marazes the Ci~~'s in~•entor4- of adequate sites for the 1998-200~ penod ,
This mt~enton- includes ~•acant and underutil~zed parczls, parcels in non-residential zones.
and pro~ects cuxrentl~~ under de~~elopment '' The Cin~ has a total inventory af 4,068 d~~eilin~ ~
units_ Compann~ tYus in~-entar~~ ti~vrth the 3,219 dwell~ng unrts ident~fied as Santa ~1o~ca~ s
fair share of regional housing needs (refer to Sect~on II E, Table II-28). the Cit}T presently
has a resident~al de~~elopmen.t capacrt~~ that adequatel~~ addresses the Citti''s pro~ected si~are '
of regzonal grow~th
The Cit~~ alsa provides dzvelopment opporturuties to address the City's identified regional '
housLng need of 1,3591o.~~er-income housing units ~iore specifically, the City's adequate
srte ~nventon• pravides for l,b43 unrts at densities of 3~ un;ts per acre and abo~~e. the
mimmum dens~ty threshoId generaIly associated w~th unit affordabihty~ in urban areas. In
addit~on, Prapasrtion R requires that 30 percent of all ne«~ mul~i-family housin¢ be '
affordable to low and moderate income households. y
~
'
i
~
t
1
i
~
i
~
'` For compar~son purposzs. the Cin• also prepared an analvs~s of adequate sites for the 1389-f 99~
plannina per~od (refer ta Appendix G)
Cit}' of Santa Monica ~
Hvus~r-~ Element II-80 Hpusing Needs and Resources
~
,
~
Cosr of Reparr ~3 ssessed bl- Ciry Cin~ Assrstance
' $1 - 5~00 1Q0%
~sa~ - $1_ooa ~s~io
~ $1.Q01 or abo~s-e ~~%
Sewer System
' The local se~~er collecnon system is oti~~ned b}~ the CiiZ- of Santa Momca, at~d xs managed.
operated, and maintained b~' the Ltilit~es Di~•ision of the C~t~~'s General SerF~ices Department
, Se~~~er flou- ~s treated at the C~ri~ of Los ~,n~eles' Hypenon Trea#ment Plant located
approxxmately~ 4 miies southeast of Santa Mon~ca
~ Periodxc problems encountered m the operat~on of the Crtt-'s se~-er system consist af mains
that hav~ exceeded #heir capacit~ during peak flo~~~ periods, rnains expenencing root
infestat~an, and main capacitc~ rsduced by an influx of ~rease and sand The hydraulic
ana~ysis of the year 2004 wet weather flov4 also re~~ealed h~~draulicall~~ deficxent segrrients in
~ the collectton sy~stern Imple~rientation af the Cit~•'s ten-year caprtal impro~rement pro~ram
«~ill ensure that the Ci~' Fs able to meet its future sew-er needs
, Storm Drr~ins
'
'
,
,
i
1
1
i
1
The storm drain system in Santa l~fanica is comprised pnncipally of pipes and channels
ow~ned and operated b}T the Crt}- af Santa I~iamca and the Countt~ of Las Angeles. The
Kenter Canyon Dratn, ~y~hic~ serves areas in Brentwood and VG'es~ Los Angeles. runs t.~raugh
the City and discharges at Santa 'vloruca Beach into the bay Th;s drain is presentl~~
undersized and incapable of accommadating the runoff fro~n a~0-rea~r sto~rrn A parallel
drain is currentlv being considered b~° the Los Angeles County- Department of Pubhc V4'orks
Because of th~s unportant deficiency, the Cjty of Santa Vlonica Department af En~~-zronmental
and Public V1%orks I~Tanagement has for the last several rears reql.ured iarge de~elopments to
install detention facilrties onsite to reduce runoff durmg peal: flaw penods. Addinonally~. the
Cit~- Counci~ passed an ordznance requinn~ aIl de~relapments to reduce runoff quantrt~es by
20 percent as a condition of pro3ect approval
Conclusion
In con~unetion v4~th on=oing caprtal impro~~ement projects, ex~sting City ordFnances, and
pro~ect-specific mrt~gation conditions of appro~al. existing infrastructure is s~fficient to
accommodate developmen~ on all srtes identified in the in~ entory~
City of Santa ~1on~ca
Hous~ng Element IF-79 Housmg Needs and Resources
~
,
~
5. A~-ailabiiit~~ of Public Services and Facilities
As part af determinin~ the adeq~ac~- of sites for housin;, the Housing EleFnent must consider
the a~~ailabil~-t~- of public services and fac~lxties to ser~~e future housina development. Santa
~•1on~ca is a~uahl}~ urbanFZed commumri'. u~ith public faciiities in place to sen~e develapment
throu~hout the Cit~°'s m~lti-family and commercial zones Sites des~gnated for residential
developrnent are already ser~ed b~ se~~er l~nes, «-ater lines. streets. storm drains, ~as and
electrical lines. u-~th existing s}-stems periodzcall~- upgraded as needec~ The follo~~7ng
surnmarizes the adequacy of the CYty's water. street, seti~er. and storm drainage s~°stems xo
support de~~elopment. as excerpted from the Citt-'s 1996 Master Environmental Assessment
(1~fEA}.
f~ater .System
Vi,'ater for the Santa 1~lonica sen-ice area is supplied from bath ground~-ater and impor[ed
sources ~~4~ater system storage is provided by the C~ty's four resen-oirs - Arcad~a. Ri~-iera,
San Vieente, and Mount Olrvette
The Cit~'s «ater system operates adequately to meet the domesUc needs, and supplies
sufficient fire suppress~on pressure to provide the needed ran;e of fre flou:s The Cin's
u~ater conser~~ation efforts are expected to offset the cumulat~~re impact af water demand due
to currentl~- propased and appra~~ed developrnent projects The Cin- also ma~ntains an active
capitaI lmprovement progsam for w~ater main replacement, the entire system uzll be replaced
approximately e~er~t ~0 years
Street System
As part of tl~e ~~EA, the Cih- prepared a forecast of future lerels of ser4-ice at in~ersectians
based an existing ~onditfons, traffic trends, proposed and approved de~~eio~nnent pra~ects,
a~d unprovemerns to be implemented The results of the forecast indicate that betu-een 2$
and 39 intersections in the City «~ill operate at levels E or F(congested) in the }-ear 2005
Street impravements ~~ill cantinued to be requfred as condinons of pro~ect approval to
mitigate deti~elopFnent irnpacts on #he Ctt~°'s street s~stem In addition; the City is in the
process of updating the Circulation Element of the General Plan T~~s update u+ill include
a comprehens~ve evaluat~an of existing pol~cies and pro~rams to address issues identified in
the ~iEA
In addrtion, the Environinental and Public ~'L'orks Management Department, Street
1~iaintenance and Engineenng Division rzpatrs dama~ed streets, curbs, gutters, and
stdewalks, and the Electzical Division repa.irs and rep~aces streetiieht. Tl~e Cit~~ often
assesses resident~ai and commercial properh~~ ov4ners for the cost or a percent of the cost of
repairs and reconsuucuvn How~ever, dependmg upon the a~-ailab~lity of CDBG funds.
low/moderate income residents ma~ be elig~ble for assistance through the Public ~Vorks
Assessment ~ssistance {PR .4A) program The progxam offers financial assistance accarding
to the following sliding scale
C~rv of Santa Monica
Housmg E12ment
II-78
Housm~ Needs and Resources
1
~
~
i
,
~
~
~
~
i
'
~
~
'
,
'
~
,
'
Comrriercial District" {BSC) - intended ta pro~°ide ~or a concentration of retail,
' entertainment, office and housing uses in addi#io~ to complementan uses such as hotels
and cultural facihties_ T'he development standards for tile BSC D~str~ct are ~ntended to
permrt a greater amaunt of floor area per parcel than ather zo~n~ dismcts, and znclude
~ Floor Area Rat~o's (FAR's) ran~~ng frorr~ 2.0 to 3 5 The BSC District inc~udes
s~gruficant incentit~es for the mclus~on of residentiaE uses, mcluding FAR and height
bonnses ~~l~rile residential and mixed use de~-elopment opportunzties ~n the Ba~side
' D~smct are si~nificant, for purposes of the Hausin~ Element, based upon the amount
of vacant or undeti~eloped parcels m the district. and the rate of general in~uiries
received by the Cit;~ concernina potential residen~ial development, the Cin- has
~ est~mated that ~here is a more realist~c potential for tY1e de~~elopment of 100 multi familv
umts m the greater do~vnto~~-n area durinQ the 1998-2003 planninb perzad
' Developrnent Agreements
• The Cinr has entered ~nto an amendment to a pre-exist~ng Deti~elopment Agreement ~-~th
the de~Teloper of the "Arboretum" pra3ect. vs~hich allo~s for a maximur~a of 760
, residential uruts to be built The deti•eloper currently~ ~ntends to builc~ at least =~42 mult~-
famiiy d«-elI~ng units in this planning perrod The requtred 30 percent inclusiona~~
units (half at 60% y1FI and half at 1 QO% M~'I} currently~ are proposed to be built ent~rel~
' on-s~te, although the Development Agreement daes prov~de an in-lieu fee opt2on for a
portion of the required affordable units.
, Prajects Undergoing Planning Review
• An application ~as been filed far a project to be located at 3000 '~'abrcrska (Santa
~ Monica Studios) consisting of an innovat~ve l~ve~`w°ork pro~ect on a 50;000 square faot
parcel in the LR~fSD zone distnct. The proposed pro~ect w-~11 rnclude I11,000 square
feet of ~•ark-li~e ur~ts (approximately'~ unrts), and 282.000 square feet of production
~ affice space, including sta~es. This pro~ect is expected to be completed zn late 1998.
' 4. Projects C~rrentl~- Under Development
The res~den~ial srte int~entory also needs to account for pro~ects in various staaes of
~ development and likei~~ to be completed durin~ the 1998-2p03 Housin~ Element planning
periad (Pro~ects w~th plannin~ appro~%als expected to be completed prior ta 7~'98 are
evaluated separately in the analysis of adequate sites for the 1989-1998 penod. contaizied in
~ Appendix C of the Element) Five projects have been identifed, totalina 207 net r.unts. likely
to be developed after Jul~ 1998 Each of these pro~ects ~s receiv~ng some fo~ of public
assistance. and z~711 result in 66 very lo«~ income units, 7~ lo~.- income unrts_ and 66
moderate incozne 2uuts Staff has cross-ehecked addresses on these pro~ects and removed
' their acreage azid unrt potential from the in~lentar~- of ~~acant and underutzlized sites
'
, C~iy af Santa Monica
Houstna Element II-77 Housme Needs and Resources
,
Cb zonmg dismcts), be~.~een $36 to 1034 residential unrts would be de~~eZoped Far
companson purposes, if these properties were to be rede~ eloped as 100°lo res~dential pro}eets,
between 2.7$6 and 3.44~ unutts would be detieloped As discussed. each pro~ect ~~ill have a
d~fferent rt~x of uses These ca~cuiations have been prepared for.~llustratlve ptzrposes.
TABLE II-27
RESIDENTIAL UNIT POTENTIAL Il~ CONi~VIERCIAL ZONES
LNDER VARYTNG DEVELOPI-~E~TT SCENARIOS
Cammerciai
Corridor District 10%
Residential 30% Residenfial 100°10
Residential
Lincoin C4 16 - 39 68 - S~ 22~ - 282
Pico C2 33 -~9 14Q -16~ 468 -~51
Santa Manica C4 46 -~ 1 198 -228 660 - 761
V[~'ilshire G6 21 - 25 92 -~ 0~ 3Q7 - 350
Main Street GM I~- 24 44 - 59 l47 - 196*
Dov~~ntown C3. C3C 98 294 - 392 979 - 1;4G*
Total 228 - 249 units 836 -10;4 units 2786 - 344~ units
'" Certa~n zonmg d~str~ets resmct the ~se of gronnd floor frontage and «ould prevent a pro~ect from bemg
I00% reside~#ial
In addition to the nnoxe ty~picai smalI-to-mediurn scale residential projects m commercial
zvnes, the Crt~ also has several uruque large-scale mixed-use areas where resident~al
development is liicely to occur dunng the plannmg penod. These include both specafic plan
areas, srtes ~ith known entatlements, and large-scale mixed-use pro~ects in the plan revievv
stage These can generally be described as follows:
Civic Cen~er Specific Plan
The 1993 Ci~rc Center Specific Plan designates an area where up to 3~0 resrdentral
units can be developed. Speczfic Plan policies encoura~e residential units for ~azge
famihes, and require thirty pereent of the u~nts be rnade affordable
to lo~~ and moderate income households The Civic Center Specific Plan aIso permrts
up ta 35,OD0 square feet of li~e/wark space on the ground floor of the area designated
for mixed-use
Downtown
• The Crty adopted the Baysrde Drstrict Specafic Plan in Januazy 199b to further the goal
of reuiforcmg Downtawn as the focus of the City s~ppornng the greatest cancentra#~on
of acti~~ity The Specific Plan establishes a nev4 zoning district - the "Bayside
Ciry of Santa Momca
Hous~n~ Elernent II-'76 Housing Needs and Resources
~
~
~
~
~
'
,
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
,
'
~
~
~
'
'
~
1
3. Non-Residential Zones
In addrtian to the potent~al for ne«• housin~ in residential zones. the CF~r pe~nits residential
development in a~l commeresal zones'~ ~~areo<<er, u~ the BCD, BSC, C2_ Ca. C3C, C~. arxd
C6 districts. the City- offers densin~ and height mcenti~-es for development of housing The
C~R''s Inc~usionan~ Housin~ ProQram (Qr~inance }lbl ~) allow°s pa~-ment of ~n-l~eu fees to
ful~ll low incorne unit requirernents u-here there is no Ioss of existing affordable housing,
thereb~~ providing an addiuonal incenuye for residential de~elopment m cammercial areas
Residential c~ej-elopment standards ~n commercial zones anc~ special zncentives for housing
are descnbed in detail m Sect~on III - Potential Constra.ints on Housing Production and
Consen-at~on
The Cit~~ has been successfu] m encouraging residential development m rts commercial
zones. bath as free-sta.nding muItz-famil~~ de~~eiopments arzd as mixed use pro~ects intearated
w7th conunercial and:`or affice uses Ret~ew• of certificates of occupaneF records indFCate
that over the previous Hous~ng Element cycle (Ju1~-1989 -1~iarch 199b), a total of2~~ multi-
family unrts r~~ere cornpleted an commercia~ zones Of these. three pro~ects totalFna I2> units
aze 1Q0% affordable to lo~r and moderate income (100% of inedian} households Pro~ectin~
this same rate of residential de~-elopment activit;~ an the Cit~•'S COmmerCi~l zanes (36
un~ts/year) over the 1998-20~~ Housmg Element c~-cIe, an est~mated 1 SO mult~-family units
could be expected to be de~-eloped
The Cit~- has prepared an analysis of srtes m commercial c~stnets (C2. C4. C3. C3C, C4. C6,
' CM} ~~hich would be most 11ke1~~ to recycle during the planiung penod due to the a~e and'ar
condition af the existmg structures, or due to the potential for a substanual intensification of
the existzng use(s) Cansidering the incenti~•es the Crt}- has in place for residential
' deveiapment in commercial zonin4 districts, it is quite likelv that some portion of these
parcels, cvhich total in area o~er 70 acres. v~~ll be developed as residential projects or include
some residential untts
'
'
i
,
,
'
,
The number af potential resjdentia~ unrts is unrestr~cted m these cammercial districts,
however, the size of pro~ects is determined b~° FAR Each project will ha~~e a different mix
of res~dential and commercial uses depending an the det~elopers' pro~ect ob~ecti~=es
Although it is difficult to est~rnate the actual number of residential units vy~ich could be
accommodated on these sifes, Table II-27 pro~-ides a preli~n~nary assessment of the
residential gotentia~ based on an assumed 10% resident~al m~x_ a 30% residential mix, and
a 1 a0% resident~al mix Fn. buildzngs built to the maximum FAR permitted The number of
umts were calcnlated based on the ma~cimum FAR, ad~usted b}~ 15% to account for ~-non-
leasable'' space. at~d an a~erage 1200 squaxe foot unit size
This prel~minar}- investi~ation indreates tha# if these com~nercial graperties w-ere to be
redeveloped during the planning penad and devoted 10% of the floor axea to resident~a~ use.
between 228 and 249 residential units «-ouId result If the same properties «~ere to be
redeveloped ~r-~~ 30% resident~a~ use (the thzeshold for densiry mcentz~~es m the C2, C4, and
" Resident-al derefopment in C5 and M1 zanes requ~res a Condrtional ~;se Permrt All other
cammercial zones permct res~denual de4elopment by right
C~Cy of Santa Ivlon~ca
Hous~na Element II-75 Hous~ng Nee~s and Resources
~
TABLE II-26
POTEI~TIAL FOR 1~E~'~' RESIDE~~T'IAL D«'ELLING UNITS
Ql~ U\TDERtiTILIZED, MULT~-F~tiZILY ZO1~ED LA\D
Zone
Theoretical
Unit Potentia[ Vumber.of
Parcels with
Realistic tinit
Potential Realist~c
tinit
Potential~
NVv`-R2 37~ 9~ 204
AVV-R2A J Z 3
NG1r'-R3 1~4 1? 37
OP-DU $ 6 6
OP2 718 222 381
OP2-B 2 1 1
OP3-~B 1 ~ ~ ~
QP4 6 3 ~
OP4+~ ?~~ 0 Q
R? 3.~44 61$ 1,~82
R2A 22 4 9
R2B 7 1 7
R?B-B 201 31 l72
~ R-B 29 26 26
Ri 449 47 147
It~YB 4 ? ~
R3 A 4 1 4
R3 R+B 8 1 $
R4 279 2 li
TOTAL 6.0;2 1.079 2.412
' Assumes recvcl~~~ w~ll occur only on parce~s an which exisnnQ s~-uctures were built in
1941 or before
C~~• of Santa Mon~ca
Ho~sing ~lement II-74 Housma ~Ieeds and Resources
~
~
~
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
,
i
~
~
i
1
~
,
~
'
'
,
,
'
1
1
assumed that eac~ parcel «-ould be bu~lt to 104 percent of its capacit~• in its anal~-sis of
theoretical and more realist~c recvc3~n~ scenarios
Ratio of 1'4'`ew to Replaced Units
Cin~ staff also etialuated «hether there is a minimum threshold ratto of allo~~able-to-existinQ
unrts tha~ is an economic pre-requisite to rec~clina ~'4'hile a re~iev~~ of pro~ects appro~•ed
ben~~een 1989 - I 995 indicates that the average ratio of new to existing {rec~ cled) unrts is 3~
to l, data indicates that this ratio does not represent a m~mmum rec}~cline threshold bui
instead reflects the typicai raho of new-ta-replaced unrts based upon ~ustoz-ical de~-elopment
patterns and exzstin~ zorun~ Because af historic development patterns and pre~~ious zoruna,
alder parcels in the Cm~ tend ~o contain one, two. or three unrts These dei~eloprnents
t~~picall~ are replaced wrth fiti-e or six unrts because that number is 1~'h3i cutrer~E zo~~~a
permits on a typieai parcel size of 7,~00 square feet iuider R2 zoning standards Therefore.
while tY~e 3 3 ratio ma~- be t~plca~_ it does not appear to represent a threshold be(o~;~ u~h~ch
recycling «-ould not occ~ in fact, data from tY~e C~tS-'s htstoncal develo~ment record
indicates that zt v~•as not uncommon for deveIop~rs to replace tti~-o- or thxee-unrt buildings
~cith pro~ects that netted oni~- one or tw•o umts In some instances, de~~e~opers were ~~~illin~
to replace ~nits one-for-one or e~~~n lose ~nits_ Frojects t~-ere consiructed ~r-hich replaced
pre-existing umts one-for-one ar eti•en resulted in the loss of un~ts.
Summary of Realistic Develnpment Potential on L~ nderutilized Srtes
, In concli~sion, of the three factors evaluated - aoe, rauo of actual to permFtted densit~~, and
ratio of ne1~~ to replaced units - onl~~ age appears to be a real consideration in determinmg
«~hether a parcel u•~11 recycle to h~ghez densrties Therefare. m vrder ~o refine the Cit;v's
, theoret~cal buildout analysis to determine a more realistic potenual #'or rec}cling, the City's
GIS system was progran~ned to on1~- mclude development potential on underutilized parcels
«~here the existing structure ~i~as constructed pnor to 1942 This results in a mare realistic
, development potential on underutilized sites of 2.4I2 units, and represents approx~matzly
fort~~ percent of the total t~eoretical capac~t~- of 6.032 un~ts (refer to Tabie II-26}
'
i
~
1
1
' Ciry of Santa llomca
Hous~n~ E3ement II-73 Housmg Needs and Etesources
~
~
refinement of the Crt}~'s GIS database to ~ntearate existing unit data from the Cin's Rent
Control databasz, rather tlaan using assessor ~arcel riata."
In order to translate this "thearetical" potential for res~dential recvclzng mto an assessment
of sites that ha~~e a reaIistic potential of redeyeIoping dunn~ the 1998-2~03 planning penod,
the Cin~ exammed its recent histon- of residential recvcling to assess the follo~ti~mQ factors
1) rhe age of the oriainal str~cture(s) on underutilized parcels in the C~n~'s multt-familti-
zones that rede~-e~oped between 19$9-199~, 2) the densiri~ of pro~ects approved betu-een
1989-199~ on pre~ioush• under~tilized parczls compaxed to the maximuan densit~~ pernutted
far these parcels, and 3) the ratio af nev4 units to replaced unrts for pro~ects approved
bet«~een 1989-I99~
Age of Existing Structure(s)
Pazceis developed u7th older stnictures tend to be developed at densit~es that are lower than
~rhat currentlv is allov~-ed by zonin;. and in most cases have lo~ver ~conom~c value tha.z~
ne~~~er. laraer structures Because of these combFned factors, these are paxcels most hkel~~ to
be rec}~c~ed ~s a means of determintng a realist~c age at v~~hich residennal biuldzngs xn Sazrta
Monica zz~.a~~ to be recycled. City 5tafr re~~fe~r-ed o~~er 130 re5~dential pro~ects developed on
under~tilized parcels in the Cit;-- bet~reen 19$9 - 1995 Sevent~--six percent of the on~inal
buildu~gs on these under~tilized parcels v~~ere canstructed before or dunng 1941. w7th nine
percent built duruig the 19~0's but in the late 1940's. 14 percent built in the 19a0's, and onlti~
one percent bnilt after 19~9
Based on this empirical rev~ew- of projects developed on underutilized parcels in Santa
Monica, Crty staff concluded that parcels det-eloped w-~th units built prior to 1942 are those
which are most lTkely to rzc~~cle to higher densit~es as permFtted b~~ zonin; Consequently,
only° these parcels are mcluded m the adequate site inventory
Rafio o_fActual Approved Der~sity to ~~a_rimum Permitied Density
The analysis af theoretical resFdennal de~~elopmem potential on un~derutilized parcels
ass~unes each parcel is built to its maximum capac~ty, excludin~ the state density bonus I~
order to check the validit~- of this assumption. s#aff reviev~~ed a cross-sectaon of 45 multi-
famil~ development applicat~ans pro~osed on underut~lized parcels betvyeen 1989 - 199~.
The sample ~ncludes only approved pra~ects. and reflects a divers~t~~ in terms of size (parcel
size and number of units). applaca:ble zomn~ d~smct, and date approved
The arera~e ratio of the actual approved densit~• of these 4~ pro~ects {~ncIuding approved
dzns~ty bonus unrts) to the ma.xlmum nnits permitted under zomng (excluding potential
dens~t~~ bonus un~ts) is 98 That is. deti~elopment on underutilized parcels is essentially
occurnng at the maximum perm~tted density Beca~se t~is ratio is essent~ally 1_0. the City
= Appendi~ E compares the densities permitted under present zonmg #o the dens~nes established by the
City~'s Lar.d [Tse Eiement ~'he Cm~ s"theoretical" capac~n~ is based solely on the CEty's present
zon~ng, howe~~er
Crty of Santa Mon~ca
Hous~n~ Efement II-i? Housang Needs and Resources
~
~
~
~
~
'
'
'
~
~
,
'
~
'
~
,
'
~
,
~
TABLE II-2S
' RESIDENTL~L DE`'ELOPI~~ENT CAPACITY
ON VACA`T PARCELS, RY RESIDE~TTIAI. Z~~TE
~
'
~
'
'
~
'
~
'
~
~
~
'
~
~
Zone D~stricts #
Parcels
S. Ft
Acrea e _ Allowable
Dens~~• Potent~al
Units
ivV4`R2 - North of V4~lsh~re
Low~ Densm~ 3 33,492 ~2 1,~00 sE`umt l5
QP2 - Lo«~ Mult~ le 1 ~,93; I4 ~,000 sf.-umt ~
Rl - Sm~le Family 16 1~4,93~ 3 6 1 dW arcel 16
RZ - Low~ Densrth• Mu~tiple
Res~der~t~a] 2~ 2~8,337 ~~ 1.~00 s£~unit 1~~
R?A - Low Dens~n=~' Parkina Or~erla~ 1 ~ a.ooa ?; 1_~00 sf~umt 7
R2B - Lou~ Dens3tv Beach District 2 7,626 18 1 Saa S~~un~t ~
R3 - Med~um Densitn~ 12 96.~30 2 2 i ~~0 sf'umt 77
R4 - Hi~h Densitti~ 2 30.784 7 9Q0 sf~unit 3~t
TOTAL 62 567,13~ l3 0 302
Source Cin- of 5anta Mon~ca, PoLc~ and PlanninQ Analys~s Dtvision,'_~Io~~em6er ~995
~iote Excludes vacant parcels w~th buildine permrts or recent plann~ne approvals for cfe~elopment
2. Underu#ilized Sites
In additian ta developnnent on vacant land. there alsa ~s substantial potential in Santa Monica
for resxdential rede~~elopment on sFtes t~at are currently- developed at densities beIov~= those
permitted under zoning The ma~ont~- of residen#~al grow-th has occu~red in the C~ty in recent
years through this type of "mtens~Fication" of underdeveioped parcels
Lising the C~t}-'s geo~raphic mformation svstem {GI5), Cit~- staff calculated the addinonal
uruts possible on ~nderut~lized parcels in mult~-family zones ~1ore specifica~l~-, the anah~sts
assigned a di~-isor to each zone based on the allowable denszh', calculated the allowable units
based on parcel size (rounding up at ~ or above}. and #hen ealculated the number of potential
net neu- ~ts based upon the difference between exist~ng and allov~~able umts For all mult~-
family zones except R2R, the analysis assigned only one al~ow'abje unit to each parcel under
4,000 square feet: in the R2R zone; all parcels were assigned an allv~-able densrt;- af 2
units,'parcel No density bonus was assumed.
This analys~s documents a"theoretical" capacrty for 6.032 potential net ne~: unrts on
underde~:eloped. multi-family zaned parcels. Table II-26 iIlustrates hov~• these potential
units are distributed among the Ci#~~'s va~rious mult~-farrul~- zoning dismcts B~~ compar~son.
the Cit4~'s 1993 Housing Element calculated a theoretical capacit4 for 7,769 multi-fam~ly
un~ts on underutilized parcels The difference in these figures is due prirnari~~° to a
C~t} of Santa Ivlonica
Hoas~n6 Element II-71 Housing Needs and Resources
~
,
Th~s reduced development pressure can sen~e to assist in preserving the Crt;~~'s dvs~indIan~
supplti~ ofolder, lower cosE unrts. inclu~~n~ unrts currentl~~ sub~ect to the City's rent control
ordinance '
The Cit1- re~ularly re~~~e~~°s and revises rts development standards to promote greater
compatibilitt~ of new development w~th exzsting uses_ In addztian, the Crty has adopted and
impleFnents Architectural Re~~ieti~- Design Guidelmes to address issues of architectural
compatibFht~°. streetscape qual~ri~, pm~-ac~. securrt~~, nai~ral light and ventilation, open space
and landscaping Thz C~t~- frequentl~~ ut~lizes ~dzntified neighborhoods - e g Ocean Park.
North af Vi.'ilslure - as ke~~ elements m creat~ng plans and prograrrrs to maintaui the character
and qual~ty of existzn; housing an~d housin~ environrnents
D. INVEITORY OF LA_~1D SLIT.ABLE F4R RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPME~T
B~~ lati~-, the Ho~sin~ EleFnent is required to provide an inventory- of Iand surtable far
resident~al development. incluc~ng ~~acant sites and srtes ha~°ing potent~al for rede~~elopment
1. Vacant Land
Table II-25 documents the current (Itiovember 199~) number of z~acant parceIs and
assac~ated acreage xn eaeh of the City's residential zones, at~d calculates the residential
develapment potentaal on each of these parcels
The ~~acant land m~~entor~ was comp~led based on the folloti~ing three sources Deeember
1993 aer~al photo~raphs. dul~~ 199~ tax assessar's records of vacan~ parcels. and demalrtaon
pezxnrts issued hetween June 1993 (6 months pnor ta the aer~al photographs) and November
199~. A combinatian of field checks and re~•~e~} of building permit data was conducted to
elim2nate any parcels «-here ne~~- biuldin~ had occurred, or w~as in the process. This site
inventor3t identified a total of 62 ~c~acant res~dent~al pazcels in the City, compr~sin~ 13 acres
Once the im-enton- of ~acant parcels was conf'irmed, the parcel size and applicable zoning
for each parcel ~~as determined and the maximum number of dwellings allowed on each
parcel - not including the State densrty bonus - were calculated The results indicate that
there ~s a capacity for 302 additzonal resideniial unrts on. vacant, residentially zaned land
The ma~ont}r {283 units} of this development capacin- is an multi-fazr~ily- zoned propem=,
v~-~th o~-er one-thxrd af potent~al un~ts (111 units) accurrxng on R3 and R4 propert~es u~t~
densities of 35 unrts~acre and abo~~e. A rnap generall~- indfcating tne lacation of vacant
r~sidential parcels is mcluded in Appendix C of the Element
C~t}~ af Santa Montca
Hous~n~ Element II-70 Housv~g Needs and Resources
~
~
~
'
,
'
'
~
~
'
~
'
~
'
'
~
'
,
,
'
Tne characterist~cs described aba~~e ~~-ork together to define a netghbarhood's a~~erail
' character :~nd ~ti-here ne~i~ de~-elopment is conststent ~;7Eh the predominant e~ast~n~ pattern
of de~~eiopment it ~s sa~d to be "cornpat~ble" ~-rth the netghborhood and contnbute ~a
nei~hborhood contmuin~ Conversely, ~~-here ne«~ develapment is not in keepina r.v~th the
' predominant scale and character of the nei~hborhood. it may be considered ` incompatible-'_
and contributes to an eros~on of the estabIzshed nexghborhaod ~dent~~~ and character
' Another factor to cons~der ~n presen-zn~ neiQhborhood character is the rare at v4~hich ne~i~
develapmen# occurs V~'hen ne~~~ development pro~ects are introduced in rapid success~on
~ into a neighbarhood, the rate of this chan~e in itself ma~~ dzsrupt the established
neighborhood character Even pro~ect «hich mi~ht othen~~ise blend in. if in~raduced
incrementall~~ can negau~~ely- ~mpact neighborhood character ~.~hen irnroduced in the cantext
' of one of man}- nev~, pro~ects in a s~ort penod af t~me ~eighborhood chan~e needs to e~-ol~~e
over ~ime if rt~s to enrich rather than d~srupt the establzshed character and ambia.nce
' Why Is Preservation of:'~`eighborhood Character Importani?
Tlxe goal of zmpro~-~ng our qualrty of l~fe b~~ impro~ring the places tr-here we livz (and u=ork)
~ is shared b~r many commumt~es. Santa Mon~ca's prospent4 has aluays been fueled by the
area's attractive features proximiry to the aceanfrant, cohesrve residential neighborhoads_
l~ulls and acean views. histor~c buildings_ and a diverse populaEion Sustairung these features
~ are kev to maimain~ng the hFgh qualzty of li~e enjay~d b~ Cit~ resxdents
~VlaFntaimn~ the umque character of Santa h~on~ca~s neighborhoods ~s lmportant for many
, reasons Vumber one, Cit~~ residents ti~alue their neighborhoods - preservin~ these
neighhorhoods pramote a"sense of place'~ and loy-alty from res2dents. The eomfnumtr has
made it clear that presen•ing nei~hborhood character is of major unportance, as ~~-~denced
~ b~ the resident initiated rezomngs m the late 1980s in neiehborhoods v~°here reszdentxal
redevelopment was occurrin~ at a pace and densit~~ u~hich ~-as destroying the established
' neighborhoad character_
Secand, design and der~~elopment standards which are sensit~ve ta existmg neighborhood
conditions can further environmental and social goals For example, cons~stent artd
, appropriate buildzng setbacks pro~ride l~~ht and air and pnvac~- to indir~~adual roams. Open
space around uruts increases priE-ac}~ betv~:een ~znrts, sen~es to reduce no~se. and allo~~s
, residents the use of outdoor areas as extenc~ed Ii~°ing space and for recreat~Q~_ Cons~stent
buildin~ heights can ensure e~isting residences cont~nue to en~oy~ pnvacy°, seemc t~iews, and
natural sunlight And housm~ v~~hich is designed and or~znted to pro~ide residents w-rth
' ample sunlight and ventilation can realize sigruficant ener~~~ sav~ngs
Third, presen~ation of existing neighborhoods can serve to maintain the Crty's suppl`~ of
~ affordab]e housin~ In areas where existing dez~elopment ~ensrties are equi~~alent to the
maximum permrtted under zanin~, the pressure to rede~~elop exzsting housmg is reduced
' Crt~ of Santa Mon~ca
Housin~ Element II-69 Housin~ Needs and Resources
,
~
'
~~~ari~t4' of charactensucs work in con~unction to defane huilding patterns v~7tl~in a
nei4hborhood Ke~~ vanables include lot sizes. lot development pattems and densrts, open ~
space and lot co~-erage, builduia setbacks. huildm~ hei~hts. azid bu~ldin~ architecture
Lut S~ze: E~isting housing de~-elopment patterns are a reflection of the zomng standards ~
t~}uch «-ere in effect at the time the housing ~~-as bui~t_ and #he mherent limztattons imposed
b~' lat size. ~~~dth and depth Different neighborhoods in the C~t~t~ are character~zed b~° their ~
t}-pical lot size Far e~ample the t~pical lot size «7thin some Ocean Park neighborhaads is
4~ f~et b~- 8~ feet, and in same ne~4hborhoads lacated '*iorth of ~'~~ilshire l~ts are
predominantIy ~0 feet wide and 1~0 feet deep, and in others. «-here lots have been
consolidated_ the neighborhood is charactenzed b~ c~evelopment w~hich has occurred on lots '
100 feet ~7de and f~0 feet deep
Lot Deveiopment Patterns: Typzcal housin6 development pattez~~.s ~~thin any ga~-en ,
neighborhaod are related to ~stancal precedent. tot charactenstics and de~elopment
standards Cons~quentl~~ thes~ deve~opment patterns vary bet~~een nei~hborhoods. ~or ~
example, in some mult~fam~l~~ ne~g~borhoods there mav sull be a sienificant number of
single famity hornes and duplexes interspersed amang neti~-er multifam~l~ buildings
devetaped on sunilarly sized lots, whereas in other ne~ghborhoods rt rnay be common to find '
lots consolidated and developed o~~er ~0 years ago wzth lower densitti• multifarnily bu~ldings
located ad~acent to newer multifaznil}- build~ngs built at higher densrties with greater lot
coverage The placement and oriernation of the bu~Iding(s) on the lot, the presence of ~
caurtyards, and #he densrt~ of the pro}ects are factors related ta lat dsvelopment pa~terns that
contribute ta nei~hborhood character.
Open Space ~nd Lot Co~ era e: Lot coverage refers ta the ercent a~the lot that is covered ~
~ P
by build~ngs Open space refers to the undeveloped portions of the lot, Iandscaped or ~
otherv~~ise_ These two factors may be sigmficant in nei~hborhoods u~here h~storical
de~-elopment patterns ha~Te re~ulted m greater amounts of landscaped open space than would
be requ~red b} current development standards, or ~n neighborhoods v~here functional open ~
space is anadequate by toda~~'s star~dards.
Building Heights and Setbacl+s: Bu1lc~ing setbacks from propert~ lines are meant to '
pravide hght and air to intenor rooms. and increase privacy between ad~acent lots and yard
space_
Building Arcl~itecture: Within sozne Santa Monica r~ei~hborhoads certain architectural ~
styles predominate. In cases ~~here the prec~ominant style stems from histoncal and
architecturally significant buildmgs. the build~g archrtecture has been identifiec~ by stV le ~
Far example in the Deean Park neighborhoods, three arcIutecttual styles are predominant -
the craftsman st~~le, ihe SpaeushNlediterranean stj-le a~d the Fnternational style. N1a~ntenance
of neighbarhood clzaracter may be enhanced through continu;ry of architectural style. ~
City of Santa i4lomca , ~
Housin; Element II-68 Housmg Needs and Resources
. ~
,
'
'
~
~
~
~
,
~
~
~
~
,
'
~
'
'
1
TABLE II-2~
COASTAL ZONE DEVELOPN~ENT
~rear Cfn~ts
Constructed Un~ts
Demol~shed 1`et
Ga~n LoK-Income
Umts ~Zoderate-
I~come Units
198~ 42 4 ~2
198~ 2 3 0
1986 1 S (7)
i987 1~7 ;1 I26
198$ 12$ ?2 lQ6
1989 114 61 53 I ~
1990 207 91 116 G 16
1491 lOS 3^_ 86 13 20
1992 lb~ 5 l6a 72 0
1993 0 31 {;1) 0 0
199~ 125 ?3 ]02 80 0
194~ 0 0 0 U 0
1946 (lfi-3131) D 0 0 0 0
Tota~ 1.049 296 75's 166 39
Source Cm~ of Santa Mornca Plannms and Policr• Analti•sis D~vis~on
12. Preservation af ~ieighborhaod C~aracter and Qualitr of Life
4ne of Santa Mor~ca's priman housin~ ~oa1s is to prese~~e the quaiity and character of ~ts
e~stin~ single and multi-fam~l~ residential neiahborhoods Many of the City"s policzes seek
to provide a balance bet~}een accominodating new de~~elop~ent and ensurina the
cornpatibilin° of such de~~elopment to preserve the character and integnt~• of exist~ng
nei~hborhoods Hotir-ever, terms like "neigh.barhaod character'' and -`neighborhood qualrt~-''
can be broadly ~nterpreted and mean di~'erent thinos to different people The folIo~ving
dzscussion attemg~s ta ~laz~f}~ these terms to provide a camtr~on understanding on v4-hich to
base the Ctt~l's neighborhood preservation polic~-.
~Iausing and ~~~eighborhood Form
The Crty's Land Use Element cantauis a section describing "a vision for the fi~ture of Santa
Monica' This ti~ision staFement clearl~~ identifies the Ci~-'s desire to have residential
neighborhoods "retain their unique charactenstics, neighborhood identities, and ~~~ide
r~i~.~ers~t~• " And ti~~h~le both s7ng~e anc~ mult2-fam3~y neiahborhoor~s ~n Santa Mon2ca eontain
a great mix and diversity of housing t~pes, recurrine ~uildin~ patterns occur ~-~thin grven
neighbarhoods whach respond to that nerghbarhood~s lot dimensxons and zoning
deve~opment standards It is these recurrin~ building pattems which constitute a ke~
component of neighborhood cnaracter.
C~ry of 5anta ,~lonua
Hausins Element
II-67
Housmg Needs and Reso~rces
,
~~etit° Drrections Ve~v Dixections, Inc ~s a vti~est Los An.eeles-based ~O1C(3} non-profit
organization established to proj-ide a full spectrum of qualitr• transit~onal housing and
dru; a~zd alcohol rehabilitation to homeless veterans Nev~~ Directions xs currentl~- ~n
predet-eiopment on a. 1~6-bed uansitional/pern~anent housm~ facilrty on the grounds
of the ~~~est Los ~.ngeles Veterans Admin~strat~on grounds
Step L~p on Second Step CJp on Second. Inc. is a Santa 144onica-based ~O1 C(3) non-
profit or~anization established in 1986 to pro~-ide a vanen- of basic and supportive
ser~•ices to mentally ill homeless persons Step Up on Secon~ is operating a 36-unrt
single-roam occupancy buildzng The faciIrty is located at 1~28 Second Street and
houses admin~strati~-e o£fices of Step Up as v~~ell as pro~~iding permartent hausina for
36 mentall~~ disabled persons ~
11. Coastal Zone Ho~sing
One of the goals of the California Coastal Act of 1976 ~ras the presen~ation of housfng
opportunrties in tlze coastal zone for low~- an.d moderate-income households Go~~ernment
Code Section 6»88(d) implements this Coastal Act goal for caastal zone ~urisdict~ons by
requirin~ the follo~i-~ng analyses in the housing element 1) a re~~ew of ~t~-ie n~u~nber of
housing umts appraved for construction w~th~n the coastal zone after Januar}t 1, 1982, 2) the
number of hausinq units for persans and familzes of lovv- or m~oderate-incame prav°ided in
nev~~ housina deveiopments eithzr wzth~n the coastal zone or ~rithin three miles of #he coa~tal
zone; 3) the number of existing residential uruts occupied ~~ persons and farnilies of Iow or
rt~oderate ~ncome that have been authonzed to be demolished or converted since Januar~- 1_
I 982 in the coastal zone; and 4} the number of residential uruts for persons and farnilzes of
~ow- or moderate income that hati~e bzen required for replace~nent of units ~us sect~on w~ll
address these requirements.
Table II-24 sho~y s houslna acti~ rties m the coasta~ zone The C~t~~ adopted the Land Use
compvnent of its Local Coastal Plan in October 1991 v~rhich vti-as approved w~th
modifications by the Coastal Cammission in August 1992. Until the City and Caastat
Com~n~ssion approve an Implementation Plan, de~ eloprrzents u~ the coastal zone must receive
both Citv and Coastai Commiss~on approval There has been a signifcant amaunt of
development acti~~iri~ in t~e coastal zone slnce 1954 Betu~een I984 and 1994, a total of 296
units were demolished and 1,049 new umts constructed for a net gain of 7~3 unrts, 20~ of
the uruts constructed between I989 and 1996 are affordable to law- and moderate-income
househalds (Spec~fic Tnfarmatian on lo~~'- and moderate-mcorne unzts built in the Coastal
Zone between I984 and 1988 ~s not a~~ailable }
Gry of Santa Niomca
Housing Element II-66 Housmg Needs and Resaurces
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
,
,
~
'
~
~
,
~
,
~
~
~
,
~
• Qcean Park Communrty• Center (OPCC) - OPCC is a Santa Momca-~ased ~O1 C{3) non-
~ profit or~an~zauon establ~shed to pro~~ide a comprehe~sn~e arra~.- of support services
includinQ. but not limited to, outreach. case mana~ement, transitional hausina, and
cnsis mierven~ion 5en~ices to 10~4 income an~ horneless individuals Currenth~_ ~PCC
, v~7tl~ Cm- financial assistance, is o~eratina a ~~-bed transafi~onal housing pro~ect sentma
homeless adult men and r~-omen ~ ~
' • Communrty Corporataan o{Santa ~'l~lomca (CCS~~j - CGS~7 «-as established ~n 19$? xo
de~-elop, purchase and reno~-ate, or faczlitate the constr~ciion of housing affordable to
house~olds of low and ~oderate mcorne Currentl~~ (October ~ 996). CCS~i is aperating
~67 new and rehab~Irtated uruts in San#a Monica for rental to lo~~- and moderate income
~ persons
L • Retire»aerat Housing Foundatron fRHF) - Founded tn 1961 ta meet the increasing
demand for affordable housuig for sen~or citazens. RHF is recogmzed as one of the
foremost nonproft sponsors of retirement housing in the nation ?~ationvs~ide. RHF
o«ns and operates nearl~-12.000 housu~g unrts for the e]derl~- The Crty assisted RHF
~ in the de~-elopment of a 72-unrt, HUD Sectian 202 senior housing pro~ect located at
1121-113 ~ Third Street, «-hich ~; as completed in 1992
' • .~Ienorah Housrng Foundation of the Je~~rsh Federation Counctl {,I~'CJ of Greater Los
Angeies - The NSenorah Housing Foundation w~as formed m 1969 to promote and build
affordable senior citizen housin~ ~n grzater Los Angeles. The Foundation currentl~•
' o~~ns and.ior manages 879 dt~~elling ~uuts in rhe Los Angeles azea and is the sponsor of
the 66-u~t HUD Sectian 202 senior ci~zzen housing pro~ect proposed for 1116-114~
~'ourth Street ~n Santa I~ionica
, • Yolunteers of~lmerrca (V0.4j, Inc - V"OA is a nat~onal, private nonprofit ozganization
incorporated in 1896 for the purpose of pzoviding ser~~ices at the local Iavel in
~ commurut~es across the nanan Duruie ihe last decade_ VO~. has established a national
housin~ dn~ision to address housing xssues VOA has cornpleted three senior HUD
Section 202 housing pro~ects in the Los :~n~eles area totalling 230 unrts VOA ~s the
1 sponsor of the 40-umt, HUD Section 202 senior housing pro~ect proposed for 2807
Lincaln Boule4ard m Santa Monica.
I • ProJect ~4`eti,.~ Hope - Project New~ Hope, Ine is a Los :~ngeles-based non-profit
orgaruzation incorporated in I990 for the purpose of build~ng affordable housing for
persons disabled due to AIDSfHI~~ Pro~ect Ne~; Hope is currentl}~ in prede~-elopment
~ on a 2~-unit supporti~-e housing project at 1b37 Appian V-'a~: This pro~eci is
anticipated to begm construction in late ].996
' • ~.pward Bound - Upw•a~rd Bound House (UBH) «~as incorparated as a non-
denominational ~OIC{3) in 1990 for the puzpose of developin~ affordable hausin~
T l~s San t a ~ ioruca base d non-~ro f t is curren t lti- in pre deve lopmen t on t v wo pro~ec ts on
land ow~ed by the Methodist Chureh of Santa Momca LBH proposes to construct a
~ 70-urut affordabie seruor pro~ect at 1011 l lth Sueet and a 22-unit transrtional housing
project for hameless families at 1020 12th Street
~ City of Santa hSomca
Houszng Element II-6~ Housmq Needs and Resources
,
i
~
Resources for Preservatron/Replacement
T~e trpes of resources neec~ed for preserving uz~.its at-nsk fall ~nto three cateaones 1)
financtal resources a~-ailable to pu~rchase existzng units or develop replacernent units, 2)
entrties ~rzth the ~nterest and abiIity~ to purchase and~`or manage ~ni~s at nslc, and 3) programs
to pro~ide replacement funding far potentiailr lost Szct~on 8 rent subsid~es
Publie Fir~ancing/Su~sidies: A ~arien° of federal, state. and lacal pra~rarns are a~~a~lable
for patential acquisrt~an. subszdv, or replacement of ~ruts at-nsk Due to both the high casts
of de~~elopin~ and preser~7n~ housing and limitat~ons on both ti~e amount and uses of fiinds,
a vanet~ of funding sources ~,~ould be required The follo~;7ng list ident~fies :fundzn~ sourczs
patentiallti- availabie for preservataon of at-risk housing. r~ detailed descnpt~on of f nancial
resources and funding amaunts is ineluded in Appendix D
Federal Programs
• HUTD Section 811 Program
• HUD Sectian 202 Senior Housing Pro~ram
• HLFD HOME Inr~~estment Partnership (HDME) Program
• HE,TD Seetion 8 Certificate and Voucher Pro~ram
• HUD Gammun~t~- Development Block Grant {CDBG}
• HUD Low ~neome Hauszng Presenrat~on and Resident
(LIHPRHA)
• HLD Housin; Qpportun~t~es Extens~on Act
Staie Proa ams
• Lou- Inco~ne Housing Tax Credits
Loc~d Programs
• TORCA
• Housing Trust Funds
• GeneraI Fund
• Santa Vion~ca Housir~g Authonty~ Section 8 Prograrn
• Rede~Telopment
Currently, HUD is developing a dernans#xat~on prfl~ect that tests the financial feasibilit~~ of
remaving Sect~on 8 s~bsidies from an affordable hous~ng project. Under this deznonstration
pro~ect, HUD ~~~Il provide a one-time mortgaae subs~d5: to the pro~ect ta reduce the mortgage
cost to an extent that affordable rents from tenants can s~pport the mortgage and operatian
costs
Homeo~-nershzp Act '
~
~
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
'
Ad~inistrati~~e Resaurces: An alternat~ve to pro~~~dzng subsidxes to priti~ate for-profit
o~}ners to maintain unrts as lo~r-incorne housmg is for public ar nan-profit agenc~es to
acquire ar construct hous;ng umts to replace "at nsk" uruts last to conversxon The City can
explore prionbz~n~ ter~ants that ha~ e lost theu utut ar rent subs~d~~ in these at-risk buildmgs
in nev4 pro~ects funded b}- the Cit~- The folIowing non-proft housing de~~elopment
corporations are active rn developing affordablz ho~sing in Santa lbiomca
Ctn~ of Santa Monica
Housmtr Element
II-64
Housing Needs and Resources
~
~
I
~
i
~ ~
ass~unes the ati~erage ~~en.- low-~ncame hausehold has an actual income of 30 percent of the
' Caunt}- n:aedzat~, income. adjusted for household size Thus. the average incomz of a one-
person ver4~ Ioti~~ xncome s~n~or household in Santa ~omca i~•ould be ~ 10,770 a~ad the a~-eragz
incozx~e of a four-person ~~enr lo~v ~ncome farnil~~ would be $15.394 Lnder thes~
~ assumptions. monthl~~ housin~ costs affordable to t~ese housenolds are estimated to b~
appraxirnately- SZ70 and $~8~, respecti~•eh~ (i~ased on HL`D's defrut~on of affordai~le housin~
costs as 30 percent of household income}
' ?~ccardin~ to the Santa l~~~onica Housing Authont~•, maximum Fair ~1•larket Rent (FNSR) in
the C~t~~ ~s 5~64 for an efficienc~- unrt, $676 for a onz-bedroozn unrt, S8» for a tvt~a-bedroom
~ uzut. and 51,1 ~~ for a thxee-bedroom urut The differ~nces betw een housuzg costs affordable
to ~°er;.r lo~x~-inco~ne households and the Fair Market Rent are s~oti~~n in Table II-23.
~
~
,
'
1
~
~
~
~
'
~
~
As pre~.liousl~~ rnenhoned. a total of 342 units in the Cit~'s assisted housing projects curxenth-
receive Section 8 subsidies. These subsidies rna~- expire in the t~~eh~e-year penod ca~~ered
b}- this analys~s Based on the urut mix of these 34? umts (1 b0 effieiencF; 1 ~ 7 one-bedroom,
21 tu o-bedroom. and 4 three-berlroom uruts). the total lo5s in rent subsidies for these units
is estimated a~ $1.484.736 annually, or $123.728 rnonthl}~
T~~pically. State la~- requires the Housina Element to evaluate ~e cost of replacing rhe at-nsk
housing unrts. compared to tk~e cost of preser..-ma these units However, housing u~its ~n
Sar~ta Monica that are at r~sk dunng t~s anaIy~sis penod are eitlaer o~ned by non-profit
arganizat2ons and.~or locked in for long-term use of the units as affordable housing;
replacement of these unrts during th~s anal5sis period is nat a rele~:ant option.
T ~BLE II-23
TQTAL A1~TNUAL RENT SUBSIDIES
REQUIRED TO PRESERVE AT-RISK U~TITS
Umt Size`
Monthly
Affordable
Rent'- Manthl}~
Fa~r
Market
Rent Monthly
Per Umt
Rent Subsidy
Required
No. of Umts
At R~sf: Annual
Subs~d-es
Requ~red
Effictency 5270 5~54 $294 l60 5~64,480
One-Se~room S270 $67fi $~t06 357 5764,904
Two-Bedroom 538~ $8>j $~70 21 ~118,440
Three-$edroom 5385 S1,Ia~ $769 4 $36.912
Tota! 342 $1,484,73b
Notes
1 V~'hen onl; a portion of a pro~ecc's unrts are co~~ered by the Sect~on 8 contract, the mix ofthese at-
risk units is est-mated based on the entire pro~ecYs unit mix
2 Monthly affordable rent for effic~ency and 1-bec~room units based on affardabilit~- le~el for 1-
persan verv low~ income (semor) househald Monthly affordable rent for 2-bedroorn and ;-
bedroom un-ts based on affordabilrty level for 4-person ~er;• low incofne (fam~ly) household
Cm~ of Santa ~+ianica
HousmQ Element II-b3 I~ousmQ Needs and Resources
~
~
~
T_A.SLE II-22
PROJECTS AT RISK DUE TO POTEn-T'I.~iL TERMII~ATIaN
OF SECTION S SUBSIDY CONTRACTS
Currentl~' Potent~al
ProJect Totai Un~ts Program Ass~sted Loss of
tin~ts Subsid`•
Date
Geneva Plaza 140 Elderl~~ Section 8 all lU0 units are 9~ 12~ I999
1437-49 215t St (99 l-bcfrm & - assisted
1 2-bdrm)
Sanea ~~onica 163 Elderly Secnon 8 onl~~ 10 unrts 5~'31=`?aoa
Christ~an Towers (98 eff & are ass:sted
i233 6th St 52 l-bdrm)
~~4 estmmster 7'owers 28~ Elderlv Sectron $ onlv 128 uniu 10'14:199~
1 l] 2 7th St (21 fl eff R are assisted 5~ 31 f200~
75 1-bdrm}
1~34 Santa A~Ionica Bl~•d 24 SRO CHTF' Onlv 2Q units 9:'2000
ReRtal Rehab are asststed
Ocean Park Villa; ?4 Famiiv 5ection 8 A1124 unrts are 10~ 17-"200;
2U ~ 9 ~th St (20 3-bdrm & ass~sted
4 3-bdrrn)
Ir"e~lson Villas 100 EIderlti• Section 8 only?0 units 8'28-'2004
(I00 1-bdrm) are assisted
Barnard Park ~'~~las 60 Eiderlv Section 8 a1160 units are 12'11:'t99fi
(b0 eff } ass~sted
I~oze Westminster ~'owers ma~nta-ns two separate Sect~on 8 contracts wrth HCJD
Abbrev~anans bdrm = bedroom, eff = effic~enc~• un~t
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Cost of Providtng Rent Subsrdres- Currentlti~, a~~ailability~ of funding for Sect~on S contract
renewaI ~s unc~rtain Rent subsidies usin~ state, local, or other funding saurces can be used
to mainta.in the afforda.bility of the at-nsk pro~ects Rent subsidres can be structured to
m~rror the Section 8 pro~rram
Under the Section 8 program, HUD pays v~'ners the difference between v~'hat tenants can pay
(defined as 30 percent of hausehold income) and w-hat HUD and the lacai Housing Authority
est~nnate to be Fau~ Market Rent on the unit. Sect~on 8 certificates are only a~~ailable to ~~ery
iow income households earnin~ less than ~0 percent of the County median income The
1996 HUD med~an income for Los Ange~es Counn is ~46,900. ~~'ith the except~on of Ocean
Paxk Vilias, a fam~ly housx~ng projzet, all at-nsk pro~ects in Santa ~~onica are targete~ for
elderfy persons To s~mplify tl~is anai~•sis, all elderiy nnrts are assumed to iae one-person
households and all farniiy uruts are assumed to be four-persan househalds This analysis a~so
Gt}~ of Santa Montca
Housmg Element
[I-62
Housing Needs and Resourees
~
~
1
,
~
~
i
~
penod of this anal~sis, and will need to be renewed These three nonprafit-o~~ned pro~ects
~ are deed-restnctec~ for ~ong-term lou-incorne use, rent subsi~ies requ~red to mainta2n the
ex~sting tenants in these units are at-nsk, but ti~e use of the structures for Iow incame
households is not
,
,
~
,
~
~
~
~
~
'
,
~
~
'
'
In addition to these three Szction 202 semor housing projects, Ocean Park Villas_ a famill
houszn~ pro~ect, is also faced w•ith the potential termmation of rent subsidies Ocean Park
Villas ~s funded w-ith a market rate loan under HliD's Seetion 221(d)(~) prograrn Pro~ects
funded under this pro~ram ha~~e no underl~~ing use restnctions. Ho~e~~er, the grant deed on
t~is propert~-, recorded in 1982, stipulates tE~at the propertj~ be used and occ~pied onI}° b~~
elderl~~ persons and famil~es of lo~~ and moderate income for at least 30 ~~ears or the terxn of
the HUD loan, whiche~er is lon~er Affordabilitr control on this pro~ect is also govemed by
the project-based Section 8 contract scheduled to exp~re during the twelve-year penod of tlus
analys~s Therefore. as is the case ~~~ith Gene~-a Plaza. Santa Monica Chr;stian Tov~°ers,
1]4'estminster To~~e~s, and Ocean Park Vtllas, the rent subsidies required to maintam the
existing tenants are at risic, but the use of the structures as ~ow and moderate incon~e housmg
is not For purposes of tlus ana~ys~s, I~eilson Villa and Barnard Park Villas are also
considered at-nsk because of potent~al los~ of Sectian $ assistance
Previously. non-profit-ov4~ed pro~ects such as VL~'estminster Towers. Gene~~a Plaza. and
Santa 1~lonica Chnstian To~~~ers would typically not be considered as at-r~sk, for nan-profit
owners wo~ld most likel;~~ renew the contracts far Sectaon 8 assFStance and rnaintain the
housing as affordable. However, passa~e of the Housma __ Extension Act in
March 1995 and the current fi~nding uncertainty at HUD have put these pro~ects m~eopardr
For pro1ects w~tli Sect~on 8 cantracts expinng in ~ 996, HUD ~n 1~4'ashington has given local
HUD offices the anthonty to extend t~e Section S contracts for one addrtional ~ear anly_
After this one-yea~r extension, Section 8 certificates and vauchers may b~ used depending
upon funduig ava~labcl~tp tinlike the pro~ect-basr.d Sectton 8 contracts, Sectian S certificates
and vouchers are tenant-hased assistance. this rype of Sectaon 8 subsid~ daes not guarantee
the long-terr~t availa3~ilit~~ of subsidies for the umts
It should be noted that some pra~ects receive Section 8 assistance on a portion af the pra~ect
units only :~ to~al of 342 units in these six projects receive Section 8 assistance, oniv ~hese
units are considered to be at-risk
Cit~ ofSanta ~ion~ca
HoUSm~ Element I3-61 Ho€~sin~ Needs and Resources
,
,
Conversiof: Patentia! and PreservationfReplacernent Cost Anali'SI5
a total of seven publzcl~--asszsted pro~ects m:ay- potentially be at nsk of con~~erting to market-
rate housing during the applicable analysis penod (see Table II-Z2~ T~~-o of these pro~ects -
Neilson Villa and Barnard Park Vil~as - are potentiall}~ at nsk due to the potent~al prepa~~rnent
of HUD mo~-taaae loans Four pra~ects - Gene~-a Plaza, Santa Monica Christian To«-ers,
tiVestminster To~l~ers. an~ Ocean Park V~llas - are at nsk due pnmarily~ to the potent~al
exp~rat~on of their Sect~on 8 rent subsidy contracts (In addrtion, I`e~lson ti illas and Barnard
Pazk Villas also mamta.in HUD Secuon S contracts u~hich are expzr~n.g dunng this analysis
period ) T'he rernair~in~ project, 143~ Santa ?vlo~uca Boulevard, zs at risk due to the pendin~
expiration of its use restrictian
Projects Potentially at Risk Due to Mortgage Prepayment: l~eilson Villas is asszsted wlth
a HUD Section 236~}{1} loan T}~~picallti~, pro~ects f~nded under the Section. ?~6 loan
program have a 40-i~ear low--~ncome use restnctlan, which after the first 20 }~ears. tl~e ou~rters
can choose to prepay the outstanding morcgage loan and opt out of the low-incozxte use
resmct~on_ Built in 1977, ~izilson Villa ~s theoretically~ e1~g~ble for mortgage prepayment in
1997 Ho~~-ever. Ne~lson V~lla is sub~ect to a Contract for Sa1e of land ~.~nth the Santa Maruca
Redevelopanent Agency The Contract contains provisions that restnct the Ion~-term use of
this propem~ as affordable housing, requ~re Ci~~ approral before discharging of mortgage
debt, and pravxde the Cinr/Rede~elopment Agency the opnan to repurchase the iand for
$1 04 an.d the improvements far fair ma~-ket s-alue after 4~ ;~-ears fram the date of pro~ect
completion Given the provFSions contained in Contract for Sale w~hich serve to rzstrict
rrivrtgage prepa~~nent opt~ons, the City does not consider Neilson V~llas at nsk of conversion
to market-rate hous~n~
Barnard Paz~k Villas is a 60-ur~2t semor housing pro~ect assisted wrth a HtiD-~nsured loan,
wluch typicall}~ a11Qt~~s for the prepayment of the Ioan after t~-ie first 20 ~~ears Built in 1981,
the theoret~cally pre~a~~znent date for Barnard Park ~'~lias is 2QOI However, the recorded
Grant Deed far B~ard Park Villas contaxns use restrict~ons for the 14ng-term affordaiaiIit}-
of these u~uts. requires Cit~~ appro~°al before discharguig of mortgage debt, and provEdes the
City/Rede~~eIopment Agency the option to repurchase the land for $1 00 and impro~~eanents
for fa.ir market value after ~~ y~ears The Declaration of Co~~enants and Restrictians for tlus
pro~ect also stipulates that #he propem be limited zn future use to Iow- and moderate-income
sen~or housmg. Gi~~en tl-ie afFordability restnctions contained in the Grant Deed and
Declarat~on of Corenants. the City does not consider Barnard Park Villas at ns~e.
Projects at Risk Due to Termination of Section 8 Subsid~ Contracts: Geneva Plaza,
Santa I1~ionica Chrfstian Towers. and ti~'estmznstzr Towers are funded v~~itl~ HUD Section 202
loans_ These pro~ects are o«ned and operated by non-profit housing orgazuzat~ons and mnst
mauitain as affordable housing for senior crt~.ens for the full 40-year term of the loans. ~ o
mortQage on any of these pro~ects is due to be paad offdunng the applicable analysis penod.
In fact, in the aftermath of January- 1994 Northridge Earthquaice. 5anta Momca Chnshan
Tou~ers and `'~'estmmster Towers received earthqi~alce repair loans from HUD, the terms of
v~°hich req~red ar~ extens2on of affordabihty use restnct~ons for 1~ years bevond the original
H~,TD loans (the extended ~se resmctions are reflected in Table Ii-20}. Howe~~er, the pro~ect-
based Section 8 rent subsidy contracts for these pro~eets are expinng dunng the tv~~el~°e-_vear
City of Santa Mon~ca
Housmg Element II-60 Housma Needs and Resources
~
'
'
i
'
~
,
'
,
~
r
~
'
~
1
~
~
'
,
,
~
'
,
i
~
~
1
'
'
~
~
~
,
'
~
1
V4~ith the recent extenston of the current ~ousina element cti-cle for the SCAG re~ion to June
30, 1998, State Department of Housing and Comrnuni~~ Development (HCD) staff have
recommended the at-nsk housing anal~~sis penod be extended to co~~er July 1, 1998 to June
30. 20Q3 for t~us Housin6 Element cS-cle, and Jul~~ 1. 2003 and June 30, 200$ for the ensuing
five-5~ear per~ad ~
At-Risk St~tus of Housrng Projects
Pub~ich~ Assisted Affordable Hoasing: As shav~~ in Table II-20, the first pro~ect asszsted
bl City trust fnnds v~~as built in 1983 Table II-20 shows that the use resmcuons on City--
assisted pro~ects ~enerafl~- last for at least 2~ ti-ears and often znay be e~tended by another ~.
10, or 1~ ~~ears, usually in exchange far full or partial loan forg~veness
On~y One C~ty-assisted pro~ects cames use restnctions that could expire dunng the pla~unng
penod Tk~us zs a~2-un~t familj'/semor pro~ec~ located at 2017-2423 20th Street_ Tne pra~ect
has use restr~ctions that expire in 2008, vs~ith the abilit~• to eYtend the use resmctions for
another 10 ;~ears Because the pra~zct ~s ow~ned and operated b~• a non-profit or~an~zat~on
whose pnman- mission is to develop and mauitain affordable housing. the City believes that
ihe e~ten.sion option will ~e exerc~sed and that this pro~ect rs not at nsk dunng the plannma
periad y
Depenc~ing upon the cate~ory of loan. MERL progxam laans carry c~eed-restrictaans of erther
30 or» ~~ears Since the fust MERL project ~~-as cornpleted in 1996. no ~RL pro~ects are
at risk of coni~erting to market-rate housing during this planning period
Se~~eral of the HL-D-assistec~ pro~ects cam loans with prepa~rment options that would
theoretically permit prepaSment of the remacnin¢ debts dunng ttie applicable anal~•sis periad
Also, several pro~ects are assisted wzth Section 8 rent subsid~- contracts that can potentialhh
expire dur~ng this analysis period L"nder State law. these HUD-ass~sted projects are
considered as at-risk of converting to market rate housing
Regulated Affordable Housing in Pri~ate Developments: State Housmg Element lavv
specifies that the at-nsk housing analysis rnust address the at-nsk status of inclus~ona~y
housing ututs and unrts which qualified far a density bonus In Santa Mo~ca. typical~y
developers are able to use the ~nclusionary units to qualifi- for densitv bonuses. Deed-
res~icted un~ts subject to the Crty's Inclusionary Housm~ Pro~i were built after 1984 and
generall~r contain affordability resu~ctions lasting 5~ ~-eaxs, wlth only a handful having use
restrict~ons of 30 yeazs. There~ore, none of t~iese units are sub~ect to con~c~ers~an to market
rate housing during the applicable t~me penod
Other deed-restricteti units sub~ect to the Earthquake Recoven~ Act, Rent Cont~rol Removal
Permrts. De~elopment A~reements, Coastal Cornmission Restrictions, and Settlement
Agreernents rr;ere bu~lt v~7thout public fundin6 artd are not mcluded in the at-r~sk hfl~sing
analysis because the~~ do not fall under the definition of assisied hous~ng accordxng to State
law~.
C~t}~ af Santa Monica
Housmg £lement II-59 Hous~n6 I`Teeds and Resources
~
,
'
Regulated Af_ f'ordable Housing In Private Developments
Table II-21 sho~ti-s t1~e number of unrts associated .~7th ~~ arious t;.pes of regulated affordable ~
housing contained in pm~ate de~~elopments In Santa I4loruca. «~th both inclusionar~' housing
requirerr-ents and the State-mandated densit~- bonus pro~-isions in effect, most residennal ~
developers are able to use the inclusionar;:- housan~ units to qualifi- for densiri- banuses #~or
their pro~ects ~
TABLE II-2~
REGUL~TED ~FFORDABLE HOUSII~G
IN PRI~TATE DE VEL4Pl~~E~`TS
Source of Deed Restr~ct~on Number of L~nits (Estirnated)
Inclusionan• Hous~n~ Pro~am {On-Site) ~87
Earrhquake Recoven• Act .i2
De~~elopment Agreements 199
Coastal Comm~ss~on Restricuons 1~2
Rent Control Removal Permits 12~
Tota l 691
Source 5anta Monica Hous~n~ Dn~~sio~. Rent Contro3 Board
10. AS5i5te[I HO~lS1II~ UII1tS A~ R15k
~
~
,
'
'
,
'
'
Housing Element lau~ requires that all housing elements include an analysis of existing
assistec€ housing de~-elopments that are eligible to chan~e from lo~r-inconne housxn~ to ~
markeE-rate housing duruig the nex~ ten ~~ears due to terminatton of subsid~~ contracts,
mortgage prepa~ment, or exp~rat~on of restrict~ons an use (§65583(a)($)) Use restnctions.
as defined by State la~~. means any federal. state, or ~ocal statute. regulat~on, ordinance, or ~
contract wluch as a condit~on of receipt of any housing ass~stance, includine a ren~tal subsidy,
rnortgage subs~dy. or mortgage znsuraz~ce. to a~n assisted hous~ng development. establzshes
maxirnum lirnrta.tions on tenant income as a condrtion of ehgibxlity for occupancy ~
(§6~863.11(a){11})
Assisted housing developments are defined in the Hous~ng Element la~~ as multi-familti~ '
rental hous~ng that receives ~o~~ernment assistance under certain federal programs (such as
HUD CDBG. Sect~on 202, Sectian 236(j)(1)}. stat~ and local multi-family re~ enue bond
programs, loca~ rede~elapment pragrams, or local ui-heu fees_ Assisted housing '
de~relopments also include mult~-#'am~~~ rental unrts that «-ere developed pursua~nt to a locai
inclusionarc~ housing pro~a~ or used to qualify for a dens~ty bonus (~6~583(a}(8))
C~t} of SanFa Vlomca ~
Hous~na Element II-58 Housmg Needs and Reso2arces
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'1'A13L~:1I-24
INVEN"l't)itY t)1+ Yt7~3LICLY ASSIS'~'~ D
A~~OR1.)ABLF H()L1S2N(~ [N 4AN'~'A M(.)NICA
Pro~ect/Loc~~tiun
Tolal Un~ts
~+undina 1'rograml
Suurce
Yes~r Budt
"I'ype of Housmg
Sponvor/Owner F.arfietit
Convertiiun
I)sie(g)
81 S Atihl~ind A~crnic
45 C I 11'~'/R! IC P/
Tnx Cred~ts
1995
F~i~nily
C:C'SM
S/?049 F 25 yrs
Mulli--~a~irily F.artlrqrrake Reprr~r ,-,uan Prugrrrni
13~13 I 211~ SU•cct 8 ME:;ftL 199C Fam~ly CC'SM 2O51
8ff74th Stroct 17 MLE~L f~)~)b I'arnily ('(:tiM 2{.151
TUTAL 1,453
CCSM = Gomnn~nit.y Cor~x.~ration uf S~~nt.i Ma~uca ('.H l'fj - C~tywiclc Hu~ttiing l'rust hun~ls
5lcp-EJp -- Slcp U~s i)n Sccond C;l IA1~1' - C~tywide I-lous~ng Ilcquisrtuin & Reh~~hil~latu~i~ Pro~ram
R~~I~ ~-- Retrremcnt I ~ou5ing f~niu~datio~i l iOUAG - I lousi~f~ Uevelopment Achon Gr~~izt (f'etler~jf)
I.A (~o =- l.os Angclcti Co~-nty LI~fP Luw lucome I[ousing I~und
RKC;I' - Ftcrittil Ho~~~;ing Construction I'rograrn (staic) M~ILL = Mi~lti-F'amily I?arthc~«<ike ftepair I.oan f'ro~;rai7i
Snurcc Hoi.isin~ [.)ivi~ion, Uctobcr l~)~l~
C~ty ol' S~nta Momca
! lot~si~~g Lleme~it 11-57 l IOIISlII~ I~ECC(~5 i111(I ~ZCSOUI'CCS
!'ABLl+. Il-2(I
INVCN'~'OItY O~' PUBLICLY Ati5lSTF.D
A~'~'URDA33LH'. Ht)155~NG iN SAN'f'A MONIC'h
1'r~r~ect/Lacntion
't'otti[ Unals
f uudin~ Pru~;ram/
Suurce
Year Built
Type of Iiousin~;
Sponsor/Owner E.~~•liesl
t:onvcrti~on
l)atc(~)
~427 Lierkeley 7 (.~IARP 1988 F~rn~ly (;C;SM 1/15/2(}2l ~ 15 yis
2{?09-15 (:lnverfield !0 F'N~i!'~/CF~~nRP 19R8 F'amtly CCSM S/25/2023 ~ 15 yr5
Alt I.ivmg for Aging
2323 4th S4reet
G
Rf-1C1'
]~1KR
Sen~or Alternative l,~ving iur
Aged
'i/l 8/2Q32 + i(? yrs
2121 Arrr.ona 1 I CilA1tP i988 I~ars~~ly {,CSM G/3/2023 + 15 yrs
Occ~n Park 43 Coop 43 I IOU~C;/~tcdev I~)89 F~mily CCSM l0121/2(121
3 Viccntc 1'crrace.
25 Cl [ARF~/
l2ental Rchab
1989
SRO
CCSM
4/4/2O23 i~ f5 yrs
2020-30 CloverfcEct
32 Rcnt~il Itchab/
f~rx Creclits
1989
fam-Iy/Scrunr
cc~M
~125/2f}25
IU38 2nd St3•eet 15 C.'H ~'F 199i I~~~nily CC'SM 5/15/2UGG
1952-SG l~raEik 5lreel
5 PN I ITf /CI IARP/
Reduv
1992
E'amily
t;C;yM
7/1G/Z(13f1 i- I U yt5
39{i8 1~)~h Strect ((~arc~a)
7 'l'ax CrcditslRF ICP/
C!I ff~
1993
hanuly
i:('SM
lUl2U31 +~0 yrs
k747 lSth St~•cct (G~-rcia)
7 I'ax CrcditslRtlCl'/
C`.H'fF
19~)3
Fa~nily
CCSM
10/2~31 ~ I(} yrti
1544 Rer[celey Strect (C;:ircifi)
9 ~'~x Crcclri5lRIICP/
~'f l 1 H'
1~1~)3
f amily
(:C.SM
~ 0/~031 ~ I U yrs
1 R28 E 7tEi Sttcct (G~rci~t)
7 f',~x Crcd~is/~ZHC:P/
C'F-!`i'F
1993
Fat»ily
CC;SM
l U/2U3 f i 10 yrti
2A23 VirgiruaAveruie 12 PiVil'1'1~/f~x C~•cd~ts f993 Family CCSM (~/2032 i~0 yrs
1423 2nd 5lrcct 44 CEiTf'/'I'ax C`recEitS 1994 SRO C;(:SM GI2(?q~
l328 2iid Street 36 C~HTF/Tax Cred~ts 1994 5lZU ~lep [.Ip ()n Seccmc! 4f2043 E 25 yrs
120G Pico l3oulevard 2G I IUM~ 1995 SFtU CCSM I 1/2044 +~ 25 yrs
City o1 S~tnt~ Monic~-
Housing L[c~ricnt
~~-Sfi
Llousuig Nccds ~iri~l lZesutirccs
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ^~ ~ ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~ ~ ~ ~^r ~r ^~ ~
'i'A131~F, 11-21!
[NVT,NTURY OF+' PURI,[CI.aY ASS~STED
A~f~'ORl)A~3IaE ~IOUS~NG iN SAN'I'A MONIC'A
Prn~ect/l,ocation
'I'ntal Unitc
f undin}; Pru~;rant/
tiourcc
Ycar lZnilt
'i'ypc oF Hou~iug
Spcrneurl{]wner E~irliest
Converti:~.in
Date{ti)
! 7S Occan i'ark Filvd 22 Ptihltc !-Iti~ /I.n (',u ! 98S Scninr 1'uhl~c I Evg /l,A Cci 201 S
Mi)119Gif M~ir~ar
1901-07 1]th Sireet
19
Ptiblic Iltig /I.A Cn
14liR
Fami~y
Pubhc i Is~ /I,A (;o
~ndeti~ute
Ci1y Assrs~rrr~r.e
2017-23 20th Street 12 PN~ iTF 1983 F~imily/Seniur CCSM 12/13/2008 ~ I(? yrs
?.G2S Kansas Avenue IG PNF~`~P I 984 f~~mily CCSM 7/5/2009 ~~Q yr5
724 Pacific Avcnuc
8 Itec~l~~l Refiab/
C'11AR1'
1984
f~a~nily
CCSM
3/21/2U09 + IU yrs
2525 Kany~~5 Avcnuc 2U PNII I'F 1984 h'amily CC;SM 6/14/2009 I-10 yrs
E95~) Clo~cr[icld G2 C:IIAIZI' 1~3~5 1'nmily CCSM I 1/3U/2(12l s l5 yr5
1843 l71h Strcet $ i'NEI l'P' I~)85 I~ntnily C'C:SM E21211/2[)0~1+l0 yr5
2302 Sth StE•ect
G C.I IARP/Rcdcv 1
Rcnt~il Rcliab
198(i
I~~imily/Sci~iar
CCSM
8129/199h i 20 yrti
162~) M~eh~g~j~~ 4 YT~lII'I'~ 198G 1'amily CCSM 2/28/2021 + l5 yrti
19'i7 iRlh St~•eet G PNIlTF 198G Family CCSM E2/t!?0?0 ~i~ k5 yrs
1827 191h Slrcct 6 PNI!'i'F 198G l'ar~~ily CCSM 8/13/2O21 + 15 yr5
I80817thStreet G 1'NliTF ~9RG ~'amily CCSM ~2lI3/2021 ~ISyrs
1943 l~llt Slreet ~ i'NH'I I~ l~lR7 Otiicr (`,(,SM 3/31F2U22 ~ i 5 yrs
2402 Stft Street (nl' 12) G LIF IF 19R7 ~'amdy/Scnior CC'SM 12/"if1/202(3 -~ 5 yrs
2207 filh Slreel ((]I' 12) G l,1HP 1987 1~~~mdy/Scn~or C:CSM 12/3(}124}2i) {~I 5 yrs
2405-2407 ~~ourth Street ]0 CI~ARF' 1987 Faini{y CCSM 3 /1 712002 i IS yr5
1917 l7th Sirocl 7 I'NH l'h' 19$7 k'an~ily ('C',SM 12/! ~/2U21+ ~ S yr4
1314 1$th Street G ('1fAI2P 49RR F~tmily C:'CSM 8/G/2022 i IS yrti
C'ity of S~~nta Monics~
~-IO115111& L'' jCT]1CIlt 11-55 I I(1LIS111~ NCE~C{5 311(~ RCSnLkI'CL'S
'~'AI3Lf; II-20
INVFNTURY OF YUBLICLY ASSiST~D
AFFORDAT3I,T IIUlJ~1N[~ lN SANTA MnNlt'A
Farliesf
Fundin~; 1'rugram/ Co~svcrsion
Pro~ec.l/I~ucietiuE~ 'Cotal ilnil~ Suurce Ye~ir f3uilt Type af ~~ouSiug Sp~fnSnrlUwner Dute(ti}
!lLID Prugrrrins
~ar3ta Moiuc~t'I'owcr5
S~ntn Monic~a
10/~/2Q28
123:i Sixlh ~trcc~t lb3 Sect~o~i 202 19b4 Se11101' C}1C15fEi111 l'ciwcrs, Iiic
WeslrmriSler Towers Westtt~insler 1'owcr5,
1 112 Scvcnlh Sh•cct 285 Sccl~an 202 1969 Scninr ~~irst f'resbytcriai~ ?/1/2U31
Church uf'Sant~i
Monic~s
Neilsan Vill~s Scctian 23G(I)~~) Ncilso~y V~Il~is l.imttcd 10/7/2017
3100 Ne~lson Way ~~~ Sectioii S 1`»~ Scnicar Partncrtih~p ~/6/194~~}
Gcncva i'I~i~a WcsUninsler I'uwers 7/I4/202f)
E441 21st Street 100 Section 2U2 i979 Scri~i-r inc
13arnard P~rk V~ll~is ~~~~3n i~~surcc~ 12/E 1/202G
3356 13arnard Way ~~ Sc~l~t~R g ! 9R I 5cntcir
Occan P~irk Vill~~s Scct~on 221(d)(4} (~cc,ui !'~ck V~II~~s Nu~ A~pl~cable
2(f!9 & 2219 Sth Street 24 Sect~on 8 19~2 Scniur I.imrtecl nait~ierst~i~a IU/17/2U(13
Wilsh~rc Housc* Sect~on 202/R1IF Retn•en-c~-t l~utis~n~ 1/4/20~G
1125 3rd S~rcct 72 C~! 1'f{ ~9N2 Scrtiur I'ounda[rc~n
Los A-tge~ec [.'uuuly Puhlrc flnr~sm~,~
Colorado ~'iace
145U 14th Strcec 18 Pubiic Hsg/I.A Co ~982 Farn~ly i'ublic Eisg/[,A Co 2Q13
Culorado E'lacc
1 R55 ~)th Stree~ 1~ Public Hti~; /I.A Co i982 f~'arriily Public f lsg ILA Co 2013
Colorado F'l~~cc
2U06 2Utli Strcct I E Public Fis~ /L.A Co 19$2 T~atti~ly Public I Is~ /LA Co 2Q I'i
* Wilsliirc I fouse was ~Iso ~ss~stcd with City of Sanla Momca Housing I'ru5l I~u~~ds
C`riy c~!'S<~rit<~ Mu~2~c~t
Housmg Elemcnt ~i-54 I Eous~~i~; Nec~is ~incl Reso~rr~es
~ ~^^~ ~ ~ ~ wr r ~ ~ ~ r~^~ ~^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
1
~
'
'
'
'
'
TABLE II-19
PliBLICLY-ASSISTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING SU~II~LAR4'
Source of Deed-Restrict~on Number of L"n~ts (Est~mated*)
HUD (Sectron 20?. S 11, and 236) 804
Los An~eles Counn~ Publ~c Hausm~ 81
City Trust Fund Laans ~4~
Muit~-Family Earthquake Repa~r L.oan (MERL) Program ?;
Total 1,4~3
Source Santa hlon~ca Housmg Dn~2sion
* Completed as of 10:1~96
C~t~+ of Santa Momca
Hous~a Elemen# II-~~ Hous~ng Needs and Resources
,
'
ti~-i11 be required to fi~nd increased rental costs However. due to HtiD"s severe bud;et
constraints, Santa ~ionica's pro~ect reserves mav be used b}~ HL~D to r~new expinng Annual '
Con~ribution Contracts for Santa Monica or other Housing Authorities.
HUD pofic~ ti~xl~ be almost exe~usively dnc•en bt- rts budget situat~on As such. the City~s '
autllont~t to affrmat~vel`° xeact to the impact of Costa-Hav~~kins ~~ill be dependent on the
outcome of compet~n~ HUD bud~et pro,posals
~
9. Inventary of Affordable Housing
Santa i1~lan~ca has facihtate~ affordab~e housmg deveIopment usin~ a vanety o:f rnechanisms !
(such as loans. monetan~~ grants, land grarnts, and other support) In addi~an. to the publ~c
assisted housmg, affordable housing has also been produced in private developments in the
Cxt~~ as a result of regulatory° ~nechanisms such as inclusionarS- hausina regulat~ons, '
de~-eIvpment a8reements. settlerrient agreements_ and rent control remoti~al permrt
requirements The follow7n~ seetion discusses both publicl~•-assisted housing and reguIated
af.fvrdable houszng in private de~-elopments `
Publicly .Assisted Afforda6le Housing '
Table ZI-19 providzs a summary af the nuini~er of cvmpleted affordable housing umts
ut~lizi~ng d~fferent types of pub~zc assistance in the C~.ty These include un~ts praduced w7th
L~ 5 Department of Housing and Urban Development fundine assxstar~ce, City~ tn2st fund loan '
assistanc~. Crty Mu~ti-~amily Earthquake Repaar Loan (1~~ERL} Program assistance (see
Section II 5), and unrts o«ned by the Lo; Ange~es Counn~ Housina Authonty. Specific
gro~ect informauon associated ~~zth these pubIicI~-assisted housing pro~ects is shown ~n '
Table II-20
'
i
1
!
1
1
C~ty of Santa Mamca '
HousmQ Elemer~t Ii-52 Housin~ Needs and Resources
i
,
,
]. 997 increased bet~~een 20 to 22 percent as compared ~o an o~~erall rnedran increase vf 4 to
~ 6 percent, depending on the nu~nber of bedrooms
Based on the Housing Element anal~~sis donz b~- HR&:~ and assummg that the 5anta Moruca
~ turnover rt~odel pre~°ails, the MARs for ti•acar~t units ~~~il exceed the current FviR b}- up to
tv4•a percent ~r the cear 1998 Extend~ng ~he anal~~sis through the year ?00~ sh~~~-s that the
~VIARs for zero. one, and tv~~o bec~rooan ututs ~~z11 e~ceed the current FMR 6~~ 19 percent, 22
' percent, and 20 percent respecnti•el}~ It is likel~- that this trend tir711 contmue as more units
becorne vacant and the ~1.aR mcreases based on Costa Hatij~kins
~ Unless ~ere is a signzf cant increase in the F1~iR pa~ment standards between 1997 and 200~.
~he attractiveness of the Section 8 program to landlords ti~,Till be seriousl~~ dinnFn~shed As a
resuIt, rt zs like~y that an ~ncreasing number of Santa Vlonica certificate and voucher clients
' will ha~-e tv move to other cit~es ~n order to find housing
In order to rema.~n corr~petrtiti~e ~n an ~ncreasingIti more costly rental marketplace, the Sectaon
8 program «~ill take full advanta~e of the HT.JD regnlation ~~hich allow•s the gross contract
' rent to exceed the FMR b~- ~p to 2~ percent for 247 of its 823 certzficates This optton u~ill
oniy ~e used to secure and retaan the highest quality units and to ~ncrease program
participation in under sen~ed areas of Santa Mon~ca
t Hor~°ever, because tlus cari onlv impac# 2Q percent of the total caseload. the progrra~n w~li also
apply to HUD for a Santa Monica geo~raphic except~on rent HUD generally requires that
' a comprehensive ren~al survev be submrtted to ~~alidate the need for ar~ mcreased F~IR It
is possible that tl~e Housang Element sun•eti- could form the basis of a Santa Monica request
' ~mpact of HUD Regulation and Policy~ Changes
The Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropnat~ons Act of I 996 established a 90-da~~
reissuance freeze on all certificates and vouchers The effect on the Saz~ta Maruca program
' has been to reduce the usa~le number of cert~f cates and vvuchers by approximate~y ~ percent
vver the course of a year
, The ~mnibus Consoiidated Resciss~ons and Appropriat~4ns Act af I996 also made changes
in the Section S program u-hich were designed ta "encoura~e" more landlords to participate
in the program Provisians m thxs act allaw o~~ners to terminate the Sect~on 8lease without
' cause after one ~~ear, as long as a 30-day u.~ntten notice is provided to the Housjng Authonty
and the tenant. Once the contract is terminated. the tenant has the option of rr~oving into
another Sect~on S subsidized apartment or entenng into a new ]ease v~~ith the ow°ner and
' pa}~ng th.e fiill MAR The Housing Authorin- has approximately 9~0 contracts that hati~e
been in place for more than 12 months and are therefor~ eli~ible for cancellation wrthout
~ cause by owrners Giti~en the incame level of Section $ clients , rt is reasonable to assume that
most
if r~ot all
wonld ha~~e to mo~~e
.
,
' Because of Rent Control, Santa i~ionica's Sect~on S pro~an~ has generated si~ficant project
reserves Currentlv
these reserves can be budgeted to pay for anticipated rent increases on
;
an annual basis. If HUD approves a Sazata Momca geographic eaception rent, pro~ect reserves
,
C~t4~ of Santa Momca
HousmQ Element II-~ 1 Hausma tieeds and Kesources
'
,
"affordable '' Thus, the effeccs of the Cost-Hawkins Act on the supp~y- of rent-
controlled unrts that is affordable to lo~~--income households is particularly-
sensxtivz to whether the annual mcrease in the HUD threshold betu~~een 199~ anc~
2003 mare closel~° resembles the last two ~~ears, th~ last five }~ears or the last ~ 0
years
If the fi~-e- ar 10-year annual a~erage HUD increase is assumed, the proport~on of
rent-controllzd umts affordable to lo~~er-income households could be larger in
2403 than in 199~, e~ren with full ~mpiementation of the Costa-Ha«-kins Act.
because the cumulative effect of the annual increase in the HtiD threshold
ati-er«~helms the effect of rent xncreases allowed under the Costa-Haukins Act as
unrts turn o~-er At the 10-}-ear a~era~e, the proportion would be about 6?-69
percent (depending on «~hether Santa Nionica's or Z~4'est Los Angeles's h~stoncal
turnover rate is asswmed) in 200~, versus ~~ percent m 199~ If the five-year HUD
average fs assumed. the proportion of affordable units would increase to SI-~2
percent ~n 2003
If, instead. the avera~e HUD increase over the past t~o }lears is assumed. the
proportion of affardable rent controlled u~ts ~~ould drop frorn ~~ percent in i 99~
to 24-30 percent b~ 2QQ3.
Impact a, f Costa Ilawkins on the Sectiotr 8 Pragram
Costa-Hawlcins may also sigiuficantl~ affect the availabrlit~~ of pnva~e rental hous~ng through
the Sect~on $ program In order to unders~and this potential impact, it is frst necessan- to
know how rents are established in the Section 8 program Section 8 gross contract rents are
neeotiated ti~~thin the fraane~~~ork of HUD Faur Market Rent standards (FMR} Generall~~. the
gross rent for a unrt ma~ not exceed the FMR Hor~ever. HUD and the Housing Authonty
may approve exceptFans under certa~n c~rcumstances The FIkSR standard can only be
exceeded through annual mereases which generally occur on a yearl}~ basis or for except2on
rents ~vhich can only be granted to 30% of the certi~ica~e caseload
Santa Nlonuca's FI~IR is derived from the Los Angeles!Lona Beach Stat~stical Metropolitan
A.~ea. The nuxt~ber of rental umts m Santa Manica is ~~ery small cornpared to the total number
of xental uruts in the Los Angeles,Zong Beach area Conseq~tently, the "soft" rental market
of the Los An~eleslLong Beach area has resulted in four reduct~ons in the area's FMR m the
last four ~eazs_ If the "soft'' rental market continues_ the FNS~t ti~7Il also continue to drop even
as the Maximurn Allowabie Rent (I~~.ARj increases in Santa Mon~ca.
Historicali~-, the Sect~on 8 program has been popular w~rth landlords because the Se~tion $
gross ~ontract rents have usuall~~ been lugher than Rent Control's (MAR}. In Januarv 1997,
the median gross contract rent for zero bedrooms ~s 25 percent higher than the median ~iAR
for zero bedrooms_ Tne median ~oss contract rent for one bedrooms fs 20 percent ~tkgher
tY~an the median R~R wnile the med~an ~ross contract rent for two bedroorr~s is 13 percent
higher. Hot~ever, the trend of reduced FMRs. combined wzth Costa-Ha~~kuls rent increases,
could ~eopard~ze the campetztzveness of t~e program in Santa Nion~ca For example, the
mediari rents for the ~,312 units wluch ha~re turned o~~er betv~~een September 199~ and ,~une
City of Santa Momca
Hous~ng Element II-50 HouS-na lr'eeds and Resources
,
1
'
~
1
'
'
1
'
'
~
'
'
~
1
1
'
'
'
1
mcrease in mear~ rents for the lot~est pnced one-quarter of controlled unrts and the
' hFghest-pr~ced one-quartzr af controiled unrts does not differ much from the
Cit4-wide average increase. due to the combmed effects of low tumo~~er and the
fact that units remau~ under rent control far srtting tenants, e~,~en folloi~-zz~g a Costa-
' Ha~~°kins Act rent incxease
-- Once agarn. the renf tncreases for unrts that do turn over will be hrgher than the
Crtyu~rde m-erage Cumulati<<~ increases w~li fall v~-ithin a range af 46% to 4$°.%,
' or about ten percentage pozzats h~~her thara the Cit~~~7de a~°ezage increase, whrch
reflects units that turn over and those that do nat
' • Impacts on the Affordabilrty~ Le~~e~s of Rental Uruts as Defined by HUD:
,
'
1
~
~
~
'
'
,
'
~
~
Based on the income thresholds established each <<ear b~: the U.S. Department of Hous~ng
and Lrban Development (HUD) that define hov4° muci~ a~~en- lo~~•-income and lo~i-income
households can "afford'' to pa~• for rent, it is est~maLed that the stock af ren~-controlled
affordable housing «-ould exhibrt the followtnQ behat~ior as the Casta-Ha«rk~ns R~ntal
Hausing Act goes ~nto effect= y
-- A`"starrc r~nalysis" rndicates that the supply of controlled rental unrts m~arlable
io very lov~-income households lvould be reduced by approximately one-half rf all
units turned over once rn 1996, rf all unrts turned over nvrce in 1996. the analysis
tndacates thal no affordable unrts wauld be available to very lols-incorne
households The "stauc a.nalysis'' takes all current factors a.~fecting af~ordabilit~-
as ~~ en. Cwnrent maximum allo«able rents (~~AR) for the uniti~erse of cantrolled
uruts in Santa Moruca are compared to the rents that cou~d be charged if a11 units
were racated once, and then again in 1996 Ho~~~ever, thas appraach cleazl~-
oz-erstates the immediate affardabi~rty impacts of the Costa-Ha~~~ns Rental
Housin~ E1cf, because onlv I3 percent of aIl controlled umts are pro~ected to turn
over once in 1996. far less than the I00 percent turno~~ er rates assumed in the static
analysis_
-- A` dynamic analysis, " x~htch accounts for the rnteractron of the parameters that
define "a{fordabalaty" as particularly sensitrve to HUD's annual change in the
household mcome thresholds that de~ne "affordable " rent The "dynamic
anah-sis" remed~es the ti~eakness of the static analysis by addressin~ the effects of
pro~ected turnor~~er rates, as ~~ell as ineorporating historical increases in znarket
rents and changes HL;~D affordabilrt~ standards In Qeneral, chan~es in HliD's
ven• low-xncome standards have consistentl}~ exceeded the mcreases in Fau-
Marlcet Rents (FI~iR}, as well as change in the Consumer Pnce Tndex {CPI), and
the rent component of the CPI Because the HUD standard tended to ~nerease
more rapidl;~ th.an either the F11~ZR or the rent component of the CPI o~~er almost all
af the period reviewed, the affordabilaty of rental housing necessanl~- increased,
even during the 1990-93 recession Except for ~he rr~ost recent tuo }~ears, the
annual change ~n HLD's rrFedsan hausehold income threshold used to define
affordable rents in Los ~n~eles County has increased well ahead of market rents
and inflation Th~s has the affect of making mare vf the housin~ stock
C~t~~ of Santa Manica
Hous~na E~ement
II~9
Hous~a~ Needs and Resources
'
!
~
impacts of the Costa-Ha~~kins Act_ because betv~-een n~-o-tYurds and one-half of all
rent controlIed units are not expected to turn over, and thus the~r rents «~ill remain
fulh- controlled at the end of 1998
-- For unrFS at Fhe loiti~er end of the rent spectrum. the atierage Citvtirrde rent increase
i1~z11 he srgmfcantly hrgher Lo~;~er-pneed units eligible for the 70 percent-of-
F11~iR ad~ustment v~~ill see considerably higher rent increases af the units are
vacated L~nrts «zth MARs beiova~ 70 percent of the F~iR will be adjusted to the
70 percez~t standard, regardless of the size of the resulting rent mcrease T'lus w~ill
affect appraxzmately- 15 percent of the control~ed umts in the C~n°, according to
data provided b~- the Rent Control Administration Assuming that market forces
do not constrain rent zncreases. the F'~~R pro«sions v~~iil allov~~ rent increases of
betw-een 16 and 2~ percent to be levied on 33 gercent of the eligible un~ts, while
rent mcreases of 2~ percent or more ~~-~11 be levied on the remainder Slightly
more than 2~ percent of the uruts eligible for FMR based adjustments will have
rent increases in excess of 1 UO percent
-- Among those unrts that do turn oyer. the magnatude of average rent :ncreases wrll
be constderahly higher than the Crtyx~~rde average Us~ng the ex~sting median
MAR of ~,~77 as a base, umts that turn over onee bet~r,~een 1996 and 1999 wz1I rent
for appraximately $648~month, and uruts that turn over tvF~ce «~ill rent for
S779iinonth Units that do not turn o~'er between 1996 and 1994 ~r311 rent for
~614~month Cornbinxng the probabil~ttes for all unrts that are expected to turn
over by 1999 indicaces that the average rent increase w~ll be bet~;een 23°/fl and
2~°/a or about ten percentage pomts higher than the Crt~-~~•ide average. which
reflects un~ts that turn o~~er and those that do not This is pro~ected to also be the
scale of increase at the 2ath and 75~h percentiles
Rent Increases Impl~ed by Vacanc~~ Deconuol, 1996-2003
Beginning January 1, 1999. the Casta-Hawlc~ns Act removes all caps on rent increases for
vacant uru~s Usi~g #he prfl~~etion model that incarporates turnover probabilrt~es for Sat~ta
Monica and West Los Ange~es, and accaunting for the end of the rent increase caps, we
project the follo~~-~ng outcomes b~~ 2043
-- Usang the Santa Il~onaca turnover probabrlrttes, includrng multtple turnovers af the
same unrt, average City~ti~ide _~IAR -~ill increase by about one-thrrd between 1996
and 2003 V~%e estimate that the Cityv~~ide mean NLAR w-iil inerease from $b21 in
199~ to ~843 b}- 2003, a cumulatii-e increase of 36 percent Using the West Los
Angeles turnover probabilrties, the mean Crtywide MAR is projected to increase
from ~621 in 199~ to $879 by 2003, a cumulatnTe increase of 42 percent
Assuming, altemativel~-, that the existing general rent ad~ustment procedures were
to continue x~rthout the Costa-Hawkins changes. t~~e pra~ect that the mean ~R
in 2003 r~ill increase to 5779. or by 25 5 percent. Tl~us, the Cin~~ide effect of
Costa-Hawkins is to mcrease a~~erage contralled rent between $64 a.nd $100 per
uzxit per month above rents tha# would have been allov~~ed in Santa Monica pnor
to enactment of the Costa-Ha~-k~ns Act Over this Ionger penod, the percentage
C-t}• of Santa Momca
Hous~ng Element
II-~ 8
Housmg Veeds and Resources
'
~
~
~
'
'
~
~
~
~
'
'
~
,
'
'
~
,
'
'
~
~
'
'
~
'
,
~
'
'
'
'
'
~
'
to date ~~ith the Rent Cantrol Boarc~ is consistent ii-ith the tenant surveS'-based
projechon for Ehe first vear
-- By~ 20~3, bent~een one-half af~d three-quarters of the 199~ rent-controlled stock
titiill be decontrolled The share of the controlled stoclc that is pro~ected to b~
decantrolled ranges from 49°io to 74°~0 of the 28.239 rent-controlled apartment
units that e~isted in Santa Vlonica at the end of 199~ ~= The la~z~er end of the
range assumes that the histor~cal pattem of Santa Monica apartment tumo~-er
continues anto the future, the upper end assumes a turno~°er pattern more Iike that
in Vti'est Los Anaele5
Rent Increases Implied by Vacanc~- Decontrol. 1996-Z999
Under the Costa-Hatirkms Act, lxmited rent increases are allowed through the end of 1998
Two estimatzs of the effects during this first peraod were ~repared The frst assumes that
all unrts turn a~~er, the second applies the histor~- of actual turno~~er expenence in Santa
~Ionica and VVest Los Angeles
-- ,If all umts were to turn over once benveen 199b and 1999, the average rent
increase tivould be 17% Assuming that ail uruts turn o~~er once, the a~~erage
(mean) R~I~,R v~~ould increase from $62 Uunzt to ~7291 unrt. for an a~rerage increase
of 17 percent ~ second tiunoti-er dunng tlus penod z~-auld increase the rnean VL~R
to $$39, ar an additianal 1~ percent. The total averaae increase, asstun~ng E~ro
turnovers. is .i~ percent Although the likel~hood of al~ un~ts turrung over once or
tG~7ce duru~g this pertod is extremel~-law. the analysis provides precise est~mates
of the impact of the Costa-Hav~-]cins Act an those uz~.its that ~~ill turn over dunng
this period
-- Using more probable assurraptzoras based on histortcal Santa _~lonica and Y~'est Los
Angeles turnover rates, it is pro~ected that the mean Citytiti~rde i~1AK tncrease under
the Costa-Hawkins ~ct wall be more modest Based on the Santa Moz~ica tuxnover
probabilrties. it is pro~ected that the mean Crt~~w~ide 1~1AR (~ e., mcludin.g uiuts that
tum over and those that do not) u~ll increase from $621 in 199~ to $707 b~~ 1999;
~ currruiatFVe increase af 13 9 percent Usxng the VVest Los Angeles turnover
probabilrties. the rnean CFt~~ide ~~A.R is pro~ected ~o increase from $621 in 1995
to $726 bt- 1999, a curnulative increase of 16 9 percent R~ere the Rent Conuoi
Baard's existing general ad~ustment proceciures to continue wrthout t~e Costa-
Ha~~~kuzs Act changes. the mean ~1.AR m 1999 is pro~ected to merease to ~676, or
8 9 percent Thus. on average. the Costa-Haw~kins Act w~ill add betr~een S31 and
$~0 more to the a~-erage controlled rern in the Cit~- b~ 1999 than w~ould othen~~se
have occurred in the absence of the Act The turnaver proba3~ilities moderate the
- The 199~ apartment tenant survey on which this analysis is based does not znclude o«ner-occup~ed
buildings af three ar less units. tn~bile homes, single-fam~ly homes or urnts ~n structures other than
apartments, which roa~~ be sub~ect to rent con~ol The survey also d~d not include govemment-
subs~d~zed units Th~s, the total number of rent con~ollzd units cited here d;ffzrs somewhat frorn the
total number of controlled units registerzd wrth the Rent Control Board
City of Santa ;~ionica
HousmQ Element II-~7 Housuig iteeds and Resaurces
'
,
ati•erpa~-ment households w~th one or more d~sabled persons (77°/a), Afrzcan :~merrcan
houseI~olds (77°ro), semors (69%), large households (b4°'o). and H~spanac ongin househoids
(61 °io)
S. O~~eniew and Summarw~ of Ke~ Resuits for the Anal~sis of the Effects of the
Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act
The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 199~ u~ll graduallti- el~minate any ltmits on rent
increases that ma~~ be charaed «hen a tenant voluntariI~~ vacates an apartment unit or is
e~-icted for non-pay~rn.ent of rent Landlords v~711 be allo«~ed to increase renis, no mare than
tw-~ce ben~~een 1996 and 1999, by the greater of 1~ percent abo~~e ~e then-existang Vlaximum
A11ov~:able Rent (?1~~R), as set b~~ the C~ri~~s Rent Control Board, or an amount such that the
total rent does not exceed 70 percent of the applzcab~~ Fair Market Rent (FVIR) in Los
An~eles Co~nty, as establ~s~aed by the Federal go~%ernment Be~nrun~ 7anuary i, 1999, rent
increases on vacated un~ts w711 be de-regulated, al~ough the ~uuts remain subject to all ather
provisions of the Cit~'s Rent Control Lau- The Cit~~"s Rent Contral Baard adopted a
regulation allov4~ng the ne~v la~~~ to became effecti~e ~n Santa Mon~ca in earl}' October 199~
Because this phase-in caincides wzth the pianning per~od for the Cin~ of Santa Moruca's
Housing Element update, HR&a estimated the scale af probable turnover in the controlled
apartment stock that would a11ov4 ihese rent increases to tal:e place, ~~hat the rent increases
mi~ht be an a Crt~-~~ide basis. and how these ch~ges in the pnce structure affect the portion
of the renE-controlled stock that is "affordable" to lou=er-income households, u~thin the
mearung of FederaI defirutions
Based on a detailed anal}rsis of the results of the 199~ 5anta Monica Apartment Tenants
Sun~e~, and after comparing these results with c~ata available from a related study of Santa
lb~onica tenants condu~ted in ~ 987, and a studv of tenants in West Los Angeles, HR&A
concluded that
~lumber af Unrts Subject to Decontrol of Rents Upon Vacancv. 1996-2003:
-- Dur•ing the f rst year of implementation of the Costa-Hawkins Act Between 3, 600
and 7900 units are pro~ected to be vacated and subject to higher rent tncreases
at re-rental than x~ould have heen allowed under the Czty's Renr Control Lmv in
the absence of the Costa-Hmvkins Act The iov~-er end of this range is based on the
lustor4 of apartment turnover in Sarita ~ionica., ttie upper end of the rarfge is based
on turno~~er ~n ~'est Los Angeles, vthere the Cin~ of Los Anaeles s~ stem of rent
stabil~zation has alv~,~a~~s exempted re-rental of vacant unrts from eontrols on rent
mcreases." The ~ace of actual Costa-Ha~vkuis Act rent mcrease applications filed
" This higher estimate ~s based on un2t tumo~ver data from aur 1993 sun~ey of rent stabilized units m
V~est F.os Angeles, whtch is less likely to correspond to rental market conditions ~n Santa Mon~ca
unt~E Costa-Hawk~ns has been ~n effect for some t~me It provides, ne~ertheless, a reasonable upper
limit m h~ht of the uncertainty about hov~• tenant turnover may change in response to the Costa-
Ha~r~kms Act
City of Santa ~4onica
Hous~n~ Element II-46 Houssn~ Needs and Resaurces
'
~
~
~
,
'
~
,
~
~
'
'
~
~
'
'
,
~
,
'
Households in uncontrolled unitc m Santa ~ionica. on a~-eraQe. pay much more m rent
' (median of $1_100), and paid higher anrsual rent in~reaszs durin~ the previous }'~ar (S~~
~~ersus 514) Tenants in these uncontrolled units belieti~e the~~ are pa~~~n~ a premi~urn to live
tn Santa ~lonica, ~n that a comparable unit in ~~~est Los Anbeles v4-ould rent for
, approximatel~~ S 1 S 0 Iess than E~hat the~~ are nou- pa~-zng per montl~
~ 7. Housing O~erpavme~t
The federal defimtion of maac~mum affordable housing cost as established at 30 percent of
gross household income ~ny househoid spendinQ more than 30 percent on housm~ costs.
' ~~e1ud~11a utiiity and insura~-rce costs; is considered to o~~erpa~ for housing. lea~•ing ~ess
mone~~ arailable for other necessities and emergency expenditures
~ Accordint to the 1990 Census. ~0 percent (3.702) of the City's 1?.3~0 o~ner-households
and 31 percent (10.084) of the Czt~-'s ~2,~34 renter-househalds can be defined as o~~erpa~~ing
for housing. Housing o~~erpayment is t~picatl5- a more pxevalent issue among lower income
~ ho~seholds tharz azrzang other income ~roups The C~t~-"s ~99~ Consolidated Plan z-eports
that approx~mately ~0 percent (900} of the Crt}~'s 2,2~2 lo~~-er incame (eammg up to 8Q
percent of Count~~ Median Famil~~ Incarr~e (MFI)} otisners and 5~ percent (8.96~) of the C~ty's
~ 13,792 low'er income renters are a~~erpa}°mg for housin~ These data ~nd~cate that the
~tza~onty of ihe Cit3~~s oyergay~ng awners are rnoderate- and upper-mcome hauseholds, and
in contrast, the ma~ont~~ of the Cin~`s o~~erpaying renters are lo~n-er-~ncome households
~ Ho~e~er, it should be noted that «:~hile moderate- and upper-income households ma~~ be
spend;ng signifcant portions of their incorr~es on housing to reside Fn Santa Nionica, gi~-en
their relativel}- high income le~•els. they do not necessaril~- expenence a cost burden
~ This pattern of housing overpay~nent is further confirtned bv revieu- of the Census data at
the Census tract level ~s dacumented bv the Census. Santa 11~ionaca has more o~y~ner-
~ househo~ds overpaying far housrng in areas north of ~T~'~lshire and sauth of Pico, o~tside of
the Cit~~'s lower-incorne areas (areas w~zth more than 51 gercent of tY~e populat~on earrung no
more than $0 percent af the Counh~ Niedian Famxlr- Income. as identifed in Fi~ure II-6)
~ Anal}~sis of t~e 1995 Tenant Siu~-er pro~~ides msight on renter housing overpayment in the
rent-contralled housing stock. tisin~ the 30 percent incaEne-to-housing cost standard
, {including utilities) and ad~us#~n~ far l~ausehold size. a bare tr~a~onty (SS°/a) of tenants in rent
controiled uruts are pa~ing "affordable" rents, w7th the remainmg 45 percent of households
paying "unaffordable" rents. desprte the existence of rent cantrol As r~ou~d be expected.
lower-income renters are rnost impacted by os~erpa}~nent. v~zth 91 percent of ver;~ low
~ zncome (0-~0% MFI) renters and ~ 0 percent of low-income (~ 1-8~% 1~1FI) renters
overpa~~ing, compared w-rth only 17 percent of moderate-income (81-i20% 1~1FI} rznters
overpaying At the zz~zedtan, renters in controlled units are pa~zng 28 percent of their incomes
~ for shelter costs
The 1995 Tenant Siu~:~ey further e~aluates rental hous~n~ o~•erpa~ment by ~~ar~ous
~ cnaracteristics of the household The follov~~ina t~pes of households residxng in the rent
controIled hous~n~ siock v~-ere documented as e~enencu~g particuIarly h1;h rates of ho~sin~
' City of Santa Mon~ca
Hausma Element Il-4S Housma I`eeds and Resources
,
._ _.. _
..
---~--- . . ~ - -
...._
.. .. _ : -
_ .~ ,[_ ~. ~- .. .. _ _
.._ . ------~---..__ _..
.. .
1-. _1. . _. l, - ~ -~ . ~ a • ~ $,qN VlCfIYTE 8lYU _ . - - ~~ ~ GITY OF figr~re 11-i0
` '-~' SANTA iNaH~CA Mediarr Contract R~nt
~~"'- ~ ~ , ,, ~ .. _ ~-~- --~ ~ HOUSING ELEMENT in Rent-CnntrolledA
~ - ~.I ~ ~ _ . .... _ ._ .. * _ !„~. ~ . partments
_. ...._..__ --------„_..
- -~` ~ - - _ • ~..'~ - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ . Gity Buundary
_. • ) ~ -~ Crlyaf ~ Geograpbic Subareas
-~ ~lJo,~,~ngeles ~ ~ Streets
rl. ~ ~-,.I ~ f ! / ~ ~ ~
~~ ~' ~`,r source [995 Sanla FionicaApartment Teeanls Surrer
r~~
~ •~ ! rPacl~IcPalisades = ~
~ I % .,,.._.. .. . - - - -
-~ I ~ ~J. /~~ ~ ' \ /~~~
~ ~ ~l
-~ __.- '_ ~65 ~' _ __ __ - -
,`. ~ - ~~~ ~_~ _ _ . - --
., ,
~ t ~ _ :~ ~- ~~
.,. , , , _ _
~ f..::. _ . . - ,~ . -.~--_
. , ` ~~~.. . ~~~ ~C ~. ~ `~
y '` ~~~
~ ,~~,FO - ~=~~ -~-:~~ =.:~---~ ~:_ .:
. ~-~ -
i ~ ~l Q~ ' ~ ' ~ ra Mp,YlCA fRIY1' f ~ ~f ~%` j, . .
~';~9~ ~.~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~~ .
• ~ /' ~ .
/ ~,\ ,~ _ ~~
~ ~~ ,~~,~~' ~~,~~' `~~, ~ ~ .
yr- •
/ ~~ \ ~~ a~'~ ~ ~ ~,
J ~~ ,~/ ~'/ ~
~ \ i~ -
~ ~y~ . \ \\ ~ ' ,.,,, ' ~ ,'
.~ .,
1 ~ ~ Q~~D~ ,,. , , ' , ~ • ~' U` ~.
r -- - ,~ ~ ~ ~ '
- ~ ~~~°~ ~64D ~ '` .
~ .~ ~t~Qp~ _ _ _ _, ~ - ~~~ - / .-
Pacih'a 9~' _ _ ~-. . .- -,( ~ ~ ' ~ •
. ~CBdf! ~ / . .-SC'ha~ ~ ,.~
V~: . ~c ~'::. ~`C :•~( losA'~~les ~ _ .
~
. .'_----.. ~~,~~~.~~c~;~;1~~'~'~~~,~~~\>> :Y~ 1 a`'~~~`~L- ~~ ~-1.-. f- ~
^~r ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ r^~ ~r ~ r ~ ~ ~ r~ ~^^ ~w w~ ~ ~
,
'
~
,
~
~
'
~
~
Renfal Housing
Accord~n~ to the 1990 Census, the medtan contract rent reportzd for all rental units in Santa
~xonzca «•as $~98. compared to a much hi4her median contract rern ~f 5~70 for all of Los
Angeles County. and $54~ for the Git~° of Los ~ngeles In comparison to the immediate
surroundxng communuries. the Census daciunents a~edian contract rent of $730 for Culti-er
Cin-. and S~_001 for Nlarina Del Rey. Brenn~ ood, and V~%EStwaod 5
O~~eral.l. th.e existence of rent cantrol m Santa I~~omca has mamta.ined rents in ~he Cit~- belo~~•
market ~evels There are about v I.20Q rent-controlied un~ts in Santa l~~onzca. wh~ch
represents approximatelF 6~ percent of d~~-elhna units of all types (i e ov~ned ar~d rented),
and close ta 90 percent of all rental housinQ in ~he Cit~•10
The I99~ Tenant Sun-ey documents a Cmti~ide median rent of $600 for rent-contxolled uruts
11~1edian rents van~ bv area of the Citt-, as illustrated in Figure II-10 The hi;hest rents are
found ~1orth of V+~'ilsh~rz (56~2), fotlor~~-ed by sourh of Pico ($600}, and Do«ntowx~'Mxd-City
{5~50} These variations in rent le~-zls are consistent ~~~th ~~ariations in the ~iaxamum
Allo«able Rents (~~ARs) found b~~ the Cit;~•'s Rent Control Board in these nelahborhood
subareas Appendix H presents a map of the City's se~-en Rent Control Board subareas and
median Ni.~Rs The three Tenant Si~-~: ey subareas represent groupings vf these seti~en Rent
Contral Boaxd subareas_
Accorduig to the 1995 Tenant Sur~reS°. tenants in controlle~ ~ts in the Crt~- believe the~- are
~ paying_ on a~•erage, about 5200 belol~~ mazket rent for their unrt Based on a re~rression
model w~uch accounts far dzfferences in charac~enstics of the controlled and uncontrolled
rental hous~ne stock, the survey est~nnates that ~he a~-erage market-w~de benefit that tenants
~ are recei~zng fram rent control m Santa.l~lonica ~s actttall~~ somew~hat higher, or about ~284
per month This should be contrasted to West Los Angeles, a junsd~ct~an 1~~ith ~~acancy°
decontrol Tn 1993. a rent survey u-as conducted m V4"est Los :~ngeles for the Cin- of Los
~ Ange~es Hous~n~ Department. According to the ~~'est Los Angeles survey, med~an rent for
rent-controlled units v~°as 5733.5Q and rr~edian rent for uncontrolle~ umts ~~as $$00_ ti~eldina
a difference of onlv ~6b.~0 in medran rents betw~een controlled and uncontrolled units
~ In return for belo~r-tnarket rents, it ~s often thought that tenants are required to pa}~ for a
~reater share of needed urut improveznents Ho~~ever, t~ie 199~ Tenant Sun~e~r docu~nents
that Just o~er ane-quarter (?8%} of tenants m rent-controlled uruts pa~- for carpet
, replaceinent; about four in ten pay for drapes.lvt~ndov~~ covering. and about another four ui ten
pa}~ to have their urut pauzted A lugher percentage of tenants resid~ng l~orth of ~~4'ilslure pay
out of pocket costs for urut improvements than in other areas of the C~t~-
~
' ~ The Census uses $1,001 to represent median rent for the high rent level Actual med~an rent for
Marina Del Rey, Brentwood, and ~t~estr+~•ood can be above $1,001
' '` As of December 1995. the City's rent conu-o~ data basz documents 31,168 controlled units, anclu;n~e
of un~ts ~-anted fee v~~arr-ers This figure does not ho~+•ever znclude ~xnits which are occup~ed b~ the
owner arid have ` vse e~cemptions "'
, Crty of Santa Monica
Hous~na Element II-43 Housmg Needs and Resources
~
~... ~~ l- ~ ...-4~-+.~ '.
~ ~ I~`~ -~-~ ~ ~
~~~ , _~.
~ i_
'~'! ~ - -
~ , 'r
- ~ ~ ~ co~,.u6o,o., ~
_ ~. ~1~~,~~~•
i~.. Pac~~rcPahsades ~ -~
l? l ' .l _ ~.
~ - -.~ ~ ~`-~
_1 ~ • - ~~f f
....._ 4~ 1 '~ ~ ~
• `A9~ ./ ~o:+
/ ~ ~
~ ~~
/ ,~ .
• ~~
~~
,
Pdcrfie
~Cldp
, ~ ~ 4. _ ~,~_._._..
. ~~HrlcfNr~BCUa, .
, . -.-~ -
,._.-
+ ~ ~
• . ~ , ~1,-__~
•
.._.. ..... ...--~-- ._ ._.. .. . . .... .. _........ .---..__..._...-'~-
CITY Of
SAHTA MQNICA
ItQUSING ELElNENI'
~ ~ City Boundary
~~ Iip Code Boundary
~ Iip Gode Hum6er
streets
figure 119
Median HousingSa/es
Prices 6yHn~rsingType
wurce Celdarma Merket Unt: Cooperalirea 1995
- ~/ ~ \
~ „- -- : __:.~~ -~-= -~-_:=~~=~~~ -: r ~~~~
~:: ~~-~~~- ~ o~~-
~Hr~ MoN~~ FRw~ . ,:
_,.~~~
'ztzs,aoo~ •
~~gle-f:mpY '
i3I0,000
~~~~~,'. ~. -~ - -;
0~' ~ _ __ ~~"~ --:( ,
_ L ~cjfy
' ,~ 'LasAna
~ / \
} ~ , •;~ ~ ,Yeal
y .~~ ~ _ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~r i ~ ~r ~ r~ r ~w ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~
,
i
~
~
~
~
'
~
~
1
~
~
1
,
~
1
'
~
T ~BLE II-18
HOtiS~~G S~LES PRYCES I'_~T SA~TA i~~OnICa ~1\D
SL'RROUNDING AREAS - FEBRL~~RY 1996
S~ngle-~'amilti• Hvmes Condommiums
Crt~lArea Zip Code
~€ of Un~ts
A~edian
Pr~ce
# of Units
1~Iedian
Price
5anta ~on~ca 90~#0~
90=~0=
9Q44=~
90~#0~ 10
-
-
13 S81Q,OOQ
-
-
g~~;,D04 -
11
8
- -
~203_000
$165.000
-
Pacific Pal~sades 902?2 18 ~520.000 ----- -
Brentuood 90049 14 5~80_~00 1? ~225,OD0
~t'esn~•~od 9002~ 6 5440.000 I] S~?~,00~
~T~'est L~ 90025
90064 6
1 ~ S2', 2,000
5324_000 16
- S 150,000
-
Cuh-erCcit~ 90?3~ 1D S14~_000 1~ S~O,Of?0
NSar V~sta 90066 19 5?30,000 - -
Ven~ce 90291 18 $2~3,000 -- -
Saurce T~mesLmk DataQu~ck Sen•ices, Februan• 1996
Crt~~ of Santa Monica
Housina Eleinent
II-41
Housm~':~leeds and Resources
,
,
~
i
~
~
'
~
~
'
~
~
'
~
,
~
'
~
~
~
TABLE II-17
HOtiSING SALES PRICES - 1992 :~i1~D 1995
Unrt T~~pe ~ Sotd Median Average Range
]995
5in~le-Famil~
~
I Bedroom ~ S?~7.~00
? Bedraoms 131 ~32~.~00
.i Bedrooms 122 $~',7,~00
~ Bedrooms 54 $6~9,OQ0
5 Bedrooms 16 5922,~00
6- Bedrooms 8 5~,084.500
~fultipke-Famil~ - Condommiums
I$edronm 4b S 122, i 50
2 $edrooms 244 S2Z5.000
3 Bedrooms 74 5252,7~0
4 Bedrooms ~ ~~~~,000
S2?b.700
539~.81~
S53 <,~ 1'
5755,9I7
S 1 _080.438
~1.040 937
5143 ?52
S?48 006
~320AG4
5~~2.;00
S 136_800 - 5475.400
~'0,000 - 51,662A00
S1?6,000 - 51,460.400
5202.000 - S 1,925.OOd
5~62.~00 - S2_500.000
5~18,500 - 51.620_00~
Sb4.6~0 - ~375.040
$7~,000 - S2,OOO.OaO
Sl 18,000 - SI,250.000
S2$?.000 - 51,02~.400
1992
Nlulnplz-Fam~l4• - Candom miums
1 Bedroom .i 1
2 Bedrooms 3~8
3 Bedrooms 109
TORCA Con~•ers~an lin~ts
1 Bedroom l ~ i
2 Bedrooms 211
3 $edrooms 78
52;9.664 ~A
5310.910 VA
5~81.142 NA
St 10.40~ NA
S 167,29~ NA
S208,097 i~A
Sources 1945 sales data - Cal~forn~a Market Data Cooperanves
199z saEes data - ToRCA Evalaation Study, Februan~• 1993
Cit~~ of Santa Monica
Hous~n~ Element II-40 Housm~ Needs and Resources
~
'
~
,
1
~
~
'
~
~
'
,
,
,
~
,
~
~
6. Ofr~•nership a~d Rental Housing Costs
Ownership Housinb
In 199~. the medsan ~°alue for all o~~ner-aecupied housing in Santa ~lomca t~-as ot-er
5~00,~~0. the top cateaon~ used in the 1990 C~nsus In contrast. the medtan ~-alue for all
owner-occup~ed housing in Los .~n~e~es Gount~~ ti~,~as 5~25_~00_ Tahle II-17 sho~j-s the
pnces of housing sold in Santa l~lonica in 199~ Thxs data illusvates the «-ide ranae m sales
pr~ces b~- unit size and type, and alsa illustrates the predomanance of tv<<o- and three-bedroom
s~ngle-farniIs~ homes_ and tu~o-bedraom condomimums Although hous~na in Santa ~lonica
is r~lati~-e1~~ expensive. apartnaent unxts con~~erted to condannznaums and sold to tenants under
the Tenant O«,~nership Rights Charter ?~mendrzlent (~TORCA) pro2ram ~;~ere more affordable
Far example. as also shoLtin in Table Ii-I8. the a~~erage pric~ of a t~~o-bedroom market-rate
condominium in I992 ~i~as ~310,910. ~~>hite the a~-erage pnce of a t~~-o-bedroom T4RC~
condominium u~as $167?95.
Hausing prices ~n Santa 11-~onica ~•an~ substantially bti- geographic area Figure II-9
illustra#es 199~ median housin~ sales prices b~° housm~ type and zip code As sho«n, azeas
located south of ~~'ilshue Boule~~ard have substannalls- loz~er housin~ sales pnces, ~~~ith Z~p
Code 90404 conta~ning the Cit}~'s least expensive single-fam~ly hous~ng, and Zip Code
90401 cantaming the least expensiy-e condomimums Z~p Code 90~0~ is also the area
characterized b~- relativel~~ hi~ concentrations of minorir5,~ househoids. lo~v-income
population, and hiQh levels of renter o~~ercro«-ding
As a means of ez~aluating sa~es prices m Santa _l{fonica rn comgarrsvn to surrou~dFng
com.mun~ties, sales data compiled through Ti~nesLink is presented ~n Table II-18 for all un~ts
sold ~n Februar~- 1996 for selected Zip Codes As illustrated in this table. Z~p Code 94402
located north af Vlontana Avenue conta.ins some of rhe mast expensi~e single-family homes
in Santa 1~'Ion~ca and in the subregion, «zth the ten homes sold in this area in ~ebruar~~ 1996
commanding a medxan sales pnce of $810.000 Sin~le-famil~ sales pnces xn Zip Code 9D40~
~south of Pica Baulevard} are comparable to ad~acent zip cades in Venice. Mar Vista_ and
1~%est Las Angeles (betti.~een Oly~rnpic and ~%ilshire Boulevards) Condommium sales pnces
in Zip Code 9~~0; (north of `'G'zlslure. south of Montana} are fairly comparable to
Brentwood, whereas condominiurn prices in Zip Code 9040~ (rnid-~'ilshire) aze more
comparabie to the ad~acent West Los Angeies area
Crty of Santa l+Ionica
Hous~ng Element
II-39
Hons~ng Needs and Resources
I
~
~
~il soft-~tary portions of buildinas are req~ired to be reuafitted to a mmimu~n of the current
earthquake building eac~e desian standards according to the follou.~ng timelznes
I Essential Facilrties - no later than Viarch 31. 199b
II H~ah Ris~: (~ 104 occupant load) - na later than I~1arc~ 3 i. 1997
III Medium Risk ( 10 - 1 DO occupant load) - no ~ater than 1~larch 3 I, 1998
IV Lo«- Risk (~ 10 occupant laad) - no later than Vlarch 31. 1999
Howe~~er. ar~~ soft story structure ~«th occupied 5quare footage other than pazkznQ or storage
an the first floor of the bu~ld~ng, construction shalI be connpleted «-rthm t~-o ti~ears frorri the
date of engineerin~ report submrttal. i e no later than Vlarch 31. 1997 ~
S~nce adopuon of 4rdinance ~i 7~8, the a~-erage cost for soft-stor~- retrofit an Santa I~'Ioruca
has been $6,SQD. and the ranae has bcen bet~~-een $~.000 - S] 2,000 per structure As a means
of off-sett~r~g these casts to the propem- o~~-ner. the Cit~~ Ren.t Contzol Agenc}° has adopted
Re~ulation ~ 113B, otherw7se kno~~n as the "S Petrtfon." to aliav4 a rent increase pass through
to the tenant. Expenditures qual~fz~inq for rent increase pass throuah under this regulation
are ~0% of any and all expenditures rzasonably ~ncurred in mit~~ation of h~7ardous stnictures
(including soft-stor}~ structures}_ as identified in Ordinance ~`17~8_ Accarding to Rent
Control staff eng~neezin~ casts can be amortzzed over a fzve-year period and o~her
retrofittin~ casts can be amortized oti-er a 20-year per~od Based on t~ese amortization
schedules, the average 7-unrt buxlding u~th retrofittin; costs af ~6.800 ~~ould be entrtled to
rent increases of ~~ ger unit per month
As of Spring of 1996. Re~t Control staff had received fe« S Petrtaon rent increase requests.
but simiIar to the Q Pet~tions, the~ expect to receive the majonty of requests as the retrofit
deadime of June 1997 for Medium R.isk buildings approaches
Accarding to "The Northndge Earthquake One Year Later" pregared b~ the Federal
Emergenc}~ ~Ianagement A~enc~~, the Clinton Administration is comrr~itted ta makm~
earthquaice rni#~aat~on an ~ntegral part of the reco~ ery effort_ In fact, FEMA has entered into
a Memorandum of Understandin~ «~ith the State of Califarnia that adapts trigger~n~
mechanisms for code upg~-acies regazdless of loca.l code requirements In additian to
implementation of federal and state goals for earthc~uake m~tigation. Santa l~Ionica's
earthq~e retrafit ordinance provides many substantive benefits that City offic~als believe
far outweigh the costs of building retrofit. Such benefits include
• Potential pre~~ention of fiiture buildmg cotlapse and need to rebuild in the event af
a major earthquake
• Potential r~duction m the ma~utude of ~uilding damage from future earthquakes
• Reducuon in builc~ng maintenance
• Less displacement of building tenants
• Less loss of persanal contents m buildin~
• Saves liv~s and prevent xn~ur~es
~
~
~
~
,
~
~
~
~
'
,
'
,
~
~
G~ty of Santa I~iomca
Housing Element
II-38
Hous~ng Needs and Resoarces
~
'
,
~
• Among units on properties which ~~-ere red- or ~-ello~~°-tag~ed m Februan- 1994.
' 19% of thz units preti-iousl~s~ affordable at the 60°io le~~~l are no longer affordable
at that leti~el
' ~~'hzle these statzst~cs do seetn to suQ~est a trend of decreasin~ affordahilit~~ on those rent-
contralled units aranted Q Petition rent tncreases. the data is incomplete for the reasons
described abo~•e. and cann~t be used as an accurate aau~e of the true ma~n~tude of
' affordabil~t~- ~mpact Therefore. thz Cm- proposes to re-run these same reports m v~znrer of
~ 996 «~hen mare Q Pet~tzon rent increases have been pracessed
' Effects of City Seismic Retrof~trng Ordinance (#I748)
In responce to the ma~itude of structural damaae caused b~- the ~ orthridge earthquake_ the
Santa Nlonica CZt~~ Council adopted EmerQenc}' Ordinance ~1748 to estabiish spzcific
t standards for the repair and retrofitiina of a~~anet~~ of potentiall~- hazardous structures.
includin~
1 • Unremforced masa~- structures
• Soft-stor~~ construcuon
• "T~lt-up" pre-cast concrete buildings
~ • Steel-fra.rne buildFngs; and
• ~1on-ductileireinforced pre-cast concrete frame buildin~s
, As 85% af the rdentified potentiall~- hazardous structures in the Cit~- are of soft-ston-
construct~on_ and these are predominately znulti-fannily residential buildin~s, the follow-~ng
analysis ~711 focus on the effects of the Ci~'s netiy seisrnic retrafitting requirements for soft-
~ story construction.
Crty staff has identified approx~matel~- 1900 soft-story biuldings, consisting of
, predommately multi-famih structures conta~nmg an esurnated 14,4~0 dv~~ellin~ umts Under
the Ci~~'s adopted orc~inance, the follo~~~ng cntena appl~~ to #he repatr and retrofittmg of saft-
storv constn~cuon
` • Vb'ith~n 120 da~ s of the date of nonce to the ou~er b~ the Cit~'. but no later than
March ~1, 199~, the ov~-ner of an~~ soft stonr structure damaged b~• the 3a.iuar~- 17,
' 1994 earthquake or zts aftershocks. where the cost of repair is less than ~0% of tne
replacement value of the str~cture. sha~l submit an en;ineenng zeport to the
Bu~~ding and Safety Division The report shall demonstrate ~~hether the bui~dmg
~ comphes t~zth the Earthquake Design provisions ~ontained m the Un~form
Buildxn~ Code_
, ~ ~~ithin 120 days of notiee to the ar~~er b~~ the City. the a~rner of any soft stary
struciure not damaged by ~he Januar~- 17, 1994 earthquake or its aftershoeks, s~all
submit an en~ineenng report to the Build~ng and Safety Di~~ision The report sha.il
be based on a nondiaphragm rotational lateral anal~-sis and shall demonstxate
' whether the structure conforms to the Earthquake Design pra~~isions contau~ed m
the Urufonm Building Cade
, C~ts of 5anta Momca
Hous~ng Element II-.i~ Housma I~ieeds and Resources
~
,
«°tll be sub1ect to deed restnctions specificallj~ hmiting occupanc~~ to lovu~-income persons
(SO% h1Fi} and restnctintr rents to le~-els affordablz to lot}-income houszholds.
~s of June 30. 199~. more than 1.040 Q Petitians had been filed for permanent rent
increases to recot-er the earthquake-related capital expenditures (both repairs and
retrofitt~ng}, due to the large number of requested petitions, only 879 decisions had been
~ssued by September 1, 1996 As previously- descr~bed, pro~ects granted Q Petit~ons are
permitted ~~early up~~~ard rent adjustrnents to rzco~~er the cost of earthquake rzpairs, ti~-~th
limitations on the amount of annual rent increase passed on to lov~~-income households In
order to assess the impact of these potenual rent ancreases on the affordabilit~- of tl~e rent-
controlled housin~ stack, the Crt~'s Rent Control AQenci~ produced a focused report to
evaIuate rent mcreases and changes in unzt affordab~lity Ho«-ever_ rt should be mentioned
that of the 879 Q Petrtaan decision.s issued, a large number are for proposed repairs noi yet
completed, and the rent contral database can only refleci rent increases on prQ~ects ti~~here
repairs h.ati~e actuall~ been completzd T'he fo~Iou~tng hi~hl~ghts some of the findxngs of the
rent control database as of DeceFnber 199~6•
Overall ~ffardability (based on total units at affordabilitti~ levels)
Ciri-w~~de, 2% more rent-controlled units were affardable to households at the 60°.0
mcome level in December 1995 than in January ~994 There ~~as na signi~cant
chan~e at the 84% and 100% xncome levels
Among all units where Q PetFtions were filed. there «-as a 1°io declme in
affordabilxt~~ at the 60% and 80% income levels. and no significant change at t~e
104% ~ncorr~e level
Among unrts on properties which w-ere red- or yellow-ta~ged in February 1994
~here «~ere 6% fewer unrts affordable at the 6~% income level, 4% fevver at the
80% le~-e1, and ~°/a fe~~er at the 100% level.
Affordability~ of i~nits at 60% Income Level (based on rent changes for
individual units affordable at 60°/a leveI in 1994)
OveralL ~% of the un2ts that had been affordable at the 60°/a level prior to the
earthquake are no longer affordahle at that le~-ei.
Among luuts on properties w7th Q Petitions filed, 10°l0 of the unrts that had been
affordable at the 6Q% le~el aze no longer affordable at that level.
~ Two add~tional factors need to be considered ~•hen evaluat~ng the affordab~l~ry impacts uf Q
Pet~t~ons First_ some rent ~ncreases mav ha~•e resulted fro~n ~B 1164 ~a•hich mandares a certam level
of rent mcrease upon vacanc}•, for purpose of th~s report, ~ncreases resuit~n; from Q Petmons or
vacancies were not ~solated_ Second, between Januacti~ 1994 and December 1995, the Rent Board's
annual rent ad~ustments were lower than HLTD increases in mcome and affordabiiit~~ levels. resulting
in rnore "affordable" units ~n 1995 than I994 by matter of rev~sed HUD ~ncame defimtions.
Crty of Santa Momca
Houszn; Element II-~6 Housin~Itieeds and Resources
,
,
~
'
~
'
'
~
1
'
~
'
~
i
1
'
~
~
i
1
tenants. up«-ard rent ad~ustments mav not e~ceed n~el~~e percent. t~i.zce thz Emplo~mem Cost
' Inde~ (ECI). or S~0 per month. «~hachel~er is ~reater tn a¢iven ~-ear The ~eadline for
subm~ttal of a Q Pet~tion rent ~ncrease e~pired on 3une 30. 199~
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
1
~
,
~
~
'
'
'
In ~pnl 199~, the Rent Control Board adopted Re~Iataon 411;B ta pro~~ide far rent pass
throughs of ~0°/a of an~ and all expenditures reasonabl~~ mcurred m mitl~ation of ~azardous
structures to af~set the cost of seismic retrofit impra~-ements requzred under Citv Ordinance
~1748 {refer to discuss~on of this ~rdinance at end of section)
Status of Eartlrquake Recover3~
EartY~quake recover~~ efforts of one t~pe or another ha~~e been irunated or completed on most
of the units taaaed as uninhabitable ~s of September 1. 1996. onh- 38 propert~es (a3~ un~ts}
remain that ha~:e nat been made habitable Of these. onh~ 12 propert~es (39 umts} do not
show an`~ acti~~ln~ v~-tth the Ren:t Control ~~encti- ar an4~ earthquake repair permft actiz-ity~
In contrast. o~'er I,~00 red- or ti'ella~~~-tagaed unats hati~e been made habrtable. faciiitated in
large part b~~ the City's «'~de-rartgina earEhqualce recover~° pro~rams
The 11~1ERL Proararn can fund loans for repair and recQnstn.FCUOn. or for ne~- construction
for off site replacement of un~ts lost due to the earthqua~ce An inventor~- of those ucz~ts
permarten.tlt~ lost due to the earthc~uake is mamtained to docurnern the number of replacernent
ufuts that can be funded tkarough the MERL Program Thus far, loans for I 16 replacement
units haj-e closed and a commitrr~ent has been made to fund an add~tzonal 24 replacement
units.
Impact of Earthquake Recnver}~ Activities orr Housing Affardabrlity
As reflected in the o~~en-ie~z• of Cit~~-sponsored earthquake activ°rties descnbed above. a
ma1or ~oal of Santa Mon~ca`s proarams is to facilrtate recover~ of the earthquake damaged
hausin' stock, ~~hile ma~ntam~ng the affordabilin- of e~isting u~its; or proti~iding affordable
replacement umts_ The foliow-~ng provldes a general assessment of the impact of these
earthqualce recovery activrties on housinQ affor~abElrt~-
Onl~~ ~3 rent-controlled units ha~~e etther been ~ted CQ removal permits or ha~~e permrts
pending It can be assumed #hese unrts hat~e been lost from the City's invento~~ of rent-
cantrolled l~ousmg_ Hov~~et~er, if the properl}~ ow-ner v~°ishes to ohtain an Earthqt~ake
Recovery- Permit to reconstruct earthc~uake damaged structures (desenbed above}. 2~°io of
the recanstructed units must be deed restricted at le;~els affordable to households eaming
6Q% and 140% of ~he Count~~ median incame In addit~on, any pro~ect receivtng MERL
funds far earthquake repair ar rebuilding «~ll be sub~ect to the affordability resmctions
outiined in Table II-16
As dzscnbed above, pro~ects recei~mg DQ remo~-a1 permits are required to provide at least
the same number of replacement housin~ units as those being removed, and these
replacement un~ts ~r-ill contuiue to be sub~ect to the Ciry's rent control proviszons Ho~}ever_
rents on ?~ percent of these tuuts can be set at current market levels, tivhich ma}- be abo~•e the
pnor Maxxmum r'~,ilowable Rent (1~ZAR). The remunin~ 2~ percent of tl~e replacement untts
Cit~,' of Santa Mon~ca
Hous~ng Elzrnent II-3~ Housmg Needs ac~d Resources
~
~
Rede~~elopment Agencti ~ctivities
The Santa i~~lor~ca Rede~-elopment Agenc~~ adopted the Earthc~uake Recover~- Redz~~elopment
PIan in 3une 1994 as a rneans of pro~•~ding addltional financ~al resources ta encaurage
rebuiId~n; and reinvestment in thasz sections of the Cit~~ hardest hit b~~ the 1\orthridge
earthquake Housing-related irnplernentauon pro~ams contained in the Plan include
pro~-isions for laans_ grants and ~ap financina for repazr and rehabilitation of damaaed mult2-
famfly- buildings. and pro~~is~on of aap fmancing to increase the supph~ of affordable hausinQ
ta help replace unrts lost in the earthquakz Pursuant to State iaw•, not less than 20 percent
of ~oss tax incrernent re~-zn.ues ~enerated b~ the Rede~~eloprnent Pro~ect shaIl be used b}° the
AQency for the purpose of mcreaszn~. impror~ing. and preser~•ing the Ciri•'s suppt~- of
affordable hous~n~
Rent Control 4gency ~cfivitres
Categari CQ Rerttoval Pertnit: This special subcatego~~ of removal permit ~s available to
o~iners ofrent-controiled buildings so se~erel~• da~naQed in the 1r;orthtxdge earthquake that
uruts have been deemed unznhabrtable (red- or }~ello~~-tagged) an~ cannot be made habrtable
~n an economicall~• feasible manner Pro~ect repairs are deemed econom~call}- unfeasible if
the cost of repairs necessarn to make the unrt(sj habitable, amortize~ oyer the useful life of
the improvements. u-ould require that the rent far the contro~led rental unrt(s) ~e at a le~el
in excess of the rent that the landlord reasonabl~° couId be eYpected ta collect for the unit(s)
Category DQ Remo~al Permit: This special subcategan- of removal permit is a~~a~lable to
oz~-ners of red- and yel~o«~-tagged builcl~ngs rnade urunhabitable as a result of the Northridge
earthquake A categar; DQ permit may be granted if the srte on which the rent controiled
units are sought to be rem.oved ~r~ll be constructed u~~~h mult~-fam~l}- rentat unrts that v~~Ii not
be exempt from the Crty's rent control charter ~he follo~~7ng tvvo additional conditions must
also be met a) ?~°/4 of reconstructed rental umits must be rented to loti~~ income (SO% MFI}
persons at rents the~ can af#'ord; and b) unreimbursed earthqualce damages must be ~n excess
of $5,004 per unit' Rents on the 7~% non-lo« income resmcted unrts can be set at current
market levels, w~th future rent increases regulated under rent control {This re~ulation is
applicable to DQ remo~ al pemut applications filed on or after Vlazch 1 Q, 1995 - apphca~ions
fi~ed gnor to thzs date ~~ere processed under the canditions of Regulat~on ~O17 in effect at
the time of filing)
"Q" Petitions: The Rent Control Board adopted Regulat~on 4113 on January 27, 1994 (ten
da`~s after the earthquake) to establish an administrative petit~on process, the "Q" PetFtion;
to encouraae the prompt rehabilrtat~on of buildings darr~aged by the earthquake The Q
Petrtion aIlo«ed owners of earthquake-damaged propertie5 to reco~~er earthquake-related
capital expenditures throu;h permanent rent increases For qualifi~ing expendrtures, the Q
Pet~tion establlshes an entitlerr~ent to a dollaz-for-dallar rent ~ncrease pass-through of
expenditures, including reasonable financin~ costs For income qualifyin~ pre-earthquake
' L'nreuribursed earthquake damages m th~s con#ext refer to those that d~d not rece~ve aRy
compensations i+~hether in Lnsurance ar m publ~c ~ants
Citv of Santa Monica
Housing Element II-34 Housin~ Needs and Resaurces
'
~
~
,
'
~
~
~
~
~
~
'
~
,
'
'
1
~
'
~
TABLE II-lb
' SANT.~ 11•iO~iICA
ML-LTIFAMILY E>~RTHQL?~KE REPAIR LO~N PROGR~ii~I {'_1'IERL)
'
1
,
,
'
'
'
,
'
~
1
'
~
'
~
~ROGR.an~ x ii zu - ~v
E.LIGIBLE Prz-Eaz-thq~ake O~i•nzrs Post Earthquake Buvers Qual~fied affordable Cordom~r~um O~.~ners and
BORR01lERS l~. Pre-Eart~quakz Hous-ne De~~elopers ~s~ocfat~ons
Ow•nzrs.iith loansovzr
$30.0QO~~unE[
ELIGIBLE ~n.~ Dama~ed proper[ti~ .+ ith 5~.000 per unit rzpair cost or potenna~ l~ hazardou~ strvc.ur~s ~;•~th 51: sq fr
PROPERTIES EQ dama2e For a~qu~s~uon Red and 5~'ellow• Ta~¢zd propenies onh
ELIGiBLE ~S~S Rehabilitanon RehabxUtatio^ RehabElitanor Rehabilrtauan
Recen;tractien Acqwsiuon R~constr~cuon Reconstruc€~on
Refiaanan~ Reconswct~on Acqwsrt~on Refinanc~ne
Rzfinancing
LO~V TERti4 30 S'ears 10 Years ~? ~"ears 30 ~'ears
IVTEREST R~.TES 0°jo 0°•0 0°0 or applicable 0°~0
Federal rates for H0~4E
ta~ cred~t pro~ects
PaY~fEtiT Def rred for ?~•ears from noiz daEZ. amort~zation R~sidual Recz~pts I7zferred for 2}•ears fro-n
based on 28 ti•zars note date, ~n-iortized over
~$ ~•ears
1~1.4XIh7tlh'1 LOAI~ $30 000 per unit (H~~-~zr 0-1 BR'~4S S 6Q.000 0-1 BR~iS S 80.000 0-2 BRti1S 560,~00
I~mits aoolr for 2-6 un~t 3 BRI~SS 5'0_004 2 BR'~4S ~ 90.000 2 BRti4S $7~.000
pro~ects} 3 BRI~~iS 5 8GA00 3 BRtiiS 5100.000 3 BR3•1S $80 OOfl
AF'FORD~.BILITY No Add~t~onal 25°a of umts musz be 90Q°%o o* un~ts must be ho Add~t~o~al
RESTRICTIO'~5 Reqeirements af~'ar~able ta H H ~tirth af~ordable to H H~ti•tth Reqwremencs
income<60°oofh~fFI ~ncome<b0°a
l~o. BR1~IS Rent
0 5~29
1 5645
2 ~718
3 5820
RESTRICTION PERIOD ~iA 30 ~~ears » ~•ears tiA
REN7' L~ICRE~SES l~L~.R adi~stment n-ith pass-tnroughs or~er the 1~ A \~
amomzation penod oT the ioan acquisrt~on-
RefinaRCe ekemp[ (~0 1~OI-based rent increases)
~lon-rent tontrol pro~ects use HI;D Annual Adiustment Facior
FORGIVEVESS 20%of cons~ucnon financme forg«en after ta•o (3) ~rs. w~here Da~~is Bacon mm constr .ti•ages apph•
PREDEVELOPI~4ENT EL~~ble eos's ma}• be ~ncluded in secured l00°~o fiaanein2 of Secured loans for eligible
EXPE~SES Predevelopm~nt loan ~ti•ith ~0°,'o reirtzbursemeot of ehe~ble expenses costs w~ ~0% re~rnbursc:m't
prei°~aus expenses of pre~•~ous expenses
SECTIO\ 8 Propem~ owners ma~~ I~st vacancies ~i~ith Housmg ~nthorin~ Va
LOA\ ASSUMPTIO~ Loans I]ue on Sale Loans mar~ be Assamed Loans Due on Sale
ti~,•ith Cit~~ Appro~al
PR03ECTED 59,38',~#~5 58.612.S~15 59_~46.~44 52.~00 000
AL.LOCATIO'v~*
* ~llocat~on; by catzgon• arz based oo pro~ected demand F~ndmg mati~ be adj:~sted bp up to 10% accordmg to applica[~ons
.
reeeivecl
Source Multi-Famil~• Earthquake Repair Loan Proeram - Guidelmes and Procedur~s. Feb 1995
C~tv of Santa ~ionica
Hous~n~ Element
~I-33
Hous~n~ Needs and Resources
1
,
In addition, pro~ects rec~ivtng an ~arthquake Reco~~er~~ Pez~it are exempt from the Cin's
InclusionarF- HausinQ Program {prdinance ~1615) Ho~°e~~er, orze of the follo~t-ma
affordable hous2ng obli~ations app1~- to an~- multi-famil~- rental pra~ect obtainina a remo~-a!
permrt from the Rent Control Baard
If the pro~ect has an affordabie housxn~ obltgat~an under Rent Con~rol (such as
«7th a DQ Remo~~a~ Permit), no add~tional affordable housing obligation is
amposed as a canditian of the Earthquake Reco~~er~,~ PermFt
If no affordable housing obli~at~on is required undzr Rent Contral (such as w-ith
a CQ Rema~-a1 Pern~~t). not Iess than 2~% of the total number of lanrts in the rental
pro~ect sha~l be affardable to households earnmg 60% and 100% of ~he reQional
med~an income At least half of the affordable uruts must he pro~ided to
house~olds at the 60% income level
:~~ulti-faunil~~ Earthquake Repair Loan Program (:~ZERL}: In responsz to the acutz
damag.e ta the rr~ult~-famil~~ housing stock caused b~- the I`orthrid~e earthqua~ce, tYke City
established the ~'Iulti-familt~ Earthqualce Repair Loari Program (MERL) Program. Tlus
program is funded through federal HL D monies made avaiiable to Santa l.Toz~tca through the
Emergenc}~ Supplemental Appropnat~ons Act of 1994, including approximately ~,S 4 millfon
i~ HOME func~s and $?~ miilion in CDBG funds MERL funds mai~ be used for acti~rties
that are el~gible under the regular H0~1E program. includi~g rehabilitation; acquisition.
construction and reconstrucnan of housing Program loans znay be used to pay for costs for
~}h~ch funds are not a~-a~lable from the Small Business Admmistration (SBA). earthquake
ins~zrance, or other so~rces
The MERL Program has four program camponents
Program I. Pre-Earthquake O~r~~ners
Program II Post-Earthquake Bu~s~ers
Prograin III Affordable Housing De~~elopers
Prograrn IV. Condominium 0«;~ners and Assaciations
Prog~am requirements differ in man~- respects, including eligible uses. maximum loan
amounts. repa~ment requirements, and affordability requirements. Table IZ-16 highlights
the ma~or components of each ofthese prograFns.
Ctt~~ of Santa I~fomca
Housina Element II-~2 Housm; l~eeds and Resources
~
,
~
~
~
'
~
1
~
'
'
,
~
~
'
~
'
'
~
~
'
~
'
~
'
a
,
,
'
~
T:~BLE II-1S
S~C;:~~~•iARY OF EARTHQCAKE-Da11~IAGED
RE~T-CO~TTROLLED H4USING STOCK
Number Prapert~es Number tinits
Unirihab~table as of Februar;~ 10. 1994 220 2.'_~7
Demol~shed Through SepEember 1_ 1996 ? i 338'
Change in Tag Status Februan~ 9-~ - Septemb~r ~ 1996 1~5 1.~84
Un~nhab~table as of September 1 1996 38 335'
C;~n~nhabitable r~-Eth ho Permrt Act~vtt~~ 10 2~
5aurce Cit1` of Santa Monica Rent Control A~ency
Notes
Inc3udes I78 units a~ the Sea Castle (1?2~ Ocean Front V4'alk~
]ncludes 120 units at Champatrne To~ers (1221 Ocean Ave ) which represent 36°% of remarn~ng
umnhab~table unrts Champa~ne Towers received a building permit for repairs in AaQust i 996
Earlhquake-Related Recovery Activities
In order to fac~lrtate earthquake reca~~er~~ effons_ a comprehensi~-e range of programs and
procedures hat-e been implemented bv the Crty, its Redevelopment ~.gency. and the Rent
Control Board These include_ adoption of an Earthquake Recotien- Act Ordinance to
stream~ine perm~t[ins procedures and prov~de addxt~onal incentives far rebuildm~,
implementat~on of a Vlultifamil~- Earthquake Repair Loan Program (I~~1ERL), adopt~on of the
Earthquake Reco~~en~ Redevelopment Pro~ect, and adoption of special rent control provisions
govertung removal permits and rent inereases associated ~~7th unit rehabilitation Each of
these programs is bnefl~ described be~o~-
Citv Acn~itres
' Earthquake RecoverE Act Ordinance: The City Council adopted the Earthquake
Recovery Act, Ord~nar~ce ~1736. in Apn11994 v~~hich was updated bL Ordinance 1823 (CCS)
on October 17, 199~ to establ2sh an expedrted permit process for rebuildfn6 and
' reconstruct~on standards wiuch encourages re~uilding The Ordmance creates a neu~ permtt,
an Earthquake Recvver~~ Permit, ta authonze repair and reconstructian of earthquake
damaged structures to their gre-earthquake candition. Incentit es under thas Act incl~de
' allov~-ances for ~n-land repa~r or zeconstruction of legal non-confarmin~ structures, and 15%
square footage size and 5 fe~t buiIdin~ height bonus for recan5truction of multi-famil~- rental
housing
' In exchange for the substanual benef ts to property- ow°ners usina the Earthquake Recovery-
Act, the Act reqiures 2~ percent of the resident~al uruts assisted to be deed-restncted to low
~ and moderate incame househalds.
, Gty of Santa ~ionjca
Housu~~ £]ement IT-;1 Housin~ ~leeds and Resources
~
~
~. Earthc~uake Damaged Hausing
The Cit~~ of Santa ilionica experienced «•tdzspread darria~e as a result af the Januar~~ 17,
199=~ Northndge earthquake As inspections of earthquake-dama~ed structures praceeded
in the months follor.~zn~ the ~iorthndge Earthquake, the count of unznhabitable (red- and
yello«-tagaed) d~~-elling unrts was conunually updated ~t the end of Januan~ 199~, damage
esti~nates reached as hi~h as 3,100 red- and ~~ello~~~-ta~ged units
Of the red- and }rello~r-tas~ed unrts. counted as of Februar~- I0. 1994. approximatel~- 220
multi-famil~~ rent-controlled residential buildin~s contaimng `?_2~7 units «-ere deemed
umnhabrtable ' Tl~s represented a ternporan- loss of almost five percent of the Ci~'s housin;
stack, appro~imatelt- 90 percent of u-hich w~as a.ffordabl~ to lo«~er income households In
addxt~ozz, there ~ti~eze an estimated 16.OOQ umts in 1.~Q0 buildings that sustained some dama~e
but vvere green-tagged
Since the earthquake, 338 multi-farnil~- units zn 27 rent-controlled buildings were deemed
damaged beyond repair and.~~ere dennol~shed Simultaneausl~-, ho«-eti=er. as of September
I, 1996, approx~rnately 1>j buxldings (1.584 un~ts) ha~~e become habatable (green-tagged)
after being des~gnated uninhabitable (~c~ella~~•- ar red-tagged) 5 Of the properties that are still
tagged, several maJor properties arc Fn the process of being repaired These figures attest to
the success of earthquake recor•ery• efforts in Santa Monica, w'rth relatively limrted unit
dernolrtions and a s~gruficant number of umts brought back on lme Table YI-15 summa~izes
the data. descnbed abave_ It should be noted that this data onlti• pertains to the rent-controlled
hous~ng stock Y
Some bu~ldmgs u~ere red and vellow tag2ed immediatel;~ follow~ng the earthquake but had already
been char.~ed ta green tag status bp~ February~ 10_ 1994, and are therefore not mcluded fn these
fiQUres
6 The change in tag status from red.!~el[o~ti~ to ~een on some of the unrts ~vas not a result of
rei~ab~l~tation. but rather clar~f cation af data on propertces where only a portion of the unrts were
umnhabitable, or ctanfication of the actual extent of damaae
City of Santa Momca
Housm~ Element II-30 Housma Needs and Resources
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
'
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
'
,
'
~
'
1
~
~
,
'
~
~
~
'
~
~
'
'
'
TASLE II-14
HOUSING IT NEED OF REHABILIT:~TIO~ OR REPLACEME~TT
Defect Owner-Occupied Reoter-OccuPied Totaf
Lacking Co~nplete Plumbing ~0 148 198
Lack~ng Complece K~tchens 16 ?9~3 810
V+'rthout Heat or ti~`ich linvented Heaters t 70 448 618
SeverefL• Overcro~sded 92 1,10~ 1,197
TOTAL 328 ~,-~9~ 2.923
Source 1990 C~ S Census
The Cjt}~ prepares atu~ual reports documenting substandard rental housing v~zth hea~th. safet}-,
and building cades ~~iolations These reports are submltted to the State Franchise Tax Board
for wz~hhalding of the propem: o.~ner's income tax deduct~ons until the substandard housing
has been brought into compliance In FY 1994, the Cit~-'s Bn~lding and Safet;r D~vision
recorded 107 substandard n-pe housing complaints Of these compiaznts, onh~ tu~el~e
resulted in v~ritten notices of violat~on for substandard dsi~ellings, v4~th onl~~ one of these
unresolved at }-ear's end By companson_ a total of 74 substandard type housing co~pla~nts
~r~ere recorded m FY 1993, and 202 complaints w°ere filed dunng FY 199~ Of ti~e
complaints filed in FY 95, SO resulted in wntten notices of violation, and eight remained
unresoh=ed at year's end and were referred ta ttae Crty Attomey's Office for further action
The 199~ Tenant S~-e~ asked responc~ents a senes of questzons related to the perce~~~ed
quality and conditian. of their apartment building 7n #erms of the percei~=ed qualit~~ of
maantenance among the rent-controlled tenants, 23 9% of respondents felt their bu~lding w°as
in excellent cond~tton, 33% in goad condition. 2> >% in fair condition, and I7 6% in poor
condrt~on. This patte~n appears szmilar to that found in the Cit~~'s 1987 tenant sur~~e,~ {60%
ratang maintenance ver~~ ?oad or good}. althouph the question in this prior su~-e~~ applied to
the respondent's apartrnent urut rather than ta the building tIn companson, the 194~ Tenant
Sun~ey documents that aimost 64 percent of the tenants ~n non-controlled units felt their
buildinas are ~n exceilent or good conditions )
The 199~ Tenant Sun~ey also asked ques~ions related to the presence of ma~or ph~-sical
problems m tiie un~t Less than one in ten tenants reported they had been ~;~thout a major
system (~.g «ater, heat or u~orking toilet) for more than six hours in the past 90 days
Amang the rent-controlled tenants. one-quarter reported holes ~n the walls Qr ceilina, but
very fe~- identified other major physical defects (~ 9% identified unconceaIed winng, ;.4%
zdez~tified si~ns of rats, and appraxima~el~~ t~~~o percern identified holes ~n floors) The most
prevalent physical problems ident~f ed b~ the rent-controlled tenants were inadequate secunri~
~n the building (62 3%} and inadequate securrty in the garage (b7%)
Crty of Santa 'Nlon~ca
Housing Element I~-29 Housm~ Needs and Resources
,
FIGti RE II-S
AGE OF HOUSING STOCK - I990
12,400 ,
14.000
~ S,f300
a
~
~.
1939 or Earlier 194Q-49
L 6.00(1
~
~
~
~
Z 4,OOQ
2.00(1
The Citt~ vf Santa Momca ~as adopted the defimtion of substandard housang established in
24 C~'R 882 219(fl, expanded to ~nclude severely o~~ercro~~~ded unrts (grea#er than 1.51
persons per room} as substandard In order to estimate t~e number of substandard u.ntts in
the C~t~•. 1990 Census data re~ardxna the number of umts «7thout complete plumbing,
without complete lcstchen facilLtie~, ~~ith unvent~d heaters, or severely overcrow°ded units
~~ere used as indicators. Table YT-1~ sha~s the nurnber of units of each type by tenure This
~s considered a conservative eshrnate of the number of substandard unlts because it daes not
fnclude ind~cators of structural defects (leakin~ roofs, hoies in the w~alls, floor, or ceilzng;
brokenimissxng ~zndows, inadequate foundations; etc )
City of Santa Momca
I~ous~ng Element I[-28 Hous~ng Needs and Resources
,
,
~
~
'
1
'
~
'
'
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
'
~
195U-59 1960-69 1970-~9 1980-3/I990
Year Units Built
,
,
~. Age and Candition
' Table II-13 and Figure II-8 sho~- the age of Santa I~ioruca s housing stock Housing trro«~th
in Santa Monica has slo«~ed in the past two decades as the a~-ailabilin~ of land for ne~~-
~ de~-eiopment becornes tnereasingl~r iimrted As sho~zn ~n the table. 21 percent of the Cit}-'s
housing stock as of l~°Sarch 1990 u~as constructed durmg the 1R60s; only 8 percent of the
C~t}~'s 1990 housmg stock ti~~as constructed zn the 1980s
` The accepted star~dard for ma~or housmg rehabilitation needs is after 34 vears In 1990_
approximateh' t«~o-thirds of the Crt`.~'s hous~na stock «-as 34 y-ears and alder Th~s wouid
, indicate the neec~ for continued rnaintznance and potential rehabilrtation of a sianificanE
portion of the Czn's housfng based on a~e alone In addition, some of the older structures
need to be retrofitted to address earrhquake safet~~ issues The C~t~~ has adopted a seisznic
safety- ordinance va-hich requires up~rad~ng of unre~x~forced masonry structures {L1RMS) ~o
, ~~ithstand the rnakimum probable earthc}uake m the CFt~~
In addit~on to unreinforced masonry, cerEax~: other tr.pes of buiidings are also ~ulnerable
' during earthquakes These building t~pes mclude soft~'weak stflry stntctures, pre-1976 talt-up
concrete buildu~gs, steel-fra.me btuldings, and pre-casL!reinforced po~red-in-place concrete~
no~-duct~le buildings In r~;sponse, th~ C~t~• Council adopted Ordinance ~1748 which
1 requires the seisrruc retrofittmg of these ty~pes of potentially hazardous structures The
impaet of the 199~ I~arthridge Earthc~uake o~ tl~e eonartion arzc~ afforaabi~tt;~r of the Cin~'s
~ housin~ stock is analvzed ~n detail ~n the next sec~ion
i
'
~
~
'
TABLE II-13
AGE OF HOUSING STOCK -199Q
Year Umt Bu~lt hamber Percent
1939 or Ear]ier 9_194 19 3%
1940- 1949 7,58? la 9%
1950 - 19~9 9,199 19 3%
1960 - t 969 10,179 21 3%
1970 - I979 7.982 16 7°fo
1980 - March 1990 ~.6I7 7 6°10
Total ~7,753 I00 0%
Source 1990 L' S Census
~
'
~
~
City af Sanra Monrca
Housmg Element
II-27
Housmg Needs and Resources
~
~
the h~ahzst concentratian of renters is lacated v~~est of Lincoln Boul~vard and along the P~co
Boulevard Corridor
:3i subcategon- of rental housing includes Single Roorn Occu~ancy (SRO) hotels and
baardin~ ar room~ng houses_ ~~~hich is generall5~ ihe least expensi~~e housing and frEquzntly
the on1~- housing option available to the lov~est income hausehold5 There arz fe« r~maimng
~esources of th~s t~~pe in the Cit.-. Bet~~een 19$0 and 1994, mne SRO hotels have been
cIosed. remo~-in~ a totai of ~27 rental unrts from the hausing stoc~ As a means of
addressmg the need for lo~~--eost SRO houszng, the City has assisted ~n the detirelopment of
t~~-a SRO ~rojects. providing 8d SR4 units affordable to <<ery- loti~- ~ncorne households.
3. Vacancf~
The 1990 Czz~sus documents a vacancy rate of 2 77 percent in the for-saIe housing stock and
2 3~ percent in the rental stock iza Santa ylonica In addrtion. 3_68 percent of al~ housir~g
units in 5anta Monica ~~~ere vacant for other reasons, ~ncludmg for seasonai, recreatzonal, or
occaszanal use, and held ~~acant for ~anitors or caretakers
There are other sources of post-census vacar~c~~ rate data a~~a~lable, includFng the Federal
Home Laan Bank Sur4~ey, zdle ut~lfty rneters_ and a sun~e}~ o#' unoccupted tuuts canducted by
the Postal Sen-zce Betv4een FebruarF~ and Aug~st, 199I, the Federal Home Loan Bank
S~-stem, under funding from the ti S. Department of Hous~ng and Urban Development_
conducted a sunTey of ~Tacanctes in the Los :~ngeles - Long Beaeh statist~cal area. Ihe sur~~ey
rer~~ealed that the ~~acancy rate amon~ all housing t~~pes in Santa Momca was 2.2 percent.
Accordmg ta tt~s 1491 survey, Santa ~lornca's vacanc}~ rate is loti~-. The sun~ey alsa revealed
differinq vacanc}~ rates among different housing types in the Cit~~_ Among single-family
detaehed and attached unrts the rates were ~ 8 and 4 3 percent, respectively: ~ The vaeancy
rate among multi-famil~° ~anits, the predominant hous~n~ type in the Crt~, «-as the lowest at
1.7 percent
Hov~~ever. each alternative data source had senous methodological tireaknesses and thus, does
not warrant their we in lieu of the Census est~rnates, therefore, the Cjty relies on the Census
data as the rr~ast reliab~e est~mate of housing vacancies tn the City
' The Census defnes a singfe-fam2ly detached unit as one w~~th open space on ail s~des Such
structures are can;idered detached even if they har-e an ad~otntng shed or garage hlobile homes or
tra~lers to v~•h~ch one or rnore permanent rooms have been added or bu~lt are also ~ncluded A smgle-
fam~Iy attached smicture has or~e ar more walls extendmg from ground tv roof separatin~ rt from
ad~ommg structures
C~tv of Santa Monica
Housmg Element IF-26 Housing Needs and Resources
1
1
~
~
,
'
,
i
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
'
i
~
~
,
~
,
'
'
1
~
~
~
1
~
i
c. xoL s~~ G sTOCx
L Housing Unit Type
Santa Monica contained ~b.393 hausma units ~n 1980 and 48.?80 units in 1995 {see Table
ZI-12) Ben~~een 1980 and 1990, the number of sin~le-famil}- and multi-family 2- to 4-unit
res~dential de~~elopments ~nczeased w~hile the number of multi-family umts (~+ units)
decreased Hoti~•e~-er. bet~c~een 1990 arid 1995, the housing trends in Santa'1~loruca reversed,
the niunber af smgle-famil}~ homes decr~ased slightl~,~ and the number of multi-famiIti- units
zncreased b~~ three percent. ll~ost residential de~-elopment in the Cit~~ is a result of rec~-cIin~
exist~ng de~~elopment to h~~her densines w-ithin multi-famil~~ areas Some multi-famil~• uruts
have been lost due to ~~ithdra~~~als permitted under the Ellxs ~ct. a 1986 State lav~- v~,~hich
prohibits cities from requinn~ propert}~ vt;-ners to maintazn propzrti as rental housing
Betv~-een 198b and 199~. approximatel~- 989 rental units ~~-ere remoti-ed from the rental
market through the Ellis process
TABLE II-12
HOUSI~iG L`l~IT TYPE: 1980,1990, A1~TD 199~
~980 1990 1995
Un~t Type
'`umber
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Single-Family (Detached & Attached} 10.131 21 8% 10.961 22 9% 10.948 22 7%
? to ~ Un~ts ~.~ I S I l~°io 6.00~ IZ d% 6.OI8 I2 5°0
S+Unrts .i0.652 66 1°0 29 979 52 8% ~1,0~8 64 ~°.o
Mobile Homes' 292 0 6% 2~~ (} 6% 256 0 5%
Other ---- --% 7~~ 11°0 --- --°io
Total ~6.393 10~ 0° 0 4~,753 100 0°ro 48180 100°~0
Source 1980 and 1994 U S Census, 199~ Dept Of Finance
2. Tenure
~ .According to the 199Q Census, 28 percent of the City's househo~ds aw~n the unrt they lir e in
and the remaining 72 percent rent In ~980, the breakdown v~~as 22 ~ercent owner-occupied
and 78 percent renter-occup~ed. This is a much 1~Qher percentage of renters ihar~ ~n any otl~er
~ city- in Los An~eles County. At least ane-third af the households in other ciues ow~ned their
homes, ana th~ co~nn~-wtde oti~nerst~g avera~e r~ as ~& percent For Santa ~vlonica, t.~ze
lughest concentra~ion of oz~~er-occu~iec~ housm~ is located north of WilsIure Boulevarr~, and
~
' The definition ofmob~le homes chaneed betv4een the I980 and 1990 Census in the 1980 Census_
~ boats, tents, and vans were co~nted as part of thz in~entory• of mobile homes and trailers In the
1990 Census. these un~ts v~•ere categorEZed as "Other " 7he decrease m the number of mobile homes
in 1994 could be explatned by this change ~n defimt~on
' C~n~ of Santa Monica
Hansing Element II-25 Housma Needs and Resources
'
TABLE II-~ 1 (Continued)
INVE\TOR~' OF HONfELESS SERVICES (FY 1996-97}
AGENCYfPROGRA:-~ TARGET
POPL`LATTO~ NUMBER
S~RVED
C.TNIT
Permane~t and 5~anorti~~e Housm~•
Commun~n~ Corporat~on of S'~4
- SRO and multi-famziy hous~n~ G~N 1,2~0 456 li
5anta U~on~ca Housmg Authant}~*
- Shelter Plus Care (5+C) ~+II_ SA, DD 1 QO I 00 L"
St Joseph Center - Sect~on 8 GEV 59 ~9 U
Step lip on Secand - SRO 1~1I 36 36 U
OPCC Adopt-a-Farnil~~ FAM 41 i l50 L:
Sabtotal 1,863 898 G
Case Mas~agementl~'.snplovment!
Supnortive Sen~ices
Chr,vsal~s - Employment GE 375 NA
Coor~mated Case Management Pragam ALL 1,200 NA
(7 partic~pati~g orean¢at~ons)
Dida H-rsch - Mental Heahh Ser-~•~ces MI i fi0 ~TA
St Joseph Center - Employment GEN ~0 VA
5t Joseph - Money Managerneni ALL ~ 60 NA
Santa Momca V~'est - Mental Health h4I S00 NA
Step Up on Second -~mployment MI 100 A1A
`'en~ce Family Clm~c - Health 5er--~ices ALL 2,380 NA
Veteran's Admin - Support Services VET 7~4 I`~.
Venice Fam~ly Clmic,`SM AIDS Pro~ect HIV 1,800 NA
Y Burke Health C~nter ALL ~7 1`TA
Subtota[ 7,822
GEN - General Populatton Tndiv~dtials. FAA4 - Famzl~es. VL' - Vi~'omen Qnly or V-'omen v~~~th
Ch~ldren,
Y- Youth. MI - Mentall~• II~_ SA - Substance Abuse, DD - Dual D~a~nosis (Mentally Ill and
Substance Abuse), HIV - Persons wrth HIV or AIDS, VET - Veterans, ALL - Genzral and
SpecIal \eeds Papulauons
B- Beds. U- Umts, M- Meals
5ource Citv af Santa Momca. Human Servsces D~~ision
* Onlr hometess people are served throuFh the Shelter Plus Care Pro~am (5+C) Case Management
for S+C Es contracted with OPCC, St Joseph's, Step Lp on Second
Ccry of Santa N1on~ca
HousEng Element II-24 Houscng Needs and Resaurces
,
1
~
1
'
,
'
~
'
~
~
~
i
~
'
i
~
1
~
,
'
~
'
1
'
'
'
,
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
TASLE II-11
INV"ENTORY OF HOh•~ELESS SER~~ICES (FY 1996-97)
AG~M1CYlPROGR~hi TARGET
POPULAxIOti Nti~IBER
SERVL~D
Ul\IT
O u treachlln take/Assess ~ent:
Ocean Park Commumty Center (~PCC1
- Homeless Outreach ALL 800 NA
- Drop-In Cer~ter ALL 4,000 13~ ~i
- Daybreak Day~ Center MI_«' 600 3~ yi
5a1r-at~on Armr• - SH1~~ASHLOCK GEN =~00 NA
Step Up on Second - Dat• Center MI 900 ~0 M
St ]oseph Center
- Day Center ALL 2?~0 NA
- Bread and Roses Cafe ALL ~,800 180 M
PA7H - Dav Center GETi 3,000 ~:~
Veteran's ActmFmstratton - Outreach VET 75Q '~r.~
Wests~de Food Bank GEN 7.40a b05 ~4
Sub#otal 24,90U 1005 hi
Emer~encr• 8helter:
Cold V4'eather Shelter Pro~am GEI~ 500 325 B
(seasona3 - 70 da~•s out of the ~ear only)
Salvation Army - SAMOSHEL GEN 870 10~ B~2D0 M
Sun{ight Mtss~on GEN, FAM 300 100 B*
PATH GF~i 350 32 B*
LIEU CAP F:~M. VI~` 370 30 B*
CLAR£ SA ]00 24 B*
Bzble 7abemacle FAM 26;1 4=~ 8*
So~ourn Center for Battered Vvornen V4' 3',5 16 8~~6 h1
Subtotal 3,Q89 67i Bl236 N~
Transitionat Housin~:
CLARE SA 300 13b B~`
Jump Street MI 'r ~ b B*
LIEL`• CAP W 7~ 4~ B*
Neyv Directions VET 24 16 B*
Ocean Park Comrnun~n- Center
-'furning Pomt GEAI 300 55 B;1 IO ~'f
- Da~•break Shelter MI_VV 60 15 $'30 A~'I
lipu~ard Bvund Fr'~M I~ 9 B*
Subtotal 8~9 2$0 B/140 Ni
B- Beds, M- Vleals, U- Housm~ tin~ts
* Altl~ough Ib'Ieals are pro~~~ded daily - the tatal nurriber is not ava~lable
C~t~~ of Santa Momca
Hous~n~ £lement LI-23 Hous~ng Veeds and Resources
'
~
FYGURE II-7
HaMELESS CONTIl~LTUM OF CARE
O~treach Intake
Assessment
. Permanen~
Housing
Emeraency Transitional
She~#er Housing Permanent
~ Su~pporti~e
~ Housing
t ~
~
~ ~
--~------------------------ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
` ~ EmpIayr~en~ & '
~..-------------~ ---~
Su~portive
ervices
r
~
'
,
'
~
'
~
~
~
1
~
~
~
~
Citt~ of Santa ~lon~ca
HoUSing Element
II-22
Housm~ Needs arid Resources
'
'
~
~ .
for indi~-zduals and families recei~-ing General Relief (GR) and Aid to Fanuhes ~•ith
~ Dependent Cluldren (AFDC) and do not ~nclude many homeiess persons «-ho are in:.l~gibl~
for or do not seek public assistance This figure also includes indi~°tduals and farr~ilies that
iive m matels and o~~erczo~~ded apartments «~ho are at extreme rzsi: of becommff h.ozneless
~ According to Lr1HSA and Sheiter Partnership. hameless families account for appro~imatel~~
16% of the V4'estslde's horne~ess populatton and unaccompanied r~outti accaunt for 10%
' The number of homeless people nat~onr~izde is expected to continue to mcrease oti~er the next
severa~ ~-ears due to a var~et~~ of reaso~s includin; decreases tn publzc assistance, escalat~ng
costs far housing. cnildcare, health care and other ass~stance, and the lack of a 1~~-able w•age
' In Southern Califomia, this nation~~i~e trend ts compounc~ed bs~ ~he loss of a laree number
of housi~~ units from the 199=~ ~iorthndge earthqua[ce and b~- the fact that housing ir~
Southezn California is among the rz~ast expens~tie housing in the nation
' Inventory af Exisnng Services: The City- of Santa i~ianica supports a comprehensive policy
for homeless serviees that promotes a continuwnr~ of care approach This approach is
predicated on the understanding that homelzssness is nat caused merel~- b~~ a lack af shelter,
' but in~ol~es a~~anen~ of underlyin~, unmet needs - ph}°sical. econamic. and social
Therefore a comprehenszve s~~stem of ser`nces. as ~rell as perman.ent housing, is necessan
to help homeless indi~~zduals and familxes reach i~dependence 7his s~%stem stnz~es to fulf 11
~ these reqiurements wzth five fundamental components 1) Outreach. Intake and Assessment;
2} Ernergency SheIter. 3) Trans~nanal Housing. 4} Permanent Hausing {including supportn~e
hous~ng). and ~) Case Vlanagement ar~d Supportile Services (including aftercare and
, employ~nent).
Figure XI-7 on the follo~~mg page depicts the contFnuum of care model supported b}~ the
' Cit}~ Each camponent zs critical to the success of the or~~erall goal to secure and maizitain
permanent housing Table II-11 pro~~ides an overview of the existmg facilit~es and services
offered on the ~%estside ~hat assist homeless ~ndivicfuaIs and families tndicating the targee
~ populatian, the total nurriber of persons to he served annually, and the unrt af sen~~ce
prov~ded (i e beds, housmg ~n~ts, mea~s) The tota.l nurnber of persons ser~ed annually may
reflect some duphcation For exaznpie. in an~~ gn-en }~ear, an indiv~dual mai~ seek emer~enc~~
~ shelter at more than one facilit~-. A camputer st~stem for the Gaordxnated Case ivlanagement
Prrogram tracks and measz.;res the totai number of unduplicated ind~~riduals who recerve
serviees on an anraual basis For temporaxy and permanent housing programs, the total
~ number of beds ar housing unrts ind~cate ho~~~ man~ persons can be sen~ed an a daily basis
The ntunber of ineals provided an a dai1~;- basis is also provi~ed far those pragrams that have
a food provision companent as part of their service del~aen-
~
~
~
, C~ty of Santa Mon~ca
HousmQ Element li-2 ] Housma ?~Teeds and Resources
~
~
Homeless
One of the most trag~c continuing trends zs the phenomenaI mcrease in homelessness, in
Southern Calxfornia~usi as in the rzst of the linit~d States The needs af homeless famiIies
an~ indit~iduals are as varied as the reas~ns for their homelessness. the onl~~ common
denominator ~s their need for housin~ axi~ support serti~ices A small municipal go~ emment
in a ma~or me~ro~olitan region cannot implernent adequate local solutions to eliminate
homelessness
In response to the ~row~ing problem in Santa Monica. in 1991. the Cit~~ Council appo~nted
a Commututy Task Force on Homelessness to formulate recommendations on immediate and
long-term act~on for the Cit~ to better respond ta the ~ro~-~ng cnsis_ The Task Force ~ras
asked. to come up w~th a balanced approach ~~hich w~ould consider the need for assistance and
sen•~ces for homeless people. public safet~~ far all people ~n Santa Momca. and ad~-ocacy to
ur¢e the count~~, state. and federal ¢o~:ernrraents to so1~-e tl~us growzn~ cnsxs The City
continues to implement the recommendations established in the Task Force on Homelessness
report, A Call to Actton
In Santa Momca, efforts ~o help the homeless have been led b~~ locai nonprofit and chantable
araanizauons funded to a large deQree by~ the C~t~ V4hile the City cont~ues to ad~-ocate for
the county, state. and federal governments ta create the policies and fiir~ding requ~red to end
nomelessness in the L`ruted States, it is equally~ important that mzuucipalities such as Santa
Monica pla~~ an active role in locally~ managing thfs cnsis
Homeless Demographics an~d Projections: Santa Manica has a sr~nificant homeless
population. Hou~e~-er, the exact numher of homeless persons in Santa Vloruca azxd the West
Las Angeles area is not know•n. The best estunate available to Santa l~ioruca is frorn a study
conducted by the Rand Corporation in 1991. Tlus studti~ est~mates that on any given night in
parts of Santa 11~f onica and the Vv est Los Angeles area, there are approximatel~~ 1,404
homeless persans The Rar~d study, Enumeratzng Homeless People (Koegel et al.,
Evaluatton Revietiv)_ mdicates that charactenstics of the ho~neless pogulation on #he Westside
differ significantly fra~z that of skid raw and downtoun Los AnQeles areas. ~n the
Westside. there is a sigruficanti~~ ~ugher percentage of persons vaTho have mental illness (41 %
~~s 26%j, and a jreater percentage of women (;1 % vs. 12%) VVestside fig~res for thase who
ha~~e substance abuse issues are compazabie to numi~ers seen in skid row and do~ntow~n Los
Angeles areas (over 50%).
There are other estimates ran~ing fronn 686 to 3,600 homeless u~dxviduals in Santa Maruca
and West Los Angeles on anv gxven night pointin~ to the extreme difficulrir in accurately
enumerating this populataon_ The 1990 Census repo~rted 31 S people m shelters and 368
visible in street locat~ons, or a total of 686 harneless persons in Santa Monica Altho~gh the
Count~- of Las Angeles caoperated ~7th the U S Census Bureau, it ~s «YC~ely acknow~ledged
that the methadala~ utilized was highl~- ineffective in s~stemat~cally identifying and
comprehensi~ely quanti~'ying the numbers of homeless persons in the Cit~~ and County°,
resulting in a substantial undercount. The second figure of 3,600 cornes from the Los
Angeles Hometess Services Authont;~- {LAHSA) and 5helter Partnership, Inc. These
numbers are based an 1994 data from the State of Califorrua and the Cou~xty- of Los A.ngeles
City of 5anta Vlomca
Hausing Element II-20 Housmg Needs and Resources
~
,
'
~
'
'
t
'
r
'
1
'
'
~
~
'
1
~
1
1
To alle~-iate some of these problems, the Cit~~ funds the 'V4jestside Center for Independent
' L~v~ng {~~~ CIL) to prol~ide home accessibilxt~- modificatfons {i e arab bars. rarnps, acces5ible
hardware, etc ) In add~t~on. the Gt~-'s rehab~l~tatton assistance provides ~rants "~hich can
be used ta fund alteranons to make unrts accessible ta lo« xncome residents «7th dzsab~lities
' Large Households
~
'
'
'
'
'
'
1
'
'
'
~
1
'
The I990 Cen.sus indicated a total of 1.$v 7 large househvlds (v4~th fi~-e or more members)
in Santa ~~~onica. representing anI,- four percent of the Cit~-'s total households Amona th~se,
47 percent (867) ti~•ere o«ner-households and ~3 percent (970) were renter-households The
Ci~''s Consol~dateci Plan further documents that of the City's 9701arge, renter househ.olds.
over 40 percent u-ere ~~ery~ low income {~0°io of Caunty NIFI}. Vi'hzle tne hausin~ needs of
this ver}- lox~ zncome group are rnost severe. maderate income households aiso face
significant housing problems The Consol~dated Plan documents that 92 percent of the large,
renter households earning up to 9~ percent of the Count~~ :~4~I experienced one or more of
the #'oliow~ng housing problems- housiz~g oti-er pa~ment. overcro~~~ding. and~or substandard
housang
Ti~e 199~ Tenant Suzvey documents a lor.~~ er inczdence of large households in the Cit~~ ~ s rent
controlled apartments than recorded bY the 1990 Census 4nly ti~a percent of these
hauseholds har•e five or more members, compared to the Census" reported four percent
Hov~~e~-er, ~.he Dountown,!Mid-C~n: area ex~ubits a comparati~-e1}~ ~reater concentration of
large households at ~ 7 percent_
Large ho~seholds are identiffed as a group ~~th special needs based on the limFted
availabilaty of adequately s~zed, affordable housing units. it ~s not uncommon for large
hauseholds to have louuer incaines In order to save on housing eosts, large, lov~-er-~ncome
hausehoids rnay tend to reside in smaller unrts, frequently resulung in overcrou~ded livm~
condit~ans
As previausly mentioned, there were 2.414 overcroti;~ded households in the City in 1990_
Renters ~yere dispropornanate~y represented in this graup, ~~tkz approximatel~° S~ percez~t of
these overcrowded households being renters
Female Headed Households
Single-paxent households are like~y to have spec~al needs far nousing near da}~ care and
rr;creation faci~ities and u~th access to publ~c transportation. Households ~7th a female head
are espectally l~kely to need assistance because women conhnue to earn less on average than
men in comparai~le~obs In 1990, 5,678 households livang in Santa 1~Ionzca were headec~ b~
women, or 12 7 percent of the total househoids Approximatel}' 62 percent of Lhese (3,~~2
hauseholds) in.cluded children
The 1990 Census found that 1 ~.~ percent of the Crt;~'s female-headed famihes ~;~ere living
belo~~ th~ poverty~ level. compared to ~ 7 percent of a~l families livin; belo~- the povem-
level Ci~~wide Among female-headed households with children, 24 6 percent are
documented as earning incomes that fall belau° the level of po~~ert}-
C~ty of Santa Momca
Hous~n~ Element IT-19 HousinQ Needs and Resourees
i
,
ramps. ele~:-ators for units w~~th t~;~o or more stories. and modified bathrooms. kitchens. an.d
doorv4-avs_
T aiBLE II-10
D~SABILITY' STATUS OF NO'VI\STITUTIO~i~L PERSOI\S
1990
A e and D~sabil~ty Status Number Pereent
Persons 16-64 Years Old 62,160
Wrth only a w~ork disabil~n~ 2,700 4 3°~0
V4'Eth anly a mobifttyself-~are lirmtation 1,316 3 1°•0
VI~ ~th both ~r~ork and mobiIih~~self-care tamitations 9~9 1 ~°~a
Persons 65 Years and O~~er 8,089
Vvrth or~l}• a~tiork disabilin~ i,266 15 7°~0
Wrth on]}° a mob~lity'self-care l~muat~on 341 4 2°,•0
~'Vith both ~~ark and mobEl3t~•~`seIf-care l~mitat~ons 1_3~0 I6 7°:0
Total Persons, 16 Years and O~er 70,249
V4'ith only a work d~sabiLt~ 3,966 ~ 6%
1~~'ith onlw a mobilet_r•~self-care lim~tation I,6~7 2 4:•0
V~'ith both work aad mobilih~~`self-care Iimttarions 3,299 3 3°~0
5oarce 199U L S Census
The 194~ Tenant Survey~ docurnents that 4$ percent of the Czty's rent-contrallec~ apartments
include one or more disabled residents However, this zna}• under-represent the actual
~na~nitude of disabled renters as the sun=e~- excludes all publicly assisted housmg, a
si~tuficant segment af ~~hich ~s targzted to disabled person$ Of tl~ese disabled households
residing in rent-controlled housin;. 70 percent earn ~~ery low ir~comes, and 70 percent
overpay for housing
The Federal ,rlnaericans vvith Disa~ilities Act (ADA} and amendments to the Fa~r Housing
Act, as vvell as state law, require all new rnutt~-famiEy construct~an to be accessible to persons
«7th disabilities Howe~~er. umts built pnor to 1989 are rarely access~ble to persons with
disabilit~es Furthermore. not aIl new construct~oz~ may have the ran~e of modificatxans
need~d bv spec~fic mdividuals It is expensi~re and not alw~a}~s possibie to ~nodify a urut after
rt is completed. Older uni~s, par«cularlv older multi-family structures, are ti~ery- expensive
to retrofit far dasabled occupants because space ~s rarel~~ a~=ailable for elevator shafts. ramps,
v~-~dened doorv4-ays. etc. In addition to chan~es to the uruts, the srte i~seIf may need
modificatian to ti~iden waIk~tays and gates and instai~ ramps ~nstead of steps The 1995
Tenant Survey indicates that 3$ percent of the rent-control ~enant households w-~th a disabled
member do not cons~der their units to conta~n adequate accessibili~}~ modificaUons to meet
their needs
C~t}~ of Santa Mon~ca
Housing Element II-18 Housma Needs and Resources
,
'
1
'
'
'
'
1
'
,
'
~
~
~
'
'
'
'
,
t
,
'
'
i
'
'
'
'
1
~
'
'
~
1
~. Special n eeds Groups
Certatn segments of the population ma~~ have more difficult~~ ~n f ndin~ decent, affordable
housing due to their special circumstances ~n Santa ~lonica. these "special needs" groups
include the elderly~. d~sabled persons. lar~e famzlies, fernale-headed families, and the
home~ess
Senior Citrzens and the Frail Elderly
In 1990, there ~~-ere ~4.3~1 eldzrls' resaden#s in Santa ~ionica, representinQ 16 5 percent of
the tatal popu~ation. In companson, onl~~ 10 percent of the Crt~- of Los An~eles' population
and 9 7 percent of the Cou~tF• of Los An~eles' papulation ~-ere compnsed of elderl}' person;
Elderly persons aze 1~eI~~ to have special housin~ needs due to the hi~h correlation bet~~-een
age and d~sabtlity status In 1990. ~3 7 percent of Santa ~lonica restdents report~ng a
disabilrty~ that lixn~ted their abzlxri~ to perfoz~m certam t~~~pes of ~~-ork or hauseworlc were over
age 6~_
A~cording to the 1990 Census, 9,~72 househol~s (21 3 percent of ~otal householc~s) in Santa
Monica were headed by persons a~rer age 6~. T~o-thirds (64 1 percent} of ~hese semor
househalds .r~ere renters and 4nh~ ane-tturd (35 9 percent) o~ined their own hornes Mast
people over a.~e 6~ are retired and, therefore, have fixed renrement incomes (soc~al secuzzty,
pension, etc ) Theti cannot afford large increases in rent ar make rx~ajor repairs i~~hen
needed In 1990, senior households represented 27 percent of the totai households «~ith
mcornes belo~j~ the pavertv le~-e1 in Santa l~ionica.
The 199~ Tenant Surve~ documents 17 percent of the Crt~:"s rent-controlled apartments as
occupied bF seniors age 62 and older_= 4f these senlar tenant households, 73 percent were
categor~zed as Zo~er income, w7th 5~ percent earrung i~erv lo~~ ~neoanes. 12 percent earnin6
lovw ~ncomes. and an additional 2'' percent categor~zed as maderate income 4
Persons rvith Disa6ilities
Detailed stanstics on the incidence and npes of disabilrties occuinng in the population are
nat generaily a~~ailable While the U S Census tabuiates disabiIitr status ofthe popuIation;
the data does not separate peisons v~~ith phrsical disabilities, which ma~~ require modified
housing. frorn other disabilities (such as mental iilness, etc )
Based on the 1940 census data shau-n in Table II-10, appraxirriatel~- e~ght percent of ti~e
w-ork~ng age papulation in Santa Monica (ages 16 to 6~) had «-ork. mobility, and:`or self-care
Iimitatians. Of the residents over age 64, more than one-tturd (37 percent} reported they had
vvork, mobilitti-, andlor self care disabilities These people ma}~ need special housin~ wrth
- The 199~ Tenant 5ur~e~ does not ~nclude non-rent contro~led housing, public hausing.
~ federally subsid~zed rentals or non-prafit or~~ed zentais As a sr~ificant portion of the C~t~~'s
assisted hous~ng stock is tar4eted to sen~or househotds, the survey likeh~ under-represents the
actual proport~on of sen~ar renter hpuseholds
' Ciry of Santa Momca
Housing Eiement II-17 Housxng Needs and Resources
i
. _ -_. _. -
. ~._~:l.~_,,---~- - _ .:. _ ~._ _. - ._. _. ~ - ... T.~ _ r -- ~t ~~ ~ - --.. , -- --~ ~ -~ f1 CE~~ ~
~ , ~~ jqVIC~N~EB[YD C~TY O~ .. .. .-... _.. .-. ~ /`
I ~`- ~, ~ Z.~ ~ SAI~TA MOHICA Concentratian ofLowe
~~~ -~~~' `,~, _. H01lSIHG ELEHIEHT Income Po ulation 6y Census Tract
, ,I . ,. ~ 1 ~-.. __ . . p_. .. _ -----
.. ,_ . ~ , _ _. ._. .._ __.. .. . __
_ , ~ . . ~.. ~~ I - ~ ~ -_ ~ `. ..... ~.. . G~ty Bounda~
~ ~ _ - Censas ~raci Buundary
.__ .
j.. ~ -~ ~` ~ ~ - ~ C~ry af ~ Ceasus Tract Number
'1-~ ~LosAngeles _. _.....-- Sireeis
~~ ~-,.~ ~~~/ r ~~ ~ law Income Cenaus iract
PacrfcPalisades =- (>51~ of populatian earn ~8496 M~I)
~f ~~~~ _ j , ~ .,,~
`~ ~ " ~ _ `~' \ wrd ~9so omc - -
,\ ~ I I I ~ 1 ' ~
~ /~r ! I I ' / / " ./ '
. ~~ . ,
~_.. ~
..
-,~.- - `/ / ~ y \~ ~ _ _ _ _.,' - -`\-•-•_
~ . ~_ . _: ~.
\ ~•\~ V V { /` 4
~ r^ ~~ \ `}~~
~,..~ . ~. s . . . . . _. _ :a~ ~r~~ ~ , JC \ \ \ /
- -- .. _ . .-_.._ ._ .!/ . " .1 '~`~~..~.~~~%`~. ~~tll~r~sc~cc_c~~rtv~..~_~..~ _ ~._, _~~.. ..~l..w ~__, ... .---
~ ~ ~ ^^~ ~w ~w ~ ~ w~ ~ r ~ ^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^r
Figure II-6 illustrates the cancentration of lo~~~er income popu~ation in the City- based on the
1990 Census data as sho«n zn FiQurz II-6, three Census tracts in the Crt~~ had over ~ 1
percent of its population earning no more than SO percent of the Counn' s Median Famil~~
Income (i e lo~~~er incomes) T~~ o of these tracu {701 S Ol and 70t S 42) are alsa areas ti~~th
high concentrations of minann~ hauseholds and o~=ercro«~ded zenters
The 199~ Tenant Surve~ aocuments the rac2al and mcome charactenstics of the rent-
con~rolled tenar~ts :~,mong the rent-contralied tenants. 8 i percent of the Black households.
74 percent of the Hispan~c,`Spanish-on~in households, 50 pzrcent of the «~zte househalds,
and 4D percent of the Asian househoi~s are lo~i~er income Tl~e 199~ Tenant Sun~ev also
documents tha~ amona the zent-control~ed tenants_ 73 percent of rhe househoids w°ith a
senior, 7d percent of the hausehalds w°zth a dzsabled rzlember. and 60 percent af the
households wiFh children are ~ower income
Citv of Santa ~'ionica
Hous~na Element I1-~5 Housena Needs and Resoarces