SR-9-A (83)
-'
~>>{r/fro#~ 7'-tJ 9-A-
DEe 3 \99'
rsup1.rpt Santa Monica, California
Council Meeting: December 3, 1991
To: Mayor and city council
From: City staff
Subject: Recommendation to Direct the City Attorney to Prepare an
Ordinance Implementing Proposition R - Supplemental
Staff Report
INTRODUCTION
In order to assist the Council, staff at the November 26, 1991
meeting listed a number of issues on which staff felt guidance
would be helpful.
The issues identified were those which had
engendered the most comment from the public. For the convenience
of the Council, staff is providing the same listing with a brief
description of the staff position as to each.
The detailed
position of staff as to each of the issues and the basis for the
staff position are set forth in the reports that have been provided
to Council and the Planning Commission.
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
1. Overall strateqy - Should the implementation strategy require
compliance on a project by project basis or should it merely
measure compliance on a citywide basis. The staff proposal takes
a middle position, requiring project by project compliance only for
moderate income units in developments of more than 3 units.
2. In-lieu Fees - Should payment of in-lieu fees be permitted or
/!P4 I~ 9-4
, 'ilr~f"
\\~ 'l, .l
u_ .J lJ~~
should all the inclusionary housing be required to be produced
onsite? The staff proposal permits in-lieu fees for low income
units but requires most moderate income units onsite.
3. Amount of In-Lieu Fee - If an in-lieu fee option is chosen
should it be enough to fully compensate the city for the cost of
producing the new affordable housing? The staff proposal does not
fully compensate the City for the cost of subsidy but assumes that
additional subsidy funds from the state and federal government will
continue to be available.
4. Impact on New Development - Whatever option is chosen, to what
degree will it depress new residential multifamily development?
staff has performed financial analyses of the various proposals and
does not believe its proposal will prevent new residential
multifamily development.
5. Inclusionary ownership units - Should the current policy of
requiring all on site inclusionary units to be rentals be continued
or should inclusionary ownership units be permitted? The staff
proposal changes current policy and permits inclusionary ownership
units.
6. Rent controlled units - Should the implementation plan require
all inclusionary housing onsite if the new development results in
the demolition of a low rent controlled unit? Should any type of
existing housing be provided with the higher level of protection
3.11
IIDII
"Dl"
"E"
95.0% of step "E"
97.5% of step "E"
100.0%
steps "AI," "BI, II "el," and "DI" shall be referred to as
lIinterim steps. II
Normal progression through the range shall be as provided
in section 5.02, "Effect of Job Performance on Salary. II
On an employee I s anniversary date, the Department Head
may elect to grant an increase to an interim step, rather
than to the next full step, if performance is rated
Improvement Needed or Unacceptable. A Department Head
may elect to grant an increase of one full step plus one
interim step on the employee's anniversary date if
performance is rated above average or better. In no
event may such increases exceed the E-step of the salary
range for the employee's classification.
sick Leave Buy Back
Employees who are eligible for participation in the
payoff option as described below who previously elected
to accumulate unlimited sick leave have had the option of
electing the payoff option. Future hires shall make
their selection at the time they first become eligible to
elect payoff. Once an employee makes his/her decision to
accumulate unlimited sick leave or to participate in the
payoff program and limit accumulation to one-hundred-
thirty (130) days, the decision is irrevocable.
Employees covered herein have two (2) optional sick leave
programs to choose from. Because the choice is one-time
and irrevocable, employees should carefully consider
their long and short term needs in arriving at a choice.
The two (2) programs are as follows:
A.
Program I - The employee has the annual option
paid for certain unused sick leave on the
noted below or to "bank" unused sick leave
maximum accumulation of one-hundred-thirty
days.
to be
terms
to a
( 13 0)
Payment at the employee I s base rate for the fiscal
year during which the sick leave was earned but not
used shall be made only to employees on the payroll
as of June 30 of that fiscal year. To qualify for
payment an employee must have a sick leave "bankll of
twelve (12) days. For the purposes of this section,
IIbank" shall mean sick leave earned in prior years
and reported in the "sick Leave Balance Brought
Forward from Prior Contract Year" column of the
"Vacation, Sick Leave and Compensatory Time" report
issued by the Finance Department at the beginning of
the fiscal year during which payable sick leave is
earned.
- 20 -
. .
9. Tenant Selection - Should the tenant selection process be
centralized and controlled by the City or decentralized and
controlled by the individual developers?
The staff proposal
requires that the City control the waiting list but that individual
owners continue to have the right to choose the individual tenant
referred by the City.
10. Compliance Measurement - How, and when, will compliance with
Proposition R be measured? \Vbat will be the result of a failure of
the City to comply? While the ultimate decision as to the effect
of noncompliance with Proposition R is a legal one, staff
recommends that the Council retain the maximum amount of
fleXlbility in fashioning its response to any development
shortfall.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council direct the city Attorney to
draft an ordinance implementing the Proposition R implementation
strategy contained in the Summary Report.
Prepared by: Peggy Curran, Director
Chuck Elsesser, Housing Program Manager
Denise Altay, Senior Development Analyst
community Development Department