The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-6647~TTACH~~IE:~T A The folla+~~rttg chnstges -vere recot~u~re~ided 6r tlre Horrsriig Conrmisslorr at rts Jrrnuarti' 9. 1997 Pre611c Henriftg n~~d Ja~ruart• I(. 199' .11ee1i~lg Program l.a: :~ssess and Re~•ise, ~~-~ere :~ppropr~ate, C~h~ Regulaton~ Requirements Progranr~Back;rousid: Conc~nued manitormU and retinement ofthe Cit~~'s de~elopment ~tandards and procedures are important to rninimizin~ the cost of develapment ~~•hile m,aintaming the qualrt~ of res~dentiat pro~ects 1948-2003Actiorr Plrr~r. ~ertodica~f~ rei~ce« and. «here n~cessan•. re~°~se p~ann~ng, zon~ng and deti•elopment re~ulations assessments. and fees to ensurz that the}~ support deE°elapment of a~•ariet~~ of hot~s~ng tS•pes and prices The #ollo~~•~ng specific analyses; revisians w~~ll be undertaken c~ur~n~ the plannin~ periad a T--~-~- -~-----~ ~---_~------°----....__-~---_.. r__ _..,~--- -- ~~--°- - i'-°~-^---_i rr__ L ti flli/Ula, llfVLL11 Y ll I~ ClJL ~ L Y!L ~'T #J! VI.LlF12i 63 1\7! 1.Vea~lVJ7LIf21i[]1!J t! 1f121 Q L V2111!!1 VllA1 l~ JL 7]_~_a _ T_ Y._1'_W'_. T]' 1 bllllit lV Cl 11L y 4lllrll~~Y11~ itV ~ ~\+~~ti ~/\.J lil4~ ~11U~.1rJ:~ • Change the reviev~~ procedures for condommiums from a ConditiQnal Use Permrt to a Developrnent Reviev~~ permit process ~ 1 _`_ _'_____~_ ~_ ~L_ 7_~.~_ !l_J.____'_ '_ _11_"' _"_~_C.,._a__'_ ~_ '_7_'__~ L~~alUG1L4 1{..11JfV1~J ~V lllt: (.V1111(~' 1JlUfl~alll.l lV 411V W A11VLL111\.Q11V11J lV l.JQiL~lll~ _s_~~_ !.. - ~~_~~ ~_"'_ C__ L~ll' _ ~~ _t""_..r. ._f .` r,l"'_~ j~u~iuua..~ ~t ~, ivuciuiaa~ u~rvv~^ i~i iiari ~Yai.i.~ aii~a -,iiiiiuau~iiiii va ~,ii\rJL ~cunaii` ~~~ -- r---i-'-~- - _r~u---._Lt_ ~____.._ ~_,-•.. •---.,. r..~_ n___.._-- L\.i.iUliLllll.j~~J LV lL~t./AllCill 4V11JllliLLlV11 Vl CLIIVYl[LVl{„ LL\.iLJll~ VV111.JJ Ulll~.] ~J4L 11V.~.llLl11 ~ /J • Implement reti~isions ta the Zoning Ordinance to modifv parking standards (e g, rounding do~~~r- for half spaces and eltmmatton af ~uest parking requirement} to facilitate construcuan of allowable dens~tv bonus umts (see Program ?.b) • Ta rhe extent feas~ble. re~-~se ~ncome defin~t~ons contained «~~th~n C~t}' regulat~~ns ta define moderate--ncome as b0 - SO percent of the County med~an ~ncome • Assess ti~e feasi6ii~n of modtf~~~ng eff=site mfrastructure ~mprovement requirements to reduce hous~n~ de~-elapment costs • E~~aluate potent~al modificat~ons to the [nclus~onary Housing Program (refer to Pra~ram ? al • Mod~f}.° zoning ordinance to per~n~t e~isting non-conforrrifng multi-family residernial developrnents that are destroyed due to fire, earthquake or ather naturai disaster to be replaced ~n-k~nd ~n order ta prevent the loss of dwe~lmg units m the City Use the Earthquake Reco~~er}- Act as a model far these newr standards. F «~)t SI~G~HaRF 1~`Pr`ILE~i[CL~'.1k~ A~~~ifl ~ ~ ~ ~ • .~s a n~~ans af proE ~drn, adc~itiona# sites ~ar houslne. broaden the current de~~elapment ~tandards for second units in the Rt D~stnct «°uhin reasonable lim~ts requirinn that at least one of the units be ou~ner-occupied • Identjfi altemat~~~e developrnent standazds. (e g. height. lot ca~c~erage. denszt}~, s~tbacks. ~ark~n~ requirements, etc ) that u~all fac~lliate the develogrnent of housan~ iar families ~c~th chi~dren • Establish an annual sur~-e~• of del-elopment fees af the VVestside Crties (Culver City, Los Angeles. Santa Man~ca, and Vi.~est Hallyv~ood) Prepare a report campanng de~~elapment fees, sho~~ing both med~an and average fees for a~i four cities, w~th ars e~-e to~~-ard mainta~ning competitt~~e fees • See th~ Program 2 b Act~an Flan concerning revis~ons ta development standards to ensure ahilmr to sattsfy denstt~~ bonus requirements Responsi6le Dtvision: C~h~ Pianning Dii~is~on, Env~ronmental anci Pub:.~ Works .Lianagement Department, C~t~~ Attorney's Office Prograro l.c: ~'Iaintain :arch~tectural Re~~Eew Guidelines and De~•elopment Compatibilit~ Program Bnckgrocirrrl: As a n-~eans ot pro~•tdin~ areater certaint~~ for pro~ect applicants. the Cit~- has ado~ted and trnplenzents arch~tectural rev~e«~ guidel~nes for pro~ects that require ~rchrtectural Re4~~e~r~ Board (ARB} appro~~al The Crty also regularly re~~ie~~-s and revises ~ts de~~elopment standards to ensure ct~mpati~ility bet~~~een its de~~elopment standards and the architectural reti~ie:~ gu.~l~lii3es 1998-2003 Actro~r Pla~r: • _'___1______'~ f~'. ~ ____1"~ ___S _~ r _"' ~_ _~_l____ __~ __'____" J"_ 1' ___a CGiiiiiiui, i~ 1i~~~i~.ic~~i~c ~ti~ a~Liii~CCt~uul i~.L~~rv ~~iu~.ui~~a dli4lLYi{.VY cic,r-~jvNiii~u~ F..„~__J., _3 _~' '__ __ _ __ ~"_. ._ _ ~_ __ __a _ L___a~ ___it _1___ ~__'_~ :ia4iiucuu~. `cliiu a~.: ~~~. u.~ uN~i~~riiu~i. ~v YivF~iu~. },~vj..~~ ut,N...,~,.L~ rriu~ ra~aa u~.~i~ii '_~ _~_"__ ~__.,_" __~_ _~_L_S.i_. ii~.~.iivia ui~u ~.ia~u~~ ua.~i~~i ~.via~frµ~iviia~~ • Evaluate impact of architectural re~~iew {ARB} process and guidelines ~pon the econamic feasil~ilit~° and processmg ume of development projects and recammend appropr~ate re~~isions In~~of~~e market-rate and non-profit developers ~n the evaluatian process Respairsr6le Drvisro~r: C~t~ Plannu~R Di1 ision F No~,r~c~ ;fi~~~~ a r~r ii r; ~~r~~~.rrti ~'~ i_ Er ~ .. s Pr~~ram 2.a: ~Ia~nta~n an Inclus~onan- Housing Program PI'Oar(if~1 BQC~igroiutd: adopted m 1990 Proposition R rec~uires tliat 30 gercznt of al] multi- famil~ residential l~ousl~t~~ ne~;l~ c~nstructed in the Cit~~ be permanentl~ affordable to an~ occupied b~~ lo« e 6(~ percent ~t Count~ niedian income) and moderate l] 00 percent ot Count~ mzdian income] income ~o~selZOlds 4f the affordabie units_ at least half must be affor~able to la~; inconle households li~ ~ 99~_ the Cin- adopted the Inclus~onan HousinQ Program (Ordinance 15l ~) to implernent Propos~tion R The implementation ordinance requires pro~ects of ?0 or more units to pro~~~de the inclusionar~ t~mts on-s~te Ho«-e~~er. under certain circumstances. pro~ects of s~~ or fe~ti~er un~ts ma~~ pa~• an inclusionart fee zn lEeu of prot~idzn~ an~- units on-site. E~~h~le pro~ects of bet~~een 7 and 19 units ma~• pat• the ~nclusionan• fee ~nstead of providing the required 30«~ incorne units on-s~te. bUt the requtred moderat~ income uruts cnust be prot-ided on-site It is noted that Proposit~on R requires t~at not less than thZrty percent (30 percent} of all multt-fam~l~~ resid_:~tial housmg nev~,~l~~ constructed c~tytivrde on an anr~ual basis be affarda~~e to lo«~ and moderate tncome households Proposit~on R does not requ~re that each ind~vidual res~dential devefopment pro~ect satisfi the 30 percent requuement on site--this has been a requ~rement af the imp~ement~n~ ordinance onl~~ Since the adoption of the implement~ng ardinance. the C~ty has exceeded the 30 percent affordabilrty requirement on an atu~ual basis pr~mar~ly thzaugh the producuon af 100 percent affordable housing developments sponsored b~~ non-profit organzzations. not bti~ market rate pro~ects containing inclusionary umts In part~cular, the G~n~'s 4ctober. 1996 Annual Report to City Council concernu~g lrnplementatton of tt~e Inciusionatti~ Housing Ordinance indtcates that dunng the four years ~ince adoptaon af the implementatton vrdinance. 251 out af »3 newly constntcted housing unics in prorects recei~~tng Certificates of Occupancr~, or approximatel}r 45 percent of ail the nev~- units. were affordable to lo~~ and moderate income househalds. Of these affordable units. 9~ percent (240 units) w~ere constructed by non-profit organ~zat~ons as part of 14~ percent affordable housing develapment5 :~s part of th~s Draft Efement, an in-depth anal~°sis o#'the effects of the Cit~~'s Inclusionan• Housin~ Program on ho«sing product~on ti4-as conducted, summarized in Section III B of the Draft E~ement The fol6o~~'~n~ 1998-2003 r~ction P1an cons~ders vanous re~~isions to the lmplementin~ Ord~nance based on the results of #h~s anaivsis 1998-2003 Acteoli Pla-t: B~• F~' 1998:~1994. propose amend~nents to the C~tv's Inclus~anar~- Hous~ng Program (Ordinance 161?} ~~.•h~ch hel~ suppart ho~ising productian_ ~i~hile complvln~ w~th p ..., _~____~..., ---_.. ._..t._a.. ~L_ ~~,~---.--~- C~anges should tnclude nC(~ 051~IOI7 ~ ~Oi~i~~~~. ~iiui~`~~ii~c:< <iiwuu~. ui~ ivisv1r~~t the tollo«~~nn i F[il'~'~(~ tiE[~RE U°F E~C~ ~~~[ C11F!~ ~ I I~C ~~ '. - ~ ~ r-~---- -- --- ~r.~ _ __ ~_~.. r_,. __._~._ .._ ,.._~---°-~- _~ .....t_ .V.___°-----._ .E. _ ~`....•., ' l_\L/VllJll!11 Vf lll~- ~li-]1LU l\.4 V~~ltt~ll 1L[ L~J11~111tL1~V11 1~1111 111<.Ll.U.7111` Lf~L Vll~ J l ~ ...~ ____._ ..~ a __ , ~...~ _ - ~ , _ _ _ ,,,~`_____ ^ ~ ••- atla« an in-lieu fee option for LLLLLLI~fII~ unuu ziu~« ~~ ~x~ ~ ~vciuiii _ n~.. all nz« multi-tamil~- ~eti elopments up ta ~0 units, ti;~~th the abilit~- to require that the inclus~onan requzrement be met on s~te for projects conta~nin~ more than ~0 units_ - Zoni~i~~ ~~~~e~~t~~ es ~n z~cilan~=e for the construction of ~ D°. o afTordable un~t~ on-s~te - The ab~1~i~ to saush the ~nclusianan obli~.~auon h~ meeunrr the requirements ofStatz dens~t` bonus la~~. - Th~ a~tl~ti to sattsfi the rnc2usranar~ ob~i~atlon b~ comp~y~inU iiith thz requirements of ta~ e~empt hond fi~lancina_ - '~ ~~ ti~s~~ ~~~-...u ~~~ cu.~u~u~s~~:, Period~c recaiculation of the ~n-l~eu fee in order to promote pro~ect feas~hiliri~, ~enerate m-l~eu fee revenues, and sustam c~ty«.-ide compl~ance with Propos~tion R_ ~ ~ _._~ L_~L.._ ~]___._L_.i.J s.__'_-L..u ~11 _~C ~.]..LI_ _ ~ L.. , __a_.] .~ - 'l 11.1'1J4Li I11v11L1 llll\.Ji1V1U 1V3 ~-~~11~11 LLll Ll11Vl~G1Ul~. UllJiti1111~.[J~ V4 ~l~llvlUVll V11 .L~ _ ..t___~l_~ia ~a ^1n _ ._~. ..~.1 J1lL ~1L1131V11 LV LI14 VU1FL111 L111bJl~V~V Vl .:.V Ll1i1LJf. GiLJ4 - Eliminat~n~~ the opuon for satisfyin~ the inclus~onan~ abl~gation b~' pro~~~ding ali n~oderat~ ~ncome ~~nzzs at ]00°'a of the Count~- med~an famtl~ tncome (~1Fi -_ or replacing ~t ti ith an opt~on to sactsfi~ the ~nciusionan~• obltgat~on b~~ pro~~idit~~f 100°~0 ot units deed-restricted far households earr~~ng less than SO°~o ~~f tlie Cnt~nt~ ~~IFI Resporisi6le Drvrsrnia: Hotis~i~~~ Dn i5ion. C~[~ Platui~n~~ D~~•ision, Cit~- Housing AuthorEtti Proaram 2.b: 1~Ia~nta~n a Densih~ 6onus Pro~ram Program Background: t~~ndzr State Ia~~. de~e[opers ofresidential pro~ec~s conta~ning fi~~e or more un~ts ma~~ he z~i`,lble to recei~-e a~~°•~o densit~~ bonus ~f (}) ~'0 p~rcent or more ot the un~ts Inot ~nciudin~ dens~t~ bonus ~nits] are set aside tor and at~tordable to_ househalds ~~°ith io~~~er incames (<SO% of area mediani_ "affordahle" for this ~Yrotip means rents set at 30°% of 60°io of the area me~+tan incarlse c~r ~ii 1~ ~ ~i . \~" ~~~ ~11ir'~' ~ ~~Fi_~1f ~ 5 ~ - :l ~ ~ : -Y s t~~ 1 i~ per~ent o~ more af the ~inits are ~et as~de for households «~tll ~~er~ lo~s incc~me> e<~0°o of nlzdtani_ '~affordablz" for th~s ~Iroup means rent: are 5et at ~0°0 of ~~° ~~ ot the area median, or i ~`~ ~~1° o ot th~ unit, i not includin~Y densrt. bonus Einits 1 are set as~de tor senic~r c~ttz~ns Th~re are ~o income ar rent re5trietrons on such pro~ects "Senior c~tiz~ns" must be at least 6~' ~ ears old if the pro~ect consists o~ 1~0 or more units the ''semor" ~s detir~ed as at least ~~ ~-ears o~ a~e Pro~ects qualif} in4~ ior a Stare densitt banus alsa are eli~ible for at least one add~tianal re~~ulatan conczssion or incent~~~~ resultin~ ~n ident~fiable cost reduction, or other incent~~ e nf equi~ alent tinancial ~~alt~e based upon thz land cost per d«~elline umt In addit~on to these State densit~~ ~onus pro~ [s~ans_ the C~ty~ has adopted add~t~ona~ dens~tv bonus fncent~~•es ~n iu Zoning Ord~nance. includ~n~ • Allc~~; anc~s for an addit~onal ?0 percent densit~~ bonus for 100 percent affordabie hous~n~ pro~ects • l~o l~rnit on the number of floors for 100 percent affardable l~ous~ng pro~ects, provided that the heiaht does not e~:ceed the maxcmum limft m the applicabie zomn~ distr~ct. 4 • allo«-ances for a ten-foot height bonus for 100 percent affordable housin~ ~ro~ects in non-resident~ai zones. • allo«ances for ~~R bc~nus as an incent~~-e for res~dent~al developtne~t ~n commerc~af zo~ie5 • Rela~ation of dens~t~ restrict~ons tor conare~ate houstng. SRO's. hameless shelt~rs_ and transit~onal hou~in~. • Rela~at~on ot parkinc requirerr~ents tor 100 percent affordable, con~regate. and seniar housin~ as ~~°ell as SRO's and homeless shelters, and • ~llo«-ances for densit~ bonus of €~p to ~0. 75. and 1 ~0 percent in the Ocean Park and tiorth ot~~~-~~shire zoning d~stricts 1998-1003.4ctroir Pla~r: c. -~-- - ~'--`~ -- ---°`--- _ ~__._~_~---°-- -•__,__,_ _r:_°_--_ .~__ L---~a--° -----_t_~.. + ..7~UL[y" s}ii~.iil~t ~.»~~~ir~, u~..~~vYa~i~.ii~ ~~u..uuiu~ u~i~.~.~iii~. ~~-~. uuiiuaii~ ~,i~vt,ivr~ ~.,A_`.__._.~1.- ~.]_._. sl__ ..C ~'--_'+" L_~"_ '_.J .._..7.,~ G1U~,{.~11L11L1Y U4LV1~1L11VUQll, L~1L 1-V71.]Lill4L1V11 V! UL1~J2L• VV1LU.] Ullll3 U114A VV11J1U41 '_~_ ~ .~.1~~..~.~ .l'.1.~~_"""__"~~..~ s.. V.. ~ LL \ 1.]IV[1.] Lv JLllll ,]LUi1uCAlLL~ ll u4~Vli1i~[i441 ~~1 V4 t1\.\.I.JJaI Y 1 i~~~i ~~1c~,flaR[ \~?~[i f~ HI I;~tE~ ~, IC:: s _ s • Re~'i5e e~istin~ de~~elopment standards as nzcessan~ to assure the buildin~ en~~elope a~equatel~ accommadat~s the construction af densit~ bonus umts Respnnsrble Dr~'r51011: Cliti Piannin~~ D~~ i~ion Pro~ram 2.d: Pro~•ide ~und~ng to ?-ss~st ~n Hous-ng Praduction Program Backgrou~rd• The C~t} ut~t~zzs federal state. and Iocal fundm`F pro~rams to assist k~ous~n~? pro~~iders «itli thz del~el~~pn~ent of affordable housin« Fundin~ programs used b~- thz Ctt~ ~ncl~de Fc'r.~c~r al Pt-o at'crm s • HL-D Section 8I 1 Pro~ram • HLD Secuon ?0? Senior Housin;~ Pro~ram • Housin~ Opportunit~es for People «ith AIDS (HOP~'4~'A1 • Supportn~e Housing • Fede:al Emergenc~~ Shelter Grants tFESG) • Shelter Plus Care • HO?~1E Program • Camm~nit~~ Det•elopment Bloc~; Grant • Sect~on 8 Rental .~-ss~stance and Housin~ ~'ouchers Statr~ Pr~ort-crna~ • La~~ In~orr-e Housin~~ Ta~ Cred~t (LIHTC ) • Cal~torn~a Hous~n~ Finance ~~enc~ iCHF~'~ l,r)L (,!f ~I '1 C1i71 y • 7 enant Q«nership Ri~~hts Charter .~mendment Tax Ret~enues • Rede~~ek~pment Pro_~ect5 • Inclusianar~~ Housin~ Pro~~ram Fzes~'Housin~ Aroduct~on • Off ce De~•elopment it~titt~at~on Proaram ~ _ • ~[ulti-Famil~~ Earthqual:z Repa~r Loan Program (vIERL) • General F~ind a deta-led descript~on of each of these pro~rams including eligible activities and f~indin~ a~ aiiabil~t~'. is ~nciuded in appendiy D of this Draft Element Secnon II' - Rei~~elv of Hnusrng Elemem Past Pc~,-farnruf~c~~ aksa includes a discuss~on of ho~t~ these fund~ng sources ~ta~~z been used ta ass~st 5anta 1~lonica res~dents ~n the past 1998-2003.-~ctror: Pfa~r- : :-itu ~~\G cH ~qf '.'t ~~': I ~ I1El ~ ~" ti ~ I ~ ''[ ~' '' ~' s ~ C.~~~L;nuz t~~ a~+~l~ tc~i t~i~~d~n~~ ti>> altordable i~c,«sln~+ prodi~ct~on faom t~d~rai an~ ,[tte ~rn_~~a:r, • C~>>mnue tn seel. otEt ne« sourc~: ~t Fed~ral State_ and Count~ t~undin~~ • Refer to Pi o~ram ~ a concern~n~~ mzasures to ~ncrease in-lieu ~ee re~-enues under the Inclus~onar~ Hot~s€ne Pro~ram ~ Respolrsrble Dr+•rsra~r: Housin~, Di~ ~s~on. Human 5er~ ~ces Di~•ision Pro;ram Z.e. E~plore alternat«e 4ffordable Houseng F~nance Pragrams Pra;rana Backgrotr~rrl: Tl~is ~ro~~ram addresses the decrease in Federa! and State fundin~ and ne~d for additional fund~ t~ stem tE~e loss of affordable housin~ due to ;-acanc<< de- contro! L~nder th~s pro~ram the Cit~ «ill ~~plore a~~ariet~ of afternat~~~e fundin~ n~echanisms for the construct~ot~ of ne~~ affnrda~le ho~tsm~ Potential fundin~ mechanisms include ~ ~ • Ta~ Exenzpt Bonds and Statz Lo~~ ~neome Housin~ Tax Cred~ts_ ~~•Y~ereb~~ Ioans are r~~ade to prapzrh o~~ners in etclZan~z for deed-restrictina 20 percent af tl~e un~ts to hauseholds earn~n~ ~~o more than ~0 percent of the median Cour~t~~ income or =~0 pzrcent of the Units are deed-restncted for households eaming no more than 60 percent of the med~an Count~~ ~ncome_ • HL~D Sect«n 1 QS Pro{~ram_ ~.~ hereE~~ ]oa~~s are n~ade using future Corrtmun~t~~ De~-elopment Blocl. Grant tunds a5 co[iateraE • ~1or• ra47c _ red~t Cert~ticaFZS ~4k~eieb~ tirsi-tirue hame bu~~ers eartttng ~p to 1?0 percent ot t~ie mzd~an Count~ income mat be cred~ted «'Eth up to ~89 20 percent of the interest paid on ta~es ciurtn~, tlie first ~•ear of the mort~age t)nce appropr~ate fur~d~n~T sc~urces ha~~e beei> >denufied. the C~t~- ~~-ill take the steps necessan to utilize these funds. ~ncl~idin~~ if appropriate_ c}bta~ning bond authorrt~ I938-2003 Actron PJarr: • E~plore creatn e tii}ancir-« mechanisms sucl~ as ta~-exempt bond-finanein~ to ~ncrea~e a~ atlable Cit~ tinanctn~ far hous~n~~ pro~rams • Ct~[15E(~2C Elilll"LUl~~ HC°D'S S<<tion 1s18 loan pro~ram • E~~iore ~~ ~lort<<<~~~z Cred~t C eruficate ~ro~~ra~~l tc~ pro~ ide ass~stance to tirst-time k~ome bu~er. ~d~~enhtd i~z detail un~er Pr~~sram ~ c) . ~~•;rti1t;-;111Ri ;lP~]'',::'If\Ir` ;l~'~il's ~ • Cantinue tc~ de~ekop a«arkin~* reiationshtp «ith pr~~a[e lei~ders to letiera~~z Cit~ iun~~ _ • Continue to part~cipate En recornmendin~,~ chan~es to the State Tas Credit ~c~n~n~itree'~ Qtta~itied .a~~ocation Plan • ~~-al~ate restrict3ons an use of locallti generated as ~;~eII as locall~- controlled f~nds for h~usin~. and e~.plore ~;~a~-s ta increase flexibilit~~ ~n use of these funds for a range of affardable housrn~ needs Respo~lsible Drvrsion: Housin~~ Dn~isian Program 2.f: Explore the L~se of Cih--Ov--ned/~ubiicly-O«'ned Land for Affordable Housing Prograna Backgruund: ,~s a h~ghh- bu~li out Citv. Santa Monica has fe«- remain~ng vacant propert~es suttable far res~dent~al de~~elopment Th~s shortage ofvacant land necessitates the use of a[ternat~ve meehanFSms for pro~~idrng s~tes for houstn~ Suci~ mechamsms ~nclude Eong-term leases of CEt~--a~;-ned or publ~cl~~-a~~n~d Iand. and sale af air nghts To facilitate affordable housing de~~eloprnent, the Cftv couId lease appropriate C~t_y~ow~ned propert~es on a lon~-term basis to hous~n~ de~~elopers ~n exchange for a long-term commjtment to maintain thN un~ts tor a port~on of the units) as affordable }~aus~ng _~noth~r mechanism is the saEe of air ri~i~ts abo~-e C~t~°-awned parking Iots ~1ant- of the C~t~-o~~ned parl.~i~~~ ~ots are surfacz lats or structures dereloped at lo~~~er densit~es than perm~ttea ~rt- zonE. ~ TJ~~ C~t~• cou~~ sel~ oi ~ease the un~sed dens~t~es abo}~e these pu, k~ng lots~ structures to housinti de~~elopers for affordablz l~ous~ng development I 948-2003 Aetrori PJrrjr: • Prepare an ~n~•enton~ ot }aublic[~~-o~~.~ned land, includmg parking lots, and exam-ne the feas~bilit~' of tl~e~r use for affordable housing develogment • In cao~eratian ti~~~th pn~~ate property owners. exglore the feasibiliry of develop~ng air rights pra3ects above pnvately- o«=ned parking Lots and other sites which may prov~de air space for affordable housmg de~°elapments. Responsible Dii~rsinsr: Resource !l•Sana`~ement D~partment. City Plannxng Drvision F r,n~~i~:c,;ii-~K_ :~r~iiu,;~~~:~~~. a~-.~ii ~ 3 s Program Z.h: Facil~tate the De~ elopment of Housing for Families «~~th Chtlciren Progranr Bac~4nroerrrrl.• In Santa ~~I~~n~~~_ ~ zr~ fe~~ of the n<« Itous~~i~ units bein~~ built ~n tt~e pri~~at~ hous~n~~ i~iar~.et are suited to tt~e neec~s of famihes «~th ef~itdr~n _~ecordmg to tt~e ? 990 Cens~~, ~ata t~~~ tlze Ctn 9~ pcrc~rlt ot lar~Te far~iil~. renter house2~olds ~arnEn~ up ~s~ 9~ ~ercent ot tl~e Coi~Eat~ n~edian ~nco~ne e~per~enced one or more hous~n~ prob~err~s. Enc~adin{~ hous~n~ o~~erpa~mznt o~ercrn~~din~. and or substandard hous~n~ _~s ind~cated in ~zct~on II .~ ~' ~Sotlt thz L S Census and local school d~str-ct data re~'eaI sign~ficant ~ncr~ases in th~ Ctn~'s ~ er~ ti oun2 ci~tldren There is a need ta de~~elop a strateg~~ ca support the ma~ntenance. impr~~ ement and de~~eiopment of hous~n~ ior fam~l~es «-ith children ~nciuc~in~ iar~e fan>>lie5 In addrtEOn, supportn e ser~ ~~es, such as child care ass~stance to lo~j~ ~neart~e families are ~ZZeded to ensure t~ie cc~nt~~luzd ntatntenance uf h~usine {see Goat ~ 01 1998-2003 Actio~: Plrr~i: Dedicate a portion af the Cit~~ s affardable h~us~n~ ~inancjal resources to the product~on of units for families «.-~th chi~dren • _- PrornoEe a re~~ised po~ic~~ of permit~ing tt~e reconfiguration of e4~srin~ buildrn~s ta ir~crease the number of bedrooms and the size of ~nits for ~v~ ~ereent ~eed restr~cted affordable pro~ects for fam~l~es u~ith chilc~ren Thaugh th~s protram ~~-ould red~ce the number of o~•erall untts tn the City. it ~~ould pro~'ide much-~leeded lar~~e fam~l~~ un~ts • S~e Program 1 a for add~t~ana~ actions related ta Czt~~ develapment standards Resparrsi6le Dri~rsion: Houstn~T D~~~~~ion ilead). C~t}~ P~ann~n~ Di~~is~on Progra~n 2.~: Fac-lita#e the De~•efopment and 1~'Iaintenance of Special Needs Housing Program Backgrnur~d: Housing for szniors. and the physically and mentally disabled wili need to acidress their sp~cial needs, such as bamer-free en~~ironment and access~bilyty to trar~s~t ar~d ser~ ices The C-t~ intend5 to e~pand its strategy to suppott the masntenance, ~ mpros•emeat anc3 efe~ e~o~ment of housin~~ for t~ouseho~cls ~~ ~th speczal r~eeds -~ccordin~ t~ c11e Los ~n~eles Cuunt~ Department a' Health Ser~-ices, there are curret~tl~~ 1.G00 res~dents in Santa blonica ~.ho are HI~' ~7pS1Ll~~e ~ccord~ng to the Santa Monica aIDS Proaect, at present tt~ere are ap~ro~~n~atel~ ~00 .~~DS~ HIV patjents in the Cjt~;- w•ho are rece~~ing mzdical treatment _~s the d~sease progresses_ these people «~~LI require ~arious t.~pes of assista3~ee ~.ith Ie~~al med~ca[, ~nsurance. empio~~ment and housing issues ~ ~ ;~ct~.i.,.~F~~~r_;~:~:i~i~i~i'~+ir. ~•~~~~i~ ~ ~~ s 5~nee ]~~~~~ t11e ~ it~ h ls ~i,Sk~C~~ lll [~lZ Ljz~ ~I0~71Z1~i]I Of a~ ai izt~ ni spec~al needs 1~o~5ii~~~ 1[1CILl~ttltt ~e~e~al ~~~711~]" f7~~U51R~~ ~]CO~~C[~. ~ I7C~Lk51f34~ pro~ect ~~r~in~~ th~ mei~talk~ ~ll. a~1d a p~o~ec* ;zr~~n~_ th.~;e pe~son5 l~~in~` n~tit HI~ ~IDS TI~z C~t~ al,n fund~ ~~ n~d~ aria~ nt m-1lonle and ~ndNpe~~dent li~i-i~_ assFStanc~ tar+~etin<< sen~or~ and persan~ .,~~~ d~sab~~~r~es t~~ reduce institutionalizat~on and mainta3n self- ~!tffi~resic~ if117011yi12~` (~e~ Gc~a~ ~ Ut 1998-?OD3 ~-~ ctror~ Pla~l: • Identifl e~istii~t~ rr~ourc~s and d~~~el~p nz« resnur~es to tiind the de~elnpment o# sup~orti~ e izous~~Z_T ai~d a`soc~ated ser~ tces • Stren~fih~n pait~~erships «ith ser~ ~ce prc~~~iders t~ support the effieient pro~~ision ot sen ~ces to spec~a] needs housi~t~~ de~-elopme~it ~~ ith current Cit~~ resources • I3e~'elop a h~gh subsid~,~ program for t~e deve~opment of permanently~ affordable hausing far ver~~ ~ren• lo~s- income househotds earning m~nimum w~age, c~~rth a goal af provtdrn~ a men~mum of 30 units over ftv~ years, sp~it ever~lr~ berir-een SRO's and fam~l~~ units Respa~sible Drvrsion: Human Ser~~~ces Di~ ~s-on {lead)_ Housin~ Div~sion Prohram 2.,~: Fac~l~t~te the Pro~~ES~on of Emergenc~, Transrtional, and Permanent Hous-ng for the Homeless Program Bnc~gr«irrrrl: ~~i~~a ~•1on~ca has a si~=n~ticant l~omeiess populat~an. rang~n~ from 'Ot~ co :_600 homeless ~nd~~~di-afs as estimat~d b. ~•arious studies Effarts to pic~~.~de ~~elEers and ser~~~ce5 t~~r the hon~zless ~ia~ z been ied ~+t- iaca~ non-profit organizat~ans tunded ta a f~r~,e cie~~rez !~~ tli~ Crt~ For e~ample the Crt~• assisted tn the developrt~e~t of t~e ~ 00-~e~ SA'~10SHEL ~r1~er~~enc~ st~elter f~r th~ h~n~eless and provides ar~nual grants to tJle Sali~at~o~~ 4r~i~~~ to n~+erate th~~ ~h~lter Tl~e C~t}~ supports and d~velops a m~x of emzrLenc~. tra~~s~t~anal a-x1 pern~anent housin~7 opportunities for homeless ~nd~~~~duals. therebj creatin~~ an zftect~~e contiaiuum ~~fcare approach to address homelessness in Santa `~I~nica lsee Goal ~ ~1 149x-zan.~ ,~~rr~,: Pl~,-: • Se~f, a~~d le~ cra~~e out;~~e tiin~s te~r emer~_enc~ ~~~u. transitional. and permanent ho~~~4~1~~ de~ elopmznt • ~.l~c3r~. rc~ ;~a~tr~e~,fzt~* to itt~ }c~~~~~ ~~~~r~-~~otiz~ fon c~~~~s~i~e ~nd sup~or~iE-e ser~~2ces • ii•;r .•~~ ~ ~ri ~rr .t ri ri i . .. , -~ . ., ,+ : I ~~ i • C~~~~~~~iri ~~1ti ~ly~~ ~a pra~r~t~ to pzrst~l~: :~~ temp~~ra~~ c~r trans:t~o~~al hi~~fs~n`~ tc~r c~~cupa~~~~ in ~ermanent atfor~iahlz hc~ti~iE~~~ ~n t}~e C itL Fnsofar as these un~cs ar~ at'f~~~darle to ~ttin>>num «a~e ~~orl.~rs Resportsrble D~ti•rsro~l: I-fui~ian Sert ice~ Di~ ~s~oE~ ( leat~ ~ Hau~in~ Di~ is~on Pro~ra~n 2.k: E~pand art~cle 3~ ?-uthorin Progra~~r Bnc~grorrrrd: ~rticle ~-~ of the 5tate con~titution requires that an~~ lo«~ rznt haus~n~ pro~ect de~eloped c~nstructed. ~r acqt~ired L~ a publ~c a~ene~ must first be appro~~ed b~ a ~na~ant~ ofthe ~oters l~~~it~~ in that~urisdiction Reguirin~ such public appro~~al can act as a barrier to the dei elopment of affordable hous~n~ In compl~ance ~~~~th this arc~cle, the Cit~~ of Santa ~tornca put a referendum (Proposition I~ 1 before the ~~oters tn I 978 in order to «-in appro~•al to "de~ elop_ fmance_ or rehabil~tate. but not o~~~ ar operate ti~~ith~n the C~t~~. hous~ng for rental to lc~iti and moderatz income persons no less than SQ percent of v~~h~cl~ sha~I be reser~~ed far persons a~e 60 or o~der. not ta e4ceed in total throughout the Cit~°, 1 percent af the d~}~ellinQ unit~ ~n the C~t~- " 1998-1003 Actton Plan: • ---------- -.~L ------,----~---- -- --~-°- -'-- -- '---- 1=- - ~--°- --_~__ ~1i ~vii~wiruv~~ ;:i~ii w~~a.u~.n~.vc~ t3 4~~iu..w^.` tii~ ilF-l~~rLL i..... ~Yaiww uiiu~.x ~}14 } ~ _ i_..i............__. rr~_..._~~ n.....--°-- , _., n..~~__-- ~ ..~ .. ..t. .._ ..,a_a e t~ ~ a ~~L~~ J 1~1414.~J~Vlfu~ ~ 1lvUJ~i1~ 1 l V~lulll ~J~-4 1 lv:,~iulll ~ uJ. J~r~.1~ ~.'1~lu~~btL4 !"11~14~L J~ .-5 ...L. ___._. 1_ ..~ . a "_"__"~.. .],..-_1__ .._~..._"_~ ~_ __ 1.-."' __.I "LlilliVlli~ iv u~i~i~~ c7 ~.~witi~~ v~ x~..~aiuLJ iv ua,1~.ivY. L.vawuuti.c, v^ u~.r:iuii~, tvw w~u _a..~..~- - ~..i ~__._.4._ ~ iiivu~.iue~ ii~~.vii~~ i~iuui ~ivu~n~~ ~ivji.i.ia • Seek, e~;panded Article ~~ :~uthorft~~ to ut~l~ze a var~ety~ af re~enues to de~elop. construet. or acquere lo«• an~ moaerate ~ncome rental ho~sin~ pro~ects Respo-rsi6le Drvrsrar Cit~ Plann~n~ Dn isEOn_ Housin~_ D~~ ~sion G04L 3.0: PROTECT THE E~ISTI:~G SUPPLI' OF aFFORDABLE HOLrSIti1G PQLIC~~ 3.1• .amel~orate the effzcts of the Costa-Har~~k~ns 1'acanc~- de-cantrol reeuiation on the atfordable housii~~ stock ~ POL1C~' 3.2: Encoura~e the presert~at3on ot' at'fordabfe rental housin~ PC)LIC1 3 3: ~-..,~~..~~.~ -- ----- ----...~ L~.-----~- ~-- ~----------- t'-- ~~~. _.....r_ c.` ~... .., ..~..~ .~ . ~~~ ~.~,~L<< «,E<<,< <~~~,~~~~~ ~. ~.~....,~.~ .,~ ~~.~~..~,~ ~ .,u~ u...~a --'--~ -----', Protect affor~able rental housine b~~ regulating the conversion of ~,:~;~~~~.,. «~~,~a _ rental units to o~t•nership units ~ I{t~i~!\c~~IIIR'\~PIIfI~I11~iV~\tl \.~'1 ~~ ~ ~ POL1C~~ 3.~: Ei~coura~*z th~ rzpfacen~ent ot muit~-iam~l~ housu74~ that ~s demol~shed POLIC~~ 3.~: ~~iod~r'`- chz Section $ program to maKimaze its effectt~-zness in the market rent en~~~ronment criated b~~ ~he Costa-Ha~jk2ns vacanc~ decontro! ]eg2slat~on I1~11'LE1~IE~ITaTIO~i PROGR.a~~IS: S~~-eral af tiie fallo«inri programs cou~d readsl~• fit under se~ ~ral {7oals but are tneluded in this secuon because each is primariE.~ focused on the goal of protectin~_ the e~istin6 suppl} of affardable hou~in~~ Program 3.a: De~'elop a Costa-HaFVkins viifigatian Pragram Progr~rm BrrcJ4~roiurd: Citizens of Santa 'l-lonica adopted the rent control la«~ ~n 1474 T~e charter amendment establ~shed an elected Rent Control Board to reeulate rental units in the Cit~ and ensure that rents «~~ll not be increased unreasonabl~- Adaption af the Casta- Ha~~•k~ns Rental Housin~ Act En the Fall of 199~ b~~ the State Le~islature. hoti~-ever, in~t~ated ~'a~anc~' de-control ~n The Cit~~ Beginning in Januan~ 1999 after a three-year phase-~n per~od. the ne« fa~~~ ~~-ill require vacanct~ de-control~recontrot ~n apartments. and complete de-control of hauses and candomrn~ums Santa ~ion~ca has appro~rmatelt ;0 000 rent-controlied un~ts In Septernber 199~. the Santa '~ionica Rent ConcroE Baard adopted rules permitting eari~~ implementat~on {October 1995) af the Costa-Ha~ti~k~ns Rental Hausing :~ct ~t~ ~thin the ~`irst e~ght months, over 3,000 unrts ha~~e alread~ applied for ~~acanc~~ de-control The effeet of ihis ne~~ lat~• on hausing affordabilit~~ ha5 been stud~ed e~tensi~~eh as part of this Draft Element B}~ 2003, bet"~een one-halfand three-c~uarters of`the I49~ renc-controlled stock in Santa ~Vlon~ca is pro~ected to be ~~acanc~ de-controlfed ~~'~tlt the Costa-Ha~~'kins Act. median cantrolIed rent is profected to increase b~ 1 1 percent b~ ] 9~}9 and b~ ?F percent by ?003 . C~sta-Hawk~ns tii-~~~ make tr more c~~fficult #or tY~e Hausing AutY~arzty to find iartc~lords (and to keep landlords) vtilll~ng to pamcipate in the Section S prograrn. Before Costa-Hawlciris. ~n most cases. Section 8 offered Iandlords a higher rent than they cau~d receive under rent control And that rent advantage ~~~as enouQh After Costa-Hawk~ns, Sectton S will have to offer compet~t~i~e market rents and other incent~ves to attracr landlard part~c~pai~on Fundin~ sourc~s rna~ include rede~elapment set-as~de funds. I~'Iulti-Family Earthquake Repa~r Laan { 11ERL) pro~ra~n funds. TORCA funds, and P~co ~leighborhood Trust Fund I998-1003 Actrorr Pla~t: Develop programs t~ protec~ tenants aga~nst landlord cancellanon of extst~ng Section 8 contraccs (includzng C1t~• andior private faundat~on-funded subsidy to enable tenants to remain and pa}' the hiARj. - 11[]' +1~~,:'i~R' \1t'F;~E~ HE LL~[I t;I ! Si'[ 1 ~, ~ ~ • Thz Hc~tisln~ ~urhoT~t~ should take al~ nec~ssarz steps to increaae Fa~r 1~~1ar~.et Rent { Fti1R's~1 5o tl~at Sect~on S can off~r nlar~:et rents. • lf nzcz5sar~ de~-elop a pac~.aez of incenti~~zs to encoura~e lan~lords to rent to Sectifln S;ubsidized tenants and to cont~nue their participativn in the Seei~an 8 pro+ram. poss~bll includin~ - Pro~-ide subs~dized loans and~or arants for rehabil~tatian - Rernstate Quarantees aeainst rent lass and dama~e - Impro~ e tenant screening and tenant support ser~~~ces • D~~ elop a cornprehei~s~~ e strate~~ to addreSS the eltects of the Costa-Ha«~~.ins RentaE Hous~n~ :~ct on hou~~n+~ affordabil~t~ In~ ~st~gate the feas~bilrt~- of the falfoliin~~ ~~~t~ of pro~~ran~s - a Cit~--«~de acqtii,it~an and~or rehabiIitat~on pro~ram that pr~vides tiindin~ ~n e~cl~ant~e for the dzdicatian of de~d-restricted ur~rts. - e4pa~.s~an afthe C~t~~'s multi-famih acquis~tian and rehabil~tat~on program. - a lo~r~ ~ro~ram €hat proti rdes ~~lo~~~-~narket rates co ftnance new constructian i~l e~c~zan,e for the dzdication of deed-restricted un~ts, and ,~..., . ..... _ r} ~..,, ~. _ ._ ._ _.. ~._ _ - a f~iv`iuiii ii~ }riiiiiii ~ii~ ivit.'i;~~ivii vi i~.iiiui uiaaia w v*+ii~.i~~iit. uiiiia 111 ~-;~;iwi_~. ivi ~:.ii,ia;i~~.~i,~ u~.~u-i~;iiii.«.u ii.iiiui iiiiii~ a 11eV4' pro~rarn t0 perm~t rhe conversion o~ renral unrts to oti~~ership un~ts ~n exchange for a f~e~ible mia of permanent~~- deed restricted affordabie rental un~ts and'ar affordablz sale units and.'or appropr~ate in-I~eu fees In addmon. cr~atz a packaEe of pro~rams to provtde incenttves far laridlords to provide affordahle housing ~n exchange for deed-rest~cted affordable rental units. poss~bl~~ includin~? - a Cit~~-«ide subsidized loan and.~or grant acc~uisrt~on andior rei~abil~tation proQram - reduce or eliminate rent contro1 registration fees on all apartments in the bu~ldin~ - elam~nate the Costa-Ha~~-k~ns p~ase-in per2oc~ on a!1 apartmertts rn the bt~cldin~~ - allo~; tota! decontic~] upon ~•aca~lc~ for all apartments in the bwld-ng ~ ::r,:.i`~,.i~;r~~ +;ri•,~:n.in~~• ~•'i~ci~ •• ~' ~ ~ - alloti~ larAer af~nual rent ~ncreases for existin~ tenants tsub~ect to hardshtp e~cept~ons ti~,-hen rent er•ce~ds ~~°ia of t~nant's inc~me} - arant a Szction 8~riortn far the dedicated unit and tor the other apartments in tl~N buildina - allo« part~c~pants in the C~t~'s Incent~ve Housing Pragram to ne~otia~e their er~t from the program - permit con~-ersion to condomin~ums under a ne«- con~~ersion program RPSj1~l1S1~IP DlL~ISIDII: HOU51R~ Dii~is~on 41ead}, Rent Control Board I1~~~PLE~IENTATIO'~ PROGR~1:~'[S: The ~ofla«~in~ programs are pr~ajaril~~ geared to a5s1sE1n~ lo«~ and moderate ~ncome h~useho~ds to continue to li~~e in the Ciri~ of Santa Monica, although they «ill also ser~~e ta acco~npli~>> athers of the C~n's ~ous~n~ ~oals Pragrare~ S.a: '~Ia~ntain a Sect~on 8 Renral Assistartce and Housing Voucher Program Program Backgro~~nd: The Santa ~~onica Housin~ ,author~t~~ (SMHA) administers two rental subs~d~- proeram~ the Section 8 E~~st~ne Housin~ Certificate Program and the Section 8 Hous~n~ ~'oucher Program ~'~~ithin these Section S Programs. the SMHA rece~~es funds far speci~ic groups • S1reltc~j Plrr~ C~arc~ pro~-ides rental asststance for pern~anent houstng and case ~ranager _nc ta home~ess indn~duals ~~,~th cfi~abilities and ta their famiiies This assistance is a~med at the traditionaIl~ hard-ta-house homeless who are substance abusers. Ii~•~n~ «~~th ~IDS or ha~~e se~°ere mental disab~lit~es • Fcrna~J~• L~jrlficnllnf~ proe ~des hous~ng to farnil~es v~~hich the Pub]2c Ch21d V1%elfare ~genc~~ has determ~ned that the lack of adequate hausin~ is a prirnar~~ factor in either l j ti~e imm~nent placement of t~e househotd's chilaL'children ~n out-of-home care. or `') in the dela~ at d~schar~:inc to the tamil~~ a ch~ld,'children from out-of-home care Program S.c: Ntarntain a Home buyers Ass~st:-nce Pragrann Pragram Barkgrorrfrd: In order to assist the la~~.• and moderate ~ncome tenants to purchase tlietr units the Cit~ established a Shared ~ppreciation Loan Pro~rarn per author~ty granted b~ Propositian K usii~<~ TORCA iunds Lo~; and moderate incame house~tolds ~~•ho qual~fi.~ can o~ta~n C~t~ h~ndii~~~ to piircha~e tll~ir rental units as these units are con~~erted to ~ Hi~l ~I\i, y11~4f NP}IL~ti Hti~l11Yti 31 i 1CIi •. ~-i s coEid~r~>>i~~wn~ L~an amounts :~zpend ~~n hou5zhold income a> ~r;ell as the ~ize and pnce of the unit ~-pon cale c~r tr~nsfer thz ~~~i ~ier repa~ ~ th~ loatl and «~ll share an~ increase ~n tlie ~ altie ~~ftE~z propzrt~ ~~ itl~ the C~t~ -~c of 1us~e 1~~4G thz Crt~ had collected approY~matel~ 5= S ni~ll~on far tl~z TORC a~hared ~~~rzc~at~an Loan Prc~~ram Tl~~ Lo~ -~n~ekz~ C ou~:n Com«~unit~ De~ elo~+mNnt D~~ ~sion ~ CDC ) admin~sters a 1~~1art~a;~z Credit Cert~tiCate ~\ICC) ~ros_ram to ass~5t lo.j and moderate ~i~come jup to ] l~ percent of mec~lan ~ncomei #irst-[~mz bu.zrs to obta~n home ot~nership An '~~1CC ~s a ceMtficate a«ardins~ the hold~:r a Ced~ral ~ncome ta~ credit ~ qualjfied applicant ma} take a credit a~_aiilst federa[ i~ICOme ta~es of ~~p to ~88 ?0 percent of the ~nterest pa~d an the first ~~ear of tl~e mort~a~e ~Ilz C~t~ i~~a~ he ahlz to part~cipate ~~cth thz Count~ in th~s praeram 1998-1003 ,~etrorr Plas1: • Develop a ne«~ program to permrt the con~~ersion of rental units to ou~nersh~p units in eachange for a flzt~ble mix af permanentlr~ deed-rest~-icted affordable rentai units and'ar affordable sale ur~rts and~or aFpropr~ate rn-~ieu ~ees • Continuz to operate the TORC ~ Shared apprec~ation Loan Pro~ram • E~plore tl~e reas~b~~it~ of us~n~7 ~~~ort~a~7e Credlt Cert:ficates ('41CGj for frst-t~me home bu~~ers assistance • E~plore tlle teas;bil~t~ of a s~lent second pro{•ran~ for first time 101~ ~ncome home bu~ ers. i~~ c~~cl~i~nctian ~; ~th ~tCC'~ Prngram 3.f: De~•elap a strateg} ta address threats to the HtiD Section S rental subsid~~ ~rogram. Pragram Brrekgrou-rd: -~s d~scuss~d in Sect~an II of the Draft Hoas~ng Element, two s~gn~ficant changes--the Casta-Ha«~kins ~~acanc~~ d~cantro! legislation and pendtng changes to HLTD regulat-ons and i~nding--ma~~ dramaticall}~ affect both program fund~ng and ~ncentives for landlords to parcic~pate ~n the prograrri 1998-Z003 Actian Plnn: • Explare the tinancial feasibilit~- of establishmg a rent subsidy program for Section 8 tenants t~~hose land~ords have canceled their HUD contracts w~rth the Housing ~uthorit}~ The subsid~~ «~ould pa~~ for a pereentage of the Nlaximum Allowab~e Rent (~I~R> if the tenants chas~ to rema~n in the~r unrts and pay the 1VIAR The anal}°s-s ~~~ould inClude the feas~bilitl~ of creatin~ a public~pn~~ate partnership to fund t~~ pro~ram _ ,;~ ci.,..n~it- ur-ii,~iu::.;;, ; ,; i~ -, I; i • E~plore tl~e feasib~lm of crea~mg a housin~ rehabilita~ion loan pro~ram Ehat ~ti•ould pro~ i~e rehabilita~ian grants or loans to landlords in return #'vr units be~ng deed restricted to tenants at no more th~n 60° o of inedian income. adFusted b}~ famih- s~ze • :~ppl~ to HLD for a Santa '~~lonica based Fair ~•iarket Rent (F1~1Rj standard at the earl~est possible date ~n order to sta~ competiti~•e ~n the ~~acanc~- decantrol rental marketp~ace • Take full ad~~antage of the HL~D regulations.~-luch cunentl~~ allo~v the gross contract rent ta exce~d the Fair I~~iarket Rent {FMR) standard b~• up ta 20% for 30% af the certi~cate caseload The option should onl~~ be used to secure and retain the hi~hest qualit~~ un~ts and to ~ncrease prograrn pa~ticipation ~n under ser~ed areas of Santa 1~•lomca Respansible Dtvuroir: Housm~~ Dn ~s~on Program 7.d: Facilitate Susta~nable Housing De<<elopment Pragram Backgroiend: [n 199~, the C~tt Counctl adopted the Santa V~onica Sustainable C~tt Pro~ran~ ~i~h~ci~ prol•ides a comprehensn~e lon~-term environmental strateg~~ for the comrnunit~ The pro~ram contains spec~tic principles, goa~s. and tareets for measurin~ proer~ss in ach~e~~~n~~ sustainabil~t~ The CEt~~ 1s cvrrentl~~ deti~eiop~ng Sustamable Buildin~ De~ eiopment Gu~delines as an autRro~~1h of the pro~ram These Guidelines ~;-ill include ~zsi~n ad~ ice for m~ltipie famil~ resid~ntial bu~ldin~s as ~;ell as corr~mer~~ai butid~n~s and ~~~fl be d~si~ned to a~dress methods to ac~~e~-e th~ bu~ld~ng-related targets of Sustainable C~t~~ Pro~~ram Tl _ Guidelines are to be coi~:pleted b~ 1997 1998-1003 ,4ctro-r Plar~: • Continue to educate no~l-protit and 1or-profit haus~ng de~~elopers in ways to create ~m ironr~zentall~ sustainable hous~n= deti•elopments in Santa Mon~ca. • Sup~ort ai~d ~~coura~~e the etforts of liouszn~ de~~elopzrs, desi~ners. and contraetors tn their use ot susta~nable huikciin!~ pracu~es 6y zYp~orin~ ~~artous zncenti~~e opt~ons • CanUn~i~ to assess tuture 3lousing de~~eloprnents~ cont~but~on to the goals and targets of the Susta~nahle C~t~~ Prot~ran~ • E~~lore [lte teas~rilit~ of inte~~ratin~w tl~e administrat~on of the Sustainable B~ildin~ De~•eEnpmznt Gt~idel>>le~ into the e~istin~~ de~~elopn~ent appro~~al process ~ ~ ii~~: ti~~~,ii~~:r~~i~ ii;,~r~_:E.•~~ ~.-i,~,: ~ Ib - s • E~ a[uate thz impact af Sustainab[e Cit~ Proaram requiremznts upon the economtc teaszbiIit~- uf nz~• r~sid~nt~al de~~elopm~n~ Resporlsi6le Di-~rsio-r: C~t. Plannin~~ D~~ ~s~on i lead - Ei~~ ironi~lent~l and Puhl~c ~i'orks \lana~emenE ~ Frc~~ti~~;~ir~crFt~r~i~~.iiE-r:~;~ :-i.c~s. ~- ~ ~ ATTACHMENT B The following is addiiianal mfarmatinn recomrr~ended for incorporatian into the appropriaie background sections of the Draft 1998-Z003 Housing Element Ilpdate as approved by the Housing Comm~ssion on Januarti~ 4 and January 16, 1997. Imnact of Costa-Hawkins on the Section $ Proeram In or~er t~ underatand the potential impact of Costa-Hawkins on the Sectton 8 pragram, ~t ~s necessary to know hovv re~ts are establ~shed in the Sect~fln ~ program. Secuon $ gross cvntract ren~s are negotrated wrthin the framework of HUL? Fair Market Rent standazds (FMR) Generaliy, the gross rent for a untt may not exceed the FMR. However, HUD and the Haus~ng Authonty may apprvve exce~t~ons under certasn ccrcumstances. The FMR standard can only be exceeded through annual ~ncreases w~uch general~y occur on a yearly ~asis or for exception rents which can only be granted to 30°fo of tt~e certificate caseload Santa Momca's FMR Zs denved from ttze Los A.ngeles/Long Beach Stat~st~cal Mezropolitan Area The nurnber af rental tuuts ~n Santa Moruca is very small compare~ to the total nurnF~er of rental uruts in the Los Angeles/Lang Beach area Consequently, the "saft" rental market of the Los Angeles/Long Beach area has resulted ~n four redt~ct~ons in the area's FMR in the last four years If the "soft" rental market continues, the FMR wtll also continue to drvp even as the Maxua~um Allowable Rent (MAR) increases ~n Santa Monica Histancally, the Seetion & program has been popular wrth ~andloras because the Sect~on S gross contract rents have ~s~ly been t~gher than Rent Cvntrol's (MAR) Currently, the rnedian gross contract rent foz zero bedroocns is 25% ~ugher ~an the median MAR for zero bedroams The median gross contract rent for one bedrooms is 2(}% lvgher than the media~ MAR wlvie the med~an gross contract rent for two bedroorns is 13% tug~ier However, thz trend of reduced FNiRs, comb~ned with Costa-Hawki~s rent increases, could ~eopardize the competihveness af the pf~ogram in Santa Monica Base~ vn the Hoasing Element ana~ysts ~ane by HR&A and ass~ng that the Santa Mon~ca tumover model prevaxls, the MARs for vacant urvts vv~ll exceed the current FMR by up to 2% by the yeaz 1998 Extending the analysts through the year 2003 shows that Lhe MARs for zero, one, and two bedroom u~ts v~nll exceed the current FMR by l9°tfl, 22%, and 2Q% respective~y Unless there is a stg~ficant increase ~n the FMR payment standards betwee~ 1997 and 2003, the attracnveness of :he progra~n to Iand[ords will be senous[y dtmin~shed As a resuZt, it is l~kely that an increasing number of Sarjta I~4on~ea certtficate and ~oucher c~~ents wil~ }~ave to move to 1 ~ other czties in order to tind hous~na ~n order to rema~n compet~t~l~e ~n an ~ncreasingl~~ rnore costly rental r~arketplace, the Sect~on 8 program will take full advantagE af the HUD regulation whic~ allows the gross contract rent to exceed the FVIR b4 up to ?0°ia for 247 of rts $Z~ certificates This opt~on w711 only be used to secure and reta~n the highest qualicy unrts and to ~ncrease program parucipat~on tn under served areas of Santa Mamca Hovti~ever, because this can onlti- ~mpact ? l°r~ of the total c~seload, the program wi1] also apply to HUD for a Santa Moruca specific FMR In 1946, HUD approved 12 of 37 requests for FMR increases HliD requires that a eomprehensive rental sunrey be submitted to va~idate the need for an increased FMR IL ~s poss~ble that the Hous~ng Element survey could form the bas~s of a Santa Mon~ca request The request can be subm~tted at any t~ine and, if approved, woutd become eff~ctive vn October ~, 1997 Due to HUD's fisca~ prablems. ~t Zs antac~pated that it wi~l be d~f~"icult to conr•ince HUD of the need to create a Santa Monica specific FMR based an pro~ections. Imnact pf H[JD Regulation and Poticv Chan~es The Omnihus Consol~~ated Resc2ss~ons and Ap~ropnat~ons Act of 1996 establ~shed a 90 day re~ssuance freeze on a!1 certificates and ~au~hers The effect vn the Santa Mvruca program has been to reduce the usable number of cert~ficates and vouchers by approximately 3% over the caurse of a year The Omn~bus Cansolidated Resctssions and Appropnatior~s Act of 1996 a~so ma~e changes in the Sect~on 8 program which were des~gned to "encourage" mare landlords to parti~ipate in the pragram In order to encourage more landlards to participa*P .~ the Sect~on 8 program, HL1D has made rt much eas~er for ~em to te~:njnate leases that have been in effect for tnore than a year and ta "opt out" of the Section 8 contract v~~th a 30 day w~r~tten natice r~nthout cause. Owners can r~vw terminate the Sect~on 8 lease v-~thout cause after ane year, and, vv~th a 30 day wntten nntice to the Housing Authonry and the tenant, term~nate the HLTD contract. Once the contract ts terminated, the tenant has the opt~on of moving into another Sectian 8 subsidiz~d apartment or entenng ~nco a new lease wrth the awner and paying the tull MAR. Given the ~ncome level of Sectian 8 clients . rt-s reasonable to assume that most, if not all, wou~id have to n~ove T'he Housing Authonty has ap~rox~mate~y 950 contracts that ttave been in place for rnore Fhan 12 months ar~d aze therefore el~g~ble for cancellation without cause by owners. The median income for these c~lents is approximatelr $SA00 Section 8 staff believes that the clause ~n the Omrubus Consolidated Rescissians and Apprapnations Act af I996 " except as rec~uued ~y 5tate or locai law. " precludes owners from ava~lin~ thernselves of the abi~it}= to term~nate ~~2tho~i cause lwth the lease and contract. The staff posrt~on is based on the Santa Manica Rent Contral Ord~nat~ce A request has been made by ~ z staff~ior a C~t~ :~ttorne~ s opinion on this issue Because ot Costa-f-Ia~~~kins. HLD"s attempt to '~eneotzra~e" more landlord particlpatiun tria~ ~a~e t~e re~•erse effeci m Santa'~iantca HL"D is under seti~ere budgetan• pressure because of both ~udget cuts and the need to reneu- expiring ~nnual Contributior~ Gontracts (:~CCs) HUD s current bud~et reflects a 20°ro reduction from the pre~'ious fiscal }~ear .~ll e~cpirtng ACCs are be~ng renew~ed for only one vear Historically the term of ACCs ~~as for ?d or 1~~~ears fn the eari}~ I990s the term was reduced to fve ~•ears. then two ~-ears, and now ane ~~ear There ~s $4 b~llion tn this year's HliD budget for ACC renewals This const~n.ites ~0°1n of the HLiD budget 'V~~CC ~P.a3'. ~]J S~I]]40I7 W7I~ b~ required to renew' aii of ~IL•"D's expiring ACCs Cangress de~~ised the one and two year ACCs as a short term suateg}• to save money° ~~~'h~le this strategy~ ciid in fact save money in the shart term it has created a need to renew ACCs more frec~uentlr~ to the extent that in 3 years 7~°/n of all ~CCs wiit need to be renewed bv FY ?000 HUD subm~tted a$32,5 b~llion FY 1998 budget request to the Office pf Management and Budget ~~MB). OMB xs the President's budget office OMB's response has been to reduce the bud~et tv ~24 6 bi~lzon and to prapose black granting ail HUD funds mto a Family Ho~smg Grant Program which would be ~i~stnbuted by farmuia to states and HOME participating junsdictians Santa Monica xs a HOME partrcipat~ng ~urtsdretion OMB's resgonse to i-iUD's FY 1948 bud~et req~esr zs symba3ic of the sever~n of HliD's ~udget s~tuation Beca~se af Rent Control, the Section 8 program has generated significant pro3ect reserves As of lune ~0, 1996, w~e estimate that we have 57,548,979 in certificate and voucher project reserves CurrentIv, these reserves can be budgeted to pay for ant~c~pated rent ~ncreases on an annual baszs If HUD a~proves a Santa Nloniea FMR, proJect reser4°es w~rl~ be required to fur~d increased rental casts HF3wever. dt1~ tD HUD~S S@vEre blidget Co125ti~si]T5, Santa Mor~ea's project reserves may be used by HtiD to re~ew e~ep~nng ACCs for Santa Monica or other Houstng AuthontiPs If OMB"s pra}~osal p~ _~, ails, the pra~ect resen'es will ~robably be lost ~n the block grant It appears that HUD poitc~ wi~i ~e al~nost exc~usivelr• dr~ven by ~ts budget sitvation As such, our ab~l~ty to affirmatively react to the ~mpact of Costa-Ha~vk~n5 wt~~ be ~epertdent on the outcoane of compet~ng HLFD budget propasals - - Proiect-based Section S Gontracts Commjsstonexs asked for furtt~er e~abarat~an on the "at r~sk" status of pra~ect-based ~ection 8 contracts, as descz~bed on pages II-59 and II-6~ af the Draft Housing Element. S~x HUD-funded seruor housing developments m the Citr. ha~~e pro~ect-based Section 8 assistance Table II-22 shows that there are 342 umts wrth Section 8 contracts within these seven H[JD-funded de~+elopments The expiration dates for tt~ese pro~ect-based contracts vary, as show~ in Table II- 22, w~t4~ some expinng as earlv as 1996 and others e~cpinng in i 997, 1999. 200~, 2003, and 2004 , , ~~ Changes to Section 8 regulations hatie resulted in less czrtaintti~ about the renewal of these contracts As indicate~ in the Draft Housing Element. for pro~ects with Sect~an S contracts e~cpiring ~n 1996. HUD in ~`ash~n~ton ~as g~~~en local HLD offices the authonn~ to extend the Secrion S contracts for one a~ditio~al vear onl€~ HUD has a~so recently approvea neu~ procedures wnereb~~ ex~st~ng ter~ants 12~~ing ~n units w'ith pra~ect-base~ Sectzon S contracts ma~~ recen°e Sect~on S certificates ~n~efinitel~~. so long as the~~ continue to res2de in the urut How~e~~er, under these ne~° procedures. the pro~ect- based Sect~on S contract w711 expire once the tenant mo~es aut Therefore, tt~e ne~+ pracedures ser~~e to protect ex2st~ng tenants but do not protecc the affordab~I~n: of the un~t once the tenant ieaves Rent informanon The attached table contams September. 199~ median Maximvm Allowable Rent (MAR} ~nfarmation for the Rent Board's seven subareas ~n the C~ty Th~s ~nformat~on is prov~ded at the request of both the P~anning Comm~ssion and Housing Comm~ssion at t~eir December 11, 1995 ~a~nt meeting and w~ll ~e incorporated rnto the Draft Houstng Element along with the information contained in Figure II-10 of the Draft Housing Element ~ s / + ~~iArr ~arKUr~ ~.ow~LE x~rrrs ~~~) By Rer~t Contral Bo~rd Subarea as of September 30, ~ 49S • ARLA A AREA B ARCA C ARF,A D AREA ~ AR~ 0 Bedroom 5445 5445 5455 Sr4~4S S4b3 A F 5470 AR~A G ~q~~ l Bedroom S55 495 505 477 SOS S$2 530 2 Bedroom 676 581 776 518 b32 774 7p6 3 Brdrovm 774 774 1,728 658 824 938 q~p ~ I `Baaod upon 24,322 ratt oon4dlod uruta F%ciude~ all propahea ~-nth sny exempl u~ut~, uruts m ptt~pptsa of lea~ !h~ 3 ueub, utuls fu wh~ch u~fo~ma4on on t~-e numher of bodrooma ka nut rolisbk, wub m bwddmga vrnth apQnored TORCA ooRVere~oria, and rnobi~c har~e ~rrf~s R WOilSfHCi~41fwRElR'Pi+ilSB~TiID'W5~&L8-t8.7HL R Ren: Con#rot Board Areas ~ ~ ~ G ~o ~ ~ E ~ '.~.:... , ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~. C ~ ~ 8 . ~ w~ A Map c~ourt~~ o~ Tht Outlook a ~ • ~iJr~%i/"! T/ ~"~_~-~~~a - ~~ ~c~'~~ 1685 Main Street, P D Box 2200 Santa Monica, CA 9q407-2200 March 1 l, 1997 Honorable Crty Council City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Roo~ 20Q Santa Manica, CA 90401 Telephone (310) 4~8-8702 FAX (3 9 0} 458-338U Re Recommendations Cancerning Draft 1998-2003 Housing Element Update Mayor arfc~ Honorable Counc~l members: After reviewing the Draft Housmg Element, we are impressed unth tl~e depth and breadth of ~nfor~na~on that prov;des insights mto current realit~es and cnticai needs tha~ must be addressed aver the next five years As we hope to explain betow, now is the Urne for the City to update mariy policies and progr~uns that can ~e used to open opportumties that will create a permanent supply of affordable hausing I-iowever, we bel2e~e that Sect~ar~ Five {"Hvusing Objec#ives, Goa~s, Pol~cres, and Prograrns"} lacks clea: pal~cy and program direction ~n several areas. Dur recommendations have been drafted to be groacti~e and to inihate t~nely and targeted ~mplementation. The period covered by the Draft Housmg Element is significa€~t1y dYfferent t~ari previous periods spanriing the 198Q's and early ninety's. At that t~me, greservat~on of ren~ hausing ivas a F~~Y focus ~f the Gity's effort to provade for affordability, eca~om~c diversity and security for tenar~ts. Due primarily to the Costa Hawkit~s vacancy de-conoro~/re-control legislation, the econgmic viability of the vast majority of rental housmg stock is now more likely to assure its preserva~ion. However, the affordabil~ty of Santa Monica's housmg stock is no Ionger assured With the exceptzon of tl~e Sect~on S program, this shift in trencis will not be felt direct~y by c~rrent tenants Howe~er, as vacancies occur over the next 5-IO year, Costa Hawkins will permanendy impact affordabiiity for future tenants and as a result the Crty's econornic di~ersrty Desprte an admirable track record in affordable hausin~ produchon, the supp~y of housmg that is deed-restr~c#ed to quaIified low and moderate income households must be expanded As the Ciry Council has been made aw~re. the Housing Commission has nat arrived t~pon these recommendations iightly~ The Co~nmission canducted a pubIic hearrng on the Draft Housing Element on January 9, 1997, formed am ad hoc subcommittee which met on January 10 and 13 ta formulate additianal recornmendatzons for changes ta the Draft Hous~r~g Element, and, approved a set of recammendat~ons on the entire Hous2ng Element on Januaty 1 b Our recvmm~ndahans were then forwarded to the Plamm~g Comrnission for cons~derat~an dunng thetr public heanngs and deliberations in Jariuary and Februan~ Since that t~me, the Housmg Cornmission has reviewed the Planntng Comm~ssian's recommendations to Criy Council on the draft Housing Element and was gratified to learn that the Planiung Commzssian concurred vv~th many of the Housmg Commission's recommendations, whi~h the Planning Commission has in turn forwarded ta City Council_ Nevertheless, tliere are stilt sorne pragrammat~c issues on whjch the PZarutcng Cammission and Housin~ Commission disagree We would like to cal~ these to your attentian and explain our reasomng for advocating on behalf of these issues_ For ease of reference, Exhibit A conta.ins a sumtnary of our recommended language changes for each program City Regulatary Requrrements Program 1 a addresses potentiai rev~s~ans ta Crty regu~atory requirements as they relate ta havsmg development. The Housing Commission supports Program 1 a as approved by the P~anz~ng Commrss~on. However, we recommend two add~tiorla~ ~tems be added to this ~rogram. T~e f~rst item concems non-conform~ng muiti-family residentiai buildu~gs. Due to vanous rezonu~gs that have occurred m the City, many mult~-family residen#ial buildings are buit~ to higher densit~es than those allowed by current zvrung sta.ndards. If these buildings were to be darnaged beyond repau, under cu.rrent zoning standards not atI of the unrts cou~d be rebwlt, and housing units woutd be lost Given the documented need for more housu~g;n the C~tv, the Hansing Cotnmission beheves t.~at the Crty canr~ot affc to lose hous~ng un~ts V~'e helieue that the Crty shauld adopt a pragra~n ta preserve these non-conforming residential developments Therefore, we recommend #hat the following language be adde~ to Program i.a Modify zonuig ordinance to per~ut e~stmg non-canforming mu1t~-fanuly residenhal deve~apments that are destroyed due to fire, eart~quake or o~her nai~uai disaster to be replaced in-kuxd in order to prevent the loss of dwelling imits in the City. Use the Earthqua.ke Recovery Act as a moc}el for these new star~dards. The Housing Cotnmisszon alsa believes tl~at the Crty's deveiopment review procedures atid fees st~auld be mozutored regularly ta make sure that we are competitive with our neighboring crties To that end, the Housmg Commission recommends the follow~ng a~ditional language far Prc~grsm l.a: Establish an annual survey of development fees of the Westside Cit~es (Culver Crty, Los Ange~es, Santa Monica, ana VVest Ho~ly~vood~ Prepare a reporE comganng 2 development fees. shov~~ng bath median and average fees for all faur c~ties, with an eye taward ma~ntarning competiti~~e fees Inclusionary Housang Program The Housing Commission carefullti~ cansidered the detailed analysis of the Crty's Inclus~onary Housing Program eontasned in the draft Housing Element and Tech~ucal Appenc~ces. Based upan this analysis, we support many of the recommendations contatned m the Draf~ Housing Element We also subtnitted addrtional recommendahons for this program, some of which the Plan~ung Comm~ssian is suppart~ng. However, in certain instanees we, the draft Housing Element, and Planning Commission have not gone far enough to ac€dress the problems with the grogram as iaentif ec~ m tne background analyses In particular, we feel that the "Program Background" sect~on of the Inclusionary Housmg Program (Prograir~ 2.a} does not adequatety set the stage for the proposed Action Pian. As ~ndicated in the October 24, ~ 996 annual repart to Cauncil on tt~e City's Inctusionary Housing Program, since the adoption of the Proposit~on R implementing ordinance, the City has exceeded the 30 percent affordability requirement on an annual basis prunaniy through the produc~ian o£ 10(} percent affordable hausing deve~optt~ents spansared by non-pnofit arganizatio€~s, nat by market rabe projects contaming mclusionary units on site. This po~nt is not adequately explained in the Program Background nf Program 2.a, though it ~s a s~gnificant reason for the changes ta the program. in order to better explam the new direct~on bemg pmposed for the City's Inciusionary Hausing Program, we recommend t~at the following language be mcluded in the Backgratu~d Section to Program 2.a It js noted that Proposition R requires that not Iess tt~an thitry percent (34 percent) of a~l multi-famity resident~al hausmg newly construcfed crtywrde on an annua! basis be affordable to low and moderate mcozne households Propos~tion R does nat requ~re tha' each 2ndiz~dual res~dent~al developrnent prolect sat~sfy the 34 percent requirement on site--this has been a rec~u~rement of the imglementing ordinance onty. Since the adopt~on of the innplementing ordinance, the City has exceeded the 30 percent a#~ordability requirement on an annual basis primArily through the productio~ of lOfl perceut affordable hausu~g developments sponsared by non profit organizations, not by market rate projects contauiing inclusionary units. in particular, the City's October, I996 Annual Report to C~ty Co~ncil conceming Irr~plementat~an of the Inclusionary Housing Orduiar~ce i~cates that dunng the fo~r years since adoption of the implementation ordinance, 251 ou# of 553 newly constructed housing units in pro~ects recerving Certificates of Occupancy, or appraximately 45 percent of ali t11e new uruts, were affordable to low and moderate mcome households Of these affordable units, 95 percent (240 units) were canstructed by non-profit arganizations as part of I00 percent affordable ~ousing developments 3 The Hous~ng Cammission concws vv~th the recommendation contained ~n the Draft Hous~ng Element and supported by the Planning Commiss~on to expand oppartuzuties for satisfying the inclus~onary requ~rement by payment of an in-lieu fee Ha~:ever. we do not t~unlc expansion af the in-lreu fee optton s~tauld be pursued tn eon~unction w~th mcreasing tY~e City's authonty under Artie~e 34 V~e support both e~fvrts, but we belie~e ~at they shauld be pt~rsued separately We also recommend that the language recomir~endmg ar~ expanded in-I~eu fee opt~on be more tlefimt~ve m terms of affirmati~ely permitt~g the in ~ieu fee for all but very large res~dent~al develapment pro~ects Therefore, we recofnmended the fol~ovv~ng language for Program 2.a ~nstead of what is proposed by the Planning Cotanm~ssian Plann:ng Commissron recommendatcon- Expansion of the in-~ieu fee option xn con~unction with mcreasing the Crty's authonty under Article 34 ~'ousing Cammissrorr recammendatron: -A11ow an in-lieu fee apt~on for a!1 new ~nulti-family developments, vsnth the ability to raquire that the inclusionary requuement be met onsite for very large project~C The Hausing Camm~ssion also recommends that Program 2.d, Prov~de Fusiding to Assist in Housing Product~on, be madified to cross-reference the recommendation to expand the in lieu fee option_ The Housuig Commission dces nat support the Planning Carnmission's recommenciation ta e~atuate the success of the oz~-srte mclusionary requirement. The Housmg Cornmission feels that the background analyses in t~e Draft Housir~g Element have adequately addressed these issues. Therefore, the Houstng Commissian recomrnends that ttus proposed 1ang~age be str~ck frvm Frogr~m 2.~ as foilows- T'---~--n._..~ _r.t_ .. _t 4t- - -t---=------ - --t--~-- ' -]1Y[LLUal1V11 Vl ~llL. JLLW\rJJ Vl Ll[V Vll'Jll~. llllilli.]1V1JGLL~ 1v~1,u1~r11141i4~ ~J434il.W~i11~` lIl The Plantung Commisszan struck language contained in the staff-recommended Dr~ft Housing Element which would have targeted t~enefits af City housing pragrams away from househol~s earning 10~ percent of the mediari income and towards households e~jng between 60 and SO percent of the County median The rat~onaie for ttus recommendation is thai ~e ~?a±~ s~tows that the market ~s already pmviding hausmg affordable to moderat+e-income ha~seholc~s. However, the market is not praviduig hnus~ng for ho~seho~ds earning 80 percent or less of tl~e Caunty median The Hausmg Commisston bel~eves that the City's haus2ng prograrns shn~d be taiget~d ta provic~ing hous~ng to ~e groups whose needs are nc~t being adciressed by the marke~ Tb~refore, the Haus~g Commission recarnmenc3s that the following langua.ge be restored to Pragrsm 2.a of the Housing Element 4 Ta the extent feasii~ie, revise income defimtions cont~ned withm City regulatians to define moderate-mcome as 61 - SO percent of the County median ancome The current Inclusionan-~ Ho~sing Program Ordinance. Qrdmance 1615, contatns a pro~~sion whkch allows a developer ta fully satisfy the mclusionary housing requirement by const~cttng a project in ~~h~ch al~ afthe units are affordable to households earning 1Q0 percent of the L A County median income In such a develapment, na low income uruts are required For the sacrie reasons cited above--namely. that the market is already provzding housing afforda~[e to maderate-income househoids--the Housing Comm~ss~on believes that allowing the inclusianary reqiureme~t to be satisfted in t~s way pro~ades no benefit to the Crty. Accorc~ingly, the Housu3g Commission recommends that the followu~g language be added to Program 2.a= El~minating the optaon for sahsfyfng the ~nclusionary obligation by prov~ding all moderate incame unuts at 140% of the Cour~ty med~an family incorne (MFI), or replacutg st with an opt~on to satisfy the ~nclusionary obligation by providing I 00% af units deed-restricted for househalds earntng le~s than S~°/a of ttie Couniy MFI. Financing far Housing Program 2.e, Explore Alterna~ve Affordable Housmg Finance Programs, sets forth a number of alternatrve stra~egies for fi~nding affordable hous~ng. One of fhe opportut~ties that the Hous~ng Comrnission sees for fiu~ding is throug~ greater flexibilrty ~n the use of lacally contralled and locally gen~rated funds for housmg The Housing Commzssion believes that any fi,iture inclusionary housing implementation program and other programs that generate fees for affordable housing sl~ould pro~~de maximum flexibil~ty in the use of funds so that these funds may be used far acq~us2hon, re~ab~litat~on, and new construciion, as well as for a ~anety hous~ng types and needs-_ for example, family, single raom occupancy, and transit~onal housing Therefore, the Housing Commission recommenc` ; add~ng tl~e follawzng la~guage to Pragram 2.e Evaluate restrict~ons on use of locally generated as well as lacally controlled funds far housing, and explore ways to increase fle~bility m use of these funds for a range of afforclable housmg needs Housing for Families with Children The Housing Cornmission strongiy supports a recamme~dahon contained in the Draft Housing Element which would promote t3ie reconfiguratian of existing mult~-family rental buildings so that smalier, one- and two-bedraam units could ~ eombined to create larger three- and four-bedroom un~ts for families v~nth cl~ldren. Hawever, the Hous~ng Commission believes that the recommended lang~}age for this approach shoul~ be more defintttve A~sa, the Housit~g Cummissian feels that the lang~~age should provide fle~bility witl~ respect to the percentage of affordable units that would be required under th~s type of policy. Therefore, the Housing Commission recommends the fallowing modified language be added to Program 2.h 5 L::Y~~; c u;. ~,~„~~:.~., Prornote a revised policy af perm~tting the reconfigurat~on of e~isting buildings to ~ncrease the number of bedrooms and che size of urats for ~ ~~ ~.~~~~~~~ deed restncted affordahle pro~ects for families vti~th chitdren_ Though this program w~ould reduce the number of o~-eratl umts ~n the Gzty. it wouid prov~de much-needed large familF~ un~ts Specia111~eeds Housing There is a sigruficant unmet need for affardable hous~ng for the working poor in the C~ty--that is, persons wk~o are permanently employed in low-wage ~obs This is a group that is not already targeted by most af the affordable hous~ng pro~ects in the City The deepest subsidies currently provtded ic~ City-fu~ded pro~ects only go as low as househo~ds eaming 40 percent of the County median xncome To serve the workuzg poor, subs~dies need ta be targeted to ho~sehoids earnmg 25 percent of the County median ~ncome or less. Accordingly. the Housing Commission is recomFnendyng that the following Ianguage be added to Progrsm 2.i: Develop a~ugh subsidy program for the develapment of permanently affordable ho~sing for very very low incame housenolds earlung mmimum wage, with a goal of pro~iding a rninimum of 30 units over five years, split eveniy between SRO's anc~ family units We appreciate very m~eh your cvnsideration of these recommenc~at~ons_ We will be sending a representat~~e to the March 18 C~ty Counc~t heanng on the Housi~g Etement to present these recammendarions and would be happy ta make ourselves availa~le to discuss these issues or answer any quest~ons Again, thank you for yaur consideration Since ~ John Given, Chair F'~.HOUSf'iGSfiaRFV1'pF1CES.1-~.LEAfE'~•.HCCCLE71 µPA V Exhibi~ A The fol~o~7ng rs a sumanary af the spec;f c changes to the P~anning Cammissfon's recommenda.t~ons on the Draft Housing Element Update as approvec~ by the Hous~ng Comnriiss~on on Febniary 20. 1997 Pro~ram l.a: Assess and Revised Where Aonronriate. C2t~ Re~utatorv Rea~~remer~t4 Add the follovrnng new tanguage o Modify zomng ordmance to permrt ex~srang non-conforrnmg mult~-fam~ly residenttal developments that are destroyed due to f re, earthquake or other natural disaster to be replaced in-ku~d ~n axder to pre~ent the lass of dwelling ~ts m the Ctty Use the Earthquake Recovery Act as a rnode~ for t~ese ne~v standards o Es~ablish an annual survey of development fees of the Westside Crties (Culver C~ty, Los Angeles, Santa Momca, and West Hollywa~) Prepare a report comparing deve~ogment fees, showing both median and avera.ge fees for ail four cities, with an eye toward mauztaining compettti~e fees Pragram 2.a: Inclusianarv HousinQ Pra~ram Add ta "Program Background"section of Frogram 2 a It is nated that Proposit~on R requires that not 4ess than thirry percent {30 percent) of all multi-farn~ly residentFal hausing newiy constructed ciiywrde on ~:~ a~nual ~asis be affordable ta low and ~oderate incorne i~ouseho?ds. Propositian R daes nat reQu.ire that each individual resident~al development pro~ect satcsfy the 34 percent req~irement on site--this has bcen a requirement vf the unplement~ng ordu~ance anly. Since the adoption of the implementing ordi~ance, the City has exceedec~ the 30 percent affor~~hi~ity req~re~ent on an ann~al basis pnmarily through the productian of 1 QO perr,ent a#~ardabte housing de~elopments sponsored by non-prafit organizations, ~ot by marlcet rate projects containmg inc[usionary units In pamcular, ~he City's Oetober, 1996 Annual Report to City Cour2cil concerning Irr~p~ementation of the Ineius~onary Housing Ordinance u~dicates that dur~ng the four yeazs since adoption of the imglementat~on ordinance, 251 out of 553 newiy eonstructed housing units in pra~ects receivcng Certificates of Decupan~y, or apgroximately 45 percent of all ttie new un~ts, were affordable to 4ow and maderate incorne households Of these affardable units, 95 percent (240 units) wete canstructed by non-profit organizatxons as part of 1 UO percent afforda~le ~ZOUS~ng developments 7 Program 2.a (cont'dZ Revase the proposed ~ar~guage regarding in-tieu fees as follov~s- T'---°____, _r~t- -- ~---- r - - ~---_ __ ..__ .___~_,., _...i- -°°----- ~~-- r'-~-} O `L.~rcuwavi. vi uia. icrut,u xLt. ~lri.a~u ui ~rV11J[lliliUV11 vYll.1; J124~4uau~~ ua~, ~.icJ ,$ uuiaiviii~ uiru~.i rv~ia,ii. S'~ Allow an in-lieu fee option for all new mult~- family developments, with the abiiity to reqwre that the inclus~onary requirement be met onsrte for very iarge pro~ects Str~ke the follov~nng iariguage recommended bp t~e Plannmg Commission• ~___i__..t__._ _r~L_ _........__ _r..L~ ~_ --~-----i---•------ ---__~__~ __~____t__i_, ~ i. rcuuu~ivaa va ui~, uuwi,~,~ va iia a~ii-aiw uia.caurvtuuy 14n.1{,~y(ylil~rlll~ Ywtaa+~ccwi~ ..r .. aW lil Lv11FlJ Vl [LLLlllllil.]LLN41V11 Restore the followmg langua.ge wh~ch the Ptann~ng Commission struck o Ta the extent feasible, revlse mcome definitions contained within City reguiahans to define moderate-~ncome as bl - 80 percent of #he Coi~Tty median income. Restore the following language whtch the Flanning Commission strvck: o Elurt~natmg the option for satisfying the mc~us~anary obligation by providing al~ maderate income unrts at 1 DO% of the Counry median family incame (MFI}, or replacmg rt v~nth an option to satisfy the inclusionary obligahon by providmg 100% of uruts deed-restncted for households eaming less than 80% of the Gounty MFI Pro~ram 2.d: Provide Fundin~ to Assist in Housing Production Cross-reference in Progra~n 2 d the recommendation ta al~ow an in l~eu fee option for ail new multi- family development as contatned ~n Program 2 a abo~e Pro~ram 2.e: Exa~ore Alternative Affor~able Housiag ~'iaanre FraQrams Add the following new language: o Eva]uate restnct~ons on use oflocally generated as well a~ 1QCally controlled funds for housing, and explore ways to increase flexib~lity in use of these funds far a range of affordable housmg needs Pra~ram Z.h: Facilitate the De`elonment of HousinQ for Families w~th C~ildr~n Modify the proposed language as folla~rs O Lh}l1Vi~. u` i~, ~rva~iviiiij ~C~~i~ $~~~- ~.~`i~ of pernuit.~ng the reconfi~urat~on of existin~ butldings ta increase the number of bedrooms and the size of uruts for ~98~ereerr~ d~d ~ai~ordable pro~ects for families wrth c~uldren Though ~his program wouid reduce the number of , overall units in the Crty, rt would provide much-needed large farruly wuts Program' 2.i: Facilitate t~e Develonment and Maintenance of Snecial Needs Housin~ Add new language as follows- o Develop a~ugh subsidy program for the development of permar~ently affordable housu~g for ~ery ~ery low mcome households eaming minirr~~ wage, with a goaI of providu~g a minimum of 30 units over five years, split e~enly between SRO's and family uruts. F ~HO~S[NGS}iAFtE`w"PFILES~~~ ~~'~SHCCCL@T 1 ~i'PD 7 Attachment C (Letter dated ?J27/S7 from the Rent Controt Board to the Planr~ing Commission Regarding Recommended Changes to the Draft Element) ~ ~ l~ ~~ ~~~.a~ ~ - i{ -~- ---_,~- -- _ - Rent Control Board Commissianers ---~-- ----- --~ -- - -- ~-- --- (310)45&-8751 BRURIA FINKEL LACY GOODE JAY JOHNSOtd DaLORES PRESS DOUG WILLIS Plar~rnng Commission C~ty of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 2~3 Santa Monica, CA 90401 January 27, 1997 RE: Draft 1998-2043 Hous~ng Element Dear Commiss~or~ers, The Rent Contro~ Baard after consic~enr~g the draft Housing Elemer~t and some preliminary recommendatior~s from #he Housing Commission, offers the follow~ng comments and recommendatfons. ~Some specrfic lang~aage is set #artF~ in Attachment A ) L05S OF AFFORDABILITY Smce its adoption in 1979, t~e Rent Controi Charter Ame~dment has helped preserve the a~fordab~~ity of o~er 30,000 rental hausmg units in Santa Mon~ca. The i 995 San#a Monica Apartment Tenants Survey ~fourtd in the Techn~cal Appendix) docUmeMs that fow income tenants are currently eccupy~ng the af~ordable rent cor~trolled units. The survey faund a substar~tial difference ~n the median ~ncome le~els between fena~ts m controlled and nan- controlied rental ~nits. "Med~an ho~asehold income for tenants ir~ rent cor~tralled un~ts ~s $27,500, compared w~th a median of $42,500 in non-cor~trolled rental units." The Board ~s ~ery cancemecf abou# the imminent loss of affordability af a substantial number o~ con#rolled rental units. With #he phase-~n and ~mplementat~an of the new vacancy decontroffrecantrol law, in excess of 15,000 ~n~ts which are now affordabEe to ~ery low income people are pro~ected to exper~ence an increase m rent between 1997 and 2003 After t~ese increases the units w~ll no longer be affardable to e~tF~er ~ery low or law mcome tenants. G~~ Y °~ page 2 Th~s re~resents a substantEal loss of affordability of a farge portion ofi the rental housing stock and threatens the economic d~~ersity of Santa Moniea. Thrs averndfng concern compels some af the fqilowEng recommenda#io~s. The Rent Control Board supports d~rect~ng the limited fiscal resources of the G~ity to supporting the rehabihtatian andlar deve~opment of deed- restracted hous~ng for very ~ery low, ~ery low, and low ir~come peapfe The Board bef~eves rt is ~nappropnate at th~s t~me to direct scarce resources of the City towards the praduct~on of housEng affardab~e ta , moderate mcome people. A substantial supply of contralled rental unEts ~.w~ll be affordable to moderate incame people. 2 The Rent Cantrol Board recamme~ds tF~at the C~ty use s~xty percent of the revenues recei~ed fram the Earthq~a~Ce Recavery Rede~elopmen# Area ta fund tE~e ret~ab~lrtation or development of deed-res#ricted affordable haus~r~g {Program 3.a, Program Background) IN L1EU FEES The Ren# Control Board does no# support the recommendation in Program 2 a which calls ior an expans~on of the m lieu fee opt~on in the City's Inclus~onary Housing Program The Rent Gontrol Board supports continuation of #he ~nsite requ~rement in OrdFnance ~615. The Ren# Gontrol Board is very support~ve of #he concept of economic integration tha# is furthered by providing a~ange of affordable units on the same praperty In add~tion, the Board is concerned t~at there has not been suff~c~ent opportun~ty to evaluate the workability of the present ar~site requrrement due to the substantial ec~nomic downturr~ which occurred saon after the ons~te requfrement was fmplemented by the City. Recognizing, however, that there are circumstances under which in IEeu fees are apAropriate under the current City ardinance, the Rent Control Board sup~orts a review of the appropr~ateness of the current m I~eu fea calcu{ation. Qunng tF~e Board's discussion concern was expressed regarcling whether the City's cuRent in ~ieu fee is sufficient to actuafly fund the prod~ct~on af the deed- restr~c#ed affordabie urnts (Program 2.a, Action Plana TENANT SAFETY ISSUES 4ne of the ma~e str~k~ng results of the 1995 Santa Monica apartment tenant survey was the concerns expressed by twa th~rds of the Fesponding tenants about the sec~rity af their bwldrngs and garages. The s~rvey ~Table 3, text on pages 15 through 18) indicates that a ma~onty af the responding tenants were satisffed with the quahty of maintenance in their apartment buildings. However, abo~at two th~rds of the responding tenan#s sxpressed cor~cerns about the secur~ty of therr apartment building and bu~lding garages. This concern was also expr~ssed by the ter~ants in uncantrolled apartments The concern for Page 3 perso~al safety and secur~ty reflected En the tenani survey is reinforced by anecdotal e~Edence the Board has heard over the last se~eral years. Because of these cor~cerns tt~e Board makes the follow~ng recommendat~ons. Expa~d either Prvgram 4.a ar 4.b to ir~clude a bas~c secur~ty program The Rent Control Board requests an ard~nance be adopted requiring alf properties to have bas~c secunty for md~vidual urnts, including door tacks with deadbolts, peepholes cr~ entry doors, windaw tocks on aIf first floor or otherwise accessible wcndows, and the mstallatian oi motion detector lights on the exter~or of apartmen# buildings. The concerns about ~~dividuals' sa#ety are widesp~ead within aur commur~ity and can be addressed, at least rn~t~ally, by the above program. 2 The Rent Control Board in tfi~e next several manths wil! be consrdering #he parameters of a program io address mqre ma~or security issues at indi~idual bu~idmgs, ~ncluding the rnstalfation of garage sec~rity gates, ~ntarcom systems, ar~d acldit9or~al fertees where appropr~ate. The Rer~t Cor~trol Board will seek to develop a pragram which fairly allocates the costs #or the installation of such secunty meas~res. 3 The Board requests that Program 7.a, pro~iding a residential neighborhood safety program, inclcrde consideration of ~ncreased police presence in the aileys and streets of the residential neighborhoods. Because th~s ~ssue is of such concern to the Rent Control Board, we request that the Rer~t Con#rol Baard be added as a responsible di~ision to thrs program. HOUSING COMMISSION PRELIMINARy ~ECQAIIMENDATIONS SECTIdN 8 AND 2nd UNfTS (N R-1 The Board su~ports, with certam modifications, two programs put forward by tha Housmg Cornmissao~ ~n the~r preliminary discussions. [The revisions to Pragram 3.a recommending a package of new incenti~es far landlords ta provide affardable housing was not available to or discussed by ihe Rent Gontrol Board ] Recogrnz~ng #he potential ne~ative effects on the HUD Sectron 8 Program due to ~mplementat~on o€ vacancy decontrol/recontrol, the Rent Control Board supports the Hausing Commission's program for devetoping a strategy to address tF~reats to the HU~ Section 8 Rental Subsidy Program. With the impending loss of affordability of #he controlled rental haus~ng stock, Section 8 is an important way of cont~numg to ma~nta~n housEng that ~s affotdabls to very low ~ncome peapfe, ar~d addi#ional resources need ta be devoted ta continuing to pro~Ede this housing in San#a Monica A#~er d~scussion of the Haus~ng Camm~ss~an's recommendatioR for Program 1.a regarding second units in the R-1 district, the Rent Control Board supports the Housing Commission's posit~or~ ~n pr~nc~ple, but ~roposes the foflawing shghtly dEfferent fanguage as an acfd~#~on to Program 1.a.: "As a means of provid~~g additional si#es fior housing, liberai~ze the current de~elopment standards for second renta! un~ts in the R-1 dis#rict with~r~ reasonable limits." ~ARGE FAMILY UNtTS Recagnizing the substantial need for additional F~ousing for large families, the Board supports Program 2.h, specificalfy efforts to produce large deed-restricted #amily units. The Board has some cor~cerns, howe~er, when the product~on of ~arge famiEy ~rn~ts ~s at the expense of atf~er contra~Eed rental units In pr~nciple the Board supports a~y efforts that can be made to sncourage #he development of r~ew larger deed-restricted units. The Rent Control Board fully suppons the Grty's effarts in Program 4.e to explore the establishment of a lead-based paint and asbestos hazard reduction program and reqt~ests that the Rent Control Board be added as a responsib~e d~v~s~on to this program. Fcnally, because the Board Es cancerr~ed abaut the possibili#y of i~creased tenant harassmer~t with the implementation of vacancy decantrol/recontroE, #he Rent Contro{ Board asks that #he pro~is~ons and tenant protecf~ons ~ound ~n Ord~nances 1822 and 1859 be inctuded in the City Charter, so that tenants are assured of these protections in the #uture. The abo~e comments reflect the Rent Control Board's cancems with same specific pragrams and pro~isians of #he draft Housmg Element. The Baard tr~ed to focus on items of particular concem to the affordable housmg ~r~terests that rent contral was desrg~ed to protect We hope these comments are of heip in shap~ng this ~mporta~t pu#ahc planning doc~ment. Thank yvu for your cons~deration af these ideas. Sincer fy, i ~ y J on Gha~rperson, on behalf of the Santa Monica Rent Control Board Commissianers Bruria F~nkel Lacy Goode Dolores Press Daug Willis Attachment cc Santa Mon~ca City Gouncil Santa Monica Hous~ng Commiss~oners ATTAC~IlVIENT A Program ~.a: Assess and Re~ise, Where Appropriate, City Regulatory Requirements Program Background: Continued monitoring and refinement of the City's de~elopment standards and pr~ocedures are important to minunizing the cost of development while maintaining the quality of residential projects. I998 2003 Action Plan: Periodically review and, where necessary, revise planning, zoning and development regulations, assessments, and fees to ensure that they support de~elo~ment of a variety of housing types and prices. Th~ following spectfac analyseslrevisions will be undertaken during the planning period: • Evaluate modifying the review procedures for condominiums from a Gonditional Use Permit to a Deveiopment Review pernut process. • Evaluate revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to aliow modifications to parking standards (e.g., roundin~ down for half spaces and eliminat~on of guest parking requ~rement) to facilitate construction of allowable density bonus u~uts {see Program 2.b). ~ To the extent feasible, re~ise income definitions contained within Ci~ regulation~ to define mvderate-income as ~0 - 80 percent o the Counry median income. • Assess the feasibility of modifying off-site infrastructure improvement requirements to reduce housing development costs. • Evaluate potential modif cativns to the Inclusivnary Housing Program (refer to Program 2.a). = As a: means of providing adc~ti4~.~i~ ~-~~ ' P = ~he:~urr~en~ development star~~~~s-~r ~' ~ °" '~~ ~ ~he-R-1 distr~ct with~n r~asc3na~l~-~~mi~. , . ~ , Responsible Division: City Plannin~ Division; Environmental and Public Works Management Deparui~ent; City Attorney's Office. Program 2.a: Maintain an Inclusionary Housing Program Program Background: Adopted in 199(}, Pro~osition R requires that 30 percent af all rnulti-family residential housing new~y constivcted in the Ci be permanently affordable to and occu ied by low (60 percent o~County median uicome) and moderate {~100percent of County median income) income households. Of the affordable units, at least half must be affordab~e to low income households. In 1992, the Ci adopted the Inclusionary Housing Program {Ordinance ~61~} to implement Proposition R. The un~lementation ordinance requires pro~ects of 2U vr more units to prov~de the inclusionary unit~ on-sXte_ However, under certain circumstances, projects of six ar fewer units may pay an inclusionary fee in lieu of providing any uruts on-site, while pro~ects of between 7 and 19 units may pay the inclusionary fee instead of prvvidin~ the required low income units on-site, but the required moderate ~ncvme units rnust be provided on-site. As part of this Draft Element, an in-depth analysis of the effects of the City' s Inclusionary Housin~ Program on housing production was conducted, summanzed in Section ~II.B of the Draft Element. The following 1998-2Q03 Actian Plan considers various revisions to the Implemen~ing Ordinance based on the results of this analysis. 1998-20D3 Aetion Plan: By FY I9981 ~ 999, propose amendments to the City's Inclusionary Housfng Program (Ordinance 1615) which hel~ support housing product~on, whlle comp1ying with Propos~nan R. Potentiai ehanges may include the foliowing: R.~V~`' ~1V~'~~ ~~~ ~~ .N~T ~~,P~D.R~` r.~ ~r ~L_ ~_ r.. _.: s~ti ~ A.+A}1[~L71V11 Vl k,ll-+ lll-11VLL 11rL V~JElVll lii {rVli~Lili{rL1V11 -'Y141! at.. ~:~.~_ __~L_~.... _ ~a__ w~ _y_ ~fw i___ ili~+llr[Wl~l~ ~114 \..1L'f J ai1WlVii<~' 41111N1 1-11ilVl~+ JT ,a7~r\r . ~ Zoning incentrves in exchange for the construction of 30 % affordable units on-site; The ability to satisfy the inclusionary obligation by meeting the requirements of Sta.te densrt}~ bonus law; The ability to satisfy the inclusionary obligation by compl~ring with the requuements of taJt exempt bond ftnancing; ,~'~~~~~'` .R~~~~~ - A revised in-lieu fee ealculation; A revised lugher thresho~d for when all affordable uni~.s must be provided on site (re~~sion to the current threshold of 20 units); and ~` ~~1~`R~~ ~~R~ S~'~~~ ~~~~~~ - Eliminating the option for satisfying the inctusionary obli ation by providing all moderate ~evme units at 100~e of the Counry median famil income (MFn, or replacing it with an option to satisfyy the inclusionary obligation by providing ~00°l0 of wrnts deed-restncted for households eaming less than $0 % of the County MFI. Responsible Division: Housing Divi~ion; City Planning Division; City Housing Authority. Program 3.a: De~elop a Costa-Hawkins Mitigation Progiram Program Backg rau~zd: Citizens of Santa Monica adopted the rent control law in 1979. The charter amendment establisfied an e~ected Rent Control Board to regulate rental units in the City and ensure that rents will not be increased unreasonably . Adc~pt~on of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in the Fall of 1~95 by the State Legisla#ure, however, initiated vacancy de-control in the C~ty. Beguuung m January 1999, after a three-year phase-in ~riod, th~ new law wi~l require vacancy de-control/recontrol in apa~-~Yents, and complete de-control of houses and candaminiums. Sanra Moruca has approximately 30,000 rent-controlled units. In Septer~~er 1995, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board adopted rules permrt~ing early impiementation (Dctober 1995) of the Costa- Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Within the first eight months, over 3,000 units have a~ready app~ied for vacancy de-cvntrol. The effect of this new law on hous~ng affordability has been studied extensively as part of this Draft Element. By 2003, betw~n one-half an~i tbxee- quarfers of the 1995 rent-contralled stock in Santa Manica is projected to be ~acancy de-controlled. With t'~e Costa-Hawkins Aet, medxan controlled rent is pro eeted to increase by 11 percen~ by 1999, and by 28 pereent by ~003. Funding sources may include redevelopment sec-aside funds, Multi-Family Earthquake Repair Loan (MERL) program funds, TORCA fur~ds, and Pico Neighborhood Trust Fund. I998-2403 Action Plan: De~elop a comprehensive strategy to address the effects of the Costa-Hawltins Rental Housing Act on housing affordability. Investigate the feasibility of the following mix of programs: - a City-wide acquisition and/or rehabilitadon program that provides fi~nding in exchange for the dedicat~on of deed-restricted uni~s; - expansion of the City's multi-family acquisit~on and rehabilitation program; - a loan program that provides below-market rates to finance new construction in exehange for the dedication of deed-restricted uni~s; and - a program to p~~~~~it the conversion of rental units t.o ownership umts in exchange for permanently deed- restricted rental units. Responsible Division: Housing Division {lead); Rent Control Board. Program 3.c: Maintain a Tenant Evic#ion Protection Program Pmgrana Background: The Rent Control Law Charter Ameadment lunits the grounds on which a tenant may be evicted to "just cause." The grounds for eviction include: (1) occupancy by the owner or his/!~er unmediate family; (2} demolition or cnn~ersion of the pro~erry after obtaining a removal p~~uiit from the Board; (3) failure to pay rent; and (4} r~fusal by the tEnant to provide reasonabte access for necessary repairs and improvements. Tenants can also be evicted when the owner seeks to withdraw the entire property from the rentai housing market pursuant to the Ellis Act. Certa~n of these e~ictions entitle the tenant to receive reloeation assistance from the tenant's landlord. Additianally, Iower income, Ellis Act displacees are gi~en priority €or Section S and housing voucher prvgrams. The City has also long maintain~d housing anti-discrimination protections, which among other prolubitions, prevents a tenant from being evicted if the tenant has married or had children, thereby increasing the number of occupants in the tenant's unit. 4 Ordinance No. 1822 adopted by the City Cvuncil in 1995 also prohibits evictions because a tenant has established a domestic partnership. Ord2nan~e No. 1859, adQpted by the City Council 2n ~ 996, prohibits specified forms of conduct by a landlord if done maliciously. These include: (a} reducing housing services; {b} reducing maintenance; {c) failing to perform re~airs and exercise due dili~enee in completing repairs; and (d) seek~ng to t~~ ~iiina~e a tenancy m bad faith. I998-2003 Actian Plan: Continue to pre~ent unlawful e~ictions tilrough enforeement of "~ust cause" eviction proteetions. Continue ta pro~ide priority for Secdon 8 or housing voucher assistance fa Iower income, Ellis Act disp~acees. Continue to fund legal aid organization(s} which provide tenant education and representation regarding la.ndlord/tenant disputes. Responsible Division: City Attorney's Office; Rent Controt Agency; Housing Di~ision; Human Services Division. Program 4.b. Maintain a Low Income Residential Repair Program Program Back round: Since 1985, the City has uti~ized approxiumately ~3U0,000 per year in €ederal Community L~evelopment Biock Grant (CDBG) Program funds to subs~dize ntunor rehabilication work for ~ow-income homeowners ar~d tenants, predominan~ly in the Pico Neighborhood. During 1995, the City commissioned an evaluation of this program to assess whether it was meeting the chan~ing needs of the cortununity. Basad upon this evalua~on, the C~ry will be modifying the program to pnontize specific identified needs. 1998 2003 Action Plan: • Implement a modified residential repair .pro~ram for low income households which establishes prior~ties for needs identified in the prograrn evaluarion. Responsible Division: Housing Division; Rent Contral Agency; 5anta Monica Housing Authonty. P~~m ~eb.l: Basic Security Program ~ e instatlativn of deadbolts, peegh~~~s in.e~.d~, ~i~v~ ~~c~and °.motifln detector Iights on buildin~ ~~tenv~. Pr,cgram 4.e: Explore Es~ablishing a Lead-Based Paint and Asbestos H~zards Reduc#ion Program Program Background: ~ver 90 percent of the housing units in Santa Monica were bu~lt before 1978, when the use of lead-based paint was still pennitted. Health hazards are greatest among those uruts with potential lead-based ~aint that are oceupied by 1ow and moderate income households wrth cluldrEn age six and under. Effective Qctober 28, 1995, all residential buildings constructed before 1978 became sub'ect to new disclosure and record-keeping rules under the Federal ~esidential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reducrion Act. The new rules require all Ieases and purchase agreements for pre-197$ resident~al buildings ~o conta~n a new, statutorily prescnbed disclosure faru~. A special pamphlet expiaining the hazards of lead paint published by the EnwironmEntal Protection A~ency (EPA) and HUD must be delivered to the tenant or purchaser ~n every such transaction. Similarly, new federal re~ulations, effectrve October 1, 1995, presumes that all residential buiIdings built b~fore 1981 contaln asbestos until proven otherwise . Building owners or managers must notify aIl occupants of the presence ar presumed presence of asbestos. 1998-21I03 Action Plan: Explore the feasibility of establishing an educational program and potential other assistance to address the abatement and removal of lead-based paint citywide. Res~onsible l3ivision: Housing Di~ision {lead); Builcling and Safety Division; Environmental and Public Works Management; ~ Co~rol :$oard. Program 7.a: Provide a Residential Neighborhovd Safety Program Prngram Background: The C~ty offers a range of residential safety programs, including the following: Residential Security Survey Program - provides assessmen~s of home secur~ty and offers suggest~ons on how ta make impro~ements. (Police Depai=u~~ent) 6 • Operation ~dentification - encourages residents to engrave valuable items with an ID number to assist in the recovery of stolen property. (Police Depau ~~~ent) ~ Neighborhood Watch Groups- provides annual grants to the Neighborhood Support Center (NSC} to provide technical assistance in de~elopin~ Neighborhood Watch groups. (Human Services Di~rsion} • Community Forums - eonducts neighborhood and community forums on ublic safety issues and linkages with the Santa Monica ~olice Dep~ u~~ent. (Police Department} • Crime prevention and community relations progxams as we11 as edueational materials for residents. (Police Departmen#) l99$ 2003 Action Plan: • Continue to offer a range of neighborhood safety programs through the Police Department. Through a coordinated effort between the Police Dep~ l.~~ent and Housing Division, offer free home security surveys and provide subsidies to low income households to imp rove household securiry against crime (see Program 4.b). Responsible Division: Police De~ partment (~ead); Human Services Division; Housing Division; Rent ~i ~~d Attachment D ~Letter dated 212819i from the Arts Commissian to the Planning Commission Regarding Recommended Changes to the Oraft Element) c.1~ ~`7 Q~ ~ 310~458 8350 Fax 310•"917 654I Ronn Davis Jazlu~' 28, 1997 Matt Kramer Chns DeCazlo Hamette McCauley RoEnn Faullc Members of the Santa Momca P1aFUUng CarnmYSSion Jor e Pardo s ~ce Fe11oWS Ne~l Goldberg 1685 Mam Street Lawrence Shap~ro 5heilaGoEdberg Santa Momca CA 9a401 Annette S~mons , . 3ohanne Todd RE Encouragement of Affordable Art~st Lme/Work 5pace Dear Feilo~v Commissioners, At our meetang on January 27, the Santa Mo~ca Arts Commission voted that I sho~d wx~te a letter on behalf of the ent~re bod~~ expressmg aur concem abeut the lack of affordable spaces for arnsts who live and work in Santa Momca H~stoncally; Santa Momca has been the home of man}~ of America's finest and most excit~ng art~sts These art~sts began the~r careers m the formerly abundant cheap stud~a spaces found tt~roughout Santa Mamca As they gre« m proaunence, they moved to mare eacpenst~•e spaces u~htle attractu~g a l~ew of art gallerFes, art consultauts, ac~d nonprotit arts orgamzarions As a resulk Santa Momca becarrie kr~ow~ as "Art Citc~'' ar~d an artist~c enr-uanment developed w}uch grea~ly enhanced aur qual~ty of life In the past few L ears, rt has become ~creasingl~~ more d~fficult for an artist to kve and work ~n our City because of ns~ng housmg costs and the ~ecl;nuig availabihty of affordable «~rk space '~he 5anta Momca Arts Caciurussion is commrtted to mamta~ung the d~~~ersity of arhsts presend}~ found m the Crty Tlus blend of new, emergEng, and establ~shed artists is umque to Santa Monica and should be preserred as one of the Crtv'S IriOSt 1ri1}]OFta[lt G~kttF~ assets With these thoughts in mind the Arts Cammissian respectfully rec~uests that the PIannuig Commission ~nclude affordable artist l~ve/~ork space as a ne~~ category In the housmg object~r•e and goals m the policies and program sechon of the new Hous~ng Element draft Specifically, tlus ner.v category could be included on page V-2 of the Hous~ng Element Update In ad~t~on. ~}e also request that the Plamm~g Commussion an~eshgate way-s to develop addit~onal affordable live/work space for artists On behalf of the Santa Monica Arts Commisslon, tt~anic you for your cozis~deration of th~s matter We ~~eIcome your thaughts and suggesrions on tlus ~ssue and hope ~~e can «ork together to find answers to tlus maportant problem Sincerely, Laurence apiro Santa Momca Arts Comrrx~ss~on CC Members of the Santa Monica Citv Council At#achment E (Letters from the Public Regarding the Draft Elemen#j tpli~y ~ ~ir'A~~±~ ~'F~~~y1;, A Li~~ f ~~~t[t :~'y~ J ~ ~t~#~~ CaMMUNITY C~RPORAT[ON o~S~V-T-~p~ N1CA 1423 SECOND STREET. Sf11TE B, SANTA MONfCA, CA 4040i (310) 394$48T' ~~ 395-433b 3i3/97 T~ C~ry Council Members Plannu~g Cammissioners Housing Commiss~oners Rent Control Bvard Members CC C~ty Hous-ng Staff ~~/~ ~~ C,ty Plannmg Staff ^ ~L~.~.--.•~~ ~ r ~-~t~ ~ Ciry ~ent Contral5taff FROM CCSM's Board of D~rectors ~'~5 !~ RE COA~IIVIENTS ON TH£ 1998-2003 DRAFT H4 SIN LEMENT UPDATE In the past two mn~tths, members af both CCSM's board of duectors and staffhave been d~scussmg the ~ssues related to the Draft Housmg Element Update w~th ~arious city offic~als and community representat~ves We fnd the Draf~ document and its technical appendZx ta be thorough and thoughtfui, and commend C-ty staff for a~ob well done At~er discussions at two monthly board meet~~gs and vanous committee meetu~gs, we are pleased to provide you for your considerat~on the follow~ng comFnents On-sita Inclusianarv Units Although these unFts repres.,nt a ma~or affordahle hQUS~ng reso~rce m the Ciry, ~t ~s hard to enforce the on- s~te ~ncome ca~npliance requ~remant In order to ensure the units' availab~iity to sax~eted beneficianes, we recommend that the City conduct initial co~fir~nation and annuat certification of tenants' hausehold mcome, mcludmg seff-declarat~on and independent City verificat~on from mcome sources As rent-controlled rentt ~ncrease due to Costa-Hawkins and surpass rental subsidies pravided hy the federal governmer~t, it ~s adv~sable for the C~ty to regu~re ~ncIusionary umts to be set aside for Sect~an $ tenants 2. In-lieu Fees Currently, the C~t;~ aliows resident~al deveiopers to pay m-lieu fees under certauz cand~t~ons We su~crogly urge the Ctry td cons~der t~e fi~ll cost af substdtif~ng ~ow-ss-come affordable umts jn-lseu fees -~n partnership with other housmg resources the Czty might contr~bute - must be reaiistic about costs wlt~Ie being sensrtive to the burden on develapers A d~scussion about ~n-lieu fees must start by ciear~ng up the misconception about the cost of af€ordable housmg After rev~ew~ng the Ham~lton, Rabmavitz and Alschuler, Inc studies, we have come to the conclusion that after ad~ustmg for apples and oranges, the de~elopment cost of an apamnent buildmg ~s s~milar whether rt ~s built by a for-proFt or nvn-profit de~eloper After includ~ng the requu'ed developer prafit, the per unit cost af a for-profit apart~nent development is sltghtly h~gher than a comparable unrt developed by a non-profit de~eloper charAmg a re~mbursement-based fee Also, after ad~usting for the EIousu~g Element Corr~ments 3/3/97 Page 2 prevailing wage cansuuct~on prov~sion as requ~red hy City fundmg, the cons~uction cost as shown by recent non-profit pra~ects a~proaches that of the for-profir pro~ects An analys~s of the cost of rental subs~dy ~+s the capital subs~dy necessary to del~ver a low-mcome affordable unrt over the long term shows that rt ~s more cost effectrve for the C~ty to provide the caprta[ contr~button In fact, over a 55-year penod which is the typical affordab~Iity restrict~an, the present value of providing an equ~~alent amouni af rental subsidy could be two to three tunes that af buymg down tt~e affordabzl~ty through an one-t~me capital subsidy up front Current m-Leu fees of aQproxux~ately 553,000 per low-mcome unrt are not ade4uate to cover the subs~dy necessary The ma~onty of the un~ts m a 1 DO% affardable bu~ldang are 3-bedroom umts to address the Cjry's need for large family untts It costs approxunately $1 SO,q00 to ~20~,000 per unst to b~ild an affordable unit The range is pnmartly due to the dsfference ~n land and financ~ng casts Charg~ng rents rang~ng from ~»G to $6Q0, a deveioper can br-ng ~n a~p~ oximately $14G,GC0 ir auts;ue capttal contribut~ons from banks, phclanthropic and taac credjt tnveshnents, Ieavmg roughly about ~80-100,000 per un~t of gap financmg Assvrn~ng a 30°/a mc4usfonary reqnuement of wt~ict~ one-half of the mclussonary units are ~ow-mcome and the other half moderate-tncome and assuming that che moderate-income umu are provsded on stie and the low-~ncome units by m-lieu fees, the law-mcome unit in-lteu fees wauId have to be about $21,Sa0 per market rate unit (e g 3 un~ts out of 20 uniu or 1 S% must be Iow-income and the other I S% moderate units bu~lt on-sue, assuming a$304,4U0 subs~dy for the three low-mcome units spread over i4 units = appmx~mately $21,500 per market rate un~t in-Eieu fee ) Whether such a fee le~e! would deter market rate devetopment depends o~ the strength of the real estate rriarket Today, not many units would be huilt eveR ~f the m-lieu fee were elun~ated In the highest of the 1980s market, the fuIl ~n-lteu fee as calculated here could be absorbed it may be prudent for the City to set an m-I~eu fee range mdexed to economic and real estate market cor~dit~or~s so that Ctty staff can estabIish the fee level e~ery year Furthermnre, the Ciry may elect to accampl~sh the 3Q°/a mclusionary housmg goal, one half of which ~s for low-tncome, by comb-nu~g the inclusionary m-lieu fee re~enues with other City haus~ng funds 3. Alternahve to In-~ieu Fees In addinon to settmg an ~-Leu fee, we propose for your consideration a land dedication optton as an alternahve for developers Under th~s option, a de~eloper can deliver to [he C~ty at the tune of bu~ldmg permit or certjficate of occupancy vacant land adequately zaned for the nurtsber of low-~ncome un~ts requued by his market-rate devetopment It could fuither stipulate that the land must be located withm one-half m~le of the deve~opment stte and be free of env~ronmental contaminat~on, restr~ctrve easements and other obstacles to de~elopment ~'or example, a deveioper with a 40 unrt pro~ect has 61ow-mcome inclusionary untu to pro~ide A standard 7,500 s f R-3 lot at an allowabte densFty of 1,250 s f per unit would yield 6~.u-~ts He purchases the iot for $300,004 to satisfy the low-mcome Lnclus~onary ree}utrement H~s cost would be abaut $10,700 per market un~t (S300,000 for six low-mcome uniu d~vided by 28 market rate un~ts } The City can then deed the land to another developer - preferably a non-profit oae whose by-laws specify an on-going a+.'fordable hausing m~ssion - co bui~d on the site usmg a 50% densxty banus Bas~caily, the state and local bonuses lerrerage addit~onal benefits, reduce the land cost and thereby malce the deveEopment more cnst effective Furthermore, for-profit developers w~th equity can p~ek up vacant or under-used lots cheaper as they can close escrow sooner In our exper~ence, it ta[ces about five to s~x Housmg Element Comments 3/3/97 Page 3 months from the tune of fuRding apphcatwn for the City to release fiznds for acqu~s~tion The long lead tune generally mcreases purchase cost and reduces the success rate of clos~ng a deai The Cny would provide gap financmg to the extent thac the free land fa21s to make up the d~fference Vtiie esnmate that another $40-50,000 Per unit m~ght be ~eeded Public pol~cy ~s ser~ed because the exita City contributron would further ~ncrease affordabilcty from 60°10 of inedian income as regu~red under the inclus~onary housmg low-u~come umts to as m~ch as 30-40% of inedian To ihe extent that small market-rate pro~ects would nvt be able to use up the law-mcome unit land bank on one srte, the City would set ~p a swap provis~on where de~elopers with extra land un~ts could sell them to another developer needing umts 4. Zoning Ordenance In 1992, the City passed the A~fordabie Hous~ng Ordulance providing a densrty bonus, he~ght and park~ng concessFOns to builders of 100% affordable pro~ects Since then, the most severe design constraint to de~eloping housing contu-ues to be the parkzng requuement Meanwhile, our expenence taught us that our bmldu~gs wrth reduced park~ng can#~nue to pravide more spaces ~an are necessary for aur res~dents We recommend that the Csty amend ttie Ordmance to pro~~de for parktng requuements cons~stent w~th L A City's new affordable housmg ord~nance, mcludtng one space per unit w~thout guest parkmg Further relaxation of the aeneral xoning code may nat help afforc~able housu~g der+elopment In R-3 residenhal wnes, any ~ncrease m the anderly~ng zo~~ng cambined with the Affordable Hous~ng Ordmance may allow fos a bu~Idu~g enve~ope that ~s substantial~y aut-af-scale with tt-e sest of the ne~gl~bashood L R-2 resdient~al zones, there ~nay be an opportunity ta upwne wtthout negat~vely affecting the netghborhood Howe~er, to the extent that zoning ~s mcreased, it would meat~ h~gher land pr~ces necessitat~g more City subsidy for afforda~[e housmg We encourage City staff to review ~n detail the effects of relax~ng zonu~g jn res~dennal areas on affordable hausuig development and nei$hborhaods We would aiso encourage further co~s~derahon of allowmg residential deaelopment ~n ~ndustrEal and cammerc~al zones T7~e larger pool of appropnately zoned available land, the more opportunities for affnrdable hous~ng 5 Land Baoking In Santa Mon~ca, the ma~or challenge to deveioputg affordable houstng ~s the avauiab~l~ty af land with appropnate zomng ancf at reasonable cost The situation wilt be exacerbated as the markei vnproves We have ample ev~dence that prices are mcreasfng and ava-labil~ty is decreas~g The next year or two represents a d~m~nshing opportunrty fvr the Crty to bay as much land as poss~bie to provide for the affordable housmg production pipelme We recommend that the City a,gressively pursue acquisltions, streamime its fundu~g process, reduce its fundmg tuneline and take some add~ttonal risks regarding cvrrent pro~ect feasibtLty If the Cit~ daes noc w~sh to d~rectly own and hold propemes, ~t can fund non-profits w~th by-~aws restr~cred to an affordable ~austng misston to acquue and hold vacartt or under-used land for future development CCSI~i sincerely believes that the C~ty has a Eunited wmdow of opportun~ty teft to take advantage of the adverse market cor-dittans tl~at began m i 990 V~/e stand ready to d~scuss the detati4s of our policy and strateg~c proposats w~th you, ar~d are ready to cooperate and dehver at~ardable hous~ng as or~e of the C~ty's partners temp l ~~ LA~REN~E & ~ARDING A PqOR~b~iONAL GOI~r07~ATIQN ATTQRMEYS AT LAW CMRIlTOrM;R M MAROIFFG R~CMAIID A LAWRLNCi K[NNCTM 4 KVTCMCR FL(VIN V It02AL January 28, 1997 ~240 ~IXTM 'dTRtCT su~rc ~oo sA/1TA MON~CR. GLIFOpNIA 90{OI-16Q2 TCL[-FtOM; [3~0) ]Y7-1007 FAC8lMil~ q101 4Sa-1444 WqITCR'S DIAECT OIAL ;aioy ssi-s~~t Santa Moni.ca Planning Commission ~b85 Ptain Str~et Santa Manica, CA 90401 Re: Public Review Draft of the Housing Element Our File No. 539.30 Dear Cos~iesianer~: Thi~ letter is beinq fi~ed to aupplsment the aamments we pr~vioualy su~nitted an behalf of the Santa Manica Housinq Councii, C~tlitornia Hausinq Cvunail a~nd Rabert S~l~.iva3~ (c~i].a~t~ve].y "8~C"~. T~e €irat section of thia lette~ ~ista BMHC's working a8gtvptiona. ~hich are based largely upan ciat$~ conta~ned i.n the Publia RevieW Dsa~t. This letter thon pr~eads to reca~omend speciFic proqrans for incorporation into the Housinq E~~sent.' I. WORRING 1~SSOMFTIONS: Below we have specified the warking aasumgtians that underlie SMHC's recan~endatiflns concerning praqra~e w~~ch should be incarpvrated ~nto the Housing E~ement. 1. Califarnia~s populatfon is grr~wing a~t ~ substanti$1 pace. cvntinued suburb~n spra~r~ #~3 a linanc~~~ly and en~#ror~menta~ly irrespan~~b~~i ~ray ~~d- #~~c~ats this continued popu3atian qrovt~ti. S~~rta~-• =~i~r nv~s to absorb ite fair share of th~.s pog~t~~~~n ~owth. A ' S~4IC belxeves the Public Review I~raft does not substantially comply with California Hot~~~.ng Bl~nt ~.a~w in nu~erous ~ndamenta~ respects. aur initi~i cp~ts concerr~i~g thase ~eqal ~~suee~ were fnc~uded in t~a Appent~iic ~il~ xith aur ~etter actdrs$s~d to the p~anninq Commi~sion and ~:~ing Com~i,ssian dated Januax~- 8, ~997. SMfiC is continuing tv ~bView the Pub~ic Review Draft for compliance with California Hous~ng El~ment Iaw, and has retained a cansuitant to assist with this ef~art. We anticipate submitting additianal comments to the C~ty concerning the Public Review Draft's lack of compliance with California Housinq Element Law in mid-February, 1997. LAWRENCE & HARD~NG A -wo-'c3lloNwt coNAOw~7~oH ATTQqNEY3 AT LAW Santa MQnica PZanning Commission January 28, 1997 Page 2 housing production growth rate (neta of approximately 3~ to b~ during the Z998-2043 planning period is necessary and appropra.ate far Santa Monica to meet its reqional and State housing responsibil.ities. 2. The City's historic rate af housing productian (i.e., 126 net new c~nits annually €rom 198Q ta ~395) is substantial~y lower than the City's quantified vbjective during this period (i.~., 236-500 net new units annually). Absent meaningful regulatory re~arms, the City wi11 not meet its quantified ~bje~tives ior housing production, 3. In the ~990's, market conditians have made ft very diffioult to produce new hottsing i.n Santa ~ion~ca independent af anp requlatory constra~nts, and these market canditions are anticipated to remain relatively constant in the foreseeable future. 4. The ~-egulatory constrain~~ cu~rrently in place ~ka it substar~tial~~ more di~~icult to cnnstruct ~ousfng at the ~nresent ti~e than did the Legu~at#.ons whfeh Were in pl.az1 during th~ mid-198a's. 5. The Costa-Hawl~ins Act, which beginning i~ 1999 r~rill al~ow ful~ vac~ncy decontral/recontroZ, larqely e~iminates the artificial pressur~ to recycla existinq rental units with new housing as a~~s o~ ~scapinq rent control. 5. The Costa-Hawkins Act undermines rent contro2. as ~ ieng-term means of pro~iding housinq a~ft~s~i~hle to ~c~+w income households in Santa rtonica. Bs~,tsa of the Costa-Hawkins Aet, Santa Monica;s Iornj-t~ s~rategy with respect to the supply o~ n~~orc~abl~ ~sts'-y ~ust shift towards the praduction' of ds+d-r~~~~€:t~d housing. such deed-restricted housinq ca~rrb~ aChirrved through either new construction or rehabil~.~ation af existing units. 7. A~ a matter of poliey, deed-restricted hausing urhich is Qperated by non-profit orqanizat~ans pursuinq their mission to pravide affordabie hausing is qenerally preferable to on-site affordabie units constructed in LAW~ENGE & HARDING A -ROf[SSION/~L FOI~rOAATtON A.TTOANCY9 AT LAW Santa Monica Planninq Commissa.on January 28~ 1997 Page 3 privately deve~oped, for-prafit (i.e., esserttially ma~ket rate) projects. 8. Santa Monica's current multi-family housing stock i.s aq~.nq. Thus, independent of concerns abaut ho~siag productioa and affordability, there is a need for a modest rate of reoyclinq in Santa Monica's multi-family housinq districts. The existinq housing cannot al~. be rehabilftated and preserved, at Ieast in the long-term. 9. Private ma~-ket-rate hausinq production is an important component in any viable housinq strategy for Santa ~anica. The City ngeds to ensure that the combined effects of 5anta Monica's market and reguiatory conditions dv not rer~der isarket-rats hou~ing proc3uction qeneral2y ~nfeasib3.e, la. Meaninqful regulatory reform wiil re~u2t fn qareater housing production than would otherwise occur without scuch reform. Note: Purauat~t to the dsffnition of constrainta utilized in the Pub~,ic Revie~ Draft, this me~-ns that at least svma Gity rsgulatiens constitute ''actual constrai~ts," a point t~at ahould candidly be ~aflectQd in the Public Re~f.eW Draf~. ~1. The City'~ cturrent Inclusionr~xy Hausir~g Program requires an-site affordabls un~.t~ to l~a estr~bli8hed ~rithi.n near~y every ~arket-rate p~~~ct. ~n ~his nannsr, the Ynclusionary Housit~ ~-~sg~a~~ con~~itu~s a majar canetraint on th~ p~#~- af add~tiana~ houeinq in 9anta Mvnica. ].2. Santa ~tanica 3s in a positian to r~~a~n t~ ph~ical development standards qoverning n~ sul~i-€a~ily housinq to accommadate adda~tia~a]. hou~ir~ productian whi~a ensuring that such new ht~us~ing is oo~patib}.e with xts surroundings. 13. If one were to assu~e that regulatory and market conditions wili atherwise ~ake future m~lti-family hausing production viable~ the Eliis Act p~c~vvides a practical method for recycling existinq rental hausing into new condominiums. Neither the Ellis Act nor the Rent Control Law, however, provides a viablE method for LAWRENCE & HARDING A pROR[aS10NAL GORPORATION ATTORNCYS AT LAW Santa Monica Pianning Cornmission January 28, 1997 Page 4 the recycling of existinq rental ho~sing into new rental housing. 14. Santa Monica n4w has the_lowast percentage of awner- accupied hausinq o€ all cities in Los Ax~geles County, and the ownership oppartunities that exist typical]~y invvlve very expensive single family hames and candomin~.ums. Affordable home-ownership opportunitzes ~or mvderate and middle inco~ne households are very limited. II. SlIIfC's RECQMM~~NDED P~20GRAMS : Hased upon these working assumptions, ~1-~C sub~its the ro~lawinq Housing Element program recoatmendations for your cansiderati~n. A. ~~}vaical Dsvelavnaent Standards. The City shall review its existinq physfcal deve~opment standards far new mv~Iti-family hausinq prajects in its multi-family housinq zoning distr~ats and make modi€~cations directed at f~cilitati.ng ~n inc~ase in net new housting production. The physic~l davelog~-ent atandards to be revie~red sha1~ inciuda, afthout lima~tatian. hea~qht limits, dansity reatrictians, rsqufred setbacks, and lat coverage ~ss~~~ict~a~~. Thi~ review s~ial~ be coapletad and ths n~asstry ao~irng moc~i~ications enacted no l~ter ~ha~ 30 days after adopt~on of this Housing Element Updat~. B. Farlcfnc~ Recruiremer~ts . The City sha}.1 enact an ordinance to ~dily its ex~s~tinq parking requirements Eor aultf-fami~y housinq that wf~l, amonq ather thinqs, "round dflwna any fractional parking spaces and elfsi~ate al~ qusst parking requirements. These reform~ sh~ll lae di.rected at remaving unnecessary barriers to new houaing prdduction, and ensuring that the City's parking requirements do not constitute a barrier ta ~ulti- €amily housing projects, takinq full advantaqe of any available density faonuses. This ordinance shal}. be LAWRENGE & HAADING A -NO/E~310NAL CqArQ1~ATlON ATTORNEV9 AT ~Aw Santa Mon~ca Planning Cammission January 28, 1997 Paqe 5 ~ enacted no later than 30 days after adoption of this Housinq Element Update. ~ C. Inc~usionarv Housinq ~roaram. The City's Inclusionary Housinq Proqra~ shail be m~dified ta pravids that all new multi-~amily hausing prv~ects of na more than 40 units sha~l be allowed tfl pay a fee in iisu of buildinq any required affordable units an site. The in-~ieu fee schedule shall be established ~o as to nat aonstitute an impediment ta tha P~:O11Q]~1C feasibility vf such pra~ects. A7.1 mul.ti- fantily housing prajects aith five (5j ar fewer units shall be exempt fram the Inclusicnary Hou~i:eq Proqram. These revisions shall be enac~ed no lt~ter than 30 days after adoption of thiss Hous~.nq El.ement Update. D. Modifications to Densitv Honus Procfra~ for On-Site ~ffo~g nits . The City shall encaurage the on--site develap~ent of affordable housing nnfts wtthin ne~r~ulti-~amily rental hou:ing projecta by developing a package o! incentives that €acilitate at least a 25~ increase in the ~loor area that would otherwise be aklawed or ths property. Such incentives ~ay include, without li~itation, add~tional heiqht, modified setbacks, anci qreater lot coveraqe. Thfs praqra~ sh~Il, at a~eia~, a~~a~r sufficient heiqht in feet to a~ovm~nod,n~ ~e additional story in co~parison ta what irould o#.h~~eise be alfot~ed. Thes,e refanas shall. be camplet~ and the necessary zaning m~dificatione enacted no ~ater than 30 days aftar adoption of this Housinq 1~lemat~t Update. E. #tent Control Removal Permit Reform. The City shall consider modifying Seetion 18Q3(t) of the Santa Manica City Charter for ~he purpose af accommodating the reasonab~e recyc~ing of existing rental housing with ~new, non rent-controlled rental hous~ng subject to a minin~um of at least 15$ deed- restricted ~na.ts a~fordable to law income househo~ds, to be provided on site in the new prajects, Recognizing that the Ellis Act allows far the recyclinq of existinq LAWRENGE & HARDING A rROrCSS14MAl CORAORATION ATTORNCY~ AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission January 28, 1997 Page 6 rental hou~ing with new condaminiums, this program is inter~ded to allow ~or the recycling of existing rental housing with new rental hausing while ensuring that a substantial percentage af iow income units are included in the new groject. F. Review Process for Condominium Proiects. The City sha~I e~.iminate the Conditionai Use Permit ("CUP~~) requirement for a}.1 new caredog-iniwn prajects and replace it with either ~ develop~ent review permit process or a new desiqn review pro~e~sa, vhich similar~y requires Planninq Commf~sion approval (with City Council appe~Iate jurisdictian). The find~nqs for the condominium revi~w procass aha~~ toc~a aolely upan architectur~l desiqn issuesc an~d ahe12 not grc~vide the Planning commission (or City Council on appealj ~ith disc~retion with respect ta the basic physical deveiopm~nt standards qovarn~.Iiq the gx'd~ilC~i inclt~d~nq, withoe~t limitatian, height, density, or parking. These re~arma shall be comgleted ar~d the nevassary zoninq mod~fications enacted no later ~h$n 30 days after adoption ot this Housing BlemEnt Updata. G. Renewal of T'~RCA. The City shall place on th~ Nove~ar ~998 bal~ot a measure comparabXe to ths Ten~nt Dtr~~h#~ ~q~ts Charter ]~-mmndment ( *TORC~1° ~ . ~~ at~'# ~11 ba des~gned to provfde at~v~rdnb~s hoa~~~ahip ogPaY"tunftias by allow3ng ~~r t:~s ~~~on Qf existing rantal unfts to cond+~iniu~.~ o~r #nrms of ca~n interest housing. H. Per~it Procesgina Reform. The City shall ad~pt a'~streaemlininq~ ord3nance designed to ~acilitate the pro~gt prac~rsa~nq to ~inal City decision af all housing gro3ect applfc~t~ons. T. Annual Hausina Eiement Undate Camtalianae Re~ort. On an annual basis, City Planning 5taff shall prepare a wr3tten report for s~bmittal to the Housing LAWRENGE & HARDING A P~OfESS~OMAI COA-ORATION ATTORI~lCYS AY 4AW Santa Monica PZanning Commission January 28, 1997 Page 7 CommissiQn, P2anning Commission and City Council summarizing: (i) Ci~y progress with respect to implementat~on of the proqrams contained in the Hausing Element Update and (iij City progress in meeting the City's quantified goal far new housing production. The Planning Ca~mission and City Council shall conduct at Ieast one public hearxng annual~y ta discuss this report and receive public conunent. I I I. CON~~,IJS IQN . Si~IIiC respectfully req~ests the Com~ission t~ cansider the fareqoing recommendations in developing your own reco~endations concerning the Housing Element Update. Sincerely, C~„~ .~,... ~ ~. Christopher M. Hardi g of LAWRENCE & HAROING a Professianal Corporatian ~/JP~ cc: Santa Monica City eouncil John Ja~ili, City Manaqer Susan 1~cCarthy, Assistant Ci.ty Manaqer Suzanne Frick, directar o€ Pianning & Gom~unity Qeveiop~ent ~ ~via nessenger) Dean Sherex, Acting Plann~inq Manaqer (v~a messe~ger) Robert l~toncrief, Housinq Manaqer (via ~ess~ng~rj Tad Read, 3enior Administrative Analyst (via ~e~~ertger) l~iarsha Jones Mautrie, City Att~rney {via mess~x~gery Barry Kosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney ~via ~~senqer~ Mary H. StrQbel, Deputy City Attorney (vta me~senger) Mary Ann Yurkan~s, Administrator, Rent Corrtrol Soard Anthony A. Trendacosta, General Counsel, Rent Control Board Rent Contral Board Cammissioners Sant~ Monica Housing Council Board of Direetors Stephen E. Caz~Zson, Exec~tive Director~ Ca~ifornia Housinq Council s3s ~~~a.:rr-as. Lm LAWAENGE & HARDING A VROFESS~~NAL ~OAPORA710N CHRISTOP1iER M NAROiNG ~'TTORNEVS AT LA~M 1230 317(TM STREET RfGNARD A LAWqEM1«E SU~TE 300 NENN[TH L KUTCf4ER 5ANTA MOMICA, CALIFORNIA ~04D1-f602 TELEPHONE [3fOf 3~3-IOD7 ~lEV1H V tt02A1 FACSIMIL£ 1310] 4SB'~969 January 22, ~997 WHITEp'S D111ECT pIAL (3Ap) 393-1007 VIA HA~+Tn I3ELI~TEFZY Sdnta Manica P~anning Commission 1685 Main Stree~, R~om ~12 Santa Manica, California 90401 Re: Adaptian of a Program Permitting the Reasanable Development of Secand Units ~n the R~ ZonE Our File No. 13~7.2 Dear Com~i.saionera: This letter is being submitited on beha~f of David and Penny Rosman ('the Ro~~*±s•) who are currently cha~l~nging in court the legality of the City af Santa Monica's recently enacted Second [In~t Ordinan~e (~O~'d3aaace"). Thi$ le~ter, hawever, is not intended to addrese the variot~s legal deficienciee of the Ordinance. Rather, this letter disCu~sess second uniCS from a policy perspective. I . INTROL~UCT IO~T Santa Monica continues to suffer ~rorn aubstantia}. ho~s~ng prablems, especially in the area of affardable hausing. DESpite good faith efforts by the Citiy to addr~s~ th~$e pxol~le~~, th~ City has cansistenCl.y fallen shart af its rec,~ia~~ ctib~f~~tioe~F Santa Monica has a~so failed ta pravide its ehare of ~~ a~gio~-al ne~ed far affordable housing. This i~ evidenced b~ t~ ta~ ~~ ~~l~a D~onica pzcavided ornly 49. 9$ of its quan~f f~~~ gr~a-~. i€br a~~'i'orda~I.e hou~ing dur~ng 1984 -1989 .1 As further seen b~ t~ ~3.~y' e Ic~r ~. 2~ vacancy ~ate in rental housing as of 199~., ~~a~t~ ~+toni~a~ ~u~~`ers from a eigx~ificartt affordable hov.sing ~ha~tage. The implemen~ation of State Hou~~ng Law knav~m as the Costa-Hawkins ~ental Act is likely to exaeerbate Santa Manica's affordable housing prablems by reducing the supply af ~,awer-income units available in the City. Given the affoxdable hausing pr~b~ems See Table 31 of the ~993 Hous~ng ~lem~n~. 2 See City's Z993 Hausing Elecnent, at pp. 33 and 36. LAwRENGE & HARDIN~ A PROFESSiOMIy~ CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT 4/~W Santa Manica Plannzng Commission January 22, 1997 Page 2 in San~a Monica, the Citiy shouid e~cplore all op~ions~ including adoption af a reasonable second unit po].icy, in order ta address the signi~icant housing problems that coritinue to exi.st. In 1996 it appeared the City was we11 on its way tio adopting a secand unit golicy which wauld perm~.t second unit deve].opment in the R1 zone aubject to reasonabZe standards. On August 13, 1996, the City Council direct~d ita a~aff to prepare such an ordznance. Staff then prepared a draft ordinance germitt~ng second unit dev~lop~ent in the R~ zone. On 3epteml~er 11, 1996, the P1~nning Commission xeviewed the draft ordinance and voted unanimousl~- in favor of it . However, in the midst of the election sea~aon, the City CDuncil chose to reverae direction. On Sep~e~Itier 24, 1996, by a vote of four to ~hree, the Council voted to hav~e the City Attarney draft an ordinance prohibiting aecond t~nits in the R1 zone. 3aon thereafrar, ~he Council adopted auch an ordinance and th~xeby prohibited aecond units in the R1 zo~ne subjeCt to a narrow "substan~ial hardship" exemption by which only dependents and care- givexs would evax be permitted to occupy second units in the R1 zorie . It is our hope that the Pianning Commiasion recogni~es the value of a reaso-:able second uni~ policy as a~teans of effective~y addressing the shortage of a~fordable housing in this City. It is Qur further hope that the P~.anning CvmmisSion understands that ~he City Council's attempt at creat~.ng a meaningful ~econd unit policy wha.ch would reasonably permf.t ~ecand unit d~velopment has f ai],ed . we urge the Planning Co~n~.e~ion to recomfnend inclusion o€ a program in ~he H~uging Sle~x~t ~hat actually promotes the reasanable development af s~cond u~x~.ta in the Ri zone. Such a program should pe~nit oeGUp~ncy o€ the eecond units by a wide variety of usera i.nc].uding rent-paying tenan~s, not just de~~ndents and care-givera. Finally, such a program should also include reasanable standards designed to protect the pub~ic health, ~afety and welfare fro~n any det~imental impact which secand un~.ts may otherwise ha~e on ~he surrounding neighborhood. II. THE VALUE OF SECOND UNITS IN RESPONDING TO AI~T AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHORTAGE One way to address a housing sho~~age is to focus on ad~us~~ng th~ exis~ing hQUSing s~ock so as to increase the suggZy of available hou5ing. Allowing for second unit development in LAWRENGE & HARDING A PROFE$$IONAL CqRPOAATfOii ATTOANEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission January 22, 1997 Page 3 single-family zones is an increasingly favored way of doing so. By pex~ma.tting the reasonable deve~~pment of secaad units, cities efficiently utili~e avai~.able housing space in ~he commun~.ty and ~hus provide needed housing without sgending public maney to do so. Concerna of residents regarding any pvtential detrimental effecta on the single-family community can be addressed in a variety of ways which ~ocus on regulating the number, concentration, size and use of second units. A. Second Un~t Deve~o~ment Pa3iciee Are Sunnorte~ ~y A Diverse Grou~o O€ Hot~e3na Fx~erts . A diverse coa~itian of houaing organizations, advracdtes and expertis support policies which promote the da~rela~xnent of second units. State Hausing Law encouragin} second ~~ts wae enacted by legislatures control~ed by Democrats, but enjoyed strong bi-partisan support and was signed into law by R~publican governors. Second unit deve~opment palicies have a3.so encQUnter~d a great deal of support from a wide-array of exper~e an tihe national level.3 second units ~njoy such broad-based suppart because they assist in alleviating a~fordable hc.~ning ahortages without r~quiring the e._penditure of tax-payer m~zey. Thn ~os~s of second units are born y thos~ private residents who choo~e Co develap the units. Those residente are paid far their contrf~auticm to the housing stack by the individua3~ who occupy and dir~ct3y bene€it from the secor~d unita. Permitting aecond t~nite preBeriCs an effective, no-cost resganae to a probl~a~v~hich t~rpically ~squires large expenditures af public maney.~ ~ For example, see Thomas H. Kean and Thomara Lud~ow A~hl.ey, "Not In My Backyard; Removing Barriers to Af€ordab~e Housing," Report to President Buah and Seeretary Kemp by the Advisory Cammission on Regulatory Barriers to Affardable Hau~ing, Washington: 1991. 4 According to figures derzved fram the Axboretum Development Agreement Am~ndment Number 2, the typical affordable unit in San~a Monica requires a subsidy as high as $80,004. LAWRENGE & HARDYNG A PROFE$5~ONl4L COppOAA710N ATTORNEY$ AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission January 22, 199'3 Page 4 B. Perrnittina ReasonabZe Second Un~t Dev~lvpment Is Appro~riate For The Times. A f~zndamental change ~n the size of ~he modern family and hausehald ia at the core af what makes allowing second units in resa.dential zanes an efficient way of addr~saing the ~fford~ble housing shortage. The sub~tantia~. drop in the si.ze af the average household has ~ed to a correspanding rise in the surplus of available hot~sing space and a correspanding decrease in the intensity of the use o€ land parcel~s ~n single-faknily ~anes. By al~awing reasonable second uai~ develogm~nt, this surplus spacecnay be put to efficient use without damaging the original character of the surrov.nding single-famiZy neighborhood. In turn, affordable units are deve~oped and ~he exiatiag housing ehartage is in part allev~ated. " In generalf the average househaid size hae been decreasing for years. As one second uniti researeher describee it: "The most important trend affec~ing the way we uee housing today in the United States is the long-term dee].ine in average household aize. Although average household si~e has been deciining eteadily sir ~~ ].850, it fell almost twice a~ fas~ during the tw~rtieth centuxy than it did in the nineteenth century. Between 1950 and 1980, the persons per household ratio declined by an average of 8.4 percent ger dscade, cornpared to 6.8 percent between 1900 and ~95€~, and 3_ 1 percent betv~reeert 185fl and 1904. During the 1970s the ratia declined 1I.6 percent. This was the largeat percentage dxop in average household size for any decad~ in A~srican history gince population statistics have been kept." Mar~.in Gel~en, Accessorv Arsart~ents in $i,~qle--Facnilv Fiousina, published by the Center fvr [7rban Po~icy Research~ Rutgers, Th~ State University of New Jersey, p. 59. Gellen identifies var~ous reasons for the decrease: the attenuation of the nucZear family, the rise of th~ one-person hausehold and the increase in "emp~y nester" househalds. A~1 of these socia~. changes have cambined ta reduce the average household size significantly. LAWRENCE & HAADING ~ PI~OFC3alONAL CORrORAT10N ATTQRkEY9 AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commissian January 22, ~997 Page 5 The reduction in the average household size has meant that ~-any houses that at one time were bui~t for families with several children naw contain surplus space. In addition, lots initiaJ.ly intended ~o provide hausing for a given number of peopie are naw subject ta significantly less intensive use. Aa Gellen nates, "There i~ no~hing inherently bad about pevple having eurplu8 space ... Qn the contra~t, it preeents u~ with a great crpportunity to maet s~ of our hou~tng need~ by encouraging the rec~rcling of some o€ that space. By my esttmate, at leae~ 10 million and perhapa as ntany a~ 18 million eingi~- fami,ly homes~ in the United 3tates cc~r~tain s~urp3us epace and ha~e the patential for °Bo~e for~ of conver~sion. " Gell.en, p. 93 The eurp~us space created by the change in the eize of the rnodern €ami3.y household can cartainly be put to efficfent use if ownera are per~nitted to adjust their ha~ne~ and lote iz~ v~ays that al].vw them to conatruct secand units. C. A3.1Gwina For The Reasonable Develonment Of €~econd Unit~ In The Rl Zone Posea Na Threat `:'u The S~rraund3nc Sincxle- Fa~ti.l , Neicrhborhood . Adopt~.on of a palicy perm~tting the uee of second units in the RI acne woul.d pose no threat ta the ~urz~d ~i~gl~-fami~y neighborhaod. First, research i.a~~ca~e~ Ct~~~ ~~_ --~~ta c~f dev~~opment vf ~econd units in citie~ w~ich ~~ ti'~~t is rela~ively s~all. Secvnd, standardg can b~ adopt~ t~ ~ie~~e ~ny adverse ef€ects on the neighborhoad that reeiden~s ~y ~lti~~g~t~. 1. W~u3d Not Be Sa Grea~ As T+o Ad~~gj,~ _ A~f~ct Tl~e Neiahbarhood. Single-€amily neighborhoods have no ~eaean to fear policies which wauld pex~nit ~he developtinent of AEGOIIC~ units, because use o€ surplus apace is not alway~ conducive to second unit development. The mere fact that a houeehold has surp~us ~paee does not necessarily mean that it will go ahead and constrtxct a seeand unit if it is allowed to do so. Other considerations affect the househald's decigion. As Gel~en stat~s- LAWRENGE & HARDING A P/10F8$SIOMAL GOAPORATIDN A7TOR1~(~YS AT LPW Santa MQnica Planning Cammission Januaz'y 22, 1997 Page 6 "C~early, not all of these houses [wi~h surplus space] can be adapted. In some cases, the design and layout are inapprop~iate; in others, the ownera ~ack the desire or ~he resources to undertake the wark required." Gellen, p. 93. Res~arch indicates that neighborhaoda which a~law second una.t develapment average ane conv~rsion each year for every 1,oQ0 sing].e-family homes.s Gellen in his boak as~umes a deve~opment rate af thx~ee seCond units per 1~pOfl szngle family homes annua~.ly. Thus, at theae rat~s, second unit praduction in SanCa Monica`s single-fami~y zone cou~d be expected to oecur at the rat~ of 11 to 33 s~cond unite each year.b , The appearanc~ of 11 ta 33 second'~iits each year in San~a Moniea's residential xones would result in Che groduction of atfordable r~ntal units which would otherr~ise be unavailable. Mareovex~, such moderate production does not present a thr~at af any adverse impacts to the single-farnily nei.ghborhood, e~peca.ally in light o€ the ability af the City to develap standard~ that would govern the number and character of secand unite in ways that address potential neighborhaod cancerns. 2. Re~~onable Standards Governincr The Use Of Second Units Mav Be DeveloDed To Frotect The Pub~i~c Health. Safe~v And Welfare. Neighborhood concerns abou~ any detrimentaJ. ~ffecta tha~ second unit~ may have on single-~amily zor~ea may be addreseed by way of standards in a city's second unit policy which can be design~d to protect the public health, BafeCy and welfare. A~ the California 5uprem~ Cflu:rt summari~ed: ^Population density can be regulated b~r re~erence to floor space and faci~ities. Noiae and morality can be dealt with by enforcement of police pawer 5 This figur~ comes from consultant and ca-author of "Creat~ {McGraw-Hi~l 1987). 6 This calcu~ation is based units in Santa Manica's single-family of the City`s ~993 Housing Element. Patrick Hare, a planning .ng An Accessory Apartment" an the existence of ~1,0~0 zones, as stated in Table ~2 LAWRENCE & HARDING A PpOF[$$~OMI.L CORPOI7ATION ATTORMEYS AT LAW Santa Mon.iCa Planning Commissian January 22, I997 Page 7 ordinancss and criminal statutes. Traffic and parking can be handled by limitations on the number of cars (appli~d evenly to all houaeholds) and by of f-street parki.ng requ.irements ." Citu pf Santa Barbara v. Adamsan, (1980} 27 CaI. 3d 123, 133, ~64 Cai. Rptr. 539, 6I0 P.2d 436. Thus, a city need not ban a particular use when concerns can validly be addressed by regulation of that uee. In Sarxta Monica, the concern was raised by seaeral residents that if nuMerous househo~ds on a particular b].ock or street decided ta develop eecand units on their p~operty~ such over-concentration may r~sul.t in prob~ema related to noise, congestion, parking, Cr~tffic and the Zike. Th~~e coneerns can be ef£ective].y addre~sed by way af atandards. For examp~e, ~he City cou3d develop and implement standards that limit the nu~nber of aecand units per city b~.ack ar street or the nu~r o€ per~nit~ for ~econd ur~its that could be issuEd per year. Again, a ban ~f the particuZar use is unnecessary. In Santa Monica anather concern was raised tha~ allowing secand uni~s in the Rl zone would detrimentally a#fect the character af the ~ommunity. Such concerna can alsa be addreseed in ways that fall far short of an ~ffective ban an second units. For example, such concerna can be addressed by ~equiring the owner of record af the parcel to reside on the parcel an wh~.ch the second unit would be l~cated as a condition of permit~ed second unit dev~lopment. As ane coc~caenta~or exglained: So ~ong as permitting second ~itm "anly af€ect~ owner-ace~pied hames, it poaee no threa~ to the established character ~f a cornmtaEnity, becaua~ each new resident is effective~~ vouched €or by an existing residEnt. And given rec~nt decreasea in the size of the average hauaeho3d, new apar~m~nts would no~ increase neighbarhood pogulation denaities beyand wha~ was originally cantemplatQd." Gearge W. Liebmann, "Three Good Community-Bui~ding Ideas Fram Abroad," The American En~~r~rise, November/December 1996, p. 74. Thus, ~ust like other concerns, the preservation of community character can also be effectively addressed by reasanable reguiation of second units. LAWRENGE & HAI~DING A PROFESSIONAL CORPOR/.TION ATTpRFlEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission January 22, 1997 Page 8 IiI. THE RECENTLY ENACTED QRDINANCE FAILS AS AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A MEANINC{FUL SECOND UNIT PQJ',I~`Y The City Council's attempt at creating a meaningful. second unit palicy which wvuld reasonably permit second unit development has failed. First, the Ordinance wvrka as an effective ban an secand units i.n the R1 zone. Second, the att~mpted cr~ation ot an exemptian in ~he Ordinance impermiseibly regulates second units on the basis of the id~ntity of the user and no~ the nature of the ~se. Finally, by regulating second units va the basis of users, the Ordinance in~erfexes witih inticnate family deciaions relating ta child care and employment. For a31 ~hese reasone, the Ordinance fails ae an attempt to creat~ a meaningful second uni.t po~icy. A. The Ordinanee Is In Effe~t A Ban On Second Units In the R~ Zone. The ordinance ~erves in effect to prohibi~ second unit develop~ent in the R~ Zone. Under State law, seaond unite are encouraged because: 4'Second units provide housing for ~amily mer~bars, students, the eldexly, in-home heaith care providPrs, the disabled, and others a~ be~.vw-market prices wi.thin existing neighborhaods. H~neowners who create aecand unita benefit fram added ~ncome and an ~ncreaeed sen~e af security.^ Govexnment Code § 65852.150. Thus, State Law env~.sians ~hat secand u.nits are to be available for occupancy by a wide variet~r o€ people who would psy rEnt ta the hameowners who created ~such units. The Ordinance adopted in Santa Monica, however, fails ~o provide second unit agportunities as envisioned by State law. Under the Ordinanee, accupaney of sECVnd units in the Rl zone is Iimited to accupancy by dependents and care giv~rs in cases of substantial hardship. Thus, ~he Santa Monica Ord~nance excludes a whole array of people that the State legislature foun.d were ~o occupy such units. In addition, by limiting dccupancy to dependents and care givers, the O~dinance in effect denies harr~eowners the opportunity to rent out their second uni~s and obtain rental ~.ncome as State law envisioned Thus, Che Ordinance zn effect prohibits the reasonabie development of second uni~s in LAWRENGE & HARDING A PROF~SSiOT1A4 CORPOpATION ATTORNEY$ AT LP.MY San~a Monica P~anning Commission January 22, 1997 Page 9 ~he R~ zone and does little to alleviatie tihe affardable housing shortage in this City. B. The Ord~nance Reaulates the User and Not th~ Use of ~h~ Second Unit. The Ordinance's hardship ~~€emption which discriminates between dependents/ea~e-givers and other occupants is inh~rently suspec~. The co~rts have eloquently pointed out the difficulty with ordinances such as thi~: ^(I]f the City wants to addras~ problema associa~~d with overcrowded detaChed ho~ne~, it should do so with a law that applies '. .. evenly Ca all, houeeholds ....• {See Citv of ~a~ita Sarbara v. Adamson, (].980) 27 Cal. 3d 123, 133, ~64 Cal. Rptr. 539, 610 P.2d 435) ... In generaZ, zan.zng ordinances are rnuch Iesa suspect whezi they focus ~n the uae than when they co~~u~rand inq~ixy inta who are the u~ers.' {Ibid. emphasis in original.)y Coll~ae Renters Ass'n v. San Dieao, 43 Ca1.4th 677, 687-688, 5Q Cal. Rptr. 2d 515, 52~ (1996). Santa Mon~ca could have chasen ta address aeighborhoad concerns regarding parking, traffic, denaity and the like by way af standards which wauld apply evenly to a~l households. Instead~ the City endor~ed a policy which focuses on who woul.d be a1lov~ed to occupy second units and who would not. Such discrimination is entirely unnecessary when reasonahle ata.ndard~ can be developed to adequately address any concerns regarding the use o~ second ur€its. C. The Ordinance Interferes With Intimate Fami.lial Deeisioas Of R1 Residente. Sy att~mpting to create a narrow ex~mptian in the Ordinance which wauld permit occupancy of secand uni~s by a~e~~ct few individuals, the Czty created an Ordinance which interfere9 with intimate familial decisions af the residen~s of tihe R1 zone. The plight of the Rosmans is demanstrative af this point. The Rasmans` daughter has been diagnased as havzng autism with mental retardation. Th~ Rosman family decided that Penny should delay inc~e~inite].y her further career plans and stay home to care far their daughter. The~r decision was and corttinues Co be made possible by the suppl.emental income the Rosmans rece~ve fram LAWRENGE & HARDING ~ PROFE$5fONqL CORP017tT10N ATTORMEYS A7 LAW Santa Monica P~.anning Commission January 22, 1997 Page ~.0 the rent paid by the various tenants who have occupied the Rosman's second unzt. The Ordinance in effect te11s the Rasmans tha~ they cannot arrange for the care of th~ir daughter in the way that they have d~termined is best ~or their family. The Ordinance tells the Rosmans ~hat they cannot use rent earned from tihe s~cond unit to suppor~ their decision. Thus, the City takes away the Rostttans` option of having Penny stay home and care far their child. Instead, the Ordinance in ~ffec~ tells the Rasman~9 that Penny must go baCk to work in order tio earn income which cauXd gay far a hired care-giver who cc:~ld live in the second ttnit. By di.cCating to the Rosmana how C.hey are to arrange for the care of their da~ght~r, the ordinance impermissibly interfez~s wi~h one of the most intimate deci.sions a far~~~.y must make. ' IV. A PROGRAM FOR A REASONABLE SECOND UNIT POLZCY IN THE Rl ZONE1 Because of the value of reasonabZe second unit development, ~he City of Santa Mnnica should include in its Hot~sing Element a pragram which wvuld permi~ the reasonable developmettt of second u:~its in the R~ zane and a~low for secand unit occupancy by a wiae variety of individuals including rent-paying tenan~s. The program shauld read as fallows: "The ~ity sha~l repeal Ordinance 18b9 which effectively bans second units in the Rl zone. The Ci~y sha~l then desa.gn and adapt a new second un~t ordinance which promate~ the reasonable develapmsnt of second units in ~he R1 zone. This new ordinance shall permit occupaney of s~cond units in the R1 zone by a wide ~ariety of users, nat j~ast dependents and care-givers. This new ordinance shall a~so explicitly permit homeowners who create aecond units to receive rental income. Thus, the new ordinance will be consistent with the State Legis~ature's explacit fxndings in Government Code § 65852.150, which states that second units are a valuable form of housing in Calafarnia be~ause: ~Second units prvvxde ho~sing for fa~ily members, students, the eiderly, in-home health care praviders, the disabled, and others, at be~ow market prices with~n existing neighba~hoads. Hameowne~'s who crea,te second LAWI~ENGE & HARDING A PiiOFE5510NAL CL?RPQRATlON ATTORNEYS AT LPW Santa Monica Planning Commission January 22, 1997 Page 11 units benefit fram added income, and an increased sense of ~ecuritiy.' Final~y, the new ordinance reasonabla standards designed heaith, ea~~ty and we~fare impact which secand units may surrounding neighborhaod. Th~ designed to reguiate the use the second unit." shall also include to protect the public fxo~ any detra.mentaZ atherwise have on the :se etandards shall be and not the user of V. CO~ US~ON Based upon the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Planning Contmiasion x~ecornmend adaption of a'secand unit program wh~.ch reasonably permits second unit developmen~ in ~he RI zone. Sincerely, ~. A.J. Ja sunas, Eeq. of L~h~ENCE & HARDING a Pro~essional Corpvratzon cc: John Ja~ili, Ci~y Manager Susan McCar~hy, Assistant C~.ty Manager 5uzax~e Frick, Director of Planning and Community De~e~vgment Dean Sherer, Acting Planning t~nager Robert Mancrief, Hou~ing Manager Tad Read, Ser~ior Admini~strative Analyst Marsha Jan~s MouCrie, City Attorney Barry Rosenbaurn, Deputy City Attorney Mar~r S. Strobe~, Depu~.y City Attorney Mary Ann Yu~ckonis, Administrator, Rent Contral Board Anthony A. Trendacosta, General Counsel, Rent Control Baard RenC. Cantra7. Board Cvmmissioners David M. Rosman, Esq. 76L$TA13 1317 2 ~a2 sa-~ ~~cer,re Bi #301 Santa Mon~ca, CA 96402 Planning Commission Ci#y of Santa Man~ca Dear Commissioners Enclosed is a short and ~ntroductory draft o# an rnnovat~~e housing pragram. ThES prograrn, it ~s our hope, will merit the cansideration o# the comm~ss~an Furthermore, and perhaps more important~y, the commission m~ght use t~rs proposal as an impetus to look at hous~r~g ~ssues m an h4l~stic ar~d sustainabke mar~r~er The propasal !s not replete w~th the nuts and boits of planning or de~elo~ment Rather, ~i is a sketch of ideas frorn which we might denve an experimental and forward ~aoking ~rogram as we develop our city strategy ta accommodate the hous~ng - partic~lar#y ai#ordable housmg - needs af aur city and reg~on Stncerely, ~ ~5 • , ~ ~ Dou ias Neller ~ Westside Greens ~ ~, ~ ~~ ~~.~ ~ ~" ~ ~ J~ Sa~ta Man~ca is in the cha~lenging bu~ ex~iting process of developing a susta~nable plan to provide appropnate and suffic~ent hous~g for its diverse populat~on. As we e~nbark on th~s work it is incurnbent upon us that we create an effective a~d empower~ng method to achieve ttus goal. T"o comply with the state and mun~cipal hausing ~aals and ta powerfu~ly utiIize our substantzal capacrty to deal wxth eo~ttemporary soc~al challenges, 5anta Mo~uca should add to ~ts hous~ng elernent a forwarcf-laolang, experimental (as suggested by Pohcy 2.~ of the Draft} approach wh~ch would supple~nent the trad~tionai approaches that the city takes. Santa Monica has the resources and the social and polrtical will to develop innovative plans #o help peopie and #arntlies out of poverty. We must ~emember that ~€fardable housing ~s not only a goal ~tse~f, but ~n a very ~mpartant way it is a means to give people access to the financial, socia~ and emotianal secunty required ta move aut of poverty. Affordable hous~g that offers nathing ~ore tha~ low rent is but a temporary resplte fro~ the cycle of paverty; a#fordab~e housing that provides personal and community uphftment removes the shroud of poverty from people's lives. We must remember that poar people are not a burden, poverty ~s; he~ce we must fight poverty, b~# fight for poor peaple. In #h~s context, I hope that the C~ty of Santa Moni~a wiil ~flnsider the following xc~eas as a basis for an innovative part of the 1998-2U03 Housing Elernent. The C1fiy of San#a Mon~ca ean fu~ance and develop a housing p~oje~t wi~h a fundame~tal ob~echve af empowenng residents by ~nstilling a sense of ownership among them. The two-fald means o# creat~ng ownership fol~ows, First this pro~ect can facihtate a lrteral sense of ownership through a Iease-to-own scheme; seeond rt can factlitate a sense of ownership as rt wouid be built around the principles of cooperative assaciation. After briefly expla~ung the literal owr~ersh~p aspect of this proposal, I v+r~li offer a more thoraugh explanatYan of the c~aperat~ve asso~ation L Lease-to-own Residents of these units wauld be on a path towards owz~ership which could requxre, as a suggest;on, five qears as a tena~t. AFter the five years, the tatal rent paid could be cons~dered a down payz~ent on the unit and the rent would beeo~e alun to znortgage payments. ~n some ways th~s may seem to be somet~ung of a semanhcs ad~ustrnent, but ~n a real sen5e ~t will be a powerful mode of enec~urag~ng stabitrty. Allowing people a fsasxble way to own their own homes will heIp Frcove people aut af the cycle of poverty and, in tu~n, remove #hat ~tuch more of the burden af paverty from the corn~untty and the czty. II. Caoperat~ve assaci~#~on Residents o# these unrts would manage th~s prc~ect in a cooperahve manner. A key to a dynamlc demacracy is the two-sided cain of cornrnuruty and respons~bi~ity. A trad~honal housing pro~ect is geared ~awards the singular task of filiing a basic need. It is not cancerned ~-rith the larger,structural sources af that n~~d, sa it typi~ally does not seek to eradlcate that need. Underptnning th~s propasal is the dernocratxc notifln thaf people working tagether can effect~vely appraach a~d solve commun~ty challe~ges much more effect~vely than peo}~le left o~ their own. Tradiflanal aFfordable houszng ts not dynamic, it is sunply ho~.ising that ~s relatively a#fordable. In th~s proposa~, affordable housing is a compo~tent of a larg,er empowerment pragram A requirement to reside in ~his community/pro~ect is the assurance that one w~11 panc~tpate in the nurturi~g of thzs corn~tunity with a standard c~mm~tmen~ of, ~or exa~ple, se~en hours per week. The hours would be used to fil~ certa~n respons~'ailit~es ranging from upkeep and malntenance to on-site daycare. T'eaching (or per~t~ps taking} on-site cla~ses such as G.E.D., tutoring, bicycle repair, Enghsh, Span~sh; parenting, art, gardenFng et ceteru. could fill the required ho~rs - theoretic~lty this could become a community free-school. The residents it ts cer#a1n would be able tn determ~.ne ;nean~ngful and valuable duties for this commitment. In addition to reheving the city of many managerial dutres, th~s strueture would give peopl~ a sense of ownership aver their h4us~ng. These uruts would becvme home to the res~den~s - not transitianal or temporary housing, not a~ ugly and disdained pra~ect; they wauld, rather, campose a new neighborhood. This could becomE a vitalized and v~~al part Qf o~r commun~ty of whtch #he entire city as well as the rest~ents wou~d be proud. This pro~ect could become a flagshlp de~elopment prov~d~ng a model fvr social upltftment and regenerat~on m our community and others. The modei af coopera#ion, moreover, would he a valuable Iesson to the children resadents, who wou~d benefit drarnatically #ro~n a fr~m the sense o# s#abihty and respons~bilify crea#ed by this env~ronment. And, the social environment should be diverse and supportive. As well as people and €a~ilies ider~trfied as hav;ng very low, low and ~t-adera#e incomes, ~t would be a bonn to #he pra~ect to invlte others who ~rtight benefit form the affordable housmg and would be willing to commit to the important responsibzlities of the coaperahve. As an exa~~le rt might be poss~ble to buiid the a few of the single bedroom un~ts into artist-oriented, l~ve-iri studios. Conclusian As we cvnstder haw to best provide hous~ng for aur residents in need of affordable hoe€s~ng, we must remernber #hat aur committnent ~s na# ~ust to housing, but to decent and sustainable housing. Based on the experience of implementrng this experiment we wiil be better ~qu;pped to develop further plans for affordable housing ~n aur c~ty and our regian. The thrust of our task, ~f course, is ta provide affordable housing to fa~ul~es ;n need of this leg up, but we should not forget #hat the broader goai must remain: to address the larger social situatron which has created these challenges. yVe mus~ conhnue tfl seek innavat~ve ways to do this. ~~:~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.nda~r ~a~~i~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ I ~. ~ ~ ~~rr~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~I~n ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~I~n ~a~~~~ - . . ,#-. . ; ~ ~~~~ w~ ;'. ~~-i~.~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~. ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~.~n ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ 1~ ~~1~ TN~S j~;~QER~+~~, W~i tr~t4 'lS To Sc~ ~ Fol- A~' Ac~ ~", f~Tl~'its T~'k~ N~;fs~NitaRli~- ~~t,+t'[ ~Ra1ECT ~~i~.t1 1'I.1C~4T ~~.. DeV~1.a~ ~~ wi4- ~GbpaSA~^- ~184SC r+or~C. T~Cf TNL vNtiTs ~! I~ T~O 51'8Wd A•~117 GRC~ [NT~ Tt1E pQ~+~ S~A tE AN 9 6A RD~S~ ~~~e.n ~~c-~ LAWI~ENCE & HARDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPpRAT10M ATTORMEYS .>'f L-AW ~250 SI%~H STRE£T CHRISTOAHER M HARD~NG F7ICMARO A LAWREMCE 3UITE 3D0 KENNEYH L KUTCMER SANTA MONIGA, CALIFOANIA p0401-1602 NEVIN V K02AL TELEPNONE 13~0] 393-l007 January 8, 1997 FAGS~MIL~ I3F07 ~58-1969 W~{tTERS O~REGZ" OSAL t31aa as~-2sss VTA HAND-DELIVERY Santa Monica Planning Commission and Santa Monica Housing Commission Z685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, Califarnia 90401 Re: Public Review Draft of the 3.998-2003 Housing Element Update ~ur File No. 639.30 Dear Cammissianers: This letter is being submitted on behalf of the Santa Monica Ho~sing Council ("SMBC"), the California Housing Council ("CHC"), and Robext Sullivan. SMHC is a non-prafit organization formed seven years aga to monitor housing regulatory ~ssues in the City af Santa Moniea. CHC ~.s a non-profit organization formed in 1975 to monitar housing issues throughout California. Robert su].livan is the President of SMHC and a~ong-titae Santa Monica resident and co?~~unity Ieader. For convenience, SMHC, CHC and Sullivan are hereinafter referred ta ~S "SMHC". SMHC has a long-standing interest in the City of Santa Monica's Hausing Element. SMHC actively pazticipated at both the local and state levels in the publi.c process leadinq to enactment of the City'S 1993 Housing Element. SMHC then commenced litigata.on challenging th~ Zegality of the 1993 Hot~sing Element. Zn April, 1995, this litigation was settled on an ~nterim basis, by way of a Settlement Agree~Ent and Court Order which require the City to engage in the current Housing Element Update process. Sinc~ SMHC initialiy became involved in the City's Housing Element process approximately five years ago, SMHC has been primarily concerned wi'~h City regu~atory barriers which impede the development of new housing. SMHC has consistently argued that the City should take seriously its fazr share of the regianal need for new housing as determined by the Southern California Association of Gov~rnments (~'SCAG"3, and anact th~ necessary refarms to lacal housing and land use regulations ta close the ].arge gap that exists between the City's fair share and its actual performance. LAWRENGE & I~ARDING q pRpr~SS~ON/~.L CORPOPATI'N ATTORNEYS AT LAw Santa Monica Planning Cammission and Santa Monica Housing Commission January 8~ 1997 Page 2 SMHC belie~res that Santa Monica's consistent failure to meet ~ts fair share has contributed to the regianal and statewide shortage o~ housing that California Housing Element Law is intended to address. Hausing shortages cause esca~ating prices, overcrowding, deteriQrating housing conditians, and ioss of ~ability. Housing shoxtages impose special hardships on those with the least economic resources. Cities such as ~anta Monica that fail to provide their fair share of the need for addita.onal hoeis~.ng cause serious harm to the statewide goa~ a~ affordable hvu~ing ~or all income groups. SMHC recogn.ixes that City Staff and its consultants have made a good faith effort to comply with the Sett~ement la,greement and California Hous~.ng Element Law. Neverthe~ess, SMHC believes the Public Review Draft of the 1998-20D3 Hous~.ng Element Upc~ate ("Publia Revie~ Draft") is seriously deficient, bath as a matter of policy and law. Below, this letter describes SMHC's perspective concerning the housing production problems faced by the City, bas~d largely upan information taken frQm the Pub~.ic Review Draft. This letter then desGribes a series af proposed pragran~s intended to addr~ss these problems. These prapased program~ include: ~. $asic refor~ns to thE City's ~nclusionery Housing PrQgram, including an expand~d in-lieu fee option, a density bonus for projects which use the in-lieu fee vption, an exemptian far small proj ects ( i. e. , 5 units or ~ess) , and additionai development incentives for prajects with an- site a~fordable units; 2. Reforms to the Ca.ty's development regu~atians far new ~ulti-family housing in residential districts, including inereased lot coverage (54# to 55~) , sma~.l~r setbacks, reduced parking requirements, incx-eased height, possible raadificatians to density res~rictions, and development inc~ntives for large units to accommodate families with children; 3. Reform of the Rent Control Baard~s Category D remaval permit process to e].iminate Categary D as a cor~straint on the construction of new rental housing; 4. Pragrams to examine po~ential reductions in City--imposed fees, taxes, and aff-site infrastructure i~provement CDSt5; LAWRENCE & HARDING A PAOFESS~ONAL CORPORA710N ATTOpNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission and Santa Monica Housing Commission January 8, 1997 Page 3 5. Elimination of the conditional use permit ("CUP") requirement for new candom~nium projects; 6. Renewal of the Tenant ownership Rights Charter Amendment ("TORCA") to provide additianal affordable hame own~rship opportunities; and 7. A 1oca1 permit streamlininq ordinance to ensure processing af all housing praject agplications. These propased programs are discussed at pages 9-1~ hersin. SMHC t~rges the Commis5ions to recommend inclusion of these programs in the Housing E3ement Update. This letter is intended to hav~ a policy rather than a legal foeus. In the housa,ng element are~a, however, there is a substantia~ overlag between palicy and law. California Hausing Element La~r is intended to serve important state hausing palicg qoals. One such goal is to ensure that citi.es provide their fair share of the statewide need far add%~i.onal housing. S14II3C belie~es the poliCy deficiencies in the Publ~.c Review Draft also ~io~.ate specific prov~.sians vf Ca~~fart~ia Housing Element Law, and further believes that California Housing Element Law campels the City to enact regulatory refornts to reduce if not e~.iminate City regulatory impediments to new housinq production, SMHC's legal. arguments are set forth in the Appendix enclosed herewith. SMHC is in the pracess ot" retaining a housing cQnsultant to conduct a further review of the Public Review Draft. SMHC anticipates receiving a written report from its consuitant by February 15, 1997. SMHC wil~. prtivide copies of this report to the Commissions when it becames available. I. BACKGR~UND: THE HOUSxNG PRODUCTION PROBLEM I13 SANTA MONICA Santa Monica faces a seriau~ dilemma with respect to its hausing s~tpply. For nearly two decades, Santa Monica's housing production has been stagnant. This has resulted in an inadequate and aging hausing supply. This has also resulted in a serious i.mbaZance between jobs and housing. As discussed herein, SMHC believes that City hous~ng and land use regulations, both past and current, have contributed substantially to this problem. LAWRENGE & HARDING A PNOFE$S~ONA_ CORPORATIph A7TpRNeYS A7 LAW Santa Mdnica Planning Commission and Santa Monica Housing C~mmission January 8, 1997 Page 4 A. Santa Monica Has Consistentlv Failed ~o Meet Its Fair Share Of The NEed For Add~tiona~ Hoµs}nq, Or ~ven Meet its Own (?uantified Obiectives Far New ~i~usinc{. The Pub~ic Review Draft confirms that Santa Moni.ca has consistently failed to meet its fair share of the need for additianal housing. According to the Pub3ic Review Draft, Santa Monica's h~e~sing stock i.ncreased frvm 46,393 units in 1980 to 48,286 units in 1995, or a total increase of anly 1,887 units in 15 years. (See page II-25}. This averagas as a net increase of on~y 126 un~ts annually. During this same period, Santa Monica's fair share n~~mhers as determined by SCAG were substantially higher. Tn the Z983 Houaing Element (which covered the fi~e-year planning period fram I981 to 1986), Santa Monica's fair share was 4,i37 new units (net), or an annual average of 827 units. In the ~993 Housing Element (which covered the five-year p3anning period from 1989 to 199~), Santa Monica's fair share was 3,220 new units (net), ar an annual average of 644 una.ts. Thus, Santa Monica's annual productian rata for new hausing (net) has. for 15 years, been appraximately 2~~ or ~ess of its annualized fair share. Mareover, the Public Review Draft further confirn~s that Santa Monica has cor~istently failed to meet its awned quant~fied ob3ectives fQr new housing praduction. In its 1983 Housing Element, th~ City establishad a quantifiad goal of 1,500 to 2,500 new ur~its (net), or an annual average af 300 ta 500 units. In its 1993 Housing Element, the City established a quanti€ied goal of 1,150 new units (net), or an annual average of 230 un~.ts. The City's perf~ratance of 126 units annually from 1980 to 1995 is well below these quantified goals.~ B. Santa Monica Has A Serious Imkaalance Between Jobs And Hvusinq. The Public Raview Draft docuinents that Santa Monica is a ~~jobs-rich" community with a serious imbalance between emplayment and housing. In 1990, Santa Monica had nearZy 76,500 jobs available within its City's li~its, but only 50,400 employed lAt page ~I--80, the Public Review Draft acknowledges that SCAG estimates Santa Manica actually had an increase of on3y 18C3 households from 1989 to 1994, flr a substantially lvwe~ growth rate than durinq the entire 1980 to 1995 period. LAW1iENGE & HARDING P PROFESSIOMA~ COAPORATION ~0.T70RNEY5 A7 LAW Santa Monica Planning Commissio~ and Santa Monica Housing Commission January 8, 1997 Page 5 residents. (See page II-8). This substantial and grawinq imbalance between jobs and hausing contributes significantZy to air quality and traffic problems, both in Santa Monica and the region. C. For More Than 15 Yaars. Santa Manica Has Maintained A Series Of Hvusinq Ar~d Land Use Requl~tions ~,'hat Have Severelv Impeded, And Continue To Severe~v Impede. The Development Of New Housing. Since 19T9, the City has enacted a series of housing and Iand use regulations which have severely constrained new hausing productian. Below zs a su~mary of existing regulations which SMHC be~ievas constitute barriers to new hausing production, 1. The City's Inclusionarv Housina Proaram: Th~ City's ~nclusianary Housing Program (i.e., Ordinance No. 1615, as amendedj constitutes a major impediment to new housing production. This is partialXy documented in the Technical Appendix prepared by the City's cansulting firm, Hamilton, Rabinovitz and Alschuler ("HR&A"~, which dascrihes the Inclusionary Hausing Program's adverse effects upon project feasibility. Moreover, the Pi.iblic Review Draft acknowledges that the C~ty~s currer,_ Inclusionazy Housing PrQgra~n differs from those in effect elsewhare in itnportant raays. Santa Motiica's groqram include~ one af the highest inclusianary percentagas (3D#), one of the lowest project size threshalds (a two--unit thresha~d), only limited options to on-site placement of the inclusionary units, an in-lieu fee option that is available only under very restar~ctive circumstances, and th~ absence of a hardship exemption to reduce or waive the inclusiona~-y requirement upon a demonstration o€ praject infeasibility. (See page I~T-28). In SMHC's experience, the City's Inclusionary Housing Program has severely impeded new housing prvduction. SMHC has spoken with r~umerous developers, architects, and other real estate professianals who have indicated that the City's Inclusionary Hausing Program rendered otherwise viable multi-family housing proj ects ecanomically infeasible. RefQ~ing th~s p~ra~ shoul~ be a top priarity of the City~s HQUSing E~ennent Update graces~. 2. Physical Developmant Requlatians for Multi-Family Housinq: The City a~.so maintains a series of physical development regulatians governing multi-family housing that, individually and LAWRENGE & HARDING A FROFESSIONAL CORPORATfON 4TTORNEYS .d.T i.E'.W Santa Monica Planning Comiaissian and Santa Monica Hausing Co~ission January 8, 1997 Page 6 in combination, constitute major impediments to new housing production. These regulations include: a, A maximum Zot coverage restric~ion of 50~ foz market rate projects in all multi-famiYy zones (page III-12); b. Set-back requ~.remants far a12 multi-family zar~es ranging ~r4m 30~ to 70~ greater than surrounding communities (page I~I-14); c. Parking requirements for multi-family housing that round up fractional spaces of 0.5 or xnore and require rareZy utilized guest p~rking; d. A height Iimit in the low density (R-2) zane that is generally lower than the height lim3t uti3.ized in surrounding communities (page ~II-13); e. A very high percentage of land zoned for ~.ow density (R-2) development irt comparison to medium density (R--3) and high density (R-4) deveiopm~nt; f. A series o~ residential "down-zoning" measures which render it more difficult to develap multi--family housing in Ocean Park and the north of Wilshire area than other neighborhoods; and g. Develop~nent restrictions which reflect a lack of overal~ coordinatzon and thus fail ta aceammadate realistic development scenarios for multi-~amily hausing prfl7ects (pages ~II- 14 through III-15}. 3. The Ellis Act and Sar~~a Ma~iEa Rer}t Co~trol LaW: Nut~rithstanding its conc~usion ta th~ e~rttra~~, the Public Review Draft confirms ~hat neither the Ellis Act nor the Santa Monica Rent Contrd]. LaW grnvides a viabie ~ea~s t~ re~yvl~ ~~i~~~t~g ~e~~- controlled housing ~aith new r~ntal hausing projects. With respect to the Eliis Act, the Public Review Dratt ack~iowledges that the Ellis Act is not a viable means of xecycJ.ing existing, rent- controlled properties with new rental hous~ng. (See page III-25). With respect to the Rent Contzal Law, the Public Review Draft acknowledg~s that since its passage nearly 18 years ago, the Rent Control Law has accammodated only 36 replacement housing projects (an average of two per year) resulting in aniy 21 additional LAWRENCE & HARDING A PROFESSIONaL CORP~RATIOiV AT~ORf.lEY$ AT LAW Santa Monica Plann~ng Commissian and Santa Manica Housing Cam~tissian January 8, 1997 Page 7 _ housing units (app~oximately ane additianal unit per year). (see gage I~I-27). Since Santa Monica•s resi.dential neighborhood.s are largely. "bnilt-out" and contain little vacant land, this canstitutes a major impedi~nent to new rental housing production. ' 4. City Fees and Taxes: The Public Review Draft acknowledges that the sun~ af City fees and taxes constitutes a significant portion of total multi--family project costs. Tota1 fees and taxes range from $15,500 to $20,400 per ~xnit, according to the feasibility analysis prepared by HR&A. (See page II~-21). 5. Off-Sita Infrastr~cture Costs: The Puhlic Review Draft further acknowledges that new muiti-family housing projects are subject to substantial off-site infrastructure costs. According to the Pub13c Review Draft, the average cast of off-sa.te improvements is generally estimated at 10~ of the building per~it valuation. (see paqe III-19}. 6. Condit~ona]. Use Permit ("CUP"} Recxuirement for All Condominium Pro-jects: As ackn~wledged in the Public Revi~w Draft, Santa Monica requires a CUP for all. new condominiums regardl~ss ot their size. {SeE pages III-23 through III-24), This dif~ers from the review proce=s app~icable to rental housing pro~ects, where on~y projects which exceed a certain size threshold are subj~ct to a discretionary review process. D. Due T~ The ExtraordinariZv Low Rata Of Housina Recvclina Durincr The Past Fifteen Years Or More, Santa Monica Has An Aaina Housinu Stvek Where More Than Twa-Thirds Of ~ts Housa~na Is Thirtv Years Or Older. As ~ne important consequence af the City~s lacklu~ter per€ormance in generating new housing during the past 15 years, the City has an aging housing stock that requires substantial re~urbishment if not replacemen~. According ta the Public Review Draft, as of 1990 approximately two-thirds of the City's housing stock was ~0 years or alder. The Public Review Uraft cQncludes that this indicates the need for continued maintenance and potential rehabilitation of a significant portion of the City's housing based Qn age a~,one. (See page II-27). SMHC beli.eves this also requires the City to examine with care the rate at which Santa Monica will need ta replace its aging housing stock, and develop regulations that facilitate a healthy rate af recycling. LAWRENGE & HAIiDING A PqOFE5510NAL CORPORA710N ATTORlJEYS AT LAW Santa Manica Planning CaYUmissian and Santa Monica Housir~g Commission January 8, 1997 Page 8 E. Santa Monica's Market Cond~t~ons Constitute A Major Impediment To New Housi.na Production. The Public Revi~w Draft confirms that market car~ditions~- especially land costs--constitute a majar impediment to new housinq production. HR&A's analysis indicates that ~ven before some of Santa Manica's severe regulatary constraints are taken into account, the typical mu~ti-family project in Sar~ta l~fonica is financially infeasible. HR&A further indicates that these market conditions are not expected ta change significantly zn the foreseeable future. SMHC does nat fully share the P~hlic Review Draft's pessimism about current market conditions. Nanetheless, the Pub~ic Review Dra~t is correct that Santa Monica can be a diff icult ~narket in which to develop new hous,ing .irrespectiv~ of the requiatory environment. This makes it even more imperative that Santa Monica engage in meaningful reguiatory reform ta facilitate new housir~g production. F. Santa Monica Has Severelv Li.mited Housina Onportunities For Fam~lies With Chi~dren. The Public Review Draft confirms that Santa Monica's hausing opportunities for families with children are very limited. The ~995 Tenant Sux~rey documents that children under the age of 18 are present ~n anly abaut ~7~ of rent-controlled apartments. (See page II-5). According to the 1990 Census, the average hausehold size in Santa Manica was then 1.88, signi~icantly lower than the Los Angeles County average of 2.82. (See page Ii-9}. The P~blic Review Draft acknow~edges that the percentage and number of fami~ies with children have continued ta decrease since the ~988s. {3ee page IV-2y. G. Housinq Proiect Annlicants In Santa Monica Have Experienced Siqnificant Delays In Pex~nit Processinq. Although the Public Review Draft concludes that on average Santa Manica housing project app~icants do not e~erience inordinate delays in permit processing, the average time fa~ permit processing "represents the mid-point af a range, and by definition, this means that half of the projects exceed the median." (See page III-34). The Public Review Draft further acknow~edges that pra~ect app~icants perceive the time and uncertainty requir~d for permit LAWRENGE & I~ARDING A PROFESSIOHAL CORPpRATEpn~ A'fTORNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission and Sar~ta Manica Hous~ng Commission January 8, 1997 Page 9 processing to constitute a significant barrier to new hausing productian. (See pages III-34 thraugh zIT-35). K. Santa Monica Has A Severe Imbalance Between Rental And Owner-Occunied Housinq. According ta the 1990 Census, Santa Monica has a sever~ imlaalance between rental housing and ownerroccupied housing. The I990 Census indicates that 28~ o€ the City's households own the u~-it in which they ].ive, and the remaining 72~ rent. This is a suY~stantially higher percentage of renters than in any other city ~n Los Angeles County. The cauntywide ownership average was 48~, and at Ieast ar~~-third of the househalds ~n al~ other cities own theix' own homes. ZI. SMHC'S PROPOSED REFORM PROGRAI~ SMHC believes the vague and largel.y "substanee-free" programs in the Public Review Draft directed at housing production are wholly inadequate to address the severe problems described in the previous section. These programs will not everi co~ne close to meet~ng Santa Monica`s housing production n~eds or abjectives during the 199$-2003 planning period. During this planning period, Santa Mon~ca's fair share of new housing production is 3,219 units, or 644 units annualiy, and i.ts quantifa.ed objecti.ve is ~,542 units, or 308 units annually. Both the City's annual fair share rate and its annual quantified objective are substantially greater than the City's historic praduction rate of 126 units annually from 1980 through 1995. Yet, the Public Review Draft includes no programs designed to generate a significant increase in housing production. Absent ~neani~tgful regulatory raform, Santa Monica will straggle into the 21st Century with an aging and ~nadequate housing supp~.y withaut pragrams designed ta address its share of regional and statewide housing needs. SMHC urges the Commissians to recommend reform measures designed to ensure the City c~oses the gap between its housing prod~ction objectives and its actual performance. The vast majarity of patential sites fvr new multi-family housing are currently impra~ed with rent-controlled housing. Thus, improved City performance in the area af new hausi~g production LA'4~RENGE & I~ARDiNG A PROFESSIONAL CORPORAT~ON AY70RNEY5 AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission and Santa Monica Housing Commission January 8, 1997 Page l0 necessarily means easing the constraints on develaging new multi-- family housing on sites currently oceupied by rent-control3ed housing. SMHC is well aware of the sensitivity of such a palicy direction. For the past 16 years, the Cit~s has d~liberately impeded this recycling process because rent-contralled units constituted the core of Santa Monica's affordable housing strat~gy. With passaga af Costa-Hawkins, however, such a stra~egy no longer works. With vacancy de-control, Santa Monica's exi.sta.ng xantal housing stock wil~ beco~e increasinq~.y ~ess affordable. Allawing a reasonable recyclinq rate of sites with rent-controll~d units no longex should b~ viewed as a threat to the City's aff~rdahle housing q~a7.s. Instead, the City shou].d seek ta harness this recycling process to ensure that new heusing contx~ibutes to a reformed City affordable housing strategy. A. The City's ~nc~usionary Ho~sing #~~og~~m. The City should take immediate steps ta reform its Inclusianary Housing Program. These reforms should include the fallowing; 1. The In-Lieu Fee Gbtion: The in-lieu fee opt~on should be expanded su~,stantially and ~ade avaa,lable for all projects wa.th fewer than 40 units without exception. The in-lieu fee fox-mula should be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to ensure the financial feasibilit}~ of the typical or average pra3ect. 2. Density Bonus: A dens~ty bonus shauid be made a~vailable for all projects with less than 40 units which elect to pay the in-lieu fee. The densi.ty bonus should consist of additional units (simil.ar to the State Density Bonus Praqram) and other development incentives which make sure the additionaZ units are of practical. value tv the praject. 3. Project Size Threshold: A11 prajects containing five or fewer units should be exempt from the City's Inclusionary Hausing Praqram (similar to small office projectsF which are exempt from the housing and parks mitigation fee). Notwithstanding this exemption, the ~xempt projects cou~d e~ect ta pay an i.n-lieu fee in rett~rn f or a dens it~r l~onus . 4. Developmer~t Incentives far Construction of On-Site Affordable Units: The City should develop a seriES of additional LAWRENGE & ~~ARDING A PROFESSIpkAL CORPQR~TiON ATTORNEYS AT ~qW Santa Monica Planning Commission and Santa Monica Housing Commission January 8, 1997 Page 11 development incentives for projects which qualify ta pay an an-lieu fee but elect to construct on-site affozdable units. 5. A Hiqher Threshold for Reauiring All On-Sit~ Units: The City should raise, if not e3iminate, the current threshold {20 unitsj at which point project applicants must compiy with the Inclusionary Housing Program by building all of the requisite affordable units on-site. B. Physical Deve3.onment Re~lat~o~s. The City should reform its physical development regulat~ons governing constructian of new multi-family haus~ng as a means af encouraging its production. SMHC recogn~zes that ~ts recommendations may be described as "up-zoning" and thus cut against tha grain of a cor~ assumpt~on of many that "low density" equals "higher quality of life". SMHC does not accegt this assumption, and believes a moderate rate of recycling at higher densities in well-designed buildings with adequate parking wili add to the quality of life in the City's residential neighborhaods whi~e also meeting Santa Monica's regional respansibiiities for additionaZ hausing. SAgiC further abserves that many of Santa Monica's existing ~nulti-fa~nily buildings were constructed in accordance with past regulations which allowed greater h~ights and densities than those eurrently allowed. As a result, the new development envisioned by SMHC wil~ nat be out of scale in comparison to existing buildings in Santa Monica's residential neighborhoods, SMHC's proposed reforms to Santa Monica's development regulations for multi-fa~ily housing are intended to foster a public debate that hopefully will result in reguZations that render new housing feasible in Santa Monica's multi-family residentia3 neighborhoads. With that goal i.n mir~d, SMHC submits the following proposals for your consideration: l. Lot Coveraqe Requla~ion: The City 5hould modify its lot coverage s~andard from 50~ ta 55~ in aIl multi-family districts. 2. Set-Backs: The City should amend its set-back requirements in all multi-fam~ly districts ta make Santa Monica's set-back requirements more consi~tent with neighboring cities. LAwRENGE & ~IARDING A PROFES5~OhAL C6RPORATIOM AT7pRNEV$ qT ~AW Santa Monica Planning Com~ni.ssian and Santa Monica HouSing Commission January 8, 1997 Page ~2 3. Parkinq Requir~me~ts: The City should amend its Zoning Ordinance {a) ta provide that fractional parking spaces ar~ to ba rour~ded down to the next whole number, and (b) to eliminate the guest parking requirement. 4. Heiaht Limits: The City should modify the height lirnits in its multi-family zones ta allow a sutficient number of height in feet to accommodate three staries in the R-2 district, four stories in the R-3 d~.str~ct, and five stories in the R-4 district. 5. Rezaninq: The City should explore rezaning some existing R-2 areas to R-3, and some existing R-3 a~eas to R-4. 5. Unit Densitv: Depending upan whether the City a~laws a density bonus in return For payment of an in-lieu fee under its Inclusionary Housing Proqram, the City should consider modi~ying its unit tiensity restrictians in its multi-family districts. 7. Development Incentives for Family-Sized Units: The City should consider prnvid~ng devel~pment incentives for cflnstructien of 'amily-sa, zed units ( i. e. , units containing three or more bedrooms}. 8. Special Rec~ulations In Ocean Park and Horth of Wilsh~~e Neiqhborhoods: The City should reconsider the "downzoning" measures adopted far the Ocean Park and north of Wilshire neighborhoods. SMHC suggests that City Staff be di~ected to review the speCiaiized standards for these trr.o nei.ghborhoods in consultation with persans with expertise in multi-fami3y housing development to determine the extent ~o which these specializEd standards impede n~w multi-family housing productian. 9. Coordinat~.on of Develot~ment Requlations: Ta address the on-going problem of a lack coordination of Santa Monica's dev~lopment reguia~.ions, SMHC recommends that the City establish an annual review process to address the caardination (ar lack thereofy of Santa Monica's various development restrictions. This will allow pro7ect applicants, architects, and the general public an opportunity to point out ano~nalies in City devalopment regulatians and faci~itate their correction. SMHC urges that such a pracess be commenced para11e1 with the Housing Element Update process. LAW REI~TCE & HARDING /. PROFE55~: fvA4 COpPORqTION ATTORNEYS qT Lqyy Santa Monica Planning Coinmission and Santa Monica Housing Commission January 8, 1997 Page 13 C. The Nor~h 4f Wilshire Cons~ruct~.Qn Rate Proqra~. The Ca.ty shauld repeal the Construction Rate Program which regulates the rate of n~w develapm~nt in the narth of Wil.shire area. This prvgram, which has been insignificant thus far given the lack of development activity since its passage in 199p, potentially impedes new housing developmer~t in the even~ the pace of housing prQduction improves. D. Rent Control Reform. Ta facilitate the recycla.ng of existing, rent-contxolled units with new rental housing, th~ Rent Cantrol Board's Category ~ remo~al permit process needs to be reformed. Px-esently, Category D requires that all replacement units are subject to rent control and that 15$ of the new units are deed-restricted as low income units. With Casta-Hawkins, imposing rent control an the non-deed-restricted units provides no ~ong-term affardability benefits. Given this, and the severe impediment ta new rental housing created by Category D du~ing the past 18 years, SMI~C urges the fo7.lowing revised requirements far a Category D remova3. permit: 1. Require a percentage of the newly-constructed units ta be affordable t~ persons of low and moderate income; 2, Allow the balance of such units to be market rate units exempt from rent control; 3. Allow the on-site affordable units ta satisfy the requirements of the City's Inc].usionary Housing Program; and 4. A7.low the pxojeCt ta recei,ve whatever density bonuses are available under sta~e ar lacal law for the provision of on-site affordable units. Given the viabiiity of the E~lis Act as a means of d~veloping new condominiums, absent meaningful reform to the Category D removaJ. permit process the City is virtually ensuring that nearly al~ new development in its multi-family residential districts (wi~h the exception af subsidized affordable hausing projects) wil~ be condom~.niums and not arental housing. LAwKENCE & HARDING A P3iOFE$SIONAL G~RPORIi710N ATTORNEYS AT LAw Santa Monica Planning Commissi~n and Santa Monica Housing Commission January 8, 1997 Page 14 E. City Fees And Taxes. Givan the HR&A analysis of City fees and taxes, the Housing E~ement Update shauld include a pragram requirzng the City to study reductions in the overall tax and fee burden an new housing projects with the goal of lessening taxes and fees as an impedimer~t to new housing. F, Dff-Site Infrastructure Costs. The Housing Element Update should also include a pragram to study ways to reduce off-site infrastructure aosts, which now approximate 10~ of building perrait valuation. In this regard, the City should exaxni.ne how Santa Monica's off-site infrastructure costs compare ta neighboring cities--information that is missing fram the Public Review Draft. G. Public Review Of Candantinitua Pro-~ects. The Housing ~lement Update should include a p~rogram reforming the pracess for public review of new condominium prajects. New condominiu~ns shouid be suY~ject to the same review procedures applicable to new rental housing; the ownership structure should have na bearing on how multi-family housing projQCts are re~riewed by the C~ty. As a practical matter, this means the CUP requirement for a31 new candom~.niums should be repeal.ed. Candominium projects that exceed the development reviaw threshold should ~equi.re a development review permit ("DRP"); projects that fall beneath the development review threshold shou~d be subject to administrative approval.' H. Renewal Of TaRCA. As confirmed in the Public Review Draft, Santa Monica's Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment ("TORCA") has effectively expired. Thus, there is currently no available means whereby Santa Manica apartment owners and tenants may cooparate i.n canv~xting apartment buildings to condominiums at affardable sales prices. 'AI1 condaminiums, of course, wil]. continue to require either a parcel map or a tract map under the 5ubdivision Map Act. LAWRENGE & HARDING P FROF~SSIONAL CORPORwTfph ATTORNiEYS AT LAW Santa Manica Planninq Commission and Santa Mor~ica Housing Commission January 8, 1997 Page Z~ _ SMHC x`ecommends that a pragram be included in the Housing Element Update tahe~reby a charter measure will be placed on the ballot ir~ 1998 to rei.nstate the T~RCA law as a means of creatinq additiortal homeownership apportunities at affordable prices. I. Local Permit Streamlining. 5MHC urges development of a local permit stream].ining ordinance that wiil establish meaningful tim~ deadlines for the processing of ali housing pro~ect applicatians. Such an ordinance would provide pro~ect applicants with assurance that their projects will be pracessed in a timely raanner. III. CONCLUSION SMHC hopes the COTC~[115~"aIOT15 wiil take full advantage of the Hausing Element Updata proeess as an oppartunity to recommend serious reforms to Santa Monica housing and land use regulations. ~ndeed, that is the purpose gf this pracess as envisioned in California Housing Element Law. Although the Public Review Draft contains helpful information and anal.ysis that should inform the housing palicy debate, its propased pragrams are entirely inadequate to ccrrect the City's long-standing deficiencies in producing additional hot~sing. The Commissions shou]~d address this situation by developing a package of programs designed to improve Santa Monica's performance during the 1998-2003 planning period. 5MHC hopes the recommendations cantained in this letter will assist the Cvmmzssions in this ef~ort. 8 incere.ly, C~,.~°~.,~' ~_ 1~ `,,~`~ Christopher M. Harding of LAWRENCE & HARDING a Professional Corporation LAWREI~TGE & HARDING A PfapFESS~ONAL COAPOqqTIOK ATTORNEYS AT LAW santa Monica P~anning Commissian and Santa Monica Housing Commissian January 8, ~997 Page 16 CMH : j ps Enclasure cc: Santa Monica City Council Jahn Jalili, City Manager Susan McCarthy, Assistant City Manager Suzann~ Fra.ck, Director of Planning and Cammunity Development Dean Sherer, Acting Planning Manager Robert Moncrief, Housing Manager Tad Read, Senior Administrative Analyst Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney Barry Rasenbaum, Deputy City Attarney Mary H. StrQbel, Deputy City Attflrney Mary Ann Yurkona.s, Administrator, Rent Control Board Anthony A. Txendacosta, General Counsel, Rent Control Board Rent Control Board Commissianers Santa Monica Housing Council Baard of Directars Stephen E. Car~son, Executive Director, California Hous~ng Council 7mltra03.634 APPENDIX LEGAL AND TECHNICAL COMMENTS CONCERMNG THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OF THE 1998-2003 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA January 8, 1997 Pr~gared by the law firm of Lawrence & Harding, Attorneys for Santa Mornca Housing Counak, Californ~a Housmg Cou~cil and Rober# Sulhvan I. INTRODUCTION This Appendix contains ~he initial comments of the Santa Monica Housing Council ("SMHC"), Califarnia Housing Cvuncil (°CHC") and Robert Sullivan (~~Sullivan") with respect to the legal and technical aspects of the Public Review Draft of th~ 1998-2Q03 Hausing Element Update ("Public Review Draft"). For convenience, SMHC, CHC and Sullivan ar~ re£~rred to collectiveZy as "SMHC". SMHC is in the process of retaining a consultant to as~ist SMHC in its further review of the Public R~view Draft and the Technica~ Appendix accomganying the Public Review Draft. SMHC anticipates its consultant`s report wil], be availabZe to the City by February 1.5, 1997. SMHC may supplement its legal comments at that time. This Appendix is arganized topically. It £acu~eg on the ~.e~ues that SI~iC belisves are most relevant to the goal of increased hou$ing productian in Santa Maniea. I~. CITY'S FAIR ~HAR~ OF THE RSf~I~NAL NEED FOR ADDI T If~NAL HQUS I~ SMHC ~trongly disagrees wi~h the Publi.c Reviev~ Draft' e criticism of tihe Southern Californi.a Association of G~vern~nents ("SCAG"} "fair share" methodology. In particu~.ar: 1. The Pub~ic Review Draft's crita.que of SCRG's fair share approach reflects a basic misunderstanding of the fair share proceas. At page II-8n, the Public Review Draft argues that the SCAG fair shax-e allocation €or Santa Monica applicable to the ~.993 Ho~eing Ele~ent was unrealistica~ly high, as borne out by ~he actual change in the nu:nber of Santa Monica hou~aehalds during the planning period ~.n questi.on (1989-1994?. The SCAG fair sh~re nuttEbe~ i.s nat intended a~ a"pra~ec~~.on'~ ar a"foreca~t" ~€ ~he futur~. Rsthsr, it is intendad as a reasv~le a3.~~atitu~ af addition~I hous~ing growth necespary to ~€cc~an~a ~~,a~-e ~~~ng ueeds . The fact ~hat 3anta Max~ica experien~d v~.r~ua~~~y ~o hoasehold growth €rorn 198g through ~.994 (an irt~re~tee af t~~.~ ~.80 hougehalde) reflecta badly upon tihe City'e perfc3rm~ance ~~ not SCAG's fair ahare allocatian. 2. To base the City's ~ai.r ~hare obligation on the City's past performanee, as suggested by the City, wou~d undermine the ba~ic purpase the fair share p~oeess is interuied to Berve. Thia purpose is to al~ocatie arinonggt local jurisdiGtian~ a~air share of the statewide need far a.dditional housing, thus providing an indEgendent standard against which loca]. perfortnance may be meaeured. The fair share prQCess would be "turned on its ~ead" if 1 SCAG's fair share allocat~on were measured by Santa Monica`s actual p~rfarmance. III THE ADEQUATE SITES ANALYSIS SMHC believes the Publzc Review Draft's "adequate sites" analysis, required by Gavernment Code Section 65583{a)(3) and paragraph 2(a} of the Settlement Agreement, is iegally deficient. Speea.fical~y: 1. The Public Review Drafr car~cludes that the City has a realistic capacity for 4,068 net new dwelling uni~s during the 1998-2Q~3 planning per~od. See Table II-27 a~ page II-76. On the surfac~, this ca~pares favorably with the City's fair share ~bligation of 3,219 net new units dur~ng the same planning period. SMHC believes, however, that the Public Review Dra£t's adequate sites analysis grassly overstates ~he Ca.ty` s realistic capacity for an increase in the City`s housing supply during the I998-2003 planning period. 2. In particular, SMHC tak~s issue with the Public Review Draft's assurnption that a~l parcels developed with units built prior to 1942 should be included in the adequate sites ana].ysis, regardless of the rat~o between permitted units and existzng units, In ~his regard, the Public Review I]raft acknowZ~dgES that a review of projects approv~d between 1989-1995 indicates that th~ average ratio of new-tQ-existing units is 3.3 to 1. Page II-69. A~.though this ratio may not constitute a tni.nimum threshold belaw which recycling will not occur, the Pub~ic Review Draft's lack af any such threshold appears grossly unrea~istic. 3. The Public Review Draft`s assumption about the City's realis~.ic capaci~y for new hous~ng via recyc].ing also bears no relata.onship with the City`s historic exp~rience in generating additional housing in this manner. ~or examp~.~, in seeking to project the City's reaii.stic capacity for new housing via reeycla.ng. City Staff could have examined the City`s historic track record in generating new housing via recyc~.ing. Given ~he C~ty's dismal performance record in generating additianal housing during the past 15 years (an average of 126 uni~s per year), such an analysis would surely lead in a different direction. 4. In th~s regard, the reasons given in the Public Rev~ew Draft for the City's housing production ob~ective of only 1,542 un~ts during the 1998-2003 plann~ng period undercut the Public Review Draft's adequate sites analysis. According Go the Public Review Draft, the housing production objective of 1,542 units ref].ects the City`s realistic capacity for new housing during the planning periad. Ironically, the quanti~fied goal has been set so low based upon factars alsa relevant to a detErminatian of ~.he City's realistic capacity for new housing during the planning 2 perxod {i.e. the adequate s~tes analysis). Yet, the quantified goa~ is seC at only 48g of the adequate sites number. This clearly is an internal inconsistency in the Public Review Draft. 5. Stated differently, the same factors which explain why Che Public Review Draft establishes a housing production objective for the 1998-2Q03 piannang period of only ].,542 units also demonstrate the grassly unrealistic nature of the City's adequate sites analysis. In setting the housing productian objecti.ve at only 1,542 units, City S~aff is implicitly acknowledging that its adequate sites analysis does not satisty the "realistic capacity" standard. G. Additiona~ly, the Public Review Draft has not corre~ated its adequate sites analysis with its constraints analyais, which emphasiaes that current market conditions (whieh the Pub~i.c Review Draft doea not perceive changing in the near tex~m) render the typical mu].ti-family housing prvject in Santa Monica ecanamica~ly intesaible. The ad~quate sites analyais is only suppased to inciude site~ with a realXgtic potential for development during the relevant planning geriod. Given ~he apparently prohibitive markct conditions, the Public Review Draft's i.ncluei.an af all sites with ~u~ti-family houai.ng constructed priar to ~942 makes no sense. How can the Public Review Draft conclude, on the an~ hand, that such eit~s have a realistic potential for re- development while concluding, on the other hand, ~hat ~he average muZ~i-family housing prvject is financially infeas%ble even before consideration is given ta variaus regezlator~r constraints? ~t should be quite c7.ear that the constrainta analysis underrttin~s the efficacy of the adeq~ate sites analysis. 7. The basic purpose of the a~~qua~e sites analysis is to a~low tr.e Ci{Y to d~ter~nin~ whether current ~oning and density po~icies will r 3ke sufficient residential land available ta accommodat~ the City's fair share of the regzonal ne~:d for additional housing. Unfartunately, the Pu~lic Review Dxaft's adequate sites analy~is fails Co serve this basic purgo~e. By overstating the City's realistic capacity for r~ew hou$ing during the planning period, the Public Revie~rDraft avoida confFOn~ing the inescapable fact that current Ci~y land use and hdu~ing regulatione individually and callectively cansti~u~.e ma~or barrte~~ Co new hou~ing produc~ian. A realistic adequate sites ana],~eiss~-one which factors in the severe constraints on reeycling exis~~ng houaing with new, higher density housing--wauld have recogniaed that Santa Monica's realistic capacity for new housing given the current r~gu~atary enviranment is aignificantly leea than the City's €air ~hare and then exp~ored ways to expan.d this capacity thraugh regu~atary refarm. 3 IV. ~UANTIFIED HOUSING PRODUCTION ~BJECTIVE The Public Re~iew Draft estab~ishes a quant~fied objective for new hausing production (net} d~ring the 1998-2003 planning period of 1,542 units, or 308 units annually. Below are SMHC`s comments cancerning this quantified objective: 1 Notwithstanding the superficially conservative natuxe of the City~s housing productian objective (wh~ch is oniy 48% of the City`s fair share and only 40% of its all~ged realistic capacity), SMHC remains highly skeptical that this quantified objective is achievable. The basis for SMHC`s concern is, qui~e simply, ~hE City's past pexformance. From 1984 ta 1995, the Ci~y generated housing growth at the rate of 126 ne~ new units annually, and dt,tring the 1989-1994 plann~.ng period covered by the 1993 Housing Ele~-ent the City's housing s~~ck incx~eased b~ only 180 units (or 36 units ar~ually?. Nowhere daes the Public Review Draft explain why ~he City anticipates a dxamatic increase in the C~ty's rate of new hausing production to reach the quantified objective of 306 net new units annually. Nar daea the Public Review Draf~ include new programs that have the potential £ar generating such a signiticant increase in the rate of new houeing production. 2. In this regard, SMHC expressed a similar concern in relation to the ~.993 Housing Flement when i~ was ~zndergaing public review. In retrospect, ~ha~ conCern appears fuliy justified. As the Public Review Draft confix~ms, during the 1989-1994 planning periad ~avered by the 1993 Hvusing EZement, the Ci.ty's housing stock increased by anly 180 units, ar substantially l~ss than the City's quant~fied goal of 1,150 new un~ts [net) for this planning period. V. ~ONSTRAINTS ON HQUS~NG PRODUCTIQN A. Generai O~~~rvatians. SMHC fundamentally disagrees with the Public Review ~raft's canclusion that not a singlE Ci~y regulation con~t5.tute~ an actual constraint an the City'~ a~.bility to meet its fair share mf t~e rEg~.anal need for additional houeing. In this regard, the Public Review Dra~t acknawledges that the City will be u~able during ~he 199s-2Qa3 planning period to satisfy ite fair share af the regi.onal housYng need by providing an adda.tional 3,219 new units (net} during this p~anning period. This concession is implicit in the City's quantified hvusing production abjective of 1,542 new units (net}, or only 48°s of the City's fair share. The City's appar~nt conclusion that th~s "gap" between its fair share and ~ts quantitied abjective is solely the product of market £orces, and that City regulations play no role ~n maintaining this gap, is simply implausible and in no way compelled by the ~.imited technical analysis in the TeChnical Append~x. 4 Below are SMHC's more spECific comments w~th r~spect to this ~ssue 1. HR&A's technzcal analysis, whieh concludes that land costs rend~r the average project infeasible, makes certain assumpti.ans about the regulatory environment which, if changed, would likely have a dramat~c impact upon a financial feasibili~y analysis. Th~s a.s quite apparent from ~he d~scussion af land casts at pages III-2 through III-3 af the P~blic Review Draft. Specifically, the Pub~ic Review Draft references HR&A's financial feasibility analysis of four typical apar~ment projects and four typical candomi.nium projects in the City's R-2 District. Although these development scenarios were analyzed both with and without the City's inclusionary housing requirement, other regulatory limits were treated as "givens". No eftort was made ta de~ermine whether a significant re~.axation of some or ai~ of these regulatory constraints would re~nder new housing production feasib~e. 2. It does not app~ar that City Staff ar its consul~ants made any effort to develop a set af passible regulations tha~, given current Santa Manica market conditians, would render the average multi-~amily housing project in ~he City's multk-fam~ly housing districts economically fea~ible. This canstitutes a ba~aic flaw in the Public Revxew Draft. SMHC is confident that the wide gap between the City's quanta.~ied objective of ~,542 units during the 1998-2003 planning period and its fair shar~ of 3,219 units during this same p~riod can be clos~d, at least to a conside~able degree, by regulatory refarm. SMHC further believes the City has a lega~ abligation to examine passible regulatory reforms that, znd~viduall.y or coJ.lectively, wou7.d assist in ciosing this gap. This Iegal ob~igation is established in Government Code SecCYOn 65583(a)(4), which provides in relevant part: "The analysi~ shall also demons~ra~e local effar~s to remove gavernmental constraints that hinder the locality from rneeting its share af the regional housing need in accordance wi~h Section. 65584." B. Downzoninq Qf Ocear~ Park And North ~f Wils~hire Neiahbarhoods. SMHC disagxees w~th the Public Review Draft insofar as it fails to identify the downzoning measures a~fecting the ~cean Park and north of Wilshire neighborhoods as actual canstraints an new housirag produetion. Specifically: 1. At page III-17, the Public Review Draft acknQwledges that the re-zonings in questian have resulted in an aggregate reduction of approximaGely 740 units of multi-family housing potential. The Public Review Draft then conc~udes that this is not a significant reduction in housing eapacity because ~he adequate si~es analys~s indicates the C~ty has a realistic capacity for 4,Ob8 units during the 1998-2003 planning period. The Public 5 Review Draft then concludes. "This reductzon ~n development potential caused by the re-zonings would not significantly affect th~ City's abil~ty to achieve its fair share target." 2 SMHC believ~s the Public Review Draft grossly underec*imates the negative impact ot the neighborhood re-zonings on the' City`s ability to meet zts fair share obligations. A capacz'uy reduction of 740 units cQnstitutes a substantial reduction, represent~ng nearly one half of the City's quantifi~d produc~ian ab~ective for the ~998-2043 planning period. Moreover, the Ci~y`s elaim that even w~th this reduced capacity, the City retains. adequate sites to accommodate its fair share of the regiona~ need for additional housing, is unpersuasive. If the City had a r~alistic capacity to meet its fair share obligaCian during the plannang per~od in question, the City would nat be setting its quantified housing production objeetive at a level Zess than one ha~f of zts fair sha~e. C. Off-Site Infrastructure Improvemen~s. At page I~I-19, the Public Review Draft indicatee tha~ the average cos~ of otf-site ~nfrastructure i~provements is general~y 10~ vf the buiiding permit valuation. NotabZy absent is comparative ~nforn~ation for ather cities, though such information exists on other topics addressed in the Public Revi~w ~raft. Such co~parative information would assist in crafting a program des~gned to mitigate the adverse effect fl€ off-site improvemertt casts on new housing pxoduction. D. Fees And Taxes. The Public Review Draft also faa.~.s ta con~ain comparative informatiQn with respect ta the City'~ various taxea and fees aff~cting tiousi c~~. Given the combined magnitud~ of these taxes and fees, as conc~ded in the Public Review Draft, such comparative information shou~d be gathered as the first step in expJ.oxi.ng means of reducing the cumulative impact of these taxes and fees on new housing production. E. The Ellis Act And The Rent Contral Board Remava~. Permit Process. SMHC believes the Pub~ic R~vi,ew Draft is clearly wr~ng in its assessment of the Ellis Act and Rent Contral Board removal permit process as constraints on new housing production. In this regard, the Public Review Draf~ refl.ects both a misunderstanding of the a.ssue and a neglect of compelling evidence that cvntradicts its conc~usions. In this regard, SMHC's concern is wath the production of new rental houszng. SMHC agrees that the Ellis Act provides a vzable means of withdrawing a rent-controlled property from the 6 jurisd~ction of the Rent Control Board and then developing that proper~y with new condominiums_ Althaugh this strategy is not without some risk, SMHC believes the risk is manageable and not prohibitive In contrast, there ~s no viable means af recycling the vast majority af rent-controlled properties with new rental housing. By failing to recognize this critical fact, the Public Review Draft and the Technical Append~x fail to address the primary reason why Santa Monica`s rate of new housing product~on has been sQ low since enactment of the Santa Monica Rent Contral Law nearly 18 years ago. Be~ow aze SMHC's more spec~fic camments with respect to the Ellis Act and the removal perm~~ process: 1. The El~is Act: In the past, SMHC has tak~n the posi~ion that the Ellis Act canstitutes an impediment or "constraint~' on the development of new rental housing. The Public Review Draft, however, has focused upon the E11is Act's impacts on new cQndQmin~~m pro3ects. A~though the Public Review Draft acknowledges at page III-25 the existence of "mare stringent requirements for those who use the E1Zis Act tQ 'go out of the rental business,' but then construct a new apartment building in place of the existing rent-control department bu~lding...'T, the Public Review Dra€t fails to identify these "stringent require~ents" as actual constraints on the praductian of ren~al houaing. In this regard, at pag~ III-25 the Public Review Draft a~knowledges that of the 207 praperties withdrawn from rental housing use under the Ellis Act, only 24 have ~ed to replacement housing proj~cts. No in€orn~ation is provided as to how ~any of these 24 replacement housing projects were rental projects as opposed to condominium projects. Presumab~y, the vast majority if not all were condominium projects. 2. The Rempval Permit Process: At pages III-26 thraugh III-27, the P~blic Review Draft explores removal permita as a potential constraint on new housing prode~ction. The Public Review Draft cancludes that the Rent Control Board's removal permit regulata.ons are not an actual constraint to new housing production hecause neither the procedural nar the substan~ive requiremente add extra costs to develapment that wo~Id render an av~rag~ replacem~nt multi-family project ~inanc~ally infeasible. This porta.on o~ the Public Review Draft misses the ~axk entirely. The very purpose of the Rent Control Board`s removal per~it process is to preserve the existing rental housing stack. Consistent with this purpose, the removal permit gracess necessarily impedes the recycling of existing, r~nt-controlled units w~th new housing. In this regard, at page III-27 the Public Review Draft acknow}.edges that very few prapert~es with approved removal permits have been replaced by new hous~ng developments. Specifically, of 7 the 166 proper~ies that have received removal permits from the Rent Control Board during the past 17 years, only 36 {approxima~ely two per year) have resulted in new housing prajects. This ~xtraardinarily low rate of hous~ng production util~zing removal permits cans~itutes compe~ling evidence that the remaval permit process is, w~th few excep~ions, a proh~bitive barrier to new housing productzon. This is especially true with respect to Category D remova~ permi~s, which is the only remaval perini~ category that does r~ot requ~re a showing that operating ~he exis~ing un.a~ts is econom~cal~y in~easible Under Category D, a replacement project is sub~ect to stringent requirements. These requirements include {~} Cont~nuing ~ur~sdictian of the Rent Control Law over the redeveloped xental units, and (b) at least 15~ of the units in the new project must rent at prices affordable to ~vw-incama households. In the Technical Appendix, HR&A c~ncludes that "the stringent post-approval restrictions on the property can be assumed not ~.o be a constrain~, because they are vol~ntarily entered into by the app~icant." Teehnical Appendix Par~ 5, page 10. This is simply false; there is nothing "voluntary" about the severe restriCtions that apply ta aII Category ^ removal permits. Unless the applicant a.s willing to accept the standard res~ri.ctions imposed by the Baard, a Category D permit is not available. Moreover, the Public Review Draft and Technical Appendix igno~e Chat the practical effect of these standard Categary D restrictions is ~a deter nearly all potential appli~ants from seeking Category D pexmits. In the Technical Appendix, Part 5, page 10, HR&A acknow~edges that the net increase in the haus~ng stock from Category D remaval permits has been only 21 ~nits. Category D has been in p~ace since shortly after the enactment of the Santa Monica Rent Contral Law nearly 18 years ago. It is simply incangruot~s for Che Public Review Dxaft to assume that the Category D removal pe~nz-it process prov~des a viable means of recycling existing ~nulti-famil}r hous~ng sites wi~h n~w housing projects given this dismal 18-year track record. The fact that very few properties with appraved remaval p~its have been rep~aced by n~w hou~ing developmer~ts (page II~- 27) has a singl.e, obvious explanation: the Category D removal permit process is so onerous that very few progerty owners are wil~ing to undertake it. There is no other coneeivable explanation fox why, in nearly 18 years, there have been only 3~ new housing projects as a result o~ rent cantrol remaval permi~.s leading to on~y 21 additional units.l lIn its concluding paragraph at page III-27, the Publa.c Review DrafC conclu~es that the Rent Contral Board's removal permit regulations are no~ an actual ~onstraint to housing productian because the subs~.antive requirements do not add extra cost to 8 Interestingly, ~n the April ~990 draft of what became the City~s 1993 Housing Element, the City candidly acknowledged that the Kent Controi Board r~movai permit prdcess constitutes a significant constraint on new housing development. The April 1990 draf~ indacated (at pages 53-54): "One provision of the char~er amendment (which is mare completely described in the pragrams sectian} tha~. operates as a canstraint ~n new devel~pment ~s the requirement that al]. rental unzts remaved by new deveZopment ~ust be repZaced with rental housing development subject to rent control, and that at least ].5~ of the units be restricted by cavenant to persons or households with incom~s less than 50°s of the regiona~ median. All low and moderate income tenants must be relocated to comparable affordable housing. Since ~-ast new development in the City involves ~he recycling af currently develvped prapertiea, this provision can act to discourage recycling to higher densiti~s. The result is ta ~ima.t the increase in the overall supply of hou~ing in Santa Manica in order to px~otect exi:~ti.ng affordable housing." 3. Concluaion: SMHC believes that tihe combined ~ffect of the Ellis Ac~ and the CaCegory D substantive requirements constitute a severe impediment to recycling existing, rent- cantroll~d units with new rental hausing projectis. This position is amply supported by in£armatia:. c~rrtained in the Pub~ic Review Draft, natwithstanding its Panglossian conclusi~ns to the contrary. The combined effeet of the El~is A~t and the Category D subs~antive requirements canstitutes a major barrier to the development of new rentaZ housirzg in Santa Monica that needs to be addressed forthrightly in C.he Housing Element Update. This is especially i.mportant because, as acknawledged in the Publie Review Draft (see page III-25}, the Eliis Act provide~ a viable me~ns of recycling existing, rent-controlled unit~ with new condomini.u~ts. Xbsen~ reform of the Categ~ry D subs~.antive requirernents, the combined impact o~ the Eliis Act and the Rent Contro~ Board removal develapmsnt that would render an average replacem~nt multi-farnily praject financia~~.y infeasib].e. It does not appear that City Staff vr HR&A performed a financial feasibility analysis of a protatypical Category D r~placement pro7ect to asses~ the financial impacts of the standard Categary D requirements that apply to all rep~acement proj~cts. Absent such an analysis, SMHC do~s not helieve thex'e is any £oundation for ~his conclusion. process will strang~y encourage the developmen~ of new condom~n~ums at Che expense of new rental housing. VI MITIGATION OF GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS By fa~ling ta acknowledge the constra~n~ng effects af various City regulations on the production of new housing, the Public Review Draf~ ~ails ta comply with a core requiremen~ of Califoxnia Housing Element Law: the inclusion of programs designed to mitigate these constraining effects. Xn this regard, Paragraph 2(c) of the Settlement Agreement specifzcally provid~s that the Housing Elemen~ Update "will a~so (1) contain analysis that demonstrates the City's efforts to remove Actual Governmental Constraints, if any, as required by Government Code Sect~on 65583(a)(4} and (2l address and. where appropriate and iegally possible, remove Actuai Governmental Constraints as required by GQVernment Cade Section 65583tc)(3?." Nothing in the Public Review Draft even purports to comply with these requirements. The quest~on that the City has not seriously addressed is whether through regu~atory reform it can close, either partially flr entirely, the signi£icant gap between its fair share and its histaric housing pxoduction rate. A serious pursuit of this question would inevitably lead the City to explore mitigation measures designed to remove at least same of the severe r~gulatory barriers that cantribut~ to the wide differ~nce between tihe City's fazr share and ~ts actua~ performance. Fram SMHC's vantage point. the mitigation pragrams cons~itute ~he most critical part of Santa Manica's Housing Element Update process. These programs w~ll determine whe~her the City will take seriously its abligations for new housing production under California Housing Element Law Unfortunately, these mitigation programs are entirely miss~ng from the Public Review Draf t . VII. HOUSING PROGRAMS SMHC believes the "pragrams" can~ained in the Pul~lic Review ~raft directed at new hausing production are fundamenC.all.y flawed and requ~re revision "from the groun.d up". Specifically: 1. The Public Review Draft's "programs" directed a~ new housing production do not meet the def~nitian of a hous~ng element program as articulated by the California Departmen~ of Housing and Community Develapment {"HCD"). Accarding Co HCD, housing element programs are intended to constitute "the specific action steps the locality will take to impl~men.t zts policies and achieve ~ts 10 ob7ectives. Programs should include a time frame and an identificat~on of the agencies and officials responsible for implementation. Program descriptions should demons~rate a firm cammitment ta implemenfi." HCD further explains: "The program descriptions should be as detailed as possible." 2 Measured against this standard, the Public Review Draft's so-called "programs'~ are c~early deficient. Rather ~han comm~t the City to a firm course of action, ~hese so-called programs are replete with "hedgewords" ~uch a~ "evaluate modifying", "evaluate z~visions", Rassess the feasibili~y of", and "evaluate potential modzfieations" Program l.a in garticuZar ernbodies tha.s problem but is hardly unique in this regard. 3. The so-called prngrams directed at housing production alsa lack sufficient specificity ta conati.tute "pragrams" within the mEaning of Cal~~ornia Housing Ele~eat Law. Absent a firm commitment to sp~ci~ic progra~at~.c refo~me, the Public Review Draft fails to satisfy the requi~en~ent of Government Code Sectian ~5583(c} that a housing element ~hall include "a pragram which sets forth a five-year achedule af actiona th~tt local government is under~aking or intands to underta]ce to implement ~he poZicies and achi.eve the goa~s and obje~tives o€ the housing element...." 4. In thi.s regard, SMHC note~ that it ra~.sed similar cvmplaints about th~ 1993 Housing Element to no avai~. The ~993 Housing Element. which also included vague grograms suppoeedly directed at housi.ng product~on Ee.a. Program A--l.a: "Periodic review and revision of pZanning, zaning, and dev~lQpment regulations to ensure an adequate sugply of si~es for a variety of ho~sing tyges an-' grices"1, has res~xlted in no regul~toxy ~eforms directed a~ priv=;.ely developed, market-xate ~iou~it~g. ~be ~~nce af any meaningfkl regulatoxy reform under the 1993 Hausing Element ~ed, in turn, to no progress ~.n addressing ~he City's~ ~ouaing production deficienciea. VIII . EVALUATION OF CITY` S FAST PERFflRM~ti~CB WI~ RESPECT TO NEW HOUSING PROI2tJCTIOAT In the Public Review Draft's evaluation af Tch~z Ci~y's past performance i.n the area of new hous~ng praduet~a~, a key component is conspicuously missing: the advers~ e€f~ct a€ a series of C~ty regulatory constraints beginning with passa~ge of ~h~ Santa Monica Rent CQntral Law in I979. Inetead, ~hE Public Review Draft bemaans the unfairness af SCAG's fair share methodo~ogy and ~he di~ficulties created by high land coats and other market evr~di~ions beyond ~he City`s cantral. The City's regulatory pol~cies, o~ caurse, played no role whatao~ver in the City's poor housing production perf~rma.nce during the past 15 plus years. 11 The Pubiic Rev~ew Draft`s fa~lure to acknowledge the sign~f~cant rale played by City regulatary policies an constraining new hous~ng praduction since 1979 is especial~y problematic because it impedes the much needed public debate abaut regulatary reform that the Housing Element Update process is intended to foster. With this in m~nd, below i5 SMHC's historical perspective on City regula~~ons and programs that have served as szgn~ficant constraints an new hausing produc~ion. A The 1980s Santa Mon~ca`s poar perfarmance record concerning new housing praduction has been a direct result of its overrid~ng policy goal of preserving existing, rent-controlled housing at virtually any cost. A review of the C~ty's perfarmance record during the 1980s in the area~ of rent cantrol, land use palicy and development exactions demonstrates this po~nt beyond any serious question. Beiaw is a summary of Santa Monica housing golicy and practice during the lsaos: 1. Rent Cantrol: The Santa Monica Reat Control Law, Art~cle XVIII of the Santa Mvnica City Charter, was adopted by voter initiative on April 10, 1979. It was amended in Noveml~er, 1984 and remains in ef£ect . Section 1843 (t? of the Rent Control Law incorporates the Citiy`s overriding palicy o€ preserving rent- con~rolled housing by prohibiting the recyc~ing of rent-eontrolled properties except under v~ry limited circums~.ances. This section provides that a property may be recycled on3y if the owner obtains a remaval permit from the City's Rent Control Board. Such a permit is only available if an owner establishes a consCite~tianai right to remove ~he property fram rental housing use or if the property wi11 be recycled with an equal number of rent-contirolled units on site and with a sp~;_ified percentagE of these units deed restric*ed for occupancy by i~w-income households a~ affordable x'ents. The Public Re~iew Draft documents but fails to apprec~ate the practical eft~cts of the Rent Contral Law on new housing productian. Wi~h few exceptians, the Rent Control Board's removal permit process ~codified in Sect~on iaa3it)) has effective~y prevented the recycling of existing, rent-cantralled units with new rental housing. Until passag~ of the Ellis Act, it effectively precluded the recycling Qf rent-controlled properties with new condominiums as well. 2. The E~lis ACt: EffeCtiVe July 1, 3986, the CaZifarnia Legislature enacted the Ellis Act ~Gavernment Code Sect~.an~ 7060 et seq ). The Ellis Act pravides rental praperty owners with the right to remove their propert~es fram rental housing use notwithstariding local 7.aws to the contrary. 12 Santa Monica immediately perceived the Ellis Act as a ma~or threat to its paramount housing goal of preserving existing rent-controlled units, and responded accordangly. a. The Yarmark case: Shortly after the Ellis Act taok effect, the City and its Rent Control Board filed a lawsuit against Henry Yarmark and certain other Santa Monica rental property ow~zers to en~oin their eviction of tenants pursuant to the Ellis Act, claiming that the Ellis Act was unconstitutional under the California Canstitution. After more than two and one-half yearsiof litigation~ the California Court of Appeal rejected the City`s'argumen~, and held that the Ell~.s Act was a lawful exercis~ of the California Legislature's authority to preempt the Santa Monica Rent Control Law insofar as it prohibited rental praperty owners from withdrawing their properties from rental housing use. City af Santa Mon~~a v. Yarmark, 203 Cal. App. 3d 153, 249 Cal. Rptr. 732 (1988} . b. The Javidzad case: In separate ~itigation known as the ~avid~ad case, which affected the same proper~y tha~ wa~ involved in the Y~rm~~l~ lawsuit, th~ Ca.ty and its Rent Con~ral Boa~d argued that after a rental property owner removed proper~y from rental housing use pursuant to the Ellis Act, ~he property remained subjecti to the Rent Cantrol Board's jurisdiction and cou~d not be recyc}.ed unless and until the Rent Control Board issued a removal. permit_ Dur~ng the pend~ncy of tha.s litigation, th~ City refused to pracess any planning applicatior~s for praperties which had been withdrawn frQm rental housing use but had not ob~ained a removal permit, thus "chi].J.i.ng" use of the E~lis Act as a means of recycling rent-controlled properties. After protracted litigation, the Court of Appeal rejected ~.he Ci~y's position and held that once a property is remaved frorn ren~ai ho~sing use pursuant to rhe E~.lis Act, iti has effectively been '~removed" within the meaning of Sect~.on 1803 (t ) of the Rent Control Law and thus no Rent Control Board removal permit ~s required. Javidzad v. Citv of Sa~ta Monica, 204 Cal. App. 3d 524, 25~ CaI. Rptr. 350 i1988}. 3. Citv Develo~ment Exactions: The Cour~ of Appeal`s decisions in Yarmark and Javidzad, upho~ding the EZlis Act as a via;~le means af removing rent-controlled progerties f~om rerital hausing use and facilitating the recycling of such properties with new housing deveiapment, led the City to s~arch for other ~eans--in additian Co Section 1803(t) of the Rent Control Law--to impede the recycling process. In the late 1980s, by far the most significant means ut~.lized by ~he City ~a impede the recycling pracess was Program 10 of the 1983 Housing Ele~nent. This pxagram prahibited the demolition of existing multi-family residential units unless px'ovision is made for their replacement. During its fix'st six years, Program 14 was not applied in a;nanner which crea~ed a serious impediment ta new housing deveZopment. Because Section I803it} largely prec~uded the 13 recycling of rent-controlZed properties, most Santa Monica haussng projects were constructed on vacant or exempt land (e.g., Santa Manica's Rent Contra~ Law contains an exemptian for owner-oecupied proper~ies containing three or fewer units). ~pically, these exempt propert~es were being re-developed with new condom~nium projects containing a greater number of un~ts than previously existe~ on-saCe. Bec~use the City then took the pasition that replac•~ng a s3ngle-family home, duplex or triplex with a condoRinxum praaect eontaaning a greater number pf units satisfied the requ~rements of Program 10 (wh~ch speaks generiea~ly of mu~ti- famiiy~ dwelling units with no differentiation between apartment units and condaminium units), Program 10 was not a practical impediment for this type of pro~ect. ' Howev~r, the City's practice in ~his area was changed fundamentally shortly after the Court of Appeal's decisions in Yax-mark and Javidzad confirmed that the ElZis Act provides Santa Monzca rental property owners with a viable means to recycle thezr properties with new housing development without comp~ying with Section 1803(t)_ On April 25, 1989 {i.e., several months af~er the Court of Appeal's decisions in Yarmark and Javidzad), the City Council d~rected the City Attorney to prepare a Pr~gram 10 Implementation Ordinance r~quiring an owner who intenda to r~move existing ~ulti-famaly dwelling un~ts either ~o pravide one-far-one replace~ent housing af the same tenure ~i.e., rental unit for rental unit, owner's unit for owner's unit) or to pay an in-lieu fee to tihe City ranging from $38,OQ0 for each Qne-bedroom unit removed up to $53,000 ~or each four-bedroom unit removed. Then, on 3une 27, 1989, the City Caunci~ enacted Ordinance No. 1486(CCS), creating a standard condition to be imposed upon all pro~ect approvals anvolving the removal of existing rental ~ous~ng units. This new standard conditian required a pro~fct appl~cant to comply with any Program 1Q Impiementation G~dinance enacted ~riar to the time they obtained their certi£icate of occupancy far the pra~ect. Ordinance No. 1486(CCS), cflmbined with th~ propased Program 10 Implementiation Ordinance`s massive in-lzeu fees, created an ~normous "chilling effect" on the xecycling af rent-cantrolled properties in Santa Monica. Many Santa Monica property owners and developers who were contemplating recycling rent-controlled praperties with new hausing pro~ects either delayed oz abandoned their plans because the contemplated Pragram 10 in-lieu fees rendered their pro7ects financ~ally infeasible. 4. Physical Development Standards: D~ring the ~980s the City also made significant changes to its physical development standards for new housing pra~ects that e~fective~y reduced the develapment po~entzal of many res~dentaaliy-zoned progerties by lowerzng allowable heights and densities, and by imposing more strzct design and massing requir~ments on new houszng prajeCts. 14 • C~ty-wide Downzoninq. rn 1984, Santa Monica lowered perrnitted d~nsit~es in mult~ple-family residential zones through the adoption of its Land Use Element. R-4 High Density Housing was reduced from 1/750 (one unit per 750 square feet of parc~l area) to ~/900. R-3 Medium Density Hausing was reduced from 1/~000 to 1/125~. R-2 Low Density Housing was zeduced fram 1/125D ta I/1500. • Ocean Park Interi~ Downzonina. In 1987, Santa Monica adopted Ordinance No. I416(CCS), which lawered permitted development standards in the Ocean Park neighborhoad to int~rim levels, noting that "[a] number pf properties in the Ocean Park area are under-develaped in relation to the City's existing a~lowable height and denaity limits.~ At that time, San~a M~nica reduced Che R-3 and R-4 deneity Btandards in Ocean Park to R-2 leve~s for al~ new projects axcepti only those in which 100~ of the un~ts were made permanent~y affordal~le to persan~s of lov~r and moderate i.nc~mes. A1Z new projects with five or more unit~ v~rere required ta camply with a two-stary/27 favt height limit irrespective of their zone (R-2 had been tvvo-stories/30 f~et; R-3 had been three-etories/40 feet; R-4 had been four-storiee/50 feet?. Heights of 35 feet were authorized anly £or new pxojec~s with pitched roofs. • Ocean Park Permanent Downzoni.nq. In 198~, Santa Monica ~dopted Ordinance No. 1496{CCS) ~.o establish peY-manent develapment standards €or the Ocean Park nezghborhood. Th~.s nrdanance re-zoned mast R-3 properties to OP-2, mast R-4 properties to OP-3, almost all R-2 praperties to OP-2, and ~ome R-2 groperties to OP-~. A~~nost a~.l land in the Dcean Park neighbo~hood is now zoned OP-2, which limite density to ~/2400. Where the project w~.ll be deve].op~d on more than 1~,Ei0~ equare fee~ of ~and, the density ie fur~her reduced to 1/25D0 ~n the aP-2 District. The OP-3 Distr~.ct has ~he denaity o€ R-2, and the OP-4 District has the density o£ A-3. The maximum height in the OP-2 llis~rict is lim~ted ~o two- stories/23 fe~t fwith up to 30 feet permitteet for pi~e~ied raofs]. Additional design criteria related to bt~ilding spaczng, private opan space and commor~ open space were impased throughaut the Ocean Park neighborhaad. Those 15 design standards were later made even more rigorous by Ordinance No. 1514tCCS~.~ • San Vicente Downzonanq. In 1988. Santa Monica adapted Ordinance No. I454(CCS) to, among other things, rezone blocks 10a-600 af San Vicente Boulevard from R-4 High Denslty Housing to R-2 Low Dens~ty Housing. • North of Wilshire M~ratarium. In 1989, Santa Monica adopted Ordinance No 1478(CCS) to impose a 45-day moratarium against devE~opment in the R-3 and R-4 Districts of the so-called Narth of Wzlshire neighborh~vd (between Ocean Avenue on the west, Montana Avenue on the north, ~4th Street on ~he east, and wilshir~ Boulevard on the south.) Ordinance NO. 1478 nates, "A nu~nber of existing properti.es ~~ the morator~um area are underdeveJ.oped in relatian to the City's existing allowable height and density limits. This is sigzzif ~ ~ant in that the re-development ~f these cu.rrently underdeveioped properties at greater heigh~ and d~nsities could re9ult in the loss a~ views and ~.ight and cauld pose a threat to the exis~ing charaeter of ~he neighborhood." This moratorium was extended for six months by Ordinance No. 1454(CCS) and then for an additianal ten months by Ordinance No. 1507{CCS). • North af Wilshire Downzoninq. After the 17~ month long moratorium was lifted, R-4 properties North af Wxlshire were re-zoned ~o R-3, and R-3 pxoperties w~re ~'e-zoned to R-2 by Ordin~nce Na. 1547(CCS). In addition, an NW Over~ay District was crea~~d by Ordinance No. 1543{CCS). The permitted height in the NW R-2 was reduced from 30 feet tv 23 fe~t except for projects with pitched rflafs, and the per{nitted height in the NW R-3 was reduced from 40 feet to 35 feet except for projects with pitch~d r~ofs. Additional design standards relating ta front yard setbacks, s~.de yard setbacks and private open space wer~ a].sa imposed. Furthermore, a construction rate program wa~s establiahed in ~he NW Overlay ta limit construction ta no more than ~In 1991, OP-2 standards for sloping io~s were strengthened even further because "dev~lapment pro~ects have been approved on sloping sites in the OP-2 Ocean Park Low Multiple Residential District that, while consistent with the ordinance specified height requ~rements, are not cansistent with the ordinance intent.. " Ordinance Na 1.575(CCS) See also Ordinance No. 15B3fCCS}. 16 one new project per block and within a 30Q foot radius per every eight months. • Sunset Park Downzoninq. In 1990, Santa Monica adopted Ordinanee No. 1537tCCS} ta re-zone R-3 properties alang Ocean Park Bou~evard between L~ncoln Boulevard and 25th Street to R-2 because "[o] n more than one recent occasion, an application for develapment in ~he aftec~ed area has been filed which proposes a land use density utilizing ~he R-3 Zone Distric~ standards." In sum, this chronology af City hauging palicy and praCtice during the 1980s demonstrates that Santa Monica engaged in a course of action designed to impede the recycling process in order to preserve rent-con~rolied housing. B. ~h~ ~990s. During the 1990s, Santa Monica has been evE.i mare aggressive in its ~fforts ~o impede the recyc~ing of exi~ting, rent-controlled housing with new housing. Below ie a discuasion of severa~ key gavernmental constraints that have restricted the develvpment of new housing in Santa Monica dur~ng the i990s. 1. Rsnt C~n~rol: As discussed previous~y, the Rent Control Law constituted a majar ~mpediment to the development of additiona~ housing in Santa Monica during the ~960s. Nothing has oecurred since then to improve this situation. Althvugh since Ju~y I, 1986, rental praperty ownErs may rely upon the E11is Act to withdraw prvperties from rental housing use without complying with the extremely restrzctiv~ removal pex-mit reqi.f~rements contained in Section 1803 .) of the Rent Contral Law, this i~ not a practical option for tne vast majority of ~hose interested in re-developing their praperties. First of a11, the Ellis Act is not av~ilable to those who wish to recycle their properties with rental units since the Ellis Act an~y contemplates the permaneat withdrawal of properties fram rental housing use. Secondly, as diecusaec~ below the City has enacted a series of developm~nt exactiane arfd la~nd uee poZicies which, taken tagether, general~y render uee at the Ellis Act far purpases of re-developmenti econamical~.y infea~ible. Thus, Santa Monaca's Rental Control Law continues to be a vital part o€ Santa Manica's overall strategy of preserving rent-controlled units at any cost and, as such, rema~ns a major conetraint on the develapment of new housing. 2. Inclusionary Hausinq: Although SMHC has consistent~y supported responsible effarts by the City in the area af affordable housing, the City is rnisusing zts affordable hausing polieies in an effort to impede the recycling of existing rent- cantrolled propert~es, a process which is essential to Santa Monica 17 rneeting its fair share of the need for add~tional hausing (or even ~ts lowEr, quantified h~using production objective}. Concurxent with Santa Monica's efforts to impede the recycling of rent-contrailed properties by downzoning large portions of Santa Monica's multi-famxly reszdential neighborhoods, ~h~ Czty has enacted inc~easingly more restrictive inc~us~onary housing r~quirements for new housing pro~ects for this same purpose. a. Proqram 10. As discussed previously, Program 10 of the 1983 Housing Element canstituted the City's Rep~acement Housing Program, This program farmerly required projects ir~volving Che demolition of multi-family housing to rEplace the housing or pay a~arge replacement housing fee ($38,000 ~a $63,000 per unit). Dn June 28, 1490~ ~he Ca~ifornia Court of Appeal de~ermined in a published decision that a San Francisco program similar to Santa Monica's Program ~0 violated the Ellis Act. Bullack v. City and CQ~.ntv of San ~'ranciseo, 221 Cal. App. 3d 1072, 271, Cal. Rptr. 44 (1990). Nevertheles~, the City continued to assert that Pragram 14 was va].id and eont~nued to impose the standard condition required by Ordinance No. 1486tCCS? compelling housing projects ta pay massiv~ replac~ment housing tees pravided the Program 10 Ymplementa~ion Ordinance was adopted prior to ~ssuance of a certiificate af occupancy for the new projec~. This d~terred the vast majority of prospective housing developers from proceeding to build projects. On January 21, 1.991, our law firm s~.thmitted a written demand to the C~ty on behalf of two of our clients who had completed the E1].is Act pracess and abtained their candaminium approva~.s with the standard Prograrn 10 condition attached thereto. In ane instance, the pro~ected in-lieu fees would have exceed one million dollars. Dur let~er demanded the repeal of Program 10 and the invaiidatiaa of all Program IO conditions impvsed an specific housing pro~ects. In responee, on March 26, 1991, the C~ty Council enacted Ordinance No. I576{CCS), suspending enfarcetn~nt ~f Program 10 and invalidating any praj~et approval conditions requzring campliance with Program 10. Thus, the ma~or impediment created by Program 10, Ordinan~e Na. 1486 and the propased Program 10 Implem~ntation OrdinanCe {w~th its massive in-lieu fees), has been eli~ninated and no Ianger constitu~es a constraint on new housing development. Unfortunately, however~ the City has adopted another, ev~en more restrictive inc].usionary housing program. 18 b. Proqram 12. Program ~2 of the City's 1983 Housing Element required ~he City to adopt an inciusionary housing program, Program ~2 specified that each hausing project should include 25s to 3~% (with fractzons rounded down) of its units at prices affordable to persons with incomes at or be~ow 120~ of the coun~y median income. Progxam 12 further specified that the City mus~ develop reguiations allawing the paytnent of a fee to the City in lieu of providing act~al incl~sionary units, and ~hat any inclusionary units provided may be either ownership or rental units. Initially, Program 12 contribu~ed to a marked dec~ine in the rate of new housing develogment, largely because na in-lieu fee optian was available. In response, on Sept~mber 23, 198~, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 1389(CCS} permitting project applican~s to comply with Pragram 12 by paying an in-lieu fea equal to $3.00 per ~quare ~oot far the first ~o,a00 feet o~ development, and $4.00 per square foat far any ~quare footage in excese of l0,Od0 square feet. The City als3o amended Program 12 ~n 1987 reducing the inc~usianary percentage ~rom 2S~ ~0 15~, requiring that any in-lieu fee aehedule m~et an ecanomic feasibility test, and confirming that project ap~Iicants sha1.1 be given a choice of providing the affordable u~its on site or pay~ng an in-liau fee. For ~he remaind~r of the Z980s, Progratt~ 12 w~s implemented a.n a fashion that did not seriouely impede the development of new houaing in Santa Moniea. Although on June 28, 1988, the City enacted Ordinanc~ Na. 1448rCCS) increas~ng its in- li~u tee schedul~ madestly, this change never posed any significant prablems for nek housing development. Thie situation abruptly changed, however, in April, 1990, when the City adopted Drdinance No. 1519{CCS). This Ordinance increased ~he affordable houaing r~quir~ment frvm 15~c to 3U~, e~.iminated the small project exemgtion, and ~.ncreased ~he i.n- lieu ~ee ~o $~.5 per ~quare fo~t notwithstanding a Ci~y-egoneored s~udy which que~tioned the economic feasibilf.ty of such feee, This Ordinance caused an immediate and sEZbstan~ia~. decline in agplications for new h~using projects. c_ Propp~ition ~t. Qn November 6, 1990, the Santa Monica voters approved Proposition R by a narrow margin. Proposition R amended the Santa Monica City Charter to require that nat less than 30~ of alI multi-family residential housing newly constructed in the City art an annual l3asis rr-ust be permanently affordable to low and moderate income households. 19 On March 25, 1991, caincident with the City Council's suspenszon of Program i0 (then ~ts majar impedsment to the recycling of rent-conCrolled properties), the City Council enacted an emergency ordinance (Ordinance No 1~77(CCS)) establish~ng a six-month maratorium on a1I multi-farni~y residential development projects except thos~ which incl~de at l~ast 3Qo on- site af tordable ~nits (with all fractions rounded up). Subsequently, Chis rnaratorzum was extended on twa accasions and did not expire until April 10, 1992. The 30s affordable unit require~ent brought n~w appZications for multi-famiiy housing project~ to a vir~~al halt. In March 1992, the City enacted Ordinance No. 16I5, ats permanent Proposition R Implementat~on Ordinance. Thzs ordinance requ~res on-site compliance in a21 but very unusual c~rcums~ances. Few private marke~-rate hous~ng projects have be~n cons~ructed since its adoption nearly five years ago. Of al~ current City constraints an new hausing production, this ordznance constitutes ~he most severe constraint. Thus, the City has devised a new means in the 1990s to impede the recycling af rent-controlled properties. Indeed, Proposition R and i~s implementing ardinance con~titute an even greater impedYment to the development of new housing in Santa Monica than ~h~ impediments in place during tihe past decade. During the 1480s, the impediments created by Section 18~3(t? of ~he Ren~ Control Law and P~ogram ~4 did not affect th~ recycling of properties which w~re exempt from rent control (e.g., owner-occupzed propertie~ containing three Qr fewer units, vacant land, and commercial praperties}. Such projeets were only subject to the in-lieu f~es establYShed under Program 12 and, as discussed above, those ~~es were set at reasonable levels. In contrast, under Proposition R and its imp~ementing ordinance, the limited "windows of opportunity" for new housing developm~n~ that existed in the 199os have been closed. Propositian R uniformly impedes the development of a~l new mul~i-fam~ly housing in Santa Manica regardleas of the property's rent contral stat~s ar its zoning. In ahort, those w~o d~sire to construct multi-family housing projects in Santa Monica face much greater governmental constraints in tihe 1990s than they faced in tihe i980s TX. CONCLUSION Based upan the foregoing, SMHC submits that the City is legally obliged to make basic revisions to the Public Rev~ew Draft in order to ensure adoption of a Hausing Element Update that complies wYth Ca~ifornaa Housing Element Law Above all, th~ Housing Element Update shou~d ~nclude a s~ries af progra~s designed 20 to mitigate or remove the sev~re cons~rain~s created by the series of Czty-impased ~mpediments to new housing product~on dzscussed herein. SMHC's programmatic recommendations are set forth in a letter to the Housing and planning Cammissions alsa dated January 8, 1997 7mappaas.63s 21 YYur FnY~arr F~~ ~~ x~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ «~.~ ~ ~ ~~ L~D nd T~yr soraWDl~r P«. 8..~.f mP k C+MY ~~ ~x ~ ~~. F~rkM p (ipr ~ ~... ~G~W ~~ .ir+. s~rprt ~n_ ~rr ~.~...N ~. t.~.~. ~~. ~....~ ,r.+.r m-- ~~ ~,:~.,F~ ~~~ ~ r~ iau ~"r°' ~~~ o~,r+~.. ~a+~rr~ ~~ ~+~w ' ~" ~~ A.. u..~ae.~q .~.~T~.. e...,.a.,r.r. r--- -- ,~__ ~w~rw1C'1~~r ~...,~.~ ~ A ?iy `°~ aG ~ ~~ ~/ ~~ h av~ UPWA - "~' ~~~ RD BQUND ~ ~L~, ~~ ; H4USE OF SANTA MONICA, INC. ~ ~~P ~~,~, f ~ Affordable Senror and Tmnsrteanu! Famtly Housrng January 3, 1997 ~ C~ty Planrung Divisio~ ' 1685 Main Sbreet Roam 212 Santa Monrca, CA 9Q407 ` RE Comments on Draft 199&-20E?3 Hou~~ng Elerrtent i Below you w~~l find the comments on the Draft 1~98-2QQ3 Hovsing Element from Upward Bo€~nd Hause. ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ .r..s~ rin uw c~. ro. ~srx r.,.- -~- --.-+wa w~r -. _-_ ~.o. ~~.~,a. ~+~.~~ a..~ ~ ~~~ K.~..~*~ ~ ~~ i~.w 1wAwMNn. MLO_ I+LBPH Ir~`Y B~ RQ ~........r. ~. ~~,..~,W ~ ~~~ .~~,...~. ~~~~ ~.~..~ ,~~. FrNyPYu SMYO' Y~ 1} We belaeve that there ~eeds to be a commFtment by the Czry to ensure that ai2 people wha need affordable housing r,eceive ec~ual access to iG The City shouId take an active ro~e ~n ass~ung nan-pmfit housing developers to set up canmols to disco~rage ab~ses or ~nequities in obtaining this housmg This has ~n espec:ally a probiem in semor hausuig wher~e HUD regulatians ha~e allowed certain seniors ro 6enefit at the expe~se of other seniors. 2) We sup~ort the comcnents abo~t giving Secuon 8 vouctter and City fnnded affordable ha~s~ng pnonty td ir~di~iduats ar:d families in soeial scrvice case ~nanagement programs This further strengt~ens the contmuurr~ af care in this cammunicy for homeless individuals and families. For many of the people ~n these programs theu ability to find affor+dabIc housing or r~eceive ;-~nt subsid~es is crucial to theu ability ta stay housed long_se~. W~ would further suggest that an annual allocment af ~ cernficates vr a designated nurnber of affarc~able units bc given w apProPFiate social sernce agenc2es for use by their clients. The socia[ semce agencies that work with homcless c~enrs in long-term case manag~t si€uations may best be able ensure that the people usmg these cer~fcates and subsidized uniis are the most appmpriate cand~dates for the ~ousing. 3) We c,ealize that the futare of the Secaan $ prograrn ~s unclear but we feel t~at the C'~ry shauld lobby for ~ts connnuation as a ~aluable to~I to help poor and homeless famiiies Ir~ addsnon, the City shauld continue to ap~ly for as many of these cert~ficates as possibl~. 4) The City should sappor[ any effort to get an accurate count of homeless people co~nty-wide. Because current hametess soctal service funds fmm the County, State and Federal Ga~emments ane based on poverty statisncs as opposed to the the actual numbers of tromeless geople county-wide, Santa Monica dces nor receive its fair share of funds to address this problem. 1008 Ele~enth Street, S~nta Monica, California 90403 (310) 458-7779 • Fax (3~.0) 45$-7289 I ha~e aiso attached my comments on some factual errars in the Draft Hous~ng Element that are spectfic to Upward Bound House. Sincerely, ~.~'~~ ~~~, Valer~e Freshwater Execur~ve D~recior • Ocean Ft~rk Community Center - Turnrng Potn1- The City pravideti a capitat grat~t to develop axi addtt~onal 2p beds of a tatal af 5~ transitiona~ housing beds Th~s pro~ect was completca and opened ~n 1495. • HUD Shelter Plus Care- In 1994, the City received a five-year federal grant in the amount of $4.2 IriII~lOI2 ~Oi 2'BI1t3I C~I'~IfiC~CS SEMII~ appraximate~p ~ 00 ~omeless persons anaesaily. Th~s px~ogr~er.n as benng administered ttuoug,ti t4~e Santa Monica Housing Anthority. • Step Up on Second In I 993, thc City provided a hausing Ioan to assist Step Up on Second u~ deveIoping 36 s~ngle-room occupancy (SRO} housing units_ T~us projected was campleted m 1994. . • Upward Bou~rd. In ~ 996, the City provided a hansmg loan to deveiop 22 uriits of transauonat hausuig for homeless families and children C o~~ ~~ ~~fi ~.., ~s project ~s currenfly underway _'- - -- r 1 n - ~. v..~ ~c-~--• `- G(3!]~au~.uvu ii~ u~a, wuiii.~ v~ -~~7. 4~..~ 'y„~ . ~ .. ~~~e-~ , -~ tt-F ~ ~ t j- ~~w\ ~`C o 4 ' `~ ti ~I . There have been a number of other hameless case management and supportive servic~es programs ianplemented sance 1984 that have strengthened #he City's ability to ptace homeless individua~s and families in pe~?~~ent housuig. T~ese include. rhe devclopment of a Coard~r~ated Case Management Program; the estabushment af a new homeiess employment project, the SHWASHLOCK pro~ that provi~des shawers, Iockers~, and lassndry faeili#ies; and a food service job traini~¢ and ernplayt~ent placem~nt pro~auu. In ~996, the City r+eceived a$1.4 rr~illion ~t t}irottg~ HUD Suppartive Hous~ng Program to expand the computer sysfem for the Coot~~*!~ed C~se M~r~a~~men# Progtam over a three-yeaz period • ~'eder~! Emergency Sl~lFer Grants {F~'SG)- Both City-fimded aud no~-Gity funded t-ameless senrice providers appiy direc~y for this f~anding. The City assists these ~~viders in the~r applicatians v~nth tocal envimnm~nta[ review and appmvai, cet~tificatian af local approval, and verif cahon of site cornrol. In June 1494, the City permanen~ly adopted the provisions af Interim Urdinauce #1635. The Cit~S Zoning Or~~*~an.ce periwts by righi a variety of ~pecia! needs h4~ing, inc~ud~g tsa~~tional housu~g, singie roaa~ occupancy (SRO) hous~ng and domestic v~olence shelters, in aEl m~ilti-fa~n~ly residential districts; permits homeless shelters ander 55 beds, domest~ic violence sheiters, tcansitional ~ousing, and SRO'~ (among v#her special needs uses) by nght in the RVC, BCD, C2, C3, C3C, C4, C6, CM, CP, C5, BSC, MI, and LMSD wmmercial zones; and, provides for reduced gark~ng zeq~unernents for shelters and transitional hausing (among other specia[ needs uses, such as congregate care and senior hous~ng). In June I993, the City C~ty of Santa Mon~ca Review of Housmg Element Hous~g E~etnent IV-12 Past Petfor~nance ! R i ~ ~ r ~ _r L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r TABLE II-11 y ~ INVENTORY OF HOMF~.FSS SERVICES (FY t946-9'~ ~ ~ ~ `~ TARGET NUMBER r-- k AGENCY/PROGRAM POPULATiON SERVED UN[T r u ,r ~ DUt7'CeCh/Int~kllASSesSlnCl~t: ' a Ocean Park Corarnunity Genter {OPCC) ~~- ~ - Homcless Oemeach ALL 800 NA ~~ - Drop-In C~te~ ALL 4 000 [ 35 M ~ - I?aybreaic I~ay Centea MI,W , 60U 35 M r ~ Salrranon Army - SHWASHLOCK GEN 400 NA ( Step Up on Second - Day Center MI 940 50 M ~ St Joseph Center ' ~ - Day Center ALL 2,25Q NA ~ ,~ - Bread and Roses Cafe ALL 4,800 180 M °,+' PATH - Day Centcr GEN 3 000 NA r~ Veteran's Admin~at~on - Ou~each VET , 7S0 ~IA `J : WestsEde Food Bank GEN 7,400 6Q5 M y ~ Subtotal 24,900 101?5 M j ~ I a' Emergeoty S~e[Eer. n Cald Wea~er Sheher Pragram GEN 500 325 B ~ s (seasonal - 70 days out of the ye~ on1Y} 5 Salvation Atmy - SAMOSHEL GEN 850 100 Bl200 M ~- ~ Sunlight Miss~on GEN, FAM 300 IQU Bt , PATH GEN 35t1 ~2 B* y ' f LIEU CAP FAM, W 350 30 B' ~ ~ CLAR£ SA ~U(l 24 B' ,~ ~ B~b~e raecrna~~ F~~ 26a aa B= ~:; So~oem~ Ca~ter for ~pffp*~ed ~J: ~m W 375 16 B/36 M ~'~ Sabtotal 3,089 671 BR36 M s s 0 ~ Traasitional Housmg: ~ CLARE SA 300 l36 B` s Jump Strcet M€ 7S 6 B' ~ LIEU CAP W 75 44 B' New Direarons VET 24 16 8° `~ ~ Oc~an Farfc Co~uuututy Ceoter - Turnmg ~ain~[ GEN 30Q 55 B(1 i0 M ~ - Daybreak Shelter ro r .w M~,W F M 6fl 15 BI30 M i~' r'~ ~ .. Upward BOUnd ~. ~o~ ? A f~ ~ 9 B ~ubtota~ ~ ~' • `• "~ ,''~'~'_' ~~~) 844 2~0 ~/140 M B- Bcds, M- Meals, U- Housang Un~ts ' Alti~augh Meals are provided daily - d~e total nunn6er is not avai~ab[e v ~ ` \ o ~ '3~'°i~ ~ tr'n.r . J \~au.5~ Y•y ~}. ,-.-~c S ~ ~ .a --~ Xy ~--~ ~ C~ ~~ S S ~v_r ~ Lt b~2~5 SZ~- ~-~•~,.~- • wQ ~.~~ ~a~ 5x2Y.7~ ,'~,e~,`S Ctty of Sacita Moluca Housmg E~ement lT-23 Hous~g Neeefs and Resourc~s Program A-2.e: Participate in state and federaI low and moderate income houstng pro~air~,s, and deveIop locaI sources of funds for housing Progress to Date: Since July ~ 984, the Cxty has participated in or appliec! for the fotlowuig federal or state grants and progiams, and utiLzed local €unds ti~ ass~st iow and moderate income households A detailed descnption of each af these programs, incfudmg eligible act~v~t~es and fun~ing avazIab~lity, ~s inciuded in Appendtx D of thts Dia.ft E~ement. In addation, to review the City's accornplishments unth regards to affordable housing production, refer to Tab~e II-20 for an inventory of the C~tr's extstuig public~y assisted housing pro~ects Federal and State Programs ~t~' ° ~' ,~ ' `7 ~~~ ` ~~ , . V~4~ t; ~{ ~.--~ ~r- S y=~ i ~` ~~ ( yx ~~~ cY~ • ~~a 'M-~~ a~ Ciry of Santa Momca Housmg Element HUD Section 811 Program $2 4 million has been pledged to Pro~ect New Hope to provide 25 units of support~ve hous~ng for persons u7th HN/AIDS, with pro~ect construct~on ant~c~pated begiru~ng in late 199G HUD Secnon ~0~ Senror Housing Program One Sectson 202 pro~ ect was recently comp~etea in the City and three others are pending The Retirement Hausing Foundation sponsored a 72-u~t Sect~on z02 pro~ect located at i 125-1131 Third Street wh~ch recexved appro~ti~nately $4 mi4l~on in HUD fiinduig and was campieted in I992 The pendfng projects include the Upward Bound-sponsored 70-umt pro~ect pro osed for I011 lth Street has received a funding n+ation ofa~proxima e$5. ilI~on; the VOA-sponsored 40-unit pro~ect proposed for 2807 L'utcoln Baulevat~ has received a fundu~~ reservat~on of approx~nately $2 9$ million, and, a 66-un~t pro~ect located at 11 ~6-~ 142 4th Street sponsore.~ by the Jevv~sh Federation Council has recei~ed a funding reservation af appmximate~y $4 9 trullion Housrng 4pportunities for People w~th AIDS {FIDPWA) In 1994, $937,{lQ0 xn H4PWA funds were committed to Pro~ect New Hope, described above. Supportive Housing In 1995, the City received S 1.4 rrullion throug~ the HiJD S~apporti~e Housing Pmgrarn to prov~de an expanded case management and peer suppart progxar~i over a t~+ee-year penod HQME Program Fun~s recerved hy the City fr~am this prograr~i have been committed to three projects These include a grant of $940,~00 to assist in the acqtusihon and rehabilitation of 22 units at 1020 12th Street; a$957,000 grant to assist in the acquisition and rehabilitatian of 26 SRO uruts at 1206 Pico Baule~ard, and, a$400,000 grant ta New Directians, a pro~ect located in ~i7est Los Angeles which vv~~l provide Rev~ew of Housino Element IC'-14 Past Performance iL:. l~ ',~ ~~ ~~r~.. F~i~~•~Zu-~~~~~i$ ~ ~ • t • . ~'~~ ~lGt~1~~i~~ C~C~rblFl~t~i55~ ~1 / `t`~i~u.S~ nC{ (~-y~ rtiuSS~ c~~~. ! `J December 10, 1995 C;ty Planninq Division i685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Mo:~i~a, GA 944f?7-2~00 Attn: Ms. Laura Beck, Associate Planner Fa.x: 31~ - 4563880 Subject: Comments an Draft 1998-2003 Hausing E~ement I~` . i= 3 As one of the participant in the first community meeting in August at 1995, when initial ~ammehts far revision to the existing city housing elements were co~lected, It is my pleasure ta furnfsh ~everal comments regarding the newly prepared Draft af X998-~003 Housinq Element. Paragraph 1, Valume 1, page III-21 of the ~raft says ~hat: "In the 8 prejects tested in the feasibility analysis, tha City fe~s and charqes {planninq fees, canstruction fees, ~-nd taxes) accaunt for $13 ta $1b par square feet or 15,54~ ta 20,OQ0 per unit. However the analy~i~ concludes that even removinq these fees and charqes entire~y would npt render r~ny o~ the tegted develapment scenario feasible. The hiah land cost fn S~n~~ Mcnica i~ overridi~g constrair~~ ta housin~ develanment in Citv,TM Also, paragraph Z, page III-29 ot trie ~ame volume concludes that: "The Inclu~iQnarv HausfnQ Proq~~m is nat a~acto~ today pr in th~ near term th~t renders ~.ri otherwise ~easible gr~j~~t infeasible." I could not review all ~he case~ and scenarias ~isted in the Technical Volume of the above Draft. However, I did go threugh the cost analysis given in ~ection 8 of the Technfcal Volume for saenario No. 19. This Scenaric uaas a five units condominiwn as madel. In thi~ model the cost cf land fa taken as $57t,563. The cost af aand in ths ~rea whexe this scenaria applies was higher in 1987, however~ at present t~me the mark~t v~lue is moxe likely to be 400,OOQ. The plan checkf bui].dinq permit, ~ity fees, etc. of $53,587 used fn this 6cenariv and the in lieu fee of $814Q8 are each, zespeetive2y, 13.4$ artd 20,35~ for a total of 33.75ic ot ths cost of the land. This ratio increases as the cost of the land deareases and vise ver~e. Contrarily to the COriClusions stated above, which are underlined, this excessive amaunt of fees arid~ in particular in=Iieu fee, has a neqative impact in development of lats with fiv~ or less multiple units. ,~E4. i~ '~'i ~~' =1 ~ P.~vd ~ ~ 1~-o~y2 r ii ~= P~_ Decrease in pric~s of land will make this ratio of the fees and in lieu-fee to the land value even more pronounced. Decrease in 3and prices mare than what has acCUrred in the Iast 6 years, ccmpar~ to the develcpme~t costs of thi~ project, is nat only a constraint to deveiopment of this type of projects as described in scenarzo 14 but may not be desirable either. Further decrease in iand prices will have a ripple effect in pricas o# ax~sting homes. This wi~l rQ~ult in drop of tha assessed ~dlues of the homes and a reduction in cailection of real estate taxes. This poasible reduction of revenue, fn ~on~unctian w~,th recent passage of propaaitian 218, will h~ve ~ domino effect an the ability nf City and County gavernment to meet the budgetary requirement~ which depends an rever~ue fram proper~y taxe~. Thi~, in the long run, wi11 hurt the noble cause of the City of Sa~nta MQnica grogram in providinq and perhaps, more importartt, maintaining laW ~ncome housing. The City of 5anta Monica Housing Element will serve its community best if it adopta auch a pol.icy af maintaining delicate balance between ].aw income, moderate and high income housing policy. The City can ad~pt policies which wi11 reduce the cost of davelopment af a7.I kihde af houaing by adopting the fallawings: 1. Acc~rding ta the Dra~t of Housinq Element, the contrib~tir-~ ot lyw income housinq trom adaptatfon of inclusionary hausing and/or in lieu in projects of five units or lass has been m~ainal. Remaval o~ this constraint will encauraqe develap~r af suah small project ta participate in supply of new housing in thfs City. Also the payment procedur~ muat be char~qed not to p~nalized the developer. Accnrdinq to last three line~ of first paragraph of page z8 of the first valwne of the Draft of Houainq Element,"Half of the in lieu fee must be paid pri~r to igsuance o~ building permit and the ather half must be secured by a~etter of credit or other City-approved security instrument, and paid when a certification of accupancy is issued for the first unit in the pro~ect". I do not see why the developer has to go through more ~xpenses than naaessary to abtain a letter of credit ta secure the payment of ths second half of this fee. Fi~st ot all, he aan not qet certi~icate of acoupancy for any unit b~fore ha pays that secand in~tallment, Second; as is perinitted far aondaminium tiaxes, the City can plaee a lien riL~L ~~ ~='~ ~~ . _ ~"~4~11 ~~~-~G~Gf l~ L ~ Jf3 on the property sa that before any unit is sald~ the developer pay the secand partian of the in lieu fee. 2. Reduction af exaessive fees such as $11~115 for required 4'~ fire hydrant, $~750 far each 1/2" water meter (5 n-~ters are necessary tor a five unit project). 3, Stream~ining the Tentative Tract Map and ~'inal Trac~ Map processing and fee collectiona by both city and Caunty to prev~nt dup~icatfon af the works and thu~ reductior of the fees. County engineer charges $900 fvr map analysis which consist a~ checking the same inlormatians that the City of Santa Monica Engitteering Dept. dne~ and charge $1824.ii. 4. Eli~inating the fees charged by Planninq Dept. for cheaking final map in the amount of $637.~0, which at present is once being done when a tentative tract map is submitted fcr a fee of $1606.50, and again by bath City Engineer and County Enqinaer. I hape the above ~ugqgstions are useful and be con~idered in the f i~i~I draft of Housing Element 1998-2003. Ve~y t,ruly ursl• G ~ • A. C~ a i~PhD, PE 1217 - Z ~ nd Street ,~A Santa Monica, cA 9p4~4 Te3: 31a -- $286287 Fax: 310 - 8292718 i"~=+~ i~ _~ i1.: _~ ~~Qf';~ vi~-~c'~2'~1$ ~ Maxch 12, 1997 TO: H~norable Mayar and City Cauncil Members C~ty af Sant~ Monica FROM: A. "Cy" A~kari, A Santa Monican'~ Consulting Engin~er, Contractor and Develaper. SUBJECT: Com~ents on Governmental Con~traints on Housing Praduction; Draft i998-~003 Houafng Element INTRODUCTION This writing is foYlow up gavernment canstraints far the tvo Workshop Meeting~ before the Joint Flanninq 11, 1996. P ~ 6 of my cammants regardinq local housinq develapm~nt presented at in August and 5eptember 95 and & Hous~ng Cammissians in Decemher BACKGROUND The state legi~lature has find and declared that state and la~al qovernments have re~pans~ibility to use the p~wer vested in them ta make adequate provision fer the hausa.ng needs of ~11 ac~nom~c seament~ af the cammunity. Mar~y individuals, organizations, ~ctivist qroups and City P~anning Department hnva aridr~s~ed the needs o~ housings for very law and loW income ~ecti.on~ af population 1n 5anta Manica. Their conaerns have b~en addressed adequateiy in the Draft of 1998-2003 Nousing Element Update. However, the discussfan for needs af housinq ~or moderate and upper income household~ of thta coinmunity and the potential qove~nm~nt constraints on their praduction have either been ct~rtafled or not addressed. In fact, even though the number of households with upper i~come {a~iove ~20~ MFI~ who can ~~fard to buy or rent their hause at market rate has increased from 38.6~ of household population in ~980 tc 40.1~ in 1990 and the trend ha~ continued to 1996 (see Table Ii-9 ot Drmft of Hou~inq Element), the ho~sinq production for thfs sector of pcpulation has been d~creased much mare rapidly than for other se~tar of population. See Tab~e IV-S. o# Dr~ft of Ii~u~irig Element. The 1998-~QQ3 Draf~ af Hou~ing El~ment Lpda-t~~ claims it has performed extensive ana~y~is of the iaapact that ~rariaus government regulatians in the Gity have on housinq production. It prvvi~ea financia~l Peasibility ~naly~is of 8 r;M4 _~ }- il 1~ ~~tik•~ ~__-~ac°~71~ °"°-° r ... • ~ prajects. It states that the sum af City fses and charges p~.anning fess, con~truatfon ~ees, and taxes aGCauritS for a signific~nt pcrtion of tatml mu~ti-family groject develop~cent casta, both in dirsct cost terms and in t~rms of the fin~ncinq costs {see top of page III-21 pg Dra~t Element). Other City canatraints such as City's inclusionary housing pr~gram and/or in-lieu tets are mentioned. These City constraints wa~ cha~lengad by ~ plainti€fs in a lawsuit which result$d in n ssttlement aqre~ment which has caused the ~ity tc expedite the adaptatian of Housing E~eme*~t for th~ Year 1~398-24Q3. In spi.te of aIl the above mentioned constraints, the Draft Element makes its central conclusian that " the aurrerit market conditian -~- largely high land casts cambined with dampenar~r~a3, eatate market -- ~re primary constraint to the development of housinq in the City". See second par~qraph en page III-Z af the Draft Element. This writer disagree with thi~ conc~usian in general dnd beliave thatF at pr~sent market cvndlticna, the mo~t important canstraint o~ development af ho~sinq for mediar~ and upper inoome sectar is 1aca1 governm~nt congtraints. LQCAL GQV~RNMENT CONSTRAINTS Since if would be beyand the s~op~ af thi~ Ietter ta i~lustrate ~he effect of laaal government constrairits on ai~ typa of hou~ing developments in the City af 5anta Monica, scenario l~o. 14 illustrated in th~ T~chnical App~ndix of ~raft Element is used as an example. This scenario resembles the writer~s actuai project which has been in pracess flf dev~lopm~nt ~n th~ City Planning Dep~rtment !or the la~t sevaral years. In this s~enario a 35D4 S.F. larid 7.o~ated North ot Wilshire Blvd. but not on acean Ave and nat in San Vicente Slvd, i~ wsBd as an example with proposed 5 units condo~inium. ~~C~tv Fees and A~sessments: The Draft E~~~ent asauaee~ tha~t the tota]. Gity fees and ~-s~es8ments far the abave project is $108.488. Thfs fees doss net include the feea chargsd by the county of Los Angea~s for checkinq the Fi,nal Map before the City can accept it for review. Th~a tee is for $1338. (It i~ ironic that na ona in the City ha~ made ~riy attempt to investigate why it is naeded ta have the county aheck the same map which the City wou2d do anyway. It e~eem~ each qovernmant agency dup~icate ~he work of the others to oollect more fees. Alsa rhe Draft E~ement has neg3ected ta include th~ fee for f~n~l map approva~ by the City which is $lSZ4. Thus, adtling these two n~glected figures ta the above, the total ~ees and taxe~ be~nre gett~ng p~rmit totals $1I1,65Q. With the exiating i1]-if; l~ ~?~ 11~1`i r"n~i.~J~l~~i!•'~~`~"G~la 'a ~'.~~r` raqulati.cr, of payment of $82,117 in-lieu-fee ta meet inclusionary housing requiren~ent, one qet a tatal af $193,767 for the total cost payalale to Iocal governments in order to obtain a permit ~or buildinq 5 unit condomini~n. That ~s a fee of $38,375 per unit. The Draft Element blam~s the ~aak of hou$inq praductfor- for all ~ectors cf gopulativn 3ncluding the upper income grou~p of the high cast vf the land. ~t as~umss a ccst cf ~75 par square ~ar~t for the abova scenario. This is a very consarvative a~sumption which is not in line with present raarket conditians. In 1996 thQr~ wera two lands transaction ~imilar to SCenario ~4, ~1ta a-t 934 Lincol.n B~vd for ~3ti50a~ and ona at 822 ~~th ~treet for $390000. The rates for each square faot were $43 and $52 respectively. t~Thich i~ much less than $?5 per sq. ~t. ~tated in the Dr~ft Elemer~t. There were twa other lands transaction in south ot Wil~hire Blvd. in i94~ which can ba compared to scenaria #13 for lower-priced area. 4na was at 1218 Cheleea Ave. wfth 5242 sq. ft. which was sold far $18250~ and the other at 1524 14th St.w~th 7~Dp aq.ft, which was so7.d for $2525a0. Tha-t is $34 per scq. ft. compared ta $45 arrived at Oraft Slement. Assuming aIl other assumptions used in Draft Elements are carrsct, one would obtt~in a d~ffarant conclu~ian and find that since the price of land has stabilized the same or lower than 1987 level, and the cost of hard cnnstruction as ~rell as ~inancing remAins almo~t the ea~ne ar has gone up with the same amourt as cor-sumer index~ the only major coastraint for d~veiopment ~af this type of hausing is the exub~rant C~ty fee8 and taxea includinq in-~ieu-fee. This f~es and taxee are hetween 50 to iDa p~rcent af the cost of ia~d for small C~ndomini~t~ prajecta with 5 units 4r 1ess. The City ~eea and taxes for abtaininq a bui~ding p~r~it in the ~ear af 198~ for a faur unit aonda which was huilt hy this writer was for $35Z4 per unit against the pre~ent $38375. While the cost of land from 1987 ha~ deC~e~sedi the cost of obtaining buildinq permit ha~ esca~a~ted 11 folds. Decrease in land prices mare than what has occurred in the last G year~c, compare to the devQlopment costs of pro~e~t, is not anly a aonstraint ta development of th#.s type ot projects as descr~bed in scenario 14 but may not ba desirable either. Further decrease in land prices will have a ripple ef~ect in prices of existinq hameg. This wfll result in drop of the a~sessed values of the homes and a raduction in collectian of real estate taxes. This possible reductivn o~ revenu~, in i'~~F~ 1G ~7 11 ~~ ~~C'.i~`~~ ~Z ~-~C~~f l.b :a ~ ~i~ conjunct~cn with recent passage of propo~itian ~18, wil~. have a domino effect on the ability of City and County govern~aent to meet tha budgetary requirement~ which d~pends on revenue ~rom property taxes. This, in the lor~g run~ will hurt the nable cause af the City of 5anta Mnnica pragram in providir~g and perhaps, more important, maintaining low incama housing. Th~ City of Santa Moniaa Hausinq Element will serve its cvmmunity best if it adopts guch a po~ioy of maintaininq delicate balance between low ir~come, moderate and upger income hou~~nq palicy. The City can adopt policie~ which will rea~a~e the constraints on all kinds of hausing by adeptinq the follawings: 1. According to the Dralt of Housing Element, tha contribution of low income housing lrom adaptatian af inalusionary housing and/ar in-lieu-fee payment in projects af five units c„ lesa has been minima~l. Ramoval of this conatraint will encourage davalcper of such emali project ta part~cipate ~n suppl.y of new housing in thi~ City. This will also reduce th possibility of future litiqation against the City Housinq Element. 2. Adaptatian of in-lieu-fee option with denaity bonus for pro~~ct~s with 6 u~i.ts ar mor~. The developers shauld be qiven tha aption to pay the in-lieu-!ee before the issuance of accup~ncy perm~t by making a de~d restriction simiiar to the way the condaminium tax is collec~ed. 3. R~foraa to th~ Cityfs davel~pment regulatian concerning the increased lot coverage, ~liminatian of gue~t parkinq requirement a~nd incentive for large sCCOmmodation for familie~ wfth children. 4. Reduction of exce~~ive City fees euch as $3.1,~15 for required 4" fire hydrant and $175a ~ar each 1/2" water meter (5 meters are necessary for a five unit pro~ect). 5. Stream~ining the Tentativa Tract Map and Final Tract Map procassinq and fee collection~ by bath city and County to prevent duplicat~on af the worka~ and thus reduction of the fses. For a~ive unit condomin~um County engineer charges $1334 for map analysi~ whiah consiat of checking the same informations that the City of Santa Monica Enqineerinq I]ept. does and charge $18za.i1. 5, Elimfnating the fees charged by P~anning Dept. ~ar checkinq ~ina~ map which at present is once being done when a tentative tract map is submitted and again by bath City Engineer and County Engineer. ~~~i~ 1G ~ 1 i .._ L ki~,~s-1 11~'-[ac'~L~~ ~ `~ t~. b'b 7. Exempting the small pro~ects from street and liqht~ng impravements. Eliminatinq the need tar postir~q a b4nd for side walk, curb and gutter cvnstruction by restricting the deed and making the aacupancy permit subject ta it~ comp~etion. CONCLUSIONS Car~trarily to the conclusion ~tated in the Draft Element, the high cost of land is not an averriding constraint to hcusing development for maderate and upper income sectar af this aitg~ far lata With f ive units or ~ss~. The ~arket candition at any tima wi17. dictata ~he price af land. The developer~ of apartment~ and aandominium cf smnll size pro~ects ~ 5 uriits vr less, are usually awner buiiders who are satisfied with minimum return on their investment as long as they end up awninq their own unit Also. I~ is the outrageous 11 fclds inarease irt City total lees~ tax~a and in-lieu-fee which has made the greatest canstrait~t an productian of such housing in this city. While the Santa Monica Flanning ~taff have tried to address some of the constr~rir~ts on the development of hau~inq in thi~ C~ty, it 3s hoped that the City Council will take into the cansideration the above recammendation when adapting the final Draft of 1998 -2003 housinq E~ement for the City. very truly yours~ J ' ~~ - A. Cy Aska~ri, PhD, PE 121'7 - Z2nd Street ~A 5anta Mani.ca, CA 904a4 Te}.: 310 - 8286Z07 Fax: 310 - 8292718 Attachment F (Planning Commission Sta~' Re~ar#s dated Decem6er 11, 1996 and January 15, 1997} PCD:~F:DS:I,B f: lppolsharelpcreport119961he3 JOINT C~MMISSION MEETIIIG: December 11, 1996 Santa Monica, Californta TO: 'TEre Planning Commissian ac~d Housing Comrn2ssion FROM: City Flanning Division Staff SUSTECT: Jaint Study Session to Review the Draft 199$-2IX}3 Hous~ng Element YN1'RODUCI'ION T~s re~ort provides bac~+ound on the Housing Element Updat~, including history an the pubiic review and participation process, a summary of important statutory requirements, a description af the dacument's f~i~;,~t, a sumn_ary of key recammenda~ons and findings, ~nd a discus~ion of the analys~s contajned in the Draft ~99$-2003 Housing Element. BACKGROUND The Draft 199$-2003 H~lang Flemer~t is ari update t,o the City's curr~t Housing Flement which was adopted by the City Council on September 28, 1993. Qne of the sevem mandated elemen~s of thE General Plan, the Housing Element establishes a fi~e year plan for addressing the C~ty's housing needs. x~°~ of ~e u~ Over the past eaghteen months, the Planning and Commaruty I]evelopmerjt Department has held a pubhc scoping meeting and two pabhe workshops on the Housing Flement Update to receive public ingut and to foster a discussion of housing issues and policies far the City. The pubhc scx~ping meeting was hedd on Apri124, 1995; the rivo worksh~ps w~ere held on August 5, 1995 and August 9, 1995. A summaYy of the oamments from tlre.se community meetings is included in the Draft Hausing Element as Appendix A. 'IWvo consutting firms we~e i~i~red by the City for this proJect. CottonfBeland/Associates (CBA) has prepared the E?raft Housing Element Update, and Hamilton, Ra6inovitz and Alschu~er (HR&A) ~as prep~ared ~i~i~ed analyses and technica~ memoranda in support of the Ho~asing Element. The Draft Housirtg Element was reviewed eztensively by an u~ter-departmental committ~ compnsed of representatives of the Community and Cultural Services Department, the Housing Divisi~, Rent Control Admuustration, the City Mar-ager's Offce, the City Attorney's Office and Plann~ng and Community Der+elopment. The cornmittee collech~ely considered public input, 1 ~ reviewed the wark of the consultants, and formulatad the proposed gaals, pohcies and programs of the Draft Housing Eleme~t based an input receiwed at the public workshops, and the desire to con~nue to provide the community with a broad array of affordable housing opportunii~es, Snmmarv of Ststutarv ReauiremPntc By law, the City's Housing Element must analyze exisnng and pro~acted housing needs and set forth goals, pvlicies, and programs for ad~ressing those needs. Specifically, the leg~slation requ~res the following: "The housing eiement sha.~l consist of an identificat~on and analysis of existing and projected hausir~g needs and a statement of goals, polic~es, and quantified objectives ar~d sched~led programs far the preservatiar~, improvement, and de~e~opment of hausing The housing etement shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental hous~ng, factory-built housing, and mobile homes and shall make adequate pravision fos the existeng and prajected needs of a[I Economic segments of the commvnity „ California Ho~ng Fl~nent law (Sectian 65588) normally requires that local ~urisdictians update their haus~ng ejements e~ery five years. {A oopy of carnent CaliforrEia Housing F.~ement law is attacheci as Attachment A.) The City's current adopted hausing element was originally prepared for the 1989-1994 planning period. However, as a Fesult of the faiiure of the State Iegislature to aut~wrize funding for the State's associations of governmerits to prepate future regional housmg needs estimates €or the period beyor~d 1994, the 1989-1994 planning period was formally eactenc~. Iry April, 1996, the State legislature extended the c~nent planni~tg period, resultmg in a new planning pen~ of 1998-2Q03 for the Hous~ng Elernent Updat,e. Having an adopted Housu~g Element in ovmpvance wifih State ~aw not onIy provid~s the Ciry with a valuable planning tool but also places tr ~ City in a bett~er pas~hon ta receiv~ ~tate hausing f[~nds. In addi~on to ~ng the requu~ment~ of State i~wusing Element law, the Draft Housing Eletnent has beerr prepared in conforntity w~th the Agr~ 5, 1995 seEtlement agreemer~t ~n Saztta Moruca Housing Council, et. al v. City of Santa Monica, a case v-+h~ch challenged the City's current Housing Element. - _ F~RMAT OF THE H4USING ELEMENT The Draft 1998-20a3 Hous~ng Element ys bound under two separate covers -- the "1998-2003 Housing Element Update" and the "Tect~nical Append~c" Draft Housing Element The Santa Mvnica Draft 1998-2003 Housing Element U~dace foilows the orgaruzahon prascribed by state law as follaws 2 ~ An assessment of housing need~ and an inventory of resources (Section II - Haus~ng Needs and Resources} 2 A discussian of patential canstra~nts on housing productton (Seciion III - Potentcal Constraints on Housmg Product~an and Conservation} 3 A summary of progress under the 1993 Hous~ng Element {Section IV - Review af Housing Element Past PerFormance) ~ A descnption of the goals, quanttfied object~ves, poitc~es, and progams that the city has chosen to meet the identified needs {Sect~on V- Hausing Ob~ect~ves, Goals, Polic~es, and Pragrams) Given the detailed and lengthy analys~s undertaken m developing tws Draft Elernent, much of the supporting background matenal has been ~ncluded as append~ces ta the Draft Element These appendices include Appendix A- Summary of Comments from Community Meet~ngs Append~c B- 1995 Santa Monica Apaztment Tenant Survey Appendix C- Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development 1996 -]une 1998 Appendix D- Available FinancEal Resources and Projections Appendix E- Res~dentiat Dcvelopment Standards and Fees Appendix F- Comparison of Res~dential Intensity Perm-tted L'nder #he 1984 Land Use Element and Current Zarung Ordinance AppencEix G- Re-evaluation af the 1993 Housing Elernent In addition to the appendices bo~nd with the Draft Element, a senes of techr~cal memaranda ~ave .beert prepared by Hamittan, Rabirxavitz & Alschuler (HR&A), an~ are znciuded under separate cover as the Tec~u~icaE Appendix These ~nclude • Results of the ~ 995 Santa Monica Apartment Tenants Survey " • An Est~mate ofthe City of Santa Monica's "Fair Share" of Regional Housing Need far the 1998-2Q03 Housing Element Update • T~e Impacts of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Haus-ng Act on the Rent-Contro[ied Apartment Stock in Santa Mo~uca • Assessment of the Rent Control Board's Ell~s Act Removal Pernut Process as a Potential or Aetual "Constraint" on the De~elopment of Hous~ng 3 ~ • Assessment af the Rent Control Removal Permits as a Patential ar Actua~ "Constraint" on the Development of Housing ~ Assessment af the C~ty's Cond~tronal Use Pernvt Requirement for New Condominiums as a Potential or Actual "Cor~~ir~t" on the Development of Housrng • Assesscnent of Faur Large-Scale Residcntial Rezon~ng Actioc~s as a Pvtential or A,ctual "Coc~straint" on the De~elogment of Housing • Assessment of the Cit}-'s Inclusionary Hous~ng Progratn (Ordinance 1615) as a Potentisl or Actual "Constraint" on the Development of Housing + Cumulative E#fects of Five City of Santa Mocuc~ Requ~rements on Multi-Fatruly Housing Pro~ecEs as a Potential or Act~a! "Constraint" on the Develop~ner~t of Housiag • Analys~s of the R2 Ihstrict Buiidab~e Envelope En~irono~~nt9l Imn~ct Rennrt An Environmental Impact Report (EIR} will a~so be prepare~ Cattari/BetandlAssociates w}~ch w~l1 evaluate the patc~t~al enviranmental impacts of irnpleme~tation of the polic~~.s and programs cantained in the Draft Hous~ng Eicment T~e EFR for the Housing Element will be prepared subsequent to review of the Draft Housing Element by the City Cnuncil ANALYSIS Kev A~~~cin~ F.ipment L~sur~c Santa Mor~ica faces a mynad of complex hnusmg ~ssues, and housmg funds for constcuct~on and rehabilitation are shrinlung, particularly from federai and state so~rces The key issues discussed in the Draft Housing Eiem~nt wluch affect the City's ability to provide cost effective housing are as follows Efi'rcts of Costa-Hawki~s V~canrv De-cnntrol R~u}:tion Adoptior! of the Ct>sta-Hswktns Rental Housing Act in the Fa~l of 1995 by the state legislature bronght abotit statewide de-cc~ntral of rent-controlled hausing upon vacancy By January 1999, the Costa-Hawkins Act will eliminate arry limits on re~ incr~ that may be charged whec~ a tenant ~oluntarily ~acates an apartment unit ar is evicted for non-payrnent of rent Vacancy d~control wi[i be phased-in sa that rents may be raised u~ to two times upon ~olur~tary vacanc,y unta Ta-nuary 1999, vvi~en full vacancy de-cantrol goes into effect Upon occupancy by a ncw tenant, units will be re-controlled unt-1 vacated again in the first e~ght months af implernentatian of the vacancy de-control regulation in Santa Monica, 4 ~ aver 3,400 wuts have a~pved for re~t increases Further rent mcrcases as vacanc~es occur will dnve up the rent [e~eis in the City The effects of Costa-Hawkins t~a~e been e~aluated extensively as part of tivs Draft El~t~tt Tt~e goals~ policies and progrart~s recor~unended by t}us Draft Housing ~~ement mclude mechanisms to rr~tigate the impacts of Casta-Hawkir =, inc~uding Program 3a Potent~ ~nvernmentsl and Non-~overnment~l Canstraint~c T~e Draft Housing Element inctudes a detailed analysis of patentaal governmental arid non-governmental coc~straints upon the deve{opment, maintenance and improvement of housing By a mutual agreement memoriaiized in a settlement agreement between the C~ty ~.nd the plainti$'s in a lawsutt challenging the adey~acy of the Gty's wrrent Hauiag Element , a"constraint" ~n new housing production is ane wtuch causes a~gnific.ant adverse impact on the City's abiLty to meet its regional responsibility to constn~ct new hous~ng Specific programs ha~c been developed to address potential constraints where they have been identified, such as rcvisions to eacist~ng development standards to minimize the costs of developmcrrt (Progam I aj, revisions to the City's inciusionar}- housing progam (Prograu~ 2a), mainta~ning a~ensity bonus prograrn for the City, and, expanding Articie 34 authority to utilize a vanety of revenues to develop, coostruct, or acquire low and moderate incomc rentat hoasmg pr~jects (Program ~k} $Qusin~ for F~mili~s with ~hildren The supply af housing units adequate~y-sized for famelies with chi~dren is li~uted, partic~arly ~n the rental market, and Lmited home purchase opporturuties are availahle given the high for-sale housurig costs For families with income constrain#s, their abil~ty to locate ade~uate and affordable h~using canttnues to diminish with rising housing casts Overcrowding re~ts ss many fa~nilies ovexpay far housing andfor live in smali housing units to sa~e on housing costs The Draft Housing Elemer~t includes goals, pal~cies anci pragrams to facilitate the development of housing suitah~e for family living ~nd at affordable casts, and to provide for a hroad range of supportive se~vices it~cle~i*~g, but nat iimited to, child care and employment assistance to low income famili~s {see esp~cial,ty Pragram 2h) ~ Housin~ [or S~eeisl Necds Ponulatioes In recent yesrs, the City has sought to maintstn sn open ha,~a~g maricet that ruuwcts a diver~e popuiatian c~fvaned ages, racelethnicity, and i~cames, throug~ aggressive Fwusing policies As demonstrated by~-the goals, policies and programs within the Draft Housmg Element, the City has a strong car~nitment to praviding housir~g and sup~rtive services to persons with s~ecisl needs includ~ng Serrior Cftuc-rs - Accardurig to the 1990 Census, elderly residents represent a~er 16 percent of the papu.~ation in Sant~ Ma~uca In the ptanrung ~ deve~apment of ~vusing for the elderly, particularly for those who live slone, appropriate unit size, affordable cost, and easy access to transit, services, and health care facilities need to be cnns~dered Pasoirs witlh Disabilities- The 1990 Census documents that over 11 percent of the City's population aged 16 or o~er had war~ mabil~ty, and/or self-care limitations These people may require a bacrier- 5 ~ free Iiving env~ronment and easy access to transit, services, ae~d employrnent centers As many disabled persons eam lawer incomes, housing affordability ~s also a concern Persoxs wfth HIV and AIDS- Th~ Los Angeles Ca~nty Departrr,ent of Health Servicrs, HI~ Ep~clEm-o~ogy Progarr~, est~mates th~t thete are curren#~y 1,U00 residents in Santa Moruca who are HIV pcssit~ve Accarding to the Santa Monica AIDS Pro;ect, at ~resent there ars apprax~mate~y 210 AID51HIY patients ~n Santa Moruca who are rece~ving ~nedical treatment As thc disesse progresses, these pat'serns wi~! require ~arious types of assistance with lega(, medica~, emp~oyment, and hausing issues Hem~less Poflulations Santa Manica ~as a significant homeless populatron Homelessness ~s not caused by merely a lack of shelter, but :nvolves a variety of underlying vnmet so~a~ and econorn~c rieeds When cantinuing and exga~ding the strategy to adaress trome~ess isse~es in Santa Monica, the City wi~l contir~ue a carripreheris~ve poucy tt~at promotes a balanced cantin~urn c~f c~r~ for th~ hom~tess, integrating outreach, inta~e and assessment, emergency shelter, transitianal ~ousing, pennanertt hausu~g case management, ernployment, and supportive se~vices (5ee especially Programs ~j and Sb) Ha~sing :nd Neighborhood Canditions Qne of the C~ty's ha:sing goals ts to pr~rrwte quality hausing and r~esghbor~oods en tl~e City With over h~f of the hv~s~rtg stock irt excess of 30 years of age, continued maintenance snd rehabditstiaa effarts are required ta prcvent widespread detenara~tion Improving and pre,serv~ng the quality and character of resici~ntial neighborhoods in t~e City requires a caord~ated strategy far community input, design review, rehabilitation, an~ code enforce~nent efforts As a]vghly dev~{oped vrban community, Santa Monica has fe,3+ vacant praperties available fflr res~~e~t~al deve~o~ment As a result, the City m~st cont~nu~ to ~evelop innovative mect~anisms to accammodate tlte City's populatifln grovvth and fair share of regiana~ ~ousing needs The Draft Housi~g Element reca;nmends pol~ci~s, goals and pragrams which witl facditate the production of housing, includit~g mechanisms sucF~ as modifications to deveioQment standards and impiementing streamUned ~rocessing procedures ~jpg IncreasinglY, the threaYs of federal and state budget cuts have le,ft many lc~cal jw~sdictsons P~Y~ in the~r housing produciion In a~d~~tion, reduced commeraa~ developmer~t ir~ Santa Mon~ca in reoer~t years ~s alsa raduccx! the C~ty's potential incame from the OflSce Dcvctopment 14~~gstian Pragram These fund~ng and revenue reduct~ons requir~ that ti~e City ~e aggressi~e in pursuing Cl'pA~ve fiz1~ ~1eChat~isms SUC~ as paR~erS~ps wnt~l ~1Ti~ate ~e~lderS t0 f6veCage ~t1~IiC fUndS, aitd participatian in the low incame housing tax credit allocatian ~roeess ' In response to the damage caused by the Northndge Earthquak~, federa~ HUD mo~ies vvere made ava~ablc ta the City af Santa Monica thrc~ugh the federal Emsrgency Supplem~nta! A~gropnatians Aet o#' ? 99~4 With tt~e.se fur~s, the C~ty creat~d the Mu:ti-~amily Eartt~quske Repair Loacts (MERL) Program to provide fin~ncial ass~stance ~n the rehabititation, acquis~tion, and reconstructian of 6 ~ hous~ng The F.a~tt-quake R,ocovery Redeve]opment Pro~ect Area was adopted in June 1994 in response to the January 17, 1994 Northndge earthquake Under State law, the City is required to set aside at least 20 percent of th~ tax incremeat c'eveiwes fram rc~development pro~ects to provide finaricial ass~stance in the production of housing affordable ro low and moderate inc~me households The F~rthq~ake Recovery Redevelo~rnent PraJect Area ~s acpected to generate $2 2 miWon in set-aside funds dunng the 1998-2U03 planivng period V~ith program ~ncome frotn the repayment of the MERL loans and redevelopment hous~ng set-aside funds from the Earthquake Recovery R~evelvpment Project, the City has potential to receive a sigrufic~nt pool af funds that can be used to provide finarjaal assistance for housing construction and rehabilitation Goals, poiicies and progranns re~ammended by the Draft Hausing Elernent calI for the ~opment ofa coordinated str~±~-for the ex~~ditune ofthese and oth~ funds ta maxim2ze cast- effectiveness tn addressing the Cit~s camp~ex housing needs ~ummary of Housing E1~ment Goals In addressing the issues diswssed above, the City has included key recommeadatians ~n the Housing Element in the form of goals, policies and programs including the following Prorr~te the cnn~ct~nn af r~ew hc~usina thrnri¢h re~ulatnr~v mechar~isms. Housu~g Elem~et poficies designed to promote this goal include pra~iding adequate s~tes for a1t types af housing, maintau~ing and enhanci~g the City's expedited and coordinated pernut processing systern, and reviewing deve(opmer~t standards and requ~rernents (See Gaai 1 fl and reIated policies artd ProSrams-) 2 Incresse the suonf~ of housinQ aft'ordable to ~erv iow_ low_ and moderate income oersons. Housing Element policies designed to promote this goal u~clude enseuing the continued av~ilability of incamo-restricted t~x~ing for very 1ow, low, an~ rnoclerate income households, and coopa~ng w~th ha~using providers to promote the deveiogment and operarion of r~ housing for very low an tow ~ncame h[wseholds, and ownersl~ip housing for low and moderate income households, for example (See Go~I 2 0 rclated policues an~ programs ) 3 Protect the e~stin~ suonl~ af affordable housinQ_ Housmg Element poiicies desi~ed to promotc this goal inciude encouraging the repiace~nent of mu~h-famiiy hous~ng that is danolished, and ameliorating the effects of the Costa-Hawl~ins vacancy ~~-wntroi regulation an the afford$ble i~ausing stock, for example {See Goxl 3 0 en~ relxted policies and progams } 4 pFnma~g ~ rehahilitation and cantinued maintenance of existin~ hnusit-¢_ Hausing Eletnent polic~ees designed to promote #his goal include ensunng that property owners are rnade aware of City progams to promote capital smprovernents to rental housing, and ensunng that 7 ~ rehabilitat~on of eaustu~g unrts does not resu~t in pc~;n~nent displacement of exist~ng residents, for example {See Gaal ~ 0 and related pohcies and programs ) S Provide hous~in~ assistance and sunnortrve services t~ verv low_ low_ and rnoderate incorne households and households wrth snecial needs. Hous~ng Element policies designed to promote this goa~ include enc~uraging a fair share approacb to prQV~ding housing ~pportunities and assistance ta homeless, very low, and low income hausehald and householas with specia] needs, and tacgeting fiends to ensure a broad array of s~pportive services to very low and low tncome persons ta ensure the:r continued rnaintenanee of housing once abta~ned, for exarnple {See Gaa~ 5 0 and re~ated polic~es and programs ) 6. E~irreinare discnminat~an in t~e renta! or sale of hausinQ an the ~asis ofrace_ relie~ro~ nationat ari~ sex sexual m~efer~c,~ aQe_ dissbdita_ familv status_ aids. or other such c~aractensttcs. Housing El~t palic~es des~gned ta promote this goal mciude enforcing fair housing ~aws prohibitmg arbitrary discrimtna#ion in the bu-lding, financing, selling, ar renting of housmg, on the bas~s of race, religion, nat~onal ongin, sex, sexuai preference, age, disabiiity, ~ami(y status, AIDS, or other such characterist~cs, far ex~rnple (See Gaal G 0 ar~d related polic~es and programs ) 7 Pramote aualiri housin¢ and ne~Qhborhaods. Housutig Efemen# poiicies designed to promote t.his gaal ir~iude ensuring that architectural design of n~w housing derrelopment ~s campatible with the surrounding neighborhooc#, and promoting safe and secure housing and neighborhoads, and encouraging housing design which serves to deter crime, for example (See Gaat 7~ and related po~icies and programs ) 8 Promote the narticination of citizens_ communit~ gro~ns_ and ~overnmenta~ a~encies in ~ous~nQ and cammunitv develonment actnrities. Hausing Elemeret policies designed ta promvte t~us goal include ensuring maxirr.•am citizen involvement in hausing and community clevdopme~t activities, and c~ourageng imrvlven~tt of all urterested parties in the review and formulation of City housing po(~cies, including pmperty awners, building industry prof~onals, affardable housing advocates, lending instit~tEOns, ar~d ather ~nterested parties, far example (See Goa18 0 and related patic~es a.nd pragrams ) Dthcr Issues Covered in thc Drsft Ha~sinQ E-~ement In additian to the above ~nfarmation, the follvw~ng ~s contained in the Draft Housing Element Tensnt Su~-ey - This Draft Housing Element includes a detailed tenant survey undertaken to g,~~-er input on i~ousu~g issues pertain~ng to rent-controi~ed units in t~e City, and to update census informatian 2 Detxi~ed An~lyses of Potentiul Gvvernme~#al and Non-goverament.~l Cunstraints - The Draft Housing Element includes detailed quantified analyses of potential governmentaC and 8 ; noR-governmentat canstra~nts on the provision of ~ousing Specific anatyses incEuded assessrnents of the following programs as potential or actual constraints on the develapment of housing the Rent Control Board's Ellis Act itemoval Pernut Pracess, Rent Control Removal Pernuts, and, the C~t}~s Conditional Use Permit Requirement far New Coadominiums Specific programs have beee develaped to address potential constraints where th~y have b$en identified, such as revi~ions to ~st~ng d~v~loFment standards te minimize the casts of developmeat {Program 1 a- Page V-9), revisions to the C~ty's incius~onary hausmg program {Progam 2 a- Page V-12, mainta~ning a density bonus program for t~-e C~ty (Program 2 b- Page V-13); and, expand~r~g Art~cle 34 authonty ta utikize a variety of revenues ta develop, cv~ct, or acctu:re low and moderate income rental housing projects {Program 2 k- Page V-20} 3 Afl Indepeodent Fair Sl~~re Analya~s - Junsdict~on-specific fair share allocations were prepared by t~e Southern Californea Assaciat~on of Governments (SCAG) in 1983 and in 1988 SCAG was sd~eduled to prepare a new Regiot~a! Housing Needs Assessment in 1993 for use in scheduled updates of local housu~g elements, however, State fundEng was ur~availsble and the Estimates were ~o~ prepared State Iegislation postponed the due dafes for the next raund ~f Housing Efement updates, howe~+er funding has aot been forthcoming for preparation of the fair share estEmates The City has efected ic~ this Housing Element to prepare its own estimate of the C~ty's fair share of regianal housing ~ecd Inasrr~uch as the State Hazsing and Cammunity Development Department has pre~iously ap~raved SCAG's approach ta maldng fair siiare allocations, the est~mate ~n the Draft Hausing Elerr~er~t is u~tended to be consistent with the approach SCAG would h~~e used had the State Legislature funded it to do so 4 Coat~-Hawkins Mitigation Programs - The Draft Housing Element inciu~es detai~ed prograrns to offset the unpacts ta af~'ordab~e housing caused by the Casta-Hawkins Rental Housing Act These programs include the ~eveiopment of a strategy to address the affordability of hausing inctuding unplement~tion of a City-w~de housing acquFSitian and/or rehabilitation progam (Program 3 a- Page V-20) PROP4SED PRQCESS The r~new and adoption of the Housmg Element wtll be accompl~shed according to the fa~lowing scheduie December 11, 1996 Joint Study Sess~an with Housir~g and Planning Commissions Decernber 12, 1996 Rent Cantrot Board Study Session Ianuary 9, ~997 Housing Commission Hearing and Recommertdations Farvvarded to Plaruung Comrt~ss~an 9 ~ 3anuary 1 S, 22, 24, 1997 ~ebruary, 1997 March, 1997 .~t~y, 2 997 August-October, ~997 xo~cnvG Planning Commission Pub~ic Hearings and Recommendations Forward~ to City Council City Councii Hearings Draft Housing Element Suhmitted to State Depsrtment of Housing arid Catnmuruty Devetoprtnent for Rev~ew, and EIIt Preparataan Housing Corr~mission ana P~aru~ing Canurussion Review of Final Housing Element and Recammendanans Farwarded to City Counci~ City Council Pubiic Hcarings and Approval of Final Housmg Element ar~d EIR The Draft Housing ~t Updare has beer~ prepared and was made available for public review on Novemb~r 1 L The a~ailability af the document and the joint study ~essiox were noticed by mailing flyers ta all people on the City's "Big List" and the "Housing Flement List" which includes the mailing lists of the City's Housitng Divi~ion and the Rer~t Contmi Boazd and ot~r intea+ested individuats. A display ad was also placed in the Outlook acu~ouncing the availability of the document and this meeting and on the Public Flectronic Netwark. CONCLUSIUN 3his study session afforas the P~anning Cammission a~d Housing Commission the appariunity to qu~tion the cansuifants and smff with n~g,ard to pr~ of die docume.nt. Public hearings will be held next month, ~g Ianuary 1S, 1997, when the Dr-aft Hous~g Elernent wi11 be presented ta the Planting Com~c4ssion for re~-iew ar~d oomment. The Draft Housing Element will then be present8d bo the City Councit for c~tc~ept~ rev~ew and apprflval. The docume~tt wili then be transmitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 'I'he F~iviI~HI~C811 ~IIRP~Ci R~{74x[ (F~R} w1IZ b~ p°~1~ ~#~ th~[r ~d a fllt&~ ~Taft HOU3~1~g F.18me~lt will return to the Planning Commission, alon~ with the EIR, for recommendation to the City Coancil in the summcr of 199"7. RECQNl~NDAT~QN Ii is r~ecommcnded that thc Plaianing Commission and Housutig Commission revicw the attached I]raft Housing Element Update. Prepared by: Dean 5herer, A~ting Planning Manager Laura Beck, Associate Planrier Attachments: A. Article 1Q.6. Housing Elements (Califarnia Housmg Element iaw) ~ 10 ~ ! i PCD:SF:DS:LB f:lppolsharelpcrepc~rtl 199611159The PLANNXNG COMMISSIQN MEE'ITNG: January I5, 199'7 T4: 'Ihe Planning Commission FROM: City Planning Division and Ha~41~g Divis~on Staff SUBJFC'I': Draft 199$-2003 Housing Flement lNTRODUCTION Santa Monica, California 'I~is ~t pravides additiaial ~ an the Draft Housing Element t~datc requested at the D~eae~nbar 1 i, ~99b Joint Study Scssion of t~e Planting Commissian and Housang Cornmission. BACKGROUND Tlre Dndt 1998-2003 Hoati~ FJ~mait is an upda~e ~a the City"s cument ~B Elemant which waa adop0ed by the City Caunril on Sep~at~ber 28~ 1993. One of dje ~ev+en n~w~dated d~ts of thc Ga~eta~ Pinn, die Ho~g P.iematt e~biisbea a fiv~e y~ear p~n fo~r ~d~g tbe City's houait~ aeeds. D~s ~g ttie hiaoa~ry vf the upd~e, ~utoi]- ~1s, f+orn~t of the do~cwna~t, and dix~ of some locy is~ di~cua~e,~ in 15e Draft ~Iousiu~g B~mt, aa wr11 as a~- of the Hou~r~g Flemait go~ls, w~ere pre~aited ~o d~c Cc~mm~sio~ in a Deo~ 11, 1996, sf~' ~eport. A oopy of th~t s~art is atqrched fa~ y~a~ rcfa~ceoe. Plannia~ Cotnmisaion public heuings tu neview tde Drafl Hatsing Hand~t ate xhed~eled far ~- is, ~~, ~a ~u ~ oo~ m J~u~y z2 ~a ~ 29, ~~n ~ ~aa~- ~r ~ di~cua~oa ~na away~ of d~e n~a~t Ho~ing ~L 1'he commi~~n inta~ b o~i~C ~t~ dixa~ion af dr~e Dmft I~trg FJcmd~t ~ooos+diag to i5c ~dio~viag ~: J~ 15 Sectiona II aad IV Hatdq~ Naod~ ~md Raamoa; Ii~vicw of ~ B~ee~t Fa~t Prx~oe~nce Jaau~ry 22 Ser.tian III Pble~ti~i Co~ cm Iio~ing Pnod~n and Cron~av~ti~on lan~ry Z9 Section V Houaing Ob~ecti~+es, Ga~ls, Pol~, and ~ The Houaing ~m~ssiua is mceting on January 9, 1997 aad will aubmit ib farma~ rooomm~s as thc Dr~ft Housing F~a~t t~ ti~ P~anaing Cammisaian dwu~ thc oa~rse ctf th~ P~anniag Commiss~n's p~rblic hearing pr~ss. Public inp~t will ~o be mlcrn $t ~h meeting of both commissions. ANALYSIS At the Doce~nba 11, 1996 meeang, the Planning au~d Hous~-g Commissions reques~ed additional information and/or elarifieativri cm a number vf issues. Co~nis~ioners a~iced if the r~tal hous~g cost data gstl~era~ as part of the No~+dr~be~ 1995 tenarit sutvry as shown in Figur+c II-14 of the Draft Housing Element could be disa~ irito smaller S~~'~P~ subareas Becaw~c the 1995 tenant survey was originally d~sigi~ and pcecuted for disaggr~gation inta only thfee ~, it is not poaaible r~ow to fu~ther dis~gate the ~!~~9 Haw~ev~a, the Ra~ Co~rol Bosrd maintains a databaae of M~mum Allowable Rc~ts {MAR's} for slt rent co~mlled unita citywide which may be disaggcgsted into seven stst~stic$[ subareas ert~blislred by the Baard It is antiap$ted that this infomation from the R~t Co~ Board wi~ be sva~labk at th,~ Jarwary 15tlr p~blic i~eating. j~~~r~ina nf fi~~heui'vrli ~rr~~ino ~]wz ~+as no cotma~us at d~e~ Plw~/Haus~e8 Com~s~ion l4~~~g as to w6ether ttte City's iaveatory of sub~idized s~ordabk iiou~ing contained i~ Tabk II-?A of ttre Dr~t Hou~g F.imrent ~hoirld be ~gad. If tba Camn~ioi~ ~ne rducxant w~ho~~r dre ~ct loc~lion a~f a~ dtv~nd~t, aa altm~tev~e might be to provide a ta11y of praje~s ud w~tts by ca~aus tract. A rtview of the City's Geagap~ic Infannation Syatem {GIS) ~and ~ise d~e indic~es t~at Rl ~ooe~g oo~es #,b88 srrea aEd rs~rrsd~ts 47'/. ~al! raida~ia~ zone distrxts in die City aad 3]'/e of ~ mae di~trida cityw~d~. C0~11l111~0110[~ ~l~C~ vY~IE~~! tt vY~* 5~ ~#O il1~11d1lCC t~1E ~1'! p0~100 ~CO~ t~fllv 1[! the ~Y's ~ngb ~milY m~ (Rl and OP1) di~xs ~ dra H~xr~g Fia~e^t UPd~be P~oaeas- Tlrc D~ ~buing ~ma~t co~tain~ ~~..w~t o~tbe ~ty's ~taiun ~eoo~rd upit ~taad~rnb on p~e II~10. On NaMeanbv 12,1996y the (~y ~`~ow~ a~dOptad m iat~rim m~er~ency a+dea~noe re~ ~wnd tmits. 'Ibis ordir~wrot vvi~ rawin ~~ect fotr 1$ naoaR~. 'The qVpa~ o~ti~e 18 wo~h pe,riod is to atbw tim~e to £~~cilitate t~C ~ Prooe~a fnr adop~g penrwra~t ~rd~ds wl~h wili rr-d~tusity ~eoome a part of the City's 7.cMing G.wa~n~oe. ~ T'!ie inta~im oe~urve wthori~es a seound wat im dic R t aTd OP- ~ mnes if the w~ ~s iate6ded to be used to h~o~use a depe~dent af the owna or a card~aker of the ownes or own~r's d~t The 2 interim ordinNice aiso authorizes second untts in a11 multi-family districts A capy af the No~ember 12, 1996 City Council staff report on this matter, s+ccompanied by a copy of the interim ardinance adopted by the Council on Novernber 26, 199b, are provided as AttachmerEt B It is appropriste for t}~e Planning Commission to contemplate permau~ent sta~ciards for s~cond units ss part of its d~beratior~s on the Housing F.l~t and w forward its recommet~!9~s in this regard to the City Council An inq~ry- was made regardir~g the status of vacant and/or boarded up residential units in the City Tabk II-,15 or: Pa~e II-3 i af the Ihaft Housing E1erne~t indicstes that 335 rent~aantro,rled dweWng units, in~luding 120 units locsted in the Champagne Towere (Champagne TowaB has receive~ a build~ Pd'ntit for re~airs) vNae wm~bit~bte ~ of St~aaber 1, I996 A sEudy of ~~cant buildings oo[du~Ged by St~$'it~ Ma~d~ 149~6, ~dic;ated thztt tl~e we.re 27 build'u~gs with s total of 325 v~!~ARt units in #he City wfiich were ea~empt fmrie r~ent rantrol and which vv~e vacant because t1~y were eitha rod ar ydlov~t~g~ed, w~at "F~sed," or ~ bee~ issued ranova~ ~ermits w~der the City's rent control provisions. This ~ has sirnx inc~naxd ta 358 utits ~e primarily ta ~onv units baing "EWsed". It ahouW be noted thst ~t the titru ttre Mar~c~h aun-ey was canduc~ed, it was daterminad that drae was a total of b2 vapu~t 6uiWi~ga f+~1 t3+Pea) in ti~e City wbich did not hav~e ~ P~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~, ~Y ~s ~ dq# 1? of theae bu~ 1Mtv~e beoane s~~bya~x to I~roe Ab~tdnd~t Bo~evd adio~ aad tlqt o~wnas of 24 of the 62 vscant b~ ~d ul~derdilca~ sonx a~ivity ir~ing t~t thar b~ w~~id be rq~ed or t~piic~ad. Tll~se adiv~ia lac&~dC p:•il:~g P~8 P~~ APPh+~$ ~' ~~* a~ ~s fiar ~ i~ ~ied r~arts. Sa~e Camn~soooes b~d queati~ons ~bout tt~c distribt~tion of va~tt l~nd widrid tLe City. A"dot ~P~ ~P ~~+~ P~ ~ a~'w the ~~ th~ 6~2 rea~dmtfally ~oo~+d v~csuit p~ds ida~tified 'nt Tabfe II-2f of the Dn~R Housing F~t. The ~~rill indiple tl~c rd~r~tivc ~u o~ d~c pv+ad~ and will bt p~eaen~ed ~o the Commia~an at ti~e )an~wry 15, i99? meating. 1 ~ncln~arks ind Histr~c flidric~~ $OC~ ~Q.B, p~C ZQ-3Q~ O~ dlC ~ft H011SIflg ~ d1lCY3~i t~iC ~~~Ol'1C ~ ~QC ~ ~ ~11T~ 001~1tl~ bO ~101~i111` ~. ~11f ~CIiOl1 ~ f~1C ~ ~O11 ~[OOCU ~ 3i1l111~1all~CS dIC ~ plO~l~ Ifl ~ ~ W1dL"x ti~e a~ist~ ae~noe. Allha~gh tirae may be a p~olmtia~l co~uR~int pneed by die I~ri~ and Hi~oric Diatr~cfa U~dimu~oe on the pr~uction of housing, itr ~erma of the o~aall num6a of deai~ed re~artial Pm~a~, as w~dl as the moe of d~ d~si~os, tlye I.~m~dma~a ~urd Historic ~(k+dit~nee ~s imp~ctod relsti~dy ficw propatiea ae~d tha~are do~ts ~at ~nsGnt a s~gti,~daart b~anier m new de~a~t. A~SO, m~ny of tf~e naidentiat propatia which 3 may be eligible for des~gnation are located within d~stncts of the Csty where existing densit~es ea~~ or eq~al allowable densities. Furthermor~e, the Iar~dmark~ and Histonc District Ordu~a~ce is consistent wiEh Goa14.0 whicC~ calls for the preservation of ezist~ng housing stock. Amer~dr~nts tn the Citv's inc~ustonary Fjp~~cing Pro¢ram A ~oEiLr~nt wss made at the D~ber 11, 1996 tt~ti~g i~dicat~g that the measures contsined in the propased Progra~n 2.a ~ arr~drrrents to the City's Inclusianary Housi~g Pro~ram were not spoc~fic d~ougfi Base~ upon past expaienae in impkr~ent~g t}~e City's L~r~ary goe~sing Pragram, staff recomir~ds that the City's Houaing Elema~t rernai~ €sirly ga~ral in terms of thc ~Y's ~Y ~~B ~, ~ that the speci~c details of the progtam instead be re9erved tor the impte,~ne~ting ordinaace With this in mir~d, the Commission may wish to begin formu~ating r~ecomcr~ardations ~or a new Propos~tion R imptemaging ordIIwtioe, for consideration by City Council at t~t same tim~ as the Housing Element is presented f~ adoption Camnati6ilitv Between Prnnosition R and Proiects wiih Tax-Exemn~ Bond F~nA~~o A question srose oorscerning whether a residcntial develop,nent project vvh~h satis6ed the roquirantnts of wc-tuempt bond fir~cirtg would s~so satisfy thc r~equirements of Propo~tion R First, it s~a~ld bt natod that Proposition R merdy sets forth ti~ basic requiranans for an i~ius~w~*Y ~8 Pr~~• ~~~ti~- R requires t~at not lesa thsrt thirty peroa~t of ~ ~Y`~ ~~8 ~'~Y con~tn~cted on aa ~nual b~ be aff~dabk to ~i oocupied by Iow ~d moder~te inc+ome houadioids; and, that at l~aat hvf of the~e requi~ed iaduai+on~r}- ~its be affordable w bw-incame )w~selwlds Withia the ba:ic &ameworlc of Propoa~ R, the City Council h~s the wthait~r to u~v~ the 30 p~ca~ requirdmart thr+ough ~r nuhba of poas~~k Prog~r~ic app~v~cl~a. The a~rra~t in~lana~tion program ~s6ed ~der Ord~noe 1615 is just one of a v~riety of po~le ~ro~aches Pnopo~ R itadf does pot ~equine dnt t~e 30 Pa'ce~ ia~d~oo~r~- roa[' w~+ema~t be sa~od an a Projed-bY-~'ojax b~uis- 4~ t1r~ otber ~nd, ttr~ imPlp~ c,~~:~+~ekx adoQted by City Couna~ Ordwnoe 1G15 daes roq~ne dnt, w~ li~ited pcceQtion~, d~e ~o~ry r+oqwr~aoart he ~tia6ed a~ a project-bY~project b~is. Ttre implcma~alioe ordirouKx cattd be r~evi~e+d ~a t1~t tl~c a~o~+d~bility kv~d~ o~ the w4its ~ ach m~vi~u~ prqxt would vuy as long as, on m aiu~ual l~ia, 3a percd~ of ~wl~- co~ed units ie the agg~eg~te are ~'ordabk. L~ ta~nn: af tbe a$ord~ility r+equsratra~ts of t~uc-e~car~t boad ~ these can be md ia o~t of tw~o w~a: a) ~7- ~et~g aaidc 40 perccrn of thc w~ifs for howe~oids a~g 60 pa+c~et ar ~s than the ~e~n ioooe~~; or b} by ae~ing aai~ 20 penca~R of th~e uaits for ~ou~olds ~ SO perea~t or ie~s th~a tlre arediwn i~roome. 'Tlre first ~p~vn try ibelf vMO~uld ~y ttre ra~rts af Ord~ce 16I5 beca~u~e ma~ th~ 30 pe~+oent of the units would be affarciable to houadioids wid~ i~ not exaeeding 60 parce~ of the Catety mediae_ Ahhoug~ tlx aecond t~p~tian woutd t~ inm~e~utdy s~#is~'y dre r~tia~ta of Ordi~enae 1 b 15 bea~.+c lcsa t}m~ titiRy per+edrt of the projed entids would be affondable, if~the devdaper agrced to dad-resh~ict am additianal tex~ p~ of the pro~ect ~its for mod~rato-inoome households, the rtquirt.~ndrts of Qr~inance 1bI5 wooul~ b~ aatis6ed. 4 To reiterate, the Proposit~on R implementat~on ordinance co~ld be revised so that it woula not be r!!M'~~!_ry that each indi~iduaE projed contained 30 percent affordable umts, as long as 30 perceRt of ail unzts built citywide on an annual basis are affordable Proiecteon of In-lieu Fee Revenuec Addibonal information concerning the development of the projected in-li~ fee rev~nues shown in Appcndix Tabk D-1 af the Draft Housing Elen~ent. The projected in lieu fce revenues of 597,852 ~~ P~B Pa'~ u~e wrrrax. Thia smow~t r~aita the funds that witl be iv~iable ~g dre plsrni~ pexiod b~e.+od u~ ~-lieu f+xs air+eady calledai. Funds «urerrtly a~ailebk in the in-Geu fec nwenue ac~couM total 5997,852, hawever, 5900,000 es be,ing eised prior to thc be~innieg of the ]uiy 1948 to ~une 2003 plaaning paiod ta finsr~ Proj~cx New Hope, leav~ng a bals~nce of 547,852 for ~se during the ~ plannin8 geriad Estim~tes af fut~re in lieu fee reveTwes wa~c not mede, as City staff was u~e ~~+e of d~e futune policy directi~ of the Inclusi~nary Housing Prograrn and desired toJbe aard~ely oo~vative in its ~stimates of av~lable reve~n~es far housing devdopment. A shift in City policy towards grtat~ use of ir~ &eu fees would abviously increase availaWe revenues for hous~ng devdoprnent A question wss poscd as to whcther the City's g~utst puiang ra~uirements oouid be reduad in Qaeh~e~e £ior great~r on-site cxpen sp~cx for c1~#dre~t ia ntw resida~} dt~dOpr~ts. Program 1 a c~a fot period'ic r~er-iew ~d r~vi~ioe~ c~f planni~g noning, and ~Opmait r~ to a~e that ~Y wPP~rt +~ ~~Y ~~B ~3'P~ ~08~ ~.h ~ddreaaes the nea~ ta crate mor~ l~o~uaing ~PP~~ties for f~rWies with cbildras. 'The Co~n~:±~n could reaommad that dther of the~e pro~ be ameoded ta addr+aa d~e g!~!bility of tradinB ~ Park~g for open ap~ce for d~dren C~ma~~iax~r~e ~ouid loaeQ ~n miid, ~, that other 5~ct~ora oou~d afftc~ the ~bility of a hade~ off b~twexn paride~g ~ces and ope~ spa~oe. For ~xampk, ti~e ~ in tnrd~rOU~d F~B ~~~Y ~ Y~ ~ W~ amou~ of opai sp~ce above goaujd. 37ris wrould have to be cx~ior+ed. ' A~~rae oaeaerni~g whe~c d~e City hss aery pro~ams ia pb~x to m~ tl~e b~ af ~mits rar~o~~red w~der th~ F.lfis Act Sig~~ed iata ShLe I~w in i 9~6, ti~ E~ A~ct ~tae~ tba right af s pmpatX awmr ~o "~a out oft~ r+art~rl bu~nw". Tl~e Gty R+art Boaid l~s adop~ta~ p~+oo~res f~ ~ooe~aisng d~ ng~rt. The i~x of the City's Elli~ A~ct rdnoval ~xocedur~ m at~ed m de~ ~ Secbat 4 of tbe Tedrtic~ Appard~6~ md a~mrr~ri~od on pRgea DI-24 ~d II~-25 of t6a ~'kaft ~ou~ng F.kma~t. 'Y'he Ciiy hu ao EWs A~ct ~n Pr'o8r~ Pa sc. By itw, the City catmat req~ne #he p~+operty awner to reEurn LA the ra~tal I~au~ng busines.~ How~ver, the City ~ea require rd+oc~tion aa~oe to }ow-incoine tenants wl~o are cti-icte~ under tlte EWs Act. In ~ddition, as is ahovvtE in Tahk N-1 5 of the Draft Housing Efement, 644 affordable ur~ts have bcen produced cityw~de since July, 1989, iarge.~y ss a result of the City's affordable housir:g programs and f~nding efforts It sh~ld also be notcd tlu~t Section 9 28.114 of prdinanc~e Ib15 requires that, in the selectian of ten$nts far inclusionnry housir~g units, prianty be 8ive~ among others, to Persons who havc beeri eti+icted putsnant to tl~ F.llis A~ct Housiag Di~ision Staff was ssked to describe ma~e fuily ita pla~s to work with private lenders w Snarrce afforc~le I~ousing dtvdopme~t as psrt of Program 2 e. Among the specific adions ta be sp~arharded unde~ this progrsrn sre the fallowing o Coatinue to woric with pri~tc lenders to ~dminiater the TORCA loan pragram. This pc~gram pmvidea 9ocord trust dxds {"soR aoconds") fiu~ded by thc TURCA Pr'c~'un r~+dwes ta eruble taw ~tnd moderate income home~xryers to purchase uu~ts comrated wrder thc TORCA prc~gram. o Purwe with priv~t~ ja~das a MoRg~gc Crodit Catificatc progsm wherebY qsalifu~ ~rst time ~ot~e~ye~s m~r talce a c~ro~it of eep to 20 p~rr.e~t of t~~eir ~~ P~Y~+~ ~~ ~edtr~ inuom~e tax~es ('ee ~Iso Pragram 5.c). o Meat wrth oomorti~m lei~d~er~ to a~oa~a~e their p~ctic~patian in rislaa, pt~edcv+abpment lo~e to propaied affordabb howi,~g projeda ia the city. o~t with private bc~l kndars to ~.~iride i~onmbon aba~ City ~ p^~a~r~j- ib am~a~g 'I'r,nt Fcnd ~d 1~ORCA br- progi~me ~~ud pmpo~d MCC progra~q ie~ o:d~r to aroo~rage the~ p~it~p~tioe m thae pro~s. o I~eet wiEfi ladacs ~vbo onty wi~ to ut~iae t~ac ~c~ea~t bo~rd fi~d~ ~or babw m~k+et ~rt~rat ~oq~ioa and ~ 1aw. o Meet with lmders to a~wt in ~`w~arico~~ts' {'cc., dabt ro~ ~or dirtr~ed propatiea. o W~lc wuh la~da~s s~rdinB ~B ~Y ~ A,ct (C.R.A) ~ c~r.r~n g Hn*~ C~~*~ ~ V~~.~ Prn~r*~n Tllc P}a~ illd H~ COt11t11~~ iflQuli~Ed ~bOUt thC tw0 i~ftiCi rd~ t0 ti1C Sedioll $ ~Oi1~11$ t~l~C~C irid YOtlr.~1@t ~'O$1'~in. Tj1C ~t ~1011 C~D[~ t~E 1~ O~Y~Ci~C~ db 6 co~ntroi upon the progam Ttre secand question conc.err~ed the impact of changing federal regulations upon the fuhue of the program Imn~ct of Casta-Hawkit~s on the Sectian 8 Pro~m In order to undexstsnd the potentia! ~mpact of Costa Hawk~ns on the Section 8 program, it is ~eae~.wy to kno~w how r~a~ts are e~ab]ished in ih~ S~ction 8 plv~ram Sect~on 8 gmss contrsct rer~ts ~ue s~egotiated withia the fr~rn~woric of HUD Fair Mulc~ R~t standards {FI~IIt). Ge~erally, the gross rent for a w~it mry not e~~! the Fll~llt. However, HUD and the Houaing Authority maY ap'q'a~"e c~tior~ tmda catsin ~ . The FMR standard can onty bc excxedcd through annual incs~as~s whic~ gd~a~lly occur oa a ye~y b~sis or for exceprion r~ts which can on~y be gr~nrad to 3~'/. of the oerdfic~te cs~doad S~a 11+Eonic~'s FMR is aeriv~oa finm t~e Loa A~desll.ag Ba~ch ~~~~~cal Metropalitan Arca. The nunber af ra~tv uats in S~nts Monics is vcry sma~l compared to the total snu~et of rental w~its in the Los A~gd~/1.o~6 Be~c}~ ~p~d~. Consec~ue~tiY, the "~oft" ra~tal marlcc~t of thc Loa AnB~-o~8 Baac~t ac+ea 1~as t+e~lted ~ four r~s in t~e ma'a F14~t in the tast four years If tha "soft" ra~tal m~ricd ooat~uay the FNP_ wi~ al~o co~;~~c to drap cvai ms t~e Maxiawm Al~Owabk Rent {MAR) i~c~nasa ir~ Smts Mvr~ir,~. I~'istoiica~y, the Sec~on 8 pnogram hss bas~ popuiu witlt ~tidbrda becw~e the Saxion 8 gross cont~ r~ts hav~ uwlty bean higher than Rent Ca:n~~'s {MAR). C,urnartly, tl~e medi~n ~~~s ooRract r~rt ~or ~ei+a bedroa~~ is ~SNi tigl~er d~ the mnd~ MAR ~or ~ao be~+ao~s. The n~edian gnoa ~ nm f~ a~e 6edroaYU is 24'/. ~ th~n the median MAR wh~ the o~edi~n gmas oo~ ra~t fior tw~o bed~oome s 13'X. hig~a. Iion~v+a, the tr~ead of coe~oed FN~ta, co~nbined with C.oeta-Htwlon ~mt ~aa+aa~a~, cae~ jeop~ndiae tbc car~petidva~a~ of the pragr~rn ~n Sa~~t Monic~. Ba~ed aa ~~ioui~ Ekmart ~wiy~ donc by ~IIt~tA ~nd a~euar~ing d~ t1~e Sants Ma~ca turnover en~odel prwr~ti t~a ~Axts ~or raau~t umts wi~ ac~eed tl~e wrr~mt F~+1R by up to 2'/. by the year 199~. F.~en~ the aa~lyais thr~aug~ the yar 2003 ~l~o~w~ th~t the MARs for ~e% a~c, md two bedraom ~its ~ mc,c~eed dre anr~a~ FMR Iry I9Y., Z2'K, md 2Q'/. r~pectivdy. [1~ tran is :~a~t i~a~r ~ t~,e FlNit phrmeat ~dar+ds b~tw~eae 1997 ~d ?A03, t5e tlte~cti~-~eae~s aftlr~ pn~m~ to !~ w~l be saiowly ~nimi~red. As a r~ak, it ie ~iady tlvt m~ a~w~bar of S~ Monica oe~fic~e aed ~r c~i~t~ w~ll 1~ ta nr~e to a~hcr ci~s in ariar to fi^d ha~ui~g. In order to ra~n oomQet~~e in an ina~y mon oo~tly rm~~i mirk~atd~, tbe Sactia~ 8 progt~n wi~ ta~r~e ~li sdvam~ o~ the HUD tegvlatioe which ~Ilovvs thE ~ con~rsct re~t to e~ooee+d the FMA by up to 2~X. f+Ex 247 of ~ SZ3 oaii~es T~is op~io~ vvilt onty bc w~d to savre and retain th~ lrigirest qw~ity utits an~ ta ~~gram particip~on in wder save~ aras of Sa~rt~ Monic~t. ~j 7 Howerrer, because this can orily ~mpacc 2 i°ia vf the ~otal caseioad, the program will also apply to HUD for a Santa Monica spe~tfic FMR In 199b, HUD approved 12 of 3? requests for FMR ina~ HUD requites that a comprehe~sve rental survey be submitted ta validate the need for an er~creased FMR It fs possibk that the Ho~sing Elesner~t swvey co~~ farrr~ the ba4is of a Sartta Monica requ~t. The re~uest c~ be submittod at any time snd, if approved, would become effective on October 1, 1997 Due to HUD's fiscal problems, it is ant~,cipated ti~at it wi~l be diffcuEt to convince HUD of the need to create a Santa Monica specific FNiR based on projections Imnaet of HLID Re¢ulsrian and Polic~ Chan~eaa The Omtibua Conselidated Rcsci9sions and Apprapriatians Acc of 1996 established a 90 day res~ana fr~be~e an all o~ and vouchers The effect oa the Santa Monica pragraer~ has been to reduEx the e~s~ble number of ca~tificates and youchers by aPFroximately 3% over the course af a y~. The Omnibus Consofidated Rcscissions and Appropriations Act of I99b also made changes in the Sec~iat S progr~n vvi~ wene designod to "encour~c" mae [s~dtords to particip~te in the program ~n order to en~ooura~e mo~e landlords to particapa#e in the Sa~ion 8 grogra~, HLJD haa made it r..uch m~ier for th~m ta terminate lease: that have been i~ effect for more than a year and w"opt out" of the Sect~t~ 8 cont~act with s 30 dsy written notice witt~out cause Owners can now terminate the Sa~ion 8 lease without cauae after one year, and, with a 3fl day written notice to the Hqusing Au#hority and the tenu~t, terminate thc HiJD ~o~d Unce the contract ~s tern~i~ted, the ta~t has the optioR of moviwig inta enotl~er Sec,tian 8~bsi~iZed ~ or drte~ing i~o a new lasc vv~th thc o~vner and pa~yir~g the fi~ll MAR Gi~ the incomc kvd of Saction 8 ctients , it is rasonabk to assume that moat, if not a~, would hsve to move. The ~~~ sPP~'dY 950 oor~tracts that have beta i~ pl~c;e for mone t~att 12 awnths and ue ther~f~ digi~t e for cancellsrian withaut cavse by owners The mediat~ income for these clie~ts is #pproximat~dy 58,000 ~ 8~'b~ve~ daut tl~ clauae in the Onwbua Consolidatod R~ and Ap~i~tions Act of 1946 "---e~oept ~ neq~ad b'Y State a loc~i 1uw .." pnedudes ow~ers from ~ thm~sdves af dre ab~ity tv tecmin~te v~-ithout ause hoih the lease a~d co~dact The ehff po~ion is bieed or~ the S~rtat Monica R~ Contrvl Ordin~u~ce. A t~eque,st 1ns b~di mu~e by st~ff ~or ~ City Atta~ey's opition on this issue. Becauae of Co~-Hawlcin~, HUD's atbangt ta "a~ooura~e" n~e 3aadlord P~pP~ ~Y h~~e t~e r~cverse effect in San#i Morncs. FiIJI3 i~ w~er ~e ~d~aty pre~ure beca~e of both ~geet ~ts a~rd d~e noed L~ c~are~- exp'rring Annu~l Co~nbution Co.~u~cts (ACCs} HUD's ~t budgct re~Ba~s a 20'/. radudioe~ fi~n the pr+er~ioua fi~cal yar. Ali pcpiring ACCs ue be~ng re~wed €ar onty one yesr. H'iatorically the tarrn of ACCs was for 20 or 15 yars. In the early 199(1~ the ta~n was reduc~d W fi~e Yaurs, tha~ twv years, ar~c! now ~ year Thae is S4 billion in th~s yeer's FI[JD budgd for ACC ra~w~a This caonstitutes 24i°f. of the HUD 5udget Ne:xt year, S 13 S biWon wiU be requir~ed to rentw sll of HUD's $ expinng ACCs. Cangress devised t~e one and two year ACCs as a short term strategy to save money Whi~e this strategy did in fact save money in the siwrt term tt has creeted a need ta renew ACCs mone froq~ently to the extent t1~at in 3 years 75•/. of ail ACCs wi11 need to ~e renewed by FY 2000 HL~ submit#ed a 532.5 bi!!io» FY 1998 budg~t reaqe~est to the pffice af hianagana~t and Huc~get (OMB). UMB ia the Pre~idem'a budget o~ce. OMB'a rasponsc has been to r~ec~uce the ~dget to S24 6 billioa and to prapoae blocfc granting adl HUD fwrids iato a Famiiy Housi~ Gra~~ pro8ram wlrich w~o~sld ix ~ed 6y £onrxtla to states and HOME parda~ating j'~icti~ns. Saa~ Monica is a HOME p~rEicipati~g jurisdidion OhIB's re.~pon~e to HUD's FY l99$ budget request is sy~olic of the acvai#y of HUD's b~dget situatian_ Becaasc of ReM Comroi, the Sxtion S pragram has ge~eratod signiScant project re~a~res. As of June 3~, 299~6, vve ~tc ~at we have 57,305,979 in ca~te and v~oucher project r+~rves C'~irra~ly, th~eae rc~aa'vea can be budgded to pay for aMic~pat~ad ra~t ir~cxeas~ on an atie~al basis If HUD approv~es s Sant~- Monica FMR, Frojax reaavcs will be roq~ned to fw~d in~ased rarta! c~oets. ~Zawav~er, due to HUD's atv~rrc M~g~ con~ ~~ Mo~'s project re~+cs may be wed by ~I[lD to s~a~ew expiri~ ACCs for S~ M~ca or at~r Houairig Authorides. If OMB's P~ P~~ ~ ProJed rqa'ves wii~ prob~bty ba last in the bioc~c grasit. It a~pasrs that I3i]D palicy vvill be a~tioat eacdusivdy- d~iva~ by ita bt~dgd ~ As su~, our abiMy to ~trm~ivrly na~ct ta the irt~t of Cost~Hswlae~ wif~ be ~epcadeat oa t~e ~utcane af ~ Hi]D bud~d-~Opos~is- Pw++.~c~~ cwr~:rwn S C.n.de~,r~. COm1Oi=YQBO~~ #~Od ~ ~ C~If3ti011 ORI tj1C "at tll~C" ~Yi O~ ~OJECf-~1lC~ $~011 $ aoNrac~, as de~a.'~d an p~as II-59 afd II-60 af the DiaB I~ouw~g E~anaat. Sav~an Ht3D-fw~dod aa~ior ba~ da~dopmert~ in tbe t~ty hzv~e pEOjax~r~ed 5ectioe S~aoce. Tabie II-Z2 ~huwa tiyrt ths~e a~ 342 ~ wid~ Section S ooatract~a vhti~r d~ae ~ev~en H[]D-~'imd~eet dav~eiapr~aats. The e.x~iratioa ~ for thee~ project-b~sed ca~~ ~cts vary, as vrawo in T:ble lI 22, wi~h soa~ mcpiring u ariy ~ i 99~6 ~ othas ~g in 199?, 1999, Z000, 2003, ~nd 2041. C~ ~o Sactioo S~icxr h~nr~e reuited ~~ess oat~ty rbau# the imewal of li~e coal~a~#s. As ~d in t~ Dndt Iiou~g Ela~t, ~or projects wit~ Sactioa S oa~lrad~ ~~~ 99b, ~~JD ia W~ ~s ~ra~e bcal ~~CJD o~ca tha wtirority to ~meod tLe Sec~ion 8 eoe~t=ac~ finr one ad~eeioad yar ady. ~ this ono-y~ear artauios, Secxioa 8 eat~a md r~oex~era mry ~Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~a~abilitY- ~CII~iG 'l~a publ~c ~iing vv~s notiocd by mailing flyera to all poople an d~ City's '~ L~at' ~rd thc "~using F.le~nt Iast' which inc~~dCS the ~g ~sts of the City's Ho~tsing Divisioe an~ tt~e 9 Re.~t Control Hoard arid other vnterested individuals. CONCLUSION Af~er bdng r~vi~e~~ by dre Planning Commissiar, the Draft Housing Element will be ~ted to tt~e City Council for casweptual r~view and a~pmvat. The doctim~E wiit ttten be transmittecl to the St~e Dep~ru~~ent af Housing and Commwuty DeveJopmart (HCD). The Environmental Lr~Ct R~poit (F~t) will be p~at+ed afta that, and a fit~al Dr~ft Housing E~t will rcturn to t1~c Planning Canmission, along with the EIR, far naoomme~daitior~ W the City Cauncil in ttre sumrn~ of I997. REC~NIIbIENDATION It is reoomme~tdad that the Flanning Commission oontinuc its review of thc Dr~ftft ~99$-2IX?3 Houaing ~t and upcx~ duc de,liberation, malce its re+corrimendations to the City Council. Prep~rod by: Desut S~a+er, Acting Planning Manager L~ura Becic, Associatc Plaan~ Hob Mo~f. Ha~sinB M~naBer 1ad R~ead, Sr. Admin~st~a#iv~e A,~lyst, Housing Division P~cr Meua, Hvu~ing Coardinator, Section 8~;~~~tion Aqxhmenta: ~t. I)aoemb~r 11, 199b Staff Report to Planning a~d ~ng Commi~sions B. November 12, 199b City Council Sta~f Report Regacding Socard Unib iti tl~ R-1 Disbrid, ~nd Li~ U~du~rae ~dop~od by City Council Nwember 26, 1996 . e. ~~ xe~ rro~;~ ~>> to Attachment G {Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearings hetd on January 15, 22, 29 and February 5, 1997~ MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNIlVG COMM~SSION QF THE CITY QF SANTA MONICA WEDNESUAY, JANUARY 1 ~, 1997 7 00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROOM 213, CITY HALL 1. 2. 3. CALL TO ~RDER: The meeting was called to order at 7' i 5 p m PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chair Parlee led the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL: Present: Kenneth Breisch Frank Cmiber Lou Moench Eric Parlee, Chairperson (arrived at 7:30} Kathy Wereini~ak (arri~ed at 7 23 p m} John Zinner Absent: Berton R. Bradley A~so Present: Laura Beck, Assaciate Plar~ner Michael Feinstein, City Cauncil Liaison Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary S~.i~ar~ne Frick, Director of Plannin~PCD Johanna Gullick, Hot~sing Caordinatar Pamela O'Cannor, Mayor, Crty Council Liaison Tad Read, Housing Sr. Admin. Analyst Barry Rosenbaum, Depe~ty City Auorney Dean Sl~erer, Acting Pla~n~n~ ]-~ar~,ager Mary Strobel, Deputy City Attartiey 4. 5. 6. 7. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Ms. Frick gave the Director's Report. She welcomed the new City Councii Liaison, Michael Feinstein, and Mayor O'Con~nor. She reininded the Cammission of the workshap for the Airport Non-A~iation Land. Additionally, she stated thai on a fut~re agenda there will Ue a fo~low-up session regarding the Bmwn Act. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NONE STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTIO~I: Consent Calendar PUBLIC HEARINGS: Cansent Calendar 1 Planning Cvmmission 8. PUBLIC HEARI~GS: January 15, 1997 A Plamm~e Conimission Review and Disct~ssion of Draft 199$-2003 Hausm~ Elemenr Sections II and IV - Needs and Resources. Review of Housi~g Element Past Performance Mr Sherer gave the s~aff report Mr Read responded to two questions prevfously ~ asked by the Comm~ssion regarding contract-based Section S hoe~stng and HUD procedtues to protect existing #enants. , Tlae follov~nng members of the publ~c spoke: . Chris Harding, 1250 Sixth Street, Santa Monyca 90401 , David Rosmar~, 151 S Hill Street, Santa Momca 90405 One member of the public, Roman Bruno, 202~ Idaho Street, Santa Monica 90403. was present but waived his time to speak Chair Parlee closed the public heanng. Commissioner Maench asked abont the "dut rnap" handed out to the Commission. Ms Fnck e~tplained the purpose of the "dot map" Com~nissioner Zinner asked if the properties cited are ~rterally "vacant" properry Ms. Fnck stated that the properaes are vacant, residentially-zaned parcels Cotnmissioner Gruber asked about lacations of vacant huildings. Ms Frtck explained that focus is for vacant residential la~ad. Commissioner Wererniuk comrnented that the Sea Cast~e property does not appear to be an t~- ~ rnap, nor the ~acant property adjacent to the Pritikin property. Ms ~nck expiaii :.d the map marlc~ngs and stated that the estimates af deve~opment capacity are conservat~ve and based on current code requirements She also stated that the map will be reviewed Com~nissioner Weremiuk asked abvut the Earthquake Recavery Act. Ms Fric~C s#ated that the Act expires in Apr~l, 1997, and buildmg permits must be piilled by that hme in order to camply tu~der the Earthquake Recovery Act. Chair Patlee asked if there is a way ta mo~el-out full build-out of properties vv~th curre~t zoning rec}uirements Ms. Frick referred Chair Parlee to page II-70 of the DraB Housing Element. Commissioner Gruber asked about acea~.uiting for po~ent~al loss af units when properties are redeveioped to c~urent code. Ms. Frick stated that only current~y underdeveloped parcels ha~e been considered. Chair Pazlee asked if a model can be made to show complete bu~ld-out beg2nning with a clean slate Ms Fr~ck stated that t}us was a gaod question. 2 Planning Commission January 15, 1997 Commiss~oner Moench asked about hausing densitr ~Vis Frick explained that one wati an rncrease in housing units is accomplished ~s thraugh an mcrease in denszty and, if this is a goal. such goals should be set in the Housmg Element Commissioner Moench commented that this is an~ssue of debate as the populace disl~kes densiry increases Commissioner Gruber commented on the mcome levels cited on page II-13, and then asked about a dacument he recalled from a pnor Hausing Elernent draft that gave the figures for county ineome levels based on a different criteria. Housing staff stated they would try to locate this document Commissfoner Gruber commented on the Ellis remaval units, crted at 9S9 rentaf units, on page II-25, and asked what has happened to these uiuts. One of the consutta.nts, PauI Szlvern, stated that m the Technical Report there is a chart wluch detai~s Ellised ututs as dwelling units unless a new use has been recorded. He also stated that the est~mate af vacant umts is based on census data which includes the totaI number of units inctudtng both vacant and occugied units Commissioner Werem~uk asked Mr. Silvern why the 179~ CeASUS ~?~t?~ is Used instead of other so€u~ces. Mr. Silvern stated while there are three or fo~r dsfferent ways to docurnent vacancy rates, the census provides a truer picture. Commissioner Weremi~c stated, as a lender, she receives anne~a~ information on vacancy rates for various neighborhoods as provided by the Apatt~~tent Owners Associatian and other agencies. C1~air Pariee asked a~out factaru~g in the various data sources Mr. Silvern stated it is a quest~on of data collection. He also stated that there are ~Cnown figures frarn the Rent Control Board and Ciry earthg~alce records that indicate 2,000 uruts were temporaril~ lr~st due to the 1994 Northndge Earthquake. Commissioner Gruber asked abo~t the 235 prapemes that were Ellised Mr Silvern referred Commiss~oner Gruber to the Technical Report. Ms. Frick suggeste~ that the Comrnission go sec#ion by se~tion through the I?raf~ Housing Elernent begmning with Section II. , Commissioner Gruber commented tt~at there is basieally good analysis on population. Corncnissioner Weremiuk expressed concern with the ending of TORCA and the rental stock. Chair Parlee asked abaut the statistics on ~ob categories. Ms. Frick stated this is found on page II-8. Following a question by Cammissioner Gruber, Deputy City Attorney Strobel remmded the CoFnmzssion to stick to the Sections of the Housfng Element listed on the agenda and cautivned them not to address policy tssues 3 Planning Commissian ~anuarv lS, 1997 Cammisszoner Breisch cornmented on the ~obs/housing balance Ms Frick stated that a discussion on regional ~obs/~iousmg balance can be addec~ Cammissioner Grt~ber commented on page II-4, school aged chzldren Commissioner Moench asked zf the agenda for next ~~eek can be "wider'' so that. for example, General Plan issues can be discussed Ms Fn~k stated that it is the Commission's agenda Deputv City Attorney Strobel cornmented on the agenda issue Comm~ssioner Moench asked about references ~n pages II-8 and II-9 re~ardmg "mmes". Ms Fnck stated there are probabIy no m~nes in Santa Monica Mr Sihrern explamed that tl~e "mines" are actually the a~ce space for mming operations Commissioner Weremiuk asked about pages II-25 and II-27 regard~ng the table on Ellised properties and un~ts lost due to the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Consultant KarEn ~rVarner exp~ainea how the earthqualce darnaged units ~vere ea.~cu~a~ed an ttte tab~e fo~,u~d on page II-31 and that there may be an overall uzcrease of units Chai~ Parlee recommended that the Cammission go through the document page by page. Cocnmissioner Gruber asked if the rna.p on page II-42 break-down the 9fj405 zig code to divide Ocean Park from Sunset Park Ms. Warner stated that this would be difficult. Gornmissianer Gruber asked about the untt turn-over mformation on page II-48 Mr. Sil~ern explau~ed the informatia:~ Cornmissioner Gruber asked about the politics of Housing and Urban Developrnent (HUD} standards. Mr S~lvern stated that the standards for affordable hausing are set by HUD t~rough a formula of inedian family incames in Los Ang~les Caunty Commissioner Gruber cornmen:ted o~ SCAG standards. Commissioner Weremiuk commented on page TI-71(`Tab9e 1I-15} and askecl that a note be added ahaut the 200+ units, earthquake damaged units anci potential residential build-out. Ms Frick stated this would bc reviewed. Chair Parl~e commented that the Civic Center Specific Plan calls for 350 residentiai units. Ms Frick stated that the figure c~ted is the maxunum number allowed even with the allowed changes in the mix of uses. Ms. Wazner stated that the ~-IDC does not want to penalize cities with earthquake daznagecl umits and ~he was adv~sed ro "net our" those ~ts. Tt~s concluded cornments an Sectron II of the Draft Housing Element. [The Commission took a break at this po~nt } 4 Planning Commission January 15, 1997 Chair Parlee asked for the Comm~sston's comments on Section IV Past Performance Comm~ssioner V~'eremiuk asked about changing the break-doun dates of the hous~ng production data for both Tables IV-1 and IV-2 Comrnzssioner Bre~sch asked if other ~ur~sd~ctions have created as much affardable housing as Santa Mo~uca He c~ted the creation of over S00 t~tuts by Santa Montca Commu~uty Corporation. which, in lus apmion, is quahty ha~suig with good amenit~es. Commissioner Gruber asked for a companson of performance ~~tl~ other Westside crties and Pasadena Ms Fnck indicated th~s cauld be done Chair Parlee commented that the City's mtention to create affordable hous~ng has been goad, however the bottam iine is that ttte City zs defic~ent artd could do better He asked for informahan on rates of "for profit" develapment with a companson to sirrular J~risaictio~s. Ch~ir Parlee read into the record each heacl~ng and subhead2ng for pages IV-1 thraugh N-5 The Camtnission Isad no connfnents Commissioner Wererruuk comrnented on Prograzn A- l.h on page N-74, and felt that there has lxen n~ real progress for large family tuuts. Ms. Frick directed Commissioner Weremiuk to page IV-8, the rtalizied paragraph. Commissianer Weremiuk asked about Program A-2 h, the removal of land banlcing Mr. Read zelatecl tt~e history of the ~oneept and why it was removecf. Commissioner Weremiulc camrnented on the lack of positton on Program B-1 b which c3ealt with TORCA {which sunsetted on June 3U, 1996) Ms Frick stated that this is ~ust a pragress report Commissioner WErerniuk asked about Pra~ra~n B-l.g and the status of the 37 properties Deputy City Attamey Rasenbaum stated that t6is wiIl be reviewed. Commiss~oner Weremiuk asked about the status a#' Progra~i B-2.e and the streamlining for eapit~l improvements. Ms Frick stated this vv~ll be reviewad. Cvrnm~ssioner Wererr~uk asked about Program C-l.d aad loans for TORCA units Ms. Gullick stated that the City not~fies both the groperty a~vncrs ana the tena.~ts twice a year regazding this prograrn and that there aze eurrently five Ioans pending and elever~ eomp~eted in the last three mont~s Comm~ssiorter Z~nner asked thai the City's Sustauiable C~ties Program Guidelmes be included wlth a broadened discussion on housing This concluded the camments on Section IV 5 Planni~ng Commission danuary 15, 1997 Ms Friek asked ~~hat the Commission w-ould like rncluded on the next agenda Commissioner Werem~uk asked that the agenda allow for the constraints and policies to be d~scussion, i e po~~cies and goals Deputy Cin~ Attorney~ Strobel stated that this can be mcluded in the next agenda Chair Parlee asked urhe~ comments from the Housmg Commission wauld be read~~ for rev~ew Mr Read staxed that comments shauld be ready by January 22, 1997 He also stated that the Housing Commiss~on is meeting again an January I6. 1997 Gommissioner Wereiruuk commented that she liked this e~ening's format This concluded the discussion on this item 9. OLD BUSINESS: NQNE. 10. NEW BUSINESS: NONE 11. DISCUSSIDN: NONE. 12. COMMUIVICATIONS: A. Appeal of Planzvng CommissFOn Decision to City Couneii 1 Nane 13. COMM~SSION AGENDA: NONE 14 PUBLIC INPUT. NONE 15. Al}JOURNMENT: The mee~ing was adjoumed at 10 ~ 7 p m f.lplanlsharelpclminuteslpcmllS 97 APPROVED: MARCH5,1997 1/2l /97 6 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA M4NICA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY ~2, 1997 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7 40 P M. R~OM 213, CITY HALL 1. CALL TO URDER: The meet~ng was called to order at 7 18 p m 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Comrnissioner Bre~sch led the Pledge of Alleglance 3. RULL CALL: Present Berton R Bradley Kenneth Braisch Fr~nk Gruber Eric Chazles Par~eE, Chairperson Kathy Weremiuk Absent Lou Moench Jahn Zinner Also Present: Laura Beck, Associa#e Planner Michael Fetnstein, City Council Liaison Kyle Ferstead, Cam~ssion Secretary S»~Arane Fnck, Director of Plamm~g/PCD Karen Cnnsberg, Plann:r~ Manager Jahanna Gulliclc, Housmg Coordinator Robert Moncnef, Housing Manager Tad Read, Hausing Sr. Ad~un. Analyst Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attomey Dean Sherer, A~ting Planning Manager Mary Strobel, Deputy City Attomey Crina Szilak, Assistan# Planacr Mary Ann Ye.ukonis, Rent Cvntroi Administrator 4. PLANNiNG DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Ms. Fnck ga~e the Director's Report, She remuided the Comn~ission of the Non- Aviatian Land Public Workshop being held on Saturday, January 25, 1997, from 11 a.m to 2 p.m , with a discussion and presentat~an to follow frvm 2 p.m. to 3 p m. Commissioners Gruber, Breisch and Chau Parlee e7cpressed their regrets about Fnissing the worksi~op and asked to be provided v~ntt~ any rnaterials handed out to the public. Ms Frick stated that such materials will be given to the Comm~ssion Chair Parlee asked if the Non-Avtation Land ~ssue vv~ll be caming to the Commissian for review. Ms. Fnck 1 Planning Commission January 22, 1997 stated that following the public workshops there will be public hearmgs befare the Plannin~ Commission as part af the Open Space Element review in late March Commxssioner Wererniuk as~ed where the w~orkshap was beu~g held Ms Fnck stated that rt wouid be at the Ken Edwaz-ds Center Comrriissioner Gruber asked Ms Fr~ck abvnt a regionat planrung meetzng bemg conducted by SCAG at the Ken Edwards Center an Wednesday, January 29, t 997 Ms Fnck stated that she is aware of the workshop, however does not feel it ~s important enough to cancel next week's Planning Co~tunissxon meetjng. 5. PUBL~C HEARINGS: A. ~~peal of Vananee 96-403. 733 Tenth Street. C2. A~neal of the Zon~nE A~rn~nistrator's determination denvui~ a variance reauest w nemut con~ers~on of a ~µ~a-farrulv residential use to a commercial use without nrov~dm~ the reautred number af off-street oarkin~ snaces. The annlicant rn~c>uoses to nrovide the 8 on- g~~ nari~~ng soaces in-lieu a~ ttie 13 narkin~ snaces reauired bv Code ,At~Dli~ant/Annellant: Rosario Perrv_ Attomev and Leonazd Kleiarock. Owner. fPlanner. Gina Szilakl - Ms. Fnck explau~ed to the Commission that addit~onal informarion was received by staff this e~ening that wiil reqw.re review and requested that the Commission canrinue this item fo a da~e certatn Commissioner Weremiulc made a rnat~on to continue ~he Appeal of Variance 96- D03 to Febnaary 5, 1997. The mo~ion was se~onded and appraved by voice vote B. P~r it~ ~~mm~sslon Rev~ew and Discussion of Draft I998-240 i Housing ~,,~~ment~ $,.4.tians III and V- Potentral Constraints on HousinE Production and Conservatian and Ho+~sin~ Obiectives. Goals. Policies and Promrams. {NOTE Thxs item was heard follawing stem 6A.] Ms. Frick introduced the consultan#s, Paul S~l~ern of Ha~ilton, Rabinouitz and Alschuler, and Karen Warner of Cotton/BelandlAssociates. She explained the format for the hearing which would include presentations by the cons~iltants, pu~lic cam~nent and then discussion of Sections III and V af the Draft Housing Element. Mr. Silvem gave a detaiied synupsis of the 1998-20Q3 Housing Element Update Te~hnical Appendix. The Com~ussion ~nter~ected queshons during the presentatian Fvllowing Mr. Silvern's presentataon, Ms. Warner gave a bnef synopsis of the Draft Housing Element's Canstraints sechon Commtssioner Breisch requested that the "conservation" analysis be separated out from the housing praduction discussian. 2 Pla~ning Commissiott Jan~ary 22, 1997 [The Commission taok a break at tttrs point ] Chair Parlee opened the publ2c heanng T}ie follow~ng members of the pubtic addressed the Com~mission_ C~s Hardmg, 1250 Sixth Street, Suite 300, Santa Mon~ca 90~~1 A J. Jarasunas, 1250 Sixth Street, Suite 300, Santa Monica 90401 Dauglas Heller, 502 San Vicente Boulevard #301, Santa Monica 9040Z John Given, 2240 Sixth Street, Santa Monica 90405 {Chair, Hous~ng Commission) Dennis Zane, 2943 Delaware Avenue, Santa Manica 90444 Rosana Perry, 1333 4cean Avenue, Santa Momca 9Q401 Chair Par~ee c~osed the pubi~c heacYng Comnussioners Weremiuk and Gruber commen~ed on the lugh cost of land in Santa Monica. Chair Pazlee asked the Cornmission if they had a.ny q~est~nn, cvminents or recommendations on pages III-1 t~uough IIi-35. Cammissioner Weremiuk cammentec~ on Suilding and Safety Code requirements increasing tlie cost of construeixo~ and asked for analysis on how such requirements, such as fire sprinklers, increase the cost of con~ctio~. Ms ~'rick explained that the cost of construction is by btulding per sc{uare foot. Mr. Silvern stated that there ~s analysis of Public Works standards in the Technical Apgenc~x and that bul2ding code requirements are taken for grarcted as part af the b~utding costs. Ms Fnck stated that an analysis can be done for cost per square foat m ~anta Mocuca as cvmpared to other~ur~sciict~ons. Clzair Parlee suggested tt~at ~ban run-off requirernents are ~que to Santa Momca, however other junsdict~ans require residential fire sprinklers Commissianer Gruber commented on page III-9 and asked th$t the lump sum residential numbers crted in Table III-2 be braken-down by type of residential as shovvn at the tap of the page. Ms. Frick stated that this inf'orma~ion caa be provided. ~ Corrun':ssioner Breisch commented an the constraints on conservation and felt this section could be stirengthened. He cited instances where such camm~~ts cvuld be expanded (see page III-25 aad III-27) He a~so comcnented o~ non-gavernmental constra~nts and noted that Santa Monica is a mature crty and nearly built-out. Lastly, he commented on the issue of the SCAG "fair share", wluch ~e felt was not fair. The Commissian came to consensus that due to the amount of new information presented by the pubhc this evenmg, they would like to cont~nue their discussion to Jant~ary 24, 1497 Cammissioner Were~u~k commented that one element seems to he missing fram 3 Planning ~ommission January 22, 1997 the discussian and that is the Rent Control component. Rent Control Boardanember Ja} Johnson came to the podi~n and stated that the Rent Contral Board had a discussion on the Housing Element recently and would be presenting a document on the~r comments and concems to the Commissian next week Commissioner Gruber asked if sorne non-profit proti-~ders couId be asked to ~oin the dis~ussion next tiveek Staff stated that they are we~coine at all pubiic heanngs Chatr Parlee continued the aiscussion to January 29, 1997 6. DISCUSSION: A D~scuss;on an Brown Act and Canflict of In#erest Issues ReIated to Plannzn~ ~pmrr-~s~ipr~ S~~j-~pmmittees. P~anrung Commission Contacts and [N~TE Thts item was heard in part pnor to item SB j Deputy City Attomey Strobel gave a presentat~on on the aforementioned tnpic The Commissioners discussed the topic bnefly. The foliowing rnembers of the public addressed the Cflmmission: Rosario Perry, i333 Ocean Avenue, Santa Momca 9a401 Chris Harciing, 1250 Sixth Street, Suite 300, Santa Monica 90401 Chau~ Parlee closed the public hear~ng. The Commission elected to table th~s discussxon following item SB Following the lengthy public tesiimony on the previous itern, the Comanission elected to cantiaue this discussion to a Febniary r~eeting of the Co~nmission 7. COA'IlVIISSION AGENDA: NONE. 8. PUBLIC iNPUT: NONE 9. ADJOURNMENT: The meehng was adjaurned at 1 l:05 p m f:lp~anlsharelpclminuteslpcm122.97 APPROVED: MARCH 5,1997 1/23/97 4 MINUTE S SPECIAL MEETING OF TI~ PLANNING CO1I~SSION OF TI~ CITY UF SANTA MOIVICA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1997 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7 00 P M ROQM 2I3, CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meetuig was called to order at 7 26 p m. ~. PL~DGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commtssioner Gruher led the P~edge of Alleg~ance 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Berton lz Bradley Kenneth Breisch Frank Gruber Eric Charles Parlee, Chau~person I~athy Weremiuk Absent. Lou Moench John 2inner Also Present Laura Beck, Associate Planner Michael Feinstein, City Co~ncil Liaison Kyle Ferstead, Comanission Secretary Suzanne Frick. D:rector of PlauuungfPCD Karen Ginsberg, Plaaning Manager .Tohanna Gullick, Hot~ing Coordinatar Tad Read, Housing Sr Admin Analyst Barry Rosenba~un, Deputy City Attomey Dean Sherer, Acting Ptant~ixig Manager Mary Strobc~, Deputy City Attomey Mary Ann Yurkoms, Rent Ca~trol Administrator 4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Ms Frick gave the D~rector's Report. She uifarmed the Co~m~ssion of two scoping meetuigs at che Ken Edwards Center, one on Thursrlay, Jannary 3(hh fram b p m. to 8 p m on the Santa Momca St~dtos Project and the secvnd one is on Saturday, February lst from 10 a m to noon on the St John's Hosgital and Health Center Project. She alsa informed the Commission there will be study session on the Airport Non-A~iation Land tn February. Commissioner Gruber asked for the meeting dates in February Ms Frick stated thac meetu~g dates are set for February 5th and 19th. 1 Planning Coir,mission 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: January 29, 1497 A Plannin~ Cammissaon Review and Discussion of Draft 1998-20Q3 Housme Element. Sect~ans III and V- Potential Co~strarnts on Honsu~g Praduct~on and ~qaservatton and Housing Ob~ectrves. Goals. Policies and Proerams. Ms Frick stated there would t~e na staff report t}us evemng and recommended the Commtssi~n beg~n with the public heanng. Followmg some disct~sion on the nnmber and types of speakers who had submrtted requests to speak, Commissi~ner Weremiuk made a mation to allow persans representu~g City Boards or Cammissions ten IIunut,es to speak Commissioner Gruber seconded the mot~on He asked for a friendly amendrnent to aIlow persons representutg loca~ housing orgamzations to speak for ten minutes. Comm~ssioner Weremi~lc was agreeable to this amendment Chau Parlee suggest ~ve muiutes Com~ssioners Weremiuk and Gruber agreed to a compromise of six ~n~tes. The motion was approved by voice vote. T~te fouowing members of the public spoke: Susan White, 650 Kensv~gton Road #4, Santa Monica 90445 [the Green Party] Dons Gan~a, 2024 Delaware Avenue #2, Santa Montca 90404 [Community Corporation of Santa Monica] 7ay Jahnsan of the Santa Momca Rent Control Baard Bruria Finkel of the Santa Monica Rent Contro~ Board Chris Harding, 1250 Sixth Street, S~ite 3DU, Santa Mvneca 9i)4Q1 [Santa Monuca Housing Counci~) Ken Kutcher, 1250 Sixth Street, Suite 3IX}, Santa Monzca 904~1 Peter Lo~ely, 1930 Stewart Street #39, Santa MonYCa 90404 [Mountain View Mobile Hame Park] Cheryl Dryman, 1430 Stewart Street X1, Santa Monica 90404 [Mountain View Mobile Home Park] Rosario Perry, 1333 4cean Avenue, Santa Monica 90401 Paul DeSantis, 1411 Fifth 5treet S~ite 200, Santa Momca 9Q401 , John Gi~en, 224U Sixth SE~eet, Santa Monica 90405 [Hausuig Commission Chair) Lawrence Shapiro {address not given), ~ATtS CO~m~sS1UA} A1ex Wong, 1423 Second Street, Santa Monica 90401 [Co~nmunity Corporatian of Santa Monica] ` Chair Parlee closed the gublic hearing at 9•55 p.m. The Comm~ssion tovk a break following the public testimony Chatr Parlee reconvened the meetrng at ~0:14 p m He suggested that the Comrnisston ask any quesrions they have of sta~ regarding new information rece~ved this everung, then continue the meeting ta February 5, 1997 Commissioner Weremiuk so mo~ed and Cammissioner Gruber seconded the motion, which was appro~ed by voice ~ote 2 Pla~ning Commission January Z9, 1997 Commissioner Bre~sch asked for clari~cation that the publ~ hearing is closed Chafr Parlee stated that this is correct Comm~ssioner Gruber stat~d for ~he benefit of the te~evision ~rewmg puhlic that letters could sii~l be sub~rutied for re~~ew by the Commission, Commissioner Werem~uk asked for clanfication regarding informauon g~ven by Mr Periy regarding Costa-Hawkms and an-site indusionary hausing Deguty Crty Attorney Rosenbaum commented an staff's examuiation of Costa-Hawkins as regards on-site mclusionary housing requuements Comm~ssioner Gruber asked for ~er~ficat}on that Costa-Hawkins does not prohib~t on-site inclusionary housuig as one of several alternat~~es Deputy Crty Attorney Rasenbaum answer in the aff'irmative Cor.r~missioner Gruber asked about a previous request for a colored district map of the Crty. Ms Gu~sberg stated that staff is endeavor~ng to produce such a map, howe~er there has been a problem with t~e platter. C~mm~~sioner BradZey asked fo~ statistics on~ mobile homes and artist ~a~e/work spaces Ms. Fnck stat~ed that there ~as been no previous demand for such statist~cs She also sEated that golicies ha~e been de~elaped to encourage act~st lxvelwork space with incenn~es to produce more such spaces. As to mobile home parks, Ms. Frick stated that mabile home parks have been preserved and protected by a special znning designation, however no new sites bave been designatecf Cfiair Partee asked about any pro~e~ted figures for the Earthquake Redevelopment Area and ff any si~.uficant amount of revenue will be generated. Ms. Frick carnmented that this is the "m~llton dollar question" and is being reviewed as part of the City's budget process. She referred Cha~r Parlce to page D-9 of the appendix to the Draft Housing Element. Co~m~ssioner Weremiuk com~nted an the definition for constraints and m~r'ket values. I3eputy City Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the City is in line with State law and the settlernent agreement. He aisc~ stated that market values caa be rev~ewed Co~m~ssioner Bradtey asked far clarification an page V-6, Table 5-1 "vb,~ectcves" and information found on the previous page, as regards the percentages for different types of housing. He asked if moderate income levels were neglected due to new business corr~ing into the City that would generate housing ne~ds in that ~ncome brackei Chau Parlee stated that if the questions were concluded, then the meetuig was contuiued to February 5, 1997 3 Pla~ning Commission Ja~uary 29, 1997 Commissioner Weremiuk asked if the Draft Hous~ng Element would be the only item on the next agenda Ms Frick stated that the February 5 agenda has already been ad~ertssed and pos~ed, and that there are at least iwo ~ar;ance appeals on the agenda Comm~ss~oner EVerern~uk asked how the next meeting wvuld he set up A+Is Frzck stated that the focus w~ll be areas of the Element to revise Chair Parlee asked Ms. Frick if the Camm~ssion wsll be able to re~~ew the revtsions. Ms Fr~ck answered ~n the affirmative Comzn~ssioner Gruber asked if the Commission's suggestions were be~ng rnade to staff or the City Counc~ or ta both Ms. Frick stated t~at the Commission's respans~bilary ~s to make recammendat~ons ta the City Counc~l, and that the staff may have its own separate recommendations Commi~sioner Gruber asked if the enhre Draft Housing Element would be rewritten pi~or to it going to City Council. Ms. Frick stated that the Council w~ll receive a memorandum listing cbanges 1'CC(~mm~~~ by the Planning Commiss~on and Q~her Boards and Com~ussioas that ha~e reviewed the document. 6. COMMISSION AGENDA: NONE 7. PUBLIC INPUT: NONE. $. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was acfjourned at 10 30 p.m f:lplanlsharelpclminuteslpcm129.97 APPROYED: MARCH 5, 1997 213/97 4 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MQNICA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY ~, 1997 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7•00 P M R04M 213, CITY HALL L CALL TO ORDER: T`he meering was called to order at 7 14 p.m 2. PLEDGE UF ALLEGIANCE: Co~nrnassioner Gr~ber led the Pledge of Allegiance 3. R4LL CALL: Present Berton R Bradley Kenneth Breisch Frank Gruber Eric Charles Parlee, Cha~person Kathy Weremiuk Absent Lou Moench Johri Zulner Also Present: Laura Beck, Associate Planner Keith Breskin, Redevelopment Manager Kyle Ferstead, Commission Secretary S»~nne Fnck, Director of PlanningfPCD Karen Gitisberg, Plann~n~ '_4~anager Johanna Gull~ck, Housing Coardinator David Martui, Acting Semor Planner Robert Mancnef, Housing Manager Tad Read, Hovsmg Sr. Admi~. Apalyst Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy City Attorney Dean Sherer, Acting Planning Mangger = Paul Sitvern, H, R& A, Consultant Mary Strobel, Deputy Crty Attorney Karen Warn~r, CottonBeland/Associa#es, Consultant 4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Ms Fnck gave the Director's Report. She informed the Commzssian that the next Co~uniss~on hearing will be on Febrt~ary 19th and inc~ude the Fourth Street Senior Housmg Pro~ect. 5he also mentioned upcoming agenda iterns fncluding the 12U Wilshire Boulevard project and presentations on the Sustainable Cities Program and the Airport Non-Aviat~on Land 1 Planning Cammissian February 5, 1997 5. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: Consent Calendar Commissioner Gruher made a mot~on to approcTe the Statement of Official Action for the Appeal of VAR 96-024, 838 Tenth Street, as subm~tted Commissioner Bradley secanded the motion. which ~vas appro~ed ~y voice vote G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A A,~qeal of Var~ance 46-0~3_ 733 Tenth Street_ C2. Anneal of the Zotun~ Adm~n~$Xl'~tpr's determinat~on denvin~ a variance reauest to nermtt conversion of a rri~#~~~-fam~iv resident~al use to a commercial use w~thaut nro~idin~ the reauired number of off-street o~kuie snaces. The annlicant nronoses to ~rov~de the 8 on- ~ite narkinE snaces in-l~eu of the 13 nazkit~ snaces reauired bv Code Ap~l~candAniaellant. Rosario Perrv. Attorne~ and Leonard Kleu~rock. 4wner {~lann~~, Gina Szilakl ~Continued from Januarv 22. 19971 The applicant's representative was ailing and submttted a written rec~uest to cont~nue tl~e hearing Staffrecommended continui.ng to the March 5, 1997 meeting of the Commission. Co~ssianer Bradley made a motian to continuc the appeal of Vartance 96-003 to March 5, 1997. Commissioner Breisch seconded the moti~n, which was approved by voice vate Co~ntinued to March 5,1997. g, p~~nnmg ~omrn~ss~on Revxew and Discussion of Draft 1998-2003 Housin~ ~em~ •t Sections III and V- Potential Constraints on Housin~ Praduction and ~pnservation and Housin~ Obiectives. Goais_ Palicies and Proerams and Develonment af Recom~endations for Crtv Council C~nsideration. Ms. Frick stated t~at ~taff would not be mak~ng a presentation this evening. Chau Parlee set ~e for€nat for the meetu~g as follows: first, the Commission will make general statements about the sections se# to be discussed this eve~fn~; secondly, the Com~n~ssion will go policy by policy with comm~nts; and, lastly, camment on the Prag~rams and Goals set in the Draft Housing Element. ~Q~,missioner Weremzuk commQnted o~ Section III, Sj~CifiCal~y that the constraints are not logical to her. She asserted that land cost is a major constraint in Santa Momca Cornmissioner Gruber suggested the COri]ri71S51dI1 direct staff to approach the constra~nts wrth an explanatian, an ex~mple being the rationa~le behind down- zomng certaxn areas of the City He commented that in Sect~on V, constra~nts are dealt wrth in a more lflgical ~anner Ms Frick explai~ned the tharough analysxs done on these sect~ons and stated that these are "potential constratnts" 2 Planning Commission February 5, 1997 Commissioner Gruber expressed the opmion that the "patential'' xs ~er~ important He ofFered the scenaria of what ~~rould happen if land prices go down or buildmg ~=alues nse Chair Pazlee asked if Commissioner Gruber would like to expound further an this issue Commissioner Gruber responded m the negat~ve Commissioner Weremiuk expressed concern with the tmpact of severa~ constraints working together, wh~ch wauid strengthen the "potential'' Deputy City Attorney Strobel stated that the cumulat~ve constraints section does address this issue She alsa stated that add~tional factors can be added Chair Parlee directed the Commission to page III-31, #13, Cumulative Effects of Five City Prograrns/Requirements. The Commission discussed the issues of land cosis, loca.tion, and ameruties. Ms. Frick asked if the Comm~ssion wauld i~lce to make a motion regarding added constraints an hous~ng product~on Cammissioner Gruber made a mot~on that for the constratnts section, stai~' vsnll follow-up ~iousing Element law and identify restra~nts and give reasons for them; and that a new bullet be a~ded saying someth~ng to the effect that the Crty w~ll endeavor to make a goal to reduce the cost of housing, as long as ather programs are not violated; and that this will be as anc~ulated in Section V. Cha~r Parlee seconded the motion. Commissioner Weretruuk commented that down-zorung is a constraint Cornmissioner Gruber restated his mohon Commissioner Breisch commented that he has no specific problem with the motion He then stated tha# the SCAG figures are "poppycock" and based are on pal~tical boundaries. He stated the fgures sha~id be regioaal, not by csty. He a~so stated that ~se t~e SCAG figures validates an erroneous methodology. He then commented on Section III, whieh he feels gives too much weight to negative constraints. He stated the need to balance t~e constrai.nts for the p~bkic good, and balance new housing with the preservation and conservation of e~cisting housing. He commented that he is willing to ad~aut that rent contrvl is a certain consb~~nt ta new housing, however it retains ea~ci~ng, affordable housing. He commented on the loss of single room occupancy (SRO} in Los Angeles County and the recent overturning of local rent control laws by the State. He stated that the City should be proud of our housing production and the preser~at~on ~hat has occurred. He praised the Housing Eleznent report He stated that rent control works and asked evervone to remember that the replacement eost for ane unit is between $100,000 - $175,Q04. 3 Planning Commission February 5,1997 Chair Parlee com~nented on the discussion in 5ect~on III and the ac~ditian of a presenation section He also commented that rent control has lunited the profits for landlords Cammissianer Gruber expressed agreement with most af Commisszoner $reisch's comments and stated that thls is what he had mtended with his mot~an He stated that the prablem with the document is that Zt is shaped by Iicitatton. He recomme~ded that there be additions to Section III, specifically that mention be made of the problems wtth tl~e SCAG methodology He stated that SCAG ~s the ~ law, so ~t must be analyzed He also stated that the Crty's v~stan is contained m Secrion V Commissioner Weremiuk stated that she wzll commerzt on an overview, nvt on the motion. She commented that she does not feel all the Crty's achans have been ratiorzal, especially as regards parlang requirements, which are canstrain~ to the cost of 6uilding low incame ho~sing She noted that certain new r~quirements cannat be changed, such as A.DA (American's with DisabiIities Act} requirernents and seis~c safety requirements. She commented tha.t while Proposxtton R may ha~e been rational, it has become a constraint. She stressed the need to loax to where costs can be cut. She a.iso stressed the need to preserve and maintain exist~ng affordable housing stoc~. Lastly, she stated that the SCAG figures are "silly". Commissioner Gruber comrnented on the motion. He stated that the b~ggest constraint to Zncreasing the housing stock in Santa Monica is the R-1 Distncts. Com.missioner Bradley commented on t~e canflict between preservation and inereasing the affarc~able housing stock. He stated that the Commission and the dacument h~ recogruzed the conflict and rt_s time ta move on. He praised the "excellenc repart" Charr Parlee cailed #he queshon The mot~on was approved by vosce vote Corntnissioner Bradley expressed the opimon tl~at the SCAG figures are unrealistic. He stated that the figures da not recognize the urban nature of Santa Monica. He stated the need for an ob~ective, strong statement regarduig the SCAG fig~res. C~air Parlee directed Cammissioner Bradiey's attention ta page V-6 and the table which shows the Ctty's figures atid not SCAG figures Commissianer Gruber asked that a general discussion on Section V beg~n He complimented staff on the tremendous ~ab they ha~e done in the past f~w weeks on the Draft Housing E~ement. He expressed apprecia#ion for the comments received from the Housing Comm~ssion and Rent Control Board, wtuch he found ~ery helpfu} Addirionally, he expressed appreciation for the camments received from the SMHC and other plaui#tf~s in the lawsuit against the City, which he found to be constructive He then comtnented on the potenttal effects, both posrt~ve and 4 Planniog Commission February 5, 1997 negative, of the Costa-Haw~kins law on the C~ty, including the substan#iai decrease of affordable housing stock and the potential of apartment buzlding renovations He then commented or~ the legal at~d moral ob~~gatrons to create housing affordab~e to ail ecanomic classes and the City's pnor success unth creatrng housing far all economic classes He also commented an the perceived negativity of h~gher denslt~l housing He further cornmented on the iss~es of recycling propert~es, ~ncluding utilizing cornmercial propertjes as mixed use pro~ects to satisfy housuig needs, cant~nuing support of non-profit developers; and nurttinng neighborhoods His concludmg statement wras as follvws: "The greatest service our little city can od for houstng in the State oF Catiforrfta is to show that to embody the Amencan Dream, housmg need nat he a detached single-family house in a single-use, uniform-income subdivision That fami~ies don't neecl their owr~ yards if they ha~ e access to good parks and recreattonaI facihties That diverse neighborhoods can support good schools Tliat it's okay ta take the bus to work. `I~at a corner store enhances a neighborhood, and that there are alternatives to the mall." Chair Parlee commented that Cornmiss~oner Gruber made a good staterne~t. Cotnrnissionei Breisch commented tha.t it is hard to compete with a prepared statement. He ea~pressed agreernent with most af Cammissioner Cmiber's statemen~t. He expressed concem regarding hous~g pmd~ct~on and the cost of rents. He commented that he shares the concern ihat ather options rnust be sought, that density must be increased and existing housmg greserved. He also commented that the CXty should camply vv~th State ~aw as regards R-1 pmvision far second ur~ts He stated that tt will be hard to strike a balance. CoFnmissioner Bradley stated that he has a problem with Costa-Hawkins sect~on, espec~a~ly a~ regards the mitigation program (page V-20) He also commented on Tablt `J-1 fnund an page V-6 of the draft document. He stated tb~at the C~ty's desire to attract studios (movie ~dustry} to variaus parts of the City vv~ll corre~ate to the increase of residents wrth inco~ne 120% of the median. Chxir Parlee cornmented on the Costa-Hawku~s section of the document. He stressed ~he need ta aggressively establis~i ways ta deal with Costa Hawlans. He suggested that the pi,~rchase of TORCA units is one way ta achieve the balance. He asked the Commission ta comment on the Crty's goal and whether the Comrnission agrees or disagrees. Cammissaoner Gruber stated that his problem vv~th the inforrnation on page V-6 is that he eannot understand where the figure af 808 uruts for abave moderate tncome unrts carne from and where they could be built He asked why the City bothers with policies for upper income hausing development srnce the City already has mare than the Coun#y average Cha~r Parlee stated that the high end housmg figures are necessary tn terms af generating pro~ections for in-lieu housmg fees and the f~ture develapment of 5 Planning Coinmiss~on February 5, 1997 affordable umts Commissioner Vl%eremiuk expressed the apiruon that condominium de~-elopment should be priaritized ~ust to get addrtional fees Deputy C~ty Attorney Strobel commented that State law requires the break-dawn shown in Table V-1 Commissianer Gr~ber asked again whv the above moderate income figure w~as so high Commissioner Bre~sch commented that he does not thtnk 124% of inedian ~ncome ~s a"luxury'~ mcome and asked what that amount mrght be. Mr Read stated that the median income for a family of four ~s $53,600 and for 12D% of me~ian the amount is about $64,000. Comrnissioner Breisch commented that the figures ment~oned are far fram luxury incomes Chair Parlee commented on ~he issue of rents and Costa-Hawkins. Ms Fnck explauied that the pro~ect~ons are on development likely to occur, or currently ~n the pipeline, and based on developer plans. Comnnissioner Gruber asked if the information presented can he broken dow~n more, or is it State regulat~on. Ms Frick stated that it may be possible to break dawn the numbers furtt~er at a 4ater date. Chau Parlee made a mot~an ta affirm that Table V-1 is an acceptable gaai as an ideal and standard, if ane-th~rd of the hovsing is affordable to families vv~th incomes below SO°/a of the rrfeciian Com~russioner Weremiuk seconded the motion Cornmiss~oner Gruber asked if the policy is consistent wrth Froposihon R and if there ts a net mcrease m unrts. Ms. Frick stated that there is a net increase, however only the to~ numi~er of wcuts is required by State law. T~te mo#ion was approved by voice vote. Chair Pazlee asked for comments on Goa~.is I.0 - 1.6. Commissioner Werem~uk commented on Goal 1.4, Palicy 1.5, and recommended the addition ar subshtution of the words "review all codes". Deputy City Attorney Strobel stated that Program l.a addresses this issue and specifics jnay tae added to the Program. Comrn~ssioner Weremiuk stated that Policy l.a does not mclude revxew of the Bwldtng Code or Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Gruber suggested Pohcy l.5 be reptu~ased "do not unreasonably constra~n hous~ng dereloprnent_" Chair Parlee announced that Commissioner Gruber's phrasmg ~s approved by consensus b Planning Com~ission February 5, 1997 Gommissioner Gruber expressed the opmion that Polzcy 1 Z is good He recomtnended the addttion of a Program to address Policy 1 2, such as encouraging the creation of standards to gam hous~ng abo~e retaiUcommerc~al areas that are well ser~ed by public transrt He also recommended the development af shared parking requirements for these area, ~vhtch would likely result in more affordable housing Chair Parlee suggested mentioning in Policy 1 2 the preservation of existing housing stack ~n a netghborhood context with exishng neighborhoods Comrnissioner Gruber commented on Program 1 c He noted that the City"s development standards talk abaut syuare footage and not much else He stated that design is Lmpartan# to enhance the qualrty of housmg He expressed the opin~on that front yard setbacks are foa ~arge and ma[ce the front yard unusable. He commented on the amenrties of frant porches Chair Parlee asked for any other addit~ons. Deputy City Attarney Strobel stated the Commissioner Gruber's recommeadat~on coutd be made mto a new Palicy 1. ~ Ms. ~'nc~ asked for ~erificat~on that the recommendation is d~rected to cu*rent non- residential areas Commxss~oner Gruber state~ that tus concept includes current neighborhoads aiso. Ms. Fnck suggested that part of the rec€~mmendation be put in the AR.B s~t~on of Prograrn ~ c, c3S lt 1S 1'~51~EI2f11I1~+ S~EClf1C Carnrniss~oner Weremiuk reco~nmended aclclang a Policy to preserve existing housing stock and to allow the rebuiiding of non-co~forniing housing stock in the e~ent of a fire or natural disaster (ref. Page 1, Attachment A, Housing Com~ssion recommendations). Commissioner Gruber supported the suggestian as regards destruction due to fire or natural d~saster. Ms Fnck asked if tlais wauid include arson fires. Chair Pa~'ee and Commissioner Gruber Uath agreed that arsan should not be inclL.~es, as w~ell as deteriorat~on of a building Commissioner Breisch e~ressed cancern with the propased recomrnenda#ion. He noted that the Crty has enacted legislation ta preserve damaged units w~en that damage has been caused by a natural disaster such as the 1994 earthquake. Chair Parle~ expressed agreernent wrth Comrnissioner Breiseh. Cornmissioner Gruber asked what would happen if a fire storm occurced in the City as happened in Oakland a few years aga Commissioner Breisch stated that the Ctty Council would enact special legislation, as was done for the I994 earthquatce. Comm~ssianer Bradley affered two examples af why replacement of st.~uctures is not always the best course in Mandeville Canyon, under 4rdinance Mb3, structures rnay nQt be rebuilt in areas subject o muds~i~es; ana in ~range Co~nty. all housing currentiy built on the flood plain may not repiaced. 7 Planning Commissian February 5, 1997 Being persuaded by the comments of h~s fellow Commissioners, Commissioner Gruber w-~thdrew h~s suggest~on He stated that the Crtti~ has responded appropnately iz~ the past Cammissioner Brefsch expressed the opimon that build~ngs converted to residential use, but nat built or designed for that purpose, should not be replaced Cammissioner Gruber cornmented on Policy 1 a, the second bullet of the Action Plan He recommended implementmg a re~~sxon to the Zoning Ordinance as regards guest parking requirements Commissioner Bretsch expressed the opinion that the wording of the second buIlet ~s appropriate Ms. Fnck directed the ComrnFSSion's at~ention to page V-37, Table V-2, which mcludes a t~meta~le for the Aetion Plan Commissianer Gruber stated a preference for tt~e Hausing COmrni~51012's recommendat~on on bullet two with the addition of the words "not oaly ta facilitate any housing construction". When Ms Frick questaoned tlus recommendatron, Cammissioner Cm:ber stated that the Ihaft Housing Elernent language was acceptable but felt rt should alsa be expanded Commissioner Weremiuk requested the removal af bullet three and/or c}iange the percentages to 60%-100% Commissioner Bre~sch expressed the opuuon that thi's would be a mistake. Deputy City Attorney Strobel explained that under Prvposrtion R regularions that not less than 30°/a of the units be affordable and vv~th the specified percentages of inedian income. Mr. Read expanded on the Housmg Camrnissic_i's discussion on this issue, sgecifically that 100°10 of inedian is already providing market rate hausing. Cornmissioner Weremi~ak asserted that because Santa Monica is a beach c~ty, rates may nse much higher than the median. Comnrussioner Gruber stated that he fundarnentally agr~s wi~h Commissioner Weremiuk. Chair Parlee ~tated tha# there seems ta be conseztsus on ttus issue. Ms. Fnck asked for a minor modification to the first Action Pl$n bullet on Program I.a, which is to change the term Development Review to "another d~scretionary rev~ew procedure". Chair Parlee stated that a consensus has been reached Com~ssianer Gruber asked tha~ the Commissian consider other items recommended by the Housing Commission The first ite~n is broadening the standards in the R-1 D~smcts to include second uruts Ms. Fnck stated that the pro~ram permrts for second units in the R-1 Districts so that the City is consistent $ Planning Commission ~ February 5, 1997 w~ith State la~~' Commissioner Weremiuk felt the language should be amended to mclude "v~~ithin reasonable limits ar~d to be consistent ~vrth State la~" Deputy City Attorne~- Strobel stated for the recard that the City does have a second umt ordinance consistent w7th State law Chair Pariee stated a consensus has been reached regardin~ second ttnrts in the R-1 DistrFCt Commiss~oner Gruber commented on the need to ~dentify housing for children as cited ~n the Housing Commission Memorandunn, Attachment A. page 2, bullet 10, dated Janua.ry 22, 1997 The Co~umssron bnefly discussed the issue and Ms. Fnck indicated staff would deter~mne where this issue shouid be placed in the document Commissioner Gruber asked about establislung an annual survey of fees (Housing Comm~ssion Memorandum, Attachment A, page 2, bullet 11}. Ms Fnck explained that many development fees cover a ~anety af areas and services which may not be equrvalent in the crties crted The Comm~ssion discussed the survey of fees issue. Corn~ssioner Weremiuk expressed concerr~ with the word "competat~ve" She felt it shauld be c~a.nged to another word such as a~propnate Cha~r Parlee cammented that ttus is only relevant if the Crty is not meet~ng its housing goals Cornxn~ssio~er Weremi~lc asked that the following be considere~ for tl~s Prog~-am l.a consider zonuig incent~ves to encourage housing above retatUcomrnercial spaces that are adjacent to public transit, consider shared parking uses in assoclataor ~•~ith housing, add a program to deal spec~ficatly vv~th commercial distnct housing; and possibly allow a greater height lunit The Commission discussed which issues shoulc~ be sepaarate bullets. Ms Fnck suggested a bullet that reads "Evaltia~e development stanc~ards to encourage the de~elopment of housing in commercia~ areas of the City." , Commissianer Bradley asked about the success of such pro~ects Ms. Frick stated that the success has been ~nixed but the concept is gaining acceptance by developers, especially in the Bayside BistrFCt. Chair Parlee suggested that the Commission take a break at this t~me, then deal vvrth rtem 6D an the agenda. Comm~ssioner Crruber stated lus support for contlnuing rtem 6D. [see rtem 6D ] Following the break, item SD was cantinued to February I 9. i 947 Chair Parlee asked for comments and recom~nendatian on Prograrn 1 b Streamline Permrt Appro~al Processes The Cammission had no comments 9 Planning Commission February 5, 1997 Cha~r Parlee asked far comments and recomme~dation on Program 1 c. Maintarn Archrtectural Rer-~ew Guidelines and Development Compatib~l~ty and the Hous~ng Commission's Action Plan bullet Ms Fnck read the bullet into the record as follows "E~aluate impact of arch~tectural review (ARB} prac~ss and guidelines upon the economic feasi~ilit}° and processing time af development proaeets and recommend appropriate revisions Involve market-rate and non-proft developers ~n the evaluatian process " Comrnisstoner Breisch and CIZair Parlee expressed a preference for the Draft Housmg E~ement bullet wording Chair Pariee also stated that the ARB ~s nat a constraint. There was some d~scussion an t~us pro~ram. When a suggesnon was made ta change the process, Ms Fnck stated that th~s has been med befare She agreed that there are occasians when the process is not clear to apphcants and problems anse, howe~er vn the whole the process worics well Commissioner Gruber suggested beoadening the bullet to ask fvr a review of design standards as regards neighborhaod impaet. He cited such thu~gs as cusaliowmg tandem parking in the dcean Park districis and Iooking at the "new urbanism" Chair Parlee stated that ~he suggestions would be a cha~nge to the Zoning Ordinance, not the ARB. Commiss~oner Gruber agreed ta defer this issue. Commissxoner Weremiulc commented that she ~oes not want to sacrifice design issues, but felt cost issues should be addressed. She expressed suppart for leaving Program 1 c as wntten in the Draft Housing Element Ghair ~a.rlee stated a cansensus has been reached. He asked for commenrs on Goal 2 U Increase ~he Supply of Housing Affardable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income ~ersans. , Commissioner Gruber made a motion for the inclusion of the highlighted third paragraph found on page 3 af Attachment A far Progcam 2.a (Maintain an Inclusionary Housmg Prograrn). Ms. Frick expres.~ed concern, regardi~g the accuracy af the sta.tistics. Cornmissioner Breiseh felt that thc paragraph is out of place and should be earlier in the document. Ms. ~nck suggested that staff review the accuracy of the statisttcs and that it wil! be placed elsewhere in the document, a Iikely location being with the implimentation of ardinance 1615 Commissioner Gruber commented further on Proposition R and in-lieu fees. He expressed the opinion that Ordinance 1b15 needs a"radical over~aul" Chair Breisch and Chair ~'arlee also commented on m-lieu fees as regards replacement housing and whether they are a construction on development. Deputy City Attorney Strobe~ explamed certam prov~sions of Propasrtion R and expressed concern with the term "annual basis'' and that the collectian of in-lieu f~es ~s nat part af Propasihon R 14 Planniug Commissio~ February 5, 1997 Cornmissioner ~TVerem~ul: commented an in-lieu fees Cominisstoner Gruber commented that Cammissioner Breisch"s anatysis was good f~ve years ago, however w~th tl~e passage of Costa-Hawkins the issue has changed frorri tearing dowm rent controlled apartments to giving ~andlords the incentive to renovate uruts when tenants vacate. He expressed agreement vv~th Commissioner Weremiuk and the Housmg Commission's apgroach ta ~rdinance 16I5 Ch~air Parlee expressed the opimon that there should be explorat~on toward the expansion of ~n-lieu fees arid the there may be a way to adjusi ~n-dieu fees so that #hey are not consxdered a disincenti~e to development and thereby achieve the ~00 units per year goal Commissioner Weremiuk commented on the Housing Comm~ssion language and expressed the opinion that the language shauid be consistent wrth requirements of Costa-Hawkins wluch apposes an-site anly replacement of affordable unit She suggested that tt~e in-lieu fee options be evaluated in Iight of tbe Costa-Hawkins pra~isians. 5he suggested adding a bul~et regaFding the evalua~ior~ of the success of on-site repiacement projects. There was some dtscuss~on as to how these units would adrnirustered and whether this could be done by the Rent Control Board. Commissioner Breisch stated that there are two issues to deai with: adaninistrahon and the st}grna of developing successful mixed use/income buildxt~gs. rhau Pariee s#ated t~at there does not appear to be a clear consensus. He asked for comments on Program 2 b Mamtain a Density Bonus Program. Commissianer Weremiuk retumed to the inclusionary housing issue and asked that on the fourth dash (-), the wards "and/ar State bond financing" be added {page V- 12}. There was some discussaon on this matter Cornmissioner Breisch stated that ari ~n-lieu fee is not a regressive tax. He recommended that s~nce the Cor~unission can not etminiate the tn-lieu fee, the recammendation should be to evaluate or expanc~ the ophan. He suggested changing the wording in the introductory bullet to "which encourages new housing" etc or in same way indicates maintaining the spirit of the provision. Chair Farlee asked if there is a consensus o~ this issue. Commisstoner Gruber expressed apposit~on Deputy City Attorney Strobel sta~ed that it is not praduct~ye to debate a"~~" since an in-lieu fee is not a tax. Chair Parlee asked ~f the Commission w~ll accept the wording as modified Co~nmissioner Weremiuk stated that the City~'s language is adequate 11 Planning Commission February 5, 1997 Commzssioner Gruber stated that he is opposed to the last dash (-} reference to "1 U4°/ti" Commissianer Vl%ererniuk agreed that "100%" should be struck A consensus was reached on Program 2 a Chair Parlee as~Ced for a second time for comments on Program 2.b Mamtain a ~ Densrty Bonus Pragram Commisszoner Gruber stated a preference for the Housing Comm~ssion's recommendat~on A consensus was reached on Program 2.b Chair Parlee asked for comments on Program 2 c: Provide Assistance to Non- Profts for Housing Development There were no camments He asked for comments on Prograrn 2 d Provide Funding ta Assrt ~n Housing Productaon Commissioner Grubez asked for the incli~sion of bullet three from the Hous~ng Comrnission recommendat~ons (page 7 of Attachment A} The hullet reads as fo~laws- • Refer to Program 2.a concerning measures to increase in-lie~ revenues under t~e Inclt~sionary Housing Program. Cammissioner Breisch and Chair Parlee stated that the bu~let is redundant and unnecessary. A consensus was reached on Prflgram 2.d Chau Parlee asked for comments on Prograrn 2.e• Explore Alterna.tive Affardable Hausing Finance Programs Commissioner Gruber asked staff abou# bullet three fnr ihis prograrn Mr. Read explained there was a typographical error Deputy CZty Attorney Stobel e~~ained the tax credi` concept Cornrnissioner Gruber ~t~.ted he had no problem with it Chair Parlee asked staff about TORCA Ms. Gull~ck E~lained the status of TORCA and the cantinuing TORCA laan program and fi2nding. Deputy City Attozney Rosenbaum further exponded an TORCA Chatr Parlee asked if a gohcy should be included in the Housing Element Ms. Gu[lick stated tha~ staff is working on the process an~ a policy is not needed. Ms. Frick asked for a mohon to proceed past 11 00 p.m. COII11~155IOFlei GFE1beT 50 moved and Commissioner Breisch seeonded #he motion, wh~ch was approved by voice vote. Chair Paz~ee as~ed for comimen#s on Program 2.f~ Explore the Use af City- Orvned/Publicaly-0wned Land for Affordable Hausing A consensus was reached. Ms Frick asked that the Commission include #he bullet from the Housmg Commission recom~nendat~ons The ~ullet reads as follows. • In coQperation with pnvate property owners, explore the feasibility of develop~ng air rigl~ts pro~ects above privately owned park~ng lots and other sites which may prov~de air space for affordable hous~ng develo~ments 12 Planning Commission February 5, 1997 Chair Parlee asked for comments on Program 2 g Faster Housing DeveIopment tluough the Use af Development Agreements. There were no comments Chair Parlee asked for comments on Program 2.h Facilitate the Development of Housing for Fam~l~es v4~th Children Comrmssioner Gn~ber expressed the oppioruon that the second bullet of tlae Actian Plan should be deleted. Commissioners Breisch and Weremiulc felt the issue should be explored as it has potential Chair Parlee also agreed it should remain and stated a consensus has been reached Comrnissioner Breisch suggested explanng altemative development of housing for aIternative family styles Commissioner Weremiulc agreed to tlus because it adds flexihility Chair Pa.rlee asked far comments on Program 2.i: Facilttate the Develapment and Mauitenance of Special Needs Hous~ng. Commissioner Gruber expressed the opinion that the third bullet from the Hous~ng Commission's recomrnendat~oras (page 10 of Attachment A) shauld be inc~uded Commissioner Weremiuk did not like the word `develop" and suggested the ward "explare" Chair ParIee felt the reference to specific numbers should be deleted Ms. Gullick stated that the Housing Connmission felt very strongly about the wording chosen for this butlet She alsa stated that thts will serve the populat~on coming out of trans~hvnal hous~ng situarions. She then noted that the rents vvil~ not COV~F ~IOUSIIIg COS~S. Chai. I'arlee announced a consensus has been reached on Prog~ram 2.~ He asked for comments on Program 2.~ •~acil~tate the Provisions of Ernergency, Transistional, and Permant Housing for the Horneless. There were no camments Chair Pazlee asked for camments on Pmgram 2.k Expand Article 34 Authanty Comrnissioner Weremiuk stated a preference for the Hot~sing Corntntssion's warding There were no other comments Chair Parlee asked for comments on Goa1 3.0 Protect the Existing Supply of Affordable Housing T~e Cammission had no comtnents. Ms. Fnck reu~inded t~e Commission of the Rent Controt Board's recommenda.hon on this issue Commissioner Werem~uk stated a preferer~ce for the Housing Cornr~ussion~s wording on Policy 3 3. There being no additional eamments, Chair Parlee declared a consensus. Commissioner Weremiuk cornmented on Program 3 a Develop a Costa-Hawku~s Mitigation Plan Ms Fnck commented that the Ho~asing CoEnmission's recommendations have an added Policy 3.5 Modify the Sect~on 8 program to maximize its effectiveness in the market rent environment created bv Casta- 13 Planning Commission February S, 1997 Hawkins ~~acan~ decontrol le~islation Ms Gullick stated that this Policy could be madified_ CommFSSioner Gru~er commented that Program 3 a, as restated in tt~e Rent Can~rol recommendations (page ~} and in the Draft Housing Element, is m~sworded :vls Fr~ck stated that this can be changed pnor to City Cou~cil review Keith Bresk~n, the C~ty's Redevelopment Manager, cornmented an effects of Costa- Hawkins on Section 8 u~uts The Comm~ssion expressed the desire to raise the percentages Chair Pazlee suggested the follovs+~ng language. To the extent feasible in addit~on to the 24% set-aside, target Redevelopm~nt Fu~ds for a housing aquisition and rehabilitation prag,ram wrth a goal af SD% Ms Frick expressed staff's opiruvn that percentages shouid not be included in a policy docvrrient a.nd recammended bzoader language be developed. Ms Frick asked for the Commission's comment on the Housing Cornrnissron`s recomrnended wording on Policy 3 3, which reads as fol~ows. Protect affardable rental housing by regulat~ng the con~ersian of rental unrts to ownership units Com~ussioner Breisch stated tbat he likes the revised worciing and exptained why. Deputy City Attarney 5trobel commented t~-a.t the Comm~ssion can ask to have conversions, however such conversions are now gro~bited and would requ~re a Charter Amendment. Chair Parlee expressed the opiman that conversions s~ould be allowed. There was some discussian on this issue Chair Parlee then commented or~ the dashes (-) at the battom of ~age 13 (Attachment A, Housing Com~russ~on recommandatiaras}. On Program 3 b, Commissioner Weremiuk askeci that the words "agpropriate and/ar" be deleted from the second bullet of the Action P1an. - Chair Pazlee asked for any acidrttonal comments on Goal 3. There were no further comments. He then asked for comments on Goal 4: Promotc tiie Rehabilitatian and Continued Maintenance of Existing Housing and Poliees 4.1 - 4 4 There were no comrnents. Chair Par~ee asked for comments on the programs. Commissioner Breisch commented that the Rent Control Board had rec}uested an added subsection to Program 4.b Commissianer Gruber stated tha~ th~s issue relates to safety issues, not the Housing Element. A diseussion regardrng residential safety ~ssues ensued. Ms Fnck stated that ~f the Commission can articulate mare on th~s cancept, staff will wr~te an addrtionai point or program 14 Planoing Commissian February 5, 1997 Chair Parlee asked that on Program 4 a, under the Action Plan's last dash {-}, the term `rehabilrtation ' be changed to '`capital improvement pragram" Ms Fr~ck stated that this falls under the~ursid~ctlon of the Rent Contxol Board Gommiss~oner Breisch commented that the top pnont~- on the tenants quest~onaire was safety There was discussion with staff regarding ways to fund safety programs and hau- to include this issue There were no cornments on Programs 4 c, 4 d or 4 e. Deputy Crty Attorney Strobel commented that the Rent Control Board recommended a change to Program 3.a, wluch would require a Charter Amendment {see page 5 of Rent Control Board recommendations) The Cammission agreed not to tnclude this reco~tmended change Cotnnvssioner Bre~sch commented that the Rent Control Board had a~so made a recomtrten~at~on on Program 4 e The Commtssion took na aetion on t.~us isstte Chair Parlee asked for co~nments on Goai 5: Pro~ide Housing Assistance and Supportive Services to Very Low, Low, and Maderate Incame H~usehvlds and Hfluseholds vv~th Special Needs. Consensus was reached on Programs S.a through S.e. Commissioner Gruber as~Ced that Frogramm S.f, as ivritte~r by the Hvusu~g Commission, be inciuded The Commission agreed to add Program S.f: De~elop a Strategy to Address Threats to tt~e HUD Sect~on $ Rental Subsxdy Progam. Chair Parlee asked f: r comments on Goal fi.0 Elumnate Discrirnrnation in the Ret~tal or S,LIe of Hausing et al Cornmissioner Weremiuk asked why Paficy 6 2 was plac~d under this goal. Ms. Fnck reviewed #1te policy and stated that it is not appropriate and reeommended remo~al. The Cornnussion was -n agreement on this ~ssue. Ghair Parlee as~Ced for camments an Program 6.a and 6h There were no corninents. Commiss~aner Weremiuk made a motion to accept Goals ? and S as wririen except Policy 7 d. There was consensus with the removal of Pa~icy 7.d Commissioner Gruber asked that the record reflect that on Policy 7.1, page V-32 of the Draft Ho~sing Element, that "design" does not mean steel gates. He suggested the inc~~sion of the Rent Cantrol Board safety tssues under t}us Policy. He also asked that Policy 7 b be deleted. The Commfssion agreed to this delehon. Cammsssianer Brad~ey recommended that in Policy 7 5, the word "new'' be deleted The Commission agreed to this delet~on 15 Planning Commission Fe6ruary 5, 1997 Commiss~oner Bre~sch recommended that under Program 7 a, the Rent Control Agency be added to the "respons~bte div~sian" list On Program 7 b. he recommended ~e addition of a bullet regarding the development of broch~res anc~ corrzmunity workshops He also suggested the addition of a bullet an er-aluation of the Histor~c Resources Survey as a basis for a comprehensive Preservatian Plan for the Cit~ Chair Parlee asked if a~`landmark status'' wouId be v~ei~~ed as a contraznt Commissioner Breisch commented on th~s issue and stated tha~ a landrrxark can be designated without the consent of the property awner This led in#o a discussran regarding histor~c greservahon, whtch ~s not a housing issne Comm~sstaner Breisch crted tax credits and other incentives for presen~atzon Chair Parlee stated that consensus has been reached on Program 7 b He asked for comments on Program 7 d and 7.e Corn~mssioner Breisch sugge~ted addmg a bu~let "to foster adophon of sustainab~e design and eonstrucnon strategies through Develapment Agreements°'. This was agreed to by the Commission. Chau Parlee asked for comments on 7.e and Goal $ Promate the Farticipat~on of Citizens, Community Groups, and Govenmental Agencies m Hvusing and Community De~elopmen# Activ~ties Commissioner Weremxuk made a motion to accept the rest of the Draft Housing Element as written Commiss~oner Breisch seconded the mot~on, which was approved by va~ce vote Ms Fnck u~ked tl~e Cornmissfon if tt-.ey wished to include comrnents frorn the :~rts Cammission letter Commissioner Gruber stated that this document is not abaut spec~al needs housing and that there is already a zoning provision fo~ artist h~using Ms. ~rick stated that artist live/work studio standards exist far s~me districts and that incentives also e~st Chair Parlee expressed the opinion that the issue was red~,~ndant. The Comrnission was in agreement that a policy should not be included. Cornmissioner Weremiuk camrnented that housing and land resources are scarce and should be ded~cated to farntly hous~ng. Commissioner Breisch sugges~ed wordmg to sugport the de~+elopment of arhst livelwork space and exploration of ways to facilitate suc~ space thro~gh de~elopm.ent incenti~es Commass~oner Gr~ber suggested added the words "in commercial areas'~ 16 Plabning Commission February 5, 1947 Chair Parlee asked if the artist live/~vork space type of housing de~elopment ~}ould be sub~ect ta in-lieu fees Ms Fnck stated that thts is not typcially done Commissioner Weremiuk stated that mcentives work best far such housing Commissioner Gruber asked if the Aent Concrol Board couid ha~e the author~ty to administer miscellaneous deed restricted ~nits Deputy City Attarney Rosenbaum stated that this idea could be explored, however he noted that it would be difficult for Rent Control to adrr~in~ster such uru~s and there may be legal pmblezns also Cornrnissioner Weremtuk commented that the City's Hous~ng Authority already watches o~er deed-restricted unrts Commissioner Weremiuk asked Ms Fnck if the Commission's comments wiIl be p~aced m a rev~sed Draft Hous~ng Element document Ms. Fr~ck stated fhat staff will determine how best ta present the Cammission's cominen#s and recommendatians Com~nissioner Weremi~k rnade a rr~ot~on to farward the Commission's cornments and recomrnendations on the Draft Housing Element ta the Crty Cauncil Commissianers Breisch and Gruber seconded the rnot~on, which was approved by vc~ace vote. C. Anneal of Variance 9f-Ol ~. l S56 Harvard Str~et. R2, Ar~n~l of ZnninQ AdministratOF ~~[~TminahOD [1eilVlrl~ 8 V~t'1~II+C~ T~ll~5t CO a110W a(?.1 foot fencx iri-iieu of the maximum 42-inch fe~ce within a frontvard sethack: a oervio~~c adiustment nermtt [95-004) ~rant~d on Februarv 5. f 995. allowed ~~4-~~ max~rnum fence ner section 9.04.20.34.03. The annlicant seeks tn m~~y ~~ fenc:e hei~'~t allowance on the Harvard Street eievation. (Plan~r: G~ Szila~~ AnnlicanUAymellant. Rose Lew. Continued to Februsry ~9,1997. C Anneal of Vanance 96-016. 1353 Nineteenth Street. C4. ADneal af Va~~~ ~[p, VAR 96-016 re~ardin~ denial bv the Zonin¢ Adminictrator of a reauest to nermit the cronversion of three {3~ xesidential anartment units to cammercial office use ~ without nrovidin¢ reauired off-street narkinQ_ (Planner: B. Leachl A~n~icantlAnnellant: Robert Choi. ~Gotttinued from Novemher 5. I996 &. danuarv S. 14971 WITHDRAWN. D Anneal of Variance 96-03Q and Variance 96-034. I341. 1343. 8i 1345 Patisades Beach Road. R2B. Anneal of Zonine Administrator Decision Denv~ng VAR 96- Q3p. Re~uest ~p nerrnit Lot Lme Adius~rne~.ts between three (33 e~tistu~ g~astandard lats that would result in the creation of three lots that do not meet ~i~imum Zot size rea~retx~ents: anc~ Anneal of Zonin~ Admir~~s~atar D+ecis~on Den~ine VAR 96-Q34. Reauest ta varv from Off-Street Pazking Access and ~~{~evard ~etback rea~irernents. (Planner B. Leach) Annlicant. Van Txlbur~. B~v~r~ $~ Soderber~h for Enhraim & Jean Ral~h as nronertv owners. Anaellant. Mario Saw~des. as ~wr~er ~n escrow. i7 Planning Commission February 5, i99? Pnor to break m the proceedtngs on the Housing Etement discussion, the Commission took up this rtem. The applicant, Mano Sa~ryides, acidressed the Commsssion regarding hts c~es~re to go forvvard with this rtem Commissioner Weremiulc made a motion to take a break. Camm~ssioner Bradley seconded the motion Cammissioner Breisch staed that the agen.da order should be mamta2ned so as not ta distract from the Housing Element deliberation Comm~sszoner Weremiuk stated that she wauld be leaving at 11 p.m. The mot2on was approved. Followtng the hreak, and after consultation witi~ the applicant, Com~russ~oner Breisch made a mation to continue rtem 6D to February 19, 1997 Comm~sstoner Wereuuuk seconc~ed the motian, which was appraved by voice vote. Cantinued to February 19,1997. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Planning Commtssian Caselist B. Z~ning Administrator Caselist C. Cumulative Projects List 8 PUBLIC INPUT: NONE 9. ADJOURNMENT: T~e meeting was adjourned at 12:25 a.m., Thurs~ay, Februsry 6,1997. f Iplanlsharelpcltninuteslpcm25.97 APPROVED: MARCH 5,1997 18 ATTACHMENT H Key Results of the Tenant Survey Key Results of the Tenant Survey Some key resuats of the Tenant Surrrey mclude t#~e following * Rerrt-Controlled Aparfinents are the Dommant Form of Nousrng m Santa Monrca Ther~ are about 28,200 rent-controlled apartmen#s in Santa Monica, which are about six of every ten dwellGng units of all types (i e, awned and rented) ^ Renf-Confrolled Aparfinents are Generally Sma!!er Than Unconfrolled Apa~finenfs TF~e average controffed renfal u~~t cons~sts af three rooms, with one bedroom and a full bathroom, two th~rds vf the uncontrolled units ha~e iour rooms ^ Alfhough Most Tenants rn Rent-Cor~trolled Un~ts are Generally Satrsfred With the Upkeep of The~r Nousrng, They Are Drssatrsfred With Secunty Measures Abou# half rate qt~alaty o~ maintenance as excellent or gaod Howe~er, about f~n+ath~rds said that buildmg security and garage security were inadequat~ ~ Most of the Damage fo the Occupied Apartmenf Stock from the Northndge Earfhquake Has Been at Leasf Par~rally Reparred Of thase whose buildings sustained damage, ~ust aver half stated that the damage has bee~ completely repa~red, but in more than one in ten cases (15%), survey respondents stated that no repair wark had been started almost two years after the earthquake Household S-ze -n Renf-Confrolled Unrts Remarns Very SmaII Qverall, households ~n controlled apartments consESt primarily (82°~) of one- and two- persor~s, and about half cans~st of only one person Average ~ncomes of HousehoJds rn Rent-Controlled Unrfs are S~gni~cantly Lower than Households m Uncontrolled Unrts and Below Those of Tenanfs !n Rent- Stabilized Units rn West Los Angeles ~ed~an household Encome ~or ter~ants in rent-controlled un~ts ~s $27,50~, compared w~tF~ a med~an of $42,500 m nan- controtled rental un~fs 1n West Los Angeles m 1992, #he median income far households ~n re~t-stab~lized un~ts was $32,50~ Nouseholds ln Renf-Controlled Unrts Remarn rn Place Much Longer Than Those rn Uncanfrolled Unrfs The a~erage iength-of-stay m a cor~trotled unit was five years Ir~ car~trast, ter~ants ir~ uncor~tro~led ~r~~ts ha~e dramatica~ty shorter average lengths of stay m kheir un~ts at 1 5 years There ~s Some Vanatran rn Rac~al and Ethnrc Composr#ton Be~ween Controlled and Unconfrofled Apartment 7enarr~s There are Srgnrticanf Drfferences tn Rverage Renf and uRent Burden" Be~ween Controlled and Uncontrolled Apartmenfs Tenants occupying rent contro!!ed umts rece~ve ecanomic benefits ta the extent that the rents for controlled urnts are below rents that would be charged in an unregulated rentaf hous~r~g market by about $280 per manth A Large Ma~onfy of Apartment Tenanfs are Famrllar Wrth the Costa-Hawkrns Renfa! Hous-ng Act, But There are Nofable Informaf-on Gaps Large ma~orities (64°~-79°~) of households res~ding m rent-controlled units ~n aff areas stated #hat they were generally fam~l~ar with thas new law An o~er~iew and summary of the key results iram the sur~ey are included ir~ Appendix B of the Draft Element A complete disc~ssion of the survey me#hodology and a detailed presentat~on a# the survey results are contained in the Techn~cal Appendix ATTACHMENTI Proposed Additional Text for the Potential Go~emmental Constraints Section ~Section IIi.B.) Proposed Additional Text for the Potential Go~ernmental Constraints Section (Sectfon III.B.j III B 1, p I11-10 [~verview af Zon~ng Categories and Dens~t~es] The second paragraph shall be re~~sed ta read as 1ollows The R2 zone, one of the C~ty's lowest dens~ty and most prevalent zone districts, pro~~des far a minrmum dens~ty of 1,500 square feet per unit or the equE~alent of ~. E:r~xirnatel,~ ~~ ur,.s ~~r ~c-:2 Th•5 ~er~sity ex;;~~~:tis t~~~ ?:i ur,~t per acre 6~nchmark typ:cally u: ~,zea hy th~ S931G' D(:p,rtmcnt cf Hous~ng and Cammur~,ty ~eve~opment ~IaCO~ as the m~n•m~rn dens~ty ifireshold necessary t~ ach:eve hous,ng af~ordable to lower ~ncom~ hauseholds in ur~~~r~z~~ areas F~~~~r~~~rrrior~ the City's exper~ence has shown that mast multi-fami~y pro~ects qual~fy for the State density bonus when fuEfilling mclusionary ho~sing obligafions an-site The C~#y's highest der~s~ty multi family zone district, R4, provrdes for a m~n~mum density ofi 90a square feet per un~t, the equi~alent of approximately 48 unEts per acre fn comparison rnnth most Southem Cal~fomia ~urisd~ctions, Santa Monica is both zoned and developed at higher o~erall res~dentaai densities tIE B, p III-S [P4TENTIA~ GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS] The third paragraph shall be revrsed to read as follows Local ga~emment can affect the production of housmg m a var~e#y of ways, mcluding I~mit~ng the land designated for resider~tial de~e~apment ar~dlor khe densit~es at which that devefopment can occur, rmposing fees or exactions (park fees, permit processing fees, etc }, and requirmg fengthy re~iew periods prior to approval or den~al of a pra~ect Howe~er, it is important to recagnize that the goak of producing a~ a~ ~yG ~~ a~~~ ~QU~~ ~ uusF~ ~~ .yN~.~ ~dd~tional hc~us~ng may a# times conflict with other City goals, such as the c~esire to provide sufficient open spaee and recreatian ~acii~t~es, the desire to protect un~que en~ironmentai features and h~storic resources, and the desire to ensure the heal#h and sa€ety ofi the City's residents by maintaining the current ievel of communi#y serv~ces and mfrastructure '~`-- ---~ `- _~_~.._a_ ~_.. _ r__ ~n _a_ ._r a~,.._ ._.a.. _a ~i11JLIG Q\JGyuQIG I lt/VIJII IL~i fVl GIII G~IVSIVIE~IV ~7II1~111617L~7 VI U EG WIIi111Ylllll IIIY~7l ac ~aFanee ~Y~ih tM~9P r,c~~l~ Add~t~an~lly housing prod~ction gaals may 4onfl~ct w~th #~aus~n~ goals rel~tea to tha preser~at~c~ and maintenance af the existing haus~ng siock, and i+~e pr~vis~cn af affcrd~ble hous:ng for all e~anomic segrne~~s of the cammunity The City's expe~~ence has been that w~thaut gava;nmerital re~ufat~on afford~t~;e housing has nci been prod~~ced by t4tiE,+ ~~~~kC±t pl~~~p ~han ex~s~~nr F~~u~,~n~ ~s ~eeyc:ed Consequently the n~e~ f~r ho~~s~nc~ pr .~i.~r#~^,~ ~rtiu~t ~e ~a~an~~d ~aa~nst tF;es~ other City g:~a1s Th~s D~a~t ~ ~,r~n~ ~x~;~ ;n:.~ Fr~~ ~~~Ct Df E'xi5iirlG GLY@rF'1~'lB~ta; ~~ ~:J~;]!:.^,ns c~ ~v~rs!I ~1!'.:..~11 ~;.,~ ~fC,u!.C.~er :^e pre~err~' ^~1 ~:'1~~ ~~1.'-:I~:G-n7nCC of ex:st~~:~ ~;.~srn~. ar~ ~he ~rQVi~i~m t~a~f`~~s~a~tt~ ~~s~r~~. III B 2, p t11-16 [Effect of Ne~ghborhood Rezonmgs] Replace the first par~graph as foElows °Qetween 1987 and 1993, the City Council adopted re~ised de~elapment standards ~n four areas af tY~e C~ty These four areas consESted af the Ocean Par~c neighbvrhood area, the North of Wilshtra Resrdent+aE area, Ocean Park Boulevard between Lincoln and 25th Street and San V~cente Boufe~ard between Ocean Aven~e and Seventh Street An understand~ng of the ~istor~cal context of these changes provides ins~ght as ia their importance to the community Each of the rezor~~ngs attempted #o cantrol out o# scafe development, protect the quahty and integrity af ex~st~ng res~dential r~eighborhoods and min~mize potentral environmenta! Emp~cts caused by rncreased residentral densrtres In bot~ the acean Park and North of W~ishire neighborhoods there was a rapic~ rate of new res~dent~al de~elopment attributable to the features of the neighborhoods st,ach as praximity to the ocean, divers~ty in the neighborhaod and accessibd~ty to commercia! areas Much of the new de~elapmen# altered the charactsr and scale af exist~ng neighborhoods, m some cases, destroymg the very qualities tF~at attracked new resider~ts ~n the first place In the area North of W~Ish~re, permftted resrdential densities were 35 and 48 units to the acre in contrast to act~aal dens~t~es wh~c~ were 42 and 57 urnts to acre ThFS neighborhood was one of the most dense areas in the C~ty and exper~encang reiated problems such as parkmg shortages, increased noise and disrupUons, and traffic congest~on In Ocear~ Park, tfie unique mixture af single family homes, duplsxes, tr~plexes and f~~star1ca11y s~gn~f~cant str~€ctures w~re rapidly being re~laced by targe muEti-fam~ly development On Ocean Park Boule~ard and San V~cente, the existing de~elopment standards resu[ted in large monof~thic structures with I~ttle or no re#atronsh~p to the exis#rng buildings In ail the areas rezoned, n~w development shifted neighborhoods away from mixed densit~es to more uniform h~gher density de~elopments out of scale and proportion to the neighborhood Aithough the rezonings may haue reduced perm~tted dens~t~es, the rezon~ngs accomplished other C~ty goals cantained in the Lan~ Use Element and Housing Efement These goals rela#ed to the protect~on a~d preservation of fhe existing affordabf~ housing stack, protect~on of the scaie and character of existmg resident~al ne~ghborhoods, mamtenance of the econom~c and social dwers~ty m the commun~ty, and reduct~on of en~~ronmentaf impacts in resider~tial ne~g~borhoods " III B 6, p ill-23 ~Conditiona~ Use PermEt Procedures for New Condomin~ums} After the f~rst paragraph, add the following two paragraphs "The City's current CUP requirement ~or condammrums was adopted at a time when many prap~rty owners were in the process of con~ertir~g apartments to condom~r~iums, ar proposi~g to demalESh apartments ancf replace them w~ih new condominiums C~ty decision makers bel~eved that the additional requrrement #or approval of a CUP to c~evelop or convert a condomirnum provided additaonal protections not avaafable through pre~ious City ardinances More spec~fica~ly, the CUP requirement allaws t~e review of th~ lacation of the proposed use, design, configuration of impro~ements, and pat~nt~a1 impact on the surround~ng ar~a from tY~e proposed use By providing ~or discretior~ary re~iew af candominium pro~ects through the CUP process, the C~ty ~s able ta more effectively controi the desrgn and site layout of pro~ects to enhance compatrbility with the surroundmg neighborhaad " !II B 8, p I!f-25 [Ellis Act} After the third sentence of the last paragraph whtch begins "The City concluded that the Rent Control Board's E11is Act regulatian ," add the fol~ow~ng senter~ce "Since the City's re~t controlled F~ous~ng stock ~s affordable, remaval of this stack from the re~tal market pursuant to the Ellis Act has resulted in a significant ~oss of affordable hausing " III B 9, p lii-26 (Rent Contral Removaf Permits] ~ Add the followmg paragraph at the begknning ~f thrs Sect~on "In the late ~ 970's the City was confranted by a severe shortage af its scarce hous~ng stock precipEtated in large measure by a 15-month perrod during wh~ch Santa Monica landlords demolished over 1,30D rental units and converted hundreds of athers ~nto condom~rnums The shortage of housmg un~ts resulted in a low vacancy rate and rapidly r~si~g rents ar-d constctuted a ser~ous ho,~s~r~g problem, endangering tne public health and welfare of Santa Monica tenants The Rent Control ~aw was adopted as an amendment to the G~ty Charter Gn 1979 to prvtect ter~ants from arbitrary e~ict~ons and excessi~e rent increases, and to maintain the City's affordable housing stock The law achie~es these goals by establishing evictror~ cantrols, controlling rents, and ~egulatmg the removal of rental hous~ng units from the market Contrall~ng rents #o a reasonable level, I~mitmg ev~ctEOns, and regulating removals substant~ally akle~~ate hardships to Sa~#a Mon~ca 1~~~~t.~7 n 2 Strike the first ser~tence of t1~e current frst paragraph which begins as fallows "Santa Mon~ca's Rent Cantrol Law, adopted as an amendment to the City Charter ~n 1979 " IfE B 1D, p III-28 [Proposition R and Inclusionary Ho€~s~~g Program) 1 After the first two sente~r,es af the first paragraph, add twa new paragraphs which read as follows "The City has a responsib~lity to address the needs of ~ts residents from all social and ecanom~c groups for deoent, affordable housing The C~ty meets its responsEbility, m part, through its inclus~onary Y~o~s~ng ordmance This ordinanc~ seeks to ensure that new housmg will meet the needs of all af the c~t~s res~dents and tha# the economicalfy di~erse popula#~on of the Cify wril be ma~ntained It was specifically ~ntended to ach4e~e th~s gaal by prornoting the devalopment of housing for low and moderate ~r~come households As stated, the InclusEOnary Housmg Ordinanee ~mpiements the requirements of Proposition R This propasation was motivated by a concern that the great ma~ority of new housing be~ng bu~lt in the City was I~xury condommiums affordable onEy to the wealthy By requ~ring that at least thirty percent (30°k) o€ alE new housmg built m the City each year be affordable, Propas~#ion R ensures that the City's housing palicy reflects a continued commitment to economic di~ers~ty ~n our community " 2 The third sentence o# the exist~ng paragraph shall begin a new paragraph which follows the two paragraphs added above III B 12, p I11-30 [Landmarlcs and Histar~c Distr~c#s Ord~nance] 1 After t~e f~rst sentence of the #irst paragraph, ar~d the followmg "The Landmark Qrdmance is designed, ir~ part, to protect ~mprovements and areas whrch represent elemen#s o~ the C~ty's r,~.~lt~ra~, soc~al, ecor~om~c, poi~tical and arch~tectural history It seeks ta safeguard the City~S I11StDf1C, aesthet~c and cultu~al he~itage as embvd~ed and reflected ir~ such improveme~ts and areas N 2 The second sentence of the existing paragraph s~all beg~r~ a n~w ~aragraph which follows the two sentenees added above ATTACHMENT J Miscellaneous Revisions to Tables, Maps and TexE Miscellaneous Revisions to Text. Mans and Tables In addjtion to proposed revisions presented in the staff repart, Attachment A(Planrung Commission's Recommendation) and Attachment J(Praposed Additianal Text for the Potenttal Governrnental Constraints Section), staff recommends that the following misce~~aneaus revisions be ~nade to the Dsaft Element II C 6, p II-44 [F'igure II-10 Mecftan Con#ract Rent m Rent Con~rolled Apartments] The map and supportmg information shall be revised to provide rent data for seven subareas (See attached map of "Rent Control Board Areas" and "Median Maximum Allowable Rents" tabZe } II C 9, p II-52 [Inventory of Affordable Housmg] The informatton presented in Table II-19 shall i~e revised as follows TABLE II-19 PUBLICLY-ASSISTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY Source a~f Deed-Restrictioe Num6er of Unl#a (Eetimated~) H[JD (Sect~an 2Q2, 511, and 236) 804 Los Angeles County Pub~c Housmg 81 C~ty Trust Fund I,oans ~3~ ~~' Multi-Family Earthquake Repa~r Laan (MERi,) Program 28 TOt81 t x~ ; ~ A-~n Source Santa Mor~ca Housmg D~v~s~on * Completed as of 10/1/96 II C 9, p II-55 to p II-56 [In~entory af Af~ordable Housing] The ~r~formatian presented on the th~rd and fourth pages af Table II-24 shall be revised as fol(~ws TABLE II-20 INVENTORY OF PUBL[CLY ASSISTED AFFORdABLE HO~JSING IiY SANTA MONICA FundiaA Program/ Earliest ProjectlLocaiion T'otal Unit9 Source Ye~r Built Type of Houaing SponaorlOw~er Cueversion Uate(s) 1917 17tli Street 7 PM-i'ff 1987 Family CCSM 12/1S/2021+ IS yrs 1314 l8th Street 6 C;HARP 1988 ~etnily CCSM $/6/2022 + 15 yrs 1427 Berkeley 7 CHARP 1988 Family CCSM 1/15/2021 + LS vrs 2004-15 Cloverfield 14 PNHTF/CI iARP 1988 Far[uly CCSM 5/25/2023 + k 5 yr5 Alt l,ivmg far Agtng A~tematrve L~v~ng for 2323 4th Street 6 RHCf' 1988 3emor Aged 3/18/2032 + l0 yr5 2I2 i An-r.,ona 11 CHAttP I 9H$ Ham~7y CCSM 6/3f2023 + l 5 y~rs [)ce~n Park 43 Ca~p 43 HCUDAG/Redev 1989 Family CCSM 10/21/2021 CHARPI 3 Vzcente Terrace 25 Rental Rehab 1989 SRO CC5M 4/4/2023 + 15 yrs Rental R~~h~bl 2U20-30 C:iovet~ield 32 T~x Gred~ts ! 9$9 Family/Sentor' CCSM 4/25/2U25 iU38 znd Strr:ct 15 CF~~i'F 1991 Family CCSM S/t5/2Q66 PI~iN'I'F/Cf-IARP/ 19~2-56 N'rank Street 5 Redev - - - __ 1992 Famiiy CGSM 7/16/2030 +] 0 yrs ._._--- ----_~_ : 3+k ~f=f -- - -- ---- -- - - ~__._e n _~_~ '------ - --..~.. ~~' ~~ --..... -"_r"""' - -~ - -r- v ~ Tax Crc~tts/RHCP/ .__ .......... ......... f 968 19ti1 Street (Uarcta} 7 CHTF ~ 993 i~am~ty C:CSM ~ O/Z03 t+!(~ n~ Tax Credits/RHC;I~/ 1747 i 5ch Street (Garcia) ~ - . 7 CHTF I 993 Fa~xuly CCSM 10/2U3 3+ 10 yrs Tax CrediLc/RHCP/ 1544 E~rkelev Street (Garcta) 9 CHTF i 993 Fa~nEly CCSM 10/203 l+ 10 yrs City of Santa Mcm~ca Housing Eiement Housing Needs and Resourees TAS~,~ n-zo ~fVENTORY OF PUBLICLY ASSISTED AFFORDABI.E HOUSQIG IN SANTA MONICA P%jectl[.acRtion Total Unlts Funding Pm~ram/ Souree Yeat $uiit Type of Hu~sin~ S onrorl4wner Earliest Coeversion Date(a) 182R ~ 7th Slreet (Garc~a) 7 Tax Cred~ts/EtHCP/ CHTF 1993 Fam~~y CCSM l U/2031 + 10 yr~ 2423 Virgmza A~enue i2 PNf-~'I'F/Tax Credits 19~I3 Family CCSM 6/2432 +] 0 yr~ 1423 2nd StreE;t 44 CHTFlTax Credils 1994 SRO CCSM 6/2043 132l3 2nd Street 3b CHTFITsx Credits 1994 SRO 5tep Up Un Second 912043 * 25 yrs ] 206 Pjco Boulevard 26 HOME L 995 SRO CCSM 11/zU44 + 2,5 yrs 815 Ashland Avenue 4S CHTF/R.HCP! Tax Credits i995 Fam~ly CCSM 8/2049 + 25 yrs Subtotal - City Assi9tance ',ri,#~ 55~ Multr-Fami Earth uake Repair Loan 13ogtam 1343 I l th Street 8 IV~:Ri. 1996 Fam~ly CC5M 2051 8U7 4th Street 17 M~RL 1996 Family CCSM 2(~51 931 Euchd 5treet 3 MERL (Cnl !1) 1996 Fam~ly Pnvate 242b 5ubtotal - MERL 28 T4TAL ~~4A~'~~t9H CCSM =(:omtnwntry Corporatum uf 5anta Momca C~ F~'F = Cirywide i~iaustng TruSt Funds St~.~-l1P = 4tep Up Un Second C;HARP = C~tywide Housmg Acquis~t~on & RehubilFtahon i'rogr~m R~-FF' = Retiremcnt Housang l~oundation E{017AG - Hnusing Development Act~on Gra~~t {federal) LA Co = Los Angeles Couniy LIl Il~ = Low lncome ~~ousuig Fund RI iCP = Rent~l Housing Cunstauction Program (statc) Mk:RL = Malti-E~ arnily ~arlhqusite Repa~r Loan Program Source Housing Division, October i 996 City of Santa Mrnvca Housing Element Huusing Nc~cis and Re~urces II C 10 , p II-58 [Assisted Hausir~g Ur~ts at Risk~ The follow~ng revis~ons wi11 be made to the tturd and fourth paragraphs Only ~w~ ~~ C~ty-assisted projects t~trrq ~a~t~~ use restrictions that could expire during the planning periad '~~~ ~s a 3 2-unit farnily/senior project located at 20 ~ 7- 2023 2dth Street RIILL Q L'7~UIllL J\V kl~ VJG4+L 1VL4LGLL 4L 1TJ~ JQiLLa iY1VEUV0. LVI.tIGVLLl4 Tt1E Pr0~0Ct ai ~vi'r-~,v~~ ~viii JLIGGL has use rest~ctions that expire cn 20i18, WIt~1 ~tl$ ability to extend the use restrict~ons for anather 10 years Because the project is owned and operated by a non-profit organizat~on whose primary rrusszan ~s to develop anci maintain affardable housing, the C~ty believes that the e~ctens~on optian will be exercised and that tlvs project is not at nsk dunng the planrung penod -ri-- ---- ---a-~-`~--- __ ~t__ nr-~ ------` -~ Y AA.t n--`- ~ r----- T~- ~-. --~ _..._..--- -._ nnnn 111G LIAG lGJL1l4Ll~/1iA Vll ~liG ~Tl\L'.71V}GV~ Q~ 1'YJ'Y JdIILa 1V1VllILa jJVLLfGYqJ~L GAt/IIGJ lli LwV Yl_"___' `2'_ ' ' '__3t" _ '_" __._ ~____1__ __ ~7__ !'~_' _L_1______'1_'_____'___` _'__77 a,ac~.au~a, itic ~ivj~:,~.i. i5 vwii~~ v~ R~l11vaLG [iGYG1V}7Gt~ uic ~.~~y UGIIGYGJ ~~ua ~iv~ca.~ wuiu _i__~ _ _ L_ a. _~ _ _r.i- -~-- -1'~L-- - i,VIkYG~L 6V Il14lAGL~1RLG l1VU.]lll~yf llil GIi0.l~l4llJ ~Jl LIIG lG~il4liGl1lGlIL liVJ4 Vl ~l-~J ~)IV~GI~t ~J ~~~ II C 10 , p II-63 [Ass~sted Housing Units at Risk] Delete the first three paragraphs as folinws n__a----~ ---• r'__•_ ~'__~-------` -- -° -`-- -- `t-- ^~~-'- -----'-"- lLGE/i4{{.GIILGILi ~.VJI 1<~i~Ti4{,GlllGlll 4J Wl VFlLIVIi LV }lIGAGI YG EIIG ~lL,! A Q~IJ~.ILCiLL ~iVliJill~ _7_ __ __1__ __t____- ~~_ n• ..:a C~Tl1 ~~____~ _a l I~1I C~_~~_ iL_'_'__ T_ 1_____~ __- __ `7_~- .1lVLh W VIL~ lG1Gy[LIfL LV L7-4~u4 U1kV ~,IIV~GLL LR l~J~ Uill~LU 1riV~u4[i ~VYIGYaL4~ All1{~G LIl~.7 --'~-- ---1---` -~-~-------~ - ---~~- r--- --r` -' --`-~--- ~--- i~ u~L ~iu~r ac-~~~n N~v~aa.~ vwitvu uy i~~~}~ivii~ lIlYGJ4V~.l LL~jU Il1pLlILa1l1.7 I~V 1u1l~~tGl{ll u~c _-__`__•_`"_-_ ____`t_ _-___-__L7__ _ _. ` _ T ___• `___ _Ci7__ ___~-!_.!_ if_'_ [~TA 1G.~4~~44~UI1 wlLfl ~Lfiy k/UVi1{, G~iL«y l:A~J11LL;llJli l/l U~G 4U~~G~A UJG lGJLLl4LIVl! Vll E117J /.71<V ___.' _ _' _ _'_ '_7____"'ll__ '"' ~__" `L' !"~'.- f_ f1r '_J'1_1 _ 1_ ____:"'_ ___ --` _ -__ T'___'_a__ _1`~7_ _ "f A ~~v~c.~.< <.ni~ }iiiy~n.auy ~cuu~.c E~ic 4.«y ~ aiav~uavic ii~u~iisg ii~v~.kiwip i wG[li~ va ;ti~ ~.~ . . .i. -` - - ---'-~-~- ---~--~~-- "~^ -'-- ---- ------~---~ - t` U+u4J 111 ~11G k!1 V~Ci~+L GI G LiJJ~~LGU~ Vilf y L~~LJG LV UiEIW Ll1 G ~+Vi4)1~iG~ Gu uL ~~~p f~GG.7 LiiG l~V.IL Vl ~.Vf1AL14[Vl.lll~ IIGW IVW~lil4V~l~G ~Vt1J1L~ {,iiLLL.7 lll ~7[illi0. 1!_'_'__'_ ___7___~L_[~TA.._.a_ _1___'IJ~L'__L' _" _''_S`_ "____1_'c L~____~~ T1"' 1v1V1114L1 6V LGk1lC1LG LLG Jl\V LililW JIiVULU LI~G~ VG {~.V~IYGILGU lV lifLLlAGl'iH.LG 1~VLLAlli~ 1l1{i _r~ '- ' - ~- --°_ ~_--__~ _rr-- -~- -- ~---'~ - -r a.v~% vi u~,vcwE.ni~~j ucw sic~uau~~ uc.rrc.nu~ ini a vEUiciy va 1a1..LVt, DUVlk (E.7 ttGllJ~l~'~ ai~.c ~a '- ' - -~_~_s ~__~ _~ . _r _ T._ _~ ~__~ LLLLLEA~ 1Vyq.~1V~~ a~iLL 1Gl6LGU 1411LL WJL3~ GlllL L~rlH VL bVllA6!{i4ilVl~ lJl ~V7lGl4~~ !allL[ W.7L~7 61V +-'-s_ ~_ n __i---'- ^-"°--- -' - --''-'--~- "--- iu~a~ iu u~uu~ce u ~.auiv~ ~ua~ aaiu k![il LIVUl0.i ~~I u~ ~aaiia iria~iiii.u i-.-`-- -i1r_ -~.. _s.~-- -r~_ _~_ c+7~i--_ rm<nnnnn l_.ILy JlQll ~+VliJG1 YallVGly GJi~IIIRLGU l~~G \+VJL Vl LLGVGI[]~I1FiGl1L [L1l J1~V u~lil. LLC .piLV~VVV~ _i__~___ t_._S TL__' aL_ -7 ~i1A_ n11l1_ _~ l~l4lUUlll~ ~Q~~U bVJI. 1 flU~l~ LIICi LVL4l I~VJI LV L+V~~JLI UyL GV IiGW Jl\lf LLl[LLa 1J Ga~Lll4LLLL 4l e~n w nrt n/~ ~y~,,.,~ V V, V~/O Table III-2, ~ III-4 [Existing Zoning Designat~ons} Table iII-2 will be rernsed to preser~t the breakdown of the residentially zonad land by District as follows TABLE ffi-2 EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS Percent o€ City Zone Types Acres Total Commercial 827 i S 40% Residential Rl- Single Family Res~~ential ~,688 31 43% R2R - Low Density Duplex 10 Q 18% R2 - Low Density Multiple Family Residential 976 1 S 17% R2B - Low Density Multip~e Family Residential Beach Distnct 14 0 26% R3 • Medium Density Multiple Fami~y Residential 183 3 40% R3R - Medium Den~ity Multipie Farnily Coastal Residentiat Dcstnct 2 0 03% R4 - High Density Multiple Family Residentiat 27 0 50% QP 1- ~cean Park Single Family Residential 15 0 28% OPDU - Ocean Park Dup~ex Residentisl 3 0 14% 4P2 - Ocean Park Law Multiple Family Residential 263 4 89%_ OP3 - Ocean Park Mediusn Multiple Residential I I 20% OP4 - Ocean Par~C H~g~ Multiple Family Res~dential 28 52% R2-NW - Low Density Multiple Fairuly/Narth of Wilshire 224 4 17% R3-NW - Med~um Density Mu~t~ple Fam:ly/North of Wilshire 84 1.56% RVC - Residential-Visitor Commercial 74 1 30% RMH - Residential Mobile H~me Park 11 20% Itzdustrial 377 7 02% Civie 53 98% Pas'3cs 14i 2 62% Airport 199 3 '70% Beach and Beach Parking* 164 3 OS% TOTAL 5, 3 70 104% *Beach and Beach Par~ang areas are not zoned Source City of Santa Monica, City-wide GIS, January, 1997 V B 1, p V-6 and V-7 [Housing Production] To clanfy the information regard~ng the quantified ab~ectives, the following revisions shall be made Potential Private Housing Development Potential private hovsing development includes iarge-scale, s~te-specific projects that the Crty anticipates will proceed dunng the planning pe~iod, such as the Arhnrati~rr~ rhe Santa Manica Studios_ the C~vic Center, and a handful of sites downtowrt Aii~~~ ipe~e:! ,:.c ti~ti4'Cljl[: {:l'~!•I.~~~nu•~rt v~ill ut~< <~~,~:I~:~c aii~ r.:•..;~•niial ~~:~.•s_ ~n~1 tl~u~ rcj~r~•S~iits ne~ pra;ic:rtu~~~ In additian, this category incor}~orates anticipated development on scattered sites The estimate of scattered sites develapment is based an an lustoric net annual prvduction figure Pipeline Subsidizerl Projects The City expect5 to provide fiinding assistance ta tdent~fied non-profit ~ousing developers for t~e productian of affordable units The pipet~ne subs~dued pro~ects include those in various s~ages of underwriting, predevelapment, or develapment, and which are expected to be compfeted during the 1998-2003 ptanrung period These u~volve seven projects, tc~ta~ina 260 unitc ali nf thece unitc .~nll he rle~e-~•rectric~tec~ fnr verv lnw inertirne h.~u~~~hc~:.:. wi~ uf ~l~e ~~~'t~fl ~)C~~~C~1~ di!' ,~~c ipcc~Lic A~c~~~~l nl' ~ re~id~n~~af uni~~ uill b~ reine~~ed t~ain tfie~e ~itcs, rc~~n~nn~t Mu ~ net ~raduc~«~n c~f _~~4 un~ES r~ Slie'. !O~ the ~etienrh E~r~~icet Iit~S nnt yz~~ becr~ ~~f~rn~t;cd, ir c•ai~nat l~c d~1~•rniin~x~ uh~~ ~~c nc~ incrwitic~ ui11 hc a~ a:~~~~ilt c+l'1h~ cean,~iii~ ,.~m ~sf r1;:~~c 1; unit, '1 Fy~rct~~i~ tiic ~~~p~L:~e.~ ~,:ih,utin~s~ ~<<1~:L'Cf+ ule~ ~+~I~III~~I:~C i! I1~L jsi[~~~:ii IlL%~: c)i ~1~i\t~~•r~ ~-~.~ .i~.~ :'~'' L111lI~ Poten~ial Subsidized Projects Add~tional uriits are expected ta be praduced witt~ ass~stance of existmg and projected City revenues earmarked for affordable houszr~g Re~enue sources include Redevelopment set-as~de funds, Office Mittgation Fee Program funds, Inclus~onary Housing Pragram in- iieu fee revenues, CDBG, HOME, Muiti-Family Earthquake Repa~r Loan Pragam (1V~RL) repayment revenues, De~clopment Agrsement revenues, TORCA funds, and reven~es from the sale af C~ty-owned property and air rights aver City-owned progerty (See Append~x D for a table shawing revenue pro~ect~ons by funding source) The City estimated the number of potential subsid~ed urtits that it could assist by forecasting the anticipated funding resae~rces that will be available, utelizing available and projected revenues The number of projected units is based on a per unst Ciri ~~~hS~dv ~f $50.000 for acquisitian/rehabilitation and $70.000 far rtew construction ~u~ ~-rnjct~i~m i~ .~ ~rr~~, c;~t:in~~z' tiilli i I! Iti !1(ll ~~5+~-;rlc i.~ c~um~le thc n.~i~~~~~~r raf unit5 t11tv ma~• hr r~ina~«~ Revenues accruing to the City after June 2001 were excluded, due to the lag ti~e between the availability of fund~ng and pro~ect completion Where funds are not spec~fically restncted for e~ther new construction or rehabilitation, calculations assume that a~ailable resources w~ll be evenly split between the two Append~x D, p D-9 [Available Financial Resources and Pro~ectians] Revisions shaIl be made to Table D-1 (Housing Unit Prajectic~ns Based on Ava~lable Fund~ng} ta eliminate considerahan of Earthquake Redevelopment Funds as follows TABLE Il-1 HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS BASED ON AVAILABLE FUNDIlYG ' Fiuoding Sourca S yrar Itevenue v~ ~ Un~ R/N Low UnMa it/Y Mod Un~ WN Upper uB~ts WN To~l Unrh WlY CDBG 3,327,399 33 24 33 24 HONIE 5,559,843 Sb 40 56 40 Etadev Revamc 2,fl22,516 2D ld 20 14 1~OItCA 3,(i88,082 3I 22 31 22 Ef~l~ader~le{r-- --3d~9, -- ---- -~----2 ----- -------• •-~------~- MERL Re~aymant I,428,8$6 14 ia t4 F4 P~coCbvu~ietd ltepaymd~t 3,10Q,000 31 22 31 22 Dev Agr (CHT~ Z,366,852 24 [ 7 24 17 InGl~stonary (CHTr-"~ 47,SSZ 1 1 I 1 Office Midgabon (CH'EF) 2, I59,870 22 1 S 2.2 l5 .dur Rtg~s#s tC~ 1,23Z.D29 l2 9 12 ' 4 Low/Mod Housu~g {CHTF) 1,375,U00 14 10 Ii I 14 10 CU's i.OC's 506,037 S q S 4 SUB7'UTAl. 25,585,366 109 78 157 1 i2 0 0 0 0 266 ~ 19Q T~c E~caopt <if,0U0,000 0 33 U b6 0 116 0 1~6 0 331 GRANUTOTAI. '68,?S1~d~5^` 209 1l1 ff7- ~ 0 ~!6 0 ~iS ~~ ~2L `R' = Reh~nlstation 'N' = New Construct~o S5U,000 per uazt C~ty Assu~ses 570,000 pcr unri bs~dy ty sub y 66,266,366 154 176 Gtty of Santa Man-ca Hous~ng Element D-9 263 '519 Avaitable Financia! Resoeu~ces and Pro~echons Rent Cantrol Board A~eas ~ w~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ 0 •i / 5rwt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~M~n M~ ~ ~ a ~p ~t~y o~ The ~ut~vok . r °~ ~.n~rr ~uM ~,LOw~r.E x~rrrs ~x°s) By RGnt Gon~rol so~rd Su~ar•ea as of Septpnber 30, 1995* ARF~I A 0 Sedroom 5445 ,~R~A S ~445 AREA C ~455 AREA D S~i45 AREA E 5463 AREA F 5470 s~~' s G 5475 1 Bedraom 555 49S SOS 477 545 582 530 2 Bedraom b76 S8 ~ 776 S I8 632 774 706 3 Bedroom ?74 774 1,728 658 824 938 924 'Ba~ed upon 26,322 rent coettrdbd w~. ~a~da~ a~ PwPQ~ ~~' ~Pt ~u~, ~ta m properba ~ leee tlbn 3 un~ts, unid for wluch u-fonnatson on thc numbcr of bod~ome u nat rd~abic, ~s a~ ~n~r rrtl~ ap~peuMed TURICA aoavecsio~r, aerd tnobilo hamo palcs ~wou~naa~~rv~t~•~~at.