SR-0 (89)
Exh/b/I-
---.---- ..."
LtJTM:CPO:
w/proprpc
COUNCIL MEETING: November 19, 1991
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
city staff
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Recommendation on Implementation
Alternatives for Proposition R.
IHTRODUCTIOB
This report provides the city Council with the Planning
Commission recommendations on Proposition R. The Planning
Commission voted 4-2 in support of asking the City council to
extend for 2-) months the existing moratorium ordinance to allow
the Commission to formulate appropriate and thoughtful
recommendations.
BACKGROmm
The Planning Commission on October 16, 1991 conducted a public
hearing and on October 25, 1991 discussed .their recommendations
related to the implementation of Proposition R.
Planning
commissioners Morales, Polhemus, pyne, and Rosenstien voted in
favor of aSking the City council to extend the existing
moratorium ordinance for 2-3 months so that the commission could
thoroughly review the information contained in the summary
Report, Technical Analysis, and financial proformas. The
- 1 -
commission would then conduct another public hearing on December
11, 1991 to formulate their recommendations to the city Council.
Commissioners Gilpin and Chair Mechur voted no, Commissioner
Nelson was absent.
Although the Planning Comm~ssion requested additional time,
individual commissioners provided the fOllowing comments:
o Evaluate the the proposed dwelling unit threshold limit.
Examine the impact on small developments, in particular,
three unit owner/occupied projects. Perhaps provide a rebate
on in-lieu fees if the owner occupies one of the units for a
specified period of time.
o Evaluate the proposal to round-up. The proposal in the
report may result in more than a 30t compliance rate.
o Evaluate other alternative scenarios. Alternatives may
include, a four unit project providing one unit on site and
paying an in-lieu fee for the 60% unit, or providing all
units on-site without a rounding up requirement.
o Evaluate in-lieu fees that are based upon a project's
geographic location.
o Examine the number of condominium developments in the
pipeline and calculate the amount of potential in-lieu fees
that may be collected. Look at how many affordable units may
be developed using the in-lieu fees.
o Reconsider the proposal linking Rent Controlled units with a
60% or less maximum allowable rent to this program.
o Evaluate the geographic distribution of the 60% units the
City may be producing. will this program result in the
production of only 60% units in future city housing projects.
o Evaluate the present program and examine who presently
resides in existing affordable housing units. The program
should provide units for people of color, and those who are
presently rent burdened.
o Examine the experience of other cities who may have on-site
affordable hous~ng programs.
- 2 -
- ,
o Provide arguments for and against the proposed implementation
alternatives.
o Examine the possibility of reducing the required number of
parking spaces for on-site affordable units.
o Evaluate the possibility of eliminating density requirements
and applying a floor area ratio concept to housing
developments.
o Examine a land banking program, a bond program and other
funding mechanisms for the production of affordable housing.
Evaluate the existing barriers that prevent the production of
affordable housing.
o Develop a maximum and minimum unit size for the affordable
units that may be provided on-site.
o Evaluate how this program will impact the quality of life for
existing residents. The program may provide incentives for
building to the maximum permitted density.
o Evaluate this program in the context of all the other City
housing programs, Proposition R is not an isolated program.
o ~end Proposition R to revise annual accounting. Examine the
possibility of averaging production over multiple years and
carrying over excess production of affordable units into
subsequent years.
RECOMMEHDATI Olf
It is recommended the Council take into consideration the
comments and recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Program and Policy Development Division
- 3 -