SR-206-002
f'
"".
l<
2-{)(P-~{)2-
August 13, 1996
INFORMATION ITEM
. '.
. ;
." -
, f
~ oJ
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marsha Jones Houtrie, City Attorney
Kimery A. Shelton, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT: 1996 Assessment of Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice in the City of Santa Monica
INTRODUCT.ION
As a recipient of Federal Block Grant Funds, the City of Santa
Monica is required to certify that it will engage in fair housing
planning. Specifically, the city must certify that it will:
(1) analyze impediments to fair housing choice every five years;
(2) carry out actions to overcome the effects of identified
lrrpedlments; and (3) maintain and make available documentation of
lts actlons undertaken to eliminate identlfied impediments.
DISCUSSION
Falr housing choice is the ability of persons of similar incomes to
have aval1able to them the same housing choices, regardless of
race, color, religlon, sex, disability, familial status or natlonal
origln.
An impediment to fair housing choice is any action, omission, or
decision taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability,
1
",.
.
--
"
familial status or national origin that restricts housing choices
or the availability of housing choice.
It is also any action,
omission or decision that has this kind of effect.
Policies,
practices or procedures that appear neutral on their face, but
which operate to deny or adversely affect the provision of housing
to persons in any particular protected class may constitute such
impediments.
Although the City completed an Assessment of Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice In The City of Santa Monica (A. I) in 1994, the
regulations were changed in 1995. The new regulations required the
City to update its 1994 A.I. report.
An Inter-Departmental Working Group and a community Working Group
were formed to meet the requirements for communlty input
established by the new regulations. The Inter-Departmental Working
Group included representatLves from the following offices: city
Attorney, Policy and Plannlng Analysis, Transportation, Rent
Control, Commun1ty and Cultural/Human Services and Housing. The
Community Working Group included neighborhood organizations, non-
profit organizations, senior groups, school representatives, legal
organizations, organizations representing minority interests,
housing organizations, real estate organizations and banks. The
working groups supplied input.
Additionally, the ci ty held a
public hear1ng before the social Services commission on the 1996
Draft A.I.; and the chairperson of the Inter-Departmental Working
2
J:I, -
t~
.
Group made presentations on the ~996 Draft A.I. before the City
Boards and Commissions.
A copy of the 1996 Assessment of Impediments To Fair Housing Choice
In The City of Santa Monica is attached to this report.
Conclusions appear on pages 5 and 6.
Only two impediments were
identified through the analysis: (1) some level of discrimination
exists against households with children in the rental market; and
(2) real estate brokers who screen prospect1ve tenants may be
engaged in steering minority applicants or denying housing
altogether to certain groups of individuals.
The assessment
includes a list of actions which the City will undertake to address
these concerns.
F:\atty\muni\strpts\kas\aoi
Attachment
cc: John Jali11, City Manager
Susan McCarthy, Assistant City Manager
3
--
.
-
-
ASSESSMENT OF IMPEDIMENTS
TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
IN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AUGUST 1996
-
-
I
.
;! t?~.-- ?J t7Z-
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY HALL
1685 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-3295
.
.
.
.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPEDIMENTS TO
FAIR HOUSING CHOICE IN THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
.
.
AUGUST 1996
.
.
.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
1685 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
L
n.
ANALYSIS OF L'\IPEDIl\IEl~TS TO
FAm. HOUSING mOICE IN
THE cnY OF SANTA MONICA
AUGUST 1996
TABLE OF COl'lENlS
INTRODU L" uON/GENERAL SUl\1l\IARY OF ANALySIS..................................
A
Who Conducted The Analysis..
B
Who Participated In the Process.
C
Methodology Used
D
How the Assessment was Funded
E
Conclusions .
1.
ImpedIments Found
2.
ActIOns to Address Impediments. .
JURISD ICTIONA L BACKGROUND DATA..........................................................
A
DemographIc and Income Data............... ...
B
Employment and Transportation Data............ . n............. ........... .........
C
Housing Profile........ . ...... ..... ........ ....... . ............ .............................
i
PAGE
3
3
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
8
11
18
m
EVALUATION OF JURISDICl10N'S CURRENT FAJR
HOUSING LEGAL STATUS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.
Fair housing complaints or comphance reVIews where the Secretary
has issued a charge of or made a finding of discnminanon . . . . . . . . .
.
PAGE
.
34
.
34
B. Fair housing discnminatJ.on suit filed by the DepaILl.1lent of Justice
or private plaIntlffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
c.
Discussion of other fair housing concerns or problems. . . . . . . . . . . .
IV. IDENlll1CATION OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR
HOUSIN'G CHOICE. .. . ... 4 . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . .
A
Private Sector.. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. ..
1
The Sale or Rental of Housmg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
ProviSIon of Housmg Brokerage Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.
ProviSIOn of Fmancing ASSIstance for DwellIngs . . . . . . . . . . .
B
PublIC Sector . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. . . '" ..
1.
Zoning PolIcIes.. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
2
Incl usionary HousIng. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.
Rent Control ......... _ .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. _ .. .. .. .. III .. ... .. . .. .. .. ..
.
34
35
.
35
35
.
36
36
38
.
39
41
42
.
4. Policies Concerning Community Development and Housing
Activities.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. '" .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 3
5.
Housing Authority'" . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . ... . . . . .
6.
Public Housing Site Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
49
.
53
.
.
.
PAGE
.
C
Where there IS a determmatIon of unlawful
segregatIOn or other housmg dIscnmmatIOn
by a coun or a findmg of noncompliance by
HUD under TItle VI of the CIVil Rights Act of
1964 or Sectlon 504 of the Rehabihtatlon Act
of 1973, or where the Secretary has Issued a
charge under the Fair Housing Act regardmg
assisted housmg withm a reCIpIent's
JunsdlctIon, an analYSIS of the actIons WhIch
could be taken by the reCIpient to help remedy
the discrimmatory condItion, includmg actions
mvolvmg the expendIture of funds by the
JunsdIctIon
.
.
.
v.
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
FAIR HOUSING PROGRAMS AND AcnvnuS IN mE
JURISDICTION
.
VI.
CONCLUSIONS AND REC01\-fMENDA nONS
VIT. COMl\'1ENTS FROM TIlE PUBLIC, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
AND JOINT WORKING GROUP
.
vm SIGNATURE PAGE
.
.
"'ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Art work on the cover is by CAROLINE RIDGEWAY of
McKinley Elementary School. Miss Ridgeway is the 1996 First
Place Winner of the Fair Housing Poster Contest sponsored by
the City of Santa Monica, HUD and the Santa Monica-l\falibu
School District.
.
iii
.
.
PREFACE
The history of faIr housing laws IS deeply rooted in the history of the United States In the
post-ClVil \Var Era Beginnmg Wlth the passage of the Umted States 1866 CiVil R.J.ghts Acts in
42 use 1982, all non-whIte citizens were granted the same rights With regards to property as
white cinzens The pnmary focus of the CIVll Rights Act of 1866 was the prohibition of racial
discrimmation. The CIvil RIghts Act of 1968 became law on August 11, 1968 A sIgmficant
part of the 1968 Act was TItle VIll 42 use 3601, the Fair Housmg Act The Fair Housmg Act
makes It illegal to discrimmate on the basis of race, color, rehglon or national origin
Title VIII was amended m 1974 to prohIbit dlscnmmatlon on the baslS of sex and In 1988
to prohIbit dIscrimination on the basiS of famlhal status and physical or mental dIsabIlity The
prohIbItions extend to the areas of sales, rentals, leases or negotIatIOns for real property.
AddItIonally, Title VITI prohibits discriminatIOn m financmg as well as such practIces as
"blockbustmg" and "steenng" These Federal laws were instituted to protect against pnvate acts
of discnmmation that hmited the free movement of mdlviduals wtthm theIr commumtles or
geographIc areas. Histoncally many communities have actively sought to control which
indIVIduals, raCIal, ethnic, religious, or other groups could hve In theIr areas
Title VI of the CIvil RIghts Act of 1964 prohibits discriminatIon on the basls of race,
color and national origin lD federally assisted housing programs. and the HOUSing and Community
Development Act of 1974 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and
gender in federally assisted community development activities. These two provisions regulate
the actIons of local government bodies that develop and provide housmg Accordingly, local
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
governmental entItles are accountable for how federal housmg funds are utIlized and who obtams
the benefits of those funds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
.
.
L
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUl\IMARY OF TIlE ANALYSIS
.
The City of Santa Momca is a recIpient of federal funds mcludmg Commumty
Development Block Grant (CDBG). and HOME funds offered through the United States
Department of Rousing and Urban Development (HUD). As a recipient of these funds. the CIty
must develop a fair housing program to enforce the faIr housmg laws and educate the community
as well as actIvely reduce possible bamers that would limit inchvidual nghts to equal housing
opportUnitIes Additionally. the CIty must conduct a study that analyzes the existing impedIments
to fair housmg choice in both the pubhc and pnvate sectors Once impedIments to faIr housmg
chOIce are IdentIfied. a plan for addreSSIng those ImpedIments must be implemented with
measurable results The assessment was ongmally completed m September of 1994 It was
updated m 1996 pursuant to those gUidelmes
.
.
.
.
A. Who Conducted dIe Analysis
The Fair Housing UnIt of the CIty Attorney's office coordinated the Assessment of
Impediments to Fair Housing with other Cny depEu'lments An Inter-Departmental Workmg
Group was formed winch mcluded representatIves from the following offices CIty Attorney.
Pohey and Planning Analysis. Transportation. Rent Control. Community and Cultural/Human
Services and Housing The Inter-Departmental Working Group met weekly or bi-weekly as
necessItated by the work flow.
.
.
.
B.
Who Par1icipated In the Process
.
The Fair Housing Unit contacted 38 organizations to solIcit their participatIon In a
3
.
.
.
communIty workmg group. The orgaIUZatlOnS contacted included neIghborhood orgamzatlons,
non-profit organizations, senior groups, school representatives, legal organizatIOns, organizations
representing mmonty interests, housmg organizatIons, real estate orgamzatlOns and banks
Twenty organizations designated representatives to participate in our commuIUty working
group. Nme orgamzations sent representatives to the workmg group's first Jomt meeting The
partlclpating orgamzatIons In the community working group were Neighborhood Support Center,
Commumty Corporatlon of Santa Monica, WllshuelMontana Neighborhood CoalitIon, the Los
Angeles ASSOCIatIon of Realtors, Ocean Park Community OrganizatIon, Century Federal Bank,
Santa Monica Bank, Clare FoundatIon and John 1-fulr School PTA.
Copies of the "1994 Assessment ofImpedlments to Fair Housmg Choice" in Santa Momca
were sent to the representatIves of the Community Workmg Group. The Inter-Departmental
Workmg Group met WIth the CommunIty Workmg Group m May, 1996 The Commumty
W orkmg Group asked questlOns and made comments about the 1994 Assessment ofImpedlments
Members of the Community Workmg Group related personal expenences with housing In the
beginning of June, the "Draft 1996 Assessment of ImpedIments to Fan Housmg Choice in the
City of Santa Monica" was distnbuted to the CommunIty Working Group, City CommISSIons and
the pubhc at large. Presentations on the "1996 Draft Assessment" were made before the
Commission on the Status of Women, the Rent Control Board, the Planning Commission, the
CommiSSIOn on Older Americans and the Housing Commission. A public hearing was held at
the meeting of the Social Services Commission A public hearing was scheduled before the
Housing Commission, but due to the lack of a quorum, only a presentation was made. A second
joint meeting of the Inter-Depatiiil,ental Working Group and the Community Working Group was
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
.
.
held on June 26, 1996
.
C. Methodology Used
Sources ofmformation for the Assessment of ImpedIments included the 1990 Census. the
Cay's 1994 Consolidated Plan and City departments participatmg in the workmg group. Home
~fortgage Disclosure Act informatIon on banks in the area was also utIlized
.
.
D. How 1he Assessment was Funded
City funds were used to pay the costs of preparing the assessment
.
E. Conclusions
The CIty'S current Fan Housing services are satisfactory The ongoing momtonng and
testIng of fair housmg complamts by the FaIr Housmg Umt of the City Attorney's Office creates
a conSIstent data base for tracking housmg discnminatIon in the CIty. AddItionally. the
educatIonal programs and materials developed by the Fan Housmg Unit provIde the community
Wlth information regarding fair housing laws that is both mtelligible and easily obtamable
The hmltations on affordable smgle-faouly homes m the City is more a function of the
high land values in the City than discrimmatory real estate practIces. The majonty of
discrimmation complaints to the Fair Housing Unit over the past eight years have involved rental
housing and have been family based (I.e. involving children).
The City has implemented many programs and policies that encourage the growth of Jow-
income housing.
.
.
.
.
.
5
.
.
.
1. Impediments Found
The folloWIng impedIments have been identified through our analysIs
a Formal fair housmg complamts mdIcate that there is an ongoing
.
problem of dIscrimmation against chIldren m the rental market
b. Informal complamts indicate that real estate brokers who screen
.
prospectIve tenants for landlords may be engaged m steenng1 mmonty applIcants or denying
housmg altogether to certaIn groups of indiVIduals
.
2.
Actions To Address Impediments
a The City WIll make an effort to educate landlords about the problem
of dlscnmmatlOn against chlldren and encourage them to rent to more falmlies.
.
b The City v.ill contact the real estate community and educate them
on the neceSSIty of ensuring that their practIces meet the objectives of the faIr housing laws
.
c
The City IS in the process of updatmg its Housmg Element. a
housmg policy document required by California state law As part of this process. the City is
seeking to develop programs and policies that will support the construction and rehabdltatlOn of
.
larger and affordable dwellmg umts to some familles
.
.
1 "Steering" is the act of dIrecting or leading prospective renters or purchasers to homes or
apartments in areas where their racial or ethnic group is in the majority.
6
.
.
n.
JURISDlt.:nONAL BACKGROUND DATA
.
The City of Santa MOnica is bordered by the PacIfic Ocean 10 the West, the CIty of Los
Angeles to the East, Pacific PalIsades to the North and Venice to the South. Santa MOnIca IS 83
square mIles in Size It is known as a popular destmation for both tounsts from the United States
and abroad and for area residents seeking entertainment and fine dining The City is a desirable
place to ltve In the Southern CalIfornia area The reasons for its desIrability extend beyond Its
obVIOUS proXImIty to the ocean and the moderate climate and clean au which beach commlJnIties
enJOY Santa Monica has two major hospitals, a CommunIty College, a mUnIcIpal auport,
attractive office complexes, good CIty servIces, and a CIty government that IS highly responsive
to the community
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
.
.
.
A. Demographic and Income Data
.
Table 1
Population Growth
Year Population Pen:entage Cbange
.
1890 1,580
1900 3,057 93.50
1910 7,847 156 70
1920 15,252 9440
. 1930 37,146 143 50
1940 53,500 4400
1950 71,595 33.80
1960 83,249 16.30
1970 88,289 605
. 1980 88,314 003
1990 86,905 -1.59
1993 89,050 2.47
1996* 90,262 1.34
. * EstImate as of January 1, 1996
Source: US. Census, State Department of Fmance
.
1.
Demo~raphicslLow Income and RaciallEtltnic Concentrations
The majonty of residents in Santa Monica in 1990 were whIte and not of Spanish ongin.
as shown in Table 2, although the number of minority residents increased somewhat between
.
1980 and 1990. Figure 1 Illustrates the geographic distribution of minority populations in 1990.
Three census tracts had significant concentrations of minorities, and in tracts 7018.01 and
7018.02, the "minorities" were 10 fact the majority. The minority concentratlon in these tracts has
.
not changed sIgnificantly since 1980.
8
.
.
_ _.t:::l_
~ .
....
9 '<
.
-l
~ " ~
~~
.
!!~
~vOO?~ I ~-1 ;/, :tZ
+- -
31:
~g
~~
- -\--_ L I $ .
cnt::
I ~ ~~
L
:J
m
~ UI:.
.
.
tS
z
-
l7S
w
f-o. .
<
-
0
0
CT.I
Q)
<
Q
;z:
<
0
... Z
c ~ ..: <
- 4) ~
I ~ - :r
...
G to-
ft !: c=
-
>
<
Q
.. _I ~ ~
--
)
,..
.
.
Of the total number of households in Santa MOnIca, 7,793 (17.4 percent) had mmonty
heads in 1990 These households are considered mInonty households Only 23.1 percent of the
minority households were owners and 76.9 percent were renters, compared to 27.5 percent owners
and 72.5 percent renters for the total population
eRAS Table lA contains estImates of the number of cost.burdened households in Santa
Monica, broken down as far as possible by race/ethnicity, age, and family sIze. Income data from
the 1990 Census was used to prepare these tables The estimates In CHAS Table lA use 1990
household counts by race and Income categones, as supphed by HUn in the eRAS Data Book
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
.
CHAS Table 1A
Population & Household Data
J\latne of .Jur=c:tICt'I
City of Santa Monica
A populanon
t
TABlE I-A
U S Depa rtment or Hous mg and Urban Development
cr.Ice cfCommuMy Plann,,,!:! IOd ~lOptneI"Il
ComprehenSIVe Housing AffordaMrty St:'3tegy (CHAS)
lnstrl.:e.:ons for Local Junsdlc1lcns
1~1'I'e Yea: Penoo (enl=r l\scal )'tS l
FY 1tMlu9/1 FY
1.994 _ 1998
D Relabve Median IIi;;".....; of JUrl$dl~'tlon
loISA Medlan F.mdy JunsC:cbQns MCClIn N.:~ Mer:llIn F&II'W\'
lneorne F.....'Y Income (nat Inccme
.
1980' 1990 I ~ I
Census Data Census Di1'.a ~
fA' (Bl (Cl _
76,569 65,337 -1St 8"allable I'Ilr urt:.t\ I
, WhIte (norH-bsl8tuC) counIleS and CO'lSOIta)
2 Blar:lc Cnon-Hl5;liIflIC} 3,565 3,830 7\' 539,034 SSlrOS5 $35,939
--
- --
:3 HispaIlJl; (alIli1_) 11,468 11,842 3\
-- --
-4. Natrwe Amenc:an 481 433 -10\
f"Wn-Hls:l3nw:l
S AsIan. & Paelfie I$larld.m; 3.686 5,364 46\
(nCI'I.-H.sD3nCl
6 Olher IJ'lOO-l-llsparvc) NA 99 NA
.
7. Total Population 88,314 86,905 -2\
----
t!. tf01JS ehold Populatlon 88,314 84,460 -4\
11. Non.Household Population 0 2,445 NA
B. Special Categories
Ie a s'ude"'ll'S !'n,!'tarv rr,e'3"lt fa.""TI ~ efc: 1
-
.
~
.
C. Households TataJ ~ Of T CItaI ~ Very ~ ~ Olnet ~ ,. MClGeIlIte ~
. HIlUSehcld' Houk~UA Income Income Income ~
1990 0-50% MFt- 51~~ MF~ Sl-95~ MFt- 95,. MFl-
II..' I'Bl tel 10\ IEl IFl
37,308 .
,. )>\'Me (ncn-HIspanIC) 83t 21t 12t 8\ 59\
2 BIWc lnon-Hispenc) 1,5.98 ,,\ 44\ 13t 8\ 35'
3. tlisl*= (.m races) 3,829 8' 38' 11t " 36t
....~-~ 146 0\ 40t 10\ 10\ 40\ "
- .
5.. Amn & P.ciIic lsIanderI 2,212 st 18t 13\ st 60t
----- .
.
6.. All Houaehold& 45,125 : :. .,t: 23t 13' St 56'
. !- -- .
1980 een.u.; csm n;IUde pet5OrI5 f:I ~ OrigIn.
- Of. based uplI'I HUDadjusted lnCI:Ime ~ I ~
NA - ftCIl aY8ilaZIIe
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
HLO~1S3)
-;e
,'+
..
';>
';..l
.
.
Table 2
Race and Ethnicity
.
RacelEthnicity
1980
Percent
1990
Pen:ent
Asian 3,783 43 5,385 6.2
Black 3.492 40 3,732 43
. Native Amencan 396 04 270 03
WhIte 68.435 77.5 65.184 75.0
Other 1,119 1 3 124 01
.... ... ......... ... .. .... ..~..... ....... ..... .......... .. ............. .... ..... ...... .....
LatmolLatma* 11.485 130 12,210 140
.
Total 88.314 1000 86.905 1000
.
11: Persons of LatmolLatma ongm may be of any race
Source 1980 and 1990 US Census
In 1990, the median household income for the City of Santa Monica was $35.997. whIch
.
was only slightly higher than the county-wide average of $34.965. despIte the CIty'S pnme
location To a great extent, this reflects the large percentage of households headed by semors and
.
those hving on fixed incomes Figure 2 illustrates the geographic distnbutIon of lower income
households
Lower income households spend a larger percentage of their mcome for housmg. When
.
the cost of housing exceeds 30 percent it becomes a burden. reducing the money available for
other necessary items, such as food and medtcal care. Table 3 shows the 1980 and 1990 housing
expendttures as a percentage of income for various income groups in the City. It is clear that the
.
percentage of income spent on housmg Increases as income decreases. The lowest income
10
.
1 community Prome
r"-:'-"
_z .r"__.p_ ... 6 __:..... ru A C'
1 00.1- 1 OQ$l
~
-
.
~~
~8
~~
tf'~
ai5
~~
~~
j;\5
aRt
~~
~2
; ~~
~ Sz
.
.
.
C'I
.
.
d
z
-
ai
t;I.1
E- .
<
-
0
0
en
co
<
C
Z
< ..
G)
z
<
>
fa
CI
;;
<
Q
. !.
- . )
e.
Table 3
.
Housing Costs as a Percentage of Income
1980 and 1990
1980 1990
Renters: Owners: Renters: Owners:
. IDcDmeIHousin~ Cost Number* Percent Number* Percent Number* Percent Number* Percent
Less thm $10,000
Spent up to 24 % 660 259 143 Ss
Spent 25 to 29 % 676 S3 307 23
Spent 30 % or more 8,992 80.65% 405 51.46 % 3,866 75.57% 235 65.46%
. Not computed 821 70 800 46
Total 11.149 787 5,116 359
$10,000 to $19,999
1.004 .
Spell up to 24 % 5.079 883 243
. Spent 25 to 29 % 1,892 46 657 62
Spent 30% or morc 4.336 37.89% 273 20.63 % 4,022 71.11% 198 39.36%
Not computed 138 0 94 0
Total 11,445 1,323 5,656 503
. S20.0Cl0 to S34.999 .. ..
Spent up to 24 % 10.487 3,489 4,654 667
Spent 2S to 29 % 461 251 1.637 73
Spent 30~ or more 511 4.43% 656 14.92% 1.773 21.81 % 216 22.59%
Not computed 88 0 64 0
. Total. 11.547 4,396 8.128 956
535,000 or more .. ..
Spent up to 24 % .. .. . 12.360 3,804
Spent 25 to 29$ .. .. 569 471
Spent 30 % or more .. .. 502 3.69% 1.635 27.66$
. Not comp'1!~':! .. .. 169 0
Total 13,600 5,910
Sample Total 34.141 6.S06 32.500 7,728
. · This table is based on a sample. DOt all, of Santa Monica households.
... 1980 Census data groups the upper income category as -$20.000 or more.-
SCRI1"I% 1980 and 1990 U.S. Censru
.
.
~
~.~ ""~/NJ_'N'~I~'OI~,~ ~Iof
I - 7T"i< 7, 'f,7~ s ~'~': ... !:: ~
.. s .. i~ )~ i-. ... -!., -- ...J... ..../... N ..../' - - .7. 0 0 ~ <
~ ........ ""'" .., ... .. ..... "" .. '" ""'/. ... - ... .... ....1... .. .0 .. ..
... t I I 1- - ~
;: I I
. - - -. ! -'. I. _ ). . . __ _ __
;; '8 s..!!;:; i ...,.., _ 8,S: _ ....... g.", .., "',.. __.... ......... .......
"-' 7 . I - - '- ~
: ~;; 2~ iP ~I;;!! !I!" ~tL"~ ~ ii ~t ~;;
... l I ...
-0 ~ .... """ .",. -:r- oN - ~ .. "" ... .. _~~ ... "" .. .. N .... ... "" ... ~ ..
...~.~ON_~_ I..............._..............._~..._....
0_. ----- -"-- t-- _"_ _
: - 0 - - - - · - J. . , . 0'. . 0 _ " _ _ 0 . . _:
i ~ ;: = ... S :: ., .... e ...1..... ...... i'" - ... ... .., - .. ., _ _ _:
---"._-~----.-_L_&,_.___.o.
o ... :: =- ~1. ~= ... ~ ... '" ... .. ..;... .., ... '" ... .. ... ... ...
i J _
.
. -.......-......-.....................
; 2! ~ = ~ ~... ~ ~ if :: .., ...,"'Ie....., .... ~ ... :: '" _ ...;:)!
:c I
i
...... ~ ......... ... ... ... ...... ...... ........... -. 00 ... ... ... ...... <:0 0.... 00,
~... ....., ... .... .. .. !: ""," ... s1.'....1 ... ... '" ... ... ... ... ... ... - ="
-... '=' ...... -...... .... '" -1... .... _ "'11... ....... '=' ...... .. "'/.... ... ....._
... .. .... .. .. .. Q ... ... '" ..., ""' "'1. ....100 .... ..1..... .. ... .. ... ...
,,- - I I --_
: s ~ 2;". "'O "..I" >1 ~ ;!" '" '" " "B ,,[ ~" .
- 7- 1.- - . - '" - ..
~-..__.L--<.o._L._o._o<___:
o ... · -0 'lG '" .....1W'\ III"J, '\0 .... 'lQ Plfl" ~.~ - 00 ~ "" '0 ... .." _ N... f'V ~
. I _ _ _ ._
:: I _
g
h N .... ... .., - ...-.... ... ~ ... .... ....,_ ...1_ .. .. .... ... '" ... .. .... 00 N ....
Q....~~~~Q.._-....~......~/~~~-~~-Q~~~y
~ - - -- - -...
~ -
f
O~~~~~~:S!;E2:~l;;~!~5:Q~~~E~
~ "
::e
.- --.. ... ~ ..,~N_~~_....._...._
~~!N~~~~~!=~~~..I=.....~~:~~=..~.
~ ~
S~~S~2~=~~~~$:~[~~~~;~~;~=~~
... - - - ... -t- - ... '" ... - ....
- I f'O
~
- ... ... .... ... ... ... ... - ro. .. _ .... ... ....... .. ... .. ... ... ~ .. ~ ... .. ......
0. .... IlCI p. 'CII IiJIjII Qo. ...... Or. 0. "0/011'\ '!I;I G'\ VIol~ ...... "'" "0 _ ... oW'\ _ Q- !;f ..
~-- ... - - -- ...---
;; I I ...
... I
~o...~-~.-ooo..."_~__.o_.~~
-0=.._. ---~~~...,ftN.....~-o~_~_~
~ ... - ...-- -~
2 ...
f;:o .. ..... .. ~ .. PO .. ... ... 0 00 II> ... ...... _ '0 ~ .. _ ... CI< '0 .... .. ..
~-f'O ~---~...- - ...1.-"~N~~O~.~N~
,... ----......
8- ...
:~~i~E..i~!~ ~1.~~~Ef~~ al~a
~--------.-._----- --~-- ";
~
Cl
-
.c
~
...
u
=
...
t-
D')
:::I
o
C
~
CJ
>-
..c
e
E
o
u
c
-
:2
o
..s=
~
""
:::I
o
:r
o
0)
0)
-
... -'
......
-...
- ...-
~~:
I
~ c.
-=r
. f'lII~
~~.
;!j s:<f
... .,
-,
=>1
;;.
" ...1
;::
~i!
I
,
i!,
:: ...
__ !::f
;~
:l' ~,
~i
,./
:t ~l
!!~~~~:~~f~f~f~f~f~f~:~~I~
.1; il" mNfs: s 1 $l mg~t Nil ~I!Ui
-2'
~..
~:f
......
I
r
...~
t:l'a
- ..-
~~
.......
...,-
"'"
~It
I
"'1--
::/~
.......
~/~
if~
.1 .
'"'I""
~t~
...{-...
~-
~1It
...'"'
::;~
ii.
... o.
::; ~:
,
:~
0....
... -.
-...
.. ..~
.. Mf'~ IIlflf'l'\ Mt'IQ '"
.. '.[.
....O.~ W'tJ....-...-.a
· J.). :~''-
~ ..;j::J '!f;;: <:>12...
I. I. 7 .
s ~,:: ~,;: ~.' lZ> ~
'" ":,.... ....... "'I~ c
~ ""....1/0 ~t-. .~.."
'" ~...::: ".;::; "1. ~
. .l~ .0' . .-.
....~.....f::-~5::
~~~~~~~:
... N _ ...
:: ~J
...~,
... -"
.......
.....
I
.
...,..
.....
....
~ :t
.....
~!.'!~!:~:!~
~ ,.. - ....,
8;;
-..
... ...~
...~
......
,
Ole ..'
.....
.....
E!"
I
I
~ ~~t ~!~ ~:; ~
;:: ~I:; " b: ";:; It
v ~Ip\ &:: .., :J-~ ;:;
:: It ~ "'1= M :t M
...~~~~;;o:;
.
...-
.. ...,
-...
aI-
I
I~:
~ c.-
~;;
Slt~""';-M~.
I'-)~~::..::J'''';
;l:!.~MCMRlJt
..,!:I"lIII~~~_~
.
;;~l~;~~r
N ~ """ N
<:::lJt~M~M:.
'Y~'If't:.....;;~~
:It:?M;;M;.
::~"":":;J~::
.
::lt~.::M;!;1it
~!:..~tO::~.
-.-M"'.....
::;~;O::~~~~
.
2.:tM~MB:1t
~!::~~"~..:;
~1t~M=M~1t
-.,. .. ""::s
.
.
1
.
.
.
households are, therefore, most likely to be overpaying for hOUSIng and in need of assistance
Table 4 shows incomes for each census tract in the CIty
B. - Employment and Transportation Profile
.
1. Employment
According to the 1990 Census, there were 50,375 Santa Monica residents who were
.
between the ages of 16 and 64 and were, therefore, considered part of the labor force Table 5
shows the types of employment held by Santa Momca resIdents in 1990. The majonty of the
CIty'S resIdents were employed in management, profeSSIOnal, and technical positIOns Within the
.
labor force, 2,548 persons, or apprOXimately 5 percent, were Wlemployed
TABT.F. 5
.
JOBS HELD BY SANTA MONICA RESIDENTS
Job Cate20ry Number Percent
Managenal/ProfessIOnal 23,480 466
. Sales, Techmcal, & Admin
Support (mcI. clencal) 16,070 31.9
ServIce Occupations 5,109 101
. FarmIng, Forestry, & FishIng 445 .9
PrecIsion Production,
Craft, & Repair 2,665 5.3
. Operators, Fabricators,
& Laborers 2,606 5.2
TOTAL EMPLOYED PERSONS
16 YEARS & OVER' 50,375 100
.
Source. U.S 1990 Census
1.1
.
.
In contrast, Table 6 shows the types of Jobs aval1able in the Cny of Santa Monica in 1990
and 1994. This table shows that the largest classificatIon of jobs In the City is ServIces, which
includes professionals, such as teachers and phYSicians, as well as personal and bUSiness servIce
firms Based on data available from the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG), Santa Monica is aJob-nch community which had close to 76,500 jobs available withm
its corporate limits In 1990, compared to apprOXImately 50,400 residents in the labor force.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1.2
.
.
.
TABLE 6
SANTA MONICA EMPLOYMENT
.
1990
1994
Agnculture 142 292
.
Mmmg 103 59
Construction 2,071 2,167
. Manufactunng 6,552 6,072
UtIlIties 1,496 2,330
Wholesale Trade 2,819 2,871
.
Retail Trade 16,045 17,768
Fue 7,403 6,772
. ServIces 36,296 43,548
Government 3,261 794
. Total Employment 76,188 82,673
Source:
Southern California AssocIation of Governments
.
.
13
.
.
2. Transportation
a. Public Transporta6on
The Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lmes (SMMBL) service area encompasses the City of
Santa Monica, Pacific PalIsades, Venice, 1-farina del Rey , Westchester and Los Angeles
InternatIonal AiIport. SMMBL's service area also stretches east to the COmmUnitIes of
Brentwood, Westwood and UCLA, Mar Vista, Rancho Park, Cheviot HIlls, Century CIty, the
PIco-Rimpau TranSit Center in Los Angeles One express route operates from Santa MOnIca to
downto\VIl Los Angeles. Throughout thIS area, SMMBL serves major employment SItes,
educatlOnal and medical facihties
S~1MBL patrons can easily transfer to the regIonal transit provider, the Los Angeles
County MetropolItan TransportatIon Authonty (MTA), at 19 separate locatIons In SM}vffiL's
service area. In addItIOn, there are 10 locations where passengers can transfer to the Culver CIty
MUniCIpal bus servIce
The pubhc transportation system In Santa MOnica is very effiCIent WIthin the 36-mtle
Sm.mL service area, approximately 98 percent of the population and 99 percent of the
employment is within the route coverage area Coverage of minority, elderly, disabled and low
income population groups ranges from 96 to 98 percent, indicatmg that service is readily
available throughout the service area.
WIthin the City, the concentration of minority and low income households is highest in
the general area between Ocean Avenue and Centinela Avenue, and Santa Monica Boulevard and
Pico Boulevard (Figures 1 and 2). This entire area is well served by SMMBL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
.
.
.
SM1vIBL Lme 7 operates along PI co Boulevard from the Plco-Rtmpau TransIt Center m
Los Ap.geles to downtown Santa Monica. ThIS servIce operates every five minutes dunng the
peak penods, and every 10 minutes m the non-peak penods Lme 7 operates from approxImately
4:45 am. unnl about 1 00 a.m. every weekday. Saturday and Sunday service is also provIded.
SMMBL Line 1 operates along Santa Monica Boulevard The line onginates in Vemce
and operates north along Main Street and Ocean Avenue, through downtown Santa Monica and
along Santa Monica Boulevard to the UCLA TranSIt Center m Westwood. Line 1 operates every
10 minutes throughout the day, and every 30 mmutes at night. The hours of operatIOn are
approximately 5 30 a m. until 12'30 a m on weekdays. Saturday and Sunday service IS also
available
The SMMBL operates a third east-west route on OlympIc Boulevard In the area depIcted
In FIgures 1 and 2 S:M:MBL Lme 9 operates between West Los Angeles and Pacific PalIsades
Service is available weekdays from about 620 a m until 1030 p.rn TIus lme only operates
weekdays and Saturdays The SM:MBL also operates a north-south route In this area. Lme 11
operates as a loop between Ocean Park Boulevard and Montana Avenue via 14th and 20th
Streets This crosstown service IS available on weekdays between 700 a rn. and 600 p.rn
In addition to SMMBL's fixed-route transit services, the City operates a local shuttle route
that serves the downtown and Main Street areas TIus service is funded by four local hotels.
Currently, there is no fare charged on tlus shuttle service, which is known as the Tide The Tide
operates every 15 minutes from noon until 10:30 pm., seven days per week.
The City also fWlds a para transit service for the elderly and disabled through a local social
service agency This service provides curb-to-curb. shared ride transportation for elderly and
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
.
.
adult dIsabled residents of the CIty ServIce is avallable to certIfied nders to and from any pomt
Within the City of Santa Monica, as well as to selected locatIOns outside of the Cay
Approximately 30.000 trips are proVided annually.
The transit servIces provided by SMMBL are very affordable The base cash fare is
$0.50, the lowest cash transit fare In Los Angeles County. Seniors and the dIsabled with the
proper identification pay only $0.25 An express bus service to downtown Los Angeles
(SMMBL route 10) IS offered for $1.25. The SMMBL does not sell monthly passes, however,
reduced fare tokens can be purchased In roles of 50 for $22 50, or $0 45 per token Students up
to hIgh school may purchase a 10 nde card for only $250. and college students may purchase
a 10 nde card for $4.00 Transfers from one S:M:MBL route to another are free, and a transfer
to another tranSIt agency only costs $025 or $0 10 for seniors and the dIsabled
.
.
.
.
.
b. Bikeways
The CIty adopted a BIcycle Master Plan to facIlItate and encourage bicycle ridership in
Santa Monica The Plan provides for a wide variety of facihty Improvements and ongoing
programs to facilitate the use of bIkes for both transportatIon and recreatIon purposes.
The Plan Incorporates a bIcycle route network, public and employment related bicycle
parking, an education and awareness campaign, and other minor facility improvements and
programs
The bike route network is an inter. connected network of routes to and from SIgnificant
destination/origin points. These points mclude:
.
.
.
.
16
.
.
. . Public Schools . Beaches
. Santa Monica College . Palisades Park
. Santa Monica Pier . Beach Bike Path
. Thud Street Promenade . Downtown Business
. ResidentIal areas . Parks
. . Main Street Ocean Park . Points Outside the City
Specifically, the Bicycle Master Plan mcludes an extensive bicycle route network
.
throughout the City, including addItions such as: Class n bike lanes on portions of 4th, 7th, 11th,
17th, Arizona and Broadway, and Class ill signed routes on portions of 7th, 11th, 17th,
.
Yale/Stewart, Washington. Ashland and Pearl The proposed Class I bIcycle paths in the Civic
Center SpeCIfic Plan have been mcluded in the Plan and replace some previous proposals for the
area See the attached map for the planned network Most of the proposed bike lane
.
improvements have been Implemented, except for portions of 4th Street and Arizona The
signage for Implementing the Class III bIke routes wIll be completed in the next year
A comprehensive public bIcycle parking plan is also proposed to provide bicycle parkmg
.
In all commercIal and retaIl zones in the City, in front of public buildmgs and in recreation areas
Secure bicycle parking would also be required in new work sites.
.
The Bicycle Master Plan also includes an education and awareness campaign. Safety
programs would teach students from elementary school through college, employees working in
Santa Monica, and other adults to ride safely. The City would produce a bIcycle map With
.
routes, parking locations, and safety information as an easy reference document for bicyclists.
.
17
.
.
c. Freeways and Streets
Santa Monica has numerous local roadways, includmg major artenals, which provide for
an efficIent flow of traffic. Addluonally, the Santa Momca freeway (Interstate 10) and the Pacific
Coast Highway (State Thghway 1) faclhtate a high volume of traffic in and out of Santa Monica
.
.
c.
Housing Profile
.
Table 7 shows the number and type of housmg units In the CIty of Santa Monica In 1970,
1980, and 1990 There has been a net Increase in units over this period. The number of
single-family homes, smail multI-family structures, and mobIle homes has increased since 1980,
but the number of multi-famIly units in structures with five or more units has decreased. Some
of these units were lost to Elhs Act Wlthdrawals Some were smgle-room occupancy (SRO) hotels
replaced by other commercIal uses Most development is a result of recycling existing
development to higher densitIes or intenSitIes of use Wlthm the multi-family deSIgnated areas
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
.
.
.
Table 7
Unit Type
1970, 1980, and 1990
.
pmt Type
1970
Percent 1980
Percent
199Q
Percent
. Single.Family 12,249 298 10,131 21.8 10,961 246
(detached and
townhouses)
2 to 4 Umts 5,389 13.0 5,318 11.5 6,005 126
.
5 + UOlts 23,788 572 30,652 66.1 29,979 628
Mobile Homes(included With 292 06 275 1 7
smgle.family)
.
Other 533
TOTAL 41,606 1000 46,393 100.0 47,753 1000
. Source 1970, 1980, 1990 Census
.
1. Ale and Condition
Table 8 shows the age of Santa Monica's housing stock. Some 9,534 units. or 201 percent
of the stock, were built prior to 1939. Units built before 1939 are more lIkely to need repair and
.
less hkely to have been built to the structural standards necessaty to withstand a major earthquake
in good condItion. Since Santa Monica IS located adjacent to an active earthquake fault (the
Newport-Inglewood fault) whIch is capable of producing a major earthquake (Richter magnitude
.
6.5 or greater), its housmg programs must address the earthquake safety of older housing umts. The
19
.
.
City has adopted seIsmIC safety ordmances which require upgradmg of unreinforced masonry .
,." .......-
structures (URMS), steel framed buIldmgs, soft story structures, pre-1976 tilt-up' concrete buildmgs
and pre-cast/reinforced poured-in-place concrete/non-ductile buildmgs to withstand the maximum
probable earthquake in the CIty In fiscal year 1995-96 a total of 1,100 earthquake permits were
.
issued by the City's Building and Safety Department for the above categories of upgrades, retrofits
and earthquake repalfs.
.
The CIty of Santa Monica uses the defimtIon of substandard housing found at 24 CFR
882 219(f), except that severely overcrowded units are also considered substandard In ~)fder to
estImate the nn;mber of substandard umts In the City, 1990 Census counts of the number of units .
WIthOut complete plumbing, without complete kitchen facihties, With unvented heaters, and
severely overcrowded wnts (those With more than 1 5 persons per room) were used as mdlcators
.
Table 9 shows the number of unIts of each type by tenure. This is conSIdered a conservatIve
estimate of the number of substandard umts because It does not mclude an indicator of structural
defects (leakmg roofs, holes in the walls, floor, or ceiling, broken/missing Windows; etc.) Based .
on past experience of rehabilitatIon specialists, no more than 10 percent of the substandard umts
are estimated to be beyond repair and In need of replacement.
.
2. Tenure
In keeping with the large proportion of multi-family units in the City, the 1990 Census
.
found that 27 5 percent of the City's households own the unit they live in, and the remaining 72.5
percent rent. In 1980, the breakdown was 22 percent owner-occupied and 78 percent
renter-occupied. This is a much higher percentage of renters than in any other city in Los Angeles
.
20
.
.
.
County At least one~third of the households m the other Cltles. owned their homes, and the
county-WIde average was 48 percent In Santa Monica, the hIghest concentration of
owner-occupIed housing is located north of Wilshue Boulevard. and the highest concentration of
renters is located near the beach and along the PICO Avenue Corridor.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21.
.
.
Table 8
.
Santa Monica Housinz Stock
Year Built Units Percent .
Before 1939 9,534 19.8
1940-1949 8,006 16.6
1950.1959 9,994 207
1960-1969 11,035 22.9
1970-1979 6,895 143 .
1980-1989 1,802 37
1990-1993 9590 .2
TOTAL 48,175 1000
.
Source 1980, 1990 CenslIs and California Dept. of Fmance
Table 9
.
Housing in Need of Rehabilitation or Replacement
Defect Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied .
(Total)
Lackmg Complete Plumbing 50 148
(198) .
Lacking Complete Kitchens 16 794
(810)
Without Heat or
With Unvented Heaters 170 448
(618) .
Severely Overcrowded 92 1,105
(1,197)
Total 328 2,495
(2,923 ) .
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
22
.
.
.
A subcategory of rental hOUSIng includes the SRO hotel and boarding or roomIng houses,
which IS generally the least e,,--pensive housmg and frequently the only hOUSIng option available
to the lowest Income households. There are few remaimng resources of thIS type in the CIty Since
1980, nine SRO hotels have been closed, removing a total of 327 Wlits from the hOUSIng stock
These have been replaced in part With the construction of at least 80 new SRO Units since 1990.
.
.
.
3. Housin: Cost and Rents
In 1990, the median value for all owner-occupied housing, not just those umts avaIlable for
sale, was over $500,000, the top category used In the 1990 Census In contrast, the median value
for all housing in Los Angeles County was $226,400 Table 10 illustrates a study of housmg sales
In Santa Momea in 1990 and In 1992. In contrast to most housing In Santa Monica, converted units
sold to tenants under the TORCA program were relatively affordable For example, as shown In
Table 10, the average pnce of a two-bedroom market-rate condommlUm in 1992 was $310,910,
whIle the average pnce of a two-bedroom TORCA condominium was $167,295.
In the 1990 Census, the median contract rent reported for all rental units was $498, the
medIan contract rent for all of Los Angeles County was $570. This confirms the results of a 1990
study by Gary SqUIer & Associates, (Supplement to Santa Monica Housing Element in Response
to Request for Additlonal Analysis), which found that rent controls were actIng to protect housing
affordability In Santa Monica. Table 11 shows the median rents for rent-controlled units in 1990
and 1994
,
.
.
.
.
23
.
4. Overcrowded Households
Crowding occurs when there IS an insufficient supply of housing of the nght size and the
nght price to accommodate the larger households In 1990, there were 1,837 large households In
the City (that is, households With five or more members). The federal government defines a
crowded household as one having 1 01 or more persons per room Such overcrowding accelerates
deterioration In the housing and IS otherwise undesIrable for the people who hve in such
conditIons
In 1990~ 2,414 households, or 54 percent of the total, were conSidered overcrowded
(Renters were 85.4 percent of these at 2,061 households) This IS an increase of 290 from 1980. .
Of overcrowded households, 1,197 households (1,105 renters) were severely overcrowded With
more than 1 51 persons per room The tracts With the highest number of overcrowded households
are also the tracts With the lowest median income in 1980 It is likely that the crowdmg IS due to
the inability oflarge households to afford a unit whIch would adequately accommodate them That
IS, the CIty lacks enough low-cost housing for larger households
5. Ear1hquake Dama~ed HousiDI
The CIty of Santa Monica experienced Widespread damage as a result of the January 17,
1994 Northridge earthquake According to City records. In late January 1994 the city had 2.300
uninhabitable units in 530 red- and yellow-tagged buildings, representing a five percent loss in the
City's housing stock. Approximately 90 percent of these units were affordable to lower income
families In addition. there were an estimated 16,000 units in 1,500 buildings that sustamed some
damage and were green-tagged.
24
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In response to the devastatIon caused by the earthquake, Congress enacted the Emergency
Supplemental Appropnanons Act of 1994 to provide $175 mIllion In CDBG earthquake
supplemental fundmg to Southern California Santa MOnica received two awards of CnBG funds
The first award of $2 7 mllhon m CnBG funds is funding a Pubhc Facility Earthquake Repair
Program to repair City-owned facilities and property damaged in the earthquake The second
award of $25 millIon in CDBG funds IS funding repair and reconstruction of multi-family and
condomimum properties In additiol!3 the CIty also received approximately $8.4 millIon in
earthquake funding under the HOME program, these HOME funds also are used for repair and
rehahlhtatlon of the City's damaged multi~falmly and condominium properties
On February 21, 1995, CIty Council amended the Multifalmly Earthquake Repau Loan
(MERL) Program for disbursement of its earthquake funds (described above) The MERL program
contams the following pnmary components
.
.
.
.
.
Pre-Earthquake Owners,
Post-Earthquake Buyers & Pre-Earthquake Owners With Loans over $30,000
per Unit.
Qualified Affordable Housmg Developers. and
Condominium Owners and ASSOCIatIOns
.
.
.
.
.
.
Program loans may be used to pay for costs for which funds are not available from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Small Business AdmlOistration (SBA),
earthquake insurance, or other sources
.
25
.
.
Table 10
Housing Sales Prices .
.. ., ..... ~
Unit Type # Sold Median Average Range
1995 .
Single-Fam ily
1 bedroom 4 $247,500 $276,700 $136,800-$475,000
2 bedrooms 131 $325,300 $395,815 $70,000-$1,662.000 .
3 bedrooms 122 $477,500 $535,212 $120,000-51.460,000
4 bedrooms 54 $659,000 $755,917 $202,000-1,925,000
5 bedrooms 16 $922,500 $1,080,438 $562,500-2,800,000
6+bedrooms 8 $1,084,500 S1,040,937 $518,560-S1,620,000
.
Multlple-Fannly - CondommlUms
1 bedroom 46 $122,750 $143,752 S64,OOO-$375,OOO
2 bedroom s 244 $225,000 5248,006 $ 75,000-$2,000,000 .
3 bedroom s 74 $252,750 5320,064 S118, 000-S1,250, 000
4 bedroom s 5 5555,000 S552,300 5287,000-51,025,000
1992
Multiple-Fmnlly - Condommiums .
1 bedroom 31 $239,664 NA
2 bedrooms 358 $310,910 NA
3 bedrooms 109 $381,142 NA
.
TORCA ConversIon Units
1 bedroom 131 $110,405 NA
2 bedrooms 211 $167,295 NA .
3 bedrooms 78 $208,097 NA
Sources:
1995 sales data - California Markel Data Cooperatives.
1992 sales data - TORCA Evaluahon Study, February 1993.
.
26
.
.
Table 11
.
Median 1990 and 1994 Rents in Santa Monica
for Units Under Rent Control
1990
1994
.
Number of
Bedrooms
Median
Rent
Median
Rent
. Studio $303 $408
1 Bedroom $402 $489
2 Bedrooms $531 $645
3 or more Bedrooms $626 $796
. Santa Momca Rent Control
Source
6. Assisted Housin~ Inventory
.
a.
Public Housin:=
There are five public housmg projects located in Santa MOnica, all admmistered by the
.
Housmg Authonty of Los Angeles County These projects were bUIlt before the City of Santa
MOnica estabhshed its own Housing Authority (HA) The Santa Monica HA does not own or
manage any pubhc housmg units
.
The five pubhc housing projects are:
1. 175 Ocean Park Boulevard (22 units)
2. 1855 Nmth Street (11 units)
.
3. 1450 Fourteenth Street (18 units)
4. 2006 TwentIeth Street (11 units)
.
5.
1901-1907 Eleventh Street (Monica Manor)(19 units)
27
.
The public housing projects In the CIty continue to be admmistered by the Housing
Authonty (RA) of Los Angeles County. The County HA encourages tenants to participate in the
identificatIon of improvements to the design or operatIon of each project to improve the.hving
environment
Accordmg to the County HA, rehabilitation improvements have recently been made to wuts
in the Ocean Park Boulevard project, mcludIng upgradIng of kitchen facilities, interior paInt, and
heatmg systems in all units The County HA IS currently negotiating a contract to provide outside
paint, replacement of iron gates, and other extenor improvements to this property The other
public housmg projects are also in relatIvely good condition Only minor upgrades such as
replacement of garbage disposals and dead bolts are planned for Monica Manor
The County HA has completed the Section 504 Self-EvaluatIon and TransitIon Plan In
comphance With the Amencans With Dlsablhties Act (ADA) Section 504 requires that five
percent of the units m a publiC housing project be fully handIcapped accessible Accordmg to the
TransitIon Plan, all five public housing projects in Santa MOnIca are subject to Section 504
requuements. According to the Transition Plan, bathtub seats and hand-held showers will be
Installed in the partially accessible units in the pubhc housmg projects to meet the accessIbIlity
reqUIrements of HUD.
b.
Section 8
See Section IV(B)(S) t'Housing Authonty".
28
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
c. Shelter Resources
The CIty of Santa Momca supports a comprehensive array of programs to asSISt homeless
mdlviduals and fanulies m securing permanent housmg and employment. These programs are
offered withm five fundamental components. 1) Outreach/Emergency Services, 2) Emergency
Shelter, 3) TranSItional Housmg, 4) Permanent HOUSIng (Incluchng supportIve housmg), and 5)
Case Management and Supportive ServIces (incluchng employment, mental health counseling, etc.)
ThIS comprehenSIve approach to addressing the needs of homeless individuals IS predicated on the
understandmg that homelessness IS not caused merely by lack of shelter, but also mvolves a vanety
of underlymg unmet needs . phYSICal, economic, and social Below IS a summary of the
emer~encv and transItional shelter programs available In Santa Monica only The CIty supports
a number of other homeless supportive service programs that are not listed below:
.
.
.
.
-
aty Funded Shelter Prognuns:
Emergency Motel Voucher Program - The CIty of Santa MOnica has a hmlted number of motel
vouchers (365 vouchers per year) to asSIst homeless mdividuals and VIctims of violence on an
emergency, one-time basis only
.
Salvatton Army - SAMOSHEL Emergency Shelter - Provides mghtly emergency shelter and
supportive services to 450 unduplicated homeless indIviduals annually.
.
.
29
.
.
Ocean Park CommunIty Center (OPCC) - Sojourn Shelter for Battered Women - Provides 4-6
weeks of emergency shelter servmg approximately 375 unduplicated battered women and theIr .
children annually.
.
opec - Daybreak Shelter - Provides a IS-bed tranSItIOnal housing program serving approximately
60 unduplicated homeless mentally ill women annually.
.
oPCC - Turning Point Shelter - Provides a 55-bed translttonal housmg program servmg
approximately 300 unduplicated homeless adult men and women annuaIly.
.
Upward Bound - currently under development, this project Will provide 22 transitional housing
.
beds for homeless famihes Wlth chlldren. This project is arltlcipated to be completed by the
.
Summer of 1997
New DaectlOns - currently under development, thiS project will provide 156 beds of emergency, .
tranSItiOnal, and permanent housmg to homeless veterans This project IS antIcipated to be
completed by the Spring of 1997
.
Non-Oty FWlded Shelter Programs:
Cold Weather Shelter Program - This program is a seasonal program operated 70 days out of the .
year by the County of Los Angeles. In FY 1995-96, this program served approximately 2,500
unduplicated homeless individuals on the Westside, a majority of which came from the City of
.
30
.
.
.
Santa Momca Homeless individuals are sheltered nightly from approXimately mid-November
through mld-~.larch at the National Guard Armones located in West Los Angeles and Culver City
.
SunlIght Mission - Provides 100 beds of emergency shelter serving apprmamately 300 unduphcated
homeless individuals annually
.
BIble Tabernacle - Provides 44 beds of emergency shelter serving approximately 75 unduphcated
homeless mdlviduals annually.
.
PATH ~ Provides 32 beds of emergency shelter servmg approximately 350 unduplicated homeless
indiViduals annually.
.
LIEU-CAP - Provides 30 beds of emergency shelter and 44 beds of transitIOnal hOUSIng serving
approXImately 425 unduphcated homeless indiVIduals annually
.
CLARE FoundatIon - Provides 24 beds of emergency and SOCIal model recovery shelter beds
servmg approXimately 100 unduplicated homeless indIviduals annually.
.
.
d. Tenant OwnenhiD Ri2hts Charter Amendment
TORCA, adopted in 1984, staffs a mechanism whereby low income tenants may become
home owners by purchasing their unIts. TORCA permitted the conversion of rental units to
condominiums if two-thirds or more of the buildingts tenants agree to the conversion and one-half
.
31
.
.
or more Intend to buy their umts. TORCA also mcludes a loan program which IS funded through
a conversion tax Loans are offered to quahfied purchasing tenants July 1,1996 was the last date .
__ '1-.,0 -~ -J.~ ........
that new TORCA conversion applications were accepted for filing However,loans contmue to be
made to quahfied applicants.
.
e. Con2rt'!!ate Care
There are 21 pnvate congregate care facilities 10 Santa Monica includmg nursing homes, .
convalescent homes and board and care homes. These range from faclltues admInIstered by
religlOus organizations to private, for-profit bUSInesses Some are hmIted to specifie target
populations such as seniors or people WIth mental dIsabIlItIes. They are generally not affordable
.
to lower income householdslindivlduals
AdditIOnally, there are 4 pnvate retIrement facIltties m Santa Monica These are also not
.
affordable to lower Income householdslindlvlduals
f. Accessible Housine
.
A large percentage of mdlviduals with disabilIties receive their income through social
secunty and/or SOCIal security disability whIch limits them to subsidized or low-income housing
.
The CIty sponsors the Home Access Program to provide accessible housing equipment and minor
modifications for people with physical and/or communication disabihties. The Home Access
Program is administered through a City grant from CDBG fundIng, by a local non-profit agency. .
Westside Center for Independent Living (WCn..). This agency. along with WISE Senior Services,
assists individuals with thsabilities in terms of housing refenals and advocacy. wen.. also
.
32
.
.
.
administers a small State Depeu tment of Rehabihtation grant to address affordable and accessible
housmg through education, training and advocacy
The CIty'S BuildIng and Safety DIvision ensures complIance With the Amencans with
DIsabIlIties Act (ADA) Fan Housmg laws through plan check, site inspectIon and other code
related actIVItIes.
Other special programs such as the Rent Control Registranon Fee Waiver and the City
Utihty Tax Exemption are targeted to low-income seniors and/or indiVIduals With disabIlitIes in
order to prOVide some relIef in terms of basic cost of hving expendItures.
.
.
.
g.
Other
.
The CIty of Santa MOnica actIvely supports the construction ofpubhcIy asSIsted affordable
housmg developments. Table 12 identifies the assisted housing projects in the City of Santa
Monica There are 802 umts of housmg reserved for senior CItizens and 151 for famihes The
remaInder are open to aU family types, and occupancy IS based solely on income.
The City of Santa Monica encourages participation m the design and operanon of affordable
housing projects by assisted-hOUSIng occupants In adchtion. two seats of the City Housmg
CommIssion are designated for indlviduals who currently receIve Section 8 housing asslstance from
the City.
.
.
.
.
33
.
.
Table 12
Inventolj" of Publicly Assisted .
Affordable Housing in Santa Monica
Project/J..ocatioD Total Units Program/Source Year Built
SantaMonic:a Towers
1233 SixthStreet 163 Secuon 202 1964 .
Westm1!'1~ Towers
1112 Seventh Street 285 Section 202 1969
Neilson Villas
3100 Neilson Way 100 HUD msured 1977
Geneva Plaza
1441 21st Street 100 Secuon 202 ]979 .
Barnard Park Villas HUD msuredl
3356 Barnard Way 60 SectIon 8 1981
Ocean Park Villas HUD insured!
2019 & 2219 5th Street 24 Sectton 8 [982
Colorado Place Deve! Agreement .
J450 14th Street 18 Publ1c HsgJLACo 1982
Colorado Place: Deve! Agreement
1855 9th Street 11 Publig HsgJLA Co 1982
Colorado Place Deve! Agreement
2006 20th Street 11 Public Hsg.1I.A Co 1982
2017 -23 20th Street 12 CCSM 1983 .
2625 Kamas Avenue 16 CCSM 1984
724 Pacific Avenue 8 CCSM 1984
2525 Kamas Avenue 20 CCSM 1984
Paseo Del Mar
154]-1551 Ocean Avenue 10 Deve). Agreement 1984 .
175 Ocean Park Blvd 22 Pubhc HsgJLA Co 1985
] 959 Cloverfield 62 CCSM 1985
1843 17th Street 8 CCSM ]985
2302 5th Street 6 I CCSM 1986
]629 Michigan 4 CCSM 1986
193718thStrcet 6 CCSM 1986 .
]827 ]9thStrcet 6 CCSM 1986
1808 17th StR:et 6 CCSM 1986
1943 17th Street 7 CCSM 1987
Co1ondo P1!~
2407 4th Street. 49 Dcvcl. Agrec:mcm 1987 .
Ocean Park 12 12 CCSM 1987
2402 5th Street
2207 6th Street
1917 17th Street 7 CCSM 1987 -
.
.
.
. Table 12 (cent.)
Inventory of Publicly Assuted
Affordable Housing .in Santa Monica
ProjectlLocation Total Units ProgramlSource Year Built
Monica Manor
. 190 1.()7 11 th Street 19 PublIc Hsg /LA Co 1988
1314 18th Street 6 CCSM 1988
1427 Berkeley 7 CC8M 1988
2009-15 Cloverfield 10 CCSM 1988
All l.J.ving for Agmg
. 2323 4th Street 6 CIty-Assisted 1988
Ocean Park 43 Coop 43 CCSM 1989
2121 ArIzona II CC8M 1989
3 Vicente Terrace 25 CCSM 1989
2020-30 Cloverfield 32 CCSM 1989
1038 2nd Street 15 CC8M 1991
. 1952-56 Frank Street S CC8M 1992
Wllsh1re House
1125 3rd Street 72 SecUon 202IRHF 1992
1968 19th Street (Garcia) 7 CCSM 1993
1747 1 Sth Street (Garcia) 7 CCSM 1993
. 1544 Berkeley Street (GarcIa) 9 CC8M 1993
1828 17th Street (Garcia) 7 CCSM 1993
2423 VlrginiaAvenue 12 CCSM 1993
1423 2nd Streel 44 CCSM 1994
1328 2nd Street 36 Step Up 1994
. 1206 Pico Boulevard 26 CCSM 1995
815 Ashland Avenue 4S CCSMfClty Hsg Under
Trust FundJRHCPI Constructlon
Tax Cred1ts 1995
TOTAL l,4n
. ......
CCSM = Community Corporation ofSanla MODica
RHF = Retirement Housing Foundation
Step-Up = Step Up On 5ceoDd
LA Co. =: Los Angeles Comity
. Source: Housing and Rcdeve1opmcntDivisioo, City of SantA Monica, Fcbnwy 19~5.
.
.
m EVALUATION OF JURlSDILTJON'S CURRENT FAm HOUSING LEGAL STATUS
A. Fair Housing Complaints or Compliance Reviews Where the Secntaly Has Issued
a Charge of or Made a Finding of Discrimination
The Secretary has neIther Issued a charge of nor made a finding of discrimination An
examination of fair housmg complaints received in the Fair Housing Unit of the CIty Attorney's
Office is dIscussed in full in Section V.
B. Fair Housing Discrimination Suit Filed by the Department of .1Jstice or Private
Plaintiffs
There are no pendmg fair housmg discnmmatlOn SUItS filed by the Department of Justice
or pnvate plaintiffs.
C. Discussion of Other Fair Housing Concerns or Problems
A major hOUSing concern in Santa Monica is the homeless populatIon. The homeless
population represents all racIal and ethmc groups and mcludes women and children as well as men.
Housmg costs In the Southern California area are some of the most expenSive In the country.
Because of the high costs, it IS often very difficult for homeless indiVIduals to make a transition
back into the rental housing market. Several federal and local programs that aid this particular
segment of our community are discussed in SectIon IV B( 4), "Policies Concerning CommWlity
Development and Housing Activities."
34
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
IV. IDENTIFICATION OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING OIOICE
.
.
A. Private Sector
1. The Sale or RentaJ of Housin!!
The Fair Housing Umt of the Santa Monica City Attorney's Office accepts cornplamts in
the area of sales and rentals of housing The statistics and evaluatIon are explained in detail in
Section V.D. It is notable that during the seven fiscal years covered in the Fair Housing Unit's
report, there have not been any formaI complamts about real estate practices such as steering or
blockbustmg There were no complaints filed regarding any kind of chscnminatory actIOn in the
area of real estate sales There have not been any complaints regarchng deed restrictions. trusts
or lease provisions OffiCIally, there are no "all-adult" apartments m the CIty of Santa Monica,
although there are exempt senior housing and SRO units However. there are bUlldmgs that have
only adults hving in them despite the fact that famihes with children are applying for rental umts
on the open market.
Although there have been a few complaints over the past years involvmg buildings housing
predominately one race or predominately single people, the City's Fair Housing Umt has not been
able to verify any property management firm's or landlord's "occupancy quotas" See Supplemental
testing results in Section V.E, "Supplemental Testing for Discrimination". However, the Fair
Housmg Umt routInely requests that landlords, who are the subject of discrimination complaInts,
bring statistical information with them regarding the racial. marital. ethnic and familial status of
the residents of their buildings when they are asked to attend an office conference
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
.
.
2. Provision of Housjn~ Broke~e Services
.
There have been no complaints to the Falr HOUSIng Umt regarding the exclusIon of
_ ""....-<;:;.,...- ~..........
minority brokers from partiCIpatIng In multIple hstmg servIce and real estate brokers' associations
Accordingly, no reports were received regarding any restricted use of privileges, servIces or .
facihnes by brokers, nor any assignment of brokers and areas by the racial or ethnic compositIon
of census tracts
.
3. Provision of Financin~ Assistance for DwellinEs
.
The Federal Fair Housing Act prohibits specIfic conduct in the area of the provIsion of
.
Housing Brokerage Services and Financial Assistance
Discnminatory Housing Practices that are prohIbited include
1
The unlawful refusal to sell or rent or to negotIate for the sale or rental of a housmg
.
unit.
2 DIscnmmatIon in tenant condluons and privileges and m servIces and facilItIes
.
3. Discnmmatory advertIsements, statements and notices
4 Discnmmatory representations on the availability of dwellings.
5
Blockbusting.
.
6 Discnmination in the provision of brokerage services.
There have not been any complaints made to the Fair Housing Unit regarding blockbusting
.
or discriminatory advertisements, statements and notices. The Fair Housing Unit reviewed local
advertisements for discriminatOIY statements and notices for the period of January through March
.
36
.
.
1996 No dlscrimmatory advertisements were found There have been informal complamts over
.
the years regarding brokers m the rental market who may be engaging in steenng or denial of
rentals to mInorities or other protected classes. DIsabled tenants have complained about services
.
that are not available or not maIntained which have a detnmental impact on their mobilIty Such
complaints have included elevators that were taken out of service rather than being repaired,
accessIble parking spaces that were removed and requests for landlords to make their bwldings
.
more accessible Those complaInts were classified under the category of ADA compl31nts by the
Consumer ProtectIon and Public Rights Umts of the City Attorney's office For more detailed
statIstics on fair housing complaints, see Section V, "Assessment of Current Pubhc and Pnvate Fair
.
-
Housmg Programs and ActiVIties In the JurisdictIon It
DiscrimInatory practices in resldenhal real estate-related transactions that are prohIbited
.
inc1 ude.
1 Dlscnmmatton m the making of loans and In the proVISIOn of other finanCial
assistance
.
2
Discrimmation in the purchasing of loans
3 Discrimination in the terms and conditions for makmg available loans or other
financial assistance.
.
4. Unlawful practIces in the sellIng, brokenng. or appraIsmg of residential real
property.
.
The Fair Housmg Unit has not received any fonnal complaints in the past seven years
involving residential real estate-related transactIons. Only one informal complaint was received
.
37
.
dunng that same period. That mformal complamt involved a real estate agent representing a
mmonty couple who wanted to purchase a condo
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reqwres lenders to dIsclose theIr lendtng
practIces by census tract The HMDA data for the Santa MOnica area is illustrated by the attached
charts The data originates from banks located in the City of Santa Monica Graph A illustrates
the number of applIcations and demals of home purchase and refinance loans by zip code. Graph
B shows the dollar amoWlts of home purchase loan applications and denials by Zip code Graph
C illustrates demal rates and ethniclty by census tract The low number of purchase and refinance
apphcatIons In Zip code 90401 can be attnbuted to the fact that It encompasses a_largely
commerclal area with few residentIal propertIes The low numbers of apphcations overall from
the lenders located in Santa MOnica may be a function of the more frequent use of mortgage
brokers versus tradItional lenders Table 13 Illustrates the average dollar value of apphcatIons and .
denials for home purchase and refinance loans by finanCIal instItutlon in the most recent year
prOVIded by the lender
B. Public Sector
The pohcies and regulations Implemented by the City of Santa Monica promote fair housing
choice within the City's borders The City has a strong commitment to creating hOUSIng
opportunitIes for households with special needs and lower incomes. TIus commitment is
demonstrated by the adoption and enforcement of many policies that advance fair housing
38
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Number of Applications and Denials for Home Purchase and
Refinance Loans by Zip Code, 1995.
140
120
..
.. 100
C
..
0
."
C
..
.. 80
c
0
..
~
Q.
Do. 60
<
-
0
...
..
.0
5 40
i
20
0 I' -
.
90401 90402 90403 90404
Zip Code
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
90405
GRAPH A
C Applications
. Deruals
.
.
.
Dollar Amount of Home Purchase Loan Applications and Denials by
Zip Code, 1995.
.
$15,000
.
520,000
..
~
c;
.. !:I A ppLcab.ons
..
::
C> $15,000 . Deroals
.c; .
l-
.5
...
c
::
0
E
< $10.000
..
~
c;
Q .
55,000
.
so
90401
90402
90403
90404
90405
Zip Code
.
GRAPH B
.
.
.
.
c
~
'"
701702
701701
702202
7016.02
7014.00
7022.01
7023 00
(1 7012 01
::!
;
l:
..
-l 7021 00
;:
~Q.
..
0
::L 7020 00
..
$:l.
Q"
"""
0 701601
..
:I
~
::a 7013 01
"
;;;
7018 02
7018 01
7013 02
7015 01
7012 02
1015.02
7019.00
.
.
.
.
G)
~
>'
"tl
::I::
()
.
.
.
.
.
Demal Rate and % EthRJC
...
o
'#-
I
t>>
o
#.
Co>
o
~
'"
.H
;r!*0
~ ~ 2.
" ~ t.
lOt" 2 ~
.... ;
...
o
'#-
I
<.n
o
'#-
I
0-
o
~
'"
~
*-
o
tD
:::
..
~
-
::=
~
-
t':l
W
~
::s
Do
m
-
:r
:::
..
o.
-
~
tI'"
"<
n
"'
:::
w
c
w
~
n
rr
.
TABLE 13
.
Applications and Deruals for Conventional and Refinancing Loans by Bank, 19~5.~........ '" -
Number Dollar Value (in $1,000)
Applications Denials Denial Rate Applications Denials Denial Rate
American Savings 114 23 20% $34,773 $6,797 20% .
California Federal Bank 75 22 29% $21,449 $7,031 33%
CenFed Bank 15 10 67% $3,564 $2,177 61 %
Coast Federal Bank 65 30 46% $23,122 $9,700 42%
First Federal Bank 59 24 41% $11,126 $5,074 46%
First Professional Bank 1 1 100% $6SO $650 100%
Glendale Federal 27 11 41% $5,075 $1,955 39% .
Santa Moruca Bank 1 0 0% $176 $0 0010
Sanwa Bank 2 0 0% $235 $0 0%
Union Bank 12 0 0010 $4,568 $0 0%
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1. Zonin2 Policies
The City of Santa Monica conscientIously aVOIds the adoption of regulations that would
discriminate dIrectly against households based on sex, race, age, marital status, color, rehglon,
ancestry, sexual orientation. AIDS/HIV, national origin, or disability There are no geographIC
requIrements for affordable or special-needs housing and no maxImum occupancy standards, aside
from those defined in the 1994 Uniform Building Code. adopted for health and safety reasons
Additionally, the City Code does not define a family.
City policIes and regulations that advance fair housmg chOIce are as follows
.
.
.
.
Zoning Ordinance
· Less than 1/3 of the CIty IS zoned for single-famIly or duplex development, and aU
other residentIal zoning categories permIt constructIon of multlple.family housing
.
Multiple-farmly resIdentiaI development is permitted in all of the City's
commercially zoned dIstricts; it is condItionally permItted in the Special Office
CommercIal District (C5) and the Industrial Conservation District (M1)
.
.
.
Consistent with CalIfornia State Law, the City offers up to a 25% density bonus for
the proVlsion oflow- and moderate-income hOUSIng AddItionally. the City permits
up to a 50% density bonus for 100 percent affordable housing projects
.
.
39
.
t
.
The Zoning Ordmance permits by nght domestic VIolence shelters, hospices,
congregate care, semor. semor group. single room occupancy, and transltlonal
housing in all multIple-family zonIng districts. Homeless shelters are permitted with
a ConditionaI Use Permit In the Medium and HIgh Density Multiple Family
Residential DIStrIcts (R3 and R4).
.
The Zoning Ordmance permits domestic violence shelters, hospices, congregate
care, senior. senior group. single room occupancy, and transItional housing in most
commercial and mdustrial zoning dlstnctS. Homeless shelters of less than.55 beds
are permitted by nght; shelters with more than 55 beds require a CondItional Use
PermIt In the CIty'S commercIal and mdustrial zoning districts
· The CIty waives all Plannmg and Zoning fees and expedites Planning and Zomng
Division review for projects that are 100 percent deed-restncted for affordable
hOUSIng.
.
The Zoning Ordmance exempts 100 percent affordable housing projects from
applicable lImits on the number of stones, although requiring that proj ects still meet
applicable height lImits.
· The Zoning Ordinance offers a height bonus of 10 feet for 100 percent affordable
hOUSIng projects in non-residential zones.
40
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
The ZOnIng Admimstrator has discretIOn to grant a 15% variance in front, side, and
rear yard setbacks and to allow an Increase In parcel coverage by up to 10 percent
for projects that comply With California State density bonus guidelines (i e., for
projects of 5 or more units in which at least 20% of units are set asIde for low-
Income households, at least 10% are set aside for very low-income households; or
at least 50% of the units are set aside for seniors)
. The Zoning Ordmance grants parking requirement reductIons to shelters, congregate
care housing, transitional housing, and affordable and senior housing that complies
Wlth State denSity bonus guidehnes, and to reSIdential units deed-restricted for low-
or moderate-mcome households
Fees
.
The CIty reqUIres developers of new commercial office space in excess of 15,000
square feet of addItions in excess of 10,000 square feet to either prOVide low-
income housing or pay an in-lIeu fee. These funds are used In the production of
affordable housing
2. Jnclusionary Housin~
In November 1990, Santa Monica voters approved Proposition R. adding a provision to the
City Charter concerning low and moderate income housing. Proposition R obligates the City
Council to require that on an annual basis not less than thirty percent of all multi.family residential
.
.
.
41
.
housmg newly constructed In the City be permanently affordable to and occupIed by low- and
moderate-mcome households Proposinon R 15 currently Implemented through Chapter 9 28 of the .
Santa Monica Municipal Code. Chapter 928 requIres that new multi-famIly housmg projects
prOVIde low- and moderate-income umts on site, or In certain circumstances, that an in-lieu fee be
.
paJ.d. The monies collected from in-lieu fees are used by the CIty in the production of affordable
housmg umts Proposition R and its implementing ordInance are intended to help meet the
affordable housing needs of the City FaIr housing chOice is facilItated when new housing .
production mcludes units affordable to low- and moderate-income households. In addItion to
promoting the dispersion of affordable units throughout the City. the inclusionary reqwrement
results m the production of mixed-Income developments
3. Rent Control
On Apnl10, 1979, the Santa Momca CIty electorate approved an amendment to the Clty'S
Charter estabhshmg rent control. The stated purpose of this measure was to preserve and protect
the supply of affordable hOUSIng within the Cny. In 1984, the voters reaffirmed their intent when
amendments to the rent control law were again placed before them.
Section 1801 of the Santa Monica City Charter, whICh sets forth the purpose of the law,
recognlzes that Ita growing shortage of housing units ... endanger(s) the pubhc health and welfare
of Santa Monica tenants, especially the poor, minonties, students, young families and semor
citizens" It goes on to state that the "purpose of this Article. ... is to alleviate the hardship caused
by this serious housing shortage by establishing a Rent Control Board empowered to regulate
rentals m the City of Santa Monica ...". The Charter implements these objectives by establishing
42
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
evictIOn controls, controlhng rents, and regulating the removal of rental hOUSing units from the
market
.
The Rent Control Law has been hIghly successful In achieving its primary goal of
preserving the affordable hOUSing stock. As of July 11, 1995, approximately 90% of the City'S
residentIal rental units had rents that were at or below the HUn rent levels of affordabihty to
persons or households with incomes at or below 80% of medIan income Over 80% of the smaller
units, such as singles and one-bedrooms, were affordable at the HUD 60% affordability levels
More than 50% of the stock of larger units, vvith two or three bedrooms, had rents affordable at
the 60% level By preserving the City's affordable housing stock, the Rent Control Law directly
facihtates and promotes fair housing chOIce in the City
.
.
.
4.
Policies Concemin: Community Development and Housin: Activities
.
No admmistrative pohcles were found to impede faIr housmg chOIce. No dIsplacement has
been caused by administratIve policies concernmg communIty development and housing activitIes.
The City does receive several types of fWldmg to meet its hOUSing goals
.
.
a. Federal Pro!:rants
The City of Santa Monica expects to receive flIDding under several federal programs. The
programs and the proposed use of the funds are described below.
.
43
.
.
i. HOME
The HO:ME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program is part of the Cranston/Gonzalez
.. N' r~..... .,..., .,.
.
NatIonal Affordable Housmg Act of 1990 Since HOME's inception, the City has receIved $3
mtlhon, including $615,000 in 1995. These monies are used for new construction of affordable
.
rental housing for very low-income persons. HOME funds have been used in the rehabilitation
of t206 Pico Boulevard, a 26 unit muln-family bwldmg HO:ME fW1ds have als.o been committed
to the Upward Bound transitional project (22 umts) and the New Directlons project (156 beds) on .
the grounds of the West Los Angeles Veterans AdmmlstratIon for Homeless Veterans
ii.
CDBG
.
In FY 1996.97, the CIty of Santa Monica will receIve $1,628,000 m Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) entltlement grant funds This represents a 3.6% reduction over
.
the FY 1995-96 CnBG fundmg level and wIll Impact the CIty'S ability to develop affordable
housmg and prOVIde supportive services to low-mcome Santa Monica residents
.
iii. Rental Assistance
Santa Monica participates In the SectIOn 8 Rental Assistance and Housmg Voucher
.
programs funded by the federal government These are the only programs designed to provide
asSIstance to households to occupy existing privately owned units by supplementing lower mcome
householdst rent payments to make up the cbfference between 30 percent of their income and the .
market rent Section 8 voucher and certificate holders generally find housing in all areas around
the City, both inside and outside areas of minority concentration.
.
44
.
.
.
IV. Rental Rehabilitation Prol:;rant
The City received apprOXImately $551,000 In federal funds from 1987-91 to asSISt private
owners of rental hOUSing (50 percent or more of whIch IS occupIed by low income households) to
rehabilitate their units wlnle maintainmg rents at an affordable level Only $41,000 remams
unobligated. These funds will be spent during FY95-96.
.
.
v.
Section 202 Dousinl for Senior Gtizens
.
This is a federal program where funds are awarded on a competItive basIS to Individual
projects A 72-unit project was completed in 1994 and three other projects (approximately 176
unItS) are in predevelopment This program is partIcularly appropnate for Santa MOnIca because
of the CIty'S large low-mcorne elderly populatIon who are cost-burdened.
.
.
vi. McKinney Act
To the extent that the City or local nonprofit organizations are ehgible for available funds,
applIcatIons will be made for all relevant programs funded through the federal McKInney Act.
Smce, 1993, the CIty has been successful m securing a Shelter Plus Care grant in the amount of
$43 million over a five year period to provide rental assistance to approximately 100 unduplicated
homeless indIviduals annually. AddItionally, m 1995. the CIty receIved a $1.4 million grant over
a three-year period to provide for increased case management and supportive services to
approximately 500 to 750 unduplicated homeless mdividuals annually. The City has also worked
in partnership with other local nonprofit homeless service providers to secure over $6 million in
duect McKinney Act grant funds for homeless shelters and housing development and related
.
.
.
45
.
~
~
supportIve servIces
vii. HOPW A
This federal program proVIdes SectIon 8 certificates for projects which provide housing and
supportive care for residents with mY/AIDS The City will pursue funding and support projects
which meet the needs of the grOWing population of residents with this disease The CIty is
currently working with Project New Hope, a local non-profit, to construct a 25 Unit project in
Santa Monica
.
.
.
.
.
viii. Shelter Plus Care
This federal program provides rental asSIstance to asSist homeless persons to secure housing
and supportIve services The CIty has receIVed a $4.2 mIllIon grant for thIS program m order to .
address the housmg needs of the approxImately 100 homeless indIviduals each year over a five to
ten year penod.
ix. Section 811
Section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act IS a new program
to provide supportive servIces and housmg for people with disabilitIes. This program is
partIcularly appropriate given Santa Monica's older rental housing stock which is frequently not
suited to the needs of disabled residents. The City is currently working with Project New Hope,
a non-profit developer that receives a Section 811 grant from HUD of $2,425,925 for 25 units.
46
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
x. Law Income Housin2; Tax Credits
ThIS federaI program stImulates pnvate investment In the acquisition, rehabIlItatIOn, Of
construction of rental housing for low income persons Investors that proVide capital for affordable
housmg developments receive a dollar-far-dollar wnte-off against theIr taxes.
.
.
b. Non-Federal Public
In addition to federal {wuting, Santa MOnIca has participated in the California Housing
Financmg Agency (CHFA) Revenue Bond Program since 1984 As of December, 1993, 108 UnIts
of rental housmg affordable to lower income households have been constructed
.
.
c. Local Pro2;rams
In addition to these federal and state programs, the CIty has created four local programs
which produce revenues that are dedIcated to the production of affordable housing These
programs are
.
.
i. TORCA
The Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment (TORCA) to the City Charter was
adopted in 1984 to allow the conversion of rental units to ownership if two-thuds or more of the
buildmg's tenants agree to the conversion and one-half or more intend to buy their units In order
to assist low and moderate income tenants to purchase their units. the City established an
ownershIp assistance program to be funded by a tax levied on units that are converted to
condominium ownership. Although TORCA did sunset on July I, 1996, the loan program will
.
.
47
.
continue
A Shared Appreciation Loan Program was establIshed by the City in 1993 Low and
moderate income households that qualify could obtain CIty funding to purchase theIr rental units
as condominiums. Loan amoWlts depend on household income as well as the size and price of the
Wlit Upon sale or transfer, the owner repays the loan and will share any increase in the value of
the property with the CIty. As of April, 1996, the City funded 17 loans and committed to another
2 loans for a total of $1,001,540. This results in a CIty contnbution of about $56,000 per unit The
average sales pnce of asSIsted umts was about $1l4,OOO whIch is affordable to medIan and
moderate income households In June 1992, the citizens of Santa Monica adopted an amendment
to TORCA whIch permIts the CIty to use up to 50 percent of the TORCA fee for development of
affordable housing.
ji. Redevelopment Tax Increment
The City of Santa Monica has established four redevelopment projects areas whIch are
reqUIred under state law to set aside 20 percent of their tax. increment to asSist in the productIon
of affordable housing. The funds have been and will continue to be used for loan asSIstance to
affordable new construction and acquisinon and rehabIlItatIon projects. mc1uding deferred payment
loans and pre-development loans
iii.
Inclusionary Housim~
Please refer to Section IV{B)(2) chscussion of Proposition R
48
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
iv. Office Miti~ation
The CIty has adopted an office development mItIgatIon program WhICh requues developers
of new commercial office space in excess of 15,000 square feet or addItions to eXisting
developments in excess of 10,000 square feet to either provide low income housing or pay an in-
lieu fee Since 1986, an estimated S3,610,359 has been collected in Office Mitigation fees for
housing In addition, sixty-two (62) units in six projects have been constructed to comply with this
program
.
.
.
5. Housin~ Aud10rity
The Santa Monica Housmg Authority (SMHA) admimsters 1077 Section 8 rental asSIstance
certificates and vouchers In addItion, the program also adminIsters a 100 certificate Shelter Plus
Care demonstration program for chsabled homeless clients. Currently there are 3456 clients on the
program's waitIng list Because of the SIze of the list, apphcatIons have not been taken smce 1992
Except In the following cases, selectIon Into the program is made from the WaitIng list. SelectIon
from the waInng list IS made WIthOut regard to race, creed, ancestry, religion, sex, national origIn,
marital status, sexual orientation, dIsability or source of income.
Santa MOnIca Residents who are chsplaced by government action or who qualify for
consideratIon under the EllIS Act are not required to be on the waitmg list. Families who have
received an Ellis Act eviction or are dIsplaced by government chsplacement must qualify as a
whole based on their current living SItuation. Applications will always be open to households in
this category. Within this category first preference will be given to families of veterans and servIce
people.
.
.
.
.
.
49
.
.
All other applIcants are selected from the waiting hst in sequence, based upon the date and
time of their applIcation, using the following rankIng preferences.
.
- ..:.. ......, -.:!--
Santa MOnIca resIdents who qualIfy for anyone of the following2 federal
.
preferences.
Paying 50% of monthly income towards rent and utihties for a minimum of .
ninety-days (actual paid or standard deductIOn for unhnes paid, whichever IS
hIgher),
.
Involuntarily displaced - The follOWIng are considered mvoluntarily displaced'
.
Displacement to aVOId reprisals;
Displacement due to hate cnmes,
DIsplacement by maccessibIlity of umt,
.
DIsplacement due to HUn disposition of a multifamily project.
.
The definition of involuntarily displaced found in 24 CFR Part 882.219(d) shall be
applied to applicants who would be displaced by City-sponsored or CDBG funded
.
2 Federal preferences have been temporarily suspended for the 1996 appropriations year
pursuant to pm96-6(HA), unless the local administratIng agency does not have a new
adminIstrative plan. The Santa Monica Housing Authority had not submitted a new
administrative plan as of July. 1996 Accordingly, the Santa Monica Housing Authority is
stIll using federal preferences.
.
50
.
.
.
rental housmg rehabilitatIon because their post rehabllltation rents exceed 35%
percent of theu Income.
.
Acceptable verification for those mvoluntanly dIsplaced includes a written notIce
of displacement VIctims of domestlc violence, whether actual or threatened, are
considered involuntarily displaced Written confirmation of this sItuation from the
local police department, social services agency. court of competent Jurisdiction.
members of the clergy, physician or a pubhc or pnvate facihty that prOVIdes shelter
or counsehng to VIctims of domestic violence shall serve as verificanon.
.
.
LIVing in substandard housmg
.
Wlthm thIs category asSistance Will be provided in the following order'
.
Santa MOnica residents who are familIes of veterans and servIce people;
.
Other Santa MOnica reSidents;
Non-resident families of veterans and servIce people, - Other non-residents.
.
Residents and non-residents without a federal preference will be assisted only ifno families
with a federal preference are on the waiting lIst Assistance will be provided first to Santa Monica
.
5~
.
resIdents.
For purposes of the Secnon 8 AdmInIstrative Plan,"Santa Monica ResIdent" mcludes
applicants who hve or work full-tIme (36 hours or more per week) within the CIty hmlts, or who
have received a bona fide job offer Within the City limits
Once a family has been approved for rental assistance, the Housing Authority must assist
that famIly first. If suffiCIent funds are not available to house the family, no further applicants may
be subsidized until such tIme as the first family can be assisted. A family will not lose its place
on the waIting list for refusmg one form of asSIstance (Vouchers or CertIficates) if they deSIre to
wait for the other. However, if a family refuses both forms of assistance, the family's name shall
be removed from the waiting hst
IndIVIduals denied a preference will remain on the waIting list, be notified in writmg
regardmg the reason for the determinatIon, and be given ten days to request an Informal .
conference This mformal conference WIll be WIth the SpeCIalist who made the origmal
determmatton
As of May 1996,56% of Section 8 partICIpants are CaucasIan, 18% are Hispanic, 24% are
Afncan American and 2% are Native Amencan, Asian or Pacific Islander. Currently, 37% of
Section 8 participants reside in the 90404 Zip code area, 2']0;0 reSIde in the 90405 zip code area,
20% reside In the 90403 Zip code area, 9% reside in the 90401 Zip code area and 3% reside in the
90402 zip code area. In addition, 4% of Section 8 partIcipants are portables and reSIde in other
CIties and states.
To date, the Section 8 program has been able to consistently maintain a 95% or greater
lease-up rate. This historically high lease.-up rate is at least partIally attributable to the City's Rent
52
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Control Charter Amendment The Charter Amendment exempts Units leased to SectIon 8 tenants
from rent control. Because the FaIr Market Rent (FMR) has been generally higher than the rent
controlled MaxImum Allowable Rent (MAR) levels, there has been an incentive for property
owners to lease units to SectIon 8 tenants. However, lllJD has been reducmg the FM.R at the
same time that the State Legislature has passed a Vacancy DeControl law which allows landlords
to r31se the rent when a vacancy occurs. If HUn continues to reduce the FMR while vacancy
decontrol causes overall rents to rise in Santa Monica, the historical incentive for landlords to rent
to Section 8 chents will erode. The program's lease-up may be reduced as a result.
The Section 8 program actively recruits landlords through a landlord outreach program.
Outreach actlvitJes include a mass malling of 2,000 brochures to landlords, group meetings and
indIVIdual meetmgs Future outreach actlvlties may include advertising the program In local
newspapers and the production and dlstnbution of a Sectlon 8 Videotape AddItional efforts
mclude the development of a deed restncted database which wIll be used to advertise the program
to landlords who have 55 year affordable deed restrictIons on their units In Santa :Monica.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6. Location of PubticaJlr-Assisted HouSinl
In past years, the City has provided financial asSIstance to numerous low-income housing
projects in all areas of the City. Specifically, from 1964 through 1995 there have been 1,464 low-
income units constructed or rehabilitated with non-earthquake public assistance. Approximately
80% or 1,170 of these projects have been in areas other than neighborhoods with a significant
minority population Only 294 low-income units or 20% of the total units have been located in
the three census tracts containing a significant concentration of minorities (referred to generally
.
.
53
.
.ES -;+"0/ 16/79: NM
... . ,
e
e
TENTATIVE
6TH YEAR COMMUtHTY DEVELOPt1ENT BLOCK GRANT SCHEDULE
October 23, 1979
November 2, 1979
November 13, 1979
November/December
Dece~ber 7. 1979
December 19. 1979
December 28, 1979
Janua ry 8, 1980
January 10, 1930
January 11, 1980
January 22, 1980
February 5, 1980
February 15. 1980
March 21, 1980
Approve 6th Year CDBG Application Schedule and set
public hearings - City Council
Advertise Public Hearing on Perfor~ance Assessnent
Public Hearing on Performance Assessment - City
Counc i I
Meet with citizen groups. disseminating information
on CDBG activities. Prepare & distribute Open Letter
froM Mayor, press releases & Idea Statement forms.
Advertise Public Hearing on Community Needs
Public Hearing on Community Needs - Commission On
Older Americans
Advertise Public Hearing on CommunIty Needs
Public ~earing on Community Needs - City Council
Last day to receive Idea Statements
Advertise Publ ic Hearing on Final Application
Public Hearing on Final Application - City Council
Submit Application to clearinghouses
Submit annual Grantee Performance Report
Submit Application to HUD
.
.
.
.
.
c.
"'here There is a Detennination of Unlawful Segregation or Other Housing
Discrimination By a Court ora Finding of Noncompliance by HUD Under1ide VI
of the Ovil Rights Ad of 1964 or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
orWhere the Secretary Has Issued a Cbange Underthe FairHousing Act Regarding
Assisted Housing Wi1hin a Recipient's Jurisdiction, an Analysis of the Actions
Which Could be Taken by the Recipient to Help Remedy the Discriminatory
Condition, Including Actions Involving the Expenditure of Funds are M.1I.d~
A vailable Under lbis Part.
There has not been any determinatIon of unlawful segregation or housmg dIscrimination
by a court nor any finding of noncompliance by HUD However, the City will continue to address
the problems of which it becomes aware by vigorously addressing issues of dlscrimmatIon in its
faIr housing program and through the acttvitles of other departments in the CIty which deal with
hOUSing Issues The City Will continue to educate Its reSidents and those busmesses in the
residential rental and sales markets about the laws pertaimng to faIr housing
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
.
v.
ASSESSMENT OF CURREl'I'T PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FAIR HOUSlNG
PROGRAMS/AcnVlTIES IN mE JURISDIl."nON
.
ANALYSIS OF THE CITY 8 FAIR HOUSING UNIT
A. Organization
The City of Santa Monica is unique in the area of fair housmg enforcement The City has
demonstrated its commitment to the enforcement of fair housing law by having an in-house fair
housing unit Accordingly, the Crty does not have to hIre outside agencIes to screen and investigate
complaints. The Fair Housmg Umt for the City of Santa Monica is a part of the City Attorney's
Office It IS staffed by a full-time attorney, a falI housmg specialist and a bilingual community
liaIson The Una mamtains a 24-hour Spanish language hothne.
.
.
.
.
B. The Processin2 and Resolution of Complaints
The FaIr Housmg Unit takes complaints mvolving housing dlscrimmanon, lock-outs, utihty
shut-offs and tenant harassment Many telephone mquines are received during the course of a day
concerning a number of housing issues Frequently, these inqUIries are resolved by providing
genera1landJord-tenant information, sendmg out wntten matenals in the mall or making referrals
to other agencies. All written complaints submItted in person or through the mail are reviewed
by the staff The mitial screening of the complaints is conducted by the fair housing specialISt.
H the complainant is Spanish-speaking, the bIlingual community liaison will conduct the screening
of the complaint.
.
.
.
.
56
.
.
.
Complainants In dlscnmmation cases are encouraged to submit written complaints as soon
as possIble They are told that the sooner a written complaint IS received, the more quickly the
Fair Housing Umt will be able to Investigate the complaint Before any investigation can begin,
the Unit must receIve a written complamt whIch IS executed under penalty of perjury.
.
.
1. Complaint review process
When a discrimination complaint is receIved by the Fair Housing Unit, the name of the
owner of the property and hIS or her address for service IS verified. If the rental unit In question
is a rent controlled unit, thiS mformatlon is obtained from the Rent Control Department of the Cay.
\\7JIere the unIt in quesnon is exempt from the rent control laws, other sources are utilized When
the complamt alleges some form of unlawful dIscriminatIOn that may be aCtlonable, complainants
are adVIsed that the Fair Housing Unit IS part of a public agency and as such it cannot represent
them as mdividuals in any subsequent legal actIon Complainants are encouraged to seek private
counsel if they are interested in purSUIng pnvate legal remedies It is explained to the individual
that any legal actIon filed by the Umt will be brought on behalf of the People of the State of
Califonua and that he or she will be a witness for the People. The goal of the Unit initIally ",ill
be to try to obtaIn the rental unit or apartment for the VIctim of the discrimInatIon If they are
otherwise qualIfied apphcants.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2. Fur1her Inves1ila1ion of die Complainu
After the complaint has been received, the subject of the complaint will be tested.
Sometimes it may just be a matter of telephoning the landlord or manager, giving an informational
57
.
Mayor and Clty Councll
-~-
June 28, 1983
allocated to NAPP to provide part-tlme stafflng support for
the distributlon of food to low-income lndlvlduals. ThlS alloca-
tion should be made contlngent on its use for direct serVlce staff
and not for admlnlstratlve overhead and expenses.
Fiscal Impact
These recommendations do not result in an addltlonal lncrease ln
approprlatlon from the General Fund. The fo1lowlng approprlatlons
have prevlous1y been made by the Clty Councll, in the context of the
1983-84 3udget, for support of these programs:
Vitale Gllpln Reserves
CDBG Jobs Bill
$39,567
21,633
$61,200
Recommended allocatlons are as follows:
OPCC Homeless ProJect
OPCC Shelter Renov.
Westslde Food Bank
KAPP Food Pantry
Adcltlona1 Funds Needed:
Addlt. Vitale Gllpln
GRS Interest Income
Recommendations
$39,567
20/UOO
24,158
4,200
$87,925
26/725
20/000
6/725
Clty staff recommends that the City Council (1) transfer $20/000 from
prevlolls1yapproprlatedVltala-Gllplnreserves,lncluded In ~he Redevelop-
ment Agency budget, to the Emergency Food and Shelter Fund (Communlty
approprlate an additlonal $6,725
and Neighborhood Services budget); (2)
to Communlty SerVlces proJects from General Revenue Sharlng lnterest
lncorne to the Communlty SerVlce ProJect budget; and (3) allocate
funds to OPCC ln the amount of $59,567, Westside Food Bank In the
amount of $24,158 and NAPP In the amount of $4,200 for lmplementatlon
.
.
When informaI resolutIon has failed and the complaint and testing results are strong, a
decision may be made to litIgate Because the FaIr Housmg Unit IS part of the City Attorney's
Office, there is no tIme lost bnngmg an outside attorney up to date in order to facihtate legal
action The full-time attorney who heads the Unit w1l1 have already been involved in the case
along with the FaIT Housing SpecialIst The Unit has the ability to mobIlize quickly in cases
where litIgatIon IS appropriate
The imtiallitigation step is to make an applIcation for a Temporary Restraining Order and
PrelIminary Injunction and to file a CIvil action for violation of the Unfair Business
PracnceslUnfair CompetItion statute The Umt has successfully resolved dtscriminanon matters
in these lav.--suits A permanent injunctIon IS sought as well as CIVIl penalties and the costs of
prosecutIon The Umt seeks to have the landlord offer the umt in question or the next available
umt to the complaining prospective tenant In the case where the tenant is no longer mterested in
obtaining a Unit on the premises, the landlord IS asked to rent the next aVaIlable umt to a person
in the same or a similar class as the complainant
.
.
.
.
.
.
C. Community Outreach and Education
Community outreach and education are a vital part of the Fair Housing Unit's mission. The
full-time bilingual Community Llalson engages in outreach actIVIties dunng the regular course of
her job She doubles as an outreach worker to all members of the community. She makes
appearances at various community meetings and workshops to speak and to distribute information
The Unit has produced its own brochures 1ll English and Spanish. It also distributes
informational brochures produced by HUD, the Fair Housing Information Clearinghouse. and the
.
.
59
.
1
0)
...
3
4
5
6
,..
(
8
9
10
126
(8) Section 396(a) (42 D.S.C. 2S0b-8(a)) is
amended by striking out '~section 390(b)(5Y~ and msert-
mg in lieu thereof "section 489(b)(5)".
(9) Section 397(a) (42 U.S.C. 280b-9(a)) is
l1.mended by striking out "section 390~b)(6)" and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "section 489(b)(6)" .
(10) Sections 390 through 399 are redesignated
as sections 489 through 498, respectively.
STUDY OF PERTUSSIS VA.CCINES
SEC. 5. (a) The Director of the National Institutes of
11 Health, in consultation with the Directors of the ~ ational
12 Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the 5a-
13 clonal Institute of .Allergy and Infectious Diseases~ and the
14 ~ational Tn~titute of Neurological and Communicative Disor-
15 ders and Stroke and with organizations of parents concerned
16 with the safety and effectiveness of pertussis vaccines~ shall
17 conduct a study of the safety and effectiveness of pertussis
18 vaccines used in the United States and of the comparative
19 safety and effectiveness of pertussis vaccines not being used
20 in the "United States. The Director of the National Institutes
21 of Health shall where appropriate request the Food and Drug
22 Administration and the Center for Disease Control to con-
23 duct parts of the study.
24 (b)(l) The Director of the National Institutes of Health
25 shall complete the study prescribed by subsection (a) and
IlK 2350 IH
.
1. Fonnal HODsin:; Complaints
.
Fiscal Year 1988~89 Total = *89
"'14 complaInts allege dIscrimination on the follOWIng bases.
.
2 - National Origm
8 ~ Race
3 - Children
1 ~ Arbitnuy
.
Fiscal Year 1989-90 Total = *SO
"'IS complamts allege discrimination on the followmg bases:
.
5 - Race
5 - Chtldren
2 - Marital Status
1 - AIds
2 - Sex
.
Fiscal Year 1990~91 Total = *52
'" 11 complaints allege dIscriminatIOn on the following bases.
.
1 - National Ongin
6 - Race
3 - Children
1 - Age
Fiscal Year 1991-92 Total = *31
*6 complaints allege discrimmanon on the followmg bases
.
3 - Children
3 - Marital Status
.
Fiscal Year 1992-93 Total = *28
"'12 complaints allege discnmmation on the following bases:
.
2 - Race
6 - Children
1 - RelIgion
2-Age
1 - Arbitrary
61
.
2 complaints litigated as follows
People v. Charles Fiscus - child discnmmation
People v. Harold PhillIps - racial discrimination
Fiscal Year 1993-94 Total = "'48
"'13 complaints allege chscriminatIon on the following bases:
1 - Race
5 - Children
1 - Mantal Status
1 - Age
4 - Disability
1 - Sexual Orientation
Fiscal Year 1994-95 Total = *21
*3 of the 21 complaints filed allege discrimination on the followmg bases:
2 - Cluldren
1 - Marital Status
Fiscal Year 1995-96" Total = *25
"'7 of the 25 complaints filed allege dlscrimmation on the followmg bases'
4 - Children
1 - Race
2 - DISabihty
-As of May 20, 1996
2. Infonnal Housin2" Complaints
Fiscal Year 1988-89
Fiscal Year 1993-94
English 250 Enghsh 181
Spanish 228 Spanish 193
Fiscal Year 1989-90 Fiscal Year 1994-95
English 178 English 103
SpanIsh 240 Spanish 70( est. only)
62
.
.
-' .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fiscal Year 1990-91 Fiscal Year 1995-96
. English 240 Enghsh 73
Spanish 200 SpanIsh 36
Fiscal Year 1991-92
. English 279
Spanish 120
Fiscal Year 1992-93
. English 123
Spanish 230
.
E. Supplemental Testina: for Discrimination
As illustrated in the above sectiOns, the Fair Housing Unit consistently tests for
discrimination when complaInts are receIved In the City Attorney's Office Due to the range of
.
issues In this study, the Umt coordmated a limited number of fair housing audits, with the Fair
HOUSing Opportunines Center providmg the testers. The tests were conducted from mid-June
.
through mid-August of 1994.
Among the issues to take into account In the analysis of the assessment is that very few
vacancIes were advertised after the "Northridge " earthquake Under "normal" circumstances, the
.
rental market in Santa Monica can be very limited. However, many Santa Monica rental units were
damaged in the earthquake that occurred on January 17, 1994 and hundreds of tenants were
.
displaced Efforts were made by City agencies, disaster relief agencies and local landlords to
provide housing for the displaced tenants.
Subjects for the audit were selected by past complaints received by the Fair Housing Unit.
.
The subjects of the tests were broker services, rental units and one management company The
63
.
broker services were tested for dlscnminatlon m the areas of physical disability, familial status and
race. Rental units were tested In the areas of race and physical chsability. The one management
company was tested in the area of famihal status.
For the realty company tested, none of the tests showed any eVIdence of dIscrimination at
the pre-application stage. There may be discrimmatIon at the application stage of the rental
.
.
.
transactJon
After reVIeWing the realtor's information sheet describing servIces, there may be a .
possibilIty that the realty company accepts owners' hstings who have a preference With regard to
race, famihal status, etc
In testIng rental uOlts where there had been pnor reports of dlscrimmatlOn, the follOWing
results were found.
*There was one apartment complex agent that did not show the disabled tester an apartment
unit because it was not accessible for a wheelchair, yet they showed the abled tester the
unit
.One buildmg agent told the Afncan American tester that there was only one vacancy. The
Caucasian tester was told of a vacancy that was coming up in eight days Both testers saw
the same agent.
*In another race audit. one agent mentioned that the apaJ. liuent was more comfortable for
a mamed couple than for a roommate situation.
64
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*In the testing of the management company, three tests were done on familIal status They
were all treated the same It is notable that the management company only had two hstmgs
available at that tIme
.
.
ANALYSIS OF 11l1!.~ HOUSING COMMISSION
A. Organization
The Housing Commission is compnsed of seven Santa Monica reSIdents, none of whom
can hold any paid office or employment 10 the Crty government FIVe Commission members serve
four-year terms. Two CommIssIOn members must be partIcIpants in a Housing Authority Section
8 Program, and serve two-year terms One of the Section 8 Program partIcipants must also be 62
years of age or older.
The Housing CommiSSIon was established m 1976 pursuant to Santa MOnica Ordinance
Number 1168 (CCS). Section 34291 of the CalIfornia Health and Safety Code, and Santa MOnica
MuniCIpal Code Section 1000 to serve as the advisory body to the Housmg Authonty. State law
requires the establIshment of a Housing CommissIon when the local legislative body serves as the
Housmg Authonty. The Housmg Authority in the CIty of Santa MOnIca is its City Council The
purpose of the HOUSIng CommIssIon is to advise the Housmg Authority on the policies, programs
and projects it implements, and to represent both participants in Housing Authority programs and
the community-at-large.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
.
.
B. Responsibilities
The Housing Authonty of the City of Santa Momca is the recipient of federal funds for the
SectIon 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program It has the capacity to provide rental subsidies
to 1,077 households. The Commission is responsIble for mOnitoring and evaluating the SectIOn
8 Program. Additionally, the CommissIon has reviewed and developed recommendations for the
Housmg Authority on numerous housing programs and polICIes, includIng the Community
Development Block Grant Program. and the Housing Element. The Housing CommIssion has been .
.
.
involved in revieWing all phases of asSIsted housmg development proJ ects, Includmg tenant
selection pohcies and design features.
.
VL COl\;CLUSIONS AND RECOl\IMENDATIONS
The results of the study illustrate that there are few impediments to faIr housmg choice in .
the City of Santa Monica The only identIfied impediments are dIscrimination against children
in the rental market and possible steering and screening of minonty tenants by real estate brokers
It IS recommended that the City take the followmg actIons to address the impedIments.
a The City will make an effort to educate landlords about the problem
of d1scriminallon against children and encourage them to rent to more families.
b. The City will contact the real estate community and educate them on
the necessity of ensuring that theIr practices meet the objectives of the fair housing laws.
c. The City is in the process of updating its Housing Element, a housing
policy document required by California state law As part of this process, the City is seeking to
develop programs and policies that will support the construction and rehabilitation of larger and
.
.
.
.
66
.
.
.
affordable dwelhng units to some famihes
The City is very pro-actIve In the enforcement of the Falr Housmg laws There are certain
market-driven factors that cannot be controlled, such as the prices of single-family dwellings and
condommiums, which may affect housing affordabihty for lower-income families However, the
areas m whIch the CIty can influence the availability ofhousmg, significant strides are being made.
The plans for future low-mcome housing projects are very extensive.
The CIty of Santa Monica has already taken aggressive steps to address the issues of
impediments to fair housing by ImplementIng policies that encourage the development of low-cost
housing Its planning and zoning policies exempt low and moderately priced housing units from
numerous local regulations
Rent Control has preserved the stock of low- to moderately-priced rental units in the area
Programs are in place to ensure that more affordable hOUSIng will be forthcoming City servIces
are equally available to all reSIdents of the CIty There are no barriers to the equal delivery of
City ServIces across racial, ethnic, or economic groups Although the minority population IS
primanly located in one area of the City, there appear to be no City policies that restrict minonty
movement into other areas, and no pubhc sector policies that steer minonties into any particular
area. The most significant factor IS the high number of rentals in the "Pi co-Area" and the high
market price of single family homes in the City.
Santa Monicats commitment to the enforcement of fair housing laws and educating the
commWlity has been demonstrated by the creation of its in-house Fair Housing Unit in the City
Attorney's Office. The Fair Housing unit continues to aggressively educate the public about the fair
housing laws. As the real estate market in the area changes, it will be closely monitored by the
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
.
Fair Housing Umt over the next few years for any patterns and practices which Impede fau
housmg choice Copies of the completed 1996 Assessment ofImpedlments t~ F ~r HOl.lSi!lg Choice
in the City of Santa Monica will be made available to public officials and members of the
community
vn COMMENTS FROM mE PUBliC, BOARDS AND COMMISSION AND JOINT
WORKING GROUP
The following attachments contain written comments submItted by members of the public
and summaries of comments from Boards and CommIssions and the Joint Community Working
Group The City carefully reVIewed and dIscussed all comments submitted in writing and those
expressed during publIc meetmgs and heanngs Those groups and individuals submitting written
comments receIved wntten acknowledgment of their contnbutlons.
Some of the comments submitted and Issues discussed by the various groups have been
addressed in the assessment Many comments were not directly related to fair hOUSing
Accordmgly, those comments and suggestions could not be incorporated into the assessment.
68
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
June ~2, 199& scheduled meeting with the commission on status of
Women was cancelled due to lack of a quorum to hold a meeting.
.
RENT CO~TROL BOARD
June 13, 1996 Rent control Board Heeting. Snmmary of discussion
on the assessment.
.
.
Co~ments were made regarding page 23 of the draft that
referred to housing in need of rehabilitation or replacement (as
referred to on pages 20-21). Questions were raised with
reference to the number of IIsubstandard conditions" in the
housing units. Some discussion was held regarding whether or not
the number of substandard units included some apartments that
were only lacking in complete plumbing or complete kitchens
(bachelor or efficiency units) versus the existence of
habitability problems with the units.
Questions were also raised regarding the lack of information
regarding older members of the population. specifically one
commissioner wanted to know about housing needs with reference to
those 85 years old and above during the 1980 through 1990 census
period. Concerns were raised as to the lack of affordable
congregate care housing. Racial demographics were questioned
regarding one or two census tracts. Additionally, questions were
raised about single room occupancy units (BRO) and whether or not
they are substandard under HOD definitions.
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
COMMISSION ON OLDER AMERICANS
June 19, 1996 - commission on O~der Americans Heeting. sl1~~ary
of discussion on the assessment.
.
There was a reference to pages 56 and 57 where it was stated
that 37% of section 8 participants reside in the 90401 zip code
area. That was pointed out as being incorrect. The correct zip
code for that particular group of people is 90404. There were
questions raised in regards to the federal program that provides
Section 8 certificates for housing and supportive care for
residents with HIV and AIDS. specifically, the concern was
whether or not there was sufficient outreach for seniors with
AIDS or HIV. A suggestion was made that the Housing Commission
should contact the Commission on Older Americans regarding low
income housing for the elderly before proposals are put into
motion.
other commission members had questioned findings regarding
discrimination against families. Their concern involved the cost
of water in the City of Santa Monica. It was their position that
by renting to families, more water would be used thereby raising
the landlord's costs. Additionally, because rent control limits
the amount of rent that can be charged, they felt that the
discrimination against families was more a function of Rent
Control and not an act of discrimination against children. There
was a suggestion that the City should offer inducements to
landlords to rent to families. It was also suggested that
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
.
.
.
because of the higher rents resulting from earthquake repair
costs from the 1994 quake that there should be rent subsidies to
low income tenants.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 1996 - Planning Commission Heeting. summary of the
discussion on the assessment.
.
.
One comment was that accessory units (or grandmother units)
should be allowed in the city of Santa Monica. It was suggested
that the City's policy of not allowing accessory units is an
impediment to fair housing. There was also a comment about page
50 regarding the California Housing Finance Agency Review Bond
Program, where the draft report stated "funding for this program
is in question due to changes in tax laws and financial
difficulties." One commissioner stated that these funds are not
in question.
A question was raised with reference to the number of units
that are available to families and whether or not we knew exactly
how many units would be suitable for families in the city. The
commissioners were referred to the housing element report that
will be out later this year to address the housing stock issues.
Another commissioner co~~~nted that there have been a large
number of SRO's added over the last few years.
.
.
.
.
.
3
.
.
HOUSING COMMISSION
June 20, 1996 - Housing Commission Meeting. Summary ~~ ~~e
discussion on the assessment.
.
.
This was the date that a public hearing was set. There was
not a sufficient number of commissioners to hold a public
hearing. However, a presentation on the assessment was made to
the Housing commission. Once again the zip code issue on page 56
was brought to our attention. Additionally, questions were
raised as to Table 12 in the draft report and whether or not we
should list the year the property was purchased versus the year
it was built. It was suggested that we place census tract
information on housing pictorially at least for the Pico
Neighborhood to further illustrate where low income housing is
located. Another commissioner also requested statistics on
vacancy and turnover and questioned whether the availability of
units would have an effect on fair housing in the city.
Additionally, there were questions of over crowding, finding
funds for families and obtaining trust fund properties for
families.
.
.
.
.
.
SOCIAL SERVICE COMMISSION
June 24, 1996 Social service Commission Keating. Summary of the
discussion on the assessment.
.
.
4
.
.
.
A public hearing was set for this date and was held.
Comments from the commissioners and the pUblic were taken. The
Social services committee said it may draft a letter to send to
city council regarding possible impediments to fair housing with
reference to families. An organization named Side By Side
presented a document with their comments on the assessment. Many
of their comments involved dissatisfaction with the section 8
program, its limitations, its requirements and the waiting list.
The organization represents homeless individuals in the city.
A question was raised as to whether or not Section 8
participants could be turned down because of bad credit when they
had a Section S certificate. They were informed that bad credit
was a legal basis for denial of an apartment and it was not
considered illegal discrimination. They were invited to come to
the Consumer Protection Unit of the City Attorney's office and
obtain information on obtaining a credit report and clearing up
their credit histories. The Consumer Protection unit
Representative stated that the unit would work with the section 8
office in helping to educate Section 8 recipients in this area.
Additionally, comments were made that Section 8 was not posting
enough ads regarding available Section 8 units. It was also
suggested that there should be more recruiting for landlords to
participate in the section 8 program.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
.
.
JOZNT MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP AND THE CITY OF
.
... ;.......
SANTA MONICA INTER-DEPARTMENTAL WORKING GROUP
Hay ~, 1996 - Summary of the discussions.
.
The meeting was held at the Ken Edwards Center with seven
representatives from the City of Santa Monica and nine
representatives from the community. Introduction of all the
.
participants were made on the record. Kimery A. Shelton, Deputy
City Attorney, explained the purpose of the Assessment of
.
Impediments ("A.I."), defined the relevant terms used in the A.I.
.
and announced future meeting dates and deadlines.
Julie Johnson of the Human Services Division explained how
the A.I. relates to the consolidated plan. Johana GUllick, of
.
the Human Services Housing Division, discussed community
development issues. A discussion was held regarding possible
problems with the real estate community. Anita Cohen of the Los
Angeles Association of Realtors stated she would be interested in
.
working with local government to address problems in the real
estate market.
.
Kathy Jensen of the Clare Foundation discussed the
difficulty of locating an apartment in Santa Monica. She
specifically mentioned a person holding a Section 8 certificate
that was having a problem. Johana Gullick explained how Section
8 works.
.
Two of the community representatives requested copies of he
BUD regulations. They were told that they would be sent to them.
.
6
.
.
.
There was a discussion of the various locations and times of the
meetings of th~ Boards and commissions. The meeting was
adjourned.
.
.
JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP AND THE CITY OF
SANTA MONiCA INTER-DEPARTMENTAL WORKING GROUP
June 26, 1996 - Summary of -the discussions.
.
The meeting was held at the Ken Edwards Center with six
representatives from the City of Santa Monica and three
representatives from the community. Introductions of all the
participants were made on the record. Kimery A. Shelton, Deputy
City Attorney, chaired the meeting. She reported on the
discussions and comments on the A.I. from the City Boards and
commissions.
Amy Anderson of the Planning and Zoning Department addressed
the issue of accessory units. Tracy Condon of the Rent Control
Department explained that they cannot calculate the total numbers
of apartment vacancies throughout the City.
Ms. Shelton also discussed the written comments (on the
A.I.) that had been submitted by members of the public. The
working group was apprised of the deadlines for the A.I. by Ms.
Shelton. The meeting was adjourned.
.
.
.
.
.
:memos\kas\boards
7
.
I.
.j
.Side by Side
.
.,
a community partnership
P.o. Box 3622. Santa Monica, CA 90408
(310) 289.7446
Fair Housing Unit
Santa Monica City Attorney's Office
1685 Main Street, Room 310
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 458-8364 or (310) 458-8630
Fax: (310) 395-6727
.
.
Re: Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing Choices
Slde try Side has found mare than the nvo identified impedimenrs thcu were listed in the
Assessment. that keeps seniors, single families. the disabled, women and low/non.income
people from obtaining fair housing and services.
.
We believe that the reason the Clty has not defined these impediments as pan of the
Fair Housing Unit's Assessment is because education programs and materials are nor direaed
toward the populace that use these resources. nor is there an effective mediation/grievance
stnlcture. When we questioned the population of poor and homeless people. not one person
could say that they had heard oftke Fair Housing Unit and they were all unaware that there
was any grievance structure in place. For this reason alone we assen that the City's current
Fair Housing services are not satisfactory. The City can improve upon its commitment to farr
housing by the immediate investlgatzon of our findings.
.
.
Our jindmgs include:
I. Impediments Identified in Shelter Provisions
.
1. Insufficient Number of Shelter Bed OpportUnities:
a) What is available is exacerbated by prohibition of sleeping in parks and public
spaces, forcing women and children out of the relative safety of patrolled publIc
spaces. (Discrimination: Gender)
.
b) The RAND Corporation estimates that approximately 1,400 people can be found
sleeping on the streets of Santa Monica on any given night. SAMOSHEL only
provides emergency shelter beds for 100. (30% or 420) of those 1,400 are women.
Of the emergency beds provided there are only 47 City funded year round
emergency shelter beds available to them. The shortage of emergency shelter beds
is endangering the lives of every citizen of this community by forcing each person
to sleep in parks and public spaces as their only alternative for a safe place to sleep.
(Discrimination: Economic) Citizens who forced to sleep in public spaces are
being fined up to $500 or imprisoned up to six months in jail or both for being
denied access to a city-funded shelter bed.
.
.
Identification of Impairments to Fair Housing Choice
6/24/96
pg. 1
.
f
t
1
~zue oy JlUt:
a commumry paTlnenfUp
.
(I Impediments Identified in Shelter Provisions conL)
.
c) History of complaints against Cold Weather Shelters regarding treallnent and
physical safety of women (Discrimination: Gender) as well as many reports of
health code violations.
.
d) Inclusion of specifically Christian missions as shelter sources, despite their history
of their environment~s being unwelcoming to those of non-Christian beliefs
(Discrimination: Religion) as well as their history of abusive conditions~ reports
of fraudulent activities and unfair practices.
.
e) Shelter requirements have definable policies that are non-supportive which hinder
clients from obtaining fair housing choices. Clients are held accountable and are
ejected out of programs for lack of Section 8 and low income housing
opportunities. Shelter time requirements hinder clients from succeeding in securing
available housing opportUnities. Shelters often do not identify or give attention to
clients wilh special limitations (i.e. lack of adequate qualifications or disabilities)
that are not being considered in their case management process. There are also
allegations of internal racial, religious, gender and sexual harassment issues that are
not being addressed by agencies. There are also complaints of staff misconduct that
are not being addressed by the City or agencies. (Discrimination: Racial,
Religion, Disability, Family Status, Sexual Harassment)
.
.
2.
MultI-Dimensional Needs of the Poor are Not Being Identified
a) Persons with limited income who do not qualify for avallable programs are not
bemg identified. There are no programs available to address their needs.
.
b) Persons who are of non-income status are not being identified and there are no
programs to address their needs to get them off the streets and into housing.
(Discrimination: Disabilities)
.
c) The Assessments stated action to address the problem of discrimination against
children and families is not an effective action to alleviate this problem.
.
d) Interim program is needed to waive Public Transportation costs for individuals who
are denied access to social services because waiting lists for programs are full.
Transportation costs are an impediment to persons of non-income seeking fair
housing choices from the streets. (Solution)
.
.
Identification of Impairments to Fair HOl/sing Choice
6/24/96
pg. 2
~ . ., -
- -. .......-- ..
-
.Side by Side
a community partnership
.
II. Impediments Identified in the Section 8 Program
II A. AGENCIES
.
.. "T.... ...... ~
1. POLICY
a) Agencies require the Section 8 recipients, who are often the elderly and the
disabled, to find their own apal Lments and none are located in Santa
Monica. Often the apartments offered are inaccessible to the elderly. A 90
year old woman had only two apartment choices that were both upstairs, she
can't make it upstairs and staff declined her certificate rather than to assist
her to find an accessible apamnent. On the other side of the coin, landlords
may not tell you this but they prefer to rent to senior citizens because
seniors receive a lifetime Section 8 certificate. (Discrimination: Age)
.
.
b) Not every shelter distributes Section 8 certificates. SAMOSHEL's clients
must go to outside agencies, thereby doubling the clients workload and
doubling the number of people a client has to pursue and go through to
adhere to shelter residency requirements. Some agencies funded by the City
provide Section 8 Certificates. some of them don't. Agencies do not
provide certificates for individuals who are not assigned in an internal
program. Section 8 cenificates are also inaccessible to the person on the
street. (Example of Public Safety Initiative Discriminatory Violation)
.
.
c) Timelines often cut down the search time for a client to adequately find
housing and keep their Section 8 cenificate. When expelled, clients have no
referral guides as to where they can go for help.
.
d) Agencies, have client save their own money. agency gives you the list, but
do not provide support in helping people go through listst clients are on
their own. Some counselors are not weJI versed in the Section 8 process
and often give misinfonnation.
.
2. STAFF COMPLAINTS
e) Consistent reports of mistreatment and preferential treatment of clients by
certain staff members remain uninvestigated and unresolved.
o Reports of "Scare Tacticsft being used by staff who are assigned to social
work position who are not qualified counselors.
g) U nresol ved or unidentified grievances result in the client being forced back
out on the streets with no support or no alternatives.
.
.
Identification of Impairments to Fair Housing Choice
6/24/96
'-
.
pg. 3
'"
.
Side by Side
a community parlnership
(II. Impediments Identified in the Section 8 Program cont.)
.
II B. HUn
1. 1992-1996 is a four year wait for section 8 certificates without interim provision for
shelter, so as to effectively invalidate program's stated intent.
.
.
a) There are no reports of HUD contacting anyone this list to let them
know of their status four years after their original application.
b) Is the infonnation on these four year old applications valid anymore?
c) Is this list being granted Section 8 certificates?
d) Does a homeless person living in Santa Monica but without a
"permanent" local address qualify for Section 8. If they do, how are they
contacted?
e) Does a person have a right to find out where they are on this list and
when HUD expects to contact them?
.
2. Requirement for "residency" may impede bona fide Santa Monicans temporarily
without local "home" addresses.
.
3. Clients complain that there is a heavy climate of unfriendliness and attitude of
unhelpfulness From that point on the clients experiences a downhill trend in the
commumcation process. Many complain of the lack of cooperation from the HUD
staff.
.
4 Why does the HUD office post the Outlook Classifieds in their front window?
Because they know don't have enough apartments available on their available
housing lisung for the hundreds of applicants that go through their office daily.
IrOnIcally, the Outlook does not specify Section 8 certificate staNS of apartments.
Clients (who have limited resources) are forced to cold call every single listing and
ask each landlord if they offer Section 8. Most clients are discouraged when they
are told over and over again that Section 8 apartments are not available.
.
.
5. HUn does not update their list, they keep the old listings on for weeks and months.
Most clients will agree that they can list the availables on a post It. If there are
available Section 8 apartments, why? We have an unbelievable list of clients who
have certificates who are desperately searching for a place to live.
.
.
Identification of lmpainnents to Fair Housing Choice
6/24196
pg. 4
- Side by Side
a community partnership
.
6.
(IT. ImpedIments Identified in the Section 8 Program cant.)
.
II C. LANDLORDS
.... ,:-.-
1.
It has been reported that landlords practice "stalling" potential Section 8 applicants by
declaring the listed apartments as unavailable. There are a variety of theories on why
this is in practice. most of them discriminatory. Many certificate holders claim they
find little cooperation from Section 8 landlords. even after they are approved.
.
2.
Credit History bas been a cause for denial of rental application. Why is a credit
history a factor since the reasons why clients became homeless is because they couldn't
pay their rent in the first place? Denial of Section 8 housing because of an applicants
credit history is an outright impediment to all applicants who have some type bad or no
credit history. (Discrimination: Economic)
.
3.
Some landlords question an applicant for non-standard determination criteria. For ~
example, landlords will ask "Can you tell me why you are on Section 8? "Is it because
you are disabled or because of a mental illness?" Clients have to make up stories
because they are scared to death that their mental health issues are used against them in
determining their eligibility for an available apartment. If they don't get an apartment
within a programs timeIine they are expelled from the Section 8 program and from the
agency. (Discrimination: Personal Information PrivacylDisability)
.
.
4. Landlords are reported to prefer renting to senior citizens because seniors receive a
lifetime Section 8 certificate.
5.
Most landlords say they are fed up with HUD because the of the policy, paperwork and
lack of cooperation from HUD staff. Landlords decide it is not worth the hassle and
drop out of the program which decreases potential availability and discourages program
expansion.
.
It IS being reported that many landlords are holding their apartments empty and waiting
until 1999 when the Rent Decontrol comes into effect. They believe they will come
out ahead and not have legal obligations to worry about.
.
III. Impediments Identified in Transitional Housing
.
1. Current Transitional Housing opportunities are over capacitY and there is a shortage of
available transitional housing opportUnities for persons who do not qualify for Section 8
certificates or other programs.
2. Motor home and vehicle live-in spaces are unaffordable or unavailable. This is an problem
area that remains uninvestigated and unaddressed by the City's Housing Authority Unit.
.
.
Identification of Impairments to Fair Housing Choice
6/24/96
'-
PI!. 5
.
Side by Side
a community partnership.
(III. Impediments Identified in Transitional Housing cant.)
. 3. Action needs to be taken to reverse the closure and current non-existence of SRO hotels
and boarding houses to provide additional transitional housing resources.
IV. Impediments Identified with the City, the Business
. Community and Financial Institutions
The Business Community should be urged [0 develop programs that give back to the
community:
.
1. Programs are not available to provide grants to enable community groups to
develop lowlnon income housing.
.
2. Scholarship Programs should be available for people who are striving to find their
own housing. education and improve the quality of their own lives. This program
could possibly help individuals with stan up costs when they secure housing
opportunities.
.
3. The City can require businesses who contract with the City for conunercial public
space usage to hire percentages of employees from social service agencies like
Chrysalis.
V. Community Outreach and Education:
.
Improvements:
1.
The City should require postings in all agencies that have Section 8 programs, the
name, address and toll free number of the government agency responsible for handling
all complaints.
.
2. Make outreach programs available to identify citizens who are low-income who do not
qualify for current city funded resources and provide support services.
.
a)
Currently no program in place to counter excessive threshold costs (move-in.
first and last. utility deposits) for those who could otherwise afford regular
ongoing reneal payments.
.
b) Currently no supportive services available to counsel individuals with
educational needs.
.
Idenrificarion of Impairments 10 Fair Housing Choice
6/24/96
pg. 6
. Side by Side
The City should evaluate it's policy of allowing "in-lieu" fees as a possible
discriminatory practice because it allows landlords to opt out of their low-income
responsibility to the conununity. When shelters are being built in certain areas. whole
communities stand up and say "not in my back yard". The experiences Turning Point
had with the community is an example. From our perspective the City is acwally
encouraging private acts of economic discrimination by allowing "in.lieu" fees while
also discouraging free movement within each persons community by allowing certain
groups of people to control community access to low-income housing.
{
3.
4.
a community partnership
.
(V. Community Outreach and Education cant.)
c)
Develop Section 8 Certificates and other programs exclusively for low/non
income students who need housing to go [0 college.
.
d)
There are few programs that address the needs of the homeless person who is
not diagnosed with mental illness. who is not addicted, who is not pregnant or
who has no "clinically described" physical impairment.
.
As part of the Community Olltreach and Education Program. the City could identify
properties that are considered as abandoned. A City representative could contact the
property owners and inform them of the benefits of opting to develop their properties
for low income housing or donating that housing to non-profit organizations for
redevelopment.
.
a) The City could bring in agencies like Habitat for Humanity to consult in
developing a proposal process for low/non income cooperative care facilities.
b)
Develop a space in the Neighborhood Support Center services where
community groups committed to investigating and addressing these needs are
facilitated.
.
c)
Post low income housing incentives in public places like the libraries, Ken
Edwards Center and PEN. The City should develop a questionnaire to ask
developers what would it take for them to want to develop low-income housing
and shelter care facilities.
.
d)
We ask that the City make readily available to the public on an on-going basis,
the results of the adherence to the initiative that requires 10% of new
development be devoted to low income, and also evaluate the distribution of that
housing (under fair housing laws) and post it in public forums like PEN. Also
post statistics since the Earthquake which should assess how much new housing
was added to the low income housing pool and how much of the earthquake
damaged low income properties. when renovated, reverted back to low income
tenants?
.
.
.
.
5. Institute a mediation/grievance strucbJre for all Agencies funded by the City.
Identificatian of Impairments to Fair Housing Choice
6/24/96
~, pg. 7
^',
.
.
.
June 24,1996
Fair Housing Unit
Santa 1vlomca City Attorney's OffIce
16851-Iain Street, Room 310
Santa 1vlonica, CA 90401
/"''''2~'-"';'':-:''.
"<., -">..;"}~""
/-.-, -,
/..."11\ .._:,:\
/..- ~b .
, 1 .. ... \
:? ~)
~';:. f,J'
... 'J I
'<" ~
'~ '>'
.., C\
~l>. ~\...
....-. ~v
el ZHLO\.~
.
Dear Kimery Shelton and other members of the Fair Housing Unit,
.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the June 1996 Draft of your
Assessment of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in the City of Santa Monica,
and to make my observations part of the public record.
In the following I have given primary focus to the impact of current aty policies
on the availability of housing to those most in need, the currently homeless, and
have attempted to specify how these policies act to discriminate against certain
classes of persons.
.
.
In judging these policies to be impediments to fair housing choice I have relied
on the following quote from the invitation to comment: "Policies, practices or
procedures that appear neutral on their face, but which operate to deny or
adversely affect the provision of housing to persons (in any particular protected
class) may constitute such impediments."
The housing "path" for homeless Santa Monieans as identified and described in
the Assessment is demonstrably inadequate in these areas:
.
1- Insufficient shelter beds, with, in particular, proportionally fewer for
females than should be provided given percentage of homeless women,
estimated at 30% in Santa Monica (discrimination: gender)
a- Exacerbated by prohibition on sleeping in parks ("Public Safety
Initiative"), forcing at-risk women and children out of the relative
safety of patrolled public spaces (discrimination: gender)
b- History of complaints against Cold \Veather Shelters regarding
treatment and physical safety of women (discrimination: gender)
c- Inclusion of specifi("~ny Christian missions as shelter sources,
despite their environmenfs being unwelcoming to those of non-
Otristian beliefs (discrimination: religion)
d- Further, inclusion of one particular mission (Sunlight) widely and
consistently alleged to risk the safety of battered women (prominent
sign at shelter site soliciting donations) and to condone illegal
practices taking economic advantage of homeless women (requiring
exchange of food stamps for shelter) (discrimination: gender)
.
.
.
.
.
2- Transitional housing
a- Current facilities over capacity despite demonstrated need
.
b- J\110tor home and vehicle lIve-in spaces unaffordable or unavailable,
a form of transitIonal housing particularly used by women/ children
(discrimination: gender)
.
3- Section vm
a- Waiting lists so long (four years and more), \vithout interim
provision for shelter, so as to effectively invalidate program's
stated intent
.
b- Requirement for "residency" 'which may disqualify bona fide Santa
~fonicans temporarily without local"home" addresses who
cannot be contacted through Santa rv10nica social service agencies
.
4- ~Iainstream housing -
a- No program in place to counter exceSSIve threshold costs (move-in,
hrst and last, utility deposits) for those who could othernise
afford regular ongoing rent payments
.
b- Insufficient outreach to landlords who might potentially develop
otherwise abandoned sites into Imv-income housing if made
aware of substantial tax and other benefits
.
\Vhereas the draft Assessment identifies almost $3 million of in-lieu affordable
housing fees already collected and over $4 million of federal grant money
budgeted for Shelter Care Plus, I urge that this substantial funding be utilized to
alleviate the current impediments to fair housing in Santa Monica specified
above.
.
Sincerely,
&~~
.
,
Kevin McKeown
848-E 16th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90403
(310) 393-3639
76702.1434@compuserve.com or on PEN
......
......
-rlgerJSmrth
.
'If 310 450 C09S
~S/26196
.i418PM
D1I3
PETER TIGLER.
20: y :215T STREET
SANTA.. j\"~IO~jCA. CA
MA THE\t' MILLEN
1753 i6TH COURT
S,;:\" T A \.lOt\:!CA CA
.
9040';
3:0450 1755 V
310450 0095 ~
O~";C4
310452 i8!2
!126/96
3 page fax
Fair Housing Unit
Santa Monica City Attorney's Office
'685 Main Street, Room 310
Santa Monica, eA 90401
3104588364 3103956727 fax
Comments to the Asse.ssment of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in the City of Santa
!~onjca J June 1996 Draft
PUBLIC HOUSING
The City IS guilty of concentrating the development of pub1ically assisted multi-family low income
4jnits in the PJeo neighborhood. the low income minority census tracts.
The report is guilty of playing a deceptIve game With the numbers of publically assisted housing
Approximately 700 of the 1170 units Ils~ed in the report are dedicated to elderly, d;sabled, and sin-
gles. a!l of which are in the white majority neIghborhoods. The remaining 400 units are family units.
~OO of those umts are In the minonty, low income census tracts, the Pico neighborhood A simple
lool{ at table 12 in the report can prove this fact The City IS, at best, dlsil"gen uous by claiming an
even handed distributIon.
iurther, recent earthquake related low income projects do little to change the historic pattern. Of the
400 Unlts in this category only 22 are for families. All of these projects, as stated in the report, are
not in the Pice neighborhood.
PubTIcally assisted low income family units are virtually segregated to the low income census tracts
~own as the PIca neighborhood. where as. the projects dedicated to the elderly. disabled. and sin-
gles are in all City neighborhoods but the Pico neighborhood. The City claims distribution of low
income projects but fails to recognize the limitation of fair housing choice by segregation of project
1ype.
.
REPORT CONCLUSIONS
The report concludes, page 72. ~
~A1though the minority population is primarily located in one area of the Ci~ there appear to be no
~jty policies that restrict minority movement into other areas, and no public sector policies that steer
minorities in to any particular area. The most significant factor is the high number of rentals in the
~P;rn ::rr,C:I" :Inri 'hD hi"h ",~rlr.CIf nri,..c ,.., ,..I........'A '..._lIu ................. I... ....... 1"1.'1111
1"lg1erlS~
1f 310450 0095
I2i 6/26/96
G419PM U2/3
.
\
The data does not support the statement. There are 5,774 households (table 4) In the PICO neigh~
!'Jorhood. Vve assume one household per Unit Conservatively 12% are single family homes, thus
'".5,000 Oi so are rental units. Table 7 states 36,792 rental units exist in the City c;s ~ ~h9le
Therefore. the Pice neighborhood has, at most, 14% of the City's rental stock. The reverse of the
report conclusion is true, a higher number of rentals eXist outside of the Pica neighborhood. In fact,
the area bounded by Ocean Blvd, Montana Ave, 14th S1., and Wilshire Blvd, has the highest rental
Uensity in Santa Monica, yet minority population in low.
.
.
.
Previous City policies are the main cause minority and multi~family low income housing is concen-
1rated in the Pice neighborhood. This is best illustrated by two facts. First, the restrictive covenants
that existed in real estate outside the Pico neighborhood until the early 1950's. Second. In recent
years. the City established the Pico Neighborhood Housing Trust Fund (PNHTF), which employed
geographic restrictlons to the PICO neighborhood for the development of publical1y assisted housing.
.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
11. City policy regarding publically assisted housing should establish a dlstnbution policy and .
method to prevent and correct concentration in anyone location. The adoption of a 1,000 foot radIus
between such projects would be an effectIve concentration preventIon. The distinction in publlcally
assisted housing between elderly. disabled, singles. and family projects are real. The City's failure to
recognize or, at worst, manipulate these project categories has resulted in impediments of fair hous- .
fOg choice and policies of dIscrimination.
#2.. For decades the disbursement of publlcally assisted housing dollars has been solely to rental
projects. Ownership opportunities are totally neglected. Table 10 states purchase pnces of all hous-
ing types start at around $100,000. Rental units are often developed at higher cost. The recently
opened AshlandJLincoln project (CCSM) cost $200,000 per unit. A disturbing bias exists in favor of
rental unlts that should be corrected by City policy
.
#3. An impediment to the development and distribution of fair hOUSing choice exists in the City zon~
,ng code. The zoning ordinance prohibits second units, commonly called granny units, in the R1
zones. This is in blatant violation of state law allowing such units. The City should amend the code.
:fl:4. On sight development requirements of affordable units as set forth in Proposition R should be
maintained. The allowance of in~lieu fees and off site options will result in low income concentrations .
in Jow property value areas, ie. the PICO neighborhood.
.
Evidence of this is apparent by two facts. First, affordable housing developers routinely recite" more
bang for the buck- when asked why they gravitate to lower property valued areas. This has varying
~ degrees of truth depending on density allowances, never-the~less, the practice exists. Second, a
current project located on Ocean Park Blvd was allowed to developed its required low income units
off site. These units are now in the Pico neighborhood on 16th Street near Michigan. This was done
specifically to avoid integrating the Ocean Park Blvd project. This would will not be unique if on site
I requirements are abolished or modified.
.
.
....
-,
5 WA hA1iAVA thp. Citv ~hnlJlrI hp. minrfflll nf t'nmnlianl"Co UJith II~ ~.:lIir I-Inllc:inn ~f~tllt~c:.
. Tigler/Smlt~
V 3104500095
l:i6/26/S6
.
24 C.F.R. sec. 1.4 (b)(6)(i)
24 C.F R. see 91 15 (3)(d)
24 C.F R. sec. 91.20 (d)
24 e.F.R sec. 91.15 (j)
.
j"hank you,
7--
.
Peter J; 9 1 e r
.
..
yJl1vJbJ at ~
.
4fathew r.AilIen
.
.
.
.
C 420PM Dat3
"
PUBLIC COMMENT
TO 1996 DRAFT
,-
.. -:. :-".. .~ ..
..... ~"Y.
~ ~ :-
. .. -:...._~........... J "";"..,. :.....:.. ...... ":- ~
"ASSESSMENT TO ThTPEDThTEr-,,-S TO FAIR HOUSING STUDYu ~:', - '::,' ~:'
.... ......y ~ .~~
--
s
t
The public is encouraged to review the 1996 Draft. "Assessment to Impedime~ to Fair Housing -~,
Study,H and to submit any written comments to the City Attorney's Office by Frid+, June 28, 1996. /
Public comment \vill assist the City of Santa Monica in furthering the goal of removin$ barriers to fair/,
housing in our community. ~
To help you review the study and to consider commenting on the questions below, the following
definitions may be helpful
'Vhat is F:tir Housing Choice? Fair Housing Choice is the ability of persons
of similar incomes to have available to them the same housing choices.
regardless ofrace, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.
\Vhat are Impediments to Fair Housin~ Choice? An impediment to fair housing choice
is any action. omission, or decision taken because of race, color, religion. sex. disability,
familial status or national origin that restricts housing choices or the availability of housing
choice
It is also any action, omission, or decision that has this kind of effect. Policies,
practices or procedures that appear neutral on their face, but which operates to deny or
adversely affect the provision of housing to persons (in any particular protected class) may
constitute such impediments.
\Ve would appreciate your comments to the following questions and/or any other comments you
may have.
1. Have you identified any impediments to fair housing choice caused by the City of Santa
Monica?
Comments:
" .
... -:.......~. /
.:- "'_ _ _....:?,;-_~....... _ ~_"'I"" ':"....... r
: i ...-:..'=-: ~....
. '-:: -~ .~~'~~:-"f ;;;:~-t~~: ,--
_ "" .::::x~. ~-" :i f;.{?fl.i~~~"~.;::-,.. .
~_......... .. :: ,~""-. ,.~~ .~c:'""""(....:4. ~.Jr~4-4.-""" ~--
.. _ ~ " . -- ~ ~ .;J't'.... ;" t;:........ ... ~i iI ... ~. "" -.. r ~ ~ \;-0':' iI...' ~.... ,,-"
.. .; ....~ i- .... '-,,:~."':::.,J..- ....: \.::;~- ~:;t:1~-;'_~~ .l...~::"'~;~-:l- '7. ~~::Z:-""':;A f' ._...:~.l--" v...~;,~~_...~~:-....~..: .:.."'-~ ~
--- ~- ~ ~ ~ ~~~ur_~~ ...T~ .:'" ~ ~-~ ~ -/<if ~~:-.. ~}~...~J::;-f..~":~"~:..~"~: ~:~::~~~~.:~-;;~;;~~i:-~~:- - ';~:.:
-;?-.. ::
. :;.. ~
~. .
.: ~ .;jO:? ..~~
r-,." '
I " ... , ~ "".'--.J. ..~'C...... -.{;'<I~4t,. ~::t-;"--:'f ..;-- -... ~ ~~'- -.....- ~ri''''''''' - ... -'
. . :......~T....."'-"""\'I""'1'..~~__.."'I: O;r~._~..Y....9 ...~~ "'J.#~...._"""'''''~ ~.....,.)r-....;'""'l \ 1';.::- ~ 1.J:~~- "".~.. (. ?
"....~7L.:.t~..:-~!._..'t.:.:t:-: _ :.:"~- ~~~:~~_:.i&,~~~:.~~.::.~~~~.....~..-.~~: 1C-,,~~_7'L~-~~_9_:.:~~~~~~"t;-"'''''';'9~- r~":-.
... ~ ":.......u...;~..,,'\, ...._.,., _:. ~-r"... --:;~~"':~~,(l-~~"';'~'f.::.~~..:+..;.t~~-~v-v."""<~~~~~h{r-j~~-.-.-.....- -~. -....
... -~..""'~"---"f'o':-'... .. ':' - ..... ....... ::..... "".-..\...........jJ,........ -"- - .........-'" "'J. -.~_.... .",,:r-. >- ....... .. --
.. -I;-=-J~...."'::J.\..... -"...-_.....",....... -/....~,... ~J...;-"!:"I"..9.. 'J.....'7\?'"~.....:'!I.""'1~...~.v-... ",i~'-I!f-.,!;. - ........".... .::....,---'".. ..
..... ~......-;.....:--'-..:~;~-~..:... - Jr_ ~:~~~:..:~~~......;~~~~;:.~ ~:r...~..i1~~~7;;~~i~~~ ":.":}---"i::~-~ r ~ ~~.~",':.-..t-l
- ~ .~ "-.-or.~.............~........ .. ~-~,..-.- ~ ._ v~....iZ-~1u~....c.l"~)o~j.'l-f.e.+..--').....~"".:: (.. r' r.... .,..~, ,-';iJ' .. . .." ~- 'I .. -..
-.. " .... ..
- .~~+~~~~~..r~:t:~::-;;~;... . 1_.
~.~.....r.::...~-...?~ . ~ 1. .... """-l.-..... ... .
~. ~ ;- ~'"t.~Jl. :;a.:-.;;.._~....;..,.\..~\......
't'>'~~.~"" . ... '1;4._'
~...~.J. ..~_;t-1.... ~.._r
. -~. "'..~....- -~;:~~.., .... - .. "" .....
"'-~-.."..,"""''''~~'' ~
~, ..: '::~...~~ - .. :r..../.::;~...:..: .... ~.. ,
~~...... ...~.. ""...'1>...... '" o:l."- ... ....
"'"::""'.~,y....- .Ia..."..~...~. ;
~~*;.. ;;-~J""..: -",-1'~"':...$"T"'''': ~
~ ~~l:~,~';...~~f!." ::...."'~L-.~-=::7J:...---"
._ ......, ......~... ......'T" .. , L ~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~.
;"",t
.-:;
- 'o.s
T III-I;~
;:i
~f
.....
.;:,
~~
..'4..
~~
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,:>o:t\ -1 :2 a -:
~ " $'0_
2 Have you identified any impediments to Fair Housing Choice caus ~y businesies in t-
sector? (Example lenders, landlords, real estate brokers or real estate sJ.~peopl~/~~ .~T~:l; g
C t . t l.O ~...' . - -; 0.&
ommen s. :",\\. . I
\ ~ I. -:: "~~-'$',;:' 2'?" ::
\~~ ~, """ l~~
~
3. Are there impediments to Fair Housing Choice that you have learned about from members
of your community that the City should be made aware of and include in its 1996 Assessment of
Impediments to Fair Housing Study?
Comments The Rent Cbntrol Ormnance sh0111i1 ;:I.l1nu fnr ;::!r1r'ht-inn;'l1 r...nr ~ed
on occupancy. To house a f anul y is much m::>re costly t-n a 'Orot"lP..rrv l'ThlT1er
than Qne or twc;I indivinll""lc:_
tll'i t-h "" r i ant- rT';!!,...k...t- ;:InM m;::tnv ,..'hn.; t""OC! Tn,...
~
"
tenants, families will suffer.
::
..-
4 In what ways can the City improve upon its commitment to fair housing?
Comments ~r.u.le I know it is a Fe:':l.ernl rule t.,nt housina is OnP.rI to ;:1.11
applicants, it is my belief that if ci ty p~rtv ann nmns are n~M t-n h,i 1rI
....- I'
housing, set asides 'or scue nechani.sm whereby existing Santa Monica residents
..-~
. .
- _..- \.... ~ .. -: .,.
are C]iven first q:p:>rtunity'at avai bhle new units.
~...- -.,. -"; :: ,"..:"': ~:~.. "- ~f-
-~...... -~"... ..
4'...__:~:_
.~".:::'i
,~~
',-
Since ~ are the seecnd
, 'j
.......,
.;'
I" """-.... "-r . I~_"'",_V'_,,~,; ,;-"-....... "".::1" ......-1j,IIoo~..~.. ..............-._~-.-oI.""o(._..,.. "+-.. ...
.- ......-..~~::-';: ......... ~ - :-,." ~-- ..~;""t-"'~~_".........~\..... ~\,}. -"-EI,,-"~~.;tt1';1~"'I..o.:......-"'''''~_1'.to-...'''''~~~_:.~'.'~'''Ji.,. i;r(..t --......::;.,..~~-
... .......,..!..i..t:t:....,....,..,.......-<"'....-...-..,......~"" ...~_.......1,,~~J -i,~...a~.....;:.:..:'-..-~":~.. -'f~"tl_..?--": _~~~"l_.Io...~.......,.;;.;:t :O-__......iIP"'::..yR,_...............:' .
..... "" ~ -:..f ...;t..-............. "'" - "+ __~".o,;....~~".;- ~"',:~""ir' ~"~.. -:':-"'r"i'#l:-~ . . -:'l." --;...~:yl':~ ,~~.. "=-e JL ..f--;..t~'.r:~-.t..u........J?..~h......r.t-::~r~'f."I ~.r ~
n.ol"lcd C!t ,..; +-..~ .;,., ~~f-";"'...... f":o 1 ; oF,........; ,;;-- T 'An..,~ ,....., :;':..;~' r\1,.r 'l""Cc:i M~ni-o=: -=},nn1 M }y",
---... --- - - -------- ------------. - ------- ------ - - --
... r-'" .,,'~~~~...-:.....~.....iC' .~~~-,.~ o!""-.....!'I'I't.::..1.:":J._.I~-C~~:-___.-!; :i"......::..;...._. =,,{:A "".::;t"~~~~l'-.:.~ft"",,~.t.y~_~ .. -... "'f!:,v:'#-..
-.. ___.............. -.... T-'" ;)."T~- """""'"........ ~ t _ ~ "........ p ~...~ -- --- ",--- .............,.f' -\.T p....lo -. ..... ....;"._+....~ -):;
impacted by mOre densitY' arid ~rot' haw 0; ~.. ~tY' to "-set "the lDUsin9.':; '-~ -
;
.
~
.
FIRSr FEDEPAL B6l'JK3
OF CALlI'ORNIA FSB
.
.... ~......
.
CORPORATE OFFICE: 401 WIlSHIRE BLVD. · SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 · (310) 319-5755
July 30, 1996 Sandra Martm, Vice President /;: ;- -; -' d -- ;. -'~:.
.
,t ~~~
t.....
.
FaIr Housmg Unit
Santa Maruca Cny I.ttomey's Office
Room 310
1685 Main Street
Santa Maruca. CA 90401
'-- ,-
RE Asse~ment "CImpedIments 10 Fair Housing Sludy
FIrst, let me apologize for the delay In responding to your request for comments on }our study
.
I ha\e re\ie\,ed the September, 1994 Assessment oflmpedlments To Falr Housing Cholce In the Cny of
Santa Maruca and the June 1996 Draft and compared both.
.
Pubhc Housmg projects ha\e Increased to fhe from t\'O, Sheller Resources have increased with
de.. elopment lD process for Spring 1997. TORCA has been e:\-panded to mclude new tenants of TORCA
converted bUIldmgs, and Congregate Care facIlItIeS have Increased to 21 from 14 The City of Santa
Monica clearly continues to show gro\\th in these areas
.
Fust Federal Bank is dlrectly Involved In the undenmtmg of TORCA loans I have observed that most
applIcants are not minontles and with the recent e:\]>ansion of the program to new tenants. many
purchasers have not .,Juahfied due to exceSSIVe mcome So wlule the TORCA Shared Appreciauon Loan
Program lS designed to asSISI low and moderate income tenants to purchase their UnIts, it seems to be
attracting more moderate to moderate-plus tenants These UOlts are typically the lowest priced units 10
the city and "Quid be attractive to low Income minorities who can purchase for very close to comparable
median rent.
.
I recommend that the CommunI!)' Outreach and Education actIVities be expanded to target the low to
moderate mmonties in the City to provide them the opportunity of ownership of a TORCA unit
I D general I agree '''lth the ConculslOns and Recommendations of the Study.
Sincerely,
. C\~~~
Z~nWendl
Vice President, Loan Operations
SMW:
.
cc Diana Wright
.
.
.
SIGNAWRE PAGE
In accordance with the consolidated plan submission regulations, I hereby certIfy that the
.
City of Santa Monica has met its obligation to engage in fair housing planning. Accordingly, the
City has updated its 1994 fair housing study and submits the attached 1996 ASSESSMENT OF
IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE IN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA.
.
DATED Auqust 6, 1996
~~.
J JALll.I, City Manager
CIty of Santa Monica Authorized Official
.
.
[f Iatty\tnWUlmcm~\Da:I}'2.ku]
.
.
.
.
69
.
.
.
.
.
-
-