SR-400-001-03 (20)
400
1-(; ..
Wi.", '~. 1 \~~G
C/ED:CPD:PB:SF:JWR
wjheccrptl
council Meeting: March 27, 1990
o/btP..-- ~O/ --03
A?R ~~ ~991)
Santa Monica, California
---------
To: Mayor and city council
From: city staff
subject: Public Hearing and Deliberations upon the Housing
Element Technical Update
Introduction
Mandated by the state of California every five years, the Housing
Element update is intended to reassess housing needs and ensure
that city housing policies and programs address those needs. On
November 29, 1989, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the proposed Housing Element update and forwarded its
recommendation to the City Council.
This staff report identifies new state requirements that have
become effective since the last Housing Element was approved in
1983; summarizes key city demographic and housing stock data;
describes the public participation process; discusses new housing
policies and programs and co:nunents upon and changes to these
pOlicies and program.s recommended by the Planning Commissionj
and, summarizes the results of the Environmental Impact Report.
staff is recommending that the city Council certify the
Environmental Impact Report and approve the Housing Element
subject to final State review.
~
- 1 -
I1PR :3 1990
Scope of Update
The proposed Housing Element update is a technical update, as
opposed to a comprehensive revision of the 1983 Housing Element.
There are two main reasons that the project is limited to a
technical update. One is that, in the absence of current census
data, it is difficult to gain a thorough understanding of the
changes that have taken place in the demography of the City. The
second is that the city I s current housing programs are
comprehensive and already address most of the City's major needs.
The state has set forth three new requirements for Housing
Elements since 1983. Section 65583 (a) (6) of the Government Code
requires that the Housing Element analyze special housing needs
of persons and families in need of emergency and transitional
housing. In the opinion of the state Department of Housing and
Community Development, this should include an estimate of the
extent of need, the nature of need, and an evaluation of
resources available to meet that need.
section 65583 (c) (I) requires local jurisdictions to identify
adequate sites suitable for construction of emergency housing to
meet the need identified above. Finally, Section 65588 (d)
requires information on construction and demolition in the
Coastal Zone (see section 2 {c}, Draft Housing Element).
In preparing this update, the City has attempted to meet the new
state legal requirements and refine existing policies and
programs to meet currently unmet needs. However, most policies
- 2 -
and programs contained in the 1983 Housing Element have been
maintained.
Public Participation Process
Three public meetings have been conducted in conjunction with the
update process. On November 9, 1988, a community forum, attended
by approximately 20 members of the public, was held at the Ocean
Park Branch Library to elicit input on the key housing issues and
problems in the city. Participants divided into small groups to
discuss housing concerns and possible solutions. Notes from
these group discussions are contained in Exhibit "B".
On March 29, 1989, a special joint meeting of the Planning and
Housing Commissions was held to review a preliminary draft of the
Housing Element. Changes were made to the draft document based
upon input from the commissions before the document was sent to
the state Department of Housing and Community Development for
review.
Finally, once the Draft Housing Element was made available to the
public, a community meeting was called on May 24, 1989, at Joslyn
Hall in Lincoln Park. Only a small number of people attended
this meeting, and a few letters from the public commenting on the
Draft Housing Element were submitted around the time of this
meeting (see Exhibit "ell).
The Planning and Housing Commissions each conducted separate
public hearings on the draft Housing Element on November 29, and
- 3 -
November 30, 1989, respectively. Issues and comments from these
hearings are discussed below.
Organizational Changes to Housing Element
Two main organizational changes have been made to the city's
Housing Element. First, what was once a two-volume document
consisting of a Technical Report and a Policy Report has been
consolidated under one cover. Secondly I the policy section of
the Housing Element has been re-organized so that the City's
Housing goals are linked directly to identified needs, and
policies and programs that implement these goals are clearly tied
to the goals. An outline of the policy section is provided at
the beginning of Section 5 of the Housing Element.
Background Data: Major Findings
Because of the lack of current u.s. Census datal the consultants
reI ied upon other sources and indicators for demographic and
housing data. Examples of these include intake data from social
service agencies, and statistics from the L. A. County Economic
Development Department, the State Department of Finance, and the
Southern California Association of Governments.
Demographic Findings
Some of the key demographic findings of the Housing Element
are as follows:
o The City's 1989 general population is estimated at 96,461,
up from 88,314 in 1980--an increase of about 9%. (The Draft
Housing Element reflects a 1989 Department of Finance
- 4 -
population estimate of 97,212. However, recently the
Department of Finance revised their estimate downward to the
figure indicated above. The revised figure is reflected in
the EIR, and will ultimately be reflected in the Final
Housing Element.)
o There has been a recent increase in the number of
elementary school children in grades K-2, ending a decline
in the number of elementary school children (see Table 4,
Draft Housing Element) .
o The minority school-age population has increased at a
faster rate than the general minority population. In 1980,
22.6% of the population was minority, while in 1988, 32.6%
of school children were minorities.
o The city's average household size increased from 1.97 in
1980 to 2.08 in 1988. still, the Cityts average households
size is considerably lower than the county average of 2.83.
o Consistent with regional and national trends, there is a
disproportionate number of female headed households in
poverty as compared to all families.
o The city's homeless population is estimated at somewhere
between 2,500 and 5,000. The single most important cause of
homelessness is the scarcity of affordable housing.
- 5 -
Housing stock
o According to the state Department of Finance, there was a
23.2%/76.8% ratio between single family and mUlti-family
housing units in the city of Santa Monica in 1988.
o The City's 1988-1991 Housing Assistance Plan estimates
that there are 2,327 substandard units in the City, l,813 of
which are considered suitable for rehabilitation and 514 of
which should be replaced.
o Since one of the goals of the California Coastal Act is
the preservation of affordable housing, the state requires
the city to document demol i tions and new constructions in
the Coastal Zone. Since 1984, the city has seen 64 units
demolished and 365 new units built in the Coastal Zone; 69
of the new units are affordable to low and moderate-income
households.
o Nine SRa (Single Room occupancy) hotels have been
converted or demolished since 19801 removing a total of 327
affordable units.
o A rent-controlled unit in the City rents on the average
for $485, while market rate units range from an average of
$820 for studio apartments, to $1,113 for two-bedroom
apartments, to $1,428 for four-bedroom units.
o The SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment estimates that
in 1988, 11,187 of the City's 19,531 low income
- 6 -
households--57%--were overpaying in rent (i.e., paying more
than 30% of their gross income).
o Based on the SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment, the
city needs 3,220 new units by 1994--representing a 6.9%
increase over the existing stock. Such an increase would
represent a doubling or tripling of the current rate of
housing development.
Summary of Needs
The Housing Element summarizes the City's Housing needs as
follows:
o Housing Production: There is a need to develop new
housing on sites suitable for residential use in order to
accommodate a growing population and ensure a choice of
housing types and prices to meet the needs of all segments
of the community. Based on the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment prepared by SCAG, a total of 3,220 units need to
be added to the City's housing stock by 1994. This would
represent a 6.9 percent increase in the existing housing
stock.
o Housing Conservation and Improvement: There is a need to
maintain and improve the existing housing stock in sound
condition and at affordable prices, since it is generally
less expensive to maintain and improve existing units than
it is to build new ones.
- 7 -
o Housing Assistance: Some households will need special
assistance to continue to reside in Santa Monica. This
includes both low-income households, and those with special
housing requirements. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment
estimates that there are 11,187 lower income households who
are paying more than they can afford for housing in Santa
Monica. Over 95% of these are renters. In addition,
approximately 1,500 homeless people are expected to need
assistance each year over the next 5 years.
o Balanoe Housing Goals with other city Goals: The city of
Santa Monica has many goals, such as the need to balance
jobs and housing, the desire to protect and enhance
environmental and historic resources, and the goal of
maintaining existing levels of service for utilities and
public services. Programs undertaken in pursuit of these
goals may affect the Ci ty' s ability to meet its housing
goals.
o citizen Participation: The City of Santa Monica
encourages maximum participation of its citizens in the
decision-making process. There is a particular need to
ensure that residents are consulted about programs and
policies which affect their homes and neighborhoods.
New and Revised policies and Programs
The proposed Housing Element update includes new policies
designed to meet established housing goals. However, most of the
new policies were contained as programs in the existing Housing
- 8 -
Element, or simply clarify policies or programs in the existing
Element. policies not reflected as policies or programs in the
existing element are as follows:
Policy A-I. 6: Obtain new Article 34 authority if required by
future state of California Supreme Court.
Depending on legislative action and the Supreme Court's ultimate
decision in the Davis v. Berkeley case, the city may be required
to obtain Article 34 authority for existing affordable housing
projects, or for new projects. To the extent that existing
authority is deemed insufficient, this policy would direct the
city to seek voter approval per the requirements of Article 34 as
interpreted by the legislature and the Supreme Court.
Policy B-l.2: Discourage the conversion of residential properties
(including SRO housing) to other non-residential uses.
Policy B-~. 6: Conversion of rental units for use as timeshares
will not be allowed unless the Housing Element is amended to
develop specific standards for this use.
The existing Housing Element references only the need to
discourage conversion of rental units to ownership units. These
new policies reflect the need for City programs to respond to
conversion of rental properties to other uses other than
ownership housing. In regard to conversions to commercial uses,
other Housing Element programs working in tandem with this new
policy will encourage the development of residential uses in
commercial zones.
- 9 -
program A-~.f: When a unit is withdrawn from the housing
stock, or t:he ~andlord recovers possession of a unit: and
t:enant: relocat:ion assistance is appropriate according to
Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter BB, Article IV, section
4855 through 4862, implement expanded relocation benefits.
While the city's existing relocation ordinance provides
significant relocation benefits to displaced tenants, the fees
provided and the program design should be re-examined to ensure
that the goals of the program are being adequately addressed.
Program A-2. i: Develop a land-banking program to ensure
availability of land for affordable housing as the city builds
out.
Santa Monica land prices in recent years have risen at a rate far
greater than the general rate of inflation, reflecting the
diminishing number of undeveloped or underdeveloped properties
left in the city. This trend is expected to continue. program
guidelines for the city's housing trust fund programs do not
provide funds for the purchase of sites without financing
commitments for project construction, with the result that
potential development opportunities are sometimes lost due to a
temporary lack of development funds. A land-banking program
would allow the city to assist in the acquisition of sites at
current prices, and thereby ensure the availability of project
sites for affordable housing when funds from other sources become
available. The land cost component of project costs would be
substantially reduced through such a program.
- 10 -
Program B-2.c: Evaluate the targeting of rehabilitation programs
to ensure that all areas in need of assistance are being
adequately served.
The city currently targets its rehabilitation efforts primarily
toward the pico neighborhood. While federal Rental Rehabilitation
funds must be targeted to low income census tracts, other CDBG
funds may be directed to other neighborhoods so long as
low-income benefit criteria are met. Neighborhoods city-wide may
have substantial needs which could become more severe unless
funds are available for the type of rehabilitation programs
which have primarily assisted the pico neighborhood.
Program B-l.g: Protect the supply of units affordable to the
lowest income tenants while permi tting landlords to increase
revenues from their rental property through the Incentive Housing
Program.
This program reflects the goals of the Incentive Housing Program
recently adopted by the Santa Monica Rent Control Board. The
program will also increase the access to rent controlled units
for very low income households.
In addition to the new programs described above, the proposed
Housing Element update also makes revisions to a number of
existing programs. The significant changes to existing programs
are described below:
- 11 -
Program A-2.a: Develop an inclusionary zoning program requiring
all new housing developments to provide a minimum of fifteen
percent (15%) rental units affordable to low income households.
The city's existing inclusionary housing program, as adopted in
Ordinance 1448, requires multifamily developments of five or more
units to provide 15% of the units as affordable rental units for
median income households, or pay an in-lieu fee. The program does
not directly result in the production of units affordable to low
income households. Furthermore, as median income has increased,
the difference in some neighborhoods between market rents and
median income rents has become insignificant.
The proposed program would redirect the inclusionary program to
provide direct benefit to low income households. In developing a
new implementing ordinance, staff would evaluate (a) the
effectiveness of the existing in-lieu fee provision in providing
the required number of units, (b) the appropriateness of the
inclusionary percentage requirement, including increasing the
fee, (c) the benefit level required, and (d) the tenant selection
process.
Program A-2.g: Develop a density bonus program to encourage the
production of housing affordable to low and moderate income
persons.
Under state law, developers of residential proj ects containing
five or more units may be entitled to a 20% density bonus where
25% of the units are set aside for low income householdsF or 10%
of the units are set aside for very low income households. While
- 12 -
many developers have taken advantage of the existing program,
many small projects are developed which are ineligible for the
state-mandated bonus, and most of the units developed under the
program have been median or moderate income units. Furthermore,
the existing program does not encourage the development of units
for special needs groups such as families with children, or
encourage residential development in particular zones.
The proposed program would direct staff to expand the type of
density bonuses available. In the development of such programs,
staff would evaluate providing density bonuses for proj ects of
less than five units, projects in commercial zones, projects
providing units for families with children, and projects
providing greater levels of affordability for low and moderate
income households.
Program A-2.h: Mainrain, improve, and develop housing for
households with special needs, especially families with small
children, the elderly, and the disabled.
Many of the units being developed in the city are not suitable
for small children, nor are they accessible to the handicapped.
This program would direct staff to examine various incentives to
encourage the development of such housing, inclUding the density
bonuses referenced in Program A-2.g above. Staff would also
examine development standards which could result in a greater
number of multifamily units meeting the needs of these groups.
Specifically, staff would examine broadening site-accessibility
requirements to include condominium projects.
- 13 -
Program D-l.c: Provide for enforcement of permit requirements to
ensure that mitigation of adverse impacts of new development is
effective.
state law now requires cities to adopt a program to monitor
compliance with mitigation measures. staff will be working to
integrate this requirement into the city's computerized
Geographic Information System (GIS). In addition, applicants for
discretionary permits are now required to report at project
inception, and annually thereafter, regarding their compliance
with the conditions of project approval.
Other modified programs will encourage energy and water
conservation, require compliance with city building codes,
encourage the expansion of facilities and services for the
homeless, direct staff to investigate creative programs to
leverage the effectiveness of city financing for housing
programs, and encourage including in Development Agreements the
prepayment of housing fees.
Comments from the California state Department of Housing and
community Development
state law mandates review of the Draft Housing Element by the
state Department of Housing and community Development (HCD). The
City's Draft Housing Element was submitted to the State in July,
1989 for a 30-day review.
The state returned its comments on the Draft Element in late
July, 1989 (see Exhibit "0"). The comments concerned three main
- 14 -
issues: providing a description of services offered to the
homeless in the city; providing an inventory of vacant land in
the city I including the amount of vacant land in each zone
category and an estimate of the number of units that could be
built; and, providing a more detailed analysis of governmental
constraints upon the development of housing.
Government Code section 65580 specifies that comments from HeD
must be considered by the city council in deciding ""hether to
adopt the draft as written or amend it. Staff and consultants
have reviewed the comments made by the state and have prepared a
recommendation for additions to the Housing Element, contained in
Exhibit t1A." Staff is recommending that the council approve
these additions as part of the Housing Element.
Some of the comments made by the state reviewer indicate a
misunderstanding or a misreading of the element. For these
comments, a confirmation letter should be written stating where
the comments were previously addressed in the element.
Specifically, in response to the State's comment concerning the
draft Housing Element's analysis of governmental constraints upon
housing development, such a letter should reflect that during an
August 17, 1989 telephone call by consultantsr HCD representative
William Andrews acknowledged that the constraints analysis is
satiSfactory in its current form. Alsol in response to the
state's request that the Housing Element quantify the numbers of
handicapped, elderly, large households, farmworkers, and families
with children, the letter should note that these figures are
already provided on the following pages of the Element:
- 15 -
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
elderly
handicapped
large households
female-headed households
farmworkers
21
16
20
21
27
Once the city council has approved the Housing Element, it ~ust
be returned to the state BCD for a final review. This is
necessary in order for HCD to assess the effects of any
substantive changes that may have been incorporated since their
last review. Once the HCD has determined that the Housing
Element complies with all pertinent state law, they will send the
city a letter to this effect. It is important that the city have
this letter in the event of a legal challenge to the Housing
Element.
since it is possible that the state may suggest further changes
to the Housing Element, staff recommends that the city Council
approve the Housing Element subject to final State (HCD) review.
Should such changes be suggested, the Housing Element will return
to the Council. otherwise, a resolution for final adoption of
the Housing Element will be agendized upon receipt of the state's
final co:m:ments.
Planning Commission Recommendations
After hearing from the public on November 29, 19891 the Planning
Commission agreed upon several changes to recommend to the
Council. These include the following:
Program B-2.c, Rehabilitation: Program B-2.c calls for the
- 16 -
evaluation of rehabilitation programs to ensure that all areas in
need are being adequately served. The Planning Commission wishes
to see the following italicized language added to the "Goals"
section of Program B-2.c:
Evaluate the targeting of rehabilitation programs to ensure
that all areas in need of assistance are being adequately
served, and encourage the use of volunteers in
rehabilitation efforts.
Impacts of downzoning on housing affordability: Concerned
about the potential adverse effects of downzoning upon the supply
and costs of housing, the Planning commission recommended that
language be added to the Housing Element stipulating that
affordable housing be "held harmless" from downzoning and that,
as part of any downzoning, an assessment of the effects of
downzoning upon housing affordabi1ity be conducted.
Accordingly, staff recommends adding the following italicized
language to the "Goals" section of Program A-2.g:
1989-1994 Goals: City staff will continue to encourage the
use of the density bonus for appropriate projects, and will
also investigate the possibility of amending the city' 5
density bonus regulations to encourage the development of
affordable housing for families with children, and very low
income households. SpecificallYI staff will investigate the
potential of offering a density bonus for projects
containing four or fewer units. staff will also investigate
the feasibility of offering a greater density bonus for
- 17 -
projects which provide housing for families with children in
smaller projects with more amenities (such as dedicated play
areas or additional open space). Another possibility would
be to increase the density bonus incentive for proj ects
which are 100 percent affordable to low and moderate income
households, with the actual density bonus proportional to
the affordability of the units (that is, higher density when
the rent for the units is lower). In districts where
downzoning is implemented, additional density bonuses and
other incentives shall be provided to offset the negative
effect of downzoning on affordable housing projects.
Finally, staff will study the potential benefits of
extending the densi ty bonus for residential use in
commercial zones to all commercial zones throughout the
city. It may be that higher densities are not desirable in
light of other city goals or achievable when lot size and
development standards are factored in. Staff will
investigate the feasibility of an amended density bonus
program.
The effect of downzoning upon affordability would automatically
be evaluated as part of the EIR prepared on a downzoning project.
Therefore, a requirement for such an evaluation need not be made
in the Housing Element.
Air Rights for Affordable Housing: The Commission
recommended more forceful language in Program A-2. d concerning
the use of air rights above city-owned or other publicly owned
land for affordable housing. The language presented to the
- 18 -
Planning commission called for "considering" the use of air
rights: the Planning commission would prefer the verb "promote".
FAR Bonus in CO!11mercial Areas: The Planning Commission
requested that the potential FAR bonus for affordable housing in
commercial zones be raised above 50%. Language to this effect
may be added to the "Goals" section of Program A-2.g:
Finally, staff will study the potential benefits of
extending the density bonus for residential use in
commercial zones to all commercial zones throughout the
city, as well as the potential benefits of increasing the
FAR bonus for residential uses in commercial zones above
50%.
Homelessness: The Commission requested that Program A-2c
concerning the housing needs of the homeless be strengthened.
Accordingly, staff recommends adding the following language (new
language italicized) to the goals section of Program A-2c:
1989-1994 Goals: city staff will assist existing nonprofit
agencies which provide emergency services to homeless people
in the area to apply for state and federal funds to expend
their facilities and services and work with these agencies
to process permits for facility development expeditiously.
Recent state bond issues and federal programs have indicated
that preference will be given to agencies which are already
in operation. City staff will also work with these agencies
to identify programs or funding sources which could enable
them to assist more people, particularly programs which fund
- 19 -
social services and training to enable homeless people to
transition back into the mainstream and self-sUfficiency.
city staff will also identify and attempt to obtain new
sources of funds to address the housing needs of homeless
people. . .
In addition, staff recommends that some additional remarks be
added under the "Accomplishment to Daten section of Program A-2.c
concerning zoning for homeless shelters. The following language
is recommended:
In March, 1988, the city Council approved changes to the
Zoning Ordinance to permit homeless shelters by right in C3,
C3-C, C4, C5, C6, eM, CP, and CC zones, subject to
performance standards in BCD, C2, N, and Ml zones, and as
conditionally permitted uses in R4 and RVC zones.
Rent overpayment Figures: In the "Housing Needs and
Resources" section of the draft Housing Element, under
1l0verpayment", the commission reconunended adding language to the
effect that these figures were developed prior to rent control,
and that the disparity between income and retail housing costs
may have decreased since 1980 as a result of rent control. Such
language has been added.
All changes outlined above have been incorporated into the
current draft of the Housing Element.
- 20 -
Housing commission Comments and Recommendations
The Housing commission
council regarding the
following:
forwarded three comments
draft Housing Element,
to the
including
city
the
Shared Housing: The Housing Commission recommended that
shared housing be added to the list of potential solutions to the
problem of homelessness in program A-2.c. staff agrees with the
recommendation and has added language to direct staff to
investigate the feasibility of developing shared housing.
Homeless services Information: The Housing Commission
recommended adding language to Program A-2.c calling on the City
to help facilitate access to information for homeless services
and people in need of housing. Language to this effect has been
added.
Impacts of Downzoning on Affordable Housing:
Commission strongly endorses the Planning
recommendation to hold affordable housing harmless
The Housing
commission's
from
downzoning.
Additional Minor Changes Recommended by staff Since the November
29, 1989 Pl~nning commission Hearing
Since the November 29, 1989 Public Hearing before the Planning
Commission on this matter, staff has discovered the need for
minor changes to a couple of the proposed programs.
- 21 -
First, staff believes that the language originally presented to
the Planning commission outlining the 1989-l994 goals for Program
A-l.f was insufficient to implement Program A-l.f. The old
language read as follows:
1989-l994 Goals: Require landlords to establish relocation
assistance accounts upon landlord termination actions, and
enforce payment of relocation assistance funds. Benefits
include a relocation sum of up to $3,000 per unit, $250
counseling sum, or a relocation in lieu sum. This program
will result in fewer displaced tenants, and increased tenant
"purchasing power".
staff recommends that this be replaced by the following language
to more adequately reflect the purpose of Program A-I.f:
study broadening the scope of the City's relocation ordinance
to include additional actions that result in tenant
displacement and consider increasing relocation fee
requirements where appropriate.
Second, the city council recently directed staff to look into
expanding the City'S inclusionary housing program to both
increase the percentage of inclusionary units and provide
affordable housing to a wider range of income groups.
Accordingly, staff recommends the fOllowing new language
(italicized) for Program A-2.a:
Program A-2.a: Develop an inclusionary zoning program
requiring all new housing developments to provide units
affordable to a wide range of income groups including a
minimum of 15% affordable to low income households.
Environmental Impacts
A Notice Of Preparation, announcing the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report and soliciting pUblic comment on the
scope of the issues addressed in the ErR, was published on
- 22 -
February 23, 1989. Once prepared, the Draft EIR was released on
August 8, 1989 for 30-day public review. However, after a review
by the city Attorney regarding the Alternatives section of the
Draft EIR, the EIR was retracted, revised, and re-released for
public review beginning on september 20 and ending October 20,
1989.
The Initial Study checkl ist (used to determine whether an EIR
should be prepared and to help identify categories of issues that
should be examined in the EIR) identified the following issues as
potentially significant: air quality, energy and natural
resources, noise, light and glare, shadows, population, housing,
land use, utilities, public services, fiscal impacts, cultural
resources, aesthetics, and neighborhood impacts.
The EIR, which is attached with this staff report, assesses the
impacts of between 1,500 and 3,220 new housing units built over
the next five years throughout the city. One of the difficulties
in assessing the impacts is not knowing the exact location of
such development. It was assumed that the new development would
be scattered throughout the city, minimizing the impact upon a
given area of the city. Large residential projects in excess of
site review thresholds will require individual environmental
assessments.
The ErR identified no significant adverse impacts upon the
environment by the projected development.
- 23 -
ErR Alternatives
Consistent with california state requirements for EIR' s, the
Housing Element ErR examines reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project. These alternatives include a "minimum changefl
alternative, a "rezoning alternative", and an f1additional
programs" alternative.
The EIR concludes that these alternatives do not address the
community's needs as well as the proposed Housing Element. The
"minimum change" alternative, which would involve making no
changes to the Housing Element other than those strictly required
by the state, would not adequately provide for suitable
affordable housing sites, nor would it encourage modernization
and improvement of rent controlled units. The "rezoning
alternative", which would involve downzoning of residential land
throughout the City, would constrain overall housing production
in the city. Finally, the "additional programs" alternative
would decrease participation neighborhoods in the planning of
their neighborhoods.
Comments and Response to Comments
Comments received on the Draft EIR are attached in Exhibit "E".
The Response to Comments is contained at the end of the Final
EIR, which is included as an attachment to this staff report.
- 24 -
Recommendation
staff respectfully recommends that the city Council:
1) Conduct a public hearing on the Housing Element and
Environmental Impact Report;
2) Adopt the resolution certifying the Environmental Impact
Report;
3)
Approve the proposed Housing Element,
including the
recommended additions contained in Exhibit tfB", and transmit to
the state Department of Housing and Community Development for
final review and comment.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Jeff Mudrick, Senior Development Analyst
John Read, Associate Planner
Exhibits:
A Recommended additions to text of Housing Element based
upon state Department of Housing and Community
Development comments
B Notes from November 9, 1989 community Forum on the
Draft Housing Element
C Letters from the public concerning the April, 1989
Draft Housing Element
D state Department of Housing and Community Development
(HeD) comments on Draft Housing Element
E Publ ic/ Agency comments on Draft Env ironmental Impact
Report
F Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact
Report on the Housing Element update
- 25 -
EXHIBIT "A"
The following provides recommended textual additions to the
Housing Element based upon HCD comments.
Resources and services for the Homeless
In response to the state I s request for an expansion of the
Housing Element's discussion of resources and services for the
homeless, staff recommends that the following text be added to
page 24 of the proposed Housing Element:
"An estimated 2,500 to 5,000 homeless persons live in the Santa
Monica and Venice areas. The single most important cause of
homelessness in Santa Monica is the shortage of affordable
housing. While the City of Santa Monica has addressed the
housing crisis through rent control laws and affordable housing
production and maintenance programs, it has become necessary to
provide a wide range of emergency services to help alleviate the
condi tions and hardships of homelessness until that individual
can secure permanent housing. To help bring about this change,
the City contributes approximately $1.3 million in community
service grants, in-kind contributions, and city-sponsored
programs including:
Homeless Outreach Teams-- Parks outreach, jail outreach,
heal th care outreach teams visit public places, and local
jails, providing services to the most isolated homeless in
the community.
Case Management and Counseling-- Social service agencies
such as Lieu-cap, sojourn, stepping stone, and saint Joseph
Center provide counseling, and assist the homeless to obtain
governmental benefits, jobs, and housing.
Shelter Resources-- The Emergency Cold Weather Shelter
Program provides emergency shelter during inclement weather
for 350 persons through the use of local armories and motel
vouchers. Sojourn provides residential services for
battered women and their children. LieU-Cap supplies
referrals to other local shelter services, and Turning Point
provides a 35-bed shelter for any homeless adult.
Health Care-- Primary care for homeless persons is available
through the Venice Family Clinic's Homeless Outreach Team
and through the clinic located in nearby Venice.
Food and Clothing-- Emergency assistance, including meals
and clothing, are available at four locations: Sober Inn,
Lieu-Cap, saint Joseph's Center, and the westside Food Bank.
The Salvation Army provides sit-down breakfasts each
weekday.
- 1 -
Day Centers-- Sober Inn, a day care enter, provides homeless
persons with hot food, showers, counseling, and rest areas.
Two other centers, Daybreak and Step Up on Second street,
target services to the mentally ill homeless.
In 1986, the city council convened a citizen's Working Group on
the Homeless to develop recommendations regarding the needs of
the homeless and addressing the residents' concerns. The
following recommendations have since been implemented by the
city:
Public Restroom Hours Extension-- Parking structure
restrooms are now open 24 hours a day and public park
restrooms are open daily between 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Informational Brochure-- the City staff has prepared an
informational brochure responding to the pUblic's concern
for the homeless population.
Homeless Resource Card-- The city staff updated the Homeless
Resource card and distributed the card throughout the
homeless community. City staff also developed a brochure on
relevant city ordinances appropriate for homeless and
non-homeless residents.
City Manager Staff Homeless Coordinator-- Personnel in the
City Attorney's Office, the Recreation and Parks Department,
and the Community and Economic Development Department
coordinate efforts to stay abreast of national, state, and
local homeless and housing issues, laws, and programs.
Additionally, the Assistant to the Director of Recreation
and Parks serves on the FEMA Emergency Services Technical
Committee representing the League of California Cities. The
League distributes and monitors grants to agencies serving
the homeless population and passed a resolution to increase
services to the homeless mentally ill.
community Education Regarding
staff regularly participates
Coalition and assisted with the
1985 conference on homelessness.
the Homeless Issue-- city
in the Wests ide Shelter
organization of the October
structure Guards-- The City responded to recommendations for
additional public guards by employing four new structure
guards (a total of 8) to patrol the downtown mall, parking
structures, and Palisades Park.
Employment opportunities-- The City developed procedures
wi thin city departments to hire temporary employees and
provide employment opportunities for homeless people through
EDD.
Arrest of Panhandlers and Persons Engaging in Anti-social or
Criminal Behavior-- The Police Department has responded to
the recommendation of arresting and prosecuting these
- 2 -
offenders. Periodic undercover operations in Palisades Park
have resulted in numerous arrests.
Lastly, the City continues to work closely with city Commissions,
mental health officials, and local groups, including the westside
Shelter Coalition and the Chamber of Commerce, to identify unmet
needs, identify funding sources, and implement the programs.
Included in this effort is an attempt to coordinate with other
governmental agencies, particularly the County and the city of
Los Angeles.
Vacant Land
Staff recommends adding the following text concerning vacant
residentially zoned land at the end of the discussion of Land Use
Controls on page 49 of the proposed Housing Element:
"Table 24 shows vacant acreage in each of the city's residential
zones. By multiplying the vacant acreage by the number of square
feet (43,560) per acre, and dividing by the allowable density in
each zone, the total theoretical unit capacity is determined.
The total theoretical number of units developable on vacant land
is 393. This assumes that all vacant land will be developed to
the maximum potential and that there are no physical or other
constraints to development.
Santa Monica allows residential development in many commercial
zones and provides incentives, such as floor area ratio and
height bonuses, for residential development in certain zones.
However, the City has had relatively little residential
development in these zones. Therefore, the City believes that it
would be too speculative to estimate the potential residential
development capacity on commercially zoned vacant land.
- 3 -
TABLE 24
VACANT LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
VACANT POTENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL LAND ALLOWABLE DWELLING
ZONE DISTRICT (ACRES) DENSITY UNITS
Rl 1.5 Idujlot a 9
Single family
RIA 0.0 Idujlot 0
parking overlay
R2R O.l 2dujlot b 2
Duplex
R2 2.5 1500sfjdu 73
Low density mUltifamily
R2A 1.1 1500 sfjdu 38
Parking overlay
R3 4.9 1250sfjdu 170
Medium density
multifamily
R3A 0.0 1250sfjdu 0
Parking overlay
R4 1.8 900sfjdu 87
High density
multiplefamily
R4A 0.3 900sfjdu 15
Parking overlay
RMH 0.0 NjA 0
Mobile home
TOTAL 12.2 393
SOURCE: 1989 City of Santa Monica Land Use Study
a The typical lot size in the Rl district is 7,500 square feet.
b The minimum lot size in the R2R district is 3,000 square
feet. II
- 4 -
Governmental Constraints
In response to the State's comments concerning governmental
constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of
affordable housing, staff recommends adding the following
language to proposed Program A-l.d:
Program A-l.d:
"Periodically review Architectural Design Guidelines to ensure
that they continue to promote affordable housing."
w/heexha
- 5 -
Exhibit B:
Notes from November 9, 1988
Community Forum on Housing Issues