The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-20080429-8B~® ~;tYof City Council Report Santa Monica CityCouncil Meeting: April 29, 2008 Agenda Item: To; Mayor and City Council From: Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning & Community Development Subject: Discussion of the City's Draft General Plan Housing Element Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council review and provide direction on the draft 2008- 2014 Housing Element as modified by the attached errata sheet prior to the draft's submittal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Executive Summary This report summarizes the highlights of the Draft Housing Element of the General Plan, which is presented to the City Council for its review and comment prior to submittal to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). State Law mandates that all southern California local jurisdictions prepare a Housing Element by June 30, 2008, for the 2008-2014. planning period. The report summarizes the outreach process, compliance with the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the Draft Housing Element's vision, which includes continuing the City's successful Affordable Housing Production Program, providing housing services for special needs groups and ensuring compatibility with the direction of the pending Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). The Draft Housing Element describes the City's commitment and effective efforts to develop.. affordable housing against a background of spiraling construction costs, and escalating land values. It describes how the City's ability to maintain affordability of existing units is challenged. by State-mandated rent control regulations, and uncertainty in federal housing programs, resulting in significantly higher rents in over 50% of the city's rent controlled units and reductions in Section 8 housing vouchers. The combined effect of these forces is a loss of affordability for lower and middle income households. The Housing Element includes objectives and programs to address this situation, and will be updated and revised prior to submittal to HCD with information contained in three. recently released Rent Control Board reports, highlighting the. growing need for urgent action to address housing affordability in Santa Monica today. An additional program to be .added to the draft Housing Element will commit the city to investigating new, innovative ways to address the issue of lost housing affordability. The report includes comments received since the document's release from members of the public, the Housing ahd Planning Commissions, the Rent Control Board, and City 1 staff, and proposed revisions are included in an errata sheet attached to this report. After City Council action, the Draft Housing Element will be revised and forwarded for review to HCD. Environmental review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be conducted concurrently. Staff will return to the Planning Commission and Council for formal action after staff receives HCD's comments and environmental review is completed, which is anticipated toward the end of the year. Background Housing and its production are critical to the economic and social well-being and vitality of the community and its residents. Increasingly, the State of California has recognized this situation and has imposed requirements for all jurisdictions to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs and prepare goals, policies, programs and objectives addressing these needs. The Housing Element is the only General Plan Element for which State law provides for independent review and certification by the State of California. This Draft Housing Element fulfills all of the State's Housing Element mandates and also expresses Santa Monica's long-term commitment to creating a range of housing affordable to its diverse community. It includes discussion of the vision and proposals being developed in the LUCE that focus on providing new housing compatible with the community's desire that housing be designed as part of complete neighborhoods, providing services and transit within walking distance of residences. The Housing Element was released in February 2008 for public review. It emphasizes the City's past and continuing commitment to maintaining and developing affordable housing. The City's successful programs are implemented through the Housing and Economic Development Department, Rent Control Board and the Planning & Community Development Department. They include: • Affordable housing production boosted through on-site requirements to construct affordable units or payment of impact fees, development incentives for producing affordable housing units and rehabilitation programs (under Goals 2, 5 and 6); • Streamlining the permit approval process while maintaining high architectural standards (under Goal 1); 2 Assisting .and educating renters and landlords, enforcing the Rent Control Ordinance and prosecuting perpetrators of unfair rental practices and discrimination, and maintaining the integrity of the city's housing stock through Building Code enforcement (programs under Goals 3 and 4). These programs have been enhanced over the years in response to the community's needs. Their relevance has steadily increased, particularly in the last 13 years since the State's adoption of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which mandated vacancy decontrol and has resulted in significant rent increase in over half of the city's apartments to date (Attachment A, pages 3-27 to 3-30). Today, the loss of housing affordability has profound impacts on the character and sustainability of the community, which the programs in the draft Housing Element aim to address. Discussion The following summarizes the main sections of the Draft Housing Element. The Housing Plan The Housing Plan (Chapter 2) is the heart of the Housing Element. The chapter begins with a statement of the City's vision for providing housing that will be affordable to a broader spectrum of the community. It is followed by summaries describing how Santa Monica will comply with its 2008-2014 Regional Housing .Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation (662 units) and describing the city's housing rehabilitation and services program. The Housing Plan sets forth eight goals, followed by policies and more specific objectives and programs to guide the City towards that vision.. The Housing Plan is also provided in table format (without the policies or background explanation) in the Executive Summary. For purposes of the statutory requirements, the 662 unit RHNA allocation is proposed to be the City's quantified objective. 3 The eight goals of the draft Housing Element are: 1. Promote the construction of new housing within the City's regulatory framework 2. Encourage the production of housing for all income categories including housing for the community's workforce 3. Protect the existing supply of affordable housing 4. Promote the rehabilitation and continued maintenance of existing housing 5. Provide housing assistance and supportive services to very low, low, and moderate income households and households with special needs 6. Eliminate discrimination in the rental or sale of housing on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual preference, age, disability, family status, aids, or other such characteristics 7. Promote quality housing and neighborhoods 8. Promote the participation of citizens, community groups, and governmental agencies in housing and community development activities Since release of the public draft, the City Council adopted the Action Plan for Addressing Homelessness in Santa Monica in February, which shifts the paradigm for allocating resources to address homelessness in the. city. Attachment B includes replacement language for the Housing Plan to reflect this new policy: Staff is also recommending the addition of a program under Objective 3.a to identify new ways that the city can strive to replace the large number of formerly affordable units that have been lost through market rate rentals due to vacancy decontrol. Vision for Housing and Relationship to the Pending LUCE Update Preparation of the Housing Element update coincides with the LUCE process, affording the City an opportunity to closely examine and coordinate the issues of community growth, land use, housing, transportation, and community design. In many cases, the community's vision expressed throughout the extensive LUCE outreach process affirms the appropriateness of continuing most of the existing Housing Element policies, which 4 have succeeded in producing affordable housing and services for populations with special needs. Other goals and objectives that reflect the community's visioh are discussed in the Draft Housing Element. Land use strategies for additional future residential development will be developed as part of the ongoing LUCE process. Provisional goals for the Land Use and Circulation Element related to housing include: 1) Maintaining and conserving the City's existing residential neighborhoods, including single-family and multi-family areas. There is strong community desire to preserve and enhance the character and scale that currently exists in these areas. 2) Continuing the commitment to developing affordable housing, services and programs that support the homeless and other underserved populations. 3) Promoting sustainable land use and design concepts and green building and landscaping practices. 4) Exploring a range of housing options downtown and at targeted locations along the City's major transit corridors. 5) Planning for future housing as a component of transit-oriented development, which is largely dependent on the outcome of current planning efforts to determine the path and station locations of the planned Expo light rail ,line. 6) Exploring ways to address housing affordability for the City's workforce. Background Data Chapter 3 of the Draft Housing Element provides a housing needs assessment, including an overview of the City's population, household and housing characteristics, and an analysis of the community's housing needs. This assessment serves as a foundation for developing housing objectives and recommendations for allocating City resources in order to meet local housing need and provide a fair share of regional affordable housing. The data, based in part on the 2000 census and also on more recent City and State sources, includes information about: population characteristics 5 such as household types, income levels, employment, and special needs groups; and housing stock characteristics including age, type, cost and affordability, and assisted housing at risk of conversion. Attachment B includes several data changes proposed for this section in response to comments received since the draft's release. In addition, the attachment includes replacement language to reflect the City's updated information about homelessness in the city. This data, contained in the Action Plan for Addressing Homelessness in Santa Monica, was obtained through more accurate methodology employed in a survey conducted in January of this year, and is more reliable than the data included in the public release draft. Other data updates to be included in the draft for HCD review are described in Attachment B (Errata Sheet). Analysis of Potential Constraints State law requires local jurisdictions to assess whether there are any constraints imposed by local government on the maintenance, improvement or development of housing and to consider removing any such constraints that impede a jurisdiction from achieving its fair share of regional housing need. Constraints caused by non- governmental factors discussed in this chapter include the cost of land, construction costs (which will be updated; see Attachment B), and the availability of mortgage and home construction financing. Potential government constraints address issues of zoning, building code, fees and other requirements that may result in the inability to economically produce housing. Environmental factors are also discussed and generally concluded to not constitute a constraint to housing production. Land costs and availability are identified as posing the greatest constraint to providing affordable housing in the city, although over the period of the last housing element, builders still found it feasible to build market rate housing as evidenced by the strength of housing construction activity in Santa Monica. To look more closely at potential governmental constraints, HRA Advisors, Inc. 6 conducted an in-depth study of twelve interim and permanent housing-related ordinances that the City has adopted since the 2000-2005 update, which is summarized in this chapter and included in its entirety in Draft Housing Element Appendix B. The report concluded that none of this legislation, which was enacted generally for the purposes of ensuring residential compatibility and encouraging more affordable housing production, has constrained the City's ability to achieve its RHNA allocation as-set by the regional authority (the Southern California Associate of Governments, or SCAG). While this legislation may add procedures or substantive costs, those costs have -not prevented the typical housing developer from building housing in the City and this legislation will not prevent the City from achieving its RHNA target. Housing Resources Expanded analysis and additional data are provided in Chapter 5 (Housing Resources) to demonstrate how the City has been successful and continues to manage productive programs that result in the construction of affordable housing. This chapter lists the State,. Federal and local financial resource programs that the City utilizes for activities including affordable housing production;. homeless, senior and disabled services, and assistance for persons with HIV/AIDS. This chapter also addresses the city's approach to reducing greenhouse gases as it relates to housing and the City's compliance with State laws that pertain to housing elements, explaining the city's compliance in every case with state mandates. Also discussed are the city's efforts to help tenants displaced through vacancy decontrol The Housing Resources chapter also contains the very important demonstration of the City's compliance with its RHNA allocation, a central requirement of the Housing Element. The RHNA requirement may be reduced through "credit" given for units that have received building permits since January 2006. Table 5-3 in this chapter demonstrates how projects that have already received discretionary approvals or building permits will provide enough affordable and market-rate housing units to exceed the City's RHNA allocation in most affordability categories. A complete spreadsheet 7 including project locations and proposed numbers of units is included in Draft Housing Element, Appendix D. City, non-profit and market-rate projects in the pipeline will further boost the production of low and very-low income housing. Additionally, ongoing regulatory programs such as the Affordable Housing Production Program will continue to promote the development of affordable housing. Also included is an updated inventory of underutilized sites where additional housing units could be built (Table 5-1) based on the same methodology approved by HCD in the City's previous housing element. In summary, the City of Santa Monica, with its current zoning, regulations and fees, will easily comply with the RHNA. Review of Previous Housing Element Implementation Chapter 6 of the Draft Housing Element includes a detailed analysis of each program included in the previous (1998-2005) Housing Element. The information in this chapter demonstrates that the programs in the City's current Housing Element have resulted in the rehabilitation and construction of thousands of housing units, support for renters; and services to meet special needs. State Requirement for Housing Element Adoption The State established June 30, 2008 as the deadline for southern California jurisdictions to complete and adopt their housing elements in the current cycle. However, the RHNA, which forms the basis for formulating a housing policy that meets state requirements, was not released by SCAG until June 2007 and not finalized by HCD until September 2007. Given these constraints, staff has worked diligently to complete the Housing Element within the required timeframe. Following Council's action, the City will send the document to HCD for its review and concurrently begin CEQA analysis. HCD has 90 days to complete its review and provide its comments to the City. In accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections 9.04.20.18.040 and 9.04.20.18 050, staff will return to the Planning Commission and Council after it receives HCD's comments and completes the environmental review. 8 Consistency with Other General Plan Elements The City of Santa Monica's General Plan contains eight elements', which must be consistent with one another in their goals and programs. The proposed Draft Housing Element would replace the City's current Housing Element, which was updated in 2003. The development of the housing element is timed with atwenty-year update of the Land Use Element, which is due to be released in draft form in early May. As such, efforts have been made to ensure that this Draft Housing Element is generally consistent with the City's existing land use element, as well as other General Plan elements, and that it is consistent with the general direction proposed in the LUCE update. Chapter 1 includes discussion of the Housing Element's consistency with other city General Plan Elements and policies. The Housing Element's purpose is to articulate the needs and programs that will promote the City's ability to meet its housing needs, including its fair share of regional development as determined in the RHNA. The proposed Draft Housing Element reiterates the city's ongoing commitment to providing high quality housing for its residents, maintaining and building new affordable housing, addressing issues of homelessness, meeting special housing needs, implementing the Rent Control ordinance, and ensuring that additional housing units added to the city's housing stock are compatible with existing neighborhoods and are in proximity to neighborhood services in order to promote sustainability and healthy living objectives. This direction is compatible with other City General Plan Elements. Planning & Community Development is currently focusing efforts. on developing a strategy to create housing options to accommodate diverse lifestyles in proximity to improved transit access. Staff is also analyzing information to develop a program to produce housing that is affordable to a larger band of the City's workforce. These policies, which are principally being undertaken in the LUCE process, require additional analysis and review under CEQA and are referenced in the Draft Housing Element for Land Use, Circulation, Conservation, Housing, Open Space, Noise, Safety & Historic Preservation 9 consistency. It is possible, given the timelines of the two projects, that more detailed description of these policies may be added to the final Housing Element when it returns for formal review and adoption. Commission Action Presentations were made to the Planning Commission, Housing Commission and Rent Control Board at the outset of the Housing Element's preparation. Staff presented the Public Review draft to these bodies in March 2008 and the following comments and recommendations were received. Responses to these comments and to those received from the public (see below), have either been incorporated into Attachment B, or may. be included in the draft for HCD review, pending Council direction. Planning Commission The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Housing Element at a public hearing on March 19, 2008. The Commission requested that staff review ahd/or include the following: • The accuracy of data for the population estimate, building cost per square foot, and school enrollment figures. • Clarify data on new housing (new units built versus net new units to reflect the number of units demolished). • Include more Rent Control data including information on occupants of rent control units and the impact of market rate rent adjustments. • Add a definition for congregate care; include more data and a goal to meet the community's future need for congregate care. • Add a goal to the Housing Plan to address the jobs-housing imbalance and to better match income and housing affordability for Santa Monica's residents. • Place a stronger emphasis on the need to strengthen the policies supporting the Section 8 housing program. 10 • Ensure that the document is consistent with amendments being considered to the Green Building Ordinance. • Recognizing that Santa Monica has an older housing stock that must be rehabilitated or replaced, the Element should address the way in which that housing is regenerated with respect to the placement of housing and transportation connections. • Consider where the Element can include more commitment to the City's wider. sustainability objectives. • Provide more detailed description and analysis of a program to provide workforce housing, emphasizing its connection with long-term sustainability. • Ensure that there is strong language about maintaining the city's existing affordable housing, in additioh to creating new affordable units. • Consider the impact that Proposition 98 might have on the city's ability to produce affordable housing should that measure be approved by State's voters. Housing Commission Planning staff presented the Draft Housing Element to the Housing Commission at a public hearing on March 13, 2008. Following extensive discussion, the Housing Commission unanimously voted to support the Draft Housing Element and asked that attention be paid to: • Opportunities for strategies to support affordable housing • Parking reduction for affordable housing and housing near transit • Refining the methodology for counting the homeless population, and in particular the concern that the Latino homeless population has been undercounted. Rent Control Board Planning staff presented the Draft Housing Element to the Rent Control Board (RCB) at a public hearing on March 13, 2008. The RCB held further discussion at its April 3 meeting and had generally positive comments, noting that they are pleased that the City 11 will be able to meet the RHNA allocation established by SCAG. However, the RCB is very concerned about the findings of the nine-year report on "The Impact of Market Rate Vacancy Increases," which was presented to the Board on April 3 and has been forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. The report data indicate that 14,672 units have now been rented at market rate, including 9,860 units that previously had rent levels affordable to low-income households (80% of the median family income for a family of four). Included within the 9,860 units were 6,044 units that had rent levels affordable to very-low income families (60% of MFI). The RCB requested that the. Housing Element address this issue by including a program to identify new ways that the city can strive to replace the large number of formerly affordable units that have been lost through market rate rentals due to vacancy decontrol. As referenced earlier in this report, this program is recommended to be added under Objective 3.a of the Housing Plan. The RCB's annual report, also released for the April 3 meeting, contains updated rental cost information that staff will use to update the information in the Housing Element in order to better reflect the current affordability gap. Public Outreach Community and Inter-departmental Participation in the Development of the Housing ..Element The draft Housing Element has been developed with community input through many outreach efforts either specifically associated with the Housing Element process or in conjunction with development of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), which included many opportunities for participation on issues related to housing over the last three years. While the Planning & Community Development Department (PCD) has taken the lead role in developing the Draft Housing Element, PCD has worked with staff members that implement housing-related programs in the City's Housing and Economic Development Department, Community and Cultural Services Department, and Rent Control Board. 12 Staff from each of these agencies, in addition to the .City Attorney's office, has contributed to the research and review of this document. A Special Meeting to discuss the Housing Element's direction and the RHNA was held for the Affordable Housing community on December 14, 2007. Invitations were sent to thirty-six housing developers, advocates, and service providers (Draft Housing Element Appendix C). In addition to staff from various City departments, representatives from the following agencies attended the meeting and provided input: • Venice Family Clinic • Step Up on Second • Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM) • OPCC CLARE Foundation Since the Public Review Draft was released in February, comments have been received and staff has incorporated them into Attachment B. Community Input Through the LUCE Process The LUCE process began in 2004 and has involved a substantial amount of community outreach and engagement. Opportunities for residents to recommend strategies, review and .comment upon land use and housing issues and discuss new opportunities for housing were an important component of the LUCE update. For example, in the initial visioning workshop, the need for housing that is affordable to a wide range of incomes emerged as one the community's greatest concerns, and was reflected in the Emerging. Themes. In 2007, the LUCE "Placemaking" workshops looked at ways to preserve existing neighborhood character and focused on nearby commercial areas that might have potential to become .mixed-use neighborhood centers where more affordable or "workforce" housing might be built with access to nearby services and transportation options. In addition, potential for new residential/mixed-use neighborhoods was a focal 13 topic in the Industrial-Lands Workshops, which were attended by over 250 community members. City staff received important input at these and other workshops that was taken into consideration in formulating the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. In addition to its emphasis on programs to meet more immediate housing needs, the Draft Housing Element is consistent with the LUCE vision for future housing opportunity areas. However, the Draft Housing Element does not include specific proposals for location of new housing areas; that determination will be made in the LUCE. Public Notice and Summary of Comments Received Notification of release of the Draft Housing Element was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press on February 15, 2008, and copies have been available at the Planning Division's public counter and all branch libraries. Electronic notification was provided to housing providers and advocates and to adjacent jurisdictions and the SMMUSD. In addition, an electronic version of the document has been available since February 15 at the Planning Division website at http://www.smpov.neUplanning/whats-new/index.html and. has also been linked to the Land Use and Circulation Elements website, www.shaoethefuture2025.net. A notice was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press regarding this Council hearing on April 18, 2008, and notification was sent to interested parties by mail and a-mail. The following comments were received from various members of the public in regard to the Draft Housing Element. Copies of communications received are included in Attachment C: • The city is planning to build too much housing and it is questionable whether the city should be participating in building workforce housing for families with relatively high incomes. • Unit size (number of bedrooms) should be diversified within affordable housing projects to ensure diversified population and equal opportunity; 14 • The Section 8 program is at serious risk, and will be more at risk if voters approve Proposition 98, and serious attention should be paid to this. • Section 8 tenants need to have access to relocation fees. • The City needs to be very concerned about the disaster of owner opt-out from the Section 8 program. Alternative programs and preventative measures are needed to avert a surge of new homelessness that would result. • Construction costs are higher than the figure included in the HE. • The fees in Table 4-6 omit water meters, and new projects must include separate domestic and irrigation meters and a third meter for fire sprinklers, if required, for which the fee exceeds $10,000.. • The Draft Housing Element does not mention co-housing (an emerging model of housing co-ownership with an emphasis on communal space and sustainable design), and the City should consider whether co-housing is something that should be encouraged. Environmental AnalVSis An initial study will be conducted to determine the proper level of environmental analysis for the draft Housing Element under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The initial study will result in either a .negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or a full or limited environmental impact report (EIR). Community noticing and meetings as required by CEQA will be scheduled as the environmental analysis progresses. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions Preparation of the Housing Element and related environmental review are included in the FY2007-2008 budget. Accordingly, there are no financial impacts associated with the recommended action. 15 Prepared by: Elizabeth Bar-EI, AICP, Senior Planner Approved: jd"evelopment DeK ATTACHMENTS: ity Forwarded to Council: ~rfiont Ewell Manager A. Link to the Draft Housing Element (electronic version) HARD COPIES WERE PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL IN FEBRUARY. B. Errata Sheet with proposed changes to include in the Housing Element HCD Review Draft C. Comments Received on the Draft Housing Element 16 ATTACHMENT A Link to the Draft Housing Element (electronic version) HARD COPIES WERE PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL IN FEBRUARY http://www.smgov. net/planning/whats-new/index. html 17 ATTACHMENT B Errata Sheet with proposed changes to include in the Housing Element HCD Review Draft 18 Draft Housing Element Errata Sheet The following are proposed revisions to the Public Review Draft Housing Element, February 2008. Changes to the policies, programs, and text reflect response to comments provided. by the Housing Commission and Rent Control Board on March 13, 2008 and the Planning Commission on March 19, 2008. Changes also reflect response to comments received from the general public, service agencies, and City staff during the public comment period. These changes will be incorporated into the Draft Housing Element prior to its submittal to HCD on or before June 30, 2008. Additional minor edits, typos and grammatical changes may be made to the document before it is submitted to HCD and is not reflected in the errata listed below. Changes to policies and text are presented in underline/strikeout. 1. Updated information on construction costs in the City requested. Updated construction costs for 2008 based on information compiled by the City's Housing & Economic Development Department. will be included in the Draft Housing Element as follows: • Multi-family construction: $239/square foot Development costs fora 2 bedroom apartment is $523,000 per unit. • Of that, $233,000 is hard costs related to construction. 2. More information on congregate care facilities and a definition should be included in the Final Housing Element. For the purpose of background information and to give a more complete picture of housing in the city,. information on congregate care facilities in the city will be included in an appropriate location within Chapter 5: Housing. Resources. A definition will be included in the Glossary of Terms 3. Page 3-54: Question regarding apparent inconsistency between data on the number of education-related jobs in the city. Table 3-9 and 3-10 -Language will be added to clarify the composition of job reporting categories in data produced by the State EDD as compared to the City's data on principal employers. The State EDD Labor Market data classifies the school district and Santa Monica College under local government. In addition, there are minor discrepancies due to the fact that the EDD data is average for the quarter, and the profile that the City collects of principal employers is a self reporting "snapshot" at the end of the fiscal year, June 30. The Housing Element will be updated with 2007 data for Table 3-9 and 3-10 (below) and a footnote will be added. 19 .. .. .- .- . ..- . . - ~~ # bf: Aveeage Establishment ` Esiablisbments Em to ment Agriculture, Forestry, 6 11 Fishing & Hunting Mining. 1 *** Utilities 6 281 Construction 227 2,607 Manufacturing 105 1,056 Wholesale Trade 230 2,355 Retail Trade 648 9,781 Transportation & 29 359 Warehousing Information 619 7,754 Finance & Insurance 258 3,155 Real Estate & Rental & 392 3,268 Leasing Professional, Scientific, 1,217 11,659 & Technical Services Management of Companies and 22 604 Enterprises Admin & Support & Waste Mgmt & 230 2,636 Remediation Educational Services 85 2,359 Health Care & Social g43 8,368 Assistance Arts, Entertainment, & 600 2,128 Recreation Accommodation & Food 377 11,183 Services Other Services 362 3,382 Non-Classifed 2 ** Federal Govt 6 283 State Govt 1 15 Local Govt*** 49 6,279 rorat, 6,315 79,525 SOURCE: State of California EDD Labor Market Information, 2008, Based on reported data only "Data suppressed by EDD for confidentiality "` Includes Ciry of Santa Monica, SMMUSD, SMC 20 Ettt fa' er - Nuntbee of Lobs ProviUed Santa Monica College 2,517 City of Santa Monica 2,177 Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District 1,650 Saint John's Hospital Medical Center 1,543 Santa Monica-UCLA Hospital 1,350 MN Nerivorks 1,060 RAND Corporation 862 Activision 800 ET Whitehall 750 Symantec Corporation 720 Yahoo 477 First Federal Bank 618 Rubin Postaer & Associates 450 Loews 440 King World Productions, Inc. 400 Crossroads Schdol 361 total 15,814 SOURCE: Economic and Demographic Profile, City of Santa Monica Economic Development Division. June 2007 4. Page 3-26: How is the current downturn in the housing market affecting Santa Monica? The following home sales data was registered for February 2008, indicating reduced sales prices. Data for the first quarter, when available, will be reviewed and included in the revised draft Housing Element. Change County/City/Area # Soltl 2007 ; 2006 Yrvta•Yc Santa Monica 623 $910,000 $884,500 2.88% 21 Los Angeles County 62,316 $530,000 $515,000 2.91 SOURCE: DataQuick 5. Provide updated information on rent control and the loss of units related to Costa Hawkins. More recent information provided in The Impact of Market Rate Vacancy Increases Nine- Year Report, prepared by the Santa- Monica Rent Control Board, March 20, 2008, will be used to update the text on Pages 3-27 and 3-28. In addition a program will be added to the Housing Plan as follows: New program to be added under Objective 3.a on pages x and 2-12/13: The City will identify additional mechanisms to maintain and/or restore the affordability of more existing units in response to the loss of more than 14,600 formerly affordable units that have been rented at market-rate as of 2007. Responsible Division: Housing Division (lead); Rent Control Agency 6. Page 3-29: Include more detailed information on Workforce Housing Details on the approach to Workforce Housing are being developed through the LUCE process but are not yet available to include in this draft of the Housing Element. The Final Housing Element will be updated with information available at that time. 7. More discussion on demolitions and the recycling of the city's housing stock should be included. New available information included in The Impact of the Ellis Act: January-December 2007, published by the Rent Control Board in April 2008, will be included on pages 3-27 and 3-23 in the Draft Housing Element. 8. Additional/Revised Information on the City's Sustainability Programs: The following text will be revised: Page 2-18 Objective 7.b Program Background: This program is not necessary as the activity described is legally required. Program Change last sentence to read: " on~n .,,,,~ .e,~, ,.e +~e ,..,e..,n e..er,.,, , ~.,,.e ~., Fhe r~+., Continue to reduce city-wide water and energy use in accordance with the goals and targets set out in the Sustainable City Plan. 22 Since this policy is set out in the Sustainable City Plan and subject to change, it is recommended to reference the SCP rather than include current language in the Housing Element. California Energy Commission's proposed targets for Title 24 are for net zero grid energy-using buildings -residential by 2020 and commercial by 2030. While this is not yet law, it is an aggressive policy which is consistent with goals set out for Solar Santa Monica. Page 2-19 Objective 7.c Program Background Point of Clarification: The first Commercial Green Building Guidelines were adopted in 1999, before the 2003 adoption of the Sustainable City Plan. The Residential guidelines were finalized in 2004. Remove this sentence: nn~a+. a.,,,,~i., .. ,,,.F~ ~~F.,.~,~ f,....~a~a~,...+...,, , ,.,re..Ne i crn Replace: "Projects pursuing certification under the LEER preen building rating system Program: Continue to offer incentives to encourage green building and investigate new ways that green building might be incentivized. Continue to improve relevant sections of the Municipal. targets set forth in the Sustainable Citv Plan. Page 5-7 E.1 Energy Independence/Renewable Energy Use Add the following paragraph after the paragraph that begins "As an indicator to monitor implementation" has set forth a goal of having all newly constructed residential buildings be net zero grid energy users by 2020, the Solar Santa Monica program addresses existing buildings in the city as well." Page 5-8 E.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Remove the paragraph that begins "Current climate models were developed to analyze..." and replace. with the last two paragraphs below: 2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Greenhouse gases are components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. The natural greenhouse effect allows the earth to remain warm and sustain life. Greenhouse gases trap the sun's heat in the atmosphere, like a blanket, and influence the 23 has substantially increased atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. New housing development may contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, but careful site planning and design and the selection of environmentally friendly building materials and equipment can significantly reduce these emission levels. NO CHANGE TO AB 32 BULLET POINTS Remove the paragraph that begins "Current climate models were developed to analyze..." and replace with the last two paragraphs below: Current climate models are available to analvze climate change on a global scale and. to analvze greenhouse gas emissions at the local scale. There are established standards for measuring and reporting a community's greenhouse gas emissions and the methodology for calculating greenhouse gas emissions is standardized and widely used. The Citv has calculated its municipal and community-wide greenhouse gas emissions for Page 5-8 E.3 Increasing Energy Education Remove all mention of the Community Energy Independence Initiative and replace with the name "Solar Santa Monica program". Replace "www.smgov.net/epd/" with "www.solarsantamonica.com" 9. Revised Homelessness Discussion and Programs The following text will be revised: Page 2-4, Replacement of second bullet under Housing & Supportive Services population living on the streets of Santa Monica persons whose last permanent address is in Santa Monica and vulnerable members of Santa Monica's workforce. On an annual basis, the Citv supports agencies that provide supportive services emergency shelter, and 24 city-wide. Remove the paragraph that begins "Current climate models were developed to analyze..." Santa Monica and link persons not first-homeless in Santa Monica with services near their communities of origin. Santa Monica Housing Authority implemented the Senior Homeless Prevention and Rental Page 2-1 Program Background 2j The ..a~. Fnn~~~.lnn a~ eFFn.+~ khrv n~.+ ..4..nnln n.J ~~In~.rnMle nF +L.c L.n.nelno~ n~fino of n (ln nl L.no'o +4.0 !"+.. nn.io +.n+...nnn nh+ nnr+ inn The City's "Action Plan for Addressing Homelessness in Santa Monica," adopted in March homeless population living on the streets of Santa Monica; persons whose last permanent address is in Santa Monica; and vulnerable members of Santa Monica's workforce. On an annual basis, the Citv supports agencies. that provide supportive services, emergency individuals in Santa Monica and -link persons not first-homeless in Santa Monica with services near their communities of origin. Program 2j for page 2-71 and for the corresponding section on page x in the Executive Summary: !`nn+'n o M ~ nL ~. n.J Inanrnnn R~n.Jc +4.n4 ..nntrlti~~+~. 4n'+4.o .J~...elnn...en+ n3 n nF penx~anent,$up~-hv6 ,I+Min n.J ,.+ n{ C..n+.. nen Cn „~Q~ • Focus case management and housing resources on .the 110 most chronic and vulnerable homeless individuals that have been identified as the top priority for accessing permanent, supportive housing; Continue to serve other priority homeless populations through city-funded programs. 25 addition, seniors at risk of being evicted, through no fault of their own, are eligible fora one- time eviction prevention grant of $2,000. A number of seniors receive both prevention grants and rental assistance vouchers. Develop strategies to link those not first-homeless in Santa Monica with services near their communities of origin. Review City golicv and practices that may contribute to homelessness. Page 2-15: Policy 5.4: Match housing and supportive service resources to the needs of priority homeless populations: Santa Monica's chronically homeless; those whose last permanent address was in Santa Monica: and vulnerable members of Santa Monica's workforce. Page 2-16 and page xi of Executive Summary: Program 5b: Continue to fund supportive services that serve the priority homeless populations., striking a balance between existing programs that have demonstrated effectiveness and national best Section 3: Housing and Supportive Services. Pages 3-16 to 3-18, Homeless Persons End of first paragraph: Amend the last sentence: The regional nature of the homelessness problem makes it challenging for Santa Monica to define and serve its fair share of the homeless population. hnmolno~ ~;+~~.,+~.... .. \n/e~+ I ,, n.....a„~ nn nr.F•nn +n 1 eucn Fhn \nrn~+ I n nnnnln~ lT~h~l~ 2_A`7~,_, ' ~ +hn ~ JF ..{ .Fb e~,+ o .-.+i.... n.d+h ~. e..+r~....hti....\ .v.J +.. .... h. ZG (1f +hnon OR7 n RD n nnF .. +ho rFrooM nn.d Z1 0 ..+ ~ ~hnHoro ..hhi w. n +h n c'+ ..+'n nh ~.:vFn /T.. hln 277\ ~able~fi Tet°I ° d; sted a ~ ^ +-66 849a 450i; ~.. . R -o a„ , 26 e.,..+., nnnn~n ~+.nn+~ .....+ n~+;..,.,+o.F +h.++ +he.e 72 7n~ h.. w.ele~. ~. le Dn~n,innn n,i 1 n eless ni nl mhnr F.nm (_I~n ~ ^ etes~ ; Dnnni~ m , z. ,y . ~ nihn.n.i F.nm nnnh r nni'..n !"i.: ~ nnni'n of nn rn n rni'n Cnnin ~An Winn hn~. +hn fnlln~.dnn~ ' 7 /1A n en4 n{ 4hn !`n ni.: c hmm~lnoo n Ini'n h d nnl.. f1 StR n nni of ihn ( `n ~nh.'c 77 n nni nF 4hn hmm~ino.. n. 1~.4'nn {n. CDC ~.. hid nnh~ 1A nn4 of ihn 4nMl h..dnnlh. hn in Cnnin ~Ann'n h d hn. n.i !'R.. F n.in.i ~ ..+I n.nF'In Fnr chic. h mm~lncc n n. Jntinn• n 4 nnrn.: mainly R/1 n nni ~..n.n m n.J A!1 n nni ...nrn u yaIH2S ~~ ' In light of this the City of Santa Monica is adopting "best practice" approaches to addressing homelessness. These approaches have been outlined in an "Action Plan to Address community education public policy. regional collaboration and program evaluation. The 27 .Mnm n I n Q/1 onna nfl n mninh. C G2llfl hmm~ln..n n nln nn +hnir n ninn.l n n n nnrn.: nn nc rr. _......~__.~ _'___ .. _... _.___ r._r.. _.. ... _.. ____.__. _._ address was in Santa Monica; and vulnerable members of Santa Monica's workforce. One of the "best practice" approaches proposed in the plan is the creation of a Service Registry of the most long-term and vulnerable homeless individuals living on Santa Monica's streets. The goal of the Service Registry is to enumerate and gather quality data to shape city has found to have a high margin of error when extrapolated for a relatively small jurisdiction such as Santa Monica. It is particularly problematic to apply LAHSA's methodology in Santa Monica because the homeless population characteristics in Santa Monica differ in many respects from the general countywide characteristics. To collect baseline data for the highest areas of homeless concentration in the city, over 50 volunteer staff from the City and homeless service organizations conducted a count in the early morning of January 25, 2008, and found 277 individuals sleeping outside. The baseline Average ape was 55 nears, Average length of time homeless was 11 years 30% were homeless more than 15 ev ars; 77% were male; 31 % were veterans; 95 (86%) reported either a mental health or substance abuse issue, or both: 21 reported a mental illness only, 14 reported a substance abuse issue only. - 60 reported both a mental health and substance abuse issue. shelter beds and permanent housing resources. Others in the priority populations will Santa Monica with services near their communities of origin. Page 5-3: Under the Homeless Services bullet: #e~ewia~ Social service and support programs for the priority homeless populations in Santa Monica include the following: 28 least one high-risk criterion from the vulnerability index. The findings of the survey highlight the needs of the 110 most vulnerable individuals: Page 5-5: ' ' r the {bran .r r i nrJ nn te rm oient ..~ ih ot~.Lehnirter .nn t The City's Action Plan for Addressing Homelessness in Santa Monica has made the reduction of street homelessness a high priority. The City is focusing its efforts on the priority populations defined in the Plan: the most chronic and vulnerable of the homeless population living on the streets of Santa Monica; persons whose last permanent address is in Santa 10. Additional Maps Two additional maps/figures will be added to the document. 1. Publically Assisted Affordable Housing: Figure 3-10 2. Homeless registry-Figure 3-7 Please. note: Senior Household map will be renumbered: Figure 3-8 29 Funding recommendations in the City's 2007-2010 Community Development plan are consistent with the priorities and action items outlined in the Plan, although refinements to the system of homeless service delivery may be phased in over the three year funding term, consistent with stakeholder input. ATTACHMENT C Comments Received on the Draft Housing Element Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk's Office and the Libraries. 30 To: 1 ~ R.e~ n ~ n~ ~ e.P a.^-Fw~er.~"1`~~{ou s i K~ ~6Ss n'I~t~.Sf., Uw~~~z1z., Fax # ~` 3 r.o~ . C.{~c' g -• .33 .g 0 .Date: YYl o t-,dl_ ~ ~ -'~1 ~`Ck. C7~ ~-®0$ Number. of Pages: a (including Cover) From: Richard Hilton, Executive Director N/esf Los Angeles Council for the Disabled and Seniors 4p6 Broadway St. #123 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2314 Phone # f3 ~ o) 358=6089 - . Urgent . Cottfltlerttla( ^ COnBrtn Rtrcel~# __. R®ply Fax #: C310) 395-7680 Message: ; ~c.Z~~~ ~~ a~pary'1-~r~ ~ ~r`a-vc~c`~2. l'~ s'c.~''z- ^7~~ -O ~~~,kt J ~.~ 125 ; PI~X's,e~A.~ ~ _ ~Qr~"t ~ 3~® ~; Y ~_. ~ g ~r.n-~') for {~ ~ UStN ~ G (_~vvt°E4-.f/7-~ -f'h.ez;f' Inlr \`i'~ ~ ,~.~1,~~ .- (n+,or ~`S -~vr.J0.rds ~~d~Gcz\~r r'7~~.X 1~J~ o ea~' ~bQ,t~c~ fir. ~ PIS-r~s~ Sa.e ('5~• -L : (r't'1r: P• Y~1e-~~ ,~-~ o ~ 13-G , ' ~~nw ~rtn/\~~l 1 Ilr 1~,. /Si~t+l\~LZ. .C- \ V F n,5 y~4~-f .S~Y~`p .rte `S1~~P~v.~~ l~. !7 .. ~ ~-~' ra~< <:l- ,~nei;-Fe 5~~9°s~t-w..: --Eo a5 aro'lze'<..".. .~s-~^~'',~ 'I7to information contained in [his commuNcation is cpnfidential, may be ptivi(eged, erd !s intended only for the ufte of 4loe addresxee. L•nau;h~:rz.3 ~ e, ' ~ disctosuro or copying is strictry prohIDhed. Please notify us by telephone imtnediatoly if you received this contmunt<atiTon in ctror, -_.. .. ~ ~ -~. rte..-xr ~ COinY~ FOR 7jrl L 3TTS1 n` rrn ~ V 1~ 1~T V~. 1 ®Al~..~JL.Y..PJ -M10~?d 2B.9 11L/.6f' . )'+ W 1® ANON-PROFTT SOCIAL'SERVICE FOUNDED Il`i 1993 .~~^ ~r ^~ :WLR COUNCIL FOR SENIORS FRX N0. :310 395 7680 Mar. 19 2005. 04: 54PM Pl s^ uk- Noasi ~Ieo~dext9- ~p `'Ylis L.1"z l3 oar ~(~ l+~c~ S~r~.ca,rl'l~'+h~r o+f 2g~aS-Cc~G~un~'l ~G~m--n ; .R t~-ha~at l~E t (day. Dale- Yrio.rcfn ~ `1r ~ ° $ -~j' CITY OF SANTP. MONICA - HOUSING ELED7EN'I' PUBLTC.HOUSING AGENCY - 5-YEAR PLAN ENSURE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (Prof ect. Based) The city's Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) .finances project-based private nonprofit, Community Cbrp. of Santa Monica. There is a benefit to wozk towards integration iz~ all existing, new or .rehabilitated projects. F'oz ' example, in 2-bedroom-plus buildings, thew should be inclusion of. some smaller units for ,the senior- and disabled-compatible population, which based.on 2000 Census., whether. real or' projected, is increasing in numbers. Conversely, in buildings where all the units are single or one-bedroom, considezation is suggested to provide units for parents with children. This strategy for project-based will. ensure diversity in family composi~ion_ I( March ,~, 2008 ..HOUSING Gs9a'~i-ON ~Sr ~(I~.c.6~~GI ~~ E~ : y carts ~"d"rc'r~ 1 C:~4.uc~ce .~ ~`f ~r~t~-Q=. ag Ii'tf: A-vr A,y~~. 2' +h~"TU~t ~ 03/ll~og ¢YIS.. /~ J epve ~Za-Fz wrfZ, Pf1A SfufiE' ¢foa~+~~'6fA PCB 12oo8..bY.+6'~R • afso ~ a?-~w~h pc~s ~ 1-F, Comr^rssc,~•;•, vn~~r °" Txw~sce°"•~-i 'rYl""c1~ 2-~,Th`z`'(t °,T~~t fm- ~Iavs~n~ ~,,,c~lo: sE~w~_`~its Ir±~r~„ Wednesday, March 19, 2005 4:43 PM Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT/PLANNING COMMISSION/PHA FY PLAN/Fw: Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants - Daily News Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 4:02 PM from: Maxine Hayden <mariahl@thegrid.net> To: <kevin@McKeown.net> Priority: Highest PUBLIC COMMENT/PHA FY PLAN i am a participant in the Santa MonicaHOUSing Authority Section 8 program. I am a disabled senior, with a service dog. The-owner of my residence is a private-for profit owner. L am concerned that there is not adequate protection for myself, Section 8 Tenants that are seniors, vulnerable, very-low-income, and disabled tenants, for owner opt-out actions provided in the PHAPlans.~In addition, housing provided by Community corporation of Santa Monica is not the answer to all Section.8 owner opt-out tenant situations and circumstances. mhe TARP program is not a complete way to protect these tenants. The $2,000.00 option, for those at risk to prevent displacement is also not a option for all tenants. Notwithstanding the present Proposition 98 Ballot measure, which would be a disaster, for all section 8 tenants, et al, especially here in Santa Monica, if passed is just one more terror that makes it-necessary to enhance the protections to Section 8, at risk tenants, in Santa Monica. Santa Monica Rental Housing is at an all time high. Enhanced protections against owner opt-outs, for at risk, Section 6 Tenants, are-desperately needed. Below please find ALERT, £rom Coalition for Economic Survival (CES), of March 12, 2008, identifying the Proposition 98 threat to Section 8 tenants AND (below the Prop. 98 comments] Daily News-Article, by Dana Bartholomew, Staff writer, of March 12, 2008, identifying some of the disastrous situations and circumstances encountered, presently, by section 8 Tenants, in the Los Angeles County Area. Please provide your attention and serious consideration of the desperate needs of Section B. Tenants, in Santa Monica. PLEASE SEE: ALL BELOW. Sincerely, Maxine Hayden 2128 20th Street, Apt. A Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 3976-0081 ----- Original Message ----- From: "coalition for Economic Survival" <contactces@earthlink.net> To: <mariahl@thegrid.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2006 5:37 AM Subject: Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants - Daily News > CES ii1 Action Logo > [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=OOlYO2-4hDwF00xS4gJnTt3rb- NaBBgYHZxSjZYCHjogRnWlMiMQiuAjowrarMijT1WO50FOjRw4tg72Crmp8ysKAW03tDrmRtmmnRYUBy_RVIhG41t-1dwQ==] > The Coalition for Economic Survival, together with the Fair Rousing > Council of the > San Fernando Valley and Neighborhood Legal Services of LA County, with the > assistance > of the Legal Aid Foundat ion o£ Los Angeles, are. organizing and assisting > the Section Page 1 of 5 > 8 tenants mentioned in the article below from illegal attempts by the > landlords > to displace these low income tenants by terminating their Section 8 rental > subsidy. > contract. > The tenants are protected by the LA City Rent Stabilization Ordinance. > But, if Proposition > 98, the measure that would wipe out all rent control laws in California, > passed > on June 3, these tenants as well as other tenants throughout the state > would be > left unprotected from evictions such as this.. > JOIN THE FIGHT TO DEFEAT PROPOSITION 98 > NO on 98 - YES on 99 _______________________ > Wednesday, March 12, 2008 > Low Income Tenants BeingSqueezed Out > BY Dana Bartholomew, Staff Writer > > In a blow to some of the Valley's poorest > people, nearly 50 mostly senior and disabled tenants are being forced > out of their apartments bylandlords seeking to flee city rent control > and subsidized housing. > Renters in Reseda, Northridge and North Hollywood who get > federal section 8 subsidies have been told to pay full market rates or > get out, tenants, city offic ial s and housing advocates said. > Though there are 45 documented cases, 115 tenants in four. > complexes could get 90-day notices that demand as much as $900 more a > month in rent, or face eviction. > With few Section 8 rentals available in the valley, tenants > might have to uproot to the east, south and harbor areas of Los > Angeles. > "We'regoing to be living on the street," said Laura Cloud, > 47, a stroke victim with an unemployed husband and two daughters at > Kingswood Village apartments in Reseda, who was given until April 25 to > pay up-or leave. "I'm lost for words. I'm very upset. I can't explain > the feelings I feel. But I don't want to be in a shelter." > Section 8 evictions are on the rise across L.A., where > rents soared an annual S.Spercent in the third quarter of lastyear and > only 3percent of apartments are vacant. As a result, some landlords > have sought to bypass rent control by opting out of the program. _ > Tenant advocates and city housing officials say some landlords are > breaking the > law by forcingout existing Section B tenants. > Landlord and tenant groups hotly debate the legality of evicting > Section 8 tenants under .LOS Angeles' rent-control ordinance. Both sides > hope the issue will be resolved in numerous court cases and appeals, > one of which is now before the 9th U, S. Circuit Court of Appeals. > > Apartment industry officials 'say the city's Housing Authority, > which administers federal Section 8 subsidies, has been unresponsive to _ > the needs of the city's mostly mom-and-pop apartment owners. > And caught in the middle are renters like Ruth Hordyk, 60, Page 2 of 5 > a Section 8 tenant who suffers from arthritis and Parkinson's disease. > > One of the 48 tenants at .Kingswood Village who receive - > Section 8 subsidies, £or five-years shehas paid $221 a month for a > $750 one-bedroom unit from the $800 amonth she gets from Social > Security. > Zn ,7anuary, she received a 90-day notice to either pay $1,000 a monthor > move. > > ~I > don't have that much income," she said. "I don't have very much of a > backup plan. I need to see several doctors. I'm so tired." > ~> Ron Gussow, 64, who uses a wheelchair, was one of the lucky > ones. He got a notice but managed to find another Section 8 unit in - > Reseda. > "It's a very rough life," said Gussow, crying at the memory > of the year he lived on the street. "It's something I don't want to do. > Ever again." > Officials at Century Quality Management who manage Kingswood Village did > not return > calls for comment. > > > The > Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando, Valley, which is investigating > Kingswood Village and other Section S program evictions, said the > landlord cutits Section 8 rentals after failing to apply for - and get - > - a cumulative three-year rent increase under the city's rent-control > ordinance. > > "We've never seen so many (Section 8) evictions at one > time," said Sharon Kinlaw, assistant director for the FairHOUSing > Council and lead investigator in Section 8 cases. > > "We're concerned primarily for the persons with > disabilities. ... All their support systems are there - doctors, > neighbors that help them, food and social service agencies." > > The Housing Authority of Los Angeles receives about > $380million a year from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban > Development for Section 8 vouchers. > > In all, the city supplies 44,000 apartment vouchers £or > families. Of the 16,000 landlords who have contracted to accept Section > 8 tenants, only 8,000 apartments are available in the Valley. > > A recent Section 8 apartment in Canoga Park drew 214 applicants for just > one vacancy. > > Housing - > Authority officials maintain that, despite the 90-day notices, the > agency is committedto helping families. If they move, they'll still > get rent vouchers. If they stay, landlords will be paid while their > disputes are settled by legal-aid attorneys. > "We are sending out notices to the owners that they cannot > terminate a contract by providing a 90-day notice - it is breaking - > contract law," said Lourdes Castro-Ramirez, director of the authority's Page 3 of 5 > Section 8 program. > Tenant advocates, however, say .landlords are picking on > Section 8 renters to free up rent-control units to market rates. But > they say. if tenants haven't broken any rent-control laws, they can't be > booted from the Section 8 contract. > "We see this throughout the city: Landlords who are > attempting to get out of their Section B contracts are giving out > blanket90-day notices. This is illegal," said Larry Gross of the > Coalition for Economic Survival. > "There are 44,000 Section 8 voucher holders in Los Angeles - all 0£ them > are at > risk." > But > while apartment-industry officials couldn't comment on the Kingswood > case, they said the Rousing Authority has exacerbated the city's >a£tordable-housing crisis by not being receptive to landlords. > Cloud and her husband, David Cox, received three increases > on the same day for their Kingswood Village apartment. Their rent went > from $400 to $1,300. > "We're barely scraping by right now," said cox, 41, in an > apartment filledwith recycled cans. "We~can't afford to move. We don't > have a car.. We take the bus. We've got two kids, two young daughters. > "I grew up in the Valley. I can't leave it." > > CES Logo > [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001YO2-4hDwFO0xS4gJnTt3rb- ' NaBBgYHZxSjZYCHjogRnVV1MiMQiuAjowrarMijT1WO5OFOj Rw4tg72Crmp8ysKAW03tDrmRtmmnKYU8y_KVIhG4It-1dwQ==] > COALITION for ECONOMIC SURVIVAL (CES) > 514 Shatto Place, Suite 270 Los Angeles, CA 90020 > Tel: 213-252-4411 * Fax: 213-252-4422 > Email: contactces@earthlink.net > Web site: www.CESinACtion.org > > Forward email > http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1101570421077&ea=mariahl@thegrid.net&a=1102015489454 > This email was sent to mariahl@thegrid.net, - > by contactces@earthlink.net > Update Profile/Email Address ~ _ > http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=00180epQbgXwMOGN-ZQRmWCbe_NV4z9wyBTUOFY_gYheyONyDV- zgiiZE-YBR51O3UJ6p=oo > Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM) > http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=OO18OepQbgXwMOGN-ZQKmWCbe_NV4z9wyBTUOFY_gYheyONyDV- zgiiIE-Y8R51O3UJ&p=un > > Privacy Policy: - > http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPOlicy.jsp > Email Marketing by > Constant Contact(R) - > www.constantcontact.com _ Page 4 of 5 > Coalition for Economic Survival (CES) ~ 514 Shatto Place, Suite 270 ~ Los > Angeles ~ CA ~ 90020 Page 5 of 5 unday, March 16, 2008 10:44 PM Subject: Fw: ALERT/Fw: Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants - Daily News Date: Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:32 PM From: Maxine Hayden <mariahl@thegrid.net> To: <Kevin@McKeown:net> Priority: Highest Hi Kevin: I am hoping to go to the Housing Commission Meeting tonight. Below is a copy of the ALERT, from CES, including the Daily News Article related to owner opt-outs, presently in the L.A. County Valley. (It seems that I can only view the SM Draft PHA Plan at the department counter, which will be on tonights Housing Commission meeting Agenda, at S.B.)** ** The below ALERT was sent by me to Lin Finer, SM Housing and Economic Development Department yesterday. She forwarded-it and my comments to Human Services, Rent Control, and Section 8 mailboxes. i also spoke with Janet Hand and have sent the ALERT, with my comments, to Chair and Vice Chair o£ the~SM Disabilities Commission requesting the the housing issues identified, regarding the disaster of owner opt-out be put on their Agenda. Alternative Programs and Preventative Measures need to be taken, in this City, to Prevent the devastatingsurge of homelessness that will result as indicated by the disaster in the Valley. (Janet told me that the staff can not take a position on the Prop. 98 ballot measure.) SEE BELOW: This is the original CES Alert, absent my comments. Maxine Hayden ----- original Message ----- From: "Maxine Hayden" mariahl@thegrid.net> To: "Maxine Hayden" mariahl@thegrid.net> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:12 PM Subject: Fw: ALERT(Fw: Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants - Daily News =~> ----- Original Message ----- » From: "Coalition for Economic Survival" ~contactces@earthlink.net> » To: <mariahl@thegrid.net> » Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:37 AM » Subject: Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants - Daily News ,' >„ »> »> CES in Action Logo »> [http:{/rs6.netltn.jsp?e=OOlYO2-4hOwFOOxS?gJnTt3rb- NaBBgYHZxSjZYCHjogRnWlMiMQiuAjowrarMijT1W050FOjRw4tg72Crmp8ysKAW03tDrmRtmmnRYUBy_RVIhG4It-1dwQ==] »> »> The coalition for Economic Survival, together with the Fair Housing »> council of the - »> San Fernando valley and Neighborhood Legal Services of LA county, with »> the assistance - of the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, are organizing and assisting »> the Section =~> 8 tenants .mentioned in the article below from illegal attempts by the >.~> landlords - »> tc displace these low income tenants by terminating their Section 8 »> rental subsidy »> contract. ~» The tenants are protected by the LA City Rent Stabilization Ordinance. »> But, if Proposition »> 98, the measure that would wipe out ail rent control laws in California, »> passed » > on Sune 3, these tenants as well as other tenants throughout the state »> would be Page 1 of 4 »> taO on 98 - YDS on 99 __________________________________ »> Wednesday, March 12, 2008 »> Low Income Tenants Being Squeezed Out »> BY Dana Bartholomew, Staff Writer »> »> In a blow to some of the Valley's poorest »> people, nearly 50 mostly senior and disabled tenants are. being forced »> out of their apartments by landlords seeking to flee city rent control »> and subsidized housing, »> »> Renters in Reseda, Northridge and North Hollywood who get >» federal Section 8 subsidies have been told to pay full market rates or »> get out, tenants, city officials and housing advocates said. »> »> Though there are 45 documented cases, 115 tenants in four »> complexes could gbt 90-day notices that demand as much as $900 more a >>> month in rent, or face eviction. ,» -•» :9i th few Sectio^ 8 rentals available in the valley, tenants »> might have to uproot to the east, south and harbor areas of Los -» Angeles. - »> '» "`.4e're going to be living on the street," said Laura Cloud,. »> 4i, a stroke victim with. an unemployed husband and two daughtersat >'%> Aingswood Village apartments in Reseda,whb was given until April 25 to »> payup or leave. "I'm lost for words. I'm very upset. I can't explain »> the feelings i feel. But 1 don't want to be in a shelter." »> »> Section 8 evictions axe onthe rise across L.A „ where »> rents soared an annual S.Spercent in thethird quarter of last year and »> only 3percent of apartments are vacant.-AS a result, some landlords »> have sought to bypass rent control by opting outof the program. »> »> Tenant advocates and city- housing officials say some landlords are »> breaking the -> law. by forcing out existing Section 8 tenants. »> »> »> »> Landlord and tenant groups hotly debate the legality of evicting »> Section 8 tenants under Los Angeles' rent-control ordinance. Both sides »> hope the issue grill be resolved in numerous court cases and appeals, »> one of ;which is noo-r before the 9th i1.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. >» => Apartment industry of£ic ialssay the city's Housing Authority, »> which administers federal Section 8 subsidies, has been unresponsiveto »> the needs of the r_ity's mostly mom-and-pop apartment owners. ~» »> And r_aught in the middle are renters like Ruth Bordyk, 80, »> a Section 8 tenant who suffers from arthritis and Parkinson's disease. »> »> One of the 46 tenants at Kingswood Village who receive »> Section 8 subsidies, forfive years she has paid $221 a month for a »> $750 one-bedroom unit from the $800 a month she gets from Social »> Security. »> »> In January, she received a 90-day notice to either pay $1,000 a month or »> move. >.» »> Page 2 of 4 »> »> n I »> don't have that much income," she said. "I don't have .very much o£ a =» backup plan. I need to see several. doctors. I'm so tired." »> »> Ron Gussow, 64, who uses a wheelchair, was one of the lucky »> ones. He got a notice but managed to find another Section 8 unit in »> Reseda. »> »> "it's avery rough life," said Gussow, crying at the memory »> of the year he lived on the street. "It's something I don't want to do. »> Ever ayain." »> -=> officials at Century quality Management who manage xingswood Village did »> not return -•» calls for comment. »> »> »> »> The »> Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley, which is .investigating »> xinyswood Village and other Section 8 program evictions, said the »> landlord cut its section 6 rentals after failing to apply for - and get »> - a cumulative three-year rent increase under the city's rent-control --> ordinance. > :.> »> "re'venever seenso many (Section 8)~evictions at one »> time," said Sharon xinlaw, assistant director for the Fair Housing »> Council and lead investigator in Section 8 cases. »> »> "'de're concerned primarily for the persons with »> disabilities. ... All their support systems are there - doctors, »> neighbors that helpthem, food and social service agencies." »> >91he Housing Authority of LosAngeles receives about »> $380mi11ion a year from the U.S. Department o£ Housing and Urban »> Development for Section 8 vouchers. »> »> L: all, the city supplies 44,000 apartment vouchers for »> Families. Of the 16, 000 landlords who have contracted to accept Section »> 8 tenanr_s, only 8,000 apartments are available in the Valley. »> >>> A recent Section 8 apartment in Canoga Park drew 214 applicants £or just »> one vacancy. »> »> »> »> Housing ?» Authority officials-maintain that, despite the 90-day notices, the »> agency is committed to helping families. If they move, they'll still »> get rent vouchers. If they stay, landlords will be paid whiletheir »> disputes are settled by legal-aid attorneys. »> »> "We are sending out notices to the owners that they cannot »> terminate a contract by providing a 90-day notice - it is breaking »> contract law," said Lourdes Castro-Ramirez, director of the authority's »> Section 8 program. »> »> Tera rt advocates,. however, say Landlords are picking on »> Section 8 renters to free up rent-control units to market rates. But »> they say if tenants haven't broken any rent-control laws; they can't be »> booted from the Section 8 contract. »> »> "ws see this throughout the city: liandlords who are »> attempting to yet out of their Section 8 contracts are giving out. »> blanket 90-day notices. This is illegal," said Larry Gross of the »> Coalition for Economic Survival. Page 3 of 4 »> >-~> "There are 44,000 Section 8 voucher holders in Los Angeles - all of them '» are at ~» risk." »> But »> :oh ile apartment-industry officials couldn't comment on the Kingswood »> case, they said the Housing Authority has exacerbated the city's =-» affordable-housing crisis by not being receptive to landlords. >» » Cloud and her husband, David Cox, received three increases >~-> on the same day for their Kingswood Village apartment. Their rent went >->> frcm 5400 to $1,300. »> "we're barely scraping by right now," said cox, 41, in an »> apartment: filled with recycled cans. "we can't afford to move. we don't »> have a car. ;i'e take the bus. we've got two kids, two young daughters. » > »> 'i grew up in the Valley. I can't leave it." »> CES Logo »> [htt p:ilrs6.netltn.jsp?e=OOlYO2-4hDwFO0xS4gJnTt3rb- AiaBBgiHZxSjLYCHjogI2nG'V 1MiMQiaAjotararMijT1W05OFDjRw4tg72Crmp8y5KAW03tDrmRtmmnKYUBy_KVIhG4It-1dwQ==] »> COALITION for ECONOPSIC SURVIVAL - (CES) =-~» 514 Shatto Place, Suite 270 Los Angeles, CA 90020 »> Tel:-213-252-4411 * Fax: 213-252-4422 »> Emaii: contactces@earthlink.net »> 47eb site: www.CESinACtion.org - »> »> Forward email »> http: !/ui.constantcontact.com/sa/f!~rtf.jsp? m=1:D1 Si 0421D77&ea=mariahl@thegrid.net&a=11D2015489454 ~» »> >= This email was sentto mariahl@thegrid.net, »> by contactces@earthlink.net »> »> Gpdate Prof i.ielEmail address »> http:/Jvisitor.constantcontact.com(d.jsp?v=00180epQbgXCaMOGN-ZQKmWCbe Nv4z9wyBTUOFY_gYheyONyDV- zgiiIE-Y8R51O3UJ&p=oo » > - » 7rstant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM) »> http:lvisitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=OO180epgbgXwMOGN-ZQKmWebe_NV4z9wyBTUOFY_gYheyONyDV- zgiiIE-Y 8R51O3US&p=un »> »> Privacy Policy: »> http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPOlicy.jsp »> »> »> Email Marketing by >>> Constant Contact(R) »> wna:a.constantcontact .'com »> »> _? coalition for Economic Survival (CES) i 514 Shatto Place, Suite 270 j »> Los Angeles CA :. 90020 Page 4 of 4 unday, March 16, 2008 10:44 PM .Subject: Housing element Date: Thursday, March 13,-2008 12:36 PM From: Ralph Mechur <ralph@rmechurarchitects.com> To: Kevin McKeown <kevin@mckeown.net> Kevin, A couple of factual comments from my quick review. I do not know if that affects the discussion. page 4-2 .section 4A1 has costs for construction. In Santa Monica they are 2X what is stated. Joan at CCSM and any builder can confirm that. page 4-13 Fees....there are also fees for water meters. New projects are required to have separate domestic and irrigationsystem meters. These are usually in the 1" - 2" range. The fees are several thousand dollars each. For projects that require a separate automatic fire sprinkler system, which includes all multi-family, another meter is required, usually 4", for which the feeds over $10,000. Also, the issue of co-housing is not discussed. should there be incentives for co-housing? This is generally better off financially elders. I know of one group currently organizing and lookingfor property in SM. Dowe want to encourage in any way? If there is to be any kind of give for workforce housing .for people in the 120-180$ income range we certainly could incentivize seniors to build their projects here as well. Thanks for your hard work. Ralph Mechur. Ralph Mechur Architects 3400 Airport Avenue, Suite 5 Santa Monica, CA 90405 t: 310-398-2940 £: .310-398-2950 Page 1 of 1 unday, March 16, 2008 10:45 PM Subject: Fw: KEVIN/Fw: Chris Knauf, Chair, SM Disabilities CommissionJFw: PUBLIC COMMENT -ALERT/Fw: Landlord Attempts toEvict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants -Daily News Date: Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:48 PM From: Maxine Hayden <mariahl@thegrid.net> To: Kevin@McKeown.net Conversation: KEVIN/Fw: Chris Knauf, Chair , SM Disabilities Commission/fw: PUBLIC COMMENT -ALERT/Fw: Landlord Attempts to Evict LowIncome Sec 8 Tenants -Daily News Priority: Highest Hi Kevin: "PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE". (I made mistake on your address below last time on this message.The first one went through) SEE BELOW: Maxine ----- Original Message ----- - From: Maxine Havden To: kevin@kevinmckeown net Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:39 PM Subject: KEVIN/Fw: Chris Knauf, Chair , SM Disabilities Commission/Fw:. PUBLIC COMMENT -ALERT/Fw: Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants -Daily News Hi Kevin: Please see below series of all a-mails and my comments I sent to City of Santa Monica yesterday. *`*PLEASE REPLY THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL" Maxine Hayden ----- Original Message ----- From: Maxine Havden To: smdcrc~coodlaw.biz ; dcchrisarrovo(o~earthlink net Cc: Janet Hand Sent: Wednesday, March 12,.2008 7:49 PM Subject: ATTN: Chris Knauf, Chair , SM Disabilities Commission/Fw: PUBLIC COMMENT -ALERT/Fw: Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants -Daily News ATTN: Chris Knauf, Chair, City of Santa Monica Disabilities Commission; - Chris Arroyo, Vice Chair, City of Santa Monica Disabilities Commission RE: Request for Agenda Item(s)/Section 8 Tenant Housing Issues/At Risk Disabled Section 6 Tenant(s)! Owner Opt- OuUAlternativePrograms and Preventive Action Needed Dear Commissioner Knauf and Commissioner Arroyo: Below please find series of a-mails to City of Santa Monica Departments and Staff, which includes Coalition for Economic Survival (CES) ALERT, and Daily News Article, BY Dana Bartholomew, Staff Writer, of Wednesday, March 12, 2008. (Janet Hand has indicated ,below ,that she has sent you some of this information from my original series of e-mails, `also' provideii below.) As indicated, in the Daily News Article, Alternative Programs and Preventative Action is needed, by the City of Santa Monica, to protect the housing of Disabled Section 8 Tenants, from the disaster that is presently affecting those residing, in the San Fernando Valley. The Daily News Article, speaks for itself on the housing issues that need to be addressed. The ALERT, from CES, regarding Proposition 98, to be on the June, 2008 Ballot, re-enforces the need for Action, by the City of Santa Monica, Disabilities Commission, to prevent a greater surge of homelessness, in this city, should Proposition 98 unfortunately pass. '" There exist several alternative Housing Programs, Federal and State, that need to be explored, by the City of Santa Monica and the Disabilities Commission to prevent a total disaster tc our disabled community and all Section 8 Tenant(s), residing here. I am sure that City of Santa Monica staffand departments know of other alternative programs, services and supports also to prevent homelessness, related to these issues. All preventative measures need to be explored, including but not limited to, a moratorium, on owner opt-outs. PLEASE SEE: ALL below and links to relative actions indicated, on CES website, for further clarification, on the issues.'* "Please reply to this a-mail, with your comments, observations and possibilities, for the above requested relative housing issues to be put on the City of Santa Monica Disabilities Commission Agenda. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at: (310) 396-0081. (NOTE: If I am on computer the line will be busy.) Sincerely, Maxine Hayden Pagel of 7 ---- Original Message ----- From: Janet Hand To: Maxine Havden Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:25 PM Subject: RE: PUBLIC COMMENT - ALERTlFw: Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants -Daily News You're welcome- I'm glad I could help, Maxine. Janet Hand Human Services ext. 5619 From: Maxine Hayden [mailto:mariahl@thegrid.net] Sent: Wednesday,. March 12, 2008 3:24 PM To: Janet Hand Subject: Re: PUBLIC COMMENT -ALERT/Fw: Landlord Attemptr to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants -Daily News Thank you for your time and courtesy, Janet. I-will contact them soon. Maxine ----- Original Message ----- From: Janet Hand To: Maxine Havden Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:03 PM Subject: RE: PUBLIC COMMENT -ALERT/Fw: Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants -Daily News Maxine- Chris Knauf, the Chair, can be reached at smdc ~aoodlaw.biz and the vice Chair, Chris Arroyo, ai dcchrisarroyo@earthlink.net. I also forwarded this email to them and let them know that you want the item agendized. -Janet From: Maxine Hayden [mailto:mariahl@thegrid.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:05 PM To: Janet Hand; Lin Finer Cc: Sedion8 Mailbox; RentControl Mailbox; HumanServices Mailbox Subject: Re: PUBLIC COMMENT -ALERT/Fw; Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants -Daily News Importance: High Janet Hand wrote, Wednesday, March 12, 2008, at 12:09pm, as a reply to my forwarded message to Lin Finer: "Please see my reply to Janet after her original reply message: SEE: ALL BELOW: In particular, original CES ALERT AND CORRESPONDING NEWS ARTICLE. ----- Original Message ----- From: Janet Hand To: Lin Finer ;Maxine Havden Cc: Section8 Mailbox ; RentControl Mailbox ; HumanServices Mailbox Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:09 PM Subject: RE: PUBLIC COMMENT -ALERT/Fw: Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants -Daily News Thank you or your comments, Maxine. I recommend that you contact Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles at their SM office (310)899-6200 or the DisabilityRightsLegalCenter at (213)736-1031 as City staff are not allowed to take a position on pending ballot issues. -Janet Janet Hand Human Services PYt SR1Q Page 2 of 7 Dear Janet and all CC Recipiants: My intentions in sending the ALERT below, originally received from Coalition for Econmic Survival (CES) was definately NOT a request for the City of Santa Monica to take a "position on pending ballot issues". My e-mail ALERT is intended to ensure that the City of Santa Monica is aware of the risk to Section 8 tenants, in particular those with disabilities and request that alternatives identified, in MY message and ALERT, from CES. That the City of Santa Monica be prepared to protect the individuals at risk/impacted, per the identified actions that are being taken to make the targeted individuals become homeless. These housing alert matters, in my opinion, should bean item to be on the City of Santa Monica relative boards, commissions and City Council agenda(s). **PLEASE SEE MY ORIGINAL E-MAIL AND ALERT FROM CES and News Article again, for clarification. Thank you, Maxine Hayden From: Lin Finer Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 11:50 AM To: 'Maxine Hayden' Cc: Section8 Mailbox; RentControl Mailbox; HumanServices Mailbox Subject: REPUBLIC COMMENT -ALERT/Fw: Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants -Daily News Maxine, Thank you for the information regarding your concerns for the Section 8 participants and program issues. At your request, I am forwarding on your a-mail onto the Housing Authority, Human Services/ADA & Rent Control mailboxes. They can respond under separate cover. Lin tin giver City of Santa Monica Housing 8 Economic Development Department J Producfion 8 Preservation /Housing Division 2t21 Cloverfield Blvd., Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA90404 (310)458-8702 (310) 998-3298 fax ----Original Message----- =rom: Marine Hayden [mailto:mariah1@thegrid.net] >ent: Wednesday, March. 12, 2008 11:13 AM ro:Lin Finer' iubject: ALERT/Fw: Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants - Daily News mportance: High -li Lin: ***Please Reply that you have received this message** Per our telephone conversation this morning, Below please find ALERT sent ~y Coalition for Economic Survival regarding the increased risk to Low ncome Section 8 Tenants, for private owner opt-out. The Section 8 Tenants, n Santa Monica, need protections from owner opt-outs and Homeownership /oucher Program involvement, by Santa Monica Ciry Housing Authority and/or ether housing availability. Prop. 98, which will be on the ballot, June 03, ?008, if passed, would be disastrous to Section 8 Tenants, in Santa Monica Page 3 of 7 and create a surge in homelessness. "SEE: All Below. Maxine Hayden (310) 396-0081 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Coalition for Economic Survival" <contactces@earthlink.net> To: <mariah1@thegrid.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:37 AM Subject: Landlord Attempts to Evict Low Income Sec 8 Tenants -Daily News > CES in Action Logo > [http://rs8.net/tn.jsp?e=001Yo2-4hDwFO0xS4gJnTt3rb- NaBBgYHzxSjZYcHjogRnW 1 M iMOiuAjowrarM ijT1 WO5OFOj Rw4tg72Crmp8ysKAW03tDrmRtmmn KYu8y_Kvl hG41t- IdwO==j > The Coalition for Economic Survival; together with the Fair Housing > Council of the > San Fernando Valley and Neighborhood Legal Services of LA County, with the assistance > of the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, are organizing and assisting the Section > 8 tenants mentioned in the article below from illegal attempts by the landlords > to displace these low income tenants by terminating their Section 8 rental subsidy contract. The tenants are protected by the LA City Rent Stabilization Ordinance. But, if Proposition > 98,. the measure that would wipe out all rent control laws in California, > passed on June 3, these tenants as well as other tenants throughout the state would be >left unprotected from evictions such as this. >JOIN THE FIGHT TO DEFEAT PROPOSITION 98 > NO on 98 -YES on 99 > Wednesday, March 12, 2008 > Low Income Tenants Being Squeezed Out > BY Dana Bartholomew, Staff Writer > In a tilow to some of the Valley's poorest > people, nearly 50 mostly senior and disabled tenants are being forced > out of their apartments by landlords seeking to flee city rent control > and subsidized housing. > Renters in Reseda, Northridge and North Hollywood who get > federal Section 8 subsidies have been told to pay full market rates or > get out, tenants, city officials and housing advocates said. > Though there are 45 documented cases, 115 tenants in four > complexes could get 90-day notices that demand as much as $900 more a > month in rent, or face eviction. > nth few Section 8 rentals available in the Valley, tenants > might have to uproot to the east, south and harbor areas of Los Angeles. > "We're going to be living on the street," said Laura Cloud, ', > 47, a stroke victim with an unemployed husband and two daughters at Page 4 of 7 > KingswoodVillage apartments in Reseda, who was given until April 25 to > pay up or leave. "I'm lost for words. I'm very upset. I can't explain > the feelings I feel. But I don't want to be in a shelter." > Section 8 evictions are on the rise across L.A., where > rents soared an annual 5.Spercent in the third quarter of last year and > only 3percent of apartments are vacant. As a result, some landlords > have sought to bypass rent control by opting out of the program. > Tenant advocates and city housing officials say some landlords are > breaking the > law by forcing out existing Section B tenants. > > Landlord and tenant groups hotly debate the legality of evicting > Section 8 tenants under Los Angeles' rent-control ordinance. Both sides > hope the issue will be resolved in numerous court cases and appeals, > one of which is now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. > Apartment industry officials say the city's Housing Authority, > which administers federal Section 8 subsidies, has been unresponsive to > the needs of the city's mostly mom-and-pop apartment owners. > > And caught in the middle are renters like Ruth Hordyk, 80, > a Section 8 tenant who suffers from arthritis and Parkinson's disease. > One of the 48 tenants at KingswoodVillage who receive > Section 8 subsidies, for five years she has paid $221 a month for a > $750 one-bedroom unit from the $800 a month she gets from Social > Security. > In January, she received a 90-day notice to either pay $1,000 a month or > move. > > "I don't have that much income," she said. "I don't have very much of a > backup plan. I need to see several doctors. f'm so tired." > > Ron Gussow, 64, who uses a wheelchair, was one of the lucky > ones. He got a notice but managed to find another Section 8 unit in > Reseda. > "It's a very rough life," said Gussow, crying at the memory > of the year he lived on the street. "It's something I don't want to do. > Ever again." > Officials at Century Quality Management who manage KingswoodVillage did not return > calls for comment. > The Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley, which is investigating > KingswoodVillage and other Section 8_ program evictions, said the > landlord cut its Section 8 rentals after failing to apply for -and get > - a cumulative three-year rent increase under the city's rent-control > ordinance. > "We've never seen so many (Section 8) evictions atone > time," said Sharon Kinlaw, assistant director for the Fair Housing > Council and lead investigator in Section 8 cases. > "We're concerned primarily for the persons with Page 5 of 7 > disabilities.... All their support systems are there -doctors, > neighbors that help them, food and social service agencies." > The Housing Authority of Los Angeles receives about > $380million a year from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban > Development for Section 8 vouchers. > > In all, the city supplies 44,000 apartment vouchers for > families. Of the 16,000 landlords who have contracted to accept Section > 8 tenants, only 8,000 apartments are available in the Valley. > > A recent Section 8 apartment in CanogaPark drew 214 applicants for just > one vacancy. > Housing Authority officials maintain that, despite the 90-day notices, the > agency is committed to helping families. If they move, they'll still > get rent vouchers. If they stay, landlords will be-paid while their > disputes are settled by legal-aid attorneys. > "We are sending out notices to the owners that they cannot > terminate a contract by providing a 90-day notice - it is breaking > contract law," said Lourdes Castro-Ramirez, director of the authority's > Section 8 program. > Tenant advocates, however, say landlords are picking on > Section 8 renters to free up rent-control units to market rates. But > they say if tenants haven't broken any rent-control laws, they can't be > booted from the Section 8 contract. > "We see this throughout the city: Landlords who are > attempting to get out of their Section 8 contracts are giving out > blanket 90-day notices. This is illegal," said Larry Gross of the > Coalition for Economic Survival. > "There are 44,000 Section 8 voucher holders in Los Angeles -all of them > are at > risk." > But > while apartment-industry officials couldn't comment on the Kingswood > case, they said the Housing Authority has exacerbated the city's > affordable-housing crisis by not being receptive to landlords. > Cloud and her husband, David Cox, received three increases > on the same day for their KingswoodVillage apartment. Their rent went > from $400 to $1,300. > "We're barely scraping by right now," said Cox, 41, in an > apartrent filled with recycled cans. "We can't afford to move. We don't > have a car. We take the bus. We've got two kids, two young daughters. > "I .grew up in the Valley. I can't leave it." > CES Logo > (http://rs6.neUtn.jsp?e=001Yo2-4hDwFO0xS4gJnTt3rb- NaBBgYHzxSjZYcHjogRnW1 MiMOiuAjowrarMijT1 WO5OFOjRw4tg72Crmp8ysKAW03tDrmRtmmni<Yu8y_KvIhG41t- IdwO==j Page 6 of 7 > COALITION for ECONOMIC SURVIVAL (CES) > 514 Shatto Place, Suite 270 Los Angeles, CA90020 > Tel: 213-252-4411 * Fax: 213-252-4422 > Email: contactces@earthlink.net > Web site: www.CESinAction.org > > Forward email > http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1101570421077&ea=mariahl@thegrid.net&a=1102015489454 > > This email was sent to mariahl @thegrid.net, > by contactces@earthlink.net > Update Profile/Email Address > http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=0018OepQbgXwMOGN-ZOKmWcbe_Nv4z9wyBTuoFY_gYheyONyDv- zgii I E-Y8R51O3UJ&p=oo > Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM) > http:l/visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=0018OepQbgXwMOGN-ZOKmWcbe_Nv4z9wyBTuoFY_gYheyONyDv- zg i it E-Y8R51O3UJ&p=u n > Privacy Policy: > http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp > > Email Marketing by > Constant Contact(R) > www.constantcontact.com > Coalition for Economic Survival (CES) ~ 514 Shatto Place, Suite 270 ~ Los > Angeles ~ CA ~ 90020 °°' e5afe detected hostile content in this email and removed it. *** \HTML Active Content: Found invalid IMG Tag, Object Removed: 1 'img' Page 7 of 7 FROM : WLR COIkJC I L FOR SENIORS FRX N0. :310 395 7680 Mar. 11 2008 02:13PM PS Fax C®ver Sheet To: f=ram: t~//"" ~+e• 1~iUfN ~~~+~ Richard Hilton ~t_~~;~~jy,C~ff y Covt~Glj~-~+~+~'~ Disabilities Commission 7rv(~Sl +•~} CO h'1 yWt~SGo'-~ City of Santa Monica $ t{ is'~E l b`~ 5'~~' 406 Broadway St. #123 S~w'(ct ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~3 Santa Monica, CA 90401,-2314 Eax # 3to 3 3360 3l6) y5e-16?~ Phone # I3~01358-6089 crate.: ~~s ~l~~P-t [~ goo g ~-~ a ~~fl~~t.t o c~,e~ q~I~r Number of Pages: ~ Reply Fax #: ~310> 395-~6ao (including Cover) Message:. }~~ Elo~cr~ C~xrnrh`t.ssce-~,, fY~e~1"~^$ ~`Y1gt"c.~r i3 1~,~A-~T f'6ftF' ~~N ~y_f1-c~r~i • ~1~'. ~"~+~ ~oa~~%5 /~9s' fir ~ sf.~ n~~ She Sv . es °. 5g ~ ~ ~oa~-a~ Ott : ~ Pa~~ f'ff 5- e1a~r Pla~.~. ~ l~o~nva.( t'ff~ Alavi : `~1*'a.1~i ~~ ~~,,~-`"'~~,'a ~ 2S~ ~, (y-fzt'~uSj IHC.a~•'hP~~~ WorKrlt~g I e~ni (PS -' ~/fit ~ e.mP~a~frr`~.. 45ser`l'~s. aP, ~a6N ~s~.l~a.~~o~t,G'~:.~" f2s~/1~ o~Jeo,~t~ b~acrr;~,'j~c„ '[he informuion wntalrcd m this canumnlation i6 wnfldentW, may be privikged end Ia intended only [or the use of the addrasa. UneuUartmd usw diacbsute orwpying to aviary prohiblled. Please notify us by telepliona Imtnediuely if you received this cotttmuntcatton in error . D~~ Ca-1 ~~~t~~ . WEST LQS-~~~~~ wT ~) a~-~t ~ ~~i. ~NCIL FOR.. THE DISABL~I7~ ~` ~ ~`~'^ ANON-PROfTT SOCIAL SERVICE FOUPTI)13D IN 1993 FROM :WLR COUNCIL FOR SENIORS FRX NO. :310 395 7680 Mar. 11 2008 ~02: 14PM P2 }~~ ~ _ fee- ~S.d1~Q3 `f'in; 1'YI~~1 ovSl.~ ia~,Pgs, ;~~,,~, , ADM~NLSTRATIVE PiAN ItiTON, A.d•, B.A.. gT•C. p~,cros+. ~~ pa ; `~°~''~~ OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY O'F THE CITY OF ZVE,ST LC)$ ANGELPS COUNCi ~I. FOR THE DIS:48LED ,. 496 BIIOApWAY SI: 7f123 ''~ SANTA MONICA,G90401-2314 ~ SANTA MON~CA I SUQ~~S~S ~~ 3 n~tl- P,nn~nolo~l Wpl7~cn~~ JUNE 8003 mQ~~ ~Q,4'+aw ~IGftA~ ~fl~`r°N t06BROADWA~9~i~ 314- ' ~ gAISTAM~IViCA, C~}amtoc6tsl . 5 p~g~~ ~a~mnaa, ~~~~ ~„ ;. FROM :WLR COLNCIL FOR SEN10R5 FRX N0. :310 395 7680. Mar. 16 2008 08:43PM PS i, _• ~~ v~r ~h~e~t To:. ~Ke~~i, (L' c~f~,Co ~ S~~{-~ (y~s,~ icy g y t~ ~ t lo-t~ S't~e'I_ ~~~ ' ~~1i~• ~ ~ o tf8 3 Fax ~ 3101 39 ~, •'~ G l'~l ~Dat~ ~tr,~, m~~ t7~.-..~.. Number of Pages: ~ ~ i Reply Fax #; t3~o) 395-76eo I (inClading Covet) Message: {-~-o ~~ ~c ~Bvviwcc s s cati-, ~ ~'~'~ rn~~T ~ ~,~~ E~vv~~ tNPo~`" ~ % i'`t ~tr~ V e ~-Fra-'rns a b ~ H ~ P<~ . Se~a,r-k_1`'~P~ , e~a.~ t ~- Wr~" ~~~ ftjRr~N 5~ olttsscn, abaws prsJe~d`- WEg(~ ~ ~~ ~`ldi;,CY.t i•Crj « nez,1 ~S{jrvc`I~tit~ ~os5c~ ck ~~~'~ basa%~ . Der Dl's cr~OcCtfrFS C6vtt~~~p~~/ " s ~jes'f`Z, f/SR ~l~"'e`'-f ~~n o~vt~'2.~ cc S Jkj CB'Ytnwtt~ F° 2d~Q-R° ~ Y" J ~~'~` dd ~AntIl t~pzt ~or R~(a'Lt?4~ n.7 YhP'-~: ~` ~l ~ drl ' ed, u+d U Intended cniy ax ttn ute orthe ~ Utiutlatlsrd uaa; 'Ibe iprarmellon coNOUbd in thb <ammurdraiton ie coaadcmud, may he p U6 n+od~ title comma u ertor. dtecturvre otsapYla6 it stticttY pteMlbltad• ~4° natlrY ui hY minptaro UnmedlNeJ9 UYW ~~ vi'~ST L,O~t~T~IG~I~~~ (ProJ~~.) tp+~t+oir ~j ~ ~ ~ COUl~iCI~ F~~t T~I~ ~IS~.$L~]D ~' c'~d.+-~ ~` I-F r cro N ANON• ~ SOC7ALS8RVICEFOL'NDEDBV1493 L~.1n (/ n i.,,.-. From: t,nGrnac~C r Ytsctbll{R PS~~'t1tYLUftd+1 glchard Hilton, Executive Director West foe Angeles Council for the Disabled.and Seniors . 406 Broadway St. #123 Santa Monica, CA 90401.2314 w..... ,~ .~ phoo~ ~ t~1~4~~~#~~~~ . _ . ~ : , ®' tirgettt ©Coitttdsttflal Q ConNrtn RsoslpC FROM :WLR COUNCIL FOR SENIORS FRX N0. :310 395 7680 Mar. 11 2006 02:20PM P9 ,- ,'~ ^ Increase customer satisfaction: ~"' ~I~ ® Concentrate on efforts to improve specific management.functions: j'Uta~'c~t w~/ ', Qist; e' g., public housing. finance; voucher unit inspections) aZ.f~o $ ^ Renovate or moderrrize public housing units: ^ . 13emolish or dispose of obsolete public housing: ^ ;. Provide replacement public housing: _ ^ , Provide replacement vouchers: ® : Other:j (list below) . Based u on tie availabili of CABG fundin c ontiaue to advocate that P tY g~ prion7ty be given in the City's Rental Repair Program to owners of Section 8 buildings. . ~ X PHA Goal: Tn Objectives: ® Pzovic ® Conde ® Increa Implet . . Implez ^ ..Izttplet ,, , ^ '. Conve ® Other: ' Maintain au~pwner; ,~ Section 8 teq:~nts. H owner generated list ssaciation meetings Mpnlea ownergtn'e~' complaints spout tb . Continue to promote in order to,increase The March 2007 apl (VPS)'was rejected 1 application Nearly s percentile. Tate appl and that is what has .submitted in March the goal of having assisted housing choices voucher mobility counseling: outreach.effo;ts to potential voucher landlords voucher payment standards- mtvoucher homeownership program:. ut public housing or other homeownership programs: :at public housing site=based waiting lists: public housing to vouchers: ist below) enerated, weekly Fisting of apartments specifically available to . wever, because our voucher payment standards are s low the ags normally contain only 1 to 5 units. Continue to. owner to increase interestfn the Section 8 program.among antinue to re~pondbz ~itiou~~to any questions or ~ection.8 program aricrpanta. the utilization of deed restricted housing by Section 8 tenants nixed income opportunities for Section 8 tenants. 6cation to HUD to increase our Voucher Payment.Standards y HUD due. t'o our 95% lease up rate even though our sled that our VPS were all.below the Rent Control 30:6 ration predicted a steady decline in lease up without approval >ecurrad to date. Therefore a new VPS application was !008. in in Habitat For Humantty.(HH) family b§ sin project with ~,~~ . least one Section 8 famitly purchase a unit tl~abitat. The. 5 Year Plan Page 2 HUD 50076 OM9 Approvd Na 2$77-0226 ~ .. . >~;,~: o3rslrzooz FROM :IJLR COUNCIL FOR SEN .) ~ X80 ,~k ~ p tenant/ownet seL `\ (FSS) case mnnal process.. HUD Strategic Goal FAX N0. :310 395 7680 Mar. 11 2008 02:20PM P10 j~ ~ / . - acid--see i'9~~J 1 ~ ..~-= n process is underway nd the C[ty's Family Self Sufficiency continue to.assist FSS participants during the selection Improve community quality of life and economic vitality vide an improved living environment ^ PHA.Goal: P Objectives: ^ ~ Imple, public ^ . . Imple~ nt measures to deconcentxate poverty by bringing highei income Busing households into Iower income developments: ntmeasures to promote income mixing in public housing by access fo lower income families into higher income . .i ^ ~ Implement public housing security improvements: Designate developments or buildings fo arttculat rest t ou ;. (elderl}~, persons with disabilities) ~r: (list below) The Santa Monica Housing Apthority does not minis a project based . rentaI~assistance. ~ , G~ = , f 5'aa 4~i .._.~ IIUD ®. PHA tioal: P~ households Objectives: Inoreaa famili< j'10~ ~ t ®. . 1?rovid q~om.r~~~ ~. Provid ` ~.~rrYl Berl v'te~-S . ® ;: Other: u da t ; p~..~._.,_ _'__ There i "b~~7 - Suffici -~ ~"' progra ~~~a0~'g In add 2007., 1 The asset development of families self-sufficiency and asset development of assisted the number and percentage of employed persons in assisted or attract supportive services'to improve assistance recipients bility: or attract supportive services to inereass ind endence fot the 9e~h~ InsieQR <<~,» ..--- e currently 64 clients participating in the Family Selt .~ cy Program (FSS). In 2007, 7 FSS participants completed the while 27 completed au educational program of some type. tin, 43% of the FSS households increased their income fn of February 2008, the SMIIA maintains escrow savings totaling $ 263,741. The average escrow balance is $3,470. sing authority funds St. Joseph's Center in the amount of for FSS case management services: FSS participants are 5 Yeaz Plan Page 3 Huosoo~s OMH npprovH No: 2577-0276 Expired: 03/31/2002 FROM :WLR COUNCIL FOR SENIORS FRX N0. :310 395 7680 Mar. 11 2008 02: 21PM PSS ~ .~ i workii g closely with their,case rnauagers to enhance their chances of being selected for ownership of a Habitat developed townhouse. ~p;tt'~n.going.commuaity based referrals to social service agencies to. ~' ~- .: assist Section 8 participanu (SMFIA contributes $b2,400 annually for r; case management services.). Contract MSW assists participants with obtaining needed services. Shelter + Care: grovide housing and supportive services for 133 formerly homeless persons with chronic mental iilness, substance abuse, and or H~/AIAS and other disabilities. A City funded (RDA 20%sl f-a-side) Senior FTomeless Prevention and Rental Assiatance:. program was implemented by tk~e Housing Authority in January 2007. . The program provides rental assistance vouchers and homeless ' prevention grants to homeless residents 55 years old and older who are ac~ively engaged in case_mauagement. In addition, seniors at risk of bei>~g evicted through no fault of their own are eligible for a one time prevention:grant of $2,000-.In February 2008, lA participants wer deceiving rental assistance while 7 additional seniors;have been issu vouchers and are looking for an apartment. In some cases; a senior~recelved both the prevention grant and oa-going rectal . ,, assistance. Case management. is required and is provided by local j Community based non-profit agencies including St: Joseph's Center, OPRC1 and WISE Senior Services. A looming issue is the ability of community agencies to adequately case manage a growing caseload witho ~ t a needed increase in their case management funding: RDA- _ tunds~can not be used to pay for case management and yet case management is essential to the program Sc ~~~ i fi...-. HUD. $trategfc Gosh asure Equsl Opportunity' Houslmg for all Americans i~"p' n'st ` PHA Goal: Ensure equal opportunity and affi7nrativei er fair housing. Objectives: ' ®' . Undertake affirmative measures to ensure access to assisted housing. .... regardless of uipe, color, religion national origin, sex, familial status, and disabi}it • ~ . Undertake affirm measures rovid a suitable living environment i _L3ino,,,ro ~ or ~3in in assisted housing, re ar .ess f race, color, re rg;on ele national origin, sex, familial status, ~.. Undertake affirmative measures to ensure accessl le housing to persons ~'°~°~~s with all varieties of disabilities regardless of unit size required: M j},4) ~ Othera (list below) .+e1 ..~t1,,,,-~/~ t( f/ ' ~ _~fUl) SYearplan Page4 (llf -f0 (((,,•:..{{{,,,y..JJ•, t~Y'wUIQ~~ Ex vee: 03/71/2002 Ste- ~tl~+th~'' ~"' Irt .v,7-tee/, tlunsaols ~~'~ iL~ ~ y n { ~ OMH APDrovpt No: 2577-0216 ' FROM :WLR COUNCIL FOR SENIORS Homeless Try TB1L4 vouch housing prog. City of Santa Referrals are Ocean Park Center, the 2 Tn Febraary 2 and the' itDA assistance to facilities. !"'~ ~~~ ~o~v~ '~~ h ahG~ ~p,M(~`"y ir~~ra~ ,~rn~ Sm~cl~er ~ Sti .¢s ecl+~ a`F~ ~. ~ehlfind~ tlnifs ~'~~~~~./, "~ .. FRX N0. :310 395 7680 Mar. 11 2008 02: 22PM P12 ~sitional.Set-Aside Program: provides Section 8 and T~IUME rs 31 formerly homeless).graduates of two transitional ams and victims of domestic.violence shelters fnnded by the Monica. "Turned over" vouchers are currently reserved for f program graduates. accepted from Sojoura, the domestic violence program of the ammunity Center (OPCG~, Family Place and St. Joseph's :ity fnnded homeless transitional housing programs. 18, boththe HOME funded Chronic Homeless Program vouchers. enior program have recently been approved to piovide rental .gable participants who reside in Licensed Board and Care I Objectives: (list below) NA ~ ~ _ ~n5lXe ~ u~©p~or~vn`~y v S ~ ~i ~9~~f~ ~c-c~1t. ~~schg ' ~ro~ec~"-6as~I p~ro~~f~ Ccsn,M.~r~..~`~ iHwll h6wtMS'~vc~,,~ i. ~ ~,~t'CA4y.--~~US ~~~~~ . m~rs"~e Jn~usOr>-~i ~. ~e. ~Q.a~IG~Ql.!^'k1~ ~as'r-~. aYy~rtri~'~tucoty l/ ~~es'.~~?~'ve~r,,r.}r'» ;b~ttde%~~:.t w~e+~. a(!, ~ltQi . -br~~-aor:f;~.%ati,sr~4~-rz~7z~~ 1`x'° ~rovccBe ~ar~;,-ts .~i~'tj GEti(cQ/'P.Ht ~l]tis S~`~~y. f'r'~'e. - o~ d~u~rs;~ r~ -~~~~y-cps ~ . - ,_ - .. 5 Year Plan Page 5 HUIY Se075 Ot 18 Approval No: 2519-02I6 . 5xpitts:~03/31R002 .,vramc yr rnunn,.. - _••~~+• .~"•, >r Patients Social Security: ~ ~. ~ r v5t Patient's Date of Birth: / -~4r ..rh-r- Dear Physician/Health Care Provider: • tC'Cc-oYr1 mb ~` rr i maybe c~s,.'r.pe~ AF~tt` The individuaLlisted tlbove.has jdentified him or herself as being disab and has asked for an accommodation from this agency to nest. ceRain needs dictated by the,disabili :The o i Authority grants reasonable accommodation requests. based In part by verification of need from r f 'siona o has direct experience v/ith ari individual's disabllity..You have been authorized to release information to us regarding the need foran accbmmodation. in order to mamtain citent oonfderrtiality,.we require this fprm be retuned t e Housing ~u~thJo,ri,t,y~;by, :. the U.S. Postal Service. There~ore;hantl•deiivered forms wilt not be accepted ar DU'~stsr~r ah Seation 604 of the Rehabilitafiort Act and the Fair Housitig Afnendments Ac4 define a "Disability" is a'pE~ysical ar mental Impairment which substahtiaHy Gmits one or more of a penron's.major Ilfe acdvittes; a record~of having such an Impairment, or 6atng ragarded:a~ having such an impairment.: ~ . Phxwjcat gs megtai,impairment l aludesc . - 1.Any phxdtplaglcai disorder, oriaonditlon, cosmetla dlaflguremenq of anatomlaaf Toss sNecttng ope or morebf the ' fid(lorlring'Goifysystems:: neurological; museuloskeletal; spedal sense otgans; s'esp(ratOry, Inc`ludingspeachargans; cardiovascular, taprpductiVe; dl~estive; genftal"•urinary; hamlc and lymphatk; skfn; and endocrine; or 7 Air 'rrfbiitsl'dr'` -s' hold' inafdl orde such as mental retardation, organ)c brain syndrome, emotional or,mental Illness, '. agQspeelflele~fnllfg,dl;tghllltle~,~.Theterm"physicalormentalimpairment"Includes,;6p~jsnot~Ilmifad,t9,..F.UC}4;dlseg¢es.°; and rondjfipns,ay..pRhopecjic, yiSUSi, apaech and hearing Impairments, carebrel palsy, autism,egijp ', a ar u , d r mulypte.~ctgrpsls, dancer, haar!'disease,~dlabetes, mental retardation ~a tional (lines ~., !ug Ad ,ICtio an~ ~ . a poholisin . [(qn !s"~ ~~'f,.~ ln~ R.CCt~~j~cC.r"r'~~ . ~ .. . fibs iolloyling era 1NaUjorLife ctivities az deflned in Section d04 of tfte Rehabilitation Act:.Please cheek all aEflvl a3'~fia~~ 'are affected by the~patienf's diagnosed impelrmont. DSe1f.Care ` OMattualTasks. pWalklog t]Vision ~ GHearinp ~ .:.•< , . ' "'QSposking .. ~~ i?Breathing ~ ~ ~ .4t:earning ~ ~~ t7Wdrkhig~ ~~ •~ '.. (1h2.1 ~~,1'~ ~_. .. .. i., J ~t: Does ihi~;indj`kidual have a dis2t)Ility, as defined above? Yeses No ~1 S~L1[~ ~ . '~ ,.... I .' .. , . ~C tt Uh~~' . .,.... f LVlpt/ IRyes;'dp~s tiff§'indivlduar,'tXecause of this disahlllty, need an eCCOmritodaiion inany ru..ies, poliges; pradlices, or servioes'of the City df Santa Monica to have. an equal opportunity.to use and enjoy his of her home? Yas_ No lEyes, phase desgri4a t.'~te accimmodaiion needed: ~ y ~~ '~ i~3. Do you recommend ttus typ of accommodation for individuals with simiterimp~e ents? N ~~~1. ; Ifno, please explain: ' .. i . ~~+'~ ~6 ° ,~ ~ • ' ;.. f l~Is Is' .~. - S ~ USI N ~ u determine thisioiid~ion as permanent or temporary? ~~ ,~ 4. Doyo ~ 20a ~1 nrvu . FROM :WLA COUNCIL FOR SENIORS FAX N0. :310 395 7660 Mar. 11 2008 02: 23PM P34 ~, , ".: ~PermanentDis~bildy Temporary >satrill~onddion \_/.. If tnis is a temporary.co ditiori, when9s heatment expected to conclude? 5. Does this patient require a fu I-time Live-In Care attendant? Yes No_ i 8. is a privatelseparate bedroom required to.accommodafe this Individual's disabiliiy or condition? • Yes,_ No_ ease describe how the separate bedroom would assist the patient in harrying out major fife adivittes?. (~ - ~ r ~~ ~ ,o~.a, .ter ~D ~cc~t~n.~e~; :'' How often does this patient Fequire treatmenttor hislher condition , ..~ ''~~ . ,/j r~~~: M~ ffr Weekly ~ Monthly Annually ~( other aC t3. If necessary, would you be w~ling t testify under oath o the information provided on this form? `G~" Q~~(,q~ If no, Please explain: i ~j ~jlt'19 ~='1~4:Gf Q'h ~~s'~ :~.F ~ ~ .. Comments: .I ~~````~~~/' __ i WARN1~16: Any person wtio signs this statement an who willingly stages as true, ~riy matter which (s)fie • ' Itnaws to be false, is subject to the penalties prascrib d for Perjury In Section 118 of the California Penal Code and Section 11D54 of the Welfare and Institutions Cod . ' Name and.address of person completing this form: .r1J E Print name: ~ ~~" V f rT't 6 ~~ Title: , Medical License #: a" t "~ e 6 a..~-. ~ Address: ~. ,-~,r~.' S~rp~ Telephone: Date: f- ~~ rr. ' .Signature: i. , Santa Momca ous ng Authority ~ ` `V U-r/ 2121 Claverflelt! B{vd., Suite 131 '~ ~. Santa Monica, CA 90404 j Housing' AdJisor. ~ • :reason ae nfadafw oetor ' I t,... I' CDO4 FROM~:WLR COUNCIL FOR SENIORS FRX ND. :310 395 7680 Mar. 11 2008 02: 24PM PSS s ~, Y. ~°Q6-' p ~ ~ (5, G6~1.stcQ~'/Y ~ /~~ 4 ~ ~ l1/ - ^ Other.: (list below) ~ ~~~f p ~ ~} ;~ ~ ~ pp Need: Specific Family Types: Families at or below 50%. of median ~ ~' ~~ ~ 0 Ct. g. Strate i; Tar et available assistance to families at or below 50% of AMI ,~ e25k~ ^ Employ admissions preferences.aim ~ ' ' who4~re workittg ~{" W 0~` ~ Q,I.J~'~ ® Adopt rent policies to support and courage work nE a w 35 h ®. Other; (list below) ~~~ a ~r erencerto households in which membe ork ~ ' ' S hours per week in Santa Monfca. ~~-~.h ar,.a.acEu-mil,`" , o/'~r~s ex%~'~s -Fo ea~s~ p , Need; Specific Family Types: The Elderly . `~ J ~~~y~ e"~~ G ~i~ Strafe 1': Tar I t available assistance to t e elder) : G, I tS ~~s~'~ ,, r ^ Seek designation ofpublic housing for the. elderly (~~T~-vi.r~8"1n, ' In FY 06-d7 the Housing Authority was granted authority to use"$1.3 million in City I2edevelopmenf Agdncy Funds (RDA} to provide homeless prevention for persons who aze at imminent risk. ofhomeIessness and housing subsidies foz. the chronically homeless with an emphasis on persons who are 55 and older .... ,. (see above}: _ . . ^ Ottler: (lis~ below) ' Need: Specific F Strate2v 1': Tare ^ Seek desil ^ Cairy out Needs As; ® Apply for should the Types: Families with assistance ation of public housing for Families with disabilities e modifications needed in publiahousing based on the section 504 ssment for Public 1-lousing ~ecial-purpose vouchers tazge4cd to families with disabilities, become available ly market to loeal non-profit agencies.that assist families with Other: (listibelow) I, Administer~a~pergs~helter Plus Care program that requires participants to be ~ both homeless and disabled. A $1,907,412 Shelter.Plus Care (SPC) tenant based ' FY 2006-07. Annual Plan )?age 9 xoo soo7s OMa Appro+al No:2577-0226 Expires: 03l31/Z002 - .. 3v1° ~~ ~ ~~s .FROM :WLp COUNCIL FOR SENI • 5 ~ FRX N0. :310 395 7680 Mar. 11 2008 02:25PM P36 0 application period. Applications will be.reopenedin roximately 3 to 4 years. (31 Search Time a®Yes ^ No:1 k~ Tf yes, state circt If client can efforts'on a Clients are receive adc ~ : w I samissavns i (. ~ a. Income`tazget Y16 . Y 1~T' ~~e(~~ ~ °~.. Preferences k.. Yes ^ l )oes the PHA give extensions on standazd 60-day period t seazch~/ for a unit? ~ stances below: t 6i/~ emonstrate an acceptable Level of effort by documenting their (,,e •o~of, of Effort sheet, a second 60-day extension may be granted. ZD li o reasonable accommodation for a disability and can (/~ mal time beyond the 120 day limit. , ~ ~ t l"'r. ~ , ~.Lt `--=--' ~ b ~3 b hie p~ .= 21 ~a new :ferences ; r] es:the to exce a federal tazgeting requirements by J tar etin more. than 75% o all new admissions to the section 8 ~~G?M2" . g g ~ ~-~ program to families at or below 30% ofinedian area income? ~aL~~'-~ Has the PHA established preferenoes for admission to section 8 ~ ~~ (1 tenant-based assistance? (other than date and rinse of ui~eA~ . Ul ~ ' 2. W}rich of the fm •coming yeaz? Q preferences) Former Federal prp Involuntary Owner, Ina ^ ' Victims o~ ^ Substandard application) (if no, skip to subcomponent (S~ Special-purpose sectton 8 assistance programs) flowing admission preferences does the PHA plan to emplgy in the . ' select all that apply from either former Federal preferences or other ferenaes Displacement (Disaster, Government Action, Action of Housing . ccessibility, Property Disposition) domestic violence . .heucina I FY 2006=07 Annual Plan ,P ~ 24 . ' ~ ~ - HVD 30075 - ~ ~ ~ OMH Approval tJor237T•0326 ~ ~ Expiru: 03/31/ZOb2 • ~ ' FROM :WLA COLPICIL FOR SENIORS ® 1Tomeless Administrative P Point programs. ^. High zent FRX N0. :310 395 7680 i Mar. 11 2008 02: 25PM P17 .a-' ,.. ~~~ ~ .. 1 City funded Transitional Housing Program graduates as per Vouchers allocated to graduates of Family Place. and Taming den (rent is > SObarcetlt of income) ~e ~y U lest all that atrol ~~a ~ f~ Veslians add ter ' .. PS ~ ~~ Rest is tvh Iive d/or or in your jurisdiction s mrei ~ tYe per` -~,,,,~,5 ^ Those enroll ently " eational, training, or up azd moot yTif-programs ~~`^e`"~-,"" Househol, s ontribute to eating income goals (b . ad range of incomes) , ,~ ~ `r ~ ~ Household ; contribute to eting income requir eats (targeting) 4LtF1~et Those previously etlro]Ied in ' ria ' 'ng; or Award mobility ° programs I Victims of ie ds I o ate crimes ~, , a ~ .bt 1'a`~j ' 9 refere>~e s 1'st elow pP,(L r 4 .~rn~~.!,+y~,~~ b~ ~~ ~„~,r{tomkAi' (ICS U7 2ap.s ovr~ ~ ~~1°"'1 jA~4-"~ r j~.'~`r`~`; 3, the PHA will $rltploy.admissionsAreferences, please p oritize by placing a "1" in' • . the space that represents your first priority; a " 2" in the b x represeming your second priotity,~and so on. If you give equal weight to a or more of these . •' choices (either duuugh an absolute hierazchy or through point system}, place. the same number next to each. That means you can usa `.`I" ore thasonce, " 2" more. than once, eta i , Date and Time . Former Federal preferences 1. Involuntary Displacement (Disaster, Government Action, Action of Housing Qwner, Insacesaibility, Property Diapositxon} Victims ofidomestic violence Substandazrl housing Homelesstfess ~~s5 r'~""' High tent durdeq. ~'. tiJ Other prefer '• lect all that appl ~f~~,or~J ~f ~~o r ~ ^ . or sin famihe d thossct ~l o bee use of age or disabt 'ty / '~ _ ®~ eterans an veterans' fami.tes - ~~ lL r/ ~{2r(~CL,S ~ est ants dvho t_ ve an of or in you~'~` z'"'~urts ction r~ - ~ ~ {~i ^ ose enrolled currently m e uca to ,. atnmg, or upward mobility programs ~ I~,S>` ^ Households that contribute to meeting income goals (broad range of incomes) ~~~~ W wpf" ^ ~Household;q that wntribu;e to meeting inwme requirements (targeting) ' ~ rT ^ Those previously enrolled is educational, training, or upwazd mobility Programs. /J~'~ ~ f~ ' FY 2006-07 Annual Plan P e 25 tyJ r `GI 1,Se~ `'~r ~t ~ run saors . ~\ ~ - ~ ~ OIv1B-Appmwl No: 1577.0226 ~ Fxpirts01r3tlt002 . FROM :WLA COUNCIL FOR SENIORS FRX N0. :310 395 7680 Mar. 11 2008 02:26PM P18 ~~ ~' ,. r" i s~ FROM :WLA COUNCIL FOR SENIORS . ~ ~. ^ Victims of ® Other prefi Former Section 8 contracts causing order to partieip: waited for HUD s S~ ~- ~C~a 4. Among applica ® applicants sele Date and ti ® Drawing (1 FAX N0. :310 395 7680 Mar. 11 2006 02: 26PM P19 ~risals or hate crimes ence(s)-(list below) pClTF erEifrcate.hoiderswhOse landlords opted out of Section 8 enant to temporarily relingnisfi the Section 8 certificate in' e in a City program of rental assistance put in place while City roved exception rents. ~ s on Ute waiting list with equal preference status, how are ed? (select one} ~eofappGcation . tery) or other random choice technique , 5. I£ the PIMA plis to employ preferences for "residents whp 1zve and/or work in the jurisdiction" (se~eet one) ' ® ~]T usprRfei~nce has~eviously been reviewed and approved by HUD .. soh ow~~ be ~n 'c l~s - 2~~'+gFf ~''1"'r:. 6. Relationship of?preferences to income targeting requirementsc (select one) i t ~1~, ^ The PHA apppplies preferences within income tiers R (0~7~-'•°mc~ ® Not applicdblei the pool of applicant faziulies ensures that the PHA will meet income targeting requirements ,I .Based on the ZD00 Census, there are 8;636 (10.4%) residents who live at or below the Federal poverty guidetine..These poor residents represent 10% {4,425) of ~anta Moaica househotds..The average anngal family income ` for current participants of all SMIiA programs is $14;829 which is 17% of the City's median family income of $87,748 (2000 Census adjasted to 2005 for inflation). It is important to note that'the current IiUD.very-taw income limits; which determine income eligibility, is $25,900 fors 1 person household: Therefore SM13A average family income is 43 % below 13U1) income limits fox a 1 person household. Onr, participants are extremely ,poor and )~tkely to be elderly or disabled and In many cases, both elderly. and disab~ed (58%). Annual Plan Page 26 HUD 50075 OMB Approval No: 3577-0226 Hxpues:03l1 tfS001, i Mar .20 2008 5: 18PM AH~P ,L~flSERJET FflX _ ~ Ust r ~!~ .p~5a(oc(rFccs ~^" To: From: ,,_ ., '_-` /Yt ~ K~ Richard Hilton, Exect~ive Director ~.~ ~'^"`, West tios Angeles Council el~. COUnu.( ' for the Disabled and Seniors ~t. ~ ~ rte" a "~ . _ 406 BrpadWaY St. #123 j 5 (K~-w- $'`~' ~ of n ~6 f Santa Monica, CA90401-2314. Fax•# (~ 3 `~3- ?> 6 . --f;~fiY~ Phone.# (3'101358:6089 'Date.: ~~ru~l 2 I joZ~ g Ct urse++t ~ cont-denusi a coi>~~n ReeelM Number of Pages: Reply Fax #: 1;310) 395-7680 (Including Cover} '~ Message: . v.c~ ~- ~ was ~1cE~.r n.~ t. 1Nc5G~-~"~~ mirt.e~'ef' ~p nr f~o~iY y' 62F1P~~ •• r ..r.. . .u.Fca sue' 4P :~,y C~cs`~*issw~~ r- ; me YQC2ty . 3 ll flg ~~ ~~ T1niMarmeHalcaKahedin Ainfinmin MEQOV .~~~ cc~~v ~~~ p.l r Shee# G+.of- -rest ate °'-~ E.. aS. 's~pp~~ K~~ as ,~~"a"'• !. *ic~~ff- ~ h `~+t.bfi' !n ~aQG(G `~ Y'oF'n'~? ~eecf~' ~,,Mie ./i~t~. JYlink,>*eS ~i~rx{-(Ur~>_ 2 Q-S -c~{^C-~~ ~ D .~r~ Bi .A 2r 1 ~~ -~'G~¢ y f4 LWr}y~'.. A~'~8~ r,s -`` nt "t nsrr~ on- v~ 9e~>~ is -For !~ J , ~e ~ ~n ~~ ,,~oKl~ aP~`tc3 `aa ecx~l•-. R ry ~3~a S< . ,~,~,.ao, art ,~y..H .G~ rne.e~t-%~ H A' in ~-~'F'kw ~.ifevset~ ~~r'X9 w~fh Kr4 -Sf~t~L-~~t; r c4ul'~ses!Dt%~~~ ,~a,e~ao„lym~tae,ueoftheaddaasxU ~ eofideatiai, mtY ~ P~ ~: Pksse nolitY ut by tt1~'P~ loirtKdtetety lryau ncdved thb {ommunkulaf h . ~ . FQR-~~i~ I~I~,~~~~Di ~; TSOCIAl.'SERVICEFOUNDED.IN 1993 .p©j,-~~~ p~r~ten~i ~s a ~aie;rt 'e.~! t S3C5~'L`RJtAeQ ~ ~~~ ~.. ~~~.,~/ de ~.-elrvg i,P s~.CFos~ 'cs4bt~ , .tv ~`~~ T- - In re'"Cv~ tir4sy erwvn es _ ;...,-,., 3~N q.~._ ~ t~ sauS J,d,~2 q 4ss~s ~' .. r: c r quo'~e, P s^~,+r Mar .20 2008 5:19PM HP LRSERJET FR% P•2 .. ._1 ' RI~~ Nclf~~ :~~rrf1 Plan ~~ ~,H ~pl.~) ~If~W ~ Q31~~~0$ .. $~Dm{AttS7fZAT1V ~'L~i-tt1 _-1-I-A• `r~ss~sfs`/~~•~ r~-~~-sue, tn+~ 9° ~' ~ Cod ~ y pL,-/ ~mr~~ ~ s ma..~G, t31 ~-~o/a~~ ~p (}~lxsthg wri, (PYl~et~ .: lcsU re~ru~f retie ~~g ~~i,~lavo~. CQndl (es~ prablem~t~G r-e1~t~o~-rlu,Qs DoE-'~re?'o`. ~~` ~ ahe~ ~e es-l~iblcs~,.GA ~-o me~-~" -f'I~'a~ t;+~'T°''"` '~ ~'~-~+~= bemire rc..~ ~k '~tQ~~ ~"~ ~r,,,,.Q.ltr~ • .~pr+L~ rt{~ta.~t~c~+'~n ~l'Y~~ f~"G'i~'th~s ~[~~~pr~C/6~cnett~' Uh4I,r._., ~~hu would '~/' ~' vP y2u2 ~Me f ~ey-'~t~sC, Co~'a~d`a"-.~ rt ~~ ~~ u vvma,~i~ slsf a-F Se~l''~ $ ~eti'f ~`~`~" ~~ ~tU- wocrl~i, b~ ~~' S ~~'f5' and ..~„ sag ~ C6~ rme ne.v~ra.i l~t~'~ ~.elcx.e., 1~d .. +e a~~ ,,~,wld nie~.d- of ttA- ofi~e ence. Sc~4 !ate ~ P IQ•v+~. t^obte.~' . J ~~ -.S - -~ro~ %al~ bc~ cars~su-~• -- w~+'~f~ el in ~.su~a~Fr,~ uar~ tft~ ~a,~flrtp~~i' ~~(~ •-t~,~,y, ~a,~. ~e~sra,~y apPrpPry.•e~ refG/'~gA(s~ ~~ ~,ov~, ~} `Th<s argil whd dls~vs~~ wnul~ reduce. SFfe~l ~~~ ~ r n~ ~ p~~~ -fir IrJ° . lei ~{~ Mar-20 2008 5:30PM NAME N,,'[A~ME~ O„~` ) z) HP LRSERJET FRX '~: December 3, 2007 The Honoiable~L~ir~€ City Council Members City of Santa Monica 1685 `Main Street Santa Monica GA 90A~01 Katz Dear Mayors and C p.4 JAN.7,. 2006 Item # ~~ , R. Hilton) VISITABILITY` OR ~axt~~~nice5etterhead U.C.) 1a~: ~NPCtT Council Members; As you know, affordabl ,. and accessible housing is and has, for many years, been the highest concern of Santa. Monicans with disabilities. 'the purpose of this Getter is o urge the City Council to take aafflrmative steps, on behalf of the sty's residents with disabilities, toward visitability {italics ordinance. (fo~., residental.:owners'to Sy way of background, visitability'' refers to guidelines~eaw~ncro-t~`a make`ac~essibility impr vements when making major al erations to'~their property. These impr +~ements may ,include, #or example, widening doorways and. creating ccessibie bathrooms, pathvNays, and entrances. The idea is to graduals increase thQ. City's stock °of accessibleDELETE resiaencesrse-teat-ease {ital) -t on private degelopmet~ts Ly tea ibilit .bsasiich aS 1lAtlc ) ~ as have smaller commu Arizona. Oregon and Congress continues to c Inclusive Howie Design HR 1441). Santa Monic States. VisitabiliCy i pErsbris.,with disabili 4> It is our understanding visitability ..because it ~ visitability ordinance.. it * mandatory visitability or+ C )~ .. RIVATE DEVELOPMENTS: '~Feasi t; •".f IGLARIFY) .which ,..may,° of nwn~er~oc ~ult2 beVvoluntary iitalics),and'i'oh"t33i~'.on~"~.f. size, structu,reyor tioard or. association rulbs. (*) to and Austin have passed visitability ordin8nces, sEE 'ties such .as Naperville, (Iliriois.and Pirria County, $ELOW texas have passed state-wide.. guidelines, and insider this issue.as well fin, 2003, H.R. 5683, the 1ct, was in#roduced and reintroduced in 2005 as can and should join this gr©wing list of citieg an _ .ADD important with tYxe~'growfh`in population. o£ pN2 ies and seniors. rat- the City. had not taken action on the issue of as awaiting the- issuance of the State's model s our further understanding. that the model forbids nances at the local level. ovERt,----_~ ~'o'~ouse ~"S~sS~~s ' ~ha*te' Associatioiss Prof Vr~YZ'~?e ILITY or even major alterations Disabilities s i Th~Disahilixy Comrr ADD til~Sy '?~l~'f8~d`i.~~i SOONER p X2545. n r CI c .the City Cary sxoRTEN Thank you for, your. ~ dvise the Commis ADU-z Respectfully, Item p9E A 7 2006 VISITABILITS~: ( CIPUT j inco~~~t~a~e~te io therefore es the Cit Council t c~-aetteR iti _e ..- - .~Y~$ ers, downers,. developers, and ADu "~~ ro'ect s v'si bili standards ~~--^ fc~,conf~rrr~on a mandatory asis. In Phis way, n mee t e, rowsn need` for accessible housing: ~. Please ideration on #his matteraaaease feel. free: to ~ w we can provide further assistance.. 1 O'- "- L'l ~ A'~ ~ 1~f CZ ' Gd' Christopher Knauf, Chair . Disabiiities Commission CW~~~~~ /~~~ ~i ,2~i ~9 Pi ~--p~z yes ~° .~~ ~~ c~ ~•G' ~• ~-F" .. .mss r.~~~l ~ ~~ he~~~ • ~~ tack ~ ~aS~ r4~ ~rPf~m t~ ~, ~ r -F~t~.~ bux~te~- `~ ~ ~ auLf-~'~y. E~ ~ ~°~~ -Jr~ m~whA+t ~~ ~ ta~'+~.~r i~ . ~ ~SCt~' . TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Commission on the Status of Women DATE: April 22, 2008 RE: Response to Public Review Draft of 2008-2014 Housing Element of the City Of Santa Monica Executive Summary: The ultimate outcome of the Housing Element planning process should be a comprehensive strategy expressed through specific and quantifiable goals, policies and programs that addresses the long-term. housing needs of Santa Monica's .diverse community of residents. Included in our community are "special needs" groups -- the elderly, female-headed households, large families, disabled persons -- who often-spend a disproportionate amount of their income to secure safe and decent housing, and are sometimes subject to discrimination based on their specific needs or circumstances. The Commission on the Status of Women (COSW) believes that the Housing Element is required by law to provide quantification and qualitative description of the need, including a description of the potential housing problems, faced by each special needs group. We believe that the draft only fully satisfies the requirements of the law with respect to Santa Monica's homeless, and does not adequately identify "potential program or policy options and resources to address the need" of each other individual special needs group. Instead, it lumps the varying special needs of all the other groups together, without clearly identifying and articulating distinctive strategies and programmatic responses specific to the housing needs of each. The City has declared that the reduction of street homelessness is a high priority, and has directed many resources to understand the scope of homelessness in Santa Monica and to identify appropriate housing opportunities. Without a similar individualized assessment of each other special needs group, the City will be forced to set long term housing priorities for its most vulnerable residents, the majority of whom are women, in a vacuum. Requests for Action: 1. The COSW requests that a copy of this .response be included with the draft Housing Element for review by HCD. 2.The COSW requests that the City Council direct staff to undertake a more rigorous assessment of each identified special needs group in Santa Monica, and amend the draft Housing Element by separately quantifying the housing needs of each group,. analyzing the existing housing units and support resources available to address the housing needs of each group, quantifying fhe gap between need and resources, and articulating distinctive strategies and programmatic responses specific to the housing needs of each. 3. Affer the City revises its special needs assessments as set forth above, the program of actions in the Housing Element should be revised to set priorities that reflect the results of that analysis. At a minimum, the COSW requests that Objective 2.g of the Housing Plan be amended to reflect specific housing goals and strategies for each special needs group. Rationale: California law specifically requires in Government Code Section 65583(a) (7) that the Housing Element include: An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly, persons with disabilities, large families, farm workers, .families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.... In its guide to the preparation of Housing Elements, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has interpreted this Code section to require that local jurisdictions engage in a thorough analysis to identify the groups in their communities with the most serious special housing needs in order to develop and prioritize responsive programs. The analysis of each special needs group must include the following: • A quantification of the total .number of persons and households in the special housing needs group, including tenure, where-possible.. • A quantification and qualitative description of the need, including a description of the potential housing problems faced by the special needs groups, d description of any existing resources, and an assessment of unmet needs. Identification of potential program or policy options and resources to address the need. (Housing Element Questions and Answers #s 9 and 10, HCD, October 2006.) Based on statistics developed through an analysis of the 2000 U.S. Census focusing on gender, the COSW issued its Report dri the Status of Women in Santa Monica 2004. Among its conclusions were these: • Ten percent of Santa Monica's population has income below the United States Census .poverty threshold of $8,501 per year for a single person and $17,650 per year for d family of four. Of that group, 56 percent are women. When the cost- of-living in Santa Mdnica is taken into account, along with women's lower. earnings and the cost .and availability of childcare, the actual percentage of women who experience poverty in 2 Santa Monica is probably much higher. • Women comprise 63 percent of the poor population that are age 55 or older, and that percentage increases rapidly with age. • The highest concentration of poor women in Santa Monica lives in zip codes 90403 and 90404. • Of Santa Monica residents receiving public assistance, the largest percentage is ..women. Sixty-five percent of the Santa Monica residents receiving government subsidized in-home living assistance are women. Ninety-five percent of the residents receiving CalWorks, the state's temporary assistance to needy single parent households, are female. • Apptoximately 16 percent of Santa Monica residents experience some form of long-lasting physical, mental or emotional disability. After age. 65, women comprise 64 percent of disabled residents. • Among the approximately 12,500 residents identified in the census as age 65 and older, 75 percent were women. These statistics and observations are consistent with the updated data supporting the Housing Element's description of Santa Monica's population. Because women represent d disproportionate percentage of most of Santa Monica's special needs populations (seniors, large households, single parent households, and people with disabilities) the COSW has focused its review on this particular aspect of the Housing Element draft. We believe that the draft only fully satisfies the requirements of Section 65583(a)(7) with respect to Santa Monica's homeless; and.. does not adequately identify"potential program or policy options and resources to address the need" of each other individual special needs group. Instead, it lumps the varying special needs of all the other groups together, without clearly. identifying and articulating strategies and programmatic responses specific to the housing needs of each. This aggregation .approach is most clearly exemplified in Housing Plan Objectives 2.g: Objective 2.g: Facilitate the Development and Maintenance of Special Needs Housing - Program Background: Santa Monica has a significant resident population with special housing needs due to their income level, household .type, disability, age, and health status. These include seniors, disabled persons, large families, and other circumstances which make it more difficult to find suitable and affordable housing. In developing such housing, it is important to address any special needs. Housing for seniors and those with disabilities, needs to address their special needs, such as a barrier-free 3 environment and accessibility to transit and services. The City intends to expand its strategy to support the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for households with special needs. Program: Continue to utilize existing and new financial resources and strengthen partnerships with. service providers to create and retrofit existing housing forspecial needs households. (HE at 2-10) Throughout the Housing Element draft, many references are made to the City's aggressive program of funding supportive services for lower income households and the special needs groups listed above, which we applaud and heartily endorse. However, with respect to special needs groups, the Housing Element is supposed to focus first and foremost on an analysis of .both the nature and quantification of each group's housing need, and then identify with particularity the ways in which the need will be addressed. The analysis of the special needs of a particular population is an important corollary to the analysis of housing need by income level; while assessment of need by income category provides an indication of the number of units required, the special .needs analysis provides an indication of the type of housing units required. As will be demonstrated by the following examples, this draft does a much better job of describing each population than actually quantifying its housing needs or specifically correlating those needs to planned housing production or preservation. The Elderly. The draft notes on HE 3-20 that "the special housing needs of the elderly (age 65 and older) are an important concern for the City of Santa Monica, due to the significant proportion of senior households in the community and since many retired persons are likely to be on fixed income." According to the Housing Element, persons age 65 and older, the majority of whom are women, represent 14% of the total population (about 12,000 residents), and 18% of total households. The COSW believes that the senior population in Santa Monica will likely continue to increase over time, as the largest population group in Santa Monica, "pre-seniors" aged 35-65, grows older. Sixty percent of Santa Monica's seniors are renters, but they currently comprise only 15% of the City's rent controlled tenants. One might conclude from that statistic that many senior renters, often persons with fixed incomes, will become more and more challenged over the planning life of the Housing Element to pay market rate rent, thereby increasing the need for affordable senior housing. Approximately 64% of all elderly renter households and 36% of elderly owner households earned less than 80% of the County area median income. Because the elderly represent the highest proportion of low, very low and extremely low income households, (HE 3-15), it seems logical to conclude that the pressure for more senior subsidized housing will continue as well. Unfortunately, the Housing Element never "connects .the dots" and explains 4 how much of this potential need is currently unmet or is projected to be unmet in the future. The ever-threatened Section 8 housing voucher is identified in the draft as a primary strategy for addressing the housing needs of the poorest Santa Monicans, (HE 3-32); which would presumably include not only low income elderly residents, but also low income residents within each of the special needs groups. Yet we know that the Santa Monica Housing Authority also has an 800 applicant waiting list for vouchers, and the list has been closed for five years. Further, we understand that Section 8 opportunities in Santa Monica cannot be limited to current residents. This does not seem to be a realistic option for Santa Monica seniors who are not already receiving Section 8 benefits. The draft acknowledges that the- elderly may have special requirements related to housing construction and location including transportation and shopping access. The elderly often require ramps, handrails, lower cupboards, and counters to allow greater access and mobility: (HE 3-20) It is not clear hove many of the apartments that might be available to accept Section 8 tenants are actually appropriate for seniors. The Housing Element identifies about 1000 units of publicly assisted affordable housing for seniors in Santa Monica (HE3-33 to 37; HE 5-5), but does not correlate this number to need. What is the vacancy rate of these units? Are they rented only to current Santa Monica residents, or should a larger, more regional population of seniors be taken into consideration when assessing adequacy? Single Parent Female-Headed Households. The distinctive housing needs of single parent female-headed households are quite different than those of the elderly and should not be analyzed in aggregate with them. For example, as noted at HE 3-22, such households are generally characterized by lower incomes and a greater need for affordable housing. Households headed by females are especially likely to need assistance because-women continue to earn less on average than men in comparable jobs. These households often have needs such as accessible day care, proximity to transit, and health care, as well as other supportive services. The relatively low incomes earned by single-parent households, combined with the need for supportive services, severely limit the housing options available to them. The 2000 Census reported 2,203 single-parent .households with children under the age of 18 years, comprising 5 percent of households in the City... Approximately 13 percent of the City's female-headed, single-parent households were living below the poverty level, compared to 5 percent of all households citywide. 5 Again, the Housing Element draft has described the population and the problem, but has not correlated the housing challenges of single parent female headed households to existing housing resources, or assessed the population's unmet need. How many units of publicly assisted affordable housing are available to such women and their children who are living with a very low income? What proportion of this housing stock consists of more than one bedroom? How many very low income female-headed households receive Section 8 housing vouchers and how many are on the waiting list? Is there any prioritization for housing assistance when domestic violence is a factor? Large Families. According to the draft, one of the two highest proportions of lower income Santa Monica households consists of large family renter households. (HE 1-3). Large families require. larger units; which can be quite expensive. As a consequence, such families often squeeze into smaller spaces, or double up with other families to make ends meet. This results in over-crowding. Again, the special needs of this group are different than the others. The draft noted that lower income large households are limited by the lack of availability of adequately sized affordable housing units. (HE at 3- 22). The:COSW believes that the Housing Element also needs to provide a rough inventory of affordable housing by number of bedrooms, so that the scope of the problem for large families is better quantified. Disabled Persons. The housing needs of the disabled as a special needs population are much more difficult to quantify because the category includes persons with long lasting physical, .mental or emotional conditions. As a consequence, the housing needs of each disabled person will depend on the severity of the disability, and may include issues such as accessibility for indeperident living, to in-home supportive services, to availability of group homes or institutionalized settings. The Housing Element Report makes no effort to correlate the availability of any of these housing types to need.. In conclusion, the COSW believes that the Housing Element is required to provide a quantification and qualitative description of the need, including a description of the potential housing problems, faced by the each special needs group, a description of any existing resources, and an assessment of unmet needs. We believe that the draft fails to qudntify the scope. of the need of the elderly, of female-headed households, of large families and of the disabled, and fails to compare each need to existing resdurces, and provide an assessment of any resource gap. Without this kind of assessment, the City will be forced to set housing priorities for its neediest residents in a vacuum. "A thorough analysis of the special needs groups helps a locality identify groups with the most serious housing needs in order to develop and prioritize responsive programs." (HCD Q&A, #9). After the City revises its special needs assessments as set 6 forth above, the program of actions should of course be revised to set priorities and to reflect the results of that ahalysis. (HCD Q&A, #36). 7 ~ "T~ g-'~ LEGALAID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES APR 2 ~ ZO~$ ATTORNEYS AT LAW - Lang Beach Otrrce ~ Central Office 1550 W. Eighth Street - 1640 Fifth Street, Suite 124 110 Pine Avenue, Suite 420 ~ Los Angeles, cA 9oot7-4316 Santa Monica, California 90401-3343 Long Beach, cA 9oso2-4421 (z13) 64o-3ss1 x? ~ , Telephone: (310) 899-620Q'Gvr~ ~(; ~!3 (562) 435-3501 ~ 7 r ; ~ Fax: (310) 899-6208 South Central Offce East Offce C ' - ~ - - . (; 1 e~601 S. Broadway 5228 E. Whittier Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90003-3319 Los Angeles, CA 90022-4013 (213) 640-3884 (213) 640-3883 West Office 1102 Crenshaw Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90019-3111 (323)801-7989 Writer's Direct Dial Number Our File Number Apri124, 2008 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY Maria M. Stewart, City Clerk City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 209 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Revised Comments to 2008-2014 Housing Element Draft Public Review Plan Dear Ms. Stewart: The Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (CAECA) provides free civil legal services in Los Angeles County, including the city of Santa Monica. Much of our work involves assisting low-income Santa Monica residents obtain or retain safe affordable housing. With that experience in mind, LAFLA has reviewed the City of Santa Monica's 2008- 2014 Housing Element Draft Public Review Plan, and offers the following comments and suggestions to enhance affordable housing opportunities and protections for the low income citizens of Santa Monica. I. OVERVIEW OFLAFLACOMMENTS Arm RECOMMENDATIONS A. Goa12.a: Maintain an Affordable Housing Production Program Current regulatory policies, ordinances and agreements should be revised to insure long term affordability of affordable units. B. Goa12.1: Assess the Development of Workforce Housing Emphasis on workforce housing will compete with and detract from production of affordable housing for extremely low, very low and low income households. Since 1999, APR ~ 9 2008 ~~~ g® - 2 - Apxil 24, 2008 thousands of affordable units have been lost as a result of Costa Hawkins. Replacement of those affordable units should be a priority. C. GOAL 3.0 1. Goa13.c: Maintain a Tenant Eviction Protection Program Deed restricted units do not have "Just Cause" eviction protections and aze not included in the protections of the City's Tenant Harassment Ordinance. The City should consider revising current laws with the goal of protecting tenants residing in deed restricted units. Future deed restrictions should incorporate just cause eviction protections as well as anti- harassment provisions. Other City laws and policies relating to occupancy standards, domestic partnership, and the Ellis Act should be reviewed and amended, as appropriate. 2. Goa13.d. Facilitate the Preservation of At-Risk Housing Two HUD publicly assisted affordable housing projects aze at risk for conversion in Santa Monica on or after 2009. The draft Housing Element should require the City to review and enforce federal restrictions and requirements placed on owners who choose to opt- out, and utilize the protections mandated by federal law to protect the seniors residing in these units from displacement. The city may also consider taking a more assertive approach to purchasing these properties and consider adopting additional legal protections for these tenants and to prepare for future project section 8 opt outs. D. Goa15.0. 1. Goa15.a Maintain a Section 8 Rental Assistance and Housing Voucher Program a. The Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) should address all factors that may be contributing to its decrease in its voucher utilization rate. This is necessary in order to avoid loss of future HUD funding, and loss of the future ability to increase the number of vouchers in use. b. SMHA should update and revise current policies and procedures regarding due process, compliance with HUD regulations, and fair housing obligations with oversight by the City Attorney's staff. 2. Goal Sf Address threats to the HUD Section 8 rental subsidy program The City should adopt a law that would prohibit discrimination against Section 8 voucher holders. While federal law does not mandate landlord participation in the Section 8 program, it expressly permits state and local jurisdictions to prohibit discrimination against Section 8 tenants. An increasing number of jurisdictions throughout the country have passed such laws, including 12 states and many major cities, including New York City. - 3 - dpxil 24, 2008 E. GOAL 6.0: I. 6.a.: Maintain and continue to implement fair housing programs The City should update its ordinances to expand classes protected under its laws to those covered by state law, and include as a goal community education for tenants and landlords regarding housing discrimination. II. COMMENTS TO SPECIFIC GOALS: A. GOAL 2.0: 1. 2.a. Maintain an Affordable Housing Production Program a. Comments: i. LAFLA supports the goal of maintaining an affordable housing production program. Current regulatory policies, ordinances and agreements have not guaranteed that the affordable housing that is produced will remain affordable. LAFLA has identified the following areas that need improvement: a) Current regulatory agreements as written and as enforced do not insure that affordable units will be occupied by eligible tenants, or that the total rent paid (including pass-throughs of fees and costs) will remain affordable. b) Once an applicant for affordable housing is determined to be income eligible, that person may remain in the unit even if household income increases. There is no requirement of re-certification. c) Owners aze not specifically precluded from passing through charges for necessary, required, or extra services. As a result, rents that may appear to be affordable become less so because of unregulated surcharges. d) Neither current City laws, nor current regulatory agreements provide for `just cause" eviction protections for buildings constructed after 1978. These residents are not covered by any other provisions of the City rent control laws. For example, they cannot seek rent decreases based on the failure of the owner to maintain the unit, or file excess rent petitions when they are over-charged. This leaves residents of these affordable units with fewer tenant protections than residents of rent-controlled units. e) Residents of deed restricted units constructed a$er 1978 also have no remedy under City laws if they are victims of tenant harassment. This is because tenants in units exempt from rent control aze not covered by the Santa Monica Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance. While owners are required to rent deed restricted units to low or moderate income tenants, these residents experience less favorable treatment as compared to their - 4 - April 24, 2008 market-rent paying neighbors. For example, the deed restricted residents have reported that their requests for repairs have been ignored or delayed. f) Current regulatory agreements provide a single penalty for violation- revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy. This penalty is far more punitive to tenants than to non-complying owners because it will deprive all tenants residing in the building of their housing. g) The City must commit sufficient resources to actively monitor and enforce existing deed restrictions. h) Instead of a regular compliance review, the City allows owners to self- certify, and no auditing is done. i) The City does not pre-screen for income eligibility. j) There is only one staff person assigned to monitor deed restricted units. k) The City does not maintain a public list of developments with affordable units or information about applying for such units. b. Recommendations: i. Establish a systematic monitoring program of affordable housing units including adequate staffing to ensure compliance with deed restrictions and City policies and enforcement of the requirements for long term affordability. Existing and new affordable developments should include the following conditions or elements: a) Enforce current deed restrictions and contracts. b) Revise and strengthen City ordinances, regulatory agreements, policies and programs to provide for: 1) Maintenance of a reliable City-administered affordable housing waiting list that is purged at appropriate intervals with an option to renew; 2) Pre-screening of applicants for income eligibility by the City or City designee; 3) Requiring developers to collect income data from tenants on an annual basis to certify incomes and certify to the City that the residents are income eligible; 4) Allowance of Income increases up to 140% of area median income (AMI); and, thereafter, the tenant household should have the option to vacate the unit or pay fair market rent value. If the tenant elects to pay the fair market value, the developer shall remit to the City the excess above the most recent affordable rent for a unit of compazable size, so that the City can utilize the additional funds to assist new income-eligible applicants. Where a unit is no longer occupied by anincome-eligible tenant, the - 5 - Apxi124, 2005 developer/owner must designate the next available comparable unit to replace the affordable unit: 5) City review and approval of initial and subsequent leases for compliance with the regulatory agreement and federal, state, local law; 6) Requiring application of "Just cause" eviction protections and other identified tenant protections to assisted units; 7) Imposing specific limitations on the ability of owners to pass through charges for utilities, necessary or extra services; 8) Requiring the developer/owner to relocate a resident who requests to move from a moderate income unit to the next available low income unit (or from low to very low) when the resident's household income is reduced. 9) City approval and monitoring to ensure that deed restricted units are evenly distributed throughout the project, and not placed in the least desirable areas; 10) Training requirements for management; 11) Random audits by city staff; 12) Prohibition on discrimination against Section 8 voucher holders; 13) A tenant grievance procedure; 14) An administrative manual for specific guidance on policies and procedures; and a City website that would include policies, procedures, eligibility requirements, rent fees, referrals, listings, an information hotline, admission policies, list of assisted units or developments with the number of assisted units and waiting list; 15) A range of penalties and enforcement mechanisms for violations of deed restrictions; 16) A system for investigating complaints ofnon-compliance and for enforcement; 1'~ A provision in the regulatory agreement that third parties (including members of the public) may sue project owners if they fail to comply with the regulatory requirements. B. GOAL 2.I. ASSESS THE DEVELOPMENT OF WORKFORCE HOUSING a. Comments: i. Although development of workforce housing may be a desirable objective, LAFLA is concerned that increased emphasis on such development (when such housing is defined as housing affordable to households at 120-180 percent of the I3LJD median income) will compete with and detract from the production of housing for households earning below 80 percent of the HLJD median income. If workforce housing development includes home-ownership opportunities, such housing should have equity appreciation restrictions so -6- April 24, 2008 that the City shares any equity build-up with the purchaser and the unit must be resold to an income-eligible household. ii. Although homeownership opportunities are limited for households earning up to 180 percent of the median income, rental housing for those households is available. The loss of affordable housing options for extremely low, very low and low income persons is a more pressing problem and should be the highest priority. a) Extremely low-income and very low-income households cannot afford to rent a market rate apartment of any size in Santa Monica. b) Although aloes-income household may be able to afford rent for a studio or a one bedroom unit, most landlords will not rent a one bedroom apartment to more than 2-3 people. This means that market rent housing is also essentially inaccessible to low-income families. c) A moderate income household (80-120 percent of median income) can afford most market rent aparhnents with the exception of larger three- bedroom units. Moderate income households cannot afford to purchase even a small condominium. d) Households earning between 120 and 180 percent of the median income can afford rental housing in Santa Monica. Households of extremely low, very low income and most low income households cannot afford market rate apartments in Santa Monica. e) The fact that the City has exceeded its RHNA requirement of 662 does not justify shifting priorities from affordable housing to workforce housing. t) Of the 1,216 housing units that will have been built, approved or in plan check by 2014- 1. Only 312 of these units are in the "very low" or "low" income categories; ii. 714 are in the "above moderate" category. This is above 120 percent of median income, and presumably encompasses the workforce housing category. iii. Satisfying the RHNA requirement simply does not answer the affordable housing crisis faced by the extremely low, very low and low-income residents of Santa Monica. RHNA does not take into account affordable housing lost since the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act's vacancy de-control requirement took full effect in 1999. According to the Santa Monica Rent Control Annual Report, January- December 2007, issued Apri12008: a) Since vacancy de-control--re-control began in January 1999, owners have increased the rents to market rate on 14,672 units or 54% of the controlled rental units; -~- Apxi124, 2008 b) 9,860 of the lost units had rent levels formerly affordable to low-income households (80% of median income); c) 6,044 of the lost units had rent levels formerly affordable to very low- incomehouseholds (50 and 60% of median income). d) Before the City shifts its focus to workforce housing, it should consider that the construction of 312 housing units affordable to very low or low income persons cannot begin to make up for the thousands of affordable units lost since 1999. b. Recommendations: i The City should not shift its emphasis to development of a workforce housing program unless it is able to simultaneously increase the production of housing for persons below 80 percent of the HUD median income. a) Any workforce housing program (for households above 120 percent of median income) should not include the production of rental housing because those households have sufficient rental opporhmities in Santa Monica. b) The City should facilitate increased development of low and very low income rental housing beyond the RIINA requirements to compensate as much as possible for affordable housing lost to vacancy de-control since 1999. c) Developers should not be permitted to satisfy inclusionary requirements with workforce housing and redevelopment funds must be strictly reserved for affordable housing. d) If the City develops a workforce housing program, it should be restricted to households with a member who holds a job in the City relating to community health, education, safety and recreation, such as teachers, police officers, fire personnel, nurses, child care worker, utility worker, and workers in parks, recreation and tourism (hotels, restaurants)etc. C. GOAL 3.0 PROTECT THE EXISTING SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1. Goal 3.c: Maintain a Tenant Eviction Protection Program a. Recommendations: i. Review current laws and recommend, if feasible, a City ordinance that would require "just cause" eviction protections for tenants residing in deed restricted affordable units. ii. Review current City ordinances and recommend, if feasible, amending the Tenant Harassment Ordinance to cover tenants in affordable deed restricted units and in non-rent-controlled buildings occupied by Section 8 tenants. -8- apt z4, zoos iii. Review current laws and policies relating to occupancy standards and recommend any necessary and feasible changes to provide protections to tenants. iv. Review current City law regarding domestic partnerships; make any necessary changes to improve tenant protections. v. Improve monitoring and enforcement for units previously removed from the rental housing business under the Ellis Act. vi. Train City staff including police and safety personnel regarding landlord-tenant issues so that they are better able to provide appropriate referrals and resolutions. 2. Goa13.d. Facilitate the Preservation of At-Risk Housing "The City will continue to monitor the status of at-risk projects within the City, advise tenants in advance of potential conversion dates, and assist in answering questions from residents of at-risk housing." a. Comments• i. The City has eleven HUD publicly assisted affordable housing projects. Two of those projects are located in the coastal zone and have Section 8 public housing conversion dates of 2009: a) Neilson Villas is a senior project with 100 units. The Section 8 rental subsidy contract is expiring in 2009. Neilson Villas is assisted with a HUD Section 236(j) loan. The draft Housing Element states that the contract with the Neilson Villas requires long-term use for affordable housing, City's approval before discharging mortgage debt, and allows the Redevelopment Agency to repurchase the land for $1 plus the improvements for fair market value in 2017. b) Ocean Park Villas is a senior building with 24 units, and is also faced with potential termination of rent subsidies. Ocean Park Villas is funded under HUD's Section 221(d) (4) program and has no underlying use restrictions. The deed restrictions do, however, require that the property be occupied only by elderly persons and families of low and moderate income until 2012. The city has the option of buying back the property for the original mortgage amount when the mortgage becomes due in 2012 and continuing to operate the property as affordable housing. ii. The Draft Housing Element states that long-term affordability is not at risk for the Neilson property, but maybe at risk for the Ocean Park Villas property. It further concludes that the rent subsidies required maintaining the existing tenants in these units are at risk for both properties and that the availability of funding for Section 8 contract renewal is uncertain. This latter conclusion is not necessarily accurate because there are relatively new substantive and -~- Apxi124, 2008 procedural requirements that may protect the tenants of these units if they become threatened bynon-renewal of the Section 8 contract. a) It is true that changes to laws concerning Section 8 expirations and renewals do not, with a few exceptions, establish a mandatory duty on the part of an owner to remain in the program. These owners may "opt out." However, the City and advocates have a patchwork of federal and state restrictions and incentives provided by these new laws and implementing guidelines to protect these tenants against involuntary displacement. Of these protections, three in particular should be emphasized. If the owner decides to opt-out at the expiration of the project-based Section 8 contract: 1) A one year advanced notice is required; 2) Previously assisted tenants will receive replacement "enhanced vouchers" (providing they meet the eligibility and admission standards of the SMHA), and they also have the right to remain in place should they choose. The "enhanced voucher" may require the SMIA to authorize a contract rent at market rate. However, the owner and the SMHA would have to agree upon a market rent. i) As for Neilson Villas, the building is restricted for long term use for affordable housing, so the rents for these units will have a ceiling. ii) For Ocean Park Villas, unless City rent control laws cover these units and establish an MAR, the owner might insist upon a market rent that is higher than the SMHA might be prepared to authorize. (This assumes the City does not exercise the option to purchase Ocean Park Villas in 2012.) b) It should be noted that the "enhanced voucher" program, while presently fully funded at the federal level, is very expensive, and may become a casualty of future federal budget cuts. Thus, the City should consider ways to cap the maximum rents owners may charge when units are converted in order to preserve affordability and protect low income tenants. b. Recommendations: i. Review and implement federal and state laws and regulations regarding owner requirements for opting out of project-based contracts; incentives for persuading owners at these projects to renew their contracts; and protecting the residents of this at-risk housing from displacement. ii. Include a specific goal that the City will initiate negotiations with the owners for purchase of these at risk projects at the time of conversion, rather than wait for them to become available. -10- Apri124, 2008 iii. Review federal, state and local laws and recommend any new laws or modifications to existing laws so: a) Section 8 tenants in expiring project based units are protected by City rent control laws b) The City has the right to purchase properties with expiring project based Section 8 contracts at the point of conversion rather than at the point of mortgage expiration. Eliminating the gap between conversion and mortgage expiration is necessary to reduce the risk of displacement of low income tenants. D. GOAL 5.0 PROVIDE HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES TO VERY LOW, LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSEHOLDS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. 1. Goal S.a Maintain a Section 8 Rental Assistance and Housing Voucher Program a. Comment: i. Voucher Utilization. The City of Santa Monica is authorized by HUD to have 1092 vouchers. In 2007, the Santa Monica Housing Authority's (the SMHA) average monthly use was 1,032, anunder- utilization of 60 vouchers. This was primarily because the housing authority's payment standard is too low relative to Santa Monica market rents. (The SMHA has successfully obtained HUD approval of higher payment standards in the past. While the last application was rejected, it is our understanding that another application will be submitted to HUD this year.) Fewer landlords are willing to accept the current payment standard. In addition, other factors may also contribute to the lower utilization rates: ~ ii. Failure of landlords to accept Section 8 tenants due to discrimination against Section 8 voucher holders; iii. Voucher contract cancellations by landlords; iv. Failure to issue available vouchers to families on the waiting list; v. Insufficient staffing which reduces opportunities for staff to meet regularly with voucher holders, identify potential problems and work toward problem resolutions short of terminations: vi. Terminations by the SMIIA of voucher recipients for program violations that do not involve fraud or are the result of ' According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) the utilization rate for SMHA has decreased in the prior two years. For CY 2004 and 2005 the utilizarion rate was 99% and for 2006 it was 97% and for 2007 it was 93%. -11- Apxi124, 2008 misunderstandings, communication problems, domestic violence or disability. vii. The under-utilization of vouchers is a problem and this year maybe the last year that SMHA will have the funds in hand to address the problem. a) The current funding scheme, for calendar year 2008, provides that SMHA received sufficient funding for all vouchers in use plus an amount to fully fund all authorized vouchers at the current estimated annual cost of $12,476 and maintain a reserve of 7%. It is likely that in the coming year, all PI-IPs, including SMHA, will receive funding for vouchers in use and be allowed to retain a reserve of 7%. In future years it is likely that SMHA will not be able to retain in their reserves funding for vouchers which are not in use. b) SMHA will be faced with another dilemma in fully utilizing all available vouchers because the administrative fee is calculated this year (and more than likely in future years) based upon the number of vouchers in use. Again, lower usage will mean less funding, which will impact the ability to increase the number of vouchers in use. b. Recommendation: i. On a monthly basis, monitor the Santa Monica Housing Authority's utilization of Section 8 vouchers with the goal of bringing utilization to a yearly average of 100 percent; and support SMHA's application (or reapplication) for a higher voucher payment standard. ii. Consider providing extra funding to the SMHA to increase the utilization rate. SMHA may need the additional funds because of cuts in the administrative fee. There are a number of additional activities that SMHA could engage in which may increase utilizations, such as: a) Increasing outreach to the community to explain the problem and seek assistance in addressing it. i) Consider holding a public forum on the utilization issue to highlight the concern and seek community solutions. b) Identifying new landlords who will accept Section 8. c) Assisting tenants in locating units and in improving their "rental resume." d) Working with the nonprofit housing community to determine ways to maximize the commitment to project-based vouchers in the coming year. e) Reviewing HQS standards as used by SMHA to determine if they are stricter than standards required by HUD. f) Considering a policy of providing a preference of issuing vouchers to voucher holders who may rent in place. -tz- Apri124, 2008 g) Considering a policy of denying a tenant who receives a new voucher in Santa Monica and leases up the ability to move out of Santa Monica within the initial year, except as a reasonable accommodation or because the move is required because the individual is a victim of domestic violence. h) Provide landlord and tenant training and access to informal dispute resolution mechanisms with the goal of resolving issues without cancellation of the voucher. i) Urge the SMHA to: i) Absorb port-ins. ii) Closely review all potential voucher terminations and consider alternatives to termination such as work-out agreements. iii) Provide incentives to continued participation and negotiate higher rents to discourage or reverse decisions by participating owners to cancel participation with the Section 8 program. iv) Consider whether and to what extent City rent control laws protect Section 8 tenants in rent-controlled units from owner opt-outs. Monitor progress of pending litigation in federal court (presently before the 9a' Circuit Court) and the Appellate Division of the LA Superior Court, regarding whether `just cause" protections under Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Law prohibit contract cancellations without first terminating tenancy for "just cause." HUD regulations specifically state there is no federal preemption. c. Comment: i. Over the past several years there has been an increase in discretionary voucher terminations by the SMHA. Such terminations are not due to fraud or criminal activities, but may occur because of poor communication between a voucher holder and housing specialist, a failure to respond to requests for paperwork, missing an appointment or owner complaints about the voucher holder. Termination from the housing program for minor violations places vulnerable voucher holders in jeopardy of homelessness. In some cases, the tenants were not provided adequate due process and did not understand the significance of the notice of termination or a hearing process. Although LAFLA has worked successfully with tenants and SMHA to avoid or reverse some terminations, further efforts to address minor deficiencies before they result in a notice of ternunation are necessary. Discretionary terminations should be a last resort. d. Recommendation: i. Assess the SMHA's Authority's current policies, regulations, and procedures, obtain community and public input, and revise the Administrative Plan, the annual PHA plan, and any other policies, regulations, and procedures to ensure: -13 - Apxi124, 2008 a) Fair and adequate termination and hearing procedures with due process safeguards for participants; b) Create a panel of impartial hearing examiners, with legal or administrative heazing experience; and provide necessary training regazding IlUD and the Section 8 program; c) Provide additional legal support and oversight by the City Attorney's office for compliance with HUD regulations, due process, City ordinances (including regulatory agreements) fair housing law, LEP, and VAWA requirements, including review of leases and contracts; d) Work with community service providers, voucher holders and City staff to minimize discretionary voucher terminations for minor or first time breaches of program requirements, especially for disabled persons, when the breach can be remedied, or there are less severe penalties such as probation, or repayment agreements; e) Implement a program to educate tenants so they may better understand their obligations; f) Provide notice of a grievance procedures to handle complaints by tenants and landlords regarding the program or staff; g) Provide an administrative procedure for appealing or reconsidering the hearing examiner's decision after hearing without resort to court action; h) Provide program participants with all information obtained by the housing authority regarding the participant upon request; i) Specific written procedures regarding program obligations, the bases for termination, and rights under fair housing laws (including specific reasonable accommodation procedures), VAWA and language access regulations. j) Provide early referrals to community programs that provide case management for participants with disabilities, and early referrals for free legal services to prevent terminations for noncompliance with program requirements. ii. Encourage Section 8 landlords and tenants and landlords to utilize mediation programs to resolve disputes. -14- Apxi124, 2008 2. GOAL S.F.: Address threats to the HUD Section 8 rental subsidy program a) Comment: Santa Monica should adopt a law that would prohibit discrimination against Section 8 voucher holders. Voucher recipients in Santa Monica have great difficulties finding landlords who will accept their vouchers. This is partially due to the payment standard but also due to discrimination. As a result, not all recipients who receive Section 8 vouchers are able to utilize them. The SMHA has a lower utilization of vouchers than in years past. Most Section 8 tenants find units in buildings owned by the Community Corporation of Santa Monica. Otherwise, voucher holders in Santa Monica find very limited options in only a few neighborhoods in buildings owned by a short list of participating landlords. Choices are limited and the competition for each unit is extremely high. The experience of Section 8 tenants in Santa Monica is mirrored across the country. In a nationwide study conducted in 2001, H[ID found that only 69.2 percent of voucher holders in large metropolitan areas successfully obtained housing within the allotted amount of time.2 HUD's 2001 study suggested a number of factors that affect success rates, including the tightness of the rental market, characteristics of the voucher holder and general acceptance of Section 8 in the area by landlords.3 Nationwide studies show that Section 8 voucher holders face significant discrimination from landlords.' A survey of multi-family property owners and managers conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau found that about 8.7 million out of 20.5 million owners and managers surveyed refuse to accept Section 8.5 Another study conducted by the Lawyers' Committee for Better Housing in Chicago reached similar conclusions, fmding that nearly half of all landlords explicitly refused to accept Section 8 housing vouchers from investigators posing as prospective tenantsb and that "Housing Choice Voucher holders z The study defined success rate as the "percentage of all families provided vouchers who lease a housing unit meeting the program requirements within the allotted amount of time." U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Study on Section 8 Voucher Success Rates, volume & Quantitative Study of Success Rates in Metropolitan Areas, (November 2001) (last updated March 17, 2003) Chapter 1, 1. AvaIlable at: htto:%%~sry~nv huduser.or,rpublications/pubassUsecBsuccess.htnil ' Id. at Chapter 1, 1. ° See Property Owners and Managers Surveg Multi Family Properties: Reasons for Not Accepting Section 8 Tenants -Table 54, U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economics Statistics Division, last revised December 17.2004. s Lawyer's Committee for Better Housing, Inc., Locked Out: Barriers to Choice for Housing Voucher Holders, 9 (Apri12002). 6Id. at 10. -15 - Apri124, 2008 face multi-level barriers of discrimination based on source of income, race, and ethnicity." The common belief that a landlord cannot be required to participate in the Section 8 program is based on misunderstanding. While federal law does not itself mandate landlord participation, federal law expressly permits states and local jurisdictions to compel landlords to participate ~ An increasing number of jurisdictions have enacted legislation to prohibit discrimination against Section 8 tenants. Approximately 12 states have passed such laws as have numerous counties and cities. These jurisdictions include Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin, Washington D.C., Chicago, Portland, San Francisco, East Palo Alto and Corta Madera, CA, Montgomery County, Maryland, Seattle, and most recently, New York City, in February 20086 The California Fair Employment and Housing Act was amended in 2000 to include a provision which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of source of income. Whether Section 8voucher-holders are covered by the definition of "source of income" is a disputed question. Landlords do not accept that the state law covers Section 8 vouchers. Some advocates disagree, but there is no appellate decision on this question to date.9 A local Santa Monica law prohibiting discrimination against Section 8 tenants would benefit tenants, landlords and the City. With such protections, tenants with Section 8 vouchers or other forms of public assistance would have a greater chance of finding affordable housing and could seek redress for housing discrimination. Given that the residents assisted by the Santa Monica Housing Authority are extremely poor and likely to be elderly or disabled and in many cases, both elderly and disabled (58%)",10 they need every protection the city can provide to ensure that they will obtain safe and affordable housing. ~ HUD explicitly recognizes that states and local jurisdicfions may enact laws to prevent discrimination against Section 8 and that these local laws are not preempted by the federal law. Federal regulations governing the Section 8 program unambiguously resolve this issue: "Nothing in part 982 (Section 8 Regulations) is intended to pre-empt operation of State and local laws that prohibit discrimination against a Section 8voucher-holder because of status as a Section 8voucher-holder." 24 C.F.R. § 982.53(d). $ Appendix A to this letter provides a description of the laws passed by various states, counties and cities. 9 This provision states that "for the purposes of this section, `source of income' means lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representafive of a tenant. For the purposes of this section, a landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant" See Cal. Gov. Code §12955, revised language, January 1, 2005. The Legislative history of SB 1145, which revised the defmition of "source of income" five years after the law was first passed, includes a statement by Western Center on Law and Poverty that the Legislature drafted the original law in such a way to purposefully avoid deciding one way or the other the long running issue of whether a landlord must accept Section 8 payments. io See Santa Monica Housing Authority Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 at Page 26 -16 - Apri124, 2008 Landlords and housing authorities would also benefit. Landlords would gain tenants who have strong incentives to be model tenants, and the payment system administered by the local housing authority guarantees timely payment of rent.l t The housing authority would receive a variety of benefits. The HUD study suggests that cities that prohibit discrimination based on source of income have higher voucher utilization rates.t2 Housing authorities also experience lower administrative costs and fewer extensions of time to locate units. In Santa Monica, the city would be able to divert redevelopment funds spent on the TARP program to other programs because owners would not be permitted to cancel their Section 8 contracts just because they no longer wish to participate in the Section 8 program.13 An anti-discrimination law would also result in preserving or increasing diversity in Santa Monica. We recognize that an ordinance prohibiting discrimination against Section 8 voucher holders must be accompanied by obtaining a higher voucher payment standard from HUD. An owner cannot be accused of discrimination for refusing to accept a Section 8 voucher if the rent the applicant is offering to pay is below the amount the owner can reasonably demand based upon market rents. b. Recommendations: i. Review federal, state and local laws and recommend any new laws or modifications to the City's current laws to protect Section 8 voucher holders from discrimination. E. GOAL 6.0: ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION IN THE RENTAL OR SALE OF HOUSING ON THE BASIS OF RACE, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEX, SEXUAL PREFERENCE, AGE, DISABILITY, FAMILY STATUS, AIDS, OR OTHER SUCH CHARACTERISTICS. 1. 6.a.: Maintain and continue to implement fair housing programs. a. Recommendations: i. Review current state and local laws and revise city ordinances to expand classes protected under fair housing laws to conform to those classes covered by state law. ii. Revise Goa16.a to include education of "tenants" about discrimination. ti See NYCHA, The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, 5, at http://www.nyc.govlhtmUnycha/pdfisecrion %208 ga.pdf ~Z.Study on Section 8 Voucher Success Rates, volume I: Quantitative Study of Success Rates in Metropolitan Areas, (November 2001) (last updated March 17, 2003), Appendix C. " Id. -17- April 24, 2008 If you have any questions or need any additional information regarding the foregoing comments, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES Santa Monica Office ,-- ~._r~~.U Denise McGranahan ~~~ ~®~ SeniorAttorney~ Sallyann Molloy Directing Attorney CC: Councilmembers P. Lamont Ewell, City Manager Mazsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney California Department. Of Housing And Community Development APPENDIX A States, Counties and Cities with Ordinances Prohibiting Discrimination Against Source of Income andlor Participation in the Section 8 Voucher Program The following aze a list of cities, counties and states with ordinances prohibiting discrimination against tenants based on their source of income and participation in the Section 8 housing program. The list may not include all jurisdictions that have these laws. STATES: California-California's fair housing law includes protections against discrimination in housing rentals and sales based on source of income. However, whether Section 8voucher-holders are protected is in dispute. The state statute states that "for the purposes of this section, `source of income' means lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant. For the purposes of this section, a landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant." (Cal. Gov. Code §1295, revised language, January 1, 2005.) Connecticut --Connecticut prohibits discrimination in housing rental or sales based on lawful source of income. "Lawful source of income" is defined to include "social security [SSI], housing assistance, child support, alimony or public or general assistance" (Connecticut General Statutes, §46a-63(3)). The statute was upheld by the Connecticut State Supreme Court in Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan Associates, 250 Conn. 763, 739 A.2d 238 (1999). District of Columbia-Washington, D.C.'s source of income, anti-discrimination law provides that any Section 8 assistance that is received either directly or through a tenant, shall be considered income and a source of income under section 231 of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. Owners of housing accommodations are prohibited from refusing to rent to someone on the basis of having a Section 8 voucher. (BILL 14-183, Sections 209 and 210, D.C. Code Ann. § 1-2502.) Maine--Maine has made it unlawful to "refuse to rent or impose different terms of tenancy to any individual who is a recipient of federal, state or local public assistance, including medical assistance and housing subsidies primarily because of the individual's status as recipient" (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 4582). Massachusetts--Massachusetts prohibits any person furnishing rental accommodations to discriminate on the basis of source of income, including federal, state, or local public assistance, or federal, state, or local housing subsidies, including rental assistance or rental supplements (General Laws of Massachusetts, Ch 151B: §4(10).) See Attorney General v. Brown, 511 n.e.2d 1103 (Mass. 1987), which found that federal law does not preempt state law and Page 1 of 6 APPENDIX A remanded for determination of whether the landlord discriminated against recipients of Section 8. Minnesota--Minnesota forbids discrimination in housing and real property based on "status with regazd to public assistance". "Status with regard to public assistance" is defined to mean "the condition of being a recipient of federal, state or local assistance, including medical assistance, or of being a tenant receiving federal, state or local subsidies, including rental assistance or rent supplements." (Minn. Stat. §§ 363.01, Subd. 42, and 363.OA.02.) However, a Minnesota court found that the law does not extend to Section 8voucher-holders. See Babcock v. BBY Chestnut Limited Partnership, 2003 WL 21743771 (Minn. App. July 29, 2003). (Note the court's caveat that the opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat.§ 480A.08, Subd. 3.) New Jersey--New Jersey prohibits discrimination in housing rentals based on lawful sources of income "or the source of lawful income used for rental or mortgage payments" (NJSA §§ 10:5-4, and 10:5-12). New Jersey's highest court upheld an earlier version of the statute (N.J.S.A. §2A:41-100; since repealed) stating that Section 8 vouchers were covered because the statute prohibits. discrimination not only against source of income but also against the source of a lawful rent payment. The court found no federal preemption because there is nothing in the federal statute that explicitly preempts state legislation requiring landlords to honor Section 8 vouchers. See Franklin Tower One v. N.M., 157 N.J. 602 (1999). ^ North Dakota-North Dakota prohibits discrimination in the rental or sale of housing based on "public assistance" (N.D. Cent. Code, § 14-02.5-02). Oklahoma-- Rather than prohibit source of income discrimination outright, Oklahoma has declared that public assistance must be considered a valid source of income for housing; failure to consider it a valid source of income, if based on race, disability, gender or other protected categories, is unlawful (Title 25, § 1452). ^ Oregon--Oregon prohibits discrhrunation in real estate transactions based on sourcc of income but specifically excludes federal rent subsidy payments under 42 U.S.C. §1437f from its definition of source of income (Or. Rev. Stat. §659A.421(1)). ^ Utah-Utah prohibits discrimination in housing rentals or sales based on source of income. "Source of income" is defined to include "federal, state, or local subsidies, including rental assistance or rent supplements". (Utah Code Ann. §§ 57-21-2(11), 57-21-5.) ^ Vermont-Vermont prohibits discrimination on housing rentals or sales based upon receipt of "public assistance"; public assistance is defined to include Page 2 of 6 APPENDIX A assistance "provided by federal, state or local government, including housing assistance" (Vt. Stat. Ann., tit. 9 §§ 4501(6), 4503). Wisconsin-Wisconsin prohibits discrimination in housing sales and rentals based on lawful source of income (Wis. Stat. Ann. §106.50). However, a federal court found that Section 8 vouchers are not clearly encompassed by the teen "source of income", and that participation in the Section 8 program is voluntary. See Knapp v. Eagle Property Management, 54 Fad 1272 (7th Cir. 1995). Benton County, Oregon: Benton County prohibits discrimination housing rental and sales based on source of income. Source of income is defined to include funds from "federal and state payments", but then proceeds to specifically exclude Section 8voucher-holders by allowing "refusal to contract with a governmental agency under 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(a)". (Ord. No. 98-0139).Available at: http://www.co.benton.or.us/countycode.~hp ^ Cook County, Illinois: The Cook County Boazd of Commissioners adopted the County Human Rights Ordinance (CHRO), banning discrimination on source of income. However, the ordinance declares that it is not to be construed as requiring any person to participate in the Section 8 program or to accept the voucher. Available at: http://www.kentlaw.edu/cookcchr,~ Frederick County, Maryland: At the request of the Frederick County Human Rights Commission, the County Commissioners included an enabling bill in their 2005 legislative package for the Maryland General Assembly that would protect residents in Frederick County against source of income (as well as familial status) discrimination in housing, public accommodations and employment. Available at: htto://u~~-.co.frederick.md.uslyovllBOCC/pdf/2005LegislativePackaee.pdf Howard County, Maryland: Howard County's fair housing ordinance prohibits discrimination based on source of income in sales and rental of housing, and specifically defines source of income to include government housing subsidies (Title 12, Health and Social Services, Sub. 2. Human Rights, §§ 12.200-12.218). Available at: http:;fwww.co.ho.md.us/CountyCounciUCC HoCoCode.asp King County, Washington: King County's fair housing ordinance specifically prohibits discrimination in housing rentals or sales based on participation in the Section 8 program (King County, Wash., Ord. § 12.20.040). Available at: htto://www.metrokc.~ov/mkcc/Code/ Page 3 of G APPENDIX A Montgomery County, Maryland: Montgomery County prohibits discrimination in residential sales or rentals based on source of income. "Source of income" is defined to include, in relevant part, any lawful source of funds "paid directly or indirectly to a renter or buyer of housing" including any government assistance. (Montgomery County, Md., Code §§ 27-12, and 27-11(b)-(g).) Available at: http~O 1 amleQal emm'mc d nxdeat~vav dll"f=t~melates&fo=default hlm&vd=alpinon[eomervcounty and Multnomah County, Oregon: Multnomah County prohibits discrimination in housing (employment and public accommodations) on a variety of grounds, including source of income. "Source of income" is defined to include any legal source of funds that a person uses to support "himself or herself and his or her dependents". Though Section 8 is not listed specifically, funds from "federal or state payments" are included, and the general definition of source of income is broad. (Multnomah County Code §§15.340 and 15.342.) Available at: http://www2.co.multnomah.onus/counseUcode/indexshtml • Prince George's County, Maryland: Prince George's County's fair housing ordinance prohibits discrimination based on source of income in sales and rental of housing. However, Section 8 voucher holders are not protected unless the landlord or property owner has rented to Section 8 tenants in the past. In addition, it is illegal for a property owner to make or advertise a blanket denial of Section 8 tenants. Available at: httpJ/eeov.co.pg.md.us/lis! CITIES ^ Corte Madera, California- This ordinance protects existing tenants in buildings of 10 or more units from discrimination based on their Section 8 status. While the ordinance does not require these landlords to rent to a Section 8 tenant in the fast place, it does require them to accept Section 8 from an existing tenant who qualifies for Section 8 after moving in. (Chapter 5.30.020-5.30.040; Ordinance 858 § § 2-3.) Available at: http:(hcc~nv.nhlp.orp/'html/sec8/source of income 2.htm1 East Palo Alto, California-- This "urgent" ordinance prohibits any person from certain activities based on source of income. Under the ordinance, "source of income" means all lawful sources of income or rental assistance from any federal, state, local or non-profit administered benefit or subsidy program as well as participation in rental, homeless or security deposit assistance programs or housing subsidy programs. (E.P.A. Ord. No. 248, Adopted Nov. 6, 2000.) Available at: http://v<~ryv.nhlp.or>;/htmUsec8lsource of income 2.htm1 Page 4 of G APPENDIX A San Francisco, California--prohibits discrimination based on source of income, including rental and other related subsidies. (Article 33, Section 3304.) Available at http:;/wv,'vv.nhln.orQ/htmUsec8/source of income 2.htm1 City of Woodland, California: -- requires owners of multifamily residential rental projects to enter into an inclusionary housing agreement with the city for projects with affordability restrictions on particular units. Owners of such developments are specifically prohibited from discriminating against Section 8voucher-holders. Tenants may use vouchers to rent inclusionary units. (City of Woodland, Code Sec. 6A-4-60, Ord. No. 1393, § 3.) Available at: htt»:!'www ci woodland ca us,~citvhalL%codef DATA/CHAP"[LR064/Ar4clz IV Renuire n~nts for Aenu;' d hmil Borough of State College, Pennsylvania: -- prohibits discrimination in the renting or selling of housing based on source of income. "Source of income" is defined to mean income received through any legal means, which would, thus, probably include Section 8 voucher income. (Borough of State College, Fair Housing Code, Secs. 501 and 502.) West Seneca, New York: --prohibits discrimination in the rental or sales of housing based on source of income. "Source of income" is not defined. (West Seneca Codes, Sec. 71-3.) Available at: http:/lwwcv.gov.state-coltege.ua.us/3housing html Hamburg, New York-- provides that a landlord cannot discriminate due to a person's lawful source of income as long as that person has enough income to afford to rent the apartrnent. "Source of income" is not defined. (Hamburg Codes, Chapter 109-3.) Available at; http:/fwv~~.nls.org/housin,ldiscrim.html Chicago, Illinois-- Discrimination in rentals, sales or leases of residential property is illegal in Chicago when based on source of income (Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance §5-08-030). "Source of income" is defined as the lawful manner in which an individual supports himself or herself and his or her dependents. The department that enforces the fair housing ordinance has found that "source of income" includes Section 8 vouchers (Chicago, Ill., Chicago Human Rights Ord. §2-160-020(m)). See Godinez v. Sullivan-Lackey and City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations, No. 1-02-2101 (Fifth Division, Aug. 20, 2004) (SOI statute prohibits discrimination against Section 8 voucher recipients).Available at: http://www.ci.chi.il.us/llumanRe]ations/FairHousingOrdinance.html New York, New York- New York City is home to the largest Section 8 program in the country, with more than 85,000 vouchers subsidizing aparhnents for about 270,000 New Yorkers. On march 26, 2008, the City Council of New York City .overrode the mayor's veto of a law which prohibits prohibits landlords from discriminating against tenants who intend to pay their rent with federal rent- subsidy vouchers or any other form of government assistance. The legislation Page 5 of 6 APPENDIX A covers various types of housing provided there are six or more units, and it applies to incoming tenants and to those already in a home but whose economic circumstances may have changed after they moved in. The new law applies to buildings with six or more units unless the buildings are subject to rent control. Owners of five or fewer units, with some exceptions, aze excluded. ^ Portland, Oregon: Portland's prohibition against discrimination in sales or rental of housing based on source of income includes funds from "federal or state payments" in its source of income definition (Portland Municipal Code, §23.01.060). Seattle, Washington: Seattle prohibits discrimination in residential sales and rentals based on "possession or use of a Section 8 certificate" (Seattle, Wash., Code §14-.08-.040). Iowa City, Iowa: Iowa City prohibits discrimination in housing sales and rentals housing on the basis of "public assistance source of income". However, the ordinance specifically excludes rent subsidies. (Iowa City Code, Title 2, 2-5-1, and 2-1-1.) Page 6 of G APPENDIX A ~~ {'S `u~_pp, 1le~me®ntal ~} Santa Monica Clt~/ v~Mn~r~l I~ep~• ~ City Council Meeting: April 29, 2008 Agenda Item: 8-b To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning & Community Development Subject: Housing Element: Comments and responses Executive Summary This supplemental report- is intended to clarify the comments received on the draft Housing Element, which was released for public review in February, and staffs response to those comments including proposed revisions to the document. Discussion The following clarification of City Commission, Board and public comments included in the Housing Element Discussion staff report and responses to those. comments in Attachment B (Errata Sheet) of the staff report are provided at the request of Council members. Staff will address public comments that were received after the staff report for tonight's hearing was released. Planning Commission Comments o The accuracy of data for the population estimate, building cost per square foot and school enrollment figures. Population and school enrollment data contained in the draft Housing Element are the best available data and do not need to be revised. Building cost per square foot will be updated with-more recent information as reflected in the Errata Sheet. • Clarify data on new housing (new units built versus net new units to reflect the number of units demolished). The Department of Finance data on the number of units added to the housing stock since the 2000 census, contained in tables on page 3-24 of the draft Housing Element, reflect net additional units; this information is based on annual data that the City provides including new units completed and units demolished. • Include more Rent Control data including information on occupants of rent control uni#s and the impact of market rate rent adjustments. Since the release of the draft Housing Element, the Rent Control Board has released reports on impacts of Costa-Hawkins and the Ellis Act. Information from these reports will be incorporated into the revised draft Housing Element and they will be included aS attachments (Errata sheet, page 4). o Add a definition for congregate care; include more data and a goal to meet the community's future need for congregate care. This will be added (Errata sheet, page 1) o Add. a goal to the Housing Plan to address the jobs-housing imbalance and to better match income and housing affordability for Santa Monica's residents. The draft Housing Element continues the City's very successful programs to promote housing production, including the production of affordable housing. The LUCE is specifically designating formerly commercial areas with incentives to increase the potential for housing growth, particularly for workforce and affordable housing. The provision of both affordable and workforce housing is a critical component of the LUCE, which has goals to improve the city's jobs- housing balance. The draft Housing Element is consistent with the direction of the LUCE. e Place a stronger emphasis on the need to strengthen the. policies supporting the Section 8 housing program. The errata sheet does not include specific recommendations to address this. The Housing & Economic Development Department has been evaluating suggestions it has received and is considering options for revision of the Section 8 Administrative Plan. At Council direction, the program language under Objective 5.a can be revised to include updating the Section 8 Administrative Plan: Ensure that the document is consistent with amendments being considered to the Green Building Ordinance. Revised language is proposed in the errata sheet (pages 4-6). Recognizing that Santa Monica has an older housing. stock that must be rehabilitated or replaced, the Element should address the way in which that housing is regenerated with respect to the placement of housing and transportation connections. -2- This policy issue is one of the principal recommendations in the LUCE process and is reflected in Objective 2.h. The Housing Element has been drafted to ensure consistency with the LUCE process. • Consider where the Element can include more commitment to the City's wider sustainability objectives. The provision of housing affordable to people of all economic levels and accessible to meet all needs is a component of sustainability and is recognized as such in the Sustainable City Policy. Policies under Goal #7 promote sustainable building practices and energy conservation. There are no recommended changes to the draft language. • Provide more detailed description and analysis of a program to provide workforce housing, emphasizing its connection with long-term sustainability. A strategy to provide Workforce Housing is being addressed in the' LUCE and the draft Housing Element includes a goal to ensure consistency with this process. The Workforce Housing Task Force is also releasing a document with their recommendations. The Final Housing Element will be updated to reflect the latest available information from the LUCE and the Workforce Housing Task Force (Errata sheet, page 4). • Ensure that there is strong language about maintaining the city's existing affordable housing, in addition to creating new affordable units. A principle component of the Housing Element is the maintenance and promotion of affordable housing. The program language may be strengthened and specific components may be added based on Council direction to reflect comments from the City's commissions, Rent Control Board, and public. s Consider the impact that Proposition 98 might have on the city's ability to produce affordable housing should that measure be approved by State's voters. The implications of this proposed ballot measure are indeed significant. This proposition is being discussed tonight by the City Council under Agenda Item 8- C. Housing Commission • Opportunities for strategies to support affordable housing Although the City has a number of programs to build, rehabilitate and subsidize housing to make it affordable to very low; low and moderate income households, staff suggests adding a program to the draft Housing Element that will commit the city to investigate new, innovative ways to increase affordability in light of the -3- lost housing affordability due to vacancy decontrol and removal of rent control units from the market. • Parking reduction for affordable housing and housing near transit. This is being recommended in the LUCE. • Refining the methodology for counting the homeless population, and in particular the concern that the Latino homeless population has been undercounted. This is being addressed by the Human Services Division in their ongoing work on the issue. Rent Control Board • RCB is very concerned about the findings of the nine-year report on "The Impact of Market Rate Vacancy Increases," which was presented to the Board on April 3 and has been.forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. The report data indicate that 14,672 units have now been rented at market rate, including 9,860 units that previously had rent levels affordable to low-income households (80% of the, median family income for a family of four). Included within the 9,860 units were. 6,044. units that had rent levels affordable to very-low income families (60% of MFI). The RCB requested that the Housing Element address this issue by including a program to identify new ways that the city can strive to replace the large number of formerly affordable units that have been lost through market rate rentals due to vacancy decontrol. This program is recommended to be added under Objective 3.a of the Housing Plan -Errata Sheet, page 4. Public Comments • The city is planning to build too much housing and it is questionable whether the city should be participating in building workforce housing for families with relatively high incomes. This policy issue is being assessed through the Workforce Housing Task Force and in the LUCE. • Unit size (number of bedrooms) should be diversified within affordable housing projects to ensure diversified population and equal opportunity. This is not included in the errata sheet. At Council's direction, language may be added to Objective 2.g. to consider policies that encourage or require large units in both affordable and market rate projects. -4- The Section 8 program is at serious risk, and will be more at risk if voters approve Proposition 98, and serious attention should be paid to this. • Section 8 tenants need to have access to relocation fees. The City needs to be very concerned about the disaster of owner opt-out from the Section 8 program. Alternative programs and preventative measures are needed to avert a surge of new homelessness that would result. The errata sheet does not include specific recommendations to address this. The Housing & Economic Development Department has been evaluating suggestions it has received and is considering options for revision of the Section 8 Administrative Plan. At Council direction, the program language under Objective 5.a can be revised to include updating the Section 8 Administrative Plan. • Construction costs are higher than the figure included in the HE. This is addressed on the errata sheet, page 1. • The fees in Table 4-6 omit water meters, and new projects must include separate domestic and irrigation meters and a third meter for fire sprinklers, if required, for which the fee exceeds $10,000. Water meter connection fee is listed in the table; however the requirement to install and pay for additional meters is not referenced and information will be added. • The Draft Housing Element does not mention co-housing (an emerging model of housing co-ownership with an emphasis on communal space and sustainable design), and the City should consider whether co-housing is something that should be encouraged. Co-housing is a new concept that has recently been brought to staffs attention by interested members of the community. Language to encourage or explore potential for this type of living arrangement may be added if the Council so directs staff. Prepared by: Elizabeth Bar-EI, AICP, Senior Planner Approved: Forwarded to Council: -5- ' Community Development Dept. Additional attachments available in the City Clerk's Office.