sr-092893-9b,~e. GPI _c>~
~~2~. ~ ~~ a l ~~
LUTM:CPD:
f:\ppd\share\ccreport\cchemeet
COUNCSL MEETING: September 28, 1993
T0: Mayor and City Council
FROM• City Staff
Santa Monica, California
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report regarding the Housing
Element; Adopt a Resolution Amending the Housing Element;
and, Adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council 1) adopt a resolution
to certify the Final EIR and Addendum regarding the Housing
Element; 2) adopt a resolution to approve the September, 1993
Housing Element Update; and, 3) adopt a Statement of overriding
Considerations to approve the Housing Element.
This report provides a summary of important statutory requirements,
a discussion of the contents of the Housing Element update, a
history of the update, a review of comments submitted to the City
by the State Department of Housing. and Community Development, a
discussion of substantive changes to the document since it was last
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council,
a summary of comments and recommendations made by the Planning
Commission at their-July 28-and August 18, 1993 meetings, and a
discussion of the EIR.
Pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance, the City Council must
conduct a public hearing upon any proposed amendment to the General
Plan within 60 days of Planning Commission action and must consider
adoption of any proposed amendments within 9o days of Planning
Commission action.
BACRGROUND
One of the seven State-mandated elements of the General Plan, the
Housing Element establishes a five-year plan for .addressing the
City's housing needs. By law, the Housing Element must analyze
existing and projected housing needs and set forth goals, policies,
and programs for addressing those needs.
Local jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of
Governments (SLAG) area are subject to a mandated five-year housing
element update- cycle that began on July 1, 1989. Due to the
importance that the State of California places upon the provision
of housing, statutory requirements for housing elements are more
detailed and specific than for any other General Plan element.
Additionally, the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) reviews housing elements for an evaluation of
compliance with applicable laws.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
State law governs all elements of the General Plan and is
particularly detailed and specific concerning the Housing Element.
This section summarizes some of the key provisions of California
Housing Element law as it affects Santa Monica. A copy of the
2
relevant statutes are provided in Attachment F for further
information.
Section 65588 of Article 10.6 (Housing Element Law) stipulates that
the housing element shall be revised not less than every five
years. The law further states that jurisdictions within the
Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) region must,
adopt revisions by July 1, 1984 and every five years thereafter
(i.e., July 1, 1989; July 1, 1994). The current update is designed
to satisfy the requirements for the July 1, 1989 through July 1,
1994 planning period.
Section 65583(a)(1) of Housing Element law requires that the
Housing Element contain projections of the jurisdiction's share of
regional housing need as determined by the council of governments
(i.e., SCAG). These projections, which are set forth prior to each
five-year planning period in what is known as the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA), contain estimated housing needs by income
category, including low- and very low-income households. The City
never endorsed its 1989-1994 estimated housing unit need under the
RHNA.
Under Section 65583(b)(1), localities are required to include in
their housing elements a statement of the community's goals,
quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance,
preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Under the
3
law, the quantified objectives for the production of housing need
not be the same as the RHNA estimates. In fact, Section
65583(b)(2) specifically states that,
It is recognized that the total housing needs identified
pursuant to subdivision (a) [RHNA] may exceed available
resources and the community's ability to satisfy this need
within the content of the general plan requirements outlined
in Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300). Under these
circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical
to the total housing needs.
Thus, the City's quantified objectives may be lower than the RHNA
estimates. The proposed Housing Element contains quantified
objectives of 1,150 new units, even though the RHNA estimates a
need for 3,220 new units.
Finally, Section 65588 of Housing Element law requires that each
local government review its housing element to (1) evaluate the
appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in
contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal; and, (2)
to evaluate the effectiveness of the Housing Element in the
attainment of the community's housing goals and objectives. The
purpose of this requirement is to review the City's performance
under the past Housing Element and make appropriate adjustments to
the goals, objectives, and policies of the Housing Element update
4
based upon this review. The required evaluation is provided in
Attachment G.
AMENDMENTS TO HOUSING ELEMENT LAW SINCE 1990
Between the date the City Council approved the Element in 1990 and
the date the April 1993 Draft EIR was released for public comment,
several changes were made to Housing Element law, as identified
below. Responses to these changes either have been incorporated
into the April 1993 Housing Element or will be provided as separate
reports.
Localities are now required to report annually both to their
legislative bodies and HCD,on their progress in meeting their share
of regional housing needs (per SB 2274). Such a report has been
prepared for the City of Santa Monica and is provided for Council
review in Attachment H. Consistent with State law, the RHNA
Progress Report will be .forwarded to HCD upon Council review.
Local redevelopment agencies must prepare a plan to show that when
low- and moderate-income housing is removed as part of a
redevelopment project, an equal number of replacement units will be
built by the agency (per AB 315). The City's Redevelopment
Authority is currently in the final stages of preparing a report to
comply with these requirements. Consistent with the applicable
statute, this plan will be consistent with, but separate from, the
Housing Element.
5
The Housing Element must also now contain a statement of financial
resources for the preservation, improvement, and development. of
housing; an analysis of local efforts to remove governmental
constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the
regional housing needs; and finally, each local planning agency
must prepare an annual report on progress towards removing
governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing.
The City's Housing Division has prepared a statement of financial
resources available for housing rehabilitation and development as
part of the federally-mandated Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS). This information has been incorporated into
Appendix C of the Housing Element.
Concerning the requirement for an analysis of local efforts to
remove governmental constraints, this is already contained in the
Draft Housing Element (see Section 3B). Concerning the requirement
for having a plan to replace low- and moderate-income housing that
has been removed in redevelopment areas, staff will prepare the
report during this fiscal year. Consistent with State
requirements, this report will be separate from the Housing
Element.
CONTENTS OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
As indicated, this is a technical update of the Housing Element.
6
As such, it contains many of the same programs as the existing
Housing Element, with some modifications. Several new programs
have also been introduced.
The new and modified programs reflect the results of an evaluation
of the appropriateness of the 1983 Housing Element goals,
objectives. and policies in contributing to the state housing goals;
and, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Element in
attainment of the community's goals and objectives.
Modified Programs:
Adequate Site/Housing Development Standards (Program A.i.a):
This ongoing program (formerly Program 3) calls for the
periodic review and revision to planning regulations to ensure
the supply of adequate sites for housing. As part of the
Housing Element Update, this program has been modified to call
for housing in commercial development in specific commercially
zoned areas by mixed use requirements, incentives, or other
means (this was recently implemented by the City Council as
part of the City's new commercial development standards). The
program has also been modified to call for reviewing the
impact of changes to commercial and residential development
standards on the production and cost of housing. This review
is scheduled to occur during the 1993-94 fiscal year.
Impact of Development Fees (Program A.l.b): This ongoing
program (formerly Program 4) calls for the periodic review of
the impact of proposed ordinances, assessments, and fees on
housing affordability and availability. This program has been
partially-implemented through recent City Council action to
waive Planning and Zoning review .fees for projects that are
100 percent deed-restricted for affordable housing. The.
program has .been modified and expanded to call for
investigating the feasibility of expedited development
processing and waiving of development fees. .such as water,
sewer and building permit fees, for developments that contain
deed restricted affordable units.
Development Agreements (Program A.S.e): This program
(formerly Program 8) originally called for using development
agreements to encourage rental housing development. The
7
program has been modified to encourage the payment of in-lieu
fees to build affordable housing and to encourage the
development of both rental and ownership housing.
Inclusionary Housinq. Program (Program A.2.a): Formerly
Program 12, this program has been modified since the April
1990 Draft Housing Element approved by the City Council to
reflect the requirements of Proposition R, which increased the
inclusionary requirement for new multi-family development from
15 to 30 percent.
Homeless Services (Program A.2.c): This program modifies
former Program 15 to increase City efforts to assist with
services to the homeless. In particular, the program calls
for assisting non-profit agencies in applying for federal
funding; expediting transitional housing projects; exploring
new funding sources for homeless services; hiring a homeless
services coordinator to work in close partnership with
homeless services providers; providing financial assistance to
local homeless service providers to assist in the development
of shelters; applying for other state and federal funding for
homeless services; and, facilitating access to information
between homeless services agencies. This program has been
modified since the April 1990 Draft Housing approved by City
Council to reflect programs and actions that the City has
committed to as part of the Homeless Task Force
recommendations adopted by the City Council.
Leveraging Programs (Program A.2.f): The existing program
.(Program 18) focuses on the use of bonds to finance affordable
housing development. The program has been revised to promote
the use of all available funding sources, not just bonds, to
help leverage private financing for affordable housing
development.
Density Bonus (Program A.2.g): The City's density .bonus
provisions had to be revised to incorporate recently modified
State requirements for density bonuses. In addition, this
program has been revised to call for adopting an ordinance to
permit a variety of density, height, and FAR bonuses for
projects that are 100 percent affordable; using bonuses to
encourage housing for families with children; and, allowing
bonuses for projects with 3 or more units in Ocean Park.
Several of the provisions of this program have been added
since the April, 1990 Housing Element to reflect provisions
implemented as. part_of.._Ordinance-#1635_
Fair Housing (Program A.2.h): This ongoing program (formerly
Program 36) deals with fair housing and addresses
discrimination against children, seniors, and other groups.
The program has been modified to provide reduced parking and
a density bonus for senior housing; expand mandatory private
8
open space requirements; and, continue to implement federal
handicapped accessibility requirements.
Code Enforcement (Program B.2.b): This program (formerly
Program 26) has been modified to address the upgrading of
unreinforced masonry buildings (URM's) as well as to ensure
that requirements for seismic upgrading do not compromise
housing affordability.
Hotel Voucher Program (Program C.l.c): This program will
continue the City's hotel voucher program for homeless persons
while expanding the program to assist homeless service
agencies in obtaining funding for expanded services.
Energy Conservation Program (Program D.l.b): This program
expands the City's existing energy conservation program
(formerly Program 29j to call for investigating additional
retrofit measures and the possibility of requiring housing to
be plumbed for solar heating.
Mitigation Monitoring (Program D.i.c): As modified, the
City's mitigation monitoring program will be expanded to
implement State requirements for environmental mitigation
monitoring and to require annual reports on compliance with
conditions of approval.
Public Notification (Program E.i.a): This ongoing program
(formerly Program 39) has been expanded to call for the use of
the City's Public Electronic Network (PEN) to provide public
noticing of proposed projects. The program also calls for the
continued use of written notices and cable TV to notice the
public.
New Housing Element Programs:
Relocation Ordinance (Program A.i.f): Under its Municipal
Code, the City currently requires relocation assistance for
tenant displacement. Under this new program, the City will
study broadening the scope of the relocation ordinance to
include additional types of displacement such as evictions
from illegal units (i.e., bootlegs), and will consider
increasing the relocation fee requirement.
Residential in C-5 and M-1 (Program A.S.g): This new program
calls for investigating the feasibility of allowing the
constructiDn-of residential uses.in commercial and industrial
zones in which residential uses are currently prohibited,
including portions of the C-5 and M-1 zones. The City
Council's adoption of the Interim Ml/RD Ordinance is
consistent with this program.
Land Banking (Program A.2.i): This new program would reserve
9
sites for future residential development.
Rental Unit .Incentive (Program B.i.g): This new program is
designed to increase the supply of affordable housing in the
City by allowing owners to raise rents on voluntarily vacated
units if equivalent units are reserved for low and very low
income tenants. This program has already been implemented
under Rent Board regulation.
Housing Conditions Program (Program B.2.c): Under this new
program, the City will evaluate housing conditions throughout
the City and consider the use of CDBG funds to address
rehabilitation needs in all residential areas.
Historic Preservation Survey (Program B.2.d): Under this new
program, the City will complete an historic resources
inventory and implement a property tax reduction program.
This program is almost fully implemented.
Information Concerning Capital Improvements (Program B.2.e):
Recommended by the Planning Commission, this new program calls
for the dissemination of information to residential property
owners. concerning Rent Board procedures to fund capital
improvements to rent controlled properties.
HISTORY OF THE UPDATE
This Housing Element update was initiated in September, 1988. The
update was intended as a technical update, as opposed to a
comprehensive revision, to the 1983 Housing Element.
The update process has involved substantial community outreach. A
community workshop was conducted in November, 1988, to elicit input
about housing issues and priorities. Input from the workshop
provided information which was used to establish policy priorities
for the Housing -E1Ement update. Later, on March 29, 1989, a
special joint meeting of the Planning and Housing Commissions was
held to review a preliminary draft of the Housing Element. A final
community meeting was held in May, 1989 to hear public comments on
10
the Draft Housing Element.
More recently, in July, 1993, City staff attended a meeting of the
Santa Monica Area Chamber of Commerce Land Use Committee to discuss
and answer questions concerning. the Housing Element update. In
addition, copies of all drafts of the Housing Element that have
been sent to HCD have also been made available to any parties, such
as SMHC, who have requested them.
REVIEW AND COMMENT BY HCD
After the Housing Element was finalized based on public input, and
prior to the final Planning Commission and City Council reviews,
the Housing Element was submitted to the State Department of
Housing and Community (HCD) in July, 1989 for review and comment,
as required by law. HCD's comments called for the following
additional information, and the Housing Element -was revised
accordingly:
o A description of services offered to the homeless in the
City (see Housing Element Update, pages 23-26);
o An inventory of vacant land available for residential
development (see page 42);
o A more detailed analysis of governmental constraints,
including fees, duration of the permit approval process, and
land use and zoning restrictions (see pages 56-76);
o If additional analyses conducted by City reveal governmental
constraints,- pr-ovide additional. pr-ograms to address those
constraints (see analysis, pages 61-70);
o Include additional programs to meet the needs of the
homeless (see Program A.2.c, pages 114-116).
it
After the Housing Element was revised, the Planning and Housing
Commissions Conducted separate public hearings on the draft Housing
Element on November 29, 1989 and November 30, 1989, respectively
The Planning and Housing Commission recommendations were forwarded
to the City Council, which conducted a public hearing, deliberated,
and approved the Housing Element on March 27, 1990. However,
actual adoption of the Element was postponed until the Housing
Element was submitted to HCD for one final review, given that
changes had been made to the document since HCD's July, 1989
review.
HCD provided new comments in June 1990 which called for the
following additional information and programs, and the Housing
Element was revised accordingly:
o An analysis of the impact of residential downzoning upon the
City° residential development capacity (see Draft Housing
Element pages 65-67);
o Information as to whether code enforcement poses any
constraints to-new housing development (see pages 70-71);
o An analysis of whether the City needs to rezone additional
sites in order to provide sufficient capacity to-meet the
City's share of regional housing needs (see pages 42-45);
o Possibly develop additional programs to remove identified
governmental constraints (though not necessary to bring
element into--compliance);
o Provide more detailed timelines for program implementation
(see Table 34, page 151-154);
o Modify City's density bonus program to reflect changes to
state density bonus law (see Program A.2.g);
12
o Provide information on the use of monies in the
redevelopment agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund
(see Program A.2.e);
o Provide an analysis of assisted housing at risk of
converting to non- low-income housing during the 1989-1999
period (see page 41).
In December, 1991, and again in September, 1992, the City submitted
two additional revised draft Housing Elements for review by HCD,
followed by corresponding responses and comments. These two most
recent reviews by HCD raised the following issues:
o The potential constraints posed by Rent Control, Ordinance
1615 (inclusionary housing), the Citywide Construction Rate
Program, and the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance;
o Whether the City's C.U.P. requirement for condominiums acts
as a constraint to development, and whether the City should be
required to remove discretionary review of condominium
projects;
o Whether the City has adequate sites, either vacant or
available through recycling, to accommodate the number of
units estimated by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment;
o Whether the density ranges allowed in the City are
sufficient to accommodate low-income housing;
o More detailed timelines for program implementation;
o Identification of specific actions that will be taken to
implement certain programs;
o Documentation of the public participation process involved
in preparing the Housing Element.
HCD's most recent comment letter, dated October 16, 1992, is
provided in Attachment D. City staff responded to HCD's comments
by letter dated March 15, 1993, a copy of which is provided as
Attachment E. After extensive negotiations, staff and HCD have
been unable to reach agreement on Housing Element changes which
13
Changes to Section 6, Housing Programs
Primarily in response to comments from HCD, several of the Housing
programs were. modified to provide more specific implementation
timelines and a greater commitment to specific action.
Additionally, some programs have also been modified to reflect
progress in program implementation since 1990. However, the main
content of the programs has not been altered.
OUTSTANDING ISSUES CONCERNING HCD REVIEW
While the City and HCD have resolved many issues concerning the
Draft Housing Element, there are remaining issues on which it
appears that the City and the State will not agree. These issues
are outlined in the October 16, 1992 letter from-HCD to the City
(see Attachment D) and the March 15, 1993 letter from Acting City
Attorney Joseph Lawrence to HCD (see Attachment E).
One of the basic issues about which the City and HCD disagree is
the issue of adequate sites. More specifically, the City and HCD
disagree over the proper interpretation of Section 65583 (c)(1)
which requires each local jurisdiction to show that it has adequate
sites zoned to accommodate the City's housing needs as identified
by RHNA. HCD interprets the applicable statute to mean that the
City must not only show that there are adequate sites to satisfy
the RHNA requirement, but that there are sufficient sites that are
likely to recycle during the planning period in order to satisfy
the RHNA-estimated housing need.
16
However, the City Attorney disagrees with HCD's interpretation of
the section of the law dealing with adequate sites. In the City
Attorney's opinion, the City only is required to show that there
are adequate sites, including vacant land and sites having the
potential for recycling, which are zoned to ,accommodate the RHNA-
estimated need--not to show that the development or recycling of
these sites is likely to occur during the planning period.
Another basic issue about which HCD and the City disagree is
whether Ordinance 1615 and Rent Control together act as an unlawful
constraint on the production, preservation, and maintenance of
housing. Attachments D and E discuss HCD's and the City's
respective positions on this issue in detail. Appendix B.to the
September, 1993 Draft Housing Element contains additional
information concerning the feasibility of Proposition R and its
implementing ordinance (#1615).
Section 65580(d) of State Housing Element law states that,
Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the
powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and
development of housing to make adequate provision for the
housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
Thus, the City has an obligation under law to facilitate the
development of affordable housing. In its comments on the City's
proposed Housing Element, HCD has failed to view Ordinance #1615 in
light of this obligation.
17
State law also provides that local jurisdictions develop Housing
Element goals, policies, and programs for the "preservation,
improvement, and development of housing" (emphasis added)
(Government Code Section 65583). City staff believes that in its
review of the Housing Element in its entirety, HCD .focuses
disproportionately upon housing production (see Attachment E).
ADDITIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHANGES TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT
Staff is recommending City Council approval of the September, 1993
Housing Element update as submitted with this report.
As has already been noted, there has already been an extensive
public process for this update. This process led to a draft
document which was reviewed and approved by the Housing Commission,
Planning Commission, and the City Council in 1990. Since that
time, staff has spent considerable time working to gain HCD
approval of the Housing Element.
By not having an adopted Housing Element, the City is vulnerable to
legal challenge. A legal challenge could result in a loss of the
City's residential land use approval powers.
Many State funding programs give priority to local. jurisdictions
which have adopted Housing Elements. In the past, the City has
failed to qualify for certain State housing funds because it did
not have an adopted Housing Element. In particular, Garcia
18
Apartments, Virginia Village, Second Street Center, and
Lincoln/Ashland all lost points in the statewide competitive
funding review process due to the fact that the City did not have
an adopted Housing Element for the 1989-1994 planning period.
Thus, for both legal and funding reasons, staff believes that it is
important that the September, 1993 Draft Housing Element be adopted
by the City Council.
THREAT OF LITIGATION
At the July 28, 1993 Planning Commission hearing, the counsel for
Santa Monica Housing Council (SMHC) testified that the City risked
a lawsuit initiated by HCD should the City adopt the Housing
Element without HCD certification. However, according to HCD
staff, HCD has never initiated a lawsuit against a City which
adopted a Housing Element with Government Code authorized findings.
The Attorney General's Office, on behalf of HCD, recently sent
warning letters to numerous cities, but only cities which had
failed to submit any housing element at all to HCD for two planning
periods (ten years). Therefore, the "threat of litigation" by HCD
should the Council follow staff recommendation appears extremely
remote, and would represent a marked change of practice by HCD..
SMHC, on the other hand, has threatened to sue the City over its
Housing Element should the City's inclusionary housing program
implementation remain the same.
19
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Housing
Element update and Final EIR on July 28, 1993 and continued its
deliberations on August 18, 1993. As a result of their
deliberations, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of
intention to amend the Housing Element and recommended Council
adoption of the Housing Element update, certification of the Final
EIR, and adoption of a statement of overriding considerations.
The Planning.Commission recommended some changes to the Housing
Element, including additional policies and programs. These changes
have been made to the document and are reflected in the September,
1993 Draft Housing Element. The following outlines the Planning
Commission recommendations:
o Add a policy to'promote to provision of housing for large
families (see Revised September, 1993 Housing Element, policy
A.1.7).
o Add a policy to inform property owners about rental
rehabilitation programs available through Rent Control (see
Policy B.2.4), and a program to inform individuals about this
information (see Program B.2.e).
o Add a policy to promote access to transit and neighborhood
services by new residential development (see Policy D.1.6).
o Add a policy to encourage the involvement of a variety of
interest groups, including property owners, building industry
professionals, lending institutions, government liaisons,
affordable housing advocates and City residents ih the
formulation and development of City housing. policy (see Policy
E-1.5).
o Consolidate Tables 33 and 34 into one table to make the
relationship between goals, policies, and programs clearer.
o Revise Section 4, Energy Conservation, to discuss the
potential energy savings and environmental benefits of
20
conserving and re-using existing buildings as opposed to
redeveloping them.
In the context of the Planning Commission hearings on the Housing
Element, the Planning Commission requested additional information
regarding a number of issues, including: (1) data concerning the
number of cities with housing elements that have been certified by
HCD; (2) information concerning other cities' progress in meeting
their RHNA-estimated housing need; (3) data concerning development
approvals in the City since the passage of Ordinance #1615, and (4)
Rent Control data relating to housing unit removal and
rehabilitation under various rent control provisions, including
Category D removals, removals under the Ellis Act, and petitions
for rent increases to cover the cost of capital improvements; and,
data concerning the incentive housing program.
A summary of the additional information provided to the Commission
is provided below. Copies of the August 16 and August 18, 1993
Planning Commission staff reports containing this information are
provided in Attachments I, J, and K.
CITIES WZTH HOUSING ELEMENTS CERTIFIED BY HCD
According to a report published by HCD in June, 1992, 21 percent of
the local jurisdictiAns in California have adopted housing elements
in compliance with State law, and another 15 percent have adopted
housing elements out of compliance with state law. In other words,
the majority of cities in California do not have adopted housing
21
elements, and less than a quarter have housing elements which have
been certified by. HCD.
Based upon conversations with HCD staff and staff from other
cities, the most common reason for not receiving HCD certification
is that local jurisdictions fail to show that they had adequate
sites zoned to accommodate their RHNA housing allocation.
PROGRESS OF OTHER CITIES IN MEETING RHNA GOALS
Based upon a comparison of State Department of Finance (DOF)
dwelling unit estimates for January, 1988 and January 1993, Table
1 shows the proportion of regional housing needs allocation that
has been met by each jurisdiction in Los Angeles County. The table
shows. that while some cities, such as Avalon, La Canada, and
Monterrey Park have met or exceeded their RHNA allocation, others,
such as Culver City, Beverly Hills, and Long Beach have only met
10-12 percent of the estimated needs. In addition, of the 85
cities in Los Angeles County, Santa Monica had the 10th largest
1989-1994 RHNA allocation. Cities with similar population density
(population per square mile) to Santa Monica such as Artesia,
Bellflower, Norwalk, Lomita, Alhambra and Rosemead were assigned
much lower .RHNA allocations. With respect to actual housing
production, Santa Monica has exceeded the number of housing units
produced in surrounding cities, such as Culver City, Beverly Hills,
and Redondo Beach. In fact, Redondo Beach, which has almost
exactly the same RHNA allocation as Santa Monica, has produced only
22
TABLE 1
CITIES IN LOS ANGELES COONTY
1989-1993 RHNA PROGRESS
Date: 8/14/93
CITY RHNA REQUIREMENTS HOUSING PRODUCED BETWEEN PERCENT
JAN 1988-JAN 1993 OF
RHNA GOAL
AGOL'RA HILLS 1,650 728 44$
ALHA*!BRA 2 , 098 789 3 8 $
ARCADIA 805 518 64$
ARTESZA 256 -33 0
AVALON 218 334 153$
AZUSA 1,535 673- 44$
BALDWIN PARK 627 771 122$
BELL 315 92 29$
BELLFLOWER 2,239 584 26$
BELL GARDENS 128 110 86$
BEVERLY HILLS 835 861 11$
BRADBDRY 28 -39 0
BURBANK 2,968 2,263 76$
CARSON 1,981 485 24$
CERRITOS 1,541 -76 0
CLARE.*fONT 802 -225 ~ 0
COM2~RCE 8 6 71 8 2 $
COMPTON 2,374 -695 0
COVINA 976 200 20$
CUDAHY 267 -154 0
CULVER CITY 1,313 1522 12$
DOWNEY 1,705 392 23$
DUARTE 995 25 2$
EL MONTE 2,282 455 20$
EL SEGUNDO 1,112 206- 18$
GARDENA 1,805 1,514 84$
GLENDALE 5,597 5,855 105$
GLENDORA 1,227 998 81$ .
HAWAIIAN GARDENS 519 94 18$
HAWTHORNE 4,977 1,654 33$
HERMOSA BEACH 513 -322 0
HIDDEN HILLS 46 23 50$
HUNTINGTON PARR 1,222 -784 0
INDUSTRY 94 56 59$
INGL.°WOOD 1,518 592 39$
IRWINDALE 34 15 44$
LA CANADA FLNTRG 266 -12 0
LA HABRA HEIGHfiS 110 507 461$
23
LAICWOOD 1,173 455 39$
LA MIRADA 1,059 1,302 .123$
LANDCASTER 11,735 9,507 gl$
LA PUENTE 433 674 155$
LA VERNE 930 809 g7$
LAWNDALE 1,027 624 61$
LOMITA 661 -253 0
LONG BEACH 12,382 1,.3943 11$
LOS. ANGELES 129,100 53,789 q2$
LYNWOOD 453 -9
MANHATTAN BEACH 1,088 -392 p
MAYWOOO -293 -205 0
MONROVIA 927 725 7g$
MONTEBELLO 951 506 53$
MONTEREY PARK 899 502 564$
NORWALK 1,402 777 55$
PALMDALE 9,755 14,465 148$
PALOS VERDES EST 313 84 27$
PARAMOUNT 1,388 1,630 117$
PASADENA 3,392 2,299 68$
PICO RZVERA 595 391 66$
POMONA 2,099 1,939 92$
RANCHO P. VERDES 502 278 55$
REDONDO BEACH 3,032 267 9$
ROLLING HILLS 40 4 10$
ROLLING HILLS ES 30 201 670$
ROSEMEAD 733 6 0$
SAN DIMAS 1,302 1,256 96$
SAN FERNANDO 307 206 67$
SAN GABRIEL 881 322 36$
SAN MARINO 18 -9 0
SANTA FE SPRINGS 304 286 94$
SANTA MONICA 3,220 7854 24$
SIERRA MADRE 173 -85 0
SIGNAL HILL 419 218 52$
SOIITH EL MONTE 452 39 9$
SOUTH GATE 898 -719 0
SOUTH PASADENA 392 65 16$
SANTA CLARITA 6,401 10,259 160$
TE.*iPLE CITY 403 128 32$
TORt2ANCE 4,169 2,609 62$
VERNON 0 15 0$
WAL'7UT 1, 402 1, 776 127$
WEST COVINA 1,150 332 29$
WEST HOLLYWOOD 668 -585 0
WESTLAKE VILLAGE 467 455 97$
WHITTIER 1,589 1,069 67$
1City of Beverly Hills building reports, January 1989-January. 1992.
ZCulver City building reports, July 1989-January 1992.
3Long Heach building p ermits, January 1989-present.
45anta Monica Certific ates of Occupancy, July 1989-May 1993.
24
267 units during the planning period. By comparison, based upon
certificates of occupancy issued between July 1, 1989 and May 5,
1993, the City of Santa Monica has produced 785 net new units, or
approximately 24 percent of its RHNA estimated need of 3,220 units
for the planning period.
SANTA MONICA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DATA SINCE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE
#1615
While there have been no applications for apartment projects since
the adoption of ordinance #1615, several condominium projects have
been approved. Specifically, seven condominium projects totaling
53 units, including li on-site inclusionary units and in-lieu fees
for 3.9 additional affordable units, have been approved. These
include projects at the following addresses:
825 Ocean Avenue
1302 Stanford -6-
1018 4th Street -
2719 6th Street -
1226 11th Street
1327 14th Street
1227 21st Street
6 units (2
units (1 on
14 units (1
3 units (no
6 units (2
7 units (2
11 units
on site inclusionary)
site, 1 in lieu)
on site, 2.9 in lieu)
inclusionary)
on site)
on site)
3 on site)
INFORMATION CONCERNING RENT CONTROL PROGRAMS AND PROCEDURES
Information concerning the number of Category D removal permits,
the number of units withdrawn pursuant to the Ellis Act, petitions
for rent increases, and participation in the Incentive Housing
Program was provided to the Planning Commission in an August 16,
25
1993 memo prepared by Mary Ann Yurkonis, contained in Attachment K.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The EIR originally prepared for the 1990 Draft Housing Element was
certified by the City Council at the same time that the Draft
Housing Element was approved. However, due to the changes that had
been made to the Housing Element in the meantime, the City recently
prepared a new EIR (see Attachment M) on the Draft Housing Element.
Public Review
The new Draft EIR on the Housing Element was released for a 45-day
public review on April 19, 1993. Upon completion of the review
period, three comment letters were submitted on the EIR. The
comments contained in these letters, as well as responses to these
comments, have been incorporated in the Final EIR.
EIR Approach/Methodology
Many of the programs contained in the Draft Housing Element are not
new. To the extent that ongoing programs would not present any new
impacts, the EIR examines only the potential environmental effects
of the new and modified programs.
For purposes of the EIR analysis, three housing development
scenarios are examined in order to capture the full range of
potential impacts. This was done since the actual number of
housing units that could be developed during the planning period is
26
dependent on a number of factors largely beyond the City's control
(such as local real estate market conditions). In order for the
EIR to assess the range of impacts that could occur, the following
three development scenarios were evaluated:
o Housing Element Objectives (Lower Range Scenario) - 1,150
units: This number represents the "quantified objective", or
the City's goal for the number of housing units to be produced
during the planning period.
o Regional Housing Needs Assessment (Mid-Range Scenario) -
2,572 additional units: This scenario is based upon the
number of new units that would need to be constructed to meet
the City's estimated housing needs according to the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA estimates that
3,220 additional units are needed; accounting for the 648
units that have already been built since July, 1989, there
remains a balance of 2,572 units.
o General Plan Buildout .(Maximum Range Scenario) - 7,279
additional units: This scenario assumes that all available
vacant and underutilized properties would be built to their
maximum potential density within the five-year planning period
of the Housing Element.
Significant Impacts
The EIR concludes that there are significant impacts as a result of
all three housing development scenarios. The lower-range (Housing
Element Objective) and medium-range (RHNA) scenarios will have
significant impacts upon local air quality, transportation/
circulation, and recreation (parks). Although the maximum-range
scenario (Buildout) would have theoretical benefits on regional.
traffic and air quality, it would have significant adverse impacts
upon local air quality, transportation/cir-culation, and recreation
(parks), in addition to having significant adverse impacts upon
local and regional utilities (including water, sewer, and solid
waste) and public services (including fire, police, law
27
enforcement, and schools).
An Addendum to the Final EIR has been prepared to evaluate the
potential environmental effects of the policy and program changes
between the April, 1993 and September, 1993 drafts. Attached to
the Final EIR, the Addendum concludes that the additional policies
and programs would not have any significant adverse environmental
impacts.
The EIR sets forth mitigation measures to offset the potential
adverse impacts. However, significant adverse impacts will remain
even after mitigation on local air quality,
transportation/circulation, parks/recreation services, and regional
solid waste facilities (i.e., landfills). More specifically, air
emissions from the proposed project will cause further
deterioration in conditions which already violate air quality
standards. Traffic impacts, particularly at intersections already
operating at LOS "D" or worse, will worsen even after mitigation.
And, while solid waste impacts may be fully mitigated at the local.
level by existing City programs, the increase in solid waste
associated with the maximum-range (Buildout) scenario will
adversely impact regional landfills even after mitigation. For
these reasons, it will be necessary for the City to adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to adopt the
Housing Element and approve the EIR.
28
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented does not have a budget or fiscal
impact.
ON
It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Conduct a public hearing on the proposed Housing Element
amendment and Final EIR and Addendum;
2) Adopt a resolution certifying the Final EIR (see Attachment
A) ;
3) Adopt a resolution approving the Housing Element Update as
submitted by staff (see Attachment B);
4) Adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to approve
the Housing Element (see Attachment C).
Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Tad Read, Associate Planner
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Program and Policy Development Division
Attachments:
A - Resolution to certify the EIR;
B - Resolution to Approve the Housing Element
Update;.
C - Resolution Adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations;
D - October 16, 1992 HCD Comment letter
E - March 15, 1993 City Attorney letter to HCD
responding to comments
F - Article 10.6, Sections 65580 - 65589.8, 50459,
and 65400 of the California Government Code
concerning General Plan Housing Elements.
G -Evaluation of Goals, Policies, and Programs of
1983 -Housing Element
H - RHNA Progress Report
I - August 16, .1993 Memo from Planning Staff to
Planning Commission
J - August 18, 1993 Planning Commission Staff
Report
K - August 16, 1993 Memo from Mary Ann Yurkonis to
29
Planning Commission
L - Revised September, 1993 Draft Housing Element
M - Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendum
f:\ppd\share\cchemeet
30
ATTACHMENT A
Uvu.:~
RESOLUTION NUMBER
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA CERTIFYING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report was issued in September 1992; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report was published in April, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was
circulated for a 45 day period; and
WHEREAS, in July, 1993, the Final Environmental Impact
Report was published;. and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and
considered the contents of the Final EIR in its decision-making
process; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended
certification of the Final EIR; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
uu.;~'
- 1 -
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the Final
Environmental Impact Report adequately discusses all significant
environmental issues and certifies that the final EIR was
prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and
the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines, and that the City
Council has reviewed and considered the contents of the Final EIR
in its decision-making process.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall
be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo eph La ence
ting City Attorney
w/eirresol
UUJ.iJ
2
ATTACHMENT B
U U 'J ~. ~s
RESOLUTION NO.
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADOPTING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica adopted its existing
Housing Element on January 25, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the City Program and Policy Development Division
began in 1988 to develop materials for the revision of the
Housing Element; and .
WHEREAS, on November 9, 1988, the City conducted a duly
noticed, -.open Community Forum to elicit public comments
concerning housing needs and issues in Santa Monica; and
WHEREAS, on March 29, 1989, a duly noticed special joint
meeting of the Planning and Housing Commissions was held- to
review and comment upon the preliminary draft Housing Element;
and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 1989, a duly noticed, open Community
Meeting was held to elicit public comment on the-Draft Housing
Element; and
WHEREAS, in July, 1989, the Draft Housing Element was
VU~,i
1
transmitted to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development ("HCD") for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 1989, HCD transmitted to the City its
comments upon the draft.Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 198.9, the City transmitted to HCD a
response which addressed the comments provided by HCD; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 1989, the Planning Commission
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the draft Housing
Element and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to
approve the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 1989- the Housing Commission
conducted a duly noticed public_meeting on the Housing Element
and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to approve the
Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 1990, the City Council conducted a
duly noticed public hearing on the Draft Housing Element where it
considered the comments of the Housing Commission, Planning
Commission, and HCD and approved the Draft Housing Element, with
modifications; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1990, the City transmitted the
modified Draft Housing Element to HCD for review and comment; and
- ~ .,
UUJ~U
- 2 -
WHEREAS,on June 7, 1990, HCD transmitted to the City its
comments upon the modified Draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS,on December 30, 1991 the City transmitted to HCD a
response addressing HCD's comments along with a modified Draft
Housing Element reflecting the suggested changes; and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1992, HCD transmitted to the City
new and. additional comments on the modified Draft Housing
Element; and
WHEREAS, on August 31, 1992 the City transmitted to HCD a
response to the State's comments along with a further modified
Draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 1992 HCD transmitted to the City its
additional comments on the modified Draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 1993 the City transmitted to HCD a
response to the State's additional comments; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 1993 the Planning Commission conducted
a duly noticed public meeting on the Housing Element and
forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to approve the
Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on September 28, 1993 conducted a
UUJ~i
- 3 -
duly noticed public hearing on the Housing element; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the comments of the
California State Department of Housing and Community Development;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has fully considered the Final
Environmental Impact Report on the proposed Housing Element,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The document attached hereto marked Exhibit A is
hereby approved and adopted as the Housing Element of the General
Plan for the City of Santa Monica.
SECTION 2. As detailed below, consistent with Government
Code Section 65585(f)(2), the City Council finds that the Housing
Element substantially complies with the requirements of Article
10.6 of the Government Code despite the latest findings submitted
to the City on October 16, 1992 by HCD.
uu~~3
-4-
(a) HCD concluded that the Housing Element is not in
compliance with Government Code Section 65583(c)(1) because it
fails to adequately demonstrate that the City can accommodate the
majority of its regional housing needs on sites having
redevelopment potential. However, the City Council finds that
the Housing Element substantially complies with Sections
65583(c)(1) and 65583(a)(3). More specifically:
(1) Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires
that the housing element include "an inventory of land suitable
for residential development, including vacant sites and sites.
having potential for redevelopment ." This provision means
what it says, i.e., sites. identified under this section must have
the potential for residential development, whether the sites be
vacant or underdeveloped. Recent amendments to Housing Element
Law demonstrate the correctness of this interpretation.
Effective January 1, 1993, Assembly Bill No. 2707 added
Government Code Section 65583.1 which provides in relevant part
that HCD "in evaluating a proposed or adopted housing element for
consistency with state law, may allow a local government to
identify adequate sites, as required pursuant.to Section 65583,
by a variety of methods, including, but not limited to,
redesignation of property to a more intense land use category and
increasing the density allowed within one or more categories..."
Thus, this law allows a city to count upzoned sites in its
inventory without any showing that these sites will actually be
redeveloped to the higher allowable density. This is precisely
uv.~.~
5 -
what the City has done in its inventory by identifying
residentially zoned sites which can be redeveloped to a higher
density under existing zoning.
(2) HCD's position that the inventory of land
suitable for residential development must reflect the- number of
units that are likely to be built during the five (5) year period
of the housing element finds no support in the specific language
of the statute. or case authority interpreting this provision. If
the Legislature had intended such a restrictive approach to this
category, it would have so specified. For instance, Section
65583(b)(2) expressly provides that the statement of the
community's quantified objectives shall be the maximum number of
housing units that .can be constructed, rehabilitated, and
conserved over a five year period. (See also Section 65583 (c)
(requiring that a five year.program of action be established),.
However, the language in Section 65583(a)(3) is quite different
("sites having the potential for redevelopment") with no time
parameter specified. This difference in language within the same
statutory scheme must be given effect.
(3) The purpose of Section 65583(a)(3) is not to
require a City to designate only those sites which the City
expects will redevelop during the five year period of the housing
element update. That purpose is served by Section 65583(b)(2).
The purpose Section 65583(a)(3) is simply to demonstrate that the
city's zoning and infrastructure would support the number of
UUJ~i~
6
units mandated by a city's RHNA numbers.
(4) While it may have been appropriate for the
land inventory analysis of the Draft Housing Element to have
considered all underdeveloped residential sites in its inventory
(resulting in 7,769 multi-family units) See Buena Vista Gardens
v. City of San Dieao, 175 Cal. App. 3d 289, 300-01, 220 Cal.
Rptr. 732, 738 (1985)), the City was more conservative in its
approach. It only included underdeveloped properties that had
not recycled since 1960, sites with a more realistic potential
for recycling given their age and underutilization. Thus, the
City identified the potential for 4,428 dwelling units to' be
developed in residential multi-family zones based on this
criteria.
(5) There is also- significant underdeveloped
property in the City's commercial zones in which residential
development is permitted. The .City conservatively determined
that if only 10 percent of this future development in commercial
districts is residential, 2,458 new dwelling units could be
constructed. The City has recently approved new commercial
development- standards allowing a density bonus for mixed
residential/commercial development which will increase the
likelihood that residential development will occur in commerical
districts.
(6) HCD incorrectly contends that Section
Uu'+, j
- 7 -
65583(c)(1) requires the City to demonstrate that it can
accommodate the majority of its regional housing needs on sites
having redevelopment potential during the five-year period of the
Housing Element. See also Section 65583(b)(2). The City. has,
however, identified adequate sites to meet its housing goals as
required by Section 65583(c)(1).
(7) For the foregoing reasons, the City Council
finds that it has met its legal requirement of identifying
adequate sites in the City to accommodate its fair share of
housing as established by RHNA.
(b) HCD also concluded that the Housing Element is out
of compliance with Government Code Section 65583(c)(1) because it
does not contain programs to facilitate market-rate development.
The City Council finds that this characterization of the Housing
Element is erroneous.
(1) The Draft Housing Element does contain
specific programs to encourage private-sector recycling. Program
A-1-a is intended to encourage .the production of housing in
commercial districts. Program A.l.a has recently been
implemented with the adoption of Ordinance #1687, which permits
residential uses by right in most commercial districts, reduces
allowable FAR's for commercial development, and provides for an
FAR bonus of approximately 30 percent for residential uses in
most commercial districts. Program A-1-g calls for recycling
VU:, ,w
- 8 -
certain portions of commercial and industrial areas to
residential use.
(2) Since the City has identified adequate sites
to meet its RHNA obligations, the City is not legally required to
enact additional programs in this area.
(c) HCD further found that the Housing Element is not
in compliance with Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) because it
fails to adequately describe or evaluate the combined effects of
City regulations on recycling potential and residential
development. However, the City Council finds that the Housing
Element is in compliance with Section 65583(c)(3) as follows:
(1) HCD's contention that the Draft Housing
Element fails to analyze the combined effect of the Rent Control
Law and the City's inclusionary housing ordinance on future
development is inaccurate and based on a misunderstanding of the
City's laws. The Draft Housing Element contains extensive
analysis of both these programs. Further, the "combined effect"
of these two laws does not operate as a constraint on the
development of new housing.
(2) A property owner seeking to redevelop a
property which is currently improved with residential units
subject to the Rent Control Law ("controlled units") has two
completely viable options..
VUJ•ra
- 9 -
(i) A property owner desiring to redevelop
residential property can seek a Category D removal permit from
the Rent Control Board. The Rent Control Board has issued a
significant number of such permits. Under a Category D removal
permit, a property owner must agree to replace the existing
number of controlled units with an equal number of replacement
rental units similarly subject to the Rent Control Law's
established rent level. The remainder of the units constructed
on the- site can be market-rate units. In the vast majority of
cases, there would be no additional affordable units required
pursuant to the City's Inclusionary Housinq ordinance. The
requisite number of affordable units would have been provided
pursuant to the removal permit and the City's Inclusionary
Housing ordinance provides that rent control units fulfill the
affordable housing requirements of the ordinance.
(ii) Alternatively, an owner desiring to
redevelop his/her property may go out of the residential rental
business altogether pursuant to the Ellis Act, Government Code
Section 7060 et sea, demolish the existing controlled units, and
redevelop the property with condominiums to whatever density is
allowed under the City's existing zoning standards. Pursuant to
the City's Inclusionary Housing ordinance,. only 30% of the new
units, excluding state density bonus units, would need to be
affordable to low and moderate income households. An economic
analysis of this ordinance demonstrated that condominium
development projects remained economically viable with a 30%
UUJ<:y
- 10 -
inclusionary housing requirement.
In Santa Monica, the average property withdrawn from
the rental business pursuant to the Ellis Act contained just over
4 rental units and has been redeveloped with just over 6
condominiums. In most cases, the property owner has developed 5
units as authorized under current density standards and
constructed an additional State density bonus unit. In these
.circumstances, the City's Inclusionary Housing ordinance would
only impose an obligation to provide one affordable housing unit.
In short, the resulting development would contain six units, five
of which would be market-rate and one of which .would be
affordable. The economic analysis performed by City staff
supports the conclusion -that projects of this nature are
economically viable.
(3) The City is required to ensure not only that
housing is constructed- in the City, but that a significant
portion of the constructed housing is affordable. Indeed,
according to the City's RHNA requirements, no less than 61
percent of the City's housing obligation must be affordable to
very low, low and moderate income households. It has been the
City's experience that the free market will not provide this
housing on its' own accord .and, given the paucity of matching
state and federal funds available to the City, the City's ability
to itself construct affordable housing is significantly
constrained.
UVJ~~J
- 11 -
(4) The City Council finds that unless it has a
strong inclusionary housing ordinance in place which requires
that such housing be built on-site in most instances, the amount
of affordable housing in this City will continue to be vastly
outpaced by market-rate development. Moreover, given the built-
out nature of this City, such new development will come at the
expense of the City's existing affordable housing stock.
(5) The City Council also finds that HCD has
focused exclusively on the need for total housing production
while ignoring the effect of that production on the City's equal
obligation to preserve and provide affordable housing
opportunities. Furthermore, the City Council finds that Housing
Element Law supports the City's more balanced approach.
(6) The City Council finds that the City's Rent
Control Law and Inclusionary Housing ordinance serve critically
important City housing policies. Moreover, Housing Element Law
clearly authorizes programs of this nature. In particular,
Government Code Section 65583(c)(4) provides that the element
should "conserve and improve the condition of the existing
affordable housing stock, which may include ways to mitigate the
loss of dwelling units demolished by public or private acts;" and
Government Code Section 65589(b) provides "Nothing in this
article shall be construed to be a repeal of any authority
which may exist of a local government to impose rent controls or
restrictions on the sale of real property." Furthermore, it has
n
vv;_r~v
- 12 -
long been established that inclusionary ordinances which require
that a specific percentage of units within a new residential
development be made affordable constitute legitimate
implementation measures designed to increase the available supply
of affordable housing. See Twain Harte Homeowners v. County of
Tuolumne, 138 Cal. App. 3d 664, 705, 188 Cal. Rptr. 233, 259
(1982).
(d) HCD additionally concluded that the Housing
Element is not in compliance with Section 65583(c)(1) due to its
conditional use permit requirement for condominiums. However,
the City Council finds that the Housing Element is in compliance
with Section 65583(c)(1). Government Code Section 65583(c)(1)
only requires the elimination of the CUP process for multi-family
housing where the inventory of adequate sites identified pursuant
to Section 65583(a)(3) is inadequate. The City has identified
adequate sites as discussed in Sections 2(a)(1) through 2(a)(7)
above.
(e) Finally, HCD determined that the Housing Element
is not in compliance with Governmental Code Section 65583(c)(2)
because the Housing Element programs are insufficiently specific,
in terms of timing, funding sources, and implementation.
However, the City Council finds that the Housing Element is in
compliance with Section 65583(c)(2) as follows:
(1) With respect to timelines for implementation
vCa'1<i
- 13 -
of these programs, Table 33 of the Draft Housing Element provides
an implementation schedule for each of the Housing Element
programs.
(2) with respect to funding sources and costs,
the programs will be accomplished utilizing existing staff
resources under current department budgets, unless otherwise
specified in the programs or in Table 33 of the Housing Element.
(3) Finally, several of the Draft Housing Element
programs have been revised to meet the remaining specific
concerns raised by HCD by providing more specific information
concerning timing of implementation and by incorporating more
specific implementation actions.
.SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J sep La rence
ting City Attorney
legal/hec2
vvl~~
- 14 -
ATTACHMENT C
UV~I~
RESOLUTION NUMBER
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MAKING FINDINGS
NECESSARY TO APPROVE THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report was issued in September 1992; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report was published in April,-1993; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was
circulated for a 45 day period; and
WHEREAS, in July, 1993, the Final Environmental Impact
Report was published; and
WHEREAS, the. Planning Commission has reviewed and
considered the contents of the Final EIR in its decision-making.
process; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended
certification of the Final EIR; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE ..CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
UUJ~t~
- 1
SECTION 1. The City Council makes the following
findings, consistent with Article VI, Section 12 and 13 of the
City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Sections 15092 and 15093
of the State of California CEQA Guidelines.
(1) The City Council finds that the proposed Housing Element
Update is consistent with the City's General Plan.
(2) The City Council finds that the proposed Housing Element
Update contains policies,. programs, and quantified objectives
which will serve to balance the following City housing goals:
(a) Promote the construction of new housing for all
income groups;
(b) Increase the supply of housing affordable to low
and moderate income persons;
(c) Protect the existing supply of affordable housing;
(d) Promote the rehabilitation -and continued
maintenance of existing housing, wherever feasible;
(e) Provide assistance to those low and moderate income
households who need it;
(f) Eliminate discrimination in 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;
~~~
UVJ1
2 -
(g) Promote quality housing and neighborhoods;
(h) .Promote the participation of citizens, community
groups, and governmental agencies in housing and
community development activities.
(3) The City Council finds that the proposed Housing Element
Update complies substantially. with all statutory requirements
applicable to Housing Elements as established by the State of
California.
(4) The City Council finds that while new residential
development consistent with the proposed Housing Element Update
will generate traffic which will lead to localized.exceedances of
air emission thresholds, these impacts would be reduced by
compliance with existing and future City policies and programs,
including SCAQMD Rule 403, The Air Quality Management Plan,
programs related to air quality management, and the TMP
Ordinance. Further, even though it is anticipated that
significant impacts would remain after full implementation of the
mitigation measures, development under the proposed Housing
Element would provide additional housing needed for all income
groups and would serve to improve the regional jobs/housing
balance.
(5) The City Council finds that while new residential
development consistent with the proposed Housing Element Update
will generate traffic that is likely to further degrade local
VU JJa~,
- 3 -
levels of service at those .intersections operating at LOS D or
worse, these .impacts would be reduced by compliance with the
existing and future City polices and programs, the existing
Transportation Management Program Ordinance and the traffic
impact fee program under preparation. Further, even though it is
anticipated that significant traffic impacts would remain after
full implementation of the mitigation. measures, development under
the proposed Housing Element Update will provide additional
housing needed for all income groups and would serve to improve
the regional jobs/housing balance.
(6) The City Council finds that while new residential
development consistent with the proposed Housing Element could
exacerbate the City's shortage of parkland, these impacts could
be reduced by compliance with existing City policies and
programs, including joint agreements with the school district to
develop and optimize use of recreational facilities near schools
and continued implementation of a recreation unit tax for new
residential units. Further, even though it is anticipated that
significant traffic impacts would remain after full
implementation of the mitigation measures, development under the
proposed Housing Element Update will provide additional housing
needed for all income groups and would serve to improve .the
regional jobs/housing balance.
(7) The City Council finds that while new residential
development consistent with the proposed Housing Element could
result in additional solid waste generation that could contribute
- 4 -
to early closure of regional landfills, these impacts could be
reduced by compliance with existing City policies and programs,
including the City's recycling programs. Further, even though
significant impacts on regional landfills could remain .even after
mitigation, the. proposed Housing Element Update will provide
additional housing needed for all income groups and would serve
to improve the regional jobsJhousing balance.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that most impacts
resulting from the project can. be reduced to an acceptable level.
All significant environmental effects as identified below can
feasibly be avoided and have been eliminated or substantially
lessened. The remaining unavoidable significant effects are
found to be acceptable due to overriding considerations; as
discussed in Sections 4-7.
(a) The final EIR determined that without mitigation the
proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts on
water services. The residential development envisioned under the
Housing Element would consume between 287,500 gallons to 1.8
million gallons of water on a daily basis. Consistent with
Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section
15091 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, the City
Council finds that the following mitigation measures have been
required in the project which will avoid or substantially lessen
the potential significant environmental effects identified with
.respect to water services:
UV~.'J~
- 5 -
(1) The impact of new residential development on the
City's water system shall be minimized through the continued
implementation of existing City programs for water conservation.
(b) The final EIR determined that without mitigation the
proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts on
sewer services. The housing development anticipated under the
proposed project could raise the City's sewer effluent from the
9.3 million gallons per day (MGD) currently being generated to
between 9.6 MGD and 10.8-MGD, which approaches the City's maximum
treatment allocation of 11 MGD. Consistent .with Article VI,
Section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 of the
State of California CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that
the following mitigation measures have been required in the
project which will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
significant environmental effects identified with respect to
sewer services:
(1) Continued implementation of the City's sewer master
plan would result in an overall improvement of .the sewage
conveyance system and reduce the impacts of new development. In
addition to the City's established programs, the following
mitigation measure is recommended for individual projects to
reduce significant impacts on the sewage system:
Each project's developer shall contribute a fair share
of funds to the City for the purpose of retro-fitting and
expanding the existing sewer system, as well as for funding small
V V ~_! J iJ
- 6 -
scale water reclamation facilities located within the City or
shall comply with established City programs and ordinances.
(c) The final EIR determined that with mitigation the
proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts on
-fire protection services. Future housing development anticipated
under the proposed project will increase demand for fire
protection and emergency services and may result in a need for
between 2 and 15 additional firefighters. Consistent with
Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section
15091 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, the City
Council finds that the following mitigation measures have been
required in the project which will avoid or substantially lessen-
the potential significant environmental effects identified with.
respect to fire protection services:
(1) Prior to issuance of building permits, each
individual project shall demonstrate compliance with the
Sprinkler Ordinance (Ordinance 1506 CCS), which requires
sprinkler systems for underground parking structures that are
greater than three stories, larger than 15,000 square feet or
used for public assembly and shall incorporate all feasible fire
protection devices in order to minimize the number of emergency
response calls to structures.
(2) The Fire Prevention and Education Division of the
Fire Department will continue to review and approve development
site plans and inspect existing occupied structures.
VU~JJU
7
(3) Prior to issuance.- of building permits, each
individual project shall demonstrate adequate fire flow given the
land use, size, and type of construction of the project, or
provide for infrastructure improvements to allow adequate fire
flow, as determined by the Fire Department.
(d) The final EIR determined that without mitigation the
proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts on
law enforcement. Future housing development will result in
increased demand for police protection, including a need for
between 4 and 16 additional police officers. Consistent with
Article VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section
15091 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, the City
Council finds that the following mitigation measures have been
required in the project which will avoid or substantially lessen
the potential significant environmental effects identified with
respect to law enforcement.
(1) Prior to approval, applicant(s) for residential
development shall consult with the police department in order to
identify security .measures. (such as private security guards,
security cameras, etc.) that can be incorporated into the project
design to reduce the .need for police services.
(e) The final EIR determined that without mitigation the
proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts on
educational services. The proposed project would likely generate
between 181 and 695 additional students in the Santa
vviJ1'
-s-
Monica-Malibu Unified School District. Consistent with Article
VI, Section 12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and Section 15091 of
the State of California CEQA Guidelines, the City Council .finds
that the following mitigation measures have been required ih the
project which will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
significant environmental effects identified with respect to
educational services:
(1) The City of Santa Monica shall consult with the
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District regarding the
projections of residential development on an annual basis to
ensure that school facilities are available when needed. New
development shall comply with existing City programs to mitigate
impacts on schools.
SECTION 3. The Final. EIR found that residential development
under the proposed project would likely result in significant
impacts upon local streets, particularly on those intersections
operating at level of service (LOS) D or worse. These impacts
would be reduced by compliance with existing and future City
policies and programs, including the existing Transportation
Management Program ordinance and the traffic impact fee program
under preparation. However, it is anticipated that significant
traffic impacts would remain after full implementation of the
mitigation measures because of probable lack of available
physical mitigations at many locations.
SECTION 4. The Final EIR found that residential development
under the proposed project would impact- air quality even after
V V •? J t,i
9
mitigation. While increases in vehicle trips generated by
residential development would produce air quality impacts from
mobile .emission, compliance with the Air Quality Management Plan
would minimize air quality. impacts. Any additional emissions
which result from any of the development alternatives would be
considered significant as the South Coast Air Basin already
generally exceeds federal air quality standards.
SECTION 5. The Final EIR found that residential development
under the proposed project could significantly impact parks and
recreation services. These impacts could be reduced by
compliance with existing and future City policies and programs.
However, it is anticipated that significant impacts would remain
even after mitigation, given the scarcity of vacant land in the
City available for development as parkland.
SECTION 6. The Final EIR found that residential development
under the proposed project could significantly impact regional
solid waste facilities. These impacts could be reduced by
compliance with existing City recycling programs. However, it is
anticipated that significant impacts would remain even after
mitigation, given the limited capacity of regional landfills.
SECTION 7. The Final EIR found that the project would result
in significant impacts upon local traffic circulation, air
quality, and parks and recreation services and upon regional
solid waste facilities even after mitigation measures have been
implemented. Consistent with Article VI, Section 13 of the City
t/UI;Jv
- 10 -
CEQA Guidelines and Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State of
California CEQA Guidelines, the City- Council hereby makes a
Statement of Overriding Considerations and finds that the
benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental
impacts based on the following reasons:
(a) The proposed project will better enable the City to
facilitate the development of new residential projects for all
income groups;
(b) The proposed project will bring the City. closer to
satisfying its housing need as estimated by the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA);
(c) The Proposed project will serve to increase residential
development in the City, thereby helping to improve .the regional
jobs/housing balance.
(d) While the number of vehicle trips generated by the
residential development anticipated under the proposed project
would likely have a significant impact upon local streets,.
particularly intersections operating at LOS D or worse, these
impacts would be reduced by compliance with existing and future
City policies and programs, including the existing Transportation
Management Program Ordinance and the traffic impact fee program
under preparation. Further, even though it is anticipated that
significant traffic impacts would remain after full
implementation of the mitigation measures, new residential
development anticipated under the Housing Element would provide
UV r~vV
- 11 -
additional housing needed for all income groups, would bring the
City closer to satisfying the housing need estimated by the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and would serve to
improve the regional jobs/housing balance.
(e) While the increases in vehicle trips generated by
development under the proposed commercial development standards
would, in turn, generate air quality impacts from mobile
emissions, compliance with the Air Quality Management Plan and
the City's Air Quality Element would minimize air quality
impacts.
(f) In the event that any of the adverse environmental
impacts identified in the Final EIR are not considered
substantially mitigated within the meaning of Article VI, Section
13 of the City CEQA Guidelines, and Section 15093 of the State of
California CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that the
benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental
effects for the reasons stated in Section 2, Section 3, Section
4, Section 5, and Section 6.
UU 1U1
- 12 -
SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~P
J sepl La ence
A ting City Attorney
w/overl
Ut!'-'uw
- 13 -
ATTACHMENT D
vu~U~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT b,,f'~"=°`'a~
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800THIRD STREET, Room 030 _ ~ ~q~
P.O BOX 952053 - "'4rr~~~
SACRAMENTO, CA &3252-2053
(916) 32}3176 FAX (916) 32}6625
October 16, 1992
Mr. John Jalili
City Manager
City of Santa Monica
P.O. Box 2200
Santa Monica, California 90406-2200
Dear Mr. Jalili:
Re: Review of Santa Monica's Revised Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting Santa Monica's revised draft
housing element, received .September 1, 1992 for our review. As
you know, we are required to review draft housing elements and
report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section
65585(b)).
We have received letters and supporting documentation from
several local developers and residents of Santa Monica, the
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, the local Chamber
of Commerce, City Councilmember Herbert Katz, and the law firm of
Lawrence & Harding (representing the Santa Monica Housing
Council) regarding information included in the element.
Correspondence was also received from the City in_response to
these letters. We have studied all of this correspondence, and
pursuant to Section 65585(c), considered this information in our
review of the element.
The revised draft element and accompanying cover letter
include responses to all of the comments outlined in our
February 20, 1992 review letter. However, the responses fail to
adequately address some of the more critical concerns raised in
our previous review. In particular, the element fails to
adequately demonstrate-the availability of sufficient sites to
accommodate the City's regional housing needs, that various land
use ordinances do not constrain needed development, and that the
City is committed to implementing certain program actions.
While we recognize Santa Monica's intent and efforts to
conserve and maintain the existing supply of affordable housing,
it appears that implementation of these and other programs are
constraining the development of additional affordable housing.
vv ~#~.f
Mr. John Jalili
Page 2
Since little vacant residential land remains, further development
potential is highly dependent upon City support for property
.owners to recycle residential properties to higher densities.
This support appears to be jeopardized by the combined
implementation of the City's Rent Control Ordinance and Ordinance
No. 1615 (Proposition R).
As a result, revisions are still needed for the element to
comply-with state housing element law (Article 10.6 of the
Government Code). These concerns were reviewed in a telephone
conversation on October 15, 1992-with Tad Read, the City's
Associate Planner. The Appendix to this letter outlines the
revisions needed to bring the element into compliance.
The City's ability to develop and implement a housing
element which effectively serves Santa Monica's housing needs
will be enhanced through the input and support of nonprofit
housing developers, the local building industry, and the
citizenry in accordance with Section 65583(c). We understand
that the City is planning to conduct public hearings prior to
adopting the element which will ensure that-all interested
parties have an opportunity to address their concerns and the
City's housing needs.
We hope our comments are helpful to the City and we
appreciate the cooperation and assistance of Messrs. Read and
Rosenbaum during the course of our review. If you have any
questions about our comments or would like assistance in revising
the element, please contact Gary Collord of our staff at (916)
327-2644.
In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records
Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and
organizations listed below.
Sincerely,
i
~~~~
~~
Thomas B. Cook
Deputy Director
Enclosures
Uv~~,~
Mr. John Jalili
Page 3
cc: Tad Read, Associate Planner, City of Santa Monica
Christopher Harding, Lawrence & Harding
Herbert Katz, Santa Monica City Councilmember
Dennis Zane, Santa Monica City Councilmember
Mehrdad Amanat
Michael Folonis, Architect
Stephen Frew Architects
Charles Isham, Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
S. John Dudzinsky Jr., Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
Carlyle W. Hall, Hall & Phillips Law Firm
Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley
Mark Johnson, Legal- Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
Ana Marie Whitaker, California State University Pomona
Dennis Rockway, Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach
David Booher, California Housing Council
Maya Dunne, City of Irvine
Josephine Alido, David Evans and Associates
Karen Warner, Cotton/Beland/Associates
Joe Cameras, Southern California Association of Governments
Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General .
Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Dwight Hanson, California Building Industry Association
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of
Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural-Legal Assistance Foundation
Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing
Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center
Uv'~Gu
APPENDI%
Santa Honica
The following changes would bring Santa Monica's housing element
into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code.
Following each recommended change or addition, we refer to the
applicable provision of the Government Code. Where particular
program examples or data sources are listed, these suggestions
are for your information only. We recognize that the City may
choose other means of complying with the law.
Programs
1. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning ar:d
development starulgrds r:eeded to facilitate acrd encourage the development of a
vnriety of housing types for all income groups. I3~lzere the inventory of sites does not
identify adequate sires to accommodate the creed of all household income groups
pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide for suff~cier:t sites with zoning
that permits owner-occupied and rental mzzltifamily residential use by right, incltuling
density arzd development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the
feasibility of housing for very. low- and low-income households (Section
65583(c)(I)) .
The revised element fails to adequately demonstrate that
-the City can accommodate the majority of its regional
housing needs on sites having redevelopment potential. The
implementation of the City's Rent Control and Proposition R
Ordinances appears to constrain residential recycling, and
thus do net facilitate achievement of the City's recycling
objectives, which are necessary in order to accommodate the
City's share of the regional housing needs.
The revised element indicates that "recycling potential is
primarily dependent upon age and the potential for increased
density." Using these factors, the City assumes that
potential exists for approximately 4,400 units to be
constructed through residential recycling during the
planning period. However, the element fails to demonstrate
that this potential is realistic on the basis of recent
development experience (e. g., by describing the net number,
type, and density of units constructed during the last five
years) or include realistic estimates of the success of
future programs. Nor does the element adequately consider
the impact of recent requirements (i.e., the combined effect
of the implementation of Rent Control and Proposition R
Ordinances) on future recycling.
The element also indicates that there is potential for
approximately 2,400 units to be constructed in various
UUtU
commercial zones,-based on the assumption that 10 percent of
future development in commercial zones will be residential.
However, the analysis of recent construction demonstrates
that only. 76 units have been constructed in commercial zones
during the last three years, representing an average of 25
units per year. The historical evidence offered by the City
suggests that only an additional 50 units are likely to be
constructed during the current planning period.
The element states that "due to the greater availability of
recyclable development ih commercially zoned areas, the City
expects that an increasing number of residential projects
. will be proposed for commercial districts." However,
the element fails to demonstrate this "greater availability"
by identifying those commercially-zoned sites which are
substantially underutilized or are no longer supporting a
viable commercial use.
In addition, the element fails to include programs which
would facilitate the private-market recycling of residential
or commercial sites within the planning period. While the
City recently adopted a series of .flexible zoning controls
and incentives, for the most part, they only apply to 100
percent affordable housing developments and, therefore, much
of the private-market recycling that would occur is not
likely to be eligible for these incentives. Unless the City
can ensure that all recycling projects could feasibly
provide 100 percent affordability, the element should
include stronger incentives to facilitate private-market
recycling. Moreover, the element's schedule of program
actions still fails to describe specific program actions
that will be implemented within the planning period to
facilitate recycling (see item 3, below). The element also
fails to include programs to mitigate the impact of local
ordinances which constrain recycling (Rent Control and
Proposition R).
2 . Address a~zd, where legally possible, remove govenzmental constrainu to tl:e
maintenaz:ce, improvement, or development of housing for all income groups (Sectiozz
6~583(c) (3)).
As mentioned above, the revised element fails to adequately .
describe and evaluate the overlapping or combined effects of
City ordinances and, therefore, does not appear to
accurately depict their effect_on_residential development or
recycling. While the revised element further discusses the
intended purpose of various ordinances and provides some
analysis of their effect on construction activities, each is
treated in isolation without appropriate consideration given
to their combined or overall effect on recycling potential
and residential development.
2
vV ;U
For example,.-(unless a property owner is eligible for a
removal permit under categories A, B, or C), under the
combined requirements of the City's Rent Control and
Proposition R Ordinances, a property owner wishing to
recycle a rent-controlled property to a higher density would
have to comply with the following: (1) request Category D
approval from the Rent Control Board; (2) provide relocation
assistance to any low- and moderate-income tenants in the
old project; (3) provide an equal number of rent-controlled
units in the new project at the same rent level of the old
project and; (4) set aside 30 percent of the non-replacement
inclusionary units in the new project at affordable rents.
Under these requirements, (except for, large-scale projects
which increase the number of units on a site by a factor of
five or more) a minimum of 50 percent of the units in
recycled projects would have to be rented at below-market
rates (or pay in-lieu fees)., even with the award of a
density bonus. The percentage of below-market-rate units
could also be substantially higher depending upon the number
of units in the recycled and new projects and whether a
density bonus is awarded. For example, if a 4-unit rent-
controlled project were recycled to a 10-unit project, and a
density bonus granted, 7 of the 13 units (or 53 percent)
would be required to be rented at below-market rates.
These requirements significantly impact the feasibility of
recycling smaller projects and the element fails to estimate
the number of residential sites which could accommodate
large-scale projects which can increase the number of on-
site units by a factor of five or more.
In addition, as a result of the Ellis Act, which allows
owners to withdraw from the rental market and redevelop
their properties with condominiums without having to comply
.with the replacement housing requirements of the Rent
Control ordinance, the City argues that the Ordinance can no
longer be viewed as a constraint to recycling as wa$ implied
in the 1990 draft element. However, the analysis fails to
acknowledge that under Proposition R owners would still be
required to comply with the 30 percent inclusionary
requirement. In addition, all condominium developments are
required to seek conditional use permit approval from the
City.
As noted in -our February 20, 1992 review letter (and since
the revised element fails to demonstrate the availability of
adequate sites to accommodate the City's regional housing
needs), requiring conditional use permit approval for
condominiums (or rental multifamily housing) is contrary to
Government Code Sections 65583(c)(1) and 65589.5(f).
3
UU'JLv
Therefore, to adequately identify sufficient sites to
accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need,
the element will need to include additional programs to
facilitate residential recycling and mitigate or remove the
constraints imposed by local ordinances. We will be happy
to work with the City in developing appropriate programmatic
responses to mitigate these constraints.
3 . Expand azzd strengt/:en program actiozzs designed to assist the development of
affordable housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income /zouseholds
(Section 65583(c)(2)).
As noted in our February 20, 1992 review letter, many of the
programs in the element should include more specific
implementation actions and demonstrate a greater commitment
toward implementation to ensure that the City can meet
housing element program requirements. Most of the programs
designed to assist the development of new affordable
housing, in particular, require more specific implementation
actions and timelines.
Program descriptions should be as detailed as possible,
specifying implementation timelines, the objectives of the
program (quantified where possible), funding sources and
costs, and the steps to be taken by the City to implement
the programs. Programs which require additional information
include, but are not limited to, the following:
A-1-a: When will the City investigate offering incentives
to encourage housing development in commercial
areas? when would the incentives be made
available? what are the quantified objectives of
the program?
A-1-b: When will the City develop programs to reduce or
subsidize fee costs for affordable housing? What
does the City consider to be an affordable housing
project? What are the quantified objectives of
this program?
A-1-d: What does the City mean by "implement the
architectural review guidelines"? Doesn!t the
City already have guidelines in .place? Is the
City proposing to implement new guidelines? If
so, what are they?
A-1-f: What are the
requirements
increase or
proposed?
City's current relocation
and fees? What amount of fee
extension of the requirements is
4
uu~i~
A-1-g: When will the City investigate rezoning the CS and
Ml zones to High density residential? When would
the rezoning occur? How much acreage is
represented by these zones? Is any of the acreage
vacant? What are the quantified objectives of
this program?
A-2-g: When will the City adopt an ordinance which
implements the density bonus requirements of state
law and the additional density bonus incentives
mentioned?
A-2-h: When will the City develop and offer incentives,
or reduce standards, to encourage the production
of housing for special need groups? Which special
need groups will be targeted by the program? What
are the quantified objectives of this program?
A-2-i: When will the City implement a land banking
program? Has the City identified potential sites
for purchase? What are the housing production
objectives for the current planning period?
,. ,
UU.; f 1
5
ATTACHMENT E
VVJ;~
CITY OF
SANTA ~~TONICA
C~ILIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ._
March 15, 1993
Thomas Cook, Deputy Director
Housing Policy Development
State of California Department of Housing
and Community Development
1800 Third Street, Room 430
Sacramento, CA 95814
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(zu)asa 8336
Re: Santa Monica Housing Element -- Response to
HCD's October 16, 1992 letter
Dear Mr. Cook:
This letter is submitted by the City of Santa Monica in
response to HCD's October 16, 1992 letter reviewing the City's
revised Draft Housing Element ("Draft Housing Element"). HCD's
reasons for not certifying the Draft Housing Element appear to be
based in some instances on a misunderstanding of how relevant
local laws operate, and in other instances on a legal dispute
with the City regarding interpretation of State Housing Law.
Although it may not be possible to resolve our legal
disagreements at this stage, the purpose of this letter is to
correct misconceptions on how the City's laws operate and to
further clarify the City's legal position with respect to the.
remaining issues in contention.
A. Combined Effect of Rent Control Law and
Ordinance 1615
HCD's contention that the Draft Housing Element fails to
analyze the combined effect of the Rent Control Law and the
City's inclusionary housing ordinance, Ordinance 1615 (CCS), on
future development is inaccurate and based on a misunderstanding
of the City's laws. The Draft Housing Element contains extensive
analysis of both these programs. We are unaware of any basis for
HCD to reject this analysis. Moreover, the "combined effect" of
these two laws does not operate in the manner that HCD posits.
For example, a property owner desiring to redevelop his/her
property which is currently improved with residential units
CITY HALL, I685 MAIN STREET, SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90401-3295 U U J v
Thomas Cook
March 15, 1993
Page 2
subject to the Rent Control Law ("controlled units") has two
completely viable options.
First, and most commonly, an owner desiring to redevelop
hisJher property may go out of the residential rental business
altogether pursuant to the Ellis Act, Government Code Section
7060 et seg. Once an owner has properly utilized the Act, that
owner could demolish the existing controlled units and redevelop
the property with condominiums to whatever density is allowed
under the City's existing zoning standards. In that instance,
the Rent Control Law would impose absolutely no obligation to
make any of the new condominiums affordable. While it is true
that the owner would have to satisfy the requirements of
Ordinance 1615, under that law, only 30% of the new units would
need to be affordable to low and moderate households.` An
economic analysis of this ordinance demonstrated that condominium
development projects remained economically viable with a 30%
inclusionary housing requirement. Indeed, since the passage of
Ordinance 1615, the City has approved 7 multi-family projects
totaling 57 units, including to on-site affordable units and in
lieu fees for an additional 2.9 units.
In Santa Monica, the average property withdrawn from the
rental business pursuant to the Ellis Act contained just over 4
rental units and has been redeveloped with just over 6
condominiums_ In most cases, the property owner has developed 5
units as authorized under current density standards and
constructed an additional State density bonus unit. In these
circumstances, Ordinance 1615 would only impose an obligation to
provide one affordable housing unit. In short, the resulting
development would contain six units, five of which would be
market-rate and 1 of which would be affordable. There is no
question, given the economic analysis performed by City staff,
that projects of this nature are economically viable.
A second option available to a property owner seeking to
redevelop residential property is to obtain a Category D removal
permit from the Rent Control Board. As discussed previously, the
Rent Control Board has issued a significant number of such
permits. Under a Category D removal permit, a property owner
must agree to replace the existing number of controlled units
with an equal number of replacement rental units similarly
subject to the Rent Control Law's established rent level. The
` It is important to note that in most cases, 100 of the
units that have been demolished after Ellis Act withdrawal have
been affordable. Moreover, since Ordinance 1615 does. not apply
to State density bonus units, the resulting development often
contains less than 30% affordable units.
„,_ . .
wuvr4
Thomas Cook
March 15, 1993
-Page 3
remainder of the units constructed on the site can be market-rate
units.
Using HCD's example on page 3 of the Appendix, if a 4-unit
rent controlled project were recycled to a 10-unit project
pursuant. to a Category D removal permit, 4 units would. continue
to be controlled by the Rent Control Law. Ordinance 1615 would
require that 3 of the 10-units be affordable to low or moderate
income tenants. Given that 4 of the 10 units would already be
mandated to have affordable rents established by the Rent Control
Law, these same units would also satisfy the 30o requirement of
Ordinance 1615. In fact, Ordinance 1615 specifically so
provides. See Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.28.210.
Thus, assuming that 3 density bonus units were also constructed
in accordance with state law entitlement, the resulting project
would contain 13 units, 9 of which could be market-rate housing
and 4 of which would be affordable units. Thus, HCD's assertion
that a project of this nature would require 7 affordable units is
erroneous.Z
As HCD is well aware, the City is required to ensure not
only that housing is constructed in the City., but that a
significant portion of the constructed housing is affordable.
Indeed, according to the City's RHNA requirements, no less than
61 percentage of the City's housing obligation must be affordable
to very low, low and moderate income households. It has been the
City's experience that the invisible hand of the free market will
not provide this housing on its on accord and given the paucity
of matching state and federal funds available to the City, the
City's ability to itself construct affordable housing in-
significantly constrained.
The City believes that unless it has a strong inclusionary .
housing ordinance in place which requires that such housing be
built on-site in most instances, the amount of affordable housing
in this City will continue to be vastly outpaced by market-rate
development. Moreover, given the built-out nature of this
City,such new development will come at the expense of the City's
existing affordable housing stock.
Z The only circumstance in which Ordinance 1615 would
require additional affordable units beyond those required by the
Category D replacement obligation would be if the groject density
was increased by more than three-fold (and thus the replacement
units represented less than thirty percent of the total number of
units). Given the built-out nature of the City and the strong
incentive to have already redeveloped such significantly
underutilized property, few if any such properties still exist.
UV 1 i"v
Thomas Cook
March 15, 1993
Page 4
It appears from HCD's October 16, 1992 letter that the
agency has focused exclusively on the need for total housing
production while ignoring the effect of that production on the
City's equal obligation to preserve and provide affordable
housing opportunities. The City believes that Housing Element
Law supports the City's more balanced approach.
The City's Rent Control Law and Ordinance 1615 serve
critically important City housing policies. Indeed, we find it
perplexing that HCD rejects these programs when the Housing
Element Law so clearly authorizes programs of this nature. More
specifically, Government Code Section 65583(c)(4) provides that
the element should "conserve and improve the condition of the
existing affordable housing stock, which may include ways to
mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public or
private acts;" and Government Code Section 65589 (b) provides
"Nothing in this article shall be construed to be a repeal
of any authority which may exist of a local government to impose
rent controls or restrictions on the sale of real property."
Moreover, it has long been established that inclusionary
ordinances which require that a specific percentage of units
within a new residential development be made affordable
constitute legitimate implementation measures designed to
increase .the available supply of affordable housing. See Twain
Harte Homeowners v. County of Tuolumne, 138 Cal. App. 3d 664,
705, 188 Cal. Rptr. 233, 259 (1982).
B. Inventory of Available Sites
Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires that the
housing element include "an inventory of land suitable for
residential development, including vacant sites and sites having
potential for redevelopment. ." The City continues to take
the position that this provision means what it says, i.e., sites
identified under this section must simply have the potential for
residential development, whether the sites be vacant or
underdeveloped. Indeed, recent amendments to Housing Element Law
demonstrate that the City correctly interprets this provision.
Effective January 1, 1993, Assembly Bill No. 2707 added
Government Code Section 65583.1 which provides in relevant part
that HCD "in evaluating a proposed or adopted housing element for
consistency with state law, may allow a local government to
identity adequate sites, as required pursuant to Section 65583,
by a variety of methods, including, but not limited to,
redesignation of property to a more intense land use category and
increasing the density .allowed within one or more categories. .
." Thus, this law allows a city to count upzoned sites in its
inventory without any showing that these sites will actually be
redeveloped to the higher allowable density. This is precisely
what the City has done in its inventory by identifying
n r
VVUitD
Thomas Cook
March 15, 1993
Page 5
residentially zoned sites which can be redeveloped to a higher
density under existing zoning.
While the City believes it may have been .appropriate for the
City to have designated all underdeveloped residential sites in
its inventory (resulting in 7, 769 multi-family units) (see Buena
Vista Gardens v. City of San Dieao, 175 Cal. App. 3d 289, 300-01,
220 Cal. Rptr. 732, 738 (1985)), the City was more conservative
in its approach. It only included underdeveloped properties that
had not recycled since 1960, sites with a more realistic
potential for recycling given their age and underutilization.
Thus, the City identified the potential for 4,428 dwelling units
to be developed in residential multi-family zones based on this
criteria.
Further, there is significant underdeveloped property in the
City's commercial zones in which residential development is
permitted. The City conservatively determined that if only 10
percent of this future development is residential, 2,458 new
dwelling units could be constructed. The City acknowledges that
the estimated potential for 2,458 residential units in commercial
zones reflects full buildout potential, with an estimated 115
units to be constructed during the planning period.3
The City believes that it has met its legal requirement of
identifying adequate sites in the City to accommodate its fair
share of housing as established by RHNA.
HCD takes the position, however, that the inventory of land
suitable for residential development must be based on recent
development experience or an estimate of the success of future
programs. Thus, the inventory of land must simply reflect the
number of units that are likely to be built during the five (5)
year period of the housing element. Such an approach finds no
support in the specific language of the statute or case authority
interpreting this provision. Indeed, if the Legislature had
intended such a restrictive approach to this category, it would
have so specified. For instance, Section 65583(b)(2) expressly
a As stated, the quantified objective for residential
development in commercial zones is 115 units, or approximately 10
percent of the City's total quantified objective for the planning
period. Once Program A-1-a has been implemented and projects
have been approved under the new standards, the amount of
residential development in commercial zones is likely to increase
substantially. However, because it may take up to one to two
years for new development to be constructed under the new
development standards, the increased rate of development is not
likely to be observed until after the 1989-1994 planning period.
UU~i
Thomas Cook
March 15, 1993
Page 6
provides that the statement of the community's quantified
objectives shall be the maximum number of housing units that can
be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five year
period. See also Section 65583 (c) (requiring that a five year
program of action be established). However, the language in
Section 65583(c)(3) is quite different ("sites having the
potential for redevelopment") with no time parameter specified.
This difference in language within the same statutory scheme must
be given effect.
The purpose of Section 65583(a)(3j is not to require a city
to designate only those sites which the city expects will
redevelop during the five year period of the housing element
update. That purpose is served by Section 65583(b)(2). The
purpose of Section 65583(a)(3) is simply to demonstrate that the
city's. zoning and infrastructure would support the number of
units mandated by a city's RHNA numbers.
HCD also contends that while the City has adopted a number
of programs and incentives for affordable housing development, it
has not adopted programs to facilitate market-rate development.
The City objects to this characterization of the Draft .Housing
Element for several reasons.
First, the Draft Housing Element does contain specific
programs to encourage private-sector recycling. Program A-1-a is
intended to encourage the production of housing in commercial
districts. Program A-l.g calls for recycling commercial and
industrial areas to residential use.
Furthermore, existing residential density standards which
permit increased density on underutilized parcels throughout many
areas of the City .adequately encourage and facilitate market-
place recycling. The City believes that additional governmental
intervention is unnecessary to encourage the private sector to
seek to maximize their profit potential by recycling
underutilized properties to the full density authorized by the
City's zoning law. Since the City has identified adequate sites
to meet is RHNA obligations, the City is not legally required to
enact additional programs in this area.
C. Conditional Use Permit Requirement
In addition, HCD contends that the City is in violation of
the law because it subjects all condominium development projects
to the City's conditional use permit process. The City simply
disagrees with this conclusion. Government Code Section
65583(c)(1) only requires the elimination of the CUP process for
multifamily housing where the inventory of adequate sites
Uv~J :'u
Thomas Cook
March 15, 1993
Page 7
identified pursuant to Section 65583(a)(3) is inadequate.° As
discussed above, the City believes that its inventory of adequate
sites is more than sufficient. Moreover, in our October letter
to. HCD, the. City amply demonstrated that the CUP process has not
operated to prevent condominium development.
D. Draft Housing Element Programs
HCD has also taken issue with many of the programs in the
Draft Housing Element in terms of timing, funding sources, and
specificity. With respect to timelines for implementation of
these programs, please note that Table 34 of the Draft Housing
Element provides an implementation schedule for each of the
Housing element programs. With respect_to funding sources and
costs, the programs will be accomplished utilizing existing staff
resources under current department budgets, unless otherwise
specified. Finally, the City has revised these programs in an
effort to met the remaining concerns expressed by HCD. These
revisions are attached hereto as Appendix A.
The City is hopeful based on the additional information and
analysis provided in this letter that HCD will reconsider its
assessment of the City's Revised Draft Housinq Element. The City
looks forward to HCD's response.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely yours,
1
~70SEPH LAWRENCE
~~JActing City Attorney
` It should be noted that the City does not subject
multifamily rental housing to a conditional use permit
requirement.
UV~1 f
Thomas Cook
March 15, 1993
Page 8
APPENDIX A
Program A-1-a (inclusion of housing in commercial development)
impact of standards on housing costs)
e~a~age `~ =-~~: During the 1992/1993 Fiscal Year,
the City will consider adopting a new program to provide for
housing in commercial developments in specific commercially
zoned areas by mixed use requirements, incentives, or other
means. During the 1993/1994 Year, the City will review the
impact of changes to commercial and residential development
standards (such as parking, landscaping, and setbacks) on
the production and cost of housing. '~'.`.:. ^"•• -•~ " -' --
''~'~~ v --~~~-in eea~ereia} areas and eenside~ ze ~zoz,~-mss
o r •7 - ---- -- --
r-.. ti- ,.i .. -i
_..~ .... ...., ._-7 ~-
Program A-1-b (impact of development fees):
Due to the nature of this program, it is not possible to
establish quantified objectives for it. However, the following
changes have been made to the program language:
1989-1994: Goals: ~r~-~ne~-stefl `hyr; r1• = " -rY-- - -
_':-----moo=~e-F.}a~ei~tq-= e=s-€a~~~~e~ts that awe 99
,. _..-:-~R~~-e~=s att~~atab'- to e-the~ a}~~---~~
~ssessr+e~ts e- eaeaet' er+s see§ as a~sd d x Lai
t~a~ ing ~__,___.,. During the 1992/93 Fiscal Year, the City
will adopt regulations allowing planning fee waivers and
expedited development review for projects containing l00
percent affordable housing.
Program A-1-d (architectural guidelines):
1989-1994 Goals: Continue to implement the architectural
revleW guidelines adopted in 1989 fgr de~uril nr~.ar- _^ _-~
_ . _ -r---
Program A-1-f (New Program) When a unit is withdrawn from the
housing stock, or the landlord recovers possession of a unit and
tenant relocation assistance is appropriate ?~eord`_::g t-, the
Santa Monica Municipal Code (Chapter 8B, Article IV, Sections
4855 through .4862) „s^~----~ - - -~-~ ~ <•
requires that the landlord pay a-.relocation fee for each unit
Uu _~~v
Thomas Cook
March 15, 1993
Page 9
based upon the size of the unit. An additional fee of is required
if one or mare of the tenants is a senior (62 or over), disabled,
or a minor. In lieu of providing financial relocation assistance,
the landlord may instead provide actual physical relocation, as
long as the tenant.is amenable to the relocation and the new unit
is comparable to the original unit.
1989-1994 Goals: During Fiscal Year 1993/94, staff will
study broadening the scope of the City's relocation
ordinance to include additional -~~ circumstances that
result in tenant displacement such as tenant evictions from
bootleg units. At the same, staff will eenside~~:rxe~ear~~g
examine
the relocation fee requirements =~_`__-= =rr==r-'_=`__ to ensure
that the fees accurately reflect moving costs and the costs
of market rents.
(It is not possible at this time to estimate the amount of fee
increase that may be proposed as part of this program.)
Although not specifically mentioned in your letter, revisions
have been made to other affordable housing programs to provide
more specific timelines and implementation actions. These are as
follows:
Program A-2.b (Continuation of an existing oroaram): Support the
efforts of private, nonprofit community development corporations.
Accomplishments to Date: The Community Corporation of Santa
Monica (CCSM) was established in 1982 to develop, purchase
and renovate, or facilitate the construction of housing
affordable to persons of low and moderate income. CCSM has
developed 106 new units to date, and rehabilitated 222 units
for rental to low and moderate income persons.
1989-1994 Goals: Continue to support the efforts of CCSM
and other non-profit housing corporations to produce housing
affordable to low and moderate income persons in the City of
Santa Monica. This support shall include providing
administrative grants for operation, technical assistance,
and gap financing. Approximately 200 units will be produced
and 250 units rehabilitated through this program.
Imalementation: The City of Santa Monica will provide funds
and other support to the CCSM and other non-profit housing
corporations. Funding sources include CDBG, redevelopment
tax increment set-aside, and general fund revenues. CCSM has
its own staff and board of directors.
i/v.Ui
Thomas Cook
March 15, 1993
Page 10
Program A-2.c (Modification of an existing program): Study and
develop programs to address the housing needs of the growing
population of homeless people in Santa Monica.
Accomplishments to Date: The City provides funds for a
number of programs that provide services to homeless people,
including emergency shelter, counseling, and assistance
applying for government assistance, food, and clothing. The
City provided $1,266,585 for these programs in fiscal year
1988-89. The number of homeless people varies with general
economic conditions, the season, and a variety of other
factors. Despite their best efforts, the existing service
agencies do not always meet the need. An average of 1500
persons are served each month of an estimated 3,000 to 5,000
homeless people living in the City.
In March, 1988, the City Council approved changes to the
Zoning Ordinance to permit homeless shelters by right in C3,
C3-C, C4, C5, C6, CM, CP, and CC zones, subject to
performance standards in BCD, C2, N, and M1 zones, and as
conditionally permitted uses in R4 and RVC zones.
1989-1994 Goals: On an ongoing basis, City Staff will assist
existing nonprofit agencies which provide emergency services
to homeless people in the area to apply for state and
federal funds. to expand their facilities and services and
work with these agencies to process permits for facility
development expeditiously. Recent state bond issues and
federal programs have indicated that preference will be
given to agencies which are already in operation. City :staff
will work with these agencies oa an ongoing basis to
identify programs or funding sources which could enable them
to assist more people, particularly programs which fund the
social services and .training to enable homeless. people to
transition back into the mainstream and self-sufficiency.
_~ _Yy..-..Y Y_ _LY
l
YL.. L_.. ..A_ _L L l
F.n _..:L:I Y.• ...G 4_.._l
r ~ -
,._.._:__ Y__~e-~-t-ire-greeds e€ }~e~eless-Peed}e~~;
F"~~~~s t-e~t~-€er~a~~en €e~ ageneies ~~tat
During Fiscal Year 1991/92, the City will hire a Homeless
Coordinator who will wark to develop policies and programs
to address the problems of homelessness in the-City and work
in close partnership with local service providers and other
organizations to coordinate the provision of homeless
services and identify potential-future funding sources.
During the 1992/93 Fiscal Year, the City will provide
financial assistance to local shelter providers to assist in
UU'JUr;;
Thomas Cook
March 15, 1993
Page 11
pre-development and rehabilitation costs of providing
transitional housing. Finally, during Fiscal Years 1992/93
and 1993/94, the City will apply for funding for housing and
supportive service programs through one or more of the
following State and Federal programs: Supplemental
Assistance for Facilities to Assist the Homeless (SAFAH), a
program of the state Department of Housing and Community
Development which provides funding for rental assistance and
case management; the Shelter Plus Care Program (a HIID
program), providing funds for rental assistance and
supportive services; the Transitional Housing Program (HD'D);
the Permanent Housing Program (HIID); and the Section 8
Moderate Rehabilitation Program (xIID).
Implementation: The Cultural and Recreation Services
Department staff will implement this program.
Program A-2.g {density bonuses):
1989-1994 Goals: The City will continue
to implement the nay State density bonus requirements. City
staff will also continue to encourage the use of the density
bonus for appropriate projects, and will also investigate
the possibility of amending the City's density bonus
regulations to encourage the development of affordable
housing-for families with children, and very low income
households.
___-___.~ - -_•.-_-1 __..__ -_.. t~..~---.. _-..-__.._..~ ~...... ..~
.a- During the 1989/90 Fiscal Year, the City will
adopt regulations allowing for density bonuses for projects
of 3 or more units in the OP-2, OP-3, and OP-4 residential
zones. Staff will also investigate the feasibility of
offering a greater density bonus .f or projects which provide
housing for families with children in smaller projects with
more amenities (such as dedicated play areas of additional
open space) . --------- r---------1 ..---- - -••------
UU.'U~
---1 , __ .._-- __ _.._ r--...... ~..~ .....~.. ~... ...~~..., ~..7 ~..-
F~: be~s~ts few : _sf~ea~ta}-arses to eee~e-s~ral asec_ _~
r~8°6. =t-~~~~r~hat ~#g~e~ deas~i~ts~Fe ne~~s#_ab}e
r~-e€ et-tsP~f-}fir-gee}s e~ ae}~t#e gab}e s+i~en }e~~a
Thomas Cook
March 15, 1993
Page 12
D
staada~ds e~ ether de~elepment sta~da~ds ~n e~~e~ ~e
r sFF......i~Ll .. L....... During
Fiscal Year 1992/43, the City will adopt an ordinance to
accomplish the following:
o Eliminate the restriction on the number of floors for
100 percent affordable housing projects, provided that
the height does not exceed the maximum limit in the
applicable zone district;
o Allow an additional density bonus for 100 percent
affordable housing projects;
o Allow a ten-foot height bonus for 100 percent
affordable housing projects in non-residential zones;
o Allow an FAR bonus as an incentive for residential
development in commercial zones;
o Relax density restrictions for congregate housing,
SRO's, homeless shelters, and transitional housing;
and,
o Relax parking requirements for 100 percent
affordable, congregate, and senior housing as well as
SRO's and homeless. shelters.
Implementation: Staff of the Land Use and Transportation
Management Department will implement this program.
Program A-2.h (Modification of an existing program): Maintain,
improve, and develop housing for households with special needs
especially families with small children, the elderly, and the
disabled.
Accomplishments to Date: The City of Santa Monica has
adopted a Fair Rousing for Children ordinance, which
prohibits discrimination against children in renting or
selling housing. The Community and Neighborhood Services
Division provides information and referral services for
households with special housing needs. The City published a
directory of senior housing and health care facilities in
the City in 1988.
1989-1944 Goals: Despite existing City incentives, very few
of the new housing units being built in the City are suited
to the needs of families with children, nor are they
accessible to the handicapped. During the 1992/93 Fiscal
Yeas, the City will adopt regulations to relax density bonus
UU_""
'u~.
Thomas Cook
March 15, 1993
Page i3
requirements and provide for reduced parking requirements
for senior group housing projects. During the 1993/94 Fiseal
Year, the City will expand the mandatory requirements for
private open space currently applicable to the Ocean, Park
and North of Ailshire districts to all zones citywide in
order to make multi-family development more family-friendly.
r~}egment to he a~ }east-s}te aeeess}h}ete
~-he-d•}sale}ed Etx~rerzt} ., ---,.. -__a_, L.,.._: __ : _
°°a " " " "a- The City will continue to implement
the Federal Fair Housing Administrative Rules of 1990 which
require handicapped adaptability for all multi-family except
town houses and projects with four or fewer .units without
elevators. ~'inatly~ rr,ff z?''1-~-_.__.. _..____..7 __._ _r.........
Z
~~#r}e#r-ee~}d be made e~ '~ TftL4CJ~ISS crnxr'~sc-v ~' ce
- -a«t~s ~t~b~~~t~~e~-r_~~ mgt}t} €am}}rdeve}epate~tt €e~
G _- : 1 aL _L : l ~
Implementation: The Cultural and Recreation Services
Department and Land Use and Transportation Management
Department will implement this program.
,- -
UU 'UJ
ATTACHMENT F
r~~-
Uu _~Uu
Hovsxxc ELEHEHT iaW
(As of January 1,1992)
Brticle 10.6. Honsinq Elements
65580. The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide
importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a
suitable living environment for every California family is a
priority of the highest order.
(b) The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative
participation of government and the private sector in an effort to
expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of
Californians of all economic levels,_...
(c) The provision of housing affordable to law-and
moderate-income households requires the cooperation of all levels
of government.
(d) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use
the power`s vested in them to facilitate the improvement and
development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing
needs of all economic segs:ants of the community.
(e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this
responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility
to consider economic,. environmental, and fiscal factors and
community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with
other local governments and the state in addressing regional
housing needs.
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.)
65581. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this
article:
(a) To assure that counties and cities recognize their
responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state
housing goal.
(b) To assure that counties and cities will prepare and
implement housing elements which, along with federal and state
programs, will move toward attainment of the state housing goal.
(c) To recognize that each locality is best. capable of
determining what efforts are required by it to contribute to the
attainment of the state housing goal, provided such a determination
is compatible with the state housing goal and regional housing
needs.
(d) To ensure that each local government cooperates with other
local governments in order to address regional housing needs.
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.)
65582. As used isl this article:
(a) "Community," "locality ," "local government," or
"jurisdiction," means a city, city and county, or county.
(b) "Council of governments" means a single or multicounty
council created by a joint powers agreement pursuant to Chapter 5
(commencing with Section 6500) of Division 1 of Title 1.
(c) "Department" means the Department of Aousinq and Community
r '^i
UU.%UI
Development.
(d) "Housing element" or "element" means-the housing element
of the community's general plan, as required pursuant to this
article and subdivision (cj of Section 65302.
(e) "I,ow- and moderate-income households" means persons and
families of low or moderate incomes as defined by section .50093 of
the Health and Safety Code.
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143., Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch.
1140. Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 1441.)
65583. The housing element shall consist of an identification and
analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of
goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for
the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The
housing element shall. .identifyc.. adequate sites.. for _..housing,
including rental housing, factory-built housing, and mobilehomes,
and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected
needs of all economic segments of the community. The element shall
contain all of the following:
(a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of
resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs.
The assessment and inventory shall include the following:
(1) n analysis of population and employment. trends and
documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's
existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. These
existing and projected needs shall include the locality's share of
the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584.
{2) An analysis and documentation of household
characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to
pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing
stock condition..
(3) An inventory of land suitable for residential
development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for
redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of coning-and
public facilities and services to these sites.
(4) n analysis of potential and actual governmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of
housing for all income levels, including land use controls,
building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and
other exactions required of developers, and local processing and
permit procedures.
(5) An analysis of potential -and actual nongovernmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of
housing for all income levels, including the availability of
financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction.
(6) An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those
of the handicapped, elderly, large families, farmworkers, families
with female heads of households, and families and persons in need
of emergency shelter.
{7) $~,~nalysis of opportunities for energy conservation with
respect to residential development.
(8) An analysis of existing assisted housing developments
2
_^~ ~
Uv,:bu
that aze eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the
next 20 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage
prepayment, or expiration of 'restrictions on use. °Assisted
housing developments," for the purpose of this section, shall mean
multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance
under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of Section
65863.10, state and local multifamily revenue bond programs, local
redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development Block
Grant Program, or local in-lieu fees. °Assisted housing
developments" shall also include multifamily zental units that were
developed pursuant to a local inclusionary housing grogram or used
to qualify for a density honor pursuant to Section 65916..
(A) The analysis shall include a listing of each development
by project name and address, .the type of governmental assistance
received, the earliest possible date. of change..fzom low-income-use
and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be
lost from the locality's low-income housing stock in each year
during the 10-year period. For purposes of state and federally
funded projects, the analysis required by this subparagraph need
only contain information available on a statewide basis.
(B) The analysis shall estimate the total cost of producing
new rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to
replace the units that could change from low-income use, and an
estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments.
This cost analysis for replacement housing may be done aggregately
for each five-year period and does not have to contain a project by
project cost estimate.
(C) The analysis shall identify public and private nonprofit
corporations known to the local government which have legal and
managerial capacity to acquire and manage these .housing
developments.
(D) The analysis shall identify and consider the use of all
federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs which can
be used to preserve, for lower income households, the assisted
housing developments, identified in this paragraph, including, but
not limited to, federal Community Development Block Grant Program
funds, tax increment funds received by a redevelopment agency of
the community, and. administrative fees received by a housing
authority operating within the community. In considezing the use
of these .financing and subsidy programs, the analysis shall
identify the amounts of funds under each available program which
have not been legally obligated for other purposes and which could
be available for use in preserving assisted housing developments.
(b) ,~]„ A statement of the community's goals, quantified
objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation,
improvement, and development of housing.
j~_ It is recognized that the total housing needs identified
pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and the
community's ability to satisfy this need within the content of the
general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with
Section 65300). IInder these circumstances, the quantified
objectives need not be identical to the tots housing needs. The
Uu~:ti
quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of housing
units ~v income cateaorv that can be constructed, rehabilitated,
and conserved over a five-year time a 'o .
(c) A program which sets Earth a five-year schedule of
actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake
to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of
the housing element through the administration of land use and
development controls, provision of regulatory concessions and
incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state
financing and subsidy programs when available and the utilization
of moneys in a Low and Moderate Income Housing Find of an agency if
the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant
to the Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with
Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code). In order to make
adequate provision for. the housing needs of-all economic segments
of the community, the program shall do all of the following:
(1) Identify adequate sites which will be made available
through appropriate zoning and development standards and with
public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage
the development of a variety of types of housing for all income
levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built
housing, mobilehomes, emergency shelters, and transitional housing
in order to meet the community's housing goals as identified in
(2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the
needs of low- and moderate-income households.
(3) Address and; where-appropriate and legally passible,
remove .governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement,
and development of housing.
(4) Conserve and improve the condition of-the existing
affordable housing stock, .which may include addressing ways to
action•
(5) Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless
of race, religion, sex; marital status, ancestry, national origin,
or color.
(6) ~ Preserve for lower income households the assisted
housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (8) of
subdivision (a). The program for preservation of the assisted
4
UU_';7~
housing developments shall. utilize, to the extent necessary, all
available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs
identified in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a), except where a
community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding
sources are not available. The program may include strategies that
involve local regulation and technical assistance.
j~Z The program shall include an identification of the
agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the
various actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved
with other general plan elements and community goals. The local
government shall make. a diligent effort to achieve public
participation of all economic segments of the community in the
development of the housing element, and the program shall describe
this effort.
(d) The analysis and program for preserving assisted housing
developments required by the amendments to this section enacted by
the Statutes of 1989 shall be adopted as an amendment to the
housing element by July 1, 1992.
(e) Failure of the department to review and report its
findings pursuant to Section 65585 to the local government between
July 1, 1992, and the next periodic review and revision required by
Section 65588, concerning the housing element amendment required by
the amendments to this section by the Statutes of 1989, shall not
be used as a basis for allocation or denial of any housing
assistance administered pursuant to Part 2 (commencing with Section
50400) of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code.
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1691, § 3, eff. Sept 30, 1984;
Amended by Stats. 2986, Ch. 1383, § 2; Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch.
1140, § 2; Amended by Stats. 1989, Ch. 1451, § 1.5; Amended. by
Scats. 1991, Ch. 730 (A.B. 1929), § l; Amended by Stats. 1991, Ch.
889 (S.B. 1019), § 2.)
Hote: Stats. 1984, Ch. 1691, also reads:
SEC. .1. The Legislature finds and declares that because of
economic, physical, .and mental conditions that are beyond their
control, thousands of individuals and families in California are
homeless. Churches, local governments, and nonprofit organizations
providing assistance to the homeless have been overwhelmed by a new
class of homeless: families with children, individuals with
employable skills, and formerly. middle-class families and
individuals with long work histories.
The programs provided bt the state, local, and federal
governments, and by private institutions, have been unable to meet
existing needs and further action is necessary. The Legislature
finds and declares that two levels of housing assistance are
needed: an emergency fund to supplement temporary shelter programs,.
and a fund to facilitate the preservation of existing housing and
the creation of new housing units affordable to very low income
households. It is in the .public interest for the State of
California to provide this assistance.
The Legislature further finds and declares that there is a
need for more information.on the numbers of homeless and the causes
5
~~,
VU~~~1
of homelessness, and for systematic exploration of more
comprehensive solutions to the problem. Both local and state
government have a role to play in identifying, understanding, and
devising solutions to the problem of homelessness.
Hoto: Scats. 1986, Ch. 1383, also reads:
SEC. 3. The amendments to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of
Section 65583 oP the Government Code made by the act adding this
section during the 1986 Regular Session of the Legislature shall
require an identification of sites for emergency shelters and
transitional housing by January 1,.1988, or by the next periodic
review of a housing element pursuant to Section 65588 of the
Government Code, whichever is later, in order to give local
governments adequate time to plan for, and to assist in the
development of, housing._for_homeless_persons,__iE.it.is.determined
that there is a need for emergency shelter pursuant to paragraph
(6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 of the Government Code.
65584. (a) For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the
share of a city or county of the regional housing needs includes
that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels
within. the area significantly affected by a general plan of the
city or county. The distribution of regional housing needs shall,
based upon available data, take into consideration market demand
for housing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable
sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of
housing need, the loss of units contained in assisted housing
developments, as defined in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of
Section 65583, that changed to non-low-income. use through mortgage
prepayment, subsidy contract expirations, or termination of use
restrictions, and the housing needs of farmworkers. The
distribution shall seek to reduce the concentration of lower income
households in cities or counties which already have
disproportionately-high proportions of lower income households.
Based upon data provided by the Department of Finance, in
consultation with each council of government, the Department of
Housing and Community Development shall determine the regional
share of the statewide housing need at least two years prior to the
second revision, and all subsequent revisions as required pursuant
to Section 65588. Based upon data provided by the department
relative to the statewide need for housing, each council of
governments shall determine the existing and projected housing need
for its region. Within 30 days following notification of this
determination, the department shall ensure that this determination
is consistent with the statewide housing need. The department may
revise the determination of the council of governments if necessary
_„~.~
ilU_+Jw
lecislative body.
to obtain this consistency. The appropriate council of governments
shall determine the share for each city or county consistent with
the criteria of this subdivision and with the advice of the
department subject to the procedure established pursuant to
subdivision (c) at least one year prior to the second revision, and
at five-year intervals following the second revision pursuant to
Section 65588. The council of governments shall submit to the
department information regarding the assumptions and methodology to
be used in allocating the regional housing need. As part of the
allocation of the regional housing need, the .council of
governments, or the department pursuant to subdivision (b), shall
provide each city and county with data describing the assumptions
and methodology used in calculating its share of the regional
housing need. The department shall submit to each council of
governments information regarding_xhe_assumptions•and methodology
to be used in allocating the regional share of the statewide
housing need. As part of its determination of the regional share
of the statewide housing need, the department shall provide each
council of governments with data describing the assumptions and
methodology used in calculating its share of the statewide housing
need. The councils of governments shall provide each city and
county with the department's information.
(b) For areas with no council of governments,-the department
shall determine housing market areas and define the regional
housing need for cities and counties within these areas pursuant to
the provisions for the distribution of regional housing needs in
subdivision (a). Where the 3epartment determines that a city or
county possesses the capability and resources and has agreed to
accept the responsibility, with respect to its jurisdiction, for
the identification and determination of housing market areas and
regional housing needs, the department shall delegate this
responsibility to the cities and counties within these areas.
(cj (1) Within 90 days following a determination of a council
of governments pursuant to subdivision (a), or the department's
determination pursuant to subdivision (b), a city or county may
propose to revise the determination of its share of the regional
housing need in accordance with the considerations set forth in
subdivision (a). The proposed revised share shall be based upon.
available data and accepted planning methodology, and supported by
adequate documentation.
(2) Within 60 days after the time period for the revision by
the city or county, the council of governments or the department,
as the case may be, shall accept the proposed revision, modify its
earlier determination, or indicate,. based upon available data and
accepted planning methodology, why the proposed revision is
inconsistent with the regional housing need.
(A) If the council of governments or the department, as the
case may be, does not zccept the proposed revision, then the city
or county shall have the right to request a public hearing to
review the determination within 30 days.
(B) The city or county shall be notified within 30 days by
certified mail, return receipt requested, of at least one public
7
VU;;~~
hearing regarding the determination. .•
(C) The date of the hearing shall be at least 30 days from the
date of the notification.
(D) Before making its final determination, the council of
governments or the department, as the case may be, shall consider
comments, recommendations, available data, accepted planning
methodology, and local geological and topographic restraints on the
production of housing.
(3} If the council of governments oz the department accepts
the proposed revision or modifies its earlier determination, the
city or county shall use that share. Zf the council of governments
or the department grant a revised allocation pursuant to paragraph
(1), the council of governments or the department shall ensure that
the cuzrent total housing need is maintained. If the council of
governments or department_ indicates_.that__the_.proposed xevision is
inconsistent with the regional housing need, the city or county
shall use the share which was originally determined by the council
of governments or the department.
(4) The determination of the council of governments or the
department, as the case may be, shall be subject to judicial review
pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(5) The council of governments or the department shall reduce
the share of regional housing needs of a county if all of the
following conditions are met:
(A) one or more cities within the county agree to increase its
share its share or their shares in an amount which will make up for
the reduction.
(B) The transfer of shares shall only occur between a county
and cities within that county.
(C) The county's share of low-income and very low income
housing shall be reduced only in .proportion to the amount by which
the county's share of moderate- and above moderate-income housing
is reduced.
(D) The council of governments or the department, whichever
assigned the county's share, shall have authority over the approval
of the proposed reduction, taking into consideration the criteria
of subdivision (a) of Section 65584.
(6) The housing element shall contain an analysis of the
factors. and circumstances, with all supporting data, justifying the
revision. All materials and data -used to justify any revision
shall be made available upon request by any interested party within
seven days upon payment of reasonable costs of reproduction unless
the costs are waived due to economic hardship.
(d)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any ordinance,
policy, or standard of a city or county which directly limits, by
number, the building permits which may be issued for residential
construction, or which limits for a set period of time the number
of buildable lots which may be developed for residential purposes,
shall not be a justification for a determination or a reduction in
the share of a city or county of the regional housing need.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any city or county which
imposes a moratorium on residential construction for a set period
8
,,; ,~
vu' y
of time in order to preserve and protect the public health and
safety. If a moratorium is in effect, the city or county shall,
prior to a revision pursuant to subdivision (c), adopt findings
which specifically describe the threat to the public health and
safety and the reasons why construction of the number of units
specified as its share of the regional housing need would prevent
the mitigation of that threat.
(e) Any authority to review and revise the share of a city or
county of the regional housing need granted under this section
shall not constitute authority to revise, approve, or disapprove
the manner in which the share of the city or county of the regional
housing need is implemented through-its housing program.
(f) A fee may be charged interested parties for any additional
costs caused by the amendments made to subdivision (c) by Chapter
1684 of the Statutes of 1984 reducing from 45 to seven days the
time within which materials and data shall be made available to
interested parties.
(g) Determinations made by the department, a council of
governments, or a city or county pursuant to this section are
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public
Resources Code.
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1684, Amended Stats. 1989, Ch.
1451. Amended Stats. 1990, Ch. 1441)
65585. {a) In preparation of its housing element, each city and
county shall consider the guidelines adopted by the department
pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health and Safety Code. Those
guidelines shall be advisory to each city or county in the
preparation of its housing element.
{b) At least 90 days prior to adoption of its housing element,
or at least 45 days prior to the adoption of an amendment to this
element; the planning agency shall submit a draft element or draft
amendment to the department. The department shall review the
draft and report its written findings to the planning agency within
90 days of its receipt of the draft in the case of an adoption or
within 45 days of its receipt in the case of a draft amendment.
(c) In the preparation of its findings, the department may
consult with any public agency, group, or person. The department
shall receive and consider any .written comments from any public
agency, group, or person regarding the draft or adopted element or
amendment under review.
(d) In its written findings, the department shall determine
whether the draft element or draft amendment substantially complies
with the requirements of this article.
(e} Prior to the adoption of its draft element or draft
amendment, the legislative body shall consider the findings made by
the department. Zf the department's findings are not available
within the time limits set by this section, the legislative body
may act without them.
(f) If the department finds that the draft element or draft
amendment does not substantially comply with the requirements of
9
Uu~~J~
this article, the legislative body shall take one of the following '
actions:
(1) Change the draft element or draft amendment to
substantially comply with the requirements of this article.
(2) Adopt the draft element or draft amendment without
changes. The legislative body shall include in its resolution of
adoption written findings which explain the reasons the legislative
body believes that the. draft element or draft amendment
substantially complies with the requirements of this article
despite the findings of the department.
(g) Promptly following the adoption of its element or
amendment, the planning agency- shall submit a copy to the
department.
(h) The department shall, within 120 days, review adopted
housing elements or• amendments_.and_report its findings to the
planning agency.
(Amended by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1250 [effective January 1, 1984);
Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009, Amended Stats. 1990, Ch. 1441)
65586. Local governments shall conform their housing elements to
the provisions of this article on or before October 1, 1981.
Jurisdictions with housing elements adopted before October 1, 1981,
in conformity with the housing element guidelines adopted by the
Department of Housing and Community Development on December 7,
1977, and located in Subchapter 3.(commencing with Section 6300) of
Chapter 6 of Part 1 of Title 25 of the California Administrative
Code [repealed in 1982), shall be deemed in compliance with this
article as of its effective date. A locality with a housing
element found to be adequate by the department before October 1,
1981, shall be deemed in conformity with these guidelines,
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.).
65587. (a) Each city, county, or city and county shall bring its
housing element, as required by subdivision (c) of Section 65302,
into Conformity with the requirements of this article on or before
October 1, 1981, and the deadlines set by section 65588. Except as
specifically provided in subdivision (b) of Seetion 65361, the
Director of Planning and Research shall not grant an extension of
time from these requirements.
(b) Any action brought by any interested party to review the
conformity with the provisions of this article of any housing
element or portion thereof or revision thereto shall be brought
pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the
court's review of compliance with the provisions of this article
shall extend to whether the housing element or portion thereof or
revision thereto substantially complies with the requirements of
this article.
(c} If a court finds that an action of a city, county, or city
and county, which is required to be consistent with its general
plan, does not comply with its housing element, the city, county,
or city and county shall bring its action into compliance within 60
days. However the court shall retain jurisdiction through out the
10
„ ,,
VU.;:1V
period for compliance to enforce its decision. Upon the court's
determination that the 60-day period for compliance would place an
undue hardship on the city, county, or city and county, the court
may extend the time period for compliance by an addition 60 days.
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009. Amended Stats. 1990, Ch.
1441)
Hota: Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009, also rends:
SEC. 44. It is the intent of the Legislature that the term
"substantially complies," as used in subdivision (b) of Section
65587, be given the same interpretation as was given that term by
the court in Camp v. Board of-Supervisors, 123 Cal. App. 3d. 334,
348, [176 Cal. Rptr. 620, 629).
55587.1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that.local.policies
and programs which increase housing opportunities through a
tax-exempt revenue bond program or through a requirement that the
approval of a housing related project be tied to the provision of
assistance for housing are consistent with the intent of this
article. The Legislature further finds and declares that actions
which have the effect of impeding or halting such policies and
Programs or the direct production of housing run contrary to the
goals of increased housing opportunities and balanced commercial
and residential development embodied in this article.
(b) Not withstanding any other provision of law, neither a
mortgage revenue bond program subject to subdivision (b) of Section
52053.5 of the Health and Safety Code nor a local approval, made
prior to May 1, 1983, of a housing related project shall be
invalidated due to the failure or alleged failure of a city and
county to comply with this .article, subdivision {c) of Section
65302 of the Government Code, or any regulations or guidelines
adopted pursuant thereto, or any other provision of law require
consistency with the housing element of a local general plan. For
purposes of this section, a "housing related project" means (a) a
residential project or (b) a nonresidential project, the local
approval of which was conditioned upon the nonresidential developer
(1) developing or rehabilitating or causing to be developed or
rehabilitated housing units, or (2) providing funds for the
development or rehabilitation of housing units, or (3) investing in
a mortgage revenue bond program subject to subdivision (b) of
Section 52053.5 of the Health and Safety Code, under a formula or
guidelines adopted by the planning commission or local governing
body of the city and county. For purposes of this section, "housing
related project" shall not include a project, the construction or
development of which requires either the demolition or conversion
of low- or moderate-rental residential units and local approval of
which does not provide for the replacement of such units and for
the maintenance in such units of rents affordable for low- and
moderate-income persons for a period of not less than 20 years.
(Added by Stats. 1982, Ch. 312. Effective June 28, 1982.)
11
Uu~~Ji
65588. (a) Each local government shall review its housing element
as frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following:
(1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and
policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing
goal.
(2) The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of
the community's housing goals and objectives.
(3) The progress of the-city, county, or city and county in
implementation of the housing element.
(b) The housing element shall be revised as appropriate, but
not less than every five years, to reflect the results of this
.periodic review.
2n order to facilitate effective review by the department of
housing elements, local governments following shall prepare and
adopt the first two. revisions. of. their. housing elements no later
than the dates specified in the following schedule, notwithstanding
the date of adoption of the housing elements in existence on the
effective date of the act which amended this section during the
1983-84 session of the Legislature.
(1) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the
Southern California Association of Governments: July 1, 1984, for
the first revision and July 1, 1989, for the second revision.
(2) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the
Association of Bay Area Governments: January 1, 1985, for the first
revision, and July 1, 1990, for the second revision.
(3) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the
San Diego Association of Governments, the Council of Fresno County
Governments, the Kern County Council of Governments, the Sacramento
Council of Governments, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments: July 1, 1985, for the first revision, and July .1,
1991, for the second revision.
(4) All other local governments: January 1, 1986, for the
first revision, and July 1, 1992, for the second revision.
(5) Subsequent revisions shall be completed not less often
than at five-year intervals following the second revision.
(c) The review and revision of housing elements required by
this section shall take into account any low- or moderate-income
housing which has been provided or required pursuant to Section
65590.
(d) The review pursuant to subdivision (c) shall include, but
need not be limited to, the following:
(1) The number of new housing units approved for construction
vithin the coastal zone after January 1, 1992.
(2) The number of housing units for persons and families of
low income or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the
Health and Safety Code, required to be provided in new housing
developments either within the coastal zone or within three miles
of the coastal zone pursuant to Section 65590.
{3 ). The number of existing residential dwelling units occupied
by persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in
Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, that have been
authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1, 1982, in
12
„,
Uv.,;Ju'
the Coastal zone.
(4) The number of residential dwelling units for persons and
families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 'of
the Health and Safety Code, that have been required for replacement
or authorized to be converted or demolished as identified in
paragraph (3). The location of the replacement units, either
onsite, elsewhere within the locality's jurisdiction within the
eoastal zone, or within three miles of the coastal zone within the
locality's jurisdiction, shall be designated in the review.
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 208. Effective June 20, 1984)
(Added by Stats. 1991, Ch. 889 (S.S. 1019), § 3.)
[For your information, Section 65400 is included at the end of this
document]
55589. (a) Nothing in this article shall require a city, county, or
city and county to do any of the following:
{1} Expend local revenues for the construction of housing,
housing, housing subsidies, or land acquisition.
(2) Disapprove any residential development which is consistent
with the general plan.
(b) Nothing in this article shall be construed to be a grant
of authority or a repeal of any authority which may exist of a
local government to impose rent controls or restrictions on the
sale of property.
(c) Nothing in this article shall be construed to be a grant
of authority or a repeal of any authority which may exist of a
local.government with respect to measures that may be undertaken or
required by a local government to be undertaken to implement the
housing element of the local general plan.
(d) The provisions of this article shall be construed
consistent with, and in promotion of, the statewide goal of a
sufficient supply of decent housing to .meet the needs of all
Californians.
(Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.)
65589.3. In any action filed on or after January 1, 1991, taken to
challenge the validity of a housing element, there shall be a
rebuttable presumption of the validity of the element or amendment
if, pursuant to Section 65585, the department has found that the
element or amendment substantially complies with the requirements
of this article.
(Added by Stats. 1990, Ch. 1441).
65589.5. (a) The Legislature finds all of the following:
(1) The Lack of affordable housing is a critical problem which
threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life
13
UU_,;j~
in California.
(2) California housing has become the most expensive in .the
nation. The excessive cost of the state's housing supply is
partially caused by activities and policies of many local
governments which limit the approval oP affordable housing,
increase the cost of land for affordable housing, and require that
high fees and exactions be paid by producers of potentially
affordable housing.
(3) Among the consequences of these actions are discrimination
against low-income and minority households,. lack of housing to
support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced
mobility, urban sprawly excessive commuting, and air quality
deterioration.
(4) Many local governments do not give adequate attention to
the economic, environmental, and social costs of .decisions which
result in disapproval of affordable housing projects, reduction in
density of affordable housing projects, and excessive standards for
affordable housing projects.
(b) It is the policy the state that a local government not
reject or make infeasible affordable housing developments which
contribute to meeting the housing need determined pursuant to this
article without a through analysis of the economic, social, and
environmental effects of the action and without meeting the
provisions of subdivision (c).
(c) The Legislature also- recognizes that. premature and
unnecessary development of agriculture lands to urban uses
continues to have adverse effects on the availability of such lands
for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state.
Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should
be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in
implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to
the maximum extent practicable, infilling existing urban areas.
(d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development
project affordable to low- and moderate-income households ar
condition approval in a manner which renders the project infeasible
for development for use of low- and moderate-income households
unless it .finds, based -upon substantial evidence, one of the
following:
(1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to
this article and the development project is not needed for the
jurisdiction to meet its share of the regional housing need of
low-income housing.
(2) The development project as proposed would have a
specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and
there is no feasible method to satisfactory mitigate or avoid the
specific adverse impact without rendering the development
unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.
(3) The denial o: the project or imposition of conditions is
required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and
there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the
development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.
(4) Approval of the development project would increase the
14
UViOV
concentration of lower income households in a neighborhood that
already has a disproportionately high number of lower income
households and there is no feasible method of approving the
development at a different site, including those sites identified
pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583,
without rendezinq the development unaffordable to low- and
moderate-income households.
(5) The development project is proposed on land zoned for
agricultural az resource preservation which is surrounded on at
least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resources
preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or
wastewater facilities to serve-tha-proj~ect:
(6) The development project is inconsistent with the
jurisdiction's general plan land use designation as specified in
any element of the general.. plan as . it .existed _: on .the ..date the
application was deemed complete, and the jurisdiction has adopted
a housing element pursuant to this article.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the
local agency from complying with the provisions of the Congestion
Management Program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section
65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code or the
provisions of the California Coastal Act, Division 20 (commencing
with Section 30000) of the Rtblic Resources Code. Neither shall
anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency
from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to
Section 22081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying
with the Environmental Quality Act, Division 13 (commencing with
Section 21000) of the Public-Resources Code.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a
local agency from requiring the development project to comply with
development standards and policies appropriate to and consistent
with meeting the quantified objectives relative to the development
of housing, as required in the housing element pursuant to
subdivision (b) of Section 65583. Nor shall anything in this
section be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees
and other exactions otherwise authorized by law which are essential
to provide necessary public services and facilities to the
development project.
(g) This section shall be applicable to charter cities,
because the Legislature finds that-the lack of affordable housing
is a critical statewide problem.
(h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this
section:
(1) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time taking into
account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(2) "Affordable to low- and moderate-income households" means
at least 20 percent of. the total units shall be sold or rented to
lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the
Health and Safety Code, and the remaining units shall be sold or
rented to eithez lower income households or persons and families of
moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and
15
VU~Ui
Safety Code. Housing units targeted for lower income households
shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not
exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income with
adjustments for household size made in accordance with adjustment
factors on which the lower income eligibility limits are based.
Housing units targeted for persons and families of moderate income
shall be made available at a monthly housing cost that does not
exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income with
adjustments for household size made in accordance with the
adjustment factors on-which the moderate income eligibility limits
are based. "Area median income" shall mean are median income as
periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community
Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety
Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal commitments to
ensure continued availability. of units for the lower income
households in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision
for 30 years.
(3) "Neighborhood" means a planning area commonly identified
as-such in a community's planning documents, and identified as a
neighborhood. by the individuals residing and working within the
neighborhood. Documentation demonstrating that the area meets the
definition of neighborhood may include a map prepared for planning
purposes which lists the name and boundaries of the neighborhood.
(i) 2f any city, county, or city and county denies approval or
imposes restrictions, including a reduction of allowable densities
or the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or
structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the
time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943,
which have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or
affordability of a housing development affordable to .low- .and
moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or
the imposition of restrictions on the development is the subject of
a court action which challenges the denial,. then the burden of
proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its
decision is consistent with the findings 'as described in
subdivisions (c).
(j) when a proposed housing development project complies with
the applicable general plan, zoning, development policies in effect
at the time that the housing development project's application is
determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to
disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the
project be' developed at a lower density, the local agency shall
base its decision regarding the proposed housing development
project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on
the recozd that both of the following conditions exist:
(1) The housing development project would have a specific
adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project
is disapproved or apFroved upon the condition that the project be
developed at a lower density.
(2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or
avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1),
other than the disapproval of the housing development project or
16
Vu_<Uti
the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed
at a lower density. '
(Added by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1438, Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch.
1439)
65589.6. In any action taken to challenge the. validity of a
decision by a city, county, or city and county to disapprove a
project or approve a project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density pursuant to Section 65589.5, the city,
county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof that its
decision has conformed to all of the conditions specified in
Section 65589.5.
(Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1104..)
17
~~=U~
sunDlier for resale.
(Added by Stats. 1991, Ch. 889 (S.B. 1019), g 4.)
65589.8. A local government which adopts a requirement in its
housing element that a housing development contain a fixed
percentage of affordable housing units, shall permit a developer to
satisfy all or portion or that requirement by constructing rental
housing at affordable monthly rents, as determined by local
government.
Nothing in-this section shall be construed to expand or
contract the authority of a local government to adopt an ordinance,
charter amendment, or policy requiring that any housing development
contain a fixed percentage of affordable housing units.
(Added by Stets. 1963, Ch. 787.)
Health and Safety Code
50459. (a) The department.may.adopt,...and_.f=om_time_to time revise,
guidelines for the. preparation of housing elements required by
Section 65302 and Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of
Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(b) The department .shall review housing elements and
amendments for substantial compliance with Article 10.6 (commencing
with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the
Government Code and report its findings pursuant to Section 65585
of the Government Code.
(c) On or before December 31, 1991, and annually thereafter,
the department shall report to the Legislature on the status of
housing elements and the extent to which they comply with the
requirements od Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of
Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. The
department shall also make this report available to any other
public agency, group, or person who requests a copy.
(d) The department may, in connection with any loan or grant
application submitted to the agency, require submission to the
department fore review of any housing element and any local housing
assistance plan adopted pursuant to the housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-383)[42 II.S.C.A. Section
5301 et. seq.J
(Added by Stets. 1977, Ch. 610, Amended by Stets. 1983, Ch.
101, Amended by Stets. 1985, Ch. 675, Amended by Stets. 1990, Ch.
1441.)
18
UU_J4
General Plea Law
65400. After the legislative body has adopted all or part of a
general plan, the planning agency shall do both of the following:
(a) Investigate and make recommendations to the legislative
body regarding reasonable and practical means for implementing the
general plan-or element of the general plan, so that it will serve
as an effective -guide for orderly growth and development,
preservation and conservation of open-space land and natural
resources, and the efficient expenditure of public finds relating
to the subjects addressed in the general plan.
(b) Provide an annual report to the legislative body on the
status of the plan and progress in its implementation, including
the progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs
determined pursuant.. to. Section_.65584 __ _ _. _ _ . _. . .
(Amended by Stats. 1984,- Ch. fi90, § 5.5; Stats. 1984, Ch.
1009, § 14; Stats. 1990, Ch. 1441 (S.B. 2274), § 2.)
19
VU.~UJ
ATTACHMENT G
UU?UU
EVALUATION OF
EFFECTIVENESS OF 1983 HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS AND POLICIES
Section $5588 (a)(1) and (2) of State Housing Element Law requires
that each local government review its housing element to evaluate
the following:
(1) the appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives in
policies in contributing to the attainment of the state
housing goal; and,
(2) its effectiveness in attainment of the community's housing
goals and objectives.
The purpose of this requirement is to provide a context for
reviewing the City's performance under the past Housing Element and
making appropriate adjustments to the goals, objectives, and
policies in the Housing Element update based upon this evaluation.
This report reviews the goals and objectives as set forth in the
City's 1983 Housing :Element and evaluates the City's progress in
achieving them.
I. Review of Progress in Contributing to State Housing Goal
Section 65580 of the Government Code articulates the housing goal
of the State of California as follows:
"The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance,
and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable
living environment for every California family is a priority
of the highest order."
The City's own housing goal, as stated in the 1983 Housing Element
is to,
Assure that Santa Monica meets the existing and projected
housing needs of all its residents and its regional
responsibilities for decent, affordable housing opportunities
for all social groups while maintaining an economically sound
and healthy environment.
Under the 1983 Housing Element, the City has implemented a variety
of aggressive programs to provide housing for all socio-economic
segments of the community. For e::ample, the City has an
inclusionary housing program which requires that a certain
percentage of all new multi-family housing development be
affordable to low and moderate income households; an office
1
Uv_Ui
development mitigation ,grogram which requires developers of new
office space to provide low-income housing or pay an in-lieu fee;
and, extensive programs to provide housing and services for the
homeless. These programs have served as models for other
jurisdictions in-the State to emulate. Furthermore, the City's
voter-approved Rent Control Charter Amendment has also served to
maintain rental housing that is affordable to the full-range of
income levels of City residents.
The City has attempted to balance the goal of providing new housing
for all income groups with the equally important goal of preserving
existing housing and neighborhoods. In particular, the City has
been successful in conducting a citywide survey of potentially
significant historical residential buildings and establishing
procedures to preserve and protect these structures.
The success of the City's programs in serving the State housing
goal is further demonstrated ih the following discussion, which
describes the City's progress concerning specific goals,
objectives, and policies in greater detail. It is important to
note that the 1983 Housing Element was adopted according to interim
guidelines established for the Regional Housing Allocation Model
(RHAM) in 1981. Under the 1981 RHAM, the applicable planning
period was 1981 through 1986.
II. Effectiveness in Meeting Housing Element Goals
The 1983 Housing Element established three sets of quantified goals
concerning rehabilitation needs, assistance needs, and growth
needs. The following .provides an evaluation of the City's
progress in meeting these goals.
A) Five-Year Rehabilitation Needs:
The 1983 Housing Element established the following goals for
housing rehabilitation:
Owner Households: 30
Renter Households: 760
Total 790
During the 1981-1986 period, the City was involved in the
rehabilitation of 441 units, including 196 units that were acquired
and rehabilitated, 220 that underwent minor rehabilitation, and 25
that underwent other types of rehabilitation. This represents
approximately 56 percent of the City's five-year rehabilitation
goal. Furthermore, these numbers do not include housing
rehabilitation which occurred as a result .of private initiative.
2
Uv_Uu
In an effort to expand rehabilitation efforts in Santa Monica, the
Draft Housing Element update contains new programs that are
designed to increase housing rehabilitation. For e:;ample, proposed
Program B-2.c calls for a citywide evaluation of housing conditions
and expansion of the CDBG funding programs to areas outside of the
Pico neighborhood. As well, proposed Program B-2.e is designed to
increase awareness of the Rent Control Board regulations which
allow funding of capital improvements through increased rents.
B) Five-Year Assistance Needs:
The Housing Element established the following goals for housing
assistance:
Owner Renter Total
Elderly 15 540 555
Small Family 10 670 680
Large Family 2 65 67
Total 27 1,275 1,302
On an annual basis, these goals would result in assistance to 108
elderly, 134 small family, and 13 small family households.
The following table shows the number of senior (elderly), small
family, and large family households which the City assisted each
year between 1981 and 1986 using Section 8 rental assistance.
Year Senior Sma11 Large
1981 256 137 48
1982 256 137 48
1983 256 137 48
1984 256 137 48
1985 258 146 48
1986 285 197 49
Total 1,282 841 289
Thus, City records show that the City's actual assistance to
elderly, small family and large family households surpassed its
goals during the planning period.
C) Growth Needs Estimate (KHAN):
According to the 1983 Housing Element, the Regional Housing
Allocation Model (ARAM) projected a net estimated need for 4,127
Uu_U~
housing units during the 1981 through 1986 period.. Of these, 2,298
represented the number of units needed to accommodate additional
population growth while the remaining 1,839 units represented the
number of additional units necessary to achieve an ideal vacancy
rate.
Concerning these RHAM housing needs estimates, the 1983 Adopted
Housing Element states that,
It should be noted that for a variety of reasons, the RHAM
growth need goals may be difficult to achieve. National,
regional and local economic, .social and legal factors could
significantly affect actual growth levels. Because of such
constraints, it is estimated that actual growth levels for the
1981-86 period will be from 1,500 to 2,500 new units
developed. (1983 Housing Element, page 47)
Thus, the 1983 Housing Element did not anticipate that the City
would be able to meet the growth needs estimated by the RHAM.
The Technical Analysis and Discussion for Proposition R, dated
September 16, 1991, indicates that between 1981 and 1986, 1,190 net
new units were constructed in the city (this report does not
indicate the proportion that were affordable to low- and moderate-
income-households).
During 1987, 1988, and 1989, the City added 227, 67, and 336 net
new units, respectively. This represents a total of 630 new units
during the 1987-1989 period. Added to the number of net new units
constructed between 1981 and 1986, this brings total net new
development during the 1981-1989 period to 1,820 net new units.
To increase the potential for residential development in the City,
the proposed Housing Element Update contains programs that would
promote the development of residential uses in non-residential
zones. In particular, Program A-l.a calls for providing for
residential development in commercial zones through mi:ied use
requirements, incentives, or other means; and, Program A-1.g calls
for studying the feasibility of allowing residential development in
portions of the C5 and Ml zones. Also, in order to increase the
supply of affordable housing in the City, proposed Program A-2.a
increases the inclusionary requirement for affordable housing from
15 to 30 percent.
II. Review of Progress in Meeting Housing Element Objectives
The 1983 Housing Element established seven main objectives. This
section reviews the City's progress in meeting these objectives.
Even though the 1983 Housing Element contains many goals that apply
specifically to the 1981-1986 planning period, effectively the
goals, policies, and programs of the 1983 Element were valid
4
_„
UV. V
through July, 1989 when the RHNA planning period began. Therefore,
unless the quantified objectives of the 1983 Housing Element were
explicitly tied to the 1981-1986 period, the evaluation of the
City's progress in meeting its objectives includes the three
additional years between 1986 and 1989.
Address the need for replacement of the estimated 1,500 rental
housing units demolished and converted in the years just prior
to rent control by promoting the development of new rental
housing.
City records reveal that between 1981 and 1986, 327 new
apartment units were constructed in the City. This represents
approximately 22 percent of the target number of replacement
units. Between 1987 and 1989, an additional 530 apartments
were constructed, bringing the total to 857, or about 57
percent of the estimated number of units demolished and
converted just prior to rent control.
Also during the planning period, the City takes credit for the
following accomplishments related to the production of rental
housing:
o Under the State Rental Housing Construction Program,
the City received $120,000 to assist in the development
of a six-unit multi-family project.
o The City's condominium conversion ordinance prohibits
conversion of e::isting rental units (with the exception
of units converted under the Tenant-Ownership Rights
Charter Amendment) to either condominiums or cooperatives
units until the supply of rental housing is equal to the
pre-1978 number of units and until the vacancy rate is
So. (Program B.1.b)
o To protect the city's affordable housing supply within
mobile home parks, the City established a new designation
for mobilehome parks (MHP) and designated two of its
three mobilehome parks MHP to protect them. (Program
B.l.c)
o The City has used funds provided through the California
Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) Revenue Bond Program to
assist 108 lower income .units between 1984 and 1989.
Under the. proposed Housing Element update, City staff will
study the feasibility of providing a mechanism for replacing
rental units lost to demolition, conversion, or other removals
(see Program B-l.d). Additionally, the City will continue to
work to prevent unjustified evictions pursuant to the Rent
Control Charter Amendment (see Program B-l.f). Although not
S
r ~ .
Uu_ 1
specifically targeted for rental housing, proposed Programs A-
l a and A-l.g, which call for allowing residential uses in
non-residential zones, are intended to increase overall
production of housing in the city, including rental housing.
2. Promote the development of new housing units which are
affordable to all social and economic groups.
The City has made-the following accomplishments with respect
to the development of affordable housing:
o As of 1989, Community Corporation of Santa Monica had
developed 106 new affordable units.
o Between 1983 and 1989, the City approved three
development agreements resulting irk the construction of
111 units of rental housing (Program A.l.e}. Two
additional development agreements were approved during
this period, resulting in the prepayment of in lieu fees.
o In March, 1987, the City Council adopted an ordinance
requiring all new housing development which includes more
than five units to include rental units affordable to
households at or below the median for the city, or pay an
in lieu fee. As of 1989, 23 projects,. incorporating 37
affordable units, had been built.
o The City has established three redevelopment project
areas which are required under state law to set aside 20
percent of their tas increment to assist in the
production of housing affordable to low and moderate
income households. As of 1989, a total of 53,363,082 had
been spent to assist 269 low and moderate income
households/units.
o The City received 5778,000 from the federal Department
of Housing and Urban Development which was used to fund
construction of 43 units of housing affordable to lower
income households between 1981 and 1989.
o The city has adopted an office development mitigation
program which .requires developers of new commercial
office space in e:;cess of 15,000 square feet or addition
to existing development in e::cess of 10,000 square feet
to either provide low income housing or pay an in-lieu
fee. As of 1989, 62 units in sir, projects were
constructed and 52,844,668 in-lieu fees collected under
this program.
As part of the proposed Housing Element update, the City will
continue to implement the inclusionary housing program
(Program A.2.a) as well as the office mitigation fee program.
6
UU._iti
Pursuant to proposed Program A-2.e, the City will attempt to
procure funds for new housing through the HOME and H.O.P.E.
programs and develop a shared appreciation loan program for
low- and moderate- income buyers of units converted under the
Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment (TORCA).
As indicated previously, the City has increased the
inclusionary requirement for affordable housing from 15 to 30
percent under the inclusionary housing program (Program A-2.a)
in order to increase the supply of affordable housing, and
will attempt to provide increased opportunities for
residential development for all income groups through Program
A-l.a, which calls for providing for residential development
in commercial zones through mixed use requirements,
incentives, or other means, and Program A-l.g, which calls for
studying the feasibility of allowing residential development
in portions of the CS and M1 zones.
Address the affordable housing needs of existing residents
least able to pav.
The. City has accomplished the following with respect to
assisting low- and moderate-income households:
o The City continued to support the Rent Control Charter
Amendment throughout the planning period. The charter
amendment established an elected Rent Control Board to
regulate rental units in the City and ensure that rents
would not be increased unreasonably. Data from the 1980
and 1990 U.S. Census reveal that while the median home
price increased by 163 percent from $189,800 to $500,001,
the median rent increased from by only 66 percent from
$319 to 5532.
o Between 1984 and 1989, forty units were rehabilitated
under the Rental Rehabilitation Program, which assists
private owners of rental housing to rehabilitate their
units while maintaining rents at an affordable level.
o Between 1981 and 1986, the City served 2,412 households
under. Section 8 Rental Assistance and Housing Voucher
programs funded by the federal government.
4.
Under the proposed Housing Element update, the City continues
to implement several existing programs to address the needs of
low- and moderate-income households and will attempt to
implement some new programs to address those needs, as
described in #3 above.
Develo ro rams romotin the rehabilitation and/or
replacement of the ,703 housing units which SCAG estimated as
Q in poor conaition.
_~
UV °!,~'j
o As of 1989, CCSM had rehabilitated 222 units for rental to
low and moderate income persons.
o Between 1983 and 1988, 952 units were rehabilitated using
Community Development Block Grant Funds (see Program B.2.a).
o The City received $200,000 from the California Deferred
Payment Rehabilitation Loan Program for the acquisition and
rehabilitation of a 25-unit apartment project.
As part of the Housing Element update, the City will continue to
work with owners. of unreinforced masonry structures to bring their
properties into compliance with seismic safety regulations while
simultaneously working to ensure that such upgrades do not
compromise housing affordability (see Program B-2.b). Also during
the planning period, the City will evaluate housing conditions
throughout the City with an eye towards making sure that all areas
in need are adequately served by rehabilitation programs.
Develop programs to eliminate overcrowding.
The City's Rent Control program has served to maintain rents
at reasonable levels, thus reducing the need for individuals
to share households. The 1990 U.S. Census shows that the
average households size has declined from 1.97 in 1980 to 1.88
in 1990. The reduction in average household size is
attributed in part to affordability of rents in Santa Monica.
Nevertheless, the number of overcrowded households has
increased from 2,061 in 1980 to 2,414 in 1990, particularly in
census tracts straddling the Santa Monica Freeway. Since
these census tract also have the lowest median incomes, it is
likely that the crowding is partly due to the inability of
households to afford a unit which would adequately accommodate
them. Thus, the City continues to lack low cost housing for
larger households.
Thus, rent control has. been effective in keeping rents
relatively low in the City compared to the County as a whole.
However, household overcrowding continues to be a problem in
the census tracts adjacent to the freeway. This suggests that
there is a continued need to address the housing needs of
large, low-income households.
In order to address the needs of larger households; the Draft
Housing Element includes Program A-l.h, which calls for
maintaining, improving, and developing housing for households with
special needs, including large families.
6. Alleviate the housing supply problems faced by families with
children.
UU_!4
Under the City's fair housing and non-discrimination programs,
the following accomplishments have been made: the Deputy City
Attorney for Consumer enforces the City's fair housing laws;
the West Side Fair Housing Council provides counseling and
investigates complaints of discrimination in Santa Monica;
and, the City imposes a standards condition of subdivision map
approval requiring the inclusion of anti-discrimination
clauses on the conditions, covenants and restrictions for new
projects in the City.
Under proposed Program A-l.h, the City will expand mandatory
requirements for private open space currently applicable only to
the Ocean Park and North of Wilshire districts to all residential
zones citywide in order to make multi-family housing more family-
friendly.
7. Promote programs which make home ownership a realistic
objective for persons of all income and social groups.
The City. adopted a Tenant Ownerships Rights Charter Amendment
(TORCA) in 1984 which allows the conversion of rental units to
ownership if two-thirds or more of the building's tenants
agree to the conversion and one-half or more intend to buy
their units. In order to assist low and moderate income
tenant to purchase their units, -the city also agreed to
establish an ownership assistance program to be funded by a
tax levied on units that are converted to condominium
ownership. As of 1988, the City had collected $844,801 for
use in this program.
A recent study of conversions occurring under the TORCA
program revealed that 256 units had converted through 1989.
The study also showed that, upon first sale, approximately 10
percent of the TORCA units are affordable to very low-, and
low-income households while another 40 percent are affordable
to median- and moderate-income households. This is a
substantial percentage, especially the fact that the median
prices for market-rate condominiums in Santa Monica are
affordable only to high-income households.
The proposed Housing Element update calls for the development of
a shared appreciation loan program for low- and moderate-income
buyers of TORCA units in order to increase the opportunities for
low- and moderate-.income households to purchase their units.
f:ppd\tadr\hsngelmt\5yrgoals
9
vu_!~
UV_~u
ATTACHMENT H
UU!__°i
RHNA PROGRESS REPORT
July, 1993
Prepared by:
City of Santa Monica
Program and Policy Development Division
INTRODUCTION
As a result of recent state legislation, the City is now required
to prepare an annual report to the City Council concerning the
City's progress in achieving the City's estimated regional housing
needs. This report outlines the new State requirements and
provides the information required by the state law.
BACKGROUND
Under state law, each association of governments in California is
responsible for estimating five-year housing needs for the region
as a whole and each locality within the region. The housing
estimates for the City of Santa Monica for the period between July
1, 1989 and July 1, 1994 are contained in the December, 19.88
Regional Housing Needs Assessment, prepared by the Southern
California Association of Governments. These estimates indicate
that the City of Santa Monica has an estimated need for 3,220 net
new units during this planning period.
It should be noted that, under State law, the City is not required
to have quantified objectives for housing production that are
identical to the RHNA-estimated need. In fact, Section 65583 (b)
1
UV_!ti
(2) specifically states that,
It is recognized that the total housing needs identified
pursuant to subdivision (a) may e:;ceed available resources and
the community's ability to satisfy this need within the
content of the general plan requirement outlined in Article 5
(commencing with Section 65300). Under these circumstances,
the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total
housing needs.
Thus, the quantified objectives of the Housing Element may be (and,
in the case of Santa Monica's April, 1993 Draft Housing Element,
are) lower than the RHNA estimate..
As a result of recent Senate Bills 2274 and 1019, the State of
California now requires. that each local jurisdiction submit an
annual report to its legislative body concerning the City's
progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs. A copy of
this report must also be submitted to the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD).
According to HCD, the progress report should include. the following
information.
1) Determine net housing units added in the reporting year.
This should include estimates of the number of units completed
and removed.
2
UU=!
2) Determine affordability characteristics of units added in
the reporting year.
ANALYSIS
As shown in Table 1, the City of Santa Monica has an estimated need
for 3,220 net new units during the current five year planning
period. Of these, 17.7 percent of these new units should be
affordable to very low income households, 24.4 percent to low
income households, 19.1 percent to moderate income households, and
38.9 percent to above moderate income households (see column two).
Table l also shows the proportion of this estimated need that has
been met so far. Based upon Certificates of Occupancy issued
between July 1, 1989 and May 5, 1993, the City has constructed
1,136 new units (see Table lA). However, during the same period,
the City issued demolition permits for 351 dwelling units, yielding
a net number of new units at 785. This represents 24.4 percent of
the estimated need.
Of the 785 net new units, 79, or 10.1 percent, are affordable to
very low income households; 47, or 6 percent, are affordable to low
income households; 29, or 3.7 percent, are affordable to moderate
income households; and 630, or 80.3 percent, are affordable to
above moderate income households (see Table 1B). It should be
noted that an additional 33 very low income units are expected to
receive a certificate of occupancy in the very near future.
3
~u_~;~?
TABLE 1
Very Low (<=60%)
Low (>60%,<=80%j
Moderate (>80%,<=120%)
Above Mod (>120%)
TOTALS
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PROGRESS REPORT*
As of May 5, 1993
Estmtd Need % Total Net New %Estmtd Remaining
'89-'94 in Each Units for Need Need
(RHNA) Income Rprtng Prd. Met
Group
569 17.7% 79 13.9% 490
785 24.4% 47 6.0% 738
615 19.1 % 29 4.7% 586
1251 38.9% 630 50.4% 621
3220 100.0% 785 24.4% :2435
*Based upon Certificates of Occupancy Issued between July 1, 1989 and May 5, 1993.
TABLE 1A
NET NEW CONSTRUCTION*
Number of Units Completed 1136
Number of Units Removed 351
Net New Units Constructed 785
*Based upon Certificates of Occupany issued between Jul 1, 1989 and May 5, 1993.
TABLE iB
PERCENT UNITS BUILT W(I
EACH INCOME CATEGORY
# OF UNITS I % OF UNITS
Very Low (<=60%) 79 10.1%
Low.(>60%,<=80%) 47~ 6.0%~
Moderate (>80%,<=120%) 29i 3.7%
Above Mod (>120%) 630 80.3%
TOTAL 785 100.0%
123/R2.3\RHNA93
U ll ._ ~:. l
CONCLUSION
Based upon Certificates of Occupancy as of May 5, 1993 the City has
met approximately 25 percent of its RHNA-estimated housing need for
the July, 1989 through July, 1992 planning period.
c:\wp51\RHNAInf
4
UU~,;~
ATTACHMENT I
e/ U ~ r„""
M E M O R A N D II M
PROGRAM & POLICY DEVELOPMENT DZDZSION
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DATE: August 16, 1993
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Program and Policy Development Division Staff
SUBJECT:- Additional Information Requested by Planning
Commissioners
In response to a request by Planning Commissioners, this memorandum
provides additional information concerning the Santa Monica Housing
Council (SMHC). SMHC has submitted extensive comments on the
Housing Element Update and EIR.
As stated in the attached declaration signed by -SMHC president
Robert J. Sullivan, SMHC is a non-profit organization whose purpose
is,
to support legal and other efforts to defend the rights of
property owners from abuse of governmental agencies, to
educate the general public regarding the rights of private
property owners, and to advance and promote the common
business interests and opportunities of private property
owners, including owners of residential rental properties in
Santa Monica.
The attached declaration explains in more detail the purpose of the
SMHC.
Attachment: March 8, 1992 Declaration of Robert J. Sullivan
hsmgelmt\mem4
_„
UU_,:e
i
1
DECLARATION OF ROBERT J SULLIVAN
2 ..
3
I, ROBERT J. SULLIVAN, declare as follows:
4
1. I am the president of plaintiff SANTA MONICA HOUSING
5
COUNCIL ("SMHC") and am authorized to and do make this declaration
6
on its behalf. Z am also a resident of. Santa Monica, an.owner_-af
7
- residential rental property in Santa Monica, and.a taxpayer; and_am-
8
a plaintiff in the action entitled c'^*a Monica Housino~Councii v..
9
City of-Santa Monica-in my individual capacity.
10 ---
2. SMHC is_a California.non-profit corporation, the::puzpose
11
of which is to support legal and other efforts to defend the rights
12
of property owners from abuse of. governmental agencies, to. educate..
13
the general public regarding the rights of private property owners,
14
and to advance and promote the. common business interests_.and.
15
opportunities of private property owners, including owners of
is
residential rental properties in Santa Monica.
17
3. SMHC is particularly concerned that defendant- CITY OF
18
SANTA MONICA (the "City") have a Housing Element as part of its
19
General Plan which includes programs to facilitate achievement of
20
the City's fair.- share regional. housing responsibility for.. new
21
housing, particularly since during the past decade the: City has.
22
provided less than 20 percent-of its fair share responsibility for
23
new housing.
24
4. SMHC is not formally a membership organization. However;
25
SMHC associates with. individuals that it refers to as °members", as
26
permitted by Corporations Code Section-7333. SMHC is intended_to
27
benefit, serve or assist- persons, in particular rental. property
28
owners in Santa Monica, in furtherance of its purpose as stated
ExH~Bir
L/v_~:J
i
1
2
3
4.
5'
i
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 I
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
above. SMHC solicits contributions from such property owners and
refers to them as "members".
5. SMHC is involved from time to time in lawsuits which
benefit and advance the common business interests of a certain
defined class of persons, namely residential rental property owners
whose properties are subject to restrictions imposed by local
jurisdictions in violation of law. Zt is SMHC's policy that SMHC
will not provide financial support to any lawsuit which, even if
successful, would not result in a ruling or decision of general
applicability to the class of persons SMHC intends to benefit and
protect.
6. As described in the Declaration of Christopher M. Harding
submitted herewith, for over a year SMHC has attempted to prevent
the City from violating California Housing Element Law by
eliminating incentives to affordable housing without compliance
with procedural requirements of California Housing Element Law.
Enforcement of Ordinance No. 1615(CCS) violates California Housing
Element Law to the public detriment and to the detriment of SMHC.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that the foregoing is within my personal
knowledge and is true and correct.
Dated: March ~, 1992
2EOEtA06.639
2
f
Uu._.:ie
ATTACHMENT J
_ ~. ~,
Uv _~.v
M E M O R A N D U M
PROGRAM ~ POLICY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
LAND IISE AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
-CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DATE: August 18, 1993
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Program and Policy Development Division Staff
SUBJECT: Additional Information Concerning Housing Element Update
INTRODUCTION
At its July 28th meeting on the Housing Element and accompanying
EIR, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and
continued its deliberations on the Housing Element update. This
report transmits the additional information requested by the
Planning Commission at the July 28, 1993 meeting.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue its
deliberations and forward a recommendation to the City Council to
1) adopt a resolution to approve the Housing Element Update as
submitted by staff; 2) adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the EIR; and, 3) adopt a resolution to certify
the Environmental Zmpact Report (EIR).
Among the additional types of information requested by the
Commission were the following: 1) information concerning the
number of cities with housing elements that have been certified by
the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); 2)
information concerning other cities!- progress in meeting their
RHNA-estimated housing need; 3) additional information concerning
the assumptions used in the EIR Alternatives Analysis of Ordinance
,1615; 4) data concerning development approvals in the City of
Santa Monica since the passage of Ordinance #1615; and, 5) data
relating to housing unit removal and rehabilitation under various
rent control. provisions, including Category D removals, removals
under the Ellis Act, petitions for rent increases to cover the
vu_::~
costs of capital improvements, and data concerning the incentive
housing program.
In any discussion of the City's current inclusionary housing
ordinance (Ordinance #1615), it is important to note that the
specific details of Ordinance #1615 are not part of the Housing
Element. The Housing Element's Program A-2.a incorporates only the
more general requirements of .Proposition R. Program A-2.a reads in
its entirety:
Develop an inclusionary zoning program requiring 30 percent of
all new multi-family units be affordable to low and moderate
income households. Of these units, 50 percent must be
affordable to low income households and 5o percent must be
affordable to moderate income households. (see April 1993
Draft Housing Element, page 112)
The City has acknowledged that there are various ways in which the
City could attempt to meet the mandate of Proposition R; Ordinance
#1615's current requirement regarding on-site and off-site
affordable units was the method the Council chose as its best
judgement as to how to reach this goal. By adopting the Housing
Element presently before the Planning Commission, the City in no
way limits itself to enacting a different Proposition R
implementation scheme at some time in the future should the Council
deem it appropriate to do so. In fact, the Housing. Element
specifically sets .forth as. a goal, "Periodically evaluate the
effectiveness of the Proposition R implementation ordinance to
evaluate its effectiveness in producing affordable housing." (see
revised April 1993 Draft Housing Element, page 113)
Threat of Litigation
At the July 28, 1993 Planning Commission hearing, the counsel for
Santa Monica Housing Council (SMHC) testified that the City risked
a lawsuit initiated by HCD should the City adopt the Housing
Element without HCD certification. However, according to HCD
staff, HCD has never initiated a lawsuit against a City which
adopted a Housing Element with Government Code authorized findings.
The Attorney General's Office, on behalf of HCD, recently sent
warning letters to numerous cities, but only cities which had
failed to submit any housing element at all to HCD for two planning
period (ten years). Therefore, the "threat of litigation" by HCD
should the Council follow staff recommendation appears extremely
remote, and would represent a marked change of practice by HCD.
SMHC, on the other hand, has threatened to sue the City over its
Housing Element should the City's inclusionary housing program
implementation remain the same.
2
UU_JV
Cities with Housing Elements Certified by HCD
According to a report published by HCD in June, 1992, 21 percent of
the local jurisdictions in California have adopted housing elements
in compliance with State law, and another 15 percent have adopted
housing elements out of compliance with state law. In other words,
the majority of cities do not have adopted housing elements, and
less than a quarter have housing elements which have been certified
by HCD.
Staff is still gathering information from other cities concerning
their difficulties in obtaining HCD certification and will present
this information at .the August 18th Planning Commission meeting.
Progress of Other. Cities in Meeting RHNA Goals
The Planning Commission requested information concerning other
cities' progress in meeting their regional housing (RHNA) needs.
Based upon a comparison of State Department of Finance (DOF)
dwelling unit estimates for January, 1988 and January, 1993, Table
1 shows the proportion of regional housing needs allocation that
has been met by each jurisdiction in Los Angeles County. The table
shows that while some cities, such as Avalon, La Canada, and
Monterrey Park have met or exceeded their RHNA allocation, others,
such as Culver City, Beverly Hills, and Long Beach have only met
10-12 percent of the estimated need. In addition, of the 85 cities
in Los Angeles County, Santa Monica had the 10th largest 1989-1994
RHNA. allocation. Cities with similar population density
(population per square mile) to Santa Monica such as Artesia,
Bellflower, Norwalk, Lomita, Alhambra and Rosemead were assigned
much lower RHNA allocations. With respect to actual housing
production, Santa Monica has exceeded the number of housing units
produced in surrounding cities, such as Culver City, Beverly Hills,
and Redondo Beach. In fact, Redondo Beach, which has almost
exactly the same RHNA allocation as Santa Monica, has produced only
267 units during the planning period.
Based upon certificates of occupancy issued between July 1, 1989
and May 5, 1993; the City of Santa Monica has produced 785 net new
units, or approximately 24 percent of its RHNA estimated need of
3,220 units for the planning period.
Assumptions Concerning Ordinance x`1615 Feasibility Pro Forma
The Commission asked staff to provide additional information
concerning some of the assumptions used in the economic feasibility
analysis of a 30 percent all on-site inclusionary housing
requirement. In particular, the Commission asked about the
assumptions concerning "soft costs", construction costs, and land
costs.
Regarding "soft costs" (i.e., architectural, engineering, planning,
3
_„
UV_.?1
TABLE 1
CITIES IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1989-1993 RHNA PROGRESS
Date: 8/14/93
CITY RHNA REQIIIREMENTS HOUSING PRODIICED BETWEEN PERCENT
JAN 1988-JAN 1993 OF
RHNA GOAL
AGOURA HILLS 1,650 728 44$
ALHAMBRA 2,098 789 38$
ARCADIA 805 518 64$
ARTESIA 256 -33 0
AVALON 218 334 153$
AZUSA 1,535. 673 44$
BALDWIN PARK 627 771 122$
BELL 315 92 29$
BELLFLOWER 2,239 584 26$
BELL GARDENS 128 110 86$
BEVERLY HILLS 835 861 11$
BRADBURY 28 -39 0
BURBANK 2,968 2,263 76$
CARSON 1,981 485 24$
CERRITOS 1,541 -76 0
CLAREMONT 802 -225 0
COMMERCE 8 6 71 8 2 $
COMPTON 2,374 -695 0
COVINA 976 200 20$
CUDAiiY 2 67 ° 15 4 0
CULVER CITY 1,313 1522 12$
DOWNEY 1,705 392 23$
DIIARTE 995 25 2$
EL MONTE 2,282 455 20$
EL SEGUNDO 1,112 206 18$
GARDENA 1,80$ 1,514 84$
GLENDALE 5,597 5,855 105$
GL'cNDORA 1,227 998 81$
HAWAIIAN GARDENS -519 94 18$
HAWTHORNE 4,977 1,654 33$
HERMOSA BEACH 513 -322 0
HIDDEN HILLS 46 23 50$
HUNTINGTON PARR 1,222 -784 0
INDUSTRY 94 56 59$
INGLc"WOOD 1,518 592 39$
IRWINDALE 34 15 44$
LA CANADA FLNTRG 266 -12 0
LA HABRA HEIGHTS 110 507 461$
n
UU _ ~~4
LAKEWOOD 1,173 455 39$
LA MIRADA 1,053 1,302 123$
LANDCASTER 11,735 9,507 81$
LA PUENTE 433 674 155$
LA VERNE 930 809 87$
LAWNDALE 1,027 624 61$
LOMITA 661 -253 0
LONG BEACH 12,382 1,3943 11$
LOS ANGELES 129,100 53,789 42$
LYNWOOD 453 -9
MANHATTAN BEACH 1,088 -392 0
MAYWOOD 293 -205 0
MONROVIA 927 725 78$
MONTEBELLO 951 506 53$
MONTEREY PARK 899 502 564$
NORWALK 1,402 777, 55$
PALMDALE 9,755 14,465 148$
PALOS VERDES EST 313 84 27$
PARAMOUNT 1,388 1,630 117$
PASADENA 3,392 2,299 68$
PICO RIVERA 595 391 66$
POMONA 2,099 1,939 92$
RANCHO P. VERDES 502 278 55$
REDONDO BEACH 3,032 267 9$
ROLLING HILLS 40 4 10$
ROLLING HILLS ES 30 201 670$
ROS EI~SEAD 7 3 3 6 0$
SAN DIMAS 1,302 1,256 96$
SAN FE_RNANDO 307 206 67$
SAN GABRIEL 881 322 36$
SAN MARINO 18 -9 0
SANTA FE SPRINGS 304 286 94$
SANTA IMONICA 3,220 7854 24$
SIER.RP. MADRE 173 -85 0
SIGNAL HILL 419 218 52$
SOUTH EL MONTE 452 39 9$
SOUTH GATE 898 -719 0
SOUTH PASADENA 392 65 16$
SANTA CLARZTA 6,401 10,259 160$
TEMPLE CITY 403 128 32$
TORz2P.NCE 4, 169 2, 609 62$
VERNON 0 15 0$
WALNLTT 1,402 1,776 127$
WEST COVINA 1,150 332 29$
WEST HOLLY~iOOD 668 -585 0
WESTLAKE VILLAGE 467 455 97$
WHITTIER 1,589 1,069 67$
1City of Beverly Hills building reports, January 1989-January 1992.
2Culver City building reports, July 1989-January 1992.
3Long Beach building p ermits, January 1989-present.
4Santa Monica Certificates of Occupancy, July 1989-May 1993.
V U _. ,~ .i
accounting, attorney and similar costs), the economic feasibility
pro forma includes an assumed cost of 510,000 per unit for
predevelopment (architecture, planning); an estimated field
overhead cost representing 5 percent of "hard costs" (i.e., costs
of land and construction); marketing costs estimated at 3 percent
of unit sales price; and, commission and closing costs estimated at
2 percent of sales price. These are conservative estimates which
Kotin, Regan & Mouchly (KRM), the firm which prepared the 1990
inclusionary housing fee alternatives analysis, has recently
indicated are still valid (see July 13, 1993 KRM memorandum,
Attachment A).
Regarding construction costs, a factor of $57.97 per square foot is
used in the feasibility analysis. This is based upon a cost of
$46.73 per square foot based on the Marshall & Swift Cost Guide for
good quality construction, adjusted for Los Angeles price
differentials. This cost was then augmented by approximately
$11.00 to account for costs and fees appropriate to the City of
Santa Monica. As noted by KRM in its July 13 memorandum (see Final
EIR, Appendix C), .
... it is conceivable that builders will spend higher amounts
[on construction] than used in the analysis. The use of
expensive finishing materials, such as marble, can increase
costs substantially. However, this is a marketing decision by
the builder and is economically justified for those projects
that will support higher than average sales prices.
Concerning the land costs, the land cost data for the City of Santa
Monica was collected in 1990 as part of the Program 10/Program 12
feasibility analysis prepared by KRM. The data included all
reported sales of "tear down" structures throughout the City (i.e.,
those greater than 40 years old and less than 1,500 square feet)
during the period between July, 1989 and January, 1990, including
areas north of Wilshire Avenue and Montana Avenue. Based on this
data, per square foot land prices. range from $42.53 to $124.33,
with an average price of $74.47 per square foot.
Santa Monica Housinq Development Data Since Adoption of Ordinance
X1615
The Commission requested information about multi-family project
approvals, including apartments and condominiums, since
implementation of Ordinance,~r1615 in March, 1992. While there have
been no applications for apartment projects since the adoption of
Ordinance ,#1615, several condominium projects .have been approved.
Specifically,- seven condominium projects totaling 53 units,
including 11 on-site inclusionary units and in-lieu fees for 3.9
additional affordable units, have been approved. These include
projects at the following addresses:
4
Uv_.:v
825 Ocean Avenue
1302 Stanford - 6
1018 4th Street -
2719 6th Street -
1226 11th Street
1327 14th Street
1227 21st Street
6 units (2
units (1 on
14 units (1
3 units (no
6 units (2
7 units (2
11 units (3
on site inclusionary)
site, 1 in lieu)
on site, 2.9 in lieu)
inclusionary)
on site)
on site)
on site)
In its comments on the Draft Housing Element EIR (see Final EIR,
Section 7, letter "B", Comment B3), the -Santa Monica Housing
Council (SMHC) asserted that, even though approved,-two of the
projects were not subject to Ordinance #1615, and many of the
projects were not viable under the requirements of Ordinance #1615.
The following summarizes staff's. responses to SMHC's specific
comments about these projects.
With respect to the 6-unit project at 1226 11th Street, although
this project was approved subject to the provisions of Ordinance
1519, because the existing single family unit at the site was
exempt from rent control, this project would also have been
eligible for the in-lieu fee option under the provisions of
Ordinance #1615.
Regarding the projects at 2719 6th Street and 825 Ocean Avenue,
these projects were approved after the passage of Ordinance #1615,
and were eligible for the in-lieu fee option under Ordinance #1615.
SMHC's comment that -the project at 1327 14th Street has been
abandoned by the developer because the on-site inclusionary
requirement made it economically infeasible is unsupported. More
specifically, SMHC provides no information concerning whether
construction costs were for other reasons excessive (materials,
design, etc); without such information, it is not possible to fully
evaluate the project's economic feasibility. In addition, under
the City's Zoning Ordinance, the developer may still proceed with
the project up to two years after approval (which for this project
will be May, 1994), and the project has never .been withdrawn.
Regarding the project at 1018 4th Street, SMHC asserts that this
project would require two on site inclusionary units. However, this
is incorrect. While this project is subject to the provisions of
Ordinance #1615, due to the "non-rental exempt" status of the
existing unit on site, the requirements of Ordinance #1615 may be
met by a combination of on-site inclusionary units and the payment
of an in-lieu fee.. As a 14-unit project, the project is required
to provide 3.9 inclusionary units. The ordinance allows the
payment of an in-lieu fee for two of the low income units and for
the fraction of a unit required. Therefore, the project is
required to provide one moderate income unit on site, and pay an
in-lieu fee of 2.9 times the inclusionary base price..
5
rv
tlaJ.'_:.iJ
The six-unit project at 1302 Stanford, approved in January, 1993,
was eligible under the provisions of Ordinance ,¥1615 to pay an in-
lieu fee for the low-income inclusionary requirement but was
required to provide the moderate-income unit on site.
Rent Control Information
The Planning Commission requested information relating to housing
unit removal and rehabilitation under various rent control
provisions.' In particular, the Commission requested information
concerning the number of Ellis removals; the number Category D
removals and the percent of these granted; the number of petitions
for rent increases submitted and granted, particularly as they
relate to capital improvements; and, information concerning
participation in he incentive-housing program.
The Rent Control staff is preparing a separate memorandum to the
Planning Commission which will be forwarded separately.
Housing .stock Information
The Planning Commission requested information concerning the
definition of "other" housing types as reported in the 1990 Census.
According to the State Census Data Center, the "other" category is
supposed to include housing types other than single family houses,
multi-family units, or mobile homes, such as houseboats, railroad
cars, campers, vans, and tents. However, Census officials indicate
that the "other" category represented a new category on the 1990
census survey, and it is believed that some respondents may have
checked this category because they did not fully understand the
question or the .other possible responses. The possible responses
to the housing type question in the Census survey included the
following:
A mobile home or trailer
A one-family house detached from any other house
A one-family house attached to one or more houses
A building with 2 apartments
A building with 3 or 4 apartments
A building with 5 to 9 apartments
A building with 10 to 19 apartments
A building with 20 to 49 apartments
A building with 50 or more apartments
Other
One possible explanation for the large number of "other" housing
types reported in Santa Monica is that respondents living in
condominiums were confused by the fact that there was no category
specifically for condominiums, and therefore selected the "other"
category.
6
" P '
vv_.,U
Copies of Reports
The Commission requested copies of the following documents 1) the
original August, 1990 KRM analysis of the impact of inclusionary
housing fee alternatives; 2) a copy of the Technical Analysis of
Proposition R provided to the City Council; and, 3) copy of June 3,
1993 letter from Associate Planner Tad Read to Lawrence & Harding,
including attachments. These reports are provided as Attachments
B, C, and D, respectively, to this staff report.
It is noted that the August, 1990 KRM analysis of inclusionary
housing fee alternatives examines an entirely different set of
proposed inclusionary policy options from those analyzed by the
City for EIR purposes. The original KRM analysis examined three
alternative programs: 1) Program 12 with $4.90 per square foot in
lieu fee or 15 percent inclusionary units; 2) Program 12 with a
$15.00 per square foot in lieu fee or 30 percent low/mod
inclusionary units; and 3) a SCAG-recommended program of $32.00 per
square foot in lieu fee or 59.5 percent low/mod inclusionary units.
The City's recent feasibility analysis prepared for the
alternatives analysis contained in the Housing Element EZR examines
a 30 percent all on-site inclusionary requirement .for apartments
and condominiums, a scheme requiring more on-site units than the
current implementation ordinance. While most of the assumptions
used for the City's analysis were identical to those used in the
KRM analysis, some are different. For example, for condominium
development, the KRM analysis did not include State-mandated
density bonus unit allowances: Thus, while the KRM condominium
analysis reflects a maximum of 5 units on a 7,500 square foot
parcel and a maximum of 10 units on a 15,000 square footage, the
City's condominium analysis allows for 6 units on a 7,500 square
foot parcel and 13 units on a 15,000 square foot parcel. This
factor explains in large part why the City's analysis shows greater
economic return to the developer for condominiums than the KRM
analysis.
In addition, the City's analysis uses three other revised
assumptions:
1) The City's analysis assumes a land cost of 575.00 per
square foot, versus $80.00 per square foot for the KRM
analysis. As indicated above, the lower figure of $75.00 per
square foot represents the average price for residential land
based on sales between July 1989 and January, 1990.
2) The City's analysis assumes a per unit market sales price
of $325,000, versus 5336,000 per unit in the KRM analysis.
3) The City's analysis assumes two parking spaces per unit,
while the KRM analysis assumed 2.2 spaces per unit. Since the
original KRM study was conducted, the City has routinely
7
~~
vV_~i
granted parking variances for affordable housing projects. In
addition, as a result of recent City Council actions, parking
requirements have changed. Therefore, the City's analysis
reflects more accurately the City's practice in administering
the parking requirements.
Technical and Editorial Revisions to Housinq Elements
The Commission asked staff to make some specific technical and
editorial revisions to the Housing Element, including the
following:
o References to the Department of Water and Power (DWP) in the
Energy section (Section 4) of the Housing Element have been
eliminated and this discussion has been revised and updated,
as reflected in Attachment E. A brief discussion of the
energy and environmental benefits of re-using existing
buildings as opposed to demolishing and redeveloping sites
with new structures has also been added to the Energy Section,
per the Planning Commission's request.
o The Resolution of Intention to Adopt the Housing Element
will be revised to delete the language referring to the
"invisible hand" on page l0.
o Other typographical errors mentioned by Commissioners will
be corrected and reflected in Attachment E.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue
deliberations on the proposed Housing Element update and EIR and
forward a recommendation to the City Council to:
1) Adopt a resolution to approve the Housing Element Update as
submitted by staff;
2) Adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the EIR;
and,
3) Adopt a resolution to certify the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR).
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
Tad Read, Associate Planner
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Attachments: A - July 13, 1993 Memorandum prepared by Rotin,
Regan, & Mouchly, Inc., concerning comments
submitted by SMHC on Draft EIR.
8
vv ~~
B - August 1, 1990 KRM Inclusionary Fee Alternatives
Analysis
C - Technical Analysis of Proposition R provided to
City Council
D - June 3, 1993 Letter from Associate Planner Tad
Read to Chris Harding, including attachments
E - Revisions to proposed Housing Element
update recommended by the Planning Commission
PCmem
Y
9
vu:..~
ATTACHMENT K
vUt<<v
RENT CONTROL ADMINISTRATION MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 13, 1993
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Mary Ann Yurkonis, Administrator, Rent Control Board
RE: Public Hearing on the Housing Element
!~ k.
During the public hearing on the housing element, several
questions regarding rent control programs and procedures were raised. The
following is presented in an effort to answer these questions.
This memorandum will first review the number of Category D
permits applied for and issued by the Rent Control Board and the subsequent
development. Second, data regarding withdrawal of rental housing pursuant to
Government Code Section 7060 et seq., Ellis Act withdrawals, will be
presented. Third, some statistical information regarding petitions for rent
increase which have been filed with the Rent Control Board will be discussed.
Finally, the Incentive Housing Program, will be briefly explained, including
information regarding participation in the program.
Category D Removal Permits
As set forth in the City Charter Section 1803(t), a Category D
permit may issue for the removal of controlled rental units "so that the property
may be developed with multi-family dwelling units ... [provided] that at least 15%
of the controlled rental units to be built on the site will be at rents affordable by
persons of low-income."
Since 1979 when rent control was enacted, property owners have
filed 104 applications for Category D removal permits. Sixty-four permits have
been granted, 9 permits have been denied, 25 permits have been withdrawn by
the applicant and 6 permits have been dismissed. Looking at more recent
activity, specifically 1986 to 1991, 42 out of 68 permits were granted. The
percentage of permits granted has remained about 62%. As shown on the chart
below, applications for Category D removal permits have dropped dramatically
in recent years.
-~.
UVi~~ j
Total
Year Af~olications r n ni Withdrawn Dismissed
1986 iS 8 0 7 0
1987 12 7 3 2 0
1988 23 17 0 5 1
1989 13 6 0 6 1
1990 3 2 0 1 0
1991 2 2 0 Q Q
Total 68 42 3 21 2
Since 1990, only 5 applications have been filed, 4 of which were
granted. No applications for Category D removal permits have been filed since
May of 1991. The substantial decrease in the number of applications filed is
probably due to the general slowdown of development activity as well as the
availability of withdrawal of controlled rental units under the Ellis Act.
Redevelopment
As par[ of rent control's ongoing study of the housing stock, staff
monitors new multi-family development activity through the issuance of building
permits and certificates of occupancy. This new development is analyzed based
on the rent control status of the prior structures, i.e., owner-occupied exempt
properties, Category B, C, or D removals, Ellis withdrawals, etc. Reviewing
certificates of occupancy from January 1987 until July 1993, staff tracked 32
properties which had received Category D removal permits. Rent control records
indicate that these 32 properties contained 79 controlled rental units and 11 non-
controlled units, a total of 90 units. The review of the new developments indicates
that the 90 units were replaced by 298 units; 91 rental units affordable to either low
or moderate income people, 163 market rate rental units and 44 condominium
units.
A summary of recent redevelopment activity is attached as Exhibit 1.
This information is based on certificates of occupancy issued since January, 1987
through July, 1993. The information on the number of controlled and non-
controlled units removed comes from rent control records.
Overall this summary shows a significant increase in housing units.
Four hundred sixtytwo units were demolished and replaced with 1,239 units.
However, there is a net decrease of affordable units, as 294 controlled rental units
were replaced with 147 affordable units. Only properties redeveloped with a
Category D removal permit or under the City's inclusionary program contain new
affordable units. The recycling of properties formerly developed with single-family
dwellings illustrates the substantial intensification of use and the positive effect of
the inclusionary housing programs.
2
uv_~r~
Category D removal permits represent a viable redevelopment option,
which results in an overall increase in housing development while maintaining the
current supply of affordable housing. For owners interested in developing
condominiums, properties can be withdrawn under the Ellis Act provisions.
Ellis Withdrawals
The Ellis Act allows owners of residential rental property to withdraw
that. property from the .rental market, subject to certain restrictions. This process
involves, in part, filing a Notice of Intent to Withdraw Residential Rental Units with
the Rent Control Board. Set forth below, are the number of Notices of Intent filed
with the Rent Control Board each year.
Year # of properties f nits
1986 26 175
1987 18 97
1988 30 155
1989 70 318
1990 81 -594"
1991 18 85
1992 15 38
Jan-June 1993 4 9
Total 262 1,471
The numbers of properties and units actually withdrawn is
substantially less than shown above, because 41 properties with 451 units never
completed the withdrawal process. In addition, 22 properties with 115 units have
returned to the rental market. Therefore, 199 properties with 905 units were
withdrawn from the rental market under the provisions of the Ellis Act.
As shown above, the Ellis filing activity has decreased substantially in
the last several years. In addition, previously withdrawn properties began returning
to the rental market in 1990. In-1992 alone, 11 properties returned to the rental
housing market.
3
vv_~~~
Petitions for Rent Increase
Owners may petition to increase rents for several reasons including:
1) they believe they are not receiving a fair return on the property (a net operating
income increase or NOI), 2) they have completed capital improvements to the
property, or 3) they are proposing to make capital improvements to the property.
Authorized rent increases almost always include some form of proposed or
completed capital improvements. The yearly figures set forth in the chart below
reflect those petitions for which a hearing examiner's decision was issued.
Dismissed or withdrawn petitions are not included.
Rent Increases Gra nted
Total NOI Completed Proposed
Fiscal Decisions + Cap Imp Cap Imp Total/% Total
Year Issued Cap Img Only Ony ranted Dehied
7/87-6/88 46 18 9 5 32 / 69% 14
7/88-6/89 29 14 6 2 22 / 75% 7
7/89-6/90 41 24 10 3 37 / 90% 4
7/90-6/91 12 4 5 0 9/ 75% 3
7/91-6/92 22 10 4 2 16 / 73% 6
7/92-6/93 33 13 7 1 21 / 64% 12
In addition to a general petition for rent increase, the Board has a rent
increase program for voluntarily-vacated units with rent levels below the median for
area of the city and size of unit. Since the Threshold Rent Program began on
January 1, 1992, the Rent Control Board has received 2,071 petitions. In 19
months, 1,774 petitions for threshold rent increases have been granted-and 135
petitions were pending for action. The average rent increase granted for the 1,774
units is $100 per month.
Although the threshold rent increase program grants increases on a
unit by unit basis and is only available for units as they are voluntarily vacated, the
overall financial impact is fairly substantial in that rent increases have been granted
to almost 1,800 units.
4
- ,-
uv_ ,;
The Incentive Housing Program is a voluntary program enacted in
1989 which authorizes an owner to raise the rent on a vacant unit in exchange for
renting another unit to a very low-income household. The amount of rent increase
authorized depends on the size of the unit rented to a very-low income household.
The increases range from $660 for a no-bedroom unit to $990 for athree-bedroom
unit. This increase is in addition to the present controlled rent. Because the rent
increases are so large, the net result is to decontrol the incentive unit. The unit
rented to very-low income tenants, the dedicated unit, must be rented'at a rent
affordable to very-low income people.
The property owner enters into a renewable 5-year contract with the
Rent Control Board to participate in the program. There are presently 34 properties
participating in the program. Four additional applications are pending. There are
97 units rented to low or very low income tenants as a result of this program.
Tenants in Section 8 subsidized units qualify for this program. Since participation
in this program requires voluntarily vacated units, the number of units rented to very
low income tenants will increase over time.
5
- n
vv_
CNANGVES IN THE RENTAL HOUSING STOCK
All Resldenllal Properllas wlth Certlllcate of Occupancy Permlla lesuad between January 9987 end July 7993
RENT CONTROL STATUS
Owner-Occu ied 8 5017
Cat AIB Removals' and SA
Cate or C Removals
Cate or D Removals
Non-Rental Exem lions NUMBER OF
PROPERTIES
24
3
12
32
i6 CONTROLLED
UNITS REMOVED
44
70
25
79 NON-CONTROLLED
UNITS REMOVED
0
0
2
11 TOTAL UNITS
REMOVm
q4
70
?27
:fig AFFORDABLE
UNITS BUILT
8
4
12
91 MARKET RATE
RENTALS
80
14
26
163 CONDO-
MINIUMS
65
22
4Y
44 TOTAL UNITS
BUILT
•153
!'AO
x'81
.288 TOTAL
%CHANGE
248
--43
200
231 %CHANGE
AFFORDABLE
-82
-94
-52
15
Ellis Withdrawals
Single Family Dwellings
16
90 0
68
8 74
0
87 74
'68
':189 4
1
27 62
0
211 48
79
235 194
!?$0
'473 54
18
431 N/A
-99
236
'67 of the units removed pursuant to a Category R removal permit werein a retirement hotel.
C~
C7
:~
EXHIBIT 1