SR 07-27-2021 13L 13.L
July 27, 2021
Council Meeting: July 27, 2021 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services
Department
Date: July 27, 2021
13.L Request from Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, Councilmembers Brock and Davis
as the Council’s B&C Ad Hoc Committee, to direct staff to come back with
updates to the Boards/Commission/Task Force procedures to add new
policies regarding Chair terms, Nepotism for appointments, and Council
liaisons.
Recommendations include:
Chair terms
• Limit Chair terms to 2 years maximum, rotating by election
Develop a Nepotism policy
• A person cannot serve on a city board/commission/task force if you are a close
family member (spouse/partner, siblings, children or parents) of a seating
Councilmember.
Council Liaisons
• Council liaisons would be limited to serve on a maximum of two commissions a
year. Meeting attendance is not required, but members would serve as an
Advisor to the Commission and be available to the Chair as needed. (liaisons
may not participate in discussion regarding any matter that will be subject to a
potential appeal to Council acting in its quasi-adjudicatory role.)
13.L
Packet Pg. 872
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Lerer <elerer@elizabethlerer.com>
Sent:Monday, July 26, 2021 4:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support for Item# 13.L.
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Looking forward to the discussion of agenda item # 13. L.
Regards,
Elizabeth Lerer
Resident of Santa Monica
Item 13.L 07/27/21
1 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Soloff, Michael <Mike.Soloff@mto.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 27, 2021 1:18 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 13L on City Council Agenda for July 27, 2020
Attachments:5.13.2014 Santa Monica City Council Minutes.pdf; 9.23.2014 Santa Monica City Council Minutes.pdf;
8.14.2018 Santa Monica City Council Minutes.pdf.PDF; 2014 Application of Michael Soloff for
Appointment to the Santa Monica Housing Commission.pdf; 2018 Application of Michael Soloff for
Appointment to Santa Monica Housing Commission.pdf; FinalHCReport.pdf; Michael Soloff's
Comments on Item 3A (POD Pilot Program Guidelines).pdf; May 2017 Housing Commission report
on Housing Trust Fund guideline revisions.pdf; THOUGHTS OF CHAIR SOLOFF REGARDING HTF
PLAN.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:
I am writing with respect to Item 13L, an agenda item added on 7/23/21 that has no report, but indicates an intention to
“Develop a Nepotism policy: A person cannot serve on a city board/commission/task force if you are a close family
member (spouse/partner, siblings, children or parents) of a seating [sic] Councilmember.”
As you all are aware, I am Sue Himmelrich’s husband and a current member of the Housing Commission, a Commission
which—unlike the Planning Commission or Landmarks Commission—has no role or power other than to make advisory
policy recommendations. As documented in the attached minutes, I was appointed to the Housing Commission in
September of 2014 (prior to my wife’s election to the City Council) with the support of (1) the same three
Councilmembers (McKeown, Vasquez and Winterer) who had supported my appointment in May 2014 (prior to my wife
announcing an intention to run for City Council) plus the support of retiring Councilmember Holbrook (who had not
supported my appointment in May, but did in September). In both May and September of 2014 Councilmembers Davis,
O’Connor, and O’Day opposed my appointment. As documented in the attached minutes, I thereafter was reappointed
to the Housing Commission in August 2018 with a unanimous vote of all councilmembers other than my wife, who
recused herself from any involvement in the apointment process for the Housing Commission at that time because of
my pending application for reappointment. The expertise and qaulifications I brought to the Housing Commission at
each point in time are set forth in my 2014 and 2018 applications, both of which are also attached.
To my knowledge I am the only person who has served on a Board or Commission during that entire seven year period
who falls within the proposed policy. I am very proud of the work that I and my fellow Housing Commissioners
performed during that period. As you can see from the attached December 2015 Affordable Housing Strategies Report
(which I principally drafted on behalf of the Commission), we recommended the increase in the sales tax that became
the housing portion of Measures GS/GSH; we recommended the local rent subsidy pilot program that became the
Preserve Our Diversity (“POD”) program; and we recommended that the City inventory its public land for use in
developing affordable housing, an approach reflected in both the Fourth Street Garage project and in the current draft
Housing Element. I and my fellow commissioners thereafter worked very hard to make each of these recommendations
a reality, including by drafting detailed policy recommendations and reports to Council. I attach some of those
documents for your reference.
My only goal in performing all of this work has to been to preserve and enhance housing opportunties for the most
vulnerable persons who live or work in Santa Monica (or who deserve a right to return). If my continued service on the
Housing Commission poses some detriment to the City, then by all means you should adopt a policy that precludes
Item 13.L 07/27/21
2 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
2
it. My goal is to help Santa Monica, not to hurt it. I am unable to evaluate whether there is some such detriment of
which I am not aware, however, as no explanation has yet been provided for this (or any other aspect) of Item 13L.
In any event, whether on the Housing Commission or not, I will continue exercising my First Amendment right to
advocate before Council for policies designed to preserve and expand the affordable housing opportunities for the most
vulnerable.
Thank you for considering this information.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
3 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
4 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
5 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
6 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
7 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
8 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
9 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
10 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
11 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
12 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
13 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
14 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
15 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
16 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
17 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
18 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
19 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
20 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
21 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
22 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
23 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
From:Soloff, Michael
To:council@smgov.net
Cc:attorney@smgov.net
Subject:Housing Commission Application
Date:Monday, April 14, 2014 5:08:42 PM
Dear Councilmembers:
My name is Michael Soloff and I am one of the applicants for appointment to the current vacancy on
the Santa Monica Housing Commission (a copy of my application, which now is on the City website,
is set out below for your convenience). Given that you may be considering this appointment at your
April 22 meeting, and given that we are entering a holiday season, I wanted to reach out to you now
about two points (even though the Housing Commission itself will not hold its meeting to consider
candidates until this Thursday).
First, if any of you wish to meet with me so I can answer any question or concerns you may have, I
would be more than happy to do so. I also would be happy to respond in any other manner to any
questions or concerns you might have.
Second, while I believe it is a non-issue for these purposes, I wanted to advise you that Hines has
engaged two firms to represent it in the CEQA lawsuit brought by SMCLC against the City: Remy,
Moose & Manley, and Munger Tolles & Olson. Although I am a partner in Munger Tolles, at all times
I have been, am and will be “ethically walled off” from this representation of Hines. This means that
I may not participate in the representation of Hines, I may not have any access to the firm’s files
relating to the representation of Hines, and all personnel at my firm are barred from having any
discussions with me concerning any aspect of the representation of Hines.
Thank you for your consideration, and for your service.
Your application has been submitted. Here is a summary of the submitted data:
Public Information
Application Date 3/18/2014
Board Name Housing Commission
Name Mr. Michael Soloff
Public Address 337 14th StreetSanta Monica, CA 90402
Phone 310-963-0337
Fax 213-683-5159
Email mike.soloff@mto.com
Do you reside inSanta Monica?Yes
Number of years: 20
Do you hold anelected position?No
Are you applying for
Item 13.L 07/27/21
24 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
the seat reserved for aHousing Authority
Section 8 Programparticipant?
No
Are you applying for
the seat reserved for aHousing Authority
Section 8 Programparticipant, who is
over the age of 62?
No
Current or priorservice on City
Boards/Commissions:
None
Community activities
I provide pro bono legal services on landlord-tenantand other housing issues for the Legal Aid
Foundation of Los Angeles, Bet Tzedek LegalServices, Inner City Law Center, Tenants Together,
and Public Counsel among others. I was awarded theLegal Services Corporation's Pro Bono Award for
this work, and my firm received an award fromLAFLA for this work. I also have been active in
Oxfam America since 1977, and currently serve onits Leadership Council. I have raised over $1 million
for Oxfam-America through the annual fundraisingdrives at my law firm.
Qualifications,experience, andeducation
I graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law
School in 1983, and then clerked for Ruth BaderGinsburg while she was on the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals. I have practiced law as a business litigatorat Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP since 1985 (I
became a partner in 1990). A significant portion ofmy practice has involved real-estate and mortgage-
related litigation. My pro bono practice specializes inhousing cases, with heavy emphasis in last 7 years
on representing Section 8 recipients. I was the leadattorney on Ninth Circuit and Appellate Division
opinions affirming that Section 8 recipients areentitled to the good cause for eviction protections of
local rent control laws -- see Barrientos v. 1801-1825Morton LLC, 583 F.3d. 1197(9th Cir. 2009) and
Crisales v. Estrada, 204 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1(2012). I remain actively involved in cases involving
the rights of Section 8 tenants.
Goals
My goal is to help Santa Monica maintain andexpand all aspects of its diversity, including itseconomic diversity at a time of unprecedentedchallenge.
Business Information (public)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
25 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Occupation Attorney
Business Name Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
Business Address 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90402
Business Phone 213-683-9159
Business Fax 213-683-5159
For Confidential Use Only:
Residence Address 337 14th StreetSanta Monica, CA 90402
Phone 310-451-8981
Cellular 310-963-0337
Michael E. Soloff | Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
355 South Grand Avenue | Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: 213.683.9159 | Fax: 213.683.5159 | mike.soloff@mto.com | www.mto.com
***NOTICE***This message is confidential and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work productor otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is not intended for transmission to, orreceipt by, any unauthorized person. If you have received this message in error, do not read it.Please delete it without copying it, and notify the sender by separate e-mail so that our addressrecord can be corrected. Thank you.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
26 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Prefix First Name Middle Initial Last Name Suffix
Email Address
Street Address Suite or Apt
City State Postal Code
Primary Phone Alternate Phone
City of Santa Monica Boards & Commissions
Application
Which Boards would you like to apply for?
Housing Commission: Not Submitted
Please read the following before completing an application:
The Oaks Initiative, also known as the "Taxpayer Protection Act," was adopted by Santa Monica
voters in November 2000 and amended in November 2016. Its requirements affect all City-elected
and appointed officials, including Council-appointed board and commission members. Additional
information is available on the City’s website in City Charter Article XXII – Taxpayer Protection.
All persons are invited to apply for membership on City Boards and Commissions regardless of
race, age, sex, religion, marital status, national origin, ancestry, sexual preference, or disability.
Applicants shall not, however, be under 18 years of age or serve on more than one Board,
Commission or Corporation. Some Boards and Commissions do require special qualifications and
requirements. Appointment of members will be made by Councilmembers at an open City Council
meeting. Upon appointment, designated members will be required to file a Conflict of Interest
disclosure statement. Please answer all questions on this application. This application will become
a public record and will be available for public inspection or duplication.
Additional Conflict of Interest Information for applicants
Profile
Michael Soloff
michael.soloff@smgov.net
337 14th Street
Santa Monica CA 90402
Mobile: (310) 963-0337
Michael Soloff Page 1 of 7
Item 13.L 07/27/21
27 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Question applies to multiple boards
Reside in Santa Monica?
Yes No
Question applies to multiple boards
If yes, number of years residence in Santa Monica:
25+
Question applies to multiple boards
Do you hold an elected position?
Yes No
Question applies to multiple boards
If yes, please specify:
Question applies to Housing Commission
Are you applying for the seat reserved for a Housing Authority Section 8 Program
participant?
Yes No
Question applies to Housing Commission
Are you applying for the seat reserved for a Housing Authority Section 8 Program
participant, who is over the age of 62?
Yes No
Written Request to Serve Additional Term/s
Michael Soloff Page 2 of 7
Item 13.L 07/27/21
28 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
If you are a current Board or Commission member, have served two full terms, and wish to
submit your written request to serve a third term, please state this in the box below.
Question applies to Housing Commission
If you are a current member, a Housing Authority Section 8 Program participant, and wish to
submit a written request to serve a fifth or sixth term, please state this in the box below.
Interests & Experience
Question applies to multiple boards
Specify current or prior service on City Boards/Commissions:
I am currently serving my first term on Housing Commission.
Question applies to multiple boards
List community activities in which you are involved:
Executive Board of the Santa Monica Democratic Club; Executive Board of Santa Monicans for Renters
Rights; member of North of Montana Association; Leadership Council of Oxfam America; provide pro
bono legal representation to Tenants Together, and to indigent clients of the Legal Aid Foundation of Los
Angeles, Public Counsel, and Bet Tzedek Legal Services.
Describe your qualifications, experience, and education, and list any technical or
professional requirements you have relative to the duties of the board, commission, or
committee to which you are applying.
B.A. Magna Cum Laude Brown University (1980); J.D. Magna Cum Laude Harvard Law School (1983);
Admitted to California State Bar (1984); practice of law at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP (1985-present). My
legal training and more than 30 years of practice as a litigation attorney have equipped me to rigorously
analyze, logically organize, and comprehensibly present complex ideas and data. My pro bono practice in
tenants rights and other housing issues (to which I have dedicated about 18% of my professional time for
more than a decade) has provided me substantial insight into the Section 8 program, rent control laws
(Santa Monica, Los Angeles, West Hollywood, San Francisco), anti-discrimination laws (FEHA, ADA), and
more generally the issues experienced by renters and landlords. I have received awards for my pro bono
legal work from the Legal Services Corporation in Washington D.C., the State Bar of California, the Legal
Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Public Counsel, Bet Tzedek Legal Services, and the Daily Journal
Corporation.
Question applies to multiple boards
Please describe your demonstrated expertise in the areas of: 1) recognized interest,
knowledge, and experience in the field of building & safety, fire prevention, and disability
Michael Soloff Page 3 of 7
Item 13.L 07/27/21
29 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
access regulations; 2) recognition of unique standards for the City of Santa Monica,
including geography, current zoning, growth pattern, transportation challenges, and general
and specific plans; 3) policy development; 4) community outreach and involvement; 5)
education; 6) strategic planning; 7) federally funded programs; and 8) S Corporations.
1) I have had occasion to review building & safety codes in connection with my pro bono legal practice
(although the applicable codes were state law and Los Angeles law); 2) I was principal author of the
Housing Commission's December 2015 Affordable Housing Strategies Report, which included analysis of
Santa Monica's unique challenges in maintaining an economically diverse community (and required
developing familiarity with the AHPP and the Tier system of zoning to which the AHPP requirements are
tied, as well as the Santa Monica Housing Element and the RHNA process); I authored extensive
comments on the housing aspects of the draft Downtown Community Plan (which included analysis of
both the draft plan and HRA's development feasibility study) which were provided to the Housing
Commission as part of its deliberations on recommended changes and to City Council in June and July of
2017); 3) I was principal author of the Housing Commission's December 2015 Affordable Housing
Strategies report which recommended placing a sales tax measure on the ballot to support affordable
housing, matching the amount raised from that measure with other City funds, and developing a pilot local
rent subsidy program (all of which City Council adopted); I was deeply involved in the development of
proposals for various design elements in the Preserve Our Diversity program (which City Council
adopted); I served on the Housing Commission subcommittee that developed recommended changes to
the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines, and was principal author of the Housing Commission's report to City
Council regarding those recommendations (which, with one exception, City Council adopted); I provided
extensive written comments to the Housing Commission regarding changes to the housing portions of the
draft Downtown Community Plan (most of which were adopted by the Housing Commission as its
recommendation, and some of which City Council adopted with modifications); 4) in my first term on the
Housing Commission, we have increased from 3 days to 7 days the time in advance of our meetings that
the agenda and supporting material must be put online, recommended (and City Council adopted)
changes to the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines to (among other things) require certain data be placed in
one accessible place on the City website, create a system whereby members of the public can sign up
one time and thereafter automatically receive email alerts anytime new materials are posted, require a
Housing Trust Fund Plan be created through a process that includes periods for written public comment
and for public hearings, and requiring public meetings shortly after new affordable housing projects are
approved for Housing Trust Fund loans. In addition, I personally alert leaders of each neighborhood
group, SMRR, Santa Monica Forward, Residocracy,, CEPS, the Democratic Club, the Republican
Women's Club, the Chamber of Commerce, AAGLA, Unite Here Local 11, and CLUE (among others)
when critically important public policy issues are about to come before the Housing Commission. As for
community involvement, in addition to the activities identified in response to the question above
requesting a list of those activities, I note that I was a leader in the campaigns to pass Measures GS and
GSH, and spoke at numerous public fora regarding the housing-related issues raised by that measure
and regarding its impact on residents; 5) my knowledge of local educational issues comes from my
service on the SMRR Executive Committee and from my attendance at the public fora regarding GS/GSH
at which leaders of the school community explained the school-related issues surrounding that measure;
6) my 30+ year career as a litigator has taught me strategic planning; 7) my pro bono legal practice has
given me expertise regarding the federally funded Section 8 program; 8) I have no current expertise in S
Corporations but, if it ever became relevant, my legal training would allow me to quickly learn whatever is
needed.
Michael Soloff Page 4 of 7
Item 13.L 07/27/21
30 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
What are your goals in serving on the board, commission, or committee to which you are
applying?
Santa Monica is a wonderful community for numerous reasons, but what made it unique among Westside
Communities when I moved here more than 25 years ago was its true economic diversity. My principal
reason for seeking to join the Housing Commission in the first instance--and for wanting to serve a second
term--is to work to preserve as much of that economic diversity as possible for as long as possible. During
my first term, I and the Housing Commission have worked to assist City Council to find ways to restore
affordable housing funding lost when the state dissolved the RDA system; have worked to assist City
Council to find ways to improve the process for expending the restored affordable housing funds; have
worked to assist the City Council to find ways to keep our low income seniors in the long-term rent
controlled homes; have worked to assist City Council to find ways to induce private landlords to participate
in the Section 8 program; and have worked to assist City Council to improve the AHPP program. In
addition to doing some additional work on these issues, my principal goals for a second term are to (1) to
assist the City Council to find ways to substantially lower the cost of creating new affordable housing
units, (2) to assist the City Council to find ways to rehouse Santa Monicans who are experiencing
homelessness; and (3) to assist the City Council to find ways to maintain middle class housing in Santa
Monica.
Question applies to multiple boards
What is your vision for the board, commission, or committee to which you are applying and
the role it plays in Santa Monica and the region?
My vision is that the Housing Commission will continue to be a place where critical housing issues can be
studied deeply in order to bring accurate information and new ideas to City Council, the public and staff
regarding how best to maintain an economically diverse Santa Monica. The Housing Commission--
particularly as currently composed--brings exceptional expertise to these issues. We have two of seven
members who are recipients of the City's affordable housing programs (an invaluable perspective); we
have one member who formerly was homeless; we have one member who lives with a physical challenge;
we have two senior citizens; we have one young person; we have one lawyer; we have two affordable
housing developers (one for rental housing and one for ownership housing); we have one Board member
of CCSM. I also view the Housing Commission as providing a critical opportunity for the public to weigh in
on housing policy in the City.
Michael Soloff Page 5 of 7
Item 13.L 07/27/21
31 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Occupation:
Business name:
Business Phone
Personal qualities identified in the criteria include leadership, creativity, and innovation as
well as the ability to work effectively in a group setting and an ability to balance competing
needs. Provide examples of how you have demonstrated those qualities:
I am honored that my fellow Commissioners elected me to serve a second term as Chair of the Housing
Commission. I believe a review of (1) the 2015 Housing Commission Affordable Housing Strategies
Report dated December 18, 2915 (for which I was principal author), (2) my personal written comments
regarding the design of the Preserve Our Diversity pilot program dated November 21, 2016, and (3) my
personal written comments regarding the Downtown Community Plan (and my summary of the
recommendations subsequently adopted by the Housing Commission), all of which previously were
submitted to the City Council, demonstrate the qualities identified in this question.
Question applies to multiple boards
Participation on the board requires a significant commitment over the length of the term
including attendance at approximateley two scheduled meetings per month, and possibly
other tasks and meetings outside of board meetings. Will you be able to commit the
necessary time to perform your dutites if appointed to the board?
Yes No
Business Information (Public)
Business Address
350 South Grand Avenue 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
Notes
Attorney
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
213 683-9159
Michael Soloff Page 6 of 7
Item 13.L 07/27/21
32 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
ALL INFORMATION, EXCEPT PERSONAL DATA ENTERED IN THE PROFILE SECTION, IS
PUBLIC AND AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AND ON THE CITY'S
WEB PAGE.
DISABILITY RELATED ASSISTANCE AND ALTERNATE FORMATS OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE
AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST BY CALLING (310) 458-8211.
After an application has been submitted, a confirmation page will be displayed. If an email address
has been provided, an email confirmation will be sent. IF A CONFIRMATION IS NOT DISPLAYED,
PLEASE RESUBMIT OR CONTACT THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT (310) 458-8211.
Michael Soloff Page 7 of 7
Item 13.L 07/27/21
33 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Date: December 17, 2015
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Housing Commission
Re: Affordable Housing Strategies BACKGROUND
The residents of Santa Monica long have sought to preserve our City’s economic diversity. In 1979 the voters placed rent control into our City Charter. In 1990 the voters amended the Charter to require that 30% of all new housing be permanently affordable to and occupied by households earning no more than the
Los Angeles County median income, and that half of that 30% be permanently affordable to and occupied by households earning no more than 60% of the median
income. In 1998 the voters amended the Charter to permit the expenditure of City funds to create affordable housing units each year, equal to up to one half of one
percent of the existing housing stock (i.e., approximately 250 units per year).
The Santa Monica City Council, backed by the voters and resident groups,
has taken further important actions to provide affordable housing and so preserve our economic diversity. Chief among these actions has been the dedication of City land and the expenditure of City funds to help non-profit organizations create 1,845 new affordable housing units, and acquire 1,096 existing housing units for
use as affordable housing. In 1992 the City Council adopted an Affordable Housing Production Program (“AHPP”) which requires developers of new for-
profit multi-family residential properties to deed restrict a portion of those units as affordable housing units (either on-site or off-site), dedicate land, or make
monetary contributions to the City Housing Trust Fund. Private developers have
deed restricted an additional 1,008 units as affordable housing under this program.1
1 Data provided by staff indicates that 474 of these units (47%) have been or are being created by for-profit developers in 100% affordable projects that were approved under prior law (subsequently changed by the City Council) that permitted rent levels for moderate income households that approached or equaled
market rents for small units at that time, and permitted expedited approval of 100% affordable housing projects that consisted mostly of such moderate income
affordable units.
The City also has 529 units of deed restricted affordable housing that were created using HUD funds only.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
34 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
As a result of these and other efforts, the City of Santa Monica historically has been a community that has welcomed and provided housing security to residents at all economic levels. But this hallmark of our community is steadily eroding. For example, whereas 60% of our housing stock was affordable to those earning up to 120% of median family income in 1998, only 33% of our housing
stock remained affordable to such households in 2013.2 The principal cause of this erosion of affordability is California’s Costa Hawkins Act, which precludes the City from imposing any control on the initial rent charged to a new tenant upon moving into a rent controlled apartment
(“vacancy decontrol”).3 As a result of vacancy decontrol, more than 14,500 Santa Monica rent control units that in 1998 were affordable to households earning just 80% of the median family income no longer are affordable even to households
earning 110% of the median family income (i.e., $70,280 for a family of four).4
This represents 29% of the City’s housing stock that was affordable 17 years ago but no longer is affordable. Given these trends, and the continuing rise of market rents in Santa Monica, virtually all of the 11,742 rent control units that remain affordable to households earning up to 110% of the median family income will
become unaffordable once the current tenants leave.5 Once that fully occurs –
2 See Staff Report 1421presented at 8/25/15 City Council Study Session on Affordable Housing at Fig. 7. HUD defines housing as affordable to a household
when it need not expend more than 30% of its income on that housing.
3 See 2014 Santa Monica Rent Control Board Annual Report at p. 19 & Fig. 16.
Rent control continues to limit the amount by which this initial rent can increase each year, thereby assisting a new tenant who can afford the initial rent to remain a long term member of our community.
4 See 2014 Santa Monica Rent Control Board Annual Report at p. 20 & Figs. 17- 18; 7/16/15 Remarks to Housing Commission by Stephen Lewis, General Counsel to Santa Monica Rent Control Board (confirming that Figure 18 uses median income for family of four to calculate affordability).
5 See Staff Report 1421presented at 8/25/15 City Council Study Session on Affordable Housing at Fig. 5. The 11,742 units excludes the 1,096 deed restricted
acquisition/rehab units.
80% of all rent control units affordable in 1998 to those earning 110% (or less) of
median family income and thereafter subjected to vacancy decontrol no longer were affordable in 2014. See 2014 Santa Monica Rent Control Board Annual
(footnote continued)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
35 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
which could take less than 20 years at present unit turnover rates6 – the only Santa Monica housing affordable to those in the bottom half of the economic distribution
will be our deed restricted affordable housing stock.
Unfortunately, the City’s ability to respond to this affordable housing crisis experienced a serious setback when the State abolished redevelopment agencies in 2012. Prior to that time, Santa Monica had used over $15 million in redevelopment funds each year either to create new affordable housing, or to acquire existing rental units and preserve them as affordable housing.7
In this report the Housing Commission provides recommendations for addressing the housing needs of those households earning the median income or
less. The threat to this portion of our community is dire, both because market rate units no longer are affordable to such households, but also because HUD data indicates that a large portion of the Santa Monica renter households earning less than the median family income faces a severe housing cost burden (that is, they are paying more than 50% of their income for housing).8
The Housing Commission also is concerned about the threat to households
earning up to 200% of median family income, and will conduct further investigatory efforts and deliberations in the new year regarding possible courses
of action to prevent the loss of this group from the City. This threat is not as acute as the threat to those households earning the median family income or less. This is
because Rent Control Board data indicates that a large portion of the rent
Report at p. 20 & Fig. 1. Given that market rents continue to increase, that 80% figure likely will be close to 100% in the future.
6 For example, 8,977 of the 11,742 rent control units that today remain affordable to households earning up to 110% of the median family income are occupied by the same tenant that occupied the unit prior to vacancy decontrol going into effect in 1999. Between 400 and 550 such long-term rent controlled units were lost to
vacancy decontrol each year from 2009 through 2014. See Staff Report 1421presented at 8/25/15 City Council Study Session on Affordable Housing at
Fig. 5 and pp. 14-15; 2014 Santa Monica Rent Control Board Annual Report at p. 11 & Fig. 5.
7 See Staff Report 1421presented at 8/25/15 City Council Study Session on
Affordable Housing at p. 17.
8 See discussion at page 6 & note 14.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
36 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
controlled units remain affordable at this time to households earning up to 200% of
median family income, even with vacancy decontrol,9 and because HUD data indicates that the existing burden of housing costs is not as severe for this group as
it is for residents at lower income levels.10 But this will change over time as rents continue to rise. And, based on anecdotal information, it appears that rents on newer uncontrolled units already are unaffordable to households earning up to 200% of median family income. Further, home ownership of any kind currently is out of reach for any but the wealthiest of Santa Monicans.
PRIORITIES MOVING FORWARD
Assist Lower-Income Santa Monicans To Remain In Their Rent
Controlled Homes
At present, there are 11,742 rent controlled units that are affordable to households earning 110% of the median family income or less. This represents roughly 23.5% of our current housing stock. By contrast, there are just 4,436 deed restricted affordable housing units in the City, representing roughly 9% of the total
housing stock.11 Recent experience shows that it now costs the City roughly
9 For example, staff obtained data from the Rent Control Board regarding initial rents for controlled units subject to vacancy decontrol during 2015. Using the AHPP adjustments to median family income for household size and household size occupancy standards, it appears that 86% of studio and one bedroom apartments, and 73% of two bedroom apartments, remained affordable to households earning
200% of size-adjusted median family income (.7 of median family income for studios, .8 for one bedroom units, and .9 for two bedroom units). Using the same
approach, 71% of studio units, 58% of one bedroom units, and 22% of two bedroom units remain affordable to households earning 155% of size-adjusted
median family income.
10 See discussion at page 6 & note 14.
11 See Staff Report 1421presented at 8/25/15 City Council Study Session on Affordable Housing at Fig. 5. The City also administers 1,092 Section 8 tenant- based vouchers. Because the holders of these vouchers almost all live in either deed restricted or affordable rent control units, they do not add to the City’s current overall supply of affordable housing (although they do facilitate the ability of those
with the least income to remain a part of our community).
Item 13.L 07/27/21
37 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
$115,000 per bedroom to assist a non-profit developer to create new affordable housing, and roughly $300,000 per bedroom to assist a non-profit developer to
acquire, rehabilitate and preserve an existing unit as affordable housing.12
The City should do everything practical to keep lower-income Santa Monicans currently living in rent controlled apartments in their homes. This is the most cost effective means of preserving Santa Monica’s existing economic diversity because vacancy decontrol will make virtually all of the remaining affordable rent controlled units unaffordable when the current tenants leave, and because it is expensive to provide replacement affordable housing units.
The City recently has taken important legal actions to protect at-risk tenants. These include the strengthening of the tenant anti-harassment ordinance and the
funding of a second full time housing attorney at the Santa Monica office of the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (“LAFLA”). In order to determine the
efficacy of these measures, and to quickly identify any further actions needed, the Housing Commission recommends that the City Council request and review reports on a minimum of a quarterly basis from the City Attorney, LAFLA, Code Enforcement, and the Rent Control Board – as well as receive public input – on
challenges to tenant retention, actions taken in response, adequacy of enforcement resources, and potential improvements to existing tenant protection laws.
In making this recommendation, the Housing Commission recognizes that
most owners of rent controlled buildings comply with the law and are providing a vital service to the City in maintaining its economic diversity. The Housing Commission publicly recognizes and honors these landlords, most especially those
who owned their buildings continuously since the enactment of rent control, and those who rent to Section 8 tenants. The Housing Commission supports staff’s intention to develop a recommendation to the City Council for further public recognition of these landlords by the City.
The Housing Commission further recommends that the City develop a fund
to provide rental assistance when doing so will keep low income Santa Monicans
12 See Exhibit A hereto (10/19/15 spreadsheet of project costs and City costs from Andy Agle). Acquisition and rehabilitation – although generally less expensive overall – is more expensive to the City because the projects do not qualify for State
or federal tax credits. See Staff Report 1421presented at 8/25/15 City Council Study Session on Affordable Housing at p. 5.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
38 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
currently living in rent controlled units in their homes, such as seniors and totally disabled individuals with fixed incomes, and low wage families. The size of this population is not known at present. Anecdotal information – including inquires to staff from renters seeking assistance – indicates that such a population exists. And this population might be a large one, given that the most recent HUD data available estimates that there are 6,325 Santa Monica renter households earning 50% or less
of the median family income that are paying more than 50% of their income for
housing.13 Given the uncertainties surrounding the scope of the need, and the best design for administering such a fund, we recommend that the City develop a pilot program with initial funding of $250,000. If the results of the pilot program confirm that the need is greater and that the program at scale would be cost
effective, then greater funding resources should be devoted to the program.
Protect And Expand The Supply Of Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing
Given vacancy decontrol and the realities of the rental market, Santa Monica’s long term ability to maintain economic diversity will depend upon its
supply of deed-restricted affordable housing units. Consequently, the City should protect its current stock and produce new affordable housing units. The Housing Commission recommends:
• Proactive and more comprehensive monitoring of compliance with
AHPP and development agreement (DA) requirements for tenant
13 See HUD CHAS Data for Santa Monica, California (based on 2008-2012 ACS
Survey) at Chart entitled “Income by Cost Burden (Renters only)”, available at http://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/data_querytool_chas.html. This
group consists of 4,375 Santa Monica renter households earning 30% or less of the median family income (some 65% of all such households), and 1,950 Santa Monica renter households earning from 30% to 50% of the median family income
(some 58.6% of all such households). This same HUD data estimates that more than 50% of household income is spent on housing by 1,315 Santa Monica renter
households earning from 50% to 80% of the median family income (some 27.1% of all such households), by 285 Santa Monica renter households earning from 80% to 100% of the median family income (some 9.7% of all such households), and by 90 Santa Monica renter households earning from more than 100% of the median
family income (some 0.6% of all such households),
Item 13.L 07/27/21
39 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
income qualifications and rent levels in existing and future deed- restricted affordable housing units.
• Proactive and more comprehensive efforts to connect qualified residents and workers with all existing and future deed restricted
affordable housing units in the City.
• A return over time to at least the $15 million annual affordable
housing funding levels from local sources that existed prior to the dissolution of redevelopment in 2012. The Housing Commission’s specific recommendations regarding local funding mechanisms and the uses for those funds are set out in the next section two sections of this report.
In order to maximize the impact of funds raised, the City should
review its existing inventory of land to identify sites than can be devoted to the development of affordable housing. For example, the
Housing Commission supports using a portion of the Big Blue Bus site for affordable housing, subject to a feasibility study.14
• Incentivize homeowners to add auxiliary dwelling units as deed restricted affordable housing. The City of Los Angeles is studying the
concept, and such a program already is in place in Sonoma County.15
We believe the City should develop such an affordable auxiliary dwelling unit program appropriately tailored to our circumstances.
• Continue to monitor and develop plans to maintain the affordability of units subject to City and non-City deed restrictions as these restrictions approach termination.
14 Because the site at 2018 19th Street was identified by a local architect as another potential site for affordable housing, the Housing Commission recommends that the City Council consider anew whether a proposed sale of that property is
advisable in light of the issues raised at the August 25, 2015 affordable housing study session and/or in this report.
15 See “Affordable Second Dwelling Unit Program,” Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department and Sonoma County Community Development
Commission
Item 13.L 07/27/21
40 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
In addition, it appears some for-profit developers are involved in acquiring and preserving existing units as housing affordable to renters earning 80% of
median neighborhood income.16 The Housing Commission recommends that the
City reach out to these developers to determine what incentives (if any) would be required to make such a program generate affordable housing in Santa Monica for those earning the Los Angeles County median family income or less (the benchmark set in the City Charter for affordable housing production), without displacing existing residents. Further, development projects should be approved only when, in their own right, they make a positive contribution to our community, and they also make very
substantial contributions to affordable housing. The Housing Commission does not believe any new market rate or mixed use development project should be
approved solely because it provides new inclusionary affordable housing units. The Housing Commission is concerned that any failure to follow this approach undermines community support for affordable housing.
Projects requiring DAs should provide affordable housing substantially in
excess of the current AHPP minimum requirements for Tier 2.17 The Housing Commission recommends that the City Council require Tier 3 projects at a
minimum satisfy the City Charter requirements by providing 30% of units affordable to households earning 80% of median family income or less, with at least half of that 30% affordable to households earning 60% of median family income or less. Alternatively, the City Council should consider requiring Tier 3 projects to provide at a minimum double the current AHPP minimum requirements for Tier 2 projects.
Finally, the Housing Commission supports the staff’s intention to evaluate and, if feasible and cost-effective, develop a program to provide financial and other
incentives to landlords to rent existing units to low income households.
16 See “This investment fund has a social agenda — and high-profile backers,” 9/18/15 Los Angeles Times.
17 See Santa Monica Municipal Code §§ 9.23.030(A), 9.64.040 to 9.64.060.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
41 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES
The City should assertively pursue all options for accessing funding from
County, State and federal programs. In doing so, the City should work with our County, State and federal elected representatives to press the case for using Santa Monica as a demonstration project on the viability and benefits of deconcentrating
poverty. Our City’s historical dedication to maintaining an economically diverse population, our outstanding social services and public schools, and our national name recognition make us an ideal location for such a demonstration project if
officials consider the new emphasis by HUD and others on deconcentrating
poverty.18 Santa Monica should further enhance its case to County officials by targeting affordable housing for populations on which the County otherwise is required to spend money (such as the homeless, the disabled, veterans, formerly incarcerated persons, and family reunification populations, among others). The Housing Commission recommends that the City Council request and review reports regarding the progress of these efforts at a minimum on a semi-annual basis.
The Housing Commission recognizes that these external funding sources are uncertain and will require long term effort to access. The City can and should continue its proud tradition of putting its own resources where its values are, and so should develop new and stable local funding sources for affordable housing
sufficient to at least restore the $15 million per year from local sources spent on affordable housing prior to the dissolution of redevelopment in 2012.
The Staff Report for the August 25, 2015 City Council study session on
affordable housing identifies and discusses the following potential local funding sources:
1. Monies allocated from the City’s General Fund; 2. General obligation bonds; 3. An increase in the transient occupancy tax;
18 See HUD Final Rule “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (June 30, 2015). For example, a recent Harvard study found that children who leave concentrated
areas of poverty before they are 13 reap lifetime benefits in terms of educational attainment, income, and family stability. See Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, and
Lawrence F. Katz, “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment” (May 2015).
Item 13.L 07/27/21
42 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
4. An increase in the sales tax;
5. An increase in the real property transfer tax;
6. A parking tax; 7. A utility user tax; and 8. A parcel tax.
The Housing Commission considered each of these sources, as well as (1) a construction tax, (2) an increase in the commercial linkage fee for affordable housing, and (3) locally imposing a $75 per document recording fee.19
Existing General Fund Revenues
The Housing Commission believes that any approach to local funding for
affordable housing (including funding to retain current low income Santa Monicans in their rent controlled apartments) should combine the repurposing of
some existing General Fund revenues with the creation of new local funding sources. Given the level of the threat to our core City value of economic diversity, and the City Council’s designation of maintaining that diversity as one of the top three City goals, the expenditure of funds for affordable housing should be a higher
priority than some existing uses of funds. The City Manager and the City Council should determine where to adjust the existing budget to repurpose those funds for
affordable housing.
The Housing Commission believes that at least $7.5 million for affordable housing should come from new general revenue taxes, and that the City should spend up to another $7.5 million of existing general revenues (roughly 2% of the current General Fund), in order to meet or exceed a total of $15 million per year in local funding for affordable housing.
New General Fund Revenues
In order to raise at least $7.5 million in new revenues, the Housing
Commission gave primary consideration to the following proposals:
19 This proposal is for a local version of the bill Assembly Speaker Atkins introduced in Sacramento. It has been suggested that, unlike the other local
funding sources identified, this source may not require voter approval. That is a question for the City Attorney.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
43 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
1. Real Estate Transfer Tax:
Place on the 2016 ballot the equivalent of Measures H and HH from the
2014 ballot. Measure H would have imposed an increase in the real estate transfer tax from $3 to $9 per $1000 of sales price for commercial, multi-family and single
family properties sold for over $1 million. Measure HH asked the voters whether they wanted the City to spend the general funds raised by Measure H on affordable
housing. The Housing Commission endorsed Measures H and HH in 2014, but Measure H was rejected by the voters. Staff estimates that the tax increase, if approved in 2016, would raise $9.6 million per year ($2.4 million for each $1.50 increase in the tax).
2. Construction Tax:
Place on the 2016 ballot a commercial and for-profit multi-family construction tax equal to 5% of calculated value, with a companion advisory measure asking the voters whether they want the City to spend the general funds
raised on affordable housing. This tax falls on commercial enterprises that create additional need for affordable housing and benefit economically from the changing economic demographics of our City. Staff is continuing to analyze the likely revenues to be generated by such a tax, but estimates that it is not less than $7.5
million per year based on recent annual permitted value.20
3. Sales Tax:
Place on the 2016 ballot a one quarter of one percent sales tax increase, with a companion advisory measure asking the voters whether they want the City to spend the general funds raised on affordable housing. Because the sales tax proposal requires a contribution from every person and business entity that resides in, works in, or visits Santa Monica, the individual burden is modest (25 cents for
every $100 spent in the City on non-exempt purchases21). Universal funding also
20 We understand that the City Attorney is reviewing whether there are any legal impediments to this proposed tax.
21 California law exempts various necessary purchases from sales taxes, such as purchases of food (including pet food) and medicine. See California State Board of Equalization, “Sales and Use Taxes: Exemptions and Exclusions” (July 2014). Former Mayor Denny Zane advised the Housing Commission at its December 5,
2015 meeting that sales tax data from Los Angeles County as a whole indicates
(footnote continued)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
44 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
is consistent with the belief that maintaining Santa Monica’s economic diversity is central to its character and a benefit to everyone who participates in our City’s life.
Staff estimates that such an increase in the sale tax would raise $7.5 million per year.
The Housing Commission unanimously expresses its preference for the sales tax. The Housing Commission recognizes, however, that a majority of the voters will have the final say on any proposed tax increase, and therefore recommends
that the City Council engage in polling and take still further public input before deciding on a final course of action.
PROPOSED USES OF FUNDS
The best use of affordable housing funds will depend in part on the amount
of funds available and conditions at the time funding is restored. The Housing Commission offers several general recommendations.
Income Targeting
The Housing Commission recommends that locally raised affordable housing funds be used in a manner consistent with historical income targeting
patterns (that is, that three-quarters of total households served be those earning 60% or less of the area median income, including at least 50% of total households
served be those earning 50% or less of the area median income).22 The need appears most extreme at these lower income levels. For example, the most recent HUD data available estimates that almost 80% of the more than 8,000 Santa Monica renter households that are severely cost burdened (i.e., paying more than
that businesses and visitors pay 58% of the sales tax, and residents pay 42%. Even if residents in Santa Monica pay this same 42% of City sales tax (and Santa Monica residents might pay a lesser percentage given the City’s very high levels of tourism and business activity), each of the 93,000 Santa Monica residents on average would pay less than 10 cents per day of additional sales tax under the
proposal.
22 See “Population Served – Income Level (Maximum Income)” Table for “City-
Funded Housing Stock” on Affordable Housing Information Summary provided by Barbara Collins at the Commission’s June 2015 meeting.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
45 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
50% of their income for housing) are households earning 50% or less of the area median family income (the large majority of whom earn 30% of less of area
median family income).23 And 95% of the more than 3,000 applicants on the City’s local affordable housing Waiting List who work or live in Santa Monica identified themselves as members of households earning 50% or less of the area median family income when they applied in 2011 (including 80% earning less than
30% of area median family income).24 No funds should be used for households earning in excess of 80% of area median income.
Community / Program Targeting
Protection Of Lower-Income Rent Controlled Tenants
As discussed, the Housing Commission favors development of a $250,000
pilot rental assistance program to keep low-income Santa Monicans in their rent controlled unit, followed by expansion of the program if the pilot results confirm a
greater need exists and that the program at scale would be cost effective.
Property Acquisitions
The Housing Commission recommends that the City strongly consider
issuing lease-revenue bonds backed by at least a portion of the new revenue
streams generated, and using the bond proceeds to acquire land or buildings suitable for affordable housing. There is little doubt that the cost of acquisition
will only rise in the future.
Non-Profit Funding
The Housing Commission recommends that the City continue its historic
commitment to funding non-profit housing providers for both the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units and the construction of new units as deed-restricted
23 See HUD CHAS Data for Santa Monica, California (based on 2008-2012 ACS Survey) at Chart entitled “Income by Cost Burden (Renters only)”, available at http://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il15/index.html.
24 See Santa Monica Housing Division, Local Waiting List (Aug. 15, 2011).
Item 13.L 07/27/21
46 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
affordable housing.25 The City’s non-profit housing providers historically have delivered more affordable units, and much deeper affordability, than for-profit
developers of inclusionary affordable units.26
The City’s excellent social services programs which serve seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans and chronically homeless individuals, leverage County, State and federal funds for supportive housing. As new affordable housing revenues become available, the City should continue its proud tradition of providing a share of that funding to create additional supportive housing units in Santa Monica.
Finally, the City should work with its non-profit housing providers to
determine whether there are cost-effective opportunities for acquisition and rehabilitation of non-occupied properties (such as older commercial buildings) that
could qualify for tax credits (thereby lowering the cost to the City of adaptive reuse). 27
25 41% of City loans to affordable housing non-profits have been for acquisition
and rehabilitation of existing rental units. See Staff Report 1421presented at 8/25/15 City Council Study Session on Affordable Housing at p. 5.
26 Compare “Population Served – Income Level (Maximum Income)” Table for “City-Funded Housing Stock” with “Population Served – Income Level” Table for
“Inclusionary Housing Stock” on Affordable Housing Information Summary provided by Barbara Collins at the Commission’s June 2015 meeting.
27 See discussion at pages 4-5 & note 13.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
47 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
To: Santa Monica City Council From: Santa Monica Housing Commission Date: May 18, 2017 REPORT REGARDING HOUSING TRUST FUND GUIDELINES
The Santa Monica Housing Commission has reviewed the existing Housing Trust Fund Guidelines to determine whether any adjustments should be made in light of (1) the elimination by the State of Redevelopment Agency funding (“RDA funding”) in 2012, (2) the recommendations contained in the Housing Commission’s 2015 Affordable Housing Strategies
Report (Attachment A hereto), (3) the passage of Measures GS and GSH in 2016, (4)
accumulated experience, (5) public comment at Housing Commission meetings, and (6) written public comment received in response to the Housing Commission’s specific requests for public comment (Attachment B hereto). This Report sets forth the views of the Housing Commission as approved at its May 18, 2017 meeting.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
48 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................1
II. THE HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CREATE A “REDEVELOPMENT REPLACEMENT HOUSING TRUST FUND” ...................................................................................................................2
A. The Rationale And Proposed Funding Sources For A New “Redevelopment Replacement Housing Trust Fund” ..............................................2
B. Proposed Eligibility Guidelines For A New “Redevelopment Replacement Housing Trust Fund”................................................................................................3
1. The Housing Commission Recommends That Both New
Construction And Acquisition and Rehabilitation Constitute Eligible Uses, Without Any Minimum Average Number of Bedrooms Per Unit Requirement .................................................................3
(a) Despite The Greater Cost To The City And Other
Limitations, The Housing Commission Recommends
Retention Of The Option To Fund Acquisition And Rehabilitation Projects .....................................................................3
(b) The Housing Commission Does Not Favor A Minimum Average Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit Requirement For Project Eligibility .............................................................................5
2. The Housing Commission Recommends A Requirement That All Units In Eligible Projects Be Affordable To Households Making 80% Or Less Of The Los Angeles County Area Median Income ...............6
3. The Housing Commission Recommends That Eligible Borrowers
Be Restricted To Nonprofits ........................................................................8
C. Additional Uses ........................................................................................................8
III. THE HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS EXPANDED PUBLIC PLANNING AND REPORTING MEASURES REGARDING THE SOURCES AND USES OF ALL HOUSING TRUST FUND MONIES ..............................................9
A. The Housing Commission Recommends The Creation Of An Affordable
Housing Planning And Reporting Procedure Tied To The Housing Element ....................................................................................................................9
B. The Housing Commission Recommends Adopting Measures To Increase Transparency Regarding The Expenditure Of Housing Trust Funds ...................11
IV. THE HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT CERTAIN LIMITED
CHANGES BE MADE TO THE PROCESS OF MAKING INDIVIDUAL LOANS ..............................................................................................................................12
Item 13.L 07/27/21
49 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
A. The Housing Commission Recommends No Change At This Time To The
Persons Authorized To Approve Individual Loans ...............................................13
B. The Housing Commission Recommends That Clearer Guidance Be Provided To Staff Regarding The Policy Considerations That Properly Inform The Exercise Of Its Discretion To Approve Or Reject Loan Applications ...........................................................................................................13
C. The Housing Commission Recommends That Staff Generate A Written Statement Of Reasons For Granting Or Denying Loan Applications ....................15
D. The Housing Commission Does Not Recommend That Public Notice And Comment Be Added Prior To Loan Application Review And Approval, But It Does Recommend That City Council Direct The City Attorney To
Provide Legal Advice To It Regarding Certain Commenters’ Concerns ..............15
E. The Housing Commission Recommends Restoring A Maximum Loan Limit For Administrative Approvals Independent Of The Per Unit Limits In The Existing Guidelines ....................................................................................17
V. DEVELOPER FEES ..........................................................................................................18
Item 13.L 07/27/21
50 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Housing Commission recommends that the City Council make the following changes to the existing Housing Trust Fund Guidelines: 1. Create a “Redevelopment Replacement Housing Trust Fund” that will be funded with
one-half of the GS sales tax revenues, and with a matching amount (at least) of other City
general fund revenues (e.g., the RDA loan repayments). Doing so will provide transparency regarding the amount and uses of GS funds, will affirm the City’s ongoing commitment to providing the matching funds required to fully replace (at least) the lost RDA funding previously used for affordable housing, and will provide transparency regarding fulfillment of that
commitment.
2. Provide that this new fund may be used for (1) loans to non-profits for new construction projects, or for acquisition and rehabilitation projects, targeted to households earning 80% or less of the Los Angeles County Area Median Income, and (2) rental subsidies with City Council
approval. The potential funding of a rental assistance program was a major element of the
campaign in favor of Measures GS and GSH, and including it as an eligible use—subject to City Council approval—will both affirm that intention to the voters and streamline the process of bringing the contemplated pilot program to scale.
3. Require that Staff prepare, the public and Housing Commission review, and the City
Council approve a plan for affordable housing production coinciding with each successive Housing Element cycle, followed by annual reporting by Staff on progress and annual consideration by Staff, the public, the Housing Commission and the City Council of whether to make changes to the plan. Implementing this planning and reporting process will help assure (1)
compliance with the affordable housing production goals set forth in the approved Housing
Element, (2) compliance with Prop R’s requirement that 30% of annual new housing production meet certain affordability targets, (3) maximization of the return on scarce Housing Trust Fund monies, and (4) robust opportunities for input on spending priorities by the City Council, Housing Commission, and the public.
4. Clarify that the criteria enumerated in the current guidelines for selection among competing projects that meet the minimum requirements are to be applied to determine whether to approve or reject all applications that meet the minimum requirements, irrespective of whether or not an additional application is pending at the same time seeking the same funds, and add to
those criteria (1) whether the proposed project meets an area of need identified in the City
Council approved affordable housing production plan for the Housing Element cycle, and (2) consideration of the applicant’s past and projected future effectiveness in meeting the applicable preferences established by the City (including the preference for those who live or work fulltime in the City).
5. Require that Staff prepare a written statement explaining its decision to approve or reject loans that meet the minimum requirements in light of the enumerated evaluation criteria. Requiring a written statement should help assure that the evaluation criteria are fully considered, and will enhance the ability of the public and the City Council to evaluate the quality of each
loan decision and the overall effectiveness of the current structure for making loan decisions.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
51 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
6. Require measures to increase transparency including (1) requiring successful applicants to hold a public meeting within 30 days of a loan commitment, (2) requiring that all relevant and public documents regarding the affordable housing production plan, the Housing Trust funds, individual loan application decisions, and ongoing loans are available in one easily accessible location on the City’s website, and (3) permitting interested organizations and members of the
public to sign up online to receive an automatic email with a link to the document every time a new document is posted. 7. Limit loans subject to administrative approval to no more than $15 million.
The Housing Commission does not recommend that the City Council make changes at this time to the persons authorized to make loan decisions of $15 million or less, and does not recommend that the public receive notice of individual loan applications and an opportunity to comment prior to loan commitment. The Housing Commission is not inclined to make any changes to the current expedited and confidential loan review and approval process—which Staff and non-profit
affordable housing providers assert facilitates the production of affordable housing—absent very good reasons to do so. Given the proposed enhanced planning, loan approval and transparency measures recommended above, the Housing Commission does not see such very good reasons at the present time.
Finally, in order to provide further assurance to the public that the City is fully complying with both its Fair Housing obligations, and its public safety obligations, the Housing Commission recommends that City Council direct the City Attorney to review the existing guidelines and procedures and provide legal advice regarding whether any changes are appropriate.
II. THE HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CREATE A “REDEVELOPMENT REPLACEMENT HOUSING TRUST FUND”
A. The Rationale And Proposed Funding Sources For A New “Redevelopment Replacement Housing Trust Fund”
Prior to 2012, Santa Monica spent approximately $15 million per year on affordable housing.
Most of that funding came from RDA funds drawn from the City’s “Redevelopment Housing Trust Fund.” The State then ended RDA funding in 2012.
In 2015, the Housing Commission recommended that the City Council request that the voters replace half of the lost RDA funds with new revenues from a ¼ cent local sales tax increase, and
that the City Council replace the other half with funds from existing general fund revenues. The
City Council responded by (1) placing Measures GS and GSH on the November 2016 ballot, and (2) accepting Staff’s recommendation that the City devote all RDA loan repayments received to affordable housing.
Now that the voters have approved Measures GS and GSH, the Housing Commission
recommends that the City Council establish a new “Redevelopment Replacement Housing Trust
Fund” (“RRHTF”) to be funded by (1) the half of the GS sales tax revenues voters advised should go to affordable housing, and (2) a matching amount (at least) of other City general fund
Item 13.L 07/27/21
52 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
revenues (e.g., RDA loan repayments). Creation of this fund will provide transparency regarding
the amount and uses of the GS revenues. It also will affirm the City’s ongoing commitment to providing the matching funds required to fully replace (at least) the lost RDA funding previously used for affordable housing, and will provide transparency regarding fulfillment of that commitment. This is particularly important because the principal matching funding committed
by City Council to date (the RDA loan repayments) are one time funds, and long-range
budgetary planning is required now to assure that the matching funds will continue on an ongoing basis.
B. Proposed Eligibility Guidelines For A New “Redevelopment Replacement Housing Trust Fund”
1. The Housing Commission Recommends That Both New Construction And Acquisition and Rehabilitation Constitute Eligible Uses, Without Any Minimum Average Number of Bedrooms Per Unit Requirement
The existing Housing Trust Fund Guidelines generally authorize lending both for the construction of new affordable housing, and for the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing
units as affordable housing. Under the existing “Citywide Housing Trust Fund” (“Citywide
HTF”) guidelines, however, any Affordable Housing Production Program (“AHPP”) in-lieu fees deposited into the Citywide HTF (as opposed to development agreement or office mitigation funds) can only be used for new construction, and that new construction must have on average two bedrooms per unit. Neither the 11/24/98 Staff report supporting City Council adoption of
the original version of the current consolidated guidelines, nor the Staff reports supporting
subsequent revisions, identify the reason(s) for these restrictions on the use of AHPP in-lieu fees.1
(a) Despite The Greater Cost To The City And Other Limitations, The Housing Commission Recommends Retention Of The Option To Fund Acquisition And Rehabilitation Projects
In 2015, Staff provided financial information about all of the affordable housing projects supported by the various Housing Trust Funds from 2006 forward (Attachment C hereto). This information confirms that acquisition and rehabilitation projects—while less expensive overall—currently are considerably more expensive to the City than new construction projects that
leverage City dollars through the use of tax credit financing.
1 One commenter recommended eliminating these restrictions on the use of AHPP in-lieu fees in
order to provide maximum flexibility. Given that the AHPP program is part of the City Council’s implementation of voter-approved Prop R’s mandate that at least 30% of all new housing constructed in the City meet certain affordability thresholds, the Housing Commission believes it remains appropriate to limit the use of AHPP in-lieu fees to new construction. Similarly, because the AHPP program generally requires that on-site inclusionary affordable
units contain at least two bedrooms (see S.M.M.C. § 9.64.050(C)), the Housing Commission likewise believes it is appropriate to retain the requirement that AHPP in-lieu fees go to new affordable housing construction projects with an average of at least two bedrooms per unit.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
53 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
In particular, five new construction projects were completed during the period from 2012-2014.
As is typical in new construction, both City funding and tax credit financing were used. In each case the projects averaged more than 2 units per bedroom. The cost of City support per unit ranged from $236,111 to $307,896. The cost of City support per bedroom ranged from $96,650 to $133,144.
By contrast, two acquisition and rehabilitation projects were undertaken during the period from
2012 to 2015. As is typical in acquisition rehabilitation, only City funding was used. One project averaged one bedroom per unit, the other averaged 1.8 bedrooms per unit. The cost of City support per unit ranged from $302,296 to $550,000. The cost of City support per bedroom ranged from $302,096 to $305,556. One additional acquisition and rehabilitation project was
undertaken in 2016, again using only City funds. This project involved one bedroom units. The
cost of City support per unit and per bedroom was $529,667.
Acquisition and rehabilitation projects have two additional limitations in comparison to new construction projects. First, because up to half of the existing residents of an eligible acquisition and rehabilitation project may have incomes exceeding the affordability covenants to be imposed
on the units, the full benefit of the project as affordable housing may not occur immediately.2
Second, acquisition and rehabilitation projects—at least of the type typically funded in Santa Monica—do not count toward satisfying the housing production goals established through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) process and adopted in the approved Housing Element.3
Given these facts, the Housing Commission has a strong general preference for new affordable
housing construction projects using tax-credit funding, as opposed to affordable acquisition and rehabilitation projects. As documented in our 2015 Affordable Housing Strategies Report (Attachment A hereto), rising rents and the vacancy decontrol mandated by the Costa-Hawkins Act mean that, in the not too distant future, the only opportunities for those in the bottom half of
the Los Angeles County income distribution to live in Santa Monica will be in whatever deed-
restricted affordable housing we as a community are prepared to create. It therefore is important to maximize the return on any affordable housing funds expended on the creation of new deed-restricted units.
Nevertheless, the Housing Commission believes that it is not prudent to eliminate altogether the
option to fund affordable acquisition and rehabilitation projects. First, based on the comments
received from affordable housing developers, the Housing Commission is uncertain as to whether there presently are and/or will continue to be sufficient opportunities to fully utilize all
2 Current HTF Guidelines provide that acquisition and rehabilitation projects are eligible for
funding if at least 51% of existing residents have incomes of 80% of AMI or less, and there is
assurance that the required affordability covenants will apply after those residents ultimately depart from their units.
3 See City of Santa Monica 2013-2021 Housing Element Ch. 5.G.2.a, at pp. 137-38.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
54 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
available funding on new construction projects utilizing tax-credit financing.4 Second, the
Housing Commission is uncertain that the current differential in City costs between new construction and acquisition / rehabilitation projects will remain as large as it has been in the past. The proposals by the Trump Administration and Congressional leadership to substantially reduce federal corporate tax rates already have reduced the funds that can be raised through tax
credits, and would reduce those funds further if actually adopted.5 Third, there may be instances
in which other important City goals (for example, protecting existing low income residents, protecting existing neighborhoods, spreading affordable housing throughout the City, et cetera) justify the additional cost to the City of an acquisition and rehabilitation project.6 Therefore, at present the Housing Commission prefers to rely on the increased planning and transparency measures identified in Part III below—rather than a categorical ban on acquisition and
rehabilitation projects—to provide increased assurance that affordable housing funding decisions give adequate weight to the differential in costs to the City between new construction projects and acquisition and rehabilitation projects.
(b) The Housing Commission Does Not Favor A Minimum Average Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit Requirement For Project Eligibility
The appropriate size of a unit to construct depends upon the target population for that unit. For example, Step-Up commented that studio units are the most appropriate initial housing to
4 The Housing Commission renews the recommendation in its 2015 Affordable Housing Strategies Report (see Attachment A) that the City review its existing landholdings to identify sites where new affordable housing projects can be constructed.
5 See “Developers of affordable housing in California are on pins and needles over Trump's tax
plan,” Los Angeles Times (2/26/17), available at http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-trump-tax-affordable-housing-20170226-story.html.
6 The Housing Commission recognizes that some residents also prefer affordable acquisition and rehabilitation projects because they will not generate any additional traffic. But it is office and commercial development that is the principal driver of increased traffic in Santa Monica.
Housing generates far fewer additional vehicle trips than commercial and office development. See 6/15/09 “Trip-Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California Phase 2: Data Collection,” prepared for Caltrans, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/researchreports/reports/2009/final_summary_report-
calif._infill_trip-generation_rates_study_july_2009.pdf. And housing for low-income
households that often do not own cars generates even less vehicle traffic. Indeed, because low-income workers who currently commute to Santa Monica have a preference—together with existing residents—when competing for affordable housing units, newly constructed affordable housing projects might even effect a net reduction in traffic. In any event, given the importance of maintaining the City’s economically diversity—a goal repeatedly affirmed both by the voters
and by the City Councilmembers they elect—the Housing Commission does not believe any marginal traffic differential between new construction and acquisition / rehabilitation projects should drive affordable housing funding decisions.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
55 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
construct for the chronically homeless population it seeks to serve. By contrast, CCSM new
construction projects have average more than two bedrooms per unit—even without such a requirement in the former Redevelopment Housing Trust Fund—in accordance with its primary mission to serve low-income working families. Therefore, because a minimum average of two bedrooms per unit likely is inappropriate for certain specialty housing projects (such as
supportive housing and senior housing), the Housing Commission does not favor a minimum
average number of bedrooms per unit requirement for new construction projects. The Housing Commission likewise does not favor such a requirement for acquisition and rehabilitation projects because it likely would render much of the City’s existing housing stock ineligible.7 Rather, the Housing Commission favors developing an overall unit mix target for all units funded by the RRHTF as part of the Housing Element/RHNA cycle planning process
recommended in Part III.A below.
2. The Housing Commission Recommends A Requirement That All Units In Eligible Projects Be Affordable To Households Making 80% Or Less Of The Los Angeles County Area Median Income
Under the current guidelines for the Citywide HTF, all assisted units must be affordable to
households whose incomes do not exceed 60% of area median income. By contrast, for the former Redevelopment Housing Trust Fund (“Redevelopment HTF”) new construction units had to be affordable to households whose incomes do not exceed 80% of area median income, while acquisition and rehabilitation units had to be affordable to households whose incomes do not exceed 100% of area median income.
The Housing Commission understands from Staff that the City, when implementing these restrictions, uses figures published by United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and/or the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) for the various income categories. However, the 60% and 80% figures used do not equal the result of multiplying the actual Los Angeles County area median income
by 0.6 and 0.8, respectively. Rather, in each of those categories the qualifying incomes have been adjusted upward by HUD due to the high cost of housing in Los Angeles County.8 For
7 See Santa Monica Rent Control Board 2016 Consolidated Annual Report at 9 (58% of controlled units are zero or one bedroom units, while just 7% are three or more bedroom units), available at https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Rent_Control/Reports/Annual_Reports/2016
%20RCB%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%20-%20FINAL.pdf
8 See “4-Person Very Low-Income Limit Calculation for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA HUD Metro FMR Area” in HUD’s FY 2016 Income Limits Documentation System (applying “High Housing Cost Adjustment); “FY 2016 60% Income Limits Calculation” for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA HUD Metro FMR Area in HUD’s FY 2016 MTSP Income Limits Documentation System (60% figure is 1.2 times HUD’s 50% figure); “FY 2016 Low-
Income Income Limits Calculation” for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA HUD Metro FMR Area in HUD’s FY 2016 Income Limits Documentation System (applying “High Housing Cost Adjustment); HCD’s 5/24/16 Memorandum “State Income Limits For 2016” (explaining
Item 13.L 07/27/21
56 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
example, the current “60 percent income limit” figure provided by HUD—which is the income
limit for households to qualify for residence in units constructed with either federal or California tax credits9—is $52,080 for a family of four,10 a figure which mathematically is just a shade above 80% of the current Los Angeles County area median income for a family of four of $64,800 (per HCD) / $64,400 (per HUD).11 And the “low income limit” figure calculated by
HUD—which HCD notes “[i]n general . . . reflects 80 percent (80%) of the [HUD Median
Family Income] level”12—is $69,45013, a figure that is slightly higher than the current Los Angeles County area median income.
In our 2015 Affordable Housing Strategies Report, the Housing Commission recommended that all of the funds raised through the proposed local sales tax increase and City general fund
matching funds be spent on households earning 80% or less of Los Angeles County area median
income. The Housing Commission reaffirms this recommendation, despite the fact that the “low income limit” figure published by HUD and HCD—and used by the City as the 80% figure—is slightly higher than the actual Los Angeles County area median income. The Housing Commission notes that if two parents in a four person household work fulltime at our new City
minimum wage of $15 per hour, they would earn—without any overtime—more than the “60
percent income limit” (and more than 0.8 times the actual Los Angeles County area median income), but less than the HUD/HCD “low income limit” figure. The Housing Commission is not prepared to exclude the possibility of creating some units for such families with RRHTF funds, which would be the case if the “60% income limit” figure were adopted as an absolute cut
HUD methodology), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits/docs/inc2k16.pdf.
9 See California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Online Compliance Manual at 19-20 (stating
requirement under federal tax credit program), available at http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/compliance/manual/manual.pdf; California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 23610.5(b)(1)(A) (projects eligible for state tax credit must qualify for federal tax credit).
10 See HUD’s “FY 2016 Multifamily Tax Subsidy Project Income Limits Summary, Los
Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA HUD Metro FMR Area”; California Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s “Maximum Income Levels for Projects Placed in Service on or after 3/28/16” at p. 4, available at http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/rentincome/16/income/post20160328.pdf.
11 The HUD figure is slightly lower than the HCD figure because HUD no longer follows a so-
called “hold harmless” policy of never reducing its figures, but HCD has retained that policy.
See HCD’s 5/24/16 Memorandum “State Income Limits For 2016” at p. 1, available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits/docs/inc2k16.pdf.
12 This figure also may differ slightly from the HUD “low income” figure due to HCD’s
retention of the “hold harmless” policy.
13 See HCD’s 5/24/16 Memorandum “State Income Limits For 2016” at p. 1, available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits/docs/inc2k16.pdf.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
57 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
off for RRHTF funding, just as it currently is for Citywide HTF funding under existing
guidelines.14 Rather, the Housing Commission believes that the Housing Element/RHNA cycle planning process recommended in Part III.A below is the proper mechanism with which to assure that the vast majority of the RRHTF funding targets the most disadvantaged groups.
3. The Housing Commission Recommends That Eligible Borrowers Be Restricted To Nonprofits
Under the guidelines for the Citywide HTF, loans can only be made to nonprofits, and to limited partnerships with a nonprofit general partner. By contrast, the guidelines for the former Redevelopment HTF also permitted loans to for-profit developers of affordable housing.
The Housing Commission recommends that the RRHTF be subject to the same non-profit
participation requirement as the Citywide HTF. To date, no one has identified and substantiated
any benefit to the City of providing loans to for-profit developers of affordable housing (such as an ability to leverage private investment funds, an ability to undertake desirable projects that nonprofits are unable to deliver, et cetera). Unless and until such a benefit is identified and vetted by the Housing Commission and the City Council, the Housing Commission believe that
all loans of public funds from the RRHTF should go to nonprofits and to limited partnerships
with a nonprofit general partner.
C. Additional Uses
In 2015 the Housing Commission recommended that the City create a pilot rent-subsidy program for severely rent-burdened low-income residents in long-term rent controlled units and, if successful, that the program should be brought to scale. The City currently is in the process of
creating such a pilot program. The Housing Commission also recommended in 2015 that the City consider the possibility of issuing lease-revenue bonds to acquire property for future development as affordable housing. The Housing Commission understands that Housing Staff is in the process of doing so. During 2016, the Housing Commission heard public comment that certain existing non-profit affordable housing projects created with the support of City funds face
negative cash flows, and may need some additional City support. The Housing Commission is concerned about this issue and is seeking additional information.
Further study, and City Council approval, is required before funds in the RRHTF can or should be used for these additional purposes. The Housing Commission nevertheless recommends that the RRHTF guidelines expressly state that rental subsidies—with City Council approval—are an
eligible use. The potential funding of a rental assistance program was a major element of the campaign in favor of Measures GS and GSH,15 and including it as an eligible use—subject to
14 One commenter suggested adopting the same limit as the cut off for funding from the Citywide HTF funding. The Housing Commission is unaware of the reason the Citywide Housing Trust
Fund targeted 60% of area median income or below, and therefore is not in a position to
determine whether it should be changed.
15 See, e.g., Ballot Argument in Favor of Measure GSH (“In addition, half of the funds from Measure GSH will be used for . . . providing rental assistance and other affordable housing
Item 13.L 07/27/21
58 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
City Council approval—will both affirm that intention to the voters and streamline the process of
bringing the contemplated pilot program to scale.
III. THE HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS EXPANDED PUBLIC PLANNING AND REPORTING MEASURES REGARDING THE SOURCES AND USES OF ALL HOUSING TRUST FUND MONIES
A. The Housing Commission Recommends The Creation Of An Affordable Housing Planning And Reporting Procedure Tied To The Housing Element
Pursuant to California law, the City periodically prepares a Housing Element that must be approved by the State. The current approved Housing Element covers the period from 2014-2021. Included within the Housing Element is a quantified objective for housing production which is based in part on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) performed by the
Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”). In particular, the RHNA process determined that the City’s share of the regional need for new housing production during the period from 2014-2021 is 1,674 units, of which 974 (58.2%) should be below-market affordable units. The City’s quantified objectives in the approved Housing Element reduced the number of affordable units in light of certain conditions prevailing in December 2013 (the time when the
Housing Element was approved), including the loss of Redevelopment funds. Nevertheless, those quantified objectives still call for the production of 1,371 units, of which 671 (48.9%) should be below-market affordable units. These figures, as well as the number of units in each target income category already approved or in construction as of the commencement of the Housing Element/RHNA cycle period, are set forth in the following chart from page 25 of the
Housing Element:
opportunities to low-income families and seniors.”), available at https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Monica,_California,_Sales_Tax,_Measure_GSH_(November_2016); Ballot Argument in Favor of Measure GS (“Measure GSH and Measure GS will provide
locally-controlled funds to help rent-burdened residents, often seniors, stay in their homes
through their golden years”), available at https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Monica,_California,_Allocation_of_Sales_Tax_Revenue_to_Public_Schools_Advisory_Vote,_Measure_GS_(November_2016).
Item 13.L 07/27/21
59 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
While the Housing Element establishes certain overall quantified objectives for affordable housing production, it does not establish clear guidance as to proper uses of City affordable housing funding resources. The Housing Element is at a very high level both as to the nature of the units to be produced, and as to the mechanisms to assure their production. No objectives are
established as to the size of the units to be produced, the nature of the units (e.g., family,
supportive, senior), or their locations within the City. Moreover, no particular mechanism is provided for tracking progress toward even these high-level goals, and for adjusting City policies (both in terms of inclusionary units and expenditures of City resources) as necessary to achieve these goals. Finally, there is no formal mechanism for the public and the City Council to weigh
in on spending priorities on an ongoing basis .
Therefore, to help assure (1) compliance with the affordable housing production goals set forth in the approved Housing Element, (2) compliance with Prop R’s requirement that 30% of annual new housing production meet certain affordability targets, (3) maximization of the return on scarce Housing Trust Fund monies, and (4) robust opportunities for input on spending priorities
by the City Council, Housing Commission, and the public, the Housing Commission
recommends the inclusion within the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines of the following planning and reporting process:
The City Manager shall prepare an initial proposed plan for affordable housing development in the City during the period covered by the current Housing
Element (“the proposed Initial Plan”). The Housing Division shall make the
proposed Initial Plan available online, and provide a 45 day period for written public comment. The Housing Division also shall seek public comment at a public meeting held between the 30th and 45th day of the comment period. The Housing Division thereafter shall submit the proposed Initial Plan—together with
any public comment received—to the Housing Commission for its review and
advice. The Housing Division then shall submit the proposed Initial Plan—together with the public comment and the recommendations of the Housing Commission—to the City Council for its review and its approval. The Housing
Item 13.L 07/27/21
60 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Division thereafter will prepare an annual report detailing (1) the source and
amount of funds flowing into each housing trust fund during the prior year, (2) the amount and uses of funds flowing out of each housing trust fund during the prior year, (3) the number and type of affordable units made available for occupancy during the prior year, and whether generated from housing trust fund expenditures
or as inclusionary units, (4) the number and types of units by which the annual
requirement of Proposition R was either missed or exceeded, (5) a cumulative figure of each of the foregoing items within the period covered by the Housing Element and a comparison with the targets set forth in the Housing Element, and (6) a comparison of the cumulative affordable housing production within the
period covered by the adopted Initial Plan with the goals set forth in that plan.
The Housing Division shall submit this report—together with any recommended changes to the approved Initial Plan—to the Housing Commission for its review and advice, and then submit the annual report and recommendations—together with the recommendations of the Housing Commission—to the City Council for
its review and approval.
The City Manager and the Housing Division shall repeat this process each time a new Housing Element is approved.
B. The Housing Commission Recommends Adopting Measures To Increase Transparency Regarding The Expenditure Of Housing Trust Funds
Prior to the termination of RDA funding, the City spent approximately $16 million per year in
Housing Trust funds. Thanks to the voters’ approval of Measures GS and GSH—and with the commitment of the City Council to match the funds raised through those measures—the City is poised to resume spending at that same level.
The existing Housing Trust Fund Guidelines provide for almost no reporting to the public
regarding these very substantial expenditures.16 Nor is such information readily accessible on
the City’s website.
The Housing Commission believes that increased transparency is critical regarding the expenditure of such large sums of money on what has been identified as a top public policy priority by both the City Council at its August 2015 Retreat, and by the voters with their
November 2016 approval of Measures GS and GSH. The Housing Commission therefore
recommends that the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines include the following measures to assure that all relevant and public information is available in one easily accessible location on the City’s website, to assure that interested organizations and members of the public can sign up to receive an automatic email with a link to the document every time a new document is posted, and to
assure that interested members of the public have a prompt opportunity to inquire about
approved loans and the associated projects:
16 The sole provision for public notice is the following requirement at page 15 of the existing guidelines: “Notice of the issuance of the commitment shall be posted publicly, and a copy of such notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.”
Item 13.L 07/27/21
61 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
The City shall require any loan recipient to hold a public meeting about the
associated project within 30 days of delivery of the loan commitment. The recipient must provide a document giving notice of the date, time and location of public meeting to the Housing Division at least 15 days prior to the public meeting date.
The City shall place on its website, in one easily identifiable location labeled
“Housing Trust Funds”, all of the following materials within one week of each such document becoming public: (1) the current Housing Trust Fund Guidelines; (2) all documents generated and made public by the City Manager, the Housing Division, the Housing Commission, and the City Council pursuant to the
affordable housing planning and reporting process described in Part __ of these
Guidelines, (3) the written explanations of the City’s decisions whether to approve or reject applications described in Part ___ of these Guidelines (which shall be deemed public upon either communication to the applicant that its application was rejected, or delivery of the commitment letter to the applicant
when an application is accepted), (4) all loan commitment letters issued (which
shall be deemed public when delivered to the applicant), (5) all notices of the required public meeting following a loan commitment, and (6) all annual reports provided by Housing Trust Fund recipients pursuant to these Guidelines (which shall be deemed public upon receipt). The City also shall provide—at the same
location on its website—a mechanism whereby interested members of the public
can sign up to receive an automatic email with a link to the document every time a new document is posted to this section of the City’s website.
IV. THE HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT CERTAIN LIMITED CHANGES BE MADE TO THE PROCESS OF MAKING INDIVIDUAL LOANS
The existing Housing Trust Fund Guidelines generally provide for an expedited and confidential
process of administrative review and approval of individual loan applications. Staff and various non-profit affordable housing providers assert that this process facilitates the production in the City of both new construction and acquisition / rehabilitation affordable housing projects. According to Staff and these providers, the existing loan approval process makes them more
competitive in the acquisition of suitable properties in the City (which are in short supply) by (1)
keeping potential competitors from learning of the non-profit’s acquisition plans before the non-profit is in a position to make its offer for each property to the owner, and (2) permits the non-profit to timely demonstrate to the owner that the non-profit definitely has the financial resources in hand to consummate a purchase transaction.
In 2016, a single loan was approved. That loan was in the amount of $6.356 million, and was for
the purpose of acquiring and rehabilitating a property consisting of twelve single bedroom units. As noted in Part II.B.1.a above, this loan represented an expenditure of $529,667 per bedroom, which is far above (1) the expenditure of $302,096 to $305,556 per bedroom for two other acquisition / rehabilitation projects supported with City loans during the period from 2012-2015,
and (2) the expenditure of $96,650 to $133,144per bedroom for five new construction projects
completed during the period from 2012-2014. In light of the very high cost-per bedroom represented by this loan, the Housing Commission has considered potential changes to the loan
Item 13.L 07/27/21
62 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
decision-making process—and recommends that some of these potential should be made—as
explained below.
In addition, the Housing Commission has appointed a subcommittee to observe the decision-making process over the next year in order to facilitate its consideration of whether to recommend additional changes.
A. The Housing Commission Recommends No Change At This Time To The Persons Authorized To Approve Individual Loans
The current Housing Trust Fund Guidelines provide that “[a] commitment letter shall be prepared by the Housing Division, reviewed by the Manager of the Division and the Director of Housing and Economic Development, and signed by the City Manager/Executive Director. The letter shall state the maximum amount of Program funds reserved for the project and list all of
the additional conditions, documents and steps that must be taken by the Borrower prior to loan closing.”
At least at this time, the Housing Commission does not recommend making any substantive changes to this portion of the guidelines. Adding decisionmakers risks impeding the production of affordable housing by slowing down the approval process. And—particularly if a Brown
Act body is thereby created—adding decisionmakers (or even advisors) risks impeding the production of affordable housing by prematurely making the non-profits’ acquisition plans known to the for-profit developers competing for property acquisition.
Particularly given the affordable housing crisis documented in our December 2015 Affordable Housing Strategies Report (Exhibit A hereto), the Housing Commission is not prepared to take
steps that risk impeding the City’s historical success as an affordable housing producer absent very good reasons for doing so. Given the proposed enhanced planning and transparency measures recommended in Part III above, as well as the proposed improvements to the loan approval process recommended below, the Housing Commission does not see such very good reasons at the present time.
The Housing Commission does recommend that the guidelines clarify that the Manager of the Housing Division and the Director of Housing and Economic Development not only must review the proposed commitment letter, but also must approve it in writing.
B. The Housing Commission Recommends That Clearer Guidance Be Provided To Staff Regarding The Policy Considerations That Properly Inform The Exercise Of Its Discretion To Approve Or Reject Loan Applications
The current Housing Trust Fund Guidelines provide (bolding and underlining in original):
“These requirements are minimum requirements for participation in City Programs and are subject to change at any time. Meeting these requirements is not a guarantee of participation in any Program. The City reserves the right to require additional qualifications for individual projects. The City reserves the right to reject any and all applications and to accept applications which in its judgment best serve the interests of the City. On a
Item 13.L 07/27/21
63 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
case by case basis, City Council may also modify or waive provisions of these Guidelines.”
They further provide:
“In selecting among competing project applications, unless otherwise determined for a particular project, priority shall be given to projects that:
(1) Significantly increase affordable housing opportunities for
households who have difficulty finding housing including the homeless, large families, the disabled, seniors, and persons traditionally served by Single Room Occupancy housing. (2) Are cost effective or achieve the lowest possible subsidy per unit
for City/Agency resources.
(3) Benefit a high percentage of very low and low income households by ensuring deeper affordability. (4) Are located in areas currently underserved by affordable housing developments.
(5) Address an area of need identified in the Housing Element of the
City of Santa Monica.” The Housing Commission first recommends that the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines clarify that the enumerated selection criteria are to be applied by the decisionmakers to determine whether to
approve or reject applications that meet the minimum requirements, irrespective of whether or
not an additional application is pending at the same time seeking the same funds. The mere fact that a project meets the minimum guideline requirements, and the Housing Trust Funds has money available, is not an adequate basis for determining whether the wiser course is to expend scarce and valuable affordable housing dollars on the currently proposed project, or instead to
hold those dollars for a potential future project.
The Housing Commission also recommends that two additional criteria be used to evaluate whether or not to approve applications that meet the minimum requirements. First, the guidelines should add to the list of evaluation criteria the issue of whether the project addresses an area of particular need identified in the City Council approved affordable housing plan (as
updated each year) described in Part III.A above. Adding this additional criterion will make
clear that the enhanced planning process recommended above is meant to facilitate increased public and City Council involvement in setting affordable housing fund spending priorities (without imposing the risks attendant with such increased involvement on a loan application by loan application basis).
Second, the guidelines should add to the list of evaluation criteria consideration of the
applicant’s past and projected effectiveness in meeting the applicable preferences established by the City (including the preference for those who live or work fulltime in the City).
In addition, the Housing Commission is undertaking a review of the suggestions by one of its members that the guidelines should require (or add as evaluation criteria) that applicants obtain
multiple bids from potential general contractors and/or subcontractors, and that applicants
Item 13.L 07/27/21
64 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
demonstrate good faith efforts to obtain all other available project subsidies. The Housing
Commission did not have adequate time to obtain public comment on these suggestions, or to evaluate them in detail, and will send a follow-on report to the City Council shortly with its recommendations regard these suggestions.
C. The Housing Commission Recommends That Staff Generate A Written Statement Of Reasons For Granting Or Denying Loan Applications
The Housing Commission recommends that the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines provide for the City to prepare a written statement explaining its decision to approve or reject loans that meet the minimum requirements in light of the enumerated evaluation criteria. Requiring a written statement should help assure that the evaluation criteria are fully considered, and will enhance
the ability of the public and the City Council to evaluate the quality of each loan decision and the
overall effectiveness of the current structure for making loan decisions.
D. The Housing Commission Does Not Recommend That Public Notice And Comment Be Added Prior To Loan Application Review And Approval, But It Does Recommend That City Council Direct The City Attorney To Provide Legal Advice To It Regarding Certain Commenters’ Concerns
A number of commenters have advocated that public notice be provided upon the submission of applications for Housing Trust Funds, with an opportunity for public comment prior to individual funding decisions. The Housing Commission does not recommend making this change at this time.
First, as discussed in Part IV.A above, the Housing Commission is not inclined to change the
current expedited and confidential loan review and approval process—which Staff and non-profit affordable housing providers assert facilitates the production of affordable housing—absent very good reasons to do so. Given the proposed enhanced planning and transparency measures recommended in Part III above, as well as the proposed improvements to the loan approval process recommended in Parts IV.B-C above, the Housing Commission does not see such very
good reasons at the present time.
Second, Staff advised the Housing Commission that it is current practice that—as part of the loan conditions imposed by the City on recipients of initial loans made to acquire properties for new construction affordable housing projects—the non-profit developer is required to have two public meetings to discuss the design of project. Hence, there is an opportunity for public
comment prior to approval of the construction loan itself.
Third, a significant portion of the public comment associated with this proposed change has focused on the loan made in 2016, which happened to be to a supportive housing provider. Indeed, no other specific loan or project was cited as illustrating the need for prior public notice and comment on loan applications. This 2016 loan was reviewed and approved using the
existing confidential and expedited process, and the Housing Commission is not making any comment about that loan or project. However, as pertinent to this report, the Housing Commission is concerned that if public comment was allowed prior to loan approval, and the City were to refuse to make a future loan to a supportive housing provider after receiving public
Item 13.L 07/27/21
65 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
comments like some of the comments the Housing Commission has received after-the-fact about
the 2016 loan, it could raise doubts about the City’s compliance with Fair Housing Law even if the City had fully legitimate reasons for denying the future loan application (for example, on grounds of cost-effectiveness).17 In such a circumstance, prior public notice and comment could impede efforts to assure scarce and valuable affordable housing dollars are spent wisely.
Separately, the Housing Commission notes that Fair Housing Law appears to permit some
consideration of whether a proposed project constitutes “a direct threat” to public safety.18 In order to provide further assurance to the public that the City is fully complying with its Fair
17 See, e.g., United States v. Massachusetts Indus. Fin. Agency, 910 F. Supp. 21, 24, 29-30 (D. Mass. 1996) (bolding added):
NEARI is a non-profit educational corporation organized to diagnose, treat, and educate emotionally disturbed adolescents. In early 1988, it began the process of
developing a residential school in Western Massachusetts. . . .
A more serious question is whether defendant [state governmental agency] has pointed to fatal deficiencies in plaintiffs' case at this stage. Plaintiffs argue that defendant's requirement that NEARI satisfy community concerns was impossible and unwarranted—and a discriminatory act in itself under the FHAA. This
argument assumes, among other things, that discriminatory fears held by some
members of the community motivated defendant's actions, that defendant's expressions of concern over NEARI's financial stability and the project's impact on municipal services were pretextual, and that defendant's commitment to a fair reevaluation of the project at a future date was not offered in good faith.
The plaintiffs' argument assumes a great deal, but not, at least at this stage, too
much. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs—the apparent “smooth sailing” of the project before the April 26 hearing, the arguably discriminatory nature of the local opposition to the project at that hearing, and the defendant's request for additional information after April 26—the court must conclude that a reasonable factfinder could resolve factual disputes in favor of plaintiffs and find in their favor. The case will come down to questions of credibility and fair inference. Defendant's motion for summary judgment will therefore be denied.
18 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9); see, e.g., United States v. Massachusetts Indus. Fin. Agency, 910 F.
Supp. 21, 26-27 (D. Mass. 1996). The United States Department of Justice website’s Questions
and Answers on the Fair Housing Act and Zoning (updated August 15, 2015), available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/joint-statement-department-justice-and-department-housing-and-urban-development-1, states:
The Fair Housing Act affords no protections to individuals with or without
disabilities who present a direct threat to the persons or property of others.
Determining whether someone poses such a direct threat must be made on an individualized basis, however, and cannot be based on general assumptions or speculation about the nature of a disability.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
66 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Housing obligations, and its public safety obligations, the Housing Commission recommends
that City Council direct the City Attorney to review existing guidelines and procedures and provide legal advice regarding whether any changes are appropriate.
E. The Housing Commission Recommends Restoring A Maximum Loan Limit For Administrative Approvals Independent Of The Per Unit Limits In The Existing Guidelines
The existing Housing Trust Fund Guidelines limit the maximum size of the contribution the City can make to an affordable housing project without further City Council approval as follows:
“Except as restricted by State or Federal law, the maximum Trust Fund Loan/Grant per-unit shall not exceed the following:
Original Base Amount
Fiscal Year 2007-08*
Updated Amount
Fiscal Year 2016-17*
New
Construction
Acquisition &
Rehabilitation
New
Construction
Acquisition &
Rehabilitation
Zero and 1-Bedroom Units
$367, 000 $457,000 $469,379 $584,486
2 or more Bedroom
Units
$386,000 $481,000 $493,679 $615,181
* Maximum loan/grant to be adjusted in July of each year utilizing the annual adjustment methodology for the City’s Affordable Housing Fee pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 9.56.070(b)
Actual loan/grant amounts will be based on the project’s need and the level of affordability that is provided. Program loan/grants in excess of maximum amounts above must be approved by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency. Projects in excess of fifty (50) units must be approved by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency.”
The effect of these existing guidelines is that Staff, without any direction from City Council, could approve a loan in excess of $30 million.
When the current Housing Trust Fund Guidelines were first adopted in 1998, they provided for both a fixed dollar maximum loan amount per unit, and an overall maximum loan amount, in the absence of City Council approval.19 These amounts were raised over the years, with the
maximum based on what is required to create affordable housing in the most expensive parts of
19 See Staff Report for Item 6-U, Santa Monica City Council Meeting 11-24-98, available at https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/1998/19981124/s1998112406-U.html.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
67 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
the City.20 In 2005, City Council adopted Staff’s recommendation to dispense with the separate
overall loan dollar maximum without City Council approval, relying instead on the 50 unit maximum—combined with the maximum per unit—to serve as the maximum loan amount.21 And in 2007 the City Council adopted a formula for automatic cost escalation of the maximum per unit amounts.22
The Housing Commission is concerned that as costs keep escalating, the overall maximum loan
amount subject to purely administrative approval has grown too large. It is difficult to imagine the circumstances where the City would lose out on a particularly valuable affordable housing opportunity if it did not take the time for a special City Council meeting to approve a loan of $30 million (which represents close to two full years’ worth of GS/GSH funds and matching funds
from the City’s general funds).23 Accordingly, the Housing Commission recommends that the
Housing Trust Fund Guidelines re-establish an overall maximum dollar loan amount subject to administrative approval of $15 million.
V. DEVELOPER FEES
The current Housing Trust Fund Guidelines provide:
“For new construction projects, the developer fee shall not exceed the following
per unit amounts, based on the size of the project:
Original Base Amount Fiscal Year 2007-08* Updated Amount Fiscal Year 2016-17*
For 1 – 20 units $16,240 $20,770
For 21 – 30 units $15,080 $18,135
For 31 – 50 units $13,920 $16,740
For 51 or more units Negotiated Negotiated
20 See Staff Report for Item 9-B, Santa Monica City Council Meeting 5-2-2000, available at https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2000/20000502/s2000050209-B.html; Staff
Report for Item 1-F, Santa Monica City Council Meeting 4-24-2001, available at
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2001/20010424/s2001042401-F.htm.
21 See Staff Report for Item 8-D, Santa Monica City Council Meeting 1-11-2005, available at https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2005/20050111/s2005011108-D.htm.
22 See Staff Report for Item 8-C, Santa Monica City Council Meeting 6-19-2007, available at
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2007/20070619/s2007061908-C.htm.
23 The City Attorney will have to advise whether such a meeting could occur in closed session because of its relationship to the acquisition of a specific piece of property with City loaned funds (or otherwise).
Item 13.L 07/27/21
68 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
For acquisition and rehabilitation projects of 7 units or less, the developer fee
shall not exceed $12,256 (updated for FY 2016-2017; original base amount for FY2007-2008 was $10,900) per unit. For acquisition and rehabilitation projects of 8 or more units, the developer fee shall not exceed the greater of $55,000 per project or the sum of 5% of the depreciable acquisition basis and 15% of the
rehabilitation basis. With the exception of those fees for acquisition and
rehabilitation projects of 8 or more units, developer fees will be adjusted in July of each year utilizing the annual adjustment methodology for the City’s Affordable Housing Fee pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.56.070(b). At the discretion of the City Manager/Executive Director a higher fee may be
allowed.”
Several commenters pointed out that these developer fees have not been increased in approximately 10 years, and urged that they be raised. The Housing Commission has not had an adequate opportunity to evaluate this comment, and will work with Staff to do so and to make a subsequent recommendation to the City Council.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
69 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
1
November 21, 2016
To the Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council: Please find attached hereto my comments regarding Item 3A on your agenda for the City Council
meeting of November 22, 2016 (Proposed Rent Subsidy Pilot Program: Preserving Our Diversity). I greatly appreciate your willingness to consider these comments, and look forward to discussing them further with you at your meeting.
Sincerely, Michael E. Soloff 337 14th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 13.L 07/27/21
70 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
2
OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTED REVISIONS BY MICHAEL SOLOFF1 TO STAFF’S PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR THE POD PILOT PROGRAM
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Development of a cost-effective rent subsidy program to help our extremely low income seniors remain with dignity in their long-term rent controlled apartments is an important public policy objective for the City of Santa Monica. The prospect of developing such a program played a key
role in the successful campaign to pass Measures GS and GSH. Unfortunately, while born of good intentions, staff’s proposed guidelines for the POD pilot program are not well-designed to serve that goal. And the Housing Commission’s divided vote to approve those seriously flawed guidelines occurred after the presentation of what staff now acknowledges was unintentionally inaccurate information regarding the cost effectiveness of the proposed pilot program as
currently designed, as well as the assertion that some members of the City Council were anxious for the pilot program to begin. I respectfully request that the City Council pull approval of the proposed guidelines from its consent calendar, give careful consideration to the problems with the current proposal that I
identify herein, and direct staff to make revisions in the proposed guidelines. In short the proposed program design helps too few households in too uneven a manner. An alternative design should allow the City to assist many more of our extremely low income neighbors remain in place with dignity for the same cost.
Affordable housing funds are not now and never will be unlimited. This means that staff’s proposed automatic prioritization of households with the greatest existing rent burdens—and who therefore require the largest individual rent subsidies—necessarily will undermine the City’s ability to assist instead a much greater number of households in the target population that require less extreme individual subsidization. Moreover, use of staff’s proposed 40% rent
burden methodology will result in the assisted households having widely divergent amounts of after-rent income available to spend on life’s other necessities—amounts that are not tethered in any way to an assessment of whether more or less after-rent income is necessary to keep the household in place. It is because of these two proposed features that staff now projects the pilot
program will serve only 21 households (a mere 28.4% of the 74 households in the overall pilot
population), and that those 21 households will be left with after-rent incomes ranging from as little as $270 per month to as much as $960 per month. Indeed, as proposed by staff, the pilot program potentially will spend $21,319.44 (more than 10% of its entire non-administrative budget) in order to subsidize just two individuals, one of whom would still have to survive each
month on just $270 of after-rent income, and the other on just $300 of after-rent income.
A more sensible alternative approach (1) would provide staff with the ability to exclude the most severely rent burdened households when it is more cost-effective to do so (and the ability to
1 Although I serve as the Chair of the Santa Monica Housing Commission, the views expressed
herein are my personal opinions and are expressed solely in my capacity as a deeply concerned Santa Monica resident.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
71 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
3
work instead to prioritize these most-burdened households for either Section 8 vouchers or deed restricted affordable housing, including (if necessary) by specifically providing for such
prioritization in the SMHA Administrative Plan), and (2) would calculate the subsidies provided to the remaining households so as to assure they likely have a sufficient number of after-rent dollars to remain in place. This alternative approach would allow for a much more cost-effective program serving many more severely rent-burdened residents. For example, under the alternative approach staff could exclude the 10 most severely rent burdened households in the
pilot population; the pilot program’s existing budget then would be sufficient to ensure that all 64 of the remaining pilot households will have at least $550 per month in after-rent income by providing subsidies to the 56 remaining pilot households (75.7% of the overall pilot population) that currently live on less than that amount of after-rent income (8 of the pilot households currently have after-rent incomes greater than $550, without any subsidy).2 Accordingly, a key
question the POD pilot program could and should be designed to help answer is what level of after-rent income likely is sufficient to allow most households in the target population to remain in place with dignity, particularly in combination with all other government assistance programs available to these same households (programs that housing and social services staff should—and as staff helpfully propose now will—work to assure are accessed).
II. THE PILOT POPULATION
The pilot population consists of 74 households who—according to the currently unverified data they provided last July in response to a voluntary renter needs survey—are both “extremely low income” (i.e., make 30% or less of the area median income, adjusted for household size) and are
“severely rent burdened” (i.e., pay more than 50% of their income for rent). 62 of the households consist of just one person, 11 consist of two persons, and 1 consists of four persons. The single person households have annual incomes ranging from $5,400 to just over $18,000, and rent burdens ranging from approximately 53% to 231%. The two person households have annual incomes ranging from $10,600 to $19,200, and rent burdens ranging from approximately
53% to 126%. The lone four person household has an annual income of just under $14,000, and a rent burden of approximately 65%. Per the staff report, the average age of the head of these households is 69 years old.
III. SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS AND RECCOMENDED REVISIONS TO THE
PROPOSED POD PILOT PROGRAM GUIDELINES
The purpose of the POD pilot program is to determine whether and how we can design and implement a cost-effective rent subsidy program that will keep in their long-term rent controlled homes those extremely low income Santa Monica residents who are severely rent-burdened. The
current staff proposal is not well-suited to this purpose.
2 This after-rent income approach is different from the fixed-payment approach discussed in the
staff report, whereby staff suggests the option of providing each assisted household a fixed payment each month irrespective of its existing after-rent income.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
72 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
4
A. The 40% Rent Burden Methodology For Calculating Subsidies Is Not The Most Effective, Cost-Efficient Or Fair Methodology, And It Should Be
Changed To An Income After Rent Methodology
Staff proposes that each assisted household receive whatever subsidy is necessary so that it pays exactly 40% of its gross household income as rent each month. Under this percentage-based approach, the actual dollars each household will have left after paying rent each month will vary widely among the 21 households projected to receive assistance—ranging from a low of just
$270 per month to as high as $960 per month.3 Under staff’s methodology, assisted households with higher gross incomes to begin with automatically will have higher after-rent gross incomes. A more sensible alternative approach (first suggested by Patricia Hoffman in connection with the August 2016 Housing Commission meeting) is to fix the after-rent income of each assisted
household at a dollar amount sufficient to allow the assisted household to remain in place. This approach is more closely tailored to the rent subsidy program’s goal of keeping our most vulnerable neighbors in their homes (which result depends on the actual dollars available after rent to meet other household needs, rather than on the percentage of income those dollars represent). It also is more cost-efficient in that (1) it avoids wasting money subsidizing some
participants to a level too low to keep them in place, and (2) avoids wasting money subsidizing other participants to a level beyond what is need to keep them in place. This alternative approach further promotes greater equality among assisted households. For illustrative purposes only, assume that $550 in after-rent income is likely sufficient to keep a
pilot household in place. It would cost $308,745.60 to assure that each of the 74 pilot households has at least $550 of after-rent income each month. By contrast, it would cost $418,057.56 to provide all 74 pilot households with subsidies using staff’s 40% rent burden methodology, and 18 of the pilot households still would have less than $550 of after-rent income.
What level of after-rent income is sufficient to make it likely that the target households will remain in place is something that could and should be carefully studied in the POD pilot program.4 Staff’s proposed effort to assure that participating households already are participating in all other available government benefit programs—and to provide assistance to
them to access any such programs in which they are not already enrolled—also will be critical to
helping to answer this question.
3 The after-rent gross income each month for the seventeen single person households within this group ranges from $270 to $780,with one assisted household at $270, two more at $300-$399, two more at $400-$499, four more at $500-$599, five more at $600-$699, and three more at
$700-$780. The after-rent gross income each month for the four two-person households within this group ranges from $530 to $960.
4 A sophisticated program would look at the eligible household’s expenses and try to provide subsidies sufficient to keep a household in place after all necessities of life are covered. The administrative burden of such a sophisticated program likely would be cost prohibitive It
therefore likely is necessary to settle on a fixed dollar amount of after-rent income that experience shows is sufficient to keep most households in place.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
73 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
5
B. Prioritizing The Most Severely Rent Burdened Households Is Not A Cost
Effective Approach And Should Be Revised To Provide For Discretion To Set Maximum Rent Burden Cutoffs
Staff proposes automatically to prioritize the most severely rent-burdened households (i.e., those eligible households that currently pay the highest percentage of their gross income toward rent will have the first call on the limited rental assistance dollars available). As noted above, under
this approach staff projects that only 21 of the 74 pilot households (just 28.4%) will receive any assistance at all given that the current budget for the non-administrative portion of the one-year long pilot program is $200,000. As also noted above, the pilot program as proposed by staff potentially will spend $21,319.44 (more than 10% of its entire non-administrative budget) in order to subsidize just two individuals, one of whom would still have to survive each month on
just $270 of after-rent income, and the other on just $300 of after-rent income. A somewhat more sensible alternative approach would consider whether certain of the most rent-burdened households are so far underwater that they instead should be prioritized for either Section 8 vouchers or deed-restricted affordable housing, thereby freeing rent-subsidy funds to
help a much greater number of somewhat less severely rent-burdened households. For example, the 10 most rent burdened of the 74 pilot program eligible households pay between 109.5% and 231% of their monthly income toward rent. If they were deemed ineligible for a rent subsidy under the pilot program, a total of 32 of the remaining households (11 more than the 21 total households that are assisted under staff’s proposal) would receive assistance even using staff’s
own 40% rent burden methodology.5 These 32 households have rent burdens ranging from approximately 73% to 109%. But a much more sensible alternative approach would both deem ineligible a certain number of the most severely rent-burdened households as necessary, and reject the 40% rent burden
methodology altogether in favor of paying subsidies sufficient to assure each assisted household has a minimum fixed sum of after-rent gross income. For example, if the same 10 most rent-burdened households are excluded, the POD pilot program has a sufficient budget to assure that every single one of the 64 remaining eligible households has at least $550 per month in after-rent
gross income.6 This is because (1) 56 eligible households (75.7% of the original 74) would
5 Each of these 32 households is very severely rent burdened in its own right, paying between 79% and 109% of its gross income as rent.
6 This example is over-simplified in that some upward adjustment would seem proper for the small number of households with more than a single member. For illustrative purposes only, an example adjustment might be to exclude the 11 most severely rent burdened households from the POD pilot program (instead of just 10), and then to use the $200,000 budget to assure that all 52 of the remaining single person households have at least $545 after-rent gross income each month
(44 after receiving a rent subsidy), all 10 of the two person households have $640 after receiving a rent subsidy, and the lone four person household has $835 after receiving a rent subsidy.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
74 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
6
receive a subsidy sufficient to lift their after-rent gross income to $550,7 and (2) even without any subsidy, 8 pilot households already have at least $550 after-rent gross income. Whether $550
per month or some other number is generally sufficient to keep in place with dignity the target households (principally seniors living alone) is something that the POD pilot program could and should test. The cost-effectiveness of any rent subsidy program design will have a huge impact on the City’s
ability to bring the program to scale. HUD estimates that there are just over 4,000 extremely low income Santa Monica renter households that are severely rent burdened. For illustrative purposes only, assume that half this number—2,000 households—would both seek rental assistance if a program existed and meet the eligibility requirements described in the proposed POD guidelines. Further assume for illustrative purposes only that the 74 pilot program eligible
households are representative of this larger population. In these purely illustrative circumstances, it would cost the City roughly $5.5 million annually to subsidize the 567 of the 2,000 eligible households (just 28.4%) who are similarly situated to the 21 households staff projects assisting under its proposed version of the POD pilot program. By contrast, under the alternative $550 after-rent gross income program design, the same $5.5 million annual
expenditure would allow the City to subsidize each of the 1513 out of 2,000 eligible households (75.7%) who are similarly situated to the 56 households projected for assistance in the POD pilot program under that program design. C. The Screening Of Applicants’ Existing Resources Should Be Broadened And
All Applicants Should Be Assisted With Access To Additional Benefits
Staff proposes to screen applicants for both income and assets. In response to a resolution adopted by the Social Services Commission at its October meeting, staff also now proposes to determine whether “program participants” receive other benefits for which they are eligible, and to assist them in obtaining any benefits they are not already receiving.
These steps acknowledge the need to make the City the subsidizer of last resort, and to assure that available City dollars go to those who do not have alternative means to remain in place. What is missing is an investigation into and analysis of other resources the applicant may have to
remain in place. For example, some applicants may have adult children who have been
subsidizing their aged parent(s) to date, and such historical assistance should be investigated as part of the application process. Some applicants also may have an extra bedroom that would allow them to take a roommate and remain in place without City subsidies. Limited City rent subsidy dollars should go first to those who do not otherwise have an ability to stay in place.
During the pilot program, at an absolute minimum the City should gather information about
these additional potential resources from each applicant so that policy judgments can be made about how to include these additional resources when determining eligibility and priorities in connection with any future extension or expansion of the POD program.
7 These 56 households currently have after-rent incomes ranging from $63 to $533 per month. The average of their current after-rent incomes is $320 per month.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
75 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
7
What also appears to be missing is a commitment to assess whether all applicants are accessing other benefits, and assisting all applicants to obtain these benefits, which is what the Social
Services Commission recommended.8 This is appropriate because the pilot program will not end up providing a rent subsidy to all who have applied and apparently qualify. Whether the existing pilot program administrative budget of $100,000 is sufficient, or City Council instead needs to provide additional resources for benefits assistance to all applicants, having identified 74 of our extremely low income neighbors who are severely rent-burdened we ought to proactively seek to
determine how many have failed to access other benefit programs, and what is the cost-effectiveness of providing those who have not accessed all potential benefit programs with assistance in doing so. Indeed, staff and City Council should consider extending such assessment and assistance to the broader population of respondents to the renter needs survey.
D. The 10 Year Minimum Residency Requirement Is Too Short And Should Instead Be Tethered To The Implementation Of Costa Hawkins
Staff proposes to use 10 years as the minimum Santa Monica residency requirement. Although this criterion has almost no impact on the population of households eligible for the pilot program (only 2 eligible households have lived in Santa Monica for less than 20 years), it appears
inconsistent with the general intent of the rent subsidy program to preserve those long term rent control tenancies that commenced prior to Costa Hawkins’ vacancy decontrol provisions becoming effective in 1999 (17 years ago). A residency requirement consistent with that general intent should be developed and imposed going forward.
E. The POD Pilot Program Should Not Simply Accept A Landlord’s Veto
Staff proposes that the pilot program only subsidize tenants when the landlord is willing to enter into an agreement with the City to directly receive the monthly rent subsidy. But, as a constructive landlords’ advocate candidly explained at the June Housing Commission meeting, some owners will not enter into any such agreement because, among other reasons, the rent
subsidy program will prolong the tenancy of renters who the landlords would prefer to leave (i.e., to trigger vacancy decontrol).9 While that same landlords’ advocate subsequently asserted that many landlords try to work with their long-term elderly tenants, staff’s approach provides less scrupulous landlords with a potential veto over their tenant’s participation in the POD pilot
8 The Social Services Commission resolution states (italics added):
The Social Services Commission recommends that the Proposed Local Rental Subsidy Pilot Program: Preserving Our Diversity (POD) include provisions (1) to
determine whether prospective beneficiaries are eligible for and/or receiving all appropriate City, County, State, and Federal services and benefits, and (2) to actively assist them in gaining access to all benefits and services for which they may be eligible. The Social Services Commission further authorizes the Chair to communicate to the City Council in support of this position, including through a
joint communication with the Chair of the Housing Commission.
9 Audio of 6/16/16 Housing Commission Meeting at ~1:52.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
76 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
8
program (unless and until Santa Monica’s recent source of income discrimination ordinance is successfully enforced against any such landlord).
As staff points out, the alternative in such situations—providing the rent subsidy directly to the assisted household—presents certain potential challenges. But there are potential solutions to these challenges, and the very purpose of a pilot program is to develop those solutions.
F. Staff’s Comparison Of 55 Years Of Subsidies With The Cost Of Creating An Affordable Housing Unit Misframes The Public Policy Questions In Play
As a cost-effectiveness check, staff includes in its report a comparison between the cost on the one hand of subsidizing for 55 years the average member of the 74 household pilot population, and the cost on the other hand of creating a deed-restricted affordable housing unit. While staff
concludes the costs are comparable, I believe this comparison misframes the public policy questions surrounding the local rent subsidy program that the Housing Commission recommended to Council last December, and which the POD pilot program is intended to test and develop.
First, even if such a comparison accurately reflected the competing public policy issues in play (but see my second point below), the comparison provided continues to reflect staff’s unwillingness to consider the exclusion of the most severely rent-burdened households in order to permit a cost effective effort to help the more numerous, somewhat less severely rent-burdened portion of the target population. For example, the roughly $311,000 average cost for a
55 year subsidy calculated by staff—and deemed roughly equal to the cost of creating an affordable housing unit—far exceeds the roughly $192,000 average cost of providing for 55 years the average subsidy needed to assure $550 of after-rent income to 75% of the pilot population (as described in detail in Part III.B above).
Second, and more importantly, the public policy tradeoff is not whether to subsidize each target household for 55 years, or instead to build an affordable housing unit (which, even if it could be done, almost certainly will not provide housing for extremely low income tenants, at least without additional ongoing subsidies). As staff rightly notes, and as the Housing Commission
explained in great detail in its December 2015 report, the target population of extremely low
income tenants in long-term rent controlled units—whose average age, at least in the pilot population, is 69 years old—will diminish over time as its members depart their current homes for a variety of reasons, and are replaced by much higher income tenants due to vacancy decontrol. The real public policy tradeoff is whether it is better to use a portion of our housing
money today to help a large number of our existing extremely low income neighbors remain in
their long-term rent controlled homes for as long as possible with dignity, or to use those same funds instead to create a small number of additional affordable housing units. Just to illustrate this potential tradeoff, take the solely illustrative example set out in Part III.B
above whereby the City spends $5.5 million annually on a scaled up rent subsidy program that is
assumed to mirror the projected economics of the POD pilot program. Assume further that the program runs for the next 20 years. Under the $550 per month after-rent income approach (which is illustrative of the program design I am advocating), the City could help keep more than 1500 of our extremely low income neighbors housed with dignity for each of the next 20 years.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
77 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
9
By contrast, at the more than $500,000 per unit acquisition and rehabilitation cost of the most recent affordable housing units approved by staff for City funding, the same $5.5 million annual
expenditure by the City only could create 10 new affordable housing units per year, and thereby help 10 households in year one, 20 households in year two, etc. (households that are unlikely to be extremely low income households, at least without additional ongoing subsidies). While at the end of 20 years the City would have an additional 200 affordable housing units under this alternative that would continue to serve future low income households for a minimum of 35
more years, for me it is an easy public policy choice that it is better to help a vastly larger number of our existing extremely low income neighbors remain in place for the next 20 years with dignity. And my conclusion would not change in that regard even if we engage in the rather optimistic assumption that we could generate twice or perhaps even up to three times that number of new affordable housing units per year (again, not for extremely low income residents,
at least without additional ongoing subsidies) using the same $5.5. million to do a mixture of tax credit projects and some less expensive acquisition and rehabilitation projects. Staff is completely right to state that the purpose of the pilot program should be to test our ability to do a cost-effective rent subsidy program, and that we must not create false expectations. It is
equally important to recognize that we similarly face enormous challenges with respect to the creation of affordable housing units, and we must not create false expectations. The Housing Commission provided a sobering assessment of all of these challenges in its report last December. But we also all must work to preserve as much diversity in as cost-effective manner as we can with the resources and tools at hand. I believe the revisions I am suggesting to the
proposed POD pilot program guidelines are an important step in that direction. IV. THE PROVISION OF INACCURATE INFORMATION REGARDING COST EFFECTIVENESS AT THE HOUSING COMMISSION’S OCTOBER MEETING
Staff originally brought a draft set of POD pilot program guidelines to the Housing Commission
in June as a potential action item, at which time it advised the Commissioners that the matter would go to Council before the Commission’s next meeting. These proposed guidelines provided for automatic prioritization of the most severely rent-burdened households, and use of a 30% rent burden methodology for calculating the subsidies. Various Commissioners raised cost-
effectiveness and other concerns about the proposed pilot project design, and discussed possible
alternative structures, but no vote was taken. The Commissioners advised that they would be happy to review any revised guidelines in the event the program did not go to City Council prior to future Commission meetings.
In August, staff reported to the Housing Commission (as a discussion item) about the results of
recently concluded renter needs survey. Staff advised that based on this data, and using the same methodology as presented in June, the POD pilot program would assist only 16 of 78 purportedly eligible households. In response I raised the concept of not subsidizing the most rent-burdened households in order to help a much larger number of somewhat less severely rent burdened
households. Using the underlying data provided to me at my request in advance by staff, I
pointed out that by excluding all households already paying more than 105% of their monthly income as rent, the existing pilot budget was sufficient to help the remaining 61 severely rent-burdened households pay no more than 50% of their income in rent. I also raised Patricia Hoffman’s suggestion that we should use an after-rent income methodology rather than a
Item 13.L 07/27/21
78 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
10
percentage rent burden methodology, and I requested that we further discuss both of these issues at a future meeting. When advised later in the meeting that rent burden was on the Council’s
agenda in September, I asked whether that was merely a report or instead was a request for Council action. Staff advised that it was just a report. In September staff advised that the POD pilot program was on City Council’s September agenda for action, based on the Housing Commission’s review at the June meeting. After further
communications after the meeting, staff advised it would instead bring the pilot program back to the Housing Commission for action at its October meeting. In the staff report on the POD pilot program for the October Housing Commission meeting, staff included at page 5 of 7 the following unintentionally inaccurate discussion about the number
households the pilot program as designed by staff would serve:
With respect to rent-burden level, the proposed pilot POD Program could
seek to eliminate rent burden by providing assistance to reduce household
rent payments to 30 percent of income. Analyzing the same 79 households
mentioned previously, and based upon the $200,000 rental assistance
budget, approximately 27 households could be served (average monthly
subsidy of $611). Alternatively, the Program’s goal could be to reduce, rather
than eliminate, rent burden. For example, reducing rent burden to 40 percent
of household income would enable the Program to serve more households
because the rental assistance per household would be lower. Under the 40
percent scenario, approximately 33 households could be served (average
monthly subsidy of $496). Taking the approach one step further, reducing
rent burden to 50 percent of income level would allow the Program to serve
approximately 43 households. Three options for the pilot POD Program are
summarized below:
Option 1: Eliminate rent burden by reducing rent to 30 percent of
household income
o estimated number of households served: 27
Option 2: Reduce rent burden to 40 percent of household income
o estimated number of households served: 33
Option 3: Reduce rent burden to 50 percent of household income
o estimated number of households served: 43
As the staff report now before Council confirms, the figures provided to the Housing Commission regarding the number of households projected to be served under staff’s proposal was substantially overstated (by 50% under each option), as summarized in the chart below:
Option Report to HC Report to CC 30% 27 households 18 households
40% 33 households 21 households
50% 43 households 27 households
Item 13.L 07/27/21
79 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
11
On the day of the October meeting I contacted staff to advise that I could not recreate the
numbers in the staff report based on the underlying data I had received in August. Staff reminded me that it had advised me that there had been some subsequent cleanup of the underlying data, and at my request promptly provided the revised data. Although I still could not recreate the figures in the report, I was able to review the revised data for too brief a time in advance of the Housing Commission meeting to be certain of my conclusion that the staff report
was wrong. I therefore advised my fellow Commissioners that I could not recreate these numbers from even the revised underlying data, but that I could not be certain of my conclusions. Otherwise, I orally provided in substance the same objections and suggestions for change that I have set forth in this report (without the precise numerical content that is now based on the revised underlying data and additional review). I advised that I would need additional time to
draft an alternative set of guidelines for the Housing Commission’s consideration. I attended the subsequent October meeting of the Social Services Commission. The only issue regarding the POD pilot program considered by that Commission was whether the pilot program should affirmatively assist applicant households in identifying and accessing additional benefit
programs for which they are eligible but in which they do not yet participate. V. CONCLUSION
Any long term rent subsidy program developed by the City should be designed both to assure that it is the subsidizer of last resort, and to maximize the number of households it effectively can
assist to remain in place with whatever budget it has. The POD pilot program should be designed to gather information that can assist in determining whether and how to develop such a program. Absent a professionally designed pilot program that will seek answers to the critical questions based on random sampling and tracking over time of assisted and unassisted tenants of different types, there is little doubt that we will learn more about the potential for such a long
term program by implementing a pilot program that is designed in the first instance with these goals in mind, and by obtaining data about as many households as possible. Both of these considerations support rejection of the pilot program guidelines proposed by staff in favor of an alternative design.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
80 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Peronal Individual Views Of Housing Commission Chair Michael E. Soloff HOUSING TRUST FUND PLAN FOR 2013-2021 HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLE (Item 8.D for July 24, 2018 City Council Meeting)
I. SUMMARY OF DATA GATHERED AND CONCLUSIONS DRAWN
1. The Housing Trust Fund (“HTF”) planning process adopted by City Council in July of
2017 provides a mechanism for the City Council—after input from Staff, the public, and the
Housing Commission—to set priorities for expenditure of scarce HTF funds during each
Housing Element. That process begins with an initial HTF plan that is to be adopted at the
beginning of each Housing Element. Each of the subsequent annual reports required by that
planning process (1) allows tracking of the City’s progress toward its goals under the Housing
Element, Proposition R, and the initial HTF plan, (2) provides an opportunity for the City
Council—after input from Staff, the public, and the Housing Commission—to modify the initial
plan and/or the AHPP program in light of new developments, and (3) provides transparency
regarding the sources and uses of HTF funds. See Part II.A below.
2. The current Housing Element was adopted in December of 2013, and runs through 2021.
Thus, the initial HTF plan for the current Housing Element must take account of what already
has transpired during the first half of the Housing Element:
a. Without doing anything more, Santa Monica is projected to produce (i.e.,
complete or issue building permits for) more than three times the number of market-rate units
called for by the current Housing Element; See Part II.B.1 below.
b. Without doing anything more, Santa Monica is projected to produce (i.e.,
complete or issue building permits for) more than the overall number of deed-restricted
affordable housing units called for by the current Housing Element. However, the unit mix will
deviate from the mix called for by the current Housing Element in that it will include many more
extremely-low (30% AMI) and very-low income (50% AMI) units, but considerably fewer low-
income (80% AMI) units. See Part II.B.2 below.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
81 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
c. Without doing anything more, Santa Monica is projected to fall short of
Proposition R’s requirements by approximately 130 affordable housing units. Proposition R
requires 30% of all new housing completed each year be affordable housing, with at least half of
that 30% (i.e., at least 15% of all new housing) affordable to those earning 60% or less of the Los
Angeles County median income. It is projected that more than 15% of the new housing that will
be completed during the 2013-2021 Housing Element will be affordable to those earning 60% or
less of the Los Angeles County median income, thus meeting one of Proposition R’s two
requirements. But only 25% of the new housing overall will be some form of affordable
housing, rather than the required 30%. See Part II.C below.
3. The initial HTF plan also must take into account existing and expected future revenues
(see Part II.E below):
a. As of May 2017, Staff reported that the HTF had ~$57 million in funds not yet
committed to any particular affordable housing project or program.1 This includes a variety of
one-time funds provided by City Council, prior tax increment “boomerang” funds provided by
City Council, and initial GS/GSH funds;
b. Staff projects that the HTF will receive an additional ~$8-$9 million annually in
GS/GSH funds, and an additional ~$1.2 million annually in tax increment “boomerang” funds;
c. Staff projects that the HTF will receive during the period from 2018-2022 an
additional ~$49.3 million in one-time RDA loan repayments. These funds will bring the total
amount of one-time RDA loan repayments committed by City Council to the HTF to ~$71.2
million. These one-time funds, together with the ~$1.2 million annually in “boomerang” funds
that the City Council also has committed to the HTF, represents the City Council keeping faith
1 The Staff report for this Item states that $81 million is currently on hand in the HTF. Staff
advises that this simply is an updated figure that includes receipt of the next tranche of GS/GSH monies discussed in paragraph 3.b, and part of the one-time RDA loan repayments discussed in paragraph 3.c.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
82 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
with the voters and matching from City funds the first nine or ten years of projected GS/GSH
monies.
d. The currently available funds, together with the projected future revenues outlined
above, should be sufficient by themselves to sustain $16 million in annual Housing Trust Fund
expenditures for at least the next fifteen years.
4. In light of the foregoing, the Housing Commission voted to recommend that the City
Council include the following six elements in its initial HTF plan for the 2013-2021 Housing
Element (every one of which will be subject to annual review and potential adjustment in
accordance with the planning process adopted by City Council in July 2017):
a. “Unless an unusually advantageous opportunity presents itself during a
particular fiscal year, the City should enter into HTF spending commitments totaling no
more than $15 million to $18 million during each fiscal year. This will help to assure that
funds are available when unusually advantageous opportunities arise. Examples of
unusually advantageous opportunities include, but are not limited to, (1) constructing
affordable housing on City owned land, (2) constructing affordable housing in a manner
that provides unusual and deep cost-savings, and (3) constructing affordable housing
financed in a manner that provides an unusual and deep reduction in the HTF contribution
required to complete the project.”
This recommendation is for City Council to set a soft annual cap on new HTF commitments
(roughly equal to the highest historical annual funding averages) that Staff should exceed only if
particularly cost-effective or otherwise particularly advantageous opportunities are presented in
any fiscal year.
The first purpose of this recommendation is for City Council to direct Staff—and assure the
public—that finding the most cost-effective projects is a priority. This is important because in
2015-2016 Staff approved two acquisition rehabilitation projects, each of which spent more than
$500,000 of the limited HTF funds per unit (including one project expressly designed to put just
a single individual in each unit). By contrast, it currently costs the HTF itself about half as much
Item 13.L 07/27/21
83 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
to create a new unit in a new construction tax credit project (an example of “constructing
affordable housing financed in a manner that provides an unusual and deep reduction in the HTF
contribution required to complete the project.”). See Part II.D below.
The second purpose is for City Council to direct Staff that—absent unusually advantageous
opportunities—it should not immediately spend all the money on-hand (given that doing so
would potentially leave the HTF without resources when particularly cost-effective opportunities
do come, such as the opportunity to build on public land, the opportunity to acquire land during a
real estate recession, or the opportunity to do tax credit projects). This is important because the
way City Council has matched GS/GSH so far is principally by depositing certain one-time RDA
loan repayments into the Housing Trust Fund, thereby creating a bulge of funds up front. In
addition, the Housing Commission—with the assistance of CCSM, Step Up, and Staff—has
embarked on an effort to identify ways to reduce the cost of delivering new units.
The Staff report on this Item at page 7 raises the following concern regarding this
recommendation (emphasis added):
The Initial Plan’s limitation on annual HTF spending of $15-$18 million could
constrain opportunities to preserve and produce affordable housing at a juncture when a significant amount of funding is available . . . . Although the Initial Plan allows for exceeding the annual funding spending limitation if an “unusually advantageous opportunity presents itself”, the absence of criteria as to what qualifies for a departure from the proposed annual HTF spending limit could
result in missed opportunities. The existing HTF Guidelines approved by Council establish per-apartment loan limits but have not previously established an annual limit on overall HTF spending of available funding. If Council wishes to ensure that all available funding for affordable housing is invested in a timely manner as opportunities arise, then restricting the use of available funding would be
inconsistent with that goal.
However, the Housing Commission recommendation does contain illustrative guidance:
Examples of unusually advantageous opportunities include, but are not limited to,
(1) constructing affordable housing on City owned land, (2) constructing affordable housing in a manner that provides unusual and deep cost-savings, and (3) constructing affordable housing financed in a manner that provides an unusual and deep reduction in the HTF contribution required to complete the project.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
84 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
The Housing Commission intentionally adopted this illustrative guidance approach to avoid
overly constraining Staff and missing out on usually advantageous opportunities simply because
of an inability to list all such opportunities in advance. The Housing Commission further
anticipated that the annual HTF plan review process would provide an ongoing opportunity for
Staff, the public, the Housing Commission and ultimately City Council to provide more refined
guidance in light of actual experience. The Housing Commission did not accept, however, that
the existing HTF per unit spending limits (which, for example, now exceed $600,000 for the
acquisition / rehabilitation of a studio or one-bedroom apartment) constitutes adequate guidance
to Staff regarding the cost-effective and wise expenditure of scarce HTF funds.
City Council now must decide—subject to review in a year—whether the City’s goals and the
public’s expectations for the expenditure of tens of millions of public dollars are best served by
the existing approach of almost completely unfettered Staff discretion, the alternative approach
recommended by the Housing Commission, or some other alternative approach (for example,
calling the $15-$18 million a “target” rather than a “soft cap”, and/or making either subject to the
same or different exceptions).
b. “A priority goal of the Plan is to ramp up the Preserving Our Diversity
(“POD”) local rent subsidy program to a range that requires a commitment of no more
than $2 million per fiscal year in HTF funds. No actual expansion of the POD program
will occur unless and until a detailed plan for doing so is proposed by City staff, vetted by
the Housing Commission, and approved by the City Council. Any portion of the potential
$2 million in annual HTF funding that is not actually used for the POD program in any
particular fiscal year shall remain available for commitment in future fiscal years to other
Plan priorities.”
This recommendation is for City Council to set the scaling up of the Preserve Our Diversity
(“POD”) program as a priority goal for achievement during the 2013-2021 Housing Element.
Actual scaling up would occur only after a plan for doing so is created by Staff, vetted by the
Housing Commission , and approved by City Council. This recommendation was the focus of
Item 13.L 07/27/21
85 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
all—or virtually all—of the division between the majority of Housing Commissioners and the
dissenting Housing Commissioners.
Between December 2015 and the present, the Housing Commission recommended, the City
Council approved, and the City designed and launched a highly innovative rent subsidy pilot
program to help our extremely low income seniors remain in their long-term rent controlled
apartments with dignity. See Part II.G below.
HUD estimates that more than 4,000 Santa Monica renter households are extremely low
income—for example, seniors with no income other than basic social security—and pay more
than 50% of their meagre incomes in rent. Another close to 2,000 Santa Monica renter
households are very low income—just slightly better off but still, for example, individual seniors
with about $20,000 a year in income—who likewise pay more than 50% of their meagre incomes
in rent. See Part II.F below.
The pilot program consists mostly of single person households surviving on less than $300 per
month after rent for every other expense of life. Extrapolating from the average pilot program
subsidy, the $2 million maximum annual budget recommended by a majority of the Housing
Commission would allow the City to assist 345 senior households to remain in their long-term
rent controlled homes with dignity. See Part II.G below.
Of course, every dollar we spend on rent subsidy is one less dollar we have to spend on new
affordable housing construction. And it is true that when the POD participants pass on or move
on, there is no new unit to help a new household. But at current costs, for $2 million per year the
City only can add fewer than four new affordable housing units at worst, and fewer than eight
new affordable housing units at best. For me the better public policy choice is to help many,
many more current Santa Monica seniors remain with dignity in their long-time homes for the
rest of their lives—even at the cost of some less affordable units in the future. Indeed, I
personally advocated for setting the maximum funding level at $6 million per year.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
86 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
The real answer is to create more resources for both rent subsidy and for new construction, as
well as to find ways to lower the costs of each. The Housing Commission is committed to
continuing to work to provide City Council with ideas to accomplish these goals.
Two Commissioners disagreed with this recommendation, and therefore voted no.
Commissioner Buchanan stated for the record: “My no vote is not because I do not think that the
POD program is a priority goal overall, but I do not think that it is a program that should be
funded by the Housing Trust Fund and so that’s the reason for my no vote.”
Vice-Chair Hilton stated for the record: “The Housing Commission should continue to review
the Preserving Our Diversity (POD) pilot rental subsidy program, approve a program expansion
from 22 to 60-66 participants with associated costs not to exceed $500,000 annually, that POD’s
total budget and cost effectiveness be evaluated each year in a public report, and that any POD
budget increase should consider the financial impact on our Trust Fund and our production
requirement successes.” Vice-Chair Hilton also stated for the record at a prior meeting:
“Preserving Our Diversity (POD) is an ongoing budget; $2 Million a year in the first year and in
successive years is excessive and poses challenges to our Trust Fund's health and the Trust
Fund's contribution to production.”
Vice-Chair Hilton further amplified his views in a July 18, 2018 letter to City Council. In that
letter he suggests that as early as 2022 the annual funds available for affordable housing will be
only $9-$11 million, and he expresses concern about spending $2 million of that limited sum on
the POD program. However, Vice Chair Hilton is assuming that Staff will spend all of the $140
million that will be available in the HTF from now through 2021 in just those three years. If one
assumes instead that Staff spends at a rate of $16 million per year (the amount available prior to
the dissolution of redevelopment during the Great Recession), existing and projected resources
can sustain spending at that rate through at least 2032. And if the City Council continues to keep
faith with the voters and continues to match the GS/GSH monies with other City monies, the
City can continue to spend at least $16 million per year thereafter. See Part II.E below.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
87 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
The Staff report for this Item at page 8 states:
Expanding the POD pilot program from the current budget of $300,000 ($200,000 for cash assistance and $100,000 for administration), which serves 22 households, to the proposed annual (assistance) budget of $2 million would represent a ten-fold increase in the size of the program. Staff has concerns that this commitment
may be premature despite the initially promising results of the test. The POD program is a 14-month pilot which began in November 2017 and an assessment of its effectiveness will not be completed until late 2018. The assessment will measure housing stability, impact on and increases in entitlement benefits, access to local services, and wellbeing. Additionally, because the effect of the POD
program on participants’ federal, state, and county entitlement benefits is not yet fully settled with the relevant governmental agencies, program expansion without such resolution could create challenges for future participants. Pursuant to the Housing Commission’s recommendation, prior to implementing any expansion of the current pilot program, staff would prepare more detailed administrative
guidelines, estimate the administrative resources (eligibility qualification, program administration, social service agency support, etc.) required to achieve any expansion, and return to the Housing Commission and Council for direction. An alternative to the recommendation would be to consider “expanding the pilot as results warrant to as much as $2 million per year.”
The Housing Commission’s recommendation is simply that City Council set as a priority goal
the expansion of the POD program to a range that requires the expenditure of no more than $2
million of HTF funds per fiscal year. While there may still be lessons to be learned about how
best to structure an expanded program, completion of the pilot program is not necessary to
determine that expansion is a priority goal. It does not take completion of the pilot program to
know that it will greatly benefit severely a severely rent-burdened senior to go from less than
$300 per month in after rent income to cover every other expense of life to the over $700 per
month that the UCLA School of Public Health says is required to meet the basic needs of such a
senior living on the Westside of Los Angeles. As the Staff report acknowledges, the Housing
Commission recommendation already states that the expansion will not take place until a specific
plan for that expansion is developed, vetted and approved by City Council. But given the HUD
data regarding the more than six thousand very low and extremely low income Santa Monica
renter households paying more than 50% of their meagre incomes in rent, it is important for City
Council to send a strong signal that expansion of the POD program is a priority. See Part II.F.
Finally, some representatives of the landlord community dispute whether there is any need for
the POD program. In particular, they assert such a program is unnecessary because purportedly
Item 13.L 07/27/21
88 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
few if any Santa Monica renters lost their homes in 2017 because they did not pay the rent. But
even if the asserted factual premise turns out to be true2, it would not change the need for the
POD program. Every affordable housing program—from the City’s inclusionary housing
program, to the City’s housing trust fund guidelines, to the federal and state tax credit programs,
to the federal Section 8 program—seeks not only to provide a place for low income persons to
live, but also seeks to set the rent levels at sufficiently low levels that the benefited households
can afford the other necessities of life. No one can seriously dispute that the POD pilot program
participants (whose other assets, if any, were considered when determining their eligibility just
as they are in other affordable housing programs) had rents that did not permit them to afford the
other necessities of life. And if just one out of every twenty (5%) of the more than six thousand
severely rent burdened and extremely low or very low income Santa Monica renter households is
similarly situated, that alone would justify expansion of the POD program to $2 million per year.
c. “A priority goal of the Plan is to provide permanent housing in Santa Monica
for those among the population of homeless persons that the City Council determines the
City should take responsibility to permanently house in the City. This should include
“Santa Monicans” who are homeless. Subject to further refinement, this group is deemed
to include those persons on the Santa Monica Homeless Registry as of the date the Plan is
adopted who are not already in permanent housing. The City should look to leverage as
much as possible federal funds, State funds, County funds, other City funds, or private
funds, to accomplish this goal.”
The City should take responsibility for housing in Santa Monica some portion of the homeless
population currently in Santa Monica. City Council ultimately should determine who falls
within this group, and what type of permanent housing is appropriate and cost-effective.
At this point the Housing Commission recommends that City Council direct Staff that a priority
goal of the HTF plan for the 2013-2021 Housing Element cycle is to permanently house
2 The representatives of the landlord community purport to support this assertion based on the claimed number of Santa Monica evictions for non-payment of rent. But not everyone forced out of their homes by excessive rents leaves after (as opposed to before) a completed eviction action.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
89 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
homeless “Santa Monicans”, leveraging as much as possible federal funds, State funds, County
funds, other City funds and private funds. Such leveraging is particularly appropriate because
both the County and the City actually will save money in other areas (healthcare costs, law
enforcement and criminal justice costs) by moving chronically homeless individuals into
permanent supportive housing. But the HTF also should play a part in solving this issue.
Subject to further refinement by City Council, the Housing Commission recommends that City
Council initially deem the individuals currently on the City’s service registry who are not
permanently housed already as such homeless “Santa Monicans”. Staff advises that this includes
51 individuals living in temporary housing and 44 individuals known to be unsheltered. It may
also include an additional 44 individuals whose status is unknown because the City has not had
contact with them in the last six months. See Part II.H below.
Subsequent to the Housing Commission’s deliberations, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights
recommended that homeless “Santa Monicans” include all homeless families with children living
in Santa Monica, and all homeless persons who work in Santa Monica. In my personal capacity
I now support this SMRR recommendation, particularly given the social science research
demonstrating that low income children obtain life-long benefits when they are raised in
communities like Santa Monica with excellent schools, services, and job opportunities.
d. “The remainder of the HTF funds spent each fiscal year should be used to
create new affordable housing units for seniors, for physically and mentally challenged
persons, for large families, and for small families (including individuals). Unless one or
more unusually advantageous opportunities dictate a different result, a goal of the Plan is
to provide roughly equal HTF funding support for affordable housing targeted to each of
these four populations over the life of the Plan. The equal funding support determination
shall take into account HTF funding committed during the entire lifetime of the 2013-2021
Housing Element, even if it occurred prior to the adoption of the Plan. The equal funding
support determination also shall take into account HTF funding committed to the POD
program (which is for senior housing) and to permanently housing Santa Monicans who
are homeless (who may be members of any of the four populations).”
Item 13.L 07/27/21
90 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
The draft of the initial HTF plan provided by Staff to the Housing Commission identified the
four target populations discussed in this recommendation. Recognizing that the need for
affordable housing for each target population identified exceeds the City’s HTF resources, the
Housing Commission recommended that City Council direct Staff to adopt a roughly equal
prioritization over the course of the entire 2013-2021 Housing Element cycle. However, as with
the soft annual cap on entering into new spending commitments, the Housing Commission
recommended that this direction be subject to exception when a different result is dictated by
unusually advantageous opportunities.
Subsequent to the Housing Commission’s deliberations, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights
recommended instead that half of the HTF funds go to housing for families with children, with
the remaining half available for affordable housing for either seniors, for persons with mental or
physical challenges, or live-work space for artists (primarily on the ground floor). In my
personal capacity I now support this SMRR recommendation, particularly given the social
science research demonstrating that low income children obtain life-long benefits when they are
raised in communities like Santa Monica with excellent schools, services, and job opportunities.
e. “The City’s existing affordable housing programs generally provide the
highest preference to persons displaced without fault from their existing homes in Santa
Monica, and provide the next highest preference to persons who either already live in
Santa Monica or who work full-time in Santa Monica. The two goals of the Plan identified
in paragraphs #2 and #3 above, however, only serve persons who already live in Santa
Monica. The City recognizes that the daily efforts of low income workers are particularly
critical to the businesses (including hotels, restaurants, and retail stores) that generate the
sales and use taxes supporting the HTF through Measures GS and GSH, as well as the sales
and use taxes and transit occupancy taxes that fund a substantial portion of the City’s
budget. City staff therefore is directed to develop, in consultation with the Housing
Commission, a proposal to increase—to the extent it is necessary and feasible to do so in
order to maintain an overall equal preference for affordable housing opportunities in the
City—the preference in other HTF funded projects for low-income Santa Monica
workers.”
Item 13.L 07/27/21
91 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
This recommendation speaks for itself. All Santa Monicans benefit greatly from the daily efforts
of low income workers that are particularly critical to the businesses (including hotels,
restaurants, and retail stores) that generate the sales and use taxes supporting the HTF through
Measures GS and GSH, as well as the sales and use taxes and transit occupancy taxes that fund a
substantial portion of the City’s budget. The Housing Commission recommends that City
Council acknowledge these workers in the initial HTF plan, and direct Staff and the Housing
Commission to take any necessary and feasible steps to assure they too continue to have an equal
preference to and continue to benefit from the City’s affordable housing programs as financed
through the HTF.
f. “City staff is directed to develop as soon as possible, in consultation with the
Planning and Housing Commissions, a proposal to adjust the AHPP program that applies
outside of the Downtown Community Plan. The proposal shall be based on a feasibility
study, and shall take into account past and projected future production of housing through
inclusionary zoning and HTF funded projects, as well as the quantified objectives in the
Housing Element and the requirements of Proposition R.”
While it is projected that the City will meet or exceed all of its other housing production goals
during the 2013-2021 Housing Element cycle, it is projected that only 25% of all new housing
completed during that time period will be affordable housing, rather than 30% as mandated by
Proposition R. While the lack of an HTF funding source for the first half of that time period
undoubtedly played a role, so too did the over-incentivization in the Affordable Housing
Production Program for developers to choose to provide a very small number of extremely low
income units in complete satisfaction of their inclusionary housing obligations.
The City Council remedied this issue in the Downtown Community Plan in July of 2017 based
on the HRA feasibility analysis. The Housing Commission previously has recommended that a
review take place of the AHPP outside the DCP, and the Housing Commission now recommends
that the City Council put into the initial HTF plan a direction to Staff to do so as soon as
possible. This is appropriate because one of the express purposes of the HTF planning process,
as stated in the HTF guidelines adopted by City Council in July 2017, is “to help assure . . . (2)
Item 13.L 07/27/21
92 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
compliance with Prop R’s requirement that 30% of annual new housing production meet certain
affordability targets,”
II. SUPPORTING MATERIALS AND DATA
A. The HTF Planning Process And Its Intended Purposes
In 2017, the Housing Commission recommended to City Council that it amend the HTF guidelines to include a planning process. The Housing Commission supported this recommendation in its report to the City Council as follows:
While the Housing Element establishes certain overall quantified objectives for affordable housing production, it does not establish clear guidance as to proper uses of City affordable housing funding resources. The Housing Element is at a very high level both as to the nature of the units to be produced, and as to the mechanisms to assure their production. No objectives are established as to the
size of the units to be produced, the nature of the units (e.g., family, supportive, senior), or their locations within the City. Moreover, no particular mechanism is provided for tracking progress toward even these high-level goals, and for adjusting City policies (both in terms of inclusionary units and expenditures of City resources) as necessary to achieve these goals. Finally, there is no formal
mechanism for the public and the City Council to weigh in on spending priorities on an ongoing basis . Therefore, to help assure (1) compliance with the affordable housing production goals set forth in the approved Housing Element, (2) compliance with Prop R’s
requirement that 30% of annual new housing production meet certain affordability targets, (3) maximization of the return on scarce Housing Trust Fund monies, and (4) robust opportunities for input on spending priorities by the City Council, Housing Commission, and the public, the Housing Commission recommends the inclusion within the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines of the following planning and
reporting process . . . . In accordance with the recommendation of the Housing Commission, the City Council in July of 2017 adopted the proposed HTF planning process as follows:
Annual Reporting by the Housing Division
The City Manager shall prepare an initial proposed plan, called Housing Trust Funds Plan (“Plan”), for affordable housing development in the City for the remaining
period covered by the current Housing Element (i.e., through 2021). The Plan shall be made available online and the Housing Division shall conduct a 45-day public comment period. A public meeting hosted by the Housing Commission shall be held by the Housing Division between the 30th and 45th day of the public comment period.
Once the public comment period is completed, the Plan with any public comments
Item 13.L 07/27/21
93 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
shall be submitted to the Housing Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council for review and its approval. A Housing Trust Funds Plan shall be prepared and adopted for each Housing Element cycle.
Thereafter, on an annual basis, the Housing Division shall prepare a report to the Housing Commission for its review and recommendation for City Council approval. The annual report shall include details on the following items:
(1) The source and amounts of funding for each Housing Trust Fund received during the prior year; (2) The amount and uses of funds, including the amount and source of funding commitments issued, from each Housing Trust Fund during the prior year;
(3) The quantity and type of affordable housing made available for occupancy during the prior year; (4) The quantity and type of housing which exceeded or fell below the annual production mandate of Proposition R during the prior year;
(5) Cumulative figures of source/amount of Housing Trust Funds, quantity/type of affordable housing made available, and exceeded/missed Proposition R requirement, covering the Housing Element period, as well as comparison with the Quantified Objectives set forth in the Housing Element; and (6) A comparison of the actual cumulative affordable housing production covering
the period of the adopted Housing Trust Funds Plan with the goals set forth in that plan. Once approved by City Council, both reports shall be posted on the Housing
Division’s website. B. Progress To Date Toward Meeting The Quantified Objectives Of The Current Housing Element And Toward Satisfying SB35 Requirements
1. Progress Toward Meeting The Current Housing Element’s Quantified Objectives
The State-approved Housing Element contains “Quantified Objectives”. Staff advises that (1) a unit counts toward satisfying the Quantified Objective once a building permit is issued, and (2) at present, all of the units on the chart below are projected to obtain building permits within the current Housing Element period:
Item 13.L 07/27/21
94 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Staff also advises that there are 47 additional units in the two new construction projects that recently obtained HTF loans. These 47 additional units include 4 Extremely Low Income units, 32 Very Low Income units, and 11 Low Income units. A representative of CCSM—the non-profit developer for these two projects—believes these projects likely will be completed by the
end of the current Housing Element.
Staff further advises that there are additional projects on Lincoln Boulevard that are converting to development review permits, and a project on 5th Street that is seeking administrative approval, that also are projected at present to obtain building permits during the current Housing
Element. Staff did not provide data regarding the number and affordability mix of units in these
projects. The foregoing data supports the following conclusions:
1. Without doing anything more, Santa Monica should produce during this Housing
Element more than three times its Quantified Objective for market rate units; 2. Without doing anything more, Santa Monica should produce during this Housing Element more than its overall Quantified Objective for deed-restricted affordable housing units.
However, the unit mix will deviate from the Quantified Objectives in that it will include many
more extremely-low and very-low income units than called for in the Housing Element, but considerably fewer low income units. 2. Progress Toward Meeting SB 35 Requirements
SB 35 provides for tracking by the State of California of progress by each local jurisdiction
toward the Quantified Objectives in its Housing Element. Failure to attain sufficient progress toward market rate housing triggers streamlining of projects that meet the higher of 10% affordable housing or whatever is required by local inclusionary housing law. Failure to attain sufficient progress toward both low and very low income housing (which subsumes extremely
Item 13.L 07/27/21
95 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
low housing as well) also triggers streamlining for projects that have 50% affordable housing
units. Streamlining consists of administrative approval and no parking requirements. Santa Monica is one of only 12 local jurisdictions in California that are not subject to any SB 35 streamlining. Staff advises that they do not anticipate that Santa Monica will face any SB 35
streamlining during this Housing Element.
C. Progress To Date Toward Meeting Proposition R
Proposition R, adopted by Santa Monica voters, amended the City Charter to require that the City Council act to ensure that at least 30% of all new housing constructed each year be affordable to and permanently occupied by persons earning 100% or less of the Los Angeles
County median income, and that at least half of that that 30% (i.e., 15% of all new housing) be affordable to and permanently occupied by persons earning 60% or less. A unit is counted under Proposition R when construction is complete (not when a building permit is issued). Staff advises that the following chart reflects the status of compliance with Proposition R during
the current Housing Element through FY 2016/2017:
Staff further has advised that (1) all of the units that are “in construction” per Table 4 above should be completed by the end of this Housing Element, and (2) the current best estimate is that the following units identified as “approved” per Table 4 above likely will completed in by the end of this Housing Element:
43 Extremely Low-Income
39 Very Low-Income 11 Low-Income 26 Moderate-Income 804 Above Moderate (Market) 923 Total
Table 5
Proposition R Tracking
Multifamily Housing Production
Low/Mod-Income
Year
FY 2013/2014
FY 2014/2015
FY 2015/2016
FY 2016/2017
%
Affordable
56%
19%
21%
13%
Total:
Housing
Surplus/Deficit ( )
118
(17)
(16)
(18)
67
Item 13.L 07/27/21
96 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
And, as noted above, a representative of CCSM believes that the two new construction projects recently approved for HTF loans likely will be completed by the end of the current Housing Element, thereby yielding an additional 4 Extremely Low Income units, 32 Very Low Income units, and 11 Low Income units.
Combining all of this data, it appears that if nothing more is done, Santa Monica will fall 132 affordable units below the 30% affordable housing mandate of Proposition R on an aggregate basis during the current Housing Element. This means only 25% of all new housing completed during the 2013-2021 Housing Element will be some form of affordable housing, rather than the required 30%. However, more than 15% of the new housing completed will be affordable to
those earning 60% or less of the Los Angeles County median income, thereby satisfying one of the two requirements of Proposition R. D. Projects With HTF Funding Commitments
Staff advises the following:
1. The first project to which the HTF committed funds during the 2013-2021 Housing Element cycle was an acquisition / rehabilitation project. The commitment was entered into in June 2015. The cost to the HTF was $550,000 per unit, and $305,556 per bedroom.
2. The next project to which the HTF committed funds during the 2013-2021 Housing Element cycle was the following project (with the commitment issued in 2016):
3. After the City Council adopted new Housing Trust Fund guidelines in July 2017, and prior to the Housing Commission deliberations on the initial HTF plan, the HTF has approved loans for three additional projects as follows:
Item 13.L 07/27/21
97 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
E. Funds Available In The Redevelopment Replacement Housing Trust Fund
Staff advises the following: 1. As of the Housing Commissions deliberations in May of 2018, the HTF had
approximately $57 million that is not currently committed to approved projects. This includes
the following one-time RDA loan repayments already received by the City:
3. The following additional one-time RDA loan repayments were anticipated at the time of
the Housing Commission deliberations (and the first of these has now been received):
4. Staff estimates that Measures GS/GSH will provide $8-$9 million per fiscal year on a going forward basis.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
98 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
5. Staff estimates that boomerang funds will provide $1.2 million per fiscal year on a going
forward basis. This data supports the following conclusions:
1. By either providing to date or committing ~$71.2 million in expected one-time RDA loan
repayments and ~$1.2 million annually in “boomerang” funds, the City Council has matched from City funds the first nine or ten years of projected GS/GSH monies. 2. The currently available funds, together with the projected future revenues outlined above,
should be sufficient by themselves to sustain $16 million in annual Housing Trust Fund
expenditures for at least the next fifteen years. Fiscal Yr. Initial Bal. RDA Ln. Repay. GSH/Boomerang End Bal. (-$16 mil.)
2018-19 $57 million $15.7 million $9.2 million (min.) $65.9 million
2019-20 $65.9 million $10.7 million $9.2 million (min.) $69.8 million 2020-21 $69.8 million $14.3 million $9.2 million (min.) $77.3 million 2021-22 $77.3 million $8.7 million $9.2 million (min.) $79.2 million 2022-23 $79.2 million $0 $9.2 million (min.) $72.4 million
2023-24 $72.4 million $0 $9.2 million (min.) $65.6 million
2024-25 $65.6 million $0 $9.2 million (min.) $58.8 million 2025-26 $58.8 million $0 $9.2 million (min.) $52.0 million 2026-27 $52.0 million $0 $9.2 million (min.) $45.2 million 2027-28 $45.2 million $0 $9.2 million (min.) $38.4 million
2028-29 $38.4 million $0 $9.2 million (min.) $31.6 million
2029-30 $31.6 million $0 $9.2 million (min.) $24.8 million 2030-31 $24.8 million $0 $9.2 million (min.) $18.0 million 2031-32 $18.0 million $0 $9.2 million (min.) $11.2 million 2032-33 $11.2 million $0 $9.2 million (min.) $5.4 million
F. HUD Data Regarding Severely Rent Burdened Santa Monica Renter Households
Staff advises that the following is the most recent available HUD data regarding the estimated number of severely rent burdened Santa Monica renter households:
Item 13.L 07/27/21
99 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
G. The Preserve Our Diversity (“POD”) Pilot Program
Staff advises:
1. The following criteria were applied to participants in the POD pilot program:
Threshold Eligibility Criteria for the POD pilot (household must meet all criteria below):
1. Household submitted a complete Renter Needs Survey by July 18, 2016;
2. Household participated in follow-up interviews;
3. Head of household is a senior aged 62 or older;
4. Household has occupied current Santa Monica rent-controlled apartment since
before January 1, 2000;
5. Household’s apartment must not be deed-restricted affordable housing of any
kind, including:
� Properties purchased, rehabilitated, or constructed with City funding;
� Apartments subject to the Affordable Housing Production Program;
� Federally assisted properties; and
� Los Angeles County-assisted or owned affordable housing properties.
6. Renter Needs Survey initially indicated that the household income was equal to
or less than 30 percent of area median income (Extremely low income) and
household final income verification confirms it is no more than 50 percent area
median income (Low Income);
7. Household is not currently participating in, or previously terminated from, any
Santa Monica Housing Authority rent-subsidy programs;
8. No household members convicted of violent crime which occurred within the last
5 years, or who are registered sex offenders; and
9. Household income documentation indicates that the household is in need of the
Item 13.L 07/27/21
100 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
subsidy (i.e. earning less than the approved Basic Needs Budget), pursuant to
the income and asset determinations and verifications outlined in Section III of
the Guidelines, including but not limited to:
� Earned and unearned income for all household members from all sources,
such as employment, cash-equivalent government benefits, and family
support; and � Imputed income for assets calculated at a rate of 10 percent annually (the
formula for the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program). 3. The following data describes the average after rent income, the POD subsidy, and the
basic needs budget for the 22 POD pilot program senior renter households:
H. Santa Monica Homeless Services Registry
Staff advises:
Item 13.L 07/27/21
101 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 14, 2018
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Winterer at 5:32 p.m., on Tuesday, August 14, 2018, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street.
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Ted Winterer
Mayor Pro Tem Gleam Davis
Councilmember Sue Himmelrich Councilmember Kevin McKeown Councilmember Pam O’Connor (arrived at 6:05 p.m.) Councilmember Terry O’Day
Councilmember Tony Vazquez
Also Present: City Manager Rick Cole City Attorney Lane Dilg City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:32 p.m., with all members present except Councilmember O’Connor. Teagan O’Day led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.
CLOSED SESSIONS
Councilmember O’Connor arrived at
6:05 p.m.
Member of the public Denise Barton commented on closed sessions. On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 5:36 p.m., to consider closed sessions and returned at 6:58 p.m., with all members present, to report the
following:
1.A. Conference with Labor Negotiator : City Negotiator: Donna C. Peter, Director of Human Resources Bargaining Units: Coalition for Santa Monica City Employees (CSMCE) &
Executive Pay Plan (EPP)
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken. 1.B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has
been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Leevan & Wilshire -26 LLC. V. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. SS026729 The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
102 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
1.C. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Property: 1328 Second Street Negotiator: Andy Agle, Dir. Housing and Economic Development and Barbara Collins, Housing Manager Under Negotiation: Loan terms Owner of Record: Step Up on Second The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.
1.D. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya v. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 616804
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.
REPORT ON COUNCIL TRAVEL
Councilmember O’Connor reported that she traveled to Napa, Ca for a meeting
of the California Transit Association Executive Board. She also attended the
American Public Transportation Association’s Annual Sustainability Conference in Vancouver, Canada.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a
Councilmember for discussion.
Members of the public Denise Barton, Zina Josephs and Joseph Schmitz commented on various Consent Calendar items.
At the request of Councilmember McKeown, Item 3.K. was removed from the Consent Calendar.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, seconded by Councilmember O’Day, to approve the Consent Calendar except for Item 3.K., reading resolutions by title
only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers O’Connor, O’Day, Himmelrich, Vazquez, McKeown, Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Mayor Winterer
NOES: None ABSENT: None
POOL MAINTENANCE 3.A. Bid Award for Pool Maintenance and Repair Services, was approved. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Award Bid #4346 to Commercial Aquatic Services, Inc., a California- based company, for pool maintenance and repair services; and
Item 13.L 07/27/21
103 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 10728 (CCS) with Commercial Aquatic Services, Inc., in an amount not
to exceed $160,000 for two years, with one additional three-year renewal
option in the amount of $264,810 including a 5% annual increase for years three through five, for a total amount not to exceed $424,810 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
SANTA MONICA PIER 3.B. Bid Award for Treated Lumber for the Santa Monica Pier, was approved. Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award Bid #4330 to Gemini Forest Products, a California-based company, to furnish and deliver treated lumber to the Santa Monica Pier as required by the Public Works Department; and 2. Authorize the Purchasing Services Manager to issue a purchase order
with Gemini Forest Products for the purchase of treated lumber in an
amount not to exceed $75,000 for one year, with two additional two-year renewal options including increases of 2%, 4% and 5% for years three through five, for a total amount not to exceed $389,598 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
PUMP MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
3.C. Bid Award for Pump Maintenance and Repair Services, was approved. Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award Bid #4348 to PumpMan, LLC, a California-based company, for pump maintenance and repair services; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 10729 (CCS) with PumpMan, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $431,356
for two years, with one additional three-year renewal option, with a 10%
increase per year, for a total amount not to exceed $1,054,093 over a five- year period with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
ON-CALL SERVICES 3.D. Award Contracts for On Call Signage/Striping and Civil Engineering Design/Preparation of Temporary Traffic Control Plans, was approved. Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Establish a pre-qualified list for on-call Civil Engineering Design Services as part of RFQual #SP2564 consisting of Cannon Corporation, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., KPFF Consulting Engineers, RICK Engineering Company, and Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (all
Item 13.L 07/27/21
104 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
California-based companies) to create a pre-qualified list for on-call Civil Engineering Design Services,
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No.
10730 (CCS) with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $750,000 for three years with one two-year renewal option in the amount of $500,000, for a total amount not to exceed $1,250,000 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget
approval. This is an on-call agreement and an RFP would be issued once
there is a known scope of work. Funding would be identified as projects and tasks are identified. 3. Award Bid #SP2543 to Superior Pavement Markings Inc. and PCI, California-based companies, for on-call signing and striping services,
4. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No.
10731 (CCS) with Superior Pavement Markings Inc. in an amount not to exceed $250,000 for three years, with one two-year renewal option, which would extend the contract term but not increase the budget, for a total amount not to exceed $250,000 over a five-year period, with future
year funding contingent on Council budget approval. This is an on-call
agreement and funding would be identified as projects and tasks are identified, and 5. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 10732 (CCS) with PCI, in an amount not to exceed $250,000 for three
years, with one two-year renewal option, which would extend the
contract term but not increase the budget, for a total amount not to exceed $250,000 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval. This is an on-call agreement and an RFP would be issued once there is a known scope of work. Funding would be
identified as projects and tasks are identified.
WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT 3.E. Award Construction Contract for 2018 Water Main Replacement, was approved. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Award Bid #2464 to Michels Pipeline Construction, a Wisconsin-based company, to provide construction services for the 2018 Annual Water Main Replacement Project;
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Contract No. 10733
(CCS) with Michels Pipeline Construction, in an amount not to exceed $5,058,792 (including a 15% contingency); 3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders to complete additional work within contract authority.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
105 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS 3.F. Extend Maintenance Agreements for the Big Blue Bus and Parking Meter Currency Counting Room Equipment, was approved.
Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Purchasing Manager to issue the following change orders: 1. A change order to the purchase order #21900200 in the amount of
$42,500 with Money System Technology, a Texas-based company, for
the maintenance of two coin sorters/counters and conveyor belts used for currency counting operations. This will result in a revised estimated purchase order total of $83,000 over a ten-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
2. A change order to the purchase order #21900921 in the amount of
$84,000 with Richard's Coin & Currency Counters, a California-based company, for the maintenance of various equipment for currency counting operations, and the purchase of replacement parts. This will result in a revised estimated purchase order total of $149,400 over a ten-
year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget
approval.
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 3.G. Lease Agreement Modification for Rooftop Space at 100 Wilshire Boulevard, was approved.
Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #9798 in the amount of $298,406 with Douglas Emmett 1998, LLC, a Delaware-based company, for leasing of
rooftop space at 100 Wilshire Boulevard. This will result in a 10-year amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $562.156, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.
RECYCLING SERVICES 3.H. Second Modification to Agreement with Allan Company for Recycling Services, was approved. Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate
and execute a second modification to Services Agreement #9012 (CCS) with
Cedarwood-Young Company, d/b/a Allan Company, a California-based company, to extend the agreement for recyclable materials processing services for one additional year in an amount not to exceed $302,000.
UNIFORMS 3.I. Award Contract to Provide Motor Coach Operator Uniforms, was approved. Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Item 13.L 07/27/21
106 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
1. Award Bid #4353 to two (2) vendors, providing two options for our Motor Coach Operator (MCO) uniforms. The contract awards would go to
Becnel Uniforms, a California-based company; and Galls, a California-
based company, for the provision of uniform supplies and related services for Big Blue Bus MCOs. 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute separate Agreement Nos. 10734 (CCS) and 10735 (CCS) with Becnel Uniforms and Galls,
with each not to exceed $136,200 for the first year, with four additional
one-year options to renew, for a total not to exceed $681,000 for both agreements over a five-year period with future funding contingent on City budget approval
AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3.J. Adopt Affordable Housing Production Program Fee Resolution No. 11130 (CCS) entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AUTOMATICALLY ADJUSTING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT BASE FEE FOR NEW MARKET-
RATE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO SANTA MONICA
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.64.070(B) BASED ON CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND LAND COSTS” and Resolution No. 11131 (CCS) entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AUTOMATICALLY ADJUSTING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT DEVELOPMENT COST PURSUANT TO SANTA MONICA
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.64.070(C) BASED ON CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND LAND COSTS”, was adopted. Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 11130 (CCS) increasing the Affordable Housing Unit Base Fee by five percent for new market-rate apartments and condominiums (Attachment A). 2. Adopt the attached Resolution increasing the Affordable Housing Unit
Development Cost by five percent (Attachment B).
LABOR RELATIONS 3.L. Resolution No. 11132 (CCS) entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE
PUBLIC ATTORNEYS’ LEGAL SUPPORT STAFF UNION AND REVISE
THE CONFIDENTIAL UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES PAY PLAN,” and Resolution No. 11133 (CCS) entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ESTABLISHING A NEW JOB CLASSIFICATION AND ADOPTING A SALARY RATE FOR CHIEF
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY”, was adopted.
Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council:
Item 13.L 07/27/21
107 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
1. Adopt attached Resolution No. 11132 (CCS) accepting the tentative agreement and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Public Attorneys’ Legal
Support Staff Union (PALSSU), and revise the Confidential Unrepresented Employees (CUE) Pay Plan. 2. Approve the attached revised salary schedule effective as a result of the agreement reached for the classifications represented by PALSSU and the
revisions made to CUE.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 11133 (CCS) establishing the classification and salary rate for Chief Deputy City Attorney. MINUTES 3.M. Minutes of the City Council - Regular and Special Joint Meeting - May 8, 2018 5:30 PM, were approved.
MINUTES 3.N. Minutes of the City Council - Regular Meeting - May 22, 2018 5:30 PM, were approved.
AERONAUTICAL SERVICES 3.K. Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Services, was approved. Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve the attached Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Services (Minimum Standards) that must be met by any person or entity that provides or seeks to provide commercial aeronautical services, as an addendum to the existing Santa Monica Airport Leasing and Licensing
Policy for the leasehold and license management of properties at the
Santa Monica Airport (Airport or SMO). 2. Extend and clarify the City Manager’s lease-approval authority to lease terms complying with the Leasing Policy and the Minimum Standards with terms of five years or less for non-aviation tenants and three years or
less for commercial aeronautical service providers, so long as the leases
have an expiration date on or before December 31, 2028.
Councilmember McKeown pulled this item due to the large number of questions about this item, especially considering it is a consent item.
Questions asked and answered of staff included, were the Airport Commission’s suggestions included in the recommended action, and if not why weren’t they included. Discussion ensued on the level for insurance, and if it should be increased.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember O’Day, to approve the recommended action. The motion was approved by the following vote:
Item 13.L 07/27/21
108 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
AYES: Councilmembers McKeown, Vazquez, Himmelrich, O’Day, O’Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Mayor Winterer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ORDINANCES: SIGNATURE AUTHORITY
7.A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2581 (CCS) entitled,
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING CHAPTER 1.12 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE TO AUTHORIZE USE OF DIGITAL SIGNATURES FOR OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS AND AMENDING SECTION 2.32.030 TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO DELEGATE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY FOR CONTRACTS”, was presented.
Recommended Action Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.
Motion by Councilmember Himmelrich , seconded by Councilmember O’Day,
to adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof.
The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers McKeown, Vazquez, Himmelrich, O’Day, O’Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Mayor Winterer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
7.B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2582 (CCS) entitled,
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 2.48.010 TO CHANGE THE ELIGIBILTY REQUIREMENT FOR SERVING ON THE COMMISSION FOR THE SENIOR COMMUNITY FROM ELECTORS OF THE CITY TO RESIDENTS OF THE CITY AND SECTION 2.32.270 TO CLARIFY COMPENSATION
FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS”, was presented.
Recommended Action Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, to
adopt the ordinance, reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers O’Connor, O’Day, Himmelrich, Vazquez,
McKeown, Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Mayor Winterer
NOES: None ABSENT: None
Item 13.L 07/27/21
109 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT 7.C. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 7.18 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code Relating to Sustainable Groundwater Management and Prohibiting New Private Wells and Expansion of Private Wells Unless and Until Permitted by a Groundwater Sustainability Plan, was presented. Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance
adding Chapter 7.18 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code relating to sustainable groundwater management and prohibiting new private wells and expansion of private wells unless and until permitted by a Groundwater Sustainability Plan. (Attachment A).
Members of the public Judy Abdo and Mark Gold spoke generally in support of the recommended action.
Questions asked and answered of staff included how staff would feel about
removing the clause that says making this permanent.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember Himmelrich, to introduce and hold first reading of the ordinance reading by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers McKeown, Vazquez, Himmelrich, O’Day, O’Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Mayor Winterer NOES: None
ABSENT: None
TENANT PROTECTION 7.D. Introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending Chapters 4.36 Tenant Relocation Assistance, and 8.100 Tenant Protection During Construction, was presented.
Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached proposed ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapters 4.36 Tenant Relocation Assistance and 8.100 Tenant Protection during Construction.
Member of the public Harvey Eder who spoke to the recommended action. Questions asked and answered of staff included: since this is new, what kind of
information are tenants asking for, and are the materials provided in other
languages: is it pervasive that construction is going on and tenants remain in the units because they are not aware of their relocation rights; are units without kitchen sinks considered uninhabitable; are there any limits on why a tenant is forced to relocate, and can it lead to permanent relocation; will the ordinance or
Item 13.L 07/27/21
110 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
regulations create the means so that the city can take action when it becomes impossible for the tenant to stay; is there a public information campaign to notify
tenants of their rights in multiple languages; and, what is the due process for
repeat offenders. Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember Himmelrich, to introduce and hold first reading of the ordinance reading by title
only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the
following vote: AYES: Councilmembers O’Connor, O’Day, Himmelrich, Vazquez, McKeown, Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Mayor Winterer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE 7.E. Introduction for First Reading of an Ordinance Modification Prohibiting Distribution of Non-Marine Degradable Food Service Ware by Santa Monica Food Providers, was presented.
Recommended Actions Staff recommends the City Council Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance modifying Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 5.44 to prohibit the
distribution of certain non-marine degradable disposable food service ware and
polystyrene beverage lids by food and beverage providers.
Members of the public Georgia Tunidi, Anna Pack (time donated by Beth Leder- Pack), Jessica Borck, David M. Price, James Gnall, Sasha Calder, Reece
Pachecho, Katherine Pease, Mary Luna, Matt Stauffer, Jessalyn Waldron, Caro Vilain, Bronwyn Major, Kelly Smith, Emma Castillo, Ron R., Joseph Gibson, Lauren Ferree, Bianca Botta, Mark Gold, Sofia Ratzovich, Charlotte Potter, Adam Skolnick, Angela Sun, Kieanna Jolaei, Mike Feinstein, Benjamin and Cody Kay, Harvey Eder, Judy Abdo, Lea Irwin, Graham Hamilton, Oscar de la
Torre Jr., West Donovan Harris, Fidel de la Torre, and, Lily Shurtock spoke on the recommended action. Questions asked and answered of staff included: can Council look into taking action on the alternatives suggested in the presentation, for example to eliminate
grocery stores from selling straws or plastics; what does the numbers on utensils mean; has there been any thought into making this ordinance more attractive; would vendors like Starbucks be required to change the type of cups they use right away; what is the definition of marine biodegradable; why not make vendors like Starbucks use paper cups; what is the requirement for the Director’s
Rule, and how long does the exemption last; are thin film bags included in this ordinance; and, how did staff decide to leave lids out as an exemption and how long does the exemption last.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
111 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember Vazquez, to introduce and hold first reading of the ordinance reading by title only and
waiving further reading thereof, with the inclusion of all plastic lids, and give
direction to bring back an ordinance banning the retail sale of polystyrene. Mayor Pro Tem Davis, proposed a friendly amendment to include direction that part of this outreach program specifically, to look for carrots and sticks (reward
and punishment) to encourage the immediate adoption in places that serve hot
and cold beverages of marine biodegradable containers. The motion was considered friendly to the maker and seconder. Councilmember O’Day, proposed a friendly amendment that if any of these
directors rules were to go beyond one-year, that it come back before the Council.
The maker suggested alternative language “if an exemption is used, that Council be notified as to whether to move forward” instead of a mandatory item on the agenda. The City Attorney suggested language “direct staff to provide a report of exemptions granted” in an information report. The maker accepted allowing
no more than one exemption of one-year. The motion with the new language
was considered friendly to the maker and seconder. Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember Vazquez, to introduce and hold first reading of the ordinance reading by title only and
waiving further reading thereof, with the inclusion of amendments to include the
definitions of “single use,” “prepared food” include the exception to provide plastic straws by request for those with a disability, exemptions for one year through the Directors rules, and to include banning all plastic lids. The amendments were considered friendly by the maker and seconder of the motion.
The motion, with amendments were approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers McKeown, Vazquez, Himmelrich, O’Day, O’Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Mayor Winterer NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis, seconded by Mayor Winterer, to give direction to staff as part of its outreach program that it begin to find ways to
encourage vendors give point of purchase incentives; look at requiring that the food service vendors have receptacles for items they serve food in; and all items recommended in the staff report, especially as it relates to retail sales and polystyrene packing items and coolers; and, suggested that the city should create a sustainable program to encourage people with incentives to use the more
sustainable vendors. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote with all members present.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
112 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
TELECOM- MUNICATIONS FACILITIES
Mayor Pro Tem Davis excused at 10:35 p.m.
7.F. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Repeal and Replace Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.32 Telecommunications Facilities, was presented.
Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance to repeal and replace Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.32 -
Telecommunications Facilities.
Mayor Pro Tem Davis recused herself due to a possible conflict of interest.
Staff stated a typo-correction for the record, that there is a 60-day shot clock, not
90-day, associated with this. There is a 60-day shot clock if something qualifies
for a 6409 Administrative Review, the City must take action within 60 days. Members of the public Dan Revetta and Amiee Week spoke to the recommended action.
Questions asked and answered of staff including, why do municipalities have so little jurisdiction over where the telecommunications facilities are located. Motion by Councilmember Himmelrich, seconded by Councilmember
McKeown, to introduce and hold first reading of the ordinance reading by title
only and waiving further reading thereof, with staff recommended changes. The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers O’Connor, O’Day, Himmelrich, Vazquez,
McKeown, Mayor Winterer NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Davis
COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSION ITEMS: ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Davis
returned at 11:06 p.m.
13.A. Annual Appointments to Boards and Commissions for terms ending June 30, 2018, was presented. Airport Commission, 1 appointment for a term ending June 30, 2022, was
presented.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Councilmember Himmelrich nominated Chris Waller.
There being no other nominations, Chris Waller was reappointed by acclamation to the Airport Commission for a term ending June 30, 2022, with all members
present.
Architectural Review Board, 2 appointments for a term ending June 30, 2022,
Item 13.L 07/27/21
113 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
was presented. On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Mayor Pro Tem Davis, nominated Kevin Daly
Councilmember McKeown nominated Barbara Coffman.
There being no other nominations, Kevin Daly and Barbara Coffman were appointed by acclamation to the Architectural Review Board for a term
ending June 30, 2022, with all members present.
Arts Commission, 2 appointments for a term ending June 30, 2022, was
presented.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Councilmember Himmelrich nominated Phil Brock
Councilmember McKeown nominated Mary Elizabeth Michaels
Councilmember O’Connor nominated Janeen Jackson
Ms. Jackson was appointed by the following vote:
Brock: Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Councilmember Himmelrich
Michaels: None
Jackson: Councilmembers O’Connor, O’Day, Vazquez, McKeown,
Mayor Winterer
Mayor Pro Tem Davis and Councilmember Himmelrich changed their votes
to Jackson, thereby appointing Janeen Jackson by acclamation to the Arts
Commission for a term ending June 30, 2022, with all members present.
For the second seat, the floor was opened to nominations. Councilmember Himmelrich nominated Phil Brock
Councilmember McKeown nominated Mary Elizabeth Michaels
Ms. Michaels was appointed by the following vote:
Brock: Councilmembers Vazquez, Himmelrich
Michaels: Councilmembers McKeown, O’Day, O’Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Mayor Winterer
Councilmembers Vazquez and Councilmembers changed their votes to
Michaels, thereby appointing Mary Elizabeth Michaels by acclamation to the
Item 13.L 07/27/21
114 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Arts Commission for a term ending June 30, 2022, with all members present.
Commission for the Senior Community, 3 appointments for a term ending
June 30, 2022, was presented.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Mayor Winterer nominated Paul Fern, Meghan Kelley, and Kathryn Keitzman
for reappointment.
There being no other nominations, Paul Fern, Meghan Kelley, and Kathryn Keitzman were reappointed by acclamation to the Commission for the Senior Community for a term ending June 30, 2022, with all members present.
Commission on the Status of Women, 2 appointments for a term ending June
30, 2022, was presented.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Mayor Winterer nominated Joni Byun and Sylvia Ghazarian for reappointment. There being no other nominations, Joni Byun and Sylvia Ghazarian were reappointed by acclamation to the Commission on the Status of Women for a
term ending June 30, 2022, with all members present.
Disabilities Commission, 3 appointments for a term ending June 30, 2022,
was presented.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations. Mayor Winterer nominated Thomas Hill and Marielle Kriesel for
reappointment.
There being no other nominations, Thomas Hill and Marielle Kriesel were
reappointed by acclamation to the Disabilities Commission for a term ending
June 30, 2022, with all members present.
For the third seat, the floor was opened to nominations.
Mayor Pro Tem Davis nominated Delbert Whetter
There being no other nominations, Mr. Whetter was appointed by acclamation
to the Disabilities Commission for a term ending June 30, 2022, with all
members present.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
115 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. , 3 appointments for a term ending June 30,
2022, was presented.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Mayor Pro Tem Davis nominated Juan Matute, Rob Rader and Johannes Van
Tilburg for reappointment.
There being no other nominations, Juan Matute, Rob Rader and Johannes Van
Tilburg were reappointed by acclamation to Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
for a term ending June 30, 2022, with all members present.
Councilmember
Himmelrich was
excused at 11:15 p.m.
Councilmember
Himmelrich returned at 11:16 p.m.
Housing Commission, 2 appointments for a term ending June 30, 2022, was
presented.
Councilmember Himmelrich recused herself from this appointment, because
her husband Michael Soloff is currently on the Housing Commission, and is
seeking reappointment.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Councilmember McKeown nominated Michael Soloff for reappointment.
There being no other nominations, Michael Soloff was reappointed by
acclamation to the Housing Commission for a term ending June 30, 2022,
with Councilmember Himmelrich absent.
For the second seat, the floor was opened for nominations. Councilmember McKeown nominated Richard Gerwitz
Councilmember Himmelrich nominated Steven Weinraub
Mr. Gerwitz was appointed by the following vote:
Gerwitz: Councilmembers McKeown, O’Day, O’Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Mayor Winterer
Weinraub: Councilmembers Vazquez, Himmelrich Councilmembers Vazquez and Himmelrich changed their votes to Gerwitz,
thereby appointing Richard Gerwitz by acclamation to the Housing
Commission for a term ending June 30, 2022, with all members present.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
116 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Landmarks Commission, 3 appointments for a term ending June 30, 2022,
was presented.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Mayor Winterer nominated Dolores Sloan for reappointment.
There being no other nominations, Dolores Sloan was reappointed by
acclamation to the Landmarks Commission for a term ending June 30, 2022, with all members present.
For the second seat, the floor was opened.
Councilmember McKeown nominated Kenneth Breisch for the Architectural
Historian and Roger Genser for the Local Historian appointments. There
being no other nominations, Kenneth Breisch and Roger Genser were
appointed by acclamation for a term ending June 30, 2022, with all members
present.
Personnel Board , 1 appointment for a term ending June 30, 2022, was
presented.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Mayor Winterer, nominated Eve Brosnahan for reappointment.
There being no other nominations, Eve Brosnahan was reappointed by
acclamation to the Personnel Board for a term ending June 30, 2022, with all
members present.
Planning Commission, 1 appointment for a term ending June 30, 2022, was
presented.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Mayor Pro Tem Davis, nominated Shawn Landres.
There being no other nominations, Shawn Landres was appointed by
acclamation to the Planning Commission for a term ending June 30, 2022,
with all members present.
Recreation and Parks Commission, 2 appointments for a term ending June 30,
2022, was presented.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
117 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Councilmember O’Day, nominated John C. Smith for reappointment.
There being no other nominations, John C. Smith was reappointed by
acclamation to the Recreation and Parks Commission for a term ending June
30, 2022, with all members present.
For the second seat, the floor was opened for nominations.
Councilmember McKeown nominated Andrew Gomez
Councilmember Himmelrich nominated Derek Devermont
Councilmember O’Day nominated Marcy Kaplan
Mr. Gomez was appointed by the following vote:
Gomez: Councilmembers McKeown, Vazquez, O’Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Mayor Winterer
Devermont: Councilmember Himmelrich
Kaplan: Councilmember O’Day
Councilmembers Himmelrich and O’Day changed their votes to Gomez,
thereby appointing Andrew Gomez by acclamation to the Recreation and
Parks Commission for a term ending June 30, 2022, with all members present.
Santa Monica Library Board, 2 appointments for a term ending June 30, 2022,
was presented.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Mayor Winterer, nominated Arlene Hopkins and Marc Morgensern for
reappointment.
There being no other nominations, Arlene Hopkins and Marc Morgensern
were reappointed by acclamation to the Library Board for a term ending June
30, 2022, with all members present.
Santa Monica Travel & Tourism, Inc., 1 appointment for a term ending June
30, 2021, was presented.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Councilmember McKeown nominated Lauralee Ashe for appointment.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
118 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
There being no other nominations, Lauralee Ashe was appointed by
acclamation to the Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Inc. for a term ending
June 30, 2021, with all members present.
Santa Monica Travel & Tourism, Inc., 3 appointments for a term ending June
30, 2022, was presented.
Councilmember McKeown nominated Darlene Evans, Albin Gielicz, and
Rosemary Regalbuto for reappointment.
There being no other nominations, Darlene Evans, Albin Gielicz, and
Rosemary Regalbuto were reappointed by acclamation to the Santa Monica
Travel and Tourism, Inc. for a term ending June 30, 2022, with all members
present.
Social Services Commission, 2 appointments for a term ending June 30, 2022,
was presented.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Mayor Winterer nominated Elaine Barringer and Bill Parent for
reappointment.
There being no other nominations, Elaine Barringer and Bill Parent were
reappointed by acclamation to the Social Services Commission for a term
ending June 30, 2022, with all members present.
CLEAN BEACHES & OCEAN PARCEL TAX CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
13.B. Appointment to two unscheduled vacancies on the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee for one term ending 12/31/2018 and one term ending 12/31/2019, was presented.
On order of the Mayor, the floor was opened for nominations.
Councilmember McKeown nominated Debbie Harris.
Mayor Pro Tem Davis nominated Vanessa Meir
There being no other nominations, Vanessa Meir was appointment by
acclamation to the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizen Oversight Committee for a term ending December 31, 2018, with all members present. For the second seat, Debbie Harris was appointed by acclamation to the Clean
Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizen Oversight Committee for a term ending
December 31, 2019, with all members present.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
119 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION
Councilmember O’Day excused at 11:26 p.m.
13.C. Recommendation to accept Alan Toy's resignation from the Recreation & Parks Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy, was presented.
Motion by Councilmember Himmelrich, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Davis,to accept the resignation with regret.
The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote, with Councilmember
O’Day absent.
BALLOT MEASURE 13.D. Request of Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Councilmembers McKeown and O'Day that the City Council endorse the Safe Clean Water Program ballot measure that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has placed before the voters on November 6, 2018. The measure would generate approximately $300 Million by implementing a parcel tax of 2.5 cents per square foot of impermeable surface area on private property in the LA County Flood Control District. Proceeds would be used to protect coastal waters and beaches from trash and contaminants in stormwater, to recapture billions of gallons of stormwater that currently are lost, and require strict community oversight to ensure that local monies stay local. Credits for property owners who have installed stormwater-capture systems would be available. Qualifying low-income seniors and non-profit organizations would be eligible for exemption. An information sheet is attached, was presented.
There were no members present to speak on this item.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Davis , to approve the recommendation. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with Councilmember O’Day absent.
TENANT
PROTECTIONS
13.E. Request of Councilmembers McKeown and Himmelrich that the City
Council direct staff to examine our statutory renter protections for outdated definitions and compensations, in light of rapidly intensifying market pressures on local rents, with special attention directed at but not limited to:
• relocation compensation for renters evicted through no fault of their own, as by an Ellis Act removal
• our definition of what constitutes “corporate housing” or “short-term
rentals,” prohibited uses that erode our stock of true residential rentals
• code requirements for room sizes and other parameters of legally habitable permanent housing
• respond systematically to related violations and/or abuses by landlords
Item 13.L 07/27/21
120 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
acting in bad faith over time
• manipulations of the long-term status of units in “TORCA” buildings, where tenants are supposed to have protected status
• …and return to the Council as soon as possible, combining this direction
with the recent direction to prepare for the possible repeal of the Costa- Hawkins Act, recognizing that the financial climate on rental housing is particularly volatile, and that a significant number of resident renters may be at increased risk in the near future, was presented.
Members of the public Denise Barton, Naomi Sultan, Kevin Mitchell, Michael Feinstein, Daniel Westcott, Nicole Phillis, Gary Hudson, Gert Basson, Eileen Larry, Jennifer Kennedy (time donated by Genise Schnitman), Kaysie Kent, and Kathy Conedy.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember Himmelrich, to approve the recommendation. The motion was unanimously
approved by voice vote, with Councilmember O’Day absent.
PROMENADE RESTAURANTS 13.F. Request of Mayor Pro Tem Davis and Councilmember McKeown that Council direct staff to explore methods to limit the proliferation of fast food restaurants on the Third Street Promenade and to return to Council with any necessary ordinance amendments, was presented.
Member of the public Johnathan Foster spoke in opposition of the recommendation.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Davis , seconded by Councilmember McKeown , to
approve the recommendation. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with Councilmember O’Day absent.
PROPOSITION 6 13.G. Request of Councilmembers O’Connor and O’Day that the City Council oppose Proposition 6 on the statewide ballot in November 2018.
Should Proposition 6 pass, it would repeal SB 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, which is investing $54 billion statewide over the next decade to repair and upgrade roads, freeways and bridges in communities across California and targeted funds towards transit, congestion and safety improvements. Locally, Santa Monica would lose state
funding for vital projects such as Safe Routes to School, Vision Zero bicycle and pedestrian safety measures and Big Blue Bus service and electrification of their fleet, was presented.
Member of the public Harvey Eder spoke in support of the recommendation.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
121 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
Motion by Councilmember O’Connor, seconded by Mayor Winterer, to approve the recommendation. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with
Councilmember O’Day absent.
MEASURE 10 13.H. Request of Councilmembers McKeown and Himmelrich that the Council put the City of Santa Monica on record as supporting Measure 10 on the November ballot, to protect renters from continued unlimited 'market rate' rent hikes under the Costa-Hawkins Act, which would be repealed by passage of Measure 10; and convey the City’s position of support for Measure 10 as appropriate, was presented.
Members of the public Jerry Rubin, Zakary Mayall, and Johnathan Foster spoke
on the recommendation.
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Councilmember Himmelrich, to approve the recommendation. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with Councilmember O’Day absent.
PUBLIC INPUT: Members of the public Debbie Bulsky, Mary Sampson, Dave Estrada, Art Casillas, Scott Kubly, Esfer Bozkurt, Kevin Vega, Kris Costello, Yai-Jahnie Lawler, Terenig Topjian, Alexander Arnold, Scott Scholler, Jacob Davidson, Jerry Rubin, Derick Quintanilla, Nico Gimenez, Tim Harter, Carl Hansen, Kim Pluth, Harvey Eder, Chris Balish, Johnathan Foster, and Erik Yesayan
commented on various local issues.
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 1:27 a.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Denise Anderson-Warren
Denise Anderson-Warren (Dec 12, 2018)
Ted Winterer
Ted Winterer (Dec 11, 2018)
Denise Anderson-Warren Ted Winterer City Clerk Mayor
Item 13.L 07/27/21
122 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, July 27, 2021 2:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: July 27, 2021, Item 13-L
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Patricia Hoffman <oppenhoff@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 9:21 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: July 27, 2021, Item 13‐L
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers ‐
I’m writing regarding the nepotism recommendation in Item 13‐L. I am not writing to oppose it even though many close
relatives of Councilmembers have served our community well as members of Boards and Commissions.
I am writing to say that no sitting Commissioners have ever been removed during their terms without good cause. I
would hate to see the City Council start that practice now. Specifically, Commissioner Michael Soloff has been one of the
most effective advocates for affordable housing our City has had. He has been an exemplary member of our Housing
Commission. He should not be the one person in our City’s history removed from a Commission through no fault of his
own.
Mr. Soloff’s term is up in June 2022. It would be a travesty to cut his term short. Again, I’m not objecting to the
ordinance but I am proposing the grandparenting in of any sitting Commissioners, Mr. Soloff being the only one I know
of at this time.
Thank you, Patricia Hoffman.
Item 13.L 07/27/21
123 of 123 Item 13.L 07/27/21
13.L.a
Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Written Comments (4689 : B&C Ad hoc recommendations)