City Council Meeting: April 29,
2008
Agenda Item: 8-B
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen Fogarty, Director of
Planning & Community Development
Subject: Discussion of the City’s Draft General
Plan Housing Element
Recommended
Action
Staff recommends that the City Council review and provide direction on the draft 2008-2014 Housing Element as modified by the attached errata sheet prior to the draft’s submittal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
Executive
Summary
This report summarizes the highlights of the Draft Housing Element of
the General Plan, which is presented to the City Council for its review and
comment prior to submittal to the California State Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD). State
Law mandates that all southern
The Draft Housing Element describes the City’s commitment and effective
efforts to develop affordable housing against a background of spiraling
construction costs, and escalating land values.
It describes how the City’s ability to maintain affordability of
existing units is challenged by State-mandated rent control regulations, and
uncertainty in federal housing programs, resulting in significantly higher
rents in over 50% of the city’s rent controlled units and reductions in Section
8 housing vouchers. The combined effect of these forces is a loss of
affordability for lower and middle income households. The Housing Element
includes objectives and programs to address this situation, and will be updated
and revised prior to submittal to HCD with information contained in three
recently released Rent Control Board reports, highlighting the growing need for
urgent action to address housing affordability in
The report includes comments received since the document’s release from
members of the public, the Housing and Planning Commissions, the Rent Control
Board, and City staff, and proposed revisions are included in an errata sheet
attached to this report. After City Council action, the Draft Housing Element
will be revised and forwarded for review to HCD. Environmental review in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be
conducted concurrently. Staff will return to the Planning Commission and
Council for formal action after staff receives HCD’s comments and environmental
review is completed, which is anticipated toward the end of the year.
Background
Housing and its
production are critical to the economic and social well-being and vitality of
the community and its residents. Increasingly, the State of
The Housing Element
was released in February 2008 for public review. It emphasizes the City’s past
and continuing commitment to maintaining and developing affordable housing. The
City’s successful programs are implemented through the Housing and Economic
Development Department, Rent Control Board and the Planning & Community
Development Department. They include:
¨
Affordable housing production boosted through on-site requirements
to construct affordable units or payment of fees, development incentives for
producing affordable housing units and rehabilitation programs (under Goals 2,
5 and 6);
¨
Streamlining the permit approval process while maintaining high
architectural standards (under Goal 1);
¨
Assisting and educating renters and landlords, enforcing the Rent
Control Ordinance and prosecuting perpetrators of unfair rental practices and
discrimination, and maintaining the integrity of the city’s housing stock
through Building Code enforcement (programs under Goals 3 and 4).
These programs have been enhanced over the years in response to
the community’s needs. Their relevance has steadily increased, particularly in
the last 13 years since the State’s adoption of the Costa-Hawkins Rental
Housing Act, which mandated vacancy decontrol and has resulted in significant
rent increase in over half of the city’s apartments to date (Attachment A,
pages 3-27 to 3-30). Today, the loss of
housing affordability has profound impacts on the character and sustainability
of the community, which the programs in the draft Housing Element aim to
address.
Discussion
The following summarizes the
main sections of the Draft Housing Element.
The Housing Plan
The
Housing Plan (Chapter 2) is the heart of the Housing Element. The chapter begins with a statement of the
City’s vision for providing housing that will be affordable to a broader
spectrum of the community. It is followed by summaries describing how
The eight goals of the draft Housing Element are:
1. Promote the construction of new housing within the City’s regulatory framework
2. Encourage the production of housing for all income categories including housing for the community’s workforce
3. Protect the existing supply of affordable housing
4. Promote the rehabilitation and continued maintenance of existing housing
5. Provide housing assistance and supportive services to very low, low, and moderate income households and households with special needs
6. Eliminate discrimination in the rental or sale of housing on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual preference, age, disability, family status, aids, or other such characteristics
7. Promote quality housing and neighborhoods
8. Promote the participation of citizens, community groups, and governmental agencies in housing and community development activities
Since
release of the public draft, the City Council adopted the Action Plan for
Addressing Homelessness in Santa Monica in February, which shifts the
paradigm for allocating resources to address homelessness in the city.
Attachment B includes replacement language for the Housing Plan to reflect this
new policy. Staff is also recommending
the addition of a program under Objective 3.a to identify new ways that the
city can strive to replace the large number of formerly affordable units that
have been lost through market rate rentals due to vacancy decontrol.
Vision
for Housing and Relationship to the Pending LUCE Update
Preparation
of the Housing Element update coincides with the LUCE process, affording the
City an opportunity to closely examine and coordinate the issues of community
growth, land use, housing, transportation, and community design. In many cases,
the community’s vision expressed throughout the extensive LUCE outreach process
affirms the appropriateness of continuing most of the existing Housing Element
policies, which have succeeded in producing affordable housing and services for
populations with special needs. Other goals and objectives that reflect the
community’s vision are discussed in the Draft Housing Element. Land use strategies for additional future
residential development will be developed as part of the ongoing LUCE process.
Provisional
goals for the Land Use and Circulation Element related to housing include:
1)
Maintaining and conserving the City’s existing
residential neighborhoods, including single-family and multi-family areas.
There is strong community desire to preserve and enhance the character and
scale that currently exists in these areas.
2)
Continuing the commitment to developing
affordable housing, services and programs that support the homeless and other
underserved populations.
3)
Promoting sustainable land use and design
concepts and green building and landscaping practices.
4)
Exploring a range of housing options downtown
and at targeted locations along the City’s major transit corridors.
5)
Planning for future housing as a component of
transit-oriented development, which is largely dependent on the outcome of
current planning efforts to determine the path and station locations of the
planned Expo light rail line.
6)
Exploring ways to address housing affordability
for the City’s workforce.
Background
Data
Chapter
3 of the Draft Housing Element provides a housing needs assessment, including
an overview of the City’s population, household and housing characteristics,
and an analysis of the community’s housing needs. This assessment serves as a
foundation for developing housing objectives and recommendations for allocating
City resources in order to meet local housing need and provide a fair share of
regional affordable housing. The data, based
in part on the 2000 census and also on more recent City and State sources, includes
information about: population characteristics such as household types, income
levels, employment, and special needs groups; and housing stock characteristics
including age, type, cost and affordability, and assisted housing at risk of
conversion.
Attachment
B includes several data changes proposed for this section in response to
comments received since the draft’s release.
In addition, the attachment includes replacement language to reflect the
City’s updated information about homelessness in the city. This data, contained in the Action Plan
for Addressing Homelessness in Santa Monica, was obtained through more
accurate methodology employed in a survey conducted in January of this year,
and is more reliable than the data included in the public release draft. Other data updates to be included in the
draft for HCD review are described in Attachment B (Errata Sheet).
Analysis
of Potential Constraints
State
law requires local jurisdictions to assess whether there are any constraints
imposed by local government on the maintenance, improvement or development of
housing and to consider removing any such constraints that impede a
jurisdiction from achieving its fair share of regional housing need.
Constraints caused by non-governmental factors discussed in this chapter
include the cost of land, construction costs (which will be updated; see
Attachment B), and the availability of mortgage and home construction
financing. Potential government constraints address issues of zoning, building
code, fees and other requirements that may result in the inability to
economically produce housing.
Environmental factors are also discussed and generally concluded to not
constitute a constraint to housing production.
Land costs and availability are identified as posing the greatest
constraint to providing affordable housing in the city, although over the
period of the last housing element, builders still found it feasible to build
market rate housing as evidenced by the strength of housing construction
activity in
To look
more closely at potential governmental constraints, HRA Advisors, Inc. conducted
an in-depth study of twelve interim and permanent housing-related ordinances
that the City has adopted since the 2000-2005 update, which is summarized in
this chapter and included in its entirety in Draft Housing Element Appendix
B. The report concluded that none of
this legislation, which was enacted generally for the purposes of ensuring
residential compatibility and encouraging more affordable housing production,
has constrained the City’s ability to achieve its RHNA allocation as set by the
regional authority (the Southern California Associate of Governments, or
SCAG). While this legislation may add
procedures or substantive costs, those costs have not prevented the typical
housing developer from building housing in the City and this legislation will
not prevent the City from achieving its RHNA target.
Housing Resources
Expanded
analysis and additional data are provided in Chapter 5 (Housing Resources) to
demonstrate how the City has been successful and continues to manage productive
programs that result in the construction of affordable housing. This chapter lists the State, Federal and
local financial resource programs that the City utilizes for activities
including affordable housing production, homeless, senior and disabled
services, and assistance for persons with HIV/AIDS. This chapter also addresses the city’s
approach to reducing greenhouse gases as it relates to housing and the City’s
compliance with State laws that pertain to housing elements, explaining the
city’s compliance in every case with state mandates. Also discussed are the city’s efforts to help
tenants displaced through vacancy decontrol.
The
Housing Resources chapter also contains the very important demonstration of the
City’s compliance with its RHNA allocation, a central requirement of the
Housing Element. The RHNA requirement
may be reduced through “credit” given for units that have received building
permits since January 2006. Table 5-3 in this chapter demonstrates how projects
that have already received discretionary approvals or building permits will provide
enough affordable and market-rate housing units to exceed the City’s RHNA
allocation in most affordability categories. A complete spreadsheet including
project locations and proposed numbers of units is included in Draft Housing
Element Appendix D. City, non-profit
and market-rate projects in the pipeline will further boost the production of low
and very-low income housing.
Additionally, ongoing regulatory programs such as the Affordable Housing
Production Program will continue to promote the development of affordable
housing. Also included is an updated inventory of underutilized sites where
additional housing units could be built (Table 5-1) based on the same
methodology approved by HCD in the City’s previous housing element. In summary, the City of
Review of Previous Housing Element Implementation
Chapter
6 of the Draft Housing Element includes a detailed analysis of each program
included in the previous (1998-2005) Housing Element. The information in this chapter demonstrates
that the programs in the City’s current Housing Element have resulted in the rehabilitation
and construction of thousands of housing units, support for renters, and services
to meet special needs.
State
Requirement for Housing Element Adoption
The State established June 30, 2008 as the deadline for southern
Consistency with Other General Plan Elements
The
City of
The
Housing Element’s purpose is to articulate the needs and programs that will
promote the City’s ability to meet its housing needs, including its fair share
of regional development as determined in the RHNA. The proposed Draft Housing Element reiterates
the city’s ongoing commitment to providing high quality housing for its
residents, maintaining and building new affordable housing, addressing issues
of homelessness, meeting special housing needs, implementing the Rent Control ordinance,
and ensuring that additional housing units added to the city’s housing stock
are compatible with existing neighborhoods and are in proximity to neighborhood
services in order to promote sustainability and healthy living objectives. This direction is compatible with other City
General Plan Elements.
Planning
& Community Development is currently focusing efforts on developing a
strategy to create housing options to accommodate diverse lifestyles in proximity
to improved transit access. Staff is also
analyzing information to develop a program to produce housing that is
affordable to a larger band of the City’s workforce. These policies, which are
principally being undertaken in the LUCE process, require additional analysis
and review under CEQA and are referenced in the Draft Housing Element for
consistency. It is possible, given the
timelines of the two projects, that more detailed description of these policies
may be added to the final Housing Element when it returns for formal review and
adoption.
Commission Action
Presentations
were made to the Planning Commission, Housing Commission and Rent Control Board
at the outset of the Housing Element’s preparation. Staff presented the Public Review draft to
these bodies in March 2008 and the following comments and recommendations were
received. Responses to these comments
and to those received from the public (see below), have either been
incorporated into Attachment B, or may be included in the draft for HCD review,
pending Council direction.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Housing Element at a
public hearing on March 19, 2008. The
Commission requested that staff review and/or include the following:
¨ The accuracy of data for the population estimate, building cost per square foot, and school enrollment figures.
¨ Clarify data on new housing (new units built versus net new units to reflect the number of units demolished).
¨ Include more Rent Control data including information on occupants of rent control units and the impact of market rate rent adjustments.
¨ Add a definition for congregate care; include more data and a goal to meet the community’s future need for congregate care.
¨
Add a goal to the Housing Plan to address the
jobs-housing imbalance and to better match income and housing affordability for
¨ Place a stronger emphasis on the need to strengthen the policies supporting the Section 8 housing program.
¨ Ensure that the document is consistent with amendments being considered to the Green Building Ordinance.
¨
Recognizing that
¨ Consider where the Element can include more commitment to the City’s wider sustainability objectives.
¨ Provide more detailed description and analysis of a program to provide workforce housing, emphasizing its connection with long-term sustainability.
¨ Ensure that there is strong language about maintaining the city’s existing affordable housing, in addition to creating new affordable units.
¨ Consider the impact that Proposition 98 might have on the city’s ability to produce affordable housing should that measure be approved by State’s voters.
Planning staff presented the Draft
Housing Element to the Housing Commission at a public hearing on March 13, 2008. Following extensive discussion, the Housing
Commission unanimously voted to support the Draft Housing Element and asked
that attention be paid to:
¨ Opportunities for strategies to support affordable housing
¨ Parking reduction for affordable housing and housing near transit
¨ Refining the methodology for counting the homeless population, and in particular the concern that the Latino homeless population has been undercounted.
Rent Control Board
Planning staff presented the Draft
Housing Element to the Rent Control Board (RCB) at a public hearing on March
13, 2008. The RCB held further discussion
at its April 3 meeting and had generally positive comments, noting that they
are pleased that the City will be able to meet the RHNA allocation established
by SCAG. However, the RCB is very concerned
about the findings of the nine-year report on “The Impact of Market Rate
Vacancy Increases,” which was presented to the Board on April 3 and has been forwarded
to the Planning Commission and City Council.
The report data indicate that 14,672 units have now been rented at
market rate, including 9,860 units that previously had rent levels affordable
to low-income households (80% of the median family income for a family of
four). Included within the 9,860 units
were 6,044 units that had rent levels affordable to very-low income families
(60% of MFI). The RCB requested that the
Housing Element address this issue by including a program to identify new ways that the city can strive
to replace the large number of formerly affordable units that have been lost
through market rate rentals due to vacancy decontrol. As referenced earlier in this
report, this program is recommended to be added under Objective 3.a of the
Housing Plan.
The RCB’s annual report, also
released for the April 3 meeting, contains updated rental cost information that
staff will use to update the information in the Housing Element in order to
better reflect the current affordability gap.
Public Outreach
Community
and Inter-departmental Participation in the Development of the Housing Element
The
draft Housing Element has been developed with community input through many
outreach efforts either specifically associated with the Housing Element
process or in conjunction with development of the Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE), which included many opportunities for participation on issues
related to housing over the last three years.
While
the Planning & Community Development Department (PCD) has taken the lead
role in developing the Draft Housing Element, PCD has worked with staff members
that implement housing-related programs in the City’s Housing and Economic
Development Department, Community and Cultural Services Department, and Rent
Control Board. Staff from each of these
agencies, in addition to the City Attorney’s office, has contributed to the
research and review of this document.
A Special
Meeting to discuss the Housing Element’s direction and the RHNA was held for
the Affordable Housing community on December 14, 2007. Invitations were sent to
thirty-six housing developers, advocates, and service providers (Draft Housing
Element Appendix C). In addition to
staff from various City departments, representatives from the following
agencies attended the meeting and provided input:
•
• Step Up
on Second
• Community
Corporation of
• OPCC
• CLARE
Foundation
Since
the Public Review Draft was released in February, comments have been received
and staff has incorporated them into Attachment B.
Community Input Through the LUCE Process
The
LUCE process began in 2004 and has involved a substantial amount of community
outreach and engagement. Opportunities for residents to recommend strategies,
review and comment upon land use and housing issues and discuss new
opportunities for housing were an important component of the LUCE update. For example, in the initial visioning
workshop, the need for housing that is affordable to a wide range of incomes
emerged as one the community’s greatest concerns, and was reflected in the Emerging
Themes. In 2007, the LUCE
“Placemaking” workshops looked at ways to preserve existing neighborhood
character and focused on nearby commercial areas that might have potential to
become mixed-use neighborhood centers where more affordable or “workforce”
housing might be built with access to nearby services and transportation
options. In addition, potential for new residential/mixed-use neighborhoods was
a focal topic in the Industrial Lands Workshops, which were attended by over
250 community members. City staff received important input at these and other
workshops that was taken into consideration in formulating the goals and
objectives of the Housing Element. In
addition to its emphasis on programs to meet more immediate housing needs, the Draft
Housing Element is consistent with the LUCE vision for future housing
opportunity areas. However, the Draft
Housing Element does not include specific proposals for location of new housing
areas; that determination will be made in the LUCE.
Public
Notice and Summary of Comments Received
Notification
of release of the Draft Housing Element was published in the Santa Monica Daily
Press on February 15, 2008, and copies have been available at the Planning
Division’s public counter and all branch libraries. Electronic notification was provided to
housing providers and advocates and to adjacent jurisdictions and the SMMUSD. In addition, an electronic version of the
document has been available since February 15 at the Planning Division website
at http://www.smgov.net/planning/whats-new/index.html
and has also been linked to the Land Use and Circulation Elements website, www.shapethefuture2025.net.
A
notice was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press regarding this Council
hearing on April 18, 2008, and notification was sent to interested parties by
mail and e-mail.
The
following comments were received from various members of the public in regard
to the Draft Housing Element. Copies of communications received are included in
Attachment C:
· The city is planning to build too much housing and it is questionable whether the city should be participating in building workforce housing for families with relatively high incomes.
· Unit size (number of bedrooms) should be diversified within affordable housing projects to ensure diversified population and equal opportunity.
·
The Section 8 program is at serious risk, and
will be more at risk if voters approve Proposition 98, and serious attention
should be paid to this.
·
Section 8 tenants need to have access to
relocation fees.
·
The City needs to be very concerned about the
disaster of owner opt-out from the Section 8 program. Alternative programs and preventative
measures are needed to avert a surge of new homelessness that would result.
·
Construction costs are higher than the figure
included in the HE.
·
The fees in Table 4-6 omit water meters, and new
projects must include separate domestic and irrigation meters and a third meter
for fire sprinklers, if required, for which the fee exceeds $10,000.
·
The Draft Housing Element does not mention
co-housing (an emerging model of housing co-ownership with an emphasis on
communal space and sustainable design), and the City should consider whether
co-housing is something that should be encouraged.
Environmental Analysis
An initial study will be conducted to determine the proper level
of environmental analysis for the draft Housing Element under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
initial study will result in either a negative declaration, mitigated negative
declaration, or a full or limited environmental impact report (EIR). Community noticing and meetings as required
by CEQA will be scheduled as the environmental analysis progresses.
Financial Impacts &
Budget Actions
Preparation of the Housing Element and related environmental
review are included in the FY2007-2008 budget. Accordingly, there are no financial impacts
associated with the recommended action.
Prepared by:
Elizabeth
Bar-El, AICP, Senior Planner
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Eileen
Fogarty, Planning & Community Development Department |
|
P. City Manager |
ATTACHMENTS:
A.
Link to the Draft
Housing Element (electronic version) HARD COPIES WERE PROVIDED TO THE
COUNCIL IN FEBRUARY.
B.
Errata Sheet with proposed changes to include in the
Housing Element HCD Review Draft
C.
Comments Received on the Draft Housing Element
ATTACHMENT
A
Link to the Draft
Housing Element (electronic version)
HARD COPIES WERE PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL IN
FEBRUARY
ATTACHMENT B
Errata Sheet with proposed changes to
include in the Housing Element HCD Review Draft
Draft Housing
Element Errata Sheet
The following are proposed revisions to the Public Review
Draft Housing Element, February 2008. Changes to the policies, programs, and
text reflect response to comments provided by the Housing Commission and Rent
Control Board on March 13, 2008 and the Planning Commission on March 19, 2008.
Changes also reflect response to comments received from the general public,
service agencies, and City staff during the public comment period.
These changes will be incorporated into the Draft Housing
Element prior to its submittal to HCD on or before June 30, 2008.
Additional minor edits, typos and grammatical changes may be
made to the document before it is submitted to HCD and is not reflected in the
errata listed below.
Changes to policies and text are presented in underline/strikeout.
1. Updated information on construction costs in
the City requested.
Updated
construction costs for 2008 based on information compiled by the City’s Housing
& Economic Development Department will be included in the Draft Housing
Element as follows:
·
Multi-family
construction: $239/square foot
·
Development
costs for a 2 bedroom apartment is $523,000 per unit.
·
Of
that, $233,000 is hard costs related to construction.
2. More information on congregate care
facilities and a definition should be included in the Final Housing Element.
For the purpose of background information and to give a more
complete picture of housing in the city, information on congregate care
facilities in the city will be included in an appropriate location within
Chapter 5: Housing Resources. A
definition will be included in the Glossary of Terms
3. Page 3-54:
Question regarding apparent inconsistency between data on
the number of education-related jobs in the city.
Table 3-9 and 3-10 – Language will be added to clarify the
composition of job reporting categories in data produced by the State EDD as
compared to the City’s data on principal employers. The State EDD Labor Market
data classifies the school district and
The Housing Element will be updated with 2007 data for Table
3-9 and 3-10 (below) and a footnote will be added.
|
Table 3‑9 Establishments per Industry Type and
Average Employment, 2007 |
||
|
Establishment |
# of |
Average |
|
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting |
6 |
11 |
|
Mining |
1 |
*** |
|
Utilities |
6 |
281 |
|
Construction |
227 |
2,607 |
|
Manufacturing |
105 |
1,056 |
|
Wholesale Trade |
230 |
2,355 |
|
Retail Trade |
648 |
9,781 |
|
Transportation & Warehousing |
29 |
359 |
|
Information |
619 |
7,754 |
|
Finance & Insurance |
258 |
3,155 |
|
Real Estate & Rental & Leasing |
392 |
3,268 |
|
Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services |
1,217 |
11,659 |
|
Management of Companies and Enterprises |
22 |
604 |
|
Admin & Support & Waste Mgmt & Remediation |
230 |
2,636 |
|
Educational Services |
85 |
2,359 |
|
Health Care & Social Assistance |
843 |
8,368 |
|
Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation |
600 |
2,128 |
|
Accommodation & Food Services |
377 |
11,183 |
|
Other Services |
362 |
3,382 |
|
Non-Classified |
2 |
** |
|
Federal Govt |
6 |
283 |
|
State Govt |
1 |
15 |
|
Local Govt*** |
49 |
6,279 |
|
TOTAL |
6,315 |
79,525 |
|
SOURCE: State
of **Data suppressed by EDD for confidentiality *** Includes City of |
||
|
Employer |
Number of Jobs Provided |
|
|
2,517 |
|
City of |
2,177 |
|
Santa
Monica-Malibu Unified |
1,650 |
|
|
1,543 |
|
Santa Monica-UCLA Hospital |
1,350 |
|
MTV Networks |
1,060 |
|
RAND Corporation |
862 |
|
Activision |
800 |
|
ET Whitehall |
750 |
|
Symantec Corporation |
720 |
|
Yahoo |
477 |
|
First Federal Bank |
618 |
|
Rubin Postaer & Associates |
450 |
|
Loews |
440 |
|
King World Productions, Inc. |
400 |
|
|
361 |
|
Total |
15,814 |
|
SOURCE: Economic
and Demographic Profile, City of |
|
4. Page
3-26: How is the current downturn in the housing market affecting
The following
home sales data was registered for February 2008, indicating reduced sales
prices. Data for the first quarter, when
available, will be reviewed and included in the revised draft Housing Element.
|
February 2008 |
|||||||||
|
Single Family Homes |
|
Condos |
|||||||
|
Community Name |
ZIP Code |
Sales of Single Family Homes |
Price Median SFR ($1,000) |
Price % Chg from Feb 2007 |
Sales Count Condos |
Price Median Condos ($1,000) |
Price % Chg from Feb 2007 |
Median Home Price/ Sq. Ft |
|
|
|
90401 |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
5 |
$608 |
-37.7% |
n/a |
|
|
|
90402 |
5 |
$2,360 |
-30.9% |
3 |
$960 |
-40.0% |
$1,364 |
|
|
|
90403 |
1 |
$2,699 |
n/a |
9 |
$471 |
-47.4% |
$1,335 |
|
|
|
90404 |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
8 |
$665 |
3.2% |
n/a |
|
|
|
90405 |
7 |
$1,170 |
6.5% |
4 |
$657 |
-21.8% |
$732 |
|
|
County/City/Area |
# Sold |
2007 |
2006 |
% Change |
|
|
623 |
$910,000 |
$884,500 |
2.88% |
|
|
62,316 |
$530,000 |
$515,000 |
2.91% |
|
SOURCE: DataQuick |
||||
5. Provide updated information on rent
control and the loss of units related to Costa Hawkins.
More recent information provided in The Impact
of Market Rate Vacancy Increases Nine-Year Report, prepared by
the Santa Monica Rent Control Board, March 20, 2008, will be used to update the
text on Pages 3-27 and 3-28.
In addition, a program will be added to the Housing Plan as
follows:
New program to be added under
Objective 3.a on pages x and 2-12/13: The City will
identify additional mechanisms to maintain and/or restore the affordability of
more existing units in response to the loss of more than 14,600 formerly
affordable units that have been rented at market-rate as of 2007.
Responsible Division: Housing Division (lead); Rent Control
Agency
6. Page
3-29: Include more detailed information on Workforce
Housing
Details on the approach to Workforce Housing are being
developed through the LUCE process but are not yet available to include in this
draft of the Housing Element. The Final Housing Element will be updated with
information available at that time.
7. More discussion on demolitions and the
recycling of the city’s housing stock should be included.
New available information included in The
Impact of the Ellis Act: January-December 2007, published by the Rent
Control Board in April 2008, will be included on pages 3-27 and 3-23 in the
Draft Housing Element.
8. Additional/Revised Information on the
City’s Sustainability Programs:
The following text will be revised:
Page 2-18
Objective 7.b
Program Background:
“The City also requires all new construction to comply
with Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code regarding water and energy
conservation”
This program is not necessary as the
activity described is legally required.
Program
Change last sentence to read: “Reduce residential and
commercial water use 20 percent by 2010 and reduce the overall energy usage in
the City. Continue to reduce city-wide water and energy use in accordance
with the goals and targets set out in the Sustainable City Plan.
Since this policy is set out in the
Page 2-19
Objective 7.c
Program Background
Point of Clarification: The first
Remove this sentence: “ Multi-family projects registered
for certification under the LEED Green Building Rating System receive expedited
plan checks and financial incentives.”
Replace: “Projects pursuing certification under the LEED
green building rating system receive expedited processing through City
departments.”
Program:
Continue to offer incentives to encourage green building and
investigate new ways that green building might be incentivized. Continue to
improve relevant sections of the Municipal Code to support improved
environmental performance of newly constructed buildings. Continue green
building incentives and requirements in accordance with the goals and targets
set forth in the
Page 5-7
E.1 Energy
Add the following paragraph after the paragraph that begins
“As an indicator to monitor implementation”
“In March 2006, the Community Energy
Page 5-8
E.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduction
Remove the paragraph that begins “Current climate models
were developed to analyze…” and replace with the last two paragraphs below:
2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Greenhouse gases are components of the atmosphere
that contribute to the greenhouse effect. The natural greenhouse effect allows
the earth to remain warm and sustain life. Greenhouse gases trap the sun’s heat
in the atmosphere, like a blanket, and influence the climate. Examples of
greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and
fluorinated gasses. The increased consumption of fossil fuels (wood, coal,
gasoline, etc.) has substantially increased atmospheric levels of greenhouse
gases. New housing development may contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, but
careful site planning and design, and the selection of environmentally friendly
building materials and equipment can significantly reduce these emission levels.
NO CHANGE TO AB 32 BULLET POINTS
Remove the paragraph that begins “Current climate models
were developed to analyze…” and replace with the last two paragraphs below:
Current climate models are available to analyze climate
change on a global scale and to analyze greenhouse gas emissions at the local
scale. There are established standards for measuring and reporting a
community’s greenhouse gas emissions and the methodology for calculating
greenhouse gas emissions is standardized and widely used.
The City has calculated its municipal and community-wide
greenhouse gas emissions for 1990, 1995 and 2000. The City of
Remove the paragraph that begins “Current climate models
were developed to analyze…”
Page 5-8
E.3 Increasing Energy Education
Remove all mention of the Community Energy Independence
Initiative and replace with the name “Solar Santa Monica program”. Replace
“www.smgov.net/epd/” with “www.solarsantamonica.com”
9. Revised Homelessness Discussion and Programs
The following text will be revised:
Page 2-4, Replacement of second
bullet under Housing & Supportive Services
Homeless Services: Continue to support between eight and ten
agencies that provide over 20 programs that serve the homeless and at-risk
individuals. These include emergency, transitional and permanent supportive
housing opportunities. The City of
Focus efforts on the priority populations defined in the adopted
Action Plan for Addressing Homelessness in Santa Monica: the 110 most
chronic and vulnerable of the homeless population living on the streets of
Santa Monica; persons whose last permanent address is in Santa Monica; and
vulnerable members of Santa Monica’s workforce. On an annual basis, the City supports
agencies that provide supportive services, emergency shelter, and transitional
and permanent supportive housing beds to
Continue to implement the Senior Homeless Prevention and
Rental Assistance Program. Funded entirely by Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency
20% housing set-aside funds, the Santa Monica Housing Authority implemented the
Senior Homeless Prevention and Rental Assistance Program in January 2007. The
program provides rental assistance vouchers and homeless prevention grants to
homeless residents 55 years old and older who are actively being assisted by
case management services provided by community-based nonprofit service
providers, including St. Joseph Center, OPCC, and WISE Senior Services. In
addition, seniors at risk of being evicted, through no fault of their own, are
eligible for a one-time eviction prevention grant of $2,000. A number of
seniors receive both prevention grants and rental assistance vouchers.
Page 2-1 Program Background 2j
The City of
The City’s “Action Plan for Addressing Homelessness in
Program 2j for page 2-11 and for the
corresponding section on page x in the Executive Summary:
Continue to seek and leverage funds that contribute to the
development of a range of permanent, supportive housing, within and outside of
• Continue
to seek and leverage funds that contribute to the development of a range of
permanent, supportive housing options, within and outside of
• Focus
case management and housing resources on the 110 most chronic and vulnerable
homeless individuals that have been identified as the top priority for
accessing permanent, supportive housing;
• Continue
to serve other priority homeless populations through city-funded programs.
• Develop
strategies to link those not first-homeless in
•
Page 2-15: Policy 5.4:
Offer housing assistance to homeless individuals with a
continuum of care model to address all issues related to homelessness (i.e.,
emergency, transitional and permanent housing linked with case management,
employment, health and mental health, substance abuse, etc.)
Match housing and supportive service resources to the needs
of priority homeless populations:
Page 2-16 and page xi of Executive
Summary: Program 5b:
Continue to implement a coordinated case management program
linking homeless individuals with housing, employment, and other support
services. Quantified objectives for many of the City’s services are discussed
in Section 3: Housing and Supportive Services.
Continue to fund supportive services that serve the priority
homeless populations, striking a balance between existing programs that have
demonstrated effectiveness and national best practices that are consistent with
the City’s adopted Action Plan to Address Homelessness in
Pages 3-16 to 3-18, Homeless Persons
End of first paragraph: Amend the last sentence: The
regional nature of the homelessness problem makes it challenging for
The data is collected by sub-regions of the County, and
provides a general overview of the homeless situation in
(Table 3 17).
In
Of these 962 persons, 69 percent were on the streets and 31
percent were in shelters, roughly mirroring the situation countywide (Table
3-17).
Table 3 16
Total Adjusted Count 66,840a 1,506
a 66,840 is the
total number excluding people in
Based on the total estimate (direct enumeration and
adjustments) of 1,506 homeless persons,
2.04 percent
of the County’s homeless population, but only 0.88 percent of the County’s
population as a whole
22 percent
of the homeless population for SPA 5, but only 14 percent of the total
population for the SPA
The Urban Institute studied the situation for homeless
people in
Homeless Population Profile
Based on the Urban Institute’s count of 4,807 heads of
household homeless in
Approximately
60 percent were men and 40 percent were women.
90 percent
include only one single adult, seven percent include at least one child, two
percent are couples without children, and less than one percent are
unaccompanied youth.
Approximately
56 percent of homeless households are between the ages of 35 and 54, indicating
that on average, homeless people in Santa Monica are about 10 years older than
typical single adults nationally (of whom over 60 percent are between 25 and 44
years of age).
Approximately
15 percent of homeless households are 55 years and older. Compared to national
statistics, this is approximately twice the proportion of homeless seniors,
which appears to be a growing trend at least in
The majority of homeless people (53 percent) are white, 36
percent are African-American, and the remaining 11 percent are of other or
mixed race(s), of these 14 percent are Hispanic (of any race).
In light of this, the City of
One of the “best practice” approaches proposed in the plan
is the creation of a Service Registry of the most long-term and vulnerable
homeless individuals living on
To collect baseline data for the highest areas of homeless
concentration in the city, over 50 volunteer staff from the City and homeless
service organizations conducted a count in the early morning of January 25,
2008, and found 277 individuals sleeping outside. The baseline count was
followed by three days of early morning surveying using a vulnerability index,
developed by a
• Average
age was 55 years,
• Average
length of time homeless was 11 years, 30% were homeless more than 15 years;
• 77%
were male;
• 31%
were veterans;
• 95
(86%) reported either a mental health or substance abuse issue, or both:
- 21
reported a mental illness only,
- 14
reported a substance abuse issue only,
- 60
reported both a mental health and substance abuse issue.
Based on their needs, the 110 most vulnerable individuals
will be assigned to homeless services providers for priority access to
intensive case management, supportive services, shelter beds and permanent
housing resources. Others in the priority populations will receive services
through city-funded programs, and the city is developing strategies to identify
new homeless individuals in
Page 5-3: Under the Homeless
Services bullet:
Social service and support programs for the homeless in
Social service and support programs for the priority
homeless populations in
Page 5-5:
The City of
The City’s Action Plan for Addressing Homelessness in
10. Additional Maps
Two additional maps/figures will be added to the document.
1. Publically Assisted Affordable
Housing: Figure 3-10
2. Homeless registry—Figure 3-7
Please note: Senior Household map will be renumbered: Figure
3-8
ATTACHMENT C
Comments Received on the Draft Housing Element
Electronic version of attachment is not available for
review. Document is available for review
at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.