1 Vernice Hankins
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 9:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Daniel Galamba
Subject: City Council Meeting Oct 11, 2022 Item 11.A.: Please oppose Approval of Addendum to FEIR for 6th Cycle Housing Element to City's General Plan and adoption of 6th Cycle Housing Element of City's General Plan
EXTERNAL
The item number was not included in my e‐mail below. Thank you.
Dr Daniel Galamba
________________________________________
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2022 2:42 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Daniel Galamba Subject: City Council Meeting Oct 11, 2022: Please oppose Approval of Addendum to FEIR for 6th Cycle Housing Element to City's General Plan and adoption of 6th Cycle Housing Element of City's General Plan Dear City Council,
I urge you to oppose approval of the Addendum to FEIR for the 6th Cycle Housing Element to the City's General Plan and adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element of the City's General Plan.
Approval of this Plan would require at least 8,895 new units in Santa Monica resulting in a population increase of about 20%. We don't have the roads and infrastructure and support services to accommodate a 20% population increase.
Also, this 20% increase is completely unrealistic. California's, Los Angeles County's and Santa Monica's population has increased 2‐3% over the past 10 years, not 20%. Out of the 8,895 units of housing being required by the State, 1,156 units (13%) are acknowledged as the true future organic growth requirement of the city in the next eight years corresponding to a population increase of about 2.5%, not 20%. The remaining 7,739 units are simply so developers can make more money at the expense of the people of Santa Monica. This overdevelopment will destroy our City of Santa Monica and then people won't want to live in Santa Monica anymore or come to Santa Monica anymore and then we'll go downhill as happened in Westwood and West Los Angeles in the 1980's when overdevelopment was allowed to run rampant.
Make no mistake about it. These 8,895 units will be done at the expense of destroying our low and moderate income rent controlled housing and replacing it with luxury housing as happened in Westwood and West Los Angeles in the 1980's. This happened to me personally when a developer purchased our 2‐story moderate income rent controlled apartments and destroyed them and replaced them with a big, ugly 4‐story condominium building that only rich people could afford and were not under rent control. We've already lost about 9,000 rent‐controlled apartments here in Santa Monica since the Ellis Act took effect and we shouldn't encourage the loss of more. Otherwise, we will end up being a bi‐furcated city with the rich at the top, the poor at the bottom in public housing and not much in between. I want Santa Monica to be a city where people of various economic levels can afford to live.
I understand that about 90% of the cities in Southern California have not had their plans approved yet by the State, about 180 cities. I recommend that we join with many of them in a lawsuit against the State as well as having our own Item 11.A
10/11/22
1 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
2 lawsuit against the State. Force the State to accept the 1,156 units acknowledged as the true future organic growth requirement of the city in the next eight years, not 8,895 units. Don't roll over and play dead to the State or the Southern California Association of Governments, SCAG. The survival of our City of Santa Monica depends upon it. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
Item 11.A
10/11/22
2 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
3 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
4 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
5 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
6 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
7 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
8 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
9 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
10 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
11 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
12 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
13 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
14 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
15 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
16 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
17 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
18 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
19 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
September 2, 2022
John Keho
Planning and Development Services Director
City of West Hollywood
8300 Santa Monica Boulevard
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Dear John Keho:
RE: 8500 Santa Monica Boulevard – Letter of Technical Assistance The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance to the City of West Hollywood (City) regarding the mixed-used infill project to be located at 8500 Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed project would result in the construction of a six-story, 30-unit mixed-use building containing ground floor commercial space and upper story market-rate and affordable housing units. The project would provide three units that would be affordable to very low-income (VLI) households, two units that would be affordable to moderate income (MI) households, and 25 market rate units. The proposed project utilizes the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) (Gov. Code, § 65915) to achieve a density bonus and is subject to the City’s inclusionary zoning requirements.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) received a complaint regarding the subject project, and the City requested technical assistance from HCD regarding the relationship of the SDBL and the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance (Ordinance) (WHMC, § 19.22.030). Specifically, the City seeks guidance on whether the requirement that a project include one MI unit for every VLI or LI unit conflicts with state housing law (especially the SDBL). Additionally, the City seeks guidance on how to best calculate base density in a zone without an associated dwelling units per acre density standard and how to consider concession requests that would increase a project’s FAR. Coincidentally, these latter topics are addressed in the August 31, 2022 Letter of Technical Assistance to the City of Santa Monica. That letter will be provided to the City instead of replicating the information in this letter.
The City’s Ordinance applies a 20% inclusionary requirement on all developments containing more than ten housing units. Applied to the subject project, this means that 5 units1 of the 22 base density units must be affordable. However, the Ordinance requires that for every VLI or LI unit provided, the applicant must also provide a MI unit. (WHMC, § 19.22.030(F)). The applicant argues that this requirement reduces the economic 1 Rounded up to 5 units from 4.4 units
Item 11.A
10/11/22
20 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
feasibility of SBDL-enabled projects because, in practice, it requires that a project include more affordable units to qualify for a density bonus than are required by the SDBL. The applicant indicates that it would have preferred to construct 4 VLI units and 1 MI unit (to earn an additional SDBL concession) but were disincentivized from doing so because it would necessitate adding another MI unit. It should be noted that the SDBL offers much greater incentives for projects that include VLI/LI units than MI units, thereby incentivizing the former. For instance, to achieve the maximum 50% density bonus, a project needs to provide only 15% VLI units compared to 44% MI units (Gov.
Code, § 65915, subd. (f)). Conversations with City staff indicate that the mandated MI unit requirement is in place to support the City in its effort to produce enough housing for moderate-income households. Absent this requirement (the City contends), SDBLenabled projects would largely consist only of VLI/LI units and market rate units. This letter explores the ways that inclusionary zoning ordinances and SDBL implementation ordinances can and should be harmonized to best achieve the important functions of each.
Inclusionary Zoning
Inclusionary zoning is a vitally important affordable housing production tool used across California. Properly implemented, it can and has resulted in the production of significant amounts of deed-restricted affordable housing – often without the need of government subsidy. Unsurprisingly, many local agencies have adopted or are considering adopting inclusionary zoning ordinances. HCD strongly supports these efforts. However, some inclusionary requirements can hinder, rather than facilitate, the production of affordable housing. This is because inclusionary requirements can sometimes negatively affect the economic feasibility of residential development projects. A project that is not economically feasible will not be constructed and will provide no affordable units at all.
The state inclusionary zoning statute addresses these limitations, providing that a local agency must provide alternative means of compliance (e.g., in lieu fees) and that rental inclusionary requirements in excess of 15% may be subject to review by HCD to consider economic feasibility (Gov. Code, §§ 65850, subd. (g); 65850.1). For more information, please see HCD’s Rental Inclusionary Housing Memo.
State Density Bonus Law
First adopted in 1979 and strengthened over the years, the SDBL is one of the most powerful tools in the production of affordable housing. The SDBL facilitates both the construction of 100% affordable projects as well as projects that provide primarily market rate units. It allows the latter to build more market rate units than would typically be allowed in exchange for including affordable units. Like with inclusionary zoning requirements, the affordable units are often provided without the use of government subsidy. Within the context of market rate development, the SDBL is explicit regarding the importance of maintaining the economic viability of projects. It provides that, “The Legislature finds and declares that the intent behind the Density Bonus Law is to allow Item 11.A
10/11/22
21 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
public entities to reduce or even eliminate subsidies for a particular project by allowing a developer to include more total units in a project than would otherwise be allowed by the local zoning ordinance in exchange for affordable units. It further reaffirms that the intent is to cover at least some of the financing gap of affordable housing with regulatory incentives, rather than additional public subsidy.” (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (t).) The SDBL provides direction regarding the relationship between itself and inclusionary zoning requirements. It confirms that an affordable unit provided to satisfy an inclusionary requirement also earns the applicant the benefits and protections of the SDBL (e.g., a density bonus, concessions, development standard waivers, etc.) (Gov.
Code, § 65915, subd. (o)(6).) It also provides that an affordable unit in a SDBL-enabled project is not subject to affordable housing impact fees, including inclusionary zoning fees and in-lieu fees. (Gov. Code, § 65915.1).
Relationship to SDBL
Beyond the language provided by the SDBL, a few court cases address situations in which local ordinances or interpretations have affected the mechanics of the SDBL.
Chief among them is Latinos Unidos Del Valle De Napa Y Solano v. County of Napa2 which settled the matter of whether an affordable unit can serve both as an “inclusionary unit” meeting a local inclusionary zoning requirement and as a “target unit” qualifying a project for a density bonus. It can, and the statute was subsequently amended to reflect this. If this were not the case, for instance, a project attempting a earn a 50% density bonus by providing 15% VLI units would need to provide 15% affordable units to meet the 15% inclusionary requirement and an additional 15% affordable units to earn the density bonus. This would require the project to provide 30% affordable units – twice the amount contemplated by either the SDBL or the local inclusionary ordinance. A more recent case, Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles reinforces the finding made in Latinos, “A local ordinance is preempted if it conflicts with the density bonus law by increasing the requirements to obtain its benefits.”3 These cases provide a helpful lens through which to evaluate the practical effects of local ordinances upon the operation of the SDBL.
Local agencies should maintain an awareness of potential unintended impacts of local inclusionary requirements on SDBL applications.
The City should be prepared to grant a request for a SDBL concession to modify provisions of the inclusionary ordinance, especially ordinances that mandate the level of affordability of inclusionary units or their ratios. The SDBL can be used to modify or waive provisions of an inclusionary ordinance. For example, a mixed-income project that relies on tax credits may need to waive a requirement that affordable units be dispersed among the market rate units. This is because tax credits and other affordable housing funding programs sometimes require the affordable units to be consolidated within a single building or on a separate parcel.
2 (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1165-66 [159 Cal.Rptr.3d 284, 287-88]. 3 (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549, 558 [284 Cal.Rptr.3d 587, 594].
Item 11.A
10/11/22
22 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Governmental Constraints in Housing Element Law
Housing elements are required to contain analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints on the development of housing for all income levels. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) This includes, but is not limited to, analysis of land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, and locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. After identifying governmental constraints, the City must implement programs to remove those governmental constraints to the development of housing where legally possible. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) This analysis extends to a local agency’s inclusionary ordinance. As described above, under Government Code section 65850.1, an inclusionary requirement of 15% or less is not subject to scrutiny by HCD. Above this percentage, however, the local agency should carefully consider local development conditions to ensure that a higher percentage would not constitute a governmental constraint by rendering projects economically infeasible. HCD has observed that typically inclusionary requirements are in the 15-20% range. This is not to say that a higher or lower level is categorically unreasonable, but that this range has been proven functional in many areas (especially in high-cost, highdevelopment-pressure areas).
With a base density of only 22 units, the subject project does not present the most helpful scenario to examine how the City’s Ordinance relates to the SDBL. Instead, consider a hypothetical scenario in West Hollywood where the base density of a site allows 100 units and the developer seeks a 35% density bonus (35 units) by providing 20% LI units. The project would be required by the Ordinance to set aside 20 units (20% of 100 units) as affordable housing. To earn the density bonus, 20 units (20% of 100 units) would have to be LI units per the SDBL. On its surface, this project would appear to handily meet the City’s inclusionary requirements and the eligibly threshold of the SDBL. However, the mandated MI units requirement necessitates an additional 19 MI units.4 This results in a substantially higher percentage of affordable units than required by the SDBL, as summarized in the table below.
4 Per the WHMC, § 19.22.030 F. “…When two or more affordable units are constructed, the units shall be allocated alternately with the first unit allocated for a low or very low income household and the second allocated for a moderate income household, alternative between low or very low, and moderate income until all units are assigned a level of affordability.”
Item 11.A
10/11/22
23 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Overall Units LI Units MI Units Market Rate
Units
Affordable %
of Overall
Project
Without
Mandated
MI Units
135 20 0 115 14.8%
With
Mandated
MI Units
135 20 19 96 28.9%
It is the overall percentage of affordable units in a project that is of primary concern when evaluating economic feasibility. By requiring that 28.8% of the overall development be made up of affordable units, the City is in practice imposing an inclusionary requirement nearly 50% higher than its generally applicable 20% and significantly higher than the requirements of the SDBL. This may reduce the economic feasibility of the project because while affordable units are similarly expensive to build as market-rate units, the affordable units do not generate equivalent income. SDBL enables developers to build affordable housing without government subsidy – by allowing the allowing the market rate units to offset the costs of the affordable units.
The City’s mandated moderate-income unit requirement makes this more difficult and may constitute a governmental constraint in its current form.
It should be noted that the City’s practice of allowing an applicant to combine multiple density bonuses may lessen the real-world impact of the mandated moderate unit requirement. However, this practice is problematic for several reasons. First, it is not codified, so applicants have no way of knowing about it when planning a project.
Second, it can only be used to achieve up to the SDBL-defined maximum of a 50% density bonus, which may limit its compensatory value in certain circumstances. Third, no bonus is given until the 10% minimum threshold is met for certain income categories, which limits its use on smaller projects (like the subject project).
Recommendations
HCD makes the following recommendations to help the City implement both the City’s local inclusionary ordinance and the SDBL. This guidance is tailored to West Hollywood but is also intended to be helpful to other jurisdictions. • Substitutions. Allow more deeply affordable units to be substituted for less deeply affordable units. For example, an applicant should be able to substitute a VLI for a MI unit if they so desire. This approach is consistent with the SDBL’s approach to incentivizing more deeply affordable units. It also alleviates concerns that the local agency is disincentivizing more deeply affordable units in favor of less deeply affordable units – and risking fair housing and discrimination complaints.
Item 11.A
10/11/22
24 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
• Upper Limit to Inclusionary Requirement. Inclusionary requirements that mandate that the units be provided at certain affordability levels or in certain ratios of affordability levels should only apply up to the point that the project meets the total inclusionary percentage required. Once the overall affordability threshold is met, no additional inclusionary units should be required regardless of any affordability level ratios. Consider the example of a jurisdiction where the generally applicable inclusionary requirement is 20% and there is a one-to-one ratio requirement of MI to VLI/LI units. If the applicant proposes less than 20% affordable units to achieve a density bonus (e.g., 15% VLI to achieve the maximum density bonus) the jurisdiction would require that 5% additional affordable units be added to the project to reach the 20% inclusionary threshold despite the fact that its ratio would require 15% MI units. • Integrate Language. The provisions of the City’s inclusionary ordinance and its SDBL implementation ordinance should be integrated with the expectation that projects will be subject to both. The benefits and protections of the SDBL apply to all projects that meet the statutory minimum percentage of affordable units.
This is to say that in jurisdictions with inclusionary zoning requirements the effects of the SDBL should be anticipated. When drafting the ordinance, a local agency should consider a diverse range of project types to explore how requirements affect each. As a starting point, the local agency should consider large vs. small projects and projects that rely on the seven eligibility categories of the SDBL (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (b)(1)(A-G).) Finally, the analysis should consider the final overall percentage of affordable units in each scenario to most accurately evaluate economic feasibility.
Conclusion
HCD applauds West Hollywood’s commitment to affordable and recognizes the challenges of harmonizing State housing law and local ordinances. HCD appreciates the City’s pragmatic and progressive approach to housing policy. This letter is intended to provide helpful context and guidance and help local agencies throughout the state work to achieve their housing goals. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Brian Heaton at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
Item 11.A
10/11/22
25 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
(310) 451-3669
October 10, 2022
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item 11-A
Adoption of Resolution Amending the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element to the City’s General Plan and Approval of Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element
Our File No. 639.67
Dear Councilmembers:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Council (“SMHC”) regarding the City’s proposed Amended 6th Cycle Housing Element. I am writing with regard to Programs 2.D and 2.C.
Program 2.D
Program 2.D reads as follows:
The City shall update the density bonus ordinance, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.22, to ensure consistency with State Density Bonus Law and integration with the City’s land use system, including the AHPP. The ordinance will clarify how to apply State density bonus law in the City’s commercial and mixed-use districts that do not have maximum density controls, including application of State density bonuses to floor area dedicated to residential uses.
The amendments to the Municipal Code shall also set forth a voluntary by-right menu of incentives & concessions that do not require following the process under Government Code Section 65915(d) for approval. Requests for “off-menu” [email protected]
Item 11.A
10/11/22
26 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Santa Monica City Council
October 10, 2022
incentives and concessions may be requested pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(d).
Program Background:
On August 25, 2020, the City Council updated Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.22 which implements State density bonus law, to incorporate updates to the State Density Bonus Law for 100% affordable housing projects. At the time of the update in 2020, the City deferred amendments that would clarify how to apply State Density Bonus Law to the City’s commercial and mixed-use districts, pending further study, which has been ongoing since December 2019.
After the August 2020 update, Assembly Bill 2345 took effect on January 1, 2021, which expanded and enhanced development incentives for market rate projects that provide affordable housing. AB 2345 increases the maximum density bonus from thirty-five percent (35%) to fifty percent (50%). To be eligible for the maximum bonus of 50%, a project must set aside at least (i) fifteen percent (15%) of total units for very low-income households, (ii) twenty-four percent (24%) of total units for low-income households, or (iii) forty-four percent (44%) of for-sale units for moderate income households. Levels of bonus density between thirty-five percent (35%) and fifty percent (50%) are granted on a sliding scale.
As highlighted above, the City has failed to bring its density bonus ordinance into compliance with State law since August 25, 2020. The City has been “studying” how to comply with State law since December 2019. Yet, the City is not committing to bring its ordinance into compliance with State law until October 15, 2023. This is far too long of a delay. Keep in mind that when the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) reviewed the City’s latest draft Amended Housing Element, the City had committed to completing this revision by October 15, 2022. Also keep in mind that the statutory duty to adopt an ordinance that complies with and implements State Density Bonus Law (per Gov’t Code § 65915(a)(1)) is separate and apart from the City’s legal obligation to adopt a compliant Housing Element (per Gov’t Code § 65585).
Item 11.A
10/11/22
27 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Santa Monica City Council
October 10, 2022
The City has had plenty of time to comply with State Density Bonus Law. The City needs to bring its local ordinance into compliance immediately, not wait another year to do so. This failure by the City to comply with its obligations under State Density Bonus Law establishes one of the causes of action alleged in SMHC’s Petition for Administrative Mandate that is pending against the City in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STCV11610.
In this regard, Government Code Sections 65915-65919.11 constitute the State Density Bonus Law, and Government Code Section 65915(a)(1) provides in pertinent part as follows:
A city, county, or city and county shall adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section will be implemented.
In addition, Government Code Section 65915(a)(3)(A) provides as follows:
In order to provide for the expeditious processing of a density bonus application, the local government shall do all of the following:
(A) Adopt procedures and timelines for processing a
density bonus application.
* * *
Furthermore, Government Code Section 65918 confirms that the State Density Bonus Law applies to charter cities:
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to charter cities.
As confirmed by the City in Program 2D, Santa Monica’s density bonus ordinance (i.e., Chapter 9.22 of the Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance) does not comply with Government Code Section 65915. For example, the City’s ordinance purports to limit eligibility to projects located in residential districts and thereby fails to reflect the eligibility of mixed-use developments with market-rate units in nonresidential districts:
SMMC 9.22.040 Eligibility
A. Except as set forth in subsection B [setting forth grounds for ineligibility], a housing development project in a
residential district shall be eligible for a density bonus and Item 11.A
10/11/22
28 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Santa Monica City Council
October 10, 2022
additional incentives, concessions, waivers, and/or
reductions of development standards and parking ratios as set forth in this Section. (Emphasis added.)
In contrast, State Density Bonus Law expressly includes mixed-use developments:
“Housing development,” as used in this section [65915], means a development project for five or more residential units, including mixed-use developments. (Gov’t Code
§ 65915(i); emphasis added.)
Similarly, the City’s Zoning Ordinance limits density bonuses to a maximum of 35% (see SMMC § 9.22.050(B)), whereas State law grants density bonuses of up to 50% for many projects (see Gov’t Code § 65915(f)), and up to 80% (or more) for 100% affordable projects (Gov’t Code § 65915(f)(3)(D)).
Furthermore, contrary to the requirements of Government Code Section 65915(a)(3)(A), the City’s density bonus ordinance fails to provide timelines for processing density bonus applications. (See Zoning Ordinance Section 9.22.080, entitled “Procedures.”)
These are but a few of the key deficiencies of the City’s codified density bonus ordinance. These longstanding deficiencies have the direct effect of discouraging the production of housing, including affordable housing. As a result, the City perversely undercuts the State Legislature’s express intention to encourage the production of housing, including affordable housing, with reduced or no public subsidies:
The Legislature finds and declares that the intent behind the Density Bonus Law is to allow public entities to reduce or even eliminate subsidies for a particular project by allowing a developer to include more total units in a project than would otherwise be allowed by the local zoning ordinance in
exchange for affordable units. It further reaffirms that the intent is to cover at least some of the financing gap of affordable housing with regulatory incentives, rather than additional public subsidy. (Gov’t Code § 65915(t)(1).)
There is no basis in law for the City to fail to immediately update its density bonus ordinance to comply with (or exceed) the provisions in State Law. The City faces Item 11.A
10/11/22
29 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Santa Monica City Council
October 10, 2022
an obligation to produce 8,895 new units, including 6,168 affordable units. The City continues to drag its feet in rising to this challenge.
Program 2.C
The City Council should revise Program 2.C "Update the City's Affordable Housing Production Program to Increase the Number of Affordable Housing Units at all Income Levels" to clearly state that Program 2.C will be implemented to be consistent with, and with the expectation that housing projects will utilize, State Density Bonus Law.
Prior discussions of Program 2.C’s implementation and the draft Zoning Ordinance redlines posted online for the October 12th Planning Commission meeting document that the City's intent is to mandate that all new housing projects must provide 15% affordable units that must be evenly distributed between very-low, low- and moderate-income units. Absent further refinements, this implementation will result in a conflict with State Density Bonus Law. Notably, in order to both comply with the City's contemplated new inclusionary housing requirements and achieve the full density bonus under State Density Bonus Law, the real-world effect of the City's mandate for low- and moderate-income units would result in an inclusionary housing requirement that is substantially higher than the safe-harbor 15% inclusionary requirement. (See Gov’t Code § 65850.01.) See also page 5 of HCD letter discussing “the real-world impact of the mandated moderate unit requirement.”
In this regard, attached is a copy of HCD’s letter to the City of West Hollywood dated September 2, 2022, on this very topic.1 HCD’s letter explains that West Hollywood's inclusionary mandate for moderate-income units may reduce a project's economic feasibility and constitute a governmental constraint. (See HCD letter at page 4.) HCD recommends several solutions, including:
1. To allow more deeply affordable units to be substituted for less deeply affordable units (e.g. very-low income units to be substituted for moderate income units), (HCD letter at p. 5) and
2. Drafting inclusionary housing ordinances to be consistent with, and with the expectation that housing projects will utilize, State Density Bonus Law and consider the overall resulting percentage of affordable units in evaluating economic feasibility. (HCD letter at p. 6.)
1 HCD’s letter expressly states: “This guidance is tailored to West Hollywood but is also intended to be helpful to other jurisdictions.” (HCD letter at p. 5.) Item 11.A
10/11/22
30 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Santa Monica City Council
October 10, 2022
Another solution we have previously suggested is, in the City's implementation of State Density Bonus Law, to allow low- and moderate-income units to receive the same level of density bonus and incentives as very-low income units in order to achieve moderate-income units without being in conflict with (and undercutting) providing the full density bonus and incentives/concessions authorized by State Density Bonus Law. (See also HCD letter at page 3 (“The City should be prepared to grant a request for a SDBL concession to modify provisions of the inclusionary ordinance, especially ordinances that mandate the level of affordability of inclusionary units or their ratios.”).) While this level of detail can be worked through in the Zoning Ordinance, the Housing Element should include a clear statement acknowledging the need for compatibility between the inclusionary housing program and the State Density Bonus Law to guide future implementation discussions.2
CONCLUSION
Prior to adopting the Amended Housing Element, the City Council should:
(a) revise the timeframe for implementation of Program 2.D to confirm that the City will adopt a compliant density bonus ordinance no later than December 31, 2022, if not sooner, and (b) include a statement in Program 2.C directing that Program 2.C be implemented so that it is consistent with, and with the expectation that housing projects will utilize, State Density Bonus Law.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:sna
Enclosure
cc: David White (w/ encl.)
Douglas Sloan (w/ encl.)
Susan Y. Cola (w/ encl.)
David Martin (w/ encl.)
Jing Yeo (w/ encl.)
SMHC Board of Directors (w/ encl.)
Paul McDougall, HCD (w/o encl.)
Santa Monica Planning Commission (w/ encl.)
2 See Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles, 69 Cal. App. 5th 549, 558 (2021) (“A local ordinance is preempted if it conflicts with the density bonus law by increasing the requirements to obtain its benefits.)
Item 11.A
10/11/22
31 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
Housing Commission
October 10, 2022
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Item 11A. Adoption of Resolution Amending the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element to the City’s General Plan and Approval of Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tempore McCowan, and City Councilmembers, The Housing Commission recently became aware that the Housing Element is still in the revision process and has been since approximately 8 February 2022, when HCD rejected the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element. However, the Housing Commission has not been informed of this, despite the fact that the Housing Commission is tasked with advising the City Council on all matters related to housing in Santa Monica, particularly affordable housing.
Despite numerous requests of staff by multiple Commissioners over many months, the Housing Commission was never informed of the Housing Element's ongoing review process, nor were we given an opportunity to participate in it. Bringing this document to our attention is the responsibility of our affiliated city department staff. However, again, despite repeated requests by multiple housing commissioners, city housing staff has failed to bring a single substantive administrative item to the Housing Commission agenda in all of 2022. This failure was brought to the City Council and city staff previously with no response or remedy.
HCD’s letter dated 8 February 2022 states the following:
“Public participation in the development, adoption, and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households and commenters on this review, Item 11.A
10/11/22
32 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.”
HCD’s letter dated 6 September 2022 states the following:
“Public participation in the development, adoption, and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special-needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.”
In light of this direction by HCD and the city’s failure to include key stakeholder representatives, including the Housing Commission, in this review process, the Housing Commission strongly recommends that the Santa Monica City Council do one of two things:
1. Delay approving the final revised 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element until the Housing Commission can adequately review it and provide feedback.
2. If its approval cannot or will not be delayed, attach this letter as a comment by the Santa Monica Housing Commission to the final approved 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element that will be submitted to HCD by 15 October 2022.
Thank you in advance for your attention to and consideration of the Housing Commission’s urgent request. Our full and timely participation in the review of the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element is crucial to ensuring representation of all Santa Monicans in the creation and revision of city housing plans.
Sincerely,
Michelle Gray
Chair, Santa Monica Housing Commission
On behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Commission
Item 11.A
10/11/22
33 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Rachel Kwok; Steve Mizokami; Cary Fukui; Andy Agle
Subject: 10/11/22 City Council Meeting - Item 11.A. - Amending the previously adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element - PLEASE CONDITION ANY APPROVAL!
EXTERNAL
Dear Esteemed Councilmembers and Mayor Himmelrich -
I'm aware that I'm coming in very late on this issue as have been largely out-of-pocket on local issues since last Spring, but please CONDITION any approval tonight of the amended 6th Cycle Housing Element with direction to staff to return to HCP asap to lower the target units for the 6th Cycle back to the original target of around 9,000. Why? Because:
The Amended EIR pertaining to the proposed Amended 6th Cycle HE clearly states or implies that, among many other negative impacts from upping the units goal to 13,000, adding what amounts to over 50% more units than originally targeted, will throw both the City's water sustainability and the City's water availability goals into question. Staff describes this IN ITALICS as "a potentially significant impact". I have not observed our typically measured & sober Staff writing in italics very often. ** Further, Santa Monica was originally given a 9,000-ish unit RHNA target for the 6th Cycle by DHP yet, through negotiations, our target somehow has been upped by over 50% to 13,000. How did this happen?! The charge from DHP, as I understand it, was to identify more SITES that DHP would deem feasible, not to ADD MORE UNITS. Let me repeat that and put it in italics: DHP's comments to the first draft submitted DID NOT APPEAR TO REQUIRE THAT SM ASSUME MORE UNITS THAN ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED! So whatever negotiations occurred have significantly further impacted SM unfairly by upping the 6th Cycle target by 50%! Council needs to understand why!
So, Santa Monicans need (1) an explanation from Staff how an already unreachable, "pipe dream" number increased by 50% (egregious!!), and (2) action by Staff immediately to get it lowered back to the original number.
RECOMMENDATION: Technically Council needs to approve this element tonight so that Staff can submit to HCP by October 15th, right?, but there's nothing to stop you from conditioning your approval upon the requirement / direction that Staff go back to HCP and get the goal lowered back to the original number. This is only fair. If HCP is content with sites sufficient for 13,000 units in the revised HE, there should be more than enough for the original 9,000 or so.
HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EATING IT TOO: Unless there is state law barring Council from conditioning it's amended HE approval on staff getting this HE back to the original target, you can both meet the October 15th approval deadline (a win) but also take care of our city with the approval condition (a win in every way - READ THE AMENDED EIR!!!) Honestly, it will be irresponsible for you to do otherwise.
So, again, please tonight condition any approval with the requirement that staff negotiate with HCP NOW to get us back to a number that, though still outlandishly unreasonable, was the original target for this RHNA cycle.
Item 11.A
10/11/22
34 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22
2 Thank you -
Sincerely,
Ann K. Bowman
Resident, 26 years
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public Record for Agenda Item 11.A., City Council meeting of October 11, 2011 - thank you!
**
1.4.5 Utilities • Impact UT-2 The City’s existing and projected water supply would be adequate to meet the increased water demand from the previously adopted Housing Element Update and the City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
However, the increase in residential development planned for by the previously adopted Housing Element Update would create substantial increases in water demand which would delay or inhibit the City’s ability to achieve water selfsufficiency by 2023, a key City policy goal, which could create inconsistencies with City policy, a potentially significant impact.
https://smdp.com/2022/10/10/revised-plan-for-13000-new-housing-units-heads-tocouncil/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Council+to+debate+13%2C000+new+housing +units&utm_campaign=The+Current+10-10-22
Item 11.A
10/11/22
35 of 35 Item 11.A
10/11/22