City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 02/23/2015 Item Number: J-1
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/CULVER CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY AGENDA ITEM:
(1) Discussion of the Projected Funding Shortfall for Housing Programs Provided by
the City and (2) Provide Direction to the City Manager/Executive Director as Deemed
Appropriate.
Contact Person/Department
Tevis Barnes,
Sol Blumenfeld
Phone Number: 310-253-5700
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________
Public Notification:
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (03/19/15)
City/Authority Special Counsel Approval:
Deborah Rhodes (03/19/15)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir(03/19/15)
City Manager/Executive Director Approval:
John M. Nachbar (03/19/15)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council and Culver City Housing Authority Board (Housing
Authority Board) consider additional information regarding the projected shortfall for
housing programs provided by the City and direct the City Manager/Executive Director as
deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
At the Regular Meetings of September 22, 2014, the City Council and Housing Authority
Board discussed the projected funding shortfall for housing programs provided by the City
and Housing Authority (in this report, unless the context provides for a different
interpretation, the two will be referred to collectively as “City”). After considering a report
from staff and receiving public comment, the City Council/Housing Authority Board
provided general direction to the City Manager/Executive Director to review this issue in
more detail and to return to the City Council/Housing Authority Board with other options
and additional information. This staff report has been prepared in accordance with that
direction of the City Council/Housing Authority Board.
DISCUSSION:
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Based upon the public comment received at the September 22, 2014 meetings, it is clear
that certain housing related programs offered by the City provide basic support to a
number of Culver City residents. In some cases, in lieu of support offered by the Federal
or State governments, the City’s housing programs provide a safety net to those of very
low and low income. Without such support, those residents could face severe hardship,
including the potential of becoming homeless. It is with this understanding that staff has
further reviewed the City’s housing programs.
Brief History of Culver City’s Local Housing Programs
Culver City’s Housing Programs have traditionally been funded from two major sources:
The Federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (commonly known as “Section
8”) and the former Culver City Redevelopment Agency’s (former CCRA) Low-Moderate
Housing Fund (also known as the “Housing Set-Aside Fund”). The Federal Section 8
program was created pursuant to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
The former CCRA was formed in 1971.
Culver City has participated in the Federal Section 8 Program since 1975. In 1990, the
former CCRA Board approved the first Agency-funded Supplemental Rental Assistance
Program. The former CCRA program was a supplement to the Federal Section 8
Program. At the time of its creation, the former CCRA program was at a cost of $220,000
from the Low-Moderate Housing Fund and was to assist up to 40 households.
Other Westside Cities’ Practices
To provide a general comparison with the practices of other cities, staff also reviewed the
practices of other Westside cities and of the City’s labor market comparable cities. Culver
City is the only city (of the 15 labor market cities) to provide a locally funded Rental
Assistance Program (and Homeless Rental Assistance Program). The City pursued
implementing housing programs in lieu of constructing affordable housing units. In 2008,
the City and former RDA approved a Comprehensive Housing Strategy to allocate Low
Moderate Income Housing Funds to construct affordable housing on smaller, scatter site
mixed income projects and commence implementing it. (See discussion below).
Culver City’s Housing Programs
As referenced in the September 22, 2014 staff report, Culver City currently provides the
following Housing Programs (in order of funding):
Direct Assistance Programs – The following programs provide direct payments or other
direct assistance to homeless and/or low income residents.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
? Section 8 Program: This Federally funded program provides rental assistance
payments to qualified low-income residents. For Fiscal Year 2014/2015, the budgeted
funding is $1.8 million and allows assistance for approximately 139 households.
? Rental Assistance Program: This locally funded program supplements the Federal
Section 8 Program. For Fiscal Year 2014/2015, the budgeted funding is $648,290 and
allows assistance for an additional 57 households.
? Homeless Rental Assistance Program: This locally funded program was created in
Fiscal Year 2013/2014 to support families transitioning from Upward Bound House’s
Emergency Family Shelter Program. For Fiscal Year 2014/2015, the budgeted funding is
$150,000 and allows assistance for formerly homeless families.
? Homeless Outreach Program: This locally funded program is administered via a
contract with Saint Joseph’s Center and assists homeless persons in Culver City through
providing referrals to services provided by other governmental and non-governmental
agencies, emergency hotel/motel vouchers, and bus tokens. For Fiscal Year 2014/2015,
the budgeted funding is $128,191.
Note: On December 8, 2014, the Housing Authority Board approved a contract with
Upward Bound House to “perform case management and homeless outreach to Culver
City homeless families in an amount not-to-exceed $130,000 for Calendar Year (CY)
2015.”
Indirect Assistance Programs – The following programs provide support or monitoring of
low income housing units and support to the City’s Landlord/Tenant Mediation Board and
Committee on Homelessness.
? Implementation of the Comprehensive Housing Strategy (Including
Development of the Globe Site): In 2008, the City Council and former CCRA Board
approved a Comprehensive Housing Strategy (CHS) to expend Low-Moderate Income
Housing Funds (both the existing balance and funds to be repaid in the future from the
former CCRA’s unrestricted tax increment funds). The CHS includes Tilden Terrace,
Culver Villas and the development of 10 affordable ownership townhomes on Globe
Avenue. With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, those funds are no longer
available, although the Housing Authority took title to the Globe Avenue property, which
can be used for the project.
? Covenant Monitoring: Since 1990, 469 affordable housing units, 81 mobile home
units, and 70 Mortgage Assistance Program units have been placed in the City’s
low/moderate income housing stock using funding from the former CCRA’s Low-Moderate
Income Housing Fund. The income and rent restrictive covenants are monitored
throughout the fiscal year. The covenants run for up to 55 years and apply to all new
affordable housing units sponsored directly by the Housing Authority or privately
developed affordable housing supported by density bonus incentives. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
? Real Property Management: The Housing Authority owns and manages (via a
contract with Harris Property Management) 9 units of affordable housing on Jackson
Avenue. Additionally, staff monitors the lease agreement with Homeownership Made Easy
for Authority-owned property.
? Staff Support to the Landlord/Tenant Mediation Board and Committee on
Homelessness: Housing Division provides staff support to these two City Council
appointed bodies.
? Fair Housing Referrals: Provides referrals to the Housing Rights Center.
? Annual Single Audit: Housing Division staff works cooperatively with Finance
Department staff to address the annual single audit of the Federal Funds administered by
the Housing Authority.
Current State of Available Funding
The Housing Division of the Community Development Department is comprised of two
distinct sources of funding. The Housing Division manages the Section 8 rental assistance
program (federally funded and accounted for in a separate fund), and the Culver City
Housing Authority which basically includes the activities of the former Low/Moderate Income
Housing Fund (LMIHF) such as the locally-funded Rental Assistance Program, homeless
services/homeless rental assistance, and a contract for administration of the mortgage
assistance program. The Section 8 program does have ongoing revenue associated with it,
although administration dollars are very limited. All other administrative expenses for the
Housing Division are paid with the remaining balance from the housing assets that
transferred from the former CCRA to the Housing Authority.
Federal Funding: In Fiscal Year 2014/2015, the Housing Authority has budgeted $1.8
million in revenues for the Section 8 Program. While the shift of the majority in the United
States Senate would seem to decrease chances of any significant increase in funding
received for this program, staff does not anticipate any significant reductions in funding for
or an outright repeal of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Fund Balance of Remaining Former CCRA Housing Funds: The City Council Adopted
Budget for Fiscal Year 2014/2015 includes the following forecasts for housing program
related funds:
Section 8
Housing Fund
Housing Authority
(Former LMIHF)
Beginning Cash Balance 1,580,697 1,770,466
Revenues 1,827,22056,900
Expenditures 1,987,4231,483,659
Ending Cash Balance 1,420,494 343,707*
*This estimated Ending Cash Balance represents approximately 3
months of operating expenditures. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Historically, the management and operation of the Section 8 Program (Org 42650510) has
been significantly subsidized by the LMIHF, to the extent there was overlap with former
CCRA housing programs. The amount available for administration from the Section 8
Program would fund 1.5 FTE staff members to handle all Section 8 activities (please see the
City Council Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2014/2015 - Page 309). Currently, one
Housing Assistant and 0.5 of the Administrative Secretary positions are paid from the
Section 8 Fund. All other staffing costs are paid through a reimbursement of the General
Fund from the Housing Authority. The City does not allocate overhead costs to the Housing
Programs, which means the General Fund also subsidizes the Housing Programs
indirectly).
As referenced at the September 22, 2014 meetings, barring a major change in Federal
policy, Federal funding for the Section 8 Program is forecast to remain stable in future fiscal
years. With respect to State policy, with few exceptions (as discussed later in this report),
despite the City Council’s efforts to inform the City’s elected representatives in the State
Assembly and State Senate, currently there seems little interest in Sacramento to provide a
replacement for the local funding lost when the State dissolved redevelopment agencies
statewide in February, 2012.
Repayment of Loans from the LMIHF
Pursuant to various pieces of State Legislation, the former CCRA deferred deposits into the
LMIHF in certain years and borrowed funds from the LMIHF to pay the State millions of
dollars in Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF) – in essence, a State grab of
money from former redevelopment agencies used to balance the State of California’s
budget in prior years). Such State Legislation included the provision for repayment of such
deferrals and loans over time from former Tax Increment funds and the potential for
repayment survived the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, but with severe limits on
annual payments. It should be noted that the Governor’s Budget Proposals recently
released in Sacramento include provisions that, if enacted, would further severely limit
and/or eliminate the repayment requirements for housing deferrals (ERAF/SERAF).
Because of these loans, the Culver City Housing Authority is owed a significant sum from
the Successor Agency. However, the formula imposed by the Redevelopment Agency
Dissolution Act makes it unlikely the Housing Authority will see any of that money for many
years, if ever. Additionally, as referenced above, the Governor has proposed further clean-
up language to the Dissolution Act for the upcoming budget that would significantly
limit/eliminate repayment of these loans and deferrals. Due to the unlikely prospect of
receiving these repayments, staff does not recommend using the anticipation of receipt as a
reliable basis for funding current Housing Programs.
New Sources of Funding
There are few sources of reliable, ongoing funding for administrative costs, including costs
for staff support. The great majority of the few new funding sources are for the creation of City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
affordable housing. While an important goal, it is difficult to create new affordable housing if
there are insufficient staff resources to manage the funding programs made available
through new legislation.
Assembly Bill 471
As mentioned in the September 22, 2014 staff report, Assembly Bill 471 (AB 471) was
signed by the Governor on February 14, 2014. AB 471 made changes to existing provisions
of the California Government Code and California Health and Safety Code. One of the
changes made to the Health and Safety Code provides that, beginning on July 1, 2014,
housing entities (including, in staff’s opinion, the Culver City Housing Authority) be allocated
an amount of up to 1 percent of the property tax allocated to the Redevelopment Obligation
Retirement Fund on behalf of the successor agency for each applicable fiscal year, but not
less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) per fiscal year as the “housing entity
administrative cost allowance.” While this would not provide direct new dollars for housing
programs, it could offset General Fund dollars currently used for this purpose (making those
dollars available for other purposes, including affordable housing).
The State Department of Finance has been disallowing payment of the housing entity
administrative cost allowance, arguing such funds were intended for distribution to county
housing authorities only. The Culver City Housing Authority has joined other Housing
Authorities in preparing a challenge to the State DOF in state court. To date, none of this
funding has been received by the Housing Authority.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap and Trade Program Funding
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) established certain goals to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As part of the efforts to reduce such emissions, the
State has implemented a Cap and Trade Program which provides for an auction based
mechanism for the buying/selling of greenhouse gas credits. The State Budget for Fiscal
Year 2014/2015 provides $130 million statewide for implementation strategies for
sustainable communities required by SB 375 of 2008 and provides an ongoing commitment
of 20 percent of future auction proceeds for this program and requires that at least half of
the expenditures be allocated for affordable housing projects.
Unfortunately, 20% of $130 million (or $26 million) statewide is a very limited amount of
funding. Additionally, to meet statutory deadlines for distribution of the funds, early awards
are being allocated on a competitive basis for the creation of new affordable housing as part
of a “shovel-ready” project.
Other Potential Affordable Housing Programs and Funding Sources
Local Housing Impact Fee (Linkage Fee)
As directed by the City Council at the September 22, 2014 meeting, the City Manager has
received additional information from qualified consultants related to the Housing Impact
Fee/Linkage Fee referenced in the September 22, 2014 staff report. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
While the advice provided included significant details, in summary, any proposed Housing
Impact Fee would likely operate in a manner similar to the City’s Art in Public Places Fee
(APPF). The fee could be applied as a per square foot cost on commercial development. As
a fee imposed to mitigate the impacts of commercial development on the demand for
affordable housing in the City, the funds would need to be applied toward the creation of
new affordable housing units. It is also possible that the funds could be used to pay the
administrative costs of other programs in the City which create new affordable housing.
However, as a development-related fee, this revenue source would be subject to
unpredictable fluctuations, and therefore, it would be imprudent to rely on this source of
revenue for any ongoing operating expenditures. For these reasons, in case the City Council
were to direct the further consideration of a Housing Impact Fee, staff does not recommend
applying the revenue generated by this Fee directly to the funding or administration of
current programs (other than those which create new affordable housing).
Mixed Used Development Affordable Housing Incentive Areas (AHIA).
During the City Council’s initial discussion of this subject on September 22, 2014, one
Council Member raised the subject of offering some type of density bonus. Following are
two concepts related to increased density for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Implement incentive zoning that combines the Community Benefit provisions of the
Mixed Use Ordinance with the Density Bonus Law (DBL) under SB 1818. Allow base
density at 50 units per acre with a Community Benefit to be combined with DBL (up to 35%
density bonus) for maximum density threshold of 68 units per acre within designate areas.
The density bonus will allow up to 4 additional affordable units on ½ acre sites and up to 8
additional affordable units on 1 acre sites. The added density provides an incentive for
affordable housing development that is funded by the housing market.
2. Establish a funding source for administration of the AHIA covenants and analysis of
proposed affordable housing projects with a surcharge applied to Real Building Reports
(RBR) on sales transactions. The funding nexus is that residential sales at today’s higher
prices raise the values of surrounding properties and produce higher sales prices overall,
which makes housing less affordable, and commercial property sales generate intensified
commercial development with a related need for additional property services that are
provided by lower income workers who need affordable housing. Additional investigation is
needed to determine whether this type of fee would be subject to voter approval. Potential
surcharge scenarios for residential property transactions:
Assume: 2,000 Average home size sq. ft.
Assume: x $0.80 Surcharge /sq. ft.
Subtotal $ 1,600 Per sales transaction
x 319 2014-2015 Sales transactions
Total $510,400 Administrative costs from residential RBR
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
For commercial property transactions:
Assume: 18,000 Average floor area commercial property
Assume: x $0.80 Surcharge /sq. ft.
Subtotal $ 14,400 Per sales transaction
x 7 2014-2015 Sales transactions
Total $100,800 Administrative costs from commercial RBR’s
Total Surcharge funding:
$510,400+ $100,800 = $611,200 Affordable housing administration funding.
Small Lot Zoning Areas
Establish new small lot zoning for workforce housing in designated areas and require an
affordable component for up to 25% of the new units. Encourage medium density incentives
on small lots with innovate site planning standards. Under current zoning of one unit per
1,500 square feet of land area, a quarter-acre site produces up to seven units. Amending
the Zoning Code to allow smaller infill site development produces up to six, three level units
per 1,800 square feet of land area. (See attached diagram). This equates to 24 units per
acre which is almost four times the density of single family lot development. The increased
density provides a market incentive to create affordable units and the required affordable
component can include a fee for administrative costs to cover annual affordable covenant
monitoring. If the City Council wishes to pursue this type of program, it would need to be
implemented in a way that is consistent with State Density Bonus Law.
Small Lot Development Site Plan
It should be noted that while increased density provides an incentive for the creation of
affordable housing, the City Council has heard increasing concerns from the Community on
the subject of “mansionization” and the neighborhood character impacts increased density
can have.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
State and Federal Funding Sources
Staff has also reviewed other potential sources of funding. From time to time, the Federal
(and sometimes the State) government provides funding targeted for assistance to veterans.
Also, grants may become available from time to time related to homeless and affordable
housing services. Often, such sources of funding require the recipient meet certain
qualifications, such as being a disadvantaged community or meeting low-moderate income
thresholds. With very few exceptions, Culver City does not meet these needs based criteria.
Even if it did, such funding is almost always provided on a one-time basis. And, such one-
time sources (if available and awarded) would not provide an ongoing, reliable source for
administration of housing programs.
Cost Sharing with RAP Recipients
Should the City Council determine to fund the RAP with General Funds, the City can
determine to change the current subsidy percentage (under the Community Redevelopment
Law which governs former CCRA LMIHF dollars, the maximum percentage participants
could be asked to provide for their share of rent was 30% of their income). Therefore, the
City could determine to reduce costs of the RAP by increasing the share of rental costs paid
by program participants.
Potential RAP Phase-Out Scenarios
As of today’s date, there are 48 participants in the RAP. In the case the City Council wishes
to consider a phase-out of the RAP, staff provides the following scenarios:
? One Year Phase-Out: Under a one year phase-out, all participants in the RAP would
be provided 12 months’ notice (to June 30, 2016) of the discontinuation of the RAP.
During this 12 month period, by the end of December 2015, the number of participants
in the RAP will decline by 12 non-elderly/non-disabled persons (to a total of 36
participants) as they will have reached their 5 year program participation limit. At that
point, the annualized direct costs for the RAP would be $372,000. Also, Upward
Bound House (UBH) continues to assist families to transition off of the RAP. If UBH is
successful in transitioning all families currently in the UBH Program by the end of
December 2015, the number of RAP participants will drop to 32 and the annualized
direct costs for the RAP would be $336,000.
? Three Year Phase-Out: Under a three year phase-out, all participants on the RAP
would be provided 36 months’ notice (to June 30, 2018) of the discontinuation of the
RAP. During this 36 month period, it is assumed 2 remaining persons per year will
reach their 5 year program participation limit or otherwise become ineligible for the
RAP. At the end of the three year period, if all remaining RAP participants continued
on the program until its expiration, 28 RAP participants would need to find alternative
housing. Estimated Direct General Fund Support Required: $336,000 declining by
$20,000 per year until June 30, 2018. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
? Indefinite Phase-Out (until all remaining participants are no longer eligible for RAP):
This scenario would continue for an indefinite period of time. Continuing the
assumption that 2 RAP participants per year would become ineligible for RAP, this
scenario would last 16 years. Estimated Direct General Fund Support Required:
$336,000 per year declining by $20,000 per year until June 30, 2032. Based upon life
expectancy, an indefinite phase-out period could last longer (and require more General
Fund resources) than assumed.
Should the City Council determine to implement a phase-out, staff would recommend
contracting for the services of a relocation specialist to assist those remaining RAP
participants to find alternate housing. Costs associated with such assistance are $60,000
(and would vary depending on the length of the phase-out period).
The City Council could also impact program costs by changing the percentage of rent paid
by a RAP participant. For example, if there were 32 RAP participants and program
participants paid 50% of their income towards rent, annual costs would be $257,064.
Recommendation from the Finance Advisory Committee
As included in the September 22, 2014 report, the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC)
recommended the City continue its contract with St. Joseph Center for services to homeless
persons. The FAC also recommended that the RAP should not be paid for by the General
Fund. If the RAP were phased out, the staffing needs of the Housing Division would be
significantly reduced.
Recommendations from the City Manager
In summary, based upon the State’s dissolution of redevelopment agencies statewide,
former CCRA tax increment funds available for the following existing City/Housing Authority
Housing programs will soon be completely exhausted:
ANNUAL BUDGETED
PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
Supplemental Rental Assistance Program $684,290
Homeless Rental Assistance Program $150,000
Homeless Outreach Program $128,191
City Staff 3.0 FTE
Staff requests policy guidance from the City Council as to whether any of the expenditures
outlined above should now become an obligation of the City’s General Fund and/or the
degree to which there is City Council interest in establishing any new source(s) of revenue
to offset these costs (see additional discussion below).
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Absent the establishment of new source(s) of revenue, should the City Council determine to
continue the operation of some/all of the current Housing Programs locally, then some type
of subsidy from the General Fund would be necessary. Any such subsidy has not been
factored-in to the financial forecasts presented to the City Council earlier this year.
Alternatives to local administration of the Housing Programs include: outsourcing
administration of some programs on a contract basis or not operating the program locally
and having the County administer the City’s Section 8 Program.
Given the City Council’s recent discussions, it seems the City Council is desirous of holding
a separate discussion on the creation of new affordable units. While preparations for a
separate discussion on this subject are being made, staff has presented some concepts this
evening which, if ultimately enacted, would provide incentives for creation of new affordable
units and provide a new revenue stream for related administrative costs. Such options are
somewhat of an original concept, and staff is not aware of their existence in any other
communities in California (and perhaps the country). If the City Council wishes to pursue
any of these options, or other options raised this evening, it may wish to direct staff to
examine such options in greater detail to confirm that they can be implemented consistent
with state and federal law, and to obtain a more accurate estimate of how much each option
would contribute to addressing the City’s affordable housing funding needs.
Should the City’s Housing programs be reduced as a result of any City Council direction, it
would be the intent of the City Manager to adjust staff to match the resultant workload.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
In March of 2011, the former CCRA transferred its assets to the City. This included the
Low/Mod Income Housing Fund. Subsequent to that, for tax increment received until RDA
dissolution in Feb 2012, 20% continued to be deposited into the Low/Mod fund. Upon
dissolution, $1,240,000 of 20% money was deposited into the Housing Authority. Later in
the fiscal year, the transfer of remaining Low/Mod assets was approved from the City over
to the Housing Authority. An additional $3.403 million was transferred to the Housing
Authority. This cash has been paying for all operations since the activation of the Housing
Authority in 2012. As of June 30, 2014, there was approximately $1.770 million in
remaining cash. This is just slightly more than the budgeted expenditures. Therefore, it is
estimated that current resources (other than the Federal Section 8 Program) will be
depleted in the summer of 2015.
The Housing Services Division (Org 10150500, Pages 338-339 of Adopted Budget) includes
funding for 3 full-time equivalent staff (Page 309 of Adopted Budget). The Housing Program
Administrator, 1 Housing Specialist, 0.5 of the Admin Secretary and 0.5 of the Structural
Rehab Specialist.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Specific Expenditure Amounts (Based on FY15 Budget):
Section 8 Program
Staff: $ 140,561
Rent Subsidy Payments: $1,645,620
Housing Services*: $ 108,163
Other: $ 93,079
Housing Services:
Org 10150500/47616100 – Housing Services Staff: $ 490,390
Org 47650710 – Housing Admin Supply/Services: $ 95,769
Org 47650720 – Rental Assistance Payments: $ 650,000
Org 47650725 – Homeless Rental Assistance Program: $ 130,000
Org 47650730 – Mortgage Assistance Program: $ 2,500
Org 47650910 – Homeless Services: $ 115,000
Total for Housing Authority: $1,483,659
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Affordable Housing Incentive Area (AFIA) Map 1
2. Tabulation of Affordable Housing Units in AFIA 2 - 3
MOTION:
That the City Council and Housing Authority Board:
Discuss the projected funding shortfall for Housing Programs provided by the
City/Housing Authority and provide direction to the City Manager/Executive Director as
deemed appropriate.
MEETING DATE: 3.23.15
AGENDA ITEM: (1) Discussion of the Projected Funding Shortfall for Housing
Programs Provided by the City and (2) Provide Direction to
the City Manager/Executive Director as Deemed
Appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Affordable Housing Incentive Area (AFIA) Map 1
2. Tabulation of Affordable Housing Units in AFIA 2 - 3
ATTACHMENT 2
2DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE AREAS
DOBI & COMMUNITY BENEFIT DISTRICTS
OPPORTUNITY AREAS
OTHER ( > 1 ACRE)
WEST WASHINGTON
MID WASHINGTON
.
TOD
MIXED USE
ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT
FOX HILLS
HAYDEN
TRACT
SMILEY
BLACKWELDER
DOWNTOWN
West Washington AIP
The City has pursued several economic development initiatives to
renew and revitalize its commercial and industrial districts. Within the
commercial areas, this work includes streetscape, storefront rehabili-
tation and parking enhancements in demonstration projects known
as Area Improvement Plans (AIP), development of a Market Hall of
artisanal foods, the redevelopment of Parcel B as a placemaking,
downtown retail and o ce center and creation of new mixed-use
a ordable housing.
Within the Hayden Tract and Smiley Blackwelder industrial districts,
the City has created new parking opportunities to attract creative
businesses and is currently underway with improvements and entitle-
ments for the City’s Washington National Transit Oriented Develop-
ment and Transit Oriented Development District adjacent to the
Culver City Expo Light Rail Station. These projects represent more
than $400 million in city reinvestment that will multiply the develop-
ment opportunities in the City. |101010101010101010 10 10
10|1. W. Washington AIP Phase IV
2. Mixed Use - West Washington Project
3. Washington Centinela Market Hall
4. W. Washington AIP V
5. Sepulveda Corridor/Culver Village District
6. Tilden Terrace
7. Parcel B
8. Washington National TOD’s
9. Arts District
10. Smiley Blackwelder
11. Hayden Tract Parking
12. Reimagine Fox Hills
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
ATTACHMENT 1
1Affordable Housing Mixed Use Development Incentive Areas
DOBI & Community Benefits
Build-Out Estimates
West Washington
Address Use Lot Size Base Density
Units
@ 50 du/ac
DOBI @ 35%
Units
Total Units Affordable
Units
11510
Washington
Blvd
Samosa
House
23,000 sf 26 9 35 4
12860
Washington
Blvd
Pollo Loco 10,000 sf 11 4 15 2
12727
Washington
Blvd
99 Cents
Store
28,100 sf 32 11 43 5
12788
Washington
Blvd
Auto Zone 18,500 sf 21 8 29 3
13432
Washington
Blvd
Encore Motel 13,342 sf 14 6 20 2
Totals 104 38 180 16
Mid Washington
Address Use Lot Size Base Density
Units
@ 50 du/ac
DOBI Units
@ 35%
Total Units Affordable
Units
11039
Washington
Blvd
MGM Auto
Body
16,544 sf 19 7 26 3
Totals 19 7 26 3
Sepulveda
Address Use Lot Size Base Density
Units
@ 50 du/ac
DOBI Units
@ 35%
Total Units Affordable
Units
3800-16
Sepulveda
Blvd
Carl’s Jr. 69,904 sf 80 28 108 13
3848
Sepulveda
Blvd
Nursery Site 43,560 sf 50 18 68 8
4520
Sepulveda
Blvd
Pep Boys 68,824 sf 79 28 107 13
4512
Sepulveda
Blvd
AAA 34,412 sf 39 14 53 6
Totals 248 88 336 40
ATTACHMENT 2
2Downtown
Address Use Lot Size Base Density
Units
@ 50 du/ac
DOBI Units
@ 35%
Total Units Affordable
Units
9727
Washington
Blvd
Bank of The
West
28,516 sf 32 12 44 5
9809
Washington
Blvd
Chase Bank
& Parking Lot
42,160 sf 48 17 65 8
Totals 80 29 109 13
TOD
Address Use Lot Size Base Density
Units
@ 65 du/ac
DOBI @ 35% Total Units Affordable
Units
8855
Washington
Blvd
Howard
Industries
118,047 sf 176 62 238 22
3700
Robertson
Blvd
FedEx 96,267 sf 143 50 193 18
Totals 319 112 431 40
Smiley Blackwelder
Address Use Lot Size Base Density
Units
@ 50 du/ac
DOBI @ 35% Total Units Affordable
Units
5880 Adams
Blvd
Warehouse 58,000 sf 66 23 89 11
5850
Washington
Blvd
Nuts
Warehouse
42,650 sf 49 18 67 8
Totals 115 41 156 19
Fox Hills/Entertainment District
Address Use Lot Size Base Density
Units
@ 50 du/ac
DOBI @ 35% Total Units Affordable
Units
6229 Bristol
Parkway
Fox Hills
Shopping Ctr
249,598 sf 286 100 386 46
6135 Bristol
Parkway
Office Bldg &
Surface
Parking
105,415 sf 121 42 163 19
6167 Bristol
Parkway
Office Bldg &
Surface
Parking
173,692 sf 199 70 269 33
5902 Green
Valley Circle
Office Bldg &
Surface
Parking
237,402 sf 272 95 367 44
6109
Centinela
Avenue
Double
Tree/Entrada
Site
217,800 sf 250 88 338 40
Totals 1128 395 1523 182
ATTACHMENT 2|1013|