Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
GPA 89-6 Housing Element
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF PALM DESERT DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1994 TO: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD FROM: PHILIP DRELL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: WESTERN CENTER/CRLA STIPULATION COMPLIANCE PLAN Recommendation: 1 . Authorize staff to order appraisals, prepare agreements, develop a financing program and enter into negotiations to acquire or otherwise include properties described in the report in the Agency' s affordable housing program as required to meet -terms of the Western Center/CRLA Stipulation; 2 . Authorize an appropriation of $10,000 for Account No. 870- 4195-466-3092 from the Special Revenue Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, unobligated reserves . Background The Western Center/CRLA Stipulation sets forth requirements for total assisted units, household income mix and unit type mix. We are quickly approaching the December 1.995 Phase I goal for 1, 199 assisted units - 394 very low, 445 low, 367 moderate . We are currently assisting or are in the process of developing 948 units with 330 very low, 350 low, and 270 moderate. Based on this mix, we will have no problem meeting the income requirement. The following summarizes our current unit mix and compares it with the December 1995 goal: Studio 1-BD 2-BD 3-BD 4$D Total Stipulation 204 393 383 191 28 . 1 , 199 Program 955 35 _AZ 950 Needed Units By December 109 37 58 59 [14]'* 249 *Units in brackets are excess of requirement. By December 1995, we will need to add 249 units. Once the entire program reaches 90% occupancy, an additional 160 units (Phase II) will be required for a total of 409 new units. COMPLIANCE STRATEGY• Our first priority should be to acquire or otherwise assist the 249 units to meet the 1, 199 unit goal. Since we don't have sufficient time for new construction which is specifically tailored to meet our unit mix needs, we will have to utilize existing available projects. While there are sufficient studio, one and two-bedroom units on the market, we will have to ultimately build a 3-bedroom project to fully comply with the unit mix requirement. Rental Rehabilitation: We have budgeted $1 . 1 million and plan to complete rehabilitation programs on 3 projects, including 55 units this fiscal year. Projected annual subsidy costs for these units will be $91,000. We have budgeted $100,000 for Fiscal Year 1995 for these additional subsidies. With these units, our adjusted need will be as follows: Studio 1-BD 2-BD 3-4 BD Total Stoltzman 20 20 Cimarusti 1 8 3 12 Morway 4 17 2 223 TOTAL 5 25 25 55 ADJUSTED DEFICIENCY 104 12 33 45 194 Additional Available Proiects : The Agency has received proposals for acquisition or assistance involving 6 projects with 361 total units. They include: A. 248-unit complex in the Palm Desert Country Club area; B. 80 unit complex in the Palm Desert Country Club area; C. 14-unit project on Las Palmas Avenue D-E-F - 3 small projects with 19 units under one ownership in the Palma Village Area. These projects will meet all our requirements with the exception of 3-bedroom units. They are in generally good condition and could be added to the program with only minimal rehabilitation. Due to the current state of the rental market, these properties are being offered at substantially lower cost than what was paid for the units now in the program. Assuming that we only attract low and very low income tenants, average annual subsidy costs would be approximately $1,650/unit compared to over $4,000/unit for Housing Authority units . Total additional subsidy cost for the 194 units 2 logo, is projected to be $320,000. The remaining 167 units would go towards the Phase II 160 unit requirement. Based on the unit mix in these projects, we will fall 45 units short of the 3-bedroom Phase I requirement growing to 72 units in Phase II . Studio 1 BD 2-BD 3D TOTAL Project A 126 90 32 248 Project B 80 80 Project C 14 14 Projects D,E,F 1 133 5 19 TOTAL 127 183 51 Deficiency 104 12 33 45 194 Added 127 183 a _ 361 [23] [171] [18] 45 [167 ] **To be applied to Phase II requirements. To fully comply, we will have to begin planning development of a new 72 unit 3-bedroom project. Fortunately, we have been offered a 21 acre site (Property G) on Washington Avenue, which could accommodate the required project at a reasonable cost. FINANCING: our most recent program pro forma provides $100, 000 this year for subsidies above and beyond our current commitments ( i .e. , Housing Authority, Desert Rose, etc . ) . This amount will be sufficient to fund subsidies for the 55 rehab units . Since the additional projects under consideration all have relatively low market rents and high occupancy rates, subsidies could be phased in gradually over the next 2-3 years as required to meet the Stipulation and our budget constraints . In Fiscal Year 1996 , the pro forma allows $400, 000 for other subsidies rising to $868 , 000 in Fiscal Year 1998 . We are still attempting to maintain a $1 , 000,000 reserve. After 1999 , the pro forma shows rapidly increasing surpluses. The additional $400, 000 to $868 , 000 should be adequate to meet the Phase I and Phase II subsidy need for all but the 3-bedroom units . The purchase of the Washington Avenue site and construction of 72 3-bedroom units will require some form of long-term financing. 3 r �' SUPWARY Although the inclusion of 248 units and planning a 72 unit 3- bedroom project in the next 12 months represents a major challenge, the current buyers' market provides the Agency with an opportunity to satisfy its housing requirements through the year 2000 at a significantly lower cost than originally projected. To take advantage of these opportunities we need to quickly determine the economic feasibility of each project, negotiate the proper agreements, and proceed with the implementation process. REVIEWED AND CONCUR: Philip Drell Executive Directi6r Senior Planner mh Attachment 4 S Til IS m . l7 O 17 g gg N g g tl n + $ « S o R OW m O O • b • !1 N 10 O G 10 N � N 17 • A O) ^ N Pl 1► b !1 P O G • 4°! " s s • N m r r O N g g O O A • P) O P! i � • • • • 0 � M m �qq�pp + r p 8 �p1 b q b pQ pQ o pQ b o pp m w V LL O O b O + O O O O O b 10 •�i1 of ei in O N a O N W O N 1p O N P W C7 y 0 a r H O Q C7 O Z W = Q O W d � � p=..~ P b O � N ri .► 1�0• 01 of O b• Pl p O x Q .J O 0 Ln ui �: e • ai a • LU Z O CDi all UJ O LL z W ~ a ycc ISO Ilk W p� N 8 O m G� P b P ni P O 1oV F W C Q 0 N el + O U. LU W G b n w • w N .+i • J " • • G O y U 8g 0o 8 8 C 8 8 C e z Q y m q n N m 8 w o eYi O O O O 8 O O m 8 n Q m m °r �'1 O O a ri ni Ni n Ot a 3 N eYi + r n x m N n § & O O N p m O r !f + n N J U. w • • m V, Obi p r N b O m r O O O m O m O O O O G O N n �••'"111 N W O m �[f n eq b N 8 Vv r O v O O Q P1 O O r A CD {^ N n O m fD + /1OO N > �i r ai " o ri � � • w g 0 x s — N O • J ° • E o € • Q � m m • x e p o s • p N •• � � d • < - � C n N � • 6 W • C •L, b q W O N S O • p W � s44s ; h moo • � ' s ; g " 1 C • < E '0 U c 2 C L C • y • C • e Y W p N ° ° W r • • • O O N • ' O C Q W O i • C 40 J W c vi p o o ; L ubi o v o 9° g o;t a � x 0 o axa oxc� a � m PALM DESERT CHAS ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT A. Resources Made Available Within the Jurisdiction In Fiscal Year 1994, the following sources of funds were available to implement the City of Palm Desert Housing Program. 1 . Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Housing Funds (Uncommitted) $ 9,011 ,848 2 . , Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Tax 600, 000 Increment (Committed in 1992 to Mobile- home Conversion Program but were held in escrow and not expended. ) 3 . State MPROP Funds 1,000, 000 (Committed in 1992 to Mobilehome Conversion Program but were held in escrow and not expended. ) 4 . Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency 1992 Tax Exempt Bonds 1 ,935,000 5 . Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency 1994 "Desert Rose" Taxable Bonds 14, 290,000 6 . Developer Fees 179 , 810 TOTAL $2 7 ,016 , 6 5 8-------..., The City' s Housing Program is funded primarily through Redevelopment Agency housing tax increment, which provides a very stable and steadily increasing revenue base. Tax increment and developer fees are tied to increasing property valuation and construction activity which were generally within the anticipated range. In 1992 , the Redevelopment Agency issued $100, 000, 000 in tax increment bonds of which $5 , 000, 000 were committed to the Desert Rose single-family ownership project . In 1992, $3 , 065, 000 was expended from these funds for land acquisition. The balance remained available and was expended in Fiscal Year 1994 when the project proceeded. Primary funding for Desert Rose comes from a new Redevelopment Agency taxable bond issue generating $14 , 290,000 . B. Investment of Available Resources The Redevelopment Agency expended a total of $10, 220,037 implementing the following housing programs: 1 . Rent Subsidy Program - Expended: $4, 280,076 Through agreements with the Riverside County Housing Authority, the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency provided tenant income rent subsidies for 725 units in 7 projects owned by the Housing Authority .with the City. Due to a lower tenant income mix and higher expenses, expenditures were higher than anticipated. The location of these projects is as follows: a. One Quail Place (384 units) , 72-600 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert b. Desert Pointe (64 units) , 43-805 Monterey Avenue, Palm Desert C . Las Serenas ( 150 Senior units) , 73-315 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert d. Catalina Senior Apartments (72 Senior units) 73-600 Catalina Way, Palm Desert e . The Pueblos ( 15 Senior units) , 73-695 Santa Rosa Way, Palm Desert f . Neighbors Garden Apartments ( 24 units) , 73-535 Santa Rosa, Palm Desert g. Taos Palms ( 16 units) , 44-810 Las Palmas Avenue, Palm Desert 2 . Rehabilitation Loans In Fiscal Year 1994, $20, 150 was expended in funding one single-family rehabilitation loan. Although $550, 000 was budgeted, continuing technical and legal problems delayed funding of loan applications . In Fiscal Year 1994-95 , $1 . 1 million has been budgeted, which should fund 3 multi-family rental rehabilitated loans covering 55 units. 3 . Palma village Curb/Gutter and Sewer Extension Assessment District Expended: $739, 963 . In 1988, an Assessment District was formed to provide curb, gutter and sewers for an older, predominantly low/moderate income residential neighborhood. 2 Redevelopment Agency contributions accounted for 59% of the $15,000,000 project cost. 4 . Homeless Shelter, - Expended: $15,000 The Redevelopment Agency contributed $15 , 000 to the regional homeless shelter program administered by the Riverside County Housing Authority/Catholic Charities - Nightengale Manor in Palm Springs. During the period, Nightengale housed 91 families and 2 individuals totaling 350 persons. The City assistance constitutes 80 of the shelter' s $200,000 annual budget. Therefore Palm Desert' s proportionate share assisted 7 homeless families. 5 . Desert Rose Affordable Low/Moderate Income Single-Family Ownership Expended: $2 ,767, 750 During Fiscal Year 1994 , financing was finally obtained for "Desert Rose" , a 161-unit single-family ownership planned community located at the northside of Fred Waring Drive, 1400 east of Cook Street. The project will include 80 low income and 81 moderate income affordable units with priority given to 4-6 person households . Low income households unable to afford ownership initially will participate in a rent-to-own program which will allow all qualified residents to purchase within a five-year period. The project will be constructed with a conventional private construction loan for a nonprofit housing corporation with bond permanent financing and assistance from the Redevelopment Agency. The project broke ground in September 1994 with the first units becoming available April 1995 . It will include on- site recreational areas and an assisted child care center. In Fiscal Year 1994 , the Redevelopment Agency expended $1 , 929, 000 from the 1992 tax exempt bond funds, and $838, 750 from tax increment for initial development and financing costs . The bond funds will be expended in Fiscal Year 1995-96 as units are completed. 6 . Portola Palms Mobilehome Park Conversion Expended: $2, 222 , 500 The program involved the purchase in 1992 if a 141 space rental mobile park by the residents association with the ultimate goal of selling individual spaces to existing residents . The purchase was financed by a $3,000, 000 private interim loan to be repaid by lot sales . The Redevelopment Agency contributed $600, 000 and the State 3 MPROP $850,000 into escrow account to be used for mortgage assistance for low income buyers. Due to slow lot sales, the association defaulted on their interim loan and the Redevelopment Agency had to step in with an expenditure of $1, 701,500 in Fiscal Year 1994 taking over the first mortgage. withdrawal from the escrowed Redevelopment Agency funds for assisted loans did not begin until Fiscal Year 1994 . The State contributed an additional $150, 000, bringing their total to $1 ,000,000. The Redevelopment Agency increased its contribution to $622,864 . Nineteen ( 19) Redevelopment Agency . assisted loans have closed, totalling $521,000 . The State MPROP loans will not begin closing until Fiscal Year 1995 . 7 . Single-Family Ownership - Rotary House Expended: $35,039 The local Chapter of the Rotary Club will be coordinating the construction of a low income affordable single-family home with volunteer labor and material . The Redevelopment Agency will provide the vacant lot and development fees . Completion and occupancy is expected in Fiscal Year 1995 . 8 . General Administration - Expended: $139, 559 C. Households and Persons Assisted Through the Rental Assistance, single-family/rehabilitation, and Homeless Proiects The City of Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency assisted 1,477 low income households in Fiscal Year 1993-94 of which 31% were Hispanics, 20 were Black, and 4% Asian/Pacific Island. 4 •� o E a E CI,U Cc: � ao cc cc o ° ao O U y O C$ c� O. Qj Q. v, •+ >, .,, C 6 CD 'C rn H O by •L7 U y C c� O c a 3 Z U o ¢ O V C N d Ln .� O •[ ^p .� � N N C+1 N .G .�+ }CO.. O 4 yg b9 y c- b CYJ.Lp G) ^ ir. «) ?L 4a V � o a � as 0 o V :5 o� E.., a 4Vi 0 WO .., ..� H o � � a� oo c wv� M a E -vb c v rA z v a. v" c y .0 "O ON � � 00 C C Z v s o W w F Q to U O U C iG,""Ri77 Q' �• 4, O 0 N w .� •y O O s .... a Li. O OOD F, d N z 0 zg ►7 O � c :c o L o d Z w p 4.5 O b y C co .a E m U p O p cC v .`�•. C G. a) E f-4 cV —I a O LL w-0 -0 —i $-+G4 Go) r3 N .� a -v w 3 c 0 .a u o ._ a O N L h O O y O o a� E oo ;E: H a_ = r..� S H L t1 O tf, Y H ate+ C C O C� bD 0 0 E cti u c E cz i 'C3 H H a u° Q ca ca V a� a:� c o EE sL -~ 0 C � U x s O ^ E O C p O O 4-) v O r. rj C7 -. c� c� w0 ao o w ai c E `" 's o 3 0 0 5 0 Q ,0 x tW� 0 L C o ° oo ° o 00 4) 00 �. •U O C: -� U bA -a o .a o � � .a 00 p v, a a� Cl v p to F"' O O O O Ln L 7 N CO rim rA M GM O O � rA O O O O O � w v h h •h •h �p+ G C W O C C W O � M � � .� � M C E ►�'. M U M acc ¢ U a! ea FA c o U Q a c o V Q a U ^� au C U Q w z Q' w �� z a v O =' accLM Ot w h y L � L W t s S s - O w I.y 3 � 3 h � h L ice,. w w U w = U w � a� as _ CC C C E CC C CC r—. N cd N ccd y cd UU Ej O U N U U U O O O O U U U O O 5 A0 30 0 'moo Eo0 5 s0 30 � 0 50 L 30 0 33 0 _jj o O o m CC O v i O o0 00 C y � � O ^ O .O c� O N O O wrA C h O y b4 N COTO rl rl vv CO)cd O 'C Q,r O o � a o. a�ib `ti � o o eA tn >rA N O F/9 6f3 v °� chi o o� pq O z F .0 «S cd 14- y -V°—� C s r°' b4 O y c u Q W C O t= C 4.) ca O -0 N O W o O ` p Q 'y0 y M E o'b c � ~ orl d a d cc> yLn y h L- ECd y C fi w C L O V d a Q Icy Ly v .0 ie et q .� O v N z ° E ? N Q cc u Q O o fi C •CC O —co T1 Iz r ate+ ', `�`. L N r^. Uri' y •� U tU• V� scz E 0 3 ° o ° 3 ° 00 L .a I CO a� b0 C p v� y oo oo N O aUi o p r� u 0 a 0 0 w. :r 'y .ter � h a o o c U M M U z 01, ON w zON ON o a z ¢ ; ; a Z •� K' � � N z ,� d. � � N Z vi K K E W o W for (h V1 y W O y, co Gm d q ~ •h � = R C F.i.l L 6 L + 6J h d GC y s' CJ aOn L. ct rnv ua, 'o 0.0 'C W W v .. o 5 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 .5 = 78 oq .N � O 3 y 0 y d H = N .y cis d co O b � y d � O .c a C9 > K 'Q vai Qw c CL a. O .n tn N Fo z a, ci y h V) L � y O L h O O � ►�Oy eLi W j N Cl Grr u E .. ai •y W H � c Q h N C ccO y . y L L v 3 x ea a' U c o -o g u Ccc w L ►C y �C y of 67 cd y _ � •L C to O O b p p b p 0 0 N Gj U O y � o .50 So ,ro o A 3 3 0 3 3 r; 00 C= 1 M 1 O ca 0Op NN o bD Q b 0 c. 0 c u, ri cc c c ,-+ N ri N to N Za pco Z h T «+ co CL > N C � O N V p . cc M > d a O 'cd U rs, � � z I co C o o z C13 GJ in M z 3 > K F r in 0 Q W a.., 1 1a, v O C i •0 C a d r- �: 4 F cc:L- W o to ?' +' L c ` 0 i 0 y_ 'C rA C" :3 A 7 W) w C U1 N p rn A Cr in a S a Q C o 03 O C 'CJ O H + E L rUi, •L7 O v a� .a to . U N 0fU'' � 'C7 rn v� •y 1ii d n Q O U y to C Z i C� � C"l CYj (•'1 G: O. :2 i a) L. 6� r{ M C''1 (L' r o a) c cc G cal p � N U h U O S rail U V N ,y�F Q 1 b0 O CU O O r X O «d U C L CO -0 M V >' m '� N N ¢ •r a" Y •r F-- c A. r- aO ri Q r-•1 {..{ t 6J U N C CC v ) r+ 4 b C 4-) rrA U d' L y� C y cd N ed y cd y v1 •� CC C 0 b OE O E r«, N y 4-) rA �«. 0 3 `0 0 50 v� cC C o 0 00 oe o \' 00 y cm f. u v, cc 00 00 0 p bLll N o � F- � � ¢ a = _a 0 Q VIA Ln • r-1 '•-1 � Q? O E5 O y ava b $ O as ON Cis z o `° •r-I a Z ¢ cz 6. o W y H a U ^� � •r•I cc 7 r m L O 4-4 •,A L) h U) ro cz o ro a� w G Q) y Cl. h 03 =y cC ¢ W ro Ov N w n ccv1 c: L V a a� c, ca U ev ° N C a U C &. u G N •4 rA a� y C7! w ro O C C y x ro Q o U c�i .. .❑. ,C. C7 a. 0 N h .= OA f... C O O •� � .� O O A C/� tQ p Oo p c 30 c O 00 y cc cm) V1 ti••' 00 00 0 0 L C C) O err I rA 0 a0i � p, •� h G1. O V 4 a ° U 2 �a v^v -40 C4 ON ON ^ s as 4 o u u ow H N 0 o Q z to _ o « 0 H '~cc z o Q W c (U w = rA ci cn d 0 N U 0 v, cz L- — a) ohm. L 00 L 0%J o o O Cd 0 0 Z vC v 4- a G vs �, cd -b Cr..N � o a t c u = h `- = K d L o L. 04 d C CC G N a) U EN 0 o. c c v a o _ ca ,o w. C,3 c� O O bA 4:. L � � � •�e�dy a� r�' Cy � c �� � � U p v0 Q) V JpG v Gam. fy •t�/1 G C o 0 9z °' b0 -- 0 3 0 0 0 Z w C 3 0 :r o P o == 00 :ao � o � o ° > � 0: = O vi oo 00 p� y L V) r • )%Slpo� ; U) G CO CO c� 4) Lf LO 4-I n M M Lf E C 1 Crl ri y O C\ t0 L. M M I� O a 14 as o w o a, oo ° oo o0 o .c M M S- U Q\ ch O ON 01% ON ON G O Oa H -c a � as E -4Cv G CAS oto .� c Q Q a) K d o v cc ow cc c03 Ls, E ^ f� Q ,—i f�4 �4 cG o 4-4 cc � o 4; � .. c Uu, o ° � � o ° a o v ' rA O Ci � -• G O. :.� cC — r- C U E tC'C C13 .-a v 'C U) C C ; ''I cc 'G G^ cr, c ro �= 1 Uc o cGo aJ O C I E Q Cc G O CC C. O (:-i .r O .0 i 4-) r U C G c 0 tL C) c � C) G 1 i G 4-j [ S., L U U •ri U 41 � m U � � m C) ': 1J G p U cc \.D c u, cl; C cc E-+ O G: O L m E•-H Iz F+ U Cr r-i U V" � Ar C c rc 6 •� G C O C 4j C! O fY O O Cr v Q L h �` L' •y d O E E E E E c c L L L L L L ►r C>D � bA CA'0 bD b0'� blJ a l r LT 1P} .y Q ON 'T O\ C/] c•1 OM O\ O\ ON G O O O\ (. U U M C C., C> a ^ i 0. C. N Q O C C y O S U U H "p U oG aj «1 C6 ed a o coQwOA � x 0 0m U ci: co r 3 Hi c min -+ c at C-, iwT � � � � � CDrC C LE m � �� CDtD CD � CD� m � &!i 9 a �� m � � � � a� 1-6 � I c n>13 i m n 'D Ia S I 3 _ Q m CD cl D gymrn w W °a :0 N N 5 + W O W +� NPO t- W V W .i + N 1% i a�c o pp + cr a CD to N ppa N O V W y� V fy V A N C CD cn N � WN V C�pp tCp7�_ WNO Zn W W OVO + + N N V (nN Wa co N w V N N N N N w A N V V OlN �� + + + CA boo M M CO N O �71 pQpjpp�ppNpp�wp i► V NN 41 p� Af + A W N N V Of N V OWN CnSO +v V OD,(VO + o s - ,�P, " CDrD fD w m * e $ N m s ------------ zi - = a - ®_W — zz e m - m -—--- LA _ c W tn m W-m -- ----- ---------------- - -- ----- -------------- -- ----- ---------------- �- mmmm .f moo. a � m m - - dQN, ms fin, ---------- ----- ---------------- - _ - dm � ., m� � m �_tiZ� ra iT; ;;e=Br t 'r.'e leVrls7uTs�!?L rt- '' Low & Moderate Housing iris ii!e Revenue's a!! E,.,voenditures REVENGE'S RECUl'RRII,G NONRECURRING ------------------------ ---------- -------------- --------------- RE- n_ ,�irrirq n�Ia�sC es =.iiio mit'nat.ir7;i tees iitif; r T_-t!L L'_ res���i't• .je!ct Area No. i - Fiir1Q na' 8'7 "1Y Pro i.tt 4re3 INo. e i,a t. ,r,T-• Frolect Area r -------------- --------------- ,ubtG'tas Re $1 ;; ), tij{k :,T I T:!rr,_ --------------------------------- r, RIs�_ _ - - Unii_ U! -m i 1,286,:'4' $342',765 Coto r:-----+ Fite 2n� 0 2,410 L;>R!T!itmen rs G 0t Deb' rt �er`v'i=e 3 -,[)_ i i 1 L Tij Ser,,4 o• f-tmint !e its ;.debt revc. Cii,'2i ,r b;iG�. Re e 7 .}t'i=ve .t � `hree Months " bzidv 35 o_a 'it? ='i tetl l n5 Debt 'Service iC 'f,li, J--i!v Re=_er%,ie Mo r+ r t�a Rasa =�e,t _er ice Y_, cIQ b. r+i_J's i d'v Reserve �'(`!ei*'•s= 7heiter iJ,•_i i�l A.,n,sir!istration _. L R''----1::a_i,'itatl0n P;"'Jrl_F'dl?'t :illij r7?iV -------------- --•---------_--- EiVDiNi.; LHLrP'!;l.E =-:n .:lti' TOTAL SURPLUS US 57 - -------------- -------------- STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS.TRORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY fir+ PETE WILSON.Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEV OPMENT "�-�"` ' DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1800THIRD STREET, Room 430 P.O BOX 952053 SACRAMENTO, CA 94252-2053 " (916)323-3176 FAX (916)323-6625 ,!'O/V May 1992 To: Interested Parties Subject: New Income Limits Attached for your information is a copy of new very low, lower, median, and moderate income limits. California Health and Safety Code Sections 50079.5 and 50105 provide that the lower and very low income limits established by the U. S. Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD) are the State limits for those income categories. Sections 50059.5 and 50105 direct the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to publish the income limits. Accordingly, HCD has filed with the Office of Administrative Law amendments to Section 6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. The amendments to Section 6932 contain the new HUD income limits. The amendments also include new median income group and moderate income group limits, prepared by HCD pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50093. If you have any questions concerning the income limits, please contact Don Crow at (916) 323-3175. t Sincerel , Thomas B. Cook, Deputy Director Housing Policy Development Attachment 6932—INCOME LIMITS—K-,,w 1992 N%1 r NUMBER OF PERSONS IN FAMILY COUNTY STANDARD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ALAMEDA Very low income 16400 18700 21050 23400 25250 27150 29000 30900 Area median: Lower income 26200 29950 33700 37450 40450 43450 46400 49400 $46,800 Median income 32750 37450 42100 46800 50550 54300 58050 61800 Moderate income 39300 44900 50550 56150 60650 65150 69650 74100 ALPINE Very low income 12250 14000 15750 17500 18900 20300 21700 23100 Area median: Lower income 19600 22400 25200 28000 30250 32500 34700 36950 $31,500 Median income 24500 28000 31500 35000 37800 40600 43400 46200 Moderate income 29400 33600 37800 42000 45350 48700 52100 55450 AMADOR Very low income 12250 14000 15750 17500 18900 20300 21700 23100 Area median: Lower income 19600 22400 25200 28000 30250 32500 34700 36950 $32,600 Median income 24500 28000 31500 35000 37800 40600 43400 46200 Moderate income 29400 33600 37800 42000 45350 48700 52100 55450 BUTTE Very low income 11050 12600 14150 15750 17000 18250 19550 20800 Area median: Lower income 17650 20150 22700 25200 27200 29250 31250 33250 $31,500 Median income 22050 25200 28350 31500 34000 36550 39050 41600 Moderate income 26450 30250 34000 37800 40800 43850 46850 49900 CALAVERAS Very low income 12250 14000 15750 17500 18900 20300 21700 23100 Area median: Lower income 19600 22400 25200 28000 30250 32500 34700 36950 $32,400 Median income 24500 28000 31500 35000 37800 40600 43400 46200 Moderate income 29400 33600 37800 42000 45350 48700 52100 55450 COLUSA Very low income 12950 14800 16650 18500 20000 21450 22950 24400 Area median: Lower income 20700 23700 26650 29600 31950 34350 36700 39050 $37,000 Median income 25900 29600 33300 37000 39950 42900 45900 48850 Moderate income 31100 35500 39950 44400 47950 51500 55050 58600 CONTRA COSTA Very low income 16400 18700 21050 23400 25250 27150 29000 30900 Area median: Lower income 26200 29950 33700 37450 40450 43450 46400 49400 $46,800 Median income 32750 37450 42100 46800 50550 54300 58050 61800 Moderate income 39300 44900 50550 56150 60650 65150 69650 74100 DEL NORTE Very low income 11200 12800 14400 16000 17300 18550 19850 21100 Area median: Lower income 17900 20500 23050 25600 27650 29700 31750 33800 $31,500 Median income 22400 25600 28800 32000 34550 37100 39700 42250 Moderate income 26900 30700 34000 . 38400 41450 44550 47600 50700 ELDORADO Very low income 13900 15900 17850 19850 21450 23050 24600 26200 Area median: Lower income 22250 25400 28600 31750 34300 36850 39400 41900 $39,700 Median income 27800 31750 35750 39700 42900 46050 49250 52400 Moderate income 33350 38100 42900 47650 51450 55250 59100 62900 1 6932—INCOME LIMITS—M992 NUMBER OF PERSONS IN FAMILY COUNTY STANDARD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FRESNO Very low income 11700 13350 15050 16700 18050 19350 20700 22050 Area median: Lower income 18700 21400 24050 26700 28850 31000 33150 35250 $33,400 Median income 23400 26700 30050 33400 36050 38750 41400 44100 Moderate income 28050 32100 36100 40100 43300 46500 49700 52950 GLEAN Very low income 12050 13750 15500 17200 18600 19950 21350 22700 Area median: Lower income 19250 22000 24750 27500 29700 31900 34100 36350 $34,400 Median income 24100 27500 30950 34400 37150 39900 42650 45400 Moderate income 28900 33050 37150 41300 44600 47900 51200 54500 HUMBOLDT Very low income 11500 13150 14800 16450 17750 19100 20400 21700 Area median: Lower income 18400 21050 23700 26300 28400 30550 32650 34750 $32,200 Median income 23050 26300 29600 32900 35550 38150 40800 43450 Moderate income 27650 31600 35550 39500 42650 45800 49000 52150 IMPERIAL Very low income 11600 13300 14950 16600 17950 19250 20600 21900 Area median: Lower income 18600 21250 23900 26550 28700 30800 32950 35050 $31,500 Median income 23250 26550 29900 33200 35850 38500 41 150 43800 Moderate income 27900 31900 35850 39850 43050 46250 49400 52600 INYO Very low income 12250 14000 15750 17500 18900 20300 21700 23100 Area median: Lower income 19600 22400 25200 28000 30250 32500 34700 36950 $33,200 Median income 24500 28000 31500 35000 37800 40600 43400 46200 Moderate income 29400 33600 37800 42000 45350 48700 52100 55450 KERN Very low income 12250 14000 15750 17500 18900 20300 21700 23100 Area median: Lower income 19600 22400 25200 28000 30250 32500 34700 36950 $33,300 Median income 24500 28000 31500 35000 37800 40600 43400 46200 Moderate income 29400 33600 37800 42000 45350 48700 52100 55450 KINGS Very low income 11050 12600 14150 15750 17000 18250 19550 20800 Area median: Lower income 17650 20150 22700 25200 27200 29250 31250 33250 $31,500 Median income 22050 25200 28350 31500 34000 36550 39050 41600 Moderate income 26450 30250 34000 37800 40800 43850 46850 49900 LAKE Very low income 11200 12800 14400 16000 17300 18550 19850 21100 Area median: Lower income 17900 20500 23050 25600 27650 29700 31750 33800 $31,500 Median income 22400 25600 28800 32000 34550 37100 39700 42250 Moderate income 26900 30700 34000 38400 41450 44550 47600 50700 LASSEN Very low income 11050 12600 14150 15750 17000 18250 19550 20800 Area median: Lower income 17650 20150 22700 25200 27200 29250 31250 33250 $31,500 Median income 22050 25200 28350 31500 34000 36550 39050 41600 Moderate income 26450 30250 34000 37800 40800 43850 46850 49900 2 6932—INCOME LIMITS—N% ,,=1992 ..moo d NUMBER OF PERSONS IN FAMILY COUNTY STANDARD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LOSANGELES Very low income 16400 18750 21100 23450 25350 27200 29100 30950 Area median: Lower income 26250 30000 33750 37500 40500 43500 46500 49550 $42,300 Median income 32850 37500 42200 46900 50650 54400 58150 61900 Moderate income 39400 45050 50650 56300 60800 65300 69800 74300 MADERA Very low income 11050 12600 14150 15750 17000 18250 19550 20800 Area median: Lower income 17650 20150 22700 25200 27200 29250 31250 33250 $31,500 Median income 22050 25200 28350 31500 34000 36550 39050 41600 Moderate income 26450 30250 34000 37800 40800 43850 46850 49900 MARIN Very low income 19650 . 22450 25250 28050 30300 32550 34800 37050 Area median: Lower income 27000 30900 34750 38600 41700 44800 47850 50950 $49,900 Median income 39250 44900 50500 56100 60600 65100 69550 74050 Moderate income 47100 53850 60550 67300 72700 78050 83450 88850 MARIPOSA Very low income 12250 14000 15750 17500 18900 20300 21700 23100 Area median: Lower income 19600 22400 25200 28000 30250 32500 34700 36950 $31,500 Median income 24500 28000 31500 35000 37800 40600 43400 46200 Moderate income 29400 33600 37800 42000 45350 48700 52100 55450 MENDOCINO Very low income 12100 13850 15550 17300 18700 20050 21450 22850 Area median: Lower income 19400 22150 24900 27700 29900 32100 34300 36550 $31,500 Median income 24200 27700 31150 34600 37350 40150 42900 45650 Moderate income 29050 33200 37350 41500 44800 48150 51450 54800 MERCED Very low income 11050 12600 14150 15750 17000 18250 19550 20800 Area median: Lower income 17650 20150 22700 25200 27200 29250 31250 33250 $31,500 Median income 22050 25200 28350 31500 34000 36550 39050 41600 Moderate income 26450 30250 34000 37800 40800 43850 46850 49900 MODOC Very low income 11050 12600 14150 15750 17000 18250 19550 20800 Area median: Lower income 17650 20150 22700 25200 27200 29250 31250 33250 $31,500 Median income 22050 25200 28350 31500 34000 36550 39050 41600 Moderate income 26450 30250 34000 37800 40800 43850 46850 49900 MONO Very low income 12800 14600 16400 18250 19700 21150 22650 24100 Area median: Lower income 20450 23350 26300 29200 31550 33850 36200 38550 $36,500 Median income 25550 29200 32850 36500 39400 42350 45250 48200 Moderate income 30650 35050 39400 4.3800 47300 50800 54300 57800 MONTEREY Very low income 13350 15300 17200 19100 20650 22150 23700 25200 Area median: Lower income 21400 24450 27500 30550 33000 35450 37900 40350 $38,200 Median income 26750 30550 34400 38200 41250 44300 47350 50400 Moderate income 32100 36700 41250 45850 49500 53200 56850 60500 3 6932—INCOME LIMITS—M 992 NUMBER OF PERSONS IN FAMILY COUNTY STANDARD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NAPA Very low income 14750 16900 19000 21100 22800 24500 26150 27850 Area median: Lower income 23650 27000 30400 33750 36450 39150 41850 44550 $42,200 Median income 29550 33750 38000 42200 45600 48950 52350 55700 Moderate income 35450 40500 45600 50650 54700 58750 62800 66850 NEVADA Very low income 13750 15700 17700 19650 21200 22800 24350 25950 Area median: Lower income 22000 25150 28300 31450 33950 36450 39000 41500 $35,400 Median income 27500 31450 35350 39300 42450 45600 48750 51900 Moderate income 33000 37700 42450 47150 50900 54700 58450 62250 ORANGE Very low income 18450 21100 23700 26350 28450 30550 32650 34800 Area median: Lower income 27000 30900 34750 38600 41700 44800 47850 50950 $52,700 Median income 36900 42150 47450 52700 56900 61 150 , 65350 69550 Moderate income 44300 50600 56950 63250 68300 73350 78450 83500 PLACER Very low income 13900 15900 17850 19850 21450 23050 24600 26200 Area median: Lower income 22250 25400 28600 31750 34300 36850 39400 41900 $39,700 Median income 27800 31750 35750 39700 42900 46050 49250 52400 Moderate income 33350 38100 42900 47650 51450 55250 59100 62900 PLUMAS Very low income 11050 12600 14150 15750 17000 18250 19550 20800 Area median: Lower income 17650 20150 22700 25200 27200 29250 31250 33250 $31,500 Median income 22050 25200 28350 31500 34000 36550 39050 41600 Moderate income 26450 30250 34000 37800 40800 43850 46850 49900 RIVERSIDE Very low income 12800 14650 16450 18300 19750 21250 22700 24150 Area median: Lower income 20500 23400 26350 29300 31600 33950 36300 38650 $36,600 Median income 25600 29300 32950 33660Q 39550 42450 45400 48300 Moderate income 30750 35100 39500 43900 47400 50900 54450 57950 SACRAMENTO Very low income 13900 15900 17850 19850 21450 23050 24600 26200 Area median: Lower income 22250 25400 28600 31750 34300 36850 39400 41900 $39,700 Median income 27800 31750 35750 39700 42900 46050 49250 52400 Moderate income 33350 38100 42900 47650 51450 55250 59100 62900 SAN BENITO Very low income 12250 14000 15750 17500 18900 20300 21700 23100 Area median: Lower income 19600 22400 25200 28000 30250 32500 34700 36950 $33,200 Median income 24500 28000 31500 35000 37800 40600 43400 46200 Moderate income 29400 33600 37800 42000 45350 48700 52100 55450 SAN BERNARDINO Very low income 12800 14650 16450 18300 19750 21250 22700 24150 Area median: Lower income 20500 23400 26350 29300 31600 33950 36300 38650 $36,000 Median income 25600 29300 32950 36600 39550 42450 45400 48300 Moderate income 30750 35100 39500 43900 47400 50900 54450 57950 4 6932—INCOME LIMITS— 1992 NUMBER OF PERSONS IN FAMILY COUNTY STANDARD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SAN DIEGO Very low income 14500 16550 18650 20700 22350 24000 25650 27300 Area median: Lower income 23200 26500 29800 33100 35750 38400 41050 43700 $41,300 Median income 29000 33100 37250 41400 44700 48000 51350 54650 Moderate income 34800 39750 44750 49700 53700 57650 61650 65600 SAN FRANCISCO Very low income 19650 22450 25250 28050 30300 32550 34800 37050 Area median: Lower income 27000 30900 34750 38600 41700 44800 47850 50950 $49,900 Median income 39250 44900 50500 56100 60600 65100 69550 74050 Moderate income 47100 53850 60550 67300 72700 78050 83450 88850 SAN JOAQUIN Very low income 11900 13600 15300 17000 18350 19700 21 100 22450 Area median: Lower income 19050 21750 24500 27200 29350 31550 33750 35900 $34,000 Median income 23800 27200 30600 34000 36700 39450 42150 44900 Moderate income 28550 32650 36700 40800 44050 47350 50600 53850 SAN LUIS OBISPO Very low income 13900 15900 17850 19850 21450 23050 24600 26200 Area median: Lower income 22250 25400 28600 31750 34300 36850 39400 41900 $37,000 Median income 27800 31750 35750 39700 42900 46050 49250 52400 Moderate income 33350 38100 42900 47650 51450 55250 59100 62900 SAN MATEO Very low income 19650 22450 25250 28050 30300 32550 34800 37050 Area median: Lower income 27000 30900 34750 38600 41700 44800 47850 50950 $49,900 Median income 39250 44900 50500 56100 60600 65100 69550 74050 Moderate income 47100 53850 60550 67300 72700 78050 83450 88850 SANTA BARBARA Very low income 17200 19700 22150 24600 26550 28550 30500 32450 Area median: Lower income 27000 30900 34750 38600 41700 44800 47850 50950 $49,200 Median income 34450 39350 44300 49200 53150 57050 61000 64950 Moderate income 41350 47250 53150 59050 63750 68500 73200 77950 SANTA CLARA Very low income 20850 23800 26750 29750 32150 34500 36900 39250 Area median: Lower income 27000 30900 34750 38600 41700 44800 47850 50950 $59,500 Median income 41650 47600 53550 59500 64250 69000 73800 78550 Moderate income 50000 57100 64250 71400 77100 82800 88550 94250 SANTA CRUZ Very low income 17500 20000 22500 25000 27000 29000 31000 33000 Area median: Lower income 27000 30900 34750 38600 41700 44800 47850 50950 $45,300 Median income 35000 40000 45000 50000 54000 58000 62000 66000 Moderate income 42000 48000 54000 60000 64800 69600 74400 79200 SHASTA Very low income 11200 12800 14400 16000 17300 18550 19850 21100 Area median: Lower income 17900 20500 23050 25600 27650 29700 31750 33800 $31,500 Median income 22400 25600 28800 32000 34550 37100 39700 42250 Moderate income 26900 30700 34000 38400 41450 44550 47600 50700 5 6932—INCOME LIMITS—M (992 *40 NUMBER OF PERSONS IN FAMILY COUNTY STANDARD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SIERRA Very low income 13750 15700 17700 19650 21200 22800 24350 25950 Area median: Lower income 22000 25150 28300 31450 33950 36450 39000 41500 $34,200 Median income 27500 31450 35350 39300 42450 45600 48750 51900 Moderate income 33000 37700 42450 47150 50900 54700 58450 62250 SISKIYOU Very low income 11050 12600 14150 15750 17000 18250 19550 20800 Area median: Lower income 17650 20150 22700 25200 27200 29250 31250 33250 $31,500 Median income 22050 25200 28350 31500 34000 36550 39050 41600 Moderate income 26450 30250 34000 37800 40800 43850 46850 49900 SOLANO Very low income 14750 16900 19000 21100 22800 24500 26150 27850 Area median: Lower income 23650 27000 30400 33750 36450 39150 41850 44550 $42,200 Median income 29550 33750 38000 42200 45600 48950 52350 55700 Moderate income 35450 40500 45600 50650 54700 58750 62800 66850 SONOMA Very low income 15350 17550 19750 21950 23700 25450 27200 28950 Area median: Lower income 24600 28100 31600 35100 37950 40750 43550 46350 $42,900 Median income 30750 35100 39500 43900 47400 50900 54450 57950 Moderate income 36900 42150 47450 52700 56900 61150 65350 69550 STANISLAUS Very low income 12100 13800 15500 17250 18650 20000 21400 22750 Area median: Lower income 19300 22100 24850 27600 29800 32000 34200 36450 $34,500 Median income 24150 27600 31050 34500 37250 40000 42800 45550 Moderate income 29000 33100 37250 41400 44700 48000 51350 54650 SUTTER Very low income 11050 12600 14150 15750 17000 18250 19550 20800 Area median: Lower income 17650 20150 22700 25200 27200 29250 31250 33250 $31,500 Median income 22050 25200 28350 31500 34000 36550 39050 41600 Moderate income 26450 30250 34000 37800 40800 43850 46850 49900 TEHAMA Very low income 11050 12600 14150 15750 17000 18250 19550 20800 Area median: Lower income 17650 20150 22700 25200 27200 29250 31250 33250 $31,500 Median income 22050 25200 28350 31500 34000 36550 39050 41600 Moderate income 26450 30250 34000 37800 40800 43850 46850 49900 TRINITY Very low income 11200 12800 14400 16000 17300 18550 19850 21100 Area median: Lower income 17900 20500 23050 25600 27650 29700 31750 33800 $31,500 Median income 22400 25600 28800 32000 34550 37100 39700 42250 Moderate income 26900 30700 34000 38400 41450 44550 47600 50700 TULARE Very low income 11050 12600 14150 15750 17000 18250 19550 20800 Area median: Lower income 17650 20150 22700 25200 27200 29250 31250 33250 $31,500 Median income 22050 25200 28350 31500 34000 36550 39050 41600 Moderate income 26450 30250 34000 37800 40800 43850 46850 49900 6 v 6932—INCOME LIMITS—ktw,,.1992 NUMBER OF PERSONS IN FAMILY COUNTY STANDARD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TUOLUMNE Very low income 12250 14000 15750 17500 18900 20300 21700 23100 Area median: Lower income 19600 22400 25200 28000 30250 32500 34700 36950 $31,500 Median income 24500 28000 31500 35000 37800 40600 43400 46200 Moderate income 29400 33600 37800 42000 45350 48700 52100 55450 VENTURA Very low income 16950 19350 21800 24200 26150 28050 30000 31950 Area median: Lower income 27000 30900 34750 38600 41700 44800 47850 50950 $48,400 Median income 33900 38700 43550 48400 52250 56150 60000 63900 Moderate income 40650 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 YCLO Very low income 13900 15900 17850 19850 21450 23050 24600 26200 Area median: Lower income 22250 25400 28600 31750 34300 36850 39400 41900 $39,700 Median income 27800 31750 35750 39700 42900 46050 49250 52400 Moderate income 33350 38100 42900 47650 51450 55250 59100 62900 YUBA Very low income 11050 12600 14150 15750 17000 18250 19550 20800 Area median: Lower income 17650 20150 22700 25200 27200 29250 31250 33250 $31,500 Median income 22050 25200 28350 31500 34000 36550 39050 41600 Moderate income 26450 30250 34000 37800 40800 43850 46850 49900 Higher income limits apply to families with more than eight persons. For all income groups, the income limits for families larger than eight persons are determined as follows: for each person in excess of eight, add eight percent of the four-person income limit base to the eight-person limit, and round the answer to the nearest $50. For example, the nine-person very low income limit for Alameda County is $32,750. ($23,400 x .08 = $1,872; $30,900 + $1,872 = $32,772; $32,772 rounded = $32,750.) HUD 517192 Authority: Section 50093, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 50079.5, 50093, and 50105, Health and Safety Code. 7 ,s r STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON,Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '"�T� Q� DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1800THIRD STREET, Room 430 G ' P.O BOX 952053cxir� SACRAMENTO, CA 94252-2053 (916)323-3176 FAX (916)323-6625 April 24, 1992 APR2 7 Mr. David Yrigoyen Senior Administrative Assistant City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Yrigoyen: Re: Compliance Status of Palm Desert's Adopted Housing Element I am writing in response to your request for verification of the current compliance status of Palm Desert's housing element. As we discussed, the City' s adopted housing element was reviewed by our Department in May of 1991 and found to be in compliance with state housing element law (Article 10. 6 of the Government Code) . The Department's latest report of the compliance status of local housing elements, The 1991 Status of Housing Elements in California: A report to the Legislature, incorrectly indicates that the City of Palm Desert's housing element is out of compliance; this error has been corrected. Our October 31, 1991 review letter of the City's latest amendment to its housing element (relating to the preservation of subsidized housing at risk of conversion) identified several revisions which are needed for the element to adequately address the requirements of Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989. As noted in our letter, an amendment to state law, pursuant to Chapter 889, Statutes of 1991, extended the deadline for completing this analysis from January 1, 1992 until July 1, 1992 . As a result, the comments in our October 31, 1991 review letter will not affect the compliance status of the City's element until that time. We apologize for any inconvenience our error may have caused the City and we look forward to reviewing your revised amendment, addressing the requirements of Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989, by July 1, 1992 . 9 v Mr. David Yrigoyen Page 2 If you have any questions concerning the above, or would like assistance in amending your element, please contact me at (916) 327-2644 . Sincerely, Gar Collord Policy Analyst RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT ADDING AN ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM DEALING WITH ASSISTED LOW INCOME HOUSING UNITS AT RISK OF BEING LOST DURING THE NEXT TEN YEARS . CASE NO. GPA 92-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 13th day of February, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and General Plan Housing Element Amendment adding an analysis and program dealing with assisted low income housing units at risk of being lost during the next ten years; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89" , in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find that the amendment complies with Section 65583 of the Government Code as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows : 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. 2 . That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and GPA 92-1 Exhibit "B" are hereby recommended for approval to city council . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California err RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: GPA 92-1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Amendment to the General Plan Housing Element adding an analysis of existing low income assisted housing at risk of being lost over the next ten years . The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "B" G. PRESERVATION OF EXISTING ASSISTED HOUSING Chapter 1451, Statutes of . 1989 amended Section 65583 of the Government Code to require analysis and preserve existing controlled low housing which is at risk of being lost over the next ten year period (2002) . Controlled low and moderate income housing in the City of Palm Desert falls into three basic categories : 1) Inclusionary programs associated with the Senior Overlay, Affordable High Density Zone and Government Code 65916 (some of which are financed with tax exempt bonds) ; 2) Privately owned, federally assisted new construction; and 3) Local agency, publicly owned and assisted units . 1) Inclusionary Projects - All projects built under City of Palm Desert inclusionary programs are subject to a recorded development agreement controlling the required low/moderate income units for a minimum period of 30 years regardless of associated bond requirements . Projects approved after 1988 are controlled for the life of the facility with a minimum 30 years . None of these agreements will expire before the year 2015 . Of the 1071 units built under these programs, the Riverside County Housing Authority has purchased 534 units and has made offers on an additional 512 units for inclusion in the Redevelopment Agency' s rent subsidy program. 2 ) Privately Owned Federally Assisted Projects - The city contains one private project financed and assisted under the 221(d) (4) program. Candlewood Apartments located at 74-000 Shadow Mountain Drive is a 30 one bedroom senior project with 26 units subsidized for low and very low income households . The HUD contract runs through 2018 . The owner has an option to withdraw from the contract every five years . The next option year is 1993 . He has no intention of terminating the contract before 2018 and has agreed to inform the city of any change in plans . If and when the city was to become aware of an intention to terminate the contract, the project would be considered for acquisition as part of the Riverside County Housing Authority/Redevelopment Agency subsidy program. The program uses tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds issued by the Riverside County Housing Authority to purchase existing projects and build new units which are subsidized by the Redevelopment Agency according to Section 8 guidelines . Based on similar projects recently purchased by the Housing Authority, the 1991 market value of Candlewood Apartments is 3 RESOLUTION NO. $1 .5 million or $50,000/unit. An average per unit subsidy of $349/month would be required to maintain the existing Section 8 low and very low income rent schedule. Total RDA housing revenues for 1991-92 are $3 . 3 million. By the year 2000 housing revenues are projected to rise to $7 . 3 million and will be capable of subsidizing 2500 very low, low and moderate income households . 3) The Riverside County Housing Authority in partnership with the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency currently owns 598 units . By 1995 at least 1359 units will be owned by the Housing Authority and subsidized by the Redevelopment Agency for very low, low and moderate households . All units subsidized by the Redevelopment Agency are required to be preserved for the life of the project area through 2027 . 4 CITY OF PALM DESERT DE] TMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELiENT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Amendment to the General Plan Housing Element adding an analysis of existing low income assisted housing at risk of being lost over the next ten years. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: GPA 92-1 V. DATE: February 13, 1992 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Resolution No. D. Planning Commission Minutes dated January 7, 1992. E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1553. F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 7, 1992. G. Related maps and/or exhibits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. approving GPA 92-1. B. DISCUSSION: Section 65583 of the Government Code was amended in 1989 to require housing elements to contain an analysis of existing assisted housing at risk of being lost in a ten year period through expiration of HUD contracts or other rental controls. Only one project, Candlewood Apartments, is at risk of loss during the ten year period. The project is covered by a HUD contract through 2018 although the owner has the option to withdraw at five year intervals. The owner has expressed an intention to maintain the contract through its entire term. If he were to withdraw, the city and redevelopment agency would consider acquiring the project to preserve the low income units. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: PD/tm RESOLUTION NO. Imse A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT ADDING AN ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM DEALING WITH ASSISTED LOW INCOME HOUSING UNITS AT RISK OF BEING LOST DURING THE NEXT TEN YEARS. CASE NO. GPA 92-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 13th day of February, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and General Plan Housing Element Amendment adding an analysis and program dealing with assisted low income housing units at risk of being lost during the next ten years; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89" , in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find that the amendment complies with Section 65583 of the Government Code as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. 2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and GPA 92-1 Exhibit "B" are hereby recommended for approval to city council. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this , day of 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: GPA 92-1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Amendment to the General Plan Housing Element adding an analysis of existing low income assisted housing at risk of being lost over the next ten years. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2 • 73-510 FRED WAKING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)340-0574 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. GPA 92-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to the City of Palm Desert General Plan Housing Element adding Section III G, Preservation of Existing Assisted Housing in compliance with Government Code Section G5583 and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it applies thereto. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, February 13, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development/planning at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council ) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk January 29, 1992 City of Palm Desert, California NOTICE OF DETERN,amTION Negative Declaration T0: (X) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) Secretary for Resources County of Riverside 1416 Ninth St., Rm 1311 4080 Lemon Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92502 FROM: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title/Common Name: GPA 89-6 General Plan Housing ElN&RKIOF THE BOARD Fed o c 0*Kmimtion Date of Pro'ect Approval: December 14, 1989 POSTED State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted): N/A JHN : 9 1900 Contact Person: Phil Drell RNpp O-2 Project Location: City of Palm Desert of ,Stag of Catttornia Project Description; Five year housing plan. This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project ( ) will, (X) will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared in connection with this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. X A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. 3. Mitigation measures (X) were, ( ) were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations ( ) was, (X) was not, adopted for this oject. Signatur Title Date Received for Filing Please return date-stamped copy in the enclosed envelope. _ NOTICE OF DETIIM%UNATION Negative Declaration TO: (X) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) Secretary for Resources County of Riverside 1416 Ninth St. , Rm 1311 4080 Lemon Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92502 FROM: CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title/Common Name: GPA 89-6 General Plan Housing Ele►&r OF THE BOARD Date of Project Approval: December 14, 1989 No ►d R Co Zll�'.�Zn960 State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted): N/A POMD Contact Person: Phil Drell JAN 191990,Z Project Location: City of Palm Desert Project Description: Five year housing plan. ntrofRivessi ,SbNofQfl#Wnb This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project ( ) will, (X) will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared in connection with this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. X A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. 3. Mitigation measures (X) were, ( ) were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations ( ) was, (X) was not, adopted for this oject. StV1toVJ4CLvtKer- Signaturr Title Date Received for Filing Please return date-stamped copy in the enclosed envelope. '�RESOIUTIOW NO. 89-137 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AME A NP, THE HOUSING ELMNT. CASE NO. GPA 89-6 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of December, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request approval of a new housing element to the general plan; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of community development has determined that the amendment will not have a negative impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of the general plan amendment: 1. The proposed housing element complies with the California State Housing Element Law, Government Adnimstraticn Code Section 65580. 2. The proposed policies and programs will enhance housing opportunities for all segments of the Palm Desert community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the comu.ssi this case. 2. That it does hereby appr of a general plan amendment: the Housing Element and the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 14th, day of December, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, KELLY, SNYDER, WILSON, AND CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: / B RD CRITES, Mayor SHEILA R. IGAN, City,, lerk PD/tm T�, 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 November 27, 1989 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. GPA 89-6 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be field before the Palm Desert City Council to consider the 1989 version of the Housing Element to the General Plan. The revised element contains a five-year program to develop very low, low and moderate income housing addressing the needs created by the city's expanding resort economy. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, December 14, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or .someone else raised at the Public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk December 1 , 1989 City of Palm Desert, California TABLE OF CONTENTS C NTINUED F. Special Needs 14 1. Elderly 14 2. Handicapped 15 3. Female Heads of Households 15 4. Large Families 15 5. Farm Worker Housing 15 6. The Homeless 16 III. THE PROGRAM 17 A. Neighborhood Quality 17 1. Public Infrastructure 17 2. Rehabilitation 18 a. Financial Assistance 18 b. Certificate of Clonfosmance Program 18 C. Public Acquisition and Rehabilitation 19 B. Residential Conservation 19 1. Zoning 19 2. Mobile Home Park Protection 19 3. Federal Housing Subsidy Programs 20 C. Reducing-Costs and Prices of New Construction 20 1. Removal of Governmmtal Constraints, Density Bonuses and Developnent Standards Reform 20 2. Rental Housing 20 3. Ownership Housing 21 a. Mortgage Assistance 21 b. Self-Help Housing 21 ii TABLE OF COWENP3 QNFIlNLIm C. Manufactured Housing 22 4. Senior Housing 22 D. Energy Conservation 22 E. Equal Housing DPportunitiA3 23 F. Homelessness 23 Five Year Program Summary 25 Residential Land Inventory and Site Criteria for High Density Low and Moderate Lxxm Housing Projects 29 Annual Review 32 Environmental Impacts 33 I. Natural Etwironmental, Impacts 33 II. Public Services 33 Review of Past Housing Element Implerentaticn 34 1984-1989 Five Year Program Review 35 I. Neighborhood Quality 35 II. Cost and Price Reduction of New Construction 35 Public Participation 37 iii err' HOUSING7 ELEMENT The goals, policies and implementation programs set forth in the Palm Desert Dousing Element to the General Plan are guided by California State Housing Objectives. 1. Provisions of decent housing for all persons regardless of age, race, sex, marital status, source of income or other arbitrary factors. 2. Provision of adequate housing by location, type, price and tenure. 3. Development of a balanced residential envirorment including access to jobs, community facilities and services. This element will exadnine the nature of the existing housing stock in relation to the character and needs of Palm Desert residents and how future development can best meet future needs. I. BACKGROUND A. PCPULATICN AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS: The California Department of Finance estimated (see appendix for complete data) Palm Desert's 1989 permrm-ent population to be 19,454 in 8546 households. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projects growth to 10,301 households by 1994. The two most populous age categories identified in the 1980 census were 65+ (2176-18%) and 25-34 (1830-16%). This compares with 1185- 10% for the 45-54 age category. The dominance of young adults and seniors is responsible for a large number of small, often childless, households. One and two person households accounted for 72% of the Palm Desert total. Sixty-five percent (65%) of married couples had no children. Only 824 households (7%) had acre than three members. These young and old households which dominate Palm Desert demographics generally repot age groups with the lowest incomes. The 45-54 age group, usually associated with the highest income producing period, comprised the smallest segment of the Palm Desert acnmt lity. B. Iles AND E PLOZME T: In 1980, Palm Desert median household irxxve for a family of four was $19,647. The 1989 Riverside/San Bernardino area median was $32,200. Total Palm Desert resident employment in 1980 was 5681 with sales and service accounting for 68%. There were 179 families living below the poverty line of which 32 were female heads of households with children. There were no households with heads over 65 below the poverty line. Total employment in the city in 1990 is projected to reach 13,000. HOUSING ELEM Nr Over the next five years Palm Desert will Undoubtedly` experience a substantial increase in low income housing needs resulting from the rapidly growing retail, service and resort hotel industries. Up to 1,200 new hotel rooms and 400,000 square feet of commercial space are projected to attract 2,100 new employees to the area of which 1,500 are likely to be paid low income wages. Local restaurants, retailers, and hotels are already experiencing increasing difficulty in attracting and keeping reliable service employees. The lack of affordable worker housing has became a practical problem for employers and ultimately a real constraint on the growth and quality of the city's resort base industries. Low inoome employees will not relocate unless affordable housing is available. Reliance on other camnmities to provide this housing is contrary to the state housing laws fair share concept and will ultimately result in clogged highways as workers flood in and out of the city. The private market has shown itself quite capable of meeting moderate and upper income rental housing needs. The production of lower and very low income housing will require significant assistance and involvement of the city, Redevelopment Agency, Riverside County Housing Authority, and the resort industries creating the demand. C. HQUSIlG CS: 1. HOUSM NIX: The following table ocmpares the 1984 and 1989 Palm Desert housing mix: Total Units Single Family 2-4 Units 5 or Move Mobile Homes 1984 12,304 9,150 (70) 1,156 (9%) 1,202 (104) 796 (6%) 1989 16,6O9, 11,853 (71%) 1,586 (10$) 2,345 (14%) 841 (5$) In 1984, 19$ of the housing stock was comprised of multi-family rental units. Only 28 units had been constnx ted during the preceding four years. As a result of the city's Affordable High Density P1acY-ed Residential Program (AHDPR), 1573 multi-family rental units were constructed between 1984-1988; 37% of all units. An additional 800 units have been approved. Of the 1573 constructed, 180 are rent controlled for lower income households; 21 are rent controlled for moderate income 1 2 HOUSING ELEM Nr households. Eighty percent (80%) of the market unit rents fall within the moderate income standards. 2. HOUSING CONDITIMS: Most of the housing in the City of Palm Desert has been constructed since 1960. Generally homes in even the oldest neighborhoods are less than 25 years old. While the general level of residential maintenance is quite good, isolated cases of deterioration have occurred. Surveys indicate up to 20 single family homes and 100 multi-family units need significant rehabilitation. In some cases the city has had to threaten condemnation to farce landlords to maintain minimum health and safety standards. As will be described later in this element, the city's redevelopment agency in cooperation with the Riverside County Housing Authority is implementing programs to reverse the deterioration process and preserve quality housing. 3. OVIIRCROWDDG: Overcrowding is defined as dwellings with greater than 1.01 persons per roan. A roam is defined by the Uniform Building Code as a place usable for sleeping, eating or cooking. This excludes bathrooms, hallways and closets. For example a three bedroom, two bath home with a kitchen and combination dinlrV roan/living roan would have five roc s. If it was inhabited by two adults and four children, a 1.2 ratio would qualify as overcrowded. Projections for 1989 based upon the 1980 census identify 136 households (2%) with person per roan ratios between 1.01 and 1.5, and 56 household ( .8%) with ratios greater than 1.51. Overcrowding is caused by a caabinaticn of shortages and high cost of appr nprl housing. Families are forced to choose between small units or sharing a larger unit with another family. while it may be desirable for each child to have his/her own bedroom, sane degree of overcrowding is inevitable. Young families often take several years before they can achieve the one person per roan ratio. Cases of severe overorawk1ing can lead to accelerated housing deter'ioraticn and corresponding negative impacts for surrounding properties and the neighborhood. There is sane evidence that the incidence of overcrowding has increased since 1980 as a result of increased 3 HOUSDG ELE ENr lower income employment associated with the Marriott hotel, the Town Center mall and general expansion of the city's resort economic base. Although the city's housing programs have produced a substantial number of lower and moderate income one and two bedroom units, there has not been significant construction of lower income family housing and no units affordable by very low income households. Programs in the element will attempt to expand housing opportunities for these two groups to find uncrowded quality housing within safe, clean nei9ft— J, - I . 4. VACANCY �"W: The Federal Home Loan Bank Branch has estimated the 1988 combined vacancy rate to be 11.6%; 8.72% above the "ideal" 2.88% calculated by SCAG. Vacancy rates for units within the lower irxxm range are less than 1%. 4 HOUSING ELEMENP II. DING IDS The mandated objective of the Palm Desert Housing Element is the provision of quality, well designed housing within safe and attractive neighborhoods affordable by all segments of the community. The task of the implementation priogram' shall be to resolve the conflict and trade-offs between affordability, design and density. When the city inoosporated there was great concern, for what appeared to be unacceptably low quality development standards being enforced by the county. Zoning and design review standards were developed to insure quality neighborhoods. These standards succeeded in encouraging an abundant supply of housing, very high quality development, but also resulted in housing increasingly out of the reach of very low, low and moderate income households. This situation was further exaggerated by the high speculative housing market of the late 1970's. Through implementation of programs contained in the 1984 Housing Element these problems have began to be addressed. A. THE REGIONAL HOUSINIG NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHM) - THE FAIR SHAM The state housing law assigns the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) the responsibility for determining Palm Desert's existing housing needs and the city's fair share of the regional future needs. This analysis is contained in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (FOM). Existing need is a simple projection form the 1980 census of households paying more than 3O% of their income on housing based upon the California Department of Finance population estimates for 1988 and adjusted to 1989. The future needs section is based upon SCAG's own Growth Management Plan. The state housing law "fair share concept" also requires the equalization of a jurisdiction's affordable housing percentage towards the regional average. The fixture needs section, therefore, includes an "impaction adjustment" which brings a jurisdiction pernentage of future lower and very low income units 25% closer to the regional average. Palm Desert's current share is 32% compared to 40% for the region; a difference of 8%. The composition of the city's future affordable housing needs was therefore inxx^eased 2% to 30. The emisting needs figures do not assume any construction of low income units during the 1980-88 period and can be reduced if affordable projects were built. Through One Quail Place and San Tropez Villas apartment project development agreement's, 180 lower income units were constructed 5 VOW HOUSING ELEMENT between 1984-1987. These units will be rent controlled through the year 2015 and 2017 respectively. The adjusted RHNA is included below. Current need is 569 lower income (80$ of medium household incomes) and 481 very low income (50$ of medium household incomes) for a total of 1050. Future need has been set at 367 lower and 303 very low income. The rnmbers are not intended to be absolutely accurate calculations creating a "quota" the city is expected to achieve. It is merely an estimate of the general magnitude of need and serves as a goal for the design of local housing programs. Cities will be evaluated on how effectively available resources are employed towards the attainment of the MM targets. REGIONAL HDUSDG NEEDS ASSESSMENT I. ADJUSTED EXISFIIG rE�� 1989 LMRs OVERPAYIM FnR SHELTER HOUSEHOLDS, Ln*b TOTAL VERY LOW LOW TM-OWNER 8,546 2,518 1,144 481 569 380 LIRK OVERPAYNENP By TENURE AND IMAM VL-OWNER. LOW-OWNER TOT-RENTER VL-RENTER LOW-RENTER 147 233 669 335 334 II. PLMME NEED - 1 LOWER DC HIGHM INC TOTAL VL IlC LOW IIC NOD INC HIGH INC (WL & L) ($ir1',b & UP) 1,964 30:3 367 340 954 34.A 65.9% *Adjusted to reflect 1989 "GAP" year and reduced for 180 lower inocme units oonstzvcted in arrm ction with One Quail Place and San Tropez Villas Affordable High Resit projects. B. OWNERSHIP HOUSIIM: The HUD income guidelines call for a maximm low income ownership unit selling price of $65,000 based upon the monthly payment on a 6 HOUSIKG ELEMERr 10.75% 30 year loan. The moderate income house price limit would approach $90,000. No new projects have offered homes in this price range for at least five years. The median price of existing Palm Desert housing in 1988 was $130,267. A total of 16 single family hones and 21 condominiums are currently on the market (March, 1989) below the $90,000 moderate income range. No new units have been constructed within the moderate range since 1984. In 1984, Mountain View Falls offered 100 two and three bedroom units between $68,000 and $72,000 as part of a 25% density bonus program. W1hile some opportunities remain in the resale market, the lack of new moderate income units will ultimately result in a diminishing availability as demand grows. The growth of low and moderate income employment with lead to an increasing need for family housing which is best served by single family units. During the 1984-89 period, the Palm Desert housing program implementation stressed multifamily construction which had lagged during the previous period. Through 1994, affordable family housing will receive greater emphasis. C. RENTAL FOLISIlG: When the city I &xzVorated in 1973, one of the first tasks was to improve the overall quality of development through the raising of standards enforced by the county. Inadvertently, those new zoning standards combined with other more general economic factors to virtually halt multifamily rental cant ruction. In 1984, 19% of the housing stock was comprised of multifamily units. Only 28 units had been built between 1980-84. The implementation of the AHDPR zone contained in the 1984 Housing Element, lower interest rates and the use of tax-exempt bond financing led to the construction of 1573 rental units between 1984- 1989 and the approval of 800 more. During the period, 37% of all units os-nstructed were multifamily rentals. The new units include 180 lower income and 21 rent controlled moderate income units. The majority of the market rate units fall into the moderate range. Cantroiled lower income unit rents for new one and two bedrooms range from $450 to $550/month. Market rents raz from $500 to $800/month. Current apartment vacancy rates average near five percent. This compares to 1.8% in 1984. Sane of the large complexes experience as high as a 20% vacancy rate during the off-season summer months. Vacancy rates for lower income units are virtually zero. 7 HOLJSIK7 ELEME sir New apartment coms':i ctian over the last five years has satisfied the demands for moderate income units and has begun to address lower income needs. The AHD program is limited in that lower income housing production requires strong demand for the 80$ market units. If demand for moderate market units levels, then new projects will not be built. Lower income production ceases unless additional financial subsidies are included. D. ASCt�BQiEDCD �LITY: W1hile design standards can produce very attractive new developments, they cannot always succeed Jai substantially improving older developed neighborhoods. Declining neighborhoods tend to discourage the investment of private capi,:.al thus reinforcing their decline. Although the substandard condition of certain areas results in depressed property values and lowered housing values, allowing continued decline is an e solution to the affordable housing problem. Slums result in a dangerous, ugly but do not guarantee affordable housing. In a tight housing market landlords will continue to be able to receive high rents even as quality declines. The concept of redevelopment was specifically designed to break the cycle leading to the development of slums. Carefully planned public investment in the form of improved public facilities, and low interest rehabilitation loans will encourage private investment reversing the decline cycle. To achieve the goal of quality neighborhoods and affordable housing requires the pramoticn of innovative designs which red the costs of construction while still providing a desirable residential envirormeant. Because of high land poets, it will be necessary to provide some form of direct financial assistance to developers or households to achieve all our housing goals. E. OMETR ►I M: 1. a a. Land Use: During the city's first years, a shortage of vacant high density zoned property discouraged affordable multifamily development. This situation was corrected with the 8 HO SDG ELEMENT creation of the AHDPR zone which established procedures and criteria for re-zoning up to 25 dwelling units/acre for projects containing 20% lower income units. Through 1988, 42 acres have been rezoned and 896 units oonstructed under the AHD program. In 1986 the Senior Overlay was created to provide similar incentives specifically for affordable senior housing. Upzcning during the past four years of an additional. 85 acres elsewhere throughout the city from medium to high density will permit an additional 1500 multifamily units. These rezoning programs have effectively eliminated land use restrictions as a constraint to the production of affordable housing. Manufactured Housing Opportunities Within the city there are currently four mobile home parks containing 703 spaces and a 120 acre mobile hone subdivision containing 360 lots. The parks are at 100$ capacity and the subdivision is 90% developed. An 86 acre • 241 lot park is currently tinder construction. All mobile home facilities are specifically zoned for that use. In addition, the city is complying with Chapters 1571 and 1572 Statutes of 1988 permitting approved manufac ured housing on permanent facilities in single family areas. Perking The zoning ordinance requires two parking spaces per apartment unit. Due to the desert's extreme heat, one space must be covered. Single family hones require a two car garage or carport. These requ stwax are based upon studies of automobile ownership and needs for guest parking. Reductions have been granted for affordable projects when _ site geometry made full attainment impractical. The Senior Housing Overlay reduces parking to one space per unit for projects with an age 62 minimum and 1.25 for an age 55 minimum. Senior Second Units In 1983 the city adopted a Second Unit Senior Housing ordinance which permits one additional rental unit to be added to single family homes. It requires the unit to be incorporated into the main structures and requires the 9 HOMnG ELEMENT total development to resemble one side family home. Consistent with our rental apartment standard an additional two parking spaces are required. Occupants must be 60 Years of age or older. Through 1989 there has been only three applications for the program. Al have been approved. While the second unit program has not made a significant contribution, its lack of success has not constituted a major constraint on the production of rental senior housing. The Senior Overlay ordinance and the availability of vacant land has provided ample opportunities for ca7strvction of senior housing. b. Building Codes -1 Development Standards: A goal of this Alat ent is the development and maintenance of high quality housing and residential neighborhoods. While Palm Desert's standards are high, developers are given a great deal of flexibility in cbmosing the means by which the standards can be achieved. Analysis of project alternatives describing lowered levels of design quality and amenities show only minimal decreases in monthly housing costs at the expense of significant reductions in overall quality. The city uses the Uniform Building Code with some modifications relating to ca*ustive roof materials and alunirnm electrical wiring. It is estimated that these higher standards increase the initial cost of a typical home by $300. The increased level of safety and the reduction of long term maintenance costs offset the initial extra costs. Applicants have the opportunity to provide engineered cost saving alternatives which meet code specifications. Modular and prefabricated building systems have been used extensively. Quality construction, while - initially appearing more expensive, results in lower long- term housing costs. c. Development Fees: City of Palm Desert fees are designed to cover actual coats of processing applications and the extension of urban services to the proposed development. A typical 1500 square foot home will include $8,693 in fees of which only $1,100 is for design and building plan review. The 10 HOUSING ELEM Nr •rr� remainder is for public improvements to serve the development. Utility hook-up and school fees account for more than 50% and are not within the control of the city. Development fees within Palm Desert are comparable to those charges within other jurisdictions throughout the Coachella Valley. Although they constitute a substantial constraint, accounting for ten percent of a modest home's cost, fees are based upon real public costs which must be paid by someone. The city's commitment to affordable housing recognizes that financial assistance will be required to reduce the overall cost of housing which includes fees. COACHELLA► VALLEY SURVEY OF DEVIIAPMENT FEES 1500 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Palm Springs $9,126 Indian Wells 8,900 Palm Desert 8,693 Riverside County 8,150 Desert Hat Springs 7,935 La Quinta 7,630 Rancho Mirage 7,565 Cathedral City 7,350 Indio 7,338 Coachella 7,040 d. Permit Processing Peres: The city employs a streamlined processing procedure which consolidates hearings and reviews and significantly reduces administrative delays. A single family home receives design review by the department of oommnity development on the day it is submitted and can be immediately transmitted to the deQartment of building and safety for plan check. Depending upon work load, permits are issued within four weeks of submittal. Major developments as large as 1,000 units can complete the public hearing review within three months and can often begin construction within six months of initial application. 11 FOUSIM3 ELEMENr 2. NCN--0OV'EomMAL comTRAINPS: a. Land Costs: Residential land costs vary by location, parcel size, and availability of urban services. Individual single family lots range from $20,000 to $250,000. Large unimproved parcels range from $50,000 per acre north of Country Club Drive to over $200,000 per acre south of Highway ill. Per unit multifamily land costs range from 5,000 to $12,000. These price factors are fairly uniform between Palm Springs and Indian Wells. Prices are somewhat lower toward Indio. The impacts of rising land costs can be mitigated to a degree by :aising densities. While land may account for 30% of the cost of a single family home at four dwelling units per acre, it can be reduced to 10%- in a 20 unit per acre project. I sing densities can itself increase speculative pressure based upon expectations of more profitable high density development. It is therefore important to provide a mechanism to prevent this speculation from inflating higher density parcels so as to preclude affordable housing. By tying high density zoning to low income affordable performance standards, the AHDPR program and the senior overlay limits this type of speculation. b. Construction Costs: Palm Desert's construction costs average $67 per square foot, including land, all phases of ccr t ucticn, fees and financing, depending upon project size, density, and quality. These oasts are fairly uniform throughout the Coachella Valley. It is anticipated that cccistruction costs will continue to rise with inflation. The table below analyzes and compares the various components of single family and apartment oasts. 12 HOUSING ELEMERr TYPICAL COSTS OF OCNSTRUCTICN 1500 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY 900 SQ. FT. APAR7mwr Land $ 25,000 $10,000 Architecture/Engineering 4,260 2,556 Onsite Improvements 7,200 4,320 Offsite Improvements 1,440 864 Unit Construction 37,830 22,698 Government & Utility Fees 9,000 5,400 Financing 16,245 9,747 Total $100,975 $55,588 C. Financing: The most profound constraint on both the supply and affordability of housing is the cost of mortgage financing. As interest rates rise above the 13% level, even the most modest homes become unaffordable for moderate income households and builders cease construction. Monthly payments including property taxes and insurance on a $90,000 moderate income hams with a $80,000 30 year mortgage at 10% is $802. This rises to $1016 at 13 1/2%. Based upon the 30% of income criteria used by lenders and HUD for loan qualification, a four parson household earning $37,080 (the moderate income limit) could afford a house paymecnt (tax and insurance) of $926.00. The moderate inane household easily qualifying at 10% begins to have problems at 12% and is likely to be rejected at 13 1/2%. A survey of local financial institutions indicate that loans are available at rates competitive with other areas in Southern California. Loans for the purchase or rehabilitation of rental units had been restricted by the _ - fact that many older projects built under county standards are legal non-conforming under current city zoning. Banks were hesitant to lend on a ten unit property if only six units could be replaced in case of a fire. In response to this problem the Certificate of Conformance program was created (see program section) and this constraint removed. Local governments have little ability to significantly remove this constraint since it involves national monetary policy. The use of mortgage interest subsidies and tax exempt band financing can lower costs enough to allow marginal here buyers to qualify or enable rental projects 13 HOUSING ELEM Nr to offer lower it ,,Te rents. Since 1984 over $40,000,000 in tax exempt bonds have been sold to finance multifamily caLstivcticn in Palm Desert. Over the last three years interest rates have hovered around the 10$ level, greatly facilitating financing of affordable units. 3. Constraint Summary: Thile each individual constraint factor does not preclude the construction of affordable housing, their combination puts the bare cost of both ownership and rental housing significantly above low income levels. The city's housing program will be addressing these constraints through density bonuses, inclusionary zoning, low interest tax exempt band financing, public land purchase, self-help housing and direct rental subsidies. F. SPECEAL ME=: 1. ELDERLY: The desert area has traditionally been a retirame , destination. In 1989, 20$ of Palm Desert residents (3,890) and 30% of households (2,564) had members over age 65. In 1980 there were no families headed by individuals over 65 living below the poverty line. Sixty individual seniors were living below the poverty line. In 1989 the incidence of elderly poverty may have risen to 80 individuals. By 1995 an additional 2,000 individuals will have reached retirement age. As part of the general affordable housing problem, all but the most affluent elderly have been frozen out of the Palm Desert housing market. The type of housing available is not ideally suited to many segments of the elderly population. Many elderly households no longer need or desire the two or three bedroom tome designed for a growing family. Low density resort condominiums provide more suitable but are generally the most expensive housing in the city. These projects tend to average only 20% pernenent occupancy leading to social isolation of the scattered less active retired elderly. Different farms of elderly housing have been developed which enYrroe the cep;- Ins ty for social interaction and bridge the gap between the isolation of traditional housing arrangements and the rest hones. These projects provide small apartments, co ucis dining facilities, organized social functions and limited medical care. As will be discussed in the program section, the 14 HOUSIM3 ELEMENT city has created special incentives for the producticn of a wide variety of senior housing. 2. HANDICAPPED: The 1980 census identified 576 individuals with varying degrees of disability. In 1989 this figure is projected to have risen to 770. Ninety-five percent of existing rentals were built prior to any requirements for handicapped facilities. Implementation of Title 24 C.A.C., Secticn 2-1213 a,b insures that all rental projects provide units specifically designed for handicapped residents. 3. FINALE DADS OF HOUSEHOLDS: The incidence of female headed household with children identified by the 1980 census was 156 or 3.5% of which 32 were below the poverty line. In 1989 female headed households are estimated to have risen to 208 with 43 below the poverty line. The housing needs of this group will be addressed by programs directed to the more general law/moderate inane category. 4. LARGE FAMILIES: Only 111 households in 1980 were larger than six members. This statistic, in addition to the low incidence of severe .8% would indicate that the present unit sizes are adequate. As the existing younger populaticn matures there will be a growing need for family housing. Current 1989 estimate for larger families is 148. 5. FARM WOEUW H3USIlG: In 1980, 277 Palm Dessert residents were employed in agriculture. There are presently no large scale agricultural operations within the city. Agricultural activity has steadily declined in the upper Coachella Valley as the date industry has moved toward the 'thermal area. Other than fcr farm management occupaticns, agricultural employment will show a corresponding decline, therefore, no special farm worker housing programs are proposed. 15 HOUSING ELEM NP 6. THE HmsBSs: The City of Palm Desert has yet to experience a significant homeless problem. Sheriff's reports of homeless to be less then 5 individual at any One time. Most are moving through the area or are living in campsites up in the canyons. The intense long, dry summer heat with daytime temperatures frequently over 112 degrees tends to discourage year-rotund outdoor living. The extremely low unemployment rate and wide availability of entry level ,jobs provides Palm Desert unique opportunities to address the eocnomic homeless problems. 16 HixI IWY ELEMENT III. THE PROGRAM The previous discussion focused on the obstacles to the attainment of the goal of quality and affordable housing. The efforts to solve these problems must be evaluated according to how well the city utilizes all the available fiscal and planning tools. The following discussion will analyze these tools evaluating their effectiveness and costs. The solutions will fall into two basic categories: 1) Direct financial aide programs to reduce or defer costs of housing or neighborhood quality improvements; 2) Continued regulatory reforms providing incentives for the production of housing and the maintenance of neighborhood quality. Mile regulatory reforms do not involve the expenditure of public funds, direct assistance will require significant economic resources. Fortunately, the economic growth which is partially responsible for the increased housing demands will also generate significant new revenues which can finance new housing programs. The following program descriptions shall not be construed to limit or preclude the proposal, approval or implementation of alternative strategies designed to achieve the goals identified in this housing element. A. NEI �CD �II.ITY: 1. PUBLIC INFRASTRUIC7IURE: Within new projects, our review process insures development quality. These standards are less effective in improving the quality of existing neighborhoods. Code enforoement programs can abate the worse cases of neglect but too heavy a reliance on a punitive strategy is mare likely to create community unity ill will. Positive financial incentives provide mare effective tools for significant im%+ovement. The first phase of the city's neighborhood program was the amletion of all remaining residential public improvements. The city's redevelopment agency is currently completing constrwtion of all remaining residential road, curb and gutter, and sewer improvements through Palma Village Assessment District No. 3. Redevelopment agency and Coachella Water District contribution of $8,780,816 accouit for 59 percent of the project Costs. The completion of these improvements will begin to change property owners' and residents' perceptions concerning the direction of their neighborhood and create a new positive image receptive to new investment. 17 HOWIIG ELE MERr 2. REHABILITATIC N: a. Financial Assistance: With the completion of phase I, phase II of the program will be initiated with the creation of a $250,000 loan fund from the redevelopment agency 20 percent housing funds for the purpose of single and multifamily rehabilitation. Loans up to $15,000 per unit will be provided to eligible low and moderate income households and multifamily property owners who agree to participate in a lower income controlled rental program. The loans could be deferred until sale or a repayment schedule established based upon a household's economic resources. The loan amount would be determined by the magnitude of work required to achieve a reasonable standard. For sane units it may mean only yard clean up and exterior paint. Others may require major renovation or xxis n=tion. While the loan program will not reach all households, the will create a positive neighbortxood feeding encouraging property owners to embark on their own privately funded rehabilitation efforts. b. Certificate of Conformance Program: When the city incorporated in 1973 and adopted a new zoning map, up to 500 multifamily units became legal non-x-n-- mtung due to densities in exams of the new designations. Many of these older units have experienced gradual deterioration due to deferred maintergince. While legal nonconforming status permits the oontintied existence of the units, upon substantial ---1 ucticn only the coax ently zoned density could be replaced. When lenders became aware of this situation, they often refuge approval of loans for purchase or rehabilitation. Ultimately this withdrawal of financing would lead to accelerated deteric aticn of these units. To address this problem the Certificate of Conformance program was created. The program provides a process by which nonconforming multifamily properties can achieve conforming status and gain a vested right in the existing unit density. The property owner is required to propose and implement a rehabilitation program which brings the project up to current aesthetic design standards and corrects all health and safety violation. The owner must agree to maintain the project consistent with its oonditicns at the completion of the rehabilitation. Through 1989, 113 ,nits in seven projects have participated in the program. t is 18 1 NNW HOUSING ELEMERr anticipated that through 1994 an additional 100 units will be rehabilitated as a result of the certificate of conformance incentives. C. Public Acquisition and Rehabilitation: For certain cases, the magnitude of deterioration exceeds the financial ability or desire of an owner to correct. In these cases the city in cooperation with the Riverside County Housing Authority may step in, purchase, rehabilitate and manage the property for lower income households. This strategy was employed for the 60 unit Town Center Apartments which was purchased by the Rousing Authority and is undergoing general rehabilitation, new off-street parking development and landscaping. B. RESIDENrIAL __ -ER7ATICN: 1. ZONING: Historically, the City of Palm Desert has not experienced any significant oonversion of residential to non-residential uses. The General Plan Land Use Element and Zcni.ng Ordinance give highest priority to the protection of existing residential neighborhoods. The neighborhood quality program will be designed to provide property owners with incentives for the ccrLservation of the low/moderate income housing stock. 2. MBILE HOME PARK PRO ION: There are currently four mobile hone parks within the city tataling 697 spaces. All four parks are at 100% occupancy. Due to the shortage of new spaces in the vicinity and the nearly prohibitive cost of m7ving, unit owners had become captive renters with very little ability to respond to space rent increases. The city had instituted a rent control system in an attanpt to preserve the affordable nature of the mobile hone stock, but found itself in the middle of a continuous battle between park owners and residents. There was also some fears of property owners abandoning the mobile hone use altogether as raw land prices have escalated. 19 HOUSDG ELEMENT The city in conjunction with the Riverside County Housing Authority has instituted a program of public acquisition and management of the parks to both Preserve their affordable rents and guarantee continued existence. A joint project ect between the RDA and the Riverside County Housing Authority will result in the public acquisition of the Indian Springs Mobile Hama Park and the preservation of g0 low and moderate income units. 3. FEDERAL HOUSIM SUBSIDY PROGRAMS: Trough Section 8, 58 units are being conserved at low income rents. C. REQC3M OD6'T5 AND PRICES OF NET OOrLS'1�,TIQd: 1. REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT CONSTRAINTS, DENSITY BONUSES AND DEVELCMENT STANDARDS RE!�: Over the last four years, the City of Palm Desert has made extensive use of inclusionasy zoning density bonuses and tax- exempt bond financing to dramatically it =pease the availability of low and moderate income housing. The Affordable High Density Program (AHD) which provides densities up to 25 units per acre with 20$ lower income controlled units has produced 180 lower income units and 700 moderate income units with an equivalent annual rent subsidy of $324,000. 2. RENAL HOUSING: While the AHD program and tax exempt bond financing will cWtinue to be made available, its ability to produce lower income units is dependent upon the strong demand for the 80% moderate income units. Since moderate demand appears to be leveling off while demand for lower income units grow, density b=wes and low interest financing will not produos adequate supplies of low irxxm units and never were capable of very low income housing production. To address this growing imbalanoe, the city and Riverside County Housing Authority has initiated a new program of publicly financed and managed very low, low and moderate inn=ms housing 20 VOW HOUSIM ELEMENT to meet the specific needs of the city's resort industry and service employees. The city has leveraged $1,460,000 of redevelopment funds to sell $67,000,000 in housing bcrxis to finance various projects of which the largest will be the construction of 1,100 units containing 366 very low income units, 366 lower income units and 366 moderate income units. The rental schedule will require an additional annual $2.48 million rent subsidy which would be generated from Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 and commercial developer fees. Rental priority shall be given to current Palm Desert employees. The program may take the form of one or several different projects at different sites and will be constructed over a five year period. The project will contain a park and be located close to resort employment and commercial facilities. 3. OWNERSHIP HOUSING: a. Mortgage Assistance: To assist first time moderate income hone buyers the city with the Riverside County has initiated a low interest morbgage program. The program will be implemented with a 56 unit oandaninium project presently under construction within the city. The program will provide loans up to 3% below market rates, substantially expanding the opportmunities for moderate income households to enter the ownership market. b. Self-Help Housing: To further expand the opportunities for low and moderate income households to enter the ownership housing market, a pilot self-help program will be initiated by the city with the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition (CVHC) in cooperation with the California State Self-Help Housing Program (CSHHP) California Department of Housing and C=Lviity Development, California Housing Finance Agency's and private lenders. In self-help housing families are trained to construct t a substantial portion of their own hams. Through the sweat equity, housing cost can be reduced 20%. In addition CMW provides subsidies up to $15,000 per house in the form of deferred loans which in time became grants. The city's Redevelopment Agency will be providing 12 lots at below 21 HaBBG ELEMENT market cost and a total equivalent subsidy of $25,000/unit. If it is successful, the program will be expanded. C. Manufactured Housing: The city is promoting the construction of lower cost manufactured housing through the approval of planned manufactured housing parks and compliance with state laws Prohibiting disc -1minatien against the placement of off- site manufachm-ed housing on single family lots. 4. SENIOR HOUSUG: The Senior Overlay Program provides density bonuses up to an equivalent of 22 units per acre with inclusienary provisions for very low, low and moderate income units. Developers also have been given an Option through development agreements to pay a fee in-lieu of providing cn-site affordable housing. Through January, 1989, the program has resulted in the construction of 257 congregate care units and 13 senior apartments. An additional 243 congregate care and 176 senior apartments have been approved. These projects will produce 8 very low income and 15 lower income units. In addition, an in- lieu fee fund of $703,900 will be generated. The city has used $535,000 of this fund to purchase a three-acre site adjacent to the Joslyn Cone Senior Center and has executed an agreement with a developer to construct 60 lower and very low income senior apartments to be oempleted by 1990. D. ENERGY • As a result of its hat desert climate, the primary residential energy conservation effort involves the reduction of solar heat gain daring the six to eight air Oociditicned months. The implementation of Title 24 energy requirements of the building code has significantly reduced energy oasanipticn in new structures. In older neighborhoods, energy saving Yte will be promoted through the neighborfiood quality rehabilitation program. With the increasing dominance of projects with large common facilities, the eomxzdcs of solar water heating and Oo-generation technologies are enhanced. The city will promote and encourage the use of appropriate energy saving technologies through the archit ectuz al review process. 22 �✓ Noe HOiISI G ELIIMENP E. EOLIls►L FOLISIlNG : The city promotes equal housing opportunities by referring inquiries concen-, ng illegal discrimination to the following local, state, and federal fair housir?g agencies: Desert Association for Residential Equality P.O. Box 2166 Palm Springs, CA 92263 (619) 322-1559 State Department of Fair Employment and Housing 322 West let Street, Roam 2126 Lce Angeles, CA 90027 (213) 408-7464 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2500 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90027 (213) 688-5951 All projects receiving a density bonus enter into a development which prohibits illegal discriminatirn. Violation of this provision will be referred to the Riverside County District Attorney for prnsecuticn. F. HOMEIESSNESS. As was discussed in the needs sectiaz, the City of Palm Desert does not experience a significant homeless problem. No more than five individuals have been observed at any one time. Typically these individuals are traveling through the area or have same sort of semi- permanent campsite in the canyons. There does not appear to be a need for a shelter in Palm Desert at this- time. Shelter facilities are provided in Coachella Valley timough the Catholic Charities/Riverside County Housing Authority. Nightingale Manor in Palm Springs includes 15 units and can acconniodate both families and individuals. Half the rooms have kitchens and all have facilities for food storage. Currently the shelter is not providing services to any former Palm Desert residents. An analysis conducted by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments determined that Palm Desert's fair share of the shelter's costs to be $10,000. 23 � HOLJSIM3 ELEME r Until such time as a shelter is needed in Palm Desert, the city shall make an annual contribution of $10,000• to the Nightingale Maur. A shelter location has been designated in the city's northern area and could be developed in connection with the Employee Housing program. The ultimate solution to homelessness is the re-establishment of irriividual and family economic independence. A program will be developed in association with the city's employee housing Irg'am/Camty wing Authority and County Department of Social Services to provide employment and permanent standard housing. 24 M Now HOUSING ELEMENT FIVE YEAR PROGRAM SU j M I. NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION AND RVATION. A. PROGRAM: Completion of all remaining Scope: 2,373 units Cost: $15,000,000 Source: Redevelopment Agency, Tax Assessments Agency: Redevelopment Agency/Public Works Cmpleticn Date: July, 1989 B. PRO( . jj�gi rlari al Rahahi 7 i tatial Loons. Scope: 200 units Estimated Cost: $250,000 Source: Redevelopment Agency Agency: Redevelopment Agency/Building and Safety C. PROMM. Qww ficate of Cbnfiomneno 1. Scope: Estimate 100 units Estimated Cost: None Agency: CamxuLity Develcpment/Building and Safety D. PROGRAM. Tbwn Cenbez Apartments. Scope: Rehabilitation of 64 low income apartments Estimated Oust: $2,500,000 Agency: Redevelopment Agency, Department of Building and Safety, Riverside Cot arty Housing Authority 25 * HOUSING ELEMENT E. PROGRAM. Nbbile Homo Park Conservatim. Scope: 191 units Cost: $6,400,000 Agency: Redevelopment, Riverside County Housing Authority II. RE UC D COT AND PRICE Fat ITT CQSTR�TIQd. A. PROGRAM. Affordable High Density Rental EmplaYes Housing. Scope: 366 very low income units 366 lower income units 366 moderate income units 1,100 Total Units Cost: Construction $60,000,000 A meal Subsidy $2,480,000 Source: Redevelopment Agency, Riverside County Housing Authority, Commercial Development Housing Mitigation Fees Agency: Connzdty Services, Redevelopment Agency, Public Works, Building and Safety, Riverside County Housing Authority H. PROGRAM. Owmahip MX'bgage aW -tahoe. Scope: 56 units eligible for low interest loans Coet: - $5,000,000 Source: Riverside County Agency: Riverside County C. PROGRAM. Self-*Wp Housing. Scope: 12 assisted single family homes Cost: $320,000 26 HOUSING7 ELEMENT Source: Redevelopment Agency, California Self-Help Housing Program, HCD, California Housing Finance Agency Agency: Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, Redevelopment Agency, Department of Building and Safety D. PROGRAM. meinifact ured Housing. Scope: 241 units within new parks and implementation of state laws against discrimination within single family zones Cost: Node Agency: Community Development E. PROGRAM. Senior Housing Overlay. Scope: 600 congregate care units 50 very low income apartments 100 lower income apartments 150 moderate income apartments Cost: $1,000,000 Source: Private developer inclusionary requireiments and in-lieu fees Agency: Community Development F. PROGRAM. senior Seoond Lhit. Soope_. _ Zoning standards permitting second units on single family lots rentable to residents over 60 years of age Cost: None Agency: Conmaiity Development G. PROGRAM. Ho=3 eseness. Scope: Financial assistance to valley shelter 27 IOUSIlG QEMENr Cost: $10,000 Source: Redevelopment Agency Agency: Riverside County Housing Authority/Catholic Charities H. PROGRAM. Federal Section 8 Rax Subsidies. Scope: 58 assisted households Cost: unknown Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developnent III. OVERALL OBJECTIVES FOR )GU MM ILIA:$ OF IKXMT UNM CIZ6TRI�rID, AND 10CHGERVED., A. CXmIlc 71 BE 1: 1. City programs 2,309 units 2. Other market construction 1,500 units 3,809 units H. 364 units C. CONSERVED: 313 units 28 I%W Iwo` HCASIIG FLEMENr I�ID IAL LAD INVEMO8 AID snu CRITERIA Fat HIGH DFNSITY IaAQt AND bWERATE IlNOOME H WDG PEKX= S The City of Palm Desert contains app-nacimately 3700 vacant residentially zoned acres. Of this area, 3200 acres are presently zoned at densities of five dwelling units per acre or less, with the balance ranging from 10 to 17 d.u./ac. Urban services are readily available in all areas. Sufficient water, sewer, and energy capacity exists to serve these areas. Based upon the cost of land and construction in the Palm Desert area, it is generally reoogrnized that for apartments to provide lower income rents, densities between 15-25 d.u./a.c. are required. Moderate income ownership projects need densities between 7 d.u./a.c. and 15 d.u./a.c. The City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance provides a mechanism by which these densities can be achieved. Projects which include at least 20 percent lower income units can receive densities up to 25 d.u./a.c. These programs are in addition to projects built pursuant to Qovernment Code Section 65915, which provides for a 25% density bons for law or moderate income housing. Since the density bonus programs are implemented through development agreements which are tied to low and moderate income perfommarncs stand a=�3s, speculation prior to rezoning is di x:ouraged. Depending on general eocnoatc and interest rate fluctuations, approximately 5,000 units are projected to be built in Palm Desert within the next five years. These will include 52% upper price low density units, 30% moderate, 10% lower income units, and 8% very low inane units. The lower density projects will use 800 acres, while the higher density moderate and lower income projects will occupy 250 acres. These proportions will provide adequate sites for affordable housing while maintaining the overall character of Palm Desert as a low density affluent community. In allocating prospective high density sites thrvgtnait the city, the first consideration is to avoid ezoessive ooroentration. To achieve this, properties are dispersed throughout the city. Potential site areas have been identified on the High Density Affordable Housing Map based upon projected public infrastructure capacities and existing neighborhood character. Final site selection and project evaluation will be based upon the following criteria: 1. Adequate service capacity. 2. Direct access to major tt= ughfares or arterials required for any project over 50 units. 3. Compatibility with surrounding land uses. 4. Close prcvcimity to ccmmercial services. 5. Overall high quality of design. 29 HOUSING II+EMENr 6. Contribution to the attainment of low and moderate imams or other special housing goals. The Potential Affordable Housing Site Suitability Map will beoome an addendan to the Land Use Map. Projects in areas designated on the suitability map which meet the review criteria may be ,judged to be consistent with the General Plan. Areas not designated will require an amendment of this map to achieve consistency. Once the program goals discussed in the implementation section of this element are achieved, an applicant will have to demonstrate a compelling need for more high density development in order to qualify for a density bonus program. 30 HOUSI4O ELEME14T � II ' 1 IM blM — City of?alm Dosed (POTENTIAL AFFORDABLE FIOUSNK3 SITE SUITABLtTY MAP Iyi'l ���,.�^-nor _. -,'_Jt� ',;.. �. .. .',�--�ti :. .`</ �v• SITE AREAS .i- I HOWIW, FLEM NP ANNUAL RMVnM This housing element articulates policies and programs which will determine the direction the housing development will take over the next five years. Each year the city shall review these policies and programs to evaluate their validity and effectiveness, and to make necessary adjustments. 32 � ' HCUISIlG ELEM Nr ENUROMMERML IlFACTS The programs described in the housing element will have generally positive environmental and social economic impacts. Potential negative impacts of specific projects will be mitigated by existing mechanism incorporated into the development review process. Although indirectly growth inducing, programs are designed to enhance residential envirrnnental quality, rectify the existing jobs/housing imbalance and provide additional affordable housing to meet the needs generated by eocnanic growth. I. AIl TURAL IMACTTS: While the development of housing unavoidably alters the natural desert envirament, a system of development fees is being implemented to purchase and preserve 18 to 25 square miles of prime desert habitat. This area enxxAnpasses the full spectrum of desert ecosystems and includes the critical habitats of the endangered Coachella Valley Fringed-Toed Lizard and other rare plant and animal species. The Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program required a $600/acre mitigation fee for all -domlopnents within the historic habitat. These funds are being used to create a 28 square mile preserve for the lizard and other desert species. The proposed siting of high density affordable housing near employment and oanmercial centers will shorten commuting distances, thous reducing fuel consumption and auto emissions. The implementation of the energy saving requirements of Title 24 of the building mode, plus standards contained within the architectural review process, will serve to reduce ccr>summtption of limited natural resources. II. PUBLIC SERVICES: Impacts on sctools generated by residential development will be mitigated through a $1.50 square foot school impact fee. Other development fees and special assessments will finance expanded police, fire and paramedic services. New developments are required to construct substantial recreation facilities an site. in addition, subdivisions must dedicate land or pay fees for expanded public recreation. 33 BaJSDG E[EMNr ' REVIEW OF PAST 11OM3 G IIEM1r D4nJ34EIMnCN The 1984 Housing Element set forth a large list of ambitious programs to address the city's growing housing needs. Although not all goals were achieved, effective implementation of a substantial number of programs have significantly improved neighborhood quality and expanded affordable housing opportunities. The residential infrastructure program has succeeded in providing equal urban residential services throughout the city. The AHD, Senior Overlay, and Palma Village Specific Plan programs have achieved the city's goal for multifamily ca%s mucticn, senior housing, and neighborhood revitalization. tents of finance and administration have caused the city to re-evaluate some programs and design alternative approaches to solving the affordable problem. The city views the continued pursuit of the goals originally outlined in 1984 as vital to sustaining the city's ecorrniic prosperity and overall quality of life. 34 HOLISM IIEMERr Both the program goals and implementation have proved to be reasonably related to what can be achieved over a five year period. The program fell short of the lower income goal due to its dependence cn moderate inane demand and construction. The new element places greater emphasis on direct rental subsidies to achieve program goals. B. Program Goal. Financial assistance for 170 units. Implementation. Funding and staff commitments for assessment district no. 3 delayed implementation of this program. This program has been substantially expanded (see program II A) and now forms the core of the five year plan. C. Goal. Zoning for manufactured housing. - 400 ace - 2000 lots. Implementation. The city has maintained the existing 400 acres of manufactured housing and rezoned an additional 86 ages in connection with the construction of a new 241 lot mobile home park. The new legislation involving treatment of manufactured housing permits their location in all R-1 zones. D. Program Goal. Zoning Ordinance amendments to facilitate senior housing - 500 units. Implementation. In 1985 the city created the Senior Housing Overlay which provides density bonuses and special development standards tailored to senior projects. The program has resulted in the oonstsucticn of 257 congregate care and 13 senior apartments. An additional 243 eoctr+egate care and 176 apartments have been approved. These projects will include eight very low income and 15 lower income units. In-lieu fees of $460,900 have been collected to subsidize a new 60 unit all low and very low inccme senior project. The Senior Overlay has sucoseded in generating a great deal of activity. Like the AHDPR program, lower inane production is tied to the demand for market units. Absortbtien rates of the new projects are being studies to deter the needs and nirbim of future projects. 36 HOUSIM ELEMENT 1984•-1989 FIVE YEAR PIVXW M 1UWUM I. I PIMP" ' D QLAL M: A. Goal. Loan fund for completion of curb and gutters for one square mile area. Implementation. Through Palma Village Assessment District No. 3 full public its, curbs, gutters, and sewers are presently being completed (see page 14). H. Goal. Initiation of Specific Plans in areas targeted for Redevelopment Programs. Implementation. Completion of Patna Village Specific Plan in 1985 setting redevelopment and housing priorities for city's largest low/moderate income housing area. C. Goal. Rehabilitation loans. Implementation. Staff on programs 8 and C delayed development of the rehab loan program to 1989-90 budget. Implementation will begin Fall 189. D. Goal. Loan program to encourage purchase of single family units by oagants. Implementation. Funding requirements of goal A prevented simultaneous implementation of the loan program. Subsequently, the city was approached by the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition to participate in a Self Help Housing.Program (see page 18 3. a. ). Due to the substantial con is reductions achieved, the self-help program has replaced the original mortgage assistance plan. A mortgage assistance plan has been approved for a 56 unit oordoninium project. II. COST AND PRICE IMEM d OF NW MOXIMICl'IQd: A. Coal. Density bonuses to create 300 law income units, 900 moderate income units. Implementation. Through the AHDPR program 896 units were built including 180 rent controlled low income units. The balance (716) would qualify as moderate income units. An additicnal 612 units have been approved including 60 lower income units. under Government Code Section 65915, 100 moderate income condotntnitms and 21 its were constructed. 35 HOLISM FZEMETr PUBLIC Draft Copies of this element were made available to and Camonts solicited fran the Joslyn Cove Senior Center, Ella Valley Housing Coalition and fran the public in general throxjh the public library. Public notices for planning cannission and city council hearings were published in local newspapers and posted at prominent locations d= xghout the city. 37 ♦ -+ • N I y 9 1 A I A I Z I ; I r I r 1 I 1 2 A l n I f9 1 1 Q! I RI f'1 ♦ Q • D I I D I T I D I D I I Q I > I D 1 Z 1 ZZ I T I 1 0 1 Q p D • �/ • T. I < I Z I A I r I r I A I A 1 1 1 O I C I ; I N I A 1 1 1 1 < 1 > 1 >Z /1 _ • > • �. 1 A I A � A i ; i s i l7 1 T I o I m 1 1 .•• I m l m I O I n I = 1 •� I C I I J '•1 T 7 •"� O 1 Z 1 C 1 1 O I > 11 I A 1 Z 1 T, 1 m I = 1 1 < ASI • r • o • • > I N 1 1 LA N 1 O I I I 1 T I I Z 1 1 1 120 1 m 1 • ... • l7 1 ••+ 1 1 I a I m 1 1 I Z I r I I 1 1 1 f r 1 I m 1 Z O ~ • • •r I p 1 ; 1 I A 1 (n l 1 < I � I N I 1 t 1 I 1 I r 1 > I 1 •� I r T • • Z 1 m I h.l 1 1 I T 1 1 > 1 > 1 1 I m 1 11 1 > I r I 1 I T W • O • '� 1 1 >D 1 I I A 1 I r I I Z 1 I r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 p J (11 ♦ A • O 1 1 > 1 1 1 J 1 I r 1 I o I 1 r I I 1 1 1 A l 1 I • M • 1 I O I I N I I 1 m I I A 1 1 N 1 I N I • O • 1 I m l 1 1 1 1 < 1 I T t 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • A • I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 A I 1 I < 1 1 1 • > • 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I ►+ 1 1 1 I I I • .� • 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I Z I I I 1 1 1 • m • 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 0 I I 1 1 1 1 • O • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I N 1 1 1 I 1 1 • • I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 - • • I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ' . • I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I • (11 • I N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 • J ♦ r 1 Q I 1 r 1 W•1 + 1 N I Q 1 + 1 + 1 W I 1 W 1 + 1 � 1 + I N I 1 I r .•1 1 N • W I 10 1 (A 1 N I 1 (0 1 IWO 1 + I Q 1 A 1 a I N I W 14 1 1 A I (� 1 � 1 (♦) 1 (0 IQ 1 • • J 1 J 1 (0 1 1 (0 I A 1 I N I N 1 (0 I N I ('AW 1 W I 01 1 Q 1 {II 1 Q 1 1 1 < I ♦ W • a 1 N(a I 1 Q1 1 W 1 IJI 1 I m I Q I 01 I J I (0 1 W I W I W I W 1 1 (,j 1 InI tr > 1 • W • J 1 1 0 1 41 I r 1 A I t0 I (� I + 1 (b 1 J I W 1 A I W 1 � I N pi I N 1 1 a1 I N r I • • I t 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I • • 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 ( � ♦ • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I O • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I � • (71 • 1 N I 1 1 1 1 I r I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I C • C1 • + 1 O 1 1 1 W 1 I N I Q I 1 1 W 1 1 COW • + • W I 01 I l (A I + 1 (� I Q 1 r I Q I A 1 a I N I N 1 Q 1 4 I A 1 ((� I J I W I m • W • N 1 hi1 (D 1 O l a 1 a I N I pa N I t0 1 0 1 (JI 1 J 1 (T I t71 I A 1 Q I to 1 O 1 (0 r N 1 • U1 W i A.J i tOp i m i cn i N i (OII i Q 1 i 0�f i (0 i W i Q � N i m � (O11 i v � Q i tJ1 i OJf O m C A • • 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 Z < • • 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T • I 1 I 1 I 1 { I � { N • • I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I N • • t 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > .� 1 • • 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 a t 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A >0 1 O • • N l a l 1 .+ I lJl l 1 (0 I I 1 I N I I N I l a l 1 I N I + 1 + 1 0 I m • f0 • A 1 1 + I Q 1 I r l N 1 1 I 1 1 I m l (b 1 N 1 A I 1 • (a • A l + 1 + 1 1 IJI I N I A 1 (0 I O I N l m I Q l a I � 1 J 1 0 1 t11 I (0•1 I r 1 mI A • • I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I ( O • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 C • • 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z ' • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t � ' • 1 t I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 < • N • 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 L • (A • 1 J 1 I I N I 1 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 I I N I 1 1 1 1 1 » • A • 41 1 (n 1 (� 1 (11 I m l 4) 1 (A I N l a l 01 I W I W I m I W l I W I N I N I W I J O I Z3 O • m • Q I at I N I m 1 (0 1 � 1 m 1 + 1 t0 I W 1 N I N 1 + 1 W I W I N 1 � I J I 01 1 40 1 1 `V • J • N I I I (0 1 01 I Q I tr 1 d I I Q I I N I I A I Q I (0 I (0 I m I J l IT i 1 >C • W • a 1 r I Q 1 01 1 (0 I W I IA 110 I4 1 V I 171 I O I 1 {)1 1 111 1 r 1 A I W I m I (0 Ir t A r • • I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ( < > • ♦ 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 � • • I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 O I 1 r r ' • • 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T I • O + • 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •�N 1 2 • (JI • l a l I 1 1 1 I N I 1 1 I 1 1 I + 1 1 1 1 1 i••1 1 • m • N I J I N I W I y7 1 N1 1 I d I W I W l (� 1 I J I N I W I .• 1 (� I + I N I (A mi > • • A I Q1 I (a 1 r 1 Jl I J 1 O1 1 m l a I J I 01 1 (0 1 W I N 2 ZZ • + . + I 111 I I a 1 W l (� I In1 (0 I W 1 W 1 N 1 Q 1 (D I W I Al 1 Z4 I N I 1 1 (0 T r I fD C • 10 • W I J I W I O I a l O 1 N 1 + I Q I t11 I W I r I J 1 r 1 O 1 (0 1 W 1 J 1 0 1 m O m I • • 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I • • I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 >m 1 • • 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1> 1 C • • 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 <; I N • N • 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 >r 1 • (a • 1 W l a l l a 1 41 1 1 I r l ( I t 1 1 r l I 1 1 1 c1 r I • N • + 1 t11 1 + 1 (0 I Q I 1 a 1 + I N I w Io I J I • I r I W I N l l 1 I W = < I • N • Wd1 1. J I I N I 1 IJI 1 41 1 10 I W I O1 1 I W I W I N I N I W I O1 I J 1 W 1 o m I • (77 W 1 + 1 01 1 m I 10 I W I (0 I Q O I 1 T • • I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 N • • 1 I 1 1 1 1 t I 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 � • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ♦ • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t t 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 N ; • N • 1 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � > • r • 1 (� 1 1 I N l r l I + t I 1 + 1 I r l I r l I r l 1 I < C < • • J I 1 (x 1 N 1 a 1 to I 1 O 1 1 d 1 O 1 41 1 W 1 a 1 N 1 (R 1 41 1 N I N 1 W O r N m • • W I 41 1 1 N 1 a 1 a I O t ID 1 a 1 W 1 (�O 1 W 1 W I W 1 (0 1 N 1 1 W t (A 1 W 1 VI • J • N I ♦ I N I IO I Q I t11 t a l � l • I � I N I (0 1 41 l a l (0 I W I CNA 1 r t J l a a•+ . • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 T • • I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 tr; • N • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Y.1 1•+ • A • I CO l 1 I O I N I I N I I r l a l I ((��11 1 1 ► 1 I r l 1 1 r < • J • a I J l a l A l • I W I r I N l + 1 • 1 (D I W 1 8 1. N I W I Ir 1 + 1 1 41 1 (O r< N • Q • .1-r 1 JI I a l f1 1 • 1 I O l d l QI 1 t11 I W I 1 (1) 1 O 1 W 1 O 1 O 1 1 + C • N • I W l r l a l (0 I {� I W I W l l r l a l 10 I N I N I (0 1 N 1 0 1 N 1 p 1 N N 1 1 • • 1 1 ( 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t • • 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 • N • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 ' • N • r t r l I r l r l 1 1 + 1 1 1 + 1 l a l 1 t I N I 1 I r 1 • a • v 1 O l 4WD {>7 1 ► t O 1 1 I N l a l f0 1 1 w 1 1 (0 I N t 01 1 I W l r ;•a I • W • + 1 I W I 1 ((00 1 • I a 1 m I W 1 0 1 • 1 I W I I N I N I O I t71 t 111 I N m r I • a • J 1 O 1 a 1 O 1 O 1 + 1 al I N I N I YJI l a l (� I v l 1 + 1 (0 11 Q 1 J I 1� IIA m I • • 1 1 1 1 1 t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I '1 QO(7 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 >Omi • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t • N • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 = • W • I d l 1 I r l 1 I W I 1 I r l I r l I r l I r l I 1 lot O I •4t 10 1 W 1 O 1 N 1 W 1 d (7 1 TaWt01 / W 1 Y� I W l r m e I O»0 1 0 1 ( I (� I W I (0 1 I J T1 41 I N l r l (0 I a l 0 1 N I JI I I W l a l a l dl 1 Q l a ( Q S>D • • I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 a 0 Z . • • 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ ♦ • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N m2 • • I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I < 1 t17 10 • • 1 1 11A I r 1 1 1 a l 1 I W l r l • 1 (11 1 I r l 1 I r l I r l i I \T 1 • J • (0 116 1 (11 I N I 10 I O I N I N I r 1 • I (y1 1 a l m l l 0 1 r 1 (0 1 41 I Q I m 1 ID N • • 1 1 ( ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 i�! 1 10 m 0 • Q • a l r l (0 l a l v t tJl 1 IT 1 1 Q 1 0 1 (0 1 d 1 W 1 W I Q I r l a t +1 I Q I 10 Z 1 >T •.• • J • 0 1 + 1 to W I d I W l r l Yf 1 v 1 O t 1 (A 1 a 1 (0 t a 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 r 1 W -4 1 A • • 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A� • • 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 �1 1 1 1 1 1 • • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • N • N I N I N I At l N I N t f•1 I W 1111 ( At 1 W I N 1 • I N 1 W I a 1 N 1 f•1 I N t N S m y -.� . >r <• • ♦ 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O f"IA • • a CO I r I m I r I N 1 (A 1 N 1 O 1 J ( r 1 N 1 (0 t a t Q I a 1 1 Q I J I 171 r m m N i m • O - • d 1 O 1 (0 t + t 01 1 J 1 (11 1 a 1 1 (11 1 I m I (0 O m>0 O • r • a l (�) I W I d I W l (11 1 (0 1 • I Q I (0 1 0 1 IA I all I d I W I IA 1 0 1 N l a l a 1 Z wT yw. CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT . PREPARED BY CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF OM4JNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING RAMON A. DIAZ, DIRECTOR Philip Drell, Senior Planner Tonya Monroe, Secretary Adopted Resolution No. City Manager Bruce Altman PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL Richard Erwood, Chairman S. Roy Wilson, Mayor Robert Downs Jean Benson Sabby Jonathan Buford Crites James Richards Richard Kelly Carol Whitlock Walter Snyder TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. I. BACKGROUND 1 A. Population and Household Characteristics 1 B. Income and Employment 1 C. Housing Characteristics 2 1. Housing Mix 2 2. Housing Conditions 3 3. Overcrowding 3 4. Vacancy Rates 4 II. HOUSING NEEDS 5 A. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) The Fair Share Concept 5 B. Ownership Housing 6 C. Rental Housing 7 D. Preserving Neighborhood Quality 8 E. Constraints g 1. Governmental g a. Land Use g b. Building Codes and Development Standards 10 C. Development Fees 10 d. Permit Processing Procedures 11 2. Non-Governmental Constraints 12 a. Land Costs 12 b. Construction Costs 12 C. Financing 13 3. Constraint Summary 14 i ..% *400 TABLE OF OONPE TS 0ONPINUED F. Special Needs 14 1. Elderly 14 2. Handicapped 15 3. Female Heads of Households 15 4. Large Families 15 5. Farm Worker Housing 15 6. The Homeless 16 III. THE PROGRAM 17 A. Neighborhood Quality 17 1. Public Infrastructure 17 2. Rehabilitation 18 a. Financial Assistance 18 b. Certificate of Conformance Program 18 C. Public Acquisition and Rehabilitation 19 B. Residential Conservation 19 1. Zoning 19 2. Mobile Hone Park Protection 19 3. Federal Housing Subsidy Programs 20 C. Reducing Costs and Prices of New Construction 20 1. Removal of Governmental Constraints, Density Bonuses and Development Standards Reform 20 2. Rental Housing 20 3. Ownership Housing 21 a. Mortgage Assistance 21 b. Self-Help Housing 21 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED C. Manufactured Housing 22 4. Senior Housing 22 D. Energy Conservation 22 E. Equal Housing Opportunities 23 F. Homelessness 23 Five Year Program Summary 25 Residential Land Inventory and Site Criteria for High Density Low and Moderate Income Housing Projects 29 Annual Review 32 Environmental Impacts 33 I. Natural Environmental Impacts 33 II. Public Services 33 Review of Past Housing Element Implementation 34 1984-1989 Five Year Program Review 35 I. Neighborhood Quality 35 II. Cost and Price Reduction of New Construction 35 Public Participation 37 iii low -..✓ ROUSING ELEMENT NT The goals, policies and implementation programs set forth in the Palm Desert Housing Element to the General Plan are guided by California State Housing Objectives. 1. Provisions of decent housing for all persons regardless of age, race, sex, marital status, source of income or other arbitrary factors. 2. Provision of adequate housing by location, type, price and tenure. 3. Development of a balanced residential environment including access to jobs, cotmtu-ity facilities and services. This element will examine the nature of the existing housing stock in relation to the character and needs of Palm Desert residents and how future development can best meet future needs. I. BAC AIOL ID A. POPULATION AND BOUSEH0LD CHARACTERISTICS: The California Department of Finance estimated (see appendix for complete data) Palm Desert's 1989 permanent population to be 19,454 in 8546 households. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projects growth to 10,301 households by 1994. The two most populous age categories identified in the 1980 census were 65+ (2176-18%) and 25-34 (1830-16%). This compares with 1185- 10% for the 45-54 age category. The dominance of young adults and seniors is responsible for a large number of small, often childless, households. One and two person households accounted for 72% of the Palm Desert total. Sixty-five percent (65%) of married couples had no children. Only 824 households (7%) had more than three members. These young and old households which dominate Palm Desert demographics generally represent age groups with the lowest incomes. The 45-54 age group, usually associated with the highest income producing period, comprised the smallest segment of the Palm Desert community. B. IlNOOME AND EMPLOYMENT: In 1980, Palm Desert median household income for a family of four was $19,647. The 1989 Riverside/San Bernardino area median was $32,200. Total Palm Desert resident employment in 1980 was 5681 with sales and service accounting for 68%. There were 179 families living below the poverty line of which 32 were female bads of households with children. There were no households with heads over 65 below the poverty line. Total employment in the city in 1990 is projected to reach 13,000. HOUSING ELEMENT Over the next five years Palm Desert will undoubtedly experience a substantial increase in low income housing needs resulting from the rapidly growing retail, service and resort hotel industries. Up to 1,200 new hotel roans and 400,000 square feet of commercial space are projected to attract 2,100 new employees to the area of which 1,500 are likely to be paid low income wages. Local restaurants, retailers, and hotels are already experiencing increasing difficulty in attracting and keeping reliable service employees. The lack of affordable worker housing has became a practical problem for employers and ultimately a real constraint on the growth and quality of the city's resort base industries. Low income employees will not relocate unless affordable housing is available. Reliance on other communities to provide this housing is contrary to the state housing laws fair share concept and will ultimately result in clogged highways as workers flood in and out of the city. The private market has shown itself quite capable of meeting moderate and upper income rental housing needs. The production of lower and very low income housing will require significant assistance and involvement of the city, Redevelopment Agency, Riverside County Housing Authority, and the resort industries creating the demand. C. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: 1. HOUSING MIX: The following table compares the 1984 and 1989 Palm Desert housing mix: Total Units Single Family 2-4 Units 5 or More Mobile Homes 1984 12,304 9,150 (74%) 1,156 (9%) 1,202 (10%) 796 (6%) 1989 16,603 11,853 (71%) 1,586 (10%) 2,345 (14%) 841 (5%) In 1984, 19% of the housing stock was comprised of multi-family rental units. Only 28 units had been constructed during the preceding four years. As a result of the city's Affordable High Density Planned Residential Program (AHDPR), 1573 multi-family rental units were constructed between 1984-1988; 37% of all units. An additional 800 units have been approved. Of the 1573 constructed, 180 are rent controlled for lower income households; 21 are rent controlled for moderate income 2 BOL)SIM ELEMENT households. Eighty percent (80%) of the market unit rents fall within the moderate income standards. 2. HOUSING CONDITIONS: Most of the housing in the City of Palm Desert has been constructed since 1960. Generally homes in even the oldest neighborhoods are less than 25 years old. While the general level of residential maintenance is quite good, isolated cases of deterioration have occurred. Surveys indicate up to 20 single family homes and 100 multi-family units need significant rehabilitation. In some cases the city has had to threaten condemnation to force landlords to maintain minimum health and safety standards. As will be described later in this element, the city's redevelopment agency in cooperation with the Riverside County Housing Authority is implementing programs to reverse the deterioration process and preserve quality housing. 3. OVERCROWDING: Overcrowding is defined as dwellings with greater than 1.01 persons per roan. A room is defined by the Uniform Building Code as a place usable for sleeping, eating or cooking. This excludes bathrooms, hallways and closets. For example a three bedroom, two bath home with a kitchen and combination dining roan/living roan would have five roans. If it was inhabited by two adults and four children, a 1.2 ratio would gLlalify as overcrowded. Projections for 1989 based upon the 1980 census identify 136 households (2%) with person per roan ratios between 1.01 and 1.5, and 56 household ( .8%) with ratios greater than 1.51. Overcrowding is caused by a combination of shortages and high cost of appropriate housing. Families are forced to choose between small units or sharing a larger unit with another family. While it may be desirable for each child to have his/her own bedroom, some degree of overcrowding is inevitable. Young families often take several years before they can achieve the one person per roan ratio. Cases of severe overcrowding can lead to accelerated housing deterioration and corresponding negative impacts for surrounding properties and the neighborhood. There is some evidence that the incidence of overcrowding has increased since 1980 as a result of increased 3 HaISIlNG7 ELEMENT lower income employment associated with the Marriott hotel, the Town Center mall and general expansion of the city's resort economic base. Although the city's housing programs have produced' a substantial number of lower and moderate income one and two bedroom units, there has not been significant construction of lower income family housing and no units affordable by very low income households. Programs in the element will attempt to expand housing opportunities for these two groups to find uncrowded quality housing within safe, clean neighborhoods. 4. VACANCY RATES: The Federal Home Loan Bank Branch has estimated the 1988 combined vacancy rate to be 11.6%; 8.72% above the "ideal" 2.88% calculated by SCAG. Vacancy rates for units within the lower income range are less than 1%. 4 HOUSING ELEMENT II. HOUSING IDS The mandated objective of the Palm Desert Housing Element is the provision of quality, well designed housing within safe and attractive neighborhoods affordable by all segments of the community. The task of the implementation program shall be to resolve the conflict and trade-offs between affordability, design and density. When the city incorporated there was great concern for what appeared to be unacceptably low quality development standards being enforced by the county. Zoning and design review standards were developed to insure quality neighborhoods. These standards succeeded in encouraging an abundant supply of housing, very high quality development, but also resulted in housing increasingly out of the reach of very low, low and moderate income households. This situation was further exaggerated by the high speculative housing market of the late 19701s. Through implementation of programs contained in the 1984 Housing Element these problems have begun to be addressed. A. THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) - THE FAIR SHARE 0ONCEPT: The state housing law assigns the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) the responsibility for determining Palm Desert's existing housing needs and the city's fair share of the regional future needs. This analysis is contained in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Existing need is a simple projection form the 1980 census of households paying more than 30% of their income on housing based upon the California Department of Finance population estimates for 1988 and adjusted to 1989. The future needs section is based upon SCAG's own Growth Management Plan. The state housing law "fair share concept" also requires the equalization of a jurisdiction's affordable housing percentage towards the regional average. The future needs section, therefore, includes an "impaction adjustment" which brings a jurisdiction percentage of future lower and very low income units 25% closer to the regional average. Palm Desert's current share is 32% compared to 40% for the region; a difference of 8%. The composition of the city's future affordable housing needs was therefore increased 2% to 34%. The existing needs figures do not assume any construction of low income units during the 1980-88 period and can be reduced if affordable projects were built. Through One Quail Place and San Tropez Villas apartment project development agreement's, 180 lower income units were constructed 5 HOUSING ELEMENT Through One Quail Place and San Tropez Villas apartment project development agreement ' s, 180 lower income units were constructed between 1984-1987. These units will be rent controlled through the year 2015 and 2017 respectively. The adjusted RHNA is included below. Current need is 569 lower income ( 80% of medium household incomes) and 481 very low income ( 50% of medium household incomes) for a total of 1050. Future need has been set at 367 lower and 303 very low income. The numbers are not intended to be absolutely accurate calculations creating a "quota" the city is expected to achieve. It is merely an estimate of the general magnitude of need and serves as a goal for the design of local housing programs. Cities will be evaluated on how effectively available resources are employed towards the attainment of the RHNA targets. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT I. ADJUSTED EXISTING NEED* 1989 LIHHs OVERPAYING FOR SHELTER HOUSEHOLDS LIHHs TOTAL VERY LOW LOW TOT-OWNER 8, 546 2, 518 1,050 • 481 569 380 LIHH OVERPAYMENT BY TENURE AND INCOME VL-OWNER LOW-OWNER TOT-RENTER VL-RENTER LOW-RENTER 147 233 669 335 334 II. FUTURE NEED - 1 LOWER INC HIGHER INC TOTAL VL INC LOW INC MOD INC HIGH INC (%VL & L ) (%MOD & UP) 1, 964 303 367 340 954 34. 1% 65.9% *Adjusted to reflect 1989 "GAP" year and reduced for 180 lower income units constructed in connection with One Quail Place and San Tropez Villas Affordable High Rent projects. 6 Now HQ)SIM ELEMENT 10.75% 30 year loan. The moderate income house price limit would approach $90,000. No new projects have offered homes in this price range for at least five years. The median price of existing Palm Desert housing in 1988 was $130,267. A total of 16 single family homes and 21 condominiums are currently on the market (March, 1989) below the $90,000 moderate income range. No new units have been constructed within the moderate range since 1984. In 1984, Mountain View Falls offered 100 two and three bedroom units between $68,000 and $72,000 as part of a 25% density bonus program. While some opportunities remain in the resale market, the lack of new moderate income units will ultimately result in a diminishing availability as demand grows. The growth of low and moderate income employment with lead to an increasing need for family housing which is best served by single family units. During the 1984-89 period, the Palm Desert housing program implementation stressed multifamily construction which had lagged during the previous period. Through 1994, affordable family housing will receive greater emphasis. C. RENTAL HQUSIM: When the city incorporated in 1973, one of the first tasks was to improve the overall quality of development through the raising of standards enforced by the county. Inadvertently, those new zoning standards combined with other more general economic factors to virtually halt multifamily rental construction. In 1984, 19% of the housing stock was comprised of multifamily units. Only 28 units had been built between 1980-84. The implementation of the AHDPR zone contained in the 1984 Housing Element, lower interest rates and the use of tax-exempt bond financing led to the construction of 1573 rental units between 1984- 1989 and the approval of 800 more. During the period, 37% of all units constructed were multifamily rentals. The new units include 180 lower income and 21 rent controlled moderate income units. The majority of the market rate units fall into the moderate range. Controlled lower income unit rents for new one and two bedrooms range from $450 to $550/month. Market rents range from $500 to $800/month. Current apartment vacancy rates average near five percent. This compares to 1.8% in 1984. Some of the large complexes experience as high as a 20% vacancy rate during the off-season summer months. Vacancy rates for lower income units are virtually zero. 7 IlNG-7 ELEMENT New apartment construction over the last five years has satisfied the demands for moderate intone units and has begun to address lower income needs. The AHD program is limited in that lower income housing production requires strong demand for the 80% market units. If demand for moderate market units levels, then new projects will not be built. Lower income production ceases unless additional financial subsidies are included. D. NEIC HBORFUM QUALITY: While design standards can produce very attractive new developments, they cannot always succeed in substantially improving older developed neighborhoods. Declining neighborhoods tend to discourage the investment of private capital thus reinforcing their decline. Although the substandard condition of certain areas results in depressed property values and lowered housing values, allowing continued decline is an unacceptable solution to the affordable housing problem. Slums result in a dangerous, ugly environment but do not guarantee affordable housing. In a tight housing market landlords will continue to be able to receive high rents even as quality declines. The concept of redevelopment was specifically designed to break the cycle leading to the development of slums. Carefully planned public investment in the form of improved public facilities, and low interest rehabilitation loans will encourage private investment reversing the decline cycle. To achieve the goal of quality neighborhoods and affordable housing requires the promotion of innovative designs which reduce the costs of construction while still providing a desirable residential environment. Because of high land costs, it will be necessary to Provide some form of direct financial assistance to developers or households to achieve all our housing goals. E. CONSTRAINTS: 1. GOVERNMENTAL: a. Land Use: During the city's first years, a shortage of vacant high density zoned property discouraged affordable multifamily development. This situation was corrected with the 8 HMSING ELEMENT creation of the AHDPR zone which established procedures and criteria for re-zoning up to 25 dwelling units/acre for projects containing 20$ lower income units. Through 1988, 42 acres have been rezoned and 896 units constructed under the AHD program. In 1986 the Senior Overlay was created to provide similar incentives specifically for affordable senior housing. Upzoning during the past four years of an additional 85 acres elsewhere throughout the city from medium to high density will permit an additional 1500 multifamily units. These rezoning programs have effectively eliminated land use restrictions as a constraint to the production of affordable housing. Manufactured Housing Opportunities Within the city there are currently four mobile hone parks containing 703 spaces and a 120 acre mobile home subdivision containing 360 lots. The parks are at 100-06 capacity and the subdivision is 90% developed. An 86 acre • 241 lot park is currently under construction. All mobile home facilities are specifically zoned for that use. In addition, the city is complying with Chapters 1571 and 1572 Statutes of 1988 permitting approved manufactured housing on permanent facilities in single family areas. Parking The zoning ordinance requires two parking spaces per apartment unit. Due to the desert's extreme heat, one space must be covered. Single family homes require a two car garage or carport. These requirements are based upon studies of automobile ownership and needs for guest Parking• Reductions have been granted for affordable projects when site geometry made full attainment impractical. The Senior Housing Overlay reduces parking to one space per unit for projects with an age 62 minimum and 1.25 for an age 55 minimum. Senior Second Units In 1983 the city adopted a Second Unit Senior Housing ordinance which permits one additional rental unit to be added to single family hones. It requires the unit to be incorporated into the main structures and requires the 9 HOUSING ELEMENT total development to resemble one single family home. Consistent with our rental apartment standard an additional two parking spaces are required. Occupants must be 60 years of age or older. Through 1989 there has been only three applications for the program. All have been approved. While the second unit program has not made a significant contribution, its lack of success has not constituted a major constraint on the production of rental senior housing. The Senior Overlay ordinance and the availability of vacant land has provided ample opportunities for construction of senior housing. b. Building Codes and Development Standards: A goal of this element is the development and maintenance of high quality housing and residential neighborhoods. While Palm Desert's standards are high, developers are given a great deal of flexibility in choosing the means by which the standards can be achieved. Analysis of project alternatives describing lowered levels of design quality and amenities show only minimal decreases in monthly housing costs at the expense of significant reductions in overall quality. The city uses the Uniform Building Code with some modifications relating to combustive roof materials and aluminum electrical wiring. ~ It is estimated that these higher standards increase the initial cost of a typical home by $300. The increased level of safety and the reduction of long term maintenance costs offset the initial extra costs. Applicants have the opportunity to provide engineered cost saving alternatives which meet code specifications. Modular and prefabricated building systems have been used extensively. Quality construction, while initially appearing more expensive, results in lower long- term housing costs. C. Development Fees: City of Palm Desert fees are designed to cover actual costs of processing applications and the extension of urban services to the proposed development. A typical 1500 square foot home will include $8,693 in fees of which only $1,100 is for design and building plan review. The 10 HOMING ELEMENT remainder is for public improvements to serve the development. Utility hook-up and school fees account for more than 50% and are not within the control of the city. Development fees within Palm Desert are comparable to those charges within other jurisdictions throughout the Coachella Valley. Although they constitute a substantial constraint, accounting for ten percent of a modest Dome's cost, fees are based upon real public costs which must be paid by someone. The city's commitment to affordable housing recognizes that financial assistance will be required to reduce the overall cost of housing which includes fees. COACHELLA VALLEY SURVEY OF DEVELOPMENT FEES 1500 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Palm Springs $9,126 Indian Wells 8,900 Palm Desert 8,693 Riverside County 8,150 Desert Hot Springs 7,935 La Quints 7,630 Rancho Mirage 7,565 Cathedral City 7,350 Indio 7,338 Coachella 7,040 d. Permit Processing Procedures: The city employs a streamlined processing procedure which consolidates hearings and reviews and significantly reduces administrative delays. A single family hone receives design review by the department of community development on the day it is submitted and can be immediately transmitted to the department of building and safety for plan check. Depending upon work load, permits are issued within four weeks of submittal. Major developments as large as 1,000 units can complete the public hearing review within three months and can often begin construction within six months of initial application. 11 HOUSING ELEMENT 2. NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS: a. Land Costs: Residential land costs vary by location, parcel size, and availability of urban services. Individual single family lots range from $20,000 to $250,000. Large unimproved parcels range fran $50,000 per acre north of Country Club Drive to over $200,000 per acre south of Highway 111. Per unit multifamily land costs range from 5,000 to $12,000. These price factors are fairly uniform between Palm Springs and Indian Wells. Prices are somewhat lower toward Indio. The impact of rising land costs can be mitigated to a degree by raising densities. While land may account for 30$ of the cost of a single family hone at four dwelling units per acre, it can be reduced to 10% in a 20 unit per acre project. Increasing densities can itself increase speculative pressure based upon expectations of more profitable high density development. It is therefore important to provide a mechanism to prevent this speculation from inflating higher density parcels so as to preclude affordable housing. By tying high density zoning to low income affordable performance standards, the AHDPR program and the senior overlay limits this type of speculation. b. Construction Costs: Palm Desert's construction costs average $67 per square foot, including land, all phases of construction, fees and financing, depending upon project size, density, and quality. These costs are fairly uniform throughout the Coachella Valley. It is anticipated that construction costs will continue to rise with inflation. The table below analyzes and compares the various components of single family and apartment costs. 12 BOUSING7 ELEMENT TYPICAL COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION 1500 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY 900 SQ. FT. APAR'IVOW Land $ 25,000 $10,000 Architecture/Engineering 4,260 2,556 Onsite Improvements 7,200 4,320 Offsite Improvements 1,440 864 Unit Construction 37,830 22,698 Government & Utility Fees 9,000 5,400 Financing 16,245 9,747 Total $100,975 $55,588 C. Financing: The most profound constraint on both the supply and affordability of housing is the cost of mortgage financing. As interest rates rise above the 13% level, even the most modest homes become unaffordable for moderate income households and builders cease construction. Monthly payments including property taxes and insurance on a $90,000 moderate income hone with a $80,000 30 year mortgage at 10% is $802. This rises to $1016 at 13 1/2%. Based upon the 301% of income criteria used by lenders and HUD for loan qualification, a four person household earning $37,080 (the moderate income limit) could afford a house payment (tax and insurance) of $926.00. The moderate income household easily qualifying at 10% begins to have problems at 12% and is likely to be rejected at 13 1/2%. A survey of local financial institutions indicate that loans are available at rates competitive with other areas in Southern California. Loans for the purchase or rehabilitation of rental units had been restricted by the fact that many older projects built under county standards are legal non.-conforming under current city zoning. Banks were hesitant to lend an a ten unit property if only six units could be replaced in case of a fire. In response to this problem the Certificate of Conformance program was created (see program section) and this constraint removed. Local governments have little ability to significantly remove this constraint since it involves national monetary policy. The use of mortgage interest subsidies and tax exempt bond financing can lower costs enough to allow marginal home buyers to qualify or enable rental projects 13 HOUSIlNG7 ELEMENT to offer lower income rents. Since 1984 over $40,000,000 in tax exempt bonds have been sold to finance multifamily construction in Palm Desert. Over the last three years interest rates have hovered around the 10% level, greatly facilitating financing of affordable units. 3. Constraint Summary: While each individual constraint factor does not preclude the construction of affordable housing, their combination puts the bare cost of both ownership and rental housing significantly above low income levels. The city's housing program will be addressing these constraints through density bonuses, inclusionary zoning, low interest tax exempt bond financing, public land purchase, self-help housing and direct rental subsidies. F. SPECIAL NEEDS: 1. ELDERLY: The desert area has traditionally been a retirement destination. In 1989, 20% of Palm Desert residents (3,890) and 30% of households (2,564) had members over age 65. In 1980 there were no families headed by individuals over 65 living below the poverty line. Sixty individual seniors were living below the poverty line. In 1989 the incidence of elderly poverty may have risen to 80 individuals. By 1995 an additional 2,000 individuals will have reached retirement age. As part of the general affordable housing problem, all but the most affluent elderly have been frozen out of the Palm Desert housing market. The type of housing available is not ideally suited to many segments of the elderly population. Many elderly households no longer need or desire the two or three bedroom home designed for a growing family. Low density resort condominiums provide more suitable accommodations but are generally the most expulsive housing in the city. These projects tend to average only 20% permanent occupancy leading to social isolation of the scattered less active retired elderly. Different forms of elderly housing have been developed which enhance the opportunity for social interaction and bridge the gap between the isolation of traditional housing arrangements and the rest homes. These projects provide small apartments, common dining facilities, organized social functions and limited medical care. As will be discussed in the program section, the 14 HOUSING ELEMENT city has created special incentives for the production of a wide variety of senior housing. 2. HANDICAPPED: The 1980 census identified 576 individuals with varying degrees of disability. In 1989 this figure is projected to have risen to 770. Ninety-five percent of existing rentals were built prior to any requirements for handicapped facilities. Implementation of Title 24 C.A.C., Section 2-1213 a,b insures that all rental projects provide units specifically designed for handicapped residents. 3. FEMALE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS: The incidence of female headed household with children identified by the 1980 census was 156 or 3.5% of which 32 were below the poverty line. In 1989 female headed households are estimated to have risen to 208 with 43 below the poverty line. The housing needs of this group will be addressed by programs directed to the more general low/moderate income category. 4. LARGE FAMILIES: Only 111 households in 1980 were larger than six members. This statistic, in addition to the low incidence of severe overcrowding, .8% would indicate that the present unit sizes are adequate. As the existing younger population matures there will be a growing need for family housing. Current 1989 estimate for larger families is 148. 5. FARM WOWER HOUSING: In 1980, 277 Palm Desert residents were employed in agriculture. There are presently no large scale agricultural operations within the city. Agricultural activity has steadily declined in the upper Coachella Valley as the date industry has moved toward the Thermal area. Other than for farm management occupations, agricultural employment will show a corresponding decline, therefore, no special farm worker housing programs are proposed. 15 HOUSING, ELEMENT 6. THE HCHMESS: The City of Palm Desert has yet to experience a significant hamless problem. Sheriff's reports of homeless to be less then 5 individual at any one time. Most are moving through the area or are living in campsites up in the canyons. The intense long, dry summer heat with daytime temperatures frequently over 112 degrees tends to discourage year-round outdoor living. The extremely low unemployment rate and wide availability of entry level jobs provides Palm Desert unique opportunities to address the econcmi.c bless problems. 16 1 BOUSING ELEMENT III. THE PROGR M The previous discussion focused on the obstacles to the attainment of the goal of quality and affordable housing. The efforts to solve these problems must be evaluated according to how well the city utilizes all the available fiscal and planning tools. The following discussion will analyze these tools evaluating their effectiveness and costs. The solutions will fall into two basic categories: 1) Direct financial aide programs to reduce or defer costs of housing or neighborhood quality improvements; 2) Continued regulatory reforms providing incentives for the production of housing and the maintenance of neighborhood quality. While regulatory reforms do not involve the expenditure of public funds, direct assistance will require significant economic resources. Fortunately, the economic growth which is partially responsible for the increased housing demands will also generate significant new revenues which can finance new housing programs. The following program descriptions shall not be construed to limit or preclude the proposal, approval or implementation of alternative strategies designed to achieve the goals identified in this housing element. A. NEIGHBOFdUM QUALITY: 1. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE: Within new projects, our review process insures development quality. These standards are less effective in improving the quality of existing neighborhoods. Code enforcement programs can abate the worse cases of neglect but too heavy a reliance on a punitive strategy is more likely to create ccnymi city ill will. Positive financial incentives provide more effective tools for significant improvement. The first phase of the city's neighborhood program was the completion of all remaining residential public improvements. The city's redevelopment agency is currently completing construction of all remaining residential road, curb and gutter, and sewer improvements through Palma Village Assessment District No. 3. Redevelopment agency and Coachella Water District contribution of $8,780,816 account for 59 percent of the project costs. The completion of these improvements will begin to change property owners' and residents' perceptions concerning the direction of their neighborhood and create a new positive image receptive to new investment. 17 BOLISIlNG7 ELEMENT 2. REHABILITATION: a. Financial Assistance: With the completion of phase I, phase II of the program will be initiated with the creation of a $250,000 loan fund from the redevelopment agency 20 percent housing funds for the purpose of single and multifamily rehabilitation. Loans up to $15,000 per unit will be provided to eligible low and moderate income households and multifamily property owners who agree to participate in a lower income controlled rental program. The loans could be deferred until sale or a repayment schedule established based upon a household's economic resources. The loan amount would be determined by the magnitude of work required to achieve a reasonable standard. For some units it may mean only yard clean up and exterior paint. Others may require major renovation or reconstruction. While the loan program will not reach all households, the improvements will create a positive neighborhood feeling encouraging property owners to embark on their own privately fumed rehabilitation efforts. b. Certificate of Conformance Program: When the city incorporated in 1973 and adopted a new zoning map, up to 500 multifamily units became legal nonconforming due to densities in excess of the new designations. Many of these older units have experienced gradual deterioration due to deferred maintenance. While legal nonconforming status permits the continued existence of the units, upon substantial destruction only the currently zoned density could be replaced. When lenders became aware of this situation, they often refuse approval of loans for purchase or rehabilitation. Ultimately this withdrawal of financing would lead to accelerated deterioration of these units. To address this problem the Certificate of Conformance program was created. The program provides a process by which nonconforming multifamily properties can achieve conforming status and gain a vested right in the existing unit density. The property owner is required to propose and implement a rehabilitation program which brings the project up to current aesthetic design standards and corrects all health and safety violations. The owner must agree to maintain the project consistent with its conditions at the completion of the rehabilitation. Through 1989, 113 units in seven projects have participated in the program. It is 18 • HOMIW7 ELEMENT anticipated that through 1994 an additional 100 units will be rehabilitated as a result of the certificate of conformance incentives. C. Public Acquisition and Rehabilitation: For certain cases, the magnitude of deterioration exceeds the financial ability or desire of an owner to correct. In these cases the city in cooperation with the Riverside County Housing Authority may step in, purchase, rehabilitate and manage the property for lower income households. This strategy was employed for the 60 unit Town Center Apartments which was purchased by the Housing Authority and is undergoing general rehabilitation, new off-street parking development and landscaping. B. RMIDENTIAL OONSERVATION: 1. ZONING: Historically, the City of Palm Desert has not experienced any significant conversion of residential to non-residential uses. The General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance give highest priority to the protection of existing residential neighborhoods. The neighborhood quality program will be designed to provide property owners with incentives for the conservation of the low/moderate income housing stock. 2. KMILE HOME PARK PROTECTION: There are currently four mobile hone parks within the city totaling 697 spaces. All four parks are at 100% occupancy. Due to the shortage of new spaces in the vicinity and the nearly prohibitive cost of moving, unit owners had become captive renters with very little ability to respond to space rent increases. The city had instituted a rent control system in an attempt to preserve the affordable nature of the mobile hone stock, but found itself in the middle of a continuous battle between park owners and residents. There was also some fears of property owners abandoning the mobile home use altogether as raw land prices have escalated. 19 HOUSIlNIG ELEMENT The city in conjunction with the Riverside County Housing Authority has instituted a program of public acquisition and management of the parks to both preserve their affordable rents and guarantee continued existence. A joint project between the RDA and the Riverside County Housing Authority will result in the public acquisition of the Indian Springs Mobile Home Park and the preservation of 90 low and moderate income units. 3. FEDERAL HOUSING SUBSIDY PROGRAMS: Through Section 8, 58 units are being conserved at low income rents. C. REDLKaM OOSTS AND PRICES OF NEW OONSTRUMION: 1. REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT CONSTRAINTS, DENSITY BONUSES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REFORM: Over the last four years, the City of Palm Desert has made extensive use of inclusionary zoning density bonuses and tax- exempt bond financing to dramatically increase the availability of low and moderate income housing. The Affordable High Density Program (AHD) which provides densities up to 25 units per acre with 20% lower income controlled units has produced 180 lower income units and 700 moderate income units with an equivalent annual rent subsidy of $324,000. 2. RENTAL HOUSING: While the AHD program and tax exempt bond financing will continue to be made available, its ability to produce lower income units is dependent upon the strong demand for the 80%- moderate income units. Since moderate demand appears to be leveling off while demand for lower income units grow, density bonuses and low interest financing will not produce adequate supplies of low income units and never were capable of very low income housing production. To address this growing imbalance, the city and Riverside County Housing Authority has initiated a new program of publicly financed and managed very low, low and moderate income housing 20 HOUSING ELEMENT to meet the specific needs of the city's resort industry and service employees. The city has leveraged $1,460,000 of redevelopment funds to sell $67,000,000 in housing bonds to finance various projects of which the largest will be the construction of 1,100 units containing 366 very low income units, 366 lower income units and 366 moderate income units. The rental schedule will require an additional annual $2.48 million rent subsidy which would be generated from Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 and commercial developer fees. Rental priority shall be given to current Palm Desert employees. The program may take the form of one or several different projects at different sites and will be constructed over a five year period. The project will contain a park and be located close to resort employment and commercial facilities. 3. OWNERSHIP HOUSING: a. Mortgage Assistance: To assist first time moderate income hone buyers the city with the Riverside County has initiated a low interest mortgage program. The program will be implemented with a 56 unit condominium project presently under construction within the city. The program will provide loans up to 3% below market rates, substantially expanding the opportunities for moderate income households to enter the ownership market. b. Self-Help Housing: To further expand the opportunities for low and moderate income households to enter the ownership housing market, a pilot self-help program will be initiated by the city with the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition (CVHC) in cooperation with the California State Self-Help Housing Program (CSHHP) California Department of Housing and Community Development, California Housing Finance Agency's and private lenders. In self-help housing families are trained to construct a substantial portion of their own home. Through the sweat equity, housing cost can be reduced 20%. In addition CSBHP provides subsidies up to $15,000 per house in the form of deferred loans which in time became grants. The city's Redevelopment Agency will be providing 12 lots at below 21 HOUSIM ELEMENT market cost and a total equivalent subsidy of $25,000/unit. If it is successful, the program will be expanded. C. Manufactured Fusing: The city is promoting the construction of lower cost manufactured housing through the approval of planned manufactured housing parks and compliance with state laws prohibiting discrimination against the placement of off- site manufactured housing on single family lots. 4. SENIOR HOUSING: The Senior Overlay Program provides density bonuses up to an equivalent of 22 units per acre with inclusionaYy provisions for very low, low and moderate income units. Developers also have been given an option through development agreements to pay a fee in-lieu of providing on-site affordable housing. Through January, 1989, the program has resulted in the construction of 257 congregate care units and 13 senior apartments. An additional 243 congregate care and 176 senior apartments have been approved. These projects will produce 8 very low income and 15 lower income units. In addition, an in- lieu fee fund of $703,900 will be generated. The city has used $535,000 of this fund to purchase a three-acre site adjacent to the Joslyn Cove Senior Center and has executed an agreement with a developer to construct 60 lower and very low income senior apartments to be completed by 1990. D. ENERGY CCNSERVATION: As a result of its hot desert climate, the primary residential energy conservation effort involves the reduction of solar heat gain during the six to eight air conditioned months. The implementation of Title 24 energy requirements of the building code has significantly reduced energy consumption in new structures. In older neighborhoods, energy saving improvements will be promoted through the neighborhood quality rehabilitation program. With the increasing dominance of projects with large common facilities, the economics of solar water heating and co-generation technologies are enhanced. The city will promote and encourage the use of appropriate energy saving technologies through the architectural review process. 22 1400 HaJSIIG ELEMENT E. EQUAL HOMING, OPPORTUNITIES: The city promotes equal housing opportunities by referring inquiries concerning illegal discrimination to the following local, state, and federal fair housing agencies: Desert Association for Residential Equality P.O. Box 2166 Palm Springs, CA 92263 (619) 322-1559 State Department of Fair Employment and Housing 322 West 1st Street, Room 2126 Las Angeles, CA 90027 (213) 408-7464 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2500 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90027 (213) 688-5951 All projects receiving a density bonus enter into a development which prohibits illegal discrimination. Violation of this provision will be referred to the Riverside County District Attorney for prosecution. F. HOMELESSNESS: As was discussed in the needs section, the City of Palm Desert does not experience a significant homeless problem. No more than five individuals have been observed at any one time. Typically these individuals are traveling through the area or have some sort of semi- permanent campsite in the canyons. There does not appear to be a need for a shelter in Palm Desert at this time. Shelter facilities are provided in Coachella Valley through the Catholic Charities/Riverside County Housing Authority. Nightingale Manor in Palm Springs includes 15 units and can accommodate both families and individuals. Half the moans have kitchens and all have facilities for food storage. Currently the shelter is not providing services to any former Palm Desert residents. An analysis conducted by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments determined that Palm Desert's fair share of the shelter's costs to be $10,000. 23 HOUSING, ELEMENT Until such time as a shelter is needed in Palm Desert, the city shall make an annual contribution of $10,000 to the Nightingale Manor. A shelter location has been designated in the city's northern area and could be developed in connection with the Employee Housing program. The ultimate solution to homelessness is the re-establishment of individual and family economic independence. A program will be developed in association with the city's employee housing program/County Housing Authority and County Department of Social Services to provide employment and permanent standard housing. 24 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1553 EXHIBIT "B" G. PRESERVATION OF EXISTING ASSISTED HOUSING I _ Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989 amended Section 65583 of the Government Code to require analysis and preserve existing controlled low housing which is at risk of being lost over the next ten year period ( 2002 ) . Controlled low and moderate income housing in the City of Palm Desert falls into three basic categories: 1 ) Inclusionary programs associated with the Senior Overlay, Affordable High Density Zone and Government Code 65916 ( some of which are financed with tax exempt bonds ) ; 2 ) Privately owned, federally assisted new construction; and 3 ) Local agency, publicly owned and assisted units. 1 ) Inclusionary Projects - All projects built under City of Palm Desert inclusionary programs are subject to a recorded development agreement controlling the required low/moderate income units for a minimum period of 30 years regardless of associated bond requirements. Projects approved after 1988 are controlled for the life of the facility with a minimum 30 years. - None of these agreements will expire before the year 2015 . Of the 1071 units built under these programs, the Riverside County Housing Authority has purchased 534 units and has made offers on an additional 512 units for inclusion in the Redevelopment Agency' s rent subsidy program. 2 ) Privately Owned Federally Assisted Projects - The city contains one private project financed and assisted under the 221( d) (4 ) program. Candlewood Apartments located at 74-000 Shadow Mountain Drive is a 30 one bedroom senior project with 26 units subsidized for low and very low income households. The HUD contract runs through 2018 . The owner has an option to withdraw from the contract every five years. The next option year is 1993. He has no intention of terminating the contract before 2018 and has agreed to inform the city of any change in plans. If and when the city was to become aware of an intention to terminate the contract, the project would be considered for acquisition as part of the Riverside County Housing Authority/Redevelopment Agency subsidy program. The program uses tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds issued by the Riverside County Housing Authority to purchase existing projects and build new units which are subsidized by the Redevelopment Agency according to Section 8 guidelines. Based on similar projects recently purchased by the Housing Authority, the 1991 market value of Candlewood Apartments is 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1553 wrr $1 . 5 million or $50, 000/unit. An average per unit subsidy of $349/month would be required to maintain the existing Section 8 low and very low income rent schedule. Total RDA housing revenues for 1991-92 are $3 . 3 million. By the year 2000 housing revenues are projected to rise to $7 .3 million and will be capable of subsidizing 2500 very low, low and moderate income households. 3 ) The Riverside County Housing Authority in partnership with the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency currently owns 598 units. By 1995 at least 1359 units will be owned by the Housing Authority and subsidized by the Redevelopment Agency for very low, low and moderate households. All units subsidized by the Redevelopment Agency are required to be preserved for the life of the project area through 2027. 4 BOUSING ELEMENT FIVE YEAR PIS! SUMMARY I. NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION AND CONSERVATION. A. PROGRAM: Completion of all remaining ng residential . Scope: 2,373 units Cost: $15,000,000 Source: Redevelopment Agency, Tax Assessments Agency: Redevelopment Agency/Public Works Completion Date: July, 1989 B. PROGRAM. Residential Rehabilitation Loans. Scope: 200 units Estimated Cost: $250,000 Source: Redevelopment Agency Agency: Redevelopment Agency/Building and Safety C. PROGRAM. Certificate of Conformance. Scope: Estimate 100 units Estimated Cost: None Agency: Community Development/Building and Safety D. PROGRAM. Tb nn Center Apartments. Scope: Rehabilitation of 64 low income apartments Estimated Cost: $2,500,000 Agency: Redevelopment Agency, Department of Building and Safety, Riverside County Housing Authority 25 HOUSIW7 ELEMENT E. PROGRAM. Mobile Home Park Conservation. Scope: 191 units Cost: $6,400,000 Agency: Redevelopment, Riverside County Housing Authority II. FdMUCED COST AND PRICE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. A. PROGRAM. Affordable High Density Rental Employee housing. Scope: 366 very low income units 366 lower income units 366 moderate income units 1,100 Total Units Cost: Construction $60,000,000 Annual Subsidy $2,480,000 Source: Redevelopment Agency, Riverside County Housing Authority, Commercial Development Housing Mitigation Fees Agency: Ccmmunity Services, Redevelopment Agency, Public Works, Building and Safety, Riverside County Housing Authority B. PROGRAM. Ownership Mortgage Assistance. Scope: 56 units eligible for low interest loans Cost: $5,000,000 Source: Riverside County Agency: Riverside County C. PROGRAM. Self-Help Housing. Scope: 12 assisted single family homes Cost: $320,000 26 fOUSIl% EGEMENr Source: Redevelopment Agency, California Self-Help Housing Program, HCD, California Housing Finance Agency Agency: Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, Redevelopment Agency, Department of Building and Safety D. PROGRAM. Manufactured Housing. Scope: 241 units within new parks and implementation of state laws against discrimination within single family zones Cost: None Agency: Con n-ity Development E. PROGRAM. Senior Housing Overlay. Scope: 600 congregate care units 50 very low income apartments 100 lower income apartments 150 moderate income apartments Cost: $1,000,000 Source: Private developer inclusionary requirements and in-lieu fees Agency: Comunity Development F. PROGRAM. Senior Second Unit. Scope: Zoning standards permitting second units on single family lots rentable to residents over 60 years of age Cost: None Agency: Community Development G. PROGRAM. Homelessness. Scope: Financial assistance to valley shelter 27 } HOUSING ELEMENT Cost: $10.000 Source: Redevelopment Agency Aa_encv: Riverside County Housing Authority/Catholic Charities H. PROGRAM. Federal Section 8 Rent Subsidies. Scope: 58 assisted households Cost: unknown Aaencv: U.S. Development of Housing and Urban Development III. OVERALL OBJECTIVES FOR MAXIMUM NUMBERS OF HOUSING UNITS CONSTRUCTED REHABILITATED AND CONSERVED. A. CONSTRUCTED: 1 . City/RDA programs 2,309 units 2. Other market construction 1 ,500 units 3,809 units B. REHABILITATED: 364 units C. CONSERVED: 313 units At-risk units 30 units 343 units The housing affordability income distribution for units constructed, acquired or conserved under City/RDA programs is shown in the following spread sheets. In general those ratios are as follows: Very Low ( less than 45% of median) 33% Low ( less than 75% of median) 34% Moderate (less than 120% of median) 33% Ail market units constructed will be affordable by households with income in excess of 120% of median. Units to be rehabilitated under the Certificate of Conformance program ( 100 units) will remain under private ownership and control . Historically these units have been affordable by lower and moderate income households between 70% and 120% of median income. The remaining 264 units to be rehabilitated are likely to be acquired as part of our RDA/Housing Authority partnership and subsidized according to the 33% very low, 34% low, and 33% moderate formula. 28 HOUSING ELEMENT RESIDENTIAL LAM INVFNIURY AND SITE CRITERIA FOR HIGH DENSITY LOWER AND NCOERATE INOCNE HOUSING, PROJECPS The City of Palm Desert contains approximately 3700 vacant residentially zoned acres. Of this area, 3200 acres are presently zoned at densities of five dwelling units per acre or less, with the balance ranging from 10 to 17 d.u./ac. Urban services are readily available in all areas. Sufficient water, sewer, and energy capacity exists to serve these areas. Based upon the cost of land and construction in the Palm Desert area, it is generally recognized that for apartments to provide lower income rents, densities between 15-25 d.u./a.c. are required. Moderate income ownership projects need densities between 7 d.u./a.c. and 15 d.u./a.c. The City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance provides a mechanism by which these densities can be achieved. Projects which include at least 20 percent lower income units can receive densities up to 25 d.u./a.c. These programs are in addition to projects built pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, which provides for a 2596 density bonus for low or moderate income housing. Since the density bonus programs are implemented through development agreements which are tied to low and moderate income performance standards, speculation prior to rezoning is discouraged. Depending on general economic and interest rate fluctuations, approximately 5,000 units are projected to be built in Palm Desert within the next five years. These will include 52% upper price low density units, 30% moderate, 10% lower income units, and 8% very low income units. The lower density projects will use 800 acres, while the higher density moderate and lower income projects will occupy 250 acres. These proportions will provide adequate sites for affordable housing while maintaining the overall character of Palm Desert as a low density affluent community. In allocating prospective high density sites throughout the city, the first consideration is to avoid excessive concentration. To achieve this, properties are dispersed throughout the city. Potential site areas have been identified on the High Density Affordable Housing Map based upon projected public infrastructure capacities and existing neighborhood character. Final site selection and project evaluation will be based upon the following criteria: 1. Adequate service capacity. 2. Direct access to major thoroughfares or arterials required for any project over 50 units. 3. Compatibility with surrounding land uses. 4. Close proximity to commercial services. 5. Overall high quality of design. 29 Nwe BOLJSII7 ELEMENT 6. Contribution to the attainment of low and moderate income or other special housing goals. The Potential Affordable Housing Site Suitability Map will become an addendum to the Land Use Map. Projects in areas designated on the suitability map which meet the review criteria may be judged to be consistent with the General Plan. Areas not designated will require an amendment of this map to achieve consistency. Once the program goals discussed in the implementation section of this element are achieved, an applicant will have to demonstrate a compelling need for more high density development in order to qualify for a density bonus Program. 30 HOUSING ELEMENT i I \ ;�I I tlT ... ITT T IL yy > EE F7 \Il %_ � � CL 1 �ED city of palm Desert POTENTIAL AFFORDABLE y_- T Tr CLs9' i i 1 HOUSING SITE SUITABILITY MAP SITE AREAS ,>.lW',•' a I _l f III �I �y '�.�,�rY1 \j'.� •- . `r BOUSIlNG7 ELEMENT ANNUAL REVIEW This Dousing element articulates policies and programs which will determine the direction the housing development will take over the next five years. Each year the city shall review these policies and programs to evaluate their validity and effectiveness, and to make necessary adjustments. 32 **AV, HOMING ELEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The programs described in the housing element will have generally positive environmental and social economic impacts. Potential negative impacts of specific projects will be mitigated by existing mechanisms incorporated into the development review process. Although indirectly growth inducing, programs are designed to enhance residential environmental quality, rectify the existing jobs/housing imbalance and provide additional affordable housing to meet the needs generated by econcanic growth. I. NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: While the development of housing unavoidably alters the natural desert environment, a system of development fees is being implemented to purchase and preserve 18 to 25 square miles of prime desert habitat. This area encompasses the full spectrum of desert ecosystems and includes the critical habitats of the endangered Coachella Valley Fringed-Toed Lizard and other rare plant and animal species. The Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program required a $600/acre mitigation fee for all -developments within the historic habitat. These funds are being used to create a 28 square mile preserve for the lizard and other desert species. The proposed siting of high density affordable housing near employment and commercial centers will shorten commuting distances, thus reducing fuel consumption and auto emissions. The implementation of the energy saving requirements of Title 24 of the building code, plus standards contained within the architectural review process, will serve to reduce consumption of limited natural resources. II. PUBLIC SERVICES: Impacts on schools generated by residential development will be mitigated through a $1.50 square foot school impact fee. Other development fees and special assessments will finance expanded police, fire and paramedic services. New developments are required to construct substantial recreation facilities on site. In addition, subdivisions must dedicate land or pay fees for expanded public recreation. 33 HOUSIlW, ElEMENr REVIEW OF PAST BOUSIM EIME M IMPUMMATION The 1984 Housing Element set forth a large list of ambitious programs to address the city's growing housing needs. Although not all goals were achieved, effective implementation of a substantial number of programs have significantly improved neighborhood quality and expanded affordable housing opportunities. The residential infrastructure program has succeeded in providing equal urban residential services throughout the city. The AHD, Senior Overlay, and Palma Village Specific Plan programs have achieved the city's goal for multifamily construction, senior housing, and neighborhood revitalization. Constraints of finance and administration have caused the city to re-evaluate some programs and design alternative approaches to solving the affordable problem. The city views the continued pursuit of the goals originally outlined in 1984 as vital to sustaining the city's economic prosperity and overall quality of life. 34 HOUSING ELEMENT 1984-1989 FIVE YEAR PFaM M REVIEW I. NEIGHBOIUUM QUALITY: A. Goal. Loan fund for completion of curb and gutters for one square mile area. Implementation. Through Palma Village Assessment District No. 3 full public improvements, curbs, gutters, and sewers are presently being completed (see page 14). B. Goal. Initiation of Specific Plans in areas targeted for Redevelopment Programs. Implementation. Completion of Palma Village Specific Plan in 1985 setting redevelopment and housing priorities for city's largest low/moderate income housing area. C. Goal. Rehabilitation loans. Implementation. Staff concentration on programs B and C delayed development of the rehab loan program to 1989-90 budget. Implementation will begin Fall 189. D. Goal. Loan program to encourage purchase of single family units by occupants. Implementation. Funding requirements of goal A prevented simultaneous implementation of the loan program. Subsequently, the city was approached by the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition to participate in a Self Help Housing Program (see page 18 3. a. ). Due to the substantial costs reductions achieved, the self-help program has replaced the original mortgage assistance plan. A mortgage assistance plan has been approved for a 56 unit condominium project. II. OOST AND PRICE REDUCTION OF NEW CCNSTRUCTION: A. Goal. Density bonuses to create 300 low income units, 900 moderate income units. Implementation. Through the AHDPR program 896 units were built including 180 rent controlled low income units. The balance (716) would qualify as moderate income units. An additional 612 units have been approved including 60 lower income units. Under Government Code Section 65915, 100 moderate income condominiums and 21 apartments were constructed. 35 HOUSING? ELEMENT Both the program goals and implementation have proved to be reasonably related to what can be achieved over a five year period. The program fell short of the lower income goal due to its dependence on moderate income demand and construction. The new element places greater enVhasis on direct rental subsidies to achieve program goals. B. Program Goal. Financial assistance for 170 units. Implementation. Funding and staff commitments for assessment district no. 3 delayed implementation of this program. This program has been substantially expanded (see program II A) and now forms the core of the five year plan. C. Goal. Zoning for manufactured housing - 400 acres - 2000 lots. Implementation. The city has maintained the existing 400 acres of manufactured housing and rezoned an additional 86 acres in connection with the construction of a new 241 lot mobile home park. The new legislation involving treatment of manufactured housing permits their location in all R-1 zanies. D. Program Goal. Zoning Ordinance amendments to facilitate senior housing - 500 units. Implementation. In 1985 the city created the Senior Housing Overlay which provides density bonuses and special development standards tailored to senior projects. The program has resulted in the construction of 257 congregate care and 13 senior apartments. An additional 243 congregate care and 176 apartments have been approved. These projects will include eight very law income and 15 lower income units. In-lieu fees of $460,900 have been collected to subsidize a new 60 unit all low and very low income senior project. The Senior Overlay has succeeded in generating a great deal of activity. Like the AHDPR program, lower income production is tied to the demand for market units. Absorbtion rates of the new projects are being studies to determine the needs and nature of future projects. 36 H USIM ELEMENT PUELIC PARFICIPATIQd Draft copies of this element were made available to and canments solicited from the Joslyn Cave Senior Center, Coachella Valley Housing Coalition and from the public in general through the public library. Public notices for planning comui.ssicn and city council hearings were published in local newspapers and posted at prominent locations throughout the city. 37 -STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEIIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Housing Policy Development Division 1800 Third Street, Room 430 P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 (916) 323-3176 October 3, 1989 Mr. Bruce Altman City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert's Draft Housing Element Amendment Thank you for submitting Palm Desert's draft housing element amendment September 5, 1989. As you know, we are required to review draft housing element amendments and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b) ) . Palm Desert's housing element is a well-written and comprehensive document, and establishes an ambitious schedule of program actions. In our opinion, however, the revision described in the following paragraph is needed to bring the element into compliance with State housing element law (Article 10. 6 of the Government Code) . Identified concerns were reviewed with Philip Drell, Senior Planner, in a telephone conversation on September 25, 1989. Following the recommended change, we refer to the applicable provision of the Government Code. The City has set projected program unit goals, but does not establish overall quantified objectives for the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved within the element's planning period (Section 65583 (b) ) . Overall objectives are significant because they include projected private market activity as well as City program goals. We hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. Mr. Bruce Altman Page Two In accordance with their requests according to the Public Information Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, Nan y J. vo , C i f Div sion of Ho si Policy Development NJJ:MA:bt cc: Philip Drell, Senior Planner, City of Palm Desert Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Christine D. Reed, Building Industry Association ♦ -1 a N 1 U 1 m 1 m 1 'o 1 Z I ; I r I r I 1••• I — 1 S 1 1410- A 1 A 1 A 1 CO I ca ICO A p i O r D 1 .+ I D 1 m I D 1 D 1 O 1 O 1 D I D I Z I Z I m I m 1 O 1 O 1 D I r I m I D 1-< A Z > mZ I < I Z I A I r I r I m : m ! 1 JC I O I O 1 ; 1 M A I D 1 --1 1 < i D I ZD i I TIA 1 D7 1 ; 1 3 1 A I m I O I m12 I r-1r" 1 m 1 O 1 A 1 S 1 -•1 I C 1Z -I --1 m 0 r- I A I SI I 1OI Z 1 C i 1 O 1 D I -� I p 1 Z 1 S I T 1 S I ; 1 m A a r D I N I O I N I N 1 0 1 1 O T I I Z 1 1 -I 1 D 1 T 1 0 1 T 1 O 1 Z O -i M 1-r r A I �•+ I I I I m I I I Z i t l I I 1 I I r 1 A 1 I Z r Z w '+ 1 O 1 ; I I A I N I 1 < 1 S I N I i E I I S 1 ! r I D 1 1 -1 I r T r A i Z 1 T I rr 1 I - 1 m I I D I D 1 - 1 I m I I O I I D I r- --I 1 1 I T W I a O M I I A I I Z I M I I r I I Z I I I I I I O J N r A M O I I D I I Q i l I r l 0 1 I r l I I I A I i 1 r '0 r I 1 C) I I VI I ! I m I I m I 1 N 1 I N 1 I 1 H I 1 1 r O r 1 1 m I I I I I < I I m I I wL a I i I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 A I 1 I < 1 I I w D r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I —Z 1 1 I I I I # --Iw 1 I 1 I i 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 i T • I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 Z 1 I I 1 1 I r O i w 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I # a 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 ! 1 1 1 I I I r ! I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 # T r 1 N I 1 I I 1 I + I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 Q # N ! W i ({) I 1 N 1 I 10 I N I + I p 1 A I A I N I W 1 O I 1 A 1 (0 1 W 1 (D 1 (0 O 1 # [P r J I J I (� 1 1 (O I A I N I N I N 1 (() I N I (j1 I W I I O I (n I p 1 + 1 + I + 1 1 M W w A I N I 1 0) 1 W I Ln I + I co I Q 1 1 J I W1 W I W I W 1 W I N I (r 1 (JI I In D 1 r W r J 1 01 I p l 0) 1 + I A I (0 1 (0 1 + 1 I D 1 J 1 W 1 AI WI IJI I (n I N I W 1 0) I N r 1 # • 1 1 ! I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I r k I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 M ! # I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I O R # I 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I M r 0) 2 0 r w R W 1 1 W i to 1 1 W 1 Q I + I O 1 A I A I N I N I Q I O I A I (D I J 1 W I W O C D # W ! IP I N I W I Q I A 1 A I N I N 1 N 1 (O I Q 1 Ir I J 1 In 1 0) 1 A 1 O 1 (0 1 O I (0 r N -i ♦ W R Q 1 A I (0 I N 1 + I A 1 IO I J I p 1 0) 1 N 1 (O 1 (n I A I O I (0 1 A I Ln I + I J O m Iti # (n # W 1 J 1 (O I co I W I N I (n I O I + 1 0) 1 (0 1 W 1 p 1 (n I W I N 1 J 1 p 1 (n I 0) 1 O ! r 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 Z < • i 1 1 I 1 I t I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 T •' - ! � 1 f t I 1 I I l i — a C 1 N # # 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 D O t t•1 w i 1 W I 1 I 1 I A I I I I t I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 m m t O W 1 I (0 --1 O 1 T a (D # A I W I + I Q I 1 + I N I I 1 I + 1 I W I W I N I A i I p 1 A 1 J T C I r 00 # A I + 1 + 1 I If I N I A I (0 I O I N 1 W I Q 1 A I W 1 4 I O I 1I W 1 + 1 m M D 1 A w i I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Q w ! 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 I C Z R • 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I -•I ♦ + 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 < R N r 1 I 1 I i I I I I i I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 C i co r I J I 1 I N 1 + 1 I W D r A w 0) 1 0) 1 fD I N 1 DD 1 01 1 tr I N I A I 0) I W I W I W I fJl I + I W I N I N t W I J O I Z O r m r Q I 1 N I co I (0 1 Cl) 1 W I + I (0 I W I N I N 1 I W 1 W I N I CO 1 J 1 0) I (O -( I C IV r J R N I .+ I I (0 1 0) 1 O 1 N 1 J I + I O I I N I O I A 1 O I (O I (O I W I J 1 0) D I D C w W w A I I Q 1 0) 1 (0 1 W I Ul I W I J I J I 0) I p 1 0) 1 m i In 1 + I A 1 W I OD 1 (0 r I )D r s w I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I < D w r I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 O I 1 + ►+ # r I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 T 1 O r 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 N 1 Z • O i I A 1 I 1 1 1 I N I 1 1 1 I I 1 + 1 1 1 1 I D s•1 1 r ID R N I J I N I W I W 1 (n 1 (11 I J I W I W I (n 1 .+ I J I N I W I + 1 (11 1 + I N I (n A Z I (0 D a + w A 1 0) I W 1 1 J) I J 1 (JI I I N 1 W 1 O I•(n 1 (n 1 W 1 A 1 J 1 0) I (0 I W I PI) S O 1 0) Z w . + I Q) ! W 1 A 1 W i W t In I W I W I W 1 N I O 1 (O 1 W 1 N 1 0) 1 N 1 + I + 1 W m r I (0 O w (0 r W I J 1 W 1 O 1 A I O I N 1 + 1 0 1 (n I W — I -1I + I p l ID I W I J I N I W O m I a R 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I S • i I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I D n 1 O r i 1 I I 1 I t 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 --1 D t C w r I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 -(;' 1 LA N ► I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I t I I I I I 1 1 D H I — r W w I W I A I I A I 0) 1 1 I + I 1 1 1 + 1 1 I I + I I 1 A r I Z w N r 0) I + 1 N 1 + I IO I Q I I I I + I N 1 tr I J I A 1 + I W 1 N 1 � 1 ( + 1 W = < I 17 M N r W t J I I N I + 1 (n 1 � 1 (O 1 W I Q) i W t W 1 W I N 1 N 1 W 1 (n 1 J 1 W 1 O m 1 r W w l71 I J I O 1 01 1 W 1 + I O I (O I W I W I f0 1 0) I W I + I 0) I W I W I W I (0 1 O I 1 m # r I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I N i R 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 ►+ i r I In I I I N I + I I + I I I I I + I I I I I I I -•1 C C r a J I + i T I N I A I UI I 1 0 1 + I W I p 1 m 1 (n 1 W I N I (n 1 0) i N I N I W O(N m R a W 1 0) I + I N I A I co I W I 10 I A I W I W I W I W I W I W I N I N I W I (n I W -1 1••1 (A w J a N 1 A 1 N 1 (0 1 O 1 01 1 A 1 co I A I W i N I (0 1 O 1 A 1 (0 I W I (n 1 + 1 J 1 A A►•1 Z r r 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I t 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I O i a 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 T r w 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I D C i • I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I i I 1 1 1 I I Ifn; Z M In r 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 M 1•+ r A w I CO I I I O I N I I N I I + 1 A r J a A I J I A 1 W I A 1 W 1 + I N 1 + I A I W 1 W 14 1. N 1 W 1 tJt 1 1 YJI 1 0) 1 (O r< N r Q w N 1 1 J 1 W I co 1 A 1 + 1 p 1 J 1 0) I m 1 W 1 (J 1 InI O I W 1 O I O 1 1 + C r tJt r 0) I W t I A I (D I (J7 I W I W 1 W 1 + 1 A I (0 I N I N I fD I N I I N I O I N N I 1 r a I 1 I 1 1 i 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 a r i I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 r • 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1- a ; 1 r N r I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 13:O I r N r I 1 1 1 1 1 I + 1 1 I 1 I A I I I I N I I I O W I r A r W I W i W I N I A 1 co I 1 I N I A I (O 1 1 Cr 1 W I W I N I 01 I I W i .� ;1••1 1 r W r I (O I W I I (D I A I A0) I W I W I O I W A I 1 W I Q I N 1 N 1 0) I W I In I N m r 1 r A r J I O I A 1 W I O I + I I N I N I W 1 i to I W I W I 1 W I W 1 p 1 J 1 In N m r ♦ I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I B O A • r I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I t 1 I I 1 I 1 1 t 1 )0 m D r r 1 ( I 1 I 1 i I I I i 1 I I 1 I 1 1 ( 1 ►+ ; . r N r 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 Z O r W r I J I 1 i + 1 I I W I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 0 1 -i O O r 0) M (n I W 1 A 1 U 1 A I W I (n I I W I Lq I p l 1 Q) I A I (O I W I O I N I W I J V A 1 T A T r p r A I A I O ! 1 N I L" I J I N I W I A t (0 1 + I A I W I N I N I W I (n I W 1 + H A 1 O D M . r 0) • (n 1 0) 1 N 1 0) I N I A I O I N I W I N I W I W 1 0 1 0) 1 (0 1 (n I W I W 1 1 J m C I D M co r W I N I J I W I N 1 0) I N I + 1 (D I A I p l N I J I W I W I A I W I W I p I W O 1 1 O S A, r r t 1 1 I 1 ( I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I A ►+-I r r I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 \A; • r I I t 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I ( 1 I I ( 1 1 .( N m # r I I I 1 I I ( I ( I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 Ir A Z M r I 1 N I I A I A I I I W I + I I Q) I I + ( I 1 + I 1 1 D I 1-1m••4 r J r 10 I A I (11 I N I f0 I W t N I N 1 + I A I W I A I (0 ( W ( W 1 + I t0 I 0) 1 0 1 (0 A I W N t r r 11 1 i t I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I D?L I (0 m 0 r p r A I + I CO 1 A 1 m I (n i W l (O I O I O I (0 1 J I W I W I p l I W I J I O I (0 Z 1 D m w J r p l + I N I W I J I W I + 1 01 I W I I W 1 In 1 W 1 W I A I N I N I N I + I W --1 I A a r 1 I f 1 1 1 I 1 I i 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I A T • • i 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I 'I 1 I �1 1 1 1 I I =F'1 • • I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 -., a�.. ♦ ♦ I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 I I I 1 � CC ♦ Ai ♦ N 1 N ( N t N 1 N I N I W I W 1 1 Al I W I N I r l Id I W I A I N I W I N I N m 2 ♦ • 1 1 t t I I 1 1 I I I i I 1 t I I I 1 C V m �+ r W r A I W 1 .+ 1 CO I I N I (71 I N I O I J I + I N I (0 I A I O I A I W I I J 1 0) r N m N '-4 T • O r J I O I (0 t + 1 0) I J I 0 I A I 1 (n 1 I W I (0 1 + 1 (0 ( N I I I N I A O m m O A I W I W f J I W 1 to 1 (0 I A I O I (0 1 O 1 (n 1 0) 1 J 1 W I (n 1 p 1 N 1 A 1 A 1 Z w.`o• CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPAR7MENT OF COMMUNITY DEVEWR4ENT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayer and City Council II. RAT: Consideration of the 1989 General Plan Housing Element. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: GPA 89-6 V. DATE: December 14, 1989 VI. 0TTEPTIS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Resolution No. D. Planning Commission Minutes•involving Case No. GPA 89-6. E. Plaming Commission Resolution No. 1398. F. Planning Cannission Staff Report dated October 17, 1989. G. Related maps and/or exhibits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF ON: Adopt Resolution No. approving GPA 89-6, the Housing Element to the General Plan. B. DISC13SSION: The State Housing Law requires that housing elements be revised to comply with current guidelines in 1989. The State Department of Housing and Ccntmxuty Development (HCD) has reviewed two drafts of the element and has suggested additions to better comply with the State Housing Element Law. In their last letter two minor changes were needed to achieve full compliance. 'Dose items involving a su mazy of quantified objectives and projections of the 1989 elderly population and households have been added. HCD was especially impressed by the city's "ambitious schedule of program actions" (pages 17-28). All the programs contained in the element have previously been initiated by the city council. The element has been reviewed by the Chamber of Commerce and although they declined to officially endorse the plan, reaction was positive. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The primary goals of the Housing Element are to preserve the quality of the existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods and to construct CM OOU CCIIL STAFF RAT CPA 89-6 DF7CFI�BF Z 14, 1989 sufficient new affordable housing so that employees working in Palm Desert can live in Palm Desert. The successful implementation of this goal will have substantial beneficial impacts on the envirorment including reduced air emissions and traffic impacts resulting from shorter commuter trips. The proposed new construction programs are mitigation measures designed to address the impacts of the city's eocnomic growth. A negative declaration has been prepared. Impacts of specific projects will be subject to additional metal review at the time of project design. Prepared by. C ,h Reviewed and Approved by: PD/tm 2 RESX UM ON NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CCNMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN ANMNE1T, THE HOUSING ELMM. CASE NO. GPA 89-6 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of December, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request approval of a new housing element to the general plan; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of community development has determined that the amendment will not have a negative impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of the general plan amendment: 1. The proposed housing element complies with the California State Housing Element Law, Government Administration Code Section 65580. 2. The proposed policies and programs will enhance housing opportunities for all segments of the Palm Desert oc mtrdty. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the ccnmissicn in this case. 2. That it does hereby approving of a general plan amendment: the Housing Element and the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk PD/tm RE.SCHUPION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NECATI S DECLARATION CASE ND: GPA 89-6 APPLICANP/PRaJEC,T SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PRDJEC,T DF,SC RIPTICN/LOC ATION: City of Palm Desert General Plan Housing Element revision. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the Wit. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. ---------------------------------------- RAbC)N A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF CCK4JNITY DEVELOPMENT PD/tm 2 MIN[TIES PALM DESERT PLAT NIM C CHMISSION NMIE BER 21, 1989 could be reinforced by call it out. Commussioner Erwood asked that it be added as a condition. Commissioner Jonathan felt that it was time for a child care facility in the city and felt it would be hard to find a better location at this time. He felt the raised median made sense, but having a break in the median would result in U-turns and felt the median should be put to where U-turns should take place. He also felt the playground equipment not being visible would be taken care of and did not see additional landscaping as a problem. He stated that subject to those requirements, he would move for approval. Commissioner Richards agreed that this was an appropriate location; concerns about wall height, landscaping and noise he did not feel was a problem when next to a medical office, but felt that steps should be taken in case there were a different type of office use there in the future. He felt it was important to keep this in the motif that this is in an office professional zone and all attempts should be made by the architect and developer to ensure that the next tenant would allow another use. He did not feel that the building should be designed as a single purpose building. He also indicated that staff should look at the whole problem of child care in a bigger way. He was uncomfortable about putting a child care facility anywhere. He noted that this was a big deal and steps should be taken to create an overlay zone, as well as a list of desired locations, so that developers and owners would understand that the city recognizes that there is a need and is meeting its obligation to provide possible locations and requested that staff think about that and bring back an estimate of need for child care centers, suggestions from professionals in the area as to where they might be located so that it is not handled on a spot by spot basis. 1, econded the motion for approval. d � r Action: di3 Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Came ds, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried ft `sit Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner � �n I® adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1397, approving CUP 89- 0/� 13, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. A. C:onthmied Case No. GPA 89-6 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to city council concerning approval of a negative declaration of 6 16101 YMMUTES PALM DESERT PLANNDU COMISSION NUA BER 21, 1989 environmental impact and a revised housing element to the Palm Desert General Plan. Mr. Drell noted that at the last meeting Commissioner Richards requested that this document be distributed to the more prnmmminent committees in the city. He indicated that a presentation was given before the chamber of commerce development cannittee--they would formulate a recommendation to present to the board of directors and if this is moved to council, they will present their views to city council on December 14, 1989. He also indicated that it was brought before the city's economic development connittee which consisted mainly of discussion. He indicated that if there were any changes, that could be incorporated as part of the commission's recommendation to council. Commissioner Downs asked Commissioner Richards what the position was of the economic development committee. Commissioner Richards indicated that it was mostly just an informational item to the EDC-- he dial not feel there would be an official recommendation from them. Commissioner Richards felt that this was a city concern that did not seem to draw much attention now, but felt it would when it's done. He indicated that staff had noticed the different committees and felt it should proceed. Commissioner Downs indicated that he would be recommending it up to city council. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood moving this item to city council. Commissioner Richards indicated that he was not necessarily against the motion, but felt that sane discussion was needed. He stated that he had some comments to make for the record. He said that his concerns start with basic philosophy and the fact that he was not sure that the motivation for the housing element was clear--from a legal and moral responsibility he said was clear, but how fast and the degree was a matter of choice. He felt the intent of the report was to take the high, fast road. He felt that some of the number crunching was not perfect and staff indicated that it was intended to be in the general area; he felt that all of the development around 7 NDIVLTI'ES PALM DFSERT PLANNIM CESSION NW043ER 21, 1989 the Washington Street area and the fact that the city surrounds Palm Desert Greens, sane of those numbers in terms of housing that do occur in the city should be included. An application will be before Lafco in January by residents of Palm Desert Country Club where they indicated they want to be in our sphere of influence and the next step would be to discuss possible annexation. He noted that a lawsuit had just been settled that indicated that some additional acreage might cane into the city in the area near the Sunterra project. He felt that an alternative that could meet some of our needs could be annexation of areas where housing needs are already in existence and the ability to create more is there. He reiterated that one problem was basic philosophy that the housing element itself is limited in the alternatives offered for the means and methods of achieving the goals of the state and moral obligations. He was concerned about the mobile home park purchase; the 1100 unit apartment building and the city would be obligating itself to spending a lot of money and the alternatives were not there. He felt that the report did not discuss the ethnic situations in the valley with people who might feel more comfortable living in hispanic areas because of their comfort zone and alternatives had not been explored on what other cities and counties are doing to meet these problems and have not been given any data to indicate other methods to gain additional time or get more information in handling the same problem. He asked that staff consider his concerns before it was sent to council until some other alternatives were explored in terms of past projects like One Quail Place and the San Tropez Villas and provide discussion as to their success or failure. He did not see any discussion as to why the city was purchasing the mobile hone park and the rent control issues involved with that. He felt these were important issues that need to be addressed, especially specific alternatives such as the suggestion that the market place could be utilized as a method of creating new apartments with the idea that if it were rezoned, a great number of locations for high density apartments change some of the requirements and lowers the costs, some of these things could be achieved instead of looking into a subsidy program, and no discussion was provided as to whether it was good, bad or indifferent. He noted that he had been involved in the investment side of some of these things and there were serious problems as to whether they work, don't work and how they work. Cc missicner Richards indicated that if a housing element was going to be created that tells the direction the city wants to go, the commission should have a better idea of all the alternatives, including research on the subject of manufactured housing. Not mobile homes, but houses built by a manufacturer and put on a site, which he felt was one of the lowest and cheapest forms of housing, even cheaper than apartments. He noted there was a section in the 8 MIIVI.)PFS PALM DESERT PLANNIM COMMISSION NUA BER 21, 1989 city designated that way and has yet to see anything done. He indicated he would like to see the housing element expanded. Commissioner Downs asked for comments from Mr. Drell. Mr. Drell stated that if there were a lot of alternatives available, the city would not have this problem and the element basically addresses low and very low income housing--rents between the range of $200-$400 per month. He indicated there were no alternatives to produce housing that meets that need other than subsidization. He noted there might be a lot of housing that the city might be annexing which would address moderate income housing; the element states that the market can and does produce an ample supply of moderate income housing; the problem is low and very low income housing. He indicated that the problem with One Quail Place and San Tropez Villas has been the fact that for every eight moderate units produced only two lower income units--there isn't enough demand for the eight units to create an internal subsidy to allow the developer to lower the rents on the controlled income ones. He stated that it is recognized in the element that the city is not going to get enough low and very low income units through the process employed with One Quail Place and San Tropez Villas. Commissioner Richards asked about including discussion of lowering standards and making the development more economically feasible. He noted that the city has high standards and fees that are charged before a building is built. He wanted to see staff attempt to address what could be done and compare it to other cities. He wanted to see discussion about what other attempts could be tried, including modification of current and existing ordinances. Mr. Diaz stated that the element was not an end-all in itself and there would be continued review as the projects cane on-line before commission and council. He felt that the suggestion of looking at the development standards was something that the element did look at and it would be a suggestion that would be carried onto the council that the impact of the elements be examined and as far as fees and other costs, generally affordable housing projects are exempted from those fees. He stated that was something that could be looked at--this element is a start and does not preclude the city from evaluating other things and that would be brought to the council's attention. Commissioner Richards felt this was a case when a lawsuit and a state law is forcing the city to came up with a housing element in a short period of time and he requested that the commission explore and leave discussion open and wanted staff to have someone that was an expert in this field describe to the commission what the state-of-the-art alternatives are; examples of where they work and don't work, so that 9 NII�ICTPFS PALM DESERT PLANNUG CAM ISSIC K NUMMER 21, 1989 before it is stated in the housing element that the city wants to spend a serious amount of money. Mr. Drell indicated that the funds committed in this element were redevelopment agency funds which the city collects that must be spent on these programs. Commissioner Richards stated that that did not relieve the city of the obligation of spending those collars wisely--he did not feel enough information was available in providing low cost alternatives; he indicated that some developers put in manufactured housing and then rent it for approximately $350 total per month. Mr. Drell indicated that there are zones that allow that and a rental park was being constructed now; he also indicated that manufactured housing in California was a non-issue in that the city could not discriminate in any form and was considered as any other form of housing. Mr. Diaz stated that the important issue was that the alternatives were open and it would be looked at constantly. C.ammissicner Jonathan noted there was a motion to send this up to council and stated that he would vote against it--he recognized the city's obligation to be involved in the solution but he felt it was a matter of degree and methodology and felt he needed to be educated further especially on the alternatives; he indicated that under this plan the city would become a banker, builder, land purchaser and this would involve loans for rehabilitation of low income housing, direct expenditure for rehabilitation, subsidy of low income housing, low interest loans, purchase of lots, section 8 rents--subsidy cost unknown, and until he learned more about it, was uncertain with the city becoming involved in the free market place; he also expressed concern with methodology--he liked the self-help housing concept and wondered if some areas could be emphasized and other de-emphasized. Commissioner Erwood noted that there was a lot of discussion on philosophical differences, basically he summarized the undercurrent as that this was making the city of Palm Desert get away from the free enterprise system and would be providing houses. While that might be true, but there is a state mandated law. When taking a position as a planning commissioner, sometimes decisions have to be made that may not personally be agreed with, but the law has to be followed. He had no objection to anyone who says they need more time, but he did object to anyone placing their personal aversion to following the law. It is something that has to be drone and a decision to provide low cost housing in Palm Desert was going to have to be made--the method to be used could be worked out. Commissioner Richards did not feel that he or Commissioner Jonathan's opinion was that we don't want to do what has to be done; however, that in itself could be an issue. The fact that ten years ago this 10 ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS,TR. PORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY " PETE WILSON,Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT T DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT (D 0 �Z L . . 1800THIRD STREET, Room 430 Y P.O BOX 952053 6 �G"'� a rrrth�` SACRAMENTO, CA 94252-20530 (916)323-3176 FAX (916)323-6625 June 8, 1992 RECEIVED J U N 9 1992 PALM OESERt caa� CITY MAN+r-., Mr. Bruce Altman City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert's Adopted Housing Element Amendment Regarding the Preservation of Assisted Units Thank you for submitting Palm Desert's adopted housing element amendment, received April 24, 1992 and a facsimile transmittal on May 20, 1992. As you know, we are required to review adopted housing elements and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (h) ) . Our review has been facilitated by telephone conversations on May 19 and May 28, 1992, with Philip Drell, Senior Planner. This letter summarizes the conclusion of those conversations. Palm Desert's adopted amendment adequately addresses the comments in our October 31, 1991 review letter regarding the requirement to address the preservation of subsidized housing units at risk of conversion as a result of Chapter 1451, Statues of 1989. We are therefore pleased to find that with the adoption of the amendment, Palm Desert continues to be in compliance with state housing element law (Article 10. 6 of the Government Code) as noted in our letter of May 23 , 1991. We wish you success in the implementation of your housing element and we hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. l� Mr. Bruce Altman Page 2 In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and organizations listed below. Sincerely, Thomas B. Cook Deputy Director cc: Philip Drell, Sr. Planner, Riverside County Planning Department Coachella Valley Association of Governments Western Center on Law and Poverty Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law Ana Marie Whitaker, Cal Poly, Pomona David Booher, California Housing Council Eileen McCarthy, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Karen Warner, Cotton/Beland/Associates Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Dwight Hanson, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS,TRt; ORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON,Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT " i "� DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1800THIRD STREET, Room 430 ' P.O BOX 952053 SACRAMENTO, CA 94252-2053 (916)323-3176 FAX (916)323-6625 June 8, 1992 Mr. Bruce Altman City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert's Adopted Housing Element Amendment Regarding the Preservation of Assisted Units Thank you for submitting Palm Desert's adopted housing element amendment, received April 24, 1992 and a facsimile transmittal on May 20, 1992 . As you know, we are required to review adopted housing elements and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (h) ) . Our review has been facilitated by telephone conversations on May 19 and May 28 , 1992, with Philip Drell, Senior Planner. This letter summarizes the conclusion of those conversations. Palm Desert' s adopted amendment adequately addresses the comments in our October 31, 1991 review letter regarding the requirement to address the preservation of subsidized housing units at risk of conversion as a result of Chapter 1451, Statues of 1989 . We are therefore pleased to find that with the adoption of the amendment, Palm Desert continues to be in compliance with state housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code) as noted in our letter of May 23, 1991. We wish you success in the implementation of your housing element and we hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. STATE OF CALIFORNIA- BUSINESS,TRRTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOF` DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1900 THIRD STREET,Room 430 P.O.BOX 952053urrn6� SACRAMENTO,CA 94252-2053 (916)323-3176 FAX(916)323-6625 May 23 , 1991 Mr. Bruce Altman City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert' s Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting Palm Desert's adopted housing element, received January 23 , 1991. As you know, we are required to review adopted housing elements and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (h) ) . Palm Desert's housing element is a well-written and comprehensive document, and establishes an ambitious schedule of program actions. Our review has been facilitated by a May 3, 1991 telephone conversation with Philip Drell, Senior Planner. This letter summarizes the conclusion of that discussion. The adopted element adequately addresses the concerns identified in our October 3 , 1989 review letter and we are pleased to find that, in our opinion, it complies with housing element law (Article 10. 6 of the Government Code) . In particular the element now includes quantified objectives for the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved within the element's planning period. The City is to be commended for it's efforts in maintaining an affordable housing stock. The City has indicated that following the adoption of its element it acquired two multifamily developments that will be available for rent to lower-income residents of the City. We understand that the City' s redevelopment agency, as result of lawsuit filed against the agency, has entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Judgement which calls for the development, rehabilitation or acquisition of 1, 100 low-and moderate-income housing units before December 31, 1995. According to the stipulation, the agency has the option of developing new units, rehabilitation or acquisiton of existing units. The new units constructed under this stipulation would count toward meeting the regional share need. Mr. Bruce Altman Page 2 For your information, Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989, requires all housing elements to include, by January 1, 1992 , additional needs analyses and programs to address the potential conversion of existing, assisted housing developments to non-low- income housing uses during the next ten-year period (Government Code Section 65583 (a) (8) and (c) (6) ) . Since these revisions are not required until January 1, 1992 , the compliance status of the element will not be affected until the 1992 deadline. We have attached a technical assistance paper, Housing Element Analysis: Preservation of Assisted Housing to assist the City in addressing the new requirements. For your information, a recent California State Supreme Court Decision (Davis v. Berkeley, 51 Cal.3d. 227, 272 Cal. Rptr. 139, 794 P. 2d. 897) has eliminated uncertainty with regard to using general or "blanket" Article 34 authority to develop low- rent housing. The Court found that a ballot measure need not be site specific or project specific. Thus, housing sponsors may proceed with the construction or acquisition of publicly-assisted or publicly-owned, low-rent housing projects which rely on pre- existing or future general Article 34 authority.- We hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, homas B. Cook, Chief Housing Policy Development Division Mr. Bruce Altman Page 3 cc: Philip Drell, Senior Planner, City of Palm Desert Eileen McCarthy, California Rural Legal Assistance David Booher, California Housing Council Western Center on Law & Poverty Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law Ana Marie Whitaker, Calif. State University Pomona Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Christine D. Reed, Orange County Building Industry Association Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing k-COV 0 Iftu m o 0 0 �� 4 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)340-0574 April 21, 1992 Mr. Mario Angel Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy Development 1800 Third Street, Room 430 P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, California 94252-2053 Re: Palm Desert Housing Element Amendment Dear Mr. Angel : The enclosed Exhibit "B" is the adopted amendment to the Palm Desert Housing Element analyzing at-risk affordable housing. As the amendment states., there is only one project, Candlewood Apartments, potentially subject to loss. All others, including San Tropez, are covered by development agreements through the year 2015. In response to your letter of October 31, 1991, I have estimated the cost of acquiring and subsidizing Candlewood Apartments if the owners choose to terminate the HUD contract. I have also included our most recent projections for our entire housing subsidy program through 2021. It includes costs on a project by project basis, subsidy by individual unit type, and available revenues. While we don' t anticipate having to buy Candlewood in the near future, we plan to acquire and subsidize over 2500 units in the 10 year period. If you need further information or analysis, please give me a call at ( 619 ) 776-6300 ext. 585. Sincerely, V PHILIP DRELL SENIOR PLANNER /tm Enclosure EXHIBIT "B" G. PRESERVATION OF EXISTING ASSISTED HOUSING Chapter 1451 , Statutes of 1989 amended Section 65583 of the Government Code to require analysis and preserve existing controlled low housing which is at risk of being lost over the next ten year period ( 2002 ) . Controlled low and moderate income housing in the City of Palm Desert falls into three basic categories : 1 ) Inclusionary programs associated with the Senior Overlay, Affordable High Density Zone and Government Code 65916 ( some of which are financed with tax exempt bonds ) ; 2 ) Privately owned, federally assisted new construction; and 3 ) Local agency, publicly owned and assisted units . 1 ) Inclusionary Projects - All projects built under City of Palm Desert inclusionary programs are subject to a recorded development agreement controlling the required low/moderate income units for a minimum period of 30 years regardless of associated bond requirements . Projects approved after 1988 are controlled for the life of the facility with a minimum 30 years . - None of these agreements will expire before the year 2015 . Of the 1071 units built under these programs, the Riverside County Housing Authority has purchased 534 units and has made offers on an additional 512 units for inclusion in the Redevelopment 'Agency' s rent subsidy program. 2 ) Privately Owned Federally Assisted Projects - The city contains one private project financed and assisted under the 221( d) ( 4 ) program. Candlewood Apartments located at 74-000 Shadow Mountain Drive is a 30 one bedroom senior project with 26 units subsidized for low and very low income households. The HUD contract runs through 2018 . The owner has an option to withdraw from the contract every five years. The next option year is 1993 . He has no intention of terminating the contract before 2018 and has agreed to inform the city of any change in plans. If and when the city was to become aware of an intention to terminate the contract, the project would be considered for acquisition as part of the Riverside County Housing Authority/Redevelopment Agency subsidy program. The program uses tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds issued by the Riverside County Housing Authority to purchase existing .,.,, projects and build new units which are subsidized by the Redevelopment Agency according to Section 8 guidelines. Based on similar projects recently purchased by the Housing ` --� Authority, the 1991 market value of Candlewood Apartments is 3 $1 . 5 millio�''or $50, 000/unit. An average per unit subsidy of S349/month would be required to maintain the existing Section r 8 low and very low income rent schedule. Total RDA housing revenues for 1991-92 are $3 . 3 million. By the year 2000 housing revenues are projected to rise to $7 .3 million and will be capable of subsidizing 2500 very low, low and moderate income households . 3 ) The Riverside County Housing Authority in partnership with the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency currently owns 598 units. By 1995 at least 1359 units will be owned by the Housing Authority and subsidized by the Redevelopment Agency for very low, low and moderate households . All units subsidized by the Redevelopment Agency are required to be preserved for the life of the project area through 2027. Ir ', L,j 4 •- C•b .• .. S O N p O � �• C p y o- r S C 0 ,., R• ,.. `s zz zz m o , .- . e. • rm m m r W m m . a• o ---------- ----- --------------- N i ,.. � ... • gym.. m � ^ ..+ , .•'.. : e i m .- o m o, --------- ---- m -------------- m of m m time zj r---------- ----- --------------- tv = mm --------- ----- � m----ti Wpm ---------- ----- ------------- - - - • Wm , Wti • . - - • - • -------- - � ^ W � --------------- _ m W - = = m--=-=- --------- ----- m----- ----~ m W . W W rti _ ra � • ^ _ _ . _ • 61N m � . - . mmW • W . m m - -------- - --------- ----- m------------ - ts tn • aw b e o — � 62-191 IM N n P r O H •�-- y y _ O 00 Iz q � K " mms � a � _ ti = mom — e m m � " mn;:iZ ZW - m - - ---------- ----- ---------------- ---------- ----- ---------------- - tt m _ 9t m a 9z m _® ---------- ----- ---------------- - m m tims � ® m _ mm _ti i m _ -_ w = mwv� N P � � � m mm � � � mmm m gm ---------- ----- ---------------- - ig tz - _ °° _ ° m W s c ss - - - - - � a mmm o mm., a mmmo < � fig^ o m ^ mo mmmo m ————————-—— -.. .r .. .. -.. to .g M �.... i $ N t;4 .. ,.. z -- ----------------- -- S o r . m ti .n ————————————— Z r Nig :zzz -t ... z att z ati W5s zi 0 =� -=- --------------- =—� � � Y $ tg e e .. a~ _ - -- — - o — - o - - - m - - - - m -------------- --• o— - o000 00 - - .— r e PALM DESERT RIDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 03-Dec-91 PROJECTED HOUSING INCREMENT FISCAL YEAR 1991/1992 THROUGH 2O1712018 TOWN CENTER Annex Orig PALMA VILLAGE APARTMENT AREA 11 TOTAL PROJECT 11 PROJECT 11 DEBT SERVICE COMMITMENT BALANCE AREA 12 AREA 13 AVAILABLE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1991 2,021,689 1,122,314 747,000 0 2,397,003 896,022 0 3,293,025 1992 2,227,386 1,185,453 744,000 6 2,668,833 957,311 77,042 3,763,186 1993 2,397,655 1,269,285 745,000 0 2,921,940 1,014,248 139,782 4,075,970 1994 2,558,759 1,352,300 741,000 0 3,170,059 1,083,261 202,869 4,456,189 1995 2,722,783 1,422,178 740,000 0 3,404,961 1,155,934 248,665 4,808,060 1996 2,913,378 1,507,509 742,000 0 3,678,886 1,270,537 296,557 5,245,981 1997 3,117,314 1,597,959 739,008 0 3,976,273 1,397,591 348,581 5,722,446 1998 3,335,526 1,693,837 744,000 0 4,285,363 1,537,350 404,387 6,227,100 1999 3,569,013 1,795,467 742,000 0 4,622,480 1,691,085- 457,432 6,770,997 ~' 2000 3,818,844 1,903,195 743,000 0 4,979,039 1,861,194 514,340 7,353,573 2001 4,086,163 2,017,387 743,000 0 5,360,556 2,046,213 573,538 7,980,301 2002 4,372,195 2,138,430 743,000 6 5,767,624 2,250,835 636,948 8,655,407 2003 4,678,248 2,266,736 743,008 0 6,201,984 2,475,918 764,868 9,382,770 i 2004 5,005,725 2,402,740 743,000 0 6,665,465 2,723,510 777,613 10,166,588 2005 5,356,126 2,546,904 743,000 0 7,166,830 2,995,861 855,523 11,011,414 2006 5,570,371 2,648,780 743,000 0 7,476,152 3,205,571 938,962 11,626,685 2001 5,793,186 2,754,732 743,000 0 7,804,918 3,429,961 1,124,448 12,259,327 2008 6,024,914 2,864,921 0 0 8,889,834 3,670,658 1,115,918 13,675,811 2009 6,265,910 2,979,518 0 0 9,245,428 3,926,962 1,213,791 14,386,181 2010 6,516,547 3,098,698 0 0 9,615,245 4,081,041 1,318,516 15,017,802 - 2011 6,777,208 3,222,646 0 0 9,999,855 4,247,402 1,431,571 15,677,828 2012 7,048,297 3,351,552 0 0 10,399,849 4,417,299 1,550,470 16,367,617 2013 7,330,229 3,485,614 0 0 10,815,843 4,593,990 1,678,762 17,188,595 2014 7,623,438 3,625,039 0 0 11,248,477 4,777,750 1,816,034 17,842,261 2015 7,928,375 3,770,040 0 0 11,698,416 4,968,860 1,962,915 18,630,191 2016 8,245,510 3,920,842 0 0 12,166,352 5,167,614 2,120,078 19,454,045 2017 8,575,331 4,077,676 0 0 12,653,006 5,374,319 2,288,243 20,315,568 2018 8,918,344 4,240,783 0 0 13,159,127 5,589,292 2,468,179 21,216,597 2019 9,275,078 4,410,414 0 0 13,685,492 5,812,863 2,660,710 22,159,065 2020 9,646,081 4,586,831 0 0 14,232,911 6,045,378 2,866,719 23,145,008 2021 10,031,924 4,770,304 0 0 14,802,228 6,287,193 3,087,148 24,176,569 Assulptions: 1991-1995 Growth equals anticipated new construction plus 41 for all project areas. Thereafter, growth rates are as follows: Annex Project #1, 74 1996 to 2005, 42 2086 to 2021. Original Project #1, 61 1996 to 2005, 41 2806 to 2021. Project 12, 101 1996 to 2005, 71 2006 to 2009, 4% 2010 to 2021. Project 13, per Rosenow Spevacek Group Inc Project Area #3 Report. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING�,,oOMMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 the wooden fence and have it hauled away, and Mr. Brien would put up the block wall . He indicated that he was willing to do this to keep peace in the family. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. LEE BARRY, the property owner behind the proposed project, informed commission that he did not recall agreeing to tear down the fence and haul it away but felt it could be worked out later. He indicated that the Jefferson' s next door to him, whose property line also backed up to the applicant' s property although not as much as to his, were not in town and he had explained the situation to them and did not feel they had a problem. Mr. Barry said that he would tear down the fence if Mr. Brien would haul it away. Mr. Brien distributed some pictures to the commission of the property in question showing the fences involved. Commissioner Downs recommended that Mr. Barry tear down the fence and Mr. Brien haul it away and install the block wall . Mr. Brien concurred that he would do this. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for any comments by commission. Action• Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1552, approving PP 91-15, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. E. Case No. GPA 92-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to the General Plan Housing Element adding an analysis of existing low income assisted housing at risk of being lost over the next ten years. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING` MMISSION JANUARY 7, 1992 Mr. Drell explained that there was a change in the housing law that required the city to analyze the existing housing stock and decide which projects could be lost because of contracts with H.U.D. or assisted housing that expire periodically. He noted that in Palm Desert there was only one project which was in that category--Candlewood Apartments owned by Dick Oliphant. He indicated that Mr. Oliphant had a contract through the year 2018 and did not feel Mr. Oliphant had any intention of giving up that option. Mr. Drell noted that Exhibit B had the required paragraphs that the law specifies and had been reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development and was found to be in substantial compliance. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried- 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1553, recommending approval of GPA 92-1 to city council . Carried 5-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS None. IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MS. DIANE DUNN, 77-777 Country Club Drive, introduced herself to the commission and said that she was Dan Ehrler' s new assistant and would be attending the planning commission meetings. MS. RUTH GUIBERSON, 44-875 San Antonio Circle in Palm Desert, addressed the commission regarding Case No. PP/CUP 90-5 Amendment. Chairperson Whitlock explained to Ms. Guiberson that this case was at the city council level and the planning 21 r�r�itic+li+tom �.�run1SSZUN RESOLUTION Nn . 1553 A RESOLUTT OF THE PLANNING COMMISS!%,,r1 OF THE CITY OF PALM DE�RT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT ADDING AN ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM DEALING WITH ASSISTED LOW INCOME HOUSING UNITS AT RISK OF BEING LOST DURING THE NEXT TEN YEARS . CASE NO. GPA 92-1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of January, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and General Plan Housing Element Amendment adding an analysis and program dealing with assisted low income housing units at risk of being lost during the next ten years; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89" , in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find that the amendment complies with Section 65583 of the Government Code as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of -the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and GPA 92-1 Exhibit "B" are hereby recommended for approval to city council . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th, day of January, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, JONATHAN, RICHARDS, SPIEGEL, WHITLOCK NOES : NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAM ON A. DIAZ, Sec ary l ,j PD/tm uc],r.r l,AV Vw.`1,71...JU�w.r :'.uJVLv . lv.l lrV . _iJJ 1 1 1%W S' EXHIBIT A E Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: GPA 92-1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Amendment to the General Plan Housing Element adding an analysis of existing low income assisted housing at risk of being lost over the next ten years. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,- California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. January 7, 1992 RAeMl . DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMU DEVELOPMENT PD/tm 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOL,,.;NT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: January 7, 1992 1�SE NO: GPA 92-1 REQUEST: Amendment to the General Plan Housing Element adding an analysis of existing low income assisted housing at risk of being lost over the next ten years. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND' Section 65583 of the Government Code was amended in 1989 to require housing elements to contain an analysis of existing assisted housing at risk of being lost in a ten year period through expiration of HUD contracts or other rental controls. Only one project, Candlewood Apartments, is at risk of loss during the ten year period. The project is covered by a HUD contract through 2018 although the owner has the option to withdraw at five year intervals. The owner has expressed an intention to maintain the contract-through its entire term. If he were to withdraw, the city and redevelopment agency would consider acquiring the project to preserve the low income units. II. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to city council approval of GPA 92-1. III. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution. B. Legal notice. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by PD/tm ' CITY OF PALM DESERT DEL, 2MENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELC ENT i STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: January 7, 1992 CASE NO: GPA 92-1 REQUEST: Amendment to the General Plan Housing Element adding an analysis of existing low income assisted housing at risk of being lost over the next ten years. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND• Section 65583 of the Government Code was amended in 1989 to require housing elements to contain an analysis of existing assisted housing at risk of being lost in a ten year period through expiration of HUD contracts or other rental controls. Only one project, Candlewood Apartments, is at risk of loss during the ten year period. The project is covered by a HUD contract through 2018 although the owner has the option to withdraw at five year intervals. The owner has expressed an intention to maintain the contract through its entire term. If he were to withdraw, the city and redevelopment agency would consider acquiring the project to preserve the low income units. II. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt findings and Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to city council approval of GPA 92-1 . III. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution. B. Legal notice. Prepared by �h-, � Reviewed and Approved by PD/tm PLANN: ', COMMISSION RESOLUTION NC • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY + OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT ADDING AN ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM DEALING WITH ASSISTED LOW INCOME HOUSING UNITS AT RISK OF BEING LOST DURING THE NEXT TEN YEARS. CASE NO. GPA 92-1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of January, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and General Plan Housing Element Amendment adding an analysis and program dealing with assisted low income housing units at risk of being lost during the next ten years; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89" , in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find that the amendment complies with Section 65583 of the Government Code as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and GPA 92-1 Exhibit "B" are hereby recommended for approval to city council. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this day of 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary PD/tm PLANNING COMMISSION ?SOLUTION NO. a EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO• GPA 92-1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Amendment to the General Plan Housing Element adding an analysis of existing low income assisted housing at risk of being lost over the next ten years. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PD/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION R-OLUTION NO. a EXHIBIT "B" G. PRESERVATION OF EXISTING ASSISTED HOUSING Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989 amended Section 65583 of the Government Code to require analysis and preserve existing controlled low housing which is at risk of being lost over the next ten year period ( 2002 ) . Controlled low and moderate income housing in the City of Palm Desert falls into three basic categories: 1 ) Inclusionary programs associated with the Senior Overlay, Affordable High Density Zone and Government Code 65916 (some of which are financed with tax exempt bonds) ; 2 ) Privately owned, federally assisted new construction; and 3 ) Local agency, publicly owned and assisted units. 1 ) Inclusionary Projects - All projects built under City of Palm Desert inclusionary programs are subject to a recorded development agreement controlling the required low/moderate income units for a minimum period of 30 years regardless of associated bond requirements. Projects approved after 1988 are controlled for the life of the facility with a minimum 30 years. None of these agreements will expire before the year 2015. Of the 1071 units built under these programs, the Riverside County Housing Authority has purchased 534 units and has made offers on an additional 512 units for inclusion in the Redevelopment Agency' s rent subsidy program. 2) Privately Owned Federally Assisted Projects - The city contains one private project financed and assisted under the 221(d) (4) program. Candlewood Apartments located at 74-000 Shadow Mountain Drive is a 30 one bedroom senior project with 26 units subsidized for low and very low income households. The HUD contract runs through 2018. The owner has an option to withdraw from the contract every five years. The next option year is 1993. He has no intention of terminating the contract before 2018 and has agreed to inform the city of any change in plans. If and when the city was to become aware of an intention to terminate the contract, the project would be considered for acquisition as part of the Riverside County Housing Authority/Redevelopment Agency subsidy program. The program uses tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds issued by the Riverside County Housing Authority to purchase existing projects and build new units which are subsidized by the Redevelopment Agency according to Section 8 guidelines. Based on similar projects recently purchased by the Housing Authority, the 1991 market value of Candlewood Apartments is 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 'SOLUTION NO. `arr►" $1 . 5 million or $50, 000/unit. An average per unit subsidy of $349/month would be required to maintain the existing Section 8 low and very low income rent schedule. Total RDA housing revenues for 1991-92 are $3.3 million. By the year 2000 housing revenues are projected to rise to $7.3 million and will be capable of subsidizing 2500 very low, low and moderate income households. 3 ) The Riverside County Housing Authority in partnership with the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency currently owns 598 units. By 1995 at least 1359 units will be owned by the Housing Authority and subsidized by the Redevelopment Agency for very low, low and moderate households. All units subsidized by the Redevelopment Agency are required to be preserved for the life of the project area through 2027. 4 w I C�Hv oq 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 December 20, 1991 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. GPA 92-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert. Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the City of Palm Desert General Plan Housing Element adding Section III G, Preservation of Existing Assisted Housing in compliance with Government Code Section G5583 and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it applies thereto. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 7, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development/planning at the above addreq-3 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. if you challenge the proposed actions in count, you may be limited to raising only these issues your or someone else r,iised at tf-ie public hearing described in this notice, or- in written r arr•espor�dence tie 1 i vere�i o tine p i ar7r7 i ng cornet i ss i on ar city cnunc i 1 ) at., or- F�r i yr tc), the pub l i�. hearing. POO ISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secret,�ry December 25, 1991 rair�� Desert. Planning Commission PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 03-Dec-91 PROJECTED HOUSING INCREMENT FISCAL YEAR 1991111992 THROUGH 2O17/2018 TOWN CENTER Annex Orig FALMA VILLAGE APARTMENT AREA 11 TOTAL PROJECT #1 PROJECT #1 DEBT SERVICE COMMITMENT BALANCE AREA #2 AREA #3 AVAILABLE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1991 2,021,689 1,122,314 747,000 0 2,397,003 896,022 0 3,293,025 1992 2,227,380 1,185,453 744,000 0 2,668,833 957,311 77,042 3,703,186 1993 2,397,655 1,269,285 745,000 0 2,921,940 1,014,248 139,782 4,075,970 1994 2,558,759 1,352,300 741,000 0 3,170,059 1,083,261 202,869 4,456,189 1995 2,722,783 1,422,178 740,000 0 3,404,961 1,155,034 248,065 4,808,060 1996 2,913,378 1,507,509 742,000 0 3,678,886 1,270,537 296,557 5,245,981 1997 3,117,314 1,597,959 739,000 0 3,976,273 1,397,591 348,581 5,722,446 1998 3,335,526 1,693,837 744,000 0 4,285,363 1,537,350 404,387 6,227,100 1999 3,569,013 1,795,467 742,000 0 4,622,480 1,691,085 457,432 6,770,997 f jy 2000 3,818,844 1,903,195 743,000 0 4,979,039 1,860,194 514,340 7,353,573 2001 4,086,163 2,017,387 743,000 0 5,360,550 2,046,213 573,538 7,980,301 2002 4,372,195 2,138,430 743,000 0 5,767,624 2,250,835 636,948 8,655,407 2H3 4,678,248 2,266,736 743,000 0 6,201,984 2,475,918 704,868 9,382,770 2004 5,005,725 2,402,740 743,000 0 6,665,465 2,723,510 777,613 10,166,588 2005 5,356,126 2,546,904 743,000 0 7,160,030 2,995,861 855,523 11,011,414 2006 5,570,371 2,648,780 743,000 0 7,476,152 3,205,571 938,962 11,620,685 2007 5,793,186 2,754,732 743,000 0 7,804,918 3,429,961 1,024,448 12,259,327 2008 6,024,914 2,864,921 0 0 8,889,834 3,670,058 1,115,918 13,675,811 2009 6,265,910 2,979,518 0 0 9,245,428 3,926,962 1,213,791 14,386,181 2010 6,516,547 3,098,698 0 0 9,615,245 4,084,041 1,318,516 15,017,802 2011 6,777,208 3,222,646 0 0 9,999,855 4,247,402 1,430,571 15,677,828 2012 7,048,297 3,351,552 0 0 10,399,849 4,417,299 1,550,470 16,367,617 2013 7,330,229 3,485,614 0 0 10,815,843 4,593,990 1,678,762 17,088,595 2014 7,623,438 3,625,039 0 0 11,248,477 4,777,750 1,816,034 17,842,261 2015 7,928,375 3,770,040 0 0 11,698,416 4,968,860 1,962,915 18,630,191 2410 8,245,510 3,920,842 0 0 12,166,352 5,167,614 2,120,078 19,454,045 2017 8,575,331 4,077,676 0 0 12,653,006 5,374,319 2,288,243 20,315,568 2018 8,918,344 4,240,783 0 0 13,159,127 5,589,292 2,468,179 21,216,597 2019 9,275,078 4,410,414 0 0 13,685,492 5,812,863 2,660,710 22,159,065 2020 9,646,081 4,586,831 0 0 14,232,911 6,045,378 2,866,719 23,145,008 2021 10,031,924 4,770,304 0 0 14,802,228 6,287,193 3,087,148 24,176,569 Assumptions: 1991-1995 Growth equals anticipated new construction plus 4% for all project areas. Thereafter, growth rates are as follows: Annex Project #1, 7% 1996 to 2005, 4% 2006 to 2021. Original Project #1, 6% 1996 to 2005, 4% 2006 to 2021. Project #2, 10% 1996 to 2005, 7% 2006 to 2009, 4% 2010 to 2021. Project 13, per Rosenow Spevacek Group Inc Project Area #3 Report. Ilk a x ;a r- v m ra O =mr-m SG)mm n mr-m r2 rx m 7-10O O Z S ma s_ z 0 .00 C Cm , ^ mC A 0Cm m O , aA O CmC �cl) 0 mo lw C mom -•, mm OaA O m mm '+ , C , NC AN 7 , , C n CN < -•7r)raCAN m A G) 40n m m n m n n N -w 7 0 .+ m n m C n N n n 14 _ m m 0 m ^ Z - .-m -•-w C , ^m ^ N m -• A m - , Z m m 'O-•• C x Z Nn , N O 7 Nao7 -•2, m N m N J N 7 Wgg 7 A S, m •• •• n O. [7 m n m co to n m K t0 7 0 0 m m � m t0 0)(a l< .�7� 0 11 m 7o N .+ m a •+ m C A n , - C A z > O O O O A >^O»3 N N 0 O O> 0 D D A S S n 7 >N N -•A O A C A N C n - N -••A m C A C N 0 p Q N C - n � < .+-*< -•n 07T n -w< < •* < n-•xOC3 ^n7 �+ > O +\_ 7 O A A 70 A m SO t0 O m O A A_>• A 7'm O O N•3 ?10 O r z + ^-• O , 7 0 7- , , O 0 7 C 7 7C m 0- , •O '* 707 On , 70 , m 7_ On -p3 , , Nm7 , N m O N K m A folK an m NA `nG nt0 a., C`nG,� 0 7 7 \x 7 m S 7 7 >\m C N m x O n n 0 n O n O O n 2 n 0 n n^D =r 0 D - O C O C -* C O �h p c 0 0 7 -� -. m C N C nN O N C C On O CID x N K A n n N C A 0 y N_ -� n n 7 7 < K 7 C n< O •0 K 10 Or0 AK 0 b 7 KA , `nGJmA O or4i 0 o v N 0 0 < o v K -• < A , A m , ti• A , A n -•-n n A i! , < < 7 ^ V < 0 ^1 7 -•K ^ i 7 O 7 n 0 O v' n c) r1 m n n n m n O O C O C� O O Q O 3 S 7 O K On ^ 7 k 'D3p 7 n 0 -7 m n z a � z m pCN O NAr AO _<N A•<r r t:nO (o700 .�L mOr�c =O• pOOO r) , 0Ci m U3 K77 t0 m , m t0 7 O S.m 0 It i 0- m 1G m t0 T to � 7 S, A m 3 t Q Z A 7 7m6. a) tp7 mA77 = 7m77 m7 mAA 70toz = -+ •• A A - 7n A >7m 7 7cf 7 7 ^n0 c7A > > A j(D -SG), 0• A G) -.n. 0aSC-•, a n O 2 K -0t_ 'VS m•K A C aa3 m K V S M. �m A S�•O Ni0 g^7 7C' 7C' r n ti.A Z 7C• ^ tD ao r 0 -w m p N B A A �-_i Qomp •- AAcp-m (D * AQt.- c.0 �Q-• A < _�< 3n� D i N � 7 • N7A � 7 � N_7 8 ^ 7WA••C7N •m+•A � m z 770_ PNi ^ fNi •0y,m K S S N A A S N � 7 m m m N Ro m m C,v z _z N N_N W N N N N N_w +N N N_N N N W N N W W++A A V N N > W ppp�V W W-+pppp •ON+ (p W pppp cc pp•O+N•OPOWON-+ O K S V NO•A V NNPOOP•OW NO•V PO P0DOCD %.n0-+•OW O -/ to O A V1 N A+ Vt C, W N•O A-+ m 0 -) � , [�+, nao� C , . , m , nr-12AS.y C N < T •OAO A O .OASO , >7 •OA A ^ A3SA , mnA ^>7 to A t7 nA A A 0 ^_nA x -.n-. nAm A .- A -. m -•, ?, mn r S�z S� AS nW7•to< S7 7 7NNS7 , 37 S< KC7 Cp p7 ppT p3•N rrK - -.Nm nA • 7v N �CtmV,,< ")- AC C , C -'ACKNi7n.�i> -Ni N AA AN r� A � >� t<C AN AN A � .A+-< >� fAC < >� 1<C n=a n O n m W< n In A < m N2m S, 7 tn3 nA w N2, x m n 7c(1 1t A A n 7r 7k m 7 n N n 7c A 7m7 , 7 •+v l7 C A A .+ nA A n — n A 0 n< naW C A NA C• n N n V -O n 'O O-•ft00 . n 'p A p ffffCCCC A .� tp A D ^ _7•03 N. _ ^1 •O nA r" N• r N N >+N N N+N N N N al W N N -••7O co 03 ccO O Oi 02 O O K 70 C Vf N7a NC rAN to Oi=Sao to NC <nn tn20 r COO'v>SI" c 7r m m 0 m )C m m m m -•m m A m m 7r m S mmm -•m m m m m A ►. M n7 n 7 -• 7n7 )rA , 1) 7 -• 7 - 7 7r< 7r 7r^m C m A r� r0 r-lb m , C m co A , �'CID7 w c �� 1'� an�� m7 7m o a maaa� so o 00 O 00 A 00 -1 -1 A � 1s 1r a n n n c) n n n o n n o n o n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n (A > m >> >> m m >m m m m 0 m » >m >m m m m m m m m m m I1 10 10•O.O 10.o •O.0•O•O•O.O.O.O •O.OV O N A.O A•A.O.O.A.O.O.O.O N to VA1n i*V AV 4-4-4141 41 AAAI-AAA r •+Oo%AP %oA cococoW0 co 6.n OWA W•O WtrPW Vt o-WWNV v WVVco O+VV00.O 4, co yyN .yJAO W•O++pOOAO �•O N O•pV •ON of •pVcl. a•ON •OP •OA-IOPNNP++r > t1 O n S^ _ o -• ----ram--- --ram �� �i+�����i►��� M , A V •CN•O NV A•ONAAAAA 10NV N•O N�rAAAAr AAA S N pp v P•OP pp V %A Pp +V1W%i4+74+1 Ppp V pp tn v o vN V- -- O i oz A AOoP A NA vNn�•ON A A p7 p�p►t.n�1A•Oaer NW�1 P AWN P WA PW WOo A O. �p 01. W p. co W NPA PW N1NPw VNN+ NPW N POO VNAW NN+ O A Ap N A+ O vv{Nppppp��V A{N A+ yy %A VVfiomf %4 -% N %n A+ 0+ 00 VVOI aOO +VONOO O rt < -Ci-< i-4 .4-4i-4-<i-c-4 <i< i<' z-<-«i«-« r► - v Arxx� Z r 2 rA7o S 23 ; ry r 7a r r pp VO C b '7 O C a O A C m 0 D'7 m m pp b C A a b m b b C b a x Z 7ii m b O •+ m '7 O < '7 C Z O O. �1 '7 '7 C w '7 7C C O n i0 n m Ara A C. A A m ^r)w O� m Cl) O n .b.- � A 3 Iw ^ IA t7 3 70 > A A N n '7 -f w n m m N b n m O 7 7 7 b A b .i.. .. .. nb .+ f'f b .. nmCE w m m -•n - nx m w 7 cCCC) m m N> ^ r b rp w "< p 3 ° c O O 3 O a i -4 a<O 8 <O fl -•< C 71 A A� 7C3 N A A N-� 0 0^� to o^s ° ^A '� n n � a nnc . C .,- a) - b C - I .; b - w O t0 t0• O O 7 n x n•< x N ai o g v H w e o c 7 A A - toA w tG m a t0 O 7 roa r<a 7 to m o ° o ° o 20 o V v V A A 7 7 < < o O ' -� � .+ n C-) 2.o o ov v n 0 CrA <n Mrs fn Mrc.. NA'v7C c.. A Mao AL MC- O 7 vr7p 7 aN 7 ��mm m to7.7 rp m j a m z A O O O O -< O O m r x n 3 a 7 x v U) to — mw mwA � ~m Go CA w °.m A y g = w rn -,m 7 A ro m CA 0e m o3�o 0 7 Z 77CC �o jIV W-+ jN W j� N W N NAN n'O W"v N N > .y n -+ S� Q�pp pppp V1�OP tNJi�OOl Unn�t9W� �VO+V < O PO V P O v -t �o 0 _n O _L'f O _no T n nLm A n m n m A O •OA O x 10m O x .OA x A A A m (D W m V) < T .'�A 0m ryAnA rrA op.-w•- A Awn cm,XO rAOX n � y ,A...T Vl pp -••rf• y O N N O O K e71 A 70 •+C7m .+C7b F2 n c ME � C* y c ,O g th N O N t0 w A w w 7 N w N m m m . A 77 A A _7 A A (b A y A rM 70 V);m 0 a)Sm 0 V);V (A 3 2NI ; ; . m .-�7c a m n x O.m n 7c rr 7r ar It A A C A 7c A 7r A y A .r et'7 A n A >r ,y r �N7m N N� N N N A O O d o ODK O) W cc o `r( 70 (A rn M, to fn.A> V)In cn (n (n C C W 4) N O C y m b 0 m a O C m b-p m m m b b 7r 7 ^ 7 anc� i 7 a Co r •7 3p� r n 33 r T r r?'S 70 7O r 7• r rDm77 r67m77 Am 'b 7m7 707 �.-bi. o� m rA A O O ° ' '° ° C O O m C G ter- n 'o 'o o b »b a >>b a>aaa > >a � >a >a �O°i+•iyyO . VQr 0, %Ar %A%A i Nyy � it r ao VPo VWW ti� N000caa 0 �i rV 'yVV.JJ yy,0%I0 O •O zi N N b1 W •O •O N O 0 V O•vSvPvP vP vp•O vP vP vP vpp•O v v v v v v� tv v v v v S a•ON•O1O %W%a a �NVVA *A N NJ CD C. ON v V v" p .p om �A OaPA 4N07 PA AOaNN pp AA AA N A A i l•WNA l•WNA Ay1 4J1 tr� � WPP •OV �fD P NPAP NPP P NPVV1•+ P PWW `O IV W W P 0-4 �AV.pp400aa v)P 41 pC0Fo%%R �Avt pp4pQpp NO �p41 pp41%At V- pP.P ppApp rN V� ppAp� 0 +A%.R Aj VO1N iAWWOa A AO�v� Oa0 AO� yr A O.e v -0 1!2 r CA S V)M ILA !A S t"f S S At (A 2 (A 3 to� 2(A (A 0 M r v S(A to r b 70 SC S O O A a m a .+A �1 m a & C b -, O a a a Z 7D a C3 M CO C m -3 m c c a x M J G 7 N 30 0.3 J < -1 O w n n 3[ C3 O 100 r► r.M� n 5-• n J a~ 2 -•<3(-7 �t T N m A (SO gm3 3m as m Of Yi A A N m C o w b n m n40 -•J J O t7 7 •? 33 N N 7 N a n n m , (6 (b o N N m •• •• C") S x O z 9. 3.C m nJ 30b-O C r7 OpO J O N < CcC C (A 7 0 &0 O < n (a -V) S C (6 7 m ^ C -0 C N N C � th n 0ic O \ 7 0� O C b to •v7 a 0 O O r •O 7777 tG j cO n s� N n A A •+7 77 C \ 7.=m - p_ (� -, mp=(�p < •„fig ; H`<(O C 7 t7i g v m N g 0. x b ' �.,• 70 0 0-••0 < A < 20 t0 `f O O O c <(G 1C -pp3 N'pA tC 2.0 'p3 •N v(p O A `G 3 Q O-R m M m A A 3 m fD `O tG f<C Aa A 0 .* n O t -I 7 .- , 7 n O < O O - -.< n•< 7 n O A n�•nA N +-. j rr n � xtp•� m 0A 0 0 n oc J J •+ ryaa V 7 -•7 N 7 -7 O 7 A n rf n a' O ro A > A n7 n o•(Jo m 0 v'to (A A37Kc-v -oC+S mn 3 n cnArcCC.-_m :0 on -Ci � -mi "-1Q, 3n7m .+n m 0S?mmmi 3m' 77 A • AA•CA �? AA m ram• m > t_�o-.mx •< L ,a, - m CmA m 10 7> -�p�tro pis 4 m tD 7 •*AO � 0 (n-70 pA N O__�ANR. � 7�70 ' 77r JA Z 7 tD C •'+7 n K •'7 A .�A C A (P -4 O tp 7 > 7 n m - �.7 �. N •+• -w N N T T 3 J7 r t0 7 m � J -� tp A 7' rp `f N n (c • m A g pS N A g z N M -.m M m N Ro M m nv �o •O NNV-�N Pv(+r+N A NNN W Ol W Vt O+W WN W PVwpp..WV O+ppppV-�W pppp O ••t: S O PNOVV OV(+OO10 O In OO CD V- CD V'0 M CCZWZ+ N PtA AT CAC) CD;? C, G'f' M AO W -7 0, 2• • A • S• 7 +T-A 7 O W -f 70 -1 O N < T 0 A m 9 m N A > A NO S.-A A •OA O stA A O x r7 -f 7c" /f v+n2� �.+ QQ- -fa nn .rAnA .+ Ax 3-14 •O C mx N A 0 A A -f O �CJCR C •O -( N N rf-••A>0 0 > A A A D a W• N tt] N 7 < A7tnA A •tAA �l AOAn A RM 7rm 7` A Kcn: 2 < 7 A Nam ON 3 •+Oc V1A n AAA A A < .A1.•►AKaM n pp N V� A .y et -7 to > W A A N K N N N+• r i!.* r1 CDA CDO e•�O i! ik VNf� p O W W A � i! Ln A w 1-tA o 0o 0 o A co o ca •< Pi �o D NA MM M0cm W NtA-0W 0NN70>tA ND Cl) •>w2 C_ m tpn epn tpa T- m m m m•<b b_ m b b m m m m b m J C b 7 JO.O.am 'f JJ OJL O JJJ7 J —7JM I � _.. n r-�•77r•-»>• O c-t: C- T 11 T T -n N m3 r m3 19 � Wv0. �Na D mma0 m a AAOA O O NNNN N O0 O 0 �. O O O O O N b »aa> Noma & & a No Nam > & a »& b >& •O •O.O.O•O..Op •O.0•O•O•O•O •O •O•O•O.O•O•O •O'O•O•O.O�p 1010 N v+ ra P0. V1%A tAA V1A A AAAAAA BAN A"%n .%A o vt000A o++w+ut w +++w+ _ _ v yy00000 N-++o+r pp o000pp0 ��oy�yVPVP�o �VVA•O v •O+ +N OaLM O• WWWNP NJ Ol ON•OV10+1A •O� >� • N W N .91 W W .91 ^� P O A n •O pp•O.O.OV AAAAAA A AAArAr •0.ON•a.0 pp•O x & P •OPPPV 00N00NW'AOON%A to kn%n%R%A%A%A PP CO,O•ill P •OP & 'pi v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Al 1 .�.�pppp (pppyN�� V (p�p1 pNJ � A Z W PWVNI If ca r? TN �P��d VNPAPO PW O4 N AOAV1+ jN CN++ W+OONN AAAVt AN 'O A Cl+•o ..pp�w+r E°i gw�p cewA Ay pp V�w ppA -w Q VAP� 0 0, L.P O 104 CONDO VtW000+N ONO• 9 -•• vv NONO +ON•OOWO O N%A 00D 00 A+AA V'INW AAP O M v < O 70<r S < r 70 -1 r N A -1 A N N 3 N v m S=<to<m(n N r N r v ^ O V v c c mcOm0 O me mSC A C C O O mC >OmOmf1C O m -• m � NZ A mm m -•m o te o n m c�tom m m .+ o p m v s m m w m n >c •-• A mr- mA m � m •+� 3 A 3 � 3 N •- An7 < C 7 m mA '7 -a Z t7 0 '7 0 n co m m � mmm m&& •� O -••S 3 O to ton � x •• •• n nnO m m 0 m r) C 3 on o m pp 0 .+ m m r = n-•• r >�� n C A O v 00 0 7 Zr.R to v OLD Z �. 41 o ° ° 7 - o o .,7 0 0 m � .+2 m m ee v m m is m 0 c o to to x ^x o .+- pp C c O O C K (A C O.0 O i m • D v c O C m r� .w v C s � -- c m w m v 0 -. Axw t0 C O 7• to •+ < 7 A A < N -• a too ro to `� n m ea N O 70 -• 0 v •'v O O -• � O o (A i3 > o o n 'otno v v o 0 CCy N -a fA 7m AC Av 7D c_v N c_T -�N7[��G'f C1A t'f 70 70r Cf .+ ••+0 c me m �f .nm Cm m Sm A m 3mm ' m � m m 7m 30 R -, go A 7 r7 W veD aA 7 7_ n7 r7Ae07c-1 -1Sl 'O A Av• O • • A A L • A � OS.AAiJ • • f>] v K `< 00 m - to 7 m 00 -A <m m0 rV Oto .+m I C-C- --1 ' 7 3 Cp to •-Cp �r7 _ PKr 0 7A7 -1 c A A m (v to L ^ CZ) m m '7 W tt�o�i m >O 0 W Z '1 rn w to m .+ -r-r • m m m� - -k ib It oo 7� 2c mtc (aa tmi 0 m S N A S ^ g = mm m 43 m V) N pe m a C.,v �o N_ NNVN N NON j WA NN-+-+�t'f -ENV N NW rr L9 O-+• pppp yyW 0.LA OW O-+W�• pppp pppp Apr N ONOO••O PV PVV N WO ONO.000 p'p•O- to �W• G)o L1m OOm vt IA CA -'I-nWP• A j o 7o O N�m '9 3- n S VI—L Om-.> —cl) -1 M y •O A •O O A S eb A m •O A to •O A S O •+ >< A m 0 N t<C O - (A N pppp O pp p N 7 Vl-3 K C) p po 70 Pcm C -• g .•. m .�mm0 vr.A C G7 �• VAA Ato N AKN S.> y• Ot4 CO • '777 A A70 rf 70 • < 'A•• 7 A rr N m In S O 3-) 3. y > A co(A0 O m 0 n S 3° � T rt A r* 7C m m A 7C m •* A .*A 7r A weAr A A 1AiA i jr O ~O �y t7C N� A Nik N NW O `O _ A 7! •m�r A N N A A 030 m cc v co co •( ��r N vV/=N> cna y7OC t// tA"acp OyZCp>'<T NO �.p3��� C^� m fCCA > > 7_C < A m 7m0 mS m� S �p�to to OOA �G,7 00 my M 0 o a 0 770 a 0 rt 77770 a A 'o 'o < nM ca C")0 nnommnnnn n on to m �a O �Opp.Op O i.mpp m 0 .0pp 0 O Vdf V1 V�1 u1Atlt At•OJi 10 V�f ulA of 10Vt10i A AtJt N Mr 0.0.P 041 co AW PCo 16n p.Vt yt vt vt toP • yy O VV yO DO O pp VI O..pp OD A Owl, O O ry P Ots V1•O W 'O N •O-+N OD W P P Ca•O W O O V+ •O •O V ^ W W M A A rOt S.- •O 10 a-0pNp•O P PPP•OP Npp•OV r•v VA •O.OV jVVVA_V N`O N•O jP x iOtr 0p ut PVu v vvvvv vv vvv v vv vvvvvvvvv v vv m •7 _ A �V1App�.OA 0e A NA A W vANAu 41J uU9 C1P A A VtAp•WA WPiNP A NW V1AufAV1NACDN1 WN •w N VNNO•P PW O VIW N V VNVIPNCO.ONE PA O . • • . . • • p•. • • • �1 • • •� A AVAV%A ppp.Vpp-9 AvL ���Aqqpp Nyy- yyA,� coWco i{VA-00_ppA��RV.%A—p1 (p41 ppApp%A �•Ow VAIWNAVI AO VI + VO A.+WNWVVIO•O A AV1 OA A+O) N t «<Z•< Z•C Z« t <•< «•t<-C.t-Cf< Z =-4 - v Vl S r-0 2 r 3 0 � M A 7C x Cn 7[ G7 x x x T A r n A r D r ) n pp ro v m O m '7 b m m O m 5.O 0 0 m -1 -� C m m C b b m 7O m b n n n�. n n -w N N N n 7 ti.N N N N m n m In It b o a Cf -1 A m A m A m r m .r. y y .r y ...S r.�.�. -i N �• N •7 m 7 7 m .233 O ^'aA N 'O rrA A •Z• •• •• n N m 7 m N 7(0 7 n D] r0 n 7 r�40 i0 n m n b m ! N m C v3 v 3D 4:0[ !7 T>!D �v 0 -O O N to n m n C n 7 C C C7 n N C C (D "•rC m n Nr+ < O < vn Onn n m ON nn n.< �< < ! \_ n m o re o = pp� sz pp .-.�= o A_ o (D A r �: 70 7 O O �• 7N00 '( � 10 n Om O m � a) x ten. mn9 � 7O j3�O T \ eD FL Q. 10 a3� an�� 0/ b t3 z �o om' �0O 0'+ c -•� O 7C H'7 O T•-� N S S(p '7 S 77 7 m <(p�' (D N� N (D IG• (0 x n W n`( 1.m 7 [l n n 9� n O O O n ._�O •+ On C (D n (� '< -1 O 7 '7 O'n`< O O � 7 O N •.( Q 7 n n. 3 h x T arD �c n -I N m 7 O cn T AL A �m L(7O AS [_mmm NA NA A n m o (D o (o O •-o m m o (La.• n rD n(o m o n rD (c D, (D S T cr s sm rn b to (o z m a m7 m 3 - 7 -w n 7mrr 7m 7m m •� C) > 0 > n C c)M 0 x c7 a• (a 7 to 7 r) v m �.n 0 � 2•r n n O �O 7 n n (D C- (D m rbm N N •- n �.y �.y y 7 y to 10 -i O m + m N 2 gZ N m 7-•m i0 m t/) p°m m n v A rpjp pNp�� Oo y ro to.+ •p�_a j N j N N O PP O! (Po (POO vNi� N�WW �NJI� Un A v< C� 0 m A J _Cf _O O m (D O W l -1 '1 <. -y co O 0 . % 03ti) , (b9 '•< �•0 % �Z _ '7 O mm •OA •OA m N A T N S� ? 1fNp �...(•y �m �.p�pnH 77 Sp73. 7 p .T.. Z N = (vm f<P (70 W A (A X V1 Z = T pr vc v (cD (<D a x% o� AM ,". nc N • • ) n _ r A •O co —N �N N m N N W r pp co co O En OD OD OD K L� A N NC t/l CZ Cxx OD 6-) CTTT NN VlN N n -wz (D m m m m m m m m m — m '7 '7 -7 m m b m m .^•. y. 7 7 7 a 7 7 7rA thm m 07 n7 n N -A-w (D 7 7N 7D1 N p317 f7 7m m 't m d.G (aba O O m fD m 7m D° c ai i (o p m n Cl)n n Cl)n n n n on n n n n n n n n n �n m !m ! CD am mbb bb bbbb b ) b ) D I'••( •o •o•o •o 1010 0 0•o 0 0 •o•o•o•o �:o o .o N v+ y441 yyr rw rww w•+ rwww yr VVr yyr O•Co P N N co N Q. P P CD•6 W r • .�M tA O N%A 0ro O wn A S. S.- r Nr N rN rNAj N .. .... .. .... ...... .... ......vN .... .•..N.C .. m O. OD•O OD 10 O. •O V1%A w N •O r r r r OD r w OD ^z OD W w (N w.i w co oD w r w r r r r yy��11 r w N O•N O• Nr NNN W`4 NWWW NP NP O• O CO pp41,pN pA, p�N..%A ppN�NN �� ppN,�.�p.OpD yr Qp4, .�prpp ppJD �0 AA A AN Aaa C, AONDOOA j+� +A A C < zz z z< z<•4 « z-4-C <z -cz z -' v TN n•-• N r 1 S C) -I r C7 x N Nr2 NSN N A O W WSW N r S 76 �O OcO p m C O -1 c m '7 O O m O m m m C -1 m O pp m m m 0 3 C) p m m m C O C -••C m C CJn7 7 7 CC7 J c Om 0 e '. c :. m c,�N J c C) .y to 7 z > A A K >• '� s m -•.-w m �_. - >'m m 9 m I -w S m W m r�-4 z i s m m A m tG 7 t9 m 7 IG n m m A j n C) n 7 m C)(O C) 7 m A N •• •• m O D3 v3> C CCo>C3C C •-3 CDC .+ O! r -� H0 < 0 <_ Cn < 0 c In J < CN WN N .... - � cN O < C 0' o ^<^ a -o O3vr 'r .. m_ 7 m_i x Oi rr pm O > 10 > 7 os Oi .y o� J m 14 O c > O O 7 n H " 0 5* W O = O C 0 -w — <C O J'< c to v N C Cl)co n (A to O O rt•3 n0 J 0- D 3t m N t0 `C ry rci N 0 7 O O N N r•7 O 10 ... ch m ^O'n � to N J - 0 3 2 7 C. m N m N m N N N N (7 A .< CA A0) 0 a A -i c.. A�> -�A3TT! NC. -i3T AC_ O C'f A m CD • O • pp m -7 -7 -7 r1 O pp m � • A A 3 � a Cfly NJ �7A `aK 0.7 J7 `< � Ta a • 2 c) • n• o C.c)CA A c, o`c..0 r cl v A • fC 0 -•'1 o 1 g K gypp-m n m m K '7 `< 3m " Cp-A 2 J n -w 7 �.C as `C N dl n M A ID`< 7 �• `< t9 /D m a d �. N �.� A m r A A -w N A A D � ^7 N c - m - v1 07 m — me 3 r• m n m 7 7 7 w33 ^7 r+ m f3� m c y 7 r?•� f0 H O �.m W S 22 � -4 m A m W R-1 m C,v A J.f+VriA pwpp �� pNppD,8O Olwpp jM wm j.+ PNA rpvp j�VO P ON P1P0 OPO000 NnN OOO O•W O H • A v O M Gf =0 N _ = G)A m � O Z O n W-r '7 -i W 7 j W S W -1 j W '7 W T N• fD O � a 0 A OAO •O'7 O AA N rr 3 N a X M X W1 A FA X 'f X rr-•• Wt fN X A O tD W O M 7 7 7 r�7 rr 7 R. ••r rt ppC "m '77 A O •rp n O r d 7 S ryi & S rj 3-N 'p A OA C `< C`C ut WC < WJN r7< N< W 7 Ar1 Vi 0 OD r 0A IV,> rYAA NA a- c c 7C •• f� r+ N rN.A A it is is O O i! A W• N N N W N m W O Cf O OD co A A C7.77••W N <_ cn Cf N['f(n a(a NZ G)nw W m ? m O -•mmmm_m mm_ -•mm mm •-• -w � �_ 7 a 7'O 7 7 n 7 r'p 7 7 _r -� m• 0 � r �C r� N orrrmOb '77 or�m~ wm A A -•n nn.y •< a0 > rCr < p Am p �< m m m o m 0�n m m a A i �m c o c "--1 m cc 7 v o a on o N N p N N o'a �c pc �c p !7AnA C) C)C) C)n C) C)omoon on C)C)CD AC) h W m m m m ! 00 "'Po O .mp imp>.pp.mp m.pp .pp m Epp.mp.mp >p N010, .NN A WA AAIJI V�•.A�V1 pVp.I pA pVp.1 VIA VI VI pVp�I �A/�#A .~. O O O N ,�p •0 0•IV O.O O W P•+ OD P O O W •O-4 > W N -4 N O �0�j pNp NA NA_MO) pAp pNpAppAAA •OA ApApA pNo Sp px p A DD•O.O •O •O W •O W•O OO•O OO V1 W P VA O)OD 0 •O OD Z O ,—v v v v v v vvv v v l v v v v v v v v v v m 1 1W W W CD P•O OD•OW ODA � N cc A A•O rr�AO. e 4% A Q S. W NW WWN �1NN� N AW •�N N H. VVVA P VN PNW ODPV1 uA W N ut V1 0. • • • • • • • • • • • • • W1p AOWV0O 41 WNA A1N�O O Z-fvopa— +A rvjNol pp O+ � p 0pp O pO VI CD +D�•+p AN Or•► i<•t•t S -t i 2 i t <Z-K!•<•t •<i •t t•C i•t �� r1 v T A NnTAclNx-yx g", rA 2 0rrAT=n'••0S00-4Tvr-VCAIK � r A .. O -0 K2 O - C O m0O L bm O C O AmmA 7ppO LOo Wm7c07 O b 7 N A bd < n50 C AO 7 � NtC 3N �OCg7 A 3 �+ Mo = N r A Ic a•+ o m 76 R RA ft p3aa xm CA o C A A 3 m �( Dr- A 7DA < 7 w a m m > 3 -1 Z vl 7 xx L A 777 A m ID A �07 L 7 2 •• •• 0 O to D T p O �•O 1 a 7 -• R • 7 �+ m N oCl to O• (A7 -V• m C •+ 7 R v—•f I b i < m A D m < o - R m (Av a w .-'< g. a.'< m v g 7 w 1 w f'I m 0 n m 0 _A n-•••C C, ff p2 _ A C, o V� T �3pR 7 7 w A � F� A M A y O �� pLO A A �' _O �T. < cc d -1 > t \ ° A A Qa�.3 ti. 7 7 0 f]n �.n O.A IO-w r.V 7 i a C') r.0 mC 2. �NnVI NA m 1 I I1 m -N, r R0( --+•1w 1 > O O C C R 0- O - v R v>O Ci n n 0 -1 p 7 > CNN 7 n v N j rm NU3 7ppt0m Om ai �< n A 7 7 A t0 7 VI 7 w 0 m 7 R O Q 2 R A A 0 i x > '•+m 0 n m f'f 1 w O <• 7 A O V n m fl R m •-•N 1 . A w v C a w ie n w < ooCf 0 VI(AA A23 C)CO AA =AAA y y 23=110 C,0000 PI W A n Tn m m m m m m m m --•0 O b_A m -•m m CC C CC m C - w m • 1 m n O MO ��pp 11 •-< 0 ^O' i0 C�11 O.m'C Om m <�_R � A m 1RGQJC =?7 �_ 7 m 7 < N� 7 x S R A 7 OA7 f7P G mC n O 1 tm O T,•1 To'< AT ] C r-IS-3•Ab ' ,gym O O 1 O n O AC7Cr T -•1 A A R� A A 7• R1 �VI AtG ^3 d G�1 • �1 0 S n L A • S� A ffff0000 R C A O 1 N A R 1 n D 1 w r p3 A -�.7 q3 A A b S R SA m 1 O m 1 1•"T7 m ^ 3 N 1 �-0 0 1 3 A rd fp A w p �1 1 m 3 m � A 7 A 7w0 R 77 1_ 776 � n 7 S A 7 m n T n R•-• O j O O O r = O O m m W 2 1 C z w M -•m 7 A 10 m W Qo N M c,v z A N W OA 'OZOO ZA A NO: O-+IJ9 PW zi NrA W NW W A tNNO O-4 --40O 9! > R L7 v � -4 A -+ o o' to o 0)o'o010 vl-+V cl V L V m =m L; r M M p O f1• 3Zw W M 1 Zm s OWW! W w W LQW Oco m m W < T < m Vl 2 0 • • O • A x w x• m 1 • O 1 0 0 0 w O s N A m _ nR�r1 x _ AL R—•� 7Ox xaxmx0R'OI-7x 1 m Amc x R xao'< oo< 1 A R1 0 , ^ 7 1 .m�•.,AV � -•'OR b b ^Q1 ^-�N N�O.m 0 P • A m O 1 _ _b m _AR pp _ n R 1 b �R Am 7 ^ =%R _ w 7 1A JJ A7 C Ir7'A < = w A O NmO -y a 7 (A7 yyO a. wv O 1yyb 7A�A W� GI.-R3O yy RA -••w(O W� '< N A W 1 N W 1 m < V 1 '<` W > b < m R .( RW a >1 O D < N . M < > ark 1 x n < �--« art M N < < A 7c D << 61 b < f<C n n 1 T R m aw m R < Vla maw A A IN 1 R R A R <m R VI w A I m m it Vl b A a A <fA a R 1� 1 In R r m O W 1 j NJ N W 1 N T- O A O O• V ca O W O• P 1 y} r NOA 2NCf0AN N2 Arrxr=r.7-.CIOrNvrvrvrr•••: x A 3c. N 7 m < 0 7 7 m7 3 b3 N 7 7 IV N 3 N w mW °w °w f0 7A b °w �wm wlow n m N w° v'A j b > Oto �� op.7a C.m rR VR7»� > 7>�pa 7>m A A w ,•A m-G 7 > m �• 3 tC t0 =/2 O f0 �110 =7 I2 m 0 7 I2 I2 = w A 40 C faCbo0OIN 7b AAdA _�A A A � bA mmAn d v b Orr 1a A o n- �e ie n w 10 w w TO1 w n w w w b pw_ 3 m Dmd m >m Dmm 30O dm.Oppd .dpp.Opp�Opp�.OppO Dddbbd >bmOO O I� 'O 101010'o.O'0'O'0 'O'O '0'O O.p OO O O 22'O.O'0'$'2'O.O.O'S 8 10 N_ NNNNN_•+-+-�N AN 00 N 0a= O=O N N OA�OOV'O0 WA NON�O OWNVOA�OVOD�O OVI W y yy RNOO P+O ONPO C, r .•�y W O W\AONVIN+ 'ON O VI N VI O)PNNNtA�-+N VI'ON�VI VIA VI D N O O C A — N P j j jP07 j0)V NP jNN PNNNNOfVNN07NVNO7NNN P = w OJ JrJJ.r�r JJ..dJ JJ w ora-:o oarmr 'o o www'owwwwo�rwwoowrwoo 'o d i--- pp.� V pW.R. A AOACD OwovP'WOigy►i y��� w�Pf pN�WtPJI pN,VA'WOWwOi VrNNp pW.000D C9 VVV'OPVPOP P'O N'O P'OVOOAV WWN 'O O I I I I I i N NV N�VVppO..•I VAppppI NWN�—NO'WO'POAW p�N ) + AtANVN%A N ' O Vr QN V N 4- 0. A —yyW NNA 7R AW pNO—WV+ +O.OW- V'OVWWPNNOo+ W OR •w -i Z-C -4<Z Z-4 ZZ <-<-KZ«-<•<•<Z«Z-i•<•«i•<-t - v < N OC N S N N N N 3 T N A O n<C7T 3 n Z N C T•OA N S n<7CCT N S n T•OA p w S n-4 O v v Cc 0. < m SC•r r AVD`< A SW.O S< ayS v �.� ?SS< O. G7 � � AA .' nW rap 7c n� an nn , 777n b � n n .- W A A7C C '� �• 7A � AAmv A AAm A 30�w n tCC tr0C 0-> > ' �••< CC p �ppC� b b Qp.► 4D0 7 A a� A AA m WA-f mZ -•N m 7 OO EL w O• N7 �� aA Da r Cl)c z W _n n -m, Clm 0")n c,7r O n OAO m<7mr i .O.D._+. �.vn W m m <7C d n m m n b <7r n O \ 3 m o'er W wz-.00—MO31_ e = - -MO Y o� ' A = D z no p, Q'0 �• 7 •7 O -7 A 90�•3-w 7 •r• 7 + m3_ m crO 71Q�< Mco .^C )<O - KAy nn<O Q-1 •< m T V m nn n 7 J gS m'N �O� -•O 7 S7 b O� �• ONJ gS m' 0 -1 W A C O -7 A A 7 N A�.nO nA A 7 W A O NA A 7 W '<77 N .mi�OW to A O $ K — 0 tp N 5n— E W 10 CO �� - n o .3m-3 c g �` c 7<' eb n 0 C m n C n IO A N n N 0 i �_• n O 9• -7 A •O TO v W 7•W� OM N7• < n W - =7 0 n W �7 rm n _ 7 A n A 7 3px Q• n � x :�J •-•nn 7 7 A•A C 7 A A A n W n •7 Q A J 7 7 n W W m `�W aC 7 G'1 3G7v (A A AA 33f rc_C'l Ovp » XAA3 L L M0 Icw z3LL .n n -� m m A 0 �O A A fp m m -•• O m_ CCC 7� �7P fAp b IN a C O?m —n f ryp 0; IVm C O m O A n n 0.^�'O n 7_ate. 7 an a 30 -10 C m0 7 < •-^A b n 7 < -•n n 7 Y xA J n� T A S7 �T 0 ;, T SST Q b T � SST n v 0 A a 0 •7 A A W . M-7 W x .-. T A • Cf�/ 3 3.--n-i A • Cf -� A 'm •A-•' C`< 19 M S A M W =• b N•< n/'D A.D W >S•< n A A N� �7 -f 33 W nm -1O m 7 �� N b � rb7 A b -1rb7 3 n b n S'm ep m A A i M m b A A-3 '7 Tm M T C m`< O m -� 7 7 SW J O _ A m - 7 .- ' r- Qi.M A S C Z W M m m N Qe M n v a 77 _+ DV L4 L4 +WVr-VNW+A .a++++ •A doA+v++%AQv,• oANw AVN �,�+�� +ry > n� O +00 tA0 jV+O+ OANAO N+P+wW• V.OD+OD IA jWV.' +. �.+ .p+V1V V• AOW NV++W OR %A CD .V W O C 1 Z-� O Z 0,=..4 • A lA O.O+OV• A v w Zww nA Szn0-+mOnZ. z+rzN�wo >:A+VSZN2w m A O O • 00 ^A N O • m W O < an b . < fA T x wxx n� 3nixA3 _nA H=• ikA -3 fAi=O 3X N � A 77ma WNP '� NSrP+J�i m7 ImO7LO � tA�m 7O y19 rlA��Wmb`m co O. y g 3C AmaONA a pW j < w V m m= O < w '7 N > n•7 O N Y W < w N n A N 11 nANAny AWn A A aW• A A A O.W� n> O O n 7! n UO O w Gf RAW 0 1 0 CD O0 � wO O C „nC L7NN N w ZA N0mv)•••.arNZT �+0�^O•+myO _AOA=N C)10—,v n •Yr.Z m mm mmm +m wmm . OmbA < WA 3.WW < m < g7A �•�W -1 m W A 3 7 7 7 n< 7 A 7 7 W W 7 n n �rr vvo 11-2nomto iD Dl w 00CLoAoo "`Co � w W p n n$ of ei � b o A w v tT b b C mm 7 n nnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnn it as Y)Y Y Y > nnnnnnnn nnnnnn nn ly b W b b b b b b b b b b b b Y b b b WOOD )INlaw -� O.00 •OOO.O.O.0.0O.O.O81O.O.O 0•O.O.O.O.O:O O.00.00�O.00.O N_ _ W W j j N N N+N N N+ N+N N N+.+ _ OV.+N++ yy N+ NNNNN++N+ O OOO WNAO+OO+N+O c5p CD yQOrA,�,�1NVN+O �A QQpp��..Yn W+_NVN-+ � N N ODOOL-d41 01+�NtNA 0ODOV PWtAN"-rjIAI RPWVtONVP1�N Y� A •�M N s^_ Cs ODWOD 0�010 j010PP_PObNPP_P VVPObVPObN -4-4-4PPWVPOb oxp o's0 OD OD 1O11 tOA .O•O•O.0.—0 CD•O.O•O 6;W•O.O.O AA.O OR AO O vvv . vvvvvvvv vvvvvvvvv 10 m •POpp•tOO OOD 00 AtAAAApVPPJNVP+W•AOANWA N. . r 0 . 10 at AAA AAAAV %.R 4 V OVO . . PN . ,. 'VW W V . . OPu RAA NtAN . VAA N—PUP 41AW � NtJN OD%A4'4N 0AW NNOOPN- V -+R VANAOO+VOVPA AW C-D O''► Z •<•!< z -4-9Z<•<-t< <ZZ- v T pNp QSQ -�T < pNp QSQ QSQ w O CJ C C 3 m N � .< A><1f OP c A ffAA�ff>DC m O7 a'O� m ?� a w70 ►)J m > D) Z 3 mo o -7r_ Z o a m 3 � 7 � e' o ir n wm m m m m s x� I m and N g a t'Y FOL -1ia gfb A Txz3 o C") O -7 1 -7 �a 1 yyZ� < -�ir7m 7Nr 3 .+ to 30 ^3 m _ 'r n F =r or o 4.m N x gZ mm -�m m m N N m no boo o� p m 00 !C N Z y O < O y N f<C T .+ x m x r T to FAO m �O w lb m > m m >�< < < T n �to �3b N O Nl a r rN7 n o e o v W '7 7pp0 w O O K G) A 7oc)ovr c7r92 A M < w mn9nn MOP Ica 0 o s < to N V 8 O N y41 V '� _ Wry rv%R No VI >� c .�M O u ^v V S :1 OD 71 OD N OD OD V = M -� O O O A-vv vW v 00694. vv m l p A z W r—i w VVO�OV� VPO� ,O�l gDo $� owLa 0 ev -C v xafo770 C ^3 ww7 , w 333 • -• r'J w r C)- 7 m(a1 03 K A C N •• •• ny. 33A T al0 7 0 O O n7 nC� '7 O m 0^ O\ ta �A C to 7 V y x0 -+ < xUy A la o •"w A :° 77n nw � o ratio n O S 7 T n A A AO0 0 n A ^ n n 0 7 arnvat� o �7 a A 7 �VfA w P7 ^ w A to 1 O 'Ai 7 � A 7 < to 0 W 7 33 n N Aw A A 7 A A N A O •O A n A 0 „•,N vr7 NA r N 7 w O'W Cl 0'7 �,O 0— �• O 0 p A o J D%A< w ^ A rw -•x n w S^, ,O �•y C i r'9 i•< CA r O A „n O vNi 7 �7 ^ 0 7 ? C r? -0 < ra A S-w.0 �a r-r<m o n '7 . N O N CDa m •07 A S n fAC < S too 7 Z CD cc77 -Ai a i 7 7 t7 a m 0 x tC N O A rwii rO9 0 A to `< 27 7 A N 7 - A 7 7 D C A w y O w 3 n m 7 N N to L n m 3 N L w a 7 G 7 ^ 0 A ^y C 0 (J n S -0i.Imo m x w A A y m w am� Ho �`<° 0 ra z vi C Re a n N JAR j a S A w ppp S O -f eb r 7 E1�� I N LW a,r. AA D n T O' Q 2.m �nCO CD!�E Wv1 O � a m V O W a C,N w �•Q�. • _am 3 m A 4. nS7 Aa Son r-K H 0m N O -0i. a0 � w CN7 pC 0 In i! 07 n C � 7 r M...n ND—t7r1 - n n n D A a C w 0 a 0 w A 7. Q7 n t)O n C .N•. A A al O j a w r n o f D A A O w A a 3 -w 7 y . p m O OWa `< r S 7 r n A w A 0-x0 0 C C r gg y w a 70mr7oF0 w � A m n A w 7 A O N Q 7 O Vj A f) n w w 7 O 0 O O. 0 Z � w � w A n w S 7 � n a s t7 t7 0 3 0 '-4 A S co cow �• 0 1010�o 10%O A•O 0 ^ -+POWP�N w VfWOOOr nia NVONWVW ^n n 0 g s� S.00 VOiWPP� m ' -3 wz 41 CD.O prpppWN•ON n. WNO.VWNA O 1 1 0 N VWV VWNOV -w OWVNiOPWd O r► -w v, STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRA �RTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT =" DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1800 THIRD STREET,Room 430 P.O.BOX 952053 ""' SACRAMENT O,CA 94252-2053 (916)323-3176 FAX(916)323-6625 December 5, 1991 DEC ammunITY DEVELOPMj,,q gEPpi„h•, r r TO: Inte s Parties ClrYOF PALM rgSFR FROM: homas B. Cook Deputy Director SUBJECT: Revised Housing Element Amendment Date for Preserving Subsidized Housing Projects On October 11, 1991 Governor Pete Wilson signed Senate Bill 1019, which amends housing element law (Chapter 889, Statutes of 1991) to extend the deadline for local governments to amend their housing elements to include an analysis and programs to preserve assisted-housing at risk of converting to non-low-income uses. The due date for adopting the housing element amendment was extended from January 1, 1992 to July 1, 1992. This change was requested by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) because of the recent addition of new federal legislation (The Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, or LIHPRHA) , and to assist those localities that are currently revising their housing elements to meet a statutory element update deadline of July 1, 1992. The extended due date applies to all localities in the State. Amended elements should be submitted to HCD at least 45 days prior to the July 1, 1992 deadline to allow for the mandatory review period by HCD. Localities already revising their housing elements are encouraged to continue and submit their amended elements to HCD as soon as possible. The Housing Policy Development Division of HCD is preparing a technical assistance manual on the preservation issue. The manual will provide background information on the preservation issue and an overview of federal and state regulations affecting assisted projects (including LIHPRHA) , state housing element requirements, and preservation resources. The manual is anticipated to be available for distribution in early 1992 . In the meantime, we have included an interim preservation paper which outlines the housing element requirements; this enclosure is updated from the January 1, 1991 version. This update includes more information relative to the HUD-assisted projects subject to new federal regulations issued since January, as well as information about program options. Page Two To assist you with the required housing element analysis, we have included a list of entities interested in right-of-first- refusal and the following attachments if projects of a particular status are present in your jurisdiction. We encourage calls to the housing element reviewer for your area to clarify any uncertainties prior to submittal of a draft element. Questions about the preservation analysis and program requirements for the housing element may be directed to our staff at (916) 445-4728. Questions about the HUD-assisted units or LIHPRHA in particular, may be directed to Linda Wheaton of our staff (916) 327-2642) . Attachments for Affected Jurisdictions: 1. An excerpt page(s) with projects located in your jurisdiction from the 1991 Update of the Inventory of Federally Subsidized Low-Income Rental Units at Risk of Conversion, Prepared for the California Housing Partnership Corporation by the California Coalition for Rural Housing Project. 2. Status of California HUD-Assisted Projects Processed Under The Emergency Low-Income Housing Preservation Act (ELIHPA) And Which Have Submitted Plans of Action: 11/13/91. Affected Jurisdictions: Baldwin Park, Calexio, Concord, Davis, Duarte, E1 Cajon, Escondido, Gilroy, Hayward, Indio, La Mesa, La Puente, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Oxnard, Milpitas, Mountain View, National City, Palm Springs, Richmond, Sacramento, Salinas, San Bernadino, San Diego, San Jose, San Ysidro, Santa Rosa, South Lake Tahoe, Vallejo, Ventura. 3 . Addendum (September 1991) to the above Inventory (see item 1. ) , with "Prepayment Eligible Section 221 (D) (3) Market Rate Projects Subject to ELIHPA and/or LIHPRHA. " (the prepayment dates for these projects were not listed in the 1991 update. Affected jurisdictions: Alturas, Commerce, Delano, E1 Paso De Robles, Fresno, Hemet, Lamont, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Modesto, Mountain View, Oakland, Pacifica, Palo Alto, Pasadena, Reedley, Richmond, San Diego, San Dimas, San Francisco, San Jose, San Pedro, Sacramento, Sacramento County, Sylmar, Van Nuys, Visalia, Yuba County (Linda) . Page Three 4. HUD-Assisted Projects Which Submitted Notices of Intent Pursuant to ELIHPA (Section 222) or LIHPRHA (Section 212) and Which Did Not Have Approved Plans of Action as of 11/13/91. Affected jurisdictions: Arvin, Azusa, Bakersfield, Chico, Chula Vista, Claremont, Colton, Colusa, Corona, Covina, Delano, E1 Cajon, Escondido, Fallbrook, Hawaiian Gardens, Inglewood, La Habra, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Manteca, Merced, Milpitas, Modesto, Napa, National City, Oceanside, Oildale, Oxnard, Pittsburg, Palmdale, Pico Rivera, Richmond, Sacramento, Sacramento County, San Bernadino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, San Ysidro, Santa Fe Springs, Santee, Stockton, Sun Valley, Sylmar, Vacaville, Vista, West Covina, West Sacramento, Whittier, Woodland. 5. "Inventory of California FmHA Section 515 Projects Which May Be Subject to Conversion" See next page for affected jurisdictions. gcletters:preserva CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS WITH FMHA SECTION 515 PROJECTS APPROVED PRIOR TO DECEMBER 21, 19791 ADELANTO NEVADA CO. ALTURAS ORLAND AMADOR CO. - SUTTER CREEK OROVILLE APPLE VALLEY PARADISE AUBURN PARLIER BEAUMONT PATTERSON BLYTHE PERRIS BRAWLEY PLYMOUTH PORTERVILLE PORTOLA COACHELLA RED BLUFF COLUSA CO. - ARBUCKLE REEDLEY CORCORAN CRESCENT CITY DESERT HOT SPRINGS SALINAS DINUBA SAN BERNARDINO CO.- EXETER TRONA, YUCCA VALLEY SAN JOAQUIN SELMA FARMERSVILLE SHAFTER FORT BRAGG SHASTA CO. - BURNEY FORTUNA SIERRA CO. GRASS VALLEY SONOMA CO. - (BELL MANOR) GUSTINE SONORA HANFORD SUSANVILLE HOLTVILLE IMPERIAL TULARE UKIAH KERN CO. - MOJAVE VENTURA CO. - TEMPLETON KINGS CO. - HANFORD SOUTH WASCO LAKE ELSINORE WHEATLAND LEMOORE WILLITS LINCOLN WILLOW LIVE OAK YREKA LOS BANOS YUBA CO. - LINDA, OLIVEHURST MADERA CO. - OAKHURST MARIPOSA CO. - MARIPOSA MENDOTA This list excludes projects which have been refinanced within the last several years and would therefore not be eligible for additional federal incentives. Source: Farmer's Home Administration, Woodland, Ca, December, 1991. STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS,TRAPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '"�t� DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1800 THIRD STREET,Room 430 P.O.BOX 952053 �*m SACRAMENTO,CA 94252-2053 (916)323-3176 FAX(916)323.6625 October 31, 1991 Mr. Bruce Altman City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert's Draft Housing Element Amendment Thank you for submitting Palm Desert' s draft housing element amendment, received September 16, 1991. As you know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b) ) . Our review has been facilitated by a October 22 , 1991 telephone conversation with Philip Drell, Senior Planner. This letter summarizes the conclusion of that discussion. Palm Desert' s draft housing element amendment was submitted to address the requirements of Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989, which requires all housing elements to include additional needs analyses and programs to address the potential conversion of existing, assisted housing developments to non-low-income housing uses during the next ten-year period (Government Code Section 65583 (a) (8) and (c) (6) ) . While the amendment addresses some of the new requirements in our opinion, however, the amendment requires revisions to bring it into compliance with state housing element law (Article 10. 6 of the Government Code) . As a result of Chapter 889, Statutes of 1991, the deadline for completing this analysis has been extended to July 1, 1992 . We have attached a technical assistance paper, Housing Element Analysis: Preservation of Assisted Housing to assist the City in addressing this requirement. The draft amendment to the housing element includes a partial analysis of the Candlewood Apartments, the City should, however, expand the analysis to cover other requirements: i Mr. Bruce Altman Page 2 I. NEEDS ANALYSIS A. The inventory of assisted multifamily rental housing units subject to loss during the next ten years should include all of the following: 1. Housing that receives government assistance under a. HUD Section 221(d) (3) Below Market Rate Interest Program; b. HUD Section 236 Interest Reduction Payment Program; C. HUD Section 202 Direct Loans for Elderly & Handicapped; d. HUD Section 101 Rent Supplements; e. HUD Section 213 Cooperative Housing Insurance; f. HUD Section 8 Lower-Income Rental Assistance project-based programs for: ■ new construction; ■ substantial or moderate rehabilitation; ■ property disposition; or ■ Loan Management Set-Aside (LMSA) . Information on all of the above projects (a-f) in your jurisdiction is included in the enclosed excerpt from the Inventory of Federally Subsidized Low-Income Rental Units at Risk of Conversion 1991 Update. In addition to the federally-subsidized units noted above, it is necessary to identify and gather information locally on any projects which may be located within your jurisdiction, developed with assistance from any of the following programs, and which are subject to low-income use restrictions which could be terminated within the next ten years (Section 65583 (a) (8) ) : g. FmHA Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans; h. HUD Community Development Block Grant Program; Mr. Bruce Altman Page 3 i. State (CHFA) and local multifamily revenue bond programs; j . Redevelopment programs; k. Local in-lieu fees; The California Debt Advisory Commission, Annual Summary 1990, identifies the following Multifamily Housing Bond Program projects developed by the Riverside County Housing Authority that will be eligible for conversion to non-low-income housing use, in particular, the San Tropez project will convert within the next 10 years. The other projects are listed as follows: Project Bond Sale Number Conversion of Units Date San Tropez 11/04/87 512 1997 Village Green 12/02/87 100 2004 Desert Pointe 11/10/88 64 2018 Woodcreek 05/24/89 344 2018 Village 2. Units that were developed pursuant to: 1. A local inclusionary housing program; and M. Government Code Section 65916, a density bonus project which has direct financial assistance and affordability controls. Use restrictions for these units could be in effect from conditions of project approval and/or regulatory agreements. Include all of the following information for each assisted project in the ten-year inventory: project name and address, the type of governmental unit assistance received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income use, and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be lost from the locality's low-income housing stock in each year during the ten-year period y Mr. Bruce Altman Page 4 (Section 65583 (a) (8) (A) ) . For the purpose of the subsequent cost analysis, it may be useful to format the inventory listing into two five-year groups referencing the dates of the earliest potential terminations of use restrictions. Analysis of the inventory should characterize the nature of the units at risk, e.g. , the average, or range of project sizes, building ages, tenant types (relative proportions of elderly vs. family) , peak period(s) of potential conversions. It is also useful to summarize the type of assistance programs, e.g. , incidence of units at risk due to rental assistance contract expirations vs. loan prepayments; and condition of the housing stock as it may relate to housing rehabilitation needs. B. Include the following cost-analysis of at-risk assisted units (Section 65583 (a) (8) (B) ) : 1. The cost, in aggregate amounts over two 5-year periods, of producing new housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace all of the units that could change from low-income use; and 2 . An estimated cost of preserving all of the assisted housing developments, in aggregate over each of the two 5-year periods. This may be described relative to the estimated replacement costs, e.g. , whether such costs would be anticipated to be higher or lower than replacement estimates, and for what reason(s) , as well as the magnitude of the difference in estimates. C. Identify nonprofit entities with capacity to acquire and manage assisted projects to preserve their low- income use (Section 65583 (a) (8) (C) ) . Potential nonprofit entities might include housing authorities and redevelopment agencies, in addition to private nonprofit housing developers. In our opinion, the basis for your assessment of their capacity should include the following considerations: Are any of the identified nonprofits interested in potential acquisition and management of such at-risk units now or in the future? How long have they been operating? How many projects/units have they developed and/or managed? Do they have rehabilitation experience? Mr. Bruce Altman Page 5 D. Identify all financing sources which could be used to preserve the projects which could convert from low- income use over the ten years, including amounts of each program which have not been legally obligated, and which could be available for preservation of these projects. Financing sources to be analyzed include, but are not limited to, all of the following: ■ HUD Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) funds; ■ Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds; and ■ Administrative fees (reserves) of any housing authority operating within the community (Section 65583 (a) (8) (D) ) . For example, if your jurisdiction is a CDBG-entitlement city or county, or if it has received CDBG funds through the Small Cities nonentitlement program, indicate the approximate amount of annual funds which have been allocated for housing programs, and which might therefore be eligible for use in preserving at- risk units in the future. II. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES Within the quantified objective for number of units to be conserved, include a quantified number of the assisted multifamily rental units at risk of losing government assistance over the next ten years (from earlier inventory) to be preserved over the five-year period of the housing element (Section 65583 (b) ) . III. HOUSING PROGRAMS Describe program efforts to be undertaken to preserve the low-income use of assisted at-risk projects listed in the ten-year inventory. The element mentions that the City may consider acquisition of the Candlewood project, but should include additional information about how this would be accomplished. In addition, if other units are identified as at risk, what program actions will the City take to preserve them. Efforts could include utilization of all financing sources identified earlier, except where the community has identified other (more) urgent needs for these funding sources (Section 655883 (c) (6) ) . Efforts might range a �i Mr. Bruce Altman Page 6 from regulatory and technical assistance measures to providing the option for direct financial participation (loans/grants for acquisition/rehabilitation) for preserving the at-risk units. We hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have any questions about our comments or if we can be of assistance in the revision of your element, please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, Thomas B. Cook Deputy Director Housing Policy Development cc: Philip Drell, Senior Planner, City of Palm Desert Eileen McCarthy, California Rural Legal Assistance David Booher, California Housing Council Western Center on Law & Poverty Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law Ana Marie Whitaker, Calif. State University Pomona Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Christine D. Reed, Orange County Building Industry Association Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center CITY OF PALM DESERT AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCOME AND RENT SCHEDULE 1991 PROJECTS APPROVED BEFORE JANUARY, 1990 _._INCOME MONTHLY RENT 120% 100% 80% 50% HOUSEHOLDS MODERATE MEDIAN LOWER VERY LOW UNIT SIZE* MODERATE MEDIAN LOWER VERY LOB! Studio. 1 $30,250 $25,200 $20,150 $12,600 450 sq. ft. $756 $630 $504 $315 minimum 1 Bedroom 2 34,550 28,880 23,050 14,400 600 sq. ft. 864 720 576 360 minimum 2 Bdrm/1 Bath 3 38,900 32,400 22,900 16,200 800 sq. ft. 973 810 - 648 405 minimum 2 Bdrm/2 Bath 4 43,200 36,000 28,800 18,000 950 sq. ft. 1080 900 720 450 minimum 3 Bdrm/2 Bath 5 46,650 38,900 31,100 19,450 1100 sq. ft. 1166 973 770 486 minimum 3 Bdrm/2 Bath 6 50,100 41,750 33,400 20,900 1250 sq. ft. 1253 1044 835 523 minimum *NOT APPLICABLE TO SENIOR PROJECTS FALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 22-Nav-91 PROJECTED HOUSING INCREMENT FISCAL YEAR 1991/1992 THROUGH 2O17/2018 TOWN CENTER Annex Orig PALMA VILLAGE APARTMENT AREA 11 TOTAL PROJECT #1 PROJECT #1 DEBT SERVICE COMMITMENT BALANCE AREA #2 AREA #3 AVAILABLE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1991 2,021,689 1,122,314 747,000 0 2,397,003 896,022 0 3,293,025 1992 2,227,380 1,185,453 744,000 0 2,668,833 957,311 77,042 3,703,186 1993 2,397,655 1,269,285 745,000 0 2,921,940 1,014,248 139,782 4,075,970 1994 2,565,491 1,345,442 741,000 0 3,169,933 1,115,673 202,869 4,488,475 1995 2,745,075 1,426,169 740,000 0 3,431,244 1,227,240 248,065 4,906,549 1996 24,937,230 1,511,739 742,000 0 3,706,969 1,349,964 296,557 5,353,490 1997 3,142,837 1,602,443 739,000 0 4,006,280 1,484,960 348,581 5,839,821 1998 3,362,835 1,698,590 744,000 0 4,317,425 1,633,457 404,387 6,355,268 1999 3,598,234 1,800,505 742,000 0 4,656,739 1,796,802 457,432 6,910,973 2000 3,850,110 1,908,535 743,000 0 5,015,645 1,976,482 514,340 7,506,468 2001 4,119,618 2,023,047 743,000 0 5,399,665 2,174,131 573,538 8,147,334 �W 2002 4,407,991 2,144,430 743,000 0 5,809,421 2,391,544 636,948 8,837,913 2003 4,716,550 2,273,096 743,000 0 6,246,646 2,630,698 704,868 9,582,213 2004 5,046,709 2,409,482 743,000 0 6,713,191 2,893,768 777,613 10,384,572 2005 5,399,978 2,554,051 743,000 0 7,211,029 3,096,332 855,523 11,162,884 2006 5,615,918 2,656,213 743,000 0 7,529,190 3,313,075 938,962 11,781,227 2007 5,840,617 2,762,461 743,000 0 7,860,078 3,544,990 1,024,448 12,429,516 2008 6,074,241 2,872,960 0 0 8,947,201 3,793,139 1,115,918 13,856,259 2009 6,317,211 2,987,878 0 0 9,305,089 4,058,659 1,213,791 14,577,539 2010 6,569,899 3,107,393 0 0 9,677,293 4,221,006 1,318,516 15,216,814 2011 6,832,695 3,231,689 0 0 10,064,384 4,389,846 1,430,571 15,884,801 2012 7,106,003 3,360,957 0 0 10,466,960 4,565,440 1,550,470 16,582,869 2013 7,390,243 3,495,395 0 0 10,885,638 4,748,057 1,678,762 17,312,457 2014 7,685,853 3,635,211 0 0 11,321,064 4,937,979 1,816,034 18,075,077 2015 7,993,287 3,780,619 0 0 11,773,906 5,135,499 1,962,915 18,872,320 2016 8,313,019 3,931,844 0 0 12,244,863 5,340,919 2,120,078 19,705,859 2017 8,645,539 4,089,118 0 0 12,734,657 5,554,555 2,288,243 20,577,455 2018 8,991F361 4,252,682 0 0 13,244,043 5,776,738 2,468,179 21,488,960 2019 9,351,015 4,422,790 0 0 13,773,805 6,007,807 2,660,710 22,442,322 2020 9,725,056 4,599,701 0 0 14,324,757 6,248,119 2,866,719 23,439,596 2021 10,114,058 4,783,689 0 0 14,897,748 6,498,044 3,087,148 24,482,940 Assuwptions: 1991-1993 Growth equals anticipated new construction plus 4% for all project areas. Thereafter, growth rates are as follows: Annex Project #1, 7% 1994 to 2005, 4% 2006 to 2021. Original Project #1, 6% 1994 to 2005, 4% 2006 to 2021. Project 12, 10% 1994 to 2004, 7% 2005 to 2009, 4% 2010 to 2021. Project #3, per Rosenow Spevacek Group Inc Project Area 13 Report. �W STATE OF CALIFORNIA- BUSINESS TR JRTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1800 THIRD STREET, Room 430 P.O. BOX 952053 n�rncF� SACRAMENTO, CA 94252-2053 (916)323-3176 FAX(916)323.6625 May 23 , 1991 E� Mr. Bruce Altman City Manager er - City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert' s Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting Palm Desert's adopted housing element, received January 23 , 1991. As you know, we are required to review adopted housing elements and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (h) ) . Palm Desert' s housing element is a well-written and comprehensive document, and establishes an ambitious schedule of program actions. Our review has been facilitated by a May 3 , 1991 telephone conversation with Philip Drell, Senior Planner. This letter summarizes the conclusion of that discussion. The adopted element adequately addresses the concerns identified in our October 3 , 1989 review letter and we are pleased to find that, in our opinion, it complies with housing element law (Article 10. 6 of the Government Code) . In particular the element now includes quantified objectives for the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved within the element' s planning period. The City is to be commended for it' s efforts in maintaining an affordable housing stock. The City has indicated that following the adoption of its element it acquired two multifamily developments that will be available for rent to lower-income residents of the City. We understand that the City' s redevelopment agency, as result of lawsuit filed against the agency, has entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Judgement which calls for the development, rehabilitation or acquisition of 1, 100 low-and moderate-income housing units before December 31, 1995 . According to the stipulation, the agency has the option of developing new units, rehabilitation or acquisiton of existing units. The new units constructed under this stipulation would count toward meeting the regional share need. Mr. Bruce Altman Page 2 For your information, Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989, requires all housing elements to include, by January 1, 1992 , additional needs analyses and programs to address the potential conversion of existing, assisted housing developments to non-low- income housing uses during the next ten-year period (Government Code Section 65583 (a) (8) and (c) (6) ) . Since these revisions are not required until January 1, 1992 , the compliance status of the element will not be affected until the 1992 deadline. We have attached a technical assistance paper, Housing Element Analysis: Preservation of Assisted Housing to assist the City in addressing the new requirements. For your information, a recent California State Supreme Court Decision (Davis v. Berkeley, 51 Cal. 3d. 227, 272 Cal. Rptr. 139 , 794 P. 2d. 897) has eliminated uncertainty with regard to using general or "blanket" Article 34 authority to develop low- rent housing. The Court found that a ballot measure need not be site specific or project specific. Thus, housing sponsors may proceed with the construction or acquisition of publicly-assisted or publicly-owned, low-rent housing projects which rely on pre- existing or future general Article 34 authority.. We hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, homas B. Cook, Chief Housing Policy Development Division Mr. Bruce Altman Page 3 cc: Philip Drell, Senior Planner, City of Palm Desert Eileen McCarthy, California Rural Legal Assistance David Booher, California Housing Council Western Center on Law & Poverty Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law Ana Marie Whitaker, Calif. State University Pomona Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Christine D. Reed, Orange County Building Industry Association Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing ' t DJE1A/14 , BEST, BEST & KRIEGER J— w�iG� "js A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LAWYERS RIVERSIDE 39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE, SUITE 312 �•/ ..t% !! 714 686- POST OFFICE BOX 1555 ;4 7 c 1450 1 199 u' ONTARIO 14) 989-8584 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 C�MM PALM SPRINGS TELEPHONE(619) 568-2611 CITYD�VEL�tN1ENT DEPAF WILN' (619) 325-7264 TELECOPIER(619) 340-6698 '"F PALM DESERT MEMORANDUM TO: RAY DIAZ, CITY OF PALM DESERT FROM: DAVE ERWIN, CITY ATTORNEY DATED: 7/9/90 RE: DENSITY BONUSES -- DEVELOPER INCENTIVES I am enclosing a copy of new legislation dealing with density bonuses, etc. , that have been in effect. It does appear that, under Government Code, Section 65915 , the City is to adopt an ordinance specifying the method of providing developer incentives. I am wondering what, if anything, we have started to develop along these lines. If there is any question, please give me a call. DJE/vcd attachments cc: Doug Phillips I--' y, r. GOVERNMENT CODE GOVERNMENT CODE § 65913.4 f age of affordable housing, 1 e bodyof an other coon or city and coon within whose jurisdiction a lication for there is an immediate need VIM- e eve o meat is o in e in order to provide concurrent nrocegsinK within sion of financial assistance, The Office of Permit Assistance in the Office of Plannine and Research shall evaluate the extent to w on vision resu in an a eve opment nernvt nrecesa an a report its Vince an conclusions to a Legislature on or before January 1 1990 h enough for production of This subdivision shall have no application or effect on and after January 1 1991 administration of land use ' (Amended by Stats.1988, c. 1263, § 2; Stats.1987, c. 1430, § 1.) i incentives to sw 'cant ' Application or Effect ant of affordable ousinf, Subdivision(b)has no application or effect on or der Jan. 1, 1991. a 50067 of the Health and 6013.4. Density bonus, regulatory concessions, and incentives; development reserving units 1 government to adopt the for lower Income households (a) If a developer agrees to construct a housing development with 20 percent or more of the units ousing developments have reserved for occupancy by lower income households,as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and id use regulations and that Safety Code, including elderly persons and families, as defined by Section 50067 of the Health and ible despite the benefits to Safety Code, who meet the criteria for lower income households, a city, county, or sty and county to the absence of adverse issuing permits for the housing development shall,unless it makes ' • 'a written findin described er and to amend existing in subdivision (b), provide a density bonus and at least one • • • or more, o t re following couragement for local and regulatory concessions or incentives to ensure the housing development will be produced at a reduced cost: (1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements which exceed the minimum building standards approved by the s State Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of (commencing with Section Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required. 418, or improvements, as . . . opment of housing for any etion shall be construed to (2) Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, ter other provisions of law industrial,or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or ith respect to the housing planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located. (3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city,county,or city meats including, but not an county which result in identifiable cost reductions. the standard and criteria This subdivision does not limit or require the provision of direct financial incentives for the housing publicly financed improve- development,including the provision of publicly owned land,by the city,county,or city and county or and county, the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. • • • ve entity; evaluation and (b) After evaluating the regulatory concessions or incentives which could result in the housing of subs (b) development being produced at a reduced cost pursuant to subdivision(a), a city, county,or city and county may• • •make a written fmdin that the additional concession or incentive is not Muired in if review and decisionmak- order for rents for the tarileted units to be set pursuant to subdivision c) of Section 65915 ,lications and permits for • city, county, or city and wunty may age fees to (c) This section applies to any housing development containing five or more units, including, but cation of a developer by a not limited to, those developments that receive federal, state, or local construction or mortgage financing assistance, mortgage insurance, or rent subsidies. Except for units financed under Sections 1472 and 1490a of Title 42 of the United States Code 1, the units for lower income a or agency designated by households specified in subdivision(a)shall be reserved for a period of 30 years,or a longer period of e review and decisionmak- time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance tions required by the local program, or rental subsidy program. (Added by Stats.1985, c. 1117, § 2. Amended by Stats.1986, c. 1190, § 1; Stats.1989, c. 842, § 2.) ranee, procedures for the 142 U.S.C.A. #1 1472, 1490a. oordinste the review and HLOorinl Note 'Sectiom 1 to 5. inclusive,of this act, unless otherwise re enuty designatedy the im 140dattea speci&d,shall apply to charter cities." aaterlaki • • • Section 6 of Stats.1989,c.842,provides. Additions in text are indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks • • • 19 §66813.E GOVERNMENT CODE GOVERNMENT COI Renumbered § 6691&L Renumbered$ 66008 and amended by Stats.1988,c. 418, 4 4 in order for rents for the incentives of equiv ent 4 65918.8. Public capital facility improvement related to development project; prohibition of fee (cl A develo er shall ( or other pamment including amount for maintenance and operation as condition ; of 22 over for approval; exceptions afroand famiTiea with incomes A lee, charge, or other form of payment imposed by a governing body of a local agency fora that does not ex public capital facility improvement related to a development project may not include an amount for persons an am es the maintenance or operation of an improvement when the fee,charge, or other form of payment is at a rent that cea not ea required as a condition of the approval of a development project,or required to fulfill a condition of unty oes not the approval. However, a fee, charge, or other form of payment may be required for the su vision the eve maintenance and operation of an improvement meeting the criteria of either subdivision(a)or(b),as continuedo ty follows: A developer may at (a) The improvement is(1)designed and installed to serve only the specific development project on development of housing 1 which the fee,charge,or other form of payment is imposed,(2)the improvement aerves 19 or fewer general plan amendments lots or units, and (3) the local agency makes a finding, based upon substantial evidence, that it is city and county shall,wits infeasible or impractical to form a public entity for maintenance of the improvement or to annex the writing of the' ' •Proce property served by the improvement to an entity as described in subdivision(b). and county shall ee blial body(b) The improvement is within a water district,sewer maintenance district,street lighting district, a rova o the roes also or drainage district. In these circumstances, a payment for maintenance or operation may be wouldo erwrae 5 its required for a period not to exceed 24 months when, subsequent to the construction of the include. but not improvement, either the local agency forms a public entity or assessment district to finance the puuElie`wor a unrrovemeni maintenance or operation,or the area containing the improvement is annexed to a public entity that will finance the maintenance or operation,whichever is earlier. The local agency may extend a fee, a The housin develo :•i charge, or other form of payment pursuant to this section once for whatever duration it deems housing units economi reasonable beyond the 24-month period upon making a finding,based upon substantial evidence,that 0 For the purposes of �. this time period is insufficient for creation of, or annexation to, a public entity or an rasessment percent over the otherwi district that would finance the maintenance or operation. ordinance and land use ele As used in this section, "development project" and 'local agency" have the same meaning as the city,county or city as number o o i provided in subdivisions (a)and(c) of Section 66000. beduaing-`' units (Added by Stats.1988, c. 1309, § 1.) apply to housing developn (g) "Housing developme CHAPTER 4.3. DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER INCENTIVES residential units construct Purposes of calculating a subdivision ma s or arc( Section housing deve opment o e 65915.5. Conversion of apartments to condominium project; eligibility; procedure. located. 65917.5. Child care facility in commercial or industrial project; density bonus or developer; ordi- thj If a developer agree nance; conditions; assessment on use of space for other purposes; finding necessary for households and 10 percent change. [New] entit] to only one densit Law Review Commentaries Section 65913.4 under this Building and Bargaining in California William Fulton grant more than one densi (1984)4 Cai.Lawyer No. 12,p. 36. (Amended by Stats.1983, c. $ 65815. Requirements of developer, ordinance specifying method of providing incentives; ilk Leyalatloe Historleal., preliminary development proposal; "density bonus"; "housing development"; num. Operative drea of Stats.1984,c ber of bonuses C. 51.3. a When a develo r of housing pro a mir develo ment within the Jurisdiction of the 1 governmenta coup or ci an corm s rovi e e eve o r incentives or e § 65916.5. Conversion of Production of lower income housinir units within the development if e eve o r meets a (a) When an applicant f( reouniments set o insu 'visions prove an c) a city,county or city an county sha opt an provide at least 33 percent o w s e me o ¢ eve oiler incentives families of low or moderate b When a developer of housing percent of the total units of Pe g agrees or proposes to construct at least(1)20 percent of the total in Section 50079.5 of the H units of a housing development for lower income households as defined"!Section 50079.5 of administrative costs incurre the Health and Safety Code,or(2) 10 percent of the total units of a housing development-For' ' county, or city and county very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code, or (3) 50 equivalent financial value. percent of the total dwelling units of a housing deve po meat for qualifying residents, as defined in on the granting of a dens Section 51.2 of the Civil Code,a city,county,or city and county shall either(1)grant a density bonus appropriate, including, but r and at least one of the concessions or incentives identified in Section 65913.4 unless the coon subsequent purchasers who or city an county es a written ¢ t eadditional concession or incentive is not req households. Additions In text are Indicated by underline; deletions by asterisks ' ' • Additions In tax 20 OVERNM M CODE GOV,FRMUM CODE § 65915.5 order for rents for the ted units to be set ae s ed in subdivision c or(2)provide other bJect; prohibition of fee wcenbves o eqw eat c value upon a cost per we ¢unit operation as condition c A develo r shall a to and the city. coRgty, or city and county shall ensure continued 0 0 lower income densitv bonus units or 0 ears, pee units or persons as wl incomes at or o rcent o area m income a o e at a rent of a local agency for a t oes not ex rcent o rcent o area m income. Those units tare or of include an amount for persons an arm es with incomes at or ow nt o area median incomes o e ether form of payment is at a rent that does not exc 0 rcent o 50 rcent o area median income. If a ci coun or !d to fulfill a condition of A—and At-y-and county oa not Wnant. at east one concession or mcenhve pursuant to 1 0 ay be required for the sin ion a eve o r sal a to an a coon or a an coon a ensure subdivision(a)or(b),as contmu o or 10 ears o ower income ousn units recei a earl nos. (d) A developer may submit to a city, county, or city and county a preliminary proposal for the c development project on development of housing pursuant to this section prior to the submittal re any formal requests for ment serves 19 or fewer general plan amendments, zoning amendments, or subdivision map approvals. The city, county, or mtial evidence, that it is city and county shall,within 90 days of receipt of a written proposal,notify the housing developer in vvement or to annex the writing of the rocedures under which it will comply with this section. The county. ci n(b). and count 1 eats urtv ea for carryia¢ out this section which a m u e Is ladje- hndv a roval of the means o coin -inn—ce With tTiu sectloa e'- coon or an county t,street lighting district, s eats urea or waive or m eve o meat zomn stain w :e or operation may be !Louo erwule i e u bon 0 e ensi nus on a c sites. ese urea e the construction of the include, but not to suc Items as minimum of size ale yazee t district to finance the - c worksimprovements. meat o A to a public entity that gency may extend a fee, (e) The houain¢ developer shall show that the waiver or modification is necessary to make the tever duration it deems housing units econcau y easi e ubstantial evidence,that Jf For the purposes of this chapter, density bonus means a density entity or an rssessment d increase applicable at least 26 percent over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinanceand land use element of the general plan as of the d&tY gof a lication by the developer to e the same meaning as city, ceun or cit and county. The density bonus s not. included when determining the number of housing units which Is equal to 10 or 25 percent of the total. The density bonus shall apply to housing developments consisting of five or more dwelling units. "Housin develo men t" as used in this section means one or more u s of Projects for residential units constructs in the lane evelo ment o a ci county, or cityan coup . or NTIVES ses o calculating a ensi bonus t e resi entia units o not have to ase u n in vi ua au vision ma s or arcels. a ensi bonus shall be rmi in eo c areas o e housing eve opment other than the areas w ere the units or a ower income ouae o R are cedure. located nus or developer; ordi- lNi If a developer agrees to construct both 20 percent of the total units for ' ' ' lower income a; finding necessary for households and 10 percent of the total units for ' ' ' ve low income households, the Seveloper is entitledto only one density bonus and at least one a itional concession or incentive identified in Section 65913.4 under this section although the city,city and county,or county may,at its di cretion, grant more than one density bonus. (Amended by Stats.1983, c. 634, § 1; Stats.1984, c. 1333, § 2; Stats.1989, c. 842, § 3.) l�holorlal Note 19e9 i providing incentives; 1964 t.e9ihnon Legii1in0° ig development"; num. Operative effect of Stats.1994,c. 1333,see note under Civ. Application of Stats.I9s9, c. 842, to charter cilia, see C. 1 51.3. Historical Note under¢ 65913.4. the a jurisdiction of the § W15-L Conversion of apartments to condominium project, tocer incentives or e p Ject; eligibility; procedure e de�veTo�er meets a (a) When an applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project agrees to d county-sFail adopt an provide at least 33 percent of the total units of the proposed condominium project to persons and families of low or moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code,or 15 20 percent of the total Percent of the total units of the proposed condominium project to lower income households as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and agrees to pay for the reasonably necessary .crrm Sectior 50079.5 of administrative coats incurred by a city,county, or city and county pursuant to this section,the city, development or' ' county, or city and county shall either(1) grant a density bonus or (2) provide other incentives of Safety Code, or (3) 50 equivalent financial value. A city, county, or city and county may place such reasonable conditions residents, as defined in on the granting of a density bonus or other incentives of equivalent financial value as it finds )grant a density bonus appropriate,including,but not limited to,conditions which assure continued affordability of units to unless the city,counter�t subsequent purchasers who are persons and families of low and moderate income or lower income icentive is not required households. srhb • • • Additions in text are lndkated by undarlkfs; daNtbna by as wlNa • • • 21 F f ; Fpp AAi 1 § 65915.5 GOVERNMENT CODE GOVERNMENT CODE (b) For purposes of thin section,"density bonus"means an increase in units of 25 percent over the (2) "Density number of apartments, to be provided within the existing structure or structures proposed for bonus' mesas conversion. P Pco permitted under the applicabl (°) For "other a charter city, city purposes of this section, other incentives of equivalent financial value" shall not be (A) A maximum of five construed to require a city, codaty, or city and county to provide cash transfer payments or other in the child s9L monetary compensation but may include the reduction or waiver of care facility for e county, or city and county might otherwise apply as conditions of conversion approval�� the city. (B) A maximum of 10 squat ' (d) An applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project may submit to a city, the childcare facility for new county, or city and county a preliminary proposal pursuant to this section prior to the submittal of For purposes of calculating any formal requests for subdivision map approvals. The city,county,or city and county shall,within footage requirements for the 90 days of receipt of a written proposal,notify the applicant in writing of the manner in which it will requirements shall be includec comply with this section. The city,county,or city and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this section, which shall include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this (8) Developer" means the c section• applicable zoning ordinance of (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to Supervisors, or county board c approve a Proposal to convert a S a city' county' or city and county to development or redevelopment partments to condominiums. M An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or other incentives under this section if the the 4a"Floor licable zoonin sans as c, apartments proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for which a density bonus or board of supervisors g rdlnanc7 other incentives were provided under Section 65915. within o e' or count; (Added by Stats.1983, c. 684, § 2.) contained within the exterior v facility in accordance with appl Ism,R410e°'ees (b) A city council,including a Condominium 4+1. board of supervisors may establ CJ.S Estates g� 14s, 146. industrial Project, containing at developer has set 4side at least § 66916. Direct financial contribution to housing developments through participation used for a child care facility. T term of availability in costa; charter city council, city and c HnP°smg necessary conditions or 4 Notes of Decisiom 2. Term of ava0abillty ed under this section shall conf( Term of availability 2 Cities and counties are required Y uired to complywith 3o- ear review, fees, charges and othe use restriction provisions of Government Code sections construction in the zone in wl;developer ma b 37364 and 65916 when they use federal community develop ye Permitted to 1. In general ment block grant funds to provide housing affordable to each developer's density bonus e persons of low and moderate income b 1 may be located on the project sitE ��O Y ( ) purchasing P J The granting of a density bonus or an exemption from a property from private developer and reconveying it to him agency. If the child care facilit local ordinance provision does not constitute a"direct fman- for nominal sum, or (2) purchasing an interest in the determine whether the location o cial contribution"for purposes of this section. 64 Ops.Atty. property allowing them to restrict use of it to affordable the intent of this section. The ct Gen.370,4-2"1. housing. 69 Ops.Atty.Gen.223,Oct. 15, 1986. requirements in order to accomrr § 65917. Legislative intent; developer agreement (c) The developer may operate care provider to operate the facili In enacting this chapter it is the intent of the Legislature that the density bonus or other incentives a local child care resource and ref offered by the city, county,or city and county pursuant to this chapter shall contribute significantly to qualify for the density bonus. to the economic feasibility of' ' ' lower income housing in proposed housing developments. In the (d) If the developer uses spat absence of an a ment b a develo resin accordance with Section 65913.5 or 65915 a localityshall subdivision (b), for any purposes not offer a ensity bonus or any other incentive that Would undermine the intent o this chapter, square footage of the project may (Amended by Stats.1989, c. 842, § 4.) council, city and county board of s HLtorkal NoEe be consistent with the market valt for the child care facility within tht tfs!I esisl.tlo. of occupancy is Application of Stats.l999, a $42, to charter cities, see Coll granted,an asse collected by the city council, includud Historical Note under 4 65913.4. county board of supervisors the ci in stet ty council, including a chart, § 66917.L Child care facility in commercial or industrial project, > rd of supervisors. The asaesarr o P 1cot, density bonus for developer, penalty levied a rdinance; conditions; assessment on tote of space, for other purposes; finding equal to the developer's tau necessary for change Pe percents subdivision shall be deposited by t (a) As used in this section, the following terms shall have the followingmeanie bow of Supervisors, or county bOE 8s services or child care facilities. (1) "Child care facility"means a facility installed,operated,and maintained under this section for (e) Once the child care facility the nonresidential care of children as defined under applicable state licensing requirements for the reduction in the physical size of,th facility. acility and county board of su AdMone In Wt WO knNeated by undeMifsK dobdons by astwiska • • • pervisors,or I 22 Additions In text are In j PLANNING OOM MISSION RESOLUTIONi NO. 1398 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOn4ENIDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, THE HOUSING ELEMENT. CASE NO. GPA 89-6 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of October, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request approval of a new housing element to the general plan; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of community development has determined that the amendment will not have a negative impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of the general plan amendment: 1. The proposed housing element complies with the California State Housing Element Law, Government Administration Code Section 65580. 2. The proposed policies and programs will enhance housing opportunities for all segments of the Palm Desert community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the city council approval of a general plan amendment: the Housing Element and the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Ccmmmission, held on this 21st, day of November, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, ERWOOD, AND WHITLOCK NOES: JONATHAN AND RICHARDS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary PD/tm PI,AMIW7 OMJ1ISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1398 EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: GPA 89-6 APPLICAN.P/PR0.7ECr SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: City of Palm Desert General Plan Housing Element revision. The Director of the Department of Ccmnunity Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. ---------------------------------------- RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PD/tm 2 MENUTES PAIM DESERT PI,ANNIM C MMISSIM NME BER 21, 1989 city told him that he had to tear down his sign and 18 months later it was legal, they did not cane back and replace his sign. Since that day he questions everything that canes before commission because as a citizen he wants to know why things are done. State law has indicated that the city needs to do something--haw many times has this been challenged, where are we in the courts, who else is in the courts was not the issue; he also agreed with Commissioner Erwood, but he was uncomfortable and did not feel he had heard enough about sane of the ways things could be done. He felt this was one of the most important things he had seen. He did not like what happened with One Quail and San Tropez Villas and nothing in the report said anything about earlier attempts. He felt that if an ample supply of apartments could be created, the city might get a price closer to where affordable housing is--he also believed that there are developers out there that if the city gave enough incentives, there might be an alternative there that might create the housing. He wanted to hear from an expert. He wasn't sure if employees of Palm Desert would live in them even if they were given priority. Cost was only one element in determining where a person lives. He wanted more information. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that he recognized a legal obligation to do something, as well as a moral obligation, but was not sure the law said this is the blueprint, use it. He wanted to know within the requirements of the law, what flexibility exists and what are the proven methods. He felt the problem was to find a way that would allow people working in Palm Desert to live in Palm Desert. He felt they were being fed the solution and while the law might say you have to have subsidized loans and subsidized building, he did not know that. He stated that he would want it to be in compliance with the legal requirements. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Drell about staff sharing with the commission what he knew. Mr. Drell stated that to receive a minimum return on investment when it costs $600 per month to maintain an apartment, you will not get $200-$300 per month rents. It is a problem not being solved by anyone, anywhere. In the past it was solved by subsidies by the federal government; those programs are gone. The city would not be a banker because every program in the element is being implemented--the agency the city has to implement most of these programs is the Riverside County Housing Authority. They would be administering the loan programs, the subsidy program and are in the business of ding these things. They qualify the people. The city would provide the cash through the redevelopment agency which produces by law 20% of the increased property value; tax revenues have to go to housing and are projected to be $2-$3 million 11 M914MES PALM DESERT PLANNIM OCMIISSION NMEMBER 21, 1989 per year for the next ten years. The city would be taking the place of the federal government that used to run the 235 and 233 and section 8 programs. Section 8 now subsidizes an individual's rent based upon that they can't spend more than 25% of their income on rent and the housing authority would contract with projects. Since the federal government withdrew from the housing programs, the city is in the position to provide those funds and they would be provided through the Riverside County Housing Authority, which was the same agency that administered the federal program. The element was not a detailed program on how projects would be developed, when a project is contemplated, everything would be cone to lower its cost. The programs would involve private developers and would take many forms. The element outlined what typical costs were and construction costs. There were very little ways of lowering costs without providing money. Waiving a fee is a subsidy--that money has to cane from somewhere else. The program for 1100 units was approved by city mil a year ago; every single program in the element has been approved by the city council. Mr. Diaz clarified that a project for the 1100 units had not yet been before the commission; this is a program that would enable the city to create the 1100 units. That would be before the commission and would not be all at once. If they are not being filled by employees of Palm Desert or those in our sphere of influence, then there would be some argument to go back to those individuals that have given us the regional housing allocation model and tell them there is a problem. Mr. Drell indicated that the element sets a goal and commits the resources to meet the goals. It would be a difficult job reviewing each project by project. This was not a detailed blueprint of a specific project. Commissioner Richards stated that if this is just a goal, why was the state saying this was a very ambitious deal. Mr. Diaz indicated the state was saying that we meet the law. Mr. Drell noted that it was because the commitment had been made to achieve the goals and we were committing funds to achieve them. Commissioner Richards noted that we have a legal and moral obligation to do certain things; the solution we don't know and the state is saying they want to hear the solution, not the ideas or hopes, but how the law will be complied with--the first part is drawing up the document and then you either do it or you don't. He indicated that he has seen this happen before where staff has came up with something that is only supposed to be a "this and a that" and the next thing that happens is that it is being used as a hammer to do certain things. Mr. Drell stated that this was a commitment to build 1100 units and 366 very low and 366 low and use a certain amount of money to do it--it was not a precise plan and 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CCK-IISSICN NWII4BER 21, 1989 the detail goes beyond the document. The implementation of the element is five years of work, working with developers and coming up with implementation details to build these units and address the details and alternatives being discussed. Nothing in the element precludes any developer from proposing and investigating or any planning commissioner from proposing or investigating a way to take the money and achieve those goals. Cannissioner Richards asked that those words be included in the element; he also wanted to hear from an expert and get an idea of where some similar examples are being done. Mr. Drell stated that there were some in the city. Commissioner Richards stated that he would like those in the housing element. He wanted to see the use of the word alternatives in the discussion about manufactured housing and some levels of expertise in that area and on what specific suggestions that would come from developers that the city would have to do to get the cost of building dawn. Mr. Drell indicated that page 13 contained typical costs; he stated that these costs were taken from the project that Wendell Rylee of Cable and Rylee, who came to the city and said he could build low income senior housing and cut costs if he received free land. That was the form of his subsidy. Commissioner Richards asked if he could show staff and give the name of a company and send reports he receives on companies doing business throughout the United States who maintain a park where they put on manufactured housing and rents are less than $400 per month. Mr. Drell suggested that Commissioner Richards have the company come in; he also indicated that language could be added emphasizing the opportunities for private developers or people in the housing field to propose alternative ways to achieve the goals through more effective means, which could be added as a general statement at the beginning of the report or under the manufactured housing section. He also indicated that the words could be added that the element was not exclusive and any proposal which achieves the goals, by definition are compatible with the element. Commissioner Dawns noted that Dan Horn builds manufactured housing at a cost of $29 per square foot. C anssioner Richards indicated that he would like to hear from an expert. After further discussion Cammissioner Richards emphasized that this document talks about spending a lot of money and listening to staff cover some subjects that he felt uncomfortable with and he wanted to get some outside testimony, examples, and more explanation. He asked that the suggested language be added as indicated by Mr. Drell. Mr. Drell informed commission that he could have the representative from the housing authority cane in to discuss their programs, but it was part of the implementation of the housing element. Mr. Diaz noted that any developer's proposal would be checked out by staff. 13 1000 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION N0V043ER 21, 1989 Chairperson Whitlock asked that Commissioner Downs restate his motion. He did so and clarified that the motion was to approve the findings. Mr. Drell noted that the amendments in the areas of any of the subsidy programs that there would be statements added that the method by which the goals and money to be spent shall not be exclusive as discussed or mentioned in the element and that any proposal from any qualified, reputable source to solve and achieve those goals shall be considered as eligible and consistent with the element, any and all alternatives to achieve the goals shall be considered consistent. Chairperson Whitlock indicated there was another recommendation that the language of explanation would be inserted at Commissioner Richards' request and felt that should be included. Mr. Drell stated that the language would be included in the element prior to it going to city council and staff would distribute the statement to commission to insure that it is consistent with commission's direction. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erw od, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Richards voted no). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1398, recommending approval of GPA 89-6, 1989 Housing Element, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, as amended, to city council. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Richards voted no). VIII. MIS(EGLArBOXS None. IX. OPAL CX744UNICATIONS None. X. OOMMENI'S None. 14 f4ENUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING OaTIISSION OCPODER 17, 1989 without any access would be. Mr. Diaz noted that instead of calling it an Acacia building, put it together with the Oliphant/Lizza building and give it an identification of a Monterey project with the Monterey traffic and a Monterey address. Mr. Hcnme felt the proper thing would be to stand on the merits of what was there and he would continue to investigate the situation; he noted that the area residents were concerned with traffic from Monterey and Park View, not so much the traffic from this particular project. Commissioner Richards noted that comlission was dealing with a change of zone and it while could be allowed, it did not have to be allowed. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0. �..- Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Comm >"oner Richards, adopting Planning Ccnmission Resolution No. 1�?r) °r� C/Z 89-14 and PP 89-25. Carried 4-0. = D. Case No. GPA 89-6 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant ♦ 3'(/ BJ� Request for a recommendation to city council R�`fS74 r0 concerning approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and a revised housing element to the Palm Desert General Plan. Mr. Diaz noted that the housing element was the work of Mr. Drell and had the approval of the State Department of Housing and Community Development. He noted that not all cities in the state or valley were in this position. Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the report beginning with the five-year summary. Commission asked for and received clarification on the five-year program. Commissioner Jonathan asked about the senior $1 million cost. Mr. Drell explained that was the projected in-lieu fees that the city has collected or projects to collect through the year 1995 as a result of potential congregate care projects that might be built in the city (i.e. Hacienda de Monterey paid a cash fee of $460,000 which has been used to purchase property on Catalina for a low income senior project). 9 NII1VI= PATS! DFSERr PLANNIM OCRUSSION OCPOEKER 17, 1989 Commissioner Richards stated that his problem was that he was concerned that this was a major economic proposal to the city with things that cross the political boundaries and he would like to see an affirmation fran the city council that they want the city to proceed along the lines. He felt that Palm Desert should not have to be the best at providing low income housing for everything. Mr. Drell informed Commissioner Richards that program A had already been to the city council and they initiated the program through the execution of an agreement with the Riverside County Housing Authority to sell the bonds and provision of all the new construction programs would be for employees of the city of Palm Desert. He explained that the reason these things were done were to comply with state law addressing the mandated needs as shown. Ccmmmissicner Richards asked what would happen if the city did not do this and Mr. Diaz stated that if the city did not do it then the whole general plan would be in jeopardy and the city could end up with the same situation as Indian Wells. He explained that the reason the city was doing this was because it was the law and it was right; he noted that Palm Desert could not attack Indian Wells' efforts in the housing area and not do a credible effort in Palm Desert. Mr. Drell noted there was a concern of new hotels on the basis that business can get employees and keep them here; part of the requirement for a reliable labor force was to provide housing. He also stated that housing for Palm Desert employees should be in the city because the farther away they are, the more they impact the highways. The plan addresses Palm Desert's own employment needs. Commissioner Richards stated that he was not disagreeing with the theory, but with the fact that the public should be apprised that this city was undertaking something of this nature and the public should be aware of the ambitiousness. He did not feel there would be enough public support for what the plan was proposing. He noted that minimum wage workers earn approximately $4.25/hour to $5.00/hour, and asked how would the city provide housing in Palm Desert that would result in an economic set of alternatives that he did not feel sure the community of Palm Desert would be ready to accept. He noted there was a subjective degree that each city took to solve those problems. He stated that he wanted to see sc miething to the public that would explain what the city wants to do. Mr. Diaz stated that staff would go through the programs and felt there was public support for then. Program A was under construction to provide curbs, gutter, sewers and public hearings were held to provide the 2,373 units; it was received and everyone was in favor. Commissioner Richards stated that that particular program did not hurt anyone. Mr. Diaz replied that none of the programs hurt anyone. Commissioner Richards 10 DUTIJT S PAIM DESERT PLANNIM COMMISSION OCPOBER 17, 1989 indicated that he would like to find out if the city was ready to accept the political reality of this, not the theoretical. Mr. Drell stated that the political body of the city was the city council and they had initiated program A and he also noted that the criteria for approving projects was the same it has always been as outlined in the suitability section where the city goes through the same process. Commissioner Richards noted that One Quail Place had been in bankruptcy because of a technical thing the developer did to get around something and the place on Country Club was renting places on a block an a temporary basis. He noted that the city has little control on some of these issues and was not convinced that at this time that the development agreements and deals where restaurants were to be hilt and maintained between motels that never got built and things like that and he did not feel the city was great at doing these things. Mr. Drell stated that these programs were in response to the shortcomings of some of the items Commissioner Richards mentioned and informed him they would be publicly owned and operated programs and again stated that program A had been initiated by the council and the contracts made with the housing authority. He stated that while it looked ambitious, the issues were out-growths of programs initiated in the last housing element and the city was finally getting around to doing some of the things outlined in 1984. Commissioner Jonathan asked if program 2 A had already begun; Mr. Drell explained that it was initiated and Mr. Diaz stated that the bonds had been sold, but no specific project had been approved. Mr. Diaz noted that if a specific project was not built and the money not used, then the money would be used outside the city in the county and the city would be out the $2.3 million spent to get the bonds. He indicated that an area was tentatively acquired--part for the mobile hone park area and part for the employee housing project in the north sphere around the Gerald Ford/Portola area and the bonds were sold. Commissioner Richards stated that he had not been out of town and he had not heard about this--he did not know the city raised money in a bond issue for an employee housing development. Mr. Diaz stated that an agreement was executed with the housing authority to turn some of the city's housing money into bonding money and leverage it into $60 million. He stated that the hopes were to acquire the mobile home park and part to acquire the Town Center apartments, and the other part to help create the employee village or a series of projects. He noted that the projects had not been approved yet and they would be before the commission for approval, but the bonds had been sold as part of a county-wide band effort, of which there was $200-300 million available. Mr. Diaz noted that item 1 B had been instituted and was going-on to rehab the existing housing to make it affordable. 11 14ENU ES PAIM DESERT PLANNIM OOMKISSION OCPOBER 17, 1989 Mr. Drell noted that prior to that there was specific narrative discussions of each of the programs in the element. Mr. Diaz stated that fran the standpoint of the public being aware of these programs, each and every one was being done as a result of people coming to the city and asking for help--he indicated that the city was undertaking the housing element revisions because it solves the city's obligation and makes economic sense. Commissioner Richards stated that he saw a lot of theoretical things that if they worked would be nice and did not feel all of them would be unpalatable for the citizens of the city, but he did not see and never understood what the state could do to the city if it did not comply and how long the issue could be violated and was not sure he agreed with the urgency of this undertaking. Mr. Drell stated that Indian Wells would sue us tomorrow for lack of our general plan. Mr. Diaz stated that Indian Wells right now could do nothing in terms of their general plans and zone changes, but if the city was going to approach each state mandated piece of legislation on the grounds of the what if the effective or else was, then a greater problem exists. He also indicated that the state of California was getting serious on the housing issue and tying that into the transportation/air quality issue and waste management/recycling issue. Program 1 A has worked very well and 1 B has worked successfully; the Certificate of Performance program has cost nothing and there has been improvement of existing dwelling units; he felt that the Town Center Apartment program would work; affordable housing program's problem was usually having the money and the city has the money; ownership mortgage assistance was not a new program. Commissioner Richards noted that 1 E was 191 units--to say that those people were financially deprived, out of the 191 units some might be, but how many other mobile hone parks in the city will want the same thing; these were not small items and have significant ramifications upon other areas of the city. Canmissicner Dawns stated that the citizens were paying for the curbs and gutters. Mr. Diaz stated that in the case of the mobile hone parks, if others want it and the city does not have the money, then it can't be done. Mr. Drell noted that this was a program initiated by council and which council was pursuing. Commissioner Richards stated that one of the reasons he was present was so that someone besides staff would look at this and his public input was that this had not been made public enough. He felt that the citizens needed to be apprised of these programs. He asked that this be made public with newspaper articles, he wanted to see something from the city council that says or a notation that refers to city council approvals and felt the ambitiousness itself was questionable. He felt it was not necessarily the will of the public 12 %40e MENU ES PALM DESERT PLANNIM COMMISSION OGTODER 17, 1989 that the city be so ambitious and he would like to see that someone besides staff know about this. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Commissioner Downs stated that he would like to move for a continuance and get some answers that Commissioner Richards expressed. Commissioner Jonathan expressed surprise that so much of the information was so significant and he was hearing about it for the first time, noting that he was in the desert for the whole summer. He asked if it would be appropriate to generate more public notice and even have a study session on this item. He indicated that he did not know enough about this to vote on it. Commissioner Richards noted that there were many committees in the city (i.e. Year 2000) and felt that it should really be pushed around town. He stated that this was a major focus of the city and if this was the focus the people want, fine, he would be the first in line to implement the program. This should be put to the press in a reasonable manner that generates some opinion and also should be reviewed by the committees around town including the Year 2000 committee, the chamber of commerce, the economic development advisory committee and the rest of them. Commissioner Jonathan asked why the city did not appoint a committee specifically for this purpose. Mr. Diaz stated that each and every one of these programs were there for a reason; the largest expenditure ones have gone through the council in terms of money and if there was going to be political input from the public to make planning decisions based on political input, that was not the role of the planning commission. Commissioner Richards felt that enough time had not been given to study this and more public notice needed to be done. Commissioner Jonathan stated that this thing was too big to digest and would impact a lot of people that the commission had not heard from and his view point was that the planning commission was not being asked a normal question for that body. They do not have a project, but a conceptual issue that has political overtones and would affect many people who do not know about it. Mr. Diaz stated that input was needed, but the commission should be making its decision based on planning principles, not necessarily political ones. Mr. Diaz stated that at the next meeting staff could have before the commission the EDC, the chamber of commerce people, and the mobile home park people. Chairperson Whitlock stated that was what the commission was requesting. Mr. Drell stated that it probably would not be at the 13 . I PALM DESERT PLANNIM CONNiISSION OCTOBER 17, 1989 next meeting. Mr. Diaz indicated that it could be continued for a month. Commissioner Richards stated that he would like to see in the public notice a list of what the city would embark upon and the cost published in the local newspaper that there will be a public hearing and the city would be spending a specific amount over a specific period of time and the areas it would cover. Mr. Diaz stated that the cost and revenue sources were in the report and it could be made public. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing GPA 89-6 to November 21, 1989 to allow notification of public hearing and other bodies. Carried 4-0. VIII. MISCELI ANEOLTS A. Case No. PP 89-12 - GBOR E MoiSovAS, Applicant Request for report concerning appeal of a planning commission denial of a 17,000 square foot commercial building. Mr. Drell indicated that a new exhibit had been shown to the city council. He outlined the salient points of the report and explained that the consensus of the council was that the new site plan was acceptable and if sufficiently landscaped, provided an acceptable streetscape, and relief to the street neighborhood and council recognized the applicant's arguments relative to having the parking in one location. The rendering was more illustrative of the project and there was no particular discussion on the appearance of the building. It was referred back to planning commission because it had not seen the new rendering. Staff felt that as an exhibit it gave the architectural commission sufficient guidance in reviewing a working drawing that would accomplish the picture. Mr. Drell noted that the architectural commission gave preliminary approval to the project. He noted that the council was asking for input and they would make the final decision. Chairperson Whitlock felt that the drawing was certainly an improvement and in view of the approval by city council, she retracted her negative vote. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was some level of assurance that the project and landscaping would look like the drawing and have mature landscaping. Mr. Drell stated that when the working drawings 14 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF RETORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: November 21, 1989 CASE ND: GPA 89-6 REQUEST: Recommendation to city council concerning 1989 revision of General Plan Housing Element. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BAQ GROLM: At the last hearing the commission requested that the element be presented to the Chamber of Commerce and City Economic Development Committee for reaction or input. During the last month a presentation was made to a special Chamber of Commerce Committee with responsibility for housing. No position was taken at that time, although there was considerable discussion. The committee will be making a recommendation to the Board of Directors at their meeting of November 28, 1989. On November 8 the element was presented to the EDC. Again, there was considerable discussion but no position was taken. II. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the findings r,gs and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to city council approval of GPA 89-6, 1989 Housing Element. III. ATTACHMENTS. A. Draft resolution. B. October 17, 1989 staff report. C. Housing Element text. `\Y Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by PD/tm 14100 . NiINCT.i'ES PALM DESERT PLANN12U COIMISSICN NOVIIMBER 21, 1989 could be reinforced by call it out. Commissioner Erwood asked that it be added as a condition. Commissioner Jonathan felt that it was time for a child care facility in the city and felt it would be hard to find a better location at this time. He felt the raised median made sense, but having a break in the median would result in U-turns and felt the median should be put to where U-turns should take place. He also felt the playground equipment not being visible would be taken care of and did not see additional landscaping as a problem. He stated that subject to those requirements, he would move for approval. Commissioner Richards agreed that this was an appropriate location; concerns about wall height, landscaping and noise he did not feel was a problem when next to a medical office, but felt that steps should be taken in case there were a different type of office use there in the future. He felt it was important to keep this in the motif that this is in an office professional zone and all attempts should be made by the architect and developer to ensure that the next tenant would allow another use. He did not feel that the building should be designed as a single purpose building. He also indicated that staff should look at the whole problem of child care in a bigger way. He was uncomfortable about putting a child care facility anywhere. He noted that this was a big deal and steps should be taken to create an overlay zone, as well as a list of desired locations, so that developers and owners would understand that the city recognizes that there is a need and is meeting its obligation to provide possible locations and requested that staff think about that and bring back an estimate of need for child care centers, suggestions from professionals in the area as to where they might be located so that it is not handled on a spot by spot basis. He seconded the motion for approval. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Comissioner Richards, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Conrdssioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1397, approving CUP 89- 13, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 5-0. A. Continued Case No. GPA 89-6 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to city council concerning approval of a negative declaration of 6 DUNUMS PALM DESERT PLANNIM CxMMIISSIM NC7VII43ER 21, 1989 environmental impact and a revised housing element to the Palm Desert General Plan. Mr. Drell noted that at the last meeting Commissioner Richards requested that this document be distributed to the more prominent committees in the city. He indicated that a presentation was given before the chamber of commerce development committee--they would formulate a recommendation to present to the board of directors and if this is moved to council, they will present their views to city council on December 14, 1989. He also indicated that it was brought before the city's economic development committee which consisted mainly of discussion. He indicated that if there were any changes, that could be incorporated as part of the commission's relation to council. Cammi.ssioner Downs asked Commissioner Richards what the position was of the economic development committee. Commissioner Richards indicated that it was mostly just an informational item to the EDC-- he did not feel there would be an official recommendation from them. Commissioner Richards felt that this was a city concern that did not seem to draw much attention now, but felt it would when it's done. He indicated that staff had noticed the different cc mmittees and felt it should proceed. Commissioner Dooms indicated that he would be recommending it up to city council. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There being no one, the public testimony was closed. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood moving this item to city council. Commissioner Richards indicated that he was not necessarily against the motion, but felt that some discussion was needed. He stated that he had some comments to make for the record. He said that his concerns start with basic philosophy and the fact that he was not sure that the motivation for the housing element was clear--from a legal and moral responsibility he said was clear, but how fast and the degree was a matter of choice. He felt the intent of the report was to take the high, fast road. He felt that same of the number crunching was not perfect and staff indicated that it was intended to be in the general area; he felt that all of the development around 7 M91AYTES PALM DESERT PLANNMG COMMISSION NXE BER 21, 1989 the Washington Street area and the fact that the city surrounds Palm Desert Greens, some of those numbers in terms of housing that do occur in the city should be included. An application will be before Lafco in January by residents of Palm Desert Country Club where they indicated they want to be in our sphere of influence and the next step would be to discuss possible annexation. He noted that a lawsuit had just been settled that indicated that some additional acreage might come into the city in the area near the Sunterra project. He felt that an alternative that could meet some of our needs could be annexation of areas where housing needs are already in existence and the ability to create more is there. He reiterated that one problem was basic philosophy that the housing element itself is limited in the alternatives offered for the means and methods of achieving the goals of the state and moral obligations. He was concerned about the mobile home park purchase; the 1100 unit apartment building and the city would be obligating itself to spending a lot of money and the alternatives were not there. He felt that the report did not discuss the ethnic situations in the valley with people who might feel more comfortable living in hispanic areas because of their comfort zone and alternatives had not been explored on what other cities and counties are doing to meet these problems and have not been given any data to indicate other methods to gain additional time or get more information in handling the same problem. He asked that staff consider his concerns before it was sent to council until some other alternatives were explored in terms of past projects like One Quail Place and the San Tropez Villas and provide discussion as to their success or failure. He did not see any discussion as to why the city was purchasing the mobile home park and the rent control issues involved with that. He felt these were important issues that need to be addressed, especially specific alternatives such as the suggestion that the market place could be utilized as a method of creating new apartments with the idea that if it were rezoned, a great number of locations for high density apartments change some of the requirements and lowers the costs, some of these things could be achieved instead of looking into a subsidy program, and no discussion was provided as to whether it was good, bad or indifferent. He noted that he had been involved in the investment side of some of these things and there were serious problems as to whether they work, don't work and how they work. Commissioner Richards indicated that if a housing element was going to be created that tells the direction the city wants to go, the commission should have a better idea of all the alternatives, including research on the subject of manufactured housing. Not mobile homes, but houses built by a manufacturer and put on a site, which he felt was one of the lowest and cheapest forms of housing, even cheaper than apartments. He noted there was a section in the 8 VAIW i✓ NLI1VItPES PRIM DESERT PLANNIM CDMSSICN NMn BER 21, 1989 city designated that way and has yet to see anything done. He indicated he would like to see the housing element expanded. Commissioner Downs asked for comments from Mr. Drell. Mr. Drell stated that if there were a lot of alternatives available, the city would not have this problem and the element basically addresses low and very low income housing--rents between the range of $200-$400 per month. He indicated there were no alternatives to produce housing that meets that need other than subsidization. He noted there might be a lot of housing that the city might be annexing which would address moderate inane housing; the element states that the market can and does produce an ample supply of moderate income housing; the problem is low and very low income housing. He indicated that the problem with One Quail Place and San Tropez Villas has been the fact that for every eight moderate units produced only two lower inane units--there isn't enough demand for the eight units to create an internal subsidy to allow the developer to lower the rents on the controlled income ones. He stated that it is recognized in the element that the city is not going to get enough low and very low income units through the process employed with One Quail Place and San Tropez Villas. Commissioner Richards asked about including discussion of lowering standards and making the development more economically feasible. He noted that the city has high standards and fees that are charged before a building is built. He wanted to see staff attempt to address what could be drone and compare it to other cities. He wanted to see discussion about what other attempts could be tried, including modification of current and existing ordinances. Mr. Diaz stated that the element was not an end-all in itself and there would be continued review as the projects cane on-line before commission and council. He felt that the suggestion of looking at the development standards was something that the element did look at and it would be a suggestion that would be carried onto the council that the impact of the elements be examined and as far as fees and other costs, generally affordable housing projects are exempted from those fees. He stated that was something that could be looked at--this element is a start and does not preclude the city from evaluating other things and that would be brought to the council's attention. Commissioner Richards felt this was a case when a lawsuit and a state law is forcing the city to come up with a housing element in a short period of time and he requested that the commission explore and leave discussion open and wanted staff to have someone that was an expert in this field describe to the commission what the state-of-the-art alternatives are; examples of where they work and don't work, so that 9 NIINUTES PALM DESERT PLANN.IM OO ILSSICN NC7MMR 21, 1989 before it is stated in the housing element that the city wants to spend a serious amount of money. Mr. Drell indicated that the funds committed in this element were redevelopment agency funds which the city collects that must be spent on these programs. Commissioner Richards stated that that did not relieve the city of the obligation of spending those dollars wisely--he did not feel enough information was available in providing low cost alternatives; he indicated that same developers put in manufactured housing and then rent it for approximately $350 total per month. Mr. Drell indicated that there are zones that allow that and a rental park was being constructed now; he also indicated that manufactured housing in California was a non-issue in that the city could not discriminate in any form and was considered as any other form of housing. Mr. Diaz stated that the important issue was that the alternatives were open and it would be looked at constantly. Commissioner Jonathan noted there was a motion to send this up to council and stated that he would vote against it--he recognized the city's obligation to be involved in the solution but he felt it was a matter of degree and methodology and felt he needed to be educated further especially on the alternatives; he indicated that under this plan the city would became a banker, builder, land purchaser and this would involve loans for rehabilitation of low income housing, direct expenditure for rehabilitation, subsidy of low income housing, low interest loans, purchase of lots, section 8 rents--subsidy cost unknown, and until he learned more about it, was uncertain with the city becoming involved in the free market place; he also expressed concern with methodology--he liked the self-help housing concept and wondered if some areas could be emphasized and other de-emphasized. Commissioner Erwood noted that there was a lot of discussion on philosophical differences, basically he summarized the undercurrent as that this was making the city of Palm Desert get away from the free enterprise system and would be providing houses. While that might be true, but there is a state mandated law. When taking a position as a planning commissioner, sometimes decisions have to be made that may not personally be agreed with, but the law has to be followed. He had no objection to anyone who says they need more time, but he did object to anyone placing their personal aversion to following the law. It is something that has to be done and a decision to provide low cost housing in Palm Desert was going to have to be made--the method to be used could be worked out. Canuissioner Richards did not feel that he or Commissioner Jonathan's opinion was that we don't want to do what has to be done; however, that in itself could be an issue. The fact that ten years ago this 10 Now PALM DESERT PLANNIM OCIMMISSIM NM EMBER BER 21, 1989 city told him that he had to tear down his sign and 18 months later it was legal, they did not came back and replace his sign. Since that day he questions everything that comes before cotmission because as a citizen he wants to know why things are done. State law has indicated that the city needs to do something--how many times has this been challenged, where are we in the courts, who else is in the courts was not the issue; he also agreed with Cannissioner Erwood, but he was uncomfortable and did not feel he had heard enough about some of the ways things could be done. He felt this was one of the most important things he had seen. He did not like what happened with One Quail and San Tropez Villas and nothing in the report said anything about earlier attempts. He felt that if an ample supply of apartments could be created, the city might get a price closer to where affordable housing is--he also believed that there are developers out there that if the city gave enough incentives, there might be an alternative there that might create the housing. He wanted to hear from an expert. He wasn't sure if employees of Palm Desert would live in them even if they were given priority. Cost was only one element in determining where a person lives. He wanted more information. Commissioner Jonathan indicated that he recognized a legal obligation to do something, as well as a moral obligation, but was not sure the law said this is the blueprint, use it. He wanted to know within the requirements of the law, what flexibility exists and what are the proven methods. He felt the problem was to find a way that would allow people working in Palm Desert to live in Palm Desert. He felt they were being fed the solution and while the law might say you have to have subsidized loans and subsidized building, he did not know that. He stated that he would want it to be in compliance with the legal requirements. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Drell about staff sharing with the commission what he knew. Mr. Drell stated that to receive a minimum return on investment when it costs $600 per month to maintain an apartment, you will not get $200-$300 per month rents. It is a problem not being solved by anyone, anywhere. In the past it was solved by subsidies by the federal government; those programs are gone. The city would not be a banker because every program in the element is being implemented--the agency the city has to implement most of these programs is the Riverside County Housing Authority. They would be administering the loan programs, the subsidy program and are in the business of doing these things. They qualify the people. The city would provide the cash through the redevelopment agency which produces by law 20% of the increased property value; tax revenues have to go to housing and are projected to be $2-$3 million 11 '%6w NLaVIJI�S PALM DFSII?T PLANNIM COMMISSION NUM23ER 21, 1989 per year for the next ten years. The city would be taking the place of the federal government that used to run the 235 and 233 and section 8 programs. Section 8 now subsidizes an individual's rent based upon that they can't spend more than 25% of their income on rent and the housing authority would contract with projects. Since the federal government withdrew from the housing programs, the city is in the position to provide those funds and they would be provided through the Riverside County Housing Authority, which was the same agency that administered the federal program. The element was not a detailed program on how projects would be developed, when a project is contemplated, everything would be done to lower its cast. The programs would involve private developers and would take many forms. The element outlined what typical costs were and construction costs. There were very little ways of lowering costs without providing money. Waiving a fee is a subsidy--that money has to came from somewhere else. The program for 1100 units was approved by city council a year ago; every single program in the element has been approved by the city council. Mr. Diaz clarified that a project for the 1100 units had not yet been before the commission; this is a program that would enable the city to create the 1100 units. That would be before the commission and would not be all at once. If they are riot being filled by employees of Palm Desert or those in our sphere of influence, then there would be some argument to go back to those individuals that have given us the regional housing allocation model and tell them there is a problem. Mr. Drell indicated that the element sets a goal and commits the resources to meet the goals. It would be a difficult job reviewing each project by project. This was not a detailed blueprint of a specific project. Commissioner Richards stated that if this is just a goal, why was the state saying this was a very ambitious deal. Mr. Diaz indicated the state was saying that we meet the law. Mr. Drell noted that it was because the commitment had been made to achieve the goals and we were committing funds to achieve them. Commissioner Richards noted that we have a legal and moral obligation to do certain things; the solution we don't know and the state is saying they want to hear the solution, not the ideas or hopes, but how the law will be complied with--the first part is drawing up the document and then you either do it or you don't. He indicated that he has seen this happen before where staff has cane up with something that is only supposed to be a "this and a that" and the next thing that happens is that it is being used as a hammer to do certain things. Mr. Drell stated that this was a commitment to build 1100 units and 366 very low and 366 low and use a certain amount of money to do it--it was not a precise plan and 12 M gUTES PALM DFSELZT PLANNIM COMMISSICN NUMOER 21, 1989 the detail goes beyond the document. The implementation of the element is five years of work, working with developers and caning up with implementation details to build these units and address the details and alternatives being discussed. Nothing in the element precludes any developer from proposing and investigating or any planning comnissioner from proposing or investigating a way to take the money and achieve those goals. Commissioner Richards asked that those words be included in the element; he also wanted to hear fran an expert and get an idea of where some similar examples are being done. Mr. Drell stated that there were some in the city. Commissioner Richards stated that he would like those in the housing element. He wanted to see the use of the word alternatives in the discussion about manufactured housing and some levels of expertise in that area and on what specific suggestions that would come from developers that the city would have to do to get the cost of building down. Mr. Drell indicated that page 13 contained typical costs; he stated that these costs were taken from the project that Wendell Rylee of Cable and Rylee, who came to the city and said he could build low income senior housing and cut costs if he received free land. That was the form of his subsidy. Commissioner Richards asked if he could show staff and give the name of a company and send reports he receives on companies doing business throughout the United States who maintain a park where they put on manufactured housing and rents are less than $400 per month. Mr. Drell suggested that Commissioner Richards have the company come in; he also indicated that language could be added emphasizing the opportunities for private developers or people in the housing field to propose alternative ways to achieve the goals through more effective means, which could be added as a general statement at the beginning rig of the report or under the manufactured housing section. He also indicated that the words could be added that the element was not exclusive and any proposal which achieves the goals, by definition are compatible with the element. Commissioner Downs noted that Dan Horn builds manufactured housing at a cost of $29 per square foot. Commissioner Richards indicated that he would like to hear from an expert. After further discussion Commissioner Richards emphasized that this document talks about spending a lot of money and listening to staff cover some subjects that he felt uncomfortable with and he wanted to get some outside testimony, examples, and more explanation. He asked that the suggested language be added as indicated by Mr. Drell. Mr. Drell informed commission that he could have the representative from the housing authority cane in to discuss their programs, but it was part of the implementation of the housing element. Mr. Diaz noted that any developer's proposal would be checked out by staff. 13 • M 24UTES PALM DESERT PLiAA NIM O MNLISSION ND 04ER 21, 1989 Chairperson Whitlock asked that Commissioner Downs restate his motion. He did so and clarified that the motion was to approve the findings. nr3i ngs. Mr. Drell noted that the amendments in the areas of any of the subsidy programs that there would be statements added that the method by which the goals and money to be spent shall not be exclusive as discussed or mentioned in the element and that any proposal from any qualified, reputable source to solve and achieve those goals shall be considered as eligible and consistent with the element, any and all alternatives to achieve the goals shall be considered consistent. Chairperson Whitlock indicated there was another recommendation that the language of explanation would be inserted at Commissioner Richards' request and felt that should be included. Mr. Drell stated that the language would be included in the element prior to it going to city council and staff would distribute the statement to commission to insure that it is consistent with commission's direction. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Fswood, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Richards voted no). Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1398, recommending approval of GPA 89-6, 1989 Housing Element, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, as amended, to city council. Carried 3-2 (Commissioners Jonathan and Richards voted no). VIII. MISCQ,TANBO S None. IX. ORAL CIU44MCATIONS None. X. COMMENTS None. 14 PROOF OF PUBLICATION This space is for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the DESERT SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY a newspaper Proof of Publication of of general circulation, printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, and which ................................................................................................ newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of River- ........................................... .......................... side, State of California, under the date of March 24, No CITY ►w�l �t;tatt 1988. Case Number 191236; that the notice, of which theme, st►A By annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than G°� thata� ublic nonpareil),has been published in each regular and entire fore t�ill a iPa m h t7old asert issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement h�eY Council m�rthe Housirr�t e01 to the thereof on the followingdates,to-wit: G@neral moo: re- vised elertt insA five Yeel�o tCde- veioh very Jo*i Aow=And rrsoderste fttfCo F h S4 ing dddrfes. need#,:treza he city's axpllndl�} i0pri S D ibttc WYIi .........December 1,............................................................... be herd oft .f : Decerri"r. m. W Of chamt0t yyap!" e146 � 10 FrodWbti 'Vol Palm tip. lal at whtehImirk e it all in the year 19.... ...... are inv�t esta and be Mil- lenge the Pt . lions In.Goufis May be tirnited i,ising I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the s i $ laf :d at the public ing de- foregoing is true and correct. scribed in the"ties,or in written. corresvon- Bence "W.ered to the city cooncWtor,ii fining Dated at Palm Springs,California this ..........lst day goo n vow)+ ,or,p 9or SHOILA-R. GILLIGANt City Clerk of........................December................................ 19...89..... city of Palm Desert-CA I Pub:''Dec'L 10 ..............i !.. - . ,........................................ SIGNATURE PROOF OF PUBLICATION �.✓ ] zl 73-510 FRED WAKING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 November 27, 1989 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. GPA 89-6 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing wi ► 1 be held before the Palm Desert. City Council to consider the 1989 version of the Housing Element to the General Plan. The revised element contains a five-year program to develop very low, low and moderate income housing addressing the needs created by the city's expanding resort economy. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursdav, December 14, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. i n the Council Chamber --it the Palm City Ha 1 1 , 73-510 Prey; War i nq Drive, Palm Desert, Cali-For n i a, it which, h h time and Wjce all interest ej "--)n <31e i nv l r-;1 t -at tr'nid an_�l be hear�_l, If you cha l i eng the pr000sed fit. L`OU Fflav !rC' l lmi ted to r niv those issues you or t.: .., i!?t-1 des ur3f__s a;r i t _en cor rest,_)n+ u_ 1 I v r'(i t_ t .: _ P i 6rin i!),� comri)is, iIon) at, or prior PUBLISH: Desert Siln a +EP A R. Gil_L1taAh{, Cr rk December 1 ,,R, C i ty c; P_;l l r eE-,Prt, Ca l i±=orn i t N RECEIV D €'-0MMUNiR DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM,<,q r=11Y OF PALM 04.,SERT HOUSING ELEMENT ANALYSIS: PRESERVATION OF ASSISTED UNITS State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Policy Development Division November 15, 1991 s i CONTENTS Adoption and HCD Review 1 Findings for Jurisdictions Without Affected Units 1 Purpose and Uses of the Analysis 2 Preparing the Housing Element Analysis 3 Inventory of Units At Risk of Losing Use Restrictions 5 Period of Analysis 5 Types of Projects 5 Project Information 8 Information Resources 10 HUD-Assisted Projects 10 FmHA Projects 15 CDBG-Assisted Projects 16 Bond-Financed Projects 16 Redevelopment Units 17 Cost Analysis of Preserving Versus Replacing At-Risk Units 17 Resources for Preservation 18 Quantified Objectives: Number of At-Risk Units to be Preserved 20 Program Efforts for Preservation of At-Risk Units 21 Tables Table I: Project Subsidy Combinations 7 Table II: Status of Certain Projects Relative to Housing Element Analysis 9 Attachment A: Checklist to Confirm Lack of At-Risk Units Housing Element Analysis: Preservation of Assisted Units (revised November 15, 1991) Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989, and Chapter 889, Statutes of 1991 amended Section 65583 of the Government Code to require analysis and program efforts by July 1, 1992 for preserving assisted housing developments. The following components are required in the housing element: I. Inventory of Units At-Risk of Losing Use Restrictions; Il. Cost Analysis of Preserving At-Risk Units Versus Replacing Them; III. Resources for Preservation; A. Nonprofit Entities Capable of Acquiring and Managing At-Risk Projects; B. Potential Preservation Financing Sources and Estimates of Available Funds; IV. Quantified Objectives: Number of At-Risk Projects/Units to be Preserved; and V. Programs: Efforts to Preserve Units At-Risk of Losing Use Restrictions. The regulatory framework affecting some of these units is particularly complex; some projects may be subject to several government regulations affecting termination of affordability controls. This paper provides guidance for interpretation of the conversion risk and regulations affecting these units. Adoption and HCD Review The law requires the analysis and a program for preserving assisted housing developments eligible for conversion to be adopted as an amendment to all housing elements by July 1, 1992. As with any other amendment, this should be submitted to HCD's Housing Policy Development Division (HPD) for review and comment at least 45 days prior to adoption. The adopted element must also be submitted to HPD for review; HPD will report its written findings on the adopted element within 120 days (Government Code Section 65585(h)). Findings for Jurisdictions Without Affected Units All types of units identified by subsection 65583(a) should be addressed; if there are no affected units in a particular program, this should be specifically stated. For example, " There are no locally-subsidized units at-risk, as the City has not issued mortgage revenue bonds, has not approved any density bonuses with financial assistance, does not have an in-lieu fee program, and has not assisted multifamily housing with redevelopment or CDBG funds." Jurisdictions which do not have any affected projects, and which submit a draft element for review prior to July 1992, should indicate this in the housing element. An assertion that there are no affected projects should be supported by a description of the process used and sources contacted or factual basis for this conclusion. The checklist included as Attachment A- of this paper can be submitted along with the housing element to confirm sources checked. Jurisdictions which do not have any affected projects and are not otherwise amending the housing element prior to July 1, 1992 must submit either an amended housing element or a finding adopted by resolution of the legislative body. The amendment or finding should include a description of the process used and sources contacted or factual basis for the finding of no affected units, and should attach the checklist included as Attachment A of this paper. If a finding is adopted, its basis should be re-examined at the time of the next periodic update of the housing element; if still valid at that time, the information should be incorporated into the element. For further clarification of these issues, contact HPD staff. Purpose and Uses of the Analysis The purpose of the analysis is to identify actions (programs) the jurisdiction can take to preserve at-risk units to adequately plan for preventing or minimizing tenant displacement and to preserve the local affordable housing stock. A conversion date within the ten-year planning period alone does not mean that the owners of these projects can or will terminate affordability controls. Project owners may not wish to end their participation in subsidy programs. In addition, Federal and State regulations affect the feasibility and timing of the termination of low-income use restrictions; they also provide specific opportunities for local government and nonprofits to preserve these units. Furthermore, certain projects may be technically eligible to convert, but be unlikely to actually do so; the analysis can clarify such situations. The analysis and programs should reflect awareness of applicable statutory provisions. The housing element of the general plan is also an important legal document in establishing the basis for any subsequent regulatory options to preserve at-risk units. Federal law covering FmHA Section 515 projects or certain HUD-assisted projects includes certain types of potential impacts which can be used to restrict conversion, as described below'. The potential for such impacts from a local conversion is appropriate (although Federal law (Section 232 of the Low Income Housing and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990) also preempts certain actions by state or local government which would restrict conversion of projects financed by the Section 2M or Section 221(d)(3) programs. 2 L Inventory of Units At Risk of Losing Use Restrictions Secaon 65583(a)(8)) Period of Analysis The analysis is to cover a ten-year period. To make the analysis useful for the five- year housing element updates, it is recommended the inventory be divided into two five-year groups, coinciding with the planning periods of the housing element. The projects should be segregated on the basis of the dates of the earliest potential terminations of use restrictions. Whenever a housing element is amended or adopted pursuant to the statutory five- year updates, the inventory of projects should be updated to cover the following ten- year period. Jurisdictions which had housing element updates due July 1, 1989, July 1, 1990, or July 1, 1991, should use those dates as the beginning of the ten- year analysis period. If a housing element update is submitted after the mandatory submission date, the analysis should include any projects which have already passed an eligibility date for termination of affordability controls, and should note their current status. If a housing element is amended between statutory updates, it is not necessary to extend the ten-year analysis period at that time. For example, housing element updates mandated by July 1, 1991 should analyze projects with use restrictions eligible to terminate prior to July 1, 2001. The two five-year subperiods would be July 1991 - June 1996, and July 1996 - June 2001. A second ten-year assessment would be due by July 1, 1996 for projects with use restrictions terminating prior to July 1, 2006. If this element were to be amended in 1993, it would not be necessary to extend the project inventory beyond 2001 until the July 1, 1996 update. Types of Projects The inventory should include all multifamily (as defined by the jurisdiction) rental units which are assisted under any of the programs listed below and which are: eligible to change to non-low-income housing uses due to termination of a subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or expiring use restrictions within ten years of the statutory adoption "due-date" of the housing element amendment. Affected Programs 1. HUD programs: Section 8 Lower-Income Rental Assistance project-based programs: New Construction 5 Substantial or Moderate Rehabilitation Property Disposition Loan Management Set-Aside Section 101 Rent Supplements Section 213 Cooperative Housing Insurance Section 221(d)(3) Below-Market-Interest-Rate Mortgage Insurance Program Section 236 Interest Reduction Payment Program Section 202 Direct Loans for Elderly or Handicapped Community Development Block Grant program 2. FmHA Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans 3. State and local multifamily revenue bond programs 4. Redevelopment programs 5. Local in-lieu fee programs or inclusionary programs 6. Developments which obtained a density bonus and direct government assistance pursuant to Government Code Section 65916. Assisted projects often have both mortgage loan and rental subsidies. Table I indicates typical combinations of the above loan and rental subsidy programs. In such cases, the inventory should indicate both types of subsidy, and consider the eligible subsidy termination dates of both the mortgage and rental subsidy contracts. For example, a project which has a Section 221(d)(3) BMIR2 mortgage loan with a Section 8 LMSA3 contract will have an eligible "prepayment" date (mortgage prepayment or insurance termination) and an eligible 'opt-out" date (decision not to renew Section 8 contract). The rental subsidy programs to be included in the local housing element inventory are only those with project based Section 8 contracts; this requirement does not apply to projects with Section 8 Existing certificates or vouchers administered by local housing authorities which are transferrable to other units. Identification and analysis of all at-risk units, regardless of the date of a subsidy contract termination, could however, enhance the value of the housing element. If other types of units are included, they should be distinguished from the multifamily rental units at-risk during the ten-year analysis period. 2 Below Market Interest Rate - BMIR 3 Loan Management Set Aside - LMSA 6 Table I. PROJECT SUBSIDY COMBINATIONS Rental Subsidy Programs Loan Insurance, Low interest Loan,or Regulatory - - - - - - - - - Section 8 (opt-out risk) - - - - - - Section 101 Assistance Programs New Substantial Moderate LMSA Rent Construction Rehabilitation Rehabilitation &RRLements Federali HUD 221(D)(3) BMIR X X HUD 221(d)(3) Market rate X X HUD 221(d)(4) Market rate X X X HUD 236 X X HUD 202 X X X FmHA 515 X X StatcAAx al Revenue bonds which are: 1. State financed (CHFA) X X X 2. Locally financed X X X Redevelopment Housing Funds X X X Community Development Block Grant Funds X X In-Lieu Fee program X Density bonus with financial contribution X Inclusionary program X t Although the Section 221(d)(3)&(4) market-rate programs are not by themselves at risk of conversion, nor included in the programs required to be inventoried, they frequently are found in combination with Section 8 programs which are to be inventoried. 7 Table II identifies types of federally-assisted projects which are not at-risk during the planning period. Such projects and their circumstances should be identified, but the analysis and preservation program efforts are not required for units in these projects. For example, some properties (e.g. Section 236, Section 221(d)(3) BMIR), owners may have periodic options of whether or not to renew the existing Section 8 contract, but will continue to have use restrictions required by the regulatory agreement for the project's mortgage; the analysis should make note of such situations. Project Information (Section 65583 (a)(8)(A)) For each assisted project in the ten-year inventory, include: • Project name and project address; • The type of governmental assistance received by program name; • The earliest possible date of change from low-income use; and • The total number of elderly and non-elderly units that could be lost from the locality's low-income housing stock each year. Pertinent information to assess is peak period(s) of conversion potential, and the types of assistance programs involved (e.g.,incidence of units at risk due to rental assistance contract expirations vs. loan prepayments). Where available, information on bedroom mix should also be included; this affects replacement cost estimates (many Section 236 or Section 221(d)(3) properties have more bedrooms per unit than would be built today). If information is available on building age and/or condition, it is also useful to assess whether any of the projects are likely to need rehabilitation. The analysis should clarify how the units are at risk, as this information is important to determining appropriate program responses. For this analysis, all units regulated by the above programs must be considered at-risk if there is an option for termination of the use restrictions during the analysis period, despite the availability of federal programs to minimize the risk. The analysis should also describe the factors which may in fact eliminate or reduce the conversion risk. In this respect, the analysis should assess a "worst case" scenario, while factors which reduce the actual risk may be considered in developing program efforts commensurate with the probable conversion risk. For example, if the owner of a 8 . TABLE II. STATUS OF CERTAIN PROJECTS RELATIVE TO HOUSING ELEMENT ANALYSIS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPT FROM PROJECT TYPE BY SUBSIDY ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES COMPLETE SOURCES AND STATUS WITH RESTRICTIONS ANALYSIS' A. Section 221(d)(3)MR with Section 8 X UHPRHA or Rent Supplement (describe options) B. Section 221(d)(3)BMIR X • C. Section 236 X • D. Any of the above projects which X ELIHPA (only those X Will generally receive final approval pursuant to projects on HCD's receive extended EUHPA by 7/1/92 and which have 11/91 EUHPA list) use restrictions not filed a Notice pursuant to LiHPRHA (Sec. 212) E. A Section 8 or 202 project owned by a nonprofit with an opt-out or X X termination date prior to 1996, and its mortgage will not mature during Section 8 Indicate nonprofit the analysis period contract renewal ownership F. A Section 8 project with an opt-out X or termination date, also having a X These projects Section 221(d)(3)BMIR, 221(d)(3), would yet be bound 236, or FmHA 515 mortgage which Section 8 by mortgage- is not prepayment-eligible during the contract renewal based use analysis period restrictions G. FmHA Section 515 projects Ineligible during this approved after 12/21/79 period (currently have X • 20-yr. restrictions) H. FmHA Section 515 project which X FmHA staff indicate is not Explain restriction & prepayment-eligible during the identify source of analysis period status information I. FmHA Section 515 project (pre- X Pursuant to 1980) which has received Subtitle C of EUHPA X preliminary or final approval for additional incentives or for sale to a Identify source of nonprofit or public entity status information ' Identify project, along with information sources, and describe why it is not at-risk during the analysis period; remainder of the analysis and programs are not required. 9 project which has a Section 8 contract not bound by underlying mortgage-based use restriction and with a renewal option indicates intent to renew, all required portions of the analysis (e.g. cost analysis, resource identification) should be completed, but the risk-mitigating factors should be described. These could include the following types of factors: the owner has had a renewal option(s) in the past and has renewed; most Section 8 contracts are renewed; and an opt-out is only valid if one- year advance notice is provided. If there are different types of regulatory programs affecting the units at risk in the jurisdiction, the analysis should distinguish the nature of the risk for each type of project. For example, federally-assisted units at-risk of mortgage prepayment face a different type of risk than locally-issued bond-assisted units for which a regulatory agreement will terminate. In the first case, there are federally-mandated resources available, but there are no mandated extension procedures or resources available for locally-assisted units. Information Resources For federal- and State-assisted units, the jurisdiction is responsible to assess only those projects for which information is readily available on a statewide basis. At this writing, the following sources offer information on these units. HUD-Assisted Projects Information on HUD-assisted projects in each jurisdiction and a summary of LIHPRHA can be found in the Inventory of Federally Subsidized Low- Income Rental Units at Risk of Conversion 4 HCD mailed the initial copy of this publication to all planning departments in 1989; the 1991 update of the entire inventory is available from the California Housing Partnership Corporation at (510) 548-0427. An Addendum to the 1991 Inventory identifies the eligible prepayment date for Section 221(D)(3) Market Rate projects (as this was omitted from the inventory). HPD is sending the updated project information from the 1991 inventory to all jurisdictions with projects listed in the 1991 update, including the Addendum for Section 221(D)(3) Market Rate projects, to all affected jurisdictions. HPD can supply 1-3 page copies of project information for individual jurisdictions upon request. 4 This inventory was distributed to all jurisdictions in 1989; HCD's Housing Policy Development Division can forward the inventory listing for individual jurisdictions only; for a copy of the entire inventory, contact the California Housing Partnership Corporation, 10 As all projects listed in the Inventory are not eligible to terminate use restrictions,it is necessary to differentiate those projects at-risk of conversion during the planning period from those that are not Certain HUD-assisted projects, listed on Table II, are also not at risk of conversion during the analysis period, or are at-risk under circumstances limited by federal law. Consequently, for some of these projects, it will be necessary only to identify the project and describe why the project is not at risk; the remainder of the analysis and programs are not required. The distinguishing circumstances of such projects are described below. Full-mortgage term use restrictions Some projects are locked-in to low-income use restrictions for the full mortgage term and therefore do not have a mortgage prepayment option. HUD-assisted properties which are not eligible to terminate low-income use restrictions prior to the end of the mortgage term are those which: 1. Are owned by nonprofit or public entities (this includes all Section 202 projects); 2. Were originally owned by a nonprofit and sold after September 15, 1980 to a for-profit entity; 3. Had Flexible Subsidy contracts before 1980; 4. Are currently under a Rent Supplement (Section 101) contract (without a Loan Management Set-Aside [LMSA] contract); or 5. Section 231 (these are not required to be included in the analysis by statute, but are in the Inventory). Consequently, the above types of properties (1-4) should be included in the at-risk inventory only if they have a Section 8 contract which will expire or reach an optional renewal date, or a mortgage that will mature, during the ten-year analysis period. Properties owned by nonprofits which will reach an optional Section 8 contract renewal date prior to 1996 should be identified in the at-risk inventory, but the analysis of the nature of the risk to these units may indicate such contracts are likely to be renewed because federal appropriations are A authorized for renewal during this period. 11 Vow . Projects Subject to ELIHPA Certain federally-assisted units are subject to the provisions of federal law restricting prepayment; if there are such units in the jurisdiction, the analysis should indicate this. There are a number of projects included in the 1991 HUD Inventory which are currently being, or have already been, processed by HUD pursuant to interim provisions of the Emergency Low-Income Housing Preservation Act (ELIHPA, or Title R of the Housing & Community Development Act of 1987). The owners of eligible ELIHPA projects (Sections 236 and 221(d)(3)) must have filed valid Notices of Intent with HUD prior to December 31, 1990 if they desired to change the project status (otherwise they are no longer eligible). ELIHPA provides owners with the opportunity to receive additional federal incentives for projects, enabling them to raise rents and refinance a portion of their equity, while extending the low-income use restrictions for 20 years. The difference between the tenants' portion of the rent (30 percent of income) and market rent is covered by a Section 8 contract for very low-income tenants. Some of the ELIHPA projects which filed Notices of Intent have received approval for additional incentives, and as their use restrictions will be extended, they are no longer at risk of conversion during the current analysis period. HPD has two lists relating to the status of such ELIHPA projects as of November 13, 1991 (which were forwarded to affected jurisdictions with this paper in December 1991). Projects on the ELIHPA status list which are indicated as approved, and which have not submitted a Notice of Intent for LIHPRHA (Sec. 212) need not be considered at-risk during the current analysis period. Therefore the element (or the interim resolution if there are no other at-risk properties) can indicate the project's new status. Projects yet pending determinations by HUD (prior to receiving preliminary approval), or projects which have submitted a notice of intent, but not a plan of action, should be included in the at-risk inventory and all required portions of the analysis should be completed. The analysis should however, indicate the project's current processing status, which will in turn affect the program need. For example, if a project has a valid application pending for additional incentives for continued ownership, there may be no need for any action by the local government during the current planning period 12 beyond monitoring its status. The local government could, however, investigate options it might plan for at the end of the 20-year extension of the project's use restrictions. Projects Subject to LIHPRHA Other projects are subject to the provisions of the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act (Title VI of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 -- LIHPRHA). The objective of LIHPRHA is extension of low-income use restrictions while offering owners alternative means of realizing a reasonable return on their investment. These alternatives involve either continuing ownership with additional federal incentives, or selling the property, with a first-right-of-refusal process for nonprofit and public entities. A prepayment option releasing use restrictions is available only if criteria essentially establishing no need for the low-income housing can be met ("no harm" application); or if the provisions for one of the above alternatives do not work out (e.g. federal incentives unavailable, lack of qualified buyers). LIHPRHA-eligible projects are those: Insured or held by HUD under the Section 221(d)(3) Market Rate Interest program and assisted under a project-based Section 8 program; • Insured or held by HUD under Section 221(d)(3) BMIR program; or • Insured, assisted or held by HUD, or a State agency under Section 236. These include some of the same "ELIHPA projects" (provided the owner has not signed a Plan of Action agreement with HUD). If there are such projects in the jurisdiction, they become eligible pursuant to LIHPRHA two years prior to the date indicated in the 13 *410 HUD Inventory as their earliest mortgage prepayment dates For example, if the "earliest date of (FHA) subsidy termination" of such a project is listed as January 1, 1995, the owner could initiate the federal application process to either directly prepay, extend the use restrictions, or transfer the property, as early as January 2, 1993. Prepayment of the mortgage, extension of the use restrictions, or transfer of the property in the above example could not be approved ' prior to January 1, 1995, however. Therefore, such a property would not formally be at risk until the later date. However, the HUD processing requirements have specific timelines for required submittals from the owner and implicate required actions by the local government accordingly (see later discussion). Even if the eligibility date of projects meeting the above criteria has passed, these projects remain eligible for LIHPRHA if they met the criteria on or after November 1, 1987. These projects cannot automatically terminate their use restrictions, so it is important to indicate that any attempt to do so is subject to safeguards of federal law. The analysis should indicate these projects are subject to provisions of LIHPRHA if the owners desire to prepay a mortgage or otherwise change the project's regulatory use restrictions. Information on LIHPRHA as it pertains to the options available to owners (direct "no harm" prepayment, extension of use restrictions, or transfer of the property), and the jurisdiction's responsibilities if the owner initiates action pursuant to the federal law, should be included in the analysis and programs where applicable. A manual will be available from HPD in early 1992 with information on new LIHPRHA regulations detailing these provisions; in the meantime, questions about the law can be directed to HPD staff at (916) 327-2642. A list of projects which had submitted Notices of Intent to HUD as of December 31, 1990 provides a preliminary indication of projects whose owners intended to pursue an application pursuant to LIHPRHA, and was sent by HPD to affected jurisdictions. Pursuant to LIHPRHA, the local government should receive a copy of any such notice filed with HUD. If a project is included on the 12/31/90 notice list, or if the local government has received such a notice, the project's s According to the draft regulations on Title VI of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, projects whose regulatory agreements require use restrictions for the full mortgage term, such as those covered by Flexible Subsidy or Rent Supplement contracts, would be ineligible for federal incentives under LIHPRHA. 14 status should be verified at the time the housing element is prepared. The status of such a project, along with any additional local projects which may have submitted a Notice of Intent or a Plan of Action, should be discussed in the housing element. This can be done by checking any subsequent updated lists issued by HUD or HCD, or by calling HUD at (415) 556-0796. Prepayment vs Opt-out Risk It is important to distinguish between different subsidy programs and their potential for conversion. Note that these projects may be subject to two different types of risk -- "prepayment" or 'opt-out" risk; some projects are subject to both. Projects subject to prepayment risk will have an FHA Account #; only those projects indicated as having Section 8 contracts are subject to 'opt-out" risk. For example, a project with a Section 221(d)(3) Market Rate Mortgage with a Section 8 contract is subject to provisions of federal law (LIHPRHA)before its mortgage could be prepaid,while a project with a Section 221(d)(4) Market Rate Mortgage with a Section 8 contract is not. Therefore, if the owner of a Section 221(d)(4) Market Rate project elects to opt-out of the Section 8 contract, there is no underlying mortgage prepayment restriction which would require continued affordability. Such a project has an 'opt-out risk," but not a "prepayment risk." FmHA Projects One of the most critical pieces of information for these projects is the date of FmHA approval of the project, as these projects are regulated on this basis. Projects approved prior to December 15, 1979 are eligible for either owner incentives or sales to nonprofits or public agencies, both for extended use restrictions; conversion of the use restrictions through prepayment could yet occur under limited circumstances (see discussion below). HPD is providing a list of pre-1980 FmHA Section 515 projects which may be eligible for conversion. For confirmation of the current status of any of these projects, contact FmHA at (916) 666-3382 (#2). For projects currently undergoing processing for additional incentives for continued ownership, the following portions of the housing element analysis may be omitted: cost analysis, nonprofit and financial resources identification, quantified preservation objective, and preservation program efforts. If a local FmHA Section 515 project is not included on the above list, it need not be 15 considered at risk of conversion unless FmHA staff indicate the project is eligible for prepayment during the analysis period. FmHA Section 515 Projects approved between 1980 and December 15, 1989 generally are required to be maintained for 20-year terms, with limited opportunity for prepayment. As no statewide inventory of these projects is available at this time, such projects need not be included in the at-risk analysis of the element. If, however, information on a Section 515 project approved between 1980 and December 15, 1989 is available locally, the project could be identified in the element along with information from FmHA regarding the project's conversion options. If a FmHA Section 515 project is eligible for, but not yet undergoing, prepayment processing during the analysis period, it should be considered at- risk, despite statutory provisions designed to minimize the potential for conversion. Despite statutory requirements for offering additional incentives to owners, and first-right-of-refusal offers to nonprofits, the potential for conversion through prepayment remains. Prepayment could occur for example, under "exception authority" of the federal law, or if a bona fide offer from a nonprofit is not received when a property is offered for sale. CDBG-Assisted Projects Local government staff who administer CDBG funds should be able to identify units rehabilitated using CDBG funds which have affordability controls. Bond-Financed Projects With few exceptions, there are no projects financed and regulated by bonds issued by the California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) with use restrictions terminating prior to the year 2000. Information on local bond-financed projects should be available from the bond-issuing agencies. Contact your local redevelopment agency, housing authority, and any department of the city or county which may handle bond issuances for the locality, or which may have developed projects using CHFA- issued bond proceeds. Since 1985, redevelopment agencies and city or county governments (usually their finance or housing departments) have been required to file annual reports on such projects. Housing authorities have been required to file these reports since 1986. This "Yearly Housing Bond Issuance Report" must 16 '%wY be filed with the California Debt Advisory Commission (CDAC) by August 1st; the year in which use restrictions will expire on assisted units is reported. This information is summarized and published by the CDAC each November in a report titled 19xx Annual Summary: The Use of Housing; Revenue Bond Proceeds. If this information is difficult to obtain, HPD can be contacted for information on projects financed since 1985 which is available in the latest issue of the CDAC report. Redevelopment Units Information on units with affordability restrictions assisted with redevelopment funds should be available locally. Units both inside and outside the project areas should be included. Density Bonus, Inclusionary, In-lieu Fee Planning and/or housing staff should be aware of any locally-administered programs which have locally-imposed affordability controls,which may include inclusionary requirements, units developed using in-lieu fees or other local revenues, or units developed pursuant to State density bonus law which had direct financial assistance. H. Cost Analysis of Preserving Versus Replacing At Risk Units (Section 65583(a)(8)(B)) The housing element should include analysis of: • The cost of producing new rental housing comparable in size and rent levels to replace the units which could convert; and • The cost of preserving all of the developments at risk of converting. These costs can be estimated and combined for each of two five-year periods; detailed cost analysis or project appraisals are not required. If it is not possible to reliably estimate preservation costs, it is permissible to describe whether such costs are anticipated to be higher or lower than replacement estimates (new construction), and for what reason, as well as the magnitude of the difference in estimates. This analysis is for the purpose of comparing the costs of available options, and for estimating the extent of the need for any local subsidies. This is to be used in developing appropriate program resources to preserve units at risk of conversion. 17 For example, if the city/county were to consider issuing revenue bonds to acquire or rehabilitate these developments, this cost analysis could help estimate the amount of funding needed. If the units at-risk include HUD-assisted projects being processed under ELIHPA or eligible for LIURHA, most of the assistance necessary to preserve these units is to be available from the federal government. The preservation options in such cases are either additional incentives under the same ownership or acquisition by an entity which will maintain low-income use restrictions. However, certain types of expenses, and expenses for certain types of projects will not be fully covered by federal funds, and there may be a need for local funds. In cases where the owner desires to continue ownership with additional incentives, local funds might involve additional funds needed for project rehabilitation above what would be covered by the federal incentives. Potential uncovered expenses for projects involving nonprofit or public entity-acquisition include the following: - predevelopment expenses, including earnest money deposits; - resident education and/or organizing for property purchase; - 5% equity contribution; and - rehabilitation expenses exceeding the standard covered by HUD. There also could possibly be demand for additional local funds associated with projects which may be processed during a period in which federal incentives are insufficient for the number of applications received by HUD. To estimate the difference between current market rents and rents of the at-risk units, it may be necessary to estimate tenant rents if actual tenant rents are unavailable. In most cases, these will apply to units subsidized by tax-exempt bond- financing only, or units with Section 8 subsidies. The following assumptions could be used for such at-risk units: 30 percent of the very low-income, or 30 percent of the lower-income limit, for the county, adjusted for family size. Many of the bond- financed units will be occupied by only lower-income households. Household income limits are available from HPD on annual basis; the most recent figures are as of April 1991. Ill. Resources for Preservation (Section 65583(a)(8)(C)) There are two types of resources which should be considered for preserving at- risk units; public agencies and nonprofit housing corporations; and public financing/subsidy programs. 18 A. Public Agency and Nonprofit Housing Corporations The housing element should identify public and private nonprofit corporations which have legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage assisted housing developments. Redevelopment agencies and housing authorities should also be considered. This analysis should not merely list nonprofit housing developers in the area; their inclusion should be based on their expression of interest (in response to a locality's inquiry) in acquiring and managing such projects. Nonprofit or public entities which are included on the list entitled "Entities Interested in Right of First Refusal Program" (available from HCD at (916) 322-2053) could be listed without contacting them if the jurisdiction believes they would be appropriate and have adequate managerial capacity. B. Public Financing and Subsidy Programs Secondly, the housing element must identify and consider all federal, State, and local financing and subsidy programs which can be used to preserve assisted projects for low-income use. Financing sources which must be considered in the housing element include, but are not limited to, the following: Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) funds; • Redevelopment agency tax increment funds, including but not limited to those from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund; and • Administrative fees(reserves)of any housing authority operating within the community. The analysis should include an estimate of the amount of each type of funds which could be available over the period. For example, in a jurisdiction which receives CDBG funds, the element could indicate the current annual amount of these funds which the jurisdiction allocates to housing programs; this could be a benchmark for the amount which might be available to preserve at-risk units in the future. Other funding sources should also be considered, including amounts from each available program which have not been obligated, and which could be used for preservation (Section 65583 (a)(8)(D)). Sources of information on financial resources of these entities could include the following, although actual verification of financial capability and resources 19 from these documents is not required solely for the purpose of this housing element analysis: • Nonprofit Organizations: Annual audit report; statement of financ- ing sources including any anticipated federal or State funds; tax- exempt bond proceeds; inventory of regular and periodic contributors and estimated donation amounts. • Housing Authorities: Unencumbered balance available in administrative reserve funds; recent annual budgets and reports; anticipated federal and State funds. Biennial reports summarizing housing authority activities are available from HPD. The most recent report available is for fiscal years 1986-87 and 1988-89. The reports summarize programs employed, the number of units under management, and households served. • Redevelopment Agencies: Unencumbered funds available and projected in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund; recent annual budgets and reports. Annual reports can indicate the availability of housing funds and the number of units assisted. This information can be obtained directly from each agency; information from the data published by HPD in Redevelopment Agencies in California: The Effect of Their Activities on Housing FY 1989-1990 (a copy was forwarded to all planning departments) may also be useful. IV. Quantified Objectives. Number of At Risk Units to be Preserved (Section 65583(b)) Localities are required to establish in their housing elements quantified objectives for the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. The objective for units to be conserved should include a subtotal for the number of at-risk units to be preserved over the five-year planning period. This preservation subtotal should be based on the number of units in the first five years of the ten-year inventory of at-risk units developed pursuant to Section 65583(a)(8)(A), and discussed on pages 3 (#5.) and 4 of this paper. Any difference between the number of units at risk during this five- year period and the preservation objective should be explained. 20 V. Program Efforts to Preserve At Risk Units (Section 655883(c)(6)) The housing element should include programs to preserve the low-income use of at-risk projects listed in the ten-year inventory, with specific focus on units at risk during the five-year planning period. These efforts should use all financing sources identified earlier, except where the community has identified other more urgent needs for these funds. Programs might range from regulatory and technical assistance measures to providing direct loans or grants. Where units at-risk are identified, local housing officials and interested nonprofit entities and tenant organizations should be involved in designing responsive programs to preserve the units. As with other housing element programs, preservation programs should be specific and concrete, indicating commitment by the locality to act. Each program should indicate a responsible party for implementation, and should include a timetable. Where units are currently at risk of conversion, the program timetable should be responsive to the particular situation. For example, a "notice of intent" filed on a Section 236 project would indicate need for a more immediate program response than for units not eligible to convert for several years, and for immediate use of local options pursuant to federal law. Effective program efforts will differ with the nature of the conversion risk. For example, different strategies are appropriate for projects at-risk of nonrenewal of Section 8 contracts than projects at-risk of mortgage prepayment. The programs should address and assign responsibility for federally- or state- mandated actions of local government, in the event owners want to prepay their mortgages or opt-out of their Section 8 contracts. Pursuant to state law (Government Code Section 65863.10 and Health and Safety Code Sections 50850, 50851, 50852, 50853), all of the types of projects required to be evaluated for the at-risk inventory (see above) except those regulated by inclusionary, density bonus or CDBG, are required to submit notices of intent to the local government one year in advance of terminating a project's use restrictions. The local government is in turn, responsible for forwarding copies of such notices to HCD and may choose to hold public hearings on such notices. Therefore, if affected units have been determined at risk, the locality's program activities should encompass such responsibility if a notice is filed. If the units determined to be at-risk include HUD-assisted projects eligible under LIHPRHA (see above), certain additional actions by local government are also required by federal law. For example, if the owner of one of these projects files 21 a notice of intent to change the regulatory status of the project, a plan of action must be filed with HUD; copies of this plan of action are to be provided to the tenants and the local government. The local government is responsible for reviewing the plan of action and advising the tenants of any programs available to assist them (Section 217 of LIHPRHA). For projects eligible pursuant to certain , local options -- those which would be applicable only to assisted units.and interfere with an owner's options pursuant to federal law — are preempted by federal statute (Section 232 of LWRHA). Consequently, for such units, the program should incorporate the implementation of reviewing and commenting to the tenants on plans of action submitted to HUD. Similarly, if a public agency of the jurisdiction is interested in participating in a First- Right-of-Refusal Program pursuant to either state (see Government Code Section 65863.11) or federal law (for LIHPRHA projects), it would be appropriate to include such a program effort. Preserving existing low-income housing with affordability controls is a complex undertaking. Regulations and activities relating to this issue are relatively new, and parties involved are learning from each other, or charting new territory. Following are examples of activities which could be responsive; these examples should not be considered exhaustive, and are anticipated to expand as experience in addressing preservation issues becomes more common. Local Government Program Responses As the nature of the conversion risk varies significantly among projects, responses will need to be tailored to the specific situation. For example, the HUD - assisted prepayment-eligible projects are governed by extensive regulation and have access to additional federal subsidies. Affordability controls of locally-subsidized units, however, vary, and there may not be standard solutions to their pending expiration. Development of community-based capacity may be necessary for preserving assisted housing over the long term. Be aware that projects covered by the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (LIHPRHA) are subject to provisions which exempt certain State or local laws or regulations. Projects affected by this include Section 221(d)(3) with Rent Supplement or Section 8 contracts, Section 221(d)(3) BMIR, or Section 236 projects. If a project is a Section 236 or Section 221(d)(3)BMIR, and is within two years of its eligible prepayment date, immediate efforts may be necessary to effectively respond to any action by the project owner to change the project use restrictions. This is because, pursuant to LIHPRHA, if S 22 such a project is offered for sale, there is only a 15-month period during which offers from buyers committing to maintaining use restrictions must be exclusively considered. After this period, the project can be sold, and the use restrictions released, although any subsequent rent increases would still have to be phased in. Local efforts which may facilitate preservation of at-risk housing are summarized below: 1. Identify At-Risk Units Identify all projects which are eligible to terminate affordability controls at some point. Establish a system for early identification of projects which appear most susceptible to conversion. 2. Complete Planning Documents and Assess Potential Conversion Impact Complete housing element updates by July, 1992, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategies (CHAS), and other planning actions to prepare preservation strategies; this will also help the jurisdiction qualify or compete for State and federal funds. Information can be included in the housing element to substantiate the effect of conversion of affordable units on the housing opportunities for displaced tenants and the resulting economic impact. 3. Monitor At-Risk Units Monitor and respond to any notice of intent required by Government Code Section 65863.10 or federal law, or plans of action which may be filed on local projects. Promptly send copies of notices received to HCD. Inform tenants of any assistance available, and ensure that the probable impact of any change in project controls is made clear to regulatory agencies (HUD, FmHA, other). It may be possible to negotiate extension of the phase-in period (at least three years) for project rent increases. 4. Provide Tenant and Community Education • Promote community awareness and initiatives by involving affected constituencies in assessing the preservation problem locally. Conduct educational workshops on the issue. Hold public hearings pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.10, or workshops on individual projects subject to conversion, or the conversion issue. 23 • Educate tenants on the information required for legally-valid notices of intent and Plans of Action. S. Adopt Preservation Incentives or Conversion Disincentives f Provide tax or fee incentives/disincentives such as waiving particular fees in exchange for preservation commitment, or assessing a ' conversion*"impact fee" or "in-lieu contribution". • Adopt conversion protections, e.g., prohibit condominium conversion, one-for-one replacement of units for which affordability controls are converted to market rate rents, where not preempted by State or federal law. • Require owners to provide relocation assistance for displaced tenants where not already required by federal, State, or local statute. Review and revise local regulations on affordability controls for locally- subsidized housing to require preservation of units affordable to lower- income households for the remaining useful life of the building. 6. Submit Comments to HUD on Plans of Action Submitted by Owners • Local government can submit comments to HUD for consideration regarding the conditions of approval of a Plan of Action (POA) for a project under ELIHPA. Copies of Plans of Action submitted under LIHPRHA are to be submitted to the local government (Section 217 of LIHPRHA) for the local government to review and advise the tenants. The locality can also submit comments on a proposed POA and communicate its concerns to HUD throughout the application processing. 7. Assist Nonprofits and Other Public Entities: • Identify and assess the interest of potential "priority purchasers" (local public agencies, nonprofits, and resident councils of at-risk projects) for specific projects, should they be offered for sale. • Bring together existing owners and potential nonprofit or other public entity buyers, or bring in technical assistance providers to act as brokers. 24 • Finance buyouts by nonprofits and other public entities through equity or gap financing, advancing purchase-option funds, carrying of second mortgages, interest writedowns, issuance of tax-exempt bonds for financing acquisitions, or rent reductions. There may be a need for local funds to supplement federally-provided incentives for Section 236 or Section 221(d)(3) projects exceeding the federal cost limits (pursuant to LIHPRHA), if HUD discretionary grants are unavailable or insufficient. Provide grants or low-interest loans to at-risk projects in need of rehabilitation in exchange for extended affordability controls. • Provide grants and/or forgivable loans to potential purchasers to finance preliminary feasibility studies of acquisition or rehabilitation of projects whose owners desire to sell. • Provide financial relocation benefits for households dislocated from units with terminating affordability controls. • Provide "capacity-building" grants or direct technical assistance to create or strengthen tenant management groups and local nonprofits capable of acquiring and managing at-risk projects. Grants could also be provided for tenant education. • Where public acquisition on a permanent basis is not feasible, assist a public entity in purchasing a property offered for sale for temporary ownership, until a qualified long-term owner can be found. 8. Extend Use Restriction Term Through Refunding of Bond-Financed Projects Refinance projects financed with locally-issued mortgage revenue bond proceeds (optional bond refunding), extending the existing term of affordability controls. 9. Obtain Additional Section 8 Certificates or Vouchers For non-federal properties with expiring use restrictions, obtain additional Section 8 certificates or vouchers for qualified tenants without them or use locally-generated funds for rent subsidies. 25 10. Support Additional ht fl fMft Rental Housing • Support efforts to maintain a healthy multifamily rental market, since the functioning of the local rental market affects the attractiveness of conversion. In tight rental markets, new multifamily development can , ease upward pressure on local rents and abate appreciating market values of at-risk developments. • Provide strong incentives for new low-income units pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). • Acquire/rehabilitate existing units for which affordability controls are imposed. lmwb:preserve.he 26 Attachment A CHECKLIST TO CONFIRM LACK OF AT-RISK UNITS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65583(A)(8) • Jurisdiction Date 1. HUD programs: Section 8 Lower-Income Rental Assistance project-based programs: New Construction Substantial or Moderate Rehabilitation Property Disposition Loan Management Set-Aside Section 101 Rent Supplements Section 213 Cooperative Housing Insurance Section 221(d)(3) Below-Market-Interest-Rate Mortgage Insurance Program Section 236 Interest Reduction Payment Program Section 202 Direct Loans for Elderly or Handicapped _ there are no such units for our jurisdiction listed in the Inventory of Federally Subsidized Rental Units At Risk of Conversion, 1990 or subsequent updated information made available by HPD. units for our jurisdiction in the above inventory are not at risk during the ten-year analysis period; no units are at risk until (year). 2. Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG) jurisdiction has not used CDBG funds jurisdiction has not used CDBG funds for multifamily rental units although CDBG funds have been used for multifamily rental rehabilitation, staff responsible for this program indicate there are no affected units because 3. Redevelopment programs jurisdiction does not have a redevelopment agency redevelopment funds have not been used on multifamily rental units; or 1 Page Two Attachment A Checklist although redevelopment funds have been used for multifamily rental units, staff responsible for this program indicate there are no affected units because ' a) income-restrictions for occupancy were not required for existing units, or b) other reasons: 4. FmHA Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans jurisdiction has not been located in a qualifying rural FmHA area according to information made available by HPD, there are no such eligible projects reported by FmHA within the community or unincorporated area FmHA staff checked the status of (name) development(s) and reported that it is not eligible for prepayment or not eligible for prepayment within the ten-year analysis period. 5. State and local multifamily revenue bond programs _ no bond-financed units eligible to terminate affordability controls within the next ten years were reported in the following publication: 1990 Annual Summary: The Use of Housing Revenue Bond Proceeds, California Debt Advisory Commission, and _ local housing authority staff indicate there are no such units within the community. 6. Local in-lieu fee programs or inclusionary programs jurisdiction has not had an in-lieu fee or inclusionary program staff responsible for these programs indicate no affected units 2 Page Three Attachment A Checklist 7. Developments which obtained a density bonus and direct government assistance Pursuant to Government Code Section 65916. , jurisdiction has no projects approved pursuant to this law staff responsible for this program indicate no affected units 8. Additional comments related to any of the above: Imwb:preserve.he 3 r 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS,TPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY N%Wf PETE WILSON,Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1800 THIRD STREET,Room 430 ' P.O.BOX 952053 SACRAMENTO,CA 94252-2053 w (916)323 3176 FAX(916)323-b625 NOS _ October 31, 1991 U� Mr. Bruce Altman -7/ City Manager City of Palm Desert 1 73-510 Fred Waring Drive -V L% Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert's Draft Housing Element Amendment Thank you for submitting Palm Desert's draft housing element amendment, received September 16, 1991. As you know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b) ) . Our review has been facilitated by a October 22, 1991 telephone conversation with Philip Drell, Senior Planner. This letter summarizes the conclusion of that discussion. Palm Desert's draft housing element amendment was submitted to address the requirements of Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989, which requires all housing elements to include additional needs analyses and programs to address the potential conversion of existing, assisted housing developments to non-low-income housing uses during the next ten-year period (Government Code Section 65583 (a) (8) and (c) (6) ) . While the amendment addresses some of the new requirements in our opinion, however, the amendment requires revisions to bring it into compliance with state housing element law (Article 10. 6 of the Government Code) . As a result of Chapter 889, Statutes of 1991, the deadline for completing this analysis has been extended to July 1, 1992. We have attached a technical assistance paper, Housing Element Analysis: Preservation of Assisted Housing to assist the City in addressing this requirement. The draft amendment to the housing element includes a partial analysis of the Candlewood Apartments, the City should, however, expand the analysis to cover other requirements: 1%WW Mr. Bruce Altman Page 2 I. NEEDS ANALYSIS A. The inventory of assisted multifamily rental housing units subject to loss during the next ten years should include all of the following: 1. Housing that receives government assistance under a. HUD Section 221(d) (3) Below Market Rate Interest Program; b. HUD Section 236 Interest Reduction Payment Program; C. HUD Section 202 Direct Loans for Elderly & Handicapped; d. HUD Section 101 Rent Supplements; e. HUD Section 213 Cooperative Housing Insurance; f. HUD Section 8 Lower-Income Rental Assistance project-based programs for: ■ new construction; ■ substantial or moderate rehabilitation; ■ property disposition; or ■ Loan Management Set-Aside (LMSA) . Information on all of the above projects (a-f) in your jurisdiction is included in the enclosed excerpt from the Inventory of Federally Subsidized Low-Income Rental Units at Risk of Conversion 1991 Update. In addition to the federally-subsidized units noted above, it is necessary to identify and gather information locally on any projects which may be located within your jurisdiction, developed with assistance from any of the following programs, and which are subject to low-income use restrictions which could be terminated within the next ten years (Section 65583 (a) (8) ) : g. FmHA Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans; h. HUD Community Development Block Grant Program; Mr. Bruce Altman Page 5 D. Identify all financing sources which could be used to preserve the projects which could convert from low- income use over the ten years, including amounts of each program which have not been legally obligated, and which could be available for preservation of these projects. Financing sources to be analyzed include, but are not limited to, all of the following: ■ HUD Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) funds; ■ Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds; and ■ Administrative fees (reserves) of any housing authority operating within the community (Section 65583 (a) (8) (D) ) . For example, if your jurisdiction is a CDBG-entitlement city or county, or if it has received CDBG funds through the Small Cities nonentitlement program, indicate the approximate amount of annual funds which have been allocated for housing programs, and which might therefore be eligible for use in preserving at- risk units in the future. II. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES Within the quantified objective for number of units to be conserved, include a quantified number of the assisted multifamily rental units at risk of losing government assistance over the next ten years (from earlier inventory) to be preserved over the five-year period of the housing element (Section 65583 (b) ) . III. HOUSING PROGRAMS Describe program efforts to be undertaken to preserve the low-income use of assisted at-risk projects listed in the ten-year inventory. The element mentions that the City may consider acquisition of the Candlewood project, but should include additional information about how this would be accomplished. In addition, if other units are identified as at risk, what program actions will the City take to preserve them. Efforts could include utilization of all financing sources identified earlier, except where the community has identified other (more) urgent needs for these funding sources (Section 655883 (c) (6) ) . Efforts might range Mr. Bruce Altman Page 3 i. State (CHFA) and local multifamily revenue bond programs; j . Redevelopment programs; k. Local in-lieu fees; The California Debt Advisory Commission, Annual Summary 1990, identifies the following Multifamily Housing Bond Program projects developed by the Riverside County Housing Authority that will be eligible for conversion to non-low-income housing use, in particular, the San Tropez project will convert within the next 10 years. The other projects are listed as follows: Project Bond Sale Number Conversion of Units Date San Tropez 11/04/87 512 1997 Village Green 12/02/87 100 2004 Desert Pointe 11/10/88 64 2018 Woodcreek 05/24/89 344 2018 Village 2 . Units that were developed pursuant to: 1. A local inclusionary housing program; and M. Government Code Section 65916, a density bonus project which has direct financial assistance and affordability controls. Use restrictions for these units could be in effect from conditions of project approval and/or regulatory agreements. Include all of the following information for each assisted project in the ten-year inventory: project name and address, the type of governmental unit assistance received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income use, and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be lost from the locality's low-income housing stock in each year during the ten-year period Mr. Bruce Altman Page 4 (Section 65583 (a) (8) (A) ) . For the purpose of the subsequent cost analysis, it may be useful to format the inventory listing into two five-year groups referencing the dates of the earliest potential terminations of use restrictions. Analysis of the inventory should characterize the nature of the units at risk, e.g. , the average, or range of project sizes, building ages, tenant types (relative proportions of elderly vs. family) , peak period(s) of potential conversions. It is also useful to summarize the type of assistance programs, e.g. , incidence of units at risk due to rental assistance contract expirations vs. loan prepayments; and condition of the housing stock as it may relate to housing rehabilitation needs. B. Include the following cost-analysis of at-risk assisted units (Section 65583 (a) (8) (B) ) : 1. The cost, in aggregate amounts over two 5-year periods, of producing new housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace all of the units that could change from low-income use; and 2 . An estimated cost of preserving all of the assisted housing developments, in aggregate over each of the two 5-year periods. This may be described relative to the estimated replacement costs, e.g. , whether such costs would be anticipated to be higher or lower than replacement estimates, and for what reason(s) , as well as the magnitude of the difference in estimates. C. Identify nonprofit entities with capacity to acquire and manage assisted projects to preserve their low- income use (Section 65583 (a) (8) (C) ) . Potential nonprofit entities might include housing authorities and redevelopment agencies, in addition to private nonprofit housing developers. In our opinion, the basis for your assessment of their capacity should include the following considerations: Are any of the identified nonprofits interested in potential acquisition and management of such at-risk units now or in the future? How long have they been operating? How many projects/units have they developed and/or managed? Do they have rehabilitation experience? Mr. Bruce Altman Page 6 from regulatory and technical assistance measures to providing the option for direct financial participation (loans/grants for acquisition/rehabilitation) for preserving the at-risk units. We hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have any questions about our comments or if we can be of assistance in the revision of your element, please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, Thomas B. Cook Deputy Director Housing Policy Development cc: Philip Drell, Senior Planner, City of Palm Desert Eileen McCarthy, California Rural Legal Assistance David Booher, California Housing Council Western Center on Law & Poverty Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law Ana Marie Whitaker, Calif. State University Pomona Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Christine D. Reed, Orange County Building Industry Association Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center �y C�mv oq pll�u o 0 o n • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 I TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 October 26, 1989 Ms. Nancy J. Javor, Chief State of California Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Policy Development Division P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, California 94252-2053 Dear Ms. Javor: Thank you for sending us your comments on the Housing Element Amendment. I will make sure that Philip Drell is aware of the recommended change. I appreciate your efforts on this matter. Sincerely yours, Bruce A. Altman City Manager BAA/rgf STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Goverwr DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Housing Policy Development Division w 1800 Third Street, Room 430 P.O. Box 952053 A Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 C�OCT l (916) 323-3176 VE PlkM Des 989 Cli October 3, 1989 L tm . Mr. Bruce Altman City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert's Draft Housing Element Amendment Thank you for submitting Palm Desert's draft housing element amendment September 5, 1989. As you know, we are required to review draft housing element amendments and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b) ) . Palm Desert's housing element is a well-written and comprehensive document, and establishes an ambitious schedule of program actions. In our opinion, however, the revision described in the following paragraph is needed to bring the element into compliance with State housing element law (Article 10. 6 of the Government Code) . Identified concerns were reviewed with Philip Drell, Senior Planner, in a telephone conversation on September 25, 1989. Following the recommended change, we refer to the applicable provision of the Government Code. The City has set projected program unit goals, but does not establish overall quantified objectives for the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved within the element's planning period (Section 65583 (b) ) . Overall objectives are significant because they include projected private market activity as well as City program goals. We hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. Mr. Bruce Altman Page Two In accordance with their requests according to the Public Information Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, Nan y J. vo , C i f Division of Housi Policy Development NJJ:MA:bt cc: Philip Drell, Senior Planner, City of Palm Desert Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Christine D. Reed, Building Industry Association CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTM TP OF 0344MITY DEVELMENP STAFF REPM TO: Planning Cammission DATE: October 17, 1989 CASE NO: GPA 89-6 REQUEST: Recommendation to city council concerning 1989 revision of General Plan Housing Element. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BAC UND: The State Housing Law requires that housing elements be revised to comply with current guidelines in 1989. The State Department of Housing and C mMn-ity Development (HCD) has reviewed two drafts of the element and has suggested additions to better comply with the State Housing Element Law. In their last letter two minor changes were needed to achieve full compliance. Those items involving a summary of quantified objectives and projections of the 1989 elderly population and households have been added. HGD was especially impressed by the city's "ambitious schedule of program actions" (pages 17-28). II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The primary goals of the Housing Element are to preserve the quality of the existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods and to construct sufficient new affordable housing so that employees working in Palm Desert can live in Palm Desert. The successful implementation of this goal will have substantial beneficial impacts on the environment including reduced air emissions and traffic impacts resulting from shorter commuter trips. The proposed new construction programs are mitigation measures designed to address the impacts of the city's economic growth. A negative declaration has been prepared. Impacts of specific projects will be subject to additional environmental review at the time of project design. III. RE 0MMENDATIONi: Approve the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to city council approval of GPA 89-6, 1989 Housing Element. STAFF REPORT GPA 89-6 OCIMER 17, 1989 IV. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution. B. Legal notice. C. State Department of Housing and Camlunity Development Review. D. Housing Element text. Prepared Reviewed and Approved by PD/tm 2 PLANNDG OaMM SIGN RESC UMON ND. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING Ca4JISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECU+EIDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMEN�T, THE HOUSING ELEMENT. CASE NO. GPA 89-6 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of October, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request approval of a new housing element to the general plan; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of conmwdty development has determined that the amendment will not have a negative impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of the general plan amendment: 1. The proposed housing element complies with the California State Housing Element Law, Government Administration Code Section 65580. 2. The proposed policies and programs will enhance housing opportunities for all segments of the Palm Desert ccnmunity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Ccmnission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the city council approval of a general plan amendment: the Housing Element and the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th, day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary PD/tm PLANNDU OCK-IISSION RFSOLUPION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. ka320VIVE DBCLARATIaN CASE NO: GPA 89-6 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PRWBCT DESC RMICN/LOCATIC N: City of Palm Desert General Plan Housing Element revision. The Director of the Department of C urunity Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. ---------------------------------------- RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF OCM)NITY DEVELOPMENT PD/tm 2 N ytwoq 1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 jTELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 { September 29, 1989 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider and make recommendation concerning a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a revised Housing Element to the Palm Desert General Plan. This revised Housing Element contains programs to conserve, rehabilitate, and construct very low, low and moderate income housing for Palm Desert residents and employees. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 17, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary October 6, 1989 Palm Desert Planning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARZi M OF C 10 MAVITY DEVELOME TT STAFF R13FMT TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 17, 1989 CASE NO: GPA 89-6 REQUEST: Recommendation to city council concerning 1989 revision of General Plan Housing Element. APPLIC�INT: City of Palm Desert I. BAC KGROLM: The State Housing Law requires that housing elements be revised to comply with current guidelines in 1989. The State Department of Housing and Camunity Development (HCD) has reviewed two drafts of the element and has suggested additions to better comply with the State Housing Element Law. In their last letter two minor changes were needed to achieve full compliance. Those items involving a summary of quantified objectives and projections of the 1989 elderly population and households have been added. HCD was especially impressed by the city's "ambitious schedule of program actions" (pages 17-28). II. ENVIRCMEMAL REVIEW The primary goals of the Housing Element are to preserve the quality of the existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods and to construct sufficient new affordable housing so that employees working in Palm Desert can live in Palm Desert. The successful implementation of this goal will have substantial beneficial impacts on the environment including reduced air emissions and traffic impacts resulting from shorter commuter trips. The proposed new construction programs are mitigation measures designed to address the impacts of the city's economic growth. A negative declaration has been prepared. Impacts of specific projects will be subject to additional environmental review at the time of project design. III. ON: Approve the findings and adopt Planning Ccnmissicn Resolution No. , recommending to city council approval of GPA 89-61, 1989 Housing Element. STAFF REPORT (PA 89-6 OCPCBER 17, 1989 IV. ATTACHMUM: A. Draft resolution. B. Legal notice. C. State Department of Housing and Ccm u iity Development Review. D. Housing Element text. Prepared �- Reviewed and Approved by PD/tm 2 PIANNIM COMKISSION RESCLUrION ND. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CCNMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECU44E DM TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AM9CMWr, THE HOUSING EUMEN'T. CASE NO. GPA 89-6 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of October, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request approval of anew housing element to the general plan; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Envircrmmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of community development has determined that the amendment will not have a negative impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of the general plan amendment: 1. The proposed housing element complies with the California State Housing Element Law, Cknrezrffient Administration Code Section 65580. 2. The proposed policies and programs will enhance housing opportunities for all segments of the Palm Desert community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the camussion in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the city council approval of a general plan amendment: the Housing Element and the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th, day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary PD/tm PLANNING CCKKESSICN FdMOLiTI'ICN NO. EX IT "A" Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Adm=strative Code. NEXMTIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: GPA 89-6 APPLICANT/PROJECP SPCNSOR: City of Palm Desert PRO.7DGT DESCRIPTION/LOMTICN: City of Palm Desert General Plan Housing Element revision. The Director of the Department of Cbnmxxity Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. ---------------------------------------- RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF C 44JNITY DEVELOPMENT PD/tm 2 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 I September 29, 1989 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider and make recommendation concerning a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a revised Housing Element to the Palm Desert General Plan. This revised Housing Element contains programs to conserve, rehabilitate, and construct very low, low and moderate income housing for Palm Desert residents and employees. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 17, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are Invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary October 6, 1989 Palm Desert Planning Commission PROOF OF PUBLICATION This space is for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the DESERT SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY a newspaper Proof of Publication of of general circulation, printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, and which ................................................................................................ newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of River- ................................................................................................ side, State of California, under the date of March 24, N0.61160 1988. Case Number 191236; that the notice, of which the - PAS 01111<P 1tr annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than No MI S kiE t3Y GIVEN that, a public nonpareil),has been published in each regular and entire hearin wli� tnheld be- fore issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement City Council tie Desert to consider thereof on the followingdates to-wit: the IO veeslen of the Housin� @�efllent to the Geneft tit;=The re- visWZ1*rl*n*contains a five year pt .#ttn+vl tode- veiop-very qw:low and moderate Income hour- Ing`_a¢drOW01l the needs creilfsd:E►y the citxfs,exPaod1AIj resort ecaftomy ', . Decemb 1, spt13 pvic i a`ng will .................................................................................................. be field o" Decemba#-l* alt 7% i74, ln - auncii t bgr' #„ Palm .................................................................................................. Datert C N. 73 51© Frail l�ta Drivey Pa11�1 . l�Sirnia, all in the year 19...89.... at which tr�nt� f place all into d +srsons areNlvt� d dnd langee� dh tions in court you,max nq I certifyor declare under penalty of perjury that the be ►invited to ryou or ( ) P Y Pe J Y sothose t nege felted at foregoing is true and correct. thescr it dam+OL- i ice°a in written. carte pon- do nce del# to the Dated at Palm Springs,California this .........1st.._.... day city counolf ith ptoonino Y CO Is at,orprfor to, the public hearing, SWHfit,.1+x'R. December 89 GILL of............................. . . . ..................................... 19..... Cltx..Clerk City of Palm Desert- Pub: CA Pub: Dec 1,'10119 . .. .. .. .. . SIGNATURE PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Housing Policy Development w Division 1800 Third Street, Room 430 P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 (916) 323-3176 October 3, 1989 Mr. Bruce Altman City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert's Draft Housing Element Amendment Thank you for submitting Palm Desert's draft housing element amendment September 5, 1989. As you know, we are required to review draft housing element amendments and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b) ) . Palm Desert's housing element is a well-written and comprehensive document, and establishes an ambitious schedule of program actions. In our opinion, however, the revision described in the following paragraph is needed to bring the element into compliance with State housing element law (Article 10. 6 of the Government Code) . Identified concerns were reviewed with Philip Drell, Senior Planner, in a telephone conversation on September 25, 1989. Following the recommended change, we refer to the applicable provision of the Government Code. The City has set projected program unit goals, but does not establish overall quantified objectives for the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved within the element's planning period (Section 65583 (b) ) . Overall objectives are significant because they include projected private market activity as well as City program goals. We hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. Mr. Bruce Altman Page Two In accordance with their requests according to the Public Information Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, *Nan J voC i f Division of Ho i olicy Development NJJ:MA:bt cc: Philip Drell, Senior Planner, City of Palm Desert Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Christine D. Reed, Building Industry Association • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 September 19, 1989 Coachella Valley Housing Coalition P.O. Box 1824 Palm Desert, CA 92261 Re: Palm Desert's 1989 Housing Element Dear Coalition: Enclosed is the second draft of our updated Housing Element. It has already been reviewed once by HCD and revised (see HCD letter and response) . We especially want input from CVHC concerning the program section. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 346-0611 ext. 485. Sincerely, C� Phil Drell Senior Planner /tm i (:on 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 August 29, 1989 Mario Angel Department of Housing and Ccnu unity Development Housing Policy Development Division 1800 Third Street Roan 430 P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 Re: City of Palm Desert Draft Housing Element Dear Mr. Angel: Attached is our Draft Housing Element revised in response to your review letter of July 19, 1988. We have attempted to address all your concerns given the constraints of available data. The following discussion will assist in matching the revisions with specific tents frcm your review. If you have additional suggestions, please contact me at (619) 346-0611 ext. 485. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Philip D. Drell Senior Planner /tm RESPWSFS TO HCD HOUSII, E EMU REVIEW A. Review and Revision: See expanded previous element review section page 34. B. Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints: 1. There has not been a census for the City of Palm Desert since 1980. The quantification of need, therefore, relies on the SCAG Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) page 5. The RHNA does contain a 1989 estimate by tenure. Absent more current data the draft has been revised to include 1989 projections based upon 1980 numbers for elderly, large households, overcrowding, female headed households, handicapped and incidence of poverty where data was available (pages 14 and 15). Farm worker needs were not extensively discussed since nearly all agricultural operation within the city have ceased. Elderly needs (page 14) include a discussion of households and single individual housing problems. Due to the small household size of senior families, the senior housing program is stressing rental construction. 2. Manufactured Housing - See discussion on page 9, constraints section, and page 22, 27 programs section. 3. Constraints - see expanded statements and analysis on following pages: Page No. Building codes 10 Parking 9 Second units 9 Land use 8 Fees 10-11 Land costs 12 Construction costs 12 Financing 13 Constraint Summary 14 C. Quantified Objectives - see Five Year Program Summary on page 25. D. Housing Programs - see pages 17-28. E. Public Participation - see expanded statement on page 37. r ,'1W "yam STATE OF CALIFORNIA s a, dfgfO�qE eELI MEIIAN, mor: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Housing Policy Development Division 1800 Third Street, Room 430 POLL0W RECEM P.O. Box 952053 � Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 JUL z 4 1989 (916) 323-3176 PALM DESERT CIIY Nr ;. CITY MANAG#41 to July 19, 1989 Sig. Mr. Bruce Altman City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert's Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting Palm Desert's draft housing element, received July 3 , 1989. As you know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b) ) . Identified concerns were reviewed with Ramon Diaz, the City' s Planning Director, in a telephone conversation on July 10, 1989. This letter and Appendix summarize the conclusions of that discussion. Palm Desert's housing element is a well-written and comprehensive document. The element establishes an ambitious schedule of program actions to facilitate new development and the rehabilitation of tile City's existing housing stock. However, there are several areas which, in our opinion, require revisions in order to bring the element into compliance with State housing law (Article 10. 6 of the Government Code) . For your information, as a result of new legislation (Chapters 1571 and 1572 , Statutes of 1988) , manufactured housing must be permitted on permanent foundation systems on all single-family-zoned lots, so long as the unit is no more than ten years old on the date of application, and meets federal and optional local standards specified in Government Code Section 65852 . 3 (A locality may exempt from this provision any place, building, structure, or other object listed on the National Register of Historic Places) . Section 65852 . 3 specifies that local governments may impose architectural i Mr. Bruce Altman Page Two requirements on the manufactured home itself which are limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material, so long as the requirements, or any other lot development standards imposed on the manufactured home installation, do not exceed those required for a conventional home on the same lot. Section 65852 .4 has been added to the Government Code to specify that a locality may not subject an application to install a manufactured home on a foundation system on a single-family lot to any administrative permit, planning, or development process or requirement unless it is identical to those which would be imposed on a conventional home on the same lot. You should also be aware of the recently enacted State General Obligation Bond programs, Proposition 77 (California Earthquake Safety and Housing Rehabilitation Bond Act of 1988) and Proposition 84 (Housing and Homeless Bond Act of 1988) . These bonds could be a source of funds for the implementation of your housing programs. We hope our comments are helpful to the City and wish you success in the implementation of your housing programs. If you have any questions about our comments, or if we can be of assistance in any way please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. In accordance with their requests according to the Public Information Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, Na c J. J or Chi Divi ion o H in olicy Deve opment NJJ:MA:bt Attachment cc: Ramon Diaz, Planning Director, City of Palm Desert Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation APPENDIX City of Palm Desert The following changes would, in our opinion, bring Palm Desert's housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Following each recommended change we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. Where particular program examples or data sources are listed, these are suggestions for your information only. We recognize that Palm Desert may choose other means of complying with the law. A. Review and Revision Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element (Section 65588 (a) and (b) ) . There are three parts to the information which should be provided: 1. "Effectiveness of the element" (Section 65588 (a) (2) ) : A description of the actual results of the earlier element' s goals, objectives, policies, and programs. The results should be quantified where possible (e.g. , rehabilitation results) , but may be qualitative where necessary (e.g. , mitigation of governmental constraints) . 2 . "Progress in implementation" (Section 65583 (a) (3) ) : An analysis of the significant differences between what was projected or planned in the earlier element and what was achieved. 3 . "Appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies" (Section 65583 (a) (1) ) : A description of how the goals, objectives, and programs of the updated element incorporate what has been learned from the results of the prior element. Although the element mentions results of the earlier element's programs, it does not include an analysis of the differences between what was planned in the previous element and what was achieved. In addition, the updated element does not describe how its goals, objectives, policies, and programs incorporate what has been learned from the results of the prior element. The element revision should also reflect the changing housing stock and housing needs of the community as well as past accomplishments. B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1. A housing element should contain an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition (Section 65583 (a) (2) ) ; and analysis of the special housing needs of the handicapped, elderly, large families, farmworkers, families with female head of household, and persons in need of emergency shelter (Section 65583 (a) (6) ) . The element includes initial analysis of most of the above cited factors but lacks a clear definition or quantification of need. In our opinion, an adequate analysis of these characteristics should include the total number of households or housing units in the subject group; a quantification and qualitative description of the need; and identification of potential solutions and resources to address the need. Where available, information on tenure characteristics should be included, because tenure affects the nature of housing problems encountered, as well as the programs or resources which have the potential to address them. For example, the discussion of the needs of the elderly is limited to the elderly population rather than elderly households and does not address tenure; the needs of farmworker households and persons in need of emergency shelter are neither quantified nor analyzed. Generally, an analysis of these groups by tenure provides evidence of need. Families headed by a female are quantified but no other statistical evidence of need is shown; this group usually experiences one of the highest incidences of poverty. 2 . Discuss the accessibility to manufactured housing of vacant sites zoned for single-family housing (Section 65583) . 3 . Analyze building code enforcement and on- and off-site requirements as potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels (Section 65583 (a) (4) ) . The analysis of governmental constraints should include a determination as to whether a policy or procedure poses an actual constraint in the City. The land use analysis should include a discussion of the City' s parking requirements as well as its policies and development standards for second units. Any constraints identified should be addressed in the housing program section of the element. 4 . Analyze the City's fees and exactions as governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels (Section 65583 (a) (4) ) . The City may wish to compare its fees with those of neighboring localities to determine if they are excessive. 5. Analyze the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction as potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels (Section 65583 (a) (5) ) . The analysis of the availability of financing should consider whether financing is generally available, whether interest rates are significantly different from surrounding areas, and whether there are income groups in the community underserved for new construction or rehabilitation loans. If problems exist, potential program responses might include mortgage revenue bonding, a mortgage credit certificate program, or targeted low- interest rehabilitation loans. The analysis of land cost could include an estimate of the average per unit cost of land, or the range of per unit costs for land in single-family and multifamily zoned areas currently being developed. The construction cost analysis should focus on the total cost to the developer, exclusive of profit, but including fees, material, labor, and financing. C. Quantified Objectives Establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved in the area over the element's planning period (Section 65583 (b) ) . For conservation, the city could, for example, provide estimates of units for which affordability will be conserved through federal housing subsidy programs, or which will be conserved through more stable residential zoning that is consistent with current land use. D. Housing Programs Address and, where legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing (Section 65583 (c) (3) ) . The appropriateness of the City's mitigating actions cannot be determined in the absence of a full constraints discussion (see comments B-3, and B-4 above) . E. Public Participation Describe the City's efforts to achieve public participation in the development of its housing element (Section 65583 (c) ) . In addition to holding public hearings at the planning commission and government body level, the City should take additional steps to ensure the public participation of all economic segments (including low- and moderate-income households. For example, the City could circulate its draft outreach to church groups, low-income organizations, and community and senior groups. Notices regarding public meetings on the element could be posted in community centers, libraries, city hall, and throughout the community in public places. n STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Housing Policy Development Division 4 1800 Third Street, Room 430 P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 ec1 (916) 323-3176 ocT 61989 � A4LM OE /� Cl7Y.y gNy�E:.yyt. October 3, 1989 L Mr. Bruce Altman City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert's Draft Housing Element Amendment Thank you for submitting Palm Desert's draft housing element amendment September 5, 1989. As you know, we are required to review draft housing element amendments and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b) ) . Palm Desert's housing element is a well-written and comprehensive document, and establishes an ambitious schedule of program actions. In our opinion, however, the revision described in the following paragraph is needed to bring the element into compliance with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code) . Identified concerns were reviewed with Philip Drell, Senior Planner, in a telephone conversation on September 25, 1989. Following the recommended change, we refer to the applicable provision of the Government Code. The City has set projected program unit goals, but does not establish overall quantified objectives for the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved within the element's planning period (Section 65583 (b) ) . Overall objectives are significant because they include projected private market activity as well as City program goals. We hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. Mr. Bruce Altman Page Two In accordance with their requests according to the Public Information Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, jNany J. vo , C i f Division of Housi Policy Development NJJ:MA:bt cc: Philip Drell, Senior Planner, City of Palm Desert Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Christine D. Reed, Building Industry Association CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR RURAL HOUSING 2000 O Street, Sulte 230, Sacramento, CA 95814 1 (916) 443-4448 October 25, 1989 Phillip Drell City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Dear Mr. Drell, Thank You for gathering the information I requested of your department. As you know from our conversation the California Coalition for Rural Housing is conducting a statewide study of low-income and very low-income units that have been added to your housing inventories during Your present housing element cycle. The number of units which You have indicated have been produced within Your government entity are as follows: County, city, other, of_, a,� � Low income (80% of area median income and below) Very low income (50% of area median income and below) Section 8 certificates and vouchers_------- Please Please verify the figures I have listed above with Your records. If You wish to change any of the above numbers please do so, in writing, within two weeks of the date of this letter and return this information to our Sacramento office. If we have not heard from you within two weeks we will be using the data listed above. Thank You for your assistance with this survey. If you should wish to speak with me by phone, I can be reached at (916) 443- 6807_ Yours truly, $ d f f Naomi Keller, survey coordinator STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKAOJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Housing Policy Development Division 1800 Third Street, Room 430 P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 (916) 323-3176 October 3 , 1989 Mr. Bruce Altman City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert's Draft Housing Element Amendment Thank you for submitting Palm Desert's draft housing element amendment September 5, 1989. As you know, we are required to review draft housing element amendments and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b) ) . Palm Desert's housing element is a well-written and comprehensive document, and establishes an ambitious schedule of program actions. In our opinion, however, the revision described in the following paragraph is needed to bring the element into compliance with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code) . Identified concerns were reviewed with Philip Drell, Senior Planner, in a telephone conversation on September 25, 1989. Following the recommended change, we refer to the applicable provision of the Government Code. The City has set projected program unit goals, but does not establish overall quantified objectives for the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved within the element's planning period (Section 65583 (b) ) . Overall objectives are significant because they include projected private market activity as well as City program goals. We hope our comments are helpful to the City. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. PROOF OF PU B ATION This space is for thyme unty Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 1Fi` County of Riverside '6 H r 11 PH `t Cl I am a citizen of the United States and a CITY OF PALMGb_EfS�011 KS resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to Proof of Publication of or interested in the above-entitled matter. I REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT TO GENERAL amthe principal clerk of the printer of the .......................................................... PLAN DESERT POST .................................................... CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider and make a a newspaper of general circulation, printed recommendation a Negative Declaration ofEnviroruvw al Impact and a revised Housings ntlement to the Palm Desert General Plan. This revised Ming El contains programs to conserve, and published ....B..IWEEKLY rehabilitate, and construct very low, low and moderate income ............................ housing for Palm Desert residents and employees. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,Oc,nber 17, 19M at in the City Of PALM DESERT 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Hall, 73-510 ...... ..................•.....•.. Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,California,at which time and place County of Riverside, and which news- all interested persons are Invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in cDW, you may 6e limited to paper has been adjudged a newspaper raising only those issues you or someone else raised at fhe public Of general circulation b the Superior hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence g Y delivered to;the city council(or planning commission)at,or prior to, Court of the County of Riverside, State of the public hearing. RAMON A. DIAZ,Secretary California, under the date of, 10/5,, 1964., September 28, 1g69 Palm Desert Planning Commission - (PUB D.P.OCT 6, 19"___ Case Number ..$ 6 $......;that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: 10/6 .................................................... all in the year 19.139.. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at..... ALM. DESERT. . . . .... California,this6th....dayof,OCT:., 19.Q?., Signature Free copies of this,blank form may be secured from: CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU, INC. Legal Advertising Clearing House 120 west Second St., Los Angeles, Calif. 90012 Telephone: (213) 625-2541 Please request GENERAL Proof of publication when ordering this form. LAW OFFICES OF CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE COACHELLA MIGRANT PROJECT VIA FACSIMILE 1030 6TH STREET, NO. 6 P.O. BOX 35 COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236-0035 Mario Angel (619) 399-7261 Housing and Community Development Representative Department of Housing and Community Development P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, California 94252-2053 re: City of Palm Desert, Housing Element Dear Mr. Angel: On behalf of our very low and low income farmworker clients, California Rural Legal Assistance would like to make the following comments on the Housing Element adopted by the city of Palm Desert on December 14, 1989. We believe the Housing Element does not comply with California statutory requirements for the following reasons: 1) NEED FOR REVISION The Housing Element should be revised to incorporate the affordable housing programs which the City is legally obligated to carry out under the terms of a recent legal Stipulation. In September , 1990 the city of Palm Desert signed a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, in the consolidated Indio Superior Court case numbers 51124, 51143 and 51159. ( On May 10, 1991 I mailed a copy of that Stipulation to you) . Pursuant to that stipulation, the City of Palm Desert and the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency are obligated to (among other things) develop, rehabilitate or acquire, or cause to be developed, rehabilitated or acquired certain numbers of housing units within the City of Palm Desert , that are affordable to very low, low and moderate income families. Those obligations commence within the next five years. This stipulation was entered into after the date of adoption of the housing element. Government Code Section 65588 (a) requires periodic review of the element. It states that a local government shall review its housing element as frequently as appropriate to evaluate the effectiveness of_ the housing element in attainment of the community's housing goals and objectives. Revisions should be made when necessary to reflect significant changes in need or programs. Here the City is legally obligated to carry out substantial affordable housing programs, and the element should be revised to include those programs. The revised element should contain specific action steps the locality will take to implement its housing goals and objectives. There should be program descriptions which detail such things as immediate, short-term and long-term steps, specific funding sources, how the funds will be utilized, the specific needs to be met and the quantified objectives for the program. Such specificity will facilitate the monitoring of the locality' s progress in implementing the program. CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE CRLA comments Palm Desert Housing Element May 22, 1991 page 2 2) REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS (FARMAORKER HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS) The Element's discussion of farmworker housing and homeless needs does not meet statutory requirements and contains inaccurate and incomplete information. The Element is inadequate and incomplete in its discussion of the housing needs of farmworkers and the homeless, because the analysis discusses those special needs groups only in a context of whether current residents and/or employees within the geographic boundaries of Palm Desert are farmworkers and / or homeless people in need of housing. This is a complete distortion of the state law requirement that a locality assess its share of the regional housing need. The calculation of a locality's share of regional need must recognize the fact that housing markets are not defined by city or county boundaries, and that actions of one local agency may have an impact on the need for housing within another jurisdiction. Government Code Section 65584 (a) states (in part) that the distribution of regional housing needs shall, based upon available data take into consideration market demand for housing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need and the housing needs of farmworkers. Agriculture is the single largest industry in Riverside County. About 30, 000 farmworkers work in the Coachella Valley during a given year, all within a thirty mile radius of Palm Desert. A 1989 Coachella Valley Association of Governments study estimated that more than 95% of farmworkers do not have adequate housing and many are homeless. Palm Desert cannot abdicate its responsibility to demonstrate in its housing element how it plans to meet its share of what is clearly a regional housing need by stating that as of 1980 only 277 Palm Desert residents were employed in agriculture and that there are no large scale agricultural operations within the City. (page 15 of the Element) Similarly, the discussion of the homeless population is inadequate in that the focus is on how many homeless persons have been "observed (within Palm Desert) at any one time" , and that " (m) ost are moving through the area or are living in campsites up in the canyons" (pages 16 and 23 of the Element) . There should be a more thorough analysis of the homeless. 3) PRIORITY TO CURRENT PALM DESERT EMPLOYEES The program described on page 21 of the Element indicates that the new affordable housing will have priorities for employees of Palm Desert. Such a restriction is inconsistent with the statutory requirement that the Element's needs analysis include the locality's share of the regional housing need, particularly farmworker housing. Furthermore, such a provision is illegal. It 94 x . �I46 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 September 19, 1989 Coachella Valley Housing Coalition P.O. Box 1824 Palm Desert, CA 92261 Re: Palm Desert's 1989 Housing Element Dear Coalition: Enclosed is the second draft of our updated Housing Element. It has already been reviewed once by HCD and revised (see HCD letter and response) . We especially want input frcm CVHC concerning the program section. If you have any questions or convents, please contact me at 346-0611 ext. 485. Sincerely, Phil Drell Senior Planner /tm ' r O D C�o�� • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 August 29, 1989 Mario Angel Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Policy Development Division 1800 Third Street Rocco 430 P.O. Box 952053 , Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 Re: City of Palm Desert Draft Housing Element Dear Mr. Angel: Attached is our Draft Housing Element revised in response to your review letter of July- 19, 1988. We have attempted to address all your concerns given the constraints of available data. The following discussion will assist in matching the revisions with specific comments fran your review. If you have additional suggestions, please contact me at (619) 346-0611 ext. 485. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Philip D. Drell Senior Planner /tm RESPONSES TO HM FOUSIlW. EUENUIP REVnW A. Review and Revision: See expanded previous element review section page 34. B. Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints: 1. There has not been a census for the City of Palm Desert since 1980. The quantification of need, therefore, relies on the SCAG Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) page 5. The RHNA does contain a 1989 estimate by tenure. Absent more current data the draft has been revised to include 1989 projections based upon 1980 numbers for elderly, large households, overcrowding, female headed households, handicapped and incidence of poverty where data was available (pages 14 and 15). Farm worker needs were not extensively discussed since nearly all agricultural operation within the city have ceased. Elderly needs (page 14) include a discussion of households and single individual housing problems. Due to the small household size of senior families, the senior housing program is stressing rental construction. , 2. Manufactured Housing - See discussion on page 9, constraints section, and page 22, 27 programs section. 3. Constraints - see expanded statements and analysis on following Pages: Page No. Building codes 10 Parking 9 Second units 9 Land use 8 Fees 10-11 Land costs 12 Construction oasts 12 Financing 13 Constraint Summy 14 C. Quantified Objectives - see Five Year Program Summary on page 25. D. Housing Program - see pages 17-28. E. Public Participation - see expanded statement on page 37. STATE OF CALIFORNIA El,! GE pEUKMEJIAN, Gc�smor a DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - Housing Policy Development Division 1800 Third Street, Room 430 POLLOW-UP REC� VED,!, , P.O. Box 952053 ITEM Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 JUL 2 4 1989 (916) 323-3176 PALM DESERT CITY-f-L- OTY MANAGE~ V� July 19, 1989 Dote Sig....i��"� Mr. Bruce Altman City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 , Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert's Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting Palm Desert's draft housing element, received July 3, 1989. As you know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b) ) . Identified concerns were reviewed with Ramon Diaz, the City's Planning Director, in a telephone conversation on July 10, 1989. This letter and Appendix summarize the conclusions of that discussion. Palm Desert's housing element is a well-written and comprehensive document. The element establishes an ambitious schedule of program actions to facilitate new development and the rehabilitation of the City's existing housing stock. However, there are several areas which, in our opinion, require revisions in order to bring the element into compliance with State housing law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code) . For your information, as a result of new legislation (Chapters 1571 and 1572 , Statutes of 1988) , manufactured housing must be permitted on permanent foundation systems on all single-family-zoned lots, so long as the unit is no more than ten years old on the date of application, and meets federal and optional local standards specified in Government Code Section 65852.3 (A locality may exempt from this provision any place, building, structure, or other object listed on the National Register of Historic Places) . Section 65852 . 3 specifies that local governments may impose architectural Mr. Bruce Altman Page Two requirements on the manufactured home itself which are limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material, so long as the requirements, or any other lot development standards imposed on the manufactured home installation, do not exceed those required for a conventional home on the same lot. Section 65852 . 4 has been added to the Government Code to specify that a locality may not subject an application to install a manufactured home on a foundation system on a single-family lot to any administrative permit, planning, or development process or requirement unless it is identical to those which would be imposed on a conventional home on the same lot. You should also be aware of the recently enacted State General Obligation Bond programs, Proposition 77 (California Earthquake Safety and Housing Rehabilitation Bond Act of 1988) and Proposition 84 (Housing and Homeless Bond Act of 1988) . These bonds could be a source of funds for the implementation of your housing programs. We hope our comments are helpful to the City and wish you success in the implementation of your housing programs. If you have any questions about our comments, or if we can be of assistance in any way please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. In accordance with their requests according to the Public Information Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, N c J. J Or Ch' Divi ion o H in olicy Deve pment NJJ:MA:bt Attachment cc: Ramon Diaz, Planning Director, City of Palm Desert Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation APPENDIX City of Palm Desert The following changes would, in our opinion, bring Palm Desert housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Following each recommended change we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. Where particular program examples or data sources are listed, these are suggestions for your information only. We recognize that Palm Desert may choose other means of complying with the law. A. Review and Revision Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element (Section 65588 (a) and (b) ) . There are three parts to the information which should be provided: . 1. "Effectiveness of the element" (Section 65588 (a) (2) ) : A description of the actual results of the earlier element's goals, objectives, policies, and programs. The results should be quantified where possible (e.g. , rehabilitation results) , but may be qualitative where necessary (e.g. , mitigation of governmental constraints) . 2. "Progress in implementation" (Section 65583 (a) (3) ) : An analysis of the significant differences between what was projected or planned in the earlier element and what was achieved. 3 . "Appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies" (Section 65583 (a) (1) ) : A description of how the goals, objectives, and programs of the updated element incorporate what has been learned from the results of the prior element. Although the element mentions results of the earlier element's programs, it does not include an analysis of the differences between what was planned in the previous element and what was achieved. In addition, the updated element does not describe how its goals, objectives, policies, and programs incorporate what has been learned from the results of the prior element. The element revision should also reflect the changing housing stock and housing needs of the community as well as past accomplishments. B. Housing Needs. Resources. and Constraints 1. A housing element should contain an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition (Section 65583 (a) (2) ) ; and analysis of the special housing needs of the handicapped, elderly, large families, farmworkers, families with female head of household, and persons in need of emergency shelter (Section 65583 (a) (6) ) . The element includes initial analysis of most of the above cited factors but lacks a clear definition or quantification of need. In our opinion, an adequate analysis of these characteristics should include the total number of households or housing units in the subject group; a quantification and qualitative description of the need; and identification of potential solutions and resources to address the need. Where available, information on tenure characteristics should be included, because tenure affects the nature of housing problems encountered, as well as the programs or resources which have the potential to address them. For example, the discussion of the needs of the elderly is limited to the elderly population rather than elderly households and does not address tenure; the needs of farmworker households and persons in need of emergency shelter are neither quantified nor analyzed. Generally, an analysis of these groups by tenure provides evidence of need. Families headed by a female are quantified but no other statistical evidence of need is shown; this group usually experiences one of the highest incidences of poverty. 2. Discuss the accessibility to manufactured housing of vacant sites zoned for single-family housing (Section 65583) . 3 . Analyze building code enforcement and on- and off-site requirements as potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels (Section 65583 (a) (4) ) . The analysis of governmental constraints should include a determination as to whether a policy or procedure poses an actual constraint in the City. The land use analysis should include a discussion of the City's parking requirements as well as its policies and development standards for second units. Any constraints identified should be addressed in the housing program section of the element. 4 . Analyze the City's fees and exactions as governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing forwish-to compare its fees with all income levels (Section 65583 (a) (4) ) . The City may those of neighboring localities to determine if they are excessive. 5. Analyze the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction as potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels (Section 65583 (a) (5) ) . The analysis of the availability of financing should consider whether financing is generally available, whether interest rates are significantly different from surrounding areas, and whether there are income groups in the community underserved for new construction or rehabilitation loans. If problems exist, potential program responses might include mortgage revenue bonding, a mortgage credit certificate program, or targeted low- interest rehabilitation loans. The analysis of land cost could include an estimate of the average per unit cost of land, or the range of per unit costs for land in single-family and multifamily zoned areas currently being developed. The construction cost analysis should focus on the total cost to the developer, exclusive of profit, but including fees, material, labor, and financing. C. Quantified Objectives Establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved in the 65583 (b) )a over For element's planning perhe iod (S rovide estimates conservation, the city could, for example, p of units for which affordability will be conserved through federal housing subsidy programs, or that iill s consistent with be conserved through more stable residential zoning current land use. D. Housing Programs Address and, where legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development co co housing (Section 65583 (c) (3) ) . The appropriateness of the City's mitigating actions cannot bed etermined in comments Bt3 e and - of a full constraints discussion above) . 4 . 4 E. Public Participation Describe the City's efforts to achieve public participation in the development of its housing element (Section 65583 (c) ) . In addition to holding public hearings at the planning commission and government body level, the City should take additional steps to ensure the public participation of all economic segments (including low- and moderate-income households. For example, the City could circulate its draft outreach to church groups, low-income organizations, and community and senior groups. Notices regarding public meetings on the element could be posted in community centers, libraries, city hall, and throughout the community in public places. _ 4 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 September 19, 1989 Coachella Valley Housing Coalition P.O. Box 1824 Palm Desert, CA 92261 Re: Palm Desert's 1989 Housing Element Dear Coalition: Enclosed is the second draft of our updated Housing Element. It has already been reviewed once by HCD and revised (see HCD letter and response) . We especially want input from CVHC concerning the program section. If you have any questions or c;o<nnents, please contact me at 346-0611 ext. 485. Sincerely, J Phil Drell Senior Planner ftm • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 August 29, 1989 Mario Angel Department of Housing and Canxmty Development Housing Policy Development Division 1800 Third Street Roan 430 P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 Re: City of Palm Desert Draft Housing Element Dear Mr. Angel: Attached is our Draft Housing Element revised in response to your review letter of July- 19, 1988. We have attempted to address all your concerns given the constraints of available data. The following discussion will assist in matching the revisions with specific cccnnerits from your review. If you have additional suggestions, please contact me at (619) 346-0611 ext. 485. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Philip D. Drell Senior Planner /tm RESPWM TO HCD FOLJSDG ELEMIE24P REVIEW A. Review and Revision: See expanded previous element review section page 34. B. Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints: 1. There has not been a census for the City of Palm Desert since 1980. The quantification of need, therefore, relies on the SCAG Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) page 5. The RHNA does contain a 1989 estimate by tenure. Absent more current data the draft has been revised to include 1989 projections based upon 1980 numbers for elderly, large households, overcrowding, female headed households, handicapped and incidence of poverty where data was available (pages 14 and 15). Farm worker needs were not extensively discussed since nearly all agricultural operation within the city have ceased. Elderly needs (page 14) include a discussion of households and single individual housing problems. Due to the small household size of senior families, the senior housing program is stressing rental construction. 2. Manufactured Housing - See discussion on page 9, constraints section, and page 22, 27 programs section. 3. Constraints - see expanded statements and analysis on following pages: Page No. Building codes 10 Parking 9 Second units 9 Land use 8 Fees 10-11 Land costs 12 Construction costs 12 Financing 13 Constraint Summary 14 C. Quantified Objectives - see Five Year Program Summary on page 25. D. Housing Programs - see pages 17-28. E. Public Participation - see expanded statement on page 37. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ItIlle rrY S s y �` tGE21aE pELI MfJIAN, mor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Housing Policy Development I► Division 1800 Third Street, Room 430 POLLOW.Up REC'151 E�,,, , P.O. Box 952053 I'1'E3i Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 JUL 2 4 1989 (916) 323-3176 PALM OESERT CITY H-L,. CITY MANAGk'P July 19, 1989 U :,ttiUutCd To: ��; j' Sig. Date Mr. Bruce Altman City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Altman: RE: Review of Palm Desert's Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting Palm Desert's draft housing element, received July 3, 1989. As you know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b) ) . Identified concerns were reviewed with Ramon Diaz, the City's Planning Director, in a telephone conversation on July 10, 1989. This letter and Appendix summarize the conclusions of that discussion. Palm Desert's housing element is a well-written and comprehensive document. The element establishes an ambitious schedule of program actions to facilitate new development and the rehabilitation of the City's existing housing stock. However, there are several areas which, in our opinion, require revisions in order to bring the element into compliance with State housing law (Article 10. 6 of the Government Code) . For your information, as a result of new legislation (Chapters 1571 and 1572 , Statutes of 1988) , manufactured housing must be permitted on permanent foundation systems on all single-family-zoned lots, so long as the unit is no more than ten years old on the date of application, and meets federal and optional local standards specified in Government Code Section 65852.3 (A locality may exempt from this provision any place, building, structure, or other object listed on the National Register of Historic Places) . Section 65852 . 3 specifies that local governments may impose architectural Mr. Bruce Altman Page Two requirements on the manufactured home itself which are limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material, so long as the requirements, or any other lot development standards imposed on the manufactured home installation, do not exceed those required for a conventional home on the same lot. Section 65852 .4 has been added to the Government Code to specify that a locality may not subject an application to install a manufactured home on a foundation system on a single-family lot to any administrative permit, planning, or development process or requirement unless it is identical to those which would be imposed on a conventional home on the same lot. You should also be aware of the recently enacted State General Obligation Bond programs, Proposition 77 (California Earthquake Safety and Housing Rehabilitation Bond Act of 1988) and Proposition 84 (Housing and Homeless Bond Act of 1988) . These bonds could be a source of funds for the implementation of your housing programs. We hope our comments are helpful to the City and wish you success in the implementation of your housing programs. If you have any questions about our comments, or if we can be of assistance in any way please contact Mario Angel of our staff at (916) 445-3485. In accordance with their requests according to the Public Information Act, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to the individuals listed below. Sincerely, *J. J or Chi o H in olicy ent NJJ:MA:bt Attachment cc: Ramon Diaz, Planning Director, City of Palm Desert Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation APPENDIX City of Palm Desert The following changes would, in our opinion, bring Palm Desert's housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Following each recommended change we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. Where particular program examples or data sources are listed, these are suggestions for your information only. We recognize that Palm Desert may choose other means of complying with the law. A. Review and Revision Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element (Section 65588 (a) and (b) ) . There are three parts to the information which should be provided: 1. "Effectiveness of the element" (Section 65588 (a) (2) ) : A description of the actual results of the earlier element's goals, objectives, policies, and programs. The results should be quantified where possible (e.g. , rehabilitation results) , but may be qualitative where necessary (e.g. , mitigation of governmental constraints) . 2 . "Progress in implementation" (Section 65583 (a) (3) ) : An analysis of the significant differences between what was projected or planned in the earlier element and what was achieved. 3 . "Appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies" (Section 65583 (a) (1) ) : A description of how the goals, objectives, and programs of the updated element incorporate what has been learned from the results of the prior element. Although the element mentions results of the earlier element's programs, it does not include an analysis of the differences between what was planned in the previous element and what was achieved. In addition, the updated element does not describe how its goals, objectives, policies, and programs incorporate what has been learned from the results of the prior element. The element revision should also reflect the changing housing stock and housing needs of the community as well as past accomplishments. B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1. A housing element should contain an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition (Section 65583 (a) (2) ) ; and analysis of the special housing needs of the handicapped, elderly, large families, farmworkers, families with female head of household, and persons in need of emergency shelter (Section 65583 (a) (6) ) . The element includes initial analysis of most of the above cited factors but lacks a clear definition or quantification of need. In our opinion, an adequate analysis of these characteristics should include the total number of households or housing units in the subject group; a quantification and qualitative description of the need; and identification of potential solutions and resources to address the need. Where available, information on tenure characteristics should be included, because tenure affects the nature of housing problems encountered, as well as the programs or resources which have the potential to address them. For example, the discussion of the needs of the elderly is limited to the elderly population rather than elderly households and does not address tenure; the needs of farmworker households and persons in need of emergency shelter are neither quantified nor analyzed. Generally, an analysis of these groups by tenure provides evidence of need. Families headed by a female are quantified but no other statistical evidence of need is shown; this group usually experiences one of the highest incidences of poverty. 2 . Discuss the accessibility to manufactured housing of vacant sites zoned for single-family housing (Section 65583) . 3 . Analyze building code enforcement and on- and off-site requirements as potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels (Section 65583 (a) (4) ) . The analysis of governmental constraints should include a determination as to whether a policy or procedure poses an actual constraint in the City. The land use analysis should include a discussion of the City's parking requirements as well as its policies and development standards for second units. Any constraints identified should be addressed in the housing program section of the element. 4. Analyze the City's fees and exactions as governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels (Section 65583 (a) (4) ) . The City may wish to compare its fees with those of neighboring localities to determine if they are excessive. 5. Analyze the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction as potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels (Section 65583 (a) (5) ) . The analysis of the availability of financing should consider whether financing is generally available, whether interest rates are significantly different from surrounding areas, and whether there are income groups in the community underserved for new construction or rehabilitation loans. If problems exist, potential program responses might include mortgage revenue bonding, a mortgage credit certificate program, or targeted low- interest rehabilitation loans. The analysis of land cost could include an estimate of the average per unit cost of land, or the range of per unit costs for land in single-family and multifamily zoned areas currently being developed. The construction cost analysis should focus on the total cost to the developer, exclusive of profit, but including fees, material, labor, and financing. C. Quantified Objectives Establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved in the area over the element's planning period (Section 65583 (b) ) . For conservation, the city could, for example, provide estimates of units for which affordability will be conserved through federal housing subsidy programs, or which will be conserved through more stable residential zoning that is consistent with current land use. D. Housing Programs Address and, where legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing (Section 65583 (c) (3) ) . The appropriateness of the City's mitigating actions cannot be determined in the absence of a full constraints discussion (see comments B-3, and B-4 above) . E. Public Participation Describe the City's efforts to achieve public participation in the development of its housing element (Section 65583 (c) ) . In addition to holding public hearings at the planning commission and government body level, the City should take additional steps to ensure the public participation of all economic segments (including low- and moderate-income households. For example, the City could circulate its draft outreach to church groups, low-income organizations, and community and senior groups. Notices regarding public meetings on the element could be posted in community centers, libraries, city hall, and throughout the community in public places. a 11 e Policies and ,implementation Programs set forth in the Palm DeS�� 1, Housing Element to the General Plan are guided by California State to Housing 1• provisions of decent housing for all Persons regardless of age, race, sex, Vital status, source of income or other arbitrary fags. 2. Provision of adequate housing by location tYPe, Price and tenure. 3. Development of a balanced residential environment incl � obs udi access to 3 , cam R-lity facilities and services. This element will examine the nature of the exist' to the character and � �S� stock in relation needs of Palm Desert residents and how future development can best meet future needs. I, OLM A• Population anon -- and Household Characteristics- The California Department of Finance estimated (see appendix for cemplete data) Palm Desert's 1989 permanent PoPulation to be 19,454 in 8546 households. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Projects growth to 10,301 households by 1994. Housing Element Continued The two most populous age categories identified in the 1980 census were 65+ (2176-18%) and 25-34 (1830-16%). This compares with 1185- 10% for the 45-54 age category. The dominance of young adults and seniors is responsible for a large number of small, often childless, households. One and two person households accounted for 72% of the Palm Desert total. Sixty-five percent (65$) of married couples had no children. Only 824 households (7$) had more than three members. These young and old households generally represent the demographic groups with the lowest incomes. The 45-54 age group, usually associated with the highest income producing period, comprised the smallest.-segment of--the Palm Desert dam�ty. B. Income and Employment: In 1980, median household income for a family of four was $19,647. The 1988 Riverside/San Bernardino area median was $30,900. Total Palm Desert resident employers in 1980 was 5681 with sales and serve accounting for 68%. There were 179 families living below the poverty line of which 32 were female heads of households with children. There were no households with heads over 65 below the poverty line. Total employment in the city in 1990 is projected to reach 13,000. Over the next five years Palm Desert will undoubtedly experience a substantial increase in low income housing needs resulting from the 2 Housing Element dontinued rapidly growing retail, service and resort hotel industries. Up to 1,500 new hotel roans and 400,000 square feet of commercial space are projected to attract 2,100 new employees to the area of which 1,500 are likely to be paid low income wages. Local restaurants, retailers, and hotels are already experiencing increasing difficulty in attracting and keeping reliable service employees. The lack of affordable worker, housing has became a practical problem for employers and ultimately a real constraint on the growth and quality of the city's resort base industries. Low income employees will not relocate unless affordable hous;Lng,. is . available. Reliance on other communities to provide this housing is contrary to the state housing laws fair share concept and will Iftw ultimately result in clogged highways as workers flood in and out of the city. The private market has shown itself quite capable of meeting moderate and upper income rental housing needs. The production of lower and very low income housing will require significant assistance and involvement of the city, Redevelopment Agency, Riverside County Housing Authority, and the resort industries creating the demand. 3 • Housing Element Contimied C. Housing Characteristics: 1. Housing Mix: The following table carpares the 1984 and 198� Palm Desert housing mix: Total Houses Single Family 2-4 Units 5 or More Mobile Hcmes 1984 12,304 9,150 (74%) 1,156 (9*) 1,202 (10%) 796 (6%) 1989 16,603 11,853 (71%) 1,586 (10%) 2,345 (14%) 841 (5%) In 1984, 19% of the housing stork was canprised of multi-family rental units. Only 28 units had been constructed during the preceding four years. As a result of the city's Affordable High Density Planned Residential Program (AHDPR), 1573 multi-family rental units were constructed between 1984-1988; 37% of all units. An additional 800 units have been approved. Of the 1573 constructed, 180 are rent controlled for lower income households; 21 are rent controlled for moderate income households. Eighty percent (80%) of the market unit rents fall within the moderate incase standards. 4 Housing Element Contimied. 2. Housing Conditian: Most of the housing in the City of Palm Desert has been constructed since 1960. Generally homes in even the oldest neighborhoods are less than 25 years old. While the general level of residential maintenance is quite good, isolated cases of deterioration have occurred. Surveys indicate up to 20 single family hones and 100 multi-family units need significant rehabilitation. In sane cases the city has had to threaten condemnation to force landlords to maintain minimum health and : . safety. standards.'. . As, will:.be described,later.ism. this element,-. the city's redevelopment agency in cooperation with the Riverside County Housing Authority is implementing programs- to reverse the deterioration process and preserve quality housing. 3. Overcrowding: Overcrowding is defined as dwellings with greater than 1.01 persons per roan. A roan is defined by the Uniform Building Code as a place usable for sleeping, eating or cooking. This excludes bathrooms, hallways and closets. For example a three bedroom, two bath hone with a kitchen and ocmbination dining roan/living roan would have five rooms. If it was inhabited by 5 Housing Element Contirnied �r two adults and four children, a 1.2 ratio would qualify as overcrowded. The 1980 census identified 102 households (2%) with person per roan ratios between 1.01 and 1.5, and 42 household ( .8%) with ratios greater than 1.51. Overcrowding is caused by a combination of shortages and high cost of appropriate housing. Families are forced to choose between small units or sharing a larger unit with another family. While it may be desirable for each child to have his/her own bedroom, some degree of overcrowding is inevitable. Young families often take several years before they can achieve the one person per roan ratio. Cases of severe overcrowding can lead to accelerated housing deterioration and corresponding negative impacts for surrounding properties and the neighborhood. There is some evidence that the incidence of overcrowding has increased since 1980 as a result of increased lower income employment associated with the Marriott hotel, the Town Center mall and general expansion of the city's resort economic base. 6 Housing Element Continued. i Although the city's housing programs have produced a substantial i number of lower and moderate income one and two bedroom units, there has not been significant construction of lower income family housing and no units affordable by very low income households. Programs in the element will attempt to expand housing opportunities for these two groups to find uncrowded quality housing within safe, clean neighborhoods. 4: Vacaiu>y. Rates:. ... The Federal Home Loan Bank Branch has estimated the 1987 combined vacancy rate to be 5.6%; 2.72% above the "ideal" 2.88% calculated by SCAG. Vacancy rates for units within the lower income range are less than 1$. II. HOUSIlW.7 IDS The mandated objective of the Palm Desert Housing Element is the provision of quality, well designed housing within safe and attractive neighborhoods affordable by all segments of the community. The task of the implementation program shall be to resolve the conflict and trade-offs between affordability, design and density. 7 *r ' Housing Ele nt Q7ntinued When the city incorporated there was great concern for what appeared to be unacceptably low quality development standards being enforced by the county. Zoning and design review standards were developed to insure quality neighborhoods. These standards succeeded in encouraging an abundant supply of housing, very high quality development, but also resulted in housing increasingly out of the reach of very low, low and moderate income households. This situation was further exaggerated by the high speculative housing market of the late 1970' s. Through implementation of programs contained in the 1984 Housing Element these problems.have begun• to be addressed.- A. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) - The Fair Share Concept: The state housing law assigns the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) the responsibility for determining Palm Desert's ,6..#<<tyJ existing housing needs and eR-fair share of the regional future needs. This analysis is contained in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Existing need is a simple projection form the 1980 census of households paying more than 30% of their income on housing based upon the California Department of Finance population estimates for 1988 and adjusted to 1989. The future needs section is based upon SCAG's own Growth Management Plan. The state housing law 8 Housing Element Continued "fair share concept" also requires the equalization of a jurisdiction's affordable housing percentage towards the regional average. The future needs section, therefore, includes an "impaction adjustment" which brings a jurisdictioiSpercentage of future lower and very low income me units 25% closer to the regional average. Palm Desert's current share is 32$ compared tp�4400% for the region; a U "0_ difference of 8%. The composition of -ote future heme" affordable needs was therefore increased 2-96 to 34$. The existing needs figures do not assume any construction of low income .units during- the 1980-88..:period -arid -can be reduced- if.. affordable projects were built. Through One Quail Place and San Tropez Villas apartment project development agreement's, 180 lower income units were constructed between 1984-1987. These units will be rent controlled through the year 2015 and 2017 respectively. The adjusted RHNA is included below. Current need is 569 lower income, 481 very low income for a total of 1050. Future need has been set at 367 lower and 303 very low income. The numbers are not intended to be absolutely accurate calculations creating a "quota" the city is expected to achieve. It is merely an estimate of the general magnitude of need and serves as a goal for the design of 9 Housing Element C.bntitmied local housing programs. Cities will be evaluated on how effectively available resources are employed towards the attainment of the RHNA targets. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT I. ADJUSTED EXISTING NEED* 1988 LIHHs OVERPAYING FOR SHELTER HOUSEHOLDS LIHHs TOTAL VERY LOW LOW TOT-OWNER 7,843 2,518 1,144 481 569 380 LIM OVERPAYMWT BY TENURE AND INCME : . VL-OWNER LOW-OWNER TOT-RENTER VL=RENTER LOW-RENTER 147 233 669 335 334 II. FUTURE NEED - 1 LOWER INC HIGHER INC TOTAL VL INC LOW INC MDD INC HIGH INC ($VL & L) (%I-M & UP) 1,964 303 367 340 954 34.1% 65.9% *Adjusted to reflect 1989 "GAP" year and reduced for 180 lower income units constructed in motion with One Quail Place and San Tropez Villas Affordable High Rent projects. 10 Housing Element Continued `% B. Ownership Housing: The HUD income guidelines call for a maxirm n low income ownership unit selling price of $65,000 based upon the monthly payment on a 10.75130 year loan. The moderate income house price limit would approach $90,000. No new projects have offered homes in this price range for at least five years. The median price of existing Palm Desert housing in 1988 was $130,267. A total of 16 single family homes and 21 condominiums are currently . on .the. -market (March,. 1989)..:below the- $90;000. moderate. income range. No new units have been constructed within the moderate "rrr range since 1984. In 1984, Mountain View Falls offered 100 two and three bedroom units between $68,000 and $72,000 as part of a 25$ density bonus program. While some opportunities remain in the resale market, the lack of new moderate income units will ultimately result in a diminishing availability as demand grows. The growth of low and moderate income employment with lead to an increasing need for family housing which is best served by single family units. During the 1984-89 period, the Palm Desert housing program implementation stressed multifamily construction which had lagged during the previous period. Through 1994, affordable family housing will receive greater emphasis. 11 Housing Element C mtinued C. Rental Housing: When the city incorporated in 1973, one of the first tasks was to improve the overall quality of development through the raising of standards enforced by the county. Inadvertently, those new zoning standards combined with other more general economic factors to virtually halt multifamily rental construction. In 1984, 19% of the housing stock was comprised of multifamily units. Only 28 units had been built between 1980-84. The implementation of the AHDPR zone contained in the 1984 Housing Element, lower interest rat4 and the use of tax-exempt bond financing led to the construction of lQ@T rental units between 1984- 198t and the approval of 800 more. During the period, llq$ of all units constructed were multifamily rentals. The new units include 180 lower income and 21 rent controlled moderate income units. The majority of the market rate units fall into the moderate range. Controlled lower income unit rents for new one and two bedroom range fran $450 to $550/month. Market rents range fran $500 to $800/month. Current apartment vacancy rates average near five percent. This compares to 1.8% in 1984. Some of the large complexes experience as high as a 20% vacancy rate during the off-season summer months. Vacancy rates for lower income units are virtually zero. 12 Housing Element Continued *4W New apartment construction over the last five years has satisfied the demands for moderate income units and has begun to address lower income needs. The AHD program is limited in that lower income housing production requires strong demand for the W% market units. If demand for moderate market units levels, then new projects will not be built. Lower income production ceases unless additional financial subsidies are included. D. Preserving Neighborhood Quality: While design standards can produce very attractive new developments, they cannot always succeed in substantially improving older developed neighborhoods. Declining neighborhoods tend to discourage the investment of private capital thus reinforcing their decline. Although the substandard condition of certain areas results in depressed property values and lowered housing values, allowing continued decline is an unacceptable solution to the affordable housing problem. Slums result in a dangerous, ugly environment but do not guarantee affordable housing. In a tight housing market landlords will continue to be able to receive high rents even as quality declines. 13 Housing Element OmtinLied The concept of redevelopment was specifically designed to break the } cycle leading to the development of slums. Carefully planned public investment in the form of improved public facilities, and low interest rehabilitation loans will encourage private investment reversing the decline cycle. To achieve the goal of quality neighborhoods and affordable housing requires the prcmotion of innovative designs which reduce the costs of construction while still providing a desirable residential environtment. Because-of high land costs'; -it.-will be 'necessay to provide score form of direct financial assistance to developers or households to achieve all our housing goals. E. Constraints: 1. Governmental: a. Land Use: During the city Is first years, a shortage of vacant high density zcned property discouraged affordable multifamily development. This situation was corrected with the creation of the AHDPR zone which established procedures and 14 Housing Element Contirnied criteria for re-zoning up to 25 dwelling units/acre for projects containing 20% lower income units. Through 1988, 42 acres have been rezoned and 896 units constructed under the AHD program. In 1986 the Senior Overlay was created to provide similar incentives specifically for affordable senior housing. Upzcni.ng of 85 acres elsewhere throughout the city from medium to high density would permit an additional 1500 multifamily units. These programs have effectively eliminated. land use restrictions .as a• ccnstraint...to: ,.the.. . , production of affordable housing. rrr b. Building Codes and Development Standards: A goal of this element is the development and maintenance of high quality housing and residential neighborhoods. While Palm Desert's standards are high, developers are given a great deal of flexibility in choosing the means by which the standards can be achieved. Analysis of project alternatives describing lowered levels of design quality and amenities show only minimal decreases in monthly housing costs at the expense of significant reductions in overall quality. 15 err Housing element Continued While the standards of the Uniform Building Codes provide the basis of plan review, applicants have the opportunity to provide engineered cost saving alternatives which meet code specifications. Modular and prefabricated building systems have been used extensively. Quality construction, while initially appearing more expensive, results in lower long-term housing costs. C. Development Fees: City of Palm Desert fees are designed. to cover actual costs of processing applications and the extension of urban VOW services to the proposed development. A typical $150,000 hone will include $8,103 in fees of which only $1,100 is for design and building plan review. The remainder is for public improvements to serve the development. Utility hook-up and school fees account for more than 50% and are not within the control of the city. d. Permit Processing Procedures: The city employs a streamlined processing procedure which consolidates hearings and reviews and significantly reduces 16 ft3usi ng Elemmt C tir Le administrative delays. A single family amily home receives design review by the department of community development on the day it is submitted and can be immediately transmitted to the department of building and safety for plan check. Deng upon work load, permits are issued within four weeks of submittal. Major developments as large as 1,000 units can complete the public hearing review within three months and can often begin construction within six months of initial application. 2. Non-G�cvernmental Constraints: a. Land Costs: Residential land costs vary by location, parcel size, and availability of urban services. Individual single family lots range from $20,000 to $250,000. Large unimproved parcels range from $50,000 per acre north of Country Club Drive to over $200,000 per acre south of Highway Ill. These price factors are fairly uniform between Palm Springs and Indian Wells. Prices are what lower toward Indio. 17 fir► Housing Element Continued The impact of rising land costs can be mitigated to a degree by raising densities. While land may account for 30% of the cost of a single family hone at four dwelling units per acre, it can be reduced to 10% in a 20 unit per acre project. Increasing densities can itself increase speculative pressure based upon expectations of more profitable high density development. It is therefore important to provide a mechanism to prevent this speculation from inflating higher density parcels so as to preclude affordable housing. By tying high density zoning to low income affordable -pi xrformance •._sttandar;Js, the -AHDPR. program and the senior overlay limits this type of speculation. b. Construction Costs: Palm Desert's construction costs range between $40 to $75 per square foot depending upon project size, density, and quality. These costs are fairly uniform throughout the Coachella Valley. It is anticipated that construction costs will continue to rise with inflation. 18 Housing E1eME3nt dontirxn 'fir C. Financing: The most profound constraint on both the supply and affordability of housing is the cost of financing. As interest rates rise above the 13% level, even the most modest homes become unaffordable for moderate income households and builders cease construction. Local governments have little ability to significantly remove this constraint since it involves monetary policy. The usa of.mortgage interest 'subsid es and tax exempt bond` financing can lower costs enough to allow marginal hone buyers to qualify or enable rental projects to offer lower incontie rents. Over the last three years interest rates have hovered around the 10$ level, greatly facilitating financing of affordable units. F. Special Needs: 1. Elderly: The desert area has traditionally been a retirement destination. In 1980, 20% of Palm Desert residents and 30% of households had members of the age of 65. By 1995 this group will be into their v%r 19 Housing Element Continued 80's, and an additional 2,000 will have reached retirement age. As part of the general affordable housing problem, all but the most affluent elderly have been frozen out of the Palm Desert housing market. The type of housing available is not ideally suited to many segments of the elderly population. Many elderly households no longer need or desire the two or three bedroom home designed for a growing family. Low density resort condominiums provide more suitable accommodations but are generally the most expensive housing in the city. These projects tend to average only 20% permanent occupancy leading to social,isolation. 'of the-scattered less active-retired elderly: Different forms of elderly housing have been developed which enhance the opportunity for social interaction and bridge the gap between the isolation of traditional housing arrangements and the rest homes. These projects provide small apartments common dining facilities, organized social functions and limited medical care. As will be discussed in the program section, the city has created special incentives for the production of a wide variety of senior housing. 20 wing Element Ccntix,ed 2• Har�dicaPoed: The 1980 census identified 576 individuals with varying degrees Of disability. Ninety-five percent of existing rentals were built prior to any requirements for handicapped facilities. Implementation of Title 24 C.A.C., Section 2-1213 a,b insures that all rental projects provide units specifically designed for handicapped residents. 3. Female Heads of Households• The incidence of feinal•e headed household with childre n identified by the 1980 cis was 156 or 3.5$ of which 32 were below the poverty line. The housing needs of this group will be addressed by Programs directed to the more general low/moderate income category. 4• Larc le Families: only 111 households in 1980 were larger than six ambers. This statistic, in addition to the low incidence of severe overcrowding, .8$ would indicate that the present unit sizes are adequate. As the existing younger Population matures there will be a growing need for family housing. 21 Housing Element Conti nxIed 5. Farm Worker Housing: In 1980, 277 Palm Desert residents were employed in agriculture. There are presently no large scale agricultural operations within the city. Agricultural activity has steadily declined in the upper Coachella Valley as the date industry has moved toward the Thermal area. Other than for farm management occupations, agricultural employment will show a corresponding decline, therefore, no special farm worker housing programs are proposed. 6; The, Hortieless: . . The City of Palm Desert has yet to experience a significant homeless problem. Sheriff's reports of homeless to be less then 5 .individual at any one time. Most are moving through the area or are living in campsites up in the canyons. The intense long, dry summer heat with daytime temperatures frequently over 112 degrees tends to discourage year-round outdoor living. The extremely low unemployment rate and wi de� availability of entry level jobs provides Palm Desert unique opportunities to address the economic homeless problems. 22 Housing Element Cbntisaied III. THE SOfLUTICTS The previous discussion focused on the obstacles to the attainment of the goal of quality and affordable housing. The efforts to solve these problems must be evaluated according to how well the city utilizes all the available fiscal and planning tools. The following discussion will analyze these tools evaluating their effectiveness and costs. The solutions will fall into two basic categories: 1) Direct financial aide programs to reduce or defer costs of housing or neighborhood quality improvements; 2.) Continued regulatory reforms ..pravidixlg incentives -for. the . production of housing and the maintenance of neighborhood quality. While regulatory reforms do not involve the expenditure of public funds, direct assistance will require significant economic resources. Fortunately, the econonic growth which is partially responsible for the increased housing demands will also generate significant new revenues which can finance new housing programs. IV. THE Pt ! A. Neighborhood Quality: 1. Public Infrastructure: 23 %W Housing Element Cb Uxxied Within new projects, our review process insures development quality. These standards are less effective in improving the quality of existing neighborhoods. Code enforcement programs can abate the worse cases of neglect but too heavy a reliance on a punitive strategy is more likely to create community ill will. Positive financial incentives provide more effective tools for significant improvement. The first phase of the city's neighborhood program was the completion of all remaining residential public improvements. The city's redevelopment agency . is. .currently completing construction of all remaining residential road, curb and gutter, and sewer improvements through Patna Village Assessment District No. 3. Redevelopment agency and Coachella Water District contribution account for �o percent of the project costs. The completion of these improvements will begin to change property owners' and residents' perceptions concerning the direction of their neighborhood and create a new positive image receptive to new investment. 24 xausing Element 0ontinued 2. Rehabilitation: A. Financial Assistance: With the completion of phase I, phase II of the program will be initiated with the creation of a $2<0,000loan fund from the redevelopment agency 20 percent housing funds for the purpose of single and multifamily rehabilitation. Loans up to $10,000 per unit will be provided to eligible low and moderate inane households and multifamily property oianer.s- who- agree to• participate 'in a lower income controlled rental program. The loans could be deferred until sale or a repayment schedule established based upon a household's econcmic resources. The loan amount would be determined by the magnitude of work required to achieve a reasonable standard. For some units it may mean only yard clean up and exterior paint. Others may require major renovation or reconstruction. While the loan program will not reach all households, the improvements will create a positive neighborhood feeling encouraging property owners to embark on their own privately funded rehabilitation efforts. 25 W Housing Element Omtimsed B. Certificate of Conformance Program: When the city incorporated in 1973 and adopted a new zoning map, up to 500 multifamily units became legal nonconforming due to densities in excess of the new designations. Many of these older units have experienced gradual deterioration due to deferred maintenance. While legal nonconforming status permits the continued existence of the units, upon substantial destruction only the currently zoned density could be replaced. When lenders become aware of this situation; 'they often-.refuse -approval of loans 'fdr.purchase or rehabilitation. Ultimately this withdrawal of financing would lead to accelerated deterioration of these units. To address this problem the Certificate of Conformance program was created. The program provides a process by which nonconforming multifamily properties can achieve cccnforming status and gain a vested right in the existing unit density. The property owner is required to propose and implement a rehabilitation program which brings the project up to current aesthetic design standards and corrects all health and safety violations. The owner must agree to maintain the project consistent with its conditions at the completion of the rehabilitation. Through 1989, 113 units in seven projects have participated in the program. It is 26 Housing Element Continued anticipated that through 1994 an additional 100 units will be rehabilitated as a result of the certificate of conformance incentives. C. Public Acquisition and Rehabilitation: For certain cases, the magnitude of deterioration exceeds the financial ability or desire of an owner to correct. In these cases the city in cooperation with the Riverside County Housing Authority may step in, purchase, rehabilitate.. and• manage.•.the : property'.•for lower . income households. This strategy was employed for the 60 unit Town Center Apartments which was purchased by the Housing Authority and is undergoing general rehabilitation, new off-street parking development and landscaping. 3. Mobile Hone Park Protection: There are currently four mobile hone parks within the city totaling 697 spaces. All four parks are at 100$ occupancy. Due to the shortage of new spaces in the vicinity and the nearly prohibitive cost of moving, unit owners had become captive 27 Yrr Hauling Element Continued renters with very little ability to rend to ice rent increases' The city had instituted a rent control item in an attempt to Preserve the affordable nature of the mobile home stock, but found itself in the middle of a continuous battle between park owners and residents. There was also some fears of property owners abandoning the mobile hone use altogether as raw land Prices have escalated. The city in conjunction with the Riverside County Housing Authority has become a program of public acquisition and management of the Parks to both Preserve their affordable. rents. grid guarantee continued existence. A joint Project between the RDA and the Riverside County Housing Authority has resulted in the public acquisition of the Indian Springs Mobile Home park and the Preservation of 191 low and moderate inane units. 4. Residential Conservation. Historically, the City of Palm Desert has not experienced any significant conversion of residential to non-residential uses. The General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning ordinance give highest Priority to the protection of existing residential 28 err Housing Element Conti ntied neighborhoods. The neighborhood quality program will be designed to provide property owners with incentives for the conservation of the low/moderate inane housing stock. B. Reducing Costs and Prices of New Construction: 1. Removal of Government Constraints, Density Bonuses and Development Standards Reform: Over the last four years, the City of Palm Desert has made extensive use.-of :inclusi :. zcning. density bonbses and: .tax-. exempt bond financing to dramatically increase the availability of low and moderate incane housing. The Affordable High Density Program which provides densities up to 25 units per acre with 20$ lower income controlled units has produced 180 lower inane units and 700 moderate income units with an equivalent annual rent subsidy of $324,000. 29 Housing Element CmtUned 2. Financial Assistance: A. Rental Housing: While the AHD program will continue to be made available, its ability to produce lower income units is dependent upon the strong demand for the 80% moderate income units. Since that moderate demand appears to be leveling off while demand for lower income units grow, density bonuses and low interest financing will not produce adequate supplies of law income ,units=and never were rapabie of,very loW `irioccise" housing production. To address this growing imbalance, the city and Riverside County Housing Authority has initiated a new program of publicly financed and managed very low, low and moderate income housing to meet the specific needs of the city's resort industry and service employees. The city has leveraged $6,000,000 of redevelopment funds to sell $61,000,000 in housing bonds to finance various projects of which the largest will be the construction of 1,100 units containing 366 very low income units, 366 lower income units and 366 moderate income units. The rental 30 Housing Element O ntirnaed schedule will require an additional annual $1.46 million rent subsidy which would be generated from Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. Rental priority shall be given to current Palm Desert employees. The program may take the form of one or several different projects at different sites and will be constructed over a five year period. The project will contain a park and be located close to resort employment and commercial facilities. B. Ownership Housing: 1. Mortgage Assistance• To assist first time moderate income home buyers the city with the Riverside County Housing Authority has initiated a low interest mortgage program. The program will be implemented with a 56 unit condominium project presently under construction within the city. The program will provide loans up to 3% below market rates, substantially expanding the opportunities for moderate income households to enter the ownership market. 31 Housing Element C7ontisnied 2. Self-Help Housing: To further expand the opportunities for low and moderate insane households to enter the ownership housing market, a pilot self-help program will be initiated by the city with the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition (CVHC) in cooperation with the California State Self-Help Housing Program (CSHHP) California Department of Housing and Community Development, California Housing Finance Agency's and :private,lenders, In self-help housing families are trained to construct a substantial portion of their own hone. Through the sweat equity, housing cost can be reduced 20%. In addition CSHHP provides subsidies up to $15,000 per house in the form of deferred loans which in time became grants. The city will be providing 12 lots at below market cost. If the program is successful, the program can be expanded. 32 Housing Element Continued C. Senior Housing: The Senior Overlay Program provided density bonus up to an equivalent of 22 units per acre with inclusionary provisions for very low, low and moderate income units. Developers also have been given an option through development agreements to pay a fee in-lieu of providing on-site affordable housing. Through January 1989, the program has resulted in the constriicticn. •of •257• berTgregate' care uf{.tsl ' and- 13 ':senior apartments. An additional 243 congregate care and 176 rr►r senior apartments have been approved. These projects will produce 8 very low income and 15 lower income units. In addition, an in-lieu fee fund of $703, 900 will be generated. The city has used $535,000 of this fund to purchase a three-acre site adjacent to the Joslyn Cove Senior Center and has executed an agreement with a developer to construct 60 lower and very low income senior apartments. 33 '%W Housing Element Continued D. Eraergy C nservaticn: As a result of its hot desert climate, the primary residential energy conservation effort involves the reduction of solar heat gain during the six to eight air conditioned month. The implementation of Title 24 energy requirements of the building code has significantly reduced energy consumption in new structures. In older neighborhoods, energy saving improvements will be promoted through the neighborhood quality rehabilitation program. With the increasing dominance of projects with large common facilities; the eccncmics of solar water heating and co- generation technologies are enhanced. The city will prcmote and encourage the use of appropriate energy saving technologies through the architectural review process. E. Equal Housing OPPortun.ities: The city promotes equal housing opportunities by referring inquiries concerning illegal discrimination to the following local, state, and federal fair housing agencies: Desert Association for Residential Equality P.O. Box 2166 Palm Springs, CA 92263 (619) 322-1559 34 r Housing Element Ctont imied State Department of Fair Employment and Housing 322 West lst Street, Roan 2126 Los Angeles, CA 90027 (213) 408-7464 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2500 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90027 (213) 688-5951 All projects receiving a density bonus enter into a development which prohibits illegal discrimination. Violation of this provision will be referred to the Riverside County District Attorney for prosecution. F. Hanelessness: As was discussed in the needs section, the City of Palm Desert does not experience a significant homeless problem. No more than five individuals have been observed at any one time. Typically these individuals are traveling through the area or have some sort of semi-permanent campsite in the canyons. There does not appear to be a need for a shelter in Palm Desert at this time. Shelter facilities are provided in Coachella Valley through the Catholic Charities/Riverside County Housing Authority. Nightingale Manor in Palm 35 Housing Element Continued Springs includes 15 units and can accannodate both families and individuals. Half the roans have kitchens and all have facilities for food storage. Currently the shelter is not providing services to any former Palm Desert residents. The Coachella Valley Rescue Mission operates a shelter in Indio providing for 35 men and 19 women and children. Until such time as a shelter is needed in Palm Desert, the city shall make an annual contribution of $��,p� to the . . Cathol:Lc .Charities: and.`Ipdip ..Rescue Mission."A shelter . location has been designated in the. city Is northern area and could be developed in connection with the Employee Housing program. The ultimate solution to homelessness is the re-establishment of individual and family economic independence. A program will be developed in association with the city's employee housing program/County Housing Authority and County Department of Social Services to provide employment and permanent standard housing. FIVE YEAR PROGRAM SUMMARY I. NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION AND CONSERVATION. 36 Housing Element Continued A. PROGRAM: Completion of all remaining residential infrastructure. Scope: 2,373 units Cost: $15,000,000 Source: Redevelopment Agency, Tax Assessments Agency: Redevelopment Agency/Public Works Completion Date: July, 1989 Irr B. PROGRAM. Residential Rehabilitation Loans. Scope: 200 units Estimated Cost: $250,000 Source: Redevelopment Agency Agency: Redevelopment Agency/Building and Safety C. PROGRAM. Certificate of Conformance. 37 Housing Element CUntimied Scope: Estimate 100 units Estimated Cost: None Agency: Cammn-ity Development/Building and Safety D. PROGRAM. 'fawn Center Apartments. Scope: Rehabilitation of 60 low income apartments �J V— Estimated Cost: -$59QYAM 0:), J Agency: Redevelopment Agency, Department of Building and Safety, Riverside County Housing Authority E. PROGRAM. Mobile Hone Park Conservation. Scope: 191 units \'p `i✓V I Cost: $3821000 } � J Agency: Redevelopment, Riverside County Housing Authority 38 Housing Element Cmtinued II. REDUCED COST AMID PRICE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. A. PROGRAM. Affordable High Density Rental Employee Housing. Scope: 366 very low inane units 366 lower income units 366 moderate income units 1,100 Total Units �J ✓J Cost: Ccnstructicn. $50,000,000 Annual Subsidy Al 109-0 Source: Redevelopment Agency, Riverside County Housing Authority Agency: ConrnuLity Services, Redevelopment Agency, Public Works, Building and Safety, Riverside County Housing Authority B. PROGRAM. Ownership Mortgage Assistance. Scope: 56 units eligible for low interest loans 39 Housing Element Continued dot Cost: $ Source: Riverside County Housing Authority Agency: Riverside County Housing Authority C. PROGRAM. Self-Help Housing. Scope: 12 assisted single family hones Cost: $ � �.©�.. Source: Redevelopment Agency, California Self-Help Housing Program, HCD, California Housing Finance Agency Agency: Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, Redevelopment Agency, Department of Building and Safety D. PROGRAM. Senior Housing Overlay. Scope: 600 congregate care units 50 very low inane apartments 100 lower income apartments 40 I%W Hawing Element Continued 150 moderate income apartments Cost: $1,000,000 Source: Private developer inclusionary requirements and in-lieu fees Agency: CanrnuLity Development E. PROGRAM. Homelessness. Scope: Financial assistance to valley shelter Cost: Agency: Catholic Charities, Coachella Valley Rescue Mission 41 Horsing Element Contirnied $` Ti]FTa'IAL IAM INVENTORY AND SITE CRITERIA FOR HIGH DENSITY LOVER AND M'DERATE INOCDE HOL)SING7 PROJECTS The City of Palm Desert contains approximately 3700 vacant residentially zoned acres. Of this area, 3200 acres are presently zoned at densities of five dwelling units per acre or less, with the balance ranging from 10 to 17 d.u./ac. Urban services are readily available in all areas. Sufficient water, sewer, and energy capacity exists to serve these areas. Based upon the cost of land and ocnstruction in the Palm Desert area, it is generally recognized that for apartments to provide lower income rents, densities between 15-25 d.u./a.c. are required. Moderate inane ownership projects need densities between 7 d.u./a.c. and 15 d.u./a.c. The City of Palm Desert zoning Ordinance provides a mechanism by which these densities can be achieved. Projects which include at least 20 percent lower inane units can receive densities up to 25 d.u./a.c. These programs are in addition to projects built pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, which provides for a 25% density bonus for low or moderate inane housing. Since the density bonus programs are implemented through development agreements which are tied to low and moderate incase performance standards, speculation prior to rezoning is discouraged. 42 Housing Element Continued Depending on general economic and interest rate fluxuations, approximately 5,000 units are projected to be built in Palm Desert within the next five years. These will include 52% upper price low density units, 3096 moderate, 10$ lower income units, and 8% very low income units. The lower density projects will use 800 acres, while the higher density moderate and lower income projects will occupy 250 acres. These proportions will provide adequate sites for affordable housing while maintaining the overall character of Palm Desert as a low density affluent community. In allocating prospective high density sites throughout the city, the first consideration. is .to avoid excessive concentraticn. . .To.. achieve.this,. properties. are dispersed throughout the city. Potential site areas have been identified on the High Density Affordable Housing Map based upon projected public infrastructure capacities and existing neighborhood character. Final site selection and project evaluation will be based upon the following criteria: 1. Adequate service capacity. 2. Direct access to major thoroughfares or arterials required for any project over 50 units. 3. Compatibility with surrounding land uses. 4. Close proximity to commercial services. 5. Overall high quality of design. 43 • Housing Element Continued 6. Contribution to the attainrent of low and moderate income or other special housing goals. The High Density Affordable Housing Site Suitability Map will become an addendum to the Land Use Map. Projects in areas designated on the suitability map which meet the review criteria may be judged to be consistent with the General Plan. Areas not designated will require an amendment of this map to achieve consistency. Once the program goals discussed in the implementation section of this element are achieved, an applicant will have to demonstrate a compelling need for more high density development in order to qualify for a density bonus program. ANNUAL REVIEW This housing element articulates policies and programs which will determine the direction the housing development will take over the next five years. Each year the city shall review these policies and programs to evaluate their validity and effectiveness, and to make necessary adjustments. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The programs described in the housing element will have generally positive environmental and social economic impacts. Potential negative impacts of specific projects will be mitigated by existing mechanisms incorporated into 44 Housing II.ement CMtimied e the development review Process. Although indirectly growth inducing, program are designed to enhance residential envirOrvental quality, rectify the existing ,lobs/housing imbalance and Provide additional affordable housing to meet the needs generated by econanic growth. I. NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS While the development of housing unavoidably alters the natural desert envlrmnent, a system of development fees is being implemented to purchase and Preserve 18 to 25 square miles of prime desert habitat. This area exanpasses the full spectrum of desert ecosystems and inc.ludas; .the.. Ctitidai .habitats of the ea�zq� COachella Valley Fringed- and Lizard ' and other rare plant and animal species. The Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservatioa� Program required a $600/acre mitigation fee for all developments within the historic habitat. These funds are being used to create a 28 square mile preserve for the lizard and other desert species. The Proposed siting of high density affordable housing near employment and eatmercial centers will shorten ceamuting distances, thus reducing fuel motion and auto emissicns. The implementation of the energy saving requiremenis of Title 24 of the building code, plus standards stained within the architectural review process, will serve to reduce eonsumpticn Of limited natural resources. 45 err Housing Element C ntimied `ovrr►` II. PUBLIC SERVICES Impacts on schools generated by residential development will be mitigated through a $1.50 square foot school impact fee. Other development fees and special assessments will finance expanded police, fire and paramedic services. New developments are required to construct substantial recreation facilities cn site. In addition, subdivisions must dedicate land or pay fees for expanded public recreation. REVIEW OF PAST H0USDG E 4ENT IMP1RwM=CN The 1984 Housing Element set forth a large list of ambitious programs to address the city's growing housing needs. Although not all goals were achieved, effective implementation of a substantial number of programs have significantly improved neighborhood quality and expanded affordable housing opportunities. The residential infrastructure program has succeeded in providing equal urban residential services throughout the city. The AHD, Senior Overlay, and Palma Village Specific Plan programs have achieved the city's goal for multifamily construction, senior housing, and neighborhood revitalization. Constraints of finance and administration have caused the city 46 Housing Element C onti_mied to re-evaluate some programs and design alternative approaches to solving the affordable problem. The city views the continued pursuit of the goals originally outlined in 1984 as vital to sustaining the city's economic prosperity and overall quality of life. 47