Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 Letter to Eric Ceja - re RHNA - Housing Element Plan - Finalttt January 27, 2022 Eric Ceja Deputy Director Development Services City of Palm Desert 73 -5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: APN 694-510-013 and Housing Element Inventory Dear Mr. Ceja: I am writing to you on behalf of my client Freeway Lanes, LLC and the Subject property location in the City of Palm Desert. My office is in receipt of the city's letter addressed to my client dated October 29, 2021, addressing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the State of California (RHNA). I have reviewed the city's Housing Element Plan covering the period 2006 through 2014 and I have attached hereto a copy of page 35 from the plan. The Subject APN is not listed on page 35. I would like to bring to your attention the fact that it appears none of the Housing Element Plans that have been made available and/or are found on the city's website have a date on them nor is there any type of reference showing the iteration for the plans. No date or iteration on the plans makes it complicated when trying to review and understand what took place and when. During the last Planning Commission meeting and again in our subsequent telephone call January 25th, 2022, I mentioned that the Housing Element Plan downloaded from the city website covering the period 2014 through 2021 does not list the Subject APN. Attached hereto is a copy of Page III-49 from the Housing Element Plan where Table III-38 shows APN's subject to the Housing Element and the Subject APN is not on the list. During the planning commission meeting I was directed to the Draft Plan for 202(1)2-2029 where the Subject Parcel now appears. The Subject APN is referenced as site "F", however, when looking at page 78 of the same plan (copy attached and highlighted) the document states that "F" is 66 units at Millennium, this is not our site. During the planning commission presentation of the Draft Plan, the page entitled "Policy Direction" again listed site "F" as the 66-unit Millennium site. I was told that this is a mistake. 44835 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 922601 Tel: 760.341.5100 1 www.CPMCRealty.com l DRE #0124582 Mr. Eric Ceja January 27, 2022 Page 2. The Subject APN was not listed and now it is, albeit, not listed correctly. How are we supposed to determine whether the allocation is intended to be our site or not? Based on the preceding the only conclusion I can come to is that the Subject APN was not to be on the list as evidenced by the two (2) prior Housing Element Plans. Please remember, over a year ago we had a meeting at the City's office where Mr. Whipple, Mr. Busby, and I were informed at that time by you that there is requirement to build a minimum of 302 units on the site and no requirement for any low- or moderate -income units. In a subsequent meeting several months later, again at the City's office, Liliana Figueroa from my office and I met with Mr. Martin Alvarez and Ms. Jessica Gonzales to discuss the Housing Element. During this meeting we were told that the Subject APN was on this list and that we had to build affordable units. I said that we had not seen the Subject Parcel on the list and how did this come to be between the time of our first meeting and the second meeting. I asked for how the requirement came about, and I was not provided with anything that says there is a requirement for the Subject APN to provide any affordable housing. Further, during this meeting I requested to know how many units were expected to be affordable and Ms. Gonzales told me she would need an estimated break down of the quantity of units, approximate square footages, and how many one, two, and three -bedroom units etc. Ms. Gonzales was supplied the requested information and as of our last inquiry as to when we would get the information, I was informed the city wants us to provide our proforma financials for the project. After making several inquiries it is my understanding that the only time a Developer may have to provide a financial proforma to the City would be in an event where the City was contributing funds to the project. If the City were contributing funds, then things like financial proformas would be covered in a Development and Disposition Agreement "DDA". There is currently no DDA for the Subject location. January 25th, 2022 I received an email from you where you provided me with a copy of a memo from the City's Attorney to you citing the City's constitutional rights and their rights related to Police Powers etc. (copy attached) and this was forwarded to me in response to my questions about how the affordable housing allocation came to be on the Subject APN. The memo says how it may be done, but not that it was done, further suggesting that the Subject APN has not been identified as being requested to provide affordable housing. While I believe I understand the City's rights as explained by the City Attorney's memo, I still have not heard, read, nor seen any evidence of how the Subject APN was added to the most recent Draft Housing Element list. On the contrary based on what I have seen and read to date, it appears to me, while the city has the right to add the site to the list I cannot find where it was decided that the Subject APN became listed nor any explanation as to the reported mistake mentioned herein above. Mr. Eric Ceja January 27, 2022 Page 2. As I was finishing this letter and continuing to review the Draft Plan there are a couple of other points which are important to note in the attached Draft Housing Element Plan. 1. Page III-78 shows the 66 units at Millennium, noted on the Plan as Map Key "F", (which you have stated "F" is actually meant to be our site) and according to the report it falls under Program IA in the report. When looking at Program IA neither our site nor the Millennium sites are mentioned. Program 1A page III-4 shows 200 units at Portola and Dinah Shore. Page III-5 states that the city is currently negotiating an agreement for at least 200 units on 10 acres. This is not the Subject Site. 2. Page III-6 Program LC shows "Approximately 302 units at Dinah Shore and 35t' Avenue (Southeast Corner, I believe this to be Dick Kelly)" and while this is the same amount of units I was originally told that we needed to build without any requirement for affordable housing, the Subject APN is located on the North side of the street. Again, not the Subject APN. Notwithstanding all of the above, it is my client's intention to submit a proposed Land Use Plan for the Subject APN to you and City planning to further discuss this project. While my client cannot find any specific requirements related to affordable housing, my client may be willing to consider a reasonable percentage of the proposed moderate income units. If there is a requirement to build affordable units at the low or very low rates, my client has said they will not likely proceed with the project. In conclusion, what I surmise from all of this is that the Subject Site as it stands today has no specific "requirement" to build any number of affordable units, however, when we submit our plans for the project the city may have a right to require some reasonable percentage of the units to be affordable housing. In other words, it seems to all be discretionary. I hope to have a Conceptual Land Use Plan and Summary available for the site before the end of this week for informal review and input. I will ask, when I submit the plan, you to meet my team and I either in person or via video conference as soon as possible. I will also ask that you include any other staff you believe relevant to the process to attend the meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me. I can be reached at (760) 341-5100. Respectfully, Mark Stein. Mark Stein