Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-11MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1990 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Crites convened the Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 4:15 p.m. for the purpose of considering Item A of New Business as a joint City Council/RDA Board matter. Q. ROLL CALL Member Jean M. Benson Member Richard S. Kelly Vice Chairman Walter H. Snyder Member S. Roy Wilson Chairman Buford A. Crites Also Present; Carlos L. Ortega, Executive Director Bruce A. Altman, City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, Agency Secretary Ramon A. Diaz, ACM/Director of Community Development/Planning Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works Paul Shillcock, ACM/Director of Economic Development ID. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of September 27,1990. Rec: Approve as presented. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE RIDEVELOPMENT AGENCY**** GENCY v..ivoi 11, 1990 : * s s s r s w• r• s *RED* r r s w s * s s r s s r s s r s s r s r s s s B. REOUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK on Contract No. RD-423 for the YMCA Site Soils Consolidation and Building Pad Preparation. Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the Riverside County Recorder. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of El Paseo Conduit Placement Program. Rec: By Minute Motion, authorize the Chairman to enter into Agreement RD-4¢¢ with the lowest responsible bidder for the placement of electrical conduit on El Paseo serving Christmas trees and street lights. Upon motion by Snyder, second by Benson, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the Agency Board. Following completion of the remainder of the RDA Agenda, Member Snyder moved to reconsider Item C regarding the El Paseo Conduit Placement Program. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote of the Agency Board. Chairman Crites stated that due to unexpected costs, staff was asking that the Board reject the current bids received and authorize that the project be rebid. Member Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, reject the bid as being over budget and authorize staff to rebid the project for the El Paseo Conduit Placement Program. Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous vote of the Agency Board. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None V. RESOLUTIONS None VI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VII. NEW BUSINESS A. REOUFST FQ$_APPROVAL OF OWNER -BUILT HOUSING PROGRAM. Mr. Ortega briefly reviewed the staff report as well as his report dealing with issues brought out at meetings with residents. At the request of Mayor/Chairman 2 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENC`e.\ r,...iv, c 11, 1990 t t t • • • • • • • • i • ♦ • • • t • • t • Crites, copies of this report were provided for members of the audience. Mr. Ortega offered to answer any questions. Upon question by Wilson relative to issue #6. Mr. Diaz responded that the City could not control the number of related individuals residing in one home. MR. JOHN MEALY, Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, stated that it was his understanding that the City could not control the number of related individuals in one home; however, one of the requirements of the Federal funding source involved was that no more than two family members may occupy the same room, which is why the three -bedroom home would be limited to a family of six, with a maximum of eight for the four -bedroom home. Councilman/Member Kelly questioned issue #5 regarding resale controls. Mr. Ortega responded that the conditions of the trust deed were that all monies the Agency has put toward the project would be paid back with accrued interest. Administrative Assistant David Yrigoyen showed slides of the vacant lots and adjoining properties. Mr. Ortega stated that the purpose of this slide presentation was to show that the proposed homes would not be detrimental to the area. Mayor/Chairman Crites invited testimony from the audience. MR. CLAUDE BROWNING, George Elkins Property Management Company, expressed support of the program, both personally and on behalf of George Elkins Property Management Company. With no further testimony offered at this time, Mayor/Chairman Crites continued this matter to the 7:00 p.m. portion of the meeting. At 7:00p.m.,Mr. Ortega again reviewed the staff report and Mr. Yrigoyen showed the slides for the benefit of members of the audience who were not present at the 4:00 p.m. portion of the meeting. Mayor/Chairman Crites invited testimony from the audience. The following people spoke against the proposal based on their fear of reduced property values, size of the homes, maintenance and upkeep, the fact that all 11 of the homes are to be located in the Palma Village area, and the possibility of other lots being used in the future: LINDA KIMBALL, 73-124 San Nicholas. VONDA HARRICK, 73-041 San Nicholas, read a prepared statement in opposition (attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A"). B.G. JONASSON, 44-655 San Benito Circle. JUDITH LANGE, 73-330 Royal Palm Drive. 3 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OCTOBER 11, 1990 BERNIE MACCORA, 73-375 Royal Palm Drive, expressed concern that there were six additional lots shown by a title company as being owned by the City of Palm Desert (Lot #90 on Santa Rosa, #145 and #163 on San Nicholas, #228 and #244 on Catalina, and Lot #303 on Guadalupe). He also showed photos of similar housing programs in Coachella, Mecca, and Palm Springs. MICHELLE BAUMER, 73-460 Guadalupe. JANET JONASSON, 44-655 San Benito Circle. BEN WATSON, 73-280 Santa Rosa, said he was concerned with the problem of crime. IBOLYA MEG, 73-460 San Nicholas. MARCOS CERVANTES, 73-371 Guadalupe. The following individuals spoke in FAVOR of this program: VELMA SHARPE, 320 S. Calle Encilia, #C, Palm Springs, said this type of program was the only way she and her family could own a home of their own. ROGER WALTON, Carmel Circle. With regard to Mr. Maccora's concern regarding the six lots he identified, Mr. Ortega responded that he was not aware that the City owned these lots. He said he knew of 12 lots purchased by the City and that one had been traded away. He suggested that one way to mitigate this concern was for the City to agree not to expand the self-help housing program to those lots. Council/Agency Board Comments/Questions: Wilson: Confirmed with Mr. Diaz that the present zoning for the area would allow a property owner to build a 1,000 square foot home and said that what the City was proposing was actually an upgrade to what could be built. Crites: 1) Asked what the maximum time limit was in terms of completing the homes and what would happen if not completed during that time limit. Mr. Ortega responded that the projected completion time was ten to eleven months but that there were no provisions if they were not completed within that limit. 2) Asked what was the total number of homes in this area. Mr. Ortega responded that there were 350 lots in the Palma Village area, minus the 16 used for street widening purposes, for a total of approximately 334 lots. 3) Asked what examination had been done in terms of alternate sizes of the homes. Mr. Ortega responded that the raw costs for a 1,500 square foot home, not including labor, increased from $92,000 to $104,000. He said the Redevelopment Agency would have to pay all of the additional costs. 4) If the program were approved, would the people have to go through the Building Department for plan check, etc., just like for any other home? Mr. Ortega responded that it was his understanding that the homes had already gone through plan check and that they met all of the City's requirements. 4 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF TnREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OCTOBER 11, 1990 Kelly; Felt this was a great project when staff first brought it to Council; however, realized there were problems when so many people attended the first meeting. Said he felt 11 units would not make a tremendous impact on the City's affordable housing needs. Said if only three or four were to be built in the area, it would be difficult to determine where to put them. Felt it might be better to look at an area where this type of program would not affect as many existing residents. Benson: Said that since incorporation in 1973, Palm Desert had tried to be a city that considers everyone's feelings. Said that after seeing what the City of Coachella was doing, this Council/Board felt it would be great to do the same type of thing in Palm Desert but on a smaller scale. She added that having raised a family in a 1,200 square foot house, she could not see how a house of that size would be detrimental to any neighborhood or how it would downgrade existing properties. She felt that in the long run, these 11 homes would be an enhancement. Wilson: Agreed with Kelly that people who live in this area have legitimate concerns but felt there was a conceptual problem in fearing that this will be slum housing. He said that as a journalist and school teacher, he did not feel people with family incomes of $20,000 to S35,000 were inferior people who should not be in this neighborhood. He thanked Mr. Maccora for providing the photos and said he felt they told an important story. However, one detail that was left out was that the homes in Mecca were built to County standards, while the proposed homes in the Palma Village area would be built to City of Palm Desert standards, which area higher. The homes built under this program would be 200 to 300 square feet larger than those allowed by the zoning and would have tile roofs. Added that vacant lots tend to keep property values down, and once the lots are filled and the new homes completed, the value of the neighborhood would go up. Snyder: Said the Council/Board does listen to its citizens and that he had been concerned about this area for a long time. Said he was not sure that all 11 homes should be in this one area and perhaps only a few should be done at first to determine whether this was actually a good program. Crites: Said that even though the zoning would allow 1,000 square foot homes, that did not necessarily mean that size home would be built. Felt comfortable with the development standards from foundation to plumbing, etc. Had no problem with the fact that the owners would have regulations placed on them relative to upkeep, even though no one else in the City had such regulations. Said one issue that was brought up over and over again was the size of the homes, and he proposed that the size be increased to 1,400 square feet to make them more compatible with others in the neighborhood. Said he felt this was the major issue and that the extra cost should be paid by the City and not the builder of the home. 5 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY O(TOBER 11, 1990 Wilson: Asked whether such a change in the square footage would cause additional delays in moving the project forward. Mr. Ortega responded that the contractor had indicated that although plans would have to be redrawn, it would not be a major problem. MR. MARTIN ZONE, Deputy Director of the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, stated there would not be a problem as long as the size was not increased by more than 150 square feet. He added that there would also be increased utility costs, taxes, and insurance. Councilman/Member Wilson questioned the plan check process. Mr. Diaz responded that in terms of overall timing, the grading plans would not have to be changed, and the project could proceed with grading while the rest of the plan check is processed. Crites: Proposed that the following conditions be added: 1) That the additional six lots shown as being owned by the City not be used for additional self-help housing; 2) That the completion time for the homes be one year; and 3) That the size of the homes be increased by 150 square feet. Wilson: Agreed with conditions relative to completion date and not using the additional lots in the Palma Village area. However, with regard to the increased square footage, was fearful of what it might do to the financial structure of the people building the homes. Mr. Zone responded that the loan might change depending on the income of those families. Kelly; Felt this was a difficult decision to make. Said that from what he had heard at this meeting, he was not sure this project should go forward. Denson: Said her main concern was with the size of the homes and would be in favor of the City picking up the additional cost of increasing the homes by 150 square feet. Said she would agree to all three amendments. Councilman/Member Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the program for 11 owner -built homes, with the following amendments: 1) That construction must be completed within one year from the time it begins; 2) That the City of Palm Desert shall not build any additional self- help housing in the Palma Village area; and 3) That the proposed square footage in this program be expanded from 1,200 and 1,300 square feet to 1,350 for the three -bedroom and 1,450 for the four - bedroom homes. Councilman/Member Snyder added as a comment that he wondered whether staff had thoroughly explored whether the City could achieve what it is trying to do by selling these lots in the Palma Village area and looking into the areas being 6 1 REGULAR MEETING O� REDEVELOPMENT AGENrit OCTOBER 11, 1990 considered for annexation. Perhaps the City could wind up with twice as many houses for the same amount of money. Mayor/Chairman Crites responded that the cost of these lots versus the cost of other lots had been debated back and forth and that it was a weighing decision. Mayor/Chairman Crites called for the vote. Motion carried by a 3-2 vote, with Councilmen/Members Kelly and Snyder voting NO. TEL CONTINUED BUSINESS None IX. OLD BUSINESS None X. REPORTS, REMARKS, AND AGENCY BOARD ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION A. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR None B. AGENCY COUNSEL Absent C. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY None XL ADJOURNMENT Chairman Crites adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m. to Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) and (b) (Shah vs. City of Palm Desert regarding undergrounding. He reconvened the meeting at 7:20 p.m. and continued with Item A of New Business. 7 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY r,..iv»ric 11, 1990 Upon motion by Wilson, second by Benson, and unanimous vote of the Agency Board, Chairman Crites adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. BUFORD A. CRITES, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILWGAN, SWRETARY TO THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY • 8 BUIVUTES REGULAR MEETING OF (IN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCI ► nor tc 11, 1990 • ♦ • i • • • • • • • i i a • • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ i ECRIBIT'A' Mayor Crites, Mayor Prot.■ Snyder, City Staff - Ladies i Gentlemen: Council Members • �c I did not speak at this afternoon seating as I wasn't sure how the time allotment works and as I a■ speaking here on behalf of sang property owners of our community as wall as myself, I hope you will bear with ■e if I run over the alloted time for myself. No have listened several times to the city personnel and the housing coaltion explain their program and have viewed their revised drawing of the proposed houses to be built under the low income sweat equity program. The existing property owners of or seen anything that gives any into our neighborhood. Palma Villag. ha.... heard nothing basis to accepting this. houses W. feel the city has singled out our community -for the low income program. We feel this is unjust and if the city N,cP,ried, 44;4;4,44 ,µ *Why •idlemeta0 at an• point of doing, then they could Just as well subsidize some of these houses to be built into other neighborhoods and spreading it over not more than 3 houses per community. The housing coalition showed an artist's concept of what they precieve the finished product to look like. Drawn at the skyview angle to appear like a very spacious house with all the lush landscaping around it can be very deceptive to what will be the final product. It was stated that we could not compare the values of these houses to what contractors costs would be because at is going to take them longer in construction than a contractor would take and therefore the value of their labor would be more than a contractor's. The time in Construction has been a question that has never been answered. If the time uncer construction runs into longer than a year, what provisions are there for the city to take over and complete and sell. To completely frame out a 1200 sq ft house at contractor's cost would be under $3000, including light framing hardware. We have ask for plans and specs to look at and we were told there aro no plans and specs at this time. We hardly can expect to get any insight into the value of these houses if there is only an artist's Concept to look at. If any one of us came to the city and ask for approval and permits to build a house on artist's concept I feel we woula have a difficult time obtaining any approvals for that structure. To say these houses have an appraised market value of $116,000 can be somewhat misleading since there are no plans and specs to obtain building costs from. An appraiser would not be able to put together a report that would be reliable based upon an artist's concept on a $30,000 lot in a given neighborhood. There have been numerous court actions resulting from decisions made based on artist's concept. The most prominent being, I think, is when it was ordered that 1 th d purcha bo refunded their purchase price of lots in California City, when after a few years it was determined that what was the final product was not what the artist's concept had depicted. The final product was •om.what similar but lacking in true conformity. 9 MINUTES REG* * ULAR* * MEEETLNG OF THE RID* EVELOPMENT AGENCY EXHIBIT 'A' JD J( 11, 1990 • • • • • • • • • • • • They said this program has been done in Pale Springs and we could use that as a guideline. To build these houses in Ironwood or on Haystack would not upgrade those communities, however to build these houses in Desert Highlands of No. Palm Springs does upgrade that community. In visiting this area there seems to be houses that have been under construction for longer than a year and not in completion stage To build these houses in a community that the entire community is in, a state of disrepair is one thing but our community is not that standard of community. We have many homes In the $130,000 market value range. It could be said that to injure a few by devaluating their property values is no big deal when you are helping 11 people obtain their first home. However, not only is that program injuring 30+ homes in the above $130,000 range this program injures all the homes in the under s130,000 range as by devaluating the uppper range you automatically drop the lower priced homes as well, and brings the ge price down. Then when you take the figure of 200+ homes affected, maybe that is a big enough deal to take another look at. In Morgan Hill a development was done where they purchased the last two complete streets of an enclosed subdivision that had gone bankrupt. A developer several years ago built very small houses with cheap construction costs, then filed bankruptcy before the project was completed. The existing houses are all in a serious state of disrepair. When the housing coalition finished the last two streets out, the entire subdivision was helped as they had built upgraded to anything existing there and because the low income houses are new with fireplaces and several upgrades and the lawns freshly planted it has helped that neighborhood's overall valuation. That is not the case with Palma Village. We are not a neighborhood in serious disrepair. We feel there is toe, yard maintenance needed in some areas, however this is an issue that can be readily remedied according to city staff. We were informed • builder or individual could apply for a permit and build this same house. W know that is very true. H , a builder does not buy a lot and then build under the existing standard that is being built. He wants to protect his sale and business. An individual does not build his home under the current building standard of what is being built in • community as he wants to protect his investment in his home and his future. If he did happen to do so, it would be only one or perhaps two and not the large percentage that is being proposed here. An individual most usually builds upgraded to the last house or houses before him. We have been told that the city does not own more than 11 buildable lots in the entire city. However, we keep insisting that several title companies show 17 buildable lots in our community alone. We have not had a response from the city when we informed them we could furnish copies of the grant deeds to all 17 lots to show ownership. Unless title has been 10 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENC '") OCTOBER 11, 1990 * • • • • • * • * * * EXHIBTT 'A' transferred in the last few weeks the title companies say these lots belong to the City of Palm Desert. We have a list of those lots, along with the parcel numbers, that are in addition to the 11 the city declares. We were told in the beginning that there were stipulations, and restrictions that these houses could not be dumped on the market or there could not be any financial gain from the sale of the houses for a long period of time. Now we are told these houses could be sold and that the only requi t would be to pay off the mortgages and loans against them. Which, we do not see as having any restrictions that would protect our community from these houses being placed on the market to realise a several thousand dollar profit. A profit that would be realized only by being built in a neighborhood with homes valued 1 thousands above these houses and giving them an immediate windfall. In the meantime we have experienced our homes devalued by these houses being built there. I visited several cities in northern California and talked with Directors of Redevelopment Agencies. 1 was not able to find any project true in nature to this proposed project. In discussing this type of project with various officials the one opinion that stood out was that it was not a concept they would have looked strongly at because it would not give them as much value per dollar spent as opposed to doing a small 1S - 3S house development together. The lot costs would always be more in established neighborhoods. One reason being generally the lot sizes would be larger than what they would need for the size homes in this program. In Sonoma County the housing coordinator for the housing coalition there said they would nat being doing any nor* self help programs at this time. Everything they had on the agenda for the present and future are to be built out and sold to the low income individuals. They have had the sweat equity program in their area for several years and was one of the pioneer counties to do this program, however they were not pursuing that program any further at this time. 1 spoke with ral housing coalition agencies throughout northern California and it seemed the overall opinion was that the sweat equity program was not one that they were pursuing Any further at this time. This may soon like a motherhood and apple pie issue to anyone sitting on the outside of our community, or to anyone who feels confident that their neighborhood is we11 above the price range that there is no risk involved in the city looking at their ity, - this being a vision of the City subsidizing the lot costs, building h for the low income and everyone living happily 11 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OCTOBER 11, 1990 A.rucki 'A' r. everafter. This is not so when you live in the community, where your biggest investment of your life is in your home. People like myself who is ready for retirement soon and does not have the earning years left to earn back the amount that will be lost by someone underbuilding and underdeveloping to what is being built today. or the one who just recently purchased and invested their money into a community that on the sufaee looked like a good investment for the future. A neighborhood that was building upgraded with each new home that went in and several vacant lots that indiciated the community would continue to build upgraded and improve. Only to find out the city had bought those vacant lots many years ago and was going to build downgraded size and construction housing on them. To the people inside this community it is not motherhood and apple pie a The overall population of our community feels that if the city had informed them that to get the bond issue for sewers, curbs and gutters that later on down the road they would have to pay up by allowing downgraded constrution to be built in their neighborhood, - then most feel they would have said thanks , but no thanks. Leave us alone and we will find other ways, more slowly perhaps but not as costly in the long run. We do not find any other houses within the city being built under the low to moderate income program, even though according to an interview with the news media they have been done in various parts of the city, however well hidden so that no one knows they are there. We have tried in vain to get information on them so we could compare to see that we are talking apples to apples. Two phrases of this program gives us reason for concern, "pilot program" and "if successful". We are not comforted when we are told that this is for the benefit of people who could not otherwise own a home and "if" successful right be done in other areas. We have suggested to the city to sell these lots to builders and individuals and use those proceeds for the low income housing fund where a development of 30+ to more homes can be built and giving sore people advantage. There seems to be some discrepancy as to the value placed an these lots. The city says they have arrived at a market value to the housing coalition of $27,000. per lot. However, in May a lot was sold on Santa Rosa Ave for $35,000. There are several lots listed on the market for $32,000. Several people have expressed a desire to purchase lots in this c ity to build thier home, however they have not been able to receive any return communication from the city as to their intent to sell, at this point. We have not run any appraisals on the value of the lots, however it does seem that with as few sales of lots that has been in this area for the past year, due mainly to the fact the city owns most all of the vacant lots, the lot selling for $35,000 would have some heavy weight on the value of the lots. 12 , MINUTES ^ `^ REGULAR Mr.G i i OF { REDEVELOPMENT AGENC:I 1 OCTOBER 11, 1990 EXHIBIT 'A' The building of 11 houses in our neighborhood under the low income sweat equity program would have little if no effect on the mandated quota far the city, however it will have a long impacted effect on our community. One, that the community would have to live with along with the mistake of a two story building en the corner of Monterey and Fred Waring and the mistake the city admittedly made with Hacienda de Monterey, and the questionable success of the decision to renovate instead of tear down and build with new design and concept, the apartments on the corner of Monterey and Fred Waring. Priors that the community keeps coming back to the city and saying these did not work out as we had been promised, so what is next on the agenda. We cannot endure any more mistakes. .We have not had an advance opportunity to review the staff report prior to this hearing and from glancing through the report at this time, it appears non of the real issues of economic fears have been answered. The report brings up additional questions. Does the recoeglendation to allow Sunday work glean the ordinance will be changed to allow Sunday work for all contractors or just as a special clause for this developer. And the issue of what will happen if these homes are not completed within a given time crass. We have people in our neighborhood who have religious and family gatherings and work in their surrounding area would offend their Sunday. There are •any issues that people have asked me to speak on that there is not enough time to address in this session. The issue of "us" people not wanting "those people" in. That has never been an issue. That issue was only brought up by city and housing coalition. We have many ethnic backgrounds, economic levels and work status levels in our community. Most of us fit into the realm of what the guidelines are for qualifying, 'except we own a hose. We do not have any visions of granduer about our community, as indicated by comments to us. We request that this project be postponed until a later date so that the real issues can be add d. The only issues brought up in the staff recomaendations and report are the side issues and not the issue at hand. Thank you vary much for your tie, and patience. 13