CC RES 1992-086RESOLUTION NO. 92 -86
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE 1990 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
WHEREAS, on September 18, 1990, the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes adopted its present housing element and filed it with the
state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
pursuant to Government Code Section 65585 (g) , and HCD reviewed the
element pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(h) and provided
the City with advice on how the element might be improved in a
letter dated March 4, 1991, and the City undertook to amend its
element in response to that advice; and,
WHEREAS_, the City prepared a draft amendment to the Housing
Element and submitted it to HCD for review on January 10, 1992
pursuant to Government Code Section 65585 (b) , and HCD commented on
the draft in the form of a letter dated February 27, 19 9 2 , and the
City has reviewed those comments and revised the draft amendment in
response to those comments, and the draft amendment, as revised, is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and City staff has proposed a few
minor additional changes to the draft amendment which are set forth
in Exhibits "8" and "C, " and the draft amendment as further amended
by those exhibits is hereinafter referred to as the "draft
amendment;" and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et
seq. ( "CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. , and the City's Local
CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an initial study and determined
that there was no substantial evidence that the adoption of the
draft amendment may have a significant effect on the environment,
and accordingly, a negative declaration was prepared and notice of
that fact was given in the manner required by law; and,
WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings before the Planning
Commission to consider the proposed negative declaration and the
draft amendment to the Housing Element were held on March 10, May
12, and June 30, 1992, at which times public comments on the
negative declaration and the draft amendment were received by the
Commission and a further duly noticed public hearing before the
City Council was held on August 12, 1992 at which time further
public comments on the negative declaration and the draft amendment
were received, and further efforts were made to receive input from
all segments of the community as detailed in the staff reports and
in the draft amendment;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
section 1. Based upon the facts
Resolution, the staff reports and other
legislative record, the proposed negative d
amendment, the present Housing Element, and
received by the Commission and Council, the
finds as follows:
contained in this
components of the
eclaration and draft
the public comments
City Council hereby
(a) The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
(b) The City Council has reviewed and considered the
proposed negative declaration, the public comments upon it, and the
other evidence before the Council and finds that the negative
declaration was prepared in the manner required by law, that there
is no substantial evidence that the adoption of the draft amendment
to the Housing Element will have a significant effect on the
environment, and that no mitigation measures are necessary to
eliminate significant environmental effects of the draft amendment.
The City Council further finds that the proposed negative
declaration was prepared by the City's own staff and reflects the
independent judgment of the City.
(c) City staff and the City Council have considered the
Housing Element Guidelines adopted by HCD pursuant to Section 50459
of the Health and Safety Code and the findings contained in HCD's
comment letters of March 4, 1991 and February 27, 1992 and the.
draft amendment was prepared consistently with those Guidelines and
has been revised to respond to those findings.
(d) The Housing Element as amended by the draft
amendment is in full compliance with the requirements of California
Government Code Sections 65580 - 65589.8.
(e) The Housing Element as amended by the draft
amendment is consistent with the other elements of the City's.
General Plan because the amended Housing Element incorporates the
land use designations of the Land Use Element and those
designations in turn are reflective of, and consistent with, the
policies and provisions of the remaining elements of the General
Plan.
(f) The housing goals, objectives, and policies stated
in the Housing Element as amended by the draft amendment are
appropriate f or the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and will contribute
to the attainment of the state housing goal.
Resolution No. 92 -86
Page 2 of 3
(g) The adoption of the draft amendment to the Housing
Element will aid the City's efforts to assist in the development of
housing for all members of the community.
(h) Pursuant to Government Code Section 65354, the
Planning Commission rendered a written recommendation that the City
Council approve the draft amendment to the 1991 Housing Element in
the form of P.C. Resolution No. 92 -43 adopted on June 30, 1992.
The City Council considered all aspects of the General Plan that
were considered by the Planning Commission and the additional
changes to the draft amendment proposed by the Planning Commission
set forth in Exhibits "B" and "C" involve matters which were
considered by the Planning Commission and do not constitute
substantial modifications of that earlier draft.
(i) For the foregoing reasons, the adoption of the draft
amendment to the Housing Element is in the public interest.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes hereby adopts the proposed negative declaration and amends
the Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes as is set forth in the draft amendment.
Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to distribute
copies of the 1990 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes, as amended hereby, pursuant to Section
65357 of the California Government Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18�;h day of August 1992,
AT ST:
Ci Clerk
ST TE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } SS
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES }
I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 92-86 was duly
and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a
regular meeting held on August 18, 199
1 "
CITY °I ERK,
CITY F RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Resolution No, 92- 86
Page 3 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
I ANCHO PAI -OS VERDES
Honorable Mayor John C. McTaggart
Dudley Onderdonk 0 D,
Director of Environmental Services
1992 Housing Element Amendment Exhibit "A" Re s o l . No. 92-86
August 27, 1992
The 1992 Housing Element Amendment has now been prepared in its final form, and is being
forwarded to y ou as Exhibit "A" to the Resolution certifying its adoption. The reason for this
memorandum is to confirm that, in accordance with your direction and the City Attorney's
affirmation, all references to proposed changes in the City's noise attenuation standards have
been deleted. These changes do not affect the context of the remaining language, nor any other
sections of the final version.
/dj
DJHOUSINGELEMENT3: MAYOR. 827
30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274 -5391 / (310) 377 -0360
ATTACHMENT I.
I. Expanded analysis of special housing needs
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT I
The following: (A) identif ies the extent of the need in Rancho
Palos Verdes; (B) analyzes the availability of potential resources
and programs to address the need; and (C) identif ies programs that
would assist female - headed households.
A. The extent of the need for large family and female- headed
households is:
1. Large family households
The State defines large family households as those that have
over 5 persons living in them. The Housing Element states
that in 1980 the City had 1, 8 01 large family households (15,2%
of the City households) . In 1990, the City had a total of
14 11 943 occupied households with 1,500 large family (10% of the
City households).
In 1970, there was an average of 3.8 persons per household.
The 19.80 Census indicated 3.04 persons per household. In
1990, the figure was 2.76 persons per household. I This
downward trend in persons per household is also reflected in
the rise in the median age of the City's population. In 1970
the median age was 28.8, in 1980 it was 36.1 and in 1990 it
was 41.9. These trends help to explain the decrease in the
amount of large family households.
In 1981, the City conducted a survey to determine-housing
needs. At that time, affordability was determined by
categories for families of two persons: low income was less
than $,13,680 earned per year and moderate income was $13,680
to $20,520 earned per year. This survey revealed that 1% of
the large family households were low income and overpaying for
housing. The survey also determined that 1% of the large
family households were moderate income and overpaying for
housing.
Through extrapolation (using the 1981 survey percentages and
the 1990 Census figures) , there is a potential for 15 large
family households that need assistance.
2. Female- headed households
The State defines a female- headed household as a family with
a female householder and no spouse of householder (husband)
present.
In the Housing Element we quote 1980 Census data stating that
we have 1,823 female -head of households (representing 15.3% of
all the City's households). In the Element, the City
anticipated an increase in the number of female- headed
households which would be determined by an expected increase
in the elderly population, changes in marriage and divorce
rates and a higher percentage of women in the work force.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT I
2
B.
However, the 1990 Census indicates a decrease in the number of
female-headed households to 919. This is half of what it was
in 1980.
The 1981 survey responded with 9% of the total female- headed
households being low income and overpaying for housing.
Thirteen percent of the total female- headed households were
moderate income and overpaying for housing.
If we extrapolate for today's information, approximately 83
female- headed households are low- income and overpaying for
housing, while there is a potential for 119 female- headed
moderate income households overpaying for housing..
However, the State has changed the way it defines overpayment
for housing. Existing need is now defined as the number of
very low and low income households paying over 30% of their
income for housing. According to the California Department of
Finance Demographic Research Unit, the Los Angeles area median
income for a family of two is $41.,750. Very low income
households are considered to make under 50% of the area median
income and low income households are considered to make 80% of
the area median income. For a family of two, this calculates
to:
very low income
affordable
affordable
low income
affordable
affordable
$20,874 per year
rent = 522 per month
purchase = 52,185
$33,400 per year
rent = 835 per month
purchase = 831'500
The City may now assume a potential need for 98 affordable
units; 15 for large family households and-83 for female-headed
households, until more detailed Census data is submitted to
the City (which could then be applied to the new State
definitions of overpayment) . The availability of resources is
determined by what affordable housing exists, what programs
exist and what housing and programs could be made available
(as discussed below under B and C)..
The availability of potential resources and programs is as
follows:
1. Federal programs
a. Section 8 Existing
Provides rent subsidies
majority of rents'in the
set for participation in
breaks down monthly rental
3
to low - income renters. The
City exceed the ceiling levels
the program. The 1990 Census
payments into categories. For
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT I
Rancho Palos Verdes, the following represents the City's
rental data:
CHART 1
Census category
units
of rental units
less than $ 250
41
1.4
$ 250 to 499
41
1.4
$ 500 to 749
161
5.5
$ 750 to 999
787
26.9
$ 1,000 or more
11896
64.8
2,926
100.0%
HUD, in determining distribution of monies for this
program, sets a ceiling on the amount of rent charged to
a tenant that they will subsidize. For example, if a low
income household is paying 40% of their income for rent
and they are living in a unit that does not exceed the
ceiling limits placed by HUD, then HUD may subsidize an
amount of rent that would bring the cost down to 30% of
their income. The following are the categories and
rental limits placed by HUD:
CHART 2
type HUD ceiling
efficiency
$ 491
1 bedroom
588
2 bedroom
684
3 bedroom
876
Unfortunately, the 1990 Census data that is currently
available does not break down into comparable HUD
categories with respect to type of unit (efficiency, 1
bedroom, etc.). However, a 1989 City housing study did
have apartment units broken down into type. The
following represents the 1989 figures extrapolated for
the 1990 year:
CHART 3
type number of rental units
efficiency
38
1 bedroom
790
2 bedroom
11720
3 bedroom
378
2,926 total
4
% of rental units
1.3
27.0
58.8
12.9
100.0%
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT I
The 1989 housing study also .consisted of a survey of 712
apartment units which were categorized by rent costs
(modified by Staff to be comparable with Census rent cost
categories) :
r 0yiN
ty�
Census category
units
units
% of rental units
efficiency less
efficiency
$ 500 to
749
9
0.3
1 bedroom
$ 500 to
749
6
0.2
38
$ 750 to
999
186
7.1
2 bedroom
$ 750 to
999
124
4.7
500 to
$ 1,000 or more
295
11.3
3 bedroom
$ 1,000 or more
92
3.5
712
27.1%
If we took. CHART 4 as representative of the City's
apartment stock, it would appear that some of the 1
bedroom units may be eligible for the HUD subsidies.
However, we know from CHART 1 that there are indeed units
below the HUD ceilings. Actual unit breakdowns can-be
determined once more detailed Census data is received.
For now, if we make the assumption that the smallest
units pay the least for rent and then use the data from
CHARTS 1, 3 and 4, the following estimates may apply:
type Census category
units
efficiency less
than $
250
29
$
500 to
749
9
38
1 bedroom less
than $
250
12
$
250 to
499
41
$
500 to
749
152
$
750 to
999
585
790
2 bedroom $ 750 to 999 202
$ 1,000 or more 11518
1,720
3 bedroom $ 1,000 or more 378
A
of rental units
1.0
0.3
1. 3
0.4
1.4
5.2
20.0
27.0
6.9
51.9
58.8
12.9
21926 10010%
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT I
CHART 5 may represent a more realistic distribution of
units to rent. It shows that there may be 29 efficiency
households that qualify for the HUD subsidies plus 53 (12
+ 41) one bedroom units, and possibly no two or three
bedroom households.
b. Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation
Provides for payment contracts on multi - ,family units
needing moderate rehabilitation in conjunction with
rental assistance. The 1989 housing survey considered
the condition of the housing stock, but not for the
existing multi - family units in the City. The City will
assist the property owners of the multi - family units with
information about this program and help coordinate
applications.
C. Section 8 New Construction
Provides funding for the construction of housing
affordable to lower income persons. High land costs and
potential environmental constraints would appear to
preclude the development of such projects in Rancho Palos
Verdes. However, with the implementation of such
programs as a density bonus ordinance, employer
participation, and various other programs, provision of
such affordable housing may become feasible.
d. Section 202
Provides funding for senior housing. In 1970, seniors
(persons over 65 years old) represented 2.5% of the
population. In 1980 there were 1,724 persons who were 65
or older (representing 4.7% of the City's population)..
The 1990 Census states 4,999 persons 65 years and older
(representing 12% of the City's population). This
increase is at a rate much higher than the County as a
whole (9.3% in 1970, 9.9% in 1980, and 10% in 1990) . Due
to this substantial increase for the City, this program
could be targeted to seniors in Rancho Palos Verdes. -
Also, since the 1980 Census, the City has added 240
senior living units and has approved construction of an
additional 250 units. Programs such as senior home
sharing are also targeted towards this special needs
group and programs providing subsidies to low income
families would also be available.
e. Section 106(b) Seed Money Loans
Provides interest free loans to non- profit housing
sponsors for preconstruction costs. This is currently
used only in conjunction with section 202 funds (senior
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT I
housing) , as described above. For Rancho Palos Verdes,
this money could possibly be used as part of a density
bonus plan and towards the preconstruction costs of
second units.
f. Community Development Block Grant
Provides funding for a wide range of community
development activities. Rancho Palos Verdes currently
uses these funds for the "Portuguese, Bend Landslide
Mitigation Project" and has allocated over $1 million of
CDBG funds (since 19 8 4 ) for landslide mitigation efforts.
This landslide, is within the only redevelopment project
area in the City. The project area includes the Abalone
Cove and Portuguese Bend landslides, consists of
approximately two square miles, and includes 219 homes
which are slated for conservation through these landslide
mitigation efforts and monies.
2. State programs
a. SB 99, Redevelopment Construction Loans
Authorizes issuance of bonds by redevelopment agencies.
Due to recent litigation concerning the redevelopment
project area and its tax increment funds, the City's
redevelopment agency has been unable to issue bonds. Tax
increment has also been indeterminable. However, the
City expects to receive final tax increment figures from
the County during Fiscal Year 1992 -93.
b. California Housing Finance Agency
(1) Direct lending
Provides loans to housing sponsors for construction
or rehabilitation of housing projects containing
over five units, The City has 2,179 units that are
within structures of five or more units (87% of
these units are in structures containing ten or
more units). As stated earlier, there are 2,729
apartment units in the City, so this direct lending
program could be targeted towards the
rehabilitation of 80% of the City's existing rental
stock. Potential environmental constraints on new
multi - family housing in the City may be a deterrent
to development, but the program may be used in
conjunction with a density bonus plan.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT I
7
(2) Home ownership /improvement program
Provides financing of up to 49% of the purchase
price of a mortgage participation loan with an
institutional lender on behalf of income eligible
households for rehabilitation and purchase of
housing in areas that are in need of
rehabilitation. The 1989 housing condition survey
concentrated its efforts in the Eastview area of
the City, which could be targeted with this
program.
C. California Self -help Housing Program
Provides grants and loans to assist low and moderate
income families.to build and rehabilitate their own
homes. High land costs and home values make the use of
this program difficult for new construction in Rancho
Palos Verdes, but rehabilitation may be feasible.
d. Mobile Home Park Assistance
Provides financial and technical assistance to mobile
home park residents. The Housing Element states that
there are no mobile home parks existing in the City.
However, the 1990 Census specifies 100 mobile homes.
This discrepancy may be due to the mobile home park at
the eastern boundary of the City, along Palos Verdes
Drive South, being included in a census tract that is
both. within Rancho Palos Verdes and Los Angeles (San
Pedro) . The census block data has not been published yet
and the correct figure will be determined at that time.
e. Emergency Shelter
Provides grants for homeless shelters, The City does not
believe such a program to be necessary, because there is
no need for additional homeless shelters in the area.
The homeless shelters that do exist within the City's
vicinity are listed and discussed on page 11 of this
report.
f. Special User Housing Rehabilitation
Program targeted towards substandard housing. The 1989
housing survey indicated 57 housing units in the Eastview
area of the City that were in need of "major
rehabilitation" (severalminor and moderate level repairs
necessary). This program could be targeted towards
housing units such as these.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT I
8
g. Predevelopment Loans
Provides predevelopment loans for low income housing
projects. This source could be used by non - profit
developers in the City. As stated before, high land
costs and potential environmental constraints may hinder
such development. However, with the implementation of
programs such as a density bonus ordinance or certain
standard conditions placed on developments, low income
housing projects may be feasible.
h. Senior Citizen Shared Housing
Provides grants to assist seniors to find shared housing
arrangements. This is an option for the City to pursue
due to the increase-in seniors over the past twenty
years. Seniors' groups would be ..made aware of such
arrangements and programs.
i. Rental Housing Construction
Provides cash grants for the construction of housing
developments containing at least five units with 30
percent of the units affordable to lower income
households . As with the direct lending program (page 7),
this program could be targeted towards the rehabilitation
of 80% of the City's existing rental stock. Potential
environmental constraints on new multi- family housing in
the City may be a deterrent to development, but the
program may be used in conjunction with a density bonus
plan.
j. Deferred Payment Rehabilitation Loans
Provides loans for the rehabilitation of low and moderate
income housing. Again, certain sections of the City
could be targeted for such a rehabilitation program.
k. Marks Foran Rehabilitation Loans
Allows revenue bonds for housing rehabilitation. It is
known that there are housing units that are in need of
rehabilitation and this is an option for the City to
pursue.
1. AB 1151, Density Bonuses
Requires local governments to offer density bonuses or
other incentives in exchange for the development of low
income housing. The City has not adopted its own density
bonus ordinance /program but will follow State
requirements to implement such a program.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT I
0
m. AB 655, Multi - family Revenue Bonds
Allows for participation in a County -wide bond program
for low income multi - family housing. Environmental
constraints on multi - family housing make it difficult to
build new housing to meet the rent requirements of this
program.
n. Single - family Mortgage Revenue Bonds
Allows for the issuance of bonds for below market loans
for low and moderate income homebuyers. The high costs
of homes and properties in the City make this difficult,
but not impossible.
o. Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing
Allows local agencies to keep increases in taxes for
redevelopment areas. Pursuant to State requirements, 20%
of the incremental property tax revenues within the
redevelopment project area must be set aside for the
provision of low and moderate income housing. This tax
increment has previously not been available for City use
due to litigation proceedings. The County will be
releasing the money in phases and has not been able to
determine at this time how much tax increment the City
will be receiving over time. However, as stated under
the description of SB 99, redevelopment construction
loans (page 7), the City expects to receive final tax
increment figures from the County during Fiscal Year
1992 -93.
3. Local programs
a. Second Unit'Ordinance
The City is currently undergoing adoption procedures for
a second unit ordinance which complies with State law and
would allow for second units in all single - family and
multi - family residential districts. After the ordinance
is adopted, it will be submitted to the State for review.
b. Mobile Homes
Mobile homes are currently allowed within all single -
family residential districts. The City has no account of
any mobile homes located within its boundaries, although
the 1990 Census has stated there are indeed 100 such
units. This discrepancy will be further clarified once
the City obtains more detailed Census information.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT I
10
C. Density Bonus Ordinance
The City will be instituting a density bonus plan as soon
as possible, in compliance with State law.
d. Programs for'the homeless
City data indicate no record of homeless persons living
in Rancho Palos Verdes. It appears that homeless persons
wandering in the City merely use the City's roads for
transition to other parts of the South Bay.
There are several organizations that provide emergency
shelter, meals and other services to homeless persons in
the . area :
(1) Harbor Interfaith Shelter (1420 Eighth Street,
San Pedro)
Provides temporary shelter for families in a 16-
unit apartment ,building. Families may stay a
minimum of 60 days. The Shelter reports a 95%
success rate- in placing homeless families in
permanent housing. The organization also operates
a service program which offers welfare advocacy,
food distribution, job referrals , and referral for
medical and prenatal care.
(2) His House (1103 Sartori Street, Torrance)
A church volunteer organization. Volunteers, serve
food to about 150 people each day. They also
distribute free clothing and provide one -night
hotel vouchers to the homeless on cold nights.
(3) Salvation Army (4223 Emerald Street, Torrance)
Provides free food, clothing and transportation to
the homeless. The Salvation Army also maintains
intake facilities in San Pedro, Redondo Beach, Long
Beach and Compton. From those facilities, people
are referred to shelters in Westwood and downtown
Los Angeles.
(4) Beacon Light Mission (525 Broad Avenue,
Wilmington)
Offers shelter to homeless men for a maximum of
seven consecutive days. Breakfast and dinner are
also served to the homeless each day.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT I
11
(5) United Way
Offers 24 -hour, 7 days a week information in
English and Spanish to direct people in need to the
nearest appropriate agency.
Co Programs to assist female- headed households are:
There are no programs, either at the federal or state level, that
specifically address very low to low income female - headed
households. Programs that could be utilized directly by this
special needs group would be: Section 8 Existing, Moderate
Rehabilitation, and New Construction; Section 202; Section 106(b)
Seed Money Loans; California Housing Finance Agency Home
ownership /improvement program; California Self -help Housing
Program; Mobile Home Park Assistance; Special User Housing
Rehabilitation; Senior Citizen Shared Housing; and Deferred Payment
Rehabilitation Loans.
D. Existing assisted housing in the City
i. Villa Capri
Hawthorne Boulevard, North of Palos Verdes Drive West
Currently, ten (10) affordable housing exist in the City, each of
which is located within the Villa Capri development (Tract No.
44239). Implementation of these units was achieved through a City
Council condition of approval for the tract requiring the developer
to set aside ten of the forty -nine multi - family zoned units as
affordable housing. No governmental assistance was received for
this program, as it was completely funded. by the developer.
Availability was limited to families earning incomes which were not
greater than the median income for all residents in the City.
In accordance with HCD's concern that the Housing Element comply
with Government Code Section 65583(a)(8) requiring analysis of
assisted housing developments that may be eligible to change from
low- income housing uses during the next ten years, Staff has
reviewed the affordability constraints on the Villa Capri
development and determined that these units, approved in 1986, may
not be converted to market rate until the expiration of a thirty
year term.
The City reviewed its housing records and determined that no other
units are at risk of losing their assisted housing eligibility as
no projects exist in the City which are administered through HUD
(including but not limited to ELIHPA, LIHPRHA, FmHA projects) , or
Section 8 programs. CDBG funds are administered through the City's
Redevelopment Agency and have, to date, been used for landslide
mitigation programs.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT I
12
ATTACHMENT II.
Expanded analysis of parking constraints for
multi- family housing
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
13 ATTACHMENT H
The Housing Element currently identifies the development standards,
including the parking schedule, for multi - family units. Staff now
provides: (A) a brief analysis of the existing parking
requirements; (B) a survey of other cities' standards; (C) an
example utilizing the cities' standards for a "high" density
project; and (D) a conclusion as to whether these requirements pose
a constraint to the development of housing-for all income groups.
A. Existing parking requirements
The existing parking standards for multi - family housing in Rancho
Palos Verdes are one covered (not enclosed, as HCD implies in their
letter) space for each unit plus .5 spaces for each 0 -1 bedroom
unit and 1 space for each 2 or more bedroom units, In the RM -12
and RM -2 2 districts,, 25%* of the required parking is required to be
added as guest parking.
B. City survey
A survey of cities in the area and other sections of the State with
similar physical constraints revealed that Rancho Palos Verdes'
parking requirements are straightforward and standard practice:
city standards
Palos Verdes Estates 1 to 3 garage storage spaces /unit + 2
covered spaces /1 bedroom + .5 covered
spaces for each additional bedroom + .25
guest spaces /unit
Rolling Hills Estates discretionary condition through a RPD
Redondo Beach 2 spaces /unit (50% covered) + an amount
of guest spaces depending on the number
of units, width of lot and zoning.
Hermosa Beach 2 spaces /unit + .5 guest spaces /unit
Manhattan Beach 2 spaces /unit for rentals (1 to be
enclosed).
Big Bear Lake Z spaces /unit + a discretionary amount of
guest spaces
Carlsbad 2 spaces /unit (covered) + .5 guest spaces
up to ten units and .3 guest spaces for
ten units or more
Carmel 1.5 spaces /unit
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
14 ATTACHMENT II
Dana Point 1.5 spaces /0 or 1 bedroom units + 2
spaces /2 bedroom units + 2.5 spaces /3
bedroom units + .5 spaces /every bedroom
over 3 bedrooms (half of all parking must
be covered)
La Canada- Flintridge 2 spaces /1 or 2 bedroom units + 1 space
for. each additional bedroom + .5 guest
spaces /unit -
Laguna Beach 1.5 spaces /studio or 1 bedroom units (50%
covered) and. 2/2 or more 'bedroom units
(50% covered) + 1 guest space /every 4
units
Newport'Beach 2 spaces /unit for one to two units on a
lot, or 2 spaces/unit + 1 guest space for
three units on a lot, or 2.5 spaces /unit
for four or more units on a lot
Pismo Beach 1.5 spaces /unit + .25 guest- spaces /unit
for developments of more then eight units
Santa Barbara 1.25 spaces /studio units + 1.5 spaces /1
bedroom units + 2 spaces /2 or more
bedroom units + .25 guest spaces /unit for
developments of six or more units
Sausalito 1.5 spaces /0 or 1 bedroom units + 2
spaces /2 or more bedroom units
C. Example
The following represents the above mentioned city standards when
applied to a hypothetical development project. HCD designates a
typical density for very low income housing as 25 to 40 units per
acre. Using an example density of 30 units to the acre on a one
acre parcel with 15 of the units 0 -1 bedroom and 15 of the units 2
bedroom units, the following parking would be required by each
city •
city parking required for 30 units on 1 acre
Rancho Palos Verdes 67 spaces
Palos Verdes Estates 142 spaces
Rolling Hills Estates discretionary condition through a RPD
Redondo Beach 60+ spaces
Hermosa Beach 75 spaces
Manhattan Beach 60 spaces
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
15 ATTACHMENT H
Big Bear Lake
60+ spaces
Carlsbad
72 spaces
Carmel
45 spaces
Dana Point
53 spaces
La Canada - Flintridge
75
spaces
Laguna Beach
83
spaces
Newport Beach
75
spaces
Pismo Beach
53
spaces
Santa Barbara
61
spaces
Sausalito
53.
spaces
D. Conclusion
The Rancho Palos Verdes' parking standards do not pose a constraint
to affordable housing, as they are the absolute minimum that the
City can require and still provide adequate parking facilities for
the development. Additionally, on- street parking would be
detrimental to the public health and safety due to the relatively
narrow and serpentine nature of the City's streets. Rancho Palos
Verdes, as can be seen from the comparisons, is not requiring
excessive standards for multi - family parking and in most instances
our standards are less than that of similar cities' requirements.
The cost for parking is negligible compared to other affordability
constraints, such as land cost and environmental factors.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
16 ATTACHMENT II
ATTACHMENT III.
Identification of sites for affordable housing
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
17
Pages V -20 through V -39 of the adopted Housing Element provide an
extensive discussion of the vacant land available in the City. The
following discusses: (A) the privately held vacant land (over ten
acres) in the City that may be able to accommodate the City's
regional share and needs; (B) the publicly held vacant land in the
City that may be able to accommodate the City's regional share and
needs; (C) the existing multi- family districts in the City; (D) a
discussion of other City districts; (E) the amount of units that
could potentially be built in the City; (F) jobs /housing analysis;
and (G) substantial programs to assist the development of
affordable housing.
A. Privately held vacant land
The Housing Element lists 20 individual sites that are privately
owned, vacant land of ten. acres or more. Three of these sites
(totalling approximately 177 acres) are not yet committed for
development, are not within the building restricted landslide
moratorium area, and are described in the Element as follows:
1. Lower Montemalaga Canyon
The site is 41 acres and zoned OH (Open Space Hazard) and RS-
A-5 (Residential single- family, 1 unit per 5 acres) . Although
the majority of the site comprises very steep slopes, it is
anticipated that possibly 4 units could be constructed on this
site.
2. Hawthorne Salvation Army
The site is 42 acres and is zoned I (Institutional) and most
of the land comprises steep slopes. It has not been
determined how many units could be built on the level portions
of the site.
3. End of Barkentine Road
There are approximately 93 acres that are zoned OH and RS -1
(Residential single- family, 1 unit per acre) . The constraints
on this land are determined by limited access, steep slopes,
and geologic concerns. The full development potential has not
.been analyzed at this time.
As shown from the discussion above, only one of the sites has a
determined potential for development (Lower Montemalaga Canyon with
a possible 4 units), The remaining two sites are undetermined for
development potential.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
18
B. Publicly held vacant land
The Housing Element lists 24 individual sites that are publicly
held, vacant land. Of these 24 sites, approximately 84 acres are
not committed for development and are not physically constrained
for development. They are described in the Element as follows:
1. Pedregal School
The Pedregal School site is 8.4 acres and is zoned I and now
contains school buildings and playing fields. It is presently
leased to various community groups.
2. Loma Del Mar
e
The Loma Del Mar site is 8.5 acres and zoned residential and
is located within the coastal specific plan district.
Adjacent geology indicates the site may have physical
constraints towards development.
3. Portuguese Bend Intermediate School
The site for the Portuguese Bend Intermediate School is 20
acres and is vacant, zoned I and OH. It is currently being
partially used as a soccer field and is financially supported,
in part, by the City.
4. Grandview Park
Grandview Park is a 17 acre vacant site and zoned OR (Open
Space Recreation). It is currently owned by the City,
purchased from the school district for park development.
S. Narbonne right -of -way
The Narbonne right-of-way is 6.1 acres of vacant land and was
acquired by the County. Portions of this site have since been
vacated or sold for development. It is zoned OH and RS -2.
6. RDA property in Portuguese Bend
The City Redevelopment Agency owns 10 acres in the Portuguese
Bend landslide moratorium area.. There is currently a
restriction on building permit issuance due to the movement of
land.
7. Martingale site
The site is 14 acres of completely unbuildable area
(excessively steep slopes), entirely zoned OH. It is being
preserved as open space and has recently been developed into
a community park.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
19
As shown from the discussion above, three of the sites have a
potential for development (the Pedregal School, Loma Del Mar and
Portuguese Bend Intermediate School sites). The remaining four
sites are: (1) unbuildable (the RDA property-in Portuguese Bend);
or (2) committed for other use or development (Grandview Park, the
Narbonne right -of -way and the Martingale park).
c. Multi - family districts
There are five multi - family zoning designations in the City (with
the numerical reference to possible units per acre) : RM -6 , RM -8 ,
RM -10, RM -12, RM -22. Currently, there are no sites that carry an
RM -10 designation. The following is a list of all the multi - family
zoned sites in the City grouped according to zone:
CHART 1
development units per potential
zone area type units acres acre units
RM -6 Oceancrest/
condo
23
7.0
3.3
42
Ocean Court
Peacock
single
1
0.2
4.5
1
Ridge
family
Peacock
single
1
0.3
3.6
1
Ridge
family
Peacock
condo
4
0.3
13.8
1
Ridge
Peacock
condo
10
10.7
5.8
10
Ridge
-
RM -8 Hawthorne/
condo
127
12.0
10.6
96
Ridgegate
Hawthorne/
condo
99
12.0
8.3
96
Highridge
Hawthorne/
service
0
2.0
000
16
Highridge
station
Ridgecove
condo
94
8.0
1108
64
Ridgebluff
condo
88
7.0
12.6
56
Ridgebrook
condo
88
9.5
9.3
76
Ridgehaven
condo
146
21.0
6.9
168
Court
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
20
CHART 1 (continued)
development units per potential
zone area type units acres acre units
RM -12 Radbrook/
condo
27
Bearhaven
13.7
84
Radbrook/
condo
96
Bearhaven
14.2
120
Toscanini
single
1
0.3
family
3
Western/
condo
142
Toscanini
13.3
3
Hawthorne/
apartm
4
Indian Valley
13.3
3
RM -12 Hawthorne/
apartm
4
Indian Valley
30.0
3
Hawthorne/
apartm
4
Indian Valley
30.0
12
Hawthorne/
apartm
4
Indian Valley
66.0
6
Hawthorne/
apartm
4
Indian Valley
Hawthorne/
apartm
4
Indian Valley
Hawthorne/
apartm
4
Indian Valley
Hawthorne/
condo
9
Indian Valley
Hawthorne/
apartm
57
Oceancrest
Hawthorne/
condo
30
Oceancrest
Hawthorne/
condo
10
Oceancrest
Hawthorne/
apartm
33
Oceancrest
21
118
15.0
21
7.0
13.7
84
0.2
5.0
2
10'. 0
14.2
120
0.3
13.3
3
0.3
13.3
3
0.3
13.3
3
0.3
13.3
3
0.3
13.3
3
0.3
13.3
3
0.3
13.3
3
0.3
30.0
3
1.3
43.8
15
110
30.0
12
009
11.1
10
0.5
66.0
6
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
CHART 1
(continued)
development
units per
potential
zone
area
type
units
acres
acre
units
RM -12
Hawthorne/
condo
167
4.0
41.8
48
(con.)
Oceancrest
Los Verdes
apartm
132
5.0
26.4
60
Drive
Los Verdes
apartm
124
5.0
24.8
60
Drive
Los Verdes
apartm
136
4.9
27.8
58
Drive
RM -2.2
Highridge/
apartm
16
0.3
53.3
6
Peacock
Highridge/
apartm
53
0.9
58.9
19
Peacock
Highridge/
apartm
21
0.5
42.0
11
Peacock
Highridge/
apartm
3
0.3
1010
6
Peacock
Highridge/
condo
44
1.2
36.7
26
Peacock
Highridge/
condo
53
1410
53.0
22
Peacock
Highridge/
condo
10
0.3
33.3
6
Peacock
Hawthorne/
apartm
29
1.2
24..2
26
Ravenspur
Hawthorne/
apartm
255
5.2
49.0
114
Ravenspur
Hawthorne/
apartm
38
008
47.5
17
Ravenspur
Hawthorne/
apartm
96
2.4
40.0
52
Ravenspur
Hawthorne/
apartm
30
097
4299
15
Ravenspur
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
22
CHART 1 (continued
development
zone area
type
units
acres
units per
acre
potential
units
RM -22 Hawthorne/
apartm
69
1.3
53.0
28
(con.) Ravenspur
Hawthorne/
apartm
38
0.8
47.5
17
Ravenspur
Hawthorne/
apartm
88
2.6
33.8
57
Ravenspur
home
Hawthorne/
apartm
19
0.6
31.7
13
Ravenspur
Hawthorne/
condo
33
018
41.3
17
Ravenspur
Hawthorne/
condo
24
0.6
40.0
13
Ravenspur
Hawthorne/
condo
21
0.7
30.0
15
Ravenspur
TOTALS 2613 147.2 17.75 1627
(average)
The following is a list of existing multi - family developments with
single - family, or other, zone designations:
CHART 2
development units per potential
zone area type units acres acre units
RS -1 La Rotunda
condo
100
5.6
17.7
5
RS -4 Seagate
condo
240
17.6
1396
70
Drive
Seagate
apartm
115
5.6
20.5
5
Drive
I Western
senior
71
1.0
71.0
n/a
Avenue
home
TOTALS 526 29.8 17.7 80
(average)
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
23
As can be seen from CHART 1, most of the existing developments
already exceed the allowed densities of the City's current zoning:
43 of the 52 sites exceed their allowable densities. This means
that the City has 37% more units, existing, than they have zoned
for (988 units more than zoned for) . The State defines density
ranges and housing types needed to accommodate the housing needs of
low and moderate income groups as:
very low multi - family rental: 25 -40 du /ac
low multi - family rental: 18 -25 du /ac
moderate rental and owner: 8 -18 du /ac
CHART 1 shows that, out of 52 separate sites, 24 sites now fall
under the very low density range (as set by the State, above) . Out
of these 24 sites, 13 exceed the highest density from the State (40
dwelling units per acre) and go as high as 66 units per acre.
CHART 1 also shows two sites that fall within the low density
category. Five sites are not built to their potential and an
additional 61 units could be accommodated.
CHART 2 depicts 3 sites that are already overbuilt with an excess
of 375 units (calculations exclude the senior home categorized_
under the Institutional district).
D., Other City districts
The remaining areas are either commercially designated land or
residential single -f amily.districts that are built out (established
single - family residential neighborhoods that have been in existence
for some time or recently developed). Additionally, there are no
multi- family inf ill sites in the City. The existing inf ill sites
are located in established single - family residential areas. The
City's Development Code is currently undergoing revision and
proposes to allow manufactured housing and mobile homes in all
single- family residential areas, along with second units on a lot.
It is anticipated that an additional 50 units will be provided on
the single - family inf ill lots and that an additional 60 units will,
be provided by second units, within the next five years.
The estimate of additional housing units on inf ill lots has been
determined through an analysis of building permits over the past
five years and projected out into the next five years. However,
because the housing units to be constructed on the inf ill lots in
the City are generally located in established neighborhoods, the
new units mostly represent replacement units for ones that have
been torn down. A more conservative estimate for vacant infill
lots would be 25. The estimate of second unit construction was
determined by extrapolating from the per year amount of second unit
covenants issued by the City for second units over the past five
years..
As for redevelopment potential (meaning recycled to a residential
use or to a higher residential density) this is shown in Chart 1 by
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
24
comparing
the units built to the potential units . If the potential
units number is higher than the existing units number, then that is
how many
units could be added when recycled. The sites with this
recyclable potential otential are again shown in Chart 3, following: There
y
is
one site that is currently not a residential use that is zoned
residential and which could accommodate possibly 16 units. The
rest of those in Chart 1 (and Chart 3) could accommodate an
additional 45 units (22 + 19 + 1 + 3 = 45) for - a total of 61
additional units if the sites are recycled to their potential.
Remaining vacant sites are either slated for single- family
Remai g .
residential development or are zoned for such within the above
mentioned established neighborhoods (inf ill sites). The City's
proposed second unit ordinance (as discussed in Attachment I, page
10 ) will help provide affordable housing in these areas.
E. Potential units /buildout units
The following provides rovides a list of all units built in the City since
1989 and an educated estimate of the amount of units that can be
built in the City (within its current zoning densities). The
categories of very low, low, and moderate were assigned not with
the intent that those exact sites would accommodate that particular
housing, but rather to that the City does indeed have
ho q,
enough (really more than enough) sites available for the
accommodation of affordable housing as designated in our RHNA
goals:
CHART_ 3
development existing
potential
RHNA
zone area units
units
difference
category
RM -8 Hawthorne / 0
16
16
very low
Highridge
(from Chart 1)
RM -8 Ridgeh aven 146
168
22
very low
Court
(from Chart 1)
Portuguese Bend n/a
I g
25
25
very low
Intermediate School
(partial estimate from
discussion under
subsection B, above)
subtotal
63
very low
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
25
CHART 3 (continued
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
26
development existing
potential
RHNA
zone
area units
units
difference
category
RM -6
Oceancrest / 23
42.
19
low
Ocean Court
(from Chart 1)
RM -12
Toscanini l
2
1
low
(from Chart 1)
RM -22
Highridge/ 3
6
3
low
Peacock
(from Chart 1)
RS -A -5
Lower Montemalaga n/a
4
4
low
Canyon
(from discussion
under subsection A,
. above )
I
Hawthorne Salvation n/a
5
5
low
Army
(estimated from
discussion under
subsection A, above)
RS -1
End of Barkentine n/a
5
5
low
(estimated from
discussion under
subsection A, above)
I
Portuguese Bend
Intermediate School n/a
25
25
low
(partial estimate from
discussion under
subsection B, above)
-
RS 1
second units n
seco a
/
30
30
low
(partial
anticipation)
I
Point Vicente n/a
27
27
low
(for enlisted
men)
subtotal
------------------------------------------------------------
124
low
- - - - --
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
26
CHART 3 (continued)
development existing potential RHNA
zone area units units difference category
I
Marriott Life
n/a
12
12
moderate
Care Facility
(approved for
development)
I
Pedregal School
n/a
20
20
moderate
(estimated from
discussion under
subsection B, above)
RS -1
Loma Del Mar
n/a
8
8
moderate
School
(estimated from
discussion under
subsection B, above)
RS -1
second units
n/a
30
30
moderate
(partial
anticipation)
subtotal
------------------------------------------------------------------
71
moderate
RS -1
inf ill sites
n/a
25
25
above
(anticipated)
moderate
RS -1
Subregion 7 & 8
n/a
83
83
above
(submitted for
moderate
approval since
adoption of the
Element in 1990)
RS -1
Marguerite Drive
n/a
4
4
above
.(submitted for
moderate
approval since
adoption of the
Element in 1990)
RS -1
Subregion 1
n/a
79
79
above
(submitted for
moderate
approval since
adoption of the
Element in 1990)
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
27
CHART 3 (continued
development existing potential RHNA
zone area units units difference category
RS -1 West of Yacht n/a 10 10 above
Harbor moderate
(submitted for
approval since
adoption of the
Element in 1990)
RS -1 Forrestal & n/a 42 42 above
Pirate Drive moderate
(submitted f or
approval since
adoption of the
Element in 19 9 0 )
RS -1 Highridge & n/a 76 76 above
Crest moderate
(submitted for
approval since
adoption of the
Element in 1990)
subtotal 388 above
moderate
------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 657
The Housing Element concludes (on page V -20) that the 502 units
designated by the RHNA are able to be accommodated (the RHNA
housing goals are provided by the.Southern California Association
of Governments - SCAG). The City's 5 -year RHNA need is outlined
below:
units
very low 38
low 46
moderate 52
above moderate 366
502
As can be seen from Chart 3, the City will not only meet its RHNA
needs, but it is possible the City could exceed it. Chart 3 not
onl y depicts icts the meeting of the RHNA goals, but it also-depicts
city ity buildout. Although the. City is actively committed to the
pursuit and implementation of programs for affordable housing, the
flux of the economy, finance availability, developer willingness to
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
28
participate, and market rates are all factors out of the City's
hands.
The City's, existing zoning allows sufficient densities for the
construction of housing for all income groups and for the
construction of either all the housing required by the RHNA or for
the construction of the maximum number of units possible. The
City's existing zoning is not a constraint to housing supply.
Also, no low and moderate income persons were displaced from the
coastal zone, so special programs for that are not necessary.
F. Jobs /housing analysis
The' concept of a jobs /housing balance is regional. A balance is
considered when the number of housing units in a given area is only
slightly less than the employment opportunities. In theory, this
means that people living in the area are able to also work in the
area: The benefits of achieving this balance include reduced
traffic congestion resulting in decreased commuter times resulting
in fewer emissions resulting in cleaner air resulting in a
reduction of major capital expenditures.
In 1984, SCAG defined a balanced region where the ratio of jobs to
housing was 1.27. This means 1.27 jobs for every housing unit.
For the year 2010, SCAG defines the ratio at. 1 20-, Unfortunately,
housing affordability is not figured into the equation.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located in the- Santa Monica Bay
subregion. It is predicted by SCAG that this subregion could experience an increase of 309,000 persons, 1 46 , 900 units and
253,000 jobs during the period between 1984 and 2010. In 1984,
this subregion had a.jobs /housing ratio of 1.46, which makes the
subregion "jobs rich." By 2010, SCAG predicts the ratio to be
closer to 1.520 Even though Rancho Palos Verdes is obviously a
"jobs poor" city, the employment base for the subregion is more
than adequate.
G. Programs to assist in the development of affordable housing
The Element identifies programs to assist with the development of
affordable housing for those sites that could accommodate such
development (pages V -43 and V -44 of the Element) . Additional
programs have been included in Attachment I (page 3) of this
report.
What faces the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the Peninsula as a
whole, are the potential environmental constraints on increased
density for new construction. Our General Plan provides for
sensitive analysis towards the preservation of this delicate
environment. To reiterate the main points /constraints brought up
in the Housing Element (starting on page V -36 of the Element).
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
29
"Because of the complex nature of the City's geology and
the existing and potential concerns about slope
stability, development in Rancho Palos Verdes is closely
managed.... The vast majority of available acreage is in
the coastal zone, the area of the City most constrained
by physical features such as geologic hazards, marginal
geologic stability, extreme slopes, natural resource
areas and flood hazards.... While the City will consider
proposals for affordable housing on any of the available
residential parcels, proposed projects will be evaluated
to address substantial constraints such as environmental
impacts, provision of open space, and adequacy of
infrastructure.... The physical conditions existing in
Rancho Palos Verdes present very real limitations to the
City's ability to increase existing residential densities
or to intensify existing development."
It is then stated in the Element (page V -39) that due to the
physical factors involved, construction costs "...are likely to
increase-total [development] costs by 50% or more over standard
regional costs" (discussed further in Attachment IV) . Prospective
affordable housing in the City would have to rely on program
subsidies and not density in, and of, itself. This is illustrated
when the data in Attachment I (starting with the charts on page 4 )
is compared to the data in Charts 1 and 2 above: 55% of the
existing multi - family units are within the developments that exceed
the State's designated density for very low income projects, yet
only 3% (82 units from page .5 , representative from CHART 5 ) of the
City's rental units pay the low rent available for potential HUD
subsidies. . Lenders do not perceive the City as a distinct stinct market.
Mortgage programs will have to be implemented through state or
federal programs in conjunction with the local lenders.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT III
9M
ATTACHMENT IV.
Identification of programs to mitigate governmental
constraints
31
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT IV
HCD suggests that the City identify programs, if necessary, to
remove or mitigate any identified governmental constraints. The
following: (A) lists the potential constraints; and (B) identifies
the programs to either remove those potential constraints or
mitigate them.
A. Constraints
The Housing Element has identified the potential governmental
constraints in pages V -5 through V -19. The following expands that
discussion and compares the Rancho Palos Verdes constraints to
other Peninsula cities:
1. Land use and development controls
In each residential zoning district in the City (and in most
cities) a minimum lot size is established. Rancho Palos
Verdes has six single- family residential designations and five
multi - family residential designations. As listed in Tables 14
and 15 of the Housing Element (pages V -9 and V -10) , the
minimum lot sizes for single - family districts range from five
acres (the RS -A -20 zone has been deleted from the Development
Code) to 8,000 square feet (almost 1 / 5 acre) .
The minimum lot sizes listed for multi- family developments
could be translated to maximums of 6 to 22 units per acre for
RM -6. through RM -22 designations. These are maximums and
actual development potential is usually less due to such
factors as the topography and configuration of the site,
easements, roadways, etc.
As stated in the Housing Element (page V -7) , while most of the
City is zoned and established at single- family residential
densities, almost 20% of the existing housing stock is multi -
family units.
Rolling Hills has only two single- family residential zoning
categories and no multi - family zones. The residential minimum
lot sizes are one and two acres. There are no existing multi-
family developments in the City.
Rolling Hills Estates classifies their residential zones into
four categories, ranging from a minimum lot size of one acre
to 10,000 square feet., As with the City of Rolling Hills,
Rolling Hills Estates does not currently designate any land
with a specific multi- family designation, but the City does
allow for multi - family development through a RPD (Residential
Planned Development). Housing developed under a RPD, however,
typically follows the standards of the R -A- 10,000 zone.
Consequently, only 1% of their existing housing stock is
multi - family.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT IV
32
The City of Palos Verdes Estates has one single- family
residential designation of RS and one multi - family designation
of RM. With the single- family zone, there is no minimum lot
size standard, but a minimum lot size may be imposed by the
homeowners' association through any applicable conditions,
covenants and restrictions. The maximum units per acre in the
multi- family district is 24. Again, this is a maximum and
actual development potential is usually less. The Palos
Verdes Estates' housing stock consists of 7% existing multi-
family residential units.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not consider their
minimum lot sizes as constraints. The above comparison of the
surrounding cities demonstrates that not only does Rancho
Palos Verdes have in place a variety of multi - family
designations, the City carries 86% of all the multi - family
units on the Peninsula (with the City having only 64% of the
Peninsula population).
2. second units
The allowance of second units on a lot are listed in the
Housing Element (page V -11) as a potential constraint. Since
the adoption of the Housing Element in September 1990, the
City has been in the process of revising its Development Code,
and is proposing a second unit ordinance in compliance with
State law. The ordinance is really the opposite of a
constraint to affordable development and should instead be
considered a catalyst.
The proposed second unit ordinance provides standards for the
development and maintenance of second units on residential
.lots in accordance with California State Government Code
Section 65852.2. The ordinance would ensure that second units
in residential districts are developed and operate on adequate
sites, at proper and desirable locations, and that the goals
and objectives of the gen'era'l plan are observed. Second units
are not considered to exceed the allowable density for the
lots upon which they are located and are deemed to be a
residential use consistent with the existing general plan and
zoning designations for. the lot. Further, second unit
developments are allowed in all RS and RM districts.
3. Manufactured housing and mobile homes
Manufactured housing and mobile homes are also a catalyst to
affordable development, and not a constraint. Such homes are
allowed in all residential zones, both single - family and
multi- family, and could be used as second units. Also, the
construction of manufactured or mobile homes is not likely to
be constrained by. topography or access to any greater degree
than standard single - family dwellings.*
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT IV
33
4. Density bonus.law
Although listed under the constraint category in the Housing
Element, the State's density bonus law actually promotes the
development of affordable housing. The law requires a City to
grant a density bonus of at least 25% to a housing development
which provides:
a. 20% of the units for low income households;
b. 10% of the units. for very low income households; or
C* 50% of the units for senior citizens.
The City will be preparing its own density bonus ordinance, in
compliance with the State law, during Fiscal Year 1992 -93. Until
then, the City will follow all the State requirements of the law.
S. Landslide moratorium
To expand upon the description of the moratorium in the
Housing Element (page V -12) , in September 1978 the City placed
an approval and permit moratorium in.the southern, most
central, section of the City. It.encompasses approximately
two square miles with 219 single- family homes.
As- stated in the Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan,
the landslide was triggered by construction activity
associated with an attempt to extend Crenshaw Boulevard to
Palos Verdes Drive South, in the Portuguese Bend section of
the City, The County was eventually found liable for damages
incurred by property owners in the area. The landslide was so
detrimental that relocation was necessary. A subdivision to
the east of the area took the relocated housing. The halting
of the extension of Crenshaw Boulevard, and the subsequent
activation of the landslide, curbed development of large land
areas that are now within the moratorium area. As it is well
known, transportation access routes play an important role in
the development of land. Not only has the extension of
Crenshaw Boulevard been abandoned, but other subsequent
extension plans (of other routes connecting the coast) have
been abandoned as well. Aside from additional access routes,
the landslide continues to move and along with it Palos Verdes
Drive South. With the coastal bluffs to the south of Palos
Verdes Drive South and the landslide to the immediate north of
the road pushing it southward to the ocean, constant repair
and alteration is underway for that portion of Palos Verdes
Drive South. It has been, and must remain (as long as the
landslide moves in this area) , a two -lane, narrow, serpentine
and bumpy road with limited capacity.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT IV
34
The landslide itself is not a governmental constraint to
affordable development* It is an act of nature. Also, while
the City imposed moratorium restricts development (for obvious
reasons) it is conclusively not a constraint. to development.
But rather, as the Uniform Building Code and local amendments
are viewed (discussed below), as a protective measure to the
public health, safety and welfare.
6. Building codes and enforcement
State law requires the City to adopt and enforce the Uniform
Building Code (UBC). Surrounding cities, and almost every
city in California, utilize the UBC. The UBC is a document
"...dedicated to the development of better building
construction and greater safety to the public by uniformity in
building laws. The code is founded on broad - based performance
principles that make possible the use of new materials and new
construction systems."
Due to its unique climatic, topographical and geological
characteristics, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has, through
Chapter 15.04 of its Municipal Code, implemented local
amendments to the Uniform Building Code (UBC). These
amendments include storm damage precautions, fire retardant
roofing, and geological and geotechnical reports for the
evaluation and elimination of hazards. The City does not
consider these local amendments to the UBC to be more
restrictive than is necessary to protect the public health and
safety due to the hazards arising from the City's climate,
topography and geology, and are not _intended to act as
constraints to the housing supply.
7. Energy conservation
The Housing Element. states that the City's Building Code
requires compliance with Title 24 energy conservation
standards for new construction ( page V -13) . Title 24 refers
to the California Code of Regulations as it encompasses the
UBC. Specifically, all new buildings in California must meet
State Building Energy Efficiency Standards in accordance with
the California Administrative Code, Title 20, Chapter 2,
Subchapter 4, Article 1 and the compliance requirements of
Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2 -53. All new construction must
comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 2 -53 that are
in effect on the date a building permit application is filed.
It is through these sections of the California Government
Code, and by the Warren- Alquist Act, that the California
Energy Commission regulates building design and construction
standards which increase the efficiency in the use of energy
for new residential and new nonresidential buildings. The
standards the Commission sets are geared towards cost
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT IV
35
effectiveness when amortized over the economic life of the
structure (when compared with historical practice).
The standards themselves deal with such construction
regulations as minimum ceiling and wall insulation,
weatherstripping for doors and windows, slab edge insulation,
damper controls for exhaust systems, and intermittent ignition
devices for gas fired appliances. It is conclusive that
compliance with the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards
is not a constraints to development. If the City were somehow
to relax those regulations, substandard housing would result.
It is not the goal of the City to provide the means for
of fordable housing with a "quick -f ix" of upfront costs at the
expense of long term economic and health benefits.
Along with the enforcement of the UBC , the Housing Element, on
ache V -13, states that the City's environmental review
P
procedures also "...require analysis of energy conservation
measures as part of any proposed project. The California
Environmental Quality Act exempts those projects over which
public agencies have ministerial authority. Typically,
single - family residential construction is a ministerial duty
of the City and is therefore exempt from environmental review.
Multi - family residential uses in multi - family zones are also
ministerial and would therefore not require environmental
review. However, this would not apply to such ministerial
projects that are proposed for known environmentally sensitive
areas or would create an adverse cumulative impact. The
following lists those housing activities that are considered
in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines to be
exempt from review:
a. The repair or maintenance of residential
structures;
b. Additions to existing structures as long as the
addition is not:
(1) 50% or more of the existing floor area or
2,500 square feet (whichever is less) ; or
(2) 10,000 square feet as long as the area is not
environmentally sensitive and all public
services are existing for maximum development
consistent with the General Plan.
C* Division of multi - family rental units to
condominiums;
d. Replacement of existing units where the new
structure will be located on the same site as the
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT IV
W
structure replaced and will have substantially the
same purpose and capacity;
e. The sale of surplus government property (except for
parcels located in an area of "concern ");
f. The division of property, zoned residential, into
four or fewer parcels when the division is in
conformance with the General Plan, no variances or
exceptions are required, all services and access to
the proposed parcels to local standards are
available, the parcel was not involved in a
division of a larger parcel within the previous two
years, and the parcel does not have an average
slope greater than 20 %;
g. Approval of a tentative map or parcel map if an
Environmental Impact Report was approved for a
project and findings of overriding consideration
were made; and
h. Actions by a redevelopment agency, housing
authority, or other public agency to implement an
adopted Housing Assistance Plan by acquiring an
interest in housing units. The housing units may
be either existing or possessing all required
permits for construction.
The above are not constraints. Compliance with Title 24 is a
requirement of the State. A City is not within its rights to
come up with a program to mitigate State mandates. Also, the
environmental review of energy conservation measures applies,
to only those projects for which there is an environmental
review required. As can be seen from the above exemption
list, many residential projects are exempt from the review
process, and therefore the energy conservation analysis
(referred to in the Housing Element) would not be a
constraint. If a residential project is determined to not be
exempt, then it must comply with the State mandated review
under the California Environmental Quality Act. Again, this
is State. law and it applies to every city in California, so it
cannot be considered a constraint by the City.
S. Off -site and site improvements
The site improvements that the City requires assures that all
of the needed physical components are in place before title
transfer occurs, As outlined in the Element (page V -14) , the
improvements include the following:
a. Street or alley paving /repaving;
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT IV
37
b. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters;
c. Street trees;
d. Ornamental street lights;
e. Sewer and drainage facilities; and
f. Easements and dedications.
The Element goes on to state that in most cases, many of the
above mentioned improvements are not required. In the case of
street paving, the City's standards are generally less
expensive than the County's specifications. Also, sewer
improvements are only for on -site and then to the hook up
point. Drainage improvements are required for all effected
down -hill areas that would become inadequate with the new
development. Additionally, most city's in the County require
more stringent improvements than Rancho Palos Verdes does. It
is for these reasons. that the City concludes that the existing
site improvements required are not a constraint to
development, or to the development of affordable housing. The
undergrounding of utilities could be waived for affordable
projects.
9... Infrastructure
The Housing Element points out (on page V -15) that water,
sewer, drainage and roadway infrastructure is adequate for
most of the City. The Element concludes that improvements to
infrastructure does not provide a constraint to development,
because it is usually taken care of by the City and out of the
general fund, administered through the City's capital
improvements program. Also, the County improves and maintains
the City's sewer systems.
A development incurs infrastructure costs mostly for their on-
site improvements. One area of the City is inadequately
served by infrastructure and that is the Portuguese Bend Club
area. This land, however, is entirely privately owned. This
means that the residents are responsible for the upgrading and
maintenance of the system.
The capital improvements program outlines. needed improvements
and also delineates construction of new infrastructure for
those areas that are lacking in it. The following outlines
those improvements for the fiscal year 1991 -92:
a. Hawthorne Boulevard - Crest Road to Indian Peak Road
(overlay with fabric)
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT IV
38
b. Granvia Altamira - Hawthorne Boulevard to Palos Verdes
Estates City Limits (overlay with fabric)
c. Armaga Spring Road - Indian Valley Road to Quailhill Road
(overlay with fabric)
d. Palos Verdes Drive South - Wayfarers Chapel to Hawthorne
Boulevard westbound
(reconstruction)
e. Grading improvements
(grading and cleaning of Portuguese Canyon to
restore natural drainage)
f. Gabion enhancement
(construction of shoreline protection to prevent
erosion of material on temporary basis)
go Ladera Linda Community Center and Portuguese Bend field -
roof replacement, hardcourts, and.site amenities
(Second phase of a multi -year project to replace
the roofs on all buildings at the Community Center,
One roof will be replaced each year over .the next
three years. The basketball and handball court is
in need of resurfacing due to age. Install park
benches throughout for park patrons.)
h. Rancho Palos Verdes Park - service access reconstruction
(The driveway to the handicapped parking lot and
the services yard needs to be rebuilt due to
failing asphalt. Proposed improvements are to
rebuild the driveway and install guardrails.)
And as stated in 8., above, the site improvements that the
City requires assures that all of the needed physical
components are in place before title transfer occurs. In most
cases, many of the above mentioned improvements are not
required. In the case of street paving, the City's standards
are generally less expensive than the County's specifications.
It is for these reasons that the City concludes that the
existing site improvements, and infrastructure, required are
not a constraint to development, or to the development of
affordable housing. The undergrounding of utilities could be
waived for affordable projects.'
10. Permit Processing Times
As the existing Housing Element states on page V -16, the
City's permit processing times are similar to those in the
South Bay communities, as is illustrated in the following
chart:
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT IV
39
Assessment
Zone change
Time
frames
13 Wks
12
Permit
RPV
RHE
PVE
RH
site plan review
immediate
4 days
4 Wks
12 Wks
Grading (minor)
immediate
n/a
6 Wks
n/a
Grading (major)
8 -12 Wks
6 Wks
6 Wks
12 Wks
Certificate or
6 -8 Wks
n/a
n/a
12 Wks
Compliance
Lot line adj.
6 -8 Wks
8 Wks
9 Wks
12 Wks
Height variation
8 -12 Wks
12 Wks
n/a
n/a
Minor exception
8 -12 Wks
6 Wks
n/a
12 Wks
Environmental
8 -12 Wks
2 Wks
4 Wks
1 wk
Assessment
Zone change
12 Wks
26 Wks
13 Wks
12
Wks
Variance
8 -12 Wks
6 -8 wk s
6 -7 Wks
12
Wks
General Plan
24 -40 Wks
6 -8 Wks
6 -7 Wks
12
Wks
amendment
Conditional Use
12 -48 Wks*
6 -8 Wks
4 Wks
12
Wks
Permit
EIR
12 -48 Wks
52 Wks
52 Wks
52
Wks
Tentative parcel 8 -24 Wks 52 Wks. 9 Wks 52 Wks
map
Tentative tract 96 -192 Wks 52 Wks 9 Wks 52 Wks
map
Additionally, there are state mandates as to noticing
requirements and public comment /review periods that are really
what make the process the lengths that they are. Due to this
comparison and the fact the it is really the state
requirements that extend the time frames, the City concludes
that their processing times are not a constraint to affordable
housing.
11. Dedications and fees
The Housing Element states (on page V -15) that dedications and
fees for a residential project are generally required of only
new subdivision maps and not for improvements on existing
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT IV
40
lots. Such fees are based on the actual cost of providing
needed infrastructure and public services. The determination
of such fees is widely variable, depending on the value of the
land and the number of units proposed. Planning approval and
building permit fees, however, are required for all
development projects. Projects within the. Coastal Specific
Plan area must also receive a Coastal Permit, which requires
discretionary review. If a residential project requires
approval of multiple applications, all are moved through the
process together and at the same time. The standard fees of
the planning department are listed on page V -18 and are
concluded that they are not excessive as compared to
surrounding cities and are therefore not a constraint to
development (especially when compared to the constraint of
land value). The time for processing is also not considered
a constraint because that is also comparable to other cities'
permit processing schedules. Incentives could be given,
however, to streamline the process for any discretionary
review related to an affordable housing project, butState
noticing requirements would still have to be met.
In conclusion, the majority of the above governmental regulations
are not considered constraints. Section B (below) summarizes
programs to mitigate the above listed standards that are considered
to be potential governmental constraints. Attachment V, page 44,
expands on the entire list of housing programs that were adopted in
the Element on page VII -3 and.the additional programs that have
been discussed throughout this report.
The City pledges to remove or relieve somehow potential government
constraint, if appropriate and legally possible. This amendment
changes the previous Housing Element conclusions that a number of
the City's land use policies constrain housing supply.
B. Programs to mitigate potential governmental constraints
i. Second unit ordinance
As stated on page 10, the City is currently undergoing
adoption procedures for a second unit ordinance which complies
with State law and would allow for second units in all single -
family and multi - family residential districts. After the
ordinance is adopted, it will be submitted to the State for
review. The allowance of second units on residential lots
will, in effect, eliminate the high land cost that has been
pointed out so many times in this report as the main
constraint to development on the Peninsula. It will also,
inevitably, increase the value of the existing property. The
rental assistance and senior programs listed in Attachment I
would then be' coordinated with such second unit developments
and incentive programs would be provided to the applicant for
participation into those programs.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT IV
41.
2. On -site employee housing
The City will prepare site development standards requiring on-
site employee housing through a specific plan and /or a
conditional use permit. Each major development project within
the City will be considered in light of these new standards.
As stated in the Housing Element, the majority of the City's
RHNA was based on anticipated large commercial development
that has been proposed. As affordable housing needs (RHNA) in
Rancho Palos Verdes is employment driven, the purpose of this
program is to make developers provide some housing, or a
housing fee, for those very low, low and moderate income
employees. SCAG determined that approximately 84 units of
the RHNA ref lect the need created by this new commercial
development. The on -site employee housing plan would promote
the fulfillment of the need, proportionally.
The City will determine the number of affordable housing units
to be provided by each project on a case -by -case basis. This
is necessary because federal and state law require the City to
demonstrate a nexus between a particular development project
and any affordable housing requirements imposed on that
project. In general, however, the City expects 84 units to be
created under this program during the life of this Element.
3. Affordable housing fund
The City will evaluate and, if feasible, implement a
development fee for commercial and residential development to
be allocated to an affordable housing fund to be used in the
event such development is approved in the next five years, If
considered prior to adoption of the fee, each of those
projects will be analyzed to incorporate housing requirements
as part of the conditional use permit process.
4. Senior home sharing program
The City will coordinate the implementation of a senior home
sharing program with the Peninsula Seniors, Los Angeles
County, etc. Such a program is anticipated to be established
during Fiscal Year 1992 -93.
5. Permit tracking system
The City will.establish a permit tracking system identifying
second units, lots that could accommodate second units, and
lots that could accommodate additional housing for the City.
Such.information would be provided to the public at no cost,
or at a minimal cost.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT IV
42
6. Development Code revisions
The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive revision of
the Development Code. Certain revisions will now allow Staff
authority to approve certain types of permits which currently
require Planning Commission or City Council consideration.
The revisions are now before the City Council and adoption is
anticipated to occur during Fiscal Year 1992 -93.
7. Density bonus plan
The City will develop an ordinance implementing the State
density bonus law. The ordinance would provide incentive to
developers of residential projects to provide affordable units
or senior units with an increase in their allowable densities.
The ordinance would also provide an intensity bonus for
commercial projects to provide affordable or senior units in
exchange for increased square footage, for example.
S. Manufactured /mobile housing provisions
The City will continue to comply with State law requiring all
cities to allow for manufactured housing (mobile homes) within
all residential districts. The Development Code revisions
mentioned above also include clarification of this
requirement. As stated on page 10, the City now allows
manufactured housing and mobile homes in all residential areas
of the City.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT N
43
ATTACHMENT V.
Expanded program descriptions
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT
44
The following: (A) responds to specific HCD questions regarding
Housing Element programs numbered 2, 91 11, 12, 13 and 16; and _(B)
supplements the Element. with more detailed program descriptions by
committing to ensure that the City can meet housing element program
requirements, specifying funding sources, quantifying objectives of
the program, and specifying steps to be taken by the City to
implement the programs (provided in a revised implementation
table) .
A. Response to specific HCD questions:
Program #2: Evaluate opportunities to fund rehabilitation of
low /moderate income housing.
10 What funding programs /sources will be evaluated?
The funding programs /sources that will be evaluated are
outlined in Attachment I, of this report. They are as
follows:
a. section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation
Provides for payment contracts on multi - family units
needing moderate rehabilitation in conjunction with
rental assistance. The 1989 housing survey considered
the condition of the housing stock, but not for the
existing multi- family units in the City. The City will
assist the property owners of the multi - family units with
information about this program and help coordinate
applications.
b. Community Development Block Grant
Provides funding for a wide range of community
development activities. Rancho Palos Verdes currently
uses these funds for the "Portuguese Bend Landslide
Mitigation Project" and has allocated over $1 million of
CDBG funds ( since 19 8 4 ) for landslide mitigation efforts.
This landslide is within the only redevelopment project
area in the City. The project area consists of
approximately two square miles and includes 219 homes
which are slated for conservation through these landslide
mitigation efforts and monies.
C. California Housing Finance Agency (Direct lending)
Provides loans to housing sponsors for construction or
rehabilitation of housing projects containing over five
units. The City has 2,179 units that are within
structures of five or more units (87% of these units are
in structures containing ten or more units). As stated
earlier, there are 2,729 apartment units in the City, so
this direct lending program could be targeted towards the-
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
45
rehabilitation of 80% of the City's existing rental
stock. Potential environmental constraints on new multi-
family housing in the City may be a deterrent to
development, but the program may be used in conjunction
with a density bonus plan.
d. California Housing Finance Agency (Home
ownership /improvement program
Provides financing of up to 49% of the purchase price of
a mortgage participation loan with an institutional
lender on behalf of income eligible households for
rehabilitation and purchase of housing in areas that are
in need of rehabilitation. The 1989 housing condition
survey concentrated its efforts in the Eastview area of
the City, which could be targeted with this program.
e. California Self -help Housing Program
Provides grants and loans to assist low and moderate
income families to build and rehabilitate their own
homes. High land costs and home values make the use of
this program difficult for new construction in Rancho
Palos Verdes, but rehabilitation may be feasible.
f. Mobile Home Park Assistance
Provides financial and technical assistance to mobile
home park residents. The Housing Element states that
there are no mobile home parks existing in the City.
However, the 1990 Census specifies 100 mobile homes.
This discrepancy may be due to the mobile home park at
the eastern boundary of the City, along Palos Verdes
Drive South, being included in a census tract that is
both within Rancho Palos Verdes and Los Angeles (San
Pedro) . The census block data has not been published yet
and the correct figure will be determined at that time.
g. Special User Housing Rehabilitation
Program targeted towards substandard housing. The 1989
housing survey indicated 57 housing units in the Eastview
area of the City that were in ' need of "major
rehabilitation" (several minor and moderate level repairs
necessary). This program could be, targeted towards
housing units such as these.
h._ Rental Housing Construction
Provides cash grants for the construction of housing
developments containing at least five units with 30
percent of the units affordable to lower income
households. As with the direct lending program (page 7),
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
46
this program could be targeted towards the rehabilitation
of 80% of the City's existing rental stock. Potential
environmental constraints ,on new multi - family housing in
the City may be a deterrent to development, but the
program may be used in conjunction with a density bonus
plan.
i. Deferred Payment Rehabilitation Loans
Provides loans for the rehabilitation of low and moderate
income housing. Again, certain sections of the City
could be targeted for such a rehabilitation program.
j. Marks Foran Rehabilitation Loans
Allows revenue bonds for housing rehabilitation. It is
known that there are housing units that are in need of
rehabilitation and this is an option for the City to
pursue.
k. Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing
Allows local agencies to keep increases in taxes for
redevelopment areas. Pursuant to State requirements, 20%
of the incremental property tax revenues- within the
redevelopment project area must be set aside for the
provision of low and moderate income housing. This tax
increment has previously not been available for City use
due to litigation proceedings. The County will be
releasing the money in phases and has not been able to
determine at this time how much tax increment the City
will be receiving over time. However, as stated under
the description of SB 99, redevelopment construction
loans (page 7), the City expects to receive final tax
increment figures from the County during Fiscal Year
1992 -93.
2. How will the programs be coordinated with the county
housing authority?
If the City decides not to create a housing authority, persons
from community groups would be designated. Certain programs
are administered through the County. When applicants are
coordinating with the City for these programs and funds, the
City will assist the applicant in filling out applications and
will direct the applicant to obtaining necessary background
information.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
47
3. What is the City's role in the program?
a. Community Housing Information Program.
The information program will publicize affordable housing
programs and funding sources available to qualified
households., The program will consist of display racks of
information brochures to be located at local libraries,
community centers, and city hall. Timing is anticipated
for Fiscal Year 1992 -93. The Planning Department will
coordinate this with the City Manager's office, assisted
by the general fund.
b. Second Unit ordinance Development Standards
Brochure.
This will be funded by the general fund and distributed
to the local homeowners' associations and senior centers.
This should be done during Fiscal Year 1992 -93.
4. When will the program be implemented?
During Fiscal Year 1992 -93.
Program #9: Evaluate the feasibility of providing rental
assistance subsidies to low income families, using CDBG, set -aside
funds, and /or housing mitigation fee revenues.
1. How will the City evaluate the feasibility of the
program?
The City (coordinated through the City Manager's office) will
evaluate how much we expect to receive in CDBG funds, 20% set -
aside funds from our redevelopment tax increment funds, and
any housing mitigation fees we implement, over the next five
years. Staff has already determined the extent of the rental
need (Attachment I of this report). Certain funds would be
set aside for certain needs groups, depending on how much
money is expected.
20 When would the program be implemented if determined
feasible?
During Fiscal Year 1992 -92.
3. How will the program be coordinated with the county
housing authority?
The City will approach apartment owners with the plan for
subsidized housing through information bulletins. The City
will determine, with the landlord, which households in their
building are in a needs group. The City will then contact the
County with the needs assessment to determine funding.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
48
4. What are the objectives of the program?
To assist, to the financial extent possible, those needs
groups.
Program #11: Develop an expenditure plan for 20% set -aside funds.
10 What are the estimated funds and expenditures through
1994?
As outlined on page 7, this tax increment has previously not
been available for City use due to litigation proceedings.
The County will be releasing the money in phases and has not
been able to determine at this time how much tax increment the
City will be receiving over time. However, the City expects
to receive final tax increment figures from the County during
Fiscal Year 1992 -93.
2. How will funds be used to assist low and moderate income
households?
The City will determine this when the actual amount has been
realized.
Program #12: Prepare standards for on -site employee housing for
commercial development.
1. What is the purpose of this program; to require
commercial developers to provide affordable housing in
exchange for development privileges?
As some of the affordable housing needs (RHNA) in Rancho Palos
Verdes is employment driven (as determined by SCAG) , the
purpose of this program is to make. developers provide some
housing, or a housing fee, for those very low, low and
moderate income employees.
2. What ratio of housing per commercial development area
would be required?
The City will determine the number of affordable housing units
to be provided by each project on a case -by -case basis. 'This
is necessary because federal and state law require the City to
demonstrate a nexus between a particular development project
and any affordable housing requirements imposed on that
project. In general, however, the City expects 84 units to be
created under this program during the life of this Element (in
response to SCAG's prediction of a possible 84 units).
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
49
3. How will the program be implemented?
As part of the development review process. It will probably
be done either through direct on site housing, a development
fee, or development of off-site housing within the City for
low- income residents.
4. What are the standards for on -site employee housing?
This program has not been evaluated, or produced, at this time
and has not been brought before the City Council.
Implementation is expected for mid 1992.
510 What income groups are targeted by the program?
Very low'to low income employees.
Program #13: Evaluate and, if feasible, implement a housing
mitigation fee for new development.
i . What kind and amount of new development would be subject
to the fee?
Commercial development and residential subdivisions of f ive or
more lots. Final establishment of the fee would be a policy
and legal decision.
2. How will the feasibility of the program be evaluated?
That would depend on the amount of the�fee and the extent of
the needs in the community.
3. When would the program be implemented?
During Fiscal Year 1992 -930
4. What would the mitigation fee constitute; the cost of
providing affordable units?
Rent subsidies.
50 What income groups are targeted by the program?
Very low to low income groups who are overpaying for housing.
69 What are the quantified objectives of the program?
This is provided in the revised implementation table, provided
in the next subsection of this attachment.
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
50
Program 16: Revise Development Code to reduce time frame for
approvals.
What kind of permit approvals will receive a reduced time
1. p
frame?
Sign applications, applications for large family day care,
pP .
uses permitted in all commercial zones, special use permits,
•p grading permits, determination of
parking lot permits, gr g p .
nonconforming signs, extreme slope permits, geologic
investigation permits.
In additi o n
to the above mentioned reduced time frames, the
revisions to the Development Code have also appeals procedures
have been
clarified and streamlined and processing procedures
in general have been streamlined.
20 What will be the revised approval.time frame?
Each level of approval that is eliminated decreases the
process by at least two months.
Be Revised Table 25: Implementation Actions
The following extensively revises. the existing Table 25 on page
VII-3 of the Housing Element New categories have been added (designated as such in parenthesis) , as well as an expanded detail
of
including a designation of targeted income groups for
programs
,
each ro ram. Many of the previous "implementation actions" are
p g
now categorized under "Policy" so that the new implementation
actions are much more detailed. Also, certain goals, objectives
and programs from the 1981 Housing Element have been included with
a m g P
ore thorough update on those programs. This table will now
serve as the framework for the state mandated Housing Element
to be provided to the City Council and Planning commission,
.
annually.
TABLE 25 (revised)
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
I.
Goal: Meet the City's designated. Regional Housing Needs
Assessment for very low, low and moderate income
households (new)
A. Objective: Provide affordable housing to all future needs
groups (new)
Quantified: ied: Provide at least 38 very low, 46 low and 52
moderate income housing units (new)
1.
Policy: Provide assistance to the future needs groups
through rental subsidies and mortgage loan
assistance (new)
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
51.
a. Program:. Federal Section 8 New Construction - provides
funding for the construction of housing
affordable to lower income persons (new)
(1) Action: Coordinate information brochures and
implementation through the County
Housing Authority (new)
(a) Funding source: General fund
$ 20,000
(b) Responsibility: Environmental Services
(Associate or Senior level
planner, half time, on-
going)
(c) Schedule: Fiscal Year 1992 -93 start
date and to be ongoing
thereafter (new).
Target Group: Very Low Income
b. Program: Federal Section 8 Existing - provides rent
subsidies to low- income renters. The
majority of rents in the City exceed the
ceiling levels set for participation in the
program, but some needs households do exist.
(new)
(1) Action: Continue regular review of rental rates
by City Council subcommittee
(a) Funding source: General fund (new)
(b) Responsibility: City Council administration
(c) Schedule: Ongoing
Target Group: Very Low Income
c. Program: Evaluate the feasibility of providing rental
assistance subsidies to very low, low and
moderate income families, using CDBG, set -
aside funds or housing mitigation fee
revenues
(1) Action: Coordinate with Los Angeles County
Housing and other agencies
(a) Funding source: General fund (new)
(b) Res p onsibility: Environmental Services
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
52
(c) Schedule: Ongoing
Target Groups: Very Low, Low and Moderate
Income
d. Program: Evaluate and, if feasible, implement a
housing mitigation fee for new development
through conditions of approval or specific
plan regulations to be allocated to an
affordable housing fund
(1) Action: Prepare appropriate studies and
ordinances (new)
(a) Funding source: General fund (new)
(b) Responsibility: Environmental Services/
Redevelopment Agency
(c). Schedule: Ongoing
Target Groups: Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
2, Policy: Provide a variety of housing for future needs
groups (new)
a. Program: Determine which of the following might best
supplement the existing housing stock:
single - family conversion, garage units,
grandparent cottages (granny flats),
accessory apartments, others
(1) Action: Appropriate ordinances
(a) Funding source* General fund ( new)
(b) Responsibility: Environmental Services
(c) Schedule: Ongoing
Target Groups: Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
b. Program: Work with existing agencies to expand housing
services in the City: house sharing, group
care, congregate homes, outreach efforts
(1) Action: Establish lines of communication
(a) Funding source: General fund (new)
(b) Responsibility: Environmental Services
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
53
(c) Schedule:.
Ongoing
Target Groups:
Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
c. Program: Complete study and hearings of mixed -use
ordinance
(1) Action: Appropriate
ordinances
(a) Funding source:
General fund (new)
(b) Responsibility:
Environmental Services
(c) Schedule:
Ongoing
Target Groups:
Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
d. Program: Accommodation of
at least 40 domestic
quarters within new homes or additions to
existing homes
(1) Action: Develop an expenditure
plan for the 20%
set -aside funds
(a) Funding source :
General fund (new)
(b) Responsibility:
Environmental
Services /Finance
(c) Schedule.
Ongoing
Target Groups:
Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
(2) Action: Establish a
permit tracking system to
identify domestic quarters and provide-
information
to appropriate employment
and housing
agencies
(a) Funding source:
General fund (new)
(b) Responsibility:
Environmental Services
(c) Schedule:
Ongoing-
Target Groups:
Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
54
e. Program: Prepare standards for on -site employee
housing for commercial development through
conditional use permits or specific plan
regulations
(1) Action: Prepare appropriate ordinances (new)
(a) Funding source:
General fund (new)
(b) Responsibility:
Environmental Services
(c) Schedule.
Ongoing
Target Groups.
Very Low and Low Income
3. Policy: Minimize restrictions
to affordable housing
a. Program: Establish staff responsibility
to monitor
affordable housing
restrictions
(1) Action: Designate staff member and develop
tracking and
enforcement procedures
(a) Funding source.
General fund (new)
(b) Responsibility.
Environmental
Services /City Attorney
(c) Schedule.
;Ongoing
Target Groups.
Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
b. Program: Revise Development
Code to reduce time frame
for approvals
(1) Action: Prepare appropriate ordinances (new)
(a) Funding source:
General fund (new)
(b) Responsibility:
E n v i r o n m e n t a l
Services /City Attorney
(c) Schedule:
Ongoing
Target Groups:
Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
55
B. objective: Provide affordable housing to all future special
needs groups (new)
Quantified: Provide affordable housing to the projected 15-
large family households and the projected 83
female- headed households (new)
1. Policy: Monitor state and federal housing programs and
funding to determine resources available to
special needs groups
a. Program: Periodic review of pertinent programs and
legislation
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Action:. Staff person to review data as it is
available (new)
Funding source: General fund (new)
Responsibility:
Schedule:
Target Groups:
Environmental Services
Ongoing
Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
II. Goal: Provide affordable housing for the City's designated
very low, low and moderate income households (new)
A. Objective: Provide affordable housing to all existing
needs groups (new)
Quantified: Provide at least 38 very low, 46 low and 52
moderate income housing units (new)
10 Policy: Provide assistance to the existing needs groups
through rental subsidies and mortgage loan
assistance (new)
a. Program: Federal Section 8 New Construction - provides
funding for the construction of housing
affordable to lower income persons (new)
(1) Action: Coordinate information brochures and
implementation through the County
Housing Authority (new)
(a) Funding source:
56
General fund
$ 20,000
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
(b) Responsibility:
Environmental Services
(Associate or Senior
level planner, half
time, ongoing)
(c) Schedule:
Fiscal Year 1992 -93 and
ongoing
Target Groups:
Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
b. Program: Federal Section
8 Existing - provides rent
subsidies to low-
income renters. The
majority of rents in the City exceed the
ceiling levels set for participation in the
program, but some needs households do exist.
(new)
(1) Action: Continue regular
review of rental rates
by City Council subcommittee
(a) Funding source:
General fund (new)
(b) Responsibility:
City Council
administration
(c) Schedule:
Ongoing
Target Group:
Very Low Income
c. Program: Evaluate the feasibility of providing rental
assistance subsidies to very low, low and
moderate income
families, using CDBG, set -
aside funds or
housing mitigation fee
revenues
(1) Action: Coordinate
with Los Angeles County
Housing and
other agencies
(a) Funding source:
General fund (new)
(b) Responsibility:
Environmental Services
(c) Schedule:
Fiscal Year 1992 -93 and
ongoing
Target Groups:
Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
B. Objective: Provide affordable
housing to all existing
special needs groups
(new)
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
. ATTACHMENT V
57
Quantified: Provide affordable housing to the projected 15
large family households, the projected 83
female- headed households and the projected
elderly households in need (new)
1. Policy: Provide housing for the special needs groups
such as the handicapped, the elderly,
overcrowded housing, farm workers, the homeless
(new)
a. Program: Continue to provide the 12 moderate income
housing units at the Marriott Lifecare Center
(1) Action: Approved for development (new)
(a) Funding source: Developer financed
(new)
(b) Responsibility: Environmental Services
(new)
(c) Schedule: Project pending
resolution of litigation
Target Groups: Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
b. Program: Accommodation of at least 30 senior home-
sharing arrangements in existing homes
(1) Action: Implement a home - sharing program for
seniors and coordinate with the
Peninsula Seniors, Los Angeles County
and other agencies
(a) Funding source: General fund ( new)
(b) Responsibility. Environmental Services
(c) Schedule: Fiscal Year 1992 -93 and
ongoing
Target Groups: Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
c. Program: Continue to evaluate the 1990 Census data
regarding unique household characteristics
(1) Action: Staff person to review data as it is
available (new)
(a) Funding source: General fund (new)
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
58
(b) Responsibility:
(c) Schedule:
Target Groups.
Environmental Services
Fiscal Year 1992 -93 and
ongoing
Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
III. Goal: Improve the existing affordable housing (new)
A. Objective: Maintain the quality environment of the
community (new)
Quantified: Improve, repair and rehabilitate up to ten
substandard very low, low and moderate income
housing units
10 Policy: Provide improvement subsidies to very low, low
and moderate income households that meet the
eligibility requirements for the CDBG program or
the 20% set- aside fund related to the - City's
redevelopment project area
2. Policy: Evaluate opportunities to fund rehabilitation of
low /moderate income housing
a. Program: Federal Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation -
provides for payment contracts on multi -
family units needing moderate rehabilitation
in conjunction with rental assistance. (new)
(1) Action: Coordinate with Los Angeles County
Housing or other agencies to assist
property owners of multi - family units
with information about this program and
help coordinate applications.
(a) Funding source: General fund ( new)
(b) Responsibility: Environmental Services
(new)
(c) Schedule: Fiscal Year 1992 -93 and
ongoing
Target Groups: Low and Moderate Income
b. Program: California Housing Finance Agency Direct
lending - provides loans to housing sponsors
for construction or rehabilitation of housing
projects containing over five units. (new)
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
67M
(1)• Action: Coordinate with Los Angeles County
Housing or other agencies to assist
property owners of multi- family units
with information about this program and
help coordinate applications. (new)
(a)
Funding source: General fund (new)
(b)
Responsibility: Environmental Services
(new)
(c)
Schedule: Fiscal year 1992 -93 and
ongoing
Target Groups: Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
(2) Action: Address fair housing complaints through
community organizations coordinated
with the Metro - Harbor Fair Housing
Council
(a)
Funding source. Department budget
(b)
Responsibility: Environmental Services
(c)
Schedule: Ongoing
Target Groups. Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
2, Objective:
Continue the provision of existing affordable
units (new)
Quantified
objective: Continue to supply the ten
moderate income units at the
Villa Capri condominium
development
a. Policy:
Evaluate regulatory options for discouraging
or prohibiting conversions of apartments to
condominiums
(1) Action: Possible amendments to subdivision or
conditional use permit regulations
(a)
Funding source. General fund
(b)
Responsibility. Environmental Services
(c)
Schedule: Fiscal Year 1992 -93 and
ongoing
Target Groups: Moderate Income
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
.t
b. Policy: Develop an ordinance implementing the state
density bonus law
(1) Action: Prepare appropriate ordinances
(a) Funding Source: General fund
(b) Responsibility: Environmental Services
(c) Schedule: Fiscal Year 1992 -93 and
ongoing
Target Groups: Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
(2) Action: Continue to accommodate manufactured
housing in residential zones
(a) Funding source: General fund
(b) Responsibility: Environmental Services
(c) Schedule: Ongoing
Target Groups: Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
IV. Goal: Preserve the City's existing housing stock (new)
A. Objective: Provide incentives to homeowners for upgrading
and maintaining their homes (new)
Quantified: Improve, repair or rehabilitate up to ten
substandard housing units
10 Policy_: Establish neighborhood preservation and
beautification efforts
(1) Action: Continue existing recycling grants
program
(a) Funding source: Department budget
(b) Responsibility: E n v i r on m e n t a t
Services /Public Works
(c) Schedule: Ongoing
Target Groups: Moderate Income
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
61
B. Objective: Preserve the housing stock in the landslide area
Quantified: Conserve 219 existing housing units within the
City's redevelopment project area
10 Policy: Continue stabilization efforts related to the
landslide area
(1) Action: Grading and cleaning of Portuguese
Canyon to restore natural drainage. To
ensure proper drainage, a 1/2 round CMP
pipe will be placed at the bottom of
the canyon (new: to be addressed in
1992 -93 annual budget)
(a) Funding source: Community development Block
Grant
$ 30,000 (new: to be
addressed in 1992 -93 annual
budget)
(b) Responsibility: Public Works (new. from 92-
93 annual budget)
(c) Schedule: Fiscal Year 1992 -93 (new)
Target Groups: Low and Moderate Income
(2) Action: Construction of shoreline protection to
prevent erosion of material on a
temporary basis (newe. from 92-93 annual
budget)
(a) Funding source: Community Development Block
Grant
$ 136,314 (new: from 91 -92
annual budget)
(b) Responsibility: Public Works (new: from 91-
92 annual budget)
(c) Schedule. Late 1992
Target Groups: Low and Moderate Income
2., Policy: Continue funding and support for RDA landslide
abatement efforts
(1) Action: Continue current efforts and complete
adopted projects
(a) Funding source: Department budget
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
62
(b) Responsibility: Redevelopment Agency
(c) Schedule: ongoing
Target Groups: Low and Moderate Income
(2) Action: Continue to pursue financing for
residents in the Redevelopment area
(a) Funding source: Department budget
(b) Responsibility: Redevelopment Agency
(c) Schedule: ongoing
Target Groups: Low and Moderate Income
V. Goal: Promote a range of housing types
A. Objective: Provide housing to not only meet the RHNA needs
but to meet the needs of the community and the
surrounding area
Quantified: Provide the required number of RHNA housing,
including above market rate housing
1. Policy: Encourage a variety of housing types in new
development, including rentals, which will
maintain the present predominance of single-
family residences found throughout the community
(1) Action: Approve and support a skilled care
elderly housing project, in part to
provide for low income elderly
(a) Funding source: General Fund (new)
(a) Responsibility: Environmental Services
(new)
(b) Schedule: Project approved and
ongoing
Target Groups: Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
(2) Action: Permit residential planned development
city -wide and require in the coastal
area
(a) Funding source: General Fund (new)
(a) Responsibility: Environmental Services
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
63
(b)
Schedule.
Ongo 1 n g through
existing ordinances
Target
Groups.
Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
(3)
Action: Permit manufactured homes on all
buildable
single- family residential
lots in the
City
(a)
Funding source:
General Fund (new)
(a)
Responsibility.
Environmental Services
(new)
(b)
Schedule:
Ongoing through
existing ordinances
Target Groups:
Very Low, Low and,
Moderate Income
(4)
Action: Provide senior housing through area
block grant
monies
(a)
Funding source :
General Fund (new)
(b)
Responsibility:
Environmental Services
.(new)
(c)
Schedule:
Ongoing through
existing ordinances
Target Groups:
Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
2. Policy:
Discourage conversion of apartments and prohibit
conversion when City
vacancy rate-is less than
5 %, since this further limits the economic range
of housing
(1)
Action: Monitor vacancy rates and provide
several program incentives to apartment
owners
(a)
Funding source:
Department budget
(b)
Responsibility:
Environmental Services
(c)
Schedule.
Early 1993 and ongoing
Target Groups:
Very Low, Low and
Moderate Income
1992 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT V
64
Section A of Attachment IV is amended to add the following:
11. Fiscal Constraints
The City's ability to encourage the development of
housing f or persons and households of all income levels is greatly
hampered by its limited fiscal resources. As noted in the existing
housing element, the City and its residents qualify for few federal
and state housing programs.
Local resources are also unavailable for a significant
housing development program. The Redevelopment Agency has not yet
accumulated significant monies in its low and moderate income
housing fund. The City is not in a position to divert general fund
monies from pressing concerns such as law enforcement and other
municipal responsibilities. Of course, Government Code Section
65589, a provision of the Housing Element statute, expressly
recognizes that the City need not "expend local revenues for the
construction of housing, housing subsidies, or land acquisition."
Worse still, the City cannot be certain that it will continue to
receive the state subventions which form a critical component of
its budgeted revenues.
Therefore, all the programs and commitments stated in the
housing element, as amended hereby, are subject to the following
significant caveat: Although the City is fully committed to its
housing programs, it may lack the financial resources to implement
those programs as presently proposed.
EXHIBIT "B" RESOL. NO. 92 -86
a853.mgc
Exhibit "C" to Resolution No. 92 -86
Page 8. SB 99, Redevelopment Construction Loans
June, 1992 has been changed to "during Fiscal Year 1992-
93*11
Page 11: Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing
June, 1992 has been changed to "during Fiscal Year 1992-
93-all
Page 31: 116 units for Subregions 7 & 8 has been changed to 1183
units"
Page 32: 24 units west of Yacht Harbor Drive (Transamerica) has
been changed to 1110 units"
Page 32: Subtotal for above moderate housing changed from 435 to
11388." Total Housing Units changed from 704 to 11657."
Page 39: The City will be preparing its own density bonus
ordinance, in compliance with the State law, by early
1993 has been changed to "during Fiscal Year 1992 -93."
Page 48: Such a program is anticipated to be established by early
1992 has been changed to "during Fiscal Year 1992 -93."
Page 49: The revisions are now before the City Council and
adoption is anticipated in early 1992 has been changed to
"to occur during Fiscal Year 1992 -93."
Page 54: [ T) he City expects to receive final tax increment figures
from the County by June 1992 has been changed to "during
Fiscal Year 1992 -93."
Timing i s anticipated for early 1993 has been changed to
"Fiscal Year 1992 -93."
This should be done by the end of 1992 has been changed
to "during Fiscal Year 1992 -93."
By early 1993 has been changed to "During Fiscal Year
1992 -93."
Page 55: By early 1993 has been changed to "During Fiscal Year
1992 -93."
Pages However, the City expects to receive final tax increment
55-56: figures from the County by June 1992 has been changed to
"during Fiscal Year 1992 -93."
Exhibit C to Resolution No. 92 -86
Page 1 of 3
Page 56: Implementation is expected for mid 1992 has been changed
to "during Fiscal Year 1992 -93."
Page 57: By mid 1993 has been changed to "During Fiscal Year 1992-
9:3.011
Page 59: a. (c) Schedule: June 1992 changed to "Fiscal Year
1992 -93" start date and to be ongoing
thereafter (new)
Page 64: 1. a. (c) Schedule: Late 1992 changed to "Fiscal Year
1992 -93 and ongoing
Page 65: (1) (c) Schedule: Late 1992 changed to "Fiscal Year 1992-
93 and ongoing
Page 66: ( (1) (c) Schedule: Late 19922 changed to "Fiscal Year
1992 -93" and ongoing
Page 6 6: (c) (1) (c) Schedule: June 1992 changed to "Fiscal Year
1992 -93" and ongoing
Page 67s 2. (a)(1)(c)Schedule: Late 1992 changed to "Fiscal Year
1992 -93" and ongoing
Page 68: 2. (b)(1)(c) Schedule: Late 1992 changed to "Fiscal Year
1992 -93 and ongoing
2. a. (1) (c) Schedule: Late 1992 changed to "Fiscal Year
1992 -93" and ongoing
Page 69: b. (c) Schedule: Late 1992 changed to "Fiscal Year 1992-
93" and ongoing
Page 70: B.1.(1) Action: To ensure proper drainage, a 1/2 round
CMP pipe will be placed at the bottom of
the canyon (new: from 91 -92 annual
budget)
(a) Funding Source: Community Development Block
Grant $30,000 knew: from 91-
9 2 annuua 1 budget) changed to
"to be addressed in 1992 -93
annual budget."
(b) Responsibility: Public Works (new: from 91 -92
changed to 1192 -93" annual budget)
(c) Schedule: Late 1992 changed to "Fiscal Year 1992-
9311 (new)
Exhibit C to Resolution No. 92 -86
Page 2 of 3
(2) Action: Construction of shoreline protection to
prevent erosion of material on a temporary
basis (new: from 91 -92 changed to 1192 -93"
annual budget)
(a) Funding source: Community Development Block Grant
$136,314 deleted dollar amount
(new: from 91 -92 changed to "92-
93" annual budget)
(b) Responsibility: Public Works (new: from 91 -92
changed to 1192-9311 annua 1 budget)
(c) Schedule: Late 1992 changed to "Fiscal Year
1992 -93"
Exhibit C to Resolution No. 92 -86
Page 3 of 3