HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 6403 N.C.S. 09/04/1973 • EER:mi 8-27.-73
• zsolution No. 6.403 G N t� L
i a�i\S'S
RESOLUTION' MODIFYING THE4 USING ETEMENT. OF. THE GENERAL PLAN
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMAN G ° .' and
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN at a
Regular Meeting of the City Council of the
City of Petaluma, on the 4th day of September t9 73
WHEREAS the City: Planning Commission has reviewed proposed modi-
fications of the Housing Element of the GeneralPlan, :and 'has held a hearing
thereon .and after said hearing finds the. .proposed modifications to the
Housing Element of the 'General Plan should be adopted, and
WHEREAS, the City: Planning Commission filed with the City Clerk
on the .7th day of August, .1923 , its report. as 'set forth in, :its: Resolution
No. 18-73 recommending adoption of certain Modifications to the Housing
Element of the .General Plan, and
WHEREAS , the City Council has reviewed the .proposed modifications
of the. Housing Element of the General Plan and has held a hearing thereon
the .4th day of September, l933 , and' after said hearing finds that the
proposed modifications of the Housing Element of the General Plan should
be adopted,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the proposed modifications
to the Housing Element of the 'General Plan are. hereby adopted in the form
as prepared by. the staff, a copy of which .is attached hereto and incor-
porated herein.
cinder the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
I hereby certify the the foregoing Resolution was duly and regulary introduced and
adopted by the Council of the City of Petaluma on the 4th
day of September , 1973 , by the following votes:
AYES: Councilmen Brunner , Cavanagh, Jr . , Daly,, .Iarberson;�)lattei ,
Perry , Jr . , and Mayor Putnam. �� Jj
NOES: None, ayor
ABSENT None.
%
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Form CA 6-73
6 Voce
. • S .
•
{jtih� . crD'LFS'. s.:Jk23�IE.. �
MOUSINGELEMENT ANNUM, REV1E 4 AND 'UPDATE
IN'I':<oDUC'rTON
3
. .' The fiscal, year 197.2 -73 was a highly productive one for
Petaluma in the closely related-areas of housing and develop-
ment " The year saw the enactment of _several new policy
• documents, :notably the Environmental ;nesi'gn Plan and the Housing
Element ; the formulation of the Residential Development Control
• System to implement the new policies;; and tare final setting in
motion of proq:rams to satisfy otn cia`1 development goals that
have been in thei making for several years In addition ; one
year' s development. allocations were petitioned for publicly
discussed,, and granted: as set forward' 'by the provisions of the
Housing Element and the 'Res dent :1 Development ,Cu'trol System-
.
Thus , after several years of identifying problems and devising
solutions , the City found itself , near the end of the "fiscal
year, well on the :way towards physical realization of housing
and development goals established over recent years
In order to -keep those goals realistic and current , however ,
it was specified in the Housing Element that they should be
reconsidered and if necessary , revised on an annual basis
Thus , it is the intention of this report to analyze specified
goals in the light, of one yeart 'S experience with the system;
in addition; the: affect's on housing ,and other local problems.
of the system' s first year of operation will be measured- Final-
ly, any .new considerations arising out of the first year ' s ex-
perience. or any recommendations for change in goals on policies
will be discussed::
HOUSING INVENTORY
On March 1 , 1.973 ; nine, thousand nine hindr,ed ferty-three
(9) 943) units of all types were in existence in Petaluma- Of
these units ; eighty-three percent ('8e%;)' were single-family
dwellings ; nine percent (9o) were multi-family dwellings in
buildings ot .two to nine units; and three percent (`3°s.) were
multi-family dwelli'ngs' in buildings of tern or more units„ Five
percent (5%,f of all units were mobile homes,, Table 1 indicates
how these units were distributed among the three sections of the
City that were origDna•lly. definad by the Housing Element : (For
precise boundaries;. see Map i- ) For example, the shows
that the east section held forty--six, percent (46C of a`ll the
single-family units in the City, but that eighty-nine percent
(89%) of all the dwellings in the east section were single-
family units (__ Lher owner or center occupised) - This will
be most useful later in this' report when various alternatives:
for proportioning allocations among section's bf the City are
consider.ed.,.
An indication o'f the physical, effects of the' Re_:'idential
-Deyelopment Cont i:01 .S.ys+temp' s first year Of operation can be seen'
•
REPORT TO: Planning Commission August 2, 1973
FROM: -Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Revisions to the Preliminary Housing Element Annual Review
and Update
The following are suggested changes in the Housing Element Annual Review
and Updated
1, Page 2 , last paragraph_; third sentence: Change to read, "This may
result, in an inflation of prices on even inexpensive units because
of the supply-and=demand relationship, "
2 Page 3, footnote at the end of first paragraph. "Studies reported
in the January, 1971 issue of ASPO (American Society of Planning
Officials) Planning Advisory Service, and .also in the July-August,
19'71 issue, show that most planning departments surveyed consider
mobile homes to be "sound low-to-moderate-cost housing and a much
needed element in the housing supply. "
3. Page 3, last paragraph, first sentence. change to read, "First,
the goal of attempting to balance housing, units among sections of
. ' the City by striving to achieve one to ane relationships with
existing incorporated land should h-t cs.lpp ly scrutinized, since
much new development will take place on land that will be annexed
in the future . "
•
4'. Page 4., first paragraph, last. sentences.. Change to read, "This fact
is reflected in the concept of a greenbelt on the East side. "
5. Page 4., second paragraph; fourth sentence.. To this sentence which
. reads , 'Conversely; the policy of this City, like most' others , has
been to encourage high density in the Central Section whore problems
Of access and convenience are more readily resolved, " add, "especially
with respect to pedestrian traffic. "
Respectfully Submitted,
Denni"s Boehlje
Department of Community Development
•
DB•sd
•
Housing Element Annual. Review and Update v9 (continued)
).. by comparing Table li to Table ] Table II consists of all
units already constructed in the Ci *_y , plus: all planned units;
t ' including subdivisions approved before the Control System went
into effect,;: but not yet completed ,, and allocations- granted in
the first year of the System' s operation , Comparison indicates
that a small ; but not insignificant start towards the goal of
balancing 'development typea among sections ;o,f, the City has been
reached For example , currently the east side contains only
twenty--eight percent (:2'8'%) of the dwellings in multi-family
buildings of ten or more units, but wlen the first year ' s alloca-
tions are constr-uetad., it will contain almost thirty-seven per-
cent (.370 ) This fsbot as high a percentage. as the west will
• contain_ (52%) , but it still represents a big' first step towards
remedying the current, imbalance Some oro,g'ress, then, has been
Made towards achieving this particular. goal specified by the
Council.
Another goal specified by the .Council, in the Housing' Element
was that not only types of- units ; but also number of units , be
balanced among sections of the City as well Again, analysis
of the two charts indicate that a small start has been made to-
wards satisfaction of this goal - Thus:; forty-three percent (43%).
of the already-constructed units is on the east side,' while
almost forty-tour .percent (4.4%) of the total units existing or
allocated is there-. Similar percentages, for the west side are
forty-five percent (45%); of units in both ca-tegories -_ Thus ,
balance between east• and west has been achieved to some degree
through the first year 's operation of the Control ,System,
VACANCY FACTORS
The Housing Element reported that, in Mid-1971• Petaluma had
a vacancy of one and. one tenth percent (1:..1.°%) to one and seven
tenths percent ( 1 7'%) ; much lower than the normal rates for, a
city growing as rapidly as Petaluma. In October , 1972 , HUD con-
ducted another survey of postal vacancy rates':, these rates are
as follows :
Total Residences Apartments Mobile- Homes
May, 1971 1, 7% 1: 6% 4 - 3'0
Oct, 1972 1, 2% 58H% 6.-:10 5s.
Several things are indicated. by the information in the table
First , as is logical, the. .morat'oium, coupled with the Growth
Control System, has resulted' in an even tighter vacandy' factor
for single-family units than the previous one ..itself already ab-
normally low, This results in an unhealthy' inflation of prices
on ,even inexpensive units because Of the supply-and-demand
relationship. One consequence of this is the low vacancy factor'
•
' Hbusing Element Annual Review' and, Update--1973- (continued)
[: for mobile home units . Apparently persons frustrated by _few
Vacancies and, high cost in the single-family market are increas-
e, imgly turning to mobile homes as the only- available—bat tapidly .
depleting--source, of ,inexpensive owner:-occupied, housing,
On the other side of the coin, vacaneies in multiple apart-
ment buildings ;in the .City fell, for the ,first time in several
years, in the range, co,nsidered healthy, six_ to eight percent,
This could be an indication of several factors _ First, simply
the recent increase in apartments constructed could have driven
the supply up to a healthy figure, Second, hew apartments con-
structed recently may be too expensive for the current demands
of local apartment seekers, driving them to the mobile home parks;
or, as is the more likely case, the popular awareness' which still
conceives Petaluma to be ;a Strictly single-family city has not
yet caught up with the market shift in the City, When it does,
new residents may tend less to be medium-aged families with
Children and more to be, the typical apartment dwellers .
.ALLOCATIONS
A major purpose ,of this update. of the Housing Element is to
reexamine the original allocation proposals in the Element and
to determine whether they represent the optimal distribution of
units between sections. One method of determining the optimal
arrangement of dwelling units is to detettiine how they stand in
relation to the distribution of the City' s total land area among
the sections_ Table ,III presents this measure : 'Assuming bound-
aries defined in the Houeing Element, the east .section of the
City comprises forty_ €our percent (440) of the total City land
area, a one to one relationship with the percentage of the City' s
existing and allocated dwelling units on the east side, The
situation is not so equal for the west and central sections,
however, The west section contains thirty-eight percent (38% )
of the City ' s total land area and forty-five. percent (45%) of
existing and allocated dwelling units, yielding a one to one
and two tenths ration; and the central section contains eighteen
percent ( 18%) of the land area , but only eleven: percent (11%.) of
the ;dwelling units, yielding a One to six tenths ratio- Several
consid'ei:ations. must be ;noted before any real import can be
attached to these calculations however,
First , attempting to balance h_ ousngt units among sections
of the City, by striving to achieve one to one relationships with •
existing- incorporated land may not be the proper procedure 'to
follow, since much new development will take place on land that
will be annexed in the future This -is particularly true on the
east side, but not so 'much .as the west,, for two reasons: There
are, within the western city limits, several vacant parcels of
land that can absorb a 'gr-eat deal Of that area ' s allocations for -
the next three yea s , and there are Some limits to future: annexa-
tion because of resident unwillingness, in areas in the northwest
side or because of environmental factors (slopes) . Thus,, the east
Housing Element Annual .Review and Update---1973' (continued)
side should probably be Scheduled for a bit more development than
the west since it has adjacent to it more annexable: land: This
fact is reflected in the location of the greenbelt on the east
side,
Second, despite the fact that the central portion occupies
eighteen- percent (1814 of the City's land,, it should not be ex-
pected to hold eighteen percent of its dwell'_s-ng units . This is
so because more than n -half the land in that area is zoned for
commercial or industrial uses, In addition, some potential land
annexation areas have, been blocked by resident unwillingness to
come into the City„ Conversely , the policy of this City, like
most others, has been to encourage high density in the central
section where problems 'of access and con-venience are more readily
resolved, Thus , some high density development should be encour-
aged when new projects are proposed in the central section so
that this area can absorb some o.f the development load currently
being placed on the: west Side.
•
Over the next four- years, then' the .Cpuncil and the Resi-
dential Development Evaluation Board should strive to direct
more multi-family development to the east and central sections
of the City. In this way, the east side can assume its share
of multiple units which will help limit sprawl. For this reason,
it is recommended that the Council reverse last year ' s decision
to combine the central and west sect ions ° allocations and instead
grant separate allocations for each, section., By so doing, the
Council and Board will have more leverage with which to regulate
densities in order to achieve previously articulated goals ,.
According to Table II, each section and the City as a whole
contain the following proportions of each type of unit :
•
Single- Multi Mobile
Family (All 'Types), Home
Total 78,,'85%: 16.. 551 4 . 60%
East 85,.01% 7 . 231 7 : 76%
West 71 .49% 2'5 , 81% 2 , 70%
Central 84..•8i'%• 15 , 191 0. 00%
Since the: east and West ate mainly residential living en-
vironments with, approximately the same: access , needs, and
attributes , the fairest policy might be to grant allocations that
would act to equalize types of units in each of those sections ,
This points once again to development of high density multiple
units , and especially duplex-triplex type units on the east side '
more than the west. Finally, since the central section, as dis-
cussed previously, has special characteristics that make it ideal
-9-
Housing Element 41/4eai TeVieW and, UPdate- -1111/ CdonpinUed)
for high density development, the best policy might be to in-
crease that area 's multiple family 0nits .
Thusb, the start reecthend's ti-ot residential development
,a2ilocatacins lor the next tnfee •yeees be established as tollows . "
EAST CENTRAL
Single Multi Sangle Multi Single Multi
Year Family FaMiLy Tti 1Family Family Ttl LFamily Family TU.
1974= 75 120 130 250 30 TO l-cOH 120 30 150
1975- 76 120 140 260 25 65 90 1. 120 30 150
1976-77 130 140- 270 25 55. 80 i20 30 150
•
Tables IV. V, and V1 Indicate the Physical distributional
consequences ot allocating Units tacordiing to these guidelines
by listing the percentages et each type of 'unit in each section
and in the City atter each yea,. a allecatacns
Sevelal things become apparent riOfft a review of the tables
First , the breakdown oi types of units in each section of the
City approaches breakdown Of. typea, in the City as allocations
proceed- This indicates, more equal ddatribution of dwelling
types among neighborhoods - Second, the goal oi encouraging a
higher density in the oentiai section is approached Third, the
east section takes on a larger percentage of units than the west
after the 1975- 16 allocations are made, and it does so by higher
density development; thus , counlefacting the current trend to-
wards sprawl-. At the same tithe , hGwever , more than half of the
units are still reserved for sanglestamily use a situation that
should help ease the demand rot sinclifami„Ly use a situation
that should help ease the demand tc r. sibqle-family units , and
improve the vacancy factor fell that ol.-aS of dwellings- Finally,
the west side is allowed to upgrade by an increase in the per-
centage of single7tamily urn Ls in that section -
As indidated on the attached chart of ,allotments awarded
durina the -r-,nt ?pare ,, there a' a total. of 73 unitn out of
the quota of 500 set by' the, City Council for which no allotments
were awarded for the 1973-74 construction year. in order to keep
up with the goal of allowing 2, 500 units to be constructed during
the five-year period, the City Council should have the possibility
of adding these 73 units to this year' s 500 units .
-5-
. •1 ..
Housing Element Annual flpviet and :Update-1973 (Continued)
The staff recommends that the 13 addi leMsL u_.its not he
Specified for any particular: portion of the. City or for a paa t .cula.r
housing type., but the units insce:id bc, placed in s general allocation
bank to be allotted to any portion of the City. These units should
be awarded to developments which rebe;i've, high 'evaluati.ons but are
not awarded an allotment. because of an. imeuff1eaent quota ; The City
Council could set min ,mum standards for awarding these allotments
at the time of revising the Residential Development Control System.
In future years further revisions could he made through the Housing
Element Annual Review and Update to correct any modifications that
may he a result from these awards:
Allocating units along these guidelines wi.11 make a start
towards a partial so:l.ut/on of the problems listed in the Housing
Element, Other problems will be dealt with in .later sections of
this report.
POP(ThA':'ICN/HOUSEnvl.0
The above recomniOndations for a. Slightly increased residential
density should have a very favorable, effect on such population-related
factors as schools , parks, etc. 'i'bi's is the case because higher den-.
sits units tend to have a lower population per household than do
single-family units. Table VII contrasts current population/household
figures (estimated by the Planning Department from 1970 U: S . Census
• data) with 1'969 figures taken from the State Census ..
•
5a-
171
. ' .
. . . ' • - .
Housing. EleMent •n4)nual Review and UPdater-.1 lqcht111Uen).
. .
•
- '
TABLE VII
• Ropulation/Hopseh&ld
1969 Current
Single 'E,-affalY ' 3 . 37 • 3 ...22
21- unit,Slawelling 2 15 • 2 . 06
101- Un'at /S 'dwelling
- , •
-...
(4,- for r969.) 2. 21 2H 14
,
Mobile Homes 2 . 00 1, 59
L._
.. ..
The expected total population, then, after the next three
years allocations, based on the 1970' pdgU1atien/household esti-
mates, is
un,Its 30 , 34'2
Multiples 5 . 244
Mobile Homes 8.06 '
TOTAL 36392
. . .
This Ipleaks down
East 16 , 309
West 1-5 ,6,33 .
, .
Central 435.0
. .
,, , • . .
- PRICE: ANALySiS.
,
In 1970 , the mcaian -Yelue blHall single-family owner-
occupied housing in the City was just over .$20 , 000 : This median .
_ . .
'
was fairly unifor-M throughout the City with the exception that
Neighborhood 3 ( see. Map. 11) had amedAap o‘f about ,$19, 000.-
•
• .1.970 $ingl'e.‘tamily Housing COSt SreakdbWh
$15, 00B
15 ,.00iff-20 , 0,00 29 ,4. . .
20, ;05 , 000 43.!4.7 .
25 .,( 6. 01)11 ,23 r5
3 •,000 6 .7
• - -
In August , 197L , immediately Pelbre the irdD -iation of the
Residential Development. COnfTbi SYS:tem, the overall picture of
:40USIng prices in the' City was somewhat similar to the 1970
-6-
•
ilk
0 - .
_ .
Housing Element irnual Review and Update- -1973 continued)
breakdbwn- The Median in 1972 of all sangle= iwly housing in
the City was close to $2a,o0o and the. breakdoWn Wae, as folloWs .
S1500.0. 1 , 082 ' 15 9.%
15,, 000 -"20 , 000 i - M9 26 7
-
20. 000-..25 . 000 1 . 544 22 . 8
35 , 0.00 1 , 980 29 2
35 , 000 364 5 A•. .
6, 77'9, 100 0%
A better understanding , hoyeveb , 'of the trend in housing
costs under market conditions Ln existence bet6. e the cAso5,Ln
Control 51stem went into eiteot can be yleaned by simply breaking
out the .cOst oi all housing built between 1970 and 1972 This ,
gives a picture o't the current cost of a now house built under
free market condmtiorrs. no growth control, (and perMits an analy-
sis of the trend The. median cost of -all, hoasing' constructed
just during thiS period was just under $24, 000 and the breakdown .
was as follows :
815 , 0,0,0 231 16 1%
15, 000L20 , 000 31.3 2i 8 ,
20 . 000- ,25: 000. 336 23 3
25100.0-3& 0.00 536 3 -/ 3
35 , 000 21 15
1 , 437 1:00 0'6
Close examinatidn indicates that while tne median costs of
all three categories remain about the same, distribution shifts
towards higher cost unats with the progression or time- .
..93 L072 i9T0-32
. boakdown breakdow:. Bqeandown
$15 , 090 167% 15, 9% 16 , 1%
15, 000-20 , 000 29 . 4 2.6 ,7 21 - S
26-, 000-25 , 000 23 7 2.2-8 23 . 3
25, 000-35, 00.0 23 5 219 . 2 37 :3
35, 000 6 . 7 '5 4 1 - 5
.
This is especlially true When one considers that a large per-
centage of the lower cOst units d6Vdloped in the City between.
1970-72' were mobile home units :Thus, a definite trend towards
higher cost units was welt 'under way at the onset of the Develop-
ment Control System-
The rising cost OD decent housing units is , of course, a
well known ,fact of modern life and is due to a variety of factors--
inflation and rising costs of building materials and requirements ,
making the same house mote expenseive in 1972 than in 1970 . and
the rising median income of Petaluma Tesidents creating a market
Housing .Element enual Review and Update--11/k (continued)
for more hu'xor ous: homes,,, to name a, tew. Such •factors, AS is
well known.,. are( econ'omically re:gress' ve , since they tend to
have a negative e tect on, persons whose incomes axe not rising,
as rapidly as otheris.. Thus; for some people it becomes More
and mote dit: icult_ to Afford a decent living .in. Petaluma,
However , one of the goals exnressed. in the Housing Element
was to attempt , through the Residential Development Control
System, to redress this problem somewhat, by providing low-cost
housing for the needy segment of Petaluma' s population. Thus,
after one year 's development allocat.rons, then., the question is :
How does the current price picture look,?'
On the east side of the freeway, the Median cost of single:-
family 'Units approved, during the 15'3-74 allocation year was
#32 , 50:0 , Thiscon:trasts with a current median price of close
to $2.5 , 000 On the west;, the median cost Of allocated units ,is
$319 , 000 , contrasting with a median total price of about $22 , 000 .
Thus, for single=t mrly owner -occupied' housing , a previous trend
towards higher oust hcus;ing has been exacerbated by the• Ecc':'cp--
ment Control. System;. The total number of single-family units to
be approved under. the Development Cont-el System is such a small
portion of the total housing stock„ however, that it should have
little affect on t;he overall median price of all City units ; but
it will tend to innate the values , and thus the prices , of almost
all other dwellings in the• City -
For multiple units , ne rent breakdown is available for the
period between April , 19)70 , and the present . As of 1970, however ,
median rent in the 'City was Dust over $100 a month-. Since 1970 , ,
the median has been; rising, since most apartments recently con-
structed are in the higher price bracket:. Rents for apartments
constructed under the contiol system, ThbWeVer , average around
$2"00 a month on both east and west s-id'es ObVitusly , the cost-
related goal of the Housing Element- -that .of assisting the elderly
and other diSddVant'aged groups in obtaining either low-cost single-,
1 family housing or low-ren-t multiple u'nrts.-ihas , as of yet , gone
unfulfilled .
•
• Thus , theie' ,iS still a necessity for some kind of low-cost
housing in the City, since in both the owner and renter occupied
categories, housing costs are beginning to inflate beyond the
ability of some individuals--particularly the elderly and the
young.--to pay , in the original Housing :Element , it was recommended
that eight to twelve percent (8 -12o , of all allocations granted
annually should be given over to low-cost housing that would sell
or rent below some ri'gidl'y defined rates.: Unfortunately , because
of recent federal actions: building rer : cements : inflation,
speculation, and other factors, it is :becoming increasingly
difficult for builders to construct. housing that could reasonably
be defined as low-cost--s_ay, below $1-8 ; 000 or $100 per month rent-
Nevertheless , the Council .could continue to adhere to the eight
to twelve percent low-cost. policy , rigidly defining low-cost by
specific figures and fUrtter investigating ways of assisting
developers in keeping costs down for this category of housing--
this would be especially ,effective if each, developer who received
8 _
Housing Element Agrual Re:vaew and Upda'te- -1. (continued)
an allocation were made tb const':ruct a `few low-cost units . As an
alternative the Council could take hold positive action than
that .recommended in the, original element,.. The 'Council could
modify its provision that about_ ten percent t10%,1 of all new units
be low-cost (requiring , 'say, developers to contribute on seven or
eight; percen't) ; and in addition ; join the County ' s public housing
program, aggi_essrvely planning for a sufficient number of low-cost
units in that tash-ion_ This policy would most likely satisfy the
legal and, moral requirements of Petaluma s planning 'program and
might be a more realistic and efficient method of achieving the
goal of a decent home for all residents , regardless of income
level, (See Appendix I for a discussion of the operation of a
public housing program- )
CONCLUSION
At the end b;t a year ' s operatiopat the Residential Develop-
ment Control System, the City rinds itself well on the way towards . •
solution of several goals articulated 'En the original Housing
Element Among these are the goal of distributing number and
types of units more equally among 411 sections of the City;. the //&.✓ ( -
a-goal of encouraging higher den ;it i.es . especially in the center
of the City, to redress the shortage of multiple units, and the
U goal of discouraging sprawl . Several other goals, however, remain
41�W' as far from" solution as they did at the beginning of the moratori-
um--indeed, farther from solution than at that time in some cases ,
• Particularly serous in, this regard are goals related to provision
of housing for residents with low and moderate, as well, as above
average, incomes Thus, as a tact of modern life,. the need for
• some part of positive; remedial action becomes more obvious. if
the Council wishes these income-related, goals to `be. achieved as
successfully .as the others , it may wish. to take positive action
aldng
this this inally, the guidelines presented earlier in
serve to keep the system functioning smoothly
in the present satisfactory direction .
•
•
-9-
all-
6
() r.1 I A `Xf, r H }-r y'H
H H' O H O F3 ;90:
Ct'' It" H CO
o • m r- r ,a (Al .a w r
F-' .F• . Lp 'Y_=
rt 1-" adP U
N "a al co rn-Pr CD O.
. rt W F' M
N f CO O CO hJ - hi F-'rD N N r I N W N N I CO • Fu. Ol • lO
� I° E do
N Cu N O (D'
CO Nrta I-, HI O'' i-
‘1, I H. I, Cu FJ
a - mmwE o. w .
N
—
F, a 0 G
o 4 . co N 0 0
o N N) 1.O h 4 N I'•
ib 1/4.0 }-^. m o ill rt
o • ) I.), COI -J CO kb id + I-'° U)
O . ' N w Ul O
.. w F,-
H
i N --.1 N) 'Pa do CD FO..
l0 .' 'Ol, lD It
lk; I Ur a rr K
I
— r°.
I-.
N I , v a
1/4r1 I. I' al I r-' ' W w .� H.
o O .O e w • Ol
I I;.
w Ol ,a. 4J 10 Z W
a O
'CI
CD
--- — hi
H.
v). w; m R
I do CO
a, 1 . 0e a
1
r yi
r4
o ko w .a ,a: a a r?'
+0 'O A' ': .a, N 'N.
o a a✓ e . al -i H
0 w I- . ' Ir. CO Cr. lO ' '.N O.
F-- tw ;r I-.
0 0 0 0
0 0 I O 0
dO
O O I O O
I
•
_q0_ .
' - H 1-3 .ti' F3 CI, Z R fp' •
K O O H' n. O� ..a n 0
: �63 om >
:eg 0 K t-' O r '<. t* j ` t., O
H R
r. C, tom". t' .
• ' H
tO
m' 1'"
iTtE W U1 a l.Y l0 11 H
O N a a H
O
1
•
H b7
dP O K
o O CD
°° r t>f
tr G x
a a
o W 1 01
m w J G O
O co vi -J tr' M.
° a
r• W
r• r
m •J rn dP O X
J P-
U1 N N
M N•
r-g LA
o r tn.. w 'r N•
o co I-, N a - CI ' O 17 W
• °` l0 U1 0
+ In
o l o al w u' m (..n 1.11. CO a
o v� t
. O (0,t r
rn w m 0.
1— a
o X a N
o N y r r
• Ul 1 1 Cfi. r W u.1, x r r
o w 1 1 'm a G., ID, p, 0 .
I _ G
P.
•
a t N :.1 W N
0 0 Ol a
PI O
r H.
r- a f0] • .
r
r a., a. a
1-^ ICJ U? l0' 41 r 0
IV o F- .c3 m U1 'CI y 1..
U.). io a O O
G
Ca
• r .
r r r. H
0 0 0 0
O o o O
tlP'
o O O O
0 O C7 • 0
•
% O F TOTAL C I T Y LAND A R E A A
•
Land Total Units After 1st Year' s '
Allocat'�ons
EAST 448 441.
WEST 38%' 45 >
CENTRAL 18% 111
•
TABLE III
•
•
•
-12-
n ! sI c�
�. � 1_ . to -
'H '�a-3 Z 2 �� Cn Z H '0
. tC L G C H 5 ......
O
() '- y7.,. ().S C) ,,3 '
• aW. ' rs >.. y '-.' > Hy' S . .
( I-3G•' 3r Ar 1 'HI .:3 r O'
f
> ' f 'r .
r
•
..F• Op y... p.+, iA Gi a .p Cn
o
o ) r r m • vi QT I"A
°o a I a ON 1
r. -.-_.__.L�._ __-_—_. — __- a1
L It „ co r
0 r-. w CI
J • ON -a H H
ON ca x
H "0 • IV V .P C v 0
0. 0 N (ii .P (4 , '0 . ) r r G
,o w • . o . 4-3 r C
J r--
P -IJ '.0 NJ H H Z
C __ `. _. 7
H H c1i H
-! l0 .: dP Cl)
• a. rn 'q.,. y
th w .n u MI
U) •-J' H
CO
. _-__ _ -_ _ - C
ry H
o X H
o Lit - I n) r —4 w 0
0 0. rn co t-4.4 el z
0 w I a • c .
0 c
a H
t�
.A I' I I\t j. ---1
0 tin
.0 1 .� (4 H
C ta' J l0
' J
I.
>uc v
o N r
O
H .
H
O
av z
m .
I
, k
.
}
. I i,
-13-
•
. .
. .. .
. . .
, 1 C)
11
S •2:, En 0 En
Si '11 t•3
001 vici -3 ,;•", •g" •,1 n .. 1-3
I , a' Er-, (..-). H , 0
S • J.- 14 ' H
r L-_, ' ' . tH
i
___I
0 ■L) I-0 4". U., a !(.n
- 0 01 IQ
• a ? CO I • Co 03 frii
0 03 CO t-1 t...., CO U.' H
0 t....■ I Ul N.;• " >
1____,.... tli
-- --. -—1--—. 7--- t--- __
ki
-
CO ri
E11
• ' oP <
....../ n..)
..-
0 .
t-'
Co t.) a (....■ ..1 cr) Vi
0 a ki H 0
cn
u;:i IQ • dP .
1 H
0
C) '..P i I Cr■ ,-' t...2. CO
NO R ra
1.0 I i cr, .P.• . k3
0 a .
E11
0
1 . .
•
a • 1 N3 H
N..• 1 ID 0 ,.I
01
0 NJ u 0 c LT i • a\
0 CO -•..1 L-1
0 ,
. >
. 1-3
. 1-4
r- 1-b 1--• I-. 0
CD 0 CD tho rn .
' o
o o CD
, . .
•
1 ,
1 •
. I I
I i .
' •'
,n dP Cl,: da' $ dP -,0 .
H Z 0 to
0 ' 0 Co
FC It • 'f-33 hi ' H hi H.
H O H O . H 0
k' `S� k K
r
H
0 10' H I-- 4t444 W .n a. C!)
o a N I H' Ir" 01 a
NJ . O- o ., H ''9 H
o w .-a .r1 a. w w • w >
o N N W W
r
J .
Z
4.11 a N $40 Q
dP' H
CO v NJ ..1 ••
u1 to 0 H
z
. • H 0
o NJ 'H 01 H (a "C C
O a a : W a W 0 .4 't": Cl)
10 ON In H ' H
, 0 J 10 . :a CO. 10 N 'A H Z
O o N, O G)
a
H
Cl)
NJ N NJ H H
o V1 N W dV MI
H
r N W rn W
O Ui N N C
_ . _ _ H
H
H 0
o N v '�M.. Z
o U1 I :I' 01 'H W %W Cl)
0 0 0 • w rn 0
. O w' I I . b1;, a w 1c >
o . aa. en K7
H
• to
hi
a I N 01
O dP H
O I. a 01 - lD
U . ' m. J'
tP
H
N H H a. Ut a '.� m
a . H 'a. W a a U1; D'S
. I N . , • 0 ' .lar
1d .1=' 0 01 N 01
1 N) N- rn
0
n
. . 1-3
f••'' i
1 F'' H H
o a 0 o 0
0 0 0. 0 do Z
. v)
0 •o. o 0
0 0 0 0•
_l F.
APPENDIX 1
Investigation of the Housing Authority alternative reveals
se:veral. factors that deserve special attention,: According to ,the
County's Housing Authority Executive Director , Petaluma could
establish its own program, but there is a very ,good chance that
HUD would not fund it or any other new, agency in the County . In-
stead„ he said,, the meet .logibal approach. if Petaluma wished to
take some action would be to join the County' s program relying on
the County Housing Authority to obtain, .more funds and then to
earmark fifty to seventy-five units for use in Petaluma„
Second, the Hodsing Authority could lease some of the older
homes in the City , and it necessary, selectively upgrade them,
On the east side , it could lease FHA mortgage .foreclosures and
would thus provide: an alternative use for the holders of such
property:: Since foreclosures have been occurring at a signifi-
cant rate on the east side, this could be a stabilizing factor in
the condition of flux that currently prevails there, Indeed,
Housing Authority tenants are often more lasting occupants of
such homes than purchasers .
In addition, the Housing"Authority can help developers
• provide new low-cost housing in areas, where it could not other-
wise be piovided, in return for guaranteed monthly rates
(whether the building is occupied or not)) and for lowered main-
tenance costs, developers are often willing to let new units go
at a price the Housing Authority can afford to pay ($125 for
one-bedroom units; $145 for two-bedroom' unit's, $160 for three
bedroom units; and, $'l85 for four-.bedroom units) ,
In turn, the Housing Authority-, with federal funds, can
let the units to tenants ,for a much lower price than the free
market can allow; Thus, the effect would be attraction of new
units similar to those allocated last year, with the additional
benefit of rental of those units for a much lower cost than
would, otherwise be the case, Through all this., adequate main-
tenance is assured by the Authority.
Finally; providing low=cost. housing in this manner dis-
seminates it throughout the community and °prevents the large
public housing complexes that have: won such a negative reputation
over past years . In many 'cases, it represents an upgrading of
existing units, in others, it can provide new units for the City
at a low cost .and satisfy one of the goals adopted' last year As
such, establishing a Housing Authority remains a feasible alterna-
tive solution to the problem of providing low-cost housing in an
inflated market .
•
-16
4