HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-28 Packet ITEM NO. 3 & 4
DATE: October 28, 1998
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT:
CONDUCT JOINT CITY COUNCIL- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AND 1) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 3
OF THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL CODE (DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW);
2) ESTABLISH UPDATED PRIORITY LIST OF GENERAL PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES AND 3) RECEIVE HOUSING ELEMENT
STATUS REPORT
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission and City Council recently scheduled a joint
meeting to discuss the status of the General Plan Implementation Program, and to
establish a revised priority list of implementation measures. Subsequent to the
scheduling of the meeting, two (2) additional items have been placed on the joint
meeting agenda: 1) Introduction of an Ordinance amending Chapter 1, Article 3 of the
Ukiah Municipal Code (Demolition Permit Regulations); and 2) Receive a Housing
Element Status Report.
(continued on page 2)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct a public hearing and introduce the Ordinance
amending Article 3, Chapter 1 of the U.M.C.; 2) establish a revised priority list of General
Plan implementation measures; and 3) receive the Housing Element Status Report.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1. Do not introduce the Ordinance and provide direction to staff.
2. Do not establish a revised General Plan Implementation priority list and
provide direction to staff.
3. Determine that the Housing Element Status Report needs additional
information and provide direction to staff.
Citizen Advised: None
Requested by: Planning Department
Prepared by: Charley Stump, Senior Planner
Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Bob Sawyer, Planning Director
Attachments:
1. Cover Memorandum and Draft Ordinance amending Article 3, Chapter 1
of the Ukiah Municipal Code
2. General Plan Implementation Summary Report
3. 1998 Housing Element Status Report
APPROVED:
Candace Horsley, City 'rVl-ar~ger
DEMOLITION PERMIT REGULATIONS
At the recent meeting where the City Council reconsidered the issuance of the
Demolition Permit for St. Mary's Church, direction was given to staff to work with the City
Attorney and revise the regulations pertaining to the processing of Demolition Permits.
Based on that direction, staff and the City Attorney have prepared a draft Ordinance that
amends the Demolition Permit regulations in accordance with the guidance provided by
the City Council. This draft Ordinance is accompanied by a Memorandum summarizing
its content, and is included as Attachment No. 1 to this Agenda Summary Report.
As an informational item, staff has determined that the project is exempt from the
requirements of CEQA, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(1).
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
A considerable number of complex projects have been completed or are underway that
fulfill implementation measures contained in the General Plan. A brief summary report
detailing these projects, together with a new list of projects currently underway is
included as Attachment No. 2 to this Agenda Summary Report.
HOUSING ELEMENT STATUS REPORT
Staff has prepared a Housing Element Status Report to identify the City's
accomplishments and short-falls in terms of implementing the policies and programs of
the Element. The report also serves to begin a process of compiling the necessary
information needed for updating the Housing Element. Finally, the report is intended to
comply with California Government Code Section 65588, which requires local
jurisdictions to review their Housing Elements as "frequently as appropriate" to evaluate
the appropriateness of the goals, objectives, and policies; the effectiveness in attaining
the community's vision for housing; and the progress in achieving the action program or
implementation strategy of the Element.
Summary of Findings: The report reveals that the City has made progress in
implementing the 5-year Action Plan of the Housing Element. For example, the
Redevelopment Agency has consistently used the 20% tax increment set aside money
to assist in the funding of Iow and moderate income housing projects, and the City has
revised its zoning laws to provide residential opportunities within all commercial zones,
and has updated its Planned Development zoning regulations to provide flexibility for
creatively designed residential projects.
However, a number of important implementation measures have not been satisfied, and
need to be prior to the expiration of the current Housing Element. Many of these
uncompleted tasks are the responsibility of the Low and Moderate Income Housing
Advisory Committee (LMIHAC), who need to become more familiar with the Housing
Element, and more defined in their internal goals and overall production.
The General Plan rezoning program resulted in a significant change in the amount of
land dedicated to Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use classification. However,
it is concluded that in reality, this has little, if any, effect on the opportunities for medium
density residential development within the City. This is because these areas are
currently developed with well established viable single family residential neighborhoods
that would not evolve into denser built environments during the life of the General Plan,
regardless of the land use classification.
In terms of vacant land, it has been determined that the amount and developability of the
City's undeveloped land was strongly overstated in the 1995 General Plan. For example,
there is approximately 213.13 acres of vacant residentially zoned land within the City
limits, but 193.14 acres of that total is situated within the Single Family Residential
Hillside Zoning District, and is burdened with major development constraints. Of the
remaining 20.17 acres, approximately 10.31 acres are burdened with poor access, flood
zones, or other constraints, leaving approximately 9.86 acres of residentially zoned land
that is generally suitable for development. If access was improved, sites filled, and other
constraints overcome, it is estimated that approximately 243 residential units could be
developed on the 213.13 total vacant acres.
The 1995 General Plan concluded that there were 262 acres of developable vacant land
with the potential for 747 to 1,243 residential units. Based on our research, it is clear
that very little vacant land remains in the City. Additionally, we have concluded that the
majority of remaining vacant acreage is heavily burdened with constraints. Accordingly,
we can expect to see more housing developments being proposed outside the City limits,
and an escalation of parcel redevelopment within the City.
The report also found that the growth rate projected in the 1995 General Plan has not
occurred. The City was expected to grow at a rate of approximately 2% per year, which
would have resulted in a 1998 population of 16,749 people. In fact, the January, 1998
City population was 15,018, which was 41 persons less than when the 1995 General
Plan was adopted. This drop in population obviously lessens the demand and need for
additional housing units.
Conclusions: While progress has been made in implementing the Housing Element
over the past 2 1/2 years, a number of tasks still need to be completed to meet the goals
of the Element, and to assist in the successful revision of the Element within the next 2
years.
It appears that because of a severe lack of developable vacant land, future goals and
objectives for meeting the housing needs of the community need to be revised to place
more of an emphasis on rehabilitation, mixed use development, and possibly the
development of a more proactive annexation policy. Fortunately, the population
projections in the General Plan have not materialized, and the demand and need for new
housing has not confronted the City as expected when the Housing Element was
certified in 1995. Nevertheless, a continued cooperative working relationship between
the City, housing groups and organizations, and the Redevelopment Agency should
continue to implement the programs in the Element to satisfy the needs that the
community does have for adequate and affordable housing.
3A
MEMORANDUM
Date:
October 21, 1998
To;
Candace Horsley, City Manager
From:
Bob Sawyer, Planning Director
Subject: Demolition Permit Review Ordinance
The attached ordinance amends the City Code pertaining to processing and reviewing
demolition permits as they relate to older structures which might embody historical,
architectural, or cultural significance. The amended text contains the significant
features or elements which have evolved over much past dialogue on this subject,
including the recent reconsideration of the St. Mary's Catholic Church by the City
Council. Such past dialogue has transpired between Planning staff and the Planning
Commission, the City Attorney, the City Manager, and the City Council, and the
proposed ordinance seems to capture the features most germane to the issues and
legal requirements confronting the Council in this decision-making process.
Please be apprised that I have opted not to compare and contrast past iterations of the
amended ordinance; frankly, there have been too many changes, correspondences,
and iterations to make such an exercise meaningful or useful. Suffice it to say that the
attached, strike-out/shaded version of the ordinance reflects the most current,
comprehensive, and relevant work to date, and takes into account many of the
comments or observations made by the Council during the recent hearings on St.
Mary's Church.
Regardless of the content of the final version of the demolition permit ordinance, I
would like to remind you and the City Council that we are currently working on a
historical preservation ordinance, which will take a pro-active, inventory-driven
approach to preserving structures possessing legitimate historical, architectural, or
cultural value. Staff has performed a great deal of research on this subject, and we are
currently preparing an RFP to hire a consultant in order to develop a meaningful
historical inventory, which will form the backbone of the ordinance. Once completed,
the historical preservation ordinance should make obsolete the process of reviewing
each and every demolition permit for structures in a certain age range.
In the meantime, the main features of the proposed ordinance (attachment 1), which
are intended to correct inherent deficiencies of the existing ordinance, are as follows:
ATTACHMENT 1
1. Section 2.c. retains the 50-year threshold as the cut-off date for historical review by
the Council, whereby only structures built 50 years ago or more are considered for
historical, architectural, or cultural significance, and possible preservation. At one point
in time, Staff thought that an arbitrary date should make up the threshold, such as 1930
or 1940, to ensure that only older structures would be earmarked for consideration, and
to ensure that, as the years passed by, structures built in the late 1940's or soon-to-be
1950's would not have to undergo preservation scrutiny. However, we now believe that
the 50-year threshold is meaningful, in that structures need not be very old to possibly
possess some unique, and preservation-worthy architectural or historical feature.
2. Section 4 establishes a public noticing requirement, which is intended to make
demolition applications more open to public scrutiny and provide for a wider range of
input leading to a Council decision.
The current ordinance does not require a formal public noticing procedure, and the City
Attorney has recommended that this deficiency should be corrected.
3. Section 5 provides criteria by which the decision-makers can determine if a structure
should be considered a candidate for preservation. This is a very important addition to
the ordinance, and it is intended to ferret out, to the greatest extent possible short of
having an adopted historical resources inventory, the emotionalism and subjectivity of
past demolition permit applications. The criteria included in the proposed ordinance
was gleaned from reviewing numerous historical preservation ordinances from other
agencies throughout the State of California.
The current ordinance does not establish any criteria whatsoever for determining
historical significance, save the 50-year-old criterion, and clearly some are needed.
4. Section 6 broaches the subject of suspending the demolition permit approval
process for a period of 90 days if the Demolition Permit Review Committee (DPRC)
finds that any of the criteria for historical significance apply. If so, this becomes a
recommendation to the City Council, who ultimately will determine the fate of any given
structure built 50 or more years ago.
The current ordinance does not address what to do when a structure is found to have
historical significance, which is considered a major legal defect relative to the "takings"
issue, as well as a practical defect in not providing the applicant with some means of
closure to their desired use of the property. Subsequent sections of the proposed
ordinance more fully address this issue, which generally have been crafted by the City
Attorney in deference to the very important subject of "takings," and which provide the
steps and time necessary to adequately pursue preservation of truly important historical
resources threatened by demolition requests. It should be pointed out that the 90-day
suspension time-line is 30 days longer than the time-line recently embodied in the
urgency ordinance associated with the St. Mary's Church demolition reconsideration.
Staff believes that 60 days might be too short a time period to pursue alternatives to
ATTACHMENT 1
demolition and/or preservation by City acquisition, if, indeed, the structure is worthy of
preservation.
5. Section 7 delves into the subject of possible acquisition by: providing for a public
hearing on the demolition permit; providing the demolition permit applicant an
opportunity to discuss whether or not a viable market and/or an economic return exists
for the structure if preservation is otherwise warranted; and provides for the formal
imposition of the aforementioned 90-day suspension period, during which time various
private sector or public sector options are explored and/or commenced to achieve
preservation. It also provides for issuance of the demolition permit if the City does not
reach agreement with the applicant to preserve the building, or diligently pursue its
acquisition within the 90-day period.
As stated above, the current ordinance contains no such provisions for suspending the
application, facilitating preservation through agreement or possible acquisition, issuing
the application in spite of historical significance, or any other such step associated with
drawing closure to a demolition application after a structure has been deemed
historically, architecturally, or culturally significant by the Council. This is clearly a
significant shortcoming, which can be rectified by the amended text.
6. Section 8 requires the Planning Director to provide written notification to the
applicant of the Council's determination, and an explanation of the ensuing process for
seeking alternatives to demolition.
The current ordinance does not require such a notification, although the Planning
Department's policy has always been to apprise the applicant of all procedural steps
and determinations associated with any given demolition permit application.
7. Section 9 provides for the salvaging of materials for reuse after the demolition permit
has been issued. It also requires that the applicant leave the site in a safe and clutter
free condition after the demolition is accomplished.
The current ordinance contains no requirement or suggestion that the applicant salvage
materials, or that the site be left presentable after demolition. The inclusion of such
language, however, provides a valuable tool by which resources might be conserved,
and, in some small way, historical elements might be preserved through their
incorporation in a new or different structure.
8. Section 10 contains provisions and criteria for reconsidering a decision made by the
City Council in regards to demolition permits and historically significant structures.
These provisions basically allow the Council to reconsider and possibly reverse a
decision that may have been based on erroneous or incomplete information at the time
of the original hearing.
The current ordinance contains no such provisions.
ATTACHMENT 1
In addition to the proposed ordinance amendments referenced above, two other issues
need to be discussed and one possibly needs follow-up clarification and Council action.
First, and foremost, the new demolition permit review procedures have been deemed
discretionary in nature by the City Attorney, which means that all demolition permits
subject to these provisions will require environmental review pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, when a
demolition permit application for a structure over 50 years old is submitted, Planning
staff's very first step in the process will be to determine if the structure in question has
historical, architectural, or cultural significance. If it clearly does not have such
significance, a Categorical Exemption may be applied (CEQA Guidelines Section
15301-1), such that no further environmental review will be necessary or needed.
If, on the other hand, historical significance is arguably apparent or probable, then staff
would be compelled to cause an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared in a
manner consistent with our local CEQA Guidelines. This process would be costly and
time-consuming to the applicant, although the City Council would then have relevant
information to base a decision upon as to whether the structure clearly is historically
significant, and whether preservation is unquestionably warranted.
As a side note, the nominal fees currently required to process demolition permits do not
reflect any Planning Department costs associated with CEQA review, such as public
notices, County Clerk processing, and the staff time to analyze, prepare, and process
documentation. Accordingly, I would fully expect that, if the subject demolition
ordinance amendments are adopted, an amendment to the Planning Permit Fee
Schedule would be forwarded to Council as a means by which we would be able to
recoup the CEQA review costs herein mentioned.
Second, an issue which has been discussed at various times, and which may need
additional clarification in relation to improving the demolition permit process, is whether
or not the Demolition Permit Review Committee (DPRC) should be changed,
reconstituted, or possibly abolished.
Currently, Council Resolution No. 94-34 (attachment 1.1) establishes the existence of
the DPRC, and specifically articulates that the members shall be made up of the City's
Community Development Director (Planning Director), Building Official, and Public
Works Director, as well as a representative of the Mendocino Historical Society, a City
resident, and the Chairperson of the Design Review Committee. This mix results in
three City officials, who may or may not be versed in historical preservation, and three
private citizens, who, by their interests and affiliations, are presumed to have historical
preservation knowledge and expertise.
As such, the membership composition has been the subject of some past discussion by
staff, the DPRC membership, and the Planning Commission. Indeed, when Planning
ATTACHMENT 1
staff first proposed changes to the demolition permit process, we proposed that the
DPRC as it is currently constituted be abolished, and either not replaced, or be
reconstituted to make it more relevant to the task at hand. Accordingly, if the Council
wishes to make changes to the composition of the DPRC, staff could bring back at a
future date an amended Resolution which reflects the needs of the Council. If the
Council wishes to abolish the DPRC, then the provisions of the proposed demolition
ordinance relating to this advisory body would be deleted, and language inserted which
made the City Council the sole reviewing body relative to demolition permits and old
structures.
ATTACHMENT 1
{}3015 [}3016
CHAPTER 1
BUILDING REGULATIONS
ARTICLE 3. EXCLUSIONS AND MODIFICATIONS
SECTION'
§3015:
{}3016:
{}3030:
{}3040:
Exclusion
Modifications to the Uniform Building Code
Uniform Building Code Section 3313 is Amended as Follows
Uniform Code for Building Conservation as Amended as Follows:
§3015: EXCLUSION: The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to any project
under the control and jurisdiction of the Public Works Department of the City of Ukiah,
the County of Mendocino, the State of California or the United States unless, and to the
extent, the contract or specifications for a particular project specifies compliance with this
Chapter for any of the model codes adopted herein (Ord. 838, §1, adopted 1984).
§3016:
MODIFICATIONS TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE:
.
~ i~.t.:i~ -~n,~ /.,~ of the Uniform Building Code relating to application for
:::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ~ ~i ~. ~.4,~
building permits, is modified to require in addition to the other information already
required in an application for a building permit the date when the building was first
constructed, if known, when the applicant seeks a building permit to demolish the
building.
.
(a) q""*;""- .~n.~ f.~ ~h~i!i~[i~ of the Uniform Building Code relating to permit
issuance, is modified to require that, except as expressly provided in this Section
before issuing a building permit to demolish a building that was first constructed
fifty (50) years or more prior to the date of application the Director of r, ...... ~,,,
V~I~I I II I ll~II
r~,-,,i,-,I,,'~l,-~m,-~l~,l, ' ":':':':';':':';':':':*~':":": ......... ' ':':'*:':';';" ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ':':'":':':':+:':':':':':':':':'":':':':'
...... ~ ....... ::~la~::n::~....g~::~::~::~s/he~::::~eSlgn~ shall first ~- the .nnli.~,i~nfnthc
:::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ======================================================================================================================
~,,~ ....................................... ~ ...... rCS ~ ....... IR ~"
/k~ ~ ~ ~.,h~*k~r ~ k,,;IA;nn ~ h;~.r;~l ~r~k;~.~,,r~l ~r ~,,l~,,r~l
~;~n;$;~nn~ ~::~:::~::'::~ =========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
..... ::::::::::::::::::::: ........... ~ ............... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............................. ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .......... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .................
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT
i:E:::':::".:.e.'.,.~.~ ,.r.:.e'.-~ ~ ~i i ! ..~ ~ i i i i i..~ip pil ~ ~ ~ ~i i ! i i ~,~,'..~.;']~ ~ ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::':'::::::::~: :':': :':': :<':': '
:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:<.:.:.:.:.;.:
:.:.: :.::::;;;::::::::; . ..,..;.;.:.:.;,:;:;:;:::::;; :..:::::::::;;::::: :;:;;::::::::;;::: :..::::::: :::: :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::;:::::: ;.....:;:;:::::;::. ======================================================
::::. ==========================================
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
\'/
/")\ l. AIh,,,n · +h.-. ;, , ,.d ,-, n-, .-. ,-, + ,-,f +h..-, ~, ,;IA;n,-, ~m,-.;~l ;~,~,-4;.-,+~ ~l,~,,'v~,.',l;+;,..,n ,-,f tho
k'-/ .... ,..,,, ~r, u,,~ j~,,,..,,,,. ~,, ~,,~ ~,~a,,~4,,,~ v,,,~,~,, ,,,,,,,,~,a,~a,~. ~,,-.,,,v,,~,~,,, v,
to
~mm~mm m~ m~,,~ kv ~m v~.~. ! m ~,,~mmv ! m~m~.! ! m ~,.,~,.,,m m ~ ~.,~ ~! m~ ~! m~,,,. ! mmv! ~
;~"~;""~"' '~'-';~'~' the ~'' ';"~;-~' ,-~,, ,',~ ~-~,~,o';+, ,+,- -- ~-~-;~,, ,o th-~-,+ +~, +~,~, ~,, ,h,;~.
mmmmmmm~m~.~mff ~mmmvmm~m! ~mm~lmm~ mmv~,~ vvmm~&m&u&~ ~ ~mmv~ m~& &v &mm~ ~mm~
NOTE: The remainder of Article 3 does not pertain to the demolition permit process,
therefore, is not included herein.
ATTACHMENT 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 94-34
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 93-55 OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING DEMOLITION
PERMIT REVIEW COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the Ukiah City Code prescribes that Demolition Permits for buildings
in excess of 50 years old must be authorized by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires research and recommendations i'egarding
these Demolition Permits, particularly the feasibility of rehabilitation or relocation of the
structure, and salvage of archaic materials;
WHEREAS, an advisory committee will assist the City Council in its evaluation of
these Demolition Permit requests;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. There is hereby created a Demolition Permit Review Committee. This
advisory body shall report to the City Council.
2. The Committee shall consist of five (5) members who shall be appointed by
the City Council as follows:
a. Director of Community Development.
b. City Building Official.
c. Mendocino County Historical Society representative - Marge Giuntoli
- by Council Minute Order 3/17/93.
d. City of Ukiah Resident - Judy Pruden.
e. Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
f. Chair of Design Review Committee. "
3. Allappointments to this Committee shall be for a term of two years.
Fleappointments to the Committee shall be made in accordance with Ukiah City Code
Section 1200.
4.. The members of the Committee shall receive no compensation, except such
actual expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as shall be approved in
advance bY the City Council.
5. The Committee shall elect a Chairperson from among its members, may
elect such other officers as it may deem appropriate, and shall establish a regular
meeting time and place, and such rules of procedure as may be necessary for the
conduct of its~meetings and business.
6. The duties of the Demolition Permit Review Committee shall include:
ATTACHMENT 1.1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a. Research of the historical, cultural, and architectural significance of
the subject structure.
b. Evaluation of the feasibility of rehabilitating the structure, moving it
to another location, or salvaging the archaic materials.
c. Recommendation to the City Council regarding whether a Demolition
Permit should be granted, granted with conditions, or denied.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of January 1994, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker, and Mayor
Schneiter.
None.
None.
None.
F'l'ed Schnbit~r, Mayor
MU:MISC\RESDEMO
ATTACHMENT 1.1
C I T Y 0 :F U K I:A::H
G E:N:ERAL PLAN '1 MPLE ME:NTATI O N
SUM'MARY R:EPORT
Prep:amd by. the
Ukiah Planning Department
Fall, 1998
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Summary Report
October, 1998
The following list provides a status report of the General Plan Implementation Program:
1. CITY-WIDE REZONINGS
This program involves the rezoning of individual parcels to be consistent with their new
Land Use Designations established in the General Plan. Staff has considered this
complex and time consuming program a very high priority because of the legal
ramifications of having the zoning of parcels inconsistent with the General Plan.
The project has been completed.
a. 13 phases resulting in 13 adopted Ordinances rezoning 480 parcels of
land.
2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND REZONINGS
This 2-phase project was an outgrowth of the City-wide Rezoning Program, and involved
hundreds of parcels.
The project has been completed.
a. 707 parcels redesignated on the General Plan Land Use Map to be
consistent with existing zoning.
b. 47 parcels redesignated on the General Plan Land Use Map, and rezoned
to something other than the existing zoning classification.
3. COMPUTER GENERATED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING MAPS
Staff has retained a consultant to prepare state-of-the-art computer generated General
Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps. The project is nearing completion, and the final
products are expected during the month of November, 1998.
4. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
The ordinance revisions and specific planning document preparation items listed above
constitute the beginning effort to create an overall City Land Development Code.
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY REPORT
5. HOUSING ELEMENT STATUS REPORT
.
.
Staff has completed a Housing Element Status Report, as called for in the General Plan.
This document, prepared halfway through the five-year life of the Housing Element, is
intended to identify the City's accomplishments and short-falls in terms of implementing
the policies and programs of the Element. It is also an objective of this report to begin
compiling the necessary information and/or designing mechanisms for gathering the data
needed for updating the document. Finally, the report is intended to comply with
California Government Code Section 65588, which requires local jurisdictions to review
their Housing Elements as "frequently as appropriate" to evaluate the appropriateness
of the goals, objectives, and policies; the effectiveness in attaining the community's vision
for housing; and the progress in achieving the action program or implementation strategy
of the Element.
MASTER BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Staff is managing a planning project involving the preparation of a Master Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan forthe community. The General Plan contains Implementation Measures
related to bicycle facility planning in both the Parks & Recreation and Circulation
Elements. The preparation of a Master Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan will fulfill the General
Plan goals of improving bicycle safety, increasing bicycle facilities, promoting the use of
bicycles in the City, improving and increasing pedestrian walkways, improving access to
transit stops, and improving local air quality by reducing motor vehicle emissions.
The purpose of the Master Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan is to identify the high-priority bicycle
and pedestrian facility needs of the community, and develop a short-term achievable
strategy for constructing these facilities.
The Draft Plan has been submitted for review, and it is anticipated that it will be
considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in December of 1998.
REVISED ZONING CODE
The City Council has adopted major revisions to the Residential Zoning Districts (R-l,
R-2, and R-3), and has adopted a new Article entitled, "Administration & Procedures."
Also adopted are new regulations for the Public Facilities District (P-F), Commercial
Zoning Districts (C-N, C-1, and C-2), and the Planned Development Zoning Districts
(P-D). Draft revisions have been prepared for the Manufacturing District (M), Article 16
(General Provisions), Article 19 (Special Situations), and Article 21 (Definitions). The
code has been reformatted and reorganized for easier use and understanding.
It is anticipated that the Zoning Code revision project will be completed during the Spring,
1999.
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY REPORT
8. RIVERSIDE PARK SITE DESIGN STUDY
1
10.
The City has been awarded a grant of $16,000 ($12,000 funds and $4,000 City in-kind
staff time) from the State Coastal Conservancy to prepare the Site Design Study. Future
funds may be available to continue the construction of improvements and implementation
of the Study.
Staff is working closely with the Coastal Conservancy to prepare and execute a contract.
A list of qualified consultants and a Request For Proposals (RFP) have been prepared,
and it is anticipated that the formal consultant selection process will occur in late
November, or early December, 1998.
RAILROAD DEPOT PROPERTY/DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER
The General Plan directs City Staff to work with the Mendocino Transit Authority to
develop a downtown transit center. Accordingly, staff has been an active member of the
Ukiah Railroad Property Steering Committee since May of 1996.
HISTORICAL PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Staff has developed a work task priority list. These tasks include:
a,
Amend the UMC to provide a more reasonable, fair, and legal approach to
processing Demolition Permits. A draft Ordinance has been prepared and is
currently undergoing Planning Commission and City Council review. It is
anticipated that this UMC revision project will be completed during the fall/winter
of 1998.
bo
Prepare a comprehensive Historic Preservation Ordinance, including a definitive
list of historic buildings that truly warrant preservation. The Architectural and
Historic Resources Inventory Report could be used as a reference for the creation
of the list. Specific criteria/standards must be adopted that would guide the
selection process. The City Council has budgeted funds to hire a professional
consultant to complete the important task of preparing the list/survey of historically
significant buildings. It is anticipated that the Historical Preservation Ordinance
will be prepared and advanced for review during the spring of 1999.
Establish a Historic & Archaeological Resources Committee (HARC) to advise
City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council on historic preservation
matters. Staff made a concerted effort to foster community interest in serving on
this committee. We have sent letters to over 30 interested citizens describing the
function and responsibilities of the committee in hopes of gaining interest. As a
result, only 1 citizen has responded with a letter of interest.
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY REPORT
11.
12,
13.
14.
15.
16.
Accordingly, we have re-evaluated this task, and have concluded that it is
not achievable at this time. A different approach seems appropriate, and we are
discussing options.
STREAM AND CREEK RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS
The City Council has budgeted money for this project, and staff has recently completed
a defined scope of the project, as well as a Request For Proposals (RFP). It is
anticipated that the formal consultant selection process will occur during December of
1998.
AIR QUALITY ISSUE RESEARCH
Staff continues to participate in air quality issues, and is anxiously awaiting the draft Air
Quality Plan being prepared by the Air Quality Management District. Planning staff
recently contacted AQMD staff for a status report, and was told that a rough draft of the
study was submitted by the consultant, but that it contained numerous flaws in its
assumptions and conclusions. Furthermore, AQMD staff stated that the flaws needed to
be corrected before the study would be accepted and distributed for review by the City
and other interested parties. Accordingly, we are now waiting to receive and review the
revised draft report.
REVISED SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
This document has been revised in response to the new General Plan, and has been
distributed for internal review. It is anticipated that the draft document will be scheduled
for Planning Commission review during 1999.
REVISED HILLSIDE PROTECTION ORDINANCE
Staff has completed preliminary revisions to the Hillside District zoning provisions. We
will be conducting detailed field work and working closely with the City Fire Department
to fairly and reasonably apply development regulations in the Hillside District to conform
to the directives of the General Plan. It is anticipated that the revised Hillside Zoning
District Regulations will be advanced for review during the spring of 1999.
ORCHARD AVENUE PARK
This project has been handled by the City Community Services Department, who have
indicated that the park will be completed during the spring of 1999.
REVISED LOCAL CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
GUIDELINES
This document was adopted by the City Council on May 7, 1997.
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY REPORT
17. LANDSCAPE & STREETSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES
18,
19.
20.
21.
22.
This document was formally adopted by the City Council on August 21, 1996.
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE
The Ukiah Airport Master Plan was formally adopted by the City Council on July 3, 1996.
It is anticipated that an airport overlay zoning district and disclosure ordinance will be
developed during 1999.
CITY/COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
No work has been completed regarding the possible formation of a joint City/County
Parks and Recreation committee that would serve the planning area. It is assumed that
once the County adopts the General Plan for the unincorporated portion of the Ukiah
Valley, the City will begin discussions regarding this possible committee.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES INVENTORY
Planning staff has had discussions with the Community Services Department regarding
this project, who have indicated that as a result of the City Budgetary process, an
informal list of Community Facilities has been completed.
CITY-WIDE DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES
Staffhas accumulated background information and model guidelines from other agencies,
and we have maintained an unofficial running list of design criteria required of various
individual projects (e.g., Safeway) which can readily be incorporated into a design
guidelines manual; however, we have not yet developed an official set of guidelines to
be reviewed and adopted.
ORR CREEK BRIDGE AND ORCHARD AVENUE EXTENSION
A consultant has been retained to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this
project. It is anticipated that the draft EIR will be completed and distributed for public
review in January, 1999.
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY REPORT
PROJECTS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY
1. REVISIONS TO THE CITY ZONING CODE
2. PREPARATION OF A MASTER BICYCLE I PEDESTRIAN PLAN
3. PREPARATION OF A GOBBI STREET RIVERSIDE PARK SITE DESIGN STUDY
4. CONDUCT OF AN HISTORICAL PRESERVATION PROGRAM
PREPARATION OF A STREAM AND CREEK RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT
STUDY
Sm
PREPARATION OF AN EIR FOR THE ORR CREEK BRIDGE AND ORCHARD
AVENUE EXTENSION PROJECT
7. REVISIONS TO THE HILLSIDE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
am
CREATION OF COMPUTER GENERATED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND
ZONING MAPS
So
PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING FOR THE RAILROAD DEPOT PROPERTY
AND DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT
10.
PREPARATION OF AN AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT AND
DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE
11. REVISIONS TO THE CITY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
12. AIR QUALITY ISSUE RESEARCH I AQMD PARTICIPATION
UKIAH GENERAL PLAN
Housing Element Status Report
Prepared
by the
Ukiah Planning Department
September, 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ................................................ i
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1
I1. PURPOSE OF REPORT ...................................... I
II1. STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION / ACTION PROGRAM ............... 1
IV.
APPROPRIATENESS OF GOALS, POLICIES,
AND ACTION PROGRAM ..................................... 9
Vi
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION I ZONING
CLASSIFICATION UPDATE ................................... 9
VI. ZONING DISTRICT TEXT REVISIONS ............................ 9
VII. VACANT LAND AND SUITABLE SITE UPDATE . .................. 10
VIII. PROGRESS AND EFFECTIVENESS IN IMPLEMENTING
THE HOUSING ELEMENT .................................... 11
IX. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .............................. 11
X. FISCALLY ACHIEVABLE RECOMMENDATIONS ................... 13
XI. APPENDIX A: VACANT LAND SURVEY TABLE ................... 14
PREFACE
The Housing Element of the General Plan was certified by the State Office of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) on December 8, 1995. Pursuant to
State Law, it must be updated and re-certified by HCD no later than December 8,
2000. This document, being prepared halfway through the five-year life of the
Housing Element, is intended to identified the City's accomplishments and short-falls
in terms of implementing the policies and programs of the Element. It is also an
objective of this report to begin compiling the necessary information and/or designing
mechanisms for gathering the data needed for updating the Housing Element.
Finally, this report is intended to comply with California Government Code Section
65588, which requires local jurisdictions to review their Housing Elements as
"frequently as appropriate" to evaluate the appropriateness of the goals, objectives,
and policies; the effectiveness in attaining the community's vision for housing; and the
progress in achieving the action program or implementation strategy of the Element.
All three of these topics are discussed in this report.
I. INTRODUCTION
In December of 1995, the City adopted a new General Plan, which included 14 separate
Elements. Seven of these Elements, including the Housing Element are mandated by State Law.
State Law also requires that the Housing Element be updated every five (5) years, and recertified
by the State Office of Housing and Community Development.
The adopted Housing Element was certified by the State HCD on December 8, 1995.
Accordingly, it is due for review and recertification by December 8, 2000. The City must revise
the Element, adopt it locally, and submit it to HCD for re-certification.
In preparation of revising the Element, the City Planning Department will be commissioning or
internally producing a number of technical reports. This Housing Element Implementation Status
Report is one of many studies that will be drawn upon during the overall Housing Element
revision project.
II. PURPOSE AND FORMAT OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to examine the progress of implementing the provisions of the
Housing Element over the past two and one-half (2 1/2) years. Each Implementation measure
is listed, and a discussion follows, which describes how the measure/task has been completed,
or if any progress that has be made towards its fulfillment.
The report also describes the outcome of the General Plan Rezoning program, and what affect
it had on the amount of medium and high density residentially zoned land.
Finally, an update of the vacant lands in the City is provided in table form. The acreage, zoning,
and "developability" are discussed, and assumptions are made regarding the likelihood of
development over the next five (5) years.
III. STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION I ACTION PROGRAM
The following discussion lists each short-term Implementation Measure/task contained in the
Housing Element, and then discusses how they have been completed, or what progress has
been made towards its fulfillment.
Implementation Measure HS-2.1(a): Dudng the annual report to the Planning
Commission of General Plan achievement, the Planning Department shall identify the
number of affordable housing units lost during the year. The Commission shall then
consider recommending that the City implement programs to encourage a like number
of replacement units to be added into the affordable housing inventory. Programs may
include and are not limited to: (a) Redevelopment funds from the twenty percent that
must be set aside for housing may be set into a pool that can be used as an incentive
for housing stock replacement or rehabilitation; or (b) The City may utilize the State-pass
through grants from the HOME program to "buy down" the cost of housing ownership
combined with a program to recapture the grants to reinvest in the "buy down" pool; or
Seek or create special grants or development incentives to assist with housing
affordability programs for renters and first-time owners. (D) Utilize private financial
institutions' Community Reinvestment Fund commitments to direct resources into housing
affordability programs; or (e) Other programs that may become available over the life of
the Housing Element's 5-year review cycle. Special timing provisions related to the
Housing Element: Programs shall be prepared and adopted within the short-term planning
period with a target of completion in Fiscal 1997.
Status/Accomplishments: Research has revealed that there has been no appreciable
loss of affordable housing units within the City since the adoption of the Housing Element.
A few isolated losses have occurred as a result of new development projects. For
example, a dilapidated motel providing short-term rental housing to Iow and very Iow
income persons was demolished as a result of the new Safeway Store. While this
apparently amounted to the loss of twenty-seven (27) dilapidated rental units, some
evidence indicates that as many as seven on the units were in such disrepair that there
were not being used, and were considered uninhabitable. While this demolition
technically represents a loss of housing units, it is not deemed significant or important,
because the units were in a dilapidated condition, and beyond rehabilitation. Additionally,
there have been other recent projects that have added similar types of housing units
(motel conversions) to the overall housing stock within the City.
.
Implementation Measure HS-3.1(a): Direct the Low and Moderate Income Housing
Advisory Committee (LMIHAC) during the short-term planning period to identify public and
private sources of rehabilitation financing available for home owners that are applicable
to the Ukiah Valley. Special Projects Administration; Special timing provisions related to
the Housin,q Element: During the summer, the City shall collect data related to available
grant programs and other financing programs; in the Fall the LMIHAC shall be convened
to review the data and provide the necessary direction for selectinq the most feasible or
practical pre.qram for which the City shall compete or apply for funds.
Status/Accomplishments: The Special Projects Administrator (Housing) and LMIHAC
have been advised of this Implementation Measure.
.
Implementation Measure HS-3.1(b): Working with area banks and community services
agencies, during the short-term planning pedod, establish a program for housing
rehabilitation and repair. Special Projects Administration under the provisions defined in
Implementation Measure 3.1(b), the City shall target to begin the rehabilitation program
by the end of Fiscal 1996-97.
Status/Accomplishments: The Special Projects Administrator (Housing) has been
reminded and advised of this requirement in the General Plan.
.
Implementation Measure HS-3.1(c): The City shall develop funding resource programs
in order to make funds available for home repairs from appropriate grant, entitlement
programs, and private financial institutions. Special timinq provisions related to the
Housing Element: The programs need to be in place and ready for makinq funds
available by July 1, 1997.
Status/Accomplishments: To date, this Implementation Measure has not been
achieved because of financial constraints. However, it has been discussed with the
Special Projects Administrator (Housing) to determine if CDBG or other funds are
available for this purpose.
=
Implementation Measure HS-3.1(d): During the Housing Element five year period, the
City shall provide funds to result in the repair of at least eleven homes based on available
of financial resources. Special Projects Administration; Financinq sources:
Redevelopment funds; CDBG; or one of the HUD pass-through grants, such as HOPF
or HOME.
Status/Accomplishments: To date, the City has not contributed to housing repair
projects because of financial constraints. However, it has been discussed with the
Special Projects Administrator (Housing) to determine if CDBG or other funds are
available for this purpose.
1
Implementation Measure HS-3.2(a): As part of the periodic Housing Element review, the
City shall identify the locations and neighborhoods of deteriorating housing. [Timeframe
for completion: Special timinq provisions related to the Housinq Element: Prior to
preparin.q the next Housinq Element update, prepare a new and comprehensive housinn
condition study. This should be placed in the budget for Fiscal Year 1998 or 1999.
Status/Accomplishments: The City is seeking funding for this and other Housing
Element projects, and anticipates completing this task within the five-year life of the
Element.
1
Implementation Measure HS-3.2(b): Provide a mechanism at the City Building
Department to record and track reports of deteriorating or substandard housing when
reported to the City.
Status/Accomplishments: It is rare that reports of deteriorating or substandard housing
are submitted to the City. However, the Planning and Building Department is currently
discussing options for creating such a system.
am
Implementation Measure HS-3.3(a): Dudng the short-term planning period, the Low and
Moderate Income Housing Advisory Committee shall work with community service
agencies, the area Board of Realtors, area Building Association, and utilize private and
public volunteers to create a program of bartering repair and remodeling services as a
means of reducing the costs of affordable housing repair and rehabilitation. Special
timin.q provisions related to the Housinq Element: Be,qinnin.q in Fiscal Year 1996, the
LMIHAC shall proactively set up meetings with area private .qroups to serve as a catalyst
for a volunteer help pro.qram.
Status/Accomplishments: The Special Projects Administrator (Housing) and Low and
Moderate Income Housing Advisory Committee (LMIHAC) have been reminded and
advised of this requirement in the General Plan.
J
Implementation Measure HS-3.3(b): The City shall work with public and private
community organizations to assist people in becoming skilled and trained for home repair.
Special timinq provisions related to the Housing Element: Durinq Fiscal 1997, the City will
work with the school district and community college district to develop self-help programs
or assist in promoting existing self-help programs offered by the educational institutions
Other options, some of which were suggested by representatives of the Board of Realtom
and the Community College District, include City Staff assistance to coordinate a program
that uses services provided by the Board of Realtors or local builders to offer in-kinr~
services for the needy for the self-help rehab programs.
Status/Accomplishments: VVhile no direct progress has been made to implement this
provision of the Housing Element, the City intends to coordinate with the School District
and Community College to assist in promoting skills and training for home repair when
financial and staff resources become available.
10.
Implementation Measure HS-3.3(c): Continue to support self-help programs through the
Redevelopment Agency as a means of sustaining and improving the downtown area.
Special timinq provisions related to the Housinq Element: This measure provides another
option for the implementation and fundin,q for Implementation Measure 3.3(c).
Status/Accomplishments: The Ukiah Redevelopment Agency continues to support self-
help programs that assist to improve the City Downtown area.
11.
Implementation Measure HS-4.1(a): During the short-term planning period provide non-
General Fund revenue - such as Redevelopment Agency 20 percent set aside funds -
each year for the repair and rehabilitation for a five year total of at least 35 homes
requiring major repairs. Special timin.q provisions related to the Housinq Element:
BeginninR in Fiscal 1996, target fundinq homes for rehab. By Fiscal 1998, the average
of the homes for which rehabilitation have been made available should be the equivalent
of seven homes per year.
Status/Accomplishments: In 1996 and 1997 a total of $37,000 was provided from the
Redevelopment Agency's set aside funds for housing rehabilitation. This money was
specifically used to rehabilitate 10 units in need of major repair.
The 1998 Redevelopment Agency Housing Implementation Plan indicates that the Low
and Moderate Income Housing Advisory Committee (LMIHAC) will be discussing the
possible establishment of a rehabilitation loan program and/or gap financing strategy to
leverage pdvate financing funds for rehabilitation purposes. It is anticipated that
discussion will occur in 1998, and that programs could be established in 1999.
12.
Implementation Measure HS-5.1 (a): Remove constraints to the housing type mix in new
residential development through the Planned Development zoning district or equivalent -
such as potential duplex or triplex units within single family neighborhoods - when street
capacity and public services are adequate to serve the additional units. Special timing
provisions related to the Housing Element: Implemented in the new Land Development
code.
Status/Accomplishments: The Planned Development Zoning Distdct provisions have
been updated and made more "user friendly." The purpose of the new regulations is to
allow flexibility in design and development in order to promote economical and efficient
use of land; to increase the level of urban amenities; to preserve the natural environment;
and to provide for phased completion of development projects. It generally provides a
method for deviating from standardized zoning requirements to foster well-planned,
creative, and quality development. Additionally, the Commercial Zoning District
regulations have been revised, and opportunities have been created for residential land
uses in all commercial zones.
13.
Implementation Measure HS-5.2(a): During the short-term planning period, the Low
Income Housing Advisory Committee shall meet with local financial institutions and the
California Department of Housing and Community Development to define which financing
resources can be made available to the City. The LMIHAC shall follow up the
development of the resource program with an action Plan to aggressively seek the funds.
Special timinq provisions related to the Housinq Element: Further implementation of
Implementation Measure 3.1(b).
Status/Accomplishments: The Special Projects Administrator (Housing) and Low and
Moderate Income Housing Advisory Committee (LMIHAC) have been reminded and
advised of this requirement in the General Plan.
14.
Implementation Measure HS-6.1(a): Work with the Mendocino Board of Realtors and
community services agencies to offer a biennial program explaining how to become a
homeowner. Special timinq provisions related to the Housinq Element: Tarqet for Fiscal
1997 and Fiscal 1999.
Status/Accomplishments: It is anticipated that this program will be explored and
possibly created in 1999.
15.
Implementation Measure HS-6.1 (c): Using community services organization, during the
short-term planning period, the City shall develop programs to provide information,
referrals, and non-financial assistance to families in danger of losing their homes.
Status/Accomplishments: It is anticipated that this program will be explored and
possibly created in 1999.
16.
Implementation Measure HS-7.1(b): Maintain an updated inventory of buildable housing
sites existing within the City limits. Special timin.q provisions related to the Housin,q
Element; Create a permit trackin,q system that includes purchase price or rental cost
information by Fiscal 1997.
Status/Accomplishments: City Staff is currently working on a new Vacant Land Survey,
which will identify vacant land, discuss its potential for development, and indicate the
density potential pursuant to its Zoning Classification.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Implementation Measure HS-7.2(a): The City shall ensure that the Land Development
Code is prepared with standards for density bonuses and other affordable housing
incentives. Special timinq provisions related to the Housinq Element: Latter half of 1996.
Status/Accomplishments: The City Zoning Ordinance contains density bonus
provisions consistent with State Law.
Implementation Measure HS-9.2(a): During the short-term planning period, modify
intemal application processing systems to fast-track projects providing affordable housing.
Special timinq provisions related to the Housinq Element: This is a provision to be
included in the new Land Development Code.
Status/Accomplishments: The permit processing procedures have been updated and
refined, and now provide fast-tracking for all development projects.
Implementation Measure HS-9.2(b): Include in the Land Development Code a series of
standard conditions that would apply to affordable housing in order to allow pre-planning
for project conditions. Special timinq provisions related to the Housinq Element: Th~-
City's existin,q zonin.q ordinance includes a "Planned Development" ordinance that will be
carried forward in concept to the revised Land Development Code. The PD ordinance
relaxes standards for setbacks, parkin.q, and other development in order to provide the
hi.qhest levels of flexibility. The Ukiah PD ordinance, a copy which has been filed with
the Department Housinq and Community Development, allows nearly "ne.qotiated"
buildin.q and site development standards in exchanqe for benefits to the community.
Standard conditions typically include establishinq the number of parking spaces per unit,
type and desiqn of landscapin.q and open space areas, buildin.q setbacks, and other
special provisions related to the site development. Buildinq desi.qn and neighborhood
compatible desiqn in likely to be a part of future project reviews followinq adoption of the
new land development code durinq the certification cycle of the Housinq Element.
Status/Accomplishments: Standard conditions have been established for all
development projects, and are discussed with applicants at the time of application
submittal.
Implementation Measure HS-9.2(c): Continue to utilize the Density Bonus provisions of
the Land Development Code to provide opportunities for affordable housing projects by
distributing infrastructure costs across more units which reduces the cost per unit of
infrastructure development.
Status/Accomplishments: VVhile no requests for density bonus have surfaced since
adoption of the Housing Element in December of 1995, the provisions are available, and
will be used in accordance with State Law.
Implementation Measure HS-10.1(b): Utilize Redevelopment funds, when feasible, as
leverage with private and other funding sources to generate more housing. Special
timin~ ~3rovisions related to the Housin.q Element: This measure provides further
coordination with the requirements in Implementation Measure 3.1(b).
22.
23.
Status/Accomplishments: The 20% housing set-a-side funds have been routinely used
to help finance Iow and moderate income housing projects. Since 1995, $787,424 have
been allocated for important community housing projects. Specifically, since adoption of
the General Plan and certification of the Housing Element, the following projects have
been funded with set aside money:
1. Rural Community Housing Development Corporation
a. 30 unit senior citizen housing complex: $30,000 loan.
b. Madene Estates self-help housing project: $73,000 loans and grants.
c. Mulberry Lane self-help housing project: $251,200 loans.
d. 12-unit multi-family project for mentally ill persons: $79,800 loan.
e. Predevelopment activities for a 10-unit senior citizen housing complex:
$18,000 grant.
2. Ukiah Community Center
a. Emergency housing vouchers: $32,924 grant
3. Ford Street Project
a. Existing facility rehabilitation: $1000 grant.
b. Housing study: $5,000 grant.
c. Purchase and rehabilitation of 10-unit housing complex: $36,000 grant.
d. Predevelopment activities for facility expansion: $6,500 grant.
4. Community Development Commission of Mendocino County
a. 7-unit student housing facility: $196,000 loan.
5. Habitat for Humanity
a. Purchase property for single family dwelling: $50,000 grant.
b. Infrastructure construction for a duplex: $10,000 grant.
Implementation Measure HS-ll.l(a): Inventory the existing housing that is available.
Special timing provisions related to the Housinq Element: Prepare the special inventory
of housing by Fiscal 1997.
Status/Accomplishments: The special housing availability inventory is slated for
completion by the end of fiscal year 1998-1999.
Implementation Measure HS-12.1(b): During the short-term planning pedod, work with
the County to establish a program to assist appropriate agencies or organizations with
the acquisition of older motels or other facilities that could be converted to seasonal
worker housing. Special timinq provisions related to the Housinq Element: Begin an
inventory in Fiscal 1997, start assistance with acquisition in Fiscal 1998. This program
is likely to be tarqeted to carry over into the intermediate-term planning period because
of its undetermined capital costs. A likely source for the funds would be the
Redevelopment Agency's 20% set aside funds.
Status/Accomplishments: Dudng the year 1996, one (1) older motel was converted to
permanent housing by a local non-profit agency. The City assisted and expedited the
process. No "co-program" has been established with Mendocino County, but it is
understood that they have a program/process for allowing or permitting the conversion
of rehabilitation and conversion of older motels into farm worker housing. An example
is the Thunderbird Motel on South State Street, which was recently rehabilitated and now
houses farm workers and dependent families during the entire year.
24.
Implementation Measure HS-13.1(b): Offer permit processing incentives or other
assistance for group homes that are proposed to be developed through rehabilitation of
existing housing stock or that are designed to enhance or improve neighborhood
character or appearances.
Status/Accomplishments: The City permit processing system is uniquely inexpensive
and efficient. All projects are fast-tracked in a competent and professional manner
without sacrificing legal and adequate review.
25.
Implementation Measure HS-15.1(a): Amend the land development regulations to
simplify the approval of planned unit development, shared-facility housing, and
non-traditional single family residential housing. Special timinq provisions related to the
Housing Element: Identify "co-housing" as a land use and provide for cooperative housin.q
with the subdivision ordinance. Allow for shared housing and shared facilities in the
building code. Latter half of 1996.
Status/Accomplishments: The language describing the Planned Development Zoning
process has been revised with an emphasis on making it easier to understand and
administer. Proposed revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance are underway.
26.
Implementation Measure HS-16.1(a): The Low and Moderate Income Housing Advisory
Committee shall prepare a report with the City's Annual General Plan review to identify
the progress in achieving the Housing Element to be a part of the Community
Development Department's annual report on the General Plan.
Status/Accomplishments: The City Planning Department is preparing a Housing
Element Status Report. It is envisioned that the LMIHAC will play an important role, and
provide data and statistical resources for the Report.
27.
Implementation Measure HS-'16.1(b): The Low Income Housing Advisory Committee
shall identify in its report fiscally achievable recommendations to the Planning
Commission and City Council conceming those areas in which the City may not be
meeting its goals.
Status/Accomplishments: Fiscally achievable recommendations to the Planning
Commission and City Council are included in Section '¥" of this report.
IV. APPROPRIATENESS OF THE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTION PLAN
Vm
VI.
An evaluation of the existing goals, policies, and action/implementation plan was
performed to determine its viability and appropriateness after 2 1/2 years. It has been
concluded that the goals and policies are still applicable and pertinent to the City. VVhile
a number of the implementation measures in the Action Plan appear unorthodox, and are
currently unachievable because of financial constraints and staff shortages, they are
nevertheless important and will be carded over into the revised Housing Element in
hopes of improvements in both financial and staff resources.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION / ZONING CLASSIFICATION UPDATE
During 1996 and a portion of 1997, the City conducted 13 phases of a City-wide rezoning
program to bdng the zoning classifications of 480 parcels into conformance with the new
General Plan. During that program, the City Council found the existing zoning on a
number of parcels to be appropriate, rather than what the new General Plan was
suggesting. Accordingly, they directed staff to bring back an amendment to the General
Plan Land Use Map to acknowledge the existing zoning on 707 parcels of land.
Additionally, the City Council disagreed with both the past and newly proposed zoning on
47 parcels, and directed staff to amend the General Plan Land Use Map, and rezone the
parcels to something other than their existing zoning classifications.
The major change resulting from the General Plan amendment project involved the
Empire Gardens and Betty/Lorraine Street residential neighborhoods. The zoning on
these parcels prior to the adoption of the new General Plan was "R-I" (Single Family
Residential). The General Plan Land Use Map designated them as "MDR" (Medium
Density Residential), which would ordinarily result in the rezoning of these parcels to the
"R-2" (Medium Density residential) Zoning Classification. However, the Planning
Commission, City Council, and residents in these neighborhoods disagreed with the
"MDR" designation, and as a result, the General Plan Land Use Map was amended to
redesignate them "LDR" (Low density Residential). This action, while both logical and
practical, resulted in the "loss" of hundreds of "R-2" zoned parcels. The term "loss" is
very loosely used because the majority, if not all of these parcels, could never be
developed to the "R-2" density. They are small and developed with standard single
family residential development, leaving very little room for anything more than small
accessory structures or a small second dwelling unit.
ZONING DISTRICT TEXT REVISIONS
The City has completed a zoning text revision project to bring the regulations into
conformance with the General Plan. The revision process also included reformatting the
various Articles of the Zoning Code, and streamlining the development permit process.
Residential Districts: The General Plan did not dictate modifications to the existing
densities in the Residential Zoning Districts. The "R-2" (Medium Density Residential)
Zoning District still allows a potential maximum density of 14 units per acre, while the
"R-3" (High Density Residential) District allows a maximum density of 28 units per acre.
VII.
These densities were deemed reasonable and appropriate in the certified General Plan
Housing Element, and have worked well in the community.
In addition, the yard setback standards in all the residential zones were modified to allow
more flexibility. This was accomplished by allowing infill projects to match the average
yard setbacks in a neighborhood, rather than being held to the larger setbacks required
for projects in newly developing areas.
Commercial Districts' Pursuant to the direction pro~/ided in the General Plan,
residential opportunities are now possible in all commercial zoning districts. Mixed
commercial/residential uses are encouraged, particularly in the denser commercial areas,
such as the downtown core. It is very difficult to determine how many additional potential
units this change in the regulations provides, but it is estimated, based on existing vacant
land, identified prime redevelopment property, and current and anticipated market
conditions, that it could represent as many as 25 units per year.
Planned Development Regulations: The Planned Development (PD) Zoning
regulations have been completely revised to be consistent with the General Plan; to
modernize the approach to the planned development concept; and to create a more
orderly and readable set of regulations. The purpose of the new PD regulations is to
allow flexibility in design and development in order to promote economical and efficient
use of land; to increase the level of urban amenities; to preserve the natural environment;
and to provide for phased completion of development projects. It generally provides a
method for deviating from standardized zoning requirements to foster well-planned,
creative, and quality development.
The revised PD regulations represent a major tool for Iow and moderate income housing
projects. Over the past several years, two (2) "sweat equity" Iow income housing projects
have used this tool and have received approval by the City Council.
VACANT LAND AND SUITABLE BUILDING SITE UPDATE
An evaluation of the Inventory of Undeveloped Land contained in the General Plan
Housing Element was performed to determine its accuracy, and to update it in
anticipation of the upcoming Housing Element recertification project (see Appendix "A").
The pdmary conclusion reached in this reevaluation is that the amount and density
potential of vacant land within the City was overstated in the 1995 Housing Element.
Currently, there is approximately 213.131 acres of vacant residentially zoned land within
the City limits, but 193.14 acres of that total is situated within the Single Family
Residential Hillside Zoning District, and is burdened with major development constraints.
Of the remaining 20.17 acres, approximately 10.31 acres are burdened with poor access,
flood zones, or other constraints, leaving approximately 9.86 acres of residentially zoned
land that is generally suitable for development.
10
3
VIII.
IX.
Similarly, the vacant pdme commercial land that could potentially be developed with
medium and high density residential development, is both limited in total acreage, and
burdened with development constraints.
The City is generally built-out, and the remaining vacant land represents properties that
vacant because they have constraints to development that are costly to overcome. This
obviously any sort of development, particularly Iow and moderate income housing
projects that rely on government funding, grants, etc.
PROGRESS AND EFFECTIVENESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE HOUSING ELEMENT
Implementing the Housing Element has been difficult for the City of Ukiah. While
progress has been made, it may not appear so in terms of meeting the City's regional fair
share of "needed" units. Regardless there have been successes, and strides have been
made towards providing housing to those in need. These successes are commendable
because of the severe lack of developable land, a lack of financial resources, staff
shortages, and general neighborhood opposition to both Iow and moderate income
housing projects and residential projects for those who are physically or mentally
challenged.
The redevelopment Agency has consistently used the 20% set aside funds for local
housing projects, and has a track record of distributing the funds to a variety of programs
and projects.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
.
Since the adoption of the revised General Plan and the certification of the updated
Housing Element in 1995, the City has accomplished a number of important tasks
related to improving and increasing needed housing have been accomplished.
Foremost among these accomplishments is the revised Zoning Code, which now
allows or permits residential land uses in all commercial districts, and provides an
increased flexibility and opportunity for creative high density residential
development through revised and modernized Planned Development standards.
.
Even though a lot has been accomplished since State certification of the Housing
Element, a considerable amount of work remains to be completed over the next
2 1/2 years. The Low and Moderate Income Housing Advisory Committee is
responsible for a number of important tasks, and the overall success of
implementation is dependent upon their dedication and production.
.
The growth rate projected in the 1995 General Plan has not occurred. The City
was expected to grow at a rate of approximately 2%, which would have resulted
in a 1998 population of 16,749 people. In fact, the January, 1998 City population
was 15,018, which was 41 persons less than when the 1995 General Plan was
adopted. This drop in population obviously lessens the need for additional
housing units.
11
.
During the General Plan Rezoning Program, a number of decisions have affected
the information and conclusions reached in the certified Housing Element. The
Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council determined that the MDR
(Medium density Residential) land use designation, was inappropriately applied
to hundreds of parcels developed with single family residences in established
single family residential neighborhoods. This drastically reduced the amount of
MDR designated land throughout the City. However, this reduction in the number
of acreage dedicated to MDR in the General Plan is not deemed significant,
because it occur in well-established strong single family residential neighborhoods
that are unlikely to change during the life of the General Plan. In other words,
these neighborhoods should never have been designated as MDR in the first
place, and to assume that they could support up to a doubling of density was a
mistake.
Additionally, a number of parcels designated as HDR (High Density Residential)
were redesignated to either MDR of LDR (Low Density Residential) because of
neighborhood opposition. However, it is concluded that these redesignations
were insignificant because in other instances, a number of parcels with a
commercial designation were reassigned the HDR classification.
.
It has been determined that there is significantly less vacant land in the City that
previously thought. Additionally, it has been discovered that the developability of
this land is generally marginal because of steep slopes, flood zones, poor access,
and other constraints. Simply put, there is much less developable vacant land
within the City limits than previously determined in the General Plan Housing
Element.
o
VVhen the Housing Element is revised, it should reflect the true existing conditions
of the community in terms of vacant developable land. It should also more
accurately descdbe the uniqueness of the City in terms of constraints, and the
community efforts to plan and develop Iow and moderate income housing in light
of these constraints. Finally, it should include a truly achievable Action Plan that
emphasizes the distinctive needs of the community.
.
With the assistance of a number of local organizations, the City has been effective
in pursuing the community's housing goals and objectives.
o
The City is making progress in implementing the General Plan Housing Element
even though the community is faced with a severe scarcity of vacant developable
land, a lack of financial resources, staff shortages, and general community
opposition to high density residential housing projects.
12
X. FISCALLY ACHIEVABLE RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and conclusions listed above, the following fiscally achievable
recommendations have been developed:
.
Continue to use the redevelopment 20% set aside tax increment money to fund
Iow and moderate income housing projects. Broaden the focus of the projects to
include more rehabilitation projects, because of the increasing deterioration of
existing units and the scarcity of developable land.
2. Use in-house Planning Staff to revise the Housing Element.
.
Pursue Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for housing related
planning studies such as a deteriorated housing/neighborhood survey, a housing
market analysis, an inventory of the existing housing that is available to the
various target income groups, and a community education and outreach program
designed to resolve fears and misconceptions about high density residential
housing projects.
.
Work proactively with the Low and Moderate Income Housing Advisory Committee
(LMIHAC) to satisfy their responsibilities, as required in the General Plan Housing
Element.
.
Continue to support the various groups and organizations in the City who plan
and develop Iow and moderate income housing, and other facilities for housing
persons in need.
.
If the City changes its annexation policies to proactively pursue the annexation of
land, work to designate and zone the land for medium and high density residential
opportunities.
13
CITY OF UKIAH
Vacant Land Survey
APN SIZE ZONING POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS PROBABLE
UNITS UNITS
1-030-03 27 acres R1-H 1 Very steep slopes; 1
lack of access
1-030-05 33 acres R1-H I Very steep slopes; 1
lack of access
1-040-01 36 acres R1-H 1 Very steep slopes; 1
lack of access
1-040-04 44 acres R1-H 1 Very steep slopes; 1
lack of access
1-040-14 9 acres R1-H 3 Steep slopes 1-2
1-040-65 5 acres R1-H 2 Steep slopes 1
1-040-67 2 acres R1-H I Steep slopes 1
1-060-04 .33 acres R1 1 Narrow infill lot; 1
portions steep
1-111-26 .2 acres R1 1 None 1
1-120-02 2.7 acres R1-H 1 Very steep slopes; 1
difficult access
1-120-29 .5 acres R1-H 1 Very steep slopes; 1
difficult access
1-130-36 .2 acres R1-H 1 Gentle slopes 1
1-130-49 .4 acres R1-H 1 Steep slopes 1
1-151-16 .13 acres R1 1 Small lot 1
1-171-02 2.1 acres R1 15 Flood zone; poor 10
access; slopes
1-171-06 .17 acres R1 1 Flood zone; no 0-1
access
1-181-17 .23 acres R1 1 Steep slopes; poor 1
access
1-183-10 .34 acres R1 1 Slopes; poor access 1
1-203-31 1.5 acres R1 11 None 11
APN SIZE ZONING POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS PROBABLE
UNITS UNITS
1-203-34 .2 acres R1 2 None 2
1-230-08 7.8 acres R1-H 5 Very steep slopes; 1
poor/no access
1-242-18 .13 acres R1 1 Small lot 1
1-243-05 .27 acres R1 2 Flag lot 2
1-253-23 .46 acres R1 3 None 3
1-271-16 .16 acres R1-H I Steep slope; small 1
lot
1-283-25 .1 acres R1 1 Small lot 1
1-292-14 .14 acres R1 1 None 1
1-304-02 .14 acres R2 2 None 2
1-306-06 .9 acres R2 13 None 13
1-410-16 1.9 acres R1-H 2 Steep slopes 2
1-410-17 .25 acres R1-H 1 Steep slopes 1
1-410-18 1.7 acres R1-H 2 Steep slopes 2
1-410-19 1.6 acres R1-H 2 Steep Slopes 2
1-410-25 .35 acres R1-H I Steep slopes 1
1-420-31 8.3 acres R1-H 1 Very steep slopes 1
1-440-08 .17 acres R1-H 1 Very steep slopes; 1
poor/no access
1-440-09 .7 acres R1-H 1 Very steep slopes; 1
poor/no access
2-080-42 .16 acres R1 1 None 1
2-114-59 .57 acres R1 4 Portion of creek; 1
flood zone
3-021-24 .12 acres R1 1 None 1
3-040-30 3.3 acres R3 95 Poor access; close 50
proximity to airport;
infill parcel
3-050-33 .14 acres R2 2 Poor/no access; 1
close proximity to
railroad tracks
-17
APN SIZE ZONING POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS PROBABLE
UNITS UNITS
3-090-35 .52 acres R3 15 None 15
3-061-25 .46 acres R1 3 Steep access to 3
level site
3-110-56 .38 acres R1-H 1 Very steep slopes 1
3-110-59 .35 acres R1-H 1 Very steep slopes 1
3-110-63 .92 acres R1-H 1 Very steep slopes; 1
poor access
3-110-64 2.35 acres R1-H 2 Very steep slopes 2
3-260-01 4.6 acres R1-H 4 very steep; poor 2-4
access
3-471-13 .33 acres R1 3 None 3
3-520-55 .14 acres R1 1 Poor access 1
3-520-56 .15 acres R1 1 Poor access 1
3-530-23 3.1 acres R3 90 Partial flood zone; 50
emergency access
3-550-71 .25 acres R1 1 None 1
3-550-73 .4 acres R1 3 None 3
2-111-42 .33 acres R1 2 None 2
2-111-43 .20 acres R1 1 None 1
2-111-44 .35 acres R1 2 None 2
1-141-20 1.81 acres RI-H 2 Steep slopes 2
3-160-57 3.0 acres R2 43 Poor access; 100
year flood zone; infill 21
site
Majority of vacant
TOTALS 213.31 367 acreage is 243
ACRES significantly
constrained
Note:
193.14 of the total 213.31 acres of vacant residentially zoned land is within the R1-H (Single
Family residential Hillside) Zoning District. This means that only 20.17 acres of vacant
residentially zoned property is situated on level ground. 10.31 of this 20.17 acres are
burdened by poor access, flood zones and other constraints, leaving 9.86 acres of
residentially zoned that is generally suitable for development.
-IF
PRIME COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY
APN SIZE ZONING POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS PROBABLE
UNITS UNITS
2-030-06 1.4 acres C1 39 None 25 (with
roads, etc.)
2-153-14 .12 acres C1 3 Poor/no access; 1
odd shape
2-232-01 6.0 acres C1/C2 168 Potential 75
hazardous waste;
creek; roadway
and infrastructure
needs
2-281-02 .33 acres C2 9 None 5 (with roads,
etc.)
2-282-01 4.0 acres C2 116 Potential 50
hazardous waste;
roadway and
infrastructure
needs
2-340-31 3.7 acres C1 103 None 75
TOTALS 15.55 438 231
ACRES
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL AND
PRIME
COMMERCIAL VACANT
LAND
228.86 Acres
805 Potential Units
474 Probable Units
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO'
FROM:
SUBJECT:
October 23, 1998
Honorable Mayor Malone and
Members of City Council
Candace Horsley, City Manager(_.'~~
Demolition Permit Ordinance
We wanted you to be aware that there was a section that was included in the preview
copy of the Demolition Permit Ordinance you received yesterday that has been
deleted. Specifically, Section 2.c., on page 2, stated that buildings constructed before
1940 would be the only buildings considered under the Ordinance. This was
eliminated for two reasons: 1) There are historically significant buildings constructed
after 1940; and 2) financial incentives are available to property owners after the 50-
year mark and we did not want to eliminate that funding avenue for restoration.
Please discard the version you received yesterday and only refer to the copy you are
receiving with your packet today. If you have any questions regarding this item, please
do not hesitate to contact Bob Sawyer at 463-6206, or myself.
CH:ky
Att.
4:Can:Mcc140