The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutmin 02-01-82MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - FEBRUARY 1, 1982 The City Council convened in work study session at 4:30 P.M. for consideration of Las Casas density bonus. Councilmembers present: Hickey, Feibusch, Snyder, .Riley, Myers. Staff present: Payne, Orchard, Harris, Tillotson, Melvin. Planning Commission members present: Kelley, Metzler, Vander Mey, Velardi. City Attorney reviewed his memorandum of February 1, 1982 regarding Las Casas. He reported the memorandum was a result of his and Planning Director's consultation with William G. Holliman, attorney, who has a statewide reputation in landuse work. City Attorney stated that Mr. Holliman is of the opinion that 1) the existing use permit is valid and the time for challenging that is long past; 2) the developer may apply for the density of 25% on the second and third phases assuming the City does not avail itself of other incentives; 3) the City should insist on an application from the developer to amend the use permit if he wants the density bonus; 4) if the developer does not file a final map, or withdraws the tentative map, on the first phase, the developer could start the procedure over again; 5) that it is clear the density bonus law does apply to the development; and 6) consideration can be given to other incentives other than those specified in the statutes so long as they constituted a significant contribution to the construction of low and medium income housing. In answer to a request of clarification from Councilmember Snyder, City Attorney stated although the use permit is called Las Casas and the tentative map is entitled Las Casas/Vineyard View, there is no standing to raise these issues at this time as the permit has been issued. City Attorney suggested incentives could be to waive SB201 school impact fees; waive filing or processing fees of permits and applications; or exempt the development from utility connection charges for water and sewer. Councilmember Riley spoke to the condition of a time limit regarding Farm Home Administration housing and Planning Director stated the specific condition relating to Farm Home was not met and Council felt it should be dropped if not met by thatl time limit. He further stated that three acres within the development ~ave been sold to Rural Communities Housing Development Corp. for low and moderate type apartments. Bob Kennedy, developer, stated that they have, at this time, Farm Home Administration interested in 3.6 acres immediately adjacent to this parcel. Councilmember Snyder, in reference to Item 4, page 2 of~ City Attorney's memorandum, asked if it were true that the City Council had already complied with the density bonus? City Attorney stated that if the developer chose not to file a final map or withdrew the tentative map, then it would be started anew. He further stated the use permit in regard to phase 1 is closed insofar as assuming the developer files the final map. Councilmember Riley asked if SB201 (school impact fees) was considered during phase 17 Planning Director stated as part of the use permit procedure, the school district was contacted and they replied that the fees were not necessary. City Manager pointed out that these fees can be used for capital improvements ~nly and someone would have to open the use permit to have it valid. He further stated that as the City Attorney's memorandum identifies the issues, it puts the impetus to do anything back on the developer. Councilmember Riley asked, when the developer comes back for the 25% density bonus for phases 2 and 3, could the Council give him the bonus contingent upon provision for self help housing or -'resale restrictions? City Attorney stated if there are to be viable options, it would be assumed Adj .Mtg. 2/1/82 Page 1 67 what the City wants would be reasonable and a significant contribution to the development of low and moderate housing; however, the developer would not have to accept it, hence, no agreement, the project would proceed and there would not be low and moderate housing. Councilmember Feibusch stated it is up to the developer to decide whether to file a final map and he has the option to come back with phase 2 and 3 and negotiate a certain bonus. It is up to the developer to decide which way he wants to proceed. He also felt the types of incentives are immaterial at this point as the final map has not been filed for phase 1. He was of the opinion that he would not want to negotiate any Other alternatives than density bonus. Jared Carter, Attorney representing developer, stated it is the developer's intent to file the final map on phase 1.' He requested that the Council discuss what they want to see in phases 2 and 3 so the developer can plan for and implement it. Councilmember Riley stated she would like to see the Council take a stand that the low and moderate housing be restricted as to resale and guaranteed for low and moderate housing. In answer to a question regarding the use permit amendment process, City Attorney stated the process would go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Carter requested, as members of the Planning Commission were present, that policy decisions be decided at this time. City Attorney stated that the Planning Commission could not legally give direction as a special meeting had not been noticed. Discussion was had regarding what figure the density bonus would apply to in phases 2 and 3. It was determined that it would be 25% of 211 units if the developer comes back for an amended use permit. Councilmembers Hickey and Snyder were of the opinion that negotiations should be based on a density bonus. Councilmember Riley suggested the following incentives that could be negotiated on: 1) housing assistance; or, 2) use park dedication as part 'of in lieu fees. Planning Director stated the land use was part of the PD use permit; it is not tied with the park dedication ordinance. Yvonne Metzler, Chairman, Planning Commission, pointed out there are new members on the Planning Commission who have not considered Las Casas previously and stated that she did favor the density bonus. Guy Velardi, Planning Commission member, asked if the amendment to the use permit would have an impact on the proceedings of phase 17 Mayor Myers stated it would not. Mr. Carter felt guidance is needed for the reason that if the developer presents a proposal for density bonus and the City turns it down, it would leave the developer an alternative of court action. Councilmember Hickey stated the Council has gone on record as being in favor of promoting low and moderate income housing to meet the needs in this community and he felt the developer could rely on this. M/S: Snyder/Hickey that City Council inform the Planning Commission that at this work study session, Council agreed to proceed with a density bonus for phases 2 and 3. M/S: Riley/Feibusch to amend the original motion by requesting the Planning Commission investigate.with the developer during their hearings on density bonus the possibility for some kind of restrictions to guarantee certain housing remain for low to moderate income people. Adj .Mtg. 2/.]_/82 Page 2 68 Councilmember Hickey stated he disagreed with that motion because the developer will not have that kind of control unless he carries the papers. Councilmember Riley felt that the specific mechanism for this to work could be worked out later. Mayor Myers felt the Planning Commission could explore this issue but did not feel it was necessary to put it in the form of a motion. City Attorney pointed out that City Council should bear in mind that as consideration for direct financial contribution by the City to the development, the City could require the developer to enter into a 30 year program to guaranty that the housing remain available to low and moderate users. Nancy Parker, Ukiah, was in favor of a restriction along with the density bonus due to the fact that she is concerned about what would happen if the developer chose not to pursue-low income housing. Motion to amend the original motion failed by 2-3 (Hickey, Snyder, Myers) voice vote. Original motion carried by 4-1 (Riley) voice vote. ADJOURNMENT - 5:50 P.M. Mary Melvin Deputy City Clerk Adj .Mtg. 2/]./82 Page. 3