Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin 07-09-03 Special MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2003 The Ukiah City Council met at a Special Meeting on July 9, 2003, the notice for which had been legally noticed and posted, at 3:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. Staff present: City Manager Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, Planning Director Stump, and City Clerk Ulvila. 2. PLEDED OF ALLEGIANCE William Randolph led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. RIGHT TO APPEAL Mayor Larson read the appeal process. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS James Mulheren, Chairman of the Planning Commission, discussed the Planning Commission's recent decision concerning the Nix project that was appealed by Councilmember Baldwin who was not in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting. Pat Stefani, 225 Washington Avenue, Ukiah, explained that she would like to see better phone access to City departments. City Manager Horsley explained the phone system to her. Michael Deckard, Ukiah, voiced his displeasure with recent City Council actions. Christopher Russell and Bertha Lopez spoke to the issue of filing a complaint against a City of Ukiah Police Officer. City Attorney Rapport advised that the City Council should not take complaints against specific City employees, particularly Police Officers by name, and described the process for conducting a review of officers. Richard Johnson shouted at Council from his seat in the audience. Mayor Larson called Mr. Johnson's outburst out of order. He requested that the record should reflect that Mr. Russell would be making a general statement. Mr. Russell explained that there is one Police Officer that has been harassing him consistently over the past five years. He attempted to describe the incidents. Mayor Larson advised Mr. Russell that he would not be able to continue in that vein. City Manager Horsley offered to assist Mr. Russell in addressing his complaint. Special City Council Meeting July 9, 2003 Page 1 of 11 Richard Johnson, Alliance for Human Rights, discussed the alleged conduct of an Ukiah Police Officer. Mayor Larson ruled Mr. Johnson out of order. Robin Thomas advised that she is a past member of the Mendocino County Commission on Human Rights and spoke to Council regarding complaints of accusations of excessive force, harassment, and threats of retaliation if people made complaints against Police Officers. City Manager Horsley explained that staff would appreciate individuals coming forward who could present facts to the Police Chief and work with him regarding details of specific situations. 5. MINUTES 5a. Regular Meeting of May 21,2003 City Clerk Ulvila noted a correction to page 8, eighth paragraph, that it should read, '"'It was the consensus of the Council to look at March 2004 as the target election date to present the measure to the voters." Councilmember Rodin noted a correction to page 5 in the last paragraph, that the first sentence of Mayor Larson's statements should be deleted. Mayor Larson concurred with Councilmember Rodin's observation. Councilmember Baldwin noted a correction to page 10, the ninth paragraph should read, "Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Larson ..." M/S Andersen/Rodin approving the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2003, as amended, carried by the following roll call vote' AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN' Councilmember Smith. ABSENT: None. 3:15 p.m.: City Manager Horsley left the meeting. 6. PUBLIC HEARING 6a. Amendment of Introduced Ordinance Amending Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of Chapter 2 of Division 9 (Zoning) of the Ukiah Municipal Code Pertaining to Residential Second Dwelling Units Planning Director Stump advised that at its last meeting, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing and introduced an Ordinance amending the Ukiah City Code regulations for residential second dwelling units, as the Planning Commission recommended. They also indicated that they might want to bring it back and modify it before formally adopting it on July 16th. The City Council identified a number of issues that it wanted to discuss further. The Staff Report contains additional information and examples of how other communities have addressed those issues. He recommended that Council continue the public hearing, and go through each item, discuss them, and make a decision on whether or not they want to modify the Ordinance on that topical area. He Special City Council Meeting July 9, 2003 Page 2 of 11 inquired of Council as to the procedure staff should follow if it were to receive a Building Permit for a second unit before the Ordinance is formally adopted (30 days after adoption of the Ordinance). Public Hearing Opened: 3:25 p.m. Mayor Larson explained that the present situation to the audience of a state mandate concerning second unit dwellings and how it affects the City of Ukiah policies concerning discretionary review. Councilmember Baldwin was appreciative of staff's research and recommended that the City look to the cities of Davis, Healdsburg, and Portola Valley for ideas. Councilmember Rodin explained that since the state has taken away the City's right of discretionary review and wants to make it ministerial, she is not comfortable making the standards for second units so high that every applicant has to go through the Use Permit and discretionary review process in order to get their second unit approved. She felt that the City should be able to find a balance through architectural compatibility and some of the other parameters. Councilmember Smith expressed his belief that the Planning Commission conducted a good review of the Ordinance and he is supportive of their recommendation. Councilmember Andersen expressed an interest in preserving as much local control as possible. GENERAL COMMENTS received from the audience regarding a second unit ordinance were as follows: John McCowen, Ukiah, stated that he strongly supports making it easier for people to develop second units. If the City does not make additional provisions for people to find housing within the existing urbanized area, then additional pressure is put on surrounding agriculture lands. Peter Good recommended that the City Council support private property rights and that height limits should be established so as to not infringe on a neighbor's privacy. Terry Poplawski, 612 Walnut, Ukiah, expressed concern with traffic congestion and parking problems, and how an increase in population can change the character of a neighborhood. William Randolph, Ukiah, noted his concern for traffic congestion as it may affect or impede access by emergency vehicles. Ernie Fine, discussed his concern with the lack of affordable housing in Ukiah and that second unit housing limits the development of Ukiah. He is opposed to an owner occupancy requirement and felt it is discriminatory. Special City Council Meeting July 9, 2003 Page 3 of 11 Phil Ashiku, 724 South Dora St., Ukiah, was of the opinion that the Use Permit process currently in place works and establishes the safeguards that ensure that the public has an opportunity to make certain that mitigations are in place to regulate the impacts on a neighborhood or general area. He recommended that Council adopt minimum standards that provide for the protections that are provided for through the Use Permit process. Pat Stefani voiced her support of the owner occupancy requirement and felt homeowners make better property managers. Jim Mulheren, Ukiah, was of the opinion that the City Council should promote affordable housing and move forward with easing the restrictions so that people are able to build a second unit. Councilmember Baldwin noted if the City were to consider every 5,000 square foot lot eligible to have a second unit, the environmental impacts could be immense. He inquired if staff is aware of any jurisdiction that required an EIR on these revisions. Planning Director Stump advised that he is not aware of any and noted that the majority of cities are categorically exempting the revisions because there is a specific category in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allowing for a project to be exempt from CEQA if it has to do with revising an ordinance that deals with second units. Most cities are relying on that exemption. He went on to discuss discretionary review and the CEQA process. Councilmember Rodin inquired as to the amount of second unit applications that the Planning Department has received during the past five years. Planning Director Stump explained that there have been less than six. The City Council reviewed the nine issues listed in the Staff Report. 1-OWNER OCCUPANCY City Manager Rapport provided a legal opinion regarding recent court cases concerning the owner occupancy issue. He discussed a court case that involved a requirement that the occupants of the second unit be related, family members, or caretaker for the residents of the principal unit and the courts struck it down on both privacy and equal protection grounds. You can't tell people whom they can live with in terms of dictating their relationship to other people on the property. Requiring the owner to occupy one of the two units on a property is a different restriction from the restriction that was struck down in those cases. The City would not be telling the property owner who he can live with, but requiring the property owner to live on the property if they want to have a second unit. Most of the concern in the recorded decisions had to do with discrimination against renters or an unstated assumption that renters are less desirable than owners, wouldn't take as good care of the property or be good neighbors, and may degrade the quality of the neighborhood. The court did not think that was a valid consideration or make those assumptions. Special City Council Meeting July 9, 2003 Page 4 of 11 He discussed court cases that were upheld with a restriction on use rather than status or identity of the property owner. He noted that the state legislature has said that owner occupancy is okay. The City of Ukiah could rely on-that judgment. However, that doesn't mean that the City's ordinance couldn't be challenged. He thought it is less vulnerable on privacy grounds because it's more of a restriction on use than the identity of the occupants. It still would need to be defended on equal protection grounds and the City would at least have to articulate the reasonable basis for having that restriction. He stressed that the City has to have a rational basis for its policy and it has to be a legitimate governmental purpose that it is seeking to promote. Mayor Larson discussed his the perception that an owner renting a second unit may be involved in a commercial enterprise to generate additional income. Councilmember Baldwin explained that the finding could be made that it has the potential to transform all of the City's single-family neighborhoods in terms of parking, traffic, crime, noise, and privacy. Because of that, it would be a granting of special privilege because it would change the community so radically. The argument for having the owner occupied requirement is that you want to avoid owners who do not care about the quality of life in the neighborhood, and construct the second unit. Councilmember Smith inquired if there would be a requirement placed on the buyer of property with an existing second unit that they must occupy the primary residence. City Councilmember Rodin inquired if someone wanted to buy property with the intent of renting both units, would they be restricted because of the owner occupancy requirement. City Attorney Rapport responded that if that was the way the owner occupancy requirement was written, they would have to occupy one of the units when they purchased the property or they could eliminate the second unit as a rental. He explained that he is not aware of a case that addresses the owner occupancy requirement restriction. The recent case involved requiring the occupant of the second unit to be related to the occupants of the primary unit and the courts struck down that case. Councilmember Andersen explained that one of the goals of the Housing Element in the General Plan is protection of existing stable residential areas. He stated that he understands the City Attorney's concerns about discrimination but thought it would be appropriate for the Council to require that an owner occupy one of the buildings on a piece of property. He felt there is great concern in the community about the decay of neighborhoods because neighborhoods decline when there are fewer people who own their homes living there. He felt that Council needs to take the owner occupancy requirement very seriously in relation to what the General Plan says. Those speaking against having an owner occupancy requirement were: Phil Ashiku, John McCowen, Peter Good, and Marlene Werra. Special City Council Meeting July 9, 2003 Page 5 of 11 Discussion followed with regard to loan documents whereby an owner agrees to live in a home they purchase. This may be difficult to enforce. Councilmembers Baldwin and Andersen were supportive of an owner occupancy requirement for second units. Councilmembers Smith and Rodin were opposed to the owner occupancy requirement. Mayor Larson inquired if the City Council could enforce, through an amendment to this ordinance, and apply existing commercial nuisance and property maintenance existing ordinances to rental property in the City of Ukiah. City Attorney Rapport responded that the City could impose a maintenance requirement on residential as well as commercial property but it would have to be done at a different meeting than this one since it is not part of this agenda. Mayor Larson advised that until there is adequate protection for the City to enforce property maintenance stipulations on rental property, he would be supportive of the owner occupancy requirement. 2- HEIGHT LIMITS There was discussion by Council on the height limits and several recommendations were made. John McCowen was of the opinion that the existing ordinance is adequate for attached units, up to a 30-oot height. A detached unit should have a separate standard, such as 20 feet. It was the unanimous consensus of Council that there shall be a maximum height for second units of 18 feet and that taller units may be approved through the discretionary review process. 3-SIZE OF UNIT Councilmember Baldwin recommended 500 square feet for a 5,000 square feet lot, 600 square feet for 6,000 square feet lot, or 10% of the lot size up to a maximum of 700 square feet. Phil Ashiku, John McCowen, and Pat Steffani recommended that the City Council consider keeping the existing standards and that if it has no impact on the neighbors, it should be 10% of the lot size up to 1,000 feet. Mr. Ashiku voiced his support for the discretionary review process for second units, while Mr. McCowen disagreed and supported allowing for a range of options for the developer. Discussion followed with regard to the size limitation for second units and the discretionary review process. Lot size and lot coverage were discussed in relation to the size of the second unit and the primary dwelling on a lot Special City Council Meeting July 9, 2003 Page 6 of 11 Mayor Larson was supportive of minimal square footage requirement of 200 square feet and also supported a 10% of the lot size with a 700 square foot cap. John McCowen and Phillip Ashiku spoke to Council on the issue and voiced their support for a cap on the size of second units at the upper limit. Brian Manning addressed the City Council and voiced his opposition to having a 1,000 square foot cap on the size of the second unit after going through a discretionary review. Councilmember Rodin suggested using the current language but reduce the second unit size to 750 square feet and not have a limit for discretionary review. Councilmember Baldwin suggested 350 square feet on a 5,000 square foot lot, 450 square feet on a 6,000 square foot lot, and 550 square feet on a 7,000 square foot lot, and anything else than would require discretionary review. Dave Hull expressed his concern with restricting the size of the second unit to such Iow square footage that the dwelling would be too small to affectively help the housing problem in Ukiah. He also expressed concern with the cost of building a second unit and the cost of a Use Permit if discretionary review is required. Phil Ashiku suggested that the size restrictions be based on a certain percentage of the available space in the yard. He also suggested Council incorporate the existing standards of 10% of the lot coverage. There was considerable discussion continued with regard to what would be the appropriate size for second units in relation to the lot size. The existing requirements were also discussed and if any changes should be made. Council presented several suggestions for consideration. Ismael Ceja, property owner in the western hills, felt it should be based on the size of the lot. It was the consensus of the Council that the maximum size of a second unit shall be 10% of the lot size with a maximum of 750 square feet. Larger units may be approved through the discretionary process. 4-ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY Councilmember Rodin suggested the following wording for the second paragraph under that heading in the staff report to read, "Second units may be attached to existing single-family residences or detached as separate structures. Regardless, all proposed second units should be architecturally compatible, and have design continuity with both the existing homes in the neighborhood and the existing primary unit on the property. "The second dwelling unit shall incorporate the same or substantially similar architectural features, building materials, height, and colors as the main dwelling unit or compatible dwellings located on adjacent properties. Architecture not Special City Council Meeting July 9, 2003 Page 7 of 11 similar to the architecture of the principal dwelling or adjacent properties subject is to discretionary review." Discussion followed with regard to the recommendation, especially concerning reference of "height" in the statement. It was the unanimous consensus of the City Council to approve Councilmember Rodin's recommendation. Recessed. 5:32 p.m. Reconvened: 5:40 p.m. 5- YARD SETBACKS Pat Stefani preferred a 15-foot minimum yard setback on any second story unit that may be built. Phil Ashiku commented that he agrees with the recommendations for the remainder of the items with the exception of item #9. John McCowen was of the opinion that there should be an increased setback for second story units and for detached second units. Discussion followed relative to the yard setbacks and Council considered several recommendations. It was the consensus of the City Council that the front yard setback be the same as the existing single-family residence, but no closer than five feet. The side yard setback for a two story units shall be minimum of 10 feet, rear yard setback for a single-story unit shall be five feet, and the rear yard setback for a two-story unit shall be a minimum of 10 feet. If the subject parcel abuts a differently zoned parcel, then the side and rear yard setbacks shall be the same as for the adjoining parcel. 6-ACCESS DRIVEWAY WIDTH Mayor Larson noted that Planning Director Stump has worked with the Fire Marshall on this matter and their recommendations are included in the staff report. Of particular concern was the ability to get to a potential fire on a property with emergency equipment. It was the consensus of the Council that to approve staff's recommendation of "Driveways accessing second units shall be setback a minimum of five feet from any structure on an adjoining parcel that has a bedroom adjacent to the proposed driveway. The minimum width of a driveway serving a second unit shall be 18 feet, unless the City Fire Marshall determines that adequate fire protection can be provided to the second unit even though the driveway has a width less than 18- feet.'' 7-PRIVACY PROTECTION AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT~ Special City Council Meeting July 9, 2003 Page 8 of 11 Mayor Larson discussed second story windows facing onto another property's yard and considerations for privacy protection. He felt that second story windows that face onto an adjoining property should not have a view onto that property and this should apply to second units. Discussion continued with regard to the wording of staff's recommendation in the report. It was thought that the language would cover both ministerial and discretionary review. Councilmember Baldwin recommended adding the words second story, loft, or dormer. Planning Director Stump and the City Council review staff's recommended wording and discussed how Councilmember Baldwin's recommendation could be incorporated into the wording. They also discussed ministerial and discretionary review as related to these items. It was the consensus of the City Council that the wording should be, "Any balcony, window or door of a second dwelling unit shall utilize techniques to lessen the privacy impacts onto adjacent properties. These techniques may include use of obscured glazing, window placement above eye level, or locating balconies, windows and doors toward the existing on-site primary residence. In addition, trees shall be planted and maintained in a viable condition by the property owner, where appropriate, to preserve the privacy of neighboring property owners." 8-EXCEPTIONS Councilmember Rodin discussed not designating a minimum setback because there may be certain instances in Ukiah where it wouldn't be an issue to have a five-foot setback from the property line because the adjoining properties are businesses or a parking lot. Planning Director Stump advised that the introduced Ordinance provides relief from any of the regulations through the Variance process. City Attorney Rapport discussed the difficulty of making findings for the situation described by Councilmember Rodin just because of the location or shape of the property. Councilmember Andersen suggested there be a 10-foot minimum requirement only in residential zoning districts and discretionary review for other zoning districts. Mayor Larson suggested that it read that discretionary review could provide for setbacks comparable to the adjacent property zoning requirements. It was the consensus of the City Council that there should be setbacks created through discretionary review, observing the adjacent property zoning requirements. At a minimum, the setbacks that would be required would be the same as required of the adjacent property. There would be a 10-foot set back in the R-1 zoning district and five feet in other zoning districts. Special City Council Meeting July 9, 2003 Page 9 of 11 It was the consensus of the City Council that unless otherwise indicated, relief from the set criteria and standards may be pursued through the Use Permit process. 9-EXCLUDING SECOND UNITS FROM SPECIFIC AREAS Mayor Larson inquired if Council wants to deal with this issue in this ordinance or within the enabling ordinances of the specific zonings or overlay zonings. He went on to describe various zonings and overlay zonings. Councilmember Baldwin was of the opinion that if Council does not address these issues at this meeting, there should be a moratorium (temporary) pending adoption of the Hillside Zoning Ordinance. He referred to the Western Hillside Constraints Analysis Study and felt it provides all the findings Council needs. Discussion continued relative to this issue. Other issues discussed were review of the Hillside Ordinance and if someone applies for a second unit prior to this ordinance being effective. It was the consensus of Council to not address individual zoning districts in this ordinance. Phil Ashiku voiced his support of the consensus of Council. City Attorney Rapport advised that staff would bring the revised ordinance back to the Council for adoption at its July 16th meeting and then it would go into effect 30 days later. If an application was received or pending, that is subject to the existing ordinance until the new one goes into effect except any application that was received after July 1, 2003 has to be reviewed ministerially. Public Hearing Closed: 6:24 p.m. Marlene Werra, Peter Good, and John McCowen briefly addressed Council relative to the possibility of second units. M/S Smith/Rodin Amending the previously introduced Ordinance in compliance with the City Council's discussion, amending Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Chapter 2 of Division 9 (Zoning) of the Ukiah Municipal Code pertaining to residential second dwelling unites, and directing staff to agendize it for adoption at the July 15, 2003 City Council meeting, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Planning Director Stump explained that there is a pending building permit for a second unit and asked clarification from the City Council if the permit should be issued under the existing second unit regulations currently in effect or should it be held off until the introduced ordinance is formally adopted and goes into effect. Mr. Nix submitted the application last week for a second unit and he has received Planning Commission approval for a Use Permit. There is also an appeal of that decision. It is his Special City Council Meeting July 9, 2003 Page 10 of 11 understanding that Mr. Nix is willing to withdraw his Use Permit and pursue the building permit ministerially. Councilmember Baldwin voiced his opposition and noted that Mr. Nix applied under the old system and the appeal of that under the old system allows the City Council to consider it on appeal. City Attorney Rapport explained that under this legislation, if the City receives an application after July 1, 2003, it is required to process it ministerially. If Mr. Nix submitted an application after that date, he is entitled to have it considered ministerially and did not think that there is any requirement that the Planning Director act on the application prior to August 16th. If it were not finally approved prior to August 16th, it would be subject to the new ordinance and any pending applications would too. Planning Director Stump explained that Mr. Nix has indicated that he would withdraw his Use Permit application and not rely on that entitlement but rely on the building permit that was submitted after July 1st for ministerial review for a second unit. City Attorney Rapport noted that with the new ministerial requirement, because there is no other permit pending at this point, all they have to do is apply for a building permit and then the building permit would be issued based on plans that complied with the existing standards and existing City ordinance. M/RC Andersen/Baldwin that anyone that applied for a building permit under the second unit ordinance after July 1, 2003, should be held to the standards identified by the City Council at this meeting, and should be held until August 16, 2003 at which time the this ordinance goes into effect; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilmember Smith. ABSENT: None. 7. COUNCIL REPORTS None. 8. CITY MANGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS None. 9. CLOSED SESSION None. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 6:29 p.m. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Special City Council Meeting July 9, 2003 Page 11 of 11