Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Woodland Park Developer Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays decision on Woodland Park amendment after heated debate over affordable-housing tradeoffs
Summary
City staff and the developer presented three alternative compliance paths to satisfy Woodland Park's 78-unit inclusionary obligation — a $12M gap-financing partnership with Ravenswood USD, gutting/rehab of existing units, or a $17.4M land-and-cash in-lieu package — prompting council questions on return rights, water infrastructure and developer assignments; council directed staff to renegotiate and return with revised terms.
City Councilors on Tuesday spent more than three hours probing a proposed first amendment to the Woodland Park Euclid Improvements development agreement that would change how the project meets its affordable-housing obligations and alter certain infrastructure and payment terms.
City Manager Melvin Gaines summarized the request from the project applicant, Sand Hill Properties: after entitlements and previous permit changes reduced the planned project from 605 to about 550 units, the developer seeks flexibility in how it satisfies the requirement to provide 78 off-site inclusionary units, wants options for when impact fees are paid, and asks that staff be allowed to approve a water tank smaller than the 1.5 million-gallon tank in the original agreement if city needs are met.
Gaines said staff had negotiated three compliance paths with the developer. Option A would let Sand Hill take exclusive, one-year negotiations with Ravenswood City School District to provide gap financing to unlock a separate 430-unit, 100% affordable project; Sand Hill would receive credit for 78 of those units, capped at about $12 million in funding to close the district's gap. Option B would rehabilitate and deed-restrict 78 existing Woodland Park units (not net new housing). Option C would allow Sand Hill to provide land, plans and cash valued at roughly $17.4 million as an in-lieu alternative to the existing obligation.
Superintendent Gina Sudari of Ravenswood City School District told the council her board had approved an MOU and that the district had $8 million in committed funding but needed city approvals to close the financing gap and begin construction. "Without this funding, this affordable housing project dies," Sudari said, urging the council to back option A.
The developer's representative said option A was the preferred path but warned that lenders require fallback options. "Option B and C are there as options to create flexibility to ensure the construction of the Euclid improvements," the developer said.
Several council members expressed sharp reservations. "Option B is not net new housing and it is not circumscribed by value," Councilmember Romero said. Romero pressed staff on the number of displaced households entitled to a right of return; staff corrected an earlier number and said 57 households are eligible under the relocation plan. Romero and others also challenged the affordability mix (concern about units at 80% of area median income), the proposed $12 million cap in option A, and provisions that would let the developer assign pieces of the project to successors.
Gaines told the council the amendment also clarifies how the city would manage storm-drain cost overruns, allows limited flexibility on water-tank size while keeping the city's water-capacity fees and a $2 million community-benefit payment in place, and would permit certain payments at certificate-of-occupancy rather than at building permit issuance.
Public commenters were split: many Woodland Park tenants, former residents and tenant-rights advocates urged the council to keep promises to displaced families and to tighten accountability for Sand Hill; others, including some longtime residents and construction workers, urged the council to advance the project to get housing built. One tenant said, “It is time to get these lots filled in with the new buildings. Many families are waiting for their new home.”
After lengthy questions and a short recess, the developer signaled it was willing to withdraw Option B from consideration for now. Council members did not vote to adopt the amendment. Instead they directed the city manager to continue talks with the developer and the school district, to explore strengthening option A (including whether additional value from option C could be folded into the school-district path), and to return with revised language at the next regular meeting. Staff said they will aim to bring a revised package back at the council's next scheduled meeting.
Next steps: staff will resume negotiations with Sand Hill and Ravenswood USD, return with clarified terms and supporting valuation detail, and provide councilmembers with the relocation and affordability breakdowns requested during Tuesday's debate.
