HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_04132011 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 April 13, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel Judy Pruden, Chair
7 Jason Brenner
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
14
15 1. CALL TO ORDER
16 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
17 Planning Director Stump at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary
18 Avenue, Ukiah, California.
19
20 2. ROLL CALL
21
22 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
23
24 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 9, 2011
25 M/S Sanders/Helland to approve March 9, 2011 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (3-0) with
26 Commissioner Whetzel abstaining.
27
28 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
29 None.
30
31 6. APPEAL PROCESS— N/A
32
33 7. NEW BUSINESS
34 7A. Election of Vice-Chairperson. Planning Commission election of vice-chairperson.
35 Swearing-in of Planning Commissioners.
36
37 Commissioner Sanders nominated Commissioner Whetzel to serve as Vice Chair, seconded by
38 Commissioner Helland. Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote. (4-0).
39
40 7B. Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP). Review and discussion of land use designations and alternative
41 growth scenarios.
42
43 Planning Director Stump gave a staff report:
44 • Mendocino County has released the Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP) and its associated
45 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for review that addresses the cumulative, area-wide
46 effects of build-out over the next 20-plus years in the Plan area.
47 • City Council reviewed the Draft EIR and submitted a comment letter to the County as provided in
48 attachment 1 of the staff report.
49 • City Council will review the Draft Plan at the regular April 20 meeting.
50 • UVAP contains an introduction and vision statements that include nine separate elements each of
51 which contains goals, policies and implementing programs as provided for in the 2010 UVAP
52 goals, policies and implementation measures provided for in attachment 2 of the staff report.
53 • Attachment 3 of the staff report includes a land use map that designates what types of land uses
54 are assigned to individual parcels in the Valley and constitutes for what is referred to as the
55 `preferred projecY tentatively adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in 2007.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 1
1 • The City objective was to review the DEIR, determine if future development according to the Plan
2 would adversely impact the City as to whether or not the DEIR captured all the potential impacts
3 to the City and determine if each impact to the City had been reduced or avoided.
4 • As proposed, the UVAP would result in construction of a maximum of 5,430 new dwelling units
5 and approximately seven million square feet of industrial and commercial development at build-
6 out in the unincorporated Ukiah Valley and represents the most intense land use scenario for the
7 Valley. The Plan provides that build-out would result in 60 potentially significant impacts of which
8 25 impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after recommended mitigation measures
9 are added to the Plan wherein these significant/unavoidable impacts include the loss of prime
10 agricultural land, unacceptable traffic and air pollution, unacceptable demands on public services,
11 growth inducement, and other related impacts. Most, if not all of these significant and unavoidable
12 impacts would impact the City.
13 • Specifically drew attention to the fact the DEIR is a General Plan level program EIR and not an
14 EIR on site-specific impacts that could result from development on particular properties in the
15 Plan area wherein site-specific analyses and associated impacts and mitigation measures would
16 be assessed at the time of actual development.
17 • The `project' analyzed in the DEIR and referred to as the `preferred project' in the Draft 2007
18 UVAP includes mixed-use land designations on the Lovers Lane parcels, Masonite parcels, and
19 the Brush Street Triangle. Each of these mixed-use areas permit residential, commercial, and
20 industrial land uses where the corresponding percentages for each are different as demonstrated
21 in attachments 6-1,6-2, 6-3 of the staff report.
22 • Accordingly, Table 1.6-4 (attachment 6-4 of the staff report) as part of the 2007 UVAP Draft
23 Program EIR provides the mixed use land use classifications for Lovers Lane, North State Street,
24 Brush Street Triangle, and Masonite site.
25 • The DEIR includes three alternative growth scenarios, each with less overall buildout and
26 reduced impacts (Attachment 4 of the staff report).
27 • Page 3 of Attachment 1 of the staff report addresses how mitigation measures are addressed for
28 the General Plan Program EIR.
29 • EIR's are required to include an evaluation of a range of reasonable alternatives to the `Project'
30 that would feasibly attain most of the project objectives while avoiding or substantially reducing
31 any of the identified significant impacts. The DEIR includes three alternatives in this regard and
32 Table 1.6.1 of the DEIR (attachment 4) is a summary of the maximum build-out potential under
33 each alternative. Alternatives A, B, and C would each lead to fewer impacts because they would
34 limit growth and development compared to the 'preferred projecY of the UVAP as written and
35 proposed. Alternative C is regarded as the environmentally superior alternative because there
36 would be no change to the current/existing land use designations on parcels in the Valley.
37 • Staff is asking the Commission to review the Land Use Map and descriptions of the land use
38 classifications for the major parcels in close proximity to the City limits and these include the
39 Brush Street Triangle mixed-use parcels, Masonite mixed use parcels, and Lovers Lane mixed-
40 use parcels as provided for on the Map of Attachment 5 of the staff report. These parcels are
41 classified as `mixed-use as the `Preferred Project' and/or`Preferred Alternative' with the exception
42 of a portion of the Masonite site that is classified as `Industrial' whereby each mixed-use site has
43 its own mix of uses and development standards.
44 • Staff is also requesting the Planning Commission provide recommendations to City Council
45 concerning the aforementioned land use designations proposed for mixed-use under the
46 'Preferred Alternative.'
47
48 LOVERSLANE
49
50 Planning Director Stump:
51 • This is an interesting parcel and recalls that in the early 1990s, there was a proposal with a
52 specific plan and EIR that called out for complete development of this area. At that time it was
53 essentially viewed as premature for intensive development so no project ever moved forward.
54 The land was sold and has been in agricultural production ever since. It is his understanding a
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 2
1 portion of the land is prime for agriculture and is currently in agriculture production. The UVAP
2 vision statement emphasizes the importance of protecting/preserving agriculture land.
3 • City Council adopted four strategic principles that are essentially adaptive to the UVAP
4 representative of a sound document having these same principles.
5 • Supports the concept that while intensive development belongs in the City, designating the
6 Lovers Lane property for intensive development is still premature and that a conversion of this
7 property for intensive use could be construed as being inconsistent with the UVAP vision
8 statement associated with the principle of preserving/maintaining `ag' land.
9
10 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:13 p.m.
11
12 Susan Knopf:
13 • Agricultural land designated as such should remain agricultural, particularly if the land is currently
14 in agricultural use. Accordingly, land that is designated for industrial use should remain as such. It
15 would not be prudent to change a land use designation to a use having the potential to
16 contaminate soil that is presently uncontaminated, such as the Lovers Lane parcels. Good
17 planning takes into consideration possible loss of prime agricultural land, traffic circulation and air
18 pollution impacts, demand on public services and other potential and significant impacts.
19
20 Stephen Scalmanini:
21 • Referred to attachment 5, requested clarification about the southern portion of this land as shown
22 on the map and whether this section of land belongs to `Pinoleville Indian Reservation' and if so,
23 this land should not likely be designated and/or considered as having plans for future
24 development.
25
26 Benj Thomas:
27 • Commented on the three areas being considered tonight, particularly Lovers Lane and
28 emphasized two important points that, in his opinion, are critical to the assessment of these land
29 use designations and future development with the first being the issue of whether 'water' is
30 available and the second issue pertains to `traffic' and how to adequately mitigate the traffic
31 impacts associated with proposed mixed-use development. It may be that some of the areas
32 being considered would have fewer impacts with regard to traffic issues than others, such as the
33 Masonite site.
34
35 Susan Baird:
36 • It could be that the Lovers Lane property could be turned into a conservancy managed by a Land
37 Trust preserving it such that it would remain undeveloped.
38
39 Diane Zucker:
40 • The Lovers Lane property appears to be healthy and is used primarily for vineyard purposes.
41 • Observed there is a small farm on the west side.
42 • Of all the land in and around the City limits, it appears to be the most productive.
43 • Supports allowing it to remain an agricultural use.
44
45 Kerry Vau:
46 • Supports the plan for mixed-use and/or for the preferred alternative.
47
48 Jackie Pomilia:
49 • Supports the mixed-use plan/preferred alternative for the Lovers Lane parcels.
50
51 Commissioner Sanders:
52 • Referred to page 74 of the 2007 UVAP and noted the County Agricultural Commissioner prefers
53 not see agricultural lands or soils converted to non-agricultural use. These types of soils are rare
54 in the County and once developed will never be available again.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 3
1 • Would not like to see productive land being taken out of production for what mix-uses are
2 proposed under the `preferred alternative.'
3 • The density is significant for Lovers Lane.
4 • Agrees that adequately mitigating traffic impacts would be problematic.
5 • With regard to attachment 6-3 and the different percentages designated for various uses within
6 the mixed-use classification compared to the number of acres for Lovers Lane would not be in
7 support of a mixed-use classification for this land.
8
9 Commissioner Brenner:
10 • Supports growth and development provided it is smartly done and near a city where it is possible
11 to service a development.
12 • The State mandates that cities provide for a certain amount of housing units.
13 • Is aware that when looking at the City limits for Ukiah and the Sphere of Influence, Ukiah has a
14 difficult enough time keeping up with service demands, traffic issues and other issues with the
15 County that there are essentially`too many cooks in the kitchen'whereby nothing is getting done.
16 • Many years have been spent developing the UVAP with the assistance of professional
17 consultants, decision makers, County staff, City, and the public. It is a very valuable document
18 and supports facilitating its adoption for the greater good and economic stability of the County
19 and City.
20 • Because the UVAP document has been stalled so long, developments have not been allowed to
21 occur and this document is important for development.
22 • From a potential Lovers Lane development perspective, if housing development is a mandate, it
23 is best such development occur close to the City limits relative to the services that can be
24 provided and the infrastructure that is already in place to support the development.
25 • Mitigation measures can be implemented to address significant impacts.
26 • Just because an area calls for a specific land use designation or there is the potential for what is
27 planned for an area does not mean such development will occur or even to buildout because of
28 the limitations and specific issues that must be addressed in order for a particular development to
29 be approved.
30 • Also, if a proposed development cannot comply with the zoning regulations, this limits what types
31 of development can occur for an area.
32 • The goals, policies and implementation measures are the driving force for what guides the UVAP
33 as a valuable working document. There are creative ways to successfully mitigate potentially
34 significant impacts and provide appropriate implementation measures.
35 • There are so many checks and balances in place to counterbalance developments having
36 significant impacts and/or areas that are problematic for development wherein the UVAP
37 document covers for worst case scenarios.
38 • Again, not just from an infrastructure or service demand standpoint, a development plan is very
39 necessary to promote economic growth by allowing development to occur.
40 • Supports the preferred alternative plan for Lovers Lane.
41
42 Commissioner Helland:
43 • Commended County staff and the public for formulating/presenting a very thorough, valuable and
44 comprehensive revised UVAP document.
45 • The document represents some highly visionary planning in response to the public's input.
46 • Is very impressed with the 'vision,' created for the UVAP and noted the goals and polices and
47 implementation measures included for the various land use classifications provided for in the
48 document are excellent.
49 • The task of the Planning Commission tonight is to represent the interests of the citizens of Ukiah.
50 • While the Planning Commission is not the decision making body for the Plan, it will review and
51 make recommendations to uphold that the Plan is based on sound planning principles.
52 • Is concerned about the 25 impacts according to the DEIP that would remain significant and
53 unavoidable after recommended mitigation measure are adopted and implemented.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 4
1 • Specific areas of concern are loss of prime agricultural land, unacceptable traffic and air pollution,
2 unacceptable demands on public services, water supply and water quality, potential urban decay,
3 and blight. In the case of Lovers Lane, the issue is the loss of agriculture, particularly with land
4 that is currently in agriculture production.
5 • There is no way to mitigate the loss of agriculture land.
6 • In terms of philosophy, is not opposed to mixed-use development or development per se. People
7 need housing and jobs to sustain households and keep the community economically viable. It is
8 unfair and unreasonable to presume that it is acceptable not to allow future development. It is
9 important to provide for housing and facilities while being ecologically and economically efficient
10 about how growth is approached.
11 • It is well-known that directing new development to areas that are already developed is a more
12 efficient approach in terms of infrastructure and associated cost and with preserving agriculture
13 land and open space not to mention the huge expense of having to provide access to freeways,
14 arterial thoroughfares, and/or interchanges.
15 • We are living in a whole different economic world today than in 2007 with the information in the
16 draft 2007 UVAP Draft Program EIR in terms of housing/household needs and consumer
17 economics.
18 • There has been a renewed interest in farming and with preserving agriculture land.
19 • The vision section of the Plan does talk about preservation of agriculture land as part of the
20 primary vision of the Plan so to not follow this expressed vision of the community would constitute
21 inconsistency with the Plan's goals and policies.
22 • While some development is necessary to address growth, that growth must be directed to already
23 developed areas.
24 • It is important with good planning that resources are conserved, that economics are best served
25 by using infill areas when possible and/or existing developed areas, and that consideration be
26 given to density, which can have direct environmental benefits.
27 • It would not be wise or consistent with the goals/policies of the UVAP to take Lovers Lane out of
28 agricultural production.
29 • Would like to discuss the Pinoleville area in terms of what is planned for this area and what is
30 currently existing.
31
32 Planning Director Stump:
33 • The proposal is to change the use designation for Lovers Lane from `agriculture' to `mixed-use.'
34 • The Pinoleville section of land designated within the proposed 'mixed-use' for Lovers Lane is a
35 viewed differently having a separate mixed-use classification table.
36
37 Commission:
38 • How should `Rangeland' be viewed?
39
40 Planning Director Stump: `Rangeland' is not a consideration as part of a mixed-use land designation. It
41 is a large area of land and separate from the other mixed-uses proposed for Lovers Land, Masonite site,
42 and Brush Street Triangle.
43
44 Vice Chair Whetzel:
45 • Acknowledged UVAP is a very comprehensive document and in terms of`preferred projects' a lot
46 of thought and consideration was given to the tables relative to maximum buildout development
47 potential and the mixed-use classifications proposed.
48 • Is open to development on Lovers Lane provided it is well-planned and would not want to see
49 citizens impacted by development that live on the south side of Lovers Lane by some industrial
50 development that goes on across the street since it is his understanding small industrial uses can
51 be a mixed-use component.
52 • Residential and light industrial uses are components of mixed-use.
53
54 It was noted according to attachment 6-3, single-use non-retail commercial and industrial uses are
55 prohibited in the proposed mix-use preferred alternative plan for Lovers Lane.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 5
1
2 Vice Chair Whetzel: According to the table, mixed-use residential and commercial/retail are permitted
3 uses. Would the residents on the south side of Lovers Lane like to potentially see the back side of a
4 Target store, for instance?
5
6 Kerry Vau
7 • Owns agriculture land and is familiar with this land use designation.
8 • Understands the need to have land designated for agriculture.
9 • Does not support preservation of agriculture for land close to town and/or in close proximity to
10 services.
11 • The Lovers Lane property is close to town and existing infrastructure.
12 • Acknowledged mitigation measures would be required to mitigate traffic impacts in the event of
13 development.
14 • Does not view Lovers Lane property as prime agricultural land. Much of the existing vineyards are
15 not regularly pruned or adequately cared for.
16 • Supports mixed-use land designation as proposed for Lovers Lane.
17
18 Linda McClure:
19 • Mendocino County has a considerable amount of`ag' land.
20 • Understands that while investments in grape vineyards may not currently be economically
21 feasible, would like to see much of land having vineyards converted to land that grows food for
22 the community. Only a small portion of food is grown locally. As food prices increase, the ability to
23 grow food locally is an important concept that should be considered now rather than later.
24
25 Robin Collier:
26 • Does not disagree with any of the aforementioned comments made by staff or the public.
27 • Views UVAP as a 20-year visionary statement, particularly with many years having to make
28 planning decisions without it.
29 • It is a combination of a lot of hard work and good minds putting the document together.
30 • The public has been given ample time to provide the necessary input so as to meet the
31 community's expectations of what the people want to see in an area plan.
32 • The UVAP document should be construed as a grandiose' vision for Ukiah Valley because it
33 provides the necessary guidelines and principles to effectively plan for future development in the
34 County.
35 • Adoption of this document is vital in terms of encouraging/promoting growth while providing for
36 sound economic incentives necessary in order for this County to move forward and thrive.
37 • With this document, good planning decisions can be made based on the merit of each project
38 proposed because of the `checks and balance' provided for in the Plan.
39
40 Vice Chair Whetzel
41 • Understands the importance of having the UVAP in place and that it be crafted correctly.
42 • While the Planning Commission has a small role in the process, it does not matter how small the
43 role because every roll is important as long as the final product functions as a valuable working
44 document to effectively guide planning and development in the Ukiah Valley.
45
46 BRUSH STREET TRIANGLE
47
48 Commissioner Helland:
49 • There are appropriate areas for residential and commercial/retail development and the most
50 logical in this regard is the Brush Street Triangle because it is contiguous to the City of Ukiah.
51 • The Brush Street Triangle has infrastructure in place and there are plans for annexation by the
52 City.
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 6
1 Planning Director Stump acknowledged the City has envisioned annexing all of the Brush Street
2 Triangle that is currently located in the County having a mixed-use, which is the use designation that has
3 been informally talked about. The parcels are privately owned.
4
5 Commissioner Brenner:
6 • It appears the intent of Mayor Rodin's letter to County Planning staff regarding the UVAP Draft
7 Program EIR (attachment 2)was to make certain mitigation measures are implemented as part of
8 the UVAP policies in order to protect City interests such as annexation of the Brush Street
9 Triangle, encourage a tax sharing agreement between the County and the City and other
10 important issues that support a healthy and safe environment while promoting positive urban
11 development and growth.
12
13 Planning Director Stump:
14 • The consultants who prepared the EIR for the UVAP suggested including another mitigation
15 measure that requires a specific plan for development as the `preferred alternative' of the Brush
16 Street Triangle and Lovers Lane parcels.
17 • If this EIR were certified and/or adopted a specific plan would be in place for development to
18 build-out together with classifying the Brush Street Triangle as mixed-use.
19 • It is important for the public to understand what mixed-use means for the 'Triangle.'
20 • The UVAP has a table that talks about mixed-uses.
21 • According to the table, the general intent for mixed-use classification in the Brush Street Triangle
22 is to allow two to three story mixed-use development with commercial uses encouraged at street
23 level at lower intensities than are allowed in mixed-use.
24 • If the UVAP is adopted with this mix, this will drive the preparation for a specific plan.
25 • The Brush Street Triangle consists of approximately 90 acres.
26
27 Commissioner Sanders:
28 • Would be helpful if the public has a clear understanding about what full build-out looks like for the
29 sites being discussed tonight.
30 • Referenced Table 4.4-1 of attachment 4 that demonstrates maximum build-out development
31 potential for the various discussion areas according to the draft 2007 UVAP as the preferred plan
32 followed by the other alternative plans specific to Lovers Lane and the impacts that would be
33 created as a result of the mixed-use development proposed at build-out.
34 • The Lovers Lane area does not have the proper infrastructure in place to accommodate
35 development of this magnitude to build-out.
36
37 Planning Director Stump:
38 • The UVAP does call for a growth management plan that functions as a tool to essentially `meter-
39 ouY growth taking into consideration such factors as the ability to deliver service and
40 infrastructure capacity issues.
41 • The UVAP also says no development shall occur until water and sewer are confirmed for the
42 development.
43
44 Commissioner Brenner:
45 • How is viability at build-out determined? Is it based on square footage of the lot? How are the
46 numbers in the table calculated? To what degree do traffic and circulation, service delivery ability
47 and infrastructure capacity play a role?
48
49 Planning Director Stump:
50 • Is unsure about the methodology of how the figures in the table were determined, but recognized
51 the consultants and the Mendocino County Planning Team calculated the maximum mixed-use
52 development potential at build-out for the discussion areas based on information that makes the
53 most sense.
54
55 Commissioner Brenner:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 7
1 • The figures represent the ultimate possibilities for development that may not actually happen for a
2 lot of different reasons, such as availability of sewer hook-ups, water, infrastructure issues, traffic
3 and circulation and other types of issues.
4 • For instance, just because the table says 712 single family units can occur at build-out does not
5 mean this will happen.
6 • The concern is how to effectively address issues associated with development such as water and
7 sewer, infrastructure, traffic circulation, etc.
8
9 Commissioner Sanders:
10 • Important that development not create unnecessary impacts that realistically cannot be
11 successfully mitigated.
12
13 Diane Zucker:
14 • Resides in the Wagonseller Neighborhood which is adjacent to the Brush Street Triangle.
15 • Provided the Commission with a letter drafted by the residents and/or property owners of the
16 Wagonseller Neighborhood and addressed to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors and
17 County Building and Planning Department. The letter contains Wagonseller Neighborhood
18 comments concerning the Draft EIR for the UVAP and the proposed change of zoning for the
19 Brush Street Triangle. Other issues of concern include flooding, traffic impacts, need for
20 preservation of open space/parks/public facilities, concentrations of low-income housing with the
21 concern the area becomes blighted because such developments perpetuate low incomes and
22 economic disparities because the County is mandated to provide more low-income housing and
23 other concerns where development in the Brush Street Triangle would affect and/or impact the
24 Wagsonseller Neighborhood that already lacks the proper infrastructure to include
25 sidewalks/roads, has traffic problems, lacks a school, is without parks/open space/recreational
26 areas.
27 • It does not appear according to the table for mixed-uses in the Brush Street Triangle that there
28 would be a sufficient percentage (11%) allotted for parks/recreation facilities, schools, public
29 facilities, public services, public assemblies to serve two neighborhoods since the Wagonseller
30 Neighborhood is adjacent to the Brush Street Triangle and lacks all of these facilities.
31 • Comparatively, 14% of designated area is allotted for these same facilities for the Lovers Lane
32 mixed-use site and 15% for the Masonite mixed use site. Why only 11% for the Brush Street
33 Triangle?This percentage needs to be higher.
34 • Is concerned about more low-income housing in the area noting the new RCHDC project on Clara
35 Street in the Wagonseller Neighborhood is one of those projects and consists of approximately
36 120 low income housing units.
37 • Is concerned about having a greater percentage allotted for parks and recreation.
38 • Of the 10% of designated area as mixed-use that includes multi-family residential, mixed-use
39 residential and commercial, retail, light industrial, office, live/work is the multi-family residential
40 mixed-use targeted primarily for low income housing?
41
42 Planning Director Stump:
43 • Cannot answer the question about the potential for low income housing in the Brush Street
44 Triangle, but there has been discussion about changing the land use classification for the
45 RCHDC property in this location from `Industrial' to `R-3' as opposed to the mixed-use
46 classification. This is separate from the mixed-use designation proposed for the Brush Street
47 Triangle.
48
49 Diane Zucker:
50 • Was hoping the RCHDC property would count as part of the 10°/a
51 • If the City is able to annex the Brush Street Triangle would like to see the percentage changed
52 from 11% to 25% and clarified the 25%would be for parks.
53 • Understands RCHDC intends to give some land it owns in the Brush Street Triangle to the City.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 8
1 • Is hopeful the Brush Street Triangle will be annexed to the City because the Wagonseller
2 Neighborhood is an at-risk neighborhood and what would occur in the way of development in the
3 Brush Street Triangle would affect the Wagonseller Neighborhood.
4
5 Planning Director Stump:
6 • RCHDC potentially giving land to the City is also a separate matter and is still being talked about.
7
8 There was discussion about recommending the percentages for the mixed-use designated areas in the
9 Brush Street Triangle be modified to better meet needs, particularly 25% of designated area as circulation
10 and rights-of-way, 14% of designated are as commercial that may include retail, light industrial, office and
11 11% of designated area as other uses that may include parks and recreation facilities, schools, public
12 facilities, public services, public assemblies and utilities installations.
13
14 Kerry Vau:
15 • Brush Street Triangle is the perfect opportunity to infill as much as possible.
16 • Her family owns some land in the Brush Street Triangle.
17 • Does not envision that most of the land in the Triangle would be developed for low income
18 housing.
19 • The types of persons desiring to purchase property from her family have been a mix of uses, one
20 of which was a project for housing for low income seniors.
21 • There have been persons interested in developing her property for commercial purposes.
22 • Disagrees with the 11% allotted designated for parks and recreation.
23 • Just because a neighborhood is without a park facility is no reason to require the next
24 development have a park. Parks, pocket parks, and other types of parks are numerous in Ukiah
25 and underutilized.
26 • Supports mixed-use in the Brush Street Triangle with commercial/retail use on the bottom floor
27 and residential on the top floor.
28 • There are many development possibilities.
29 • No cause for concern that the Brush Street Triangle would be developed with primarily single
30 family dwellings.
31
32 Vice Chair Whetzel:
33 • The 11% of designated areas as other uses means that 11% is allotted to all the uses listed
34 rather than 11% allotted individually. Some of the uses listed may never get developed.
35 • The 11% is not a very high percentage given the breakdown of designated uses listed.
36 • In terms of low income housing possibilities, 10% divided between multi-family residential, mixed-
37 use residential and commercial, retail, light industrial, office live/work is not very high.
38 • It may be the percentages should be modified to realistically fit the need or what is more likely to
39 occur.
40 • Even though the Triangle is out of the City limits, the kinds of development would affect the City.
41
42 Diane Zucker:
43 • Adjacent neighborhoods do matter. The Wagonseller Neighborhood is a dense neighborhood and
44 has no schools, parks or recreational facilities. Mixed-use in the Brush Street Triangle is
45 acceptable and the corresponding percentages in the table are `not that bad' overall.
46 • Does support when the Brush Street Triangle is developed, the percentage allotted for parks and
47 recreation facilities and schools be adjusted to fit the need because the percentage as proposed
48 is low.
49
50 Planning Director Stump:
51 • Of the uses listed in the table the 11% classification does not necessarily imply these types of
52 uses will be developed. The percentage means 11% of the sum total of the gross acreage.
53
54 Commissioner Brenner:
55 • Will the zoning be changed if the Triangle is annexed by the City?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 9
1 Planning Director Stump:
2 • The City pre-zoned this property in 1986 to `Planned Development.'
3 • If the property were annexed, a plan for development at build-out would be established similar to
4 that of the `Planned DevelopmenY established for the Airport Industrial Park (AIP).
5 • City Council has had discussions about development possibilities or at least the concept for
6 development of the Triangle, including discussions about the preparation of a specific plan that
7 would address the concept of development.
8 • There are statutory requirements associated with a specific plan.
9 • If the Triangle were annexed, the City would be obligated to prepare a Planned Development
10 document that would address the composition of development at build-out.
11
12 Commissioner Helland:
13 • Supports the County implement the mitigation policy requiring the specific plan for the Brush
14 Street Triangle.
15 • Preference - Consider/apply good planning principles for developments that could occur and
16 would be appropriate in the Triangle, such as encourage community oriented cluster
17 developments and/or`village centers' that could include a community plaza and/or public meeting
18 space.
19 • Regarding the table (attachment 6-1) `10% of designated area as mixed-use' is too little. Mixed
20 uses `encourages community social capital, health, reduced vehicle usage, and improved
21 environmenY and would like to see more mixed-use encouraged in this use classification. Most of
22 the mixed-uses listed in this category could be next to residential.
23 • Supports a breakdown of the `11% of designated areas as other uses' because of the need for
24 space for parks and recreation facilities.
25 • Consider 16% of area designated for parks, recreation and open space and/or possibly consider
26 breaking down these components into individual classifications such as allotting 5% parks, 3°/a
27 recreation facilities, and 8%for open space.
28 • A school would be necessary if residential development is to occur and should not be optional.
29 • Likes the style of the DZC that provides for high development standards and development
30 options/flexibility while promoting livable, walkable communities and encouraging people to get
31 out of their vehicles by bringing development up to the street and modernizing development in
32 this sense. The DZC essentially focuses on community living by encouraging a mix of uses to get
33 people to interact more with one another. In this way grocery stores can be developed next to
34 housing and encourage live/work scenarios.
35 • In terms of residential density supports considering different densities rather than a one dwelling
36 unit per 6,000 square feet minimum, but rather consider a small urban residential category for
37 efficiency purposes.
38 • A transit facility cannot be supported until there is a minimum of seven dwelling units per acre.
39 • While 25% of designated area for circulation and rights-of-way is standard, consider a breakdown
40 of these components specifying a certain percentage for non-motorized circulation.
41 • Overall, the percentages pertinent to mixed-use in the table could be modified in some instances
42 to more appropriately address need or how mixed-use concepts can be viewed.
43 • The current mixed-use proposal does not entirely reflect the UVAP vision of providing for
44 innovative, high quality, aesthetic pleasing products that promote community health and
45 ecologically efficiency. New development is the time to be creative in order to produce a highly
46 quality project imposing/applying the highest standards.
47 • Supports being very specific about what the public and decisions makers would want to see in
48 their community.
49
50 Planning Director Stump:
51 • Commented on Commissioner's Helland support of reducing residential density in connection
52 with the proposed one dwelling unit per 6,000 square feet minimum (single family residential)
53 having smaller homes on smaller lots and the concept of providing for homes in villages that are
54 more compact.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 10
1 • A great example of this type of development is the cottage development on Bush Street and Low
2 Gap Road having small homes that are clustered together into a village-like setting with shared
3 public spaces. This type of development is a fast growing trend that is received very well in
4 communities.
5 • Drew attention to the mixed-use tables represent the `preferred alternative.'
6
7 There was discussion about the possible need for design review of developments in the Triangle that
8 would provide consideration for all facets of development to include parking/circulation, lighting,
9 landscaping, and other associated and necessary development characteristics/issues that must be
10 considered.
11
12 Commissioner Brenner:
13 • There is a need to facilitate development to happen.
14 • UVAP is a well thought out document.
15 • Does not support adding on another layer of review for a development project by including a
16 design review process.
17
18 Planning Director Stump:
19 • The design review process would be like adding another aspect of a project as opposed to adding
20 another layer to the process that would include landscaping, lighting, and possibly some building
21 design, etc.
22
23 Commissioner Brenner:
24 • Is the County process lacking in the planning process in terms of development and/or Planning
25 Commission review?
26
27 Planning Director Stump:
28 • When the Orr Creek Bridge project was being considered, there appeared to be lack of
29 discretionary review other than the required CEQA review with regard to the Brush Street
30 Triangle whereby the City expressed concern.
31 • A specific plan would require the application of strict standards for the purpose of development of
32 a quality product.
33
34 Benj Thomas:
35 • Supports the concept of moving the UVAP project forward.
36 • The concern is really about the level of detail for developments and how to effectively control
37 those details.
38 • Agrees that all type of developments in the Triangle would affect the City in some capacity.
39 • Does not agree with the thinking that it is unlikely all the mixed-use development would occur and
40 reach build-out capacity. The worst case scenario should always be a consideration and that
41 allowing for quality planning should be a primary objective in all cases.
42
43 Vice Chair Whetzel:
44 • How were the numbers in the mix-use tables formulated? Why is 40% the number of designated
45 areas as single-family residential. It could be some of the numbers for the various classifications
46 could be increased or lowered depending on what types of mixed-uses are encouraged. A
47 specific plan would be able to better access what types of developments would be most
48 appropriate and to what degree and/or percentage.
49
50 Planning Director Stump:
51 • The numbers were probably formulated on known and applicable resources for build-out of the
52 Triangle together with the notation/understanding of public uses based on certain needs,
53 expectations and Plan goals and objectives.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 11
1 There was discussion about possible changes to the figures by having a specific plan in place once the
2 UVAP is adopted to consider/address some of issues raised in the above discussions.
3
4 Commissioner Benner:
5 • Commented on percentages in the table with regard to parks, open space and planned
6 developments and noted it has been his experience with designing projects that open space is a
7 consideration so there is already a format in the process. It may be that such a policy should be
8 adopted for the three sites being discussed tonight.
9 • Open space, recreational facilities and parks are essentially amenities in neighborhoods.
10
11 Vice Chair Whetzel:
12 • It may be that with the 40% of designated area for single-family residential planned development
13 that parks, open space will be included as a part of these developments as opposed to having it
14 go toward the 11% of designated area for parks and recreation facilities, etc.
15 • The Commission supports mixed-use developments in the Triangle and is discussing whether the
16 associated percentages of designated areas for mixed-use are appropriate.
17
18 Public Citizen:
19 • Supports the Brush Street Triangle be developed as mixed-use.
20
21 Commissioner Helland:
22 • Supports 30°/o of designated area as single-family residential of different densities and lot sizes.
23 • 20% of designated area as motorized circulation and 5% non-motorized.
24 • Combine the 14% of designated areas as commercial with 10% of designated area as mixed-use
25 for a total of 24% mixed-use, leaving a remainder of 21% for the middle category of 11% of
26 designated area as other uses and divide some portion of this category required for parks,
27 recreation facilities, open space as a separate issue leaving a portion for schools, public
28 facilities, public service, public assemblies, utility installations.
29
30 Robin Collier:
31 • The UVAP document should be viewed with regard to the overall vision which is to promote
32 growth and economic feasibility rather than picking it apart according to percentages and saying
33 `no' to certain types of mixed-use developments for areas, which would be the same as
34 essentially saying `no' to more revenue,job creation, and growth in this County. These elements
35 are necessary in order for the City and County to survive.
36 • The UVAP is well written and thought out with checks and balances in place that appropriately
37 address development as it occurs.
38 • Supports adoption of the document, as written.
39
40 Commission consensus- Helland, Sanders;
41 • Recommends City Council review the percentages in the table, as written and consider the
42 alternative percentages:
43 ➢ 30% of designated area—Single-family residential of different densities and lot sizes.
44 ➢ 20% of designated area as motorized circulation with 5°/a non-motorized.
45 ➢ Combine the 14% commercial with 10°/a of designated area as mixed-use for a total of
46 24% mixed-use.
47 ➢ The remaining 21% would be divided such as 10% or 11% for parks, recreation, and
48 open space and 10°/a or 11% for schools, public facilities, public services, public
49 assemblies, utility installations.
50
51 Commission consensus—Whetzel:
52 • Supports changing 40% of designated area as single-family residential and adding to the 11% of
53 designated area as other uses for a total of 35°/o for residential and 16%for the other uses.
54
55 Commissioner consensus - Brenner:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 12
1 • Does not support modifying the percentages because they were formulated for a reason.
2 • Providing for parks and recreation areas are important and supports modifying the percentages to
3 allow for this.
4 • Development needs checks and balances and not left `alone'to see what occurs.
5 • Allowing the potential for development to occur is important.
6 • The review processes will fine-tune/shape projects.
7 • Important to uphold the City's level of design review standards.
8
9 Commissioner Helland: Does the UVAP document reflect the will of the people and the vision
10 expressed, as written?
11
12 Commissioner Brenner: Supports consideration be given for parks and calculate what that percentage
13 should be and subtract from the percentage proposed for this category. 'Parks' should have a separate
14 category.
15
16 MASONITE
17
18 Ernie Banks:
19 • Appears the UVAP is a done deal and the Commission's role tonight is to `rubber-stamp it.'
20 • It may be the discussion should be about whether or not anything should be done at all because
21 of development limitations, particularly with regard to the issue of water.
22 • It is very clear from the UVAP section on water that there is `no water.'
23 • If there is no water available, why are we talking about building more homes, more parks. These
24 developments would be fine if water was available.
25 • The entire discussion is somewhat absurd.
26
27 Commissioner Whetzel:
28 • It has taken years to formulate the numbers for the UVAP document.
29 • Understands UVAP contains stipulations in the event there is no water for development that
30 development cannot occur.
31 • The intent of the UVAP is to be able to control and effectively plan for future development.
32 • Attachment 5 demonstrates a designation for Masonite Mixed-Use and a designation for
33 Masonite Industrial.
34 • Approves of the mixed-use percentages for Masonite.
35
36 Planning Director Stump
37 • Masonite Mixed-Use and Masonite Industrial as shown on the map represent a different
38 composition of mixed uses.
39 • Council's Strategic Plan #4 provides that sound planning principles be applied for all
40 development. In the case of the Masonite property that is prime for industrial use, does it
41 represent sound planning principles for this property to be considered for any other type of use.
42 • The Masonite site is not adjacent to the City.
43 • The Masonite site is in a good location for industrial use.
44
45 Lynda McClure;
46 • In the context of the UVAP, the Masonite site is unique.
47 • Measure A proposed a rezone of the Masonite property from Industrial to Mixed-use
48 Commercial/retail/residential. The citizens of Ukiah voted to keep the Masonite property for
49 industrial use.
50 • While mixed-use is the wave of the future and a good concept, accomplishments in this regard
51 depend upon the property owner because it is the property owner that decides what he/she wants
52 to build.
53 • The owners of the Masonite property want to preliterate retail shopping for this community's
54 economic future. The citizens of this County made it very clear this is not what they want.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 13
1 • Recommends upholding citizen's opinion regarding the Masonite property.
2
3 Kim Vau:
4 • Supports mixed-use for the Masonite site.
5 • Masonite should not remain Industrial.
6 • Is it realistic to think that Ukiah will ever be industrial again.
7 • Is not aware of anyone wanting to come in and do an industrial development.
8 • Why allow valuable land to sit idle waiting for an expressed interest in an industrial development.
9 • Wants to see growth and development occur so this County can better prosper.
10 • Does not support modifying the numbers in the tables for the three areas being discussed tonight.
11 • Supports the adoption of UVAP, as written.
12
13 Vice Chair Whetzel:
14 • The numbers for development as provided for in the tables represent the 'preferred alternative'
15 and other alternatives are presented.
16 • Again, the intent of the Commission is to consider what is best for the City of Ukiah, not
17 necessarily the County.
18 • The properties being discussed tonight affect Ukiah.
19 • While the Commission may not have a final say in the outcome of the Plan, the intent of the
20 Commission is to review what was presented and make a recommendation as to what `we' as a
21 community would like to see occur with regard to these properties.
22 • The County may disregard the recommendations made by the Planning Commission to Council.
23 • Is familiar with the three sites being discussed and understands the kinds of development that
24 would best fit each of these sites. While there may be development potential for a particular area,
25 the best approach is to look at each parcel and determine what is the most reasonable, best and
26 highest use based on the resources available, infrastructure, services, and other issues
27 associated with good planning.
28 • Does question where the mixed-use percentages in the tables originated for the three areas.
29
30 Commissioner Helland:
31 • Looked at development plans in other communities and there appears to be no `perfecY template
32 in this regard.
33
34 Stephen Scalmanini:
35 • Has attended County meetings regarding the Masonite site and noted when DDR purchased the
36 property there was a backup buyer with a legitimate offer that wanted to spend several million
37 dollars for an industry operation. The property was purchased by DDR.
38 • DDR could have turned around and sold the property for a profit.
39 • The Masonite property is unique with rail and freeway access to name a few of the benefits.
40 • Masonite is not located near a residential area.
41 • The Masonite site is prime for `Industrial' and views this use as very viable to Ukiah in terms of
42 economic growth.
43 • Supports Masonite land be used for`Industry' because this is what makes the most sense.
44
45 Commissioner Sanders:
46 • Addressed the ballot for Measure A and noted the voters concerns about the DDR's proposed
47 Commercial/retail/residential rezone were associated with development issues, such as water.
48 • Has concern about developing the site with residential/retail because the site is likely
49 contaminated after being operated by Masonite for over 50 years.
50 • Has concern about health by allowing mixed-use of the Masonite property.
51 • While 'Industry' is not being exercised in this country, it may very well come back in the future.
52 • It may be biological changes will be made such that `Industrial uses' will again return to this
53 country or it may be that in future this site would be ready for mixed-use, but not at this time.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 14
1 Commissioner Helland:
2 • There is a mix of opinions about the properties being discussed.
3 • The Planning Commissioners are closely listening to everyone's concerns and opinions.
4 • It is important to listen to the citizens of this community who voiced their opinion about the
5 Masonite property.
6 • As a Commissioner making recommendations as a representative of the City of Ukiah, it is
7 important to consider the issues and alternatives, particularly with regard to the 25 significant and
8 unavoidable impacts after mitigation measures have been implemented that will adversely affect
9 the City of Ukiah with the biggest areas being loss of prime agricultural land, unacceptable traffic
10 and air pollution, unacceptable demands on public services and growth inducement as they
11 relates to water availability/quality, potential urban decay, and blight resulting from these adverse
12 effects.
13
14 Commissioner Brenner:
15 • Understands as a Planning Commissioner, he represents the body and thoughts of Ukiah and its
16 citizens.
17 • Inquired about the voting ratio for Measure A because having this information would help him
18 make an informed decision.
19
20 It was noted 63% voted against the rezone for Masonite. The voting ratio for the City on this measure is
21 unknown.
22
23 Vice Chair Whetzel:
24 • It may have been the citizens voted against Measure A because he heard people comment there
25 would be no environmental review for the DDR project rather than voting against the measure just
26 because the development would be mixed-use. There is no way to have this information.
27 • Agrees with the mix-use percentages in the table for Masonite
28 • Does not envision any more `Industry' coming to Ukiah in the future.
29 • No one will be pleased with any type of industry that comes.
30 • Masonite was probably the best industry use that could have operated in Ukiah for all those years
31 or anywhere for that matter as it provided revenue to the County and City, was a great job source,
32 had its own electricity, steam, water and was probably one of the most sustainable industries
33 found anywhere.
34 • It would be nice to have Masonite back.
35 • Does everyone want some kind of industry like Masonite?
36
37 Planning Director Stump:
38 • The citizens voiced their opinion concerning Measure A by voting against a rezone from Industrial
39 to mixed-use for reasons that will likely never be known.
40 • Interest has been expressed with regard to industry in Ukiah over the years.
41 • Masonite represents an ideal area for industry for a variety of reasons.
42
43 Commissioner Helland:
44 • From a Ukiah perspective, the property is not contiguous to the City of Ukiah.
45 • The City would have to bare significant and unavoidable impacts and costs relative to build-out
46 under the Plan that result in 60 potentially significant impacts, of which 25 impacts would remain
47 significant and unavoidable after recommended mitigation measures are added to the Plan.
48
49 Commission consensus—Helland, Sanders:
50 • Support Masonite remains industrial.
51
52 Commission consensus—Whetzel:
53 • Supports mixed—use for Masonite.
54
55 Commission consensus—Brenner:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 15
1 • Understands 63% of City/County voted against Measure A, but needs to know how the citizens of
2 Ukiah voted because this would have an effect on how he views the Masonite site.
3 • Has mixed opinions about how Masonite should be developed.
4
5 Lynda McClure:
6 • As far as Measure A, the voters were voting on the rezone from industrial to mixed-use.
7 • Thanked all persons who sit on commissions, committees, and boards, particularly the Planning
8 Commission for their time, energy in connection with the amount of reading/studying that must be
9 done. This is a great public service and appreciates each Commissioner.
10
11 Commissioner Sanders:
12 • The ballot regarding Measure A reads, `Measure A - Shall the ordinance title and initiative to
13 enact a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment and Mixed-Use Specific Plan for
14 the former site of the Masonite facility be approved: yes or no.'
15
16 There was discussion concerning the water wells on the Masonite site that are now owned by the State
17 and not the property owner. This information is available from the State Water Resources Board.
18
19 Public Citizen: The 'preferred alternative' represents the potential worst case scenario at build-out.
20
21 Planning Director Stump:
22 • The City is not the decision-making body for this document.
23 • While the City provided comments to the UVAP, it is the County's call how to proceed.
24
25 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:47 p.m.
26
27 8. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
28 • The Planning Commission joint meeting with City Council to discuss the DZC is April 27 at the
29 Ukiah Conference Center.
30 • There will be a Planning Commission meeting in May concerning a mural project.
31 • The Commission will have the opportunity to review the Walmart EIR tentatively at a regular
32 Planning Commission meeting in June.
33 • Planning staff has been in touch with Pacific Outfitters concerning completion of the mural
34 approved for the building.
35
36 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
37 None.
38
39 10. ADJOURNMENT
40 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
41
42
43 Mike Whetzel, Vice-Chair
44
45
46 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
47
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 16