HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_08242011MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 1
UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION 1
August 24, 2011 2
Minutes 3
4
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT 5
Judy Pruden, Chair None 6
Jason Brenner 7
Linda Helland 8
Linda Sanders 9
Mike Whetzel 10
11
STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT 12
Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively 13
Kim Jordan, Senior Planner 14
Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner 15
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 16
17
1. CALL TO ORDER 18
The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by 19
Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, 20
Ukiah, California. 21
22
2. ROLL CALL 23
24
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited. 25
26
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – July 27, 2011 meeting minutes. The minutes from the August 10, 27
2011 meeting will be available for review and approval at the September 14, 2011 meeting. 28
29
Commissioner Whetzel corrected ‘T & A Aviation’ to ‘T & M Aviation.’ 30
31
M/S Sanders/Helland to approve July 27, 2011 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (4-0) with 32
Commissioner Whetzel abstaining. 33
34
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 35
36
6. APPEAL PROCESS – Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting, 37
the final date to appeal is September 6, 2011. 38
39
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site visit for agenda item 9B was verified. 40
41
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE – Agenda items 9A & 9B were properly noticed in accordance with 42
the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code. 43
44
9. PUBLIC HEARING 45
9A. Redevelopment Agency Plan Amendment – Eminent Domain. Conduct a public hearing on 46
the proposed redevelopment agency plan amendment to restore eminent do main for a portion of 47
the Redevelopment Plan Area (see map) and the associated CEQA document and make a 48
recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency. This item is continued from the August 10, 2011 49
meeting. 50
51
Planning Director Stump gave a staff report, explained the concept of eminent domain and added: 52
This project came about as a result of some concerns about ongoing blighted conditions in the 53
Downtown. 54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 2
The Ukiah Redevelopment Agency formed a subcommittee to explore the concept of restoring 1
the RDA’s tool of eminent domain. 2
The Redevelopment Plan became effective in 1989 and the Agency’s eminent domain authority 3
expired because the Agency never exercised its authority to use eminent domain. 4
The proposed project is an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to reestablish the Agency’s 5
eminent domain authority in a small portion of the redevelopment area. 6
The eminent domain tool does not apply to residential property. 7
The RDA has never used eminent domain to acquire any property. Lingering dilapidated property 8
in the redevelopment area may make this a useful tool for eliminating blight. 9
California Community Redevelopment Law provides that the 12-year period for commencement 10
of eminent domain proceedings may be extended only by amendment of the Redevelopment 11
Plan. 12
The project proposes that the Redevelopment Plan be amended to extend the time period for 13
exercising eminent domain for an additional 12 years. The original 12 years expired in 2001 and 14
was not renewed by the Agency since eminent domain had never been used. 15
Referred to the Eminent Domain Boundary Map on page 2 of the staff report. The proposed 16
project area includes a small portion of the City of Ukiah Redevelopment Area, the historic 17
downtown, and Perkins Street Corridor, as well as a couple of larg er parcels such as the railroad 18
depot site and a portion of the Pear Tree Shopping Center. The Ukiah Redevelopment Project 19
Area is generally bordered by Oak Street on the west, Highway 101 on the east, West Clay Street 20
on the south and Smith Street on the north. 21
The primary concern expressed during the workshop process was the potential abuse of the 22
authority by the Agency. Those opposed to the use of eminent domain were of the opinion the 23
market should dictate change or that the City should enforce existing regulations in the Ukiah 24
Municipal Code to eliminate blight. Supporters on the other hand, were of the opinion the existing 25
regulations were not stringent enough to effectively confront and eliminate sever blight. 26
While complete consensus was not reached by the subcommittee members, the majority of the 27
participants agreed the tool would be valuab le for the Agency in a limited area. 28
Recommends the Commission discuss the proposed Redevelopment Plan amendment Negative 29
Declaration, conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council and Ukiah 30
Redevelopment Agency. 31
32
Chair Pruden: Redevelopment agencies can use eminent domain to treat blight issues. 33
34
Planning Director Stump further commented on the concept of ‘eminent domain: 35
Is a tool a redevelopment agency can use to acquire property if the owner does not want to sell it. 36
It is really a last case tool in which property is acquired for the purpose of eliminating blight that 37
may be the result of a property owner allowing his/her property to significantly deteriorate, a 38
series of violations that were never fully corrected and for reasons of spawning economic 39
development. A redevelopment agency can step in even if the property owner does not want to 40
sell it and force a sale. 41
The stipulation is it has to be for a public purpose and a property owner must be justly 42
compensated. 43
44
Commissioner Sanders: Has the City of Ukiah ever used eminent domain in its history? 45
46
Planning Director Stump: 47
To his knowledge, the City has never exercised the tool of eminent domain. 48
Noted the two definitions of blight and they are physical and economic according to State Law 49
and Redevelopment Law. 50
There are series of regimented rules, regulations and procedures that must be followed when an 51
Agency exercises its eminent domain authority. The corresponding analysis must be very specific 52
and detailed where the findings of necessity and conclusions thereof must be thoroughly and 53
legally substantiated. 54
The use of eminent domain is not as easy as it once was. 55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 3
It can be an extremely valuable tool if used properly. 1
In some communities eminent domain has been used amazingly well to address blight and to 2
spark economic development, which is what we are trying to do in this community. 3
4
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:14 p.m. 5
6
Rick Hansen, Executive Director of the Ukiah Main Street Program, asked on behalf of the Ukiah 7
Main Street Program if eminent domain affects residential housing and if eminent domain pertains to 8
housing? 9
10
Planning Director Stump: Eminent domain does not pertain to housing nor does it affect housing. 11
12
Rick Hansen: 13
The Ukiah Main Street Program is concerned with all things that pertain to the Downtown and 14
with maintaining its vitality. 15
Planning Director Stump provided an excellent staff report so many of his qu estions/concerns 16
about the use of eminent domain were answered. 17
Discussion of eminent domain finds the consensus to be that eminent domain would be used only 18
as a last resort when all ‘other avenues have been exhausted’ before this tool is considered. 19
Main Street supports having eminent domain as a tool even though it may never have to be used. 20
21
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:20 p.m. 22
23
Chair Pruden: Is the Planning Commission recommending the boundaries? Are they fixed or can they be 24
changed? 25
26
Planning Director Stump: Referred to the eminent domain boundary map on page 2 of the staff report 27
and noted this is what the proposal is to the Agency. The Planning Commission can recommend changes 28
to the boundaries. 29
30
Chair Pruden: Would the environmental document be affected if the boundaries change? 31
32
Planning Director Stump: This would depend on how significant the change would be. 33
34
Chair Pruden: Referred to the northern boundary on the map and inquired about the ‘U’ shaped portion 35
of the boundary and if this pertains to the City parking lots? 36
37
Planning Director Stump: 38
Is not sure; A lot of thought and debate went into formulating the boundaries. 39
40
PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: 6:37 p.m. 41
42
Rick Hansen: Addressed the northern boundary and noted much of the discussion that took place 43
concerning eminent domain did revolve around the boundaries. The ‘U’ shape for the northern 44
boundaries goes around the hospital not the City parking lots. 45
46
Cynthia Coale: 47
Co-chairs a group called Friends of the Palace, a group that is dedicated to seeing something 48
good result for the Palace Hotel. 49
The group began in 2007 and worked two years with the owner of the Palace Hotel. The owner is 50
not a resident of Ukiah. 51
The hope was to provide the owner with support and ongoing interest in the hopes that she would 52
carry through with her stated intent to rehabilitate the building. During this two year period of time, 53
there were some hopeful signs in this regard. For instance, the owner hired two consultants, a 54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 4
historical architect and a historic building planner who specializes in historic tax credits for 1
renovation of historic buildings. 2
The owner held an open house for the Palace in which approximately 250 people attended . 3
Shortly after this event, the owner broke off contact with the Friends of the Palace, the City, and 4
other parties in the community that had been interested in the well-being of the Palace Hotel. 5
There was no response from the owner or any way to contact h er. 6
The Friends of the Palace have concluded that all possibilities to help the Palace had been 7
exhausted. The Group consulted with the City administration and Ukiah Redevelopment Agency 8
urging the City to please pursue eminent domain capabilities as this is the only remaining tool to 9
get a handle on the situation. 10
Everyone in town is of the opinion something needs to be done about the Palace , though there is 11
not agreement on what this should be. 12
What we have is this huge eyesore right in the middle of to wn. It is undermining the economic 13
development and economic well-being of our community. 14
It is extremely important that people be proud of their town. Is convinced the Palace Hotel has 15
degraded our level of ability to maintain pride. 16
The Palace Hotel is a beautiful building and wishes something good can happen with it. 17
While there is uncertainty with regard to redevelopment agencies in the State, we are highly 18
encouraged by the State going forward courageously with the attempt to assu me/restore eminent 19
domain capabilities to the RDA. 20
The Friends of Palace would like the Planning Commission to move the action of reestablishing 21
the RDA’s eminent domain authority in a small portion of the redevelopment area. 22
23
Mary Anne Landis, speaking as a Councilmember/Eminent Domain Subcommittee Member: 24
As a subcommittee member along with Mayor Rodin attended a series of workshops regarding 25
eminent domain. 26
At a community stakeholder’s meeting regarding the City pursuing an amendment to its 27
Redevelopment Plan to restore the use of eminent domain in a limited area, the public had the 28
opportunity to discuss concerns about restoring eminent domain. 29
The intent was to find a place where the majority of the subcommittee could agree to the concept. 30
Allowing for a limited geographical was what was decided upon. 31
The approach was to look at how eminent domain would best work for the community, to provide 32
a tool that could be uses as a last resort. 33
Allowing eminent domain to occur in a small specific geographical boundary provides for a more 34
sharpened focus on blight. With the focus on the historic downtown gives a greater opportunity to 35
identify and more fully concentrate/prioritize on what project(s) in this area would best benefit the 36
community and then determine to what degree is most needed in terms of rehabilitation and with 37
addressing blighted conditions should redevelopment funds be available. 38
One of the things that came out of the public meeting and was actually implemented because it 39
was important to hear from the community was just not to create a stick to get property owners to 40
do something about their deteriorating buildings since many owners do not live locally and do not 41
realize the impact they have on the community, but to create a program that allows them to have 42
an incentive in addition to having the ‘stick of which eminent domain is perceived to be.’ 43
There are certain programs proposed that are currently functioning should the RDA continue to 44
stand and these programs include the Business and Façade Improvement Programs for people 45
that own property to get public support, for instance, for a sewer lateral, grease receptors in 46
addition to beautifying the aesthetics of the front of their buildings rather than being told 47
something must be done with their buildings. 48
The subcommittee looked at the eminent domain boundaries ‘holistically’ and created this sma ll 49
geographical area and we think it addresses most of the community needs and although not 50
unanimous the majority of subcommittee members supported these boundaries. 51
52
Commissioner Whetzel: What was the majority? 53
54
Mary Anne Landis: The majority was about minus 2 of the persons present. 55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 5
Commissioner Whetzel: Reestablishment of eminent domain is essentially all about the Palace. 1
2
Mary Anne Landis: The stakeholders looked at the Palace and were of the opinion for the amount of 3
effort and cost associated with reauthorizing eminent domain, the boundaries should be larger and there 4
are other properties that may need attention in the downtown. 5
6
Commissioner Brenner: Is there money that goes into creating eminent domain? 7
8
Mary Anne Landis: There are legal and other costs associated with reauthorizing eminent domain. 9
10
Commissioner Brenner: How did the stakeholders decide on the boundaries? 11
12
Mary Anne Landis: During the process and discussions we looked at full use and no use throughout the 13
RDA project area in connection with the existing boundaries and determined the best approach was to 14
focus on redevelopment in a small geographical area. The City has a number of different maps related to 15
boundaries, which can be confusing. 16
17
Commissioner Whetzel: Yet another m ap is the proposed Downtown Zoning Code map. 18
19
Commissioner Sanders: Asked about the stakeholders and what persons/organizations/agencies were 20
involved in the process in addition to the City of Ukiah, Ukiah Redevelopment Agency, Ukiah Main Street 21
Program and Friends of the Palace. 22
23
Mary Anne Landis: Has the names of persons present for the June 15 stakeholders meeting. Many of 24
the attendees were realtors, business persons, property owners, executive director of a credit union, 25
construction engineers, former district County offices, and other persons/agencies. The attendees were a 26
broad range of people we thought mainly would oppose the reestablishment of eminent domain as well as 27
those persons in the support. 28
29
Commissioner Sanders: Requested clarification that the consensus was to reestablish eminent domain 30
authority. 31
32
Commissioner Brenner: Was there consensus with the boundary locations? 33
34
Mary Anne Landis: There was not complete consensus. 35
36
Commissioner Whetzel: Were the property owners in the boundary area that would be affected notified? 37
38
Mary Anne Landis: A public meeting was held in which Council discussed the steps being taken 39
concerning the reinstatement of eminent domain, including consideration of the boundaries in the affected 40
area. 41
42
Commissioner Whetzel: There are property owners that do not live in the area. How would these people 43
be notified of a City Council meeting in Ukiah when they do not live in Ukiah? 44
45
Planning Director Stump: All legal requirements will be followed regarding notification when action is to 46
be taken on the project. There is no legal requirement for notification of committee work. 47
48
Commissioner Whetzel: Is concerned property owners within the boundary areas are notified. 49
50
Planning Director Stump: Property owners will be notified 30 days prior to a City Council meeting 51
concerning possible action on the matter. 52
53
Mari Rodin, Mayor: 54
Commented on eminent domain and its existence as a tool only. 55
Important property owners in the boundary area be made aware that such a tool exists. 56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 6
Commissioner Whetzel: Questioned the costs involved and whether or not the potential costs are 1
actually worth it. 2
3
Planning Director Stump: 4
There are staff and attorney costs for helping the City reestablish eminent domain. There are 5
costs associated with the City restoring and actually exercising its authority with regard to 6
eminent domain. 7
Eminent domain is a useful tool under certain circumstances. 8
9
Commissioner comments: 10
Commissioner Whetzel: 11
o Supports the concept of having eminent domain reinstated and agrees something needs 12
to be done about properties that have deteriorated and become blighted conditions within 13
the community, but has some concern for the property owners in the area. 14
o Understands eminent domain would only be used as a last resort. 15
o All property owners in the affected area must be properly notified and understand what is 16
going on. 17
18
Commissioner Helland: 19
o It is has been a very deliberative, inclusive and transparent process. 20
o Is satisfied there are sufficient checks and balances that the tool of eminent domain is 21
used in an appropriate and responsible manner. 22
o Supports the project. 23
24
Commissioner Sanders: 25
o The boundaries are reasonable. 26
o Eminent domain is a good tool for the City to have. 27
o Would like the Palace Hotel to become housing. 28
o Supports the Planning Commission moving the process forward. 29
30
Commissioner Brenner: 31
o Supports the idea of eminent domain. 32
o Is shocked the property owners were not notified when the process began. All effort 33
should have been made to appropriately notify the property owners of the proposed 34
boundaries and possible reinstatement of the eminent domain. The consensus regarding 35
eminent domain at the stakeholders meetings may have changed if the property owners 36
in the affected area had been notified and were able to participate in the discussion. 37
o Does not agree with the boundaries. The boundaries should be Oak Street to Mason 38
Street and Henry Street to Clay Street. It is not necessary for the boundary to extend 39
down through Perkins Street. 40
o Unlike Perkins Street, there are old buildings like the Palace Hotel that have safety issues 41
and have not been restored or maintained because the work is too extensive and costly. 42
o Eminent domain boundaries should concentrate on the Downtown area because it is a 43
historical district. 44
45
Chair Pruden: 46
o Is not a fan of eminent domain. 47
o The City had eminent domain for 12 years and never exercised the power. 48
o It is likely restoring the authority to the RDA that eminent domain as a tool would be used 49
very little, if at all. 50
o Agrees with Commissioner Brenner it is unlikely buildings on Perkins Street would be 51
subject to eminent domain so it is rather immaterial if this area in included in the 52
boundaries or not. 53
o Supports the recommendation to Council to reestablish the RDA’s eminent domain 54
authority in a small portion of the redevelopment area. 55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 7
o It has been expressed adequately that the next step in the process is for the property 1
owners in the affected area be properly noticed. 2
3
There was discussion about property values and appraisals for property targeted for eminent domain. 4
5
Assistant City Manager Sangiacomo: 6
The use of eminent domain in California is highly regulated. 7
Because there is a cost for eminent domain it is used as a last resort. Fair market price must be 8
paid for the property and this is done through a court process that includes property appraisals. 9
There would be no decrease in property values with this process. 10
Areas that are in redevelopment areas have already been determined to be severely 11
disadvantaged over other areas because of the blight that surrounds them. 12
With regard to the redevelopment area, what is typically seen is property values improve d when 13
the RDA is doing what it should be doing. Has seen with regard to Ukiah’s RDA that property 14
values from where they were in 1989 compared to present far exceed the expected growth rate 15
one would expect to see without redevelopment at work. Reestablishment of eminent domain 16
would not decrease property values. 17
It is pretty much impossible to go through Downtown Ukiah or anywhere in the Redevelopment 18
Project Area and not see where a redevelopment project has occurred. 19
In other acquisitions he has done for the City that have not been eminent domain a ctivities, the 20
property owner has requested we use the threat of eminent domain because there are tax 21
advantages for them to do it. There are benefits that come to the property owner with an 22
acquisition through eminent domain. Most of the time acquisitions do not lead to the use of 23
eminent domain. Eminent domain does not have to be exercised for the private property owners 24
to get the tax advantages as part of the acquisition. 25
26
Commissioner Sanders: When was the Palace Hotel last appraised and what was the appraised value? 27
28
Assistant City Manager Sangiacomo: Believes the last appraisal was in 2007 and the appraised value 29
of the land was roughly $310,000, basically the value of the land. 30
31
Commissioner Whetzel: What is involved with eminent domain proceedings? 32
33
Assistant City Manager Sangiacomo: 34
The first component is there always has to be a ‘reasonable attempt’ to come to some 35
reconciliation with the property owner without the use of eminent domain or without that threat. 36
Eminent domain activities occur rarely and only as a last resort when there is no reconciliation on 37
the part of the Agency and property owner. When there is property that is so blighted where a 38
case must be made for the public good to remove that blight to qualify for eminent d omain that 39
property has to be in severe condition. The appropriate findings must be made to support the 40
case of eminent domain. The Agency has to make what is called ‘Findings of Necessity.’ There is 41
a very detailed process from this point with public noti cing and still trying to reach an agreement 42
with the property owner. 43
44
Commissioner Whetzel: Does the Agency have to bring in an outside unbiased party such as the State? 45
46
Assistant City Manager Sangiacomo: 47
Eminent domain is handled through the judicial process and the rights of the property owner are 48
considered. 49
The findings of necessity required for the use of eminent domain must also go through a 50
community process as the community should determine if it wants to take a case to that level. 51
Eminent domain is just a tool that is used when all other possibilities have failed. After going 52
through the community process and listening to the stakeholders this would be the only time 53
when eminent domain would be acceptable in this community. 54
Eminent domain must meet the definition of blighted conditions under the law. 55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 8
Eminent domain proceedings cannot be exercised on single-family homes so this limitation does 1
not need to be added to what was discussed above because it is already law. 2
At the stakeholder meeting there was discussion about the definitions of blighted conditions, 3
limitations, other points of interest regarding the process that gets to the point of having to 4
formulate ’Findings of Necessity,’ the court process and rights of the propert y owners. 5
6
Commissioner Whetzel: Who was notified as a stakeholder? 7
8
Assistant City Manager Sangiacomo: The Council formed a subcommittee that consisted of two 9
councilmembers that did not have a conflict of interest. Other representatives were City staff, Friends of 10
the Palace, Ukiah Main Street Program, a number of individuals from the real estate community and 11
business community, as well as a number of interested persons. 12
13
Commissioner Whetzel: Questioned why the property owners were not notified of a stakeholder 14
meeting. 15
16
Assistant City Manager Sangiacomo: 17
Property owners will be included in the next phase of the process. 18
Of first importance at the stakeholder’s meeting was to discuss the scope of the boundaries, 19
identify/define any limitations that need to be added and come up with a recommendation. 20
The final decision regarding eminent domain and reinstatement for use as a last resort tool will be 21
made by City Council/RDA and this meeting will be publicly noticed so the public has the 22
opportunity to comment. 23
24
Mary Anne Landis: 25
The subcommittee during a series of workshops complied information through the process to help 26
the stakeholders understand the limitations, property rights, and definitions of blight. 27
The property owners in the small geographical area would benefit from this information and it 28
should be made available to them so they understand what is being discussed/considered. 29
30
Planning Director Stump: As required by law, public noticing will occur 30 days prior to the joint meeting 31
with City Council and the Agency concerning an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to reestablish 32
the Agency’s eminent domain authority. 33
34
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:00 p.m. 35
36
Commissioner Sanders: Referred to page 16 of the CEQA Initial Environmental Study and Negative 37
Declaration, hydrology and water quality section and inquired why item b was left blank. 38
39
Planning Director Stump: This is not intentional and should be checked ‘no impact.’ 40
41
M/S Whetzel/Sanders to recommend City Council accept CEQA Initial Environmental Study and 42
Negative Declaration with the correction on page 16 of the document. Motion carried (5-0). 43
44
M/S Whetzel/Sanders to recommend City Council approve the reestablishment of eminent domain to the 45
Ukiah Redevelopment Agency with the boundaries provided for in the map for the Project Area. Motion 46
carried. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: 47
48
AYES: Commissioners Whetzel, Sanders, Helland, Chair Pruden 49
NOES: Commissioner Brenner 50
51
9B. Use Permit No: 11-08-08-UP-PC. Conduct a public hearing for a request for Planning 52
Commission approval for Major Use Permit to allow an automobile oil change business to operate 53
at 777 South State Street, APN 003-050-47. 54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 9
Associate Planner Faso: 1
Gave a staff report concerning a major use permit for the operation of an au tomotive oil changing 2
business that in staff’s analysis addresses zoning and site analysis relative to parking, bike 3
parking, landscaping, development standards, use, hours of operation and compliance with the 4
B1 Airport Compatibility zone. 5
Staff’s revised Conditions of Approval include: 6
1. No. 2G: The business shall not operate as a drive-thru/drive-thru business. Vehicles 7
waiting for oil change shall park in parking spaces and turn off engines. 8
2. No. 6: The existing landscaping required by Use Permit 00 -55 shall be properly 9
maintained and shall be replaced in-kind if landscaping dies. Replaced plantings are 10
subject to review and approval of Planning Director. 11
3. No 8: All conditions of approval from the previous use permit and amendment (file 12
number 00-55 and 03-43) are superseded by the conditions of approval for this Use 13
Permit (file number 11-08). 14
At this time the applicant proposes to have two lifts installed. Staff has provided for in Condition of 15
Approval No. 7 that a, ‘Request for future business expansion including additional auto lifts shall 16
be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, unless the Planning Director determines that Planning 17
Commission review and approval is necessary and/or required.’ 18
There has been no opposition to the project expressed. 19
Staff recommends approval based on the Findings and Conditions Approval proposed for the 20
project. 21
22
Commissioner Helland: Concerned with paint peeling on the building and whether the applicant intends 23
to paint that section of the building that is pealing. 24
25
Commissioner Sanders: 26
Referred to the staff report regarding the automobile oil change business and noted there have 27
been some contamination problems when the site was a former gas station. 28
Requested certainty the issue of contamination is covered adequately in Condition of Approval 29
No. 14 in terms of how oil spills and the storage/disposal of oil will be handled, noting 30
Environmental Health and other State and local agencies have regulations/ordinances that 31
addresses contamination and the handling/disposal of contaminants. 32
Is concerned that proper precautions are taken on site with the handling of oil and other 33
contaminants to make sure they do not get in the City’s storm drain system that is located near 34
the site. 35
36
Staff: Before a business license is issued or approved, the business must be cleared through 37
environmental health regarding disposal of contaminants and other relevant environmental concerns. The 38
applicant must comply with all State and local agencies ordinances/regulations regarding the handling 39
and disposal of oil and other contaminants to ensure they are handled properly and do not get into the 40
City’s storm drain system. 41
42
Chair Pruden: Noted a discrepancy in the hours of operation in the staff report and what the applicant 43
has proposed and inquired what the hours of operation are. 44
45
Staff: The applicant has requested 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and staff proposed hours of operation from 46
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p. m. seven days a week because these hours seem reasonable and would allow time 47
for people to drop off their vehicles. These are also consistent with the hours often approved by Planning 48
Commission for use permits. 49
50
Commissioner Brenner: How would or would an expansion affect the B1 zone? 51
52
Staff: Based on the size of the lot (11,252 sq. ft.), the maximum allowable density is 15 people and it is 53
anticipated there will be 10 people on the site so the proposed project as proposed is consistent with 54
required B1 density. The oil changing business will be similar to a low intensity retail business in that 55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 10
there will only be 3 to 4 employees on the site at a time and given there are only two lifts the number of 1
vehicles and customers will also be limited. Many of the customers will drop of f their vehicles and return 2
later. The anticipated maximum number of people on the site is 10 and this includ es four employees plus 3
customers. Should the applicant want to expand his business, staff will look at the project in terms of 4
compliance with the B1 density requirements and make a determination how to proceed based on the 5
nature of the expansion, which can be done twofold, 1) Have the Planning Director make a determination 6
that the expansion is appropriate at staff level with no use permit or, 2) Staff decide whether the 7
expansion would be a minor or major use permit where the neighbors would be notified of a possible 8
expansion. With or without the use permit requirement, the project has to comply with the requirements of 9
the B1 zone. 10
11
Commissioner Sanders: Supports the Zoning Administrator review the use permit for an expansion. 12
13
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:17 p.m. 14
15
Commission: 16
Q1: Will there be a lounge where people can wait? 17
Q2: Does the applicant plan to repaint the canopy on the building? 18
Q3: Inquired about the large drums on the property. 19
Q4: What is the plan for the back fence on the north side? 20
Q5: What does the applicant plan to do with the landscaping? The former owner put in extensive 21
landscaping. While the Planning Commission for the former use asked for street trees and some 22
landscaping, did not require sod that the former owner put in. 23
24
Sixto Morfin, applicant: 25
A1: The plan is to have a small waiting area with chairs and possibly a television or even setting up 26
some cameras where people can watch their car as it is being worked on. 27
A2: Intends to repaint the canopy, restripe the parking lot and make other repairs/maintenance as 28
necessary. 29
A3: There will be a service that will regularly pick up and properly dispose of used oil that will also 30
permanently remove the existing drums on the site. 31
A4: Intends to repair the fence. 32
A5: Does not plan to replace the landscaping because what is existing is nice except for the sod that 33
has died and needs to be replaced. Is considering the use of mulch. Was the former owner of Angels 34
restaurant and likes to keep his businesses looking presentable. 35
36
Staff: The conditions drafted for the proposed new use except for the landscaping conditions supersede 37
the former use. The applicant is not required to replant with sod. Staff does discourage grass for projects 38
and encourages applicants to use native drought tolerant plant species as much as possible . The 39
Planning Commission can amend the previous conditions for the former use pertinent to landscaping to 40
allow the use of drought tolerant plants that would replace the sod. 41
42
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:25 p.m. 43
44
There was discussion about the condition of the pavement and whether the applicant can make repairs. 45
46
There was discussion regarding future business expansion and the Planning Commission asked about 47
staff’s condition that future expansions including additional auto lifts shall be reviewed by the Zoning 48
Administrator unless the Planning Director determines the Planning Commission should review the 49
project. 50
51
There was discussion about parking. Planning Commission agreed with staff’s analysis that while the 52
submitted site shows 10 parking spaces, staff is of the opinion this is a not a realistic numb er given the 53
configuration of the site and the required parking space dimensions. Staff recommends eight parking 54
spaces. It was also noted that Conditions of Approval numbers 3 (b) and 4 (b) have been added requiring 55
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 11
Staff noted per the zoning code the applicant is required to install a bicycle rack. 1
2
Commission consensus: 3
Added the following new Conditions of Approval: 4
5
1. Prior to occupancy the following items shall be completed and are subject to staff review and 6
approval: 7
a. The fence at the rear of the property shall be repaired. 8
b. The structure shall be repainted. 9
c. Pavement shall be repaired. 10
d. All trash and debris shall be removed from the site. 11
2. The property shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all times. 12
13
Agrees with staff’s revised Conditions of Approval: 14
No. 2G: The business shall not operate as a drive-thru/drive-thru business. Vehicles waiting for oil 15
change shall park in parking spaces and turn off engines. 16
No. 6: The existing landscaping required by Use Permit 00-55 shall be properly maintained, and 17
shall be replaced in-kind if landscaping dies. Replacement plantings are subject to review 18
and approval of the Planning Director. New plantings shall be drought tolerant, the rocks 19
shall be retained and mulch rather than sod shall be used. 20
No. 8: All conditions of approval from the previous use permit and amendment (file no. 00-55 21
and 03-43) are superseded by the conditions of approval for this use permit (file no. 11-22
08). 23
No. 7: Agrees with Condition of Approval No. 7: Request for future business expansion including 24
additional auto lifts shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator as a Minor Use Permit 25
Amendment, unless the Planning Director determines that Planning Commission review 26
and approval is necessary and/or required. 27
28
M/S Sanders/Helland to approve Major Use Permit No. 11-08-UP-UP with Findings 1-7 and Conditions 29
of Approval 1-19 with the additional conditions of approval made by the Commission and staff’s revised 30
conditions of approval, as referenced above. Motion carried. (5-0). 31
32
CONDITIONAL USE PERM IT FINDINGS TO ALLOW 33
AN AUTOMOBILE OIL CHANGING BUSINESS TO OPERATE AT 34
777 SOUTH STREET, APN 003-050-47 35
FILE NO: 11-08-UP-PC 36
37
The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the 38
application materials and documentation, and the public record. 39
40
1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General 41
Plan as described in the staff report and Table 1. 42
43
2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as described in 44
Table 2 of the staff report. 45
46
3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and applicable requirements 47
of the zoning district based on the following: 48
49
A. With an approved use permit the proposed project is a permitted use within the C-1 50
zoning designation. 51
B. The project meets the intent of this zoning district in that the automobile oil changing 52
business will provide commercial opportunities along South State Street which is the 53
primary North - South transportation corridor within the City. 54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 12
C. The proposed project meets the parking requirements of the zoning code in that the 1
project will provide eight (8) vehicle parking spaces and one bicycle rack. 2
3
4. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Airport Compatibility requirements for 4
the B1 zone based on the following: 5
A. The oil changing business will be similar to a low intensity retail business in that there will 6
only be 3-4 employees on the site at a time and given that there are only two auto lifts the 7
number of vehicles and customers will also limited. 8
B. The anticipated number of people on the site is 10. This includes four employees and 9
customers. Based on the size of the lot (11,252 square feet) the maximum allowable 10
density is 15 people, as noted it is anticipated that there will be 10 people on the site, 11
therefore the proposed project is consistent with the required B1 density. 12
C. The open land requirement is intended to apply to the whole B1 zone. The footprint of the 13
building and the site configuration will not change as a result of this application, therefore 14
the open land available in the B1 zone will not change. 15
16
5. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to public health, safety and general 17
welfare based on the following: 18
19
A. Through the use permit the operational characteristics will be regu lated, therefore the 20
project will not be detrimental to the surrounding residential uses. 21
B. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, Police Department, Building Official, 22
and Public Works and any requirements have been includes as conditions of app roval. 23
C. The project is required to comply with all federal, state and local laws. 24
D. The project is consistent with the Airport Master Plan B1 compatibility zone requirements 25
as noted in Table 3. 26
27
6. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act 28
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c), New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures, 29
which allows structures up to 10,000 square feet in urbanized areas when the use does not 30
involve significant amounts of hazardo us materials, where all necessary public services and 31
facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive based on the 32
following: 33
34
A. The total building square footage is 2,700 square feet. 35
B. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the oil storage and disposal plan and found the materials 36
not to be hazardous. 37
C. The location is not environmentally sensitive and no drainage courses or bodies of water 38
(such as creeks or streams). 39
D. The site is developed with an existing building which already has utilities and services 40
available at the site and no expansion of the existing building footprint is proposed as part 41
of the project. 42
43
7. Notice of the proposed project was provided in the following manner as required by the Zoning 44
Ordinance: 45
A. posted in three places on the project site on August 12, 2011; 46
B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on August 12, 2011; and 47
C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on August 14, 2011. 48
49
DRAFT USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW 50
THE OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE OIL CHANGE BUSINESS AT 51
777 SOUTH STATE STREET, APN 003-050-47 52
FILE NO: 11-08-UP-PC 53
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 13
1. Approval is granted for operation of an automobile oil change business to operate at 777 1
South State Street as described in the project descriptions dated May 24, 2011 and July 12, 2
2011 and shown on the plans submitted to the Community Development and Planning 3
Department, date stamped July 12, 2011, except as modified by the following condition s of 4
approval. 5
2. The use permit is granted subject to the following operating characteristics: 6
7
A. Hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 pm. seven days a week. 8
B. The business will have seven employees with three to four employees per shift. 9
C. The business shall provide automobile oil change services which shall include oil 10
changes, fluid check and tire pressure checks. 11
D. No tires sales. 12
E. No outside storage of materials. 13
F. Vehicles that are waiting for service shall be turned off; there shall be no idling of 14
engines. 15
G. The business shall not operate as a drive-thru/drive-up business. Vehicles waiting for oil 16
change shall park in parking space and turn off engines. 17
18
3. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to s taff review 19
and approval: 20
21
A. A site plan that shows the striped parking spaces. 22
B. The location of the bike rack shall be shown on the site plan and a detail that shows the 23
type of bike rack shall be included. Inverted “ U “ style rack is preferred. 24
25
4. Prior to occupancy the following shall be completed and are subject to staff approval: 26
27
A. The parking spaces required in 3A shall be stripped. 28
B. The bike rack required by condition 3B shall be installed. 29
30
5. Prior to installation of any signs, application for and approval of a sign permit from the 31
Planning and Community Development Department is required. 32
6. The existing landscaping required by Use Permit 00 -55 shall be properly maintained, and 33
shall be replaced in-kind if landscaping dies. Replacement plantings are subject to review 34
and approval of the Planning Director. New plantings shall be drought tolerant, the rocks shall 35
be retained and mulch rather than sod shall be used. 36
37
7. Request for future business expansion including additional auto lifts shall be reviewed by the 38
Zoning Administrator as a Minor Use Permit Amendment, unless the Planning Director 39
determines that Planning Commission review and approval is necessary and/or required. 40
41
8. All conditions of approval from the previous use permit and amendment (file n o. 00-55 and 42
03-43) are superseded by the conditions of approval for this use permit (file no. 11 -08). 43
44
From the Planning Commission 45
46
9. Prior to occupancy the following items shall be completed and are subject to staff review and 47
approval. 48
A. The fence at the rear of the property shall be repaired. 49
B. The structure shall be repainted. 50
C. Pavement shall be repaired. 51
D. All trash and debris shall be removed from the site. 52
53
10. The property shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all times. 54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 14
From the Building Official ( David Willoughby 467-5718) 1
2
11. Building permits are required for the installation of the auto lifts and any other tenant 3
improvements proposed for the new business. 4
5
From the Public Works Department ( Ben Kageyama 463-6284) 6
7
12. If the building permit value of work exceeds $104, 730 or the proposed improvements create 8
the net addition of two or more plumbing fixture units to the building, the existing sanitary 9
sewer lateral shall be tested in accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance N o. 1105, and 10
repaired or replaced if required. 11
12
13. If the building permit value is equal to or greater than one –third of the value of the existing 13
structure the construction or repair of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees, along the 14
subject property street frontage, may be required, pursuant to Section 9181 of the Ukiah City 15
Code. 16
17
Standard City Conditions of Approval 18
19
14. This approval is not effective until the 10 day appeal period applicable to this Use Permit has 20
expired without the filing of a timely appeal. If a timely appeal is filed, the project is subject to 21
the outcome of the appeal and shall be revised as necessary to comply with any 22
modifications, conditions, or requirements that were imposed as part of the appeal. 23
24
15. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use, 25
including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been 26
applied for and issued/finaled. 27
28
16. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges 29
applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full. 30
31
17. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, 32
regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal 33
agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, 34
occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building 35
Permit is approved and issued. 36
37
18. In addition to any other condition imposed, any construction shall comply with all 38
building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations and ordinances 39
in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued. 40
41
19. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any 42
future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest. 43
44
20. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed 45
prior to building permit final. 46
47
21. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City’s revocation process if the approved 48
project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and 49
conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date 50
of this approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has 51
been suspended for 24 consecutive months. 52
53
22. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their 54
agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its 55
agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or 56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 24, 2011
Page 15
proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which 1
is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall 2
include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees 3
that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in 4
connection with the City's action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent 5
passive or active negligence on the part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this 6
indemnification agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent 7
jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 8
9
10. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT 10
Written comments regarding the Walmart EIR made by the public have been posted to the City’s website 11
12
Will be agendizing for discussion the November and December Planning Commission meeting schedule. 13
14
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS’ REPORT 15
Commissioner Whetzel: W ill not be able to attend the regular September 14 Planning Commission 16
meeting. 17
18
Commissioner Sanders: Received a lot of email concerning the Oak Trees at the AM/PM Arco gas 19
station and mini-mart and whether or not they will survive. 20
21
Commissioner Brenner: Advised of three energy usage and conservation seminars that are coming up. 22
He will provide the Commission with this information at the next Planning Commission meeting. 23
24
Chair Pruden: W orked with the Bike and Pedestrian consultants regarding the rails to trails project. Grant 25
appropriations were received for this project. 26
27
12. ADJOURNMENT 28
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m. 29
30
31
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 32
33
