HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_10142009 1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 October 14, 2009
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Listed below, Respectively
7 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10
11 STAFF PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
12 Charley Stump, Director of Planning Mike Whetzel
13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15
16 1. CALL TO ORDER
17 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
18 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
19 Ukiah, California.
20
21 2. ROLL CALL
22
23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
24 Everyone cited the pledge of Allegiance.
25
26 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - N/A
27
28 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—September 23, 2009 minutes
29 Commissioner Sanders asked to insert the following language:
30 Page 10, Line 56: Existing housing converted to office space, Commissioner Sanders agreed to
31 inventory examples of these conversions.'
32
33 Page 12, Line 5: Commissioner Sanders would like prohibited use # 7 of the City of Ukiah Stage 1
34 Water Emergency Update dated July 2, 2009 to be addressed by staff at a future Planning
35 Commission meeting.
36
37 Commissioner Helland made the following corrections:
38 Page 1, line 36, change overtime to `over time;' line 37 change to `fast food;' Line 41 change to `Dr.'
39
40 Page 2, line 22, insert `less'; The sentence should read, `By allowing this type of review, the City is
41 less likely to lose an opportunity for a quality project due only to lot size limitations.'
42
43 M/S Sanders/Helland to approve September 23, 2009, as amended. Motion carried (4-0).
44
45 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
46 None.
47
48 7. APPEAL PROCESS— N/A
49
50 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Downtown Zoning Code Workshop # 4 and General Plan
51 Housing Element were properly noticed in accordance with the provisions of the Ukiah
52 Municipal Code.
53
54 9. PUBLIC HEARING
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 1
1 9A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop #4. Review and Discussion of Section 8: Accessory
2 Site Development Standards and Section 9: Parking.
3
4 Section 8: Accessorv Buildings and Facilities
5 Table 10: Accessorv Buildinq and Use Standards
6 Paqe 34
7
8 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:11 p.m.
9
10 Planning Commission:
11 1. What is a `layer?'
12 2. Does Figure 13B have a fourth layer?
13 3. The term `layer' is not intuitive and may be an alternative word would be more appropriate.
14 4. Flag the concept of`layer' There is no clear-cut definition in the glossary. `Layer' is difficult to
15 define by narrative.
16 5. Why not use a picture in place of words in the glossary?
17
18 Staff:
19 1 &2 Referred to page 35 as an example. A layer is horizontal. The layer begins at the front of the
20 lot and moves towards the rear of the lot. The first layer is typically the setback of the building
21 or the setback required by the zoning district. The second layer is the next 20 feet moving
22 toward the rear of the lot. The third layer is everything to the rear of the second layer. The
23 first layer determines where the building is required to be located. The third layer is where
24 parking and other development incidentals such as utility boxes, trash/recycling facilities,
25 HVAC units are required to be located. A forth layer pertains only to a courtyard building,
26 which is where parking and other development incidentals such as utility boxes,
27 trash/recycling facilities, HVAC units are required to be located.
28
29 Noted an error: Page 35, Figure 13A and Figure 13B, should have the same second and third
30 layers. Figure 13B should look like 13A. Corrections will be made in this regard.
31
32 3 `Layer' is non-descriptive; the word is terminology from the SMART Code. It is useful when
33 citing/illustrating the location of buildings, as in the example on page 35 of sideyard/rearyard
34 buildings on corner and interior lots and of courtyard buildings, corner and interior lots.
35 Again, illustrations concerning the layering of buildings and facilities/appurtenances begin
36 at the front of the lot and move back; Courtyard buildings are viewed differently due to the
37 variation of footprint because of the `hole' in the middle and is the only building where
38 there is a fourth layer. If the Commission has an alternative word that is more appropriate,
39 please make a recommendation.
40 4 `Layer' is a visual concept. The definition is unclear and depends upon the setbacks for a
41 given zoning district. It may be that a visual example would be better than words for the
42 definition.
43 5 This is a possibility. To clarify, the first layer represents what the setback. It maybe that in
44 the GU zone, the setback is zero to 10 feet so the first layer would be zero to 10 feet.
45 Alternatively, in the DC zone, the required setback is zero so the first layer would be zero. It
46 might be that words and a picture or words with a reference would better define the term
47 `layer.'
48
49 Table 10: Accessorv Buildinq and Use Standards, Rear Setback:
50
51 Chair Pruden : Questioned rear setback of 3 ft. min. standard for GU and UC zones and suggested a
52 different number. Her rationale has to do with older buildings. A three-foot setback from a property
53 line is nearly impossible to service if the setback is less than five feet, particularly if the neighboring
54 property owner will not allow a rear encroachment. The rear setback begins with the building rather
55 than the overhead eave roofline. So if there is an extended overhang from the roofline/eave, getting
56 equipment in to make repairs is problematic. She supports a min. five-foot rear setback for the GU
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 2
1 and UC zones because in these particular areas, most of the buildings are older and built differently
2 than newer buildings. She noted accessory buildings are prohibited in the DC zone.
3
4 Planning Commission: Is this because too wide of space is created at the rear of buildings?
5
6 Staff: The standard would apply to new construction or modifications to existing buildings. The
7 building would have to comply with the setback requirements as well as Fire and Building Codes
8 which may require a greater setback. An alternative to the suggested 5 foot setback would be to allow
9 less than 5 feet with an easement for maintenance or when it can be demonstrated that there is
10 adequate access for maintenance. These types of options are usually workable.
11
12 Chair Pruden: This approach would be an adequate compromise.
13
14 Planning Commission: What about a building that has an alley? Access to the rear of the building
15 for maintenance can be accomplished this way.
16
17 Staff: The City Public Works Department would likely require an encroachment permit to use the
18 alley.
19
20 Chair Pruden: While an encroachment permit is one option even though this can be somewhat
21 problematic having to obtain insurance and/or other requirements, but if it can be demonstrated that
22 the building can be serviced in less than the min. footage required for setbacks, this is acceptable.
23 She explained with the older buildings built in close proximity to one another because the setbacks
24 standards were different then and with the various roofline design almost touching one another
25 makes it difficult to service these buildings.
26
27 Commissioner Sanders: Questioned why the Commission is not discussing accessory buildings,
28 which is the topic of tonighYs discussion.
29
30 Chair Pruden: Acknowledged this; There are some large accessory buildings, particularly with regard
31 to warehouses and storage buildings. Regardless whether such buildings are functioning or
32 decorative, the ability to service these structures is important. She supports changing the standard
33 rearyard setback from a min. three feet to a min. five feet, particularly for commercial buildings. If
34 someone wants less, consideration can be given if it can be demonstrated how this could work. Some
35 of these structures are two-story.
36
37 Staff: In the discussion concerning rear setbacks for accessory buildings, is the Commission
38 comfortable with 0 ft. min. setback for sideyards?
39
40 Chair Pruden: While there may be issues, at zero setback the buildings are constructed differently
41 and often the buildings are accessed from a roof next door. Some type of access is necessary.
42
43 Don Larsen: Is an accessory building considered a second dwelling on the same site?
44
45 Staff: The discussion does not concern the use of a building, but that a building is subordinate to
46 the primary building on a lot.
47
48 Don Larsen: How should buildings with parapets be treated with regard to the setback standards in
49 the downtown area? It is uncommon for buildings to be built right next to one another because of
50 compliance with building/fire code regulations.
51
52 Staff: Zero is the minimum. In terms of compliance with the building/fire codes the setback is
53 almost never zero. From a planning perspective, in theory the min. setback for the sideyard setback
54 is zero, but in practicality the setback will likely be more than zero in order to comply with Fire and
55 Building Codes since the alternative is building fire walls which are more costly.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 3
1 Commissioner Helland: Drive-Thru Lane, Location: Drive-thru Lane, Location, prohibited on
2 Frontage(s). Requested clarification concerning drive-thru lanes that parallel the frontage is
3 prohibited, but what about the entrance to the drive-thru lane from the front of the building?
4
5 Staff: Depends upon the site. The fact more often than not the primary access does come from the
6 street in front of the building as opposed to an alley. The drive-thru isle should not be visible and
7 would not be allowed on the frontage.
8
9 Chair Pruden: The former Wendy's fast food restaurant and existing McDonald's fast food restaurant
10 on Orchard Street and E. Perkins Street have loop designs for the drive-thru where customers drive
11 almost around the building to access the drive-thru. The proposed standard is essentially eliminating
12 the loop.
13
14 Staff: The standard is not necessarily eliminating the loop. It simply provides design direction that
15 drive-thru lanes should not be on frontages. If for some reason, the applicant could not accomplish
16 this objective for a project, he/she could ask for a major exception. Page 35 demonstrates corner lot
17 and interior lot with frontages; it would be much easier for a corner lot to have a drive thru because
18 access could be from one frontage and exit the other frontage similar to an L shape. A drive-thru may
19 be more challenging for an interior lot whereby the applicant should consider another lot, ask for an
20 exception or formulate a more creative design.
21
22 Chair Pruden: There have been projects where a lot is purchased, but the design does not fit the lot.
23
24 Commissioner Sanders: What is the process for a major exception under the DZC?
25
26 Staff: The Planning Commission reviews a major exception. The Zoning Administrator reviews
27 minor exceptions.
28
29 Planning Commission: Would like to be informed about decisions for projects/minor exceptions
30 made by the Zoning Administrator.
31
32 Staff: Zoning Administrator updates can be made a part of the Planning Director Reports.
33
34 Paqe 36 Table 11: Screeninq and Fencinq
35 Chair Pruden:
36 • In the past living fences were allowed. Do the standards in this section allow for this?
37 • Recalls projects where the Planning Commission required the applicant to put in a living
38 fence. Does not want to get away from the concept; If the fence is for screening purposes,
39 privacy, or security, a living fence is a better solution provided the site is adaptive.
40
41 Staff: Materials to include vegetation: Would depend upon how landscaping materials are
42 interpreted and what the Planning Commission proposes.
43
44 Commissioner Sanders: Read an excerpt about screening and fencing from page 25 of the
45 Downtown Ukiah Perkins Street Corridor document formulated in 2008. The information is useful.
46
47 Staff: Much of screening and fencing is addressed in the Parking section of the DZC. The
48 Commission may want to add `plantings' and whatever support materials that are necessary to the
49 material section.
50
51 Commissioner Helland - Table 11, Screening and Fencing, Material — chain link, cyclone &
52 similar with or without screening slats is prohibited between building face and frontage
53 line(s):
54 • Why would we want chain link or cyclone fencing anywhere in the Downtown Zone?
55 • Prohibit chain link or cyclone fencing altogether in all zones and require a major exception.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 4
1 Chair Pruden:
2 • There are times when a chain link or cyclone fence is a reasonable solution. She recalled an
3 apartment project where a chain link fence was a suitable solution to maintain the visual
4 quality of looking at a creek and provide a safety barrier to prevent children from accessing it.
5 The fence was available in green to blend in with the environment.
6 • Metal fences are typically very expensive while chain link is not as expensive.
7 • Agreed with Commissioner Helland; Chain link fences are often used on the outer perimeters
8 of commercial establishments adjacent to the freeway to discourage transients. McDonalds
9 has a chain link fence on its eastern boundary to discourage the transient populations from
10 cutting through the property or encamping. The fence is screened with Oleanders. If a major
11 exception was requested for a metal fence, the Planning Commission can make a decision
12 regarding the visual, safety, and security need of having such a fence.
13
14 Staff: If the fencing material was the only exception to the standards would the Commission want to
15 review the fencing or should the rules be rewritten to allow for a cyclone fence or, alternatively leave it
16 as a minor exception. Should a project be required to get Planning Commission approval because an
17 applicant wants a chain link or cyclone fence on a sideyard that is not visible in between two
18 buildings.
19
20 Commissioner Sanders: Chain link or cyclone fencing if desired for a project should be a major
21 exception.
22
23 Chair Pruden: It may be a chain link or the like should be prohibited on the visual side of the property
24 with a major exception and allowed on the non-visual side.
25
26 Staff: The term `visible' is subjective. Recommends prohibiting metal fences and allow for a major
27 exception. It may be that for an interior lot as shown on page 35, the building could be moved down.
28 Would the Planning Commission be willing to consider a cyclone fence between the properties? It
29 would be out of the first layer(setback)and not in front of the building face.
30
31 Commissioner Helland: Metal fences in the Downtown area should require review. Chair Pruden
32 has mentioned some exceptions where they are desirable, but ordinarily, such fences should be
33 prohibited.
34
35 Chair Pruden: Metal fences need to be reviewed. There are exceptions for practicality reasons.
36 School playgrounds use chain link fences. The Planning Commission approved the Clara Court
37 apartment complex project to include a chain link fence in the area around the playground wherein
38 the Commission asked the applicant to plant Jasmine to mitigate the visual impact of a metal fence.
39 For some of the hospital projects, the Commission required slates in the chain link fences for
40 aesthetic purposes and also to create visual barriers.
41
42 Planning Commission:
43 • Materials section, combine into one box— barbed wire, concertina wire and similar with chain
44 link, cyclone & similar with or without screening slates. These types of fencing are prohibited
45 for all zones and would require a major exception. Change Minor exception to Major
46 exception.
47
48 • Add "living fence"to Table 11.
49
50 Don Larsen: Has seen wire fencing having horizontal and vertical wires in four-inch squares.
51 Vegetative vines can grow on it.
52
53 Chair Pruden: This type of use is for decorative purposes and should be considered as a design
54 element rather than as fencing. Fencing can be controversial. She cited an older home and an
55 apartment complex that was allowed to have a fence at zero lot line because the property is located
56 in the C-1 zone. A six-foot regulatory fence was constructed that is highly visible through the street
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 5
1 light. While the fence is beautifully maintained, there were complaints about this fence creating a
2 visual barrier because people were used to seeing lawn and trees. If the property was located in the
3 R-1 Zone, the height requirement for a fence is three-feet in the 20-foot setback. After the 20-foot
4 setback, the fence can be up to a six-foot maximum.
5
6 Summarv of Chanqes
7 Paqe 34:
8 None.
9
10 Paqe 35: Correction: Figure 13B should have the same second and third layers as 13A.
11
12 Paqe 36:
13 • Material section, combine into one box — barbed wire, concertina wire and similar with chain
14 link, cyclone & similar with or without screening slates. These types of fencing are prohibited
15 for all zones and would require a major exception. Minor exception will be changed to Major
16 exception.
17 • A`living fence' will be included in Table 11.
18
19 Section 9: Parkinq Standards and Procedures Paqe 40
20 Table 12: Number of Parking Spaces Required by Zone
21 Table 13: Shared Vehicle Parking Factor
22
23 Staff: Table 12: Number of Parking Spaces Required by Zone. These are new parking standards
24 and do differ from the current zoning ordinance. The intent is for the uses with similar parking
25 demand to have the same parking requirements so that one use can be turned into the next
26 use and still be in compliance with the parking requirements. If the parking standard changes
27 and the new use does not comply, parking would have to be found somewhere offsite and
28 this is not always possible. Therefore, the use would not work for that particular tenant space
29 and building.
30
31 Chair Pruden:
32 • For the most part, most of the parking in the Downtown is in a parking district having
33 exceptions that would not otherwise be found outside of the Downtown. The GU and UC
34 zones must comply with current parking standards. Parking is not a requirement in the DC
35 because it was built prior to automobiles.
36 • The Downtown Parking Improvement District charges a fee and some of the revenue
37 generated goes to the Main Street Program as part of an Assembly Bill mechanism. She is
38 unsure how the fee is collected and/or whether it is triggered by City business license or by
39 the Parking District.
40
41 Staff:
42 • Each building and land use, including a change or expansion to a building or land use shall
43 provide parking areas in compliance with Section 9 of the DZC. Each site shall provide the
44 number of parking spaces required by Table 12, except where parking is reduced or
45 otherwise modified in compliance with the requirements for shared parking (Table 13).
46 • If the exemption does not apply, a determination must be made concerning how much
47 parking is required for the use in the applicable zones and whether shared parking is a
48 possibility and/or possibly find other ways to reduce the parking requirements.
49 • No changes will be made to the Parking District. The language from the current zoning code
50 related to parking and the Downtown Parking District is simply being included in the DZC so
51 that all of the parking requirements are in one document. The language in section 9(B)
52 Number of Parking Spaces Required, item 4, Downtown Parking Improvement District —
53 Exemption comes from the Downtown Parking District, which defines the exemptions.
54 According to the Parking District
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 6
1 o All existing commercial structures as of January 1, 1979 within the area defined as
2 the City of Ukiah Parking District No. 1 are exempt from the required off-street
3 parking requirements prescribed in Section 9 wherein Table 12 does not apply.
4 o The exemptions apply to changes in the structure, a sale of the property or business,
5 or expansion into existing structure space.
6 o New commercial construction, including demolition, reconstruction, structural
7 additions and existing or new residential uses with the Downtown Parking
8 Improvement District are not exempt.
9 • Parking must be provided unless otherwise exempt.
10
11 Planning Commission:
12 • Table 12, residential, GU: Why are there different parking requirements per unit regardless of
13 number of bedrooms? Is it necessary to require 1.5 per dwelling unit for a studio or one-
14 bedroom unit in the GU?
15
16 Staff:
17 • Moving into a more urban areas often makes parking a per unit requirement as opposed to a
18 per bedroom requirement. The assumption is that transit facilities are more likely available
19 and services and other needs are within walking distance, so the number of bedrooms would
20 not really matter because a car would not necessarily be essential.
21 • More parking is generally needed in the GU than for the UC and DC zones because this zone
22 tends to be more residential/suburban in nature and often need to walk to essential uses and
23 services. Also, people generally have more cars in the GU zone.
24
25 Planning Commission:
26 • Page 22 of the January 2008 Downtown Parking Code - parking standards by zone, is the
27 City recommending more parking or less?
28
29 Staff: The requirements are the same. Staff did not change the parking requirements from the
30 previous draft of the Code. The new parking standards are somewhat different and simplified than the
31 current zoning requirements for parking. The advantage is that turn over for business uses will be
32 easier. One business can turn over to the next business without being out of compliance with the
33 parking requirements.
34
35 Planning Commission:
36 • Table 12, All Uses, Bicycle Parking. Recommended the language state that `at least 10%
37 of the number of vehicle parking spaces required by this table' so the Planning Commission
38 does not have to review the project if a person desires to exceed this number. It is doubtful
39 people would come before the Planning Commission to try and use the `at least' 10% of the
40 number of vehicle parking spaces required by Table 12 as way to get out of their parking
41 requirement responsibilities and provide for adequate parking for the site. The Commission
42 supports maintaining a major exception for any modification to the standard concerning a
43 reduction to the 10%. A person can do more than the 10%without a major exception.
44
45 Staff:
46 • Section C: Reduction of Required Vehicle Parking, item 5, Bicycle Parking Facility states: A
47 reduction of parking spaces may be granted to projects involving new construction at a rate of
48 one vehicle for every five bicycle parking spaces provided. The required vehicular parking
49 shall not be reduced by more than two spaces under this subsection.
50
51 • Agreed with adding language for consistency purposes to the bicycle parking section to read:
52 `A minimum of 10% of the number of vehicles parking spaces required by this table.'
53
54 Staff: Page 42, D - Excess Parking. Most of this language comes from the current parking code
55 and has been carried over for how parking can be reduced. Table 12 numbers are exact so if
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 7
1 a person wanted to exceed the amount of parking required in Table 12 than what Section D is
2 suggesting, a major exception would have to be approved by the Planning Commission.
3
4 Planning Commission:
5 • No change to the language on page 42, Section D, Excess Parking. What does the last
6 sentence of Section D mean, `Excess parking proposed as a benefit in compliance with this
7 section does not require approval of an exception.'
8
9 Staff: Will be addressed in the Administration section that pertains to benefits and incentives. It is
10 essentially saying a project will provide its own parking and provide additional parking to
11 serve another building could be considered a "benefiY' since parking would be located in one
12 lot and note spread out into other lots. In this case, the project would be allowed to exceed
13 the parking requirements because the parking is intended to serve a use or building on a
14 different parcel in addition to providing the parking for the use/building of the parcel that the
15 parking is located on.
16
17 Planning Commission —Section C Reduction of Required Vehicle Parking, item 8, In-Lieu Fees
18 a-d:
19 • Is there a governing ordinance regarding the in-lieu fees?
20
21 Staff: A Resolution would be necessary to establish an in-lieu fee as part of the DZC.
22
23 Don Larsen:
24 • Some jurisdictions are trying to actually reduce the number of cars parked by reducing
25 parking.
26 • Most parking lots are not used to capacity.
27 • Cited Home Depot and Pear Tree Center as not having good pedestrian access and/or does
28 not encourage pedestrian traffic.
29
30 Commission: Noted many parking lots do not have designated pedestrian paths or other separations
31 from vehicles and must walk across parking lots to access stores.
32
33 It was noted: Page 43, Pedestrian Pathway — Parking lots with more than 12 parking spaces
34 shall provide a pedestrian path of travel incorporated into the landscape area or separate from
35 the drive aisles.
36
37 Staff: Reduction of parking —Approximately 10 years ago, the parking requirements for commercial
38 land uses were reduced because of the concern for requiring too much parking for projects.
39 The intent is to continue with this concept of reducing parking for commercial projects.
40
41 Planning Commission: Why provide a benefit for over parking of a project? Why not provide a
42 benefit for under parking?
43
44 Staff: Environmental review would be required to determine adequate parking to accommodate the
45 uses without over parking.
46
47 Planning Commission:
48 • The City traffic study indicates parking in the Downtown is not used to capacity. There are
49 typically between 30 and 40% available parking openings in the Downtown. Some people
50 argue there is not sufficient parking in the Downtown when in fact there is plenty of parking.
51 It is really a misconception that shopping centers are better because there is a lot of parking
52 when from a planning perspective and environmentally they are not.
53 • Where in the Downtown is parking not being used?
54 • People typically want to park in front of the store they want to shop when they can park
55 conveniently in a suitable radius in the Downtown and walk. People parking in Wal-Mart, for
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 8
1 instance, often after parking in the large parking lot have to walk a considerable distance
2 because the parking spaces closest to the entrance are already filled. San Francisco is an
3 example of a city where parking is a problem.
4 • Page 43, Pedestrian Pathways, it may be that a major rather than a minor exception is
5 necessary to ensure safe pedestrian circulation/passage for those instances where, for
6 example, an applicant does not want to put in an extra sidewalk or the like. The Planning
7 Commission would have the opportunity to review this aspect of a project.
8
9 Staff: The issue pertains to whether the 12 spaces is the appropriate number of vehicles to trigger
10 the requirement for a pedestrian pathway and not whether the exception should be a minor or
11 major. Does the Planning Commission want to provide direction in this regard? Is 12 spaces
12 the appropriate threshold?
13
14 Planning Commission:
15 • Almost all projects should require a pedestrian pathway in the Downtown because the whole
16 point about the Downtown is to encourage walkability and promote a pedestrian friendly
17 environment.
18 • For the Downtown, the best approach should be to require a major exception with regard to
19 `pedestrian pathways.'
20 • The bank on the corner of Leslie Street and E. Perkins Street has parking in the rear with
21 approximately 12 to 16 parking spaces. A person must park against the fence and walk
22 across the teller drive-thru lane to access the building. There is a total disconnect in terms of
23 pedestrian passage from the parking lot to the bank.
24
25 Commissioner Molgaard: Most people do not walk to the bank so the 12 parking spaces
26 requirement would not really be an issue in this case.
27
28 Chair Pruden: Noted there is a considerable amount of foot traffic in this area.
29
30 Commissioner Molgaard: The Mutt Hut would not need a pedestrian pathway because the parking
31 lot is very small. It may be that if the Bank parking lot on Leslie Street and E. Perkins Street were a
32 project before the Planning Commission it would probably not be approved because of the site layout.
33 The Mutt Hut also has a leasing arrangement for shared parking off-site.
34
35 Staff: Without the teller drive-thru component, the project with the parking in the rear as opposed to
36 the front of the building would be a project the Planning Commission would probably see.
37
38 Planning Commission:
39 • There was discussion about housing along E. Perkins Street converted to commercial uses
40 where the parking is inappropriate and/or inadequate.
41 • Questioned whether 12 parking spaces should be the threshold. With this threshold, is it
42 appropriate to require a connector sidewalk.
43
44 Staff: The current standard is 12 parking spaces in the Downtown Design Guidelines for
45 commercial establishments within the Downtown District and outside of the District. The
46 same standards apply for parking in the C-1 zone. The intent was to unify the standards for
47 both the Downtown Design Guidelines and DZC for continuity/clarification purposes.
48
49 Planning Commission:
50 • Page 43, Pedestrian Pathway — Should modification to the standard be a minor or major
51 exception?
52
53 Staff: Alternatively, the Planning Commission could provide direction to staff concerning the Zoning
54 Administrator level of discretion if modification to the standard was to remain as a minor
55 exception. Staff has no problem with a change to a major exception. Having to seek a major
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 9
1 exception could become problematic for an applicant if, for example, the only issue is the
2 design for 13 parking spaces as opposed to 12 before a pedestrian pathway would work for
3 the project. Would the Commission want such a minor detail to have Planning Commission
4 approval for a project that might otherwise require Planning Commission review and
5 approval?
6
7 Commissioner Sanders: Not so concerned if an applicant came in with 13 parking spaces and does
8 not want to comply with the 12 parking standard that he/she would get away with it, but rather she
9 has seen so many examples of businesses where there is no sidewalk or some type of pedestrian
10 pathway that goes from the building to the parking lot or vice versa. It is more a safety issue and a
11 disconnect. If the intent is to encourage a pedestrian friendly environment in the Downtown area, we
12 should make sure this happens.
13
14 Chair Pruden: If this is the case, there should be no exceptions because there have been times
15 when the Planning Commission has essentially `rubber-stamped' projects and granted the applicant
16 whatever exception he/she wants.
17
18 Staff:
19 • There would essentially be no process if exceptions were not part of the process. The intent
20 is to create the requirements so that the public, decision makers, developers, etc. know what
21 is expected. Within these requirements, there is a process that allows a person to request a
22 deviation from the standard as part of a public process.
23 • Suggest making Pedestrian Pathway' a major exception if this is important enough to want
24 this level of review.
25 • The reason there are `disconnects' in the Downtown area may be a function of the City not
26 having project review and/or zoning administrator hearings to more appropriately address the
27 issue of providing for pedestrian pathways from parking lots to buildings.
28 • The reason pedestrian pathways are not readily seen in the Downtown is because they were
29 not required when most or many of the properties were developed not required.
30 The 12 car parking lot threshold has been successful and is workable.
31
32 Planning Commission consensus:
33 Pedestrian Pathways — Change from minor to major exception for safety and walkability
34 purposes.
35
36 Paqe 43—Pedestrian Pathwavs—Maior Exception
37 No other changes.
38
39 Staff explained the Exception process.
40
41 Paqe 44—(diaqrams of building parkinq layers)
42 No change
43
44 Paqe 45
45
46 Planning Commission:
47 • Live Plantings - Questioned is there something other than live plantings.
48
49 Staff: People do use plastic decorative elements in their landscaping.
50
51 Staff: Most of page 45 comes from the Zoning Ordinance and Downtown Design Guidelines.
52
53 • Tree — Shade: A minimum of one shade tree for every five parking spaces or trees
54 provided to achieve 50% canopy coverage of paved area at maturity whichever is
55 greater.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 10
1 The Downtown Design Guidelines calls for a minimum of one shade tree for every four parking
2 spaces.
3
4 Staff: The Commission can make a decision about the number of trees. Generally speaking, in a
5 downtown area or where a City wants to encourage more dense development, the intent is to
6 be more urban with more buildings covering more of the parcel which leaves less of the site
7 available for plantings. In this case, the focus is less on the number of trees per parking stall
8 and more on the shade/canopy coverage of the trees provided.
9
10 Planning Commission:
11 • Would like see a minimum of one shade tree for every four parking spaces.
12
13 • Size of Plantings. Would be nice to have #25 size trees; This is very expensive. #15 size is a
14 good compromise.
15
16 • Parking lot trees take a tremendous amount of abuse while street trees do not comparatively.
17
18 Staff: The planting of large trees are often not successful and starting with a smaller tree is better
19 and this smaller tree will often catch up with the larger tree and surpass it in size.
20
21 Planning Commission consensus:
22 Size of Plantings—Require a minimum of#15 size trees so if an applicant wants a#25 it is allowed.
23 Shrubs, 5 gallon.
24
25 Existinq Facilities — Expansion of leqal and non-conforminq parkinq area. When existing
26 parking facilities that are legal and non-conforming are expanded, the expansion area shall conform
27 with provisions of the Table. Retrofitting of the existing parking area to conform with the provisions of
28 table is strongly encouraged.
29
30 Staff: Communities typically acknowledge what is existing provided it is legal and non-conforming.
31 If someone wants to expand, the expansion must comply with the standards in the table.
32
33 Existinq facilities — Existing open parking facilities as of the date of the adoption of this Code shall
34 be considered legal and non-conforming provided that they were legal at the time of their creation.
35
36 Staff: This is a statement so there would be no exception.
37
38 Existinq Facilities — Expansion of existinq parkinq area (not leqal and non-conforminq) When
39 existing parking facilities are expanded that are not legal and non-conforming and do not comply with
40 the requirements of the Table, the expansion area and the existing parking area shall be made to
41 comply with the provisions of the Table.
42
43 Staff: This pertains to parking lots that are not legal and non-conforming and means the city has
44 never reviewed or acknowledged it so if there is a desire to expand, a person must conform to the
45 Code standard. A major exception is required to deviate from the standard.
46
47 Planning Commission:
48 • Lighting — Height— Maximum pole height shall be 12 feet or the height of the building
49 whichever is less. Is the height factor standard language?
50
51 Staff: A 12-foot height requirement for a pole light is fairly common.
52
53 Chair Pruden: Is familiar with five-foot pole lighting that is very effective and creates a nice ambiance
54 having subdued lighting.
55
56 Planning Commission:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 11
1 • Fixture—Required to have an International Dark Sky Association seal of approval or to
2 meet the IDSA standards. Should this statement be expanded because the IDSA is only
3 referenced in the `Fixture' section of the DZC?
4 • Maybe smaller more frequent lighting is better.
5
6 Staff:
7 • Sometimes the height might also relate to the level of lighting and lighting coverage that a
8 certain business has or needs. Not sure if a five-foot fixture height would work for some
9 commercial establishments. Banks and other facility types have their own lighting needs
10 related to security and safety.
11 • In terms of the DZC and having a lighting philosophy/statement that corresponds with the
12 IDSA to encourage use, there should be a requirement section and a statement that says
13 `these other equivalents of lighting are required.' In this way, the standard is presented
14 demonstrating that the other lighting components/elements in the lighting section other than
15 `Fixture' also comply and this is what people want to see in the code and that design direction
16 is essentially being given at the same time.
17
18 Planning Commission: Where does pole height fit into the IDSA philosophy?
19
20 Staff: Essentially what is occurring is that when a fixture is proposed, the fixture should meet the
21 IDSA standards. While pole height is not relevant, it would be acceptable to add to the height
22 section that lower fixtures are encouraged on a project by project basis depending upon the
23 safety/security needs for the project. Applicants do pay attention to `notes' that are written
24 into the requirement section when designing projects.
25
26 Paqe 45- Size of Plantinq
27 • #15 trees minimum
28 • 5gallon shrubs minimum
29 • No other changes
30
31 Paqe 46 - Fiqure: Liner Buildinq Concept
32
33 Planning Commission:
34 • Figure: Liner Building Concept. Requested clarification/explanation of this illustration
35
36 Staff: The liner building design illustration came directly from the charrettes. The illustration is of a
37 corner lot with a building wall on "A" street that has no setback from the property line. The next layer,
38 the second layer is this building and is shown as 20-feet deep. The next area is the third layer and is
39 comprised of parking, which is "lined" by the building and not visible from the street. The" liner
40 building" is often occupied by various commercial tenant spaces and sometimes residential units. The
41 parking on the interior of the liner building may be limited to the ground floor or may be located on
42 upper floors as well.
43
44 There was discussion about the application of the liner building concept.
45
46 Paqe 45-Open Parkinq Lot Standards: No change.
47
48 Paqe 46—Fiaure: Conceptual Live-Work Park Under Floor Plan
49 Commission: Discussed the design concept for the different options shown in the illustration. For
50 instance, parking in a garage with a false front wall having some kind of window treatment in which
51 case the parking would not be visible. Alternatively the ground floor could be work/flex space as part
52 of a live/work unit with the upper floor(s) being the living space. In this case, the unit could be part of
53 a liner building or the parking could be located in a common parking area for the building.
54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 12
1
2 Paqe 46—Liner Buildinq Concept. No change.
3
4 • Planning Commission:
5 How will `In-lieu fees' will treated, page 41, Section 8?
6
7 Staff: In lieu fees exist in the City Code and will be carried forward into the DZC. The problem is
8 the City must complete the studies in order to establish a fee structure for the in lieu fees.
9 The intent is to have a "place holder" so that when the studies are completed, the code
10 requirement allowing the in lieu fees is in place.
11
12 Planning Commission:
13 • Page 41, section 7, Reduction of Water Pollution and Stormwater /run-off — Clarify the
14 sentence, "If only a fraction of the parking area is provided with a permeable surface, then
15 only a proportionate fraction of the 20% reduction in the parking requirement shall be
16 granted." Is this a benefit statement?
17
18 Staff: In this section, this is not a "benefiY' and applies specifically to parking. This is to address
19 situations such as what if an applicant only proposes 10% permeable surfacing for the
20 parking area, and then there is a deduction in the calculations so that 10% of the 20% is the
21 parking reduction. If this small faction of permeable surfacing were done, it would not even
22 cover one parking space so a person would do almost all permeable paving or none. It could
23 be that in order to meet the parking requirement for the project, the applicant would need a
24 reduction of one space and could comply by using this section and providing 20% as
25 permeable surface.
26
27 Planning Commission: Commented that some of the concepts are new, unfamiliar and somewhat
28 difficult to apply, particularly with regard to courtyards, which Ukiah does not have. The Commission
29 is used to having examples that they know about and work with in town.
30
31 9B. General Plan Housing Element Workshop. Review and Discussion of the Draft Housing
32 Element Update.
33
34 Planning Director Stump provided a staff report and made suggestions how the Commission can
35 proceed with the workshop discussion:
36
37 1. Review the Housing Strategy (page 21 of the Preliminary Draft 2009 General Plan
38 Housing Element Update/page 2 of the staff report) and the Goals, Policies and
39 Implementing Tasks. This involves creating more opportunity for small infill housing in the
40 UC areas near transportation and other services and where infrastructure is available to
41 serve the units where the intent is to reduce regulatory constraints for this type of
42 development. The types of housing to be encouraged and targeted will be rental units,
43 smaller for-sale housing units, upper income units, special needs housing, affordable
44 student housing and affordable senior housing.
45 2. Review the supplemental information regarding Homelessness, Inclusionary Housing and
46 Affordable Housing Impact Fees.
47 3. Review other text.
48
49 Table 13: 2004 and 2009 Goal Comparison:
50 • Housing goals for 2009 do not differ very much from 2004.
51 • The intent is to reduce the number of future tasks to implement for the document within the
52 next five years. The Ukiah General Plan has at least 500 implementing tasks. The City has
53 not been able to implement all of these tasks. With this in mind regarding the Housing
54 Element component of the General Plan part of the strategy has been to look at the
55 implementing tasks and to realistically consider what can be done whereby the intent is focus
56 on what is really important.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 13
1 • Another part of the strategy involves developing or increasing existing incentives for energy
2 efficient, and green and sustainable housing projects as well as to develop a strong housing
3 rehabilitation programs for low and very low income households that would be focused on
4 improving energy efficiency in existing homes. This would help reduce green house gas
5 emissions.
6 • The Housing Element strategies pertain to the City of Ukiah and the needs thereof.
7
8 Chair Pruden:
9 • Questioned Page 21 of the 2009 Housing Element 2009, language that reads, `There were
10 mixed results with implementing the 2004 Housing Element. A lack of Staff and
11 resource/financial constraints, as well as completing priorities precluded full implementation
12 success. These constraints and limiting factors are expected to remain to some degree so
13 the updated Housing Element takes these factors into account. The new strategy involves
14 similar goals as the 2004 strategy, but reduces the number of tasks to those believe to be
15 sincerely achievable. In this way. The work can be focused and measured, and required
16 funding levels reduced.'
17 Who actually builds houses? With regard to this language, the reality is housing
18 developments are private sector driven rather than by the City of Ukiah, the Community
19 Development Commission and other agencies/organizations involved with providing housing
20 for the community. It is the outside sector that comes forward looking for funding resources
21 for housing developments.
22
23 Staff: Agreed this is what typically occurs. Every community with regard to their housing strategies
24 adopt more aggressive approaches whereby communities actually acquire land to work with
25 an affordable housing developer to provide housing that is economical and environmentally
26 appropriate. The intent of the housing strategy is for cities to become more involved in the
27 creation of housing programs/opportunities and work with the private sectors desiring to do a
28 housing project. The City redevelopment agency this past year as part of its goals/objective
29 has taken steps to find strategies to encourage more housing for the community rather than
30 just waiting for the private sector to propose a housing project.
31 Chair Pruden: The City should not take full blame for not being able to more appropriately
32 promote/create housing programs and developments due to constraints such as buildout,
33 size of parcels that are buildable and other factors when, in fact, the problem is larger than
34 just City staff having the responsibility of implementing housing goals of the Housing
35 Element. There has to be developers wanting to come forward with projects.
36
37 Planning Commission:
38 • Part of the problem may be the lack of studies concerning housing inventories and
39 development of more effective rehabilitation programs in order to establish housing strategy
40 needs and provide for goals/objectives by prioritizing implement tasks. Staff could not
41 possibly be solely responsible to meet all the housing needs in the community. It must be a
42 community effort. The economic downturn and housing market also affect housing.
43
44 Staff: If financial resources were more available to staff, the City would be in a better position to
45 expedite housing strategies and create rehabilitation programs and/or be in a position to do
46 more. While the population in the City is approximately 15,000, there are housing needs that
47 must be addressed.
48
49 Chair Pruden: We are not a large city with deep pockets so we do not have the ability to do as much.
50
51 Staff: The City has received grant funding for a housing rehabilitation program that is being
52 administrated by the CDC with the first customer getting a $40 no-interest 15-year preferred
53 loan to complete major renovations to a house. This is a very good program because it
54 encourages energy efficiency with the housing improvements. A Housing Condition Survey
55 was completed and this has provided staff with information about the housing conditions in
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 14
1 the community, which has led to some new programs in this regard and opportunities for
2 grant funding.
3
4 Planning Commission:
5 • Add language `to preserve existing housing' to the middle paragraph on page 21 of the 2009
6 Housing Element Update that addresses the housing strategy.
7
8 Lisa Hillegas, Legal Services of Northern California:
9 • Her office represents low income residents in Mendocino and Lake Counties relative to
10 housing advocacy and public benefits issues.
11 • Would like to comment on the draft 2009 Housing Element Update.
12 • Thanked Planning Director Stump for his willingness to work with her office concerning the
13 Housing Element and commitment to affordable housing and trying get as much housing built
14 within the market constraints/constraints the City has being a small city.
15 • The purpose of the Housing Element and requirements centers on the City's performance
16 concerning housing matters. In the 2004 Housing Element, the City took on a number of
17 different implementation actions making the City responsible to perform throughout the five-
18 year period.
19 • As part of the introduction, it is the City's responsibility to implement as many policies and
20 action plans as possible to facilitate and encourage the development of housing primarily
21 focused on affordable housing, which is housing for extremely low to moderate income
22 households. These income households represent the bulk of community in Ukiah,
23 economically.
24 • Whether or not housing was built is essentially a separate issue. The City has no obligation
25 to provide for housing, but has an obligation to analyze the needs, identify the impediments in
26 place that could possibly prevent housing from being developed and formulate actions to take
27 during the five-year period to help the community get the housing it needs.
28 • Understands why the Planning Department wants to reduce the future tasks of the Housing
29 Element. With this, one of the strategies would be to focus on what is the largest need and
30 how this need can be effectively met in this next five-year planning period.
31 • This will be the last time Ukiah will have a five-year planning period. The next planning period
32 will be eight years, which gives communities a longer period of time to implement tasks.
33 • The 2009 Housing Element has actions that are reasonable and doable in this next planning
34 period and one element that would be most helpful is to focus on the important issues.
35
36 Planning Commission:
37 • Is Goal H-2 (provide housing for all economic segments of the community) appropriate?
38
39 Lisa Hillegas — This represents a requirement of the Housing Element. The Mendocino Council of
40 Governments Regional Housing Needs document demonstrates the needs are actually greater this
41 planning period than they were in the last planning period for low to moderate income housing. New
42 California State law requires that cities assess the need for a new economic segment for `extremely
43 low' income level households. Persons in the extremely low income category have an income of 30%
44 or less than the area median income. This represents an entirely different segment of housing needs
45 to be assessed. The income categories for affordable housing needs include: extremely low, very low,
46 low, and moderate.
47
48 The Housing Element is the only part of the General Plan that has to be revised every five years and
49 in the future every eight years.
50
51 Planning Commission:
52 • Page 21, second paragraph regarding housing strategies, add `extremely low, very, low and
53 moderate' incomes to the sentence that reads, `The type of housing to be encouraged and
54 targeted will be rental units, smaller for-sale housing units, upper income units, special needs
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 15
1 housing, affordable student housing and affordable senior housing' or add language to target
2 all income levels, which would cover the new income level category`extremely low.'
3 • Alternatively, allow for language to reflect that the focus will be on the needs as provided for
4 in the `Needs' tables and define the housing income levels in other sections of the Housing
5 Element.
6
7 Lisa Hillegas — Suggested in the housing strategy section (page 21) change the wording to
8 `affordable rental units' in place of `rental units, `affordable student housing, and affordable senior
9 housing.' Change `smaller for-sale housing' units to `affordable smaller for-sale housing units.' There
10 is still the question of`upper income units.' The housing needs for upper incomes are low. In terms of
11 a housing strategy, the Housing Element has to provide policies to accommodate all income groups.
12 The primary focus should be on the income groups that need housing more and concentrate on the
13 impediments for affordable house, which has been a problem in this community. Upper income
14 housing does not have many impediments. She suggests eliminating `upper income units' because
15 there is essentially no great need.
16
17 Staff: Hospital personnel have expressed concern there is little `upper income units' available. In
18 terms of all the income housing categories, `upper income units' represents a lesser priority of
19 the housing needs. With reference to Table 5, page 13, language could be added: `The
20 priority for housing must be consistent with table 5.'
21
22 The Housing Element does `trump' the General Plan. For instance, when the 2004 Housing
23 Element Update was completed and the actions identified, the next step was to make the
24 General Plan consistent with the Housing Element that required General Plan amendments.
25
26 Planning Commission:
27 • Has also heard hospital personnel state they could not find affordable housing in this
28 community.
29
30 No other changes were made to page 21 concerning the three paragraphs that addresses housing
31 strategies.
32
33 Planning Commission:
34 • Page 13, Goal H-3, 2009 Housing Goals, delete elderly and replace with senior citizens.
35 • Page 13, Goal H-4, 2009 Housing Goals, sentence should end: `Promote well planned and
36 designed housing opportunities.' Housing opportunities have no correlation to gender/race.
37 The goal pertains to `well planned housing and design. What does planned and design have
38 to do with national origin?
39
40 Staff: The language concerning gender/race/age/sexual orientation/marital status or national origin
41 in Goal H-4 is standard language the State uses and requires.
42
43 Lisa Hillegas—`Elderly' is a term used by State HCD. Recommends not deleting the term `elderly.'
44
45 No change to Housing Goals H-3 and H-4.
46
47 Planning Commission:
48 • Goal H-6, add the term `individuals' to read: Maintain a collaborative working relationship with
49 all individuals, groups and organizations dedicated to providing affordable housing in the
50 community, and ensure broad public participation in the development of housing goals and
51 policies.
52
53 Add the term `individuals' to Goal H-6.
54
55 Staff Report—Supplemental information
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 16
1 This information is not in the Housing Element Update document at this point.
2
3 Homeless Needs & Attachment 1, Proposed Language to be added to the Preliminary Draft
4 Homelessness
5
6 Staff: Attachment 1 provides information about the Buddy Eller Center (permanent homeless
7 shelter facility), the Ford Street Project transitional housing facilities, the Ford Street Project
8 supportive housing program, needs of the homeless, where can homeless facilities be
9 located, and what measures the City can take to assist the homeless over the next five years.
10
11 Recommends adding substantial language to the draft document discussion about
12 homelessness and the needs of the local homeless population; Add H-2.f to page 25 of the
13 Housing Element Update, Implementing Tasks: Conduct an analysis of the City's various
14 zoning districts to determine if there is an appropriate district for allowing homeless facilities
15 without discretionary review. (Use Permit)
16
17 Lisa Hillegas — There is a new law that has gone into effect (Government Code Section 65583)
18 requiring a homeless facilities analysis to address the adequacies of homeless emergency shelters in
19 communities. The Housing Element is required to include a program that will analyze the need,
20 assess what is available and how to proceed with meeting the need. Additionally, the Housing
21 Element needs to identify zones where an emergency shelter could be built. A zone must be
22 established to build an emergency shelter by right. If there is no such zone available, the City is
23 obligated to rezone to allow for an emergency homeless shelter. This process must be completed
24 within one year of implementing the Housing Element.
25
26 Planning Commission — Questioned page 3 of attachment 1, Needs of the Homeless, paragraph
27 that reads, `The operators and managers of the Buddy Eller Homeless Shelter do not think that
28 another `permanenY shelter is needed. While some have argued that the current permanent shelter
29 has to many rules for a number of the chronically homeless who can't stop drinking, using drugs, etc.,
30 but operating and managing an `open' facility with no rules that would allow for virtually any sort of
31 behavior may not be practical or reasonable. Additionally, it may be hard to argue that a City of
32 16,000 people needs more than 64 shelter beds' and whether this is an inconsistent statement.
33
34 Staff: Ford Street Project does not believe another permanent homeless shelter identical to the
35 Buddy Eller Homeless Shelter is necessary. There may be a need for a different type of
36 emergency shelter to serve the homeless population in this community that refuses to
37 participate in the Buddy Eller Homeless Shelter.
38
39 Lisa Hillegas — Not sure if the statement is relevant. The idea is to determine whether or not there
40 are a sufficient number of beds to serve the homeless population and if there are not enough beds to
41 house the homeless, the intent is to formulate a system that addresses this issue. The question is
42 whether there enough land to build homeless shelters and what can be done to make this happen.
43
44 Planning Commission—The number of homeless is approximately 800 persons and this information
45 is not reflected in the document demonstrating an inconsistency with being able to meet the homeless
46 needs when the only emergency homeless shelter has just 64 beds. Essentially, information is
47 missing and the gap is not clearly illustrated in this regard.
48
49 Lisa Hillegas—This may be because of the continuum of care for the homeless; every two years the
50 County has to complete a homeless count and this really the only information that is available. The
51 count essentially becomes a rough estimate based on the continuum of care data because of the
52 number of homeless serves that are offered.
53
54 There was a brief discussion about counting the number of homeless and distinguishing which are in
55 the County versus the City, noting the overlap that exists with the many services available.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 17
1 Planning Commission — Use of the existing homeless facility fluctuates from season to season.
2 When the weather is nice, the facility is not used as much so it is difficult to determine how many
3 homeless persons use the facility based on the average. Also, the facility has rules and restraints that
4 prevent use either by choice or because of policy. It is not possible to get everyone to use the facility
5 to get an idea how many homeless persons are in the area.
6
7 Staff: It may be the zoning code should be examined as an implementation measure for the first
8 year to determine if there are areas in the community where a homeless facility can be
9 allowed outright without a use permit. A Site Development Permit would be required to
10 ensure compliance with the zoning standards.
11
12 Commissioner Sanders/Helland — Is it a good idea to keep attachment 1 on page three of the staff
13 report regarding statements made by the operators/managers of the Buddy Eller Homeless Shelter
14 that assess the needs of the homeless? The statement appears to be at odds with what is realistic
15 and/or the element. Recommend eliminating the statement so the focus is on the numbers rather than
16 people's opinions.
17
18 Chair Pruden—The statement is not incorrect.
19
20 Staff: Recommends replacing the paragraph with a discussion as to how many beds are needed
21 allowing for a more neutral statement.
22
23 Chair Pruden — Qualify the statement to reflect an open facility rather than a highly managed facility
24 would likely bring out some number differentials regarding homelessness. A homeless facility should
25 be in an appropriate district that is located close to public transportation and services. How does one
26 define an appropriate district? The City has vacant parcels. The question is just because they are
27 vacant does this mean they are acceptable for a homeless facility and if they are, what makes a
28 homeless facility a good or bad choice?
29
30 Lisa Hillegas — A homeless shelter has to be zoned for the use. The County allowed homeless
31 shelters by right in any C-1, R-3 or multi-use zoning districts, but the specifics for what standards
32 would be acceptable for a homeless shelter are separate. The use may be allowed outright, but the
33 design standards must be reviewed for compliance with the zoning district. According to the statute,
34 there are also other considerations that the County or City can impose to specify the number of beds.
35 The City cannot put in obstacles to make the process harder.
36
37 Commissioner Molgaard — Alternatively, create a subparagraph to paragraph that talks about local
38 need; extrapolate into the document the approximate number of homeless in the City/County (1400)
39 stating even though an exact number is not possible. Additionally, include language that states the
40 use of the facility might change depending on its design and management.
41
42 Lisa Hillegas — The zoning can not be distinguished based on the type of homeless shelter. An
43 emergency homeless shelter is required and whether there is enough land zoned for the facility. The
44 new law states the homeless shelter must be allowed by outright without a use permit.
45
46 Planning Commission — Are there any problems with the paragraph concerning the opinion of
47 operators and managers of the Buddy Eller Homeless Shelter concerning homeless needs.
48
49 Lisa Hillegas — Currently, there is no location for a homeless shelter to be allowed by right so
50 according to the H-2.f, an analysis of the City's various zoning districts needs to be conducted to
51 determine if there is an appropriate district for a homeless shelter. A determination needs to be made
52 about the number of beds and where a homeless facility should be located. The figure will be more
53 than the 64 beds indicated are necessary by the operators/managers of the Buddy Eller Homeless
54 Shelter. This is a new law so there is very little case law established so while the need to allow for a
55 sufficient capacity is recognized, there is no real criteria that clearly defines what is an appropriate
56 district. There must be sufficient capacity to meet the need.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 18
1
2 There are requirements according to the statutes that have to be in place prior to distinguishing
3 capacity and clearly defining an `appropriate district.'
4
5 Staff: Staff has a year to review the element of`sufficient capacity' and make a decision concerning
6 an appropriate district for an emergency homeless facility.
7
8 Lisa Hillegas—What is necessary for this year is that the homeless need be analyzed and determine
9 whether there are available sites and if not have a rezone program in place. The exact details are not
10 necessary at this juncture. Look at what zoning districts currently allow for a homeless shelter use.
11
12 Staff: Recommends working with Lisa Hillegas to implement task H-2.f to reflect what is required in
13 the next year and in the future. There was discussion about the Buddy Eller Homeless
14 Shelter and development process. The City does have requirements in place regarding
15 homeless shelters.
16
17 The process would be to implement H.2.f followed by possibly formulating a homeless shelter
18 resolution that specifies the details and/or requirements.
19
20 Inclusionary Housing
21
22 Staff: Inclusionary Housing programs ensure that a specified percentage of homes in a residential
23 development are affordable and that the developments include residential units for families of
24 different incomes. Mendocino County recently adopted an Inclusinary Housing Ordinance
25 with certain requirements specified on the page 3 of the staff report. Basically, Inclusionary
26 Housing is a concept/program the City would potentially adopt that would require affordable
27 housing units in a residential development project. Accordingly, many jurisdictions have
28 adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that requires affordable housing either be
29 included in a development or fees be paid to provide for affordable housing elsewhere.
30 Referred to Attachment 2, Marin County Affordable Housing Regulations and the charging of
31 additional fees for commercial/industrial and other types of developments because of the
32 tremendous need for affordable housing in the community. The City's 2004 Housing Element
33 strongly suggested to adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. This has not been a high
34 priority primarily because it is typically a tool used for subdivisions so when people subdivide
35 land and propose housing that at least 25% of the units are affordable. Ukiah does not have
36 large residential subdivisions, often no more than a couple of lots.
37
38 Staff: It may be time to adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance because 1) the City, various
39 agencies and property owners are discussing the possibility of annexation; 2) Or, if a property
40 owner, for instance, has five acres he/she wants to develop into housing, it would beneficial
41 to have a Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in place.
42
43 Recommends the addition of H-2.g to page 25, Implementing Tasks, of the Housing Element
44 Update that states: `Assemble a Committee, including members of the public with broad
45 interests, to discuss and explore the advantages and disadvantages of inclusionary housing,
46 and possible prepare a draft inclusionary housing ordinance for Planning Commission and
47 City Council consideration.'
48
49 There was discussion concerning an Inclusionary Housing versus density bonus incentives
50 for development of affordable housing units for residential developments.
51
52 Lisa Hillegas—A developer has the choice of going with the State density bonus law, which requires
53 that a certain percentage of the development be affordable in order to quality for a density bonus. The
54 problem with the density bonus law as it presently exists is that it only requires moderate income
55 affordability and does not include the lower incomes. While an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
56 cannot require, it can provide incentives to a developer such that if very low income housing is built
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 19
1 the inclusionary percentage would be 10% as opposed to 20% for moderate. There are incentives
2 that can be built into an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. There are legislative efforts to tighten up the
3 Density Bonus Law so it is not as attractive to developers and that Inclusionary Housing Ordinances
4 will be as attractive or may be even more so.
5
6 The City does not have an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and has been looking at Mendocino
7 County's recently adopted Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. She discussed the strategies the County
8 has taken to formulate an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
9
10 Planning Commission:
11 • City Police Chief Dewey has spoken about the advantage from a crime perspective of having
12 mixed-use housing or not having neighborhoods that are all one economic group.
13 • There is also a health benefit to having mixed-income housing.
14 • H-2.g calls for a committee to look at potentially formulating an Inclusionary Housing
15 Ordinance, which would include looking at the advantages and disadvantages.
16
17 Staff: It is time to have some tools in place for future housing developments. It is beneficial to look
18 at other jurisdictions as examples to see what is occurring with housing development and the
19 formation of Inclusionary Housing Ordinances.
20
21 Commissioner Molgaard — Rather than look at the advantages and disadvantages, look at other
22 jurisdictions as examples of adopted Inclusionary Housing Ordinances.
23
24 Chair Pruden — Is not particularly supportive of inclusionary housing, but is willing to look at both the
25 pros and cons. Is an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance defined by State law or can a particular
26 jurisdiction define its own ordinance and how this would work relative to the number of affordable
27 housing units developed for the extremely low, very low, low or moderate income households in
28 conjunction with the inclusionary requirement by percentage that have to be affordable. Establishing
29 an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is a controversial matter.
30
31 Staff: The City can design its own Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
32
33 Lisa Hillegas—The City Housing Element already has an implementation task item documenting that
34 it is going to adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Implementation task H-2.g could be
35 expanded to include information about what the County has done, which is to establish a task force to
36 address affordable housing issues as well as the adoption of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
37
38 Commissioner Molgaard — Does not want H-2.g to be worded such that a committee would look at
39 the advantages and disadvantages of inclusionary housing, but rather move forward with an
40 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as stated would be done five years ago in the Housing Element to
41 include percentages based on affordability.
42
43 Staff: Proposed revised language to H-2.g: Assemble a committee, including members of the public
44 with broad interests to discuss and explore inclusionary housing including reviewing
45 examples of other jurisdictions and the 2004 City of Ukiah language and possibly prepare a
46 draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for Planning Commission and City Council
47 consideration.
48
49 Commissioner Molgaard — Recommended including language `to discuss implementation of the
50 2004 City of Ukiah Inclusionary Housing plan.'
51
52 Staff: Recommends putting the 2004 language into the 2009 Housing Element.
53
54 Commissioner Molgaard — Of the opinion, a plan for inclusionary housing would be accepted by a
55 broader group of people by way of a more thoughtful process of having different players.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 20
1 Commissioner Sanders — Questioned whether there is any Commissioner that disagrees with the
2 Mendocino County's table demonstrating the number of housing units proposed for a development
3 and the inclusionary requirement by percentage that would have to be affordable?
4
5 Commissioner Molgaard/Sanders/Helland—agree; Chair Pruden —disagree;
6
7 Staff: Staff will work with Lisa Hillegas and review what the County has done with its adopted
8 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and implementation for continued discussion by the Planning
9 Commission as to other options. Exploration of the Inclusionary Housing concepts is an
10 effective approach.
11
12 Housing Impact Fee — A number of jurisdictions have adopted housing impact fees as a way to
13 generate revenue for affordable housing project. The fees are levied on residential and commercial
14 developments.
15
16 Attachment 2 of the Staff report provides an example of an Affordable Housing Impact Fee program
17 for Marin County.
18
19 Staff: Recommends the addition of H-2.h to page 25 of the Implementation Tasks for the Housing
20 Element. H-2.h: Assemble a committee, including members of the public with broad interests
21 to explore and discuss the concept of an affordable housing impact fee.
22
23 The Commission discussed the Marin Program Housing Impact Fee on page 2 of the Attachment 2.
24
25 Pages 23-39 of the Housing Element address housing goals and policies relative to identification of
26 the policy, policies to support the goals, implementation tasks and methods for tracking the progress.
27
28 Planning Commission consensus — It has been become apparent relative to the above-referenced
29 discussion that the Planning Commission needs more time to fully be able to comment and provide
30 input concerning the 2009 Housing Element Update.
31
32 Commissioner Sanders— Provided the Commission with the results of her self-guided tour of single
33 family houses converted to offices within a two block radius of City Hall to include W. Clay Street, S.
34 School Street, and S. Dora Street.
35
36 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
37 1. The CALSTAR appeal will be considered by City Council on October 21, 2009.
38 2. The Grocery Outlet has filed an appeal that relates to the loss of the four parking spaces that
39 front N. State Street.
40
41 11. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
42 Chair Pruden—Reminded the Commission Pumpkinfest is this weekend.
43
44 12. ADJOURNMENT
45 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:57p.m.
46
47
48 Judy Pruden, Chair
49
50 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
51
52
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2009
Page 21