HomeMy WebLinkAbout05232012 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
May 23, 2012
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
UKIAH CIVIC CENTER, 300 SEMINARY AVENUE
2. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS BRENNER, DOBLE, SANDERS,
WHETZEL, AND CHAIRPERSON PRUDEN
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the April 11, 2012 meeting are available for review and approval.
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The Planning Commission welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to
be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more
than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be
taken on audience comments.
6. APPEAL PROCESS
All determinations of the Planning Commission regarding major discretionary planning
permits and associated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determinations are
final unless a written appeal, stating the reasons for the appeal, is filed with the City
Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. An interested party may
appeal only if he or she appeared and stated his or her position during the hearing on
the decision from which the appeal is taken. There are no appealable items on this
agenda.
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. 528 North State Street Mixed Use Development Pre-Application Review
File No. 11-09-UP-SDP-PC: Conduct a pre-application review of a mixed-use
project at 528 North State Street, APN 002-146-11. The project would include
seven one bedroom apartments, five single-room occupancy units, 509 square
feet of commercial space, and 12 parking spaces.
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours
in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.
The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities
upon request. Please call (707)463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
12. ADJOURNMENT
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours
in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.
The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities
upon request. Please call (707)463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 April 11, 2012
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Jason Brenner
8 Kevin Doble
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
15 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
16 David Rapport, City Attorney
17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
18
19 1. CALL TO ORDER
20 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
21 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
22 Ukiah, California.
23
24 2. ROLL CALL
25
26 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
27
28 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the March 14, 2012 are included for review and
29 approval.
30
31 The Commission made the following corrections to the March 14, 2012 minutes:
32
33 Commissioner poble:
34 • Page 4, line 10, change `DAD' to `ADA.'
35 • Page 5, line 51, change `southwesY to `southeast.'
36
37 Commissioner Sanders:
38 • Page 22, line 45, change sentence to read, `It is important that we keep our powntown because it
39 is the heart of our community.'
40
41 Chair Pruden:
42 • Page 21, line 17, change `3' to '4.
43
44 M/S Sanders/Doble to approve March 14, 2012 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (5-0).
45
46 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
47
48 Mike Petersen:
49 • Inquired about the status of the Palace Hotel restoration.
50 • Has noticed scaffolding outside of the structure.
51
52 Chair Pruden:
53 • Is on the committee that is working directly with the owner and two City Councilmembers.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 1
1 • The contractor should have or is in the process of applying for an encroachment permit. If there is
2 scaffolding on the sidewalk, this is an indication the appropriate encroachment permit has been
3 obtained.
4 • A business license is required of the contractor to operate in the City of Ukiah.
5 • A building permit will also be required for some of the demolition work.
6 • The contractor must also comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District
7 standards for clearance regarding possible asbestos in the historic plaster contained within the
8 building as part of the abatement process.
9 • The building owner and contractor are abating the building issues identified by the City Building
10 and Planning Department.
11
12 Mike Petersen: Supports denial of the Walmart Expansion Project.
13
14 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
15 the final day to appeal is Monday, April 23, 2012 at 5:00 p.m..
16
17 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
18
19 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
20
21 9. PUBLIC HEARING
22 9A. Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit and Statement of Overriding
23 Considerations (File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC and 09-42-EIR-PC). Planning Commission
24 consideration and possible adoption of a Resolution to deny the Walmart Expansion Project 1)
25 Major Site Development Permit and associated landscaping modification, and 2) Statement of
26 Overriding Considerations.
27 The Project is located at 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38, in the Airport Industrial
28 Park Planned Development (AIP PD). The Project proposes a 47,621 square foot expansion of
29 the existing 109,030 square foot store, for a total square footage of 156,651 to include expanded
30 general merchandise floor area and expanded grocery sales floor area, indoor and outdoor
31 garden centers, as well as the possibility of distilled alcohol sales, and a medical clinic and/or
32 vision center on a 13.44 acre site. The Project would remove the Tire and Lube Express. Also
33 included as part of the Project is a change in store hours to 24 hours per day, seven days per
34 week, modifications to the design of the exterior of the building, the addition of new parking
35 spades, modifications to the landscaping, and other associated site improvements.
36 The proposed Project requires approval of a Major Site Development Permit, two modifications to
37 the AIP PD landscaping requirements, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
38 As part of the Major Site Development Permit, the Planning Commission will consider the
39 applicanYs request for approval of modifications to the AIP PD landscaping requirements for
40 landscaping lot coverage and shade coverage. Approval of the Project would also require a
41 Statement of Overriding Consideration for the significant and unavoidable Traffic impacts
42 identified in the Walmart Expansion EIR.
43 This item was continued from the November 9, 2011, December 14, 2011, January 11, 2012,
44 January 25, 2012, February 8, 2012, and March 14, 2012 Planning Commission meetings.
45
46 Planning Director Stump:
47 • The intent of tonight's Planning Commission meeting is to consider a resolution that the
48 Commission directed staff to prepare to deny the Major Site Development Permit for the Walmart
49 Expansion Project.
50 • Planning staff worked very closely with the City Attorney to prepare the Resolution.
51 • Any testimony tonight should be focused purely on the Resolution itself.
52
53 Senior Planner Jordan:
54 • The draft Resolution includes the benefits of the Project based on Commission comments and
55 other comments in the administrative record, the findings for denial related to inconsistency with
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 2
1 the General Plan, inconsistency with AIP Ordinance 1098 requirement to provide 20%
2 landscaping coverage, inability of the Commission to approve the modification to the requirement
3 for 20% landscaping coverage, and the findings for denial of the Statement of Overriding
4 Considerations.
5 • Staff is requesting the Commission review and make any necessary revisions to the draft
6 Resolution and hopefully adopt the Resolution.
7
8 Chair Pruden advised tonight the public can only comment on the `Resolution of the Planning
9 Commission of the City of Ukiah Making Findings Pursuant to Ukiah City Code Section 9263D in
10 Connection With the Denial of the Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit, Landscaping
11 Modification, and Statement of Overriding Considerations and asked the commenters to refer to page and
12 line number(s) in regards to the Resolution.
13
14 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:09 p.m.
15
16 Danny Jacques referred to pages 2 & 3, section 1A, The proposal is not consistent with the goals,
17 objectives and policies of the City of Ukiah General Plan. The Walmart Expansion Project is not
18 consistent with General Plan Economic Development Goal ED-1: Support a strong local economy.
19 Subsection 1)The Ukiah area is adequately served by existing grocery stores which include conventional
20 (Safeway, Lucky, Raley's) discount (FoodMaxx and Grocery Outlet) ........ and paragraph 3) that
21 addresses the issue of wages:
22 • It will likely be at least two years before the Expansion Project is completed and questioned why
23 there is concern for the grocery stores documented as possibly closing relative to market
24 conditions two years from now. Fails to see the connection between the Expansion Project and
25 what the market conditions would be two years from now. It may be the stores in possible
26 jeopardy of closing would go out of business regardless of whether Walmart expanded.
27 • Understands approval of the Walmart Expansion would generate added competition between the
28 various grocery stores and highly supports the concept of`free enterprise' as a good thing.
29 • Commissioner Brenner stated he could not support the Project because of the fear that local
30 grocery stores would go out of business and questioned this logic when the Walmart Expansion
31 would be generating new jobs for the community.Walmart provides descent jobs and wages.
32 • Expressed concern the Project would not move forward based on the testimony of two grocery
33 managers fearing their store will close as a result of the Project.
34
35 Chair Pruden:
36 • Advised Mr. Jacques was off the subject of the Resolution.
37 • Stated possible denial of the Expansion Project is based on the facts and figures from the
38 information provided in the EIR, the Fiscal Impact Report and other relevant documents that
39 have been submitted during the review process.
40
41 Danny Jacques:
42 • Again, the Expansion Project will provide more jobs in the community regardless of wages.
43 • There are no jobs in this community.
44 • Asked the Commission to reconsider denial of the Project. What is the problem with
45 competition?Walmart is a department store with many facets and services.
46
47 Chair Pruden: Asked the commenters to stay on the topic of the Resolution.
48
49 Jim Stopler
50 • Commended the Commission and staff for formulating an excellent Resolution with appropriate
51 findings that adequately support the will of the community in denying the Project.
52 • Page 3, with regard to GP Economic Development Goal ED-1, Support a strong local economy,
53 concurs that `The Ukiah area is adequately served by the existing grocery stores which include
54 conventional (Safeway, Lucky, Raley's), discount (FoodMaxx and Grocery Outlet), ethnic
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 3
1 (Chavez Market), and specialty (Ukiah Natural Foods) grocery stores (Draft EIR, Appendix D.
2 page 29, Table 8).'
3 • Page 15, line 9, subsection 9, `The Project could result in the loss of a full service grocery within
4 walking distance of a lower income neighborhood' and thanked the Commission for working for
5 Ukiah and making it a special place.
6
7 Thomas Clay: Referred to page 3, subsections 1 & 2, and noted while not really familiar with EIR's,
8 questions what an EIR has anything to do with operating a business that sells groceries and other
9 merchandise. Not allowing for an expansion of a business is ludicrous because it is not an environmental
10 impact.
11
12 Chair Pruden: California law requires the preparation of an EIR for certain projects. One section in the
13 EIR concerns the issue of 'Economic Decay' and the corresponding statistics in this document indicate
14 the Project, as proposed, would not be good for the community.
15
16 Commissioner poble:
17 • The finding related to GP Goal ED-1 does not pertain to environmental impacts, but rather that
18 the Commission is required to make a finding concerning consistency with the General Plan. The
19 Commission was asked the question does the Project support a strong local economy and the
20 Commission answered this question in a way that is documented as part of the public record for
21 the Walmart Expansion Project.
22 • Agreed with Mr. Clay that the finding concerning economic development and General Plan
23 consistency is not an environmental impact, but it is a subject the Commission is required to
24 consider.
25
26 Thomas Clay: Questioned then why with regard to page 3, lines 4-7 this is referenced in the draft EIR?
27
28 Chair Pruden: This is because it is part of the EIR as it relates to the `Economic Decay' element that
29 identifies all the economic impacts that could occur for the Project. The State of California determines
30 what information must be in an EIR.
31
32 Commissioner poble: The economic analysis provides the Commission with the necessary information
33 to make decisions about the Project.
34
35 Thomas Clay:
36 • Read in the local newspaper concerning the Project analysis where a Planning Commissioner
37 stated he could not vote in favor of the Project because his neighbor might lose his home. Does
38 not believe this is part of the EIR.
39 • The job of the Planning Commission is to make important decisions for the good of the
40 community so for a Commissioner to make such a frivolous comment is improper.
41
42 Chair Pruden: Asked Mr. Clay if had attended any of the numerous Commission meetings regarding the
43 Walmart Expansion Project.
44
45 Thomas Clay: Read and watched a lot on the process.
46
47 Commissioner poble: Asked if Mr. Clay read the minutes from the March 14, 2012 Planning
48 Commission meeting or if he only read the newspaper because the newspaper information is fairly
49 inaccurate.
50
51 Thomas Clay: Has been keeping informed.
52
53 Chair Pruden: Mr. Clay's contention is essentially out of context with the full process of hearings
54 consisting of four or five hours each that the Commission spent listening to public dialogue and giving
55 consideration to the documents prepared for analysis of the project.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 4
1 Thomas Clay:
2 • Is of the opinion his point regarding what a Commissioner said is not out of context.
3 • Is not necessarily a Walmart fan one way or the other.
4 • Referred to page 3, line 17, subsection 2, 'As many as three grocery stores (Lucky, Grocery
5 Outlet, and FoodMaxx) could close as a result of the Project along with future development (Draft
6 EIR, pages 4.3-16 and 4.3-20).
7
8 Commissioner Brenner: This line pertains to the EIR suggesting that three grocery stores could be put
9 out of business.
10
11 Thomas Clay: Referred then to page 3, line 28, subsection 3, and noted this subsection talks a lot about
12 wages in which there is some misinformation. Is of the opinion, this misinformation should be rectified.
13
14 Chair Pruden: Asked if Mr. Clay has the proof or fact the information in this subsection is inaccurate.
15
16 Thomas Clay:
17 • His wife works for Walmart.
18 • Does not care if Walmart exists or not.
19 • His issue is competition should not be stifled.
20 • If a person is worried about losing his/herjob, this is competition.
21
22 Chair Pruden: The Commission is not here to debate philosophical viewpoints about economics.
23
24 Thomas Clay: With regard to wages, subsection 3 states, lines 35-37, `Based on information provided
25 as part of the administrative record, the average hourly full-time wage for Walmart is $12.61 and partial
26 medical benefits are provided.' Advised in addition to profit sharing Walmart employees get sick leave,
27 personal and vacation time and other benefits. These aspects should be recognized.
28
29 Commissioner Brenner: Is there any information in subsection 3 that Mr. Clay finds to be inaccurate?
30
31 Thomas Clay: Referred to page 3, line 37 that provides wage/benefit information.
32
33 Commissioner Brenner: This was information that was given to the Planning Commission by a Walmart
34 representative.
35
36 Thomas Clay: Noted this representative did not disclose the full information.
37
38 Senior Planner Jordan:
39 • All the information contained in the Resolution is supported by information in the administrative
40 record. To this end, many of the sentences refer to the administrative record and/or references
41 the draft EIR, which is where the information that supports the findings comes from.
42 • Accordingly, all of the figures cited in the Resolution are supported by information provided by the
43 public and/or EIR consultants as part of the public review process.
44
45 Thomas Clay: Is of the opinion the information is false. There are inaccuracies with regard to the section
46 on wages.
47
48 Senior Planner Jordan: This is the information City staff/Commission had to work with as part of the
49 administrative record.
50
51 Chair Pruden:
52 • Asked Mr. Clay to refrain from demeaning staff:
53 • The information contains no inaccuracies.
54 • Advised Mr. Clay that he has offered `nothing' to substantiate the so called inaccuracies other
55 than voice his opinion.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 5
1 Thomas Clay: Does not know of any employee other than part-time at Walmart that gets anything less
2 than $12.61 an hour and partial benefits.
3
4 Chair Pruden: Inquired whether Mr. Clay was asking to modify the language to include `partial medical
5 benefits and other benefits?'
6
7 Thomas Clay: The subsection that talks about wages/benefits for Walmart and other local grocery stores
8 that could close, notes that Walmart pays partial benefits.
9
10 Chair Pruden: The Planning Commission repeatedly asked Walmart to provide information on benefits
11 and wages for Ukiah Walmart employees and this information was never furnished. Instead, Walmart said
12 this information is proprietary in nature so the Commission has had to operate on what the Walmart
13 corporation furnished.
14
15 Thomas Clay: Everyone knows Walmart employees receive benefits. This is not private information.
16
17 Chair Pruden: Asked what Mr. Clay would like line 37 to state.
18
19 Thomas Clay: The information should state that Walmart employees do receive a benefit a package. It
20 is not necessary to disclose what is in that benefit package. There is wage/benefit information about
21 Grocery Outlet, Lucky, and FoodMaxx, but not for Walmart.
22
23 Chair Pruden: The Commission has asked for detailed information about wage/benefit program for Ukiah
24 Walmart employees from several Walmart representatives, but it was not provided.
25
26 Commissioner poble:
27 • To clarify, the information in the document Resolution is based on over 30 hours of public
28 comments and documents submitted to the Commission for review.
29 • This is information the Commission has to make a decision on.
30 • Asked if Mr. Clay were introducing something new and/or additional information to the public
31 record on the subject of wage and benefits? If so, can information be provided that can be
32 substantiated in this regard?
33 • Asked Mr. Clay if he could tell the Commission what the average hourly wage is for Ukiah
34 Walmart employees?
35
36 Thomas Clay: Cannot provide this information because no one is going to disclose this and `it is none of
37 your business.' Offered his personal opinion and knows for sure Walmart offers shared benefits to its
38 employees, but Walmart will not disclose how much a particular person makes an hour because this
39 would break the privacy law.
40
41 Commissioner poble: Should line 37 include language `partial medical benefits and additional benefits
42 package.'
43
44 Chair Pruden: There are no facts substantiating what the benefit package is other than one person's
45 opinion.
46
47 Commissioner Sanders: Is of the opinion, the Commission should not be changing the document at this
48 time.
49
50 Thomas Clay:
51 • Questioned Planning Commission decision-making practices and procedural approach for review
52 of projects. What does `planning' have to do with economics? The Planning Commission should
53 not be making economic decisions.
54 • Planning Commission should be making decisions about construction, safety, and the overall
55 project design, but not commerce.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 6
1 Ernie Olsen:
2 • Referred to page 1, line 22, subsection 3, `The EIR identified significant and unavoidable
3 Transportation and Traffic impacts related t the Walmart Expansion Project,' and commented on
4 a local newspaper article that stated the cost for traffic improvements at the Talmage
5 Road/Airport Park Boulevard interchange would be $2.89 million, which the City stated it could
6 pay for with proceeds from the sale of bonds.
7 • Is it correct that the City authorized an amount it could not pay?
8
9 Chair Pruden: It is her understanding, this is theoretical.
10
11 City Attorney Rapport:
12 • The matter of traffic improvements came up in the context of whether this could be included in the
13 EIR at this point.
14 • The EIR has already been certified so this would require re-opening the EIR and potentially re-
15 circulating it. The response to this was the City Council put the traffic improvement project in what
16 is called a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that was adopted and designated the proceeds of
17 those bonds as the source of funds to pay for that project.
18 • The use of those funds for the intended purpose of traffic improvements has not received final
19 approval at this stage.
20 • The design the engineers have proposed for the improvements has not been approved by
21 Caltrans and this must be done before the improvements can be constructed.
22 • Until the two uncertainties referenced above are resolved favorably, there is not a sufficient
23 factual basis to re-open the EIR.
24 • The advice to the Planning Commission is not to consider re-opening the EIR.
25
26 Ernie Olsen:
27 • Commented on a public statement he made the editor of the newspaper and corrected the
28 statistical figure from 2,600 to 26,000 shoppers surveyed regarding a recent issue of Consumer
29 Report that talks about the best big box stores in the United States that are ranked as follows:
30 Costco, Kohl's, JC Penney, ...... and the bottom three include Sam's Club, Kmart, and Walmart.
31 • Encourages the public and Commission to read this article.
32
33 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:35 p.m.
34
35 It was the consensus of the Commission to review the proposed Resolution, page by page.
36
37 Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Ukiah Making Findings Pursuant to Ukiah
38 City Code Section 9263D in Connection with the Denial of the Walmart Expansion Project Site
39 Development Permit, Landscaping Modification, and Statement of Overriding Considerations:
40
41 Paqe 1
42 Commission:
43 No comments/changes.
44
45 Paqe 2
46 Commission:
47 No comments/changes.
48
49 Paqe 3
50 Commission discussion whether or not to modify line 37 to include `other benefits.'
51
52 Commissioner Sanders:
53 • Did not favor modifying line 37.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 7
1 • Supports adding language to line 15 in subsection 1 that reads, 'the corporate offices for Lucky,
2 FoodMaxx, Grocery Outlet, Raley's are all located in the State of California.' The rationale would
3 be that this is another indicator of supporting a local economy.
4
5 Commission:
6 Flag the aforementioned recommendation.
7
8 Generally does not support modifying line 37.
9
10 Paqe 4
11 Chair Pruden: Regarding the urban decay element in subsection 5, is it necessary to clarify that the
12 increase in police and fire calls to the Project site would be 25°/o? It is understood there would be an
13 increase but no percentage has been indicated.
14
15 Commission:
16 Flag to consider adding a percentage associated with the increase in the number of City police and fire
17 calls to the Project site that would state, `The City police department anticipates a 25% increase in calls
18 with expanded hours of operation.
19
20 No other comments/changes.
21
22 Paqe 5
23 Commission:
24 No comments/changes.
25
26 Page 6
27 Commission:
28 No comments/changes.
29
30 Page 7
31 Commissioner Sanders:
32 • Referred to line 17 and 18, `The EIR identified improvements to the intersection of the Highway
33 101 southbound intersection with Talmage Road that would mitigate the impacts identified above'
34 and would like to change 'would' to `may.' The reason for this is the roundabout does not appear
35 to be a viable option that was offered as a mitigation.
36 • Referred to lines 27 & 28, that reads, `The Project would provide temporary construction jobs and
37 85-full-time and part-time jobs' and recommends striking `temporary construction jobs' because it
38 is not known if those jobs would be offered to local persons. The modified sentence would read,
39 'The Project would provide 85 full-time and part-time jobs.'
40
41 Commissioner Whetzel: The Project would provide construction jobs no matter what.
42
43 Chair Pruden: The rationale is that we have no idea whether those jobs are going to be local hire or not.
44
45 Commissioner Whetzel:
46 • The language simply states the Project would provide for construction jobs for whomever.
47 • Does not have a problem with the way the sentence is written.
48
49 Commissioner poble: Would support the way the sentence is currently written only because it is a fact
50 jobs will be created with the construction of the Project.
51
52 Chair Pruden:
53 • The sentence could be modified to read, `The Project would provide temporary construction jobs.'
54 • Separate the sentence into two sentences and add another sentence to read, `There will be 85
55 full-time and part-time jobs after completion.'
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 8
1 City Attorney Rapport:
2 • It is not known who will have these jobs as to whether they are local or not.
3 • All the language is saying is that new jobs will be created.
4 • How is the Commission defining `local?' It is someone who lives in the City of Ukiah, Willits,
5 Lakeport or a city relatively close to Ukiah, for instance?
6
7 Commissioner poble:
8 • Supports how the sentence is currently written as it definitely speaks to what the situation is.
9 • Defining local/non-local is not likely an area the Commission should go.
10
11 Commission:
12 No other comments/recommendations/modifications.
13
14 Paqe 8
15 Commissioner Sanders:
16 • Referred to line 8, change 'ProjecY to `applicant.'
17
18 Commission:
19 Flag the aforementioned recommendation.
20 No other comments/changes.
21
22 Paqe 9
23 Commissioner poble:
24 • Referred to lines 33 & 34 and noted the wording regarding 'Class II bicycle lane' is correct.
25 • Is fine with the rationale pertinent to line 39, subsection 9, regarding `The Project would improve
26 storm water treatment and detention on the Project site.'
27
28 Commission:
29 No other comments/changes.
30
31 Paqe10
32 Commission:
33 No comments/changes.
34
35 Paqe11
36 Commission:
37 No comments/changes.
38
39 Paqe 12
40 Commission:
41 No comments/changes.
42
43 Paqe13
44 Commission:
45 No comments/changes.
46
47 Paqe 14
48 Commissioner Sanders:
49 • Referred to line 35, subsection 8, `The City has existing 24 hour shopping opportunities,' and
50 requested clarification thereof. On page 9 of the December 14, 2011 Planning Commission
51 minutes there was discussion related to the draft EIR and comments from Brian Grattidge of ESA
52 that indicate `under the No Project alternative, the proposed Project would not be undertaken and
53 no development would occur on the site. The existing store and its associated parking,
54 landscaping, and other infrastructure would remain in its current condition. Hours of operation
55 would remain as 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., seven days a week and no grocery sales would occur.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 9
1 Consideration of a No Project alternative is required under CEQA. The purpose of describing and
2 analyzing a No Project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impact of approving
3 the proposed Project with the impacts of not approving the proposed Project.' There is a
4 statement at the end of page 9, line 52, that states, `It is true Walmart could sell groceries today,
5 but not operate 24/7. This would constitute the primary difference between a No Project
6 alternative and a No Footprint Expansion alternative.'
7 • Should Walmart put in their grocery store using the existing building footprint without expansion
8 approval, they would be allowed to sell groceries and be open 24 hours a day.
9
10 Senior Planner Jordan:
11 • If the Planning Commission denies the Project, Walmart has the ability within the existing building
12 footprint to sell groceries as well as the ability to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The
13 City does not have an ordinance that restricts the hours of operation. There is nothing in the
14 original site development permit approval or EIR that limits WalmarYs hours of operation.
15 Safeway and FoodMaxx currently operate 24/7.
16
17 Commission:
18 No other comments/changes.
19
20 Paqe15
21 Commission:
22 No comments/changes.
23
24 General Plan Consistencv
25 The majority of the Commissioners determined the Project was not consistent with General Plan Goal
26 ED-1. Based on this determination and the comments provided by the Commission, staff prepared draft
27 findings for denial as provided for on pages 2-4 of the Resolution.
28
29 City Attorney Rapport commented on the issue of General Plan Consistency:
30 • Provided comments regarding the finding that the Project is inconsistent with the Ukiah General
31 Plan.
32 • Added Senior Planner Jordan did a great job drafting the findings in the Resolution to deny the
33 Project.
34 • Findings were included that the Project is not consistent with goals, objectives, and policies of the
35 City of Ukiah General Plan, specific to General Plan Economic Development Goal ED-1: Support
36 a strong local economy.
37 • The City Council interprets the Ukiah General Plan.
38 • The statement, `supports a local economy' by itself justifies the kind of economic analysis that the
39 Planning Commission used to decide the Project is inconsistent with General Plan Economic
40 Development Goal ED-1. The policies underneath Goal ED-1 may reveal the goal does not apply
41 to the Project. Looking at the context of the whole economic development element, the focus is
42 on promoting manufacturing and agricultural uses rather than retail/commercial uses. Retail uses
43 are considered to provide jobs that pay less and do not contribute as much to the local economy
44 as other types of uses/businesses. There are a number of findings in the finding section which
45 support that concept. However, the element recognizes that retail is likely to contribute the most
46 new jobs to the economy and states `the addition of Walmart and other proposed major retailer
47 expansions will add hundreds of new trade positions.'
48 • The policies in place to implement Goal ED-1 do not specifically address analyzing what the
49 economic impacts of a specific business would be on another business in the job market.
50 The intent of the associated policies is to maintain the current economic development strategy by
51 continuing to carry out redevelopment/economic development plans, the Downtown Master Plan,
52 and coordinate with the County to promote agriculture, particularly the wine industry. The content
53 of the whole economic development element really focuses on trying to promote `certain things.'
54 There is nothing in the policies that says we want to look at the economic impacts of a specific
55 business.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 10
1 • Planning staff has indicated the aforementioned approach of looking at the potential economic
2 impacts of a specific business is a consistent practice that has been applied to other projects
3 reviewed by the Commission.
4 • Is not advocating this approach is wrong, but rather questions if this is really what the General
5 Plan intended. Wanted to make this part of the record because in the event there is an appeal, he
6 will be expressing his opinion in this regard to Council, which will ultimately decide whether the
7 Commission is right or not on an appeal.
8 • Wanted the Commission to be aware he has questions regarding the statement that the Project is
9 not consistent with General Plan Goal ED-1, 'Support a strong local economy', and whether the
10 intent of the goal was to invite this kind of assessment of an individual business or project.
11
12 Chair Pruden: The Planning Commission has been asked to find consistency with the General Plan for
13 projects as part of the planning process.
14
15 City Attorney Rapport:
16 • Understands the Commission is not singling Walmart out since this goal has been applied
17 repeatedly for other projects.
18 • Does not know whether this aspect has ever come before City Council for an appeal to a prior
19 decision where the Commission made the determination a project was not consistent with the
20 General Plan based on GP Goal ED-1 specific to the economic development element. This may
21 be a policy issue that will come to Council for the first time.
22
23 Planning Director Stump: The only project he can recall that came to Council on appeal involving a
24 General Plan consistency issue was the Safeway gas station project and it did not involve this particular
25 goal or set of policies.
26
27 Chair Pruden: The intent of the process regarding the economic development element of Goal ED-1
28 was to strengthen/maintain the Downtown core and to make sure it does not erode. There is a reasonable
29 amount of narrative in the economic development chapter to make certain the Downtown is `not eroded'
30 with increasing peripheral properties.
31
32 City Attorney Rapport: What is stated in the general plab terms of economic development associated
33 with GP Goal ED-1 is that small businesses should be encouraged to develop in the Downtown and
34 expresses strong support for the Downtown Master Plan.
35
36 Chair Pruden: Looking at the context of the goal is a matter of interpretation and how one views it when
37 reading it. Is probably looking at the goal from the standpoint of the full discussion about the concept of
38 economic development.
39
40 City Attorney Rapport:
41 • In the end, it will be City Council that would make a determination regarding an interpretation
42 should it come to that.
43 • It would provide for an interesting discussion at best.
44 • Much of the same analysis the Commission has used in deciding the Expansion Project is
45 inconsistent with GP Goal ED-1 was also used in the decision not to make a Finding of Overriding
46 Considerations when having to balance the benefits of the project against the environmental
47 risks.
48 • Even if the Commission were to strike the entire section on General Plan inconsistency, there
49 essentially exists the same analysis in the Resolution justifying why the findings for the Statement
50 of Overriding Considerations cannot be made.
51
52 Chair Pruden: Acknowledged the aforementioned statement and noted striking the entire section on
53 General Plan inconsistency will not change the Commission's decision about the project other than
54 generate a discussion at a larger level.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 11
1 Commissioner Sanders: Asked the City Attorney if he agrees with the list of findings in the Resolution
2 to support denial of the Project.
3
4 City Attorney Rapport:
5 • Other than recommending a few minor additions to the Resolution that were incorporated into the
6 document, Planning staff did an excellent job in the preparation of this document.
7 • If the Commission is going to determine that Goal ED-1 relevant to the economic development
8 element must support a strong local economy, this is interpreted to mean looking at the business
9 and its potential impact on other businesses.
10 • Is only questioning whether the General Plan invites the kind of interpretation/assessment
11 concerning whether or not a particular business is consistent with the economic development
12 element Goal ED-1, support a strong local economy. This may be a policy issue intended for
13 further discussion.
14 • Is of the opinion the findings in the Resolution are accurate and support the analysis for denial.
15
16 The Commission discussed the suggestions made above concerning the Resolution as follows:
17
18 Page 3
19 Should the corporate headquarters for the companies listed on page 3 of the Resolution reflect they are
20 located in the State of California?
21
22 City Attorney Rapport: Is of the opinion it would be a mistake to invite this type of issue or imply the
23 Commission is favoring businesses should have their principle corporate offices in-state as opposed to
24 out-of-state. The Supreme Court will be looking at the issue of corporate headquarters (in-state versus
25 out-of-state)and interpreting what this means.
26
27 Commission: There is not substantial/documentation to include additional language, `there are other
28 benefits packages' to line 37 as discussed above.
29
30 City Attorney Rapport: It is also a technical issue in that the Planning Commission closed the public
31 hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence in which to base a decision on. TonighYs discussion is
32 about review of the Resolution in an attempt to marshal that evidence in support of the findings for denial.
33 Is of the opinion, no new information/evidence has been introduced that has not already been discussed
34 during the public hearings and does not support re-opening the public hearing to take additional evidence.
35
36 Commission consensus:
37 No change to text.
38
39 Paqe 4
40 Subsection 5 says police and fire calls to the Project site are primarily related to transient activity in the
41 parking lot, including panhandling, camping, loitering, alcohol consumption, and other disturbances (Draft
42 EIR, page 4.9-1). In 2009 police and fire calls to the Ukiah Walmart increased to 744 incidents from 472
43 in 2008 and 402 in 2007 (email from Captain Trent Taylor dated July 21, 2010). Expanding the hours to
44 24 hours per day, seven days per week is anticipated to increase police and fire calls to the Project site.
45 This anticipated increase in calls could eliminate any net increase in revenue to the General Fund which
46 would also be inconsistent with Economic Development Policy ED-1.1: take steps to reinforce the Valley's
47 economy.
48
49 While the bottom line is increased police calls to the Project site would affect the General Fund as
50 documented in one of the reports, the Commission is of the opinion it is likely not necessary to
51 substantiate the increase in police and fire calls that would occur at Project site is 25°/o. The
52 understanding is that the increase reported would not have to be substantiated by a percentage.
53
54 Senior Planner Jordan: Added, calling out that the increase in the number of police calls is `25%' does
55 not change the finding that there would be an increase in police calls as a result of the Expansion Project
56 and does not make the finding stronger.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 12
1 The Commission agreed the percentage does not change the statement that there would an increase in
2 police calls to Project site.
3
4 Commission consensus:
5 No change to text.
6
7 Page 7
8 Line 18, the recommendation is to change `would' mitigate to `may' mitigate.
9
10 City Attorney Rapport: The EIR did indicate `would mitigate' and the EIR has been certified.
11
12 Commission consensus:
13 No change to text.
14
15 Paqe 8
16 Line 8, the recommendation is to change `ProjecY to `applicanY for the sentence that currently reads, `If
17 the City established the fee for this improvement prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project would
18 be required to pay its proportional fair share of the improvements to the intersection of Highway 101
19 southbound off ramp to Talmage Road.'
20
21 Senior Planner Jordan: The reason the sentence refers to `Project' is technically speaking TAIT and
22 Associates were identified as the applicant for this Project as opposed to Walmart.
23
24 City Attorney Rapport: The term is appropriate. If Walmart were to sell this property the entitlement
25 would not change, therefore, reference to 'Project' would be appropriate.
26
27 Commission consensus:
28 No change to text.
29
30 Commission comments:
31
32 Commissioner Sanders supports approval of the Resolution noting it to be very comprehensive and
33 reflects the direction given to staff by the Commission. Planning staff did a great job drafting the
34 Resolution.
35
36 Commissioner poble: Planning staff did a great job formulating a Resolution based on what the
37 Commission was trying to articulate.
38
39 Commissioner Whetzel:
40 • Has some concerns about the use of General Plan goals to assess an individual business.
41 • Cannot support approval of the Resolution because of how certain General Plan consistency
42 sections were applied an individual business in the context of how that business would
43 economically affect other businesses.
44 • Is of the opinion these sections do not apply as used in the denial of the Project.
45 • Interprets GP Economic Development Goal ED-1 differently than the rest of the Commission.
46
47 Chair Pruden:
48 • Pointed out that GP Economic Development Goal ED-1 may be topic of future discussion as to
49 how this goal should be interpreted.
50 • Noted in California 'Planning' is a privilege, not a right such that the entire picture and/or merits of
51 the project must be reviewed and studied as to how projects affect our communities.
52
53 Commissioner Brenner and Chair Pruden also thanked Planning staff for their hard and diligent work
54 on the Walmart Expansion Project and support approval of the Resolution.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 13
1 M/S Sanders/Doble to approve Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Ukiah Making
2 Findings Pursuant to Ukiah City Code Section 9263D in Connection with the Denial of the Walmart
3 Expansion Project Site Development Permit, Landscaping Modification, and Statement of Overriding
4 Considerations, as submitted. Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
5
6 AYES: Commissioners Doble, Sanders, Brenner, Chair Pruden
7 NOES: Commissioner Whetzel
8
9 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
10 Planning Director Stump:
11 • Reported on recent Zoning Administrator projects.
12 • At the regular April 18 meeting City Council will consider updating the City of Ukiah Master Tree
13 List, receive a report from the City Council Palace Hotel Ad-Hoc Committee, and hopefully certify
14 the Final EIR and introduce The Single Use Carry-Out Bag Ordinance.
15 • Provided an update on the Costco and DZC project.
16 • Consideration is being given to establish the Design Review Board as a City of Ukiah Design
17 Review Board rather than a Redevelopment Agency Design Review Board, since the RDA is no
18 longer in existence. This matter will be coming to City Council shortly.
19 • Monitoring of the building permit review process indicates for the first and second quarters of this
20 fiscal year, July 1, 2011 through December 1, 2011, the Building Department was 90% successful
21 in turning around building permits timely. For the period January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2012,
22 there was a 95%turn around.
23 • The City and County is embarking on grant appropriations to create a GHG emissions plan.
24
25 Chair Pruden: Is there a `kick off' date established for the Bike and Pedestrian Trail as when the project
26 will be started.
27
28 Planning Director Stump: Does not have that information at this point.
29
30 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
31 The Commissioners once again expressed appreciation to the Planning Department for all the work
32 required to be done for the Walmart Expansion Project.
33
34 Commissioner Whetzel has received complaints about the height of the hedges that border Orchard
35 Avenue in the vicinity of Kohl's and asked who is responsible for trimming them as a safety precaution.
36
37 Planning staff will check into the matter.
38
39 12. ADJOURNMENT
40 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m.
41
42
43 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
44
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 2012
Page 14
1 ITEM 9A
Community Development and Planning Department
G�ity of Zl�ah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq c(�.cityofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: May 23, 2012
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Request for review and comment on a Pre-Application Review for construction of
10 a Mixed-Use Project that includes one-bedroom apartments, single room
11 occupancy units, and commercial space
12 528 North State Street, APN 002-146-11
13 File No.: 12-09-PRE-PC
14
15 REQUEST
16
17 The applicant, Richard Ruff of Ruff and Associates, is requesting Planning Commission review
18 and comment on preliminary plans for a mixed-use project comprised of seven (7) one bedroom
19 apartments, five (5) single room occupancy (SRO) units and commercial space which would be
20 located at 528 North State Street, APN 002-146-11 (see attachment 1).
21
22 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
23
24 The applicant has provided a written project description as part of the application materials (see
25 attachment 2). The project site is currently vacant. The project would be developed in four
26 buildings as described below:
27
28 ■ Building 1 (State Street): 209 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and
29 two SRO units on the second floor with two parking spaces located at the rear of the
30 building;
31 ■ Building 2 ( State Street): 300 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and
32 two SRO units on the second floor with three parking spaces located at the rear of the
33 building;
34 ■ Building 3 (rear of site): seven one bedroom apartments, one SRO unit and common
35 space with seven parking spaces located in front of the building; and
36 ■ Accessory Building: ten individual storage spaces and laundry facilities.
37
38 The project site is located on the west side of North State Street. Norton Street terminates at
39 the project site creating a T-intersection.
40
41
42
43
Haskins Mixed Use Development
Planning Commission Pre-Application Review
528 North State Street
File No.12-09-PRE-PC
1
1 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
2
3 General Plan
4
5 ■ Land Use. The project site has a Commercial (C) general plan land use designation.
6 This land use designation is intended for a variety of commercial land uses. Specific
7 uses are determined by the zoning district.
8
9 ■ Density. A maximum of 28 units to the acre is allowed on parcels with a Commercial
10 land use designation. The commercial space is exempt from the density provisions.
11 Based on the size of the parcel, a maximum of 7 units would be allowed.
12
13 ■ Gateway. State Street is identified as a second level gateway in the City's General
14 Plan.
15
16 Zoning. The project site is zoned Community Commercial (C-1).
17
18 ■ Uses. Commercial and office uses are allowed uses (no use permit required) in the C-1
19 zoning district. Apartments and mixed residential/commercial uses are allowed with
20 approval of a use permit. The zoning ordinance does not include single room occupancy
21 units as a use and the use is not defined (i.e. the code is silent). In order to allow the
22 single room occupancy units, the Planning Director would be required to make a
23 determination of appropriate use as allowed by UCC section 9088. Based on the
24 information provided to date by the applicant, it appears that the findings required for a
25 determination of appropriate use could be made for the SRO units. If this is the case, a
26 use permit would be required and staff would recommend that the SRO units be subject
27 to the requirements included in the draft DZC which the applicant has included as part of
28 the project description (see attachment 2).
29
3o Based on the Draft DZC, the SRO units would be exempt from the density limitation.
31
32 ■ Development Standards. The table below includes some of the basic development
33 standards for the C-1 zoning district and the draft DZC related to SRO units.
34
Front Yard Setback-State 5 feet from the property line
Street
Side Yard Setback None
Rear Yard Setback None
Height 50 foot maximum
SRO—Location Draft DZC—on floors above the ground floor or
behind ground floor uses
Parking—Commercial 1 space for every 300 sf of gross leasable floor area
Parking—1 BR Apartment 1 parking space
Parking-SRO As required by Draft DZC
Bike Parking Spaces 10%of the number of vehicle parking spaces required
plus as required for SROs by draft DZC
Landscaping Plan Required pursuant to section 9101(see attachment 2)
Lighting and Irrigation Plan Required as part of the landscaping plan for the project
35
Haskins Mixed Use Development
Planning Commission Pre-Application Review
528 North State Street
File No.12-09-PRE-PC
2
1 Draft Downtown Zoning Code. The subject property is located outside of the boundaries of
2 the Draft Downtown Zoning Code (DZC). On the west side of State Street, the DZC boundary
3 terminates two parcels north of Henry Street. The draft DZC allows SROs as an allowed use
4 (no use permit required) subject to compliance with specific standards. The applicant has
5 included a copy of the draft DZC use table and standards for SROs as part of their application
6 materials (see attachment 2).
7
8 Street Trees. One street tree is required to be planted for every 30 feet of project frontage. The
9 City has recently adopted a new Master Tree List that identifies trees required to be planted as
10 street trees.
11
12 Airport Master Plan. The subject property is located north and outside of the Airport
13 Compatibility Zone; therefore, the project is not subject to compatibility zone requirements.
14
15 Flood Designation. Based on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel Number
16 060186 001 E dated August 5, 1985, the subject property site is located in Zone C. FEMA
17 defines Zone C as areas of minimal flooding. The actual flood designation will be determined as
18 part of a formal application. The site appears to be very close to areas designated as Flood
19 Zones B and A2.
20
21 Design Guidelines. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Design
22 District. Therefore, the project would be reviewed for consistency with these guidelines.
23
24 Design Review Board. Due to the elimination of the redevelopment agency by the State, the
25 City does not currently have a Design Review Board (DRB). At the May 16, 2012 City Council
26 meeting, an ordinance is being introduced that would reestablish the DRB. The ordinance
27 requires DRB review for all projects that are subject to a site development permit. Depending
28 on the timing of the adoption of the ordinance and appointment of board members, the
29 proposed project may be subject to review by the DRB.
30
31 Project Approvals. The project would require a Determination of Appropriate Use from the
32 Planning Director for the SRO units. This would allow the applicant to apply for a Use Permit for
33 the SRO units. The project would then require Planning Commission approval of a Major Use
34 Permit and a Major Site Development Permit.
35
36
37 Attachments:
38
39 1. Location Maps
40 2. Project Description and Plans date stamped May 14, 2012
41
42
Haskins Mixed Use Development
Planning Commission Pre-Application Review
528 North State Street
File No.12-09-PRE-PC
3