HomeMy WebLinkAbout04132011 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
April 13, 2011
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 HELLAND, BRENNER, WHETZEL,
SANDERS AND CHAIRPERSON PRUDEN
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the March 9, 2011 meeting are included 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 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
parry 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. NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of Vice-Chairperson. Planning Commission election of vice-
chairperson.
B. Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP). Review and discussion of land use
designations and alternative growth scenarios.
8. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
9. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
10. 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 March 9, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Mike Whetzel
7 Jason Brenner
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
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 - Everyone cited.
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 23, 2011
26 Commission made the following corrections:
27
28 Page 6, Line 1, sentence revised to read, `Is co-authoring a series of six articles throughout the year on
29 bird habitat and tree care for the Ukiah Daily Journal for educational purposes.
30
31 Page 6, Line 18, term `Brown' should be Brown Act.
32
33 Page 2, Line 26, revise sentence to read, `The Main Street Program design committee is not asking the
34 artist to revise the design of the murals.'
35
36 M/S Helland/Brenner to approve February 23, 2011 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (4-0).
37
38 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
39
40 6. APPEAL PROCESS— N/A
41
42 7. SITE VERIFICATION — N/A
43
44 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE— N/A
45
46 9. NEW BUSINESS
47 9A. Swearing-in of Planning Commissioners.
48 City Clerk JoAnne Currie performed the duty of swearing in of the Planning Commissioners.
49
50 10. OLD BUSINESS
51 10A. Downtown Code—Process and Timeline for City Council Review.
52 Planning Director Stump:
53 • The regular City Council meeting of April 6, 2011 has been targeted for an introductory
54 presentation and discussion of the draft DZC.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 9, 2011
Page 1
1 • Staff is asking for Commission thoughts/direction on how best to proceed with the unveiling of the
2 Draft code to City Council for review, adoption, and public participation. This could include joint
3 City Council/Planning Commission workshops/public hearings. Looking for direction on role of the
4 Planning Commission and timelines.
5 • Encourages the Commissioners to attend the Council meeting and participate in the discussion
6 wherein Council would likely appreciate the assistance.
7 • It is important Council see/understand the incredible hard work done by the Planning Commission
8 with shaping and formulating a highly workable zoning document.
9 • The April 6, 2011 meeting is the only timeline formulated at this point.
10
11 Commission:
12 • The Ukiah Daily Journal could feature an article(s) about the DZC on the front page that provides
13 information about the intent of the code, as well as provide examples of the exercises that the
14 Planning Commission and staff completed with the public to demonstrate how the code would
15 function for projects.
16 • Supports introducing the DZC to Council and providing the reasons why the document is
17 important to the community and developers.
18 • It is likely legal findings will have to be made in support of the document and likes the concept of
19 referencing various applicable sections of the Ukiah General Plan of these findings for
20 consistency purposes.
21 • While there may be public comments about some of the more controversial issues concerning the
22 DZC when Council reviews the document, it is questionable whether or not the public would want
23 to go over the document again since the public has participated all along in discussions about the
24 code document with the Planning Commission.
25 • Questioned how valuable/productive joint City Council/Planning Commissions meetings really are
26 because they have a tendency not to work well.
27 • The purpose of the code document is well-summarized in the purpose statement.
28 • Staff and the Commission have done an excellent job evaluating/analyzing and/or fine-tuning the
29 document so that it is highly adaptive for use whereby there is no need for Council and the
30 Commission to go through the document page by page together. The Commission has already
31 done this type of in depth review.
32 • The Commission and Council can discuss additional timelines associated with the DZC as
33 necessary.
34 • It is important Council and the Planning Commission make good use of their time when
35 discussing the code document in a workshop setting.
36 • Council will not likely be able to understand the DZC in one or two joint meetings when comparing
37 how long it has taken the Planning Commission to work through the document.
38
39 Staff:
40 • In a workshop setting, it may be helpful/more beneficial if Council and Commission talk through
41 some of more controversial sections of the document, such as trees and tree preservation; DZC
42 boundaries; use tables, including agriculture equipment sales or rental, restaurant- formula fast
43 food; locations of alleys and streets, and/or other "hot topics" that were identified and discussed
44 by the public and Planning Commission.
45 • The discussion should also likely include the background and the intent that the Code would
46 create certainty for the community, developers, and property owners and includes flexibility and
47 the ability to reduce the amount of process involved when the project complies with all of the
48 Code requirements.
49
50 Commission consensus:
51 • Would be pleased to participate in one to two public workshops with City Council wherein Council
52 would have the opportunity to ask the Planning Commission for information and background,
53 particularly for certain sections of the document that were controversial when the Commission
54 discussed the document.
55 • Commission will discuss timelines and process with Council.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 9, 2011
Page 2
1 • Agrees with above items from Commission and staff.
2
3 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:23 P.M.
4
5 Tony Shaw, Representative from the Employers Council of Mendocino County:
6 • Would be pleased to help spread the word about the upcoming introduction and unveiling of the
7 DZC to City Council.
8 • Requested a free printed copy of the final Planning Commission draft of the DZC.
9
10 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:26 P.M.
11
12 B. Downtown Zoning Code. Review, Discussion and Possible Recommendation on the inclusion of
13 Design Guidelines and Low Impact Development (LID) information as an appendix to the
14 Downtown Zoning Code.
15
16 Senior Planner Jordan: gave a staff report and requested the Commission:
17 • Consider using a narrative that describes the recommended design approach for the DZC rather
18 than providing photos with narrative for the design appendix. Petaluma's Central Petaluma
19 Specific Plan Design Guideline Appendix was provided as a possible model/example. Could
20 utilize the expertise that exists on the City's Design Review Board to develop the design
21 appendix.
22 • Recommends review properties with the DZC to explore the possibility of creating design districts.
23 Based on a cursory review, staff envisions three districts based on what appears to be a distinct
24 feel and look. The Design Review Board could provide a narrative description of the existing
25 pattern and architectural character of development related to form, patterns, architectural
26 style/details, building orientation and other design features. The DRB has the expertise specific to
27 architecture and design and can help provide the necessary guidance.
28 • Consider providing references rather than photos for the LID information requested to be include
29 as part of the Design Appendix. Dennis Slota has provided specific photographic examples that
30 reference different LID approaches/concepts. Requests the Commission make a
31 recommendation about what would be appropriate for the Design Appendix for the DZC.
32
33 Commission comments:
34 • Agreed that inherent differences do exist with regard to architecture and design for certain areas
35 within the boundaries of the DZC.
36 • It may be the Design Appendix should include a narrative that describes the recommended
37 design approach for the DZC rather than including photos with narrative.
38 • Every building east of Main Street has a distinct character/flavor that is tied to the railroad era and
39 what has occurred in the way of development in this section of town.
40 • Construction of a Courthouse in the Perkins Street Corridor will forever change the character of
41 the neighborhood and how people perceive Ukiah as the County seat wherein the Civic look
42 needs to be sophisticated and polished.
43 • Agreed the DRB should participate in the process of selecting buildings in Ukiah that are
44 representative of good architecture and design and document why in narrative form. They can
45 review pictures the Commission has selected as good design examples or add to them.
46 • When talking about Oak Street that has a residential component in context as part of the
47 boundary with the history Downtown, the Downtown loses some of its urban center feel. The area
48 to the east of State Street and west of Oak Street and Seminary Avenue and Henry Street has
49 pretty much the same design feel manifested in terms of style.
50 • A particular design does not necessarily have to be restricted to the DZC boundaries to set a tone
51 or style.
52 • It was noted each district and/or area has a different design flavor in and around the center core
53 of the Downtown.
54 • Likes the City of Petaluma's approach of extending/overlapping urban architecture into other
55 districts by integrating what was referred to as the city's main entryway with the downtown core
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 9, 2011
Page 3
1 and urban design characteristics for the purpose of maintaining a consistent visual. This same
2 concept could be applied to the historic downtown core and Perkins Street Corridor by `drawing
3 down'the design elements of the downtown core and urban architecture to the City gateway.
4 • The Ukiah Courthouse has a completely different style than the Sun House Museum.
5 • It may be that the urban flair of the historic downtown district can be drawn to the Perkins Street
6 district.
7 • The Perkins Street Corridor is also of a different design style and is the City's gateway. This
8 area/district is essentially representative of two zones, the UC and GU.
9
10 Staff:
11 • Noted the type of zoning has no relevance to design and design styles/concepts and is not a
12 consideration.
13
14 Commission comments:
15 • The dominating design factor for the Perkins Street Corridor is the Railroad Depot.
16 • In the event the Courthouse is relocated to this area, the existing design style would shift from the
17 industrial/manufacturing of early historic development in this area into more of a `civic'
18 statement/style wherein the style and function is different.
19 • In terms of design, the historical district is considered the area between Henry Street and
20 Seminary Avenue and both sides of State Street and the east side of Oak Street.
21 • The Perkins Street Corridor is viewed as the area from the east side of the Highway 101 off-ramp
22 ending where Perkins Street meets Main Street.
23 • Main Street has a different style with the Rainbow Ag business in this area even though the
24 address of this business is E. Perkins Street. Interestingly, the DZC boundaries do not include the
25 Sun House.
26 • Main Street is an interesting combination of bungalows, businesses, and museum functions and
27 does not look the same as School Street, State Street or Perkins Street. Main Street is one of
28 Ukiah's more walkable streets because there is less traffic and has a great potential for mixed-
29 use more so than on School Street and State Street with the interface of small businesses and
30 apartments.
31 • Discussion whether or not to have two design districts consisting of the Historic Downtown Core/
32 Perkins Street and Main Street as opposed to three districts consisting of the Historic Downtown
33 Core, Perkins Street and Main Street in terms of evaluating parking accommodations and/or
34 redevelopment potential where one area may call out more for design and less building than
35 another area.
36
37 Staff:
38 • No design has been proposed for the courthouse and no location has been selected, so this
39 should not be part of the consideration of building architecture that is desirable.
40 • Main Street is different than the more defined Perkins Street and the Historic Downtown Core
41 areas.
42 • While the Sun House Museum is an important building on Main Street, this does not necessarily
43 mean that all other buildings must relate to the Sun House.
44 • Recommends not limiting the potential creativity that can occur on Main Street because this area
45 is very eclectic with a variety building types and intensities, offering the possibility for the most
46 variety.
47
48 Commission comments:
49 • Agrees that Main Street has a different architectural feel with an opportunity for mixed-use in a
50 different way than what would necessarily occur in the Downtown Core area.
51 • Uncertain if Main Street will ever have that`urban feel.'
52 • Questioned the design vision for Perkins Street if it is considered the main thoroughfare to the
53 Downtown.
54 • Construction of a Courthouse would change the design concept of Perkins Street when otherwise
55 it would continue to have existing buildings oriented more toward the railroad type of architecture
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 9, 2011
Page 4
1 using craftsman, column style and/or other related design features. Construction of a Courthouse
2 in the Perkins Street Corridor would also change how this area currently functions.
3 • It was noted the pavilion in the Alex Thomas Jr. Plaza has a roofline that resembles that of the
4 Railroad Depot.
5 • Requested clarification that one of the objectives/goals for Perkins Street is to reinforce it as one
6 of the primary entryways to Ukiah whether or not there is a Courthouse to be constructed in this
7 area.
8 • Perkins Street has a mixed type of building architecture, a lot of which is industrial design and/or
9 railroad industrial that comes up to a more urban historical look. It may be important to consider
10 extending the industrial look into the urban and/or vice versa. What Petaluma did was to consider
11 existing design elements and steer away from changing the original design intent look and feel by
12 extending/applying/introducing some of those same design elements into other areas for design
13 consistency and a more architecturally pleasing look.
14 • Would like Perkins Street to look like an avenue or boulevard with extensive landscaping and
15 sophisticated lighting systems as an introduction to Ukiah.
16 • The Railroad Center is a nice example of the original industrial/railroad industrial design in this
17 area and is an excellent example of re-adaptive use. Buildings still have railroad siding on the
18 backs of these buildings that provides for that industrial feel.
19 • It was noted Rainbow Ag located on Perkins was a lumberyard among other uses having a
20 warehouse approach in this railroad core.
21 • Perkins Street would look different if there is a courthouse.
22
23 Staff:
24 • Does not recommend the Commission focus on whether or not the Courthouse might be
25 constructed and/or how it might look on Perkins Street in order to decide what the community
26 would like to see. To date, no specific design for the courthouse has been proposed.
27
28 Commission comments:
29 • Supports existing architectural designs be maintained for areas.
30 • Recommends maintaining an industrial look for Perkins Street.
31 • Maintaining the style on Perkins Street while improving it and making it more urban with an
32 industrial flair.
33 • Manifest the architectural style of the Sun House on Main Street and apply this design concept for
34 new development and/or redevelopment.
35 • Retain/preserve the Downtown core with a more traditional, stately design.
36 • Focus more on the landscaping features for Perkins Street to create an architecturally
37 landscaping statement that looks like a parkway/boulevard.
38 • Improvements to preserve Gibson Creek should be considered.
39
40 Commission consensus:
41 • Supports having three design districts (see map):
42 1. Historical Downtown Core — N. Henry Street to S. Seminary Street and W. Oak Street to
43 State Street.
44 2. Main Street
45 3. Perkins Street Corridor— East side of Main Street extending easterly to freeway.
46
47 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:03 p.m.
48
49 Staff: Asked the Commission to revisit the building illustrations and corresponding design concepts for
50 areas in the DZC boundaries provided in Section 7: Architectural Standards and talk about the locations
51 where these building designs would be appropriate.
52 • The Downtown is special. May want to preserve and enhance this by not extending the design
53 features, architecture of Downtown into the other districts. Do not want to dilute or take away
54 what is unique and special about Downtown. People should be able to recognize when they have
55 entered this district.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 9, 2011
Page 5
1 • Important to document what types of design people want to see retained in this special area.
2 • Perkins Street is a gateway and should be developed as such in order to receive the treatment
3 deserving of a gateway.
4 • The Perkins Street gateway and Downtown have a nice feel even though they function differently
5 from one another in style and character. Accordingly, the design direction should be very different
6 for these districts so as to appreciate their distinctive nature and uniqueness as one travels
7 through them. Emphasized that each area/district should maintain its individual character and
8 uniqueness in terms of design.
9 • Perkins Street should have flexibility and be much more urban in style.
10 • Main Street has a unique style and character.
11
12 Example of Buildinq Desiqns, pages 39 through 43
13
14 Page 39, Figure 5: Mixed Use Concept
15 • Commission consensus: Downtown
16
17 Page 40, Figure 6, New Infill
18 • Commission consensus: Downtown, Main Street
19
20 Page 41, Figure 7: Hotel Concept
21 • Commission: Downtown
22
23 Page 42, Figure 8: Anchor Concept
24 • Commission consensus: Downtown, since the picture represents a large development with a
25 cohesive frontage.
26
27 Page 43, Figure 9: Civic Building Concept
28 • Commission:
29 ➢ The County annex building on School Street built in the 1920s is a beautiful building and a
30 favorite.
31 ➢ Government buildings should look `traditional' in historic downtown districts.
32
33 Page 44, Figure 10: Civic Square Rendering
34 • Commission consensus: Delete this rendering.
35
36 Page 45, Figure 11: State Street Rendering
37 • Commission consensus: Retain this rendering. Appropriate look for State Street.
38
39 Page 46, Figure 12: Perkins Street Rendering
40 • Commission: May need to delete this rendering since it has so many interpretations and
41 Illustration may no longer be realistic for Perkins Street.
42
43 Toni Shaw: Supports the concept of providing language in the DZC to help developers and architects
44 with design concerns to discourage back and forth interpretations/perceptions of design photos or
45 illustrations.
46
47 Dennis Slota referred to page 46 and noted it would be difficult to incorporate LID methods and install
48 treatments that are effective for storm water runoff for a rendering of that design. The design is
49 unrealistic as to location of trees, street and sidewalk widths, parking accommodations and overall design
50 concept for Perkins Street.
51
52 Staff presented the Commission with a list of LID referrals and resources.
53
54 Commission reviewed photographs of actual LID systems and discussed their effectiveness using
55 examples of various locations in Ukiah.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 9, 2011
Page 6
1
2 Commission:
3 ➢ Supports including Low Impact Development examples in the Design appendix as a concept or
4 principle that can be applied to additions, redevelopment projects and new construction.
5 ➢ Asked Dennis Slota to select examples of photos of LID systems he recommends and/or best
6 scenario for use in Ukiah for review by the Commission that includes examples of the
7 infrastructure necessary to promote water quality and address runoff through the use of effective
8 LID systems designed to protect the environment. A description/label of what the photo is
9 depicting would be helpful. The examples provided should include functional bio-swales, curbs
10 cuts in parking lots, flush curbs, parkways with functioning landscaping.
11 ➢ It may be more difficult to find examples of LID applications for redevelopment projects compared
12 to new construction.
13 ➢ Reviewed some examples of LID applications and made comments about how well they function
14 and pointed out deficiencies of those examples that do not function well.
15
16 Dennis Slota:
17 • Recommends using the term "functional landscaping."
18 • Agreed to provide examples of LID methods/treatments that are among the more successful
19 systems with protecting the environment and maintaining water quality.
20
21 Staff:
22 • Recommended the Commission discuss and review sample photographs of buildings in Ukiah
23 submitted by the Commissions and select good/preferred examples of design and architecture.
24 • Requests the Commission select a few photos for each district to provide guidance to the DRB
25 and to use the expertise of the DRB to develop a narrative as to the types of design is appropriate
26 for a particular district taking into consider existing conditions, what the community wants to see,
27 and what the design elements are.
28
29 Commissioner Sanders:
30 • Interested in finding LEED certified buildings in Mendocino County of which there are only a few
31 and they are commercial buildings. The City of Ukiah has no LEED certified buildings while
32 Anderson Valley and Philo do. Citibank buildings are typically LEED certified.
33
34 Commission:
35 • Good idea to select a few photos as examples of design elements that can be responded to in
36 order to formulate more of an interconnected/cohesive environment.
37 • Looked at photos of buildings as examples of good architecture with regard to style, form,
38 materials, configuration on the site, presentation, street frontage, entrance, architectural features
39 and design, architectural theme and/or historical value/content on Mason Street, N. and S. State
40 Street, Mill Street, School Street, and Main Street.
41 • It was noted while the Commission cited other buildings in areas as examples having good
42 architectural theme, the best approach would be to select one or two examples so as to make the
43 process less complicated.
44 • Have the DRB review the photos and make a recommendation.
45 • Provide a short narrative about why the architecture is good.
46 • Discussion in what design districts the recommended buildings would be a good fit and why.
47
48 Commissioner Brenner:
49 • Likes the approach laid out in the Petaluma Design Guidelines. The document provides directions
50 to designers and architects by identifying existing strengths, architectural styles, forms and
51 patterns, etc., but allows freedom in how to apply these in their design.
52 • Would like to see something similar to the second paragraph of the Petaluma document included
53 in the DZC design guidelines, appendix.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 9, 2011
Page 7
1 Commission consensus: Recommended using the following buildings as examples for the
2 architectural/design preferences for each district:
3
4 Downtown Historic District
5 • Delores Apartments, 602 North State Street
6 • Ukiah Theater, South State Street-Art-deco design theme
7 • Masonic Hall Building, 102 South State Street
8 • McNab Building, 111 North State Street
9 • Courthouse Annex Building, 101 North School Street
10
11 Perkins Street Corridor
12 • Coffee Critic and Apartment buildings adjacent, North Main Street
13 • Railroad Center Building, East Perkins Street— industrial/railroad
14 • Railroad Depot Building, East Perkins
15
16 Main Street District
17 • Sun House Museum, 431 South Main Street
18 • Yoga Mendocino building, 206 Mason Street
19 • Dolores Apartments, 602 North State Street
20
21 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:47 p.m.
22
23 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
24 None.
25
26 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
27 Commissioner Brenner— Received a call from a concerned citizen disagreeing that formula businesses
28 should be allowed in the Downtown Core.
29
30 Staff requested emails received from the public concerning comments about the DZC be forwarded to
31 planning staff as a matter of public record. Also, if Commissioners receive calls, ask the person to email
32 planning staff about their comments/concerns.
33
34 Commissioner Sanders:
35 • Presented the Commission with a copy of an email regarding the DZC and formula franchise
36 businesses supporting they not be discounted in the Downtown.
37 • TAG continues to make significant progress on revisions to the City Master Tree List.
38
39 Chair Pruden:
40 • Will be filing comments about the draft EIR for UVAP at the County Planning Commission/County
41 Board of Supervisors joint meeting on March 15.
42
43 13. ADJOURNMENT
44 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
45
46
47 Judy Pruden, Chair
48
49 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
50
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 9, 2011
Page 8
1 ITEM NO. 7B
Community Development and Planning Department
��ty � u�ah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq c(�.cityofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: April 13, 2011
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development
8
9 SUBJECT: Ukiah Valley Area Plan — Land Use Designations
10
11
12 SUMMARY
13
14 Mendocino County has released the Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan and its associated Draft
15 Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for review. The City Council reviewed the Draft EIR
16 and Staff's Agenda Summary Report and submitted a comment letter to the County
17 (Attachment no. 1). On April 20, 2011, the City Council will review the Draft Plan itself, and
18 the purpose of this agenda item is for the Planning Commission to participate in the review
19 and provide recommendations to the City Council.
20 THE UKIAH VALLEY AREA PLAN
21 The UVAP contains an Introduction and Vision Statement, as well as nine separate
22 Elements: Land Use, Community Design, Circulation and Transportation, Water, Energy and
23 Air Quality, Health and Safety, Open Space and Conservation, Historic and Archaeological,
24 and Parks and Recreation. Each Element contains goals, policies, and implementing
25 programs (Attachment 2).
26 The Plan also includes a Land Use map (Attachment 3), which designated what types of land
27 uses are assigned to individual parcels in the Valley. The map constitutes the "preferred
28 projecY' tentatively adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2007. It represents the most
29 intense land use scenario for the valley resulting in the construction of 5,430 new dwelling
30 units and 7 million square feet of non-residential development. Build-out under the Plan
31 would result in 60 potentially significant impacts, of which 25 impacts would remain
32 significant and unavoidable after recommended mitigation measures are adopted and
33 implemented. These significant and unavoidable impacts include, the loss of prime
34 agricultural land, unacceptable traffic and air pollution, unacceptable demands on public
35 services, and growth inducement to name a few. Most, if not all of these significant and
36 unavoidable impacts would impact the City.
37
1
Pacific Outfitters,955 North State Street
Site Development Permit File#:09-25-SDP-PC
1
2 ALTERNATIVES
3 The Draft EIR included three alternative growth scenarios, each with less overall buildout and
4 reduced impacts (Attachment 4). The Board of Supervisors will ultimately select one of the
5 alternatives, or customize one as the final land use plan for the Ukiah Valley.
6 PRIMARY DISCUSSION TOPIC
7 As a starting point, Staff suggests that the Commission review the Land Use Map and
8 descriptions of the land use classifications for the major parcels in close proximity to the City
9 limits. These include the Brush Street Triangle, Masonite Sites, and Lovers Lane parcels
10 (Attachment 5). With the exception of the eastern portion of the Masonite Site (Industrial),
11 these parcels are classified as "Mixed-Use." Each mixed-use site has its own customized
12 mix of uses and development standards (Attachment 6).
13 Other land use classifications in the Plan include Suburban Residential, Rural Community,
14 Rural residential, Remote Residential, Commercial, Agricultural, Range Lands, Industrial,
15 Public Services, Public Lands, Open Space, and Mixed Use.
16 RECOMMENDATION
17 Staff recommends that the Commission:
18 1. Review and discuss the large parcels adjacent and to the north of the City limits
19 (Attachment 5);
20 2. Review the descriptions of the mixed-use classifications (Attachment 6); and
21 3. Formulate recommendations to the City Council concerning land use designations for
22 the parcels.
23 ATTACHMENTS
24
25 1. City Council comment letter on Draft UVAP EIR/March 16, 2011 ASR
26 2. UVAP Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures
27 3. UVAP Land Use Map
28 4. Alternatives — Maximum Buildout
29 5. Map of Parcel North of and Adjacent to the City
30 6. Mixed Use Descriptions
31 7. UVAP Vision Statement
32
2
Pacific Outfitters,955 North State Street
Site Development Permit File#:09-25-SDP-PC