HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_08122015 Final 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 August 12, 2015
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair
7 Christopher Watt
8 Mark Hilliker
9 Laura Christensen
10 Linda Sanders
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
19 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
20
21 2. ROLL CALL
22
23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—The minutes from the July 22, 2015 meeting are included for review
26 and approval.
27
28 M/S Christensen/Watt to approve July 22, 2015 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (4-0) with Chair
29 Whetzel abstaining.
30
31 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
32
33 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters heard at this
34 meeting, the final date to appeal is August 24, 2015.
35
36 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
37
38 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE- Confirmed by staff.
39
40 9. NEW BUSINESS
41 9A. Selection of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Commission to select a Chairman and Vice-
42 Chairman for Fiscal Year 2015-2016.
43
44 M/S Watt/Christensen to nominate and elect Mike Whetzel as Chair. Motion carried 4-0 with Chair
45 Whetzel abstaining.
46
47 M/S Christensen/Sanders to nominate and elect Chris Watt as Vice Chair. Motion carried 4-0 with
48 Commissioner Watt abstaining.
49
50 PUBLIC HEARING
51 10A. Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance per the requirements of Senate Bill No. 2
52 (SB2). Establishment of a zoning overlay district that will provide a location where a homeless
53 shelter can be established by right, with no discretionary approvals, per the requirements of SB2.
54 File No: 1105.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 1
1 Principal Planner Thompson:
2 • Gave a PowerPoint presentation/staff report as specifically addressed on pages 1-7 of the staff
3 report.
4 • Staff received one public comment from a person residing on Maple Avenue objecting to the
5 proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment.
6 • Staff requests the Planning Commission review and discuss the proposed Zoning Ordinance
7 amendment that would establish a zoning overlay district where a homeless shelter can be
8 established by right with no discretionary approvals per the requirements of SB2.
9 • Even without a Use Permit or discretionary decision making process regarding a homeless
10 shelter the City did establish home shelter operating standards in 2001 as provided for in
11 Resolution 2001-15 that establishes the use and development guidelines for the operation of
12 homeless shelters in the City of Ukiah. These standards would be in effect for any homeless
13 shelter whether it is allowed by right or requiring a Use Permit through the discretionary review
14 process. The guidelines include: use permit requirements, distances from schools and residential
15 areas, hours of operation, size, lighting and access and would apply to a homeless shelter
16 operating within the proposed homeless shelter overlay or as noted above, anywhere in town.
17 • Included in the proposal is an amendment to the initial Resolution as provided for in Resolution
18 2001-15 indicating that a Use Permit would not be required within the Homeless Shelter Overlay
19 zone.
20 • As required by SB2 and to implemenUcertify the Housing Element adopted in 2011 the City is
21 required to address the needs for homeless shelters and transitional and supportive housing as
22 provided for in policies H-2f and H-2n of the Ukiah Housing Element. Related to H-2f of the
23 Ukiah Housing Element: amend the zoning code to allow homeless facilities without the
24 requirement of a Use Permit in the M Manufacturing zoning designation. The zoning code shall
25 require a Site Development Permit and facilities pursuant to California Government Code
26 Section 65583. Related to H-2n of the Ukiah Housing Element, amend the zoning ordinance to
27 be consistent with SB2. All transitional and supportive housing shall be considered a residential
28 use of the same type (single family residential, duplex, multi-family, etc.,) shall be imposed.
29 • Approval of the proposed Homeless Shelter Overlay zone and corresponding Zoning Ordinance
30 Amendment would bring the City in compliance with SB2 and California State Department of
31 Housing (HCD) concerning certification of Ukiah's Housing Element.
32 • Staff recommends Planning Commission:
33 1) Recommend City Council adopt the Negative Declaration based on the findings in
34 attachment 2;
35 2) Recommend City Council introduce an ordinance by title only to create the Homeless Shelter
36 Overlay zone and accompanying text. (attachment 1 of the staff report)
37 3) Recommend City Council amend Resolution 2001-15 to include new Use Permit
38 requirements for homeless shelters. (attachment 4 of the staff report)
39
40 Commissioner Sanders:
41 • Referred to the proposed Homeless Shelter Overlay map and asked for confirmation of the
42 associated streets within the scope/radius of the subject area.
43 • Asked about the location of a pedestrian bridge on Orrs Street.
44 • Related to the biological section of the environmental document prepared for the project
45 discussed special status species living in Orrs Creek. It appears the proposed overlay zone for
46 development could conceivably go all the way to the riparian area. Is aware of community
47 concerns in terms of interest expressed in creating an `Orrs Creek greenway' and how this might
48 impact the possibility of creating such a pathway. Understands it would be the property owner of
49 the homeless shelter that would able to build out as far as the riparian area since currently the
50 City has no creek setback requirements.
51 • Requested clarification the intent of the rezone is to allow homeless shelters to occur in various
52 parts of our community and the best locations thereof where the purpose is to reduce the `project
53 conditions.'
54
55 Chair Whetzel:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 2
1 • A homeless shelter project would still have to comply with building permit requirements.
2
3 Commissioner Christensen:
4 • Asked about the existing zoning designations for the parcels in the proposed overlay zone that
5 currently would require approval of a use permit to allow a homeless shelter, particularly the
6 parcels zoned C-2 where the current use is religious and the Ford Street Project.
7
8 Chris Watt:
9 • Related to existing zoning, asked about what uses are allowed by right? Is there development
10 that can happen without a discretionary review permit? Related to current zoning requested
11 clarification a development could occur without discretionary review permit approval up to the
12 riparian corridor. Requested clarification by granting an overlay zone is not removing an
13 environmental protection because it does not exist in the first place for the process of getting the
14 development approved.
15 • The Resolution requested for amendment is in essence a ministerial standard for the site
16 development aspect. Is the extent of the ministerial standards for the Resolution being amended
17 the only standards being amended other than the necessary compliance with the building/fire
18 standards and/or other regular standards that apply to development?
19 • With approval of an overlay zone that allows homeless shelters by right inquired whether or not
20 there is a need to include additional layers of standards to provide environmental protection
21 and/or other related standards that may be applicable? In other words if the ministerial standard
22 is not `robust enough' to address and/or is not consistent with the negative declaration/initial
23 environmental study that was prepared for the overlay zone project is there a `weak link' that
24 could be challenged where the standards are not defensible?
25 • Related to the Findings to adopt a Negative Declaration for the Homeless Shelter Zoning Overlay
26 in attachment 2 of the staff report inquired about reason the items in 3A through G refers to `the
27 projecY and the subsequent findings 3H through P refers to `text and map.'
28 • Relevant to the change that a homeless shelter development would be allowed by right and
29 particularly with regard to Findings in the Negative Declaration for items 3F and G asked for
30 clarification such a development would not result in significant adverse impacts to biological
31 resources. Is the basis for the judgment about the project not resulting in significant adverse
32 impacts to biological resources such as wildlife or wetlands (Finding 3F) because no more is
33 essentially being allowed than what is allowed with regard to the current by right uses?
34
35 Principal Planner Thompson:
36 • Geographically showed the location of the corresponding streets in connection with the Railroad
37 tracks and Buddy Eller Center within the proposed overlay zone.
38 • Verified the location of the pedestrian bridge and Orrs Creek.
39 • Confirmed there is development in the overlay zone that can take place without a discretionary
40 review permit.
41
42 Planning Director Stump:
43 • Acknowledged there is a proposed project brewing from members of the community to develop a
44 trail along the Creek that borders the overlay zone.
45 • It is doubtful the proposed overlay project would change anything about the zoning rules in
46 connection with the current way riparian areas function. There is no homeless shelter
47 development planned for the overlay zone at this time. As such, is of the opinion cannot assume
48 that an overlay zone project in and of itself would impact something that is not certain. While it
49 would be nice to have pathway along the Creek the location is not known and a rezone in and of
50 itself would not likely have an effect where the trail would be located. If there was a development
51 attached to the rezone project there would likely be more of a discussion about the pathway,
52 particularly in the area being discussed.
53 • The intent of the proposed Homeless Shelter overlay zone is to allow a homeless shelter to be
54 constructed in the overlay zone without discretionary review.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 3
1 • Confirmed a homeless shelter development in the overlay zone will have to comply with building
2 permit requirements as well as Resolution 2001-15, i.e., Homeless Shelter Facility Use and
3 Development Guidelines.
4 • Related to the Ford Street Project and Buddy Eller Center the complex that is a transitional
5 housing facility was originally proposed to be located near the Orrs Creek riparian area where
6 planning staff recommended moving the building back. The applicants and Planning Commission
7 agreed with this recommendation such that the building was constructed well back behind the
8 riparian corridor. Protection of the Creek has always been a primary objective.
9 • The City has no creek setback requirements. Yes, under the currently zoning a use that is
10 allowed by right and does not require a Site Development Permit could occur up to the riparian
11 corridor.
12 • Confirmed no removal of any environmental protection will occur as a result of the proposed
13 overlay zone project.
14 • Confirmed the Resolution amendment is a ministerial standard for site development and that the
15 ministerial standards being amended in the Resolution are the only standards other than the
16 necessary compliance with building/fire and/or other regular standards that apply to
17 development.
18 • Is of the opinion related to the matter the ministerial standards for the overlay zone project might
19 not be defensible enough in the event the project was challenged that this would be a `stretch' of
20 the concept.
21 • Confirmed reference to `the project' and `text and map' amendment is essentially the same thing.
22 • Confirmed the project is a rezone such that in and of itself no more is being allowed than what is
23 already allowed by right for current uses.
24
25 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:22 p.m.
26
27 Pinky Kushner:
28 • It is important the City share in creek cleanup efforts and not just leave this effort to volunteers,
29 particularly because of the human waste and/or trash that is found in creeks and asked if there is
30 any possibility in connection with approving the proposed rezone that part of the project would
31 provide for waste cans and restroom facilities. Added, it is unpleasant to have to cleanup and
32 dispose of human waste and having restroom facilities would be helpful.
33
34 Public speaker name inaudible:
35 • Is of the opinion having a homeless shelter would actually help the situation with damage to Orrs
36 Creek because the operation would be conducted in an orderly fashion with established rules and
37 regulations.
38 • Asked for clarification regarding the boundaries for the proposed overlay zone project as shown
39 on the overlay zone map.
40
41 Leslie Smyth:
42 • Is concerned about eventual regulations related to drug and alcohol for a homeless shelter noting
43 there is a difference between a shelter and a shelter operated by Ford Street Project. For a
44 shelter not operated by Ford Street finds it extremely important there be enforced regulations or
45 problems with the Creek will continue.
46 • Acknowledged that problems with the Creek do exist disclosing that people camp under the Orrs
47 Creek Bridge and in areas of the Creek. Many of the people living in the creeks and under
48 bridges do not want to be in a shelter and/or conform to the rules.
49 • Having a shelter near Catholic Orthodox Church that exists on Brush Street may be a problem.
50 There are many young children from the Church congregation that play in the area. Children do
51 run into homeless paraphernalia in the area and this is a concern. The area is a natural shortcut
52 for people to get to the Buddy Eller Center.
53 • Understands homeless shelters present a very delicate situation and there are many people in
54 need of help. There is no simple solution to addressing the homeless and their corresponding
55 needs.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 4
1 Commissioner Watt:
2 • Requested clarification Ms. Smyth does not favor drug and/or alcohol be allowed in homeless
3 shelters and to include some type of provision that people must be clean and sober as a
4 requirement.
5
6 Leslie Smyth:
7 • Does not favor drug and alcohol being allowed in homeless shelters and that people using the
8 homeless facility must be clean and sober so as to eliminate associated problems. Having
9 restrooms available in the area would be helpful but it would take a huge commitment on the part
10 of the City to keep them clean.
11
12 Don Popalski:
13 • Is the City of Ukiah committed to building a homeless shelter? If not, questioned why we are
14 here to approve a Homeless Shelter Zoning Overlay?
15 • Were other sites/areas a consideration and if so, what are the locations?
16 • Requested clarification the City is required to provide an area in the City where a homeless
17 shelter can be established by right, but this does not mean the City of Ukiah has to build it.
18 • What would occur if property was donated?
19 • If a shelter is constructed how many beds would be available and what kind of restrictions would
20 be in place?
21 • Is concerned about having plans in place for a homeless winter shelter. While he understands
22 drug and alcohol use should not be allowed in a homeless shelter has concerns for those users
23 that need help and with having a place to sleep and keep warm this winter.
24
25 Jacque Williams, Executive Director, Ford Street Project:
26 • Recommends City staff and/or homeless advocates look into churches and/or similar
27 organizations that may be able to function as a shelter for the short term depending upon what
28 the restroom availability is.
29 • Is a Use Permit required for informal situations that would be for short periods of time?
30
31 Pinky Kushner:
32 • Asked about just approving the related industrial parcels within the overlay and exclude the heavy
33 commercial parcel within the overlay zone that is located near Orrs Creek. Is of the opinion area
34 at the south end of town would meet the criteria for a homeless shelter.
35 • One of the issues with the Wagenseller Neighborhood is that many planning related
36 projects/developments etc., happen in this neighborhood.
37 • The area south of town has services available such as the Greyhound bus stop and/or other
38 services that can be accommodating. Is of the opinion area at the south end of Ukiah would
39 appear to be a `more balanced' solution. It would be a benefit to the homeless to have two areas
40 identified where homeless shelters could be developed on either end of town rather than focusing
41 on one primary location.
42
43 Principal Planner Thompson:
44 • Confirmed the boundaries are those areas depicted within the black lines on the map.
45 • Confirmed the Planning Commission considered other site scenarios where the preference was
46 the overlay zoning district being considered tonight.
47 • The only other consideration was a site located on the southern end of Ukiah in and around the
48 Ukiah Municipal Airport in the M (Manufacturing)zoning district.
49 • The existing operating standards for a homeless shelter would apply and the type of restrictions
50 would depend upon what is being proposed and the best case scenario.
51 • Acknowledged the south end of town was a consideration in the Manufacturing zoning district but
52 it seemed to make more sense to have a potential shelter in the same location as the Buddy Eller
53 Center given the history of the homeless centers in Ukiah.
54
55 Chair Whetzel:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 5
1 • Is not aware the City is committed to building a homeless shelter.
2 • SB2 requires the establishment of a zoning overlay district that will provide a location where a
3 homeless shelter can be established by right with no discretionary review approvals. The zoning
4 ordinance amendment would establish an overlay district in the northwest section of Ukiah that
5 includes both commercially and industrially zoned properties. The ZO amendment also
6 represents the last remaining item required by the State Department of Housing and Community
7 Development(HCD)for certification of Ukiah's Housing Element.
8 • Confirmed the City is required to delineate a location for a homeless shelter but is not required to
9 build it.
10 • The property for a homeless shelter must be located in the City limits.
11 • Related to if a homeless shelter were to be constructed, the number of beds and restrictions
12 would be included in what was being proposed.
13 • Asked about the likelihood the City would construct its own homeless shelter.
14 • Acknowledged also that when the Planning Commission initially looked at potential locations for
15 homeless shelters established by right was of the opinion that the overlay zone approach was the
16 best solution since the Buddy Eller Center is located in this zone and has operated in the past as
17 a homeless shelter.
18
19 Planning Director Stump:
20 • Under City leadership there is participation from local homeless advocates to work on homeless
21 issues/problems, specifically a homeless shelter and more specifically a winter shelter.
22 Historically, the City has taken the lead on homeless winter shelters.
23 • Not likely the City would construct a homeless shelter.
24 • Affirmed a Use Permit would be necessary for less informal situations that function/serve as a
25 homeless shelter. The City has approved Use Permits in the past for homeless shelters and it
26 took a team effort to get emergency winter shelters approved rapidly to meet the deadlines of
27 impending weather conditions. The City is committed to helping in this regard.
28
29 Don Popalski:
30 • Requested clarification regarding churches providing shelters for the homeless. Conducted a
31 survey of the major churches in the community and found the information to be very disappointing
32 in that none of churches responded to the survey about providing for a short term/temporary
33 homeless shelter on church property. Is hopeful churches will open their hearts and allow for a
34 temporary winter shelter. Is concerned about what happens if no organization/agency is willing to
35 open up their doors.
36
37 Commissioner Christensen:
38 • Asked what prompted Mr. Popalski to conduct the survey. Was this because he is a concerned
39 citizen and/or a volunteer?
40
41 Don Popalski:
42 • Conducted to survey as a concerned citizen. Has served on an ad hoc committee to help
43 establish a winter shelter and wanted to see if churches would be amenable to providing housing
44 and safe parking.
45
46 Libby Gutherie, Executive Director of MCAVHN:
47 • Serves on the Sheltering Services Action Committee. It is not the intension of any agency
48 involved in this action committee or individuals that we would have a shelter without
49 rules/regulations and allow drug and alcohol use.
50 • Her agency works with homeless persons in the community who are not otherwise eligible for
51 other shelter services for one reason or another.
52
53 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:48 p.m.
54
55 Commissioner Watt:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 6
1 • Are the operational standards in the Resolution something that a shelter built on the parcels in the
2 proposed overlay zone can comply with? The operation standards in the Resolution provides
3 descriptions about minimum distances to nearest residential development homeless facilities,
4 schools, public parks and/or other operational standards that may be a homeless shelter in the
5 proposed overlay zone cannot comply with. Important that a homeless shelter can be potentially
6 built on one of the parcels in the overlay zone that is able to meet the criteria in the Resolution
7 and is not a `deal breaker' because it cannot meet the criteria.
8 • Related to the operational standards, requested clarification that `minimum distance' refers to a
9 minimum separation from nearest residential development, school, public park, etc.
10
11 Principal Planner Thompson:
12 • Staff is confident there are locations in the proposed overlay zone that can meet the criteria of the
13 Resolution and if not, would look at exceptions.
14
15 Planning Director Stump:
16 • If someone wanted to come in and establish a shelter, but cannot comply with some of the
17 operating standards in the Resolution, best approach would be to amend the Resolution. The
18 operation standards in the Resolution were developed with the assistance of homeless advocates
19 in the community in 2001. Is of the opinion the operational standards are reasonable.
20 • Confirmed the intent of the language, `minimum distance' in the operational standards as
21 meaning that a homeless shelter must be located a minimum distance to nearest residential
22 development, school, park etc., so as not to create adverse impacts.
23
24 Commissioner Christensen:
25 • Requested clarification that making the recommendation to City Council concerning the adoption
26 of the proposed zoning ordinance and resolution does not preclude a homeless shelter from
27 being constructed at the south end of town on appropriately zoned property.
28
29 Principal Planner Thompson:
30 • Confirmed the proposed overlay project does not preclude the opportunity to construct a
31 homeless shelter at the south end of town in the appropriate zone with approval of a use permit.
32
33 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:44 p.m.
34
35 Leslie Smyth:
36 • Questioned why the rest of Ford Street Project is not included in the proposed overlay zone
37 project?
38
39 Principle Planner Thompson:
40 • During initial review of the project last May when the options for establishment of a homeless
41 shelter by right was first presented, the overlay zone and the corresponding parcels included in
42 the zone made the most sense.
43
44 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:45 p.m.
45
46 Commissioner Watt:
47 • Related to the development guidelines in the Resolution offer some different/mixed philosophies
48 such that the shelters must be big enough that anything will fit or something specific so that you
49 get a project that is tied tightly to the operational standards. As an observation, it appears there is
50 room in the Resolution for interpretation and this might be a good thing.
51
52 Chair Whetzel:
53 • The homeless situation is a `touchy' subject in Ukiah. It appears there is a lot of illegal homeless
54 camping going on in the community.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 7
1 • Supports approval of the proposed overlay zone project that would allow for homeless shelters by
2 right and satisfies the State's requirement for certification of Ukiah's Housing Element by
3 complying with SB2.
4
5 M/S Watt/Hilliker to recommend City Council adopt the Negative Declaration based on the Findings in
6 attachment 2, to introduce an ordinance by title only to create the Homeless Shelter Overlay zone and
7 accompanying text and amend Resolution 2001-15 to include new Use Permit requirements for Homeless
8 Shelters. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioner Sanders voting NO.
9
10 Break: 6:50 p.m.
11 Reconvene: 6:55 p.m.
12
13 10B. Planning Permit Streamlining Workshop. Conduct a public workshop to discuss ideas and
14 receive input from the public regarding possible ways to streamline the planning permit review
15 process.
16
17 Planning Director Stump:
18 • Gave a staff report as provided for on pages 1-6 of the staff report and PowerPoint presentation
19 and talked about and/or provided examples of:
20 1) projects that require planning permits; 2) Minor and major planning permits; 3) existing
21 application process steps; 4) preliminary ideas for streamlining and addressing specific
22 standards for land uses and administrative permits and types thereof; 5) modification to the
23 square footage thresholds for major and minor permits as provided for in the table on page 5
24 of the staff report.
25 • Asked the Commission to conduct a public workshop for discussion of possible permit
26 streamlining and provide direction to staff.
27
28 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:12 p.m.
29
30 Chair Whezel:
31 • How would streamlining permit processing apply to `live music?'
32 • If a person complies with City standards related to live entertainment would approval be handled
33 administratively as opposed to discretionary review by the Planning Commission/Zoning
34 Administrator.
35 • Likes the concept of potentially being able to streamline certain types of permits without the
36 burden of having to go through discretionary review for some of the more simplified, smaller
37 projects.
38
39 Planning Director Stump:
40 • If Planning Commission/City Council is interested in allowing live entertainment without approval
41 of a use permit, would look at incorporating specific standards creating the rules where the
42 process would look at management plans etc., that are currently required. The applicant would
43 have to comply with the rules. One of the standard requirements might be that a potential
44 applicant has a management plan that is consistent with the regulations for live entertainment.
45 • If an applicant complies with City standards related to live entertainment, no use permit would be
46 required.
47 • Acknowledged it will take some work to modify some of the existing permit application
48 processes/steps and zoning code. Looking at the DZC and the intent of this document may be of
49 assistance to potentially change how some current permit applications are handled having the
50 potential to streamline them provided an applicant is able to comply with the applicable
51 standards.
52
53 Pinky Kushner:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 8
1 • Finds the list of permitted uses too broad to breakdown and streamline. For instance, live
2 entertainment and daycare center uses require different standards. Would not particularly want to
3 allow live entertainment without discretionary use permit approval.
4 • An alternative approach to changing all the rules for the different use permits is for someone to
5 ask for a variance. Preference would be to make the permitting process more approachable such
6 that someone could ask for a variance more easily.
7 • Cited a complicated permitting process for a particular project that initially involved a subdivision,
8 issues involving surfacing near a creek bank and other associated problems including drainage
9 that could have simplified the process if certain specific standards applicable to the project had
10 been identified and/or in place. In evaluating the project if specific standards applicable to the
11 project were in place such as the issue of using permeable paving methodologies as opposed to
12 use of asphalt in areas close to creek banks the project may not have been delayed. This would
13 have been a way to streamline the process. To streamline the permitting process requires looking
14 at specific standards and what specific standards should apply to a project and/or use.
15 • Is not supportive of changing the entire permitting process but rather understanding/identifying
16 the specifics for a particular project. In other words, `this happens so therefore let's change this.'
17 • Talked about a structural issue to her home that was built in 1874 where it would have been
18 helpful to have allowances/standards in place for restoring old buildings.
19
20 Chair Whetrel:
21 • The intent of the workshop is to explore alternatives for streamlining the use permit process for
22 some types of uses so that some of the smaller and more simplified projects can be approved at
23 staff level rather than having the applicant go through a lengthy and costly discretionary review
24 process.
25
26 Commissioner Watt:
27 • Sees how the streamlining the processing of smaller projects could improve efficiency and reduce
28 costs and staff time.
29 • Asked if providing for development incentives is an integral part of the streamlining proposal
30 concept.
31 • Asked about if thought has been given to identifying the obstacles and/or development
32 restrictions/conditions that presently discourage development but could improve development in
33 the City. What are those types of projects that could evolve with a more streamlined process and
34 less obstacles?
35 • One approach may be to grant a variance in exchange for certain required project mitigation
36 measures.
37 • Developers with smaller projects are going to ask `how much `soft cost' and time is it going to take
38 project before they know they have project.' For larger projects that require extensive
39 analysis/studies, developers likely anticipate time and costs will be greater than it would be for a
40 smaller project. It is for those smaller projects that a delay in processing could mean the
41 difference of whether there is a project happening or not and this is where `streamlining' would be
42 of benefit.
43 • Are there projects that are consistent with the vision of the City coming forthwith and/or were
44 previously approved where a set of standards could or were developed that if inet the project
45 would not have to come to the Planning Commission but rather could be processed
46 administratively at staff level.
47 • Understands a lot of time is involved when projects have to go through the discretionary review
48 process particularly with the many special meetings involving staff and stakeholder groups so if
49 there is a way time and costs can be reduced with regard to processing permit applications we
50 should be looking at how to improve the process. It is important the standards established
51 allowing development to occur without discretionary review be `robust' enough to protect the best
52 interests of citizens but yet allow someone to do a project.
53 • Being able to extend 'certainty' to an applicant by way telling the applicant upfront what standards
54 they must meet for approval of a use permit is very important. In this way, the applicant can
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 9
1 determine early on whether or not the project is doable without investing a lot time and money
2 into a project that is not doable.
3
4 Planning Director Stump:
5 • Clarified related to the project Ms. Kushner spoke about above was not delayed. A use permit
6 was issued the day after the Planning Commission approved the project. Staff did an excellent
7 job processing the associated permit and it was processed in record time. There were other
8 unrelated factors that had nothing to do with the permitting process that delayed the project from
9 moving forward timely.
10 • Acknowledged the intent of the workshop is to look at the `specifics' for the streamlining of certain
11 project types. At this point the proposal is `too broad' and it will take some time and additional
12 workshops to determine the best and most effective approach to streamlining certain types of
13 projects. Staff is looking for ideas and direction and how best to proceed with streamlining of
14 smaller and/or more simplified projects.
15 • Clarified structural issues are subject to the California Building Code requirements. The
16 discussion tonight concerns zoning issues.
17 • The intent is to explore ideas about how streamlining can promote development and to evaluate
18 the effects thereof.
19 • Acknowledged the process and/or concept of streamlining projects becomes complicated when
20 thought is being given to potentially amending the City code, particularly in terms of consistency.
21 • Related to identifying project obstacles that could be eliminated to promote/improve development
22 was looked at extensively during formulation of the DZC and cited examples of certain incentives
23 that could be invoked to promote development.
24 • Confirmed staff is looking at establishing certain standards for developments that if appropriately
25 met would allow the development to occur without discretionary review by the Planning
26 Commission.
27 • Cited the Pep Senior Affordable Housing Project as an example of a highly organized project that
28 went smoothly through the discretionary review process where staff was able to tell the applicant
29 the applicable development standards would be flexible. The applicant was advised of the
30 adopted minimum development standards such as setback requirements and other like standards
31 that would apply early on in the process allowing the applicant to effectively plan accordingly.
32
33 Principal Planner Thompson:
34 • The types of administrative planning permits that could potentially be streamlined as addressed
35 on pages 4 and 5 of the staff in relation to the `Existing Application Processing Steps' as
36 provided for on page 3 of the staff report could become that development/project incentive.
37 • Noted, however, project requiring CEQA review and compliance thereof is something that cannot
38 be controlled. A large project is subject to CEQA review as mandatory project requirement and
39 can be a tedious and somewhat lengthy process depending upon the complexity of the project.
40
41 Commissioner Watt:
42 • If the development standards go through the CEQA process and have been vetted the project
43 now complies with CEQA because it was designed to the standard that was vetted by the
44 environmental quality Act.
45 • A legal review process is big deal because you have to be able to defend it in the event CEQA
46 review for a particular project is challenged.
47 • Once the standards are established for a particular use, this reduces time and costs for the
48 applicant and staff because once this process is done, it is done for the next process and/or
49 project.
50 • Supports reaching out to the property owners/developers in the area about their needs and what
51 they would like to see changed with regard to potential streamlining of permits.
52
53 Commissioner Sanders:
54 • Worked on formulating/shaping the DZC.
55 • Attended all the charrette meetings in 2007.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 10
1 • It took a while before the DZC was `flushed ouY and/or the concept understood/accepted by the
2 community as a valuable tool for development.
3 • Was a Planning Commissioner during the time when the DZC was being reviewed and adopted.
4 A lot of time was spent evaluating the standards in the DZC. During the process of evaluating the
5 standards for the different uses in the DZC the Planning Commission made certain the intent was
6 to encourage development and looked at how best this could be accomplished by creating
7 thresholds that if a particular developer met the standards for a specific land use a project could
8 streamline through the process. Zoning was looked at in each of the three DZC zones (GU, UC,
9 DC) to establish the necessary standards and determine whether a particular use should be
10 allowed by right, use allowed accessory to a principal use, use allowed with a minor use permit or
11 use allowed with a major use permit or use prohibited altogether where careful consideration was
12 given to each use in the different zones as to purpose, applicability and what was good for the
13 community, property owner and/or developer.
14 • Did receive feedback from some developers that found the DZC to be a helpful tool in that they
15 could figure out what the expectations would be for a particular development/project before they
16 got to the planning department.
17 • Formulating the DZC was a lengthy process and it took approximately five years before it went to
18 the Planning Commission for review and was approved by City Council.
19 • All meetings associated with the formulating/adopting the DZC were well attended. The public
20 had questions and concerns about the DZC.
21 • Now that time has passed and projects have come forward that are located in the DZC,
22 staff/Planning Commission has had discussions that the DZC might in some instances be difficult
23 to use such that some changes may be necessary.
24 • The workshop tonight is about looking at zoning and with reducing the number of projects that are
25 required to secure planning permits by developing specific standards for certain land uses and if
26 the project is consistent with the standards, no planning permit would be required. This has
27 already been accomplished in the DZC. Is the intent then to expand upon the DZC and if so finds
28 this to be a `disconnect.'
29 • Asked about whether people/developers express concern/complained when told about the
30 timeframe it takes to process a project and go through the Design Review Board etc.
31 • Finds that most of the project applicants are very complimentary of how staff and the Planning
32 Commission processed their permits.
33 • When controversy occurs about a project, `what is the measurement?' Is it an article in the
34 newspaper, a chronic complainer?
35
36 Chair Whetzel:
37 • Sees reason to possible modify the square footage thresholds for minor/major site development
38 permits.
39 • Related to the next step in a planning permit streamlining workshop would like staff to define what
40 we are looking for and/or provide example of what we are looking for with regard to streamlining
41 permits.
42 • Understands streamlining is for smaller, less complicated permit types.
43 • For Planning Commission review of the DZC recalls going step by step for each individual use
44 and corresponding standard to make certain this is what the citizens, property owners and
45 developers would want and benefit from.
46
47 Planning Director Stump:
48 • Confirmed the aforementioned statement is correct. CEQA review requires a tremendous amount
49 of work up front.
50 • Acknowledged going through the charrette and adoption process for the DZC is what we are
51 essentially doing with looking at the City zoning code and with streamlining the permitting process
52 and how best this can be accomplished.
53 • The goal is for a developer/applicant to understand upfront what he/she needs to do early on to
54 get a project approved. Applicants need a `foundation' in which to start evaluation of their projects
55 and this begins with having standards in place and that for smaller more simplified projects allow
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 11
1 for a streamlining of the permitting process by having standards in place that can speed the
2 process along without having to go through a lengthy discretionary review process for a small
3 project. Having specific standards to guide projects provides for that certainty applicants need to
4 properly and objectively evaluate their project.
5 • Cited the recently approved Chipotle restaurant project located within the boundaries of the DZC
6 that could have been a minor site development permit for approval at the Zoning Administration
7 level requiring much less review intensity, time and cost since the project met the development
8 standards in the DZC except for the three exceptions being requested that required Planning
9 Commission review as a major site development permit.
10 • The City does not typically have `big time' developers. Staff would certainly reach out to frequent
11 customers about what they would like to see changed with regard to potential streamlining of
12 permits. It would be beneficial to look at development standards in other cities to see how they
13 process permits and/or what they are doing in this regard.
14 • Staff is not suggesting expanding the DZC but rather to look at some of the products from the
15 new DZC that could be applied on a broader scale within the City by looking at development for
16 specific land uses in the DZC. The standards for specific land uses in the DZC are some of the
17 best sections. There are also parts of the DZC that are complex and difficult for staff to explain,
18 as well as sometimes difficult to understand. Related to the complex sections of the DZC staff is
19 developing material to explain to developers the necessary information developers need to have
20 that `certainty' when considering their projects. Such necessary information to provide certainty
21 may be what sort of frontage type, what can be built in the first layer, etc. There is a lot of
22 terminology/regulations in connection with form-based standards in the DZC that are not familiar
23 to most people/developers or to staff that have to be better understood and familiarized. As such,
24 some changes to the DZC may be necessary so the regulations are more user-friendly.
25 • Acknowledged some developers do complain about the timeframe for processing a permit and
26 costs. However, other developers, particularly outside developers are very pleased with pre-
27 application review, the timeframe to process the permit application and permit costs.
28 • The intent is to not necessarily change the process approach but rather create an administrative
29 staff level permit process for small projects that could reduce the time to process the permit
30 application from 6 to 8 weeks to 2 weeks or so, which could mean number of things such as
31 change the square footage threshold for Minor and Major Site Development permits similar to the
32 standards in the DZC that may allow some permits to be issued over the counter. Should explore
33 what types of `small' permits could actually be issued over the counter. There may be less
34 complaints about processing time and cost with issuing small permits over the counter.
35 • It may also be a chronic complainer clearly has no bearing and nothing to with the project. It is
36 sometimes difficult to assess/judge the merit of a complaint.
37 • Staff will take the concepts discussed above and further develop them as they relate to providing
38 incentives for property owners/developer that could involve the community and community assets
39 or possibly by mitigating certain problems.
40 • Would like to pursue being `creative' with the City code and provide for more detail and specifics
41 about what the City can do to streamline planning permits.
42
43 Public member, No name given:
44 • Is of the opinion best approach would be to address/revisit the issues where there have been
45 questions or problems with projects.
46 • Projects that go through the process smoothly and have no problems/issues likely do not need to
47 be reviewed.
48
49 Chair Whetzel:
50 • Cited the approved doggie daycare facility on S. State Street that was formerly a
51 residential/commercial plumbing business as an example of a project that could have benefited
52 from streamlining the permit application process provided they met the appropriate zoning
53 criteria rather than having to go through the lengthy process of discretionary review at the
54 Planning Commission level.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 12
1 • There are just some projects that `obviously' should be handled as an administrative permit or at
2 a lower less time consuming and costly decision making body.
3 • Would like to see a list of what can be done about permit streamlining.
4
5 Commissioner Watt:
6 • Refers to the concept of streamlining as ` the low hanging fruit/ pick it all' since we have already
7 laid the concepts out supports looking at the easy things/projects that could go through the
8 streamline process first and then look at some of the larger projects that could benefit from some
9 of the streamline concepts if this is possible.
10
11 Commissioner Christensen:
12 • Understands currently the decision making process relates to either a major or minor use permit
13 or site development permit at the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator level. Asked
14 how the decision making processes might differ between the two decision making bodies and is
15 there a difference in cost or time if one or the other decision making body has to put the project
16 through the process.
17 • What triggers DRB review of a project? Sometimes the Planning Commission does not agree
18 with the DRB's design recommendations and overrides it and this is after the project has gone
19 through a lengthy permitting process.
20 • It may be that certain `steps' can be eliminated for some projects as a way of streamlining.
21
22 Planning Director Stump:
23 • Confirmed staff/Planning Commission will continue to work on possible zoning code
24 modifications so as to allow for streamlining of planning permits for some types of lands uses.
25 • Confirmed it is less time consuming and expensive to go through the Zoning Administrator. The
26 Zoning Administrator process is similar to the Planning Commission. Projects that are required to
27 go through the Planning Commission are larger and require more analysis, such that many of
28 these cases are subject to CEQA review where negative declarations/environmental studies
29 must be prepared. The large projects are more costly and take longer to process.
30 • The DRB is a recommending body. It is the purview of the Commission to override a DRB design
31 recommendation if they disagree because the Planning Commission is a decision-making body
32 and makes the final decision. Understands some cases are more difficult and while the Planning
33 Commission wants to support the DRB there are those times when the Commission may
34 disagree with a DRB recommendation. Acknowledged there are design professionals that serve
35 on the DRB and take what they do seriously. The DRB is required by City code to review and
36 make a recommendation on all Site Development Permit applications whether they go to the
37 Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission.
38 • Staff has talked about possibly eliminating some planning permit process steps to help simplify
39 the process and is of the opinion there is room to do this. Cited an example of a computer repair
40 shop that was converted to a hair salon where the entire fa�ade and front of the building
41 changed. Is of the opinion the building when it functioned as a computer repair shop was
42 aesthetically unattractive. The project came in as a fa�ade improvemenUrenovation project
43 where the proposed renovation was clearly an improvement to the appearance of the building.
44 The question is should this project have been acted upon by staff or should the project be send
45 to the DRB for review and a recommendation to the Zoning Administrator that takes more time
46 and more costly. Should we have a process where an applicant comes in with a great project like
47 the hair salon that can be acted upon by staff rather than going to the Zoning Administrator?
48
49 Principal Planner Thompson:
50 • Also, for a larger project an applicant may have Project exceptions to City development standards
51 that have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
52
53 Chair Whetzel:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 13
1 • Can the Planning Commission enact a process to be acted upon at staff level for projects that are
2 great such as the hair salon project where all design and/or other standards are met into the
3 planning permit streamlining process?
4 • If projects meet the design criteria and use standards there should be no reason to require an
5 applicant go through a lengthy permit process.
6
7 Planning Director Stump:
8 • Confirmed the Planning Commission can make a recommendation to Council to enact such a
9 process. Staff will look at ways this can be accomplished for further discussion.
10 • Situations we want to avoid would be if a commercial project comes forward, for instance, where
11 an applicant works with staff on the original design using the Commercial Development Design
12 Guidelines and the DRB and/or Planning Commission go off in a different design director such
13 that the project goes on appeal to Council and Council goes off in a completely different director
14 and the applicant is left confused.
15
16 Commissioner Watt:
17 • Asked about what would occur if a minor site development permit that would go to the Zoning
18 Administrator for approval goes to the DRB but the applicant objects to the design
19 recommendations?
20
21 Planning Director Stump:
22 • This is not a typical situation. What would occur is if the DRB makes a recommendation the
23 applicant simply does not like the Zoning Administrator conducts a hearing where the applicant
24 can object to what is being recommended and the Zoning Administrator can support the DRB's
25 recommendation but might not condition the project to have to comply with all that is being
26 recommended/required. The zoning Administrator advises the applicant that if he/she is
27 dissatisfied with the Zoning Administrator's decision the decision can be appealed directly to the
28 City Council and does not go to the Planning Commission. Cited a project where the applicant did
29 not agree with the DRB's recommendations and the Zoning Administrator determined the
30 applicant had indeed integrate/incorporate design concepts into the project well where color and
31 material samples were presented such that the Zoning Administrator approved the project
32 supported the DRB's recommendations in part but did not support all of the recommendations.
33 The DRB was advised of the project outcome in this regard for informational purposes.
34
35 Public member(name inaudible):
36 • Recently purchased a building for a restaurant business in Ukiah and would encourage the
37 staff/Commission to look at modifying the square footage thresholds for major/minor permits.
38 Finds there to be a huge discrepancy in the square footage for major/minor site development
39 permits in the various zoning districts. It would be helpful if certain incentives were in place in the
40 way of standards to assist property owners/developers understand and achieve their goal of
41 getting project approval that is less time consuming and costly having to go through the project
42 approval process.
43
44 Commissioner Watt:
45 • There are buildings having certain characteristics that may not be reflective of they we want the
46 City to look because it is abandoned, shoddy, or dilapidated would like to see some type of
47 incentive in place that could help turn the problem around. This may be related to streamlining,
48 deferred fees and/or other types of incentives where some processing steps could be bypassed
49 to help a property owner/developer make the building aesthetically pleasing and in compliance
50 with City design standards.
51 • Staff may want to look at fees schedule for permits, business licenses, etc.
52
53 Planning Director Stump:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 14
1 • Cited the computer repair business building that was converted to a hair salon again as an
2 example of a project that could have been streamlined through the process and explained how
3 so.
4
5 Pinky Kushner:
6 • Again would like to emphasize the importance of knowing/understanding the `specifics' with
7 regard to streamlining by defining the particulars about what streamlining is all about and what
8 uses/project types/zoning designations allow for streamlining. It may be beneficial to look at the
9 DZC as an example because the intent of this code is to more or less streamline projects
10 provided the applicant meets the corresponding standards for a particular zoning designation in
11 the DZC and the particular use. It may be that some of the uses in the DZC would be applicable
12 for streamlining across the board.
13
14 Matthew Gilbert:
15 • Likes that staff and the Commission are looking at ways/opportunities to streamline projects,
16 noting his particular project that was approved by the Planning Commission consumed a lot of
17 time and costs going through the discretionary review that may otherwise not have been
18 necessary.
19
20 Planning Director Stump:
21 • Has sufficient direction regarding streamlining of planning permits for next workshop.
22 • Related to next series of streamlining of planning permits, staff may want to get City Council's
23 input to make certain the direction staff/Planning Commission is going is something Council
24 supports.
25
26 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:09 p.m.
27
28 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
29 Planning Director Stump:
30 • There will be no Planning Commission meeting August 26, 2015.
31 • Advised of upcoming Planning Commission projects.
32
33 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
34 Commissioner Sanders:
35 • Asked about street trees to be planted for the approved Dharma Realm Buddhist University
36 project that was formerly Trinity School.
37
38 Commissioner Hilliker:
39 • Asked about the round-about on Bush Street and what decision making body has purview.
40
41 Commissioner Christensen:
42 • Asked about an email to Planning Director Stump regarding a matter.
43
44 Chair Whetzel:
45 • Bush Street is not the problem with regard to the proposed round-about project, citing City street
46 Despina that fronts the Ukiah High School as the problem.
47
48 Commissioner Watt:
49 • Advised of an upcoming meeting tomorrow night that the City is hosting at the Ukiah Conference
50 Center regarding the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. He will be helping out with the
51 meeting.
52
53 Planning Director Stump:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 15
1 • Will look into the conditions of approval for the Dharma Realm Buddhist University project
2 relevant to street trees and noted the applicant is very conscientious about compliance with all of
3 the conditions of approval.
4 • City Council with recommendation from the Traffic Engineering Committee would review the
5 round-about project on Bush Street.
6 • Will discuss the email with Commissioner Christensen.
7
8 13. ADJOURNMENT
9 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
10
11 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2015
Page 16