HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin 05-31-88130
CITY OF UKIAH
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
MAY 31, 1988
The City Council convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 8:30 a.m., in
Conference Room 3 at the Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Shoemaker,
Hickey, Schneiter, and Mayor Henderson. Absent: Councilmember Myers. Staff
present: City Manager Payne, City Attorney Rapport, Public Works
Director/City Engineer Pedroncelli, Community Development/Assistant
Redevelopment Director Harris, Assistant to the City Manager Horsley, Public
Works Deputy Director Goforth, Public Works Assistant Director Beard, Planning
Assistant Yarbrough, and City Clerk Hayes.
Unfinished Business
2a. Presentation - Development Process
The City Manager explained the reason for the study session, believing it is a
fine introspective into the City's development process.
The Community Development/Assistant Redevelopment Director explained the 5
step development process.
It takes 30 days, from the time of submitting an application to reach the
Planning Commission. Of course, the timing does also depend on the
sophistication and complexity of a project.
Councilmember Schneiter asked if a developer's plans are reviewed during the
development process.
The Community Development/Assistant Redevelopment Director explained that it
depends on what the applicant submits and at times the plans are not seen
until after the Planning Commission meeting.
Council and Staff discussed the need to collect and develop base data
information on development standards for each property in the City whether
developed or undeveloped.
The Community Development/Assistant Redevelopment Director noted the Staff
tries to give consistent information and treatment to all contacts with the
public; believing it is very important on the first contact to give exact
information. Flexibility, from one case to another, can be perceived as being
inconsistent. He believes flexibility should remain in the elected officials
hands. Five recommendations were given to improve the development process:
1) identify the details and have the community buy into the philosophy of
development standards, whether the developer or the community pays for the
implementation and establish open workshops or study sessions to review the
standard requirements and discuss the philosophies behind the policies, 2)
establish bounds for flexibility at the Staff level that the Council and the
community can accept, 3) provide the resources with which the development
standards and requirements are clearly defined and presented in an efficient
manner, 4) provide resources to accommodate those persons requiring more
individualized processing, 5) consistency with the Planning Commission and
Council on established requirements unless the special authority can create
some special circumstances within which modifications can take place.
Recess: 9:20 a.m.
Reconvened: 9:30 p.m.
The Public Works Director/City Engineer explained the need for consistent
interpretation of the code. He talked about the concept of discretionary
approval vs. ministerial approval can be perceived by the public as being
inconsistent. He hopes that a developer will contact his department early on
so they can be helpful and discretionary rather than rigid when it comes time
to sign a final map.
The Public Works Assistant Director discussed the Project Review Committee as
an informal session with the owner to provide initial review of a project and
find out from all agencies what might be expected to develop before service
131
can be provided. A check list has been drafted to hopefully address
requirements of a project. Noted the need to update code requirements.
The Public Works Deputy Director addressed the water and sewer requirements of
a project. The input he gives to a project gives him pride when all needs
have been addressed throughout a project, makes for a successful project. But
it was noted, timely and accurate information from the developer is needed.
He too addressed the Project Review Committee and further commented that this
committee is not the final answer to construction.
There was discussion by Council and Staff regarding a possible new committee
input before final plans are submitted, the City explaining and looking at
standards per project rather than keeping to the 30 day process time, a
laymen's checklist to development, a video on the development process, and
finally the need to establish a base data information on development standards
parcel by parcel.
Councilmember Schneiter believes all developers should be perceived as
customers realizing their dollars can be taken elsewhere. Ail customers
provide to the City's economic base.
Council will consider monthly study sessions on perceived problems in other
departments.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:13 a.m.
Ref:CCMIN3
Yvette S. Hayes, City Clerk
Reg. Mtg.
May 31, 1988
Page 2