HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-26 PacketPage 1 of 2
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
AGENDA
This meeting will be held remotely.
Join the meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/132249829
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (312) 7573121
Access Code: 132249829
August 26, 2020 6:00 PM
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.a. Approve the Minutes of the July 16, 2020 Special Meeting.
Recommended Action: Approve the July 16, 2020 Special Meeting Minutes.
Attachments:
1.2020-07-16 PC Draft Minutes
4.b. Approve Minutes of the August 12, 2020 Regular Meeting
Recommended Action: Approve the August 12, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes.
Attachments:
1.2020-08-12 PC Draft Minutes
5.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 party may appeal only if he or she appeared and stated his or her position during the hearing on the decision
from which the appeal is taken. For items on this agenda, the appeal must be received by September 8, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.
Page 1 of 19
Page 2 of 2
6.COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NONAGENDA 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.
7.SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8.VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9.PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REPORT
10.DIRECTOR'S REPORT
11.CONSENT CALENDAR
12.NEW BUSINESS
13.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
13.a. Consideration of Appeal of City Engineer's Approval of a Minor Subdivision to Split the
Existing ±0.60acre (26,136 sf) parcel into three parcels at 589 North School Street, APN 002
14601. File No. 194992.
Recommended Action: Uphold the City Engineer's approval of the Minor Subdivision to split the
existing ±0.60acre (26,136 sf) parcel into three parcels at 589 North School Street, APN 002146
01, based on the Findings in the Staff Report dated July 2, 2010.
Attachments:
1.ATT 1_Public Correspondence 20200814
2.ATT_2 Memo Rapport and Marston
3.ATT 3_SR and Findings_20200812
4.Correspondence_Chair Christensen_20200826
14.ADJOURNMENT
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.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located
at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on
this agenda.
Mireya G. Turner, Planning Manager
August 21, 2020
Page 2 of 19
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Special Meeting
Virtual Meeting Hosted by the County of Mendocino
https://www.youtube.com/MendocinoCountyVideo
July 16, 2020
1:00 p.m.
Joint Meeting with the Mendocino County Planning Commission
1.CALL TO ORDER
The City of Ukiah Planning Commission met at a Special Joint Meeting with the Mendocino
County Planning Commission on July 16, 2020, having been legally noticed on July 9, 2020.
Mendocino County Planning Commission Chair, Marilyn Ogle, called the meeting to order at
1:08 p.m. (Note: The joint meeting is a timed item on the Mendocino County Planning
Commission agenda, which started at 9:00 a.m.)
CHAIR OGLE PRESIDING OVER JOINT MEETING.
CHAIR CHRISTENSEN PRESIDING OVER CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION.
2.ROLL CALL
Roll was taken with the following Commissioners Present: Ruth Van Antwerp, Mark Hilliker,
Mike Whetzel, and Laura Christensen; Commissioner Absent by Prearrangement: Linda
Sanders, Staff Present: Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director; Greg Owen,
Airport Manager; and Kristine Lawler, City Clerk.
County Planning Commissioners Present: Gregory Nelson, Madelin Holtkamp, Diana
Wiedemann Scott Perkins, and Marilyn Ogle.
County Staff Present: Brent Schultz, Planning and Building Services Director; Julia
Acker Krog, Chief Planner; Ken Brody, Senior Project Planner; Matthew Kiedrowski,
Deputy County Counsel; and Caitlin Schafer, Administrative Secretary.
3.VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
Confirmed by Staff.
4.NEW BUSINESS
a.Consideration of Recommendation to the Mendocino County Airport Land Use
Commission on the Draft Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Presenter: Maranda Thompson, Mead & Hunt Project Manager.
City Staff Comment: Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director.
County Staff Comment: Ken Brody, Senior Project Manager; Julia Acker Krog, Chief Planner;
and Brent Schultz, Planning and Building Services Director.
Public Comment: No public comment was received.
Page 3 of 19
Minutes of the Planning Commission, July 16, 2020, Continued:
Page 2 of 2
Motion/Second: Whetzel/Hilliker to adopt the Resolution recommending that the Mendocino
County Airport Land Use Commission adopt the Draft 2020 Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan for Ukiah Municipal Airport. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Van
Antwerp, Whetzel, Hilliker, and Christensen. NOES: None. ABSENT: Sanders. ABSTAIN:
None.
County Motion: Motion by Commissioner Holtkamp, Seconded by Commissioner Nelson
to adopt the amended Resolution as presented, recommending that the Mendocino County
Airport Land Use Commission adopt the Draft 2020 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
for Ukiah Municipal Airport. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Nelson,
Holtkamp, Wiedemann, Perkins, and Ogle. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
5.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:43 p.m.
____________________________
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
Page 4 of 19
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Held Remotely via GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/281764245
August 12, 2020
6:00 p.m.
1.CALL TO ORDER
The City of Ukiah Planning Commission met at a Regular Meeting on August 12, 2020, having
been legally noticed on August 7, 2020. Chair Christensen called the meeting to order at 6:10
p.m.
CHAIR CHRISTENSEN PRESIDING.
2.ROLL CALL
Roll was taken with the following Commissioners Present: Ruth Van Antwerp, Linda Sanders,
Mike Whetzel, Mark Hilliker (arriving at 6:14 p.m.), and Laura Christensen; Staff Present:
Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director; Mireya Turner, Planning Manager; and
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk.
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Christensen.
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Approval of May 27, 2020, Regular Meeting Minutes.
b.Approval of July 22, 2020, Regular Meeting Minutes.
Motion/Second: Sanders/Whetzel to approve Minutes of May 27, 2020, a regular meeting,
and the Minutes of July 22, 2020, a regular meeting, as submitted. Motion carried by the
following roll call votes: AYES: Van Antwerp, Whetzel, Hilliker, Sanders and Chair Christensen.
NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
5.APPEAL PROCESS
No matters eligible for appeal were heard.
6.COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
No public comment was received.
7.SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
Confirmed by Commissioners.
8.VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
Confirmed by Staff.
9.PLANNING COMMISSIONERS’ REPORT
Presenter: Commissioner Van Antwerp
10.DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Presenter: Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director.
Page 5 of 19
Minutes of the Planning Commission, August 12, 2020 Continued:
Page 2 of 2
11. CONSENT CALENDAR
No Consent Calendar Items on agenda.
12. NEW BUSINESS
a. Consideration of Appeal of City Engineer's Approval of a Minor Subdivision to Divide
the Existing ±0.60-acre (26,136 sf) parcel into three parcels at 589 North School
Street, APN 002- 146-01. File No. 19-4992.
Presenters: Mireya Turning, Planning Manager and Craig Schlatter, Community
Development Director.
Public Comment: Jim Brown, Appellant, Mary Misseldine (Read by Clerk), Quelani Penland,
Representing Applicant; and Andrew Webb.
At 7:40 p.m., Vice Chair Sanders departed, returning at 7:42 p.m.
Motion by Chair Christensen to deny the appeal and approve the minor subdivision, based on
attachment six - the draft findings - for the minor subdivision for 589 North School Street,
Motion failed for lack of a second.
RECESS: 8:12 – 8:23 P.M.
Clerk performed a roll call to determine that all commissioners were back from recess.
Motion/Second: Sanders/Hilliker to postpone this item to the August 26, 2020, Planning
Commission meeting at 6:00 p.m. pending a staff report on potential findings or legal concerns.
Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Van Antwerp, Whetzel, Hilliker, and
Sanders. NOES: Christensen. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Update to Consideration of Draft Objective Development and Design Standards for
New Residential Development, including duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, and multi-
family projects with five or more units, and recommendation to City Council.
Presenter: Mireya Turning, Planning Manager and Craig Schlatter, Community
Development Director.
No public comment was received.
Motion/Second: Whetzel/Hilliker to recommend the objective design and development
standards for new residential construction with the concerns [regarding possible conflicts
between a required number of guest parking per units and the flexible parking standards]
conveyed to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Van
Antwerp, Whetzel, Hilliker, Sanders and Christensen. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
____________________________
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
Page 6 of 19
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13a
Community Development Department
Planning Services Division
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
Staff Report
Appeal of City Engineer’s Approval of Minor Subdivision
589 North School Street; APN 002-146-01
File No. 19-4992
1
Date: August 21, 2020
To: Planning Commission
From: Mireya G. Turner, Planning Manager
Subject: RE: Consideration of Appeal of City Engineer’s Approval of a Minor Subdivision to
split the existing ±0.60-acre (26,136 sf) parcel into three parcels at 589 North
School Street, APN 002-146-01. File No. 19-4992.
SUMMARY
At the August 12, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission requested assistance from the City
Attorney regarding findings to uphold the appeal. City Attorney David Rapport has reviewed the
meeting and is preparing an Opinion. This document will be posted to the website and distributed
to the Commission as soon as it becomes available.
Public Correspondence received since the August 12, 2020 meeting is included as Attachment
1.
NOTICING
As the public hearing was continued to a time and date certain, the agenda was posted
at the Civic Center (glass case) at least 72 hours prior to the public hearing, in
accordance with UCC §9262(C).
Page 7 of 19
Attachment 1Page 8 of 19
Law Offices Of
RAPPORT AND MARSTON
An Association of Sole Practitioners
405 W. Perkins Street
P.O. Box 488
Ukiah, California 95482
e-mail: drapport@pacbell.net
David J. Rapport (707) 462-6846
Darcy Vaughn FAX 462-4235
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Craig Schlatter, Director of Planning and Community Development and the City
of Ukiah Planning Commission
FROM: David J. Rapport, City Attorney
DATE: August 24, 2020
SUBJECT: Findings to uphold appeal from decision by the City Engineer to approve a parcel
map to subdivide lot located at 589 S. School Street into 3 parcels
_____________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2020, the City Engineer conducted a public hearing and approved the application
for approval of a parcel map to subdivide the property at 589 S. School Street into three parcels.
No one present provided public comment at the hearing. Ukiah City Code (“UCC”) Section 8307
provides the subdivider with a right to appeal the City Engineer’s decision to the Planning
Commission. No such appeal was filed within the prescribed 10 appeal period. No other member
of the public had the right to appeal the decision under the City Code.
However, Ukiah City Code Section 1203 gives city council members the right to appeal to the
city council any action taken by any commission, board or agency of the City. City Council
member Jim Brown appealed the decision to the Ukiah City Council which heard the appeal on
March 4, 2020. The City Council voted to refer the decision on the appeal to the Planning
Commission.
After conducting its hearing on August 12, 2020, the Planning Commission voted to continue the
hearing to August 26, 2020. The hearing was continued to allow more time to develop findings
to support a decision upholding the appeal and denying the application for a three-parcel
subdivision. Planning staff has consulted with me and this memorandum proposes and discusses
potential findings.
CONCLUSION
Findings are proposed under the heading below: Proposed Findings. In providing these findings I
Attachment 2
Page 9 of 19
To: Craig Schlatter and Planning Commission Page 2
Subject: Findings
Date: August 21, 2020
cannot recommend them for the reasons discussed below.
PROPOSED FINDINGS
1. The creation of a three-parcel subdivision at 589 S. School Street (“the Site”) complies with
the provisions of the City’s subdivision and zoning ordinances (see UCC §§ 8041, 8300-8306 re:
minor subdivisions) and §§9015-9022 re: R-1 zoning districts), is consistent with the Goals and
Policies of the General Plan (General Plan (GP), Housing Element (GP Chapter 14) and does not
conflict with any other applicable provision of the General Plan,.
2. While their specific size and configuration is not currently known, it is reasonably foreseeable
that not less than three single family residences and potentially up to six Accessory Dwelling
Units (“ADUs”) and up to six Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (“JADUs”) may be constructed
within the subdivision with potentially adverse effects on on-street parking, traffic flow on
School Street in the vicinity of the Site, which is only 17 feet wide between the edges of the
paved roadway, and the safety of existing residents of the subdivision and future residents of
housing constructed on the Site.
3. Based on the approved configuration of the three lots, it is reasonably foreseeable that a fire
engine of sufficient size would have inadequate access to Parcel 3 in the subdivision in the event
of a fire with potentially adverse impacts on public safety and the ability to prevent a fire from
affecting other structures in the subdivision or on other parcels in the vicinity of the Site.
4. Based on the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission further finds that creating three
parcels on the Site is excessive in this specific location and on that basis upholds the appeal and
reverses the decision of the City Engineer approving the subdivision.
5. These findings and reversal of the decision of the City Engineer is without prejudice to the
applicant amending the application or submitting a new application to create two rather than
three parcels.
DISCUSSION
The above findings are based on statements by the appellant, others testifying at the hearing and
by members of the Planning Commission. The comments included first-hand knowledge about
the width of S. School Street in the vicinity of the Site, the speed of cars using this segment of
School Street, and the current amount and timing of on-street parking there, They are the only
potential findings I could propose based on my review of the hearing video.
Findings are required when an administrative agency like the Planning Commission makes a
decision on an appeal from the granting or denial of a permit or other entitlement (a “quasi-
Page 10 of 19
To: Craig Schlatter and Planning Commission Page 3
Subject: Findings
Date: August 21, 2020
judicial decision”), such as the approval of the minor subdivision parcel map involved here.
In the leading California Supreme Court case on the issue of findings in quasi-judicial
administrative proceedings, Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles
(1974)11 Cal.3d 506, the Court examined “. ., aspects of the functions served by administrative
agencies in the granting [or denial] . . .” of permits or other authorizations concerning the use of
real property “ . . . and of courts in reviewing these proceedings . . .” The Court concluded that
the reviewing administrative agency “ . . .must render findings to support their ultimate rulings.
It also concluded “. . . that when called upon to scrutinize a decision upholding or overturning
the grant or denial of the permit or other entitlement “. . , a reviewing court must determine
whether substantial evidence supports the findings of the administrative board and whether the
findings support the board's action..” The Court noted that: “A court reviewing that grant or
denial must determine whether substantial evidence supports the findings and whether the
findings support the conclusion that all applicable legislative requirements . . . have been
satisfied.”
What qualifies as substantial evidence has been examined in a number of contexts. Cases under
the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) provide useful guidance, because they have
had to decide when the expressed concerns by neighbors, lay and expert opinion and
observations by members of the public, appellants and decision-makers qualify as substantial
evidence of adverse environmental impacts and when they do not.
In Newberry Springs Water Assn v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 150 Cal.App. 3d 740, 748-
749, the court observed: “. . . to meet the “fair argument” burden, project opponents must
produce some evidence, other than their unsubstantiated opinions, that a project will produce a
particular adverse affect. . . .”.)
An absence of evidence in the record or a lack of study of an impact is not evidence that there
will be a significant impact. (Gentry v. Murrieta City (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1379.)
Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous
or inaccurate . . . does not constitute substantial evidence. Friends of Old Trees v. California
Department of Forestry (1997) 52 Cal.App. 4th 1383.
Here, facts in the administrative record must not only the existing conditions, such as the width
of the street, the amount of on-street parking, the amount and speed of current traffic, the uses of
the street by existing residents, including children, but most importantly how the approval of the
subdivision will makes those conditions worse or unacceptable. All the statements during the
hearing about those potential effects are based on speculation and unsupported non-expert
opinion, which does not qualify as substantial evidence. The record contains insufficient details
about the actual development of the parcels to predict how much parking may be required
Page 11 of 19
To: Craig Schlatter and Planning Commission Page 4
Subject: Findings
Date: August 21, 2020
beyond the on-site parking required for the subdivision under the zoning and subdivision
ordinances. Most importantly, no standards have been identified for evaluating the impacts of the
subdivision other than those contained in the Subdivision Ordinance, which the City Engineer
found the subdivision satisfies, including lot size, off-street parking, and access or which will be
satisfied prior to development, including storm water drainage (see Article 11, Storm Drainage,
UCC §§ 8180-8187) and street frontage improvements (UCC §§8160-8164).
The absence of studies establishing the traffic impacts or the impacts to on-street parking or the
access of fire engines is not evidence of an adverse impact.(Gentry v. Murrieta City (1995) 36
Cal.App.4th supra at 1379.)
For these reasons, I cannot recommend the proposed findings, although the decision whether or
not to adopt them or some version of them rests with the Commission, subject, of course, to the
applicant’s right to seek judicial review of the Commission’s decision.
Page 12 of 19
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12a Community
Development Department Planning
Services Division
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
Staff Report
Appeal of City Engineer’s Approval of Minor Subdivision
589 North School Street
File No: 19-4992
1
Date: July 2, 2020
To: Planning Commission
From: Mireya G. Turner, Associate Planner
Subject: Consideration of Appeal of City Engineer’s Approval of a Minor Subdivision to split
the existing ±0.60-acre (26,136 sf) parcel into three parcels at 589 North School
Street, APN 002-146-01. File No. 19-4992.
ATTACHMENTS
1.February 4, 2020 City Engineer Hearing Staff Report and Attachments
2.February 4, 2020 City Engineer Hearing Draft Minutes
3.Appeal Application
4.Correspondence_Applicant
5.Public Correspondence_Nicholson
6.Draft Findings
SUMMARY
The City Council has requested the Planning Commission consider Councilmember Jim Brown’s
appeal of the City Engineer’s approval of the Minor Subdivision Map Project, located at 589 North
School Street, to divide the existing ±0.60-acre (26,136 sf) parcel into three parcels at 589 North
School Street, APN 002-146-01. File No. 19-4992.
Staff recommends Planning Commission uphold the decision of the City Engineer to approve the
Minor Subdivision, splitting the existing ±0.60-acre (26,136 sf) parcel into three parcels at 589
North School Street, based on the findings listed in the February 4, 2020 City Engineer Hearing
Staff Report and the findings within this Staff Report.
BACKGROUND
An application was received on November 18, 2019 on behalf of My Nga Thi Vo, property owner,
for the subdivision of one ±0.60 acre (26,136 sf) parcel into three parcels at 589 N. School St. The
resulting parcel sizes would be: Parcel 1: 6,161 sf gross & net, Parcel 2: 6,254 sf gross and net,
and Parcel 3: 13,781 sf gross and 12,190 sf net.
The parcel is vacant with numerous trees. A portion of the site is in the FEMA 100-year floodplain
due to its proximity to Orr Creek, with flood depth less than one (1) foot on small portions of the
Attachment 3
Page 13 of 19
Staff Report
Appeal of CE Approval of Minor Subdivision
589 North School Street
File No: 19-4992
2
property. The Project Site is within the City utilities service area, and has direct access onto North
School Street.
The parcel carries a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and is within
the Single-family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The surrounding area is currently developed
with residential and commercial uses, and the neighboring residential parcels vary in size from
±0.13 acres to ±0.32 acres. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not change the zoning or use
of the parcel, and the resulting parcels, 0.14 acres each for Parcels 1 and 2, and 0.28 for Parcel
3, are consistent with the size and use of the surrounding area. All proposed lots meet the
minimum “R-1” lot size of 6,000 square feet, and the minimum width of 60 feet.
With resulting residential parcels on a natural ground of average gradient less than fifteen percent
(15%), and having lots with areas of six thousand to ten thousand (6,000-10,000) square feet,
this project is consistent with the Type I Subdivision criteria as described in UCC §8041.
Conditions have been added to the project to ensure compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance
standards, including street frontage improvements, public utility access, street trees, park fees,
and on-site circulation standards.
The project was reviewed by the following agencies: City of Ukiah Community Development
Building Division, City of Ukiah Public Works Department, City of Ukiah Electric Utility Department,
County of Mendocino Transportation Department, and Pacific Gas and Electric. Their comments
were included in the staff report and conditions added to the Conditions of Approval. The Staff
Report, Findings, and Conditions of Approval are included within Attachment 1.
Emails and letters were received from the public regarding the project. This public correspondence
was added to the website posting, and presented to the City Engineer prior to the hearing.
On February 2, 2020, the City Engineer conducted the public hearing. No one present provided
public comment regarding the project. After closing the public hearing, the City Engineer approved
the minor subdivision, based upon the Findings and Conditions attached to the staff report. The
Draft Minutes for this meeting are included as Attachment 2.
On February 10, 2020, Council Member Jim Brown submitted an appeal of the City Engineer’s
decision, referring to the objections in the public input, and listing decreased property values and
flooding as reasons for the appeal. The Appeal form is included as Attachment 3.
All correspondence received since February 4, 2020 is included in Attachments 4 and 5.
Draft Findings to uphold the City Engineer’s approval of the minor subdivision project are included
in Attachment 6.
DISCUSSION
According to the letter from the appellant, “The letters of opposition on file and many more
concerned neighborhood residents are concerned what effects a minor subdivision would have.
We believe a sound compromise is outlined in the submitted letters.”
The letter also includes two additional concerns as basis for the appeal. The concerns from the
letters of opposition, the appellant’s additional concerns, the proposed compromise, and staff’s
response, are included below.
Page 14 of 19
Staff Report
Appeal of CE Approval of Minor Subdivision
589 North School Street
File No: 19-4992
3
1. While not opposed to development of said property, dividing the property into three parcels
is unreasonable. Two parcels is acceptable, keeping the property as one parcel is
desirable.
Staff Response: The project approved by the City Engineer includes subdivision of a single
parcel into three resulting parcels. An alternate project has not been proposed by the
Applicant, nor considered by staff.
2. Congestion, both traffic and populous would be horrific if approved and developed.
Parking is already a problem on this section of School St.
Staff Response: The project was reviewed by the Public Works Department. A traffic study
was not requested. Minimum parking requirements are not evaluated for a minor
subdivision. Should the parcels be developed in the future, however, the Ukiah City Code
Section 9021A states,
“The minimum parking area required in Single-Family Residential (R-1)
Districts is two (2) on-site independently accessible parking spaces for
each dwelling unit.”
The proposed parcels meet the minimum area required for parcels within the Single-family
Residential (R-1) zoning district.
3. Although irrelevant, the applicant has never lived on the property or in Ukiah. They would
not be aware of the problems that would arise if three houses were built on this single
piece of property.
Staff Response: Local residency is not required by the Ukiah Municipal Code, and cannot
be considered, nor evaluated, by staff. Staff can neither confirm nor deny the current, past,
or future residence of the applicant, nor is this information requested on the City’s
application.
4. Said parcel is located near the corner of N. School and Ruddock streets, a location where
many young children play daily. Adding more traffic and parked vehicles on the street will
further place children out of view of traffic coming around an already dangerous curve.
Staff Response: A traffic study was not required for this project. A condition requiring street
frontage improvements, including the extension of curb, gutter and sidewalk to meet ADA
requirements, and repair of any damaged curb was approved by the City Engineer.
5. Subdividing property will add to current water runoff issue for adjacent property located on
Orr Creek side.
Staff Response: Within the application submitted by the Applicant and included in
Attachment 1, the Applicant has not proposed housing development with the subdivision.
If an application for housing development is submitted in the future, the project(s) would
be subject to floodplain provisions of the California Building Code and National Flood
Page 15 of 19
Staff Report
Appeal of CE Approval of Minor Subdivision
589 North School Street
File No: 19-4992
4
Insurance Program requirements. Such provisions would require the potential for flooding
and water runoff issues be addressed at that time.
6. Current homes on the street only have space to accommodate 1 vehicle per driveway,
forcing all remaining cars to park on the street. Adding more vehicles will further
complicate parking for current residents.
Staff Response: Please see Response #2. Additionally, no housing development has been
proposed as a part of this application.
7. Further congestion denies current residents the charm of downtown Ukiah living.
Staff Response: Please see Response #2. Additionally, no housing development has been
proposed as a part of this application.
8. Three parcels would probably add at least six more cars to a street that is overrun with
too many parked cars and is too narrow for the traffic already here. It is an absurd idea
and the opposite of what should happen on this street. Notably, most of my neighbors
have no garages and must park on the street, so adding three more homes would put an
even greater burden on an area that needs less congestion, not more.
Staff Response: Please see Response #2. Additionally, no housing development has been
proposed as a part of this application.
9. A minor subdivision in this location would decrease property values for nearby property
owners. Property owners should have the right to protect property values.
Staff Response: Evaluation of economic impact is not required by the Ukiah Municipal
Code, and was not considered by staff.
10. Flooding in this area is a concern. Three houses on this lot may increase the probability
of flooding.
Staff Response: Please see Response #5.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines a project as an activity which may cause
either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment, and which is any of the following (Sections15378, 21065):
(a) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency.
(b) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts,
grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.
(c) An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or
other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
Page 16 of 19
Staff Report
Appeal of CE Approval of Minor Subdivision
589 North School Street
File No: 19-4992
5
Consideration of an appeal of the City Engineer’s approval of the minor subdivision is not a
project within this CEQA definition, and therefore, a CEQA determination is not required.
NOTICING
Notice of the Public Hearing was provided in the following manner, in accordance with
UCC §9262(C):
• Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on August 2, 2020
• Posted on the Project site on July 31, 2020
• Posted at the Civic Center (glass case) 72 hours prior to the public hearing
• Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project parcels on July 8,
2020
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold the City Engineer’s approval of the Minor
Subdivision to split the existing ±0.60-acre (26,136 sf) parcel into three parcels at 589 North
School Street, APN 002-146-01, based on the Findings in the City Engineer Hearing Staff Report,
dated February 4, 2020 and included as Attachment 6.
Page 17 of 19
Findings
Minor Subdivision
589 North School Street; APN 002-146-01
File No: 19-4992
1
DRAFT FINDINGS
MINOR SUBDIVISION
589 NORTH SCHOOL STREET; APN 002-146-01
FILE NO: 19-4992
The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in the Staff Report,
the application materials and documentation, and the public record:
1.The proposed Tentative Parcel Map, as conditioned, complies with the requirements of
the City of Ukiah Municipal Code, Division 9, Chapter 1, Article 18 and the Subdivision
Map Act.
2.The parcels established as a result of this Minor Subdivision are consistent with the
General Plan Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation.
3.The proposed Minor Subdivision and Tentative Map, as conditioned, complies with the
requirements of the Single-family Residential (R-1) zoning district.
4.The Minor Subdivision and Tentative Map will create three lots which are appropriate for
the surrounding area and land uses based on the following:
a.Proposed parcels and use are consistent with the requirements of the Single-family
Residential zoning district.
b.Proposed parcels will have access directly onto a public street and utilities are
available to serve the site.
c.Proposed parcels will be located within a developed residential area, surrounded
by residential and commercial development.
Page 18 of 19
Law Offices Of
RAPPORT AND MARSTON
An Association of Sole Practitioners
405 W. Perkins Street
P.O. Box 488
Ukiah, California 95482
e-mail: drapport@pacbell.net
David J. Rapport (707) 462-6846
Darcy Vaughn FAX 462-4235
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Craig Schlatter, Director of Planning and Community Development and the City
of Ukiah Planning Commission
FROM: David J. Rapport, City Attorney
DATE: August 26, 2020
SUBJECT: Findings to uphold appeal from decision by the City Engineer to approve a parcel
map to subdivide lot located at 589 N. School Street into 3 parcels
_____________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2020, the City Engineer conducted a public hearing and approved the application
for approval of a parcel map to subdivide the property at 589 N. School Street into three parcels.
No one present provided public comment at the hearing. Ukiah City Code (“UCC”) Section 8307
provides the subdivider with a right to appeal the City Engineer’s decision to the Planning
Commission. No such appeal was filed within the prescribed 10 appeal period. No other member
of the public had the right to appeal the decision under the City Code.
However, Ukiah City Code Section 1203 gives city council members the right to appeal to the
city council any action taken by any commission, board or agency of the City. City Council
member Jim Brown appealed the decision to the Ukiah City Council which heard the appeal on
March 4, 2020. The City Council voted to refer the decision on the appeal to the Planning
Commission.
After conducting its hearing on August 12, 2020, the Planning Commission voted to continue the
hearing to August 26, 2020. The hearing was continued to allow more time to develop findings
to support a decision upholding the appeal and denying the application for a three-parcel
subdivision. Planning staff has consulted with me and this memorandum proposes and discusses
potential findings.
CONCLUSION
Findings are proposed under the heading below: Proposed Findings. In providing these findings I
To: Craig Schlatter and Planning Commission Page 2
Subject: Findings
Date: August 21, 2020
cannot recommend them for the reasons discussed below.
PROPOSED FINDINGS
1. The creation of a three-parcel subdivision at 589 S. School Street (“the Site”) complies with
the provisions of the City’s subdivision and zoning ordinances (see UCC §§ 8041, 8300-8306 re:
minor subdivisions) and §§9015-9022 re: R-1 zoning districts), is consistent with the Goals and
Policies of the General Plan (General Plan (GP), Housing Element (GP Chapter 14) and does not
conflict with any other applicable provision of the General Plan,
2. While their specific size and configuration is not currently known, it is reasonably foreseeable
that not less than three single family residences and potentially up to three Accessory Dwelling
Units (“ADUs”) and up to three Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (“JADUs”) may be
constructed within the subdivision with potentially adverse effects on on-street parking, traffic
flow on School Street in the vicinity of the Site, which is only 17 feet wide between the edges of
the paved roadway, and the safety of existing residents of the subdivision and future residents of
housing constructed on the Site.
3. Based on the approved configuration of the three lots, it is reasonably foreseeable that a fire
engine of sufficient size would have inadequate access to Parcel 3 in the subdivision in the event
of a fire with potentially adverse impacts on public safety and the ability to prevent a fire from
affecting other structures in the subdivision or on other parcels in the vicinity of the Site.
4. Based on the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission further finds that creating three
parcels on the Site is excessive in this specific location and on that basis upholds the appeal and
reverses the decision of the City Engineer approving the subdivision.
5. These findings and reversal of the decision of the City Engineer is without prejudice to the
applicant amending the application or submitting a new application to create two rather than
three parcels.
DISCUSSION
The above findings are based on statements by the appellant, others testifying at the hearing and
by members of the Planning Commission. The comments purported to include first-hand
knowledge about the width of N. School Street in the vicinity of the Site, the speed of cars using
this segment of School Street, and the current amount and timing of on-street parking there, They
are the only potential findings I could propose based on my review of the hearing video.
Findings are required when an administrative agency like the Planning Commission makes a
decision on an appeal from the granting or denial of a permit or other entitlement (a “quasi-
To: Craig Schlatter and Planning Commission Page 3
Subject: Findings
Date: August 21, 2020
judicial decision”), such as the approval of the minor subdivision parcel map involved here.
In the leading California Supreme Court case on the issue of findings in quasi-judicial
administrative proceedings, Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles
(1974)11 Cal.3d 506, the Court examined “. ., aspects of the functions served by administrative
agencies in the granting [or denial] . . .” of permits or other authorizations concerning the use of
real property “ . . . and of courts in reviewing these proceedings . . .” The Court concluded that
the reviewing administrative agency “. . . must render findings to support their ultimate rulings.
It also concluded “. . . that when called upon to scrutinize a decision upholding or overturning
the grant or denial of the permit or other entitlement “. . , a reviewing court must determine
whether substantial evidence supports the findings of the administrative board and whether the
findings support the board's action.” The Court noted that: “A court reviewing that grant or
denial must determine whether substantial evidence supports the findings and whether the
findings support the conclusion that all applicable legislative requirements . . . have been
satisfied.”
What qualifies as substantial evidence has been examined in a number of contexts. Cases under
the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) provide useful guidance, because they have
had to decide when the expressed concerns by neighbors, lay and expert opinion and
observations by members of the public, appellants and decision-makers qualify as substantial
evidence of adverse environmental impacts and when they do not.
In Newberry Springs Water Assn v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 150 Cal.App. 3d 740, 748-
749, the court observed: “. . . to meet the “fair argument” burden, project opponents must
produce some evidence, other than their unsubstantiated opinions, that a project will produce a
particular adverse affect. . . .”.)
An absence of evidence in the record or a lack of study of an impact is not evidence that there
will be a significant impact. (Gentry v. Murrieta City (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1379.)
Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous
or inaccurate . . . does not constitute substantial evidence. (Friends of Old Trees v. California
Department of Forestry (1997) 52 Cal.App. 4th 1383.)
Here, facts in the administrative record must not only establish the existing conditions, such as
the width of the street, the amount of on-street parking, the amount and speed of current traffic,
the uses of the street by existing residents, including children, but most importantly how the
approval of the subdivision will makes those conditions worse or unacceptable. All the
statements during the hearing about those potential effects are based on speculation and
unsupported non-expert opinion, which does not qualify as substantial evidence. The record
contains insufficient details about the actual development of the parcels to predict how much
To: Craig Schlatter and Planning Commission Page 4
Subject: Findings
Date: August 21, 2020
parking may be required beyond the on-site parking required for the subdivision under the
zoning and subdivision ordinances. Most importantly, no standards have been identified for
evaluating the impacts of the subdivision other than those contained in the Subdivision
Ordinance, which the City Engineer found the subdivision satisfies, including lot size, off-street
parking, and access or which will be satisfied prior to development, including storm water
drainage (see Article 11, Storm Drainage, UCC §§ 8180-8187) and street frontage improvements
(UCC §§8160-8164).
The absence of studies establishing the traffic impacts or the impacts to on-street parking or the
access of fire engines is not evidence of an adverse impact.(Gentry v. Murrieta City (1995) 36
Cal.App.4th supra at 1379.)
For these reasons, I cannot recommend the proposed findings, although the decision whether or
not to adopt them or some version of them rests with the Commission, subject, of course, to the
applicant’s right to seek judicial review of the Commission’s decision.
Page 19 of 19