Ukiah City Planning Commission members spent the bulk of their Sept. 24 meeting on a staff-led review of the Airport Industrial Park planned development and related redevelopment constraints, and were briefed on a new urgent-care application for 1240 Airport Park Boulevard.

The training, presented by Jesse Davis, Chief Planning Manager, traced the Airport Industrial Park (AIP) from its annexation and early development through later amendments and infrastructure improvements, and highlighted how the park’s planned development (PD) regulations differ from the city’s other zoning districts. "I really wanted to try to keep this higher level to just allow for an overview of the Airport Industrial Park, its opportunities, and also potentially some new ways of looking at it," Davis said.

The discussion matters because the AIP contains large, underused parcels, significant privately held deed restrictions, and transportation and noise constraints that affect what the city can permit there. The staff briefing raised the interaction of those constraints with the state Surplus Land Act, recent changes to airport land-use compatibility, and the loss of redevelopment authority funding statewide in 2012—factors that limit the city’s ability to subsidize or directly assemble development.

Davis summarized AIP history and infrastructure limits: the park’s initial build-out accelerated in the early 1990s (including a Walmart in 1993), and subsequent traffic mitigation and signalization projects were required as large-format retail arrived. He noted the AIP includes roughly 138 acres annexed in the 1980s and consists of subareas often referred to as Airport Business Park and Redwood Business Park. The AIPPD, adopted by ordinance (referenced in staff materials as Ordinance 929), contains tailored development standards—parking, landscaping, curvilinear sidewalks and design guidelines—that differ from Euclidean zoning and have been modified repeatedly to accommodate individual projects.

Transportation and circulation were a recurring focus. Davis and commissioners discussed how off-site fixes, such as signalization on Hastings and the Tallmadge Road improvements, reduced pressure on Airport Park Boulevard and enabled later development. Commissioners asked about pedestrian access; Davis said the Great Redwood Trail and newly required easements at recent developments provide opportunities to improve pedestrian and multimodal connections and to reduce the area’s auto-centric pattern.

Staff also explained the Surplus Land Act process now applicable to several city-owned parcels in the AIP. Craig Schlatter, Economic Development Director, summarized the requirement: public agencies must identify surplus parcels and make them available first to affordable housing and park agencies. Davis cautioned that the parcels face noise and transportation constraints that would complicate residential use, and said manufacturing or creative maker-space uses remain possible if developers come forward.

Davis flagged two implementation constraints commissioners pressed on: private deed restrictions that "run with the land" and can bar competing uses (for example, no other financial institution or grocery on a property), and the loss of redevelopment (tax-increment) financing after 2012. "In 2012, all cities across the state, including the City of Ukiah, lost redevelopment authority status and funding," he said, noting that reduces the city’s ability to land-bank and subsidize development in the AIP.

Staff also discussed active and near-term items: Craig Schlatter said final paving for the Great Redwood Trail segment should occur this week and be ready next week, and reminded commissioners the historic-preservation workshop is scheduled for Oct. 16 at 5:30 p.m. Jesse Davis said one new application was submitted after the monthly packet: Mendocino Community Health Clinics (MCHC) filed an application on Sept. 3 to adaptively reuse a building at 1240 Airport Park Boulevard for an urgent-care clinic with about seven treatment rooms; the project is under agency review and is expected to go to the Design Review Board in October and to the Planning Commission possibly in November.

Commissioners debated broader strategy: some noted the AIP’s location between U.S. 101 and the airport makes it naturally auto-centric, while staff and other commissioners urged using form-based elements, easements between parcels, and trail connections to encourage more walkable, mixed-use or maker-space development over time. Davis pointed to out-of-jurisdiction examples—including adaptive reuse projects and artist/maker space conversions—as possible models for light manufacturing or creative-industrial activity that could fit the AIP’s constraints.

During the discussion, Schlatter corrected an earlier informal remark, clarifying that the structure Vice Chair Hillacre referenced on Perkins Street is a courthouse under construction, not a coliseum. "The coliseum referred to by Vice Chair Hillacre is actually a courthouse that's being constructed there on Perkins Street," he said.

Votes at a glance: The commission approved the minutes from the Aug. 27 meeting. A motion to approve was made and seconded on the record; roll call produced four aye votes (Commissioners Brown, Montana, Johnson and Vice Chair Hillacre), and the minutes were approved.

The meeting included standard procedural items—roll call, appeal deadlines (staff noted appeals must be filed by Oct. 6, 2025 for items on the agenda), a call for public comment (none appeared), and scheduling reminders for upcoming commission meetings on Oct. 8 and Oct. 22. The commission adjourned after concluding the agenda.

What’s next: staff will continue agency review of the MCHC urgent-care proposal and expects to bring that project to the Design Review Board in October, with potential Planning Commission review in November. Staff also recommended commissioners review Attachment 3 of the staff packet (memoranda from 2002 and 2006 cited during the presentation) for additional historical context on circulation and mitigation measures in the AIP.