Design Review Board recommends Planning Commission review for urgent care conversion at 1240 Airport Park Boulevard

Ukiah City Design Review Board members voted Oct. 23 to recommend the Planning Commission approve an application from Mendocino Community Health Clinics to convert an existing building at 1240 Airport Park Boulevard into an urgent care clinic and administrative offices and to merge two adjacent parcels to provide parking and landscaping.

Jesse, planning staff, described the proposal as “an adaptive reuse and reutilization of an existing structure, 1240 Airport Park Boulevard,” and said the application requests a site-development permit, a use permit for urgent care operations and a lot merger (file no. 250011). He told the board the applicant has submitted a Delta‑1 revision set that responds to agency comments, added an ambulance access at the rear per Valley Fire Authority recommendations, and proposes two small photovoltaic carport installations in the parking area.

The board’s action followed extensive questioning about parking, stormwater, and operations. Staff said the city’s parking formula for the proposed medical-office and clinic uses yields a requirement of 64 spaces; the applicant has requested a reduction of 14 spaces to provide 48 on site. Jesse said the lot merger—combining one developed and one undeveloped parcel—would enable more efficient circulation and additional rear parking for staff, and that bicycle parking and other multimodal connections were proposed as part of the mitigation.

Board members repeatedly asked for operational data to justify the parking reduction. Kyle Campbell, the project architect (on the phone), acknowledged the concern and said the team would “come up with some more firm understanding of numbers” and provide staffing and patient‑volume comparisons at the next hearing. Campbell said staff parking is intended to be located in the secured rear lot and said the project team would provide more specific employee counts.

Staff also told the board that because the project involves a substantial interior remodel and conversion of an atrium into conditioned second‑floor space, California Building Code requirements for EV charging and the city’s stormwater (MS4) permitting and North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board standards will apply. Jesse added that staff expects the lot merger and technical details to be reviewed by the city engineer and that the project would be processed under a CEQA categorical exemption for certain work on existing structures, in part because the expansion onto the second floor was described as under 10,000 square feet.

Other details discussed during the review included tree retention and landscaping (staff said mature trees will be retained where possible, with one tree removed to allow ambulance access), solar panels sited as two small carport arrays (one along the western property line, one in the center of the parking area), and that an on‑site connection to the Great River Trail was not recommended though multimodal access would be facilitated nearby.

Vice Chair Gordon moved to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project and to forward the board’s conditions; Member Lighten seconded the motion. Gordon said the recommendation should include a requirement that the applicant provide staffing and patient‑volume evidence and identify overflow or mitigation plans to justify the requested parking reduction. On roll call, Member Fox, Member Lighten, Member Mote, Vice Chair Gordon and Chair Aiken voted yes and the motion passed.

The board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final discretionary review; staff noted the Planning Commission and the city engineer will review lot‑merger details, stormwater and MS4 compliance, airport lighting and photovoltaic glare considerations, and any required CEQA findings. The applicant will be expected to submit more detailed operational and staffing data to support the parking reduction at the next hearing.

Reported facts are drawn from staff presentation, board discussion, and the applicant architect’s statements during the Oct. 23 design review meeting.