city's zoning ordinance prohibits warehouses here
A curious mystery presents itself with this warehouse project. Because warehouses are not permissible on C-2 zoned land in our city, these mini-storage warehouses are not even allowed on this Project site. But the city of Mt. Shasta is proceeding as if our zoning laws do not apply.
The mystery grows even deeper because the city has withheld any explanation about why metal warehouse buildings might be allowable on this site. Why did they not place that analysis of an inconsistency with local laws in the IS-MND? Instead the City claims this matter will be discussed later in a Staff Report to the Planning Commission after the public comment period ends.
ZONING PROHIBITS WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS ON C-2 LAND
Zoning laws restrict the type of projects that can be built. The city many years ago zoned this project site as "C-2" for retail commercial uses. This location along North Mt. Shasta Boulevard, which is one of the three major gateways to the city, was designated for C-2 commercial businesses serving motorists. C-2 zoning prohibits warehouses, in part, because unsightly warehouses conflict with the attractive allure and economic vitality that retail commerce depends upon. So why haven't Mt. Shasta officials simply told the developer his project is not allowed here?
Well, they have. But the developer hasn't heeded their advice. The city attorney wrote in 2016 that warehousing was not allowed in this C-2 zone. The current city planner also informed Mr. Freeze in an email that mini-storage units, a type of warehousing, were not permissible on this lot, only in . Yet somehow this Yreka businessman refuses to follow our laws. Somehow, the IS-MND also never discusses the conflict between the site's zoning and the impermissible warehousing being proposed. That is a violation of CEQA in failing to inform the public about a project's inconsistency with local planning regulations. Maybe city officials, already nervous due to complaints that creating new businesses in the city involves too many delays, are relying upon the public be the "bad cop" to demand our planning laws be enforced in denying this warehouse Project? Or maybe something else has gone wrong?
Here is some evidence that pre-fabricated metal building warehousing is not allowed here:
City's ZONING ORDINANCE allows warehouses in industrial ("employment center") E-C zones, but not in C-2 zones.
City's DESIGN GUIDELINES prohibit metal buildings in C-2 zones. (See page 20): "Pre-fabricated metal buildings shall only be permitted . . . within the Controlled Manufacturing (CM) or General Industrial (M) District."
City Attorney Stated That Warehouses are Not an Allowed Use (copy of 4-21-2016 email included below)
This zoning inconsistency was discussed by the former city planner Keith McKinley and an attorney with the city attorney's office. As found in the city's files for this Project, Mr. McKinley emailed attorney Rob Taylor at the city attorney's office on April 21, 2016 stating:
"The use "mini-storage" is not listed as an allowed use in that zone,
nor is it listed as a use allowed with a conditional use permit."
Attorney Rob Taylor agreed and responded an hour later by email stating:
"Here, the storage activity is not an allowed use or conditional use in the zone…"
So why is this Project application moving forward when at least the warehouse portion of it conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance? Is it because, as is hinted in the email below, the previous city planning consultant Keith McKinley offered to make an unexplained, unofficial exception for this warehouse project? Did he want to help the developer so much that he fabricated an exception to our planning laws out of a desire to be "reasonable" and not have to say "no" to the project? Neighbors should not have to fret about an undeveloped parcel near their homes being someday developed for a business purpose that is prohibited by our zoning laws. Or does the city planner have the right to argue that warehousing is similar enough to commercial uses, in spite of the zoning ordinance only allowing it in industrial zones, that he or she can make up reasons why warehousing should be allowed at this location anyway? While such inconsistent violation of zoning rules is not allowed by California planning law, did this back room deal then induce the developer to rely upon that secret deal and spend a great deal of money in pursuing engineering and environmental costs? Is the developer now threatening to sue the city for giving him bad advice? Is there another explanation?
The mystery grows even deeper because the city has withheld any explanation about why metal warehouse buildings might be allowable on this site. Why did they not place that analysis of an inconsistency with local laws in the IS-MND? Instead the City claims this matter will be discussed later in a Staff Report to the Planning Commission after the public comment period ends.
ZONING PROHIBITS WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS ON C-2 LAND
Zoning laws restrict the type of projects that can be built. The city many years ago zoned this project site as "C-2" for retail commercial uses. This location along North Mt. Shasta Boulevard, which is one of the three major gateways to the city, was designated for C-2 commercial businesses serving motorists. C-2 zoning prohibits warehouses, in part, because unsightly warehouses conflict with the attractive allure and economic vitality that retail commerce depends upon. So why haven't Mt. Shasta officials simply told the developer his project is not allowed here?
Well, they have. But the developer hasn't heeded their advice. The city attorney wrote in 2016 that warehousing was not allowed in this C-2 zone. The current city planner also informed Mr. Freeze in an email that mini-storage units, a type of warehousing, were not permissible on this lot, only in . Yet somehow this Yreka businessman refuses to follow our laws. Somehow, the IS-MND also never discusses the conflict between the site's zoning and the impermissible warehousing being proposed. That is a violation of CEQA in failing to inform the public about a project's inconsistency with local planning regulations. Maybe city officials, already nervous due to complaints that creating new businesses in the city involves too many delays, are relying upon the public be the "bad cop" to demand our planning laws be enforced in denying this warehouse Project? Or maybe something else has gone wrong?
Here is some evidence that pre-fabricated metal building warehousing is not allowed here:
City's ZONING ORDINANCE allows warehouses in industrial ("employment center") E-C zones, but not in C-2 zones.
City's DESIGN GUIDELINES prohibit metal buildings in C-2 zones. (See page 20): "Pre-fabricated metal buildings shall only be permitted . . . within the Controlled Manufacturing (CM) or General Industrial (M) District."
City Attorney Stated That Warehouses are Not an Allowed Use (copy of 4-21-2016 email included below)
This zoning inconsistency was discussed by the former city planner Keith McKinley and an attorney with the city attorney's office. As found in the city's files for this Project, Mr. McKinley emailed attorney Rob Taylor at the city attorney's office on April 21, 2016 stating:
"The use "mini-storage" is not listed as an allowed use in that zone,
nor is it listed as a use allowed with a conditional use permit."
Attorney Rob Taylor agreed and responded an hour later by email stating:
"Here, the storage activity is not an allowed use or conditional use in the zone…"
So why is this Project application moving forward when at least the warehouse portion of it conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance? Is it because, as is hinted in the email below, the previous city planning consultant Keith McKinley offered to make an unexplained, unofficial exception for this warehouse project? Did he want to help the developer so much that he fabricated an exception to our planning laws out of a desire to be "reasonable" and not have to say "no" to the project? Neighbors should not have to fret about an undeveloped parcel near their homes being someday developed for a business purpose that is prohibited by our zoning laws. Or does the city planner have the right to argue that warehousing is similar enough to commercial uses, in spite of the zoning ordinance only allowing it in industrial zones, that he or she can make up reasons why warehousing should be allowed at this location anyway? While such inconsistent violation of zoning rules is not allowed by California planning law, did this back room deal then induce the developer to rely upon that secret deal and spend a great deal of money in pursuing engineering and environmental costs? Is the developer now threatening to sue the city for giving him bad advice? Is there another explanation?
Developer attempted to evade environmental laws
That email correspondence above also shows the developer claimed his project was exempt from California environmental laws. City officials however did not agree. They noted he had illegally bulldozed the project site without any permits. The developer then attempted to invoke an exemption under CEQA Guidelines 15332 for infill projects that only applies in communities with more than 50,000 people called 'urbanized areas' which does not apply to our small city with less than 4,000 people. And only if surrounded by urban uses, not adjacent to a city park on one side and an undeveloped steep hill on another side. That exemption also only applies if the project is consistent with the city's zoning, general plan and other regulations, again which this project is clearly not consistent because of warehousing and proposed metal buildings. And only if the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, though this project would significantly impact air quality, water quality and noise levels in its neighborhood.
INCONSISTENCIES WITH LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
The IS-MND (page 4.0-51) admits this project may cause a significant environmental impact due conflicts with the city's general plan, a policy or regulation that has been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Some of those conflicts involve aesthetic impacts, hazardous impacts, hydrological impacts, and noise impacts. The IS-MND however argues that it is proposing environmental mitigations to reduce those conflicts to a less than significant level. A close reading of the IS-MND shows those arguments to be without merit in many cases. Numerous proposed mitigations will not be effective in sufficiently reducing or entirely avoiding significant environmental impacts.
For example, the zoning law prohibiting warehouses in C-2 zones was implemented in part to avoid an environmental impact: to avoid the secondary consequence of physical blight and deterioration of commercial business districts by preventing economic losses due to unsightly industrial land uses being mixed with viable commercial businesses. The IS-MND states that commercial lands are those identified for development with retail businesses that generally require customer traffic in order for the business to be successful. Mt. Shasta relies upon tourists and travelers for a substantial portion of its economy. Protecting commercial businesses is critical to our city's prosperity, and as a result, critical in avoiding blighted conditions that could otherwise result from a deteriorating economic stability. Our city has adopted architectural and landscaping design regulations to help support its viability. Without the stable jobs the mills once provided, our city has to be very careful to maintain its economy. That care extends deeply into zoning and aesthetic matters.
So how has the IS-MND explained that this proposed, massive warehousing project, especially housed in cheap, pre-fabricated metal buildings, can be permitted where not permissible by city zoning laws? Have those aesthetic mitigations being proposed somehow negated that inconsistency? The public does not know. The IS-MND states this issue "will be addressed by City staff in the Staff Report for the proposed project, which will be brought before the Planning Commission for use in its consideration of the project." At the very least, this means there is not evidence yet to support the IS-MND's conclusions about aesthetic and zoning inconsistency impacts. That evidence, presumably, will surface later. If the city chooses to remain silent, then the IS-MND cannot be legally approved. An EIR will be required instead. Only if all such supporting evidence is disclosed before an IS-MND is released for public review and the public is given 30 days or more to review it can the city legally approve an IS-MND.
In the meantime, what aesthetic mitigation is offered in the IS-MND to somehow remedy the warehouse inconsistency and metal building inconsistency with C-2 zoning regulations? Some meager amount of landscaping with tiny trees is required, though the applicant could cut those trees down and replace them periodically without their ever reaching maturity. Mostly solid fencing (because chain link fences with view-blocking slats) would be replaced with open metal fences that block very little views of these metal buildings. City officials seem unaware this mitigation increases the aesthetic harm of ugly structures by making them more visible, not reduces it. The IS-MND erroneously claims the mini-storage buildings would be shielded from view by that open picket metal fencing. Other than that and three-feet of stone veneer on the bottom of some of the warehouses' metal walls, nothing else much is proposed as a mitigation. About 90% of the metal buildings' exterior surfaces would remain visibly metal-covered. How in the world are these scant aesthetic mitigations effective?
Views of metal mini-storage warehouses
(click on upper illustration to enlarge)
LIGHTING IMPACT RESULTING FROM INADEQUATE AESTHETIC MITIGATION:
Approximation of nighttime lighting glare that may result from project's downward facing wall pack security lighting, which to be secure, must illuminate the grounds, is not hidden behind any solid fencing, and is unregulated with no mitigation being proposed as to brightness:
NEXT: