Glennie Appeals UGM Permit to City Council

Revised: January 2019

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

The hearing officer's decision on UGM's consolidated application for a CUP and zoning change goes to City Council on Monday, courtesy David Glennie.  Councilor Kaser  told CANDO at its annual meeting on Tuesday that, based on the written comments received so far, she expects a pretty good turnout for the public hearing.

The hearing will start with the staff presentation and any questions, followed by UGM, followed Glennie (the "appellant").  CANDO would then be entitled to speak, but won't be doing so, the board having chosen, for various reasons, not to take a position.  So, after Glennie or his representative, the Council will hear from "other interested persons."

Two things to think about.  One is the narrow legal issue, described below.  The other is what the statements made during hearing -- by the parties, the public and the Council -- say about the prospects for a "shared vision" that the Downtown Homeless Solutions Task Force has said we need in order to make meaningful progress addressing the growing problem of homelessness.  

Site of New Men's Mission on Commercial Street

Glennie has to persuade five members of the City Council that at least one of two code provisions hasn't been satisfied.  One is SRC 240.005(d) (conditional use) and the other is SRC 265.015(e)(1) (zone change).  The zone change is needed to make the UGM store a permitted, conforming use.  Nobody really cares about the store or the zone change issue.  So, the hearing will focus on SRC 240.005(d).

SRC 240.005(d) lists 3 criteria for granting a CUP.  If the criteria are met, the City has to grant the permit.

Although the public comment is likely to make it sound like the issue is property values versus Christian values, that's not the issue Council must decide.

What Council must decide is whether the criteria (listed below) have been met, and what conditions are needed to meet them.  If that sounds somewhat circular, it is, but that's how Council's going to get to "yes" on this question; Council will be giving UGM its CUP and zone change.  

SRC 240.005(d) CUP criteria

As to (1), there's no reasonable argument to be made that the first criteria hasn't been satisfied.  Opponents of UGM's move/expansion argued on appeal to the hearing officer that UGM didn't satisfy the allowed use definition of SRC 617.015(c), Table 617(2) (adopted in 2014 with UGM in mind), because UGM hadn't proved it had occupied its current location continuously since 1993.  They also argued that the planned expansion wasn't allowed.  These arguments failed to persuade the hearing officer, and they will doubtless fail to persuade the City Council.  (For more, see the hearing decision.)

So, the Council should focus solely on (2) and (3) -- i.e., what conditions will allow them to reasonably conclude that the "likely adverse impacts" are "minimized" and whether the new Mission is "reasonably compatible" with the livability and future development of the surrounding property.

Below are the conditions imposed by the Hearing Officer.  Council might amend, add or subtract.  Staff's initial recommendation is to approve the CUP and zone change without any new conditions.