HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_09112013 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 September 11, 2013
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair Laura Christensen
7 Kevin Doble
8 Linda Sanders
9 Judy Pruden
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
14
15 1. CALL TO ORDER
16 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
17 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
18
19 2. ROLL CALL
20
21 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
22
23 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —The minutes from the August 14, 2013 meeting will be available for
24 review and approval at the September 25, 2013 meeting.
25
26 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
27
28 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters at this meeting, the
29 final date to appeal is September 23, 2013.
30
31 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
32
33 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff.
34
35 9. PUBLIC HEARING
36 9A. Stephens Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development Plan, 312 Ford Street
37 (File No.: 13-13-REZPD-PC-CC). Planning Commission consideration and possible
38 recommendation to City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rezoning to Planned
39 Development, and precise Development Plan to allow the construction of four one-bedroom
40 apartments on the corner of Ford Street and Myron Place and one second unit at 312 Ford
41 Street, APNs 002-101-15 and 002-101-14.
42
43 M/S Pruden/Doble to continue Stephens Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development
44 Plan, File No.: 13-13-REZPD-PC-CC to a date certain of September 25, 2013. Motion carried (4-0) with
45 Commissioner Christensen abstaining.
46
47 Commissioner Pruden requested the aforementioned project be the first item considered at the regular
48 September 25t`' Planning Commission meeting.
49
50 9B. Ukiah Valley Medical Center Hospital Support Building, Central Yard, and Temporary
51 Parking, Contractor Trailers, and Construction Staging, 275 Hospital Drive at (File No.: 13-
52 09-UP-SDP-PC). Planning Commission consideration and possible action on a Mitigated
53 Negative Declaration, Major Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow the construction of
54 a Hospital Support Building and central yard for the Ukiah Valley Medical Center at 275 Hospital
55 Drive (APN 002-193-23 and 002-160-08). The Project also includes temporary parking and
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 1
1 contractor trailer(s) on the northwest corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street (002-160-13) and
2 construction staging on the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street(APN 002-160-10).
3
4 Senior Planner Jordan:
5 • Gave presented the staff report and project.
6 • The applicant is asking for a modification related to providing a pathway.
7 • The Applicant is also requesting the approval of the modification to the shade requirement and
8 the Project complies with the City of Davis shade requirement.
9 • Staff is recommending Planning Commission adoption Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). If
10 the Planning Commission adopts the MND, staff is recommending Planning Commission approve
11 the Use Permit and Site Development Permit.
12
13 Commissioner Pruden: Would like to see an accurate representation of the materials and color palate
14 for the Project.
15
16 Commission first discussed the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
17
18 Commissioner Pruden requested clarification whether or not the second story portion of the building
19 would also be located in the B2 Infill Airport Compatibility Zone.
20
21 Commissioner poble: Page 19 of the Initial Environmental Study, General Plan Tree Goals and
22 Policies, Goal OC-24, `Replace aging trees with new trees, questioned whether the term 'aging' should be
23 eliminated from the document since it was determined and recognized in the staff report that the trees to
24 be removed were not `aging' trees.
25
26 Staff:
27 • Referenced the site plans and addressed the location of the B2 Infill zone and confirmed only the
28 single story portion of the building is located in the B2 zone.
29 • It is up to the Commission whether or not the term 'aging' should be eliminated. `We actually do
30 not know what it means to be an aging tree.' The arborisYs report confirmed the trees slated for
31 removal are not `aging'trees. To this end, it would be appropriate to revise the discussion.
32
33 Commission: Cannot really change the General Plan terminology regarding the term `aging.'
34
35 Commissioner poble:
36 • Would prefer to be more accurate about the language in the staff report now that the Commission
37 is cognizant that the trees being removed are not aging by simply stating 38 trees are proposed
38 for removal.
39 • The staff report in the General Plan Tree Goals and Policies section states the Project would
40 remove two Valley Oak Trees, which would be inconsistent with Goal OC-22, Conserve and
41 replenish Valley Oaks in the Valley.'
42
43 Commissioner Sanders:
44 • Counted one Valley Oak proposed for removal as opposed to two trees.
45 • The Initial Environmental Study is `pretty well' researched and presented and does really not have
46 concerns about this document.
47 • With regard to the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration, is it necessary to reference `The Storm
48 Water Pollution Ordinance' that was recently adopted since there was some discussion and
49 reference to Low Impact Development (LID) in relation to the North Coast Regional Water Quality
50 Control Board. Does not know whether or not this information should be inserted in the CEQA
51 document or possibly the Project findings or conditions.
52
53 Staff:
54 • Questioned if the rest of the discussion in the staff report regarding the trees is appropriate for the
55 document in the event the language relevant to aging trees is modified?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 2
1 • Confirmed only one Valley Oak is proposed for removal. A revision should be made to correct
2 this.
3 • Is not certain whether the City is subject to the requirements of the Storm Water Pollution
4 Ordinance, but understands Ukiah operates under the MS4 permit from Santa Rosa. Would not
5 want to include such language unless City Public Works confirms this is necessary.
6
7 Related to demolition of buildings for the Project, it was noted the California Green Building Code requires
8 a Salvage and Recycle plan. The Salvage and Recycle Plan must be submitted as part of the building
9 permit application.
10
11 Commissioner Pruden:
12 • Related to the topic of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noted the UVMC campus has a fairly
13 large tree canopy and questioned the reasoning/logic of removing 38 trees for the Project and
14 replacing them. Removal of 38 trees would theoretically affect GHG emissions even though the
15 trees are being replaced. With the planting of young trees the growth period will take some catch-
16 up time to reach the growth level of the existing trees. There is no mention of the potential impact
17 in the 10 or so years it would take the new trees to catch up with the existing trees. There is a lot
18 of discussion in the environmental document about the many kinds of GHGs, how they are
19 created, who makes them and whose fault it is. There is some irony with regard to how this does
20 not apply to real life having the topic of GHG emissions as part of the environmental report when
21 38 trees are to be removed as part of the Project.
22 • Is of the opinion essentially the only way to mitigate GHG emissions in California is to have no
23 project.
24
25 Commissioner poble: It may be the removal and subsequent replacement of the trees is viewed as a
26 temporary impact.
27
28 Commissioner Pruden: What constitutes temporary? How does one quantify and/or sequester for the
29 loss of trees at a certain level of growth/maturity? This act does not present itself as a practical aspect to
30 the Environmental Quality Act. It appears the matter is all or nothing. Unfortunately, there will be a GHG
31 emissions effect if the trees are removed and it will be for several years. Again, how is this quantified
32 and/or the effect measure?
33
34 Commissioner poble: Is of the opinion anything having to do with CEQA will have run its course such
35 that things would have to happen to change existing definitions. Right now, the matter of GHG emissions
36 is so new there has never been the challenge or the request for determination that typically happens or
37 has happened over the years since CEQA has been in existence. It will get worked out at some point.
38 Acknowledged we are still in `limbo' on this subject.
39
40 Commissioner Pruden: Cannot say that staff made an error in not checking the box `not significant
41 impacY with regard to the removal of 38 trees and its effect on GHG emissions because we do not know if
42 the impact is significant or not.
43
44 Commissioner poble: It may be we have to wait for case law when it comes to quantifying the loss of
45 trees and its impact on GHG emissions.
46
47 Staff:
48 • From staff's perspective is of the opinion there is no indication of having an impact related to
49 GHG emissions.
50 • Acknowledged that smaller trees will be planted consisting of 24-inch box trees. The Project will
51 not result in an increase in employees or visitors or any vehicle trips to the site, so no changes
52 are made to emissions related to vehicles. What is occurring is the removing of old buildings that
53 are inefficient and replacing with new far more efficient buildings that would likely contribute to a
54 reduction in emissions.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 3
1 • Commissioner Pruden is correct in saying we have not quantified and/or can exactly measure
2 potential emission impacts that occur as a result of various components of this development.
3 What is known is the Project will be a replacement of a building that is new and meets the
4 California Green Building Code standards.
5 • Again, there will be no added vehicle trips as a result of the development and the 38 trees
6 removed will be replaced with 38 trees. There is no evidence that removal of the trees would
7 change GHG emissions at all when the Project might actually be an improvement because of the
8 efficiency of the new buildings.
9
10 Commissioner poble: Supports staff work on the Initial Study and is prepared to make a motion in this
11 regard.
12
13 M/S Doble/Pruden to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the UVMC Hospital Support Building
14 and central yard with Findings 1-16 as provided for in attachment 1 of the staff report with two
15 modifications on page 19 of the Initial Study: 1) delete `aging' and 2) revise `two Valley Oaks' to `one
16 Valley Oak.' Motion carried (4-0)with Commissioner Christensen absent.
17
18 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:14 p.m.
19
20 Applicant Representative and Project Architect Charles Ackerley:
21 • Gave a Project presentation and overview of the Project.
22 • Provided samples of building materials and sample color palate for the HSB project.
23
24 Commissioner Pruden:
25 • Is concerned the proposed stone for the building does not architecturally fit with the other
26 buildings on the UVMC campus. Is of the opinion the UVMC campus is not architecturally
27 cohesive.
28 • Would like to see a little `more finished' and/or `dressed' ledger stone. Recommends the stone
29 dressing for the new HSB be a color palate closer to the roofing color on the OB building located
30 to the west of the campus so as to provide for more color continuity/compatibility. The roofing
31 color on the OB building is a nice pleasing brownish-red. Otherwise, the cream-based colors
32 selected for the building certainly match other buildings on the campus.
33
34 Commissioner poble:
35 • Likes the color palates provided for in the renderings.
36 • Likes the color palate selected for the stone.
37
38 Charles Ackerley: The stone material selected serves a very functional purpose and architecturally
39 complements the building.
40
41 Commissioner Sanders: Likes the contrast of the darker stone because it takes away from the mass of
42 that part of the structure and does not support lightening the color.
43
44 Commissioner Pruden: Also supports a darker stone color. The color of the roof of the OB building is
45 darker and is a `saturated' color. The color proposed for the stone is too light and needs more of a
46 richer/saturated color like that of the roof of the OB building. Also supports having more of a `dressed'
47 stone on the building.
48
49 Chair Whetzel: Likes the color palate and `raised look' of the stone material selected.
50
51 Commissioner Sanders: Inquired if the proposed Project would affect the Meditation Garden? Would
52 like this area to be protected with fencing if this is necessary?
53
54 Charles Ackerley: The Project will be steering clear of the area in and around the Meditation Garden.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 4
1 Paul Martin, Lionakis, Technical Architect: The specifications concerning demolition are very detailed
2 and strict precautionary measures are taken particularly with protection of other structures and plant
3 materials on the site.
4
5 Commissioner Sanders: Inquired about the proposed modification request referred to as a variance
6 request on the part of the applicant to the landscaping requirement concerning parking lot#1 to provide a
7 pedestrian pathway through the parking lot and how this will work in connection with the bio-swale.
8
9 Charles Ackerley: Referred to staff's analysis of the modification request and addressed the pathway.
10
11 Staff: Confirmed the proposed "variance" is actually a modification to the landscaping requirements for
12 parking lot#1.
13
14 Susan Sher:
15 • Is a resident of the Wagonseller Neighborhood and noted the neighborhood has expressed
16 concern that UVMC did not contact anyone from the neighborhood to discuss the Project with
17 them with regard to any potential impacts such as lighting in the parking lot, noise during
18 construction, dust, safety, and the like. The Wagonseller neighborhood questions why UVMC is
19 essentially `thumbing their nose' at the neighborhood and is of the opinion it is common courtesy
20 for the hospital to consult with the surrounding neighborhood about development.
21 • One particular question concerns the east construction staging area is now a footpath for many
22 persons residing in the neighborhood and questioned whether there are plans to fence this area
23 off from use?
24 • Questioned hours of construction and potential noise impacts to the neighborhood. Many of the
25 residents of the Wagonseller Neighborhood work at night and sleep during the day.
26 • Asked if there will be lighting on Lot#7?
27
28 Chair Whetzel: It is likely people using the pathway will have to use the sidewalk for safety reasons.
29
30 Commissioner Pruden: Persons residing in the Wagonseller Neighborhood also expressed concern to
31 her that the neighborhood was not notified of the Project and as such jumped to the conclusion that
32 parking lots #7 and #8 were being developed as part of this project. She explained that parking lots #7
33 and #8 were not being developed but rather would be used as construction staging areas. Has observed
34 that parking lot#7 is heavily used for parking purposes.
35
36 Chair Whetzel:
37 • Observed that temporary parking lot#7 at 5:30 p.m. only had one car in the lot.
38 • Requested clarification there would not be lighting in parking lot#8 and that it would be used as a
39 staging area for heavy equipment and building materials?
40 • Asked if UVMC owns the property referred to as parking lots#7 and #8.
41
42 Brandon Parker, UVMC, Vice President of Finance: Is willing to facilitate a dialogue with the
43 Wagonseller Neighborhood concerning the Project as soon as possible even though it is past the
44 planning and design stage and is before the Planning Commission for approval.
45
46 Paul Martin:
47 • Confirmed parking lot #8 would be used as a construction staging area and for the placing of
48 building materials.
49 • There is typically a general contractor on board for construction purposes and it may be he can
50 make the construction staging area smaller so there is less impact to pedestrians using the area.
51 • Confirmed UVMC owns the property referred to as parking lots #7 and #8.
52 • There will be no lighting on parking lot#7.
53 • Related to hours of construction, Adventist Health System is a faith-based organization and does
54 not have any work on Saturday. Construction will be limited to five days a week. The noisiest part
55 of construction is the beginning of a project.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 5
1 • The general contractor will be working to reduce as many potential impacts as possible.
2 • The construction schedule will likely be six or seven months.
3
4 Staff: Related to comments made by Susan Sher, there are project conditions of approval that require
5 the contractor trailer/construction staging area be moved as far away as possible from residential uses,
6 as well as standard mitigation measures for Noise on pages 42 and 43 of the Mitigated Negative
7 Declaration.
8
9 Charles Ackerley: Related to one more issue concerning noise, the contractor that will be constructing
10 the building is very experienced with working on hospital sites and understands the necessity of
11 maintaining noise levels to a minimum for the benefit of patients and hospital staff.
12
13 Commissioner Sanders:
14 • Asked how the fencing will work in the area where the adjacent residential community walks
15 through on lot 8.
16 • Asked about the timeframe that the adjacent neighborhood can expect to be impacted by dust,
17 noise, and/or other construction impacts.
18
19 Paul Martin:
20 • Is of the opinion the general contractor will not need that much construction staging area so it is
21 likely pedestrians will still be able to walk through the area.
22 • The Project will take approximately eight months to complete. The initial disturbance of the site
23 will be approximately eight weeks unless there are weather delays.
24 • Will be complying with the City ordinance concerning hours of operation.
25 • In terms of fencing, again the general contractor is very sensitive to working on hospital sites and
26 is certain if there needs to be a public access that this aspect can be worked out. Fencing and
27 other precautionary measures will have to be taken to ensure public safety and address liability
28 issues. If these issues can be addressed, the pedestrian access could still occur.
29
30 Commissioner poble:
31 • Asked if any consideration is given for construction to begin at 8 a.m. as opposed to 7 a.m.?
32 • Is there any equipment currently on the site that will be moved to Lot #7 or Lot#8 and used for a
33 while and referred to a list under the noise section in the staff report of various items that will be
34 moved, such as a boiler and oxygen tank, etc.
35
36 Paul Martin:
37 • Will consult with the general contractor if this construction time specification is doable.
38 • The boiler and oxygen tank and/or other existing equipment will be moved to another location and
39 demonstrated where.
40
41 Commissioner Pruden:
42 • While there is a vacant parcel on the northwest corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street for
43 temporary employee parking and contractor trailers and parking during project construction as
44 well as use of the vacant parcel on the northeast side of the campus/corner of Hospital
45 Drive/Hamilton for temporary employee parking contractor trailers and parking, and construction
46 staging until construction the Project has been completed, asked about the use of proposed
47 parking lot#1 for employee parking only.
48 • Will the parking lot contain a notice for the public not to park there?Will vehicles belonging to the
49 public be towed if parked there?
50
51 Chair Whetzel: Will parking lot#1 continue to be fenced as it is currently.
52
53 Brandon Parker:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 6
1 • Uses parking lot#1 every day as does other hospital staff. Acknowledged the parking lot is 100
2 percent for employee use. There are no current designated parking spaces and construction of a
3 new 31 space parking lot#1 will also not include designated parking.
4 • Towing away vehicles is not a current practice of UVMC and there has not been a discussion
5 that this would not be a practice in the future moving forward. The parking lot would be
6 designated as `employee only.'
7
8 Paul Martin:
9 • Referenced the new parking lot and noted there are no plans to chain or fence it off.
10 • Clarified the location of the only parking spaces that are marked and noted these are for UVMC
11 vehicles.
12
13 Commissioner Pruden: Requested clarification that 43 parking spaces have to be relocated within the
14 existing hospital campus.
15
16 Staff: The parking spaces need to be relocated whether it is on the Project site or at some other location
17 on the hospital campus, such as lot#7, but this decision is up to the hospital.
18
19 Chair Whetzel:
20 • The proposed HSB Project will likely tie in with the next project. Recalls a former project had
21 plans for lot#7.
22 • Is looking overall that the proposed Project and other projects are essentially one big project and
23 that the Project being considered tonight is basically Phase I.
24 • If the proposed Project is taking away some parking, the next project pertinent to lot #7 will
25 compensate by adding parking spaces.
26
27 Commissioner poble: Noted the Project is conditioned to add parking spaces.
28
29 Staff:
30 • Due to the reduced size of parking lot #1, there would be a net loss of 43 parking spaces for the
31 proposed Project and/or the overall UVMC campus. All of the spaces that would be created in a
32 permanent parking lot on lot#8 are needed to meet the parking requirements.
33 • Referenced Condition of Approval 3, staff did not condition the project to state how or where
34 these replacement parking spaces should be done. This aspect is left to the applicant to
35 determine what makes the most sense for UVMC. UVMC would develop a parking plan and
36 present it to the Planning Department and from there a determination would be made whether or
37 not a major/minor Site Development Permit or just a building permit would be required. The City
38 Planning Department would need to see the parking plan in order to make a determination.
39 • The parking matter will be addressed.
40
41 Commissioner Pruden: Referred to the staff report, page 14, Table 3, Zoning Ordinance and Site
42 Analysis, Vehicle Parking Requirements, sentence that reads, `The condition requires the parking to be
43 provided in the areas of the demolished support buildings and/or permanent parking be provided on lot
44 #7,' and this language implies the demolished support buildings would become parking.
45
46 Staff: Clarified the aforementioned condition states `and/or' so if UVMC chose to provide some on-site
47 parking and some parking on Lot#7, this is completely at the discretion of the hospital and subject to city
48 review.
49
50 Commissioner Pruden: All of the replacement parking does not have to be on lot #7; the hospital has
51 other options.
52
53 Staff: The language concerning the proposed parking in the staff report allows UVMC flexibility with
54 regard to replacement parking.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 7
1 Commissioner poble: Supports staff's analysis concerning proposed parking and flexibility given in the
2 Project conditions. The flexibility in the language allows the Planning Commission the opportunity not to
3 have to revisit if a change occurs.
4
5 Commissioner Pruden: Is not certain that putting all the parking behind the primary campus on lot#1 is
6 an optimum idea. Is of the opinion lot #7 is the better choice for parking both for the hospital and
7 neighborhood.
8
9 Commissioner Sanders:
10 • Less parking is great. Is pleased lot#1 is being reduced.
11 • Likes what is being presented.
12 • Only issues relate to the Valley Oaks in the Landscaping Plan and having construction protection
13 with the existing Oaks on lot#8 that would include fencing.
14 • Had a question directed to staff about the Redwoods the DRB mentioned because the Fire
15 Marshal appears to be concerned about the height of the trees with the storage of flammable
16 materials.
17 • Is also pleased the Meditation Garden will not be impacted.
18
19 Commissioner poble:
20 • Has concern about the Valley Oaks as well. The General Plan Goal requires the
21 preservation/conservation and replenishment of Valley Oaks. The proposed project is removing
22 one, but not replacing it. Would need to see a compelling argument for why the tree is not being
23 replaced.
24 • While he supports the bio-retention areas in the parking lot and sees the benefit thereof is of the
25 opinion an opportunity exists for a Valley Oak to work in a couple of those areas.
26 • Strongly supports the concept of the other General Plan goal concerning urban forests and
27 maintaining and enhancing them when the Project proposes to remove trees that are doing fairly
28 well and replace them with smaller trees. It is like `kicking the cycle back'five or six years.
29 • Understands while the City does not have a tree removal ordinance, many communities in
30 Northern California have a ratio of greater than 'one to one' replacement for trees and this
31 addresses some of the issues of the urban forest such that when trees are taken down that are
32 doing fairly well and smaller ones planted in their place expecting them to catch up growth-wise.
33 Would like to see a greater than `one to one' ratio, something that works for the applicant but also
34 something the Commission feels comfortable with.
35
36 Chair Whetzel: The arborist had some concerns about the location of the trees and how they would do
37 in the future.
38
39 Commissioner poble:
40 • The arborist mentioned some weakening of the trees because of where they planted.
41 • Noted the trees are also planted in tree wells that are not accepting run-off and are not wet. Is of
42 the opinion the Valley Oak does not do well in this type of environment. Finds there are two large
43 bio-retention areas that may work in this regard. Because the issue is a General Plan goal would
44 need to see a compelling reason why not to require the replacement of the Valley Oak.
45
46 Commissioner Pruden:
47 • Does not like the configuration of parking lot#1 in terms of pedestrian flow. People will have to go
48 in between cars to get over to the sidewalk or go out of the driveway along the sidewalk and into
49 the front. The parking lot is an employee parking lot so it is possible the configuration related to
50 the pedestrian flow will change. If the parking lot were for use by the public, a designated
51 walkway would have to be constructed through the parking lot. As it currently exists to get from
52 the westside to the eastside, a person would either have to walk into traffic lanes or walk in
53 between cars because there is no cut-through.
54 • The Commission needs to discuss bicycle parking.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 8
1 • Questions why the Raywood Ash trees need to be removed. These are trees in good shape and
2 essentially to replace them in pretty much the same location is somewhat confusing. This
3 approach is counter intuitive.
4
5 Chair Whetzel:
6 • Maintaining the trees would essentially be interfering with the construction zone.
7 • Has no problem replacing the trees. Likes the replacement ratio concept, but instead of a one to
8 one replacement ratio use a different ratio.
9 • Does not support hindering the Project just to save some parking lot trees.
10
11 Commissioner Pruden:
12 • The arborist stated the existing trees are not mature or native. While the trees to be planted are
13 on the approved City street tree/parking lot list many are not native trees to California. Many of
14 the native trees will not do well in a street or parking lot environment.
15 • The applicant has proposed a great tree list. Would like to know the rationale why the applicant is
16 removing a set of healthy trees and replace with another set of trees in the same location.
17 • Referred to pages 9 and 14 of the staff report with regard to bicycle parking and asked for
18 clarification, noting page 9 states there are 12 existing bike parking spaces on the UVMC hospital
19 campus and the Project includes the installation of six new bike spaces for a total of 18 bike
20 parking spaces.
21
22 Staff:
23 • Related to the trees, additional information related to the trees was received after the Initial
24 Study was written.
25 • What the staff report is saying related to bicycle parking is 28 parking spaces are required, 12
26 exist on-site, six are proposed for the Project for a total of 18 spaces. The staff report says that in
27 order to provide the 28 required bike parking spaces; additional bike parking spaces are required.
28 These additional spaces are required to be installed as part of the approved ED Expansion
29 Project. Staff is of the opinion, with the 12 existing bike parking spaces on the campus and the
30 six proposed from the HSB Project for a total of 18 should be sufficient for this Project. If the
31 Planning Commission chooses to require all the bicycle parking spaces now even though the
32 applicant may make the argument there is no increase in square footage and do not want to
33 provide more spaces, the Commission can do this. However, staff does not support this
34 approach.
35
36 Commissioner Pruden: For clarification, 12 parking spaces are existing and the new parking lot
37 requires six additional bicycle parking spaces for a total of 18 wherein the balance would be made up
38 when the Hospital Expansion Project is completed.
39
40 Staff: The parking lot does not technically require any bicycle parking and is essentially `a one for one
41 trade for square footage.'
42
43 Chair Whetzel: Related to bicycle parking, what is occurring is six additional bicycle parking spaces are
44 proposed which the applicant does not need to provide.
45
46 Staff: What staff is saying is the entire campus would require 28 parking spaces. However, most of the
47 campus was constructed at a time when there were no bicycle parking requirements. The applicant has
48 agreed to provide six bicycle parking spaces for the HSB Project. Staff supports this proposal since it is
49 consistent with the code requirement and the existing bicycle parking would increase. An argument could
50 be made that no additional bike parking is needed since there is no increase in square footage; it is more
51 of a relocation and redistribution of square footage. When the ED Expansion is built, the remainder of the
52 bike parking spaces would be installed since the need for these bike parking spaces is associated with
53 that project.
54
55 Commissioner Sanders: Noted sheets A-2 and A-4 provide the location of the bicycle parking spaces.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 9
1 Commissioner Pruden: Since the parking lot #1 is for employees, it is important bicycle parking be
2 provided.
3
4 Chair Whetzel: Is of the opinion that the HSB Project should have been presented as a Phase I project to
5 the bigger project to tie it all together.
6
7 Staff: Acknowledged there is a `disconnecY occurring when reviewing the HSB Project in light of the ED
8 Expansion which has already been approved. However, the scope of this review is only the HSB Project.
9
10 Commission supports staff's recommendation regarding bicycle parking which is six additional spaces
11 proposed that are essentially not necessary for this Project combined with the existing 12 spaces
12 provided for a total of 18 spaces.
13
14 Commissioner Pruden:
15 • Referred to page 9 of the staff report, Energy section, staff indicates the Project does not include
16 rooftop panels or solar tubes/skylights. As part of its review of the Project, Planning Commission
17 could require the applicant to install solar panels or to pre-wire the building for future solar. The
18 Project is subject to the California Green Building Code and will be more energy efficient than the
19 existing buildings that it will replace.
20 • Does the Commission want to require the applicant to pre-wire for future solar?
21
22 Chair Whetzel: Is of the opinion the new building will be very energy efficient and does not have a
23 problem with the building being constructed as proposed without pre-wiring for solar.
24
25 Commissioner Pruden: Is not suggesting a change to the building, but rather possibly requiring the
26 applicant install or pre-wire for solar.
27
28 Commissioner poble: Favors pre-wiring for solar for projects, but since the building is replacing less
29 energy efficient buildings square footage-wise with a building that is very energy efficient would be
30 inclined not to require solar panels or pre-wiring for solar for this particular project.
31
32 Charles Ackerley: Based on the use and design of the space, application for solar would not really
33 work. However, the design provides for a very efficient wall assembly and explained the technical
34 aspects.
35
36 Chair Whetzel: Recommends at least providing for electrical conduits that could be used for pre-wiring
37 for solar in the event changes are made to the building at some point where solar would be advantageous
38 and/or a benefit.
39
40 Commissioner Pruden: Understands the building will be energy efficient so does not have a preference
41 one way or the other. Is not sure the building is large enough to go solely photovoltaic on top of the roof.
42 Would not want to require pre-wiring.Would be prudent to add some conduits, however.
43
44 Staff: While General Plan Goal EG-4 says to maximize on-site solar energy use especially in new
45 developments, a project does not have to be consistent with every single goal or policy, but rather overall
46 consistent with the spirit and intent of the General Plan. The Commission does not have to deal with
47 rooftop panels or solar tubes/skylights in any way, but it is staff's responsibility to point out General Plan
48 inconsistencies.
49
50 Commissioner poble: Is accepting of the way the building is designed energy efficient-wise in that the
51 new building is replacing less energy efficient buildings.
52
53 Commission made no change concerning the matter of energy for the new building.
54
55 Commissioner Sanders: Referred to page 9 of the staff report, Circulation and Transportation,
56 language that states, `the Project was referred to Mendocino Transit Authority for review and comment.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 10
1 No comment was received from MTA. Inquired whether there is already a MTA stop on the hospital
2 campus?
3
4 Staff: There is a stop in the area of Pear Tree Center. Planning staff has consulted with MTA staff for the
5 former Hospital Expansion Project and was told there is a stop that serves Pear Tree Center and its riders
6 have more demand for the existing stop at Pear Tree Center than a stop at UVMC.
7
8 Commission discussion regarding the location of MTA stops in the vicinity of the hospital.
9
10 Commissioner Pruden: Asked specifically about the intent for removing the Raywood Ash trees along
11 the fence/sidewalk line other than it is convenient for construction.
12
13 Charles Ackerley:
14 • The intent is not to spend any more money than necessary for re-landscaping for something that
15 already exists.
16 • As we got into the project, it became apparent that electrical vaults of substantial size have to be
17 replaced such that the existing landscaping associated with this part of the project would not
18 withstand the rigger of construction such that the area would have to be re-landscaped.
19 • Understands Commission concern regarding replacement of trees that are already there.
20
21 Commissioner Pruden:
22 • Does understand UVMC has an extensive electrical vault system that requires substantial
23 undergrounding that takes away from the existing landscaping on the site.
24 • The architect has indicated with regard to replacement of landscaping that the intent is be cost
25 effective and replace only what is absolutely necessary.
26
27 Commissioner poble:
28 • Inquired about reason for not replacing the Valley Oak tree?
29 • Is there a master plan for parking lots #7 and #8? Is there a way to provide for shade on that side
30 of the street?
31
32 Chair Whetzel: Opportunities to provide shade in the areas of parking lots #7 and #8 was a component
33 of the Emergency Hospital Expansion Project.
34
35 Staff: Related to parking lots #7 and #8, for the Emergency Hospital Expansion Project Lot#8 becomes
36 a permanent parking lot after the temporary heliport uses ends. The permanent parking lot approved by
37 the Commission complies with the Davis shade standard. If development is proposed for Lot #7, the
38 development would be subject to the landscaping requirements at that time.
39
40 Commissioner Sanders:
41 • Inquired about the irrigation system for the Coast Live Oaks and if the Oaks will be competing
42 with other vegetative landscaping species for water and whether this issue will be a
43 consideration.
44 • It is important for the trees to have space and space away from the other landscaping species.
45
46 Steve Wheeler, Steve Wheeler Landscaping Architect: Does not have an irrigation plan prepared at
47 this time. When the time comes to develop a detailed irrigation plan, consideration will be given how this
48 effectively works for the trees and other landscaping vegetation.
49
50 Commissioner Pruden: Referred to the Landscape Plan: L-0, and noted according to the plan T-26
51 Quercus Lobata (Valley Oak) is located at the corner on the west side of the parking lot. This is the only
52 Valley Oak she can identify. Noted one other Valley Oak (T-43)will be retained.
53
54 Commissioner poble:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 11
1 • Referred to the Civil Schematic Composite Plan, C-101, and noted in the parking lot are two large
2 bio-retention areas, one towards the front of the parking lot and one towards the rear of the
3 parking lot. Is of the opinion either one of those large areas would be a good spot for a Valley
4 Oak. Preference would be the area towards the rear of the parking lot.
5 • Is of the opinion it is difficult to dismiss/discount the General Plan goal for
6 conservation/enhancement of Valley Oaks. Every effort should be made to add one where
7 feasible.
8 • Would be open to having a landscaping architect select an appropriate location.
9
10 Commissioner Pruden:
11 • Acknowledged there are two bio-swales both of which have been allocated for the Red Maple
12 trees in the parking lot area and it may be possible to put one or two Valley Oaks in this location.
13 Commissioner poble is suggesting one or two Valley Oaks for symmetry purposes in the bio-
14 swales.
15 • Valley Oaks grow quite high before they branch out.
16
17 Commissioner poble:
18 • Do not have a General Plan goal to preserve and retain Maple trees.
19 • Already contending with the fact that we are losing sort of the urban forest because we are going
20 from growing trees to smaller trees. The Commission is going to have to deal with this issue.
21 • Is open to suggestions.
22
23 Chair Whetrel:
24 • The little bio-retention center will not hold two Valley Oaks. Does the Commission want to
25 substitute two Maple trees for one Valley Oak?
26 • Has no problem substituting the trees.
27 • Allowing for two Valley Oak trees on either side of the parking lot is not feasible because those
28 bio-retention areas are not large enough.
29
30 Staff: A point of clarification, right now the shade plan is consistent with the City of Davis standard. If the
31 trees are traded, is not sure the Project would be in compliance, which would make the project
32 inconsistent with the landscaping requirements.
33
34 Chair Whetzel:
35 • Asked if the Valley Oak is to be replaced and does this have to be specific to the project area?
36 Can it be replaced elsewhere?
37 • Can there be more flexibility for the applicant with the opportunity to place the tree somewhere
38 else?
39 • Does not want the Project to fall out of compliance with the overall shade requirement.
40
41 Commissioner poble: Is open to any suggestion. We are dealing with a responsibility to preserve and
42 protect Valley Oak trees.
43
44 Commissioner Sanders: The issue is also about being able to provide sufficient space.
45
46 Steven Wheeler:
47 • Concession is possible and explained how this could work.
48 • Related to recommended trees for parking lots, Valley Oaks are not on the list.
49 • Taking out the Red Maple is a judgment call.
50 • A Valley Oak is deciduous and this is a nice feature. The tree is dormant during the winter period.
51 While Valley Oak live in soggy conditions would like to do some research about Valley Oaks living
52 in a bio-swale as to whether the tree should be dead center or to the side of the bio-swale.
53 Preference would be to plant the Oak up a little on the side so it is not dead center at the bottom
54 of the bio-swale.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 12
1 • First approach would be to try and save the Oak trees with some minor adjustments in the
2 parking lot. Secondly, there may be an opportunity in the Project to try one for one ratio for tree
3 replacement for the Valley Oak should it have to be removed.
4
5 Chair Whetzel:
6 • Staff has indicated by removing the Red Maples, may jeopardize the Project into non-compliance
7 with the shade requirements.
8 • Is of the opinion what the Commission would like to see is assurance in the grand scheme of the
9 bigger and/or next project for UVMC if one Valley Oak is removed that one, two, or three Valley
10 Oaks will be planted somewhere else.
11 • Is okay with the Valley Oak being removed if UVMC in the next phase of development would
12 plant three or four Valley Oak trees.
13
14 Steven Wheeler:
15 • Explained how the street trees would be planted by modifying the location of the planters to better
16 accommodate the trees and save the Valley Oak and Coast Live Oak trees. To this end, will try
17 and save the Valley Oak trees if possible.
18 • Will look for a location within the Project to add a Valley Oak tree.
19 • The Coast Live Oaks on the site appear to be doing well.
20
21 Commissioner Pruden:
22 • The soil where the UVMC is located and that of the Wagonseller Neighborhood is very good for
23 trees and vegetative landscaping. The soil is river soil and this is why the trees flourish in this
24 area.
25 • Supports adding a condition that the oaks be retained where feasible.
26
27 Commissioner Sanders: Would like to see whatever is planted will thrive.
28
29 Commissioner poble: The landscape architect intends to conserve and replenish Valley Oak and Coast
30 Live Oak trees. It may be a condition of approval is necessary in this regard.
31
32 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:53 p.m.
33
34 Commissioner poble: Recommends adding a condition of approval that the Project retain and/or
35 replenish Valley Oak trees where feasible.
36
37 Staff:
38 • Prefer to include this as a separate condition of approval from the Planning Commission, rather
39 than modifying an existing condition. It is helpful to identify the conditions imposed by the
40 Commission.
41 • Need to add language to the condition based on what the landscaping architect is saying as to
42 the likely need to modify the location of the planters in order to retain the trees. Since there is also
43 a requirement to provide a planter every four parking spaces in the parking lot, recommend
44 approving a modification to the this requirement and including a finding to allow more flexibility in
45 designing the parking lot to retain the trees.
46
47 The Commission expressed concern about the two Coast Live Oaks in parking lot#1 and possible
48 retention of these trees.
49
50 Commissioner poble:
51 • For the record then, the applicant will retain or replenish the existing Valley Oak trees possibly by
52 modifying the parking lot to do so.
53 • Asked again about the hours of construction. The zoning ordinance allows for construction to
54 begin at 7:00 a.m. Preference would be for construction to begin at 8 a.m.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 13
1 Commission discussion concerning the hours of construction, noting the zoning for the site drives the
2 construction time. The site is zoned C2 that allows construction to begin at 7 a.m. and end at 10 p.m.
3 Asked about the noise ordinance regulations with regard to construction times.
4
5 Staff: The noise ordinance allows construction activity from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., but the mitigation
6 measures do not. These are the exact same construction hours in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that
7 the Commission approved for the Emergency Hospital Expansion Project. The mitigated times provided
8 for in the MND are Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Saturday 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Construction is
9 prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah.
10
11 Commissioner Pruden: Is okay with the aforementioned hours of operation even though it may be a little
12 difficult for the neighborhood. This will be for a short duration.
13
14 There was general Commission discussion concerning the issue of noise impacts addressed in the MND
15 in connection with the noise impacts generated from the hospital heliport where the document indicated
16 there have been no complaints concerning the helicopter operation.
17
18 Staff: The reason the MND indicates no noise impact from the hospital heliport operation is because the
19 City has never received a complaint.
20
21 Commissioner Sanders: Would like a condition for the existing trees on lot #8 to be protected during
22 construction with fencing.
23
24 Commissioner Pruden:
25 • Related to the discussion above is asking for a darker more full-body color that is closer in palate
26 to the existing OB roof located to the west that is a brownish red.
27 • The applicant can consider the texture of the stone that is appropriate for a `dress fronY but is of
28 the opinion the color is more important.
29
30 Chair Whetzel:
31 • Does not have a problem with the color and likes the texture of the stone as proposed.
32 • Likes that a darker color has been selected for the stone portion of the building that provides for a
33 nice architectural contrast.
34
35 Commission likes that the stone was designed to have a darker palate and supports Commissioner
36 Pruden's recommendation regarding the color palate of the stone to be that of a richer brown to match
37 that of the OB building.
38
39 Staff: The Commission does not have to decide on the stone type tonight, but rather can include a
40 condition to state `before this exterior material is installed that the applicant provides some alternative
41 samples for Commission review.' Also, the Commission can request the applicant provide a color sample
42 for the stone for later review by the Commission.
43
44 Chair Whetzel: Is it necessary to include a condition concerning landscaping for parking lot#1.
45
46 Staff: A condition is not necessary because this aspect will be captured in the condition that relates to the
47 Valley Oak trees to include the addition of a finding to reconfigure parking lot #1 to serve the Valley Oak
48 trees.
49
50 Commission consensus:
51 • No change to bicycle parking and support staff's analysis in this regard.
52 • No other changes made concerning other project issues that staff recommended the Commission
53 make a determination about to include requiring UVMC to find permanent replacement parking for
54 the spaces lost as a result of the project, applicanYs request for modification related to the
55 parking lot#1 not to provide for a pedestrian pathway, and applicanYs request for modification to
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 14
1 the shade requirement for the parking lot. Commission accepts staff's analysis as provided for in
2 the staff report relevant to these issues.
3 • No change made concerning the matter of solar energy as provided for in the energy section of
4 the staff report. Commission supports staff's analysis in the regard.
5 The following finding and conditions of approval were made by the Planning Commission:
6 • Findinq reqardinq Vallev Oak, Coast Live Oaks and Landscapinq Reauirements
7 Include a finding related to the general plan goals and policies to conserve and replenish Valley
8 Oaks and to maintain and enhance the urban forest and shade tree canopy. The Project applicant
9 indicated that it may be possible to save the three oak trees (valley oak (T-26) and the two Coast
10 Live oaks (T-27 and T-29)), including the valley oak by modifying the west side of the parking lot.
11 Allow a modification to the parking lot requirement for a landscape planter every four parking
12 spaces to provide more of an opportunity to retain the oak trees. Also include a condition that
13 allows the modification of the parking lot in order to retain the oak trees with the priority being the
14 valley oak since there are general plan goals and policies specific to the valley oak
15
16 • Condition reqarding tree protection
17 Include a condition of approval for protective tree fencing around the oak trees on lot 8.
18
19 • Condition reqarding color and sample of stone
20 Include a condition of approval that the color of the stone be changed to a richer red/brown color.
21 This item can be reviewed and approved by staff as part of the building permit process.
22
23 • Condition reqarding retention of one Valley Oak tree and two Coast Live Oak trees in construction
24 area
25 Allow modification to the parking lot shown on the plans in order to retain the valley oak and
26 Coast Live oaks. This item can be reviewed and approved by staff as part of the building permit
27 process.
28 M/S Pruden/Doble to approve Ukiah Valley Medical Center Hospital Support Building, Central Yard, and
29 Temporary Parking, Contractor Trailers, and Construction Staging (File No.: 13-09-UP-SDP-PC) with
30 Findings 1-9 and Conditions of Approval 1-59 as provided for in attachments 2 and 3 of the staff report
31 with modifications to conditions of approval with regard to the landscaping, tree protection and color of the
32 stone and the addition of a finding for retention of native Valley Oak Tree and Coast Live Oaks located in
33 the construction area to include possible reconfiguration of parking lot #1 to accommodate the trees.
34 Motion carried (4-0)with Commissioner Christensen absent.
35
36 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
37 Senior Planner Jordan referred to a project update dated 9/9/2013 from Kevin Brogan owner of the
38 former Feibusch Building and the explanation pertinent to why modifications had to be made to the
39 windows post Commission approval.
40
41 Commissioner Sanders:
42 • Inquired about the timeframe for review of the Costco EIR.
43 • The UUSD building project is taking shape and looks nice. Unfortunately, the project consumed
44 water from the Social Security building next door such that the landscaping located on the
45 shared property line has resulted in dead plants and the trees are also struggling. Would
46 appreciate having more water facilities at this location.
47
48 Staff: Will look into the matter of the landscaping problems at the Social Security building as a result of
49 UUSD project.
50
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 15
1 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
2 Commissioner Sanders:
3 • A clean-up of Gibson Creek is scheduled for Saturday, September 21 from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
4 that includes lunch.
5
6 Chair Pruden:
7 • Is pleased to be working with Kevin Brogan regarding the remodel of the Feibusch Building.
8 • On Art Walk night of Oct 4 a dedication plaque for historical work done to the Feibusch Building
9 will be given to Kevin Brogan.
10 • The Wagonseller Neighborhood has expressed concern that the Duane Hill housing project on
11 Orchard Avenue is in violation of its conditions of approval for not providing for a playground area
12 for children living in the complex. Accordingly, the basketball and tether ball equipment have been
13 removed. The children need to have a place to play.
14
15 Commissioner poble commended staff for a job well done on staff reports for projects, noting the work
16 and end product to be excellent, especially for Planner Jordan.
17
18 There was Commission discussion about the eye sore and/or other problems at the Blue Drug store site.
19
20 There was also Commission discussion about problems with the Commissioners not receiving their
21 Planning Commission packets on time.
22
23 12. ADJOURNMENT
24 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
25
26
27 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
28
29 FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE UKIAH
30 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL SUPPORT BUILDING AND CENTRAL YARD, TEMPORARY
31 PARKING, CONTRACTOR TRAILER AND CONSTRUCTION STAGING PURSUANT TO THE
32 REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA")
33
34 1. The Project will approve a Use Permit and Site Development to allow the construction of an 11,200
35 square foot hospital support building and central yard at 275 Hospital Drive and temporary employee
36 parking and contractor trailer(s) and parking on the northwest corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street
37 and construction staging on the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street.
38
39 2. The City of Ukiah as lead agency has prepared an Initial Environmental Study and a Mitigated
40 Negative Declaration dated August 2013 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Ukiah
41 Valley Medical Center Hospital Support Building, Central Yard, Temporary Parking Lot, Construction
42 Staging, and Contractor Trailer and Parking ("ProjecY').
43
44 3. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts and based on the conclusions
45 reached in the Initial Environmental Study, it has been determined that the proposed project, as
46 mitigated, would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment for the following reasons:
47
48 A. A mitigation measure has been included to reduce any impacts related to light and glare to less
49 than significant. Impacts to visual quality were determined to be less than significant or no
50 impact.
51
52 B. Construction of the Project would result in an increase in PM10. Mitigation measures for
53 construction of the Project have been applied to the Project. The Project is also required to
54 obtain a Permit from the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District(MCAQMD)which
55 will apply any necessary conditions to Project construction necessary to ensure compliance with
56 air quality standards.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 16
1
2 C. In order to construct the Project, thirty-eight (38)trees within the construction area of the HSB
3 and associated improvements would be removed. The landscaping plan includes the planting of
4 thirty-eight new trees. A mitigation measure has been included to protect any birds that may be
5 nesting in trees that would be removed or that are proximate to the trees to be removed. This
6 would reduce any impacts to biological resources to less than significant. Since the trees that
7 would be removed were planted as part of previous development on the UVMC campus and
8 would be replaced at a ratio of 1:1, the impact related to trees is less than significant.
9
10 D. There are no streams, creeks, or water courses on the parcels included in the Project. Gibson
11 Creek is located west and south of the Project and is a tributary of the Russian River which has
12 been designated as impaired for temperature and sedimentation. Orrs Creek is located north of
13 the site and is also a tributary to the Russian River. The Project is required to obtain a permit
14 from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) and to comply with the
15 City of Ukiah's Storm Water Management Plan as well as the Ukiah City Code requirements for
16 erosion and sediment control and storm water. Compliance with the requirements imposed by
17 the NCRWQCB and City of Ukiah would ensure that the Project does not impact local creeks or
18 the Russian River.
19 A.
20 E. The Project area is not identified on the Area of High Archeological Sensitivity included in the City
21 of Ukiah General Plan. It is highly unlikely that there are archeological resources or human
22 remains on the parcels included in the Project. In the unlikely event that cultural resources or
23 human remains are discovered during grading operations for the Project, mitigation measures
24 have been included to reduce the impact to less than significant.
25 B.
26 F. The Project is required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report
27 required for the Project, which would be applied through the building permit review process. A
28 geotechnical report was prepared for a previous project on the site. The recommendations
29 included in this geotechnical report have been applied to this Project and a site and project
30 specific geotechnical report is required for the Project. The site and project specific geotechnical
31 report is required to be submitted as part of the building permit submittal documentation and the
32 Project is required to comply with all recommendations included in the geotechnical report.
33 C.
34 G. The Project is required to obtain a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, comply
35 with the City of Ukiah's Storm Water Management Plan, and the Ukiah City Code which includes
36 requirements for storm water systems, and erosion and sediment control. Compliance with these
37 requirements as well as the low impact development improvements included as part of the
38 Project result in less than significant impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality.
39
40 H. The Project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The Project parcels are
41 designated as Zone X, areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain, on
42 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map#06045C1514F, Panel#1514 of 2100, effective date
43 June 2, 2011.
44
45 I. A portion of the Project is located in the B2 compatibility zone. Since the Project is located north
46 of the Ukiah Municipal Airport, this portion of the Project is required to comply with the
47 requirements of the B2 infill policy. The remainder of the Project is located outside of the
48 boundaries of the Mendocino County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Ukiah Municipal
49 Airport Master Plan; and, therefore, not subject to the compatibility requirements. Based on the
50 analysis included in the Initial Study, the Project is consistent with the requirements of the B2 infill
51 policy.
52 D.
53 J. The Project is infill development located in an area primarily developed with the existing Ukiah
54 Valley Medical Center hospital campus and other medical and professional office uses. The
55 Project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City of Ukiah General Plan.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 17
1 K. No mineral resources or agricultural lands are located within or in close proximity to the project
2 area.
3 E.
4 L. Construction of the Project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels in the Project
5 area. Residential uses are located to the north of the Project. Mitigation measures have been
6 included to limit the hours of construction and reduce noise from construction equipment. These
7 mitigation measures would reduce construction noise impacts to less than significant.
8 F.
9 M. The Project would not result in an increase in the number of employees; therefore, the Project
10 would not result in an increase in the need for housing or in population growth. The Project does
11 not include or eliminate any housing.
12 G.
13 N. There are adequate public services and utilities to serve future development in the project area.
14 H.
15 O. The Project would not result in an increase in the number of employees, patients, or visitors;
16 therefore, there would be no change in the level of service of intersections in the Project area and
17 existing capacity would not be affected.
18 I.
19 P. The Project would not result in climate change or greenhouse gas impacts. The Project does not
20 violate any plans or policies adopted to address climate change/GHG. The Project does not meet
21 the impact threshold used by the local air district for determining a significant impact. The
22 Project was referred to and reviewed by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District
23 and the District did not identify any impacts related to climate change or GHG.
24 J.
25 4. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts that may result from the
26 implementation of the Project. Based on the conclusions reached in the Initial Environmental Study, it
27 has been determined that the proposed Project has the potential to have significant environmental
28 impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and noise
29 without the implementation of mitigation measures. The analysis and conclusion reached in the Initial
30 Environmental Study identified mitigation measures that would reduce the potential impacts on
31 aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and noise to less than
32 significant levels based on the following:
33
34 Aesthetics
35
36 Potential Impact: The Project could result in impacts related to new sources of light or glare.
37
38 Mitiqation Measure:
39
40 A. All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, aimed, and shielded so as to minimize light trespassing
41 over property lines and avoid directing light towards motorists and pedestrians. Fixtures shall be
42 full cutoff and nighttime friendly and shall be International Dark Sky Association (IDA) approved or
43 equivalent. Prior to installation of the exterior lighting, the applicant shall prepare a photometric
44 plan for review and approval by the Planning Department that demonstrates the lighting will not
45 spillover onto adjacent properties and that all lighting is shielded and downcast.
46
47 B. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a photometric plan that demonstrates lighting will
48 not spillover onto adjacent properties and that the lighting levels will not produce excessive light
49 or glare. The lighting plan is subject to staff review and approval. The lighting plan shall utilize
50 fixtures that are consistent with Aesthetics mitigation measure#B above.
51
52 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to aesthetics to less than
53 significant levels.
54
55 Air Qualitv
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 18
1 Potential Impact: The use of a temporary parking area for employees and construction of the Project
2 would result in a temporary increase in increase PM-10 levels.
3
4 Mitigation Measures:
5
6 A. Lot 7 shall be covered in gravel or otherwise treated to prevent excessive dust and trackout and
7 shall be reapplied as needed to avoid the release of dust for the duration of the use of this site
8 as a temporary parking lot and construction staging.
9
10 B. Construction activities shall be conducted with adequate dust suppression methods, including
11 watering during grading and construction activities to limit the generation of fugitive dust or other
12 methods approved by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. Prior to initiating
13 soil removing activities for construction purposes, the applicant shall pre-wet affected areas with
14 at least 0.5 gallons of water per square yard of ground area to control dust.
15
16 C. The burning of construction debris is prohibited. Any disposal of vegetation removed as a result
17 of site preparation shall be lawfully disposed of, preferably by chipping and composting, or as
18 authorized by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District.
19
20 D. During construction activities, the applicant/owner/contractor shall remove daily accumulation of
21 mud and dirt on paved access lanes that serve the project site.
22
23 E. Any stationary on-site internal combustion engines over 50 horsepower(i.e. generators) may
24 require a permit from the MCAQMD depending upon fuel source and level of operation. It is the
25 responsibility of the City to contact the District regarding this matter and to secure any required
26 permits prior to site preparation and construction activities.
27
28 F. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, and construction of the Project shall
29 institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy
30 days.
31
32 G. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive
33 dust.
34
35 H. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall
36 include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of
37 mud and dust onto public streets.
38
39 I. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be
40 used for earth moving operations.
41
42 The inclusion of these mitigation measures will reduce any potential impacts to air quality to less than
43 significant levels.
44
45
46 Bioloqical Resources
47
48 Potential Impact: The removal of trees necessary for Project construction could affect nesting birds.
49
50 Mitiqation Measure:
51 A. If site preparation and tree removal/trimming include the spring bird nesting season (February
52 through July), a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified professional within two
53 weeks prior to removing/trimming any trees. If active nests (with eggs or living young)are found, no
54 activity shall be permitted that might disturb or remove the active nests until the young birds are
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 19
1 able to leave the nest and forage on their own. Empty nests may be removed. If eggs or young are
2 present, the nests shall be left until the young birds leave. Setback buffers for the nests will vary
3 depending on the species affected and the location of the nest. Buffer zones shall be determined on
4 a case by case basis in consultation with a California Department of Fish and Game biologist.
5
6 The inclusion of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to biological resource to
7 less than significant levels.
8
9 Cultural Resources
10
11 Potential Impact: Construction activities could result in the discovery and disturbance of previously
12 unknown archeological resources. Future construction activities could disturb prehistoric or historic
13 resources.
14
15 Mitiqation Measure:
16
17 A. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources
18 are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the City shall be notified
19 of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional
20 archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation program if
21 deemed necessary.
22
23 Potential Impact: Construction activities could result in the discovery and disturbance of human
24 remains
25
26 Mitiqation Measure:
27
28 B. If human remains are encountered during construction excavation and grading activities, State
29 Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the
30 County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to
31 PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24
32 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify
33 the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent, who will help determine what course of
34 action should be taken in dealing with the remains.
35
36 The Project will not substantially degrade cultural resources with the inclusion of the mitigation
37 measures above.
38
39 The inclusion of these mitigation measures will reduce any potential impacts to cultural resource to
40 less than significant levels.
41
42 Geoloqv/Soils
43
44 Potential Impact: The installation of landscaping and irrigation adjacent to building foundations could
45 compromise the foundation resulting in substantial risks to property or life due to expansive soils.
46
47 Mitiqation Measures:
48
49 A. In order to avoid moisture accumulation or watering adjacent to foundations, no landscaping is
50 allowed against the structure unless moisture accumulation is considered. Only drought tolerant
51 species are allowed proximate to the foundation of the ED expansion. If landscaping is allowed
52 adjacent to the structure, landscaping and irrigation plans for this landscaping shall be designed
53 to direct water away from the foundation.
54
55 B. Planning Commission review of the landscaping plan for the Project shall include review of the
56 species adjacent to the ED expansion and recommendations for appropriate drought tolerant
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 20
1 species and/or the removal of landscaping in this area based on the recommendation included in
2 the geotechnical report.
3
4 C. The landscaping plan and irrigation plan submitted as part of the building permit plans are subject
5 to staff review and approval and shall demonstrate compliance with the landscaping plan
6 approved by Planning Commission. The landscaping plan and irrigation plans shall clearly
7 demonstrate the water will be directed away from the foundation.
8
9 The inclusion of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to geology/soils to less than
10 significant levels.
11
12 Noise
13
14 Potential Impact: Construction of the Project would result in a short-term and temporary increase in
15 noise levels in the area that may affect sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project and on the
16 Project site.
17
18 Mitigation Measures:
19
20 A. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and from
21 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday. Construction hours are prohibited on Sunday and all holidays
22 recognized by the City of Ukiah. Interior work that generates negligible or no noise at the
23 property line is allowed outside of the construction hours noted above.
24
25 Approval of additional construction hours may be requested in writing from the Community
26 Development Director and Public Works Director for extenuating circumstances. The written
27 request must be submitted a minimum of 14 days prior to the date for which the change in
28 construction hours/days is being requested and shall explain the need for the extended
29 construction hours, describe the extenuating circumstances, and identify the additional
30 construction hours requested, including the duration.
31
32 B. Signs shall be posted at the Project site prior to commencement of construction of the proposed
33 Project for the purpose of informing all contractors/subcontractors, their employees, agents,
34 material haulers, and all other persons at the construction site(s)of the basic requirements of
35 mitigation measures for Noise.
36
37 C. Signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include the permitted construction days and
38 hours, day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number in the event of
39 problems.
40
41 D. An onsite complaint and enforcement manager shall respond to and track complaints and
42 questions related to noise.
43
44 E. Equipment and trucks used for proposed Project construction shall use the best available noise
45 control techniques (e.g. improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and
46 acoustically-attenuated shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
47
48 F. Impact tools (e.g.jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for Project
49 construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise
50 associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
51
52 G. Stationary construction noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible
53 and they shall be muffled.
54
55 H. No outside amplified sources (e.g. stereo"boom boxes") shall be used on site during Project
56 construction.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 21
1
2 The inclusion of these mitigation measures will reduce any potential impacts to noise to less than
3 significant levels.
4
5 5. The revisions made to the Project before the adoption of the mitigated negative declaration and initial
6 environmental study would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
7 significant effect on the environment would occur.
8
9 6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Ukiah that the Project,
10 as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment.
11
12 7. The Initial Environmental Study was prepared and demonstrated there is no substantial evidence that
13 supports a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the
14 environment.
15
16 8. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
17 Project, as mitigated, does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional
18 environment.
19
20 9. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
21 Project, as mitigated, will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term
22 environmental goals.
23
24 10. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
25 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative
26 considerable.
27
28 11. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
29 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
30 beings, either directly or indirectly.
31
32 12. The Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were sent to the State
33 Clearinghouse for State Agency review and comment and publicly noticed and made available for
34 public review and written comment from August 9 through September 9, 2013. No comments were
35 received during the review and comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
36
37 13. Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available in the following
38 manner: sent to the State Clearinghouse on August 7, 2013; posted at the Mendocino County Clerk on
39 August 7, 2013; mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the parcels included in the Project on August
40 6, 2013; and published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on August 7, 2013.
41
42 14. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation
43 measures.
44
45 15. September 11, 2013, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to adopt the Mitigated
46 Negative Declaration.
47
48 16. The Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of proceedings of the
49 decision on the Project are available for public review at the City of Ukiah Planning Department,
50 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA.
51
52
53 USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE UKIAH VALLEY
54 MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL SUPPORT BUILDING, CENTRAL YARD, AND ASSOCIATED
55 IMPROVEMENTS AND TIMPORARY EMPLOYEE PARKING, CONTRACTOR TRAILERS AND
56 APRKING, AND CONSTRUCTION STAGING File No.: 13-09-UP-SDP-PC
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 22
1
2 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
3 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
4
5 1. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan as
6 described in Table 1 of the staff report.
7
8 2. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Airport Compatibility requirements as
9 described in Table 2 of the staff report.
10
11 3. The proposed Project, as conditioned is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Zoning
12 Ordinance as described in Table 3 of the staff report.
13
14 4. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for approval of a Use
15 Permit based on the analysis included in Table 4 of the staff report.
16
17 5. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for approval of a Site
18 Development Permit based on the analysis included in Table 5 of the staff report.
19
20 6. The granting of the Modification to the Landscaping Requirement to provide 50% shade coverage of
21 all paved areas within 10 years of planting is based on the following:
22
23 A. The Zoning Ordinance requires a shade percentage to be achieved at 10 years, however the
24 code does not indicate how the shade coverage should be calculated, provide the canopy size of
25 various tree species at 10 years, or define the parking area that is subject to this requirement.
26 B. Based on staff research, communities that have a shade ordinance most commonly use a 15
27 year tree canopy when calculating shade coverage.
28 C. Tree canopy size can double between 10 and 15 years. Staff was unable to find another
29 community that used a 10 year canopy for the purpose of calculating shade coverage and City
30 staff directed the applicant to calculate shade coverage using the City of Davis method.
31 D. The landscape plan includes shade calculations with the size of the tree canopy and square
32 footage calculation based on the City of Davis parking lot shade calculation requirements. Based
33 on this information, 57.55% of the parking lot would be shaded within 15 years of planting.
34 E. The landscaping plan includes the one tree every four spaces, trees are planted at the end of the
35 parking rows, trees are from the require Parking Lot Tree List, and more than 50% shade
36 coverage of the parking area within 15 years.
37 F. The number of trees and shading provided is a substantial improvement over the landscaping
38 and shading of existing parking lot#1.
39
40 7. The granting of the Modification to the Landscaping Requirement to provide a pedestrian pathway
41 through new parking lot is based on the following:
42
43 A. New parking lot#1 includes 31 parking spaces in four rows of parking spaces accessed via one-
44 way drive aisles.
45
46 B. A public sidewalk is located on the north side of the parking lot and a pedestrian pathway is
47 located on the east side of the parking lot both of which connect to the main entry of the HSB as
48 well as the utility yard.
49
50 C. Parking lot#1 will most likely be used by employees who will be parked for most of the day with
51 limited turnover of parking spaces.
52
53 D. Nine (9) parking spaces located on the east side of the parking lot connect to the pathway located
54 on the east side of the lot. The two rows of the parking located in the center of the site would
55 require people to cross one one-way drive aisle. The westernmost row of parking would require
56 people to cross two one-way drive aisles.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 23
1
2 E. The parking lot is small, the turnover of parking spaces throughout the day is likely to be low, and
3 pedestrians would be required to cross at most two one-way drive aisles and pedestrian parking
4 in the easternmost row of parking would have immediate access to the pedestrian pathway and
5 would not have to cross any drive aisles.
6
7 8. An Initial Environmental Study (IS) was prepared for the Project which identified potential impacts to
8 aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and noise. Mitigation
9 measures were identified that would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. A Mitigation
10 Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Project and the applicant has agreed to
11 the mitigation measures.
12
13 9. Notice of the proposed Project was provided in the following manner:
14
15 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet on August 6, 2013 (with the NOI);
16 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on August 7, 2013 (with the NOI) ; and
17 ■ posted on the project parcels on August 8, 2013.
18
19 From the Planninq Commission
20
21 10. The General Plan includes goals and policies to conserve, replenish, maintain and protect Valley
22 Oaks and to maintain and enhance the urban forest and shade tree canopy. As stated at the meeting
23 by the applicant, the Project landscape architect and civil engineer will attempt to modify the parking
24 lot in order to retain the Valley Oak and Coast Live Oaks. In order to implement these goals and
25 policies, a Modification to the Landscaping Requirement to provide a tree within a continuous linear
26 planting strip between every four parking spaces is hereby granted in order to allow the parking lot to
27 be modified to retain the oak trees located to on the west side of the parking lot. This modification is
28 granted in order to allow the parking lot to be modified in a manner that would retain the existing
29 valley oak (T-26) and the two Coast Live oaks (T-27 and T-29) identified as "to be removed" on the
30 Landscape Demolition Plan (sheet L-0). The retention of these trees is consistent with the General
31 Plan. A condition of approval allowing the modification of the parking lot in order to retain these trees
32 has been applied to the Project. If it is not feasible to modify the parking lot to retain the oak trees,
33 the Project would be consistent with the General Plan goal OC-22 and policy OC-22.1 since the
34 implementation measure states When reviewing proposals for development require that all valley
35 oaks on the project area be identified, and ensure that all reasonable efforts have be undertaken to
36 protect the trees and the landscape architect and civil engineer will undertake all reasonable efforts to
37 protect.
38
39
40 USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL UKIAH VALLEY MEDICAL
41 CENTER HOSPITAL SUPPORT BUILDING, CENTRAL YARD, AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS
42 AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PARKING, CTRACTOR TRAILERS AND PARKING, AND
43 CONSTRUCTION STAGING File No.: 13-09-UP-SDP-PC
44
45 1. Approval is granted to allow the construction of the Hospital Support Building, central yard, and
46 associated site improvements at 275 Hospital Drive and to allow the temporary use of the parcel
47 located on the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/ Hamilton Street (APN 002-160-10)for construction
48 staging and to allow the temporary use of the parcel on the northwest corner of Hospital Drive /
49 Hamilton Street (APN 002-160-13) for temporary parking, contractor trailer(s) and parking as shown
50 on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 5, 2013 and the Project
51 Description and details submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 5, 2013, except as
52 modified by the following conditions of approval.
53
54 2. Prior to building permit final for the Hospital Support Building at 275 Hospital Drive, a deed notice
55 shall be recorded to advise persons that the property is located in proximity to the Ukiah Municipal
56 Airport in the B2 (extended approach/departure) infill compatibility zone, is subject to occasional
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 24
1 aircraft overflight, and may be subject to aircraft noise or related disturbances. Prior to recordation of
2 the deed notice, the draft language for the notice shall be provided to the Planning Department for
3 review and approval.
4
5 3. Prior to occupancy of the Hospital Support Building, the applicant shall submit a plan to replace the
6 43 parking spaces lost in parking lot #1 as a result of this project. The replacement parking spaces
7 shall be provided within 6 months of the occupancy of the Hospital Support Building. Continued use
8 of the temporary parking on lot #7 may be extended by the Planning Director if necessary to provide
9 adequate parking during construction of the permanent parking to replace the 43 parking spaces list
10 in parking lot#1.
11
12 4. While in use for temporary employee parking and construction staging during Project construction,
13 the parcel (APN 002-160-13) used for temporary employee parking and construction staging shall be
14 treated with a dust suppressant as needed to control dust and to prevent the tracking of dirt/dust out
15 onto paved roads
16
17 5. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around trees to remain that are in proximity of construction
18 activities.
19
20 6. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff review and
21 approval:
22
23 A. Consistent plans for the bioretention areas included in the project. The landscaping plan (sheet
24 L-1) and civil plan (C-101) shall be revised to show consistent bioretention areas. At a minimum,
25 bioretention areas shall be provided in and around the parking lot, in front of the HSB, and
26 adjacent to the west side of the easternmost driveway.
27
28 B. Compliance with the State Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance and are subject to staff review
29 and approval.
30
31 C. Location of temporary parking area, contractor trailer and parking on lot 7 which shall be as far as
32 practicable from the residential uses located to the north of lot 7.
33
34 D. Location of the construction staging area on lot 8 which shall be located as far as practicable from
35 the residential uses located to the north of lot 8.
36
37 E. Location of the protective tree fencing for the onsite trees located in the vicinity of the project area
38 and identified as"to remain"on the landscaping demolition plan.
39
40 7. The protective tree fencing required by condition #5 above shall be metal, a minimum of 5-feet in
41 height and secured with in-ground posts. The approved tree fencing shall be installed prior to
42 construction/grading activities and shall remain in place until construction has been completed.
43
44 8. Prior to construction of the enclosure of the central yard, the materials and details for the central yard
45 shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.
46
47 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/project proponent shall apply for and receive an
48 address assignment for the Hospital Support Building from the Planning and Community
49 Development Department.
50
51 10. Within 14 days of building permit final or occupancy of the Hospital Support Building, whichever
52 comes first, use of lot 7 for temporary employee parking shall cease. In order to establish permanent
53 employee parking on lot 7, an application for a Use Permit and Site Development Permit along with
54 all associated fees shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department for
55 review and processing.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 25
1 11. Signs require application for and approval of a Sign Permit from the Planning and Community
2 Development Department.
3
4 12. All mitigation measures included in the mitigated negative declaration are hereby included be
5 reference as conditions of approval.
6
7 13. On plans submitted for building permit, these conditions of approval and as well as the mitigation
8 measures referenced in condition of approval # 12 above shall be included as notes on the first sheet.
9
10 From the Planninq Commission
11
12 14. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around the trees on the parcel located on the northeast
13 corner of Hospital Drive and Hamilton Street. The protective tree fencing shall be metal, a minimum
14 of 5-feet in height, and secured with in-ground posts. The required fencing shall be included on plans
15 submitted for building permit and as is subject to staff review and approval. The approved tree
16 fencing shall be installed prior to construction/grading activities and shall remain in place until
17 construction has been completed.
18
19 15. The color of the stone shall be changed to a richer red/brown color. A sample of the stone material
20 shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to installation.
21
22 16. The applicant shall make all reasonable efforts to retain the Valley Oak. In order to retain the one
23 valley oak tree and two Coast Live oak trees located on the west side of the parking lot, the parking
24 lot may be modified. The priority is to retain the Valley Oak since there are specific general plan
25 policies to conserve, replenish, maintain and protect Valley Oaks. The modifications to the parking lot
26 shall be included on plans submitted for building permit and are subject to staff review and approval.
27 The parking lot shall comply with city standards for parking lots, including but not limited to the
28 requirement for shading of the parking lot.
29
30
31 From the Public Works Department
32
33 17. The geotechnical engineer shall review and approve the design of the grading and drainage plans,
34 including the bioretention areas. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a letter from the
35 geotechnical engineer indicating the engineer has reviewed and approved the grading and drainage
36 plan and bioretention areas included in the project.
37
38 18. Since the Project will disturb more than one acre, the applicanUproject proponent is required to obtain
39 a Storm Water Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to construction. Under the
40 new Construction General Permit regulations, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
41 shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer and implemented by a Qualified SWPPP
42 Practitioner.
43
44 19. Bioretention areas shall be designed in accordance with the civil composite plan, the Preliminary
45 Hydrology Statement, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Parking areas shall be sloped and
46 reconstructed, and curb cuts positioned, as necessary to optimize utilization of these bio-retention
47 areas.
48
49 20. The project engineer shall provide direct oversight and inspection during project construction, with
50 special attention to implementation of best management practices for sediment and erosion control,
51 and the proper grading, installation, and landscaping of the bioretention areas. Upon completion of
52 the work, a report shall be submitted by the project engineer to the Department of Public Works
53 stating that the improvements have been completed in accordance with the approved plans and
54 conditions of approval, shall function as intended, and all areas have been permanently stabilized to
55 prevent sediment and erosion.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 26
1 21. Applicant shall upgrade existing sidewalk along Hospital Drive to meet ADA requirements, including
2 at the existing driveway approaches, and addition of curb ramps at the intersection. Public sidewalk
3 improvements outside of the street right-of-way will require a sidewalk easement dedicated to the
4 City.
5
6 From the Public Works Department—Standard Requirements
7
8 22. Prior to construction of site improvements, a final grading and drainage plan, and an erosion and
9 sediment control plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the
10 Department of Public Works. A final drainage report shall be provided to support the design of the
11 proposed drainage system.
12
13 23. Since the project area disturbs greater than one acre, the applicant must obtain a Storm Water Permit
14 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, prior to construction. (Note that, under the new
15 Construction General Permit regulations, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared
16 by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, and implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner.)Also, an Air
17 Quality Permit from the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District will be required.
18
19
20 24. Any existing curb, gutter or sidewalk in disrepair that is adjacent to the subject property shall be
21 repaired. All work shall be done in conformance with the City of Ukiah Standard Drawings 101 and
22 102 or as directed by the City Engineer.
23
24 25. Standard street tree requirements include street trees spaced approximately every 30 feet along the
25 public street, within tree wells where feasible, otherwise within 5 feet of the back of sidewalk. Street
26 trees shall be installed in accordance with City Standard Drawing No 601. Tree types shall be
27 approved by the City Engineer.
28
29 26. All areas of circulation shall be paved with a minimum of 2" of AC on 6" of Base or other suitable
30 surface approved by the City Engineer. This includes the proposed driveways and parking areas. If
31 heavy truck traffic is anticipated from the solid waste company, delivery trucks, or other heavy
32 vehicles, the pavement section shall be calculated appropriately to ensure that it can withstand the
33 loading.
34
35 27. Storm drain inlet filters shall be installed and maintained in all on-site storm drain inlets within paved
36 areas.
37
38 28. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured
39 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or otherwise
40 affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated construction costs.
41
42 29. Existing sewer laterals planned to be utilized or modified as part of this project shall be cleaned and
43 tested in accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No. 1105, and repaired or replaced if required. If
44 an existing lateral is to be abandoned, it shall be abandoned at the main to the satisfaction of the
45 Public Works Department.
46
47 30. Applicable City of Ukiah sewer connection fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
48
49 31. Capital Improvement fees for water service are based on the water meter size. A fee schedule for
50 water meter sizes is available upon request. Additionally, there is a cost for City crews to construct
51 the water main tap for the proposed water service to serve the project.
52
53 32. All irrigation and fire services shall have approved backflow devices.
54
55 From the Buildinq Official
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 27
1 33. Mendocino County Air Quality Clearance and a demolition permit from the City of Ukiah are required
2 prior to demolition of the existing support facilities.
3
4 34. Building permits plans for the Project shall include a plan for Lot 7 that shows the site work,
5 construction of the temporary office, electrical power, and contractor parking.
6
7 35. The building is required to be constructed in compliance with the California Green Building Standards
8 Code, including but not limited to the following:
9 A. plan for the recycling and/or salvage of a minimum of 50% of the non-hazardous waste
10 demolition/construction debris; and
11
12 B. development of a landscaping/irrigation budget for landscape irrigation use that conforms to the
13 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
14
15 36. Three (3)sets of the Geotechnical soils report specific to this site are required.
16
17 From the Fire Department
18
19 37. In order to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access through new parking lot #1, at maturity the
20 trees in the parking lot shall be trimmed up to 12-feet from ground level and this clearance shall be
21 maintained.
22
23 38. Due to the proximity of the new Hospital Support Building to the existing Utility Building, specific fire
24 protection may be required. The specific fire protection requirements will be determined during the
25 Plan Check phase of the permitting process.
26
27 39. The applicant shall notify the Fire Department in writing a minimum of seven (7) days before any
28 roadways or emergency services will be interrupted or detours provided related to project
29 construction.
30
31 From the Electric Utility Department—Standard Requirements
32
33 40. There shall be no remote meter/s.
34
35 41. The contractor/developer shall be responsible for the purchasing of all primary/secondary conduits
36 and installation per City of Ukiah specifications.
37
38 42. The contractor/developer shall be responsible for the installation of all Junction Pedestals per City of
39 Ukiah specifications. The City will provide the Junction Pedestal/s and contractor/developer to install.
40 Cost of (2) Junction Pedestals will be paid by contractor/developer and (1) Junction Pedestal will be
41 paid for by City of Ukiah Electric Utility Department.
42
43 43. The contractor/developer shall purchase and install all Primary Pull Boxes per City of Ukiah
44 specifications, if required.
45
46 44. The contractor/developer shall provide/install Transformer Pad/s (preformed or pour in place) per City
47 of Ukiah specifications.
48
49 45. Easements are required for all electric distribution facilities and shall cover the entire length of the
50 primary and secondary conductors/conduits and transformer equipment/pad locations. The required
51 easements shall be recorded prior to building permit final.
52
53 From the Mendocino Countv Air Qualitv Manaaement District
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 28
1 46. Lot 7 (APN 002-160-13) used for temporary employee parking and contractor trailer(s) and parking
2 shall be covered with gravel or treated to control dust and to prevent the tracking of dirt/dust out onto
3 paved roads.
4
5 47. Portable diesel generators of more than 50 horse power require a permit from the Mendocino County
6 Air Quality Management District.
7
8 48. The Project is subject to District Regulation 1-430, Fugitive Dust Emission.
9
10 49. The Project requires MCAQMD approval of a Large Grading Project permit(form 207.22).
11
12 50. The Project is subject to the Asbestos NEHSAP (40CFR subpart 61). A full and complete asbestos
13 survey shall be completed and any asbestos abated prior to construction. The asbestos survey shall
14 be submitted to the Air District for review prior to commencement of construction.
15
16 Standard Conditions of Approval
17
18 51. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use, including but
19 not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, sign permit, has been applied for
20 and issued/finaled.
21
22 52. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges applicable to
23 this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
24
25 53. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
26 specification, or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agency as
27 applicable.
28
29 54. All construction activities shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
30 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and
31 issued.
32
33 55. A copy of this Permit and all conditions of approval shall be provided and be binding upon any future
34 purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
35
36 56. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior to
37 building permit final.
38
39 57. This Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project related to
40 this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and conditions of approval; or
41 if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of this approval; or if the
42 established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for 24
43 consecutive months.
44
45 58. Except as otherwise specifically noted, this Permit shall be granted only for the specific purposes
46 stated in the action approving the Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any
47 building, use, or zone requirements except to such specific purposes.
48
49 59. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of the
50 plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited to the following:
51
52 K. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall fluctuate
53 according to the season, i. e., more water in summer, less in the winter.
54
55 L. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds, and
56 reduced watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 29
1
2 M. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic fertilizer
3 according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional.
4
5 N. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees.
6
7 O. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not constrict
8 the trunks and damage the trees.
9
10 P. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not damage the
11 trunk of the tree and its overall growth.
12
13 Q. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests, disease or other factors, including vandalism,
14 shall be replaced with the same or similar tree species, or an alternative species approved by
15 the department of Planning and Community Development.
16
17 R. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be made. All pruning
18 shall follow standard industry methods and techniques to ensure the health and vitality of the
19 tree.
20
21 60. Failure to comply with the requirements listed above could result in revocation of the Use PermiUSite
22 Development Permit.
23
24 61. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts related to
25 project construction:
26
27 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Rule 1-430,
28 Fugitive Dust Emissions.
29
30 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and
31 building construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust,
32 particularly during windy days.
33
34 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control
35 fugitive dust.
36
37 D. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction
38 shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the
39 transport of mud and dust onto public streets.
40
41 E. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall
42 be used for earth moving operations.
43
44 F. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous
45 gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour.
46
47 G. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires, poorly
48 covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the end
49 of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public Works/City
50 Engineer.
51
52 62. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
53 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers,
54 attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against
55 any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul
56 the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 30
1 costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
2 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this application,
3 whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of the City. If, for any
4 reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of
5 competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
6
7
8
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 31