HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_09252013 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 September 25, 2013
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair
7 Laura Christensen
8 Kevin Doble
9 Linda Sanders
10 Judy Pruden
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15
16 1. CALL TO ORDER
17 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
18 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
19
20 2. ROLL CALL
21
22 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
23
24 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the August 14, 2013 and September 11, 2013
25 meetings will be available for review and approval at the October 9, 2013 meeting.
26
27 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
28
29 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters at this meeting, the
30 final date to appeal is October 7, 2013.
31
32 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
33
34 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff.
35
36 9. PUBLIC HEARING
37 9A. Stephens Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development Plan, 312 Ford Street
38 (File No.: 13-13-REZPD-PC-CC). Planning Commission consideration and possible
39 recommendation to City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rezoning to Planned
40 Development, and precise Development Plan to allow the construction of four one-bedroom
41 apartments on the corner of Ford Street and Myron Place and one second unit at 312 Ford
42 Street, APNs 002-101-15 and 002-101-14. This item was continued from the September 11, 2013
43 meeting.
44
45 Planning Director Stump gave a staff report and noted:
46 • Related to the appeal process, clarified this agenda item is seeking a recommendation from the
47 Planning Commission to City Council for review and approval so there is no need for an appeal
48 and/or appeal date.
49 • The Project is a rezone to a Planned Development (PD) and a Precise Development Plan, which
50 is a benefit because sometimes there is a PD and rezoning application with no development
51 plans associated with it. To the contrary, this Project proposes a PD and rezone with
52 development plans so the Commission knows exactly what to anticipate in the way of
53 development unlike the existing PD for the area that does not provide for development standards.
54 To this end with the existing PD zoning designation there were no standards in place to guide a
55 developer. The developer in this case decided to pursue a new PD with R-3 zoning standards
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 1
1 related to density, setbacks, and/or other standards. The proposed Project involves a number of
2 code exception/deviations from the typical R-3 zoning code standards as articulated in the staff
3 report so as such the request is to rezone the properties from the former PD zoning designation
4 to PD R-3.
5 • The Project includes two separate parcels. The parcel located on the corner of Myron Place and
6 Ford Street is vacant and undeveloped.
7 • Specifically addressed the project description as provided for on pages 1 and 2 of the staff report
8 stating the parcel located on the corner of Myron Place and Ford Street would be developed with
9 four one-bedroom apartments located in two separate buildings with carports located below the
10 apartments. There will be a ground floor concrete patio area and second story balcony for each
11 unit, as well as two parking spaces for each unit located in the carport located under the unit. The
12 Project will also feature one detached accessory structure and storage for the tenants as shown
13 on the site plans, sheet A0.1.
14 • Accordingly, the parcel located at 312 Ford Street is developed with one single-family home and
15 detached two-car garage. The existing detached garage on the site is five feet from the rear
16 property line and five feet from the side property line, which is consistent with the setback
17 requirements for a one-story accessory structure. This parcel is proposed to be developed with a
18 second unit above the garage. As such, the applicant has proposed two options for the second
19 unit that are addressed on page 2 of the staff report. While option 2 is consistent with the zoning
20 requirements for second units, the applicant's preference is option 1 and this is essentially an
21 exception/deviation from the UCC. Pursuant to UCC section 9016, second stories are required to
22 be setback 10-feet from the rear and side property lines. Setbacks of less than 10 feet may be
23 approved with a Use Permit or in this case as part of the Precise Development Plan.
24 • The Project also includes new exterior lighting, landscaping and demolition of the existing
25 detached shed on the vacanUundeveloped parcel.
26 • Is of the opinion the Project blends well with the rest of the neighborhood. It is a transition from
27 the high density housing located on the other side of Myron Street to the west toward the single
28 family residential neighborhood. The Project is located in the Wagonseller Neighbor, which is
29 eclectic in terms of densities.
30 • Staff in its analysis of the Project discovered some issues and there are issues with the
31 community as well in which Planning Department staff has received comments from related to
32 traffic, parking, and safety and security.
33 • One good aspect is the Project is proposing two garage parking spaces per one bedroom unit
34 and is of the opinion this approach is a very solid attempt by the architect to address the parking
35 issues.
36 • Related to traffic, while there will be additional traffic no doubt and the appearance of congestion
37 at times, the one bedroom units according to the Public Works Department are not going to
38 generate a significant amount of traffic and/or contribute to a failing level of service for the streets
39 in the area.
40 • Other issues cited have to do with the design and site planning. The DRB reviewed the Project,
41 approved of the development concept and were generally pleased with the Project layout/design
42 and their comments are provided for on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report.
43 • The Project will provide additional housing units for the community.
44 • Staff's recommendation is for the Planning Commission to recommend to City Council to adopt
45 the MND and introduce an ordinance approving the rezoning to PD R-3 and Precise Development
46 Plan.
47
48 Commission questions/comments to staff
49
50 Commissioner Pruden:
51 • Is the Project subject to the Quimby Act?
52 • This is the first time in 20 years that a Project with a zoning designation of this kind has been
53 presented. The PD completed in the area in 1979 provided no development standards. This is
54 apparently the way PDs were done at that time.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 2
1 • Related to the second unit project, does this development turn into a duplex with the existing
2 single family dwelling in the front of the lot or is it a single family residence with a second unit?
3 • With the type of developmenUarrangement for the property located at 312 Ford Street, one of the
4 necessities is that the property must be `owner-occupied.'
5 • Sees no elevation plans for review and discussion for the second unit project.
6
7 Planning Director Stump:
8 • The Project is not subject to the Quimby Act because it is not a subdivision and only subdivisions
9 are subject to the Quimby Act. State law does not allow the Quimby Act to be used for projects
10 not involving subdivisions. The Quimby Act is the State law that allows the legislative body of a
11 city or county by ordinance to require the dedication of land or impose and/or collect fees in lieu
12 thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval
13 of a tentative map or parcel map provided certain requirements are met.
14 • Acknowledged that PDs were done differently years ago because it was a 'different world for
15 planning' back then. For a vacant parcel with a PD designation there were no development
16 standards having a Precise Development Plan in place for future development.
17 • Confirmed the proposed second unit project is a single family residence with a garage and
18 second unit on top. It is articulated that way in the PD such that if in the future there was a
19 different owner, 312 Ford Street would clearly be recognized as single family residence and a
20 garage with a second unit.
21 • Confirms there is a condition of approval that requires the property located at 312 Ford Street be
22 owner-occupied.
23 • Sheet A1.2 shows the garage and the second unit with elevations.
24
25 It was noted attachment 8 also shows the elevations.
26
27 Commissioner Sanders:
28 • Article 14 Regulations in PD districts, ZO section 9167 of the PD Combining Zoning districts
29 addresses vehicle and bicycle parking plans noting a bicycle parking plan is required for PD
30 developments and did not see a bicycle plan for the Project.
31 • Did not see a general phasing plan and schedule concerning the estimated time of construction
32 and completion of each phase of development.
33 • Article 14 Regulations in PD districts, section E 10(b) that reads, `Landscape plantings shall be
34 those which grow well in Ukiah's climate without extensive irrigation. Native species are strongly
35 encouraged,' and stated although language related to landscaping is in the environmental
36 document and staff report, with the selection of plants offered counted only two native species.
37 Would like to hear more about the choice of landscaping.
38
39 Planning Director Stump:
40 • Will defer to the applicant concerning bicycle parking.
41 • Also did not see a construction schedule and is of the opinion it is likely the development will not
42 be a phased project.
43 • Provided supplemental information regarding the Quimby Act and explained this act is a State law
44 that allows local agencies to adopt its own ordinance requiring fees to go toward parks or require
45 a person doing a subdivision to dedicate land within the subdivision for parks. Historically, the
46 Planning Commission has been quite concerned about a lack of parks in the Wagonseller
47 Neighborhood. Recalled a former Planning Commission during a past project who made it clear
48 he was uncomfortable supporting any future residential projects if a park was not either planned
49 for or was being pursued for the Wagonseller Neighborhood. This Planning Commissioner was
50 of the opinion the Wagonseller Neighborhood was in such need of a park and that adding more
51 residential units would be the wrong thing to do. Subsequent to that time, on-site recreational
52 facilities have been required for projects to try and compensate for the lack of recreational/park
53 facilities in the Wagonseller Neighborhood. This lack of recreational/park facilities is not only
54 coming from the empirical observations of the neighborhood, but also the General Plan, which
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 3
1 identifies this neighborhood along with the neighborhood south of Washington Avenue as two
2 neighborhoods in dire need of a neighborhood park.
3 • Is of the opinion the Planning Commission is obligated to take the lack of parks in neighborhoods
4 into consideration when reviewing projects. City Council has never adopted any type of
5 moratorium on development in the Wagonseller Neighborhood until a park is developed. At this
6 time there is no statute, no direction or authority to require a park for a project..
7
8 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:20 p.m.
9
10 Richard Ruff, Project Architect:
11 • Staff did an excellent job with the staff report.
12 • Elaborated on the two options and corresponding setback requirements for the second unit
13 project relative to the single family dwelling with the detached two-car garage in the rear as
14 provided for on page 2 of the staff report. Option 1 is the preferred option that would allow
15 maintaining the existing five-foot setbacks from the side and rear property lines and essentially
16 put the second unit floor directly on top of the garage without the use of supporting beams and/or
17 other structural adjustments to comply with the 10-foot setback requirement.
18 • The site that would inhabit the four one-bedroom units are identical buildings that face one
19 another with approximately 30 feet of driveway in between that is ample enough not to make
20 maneuvering in the courtyard difficult. While only one parking space is required per one-bedroom
21 unit, the Project is providing two parking spaces for each one unit.
22 • It has been his experience that most one-bedroom units are mostly rented by couples or couples
23 with one small child. With this scenario, at the most there would be two cars per unit. However, it
24 is possible there would only be one car per unit if a couple is living there.
25 • Bicycles can be stored in the carports and locked.
26 • The plants and species for the landscaping have been extended beyond what presently exist. As
27 such, it is likely the plants are not native. Would be willing to take another look at the landscaping
28 plan and possibly provide for native species.
29 • Has spent some time on Myron Street and is familiar with the covenants that were formulated for
30 the homeowners on this street. The document does address quite a few things that are
31 happening there but not being enforced. A board consisting of three members was originally
32 formulated for architectural review purposes for the duration of 25 years with automatic renewal
33 for 10 years. Is of the opinion the aforementioned board no longer exists and it appears no one is
34 keeping up with issues confronting residents living on Myron Place that was initially agreed to by
35 all of the original buyers of those townhouses. The homeowners agreement document does
36 address essentially 'what can be done' as an owner of a townhouse, i.e., what one can do in the
37 front and back yards. The document is very strict. The townhouses having multiple bedrooms
38 were approved some time ago and only required a single car garage. As such, most of these
39 units have two or three bedrooms. For these townhouses, there is one on-site parking space
40 allowed. Because these townhouses are connected, there is virtually very little curb space for off-
41 site parking. These units are occupied by owners and renters. Renters likely have roommates so
42 for those three-bedroom units it is possible there are three occupants having three cars so there
43 are typically an extra two or three cars parked in front of some driveways or on the street such
44 that parking is a problem on Myron Street.
45 • Is of the opinion the parking problems were created by other projects and it is not the
46 responsibility of the applicant to have to remedy the parking problems on Myron Place. The
47 applicant is providing ample parking for his project as specially addressed in the staff report.
48 • It may be the architectural review board for the townhouse should resume their obligation.
49
50 Commissioner Sanders:
51 • Inquired about a phased plan for construction?
52
53 Richard Ruff:
54 • The owner has indicated the four units would be built first and once these have been completed
55 and leased work would commence on the second unit above the detached two-car garage.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 4
1 Commissioner Pruden:
2 • Would the units rent at market value or considered subsidized housing?
3 • What will the units rent for?
4 • Is there a Management Plan, particularly for control and enforcement of the garages? Is highly
5 concerned the carport would be used for storage purposes.
6
7 Richard Ruff:
8 • The units will rent at market rate.
9 • The units will rent for between $800 and $950 a month.
10
11 Planning Director Stump:
12 • A Management Plan is required as a condition of approval. It would be beneficial to review the
13 Management Plan topics that have to be addressed.
14
15 Commissioner poble: A Management Plan is addressed in attachment 3 as Condition of Approval 2.
16
17 Commissioner Pruden:
18 • The Management Plan does not talk about use of the garage. Is concerned the garages will
19 eventually be used for storage purposes.
20 • The garages for the townhouses are being used but not for parking. Has observed that some
21 `very creative' conversions to other uses have been made for these townhouse garages.
22
23 Richard Ruff:
24 • The parking accommodations being purposed underneath the four units are `carports' to avoid
25 exactly what Commissioner Pruden is alluding to in the way of being used for storage purposes.
26 • Use of garages for storage purposes is exactly what has occurred to the housing units up and
27 down Myron Place. This is why cars are parked everywhere and why parking is such a problem
28 on this street. The garages are essentially not being used for vehicle parking, but rather for
29 storage.
30 • The Project also includes a laundry facility and four extra storage units for tenants.
31 • Is of the opinion the Management Plan spells out that there will be no storage in the carports and
32 that the carports would be used for vehicles and bicycles only.
33
34 Commissioner poble:
35 • For clarity purposes the proposed units are not 'garages' but rather carports. The Project also
36 has enclosed storage facilities adjacent to where the cars will be parked that has a solid door.
37 • Related to the Management Plan, it should be made clear that the parking for the development
38 will be on the site.
39 • Is of the opinion if a tenant were to store something in the carport but still has room for a vehicle
40 this would be acceptable. What may not be acceptable would be to fill the whole carport with
41 storage and then park out on the street.
42
43 Richard Ruff:
44 • Showed the location of the storage areas on the site plans that contains four storage facilities
45 with one laundry at the end.
46 • Confirmed parking for the Project will be on-site.
47 • Is of the opinion the tenants would likely realize whatever items they store in the carport could
48 disappear because the carports are not locked and/or enclosed.
49
50 Commissioner poble:
51 • Typically in a Management Plan like the one for this project would it be possible to specify to the
52 residents and/or to the persons leasing/renting these buildings that they are not necessarily
53 allowed to park on the street.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 5
1 • What if tenants of a unit only have one car and they want to use the other half of the two-car
2 carport for storage would this be enforceable and/or prohibited under the Management Plan?
3 Would like to make certain this cannot occur.
4
5 Planning Director Stump:
6 • Does not believe we can require tenants not to park on the street. Anyone can park on a public
7 street.
8 • It would likely be acceptable in a Management Plan of this kind if the parking space is designated
9 and made clear it is not available for storage as this would be in violation of the Management
10 Plan.
11 • If a tenant has only one car and wants to use the other half for storage whether or not this is
12 allowed depends on how the Management Plan is crafted. If a tenant in one of the units only had
13 one car and it is stipulated/documented this is the case and he/she is not using the designated
14 parking space for the car this would be a violation of the Management Plan and likely enforceable
15 according to the Management Plan. The Commission can require that certain language in the
16 Management Plan specifically address use of the garage as to what is acceptable, prohibited,
17 and enforceable and include language about what should occur concerning the two-car carport
18 when tenants only have one vehicle. To this end, staff would work with the applicant to craft the
19 necessarylanguage.
20
21 Richard Ruff:
22 • When a tenant signs a lease, he/she has to disclose how many cars will be parked on the site.
23 • Each tenant is assigned a space. In the event a tenant has only one car, the other available
24 space of the two-car carport can be used for visitor parking and/or overflow parking.
25 • Parking is strictly controlled because parking spaces are assigned.
26
27 Commissioner poble:
28 • Requested clarification about the likelihood of having half the carport filled with storage with only
29 one car in a two car carport. Would this scenario be enforceable under the Management Plan.?
30
31 Richard Ruff:
32 • The aforementioned scenario is unlikely and would be enforceable under the Management Plan.
33
34 Sharon Wayle
35 • Is a resident of the Wagonseller Neighborhood and has resided on Myron Place for 32 years.
36 • Her garage is still used to park her car unlike that of the other townhouses. However, is unable to
37 park her car in the garage even if she wanted to because it is nearly impossible to get her car out
38 of the garage due to people blocking her driveway.
39 • There are 26 houses on Myron Place. These houses were originally built for low income persons
40 with the anticipation each family would have one vehicle because there was typically one person
41 working, but since this time, many of the houses have changed ownership with her house being
42 the exception.
43 • She is a two generation household. For economic reasons, her 32 year old son moved back
44 home. Many of the households on Myron Place have multiple generations living in them because
45 people cannot afford housing in this community. People also do not have adequate jobs in which
46 to pay$800 to $1500 a month rent to live by themselves.
47 • Parking on Myron Place is a major problem. It is a particular problem on garbage pick-up day.
48 The garbage/recycling truck cannot access the street because of all the cars parked along the
49 street. The garbage company trucks now waits until after 8 a.m. to pick up garbage when many
50 people have left for work. Once the garbage/recycling cans are put on the street and with all the
51 cars parked along the street there is no room for two cars to go down the street at one time.
52 • When she first purchased her house on Myron Place, everyone had only one garbage can as
53 opposed to three like it is presently. There was no recycling back then and there was no yard
54 waste bin. Most of the persons on Myron Place do not have the space to house the
55 garbage/recycling cans in their garages so they typically sit out in front of the housing units.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 6
1 • Does not want to see more houses constructed on Myron Place that would contribute to the
2 traffic and parking problems that already exist. The parking spaces available are not able to
3 accommodate the large vehicles of today that most people are driving, but rather meant for
4 smaller cars.
5 • Does not support the Project.
6
7 Estok Menton:
8 • Owens property on Myron Place. His lot is located three lots down to the south of the proposed
9 development. Finds no problems with parking where his property is located. Is of the opinion
10 there is ample off-site parking further south on Myron Place.
11 • Likes the project, the design and the concept as an infill development.
12 • One bedroom apartments are a viable and a good alternative for our community because most
13 of the apartments are two and three bedroom that creates a lot more traffic problems and
14 parking congestion.
15 • There is a need for smaller more compact units for some of the professional profiles of potential
16 renters that he has run across in the last several years. These persons are often
17 younger/younger professionals, have no children or just one child, who desire to live closer to
18 town and services and likely want to walk, ride bicycles or take advantage of public
19 transportation to get to services.
20 • For a one bedroom apartment if two parking spaces are provided for each tenant with the
21 exception of the second unit project on the garage, this is more than enough parking. Supports
22 ensuring the requirements are in place in a Management Plan that the carports are preserved for
23 parking and not to be used for storage.
24 • If there is an aggregated situation down the street on Myron Place and if this particular project is
25 not adding to the problem, it is not appropriate to restricUprevent someone with a good idea from
26 having the opportunity to build the project. The proposed Project may well spur the development
27 of other projects with good ideas.
28 • Likes the idea the Project caters to small families or even couples without children. Finds there is
29 a need for smaller units.
30 • Supports approval of the Project.
31
32 Chair Whetzel:
33 • Asked if there will be a centralized trash pick-up or possibly a dumpster?
34
35 Richard Ruff:
36 • Each unit will have its own trash/recycling cans and showed the location on the site plans.
37 • The cans will have to be rolled out to the street.
38
39 Elizabeth Love:
40 • Resides on Myron Place.
41 • Is of the opinion the proposed Project would further the traffic and parking problems on Myron
42 Place.
43 • Asked where the children are supposed to play? Right now the children that live on Myron Place
44 play in the street.
45 • Adding more people to Myron Place is not okay.
46 • There are other potential residential land developments available in Ukiah to put five families that
47 would be better suited than on that little bit of land.
48 • Elaborated on crime and/or other problems that are occurring on Myron Place.
49 • Is not supportive of the Project.
50
51 John McCowen:
52 • Is familiar with the neighborhood.
53 • To preserve maximum open space and agricultural land, serious consideration needs to be given
54 to infill developments that are appropriate where appropriate. As a community, this approach is
55 what we need to do.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 7
1 • Acknowledges that one of the issues is the lack of parks in the Wagonseller Neighborhood. Is of
2 the opinion this condition can be remedied by the ultimate development of the Brush Street
3 Triangle. Ideally, what needs to occur is the City and County reach a tax-sharing agreement, the
4 City's Sphere of Influence gets updated such that annexation is possible and can proceed. With
5 this, City development would have the opportunity to reach its highest potential. Understands,
6 while tax sharing and annexation are future goals is hopeful this can occur not too far into the
7 distant future.
8 • Understands the neighborhood has problems, but is of the opinion the proposed Project should
9 not be considered the `tipping point' that would further downgrade and/or contribute to a reduction
10 in the living standards of this neighborhood.
11 • Sees that the neighborhood needs to enforce existing regulations concerning violations in order
12 to improve the living standards on Myron Place. The last time he visited Myron Place observed
13 inoperable vehicles inappropriately stored on private lots/public streets and if these issues were
14 corrected there would be more parking available and traffic may not be as congested on this
15 street. Also observed fences that appear to be illegal in that they are six feet tall right out on the
16 sidewalk. As such, views enforcement of some of the concept rules within the existing
17 neighborhood to be a benefit that will ultimately improve people's sense of security and
18 understanding that problems/issues on Myron Place can get resolved.
19 • Addressed the issue of drainage and recommends utilizing/installing currently landscaping
20 methodologies to improve and direct excess runoff into landscape bio-swales/retention areas
21 and/or more effectively into the City's storm drain system. Accordingly, referred to attachment 3 of
22 the staff report, condition of approval 20 that reads in part, 'If feasible, consider using a valley
23 gutter or slotted rain behind the driveway apron to direct driveway run-off north and south to
24 appropriately landscaped swales directed to the drop inlet. The Landscape Plan should also be
25 modified to incorporate the swales,' and asked to verified this aspect with the applicant if this is
26 feasible or not and recommends substituting the word `shall' in place of `should.' Notes there is a
27 similar issue with condition of approval 21 that reads, `The Preliminary Grading & Drainage notes
28 to connect downspouts to the new drain, however, consider if downspouts can be directed into
29 any landscaped area and sloped away from the building foundation,' and whether the
30 downspouts should go into a drain or could they be directed into landscaping, which in both cases
31 would reduce runoff, improve groundwater recharge, and reduce the amount of contaminants
32 going directly off the paved surface and ultimately into the stream.
33 • Supports approval of the Project.
34
35 Wayne Stephens:
36 • Is the owner of the property/Project applicant and currently resides at 312 Ford Street.
37 • The site was formerly owned by his parents. It was his parenYs dream to develop and improve
38 the property. The property was subdivided into two lots and he would like to fulfill his parenYs
39 dream of developing the property.
40 • Is pleased to see neighbors speak about the Project so he can make some clarifications and
41 address what he is trying to achieve with this project.
42 • Approval of a PD zoning designation allows him to do the following:
43 1) construct a maximum of nine units combining both parcels. 2) construct four and four units if
44 parcels are developed separately. 3) build two or three-bedroom units. 4) Possibly provide for no
45 covered parking facilities. He is not taking advantage of any of these options, but instead is
46 proposing a quality project that works for the site and complementary/works well with the
47 neighborhood.
48 • When considering the Project wanted to make certain it looked far and beyond what is currently
49 built on Myron Place.
50 • The materials and landscaping type will be quality.
51 • Understands the problems that exist in his neighborhood.
52 • Wants to be a good neighbor and is pleased to be able to provide for a nice Project that would
53 upgrade the neighborhood.
54 • The apartment complex down the street has a park facility for children to play, but has observed
55 that very few children use the playground.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 8
1 • Is of the opinion the majority of persons that will rent a one bedroom unit from him will either be a
2 single mother or father with a small child or someone that works at the hospital or the college and
3 cannot qualify for low income and/or subsidized housing.
4 • Related to the topic of the carports and storage units, the storage units are to be used for storage.
5 The Project provides for one storage facility and a two-vehicle carport per unit. Is not going to rent
6 an extra carport space to someone who has one car and only needs one space and this will
7 eliminate the possibility of it being used for storage. Tenants have to pay extra for the second
8 parking space. So if a tenant has only one car one carport space is necessary such that the
9 second space is not to be used for storage purposes.
10 • Sees the neighborhood has created its own parking problems. Unfortunately, when the
11 townhouses were initially constructed approval was based on one car in the garage and one car
12 in the driveway. People park in their front yards, on the street/down the street, but not in their
13 garages because they are either being used for storage or for living space.
14 • Consulted with his neighbor who resides directly behind his property concerning the second unit
15 proposed for the top of garage about the setback options. The neighbor has no problem with
16 Option 1 as the preferred option.
17
18 Commissioner Pruden:
19 • Is a landlord and speaking from experience noted it may be difficult for the applicant to rent the
20 units for$800 or$900 a month because this is considered high rent for Ukiah.
21
22 Wayne Stephens:
23 • Is of the opinion with his research is certain there is a demand for his type of residential units that
24 he intends to rent for$800 or$900 a month.
25
26 Chair Whetrel:
27 • Asked about John McCowen's recommendation concerning Conditions of Approval 20 and 21
28 and whether the applicant is willing to use a valley gutter or slotted drain and if feasible that the
29 downspouts be directed into any landscape area?
30
31 Wayne Stephens:
32 • Is okay with conditioning the Project to include these drainage features.
33
34 Commissioner poble:
35 • Related to drainage and the aforementioned discussion concerning this topic, is confident the
36 recommendations will be covered under the California Green Building Code standards even
37 though he understands the drainage plan has not yet been fully designed. As such, the architect
38 for the Project will likely be familiar with those codes.
39
40 Diana Deroache:
41 • Resides on Myron Place.
42 • Is of the opinion further housing units on Myron Place would further impact a neighborhood that
43 already has problems with traffic congestion and parking as well as with security and safety.
44 • Does not support approval of the Project.
45
46 Lily Dunaway:
47 • Resides on Myron Place.
48 • Understands the neighborhood cannot ask the applicant to correct the parking issues on Myron
49 Place that were created a long ago by other projects.
50 • Provided the following questions/comments:
51 1) Is it possible for construction to begin later than 7 a.m. since the area is residential and
52 proposes construction to begin at 8 a.m. instead.
53 2) The corner of Myron Place and Ford Street is a bus stop for the school children and wanted
54 to make certain the Commission is aware. The bus stop is located on the same corner as the
55 lot proposed for development.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 9
1 3) Will there be a lock on the laundry room facility and will there be rules applied for the usage
2 so the facility does not get used by everyone in the neighborhood.
3 4) Garbage pick-up day on Myron Place is definitely a problem and recommended rather than
4 adding eight more cans that have to be taken to the street consider having a dumpster for the
5 complex or some other receptacle that combines two or all four units.
6 5) Asked about whether street lights will be added for the development because the corner is
7 dark and some residents have to walk a block or two to get to their homes if the driveways
8 are full.
9 6) Referred to attachment 3 of the staff report, Condition of Approval 2(E) that addresses the
10 use of private outdoor spaces (balconies, decks, etc.) and how they will be kept clean and not
11 used for storage and asked where people can barbeque?
12 7) Where will the mailboxes be located? The 26 townhouses have mailboxes at the end of the
13 cul-de-sac.
14 8) $800 to$900 is not low income rent.
15 9) Referred to attachment 3 of the staff report, and expressed concern that a small family child
16 daycare that is an allowed use could occur.
17 10) Is also a two generation household because her children are unable to find housing that rents
18 within their price range even though they are employed full-time.
19
20 Wayne Stephens:
21 • Will never entertain allowing for a small family daycare facility to occur in one of his units. His
22 lease agreements will begin with a three month lease and revert to a month-to-month thereafter
23 as opposed to a one year lease. Is targeting a very specific type of renter such that a person is
24 not stuck with a one-year lease. Is asking for a three-month commitment first so that people do
25 not use his units as a hotel.
26 • Related to street lights, there are two street lights within 100 feet of the proposed project.
27 • The buildings will have lighting, downcast and compliant with the International Dark Sky
28 Association standards. There is one street light that requires maintenance.
29 • The patio areas will allow tenants to barbeque.
30 • The US Post Office will address the mailboxes and location thereof.
31
32 Commissioner poble:
33 • Asked if the applicant would be amenable to starting construction at 8 a.m. rather than 7 a.m.?
34
35 Wayne Stephens:
36 • Has no problem starting construction at 8 a.m.
37
38 There was Commission/applicant discussion concerning how best to address trash and recycling for the
39 Project and bicycle parking.
40
41 Elizabeth Love:
42 • There are no rules regulating the number of occupants in the townhouse units such that there are
43 more people living in the units than the units can appropriately accommodate.
44 • There are no rules regulating how many trash /recycling bins are allowed per unit on Myron
45 Place.
46 • There are no rules regulating parking or a management system in place that will enforce the use
47 of garages for vehicles as opposed to being used for storage or living space.
48
49 Chair Whetzel:
50 • The neighborhood has some sort of CC&Rs on record for property owners so complaints about
51 too many people living in the units should be filed with the City so landlords can be contacted.
52
53 Planning Director Stump:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 10
1 • The City does not have the authority to enforce CC&Rs. Homeowner associations formulate
2 CC&Rs. Homeowners with complaints concerning violations of CC&Rs should contact the
3 Homeowners Association.
4 • If, however, there is an illegal conversion of a garage for living space and the like, these are
5 considered violations of the city code and will be investigated by the City.
6
7 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:24 p.m.
8
9 Commissioner Pruden:
10 • What does the California Green Building Code say about the application of Low Impact
11 Development(LID)standards and are they mandated for projects?
12
13 Planning Director Stump:
14 • Related to the 2010 California Building Code and/or all codes the State has adopted, the plan is
15 to start using the 2014 California Building Code before the end of the year. 2010 was the first
16 year that green building code standards came into effect of which there are many. Is not familiar
17 enough with these corresponding codes to state whether or not the application of LID standards
18 is a mandatory requirement for projects. As time goes on in 2014 the level of green code
19 standards are increasing. Building staff is being trained on green code standards. Is unable to
20 answer whether LID standards are mandated. It is notable, however, the applicant is willing and
21 able to do LID improvements whether required or not.
22
23 Commissioner Sanders: The Project likely needs to be conditioned in this regard because the City's
24 current ordinance does not have this type of landscaping/drainage practices yet identified.
25
26 Planning Director Stump:
27 • Acknowledged that Commission Sanders is right in saying there may be green building code
28 requirements pertinent to LID practices, but does not have knowledge whether or not this is a
29 requirement. The current Storm Water Ordinance does not make this specification. Recommends
30 a condition be added to address implementation of LID standards for the Project.
31
32 Commissioner poble would support such a condition and has no problem with this because the
33 applicant is agreeing to apply LID standards where feasible. Does know a project is rated for runoff based
34 on the amount of concrete on the site.
35
36 Commissioner Pruden:
37 • Referred to page 4 of the staff report, General Plan policy H-5-3, `Support and encourage
38 compact infill developments that provide extremely low, very low, low or moderate income level
39 housing that is safe and liveable,' and noted this is not the case for this project. Is of the opinion
40 $800 to $900 is not considered low income for rent in Ukiah.
41 • Referred to attachment 1 of the staff report, Finding 3D, `The Project site is located within an
42 existing residential neighborhood and the project site is not known to contain sensitive species or
43 riparian habitat. No trees would be removed as a result of this project. There are no streams,
44 creeks, or water courses on the subject parcels. Impacts to biological resources were determined
45 to have no impact,' and noted it interesting the Project site is not known to contain sensitive
46 species or riparian habit when the Project is located 200 feet or less from Orr Creek. The fact the
47 site is not contiguous to Orr Creek is likely the reason the finding can be made. Is of the opinion
48 the finding does not hold weight for its conclusion in that the site is located in close proximity to
49 Orr Creek. This same finding makes reference to cultural and archeological resources and noted
50 factually there are 35 historical properties identified in the Wagonseller Neighborhood.
51 • Is very concerned the Project is not subject to the Quimby Act. We continue to add to the density
52 in this neighborhood without regard to the quality of life. There is no recreational facility in the
53 Wagonseller Neighborhood whatsoever. There has been no attempt in the last 20 years even
54 though the General Plan requires a park/recreational area in the Wagonseller Neighborhood yet
55 apartment projects continue to be approved.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 11
1 Planning Director Stump acknowledged the lack of parks/recreational facilities in the Wagonseller
2 Neighborhood and noted with the way the economy is currently does not leave the City and/or private
3 organizations/persons with the necessary funding opportunities and/or monetary resources that would
4 allow for a park/recreation area to happen in this neighborhood. It may be the City and other
5 organizations/persons interested in seeing the Wagonseller Neighborhood has a park of some kind come
6 together and share resources in order to facilitate and/or entertain the concept of having a park.
7
8 Commissioner Sanders:
9 • Finds the Wagonseller Neighbor extremely dense.
10 • There are many people living in subsidized housing in this area and there is really no open
11 space except for the fire road that people use to walk their dogs, etc.
12 • The Project is dense. Has concern about the site and the amount of housing that will go on the
13 site. At the same time, understands the applicant has the right to develop his property.
14 • Finds it appropriate to add some project conditions related to storm water concerns,
15 containment of runoff and corresponding potential contaminants on-site because Orr Creek is
16 located a half block away.
17 • It is important the community adjacent to the site contacts the City about street light
18 maintenance and possible code violations related to parking and corresponding enforcement
19 thereof. The City Police Department cannot respond to code violations if they do not hear from
20 citizens. It appears plenty of people in the neighborhood are concerned about safety and
21 security and with children living in a dense neighborhood and the lack of public facilities to
22 accommodate them.
23 • From the letters provided for in the staff report, the applicant has met with the adjacent
24 neighbors having some positive feedback with regard to his project.
25 • Appreciates that the applicant is willing and able to provide for a quality project.
26 • The Project would add to the housing stock that complies with the Housing Element.
27 • Supports approval of the Project with the addition of some conditions of approval.
28
29 Commissioner Christensen:
30 • Finds it great the neighborhood came out to make comments.
31 • Likes the appearance and design of the Project.
32 • The Project is a nice transition from the residential units that currently exist in the neighborhood.
33 • Does understand about the parking concerns, but this matter is not the applicant's problem. The
34 applicant is providing ample parking for his project.
35 • It appears the applicant will be required to be `owner-occupant.' Having the property owner living
36 on-site makes a difference because he will have the opportunity to keep track of his tenants and
37 deal with any problems that come up. Essentially a tenant can go knock on his door about a
38 problem.
39 • Is of the opinion that having a nice looking, new, relatively modern, pleasant appearing unit in this
40 neighborhood might spread sort of that pride in ownership to the townhouse occupants. It does
41 not appear townhouse residents have a lot of pride in their homes.
42 • Agrees a park facility is necessary for the neighborhood, but again is of the opinion this matter is
43 not the applicanYs problem. As such, we have to make certain no large developments happen
44 because this is when `the law needs to be laid down' and provide for a park at some point.
45 • Most of the issues the neighbors have raised are existing and are mostly enforcement issues. It is
46 a matter of coming together and getting the righUappropriate persons keyed into the problems for
47 possible resolution/monitoring. Rather than just being bothered about an issue, take measures to
48 contact the appropriate persons/agency so that something can be done.
49 • The Project is very nice. While it is a small lot for such a project, supports approval.
50
51 Commission Doble:
52 • Clarified to the community that the Commission's charge tonight is not to actually approve the
53 Project, but rather to recommend approval to City Council. There will be another public hearing
54 opportunity to again express concerns.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 12
1 • On the topic of parking, one public comment was that four or five parking spaces would be lost as
2 a result of the Project, but from the staff's analysis only one space is going to be removed for the
3 driveway.
4 • The Project exceeds the minimum parking requirements for the site and this is a good thing.
5 • While the rental units may not qualify as low and moderate income, it would follow that if the units
6 are not being rented, the rent will probably have to be lowered in order for the Project to pencil
7 out economically.
8 • Fulfilling the City's house goals is an important aspect. We have to start acquiring the required
9 housing stock in our community. Is of the opinion this project helps fulfill this requirement.
10 • Supports a recommendation to Council for approval with some project modifications. Specifically,
11 would like the hours of construction to begin at 8 a.m. rather than 7 a.m. and reflected in the
12 Project conditions and MND measures.
13 • Supports modifications to the language concerning storm water concerning Conditions of
14 Approval 20 and 21.
15 • Not sure what can really be done about the allowed uses for the PD Zoning districts. They are
16 just the allowed uses for the zoning. The applicant does not intend to do any of those things listed
17 as allowed. The allowed uses pretty much exist for all the different residential zoning districts.
18 • A recommendation to Council for approval should also include that a Management Plan is
19 necessary subject to the review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community
20 Development.
21 • If possible, suggests addressing some of the issues associated with the trash bin containers as to
22 where they are placed on the day trash/recycling is picked-up and not spread throughout the
23 neighborhood by possibly placing the bins in one area so they can be picked up.
24
25 Planning Director Stump:
26 • It was his understanding only one parking space would be lost for the Project and that is for the
27 driveway.
28 • All mitigation measures for the MND will also be listed as conditions of approval.
29 • While family home daycare facilities are allowed in many residential zoning districts, this does not
30 necessarily mean the State will approve one because such a facility must comply with certain
31 requirements such as a designated play area and other requirements that a small one-bedroom
32 unit like in this project may not be able to meet State requirements. Besides, the applicant is not
33 interested in allowing such a use to occur in one of his units.
34
35 Chair Whetzel:
36 • The Commission has overlooked a decision concerning the two options for the second unit.
37
38 There was Commission discussion related to Options 1 and 2 for the second unit project. The
39 Commission's preference was to support Option 1.
40
41 Chair Whetzel:
42 • Thanked the public members for coming out and speaking about the Project.
43 • Encourages the neighborhood to meet with the Wagonseller Neighborhood association and make
44 calls to the City about code enforcement issues that were addressed above.
45 • Likes the Project and supports a recommendation to the City Council for approval.
46
47 The Commission further discussed the Project related to the issue the Project is in close proximity to Orr
48 Creek, hours of construction, parking in the carports, a Management Plan, and drainage.
49
50 Commission consensus:
51 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
52 1. Paqe 15 Discussion, Items c and d
53
54 Items c and d are duplicative—strike item d and replace with: "Orr Creek is '/z block away to the
55 north."
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 13
1
2 2. Paqe 20, Noise Mitiqation Measure 1
3
4 "Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and from......."
5 Change from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.
6 Modify the recommended findings to adopt the MND:
7
8 1. Paqe 4, Noise Mitiqation Measure"A"
9
10 "Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and from......."
11 Change from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.
12 Conditions of Approval for the Precise Development Plan
13
14 1. Page 1 of staff report , Conditions of Approval, Condition 2
15
16 Add section G to read: `The carports shall be available for the parking of two cars at all times.
17 Any storage shall be incidental and shall not preclude the parking of two cars in each carport.'
18
19 Add section H to read: 'The Management Plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the
20 Director of Planning and Community Development.'
21
22 2. Paqe 5 of staff report, Conditions of Approval, Condition 20
23 Modify third sentence to read: 'If feasible the owner shall use a valley gutter or slotted drain....'
24
25 3. Paqe 5 of the staff report, Conditions of Approval, Condition 21
26
27 Modify sentence to read, `The Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan notes to connect downspouts
28 to the new drain, however, if feasible, downspouts shall be directed into any landscaped area....'
29
30 Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map
31
32 4. Paqe 1, Section Six
33
34 Modify language to read, `The Precise Development Plan for the Stephens Planned development,
35 described herein and illustrated in the attached Exhibit"A", is hereby approved.'
36 Second Unit
37
38 Commission endorsed and is recommending Option 1 (736 sq. ft.)for the second unit.
39
40 Parking for the Existing Single-Family Home
41 Commission is fine with the applicanYs statement that two parking spaces are proposed for the single
42 family home and one (garage)for the second unit.
43
44 M/S Doble/Sanders to recommend the City Council adopt the MND and introduce the ordinance
45 amending the official zoning map to rezone the subject property to PD/R-3 and to conditionally approve
46 the Precise Development Plan as provided for in attachments 1 through 3 in the staff report and as
47 modified above. Motion carried 4-0 with Commission Pruden voting `No.'
48
49 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
50 Planning Director Stump provided an update on the Costco EIR.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 14
1
2 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
3 Chair Pruden reported that on October 4 at 5:30 p.m., a historical plaque dedication will be made to the
4 Pacific Telephone and Telegraph office building (former Feibusch building)that was recently renovated.
5
6 Commissioner Sanders reported he Gibson Creek clean-up was successful. Volunteers pulled out 446
7 pounds of trash.
8
9 12. ADJOURNMENT
10 The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
11
12
13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
14
15 FINDINGS TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE STEPHENS
16 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT 312 FORD STREET,
17 APN 002-101-15 8�002-101-14
18 FILE NO.: 13-13-REZPD-PC-CC
19 PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
20 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT("CEQA")
21
22 1. The Project will approve a Rezoning to Residential Planned Development with Precise Development
23 Plan to allow the construction of four one bedroom apartments on the northwest corner of Ford Street
24 and Myron Place (APN 002-101-14) and one second unit at 312 Ford Street(APN 002-101-15).
25
26 2. The City of Ukiah as lead agency has prepared an Initial Environmental Study and a Mitigated
27 Negative Declaration dated August 22, 2013 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the
28 Planned Development Rezoning, Precise Development Plan and construction of the Project.
29
30 3. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts and based on the conclusions
31 reached in the Initial Environmental Study, it has been determined that the proposed project, as
32 mitigated, would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment for the following reasons:
33
34 A. A mitigation measure has been included to reduce any impacts related to light and glare to less
35 than significant. Impacts to visual quality were determined to be less than significant or no impact.
36 B. The Project site is located within an established residential neighborhood and does not abut any
37 agricultural land and would not result in the conversion of farmland.
38 C. Construction related activities could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
39 concentration and mitigation measures have been included to reduce these impacts to a less
40 than significant level.
41 D. The Project site is located within an existing residential neighborhood and the project site is not
42 known to contain sensitive species or riparian habitat. No trees would be removed as a result of
43 this project. There are no streams, creeks, or water courses on the subject parcels. Orrs Creek is
44 located 1-block to the north. Impacts to biological resources were determined to have no impact.
45 E. The Project area is not identified on the Area of High Archeological Sensitivity included in the City
46 of Ukiah General Plan. It is unlikely that there are archeological resources or human remains on
47 the subject parcels. In the unlikely event that cultural resources or human remains are discovered
48 during grading operations for the project, mitigation measures have been included to reduce the
49 impact to less than significant.
50 F. Reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been included that would reduce or eliminate
51 impacts related to Geology and Soils during construction.
52 G. The project is not located within a 100 year flood hazard area. The subject parcels are located
53 within a Zone X (areas determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) on FEMA
54 Flood Insurance Rate Map#06045C1512F, Panel #1512 of 2100, dated June 2, 2011.
55 H. The project is an infill development within an existing residential neighborhood and is consistent
56 with the goals and policies of the City of Ukiah General Plan. The project includes a Precise
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 15
1 Development Pan as part of the Planned Development Rezone. If the proposed Precise
2 Development Plan is approved with conditions then the project would be consistent with the
3 zoning regulations.
4 I. No mineral resources or agricultural lands are located within or in close proximity to the Project
5 area.
6 J. Construction of the Project would result in temporary increases in noise levels in the Project area.
7 Residential uses surround the Project site. Mitigation measures have been included to limit the
8 hours of construction and reduce noise from construction equipment. These mitigation measures
9 would reduce construction noise impacts to less than significant.
10 K. The Project would not remove any existing housing. The Project would construct five new
11 dwelling units (4 one-bedroom apartments and 1 one-bedroom second unit). Based on this the
12 project would not displace any existing housing.
13 L. There are adequate public services and utilities to serve future development in the project area.
14 M. The Project would only create five new units and therefore the project would not increase the use
15 of the existing neighborhood and regional parks to a level that would accelerate the deterioration
16 of the facility or require expansion of any existing recreation facilities.
17 N. Given the size of the project and the limited number of new units the project would not result a
18 change to the level of service for traffic in the area.
19 O. The project was reviewed by the Public Works, the Fire Marshal, and the Police Department and
20 no concerns related to emergency access were identified.
21 P. The Project would not result in climate changes or greenhouse gas impacts. The Project does not
22 violate any plans or policies adopted to address climate change/GHG.
23
24 4. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts that may result from the
25 implementation of the Project. Based on the conclusions reached in the Initial Environmental Study, it
26 has been determined that the proposed Project has the potential to have significant environmental
27 impacts on aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology/soils, and noise without the
28 implementation of mitigation measures. The analysis and conclusion reached in the Initial
29 Environmental Study identified mitigation measures that would reduce the potential impacts on
30 aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and noise to less than
31 significant levels based on the following:
32
33 Aesthetics
34
35 Potential Impact: The project could create new sources of light or glare which would adversely affect day
36 or nighttime views in the area.
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 and area subject to review and approval at
44 time of building permit.
45
46 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to aesthetics to less than
47 significant levels.
48
49 Air Qualitv
50 Potential Impact: Construction of the Project could result in a temporary increase in increase in emissions
51 ranging from exhaust from heavy equipment to the air-bound organic gases from solvents, insulating
52 materials, caulking materials and "weY' pavement.
53
54 Mitiqation Measure:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 16
1 A. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and building
2 construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly
3 during windy days.
4
5 B. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive
6 dust.
7
8 C. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall
9 include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of
10 mud and dust onto public streets.
11
12 D. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be
13 used for earth moving operations.
14
15 E. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous
16 gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
17
18 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to aesthetics to less than
19 significant levels.
20
21 Cultural
22
23 Potential Impact: Construction of the Project could result in the discovery and disturbance of previously
24 unknown archeological resources or the inadvertent discovery of human remains.
25
26 Mitiqation Measure:
27
28 A. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources
29 are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the City shall be notified
30 of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional
31 archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation program if
32 deemed necessary.
33
34 B. If human remains are encountered during construction excavation and grading activities, State
35 Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the
36 County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to
37 PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24
38 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify
39 the person(s)thought to be the Most Likely Descendent, who will help determine what course of
40 action should be taken in dealing with the remains.
41
42 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to aesthetics to less than
43 significant levels.
44
45 Noise
46
47 Potential Impact: Construction of the Project would result in a short-term and temporary increase in noise
48 levels in the area that may affect sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project and on the Project site.
49 Mitiqation Measure:
50
51 A. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and from
52 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday Construction hours are prohibited on Sunday and all holidays
53 recognized by the City of Ukiah. Interior work that generates negligible or no noise at the
54 property line is allowed outside of the construction hours noted above.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 17
1 Approval of additional construction hours may be requested in writing from the Planning and
2 Community Development Director and Public Works Director for extenuating circumstances. The
3 written request must be submitted a minimum of 14 days prior to the date for which the change in
4 construction hours/days is being requested and shall explain the need for the extended
5 construction hours, describe the extenuating circumstances, and identify the additional
6 construction hours requested, including the duration.
7
8 B. Signs shall be posted at the Project site prior to commencement of construction of the proposed
9 Project for the purpose of informing all contractors/subcontractors, their employees, agents,
10 material haulers, and all other persons at the construction site(s)of the basic requirements of
11 mitigation measures for Noise.
12
13 C. Signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include the permitted construction days and
14 hours, day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number in the event of
15 problems.
16
17 D. An onsite complaint and enforcement manager shall be designated for the Project and shall
18 respond to and track complaints and questions related to noise.
19
20 E. Equipment and trucks used for proposed Project construction shall use the best available noise
21 control techniques (e.g. improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and
22 acoustically-attenuated shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
23
24 F. Impact tools (e.g.jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for Project
25 construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise
26 associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
27
28 G. Stationary construction noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible
29 and they shall be muffled.
30
31 H. No outside amplified sources (e.g. stereo"boom boxes") shall be used on site during Project
32 construction.
33
34 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to aesthetics to less than
35 significant levels.
36
37 5. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Ukiah that the Project,
38 as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment.
39
40 6. The Initial Environmental Study was prepared and demonstrated there is no substantial evidence that
41 supports a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the
42 environment.
43
44 7. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
45 Project, as mitigated, does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional
46 environment.
47
48 8. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
49 Project, as mitigated, will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term
50 environmental goals.
51
52 9. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
53 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative
54 considerable.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 18
1 10. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
2 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
3 beings, either directly or indirectly.
4
5 11. Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available in the following
6 manner: posted at the Mendocino County Clerk on August 22, 2013; mailed to property owners within
7 300 feet of the parcels included in the Project on August 22, 2013; and published in the Ukiah Daily
8 Journal on August 22, 2013.
9
10 12. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation
11 measures.
12
13 13. The Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of proceedings of the
14 decision on the Project are available for public review at the City of Ukiah Planning Department,
15 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA.
16
17 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE
18 STEPHENS PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
19 312 FORD STREET, APN 002-101-15 8�002-101-14
20
21 The following Findings and Conditions of Approval are supported by and based on information contained
22 in this staff report, the application materials and documentation, Planning Commission review, and the
23 public record.
24
25 FINDINGS
26
27 1. The Stephens Precise Development Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan
28 and the purpose of Chapter 2, Article 14, Regulations in Planned Development Combining Zone
29 Districts as described below:
30
31
Table 1: General Plan Consistency
Goal/Policy Staff Analysis
Housing
Goal H-5— We want to use land effectively to meet The proposed project site consists of two parcels
housing needs and to implement smart growth, and is located within an existing residential
green building, and sustainable development neighborhood. One of the parcels is vacant and
polices with a focus on infill the other is developed with a single family home
H-5.1 Assure that new housing is well-designed to and detached garage. Development of the site
enhance Ukiah's neighborhoods and community as would infill a vacant lot.
a whole.
H-5-3: "Support and encourage compact infill The project was reviewed by the Design Review
developments that provide extremely low, very low, Board and comments received from the Design
low or moderate income level housing that is safe Review Board were incorporated into the project to
and liveable" ensure the design of the project is consistent with
H-5.6: "Support careful well-designed infill housing the existing neighborhood.
development in areas currently served by City
Services". The proposed project would provide housing
H-5.7: Encourage and support sustainable site opportunities for low and moderate income levels.
planning and development
The project site is located within an existing
neighborhood that is currently served by City
Services.
The pro'ect would be sub'ect to the requirements of
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 19
Table 1: General Plan Consistency
Goal/Policy Staff Analysis
the California Green Building Code during the
building permit process.
The proposed project site consists of two parcels
and is located within a residential neighborhood.
Noise
Policy NZ-2.4: Protect existing residential areas The project is surrounded by existing residential
from future noise impacts. uses. Given that the proposed project would be a
residential use the project would not have
permanent noise impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood. However, there may be temporary
noise impacts due to construction. Mitigation
measures have been included that would reduce
the noise impacts. If the project is approved with
the draft conditions of approval, temporary noise
levels would not impact the surrounding
neighborhood.
Community Design
Goal CD-10: Preserve and enhance The project was reviewed by the Design Review
neighborhood character. Board (DRB) and the DRB was supportive of the
project. The project would be consistent in terms of
Policy CD-10.1: Ensure that new construction in density to the existing surrounding neighborhood
established neighborhoods maintains or enhances (see setting section above). The design and
existing neighborhood character architectural style of the project would enhance the
appearance of the existing surrounding
neighborhood.
1
2
3 2. The Stephens Precise Development Plan, as conditioned, is consistent with the criteria required for
4 approval of a Planned Development Rezone with Precise Development plan listed in Chapter 2,
5 Article 14 Regulations in Planned Development Combining Zone Districts, Section 9167(F) of the City
6 Code.
7
Table 2: Section 9167 (F)
Criteria for Planned Development Staff Analysis
Rezone with Precise Development Plan
User Impact and Needs
Circulation Needs and Impacts The Project would result in 5 additional one-bedroom units.
A new driveway will be installed on Myron Place that would
allow access to the four units on lot 1. The existing driveway
would be used to access the new unit on lot 2. Given that
the project would be located at the beginning of Myron Place
it is not anticipated that circulation would be impacted. The
Project was reviewed by the Public Works Department.
Public Works did not identify any traffic related issues
related to construction or operation of the Project.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 20
Table 2: Section 9167 (F)
Criteria for Planned Development Staff Analysis
Rezone with Precise Development Plan
Parking and Traffic Needs and Impacts Parking, traffic: On-site parking would be provided for all
units on each respective parcel (see attached site plan). The
Project was reviewed by the Public Works Department.
Public Works did not identify any traffic related issues
related to construction or operation of the Project.
Utilities and Public Services Needs and Utilities/public services: City services are available for the
Impacts project site.
Noise Needs and Impacts Noise: The proposed Project would be similar in use and
density to the surrounding neighborhood. The City's noise
ordinance would apply to this project both during
construction and after tenant occupancy. In regards to
temporary construction noise a draft condition of approval
has been added that regulates construction hours.
Odor Needs and Impacts Odor: The Project is a residential planned development,
typically odors are not associated with this type of use.
Private and Common Space Needs and Common open space: The Project would have landscaped
Impacts common area near the laundry/storage building.
Private and Common Open Spaces: Each of the units on
parcel 1 would have their own private deck along with a
small patio space.
Trash Collection Needs and Impacts Trash Collection: Each unit would have their own individual
trash container which would be collected on a weekly basis,
similar to the rest of the neighborhood.
Security and Crime Deterrence Needs Security and crime deterrence: Exterior lighting is
and Impacts proposed for each of the units. A draft condition of approval
has been added that requires a Management Plan.
Energy Consumption Needs and Energy Consumption: The Project is subject to the
Impacts requirements of the California Green Building Code
Standards which requires specific requirements (materials
and light fixtures)to reduce energy consumption.
Design Needs and Impacts Design: The Project was reviewed by the DRB. The Board
was supportive of the Project and the location of the
structures on each of the parcels. The proposed Project
has been designed using materials that would blend with the
character of the neighborhood. See attached plans.
Relationship to Physical Features: The The Project consists of two parcels. Parcel 1 is vacant and
location of the building and structures parcel 2 is developed with a single family home and
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 21
Table 2: Section 9167 (F)
Criteria for Planned Development Staff Analysis
Rezone with Precise Development Plan
shall respect the natural terrain of the site detached garage. Both parcels are flat with no significant
and shall be functionally integrated with natural features. No trees would be removed as a result of
any natural features of the landscape to this project and a draft condition of approval has been
include the preservation of existing trees, included that requires protective fencing for all existing trees
where feasible. within the construction area.
Consistency of Architectural Style: All The Project was reviewed by the DRB. The Board was
buildings or structures shall be supportive of the project as designed. However, a draft
harmonious and consistent with the condition of approval has been added as recommended by
proposed architectural style regarding the DRB that the existing house on parcel 2 be painted when
roofing, exterior materials, windows,
doors, texture, colors, and other exterior the accessory dwelling is developed. This would ensure the
treatment. color scheme is harmonious and consistent throughout the
Project.
Balance and Integration with The proposed Project would create five new units within an
Neighborhood: The overall design shall established neighborhood. Four of the units would be
be integrated and compatible with the located on Parcel 1 and one unit would be added to Parcel
neighborhood and shall strive to be in 2. The design of the Project would be consistent with the
harmony with the scale and bulk of the
surrounding built environment. surrounding neighborhood in that the proposed Project is
similar in density to the existing duplex units that are located
on Myron Place and Sidnie Court.
Building Design: The design of the The proposed Project would include four new units on Parcel
buildings and structures shall strive to 1 and one new unit on Parcel 2. The new building to be
provide innovation, variety, and creativity located on Parcel 1 would consist of two buildings that face
in the proposed design solutions. All each other with a driveway between. The applicant has
architectural elevations shall be designed designed the Project with design features that create a non-
to eliminate the appearance of flat box like appearance. The design features include the use of
facades and box like construction. Hardie Plank, varying roof slopes, and exterior decks .
Density : For residential projects, every The underlying zoning district for the subject parcels is High
effort shall be made to achieve the Density Residential (R-3)and the General Plan designation
maximum density possible pursuant to the is High Density Residential (HDR).
underlying zoning district.
The R-3 zoning district allows one units per 1,500 square
feet of site area. Based on 6,933 square feet four units are
allowed on parcel 1. The applicant is proposing four one
bedroom units.
Based on 7,317 square feet four units are allowed on parcel
2. The applicant is proposing to add one additional units on
parcel 2. Since the site is already developed with a single
family dwelling a second accessory dwelling is proposed.
Based on the above the Project would achieve the maximum
density possible on the project site.
1
2 3. The proposed Precise Development Plan is compatible and complementary to existing and potential
3 development in the general vicinity of the project site for the following reasons:
4
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 22
1 • The surrounding neighborhood consist of existing High Density attached townhomes with
2 minimum setbacks. The proposed Project would be similar in density and would have similar
3 setbacks.
4
5 • The proposed Project would be residential which is similar to the existing uses in the vicinity.
6
7 • Given that the surrounding neighborhoods are zoned medium and high density residential any
8 further development would be compatible with the proposed residential Project.
9
10 4. An Initial Environmental Study (IS) was prepared in order to evaluate the potential impacts that could
11 result from implementation of the Stephens Precise Development Plan. The IS identified potential
12 impacts to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology/soils, and noise. As part of the IS,
13 mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. A
14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the Project and the applicant
15 has agreed to the mitigation measures.
16
17 5. On September 25, 2013, the City Planning Commission conducted a duly notice public hearing and
18 after receiving public testimony and conducting due deliberations, voted 4-1 to recommend City
19 Council approval of the Mitigated negative Declaration, Planned Development Rezoning and Precise
20 Development Plan.
21
22 6. Notice of the proposed Project was provided in the following manner for both the Planning
23 Commission and City Council public hearings:
24
25 • mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property;
26 • published in the Ukiah Daily Journal as a legal ad; and
27 • posted on the project parcels.
28
29 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
30
31 1. Approval is granted to allow the construction of four one-bedroom apartments located in two
32 separate buildings with carports located below, and one detached accessory structure with laundry
33 and storage on the northwest corner of Ford Street and Myron Place (APN 001-101-15) and one
34 second unit above the existing garage at 312 Ford Street (APN 001-101-14) as shown on the plans
35 submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 26, 2013 except as modified by the
36 following conditions of approval.
37
38 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Management Plan for the Project shall be prepared and
39 submitted to the Planning Department. The Management Plan shall include, but is not limited to, the
40 following items and is subject to staff review and approval:
41 A. Identification of maintenance and safety procedures for the Project, such as frequency and
42 timing of maintenance, party(s) responsible for maintenance and security.
43 B. Trash collection responsibilities, frequency, and type (toters, bins, dumpsters, etc.).
44 C. Use of the indoor and outdoor common area and laundry facilities.
45 D. Maintenance of Project facilities (landscaping, common area, laundry, refuse areas, parking
46 areas, etc.).
47 E. Use of private outdoor spaces (balconies, decks, etc.)and how they will be kept clean and
48 not used for storage.
49 F. Parking for residents and guests.
50 G. The carports shall be available for the parking of two cars at all times. Any storage
51 shall be incidental and shall not preclude the parking of two cars in each carport.
52
53
54 3. The approved Management Plan shall be provided to tenants of the Project as part of their rental
55 agreement.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 23
1 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/project proponent shall apply for and receive an
2 address assignment for the new apartment and the second unit from the Planning and Community
3 Development Department.
4
5
6 5. Plans submitted for building permit for the second unit and associated improvements at 312 Ford
7 Street shall include the following and are subject to staff review and approval:
8
9 A. Recordation of a Deed Notice that states that pursuant to City Code section 9016 (m) the
10 property owner is required to reside at the single-family residence or second unit located at
11 312 Ford Street(APN 001-101-14). The language for the Deed Notice is subject to staff
12 review and approval and the approved language shall be recorded prior to building permit
13 final.
14
15 B. One parking space for the new second unit and two parking spaces for the existing single-
16 family residence that comply with the zoning ordinance requirements for parking, access, and
17 circulation, including but not limited to the requirement that the parking spaces for the second
18 unit and single-family residence be independently accessible.
19
20 C. Required street trees. At least six trees are required based on the frontage of the parcel.
21 The trees selected shall be from the City's Master Street Tree List and are subject to the
22 approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department.
23
24 6. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around trees that are in proximity of construction activities.
25 The protective tree fencing required shall be metal, a minimum of 5-feet in height and secured with
26 in-ground posts. The approved tree fencing shall be installed prior to construction/grading activities
27 and shall remain in place until construction has been completed.
28
29 7. Plans submitted for building permit for the apartments and associated improvements located on
30 APN 002-101-15, shall include the following and are subject to staff review and approval:
31
32 A. Location and detail for the protective tree fencing required in condition#6.
33
34 B. An irrigation plan that demonstrates compliance with Cal Green and the State Model Water
35 Efficiency Landscape Ordinance requirements for landscaping and irrigation. The irrigation and
36 landscaping plan shall include the area shown on the landscaping plan that is located in the
37 public right-of-way.
38
39 C. Location of the detached accessory building to be demolished in order to construct the project.
40
41 D. Six street trees based on the size of the parcel frontage. The trees selected shall be from the
42 City's Master Street Tree List and are subject to the approval of the Planning Department and
43 Public Works Department.
44
45 8. The property owner/project proponent is responsible for the installation and maintenance of the
46 irrigation required in condition # 7A above and the landscaping located in the public right-way as
47 shown on the approved landscaping plan.
48
49 9. The zoning standards for 312 Ford Street(APN 002-101-14) of the Stephens Planned Development
50 are as follows:
51
52 A. Allowed Uses: The following uses are allowed.
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 24
1 One single-family residence
2
3 One second unit as shown on the approved Precise Development Plan
4
5 Home occupations as defined in section 9278 of the zoning ordinance
6
7 Small family child daycare home, which provides care for eight(8) or fewer children, including
8 children under the age of ten (10) years who reside at the home
9
10 Accessory buildings and accessory uses. This shall not be construed as permitting any
11 business use or occupation other than those specifically listed herein.
12
13 B. Permitted Uses: The following uses may be permitted subject to first securing a use permit:
14
15 Large family child daycare homes for a minimum of seven (7)to fourteen (14)children
16 inclusive, including children under the age of ten (10) years who reside at the home.
17
18 C. Building Height Limits: The following shall be the maximum limits for height of buildings in
19 High Density Residential (R-3) Districts:
20 A. For main buildings a maximum height of forty feet(40'), unless abutting an R-1 or
21 R-2 lot in which case a maximum height of thirty feet(30').
22 B. For accessory buildings, a maximum height of thirty feet (30')or the maximum height
23 of the main building whichever is less. (Ord. 1001, §1, adopted 1998)
24
25 D. Required Site Area: As shown on the Precise Development Plan. No further subdivision of
26 the parcel is permitted.
27
28 E. Required Yard Setbacks:
29 Front: Fifteen feet(15')for dwellings and accessory structures, and twenty five feet(25')for
30 garages.
31 Sides: Five feet(5'), except as provided in Section 9032 of this Chapter.
32 Rear: Ten feet (10').
33 Special Yards And Distances Between Buildings: Minimum widths shall be as follows:
34 1. The distance between any buildings in any dwelling group shall be a minimum of
35 ten feet(10')for single-story structures and fifteen feet (15') if one or more of the
36 structures is taller than a single-story.
37 2. Any side yard providing vehicular access to single-row dwelling groups shall have
38 a minimum width of twenty feet(20')for one-way access and twenty five feet(25')
39 for dual access.
40 3. Any inner court providing vehicular access to double-row dwelling groups shall
41 have a minimum width of twenty feet(20'), and a minimum width of twenty four feet
42 (24') if bordered by parking stalls. (Ord. 1001, §1, adopted 1998)
43
44 F. Required Parkinq:
45 Single-family dwelling: two (2)on-site independently accessible parking spaces for the single-
46 family home.
47
48 Second Unit: One (1)on-site independently accessible parking space.
49
50 Parking Stall Size: Each required off-street parking space or garage space shall be a
51 minimum of nine feet(9') in width and nineteen feet(19') in depth.
52
53 Access: Each required off-street parking space or garage space for multiple-family
54 residential uses shall open directly onto a driveway or aisle and be designed to provide safe
55 and efficient ingress and egress for vehicles accessing such parking space. The maximum
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 25
1 width for such driveways shall be twelve feet(12')for single-wide driveways, and twenty feet
2 (20')for double-wide driveways and access lanes to parcels with no street frontage.
3
4 Any modifications to the approved Precise Development Plan for this parcel that are inconsistent
5 with the zoning requirements included in 8A — 8F above are subject to the requirements of UCC
6 section 9168 (C ).
7
8 10. The zoning standards for APN 002-101-15 of the Stephens Planned Development are as follows:
9
10 Home occupations are allowed subject to the requirements of the Ukiah City Code, including the
11 requirement to obtain a business license.
12 Any modifications to the approved Precise Development Plan for this parcel are subject to the
13 requirements of UCC section 9168 ( C ) .
14
15 11. On plans submitted for building permit, these conditions of approval and as well as the mitigation
16 measures referenced in condition of approval # 8 above shall be included as notes on the first
17 sheet.
18
19 From the Desiqn Review Board
20 12. Prior to the final inspection for the second dwelling unit at 312 Ford Street, the existing house on
21 parcel 2 shall be painted so that the color scheme is the same for both the second unit and the
22 existing house.
23
24 From the Fire Department (Kevin Jenninqs 463-6271)
25
26 13. The shared driveway between the two duplexes shall be marked with no parking. Parking in this area
27 would significantly impact the ability of the Fire Department or EMS apparatus to enter the area un-
28 restricted.
29
30 14. The common walkway that passes between the storage/laundry rooms and the northern
31 apartments terminating at the sidewalk on Myron Place. No Parking
32 (Red Curb) at this termination point. This would allow access of emergency equipment or personnel at
33 this point. The Red Curb area would only have to be the length of a parking space.
34 From the Buildinq Official (David Willouqhbv 467-5718)
35
36 15. Sprinklers are required in each dwelling unit according to the 2010 California Fire, Building and
37 Residential Code (both the new duplexes and the addition above the existing garage.
38
39 16. The 2010 California Green Building Standards Code applies to the new duplex structures.
40
41 17. A carport is required to be completely open on 2 sides. It appears from the elevations that the parking
42 area would be considered a garage, not a carport. In either case a fire resistive separation is required
43 between the parking area and the dwelling.
44
45 18. The foundation supporting the proposed addition of the dwelling above an existing garage would
46 need to be investigated by an engineer and approved or a new foundation installed.
47
48 From the Public Works Department(Ben Kaqevama 463-6284)
49
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 26
1 19. The Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan includes drop inlets in the landscape areas which
2 discharge though under-sidewalk drains to the street. The concrete driveway and parking area drains
3 to a slotted drain which also is piped under the sidewalk to the street. If feasible, the owner shall use
4 a valley gutter or slotted drain behind the driveway apron to direct driveway run-off north and south to
5 appropriately landscaped swales directed to the drop inlets. The Landscape Plan should also be
6 modified to incorporate the swales.
7
8 20. The Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan notes to connect downspouts to the new drain, however, if
9 feasible, downspouts shall be directed into any landscaped area and sloped away from the building
10 foundation.
11
12 21. The Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan (and any other site plans)should be modified to include the
13 ADA upgraded driveway on Ford Street, and ADA corner curb ramp.
14
15 22. Show on the site plan (or on a utility plan) all existing and proposed locations of sewer and water services,
16 including backflow preventers. Note that each structure shall be separately connected to the sewer main,
17 unless this requirement is waived by the City Engineer.
18 23. The Landscape Plan shall be revised to provide street trees along both the Myron Place and Ford
19 Street frontages at approximate 30 foot intervals. The Ford Street frontage shall include the westerly
20 parcel with the existing house and garage with proposed second unit.
21
22 24. Construction operations shall incorporate best management practices as necessary to prevent
23 sediment from entering the streets and storm drains. Disturbed areas and stockpiles within the
24 property shall be protected and monitored, and silt fence and/or other measures installed if needed to
25 contain sediment. Streets and sidewalks shall be kept clean and clear of dust and debris at all times.
26
27 25. All public sidewalks shall meet current ADA requirements. Any existing curb, gutter and sidewalk in
28 disrepair that is adjacent to the subject property shall be repaired. All work shall be done in
29 conformance with the City of Ukiah Standard Drawings 101 and 102 or as directed by the City
30 Engineer.
31
32 26. Public sidewalk improvements outside of the street right-of-way will require a sidewalk easement
33 dedicated to the City.
34
35 27. Standard street tree requirements include street trees spaced approximately every 30 feet along the
36 public street, within tree wells where feasible, otherwise within 5 feet of the back of sidewalk. Street
37 trees shall be in accordance with Standard Detail 602 — tree types to be approved by the City
38 Engineer.
39
40 28. All driveway and parking areas shall be paved with asphaltic concrete, concrete, or other alternative
41 surfacing, subject to approval by the City Engineer. If heavy truck traffic is anticipated from the solid
42 waste company, delivery trucks, or other heavy vehicles, the pavement section should be calculated
43 appropriately to ensure that it can withstand the loading.
44
45 29. Concentrated site run-off over the public sidewalk is not allowed. Under-sidewalk drains (Standard
46 Drawing 410) may be used where necessary.
47
48 30. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured
49 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or otherwise
50 affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated construction costs.
51
52 31. The proposed development is located within the City of Ukiah sanitary sewer service area and subject
53 to applicable sewer connection fees.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 27
1 32. Capital improvement fees for water services are based on the water meter size. A fee schedule for
2 water meter sizes is available upon request. Additional charges for water service construction are
3 also applicable.
4
5 33. All irrigation and fire services shall have approved backflow devices.
6
7 From the Electric Utilitv Department
8
9 34. Any fees associated with the removal of any existing 12kv primary electrical facilities (transformers,
10 vaults, junction boxes, primary and secondary conductors) or the addition of new 12kv electrical
11 facilities (transformers, vaults, junction pedestals/boxes, primary and secondary conductors)
12 extended to the new proposed building site(s) would be the responsibility of the
13 Developer/Contractor.
14
15 Standard Conditions of Approval
16
17 35. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of the
18 plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited to the following:
19
20 A. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall fluctuate according
21 to the season, i. e., more water in summer, less in the winter.
22
23 B. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds, and reduced
24 watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather.
25
26 C. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic fertilizer
27 according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional.
28
29 D. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees.
30
31 E. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not constrict the
32 trunks and damage the trees.
33
34 F. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not damage the trunk
35 of the tree and its overall growth.
36
37 G. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests, disease or other factors, including vandalism, shall
38 be replaced with the same or similar tree species, or an alternative species approved by the
39 department of Planning and Community Development.
40
41 H. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be made. All pruning shall
42 follow standard industry methods and techniques to ensure the health and vitality of the tree.
43
44 36. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior to
45 building permit final.
46
47 37. All construction activities shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
48 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and
49 issued.
50
51 38. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
52 specification, or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agency as
53 applicable.
54
55 39. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges applicable to
56 this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 28
1 40. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts related to
2 project construction:
3 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Rule 1-430,
4 Fugitive Dust Emissions.
5
6 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and building
7 construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly
8 during windy days.
9
10 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive
11 dust.
12
13 D. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall
14 include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of
15 mud and dust onto public streets.
16
17 E. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be
18 used for earth moving operations.
19
20 F. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous
21 gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
22
23 G. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires, poorly covered
24 truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the end of
25 construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
26
27 41. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
28 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers,
29 attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against
30 any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul
31 the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages,
32 costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
33 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this application,
34 whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of the City. If, for any
35 reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of
36 competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
37
38 42. Any Planned Development Combining Zone/District created after the effective date of Article 14 of the
39 zoning ordinance shall expire after three (3) years from its approved date by the City Council if actual
40 construction has not occurred. A one year extension of the three (3) year time period may be granted
41 by the Planning Director if substantial progress has been made towards securing a building permit.All
42 requests for an extension must be made in writing, and shall detail the progress made towards
43 implementing the project and securing a building permit. If any PD Combining Zone/District expires,
44 the zoning (or its current equivalent) which existed prior to the adoption of the PD District shall be in
45 full force and effect.
46
47 Mitiqation Measures/Conditions of Approval
48
49 Aesthetics
50
51 1. All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, aimed, and shielded so as to minimize light trespassing
52 over property lines and avoid directing light towards motorists and pedestrians. Fixtures shall be
53 full cutoff and nighttime friendly and shall be International Dark Sky Association (IDA) approved or
54 equivalent. Prior to installation of the exterior lighting and area subject to review and approval at
55 time of building permit.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 29
1 Air Qualitv
2
3 2. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and building
4 construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly
5 during windy days.
6
7 3. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive
8 dust.
9
10 4. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall
11 include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of
12 mud and dust onto public streets.
13
14 5. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be
15 used for earth moving operations.
16
17 6. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous
18 gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
19
20 Cultural
21
22 7. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources
23 are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the City shall be notified
24 of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional
25 archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation program if
26 deemed necessary.
27
28 8. 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 Noise
37
38 9. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and from
39 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday Construction hours are prohibited on Sunday and all holidays
40 recognized by the City of Ukiah. Interior work that generates negligible or no noise at the
41 property line is allowed outside of the construction hours noted above.
42
43 Approval of additional construction hours may be requested in writing from the Planning and
44 Community Development Director and Public Works Director for extenuating circumstances. The
45 written request must be submitted a minimum of 14 days prior to the date for which the change in
46 construction hours/days is being requested and shall explain the need for the extended construction
47 hours, describe the extenuating circumstances, and identify the additional construction hours
48 requested, including the duration.
49
50 10. Signs shall be posted at the Project site prior to commencement of construction of the proposed
51 Project for the purpose of informing all contractors/subcontractors, their employees, agents,
52 material haulers, and all other persons at the construction site(s) of the basic requirements of
53 mitigation measures for Noise.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 30
1 11. Signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include the permitted construction days and
2 hours, day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number in the event of
3 problems.
4
5 12. An onsite complaint and enforcement manager shall be designated for the Project and shall
6 respond to and track complaints and questions related to noise.
7
8 13. Equipment and trucks used for proposed Project construction shall use the best available noise
9 control techniques (e.g. improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and
10 acoustically-attenuated shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
11
12 14. Impact tools (e.g. jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for Project
13 construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise
14 associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
15
16 15. Stationary construction noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible
17 and they shall be muffled.
18
19 16. No outside amplified sources (e.g. stereo "boom boxes") shall be used on site during Project
20 construction.
21
22
23
24
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, 2013
Page 31