HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_08222012 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 August 22, 2012
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Kevin Doble
8 Linda Sanders
9 Jason Brenner
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner 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
18 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
19 Ukiah, California.
20
21 2. ROLL CALL
22
23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the July 25, 2012 are included for review and
26 approval.
27
28 Recording Secretary Elawadly made a change to the appeal process language and advised
29 Commission.
30
31 Commissioner Sanders made the following changes:
32 • Page 5, line 9, should read, `Confirmed the use of permeable weed cloth.'
33 • Page 6, line 48 and page 8, line 22, change `rose garden' to `demonstration garden.'
34 • Page 20, line 15, change `Commissioners Whetzel and Doble' to Commissioners `Whetzel and
35 Brenner.'
36
37 M/S Doble/Sanders to approve July 25, 2012 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (5-0).
38
39 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
40
41 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters at this meeting, the
42 final date to appeal is September 4, 2012.
43
44 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
45
46 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff.
47
48 9. PUBLIC HEARING
49 9A. Ukiah Valley Medical Center Emergency Department Expansion, Relocated Helistop,
50 Temporary Helistop, and Permanent Parking Lot (File No: 11-11-UP-SDP-PC-CC). Planning
51 Commission consideration and possible action to: 1) adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration for
52 the Ukiah Valley Medical Center Project; 2) approve the Ukiah Valley Medical Center Project Use
53 Permit and Site Development Permit; and 3) make a recommendation to City Council on the
54 relocated helistop and temporary helistop.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 1
1 The Project would: 1) expand the existing Emergency Department (ED), relocate the existing
2 ground level helistop to the roof of the ED expansion, relocate parking lot 5 to the front of the ED
3 expansion and install new landscaping at 275 Hospital Drive; 2) construct a temporary helistop at
4 the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street and construct a permanent employee
5 parking at this location after use of the temporary helistop has ceased; and 3) use the northwest
6 corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street for temporary employee parking and construction staging
7 during Project construction.
8
9 Senior Planner Jordan presented the staff report.
10
11 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:11 p.m.
12
13 Marvin Totter:
14 • Is an emergency room physician.
15 • The proposed emergency room expansion project is a much needed improvement as UVMC has
16 outgrown the existing facility.
17
18 Chair Pruden: Will the improved facility attract more `emergencies' so to speak?
19
20 Marvin Trotter:
21 • The emergency room currently functions as a level 4 trauma center. The number of patients the
22 hospital emergency is seeing on a daily basis has increased.
23 • Most of the persons seen in the emergency room are MediCal recipients. Is hopeful with new
24 medical programs in place there will be less people seen in the emergency room department.
25 • In terms of trauma care, Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital is the busiest trauma center in California.
26 • It is possible the level of trauma center cases will increase with the expansion and proposed
27 emergency-room related improvements.
28
29 Chair Pruden:
30 • Asked about whether there are plans for a triage unit as part of the expansion.
31 • Asked about the potential need for more employees.
32
33 Marvin Trotter:
34 • Triage is a French term for `emergency first.' The current trauma room is minuscule. With the
35 expansion, there will be individual rooms for patients and their families, which will be more
36 convenient than the current 12-seat waiting room for patienYs families.
37 • Sees the expansion as an opportunity for growth so as to encourage people to utilize the facility
38 since many people leave the community for health.
39 • In addition to expansion of the UVMC ED, there are plans to upgrade the hospital and this would
40 be a great draw for getting people to stay in town by making the facility more aesthetically
41 pleasing and efficient.
42 • The intent of the project is not necessarily to attract more emergencies, but rather as an
43 opportunity to meet current needs.
44
45 Permanent Heliport
46
47 Commissioner Whetzel:
48 • Primary concern is the permanent heliport.
49 • Questioned the noise analysis study and how it was conducted in terms of relevant data specific
50 to the flight plans and Helistop site plan detail sheet.
51 • Referred to certain language in the appendix document and expressed concern about which FAA
52 Advisory Circular`AC' in accordance with (IAW) FAA AC 150/5390-2B regarding construction was
53 applied i.e., 2C or 2B?
54
55 Ken Brody, Mead & Hunt:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 2
1 • Work was done according to 2B and later updated to 2C.
2
3 Commissioner Whetzel:
4 Q1. What is the height above the roofline for the permanent helipad? How was the elevation for the
5 helipad figured?
6 Q2. Looking at the design sheet from the helipad deck to the roof there is the edge/or parapet of the
7 roof and asked if this was how the height was determined?
8 Q3. Was there any thought to use of netting for safety precautionary reasons. According to the AC the
9 elevation is 36 inches above the roofline and expressed concern this would be too close to the edge of
10 the roof.
11 Q4. With the helipad being in close proximity to the roofline was the turbulence over the roof factored
12 in? What about turbulence spilling over the roof towards the ground area?
13
14 Ken Brody:
15 A1. The height for the helipad deck was measured from the top of the parapets. The permanent
16 helipad is 3 inches above the parapet.
17 A2. Confirmed the elevation for the permanent helipad.
18 A3. Agreed the helipad is located near the edge of the roofline/parapet and all the pedestrian traffic
19 for anyone using the pad. There will be no obstacle between the roofline and helipad in terms of personal
20 use.
21 A4. Is of the opinion the turbulence factors are more related to walls going up above the helipad.
22 There is some issue with the roof, but with the parapets in place there should be little noticeable. There
23 should be no concern about the helicopter.
24
25 Commissioner Whetzel: Is not too concerned about the helicopter, but rather the people on the ground.
26
27 Commissioner Whetzel:
28 Q6. Are there plans in place for when a helicopter comes in to stop motion in and out of the buildings
29 or to the entrance at that end of the building?
30 Q7. How was the modeling for the noise level conducted? Using the `integrated noise model' asks if
31 any monitoring stations were set up or if a computer model was used in the noise study as far as the
32 height and weight of the helicopter.
33 Q8. Asked whether or not the height of the pad with/without the helicopter on the pad was factored
34 into the noise model.
35 Q9. Requested clarification the modeling was not conducted as a rooftop pad. According to his
36 calculations, 30 feet is the noise height because the noise is actually coming from the rotor which is 12
37 feet above the pad height or 28-30 feet above the ground, which is a three-story height. At 30 feet the
38 noise level is spread out over a wider area than at ground level where the surrounding buildings would
39 block the sound.
40 Q10. Concern is that noise contours were calculated for a ground level pad when the permanent
41 helicopter pad is really almost 30 feet in the air. The calculations would be different from a pad at ground
42 level referred to the Exhibit 4 (Permanent Heliport Noise Contours) of the noise study, dated May 2012. It
43 appears from the calculations in the exhibit, the noise contours extend outward almost 400 feet from
44 ground level and not from the rooftop where the permanent pad will be located.
45
46 Ken Brody:
47 A6. Does not anticipate any problems from the landing of a helicopter.
48 A7. The design is for a rooftop helipad. No monitoring was done for the noise study. The FAA noise
49 model was used which assumes a ground level pad.
50 A8. It was his understanding the modeling was conducted at ground level rather than from rooftop.
51 A9. Whether the model is from ground level with sound shielded by buildings or at rooftop, keep in
52 mind the noise factor exists only for a short time when helicopter is landing or taking off. The helicopter
53 will be shut down after landing.
54 A10. Again, it is his understanding the noise calculations were modeled at ground level since this is the
55 assumption of the FAA model used.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 3
1 Chair Pruden: Calculated noise contours to 600 ft. using the scale provided.
2
3 Ken Brody: Referred to Exhibit 4 and explained the noise contours extend to 300 ft and the
4 corresponding criteria is subject to Caltrans Division of Aeronautics regulations in terms of noise impacts
5 and/or noise equivalent level. The issue being discussed has more to do with single event noise. The
6 question is whether there would be a noise differential between a helicopter located 20 feet higher than it
7 would be at ground level. It is possible there is a difference if a person is right below the flight path, but if
8 the helicopter is moving away, taking off, or landing, the noise source would be 20 feet above the
9 individual and the difference in noise level would be negligible.
10
11 Commissioner Whetzel: By the same token, as the helicopter is moving it is moving to a different part of
12 the City which is actually sending out that noise contour over a different part of the City. The noise is not
13 just going to be at the hospital, but will be heard all over town. The noise contour will move with the
14 helicopter.
15
16 Ken Brody: Acknowledged the aforementioned and noted the flight path is slightly different for the new
17 helipad than it is for the present helipad location. The difference in elevation from ground level to the pad
18 would not result in an increase that would be detected.
19
20 Commissioner Whetzel: Is concerned the higher the elevation and fewer obstructions there are to
21 absorb the noise the farther the noise travels.
22
23 Ken Brody: To the contrary, the higher the elevation, the farther the distance from the helicopter to any
24 given point on the ground. Noise is dependent upon the distance. To say as the elevation increases, the
25 greater the noise farther away is not true.
26
27 Commissioner Whetzel: Clarified his intent is that noise spreads over more area the higher the
28 elevation, so the noise will be noticeable over a larger area.
29
30 Ken Brody: When talking about approach and departure routes for helicopters, a 20-foot difference is not
31 going to be detectable to people. For instance, for neighborhoods a '/2 mile from the flight path that do not
32 presently hear the helicopter, having a helipad 20 feet higher is not going to make a difference.
33
34 Commissioner Whetzel:
35 • Works beside a helicopter rescue operation every day. Helicopters are noisy.
36 • Supports the project, but wants to make certain all aspects of the project are appropriately
37 reviewed because once City Council approves the relocated permanent heliport the City
38 relinquishes all control and has no more regulatory power in this regard. The City then becomes
39 accepting of the noise contours as provided for in the Noise Study conducted for the project. Is of
40 the opinion approving the noise contours for a helipad based on ground level and not the rooftop
41 does not provide correct information needed to make a sound decision about potential noise
42 impacts to the community.
43
44 Ken Brody: Questions whether changing the noise contours depicted in the Exhibit 4 to a larger `CNEL
45 contour' would actually make a difference.
46
47 Commissioner Whetzel: The City is noise sensitive and while the helicopter emergency service is
48 valuable to the community it is important noise impacts be minimized as much as possible. It is important
49 the Planning Commission make the right decision.
50
51 Mitch Miller, HBE Corporation, project architect: Questioned whether there was a judgment call on
52 the part of Mead & Hunt conducting the noise analysis at ground level as opposed to being on top of the
53 building?
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 4
1 Ken Brody: The model assumes a ground level helipad and does not easily allow for modeling an
2 elevated helipad. It was determined there was no negligible difference between the ground level and roof
3 top locations so the additional elevation was not factored into the model.
4
5 Chair Pruden: Not factoring in the elevation for the noise study was also a concern to her. She lives
6 about one mile from the hospital and at night time can hear the helicopter land and take off. In the day
7 time, she does not hear the helicopter because there is too much other urban noise. Added that during
8 the summer months car races occur at the fairgrounds so the community becomes accustomed to going
9 to sleep with this noise. Noise has an unusual effect in this valley. It resonates off the hills and bounces
10 back. She is told the noise from the racetrack can be heard as far away as five miles and possibly even
11 further. There is a concern about noise and noise impacts. It would have been more appropriate for the
12 noise model to reflect the increased elevation. The analysis was done in an abstract manner as opposed
13 to the real situation.
14
15 Commissioner poble: The Commission must make a decision based on the level of significance
16 concerning noise impacts. Given what Commissioner Whetzel and Chair Pruden have indicated, it is
17 almost as if the Commission is relying on Mead & Hunt to offer an opinion whether or not there is a level
18 of significant increase in noise impacts based on the elevation of the helipad. He would like to hear if
19 there is justification in this regard.
20
21 Ken Brody: Relative to cumulative noise levels versus single events/activities, people typically do not
22 hear cumulative noise levels, but rather individual noise levels. If the analysis had been modeled at 20
23 feet higher, his guess with all the different noise analyses that he has been involved with at airports and
24 heliports over the years, cannot imagine the noise contours being more than what was provided for in the
25 study. Referred to Exhibit 4 and the pertinent distance between the 60 and 65 db CNEL contours and
26 noted this represents over 100 ft. The 5 db CNEL contour differential is a large change in noise level.
27 However, the noise level with a helicopter being 20 feet up is not going to be detectable.
28
29 Commissioner Whetzel:
30 • The problem with the data is that the noise contours are vague. There is no information about
31 what the noise levels would be at 50, 100, 150 ft. etc. There could be a lot more people in the
32 complex at any one time that are going to be within 100 or 150 feet of the helicopter landing on
33 the roof.
34 • Understands there is a cumulative noise effect versus a single event, but speaking from
35 experience when a person is within a 150 of a helicopter, no conversation can be heard.
36 • His concern is during transition from take-off or landing and shutdown, the noise levels will be
37 such that a person `cannot do anything.' The noise level may be greater than if the heliport was
38 on the ground.
39 • Would like clarification as to how the noise levels were determined.
40 • With changes to the flight plan routes with the heliport on the roof much of the surrounding
41 Wagonseller Neighbor will be affected by the noise, depending on the wind factors.
42
43 Staff:
44 • Staff did not initially request a noise study since this is an existing heliport and no changes to the
45 number or distribution of flights is anticipated and no increase in noise was anticipated due to an
46 increase in the elevation of the helipad.
47 • Caltrans Division of Aeronautics requested the preparation of a noise study for the heliports. The
48 information included in the Noise Study is based on the information requested by Caltrans
49 Division of Aeronautics.
50 • The Noise Study was sent to Caltrans Division of Aeronautics as part of the Mitigated Negative
51 Declaration because this agency will be the permitting agency for the heliport in addition to the
52 City of Ukiah and FAA. Caltrans reviewed the Noise Study and did not request any revisions or
53 additional information.
54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 5
1 Commissioner Whetzel:
2 • There was public comment to the effect that there may be more traffic with the new helipad.
3 • We are basing our noise impacts on current activity when in actuality we could be increasing the
4 amount of helicopter activity and corresponding noise impacts with the trauma center at level 4
5 and the fact there will be a certified helipad.
6
7 Staff: It is not known if there will be an increase in the number of helicopter flights for UVMC, particularly
8 with the operation of a heliport in Willits.
9
10 Ken Brody: With regard to Exhibit 4 and the existing difference in the distance for the two contours, 60-
11 65 db CNEL, doubling the activity would move the outer contour roughly one-half the distance between
12 the two contours that are shown.
13
14 Commissioner Whetzel: Requested clarification the aforementioned scenario represents another 100
15 feet or more.
16
17 Ken Brody: Currently the outer circle contour from the center of the pad is approximately 300 ft.
18
19 Commissioner Whetzel:
20 • From the scale provided in the analysis, it is difficult to determine if the distance between the two
21 contours is 300 or 400 ft.
22 • The problem is the Commission must make a decision on behalf of the City of Ukiah on vague
23 noise contour information that may or may not be accurate where the City will no longer have a
24 say in what occurs with regard to potential noise from the helipad once the project is approved.
25
26 Staff: Since City Council is the approving body for the heliport, recommends a list of Commission
27 concerns be formulated and given to Council for review.
28
29 The Commission made a note that the noise model analysis may be inadequate since it is based on a
30 ground level rather than the elevation of the relocated rooftop helipad.
31
32 Commissioner Whetzel: With regard to noise impacts how often will the diesel generator be operating?
33
34 Mitch Miller: The generator will be required to be tested once a month for a couple of hours. Other than
35 this, the generator will operate only for emergencies.
36
37 Commissioner Whetzel: Pointed out there is much discussion about the diesel generator in documents
38 in the staff report but little information for the permanent helicopter pad.
39
40 Tim Rohan, Director of Emergency Services at UVMC:
41 • Commented on emergency helicopter activity at UVMC.
42 • Many of the emergency flight activity generate from Covelo and most of these flights will be
43 diverted to the Willits emergency service helipad since emergency flight operators take patients to
44 the nearest facility since they are not paid for going to a helipad that is farther away.
45 • UVMC averages 30 emergency service flights a month. There are days when there is no activity
46 and there are days when there may be four or five flights.
47
48 Commissioner Sanders: Asked about why the noise study came about.
49
50 Staff: The noise study was not initially requested by staff. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics requested the
51 study in response to the project referral.
52
53 Commission:
54 • Referred to attachment 4 of the staff report, Resolution of the City Council Approval the
55 Relocation of the Permanent Heliport and Temporary Heliport, Finding 3D: 'The temporary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 6
1 heliport would not result in a new noise source, but would temporarily relocate the heliport closer
2 to residences on Clara Avenue. The noise from the temporary heliport is short-term (the length of
3 time it takes to land, unload the patient, and depart), periodic (occurs only when there are
4 emergency medical flights), and temporary (use of this heliport would cease once the permanent
5 heliport is operational),' is of the opinion this part of the resolution is two subjects. `Temporary'
6 implies short term such as six months and has been informed the temporary heliport could be
7 there for two years. This is not short term. It may be this language should be modified.
8
9 The language also implies the flights are temporary/short term. It is likely the intent of the
10 paragraph refers to the length of stay in that particular location.
11
12 Requests the length of stay be qualified so that people in the neighbor understand they will have
13 to put up with a temporary helipad for 20 to 24 months or longer.
14
15 Suggests `temporary' be replaced with 'relocated.'
16
17 Staff:
18 • The language is intentional related to temporary versus relocated.
19 • Cannot use the term `relocated' in reference to the temporary helipad because the permanent
20 helipad is being located and this would be inconsistent with the language used throughout the
21 various project and environmental documents.
22 • The terms used are `relocated permanent heliport' and a `temporary heliport' and would like to
23 keep the consistency.
24 • If `temporary' needs to be defined this makes more sense than introducing alternate language
25 that would confuse the `relocated heliport' which is the `permanent heliport' versus a ` relocated
26 temporary heliport that will no longer be in use with the construction of the new heliport.
27
28 Commission:
29 • Concerning the Mead & Hunt, Inc. Noise Study that states `The City also has no regulatory power
30 over the amount of noise helicopters produce when operating at UVMC once the heliports are
31 approved. Helicopters are not a fixed noise such as a generator or machinery at an industrial
32 plant,' if it is possible to make a recommendation for a project condition that the applicant will
33 adhere to the City's Good Neighbor Policy. As it is now, the emergency service helicopter comes
34 and goes any way it chooses. The red and blue lines on the circulation map represent the Good
35 Neighbor circulation approach.
36 • It is likely this circulation map is not enforceable after the temporary and permanent heliports are
37 approved because the City has no regulatory power after approval.
38 • It would be beneficial to provide a project condition tied to the use permit for the heliport that the
39 applicant must follow the Good Neighbor Policy flight plan. The Commission has regulatory power
40 on use permits.
41
42 Staff: There is a revocation process for use permits. It may be helpful to ask the applicant about the
43 helicopters and compliance with the City's Good Neighbor Policy and compliance of emergency service
44 helicopter with this policy.
45
46 Tim Rohan:
47 • Was a flight nurse for Calstar in different areas of the State and is familiar with medical
48 emergency helicopter service.
49 • There is a Good Neighbor Policy in almost all communities and acknowledged that helicopters
50 are an extremely loud machine.
51 • It is essentially an emergency each time Calstar or Reach flies.
52 • Emergency service helicopters follow Good Neighbor Policies in communities unless for some
53 reason depending on the nature of the emergency or weather conditions they cannot. Calstar and
54 Reach are in the business to save lives first and foremost.
55 • Can attest emergency service helicopter operations are very attentive to Good Neighbor Policies.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 7
1 Commission:
2 • Most helicopter pilots are typically pretty good about following flight paths in the area until
3 agencies get fill-in or temporary personnel that do not know or understand the rules.
4 • For emergency flight paths, it would be better for a helicopter to fly up the railroad tracks than fly
5 over residential neighborhoods.
6
7 Commissioner Sanders: Understands that concrete will be used for the temporary helipad, which is a
8 relatively small area and asked about the surrounding area and if thought was given to what will occur
9 from the debris a helicopter will generate since the Wagonseller Neighborhood borders the site. How will
10 the neighborhood be impacted in this regard and how will this issue be addressed? Will there be some
11 sort of maintenance program?
12
13 Ken Brody commented on the dimensions for the pad and noted the areas beyond the pad are grass that
14 would prevent debris from disbursing too far.
15
16 Staff: Referred to attachment 3 regarding the use permit and site development permit conditions of
17 approval for the project, and advised Condition of Approval No. 9 states, `Prior to building permit final, a
18 maintenance plan shall be established for the permanent employee parking lot located at the northeast
19 corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street to ensure that the site be kept clean and free of debris and trash.
20 The plan may include the installation of trash and recycling receptacles, litter control, frequency of site
21 cleanup and trash/recycling collection, etc. and is subject to Planning Department staff review and
22 approval,' and advised something similar can be done in terms of requiring a temporary maintenance plan
23 for the temporary heliport using condition no. 9 as a model.
24
25 Mitch Miller: Additionally, ground for helipad sites must be stabilized to protect it from erosion even if the
26 stabilizing factor is grass.
27
28 Commissioner Whetzel: Speaking from experience, debris will go in a circumference about 150 feet.
29
30 Staff: Having worked with some of the representatives from the hospital there are some maintenance
31 plans and policies in place. It would likely be rather simple for them to create maintenance policy and plan
32 for the employee parking lot and temporary heliport whether it is some type of grass or some other
33 material. There might be some type of regular maintenance grounds crew that maintain other areas of the
34 hospital and this could be incorporated into existing maintenance.
35
36 Commissioner Sanders: Will there be a security measure around the perimeter area of the temporary
37 heliport, i.e., fencing. Pedestrians currently cut across the grassy area.
38
39 Tim Rohan:
40 • The hospital is not proposing a fence at this time. However, there are plans for security
41 monitoring when a helicopter lands or takes off. These security persons also help unload patients.
42 • In reference to the people who cross this vacant field, fence plans were discussed but turned
43 down so people could still cut across the site.
44
45 Commissioner poble: Requested clarification the temporary helipad will be constructed and used until
46 the permanent helipad is complete and at that the temporary helipad is demolished, covered up and the
47 area re-graded so that the proposed parking lot can be constructed.
48
49 Mitch Miller: The helipad is designed to work with the grade for the parking lot so there will be minimal
50 re-work for use as a parking lot. The entire area will be rough graded to be set up for use as a parking lot.
51
52 Commissioner poble:
53 • So all the land in the area will basically be disturbed.
54 • Condition of Approval no. 9 refers to the employee parking lot being maintained and does not
55 refer to the interim condition of the helipad use for that period of time.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 8
1 • Recommends crafting a condition of approval that addresses the disturbed area and the
2 reseeding/stabilizing of the area during the time the helipad is being used prior to construction of
3 the employee parking lot.
4 • Important that when talking about 'stabilization' that mention in this regard should be given to dust
5 prevention because this is the point.
6
7 Chair Pruden:
8 • Mendocino County Air Quality Control did not address the disturbance of particulate matter as it
9 relates to helicopters only that which relates to construction.
10 • The current helipad is surrounded by grass that is mowed, which so far has functioned well.
11
12 Commissioner poble: It is important to clarify the interim condition for the temporary heliport to make
13 sure there are dust prevention measures in place, whether it is sod and/or lawn as a measure to prevent
14 dust/debris from blowing around.
15
16 Mitch Miller:
17 • A landscaping plan has not been done for the temporary heliport. The only type of landscaping
18 that is compatible with a helicopter pad is grass and he anticipates that the landscaping for this
19 area will be grass of some type for stabilization purposes.
20 • Is uncertain whether an irrigation system is necessary because much of this effort would be
21 wasted when the area is no longer a helipad.
22
23 Commissioner poble: It appears from sheet C3.1 (Civil Erosion Control Staging) the soil erosion and
24 control plan does not address the temporary heliport portion of the project.
25
26 Mitch Miller: Acknowledged that the aforementioned is correct and is considered a separate component
27 of the project.
28
29 Commissioner poble: Clarified when the Commission approves the site plan drawings pertinent to soil
30 erosion and control will approve not just what is shown on the plans but will include additional erosion
31 control and grading work plans associated with the interim condition.
32
33 CEQA Mitiqated Neqative Declaration/Initial Environmental Studv
34
35 Commission:
36
37 Q1. Requested clarification regarding page 12, subsection d, the three bullet points indicate two of the
38 fixtures were not downcast or shielded and not International Dark Sky Association (IDA) compliant and
39 the third bullet point refers to another fixture for a total of three fixtures that are not in compliant with IDA
40 standards when the associated mitigation measure on page 13 of the document states all the lights have
41 to be IDA compliant, shielded and aimed.
42
43 Staff: The mitigation measure has to state that all the light fixtures must be downcast, shielded and IDA
44 compliant where there may be an inconsistency with regard to the lighting.
45
46 Commissioner poble: Pointed out item I(d) of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist indicates `less
47 than significant with mitigation incorporated' with regard to whether the project would `create a new
48 source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?'
49
50 Q2. Page 15, 3. Air Quality, document presumes under air quality that since the current helicopter
51 does not create any problems in this regard so another helicopter location would also not create air
52 quality problems. Questioned why there was no analysis regarding the particulate matter for the interim
53 heliport. The Air Quality section of the environmental study addresses cars and trucks. There was no
54 discussion about air quality for a helicopter and the potential impacts to air quality in this regard.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 9
1 Staff: This issue has previously been discussed related to a referral to Mendocino County Air Quality
2 Control District. The analysis evaluates the changes that would result from the Project. Based on the
3 project description from the applicant, no change is anticipated in the number of operations related to the
4 helistop. Staff also relies on the air district to advise of any concerns and/or violation of an air standard.
5 The Air Quality Control District received a copy of the environmental study and corresponding
6 attachments and made no comments/had no concerns related to the operations from the helicopters.
7
8 Q3. Is this project required to get a permit from the Air Quality Control District?
9
10 Staff: Certain aspects of the project do require a permit such as for the diesel generator and
11 construction.
12
13 Q4. Page 45, Circulation and Transportation, questioned why ambulances are not mentioned in the
14 initial environmental study as part of circulation/transportation section related to number of trips and/or
15 how they will get around the area during the demolition/construction period since ambulances are part of
16 the emergency room operation.
17
18 Robb Ramsier, Ukiah Fire Department:
19 • Ukiah Fire Department ambulance transports approximately on average 19 persons a day to the
20 hospital. Like the helicopter operation, there may be some days when no persons are
21 transported.
22 • Ukiah Ambulance transports fewer persons.
23 • Explained the access routes as discussed above and the route depends upon what part of the
24 City he is coming from.
25 • Anticipates a plan will be in place during demolition/construction.
26 • Ukiah Fire Department will work directly with Tim Rohan to come up with a plan for ambulance
27 transport during construction.
28 • Does transport a patient directly from the ambulance to a waiting helicopter. There are different
29 options depending upon the case.
30
31 Staff: The circulation and transportation plan was reviewed by the City Fire Marshal, City Police
32 Department, and Public Works. They were of the opinion that the access for the temporary heliport would
33 work, transport by ambulance is adequate, and that the changes to the existing site were an improvement
34 because circulation and access to the ED would be much better and less confusing.
35
36 Q5. Page 36, Hydrology and Water Quality, there is a lot discussion about the projecYs proximity to
37 Gibson Creek and Orr Creek. While the analysis mentions the proximity factor, it goes on to discuss the
38 path in which Gibson Creek is a tributary to and questions when looking at the plans the storm drain
39 system appears to be draining to the north away from Gibson Creek and does the drainage eventually
40 reach Gibson Creek or does the water drain into Orr Creek?Would like to look at any potential impacts to
41 Orr Creek if this is the case.
42
43 Staff: Does not know the answer to the question. From staff's perspective, given the requirements from
44 the City Code and State Water Quality Control Board is of the opinion no mitigation measures were
45 necessary. However, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done above and beyond the plans,
46 including a drainage study that will be reviewed by the City Public Works Department.
47
48 Q6. Is staff aware of any drainage issues with Orr Creek versus Gibson Creek in that they are both
49 under the same purview of the watershed agencies.
50
51 Q7. Page, 35, Hydrology and Water Quality, Initial Study (IS) impacts looks as though all questions
52 asked with regard to potential impacts are 'less than significanY or 'no impact.' However, further into the
53 IS document, there are quite a few mitigation measures listed as far as dealing with the State Water
54 Control Board or other agencies there are a lot regulations cited that help identify and address the
55 potential impacts. Is it possible and recommends for some sections, the check marks be `Less than
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 10
1 Significant with Mitigation Incorporated?' If the discussion is about site mitigations and a description about
2 what should be done about the pollution aspect of a project, we should not just say there is no impact.
3
4 Staff: Typically if a project is required to comply with a standard, the standard will be discussed in the
5 environmental study. Since it is a requirement, it does not need to be included as a mitigation measure
6 since the Project has to comply with the requirement. A mitigation measure is included when a Project
7 may have an impact that is not addressed by a requirement. In this case, all the things that are cited are
8 not mitigations or conditions. They are City code or Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements
9 and not mitigation measures.
10
11 Q8. Page 37, Hydrology and Water Quality, subsection 2, 275 Hospital Drive, `approximately 18,000
12 square feet of impervious surface would be added to the hospital campus and requested clarification
13 regarding this figure.
14
15 Staff: The sum total would 18,000 sq ft which is distributed in different areas of the site.
16
17 Q9. There are a number of parking lots at UVMC and whether the applicant would be amenable to a
18 parking garage to reduce the amount of surfacing necessary for parking lots.
19
20 Q10. Page 33 of the IS, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Open Land, `the B2 recommends the site
21 include 30% open land. Based on the 8.8 acre site, 2.64 acres are recommended to be open land. Open
22 land includes parking lots and landscaped areas. The construction of the ED addition would result in a
23 total of 3.0 acres of buildings on the 8.8 acre site, resulting in 66% open land (3.0/8.8), which is more than
24 the 30% open land recommended for the B2 infill compatibility zone.' Asked if it is known how much of
25 this open land is actually for parking and for landscaping.
26
27 Staff: Defer question to applicant. The resulting 66°/o open land exceeds the 30°/o minimum
28 recommendation for the B2 infill zone which would include the landscaping and parking areas. Main
29 hospital campus has 21% landscaping.
30
31 Mitch Miller:
32 • A parking structure is extremely expensive and was not a consideration because it was way
33 beyond the budget.
34 • There is a landscaping plan and landscaping plan for parking lots, but does not know off-hand the
35 percentages with regard to breakdown specifically for open land.
36 Staff:
37 • Referred to page 28 of the staff report to discuss the parking table and changes made.
38 • Referred to pages 62 and 63 of the IS. Parking table indicates 316 parking spaces are required
39 per code but 401 are proposed. The actual number of parking spaces proposed is 396 based on
40 the revised parking plan for lot 8 and elimination of parking spaces in lot 2 for the emergency
41 generator, fuel tank, and pad. The parking table in the staff report is correct and the IS should be
42 revised to include this table.
43 • City Code provides for 316 parking spaces. In staff's opinion, this is not adequate because there
44 are 325 hospital employees on the maximum shift, which would leave no parking for patients or
45 visitors. Accordingly, the hospital conducted a photographic parking survey. The survey shows
46 that almost all of the parking spaces are occupied regardless of the time of day. Staff has
47 observed that most of the on-street parking is also taken.
48 • While 396 parking spaces proposed is greater than the code requirement is of the opinion this
49 would be adequate since it provides some parking for patients and visitors and not all people take
50 vehicles to the site. Some may carpool, bike, walk or take transit. No impacts are anticipated as
51 a result in the change in the number of parking spaces.
52 • Is the Commission 'okay' with the revised parking table and text in the staff report?
53
54 Staff advised of another revision to the IS as noted on page 28 of the staff report.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 11
1 • Recommends Traffic/Circulation section, page 64 of the IS be revised as follows to address the
2 potential impacts related to the change to the air traffic patterns/flight paths for the helicopters.
3 The mitigations are the same as for Hazards/Hazardous Materials and are the comments from
4 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.
5
6 ➢ Mitigation Measures: Hazards/Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures 1-3;
7 ➢ Impact Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant
8 • Is the Commission `okay' with this revision?
9
10 Commissioner Sanders: Page 32, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, requested clarification the
11 helicopter will not be fueled at the temporary helistop?
12
13 Mitch Miller: With regard to hazards/hazardous materials an oil separator is required on-site so if there is
14 some kind of fuel spill or drippings, it is picked up/captured so it will not go into the City's storm drain
15 system. This temporary heliport will not have this system.
16
17 Commissioner Whetzel: The permanent heliport on the roof is capable of accommodating a Black Hawk
18 helicopter?With the proximity to the edge of the roof was consideration given to the fact that 10-12 feet of
19 the tail will extend over the roofline.
20
21 Mitch Miller: The permanent heliport can accommodate a Black Hawk helicopter. The helipad is in
22 compliance with the required surface area needed for a Black Hawk helicopter.
23
24 Commissioner Sanders: Requested clarification regarding the matter of demolition/construction and
25 whether there is plan in place for how this is going to impact the public and if this is going to be talked
26 about for the Site Development Permit relevant to when soils are moved off-site, grading occurs, and
27 other activities as to where these large vehicles are going to be moving within our City.
28
29 Staff: Recommends asking the applicant if there are any thoughts on the matter that will be discussed for
30 the Site Development Permit portion of the project.
31
32 Commissioner Brenner: Understands the helipad for the rooftop operation has to have a treatment
33 system in place for fuel/oil spills and asked how spills on the ground are dealt with?
34
35 Mitch Miller: Keep in mind roof runoff is typically diverted in the storm drain system and measures are
36 taken for capturing pollutants in parking lots such as the use of a `trap' or vegetation to absorb pollutants.
37 The temporary helistop will have a surface area that is concrete and graded to accommodate run-off.
38 Any pollutants associated with the temporary heliport would be very small.
39
40 Commission consensus regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration:
41 • Fine with staff's revisions to the parking table in the IS as indicated in the staff report.
42 • Fine with the revisions made to the Transportation/Traffic section of the IS as indicated in the staff
43 report.
44 • Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate.
45
46 Commission regarding the noise issue for the permanent heliport:
47 • Would like the noise issue to be looked at more closely by Council.
48
49 Staff: Asked the Commission to list concerns about noise for Council review because this issue
50 associated with the heliports will not be discussed during the Site Development Permit review of the
51 project.
52
53 Commission regarding the noise model for the permanent heliport using the parameters that
54 Caltrans has asked for:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 12
1 • Noise contours need to be redone with the Noise Model using the height of the elevated helipad
2 rather than ground level.
3
4 Commissioner poble:
5 • The approach for the modeling of the helicopter noise should have been provided in the report.
6 The problem is the noise report does not evaluate that change adequately and is of the opinion
7 that it should.
8 • Not advocating the model be toyed with if clarification or a professional opinion about the
9 differences in noise between the ground level location and the rooftop location can be provided.
10 • In terms of noise, need to evaluate the change in noise that may result from what is occurring
11 now to what would result with the elevated helipad.
12 • Need to determine whether the noise should be remodeled or if providing a
13 statement/professional opinion on the change in noise is acceptable to pass on to Council. The
14 current information in the report is not adequate to send to Council without having some sort of
15 additional information on this.
16
17 Commissioner Brenner: Would be fine with a professional opinion without the modeling.
18
19 Ken Brody: It may be the modeling can actually be done in terms of CNEL if the questions that were
20 brought relative to shielding of buildings, elevation, and other factors that affect noise levels are
21 considered. This gets into an entirely different type of analysis.
22
23 Chair Pruden: The modeling would reveal if a problem exists relative to sound waves once elevated. The
24 outcome may not make any difference, but without having this information an appropriate determination
25 cannot be made to learn if any more needs to be done.
26
27 Commissioner Whetzel: Questioned what input data was used for the helicopter noise study, i.e., one
28 helicopter versus multi-helicopters, cumulative data as to helicopter type and/or what
29 parameters/variables were implemented into the model.
30
31 Commission consensus regarding the temporary and permanent heliports:
32 • There are three areas the Commission has identified that requires either a language correction or
33 addition information regarding the Resolution (Attachment 4) the Commission will be forwarding
34 to City Council for approval pertinent to the temporary and permanent heliport and they include:
35 1. Modeling of the permanent heliport noise contours using the elevated location.
36 2. Include a condition of approval that UVMC comply with the City's Good Neighbor Policy
37 concerning the temporary and permanent heliports with regard to flight patterns.
38 3. Recommends modification to the language to more clearly define 'temporary' that the
39 temporary heliport could in operation as long as two years.
40 4. Require a maintenance plan regarding stabilization and dust prevention measures for the
41 temporary heliport as a condition of approval concerning Lot 8 to read, `A maintenance and
42 Dust Prevention Plan for the temporary heliport shall be prepared that includes, but is not
43 limited to, the disturbed area being reseeded and stabilized to provide adequate dust
44 prevention; mowing of seeded area; and cleanup of any litter or debris. The Maintenance and
45 Dust Prevention Plan shall be submitted as part of the building permit plans for the temporary
46 heliport and is subject to staff review and approval. `
47
48 Mitch Miller: With regard to the construction and staging schedule, it is doubtful the temporary heliport
49 will be in operation longer than 19 months.
50
51 There was discussion whether it is necessary for the Commission to review the language for the changes
52 proposed in the Resolution regarding the temporary and permanent heliports before moving on to the
53 review of the Site Development Permit and Use Permit portion of the project.
54
55 Break: 8:10 p.m.
56 Reconvene: 8:20 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 13
1 Table 1: General Plan Consistencv Analysis
2
3 Open Space & Conservation (paqe 6)
4
5 Commission Consensus: No changes, recommendations.
6
7 Noise (page 7)
8
9 Commission: While the Noise Study was prepared, Commission is of the opinion the document is not
10 adequate related to helicopter noise.
11
12 Commission Consensus: Disagrees with staff's analysis for helicopter noise.
13
14 Safetv, Enerqy(paqe 8)
15
16 Commission Consensus: No, Changes, recommendations.
17
18 Circulation and Transportation (pages 10, 11)
19
20 Commission Consensus: No changes, recommendations.
21
22 Communitv Desiqn (paqe 11)
23
24 Commission:
25 • Policy CD-4.3: Require landscaping that will result in the creation of new street canopies.
26 • Questioned what is the acceptable and unacceptable height given the helipad?
27
28 It was noted:
29 • 25 feet is the maximum height in most places according to the site plans.
30 • Pages12 & 13 of the staff report discusses what will occur for parking lots on the hospital campus
31 with regard to trees and landscaping.
32
33 There was discussion about the temporary heliport and its future transition to a parking lot and the plans
34 for how this will occur.
35
36 Commission Consensus: No changes, recommendations.
37
38 Table 2: Summarv of B2 In-fill Policv and Compatibilitv Criteria
39
40 Commission Consensus: No changes, recommendations.
41
42 Table 3: Zoninq Ordinance and Site Analysis
43
44 Heiaht/Setbacks (paae 15)
45
46 Commission Consensus: No changes, recommendations.
47
48 Bike Parkinq (paqe 15)
49
50 Commission/applicant/staff discussion concerning the required 32 bicycle parking spaces and their
51 respective locations and whether the Commission can grant relief/exemption from the requirement
52 because 32 spaces may not be necessary.
53
54 The existing UVMC campus has two bike racks each able to provide parking for six bikes, for a total of 12
55 bike parking spaces. In order to provide the 32 required bike parking spaces and additional 20 bike
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 14
1 parking spaces are required. Staff requests the Commission determine the number of additional bike
2 parking spaces (if any)that should be provided as part of the project.
3
4 It was noted a third bicycle rack exists for a total of 18 parking spaces.
5
6 Tim Rohan, UVMC: Much of the bicycle parking spaces are unused.
7
8 Commission:
9 • Supports the concept of having a bicycle friendly community.
10 • It may be the reason bicycle parking spaces are not being used is because of the location of the
11 racks.
12 • Asked if there is any reason for not adding more bicycle racks such as a particular site or design
13 constraint or is the justification allowing for fewer spaces because the spaces are simply not
14 being used? If the latter is the case, this makes it difficult for the Commission to justify an
15 exception.
16 • In order to grant relief from the bicycle parking requirement a finding must be made that a unique
17 circumstance exists.
18 • Recommends the bicycle racks are spread out on the campus to allow for better accessibility/use.
19
20 Staff: The applicant did indicate that the existing bicycle parking spaces are rarely used. It is the
21 Commission's decision whether or not to provide the required number of bicycle parking spaces.
22
23 Commission Consensus:
24 • No finding can be made to support an exception to the bicycle parking requirement.
25 • Supports maintaining the required 32 bicycle parking spaces and that the new bike parking
26 spaces be spread out over the campus in locations where employees or the public would use
27 them.
28
29 Staff: Recommends the following language regarding bicycle parking: Site plan revised to include the
30 location and number of existing bike racks and the location of new bike racks which shall provide a total
31 of 32 bike parking spaces. The new bike racks shall be placed in locations that are convenient and safe
32 for use by employees and visitors and dispersed throughout the campus.
33
34 Landscapina (paae 17)
35
36 Commission discussion regarding the landscaping modification requests and possible substitute tree
37 species for the Hospital Drive parking lot(Lot 5).
38
39 Tim Rohan, UVMC: Concerned about landscaping blocking the signs on Hospital Drive that direct people
40 to the appropriate place on the hospital campus.
41
42 Chair Pruden: Policy is to have the taller trees and shorter signs, not vice versa. The problem is that
43 people want to put taller signs under shorter trees. The intent is to have signs that are lower such that
44 they can be seen from a car seat.
45
46 Commission discussion regarding parking Lot 8 and possible retention of the Oak Tree.
47
48 Commissioner Brenner: Supports providing some type of pedestrian connection from the parking lot to
49 the hospital for safety purposes.
50
51 Commission discussion regarding draft Condition of Approval No. 17 regarding site improvements and
52 pedestrian access for the parking lot(Lot 8)at the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street.
53
54 Staff: With regard to the draft condition, the reality is people will park and walk through landscaping and
55 is of the opinion it does not make sense to have designated walkways through the parking lot, but
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 15
1 providing a cut-through where people are likely to walk in order to avoid damage to the landscaping
2 makes sense and is required by the condition.
3
4 Staff: The Public Works Department is recommending a cut-through with sidewalks as provided for in
5 Condition of Approval No. 17 and explained that the site improvements for access will be ADA compliant.
6
7 Commissioner Brenner: There is only one pedestrian access from the sidewalk located south into the
8 hospital facility and questioned why it was not possible to allow for another access at the other entrance
9 of the building located to the north?
10
11 Mitch Miller: Understands the problem has to do with ADA access relevant to the slope on that side from
12 the existing sidewalk to the parking lot. The slope would be steeper than what is compliant with ADA
13 standards.
14
15 Commissioner poble: What about connecting the ADA walkways path-of-travel to the sidewalk at each
16 end of the main entrance.
17
18 Mitch Miller: Again, the slope would be steeper than compliance with ADA standards.
19
20 Commissioner poble: The parking lot then has been built up to minimize the slope such that the
21 landscaping is depressed.
22
23 Chair Pruden: The parking lot is presently on grade so with a change it would not be possible to connect
24 the sidewalk to the two ADA parking spaces.
25
26 Commissioner poble: With regard to access, when walking down the sidewalk from the north to the
27 south the hospital site can be easily accessed, but if a person is `stuck' between the middle of the two,
28 this is a different story. There are two crosswalks on Hospital Drive and access is provided to these
29 crossings points so to require another crossing is likely unfeasible, particularly if it is grade prohibited.
30
31 Commissioner Brenner: It is an unfortunate solution to have one access to the hospital facility that
32 requires people in some instances to double back and not provide another entrance to make the facility
33 more accessible from different locations.
34
35 Further Commission discussion regarding access and how to make the hospital facility more accessible
36 from different points on the campus and making entrances that connect with sidewalks and/or other
37 paths-of-travel from parking lots and on both sides of Hospital Drive.
38
39 Commission Consensus:
40 • Supports the proposed landscaping modification requests on pages 18 & 19 to Zoning Code
41 sections 9101 (D1e) and 9101 (D1g) as specifically explained in attachment 7.
42 • Requests landscaping plan be revised to substitute Washington Hawthorn for the arbutus
43 (Strawberry tree)for the Hospital Drive street tree/perimeter parking lot tree, Lot 5.
44 • Requests retention of the existing Oak Tree, if feasible on Lot 8 subject to an arborist report on
45 the health and structural integrity of the Oak tree proposed to be removed for the construction of
46 the permanent parking lot on the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street (Lot 8).
47 Report to be prepared by a certified arborist. If the tree is determined to be healthy, the report
48 should also include an evaluation of the ability to retain it in this setting.
49 • Is fine with the provisions provided for in Condition of Approval No. 17, particularly that the
50 access between the hospital facilities and the parking area must be ADA compliant.
51
52 Commissioner Brenner: Inquired about a lighting plan.
53
54 It was noted there is lighting information in the staff report. Lighting for the project is addressed in the
55 Condition of Approval No. 11.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 16
1 Siqn Ordinance/Siqn Proqram
2
3 Chair Pruden:
4 • The Ukiah Valley Medical Center monument sign is too tall. Would like to bring the height down to
5 eight feet.
6 • Is fine with the emergency monument sign.
7 • Is fine with the signage on the front of the building.
8
9 Commission: Reviewed the signage as provided for on pages 21 and 22 of the staff report.
10
11 Butch Bainbridge of Paramount Signs, sign design consultant for the project:
12 • The two monument signs are part of the Sign Program the Planning Commission has already
13 approved for the hospital campus with heights of(10'8" or 9)and are the largest of the sign family
14 • There is also a monument sign located across the street from 275 Hospital Drive at 260 Hospital
15 Drive that is 10'8".
16 • A sign program is included in attachment 10, sign site plan and details and page 21 of the staff
17 report identifies what the sign program includes in terms of sign type and corresponding square
18 footage.
19 • It is important that the signage is tasteful, informative, and compatible with other signage for the
20 campus.
21
22 Commissioner poble: If the Commission approves the location of the freestanding monument sign, how
23 do we know it will not block the sight distance for cars?
24
25 Staff:
26 • Public Works will look at the signage as part of the building permit to make certain there is no
27 blockage to line of sight.
28 • Freestanding signs can be 30 feet tall or less than the height of the building. The proposed signs
29 are substantially shorter.
30 • The City Fire and Police Departments also reviewed the Sign Program because it is important the
31 signage provide the necessary information to direct/guide emergency vehicles. Both approve of
32 the Sign Program proposed.
33
34 Chair Pruden: Likes to read signs from the seat of a car and understands the signage proposed must fit
35 with purpose and intent of the facility as a campus.
36
37 Commission Consensus: Approves of the Sign Program.
38
39 Table 4: Use Permit Analvsis/Findinqs
40
41 Commission Consensus: No changes, recommendations.
42
43 Table 5: Summary of Proiect Consistency with Site Development Permit Findinqs
44
45 Commission:
46 • Has concern about construction impacts with regard to pedestrian and vehicular access and the
47 importance of making certain safety measures are in place, such as providing sufficient signage,
48 fencing, detours, adequate lines of sight, and other relevant measures.
49 • One-half of parking Lot 7 will be shut down during construction staging. There are quite a few
50 people that park in this lot and asked if 20 or 30 parking spaces are lost where will people park?
51 What adjustments need to be done if some of parking for Lot 7 is temporarily lost during the
52 construction period?
53 • Who regulates line-of-sight?
54
55 Staff: The City Public Works Department regulates line of sight as it relates to the public right-of-way.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 17
1 Freedom Smith, UVMC:
2 • UVMC is having a discussion with Pear Tree Center to use their back parking lot if the lost
3 parking becomes an issue.
4 • UVMC is exploring other options for construction and staging.
5
6 Staff:
7 • Lot 7 is proposed to be the overflow parking lot during construction and the construction staging
8 area, eliminating the need for off-site parking.
9 • As proposed on the site plans '/z of the lot will be used for construction stage and '/2 will be used
10 for parking. Staff is not requiring the applicant to find off-site parking.
11
12 Commissioner poble: Is a permit required if UVMC wanted to use the former Wendy's restaurant
13 parking lot?
14
15 Staff: UVMC would need the property owner's permission.
16
17 Commission Consensus:
18 • With regard to page 25 of the staff report is of the opinion that an adjustment needs to be done
19 regarding the loss of parking spaces for Lot 7 during construction so as to think ahead about
20 parking problems without having to seek alternative parking arrangements off-site.
21 • Recommends adding a condition of approval that on the plans submitted for the building permit,
22 Lot 7 on the northwest corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street shall demonstrate a minimum of
23 40 parking spaces and construction staging for the project subject to staff review and approval.
24
25 Chair Pruden:
26 • Is disappointed in the design. The front fa�ade of the hospital is plain and not architecturally
27 pleasing.
28 • It appears none of the design recommendations provided by the Design Review Board or
29 Planning Commission during preliminary review were made to the project. The building design
30 looks exactly the same as originally presented.
31 • With regard to the color palate likes the green color application to the building because it matches
32 with the color of the Pavilion building to the south.
33 • Asked about the windows and is okay with tinted windows as opposed to mirrored.
34 • Made the following the suggestions:
35 1. Extend the canopy across the front of the building all the way to both door systems.
36 2. Use trellising and vines to help mitigate the massing on the front fa�ade or even a metal
37 trellis system over the windows.
38 3. Use ledger stone at least for the column supports for the canopy if funding allows.
39 4. Likes a downward sloping canopy rather than an upward swinging porch on the front fa�ade
40 to help reduce the sun exposure.
41
42 Commissioner Sanders: The Design Review Board explored the trellis concept for the front fa�ade. It
43 was her understanding state requirements would not allow this type of landscaping.
44
45 Mitch Miller: To make changes to the design would further delay the project because this is Project is
46 already being reviewed by OSHPD and changes would require a revision to those plans and substantial
47 delay in the Project.
48
49 Commission Consensus:
50 • Would not want to make design changes that would slow the project down.
51
52 Gwen Masslaw, UVMC CEO:
53 • Agrees with Chair Pruden that the proposed design concept for the hospital is ordinary.
54 • Does not want to delay the project with design changes because the project is very important to
55 the community.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 18
1 • Agrees the campus is a `hodge podge' of buildings where people do not know exactly where to
2 go.
3 • Has engaged a team of architects to look at the overall master plan for the hospital campus
4 because it is such a mix of design and does not present a welcoming feel to the public as a
5 healing sanctuary.
6
7 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:55 p.m.
8
9 There was discussion concerning the landscaping plan with regard to vegetative species and selection,
10 need for drought tolerant plants and water conservation relevant to irrigation.
11
12 Commissioner Sanders: The landscaping plan is `very exciting.'
13
14 Staff: Page 29 of the staff report recommends Planning Commission:
15 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the findings included in attachment 1.
16 Adoption of this document is for all aspects of the project except for the heliports.
17 2. Approve the Use Permit based on the findings included in attachment 2 and subject to the
18 conditions of approval included in attachment 3.
19 3. Approve the Site Development Permit based on the findings included in attachment 2 and subject
20 to the conditions of approval included in attachment 3.
21 4. Recommend City Council approve the relocated heliport and temporary heliport as described in
22 the Project Description and Heliport Site Analysis and shown on the plans.
23
24 M/S Doble/Whetzel to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ukiah Valley Medical Center
25 Emergency Department Expansion and Heliport Relocation with modifications to the square footage on
26 the Project Description to 25,000 square feet as opposed to 14,000 square feet and with the amended
27 corrections on page 28 of the staff report to be included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration as
28 recommended by staff. Motion carried (5-0).
29
30 FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE UKIAH VALLEY
31 MEDICAL CENTER EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT EXPANSION, RELOCATED HELIPORT,
32 TEMPORARY HELIPORT
33 AND PERMANENT PARKING LOT
34 PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
35 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT("CEQA")
36
37 WHEREAS:
38
39 1. The City of Ukiah as lead agency has prepared an Initial Environmental Study and a Mitigated
40 Negative Declaration dated June 2012 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Ukiah
41 Valley Medical Center Emergency Department Expansion, Heliport Relocation, Temporary Heliport,
42 and Permanent Parking Lot ("ProjecY'); and
43
44 2. The Project will approve a Use Permit and Site Development to allow the construction of an
45 expansion of the emergency department, relocation of the permanent heliport at 275 Hospital Drive;
46 the construction of a temporary heliport at the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton street; the
47 construction of a permanent parking lot at the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street; and
48 the use of the parcel at the northwest corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street for temporary
49 employee parking and construction staging while the Project is under construction; and
50
51 3. On April 18, 2012, the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) reviewed the Project
52 and voted unanimously to find the Ukiah Valley Medical Center consistent with the Mendocino County
53 Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP), provided that the owner/operator complies fully with
54 the conditions required by the FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the operational parameters
55 submitted to the ALUC and the City of Ukiah; and
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 19
1 4. The Initial Environmental Study found that the Project has the potential to have a significant impact on
2 aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous
3 materials, noise, and traffic/circulation and that the impacts identified could be reduced to a less than
4 significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures as identified in the Initial Environmental
5 Study and the project proponent has agreed to the mitigation measures; and
6
7 5. The Initial Environmental Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence
8 that supports a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the
9 environment; and
10
11 6. The Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were sent to the State
12 Clearinghouse for State Agency review and comment and publicly noticed and made available for
13 public review and written comment from July 2 through July 31, 2012. No comments were received
14 during the review and comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
15
16 7. Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available in the following
17 manner: sent to the State Clearinghouse on June 29, 2012; posted at the Mendocino County Clerk on
18 June 29, 2012; mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the parcels included in the Project on
19 June 28, 2012; and published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 1, 2012.
20
21 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation
22 measures; and
23
24 9. The Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of proceedings of the
25 decision on the Project are available for public review at the City of Ukiah Planning Department,
26 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA.
27
28 The Planning Commission finds as follows:
29
30 1. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
31 Project, as mitigated, does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional
32 environment;
33
34 2. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
35 Project, as mitigated, will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term
36 environmental goals;
37
38 3. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
39 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative
40 considerable; and
41
42 4. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
43 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
44 beings, either directly or indirectly.
45
46 5. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts that may result from the
47 implementation of the Project. Based on the conclusions reached in the Initial Environmental Study, it
48 has been determined that the proposed Project has the potential to have significant environmental
49 impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils,
50 hazards/hazardous materials, noise, and traffic/circulation without the implementation of mitigation
51 measures. The analysis and conclusion reached in the Initial Environmental Study identified
52 mitigation measures that would reduce the potential impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological
53 resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, noise, and
54 traffic/circulation to less than significant levels based on the following:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 20
1 Aesthetics
2
3 Potential Impact: The Project could result in impacts related to new sources of light or glare.
4
5 Mitigation Measure: All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, aimed, and shielded so as to minimize
6 light trespassing over property lines and avoid directing light towards motorists and pedestrians.
7 Fixtures shall be full cutoff and nighttime friendly and shall be International Dark Sky Association
8 (IDA) approved or equivalent. Prior to installation of the exterior lighting, the applicant shall prepare a
9 photometric plan for review and approval by the Planning Department that demonstrates that the
10 lighting will not spillover onto adjacent properties and that all lighting is shielded and downcast.
11
12 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to aesthetics to less than
13 significant levels.
14
15 Air Qualitv
16
17 Potential Impact: Construction activities could expose sensitive receptors short-term production of
18 particulate matter(PM-10).
19
20 Mitigation Measures:
21
22 1. A dust suppressant shall be applied to the temporary employee parking lot and construction
23 staging area on Lot 7 and shall be reapplied as needed to avoid the release of dust for the
24 duration of the use of this site as a temporary parking lot and construction staging.
25
26 2. Construction activities shall be conducted with adequate dust suppression methods, including
27 watering during grading and construction activities to limit the generation of fugitive dust or other
28 methods approved by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. Prior to initiating
29 soil removing activities for construction purposes, the applicant shall pre-wet affected areas with
30 at least 0.5 gallons of water per square yard of ground area to control dust.
31
32 3. The burning of construction debris is prohibited. Any disposal of vegetation removed as a result
33 of site preparation shall be lawfully disposed of, preferably by chipping and composting, or as
34 authorized by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District.
35
36 4. During construction activities, the applicanUowner/contractor shall remove daily accumulation of
37 mud and dirt on paved access lanes that serve the project site.
38
39 5. Any stationary on-site internal combustion engines over 50 horsepower(i.e. generators) may
40 require a permit from the MCAQMD depending upon fuel source and level of operation. It is the
41 responsibility of the City to contact the District regarding this matter and to secure any required
42 permits prior to site preparation and construction activities.
43
44 6. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, and construction of the Project shall
45 institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy
46 days.
47
48 7. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control
49 fugitive dust.
50
51 8. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall
52 include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of
53 mud and dust onto public streets.
54
55 9. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall
56 be used for earth moving operations.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 21
1 The inclusion of these mitigation measures will reduce any potential impacts to air quality to less than
2 significant levels.
3
4 Bioloqical Resources
5
6 Potential Impact: Tree removal and/or pruning could result in the disturbance of migratory birds
7 nesting birds in proximity to the trees to be removed/pruned.
8
9 Mitigation Measure: If site preparation and tree removal/trimming include the spring bird nesting
10 season (February through July), a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified professional
11 within two weeks prior to removing/trimming any trees. If active nests (with eggs or living young) are
12 found, no activity shall be permitted that might disturb or remove the active nests until the young birds
13 are able to leave the nest and forage on their own. Empty nests may be removed. If eggs or young are
14 present, the nests shall be left until the young birds leave. Setback buffers for the nests will vary
15 depending on the species affected and the location of the nest. Buffer zones shall be determined on a
16 case by case basis in consultation with a California Department of Fish and Game biologist.
17
18 The Project will not substantially degrade biological resources with the inclusion of the mitigation
19 measure that require:
20
21 The inclusion of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to biological resource to
22 less than significant levels.
23
24 Cultural Resources
25
26 Potential Impact: Construction activities could result in the discovery and disturbance of previously
27 unknown archeological resources. Future construction activities could disturb prehistoric or historic
28 resources.
29
30 Mitigation Measure: If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric
31 cultural resources are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the City
32 shall be notified of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified
33 professional archaeologist to perForm a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation
34 program if deemed necessary.
35
36 Potential Impact: Construction activities could result in the discovery and disturbance of human
37 remains
38
39 Mitiqation Measure: If human remains are encountered during construction excavation and grading
40 activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall
41 occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition
42 pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are to be of Native American descent, the coroner
43 has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then
44 identify the person(s)thought to be the Most Likely Descendent, who will help determine what course
45 of action should be taken in dealing with the remains.
46
47 The Project will not substantially degrade cultural resources with the inclusion of the mitigation
48 measures above.
49
50 The inclusion of these mitigation measures will reduce any potential impacts to cultural resource to
51 less than significant levels.
52
53 Geoloqv/Soils
54
55 Potential Impact: The Project could be located on expansive soil resulting in substantial risks to
56 property or life.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 22
1 Mitiqation Measures:
2
3 1. In order to avoid moisture accumulation or watering adjacent to foundations, no landscaping is
4 allowed against the structure unless moisture accumulation is considered. Only drought tolerant
5 species are allowed proximate to the foundation of the Emergency Department expansion. If
6 landscaping is allowed adjacent to the structure, landscaping and irrigation plans for this
7 landscaping shall be designed to direct water away from the foundation.
8
9 2. Planning Commission review of the landscaping plan for the Project shall include review of the
10 species adjacent to the Emergency Department expansion and recommendations for appropriate
11 drought tolerant species and/or the removal of landscaping in this area based on the
12 recommendation included in the geotechnical report.
13
14 3. The landscaping plan and irrigation plan submitted as part of the building permit plans are subject
15 to staff review and approval and shall demonstrate compliance with the landscaping plan
16 approved by Planning Commission. The landscaping plan and irrigation plans shall clearly
17 demonstrate the water will be directed away from the foundation.
18
19 The inclusion of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to geology/soils to less than
20 significant levels.
21
22 Hazards/Hazardous Materials
23
24 Potential Impact: The temporary heliport located at the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton
25 Street could result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the Project area.
26
27 Mitiqation Measures:
28
29 1. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements from the Caltrans Division of
30 Aeronautics for the temporary heliport.
31
32 ■ In accordance with IAW FAA AC 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design, Chapter 4, Section 402(c)
33 the portion of the asphalt abutting the adjoining edges should be continuous with the
34 Touchdown and Lift-off area (TLOF)and the adjoining edges should be at the same
35 elevation and slope away from the heliport.
36
37 ■ IAW FAA part 77.23 operations must ensure no vehicles are in the approach/departures,
38 primary, or transitional surface and remain clear of the defined safety area during helicopter
39 landing and departure operations.
40
41 ■ The Temporary Heliport Plans dated March 2012 must still be adhered to which requires the
42 cutting of trees in the approach path east of the heliport and obstruction lighting on parking
43 lot lights where designated on the Temporary Heliport Plan.
44
45 2. The applicant shall obtain all required permits and approvals (including those required from
46 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and the FAA). Prior to operation of the temporary heliport, the
47 applicant shall provide a copy of all required permit(s)/approval(s)to the City of Ukiah Planning
48 Department.
49 3. The applicant shall obtain all required permits and approvals (including those required from the
50 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and the FAA). Prior to operation of the permanent heliport, the
51 applicant shall provide a copy of all required permit(s)/approval(s)to the City of Ukiah Planning
52 Department.
53
54 The inclusion of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to hazards/hazardous
55 materials to less than significant levels.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 23
1 Noise
2
3 Potential Impact: Construction of the Project could result in the short-term exposure of persons to
4 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise and a substantial periodic increase in ambient noise
5 levels in the vicinity of the Project over levels existing without the Project. .
6
7 Mitigation Measures:
8
9 1. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and from
10 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday Construction hours are prohibited on Sunday and all holidays
11 recognized by the City of Ukiah. Interior work that generates negligible or no noise at the
12 property line is allowed outside of the construction hours noted above.
13
14 Approval of additional construction hours may be requested in writing from the Community
15 Development Director and Public Works Director for extenuating circumstances. The written
16 request must be submitted a minimum of 14 days prior to the date for which the change in
17 construction hours/days is being requested and shall explain the need for the extended
18 construction hours, describe the extenuating circumstances, and identify the additional
19 construction hours requested, including the duration.
20
21 2. Signs shall be posted at the Project site prior to commencement of construction of the proposed
22 Project for the purpose of informing all contractors/subcontractors, their employees, agents,
23 material haulers, and all other persons at the construction site(s)of the basic requirements of
24 mitigation measures for Noise.
25
26 3. Signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include the permitted construction days and
27 hours, day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number in the event of
28 problems.
29
30 4. An onsite complaint and enforcement manager shall respond to and track complaints and
31 questions related to noise.
32
33 5. Equipment and trucks used for proposed Project construction shall use the best available noise
34 control techniques (e.g. improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and
35 acoustically-attenuated shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
36
37 6. Impact tools (e.g.jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for Project
38 construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise
39 associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
40
41 7. Stationary construction noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible
42 and they shall be muffled.
43
44 8. No outside amplified sources (e.g. stereo"boom boxes") shall be used on site during Project
45 construction.
46
47 The inclusion of these mitigation measures will reduce any potential impacts to noise to less than
48 significant levels.
49
50 Traffic
51
52 Potential Impact: The temporary heliport located at the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton
53 Street could result in an change to air traffic patterns could result in substantial safety risks.
54
55 Mitiqation Measures:
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 24
1 1. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements from the Caltrans Division of
2 Aeronautics for the temporary heliport.
3
4 ■ In accordance with IAW FAA AC 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design, Chapter 4, Section 402(c)
5 the portion of the asphalt abutting the adjoining edges should be continuous with the
6 Touchdown and Lift-off area (TLOF)and the adjoining edges should be at the same elevation
7 and slope away from the heliport.
8
9 ■ IAW FAA part 77.23 operations must ensure no vehicles are in the approach/departures,
10 primary, or transitional surface and remain clear of the defined safety area during helicopter
11 landing and departure operations.
12
13 ■ The Temporary Heliport Plans dated March 2012 must still be adhered to which requires the
14 cutting of trees in the approach path east of the heliport and obstruction lighting on parking lot
15 lights where designated on the Temporary Heliport Plan.
16
17 2. The applicant shall obtain all required permits and approvals (including those required from
18 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and the FAA). Prior to operation of the temporary heliport, the
19 applicant shall provide a copy of all required permit(s)/approval(s) to the City of Ukiah Planning
20 Department.
21
22 3. The applicant shall obtain all required permits and approvals (including those required from the
23 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and the FAA). Prior to operation of the permanent heliport, the
24 applicant shall provide a copy of all required permit(s)/approval(s)to the City of Ukiah Planning
25 Department.
26
27 The inclusion of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to traffic/circulation to less
28 than significant levels.
29
30 6. The revisions made to the Project before the adoption of the mitigated negative declaration and initial
31 environmental study would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
32 significant effect on the environment would occur.
33
34 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Ukiah that the Project,
35 as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment.
36
37 M/S Doble/Whetzel to approve the Use Permit and Site Development Permit based on the findings
38 included in attachment 1 and 2 of the staff report. Motion carried (5-0).
39
40 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE
41 UKIAH VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT EXPANSION, PERMANENT
42 HELIPORT, TEMPORARY HELIPORT, PERMANENT PARKING LOT, AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE
43 PARKING AND CONSTRUCTION STAGING
44
45 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
46 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
47 1. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan as
48 described in Table 1 of the staff report.
49
50 2. The proposed Project, as conditioned is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Zoning
51 Ordinance as described in Table 3 of the staff report.
52
53 3. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Airport Compatibility requirements as
54 described in Table 2 of the staff report.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 25
1 4. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for approval of a Use
2 Permit based on the analysis included in Table 4 of the staff report.
3
4 5. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for approval of a Site
5 Development Permit based on the analysis included in Table 5 of the staff report.
6
7 6. The granting of the Modification to the Landscaping Requirement to provide 50% shade coverage of
8 all paved areas within 10 years of planting is based on the following:
9
10 A. Lot 5 and Lot 8
11 ■ The Zoning Ordinance requires a shade percentage to be achieved at 10 years, however the
12 code does not indicate how the shade coverage should be calculated, provide the canopy
13 size of various tree species at 10 years, or define the parking area that is subject to this
14 requirement.
15 ■ Based on staff research, communities that have a shade ordinance most commonly use a 15
16 year tree canopy when calculating shade coverage.
17 ■ Tree canopy size can double between 10 and 15 years. Staff was unable to find another
18 community that used a 10 year canopy for the purpose of calculating shade coverage and
19 City staff directed the applicant to calculate shade coverage using the City of Davis method.
20
21 B. Lot 5
22 ■ Due to the location of the heliport, the location and size of trees 5 is restricted in order to
23 comply with FAA requirements implemented for safety reasons. This limits the ability to plant
24 enough trees and trees of adequate size to comply with this requirement.
25 ■ The Project includes the planting of street trees and the retrofitting if parking lot 4 with tree
26 wells and parking lot trees to provide more shade.
27
28 C. Lot 8
29 ■ Fifty-five trees would be planted on this parcel. Using the City of Davis method, the
30 landscaping plan would comply with the City of Davis Standard.
31 ■ Planning Commission has approved similar modifications when they meet the City of Davis
32 method, staff recommends the Commission approve the modification request for Lot 8
33
34 7. The granting of the Modification to the Landscaping Requirement to provide a pedestrian pathway
35 through parking lots with more than 12 parking spaces is based on the following for parking lot 5:
36
37 ■ This parking lot includes 17 parking spaces (6 accessible and 11 standard) in a single row of
38 diagonal parking with a one-way drive aisle separating the parking spaces from the walkway at
39 the front of the building.
40
41 ■ The Project includes one path from the Hospital Drive sidewalk located at the south end of this
42 parking lot leading to the walkway in front of the building. This pathway provides the accessible
43 pathway required for the Project.
44
45 ■ Due to the number of accessible spaces, three accessible pathways are provided through this
46 parking lot which provides defined pathways through the parking lot.
47 8. The granting of the Modification to the Landscaping Requirement to provide a pedestrian pathway
48 through parking lots with more than 12 parking spaces is based on the following for parking lot 8
49 (northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street):
50
51 ■ This parking lot is for employee parking. Unlike a parking lot on the same site as the building,
52 employees parking in this lot could be walking to any number of buildings, so it is unclear the best
53 location for a designated path.
54 ■ It is likely that most people will park their vehicle for most of the day and there will be little
55 turnover of parking spaces.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 26
1 ■ It is likely that many people will create a shortcut through the parking lot; therefore, rather than a
2 defined pedestrian path, staff recommends the parking lot be revised to include a "cut-through"
3 from the parking area through the vegetate swale at the southwest corner of the site rather than
4 the"defined pedestrian path through the parking lot." This has been included as a draft condition
5 of approval from the Public Works Department.
6
7 9. The granting of the Modification to the Landscaping Requirement to provide a planter island between
8 every four parking spaces is based on the following for parking lot 5:
9
10 • Rather than providing a planter between every for parking spaces, the landscaping plan has a
11 perimeter planter strip between the property line and parking spaces with five partial "finger
12 islands"to increase the space for the trees.
13 • Based on 17 parking spaces, three planter islands are required.
14 ■ Due to the location of the rooftop heliport, the location and height of trees is restricted in order to
15 comply with FAA safety requirements.
16 ■ Strawberry trees are proposed as the perimeter/street tree in front of the ED expansion and the
17 outpatient pavilion.
18 ■ The Project includes the retrofitting of parking lot 4 with six new tree wells with Washington
19 hawthorns and planting two Washington hawthorns in the existing planters located at the east
20 end of the drive aisles.
21
22 10. The granting of the Modification to the Landscaping Requirement to provide a planter island between
23 every four parking spaces is based on the following for parking lot 8 (northeast corner of Hospital
24 Drive/Hamilton Street):
25
26 • The landscape plan includes planter islands; however, the islands are not planted between every
27 four parking stalls.
28 ■ Wider than usual perimeter landscaping areas and interior landscaping areas are included in the
29 landscaping plan.
30 ■ Most of the landscape areas are planted as vegetated swales providing LID improvements to
31 treat runoff from the parking lot.
32 ■ The site has 37% landscape coverage.
33 ■ Fifty-five (55)trees would be planted resulting in 51% shade coverage in 15 years.
34
35 11. An Initial Environmental Study (IS) was prepared for the Project which identified potential impacts to
36 aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous
37 materials, noise, and traffic/circulation. Mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the
38 impacts to less than significant levels. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been
39 prepared for the Project and the applicant has agreed to the mitigation measures.
40
41 12. Notice of the proposed Project was provided in the following manner:
42
43 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet on June 28, 2012 (with the NOI);
44 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 1, 2012 (with the NOI) ; and
45 ■ posted on the project parcels on August 9, 2012.
46
47 M/S Whetzel/Doble to approve the Conditions of Approval for the Use Permit and Site Development
48 Permit included in attachment 3 with modifications to the landscaping, substitute Washington Hawthorne
49 for the arbutus (Strawberry tree), provide for a Maintenance and Dust Prevention plan for the temporary
50 heliport (Lot 8), and changes to Lot 7 to include a minimum of 40 parking spaces and to share
51 accommodations for construction and staging, and retain existing Oak Tree on Lot 8 if determined to be
52 healthy by a certified arborist and adjust planter islands as needed to make the tree retention work, as
53 discussed above. (Motion carried 5-0).
54
55 USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 27
1 UKIAH VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT EXPANSION, PERMANENT
2 HELIPORT, TEMPORARY HELIPORT, PERMANENT PARKING LOT, AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE
3 PARKING AND CONSTRUCTION STAGING
4 275 HOSPITAL DRIVE,
5 NORTHEAST CORNER OF HOSPITAL DRIVE/HAMILTON STREET,AND
6 NORTHWEST CORNER OF HOSPITAL DRIVE/HAMILTON STREET
7 File No.: 11-11-UP-SDP-PC-CC
8
9 1. Approval is granted to allow the construction of the Emergency Department Expansion, relocation
10 of the permanent heliport, relocation of parking lot 5 and associated site improvements at 275
11 Hospital Drive; the temporary heliport and permanent employee parking lot and associated site
12 improvements at the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street; and the temporary
13 employee parking area and construction staging area at the northwest corner of Hospital
14 Drive/Hamilton Street as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
15 August 16, 2012, the Project Description submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
16 February 28, 2012, and the Temporary Heliport Site Assessment submitted to the Planning
17 Department dated February 2012, except as modified by the following conditions of approval.
18
19 2. Prior to building permit final for the site improvements at 275 Hospital Drive, a deed notice shall
20 be recorded to advise persons that the property is located in proximity to the Ukiah Municipal
21 Airport in the B2 (extended approach/departure) infill compatibility zone, is subject to occasional
22 aircraft over flight, and may be subject to aircraft noise or related disturbances. Prior to
23 recordation of the deed notice, the draft language for the notice shall be provided to the Planning
24 Department for review and approval.
25
26 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the site improvements required for the temporary heliport
27 at the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street (APN 002-160-10), written authorization
28 from the owner of the Home Depot parcel shall be provided to the Planning Department that
29 demonstrates that the improvements to the site required by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
30 and/or FAA have been allowed by the owner.
31
32 4. All improvements required by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and/or FAA shall be completed
33 prior to commencement of operations at the temporary heliport and written documentation of the
34 authorization shall be provided to the Planning Department.
35
36 5. Once the permanent heliport at 275 Hospital Drive is operational, all operations at the temporary
37 heliport at the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street (APN 002-160-10) shall cease
38 and shall not be reestablished.
39
40 6. While in use for temporary employee parking and construction staging during Project
41 construction, the parcel (APN 002-160-13) used for temporary employee parking and construction
42 staging shall be treated with a dust suppressant as needed to control dust and to prevent the
43 tracking of dirt/dust out onto paved roads
44
45 7. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around trees to remain that are in proximity of
46 construction activities. The location of the protective tree fencing shall be shown on plans
47 submitted for building permit. Tree fencing shall be metal, a minimum of 5-feet in height and
48 secured with in-ground posts. Tree fencing is subject to Planning staff review and approval. The
49 approved tree fencing shall be installed prior to construction/grading activities and shall remain in
50 place until construction has been completed.
51
52 8. Plans submitted for building permit for the site improvements (including landscaping and
53 irrigation) at 275 Hospital Drive and Lot 8 (APN 002-160-10) shall demonstrate compliance with
54 the State Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 28
1 9. Prior to building permit final, a maintenance plan shall be established for the permanent
2 employee parking lot located at the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street to ensure
3 that the site kept clean and free of debris and trash. The plan may include the installation of trash
4 and recycling receptacles, litter control, frequency of site cleanup and trash/recycling collection,
5 etc. and is subject to Planning Department staff review and approval.
6
7 10. Signs require application for and approval of a Sign Permit from the Planning and Community
8 Development Department.
9
10 11. Any future lighting for the permanent parking lot is subject to Planning Department review and
11 approval as part of the building permit required for the lighting. Any lighting shall comply with the
12 following requirements:
13
14 A. International Dark Sky Association approved fixture or equivalent;
15 B. Design compatible with the parking lot lighting on the UVMC campus at 275 Hospital
16 Drive;
17 C. Downcast, full cutoff fixture(s);
18 D. Pole height similar to that approved for this Project;
19 E. Photometric plan that demonstrates minimal or no spillover of light; and
20 F. No light impacts to residents on Clara Avenue.
21
22 12. The permanent heliport is subject to City Council review approval. The permanent heliport is not
23 approved unless and until the City Council adopts a resolution approving the permanent heliport.
24 Upon approval of the permanent heliport by the City Council, this Use Permit and Site
25 Development Permit shall be considered revised to include the permanent heliport use and
26 design as approved by City Council, including any and all conditions of approval and/or mitigation
27 measures applied to the permanent heliport by the City Council.
28
29 13. The temporary heliport is subject to City Council review and approval. The temporary heliport is
30 not approved unless and until the City Council adopts a resolution approving the temporary
31 heliport. Upon approval of the temporary heliport by the City Council, this Use Permit and Site
32 Development Permit shall be considered revised to include the temporary heliport use and design
33 as approved by City Council, including any and all conditions of approval/mitigation measures
34 applied to the temporary heliport by the City Council.
35
36 14. All mitigation measures included in the mitigated negative declaration are hereby included by
37 reference as conditions of approval.
38
39 15. On plans submitted for building permit, these conditions of approval and as well as the mitigation
40 measures referenced in condition of approval # 14 above shall be included as notes on the first
41 sheet.
42
43 From the Planninq Commission
44
45 16. A Maintenance and Dust Prevention Plan for the temporary heliport shall be prepared that
46 includes, but is not limited to, the disturbed area being reseeded and stabilized to provide
47 adequate dust prevention; mowing of seeded area; and cleanup of any litter or debris. The
48 Maintenance and Dust Prevention Plan shall be submitted as part of the building permit plans for
49 the temporary heliport and is subject to staff review and approval.
50
51 17. The health and structural integrity of the oak tree proposed to be removed for the construction of
52 the permanent parking lot on the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street (Lot 8) shall
53 be evaluated by a certified arborist and a written report shall be prepared and submitted to the
54 Planning Department for review and approval. If it is determined that the tree is healthy, the
55 report shall also include an evaluation of the ability to retain the tree in a modified and enlarged
56 tree planter island. If feasible, the tree shall be retained in a modified and enlarged tree planter
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 29
1 island and this revision shall be included on landscaping plans submitted with the building permit
2 plans for the permanent parking lot and is subject to staff review and approval.
3
4 18. On plans submitted for building permit, the northwest corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street
5 (Lot 7) shall demonstrate a minimum of 40 parking spaces and construction staging for the
6 Project and is subject to staff review and approval.
7
8 19. The following shall be included on plans submitted for building permit for the improvements at
9 275 Hospital Drive and are subject to staff review and approval:
10
11 A. Landscaping plan revised to substitute Washington Hawthorn for the arbutus (Strawberry
12 tree)for the Hospital Drive street tree/perimeter parking lot tree; and
13
14 B. Site plan revised to include the location and number of existing bike racks and the
15 location of new bike racks which shall provide a total of 32 bike parking spaces. The new
16 bike racks shall be placed in locations that are convenient and safe for use by employees
17 and visitors and dispersed throughout the campus. Inverted "U" style bike racks are
18 preferred.
19
20 From the Public Works Department
21
22 20. Since the sites (275 Hospital Drive and APN 002-160-10)to be disturbed are more than one acre,
23 the applicanUproject proponent is required to obtain a Storm Water Permit from the Regional
24 Water Quality Control Board prior to construction. Under the new Construction General Permit
25 regulations, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by a Qualified
26 SWPPP Developer and implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner.
27
28 21. Plans submitted for building for the site improvements for the temporary heliport shall be revised
29 to include a 4-foot sidewalk adjacent to a minimum 4-foot wide sloped driveway apron. Public
30 sidewalk improvements outside of the street right-of-way require a sidewalk easement dedicated
31 to the City. The required easement shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department and shall
32 be recorded prior to building permit final.
33
34 22. Prior to construction of the site improvements for the parking lot at the northeast corner of
35 Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street (APN 002-160-10), a final grading and drainage plan and an
36 erosion and sediment control plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review
37 and approval by the Department of Public Works. A final drainage report shall be provided for to
38 support the design of the proposed drainage system.
39
40 23. Plans submitted for building permit for the site improvements for the parking lot at the northeast
41 corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street(APN 002-160-10), shall be revised to include:
42
43 A. ADA compliant access between the hospital facilities and the parking area. The existing
44 curb ramps at Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street intersection do not meet current ADA
45 standards and shall be upgraded. An additional curb ramp shall be provided at the
46 southeast corner of the intersection, with crosswalks provided at all three legs of the
47 intersection.
48
49 B. A sidewalk connecting the public sidewalk to the southwest corner of the parking lot to
50 provide better parking lot access for pedestrians and to prevent damage to landscaping.
51 C. Elimination of the curbs or additional curb openings at regularly spaced intervals in order
52 to improve dispersion of storm water into the swale and maximize infiltration.
53
54 D. Correct graphic scales on the civil and landscape plans.
55
56 From the Public Works Department—Standard Requirements
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 30
1 24. The applicant/project proponent shall upgrade the existing sidewalk along Hospital Drive to meet
2 ADA requirements, including at the existing driveway approaches and at the curb ramp at the
3 crosswalk. Public sidewalk improvements outside of the street right-of-way require a sidewalk
4 easement dedicated to the City. The required easement shall be reviewed by the Public Works
5 Department and shall be recorded prior to building permit final.
6
7 25. Any existing curb, gutter or sidewalk in disrepair that is adjacent to the subject property shall be
8 repaired. All work shall be done in conformance with the City of Ukiah Standard Drawings 101
9 and 102 or as directed by the City Engineer.
10
11 26. Storm drain inlet filters shall be installed and maintained in all on-site storm drain inlets within
12 paved areas.
13
14 27. Existing sewer laterals planned to be utilized as part of this Project shall be cleaned and tested in
15 accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No. 1105, and repaired or replaced if required. If an
16 existing lateral is to be abandoned, it shall be abandoned at the main to the satisfaction of the
17 Public Works Department.
18
19 28. All irrigation and fire services shall have approved backflow devices.
20
21 29. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured
22 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or
23 otherwise affecting this area. The encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated
24 construction costs.
25
26 30. All applicable City of Ukiah sewer connection fees shall be paid at the time of building permit
27 issuance.
28
29 31. Capital Improvement fees for water service are based on the water meter size. A fee schedule
30 for water service meter sizes is available upon request. Additionally, there is a cost for City crews
31 to construct the water main tap for the proposed water service to serve the Project.
32
33 From the Buildinq Official
34
35 32. Permits are required for the following:
36
37 ■ grading and site improvements at 275 Hospital Drive;
38 ■ grading and site improvements for the temporary heliport at APN 002-160-10;
39 ■ grading and site improvements for the permanent parking lot at APN 002-160-10;
40 ■ monument signs;
41 ■ all electrical associated with the monument signs, parking lot lighting, and any other
42 equipment of fixtures outside of the building footprint;
43 ■ fuel tank; and
44 ■ generator.
45
46 From the Electric Utilitv Department—Standard Reauirements
47
48 33. There shall be no remote meter.
49
50 34. The contractor/developer shall be responsible for the purchasing of conduit and installation per
51 City of Ukiah specifications.
52
53 35. The contractor/developer shall be responsible for the installation of one (1) Junction Pedestal per
54 City of Ukiah specifications. The City will provide the Junction Pedestal.
55 36. The contractor/developer shall purchase and install one (1) Primary Pull Box per City of Ukiah
56 specifications, if required.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 31
1 37. The contractor/developer shall provide/install Transformer Pad (preformed or pour in place) per
2 City of Ukiah specifications.
3
4 38. Easements are required for all electric distribution facilities and shall cover the entire length of the
5 primary and secondary conductors/conduits and transformer equipment/pad locations. The
6 required easements shall be recorded prior to building permit final.
7
8 From the Mendocino Countv Air Qualitv Management District
9
10 39. The parcel (APN 002-160-13) used for temporary employee parking and construction staging
11 shall be treated with a dust suppressant as needed to control dust and to prevent the tracking of
12 dirtJdust out onto paved roads.
13
14 40. The Project is subject to District Regulation 1-430, Fugitive Dust Emission.
15
16 41. The Project is subject to the Asbestos NEHSAP (40CFR subpart 61). A full and complete
17 asbestos survey shall be completed and any asbestos abated prior to construction. The asbestos
18 survey shall be submitted to the Air District for review prior to commencement of construction.
19
20 42. The new emergency generator requires approval of a permit from the Air District prior to
21 installation.
22
23 From Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
24
25 43. The Permanent Heliport and Permanent Heliport require approval of permits from the Caltrans
26 Division of Aeronautics.
27
28 44. The Temporary Heliport Plans dated March 2012 must be adhered to; which requires cutting
29 trees in the approach path east of the helipad and obstruction lighting on parking lot lights where
30 designated on the Temporary Heliport Plan.
31
32 45. In accordance with (IAW) FAA AC 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design, Chapter 4, Section 402 (c) the
33 portion of asphalt shall be continuous with the Touchdown and Lift-off area (TLOF) and the
34 adjoining edges shall be at the same elevation and slope away from the helipad.
35
36 46. IAW FAA Part 77.23 operations must ensure no vehicles are in the approach/departure, primary,
37 or transitional surface and remain clear of the defined safety area during helicopter landing and
38 departure operations.
39
40 From the Reqional Water Qualitv Control Board --Standard Requirements
41
42 47. The Regional Water Quality Control Board requires the use of Low Impact Development (LID)
43 and best management practices (BMPs) that treat and retain (infiltrate, capture, evapotranspirate
44 and store)storm water runoff on the project site.
45
46 48. LID BMPs need to be sized to meet the storm water runoff from all pervious surfaces using the
47 following sizing criteria:
48
49 ■ The volume of runoff produced from the 85�h percentile of 24-hour rainfall event as
50 determined from the local historical rainfall record; or
51
52 ■ The volume of runoff produced by the 85th percentile 24-hour rainfall event, determined
53 using the maximized capture storm water volume for the area, from the formula
54 recommended in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No.
55 23/ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87, p. 179-178 (1998); or
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 32
1 ■ The volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage water quality volume, to achieve
2 80 percent or more volume treatment by the method recommended in California Water
3 Best Management Practices Handbook-Industrial Commercial (1993).
4
5 Standard Conditions of Approval
6
7 49. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use, including
8 but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, sign permit, has been
9 applied for and issued/finaled.
10
11 50. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
12 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
13
14 51. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
15 specification, or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agency as
16 applicable.
17
18 52. All construction activities shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
19 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved
20 and issued.
21
22 53. A copy of this Permit and all conditions of approval shall be provided and be binding upon any
23 future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
24
25 54. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior
26 to building permit final.
27
28
29 55. This Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project related
30 to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and conditions of
31 approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of this approval;
32 or if the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for
33 24 consecutive months.
34
35 56. Except as otherwise specifically noted, this Permit shall be granted only for the specific purposes
36 stated in the action approving the Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying
37 any building, use, or zone requirements except to such specific purposes.
38
39 57. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of
40 the plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited to the following:
41
42 A. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall fluctuate
43 according to the season, i. e., more water in summer, less in the winter.
44
45 B. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds, and
46 reduced watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather.
47
48 C. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic
49 fertilizer according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional.
50
51 D. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees.
52
53 E. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not
54 constrict the trunks and damage the trees.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 33
1 F. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not damage
2 the trunk of the tree and its overall growth.
3
4 G. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests, disease or other factors, including
5 vandalism, shall be replaced with the same or similar tree species, or an alternative
6 species approved by the department of Planning and Community Development.
7
8 H. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be made. All
9 pruning shall follow standard industry methods and techniques to ensure the health and
10 vitality of the tree.
11
12 58. Failure to comply with the requirements listed above could result in revocation of the Use
13 Permit/Site Development Permit.
14
15 59. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts related to
16 project construction:
17
18 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Rule 1-
19 430, Fugitive Dust Emissions.
20
21 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and
22 building construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust,
23 particularly during windy days.
24
25 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control
26 fugitive dust.
27
28 D. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction
29 shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the
30 transport of mud and dust onto public streets.
31
32 E. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers
33 shall be used for earth moving operations.
34
35 F. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as
36 instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
37
38 G. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires, poorly
39 covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the
40 end of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public
41 Works/City Engineer.
42
43 60. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
44 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
45 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
46 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
47 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
48 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
49 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
50 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
51 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
52 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
53 remain in full force and effect.
54
55 M/S Doble/Whetzel to recommend City Council approve the Resolution and Findings and Conditions of
56 Approval to approve the relocated heliport and temporary heliport with modifications to the language in
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 34
1 the Resolution: 1) the project will follow the City's Good Neighbor Policy with regard to the flight plan; 2)
2 insert 20 months after temporary to define how long the temporary heliport will be in operation for the
3 Findings in subsection 3D, as discussed above. Motion carried (5-0).
4
5 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
6
7 Senior Planner Jordan:
8 • There will be no regular Planning Commission meeting on September 9.
9 • At the regular September 5 City Council meeting there will be a General Plan discussion
10 regarding hot to apply general plan goals and polices to development projects; consideration of
11 the mitigated negative declaration and decision on the temporary and permanent heliports for
12 UVMC; and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the DZC and introduction of the
13 ordinance for the DZC.
14
15 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
16
17 1. ADJOURNMENT
18 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m.
19
20
21 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
22
23
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 22, 2012
Page 35