HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_10242012 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 October 24, 2012
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Jason Brenner
7 Kevin Doble Linda Sanders
8 Mike Whetzel
9
10 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
11 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
12 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
13
14 1. CALL TO ORDER
15 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
16 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
17 Ukiah, California.
18
19 2. ROLL CALL
20
21 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
22
23 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the August 22, 2012 and September 26, 2012
24 meetings are included for review and approval.
25
26 Chair Pruden made the following correction to the August 22, 2012 minutes:
27 Page 5, line 6, change three miles to `one mile.'
28
29 M/S Doble/Whetzel to approve the August 22, 2012 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (3-0).
30
31 Commissioner Whetzel advised he was present at the September 26, 2012 Commission meeting.
32
33 M/S Doble/Whetzel to approve September 26, 2012 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (3-0).
34
35 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
36
37 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters at this meeting, the
38 final date to appeal is November 5, 2012.
39
40 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
41
42 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff.
43
44 9. PUBLIC HEARING
45 9A. Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility Use Permit and Site Development Permit
46 (File No: 12-10-UP-SDP-PC). Planning Commission consideration and possible action on a Use
47 Permit to allow: 1) the installation and operation of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility
48 (WTF); 2) the pole height for the WTF to exceed the 50-foot height limit; and 3) the fence height
49 to exceed the 6-foot height limit and a Site Development Permit for the associated site
50 improvements at 1200 Hastings Road, APN 003-160-57. The Project includes the possibility for
51 up to two (2) additional carriers to locate at the facility in the future.
52
53 Senior Planner Jordan presented the staff report and added there are currently three wireless
54 telecommunications facilities (WFF) in the City limits: 300 Seminary Avenue, 280 North Pine Street and
55 693 South Orchard Avenue, none of which are Verizon Facilities.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 1
1 Chair Pruden: Senior Planner Jordan provided a very thorough analysis of the Project.
2
3 The Commissioners had no questions for staff.
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:10 p.m.
6
7 Michael Maltas:
8 • Read into record the WIPF site section of a letter from Allen Potter, Agent representing US
9 Cellular, to the Mendocino County Planning Department, dated April 16, 2010 regarding a
10 response to request to review alternative locations for a WTF. This document has been
11 incorporated into the minutes and is referenced as `Attachment 1.' The letter represents Allen
12 Potter's analysis of the sites discussed in the document.
13 • Is of the opinion the letter has relevance because the WIPF location looked at for a US Cellular
14 WTF at that time is close to the proposed Verizon WTF project. The letter talks about the WIPF
15 site and the process required by the City of Ukiah. In this letter Mr. Potter notes the City takes a
16 very cautious approach to allowing `anything' in the City and/or its gateways. Moreover, the letter
17 goes on to talk about the problems/issues with having to gain City support for a new cell tower
18 and one that could possibly be subject to FAA requirements and possible public opposition. Was
19 of the opinion the WIPF site is an unsuitable site for a US Cellular WTF and the reasons to
20 support this conclusion are noted in the letter.
21 • The County of Mendocino has wireless communication guidelines and questions why the City
22 does not. The City Planning Department should become familiar with the County wireless
23 guidelines. It will be easier to get a tower placed in the City because the City has no guidelines
24 that address height, aesthetics and/or other issues pertinent to a WTF. A project application for a
25 WTF would be more difficult to approve if wireless telecommunication guidelines were in place.
26 • There will be more wireless telecommunication towers coming into the Valley in the near future as
27 the industry changes from analog to digital.
28 • Finds it interesting that the WIPF site was found to be unsuitable for a WTF, but yet now in 2012
29 suddenly an area 100 or so feet away is a desirable site for a Verizon WTF.
30 • Is uncertain whether a 'balloon fly' or `boom tower' was used for the visual for the Project. It is
31 important with regard to proposed cell towers to have an accurate visual done before an
32 application is approved as opposed to a regular photo simulation that have a tendency to distort
33 images where pictures are taken from certain angles and no true representation is seen of what is
34 going to be present. `Boom trucks' give a more accurate/effective visual and has become a
35 standard requirement in the County guidelines for WTFs. The visuals provided by Verizon
36 Wireless do not appear to be accurately portrayed.
37 • Questions whether the height needed is real? The industry representative would likely say it is.
38 The industry likes 'vertical real estate.' Cell towers are basically `vertical real estate' with cell
39 collocation ability to other providers. What occurs with collocation is that an industry
40 representative is essentially reimbursed for the cost of the tower to some degree in the form of
41 rental income.
42 • Collocation provides a means by which a cell tower can be shared by more than one provider as
43 opposed to having a series of towers to accommodate just one provider. The theory of having a
44 cell tower that can be shared appears to be the ideal approach, but the reality is that hardly any
45 towers have collocation on them and cited examples of towers in the County intended for
46 collocation that still have no collocation. What happens is that each cell industry representative
47 wants to have their own tower, their own control/ real estate and the ability to say they can offer
48 collocation.
49 • Is of the opinion the proposed new tower could be a lot lower and still achieve adequate cell
50 coverage. Raises the question about coverage. It is unlikely the applicant needs an 80-foot high
51 cell tower.
52 • The US Cellular tower recently constructed on Ruddick-Cunningham Road one mile or more to
53 the east of the proposed Verizon WTF is 60 feet high and has two panels and compared this
54 number to the 80-foot all pole with 9 panel antennas camouflaged as a tree proposed for the
55 Verizon WTF.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 2
1 • Understands while the matter of any potential health risks associated with radio frequency (RF)/
2 electromagnetic field emissions is not up for discussion, personally would not like to operate a
3 business within a certain radius of this tower. It will also create a visual impact in the area.
4 • Can give examples of straight/blatant lies on the part of the cell tower industry representatives
5 where on numerous occasions heights in excess of 95 to 150 feet were claimed to be required,
6 but proven to be false. Subsequently, heights somewhat lower were proven to be acceptable after
7 pressure was applied to maintain a lower height. The Spanish Mountain tower is an example.
8 Therefore, questions the proposed 80-foot height and further questions whether a tree tower
9 might actually be more of a visual impact than just having a standard `flush mount' panel on a
10 pole of a lower height. Flush mount panels can look reasonable and resemble that of a utility pole
11 so in some ways they stand out less.
12 • Would like to see more visual examples of trees. Finds cell towers disguised as trees visually
13 repulsive. Recommends for the proposed project a flush mount single pole of gray/blue color and
14 on a pole with a lower height.
15 • Is not necessarily opposed to the proposed site, but is opposed to how some aspects of how the
16 Project is being presented and how the City is accepting it when the City has no guidelines
17 regulating how this is done.
18
19 Staff: Confirmed a `balloon fly' was not used for the visuals.
20
21 There was discussion about proposed former cell tower site in the vicinity of the proposed Verizon
22 Wireless cell tower and what transpired during the course of selecting a site for US Cellular.
23
24 Michael Maltas:
25 • Clarified Mr. Potter's letter was in response to why he, as a US Cellular representative, would not
26 want the location noted in the letter. One of which was located in the City limits while the other
27 site was not located in the City limits it is close enough that the City may take issue with a cell
28 tower type of development that could impact the gateways of Highway 101 and other roads in the
29 area.
30 • He also had issue with the WIPF site as possibly having to comply with FAA requirements. The
31 letter states the Airspace Analysis of the WIPF location is almost a full nautical mile closer to the
32 Airport than the current location on the Ruddick property and has a requirement to file with the
33 FAA. Mr. Potter was of the opinion, it would be problematic to have a cell tower development on
34 property in and/or near the City limits because of stringent land use process required by the City
35 of Ukiah. To this end, Mr. Potter was essentially asking the County to allow a US Cellular tower
36 where US Cellular wants one.
37
38 Michael Betz:
39 • The FAA has lighting requirements based on distance from the Airport.
40 • Wants to ensure no strobe light will be on the tower.
41 • Collocation is a good idea. The concept is rarely used by WTFs. Applicants use collocation as an
42 excuse for more height.
43
44 Mark Montanos:
45 • Referred to the photo simulations provided by Verizon Wireless, View #2 that shows the
46 proposed mono-pole camouflaged as a tree and a City Utility pole. The cell tower pole is
47 proposed 80 feet in height and the utility pole is approximately 35 feet high. The photo simulation
48 shows the cell tower as having a lower height than the utility pole. The photo simulations do not
49 give a true picture of what the proposed tower is really going to look like.
50 • Is of the opinion the mono-pole will be visible from Highway 101 and likely impact the City's
51 gateways.
52 • A precedent will be set for other developments if the height limit for the Project is approved.
53 • Has observed that artificial trees deteriorate overtime allowing for an unsightly appearance.
54 Would like maintenance for the tree to be made a condition of approval
55 • Nine panel antennas are a lot for one pole.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 3
1 • Would be nice to be able to monitor the amount of RF emissions that are being generated from
2 the tower and made a requirement of cell providers at their expense and not an expense of the
3 County or City. Would like this to be made a condition of approval.
4
5 Howard Egan:
6 • The County is currently updating their WTF guidelines. It is difficult to believe the City has no
7 such guidelines.
8 • The sharing of towers with other cell providers is a good idea which would help eliminate the
9 need for more towers throughout the Ukiah Valley.
10
11 Robert Sack:
12 • Is the property owner right next to the proposed Project. Is concerned about the potential resale
13 of his property with the tower being located adjacent to his property.
14 • Questions how the Project will affect the RV parking on the Elk's Lodge property.
15 • Has concern about safety in terms of RF emissions with the Project being located above his
16 office.
17 • Is opposed to the Project.
18
19 Gerald Collier:
20 • Is a local resident and former pilot.
21 • Has concern about the height of the tower with it being located near the Airport, particularly in the
22 event of emergency landings.
23 • Objects to the Project being located within close proximity to the Airport.
24 • Requests the Project be denied.
25
26 Linda Montanos:
27 • Was involved with the Ruddick-Cunningham WTF for US Cellular that is located in the County.
28 • Spent 18 months researching federal laws in connection with wireless telecommunication
29 facilities.
30 • Is concerned about a `piece-meal' approach taken concerning the location of WTFs that could
31 potentially impact the beautiful and integrity of the City, including its zoning. The City has no
32 guidelines and/or regulations concerning cell towers to protect from a piece-mail approach.
33 • Emphasized the importance for the City and County to really consider an overall plan for WTFs
34 and formulate an approach because these WTFs are going to come to the Valley area.
35 • The City needs plans and guidelines in place for WTFs before the City starts to approve 80-foot
36 towers. Federal law does not allow discrimination against other cell carriers/providers so under
37 Federal law if the City approves an 80-foot tower another provider can do the same.
38 • The FAA could require marking and/or lighting on the tower and this lighting could be a strobe
39 light. This aspect of the Project is not yet known.
40 • With regard to providing an accurate visual analysis to understand height and design capabilities
41 etc., need to use `balloon fly/boom truck.' Aaction Rents is next door and they have boom trucks
42 that could be used.
43
44 Jay Gruendle, Representative for Verizon Wireless:
45 • With regard to the photo simulations, they are simulations. Without building the tower, would not
46 know what it is going to look like so photo simulations are used.
47 • Explained the methodology/technique the Verizon photographer uses to produce the photo
48 simulations that are essentially scaled drawings.
49 • Acknowledged with regard to the comparison between the tree pole and the City utility pole, the
50 utility pole is in the foreground of the picture and the tree pole in the background, so the utility
51 pole looks taller in the 2-dimentional picture than the tree pole. In the picture, if a line is drawn
52 between the tops of the two structures the utility pole is taller than the proposed tree pole. The
53 photo simulations are the best that can be done with the technology available.
54 • With regard to the US Cellular project that was being considered in the area, is unclear what
55 parcel was being considered. In terms of the proposed Verizon Wireless project, a pre-planning
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 4
1 review was conducted, the City Planning Director has made a Determination of Appropriate Use
2 and staff is recommending approval of the Use Permit.
3 • Verizon Wireless has complied with what is required for approval and staff's analysis found the
4 project consistent with the General Plan goals/policies, the Airport Master Plan, the Zoning
5 Ordinance requirements, Design Guidelines, and Use Permit and Site Development findings in
6 the absence of an ordinance specific to the type of development that is being proposed.
7 • Most jurisdictions that have wireless telecommunication ordinances including Mendocino County,
8 encourage collocation. This means such jurisdictions want a carrier to prove that they cannot go
9 on another site that already exists before a new facility is built. The cell industry tries to get sites
10 approved that planning staff can support as a collocation opportunity so that the next time a
11 wireless carrier comes into the City of Ukiah and wants to build on a site in close proximity to the
12 proposed new tower or wants to serve their customers in a similar manner that contends with the
13 coverage area of the Verizon tower, staff would ask the proposed applicant to tell them why they
14 cannot collocate on the Verizon Wireless site. There is some control the City has when a site is
15 built for a wireless carrier to highly encourage, not force, such facilities to take advantage of
16 collocation opportunity.
17 • In terms of technological needs, 9 antennas are necessary that can more fully be explained by
18 Verizon's RF engineer. Accordingly, Verizon operates on three frequencies and in order to
19 provide the reliable coverage customers expect and pay for, three antennas are used. Typically,
20 there is one technology per antenna. The proposed cell tower site works in harmony with the
21 Spanish Mountain cell tower and requires 9 antennas to provide the appropriate cell coverage for
22 customers.
23 • Regarding visual impacts, when traveling northbound on Highway 101 the site would not come
24 into view until the Talmage exit ramp. When traveling south on Highway 101, the site cannot be
25 seen.
26 • The reason for the proposed height of 80 feet is because cell technology is line of sight.
27 Accordingly, the row of trees that was planted on the Talmage off-ramp obstructs/blocks any
28 signal going to the largest population area in Ukiah, which is central and downtown Ukiah. A
29 reduced height would limit the coverage to approximately 15% to 20% capacity of what could be
30 achieved at a height of 80 feet.
31 • In terms of FAA height requirements, Verizon has to fully comply with all FCC guidelines and
32 regulations in order to be a licensed carrier, one of which is compliance with FAA regulations. As
33 conditioned, Verizon prior to issuance of a building permit will file form 7460 with the FAA and
34 receive FAA approval for the proposed Project. A copy of the completed 7460 form and FAA
35 approval will be submitted as part of the building permit application materials. Form 7460 serves
36 as the City's reassurance from the FAA that the proposed Verizon Wireless tower is not located
37 within the Ukiah Municipal Airport flight pattern and does not pose a risk.
38 • The Airport Manager recommends completion of Form 7460 and is the opinion the proposed cell
39 tower is not a flight risk in any way for the Ukiah Municipal Airport.
40
41 Michael Maltas:
42 • Regulations for lighting in proximity to an airport are based on distance from the Airport.
43 • Recalls a strove light on Cow Mountain that has been removed. The light was not necessary
44 because the distance from the Airport was beyond what is required and/or`circle of ring.'
45 • The proposed cell tower will be within that `circle of ring.' It should clear then to the City that a
46 strove light would not be necessary.
47 • Does not approve of a strove light.
48 • It may be that some type of lighting system would be required for the Project.
49 • Is not against the concept of collocation per se, but rather the argument that is mostly given by
50 cell providers and this is while there are many tower around available for collocation, the classic
51 answer from the industry is `it does not fit our requirements.' This means providers typically claim
52 a site having collocation capabilities does not fit their particular needs so they can select a site
53 that would better service their capabilities and customers and it is their own real estate. The only
54 way to disqualify the claim that a cell tower does not fit a particular provider's needs is to have
55 highly qualified engineers make a determination.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 5
1 • From experience, collocation is a good idea, but it is used far less in reality than one would
2 expect. Collocation is often used as a tool by the industry to demand or apply for higher heights
3 than are actually ever used. Noted the Spanish Mountain cell tower is becoming outdated and
4 defunct so the technology is changing. With these ever increasing technological changes, it is
5 not known what will be occurring in five, 10 or 20 years from now. The towers on the mountain
6 tops have essentially become dinosaurs in many respects. With the application of digital
7 capabilities, cell facilities are being more centrally located. It may be the proposed new cell tower
8 will become obsolete in five or 10 years giving way to other types of communication systems.
9 The point is technology changes very fast.
10
11 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:54 p.m.
12
13 Chair Pruden:
14 • A Use Permit is being considered tonight and not a variance.
15 • A Use Permit is sight specific and no precedence can be set.
16 • Each Use Permit stands on its own merit and whatever occurs for this project does not
17 necessarily affect the next cell tower proposed.
18 • The Planning Commission has approved several cell towers in the City limits.
19
20 Staff noted:
21 • The design options provided for by Verizon Wireless are included in attachment 5;
22 • The applicant provided samples of bark and vegetation for the tree.
23 • The applicant has not yet filed FAA form 7460. The Airport Manager compared the proposed
24 project with the City of Ukiah Substation project on South Orchard Avenue in which the City was
25 required to file a 7460 form with the FAA and receive FAA approval for the 70-foot tall poles for
26 the transmission lines in order to verify that the Project would not present a hazard to flight due
27 to the pole height and/or interference with aircraft instrumentation/communication. The FAA did
28 not have any concerns about this particular project even though it is located in the B2 (Extended
29 Approach/Departure Zone) Airport Compatibility Zone where the criteria is more restrictive than
30 the proposed Project that is located in the C-1 zoning district.
31 • Cannot speak for the FAA and guarantee that no lighting will be required for the Project.
32 Commission comments:
33
34 Table 1: General Plan Consistencv
35 Chair Pruden: Page 7 of the staff report indicates the Project is located in an `urban' area and not a rural
36 area of the Valley. The City of Ukiah is urban in nature and with the County being rural in nature `things'
37 are done differently. While the proposed project is located on the edge of a rural community, it is not a
38 rural site.
39 • No other questions/comments.
40
41 Table 2: Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Consistencv
42
43 Commissioner Whetzel: Asked about the type of technology the Project will include. Concerned the
44 cell tower technology would interfere with the GPS system for aircraft. Is of the opinion FAA Form 7460
45 should have been filed prior to Planning Commission review of the Project for informational purposes; 4)
46 Has experience working with the FAA and stated a Notice of Construction can be filed before coming to
47 the Planning Commission; 5) It may be the FAA would not be able to respond right away, but will respond
48 with some kind of documentation while the matter is being considered; 6) Preference is to see what the
49 FAA requires; 7) What would occur if the Use Permit and Site Development Permit were approved and
50 the FAA requires a light on the pole, such as a strove light; 8) Would have liked to see other information
51 as the Project relates to the Airport and its operation, particularly with side-slope requirements and/or
52 other information the FAA may require to have a better understanding of the proximity of the center line of
53 the runway at the Airport to the cell tower.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 6
1 Commission:
2 • Staff's analysis indicates the Airport Manager has stated the site is not located in a flight path and
3 is unaware of this type of facility interfering with aircraft instrumentation/communication
4 recommends filing of Form 7460 to the FAA for approval that would provide certainty to the City
5 and applicant. The filing of Form 7460 is consistent with previous projects.
6 • With the filing of FAA Form 7460 expressed concern the FAA could require lighting or some kind
7 of marking that may include a strobe light.
8 • Not okay with a light of any kind on the pole that is proposed to be camouflaged as a tree.
9 Recommends modifying the project conditions to prohibit any lighting on the pole. Should the
10 FAA require lighting, the pole height either has to be reduced to a height at which the FAA
11 requires no lighting and/or entertain some other change.
12 • No other questions/comments.
13
14 Melvin Baccay, RF Engineer for Verizon Wireless:
15 • Explained some of the technological aspects regarding the Project in terms of service, data
16 capabilities, range of frequency, subsequent lighting, and/or other relevant types of operational
17 informational.
18 • As far as GPS interference for aircraft, this cannot occur because Verizon Wireless operates on a
19 different spectrum/frequency.
20
21 Jay Gruendle:
22 • FAA Form 7460 is a Notice of Proposed Construction.
23 • Verizon Wireless first has to get approval of a use permit and site development permit.
24 • With regard to filing documents with the FAA, generally Verizon Wireless does not have to do any
25 filing other than what is required for a FCC license.
26 • Cited a Verizon Wireless project in Madera County having a tall height where the project was not
27 located near an airport but there were crop dusting concerns. Typically, such concerns are
28 addressed during the planning process.
29 • Speaking from experience, it is unlikely the FAA would require lighting.
30
31 Staff:
32 • With regard to past projects and the Airport, the City Substation project required a 7460 form and
33 this form was filed nine months before the Project came to the Commission. There was no
34 response from the FAA. The FAA was not likely going to give a response until the Project was
35 approved.
36 • If in the future the Commission would like to ensure the form has been filed prior to Commission
37 review of a particular project, this is possible to accomplish.
38 • Based on experience it is unlikely the Commission will see an FAA approval of Form 7460 until
39 there is project approval. To this end, a project condition of approval typically addresses the FAA
40 Form 7460 and provides that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall file
41 Form 7460 with the FAA and receive FAA approval for the proposed Project.
42
43 Table 3: Zonina Ordinance Consistencv
44
45 Commission comments:
46 • Is okay with staff's analysis concerning the fencing and supports an eight-foot height for security
47 reasons.
48 • With regard to vehicle parking and parking plan, understands the site provides for 81 striped
49 automobile parking spaces and that seven parking spaces would be removed for the Project.
50 • There was discussion regarding staff's analysis of the vehicle parking that indicates: 1) The
51 proposed project would be unmanned and would require parking only for the installation and
52 periodic maintenance of the facility. Staff has not requested additional parking to be provided to
53 serve the proposed WTF. 2) In order to provide the minimum number of parking spaces required
54 for the lodge use required by Use Permit 99-16, 25 parking additional spaces would need to be
55 striped on the site. 3) Use Permit 99-16 includes an approved site and parking plan for up to 126
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 7
1 automobile spaces as provided for in attachment 9 of the staff report. It does not appear all the
2 parking spaces for the use permit were striped. 4) Some of the striped parking is not consistent
3 with the approved parking plan and most of the markings for the striped parking spaces are
4 barely visible.
5
6 Chair Pruden:
7 • Is of the opinion the parking arrangements has some deficiencies. The striping is occurring in the
8 wrong direction, particularly in the area of the proposed cell tower. There does not appear to be
9 enough clearance in this regard and recommends the diagonal parking go in the other direction
10 so that persons driving in from the north would park to the south and not vice versa. It is important
11 to have good circulation. Has observed there are many RVs parked along the southern boundary
12 and there is no designation for handicap parking for the Elk's Lodge. Recommends restriping the
13 parking lot, marking the designated handicap parking and correcting the one or two diagonal
14 parking areas that are facing the wrong way.
15 • Noted with regard to the Use Permit 99-16 parking plan without the parking section to the north
16 indicates 126 parking spaces. Is of the opinion there are not 126 parking spaces there. To this
17 end, staff has included a condition of approval that a parking plan for 101 vehicles (not RVs) be
18 provided in order to bring the parking lot into compliance with Use Permit 99-16.
19 • Served on the Planning Commission when the parking plan and corresponding improvement was
20 approved in 1999 and it appeared to be reasonable when proposed at that time.
21
22 Commissioner poble stated it appears with regard to vehicle parking there are two different projects to
23 be considered and had concerns about the parking plan as to what was previously approved.
24
25 Staff:
26 • Attachment 9 of the staff report is the parking plan that was approved when the Elk's Lodge
27 expanded. Not all of the spaces on the plan were striped, so the Elk's is under parked. As noted
28 in the staff report for the use permit, 101 are required. Another 25 parking spaces need to be
29 striped to comply with the parking requirements for Use Permit 99-16. The approved parking plan
30 included 126 parking spaces. Staff has included a condition of approval for striping of additional
31 parking spaces to comply with the parking required and re-striping of spaces since the existing
32 striping is mostly faded.
33 • It may be the Commission may not be interested in requiring 101 parking spaces for the Elk's
34 Lodge use because the need is not there. Frank Milone of the Elk's Lodge provided information
35 on the number of inembers and how much parking is normally used. When the parking plan for
36 the Elk's Lodge was originally approved, the RV parking spaces that overlap the vehicle parking
37 spaces were not considered inconsistent with the vehicle parking spaces. Therefore, staff is not
38 deducting the vehicle parking spaces that conflict with the RV parking spaces. Staff is asking the
39 Elk's Lodge with the Verizon Wireless Project to be consistent with the initial parking plan in
40 attachment 9.
41
42 Table 4: Desian Guidelines Consistencv
43
44 Commission comments:
45 • No questions/concerns.
46
47 Table 5: Use Permit Findinqs
48
49 Commission comments:
50 • Discussion about the fencing and what materials would be aesthetically acceptable.
51 • Discussion concerning the issues contained in Alan Potter's letter in connection with the Planning
52 Director making a Determination of Appropriate Use.
53
54 Chair Pruden:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 8
1 • Is of the opinion that Alan Potter was representing the cell tower industry so the contents of the
2 letter were not truly reflective of the actual condition. Mr. Potter was giving information why the
3 sites described in the letter would not work for US Cellular so US Cellular could get the site and
4 height they wanted. The letter was Mr. Potter's opinion.
5 • Commented cell coverage information was provided for an 80-foot. Coverage information for a
6 50-foot tower should also have been provided. Would like to hear from the RF engineer why the
7 cell tower height cannot be 50 feet other than the tree interference.
8
9 Commissioner poble is not clear what is actually being gained by the applicanYs request for an
10 additional 30 feet in height.
11
12 Melvin Baccay, Verizon Wireless RF Engineer:
13 • Explained the objective for selecting the site, one of which was to improve coverage for
14 customers because there have been numerous complaints about a particular area. Primary
15 coverage objective-expanded coverage for downtown Ukiah and Talmage area.
16 • Substantiated with information about being able to provide adequate coverage such that an 80-
17 foot height is necessary to sustain the appropriate coverage whereas comparatively a 50-foot
18 height could not.
19
20 Frank Milone, Elk's Lodge:
21 • Explained the provisions of the lease agreement the Elk's Lodge has with Verizon Wireless.
22 • Addressed the parking lot.
23 • Will provide the necessary striping to comply with the parking requirements for Use Permit 99-16
24 as recommended by staff.
25
26 There was further Commission discussion about collocation, the benefits/incentive, ability to collocate and
27 why carriers are typically not willing to take advantage of the opportunity.
28
29 Staff referred to attachment 2 of the staff report, Condition of Approval No. 2 that addresses collocation.
30
31 Table 6: Site Development Permit Findinqs
32
33 Commission comments: There was applicant/Commission discussion about the Project and
34 corresponding attachments in the staff report about what the Commission would like to see with regard to
35 the tree design and materials, fencing, lighting, compliance with FAA requirements, maintenance of
36 tower, what shall occur if or when the WTF ceases operation, and approach to informing the public of the
37 presence of the WTF.
38
39 It may be the lease agreement with the Elk's Lodge should address what will occur if the WTF ceases
40 operation.
41
42 Jay Gruendle: Does not see any need to include any mention of the lease agreement with the Elk's
43 Lodge in project conditions of approval should the WTF ceases operation. Verizon Wireless will take
44 down the facility at their expense.
45
46 Commission understands environmental/health concerns are preempted from discussion. (See page 16
47 of the staff report, Environmental Review).
48
49 Commission consensus to be developed into conditions of approval:
50 1. Prior to issuance of the building permit, design of the tree should return to the Commission for
51 review and approval. Design of the tree to include: 1) red/brown bark color; 2) branch density of
52 2.5 or 3.0 branches per foot; 3) photos#1 and # 5 in staff report attachment 5 are the preferred
53 tree design; 4) redwood design.
54 2. Applicant to provide Commission with a silhouette of the tree-pole, revised elevation views,
55 dimension of the base diameter of the tree, description of the taper, and conceptual design.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 9
1 3. Revise the plans to be submitted for the building permit to include the tree design approved by
2 the Planning Commission.
3 4. Revise the plans to be submitted for the building permit to include 8-foot cyclone fencing with
4 vinyl slats for screening. The slats should be green or brown in color.
5 5. No lighting to be allowed on the pole. If lighting is required for the pole by the FAA, the pole
6 height shall be reduced to a height at which the FAA requires no lighting.
7 6. Applicant must comply with all FAA requirements and receive all necessary FAA approvals and
8 these approvals must be provided to the City of Ukiah prior to the issuance of the building permit.
9 7. The WTF must be properly maintained. The cost of the maintenance is the responsibility of the
10 applicant.
11 8. If the WTF ceases operation, the WTF and all associated improvements must be removed at the
12 applicant's expense within 90 days of the operation ceasing. Removal costs are the responsibility
13 of the applicant.
14 9. The public must be informed of the presence of the WTF by way of a posted sign at ground level
15 similar to the sign posted for the WTF located in the church steeple on Pine Street.
16
17 Recess: 8:21 p.m.
18 Reconvene: 8:30 p.m.
19
20 The following Conditions of Approval were added by the Planning Commission:
21 1. Prior to building permit approval, the design of the tree shall return to the Planning Commission for
22 review and approval. The design shall be based on the following:
23 • red/brown bark color;
24 ■ dense tree branches (2.5 or 3.0 branches per foot);
25 • photos#1 and #5 included in attachment 5 of the staff report; and Redwood tree design.
26 2. For Planning Commission review required by condition #15, the applicant shall provide the silhouette
27 of the tree-pole, revised elevation views, dimension of the base diameter of tree, description of the
28 taper, and conceptual design.
29 3. Plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to include the tree design approved by Planning
30 Commission.
31 4. Plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to include 8-foot cyclone fencing with vinyl slats
32 for screening. Slats shall be green or brown in color.
33 5. No lighting is allowed on the pole. If lighting is required for the pole by the FAA, the pole height shall
34 be reduced to a height at which the FAA requires no lighting.
35 6. The applicant shall comply with all FAA requirements and receive all necessary FAA approvals.
36 Copies of the FAA approvals shall be provided to the City of Ukiah prior to issuance of building
37 permit.
38 7. The WTF shall be properly maintained including the branches, bark, etc., fencing and slats. Worn or
39 deteriorated materials and equipment shall be replaced in-kind by the applicant. The cost of
40 maintenance is the responsibility of the applicant.
41 8. If the WTF ceases operation, the WTF and all associated improvements shall be removed at the
42 applicanYs expense within 90 days of the ceasing of operations. The cost of the removal is the
43 responsibility of the applicant.
44 9. In order to inform the public of the presence of the WTF, a ground level sign disclosing the presence
45 of the WTF shall be posted on the site. The sign shall comply with the following:
46 A. Minimum size 81/2" by 11".
47 B. Language to read "Wireless Telecommunication Facility in use."
48 C. Location to be approved by the Elks Lodge.
49 D. Written approval from the lodge provided with the building permit plans.
50 E. Location shown on plans submitted for building permit.
51
52 M/S Whetzel/Doble to approve Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility Use Permit and Site
53 Development Permit File No: 12-10-UP-SDP-PC to allow the construction and operation of a wireless
54 telecommunications facility with an 80-foot tall tree-pole with antennas, and an 8-foot fall fence enclosure
55 for Verizon Wireless with Findings in Attachment 1 and Conditions of Approval in Attachment to revised to
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 10
1 include the additional conditions of approval from the Planning Commission as discussed above. Motion
2 carried (3-0).
3
4 USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS
5
6 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
7 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
8
9 1. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with General Plan as described in the staff report
10 and with the Commercial General Plan land use designation of the property in that: 1) the wireless
11 communications facility has the potential to serve the surrounding commercial neighborhood and the
12 community as a whole based on the coverage information provided as part of the application
13 materials; 2) the specific uses allowed are determined by the zoning, which allows for a
14 determination of appropriate use; 3) the Planning Director determined that the proposed WTF is an
15 appropriate use at the proposed location with approval of a use permit; and 4) and the installation of
16 the facility is a commercial use that may support surrounding businesses by providing new and/or
17 improved wireless services in the immediate area and in the city of Ukiah.
18
19 2. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan as
20 described in Table 2 of the staff report.
21
22 3. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and applicable requirements of
23 the Community Commercial zoning district as described in the staff report, including the following: 1)
24 the Planning Director made a Determination of Appropriate Use as provided for in zoning ordinance
25 section 9088 and determined that the use would be appropriate at the proposed location with
26 Planning Commission approval of a use permit; 2) the WTF will be located on a developed site with
27 adequate space for the Project and the setbacks of the improvements comply with zoning ordinance
28 requirements; 3) no parking is required for the WCF since the facility will be unmanned and any
29 parking required for installation or maintenance of the facility could be accommodated in the parking
30 lot; and 4) the Project would result in the loss of five parking spaces and in order to ensure that the
31 parking for the site remains consistent with the parking required for the site by Use Permit#99-16 a
32 condition of approval has been applied to the Project requiring additional parking to be striped (see
33 conditions#4 and 5).
34
35 4. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the zoning ordinance as described in Table 4
36 of the staff report.
37
38 5. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding land uses as discussed in
39 Table 5 of the staff report and the Determination of Appropriate Use dated May 24, 2012.
40
41 6. The proposed Project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety and general
42 welfare as discussed in Table 5 of the staff report.
43
44 7. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for approval of a Site
45 Development as described in Table 6 of the staff report.
46
47 8. The proposed project, as conditioned, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
48 Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction or
49 Conversion of Small Structure based on the following:
50
51 A. The report prepared by Hammett& Edison, Inc. evaluated the radio frequency FCC guidelines.
52 The report also evaluated the RF that would be generated by Verizon together with two other
53 WTFs at the site (collocation). The report indicates that the RF in the case of the collocation of
54 three facilities would also be well below the allowable exposure established by FCC guidelines.
55 The FCC has determined that when the RF exposure is below the FCC guidelines, there is no
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 11
1 environmental impact related to RF emissions and the local authority is preempted from using RF
2 emissions in their evaluation of the project and the associated environmental review.
3
4 B. The pole would be camouflaged as a tree. The design (shape, branch color, bark color, etc.) of
5 the tree has been determined by the Planning Commission and selected to blend in with trees
6 found in the Ukiah valley in proximity to the site.
7
8 C. The WTF (including pole) is not located on the frontage of a City gateway. The WTF would be
9 located a minimum of 480 feet from the Highway 101 exit ramp and would be obscured by
10 existing trees located along the exit ramp (Caltrans right-of-way and on the Project site). The
11 WTF would be located a minimum of 470 feet from Talmage Road. The tree-pole design is
12 compatible with existing trees in the area and the backdrop provide by the eastern hills. This
13 backdrop and the distance from the public right-of-way helps to obscure the WTF. The WTF
14 would also be partially obscured by existing development in the area (Sack Concrete
15 Construction, Aaction Rents, WIPF Construction, and Rainbow Construction).
16
17 D. A fence and equipment shelter would be installed which are consistent with the exemption for
18 accessory structures included in section 15303, Class 3(e).
19
20 E. Electrical extensions of reasonable length to serve construction are specifically exempt under
21 section 15303, Class 3(d).
22
23 F. No expansion of the existing lodge and RV parking use of the site would result from the Project.
24
25 USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
26
27 10. Approval is granted for the installation and operation of a wireless communications facility, 80-foot tall
28 tree-pole, 8-foot fence enclosure and associated site improvements as described in the Project
29 Description and supporting documents submitted to the Community Development and Planning
30 Department and date stamped May 24, 2012 and as shown on the plans submitted to the Community
31 Development and Planning Department and date stamped October 15, 2012, except as modified by
32 the following conditions of approval.
33
34 11. This approval includes the potential for up to two (2) additional WTFs to collocate on the tree-pole
35 approved as part of this Use Permit and Site Development Permit subject to the following:
36
37 A. The applicant for the WTF collocation shall provide a RF report that evaluates compliance with
38 FCC requirements for the proposed WTF and any existing WTF(s) located on the pole/site.
39
40 B. Plans (existing conditions site plan, proposed site plan, access and utility route, equipment layout,
41 elevation views, etc.) and a Project Description for the WTF collocation shall be submitted by the
42 applicant for review by the Planning Department for substantial compliance with the plans and
43 tree-pole design approved as part of this Permit. The plans submitted for review shall also include
44 simulations of the proposed WTF from the same vantage points provided as part of this Use
45 Permit and Site Development applicant and any additional vantage points requested by the
46 Planning Department.
47
48 C. If the Planning Department determines that the collocation is in substantial compliance with the
49 plans and tree-pole design approved as part of this Permit, no separate discretionary Planning
50 application is required. If the Planning Department determines that the collocation is not in
51 substantial compliance with the plans and tree-pole design, the collocation shall require
52 application for and approval of a Use Permit and Site Development Permit. The Planning
53 Director shall determine if the application is Minor or Major.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 12
1 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall file form 7460 with the FAA and receive FAA
2 approval for the proposed Project. A copy of the completed 7460 form and FAA approval shall be
3 submitted as part of the building permit application materials.
4
5 13. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff review and
6 approval:
7
8 A. A parking plan for the site that provides the 101 automobile parking spaces required for the site
9 by Use Permit#99-16 that is consistent with City requirements for parking facilities.
10
11 B. Revised plans and material samples in substantial compliance with the tree design approved by
12 Planning Commission.
13
14 C. Revised plans and materials for design of the equipment enclosure in substantial compliance with
15 Planning Commission's approved design.
16
17 D. Revised plans and materials for the fence in substantial compliance with Planning Commission's
18 approved design.
19
20 14. Prior to building permit final and commencement of operation of the WTF, the parking plan required
21 by condition #4 and approved by staff shall be striped by the applicant and inspected and approved
22 by Planning Department staff.
23
24 15. No tree on the site shall be removed. Should a tree become unhealthy and/or a hazard, the Planning
25 Director may approve removal of the tree in accordance with the following:
26
27 A. The applicant/property owner shall make a written request to the Planning Director to remove the
28 tree.
29
30 B. The written request shall include a report prepared by a certified arborist that includes but is not
31 limited to the following: tree size, species, health, structure, viability, and location with site map.
32
33 C. If the arborist report recommends removal of the tree, the report shall include a recommendation
34 for tree replacement(size, species, location, number of trees).
35
36 D. The Planning Director shall determine if the tree is unhealthy and/or a hazard. If the Planning
37 Director determines that this is the case, the Planning Director may authorize the removal of the
38 tree and shall determine if replacement tree planting is required.
39
40 16. No modifications to the WTF, including the removal or replacement of equipment (panels, antennas,
41 equipment cabinets, etc.) shall be allowed without prior approval from the Planning Department,
42 except in compliance with the following:
43
44 A. WTF collocation when in compliance with condition#2.
45
46 B. In-kind (same size, dimensions, location, materials and colors, etc.)equipment removal or
47 replacement consistent with the approved plans and conditions for this Permit may be reviewed
48 and approved by the Planning Department through the building permit process without the need
49 for additional discretionary review.
50
51 17. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Construction is
52 prohibited on Sundays and holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah.
53 18. Building Permits shall be issued within two years after the effective date of the Use Permit or it shall
54 be subject to the City' permit revocation process and procedures. In the event the Building Permit
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 13
1 cannot be issued within the stipulated period from the Project approval date, a one year extension
2 may be granted by the Director of Planning if no new circumstances affecting the Project which
3 otherwise would render the original approval inappropriate or illegal. The applicant shall propose the
4 one-year extension to the Planning Department in writing prior to the two-year expiration date.
5
6 19. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges applicable to
7 this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
8
9 20. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
10 specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as
11 applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
12 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and
13 issued.
14
15 21. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any future
16 purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
17
18 22. On plans submitted for building permit, these conditions of approval shall be included as notes on the
19 first sheet of the plans.
20
21 23. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior to
22 building permit final.
23
24 From the Planninq Commission
25
26 24. Prior to building permit approval, the design of the tree shall return to the Planning Commission for
27 review and approval. The design shall be based on the following:
28
29 ■ red/brown bark color;
30 ■ dense tree branches (2.5 or 3.0 branches per foot);
31 ■ photos#1 and #5 included in attachment 5 of the staff report; and
32 ■ redwood tree design.
33
34 25. For Planning Commission review required by condition #15 above, the applicant shall provide the
35 silhouette of the tree-pole, revised elevation views, dimension of the base diameter of tree,
36 description of the taper, and conceptual design.
37
38 26. Plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to include the tree design approved by Planning
39 Commission.
40
41 27. Plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to include 8-foot cyclone fencing with vinyl slats
42 for screening. Slats shall be green or brown in color.
43
44 28. No lighting is allowed on the pole. If lighting is required for the pole by the FAA, the pole height shall
45 be reduced to a height at which the FAA requires no lighting.
46
47 29. The applicant shall comply with all FAA requirements and receive all necessary FAA approvals.
48 Copies of the FAA approvals shall be provided to the City of Ukiah prior to issuance of building
49 permit.
50
51 30. The WTF shall be properly maintained including the branches, bark, etc., fencing and slats. Worn or
52 deteriorated materials and equipment shall be replaced in-kind by the applicant. The cost of
53 maintenance is the responsibility of the applicant.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 14
1 31. If the WTF ceases operation, the WTF and all associated improvements shall be removed at the
2 applicant's expense within 90 days of the ceasing of operations. The cost of the removal is the
3 responsibility of the applicant.
4
5 32. In order to inform the public of the presence of the WTF, a ground level sign disclosing the presence
6 of the WTF shall be posted on the site. The sign shall comply with the following:
7
8 F. Minimum size 81/2" by 11".
9 G. Language to read "Wireless Telecommunication Facility in use."
10 H. Location to be approved by the Elks Lodge.
11 I. Written approval from the lodge provided with the building permit plans.
12 J. Location shown on plans submitted for building permit.
13
14 From the Electric Department(Jimmy Lozano)
15
16 33. The developer/contractor shall submit load calculations with building permit submittal in order to
17 determine conductor size needed to ensure voltage loses do not exceed 5%.
18
19 34. The service panel shall have manual test-bypass facilities and shall be in accord with current
20 EUSERC standards. The contractor/developer shall submit service equipment specification sheets
21 with appropriate EUSERC references for City approval prior to purchase and installation.
22
23 35. Any deviation from the proposed single 200 Amp panel that Verizon will be using for its cell tower, is
24 subject to further review and approval by the Electric Utility Department. Fees associated with the
25 transformer upgrade located at 1200 Hastings Road (112.5Kva to 150Kva 208Y/120V 3-phase), or
26 electrical utilities extended to new service panels, or secondary conductors that have to be re-sized
27 and removal/reinstallation of the existing transformer/conductors shall be the responsibility of the
28 developers/contractors.
29
30 36. After the building permit for the Project has been submitted to the City, the Electric Utility Department
31 will prepare a letter of estimate and a drawing outlining the work to be done by the
32 developer/contractor.
33
34 37. The developer/contractor shall be responsible for purchasing of Conduit and installation (per City of
35 Ukiah specifications).
36
37 38. The developer/contractor shall purchase and install Primary Pull Box(s), if required by the Electric
38 Utility Department(per City of Ukiah specifications).
39
40 39. Easements are required for the electric distribution facilities. The easements are subject to staff
41 review and approval. The staff approved easements shall be recorded prior to building permit final
42 and commencement of WTF operations.
43
44 40. If the developer/contractor chooses to explore alternate routes/options for secondary power to the
45 proposed service panel(s), the contractor/developer shall present the alternative(s) to the Electric
46 Utility Department in writing for consideration. The request for the use of an alternative shall include
47 a written description of the proposal, plans, written authorization from the property owner indicating
48 their willingness to grant an easement, and other information requested by the Electric Utility
49 Department. The use of an alternate route is subject to the review and approval of the Electric Utility
50 Department.
51
52 Standard Requirements— From the Buildinq Official (David Willouqhbv
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 15
1 41. Building and electrical permits are required for the installation of the Project (cell tower, equipment
2 shelter, and electrical service and grounding system). Five (5) sets of plans designed by a California
3 licensed Architect or Engineer are required and two (2) sets of structural calculations.
4
5 42. On plans submitted for building permit, provide a minimum setback of 10-feet from structures to the
6 property lines or walls are required to be one hour fire resistive rated.
7
8 Standard Reauirements- From the Department of Public Works (Ben Kagevama)
9
10 43. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured
11 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for the work within this area or
12 otherwise affecting this area.
13
14 Standard Requirements
15
16 44. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project related
17 to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and conditions of approval;
18 or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of this approval; or if the
19 established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for 24
20 consecutive months.
21
22 10A. NEW BUSINESS
23 Planning Commission November and December Meeting Schedule. Determine Planning
24 Commission meeting dates for November and December.
25
26 The Commission reviewed the meeting schedule for November and December 2012:
27 • There will be a City Council discussion regarding the Ukiah General Plan on November 14, 2012
28 in place of the regularly schedule Planning Commission meeting. While the meeting is not
29 intended to be a joint meeting, Planning Commissioners are encouraged to attend.
30
31 Staff advised there will be a Planning Commission meeting November 28, 2012. Chair Pruden will be
32 unable to attend this meeting. Vice Chair Whetzel will conduct this meeting.
33
34 Staff advised it is likely there will be a December 12, 2012 meeting.
35
36 The Planning Commission discussed the December meeting schedule:
37 • Alternative dates for the December 26 would be 13, 17, and 18 and possibly December 20, if
38 needed.
39 • If for any reason a Commissioner is unable to attend a meeting to please advise staff.
40 • It may be that Commissioner Brenner will continue serving on the Commission through the end of
41 this year.
42
43 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
44
45 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
46 Commissioner Whetzel is pleased with the McDonald's project and commented how quickly it was built.
47
48 13. ADJOURNMENT
49 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
50
51
52 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
53
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 16
��rT�h�r�rr�t �
1}ste: .�rril �b�'(ilfi �
Io: L7��sty f7ule;�,�•Iw.11dC�ilYti] I'�r�nninu
rr. �1]lclt 1'or�r, �.��n�'�S C;�hilaf
RT:. Rcs�anse m re��e�� u,r4.ti���.����tE�cr�ati��s;l�l��u�;��ns
■ �'ipf av,J Vc rr�ar�l Frr�pertics .
Dr�st��;
!�:}�au requ,�.�t�;L T.:S Cc!]ular has prerared�u, ��€��;lit�l��sis�iar�hc�,�,
lc�c:�i;cm5 p�ou i�ocw7t�nte�i in}'[7u[,'1n3i��me tm��i�n:�7?f�,:.i)lO,r��#v��e�e tuhmiu;,d to
�r�u h��i lu`�ub�iti"in r�slxft,;c �;,c,s��currern�e��ti iti�ar�,l;wtuicru for a Use I'�17ri i L�m
. rJ7e R��ci;�k 1�itn��h p�+a�e�•,.w�c�i�c�ll}r t11w 5ite[oc�ion in�he 11u+x1�}���
• ���i��fLac�ion� .
1'M��u�c;h�cl Aiespa�c,'4ti�Eti�IS{�ee allr]L'ilCd 1CCtti,1�}ili sw11�7i7rt m4�.�t:.s t11at a
fta���of��u��[}f�,i4 alfov.�c�{�Zth tk�e Jilirik c}1 Fr�.�i Fo�1n?�GO�:7d�c��iihc���l�id foruti �
eh4n the aia�imurr�}�eis�hi is v8#t. :iL�a,�le�e n��f�llxr.t r�row�er o�7i}I� �na��r;x��►irc •
T'_+�..�m.��ki�a�7d I i�hiir�,Thc:lirspace:�n a14�4i�iti��yciuial���san�tn*all ihrec
dc,caliavs noted nn;•aav�,�p for#�ic��ipr��rt���cny. �
In additioit;ainea ihr�I o��(.iun is in tL��itt-r�h'E;ki�,h�r�j s�6j cct to Ll kiah's T.�nd f
l;�e Pls�nnin�v Codti,1 inquire�l kx�iGh�[�'inthe 1'[a�S�7i�s�,f�e�r,rlAn;�rnr at tliu��ii�-ar�;l �
L�a.�ec��m lh�ir input,l L;eli�{��i�wil]bc�ti�it��ult�rvi tedious prc7c��s to sitw�tov��r un .
tLus�arL�l.
1[5 SLI7ilriarf�_�]L`TC]S#b��«�u u:,e far��.e�y rc�c��►u�wd b�•the C.;i�,�«I"�:Ec��,=
Tha r�minS,' �S di�8vy ^���ai�3 ��-�J � T$� C-2 cc=�i4tc �1' �hB
av�isy C�Qf�&_^_Ce in attacac,3_ 'CPLa S�Giny �r3:naaoa ��93 I2�t �denti£p .
r.-'$3T �.�f/��6 J£ fG.l�'�NOQ1L�{..�tiOm6 �dC1�Zf1�r+ s�� Q��� llJ dQ}' d15tf.�.�'.C.
sa� tbt Cit� �oas not $svc a t=2ccw19rtunies�o,rea �rdinanca_ wi-r� t�ie,
t�o �tars�nsLivu i.a �a pa�� hae be�� tb�i i.r� ord,�� to a?�o�r a
.;ac:3YCy, �F,e 21ar,r,;"p Dire�t�� ,POQ1� ha,.,a � raa�e s Diee�,-,,;ratia� o�
r�pp=`oPeria£� Uaa a� �lorred by �or_ing �rain�noe aeuCsoa 9502, Tht� am�d
a11ax a..e2 app3ic5�iou ta �a �d6 i'os � Majar aa� aa�i.rt v��h i+-+�,;r�s
F]�nn�g� ^t�;Rsior. r��aiv er_� appro•rai_ �l us� pax�it r�� adsa -n#a .
�,;rad xn prC�e� #�Y' �}�c t�x�ar to �+6 6� ieeL� {sea�iaa 9�4� fvJ J� Q'aa . .
' � �83��C irithout a r�sa pe3Y'Sl�t i2S dR £ect for pr�&03�p b[Ll3diags
�nd 2� f�� rar acc��p�F butt�iag� (ao-c�ieaa 4+J98 A 3n,� �J-
T�a ait� m�LOnod rou3d ia� sr3bjeot to �*�c ��vag r�oals aad
po�t�ibu ir_cludad in U�e .,,�ty�u +' �ar�2 p,�asG. Y1y7h1Pdy��j�3'.�ia idg�tt£±8d
Ps d fi��� 3afe3 g3Yexay ?a �o �`itY�a ��fl�rs� �1t.: �a3�� �a�sd 'is
�d�,�i��ed aa s sroff:�d ia7e3 gataxay_ .
- •:
1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 17
1
� �
' rn ar.iar `n .�?�j t � 1'c7�"'+c� at;F:iiaa}iooa, rha Ll��g�jIlgttpt2 pr
� �gprop��ste Jae arou:tf a��i �0 3c mo�a ny v�� P13^==G�C ui��_tar_ Tf .`.w
{8 �:]�� t� m�F� tao _°iR�,.Rg9 �9€j+��?'�� fOr a �let^_£ID1L3Y34F} C+f
Jipg'-',c�riat�a Cse, an �+�+_'ios�it�f'i awi.e3 bc �iZed 8ar 3 24s�o..r �s� Fc�i£
r.�r the u�3e nn,d tha ��g?�t a£ *2xp LoS�ez'.
�a to the loo�t=en .�f �� �it�, �ha ff{a�bi?t�y o� ttzc �.��, �ua
t�B Cify'a aa�eRSy�Zici9Sf I St�c]fJ�l�+ C�riburag� +�av ha �F°].� �PL 3
� 2Saaniag C��&�So� pz'e-;vp3lo�sfion revicv ia oide� to x�eee3ve t�eir
i r:x.a�RtB �iOY to rr�a•zng ar� 9�P91tt�i] 3 rOYtlttl appl�catia�_ .
�SOUr±e= �im �7ard�n, G`it,�f n€ R��ah pYeu�ngJ
I
��elie{�th;�c t}re�=iiv k4']�j{7�4�1(}�]Sl}�41.6,:a��cr��suti«�t�bFa�rnar�f,�c�t�1[ox��in�
r�sy l�i�in r}iis ar�s tktat uv�ttld r��c�i x�nl y imp�ck#hc Cit�-and�`or it�{7aiecaa,�ri,r�nd,
�huw��.��tg sttpport i,�r a new oe I I u,w,�cr„and uI14 l�]t]t.Couk�poSSiht�-�e:e�lll I�etl L i
m�rk�d t�n�:�or li�]�cd per N':'�'4�t�ii�man�;,will k���ffiwit aitd�tauuall}•nnt
sup����ri�xi or app:x+}�wd, I;�]3o L�lie�a J7at tl7ere i 4 u�irc,n�chsncc of sienif�cant p�hl i u
o��10Sitiim,
I frel i�v�Lf7i 5�UC#i�E[]Li.]]1 C�ti.�CC}15]S6i 3 IOi�tift�l i}1e71 LI S�'C;1�J�Bf 4i��11{I bL 3}}��
to cans:�er duc i��l�,e 10��{Fkti'lk79�PrLCt4,
+ �17fe,+�ll'�jaa�e flnrilvuir�P rhi3loC3t[oll]S 7[ttlo3i�i�ul�nxluli��l m]1C Cl�Ser
� ro d�air.�nrl�stv�,�uf��L��nl l�x:atio-n ou the 1{.ud�ick Pm�+eriy an�3 i��_ .
� �rcq�ir�neot tt�ti la wi�h�he f�,1 for all t�w�.rs at SR �i.�C if,�rc hi�}�.�r. �
� so thv�1 1��}ll{��C�J:�{'��IuEo-a e:ll�i.7ltEx�},fls at rEt€.l�iuldic�€I�lnc�lv,•r�� �itc
, is�o-nc at rhe 1��ipf Jc�.ati on_
* Tkliti��}�'{It101114 F1 T�,•�•isibl��a trafi i;:al�fns�H���p� 101 as��cll as oiher
I{ra:ul rx,ad��+�rmc�srt�uald tlu4 area_ 'I'li is;it�ti�,r�i,r bc mcn���isible tt� �
JSlOJ'��76L}F!�C LF71Y'CZ1T}�.x�x��.i��and li�i�t[�th�is tver�c,l-l.sa vv�n34�•H?�d �
Ukiah_
■ :�t t4�°r�ar th�s[c�ati,�n nya,�rsxiui�P�L�marling ar�dr ar li�htu7�},d7us
inerc:��in�hh:�4�i.s��1 i�pact .
• 1'kse[:ite';C������1� P�o-ij7[34tiL kti'1�]1L3�5]R L:�''C7�4x'?ly�h"cif Hx��k� I 01
an�d Falul��c ltaad an�s�ci:i;:�lly d;.scus�taic sells�ti�-it�-ufsti•_�turcs
i�ti l�.c�4�uc�4 tha#c9�unp��t{�ie�v,ol�ihc Vulley,I�clic��c itv�ou€d t�e
1il�:i�u11 ifnr�l itk��o55iblc to sectue��pruk�r�l li�r�Tsc P��er,ii f�+r a t�n�e��
tltis�ite t}ircii4u,h ih�lsmcj u�.procc,�s iur.tie C'itr�I-ZTki�,l,. .
+ Tltc usc oi tl�c ptopei�tt-tpl:�tr��u hr:vV:xanskruction relar�ed us�;,�tnd t:�u}
�hc cnw�irc,�nnc�tal issuc3(suc�:�s cnnt�rninateil ti[rilsl}�rould nocd fu�J
�e4�iew an{l i n ti��l.i�,y.,,t�iun bcfc+rt 4,'��'�llul ar wnul�?he r�l,lc l�,t�onsidcs a
le;i5e 3E ttliS li!c�liun_
2
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 18
I
I
I
• �Ol���if7f Ptt�t�I'7'
't�lri�Prc��-rCp�is loc�€1.r��ljtucn�#o t��[�uxs:rm Ftii+•�an�in the ttu�xlu�t�y�as{�{au
llOTE�Ll{"b�r erri r�i].IO mC 61l h+1�h 2Fy,�(i 1 Q. �'t�Wer�n�i#�p,�;.5�¢ip 8 pptenLir�l 5]I�S1�v�
i u'011l�3196 C�JUire�lek'��4�]F�J]t B�I�iR'SG'�LIB�LDll 311�V''�}'�TiCYC C}1FLt I11a�'be�nx�hfe.m.ati�
4ti'�rll t�7C�C+dTSS�'Ot 4k���].,
T[7�art�achod�lers�cc?�nai�sis r sec��l�d Cc#terl indi;,bfn�i1�;�4 A t�u��r af 70 ft
{��s�ul�l xr�uirc:F:'�l��orm 7�61?r�ud nia{�rec�uirc F�:���;in�:n�l l i};h ltn�.�t to��r n f,51
ft i�all,rkrab�c Vrithout�ulvl 7�#�5�].
l!4 C;�flui�r���+ruld maY,�lik�lv nat consider�tis c�ndik�st:.Ltz����c rf ihe
follo��i���
� . '1Fri�fu�s�tiun i��hl{•�;«iblc ta tr�a�'ic alocs�Z�tv.�x� l{�1 �s v��ell us aiher
local roa��i r,�utd �.•-rnm:l��i s�re:�, 'i'his si�a�►rear�;i,�b�g�c�r;,4-isihl�tu
moie�anrlc irr�vclutg_v�nrk�i n}c and�iving iu thi s arra n f Cbx:c3atuntv a.isd
Ulciah arsd i��r,n uur c�nr�ut tncrui�rny,
■ :�r toi��cs at th;�l�xt��ou ma{�ra�uiro P.�.rl it�ar�in�ar,d�'Dr livGti4in�,rhus
inur4�I�1L€r i�i�L7�r�1 impci4't
� • A�thnugh d�is piupei�tx� in aul inrhe{:i!�nf lfkitil,,i�i�c�os�.er�t�uwh tha� .
� tk�[:it,�rr�����[�kc issue��iih ihis i?�pc ai de��l�rtrrric[i� Ihxl cou�d iifi�#
tL�e'"[rat�kx�r�}��..vfHv.��1{]1 �ut�l oCl��ro�ds in th�ar:.� .
Cias�1 c�n If��:,:tic,�tai.ls_ we cfu nui belie�;e either�,f�c�:.loc�tiuns can�c
caiasidefecl a��3�rn�,i iv;.sirc,�fnr I:S Ccllular`s cons=der��ic,n,
Ple;rkv;��c:t u3 kuovc'if�{ru hsiti�.su�-qt��ican�,
:'1J.teu!'t�tter
.��t;' L�'�C:e I I ul�r
1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 24, 2012
Page 19