HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_06092010 1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 June 9, 2010
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
15 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 1. CALL TO ORDER
19 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
20 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
21 Ukiah, California.
22
23 2. ROLL CALL
24
25 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
26
27 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - N/A
28
29 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— May 12, 2010
30 M/S Helland/Sanders to approve May 12, 2010 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (5-0).
31
32 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
33 Marvin Trotter— Is opposed to allowing any new fast food restaurants and alcohol establishments/outlets
34 in the community for health reasons. With regard to WalMart expansion project, is supportive of
35 maintaining family-owned businesses as opposed to multi-national corporations because local
36 businesses are better for the community.
37
38 Jeffrey Blankfort — Expressed concern the WalMart expansion project and corresponding new 24-hour
39 supermarket could put Lucky and Food Max out of business and negatively impact the community in
40 terms of number of jobs lost and the potential for the buildings to become `blighted' if there are no
41 tenants.
42
43 7. APPEAL PROCESS- N/A
44
45 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Item 11A was properly noticed in accordance with the Ukiah
46 Municipal Code.
47
48 9. NEW BUSINESS - REPORT
49 9A. Report on the Scoping Comments Received on the Walmart Expansion Environmental
50 Impact Report (EIR). Environmental Science Associates (ESA), the City's EIR consultant, will
51 report on the comments received during the scoping period for the Walmart Expansion EIR.
52
53 Staff presented the staff report and introduced Brian Grattidge.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 2010
Page 1
1 Brian Grattidge, ESA, City EIR Consultant gave a PowerPoint presentation and reported to the
2 Planning Commission on the scoping process and comments received for the Walmart expansion EIR.
3
4 Q1. Commission: Even though the Notice of Preparation time period for comments in response to
5 the EIR has closed, can the public continue to comment and if so, how does this work?
6 Q1. Brian Grattidge: Depending upon the nature of the comments, the comments would likely be
7 directed to the City Planning Department unless the comments are environmental in nature in
8 which case another course of action may be taken.
9
10 Q2. Commission: Aside from the sales tax revenue generated from the expansion of Walmart from
11 an analysis perspective how much money would a Walmart employee bring into the City
12 compared to being a Lucky employee. Retail establishments have different pay scales and
13 benefit packages which can have significant impacts on families.
14 Q2. Brian Grattidge: CEQA is `agnostic' in terms of broader economic effects. Wage impacts are not
15 looked at except in two limited areas: 1) The potential for growth inducement impacts on the
16 community that asks the question whether or not the project will require a surge in the labor force.
17 2) As it relates to the effects it would have on those other businesses, which is not a wage issue
18 but rather a `transfer of sales' issue that result in a store going out of business. The actual wage
19 of employees is not directly considered within the EIR. The EIR is limited towards indirect
20 physical effects.
21
22 Q3. Commission: How is growth inducement defined? In this case, is this the need for additional
23 labor?
24 Q3. Brian Grattidge: Growth inducement has other meanings other than an association with wage
25 issues and this is whether or not the project with regard to employment will attract people that
26 would require housing, as well as other services in the community that are currently unavailable.
27 It is not known at this time whether there is a shortage of labor that can serve a project.
28
29 Q4. Commission: With regard to environmental issues, how do potential economic and urban decay
30 impacts play into the role?
31 Q4. Brian Grattidge: In terms of possible economic and urban decay impacts, the question is
32 whether the project could effectively dislocate an existing business and what the physical effect
33 would be. A chain of events has to occur in order for the project to be considered a physical
34 impact under CEQA.
35
36 Q5. Commission: How is the potential to dislocate an existing business(s) creating urban decay
37 impacts analyzed with regard to a probable future project?
38 Q5. Brian Grattidge: The cumulative impacts would be identified for a probable future project that
39 also takes into consideration what currently exists.
40
41 Q6. Commission: What is the timeframe for looking at possible urban decay impacts resulting from a
42 project?
43 Q6. Brian Grattidge: Urban decay impacts are determined within a couple of years after a store
44 opens.
45
46
47 NEW BUSINESS—EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOP
48 10A. Education and Training on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental
49 Science Associates (ESA) will conduct an educational workshop on the California Environmental
50 Quality Act("CEQA 101").
51 Staff: Provided a brief staff report.
52
53 Brian Grattidge, ESA, gave a PowerPoint presentation and answered questions raised by the Planning
54 Commission.
55
56 Q1. Commission: Can a Notice of Exemption be challenged in court?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 2010
Page 2
1 Q1. Brian Grattidge: When a lead agency determines a project is exempt they may file a Notice of
2 Exemption to give public notice that a project has been exempted triggering a 35-day statute of
3 limitations. Depending on the process, a Notice of Exemption can be appealed and at that point it
4 would be for the courts to decide whether a project should be exempt.
5
6 Q2. Commission: Would a Tiered (Program EIR) apply to two retail projects in the same area?
7 Q2. Brian Grattidge: This may apply if the site was being master planned in some capacity.
8 Individual development projects by different parties can be complex/tricky in terms of processing
9 and master planning.
10
11 Q3. Commission: Are impacts always defined as adverse? Would CEQA ignore an impact that is
12 highly beneficial?
13 Q3. Brian Grattidge:
14 • A beneficial impact not having a significant effect may be talked about, but CEQA does not
15 require it. Growth inducement is an example where growth should not necessarily be considered
16 adverse or beneficial, but rather should be an examination of potentially significant impacts due to
17 an adverse physical change. Growth itself is not considered adverse or beneficial, it just is. The
18 measurement would be the adverse change.
19 • EIRs that identify beneficial impacts are simply a nice way of saying there are `no adverse
20 impacts.' There is no special category reserved for beneficial impacts except in instances where
21 there must be a balancing act relevant to a Statement of Overriding Consideration that occurs
22 frequently for restoration projects. While there may be some specific environmental benefits to
23 the project, there may also be negative short-term impacts. Stream bed clean-ups are an
24 example of benefit impacts where there is a balancing act between short-term sedimentation
25 problems/effects and in the long term better habitat. The actual definition of what constitutes a
26 significant impact under CEQA review is to focus on the adverse.
27
28 Q4. Commission: Does the balancing act occur through analysis in the EIR or in discussion?
29 Q4. Brian Grattidge: The balancing act occurs within the CEQA process, but outside of the EIR.
30
31 Q5. Commission: How do you quantify socio-economic impact changes? For example, the Palace
32 Hotel is a historical building in the community and would likely have socio-economic effects for
33 people. Is there case law that distinguishes what is and is not a socio-economic impact?
34 Q5. Brian Grattidge:
35 • Sometimes the value placed on an impact is really associated with a socio-economic change. For
36 example, with regard to historical impacts, the demolition of a historical building may or may not
37 have a significant effect on the environment, but there may be a socio-economic value placed on
38 the building because of the historical context. Socio-economic effects in certain circumstances
39 CEQA requires urban decay or deterioration to be considered as an indirect environmental effect.
40 • This socio-economic impacts lead into the CEAQ review and mitigation processes. Mitigation
41 measures may be either too expensive to implement and still be able to proceed with the project
42 or there may be other negative social and/or policy consequences as a result that the
43 corresponding measures are made feasible. While socio-economic impact changes may show up
44 for projects, the changes by themselves are not considered an adverse environmental effect.
45 • Socio-economic effects/impacts are addressed in the CEQA guidelines and are not treated as
46 significant effects on the environment. The point with regard to an impact analysis is to look at
47 that side of what the physical environment is as it could be manmade or natural because the way
48 it is quantified or valued may be influenced by socio-economic factors. The actual impact itself
49 has to manifest physically somehow. Where a physical change is caused by economic or social
50 effects of a project, the physical change may be regarded as a significant effect.
51 • A substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions in the
52 area affected by the project may be direct, indirect, short/long terms, cumulative and growth-
53 inducing whereby the level of significant project impacts must be determined.
54 • In addition to socio-economic policy conflicts and impact analysis, there may be land use policy
55 conflicts. An EIR is required to discuss consistencies with land use policies even though the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 2010
Page 3
1 impacts are not considered significant unless there is a change to the physical environment
2 associated with the policy conflict.
3
4 Q6. Commission: With regard to baseline impact analysis, is it possible to be inconsistent, for
5 instance, to use one baseline for traffic and another for water if there is a reason why and it is
6 explained?
7 Q6. Brian Grattidge: Under CEQA, the environmental baseline is the physical environmental
8 conditions as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published or the time
9 environmental analysis is commenced if no NOP. Noted the baseline for traffic can vary
10 depending upon the nature of the project and what is physically occurring in the area. The
11 importance with regard to CEQA review is to disclose information in order to determine the
12 threshold level of impact for a particular project taking into consideration other projects in the area
13 and what is physically existing.
14
15 Q7. Commission: If two different projects having large impacts are to occur in the same area, it
16 would be unfair to penalize the first project and why not combine them even though the owners
17 are different.
18 Q7. Brian Grattidge: The projects would be treated separately. The question is does the analysis
19 consider each project, since the definition of`projecY means the whole of an action, which has the
20 potential for either a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
21
22 Q8. Commission: Is consideration given to past EIRs and what about new information and potential
23 significant impacts that may be present now, but not been identified then?
24 Q8. Brian Grattidge: Does the new information indicate a potential new significant impact or a
25 substantially worse impact than was previously identified? There is essentially no date certainty.
26 The environmental impact has to be looked at by itself and ask the question if any of the three
27 conditions, change in the project, change in the circumstances or new information indicates a
28 new impact or substantially worse impact than what already exists in the EIR.
29
30 Q9. Commission: The AIP had an EIR completed in the mid 1990s and it was based on full
31 buildout. Inquired whether the new documents prepared, which may identify lesser or greater
32 impacts would not be in conflict with past documents but rather considered different data?
33 Q9. Brian Grattidge: While the original EIR for the AIP envisioned greater commercial development
34 than has happened so far overall, it did not envision the magnitude of development on the
35 Walmart site. It is important to incorporate documents by reference where appropriate to avoid
36 large EIRs. Therefore, there may be environmental issues where it is possible to incorporate by
37 reference an analysis that was done earlier.
38
39
40 Q10. Commission: Reiterate the basis on which a decision-making body decides to either approve or
41 deny a project simply if there are no environmental effects that have been demonstrated or that
42 the effects have been mitigated to a less than significant level or there are overriding
43 considerations, is this the only criteria or are there additional findings required to approve or deny
44 a project. Conversely, a project cannot be denied if there are not significant environmental
45 effects or the effects have been mitigated to less than significant levels or there are overriding
46 considerations.
47 Q10. Brian Grattidge: CEQA requires looking at the environmental measures except for a statement
48 of override that does not speak to broader planning concerns that are typically a part of every
49 project. Essentially, a project cannot be approved which has potentially significant impacts unless
50 the impacts are avoided or reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures or alternative
51 analysis or if there is a remaining significant impact a statement can be made why the project
52 should be approved despite the impact. It becomes a matter of striking a balance for approving of
53 a project, either the impacts have been avoided or reduced to a less than significant level or
54 make a statement there are other concerns that support approval.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 2010
Page 4
1 In terms of denying a project, a decision-making body can certify an EIR as having met the
2 requirements of CEQA and still deny the project.
3
4 Discussion: The EIR would have to be certified prior to consideration of the Site Development Permit.
5 After the EIR has been certified, the SDP could be approved or denied.
6
7 11. OLD BUSINESS—PUBLIC HEARING
8 11A. Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Article 11: Regulation in Hillside Lot Size (-H)
9 District. Review and possible recommendation to the City Council regarding staff proposed
10 amendments to Zoning Ordinance Article 11: Regulations in Hillside Lot Size Districts (aka the
11 Hillside Ordinance).
12
13 Staff Report:
14 • At the May 26th meeting, the discussion centered primarily on the definition of `natural state' what
15 should be counted as natural state, and what percentage of the parcel should be required to be
16 retained in `natural state.' The Commission was unable to reach a consensus on these items.
17 • Thanked hillside property owners Dave Hull and Ric Piffero for allowing the Commission and staff
18 the opportunity to view his hillside property and the hillside area which provided an opportunity to
19 see defensible space as required by the State of California Department of Forestry and Fire
20 Protection.
21 • As a result of the site visit, staff believes that the Hull parcel was an example of the type of
22 defensible space that could be included as natural state. In this case, defensible space was
23 created by thinning of vegetation, removal of branches up to a certain height, and removal of
24 trees, grass and brush. All of these can be accomplished without changing the natural grade of
25 the site. If Planning Commission agrees, a description of this would need to be included in the
26 definition.
27 • It also appears that there are ways to create defensible space that are not consistent with natural
28 state, such as removing all of the trees or vegetation. If the Commission does not want to include
29 this type of defensible space, which does not appear consistent with the General Plan and
30 purpose statements included in the Hillside Ordinance, this should also addressed as part of the
31 definition.
32 • Based on the site visit and defensible space requirements, staff prepared attachment 2 as an
33 illustration of the amount of a 5 acre parcel that would be require to be defensible space. Based
34 on the amount of the parcel that would be required to be defensible space and the defensible
35 space viewed on the site visit, staff believes that defensible space needs to be included in the
36 definition of natural state in some way.
37 • Recommends the Commission review the `natural state' definition and include language on how
38 defensible space that meets the General Plan and zoning requirements can be created.
39 • Maintenance section (9136.6) was included in response to phone calls from property owners
40 expressing concern that the proposed amendments as drafted maintenance for fire protection
41 would not be allowed.
42 • Since there is more than one way to create the required defensible space, the Commission
43 should consider the types of defensible space that could be included as natural state and which
44 should not.
45
46 Attachment 1
47
48 Commission:
49 • Preference — Retain the hillsides in as much of the natural state as possible and still be able to
50 provide appropriate fire protection for safety purposes. Is okay if this means being more specific
51 about how maintenance should be conducted.
52 • Because development in the hillsides can be difficult, it may be that defensible space should be
53 included as part of the natural state.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 2010
Page 5
1 • Defensible space included in the natural state category should appear `natural' having the
2 characteristics of `natural state' as opposed to bare/clear cut giving way to an obvious protective
3 barrier and should not include graded areas.
4 • Page 4, of the staff report— likes the language staff provided about the types of defensible space
5 that could be included as natural state with consideration given to include no modification to the
6 natural grade, the types of plantings, method of modification.
7 • Page 3, General Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space, State Board of Forestry and Fire
8 Protection, paragraphs 3 and 4 provide some guidelines for creating defensible space.
9 • There was discussion about whether`grading' changes the natural grade/state of the land.
10 • Referred to Attachment 2: Illustration of Defensible Space. Agree with what is noted as "Not
11 Natural State." Agree with what is noted as "Natural State" which could be modified to be the
12 definition.
13
14 Staff:
15 • It appears the Commission desires to include defensible space in the natural state definition. The
16 question is how to define `natural state.'What decision makers and staff have to get away from is
17 our own perceptions of'natural state' and decide how to define what is natural state.
18 • Staff recommends that the definition exclude defensible space unless it is done in the manner
19 that the Commission wants to see since removing most or all of the vegetation, changing grade,
20 and using heavy equipment would be consistent with State requirements. This means that there
21 would be 2 parts to the definition. The first part would exclude defensible space. The second part
22 includes defensible space when it is done in the manner determined by the Commission and
23 consistent with State of California requirements. .
24
25 Commission: To comply with state standards, a house in the hillside, for instance, has a 30-foot
26 defensible space clearance that the property owner has done for protection and/or out of preference with
27 the next areas beautiful/rightfully trimmed to look natural. Therefore, the first 30 feet would not be
28 included as part of the natural state, but the next 70 feet would be. There may be a need to differentiate
29 because people do things differently.
30
31 Staff: It is likely that due to the modifications to the site that occur, the 30 feet would not be included as
32 natural state. The intent is to provide clarity in the definition that creates the desired outcome that is
33 consistent with the General Plan, zoning, and allows for the creation of the required defensible space.
34
35 Commission:
36 • Agrees: Land that is graded and/or with all vegetation removed is not natural (clear-cut and/or
37 with the majority of the vegetation removed)and should not be included as natural state.
38 • There was discussion about tools versus heavy equipment and the difference in appearance as a
39 result of using these various methods of trimming, cutting back vegetation. For instance, a
40 chainsaw or a rototiller is a tool while a tractor/bulldozer is heavy equipment. People should be
41 able to use a chainsaw if necessary for trimming and pruning. What is not appropriate would be
42 the use of heavy equipment to provide for a defensible space. The intent is to maintain the
43 appearance of a natural state as much as possible while being able to provide defensible space
44 for safety.
45 • Does the removal of trees constitute grading and is the land considered altered?
46
47 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 8:58 P.M.
48
49 Rick Piffero: Commented on the tools and equipment used when providing for defensible space and
50 providing maintenance for trimming and clearing of brush on his property in order for it to appear as
51 natural as possible. He explained how grading is performed to create a building pad without altering the
52 surrounding natural terrain. He also provided information about the planting of trees and vegetation to
53 compensate for bare areas in keeping with the objective of planting native species/fire resistant plants
54 where feasible and in conjunction with the objective of allowing for no visible signs of
55 developmenUdisturbance to the hillsides from the Valley floor.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 2010
Page 6
1
2 Staff:
3 • Planning Commission will review the Use Permit for hillside projects. However, it is important to
4 provide direction to property owners, the public, and staff as to what is natural state and what is
5 allowed as maintenance. Planning Commission will review the use permit including the
6 percentage of natural state that is included in the project. Modifications to the site may occur after
7 this. It should be clear as to the amount of natural state for the project and the type of
8 maintenance allowed that does would not modify the amount of natural state.
9 • The objective is to encourage the desired outcome and provide enough information for property
10 owners, developers to be able to design projects that are consistent with the General Plan,
11 Hillside Zoning Ordinance and State requirements.
12
13 Commission:
14 • Discussed requiring a minimum amount of vegetation to be retained as part of the natural state
15 definition, such as a `majority' or `2/3,' and providing more specific information as to the types of
16 vegetation that could be removed.
17 • If requiring 2/3 be retained in natural state is too difficult to differentiate, language has to be
18 included more than stating land cannot be clear-cut. It may be beneficial to include an `intenY
19 statement.
20 • Adding an intent statement is less powerful because natural state means untouched by human
21 hands. If natural state is encouraged, this means not to trim or thin.
22 • There is essentially no area in the western hills that has been completely left in the natural state.
23 All of it has been touched by human hands.
24 • It may be necessary to include in the definition of natural state is `all that pertains to grading' with
25 additional language about maintenance and plants that can be retained to maintain a realistic
26 percentage of vegetation that should be retained in the natural state. The question is what
27 constitutes a not natural state versus a natural state.
28 • The best approach would be to define what is natural. A house is a known `unnatural.' Graded
29 areas are not natural state. How can the first 30 feet of clear-cutting for defensible space possibly
30 be considered natural? Such an approach is not a good choice.
31 • What does make sense is appropriately cutting away the underbrush that fuels fire and trim the
32 trees to an acceptable level giving the appearance of a natural state that is nicely maintained.
33 • Natural state is really a `look,' particularly with respect to what is native.
34
35 Susan Knopf:
36 • Appreciates the efforts being taken to establish goals and policies for development in the western
37 hills.
38 • Addressed defensible space and noted fire science is changing and new information is regularly
39 being developed.
40 • What is necessary to consider for large scale vegetation removal is what grows back. Often what
41 grows back is invasive vegetation which can be more flammable.
42 • Consider native plants in areas where there has been vegetation removal.
43 • Agrees hillside property should be properly maintained.
44
45 Rick Piffero:
46 • Important the public understand every permit whether it be for development of a house, road,
47 water/sewer infrastructure, vegetation removal, and other necessary permits for hillside
48 development, are subject to review by the Planning Commission, Building Official and other City
49 staff and agencies.
50
51 Staff:
52 • While it is important to have standards/regulations in place for hillside development, the Planning
53 Commission will review the use permit for development of parcels in the hillside.
54 • It may be that we do not know the correct percentage of vegetation that should be retained and
55 that this would result in selecting an arbitrary number that is incorrect.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 2010
Page 7
1 • Between the definition of natural state and the maintenance provisions, maybe the concerns can
2 be addressed.
3
4 Commission:
5 • There was further discussion whether to include or exclude defensible space as part of the
6 natural state so as to get a property owner to do the right thing and to achieve the desired result
7 because there has to be a balance with the required defensible space and safety.
8 • It may beneficial to add an intent statement to possibly further quantify the objective, which is to
9 retain the maximum amount of feasible vegetation in the natural state.
10
11 Commission consensus:
12 Natural State:
13 • Does not include areas that are graded.
14 • Should include defensible space when not graded and when vegetation is retained, thinned and
15 when trees are trimmed/limbed.
16 • Definition: Land in the natural or undisturbed or unaltered state, including maintenance of natural
17 grades, drainage, patterns, rock outcroppings, and native trees and vegetation, excluding
18 vegetation modification as required by the State of California Department of Forestry and
19 Protection for defensible space except when areas are planted and with native plants or in the
20 case of the area defined as Defensible Space by the State of California Department of Forestry
21 and Fire Protection planted consistent with landscaping standards for defensible space and
22 maintained in a manner that appears natural. The intent is to retain the maximum amount of
23 native vegetation and landscaping feasible and meet fire protection requirements.
24
25
26 9136.6 Maintenance, page 2 of Attachment 1: Article 11
27
28 Staff: This section was included in response to phone calls from property owners in the hillside district
29 that were concerned that were concerned that the ordinance would not allow necessary and/or required
30 maintenance.
31
32 Commission:
33 • Reviewed this section and recommended `maintenance' be a part of the natural state definition
34 even though every project is different.
35 • Concern was expressed that maintenance would be interpreted as allowing vegetation to be
36 taken down to the bare soil.
37 • The language does not encourage clear-cutting.
38 • The percentages of property to be retained in the natural state will be applied.
39
40 Commission consensus:
41 No changes to this section were made.
42
43 Page 3 of Attachment 1: Article 11: Average Parcel Slope, Minimum Lot Size, Minimum % of
44 Property Retained in Natural State
45
46 Commission:
47 • There was discussion concerning the % for parcel slopes greater than 50% and the associated
48 highlighted language proposed by staff. It was pointed out the existing ordinance indicates 100%
49 of the land must be retained for parcels greater than 50%.
50 • The R1 zoning of the R1-H district allows for a dwelling on parcels with this slope.
51
52 Staff:
53 • We need to remember that this is an average parcel slope and a parcel with this average slope
54 would likely have areas that are more steep and less steep and could have an area that would be
55 not as steep and feasible for development.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 2010
Page 8
1 • The current hillside ordinance was adopted in 1982.
2 • The General Plan that was adopted in 1995 designated these parcels as Rural Residential which
3 allows residential development. The hillside ordinance should have been amended after the
4 adoption of the general plan to create consistency between the two documents.
5 • The General Plan is the highest Planning document in the hierarchy, so although for areas over
6 51% the current requirements say 100% natural state, these could be developed.
7 • If the intent of the General Plan was to prohibit development of these parcels, they should have
8 been given a different land use designation, such as open space.
9 • The R1 zoning designation of the site does allow development with a residential use. The hillside
10 district is combined with this zoning district.
11 • In conversations with an engineer that has done hillside projects in the Ukiah Valley, due to the
12 constraints and costs associated with development of parcels with this type of slope, it is unlikely
13 that they would be developed in our lifetime.
14
15 Chair Pruden: As a participant in the General Plan, the intent and understanding was that development
16 would be allowed on these parcels. However, this slope is the steepest in the Ukiah Valley and would be
17 the most difficult to develop.
18
19 Commissioner Sanders: I would like it noted that I understand that the General Plan and Zoning allow
20 development, but I do not believe that development should occur on parcels with a slope of`over 51°/o.'
21
22 Commission consensus:
23 No change made to this language.
24
25 Page 3 of Attachment 1, Calculating Natural State
26
27 Item 2: Previously graded or disturbed areas (such as road, driveway, grading, building site) that existed
28 prior to adoption of the first hillside ordinance, that are not used as part of the proposed development or
29 redevelopment of the site...
30
31 There was discussion how the language would apply to fire breaks.
32
33 Staff: There are two options provided in this section. Staff recommends that second option since this is
34 language the"companion" of what is addressed in item 1.
35
36 Commission Consensus:
37
38 Strike language: Shall not be counted as natural state.
39 Include language: Shall be deducted from the gross square footage of the parcel used to determine the
40 minimum percentage of the parcel that is required to be retained in natural state.
41
42 Staff: Based on the direction provided by the Commission, some cleanup will need to be done to make
43 the revisions consistent with the direction provided by the Commission and with each other.
44
45 Planning Commission: Agrees that this needs to be done and does not need to see the amendments
46 again.
47
48 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 10:11 P.M.
49
50 M/S Sanders/Whetzel to recommend City Council approve the Text Amendments to Zoning Ordinance
51 Article 11: Regulation in Hillside Lot Size (-H) District as shown in Attachment 1 and revised by the
52 Planning Commission. Motion carried (5-0)
53
54
55 12. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 2010
Page 9
1 None.
2
3 13. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
4 Commissioner Whetzel reported Airport Day was a success.
5
6 Commissioner Sanders reported the City View Trail dedication will be held Sunday.
7
8 Commissioner Molgaard recommended that in the future speakers conducting PowerPoint
9 presentations or workshops sit where the City Attorney sits during City Council meetings. When looking at
10 the health and welfare of citizens for projects, she has many economic concerns and expressed she
11 cannot effectively evaluate projects without looking in depth in this regard and having the tools to make
12 informed decisions.
13
14 Chair Pruden reported the Taste of Downtown is Friday, June 10.
15
16 14. ADJOURNMENT
17 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:22 p.m.
18
19 Judy Pruden, Chair
20
21 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 2010
Page 10