HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_04082009 1 MINUTES
2 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
3 April 8, 2009
4
5 MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Listed below, Respectively
7 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
8 Linda Sanders
9 Linda Helland
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
13 Charley Stump, Director of Planning None
14 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
15 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
16 Greg Owen, Airport Manager
17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
18
19 1. CALL TO ORDER
20 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
21 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
22 Ukiah, California.
23
24 2. ROLL CALL
25 Roll was taken with the results listed above.
26
27 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
28 Everyone recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
29
30 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION —Site visits for agenda items 9A, 9B, and 9C were verified.
31
32 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—N/A
33
34 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None.
35
36 7. APPEAL PROCESS— For matters heard at this meeting, the appeal date is April 22, 2009.
37
38 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Major Site Development Permit 09-11-SDP-PC, Major Use
39 Permit 09-14-UP-PC and Major Site Development and Use Permit 09-10-SDP-UP-PC were
40 properly notice in accordance with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.6:03:20 PM
41
42 9. PUBLIC HEARING
43 9A. Site Development Permit 09-11-SDP-PC, Request for approval of a Major Site
44 Development Permit to allow fa�ade modifications to SchaYs Bakery and Cafe at 113 West
45 Perkins Street, APN 002-226-02 & 03.
46
47 Associate Planner Faso commented:
48 • The proposed project includes exterior modifications/improvements to SchaYs Bakery and
49 Cafe include:
50 - A new structural steel moment frame for the storefront.
51 - Proposed color Benjamin Moore "Admiral Blue."
52 - New wood doors and windows.
53 - New Sunbrella awning in "Sunflower Yellow" and white with logo and address.
54 - New pole sign.
55 - New exterior lighting.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 1
1 - New stone tile cladding limestone wainscote beneath windows. Proposed color
2 "Jerselem Gold."
3 - New horizontal entry tile. Proposed color"charcoal."
4 • The project involves the removal of more than 50% of the exterior relative to the front fa�ade
5 of the building that is more than 50 years old wherein the City Code requires review and
6 approval by the City Council for the demolition portion of the project. In March 2009, the City
7 Council found no historic or architectural significance associated with the structure and
8 approved the Demolition Permit for removal of the existing fa�ade.
9 • The Design Review Board (DRB) also reviewed the project since it is located in the
10 Downtown Design District with a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval.
11 The Downtown Design District Commercial Design Guidelines Checklist (Attachment 4)
12 addresses the DRB comments about the project for review by the Planning Commission.
13 • Page 2 of the staff report addresses staff's analysis of the project with regard to compliance
14 with the applicable zoning/General Plan requirements and consistency with the Downtown
15 Commercial Design Guidelines.
16 • The project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA review based on staff's determination on
17 page 3 and 4 of the staff report.
18 • Staff recommends approval of the project.
19
20 Staff provided the Planning Commission with revised draft project conditions of approval.
21
22 Senior Planner Jordan stated the applicant is requesting extended construction hours and offered
23 draft condition language. "The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
24 Construction activities shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance Division 7 Chapter 1, Article 6
25 including but not limited to Sections 6053 and 6054 as applicable."
26
27 Condition of Approval No. 15, a project condition from the Public Works Department does not apply
28 since the bathrooms are already ADA compliant and therefore, has been stricken.
29
30 There was a brief discussion about the noise ordinance and compliance thereof.
31
32 The Commission inquired about the timeframe for construction of the project.
33
34 Commissioner Helland inquired about City standards/guidelines for outdoor seating.
35
36 Staff advised outdoor seating in the Downtown area requires an encroachment permit from the Public
37 Works Department that includes regulations to ensure accessibility.
38
39 Chair Pruden serves as chair of the Demolition Review Committee and stated part of the project
40 evaluation determined that the building was not a historic resource and recommended the City
41 Council approve the proposed Demolition Permit for removal of the existing fa�ade. The facades on
42 111 and 113 West Perkins Street have been changed over the history of the buildings.
43
44 Chair Pruden stated the staff report/site plans/other relevant documents well explain the scope of the
45 project.
46
47 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:11:48 PM
48
49 Alan Nicholson provided a storyboard of the colors and materials/treatments for the awning and
50 building and addressed questions directed from the Commission:
51 • What is the duration of construction?
52 There are specific preparatory actions to be completed to include issuance of a City Building
53 Permit, purchase of materials, build doors and windows and a series of other relevant project
54 components before construction can begin. Construction is anticipated to begin in July. Other
55 preparatory actions relative to Phase I improvements include saw-cutting of the sidewalk,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 2
1 foundation work, and fa�ade work to the building at 111 W. Perkins Street. The site work for 111
2 W. Perkins Street should be completed within three weeks so that preparatory work can begin at
3 113 W. Perkins Street, which should likely take two weeks.
4 • How will construction be achieved?
5 The intent is to disrupt the Downtown area as little as possible during construction and this is the
6 reason for the request to modify Condition of Approval No. 8 so that work can be done in the
7 evening and on Sundays when other businesses are closed and there is little activity.
8 • The Demolition Review Committee discussed the possibility of incorporating 1923 style
9 windows on building and why this is not proposed?
10 In keeping with the original historical theme of the 1880s, it seems appropriate to incorporate
11 architectural aspects such as windows of this period. However, it is necessary to remove the
12 existing fa�ade and see what structural aspects exist in order to make a decision concerning the
13 design. To mimic the design of the 1880s would be disingenuous wherein the goal is to
14 incorporate a design that allows for a pedestrian experience looking and an experience for the
15 patrons inside. While 1923 style windows are architecturally pleasing, due to
16 structural/operational limitations this style would not be a good fit. The design should complement
17 the existing streetscape and neighboring buildings.
18
19 There was a brief discussion concerning the style of the doors for the building.
20
21 • Can you elaborate on the lighting features?
22 With regard to the lighting for the sign, it will be softly lit creating no glare with a `Honey Comb'
23 defuser on the front.
24 • Why was limestone cladding selected as opposed to red brick?
25 Limestone cladding will be used just below the window treatments of `Brazilian Rosewood' and
26 selected because this material architecturally is compatible with the window treatment, is durable
27 and nicely withstands the weathering of time, possesses a timeless quality, provides architectural
28 continuity between the two buildings and is a traditional material used on many commercial
29 buildings. Redbrick would not complement the proposed design of the building. Limestone is
30 lighter in color and more in keeping with the color of the Courthouse.
31 • Has consideration been given to the type of floor to prevent patrons from slip and fall
32 incidents.
33 The entryway will be of porcelain tiles and designed with the appropriate specifications for
34 surfacing to prevent people from slipping and possibly falling.
35 • There was an inquiry whether the restroom will be fully accessible.
36 It was confirmed that the existing restrooms are fully accessible as will be the front door. The
37 cash counter has been remodeled and is accessible. The plans show the required accessible
38 path of travel as required by the Building Code.
39 • Why was the yellow and white color scheme chosen for the awning?
40 These colors are a traditional look for bakeries and cafes and highly complementary with the
41 proposed design, materials and color scheme for the building. Having a bright awning offsets the
42 brightness generated from the Courthouse building across the street.
43 • Will benches be provided outside of the establishment?
44 Zachary Schat confirmed benches are part of the project.
45
46 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:34:48 PM
47
48 The Commission was in agreement with staff's analysis of the project. The building has been a
49 bakery since 1915 wherein the facades for the two buildings have been changed many times. The
50 proposed new design/remodel is in keeping with the social and cultural value of the business as a
51 bakery and its interaction with the Courthouse. Combining the buildings architecturally will make for a
52 uniform appearance.
53
54 Staff suggested that prior to the start of construction Schat's provide a notice to the same people that
55 received notice of the project to inform them of the construction schedule and construction hours.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 3
1 The Commission was supportive of the project and is of the opinion working at night was acceptable
2 because:
3 • There are no residential units close to the project site;
4 • Disruption to other businesses will be reduced since some are closed later in the evening and
5 on Sunday;
6 • There is less pedestrian and vehicular traffic after later in the evening and on Sunday; and
7 • The extended hours will speed up construction of the project and reduce the duration of the
8 disruption to downtown.
9
10 The Commission discussed the hours of construction and reopened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m.
11 for further discussion with the applicant in this regard.
12
13 The Commission supported Condition of Approval No. 8, as revised, and asked that the numbering of
14 the project conditions be corrected to reflect the project has 14 conditions of approval.
15
16 Staff will address any complaints should they occur with construction allowed during the night hours.
17
18 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:47 p.m.
19
20 M/S Whetzel/Helland to approve Major Site Development Permit 09-11-SDP-PC with Findings 1-8
21 and Conditions of Approval 1-14 with modification to Condition of Approval No. 8 and elimination of
22 former Condition of Approval No. 15, as discussed above and as provided for in the staff report.
23 Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present.
24
25 Findinqs:
26 1. See"General Plan" under staff analysis above
27 2. The project proposed project will only include modifications to the fa�ade and therefore will
28 no change the vehicular pattern of the site or create permanent hazardous vehicular or
29 pedestrian traffic patterns.
30 3. The existing building is located in the downtown area and therefore does not have any off-
31 street parking or vehicle site access. Furthermore the proposed project will not create a
32 hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses because the project
33 does not involve modifications to the existing street parking.
34 4. The existing building is located in the downtown commercial area and there is no on-site
35 landscaping. The proposed project only involves exterior modifications to the fa�ade of the
36 building
37 5. The proposed modifications to the exterior of the building will not restrict or cut out light and
38 air on the property or neighborhood because the footprint of the building will not change and
39 only the exterior fa�ade of the building will change. The proposed project will enhance the
40 neighborhood.
41 6. The proposed project will only include modifications to the exterior fa�ade therefore there will
42 be no damage to natural features and the natural grade of the site will not change
43 7. The proposed fa�ade change will create architectural interest and variety resulting in
44 interesting external appearance.
45 8. The project site is not located adjacent to a residential zoning district. The project is located
46 adjacent to properties zoned Community Commercial (C-1)on all sides.
47
48 Conditions:
49 1. Approval is granted exterior fa�ade renovation as shown on the plans received in the
50 Community Development and Planning Department and date stamped January 20, 2009,
51 except as modified by these conditions of approval.
52 2. On plans submitted for building permit, these conditions of approval shall be included as
53 notes on the first sheet of the plans.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 4
1 3. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
2 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
3 4. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
4 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal
5 agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing,
6 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building
7 Permit is approved and issued.
8 5. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed
9 prior to building permit final.
10 6. Building, Grading or other required Permits shall be issued within two years after the effective
11 date of the Site Development Permit, or the discretionary actions granted by the permit shall
12 expire. In the event the required Permits cannot be issued within the stipulated period from
13 the project approval date, a one year extension may be granted by the Director of Planning if
14 no new circumstances affect the project which otherwise would render the original approval
15 inappropriate or illegal. It is the applicanYs responsibility in such cases to propose the one-
16 year extension to the Planning Department prior to the two-year expiration date.
17 7. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Site Development Permit shall be granted only for
18 the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Site Development Permit and shall
19 not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except
20 to such specific purposes.
21 8. The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. daily. Construction
22 activities shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance Division 7 Chapter 1, Article 6
23 including but not limited to Sections 6053 and 6054 as applicable and prior to the start of
24 construction the property owner/applicant shall mail a notice to all property owners that
25 received the original meeting notice to advise them of the construction schedule and hours.
26
27 From the Buildinq Official (David Willouqhbv)
28 9. A building permit and demolition permit are required.
29
30 From the Fire Marshal (Chuck Yates)
31 10. The sprinkler system must remain in service at all times, while the public occupies the
32 building.
33
34 11. When the business is empty of the public and during times that heating, cutting, welding or
35 there is the use of a flame producing device, a fire watch is required.
36
37 From the Public Works Department(Ben Kaqevama. Senior Civil Enqineer)
38 12. Any work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured
39 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or
40 otherwise affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated
41 construction costs.
42 13. Any existing curb, gutter and sidewalk in disrepair that is adjacent to the parcel shall be
43 repaired. All work shall be done in conformance with the City of Ukiah Standard Drawings
44 101 and 102 or as directed by the City Engineer.
45
46 Standard Citv Requirements
47 14. The approved Site Development Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation
48 process if the approved project related to the Site Development Permit is not being
49 conducted in compliance with the stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is
50 not established within two years of the effective date of approval; or if the established land
51 use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty four(24)
52 consecutive months.
53
54 9B. Use Permit 09-14-UP-PC, Request for approval of a Major Use Permit to establish a medical
55 office, endoscopy center, and ambulatory surgery center at 271 Observatory Avenue,
56 APN 003-130-72. 6:50:34 PM
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 5
1 Senior Planner Jordan commented:
2 • Approval of the Major Use Permit would allow the applicant to relocate an existing medical
3 office and endoscopy center to the subject property.
4 • The Use Permit application also includes the use of the building as a non-ambulatory surgery
5 center.
6 • No modifications to the exterior of the building, site or landscaping are proposed.
7 • Use Permits run with the land, not the business owner or land owner. The City Zoning
8 Ordinance provides that when not used for 24 months, the use permit is considered expired
9 or revoked. A new Use Permit is required to establish the use. The use permit for the
10 previous medical/surgery center use of the site will expire in April 2009. Because the
11 applicant will not be able to re-establish a medical use for the building prior to the expiration
12 date, a new use permit is required.
13 • In 1993, a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Use Permit application for the subject
14 property was approved whereby the GP amendment changed the land use designation to
15 High Density Residential from Medium Density Residential. The Use Permit allowed the
16 operation of a surgery center and medical offices that ceased operation in April 2007.
17 • The site is located in an area that has a diverse mix of land uses.
18 • Staff's analysis of the project is provided for on pages 2 - 4 of the staff report with regard to
19 compliance with the goal/objectives of the Ukiah General Plan and consistency with the R-3
20 zoning district standards. The matters of parking and trees on the subject property are
21 specifically addressed on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report.
22 • In terms of parking, the 41 spaces provided on the site would be adequate to meet the
23 anticipated parking demand. While 49 onsite parking spaces are required by the UMC,
24 reducing the required parking to 41 should be adequate based on the operating
25 characteristics and the conditions of approval. Additionally, the site has accommodated a
26 medical office and surgery center for more than a decade with no record of complaints. Staff
27 is of the opinion the design of the parking lot should be adequate to serve a medical
28 office/surgical center use.
29 • Staff recommends approval of the project.
30
31 Chair Pruden calculated 39 parking spaces and inquired about staff's calculation of 41 spaces.
32
33 Staff confirmed as part of a site visit that there are 41 parking spaces. The parking lot is striped
34 differently than shown on the site plan.
35
36 Commissioner Sanders thanked staff for focusing on trees for the project as addressed on pages 3
37 and 8 of the staff report.
38
39 Chair Pruden stated the building is nice looking and is appropriate for the area. The site was a
40 former ranch wherein much of the vegetation was retained.
41
42 Commissioner Molgaard asked about whether there was adequate parking with the former use as a
43 medical office/surgery center.
44
45 Planning Commissioners and staff confirmed based on personal experience with the site that the
46 parking for this facility was adequate and there were no parking problems since patients were
47 typically dropped off and picked up wherein in vehicles were not left in the parking lot for long periods
48 of time.
49
50 Commissioner Helland recommended adding more trees and/or landscaping possibly in the parking
51 area to the north.
52
53 Chair Pruden commented the project may require additional parking accommodations. At the time
54 when the surgery center was built, providing one tree for every four parking spaces may not have
55 been a requirement.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 6
1 Staff recommended the Commission ask the applicant if he is amenable to adding trees in the parking
2 lot.
3
4 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:58:06 PM
5
6 Harry Matossian commented:
7 • He would be amenable to adding trees.
8 • The structure needs some work, particularly the roof.
9 • The building was constructed as a medical facility and should be used as one.
10 • The process of relocating his practice is expensive.
11 • The facility provides a valuable service to the community.
12 • In terms of parking for the former use, there was probably between 25 and 30 surgeons that
13 used the facility in addition to medical staff and patients. It was his observation that during
14 peak times of operation of the facility parking was never a problem. Surgery appointments
15 were appropriately scheduled and staggered such that there was no parking impacts or
16 impacts to the general operation of the facility.
17 • His operation of a medical office and endoscopy center at the current location on Hospital
18 Drive has served more than 10,000 patients in six years with only 10 parking spaces. His
19 staff parks on the street at the current facility. He is of the opinion that parking would not be a
20 problem at his new facility on Observatory Avenue.
21
22 Commissioner Whetzel is in agreement with the applicant that parking should not be problematic.
23
24 Chair Pruden stated the site has a landscaping strip on the east side of the subject property and
25 inquired whether the applicant would be amenable to planting seven trees of small to medium size for
26 shade purposes and stated ReLeaf can recommend some tree species that are fast-growing, low
27 maintenance, and capable of providing adequate shade. The addition of the trees can be included in
28 the project conditions as part of the landscaping requirements.
29
30 The applicant would be amenable to planting additional trees on the subject property.
31
32 Commissioner Sanders is appreciative the applicant has taken the economic risk of occupying the
33 facility for use as a medical office/endoscopy center.
34
35 Commissioner Molgaard expressed concern the project conditions restrict the applicant from
36 expanding use of the facility. She asked the question, `what if more doctors desire to join the
37 applicant and work/use the facility?" She further inquired about the process in this regard.
38 Staff stated the conditions of approval do not regulate how many doctors can use the surgery center.
39 Staff's concern is that the parking is adequate for the use and in compliance with the zoning code.
40 The project conditions of approval were formulated based on the project description submitted by the
41 applicant and the need to address parking and to make the necessary findings to support less
42 parking. Specifically, Condition of Approval No. 3 states, "The maximum number of staff persons for
43 the medical office and endoscopy center shall not exceed five fulltime and four part time." Condition
44 of Approval No. 4 reads, "The maximum number of rooms used for surgery at on time shall be two."
45
46 It was noted the applicant cannot predict the future and whether or not other doctors may desire to
47 join Dr. Matossian. The concern is potential violation of the conditions of approval for the use permit.
48 For instance, if three surgeries were being conducted, the applicant would be in violation with the
49 conditions of his Use Permit according to Condition of Approval No. 4.
50
51 Doctor Matossian commented on the former use of the building and reiterated parking was never a
52 problem at the facility even when operating at its maximum peak. If a building is designed for a
53 particular use, why not use it for what it is designed for. He cannot predict the future, but if the need is
54 there and parking is not an issue, let the facility be used for its intended use and hire people and let
55 people work.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 7
1 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:13 p.m.
2
3 Staff stated it may be that new findings are necessary. She referred to page 3 of the staff report, line
4 14 pertinent to parking that reads, "Pursuant to section 9198(F1), medical office uses require 1 onsite
5 parking space for every 200 square feet of gross floor areas." Based on 9,803 gross square feet for
6 the proposed use, 49 parking spaces are required. Forty-one parking spaces are provided onsite. The
7 zoning ordinance allows relief from parking requirements in the R-3 zoning district through the
8 discretionary review process provided the following finding is made:
9
10 `A reduced number of spaces would not adversely impact the health, safety, and general welfare of
11 the public.'
12
13 Page 3, line 25 of the staff report explains staff's analysis for parking based on the description of the
14 project.
15
16 Chair Pruden stated while the Commission is in agreement that the parking is adequate, the project
17 is required to comply with the zoning code whereby the findings relative to parking must be justified.
18
19 Staff referred to page 3 of the staff report, line 19, and stated the Commission can exercise its
20 discretion to allow no limitations on a Use Permit that runs with the land not the owner by making a
21 finding to support that the project has no parking requirement. Furthermore, the Planning Commission
22 could make a finding utilizing the history of the facility that parking has always been adequate for use
23 as a surgery center based on a certain number of cases per year and/or a certain number of doctors
24 would be an appropriate approach. If not, the proposed Use Permit is `open ended' and any medical
25 use can utilize the site and building without limitations.
26
27 Commissioner Molgaard expressed concern about approving an `open ended' Use Permit and
28 stated the necessary finding could read, "Historically, it has been demonstrated since the building has
29 been operational as a medical facility that that the 41 parking spaces have been adequate."
30
31 Staff stated page 3, line 14 of the staff report represents staff's discussion concerning parking.
32
33 Chair Pruden recommended inserting the narrative that reads, "Historically, this building has been in
34 operation for more than 10 years and has demonstrated that the 41 parking spaces is adequate for
35 the facility to operate at full capacity as a medical facility." The facility has a demonstrated empirical
36 record with regard to parking.
37
38 Staff stated the proposed above-referenced special finding the Planning Commission is required to
39 make and should likely be added to the second bulleted finding of item 3 on page 6 of the staff report.
40 Bulleted finding 3 of item 3 on page 6 could be eliminated.
41
42 There was a brief discussion concerning what `full capacity' implies. The Commission discussed the
43 possibility of removing condition #2 regarding hours of operation in order to provide flexibility and
44 Saturday hours.
45
46 Staff stated that the condition is based on the hours requested by the applicant and removing the
47 condition would allow a medical use to operate 24 hours a day seven days a week. The site is located
48 in an area with many residential units and the condition provides compatibility of the medical use with
49 the surrounding residential uses.
50
51 It was noted the applicant can come back later and request modification thereof.
52
53 Staff noted much of the discussion concerning consistency with the General Plan and Zoning
54 Ordinance had to do with the limited impact the surgery center might have on the neighborhood. If the
55 Commission is of the opinion based on past knowledge concerning past operation of the facility as a
56 surgery center that even operation at full capacity, the facility did not have an impact on the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 8
1 residential area would be acceptable. Staff's analysis would still stand, but it would be for a different
2 reason.
3
4 Chair Pruden recommended eliminating Conditions of Approval Nos. 3 and 4, allowing the facility to
5 operate at full capacity. She has had discussions with a neighboring medical facility that has indicated
6 there have been no problems when the surgery center operated at full capacity.
7
8 Staff expressed concern about allowing for an open-ended Use Permit since the use permit runs with
9 the land and not Doctor Matossian. The conditions are intended to make any medical use that may
10 occupy the building and site compatible with the neighborhood.
11
12 PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED: 7:19 p.m.
13
14 Doctor Matossian addressed Conditions of Approval nos. 3 and 4 that sets limits to his staff and the
15 number of surgery rooms that can be used and his opinion concerning the appropriate numbers
16 associated with the conditions that would be acceptable in order to operate at full capacity.
17
18 Staff stated Condition of Approval No. 3 relates to Dr. Matossian's medical office/endoscopy staff not
19 surgery staff and Condition of Approval No. 4 limited the use of surgery rooms to ensure that there
20 was adequate parking and the condition does not prevent all 3 surgery rooms from being used. The
21 intent was to provide some flexibility and control and to make the parking work.
22
23 Doctor Matossian confirmed the facility has three surgery rooms. He understands the Use Permit
24 can be modified if necessary.
25
26 There was further discussion concerning Conditions of Approval Nos. 3 and 4 with the regard to
27 future use and the potential to allow for some flexibility to operate at full capacity. The following
28 modifications were made to the conditions of approval:
29
30 • Condition of Approval No. 3: The maximum number of staff persons for the medical office and
31 endoscopy center shall not to exceed twenty(20)staff persons working at one time.
32
33 • Condition of Approval No. 4: The maximum number of rooms used for surgery at one time
34 shall be three (3).
35
36 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:25 p.m.
37
38 M/S Helland/Sanders to approve Major Use Permit 09-14-UP-PC with Findings 1-5 with
39 modifications to Finding No. 3 and Conditions of Approval 1-21 with modifications to Conditions of
40 Approval Nos. 3 and 4, as discussed above and as provided for in the staff report. Motion carried by
41 an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present.
42
43 MATOSSIAN USE PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW
44 MEDICAL OFFICE, ENDOSCOPY CENTER, AND AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER
45 271 OBSERVATORY AVENUE, APN 003-130-72
46 APPLICATION #09-14-UP-PC
47
48 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
49 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
50
51 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan land use
52 designation of the property in that 1) the medical office/endoscopy center has the potential to
53 serve the surrounding residential uses and the surgery center has the potential to serve the
54 doctors with offices in the surrounding area and their patients 2)the specific uses allowed are
55 determined by the zoning, which allows medical offices with approval of a use permit 3) and
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 9
1 the relocation of the medical office/endoscopy center supports Economic Development Goal
2 ED-1 to support a strong local economy.
3 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and applicable
4 requirements of the zoning district in that: 1) a use permit is required in order to allow a
5 medical office 2) based on the number of patients per day, the use is anticipated to be low
6 intensity 3) based on the surrounding residential uses and medical office uses, the site
7 serves as a transition and 4) the proposed use will occupy a site that is developed with a
8 building, parking, drive aisles and landscaping with no modifications proposed for the exterior
9 of the building or the site.
10 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the parking required for the use
11 based on the following:
12
13 ■ Zoning Ordinance section 9198(F1) requires 49 parking spaces based on 9,875
14 gross square feet of the proposed use. There are 41 existing parking spaces on the
15 site.
16
17 ■ Zoning Ordinance section 9051(H) allows a reduction in parking when a finding can
18 be made that a reduced number of spaces would not adversely impact the health,
19 safety, and general welfare of the public. Based on the historic parking demand for
20 the previous surgery center, when operating at full capacity, there is adequate onsite
21 parking to serve the proposed use.
22
23 ■ The width of the standards parking stalls, the width of the drive aisle, the backup
24 distance, and the width of the access driveway are consistent with current City
25 requirements. The previous surgery center operated for more than a decade and the
26 City received no complaints related to the operation of the facility.
27
28 Based on the above, the project provides adequate onsite parking and would not have an
29 adverse impact on the health, welfare, and general welfare of the public.
30
31 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, is exempt from the provisions of the California
32 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3(c),
33 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, which allows the change of use of an
34 existing building of up to 10,000 square feet when the project which allows buildings of up to
35 10,000 square feet of floor area to be converted to a new use when the use does not involve
36 the use of a significant amount of hazardous substances; where all necessary public services
37 and facilities are available; and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. This
38 exemption is based on the following:
39
40 A. The gross square footage of the use is 9,803 square feet. The mechanical room,
41 electrical room, and medical gas room shown on the floor plan have not been
42 included in the gross square footage since they serve the building, as opposed to the
43 use, and are not accessible from the interior of the building;
44 B. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and the amount of hazardous
45 materials used is not considered significant;
46 C. The use would be located in an existing building that is served by City utilities and
47 services; and
48 D. The site is located in an urban area that is developed with medical/dental office uses,
49 apartments, and single-family homes with no water courses, wildlife, wildlife habitat,
50 floodway or flood plain or other environmentally sensitive areas.
51
52 5. The proposed project, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding land uses and shall not
53 be detrimental to the public's health, safety and general welfare based on the following:
54
55 A. The site is located in an area with a mix of General Plan land use designations,
56 including High Density Residential, Low Density Residential, and Commercial. This
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 10
1 has created a mix of uses in the area. The medical office/endoscopy center is
2 consistent with the medical, dental, and surgery uses in the area.
3 B. The site is located in an area with a mix of zoning districts, including Low Density,
4 High Density and Neighborhood Commercial. This has created a mix of uses in the
5 area, including single-family and multi-family residential, medical and dental offices,
6 and surgery services. The medical office/endoscopy center is consistent with the
7 medical, dental and surgery uses in the area.
8 C. The project was review by the City Building Official and Fire Marshal. They had no
9 comments on or conditions for the project.
10 D. The project is required to comply with the 1) California Building Code for any tenant
11 improvements as applicable 2) City's Noise Ordinance and 3) all other applicable
12 City, Local Agency, State and Federal requirements.
13
14 USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
15 TO ALLOW
16 MEDICAL OFFICE, ENDOSCOPY CENTER, AND AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER
17 271 OBSERVATORY AVENUE, APN 003-130-72
18 APPLICATION #09-14-UP-PC
19
20 1. Approval is granted for the operation of an endoscopy center as described in the project
21 descriptions submitted to the Community Development and Planning Department and date
22 stamped March 13, 2009 and March 31, 2009 and as shown on the plans submitted to the
23 Community Development and Planning Department and date stamped March 13, 2009,
24 except as modified by the following conditions of approval.
25 2. Days and hours of operation are limited to Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00
26 p.m.
27 3. The maximum number of staff persons for the medical office and endoscopy center shall not
28 exceed twenty(20).
29 4. The maximum number of rooms used for surgery at one time shall be three (3).
30 5. No emergency services shall be provided, except as needed to provide medical care to
31 patients of the operator of the medical office and endoscopy center.
32 6. The facility shall not provide in patient services or hospital/hospital services as defined by the
33 zoning ordinance.
34
35 7. No onsite trees shall be removed without prior approval from the Planning Department. Any
36 tree proposed for removal shall be replaced with a tree that is appropriate for the location and
37 Ukiah's climate and shall be approved by the Planning Department.
38 8. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
39 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been
40 applied for and issued/finaled.
41 9. On plans submitted for building permit, if required, these conditions of approval shall be
42 included as notes on the first sheet.
43 10. Signs are not included as part of this approval. Signs require application for and
44 approval of a sign permit from the Community Development and Planning Department.
45 11. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
46 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
47 12. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
48 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal
49 agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing,
50 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building
51 Permit is approved and issued.
52 13. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any
53 future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
54 14. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed
55 prior to building permit final.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 11
1 From the Department of Public Works (Ben Kaqevama)
2 15. ADA compliant sidewalk shall be provided along the frontage of Observatory Avenue. The
3 existing driveway approach shall be reconstructed with a minimum 4 foot wide level sidewalk
4 behind the sloped driveway apron for wheelchair accessibility. Public sidewalk easements
5 shall be dedicated to the City where necessary.
6 16. Any existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Observatory Avenue in disrepair that is adjacent
7 to the subject property shall be repaired. All work shall be done in conformance with the City
8 of Ukiah Standard Drawings 101 and 102 or as directed by the City Engineer. Contact the
9 Public Works inspector, Rick Sands, at 467-5712 in order to determine the limits of sidewalk,
10 curb and gutter repairs, if any, that will be required.
11
12 From the Fire Marshal (Chuck Yates)
13 17. If keys are changed, they must be changed within the Knox Box to allow emergency access.
14 (CFC 506.1)
15 18. The site plan shows the trash enclosure in the southwest corner. This is the location for the
16 generator. Any plans submitted for review by the City shall revise the site plan to show the
17 correct location of the generator and trash enclosure.
18 19. The chemicals mentioned for sterilization are hazardous, but will not be stored or used in
19 quantities requiring hazardous materials investigation for this project. They are packaged in
20 individual usage quantities, being completely consumed in the sterilization process. NFPA
21 markings may be required on the entrance to the sterilization room at the discretion of the
22 Fire Marshal.
23
24 Standard Citv Requirements
25 20. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved
26 project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and
27 conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date
28 of this approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has
29 been suspended for 24 consecutive months.
30 21. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured
31 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for the work within this area
32 or otherwise affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be $45.00 plus 3% of the
33 Engineer's estimate of the constructions costs.
34
35 9C. Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit 09-10-SDP-PC, Request for approval of a
36 Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit to allow the relocation of CALSTAR at the
37 Ukiah Airport 1357 South State Street, APN 003-280-05.
38
39 Associate Planner Faso commented:
40 • CALSTAR has applied for a Site Development Permit to relocate their existing facility at the
41 Airport.
42 • The use includes office, crew quarters and aircraft maintenance. The project will include two
43 new modular buildings and the use of an existing hangar and modular. The two new modular
44 buildings will be used for the crew quarters and an office. The existing hangar will be used for
45 aircraft maintenance and the existing modular will be used by the aircraft mechanics as an
46 office.
47 • CALSTAR has been operating at the Ukiah Airport since 1998 after approval of the Site
48 Development Permit by the Planning Commission.
49 • CALSTAR currently operates in the West Central area of the Airport.
50 • During a CalTrans Division of Aeronautics inspection, CALSTAR was informed the current
51 location was not safe due to the helicopter operation portion of the business functioning in
52 close proximity to the hillside and within 50-feet of parking for small fixed wing aircraft. This
53 resulted in CALSTAR looking for a new location.
54 • Based on the definition of Fixed Base Operations (FBO), CALSTAR is an air taxi/charter
55 operation, which is considered one of the uses identified as an FBO.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 12
1 • A review of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines
2 relative to the proposed location of CALSTAR in Westside North has revealed that neither
3 FBO nor air taxi are identified as allowed or permitted in this area.
4 • However, the Guidelines allow the Planning Director and Airport Manager to make a
5 determination of the appropriate use whenever a use is not listed as a use permitted as a
6 right or a use subject to a use permit wherein findings are required. Attachment 1 of the staff
7 report addresses staff's findings supporting the determination that Westside North area as an
8 appropriate use for the CALSTAR operation.
9 • Staff's analysis of the project involved review of the following relative elements:
10 * Ukiah General Plan — The subject property has a Public Land Use designation
11 wherein specific uses are determined by the zoning of the property and in this case
12 the Guidelines for Airport Land Use Development.
13 * Ukiah Airport Building Area and Land Use Development Plan — The project site is
14 within the Ukiah Airport and as such the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan relates
15 to this project since it serves as a framework by which individual project located at
16 the Airport can be evaluated. However, it does not regulate the specific uses on the
17 Airport grounds.
18 " Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines —
19 The Guidelines divide the Airport property into five areas defined by existing land
20 uses whereby CALSTAR is proposed to relocate to Westside North.
21 * The existing medium size hangar will be occupied by CALSTAR aircraft. The
22 CALSTAR operation includes roto-craft and fixed-wing aircraft for the shock trauma
23 rescue portion of the operation. The Guidelines require an approved use permit for
24 use of inedium size hangars within this area of the Airport.
25 * Zoning — The subject property is zoned Public Facilities (PF). Airport and aviation
26 related uses are an allowed use in the PF zone.
27 " Parking—This matter is addressed on page 3 of the staff report.
28 " Use Permit - In order for CALSTAR to relocate to the proposed new site on the
29 Airport, approval of a use permit is required in accordance with the provisions of the
30 Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines and
31 provided specific findings can be made pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, which are
32 outlined on Page 3 of the staff report.
33 • Attachment 3 of the staff report is an e-mail from California Division of Aeronautics dated
34 April 1, 2009 addresses the relocation of CALSTAR's helicopter parking pad at the Airport to
35 the proposed new location to Westside North.
36
37 Staff noted the project is exempt from CEQA review because the total number of square footage for
38 all of the buildings is less than 10,000 square feet.
39
40 Chair Pruden questioned attachment 1 of the staff report, line 36 that indicates according to the
41 Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the proposed
42 relocation of CALSTAR to Westside North that neither FBO nor air taxi are identified as allowed or
43 permitted in this area. This area is all about FBOs in terms of what uses are allowed or permitted
44 wherein FBOs are encouraged. Many FBOs are placed in Westside North and considered a central
45 component thereof under allowed or permitted uses. Air taxi is a different matter.
46
47 Chair Pruden stated although air taxi is listed as an FBO, it is not included in Westside North
48 because a better site was identified on the east side of the Airport. There are compatibility issues
49 associated with helicopters and aircraft. The east side of the Airport would be a better site for a
50 heliport and helicopter operation. While the Airport Land Use Plan does not recognize air taxi in
51 Westside North, air taxi is considered an FBO. She participated in the creation of the Airport Land
52 Use Plan and noted staff, the Airport Commission and other interested participants carefully
53 considered Airport property as to the best and highest use for a particular area. The Plan reflects
54 decisions made concerning specific areas designated on the Airport for the best and most effective
55 use of land and whether such uses are allowed or permitted uses for each of the five sections
56 designated.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 13
1 Senior Planner Jordan stated a determination was made for the project by the Planning Director and
2 Airport Manager that the proposed use is an Appropriate Use in the Westside North Area. The Land
3 Use Plan is a guideline rather than standard and it allows the Planning Director/Airport Manager to
4 make a determination about appropriate uses.
5
6 Commissioner Whetzel addressed the Land Use Plan document and stated at that time he was an
7 Airport Commissioner and participated in the discussions. He recused himself from the CALSTAR
8 discussion and possible action. He has an FBO operation adjacent to the proposed new site for
9 CALSTAR. He does not favor the concept of CALSTAR relocating to Westside North. He cited safety
10 as a primary concern and noted the fact that fixed-wing aircraft in the vicinity are located in too close
11 proximity to the CALSTAR operation. On the other hand, he does not want CALSTAR to leave the
12 Airport nor place undo hardship because it provides a valuable service to the community. In his
13 opinion, the City lacked the foresight to effectively plan for the future and negotiate with CALSTAR to
14 make it feasible for this operation to relocate to the east side of the Airport, since the current location
15 for CALSTAR was temporary. This is the time to plan for development of the east side rather than five
16 years from now, which is the term of the lease agreement for CALSTAR.
17
18 Airport Manager Greg Owen commented:
19 • The east side of the Airport would not be feasible for the CALSTAR because hotels presently
20 exist in the vicinity in the Airport Industrial Park (AIP) allowing for noise and other impacts
21 since CALSTAR operates 24-hours a day. Other helicopter operations such as CalFire
22 operating on the east side typically work during day light hours.
23
24 • There are no existing taxiways or aprons on the east side. Construction of taxiway
25 connectors is on the Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) list with the FAA for future
26 improvements. The cost of the design and construction for this type of improvement is very
27 expensive. Taxiway connectors are necessary for CALSTAR because fixed-wing aircraft is
28 part of the operation in addition to roto-craft.
29
30 Commissioner Molgaard inquired how the hotels were approved with the Ukiah Airport Master Plan
31 in place.
32 Staff reiterated the hotel projects were consistent with the AIP zoning ordinance and Airport Master
33 Plan. The hotel projects are not located on the airport grounds wherein the projects were subject to
34 the applicable zoning outside of the Airport grounds. Whether or not the hotel projects were
35 consistent with the Land Use Plan Guidelines was not a part of staff's analysis of the project. In terms
36 of procedures, if guidelines are applicable to a particular project, such guidelines are followed as best
37 as possible.
38
39 Chair Pruden addressed the issue of hotels located in the vicinity of the Airport and stated what goes
40 on in terms of development in the AIP should not drive what goes on at the Airport. The intent is to
41 meet the needs of the Airport in the best way possible. The uses at the Airport have been in operation
42 long before the hotels were constructed wherein the intent is to develop the Airport to the best and
43 highest use. The Airport has tremendous potential for economic development in a positive way to
44 generate good revenue. The hotels/eateries/commercial establishments in the AIP actually
45 complement Airport uses because pilots can fly to the Airport and walk across the street to utilize the
46 facilities/services in the AIP.
47
48 Chair Pruden stated when the Planning Commission initially approved the CALSTAR project at the
49 current location, it was intended to be temporary.
50
51 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:47:50 PM
52
53 Gordon Jahnke is the hangar lessee adjacent to the proposed site for CALSTAR. He does not favor
54 the proposed project, stating a conflict exists between fixed wing and helicopter operations wherein
55 the two are simply not compatible. CALSTAR would be operating in very close proximity to fixed wing
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 14
1 aircraft in the immediate vicinity. In his opinion, the proposed activities for the CALSTAR
2 development:
3 1. Unsuitable for the area;
4 2. Inconsistent and in contravention of the City's obligations to the other tenants, more
5 particularly to himself;
6 3. Represents a nuisance and a hazard to existing operations in the immediate area;
7 4. Inconsistent and in contravention with FAA regulations as they relate to safety.
8
9 Westside North has light aircrafUsmall fixed wing aircraft operations and repair facilities. The
10 operation of multiple large helicopters would be inconsistent with these activities because of the
11 general pollution that helicopters create and inherent risks in their operations particularly operating in
12 close proximity to other airplanes and buildings. CALSTAR would be operating within approximately
13 15 to 20 feet from the building he currently occupies and, in his opinion, does not have sufficient
14 space to function appropriately as a rescue operation of the magnitude it currently operates. It is only
15 a matter of time before a CALSTAR helicopter causes damage to buildings and aircraft operating in
16 the same vicinity. Helicopters generate large amounts of dust and debris that can damage parked
17 aircraft and buildings. The project is totally inconsistent with current operations in Westside North
18 and he is certain the FAA would not approve of the project because of the innate safety risks and
19 potential damage to private property.
20
21 John Eisenzopf is in agreement with the comments made by Mr. Jahnke. He does not support
22 approval of the project. He owns a small plane and leases a hangar at the Airport. He expressed
23 concern about the project, citing it to be a safety issue and in potential violation of FAA safety
24 regulations/standards. Every time the matter of relocating CALSTAR has come about, safety issues
25 have been raised from interested persons and the public when intermixing roto-craft helicopters with
26 fixed wing aircraft. He addressed the technical aspects associated with the function of helicopters and
27 the problems they can create as a result, as well as problems created with the intermingling of
28 helicopters with fixed wing aircraft to persons and private property in terms of safety, impacts from
29 noise and potential damage to buildings and other aircraft. Helicopter operations belong on the east
30 side of the Airport. The Airport is intended to be self-supporting and operates as an `Enterprise Fund.'
31 He questioned why the former DHL building and grounds was not advertised and/or opened for bid to
32 allow negotiations from other potential FBO operations and/or interested parties/persons that could
33 afford to make improvements. CALSTAR is financially constrained from being able to make the
34 necessary infrastructure improvements for successful operation on the east side of the Airport. It may
35 be if there were competition from other rescue operations such as REACH, CALSTAR might be able
36 to find the necessary funds to make improvements. He briefly commented on some of the
37 infrastructure that would need to be in place in order for a trauma/rescue operation to function of the
38 east side of the Airport.
39
40 Mike Whetzel does not favor approval of the project. He supports effective use of the Airport Land
41 Use Plan for developments and projects to promote/encourage economic growth at the Airport and
42 sustainability as an Enterprise Fund and to discourage piecemeal development. Effective use of the
43 Land Use Plan allows for consideration as to the best and highest use of land and for careful thought
44 as to compatibility of uses with other uses, and compliance with other corresponding Airport
45 regulating documents that pertain to noise abatement and quiet flying procedures and/or other
46 relative documents. He supports CALSTAR relocate to the central portion of the east side or further
47 south for safety purposes and to eliminate potential interference with traffic patterns because it is a
48 more industrialized area. He understands the east side has issues with regard to the lack of
49 infrastructure and the cost associated with making the necessary improvements that include
50 water/sewer accommodations and a parallel taxiway to an name a few of the necessary
51 improvements. He is hopeful that at some point interest will be expressed in developing the east side.
52
53 There was a brief discussion concerning the space available for CALSTAR to operate at the
54 proposed location.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 15
1 Commissioner Helland inquired whether there would be fixed wing deliveries to CALSTAR and how
2 this function of the operation can be appropriately accommodated.
3
4 Mike Whetzel stated there are fixed wing deliveries made and indicated if a taxiway and ramp area
5 were constructed fixed wing deliveries could effectively and efficiently be done. The current location
6 provides sufficient space for this function. It is clear that CALSTAR requires sufficient area in which to
7 effectively operate to avoid jamming in other uses and operations that are incompatible and an issue
8 of safety.
9
10 Airport Manager Greg Owen stated the intent is to make improvements to the Westside North
11 location and provide for a grassy area to reduce dusUdebris impacts generated from roto-craft.
12
13 Mike Whetzel commented specific criteria must be met with regard to paving and/or general
14 improvements made to the area. There are also requirements relative to FAA regulations to include
15 potential encroachment on FAA advisory circulars that limit parking of roto-craft to within 100 feet of
16 other aircraft.
17
18 Commissioner Molgaard inquired how CALTRANS can support approval of a project that may not
19 comply with FAA regulations, particularly in this instance, with regard to interference with FAA
20 advisory circulars.
21
22 Airport Manager Owen commented on FAA regulations and stated the requirement is that aircraft
23 must be remain clear and/or maintain a safe distance from the advisory circulars although no specific
24 number is given relative to helicopter advisory for parking.
25
26 Commissioner Helland inquired how many feet away is the nearest fixed wing aircraft.
27
28 Staff indicated the distance is approximately 180 feet.
29
30 Mike Whetzel commented the concern is operating within close proximity to the taxiway for fixed
31 wing aircraft. There are recommended distances for helicopter operations to maintain with regard to
32 close proximity to fixed wing aircraft including maintaining a 500-foot distance from the runway
33 centerline. He has observed that fixed wing aircraft typically will not tie-down in close proximity to a
34 helicopter.
35
36 There was a brief discussion at what point do mixed operations of fixed wing and roto-craft essentially
37 become a judgment call such as when a fixed wing aircraft must stop on the taxiway to allow the
38 helicopter to pass by. There is also the element of maintaining appropriate communication between
39 pilots and compliance with Airport regulations in this regard to avoid safety issues and damage to
40 property.
41
42 Gordon Jahnke expressed interest in knowing what kind of information was provided to CALSTAR
43 as to how CALTRANS made the determination that the Westside North site is appropriate. He cited
44 various distances between the proposed structures for the project in conjunction with the number of
45 aircraft, noting the distances to be limited. He stated the proposed new location creates a high risk
46 situation. Again, he does not support co-mingling of fixed-wing and roto-craft operations because the
47 two operations conflict with one another.
48
49 Chair Pruden emphasized that CALSTAR is a valuable component to the community. The question
50 becomes how to effectively balance maintaining this valuable service and resource to the community
51 and finding a suitable site at the Airport in which to operate that works for everyone and in keeping
52 with the goals/objectives of the Airport Land Use Plan.
53
54 Commissioner Sanders commented based on the information presented, she would be reluctant to
55 make a decision about the project. She understands that safety is of primary importance concerning
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 16
1 relocation and has not been appropriately resolved. She recommended reopening the public hearing
2 for more opportunity to address the safety concerns raised by the Airport tenants.
3
4 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:22:04 PM
5
6 PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: 8:26:59 PM
7
8 Debbie Pardee, Regional Director for CALSTAR in Ukiah stated the issues discussed tonight are
9 of utmost importance to CALSTAR. She supports CALSTAR continue to operate in its present
10 location. The proposed relocation was mandated by CALTRANS and was not a choice on the part of
11 CALSTAR. The matter of safety was cited as the primary reason. The east side of the Airport is not
12 developed and relocation would not be financially feasible because of the lack of infrastructure and
13 cost to make the improvements. CALSTAR is willing to comply with what needs to be done to stay in
14 the community. The matter of economics places a constraint on CALSTAR with regard to
15 improvements to sites on the Airport lacking the necessary infrastructure. CALSTAR has purchased
16 new buildings to replace the older existing modular structure wherein the cost to relocate is
17 substantial. CALSTAR is a not-for-profit organization and funds are limited. CALSTAR provides a
18 very important service to this rural community.
19
20 Commissioner Helland asked if the project were to be denied whether this would have an influence
21 on CALTRANS.
22
23 Airport Manager Owen commented future FAA funding may be withheld if the Airport is found in
24 violation of the mandate. CALTRANS is acting on behalf of the FAA.
25
26 Airport Manager Owen stated the Airport has been complying with CALTRANS and the move to
27 Westside North was determined to be suitable. Denial of the project could have negative effects in
28 terms of withholding funding for Airport improvements for being in violation.
29
30 Commissioner Molgaard inquired what has transpired/changed from five years to today.
31
32 Airport Manager Owen stated there was no available hangar for CALSTAR.
33
34 Commissioner Helland stated it is difficult to make a decision concerning the project as the
35 information and discussion above appears to be `word against word' relative to safety and distance
36 issues. She supports having addition information about the project including more input about the
37 Airport Land Use Plan goals and objectives and why it was approved. She also supports responses
38 to the public comments made above regarding roto-craft pollution, risk/liability issues, and the issue
39 raised about why the former DHL building did not go out to bid.
40
41 Airport Manager Owen commented a smaller sized helicopter has operated periodically/seasonally
42 in the vicinity of Mr. Jahnke's hangar and Mr. Whetzel's aircraft repair business on the Airport without
43 incident, which is one of the reasons the relocation of CALSTAR should not be a problem. It has been
44 the policy of the Airport that when hangar tenant lease agreement expires not to go out to bid
45 potentially for another tenant, but allow the current tenant to decide whether to renew his/her lease. It
46 is not Airport policy to replace tenants unnecessarily/needlessly. With regard to the former DHL
47 hangar, it was determined the location would be suitable for the mandated CALSTAR relocation so it
48 was not necessary to go out to bid when the lease negotiations were transpiring with CALSTAR as
49 the potential tenant.
50
51 Mike Whetzel commented with regard to CALTRANS and corresponding liability issue that
52 CALSTAR must relocate because the current operation has the potential to cause damage to fixed
53 wing aircraft and is a potential safety hazard since it is currently operating adjacent to a hillside where
54 people often stand to view the helicopter portion of the operation.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 17
1 Airport Manager Owen commented CALTRANS Aeronautics has indicated the proposed site is a
2 safe location.
3
4 Senior Planner Jordan stated there has been considerable discussion and questions about what the
5 safety requirements are or are not and confirmation whether CALTRANS is working on behalf of the
6 FAA. Staff has the ability to take into consideration the comments made and concerns expressed by
7 the Commission and public and submit them to CALTRANS Aeronautics for review and assessment
8 of the proposed site versus the possibility of executing a waiver and allowing CALSTAR to continue to
9 operate at the current location. She recommended the hearing on this matter be continued to a date
10 uncertain allowing sufficient time for a response from CALTRANS.
11
12 Mike Whetzel commented it is possible to go above the jurisdiction of CALTRANS and make an
13 appeal to the FAA and for this agency to come and look at the site for an assessment.
14
15 Chair Pruden commented no one appears to disagree that CALSTAR is a valuable member to the
16 community and she disapproves of CALTRANS stepping in 11 years later requiring CALSTAR to
17 relocate when there has never been an incident at the current location. While the current location is
18 not great, it has functioned in a compatible fashion.
19
20 Commissioner Helland requested having a map with an overview showing exact distances to the
21 points of conflict raised with regard to space between CALSTAR structures and other FBOs
22 buildings/facilities in the area and distances to parking areas for fixed wing aircraft.
23
24 The Commission requested CALTRANS and CALSTAR review the issues discussed above in
25 addition to the following comments:
26
27 The Commission requested CALTRANS and CALSTAR review the issues discussed above in
28 addition to the following:
29
30 • The project appears to be inconsistent with the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and
31 Land Use Development Plan Guidelines as to the best locations for the helicopters.
32 • There appears to be contradictory opinions relevant to the compatibility of fixed wing aircraft
33 and helicopter operations at the Airport.
34 • TonighYs public comment indicates the proposed location is not a safe solution and
35 disagreement with CALTRANS regarding the impacts of the proposed relocation to Westside
36 North.
37 • There is concern that the proposed new site will create additional problems. As part of the
38 tonighYs public comment, tenants that have hangar operations and airplanes in the vicinity of
39 the new site have expressed concerns about the site.
40 • There may be conflicts with other aircraft and access to and use of taxiways in the event
41 CALSTAR aircraft need to take off in a hurry. The current location is convenient and close to
42 the juncture to get out on the taxiway without conflicts.
43 • CALSTAR has indicated the move is not of their choice.
44 • Would like to know if the CALTRANS determination that CALSTAR needs to find a new
45 location can be appealed to the FAA.
46 • The east side of the Airport may be the best location for CALSTAR. However, this location
47 does not have the necessary infrastructure at this time. Look into the likelihood and timing of
48 the City and/or CLASTAR providing the necessary infrastructure in this area.
49
50 Commissioner Molgaard recommends conducting a public meeting at the site so that very informed
51 and experienced pilots and aircraft owners can consult with CALTRANS in an effort to resolve the
52 level of conflict that is occurring at the Airport.
53
54 Planning Director Stump concurs with this recommendation and requests the Planning staff join the
55 Airport Manager and concerned citizens and meet as a group with CALTRANS.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 18
1 M/S Molgaard/Sanders to continue Major Site Development Permit 09-10-SDP-PC to a date
2 uncertain to allow time for staff to contact CALTRANS in order to communicate and seek clarification
3 of the issues raised at tonighYs Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried by an all AYE voice
4 vote of the Commissioners present.
5
6 10. ONGOING EDUCATION
7 10A. A Model Success: The Carneqie Institute for Global Ecoloqv
8
9 The above-referenced publication is for the Commissioner's information.
10
11 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
12 Planning Director Stump reported as follows:
13 1. There will be a Planning Commission on April 22, 2009 and May 13, 2009.
14 2. No appeals were made for the BeBops SDP/sign variance project.
15 3. Staff has met with the County Land Use Commission relevant to the Form Based Code
16 project.
17 4. There have been no Zoning Administrator actions recently.
18 5. City Council has met regarding the Streetscape project wherein the direction is to have the
19 public engage their input. This project is progressing and staff will keep the Planning
20 Commission informed.
21 6. The Courthouse relocation project is also progressing wherein the appropriate State
22 documents have been submitted. Staff is working with County administrators on this project.
23 7. Staff is working on the update to the Housing Element which must be completed by
24 December 2009. Staff anticipates the State will extend the deadline date. The intent is to
25 make the document more accurate to reflect a more accurate assessment of the housing
26 needs and goals of the community. Some of the tables for the Housing Element have been
27 updated.
28 8. Staff has been working on an update to the map relevant to the vacant and underutilized
29 parcels in the City.
30 9. The City is continuing to make progress on the mandated Municipal Service Reviews and
31 staff is working with other relevant outside agencies in this regard.
32 10. The City View Trail project that the Paths, Open Space and Creeks Commission has been
33 working on will go to City Council for consideration in May 2009.
34 11. The matter of Creek Maintenance Policies and Procedures will be discussed by Council in
35 May 2009.
36
37 12. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
38 Commissioner Whetzel invited the Commissioners to visit the Airport should they have questions.
39
40 Commissioner Helland thanked staff for providing very detailed background work on the staff
41 reports.
42
43 Commissioner Sanders reported the Tree Group/committee will meet tomorrow and the tree
44 document prepared by the committee has been forwarded to interested persons/commissions.
45
46 Commissioner Molgaard inquired about the mini-mart on East Perkins Street and whether the
47 marked pedestrian walkway as a safety precautionary measure was constructed as requested by the
48 Planning Commission during discretionary review of the project.
49
50 Staff will follow-up in this regard.
51
52 Commissioner Molgaard supports that City administrators plan and review what
53 measures/improvements are necessary to encourage and allow development on the east side of the
54 Airport.
55
56 Chair Pruden reported ReLeaf planted 20 trees at Nokomis School in March.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 19
1 13. ADJOURNMENT
2 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:07:17 PM
3
4
5 Judy Pruden, Chair
6
7 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
8
9
10
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2009
Page 20