HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_08262009 1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 August 26, 2009
3 Minutes
4
5
6 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
7 Judy Pruden, Chair Listed below, Respectively
8 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
9 Linda Helland
10 Linda Sanders
11 Mike Whetzel
12
13 STAFF PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
14 Charley Stump, Director of Planning None
15 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
16 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
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 cited the pledge of Allegiance.
29
30 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
31 Site visit for agenda item 9A was verified.
32
33 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—August 12, 2009
34 The Commission briefly discussed the current format for the minutes with some recommendations for
35 modification.
36
37 Commissioner Sanders made the following changes:
38
39 Page 8, lines 27 &28, strike `not realistic' and replace with `unnatural.'
40 Page 12, line 9, strike DZC and replace with `FBZ' (Form Based Zoning).
41
42 M/S Helland/Sanders to approve August 12, 2009 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (5-0).
43
44 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
45 Terry M., Program Director for the Network for Healthy California, Ukiah Unified School District
46 commented on the DZC, Section 4 that addresses allowed and permitted uses. As an advocate for
47 healthy eating, she does not support allowing fast-food drive thru restaurants in the Downtown area.
48 The intent is to encourage healthy eating and active living with elementary/high school level
49 constituents and their parents. There are 4.2 fast food restaurants for every healthy establishment in
50 Ukiah. She recommended delineating between the concept of restaurants and fast food
51 establishments for the DZC.
52
53 7. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this
54 meeting, the final date for appeal is September 8, 2009.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 1
1 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit 09-10-SDP-
2 UP-PC & Downtown Zoning Code Workshop # 4 were properly noticed in accordance with
3 the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
4
5 9. PUBLIC HEARING
6 9A. CALSTAR Use Permit and Site Development Permit 09-10-SDP-UP-PC. Request for
7 approval of a Major Site Development Permit and Use Permit to allow the relocation of
8 CALSTAR at the Ukiah Airport 1357 South State Street, APN 003-280-05. Continued from
9 July 22, 2009 and April 8, 2009.
10
11 Commissioner Whetzel recused himself from review of the CALSTAR project.
12
13 Staff presented the staff report along with the attachments. The attachments were shown on a
14 projection screen for information and clarification. The followings attachments were shown:
15
16 • Site plan for proposed and existing location
17 • Photos of exiting and proposed location
18 • Draft CALSTAR lease
19 • Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design
20 • Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 90-23 F Aircraft Wake Turbulence
21
22 Commissioner Sanders requested a summary of the information in Attachment 6, FAA Advisory
23 Circular, since the Commission does not have a copy of the full text. Also, the matter of rotor wash
24 was brought up at the April 8 Planning Commission meeting and she would like to have additional
25 information in this regard.
26
27 Staff noted complete hard copies of the Circulars are available tonight along with a scanned copy that
28 can be shown on the projection screen, if requested. Patrick Miles from the Department of
29 Transportation, Division of Aeronautics will comment and provide clarification regarding any FAA
30 Advisory Circulars and regulations regarding which Commissioners may have questions or want
31 clarification.
32
33 Commissioner Helland asked to see the site map showing the location of the Gordon Jahnke
34 hangar in relation to the distance to this hangar and the proposed site for the CALSTAR operation. Is
35 helicopter or aircraft parking allowed in front of the hangar adjacent to CALSTAR?
36
37 Staff projected the site plan with the proposed location of CALSTAR and the location of Mr. Jahnke
38 on the screen and noted Mr. Jahnke leases the hangar to the south of the proposed CALSTAR
39 hangar. The area in front of his hangar is for general use and not specifically assigned to any
40 particular tenant. A tie-down area is located to the south of this hangar and is available for longer
41 term parking of fixed-wing aircraft. Transient parking is essentially common space for the parking of
42 any aircraft at the Airport for a short period of time whether it is fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters
43 because this common area is not specifically leased to any one person. CALSTAR's draft lease
44 includes the former DHL hangar and the apron area in front of the hangar that extends to the grass
45 area.
46
47 Patrick Miles — State Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, Aviation Safety
48 Officer, commented as follows:
49 • He is an Airport safety inspector for Caltrans.
50 • The State of California through the Public Utilities Code highly recognizes the importance of
51 emergency helicopter services whereby special provisions are put into the California Code
52 that encourage these types of businesses/service providers in local communities such as in
53 Ukiah. Public Utilities Code 21662.4 references/addresses emergency aircraft flights for
54 medical purposes, which are exempt from local ordinances that may restrict operation
55 thereof.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 2
1 • The State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) holds the airport operating permits for all
2 Public Use airports where considerable effort is made to routinely conduct safety inspections
3 for these airports annually.
4 • It is very important to recognize the Ukiah Municipal Airport does not have a heliport nor is
5 such a facility recognized on the Airport Layout Plan, which is the document the FAA uses to
6 determine funding for projects in which Caltrans is also a matching donor. Caltrans does not
7 suggest there should be a heliport at the Ukiah Airport. Most airports in California do not have
8 a heliport. San Francisco International and Sacramento airports do not have heliports.
9 • When discussing the criteria associated with an emergency medical service operation at the
10 Ukiah Airport, the need is for a parking space only, which is different from a heliport and
11 subject to different requirements.
12 • If a heliport were established at the Airport, Caltrans has the authority to apply certain
13 standards or grant exceptions to the standards whereby the appropriate criteria to use would
14 be the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77. The FAA also put out an Advisory Circular
15 (1505392b, Chapter 5) and in this document there is text that pertains to the parking of
16 helicopters at airports.
17 • The matter of airport criteria relative to fixed or mobile objects is specifically addressed in
18 Table 2-3 of the Airport Design Guide (FAA Advisory Circular 150530013, Separation
19 Standards) that references sizes of different airports. The criteria/standards become more
20 stringent the larger and busier an airport becomes. The Ukiah Airport is somewhat remote
21 and small whereby the B-2 standards apply. The table in the design guidelines indicates the
22 distances between taxiway centerlines and fixed or mobile objects should be 65.5 feet. A
23 distinction was noted between a taxiway and a taxi lane with regard to the issue of parking.
24 The lines designate where the aircraft should follow in order to avoid other obstacles or
25 airplanes. The criterion is slightly smaller for taxi lanes (57 feet) compared to 65.5 feet for a
26 taxiway.
27 • There appears to have been some confusion about parking aircraft within three rotor
28 diameters. FAA Handbook 80, 83-25A is a training document for all pilots. Pilots should be
29 familiar with the instructions in the handbook. Page 4-8 of the handbook states, `The pilots of
30 small aircraft should avoid a hovering helicopter by at least three rotor diameters to avoid the
31 effects of down wash.' This does not mean a helicopter cannot be parked closer than three
32 rotor diameters of aircraft. The rules with regard to parking of helicopters do differ and are not
33 interpreted in the same way. Using the application of the parking standards for heliports in the
34 design guidelines indicate helicopters can be parked in much closer proximity to other
35 aircraft.
36 • FAA regulations for general aviation aircraft addresses maintaining safe altitudes for
37 airplanes and helicopters and specifically indicate while helicopters may operate at less than
38 the minimum prescribed for fixed wing aircraft, the operation must be conducted without
39 hazard to persons or property. This is essentially left to some interpretation. Again, there are
40 no specific numbers associated with what has been discussed in terms of how close or how
41 far apart parked aircraft and helicopters need to be.
42 • The above-referenced criterion is the position the State Department of Transportation,
43 Division of Aeronautics takes. Caltrans has highly trained professional pilots, land use
44 planners and engineers. The Department of Transportation Division Chief has submitted a
45 letter reiterating the position that other trained professionals in this department have taken
46 which is that the current location of the CALSTAR operation in Ukiah is not as safe as it
47 should be because 1) it is too close to objects and 2) the operation presents noise/other
48 nuisance impacts and/or potential hazards to persons moving between airplanes and the
49 Airport administration building.
50 • It is the position of the State Office Department of Transportation that the proposed location
51 for CALSTAR is perfectly safe and preferable to the current location and that CALSTAR
52 should operate at this location.
53
54 Commissioner Molgaard inquired about the process of potentially relocating CALSTAR and the
55 circumstances that occurred from 2005 to 2009. She questioned the risk factor for Caltrans not more
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 3
1 actively choosing to pursue the issue from 2005 until 2009. She asked the question because the
2 Commission must make a decision between two sites as to which is `riskier.'
3
4 Patrick Miles stated to date there has been essentially no change from the longstanding 2005
5 recommendation that CALSTAR relocate to another site on the Airport for safety reasons. The
6 problem has been that nothing was happening with regard to finding a suitable location for CALSTAR
7 to relocate. Airport Manager Owen has been instrumental in moving the matter forward. The issues
8 remain the same. How much risk is involved is likely open to interpretation. The current location is
9 `risky' enough that Caltrans is recommending CALSTAR relocate. He apologized to the community for
10 Caltrans not pursuing the matter more aggressively. He prefers the Commission take Caltran's
11 recommendation to relocate CALSTAR to the proposed location.
12
13 Staff referred to the summary table of issues provided in the staff report and projected on the screen
14 and commented staff's understanding in working with the Airport Manager is that no site was
15 available to move CALSTAR until recently.
16
17 Commissioner Sanders referred to correspondence from Mr. Miles and inquired about the concern
18 expressed for the fuel trucks that are parked near the existing CALSTAR operation.
19
20 Patrick Miles stated concern has been expressed where the fuel trucks are parked. The trucks are
21 parked closer than what should be the case. The proposed location better suits the fueling situation
22 than the existing location.
23
24 Commissioner Helland inquired whether the move is considered to be an urgent matter. Does the
25 recommendation still hold true if there was a transient aircraft parked in front of the southern or right-
26 hand hangar next to the proposed hangar for CALSTAR?
27
28 Patrick Miles affirmed that Caltrans recommends CALSTAR move to a more suitable location and
29 away from the passenger terminal and pedestrian/truck gate. His recommendation would remain the
30 same if a transient aircraft was parked in front of the hangar that is to the south of CALSTAR's
31 proposed hangar.
32
33 Chair Pruden asked if Mr. Miles agreed with the statement, `The optimum situation is to create a
34 heliport that meets all the Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics standards.'
35
36 Patrick Miles does not agree with this statement. He sees no reason to establish a formal heliport at
37 the Ukiah Airport. A heliport is established for the purpose of arriving and departing from a spot. This
38 recommendation has not been made by the State Department of Transportation. In the event the
39 helicopter moves off of the parking spot and to another place does not necessary mean it goes to the
40 runway, but rather moves to a location that is safer to make a departure without the need for a
41 heliport. He explained the technical aspects of how helicopters operate.
42
43 Chair Pruden stated the planning documents do recommend the development of a heliport on the
44 east side of the Airport for safety reasons. Is having a heliport a better option than not having one? Is
45 it better to have a designated heliport?
46
47 Patrick Miles would need more information in order to make an informed answer. Heliports are
48 normally far enough away from parked aircraft that when helicopters are stopping or taking off do not
49 disrupt the other aircraft. If a heliport was designed to be on the ramp, the area must be cleared for a
50 good distance, but it if the facility is developed away from the ramp and out on good surface area,
51 then a heliport would be a good idea.
52
53 Chair Pruden requested clarification there have been no reported safety issues in the 10 years
54 CALSTAR has been operating at the current location. While the current location is not the optimum
55 site, it has demonstrated during the last 10 years not to be unsafe.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 4
1 Patrick Miles is not aware of any reported incidents that involve a helicopter. However, the lack of
2 reported incidents does not mean that the existing CALSTAR location is safe nor is it a good practice.
3
4 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:45 p.m.
5
6 John Eisenzopf is an Airport tenant, owns an aircraft and works at a flight school in the vicinity of the
7 current location for CALSTAR. He has submitted written correspondence in opposition to the
8 proposed relocation of CALSTAR and the documents are included as an attachment to the staff
9 report. He commented as follows:
10 • Finds it interesting Mr. Miles does not recommend a heliport at the Ukiah Airport.
11 • The objective has been to separate helicopter and fixed wing traffic, which should be the
12 continuing objective. Moving the heliport to the east side of the Airport is the most effective
13 way to accomplish this objective, which has been the opinion of the Airport Commission as
14 expressed in public meetings and in the Airport Master Plan.
15 • He agrees with the Airport Master Plan that the goal/objective is to `minimize
16 helicopter/aircraft operational interaction.'
17 • He fully supports the operation and mission of CALSTAR and for this emergency service
18 business to continue operating at the Airport, but not in the proposed location.
19 • His primary concern is for safety.
20 • The proposed location is better than the existing location.
21 • The existing location is temporary and not the best location available, but it does have easy
22 access to the runway, which is critically important. From the existing location, the helicopter
23 can simply hover from the ramp and taxi across the taxiway to the runway in order to depart.
24 CALSTAR would not be able to do this at the proposed location.
25 • The new location would not minimize interaction between helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft
26 instead the opposite occurs because the helicopters would have to taxi for a length of three
27 football fields in either direction that is also shared with fixed-wing aircraft.
28
29 Commissioner Molgaard asked if the helicopters can go across the existing grass at the new
30 location.
31
32 Patrick Miles commented helicopters are not required to taxi to the runway to take off and depart and
33 they are not restricted to taxing on taxiways. According to regulations, helicopters are required to
34 operate in such a manner so as not to endanger people or property on the ground and this is the only
35 rule that pertains to helicopters. Helicopters are allowed to taxi across grass and take off from
36 taxiways. Again, helicopters are not restricted to the requirements prescribed by Mr. Eisenzopf.
37
38 John Eisenzopf asked why have a need for a helipad if a helicopter does not need one and can take
39 off and land from anywhere?
40
41 Patrick Miles stated there is no need for a helipad only the need for a helicopter parking spot.
42
43 John Eisenzopf asked why would any airport have a helipad?
44
45 Patrick Miles stated Ukiah is not considered to be a busy airport so that a helipad is not necessary
46 unlike other airports having high aircraft traffic whereby local authorities have determined the safest
47 way to conduct this type of operation is to have a helipad/heliport. Helicopters based in busy airports
48 are normally expected to avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic. The easiest way to handle helicopters is
49 to assign a heliport. The State officials do not make this recommendation for the Ukiah Airport.
50
51 John Eisenzopf expressed concern for the amount of dust and debris that would be generated by
52 helicopter operations at the new site, especially taxing across the grass field. When the Airport
53 taxiways/runways are swept, dust and debris end up in the grass between the taxiway and the
54 runway. The concern is that the debris generated by the helicopters could damage aircraft parked in
55 the vicinity, as well as create dust causing potential nuisance impacts and damage to hangar tenants.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 5
1 Commissioner Molgaard referred to an aerial overview of the Airport of the proposed site, and
2 asked why Mr. Eisenzopf states there would be more interfacing of aircraft at the proposed location
3 than what occurs at the existing location with regard to the flight school. The issue appears to be
4 more about debris than the interfacing of aircraft.
5
6 Commissioner Helland stated it may be that the project conditions of approval should specifically
7 address debris and maintenance of the area outside of the CALSTAR hangar, including the grass
8 areas.
9
10 John Eisenzopf stated:
11 • There would likely be considerably less interfacing of helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft if
12 CALSTAR proceeds straight across the grass field. However, he is concerned about the
13 amount debris that would be generated and kicked into aircraft hangars and maintenance
14 facilities in the vicinity of CALSTAR's proposed location. He commented on the matter of
15 relocating CALSTAR when it was more seriously discussed last year by staff and the Airport
16 Commission. It was noted at that time Caltrans had approved the new site and therefore, it
17 must be safe. Some of the answers to questions raised tonight should have been addressed
18 then and there was no opportunity. Any attempt to dialogue about safety has been shutdown
19 with Caltran's statement that the proposed site is safe and therefore, the site is `approved.'
20
21 • A public body having the responsibility of representing the public's interest in the democratic
22 process should have complete and correct information.
23
24 • The Airport Commission was informed there were no objections from the neighbors when in
25 fact Airport tenant Mr. Jahnke, the closest neighbor to CALSTAR, stated his complaints about
26 the proposed location in writing. This information was not shared with the Airport
27 Commission. The Airport Commission was laboring under a false assumption when
28 considering the project and it likely had an impact on this body's recommendation for
29 approval by the Planning Commission at the April 8 meeting. Also, the Planning Commission
30 should have had better information when the project was initially reviewed.
31
32 • In his opinion, a corruption exists in the democratic process.
33
34 • According to Gary Cathey, Division Chief, California Division of Aeronautics, regarding
35 Caltran's authority and jurisdiction over the proposed moves, indicated in April 2009 that
36 Caltrans has permitting authority over airports, not individual businesses on an airport.
37 Permitting authority over individual businesses lies with the specific airport's governing
38 authority, which, in this case, is the City of Ukiah and that Caltrans has jurisdiction over
39 movement areas such as runways and taxiways not ramps or parking areas. In the absence
40 of a formal plan present to Caltrans, there is nothing to approve and Caltrans role is advisory
41 only.
42
43 • He found out later Caltrans is not requiring this meeting in which Mr. Miles has alluded. Mr.
44 Cathey stated in a letter there are two alternative sites that have been discussed. These sites
45 were not discussed during Airport Commission meetings. One of options is for CALSTAR to
46 stay where it currently operates, but simply move the parking further from the embankment to
47 a different location on the ramp and this would satisfy Caltrans Aeronautics' concerns about
48 safety with regard to CALSTAR helicopter parking. Again, this was information was not made
49 available to the Airport Commission for this body to consider. While the Airport Commission
50 did consider several other locations on the east side and Northwest corner, this particular
51 option was never presented.
52
53 Commissioner Molgaard agreed Mr. Eisenzopf's concerns should have been better represented
54 and that the public agencies involved better informed.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 6
1 Chair Pruden commented when the Planning Commission reviewed the project at the regular April 8
2 meeting, the Commission did recognize that many issues regarding relocation had yet to be resolved
3 and this was the reason the Commission asked for the matter to be continued. The Planning
4 Commission at that point indicated they had insufficient information to make an informed decision.
5
6 There was a general discussion concerning CALSTAR operating on the east side of the Airport. Mr.
7 Eisenzopf stated the only matter standing in the way is the lack of water, sewer and electricity. It was
8 pointed out the reasons this option was not pursued was lack of infrastructure; costs associated with
9 making the necessary improvements; and the lack of funds available for these improvements.
10 CALSTAR and the City of Ukiah do not have the economic resources to make the necessary
11 improvements even if this would be a suitable location.
12
13 Commission Molgaard inquired whether a cost benefit analysis has ever been conducted.
14
15 Chair Pruden noted the Airport Commission minutes reflect many discussions concerning the
16 relocation of CALSTAR and available/suitable site options. The Airport Commission discussed the
17 cost of paving over the grass area at the proposed location and if CALSTAR is to go this kind of
18 expense the intent should be to provide for a designated heliport in the proper place as opposed to
19 just paving the grass area which serves no purpose except to reduce dust.
20
21 John Eisenzopf supports having a plan in place that benefits everyone and if money is to be
22 invested, it should be done properly and for permanency.
23
24 Paul Likens is the lead pilot for CALSTAR and commented:
25 • Has been a helicopter pilot for 40 years.
26 • Addressed some of the misconceptions: 1) the current location is safe, but the proposed
27 location is safer because the operation would not be in close proximity to other
28 aircrafUgeneral aviation people operating in the terminal building and vicinity, and
29 public/businesses that use the ramp. 2) The ramp area likely has more debris than where
30 CALSTAR is presently located, but because CALSTAR is the only business operating in this
31 location, they can keep the area clean.
32 • The grass area referenced above would reduce debris if the grass were irrigated and green
33 and maintained at a particular height.
34 • Relative to the issue of CALSTAR hovering over the runway, San Francisco International
35 Airport does not have a heliport nor do many other larger airports in California. Instead,
36 these airports have parking areas for helicopters. The CALSTAR helicopters would take off
37 and land from the taxiway just outside of the parking area and into whichever way the wind
38 is blowing, which differs for fixed-wing aircraft. CALSTAR would not interfere anymore in the
39 fixed-wing flow than it does now except when CALSTAR lands and taxies into the parking
40 spot, there would be less interference with a fixed-wing aircraft.
41 • The two fixed-wing aircraft the flight school operates with are within 100 feet or less of
42 CALSTAR. The proposed site allows for much greater distance between any parked aircraft
43 than the current site. There is sufficient room between aircraft provided transient aircraft do
44 not parked hap hazardously around CALSTAR helicopters. When such circumstances
45 occur, it makes if difficult for the helicopters to take off having to go straight up and mitigate
46 the rotor wash.
47 • Agrees with Caltrans' recommendation that it would be safer to relocate to the new site with
48 regard to effectively being able to mitigate safety issues associated with being in close
49 proximity to persons/property and noise/debris impacts at the current location.
50
51 Commissioner Sanders inquired regarding a letter by Patrick Miles dated May 20, 2009 that states,
52 `we further recommend the helicopter parking pad and surrounding area be swept or vacuumed on a
53 recurring basis to minimize potential debris damage from rotor downwash,' and whether this would be
54 a problem for CALSTAR to do on a regular basis?
55
56 Paul Likens does not believe this would be a problem and that CALSTAR can keep the area clean.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 7
1 Commissioner Helland stated when she observed the helicopter operation, it went pretty much up
2 and down and there was no taxing or hovering, and questioned this when Mr. Eisenzopf's concern
3 was primarily about taxing and interference with fixed-wing aircraft from a safety standpoint. Will the
4 helicopter taxi?
5
6 Paul Likens stated the one aircraft with wheels will taxi on the ground, rolls like an airplane and
7 generates very little rotor wash. The other aircraft has skids on it and generates more rotor wash
8 because it is 9,000 pounds heavier and because it is on skids, the aircraft must be taken out to a
9 hover that requires a lot more power than just rolling on wheels. A helicopter does not have to hover.
10 In the many airports that CALSTAR operates, they rarely use the runway. The only time CALSTAR
11 would use the runway at SF International Airport, for instance, is when there is inclement weather and
12 subject to instrument flight rules. He cannot recall ever having to touch down in a helicopter on the
13 runway at SF International Airport. When he breaks out of a cloud and goes down the runway part
14 way, there are two types of taxing: 1). Hover taxi 2). Air taxi. Hover taxi is below 50 feet and air taxi is
15 above 50 feet. After breaking out of the clouds the tower will clear to air taxi and park. At SF
16 International Airport, he just parks off to the side of the general aviation terminal area.
17
18 Commissioner Sanders asked if Ukiah Airport has received complaints for safety issues or concerns
19 about rotor wash from the other tenants?
20
21 Paul Likens stated there have been no complaints from tenants. There have been two minor
22 incidents involving fixed-wing aircraft and it remains questionable whether CALSTAR was truly at fault
23 in these cases.
24
25 Commissioner Molgaard asked if the plan should be to irrigate the grass area and allow it to grow to
26 a reasonable height as opposed to paving it over?
27
28 Paul Likens stated it would be cost effective to maintain grass and explained how this would benefit
29 the operation in terms of mobility and less potential impacts would be created from dust and debris.
30
31 Commissioner Helland asked if in Mr. Likens' opinion, while the move will be costly whether it is the
32 best option compared to relocating to the east side of the Airport?
33
34 Paul Likens stated even though the move will be costly, there will be increased safety and the
35 location will provide for better efficiency particularly for the aircraft mechanics because the facilities
36 including the crew-quarters will be in the same location, more isolated and overall provide for a more
37 effective/organized operation. In terms of relocating to the east side, even though this is a good
38 location because the area would likely be developed with a helipad and designated parking, it would
39 be too costly to improve at this point. The east side does not have a taxiway that goes to the runway.
40 CALSTAR would essentially need access to a taxiway coming off the runway to a private ramp, which
41 may be problematic. It would be difficult to keep airplanes/transient aircraft from potentially interfering
42 with the taxiway after exiting the runway. While this is acceptable procedure, in actuality `aircraft exit
43 the runway in both ends and once in the middle and all on the same side of the runway and this could
44 lead to confusion.'
45
46 Commissioner Molgaard requested clarification if CALSTAR has engaged in discussions with either
47 the Airport Commission and/or City staff in terms of planning to relocate to the eastside of the runway.
48 CALSTAR should at least be a participant in this planning process.
49
50 Paul Likens stated it is not CALSTAR's job to engage in such a plan. CALSTAR has discussed
51 relocation to the east side of the Airport with the Airport Commission. The necessary infrastructure
52 simply does not exist to allow CALSTAR to operate in this location.
53
54 Commissioner Helland asked if it would be possible at the existing site to move the present parking
55 area further out to the ramp?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 8
1 Paul Likens stated moving the parking further out to the ramp only gets the helicopter operation
2 away from the hillside and this would eliminate some transient parking for airplanes. The noise
3 impacts and the possible incursion of pedestrians and vehicles would not be mitigated at this location.
4
5 Phillip Ashiku commented:
6 • Is an airport tenant and an immediate tenant to CALSTAR at the current location.
7 • The present location is a tremendous safety hazard to people visiting the Airport terminal
8 and/or to transient parking facilities in the vicinity.
9 • As a person having a hangar next to CALSTAR, he has experienced no problems at all.
10 • Patrick Miles is the expert in the field of aviation and safety. His recommendation should be
11 recognized.
12 • Supports relocation to the former DHL hangar site as being perfectly safe.
13
14 Mark Ashiku commented:
15 • Agreed with Phillip Ashiku's comments.
16 • The current location is unsafe and uncomfortable/inappropriate because the helicopter is
17 parked right near the Airport terminal and sidewalk where employees and the public walk and
18 congregate.
19 • CALSTAR serves as a very valuable resource to this community.
20 • Briefly commented on helicopter flying protocol and facilities CALSTAR needs in order to
21 effectively function as an emergency rescue service.
22 • Patrick Miles is qualified expert and his recommendation should be taken.
23 • Supports relocation to the proposed site because it represents a significant improvement
24 from a safety/security perspective.
25
26 Don Albright commented:
27 • Is a tenant on the on the south end of the Airport.
28 • Agrees with the comments made by Mark and Phillip Ashiku.
29 • Advised that CALSTAR has had some damage to their aircraft as a result of vandalism at the
30 current location. Having a hangar to house aircraft is very important unlike the present
31 circumstance.
32 • The current location is a problem because it is located near the ramp that is used by the
33 public and businesses, such as UPS trucks, and with CALSTAR operating in close proximity
34 presents a significant safety hazard.
35 • With regard to debris, much of this is generated from the infield as a result of mowing the
36 grass and the cuttings blow around the Airport.
37 • Supports relocation to the proposed site.
38
39 There was a brief discussion concerning debris. It was noted the Airport taxiways and runways are
40 swept and this maintenance task has increased more so this summer.
41
42 Gordon Gore commented:
43 • He was a commercial pilot/flight instructor and has been flying to and from the Airport since
44 1972.
45 • Referred to the proposed site and noted at one time he leased a hangar in the area.
46 Eventually the hangar adjacent to his was rented by Winters Helicopter Service. He and Mr.
47 Winters had problems with their individual operations because his access was continually
48 blocked by Mr. Winter's operation. When the City constructed a ramp for him, there was
49 never a problem with interference between his fixed-wing operation and the helicopter service
50 business.
51 • With regard to the element of debris on taxiways, helicopters actually sweep the debris away.
52 • The existing site for CALSTAR was chosen because it had electricity, water and sewer
53 service and not for any other reason.
54 • Supports relocation to the proposed site.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 9
1 Dottie Deerwester commented:
2 • Is the Chair of the Airport Commission.
3 • The Airport Commission spent many hours in meetings discussing the relocation of
4 CALSTAR and options available.
5 • The relocation was planned as opposed to being a hodge-podge move.
6 • An Airport Land Use and Layout Plan has been adopted and is used for the purpose of
7 determining the best and highest use for a particular facility/Fixed Base Operator (FBO)
8 and/or new development for a specific area on the Airport. The Airport Commission is highly
9 committed to the application of this document, which was referred to during the discussions
10 concerning the pros and cons for relocating CALSTAR.
11 • A sub-committee was formed to look at site options.
12 • The Airport Commission closely evaluated all options when the DHL hangar became
13 available, including the present location taking into consideration cost factors for making
14 improvements to a particular site and/or development of infrastructure, before making a
15 recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval.
16 • The Airport Commission unanimously supports recommending CALSTAR relocate to the east
17 side of the Airport. However, this location is not feasible because it would be too costly for the
18 City and CALSTAR to make the infrastructure improvements necessary for CALSTAR to
19 operate as helicopter emergency rescue service. Since this move is not feasible at this time,
20 the Airport Commission recommends relocating CALSTAR to the former DHL hangar,
21 including the grassy area and keeping this area grassy.
22 • The Airport Commission, staff, CALSTAR and City Council agreed the proposed site should
23 be for a period of five years, allowing time to develop the east side of the Airport as a
24 permanent location, if this is possible/feasible.
25 • It was agreed the City should have the option whether or not to renew/extend the lease when
26 it expires.
27 • FedEx was consulted with and supportive of the relocation.
28 • The Airport Commission also reviewed the site layout in terms of compliance with setbacks
29 and Building Restriction Line and other regulations.
30 • The project evaluation is essentially a planned approach to dealing with the safety issue,
31 utilizing space that became available, and effectively maximizing the use of land to benefit
32 the Airport.
33 • CALSTAR will pay for the relocation costs at the proposed location, which is a `real crediY to
34 them.
35 • Relocation to the proposed site is a `win-win' solution.
36
37 Chair Pruden asked if the Airport land use guidelines are still useful as a tool for land use planning ?
38
39 Dottie Deerwester stated the planning documents are valuable and did provide direction for the
40 Airport Commission toward making the decision for CALSTAR to relocate to the new site. As
41 redevelopment monies become available, there may be other opportunities to develop areas on the
42 Airport, such as the north east corner to promote tourism and work with the hotels in the Airport
43 Industrial Park.
44
45 There was discussion concerning development of the east side of the Airport and it was noted the
46 cost of making improvements for future development is the reason this is not feasible at this time. The
47 Airport Land Use document addresses allowed and permitted uses for this section of the Airport to
48 assist with decision making about future development as to the best and highest use of land to benefit
49 the Airport.
50
51 Duell Parks commented:
52 • Owns a helicopter and has used the Airport since 1974.
53 • CALSTAR has been very conscientious and considerate about maintaining safety at the
54 Airport.
55 • Helicopter pilots must be very knowledgeable about rules and protocol at airports.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 10
1 • The present location where CALSTAR is very unsafe because of the pedestrian and
2 vehicular traffic in the ramp and sidewalk area where CALSTAR helicopters park.
3 • Supports relocation.
4
5 Richard Howland
6 • Has leased a hangar adjacent to CALSTAR and he has issue with the fuel trucks parked in
7 the immediate vicinity of the CALSTAR operation, noting it to be hazardous.
8 • The nation is in a major recession and it is not known how long this could continue. While the
9 east side of the Airport would be a good site as a permanent location, it is economically
10 unfeasible to develop/make improvements at this time.
11 • The proposed location is suitable.
12
13 Eric Crane commented:
14 • Serves as an Airport Commissioner.
15 • Planning documents generally do not `fair well' in Ukiah. The Airport has the Airport Master
16 Plan and Airport Land Use and Layout Plan to direct and guide development and uses at the
17 Airport. The existing Airport planning document says that helicopter traffic should be directed
18 to the east side.
19 • Relocation of CALSTAR to the DHL Hangar appears to be a better solution compared to what
20 is existing, but it is not consistent with the long term planning documents.
21 • Referred to the site plans and questioned whether the crew quarters building complies with
22 the building setback line. The diagram indicates the building is east of the building setback
23 line and whether this is in compliance with the Building Restriction Line. It is his
24 understanding with regard to the existing hangars in the area, the reason they are not closer
25 to the runway is because they are not allowed to be.
26 • Supports relocation to the proposed site even though the site is not ideal.
27
28 Nick Bishop
29 • Is a business owner on the Airport and his business is located midway between the existing
30 and proposed site for CALSTAR.
31 • The existing site does not mix well with the many activities that occur in this area.
32 • Supports relocation to the proposed site.
33
34 Airport Manager Owen addressed compliance with the development standards for the crew
35 quarters building in relation to the Building Restriction Line. The chain link fence on the FedEx side
36 going north/south essentially marks the boundary for the Building Restriction Line. The building will be
37 setback so as to comply with the Building Restriction line.
38
39 There was a brief discussion concerning the CALSTAR lease agreement. CALSTAR is required to
40 maintain the two grass areas on the site so that no Foreign Object Debris (FOD) is produced from the
41 operation.
42
43 Staff provided this section of the draft lease on the projection screen for review by Commission and
44 the public.
45
46 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:13 p.m.
47
48 Commission summary comments:
49
50 Chair Pruden—The project presents complicated issues.
51 • Agreed the Airport Commission thoroughly/carefully discussed the relocation of CALSTAR as
52 reflected in the minutes for this Commission.
53 • Supports the application of planning documents/guidelines that direct land use at the Airport.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 11
1 • Supports CALSTAR relocate to the east side of the Airport as documented in the Airport Land
2 Use and Layout Plan as the ideal location, but understands that due to economic conditions
3 this is not possible at this time.
4 • She was very dismayed over the rumor that she and Commissioner Whetzel were not
5 supportive of CALSTAR. To the contrary, CALSTAR provides an invaluable service to this
6 community.
7 • The project submits to the practicality/reality of the situation and essentially
8 disregards/discounts the documents in place that provide the foundations and input for good
9 planning at the Airport.
10
11 PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED: 8:34 p.m.
12
13 Debbie Pardee, Regional Director for CALSTAR in Ukiah commented on the site development
14 permit portion of the project and explained the layout of the buildings relative to compliance with the
15 building setback rules.
16
17 Dottie Deerwester commented:
18 • When the Airport Commission was reviewing the land use document in connection with the
19 different sections on the Airport in order to find an acceptable area for Caltrans to relocate,
20 the Commission actually declined to consider some areas because they were not in
21 compliance with the Airport Master Plan and/or Airport Land Use and Layout Plan.
22
23 Commissioner Helland commented:
24 • Supports following the planning and land use documents that guide development at the
25 Airport.
26 • The primary concern for relocation is the matter of safety.
27 • She understands the pros and cons of the project.
28 • The current location presents more of a safety risk to people.
29 • Is concerned about the issue of debris that was discussed and supports possibly adding
30 language to Condition of Approval No. 2 to better address this issue.
31 • Make it a project condition that the premises must be swept at least once a month.
32
33 Chair Pruden stated CALSTAR has indicated they would clean their area.
34
35 Commissioner Sanders commented:
36 • Commended staff for acting diligently in responding to the issues/concerns raised at the
37 regular April 8 Planning Commission meeting and appreciates that CALSTAR operates in
38 Ukiah and is an important resource in Mendocino County. She also appreciates Mr. Miles
39 being present to address concerns raised in April.
40 • Patrick Miles is the qualified expert and his recommendations do effectively speak to the
41 issues of safety and debris.
42 • The matter of debris should be managed on a daily basis.
43 • It is not necessary to make the matter of debris a project condition because CALSTAR has
44 stated there has only been two complaints in the many years of service at the Airport.
45 • Public testimony has indicated that CALSTAR is a very responsible business and careful
46 about safety and debris and/or any other impacts to persons, vehicles, property, and aircraft
47 and will continue to act responsibly at the new site.
48 • Supports approval of the project.
49
50 Commissioner Molgaard commented:
51 • Although the Airport Land Use and Layout Plan serves a valuable purpose, she is more
52 concerned with moving CALSTAR to a site that is much safer.
53 • Inquired whether it would be useful to condition the lease that Caltrans could be required to
54 relocate if the east side were developed so as to avoid a situation whereby money becomes
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 12
1 available for development and infrastructure improvements and no action is taken to
2 encourage relocation.
3
4 Airport Manager Owen commented in response to lease agreements and with adding conditions,
5 there maybe a requirement that if a tenant according to his/her lease must move in five years, the
6 City must pay the cost of the move. The CALSTAR lease has been approved by the City Council and
7 must now be executed by the City Manager. The lease is for a term of five years.
8
9 Commissioner Molgaard stated while the chance the east side can be developed in five years is
10 `slim,' adding a condition to the lease or Use Permit/Site Development Permit would demonstrate the
11 overall intent is compliance with the Airport Land Use and Layout Plan.
12
13 Staff provided the section of the draft lease projected on the screen for review by Commission and
14 the public.
15
16 Airport Manager Owen stated it may be the City Attorney should review the matter. Additionally, a
17 lease must be legally binding and can only contain specific terms and conditions and must conform to
18 lease laws.
19
20 Dottie Deerwester addressed the matter of the lease agreement, and stated the Airport Commission
21 did review the lease agreement and had a discussion whether a clause should be added stating
22 CALSTAR must relocate to the east side or other more suitable area. One of the reasons the
23 Commission did not support including such a clause is because it may be that there is no money
24 available to develop a site on the east side; therefore, no development can take place, which would
25 mean the City is `stuck' with the cost to move CALSTAR. In this regard, there is a lease extension
26 and/or renewable lease option clause in the lease that allows the City flexibility whether or not to
27 renew the lease in the event the existing use needs to be changed to better benefit the Airport or that
28 a more suitable site is available wherein CALSTAR would move and incur the cost.
29
30 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:52 p.m.
31
32 Commissioner Molgaard stated the lease extension clause wherein the City can exercise the option
33 whether or not to renew the lease satisfies her concern about further conditioning the lease to require
34 CALSTAR relocate to a permanent location at some point in the future in order to comply with the
35 existing planning and land use documents .
36
37 The Commission modified Condition of Approval No. 2 to read:
38 On plans submitted for building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate how Foreign Object Debris
39 (FOD)will be managed. This includes installation of`hard' grass in the areas identified as grass areas
40 on the proposed site plan.
41
42 There was brief discussion about how the landscaping has significantly deteriorated at the DHL
43 Hangar and the Commission supports adding a condition that addresses the landscaping. The
44 Commission recommended using standard condition regarding required landscape maintenance.
45
46 Staff recommended using standard landscaping language that applies to Commercial zones.
47
48 The Commission added Condition of Approval No. 15 and reads:
49
50 All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of the
51 plants, shrubs and trees.
52
53 M/S Molgaard/Sanders to approve Major Use Permit 09-10—SDP-UP-PC with Findings 1-7 and staff
54 to expand the findings to reflect the discussion of the safety improvements and the difference
55 between the existing and proposed sites and Major Site Development Permit with Findings 1-3 and
56 Conditions of Approval for the Use Permit and Site Development Permit 1-14 with modification to
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 13
1 Condition of Approval No. 2 and the addition of Condition of Approval No. 15. Motion carried with the
2 following roll call vote:
3
4 AYES: Commissioners Sanders, Helland, Molgaard and Chair Pruden
5 NOES: None
6 RECUSED: Commissioner Whetzel
7
8 DRAFT USE PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW
9 CALSTAR OPERATIONS TO LOCATE AT 1351 SOUTH STATE STREET ON THE AIRPORT
10 GROUNDS AND OCCUPY AN MEDIUM SIZE HANGAR.
11
12 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
13 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
14
15 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the following General Plan goals and
16 policies:
17
18 • Airport Goal AE-1: Promote the Ukiah City Airport for the community benefit both now and in
19 the future.
20
21 The relocation of the CALSTAR operations to the proposed site will allow for the
22 continuation of a viable business at the Ukiah City Airport. This business will provide the
23 community with emergency medical transportation, which is valuable service in rural
24 community.
25
26 • Airport Policv AE-1.1: Ensure that the airport's vitality and growth help achieve the General
27 Plan Vision.
28
29 The relocation of CALSTAR will allow for the airport to continue to grow in that the exiting
30 location can be used by another business that would benefit the community.
31
32 • Airport Goal AE-2: Provide for long-term viability of the airport.
33
34 The relocation of CALSTAR will allow emergency medical transportation to stay and
35 continue to function at the Ukiah Airport which will ad to the continued growth of the
36 airport.
37
38 ■ Communitv Facilities and Services Goal CF-8: Maintain effective, fast, and dependable
39 emergency medical response in the Valley.
40
41 The relocation of CALSTAR will allow for a more efficient and safe site while enabling
42 reliable emergency medical transport to remain in the valley
43
44 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and applicable
45 requirements of the Public Facilities zoning district in that: 1) airports and aviation related
46 functions and uses are allowed. 2) the proposed use is consistent with the existing
47 surrounding aircrafUair taxi uses . Based on information submitted by CALSTAR the
48 operation fits the definition of aviation facilities and aviation related uses in the Zoning
49 Ordinance.
50
51 3. The proposed project, as conditioned and with the approved use permit is consistent with the
52 requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and Land Use Development Plan
53 Guidelines in that a Determination of Appropriate Use was made by the Director of Planning
54 and the Airport Manager on April 2, 2009. The determination required that a use permit must
55 be approved for this use. The appeal period for this determination ended April 20,2009 and
56 no appeals were received.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 14
1 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, meets the zoning code parking requirements per
2 section 9170.6 in that the proposed project will provide 6 parking spaces for this specific
3 CALSTAR use. As proposed there will be one parking space per employee with one extra.
4 Given that the use will not be visited by the general public one space per employee is
5 adequate.
6
7 5. The proposed project site has been evaluated by CALTRANS Aeronautics. The proposed site
8 is preferable to the existing site based on the following:
9
10 • The proposed site provides greater separation and reduces the likelihood of incursion
11 from pedestrians and motor vehicles since it is located further from the pedestrian
12 and vehicular access at the terminal building.
13
14 • The proposed site conforms to the safety criteria for helicopter parking contained in
15 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5390 (Helicopter Design). The existing site is located to
16 close to the slope adjacent to the airport terminal building.
17
18 • The proposed site is located a greater distance from fixed-wing aircraft.
19
20 6. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
21 Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3(c), New Construction or
22 Conversion of Small Structures, which allows for up to a total of four buildings on one site in
23 urbanized areas not exceeding 10,000 square feet of floor area to be constructed when the
24 use does not involve the use of a significant amount of hazardous substances; where all
25 necessary public services and facilities are available; and the surrounding area is not
26 environmentally sensitive. This exemption is based on the following:
27
28 A. The combined square footage of all buildings on the site to be used is 5,544 square
29 feet.
30 0 3,000 square foot existing hangar
31 0 720 square foot new office building
32 0 1,140 square foot new crew quarters
33 0 384 square foot existing modular office building
34
35 B. The use would be located on a developed lot with public services available.
36
37 C. The site is located in an urban area that is developed with existing structures, roads,
38 buildings and landscaping therefore water courses, wildlife, wildlife habitat, floodway or
39 flood plain or other environmentally sensitive areas.
40
41 D. The proposed location would not result in an increase in noise in that the same
42 operational characteristics will be present at the proposed site. Furthermore the
43 proposed site may result in a reduction of noise given that the distance from the closest
44 building is greater then at the exiting site and that the parking location will not be up
45 against a hillside which causes an echo effect at the existing location.
46
47 7. The proposed project, as CALSTAR will be compatible with the surrounding uses based on
48 the following and including testimony provided by CALTRANS Division of Aeronautics staff:
49
50 A. CALSTAR is compatible with other uses at the Ukiah Airport in that their operation as an
51 air taxi/charter operation is similar to the other uses in the proposed location, including
52 helicopters that operate out of the hangar located to the south of CALSTARS's proposed
53 hangar.
54
55 B. CALSTAR will utilize a helicopter parking space (not a heliport) and does not require a
56 heliport in order to operate.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 15
1 C. CALSTAR's helicopter parking space provides adequate separation from other aircraft.
2
3 D. The proposed site conforms to the safety criteria for helicopter parking contained in FAA
4 Advisory Circular 150/5390 (Helicopter Design). The existing site is located to close to the
5 slope adjacent to the airport terminal building.
6
7 E. Foreign object debris (FOD) is required to be maintained as part of CALSTAR's lease with
8 the City of Ukiah and condition of approval#2.
9
10 8. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety and
11 general welfare based on the following and including testimony provided by CALTRANS
12 Division of Aeronautics staff:
13
14 A. The relatively isolated location of the proposed site presents less opportunity for
15 pedestrian and vehicle traffic incursion into CALSTAR operations. The proposed location is
16 not located proximate to public pedestrian or vehicle access to the airport.
17
18 CALSTAR's existing location is located within 80 feet of the primary pedestrian access to the
19 terminal building and within 38 feet of the primary vehicle access to the airport which creates
20 potential for hazards to the general public as a result of the potential for vehicular and
21 pedestrian incursion into the helicopter parking area and area used for maneuvering.
22
23 B. The proposed site will allow CALSTAR the ability to better control access to their facility.
24 CALSTAR is separated from the tenant to the north (FedEx) by a cyclone fence. The area
25 located outside of the hangar, including the grass area, is leased by CALSTAR and is for
26 their exclusive use. The closest aircraft tie-down is 193 feet to the south and there is no direct
27 access to the airport terminal building in proximity to the proposed location.
28
29 CALSTAR's existing location is located proximate to the terminal building, aircraft tie-down
30 areas, vehicular access to the airport, and pedestrian access to the airport terminal building.
31
32 C. CALSTAR operations will be located further away from other aircraft. The space in front of
33 CALSTAR's hangar is leased by CALSTAR and for their exclusive use. The closest tie-down
34 is 193 feet which complies with FAA requirements.
35
36 The existing site is located within 84 feet of aircraft tie down areas.
37
38 D. Damage due to foreign object debris (FOD) dispersed as result of rotor wash will be
39 reduced or eliminated. FOD will be required to be cleared from the site as part of
40 requirements of the lease and condition of approval #2. The proposed location is 193 feet
41 from aircraft tie down areas, increasing the distance that FOD would need to travel to
42 encounter other aircraft.
43
44 The existing helicopter parking space is located 84 feet from aircraft tie-down area and 38
45 feet from vehicular access.
46
47 E. The proposed location will not increase noise generate by CALSTAR operations, and will
48 likely reduce noise levels since 1) buildings in the area will provide noise attenuation and 2)
49 the site is flat providing no hill for the noise to create an echo. The proposed location is
50 located further from the terminal building, reducing exposure of employees and members of
51 the public located in the building to noise and vibrations from helicopters.
52
53 The existing site is within 80 feet of the terminal building exposing employees and members
54 of the public to noise and vibrations generated by the helicopters. The hill at the existing
55 location creates an echo effect during helicopter arrival and departure that is disruptive to
56 users of the airport terminal.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 16
1 F. There are no residential uses nearby.
2
3 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE PLACEMENT
4 OF TWO MODULAR BUILDING ON THE CALSTAR SITE
5
6 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
7 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
8
9 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the public General Plan land use
10 designation of the property in that public land uses, i.e. airport uses and business are
11 intended uses for this land use designation. Furthermore the proposed project site is
12 consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies.
13
14 ■ Airport Goal AE-1: Promote the Ukiah City Airport for the community benefit both now
15 and in the future.
16
17 The relocation of the CALSTAR operations to the proposed site will allow for the
18 continuation of a viable business at the Ukiah City Airport. This business will provide the
19 community with emergency medical transportation, which is valuable service in rural
20 community.
21
22 ■ Airport Policv AE-1.1: Ensure that the airport's vitality and growth help achieve the
23 General Plan Vision.
24
25 The relocation of CALSTAR will allow for the airport to continue to grow in that the exiting
26 location can be used by another business that would benefit the community.
27
28 ■ Airport Goal AE-2: Provide for long-term viability of the airport.
29
30 The relocation of CALSTAR will allow emergency medical transportation to stay and
31 continue to function at the Ukiah Airport which will ad to the continued growth of the
32 airport.
33
34 ■ Communitv Facilities and Services Goal CF-8: Maintain effective, fast, and dependable
35 emergency medical response in the Valley.
36
37 The relocation of CALSTAR will allow for a more efficient and safe site while enabling
38 reliable emergency medical transport to remain in the valley.
39
40 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the applicable requirements of the
41 Public Facility(PF)zoning district in that airport and aviation uses are allowed.
42
43 3. The proposed project ,as conditioned, is consistent with the following findings required by
44 zoning code section 9263(E):
45
46 A. The location of the new modular buildings will not create hazardous or inconvenient
47 vehicular or pedestrian traffic patterns in that the buildings will be located along the north
48 side of the CALSTAR site outside of any vehicular or pedestrian traffic areas.
49
50 B. The project site contains existing landscaping appropriate for the airport. No new
51 landscaping is proposed other then cleaning up and maintaining the existing.
52
53 C. The project site is not located adjacent to a residential zoning district.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 17
1 D. The proposed location of the single story modular buildings will not restrict or cut out light
2 and air on the property, or the surrounding neighborhood because the new buildings will
3 be separated from any adjacent buildings by at least 20 feet.
4
5 E. The site is located in an urban area that is developed with existing structures no water
6 courses, wildlife, wildlife habitat, floodway or flood plain or other environmentally sensitive
7 areas.
8
9 F. The proposed modular building will be painted to match the exiting hangar on the site.
10 The modular building are consistent with the exiting structure on the airport grounds.
11 Furthermore because of the uphill berm along the front of the project site the modular will
12 be barley visible from South State Street.
13
14 DRAFT USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
15
16 1. Approval is granted for the operation of CALSTAR as described in the project description
17 submitted to the Community Development and Planning Department and date stamped
18 February 6, 2009 and as shown on the plans submitted to the Community Development and
19 Planning Department and date stamped March 27, 2009 except as modified by the following
20 conditions of approval.
21
22 2. On plans submitted for building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate how foreign object
23 debris (FOD)will be managed. This includes, but is not limited to, installation of"hardy grass"
24 in the areas identified as grass areas on the proposed location site plan. The FOD
25 management plan is subject to staff review and approval.
26
27 3. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
28 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been
29 applied for and issued/finaled.
30
31 4. On plans submitted for building permit, if required, these conditions of approval shall be
32 included as notes on the first sheet.
33
34 5. Signs are not included as part of this approval. Signs require application for and
35 approval of a sign permit from the Community Development and Planning Department.
36
37 6. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
38 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
39
40 7. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
41 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal
42 agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing,
43 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building
44 Permit is approved and issued.
45
46 8. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any
47 future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
48
49 9. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed
50 prior to building permit final.
51
52 From the Buildinq Official (David Willouqhbv)
53
54 10. A building permit is required for the installation of the modular building.
55
56 From the Public Works Department( Ben Kaqevama)
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 18
1
2 11. The proposed structures shall be served by new sanitary sewer and water service connection
3 to the sewer and water mains. Applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water connection
4 fees at the time the building permit is issued.
5
6 12. The existing sewer lateral shall be tested in accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No.
7 1105 and repaired and replaced is necessary prior to final inspection.
8
9 Standard Citv Requirements
10
11 13. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved
12 project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and
13 conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date
14 of this approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has
15 been suspended for 24 consecutive months.
16
17 14. All work within the public right-of-way shall be preformed by a licensed and properly insured
18 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for the work within this area
19 or otherwise affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be $45.00 plus 3% of the
20 Engineer's estimate of the constructions costs.
21 15. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and
22 vitality of the plants, shrubs and trees.
23
24 9B. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop #4. Review and discussion of Section 5: Development
25 Standards. Review and Discussion of Section 7: Historical Building Standards if time allows.
26
27 It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the public workshop discussion to the next
28 meeting date.
29
30 10. NEW BUSINESS
31 10A. Planninq Commission Meetinq Schedule. Determine Planning Commission meeting dates
32 for September, October, November, and December.
33
34 Staff advised there is business to conduct and asked the Commission to consider alternative dates so
35 that the Commission continues to meet twice month.
36
37 The Commission discussed the meeting dates with the following consensus:
38
39 September 9- Regular meeting cancelled due to City Holiday.
40 September 23- Regular meeting will take place as scheduled.
41 September 24-Special meeting to replace the September 9 regular meeting.
42
43 October 14 - Regular meeting will take place as scheduled.
44 October 28 - Regular meeting will take place as scheduled.
45 November 11- Regular meeting cancelled due to City holiday.
46 November 25- Regular meeting cancelled due to Thanksgiving Holiday.
47 November 5- Special meeting to replace the November 11 regular meeting.
48 November 10- Special meeting to replace the November 25 regular meeting.
49
50 December- No changes.
51
52 11. ONGOING EDUCATION
53 The above-referenced publication is for the Commissioner's information.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 19
1 12. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
2 None.
3
4 13. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
5 Commissioner Sanders reported a City tree meeting will be held September 3, 2009.
6
7 Chair Pruden stated ReLeaf and other persons/groups involved with the establishing a City tree
8 ordinance would like to review what has been prepared for the tree section of the Form Based
9 Zoning.
10
11 Commissioner Whetzel commented on how nice the BeBops building looks.
12
13 Chair Pruden stated AutoZone has repainted their building gray, white, and orange with red stripes
14 and is not in compliance with the conditions of approval in this regard. Wal-Mart has completely
15 repainted their building including repainting over some of the architectural features. Is Wal-Mart
16 required to come back to the Planning Commission for discussion concerning elements of the
17 remodel?
18
19 Staff advised the Zoning Administrator reviews this matter.
20
21 13. ADJOURNMENT
22 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
23
24
25 Judy Pruden, Chair
26
27 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
28
29
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 26, 2009
Page 20
