HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_12102009 1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 December 10, 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 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 1. CALL TO ORDER
19 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
20 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m., Old F.S.S. Building, Ukiah Airport Terminal, 1403 South State Street,
21 Ukiah, California.
22
23 2. ROLL CALL
24 Roll was taken with the results listed above.
25
26 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
27 Everyone cited the pledge of Allegiance.
28
29 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
30 Site visit for agenda item 9A was verified.
31
32 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
33 None.
34
35 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
36 None.
37
38 7. APPEAL PROCESS
39 Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting, the final date for
40 appeal is December 21, 2009.
41
42 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Agenda item 9A was publicly noticed in accordance with
43 the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
44
45 9. PUBLIC HEARING
46 9A. Orchard Avenue Electric Substation File Nos. 09-03-GPA-CC, 09-04-REZ-CC, 09-05-
47 SDP-PC, 09-06-UP-PC, 09-07-BLA-CE. Review and possible adoption of a Mitigated
48 Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Development
49 Permit and Use Permit for a new electric substation on the west side of Orchard Avenue
50 between East Gobbi Street and Cindee Lane. Should the Planning Commission adopt the
51 Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Commission would consider and make a
52 recommendation on the project to the City Council.
53
54 Senior Planner Jordan gave the staff report.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 1
1 Planning Commission comments:
2
3 Chair Pruden: Mitigated Negative Declaration —Cultural Resources, page 17:
4 • Questioned the age of the single family dwelling on the site and whether it has historical
5 cultural value. There may be a discrepancy between documents.
6 • The Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates based on records from the Mendocino
7 County Assessor's Office that construction of the residence began in 1962 and was
8 completed in 1978. Another document indicates it was built in 1957.
9 • There is a different figure used in the Mitigated Negative Declaration; Is concerned with
10 consistency thereof. The structure was certainly built before 1962 and it has all the
11 appearance of a home built in the late 1940s or latest early 50s.
12 • The Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that buildings, structures, and objects 45
13 years or older may be of historical value. The City base is 50 years rather than 45 years.
14 • If the building is more than 50 years old, it is subject to the City's demolition ordinance.
15
16 Staff:
17 • Staff used Assessor property records as a basis for the age of the building and consulted
18 with the County Assessor's Office staff. They indicated the age as described in the Initial
19 Environmental Study and that the building was built over time. Based on this information,
20 construction of the house was completed in 1978.
21 • The house at that site matches the building footprint and layout as drawn and described
22 on the Assessor residential property records.
23 • The CEQA threshold for historical significance is 45 years, based on a construction
24 completion date of 1978, the residential dwelling is not considered to be a historical
25 resource.
26 • The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) identified the owners of the property
27 and none are known to be associated with events that made a significant contribution to
28 the broad patterns of California's history or cultural heritage. The site and building are not
29 known to be associated with persons known to be important to the history of Ukiah or
30 California.
31
32 Chair Pruden: Is of the opinion the house was moved to the site and that house was built before
33 1962 since she does the historical resource evaluations for the City Demolition Review
34 Committee.
35
36 Staff:
37 • The way the assessor's information is written indicated the house was partially
38 constructed on the site and not finished until the 1978 date.
39 • If the intent is to determine the information is inadequate and that the house has some
40 historic value, this can be done.
41
42 Chair Pruden: Will take a closer look at the matter. She is of the opinion the house was
43 constructed in the late 40s or early 50s moved onto the site and later remodeled, making the
44 house more than 50 years old.
45
46 Commissioner Whetzel: This may very well have been an `old mill house' and moved onto the
47 site, noting this was common in the Betty Street/Lorraine Street neighborhood.
48
49 Chair Pruden: Recommends adding a narrative to reflect a slightly revised history since the
50 structure appears to be 50 years or older. If the structure is indeed built before 1959, it would be
51 required to go through City Demolition Review.
52
53 There was discussion whether the Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted tonight if there
54 is the potential for a significant impact to a historical resource because this will have to be
55 evaluated.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 2
1 Chair Pruden: Acknowledged this problem and stated there is no evaluation on the subject
2 property.
3
4 Planning Director Stump: The technical information indicates that the age of structure is not 50
5 years or older. While the building may have been moved to the site, the records do not indicate
6 this occurred.
7
8 Commissioner Molgaard: If the residence had been moved, is the age of building counted or
9 the age of building at that particular site.
10
11 Chair Pruden: The age of the building is what counts. As far as the records, if the building was
12 placed on the site in 1962 this would count as the beginning period for this house for this parcel.
13 In terms of her expertise, the house is older than what the records indicate.
14
15 Planning Director Stump: It may be the Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot be adopted at
16 this point in order to research the age of the house on the site. A document cannot be acted upon
17 without resolving the issue prior to.
18
19 Chair Pruden: While her expertise tells her the age of the house is older than 1962 or 1978, it
20 probably has no historical value. Her assumption is that the house was a moved building from
21 some other location.
22
23 There was a brief discussion about possible alternative actions the Commission could legally take
24 to be able to move forward on adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
25
26 Planning Director Stump: From the CEQA standpoint, the threshold is 45 years while the local
27 rule is 50 years or older and City Council approval of a demolition permit is required. The
28 technical records indicate the threshold has not been broken so if the Commission chooses to
29 move forward with the Mitigated Negative Declaration it would be acceptable from a CEQA
30 perspective. One option would be to further investigate the age of the structure and to require
31 Demolition Permit review if the building is more than 50 years old prior to City Council review of
32 the Mitigated Negative Declaration and project.
33
34 The Commission agreed with the latter option.
35
36 Commissioner Helland: Mitigated Negative Declaration
37 • Page 14, General Plan Goals/Implementation measures are fairly clear with regard to
38 `Maintain and enhance the City's canopy of shade trees, protect the existing healthy
39 mature trees, incorporate measures to maintain and enhance the urban tree canopy and
40 ensure healthy trees are not removed unnecessarily. New development must emphasize
41 the protection of existing significant trees, incorporating them into site planning and
42 development of property. Mature trees are to be protected during construction and
43 integrated into the site development design whenever possible. Protect healthy native
44 and exotic specimen trees.'
45 • The arborist report indicates 12 of the 14 existing trees are not healthy.
46 • The two trees that are healthy exist in the middle of the planned development and would
47 have to be removed, which is unfortunate.
48 • Is it possible for the design to be modified to accommodate these healthy trees,
49 particularly the 5-foot high Redwood Tree?
50 • Would like more information about the root system and safety risks.
51
52 Director of Public Utilities Mel Grandi
53 • Introduced the project consultants, Chuck Williams (EMF) and Anthony Hanson, project
54 engineer.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 3
1 • The City needs a new substation to add transformer capacity before the system
2 electrical demand reaches 37 Megavolt Amperes (MVA), which is estimated to occur
3 in the summer of 2010.
4 • An evaluation of the alternatives determined the most feasible option to increase the
5 transform capacity is the replacement of the existing Gobbi Substation with a facility,
6 Orchard Substation.
7 • The existing facility will remain as a Public Facility, operated by the City of Ukiah
8 Electric Utility Department.
9 • The existing facility will no longer serve the electrical load for the City when the new
10 facility is completed.
11 • The two transformers currently in the substation will be relocated to the new facility.
12 • The existing transmission line on the east side of the site will remain and the line
13 extended to the west to service the new facility.
14 • The existing communications/control enclosure will remain in service.
15 • The remaining electrical equipment located in the facility, including circuit breakers,
16 switches, insulators, bus and steel support structures will be removed from the site
17 and surplused, recycled or sent to a disposal site if the items cannot be surplused or
18 recycled. The below grade facilities, including foundations, conduits and cables, and
19 vaults will remain in place.
20 • The new facility will include three components, an electrical substation, an extension
21 to a transmission line, and an underground electrical distribution ductbank.
22
23 Anthony Hanson, Consultant RW Beck:
24 • The project objective is to have a reliable energy source to meet public demand.
25 • When looking at potential locations, the only feasible option was to expand in the general
26 vicinity of existing electrical substation.
27 • The site across the street was an ideal location for minimum expansion of the
28 transmission line. The intent is to extend the transmission line directly west from the
29 existing substation to the new substation so it is a straight line having minimal impact.
30 • With regard to the root system of the trees, the project requires fill which would undercut
31 into the ground and disturb the root system of the trees. In terms of public safety and
32 security concerns, the root system could potentially disrupt foundations/control cables
33 and other operational equipment. There will be a lot of underground wiring and other
34 necessary equipment/systems incorporate to protect personnel and people in the area.
35
36 Staff:
37 • If the Commission wants to set the substation closer to Gobbi Street to accommodate the
38 Redwood tree, this is not possible because there is not sufficient room since the new City
39 well is located in this area and the substation requires the full width of the site. Also, if the
40 substation location is moved to the north, the transmission line would have to be moved
41 south, which would require extra poles and equipment.
42 • The location of the facility as shown in the most feasible since the intent is to :
43 o Maintain a one-acre parcel (Parcel 2) that could potentially be developed with a
44 gateway commercial project. Also, the sale of this property would help pay for
45 part of the cost of the substation. The zoning for this parcel is C1 and will not
46 change.
47 o Reduce the visual impacts to the gateway by setting it back from East Gobbi
48 Street.
49
50 Chair Pruden: Recommends the Aerial/Regional Vicinity Map be more appropriately detailed for
51 informational purposes.
52
53 Staff: Clarified the Regional Vicinity Map is an aerial view of the region and is not intended to be
54 an aerial view of the site.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 4
1 Commissioner Helland: Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 • Page 15, 4 Popular Trees. Inquired whether these trees located on the west edge of the
3 site need to be removed.
4
5 Utility Director Grandi: The intent is for all trees on the property to be removed for maintenance
6 or substation security issues. There are two types of security issues: 1) Do not want leaves or
7 small branches to fly into the facility creating a hazard to the equipment and personnel. 2). Do not
8 want any trees/vegetation near the substation wall to act as a climbing aid into the facility.
9
10 Commissioner Molgaard: Mitigated Negative Declaration
11 • Page 7, Aesthetics. Staff checked box `less than significant impacY for item I(c),
12 substantially degrades the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
13 surroundings; Disagrees with staff's analysis that the project does substantially degrade
14 the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings. Supports checking
15 the box `Less than significant with mitigation incorporated' because the project is located
16 in one of the City's gateways. Noted, providing power to the City is more important than
17 the aesthetic impacts.
18
19 Staff: Must create mitigation measures if`less than significant with mitigation incorporated' box is
20 checked.
21
22 Commissioner Molgaard: The design of the wall and landscaping plan can be the mitigating
23 measures to address aesthetic impacts.
24
25 Chair Pruden: Proposed another mitigation measure and this would be to change the zoning
26 designation for Parcel 2 from C1 to PF and extensively landscape that section that fronts East
27 Gobbi Street and Orchard Avenue.
28
29 Increasing the landscaping for the project would be another mitigation measure concerning
30 `Aesthetics.'
31
32 Planning Director Stump: The intent for Parcel 2, the remaining vacant parcel on the corner,
33 was to sell it to help defray the cost of the new substation. There has been some commercial
34 interest expressed. It may be the City could increase the right-of-way at the Gobbi Street/Orchard
35 Avenue corner to allow for a `Welcome to Ukiah' sign and landscaping for aesthetic purposes.
36
37 Chair Pruden: Could not support a residential development close to a substation.
38
39 Commission consensus:
40 The language in the Mitigated Negative Declaration relative to `Aesthetics' should reflect that
41 additional landscaping and design enhancement to the wall are the mitigating measures.
42
43 Commissioner Molgaard: Concerned from a health and safety standpoint about the existing
44 homes near the proposed facility.
45 • Asked the EMF consultant to elaborate on electric magnetic fields in connection with
46 electric power systems.
47 • Asked if the consultant would want his family to live next to a substation?
48
49 Chuck Williams:
50 • Attachments 7A and 7B provide scientific information/data and an analysis about electric
51 magnetic fields and electric power systems as they relate to electric fields and magnetic
52 fields.
53 • Yes, he would live next to a substation and described a similar situation concerning his
54 best friend who essentially asked the same question wherein his recommendation was
55 also yes.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 5
1 • The frequency (EMF levels) of a power system (lines and substations) is determined by
2 the rate at which electric and magnetic fields change their direction each second.
3 • EMF levels from power facilities can be reduced in three primary ways: shielding, field
4 cancellation or increasing the distance from the source.
5 • Electromagnetic emissions from cell, broadcast, and other radio communications
6 systems are different and the standards regulating exposure/frequency levels are set by
7 the FCC.
8 • There has been extensive research conducted regarding electric and magnetic fields in
9 association with electric power systems and potential health effects from exposure to
10 electric and magnetic fields (EMFs)from the electric power systems.
11 • Based on his expertise in the field of electric power systems, the proposed substation
12 poses no concern to persons living nearby.
13 • Electric fields from power systems are created whenever the systems are energized with
14 the strength of the field dependent directly on the voltage creating it. Unlike magnetic
15 fields, which penetrate almost everything and are unaffected by buildings, trees, and
16 other obstacles, electric fields are distorted by any object that is within the electric field
17 including the human body.
18 • Magnetic fields from power systems are created whenever current flows through power
19 lines and substations at any voltage.
20 • Appendix B (Attachment 7C) provides an analysis/comparison of the electric and
21 magnetic fields for transmission lines relative to voltage (electrical field) measured in kVs
22 and current(magnetic field) measured in Amps for the proposed project.
23
24 Chair Pruden: There is a great deal of public interest and concern regarding potential health
25 effects from exposure to EMFs from electric power systems.
26
27 Public Utility Director Grandi: There is a notable difference between a cell tower that is
28 designed to emit and transmit that energy versus a power distribution station at a low frequency.
29 The substation is designed with the natural tendency to `cancel ouY its own emitted EMFs.
30 `Electricity' has been around for more than a 100 years. The proposed substation is essentially
31 nothing new.
32
33 Chair Pruden:
34 • The term `EMF' is automatically placed in a category regardless of the statistics because
35 of people's perception. The question is at what threshold/level are EMFs considered safe
36 when working/living in close proximity to a substation?
37 • Recalled a project where a wireless communication company proposed to put a cell
38 tower inside a historical church steeple so as not to be visible. The Planning Commission
39 asked the applicants to post a sign advising people that a wireless communication facility
40 exists on the site for people to make their own choice.
41 • Regardless of the science the topic of electromagnetic fields is a personal matter.
42 Would not live near a substation even though the science says it is safe.
43
44 Commissioner Molgaard: Regardless of the science concerning EMFs, there are unknowns in
45 this regard.
46
47 Commissioner Helland: From a public health perspective trusts the World Health Organization
48 guidelines. According to the analysis and various scenarios presented in the EMF studies
49 provided, the project is below the guideline standards. It is clear, however, there is some
50 significant possibility that carcinogenic health hazards may be associated with EMF at high levels.
51
52 Commissioner Sanders: Mitigated Negative Declaration
53 • Is the Bush/Low Gap Road substation still active? Ukiah has two substations?
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 6
1 Staff: This substation is still active and is considered more of switching station
2 rather than a substation.
3
4 Commissioner Sanders: Mitigated Negative Declaration
5 • Appreciates the distinction made between substations and cell towers. Shielding — If the
6 site is being cleared to accommodate the equipment, there will be no trees for shielding
7 purposes. Will the cement wall help with shielding of the electric-magnetic fields?
8
9 Chuck Williams: There is shielding in terms of the interaction that occurs with regard to the
10 electromagnetic field. There is an electric field component and a magnetic field
11 component. Unlike the magnetic field, the electric field can be shielded. The wall would act as a
12 block/shield for an electric field, but not for a magnetic field. Accordingly, a tree, for instance,
13 would provide protection from the electric field, but not from the magnetic field. A wall would
14 provide shielding from the electric fields generated by the equipment inside the substation.
15
16 Commissioner Sanders: Mitigated Negative Declaration
17 • How do the overhead lines impact the public? Does the height of poles have to do with
18 EMF emissions?
19
20 Chuck Williams:
21 • Like the substation, the transmission line will generate fields where the
22 interaction that occurs is different. The fields generated essentially cancel one
23 another. The other phenomenon about electric and magnetic fields is how they both
24 attenuate the distance from the source. So as one moves away from the source that
25 generates the fields, the EMFs emitted fall off. From a transmission line versus a
26 substation perspective, the transmission line is higher in the air and more distant so that
27 the source is further away and the field emissions lower.
28 • The height of the poles is not related to the strength of the fields. It is actually
29 related to the voltage in the wires and is considered an `electrical shock issue.' The
30 National Electrical Safety Code is the applicable standard that addresses wires at a
31 particular voltage in space that are not fenced. Electrical wires differ from a substation
32 because a substation facility is fenced and a secure site that the public cannot access.
33 There is, however, a minimum clearance standard for power lines.
34
35 Commissioner Sanders: Mitigated Negative Declaration
36 • What is the reason for the special fill necessary at the site and whether this pertains to
37 electric impacts. Asked about if there were health benefits associated with
38 undergrounding electrical components versus housing the equipment as proposed in the
39 documents.
40
41 Chuck Williams:
42 • It is not special fill, but dirt that is more suitable for foundation purposes than what is
43 existing.
44 • With regard to EMF and undergrounding of equipment the source transmission
45 line would be underground to the facility. There is a different technique for
46 underdergrounding of transmission lines. While there is a height above ground
47 requirement for bare wires to comply with safety issues when transmission lines are
48 undergrounded they are in insulated cable form. Such wires can be buried relatively
49 shallow (3-4 feet underground) compared to 30-50 feet in the air. The voltage would be
50 shielded, but the current (magnetic field source) is now closer to the public. The cables
51 can be placed closer to one another than the overhead wires so there are some
52 cancellation affects.
53 • As one moves away from the peak of the line, the EMFs drop off. That equivalent peak
54 relative to the magnetic field value for underground line versus overhead is a much
55 higher peak having a much larger number. The attenuation because of how lines are
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 7
1 closer together on cancellation drops off more steeply. While this presents less of a
2 problem in some ways, the magnetic field peak number is higher in the
3 community when lines are placed underground. It is higher because the lines are in
4 closer physical proximity to persons.
5
6 Commissioner Sanders: Mitigated Negative Declaration
7 • Pages 16-19 Cultural Resource section —Good.
8 • Page 22, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, section I, Expose people to a
9 significant risk related to Electric and Magnetic Fields, and whether the Commission
10 agrees this item should be checked `No impact.'
11
12 Commission: Agrees this item should be checked `No impact.'
13
14 Anthony Hanson:
15 • A lot of the 13kV exit circuits leaving the substation will be underground.
16
17 Chair Pruden: The question is whether the substation would expose people to significant risk
18 wherein the trigger is `significant risk.' The data indicated there would be no significant risk. The
19 question asks about exposure. Will people be exposed and then whether this exposure poses a
20 significant risk.
21
22 Commissioner Helland: It is less of a risk than having a VCR or television on in the room.
23
24 Commissioner Molgaard: There has to be some impact with an electrical facility of this type.
25
26 Chuck Williams: Agrees, there would be no significant risk. In terms of standards measured for
27 risk, the facility is at the low end of the spectrum and not even near the threshold of risk.
28
29 Commissioner Sanders: Mitigated Negative Declaration
30 • Page 31, Energy, Section 4.06 Energy Suppliers, Goal EG-8, Manage existing
31 energy resources to meeting increased demands and explore the use of new energy
32 efficient technologies. It follows that if the project is using new equipment, the system will
33 be more efficient?
34
35 Anthony Hanson:
36 • One way to look at this matter is that the addition of a third transformer
37 addresses the capacity issue and increases reliance. Moreover, there would be
38 sufficient capacity for the City to provide power if one element/transformer were
39 lost. The newer operation of having three transformers will essentially split the
40 load into thirds. The transformers have `losses' associated with performance so as the
41 current flowing goes up, the losses increase so when the load capacity is split, the losses
42 are `proportionately squared' thus reducing the losses on the system by having a third
43 transformer.
44
45 Commissioner Sanders: Mitigated Negative Declaration
46 • With the increase in capacity with the third transformer, approximately how many more
47 residents or businesses will the City be able to serve as a result?
48
49 Anthony Hanson:
50 • Technically explained how capacity would increase with the performance of a third
51 transformer as opposed to placing a load and losses incurred on having two transformers
52 like the Orchard Substation. In this case, the load would be split proportionately into
53 thirds. Money in terms of energy efficiency is actually being saved by adding a third
54 transformer having a lower capacity level to be split with the other two transformers as
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 8
1 opposed to two transformers having a higher capacity/performance level that would
2 proportionately have to be split between two transformers.
3
4 Staff: Only services people in the City limits.
5
6 Commissioner Sanders:
7 • Is energy conservation being promoted as well as is possible in this community in terms
8 of encouraging solar use and other types of applications.
9
10 Staff: There are programs available in this regard. These programs must be advertised so the
11 public has knowledge they exist.
12
13 Commissioner Sanders: Asked the Commission if there should be more discussion about
14 energy conservation and associated programs in the Mitigated Negative Declaration?
15
16 There was discussion about whether this could potentially be made a City Ordinance.
17
18 Senior Planner Jordan:
19 • With regard to page 30, Land Use Planning, item b, would the project conflict with any
20 applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
21 project, including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program
22 or zoning ordinance adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
23 effect?
24 • Has an understanding of Commission issues and concerns expressed for projects after
25 having worked with this body. The discussion was provided in the Initial Environmental
26 Study as information that may be of interest to the Commission. It could be omitted from
27 the document since none of the goals or policies discussed in the Initial Environmental
28 Study were adopted to mitigate an environmental effect and then these goals and policies
29 would only be discussed in the staff report.
30
31 Commissioner Molgaard: Is aware of other city-owned electrical facilities that are doing a lot of
32 comparisons and using peer pressure to reduce use by providing information about average use
33 in the neighbor and citywide in the monthly utility bill. People typically want to be better than their
34 neighbors.
35
36 Public Utilities Director Grandi: There are four energy efficient program areas the City is
37 required by the State to have available: Solar, Research & Development, Conservation and Low
38 Income. The City Council decides the funding for each of these program areas.
39
40 Commissioner Sanders: Mitigated Negative Declaration
41 • Page 32, Community Design, The project would not degrade the appearance of the
42 Gobbi Street gateway based on the above. The project may enhance the appearance of
43 the Gobbi Street frontage/gateway with the installation of street trees and the creation of
44 a .90 acre parcel that could accommodate a commercial development project at the
45 corner of Gobbi Street and Orchard Avenue.
46 • Open Space and Conservation: GP Goal OC-24: Replace aging trees with new
47 trees. Implementation Measure (C-24.1(a): should read: Implement the program to
48 replace aging trees giving preference to native species.
49 Do the Commissioners agree with the Community Design, paragraph 5 aspect?
50
51 Staff: The discussion in this section related to zoning of the General Plan is really a policy
52 discussion about the project for informational purposes. None of the goal/implementation
53 measures were adopted. As mitigation measure for the General Plan or Zoning Code. The
54 information in this section is relevant to the General Plan and Rezone to PF portion of the project
55 in terms of GP consistency.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 9
1 Commissioner Sanders: Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 • Page 44, Utilities and Service Systems, item c, The project will introduce minimal new
3 impervious surfaces. Most of the project will be grass area, gravel area, and
4 landscape area. Reference to a grass area is not addressed in the Landscaping Plan.
5
6 Staff: Referenced `Sheet 5' of the project, there is a section that refers to a grass area and is a
7 part of the landscape area. The landscape and grass areas should have been added together.
8
9 Commissioner Sanders: Mitigated Negative Declaration
10 • Page 44, item f, Construction of the project will result in debris and other solid waste
11 being sent to local landfills. The includes removal of an existing building that is in poor
12 and likely contains lead paint and asbestos based on the Phase I ESA prepared for the
13 project. Therefore, this building is not suitable for recycling and salvage of materials.
14 Also, the Fire Department has requested use of the building for a practice drill.
15 • Can staff elaborate on what the Fire Department will be doing.
16
17 Director of Public Utilities Grandi: The City Fire Department would like to use the building for
18 training purposes, such as tearing down walls and/or the burning of the structure.
19
20 It was noted that any the hazardous materials are removed prior to the Fire Department using the
21 building for training. Mendocino County Air Quality Control and/or other professional will look at
22 the building and make a determination as to the types of hazardous materials that would have to
23 be removed prior the burning of the structure.
24
25 Commissioner Sanders: Mitigated Negative Declaration
26 • Noise, pages 34-38. How much of a noise impact will the third transformer have?
27
28 Staff: The noise factor was approached by looking at what is the existing noise level and the
29 noise level plus the project and this data is compared, in this case, to the HUD standard for noise.
30 What has been learned is that there will be a slight increase in noise, but will still fall within the
31 HUD standards for what is normally acceptable and conditionally acceptable for noise level for a
32 single family or multi-family development. The wall around the perimeter of the facility will reduce
33 the noise level to some degree but is not required since the project meets HUD standards.
34
35 Public Utilities Director Grandi: The project meets the HUD standards without the wall.
36
37 Commissioner Whetzel: Mitigated Negative Declaration
38 • His concerns are Airport related specific to Airport traffic, magnetic deviations. There are
39 two existing transformers basically in line with the Airport departure point concerning the
40 IFR Departure. These concerns are not discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
41 with regard to impacts to navigational aspects of the Airport.
42
43 Staff: Page 24, item e, discusses the fact that the project is located within the land use plan for
44 the Airport. Since the project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use
45 designation from High Density Residential and Commercial to Public, the project was required to
46 be referred to the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The acceptable and
47 prohibited uses in the B2 zone do no specifically identify the type of facility proposed, an electric
48 substation. The City distributed a copy of the project application to the ALUC for review and
49 comment. The ALUC discussed the project and does not anticipate there would be any issues
50 because there have been none in the past and that the project is compatible with the
51 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. The ALUC did recommend City staff contact the FAA
52 person who conducts the maintenance on the DME/localizer in regards to potential impacts of
53 electrical interference. The ALUC concluded since the project is not directly under the flight path,
54 there most likely would be no interference with communications or navigation. The FAA has
55 provided written comments wherein form 7406 is required to be filed prior to the installation of the
56 project since such installations may cause problems with their systems.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 10
1
2 Commission Consensus regarding recommended changes to the Mitigated Negative
3 Declaration:
4 • Cultural Resource, Page 17 — Project appears to be 50 years or older. Recommend the
5 house located at 5 Robinson Lane go through Demolition Review process even though it
6 is likely the structure has no historical value to the community.
7 • Aesthetics, Page 7, item c, The project substantially would degrade the existing visual
8 character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Recommended the box `Less Than
9 Significant with Mitigation Incorporated' be checked as opposed to `Less than Significant
10 Impact.' Mitigation measure for this is the wall and the landscaping plan.
11
12 Commissioner Helland: Has the project been appropriately conditioned requiring that the
13 lighting fixtures for project conform to the International Dark Sky Association because page 17 of
14 the staff reports says they do not comply.
15
16 Staff: There is a mitigation measure under Aesthetics that requires a lighting plan that complies
17 with the IDSA.
18
19 Commission:
20 • Line 35, Finding 4 (B) Mail to property owners within 300 feet of the property on
21 November 19, 2009. Do the property owners receive personal letters?
22
23 Staff: The property owners residing within a 300-foot radius of the project are mailed a notice
24 advising there is a Planning Commission hearing for a project occurring in their area. The
25 residents receive a description of the project, as well as the date, time and location of the
26 meeting.
27
28 Commission: No other questions regarding the Findings for the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
29 The Findings were acceptable to the Commission as presented.
30
31 Findings to Approve a General Plan Amendment to change the land use from High Density
32 Residential and Commercial to the Public designation for the project:
33
34 Commission: How could the General Plan Amendment affect the housing stock for the General
35 Plan Housing Element Update document?
36
37 Commissioner Helland: Does this include all income levels?
38
39 Planning Director Stump:
40 • The information in the GP Housing Element Update document indicates that the
41 Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) in their regional share analysis determined
42 that the City needed 455 units of housing. The number of housing units necessary was
43 much higher in the 2004 Housing Element Update than for the 2009 update. Due to
44 building activity and other factors, the demand for housing units is considerably less.
45 • The 455 figure represents the various household income levels, low, very low, moderate,
46 and high.
47 • The General Plan Vacant and Underutilized Map identifies the opportunity for 659
48 housing units within the City limits and this map does not include the City Substation
49 property. Consequently, there is more opportunity for housing development than the City
50 needs to provide by approximately 200 housing units. Therefore, the loss of this property
51 for potential housing land is not significant. There is sufficient land elsewhere in the City
52 limits for housing development to accommodate the City's regional share.
53
54 Commissioner Whetzel: The project essentially goes hand-in-hand with the Housing Element
55 Update because the community needs to upgrade the City's electrical system in order to meet the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 11
1 demand. There must be sufficient land having housing potential to substantiate the need for a
2 larger electrical substation to meet current and future needs.
3
4 Staff: The maximum number of housing units the City Substation site could support is 14, but
5 what typically occurs in this situation is fewer housing units than this maximum because of
6 required site improvements. This would not be considered is significant number of units
7 compared to the City's share.
8
9 Commission consensus — GP Amendment: The land use designation change from High
10 Density Residential and Commercial to Public is appropriate.
11
12 Findings to Approve a Site Development Permit:
13
14 Findings to Approve a Use Permit:
15
16 Conditions of Approval for Approval of a Site Development:
17
18 Staff: Part of the SDP is the landscaping plan. What would the Planning Commission like to see
19 as part of the landscaping plan? The Planning Commission has recommended additional
20 landscaping and design enhancement for the wall as the mitigating measure relative to
21 `Aesthetics.'
22
23 Commission: Reviewed wall samples and discussed appropriate color scheme for the wall. It
24 was noted that a natural colored wall bends well with the environment and reduces aesthetic
25 impacts.
26
27 Staff: Attachment 8 addresses the landscaping intentions. The Planning Commission can make
28 recommendations regarding plant species. The objective is to use this facility as a `model'
29 landscape choosing natural shrubs, groundcovers, and trees for the public, property owners and
30 developers.
31
32 Chair Pruden: Grey is not a particularly pleasing palate in the Ukiah Valley. Earth tone colors
33 work well in Ukiah. She favors a `more goldish' palate.
34
35 Commission: Agreed the wall should not look like concrete or be a grey color. The wall should
36 include earth tone colors.
37
38 Staff: The Planning Commission will have an opportunity to review the Landscape Plan when it is
39 final and can defer making a decision concerning the material and/or color scheme for the wall at
40 that time. A RFP is currently out to select a landscape architect.
41
42 Commissioner Molgaard: Favored going `greener or redder' concerning the color selection for
43 the wall stone material. She did not favor an orange enhancement.
44
45 Anthony Hanson: The control building will be metal/steel.
46
47 Staff: Agreed having two choices might better coordinate with the Final Landscape Plan.
48 Demonstrated the colors for the control building that will be visible three feet above the wall.
49
50 Commission: Does not support grey as the color for the control building. A beige color would be
51 acceptable.
52
53 Commission consensus:
54 • Selected No. 1020 (RAL 1020) Olive Yellow for the control building.
55 • Stone wall/color: Nos. 1125 and 200.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 12
1 There was additional discussion concerning the type/texture of the material for the wall, including
2 possible features to enhance the appearance of the wall.
3
4 Commissioner Whetzel: Too much architectural enhancement would draw more attention to the
5 wall possibly creating problems as opposed to allowing it to blend nicely with the environment
6 without all of the added features.
7
8 Anthony Hanson: The material is called a `Split Face Block.' The back of the wall that is not
9 visible will be flat while the front of the wall will be a semi-textured surface and are of regular
10 cinderblock size.
11
12 Staff: Vines are a graffiti deterrent.
13
14 Public Utilities Director Grandi: The vine species cannot be climbable.
15
16 Chair Pruden: With regard to the landscaping, suggested the clustering of trees on-site in some
17 of the larger planter areas rather than aligning them in a straight line. The trees will have to be
18 closer to the street because for safety reasons cannot be located near the substation. There are
19 tree species that are actually `colony trees,' such as Birch. Ginkgo is a nice landscaping tree
20 species native to Oregon, but is not sure it is a colony tree. It may be the landscape architect
21 could review for tree species that are west-coast colony trees that may be used for clustering
22 purposes.
23
24 Anthony Hanson: The tree species cannot grow very tall.
25
26 Commissioner Molgaard: Asked about Evergreens.
27 It is noted they grow to be too tall for what is appropriate/in compliance for the project.
28
29 Commissioner Sanders: Water conservation is a very important concept to keep in mind when
30 selecting the landscaping species for the project. Select species that are hardy, native to
31 Mendocino County that successfully grow in Ukiah's hot summer climate and drought tolerant as
32 much as possible, such as Manzanita and/or other similar low drought tolerant plant varieties.
33
34 Staff: Does the Commission want to cluster trees?The preference could be to extent street trees
35 up towards Gobbi Street. Seven street trees are required for the project. The clustering of trees
36 on-site could be problematic based on the security issues for the facility where the alternative
37 measure would be to distribute the street trees up towards Gobbi Street and possibly around the
38 corner on Orchard Avenue.
39
40 There was discussion about placement and spacing of the trees to allow for the canopy of a
41 species.
42
43 Staff: Is there a way to effectively distribute the trees? The landscaping plan is required to
44 provide some on-site trees. Some of the trees could be planted off-site for a City project that
45 needs some help.
46
47 Commissioner Sanders: It is important the City provide assets for the community. The
48 substation is an asset. With this asset come issues. The neighborhood is not pleased to look at
49 the 70-foot towers or with losing the existing Redwood tree.
50
51 Chair Pruden: The project is a public facility. Thought it was an interesting concept that trees
52 could be planted off-site for another City project.
53
54 Staff: It may that not all of the seven trees can be planted along the substation frontage due to
55 driveways and underground vaults/utilities. The trees that cannot be located along the frontage
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 13
1 could be distributed along E. Gobbi Street or along Orchard Avenue and ending at the corner at
2 Gobbi.
3
4 Commissioner Molgaard: Likes the idea of providing landscaping all the way up to E. Gobbi
5 Street for the benefit of the neighborhood with coordinated street trees even if they are being
6 used to camouflage the substation.
7
8 Commissioner Sanders: Inquired about the feasibility of tree replacement for the trees that will
9 be lost as a result of the project whereby the number of trees would increase for the project. Can
10 the project exceed the seven trees required? Could the number be seven plus three trees for a
11 total of 10 trees to be planted for the project?
12
13 Staff: This recommendation can be made such that`any tree removed is replaced.'
14
15 Commissioner Molgaard: Asked if anyone had seen the slide show by Tim Thornhill, who has
16 successfully moved 150-foot Oak trees and none of them have died. Why not use Mr. Thornhill's
17 ability to successfully remove and relocate trees locally.
18
19 There was a brief discussion about people who perform this type of operation of removing trees
20 and planting them elsewhere.
21
22 Staff: The City arborists recommended in this particular situation that it would be better to
23 remove the trees, including the Redwood tree and plant new ones. The Redwood tree was not a
24 good candidate for relocation.
25
26 The landscaping plan recommendations from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the
27 project landscape architect.
28
29 Staff:
30 • Inquired about the Planning Commission's decision concerning the lighting issue raised
31 that the lighting standard provided is not International Dark Sky Association compliant
32 and whether the Commission wants to modify the mitigation measure to accept the
33 lighting standard or direct the applicant to find an International Dark Sky approved light
34 fixture and bring it back? The problem is when the applicant submitted the lighting plan,
35 the fixture was not stamped Dark Sky approved.
36 • The Planning Commission can accept the fixture as adequate and amend the mitigation
37 measure or direct the applicant to find a Dark Sky approved light fixture. It may be that
38 the lighting fixture is what is necessary for the facility.
39
40 Anthony Hanson:
41 • The lighting fixtures selected are typical substation lights and provide for lighting on the
42 ground. With International Dark Sky compliant lighting fixture, more lights would have to
43 be added. The facility does not have very good locations in which to put additional
44 lighting. Most of the structures in the facility are low. The applicant could go with Dark
45 Sky compliant lights. The intent is to maintain sufficient lighting in facility for security
46 purposes.
47 • There are no plans for lighting on the poles holding the overhead lines.
48
49 Staff: Attachment 10 shows the lighting plan. While some of the lighting is higher, the lighting
50 within the facility is mounted low on the wall and cannot be seen.
51
52 Chair Pruden: The language could state, Dark Sky, if feasible. Lighting should be `top-shielded.'
53
54 Staff: The issue is that a lighting impact has been identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
55 so it must be decided there is no lighting impact and allow the applicant to use the light because it
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 14
1 is necessary for the type of facility or ask the applicant to find a light that is top shielded and
2 downcast and Dark Sky compliant that addresses the impact that has been identified.
3
4 Public Utilities Director Grandi: Referred to the Lighting Plan and stated the type of lighting
5 proposed is `top shielded.' All the lights are basically downcast. The diffuser is on the side and
6 bottom of the fixtures.
7
8 Commissioner Molgaard: What is the reason these lights are not Dark Sky compatible?
9
10 Anthony Hanson: The lights have not been certified.
11
12 Staff: Is it possible to find a different brand that is similar and is Dark Sky certified?
13
14 Anthony Hanson: Dark Sky compliant lights are somewhat different. Agreed to change the
15 lights to be Dark Sky compliant. Dark Sky lights are very focused.
16
17 Public Utilities Director Grandi: There are two types of lighting for the substation. One lighting
18 is interior lighting (5 fixtures) and would be well-suited as Dark Sky. The remaining fixtures (wall
19 packs) are located on the perimeter and will be off unless someone is working in the facility or if
20 the security systems is triggered.
21
22 Commissioner Whetzel: If Dark Sky compliant lighting is used, more lights would be needed to
23 cover the same amount of square footage that needs to be covered for security purposes.
24
25 There was discussion about whether the lighting can be lowered from 12 feet to 10 feet. Lighting
26 covers a certain amount of area so the higher up the fixture, the more spread.
27
28 There was further discussion about the taller lights becoming Dark Sky certified.
29
30 Commissioner Molgaard: Why not put in lighting that is the approved style? Is cost a factor?
31
32 Public Utilities Director Grandi: One option may be to custom-make the lights for the substation
33 that are designed to focus downward and not `off-shooY into the dark sky. The lights are focused
34 downward. He will look into the matter of Dark Sky compliant lighting or lighting equivalent to
35 Dark Sky that can provide the type of lighting the facility needs without impacts to the
36 neighborhood.
37
38 Commissioner Molgaard: Neighborhood complaints will make it known whether or not the type
39 of lighting selected creates impact.
40
41 Commissioner Helland: LED lighting is better for the environment.
42
43 Chair Pruden: Need to address Use Permit Finding 3(B), which pertains to the wall height. The
44 minimum standard height is six feet. Supports a 10-foot wall both for shielding of EMFs and
45 safety and/or other reasons. In this case, the wall needs to act as a barrier.
46
47 It was noted barbed wire will be placed on the inside of the wall as a security precaution and will
48 not be visible and will not add to the height of the wall.
49
50 Commissioner Sanders: Should the potential loss of 14 housing units resulting from this project
51 be addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration? Furthermore, does this matter need to be in
52 any of the other documents that the housing stock is more secure now than in prior Housing
53 Element Update years and that typically what occurs is fewer housing units than the 14 maximum
54 can be built due to site improvements?
55
56 Staff: Language to this effect can be added as a Finding related to the GP such as:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 15
1 • Even though the GP land use designation is being changed this could reduce the housing
2 land available by 14 units;
3 • The City Vacant and Underutilized Map demonstrates this number can more than be
4 offset elsewhere;
5 • The Substation (project) would provide the electricity needed to support those additional
6 housing units.
7 • However, this is not an environmental issue. It is more of a policy issue related to the
8 General Plan.
9
10 Chair Pruden: Added, this number of housing units was not part of the Regional Housing Survey
11 so the project is essentially not taking away housing stock because it was not a part of the
12 original inventory.
13
14 The Commission questioned whether there is a conflict with changing the land use designation?
15
16 Staff:
17 • The change from High Density Residential to Public designation does not conflict with
18 any General Plan goal or policy. In other words, there is no goal or policy that prevents
19 an amendment to the GP land use designation from a designation that allows housing to
20 a designation that does not unless it is replaced.
21 • The City is currently experiencing a surplus of housing opportunity.
22
23 Commission consensus:
24 • Use Cap stone for the corners of the wall and provide for vines, such as Wild Grape
25 and/or a species that is drought resistant and climate adaptive.
26 • The landscape architect can make a determination about appropriate landscaping
27 features, including a vine species that is drought tolerant and adapts well to Ukiah's
28 climate. The final Landscape Plan will come back to the Planning Commission for review.
29 • Plant a minimum of 10 street trees along E. Gobbi Street and Orchard Avenue along the
30 project frontage, approximately every 30 feet. (This modifies Condition of Approval 3(G).
31 • Supports a wall height of 10 feet as opposed to the standard height.
32 • GP Amendment Findings—Acceptable
33 SDP Findings—Acceptable
34 UP Findings—Acceptable
35 Conditions of Approval with the above modifications—Acceptable
36
37 M/S Molgaard/Helland to recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative
38 Declaration for City of Ukiah Orchard Avenue Electrical Substation Project and Mitigation
39 Monitoring Program Report as prepared by staff with Findings 1-7 to include language
40 modification as reflected in the discussion by the Commission. Motion carried (5-0).
41
42 M/S Whetzel/Helland to recommend the Ukiah City Council approve a General Plan
43 AmendmenURezone for the Orchard Avenue Electric Substation Project with Findings 1-4. Motion
44 carried (5-0).
45
46 M/S Molgaard/Whetzel to approve the Site Development Permit with Findings 1-11, Use Permit
47 with Findings 1-6 and Conditions of Approval 1-37, as amended. Motion carried (5-0).
48
49 FINDINGS TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
50
51 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report,
52 the application materials, project plans, and documentation, and the public record.
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 16
1 1. An Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence that
2 supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned, would have a significant effect
3 on the environment.
4
5 2. The project may impact migratory birds due to the removal of onsite trees. A Mitigation
6 Measure has been included that would reduce any potential impacts to migratory birds to
7 a less than significant level and this mitigation measure has been agreed to by the project
8 applicanUproject sponsor.
9
10 3. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by
11 the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code.
12
13 4. The Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and published as
14 required by Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
15 Negative Declaration was provided as follows:
16
17 A. Posted in the office of the County Clerk on November 20, 2009;
18 B. Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property on November 19, 2009;
19 C. Posted in 3 places on the subject property on November 19, 2009; and
20 D. Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 20, 2009.
21
22 5. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public comments before
23 making a recommendation on the project.
24
25 6. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted
26 mitigation measures. The mitigation measures have been agreed to by the project sponsor.
27
28 7. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public review at the
29 City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Department, Civic Center, 300
30 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
31
32 FINDINGS TO APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
33
34 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report,
35 the application materials, project plans, and documentation, and the public record.
36
37 1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest. The amendment will
38 allow for the construction of a new electric substation that is needed in order to meet the
39 City's electric demand during the summer peak season and an anticipated future demand
40 for increased electric power. The project will also replace aging, less efficient electrical
41 equipment with new more efficient equipment.
42
43 2. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been
44 determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The construction
45 of the substation will assist public services, and thereby, promote public health, safety
46 and welfare by ensuring that the City services such as Police, Fire, Water and Sewer
47 Facilities, and Transportation Infrastructure, have the necessary electricity to run
48 effectively and safely. The project will ensure that there is adequate electricity to serve
49 the citizens of Ukiah during the summer peak and in the future which will promote the
50 public health, safety and welfare. Impacts associated with the proposed project have
51 been identified as part of the Initial Study and mitigation measures have been agreed to
52 by the project sponsor to reduce these impacts to a level that is less than significant.
53
54 3. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan
55 and any implementation programs that may be affected as described in the General Plan
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 17
1 section of the staff analysis included in the staff report and as described in the Land Use,
2 Biological Resources, and Aesthetics sections of the Initial Study prepared for the project.
3 The General Plan Public land use designation is intended for uses such as public utility
4 facilities, the electric substation and the City well are both public utility facilities.
5
6 4. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable
7 provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality
8 Act(CEQA) including but not limited to the following:
9
10 A. An Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence
11 that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned, would have a
12 significant effect on the environment.
13
14 B. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled
15 by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code.
16
17 C. The Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and
18 published as required by Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines. Notice of Intent to
19 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was provided as follows:
20
21 1) Posted in the office of the County Clerk on November 20, 2009;
22 2) Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property on November 19, 2009;
23 3) Posted in 3 places on the subject property on November 19, 2009; and
24 4) Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 20, 2009.
25
26 D. The project may impact migratory birds due to the removal of onsite trees. A Mitigation
27 Measure has been included that would reduce any potential impacts to migratory
28 birds to a less than significant level and this mitigation measure has been agreed to
29 by the project applicant/project sponsor.
30
31 FINDINGS TO APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
32
33 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report,
34 the application materials, project plans, and documentation, and the public record.
35
36 1. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
37 City General Plan as described in the General Plan analysis of the staff report, including
38 Table 2.
39
40 2. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the Public Facility
41 zoning district and other applicable section of the zoning ordinance as noted in Table 4 of the
42 staff report.
43
44 3. The location, size, and intensity of the proposed project will not create a hazardous
45 vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern based on the following:
46
47 A. The substation would be located on an existing street. The closest intersections are
48 East Gobbi Street which is signal controlled and Cindee Lane which is stop sign
49 controlled.
50
51 B. The project would not make any changes to the intersections or street alignment.
52
53 C. The project would enhance the pedestrian traffic pattern by providing new sidewalks,
54 street trees and landscaping along the Orchard Avenue project frontage. The
55 location, size and intensity of the substation are similar to the existing substation
56 facility.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 18
1
2 D. The project was reviewed by Public Works and was found to be adequate.
3
4 4. The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect
5 to traffic on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to
6 adjacent or surrounding uses based on the following:
7
8 A. The substation site would be accessed from and have frontage on Orchard Avenue.
9 The project includes three driveways from Orchard Avenue that are adequate to
10 provide access for employee vehicles and service vehicles/equipment. The project
11 plans include a maneuvering plan in order to demonstrate that there is adequate
12 access and maneuvering to and through the substation site.
13
14 B. The substation includes a parking area within the walled facility. The facility is
15 unmanned and, therefore, will generate very little traffic.
16
17 C. The project will not change the street alignment.
18
19 D. The project, including site access and circulation was reviewed by Public Works and
20 determined to be adequate.
21
22 5. Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of separating or screening
23 the proposed structures from the street and adjoining building sites, and breaking up and
24 screening large expanses of paved areas based on the following:
25
26 A. The building and the tower structures are located an adequate distance from
27 adjacent properties as shown on sheet 5 of the plans. The closest part of the
28 substation is located 18 feet from the north property line and approximately 19 feet
29 from East Gobbi Street; 36 feet from the west property line and 102 feet from the
30 apartments (Autumn Leaves); 24' 11" to the south property line; and 20'11" from the
31 wall to the east property line and 120 feet to the single-family residence on the east
32 side of Orchard Avenue. These setbacks provide adequate separation of the facility
33 from the street and adjoining building sites. Street trees will provide screening of the
34 site from the east. No landscaping is proposed along the north, west or south
35 properties due to the security and safety concerns associated with the facility.
36
37 B. The project does not include large expanses of paved areas. The area within the
38 walls of the facility will be primarily gavel, but will not be visible from the street, public
39 areas, or adjacent properties due to the height of the wall.
40
41 6. The proposed development will not restrict or cut out light and air on the property, or on
42 the property in the neighborhood; nor will it hinder the development or use of buildings in
43 the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof based on the following:
44
45 A. The substation facility is primarily an "open" facility comprised of tower like structures
46 rather than buildings. The building on the site is relatively small in size and located a
47 minimum of 24 feet from the south property line which is the closest property line.
48
49 B. The site of the substation is currently developed with a vacant single-family residence
50 that is in poor condition. The existing substation, a new City well, and Highway 101
51 are located proximate to the substation site. Based on these surrounding land uses,
52 there is an established pattern of public facilities being located in the area. The
53 proposed project is consistent and compatible with these existing public land uses
54 and the project would replace a vacant residence that has the potential to become an
55 attractive nuisance.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 19
1 7. The improvement of any commercial or industrial structure will not have a substantial
2 detrimental impact on the character or value of an adjacent residential structure since the
3 project is a Public Facility use and does not include a commercial or industrial structure.
4
5 8. The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features,
6 including trees, shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the site based on the following:
7
8 A. The project site does not include any water courses.
9
10 B. The site is relatively flat; therefore, site grading will be limited.
11
12 C. Natural site features are limited to trees, shrubs and grasses.
13
14 D. In order to construct the facility, all of the onsite trees would be removed. An arborist
15 report was prepared that evaluates the condition of the existing trees. Twelve of the 14
16 onsite trees were identified as having poor or fair structure. Based on this, these trees
17 are not suitable for preservation. The remaining two trees require removal due to their
18 location on the site which would conflict with and provide a hazard related to
19 substation below and above ground equipment. The project will not excessively
20 destroy or damage trees since 12 of the 14 trees on the site are not suitable for
21 preservation and the remaining two trees are not suitable for preservation since to
22 their location conflicts with the equipment for the facility.
23
24 9. There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and design of the
25 structure(s) and grounds to avoid monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting appearance
26 based on the following:
27
28 A. Due to the nature of the facility, this finding does not appear to apply to the proposed
29 substation project. However, the control building is a prefabricated building that will be
30 located within the proposed 10-foot wall. The height of the building would be 13-feet 2-
31 inches. Therefore, very little of the building would be visible above the wall. The color
32 for the building and the wall can be coordinated to further reduce the visibility of the
33 building.
34
35 B. The front of the site will be landscaped with groundcover and shrubs. Trees also be
36 planted at the front of the site to the degree feasible based on the security
37 requirements for the facility.
38
39 10. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable
40 provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality
41 Act(CEQA) based on the following:
42
43 C. An Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence
44 that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned, would have a
45 significant effect on the environment.
46
47 D. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled
48 by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code.
49
50 C. The Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and
51 published as required by Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines. Notice of Intent to
52 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was provided as follows:
53
54 5) Posted in the office of the County Clerk on November 20, 2009;
55 6) Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property on November 19, 2009;
56 7) Posted in 3 places on the subject property on November 19, 2009; and
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 20
1 8) Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 20, 2009.
2
3 D. The project may impact migratory birds due to the removal of onsite trees. A Mitigation
4 Measure has been included that would reduce any potential impacts to migratory
5 birds to a less than significant level and this mitigation measure has been agreed to
6 by the project applicant/project sponsor.
7
8 11. A public notice for this Site Development Permit was provided as follows:
9
10 A. Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property on November 19, 2009;
11 B. Posted in 3 places on the subject property on November 19, 2009; and
12 C. Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 20, 2009.
13
14 FINDINGS TO APPROVE A USE PERMIT
15 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 10-FOOT WALL TO ENCLOSE THE
16
17 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report,
18 the application materials, project plans, and documentation, and the public record.
19
20 1. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City
21 General Plan as described in the General Plan analysis of the staff report, including Table 2.
22
23 2. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the Public Facility
24 zoning district and other applicable section of the zoning ordinance as noted in Table 4 of the
25 staff report.
26
27 3. The project, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding land uses based on the
28 following:
29
30 A. The wall will be setback the minimum required distance of 15-feet from the front
31 property line. The fence is setback 3 feet from the south property line, 5 feet from the
32 west property line and 2 feet from the north property line.
33
34 B. The existing substation facility located on the east side of Orchard Avenue and south
35 side of Gobbi Street has a cyclone fence 8 feet in height with an additional foot of
36 barbed wire for a total fence height of 9 feet. The 10-foot wall proposed for the new
37 substation would be more aesthetic than the 9-foot cyclone and barbed wire fence
38 that encloses the existing facility and there are opportunities to screen the 10-foot
39 wall with landscaping.
40
41 C. Street trees and landscaping will be provided between the wall and the east property
42 line to provide screening. There are existing trees on the property to the west
43 (Autumn Leaves)that will provide screening.
44
45 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, shall not be detrimental to the public's health, safety
46 and general welfare based on the following:
47
48 A. The additional wall height will provide the safety required for the facility by limiting
49 access to the site to authorized personnel only.
50
51 B. Limiting the wall height to the 6-foot height allowed by the zoning ordinance would
52 make unauthorized entry into the facility easier which could present a hazard to the
53 person(s) entering the facility as well as to the greater public should damage occur to
54 the facility.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 21
1 5. The proposed project has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions
2 of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
3 based on the following:
4
5 E. An Initial Study was prepared and demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence
6 that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned, would have a
7 significant effect on the environment.
8
9 F. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled
10 by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code.
11
12 C. The Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and
13 published as required by Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines. Notice of Intent to
14 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was provided as follows:
15
16 9) Posted in the office of the County Clerk on November 20, 2009;
17 10) Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property on November 19, 2009;
18 11) Posted in 3 places on the subject property on November 19, 2009; and
19 12) Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 20, 2009.
20
21 D. The project may impact migratory birds due to the removal of onsite trees. A Mitigation
22 Measure has been included that would reduce any potential impacts to migratory
23 birds to a less than significant level and this mitigation measure has been agreed to
24 by the project applicant/project sponsor.
25
26 6. A public notice for this Use Permit was provided as follows:
27
28 A. Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property on November 19, 2009;
29 B. Posted in 3 places on the subject property on November 19, 2009; and
30 C. Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 20, 2009.
31
32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR APPROVAL OF A
33 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND USE PERMIT FOR
34
35 1. Approval is granted for the proposed electrical substation as shown on the plans
36 submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 20, 2009, except
37 as modified by the following conditions of approval.
38
39 2. This site development permit and use permit approval shall not become effective
40 unless and until the City Council approves the General Plan Amendment and the
41 Rezoning for this project.
42
43 3. Landscaping and irrigation plan for the project shall return to Planning Commission
44 for review and approval prior to installation. The irrigation plan shall include irrigation
45 for the street trees required for the project. The landscaping plan shall include the
46 following:
47
48 A. Native species shall be considered first. If native species are not feasible,
49 alternative species that grow well in Ukiah's climate may be used.
50
51 B. Landscaping plan, including street trees, shall be designed to be a
52 "demonstration/model" landscape to provide examples of appropriate species
53 and good landscape design to the public and developers.
54
55 C. Hydrozones used wherever feasible to provide a variety of plant species and to
56 group species with similar water needs.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 22
1 D. Tree species that meet the security constraints of the project and site.
2
3 E. Plans consistent with the State's Model Efficiency Landscape Ordinance.
4
5 F. Re-use of onsite trees as mulch where feasible.
6
7 G. Screening of the facility to the greatest degree feasible given security and safety
8 constraints associated with the substation, including the planting of onsite trees
9 and vines to screen the wall.
10
11 4. Prior to the substation facility beginning operations, the landscaping and irrigation
12 plan approved by the Planning Commission as required in condition #3 shall be
13 installed and inspected by Planning Department staff.
14
15 5. Plans submitted for building and/or demolition permit shall include the following and
16 are subject to staff review and approval:
17
18 A. Material used for the masonry wall shall be comprised of a minimum of 60%
19 recycled material.
20
21 B. Notes on the plans that identify the material for the vehicle and man gates for the
22 facility as aluminum.
23
24 C. All documentation from the MCAQMD. Prior to demolition or partial demolition,
25 the property owner shall discuss the project with the Mendocino County Air
26 Quality Management District, complete all required forms, and receive approval
27 for the project.
28
29 D. A Demolition Debris Recycling and Salvage Plan for 1) materials removed from
30 the existing substation 2) construction debris/ waste for resulting from
31 construction of the new substation facility 3)the onsite trees and vegetation to be
32 removed and 4)the existing residence on the project site that may be suitable for
33 recycling/salvage if it is determined that the residence does not include lead paint
34 or asbestos. Every effort shall be made to recycle all recyclable material from the
35 demolition or partial demolition operation.
36
37 The Demolition Debris Recycling and Salvage Plan shall include what materials
38 can be salvaged, reused or recycled; the intended salvage, reuse, and recycling
39 facilities to be used; and an estimate of the percentage of debris that will be
40 salvaged, reused or recycled.
41
42 E. Documentation that the abandonment of the easement for the benefit of the
43 Ukiah Valley Sanitation District has been approved as required by the Resolution
44 of the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Board.
45
46 F. Planning Commission approved landscaping and irrigation plans.
47
48 6. Prior to issuance of any permit for construction of the facility(including but not limited
49 to a grading permit, building permit), a Boundary Line Adjustment shall be reviewed
50 and approved by the City Engineer in order to create the parcel and parcel
51 configuration required for the substation.
52
53 7. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
54 and Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and
55 holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah. Additional construction hours may be
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 23
1 administratively approved by the Planning Director due to emergency circumstances.
2 (Mitigation Measure).
3
4 8. The Boundary Line Adjustment approved by the City Engineer shall be recorded prior
5 to issuance of a building permit and documentation of the recorded Boundary Line
6 Adjustment shall be submitted to Planning Department staff.
7
8 9. This approval shall be null and void unless the California Environmental Quality
9 Act/Fish and Game filing fee payable to Mendocino County is filed with the City of
10 Ukiah Planning and Community Development Department within five (5) days of this
11 approval.
12
13 10. All mitigation measures include in the mitigated negative declaration for this project
14 are included herein by reference.
15
16 11. All mitigation measures included in the mitigated Negative Declaration are
17 incorporated by reference as conditions of approval.
18
19 From the Planninq Commission
20
21 12. The landscaping plan required in condition #3 above shall also include the
22 following and is subject to Planning Commission review and approval:
23
24 A. A minimum of ten (10) street trees located along the project frontage on Orchard
25 Avenue and extending north along Orchard Avenue to East Gobbi Street and
26 west along East Gobbi Street.
27
28 B. Vines to screen the wall from Orchard Avenue. If feasible, use wild grape as a
29 climbing vine.
30
31 C. Consider the following species as part of the landscaping plan: Manzanita,
32 ceanothus, wild rose.
33
34 D. Consider the use of colony trees to help provide screening.
35
36 13. The following shall be used for the wall which is subject to Planning Commission
37 review and approval as part of the landscaping plan:
38 A. Use Calstone color S-200 or S-1125. Provide color samples at the meeting to
39 ensure that this is the desired color and consistent with the paper color sample
40 provided at the meeting.
41 B. Consider a grout color for the wall that is compatible with the building color in
42 order to tie the two together. Color samples of the grout shall be provided as part
43 of the submittal for the landscaping plan.
44
45 C. Use capstones for the corner of the walls.
46
47 14. The building color shall be DuPont Olive Yellow and shall be compatible with the
48 color of the wall and landscaping for the site. The color is subject to Planning
49 Commission review and approval as part of the landscaping plan.
50 From the Buildinq Division
51
52 15. Three sets of a Geotechnical Report shall be submitted along with the building plans
53 and other documents when applying for a building permit.
54
55 From the Department of Public Works
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 24
1 16. ADA compliant sidewalk shall be required along the project of Orchard Avenue,
2 including at the proposed driveway approaches. Sidewalk easements shall be
3 dedicated where necessary.
4
5 17. Any damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be repaired or replaced, and
6 abandoned driveway approaches shall be replaced with standard 6 inch vertical curb,
7 gutter and sidewalk.
8
9 15. All areas of on-site circulation shall be paved with a minimum of 2 inches of AC on 6
10 inches base, or other pavement surface as approved by the City Engineer. This
11 includes existing and proposed driveways and parking areas.
12
13 16. The applicant shall incorporate into the landscaping plan street trees spaced
14 approximately every 30 feet that are within a landscape strip or within 5 feet of the
15 back of sidewalk. Street trees shall be installed in accordance with City Standard
16 Drawing No. 601. Tree types shall be approved by the City Engineer.
17
18 17. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly
19 insured contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work
20 within this area or otherwise affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be
21 $45 plus 3% of the Engineer's estimate of construction costs.
22
23 18. The site is within the South Orchard Avenue Traffic Signalization Fee area. A
24 preliminary estimate of the fee would be approximately$1743.00.
25
26 From the Ukiah Vallev Sanitation District
27
28 19. The proposed abandonment of the easement that is to the benefit of the Ukiah Valley
29 Sanitation District requires approval of the District Board as a Resolution. The
30 applicant shall apply to the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District for approval of the
31 abandonment.
32
33 Standards Conditions
34
35 20. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and
36 their agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless
37 the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from
38 any claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or
39 entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this
40 application. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs,
41 expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person
42 or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action
43 on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on
44 the part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is
45 held to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder
46 of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
47
48 21. No permit shall be issued and this Use Permit is not effective unless and until all fees
49 and charges applicable to the application, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation
50 Measures have been paid in full.
51
52 22. All use, construction, or occupancy shall conform to the application approved by the
53 Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, Planning Commission or City Council as
54 applicable, and to any supporting documents submitted therewith or made part of the
55 administrative record, including staff reports, maps, sketches, renderings, building
56 elevations, landscape plans, and other submittals or documents.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 25
1 23. Except as otherwise specifically noted, this Permit shall be granted only for the
2 specific purposes stated in the action approving the Permit and shall not be
3 construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, zoning or other requirements
4 except as to such specific purposes.
5
6 24. This approved Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the
7 approved project related to the Permit is not being conducted in compliance with the
8 stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two
9 years of the effective date of approval; or if the established and use for which the
10 permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty-four (24)
11 consecutive months.
12
13 25. Any work, improvement, expenses or other encumbrance incurred by the applicant,
14 owner or other party in reliance upon any entitlement, approval or permit which has
15 not been granted, issued or approved is at your own risk.
16
17 26. All conditions that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior
18 to release of final building inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
19 the building.
20
21 27. Applicant shall be required to obtain and maintain any permit or approval, which is
22 required by law, regulation, or ordinance of any Local, State, or Federal agency.
23 Applicant/owner or other person in possession of the project site shall grant
24 permission to employees of the City of Ukiah and others authorized by the City of the
25 Ukiah to enter upon the subject property as necessary to inspect the property and
26 process the required entitlements.
27
28 28. A copy of all conditions of this Site Development Permit and Use Permit shall be
29 provided to and be binding upon any future purchaser, tenant or other party of interest.
30
31 29. All Conditions of Approval for this project shall be provided to all contractors and
32 persons working on the project. Conditions of Approval shall be prominently
33 displayed on all sets of plans for all ministerial permits required to develop the
34 property, including building permits and permits for grading or site preparation.
35
36 30. Any construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of
37 construction now existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering
38 Department of the City of Ukiah; except where higher standards are imposed by law,
39 rule, or regulation or by action of the approving body.
40
41 31. In addition to any other condition imposed, any construction shall comply with all
42 building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations and
43 ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued.
44
45 32. Sewer, water, electric and fire protection improvements and services shall conform to
46 the specifications of City Public Utilities, Public Works Department and Fire
47 Departments.
48
49 33. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts
50 related to project construction:
51
52 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District
53 Rule 1-430, Fugitive Dust Emissions.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 26
1 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road
2 construction, and building construction institute a practice of routinely watering
3 exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy days.
4
5 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to
6 control fugitive dust.
7
8 D. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual
9 construction shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the
10 construction site to control the transport of mud and dust onto public streets.
11
12 E. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and
13 bulldozers shall be used for earth moving operations.
14
15 F. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as
16 instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour.
17
18 G. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires,
19 poorly covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each
20 day prior to the end of construction activities using methods approved by the
21 Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
22
23 34. Prior to issuance of the Final Certificate of Occupancy, applicant shall submit to the
24 Department of Planning and Community Development a completed Mendocino
25 County Air Quality Management District `Air Quality Permit ChecklisY if required by
26 district rules.
27
28 35. The use, site, improvements, landscaping, and all other elements shall be operated
29 and maintained consistent with the approved project and in good standing and repair
30 for the life of the project, notwithstanding any change in ownership.
31
32 36. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and
33 vitality of the plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited
34 to the following:
35
36 A. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall
37 fluctuate according to the season, i.e., more water in summer, less in the winter.
38
39 B. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying
40 winds, and reduced watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy
41 weather.
42
43 C. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive
44 periodic fertilizer according to the recommendations of a landscaping
45 professional.
46
47 D. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees.
48
49 E. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not
50 constrict the trunks and damage the trees.
51
52 F. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not
53 damage the trunk of the tree and its overall growth.
54
55 G. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests, disease or other factors, including
56 vandalism, shall be replaced with the same or similar tree species, or an
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 27
1 alternative species approved by the department of Planning and Community
2 Development.
3
4 H. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be
5 made. All pruning shall follow standard industry methods and techniques to
6 ensure the health and vitality of the tree.
7
8 37. Failure to comply with the requirements listed above could result in revocation of the
9 Use Permit/Site Development Permit.
10
11 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
12 Planning Director Stump: This year's Planning Commission institute is in Monterey and
13 information is available in this regard.
14
15 The Commission will receive their stipends in one lump sum.
16 Recent City Council actions include City Council approval for the Wal-Mart Expansion EIR.
17 The Zoning Administrator will conduct a public hearing for a kidney dialysis facility to go into
18 existing space at the Longs Shopping Center.
19 The newly constructed Orchard Bridge is now open for use. The Bridge will be formally named.
20 The Courthouse relocation project is progressing wherein funding is anticipated from the State.
21 The Redhawk Restaurant in the AIP is under construction.
22 The City Skateboard Park is out to bid for construction.
23 The City View Trail Project has been completed.
24 The Grocery Outlet project that was appealed to City Council.
25 There was discussion concerning the Grocery Outlet project that was appealed to City Council by
26 the owner, who was not present at the Planning Commission when the project was initially
27 reviewed. The issue concerned the four parking stalls that front N. State Street. The Planning
28 Commission had voted to approve the project requiring the four parking stalls be eliminated in
29 favor of trees and landscaping. The City Council carefully considered the Planning Commission's
30 decision and compromised by allowing the parking stalls to remain and plant the trees in another
31 location on the site.
32
33 11. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
34 Commissioner Sanders: She, Commissioners Helland and Molgaard recently attended a
35 planning training workshop conference at SSU. The conference was very helpful.
36
37 12. ADJOURNMENT
38 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
39
40
41 Judy Pruden, Chair
42
43 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
44
45
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009
Page 28