HomeMy WebLinkAbout10232013 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
October 23, 2013
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
UKIAH CIVIC CENTER, 300 SEMINARY AVENUE
2. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS CHRISTENSEN, DOBLE,
SANDERS, PRUDEN, CHAIR WHETZEL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the following meetings will be available for review and approval:
A. August 14, 2013
B. September 11, 2013
C. September 25, 2013
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The Planning Commission welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to
be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more
than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be
taken on audience comments.
6. APPEAL PROCESS
All determinations of the Planning Commission regarding major discretionary planning
permits are final unless a written appeal, stating the reasons for the appeal, is filed with
the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. An interested
parry may appeal only if he or she appeared and stated his or her position during the
hearing on the decision from which the appeal is taken. For items on this agenda, the
appeal must be received by November 4, 2013 before 5:00 p.m.
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hertz Car Rental Facility, 724 South State Street, APN 003-031-19 (File
No. 13-20-UP-PC). Planning Commission consideration and possible action on
Major Use Permit to allow the operation of a car rental facility at 724 South State
Street, APN 003-031-19.
B. Myszka Place Lot 2, APN 001-201-08 (File No. 13-23 Prelim-PC). Planning
Commission consideration of an application for preliminary review to allow removal
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours
in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.
The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities
upon request. Please call (707)463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
of two trees located on Lot 2 of Myszka Place.
10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
12. ADJOURNMENT
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours
in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.
The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities
upon request. Please call (707)463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 August 14, 2013
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair
7 Kevin Doble
8 Linda Sanders
9 Judy Pruden
10 Laura Christensen
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
14 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
19 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
20
21 2. ROLL CALL
22
23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—The minutes from the July 24, 2013 meeting are included for review
26 and approval.
27
28 The Commission made the following corrections:
29
30 Page 2, line 31, sentence to read, `Chair Pruden: It is not likely the draft findings would be affected, but
31 rather serves as justification for how one views the building in association with the building's history.'
32
33 Page 2, line 19, sentence to read, `Is of the opinion this may not be accurate because the document talks
34 about Pacific Telephone and Telegraph purchasing the vacant lot in 1916 for construction of a service
35 facility for the company and concluded what likely occurred is the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph
36 business began in 1905 and the building constructed in 1916.'
37
38 M/S Sanders/Doble to approve the July 24, 2013 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (5-0).
39
40 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
41
42 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters at this meeting, the
43 final date to appeal is August 26, 2013.
44
45 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
46
47 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff.
48
49 9. PUBLIC HEARING
50 9A. Crush Restaurant Live Entertainment, Outdoor Barbecue, and Off-Site Parking Use Permit,
51 1180 Airport Park Blvd. (File No.: 13-17-UP-PC). Planning Commission consideration and
52 possible action on a Major Use Permit to allow live entertainment and an outdoor barbecue at
53 Crush restaurant located at 1180 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-24, and to allow off-site
54 parking for the live entertainment on the parcel located adjacent to and west of Crush on the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 1
1 northeast corner of Commerce Drive/Airport Road, APN 180-070-03. Continued from the July 24,
2 2013 meeting.
3
4 Senior Planner Jordan:
5 • Gave the staff report.
6 • Staff is requesting Planning Commission direction concerning the Airport Compatibility Zone
7 analysis, and vehicle and bike parking considerations, and the Management Plan.
8
9 Commissioner Sanders:
10 • Related to the issue of maximum occupancy and compliance with density requirements, noted
11 the Use Permit for the former Red Hawk restaurant allowed 174 seats plus up to 25 employees
12 on the maximum shift. Asked staff to clarify how the Fire Marshal determined the maximum
13 occupancy of 251 persons.
14
15 Staff:
16 • When Crush remodeled the restaurant, the meat counter and bakery removed and the seating for
17 the restaurant changed. It is my understanding that occupancy is a mathematical equation based
18 on square footage of the building. Based on the changes to the building and square footage, the
19 Fire Marshal determined the occupancy for the remodeled restaurant was 251, which is what is
20 currently posted. The Fire Marshal visited the restaurant several times and was okay with the live
21 entertainment consistent with the posted occupancy limit of 251.
22 • Maximum building occupancy is a fire code requirement. Airport Compatibility Zone requirements
23 are separate from the fire code requirements.
24
25 Commissioner poble:
26 • Noted the off-site parking portion of the property was factored into the mathematical equation
27 concerning the density calculation and questioned in arriving at the 268 persons allowed as
28 provided for on page 6 of the staff report. What would occur if the off-site parking was no longer
29 available? How would this affect a project proposed on the adjacent site? Would the occupancy
30 of the restaurant/live entertainment have to change or would the new project be affected?
31 • Does not want to approve a Project that might encumber another property and/or limit that
32 property's potential for development.
33
34 Staff:
35 • The aforementioned depends upon how the Planning Commission wants to handle
36 occupancy/density.
37 • The Planning Commission previously approved 174 persons plus 25 employees as part of the
38 Use Permit for Red Hawk
39 • If the off-site parking opportunity goes away in association with the density calculations, a new
40 condition can be formulated that states because of the Airport Compatibility zone requirements,
41 the Project is required to be reviewed by staff to see if a similar analysis and finding can be made
42 for the new parking location. Another approach would be to limit live entertainment to the 174
43 people approved by the Red Hawk use permit. Since the live entertainment requires a cover, the
44 number of people attending could be easily controlled by the applicant. Would suggest
45 discussing this with the applicant.
46
47 Commissioner Pruden: Asked about the hours of operation for the bar that is currently operating.
48
49 Staff: This would be a question for the applicant.
50
51 Chair Wetzel:
52 • Asked if there were comments from other neighborhood property owners regarding the Project
53 other than Mark and Debbie Watson who own the Hampton Inn and Crush. Is there a lease
54 agreement or some other document necessary for the Project?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 2
1 • Will there be some clean-up of the off-site parking area? Will the parking spaces be marked?
2 There are areas where pipes are sticking up through the pavement.
3
4 Staff: Clean-up is not required as a project condition.
5
6 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:11 p.m.
7
8 Staff:
9 • The property owner has to sign the Use Permit application. So the application was signed by the
10 Watsons and the owner of property where offsite parking would occur. In addition, condition #22
11 requires the applicant to provide a copy of the agreement that allows the use of the parcel for
12 parking.
13 • Since the parking is valet, no marking is necessary. This should be clarified with the applicant.
14
15
16 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:11 p.m.
17
18 Doug Guillon:
19 • Music does not typically commence until dinner is no longer being served so as not to impact
20 dining customers. Speaking from experience in the restaurant business, it is best to commence
21 live entertainment at 9:30 p.m., or later.
22 • Those private guests still dining later will be seated in the private dining room area and located far
23 enough away from the live entertainment area.
24 • Does not anticipate there will be diners and live music occurring at the same time.
25 • Considers the business to be successful if there are 150 or so people attending a music event.
26 • The music venue will be small bands consisting of four members that will likely be limited to
27 acoustical guitar and piano,jazz, light rock and disc jockey.
28 • Is not really pursuing bands that draw big crowds.
29 • Live entertainment will be in the `North Beach Bar' with overflow into `Mason Street Bar.'
30 • Customers desiring a quieter atmosphere can utilize the `Mason Street Bar.'
31 • Related to the off-site parking accommodations, it is likely only a small portion of this site will be
32 used. Is of the opinion there should be sufficient on-site parking to handle the music venue.
33
34 Chair Whetzel: Will valet parking begin after the dining experience ends?
35
36 Commission Sanders:
37 • Will the restaurant venue include wedding and other special events?
38 • Would like the bike rack to be restored and noted it is not anchored and/or positioned in an area
39 that functions properly for the public and/or employees.
40
41 Chair Pruden:
42 • Asked about the current bar hours?
43 • Asked if the applicant was aware there was a cap on the maximum number of persons allowed in
44 the restaurant facility when he took over the operations? The restaurant building is located next to
45 an airport and subject to compliance with the Airport Compatibility Zone regulations that controls
46 the density allowance and this is the reason for the 174 occupancy cap should there be an
47 accident.
48
49 Doug Guillon:
50 • Valet parking will likely commence at 9:00 p.m. until closing time. It may be that valet parking is
51 not necessary.
52 • Has plans to expand and/or market the business to include wedding events and/or other types of
53 special events that would draw clientele from out of the area, particularly San Francisco. Is of the
54 opinion Ukiah offers a great designation for weddings since there are many wineries other venues
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 3
1 in the area. Would like to host receptions, bridal showers, rehearsal dinners and similar events at
2 Crush.
3 • The bar closes at 1:30 a.m. on weekends. However, this has not been the case because the bar
4 has not been that busy. When the bar is not busy, it may close at midnight.
5 • The intent is for live entertainment to stop at 1:00 a.m. on weekends and explained how the
6 process would work.
7 • Was not aware of the 174 person density limit related to the airport. Based on the size of the
8 restaurant, more than 174 seats are needed to make the restaurant a successful venture.
9
10 There was Commission discussion concerning the installation, appropriate location and possible need for
11 a bicycle rack(s) for patrons and employees of the restaurant acknowledging that three parking spaces
12 exist and supports providing for a minimum of six bicycle spaces.
13
14 Doug Guillon: Would be amenable to having bicycle facilities and is open to the Planning Commission's
15 recommendation in this regard.
16
17 The Planning Commission recommended providing for 3 bicycle parking spaces for the live entertainment
18 in addition to the 3 required for the restaurant and for the applicant to work with staff regarding the
19 location.
20
21 Chair Pruden:
22 • Related to occupancy/density and compliance with the Airport Compatibility Zone criteria
23 expressed concern regarding the density calculations provided for in staff's analysis. Is of the
24 opinion 251 persons exceeds the density requirement for the area, jeopardizes operations at the
25 Airport, and creates a potential safety problem.
26 • Does not agree with the analysis that by taking off-site parking adds more area to the parcel,
27 especially when this particular area is prime for development.
28 • Supports the maximum density for the building is 174 persons and that 251 persons is over what
29 the density should be for that area.
30 • Does not want to create a density conflict for the Airport that could eventually shut the airport
31 down permanently.
32
33 Commissioner poble:
34 • Is `uneasy' with the density calculation that allows for a maximum of 268 people that would be
35 allowed on the Crush parcel and on the portion of the parcel used for parking that essentially
36 exceeds the occupancy requested by the applicant and the maximum allowed by the Fire Code.
37 Related to the calculations, it appears 'convenienY to count '/4 of the valet/off-site parking area of
38 2.53 acres that is located in Airport Compatibility Zone C and apply it to the Project Area taking
39 into consideration the maximum density allowed for this compatibility zone of 150 persons for a
40 total of 268 persons. It appears the numbers were made to fit the request.
41 • Has concern about what would occur if the valeUoff-site parking was to go away and the
42 aforementioned approach to the density calculation was accepted. What if the off-site parking
43 area develops and the acreage goes away? What happens to the `accepted' density and how
44 would it get reversed? There may be no way to reverse the density. We could be faced with a
45 difficult situation in this regard.
46
47 Chair Whetzel:
48 • The Project would have to be conditioned accordingly. If the off-site acreage goes away, the
49 applicant would have to go back to the original maximum occupancy calculation of 174 persons
50 that was approved for Use Permit 06-42 for the Red Hawk Restaurant.
51 • The Fire Marshal appears to be okay with the density increase to 251 persons. The focus now is
52 whether or not the Project meets the Airport Compatibility Zone density requirements.
53 • Also has some concern how the density calculations were substantiated to get the maximum
54 occupancy of 251 seats.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 4
1 • Take-offs and landings are not allowed after 10:00 p.m., so this would not be occurring when the
2 density would be 251 people for live entertainment. Aircraft following the correct flight
3 path/procedures should be nowhere near the area even though the Project is located in the
4 Airport Compatibility Zones B1 and C.
5
6 Staff:
7 • There are two issues occurring related to different requirements- the fire code and airport
8 compatibility: 1) The Fire Marshal was fine with the increase in occupancy that resulted from the
9 remodel and resulted in a maximum occupancy of 251 people; and 2) the airport compatibility
10 considerations which are separate and different from Fire Code requirements.
11 • The use permit for the restaurant allowed 174 maximum persons occupancy plus 25 employees
12 based on the analysis prepared by staff and accepted by the Planning Commission related to
13 airport compatibility. Now that the applicant has asked for a use permit for live entertainment, the
14 issue of occupancy/density must again be revisited as it relates to the proposed live
15 entertainment.
16 • Related to the density analysis, the property located to the west of the Project intended for
17 valeUoff-site parking area was not a factor and/or consideration for the original use permit for the
18 Red Hawk Restaurant.
19 • The Commission must decide how best to handle the density issue.
20
21 Commissioner poble:
22 • Requested clarification the maximum occupancy for the original use permit was calculated at 174
23 seats plus a maximum of 25 employees and inquired as to the current occupancy based on the
24 remodel.
25 • Is of the opinion `we are stretching it,' by using the parcel located to the west for valet/off-site
26 parking because this sets an opportunity for other projects to do the same and that is to go to a
27 nearby parcel and request the use of the parcel to park equipment and/or somehow claim a zone
28 for this use to make the numbers work out. This may be a `road we should not likely go down.'
29
30 Staff: Per the Fire Code, the posted occupancy is 251 seats.
31
32 Commissioner Sanders:
33 • Is fine with a maximum occupancy of 251 seats except if this could disadvantage other parcels
34 within the Airport Compatibility Zone noting the parcel developed with Crush and the portion of
35 the parcel that would be used for valeUoff-site parking is located in Airport Compatibility Zone C
36 and the parcel located on the northeast corner of Commerce Drive/Airport Road has two
37 compatibility zones i.e., the eastern half is located in compatibility zone C and the western half of
38 the parcel is located in compatibility zone B1.
39 • Crush has plans to expand the business to include clientele from the Bay Area such that it would
40 become a destination. The concern is how to make this expansion work and comply with the
41 Airport Compatibility Zone requirements.
42
43 Commissioner Christensen:
44 • Is supportive of Crush expanding its business and having a larger occupancy that will allow Crush
45 to do this. Does understand, however, how the density calculation would be affected without the
46 use of the parcel to the west for parking.
47 • Requested clarification if Crush no longer has a lease agreement with the adjacent parcel, does
48 Crush have to revert back to the original maximum occupancy of 174 seats?
49
50 Doug Guillon:
51 • The owners of the Crush building also own the Hampton Inn and the Comfort Inn so the
52 opportunity to expand the restaurant would be highly beneficial to the owners and could likely use
53 parking located on these parcels to serve the live entertainment.
54 • Does not see parking as a problem for the restaurant or for the live entertainment.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 5
1 • Crush is a large building of approximately 10,000 sq. ft. Would like the business to include live
2 entertainment in addition to the restaurant. Would like to resolve any occupancy issue that
3 involves the building having a restaurant use and a live entertainment use. It is his understanding
4 the occupancy discussion pertains only to the live entertainment use.
5
6 Staff:
7 • Staff is not addressing the restaurant but rather the live entertainment which is the subject of this
8 use permit.
9 • The applicant has indicated that the restaurant does not currently serve more than the 174
10 person limit included in the use permit for the restaurant.
11
12 Commissioner Pruden: The density numbers need to be justified.
13
14 Chair Whetzel: Commented 251 persons would be allowed for meals.
15
16 Staff: Rarely is every seat filled in a restaurant.
17
18 Doug Guillon:
19 • Has observed typical seating on a Saturday night is approximately 95 people in the dining room
20 and 60 or so persons in the pub.
21 • The intent is to make Crush a $3 million a year restaurant by creating a destination for people
22 from out of town. A 10,000 sq. ft. building provides that opportunity.
23
24 The Commission discussed what occupancy number would be appropriate.
25
26 Commissioner Pruden supports the 174 occupancy number plus a maximum of 25 employees and
27 noted the property owners were fully aware of the density requirements when the building of that size was
28 constructed. Moreover, the Planning Commission had originally requested the applicants move the
29 building to the front of the lot, but they wanted it situated more to the back of the lot to better serve their
30 hotel and its clientele. Crush is now the third restaurant operating at that facility and again, the owners
31 were fully cognizant what density numbers they had for Airport compatibility. As proposed, the potential to
32 have 251 inside the restaurant building is too many at any one given time. As it is, 174 persons is also a
33 substantial number of persons to have in that building at any one given time.
34
35 Commissioner poble requested clarification as to what the Planning Commission is deciding upon
36 tonight. We are not looking at enforcement or revisiting the use permit for the restaurant.
37
38 Staff commented page 6 of the staff report is the analysis related to how many persons the applicant is
39 requesting for live entertainment. Tonight the Commission is reviewing the requested use permit to allow
40 live entertainment. The Commission is not reviewing or revisiting the previous use permit that approved
41 the restaurant.
42
43 Chair Whetzel commented the Commission is looking at a new use permit.
44
45 The Commission noted page 6 of the staff report indicates the applicant is requesting approval of live
46 entertainment for up to 251 people, and the seating/floor plan submitted as part of this Use Permit
47 application shows seating/occupancy for 251 people (attachment 2). The document further states `This
48 exceeds the maximum density for the site by 77 people. '
49
50 Commissioner poble: Given the aforementioned information, his position is to limit the density for live
51 entertainment to 174 people in addition to the 25 employees on the maximum shift. This would be in
52 conformance with the Airport Compatibility Zone requirements.
53
54 Commissioner Sanders: The applicant is concerned about the viability of the business if he has to work
55 within the restrictions of the 174 maximum persons allowed for airport compatibility.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 6
1 Doug Guillon: Does not anticipate that there will ever by 251 people for live entertainment and is okay
2 with reducing the number to 174 persons, in order to address the concerns of the Commission.
3
4 Commission consensus:
5 • In order to address and be consistent with airport compatibility requirement, modify Condition of
6 Approval No. 7 to reduce the maximum number of persons for live entertainment to 174 plus 25
7 staff people.
8 • Modify condition #2 related to bike parking. Require a total of 6 bike parking spaces be installed:
9 the three bike parking spaces required for Red Hawk use permit 06-42 plus an additional three
10 bike parking spaces for the live entertainment included in this use permit with the applicant to
11 work with staff to determine the location.
12 • Delete Condition of Approval 13 requiring employees to park on the valet parking parcel (APN
13 180-070-03)spaces since this may trigger ADA path of travel or other requirements.
14
15 Commissioner Pruden is of the opinion live entertainment will be well-received at Crush.
16
17 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:47 p.m.
18
19 M/S Pruden/Doble to approve Crush Restaurant Live Entertainment, Outdoor Barbecue, and Off-Site
20 Parking Use Permit (File No.: 13-17-UP-PC) with Findings 1-6 and Conditions of Approval 1-45 with
21 modifications to conditions of approval as discussed above. Motion carried (5-0).
22
23 Use Permit Findings for Approval
24 Crush Italian Steakhouse
25 Outdoor Barbecue, Live Entertainment, and Valet/Offsite Parking
26 1180 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-24
27 Northeast Corner Commerce Drive/Airport Road (APN 180-070-03)
28 File No. 13-17-UP-PC
29
30 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan based on the following:
31
32 A. The general plan land use designation is Master Plan Area (MPA)which is intended for larger
33 land areas where a specific plan is developed in order to provide for a mix of uses and/or
34 development standards in order to address the precise planning needs of the area. This MPA is
35 implemented through the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development(AIP-PD)which includes
36 the development standards and uses allowed within AIP-PD.
37
38 B. The proposed uses are ancillary to the primary restaurant use of the parcel. Restaurants are an
39 allowed use in the Professional Office areas of the AIP-PD; therefore, the proposed uses are also
40 consistent with this designation.
41
42 C. The Project would support a strong local economy(goal ED-1) by adding live entertainment which
43 would provide an entertainment opportunity that is currently limited in the Ukiah Valley in terms of
44 venues and events and would provide additional revenue to the restaurant which would result in
45 an increase in sales tax and business license revenue to the City. The outdoor barbecue would
46 allow the restaurant to provide additional take-out or dine-in options to customers which could
47 provide additional revenue to the business and to the City. The valet parking allows additional
48 parking to be provided to serve additional parking needs related to live entertainment and the
49 restaurant.
50
51 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with requirements of the applicable Airport
52 Compatibility zones based on the following:
53
54 ■ Normally Acceptable Uses: The uses are considered accessory to the restaurant use.
55 Intensive retail is a normally acceptable use in the C zone and the existing restaurant use is
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 7
1 consistent with this use. Live entertainment is similar to parks and playgrounds. The barbecue is
2 similar to extending the restaurant kitchen outdoors. The valet/offsite parking would locate
3 vehicles on the adjacent site to the west, which is located in compatibility zone B1 and C.
4 Automobile parking is allowed in both the B1 and C zones.
5
6 • Maximum Density: Based on a 1.02 acre parcel, 153 people are allowed on the site at any time.
7 The restaurant includes seating for 174 people which exceed the maximum density allowed. Use
8 Permit 06-42 which approved the restaurant use of the site approved 174 seats plus a maximum
9 of 25 employees at any one time. Use Permit 06-42 included analysis in support of the 174 seats
10 and a maximum of 25 employees at any one time. Planning Commission has included a
11 condition of approval limiting the number of persons for live entertainment to 174 to be consistent
12 with the Use Permit 06-42 and to be consistent with the airport compatibility analysis conducted
13 for that use permit.
14
15 ■ Open Land: The footprint of the building comprises 20% of 1180 Airport Park Boulevard, leaving
16 80% of the parcel as "open land"which exceeds the minimum recommended for the C zone.
17 Parcel APN 180-070-03 which would be used for valet/offsite parking is mostly vacant and
18 undeveloped and currently provides more than 30% open land as required. Parking lots are
19 considered "open land." Since the area that would be used for parking is located in the B1 and C
20 zones and parking lots are considered "open land,"the Project is consistent with this requirement.
21
22 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the applicable requirements of Airport
23 Industrial Park Ordinance 1098 for parcels identified as Professional Office as described in the staff
24 report, including the following:
25
26 A. The proposed uses are not listed as allowed or permitted uses in the AIP-PD. As allowed by AIP-
27 PD section 12, a Determination of Appropriate Use was made by the Planning Director allowing
28 the applicant to request Planning Commission approval of a Major Use Permit for the proposed
29 uses.
30
31 B. The proposed uses are considered ancillary uses to the restaurant located at 1180 Airport Park
32 Boulevard. The off-site parking for the live entertainment and restaurant on APN 180-070-03 is
33 the only use of this parcel and is allowed pursuant to the Determination of Appropriate Use.
34
35 C. The Project includes providing valet parking on a parcel located to the west of Crush Restaurant
36 (APN 180-070-03). The additional parking provided on this site would provide adequate parking
37 for live entertainment and overflow parking for the restaurant. A condition of approval has been
38 applied to the Project requiring alternative off-site parking be provided in the event that APN 180-
39 070-03 is no longer available for parking.
40
41 D. The bike parking required by Use Permit 06-42 is currently non-functional due to location and
42 inadequate anchoring of the rack. A condition of approval has been applied to this Use Permit
43 requiring this rack to be installed at the front of the building and properly anchored.
44
45 E. Use Permit 06-42 required bike parking for the restaurant. As part of its review of this Use
46 Permit, Planning Commission included conditions of approval requiring: 1)the applicant to
47 permanently install the three bike parking spaces required for Use Permit 06-42 (Red Hawk
48 Restaurant)and 2)three additional bike parking spaces to be provided for the live entertainment
49 use included in this use permit.
50
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 8
1 F. There is adequate parking for the outdoor barbecue (outdoor sales establishment), there are
2 utilities and sanitary facilities to serve the outdoor barbecue use, no signs are proposed as part of
3 the project and Crush restaurant has a current business license application. A condition of
4 approval has been added that prohibits the valet parking and barbecue from occurring at the
5 same time in order to ensure adequate parking is provided.
6
7 G. The Crush parcel is currently landscaping, including parking lot and street trees. There is no
8 opportunity to provide additional landscaping on the site, no additional landscaping has been
9 proposed by the applicant, and due to the nature, size and scope of the Project no additional
10 landscaping is required.
11
12 H. No signs are proposed as part of this Project. The only signage that may be associated with the
13 Project may be directional signage related to the valet parking. Directional signage is allowed by
14 the Sign Ordinance without the need for a sign permit.
15
16 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding land uses and shall not be
17 detrimental to the public's health, safety and general welfare as described in Table 4 of the staff
18 report.
19
20 5. The proposed project, as conditioned, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
21 Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3, conversion of small structures and Section
22 15301 Class 1, Existing Facilities based on the following:
23
24 A. The proposed uses are ancillary to the existing restaurant use of the building and site located at
25 1180 Airport Park Boulevard. The Project would allow live entertainment within the existing
26 building, an outdoor barbecue in the parking lot during off-peak hours, and valet and/or offsite
27 self-parking on the parcel located to the west of the Crush to serve additional parking demand
28 that may result during dinner hours or live entertainment.
29
30 B. The valet parking and /or offsite self-park would occur on the parcel located on the northeast
31 corner of Commerce Drive/Airport Road. This site was previously used as a lumber yard and
32 had paved areas for the outside storage of materials and parking/loading. The site has also
33 previously been used for the display of vehicles for sale. The area to be used for vehicle parking
34 is currently paved and lighted.
35
36 C. Both parcels are currently developed and no construction or development is required to serve the
37 proposed uses.
38
39 D. Both parcels are developed and located in an area where utilities and services are available to
40 serve the proposed uses.
41
42 E. The location of both parcels is not environmentally sensitive and does not include any drainage
43 courses or bodies of water. Commercial landscaping, including trees planted as part of
44 development of the restaurant, would not be affected by the proposed uses.
45
46 6. A notice of public hearing for the proposed project was provided in the following manner:
47 ■ posted in three places on the project site on July 11, 2013 ;
48 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on July 11, 2013; and
49 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on July 14, 2013.
50
51 One comment was received in support of the Project.
52
53 Use Permit Conditions of Approval
54 Crush Italian Steakhouse
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 9
1 Outdoor Barbecue, Live Entertainment, and Valet/Offsite Parking
2 1180 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-24
3 Northeast Corner Commerce Drive/Airport Road (APN 180-070-03)
4 File No. 13-17-UP-PC
5
6 1. Approval is granted for an outdoor barbecue, live entertainment, and valet parking as ancillary uses to
7 Crush Italian Steakhouse located at 1180 Airport Park Boulevard with the valet parked vehicles/offsite
8 parking located on the northeast corner of Commerce Drive / Airport Road (APN 180-070-03) as
9 described in the Project Description date stamped August 8, 2013 and as shown on the plans date
10 stamped August 8, 2013, except as modified by the following conditions of approval.
11
12 2. Prior to commencement of any uses allowed by this Use Permit, the applicant shall install any
13 additional bike parking required by Planning Commission in the location required by the Planning
14 Commission.
15
16 3. The outdoor barbecue, live entertainment, and valet / offsite parking are allowed only as uses
17 ancillary to the primary restaurant use of the site and building.
18
19 4. The Outdoor Barbecue is allowed subject to the following conditions:
20
21 A. Hours for the outdoor barbecue are limited to 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily in the location shown
22 on the approved plans date stamped August 8, 2013.
23
24 B. In order to ensure adequate parking is available for the restaurant, the outdoor barbecue shall be
25 removed from the parking area no later than 5:30 p.m. each day.
26
27 C. In order to ensure there is adequate parking during the hours the outdoor barbecue is
28 operational, the outdoor barbecue shall utilize no more than three parking spaces as shown on
29 the approved plans.
30
31 D. In order to ensure compliance with the required parking for the uses of the site, the outdoor
32 barbecue shall not be stored in the parking area.
33
34 E. The outdoor barbecue shall not commence until all applicable approvals/permits have been
35 acquired (such as Mendocino County Air Quality Management District, Environmental Health,
36 etc.).
37
38 F. Due to site constraints and to ensure adequate parking, outdoor tables and chairs, benches, etc.
39 are prohibited in the parking lot. Outdoor seating may be considered through an amendment to
40 this Use Permit.
41
42 5. The valet parking on the parcel located on the northeast corner of Commerce Drive / Airport Road
43 (APN 180-070-03) is permitted subject to the following:
44
45 A. The approved location of the valet parking on the Crush parcel is approved in the location shown
46 in attachment 3, site plan. A revised location may be approved by the Planning Director. A
47 request for a different location shall be submitted to the Planning Director in writing with the
48 reason for the relocation and a revised site plan showing the proposed location. The revised
49 location is subject to staff review Planning Director approval.
50
51 B. Prior to commencement of live entertainment, the applicant shall provide a copy of the agreement
52 for the use of the parcel on the northeast corner of Airport Road/Commerce Drive for parking.
53
54 C. Valet parking is permitted as needed to serve live entertainment and Crush dinner patrons.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 10
1 D. In order to ensure adequate onsite parking and site circulation, valet parking is prohibited when
2 the outdoor barbecue is operational.
3
4 E. In the event that the applicant would like to allow patrons of the live entertainment and restaurant
5 to self-park offsite on APN 180-070-03 or to provide a combination of valet parking and self-park
6 on this parcel, the applicant shall submit a written request to the Planning Director. The request
7 shall include the reason for the request, the operating characteristics for the offsite parking, and
8 revised plans. The request is subject to staff review and Planning Director approval.
9
10 From the Planning Commission
11
12 6. In order to comply with airport compatibility requirements, ensure adequate parking, and compatibility
13 with surrounding uses, the maximum number of persons allowed for live entertainment, including
14 customers dining at the restaurant, is 174 plus a maximum of 25 employees. These numbers are
15 consistent with Use Permit 06-42 (Red Hawk Restaurant).
16
17 7. Prior to commencement of any uses allowed by this Use Permit, the applicant shall install three bike
18 parking spaces in order to comply with the bike parking required by Use Permit 06-42 (use permit for
19 the restaurant). Three additional bike parking spaces are required for the live entertainment use
20 approved as part of this use permit (Use Permit 13-0-17-UP-PC), resulting in a total of six (6) bike
21 parking spaces for the restaurant and live entertainment uses. The applicant shall work with
22 Planning staff to determine the appropriate location for the bike racks.
23
24 From the Police Department and Planninq Department
25
26 8. Live entertainment is limited to groups of our or fewer. Larger groups may be authorized via prior
27 approval from the Planning Director. The request for a larger group shall be submitted to the
28 Planning Director in writing a minimum of 30 days prior to the proposed date for the live entertainment
29 and is subject to Planning Director and Police Department review and approval.
30
31 9. Live entertainment is limited to jazz, acoustical guitar and piano, light rock, and folk, disc jockey as
32 described in the Project Description date stamped August 8, 2013.
33
34 10. Live entertainment may be amplified or non-amplified.
35 11. Hours of the live entertainment are limited to the following:
36
37 A. Live entertainment beginning on Thursday, Friday, or Saturday shall end no later than 1:00 a.m.
38
39 B. Live entertainment on Sunday through Wednesday shall end no later than 10:00 p.m.
40
41 C. Extended hours for an individual live entertainment event on a Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or
42 Wednesday may approved by the Planning Director for special occurrences and/or holidays (such
43 as Valentine's Day, Memorial Day, July 4�h, graduation, St. Patrick's Day, Super Bowl, etc.). The
44 extended hours shall not extend beyond 1:00 a.m. A request for the extended hours shall be
45 submitted to the Planning Director in writing a minimum of 30 days prior to the proposed date of
46 the extended hours and is subject to Planning Director and Police Department review and
47 approval.
48
49
50 12. Live entertainment shall only be promoted by Crush management and staff as described in the
51 approved Project Description. Private, outside promotion of live entertainment is prohibited.
52
53 13. In order to eliminate or reduce noise impacts, live entertainment is prohibited outdoors.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 11
1 14. In order to eliminate noise impacts to adjacent hotel patrons and businesses, exterior doors and
2 windows shall remain closed during live entertainment.
3
4 15. In order to reduce noise and prevent loitering in the parking lot and on the site, at the close of
5 business each night, Crush staff shall ensure that patrons have left the site within 15 minutes of
6 closing.
7
8 16. Prior to commencement of live entertainment, the applicant shall prepare a Management Plan that
9 addresses: safety, security, noise, loitering, littering, lighting, and alcohol consumption, provides the
10 name and contact information of the person(s)with the authority to enforce the management plan and
11 conditions of approval, and incorporates the applicable conditions of approval from this Use Permit.
12 The Management Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department and is subject to review and
13 approval by the Planning Department and Police Department.
14
15 17. At least one manager of the business with the authority to enforce the approved Management Plan
16 and the conditions of approval for this Use Permit shall be onsite whenever live entertainment occurs.
17
18 18. All employees of the business shall be provided a copy of the Management Plan and the conditions of
19 approval for this Use Permit.
20
21 19. All provisions of the Management Plan and the conditions of approval for the Use Permit shall be
22 adhered to at all times.
23
24 20. A calendar of events shall be submitted to the Planning Department once per month that identify the
25 days and hours of the live entertainment occurring the following month. This notification may be sent
26 via email.
27 21. Prior to commencement of live entertainment, the applicant shall provide a copy of the agreement for
28 the use of the parcel on the northeast corner of Airport Road/Commerce Drive for parking.
29
30 22. In the event that the offsite parking located on the northeast corner of Airport Road /Commerce Drive
31 (APN 180-070-03) is no longer available, alternative offsite parking shall be provided. A written
32 request for approval of an alternative location shall be submitted to the Planning Department. The
33 Planning Department shall review the request and determine if the alternative offsite parking is
34 subject to administrative review, requires an amendment to this Use Permit, and/or is subject to other
35 permitting requirements. All required approvals shall be obtained prior to use of the alternative site.
36 No live entertainment shall occur until the alternative offsite parking has been provided and approved
37 by the City.
38
39 23. Activities approved as part of this Use Permit are subject to compliance with the requirements of
40 Ukiah City Code Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 6 (Noise Ordinance).
41
42 24. This Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director within 12 months of the date of approval
43 by the Planning Commission in order to determine compliance with the conditions of approval, the
44 number of Police calls, and the amount of Police staff time associated with this Use Permit, and any
45 complaints received. If the Planning Director determines that the use is not in compliance with the
46 conditions of approval and/or that the use requires additional review, the Use Permit shall be
47 scheduled for review by the Planning Commission. Review of the Use Permit by the Planning
48 Commission shall include a public notice. The applicant is responsible for paying all costs associated
49 with Planning Commission review of the Use Permit (City of Ukiah cost recovery procedures,
50 including deposit). If complaints are received during the first 12 months, this Use Permit shall be
51 reviewed annually by the Planning Director as described above. The Planning Director shall
52 determine if Planning Commission review of the Use Permit is required. All review of this Use Permit
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 12
1 by Planning Commission is subject to the City of Ukiah's cost recovery procedures, including the
2 payment of deposit.
3
4 25. In the event of a change of ownership or management of the restaurant associated with the live
5 entertainment, the City shall be notified on the change in ownership/management. The new
6 owner/manager shall meet with the Planning Department and Police Department to review this Use
7 Permit and Management Plan. The new owner/manager shall indicate in writing if any modifications
8 to the uses allowed by this Use Permit are proposed and shall identify the proposed modifications.
9 Any proposed modifications shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and Police Department.
10 The Planning Director shall determine if the proposed modifications are consistent with this Use
11 Permit or require approval of an amendment to this Use Permit and shall determine if the amendment
12 is minor(Zoning Administrator)or major(Planning Commission).
13
14 From the Police Department
15
16 26. Promotion of live entertainment is limited to the types of promotion identified in the approved Project
17 Description date stamped August 8, 2013. Use of a private outside promoter is prohibited.
18
19 27. The live entertainment is allowed only as a use ancillary to the restaurant. Live entertainment is not
20 allowed as the primary use of the site. Use or operation as a nightclub as defined by UCC section
21 9232.3 is prohibited.
22
23 28. If the live entertainment or cover charge events cause the need for a Police Response more than two
24 (2) times in a calendar year, the permit holder will be required to thereafter submit a security plan to
25 the Ukiah Police Department for approval a minimum of 45 days prior to any future events. The plan
26 will articulate in detail the event planned and clearly describe how security will be staffed to minimize
27 the need for police responses. In such cases, approval or denial will be provided to the applicant no
28 less than 30 days prior to the proposed event.
29
30 29. The facility will be open to inspection during live entertainment and coverage events and the Ukiah
31 Police Department will not be denied access.
32
33 From the Fire Department(Kevin Jenninqs)
34
35 30. Posted occupancy/capacity per dining area is already present and shall be maintained and enforced
36 by Crush.
37
38 31. Signage required for all fire extinguishers. Owner has discretion on style.
39
40 32. No flammable wall coverings shall be used during entertainment for live, interior presentations.
41
42 33. Exit ways shall be maintained in a clear, open condition. No additional seating shall be allowed during
43 live or other presentations.
44
45 34. No extension, lighting or other cords shall be allowed to cross isles or exit ways.
46
47 35. No pyrotechnics shall be allowed at any time.
48
49 36. Fire extinguisher required for outdoor, trailer mounted, BBQ.
50
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 13
1 37. Fire lanes to be maintained clear at all times.
2
3 Standard Conditions of Approval
4
5 38. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use, including but
6 not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been applied for and
7 issued/finaled.
8
9 39. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges applicable
10 to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
11
12 40. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
13 specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as
14 applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
15 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and
16 issued.
17
18 41. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any future
19 purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
20
21 42. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior to
22 building permit final.
23
24 43. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project
25 related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and conditions of
26 approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of this approval; or if
27 the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for 24
28 consecutive months.
29
30 44. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
31 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers,
32 attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against
33 any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul
34 the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages,
35 costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
36 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this application,
37 whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of the City. If, for any
38 reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of
39 competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
40
41 9B. Held-Poage Museum Annex Building Use Permit and Site Development Permit, 603 West
42 Perkins Street (File No.: 13-07-UP-SDP-PC). Planning Commission consideration and possible
43 action on a Major Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow the construction of an annex
44 building for the Held-Poage Museum and to allow the construction of an annex building for the
45 Held-Poage Museum and to allow parking in the front setback at 603 West Perkins Street, APN
46 001-229-03.
47
48 Associate Planner Faso:
49 • Gave the staff report.
50 • Noted that an additional condition for protective tree fencing has been provided at places. `On
51 plans submitted for building permit the location of protective tree fencing for the existing trees
52 shall be shown. The fencing is to ensure that construction of the project does not result in
53 damage to the existing trees. Protective fencing shall be metal, a minimum of 5-feet in height, and
54 secured with in-ground posts and located 5 feet outside of the dripline of the trees to be
55 protected.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 14
1
2 Required protective tree fencing shall be installed prior to issuance of grading/building permit and
3 shall remain in place for the duration of the project.'
4
5 Commissioner Pruden recused herself from participating as a Commissioner for this project.
6
7 Commissioner Christensen: Is the westside of the existing building on the property line or is there a
8 five-foot setback?
9
10 Staff: Requested the aforementioned question be deferred to the applicant.
11
12 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:53 p.m.
13
14 Richard Ruff, Project Architect:
15 • Confirmed there is a five-foot setback on the westside of the existing building.
16 • The Project has been redesigned at the recommendation of the DRB.
17 • Elaborated on some of the design changes.
18 • The proposed new building is intended to be a surrogate to the primary historic museum building
19 and also to assume the characteristics/appearance of a carriage house.
20 • The building has two doors and no windows, providing for appropriate security is the primary
21 objective.
22 • The proposed detached accessory structure will be used for storage and to
23 process/handle/preserve historical documents for future generations in a secure and protected
24 setting.
25 • The building was designed architecturally and moved back so as not to detract/draw from the
26 existing museum building.
27 • Significant measures will be taken to protect and preserve the dripline of the existing trees and
28 vegetation.
29 • The roof has a steeper roof pitch than the original design and elaborated on the design on the
30 building, including the materials and trim for the building.
31 • The colors for the building are dark earth tone and the roof is dark brown. The color palates were
32 selected to complement and blend in with the historic existing building.
33
34 Commissioner Sanders thanked Architecture Ruff for his good work on the Project and for the nice
35 design.
36
37 Commissioner Christensen:
38 • Related to the 4 inch siding for the new building, how much different is this than what is on the
39 existing museum building? Asked if was intentional for the 4 inch siding on the new building not
40 to match with the museum building.
41 • Inquired about the brackets types under the eaves. Will the ends of the eaves be beveled?
42
43 Architect Ruff:
44 • Explained the material type and size for the museum building.
45 • Since the accessory structure has no windows, it was important for this building not to look and or
46 in any way detract architecturally from the museum building.
47 • The brackets act as support for the beams and commented on the size.
48 • The beams will extend outward and will be beveled on the ends.
49
50 Chair Whetzel is pleased with the project and looks very nice. His only concern is the Cedar tree that has
51 to be removed.
52
53 Architect Ruff: All the other trees will be salvaged. The Cedar was essentially poorly placed and it is
54 unfortunate the tree has to be removed. The Cedar is not a mature tree.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 15
1 Judy Pruden, Citizen:
2 • Has completed 3 of the 5 National Registry applications in Ukiah and the Held-Poage Museum is
3 one of those applications.
4 • Is familiar with the Project and the property.
5 • Likes the design of the new accessory structure for the most part, but has concerns about some
6 of the design features.
7 • Owns a magnificent carriage house and there is only one other existing in Ukiah. Is of the
8 opinion, the new building needs more `finesse' along the roofline. The knee braces are not
9 appropriate for this building. Recommends modifying this aspect by putting a facing board under
10 the eave. If structural support is necessary can extend the roof rafters and put a large plain board
11 on top and to finish the two-story gable to look appropriate put on returns on both of the corners.
12 This is the appropriate style for the building and is what occurs on other two-story buildings in the
13 area. If money is not an issue would suggest bringing the returns all the way across like what
14 was done for the kitchen addition that was completed in the 1920s and have a small roofed apron
15 on the front.
16 • Is of the opinion the knee braces are inappropriate for the building and should not occur. A
17 plainer rendition/appearance is more apropos for a carriage house. Her carriage house is an
18 excellent example of a 'plainer rendition' and has a one inch by twelve foot board located
19 underneath the eave with crown molding between the board trim and underneath the eave. This
20 type of architecture is what one would see on a carriage house.
21 • Requests the knee braces be removed.
22 • Understands the need for security and the reason for having no windows, but it would be nice to
23 have some light on the second story. Light on the other hand is not good for archival of historic
24 documents.
25 • Noted the alarm system in the building does not function properly.
26 • Asked about what will happen to the Carnegie library doors that are currently on the single-story
27 addition.
28
29 Paul Poulos, Museum Director:
30 • The library doors would have to be rebuilt because they have been seriously damaged over the
31 years from basic wear and tear. The doors are not salvageable as is but rather would have to be
32 rebuilt. These historic doors would essentially be items more suitable for viewing rather than
33 function because they cannot meet the necessary security standards.
34 • The alarm system has been repaired. The sensors now function properly.
35 • Related to the architectural changes suggested by Judy Pruden, noted the original design was
36 that of an actual carriage house. The DRB did not like the original design and was of the opinion
37 the design was too plain. As such, the building was redesigned to include more detail, more
38 peaking of the roof and other design features.
39
40 Richard Ruff:
41 • Would be willing to work with Judy Pruden on refining whatever design she is proposing.
42 • The intent is to design a building the community likes and approves of.
43
44 Commissioner Sanders:
45 • Mr. Ruff has presented a very generous offer to consider design modifications.
46 • Likes the design of the accessory building as it is, particularly its simplicity.
47 • The Queen Anne museum house is beautiful and should be considered the focal point.
48 • Views Judy Pruden's request to further modify the design at this point to be unusual and is not
49 certain how this takes precedence.
50
51 Richard Ruff: The request for design changes can be considered voluntary and worked out in this
52 manner.
53
54 Chair Whetzel:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 16
1 • Likes the design of the building as is. The intent of the design was to make certain the building
2 would not detract from the existing museum building.
3 • Is concerned that a design change after the Project has been considered and approved by the
4 Planning Commission could be significant enough and/or greatly differ than what was approved
5 and would this trigger another type of review?
6
7 Staff:
8 • The DRB looked at the Project very closely and made certain design change recommendations
9 that the applicant made. The DRB and the applicant worked really diligently to get this project to
10 a proper place where the design issues have been addressed.
11 • If the Commission is interested in further design changes, staff should be involved to honor the
12 design work that has already been done and to make sure the project is consistent with the
13 findings for approval of the project.
14 • Further changes to the design should involve staff, the applicant and Judy Pruden and not just
15 the applicant working with Ms. Pruden. Staff needs to ensure that outcome is consistent with
16 direction provided by the Commission and the findings for project approval.
17
18 Commissioner Sanders: If design modifications were made, would it be proper then for the changes to
19 go to the DRB one last time or is there some other procedure that is necessary?
20
21 Staff: The Project would be finished by the Planning Department should an agreement be reached that
22 the modified design is close enough to what is being seen here tonight, incorporates what Ms. Pruden is
23 asking for and is consistent with the design direction that the DRB has asked for and the findings.
24
25 Commissioner poble: There is a condition requiring the Project to come back to the DRB for the roof. Is
26 it possible for the Project to come back to the DRB for a final review to include the features being
27 modified since there is already a condition in place to come back for the roof and allow the Planning
28 Commission to make a decision tonight without having to necessarily come back to the Commission?
29
30 Staff: The intent would be not to bring the Project back to the Commission, but rather review of the
31 proposed new modification be conducted by Planning staff, the applicant and Ms. Pruden and would not
32 return to the Commission unless the Commission asked to review the design. The Commission can
33 request the Project to go back to the DRB for review. The roof color was the only feature the DRB wanted
34 to see back and this needs to return to the DRB before the roof is installed.
35
36 Commissioner poble: Would like to see a statement made about any further design modifications.
37
38 Staff: The only concern the applicant might have is the timing of these modifications related to issuance
39 of the Building Permit.
40
41 Commissioner poble:
42 • Likes the Project as designed and as presented.
43 • Is concerned with changing the design and not having the final approval whether it is the
44 Planning Commission or the DRB.
45
46 Commissioner Christensen:
47 • It is important for her to understand what Ms. Pruden is suggesting in the way of further design
48 modifications.
49 • Related to the knee braces and while she is not an expert on historical architecture, did drive
50 around and look at carriage houses. As such, noticed the carriage houses did not look like the
51 design being proposed.
52 • Does not have a problem with the appearance of the building, but emphasized the importance
53 that the design be right since this is a historical site.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 17
1 • Is of the opinion what we do not want to do is approve a design that does not fit with the time
2 period. The Project should not look like an afterthought, but rather look like it fits with the existing
3 museum building during the time period when this building was constructed.
4 • It appears the proposed design modifications are `pretty simple details' to fix and if there is a way
5 to do this and the applicant agrees, we should attempt to make this happen.
6
7 Leonard Winter, Museum Board Member:
8 • The Historical Society Museum Board Members worked very hard on this project and the DRB
9 did not like the design being proposed.We have come back with a design the DRB approves of.
10 • We have been to the DRB three times for the Project.
11 • Does not want to go back to the DRB.
12 • Is of the opinion the design is fine.
13 • The intent was not to design an accessory structure with the same style as the primary museum
14 building because the new building is a different type of building where the goal was not to
15 construct an accessory building that would detract from the museum building.
16 • Is of the opinion no one will notice any design discrepancy except Ms. Pruden.
17 • We have a design that works and we do not want to go with any added expenses. The building
18 will be constructed with grant funding.
19 • Would like to move forward with the Project, as designed and as presented.
20 Judy Pruden:
21 • Is talking about some minor fine tuning of the Project.
22 • Explained her design modifications in detail:
23 1. The knee braces would go away because they do not fit the architecture in Ukiah.
24 2. In place of the knee braces, put a trim board underneath the eave with a piece of crown
25 molding and if there is money in the budget, put some returns on the roof ends. If there is no
26 money, this is okay.
27 • While the DRB has some professional members in the way of architecture and design, none of
28 the members have an expertise in historical architecture. DRB members do consult with her
29 about historical architectural matters.
30 • Her design proposal is a chance to get the Project exactly right. There should be no time delays
31 and/or cost increase.
32
33 Staff:
34 • Referred to attachment 6 of the staff report, standards for rehabilitation, item 9, and noted one of
35 the issues that comes up for rehabilitation of historic properties is that while projects need to be
36 compatible with what design aspect is being accomplished to be careful not to incorporate details
37 from one design aspect and put it on another. To this end, for this project there was a lot of
38 sensitivity to this element as the building was being modified. Item 9 says, `New additions,
39 exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and
40 spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the
41 old and will be compatible with historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and
42 massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.'
43 • What staff and the DRB was looking at in terms of design is that the size, scale and proportion,
44 and massing of the new building was right rather than focusing specific attention on individual
45 design features.
46 • Planning staff and the DRB were of the opinion the original design completely overwhelmed the
47 National Registry building on the site.
48 • Agrees with the architect and applicant that a lot of work was done to redesign the Project as it is
49 now being presented.
50 • Wanted to point out, there is a bit of a timeframe we are working within particularly about not
51 picking up design details from one building to add to another just because the buildings will be
52 next to one another and/or exist on the same site.
53
54 Commissioner poble:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 18
1 • If it is true, the details are minor in nature and the applicant is willing to `tweak' a few things, why
2 not recommend approval the way it shows today and if it is minor, it is minor. Why is there a need
3 to go any further than this?
4
5 Chair Whetzel:
6 • Staff is only requiring that Planning staff, the applicant and Judy Pruden meet.
7
8 Commissioner poble:
9 • Does the Commission have to provide direction in order for Planning staff, the applicant and Judy
10 Prudent to meet or can this just happen anyway?
11
12 Chair Whetzel: The Planning Commission must provide direction in the regard.
13
14 Staff: Clarified if there is no condition of approval requiring Planning staff, the applicant and Judy Pruden
15 to meet, the meeting does not have to happen. If the Commission would like the meeting to occur and
16 want the change to be required of the applicant, a condition of approval is necessary. A condition of
17 approval that simply says staff, the applicant and Ms. Pruden need to meet just means there has to be a
18 meeting. If the intention is that a meeting is to be held and whatever the outcome of that meeting is
19 required of the applicant, this is what has to be a condition of approval.
20
21 Commissioner poble:
22 • Is of the opinion a condition of approval is not necessary. If the three parties choose to meet and
23 it appears they are going to agree to meet and makes a few changes to the design, this should be
24 an acceptable approach.
25
26 Staff: If the three parties choose not to meet and no design changes are made, no changes can be
27 required and if the Commission is okay with this, this is perfectly acceptable. If the Commission wants the
28 changes to occur and make sure they happen, there must a condition of approval.
29
30 Commissioner Sanders:
31 • Asked what would occur if there is no agreement at the meeting?
32
33 Chair Whetzel:
34 • Likes the plans as discussed and submitted.
35 • Likes the fact the new building does not over-shadow the museum building.
36 • The new building will function as a work and storage area and is not meant to over-shadow the
37 museum building.
38 • The new building will function as an accessory building to the museum.
39
40 Leonard Winter requested a recess to have the opportunity to speak with Judy Pruden.
41
42 Commissioner poble:
43 • Does not want to require that the three parties meet.
44 • Appreciates Ms. Pruden's comments and is of the opinion the parties will work out any design
45 discrepancies and/or differences in opinion concerning some of the design features.
46
47 Chair Whetzel: Staff has expressed that Planning staff needs to be in on the design changes related to
48 Project approval.
49
50 Staff: The way approvals are written is that whatever plans come in for a building permit must be in
51 substantial conformance with what was approved at the Planning Commission. If the applicant chooses to
52 make a change this is fine and if not this is fine too, but the Commission would to have a very clear
53 understanding of what the design changes would look like. What has typically occurred for projects are
54 changes to the landscaping not changing of details on a particular design for a project.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 19
1 If the Commission understands what the architectural details are and/or have an understanding of what
2 the proposed change in details look like it and are comfortable with those changes it may make sense for
3 the applicant and Ms. Pruden to talk right now so that we know what will be coming back and a condition
4 can be properly drafted so staff knows when they have the leeway to approve a building permit.
5
6 Commissioner Sanders:
7 • Would be comfortable with the aforementioned approach.
8
9 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:20 p.m.
10
11 PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED: 7:25 p.m.
12
13 Judy Pruden commented her meeting with the applicant was valuable/worthwhile and everyone is in
14 agreement with the proposed revised design.
15
16 Chair Whetzel:
17 • Is disappointed with Ms. Pruden's approach to how she proceeded with proposing a change to
18 the design. She waited until the last minute to make her comments. Is of the opinion Ms. Pruden
19 had plenty of time to attend the DRB meetings for the Project and submit her comments
20 regarding a change to the design. This places the Planning Commission in a difficult position to
21 decide how best to proceed.
22
23 Judy Pruden: The Historical Society did not give her site plans to comment on or she would have
24 sooner. The changes she proposes are minor and if accepted would make for a nicer project.
25
26 The Commission approved of the landscaping plan and had no changes and/or comments.
27
28 Commissioner Sanders:
29 • Would like to hear comments from the Commissioners regarding the suggestions.
30
31 Commissioner poble:
32 • Is able to visualize what the building will look like without the knee braces and as such does not
33 necessarily have a problem with this change. The manner in which the changes have been
34 described with the light trim board at the base of the eave can also be visualized. Is not sure
35 procedurally how to memorialize the changes for approval. Do we simply describe the removal of
36 the knee braces or does the Commission have to see something sketched out.
37
38 Staff: If the Commissioners understand what the changes look like, a condition of approval can be
39 drafted that indicates the plans have been submitted for the building permit and these plans can either be
40 the design presented in the staff report or the revised design suggested by Ms. Pruden to include a
41 statement if money allows to complete the corner returns.
42
43 Chair Whetzel: Do the Commissioners agree with the proposed changes?
44
45 Commissioners Doble and Christensen answered affirmatively.
46
47 Commissioner Sanders:
48 • Likes the Project as proposed, but is inclined to consider the proposed changes.
49 • Does not approve of how the changes were proposed.
50
51 Chair Whetzel:
52 • Does not want to hold up the Project.
53 • Likes the Project as proposed.
54 • It appears the vote would be 2:2 at this juncture.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 20
1 Commissioner poble noted staff recommended the Commission draft a condition of approval that has
2 either/or in it.
3
4 Staff: The aforementioned approach is one of the choices.
5
6 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:29 p.m.
7
8 Chair Whetzel: Supports drafting a condition giving the applicant the option of either going with the plans
9 as submitted tonight or the modified plans. Does not want the applicant to incur any unnecessary costs
10 associated with the revised plans.
11
12 Commissioner poble: Can support the plan the way it has currently been proposed without the
13 changes, but if the applicant and Ms. Pruden have worked out the changes and can be easily described
14 could also support this approach.
15
16 Commissioner Sanders:
17 • Related to landscaping, is fine with the changes to accommodate the Oak trees. Likes the
18 landscaping plan. Is concerned about the location of the heavy equipment in relation to the trees
19 during construction because there is not a lot of room for the equipment to move with all the trees
20 on the property. Is pleased with the condition of approval added by staff that addresses protection
21 of the trees during construction.
22 • The applicant attended three DRB meetings and as such if in the future for historical properties
23 that are going to be reviewed have controversial design issues, that a historical architect needs to
24 weigh in on the DRB meeting.
25 • If one of the Commissioners wants to create a condition of approval that seems to work with what
26 we have already spent a lot of time talking about this is a prerogative.
27
28 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:40 p.m.
29
30 Richard Ruff: Confirmed protection of the trees during construction and the measures to be taken to
31 ensure protection.
32
33 The Planning Commission further discussed the options in connection with how best to proceed with a
34 design change.
35
36 Staff proposed the following condition of approval:
37
38 'Plans submitted for building permit shall include removal of knee braces, installation of trim board and
39 are subject to staff review and approval. If budget permits, plans shall also be revised to include corner
40 returns.'
41
42 The Commission was supportive of the aforementioned condition.
43
44 Leonard Winter commented Judy Pruden should pay for the corner returns on the beams.
45
46 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:42 p.m.
47
48 Commissioner poble thanked the project proponents for being agreeable to the design changes.
49
50 M/S Doble/Christensen to approve Held-Poage Museum Annex Building Use Permit and Site
51 Development (File No.: 13-07-UP-SDP-PC) with Findings 1-11 and Conditions of Approval 1-26 with the
52 added condition from the Commission regarding the design modification to the building and condition
53 from staff regarding protection of the dripline for the trees on the site. Motion carried (4-0) with
54 Commissioner Pruden recusing herself.
55
56 MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 21
1 HELD-POAGE MEMORIAL HOME AND LIBRARY TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ANNEX
2 BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AT
3 603 WEST STANDLEY STREET, APN 001-229-03
4 FILE NO.: 13-07-UP-SDP-PC
5
6 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
7 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
8
9 1. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
10 Plan as described in the staff report and Table 1.
11
12 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as described in
13 Table 2 of the staff report.
14
15 3. The location, size, and intensity of the proposed project will not create a hazardous or
16 inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern based on the following:
17
18 A. The proposed project involves the construction of a 3,560 square foot annex building.
19 B. The project site contains a former single family home and detached accessory structure
20 that are currently used as library and museum. The proposed located for the annex
21 would not change the current vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the site. However it would
22 be necessary for vehicles to back up over the sidewalk but given the low use of the
23 parking area the backup situation would be similar to a residential driveway and
24 therefore no more hazardous them the existing conditions in the neighborhood.
25
26 4. The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic
27 on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or
28 surrounding uses based on the following:
29
30 A. The proposed project would create three parking spaces that would be located on the
31 West Church Street frontage. The cars would park front in and would back out onto West
32 Church Street. The proposed parking would be similar to a residential driveway in terms
33 of frequency of use given the low number of visitors and volunteers that are at the project
34 site at one time.
35 B. The Design Review Board was supportive of this parking configuration and felt that since
36 West Church Street is not a very busy street it would not be a hazard to the adjacent
37 streets nor would it create an inconvenient condition for the adjacent neighborhood.
38
39 5. Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of separating or screening the
40 proposed structure(s)from the street and adjoining building sites, and breaking up and screening
41 large expanses of paved areas based on the following:
42
43 A. The proposed project would include the installation of new landscaping that would be
44 compatible with the site and the neighborhood.
45 B. The location of the proposed annex building would be such that the existing trees
46 would screen the new building from the street.
47 C. Because the Project site has three fronts the only immediate neighbors are to the
48 west. The new annex building would not be any located any closer than the existing
49 setbacks. Given the design of the proposed annex building it would be wrapped
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 22
1 around the existing detached storage building therefore the new structure would not
2 change the setback on the west side and the existing setback would be maintained.
3
4 6. The proposed project would not restrict or cut out light and air on the property, or on the property
5 in the neighborhood; nor would it hinder the development or use of the buildings in the
6 neighborhood , or impair the value based on the following:
7
8 A. The surrounding properties are already developed. The proposed annex building
9 would be in a location that would maintain separation between the new building and
10 the existing development on adjacent properties.
11 B. Based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standard for Rehabilitation of historic
12 properties standards and an analysis of the project it appears that the Project is
13 appropriately designed to fit the historic character of the site and the surrounding
14 neighborhood. The Design Review Board reviewed the project and the applicant
15 revised the project based on their comments. This process ensures a quality project
16 that would not impair the value to properties or development. No windows are
17 proposed on the annex building therefore providing privacy for the neighboring
18 properties.
19
20 7. The proposed project site is located within a residential neighborhood. However given that the
21 subject parcels is located on two corners only the west side of the parcel is adjacent to
22 residential. The project has been designed to maintain the existing setback on the west side of
23 the parcel. The closest structure on the adjacent parcel is a detached garage. This garage
24 would separate the new annex building from the neighboring residence.
25
26 8. The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including
27 trees, shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the site based on the following:
28
29 A. The project site is located within an existing neighborhood and is developed with an
30 existing main structure and a detached accessory structure. The site contains several
31 mature trees however the project has been designed to keep the new annex building out
32 of the drip line of the trees.
33 B. As noted in the project description one tree would be removed as a result of this project.
34 The tree to be removed is a 10 inch Cedar located on the West Church Street frontage
35 and shown on the plans.
36 C. No water courses, wildlife, wildlife habitat, floodway or flood plain or other environmental
37 sensitive areas are present.
38
39 9. There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and design of the
40 structure(s) and grounds to avoid monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting external appearance
41 based on the following:
42
43 A. The proposed project was reviewed by the Design Review Board and the comments
44 from the Board were incorporated into the project by the application creating a project
45 that would complement the existing site and the surrounding neighborhood.
46 B. The project was also analysis in terms of consistency with the Secretary of the
47 interior Standards for Historic Properties. The new building would be setback from
48 the Held-Poage Home/Library and architectural features that are consistent with the
49 recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior have been added.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 23
1 C. See Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
2 discussion in staff report.
3
4 10. Notice of the proposed Project was provided in the following manner as required by the Zoning
5 Ordinance:
6
7 A. posted in three places on the project site on August 2, 2013;
8 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on August 2, 2013; and
9 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on August 4, 2013.
10
11 11. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
12 (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction, which allows new construction
13 that does not involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, does not exceed
14 10,000 square feet in floor area and is in an area where all necessary public services and
15 facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive based on the
16 following:
17
18 A. The total square footage of the annex is 3,560 square feet.
19 B. The location has no drainage courses or bodies of water (such as creeks or streams) are
20 present.
21 C. The existing main structure on the subject property is listed on the National Register of
22 Historic Places however no changes to this structure are proposed as part of the project.
23 D. The project has been analyses in terms of consistence with the Secretary of the Interior
24 Historic Standards. The project includes design features that would make the new
25 building less dominate on the site while still being compatible the existing historic
26 structure and thus maintaining the historic character of the site.
27 E. The site is developed with an existing building and accessory structure, utilities and
28 services already are available at the site.
29 MAJOR USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
30 TO ALLOW THE HELD-POAGE MEMORIAL HOME AND LIBRARY
31 TO EXPAND INTO A NEW ANNEX BUILDING
32 AND TO ALLOW PARKING WITHIN THE SETBACK AND
33 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT THE ANNEX
34 BUILDING AT 603 WEST STANDLEY STREET, APN 001-229-03
35 FILE NO.: 13-07-UP-SDP-PC
36
37 1. Use Permit approval is granted to allow the expansion of the Held-Poage Memorial Home and
38 Library to expand into a new annex building and to allow parking within the front setback. Site
39 Development Permit approval is granted to allow the construction of the new annex building and
40 associated site improvements as shown on the plans date stamped May 29, 2013 and as
41 described in the project description submitted to the Planning and Community Development
42 Department date stamped May 29, 2013
43
44 2. Prior to building permit approval a sample of the proposed roof to be used for the annex building
45 shall be provided by the applicant and returned to the Design Review Board for review and
46 approval.
47
48 3. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the location of the required bike rack and
49 specifications of proposed bike rack. Inverted "u" preferred.
50
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 24
1 4. Prior to building permit final a bicycle rack shall be installed, subject to staff review and approval,
2 Inverted "u" preferred.
3
4 5. Construction hours 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
5 p.m. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah.
6 Interior construction is exempt from these hours provided that construction noise is not audible at
7 the project property lines.
8
9 6. On plans submitted for building permit the location of protective tree fencing for the existing trees
10 shall be shown. The fencing is to ensure that construction of the project does not result in
11 damage to the existing trees. Protective fencing shall be metal, a minimum of 5-feet in height, and
12 secured with in-ground posts and located 5 feet outside of the drip line of the trees to be
13 protected.
14
15 7. Protective fencing required in condition of approval 6 shall be installed prior to issuance of
16 grading/building permit and shall remain in place for the duration of the project.
17
18 8. On plans submitted for building permit these conditions of approval shall be included as notes on
19 the first sheet.
20
21 From the Planninq Commission
22 9. Plans submitted for building permit shall include removal of knee braces, installation of trim board
23 and are subject to staff review and approval. If budget permits, plans shall also be revised to
24 include corner returns.
25
26
27 From the Public Works Department
28
29 10. If the building permit value is equal to or greater than one-third of the existing structure, curb,
30 gutter, sidewalk and street trees shall be provided along the subject property frontages (West
31 Perkins Street, South Dora Street, and West Church Street) pursuant to Section 9181 of the
32 Ukiah City Code. This shall include the repair or upgrade of existing curb, gutter, sidewalk,
33 driveway approaches and/or curb ramps to meet current ADA standards, and the planting of
34 additional street trees as required.
35
36 11. The proposed structure shall be separately connected to the sewer main, unless this requirement
37 is waived by the City Engineer. Existing sewer laterals shall be cleaned and tested in accordance
38 with City of Ukiah Ordinance No. 1105 and replaced if required.
39
40 12. The proposed development is located within the City of Ukiah sanitary sewer service area and
41 subject to applicable sewer connection fees.
42
43 13. All areas of circulation shall be paved with a minimum of 2" of AC on 6" of aggregate base or
44 other suitable surface approved by the City Engineer, pursuant to Section 9184 of the Ukiah City
45 Code. This includes all driveway and parking areas.
46
47 From the Buildinq Official
48
49 14. The main use of the proposed building appears to be storage and work rooms. The occupancy for
50 the building would be S-1 and F-1 with perhaps a small assembly area as an accessory use. The
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 25
1 2010 California Building Code only allows a single story for this type of building. The installation
2 of an automatic sprinkler system allows the maximum number of stories to be increased by one.
3
4 15. As long as the stairway serves less than 10 occupants it is not required to be enclosed.
5
6 16. The drinking fountain in the hallway is required to be a high-low drinking fountain.
7
8 17. A sewer lateral testing permit and final is required for this project.
9
10 18. The door swing into the bathroom appears to be encroaching into the required clear floor space
11 for the lavatory.
12
13 19. The storage area under the stair is required to be 1 hour rated.
14
15 From the Fire Marshal
16
17 20. Occupancy inspection for fire extinguisher placement and coverage will be performed during site
18 visiUinspection, and listed during plan check process.
19
20 Standard Conditions
21
22 21. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use, including
23 but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been applied for
24 and issued/finaled.
25
26 22. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
27 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
28
29 23. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
30 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal
31 agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing,
32 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building
33 Permit is approved and issued.
34
35 24. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any future
36 purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
37
38 25. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior
39 to building permit final.
40
41 26. This Use Permit and Site Development Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation
42 process if the approved project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with
43 these stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years
44 of the effective date of this approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted
45 has ceased or has been suspended for 24 consecutive months.
46
47 27. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Use Permit and Site Development Permit shall be
48 granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Use Permit and Site
49 Development Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or
50 zone requirements except to such specific purposes.
51
52 28. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of
53 the plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited to the following:
54
55 A. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall fluctuate
56 according to the season, i. e., more water in summer, less in the winter.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 26
1
2 B. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds, and
3 reduced watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather.
4
5 C. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic
6 fertilizer according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional.
7
8 D. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees.
9
10 E. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not
11 constrict the trunks and damage the trees.
12
13 F. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not damage
14 the trunk of the tree and its overall growth.
15
16 G. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests, disease or other factors, including
17 vandalism, shall be replaced with the same or similar tree species, or an alternative
18 species approved by the department of Planning and Community Development.
19
20 H. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be made. All
21 pruning shall follow standard industry methods and techniques to ensure the health and
22 vitality of the tree.
23
24 • This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
25 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
26 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
27 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
28 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
29 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
30 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
31 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
32 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
33 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
34 remain in full force and effect.
35
36 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
37
38 Senior Planner Jordan:
39 • There will be no regular Planning Commission meeting on August 28, 2013. The next regular
40 meeting will be September 11, 2013.
41
42 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
43 Commissioner Pruden commented the process was somewhat awkward tonight regarding the museum
44 project noting there are times when a public official has to step back to address a project issue.
45
46 12. ADJOURNMENT
47 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
48
49
50 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 14, 2013
Page 27
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 September 11, 2013
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair Laura Christensen
7 Kevin Doble
8 Linda Sanders
9 Judy Pruden
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
14
15 1. CALL TO ORDER
16 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
17 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
18
19 2. ROLL CALL
20
21 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
22
23 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —The minutes from the August 14, 2013 meeting will be available for
24 review and approval at the September 25, 2013 meeting.
25
26 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
27
28 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters at this meeting, the
29 final date to appeal is September 23, 2013.
30
31 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
32
33 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff.
34
35 9. PUBLIC HEARING
36 9A. Stephens Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development Plan, 312 Ford Street
37 (File No.: 13-13-REZPD-PC-CC). Planning Commission consideration and possible
38 recommendation to City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rezoning to Planned
39 Development, and precise Development Plan to allow the construction of four one-bedroom
40 apartments on the corner of Ford Street and Myron Place and one second unit at 312 Ford
41 Street, APNs 002-101-15 and 002-101-14.
42
43 M/S Pruden/Doble to continue Stephens Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development
44 Plan, File No.: 13-13-REZPD-PC-CC to a date certain of September 25, 2013. Motion carried (4-0) with
45 Commissioner Christensen abstaining.
46
47 Commissioner Pruden requested the aforementioned project be the first item considered at the regular
48 September 25t`' Planning Commission meeting.
49
50 9B. Ukiah Valley Medical Center Hospital Support Building, Central Yard, and Temporary
51 Parking, Contractor Trailers, and Construction Staging, 275 Hospital Drive at (File No.: 13-
52 09-UP-SDP-PC). Planning Commission consideration and possible action on a Mitigated
53 Negative Declaration, Major Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow the construction of
54 a Hospital Support Building and central yard for the Ukiah Valley Medical Center at 275 Hospital
55 Drive (APN 002-193-23 and 002-160-08). The Project also includes temporary parking and
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 1
1 contractor trailer(s) on the northwest corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street (002-160-13) and
2 construction staging on the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street(APN 002-160-10).
3
4 Senior Planner Jordan:
5 • Gave presented the staff report and project.
6 • The applicant is asking for a modification related to providing a pathway.
7 • The Applicant is also requesting the approval of the modification to the shade requirement and
8 the Project complies with the City of Davis shade requirement.
9 • Staff is recommending Planning Commission adoption Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). If
10 the Planning Commission adopts the MND, staff is recommending Planning Commission approve
11 the Use Permit and Site Development Permit.
12
13 Commissioner Pruden: Would like to see an accurate representation of the materials and color palate
14 for the Project.
15
16 Commission first discussed the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
17
18 Commissioner Pruden requested clarification whether or not the second story portion of the building
19 would also be located in the B2 Infill Airport Compatibility Zone.
20
21 Commissioner poble: Page 19 of the Initial Environmental Study, General Plan Tree Goals and
22 Policies, Goal OC-24, `Replace aging trees with new trees, questioned whether the term 'aging' should be
23 eliminated from the document since it was determined and recognized in the staff report that the trees to
24 be removed were not `aging' trees.
25
26 Staff:
27 • Referenced the site plans and addressed the location of the B2 Infill zone and confirmed only the
28 single story portion of the building is located in the B2 zone.
29 • It is up to the Commission whether or not the term 'aging' should be eliminated. `We actually do
30 not know what it means to be an aging tree.' The arborisYs report confirmed the trees slated for
31 removal are not `aging'trees. To this end, it would be appropriate to revise the discussion.
32
33 Commission: Cannot really change the General Plan terminology regarding the term `aging.'
34
35 Commissioner poble:
36 • Would prefer to be more accurate about the language in the staff report now that the Commission
37 is cognizant that the trees being removed are not aging by simply stating 38 trees are proposed
38 for removal.
39 • The staff report in the General Plan Tree Goals and Policies section states the Project would
40 remove two Valley Oak Trees, which would be inconsistent with Goal OC-22, Conserve and
41 replenish Valley Oaks in the Valley.'
42
43 Commissioner Sanders:
44 • Counted one Valley Oak proposed for removal as opposed to two trees.
45 • The Initial Environmental Study is `pretty well' researched and presented and does really not have
46 concerns about this document.
47 • With regard to the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration, is it necessary to reference `The Storm
48 Water Pollution Ordinance' that was recently adopted since there was some discussion and
49 reference to Low Impact Development (LID) in relation to the North Coast Regional Water Quality
50 Control Board. Does not know whether or not this information should be inserted in the CEQA
51 document or possibly the Project findings or conditions.
52
53 Staff:
54 • Questioned if the rest of the discussion in the staff report regarding the trees is appropriate for the
55 document in the event the language relevant to aging trees is modified?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 2
1 • Confirmed only one Valley Oak is proposed for removal. A revision should be made to correct
2 this.
3 • Is not certain whether the City is subject to the requirements of the Storm Water Pollution
4 Ordinance, but understands Ukiah operates under the MS4 permit from Santa Rosa. Would not
5 want to include such language unless City Public Works confirms this is necessary.
6
7 Related to demolition of buildings for the Project, it was noted the California Green Building Code requires
8 a Salvage and Recycle plan. The Salvage and Recycle Plan must be submitted as part of the building
9 permit application.
10
11 Commissioner Pruden:
12 • Related to the topic of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noted the UVMC campus has a fairly
13 large tree canopy and questioned the reasoning/logic of removing 38 trees for the Project and
14 replacing them. Removal of 38 trees would theoretically affect GHG emissions even though the
15 trees are being replaced. With the planting of young trees the growth period will take some catch-
16 up time to reach the growth level of the existing trees. There is no mention of the potential impact
17 in the 10 or so years it would take the new trees to catch up with the existing trees. There is a lot
18 of discussion in the environmental document about the many kinds of GHGs, how they are
19 created, who makes them and whose fault it is. There is some irony with regard to how this does
20 not apply to real life having the topic of GHG emissions as part of the environmental report when
21 38 trees are to be removed as part of the Project.
22 • Is of the opinion essentially the only way to mitigate GHG emissions in California is to have no
23 project.
24
25 Commissioner poble: It may be the removal and subsequent replacement of the trees is viewed as a
26 temporary impact.
27
28 Commissioner Pruden: What constitutes temporary? How does one quantify and/or sequester for the
29 loss of trees at a certain level of growth/maturity? This act does not present itself as a practical aspect to
30 the Environmental Quality Act. It appears the matter is all or nothing. Unfortunately, there will be a GHG
31 emissions effect if the trees are removed and it will be for several years. Again, how is this quantified
32 and/or the effect measure?
33
34 Commissioner poble: Is of the opinion anything having to do with CEQA will have run its course such
35 that things would have to happen to change existing definitions. Right now, the matter of GHG emissions
36 is so new there has never been the challenge or the request for determination that typically happens or
37 has happened over the years since CEQA has been in existence. It will get worked out at some point.
38 Acknowledged we are still in `limbo' on this subject.
39
40 Commissioner Pruden: Cannot say that staff made an error in not checking the box `not significant
41 impacY with regard to the removal of 38 trees and its effect on GHG emissions because we do not know if
42 the impact is significant or not.
43
44 Commissioner poble: It may be we have to wait for case law when it comes to quantifying the loss of
45 trees and its impact on GHG emissions.
46
47 Staff:
48 • From staff's perspective is of the opinion there is no indication of having an impact related to
49 GHG emissions.
50 • Acknowledged that smaller trees will be planted consisting of 24-inch box trees. The Project will
51 not result in an increase in employees or visitors or any vehicle trips to the site, so no changes
52 are made to emissions related to vehicles. What is occurring is the removing of old buildings that
53 are inefficient and replacing with new far more efficient buildings that would likely contribute to a
54 reduction in emissions.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 3
1 • Commissioner Pruden is correct in saying we have not quantified and/or can exactly measure
2 potential emission impacts that occur as a result of various components of this development.
3 What is known is the Project will be a replacement of a building that is new and meets the
4 California Green Building Code standards.
5 • Again, there will be no added vehicle trips as a result of the development and the 38 trees
6 removed will be replaced with 38 trees. There is no evidence that removal of the trees would
7 change GHG emissions at all when the Project might actually be an improvement because of the
8 efficiency of the new buildings.
9
10 Commissioner poble: Supports staff work on the Initial Study and is prepared to make a motion in this
11 regard.
12
13 M/S Doble/Pruden to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the UVMC Hospital Support Building
14 and central yard with Findings 1-16 as provided for in attachment 1 of the staff report with two
15 modifications on page 19 of the Initial Study: 1) delete `aging' and 2) revise `two Valley Oaks' to `one
16 Valley Oak.' Motion carried (4-0)with Commissioner Christensen absent.
17
18 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:14 p.m.
19
20 Applicant Representative and Project Architect Charles Ackerley:
21 • Gave a Project presentation and overview of the Project.
22 • Provided samples of building materials and sample color palate for the HSB project.
23
24 Commissioner Pruden:
25 • Is concerned the proposed stone for the building does not architecturally fit with the other
26 buildings on the UVMC campus. Is of the opinion the UVMC campus is not architecturally
27 cohesive.
28 • Would like to see a little `more finished' and/or `dressed' ledger stone. Recommends the stone
29 dressing for the new HSB be a color palate closer to the roofing color on the OB building located
30 to the west of the campus so as to provide for more color continuity/compatibility. The roofing
31 color on the OB building is a nice pleasing brownish-red. Otherwise, the cream-based colors
32 selected for the building certainly match other buildings on the campus.
33
34 Commissioner poble:
35 • Likes the color palates provided for in the renderings.
36 • Likes the color palate selected for the stone.
37
38 Charles Ackerley: The stone material selected serves a very functional purpose and architecturally
39 complements the building.
40
41 Commissioner Sanders: Likes the contrast of the darker stone because it takes away from the mass of
42 that part of the structure and does not support lightening the color.
43
44 Commissioner Pruden: Also supports a darker stone color. The color of the roof of the OB building is
45 darker and is a `saturated' color. The color proposed for the stone is too light and needs more of a
46 richer/saturated color like that of the roof of the OB building. Also supports having more of a `dressed'
47 stone on the building.
48
49 Chair Whetzel: Likes the color palate and `raised look' of the stone material selected.
50
51 Commissioner Sanders: Inquired if the proposed Project would affect the Meditation Garden? Would
52 like this area to be protected with fencing if this is necessary?
53
54 Charles Ackerley: The Project will be steering clear of the area in and around the Meditation Garden.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 4
1 Paul Martin, Lionakis, Technical Architect: The specifications concerning demolition are very detailed
2 and strict precautionary measures are taken particularly with protection of other structures and plant
3 materials on the site.
4
5 Commissioner Sanders: Inquired about the proposed modification request referred to as a variance
6 request on the part of the applicant to the landscaping requirement concerning parking lot#1 to provide a
7 pedestrian pathway through the parking lot and how this will work in connection with the bio-swale.
8
9 Charles Ackerley: Referred to staff's analysis of the modification request and addressed the pathway.
10
11 Staff: Confirmed the proposed "variance" is actually a modification to the landscaping requirements for
12 parking lot#1.
13
14 Susan Sher:
15 • Is a resident of the Wagonseller Neighborhood and noted the neighborhood has expressed
16 concern that UVMC did not contact anyone from the neighborhood to discuss the Project with
17 them with regard to any potential impacts such as lighting in the parking lot, noise during
18 construction, dust, safety, and the like. The Wagonseller neighborhood questions why UVMC is
19 essentially `thumbing their nose' at the neighborhood and is of the opinion it is common courtesy
20 for the hospital to consult with the surrounding neighborhood about development.
21 • One particular question concerns the east construction staging area is now a footpath for many
22 persons residing in the neighborhood and questioned whether there are plans to fence this area
23 off from use?
24 • Questioned hours of construction and potential noise impacts to the neighborhood. Many of the
25 residents of the Wagonseller Neighborhood work at night and sleep during the day.
26 • Asked if there will be lighting on Lot#7?
27
28 Chair Whetzel: It is likely people using the pathway will have to use the sidewalk for safety reasons.
29
30 Commissioner Pruden: Persons residing in the Wagonseller Neighborhood also expressed concern to
31 her that the neighborhood was not notified of the Project and as such jumped to the conclusion that
32 parking lots #7 and #8 were being developed as part of this project. She explained that parking lots #7
33 and #8 were not being developed but rather would be used as construction staging areas. Has observed
34 that parking lot#7 is heavily used for parking purposes.
35
36 Chair Whetzel:
37 • Observed that temporary parking lot#7 at 5:30 p.m. only had one car in the lot.
38 • Requested clarification there would not be lighting in parking lot#8 and that it would be used as a
39 staging area for heavy equipment and building materials?
40 • Asked if UVMC owns the property referred to as parking lots#7 and #8.
41
42 Brandon Parker, UVMC, Vice President of Finance: Is willing to facilitate a dialogue with the
43 Wagonseller Neighborhood concerning the Project as soon as possible even though it is past the
44 planning and design stage and is before the Planning Commission for approval.
45
46 Paul Martin:
47 • Confirmed parking lot #8 would be used as a construction staging area and for the placing of
48 building materials.
49 • There is typically a general contractor on board for construction purposes and it may be he can
50 make the construction staging area smaller so there is less impact to pedestrians using the area.
51 • Confirmed UVMC owns the property referred to as parking lots #7 and #8.
52 • There will be no lighting on parking lot#7.
53 • Related to hours of construction, Adventist Health System is a faith-based organization and does
54 not have any work on Saturday. Construction will be limited to five days a week. The noisiest part
55 of construction is the beginning of a project.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 5
1 • The general contractor will be working to reduce as many potential impacts as possible.
2 • The construction schedule will likely be six or seven months.
3
4 Staff: Related to comments made by Susan Sher, there are project conditions of approval that require
5 the contractor trailer/construction staging area be moved as far away as possible from residential uses,
6 as well as standard mitigation measures for Noise on pages 42 and 43 of the Mitigated Negative
7 Declaration.
8
9 Charles Ackerley: Related to one more issue concerning noise, the contractor that will be constructing
10 the building is very experienced with working on hospital sites and understands the necessity of
11 maintaining noise levels to a minimum for the benefit of patients and hospital staff.
12
13 Commissioner Sanders:
14 • Asked how the fencing will work in the area where the adjacent residential community walks
15 through on lot 8.
16 • Asked about the timeframe that the adjacent neighborhood can expect to be impacted by dust,
17 noise, and/or other construction impacts.
18
19 Paul Martin:
20 • Is of the opinion the general contractor will not need that much construction staging area so it is
21 likely pedestrians will still be able to walk through the area.
22 • The Project will take approximately eight months to complete. The initial disturbance of the site
23 will be approximately eight weeks unless there are weather delays.
24 • Will be complying with the City ordinance concerning hours of operation.
25 • In terms of fencing, again the general contractor is very sensitive to working on hospital sites and
26 is certain if there needs to be a public access that this aspect can be worked out. Fencing and
27 other precautionary measures will have to be taken to ensure public safety and address liability
28 issues. If these issues can be addressed, the pedestrian access could still occur.
29
30 Commissioner poble:
31 • Asked if any consideration is given for construction to begin at 8 a.m. as opposed to 7 a.m.?
32 • Is there any equipment currently on the site that will be moved to Lot #7 or Lot#8 and used for a
33 while and referred to a list under the noise section in the staff report of various items that will be
34 moved, such as a boiler and oxygen tank, etc.
35
36 Paul Martin:
37 • Will consult with the general contractor if this construction time specification is doable.
38 • The boiler and oxygen tank and/or other existing equipment will be moved to another location and
39 demonstrated where.
40
41 Commissioner Pruden:
42 • While there is a vacant parcel on the northwest corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street for
43 temporary employee parking and contractor trailers and parking during project construction as
44 well as use of the vacant parcel on the northeast side of the campus/corner of Hospital
45 Drive/Hamilton for temporary employee parking contractor trailers and parking, and construction
46 staging until construction the Project has been completed, asked about the use of proposed
47 parking lot#1 for employee parking only.
48 • Will the parking lot contain a notice for the public not to park there?Will vehicles belonging to the
49 public be towed if parked there?
50
51 Chair Whetzel: Will parking lot#1 continue to be fenced as it is currently.
52
53 Brandon Parker:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 6
1 • Uses parking lot#1 every day as does other hospital staff. Acknowledged the parking lot is 100
2 percent for employee use. There are no current designated parking spaces and construction of a
3 new 31 space parking lot#1 will also not include designated parking.
4 • Towing away vehicles is not a current practice of UVMC and there has not been a discussion
5 that this would not be a practice in the future moving forward. The parking lot would be
6 designated as `employee only.'
7
8 Paul Martin:
9 • Referenced the new parking lot and noted there are no plans to chain or fence it off.
10 • Clarified the location of the only parking spaces that are marked and noted these are for UVMC
11 vehicles.
12
13 Commissioner Pruden: Requested clarification that 43 parking spaces have to be relocated within the
14 existing hospital campus.
15
16 Staff: The parking spaces need to be relocated whether it is on the Project site or at some other location
17 on the hospital campus, such as lot#7, but this decision is up to the hospital.
18
19 Chair Whetzel:
20 • The proposed HSB Project will likely tie in with the next project. Recalls a former project had
21 plans for lot#7.
22 • Is looking overall that the proposed Project and other projects are essentially one big project and
23 that the Project being considered tonight is basically Phase I.
24 • If the proposed Project is taking away some parking, the next project pertinent to lot #7 will
25 compensate by adding parking spaces.
26
27 Commissioner poble: Noted the Project is conditioned to add parking spaces.
28
29 Staff:
30 • Due to the reduced size of parking lot #1, there would be a net loss of 43 parking spaces for the
31 proposed Project and/or the overall UVMC campus. All of the spaces that would be created in a
32 permanent parking lot on lot#8 are needed to meet the parking requirements.
33 • Referenced Condition of Approval 3, staff did not condition the project to state how or where
34 these replacement parking spaces should be done. This aspect is left to the applicant to
35 determine what makes the most sense for UVMC. UVMC would develop a parking plan and
36 present it to the Planning Department and from there a determination would be made whether or
37 not a major/minor Site Development Permit or just a building permit would be required. The City
38 Planning Department would need to see the parking plan in order to make a determination.
39 • The parking matter will be addressed.
40
41 Commissioner Pruden: Referred to the staff report, page 14, Table 3, Zoning Ordinance and Site
42 Analysis, Vehicle Parking Requirements, sentence that reads, `The condition requires the parking to be
43 provided in the areas of the demolished support buildings and/or permanent parking be provided on lot
44 #7,' and this language implies the demolished support buildings would become parking.
45
46 Staff: Clarified the aforementioned condition states `and/or' so if UVMC chose to provide some on-site
47 parking and some parking on Lot#7, this is completely at the discretion of the hospital and subject to city
48 review.
49
50 Commissioner Pruden: All of the replacement parking does not have to be on lot #7; the hospital has
51 other options.
52
53 Staff: The language concerning the proposed parking in the staff report allows UVMC flexibility with
54 regard to replacement parking.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 7
1 Commissioner poble: Supports staff's analysis concerning proposed parking and flexibility given in the
2 Project conditions. The flexibility in the language allows the Planning Commission the opportunity not to
3 have to revisit if a change occurs.
4
5 Commissioner Pruden: Is not certain that putting all the parking behind the primary campus on lot#1 is
6 an optimum idea. Is of the opinion lot #7 is the better choice for parking both for the hospital and
7 neighborhood.
8
9 Commissioner Sanders:
10 • Less parking is great. Is pleased lot#1 is being reduced.
11 • Likes what is being presented.
12 • Only issues relate to the Valley Oaks in the Landscaping Plan and having construction protection
13 with the existing Oaks on lot#8 that would include fencing.
14 • Had a question directed to staff about the Redwoods the DRB mentioned because the Fire
15 Marshal appears to be concerned about the height of the trees with the storage of flammable
16 materials.
17 • Is also pleased the Meditation Garden will not be impacted.
18
19 Commissioner poble:
20 • Has concern about the Valley Oaks as well. The General Plan Goal requires the
21 preservation/conservation and replenishment of Valley Oaks. The proposed project is removing
22 one, but not replacing it. Would need to see a compelling argument for why the tree is not being
23 replaced.
24 • While he supports the bio-retention areas in the parking lot and sees the benefit thereof is of the
25 opinion an opportunity exists for a Valley Oak to work in a couple of those areas.
26 • Strongly supports the concept of the other General Plan goal concerning urban forests and
27 maintaining and enhancing them when the Project proposes to remove trees that are doing fairly
28 well and replace them with smaller trees. It is like `kicking the cycle back'five or six years.
29 • Understands while the City does not have a tree removal ordinance, many communities in
30 Northern California have a ratio of greater than 'one to one' replacement for trees and this
31 addresses some of the issues of the urban forest such that when trees are taken down that are
32 doing fairly well and smaller ones planted in their place expecting them to catch up growth-wise.
33 Would like to see a greater than `one to one' ratio, something that works for the applicant but also
34 something the Commission feels comfortable with.
35
36 Chair Whetzel: The arborist had some concerns about the location of the trees and how they would do
37 in the future.
38
39 Commissioner poble:
40 • The arborist mentioned some weakening of the trees because of where they planted.
41 • Noted the trees are also planted in tree wells that are not accepting run-off and are not wet. Is of
42 the opinion the Valley Oak does not do well in this type of environment. Finds there are two large
43 bio-retention areas that may work in this regard. Because the issue is a General Plan goal would
44 need to see a compelling reason why not to require the replacement of the Valley Oak.
45
46 Commissioner Pruden:
47 • Does not like the configuration of parking lot#1 in terms of pedestrian flow. People will have to go
48 in between cars to get over to the sidewalk or go out of the driveway along the sidewalk and into
49 the front. The parking lot is an employee parking lot so it is possible the configuration related to
50 the pedestrian flow will change. If the parking lot were for use by the public, a designated
51 walkway would have to be constructed through the parking lot. As it currently exists to get from
52 the westside to the eastside, a person would either have to walk into traffic lanes or walk in
53 between cars because there is no cut-through.
54 • The Commission needs to discuss bicycle parking.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 8
1 • Questions why the Raywood Ash trees need to be removed. These are trees in good shape and
2 essentially to replace them in pretty much the same location is somewhat confusing. This
3 approach is counter intuitive.
4
5 Chair Whetzel:
6 • Maintaining the trees would essentially be interfering with the construction zone.
7 • Has no problem replacing the trees. Likes the replacement ratio concept, but instead of a one to
8 one replacement ratio use a different ratio.
9 • Does not support hindering the Project just to save some parking lot trees.
10
11 Commissioner Pruden:
12 • The arborist stated the existing trees are not mature or native. While the trees to be planted are
13 on the approved City street tree/parking lot list many are not native trees to California. Many of
14 the native trees will not do well in a street or parking lot environment.
15 • The applicant has proposed a great tree list. Would like to know the rationale why the applicant is
16 removing a set of healthy trees and replace with another set of trees in the same location.
17 • Referred to pages 9 and 14 of the staff report with regard to bicycle parking and asked for
18 clarification, noting page 9 states there are 12 existing bike parking spaces on the UVMC hospital
19 campus and the Project includes the installation of six new bike spaces for a total of 18 bike
20 parking spaces.
21
22 Staff:
23 • Related to the trees, additional information related to the trees was received after the Initial
24 Study was written.
25 • What the staff report is saying related to bicycle parking is 28 parking spaces are required, 12
26 exist on-site, six are proposed for the Project for a total of 18 spaces. The staff report says that in
27 order to provide the 28 required bike parking spaces; additional bike parking spaces are required.
28 These additional spaces are required to be installed as part of the approved ED Expansion
29 Project. Staff is of the opinion, with the 12 existing bike parking spaces on the campus and the
30 six proposed from the HSB Project for a total of 18 should be sufficient for this Project. If the
31 Planning Commission chooses to require all the bicycle parking spaces now even though the
32 applicant may make the argument there is no increase in square footage and do not want to
33 provide more spaces, the Commission can do this. However, staff does not support this
34 approach.
35
36 Commissioner Pruden: For clarification, 12 parking spaces are existing and the new parking lot
37 requires six additional bicycle parking spaces for a total of 18 wherein the balance would be made up
38 when the Hospital Expansion Project is completed.
39
40 Staff: The parking lot does not technically require any bicycle parking and is essentially `a one for one
41 trade for square footage.'
42
43 Chair Whetzel: Related to bicycle parking, what is occurring is six additional bicycle parking spaces are
44 proposed which the applicant does not need to provide.
45
46 Staff: What staff is saying is the entire campus would require 28 parking spaces. However, most of the
47 campus was constructed at a time when there were no bicycle parking requirements. The applicant has
48 agreed to provide six bicycle parking spaces for the HSB Project. Staff supports this proposal since it is
49 consistent with the code requirement and the existing bicycle parking would increase. An argument could
50 be made that no additional bike parking is needed since there is no increase in square footage; it is more
51 of a relocation and redistribution of square footage. When the ED Expansion is built, the remainder of the
52 bike parking spaces would be installed since the need for these bike parking spaces is associated with
53 that project.
54
55 Commissioner Sanders: Noted sheets A-2 and A-4 provide the location of the bicycle parking spaces.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 9
1 Commissioner Pruden: Since the parking lot #1 is for employees, it is important bicycle parking be
2 provided.
3
4 Chair Whetzel: Is of the opinion that the HSB Project should have been presented as a Phase I project to
5 the bigger project to tie it all together.
6
7 Staff: Acknowledged there is a `disconnecY occurring when reviewing the HSB Project in light of the ED
8 Expansion which has already been approved. However, the scope of this review is only the HSB Project.
9
10 Commission supports staff's recommendation regarding bicycle parking which is six additional spaces
11 proposed that are essentially not necessary for this Project combined with the existing 12 spaces
12 provided for a total of 18 spaces.
13
14 Commissioner Pruden:
15 • Referred to page 9 of the staff report, Energy section, staff indicates the Project does not include
16 rooftop panels or solar tubes/skylights. As part of its review of the Project, Planning Commission
17 could require the applicant to install solar panels or to pre-wire the building for future solar. The
18 Project is subject to the California Green Building Code and will be more energy efficient than the
19 existing buildings that it will replace.
20 • Does the Commission want to require the applicant to pre-wire for future solar?
21
22 Chair Whetzel: Is of the opinion the new building will be very energy efficient and does not have a
23 problem with the building being constructed as proposed without pre-wiring for solar.
24
25 Commissioner Pruden: Is not suggesting a change to the building, but rather possibly requiring the
26 applicant install or pre-wire for solar.
27
28 Commissioner poble: Favors pre-wiring for solar for projects, but since the building is replacing less
29 energy efficient buildings square footage-wise with a building that is very energy efficient would be
30 inclined not to require solar panels or pre-wiring for solar for this particular project.
31
32 Charles Ackerley: Based on the use and design of the space, application for solar would not really
33 work. However, the design provides for a very efficient wall assembly and explained the technical
34 aspects.
35
36 Chair Whetzel: Recommends at least providing for electrical conduits that could be used for pre-wiring
37 for solar in the event changes are made to the building at some point where solar would be advantageous
38 and/or a benefit.
39
40 Commissioner Pruden: Understands the building will be energy efficient so does not have a preference
41 one way or the other. Is not sure the building is large enough to go solely photovoltaic on top of the roof.
42 Would not want to require pre-wiring.Would be prudent to add some conduits, however.
43
44 Staff: While General Plan Goal EG-4 says to maximize on-site solar energy use especially in new
45 developments, a project does not have to be consistent with every single goal or policy, but rather overall
46 consistent with the spirit and intent of the General Plan. The Commission does not have to deal with
47 rooftop panels or solar tubes/skylights in any way, but it is staff's responsibility to point out General Plan
48 inconsistencies.
49
50 Commissioner poble: Is accepting of the way the building is designed energy efficient-wise in that the
51 new building is replacing less energy efficient buildings.
52
53 Commission made no change concerning the matter of energy for the new building.
54
55 Commissioner Sanders: Referred to page 9 of the staff report, Circulation and Transportation,
56 language that states, `the Project was referred to Mendocino Transit Authority for review and comment.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 10
1 No comment was received from MTA. Inquired whether there is already a MTA stop on the hospital
2 campus?
3
4 Staff: There is a stop in the area of Pear Tree Center. Planning staff has consulted with MTA staff for the
5 former Hospital Expansion Project and was told there is a stop that serves Pear Tree Center and its riders
6 have more demand for the existing stop at Pear Tree Center than a stop at UVMC.
7
8 Commission discussion regarding the location of MTA stops in the vicinity of the hospital.
9
10 Commissioner Pruden: Asked specifically about the intent for removing the Raywood Ash trees along
11 the fence/sidewalk line other than it is convenient for construction.
12
13 Charles Ackerley:
14 • The intent is not to spend any more money than necessary for re-landscaping for something that
15 already exists.
16 • As we got into the project, it became apparent that electrical vaults of substantial size have to be
17 replaced such that the existing landscaping associated with this part of the project would not
18 withstand the rigger of construction such that the area would have to be re-landscaped.
19 • Understands Commission concern regarding replacement of trees that are already there.
20
21 Commissioner Pruden:
22 • Does understand UVMC has an extensive electrical vault system that requires substantial
23 undergrounding that takes away from the existing landscaping on the site.
24 • The architect has indicated with regard to replacement of landscaping that the intent is be cost
25 effective and replace only what is absolutely necessary.
26
27 Commissioner poble:
28 • Inquired about reason for not replacing the Valley Oak tree?
29 • Is there a master plan for parking lots #7 and #8? Is there a way to provide for shade on that side
30 of the street?
31
32 Chair Whetzel: Opportunities to provide shade in the areas of parking lots #7 and #8 was a component
33 of the Emergency Hospital Expansion Project.
34
35 Staff: Related to parking lots #7 and #8, for the Emergency Hospital Expansion Project Lot#8 becomes
36 a permanent parking lot after the temporary heliport uses ends. The permanent parking lot approved by
37 the Commission complies with the Davis shade standard. If development is proposed for Lot #7, the
38 development would be subject to the landscaping requirements at that time.
39
40 Commissioner Sanders:
41 • Inquired about the irrigation system for the Coast Live Oaks and if the Oaks will be competing
42 with other vegetative landscaping species for water and whether this issue will be a
43 consideration.
44 • It is important for the trees to have space and space away from the other landscaping species.
45
46 Steve Wheeler, Steve Wheeler Landscaping Architect: Does not have an irrigation plan prepared at
47 this time. When the time comes to develop a detailed irrigation plan, consideration will be given how this
48 effectively works for the trees and other landscaping vegetation.
49
50 Commissioner Pruden: Referred to the Landscape Plan: L-0, and noted according to the plan T-26
51 Quercus Lobata (Valley Oak) is located at the corner on the west side of the parking lot. This is the only
52 Valley Oak she can identify. Noted one other Valley Oak (T-43)will be retained.
53
54 Commissioner poble:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 11
1 • Referred to the Civil Schematic Composite Plan, C-101, and noted in the parking lot are two large
2 bio-retention areas, one towards the front of the parking lot and one towards the rear of the
3 parking lot. Is of the opinion either one of those large areas would be a good spot for a Valley
4 Oak. Preference would be the area towards the rear of the parking lot.
5 • Is of the opinion it is difficult to dismiss/discount the General Plan goal for
6 conservation/enhancement of Valley Oaks. Every effort should be made to add one where
7 feasible.
8 • Would be open to having a landscaping architect select an appropriate location.
9
10 Commissioner Pruden:
11 • Acknowledged there are two bio-swales both of which have been allocated for the Red Maple
12 trees in the parking lot area and it may be possible to put one or two Valley Oaks in this location.
13 Commissioner poble is suggesting one or two Valley Oaks for symmetry purposes in the bio-
14 swales.
15 • Valley Oaks grow quite high before they branch out.
16
17 Commissioner poble:
18 • Do not have a General Plan goal to preserve and retain Maple trees.
19 • Already contending with the fact that we are losing sort of the urban forest because we are going
20 from growing trees to smaller trees. The Commission is going to have to deal with this issue.
21 • Is open to suggestions.
22
23 Chair Whetrel:
24 • The little bio-retention center will not hold two Valley Oaks. Does the Commission want to
25 substitute two Maple trees for one Valley Oak?
26 • Has no problem substituting the trees.
27 • Allowing for two Valley Oak trees on either side of the parking lot is not feasible because those
28 bio-retention areas are not large enough.
29
30 Staff: A point of clarification, right now the shade plan is consistent with the City of Davis standard. If the
31 trees are traded, is not sure the Project would be in compliance, which would make the project
32 inconsistent with the landscaping requirements.
33
34 Chair Whetzel:
35 • Asked if the Valley Oak is to be replaced and does this have to be specific to the project area?
36 Can it be replaced elsewhere?
37 • Can there be more flexibility for the applicant with the opportunity to place the tree somewhere
38 else?
39 • Does not want the Project to fall out of compliance with the overall shade requirement.
40
41 Commissioner poble: Is open to any suggestion. We are dealing with a responsibility to preserve and
42 protect Valley Oak trees.
43
44 Commissioner Sanders: The issue is also about being able to provide sufficient space.
45
46 Steven Wheeler:
47 • Concession is possible and explained how this could work.
48 • Related to recommended trees for parking lots, Valley Oaks are not on the list.
49 • Taking out the Red Maple is a judgment call.
50 • A Valley Oak is deciduous and this is a nice feature. The tree is dormant during the winter period.
51 While Valley Oak live in soggy conditions would like to do some research about Valley Oaks living
52 in a bio-swale as to whether the tree should be dead center or to the side of the bio-swale.
53 Preference would be to plant the Oak up a little on the side so it is not dead center at the bottom
54 of the bio-swale.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 12
1 • First approach would be to try and save the Oak trees with some minor adjustments in the
2 parking lot. Secondly, there may be an opportunity in the Project to try one for one ratio for tree
3 replacement for the Valley Oak should it have to be removed.
4
5 Chair Whetzel:
6 • Staff has indicated by removing the Red Maples, may jeopardize the Project into non-compliance
7 with the shade requirements.
8 • Is of the opinion what the Commission would like to see is assurance in the grand scheme of the
9 bigger and/or next project for UVMC if one Valley Oak is removed that one, two, or three Valley
10 Oaks will be planted somewhere else.
11 • Is okay with the Valley Oak being removed if UVMC in the next phase of development would
12 plant three or four Valley Oak trees.
13
14 Steven Wheeler:
15 • Explained how the street trees would be planted by modifying the location of the planters to better
16 accommodate the trees and save the Valley Oak and Coast Live Oak trees. To this end, will try
17 and save the Valley Oak trees if possible.
18 • Will look for a location within the Project to add a Valley Oak tree.
19 • The Coast Live Oaks on the site appear to be doing well.
20
21 Commissioner Pruden:
22 • The soil where the UVMC is located and that of the Wagonseller Neighborhood is very good for
23 trees and vegetative landscaping. The soil is river soil and this is why the trees flourish in this
24 area.
25 • Supports adding a condition that the oaks be retained where feasible.
26
27 Commissioner Sanders: Would like to see whatever is planted will thrive.
28
29 Commissioner poble: The landscape architect intends to conserve and replenish Valley Oak and Coast
30 Live Oak trees. It may be a condition of approval is necessary in this regard.
31
32 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:53 p.m.
33
34 Commissioner poble: Recommends adding a condition of approval that the Project retain and/or
35 replenish Valley Oak trees where feasible.
36
37 Staff:
38 • Prefer to include this as a separate condition of approval from the Planning Commission, rather
39 than modifying an existing condition. It is helpful to identify the conditions imposed by the
40 Commission.
41 • Need to add language to the condition based on what the landscaping architect is saying as to
42 the likely need to modify the location of the planters in order to retain the trees. Since there is also
43 a requirement to provide a planter every four parking spaces in the parking lot, recommend
44 approving a modification to the this requirement and including a finding to allow more flexibility in
45 designing the parking lot to retain the trees.
46
47 The Commission expressed concern about the two Coast Live Oaks in parking lot#1 and possible
48 retention of these trees.
49
50 Commissioner poble:
51 • For the record then, the applicant will retain or replenish the existing Valley Oak trees possibly by
52 modifying the parking lot to do so.
53 • Asked again about the hours of construction. The zoning ordinance allows for construction to
54 begin at 7:00 a.m. Preference would be for construction to begin at 8 a.m.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 13
1 Commission discussion concerning the hours of construction, noting the zoning for the site drives the
2 construction time. The site is zoned C2 that allows construction to begin at 7 a.m. and end at 10 p.m.
3 Asked about the noise ordinance regulations with regard to construction times.
4
5 Staff: The noise ordinance allows construction activity from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., but the mitigation
6 measures do not. These are the exact same construction hours in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that
7 the Commission approved for the Emergency Hospital Expansion Project. The mitigated times provided
8 for in the MND are Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Saturday 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Construction is
9 prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah.
10
11 Commissioner Pruden: Is okay with the aforementioned hours of operation even though it may be a little
12 difficult for the neighborhood. This will be for a short duration.
13
14 There was general Commission discussion concerning the issue of noise impacts addressed in the MND
15 in connection with the noise impacts generated from the hospital heliport where the document indicated
16 there have been no complaints concerning the helicopter operation.
17
18 Staff: The reason the MND indicates no noise impact from the hospital heliport operation is because the
19 City has never received a complaint.
20
21 Commissioner Sanders: Would like a condition for the existing trees on lot #8 to be protected during
22 construction with fencing.
23
24 Commissioner Pruden:
25 • Related to the discussion above is asking for a darker more full-body color that is closer in palate
26 to the existing OB roof located to the west that is a brownish red.
27 • The applicant can consider the texture of the stone that is appropriate for a `dress fronY but is of
28 the opinion the color is more important.
29
30 Chair Whetzel:
31 • Does not have a problem with the color and likes the texture of the stone as proposed.
32 • Likes that a darker color has been selected for the stone portion of the building that provides for a
33 nice architectural contrast.
34
35 Commission likes that the stone was designed to have a darker palate and supports Commissioner
36 Pruden's recommendation regarding the color palate of the stone to be that of a richer brown to match
37 that of the OB building.
38
39 Staff: The Commission does not have to decide on the stone type tonight, but rather can include a
40 condition to state `before this exterior material is installed that the applicant provides some alternative
41 samples for Commission review.' Also, the Commission can request the applicant provide a color sample
42 for the stone for later review by the Commission.
43
44 Chair Whetzel: Is it necessary to include a condition concerning landscaping for parking lot#1.
45
46 Staff: A condition is not necessary because this aspect will be captured in the condition that relates to the
47 Valley Oak trees to include the addition of a finding to reconfigure parking lot #1 to serve the Valley Oak
48 trees.
49
50 Commission consensus:
51 • No change to bicycle parking and support staff's analysis in this regard.
52 • No other changes made concerning other project issues that staff recommended the Commission
53 make a determination about to include requiring UVMC to find permanent replacement parking for
54 the spaces lost as a result of the project, applicanYs request for modification related to the
55 parking lot#1 not to provide for a pedestrian pathway, and applicanYs request for modification to
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 14
1 the shade requirement for the parking lot. Commission accepts staff's analysis as provided for in
2 the staff report relevant to these issues.
3 • No change made concerning the matter of solar energy as provided for in the energy section of
4 the staff report. Commission supports staff's analysis in the regard.
5 The following finding and conditions of approval were made by the Planning Commission:
6 • Findinq reqardinq Vallev Oak, Coast Live Oaks and Landscapinq Reauirements
7 Include a finding related to the general plan goals and policies to conserve and replenish Valley
8 Oaks and to maintain and enhance the urban forest and shade tree canopy. The Project applicant
9 indicated that it may be possible to save the three oak trees (valley oak (T-26) and the two Coast
10 Live oaks (T-27 and T-29)), including the valley oak by modifying the west side of the parking lot.
11 Allow a modification to the parking lot requirement for a landscape planter every four parking
12 spaces to provide more of an opportunity to retain the oak trees. Also include a condition that
13 allows the modification of the parking lot in order to retain the oak trees with the priority being the
14 valley oak since there are general plan goals and policies specific to the valley oak
15
16 • Condition reqarding tree protection
17 Include a condition of approval for protective tree fencing around the oak trees on lot 8.
18
19 • Condition reqarding color and sample of stone
20 Include a condition of approval that the color of the stone be changed to a richer red/brown color.
21 This item can be reviewed and approved by staff as part of the building permit process.
22
23 • Condition reqarding retention of one Valley Oak tree and two Coast Live Oak trees in construction
24 area
25 Allow modification to the parking lot shown on the plans in order to retain the valley oak and
26 Coast Live oaks. This item can be reviewed and approved by staff as part of the building permit
27 process.
28 M/S Pruden/Doble to approve Ukiah Valley Medical Center Hospital Support Building, Central Yard, and
29 Temporary Parking, Contractor Trailers, and Construction Staging (File No.: 13-09-UP-SDP-PC) with
30 Findings 1-9 and Conditions of Approval 1-59 as provided for in attachments 2 and 3 of the staff report
31 with modifications to conditions of approval with regard to the landscaping, tree protection and color of the
32 stone and the addition of a finding for retention of native Valley Oak Tree and Coast Live Oaks located in
33 the construction area to include possible reconfiguration of parking lot #1 to accommodate the trees.
34 Motion carried (4-0)with Commissioner Christensen absent.
35
36 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
37 Senior Planner Jordan referred to a project update dated 9/9/2013 from Kevin Brogan owner of the
38 former Feibusch Building and the explanation pertinent to why modifications had to be made to the
39 windows post Commission approval.
40
41 Commissioner Sanders:
42 • Inquired about the timeframe for review of the Costco EIR.
43 • The UUSD building project is taking shape and looks nice. Unfortunately, the project consumed
44 water from the Social Security building next door such that the landscaping located on the
45 shared property line has resulted in dead plants and the trees are also struggling. Would
46 appreciate having more water facilities at this location.
47
48 Staff: Will look into the matter of the landscaping problems at the Social Security building as a result of
49 UUSD project.
50
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 15
1 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
2 Commissioner Sanders:
3 • A clean-up of Gibson Creek is scheduled for Saturday, September 21 from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
4 that includes lunch.
5
6 Chair Pruden:
7 • Is pleased to be working with Kevin Brogan regarding the remodel of the Feibusch Building.
8 • On Art Walk night of Oct 4 a dedication plaque for historical work done to the Feibusch Building
9 will be given to Kevin Brogan.
10 • The Wagonseller Neighborhood has expressed concern that the Duane Hill housing project on
11 Orchard Avenue is in violation of its conditions of approval for not providing for a playground area
12 for children living in the complex. Accordingly, the basketball and tether ball equipment have been
13 removed. The children need to have a place to play.
14
15 Commissioner poble commended staff for a job well done on staff reports for projects, noting the work
16 and end product to be excellent, especially for Planner Jordan.
17
18 There was Commission discussion about the eye sore and/or other problems at the Blue Drug store site.
19
20 There was also Commission discussion about problems with the Commissioners not receiving their
21 Planning Commission packets on time.
22
23 12. ADJOURNMENT
24 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
25
26
27 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
28
29 FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE UKIAH
30 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL SUPPORT BUILDING AND CENTRAL YARD, TEMPORARY
31 PARKING, CONTRACTOR TRAILER AND CONSTRUCTION STAGING PURSUANT TO THE
32 REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA")
33
34 1. The Project will approve a Use Permit and Site Development to allow the construction of an 11,200
35 square foot hospital support building and central yard at 275 Hospital Drive and temporary employee
36 parking and contractor trailer(s) and parking on the northwest corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street
37 and construction staging on the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/Hamilton Street.
38
39 2. The City of Ukiah as lead agency has prepared an Initial Environmental Study and a Mitigated
40 Negative Declaration dated August 2013 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Ukiah
41 Valley Medical Center Hospital Support Building, Central Yard, Temporary Parking Lot, Construction
42 Staging, and Contractor Trailer and Parking ("ProjecY').
43
44 3. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts and based on the conclusions
45 reached in the Initial Environmental Study, it has been determined that the proposed project, as
46 mitigated, would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment for the following reasons:
47
48 A. A mitigation measure has been included to reduce any impacts related to light and glare to less
49 than significant. Impacts to visual quality were determined to be less than significant or no
50 impact.
51
52 B. Construction of the Project would result in an increase in PM10. Mitigation measures for
53 construction of the Project have been applied to the Project. The Project is also required to
54 obtain a Permit from the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District(MCAQMD)which
55 will apply any necessary conditions to Project construction necessary to ensure compliance with
56 air quality standards.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 16
1
2 C. In order to construct the Project, thirty-eight (38)trees within the construction area of the HSB
3 and associated improvements would be removed. The landscaping plan includes the planting of
4 thirty-eight new trees. A mitigation measure has been included to protect any birds that may be
5 nesting in trees that would be removed or that are proximate to the trees to be removed. This
6 would reduce any impacts to biological resources to less than significant. Since the trees that
7 would be removed were planted as part of previous development on the UVMC campus and
8 would be replaced at a ratio of 1:1, the impact related to trees is less than significant.
9
10 D. There are no streams, creeks, or water courses on the parcels included in the Project. Gibson
11 Creek is located west and south of the Project and is a tributary of the Russian River which has
12 been designated as impaired for temperature and sedimentation. Orrs Creek is located north of
13 the site and is also a tributary to the Russian River. The Project is required to obtain a permit
14 from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) and to comply with the
15 City of Ukiah's Storm Water Management Plan as well as the Ukiah City Code requirements for
16 erosion and sediment control and storm water. Compliance with the requirements imposed by
17 the NCRWQCB and City of Ukiah would ensure that the Project does not impact local creeks or
18 the Russian River.
19 A.
20 E. The Project area is not identified on the Area of High Archeological Sensitivity included in the City
21 of Ukiah General Plan. It is highly unlikely that there are archeological resources or human
22 remains on the parcels included in the Project. In the unlikely event that cultural resources or
23 human remains are discovered during grading operations for the Project, mitigation measures
24 have been included to reduce the impact to less than significant.
25 B.
26 F. The Project is required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report
27 required for the Project, which would be applied through the building permit review process. A
28 geotechnical report was prepared for a previous project on the site. The recommendations
29 included in this geotechnical report have been applied to this Project and a site and project
30 specific geotechnical report is required for the Project. The site and project specific geotechnical
31 report is required to be submitted as part of the building permit submittal documentation and the
32 Project is required to comply with all recommendations included in the geotechnical report.
33 C.
34 G. The Project is required to obtain a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, comply
35 with the City of Ukiah's Storm Water Management Plan, and the Ukiah City Code which includes
36 requirements for storm water systems, and erosion and sediment control. Compliance with these
37 requirements as well as the low impact development improvements included as part of the
38 Project result in less than significant impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality.
39
40 H. The Project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The Project parcels are
41 designated as Zone X, areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain, on
42 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map#06045C1514F, Panel#1514 of 2100, effective date
43 June 2, 2011.
44
45 I. A portion of the Project is located in the B2 compatibility zone. Since the Project is located north
46 of the Ukiah Municipal Airport, this portion of the Project is required to comply with the
47 requirements of the B2 infill policy. The remainder of the Project is located outside of the
48 boundaries of the Mendocino County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Ukiah Municipal
49 Airport Master Plan; and, therefore, not subject to the compatibility requirements. Based on the
50 analysis included in the Initial Study, the Project is consistent with the requirements of the B2 infill
51 policy.
52 D.
53 J. The Project is infill development located in an area primarily developed with the existing Ukiah
54 Valley Medical Center hospital campus and other medical and professional office uses. The
55 Project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City of Ukiah General Plan.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 17
1 K. No mineral resources or agricultural lands are located within or in close proximity to the project
2 area.
3 E.
4 L. Construction of the Project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels in the Project
5 area. Residential uses are located to the north of the Project. Mitigation measures have been
6 included to limit the hours of construction and reduce noise from construction equipment. These
7 mitigation measures would reduce construction noise impacts to less than significant.
8 F.
9 M. The Project would not result in an increase in the number of employees; therefore, the Project
10 would not result in an increase in the need for housing or in population growth. The Project does
11 not include or eliminate any housing.
12 G.
13 N. There are adequate public services and utilities to serve future development in the project area.
14 H.
15 O. The Project would not result in an increase in the number of employees, patients, or visitors;
16 therefore, there would be no change in the level of service of intersections in the Project area and
17 existing capacity would not be affected.
18 I.
19 P. The Project would not result in climate change or greenhouse gas impacts. The Project does not
20 violate any plans or policies adopted to address climate change/GHG. The Project does not meet
21 the impact threshold used by the local air district for determining a significant impact. The
22 Project was referred to and reviewed by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District
23 and the District did not identify any impacts related to climate change or GHG.
24 J.
25 4. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts that may result from the
26 implementation of the Project. Based on the conclusions reached in the Initial Environmental Study, it
27 has been determined that the proposed Project has the potential to have significant environmental
28 impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and noise
29 without the implementation of mitigation measures. The analysis and conclusion reached in the Initial
30 Environmental Study identified mitigation measures that would reduce the potential impacts on
31 aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and noise to less than
32 significant levels based on the following:
33
34 Aesthetics
35
36 Potential Impact: The Project could result in impacts related to new sources of light or glare.
37
38 Mitiqation Measure:
39
40 A. All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, aimed, and shielded so as to minimize light trespassing
41 over property lines and avoid directing light towards motorists and pedestrians. Fixtures shall be
42 full cutoff and nighttime friendly and shall be International Dark Sky Association (IDA) approved or
43 equivalent. Prior to installation of the exterior lighting, the applicant shall prepare a photometric
44 plan for review and approval by the Planning Department that demonstrates the lighting will not
45 spillover onto adjacent properties and that all lighting is shielded and downcast.
46
47 B. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a photometric plan that demonstrates lighting will
48 not spillover onto adjacent properties and that the lighting levels will not produce excessive light
49 or glare. The lighting plan is subject to staff review and approval. The lighting plan shall utilize
50 fixtures that are consistent with Aesthetics mitigation measure#B above.
51
52 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to aesthetics to less than
53 significant levels.
54
55 Air Qualitv
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 18
1 Potential Impact: The use of a temporary parking area for employees and construction of the Project
2 would result in a temporary increase in increase PM-10 levels.
3
4 Mitigation Measures:
5
6 A. Lot 7 shall be covered in gravel or otherwise treated to prevent excessive dust and trackout and
7 shall be reapplied as needed to avoid the release of dust for the duration of the use of this site
8 as a temporary parking lot and construction staging.
9
10 B. Construction activities shall be conducted with adequate dust suppression methods, including
11 watering during grading and construction activities to limit the generation of fugitive dust or other
12 methods approved by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. Prior to initiating
13 soil removing activities for construction purposes, the applicant shall pre-wet affected areas with
14 at least 0.5 gallons of water per square yard of ground area to control dust.
15
16 C. The burning of construction debris is prohibited. Any disposal of vegetation removed as a result
17 of site preparation shall be lawfully disposed of, preferably by chipping and composting, or as
18 authorized by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District.
19
20 D. During construction activities, the applicant/owner/contractor shall remove daily accumulation of
21 mud and dirt on paved access lanes that serve the project site.
22
23 E. Any stationary on-site internal combustion engines over 50 horsepower(i.e. generators) may
24 require a permit from the MCAQMD depending upon fuel source and level of operation. It is the
25 responsibility of the City to contact the District regarding this matter and to secure any required
26 permits prior to site preparation and construction activities.
27
28 F. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, and construction of the Project shall
29 institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy
30 days.
31
32 G. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive
33 dust.
34
35 H. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall
36 include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of
37 mud and dust onto public streets.
38
39 I. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be
40 used for earth moving operations.
41
42 The inclusion of these mitigation measures will reduce any potential impacts to air quality to less than
43 significant levels.
44
45
46 Bioloqical Resources
47
48 Potential Impact: The removal of trees necessary for Project construction could affect nesting birds.
49
50 Mitiqation Measure:
51 A. If site preparation and tree removal/trimming include the spring bird nesting season (February
52 through July), a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified professional within two
53 weeks prior to removing/trimming any trees. If active nests (with eggs or living young)are found, no
54 activity shall be permitted that might disturb or remove the active nests until the young birds are
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 19
1 able to leave the nest and forage on their own. Empty nests may be removed. If eggs or young are
2 present, the nests shall be left until the young birds leave. Setback buffers for the nests will vary
3 depending on the species affected and the location of the nest. Buffer zones shall be determined on
4 a case by case basis in consultation with a California Department of Fish and Game biologist.
5
6 The inclusion of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to biological resource to
7 less than significant levels.
8
9 Cultural Resources
10
11 Potential Impact: Construction activities could result in the discovery and disturbance of previously
12 unknown archeological resources. Future construction activities could disturb prehistoric or historic
13 resources.
14
15 Mitiqation Measure:
16
17 A. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources
18 are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the City shall be notified
19 of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional
20 archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation program if
21 deemed necessary.
22
23 Potential Impact: Construction activities could result in the discovery and disturbance of human
24 remains
25
26 Mitiqation Measure:
27
28 B. If human remains are encountered during construction excavation and grading activities, State
29 Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the
30 County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to
31 PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24
32 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify
33 the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent, who will help determine what course of
34 action should be taken in dealing with the remains.
35
36 The Project will not substantially degrade cultural resources with the inclusion of the mitigation
37 measures above.
38
39 The inclusion of these mitigation measures will reduce any potential impacts to cultural resource to
40 less than significant levels.
41
42 Geoloqv/Soils
43
44 Potential Impact: The installation of landscaping and irrigation adjacent to building foundations could
45 compromise the foundation resulting in substantial risks to property or life due to expansive soils.
46
47 Mitiqation Measures:
48
49 A. In order to avoid moisture accumulation or watering adjacent to foundations, no landscaping is
50 allowed against the structure unless moisture accumulation is considered. Only drought tolerant
51 species are allowed proximate to the foundation of the ED expansion. If landscaping is allowed
52 adjacent to the structure, landscaping and irrigation plans for this landscaping shall be designed
53 to direct water away from the foundation.
54
55 B. Planning Commission review of the landscaping plan for the Project shall include review of the
56 species adjacent to the ED expansion and recommendations for appropriate drought tolerant
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 20
1 species and/or the removal of landscaping in this area based on the recommendation included in
2 the geotechnical report.
3
4 C. The landscaping plan and irrigation plan submitted as part of the building permit plans are subject
5 to staff review and approval and shall demonstrate compliance with the landscaping plan
6 approved by Planning Commission. The landscaping plan and irrigation plans shall clearly
7 demonstrate the water will be directed away from the foundation.
8
9 The inclusion of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to geology/soils to less than
10 significant levels.
11
12 Noise
13
14 Potential Impact: Construction of the Project would result in a short-term and temporary increase in
15 noise levels in the area that may affect sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project and on the
16 Project site.
17
18 Mitigation Measures:
19
20 A. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and from
21 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday. Construction hours are prohibited on Sunday and all holidays
22 recognized by the City of Ukiah. Interior work that generates negligible or no noise at the
23 property line is allowed outside of the construction hours noted above.
24
25 Approval of additional construction hours may be requested in writing from the Community
26 Development Director and Public Works Director for extenuating circumstances. The written
27 request must be submitted a minimum of 14 days prior to the date for which the change in
28 construction hours/days is being requested and shall explain the need for the extended
29 construction hours, describe the extenuating circumstances, and identify the additional
30 construction hours requested, including the duration.
31
32 B. Signs shall be posted at the Project site prior to commencement of construction of the proposed
33 Project for the purpose of informing all contractors/subcontractors, their employees, agents,
34 material haulers, and all other persons at the construction site(s)of the basic requirements of
35 mitigation measures for Noise.
36
37 C. Signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include the permitted construction days and
38 hours, day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number in the event of
39 problems.
40
41 D. An onsite complaint and enforcement manager shall respond to and track complaints and
42 questions related to noise.
43
44 E. Equipment and trucks used for proposed Project construction shall use the best available noise
45 control techniques (e.g. improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and
46 acoustically-attenuated shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
47
48 F. Impact tools (e.g.jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for Project
49 construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise
50 associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
51
52 G. Stationary construction noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible
53 and they shall be muffled.
54
55 H. No outside amplified sources (e.g. stereo"boom boxes") shall be used on site during Project
56 construction.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 21
1
2 The inclusion of these mitigation measures will reduce any potential impacts to noise to less than
3 significant levels.
4
5 5. The revisions made to the Project before the adoption of the mitigated negative declaration and initial
6 environmental study would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
7 significant effect on the environment would occur.
8
9 6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Ukiah that the Project,
10 as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment.
11
12 7. The Initial Environmental Study was prepared and demonstrated there is no substantial evidence that
13 supports a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the
14 environment.
15
16 8. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
17 Project, as mitigated, does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional
18 environment.
19
20 9. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
21 Project, as mitigated, will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term
22 environmental goals.
23
24 10. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
25 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative
26 considerable.
27
28 11. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
29 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
30 beings, either directly or indirectly.
31
32 12. The Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were sent to the State
33 Clearinghouse for State Agency review and comment and publicly noticed and made available for
34 public review and written comment from August 9 through September 9, 2013. No comments were
35 received during the review and comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
36
37 13. Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available in the following
38 manner: sent to the State Clearinghouse on August 7, 2013; posted at the Mendocino County Clerk on
39 August 7, 2013; mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the parcels included in the Project on August
40 6, 2013; and published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on August 7, 2013.
41
42 14. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation
43 measures.
44
45 15. September 11, 2013, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to adopt the Mitigated
46 Negative Declaration.
47
48 16. The Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of proceedings of the
49 decision on the Project are available for public review at the City of Ukiah Planning Department,
50 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA.
51
52
53 USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE UKIAH VALLEY
54 MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL SUPPORT BUILDING, CENTRAL YARD, AND ASSOCIATED
55 IMPROVEMENTS AND TIMPORARY EMPLOYEE PARKING, CONTRACTOR TRAILERS AND
56 APRKING, AND CONSTRUCTION STAGING File No.: 13-09-UP-SDP-PC
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 22
1
2 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
3 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
4
5 1. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan as
6 described in Table 1 of the staff report.
7
8 2. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Airport Compatibility requirements as
9 described in Table 2 of the staff report.
10
11 3. The proposed Project, as conditioned is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Zoning
12 Ordinance as described in Table 3 of the staff report.
13
14 4. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for approval of a Use
15 Permit based on the analysis included in Table 4 of the staff report.
16
17 5. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for approval of a Site
18 Development Permit based on the analysis included in Table 5 of the staff report.
19
20 6. The granting of the Modification to the Landscaping Requirement to provide 50% shade coverage of
21 all paved areas within 10 years of planting is based on the following:
22
23 A. The Zoning Ordinance requires a shade percentage to be achieved at 10 years, however the
24 code does not indicate how the shade coverage should be calculated, provide the canopy size of
25 various tree species at 10 years, or define the parking area that is subject to this requirement.
26 B. Based on staff research, communities that have a shade ordinance most commonly use a 15
27 year tree canopy when calculating shade coverage.
28 C. Tree canopy size can double between 10 and 15 years. Staff was unable to find another
29 community that used a 10 year canopy for the purpose of calculating shade coverage and City
30 staff directed the applicant to calculate shade coverage using the City of Davis method.
31 D. The landscape plan includes shade calculations with the size of the tree canopy and square
32 footage calculation based on the City of Davis parking lot shade calculation requirements. Based
33 on this information, 57.55% of the parking lot would be shaded within 15 years of planting.
34 E. The landscaping plan includes the one tree every four spaces, trees are planted at the end of the
35 parking rows, trees are from the require Parking Lot Tree List, and more than 50% shade
36 coverage of the parking area within 15 years.
37 F. The number of trees and shading provided is a substantial improvement over the landscaping
38 and shading of existing parking lot#1.
39
40 7. The granting of the Modification to the Landscaping Requirement to provide a pedestrian pathway
41 through new parking lot is based on the following:
42
43 A. New parking lot#1 includes 31 parking spaces in four rows of parking spaces accessed via one-
44 way drive aisles.
45
46 B. A public sidewalk is located on the north side of the parking lot and a pedestrian pathway is
47 located on the east side of the parking lot both of which connect to the main entry of the HSB as
48 well as the utility yard.
49
50 C. Parking lot#1 will most likely be used by employees who will be parked for most of the day with
51 limited turnover of parking spaces.
52
53 D. Nine (9) parking spaces located on the east side of the parking lot connect to the pathway located
54 on the east side of the lot. The two rows of the parking located in the center of the site would
55 require people to cross one one-way drive aisle. The westernmost row of parking would require
56 people to cross two one-way drive aisles.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 23
1
2 E. The parking lot is small, the turnover of parking spaces throughout the day is likely to be low, and
3 pedestrians would be required to cross at most two one-way drive aisles and pedestrian parking
4 in the easternmost row of parking would have immediate access to the pedestrian pathway and
5 would not have to cross any drive aisles.
6
7 8. An Initial Environmental Study (IS) was prepared for the Project which identified potential impacts to
8 aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and noise. Mitigation
9 measures were identified that would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. A Mitigation
10 Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Project and the applicant has agreed to
11 the mitigation measures.
12
13 9. Notice of the proposed Project was provided in the following manner:
14
15 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet on August 6, 2013 (with the NOI);
16 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on August 7, 2013 (with the NOI) ; and
17 ■ posted on the project parcels on August 8, 2013.
18
19 From the Planninq Commission
20
21 10. The General Plan includes goals and policies to conserve, replenish, maintain and protect Valley
22 Oaks and to maintain and enhance the urban forest and shade tree canopy. As stated at the meeting
23 by the applicant, the Project landscape architect and civil engineer will attempt to modify the parking
24 lot in order to retain the Valley Oak and Coast Live Oaks. In order to implement these goals and
25 policies, a Modification to the Landscaping Requirement to provide a tree within a continuous linear
26 planting strip between every four parking spaces is hereby granted in order to allow the parking lot to
27 be modified to retain the oak trees located to on the west side of the parking lot. This modification is
28 granted in order to allow the parking lot to be modified in a manner that would retain the existing
29 valley oak (T-26) and the two Coast Live oaks (T-27 and T-29) identified as "to be removed" on the
30 Landscape Demolition Plan (sheet L-0). The retention of these trees is consistent with the General
31 Plan. A condition of approval allowing the modification of the parking lot in order to retain these trees
32 has been applied to the Project. If it is not feasible to modify the parking lot to retain the oak trees,
33 the Project would be consistent with the General Plan goal OC-22 and policy OC-22.1 since the
34 implementation measure states When reviewing proposals for development require that all valley
35 oaks on the project area be identified, and ensure that all reasonable efforts have be undertaken to
36 protect the trees and the landscape architect and civil engineer will undertake all reasonable efforts to
37 protect.
38
39
40 USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL UKIAH VALLEY MEDICAL
41 CENTER HOSPITAL SUPPORT BUILDING, CENTRAL YARD, AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS
42 AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PARKING, CTRACTOR TRAILERS AND PARKING, AND
43 CONSTRUCTION STAGING File No.: 13-09-UP-SDP-PC
44
45 1. Approval is granted to allow the construction of the Hospital Support Building, central yard, and
46 associated site improvements at 275 Hospital Drive and to allow the temporary use of the parcel
47 located on the northeast corner of Hospital Drive/ Hamilton Street (APN 002-160-10)for construction
48 staging and to allow the temporary use of the parcel on the northwest corner of Hospital Drive /
49 Hamilton Street (APN 002-160-13) for temporary parking, contractor trailer(s) and parking as shown
50 on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 5, 2013 and the Project
51 Description and details submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 5, 2013, except as
52 modified by the following conditions of approval.
53
54 2. Prior to building permit final for the Hospital Support Building at 275 Hospital Drive, a deed notice
55 shall be recorded to advise persons that the property is located in proximity to the Ukiah Municipal
56 Airport in the B2 (extended approach/departure) infill compatibility zone, is subject to occasional
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 24
1 aircraft overflight, and may be subject to aircraft noise or related disturbances. Prior to recordation of
2 the deed notice, the draft language for the notice shall be provided to the Planning Department for
3 review and approval.
4
5 3. Prior to occupancy of the Hospital Support Building, the applicant shall submit a plan to replace the
6 43 parking spaces lost in parking lot #1 as a result of this project. The replacement parking spaces
7 shall be provided within 6 months of the occupancy of the Hospital Support Building. Continued use
8 of the temporary parking on lot #7 may be extended by the Planning Director if necessary to provide
9 adequate parking during construction of the permanent parking to replace the 43 parking spaces list
10 in parking lot#1.
11
12 4. While in use for temporary employee parking and construction staging during Project construction,
13 the parcel (APN 002-160-13) used for temporary employee parking and construction staging shall be
14 treated with a dust suppressant as needed to control dust and to prevent the tracking of dirt/dust out
15 onto paved roads
16
17 5. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around trees to remain that are in proximity of construction
18 activities.
19
20 6. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff review and
21 approval:
22
23 A. Consistent plans for the bioretention areas included in the project. The landscaping plan (sheet
24 L-1) and civil plan (C-101) shall be revised to show consistent bioretention areas. At a minimum,
25 bioretention areas shall be provided in and around the parking lot, in front of the HSB, and
26 adjacent to the west side of the easternmost driveway.
27
28 B. Compliance with the State Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance and are subject to staff review
29 and approval.
30
31 C. Location of temporary parking area, contractor trailer and parking on lot 7 which shall be as far as
32 practicable from the residential uses located to the north of lot 7.
33
34 D. Location of the construction staging area on lot 8 which shall be located as far as practicable from
35 the residential uses located to the north of lot 8.
36
37 E. Location of the protective tree fencing for the onsite trees located in the vicinity of the project area
38 and identified as"to remain"on the landscaping demolition plan.
39
40 7. The protective tree fencing required by condition #5 above shall be metal, a minimum of 5-feet in
41 height and secured with in-ground posts. The approved tree fencing shall be installed prior to
42 construction/grading activities and shall remain in place until construction has been completed.
43
44 8. Prior to construction of the enclosure of the central yard, the materials and details for the central yard
45 shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.
46
47 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/project proponent shall apply for and receive an
48 address assignment for the Hospital Support Building from the Planning and Community
49 Development Department.
50
51 10. Within 14 days of building permit final or occupancy of the Hospital Support Building, whichever
52 comes first, use of lot 7 for temporary employee parking shall cease. In order to establish permanent
53 employee parking on lot 7, an application for a Use Permit and Site Development Permit along with
54 all associated fees shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department for
55 review and processing.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 25
1 11. Signs require application for and approval of a Sign Permit from the Planning and Community
2 Development Department.
3
4 12. All mitigation measures included in the mitigated negative declaration are hereby included be
5 reference as conditions of approval.
6
7 13. On plans submitted for building permit, these conditions of approval and as well as the mitigation
8 measures referenced in condition of approval # 12 above shall be included as notes on the first sheet.
9
10 From the Planninq Commission
11
12 14. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around the trees on the parcel located on the northeast
13 corner of Hospital Drive and Hamilton Street. The protective tree fencing shall be metal, a minimum
14 of 5-feet in height, and secured with in-ground posts. The required fencing shall be included on plans
15 submitted for building permit and as is subject to staff review and approval. The approved tree
16 fencing shall be installed prior to construction/grading activities and shall remain in place until
17 construction has been completed.
18
19 15. The color of the stone shall be changed to a richer red/brown color. A sample of the stone material
20 shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to installation.
21
22 16. The applicant shall make all reasonable efforts to retain the Valley Oak. In order to retain the one
23 valley oak tree and two Coast Live oak trees located on the west side of the parking lot, the parking
24 lot may be modified. The priority is to retain the Valley Oak since there are specific general plan
25 policies to conserve, replenish, maintain and protect Valley Oaks. The modifications to the parking lot
26 shall be included on plans submitted for building permit and are subject to staff review and approval.
27 The parking lot shall comply with city standards for parking lots, including but not limited to the
28 requirement for shading of the parking lot.
29
30
31 From the Public Works Department
32
33 17. The geotechnical engineer shall review and approve the design of the grading and drainage plans,
34 including the bioretention areas. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a letter from the
35 geotechnical engineer indicating the engineer has reviewed and approved the grading and drainage
36 plan and bioretention areas included in the project.
37
38 18. Since the Project will disturb more than one acre, the applicanUproject proponent is required to obtain
39 a Storm Water Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to construction. Under the
40 new Construction General Permit regulations, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
41 shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer and implemented by a Qualified SWPPP
42 Practitioner.
43
44 19. Bioretention areas shall be designed in accordance with the civil composite plan, the Preliminary
45 Hydrology Statement, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Parking areas shall be sloped and
46 reconstructed, and curb cuts positioned, as necessary to optimize utilization of these bio-retention
47 areas.
48
49 20. The project engineer shall provide direct oversight and inspection during project construction, with
50 special attention to implementation of best management practices for sediment and erosion control,
51 and the proper grading, installation, and landscaping of the bioretention areas. Upon completion of
52 the work, a report shall be submitted by the project engineer to the Department of Public Works
53 stating that the improvements have been completed in accordance with the approved plans and
54 conditions of approval, shall function as intended, and all areas have been permanently stabilized to
55 prevent sediment and erosion.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 26
1 21. Applicant shall upgrade existing sidewalk along Hospital Drive to meet ADA requirements, including
2 at the existing driveway approaches, and addition of curb ramps at the intersection. Public sidewalk
3 improvements outside of the street right-of-way will require a sidewalk easement dedicated to the
4 City.
5
6 From the Public Works Department—Standard Requirements
7
8 22. Prior to construction of site improvements, a final grading and drainage plan, and an erosion and
9 sediment control plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the
10 Department of Public Works. A final drainage report shall be provided to support the design of the
11 proposed drainage system.
12
13 23. Since the project area disturbs greater than one acre, the applicant must obtain a Storm Water Permit
14 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, prior to construction. (Note that, under the new
15 Construction General Permit regulations, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared
16 by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, and implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner.)Also, an Air
17 Quality Permit from the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District will be required.
18
19
20 24. Any existing curb, gutter or sidewalk in disrepair that is adjacent to the subject property shall be
21 repaired. All work shall be done in conformance with the City of Ukiah Standard Drawings 101 and
22 102 or as directed by the City Engineer.
23
24 25. Standard street tree requirements include street trees spaced approximately every 30 feet along the
25 public street, within tree wells where feasible, otherwise within 5 feet of the back of sidewalk. Street
26 trees shall be installed in accordance with City Standard Drawing No 601. Tree types shall be
27 approved by the City Engineer.
28
29 26. All areas of circulation shall be paved with a minimum of 2" of AC on 6" of Base or other suitable
30 surface approved by the City Engineer. This includes the proposed driveways and parking areas. If
31 heavy truck traffic is anticipated from the solid waste company, delivery trucks, or other heavy
32 vehicles, the pavement section shall be calculated appropriately to ensure that it can withstand the
33 loading.
34
35 27. Storm drain inlet filters shall be installed and maintained in all on-site storm drain inlets within paved
36 areas.
37
38 28. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured
39 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or otherwise
40 affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated construction costs.
41
42 29. Existing sewer laterals planned to be utilized or modified as part of this project shall be cleaned and
43 tested in accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No. 1105, and repaired or replaced if required. If
44 an existing lateral is to be abandoned, it shall be abandoned at the main to the satisfaction of the
45 Public Works Department.
46
47 30. Applicable City of Ukiah sewer connection fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
48
49 31. Capital Improvement fees for water service are based on the water meter size. A fee schedule for
50 water meter sizes is available upon request. Additionally, there is a cost for City crews to construct
51 the water main tap for the proposed water service to serve the project.
52
53 32. All irrigation and fire services shall have approved backflow devices.
54
55 From the Buildinq Official
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 27
1 33. Mendocino County Air Quality Clearance and a demolition permit from the City of Ukiah are required
2 prior to demolition of the existing support facilities.
3
4 34. Building permits plans for the Project shall include a plan for Lot 7 that shows the site work,
5 construction of the temporary office, electrical power, and contractor parking.
6
7 35. The building is required to be constructed in compliance with the California Green Building Standards
8 Code, including but not limited to the following:
9 A. plan for the recycling and/or salvage of a minimum of 50% of the non-hazardous waste
10 demolition/construction debris; and
11
12 B. development of a landscaping/irrigation budget for landscape irrigation use that conforms to the
13 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
14
15 36. Three (3)sets of the Geotechnical soils report specific to this site are required.
16
17 From the Fire Department
18
19 37. In order to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access through new parking lot #1, at maturity the
20 trees in the parking lot shall be trimmed up to 12-feet from ground level and this clearance shall be
21 maintained.
22
23 38. Due to the proximity of the new Hospital Support Building to the existing Utility Building, specific fire
24 protection may be required. The specific fire protection requirements will be determined during the
25 Plan Check phase of the permitting process.
26
27 39. The applicant shall notify the Fire Department in writing a minimum of seven (7) days before any
28 roadways or emergency services will be interrupted or detours provided related to project
29 construction.
30
31 From the Electric Utility Department—Standard Requirements
32
33 40. There shall be no remote meter/s.
34
35 41. The contractor/developer shall be responsible for the purchasing of all primary/secondary conduits
36 and installation per City of Ukiah specifications.
37
38 42. The contractor/developer shall be responsible for the installation of all Junction Pedestals per City of
39 Ukiah specifications. The City will provide the Junction Pedestal/s and contractor/developer to install.
40 Cost of (2) Junction Pedestals will be paid by contractor/developer and (1) Junction Pedestal will be
41 paid for by City of Ukiah Electric Utility Department.
42
43 43. The contractor/developer shall purchase and install all Primary Pull Boxes per City of Ukiah
44 specifications, if required.
45
46 44. The contractor/developer shall provide/install Transformer Pad/s (preformed or pour in place) per City
47 of Ukiah specifications.
48
49 45. Easements are required for all electric distribution facilities and shall cover the entire length of the
50 primary and secondary conductors/conduits and transformer equipment/pad locations. The required
51 easements shall be recorded prior to building permit final.
52
53 From the Mendocino Countv Air Qualitv Manaaement District
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 28
1 46. Lot 7 (APN 002-160-13) used for temporary employee parking and contractor trailer(s) and parking
2 shall be covered with gravel or treated to control dust and to prevent the tracking of dirt/dust out onto
3 paved roads.
4
5 47. Portable diesel generators of more than 50 horse power require a permit from the Mendocino County
6 Air Quality Management District.
7
8 48. The Project is subject to District Regulation 1-430, Fugitive Dust Emission.
9
10 49. The Project requires MCAQMD approval of a Large Grading Project permit(form 207.22).
11
12 50. The Project is subject to the Asbestos NEHSAP (40CFR subpart 61). A full and complete asbestos
13 survey shall be completed and any asbestos abated prior to construction. The asbestos survey shall
14 be submitted to the Air District for review prior to commencement of construction.
15
16 Standard Conditions of Approval
17
18 51. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use, including but
19 not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, sign permit, has been applied for
20 and issued/finaled.
21
22 52. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges applicable to
23 this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
24
25 53. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
26 specification, or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agency as
27 applicable.
28
29 54. All construction activities shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
30 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and
31 issued.
32
33 55. A copy of this Permit and all conditions of approval shall be provided and be binding upon any future
34 purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
35
36 56. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior to
37 building permit final.
38
39 57. This Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project related to
40 this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and conditions of approval; or
41 if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of this approval; or if the
42 established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for 24
43 consecutive months.
44
45 58. Except as otherwise specifically noted, this Permit shall be granted only for the specific purposes
46 stated in the action approving the Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any
47 building, use, or zone requirements except to such specific purposes.
48
49 59. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of the
50 plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited to the following:
51
52 K. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall fluctuate
53 according to the season, i. e., more water in summer, less in the winter.
54
55 L. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds, and
56 reduced watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 29
1
2 M. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic fertilizer
3 according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional.
4
5 N. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees.
6
7 O. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not constrict
8 the trunks and damage the trees.
9
10 P. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not damage the
11 trunk of the tree and its overall growth.
12
13 Q. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests, disease or other factors, including vandalism,
14 shall be replaced with the same or similar tree species, or an alternative species approved by
15 the department of Planning and Community Development.
16
17 R. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be made. All pruning
18 shall follow standard industry methods and techniques to ensure the health and vitality of the
19 tree.
20
21 60. Failure to comply with the requirements listed above could result in revocation of the Use PermiUSite
22 Development Permit.
23
24 61. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts related to
25 project construction:
26
27 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Rule 1-430,
28 Fugitive Dust Emissions.
29
30 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and
31 building construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust,
32 particularly during windy days.
33
34 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control
35 fugitive dust.
36
37 D. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction
38 shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the
39 transport of mud and dust onto public streets.
40
41 E. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall
42 be used for earth moving operations.
43
44 F. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous
45 gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour.
46
47 G. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires, poorly
48 covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the end
49 of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public Works/City
50 Engineer.
51
52 62. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
53 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers,
54 attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against
55 any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul
56 the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 30
1 costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
2 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this application,
3 whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of the City. If, for any
4 reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of
5 competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
6
7
8
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2013
Page 31
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 September 25,2013
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair
7 Laura Christensen
8 Kevin Doble
9 Linda Sanders
10 Judy Pruden
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump,Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15
16 1. CALL TO ORDER
17 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
18 6:00 p.m.in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center,300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah,California.
19
20 2. ROLL CALL
21
22 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -Everyone cited.
23
24 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —The minutes from the August 14, 2013 and September 11, 2013
25 meetings will be available for review and approval at the October 9,2013 meeting.
26
27 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
28
29 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters at this meeting,the
30 final date to appeal is October 7,2013.
31
32 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION -Confirmed by Commission.
33
34 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE -Confirmed by staff.
35
36 9. PUBLIC HEARING
37 9A. Stephens Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development Plan, 312 Ford Street
38 (File No.: 13-13-REZPD-PC-CC). Planning Commission consideration and possible
39 recommendation to City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rezoning to Planned
40 Development, and precise Development Plan to allow the construction of four one-bedroom
41 apartments on the corner of Ford Street and Myron Place and one second unit at 312 Ford
42 Street,APNs 002-101-15 and 002-101-14.This item was continued from the September 11, 2013
43 meeting.
44
45 Planning Director Stump gave a staff report and noted:
46 • Related to the appeal process, clarified this agenda item is seeking a recommendation from the
47 Planning Commission to City Council for review and approval so there is no need for an appeal
48 and/or appeal date.
49 • The Project is a rezone to a Planned Development(PD)and a Precise Development Plan,which
50 is a benefit because sometimes there is a PD and rezoning application with no development
51 plans associated with it. To the contrary, this Project proposes a PD and rezone with
52 development plans so the Commission knows exactly what to anticipate in the way of
53 development unlike the existing PD for the area that does not provide for development standards.
54 To this end with the existing PD zoning designation there were no standards in place to guide a
55 developer. The developer in this case decided to pursue a new PD with R-3 zoning standards
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 1
1 related to density, setbacks, and/or other standards. The proposed Project involves a number of
2 code exception/deviations from the typical R-3 zoning code standards as articulated in the staff
3 report so as such the request is to rezone the properties from the former PD zoning designation
4 to PD R-3.
5 • The Project includes two separate parcels. The parcel located on the corner of Myron Place and
6 Ford Street is vacant and undeveloped.
7 • Specifically addressed the project description as provided for on pages 1 and 2 of the staff report
8 stating the parcel located on the corner of Myron Place and Ford Street would be developed with
9 four one-bedroom apartments located in two separate buildings with carports located below the
10 apartments. There will be a ground floor concrete patio area and second story balcony for each
11 unit,as well as two parking spaces for each unit located in the carport located under the unit.The
12 Project will also feature one detached accessory structure and storage for the tenants as shown
13 on the site plans,sheet A0.1.
14 • Accordingly,the parcel located at 312 Ford Street is developed with one single-family home and
15 detached two-car garage. The existing detached garage on the site is five feet from the rear
16 property line and five feet from the side property line, which is consistent with the setback
17 requirements for a one-story accessory structure.This parcel is proposed to be developed with a
18 second unit above the garage. As such, the applicant has proposed two options for the second
19 unit that are addressed on page 2 of the staff report. While option 2 is consistent with the zoning
20 requirements for second units, the applicanYs preference is option 1 and this is essentially an
21 exception/deviation from the UCC. Pursuant to UCC section 9016, second stories are required to
22 be setback 10-feet from the rear and side property lines. Setbacks of less than 10 feet may be
23 approved with a Use Permit or in this case as part of the Precise Development Plan.
24 • The Project also includes new exterior lighting, landscaping and demolition of the existing
25 detached shed on the vacanUundeveloped parcel.
26 • Is of the opinion the Project blends well with the rest of the neighborhood. It is a transition from
27 the high density housing located on the other side of Myron Street to the west toward the single
28 family residential neighborhood. The Project is located in the Wagonseller Neighbor, which is
29 eclectic in terms of densities.
30 • Staff in its analysis of the Project discovered some issues and there are issues with the
31 community as well in which Planning Department staff has received comments from related to
32 traffic,parking,and safety and security.
33 • One good aspect is the Project is proposing two garage parking spaces per one bedroom unit
34 and is of the opinion this approach is a very solid attempt by the architect to address the parking
35 issues.
36 • Related to traffic, while there will be additional traffic no doubt and the appearance of congestion
37 at times, the one bedroom units according to the Public Works Department are not going to
38 generate a significant amount of traffic and/or contribute to a failing level of service for the streets
39 in the area.
40 • Other issues cited have to do with the design and site planning. The DRB reviewed the Project,
41 approved of the development concept and were generally pleased with the Project IayouUdesign
42 and their comments are provided for on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report.
43 • The Project will provide additional housing units for the community.
44 • Staff's recommendation is for the Planning Commission to recommend to City Council to adopt
45 the MND and introduce an ordinance approving the rezoning to PD R-3 and Precise Development
46 Plan.
47
48 Commission questions/comments to staff
49
50 Commissioner Pruden:
51 • Is the Project subject to the Quimby Act?
52 • This is the first time in 20 years that a Project with a zoning designation of this kind has been
53 presented. The PD completed in the area in 1979 provided no development standards. This is
54 apparently the way PDs were done at that time.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 2
1 • Related to the second unit project, does this development turn into a duplex with the existing
2 single family dwelling in the front of the lot or is it a single family residence with a second unit?
3 • With the type of developmenUarrangement for the property located at 312 Ford Street,one of the
4 necessities is that the property must be'owner-occupied.'
5 • Sees no elevation plans for review and discussion for the second unit project.
6
7 Planning Director Stump:
8 • The Project is not subject to the Quimby Act because it is not a subdivision and only subdivisions
9 are subject to the Quimby Act. State law does not allow the Quimby Act to be used for projects
10 not involving subdivisions. The Quimby Act is the State law that allows the legislative body of a
11 city or county by ordinance to require the dedication of land or impose and/or collect fees in lieu
12 thereof, or a combination of both,for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval
13 of a tentative map or parcel map provided certain requirements are met.
14 • Acknowledged that PDs were done differently years ago because it was a 'different world for
15 planning' back then. For a vacant parcel with a PD designation there were no development
16 standards having a Precise Development Plan in place for future development.
17 • Confirmed the proposed second unit project is a single family residence with a garage and
18 second unit on top. It is articulated that way in the PD such that if in the future there was a
19 different owner, 312 Ford Street would clearly be recognized as single family residence and a
20 garage with a second unit.
21 • Confirms there is a condition of approval that requires the property located at 312 Ford Street be
22 owner-occupied.
23 • Sheet A1.2 shows the garage and the second unit with elevations.
24
25 It was noted attachment 8 also shows the elevations.
26
27 Commissioner Sanders:
28 • Article 14 Regulations in PD districts, ZO section 9167 of the PD Combining Zoning districts
29 addresses vehicle and bicycle parking plans noting a bicycle parking plan is required for PD
30 developments and did not see a bicycle plan for the Project.
31 • Did not see a general phasing plan and schedule concerning the estimated time of construction
32 and completion of each phase of development.
33 • Article 14 Regulations in PD districts, section E 10(b)that reads, 'Landscape plantings shall be
34 those which grow well in Ukiah's climate without extensive irrigation. Native species are strongly
35 encouraged,' and stated although language related to landscaping is in the environmental
36 document and staff report, with the selection of plants offered counted only two native species.
37 Would like to hear more about the choice of landscaping.
38
39 Planning Director Stump:
40 • Will defer to the applicant concerning bicycle parking.
41 • Also did not see a construction schedule and is of the opinion it is likely the development will not
42 be a phased project.
43 • Provided supplemental information regarding the Quimby Act and explained this act is a State law
44 that allows local agencies to adopt its own ordinance requiring fees to go toward parks or require
45 a person doing a subdivision to dedicate land within the subdivision for parks. Historically, the
46 Planning Commission has been quite concerned about a lack of parks in the Wagonseller
47 Neighborhood. Recalled a former Planning Commission during a past project who made it clear
48 he was uncomfortable supporting any future residential projects if a park was not either planned
49 for or was being pursued for the Wagonseller Neighborhood. This Planning Commissioner was
50 of the opinion the Wagonseller Neighborhood was in such need of a park and that adding more
51 residential units would be the wrong thing to do. Subsequent to that time, on-site recreational
52 facilities have been required for projects to try and compensate for the lack of recreational/park
53 facilities in the Wagonseller Neighborhood. This lack of recreational/park facilities is not only
54 coming from the empirical observations of the neighborhood, but also the General Plan, which
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 3
1 identifies this neighborhood along with the neighborhood south of Washington Avenue as two
2 neighborhoods in dire need of a neighborhood park.
3 • Is of the opinion the Planning Commission is obligated to take the lack of parks in neighborhoods
4 into consideration when reviewing projects. City Council has never adopted any type of
5 moratorium on development in the Wagonseller Neighborhood until a park is developed. At this
6 time there is no statute, no direction or authority to require a park for a project..
7
8 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:6:20 p.m.
9
10 Richard Ruff,Project Architect:
11 • Staff did an excellent job with the staff report.
12 . Elaborated on the two options and corresponding setback requirements for the second unit
13 project relative to the single family dwelling with the detached two-car garage in the rear as
14 provided for on page 2 of the staff report. Option 1 is the preferred option that would allow
15 maintaining the existing five-foot setbacks from the side and rear property lines and essentially
16 put the second unit floor directly on top of the garage without the use of supporting beams and/or
17 other structural adjustments to comply with the 10-foot setback requirement.
18 • The site that would inhabit the four one-bedroom units are identical buildings that face one
19 another with approximately 30 feet of driveway in between that is ample enough not to make
20 maneuvering in the courtyard difficult. While only one parking space is required per one-bedroom
21 unit,the Project is providing two parking spaces for each one unit.
22 . It has been his experience that most one-bedroom units are mostly rented by couples or couples
23 with one small child.With this scenario, at the most there would be two cars per unit. However, it
24 is possible there would only be one car per unit if a couple is living there.
25 • Bicycles can be stored in the carports and locked.
26 • The plants and species for the landscaping have been extended beyond what presently exist.As
27 such, it is likely the plants are not native.Would be willing to take another look at the landscaping
28 plan and possibly provide for native species.
29 • Has spent some time on Myron Street and is familiar with the covenants that were formulated for
30 the homeowners on this street. The document does address quite a few things that are
31 happening there but not being enforced. A board consisting of three members was originally
32 formulated for architectural review purposes for the duration of 25 years with automatic renewal
33 for 10 years. Is of the opinion the aforementioned board no longer exists and it appears no one is
34 keeping up with issues confronting residents living on Myron Place that was initially agreed to by
35 all of the original buyers of those townhouses. The homeowners agreement document does
36 address essentially'what can be done'as an owner of a townhouse, i.e.,what one can do in the
37 front and back yards. The document is very strict. The townhouses having multiple bedrooms
38 were approved some time ago and only required a single car garage. As such, most of these
39 units have two or three bedrooms. For these townhouses, there is one on-site parking space
40 allowed. Because these townhouses are connected,there is virtually very little curb space for off-
41 site parking.These units are occupied by owners and renters. Renters likely have roommates so
42 for those three-bedroom units it is possible there are three occupants having three cars so there
43 are typically an extra two or three cars parked in front of some driveways or on the street such
44 that parking is a problem on Myron Street.
45 • Is of the opinion the parking problems were created by other projects and it is not the
46 responsibility of the applicant to have to remedy the parking problems on Myron Place. The
47 applicant is providing ample parking for his project as specially addressed in the staff report.
48 • It may be the architectural review board for the townhouse should resume their obligation.
49
50 Commissioner Sanders:
51 . Inquired about a phased plan for construction?
52
53 Richard Ruff:
54 . The owner has indicated the four units would be built first and once these have been completed
55 and leased work would commence on the second unit above the detached two-car garage.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 4
1 Commissioner Pruden:
2 • Would the units rent at market value or considered subsidized housing?
3 • What will the units rent for?
4 • Is there a Management Plan, particularly for control and enforcement of the garages? Is highly
5 concerned the carport would be used for storage purposes.
6
7 Richard Ruff:
8 • The units will rent at market rate.
9 • The units will rent for between$800 and$950 a month.
10
11 Planning Director Stump:
12 . A Management Plan is required as a condition of approval. It would be beneficial to review the
13 Management Plan topics that have to be addressed.
14
15 Commissioner poble:A Management Plan is addressed in attachment 3 as Condition of Approval 2.
16
17 Commissioner Pruden:
18 • The Management Plan does not talk about use of the garage. Is concerned the garages will
19 eventually be used for storage purposes.
20 • The garages for the townhouses are being used but not for parking. Has observed that some
21 `very creative'conversions to other uses have been made for these townhouse garages.
22
23 Richard Ruff:
24 • The parking accommodations being purposed underneath the four units are 'carports' to avoid
25 exactly what Commissioner Pruden is alluding to in the way of being used for storage purposes.
26 • Use of garages for storage purposes is exactly what has occurred to the housing units up and
27 down Myron Place. This is why cars are parked everywhere and why parking is such a problem
28 on this street. The garages are essentially not being used for vehicle parking, but rather for
29 storage.
30 • The Project also includes a laundry facility and four extra storage units for tenants.
31 • Is of the opinion the Management Plan spells out that there will be no storage in the carports and
32 that the carports would be used for vehicles and bicycles only.
33
34 Commissioner poble:
35 • For clarity purposes the proposed units are not 'garages' but rather carports. The Project also
36 has enclosed storage facilities adjacent to where the cars will be parked that has a solid door.
37 • Related to the Management Plan, it should be made clear that the parking for the development
38 will be on the site.
39 • Is of the opinion if a tenant were to store something in the carport but still has room for a vehicle
40 this would be acceptable. What may not be acceptable would be to fill the whole carport with
41 storage and then park out on the street.
42
43 Richard Ruff:
44 • Showed the location of the storage areas on the site plans that contains four storage facilities
45 with one laundry at the end.
46 • Confirmed parking for the Project will be on-site.
47 • Is of the opinion the tenants would likely realize whatever items they store in the carport could
48 disappear because the carports are not locked and/or enclosed.
49
50 Commissioner poble:
51 • Typically in a Management Plan like the one for this project would it be possible to specify to the
52 residents and/or to the persons leasing/renting these buildings that they are not necessarily
53 allowed to park on the street.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 5
1 • What if tenants of a unit only have one car and they want to use the other half of the two-car
2 carport for storage would this be enforceable and/or prohibited under the Management Plan?
3 Would like to make certain this cannot occur.
4
5 Planning Director Stump:
6 • Does not believe we can require tenants not to park on the street. Anyone can park on a public
7 street.
8 • It would likely be acceptable in a Management Plan of this kind if the parking space is designated
9 and made clear it is not available for storage as this would be in violation of the Management
10 Plan.
11 • If a tenant has only one car and wants to use the other half for storage whether or not this is
12 allowed depends on how the Management Plan is crafted. If a tenant in one of the units only had
13 one car and it is stipulated/documented this is the case and he/she is not using the designated
14 parking space for the car this would be a violation of the Management Plan and likely enforceable
15 according to the Management Plan. The Commission can require that certain language in the
16 Management Plan specifically address use of the garage as to what is acceptable, prohibited,
17 and enforceable and include language about what should occur concerning the two-car carport
18 when tenants only have one vehicle. To this end, staff would work with the applicant to craft the
19 necessary language.
20
21 Richard Ruff:
22 . When a tenant signs a lease,he/she has to disclose how many cars will be parked on the site.
23 • Each tenant is assigned a space. In the event a tenant has only one car, the other available
24 space of the two-car carport can be used for visitor parking and/or overflow parking.
25 • Parking is strictly controlled because parking spaces are assigned.
26
27 Commissioner poble:
28 • Requested clarification about the likelihood of having half the carport filled with storage with only
29 one car in a two car carport.Would this scenario be enforceable under the Management Plan.?
30
31 Richard Ruff:
32 • The aforementioned scenario is unlikely and would be enforceable under the Management Plan.
33
34 Sharon Wayle
35 • Is a resident of the Wagonseller Neighborhood and has resided on Myron Place for 32 years.
36 • Her garage is still used to park her car unlike that of the other townhouses. However,is unable to
37 park her car in the garage even if she wanted to because it is nearly impossible to get her car out
38 of the garage due to people blocking her driveway.
39 • There are 26 houses on Myron Place.These houses were originally built for low income persons
40 with the anticipation each family would have one vehicle because there was typically one person
41 working, but since this time, many of the houses have changed ownership with her house being
42 the exception.
43 • She is a two generation household. For economic reasons, her 32 year old son moved back
44 home. Many of the households on Myron Place have multiple generations living in them because
45 people cannot afford housing in this community. People also do not have adequate jobs in which
46 to pay$800 to$1500 a month rent to live by themselves.
47 • Parking on Myron Place is a major problem. It is a particular problem on garbage pick-up day.
48 The garbage/recycling truck cannot access the street because of all the cars parked along the
49 street. The garbage company trucks now waits until after 8 a.m.to pick up garbage when many
50 people have left for work. Once the garbage/recycling cans are put on the street and with all the
51 cars parked along the street there is no room for two cars to go down the street at one time.
52 • When she first purchased her house on Myron Place, everyone had only one garbage can as
53 opposed to three like it is presently. There was no recycling back then and there was no yard
54 waste bin. Most of the persons on Myron Place do not have the space to house the
55 garbage/recycling cans in their garages so they typically sit out in front of the housing units.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 6
1 • Does not want to see more houses constructed on Myron Place that would contribute to the
2 traffic and parking problems that already exist. The parking spaces available are not able to
3 accommodate the large vehicles of today that most people are driving, but rather meant for
4 smaller cars.
5 • Does not support the Project.
6
7 Estok Menton:
8 • Owens property on Myron Place. His lot is located three lots down to the south of the proposed
9 development. Finds no problems with parking where his property is located. Is of the opinion
10 there is ample off-site parking further south on Myron Place.
11 • Likes the project,the design and the concept as an infill development.
12 • One bedroom apartments are a viable and a good alternative for our community because most
13 of the apartments are two and three bedroom that creates a lot more traffic problems and
14 parking congestion.
15 • There is a need for smaller more compact units for some of the professional profiles of potential
16 renters that he has run across in the last several years. These persons are often
17 younger/younger professionals, have no children or just one child, who desire to live closer to
18 town and services and likely want to walk, ride bicycles or take advantage of public
19 transportation to get to services.
20 • For a one bedroom apartment if two parking spaces are provided for each tenant with the
21 exception of the second unit project on the garage, this is more than enough parking. Supports
22 ensuring the requirements are in place in a Management Plan that the carports are preserved for
23 parking and not to be used for storage.
24 • If there is an aggregated situation down the street on Myron Place and if this particular project is
25 not adding to the problem, it is not appropriate to restrict/prevent someone with a good idea from
26 having the opportunity to build the project.The proposed Project may well spur the development
27 of other projects with good ideas.
28 • Likes the idea the Project caters to small families or even couples without children. Finds there is
29 a need for smaller units.
30 • Supports approval of the Project.
31
32 Chair Whetzel:
33 • Asked if there will be a centralized trash pick-up or possibly a dumpster?
34
35 Richard Ruff:
36 • Each unit will have its own trash/recycling cans and showed the location on the site plans.
37 • The cans will have to be rolled out to the street.
38
39 Elizabeth Love:
40 • Resides on Myron Place.
41 • Is of the opinion the proposed Project would further the traffic and parking problems on Myron
42 Place.
43 • Asked where the children are supposed to play? Right now the children that live on Myron Place
44 play in the street.
45 • Adding more people to Myron Place is not okay.
46 • There are other potential residential land developments available in Ukiah to put five families that
47 would be better suited than on that little bit of land.
48 • Elaborated on crime and/or other problems that are occurring on Myron Place.
49 • Is not supportive of the Project.
50
51 John McCowen:
52 • Is familiar with the neighborhood.
53 • To preserve maximum open space and agricultural land,serious consideration needs to be given
54 to infill developments that are appropriate where appropriate. As a community, this approach is
55 what we need to do.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 7
1 • Acknowledges that one of the issues is the lack of parks in the Wagonseller Neighborhood. Is of
2 the opinion this condition can be remedied by the ultimate development of the Brush Street
3 Triangle. Ideally,what needs to occur is the City and County reach a tax-sharing agreement,the
4 City's Sphere of Influence gets updated such that annexation is possible and can proceed. With
5 this, City development would have the opportunity to reach its highest potential. Understands,
6 while tax sharing and annexation are future goals is hopeful this can occur not too far into the
7 distant future.
8 • Understands the neighborhood has problems, but is of the opinion the proposed Project should
9 not be considered the'tipping poinY that would further downgrade and/or contribute to a reduction
10 in the living standards of this neighborhood.
11 • Sees that the neighborhood needs to enforce existing regulations concerning violations in order
12 to improve the living standards on Myron Place. The last time he visited Myron Place observed
13 inoperable vehicles inappropriately stored on private lots/public streets and if these issues were
14 corrected there would be more parking available and traffic may not be as congested on this
15 street.Also observed fences that appear to be illegal in that they are six feet tall right out on the
16 sidewalk. As such, views enforcement of some of the concept rules within the existing
17 neighborhood to be a benefit that will ultimately improve people's sense of security and
18 understanding that problems/issues on Myron Place can get resolved.
19 • Addressed the issue of drainage and recommends utilizing/installing currently landscaping
20 methodologies to improve and direct excess runoff into landscape bio-swales/retention areas
21 and/or more effectively into the City's storm drain system.Accordingly,referred to attachment 3 of
22 the staff report, condition of approval 20 that reads in part, `If feasible, consider using a valley
23 gutter or slotted rain behind the driveway apron to direct driveway run-off north and south to
24 appropriately landscaped swales directed to the drop inlet. The Landscape Plan should also be
25 modified to incorporate the swales,' and asked to verified this aspect with the applicant if this is
26 feasible or not and recommends substituting the word 'shall' in place of'should.' Notes there is a
27 similar issue with condition of approval 21 that reads, 'The Preliminary Grading&Drainage notes
28 to connect downspouts to the new drain, however, consider if downspouts can be directed into
29 any landscaped area and sloped away from the building foundation,' and whether the
30 downspouts should go into a drain or could they be directed into landscaping,which in both cases
31 would reduce runoff, improve groundwater recharge, and reduce the amount of contaminants
32 going directly off the paved surface and ultimately into the stream.
33 • Supports approval of the Project.
34
35 Wayne Stephens:
36 • Is the owner of the property/Project applicant and currently resides at 312 Ford Street.
37 • The site was formerly owned by his parents. It was his parenYs dream to develop and improve
38 the property. The property was subdivided into two lots and he would like to fulfill his parenYs
39 dream of developing the property.
40 • Is pleased to see neighbors speak about the Project so he can make some clarifications and
41 address what he is trying to achieve with this project.
42 • Approval of a PD zoning designation allows him to do the following:
43 1)construct a maximum of nine units combining both parcels. 2) construct four and four units if
44 parcels are developed separately. 3)build two or three-bedroom units.4) Possibly provide for no
45 covered parking facilities. He is not taking advantage of any of these options, but instead is
46 proposing a quality project that works for the site and complementary/works well with the
47 neighborhood.
48 • When considering the Project wanted to make certain it looked far and beyond what is currently
49 built on Myron Place.
50 • The materials and landscaping type will be quality.
51 • Understands the problems that exist in his neighborhood.
52 • Wants to be a good neighbor and is pleased to be able to provide for a nice Project that would
53 upgrade the neighborhood.
54 • The apartment complex down the street has a park facility for children to play, but has observed
55 that very few children use the playground.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 8
1 • Is of the opinion the majority of persons that will rent a one bedroom unit from him will either be a
2 single mother or father with a small child or someone that works at the hospital or the college and
3 cannot qualify for low income and/or subsidized housing.
4 • Related to the topic of the carports and storage units,the storage units are to be used for storage.
5 The Project provides for one storage facility and a two-vehicle carport per unit. Is not going to rent
6 an extra carport space to someone who has one car and only needs one space and this will
7 eliminate the possibility of it being used for storage. Tenants have to pay extra for the second
8 parking space. So if a tenant has only one car one carport space is necessary such that the
9 second space is not to be used for storage purposes.
10 • Sees the neighborhood has created its own parking problems. Unfortunately, when the
11 townhouses were initially constructed approval was based on one car in the garage and one car
12 in the driveway. People park in their front yards, on the streeUdown the street, but not in their
13 garages because they are either being used for storage or for living space.
14 • Consulted with his neighbor who resides directly behind his property concerning the second unit
15 proposed for the top of garage about the setback options. The neighbor has no problem with
16 Option 1 as the preferred option.
17
18 Commissioner Pruden:
19 • Is a landlord and speaking from experience noted it may be difficult for the applicant to rent the
20 units for$800 or$900 a month because this is considered high rent for Ukiah.
21
22 Wayne Stephens:
23 • Is of the opinion with his research is certain there is a demand for his type of residential units that
24 he intends to rent for$800 or$900 a month.
25
26 Chair Whetzel:
27 • Asked about John McCowen's recommendation concerning Conditions of Approval 20 and 21
28 and whether the applicant is willing to use a valley gutter or slotted drain and if feasible that the
29 downspouts be directed into any landscape area?
30
31 Wayne Stephens:
32 . Is okay with conditioning the Project to include these drainage features.
33
34 Commissioner poble:
35 • Related to drainage and the aforementioned discussion concerning this topic, is confident the
36 recommendations will be covered under the California Green Building Code standards even
37 though he understands the drainage plan has not yet been fully designed. As such,the architect
38 for the Project will likely be familiar with those codes.
39
40 Diana Deroache:
41 . Resides on Myron Place.
42 • Is of the opinion further housing units on Myron Place would further impact a neighborhood that
43 already has problems with traffic congestion and parking as well as with security and safety.
44 • Does not support approval of the Project.
45
46 Lily Dunaway:
47 • Resides on Myron Place.
48 • Understands the neighborhood cannot ask the applicant to correct the parking issues on Myron
49 Place that were created a long ago by other projects.
50 • Provided the following questions/comments:
51 1) Is it possible for construction to begin later than 7 a.m. since the area is residential and
52 proposes construction to begin at 8 a.m.instead.
53 2) The corner of Myron Place and Ford Street is a bus stop for the school children and wanted
54 to make certain the Commission is aware.The bus stop is located on the same corner as the
55 lot proposed for development.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 9
1 3) Will there be a lock on the laundry room facility and will there be rules applied for the usage
2 so the facility does not get used by everyone in the neighborhood.
3 4) Garbage pick-up day on Myron Place is definitely a problem and recommended rather than
4 adding eight more cans that have to be taken to the street consider having a dumpster for the
5 complex or some other receptacle that combines two or all four units.
6 5) Asked about whether street lights will be added for the development because the corner is
7 dark and some residents have to walk a block or two to get to their homes if the driveways
8 are full.
9 6) Referred to attachment 3 of the staff report, Condition of Approval 2(E) that addresses the
10 use of private outdoor spaces(balconies,decks,etc.)and how they will be kept clean and not
11 used for storage and asked where people can barbeque?
12 7) Where will the mailboxes be located? The 26 townhouses have mailboxes at the end of the
13 cul-de-sac.
14 8) $800 to$900 is not low income rent.
15 9) Referred to attachment 3 of the staff report, and expressed concern that a small family child
16 daycare that is an allowed use could occur.
17 10) Is also a two generation household because her children are unable to find housing that rents
18 within their price range even though they are employed full-time.
19
20 Wayne Stephens:
21 • Will never entertain allowing for a small family daycare facility to occur in one of his units. His
22 lease agreements will begin with a three month lease and revert to a month-to-month thereafter
23 as opposed to a one year lease. Is targeting a very specific type of renter such that a person is
24 not stuck with a one-year lease. Is asking for a three-month commitment first so that people do
25 not use his units as a hotel.
26 • Related to street lights,there are two street lights within 100 feet of the proposed project.
27 • The buildings will have lighting, downcast and compliant with the International Dark Sky
28 Association standards.There is one street light that requires maintenance.
29 • The patio areas will allow tenants to barbeque.
30 • The US Post Office will address the mailboxes and location thereof.
31
32 Commissioner poble:
33 • Asked if the applicant would be amenable to starting construction at 8 a.m.rather than 7 a.m.?
34
35 Wayne Stephens:
36 • Has no problem starting construction at 8 a.m.
37
38 There was Commission/applicant discussion concerning how best to address trash and recycling for the
39 Project and bicycle parking.
40
41 Elizabeth Love:
42 . There are no rules regulating the number of occupants in the townhouse units such that there are
43 more people living in the units than the units can appropriately accommodate.
44 • There are no rules regulating how many trash /recycling bins are allowed per unit on Myron
45 Place.
46 • There are no rules regulating parking or a management system in place that will enforce the use
47 of garages for vehicles as opposed to being used for storage or living space.
48
49 Chair Whetzel:
50 • The neighborhood has some sort of CC&Rs on record for property owners so complaints about
51 too many people living in the units should be filed with the City so landlords can be contacted.
52
53 Planning Director Stump:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 10
1 • The City does not have the authority to enforce CC&Rs. Homeowner associations formulate
2 CC&Rs. Homeowners with complaints concerning violations of CC&Rs should contact the
3 Homeowners Association.
4 • If, however, there is an illegal conversion of a garage for living space and the like, these are
5 considered violations of the city code and will be investigated by the City.
6
7 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED:7:24 p.m.
8
9 Commissioner Pruden:
10 • What does the California Green Building Code say about the application of Low Impact
11 Development(LID)standards and are they mandated for projects?
12
13 Planning Director Stump:
14 • Related to the 2010 California Building Code and/or all codes the State has adopted,the plan is
15 to start using the 2014 California Building Code before the end of the year. 2010 was the first
16 year that green building code standards came into effect of which there are many. Is not familiar
17 enough with these corresponding codes to state whether or not the application of LID standards
18 is a mandatory requirement for projects. As time goes on in 2014 the level of green code
19 standards are increasing. Building staff is being trained on green code standards. Is unable to
20 answer whether LID standards are mandated. It is notable, however, the applicant is willing and
21 able to do LID improvements whether required or not.
22
23 Commissioner Sanders: The Project likely needs to be conditioned in this regard because the City's
24 current ordinance does not have this type of landscaping/drainage practices yet identified.
25
26 Planning Director Stump:
27 • Acknowledged that Commission Sanders is right in saying there may be green building code
28 requirements pertinent to LID practices, but does not have knowledge whether or not this is a
29 requirement.The current Storm Water Ordinance does not make this specification. Recommends
30 a condition be added to address implementation of LID standards for the Project.
31
32 Commissioner poble would support such a condition and has no problem with this because the
33 applicant is agreeing to apply LID standards where feasible. Does know a project is rated for runoff based
34 on the amount of concrete on the site.
35
36 Commissioner Pruden:
37 • Referred to page 4 of the staff report, General Plan policy H-5-3, 'Support and encourage
38 compact infill developments that provide extremely low, very low, low or moderate income level
39 housing that is safe and liveable,' and noted this is not the case for this project. Is of the opinion
40 $800 to$900 is not considered low income for rent in Ukiah.
41 . Referred to attachment 1 of the staff report, Finding 3D, `The Project site is located within an
42 existing residential neighborhood and the project site is not known to contain sensitive species or
43 riparian habitat. No trees would be removed as a result of this project. There are no streams,
44 creeks,or water courses on the subject parcels. Impacts to biological resources were determined
45 to have no impact,' and noted it interesting the Project site is not known to contain sensitive
46 species or riparian habit when the Project is located 200 feet or less from Orr Creek.The fact the
47 site is not contiguous to Orr Creek is likely the reason the finding can be made. Is of the opinion
48 the finding does not hold weight for its conclusion in that the site is located in close proximity to
49 Orr Creek.This same finding makes reference to cultural and archeological resources and noted
50 factually there are 35 historical properties identified in the Wagonseller Neighborhood.There is a
51 high concentration of historical materials including Indian burial grounds in this neighborhood and
52 is of the opinion this fact should had been alluded to.While this factual information may not affect
53 the Project, it should have been disclosed. The finding implies there are no burial grounds in the
54 area when this is contrary to the case.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 11
1 � • Is >Fv_ery concerned the Project is not subject to the Quimby Act. We continue to add to the
2 density in this neighborhood without regard to the quality of life.There is no recreational facility in
3 the Wagonseller Neighborhood whatsoever. There has been no attempt in the last 20 years even
4 though the General Plan requires a park/recreational area in the Wagonseller Neighborhood yet
5 apartment projects continue to be approved.
6
7 Planning Director Stump acknowledged the lack of parks/recreational facilities in the Wagonseller
8 Neighborhood and noted with the way the economy is currently does not leave the City and/or private
9 organizations/persons with the necessary funding opportunities and/or monetary resources that would
10 allow for a park/recreation area to happen in this neighborhood. It may be the City and other
11 organizations/persons interested in seeing the Wagonseller Neighborhood has a park of some kind come
12 together and share resources in order to facilitate and/or entertain the concept of having a park.
13
14 Commissioner Sanders:
15 • Finds the Wagonseller Neighbor extremely dense.
16 • There are many people living in subsidized housing in this area and there is really no open
17 space except for the fire road that people use to walk their dogs,etc.
18 • The Project is dense. Has concern about the site and the amount of housing that will go on the
19 site.At the same time,understands the applicant has the right to develop his property.
20 • Finds it appropriate to add some project conditions related to storm water concerns,
21 containment of runoff and corresponding potential contaminants on-site because Orr Creek is
22 located a half block away.
23 • It is important the community adjacent to the site contacts the City about street light
24 maintenance and possible code violations related to parking and corresponding enforcement
25 thereof. The City Police Department cannot respond to code violations if they do not hear from
26 citizens. It appears plenty of people in the neighborhood are concerned about safety and
27 security and with children living in a dense neighborhood and the lack of public facilities to
28 accommodate them.
29 • From the letters provided for in the staff report, the applicant has met with the adjacent
30 neighbors having some positive feedback with regard to his project.
31 . Appreciates that the applicant is willing and able to provide for a quality project.
32 • Supports approval of the Project with the addition of some conditions of approval.
33
34 Commissioner Christensen:
35 • Finds it great the neighborhood came out to make comments.
36 • Likes the appearance and design of the Project.
37 • The Project is a nice transition from the residential units that currently exist in the neighborhood.
38 • Does understand about the parking concerns, but this matter is not the applicanYs problem.The
39 applicant is providing ample parking for his project.
40 • It appears the applicant will be required to be`owner-occupant.' Having the property owner living
41 on-site makes a difference because he will have the opportunity to keep track of his tenants and
42 deal with any problems that come up. Essentially a tenant can go knock on his door about a
43 problem.
44 • Is of the opinion that having a nice looking, new, relatively modern, pleasant appearing unit in this
45 neighborhood might spread sort of that pride in ownership to the townhouse occupants. It does
46 not appear townhouse residents have a lot of pride in their homes.
47 • Agrees a park facility is necessary for the neighborhood, but again is of the opinion this matter is
48 not the applicanYs problem. As such, we have to make certain no large developments happen
49 because this is when'the law needs to be laid down'and provide for a park at some point.
50 • Most of the issues the neighbors have raised are existing and are mostly enforcement issues. It is
51 a matter of coming together and getting the righUappropriate persons keyed into the problems for
52 possible resolution/monitoring. Rather than just being bothered about an issue,take measures to
53 contact the appropriate persons/agency so that something can be done.
54 • The Project is very nice.While it is a small lot for such a project,supports approval.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 12
1 Commission Doble:
2 • Clarified to the community that the Commission's charge tonight is not to actually approve the
3 Project, but rather to recommend approval to City Council. There will be another public hearing
4 opportunity to again express concerns.
5 • On the topic of parking,one public comment was that four or five parking spaces would be lost as
6 a result of the Project, but from the staff's analysis only one space is going to be removed for the
7 driveway.
8 • The Project exceeds the minimum parking requirements for the site and this is a good thing.
9 • While the rental units may not qualify as low and moderate income,it would follow that if the units
10 are not being rented, the rent will probably have to be lowered in order for the Project to pencil
11 out economically.
12 � . Fulfilling the City's house goals is an important aspect. We have to start acquiring the required
13 housing stock in our community. Is of the opinion this project helps fulfill this requirement.
14 • Supports a recommendation to Council for approval with some project modifications. Specifically,
15 � would like te-se�the hours of construction to begin at 8 a.m. rather than 7 a.m. and reflected in
16 the Project conditions and MND measures.
17 • Supports modifications to the language concerning storm water concerning Conditions of
18 Approval 20 and 21.
19 • Not sure what can really be done about the allowed uses for the PD Zoning districts. They are
20 just the allowed uses for the zoning.The applicant does not intend to do any of those things listed
21 as allowed.The allowed uses pretty much exist for all the different residential zoning districts.
22 . A recommendation to Council for approval should also include that a Management Plan is
23 necessary subject to the review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community
24 Development.
25 • If possible,suggests addressing some of the issues associated with the trash bin containers as to
26 where they are placed on the day trash/recycling is picked-up and not spread throughout the
27 neighborhood by possibly placing the bins in one area so they can be picked up.
28
29 Planning Director Stump:
30 • It was his understanding only one parking space would be lost for the Project and that is for the
31 driveway.
32 • All mitigation measures for the MND will also be listed as conditions of approval.
33 • While family home daycare facilities are allowed in many residential zoning districts,this does not
34 necessarily mean the State will approve one because such a facility must comply with certain
35 requirements such as a designated play area and other requirements that a small one-bedroom
36 unit like in this project may not be able to meet State requirements. Besides, the applicant is not
37 interested in allowing such a use to occur in one of his units.
38
39 Chair Whetzel:
40 • The Commission has overlooked a decision concerning the two options for the second unit.
41
42 There was Commission discussion related to Options 1 and 2 for the second unit project. The
43 Commission's preference was to support Option 1.
44
45 Chair Whetzel:
46 • Thanked the public members for coming out and speaking about the Project.
47 • Encourages the neighborhood to meet with the Wagonseller Neighborhood association and make
48 calls to the City about code enforcement issues that were addressed above.
49 • Likes the Project and supports a recommendation to the City Council for approval.
50
51 The Commission further discussed the Project related to the issue the Project is in close proximity to Orr
52 Creek,hours of construction,parking in the carports,a Management Plan,and drainage.
53
54 Commission consensus:
55 Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 13
1 �
2 1. Paqe 15 Discussion, Items c and d
3
4 Items c and d are duplicative—strike item d and replace with:"Orr Creek is'/z block away to the
5 north."
6
7 2. Paqe 20, Noise Mitiqation Measure 1
8
9 "Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 7 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.and from......."
10 Change from 7 a.m.to 8 a.m.
11 Modify the recommended findings to adopt the MND:
12
13 1. Paqe 4, Noise Mitiqation Measure"A"
14
15 "Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 7 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.and from......."
16 Change from 7 a.m.to 8 a.m.
17 Conditions of Approval for the Precise Development Plan
18
19 1. Paqe 1 of staff report,Conditions of Approval,Condition 2
20
21 Add section G to read: 'The carports shall be available for the parking of two cars at all times.
22 Any storage shall be incidental and shall not preclude the parking of two cars in each carport.'
23
24 Add section H to read: 'The Management Plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the
25 Director of Planning and Community Development.'
26
27 2. Paqe 5 of staff report, Conditions of Approval,Condition 20
28 Modify third sentence to read: `If feasible the owner shall use a valley gutter or slotted drain....'
29
30 3. Paqe 5 of the staff report, Conditions of Approval,Condition 21
31
32 Modify sentence to read,`The Preliminary Grading&Drainage Plan notes to connect downspouts
33 to the new drain,however, if feasible,downspouts shall be directed into any landscaped area....'
34
35 Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map
36
37 4. Paqe 1,Section Six
38
39 Modify language to read,`The Precise Development Plan for the Stephens Planned development,
40 described herein and illustrated in the attached Exhibit"A", is hereby approved.'
41 Second Unit
42
43 Commission endorsed and is recommending Option 1 (736 sq.ft.)for the second unit.
44
45 Parking for the Existing Single-Family Home
46 Commission is fine with the applicanYs statement that two parking spaces are proposed for the single
47 family home and one(garage)for the second unit.
48
49 MIS Doble/Sanders to recommend the City Council adopt the MND and introduce the ordinance
50 amending the official zoning map to rezone the subject property to PD/R-3 and to conditionally approve
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 14
1 the Precise Development Plan as provided for in attachments 1 through 3 in the staff report and as
2 modified above. Motion carried 4-0 with Commission Pruden voting'No.'
3
4 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
5 Planning Director Stump provided an update on the Costco EIR.
6
7 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
8 Chair Pruden reported that on October 4 at 5:30 p.m.,a historical plaque dedication will be made to the
9 Pacific Telephone and Telegraph office building(former Feibusch building)that was recently renovated.
10
11 Commissioner Sanders reported he Gibson Creek clean-up was successful.Volunteers pulled out 446
12 pounds of trash.
13
14 12. ADJOURNMENT
15 The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
16
17 FINDINGS TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE STEPHENS
18 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT 312 FORD STREET,
19 APN 002-101-15&002-101-14
20 FILE NO.: 13-13-REZPD-PC-CC
21 PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
22 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT("CEQA")
23
24 1. The Project will approve a Rezoning to Residential Planned Development with Precise Development
25 Plan to allow the construction of four one bedroom apartments on the northwest corner of Ford Street
26 and Myron Place(APN 002-101-14)and one second unit at 312 Ford Street(APN 002-101-15).
27
28 2. The City of Ukiah as lead agency has prepared an Initial Environmental Study and a Mitigated
29 Negative Declaration dated August 22, 2013 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the
30 Planned Development Rezoning, Precise Development Plan and construction of the Project.
31
32 3. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts and based on the conclusions
33 reached in the Initial Environmental Study,it has been determined that the proposed project,as
34 mitigated,would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment for the following reasons:
35
36 A. A mitigation measure has been included to reduce any impacts related to light and glare to less
37 than significant. Impacts to visual quality were determined to be less than significant or no impact.
38 B. The Project site is located within an established residential neighborhood and does not abut any
39 agricultural land and would not result in the conversion of farmland.
40 C. Construction related activities could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
41 concentration and mitigation measures have been included to reduce these impacts to a less
42 than significant level.
43 D. The Project site is located within an existing residential neighborhood and the project site is not
44 known to contain sensitive species or riparian habitat. No trees would be removed as a result of
45 this project.There are no streams,creeks,or water courses on the subject parcels. Orrs Creek is
46 located 1-block to the north. Impacts to biological resources were determined to have no impact.
47 E. The Project area is not identified on the Area of High Archeological Sensitivity included in the City
48 of Ukiah General Plan. It is unlikely that there are archeological resources or human remains on
49 the subject parcels. In the unlikely event that cultural resources or human remains are discovered
50 during grading operations for the project, mitigation measures have been included to reduce the
51 impact to less than significant.
52 F. Reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been included that would reduce or eliminate
53 impacts related to Geology and Soils during construction.
54 G. The project is not located within a 100 year flood hazard area. The subject parcels are located
55 within a Zone X(areas determined to be outside of the 0.2%annual chance floodplain)on FEMA
56 Flood Insurance Rate Map#06045C1512F, Panel#1512 of 2100,dated June 2,2011.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 15
1 H. The project is an infill development within an existing residential neighborhood and is consistent
2 with the goals and policies of the City of Ukiah General Plan. The project includes a Precise
3 Development Pan as part of the Planned Development Rezone. If the proposed Precise
4 Development Plan is approved with conditions then the project would be consistent with the
5 zoning regulations.
6 I. No mineral resources or agricultural lands are located within or in close proximity to the Project
7 area.
8 J. Construction of the Project would result in temporary increases in noise levels in the Project area.
9 Residential uses surround the Project site. Mitigation measures have been included to limit the
10 hours of construction and reduce noise from construction equipment.These mitigation measures
11 would reduce construction noise impacts to less than significant.
12 K. The Project would not remove any existing housing. The Project would construct five new
13 dwelling units (4 one-bedroom apartments and 1 one-bedroom second unit). Based on this the
14 project would not displace any existing housing.
15 L. There are adequate public services and utilities to serve future development in the project area.
16 M. The Project would only create five new units and therefore the project would not increase the use
17 of the existing neighborhood and regional parks to a level that would accelerate the deterioration
18 of the facility or require expansion of any existing recreation facilities.
19 N. Given the size of the project and the limited number of new units the project would not result a
20 change to the level of service for traffic in the area.
21 O. The project was reviewed by the Public Works,the Fire Marshal,and the Police Department and
22 no concerns related to emergency access were identified.
23 P. The Project would not result in climate changes or greenhouse gas impacts.The Project does not
24 violate any plans or policies adopted to address climate change/GHG.
25
26 4. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts that may result from the
27 implementation of the Project. Based on the conclusions reached in the Initial Environmental Study,it
28 has been determined that the proposed Project has the potential to have significant environmental
29 impacts on aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology/soils, and noise without the
30 implementation of mitigation measures. The analysis and conclusion reached in the Initial
31 Environmental Study identified mitigation measures that would reduce the potential impacts on
32 aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and noise to less than
33 significant levels based on the following:
34
35 Aesthetics
36
37 Potential Impact: The project could create new sources of light or glare which would adversely affect day
38 or nighttime views in the area.
39
40 Mitiqation Measure:
41
42 A. All outdoor light fixtures shall be located,aimed,and shielded so as to minimize light trespassing
43 over property lines and avoid directing light towards motorists and pedestrians. Fixtures shall be
44 full cutoff and nighttime friendly and shall be International Dark Sky Association(IDA)approved or
45 equivalent. Prior to installation of the exterior lighting and area subject to review and approval at
46 time of building permit.
47
48 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to aesthetics to less than
49 significant levels.
50
51 Air Qualitv
52 Potential Impact: Construction of the Project could result in a temporary increase in increase in emissions
53 ranging from exhaust from heavy equipment to the air-bound organic gases from solvents, insulating
54 materials,caulking materials and"weY'pavement.
55
56 Mitigation Measure:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 16
1 �
2 A. All activities involving site preparation,excavation,filling,grading, road construction,and building
3 construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust,particularly
4 during windy days.
5
6 B. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive
7 dust.
8
9 C. All activities involving site preparation,excavation,filling,grading,and actual construction shall
10 include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of
11 mud and dust onto public streets.
12
13 D. Low emission mobile construction equipment,such as tractors,scrapers,and bulldozers shall be
14 used for earth moving operations.
15
16 E. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds(as instantaneous
17 gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour.
18
19 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to aesthetics to less than
20 significant levels.
21
22 Cultural
23
24 Potential Impact: Construction of the Project could result in the discovery and disturbance of previously
25 unknown archeological resources or the inadvertent discovery of human remains.
26
27 Mitiqation Measure:
28
29 A. If,during site preparation or construction activities,any historic or prehistoric cultural resources
30 are unearthed and discovered,all work shall immediately be halted,and the City shall be notified
31 of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional
32 archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation program if
33 deemed necessary.
34
35 B. If human remains are encountered during construction excavation and grading activities,State
36 Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the
37 County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to
38 PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are to be of Native American descent,the coroner has 24
39 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). The NAHC will then identify
40 the person(s)thought to be the Most Likely Descendent,who will help determine what course of
41 action should be taken in dealing with the remains.
42
43 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to aesthetics to less than
44 significant levels.
45
46 Noise
47
48
49 Potential Impact: Construction of the Project would result in a short-term and temporary increase in noise
50 levels in the area that may affect sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project and on the Project site.
51 Mitiqation Measure:
52
53 A. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.and from
54 9:00 a.m.to 4 p.m.on Saturday Construction hours are prohibited on Sunday and all holidays
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 17
1 recognized by the City of Ukiah. Interior work that generates negligible or no noise at the
2 property line is allowed outside of the construction hours noted above.
3 �
4 Approval of additional construction hours may be requested in writing from the Planning and
5 Community Development Director and Public Works Director for extenuating circumstances. The
6 written request must be submitted a minimum of 14 days prior to the date for which the change in
7 construction hours/days is being requested and shall explain the need for the extended
8 construction hours,describe the extenuating circumstances,and identify the additional
9 construction hours requested,including the duration.
10
11 B. Signs shall be posted at the Project site prior to commencement of construction of the proposed
12 Project for the purpose of informing all contractors/subcontractors,their employees,agents,
13 material haulers,and all other persons at the construction site(s)of the basic requirements of
14 mitigation measures for Noise.
15
16 C. Signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include the permitted construction days and
17 hours,day and evening contact number for the job site,and a contact number in the event of
18 problems.
19
20 D. An onsite complaint and enforcement manager shall be designated for the Project and shall
21 respond to and track complaints and questions related to noise.
22
23 E. Equipment and trucks used for proposed Project construction shall use the best available noise
24 control techniques(e.g.improved mufflers,use of intake silencers,ducts,engine enclosures,and
25 acoustically-attenuated shields or shrouds,wherever feasible).
26
27 F. Impact tools(e.g.jack hammers,pavement breakers,and rock drills)used for Project
28 construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise
29 associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
30
31 G. Stationary construction noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible
32 and they shall be mufFled.
33
34 H. No outside amplified sources(e.g.stereo"boom boxes")shall be used on site during Project
35 construction.
36
37 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to aesthetics to less than
38 significant levels.
39
40 5. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Ukiah that the Project,
41 as mitigated,would have a significant effect on the environment.
42
43 6. The Initial Environmental Study was prepared and demonstrated there is no substantial evidence that
44 supports a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the
45 environment.
46
47 7. Based upon the analysis,findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
48 Project, as mitigated, does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional
49 environment.
50
51 8. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
52 Project,as mitigated,will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term
53 environmental goals.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 18
1 9. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
2 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative
3 considerable.
4
5 10. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the
6 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human
7 beings,either directly or indirectly.
8
9 11. Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available in the following
10 manner:posted at the Mendocino County Clerk on August 22,2013; mailed to property owners within
11 300 feet of the parcels included in the Project on August 22, 2013; and published in the Ukiah Daily
12 Journal on August 22,2013.
13
14 12. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation
15 measures.
16
17 13. The Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of proceedings of the
18 decision on the Project are available for public review at the City of Ukiah Planning Department,
19 Ukiah Civic Center,300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah,CA.
20
21 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE
22 STEPHENS PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
23 312 FORD STREET,APN 002-101-15&002-101-14
24
25 The following Findings and Conditions of Approval are supported by and based on information contained
26 in this staff report, the application materials and documentation, Planning Commission review, and the
27 public record.
28
29 FINDINGS
30
31 1. The Stephens Precise Development Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan
32 and the purpose of Chapter 2, Article 14, Regulations in Planned Development Combining Zone
33 Districts as described below:
34
35
Table 1:General Plan Consistenc
Goal/Policy Staff Analysis
Housin
Goal H-5— We want to use land effectively to meet The proposed project site consists of two parcels
housing needs and to implement smart growth, and is located within an existing residential
green building,and sustainable development neighborhood. One of the parcels is vacant and
polices with a focus on infill the other is developed with a single family home
H-5.1 Assure that new housing is well-designed to and detached garage. Development of the site
enhance Ukiah's neighborhoods and community as would infill a vacant lot.
a whole.
H-5-3: "Support and encourage compact infill The project was reviewed by the Design Review
� developments that provide extremely low,very low, Board-and comments received from the Design
low or moderate income level housing that is safe Review Board were incorporated into the project to
and liveable" ensure the design of the project is consistent with
H-5.6:"Support careful well-designed infill housing the existing neighborhood.
development in areas currently served by City
Services". The proposed project would provide housing
H-5.7: Encourage and support sustainable site opportunities for low and moderate income levels.
planning and development
The project site is located within an existing
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 19
Table 1:General Plan Consistency
Goal/Policy Staff Analysis
neighborhood that is currently served by City
Services.
� The project would-be subject to the requirements
of the California Green Building Code during the
building permit process.
The proposed project site consists of two parcels
and is located within a residential neighborhood.
Noise
Policy NZ-2.4: Protect existing residential areas The project is surrounded by existing residential
from future noise impacts. uses.Given that the proposed project would be a
residential use the project would not have
permanent noise impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood. However,there may be temporary
noise impacts due to construction. Mitigation
measures have been included that would reduce
the noise impacts. If the project is approved with
the draft conditions of approval,temporary noise
levels would not impact the surrounding
neighborhood.
Communit Desi n
Goal CD-10: Preserve and enhance The project was reviewed by the Design Review
neighborhood character. Board(DRB)and the DRB was supportive of the
project. The project would be consistent in terms of
Policy CD-10.1: Ensure that new construction in density to the existing surrounding neighborhood
established neighborhoods maintains or enhances (see setting section above).The design and
existing neighborhood character architectural style of the project would enhance the
appearance of the existing surrounding
neighborhood.
1
2
3 2. The Stephens Precise Development Plan, as conditioned, is consistent with the criteria required for
4 approval of a Planned Development Rezone with Precise Development plan listed in Chapter 2,
5 Article 14 Regulations in Planned Development Combining Zone Districts, Section 9167(F)of the City
6 Code.
7
Table 2:Section 9167(F)
Criteria for Planned Development Staff Analysis
Rezone with Precise Development Plan
User Impact and Needs
Circulation Needs and Impacts The Project would result in 5 additional one-bedroom units.
A new driveway will be installed on Myron Place that would
allow access to the four units on lot 1.The existing driveway
would be used to access the new unit on lot 2. Given that
the project would be located at the beginning of Myron Place
it is not anticipated that circulation would be impacted.The
Project was reviewed by the Public Works Department.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 20
Table 2:Section 9167(F)
Criteria for Planned Development Staff Analysis
Rezone with Precise Development Plan
Public Works did not identify any traffic related issues
related to construction or operation of the Project.
Parking and Traffic Needs and Impacts Parking,traffic:On-site parking would be provided for all
units on each respective parcel(see attached site plan).The
Project was reviewed by the Public Works Department.
Public Works did not identify any traffic related issues
related to construction or operation of the Project.
Utilities and Public Services Needs and Utilities/public services: City services are available for the
Impacts project site.
Noise Needs and Impacts Noise: The proposed Project would be similar in use and
density to the surrounding neighborhood. The Citys noise
ordinance would apply to this project both during
construction and after tenant occupancy. In regards to
temporary construction noise a draft condition of approval
has been added that regulates construction hours.
Odor Needs and Impacts Odor:The Project is a residential planned development,
typically odors are not associated with this type of use.
Private and Common Space Needs and Common open space:The Project would have landscaped
Impacts common area near the laundry/storage building.
Private and Common Open Spaces: Each of the units on
parcel 1 would have their own private deck along with a
small patio space.
Trash Collection Needs and Impacts Trash Collection: Each unit would have their own individual
trash container which would be collected on a weekly basis,
similar to the rest of the neighborhood.
Security and Crime Deterrence Needs Security and crime deterrence: Exterior lighting is
and Impacts proposed for each of the units.A draft condition of approval
has been added that requires a Management Plan.
Energy Consumption Needs and Energy Consumption:The Project is subject to the
Impacts requirements of the California Green Building Code
Standards which requires specific requirements(materials
and light fixtures)to reduce energy consumption.
Design Needs and Impacts Design:The Project was reviewed by the DRB.The Board
was supportive of the Project and the location of the
structures on each of the parcels. The proposed Project
has been designed using materials that would blend with the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 21
Table 2:Section 9167(F)
Criteria for Planned Development Staff Analysis
Rezone with Precise Development Plan
character of the neighborhood. See attached plans.
Relationship to Physical Features:The The Project consists of two parcels. Parcel 1 is vacant and
location of the building and structures parcel 2 is developed with a single family home and
shall respect the natural terrain of the site detached garage. Both parcels are flat with no significant
and shall be functionally integrated with natural features. No trees would be removed as a result of
any natural features of the landscape to this project and a draft condition of approval has been
include the preservation of existing trees, included that requires protective fencing for all existing trees
where feasible. within the construction area.
Consistency of Architectural Style:All The Project was reviewed by the DRB. The Board was
buildings or structures shall be supportive of the project as designed. However,a draft
harmonious and consistent with the condition of approval has been added as recommended by
proposed architectural style regarding the DRB that the existing house on parcel 2 be painted when
roofing,exterior materials,windows,
doors,texture,colors,and other exterior the accessory dwelling is developed. This would ensure the
treatment. color scheme is harmonious and consistent throughout the
Project.
Balance and Integration with The proposed Project would create five new units within an
Neighborhood:The overall design shall established neighborhood. Four of the units would be
be integrated and compatible with the located on Parcel 1 and one unit would be added to Parcel
neighborhood and shall strive to be in 2. The design of the Project would be consistent with the
harmony with the scale and bulk of the
surrounding built environment. surrounding neighborhood in that the proposed Project is
similar in density to the existing duplex units that are located
on Myron Place and Sidnie Court.
Building Design: The design of the The proposed Project would include four new units on Parcel
buildings and structures shall strive to 1 and one new unit on Parcel 2. The new building to be
provide innovation, variety, and creativity located on Parcel 1 would consist of two buildings that face
in the proposed design solutions. All each other with a driveway between.The applicant has
architectural elevations shall be designed designed the Project with design features that create a non-
to eliminate the appearance of flat box like appearance. The design features include the use of
facades and box like construction. Hardie Plank,va in roof slopes,and exterior decks.
Density: For residential projects,every The underlying zoning district for the subject parcels is High
effort shall be made to achieve the Density Residential(R-3)and the General Plan designation
maximum density possible pursuant to the is High Density Residential(HDR).
underlying zoning district.
The R-3 zoning district allows one units per 1,500 square
feet of site area. Based on 6,933 square feet four units are
allowed on parcel 1. The applicant is proposing four one
bedroom units.
Based on 7,317 square feet four units are allowed on parcel
2.The applicant is proposing to add one additional units on
parcel 2.Since the site is already developed with a single
family dwelling a second accessory dwelling is proposed.
Based on the above the Project would achieve the maximum
density possible on the project site.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 22
1
2 3. The proposed Precise Development Plan is compatible and complementary to existing and potential
3 development in the general vicinity of the project site for the following reasons:
4
5 • The surrounding neighborhood consist of existing High Density attached townhomes with
6 minimum setbacks. The proposed Project would be similar in density and would have similar
7 setbacks.
8
9 • The proposed Project would be residential which is similar to the existing uses in the vicinity.
10
11 . Given that the surrounding neighborhoods are zoned medium and high density residential any
12 further development would be compatible with the proposed residential Project.
13
14 4. An Initial Environmental Study(IS)was prepared in order to evaluate the potential impacts that could
15 result from implementation of the Stephens Precise Development Plan. The IS identified potential
16 impacts to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology/soils, and noise. As part of the IS,
17 mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. A
18 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the Project and the applicant
19 has agreed to the mitigation measures.
20
21 5. On September 25, 2013, the City Planning Commission conducted a duly notice public hearing and
22 after receiving public testimony and conducting due deliberations, voted 4-1 to recommend City
23 Council approval of the Mitigated negative Declaration, Planned Development Rezoning and Precise
24 Development Plan.
25
26 6. Notice of the proposed Project was provided in the following manner for both the Planning
27 Commission and City Council public hearings:
28
29 • mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property;
30 • published in the Ukiah Daily Journal as a legal ad;and
31 • posted on the project parcels.
32
33 �
34 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
35
36 1. Approval is granted to allow the construction of four one-bedroom apartments located in two
37 separate buildings with carports located below, and one detached accessory structure with laundry
38 and storage on the northwest corner of Ford Street and Myron Place (APN 001-101-15) and one
39 second unit above the existing garage at 312 Ford Street(APN 001-101-14)as shown on the plans
40 submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 26, 2013 except as modified by the
41 following conditions of approval.
42
43 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Management Plan for the Project shall be prepared and
44 submitted to the Planning Department. The Management Plan shall include, but is not limited to, the
45 following items and is subject to staff review and approval:
46 A. Identification of maintenance and safety procedures for the Project,such as frequency and
47 timing of maintenance,party(s)responsible for maintenance and security.
48 B. Trash collection responsibilities,frequency,and type(toters,bins,dumpsters,etc.).
49 C. Use of the indoor and outdoor common area and laundry facilities.
50 D. Maintenance of Project facilities(landscaping,common area,laundry,refuse areas,parking
51 areas,etc.).
52 E. Use of private outdoor spaces(balconies,decks,etc.)and how they will be kept clean and
53 not used for storage.
54 F. Parking for residents and guests.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 23
1 G. The carports shall be available for the parking of two cars at all times. Any storage
2 shall be incidental and shall not preclude the parking of two cars in each carport.
3
4
5 3. The approved Management Plan shall be provided to tenants of the Project as part of their rental
6 agreement.
7 �
8 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicanUproject proponent shall apply for and receive an
9 address assignment for the new apartment and the second unit from the Planning and Community
10 Development Department.
11
12
13 5. Plans submitted for building permit for the second unit and associated improvements at 312 Ford
14 Street shall include the following and are subject to staff review and approval:
15
16 A. Recordation of a Deed Notice that states that pursuant to City Code section 9016(m) the
17 property owner is required to reside at the single-family residence or second unit located at
18 312 Ford Street(APN 001-101-14). The language for the Deed Notice is subject to staff
19 review and approval and the approved language shall be recorded prior to building permit
20 final.
21
22 B. One parking space for the new second unit and two parking spaces for the existing single-
23 family residence that comply with the zoning ordinance requirements for parking,access,and
24 circulation,including but not limited to the requirement that the parking spaces for the second
25 unit and single-family residence be independently accessible.
26
27 C. Required street trees. At least six trees are required based on the frontage of the parcel.
28 The trees selected shall be from the City's Master Street Tree List and are subject to the
29 approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department.
30
31 6. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around trees that are in proximity of construction activities.
32 The protective tree fencing required shall be metal, a minimum of 5-feet in height and secured with
33 in-ground posts. The approved tree fencing shall be installed prior to construction/grading activities
34 and shall remain in place until construction has been completed.
35
36 7. Plans submitted for building permit for the apartments and associated improvements located on
37 APN 002-101-15,shall include the following and are subject to staff review and approval:
38
39 A. Location and detail for the protective tree fencing required in condition#6.
40
41 B. An irrigation plan that demonstrates compliance with Cal Green and the State Model Water
42 Efficiency Landscape Ordinance requirements for landscaping and irrigation. The irrigation and
43 landscaping plan shall include the area shown on the landscaping plan that is located in the
44 public right-of-way.
45
46 C. Location of the detached accessory building to be demolished in order to construct the project.
47
48 D. Six street trees based on the size of the parcel frontage. The trees selected shall be from the
49 City's Master Street Tree List and are subject to the approval of the Planning Department and
50 Public Works Department.
51
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 24
1 8. The property owner/project proponent is responsible for the installation and maintenance of the
2 irrigation required in condition #7A above and the landscaping located in the public right-way as
3 shown on the approved landscaping plan.
4
5 9. The zoning standards for 312 Ford Street(APN 002-101-14)of the Stephens Planned Development
6 are as follows:
7
8 A. Allowed Uses:The following uses are allowed.
9
10 One single-family residence
11
12 One second unit as shown on the approved Precise Development Plan
13
14 Home occupations as defined in section 9278 of the zoning ordinance
15
16 Small family child daycare home,which provides care for eight(8)or fewer children,including
17 children under the age of ten(10)years who reside at the home
18
19 Accessory buildings and accessory uses.This shall not be construed as permitting any
20 business use or occupation other than those specifically listed herein.
21
22 B. Permitted Uses:The following uses may be permitted subject to first securing a use permit:
23
24 Large family child daycare homes for a minimum of seven(7)to fourteen(14)children
25 inclusive,including children under the age of ten(10)years who reside at the home.
26
27 C. Buildinq Heiqht Limits:The following shall be the maximum limits for height of buildings in
28 High Density Residential(R-3)Districts:
29 A. For main buildings a maximum height of forty feet(40'),unless abutting an R-1 or
30 R-2 lot in which case a maximum height of thirty feet(30').
31 B. For accessory buildings,a maximum height of thirty feet(30')or the maximum height
32 of the main building whichever is less.(Ord. 1001,§1,adopted 1998)
33
34 D. Required Site Area: As shown on the Precise Development Plan. No further subdivision of
35 the parcel is permitted.
36
37 E. Required Yard Setbacks:
38 Front: Fifteen feet(15')for dwellings and accessory structures,and twenty five feet(25')for
39 garages.
40 Sides: Five feet(5'),except as provided in Section 9032 of this Chapter.
41 Rear:Ten feet(10').
42 Special Yards And Distances Between Buildings:Minimum widths shall be as follows:
43 1.The distance between any buildings in any dwelling group shall be a minimum of
44 ten feet(10')for single-story structures and fifteen feet(15')if one or more of the
45 structures is taller than a single-story.
46 2.Any side yard providing vehicular access to single-row dwelling groups shall have
47 a minimum width of twenty feet(20')for one-way access and twenty five feet(25')
48 for dual access.
49 3.Any inner court providing vehicular access to double-row dwelling groups shall
50 have a minimum width of twenty feet(20'),and a minimum width of twenty four feet
51 (24')if bordered by parking stalls.(Ord. 1001,§1,adopted 1998)
52
53 F. Required Parkinq:
54 Single-family dwelling:two(2)on-site independently accessible parking spaces for the single-
55 family home.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 25
1 Second Unit: One(1)on-site independently accessible parking space.
2
3 Parking Stall Size: Each required off-street parking space or garage space shall be a
4 minimum of nine feet(9')in width and nineteen feet(19')in depth.
5
6 Access: Each required off-street parking space or garage space for multiple-family
7 residential uses shall open directly onto a driveway or aisle and be designed to provide safe
8 and efficient ingress and egress for vehicles accessing such parking space.The maximum
9 width for such driveways shall be twelve feet(12')for single-wide driveways,and twenty feet
10 (20')for double-wide driveways and access lanes to parcels with no street frontage.
11
12 Any modifications to the approved Precise Development Plan for this parcel that are inconsistent
13 with the zoning requirements included in 8A— 8F above are subject to the requirements of UCC
14 section 9168(C).
15
16 10. The zoning standards for APN 002-101-15 of the Stephens Planned Development are as follows:
17
18 Home occupations are allowed subject to the requirements of the Ukiah City Code, including the
19 requirement to obtain a business license.
20
21 Any modifications to the approved Precise Development Plan for this parcel are subject to the
22 requirements of UCC section 9168(C).
23
24 11. On plans submitted for building permit, these conditions of approval and as well as the mitigation
25 measures referenced in condition of approval # 8 above shall be included as notes on the first
26 sheet.
27
28 From the Desiqn Review Board
29 12. IPrior{to the final inspection for the second dwelling unit at 312 Ford Street, tFl@ eXISYIII� F10US@ 011 Comment[kl]:This condition makes no sense as
30 parcel 2 shall be painted so that the color scheme is the same for both the second unit and the "'ritte°.
31 existing house.
32
33 From the Fire Department(Kevin Jenninqs 463-6271)
34
35 13. The shared driveway between the two duplexes shall be marked with no parking. Parking in this area
36 would significantly impact the ability of the Fire Department or EMS apparatus to enter the area un-
37 restricted.
38
39 14. The common walkway that passes between the storage/laundry rooms and the northern
40 apartments terminating at the sidewalk on Myron Place. No Parking
41 (Red Curb)at this termination point.This would allow access of emergency equipment or personnel at
42 this point. The Red Curb area would only have to be the length of a parking space.
43 From the Buildinq Official(David Willouqhbv 467-5718)
44
45 15. Sprinklers are required in each dwelling unit according to the 2010 California Fire, Building and
46 Residential Code(both the new duplexes and the addition above the existing garage.
47
48 16. The 2010 California Green Building Standards Code applies to the new duplex structures.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 26
1
2 17. A carport is required to be completely open on 2 sides. It appears from the elevations that the parking
3 area would be considered a garage,not a carport. In either case a fire resistive separation is required
4 between the parking area and the dwelling.
5
6 18. The foundation supporting the proposed addition of the dwelling above an existing garage would
7 need to be investigated by an engineer and approved or a new foundation installed.
8
9 From the Public Works Department(Ben Kaqevama 463-6284)
10
11 19. The Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan includes drop inlets in the landscape areas which
12 discharge though under-sidewalk drains to the street. The concrete driveway and parking area drains
13 to a slotted drain which also is piped under the sidewalk to the street. If feasible, the owner shall use
14 a valley gutter or slotted drain behind the driveway apron to direct driveway run-off north and south to
15 appropriately landscaped swales directed to the drop inlets. The Landscape Plan should also be
16 modified to incorporate the swales.
17
18 20. The Preliminary Grading&Drainage Plan notes to connect downspouts to the new drain, however, if
19 feasible, downspouts shall be directed into any landscaped area and sloped away from the building
20 foundation.
21
22 21. The Preliminary Grading&Drainage Plan(and any other site plans)should be modified to include the
23 ADA upgraded driveway on Ford Street,and ADA corner curb ramp.
24
25 22. Show on the site plan (or on a utility plan) all e�asting and proposed locations of sewer and water services,
26 induding backflow preventers. Note that each structure shall be separately connected to the sewer main,
27 unless this requirement is waived by the City Engineer.
28 23. The Landscape Plan shall be revised to provide street trees along both the Myron Place and Ford
29 Street frontages at approximate 30 foot intervals.The Ford Street frontage shall include the westerly
30 parcel with the existing house and garage with proposed second unit.
31
32 24. Construction operations shall incorporate best management practices as necessary to prevent
33 sediment from entering the streets and storm drains. Disturbed areas and stockpiles within the
34 property shall be protected and monitored,and silt fence and/or other measures installed if needed to
35 contain sediment.Streets and sidewalks shall be kept clean and clear of dust and debris at all times.
36
37 25. All public sidewalks shall meet current ADA requirements. Any existing curb, gutter and sidewalk in
38 disrepair that is adjacent to the subject property shall be repaired. All work shall be done in
39 conformance with the City of Ukiah Standard Drawings 101 and 102 or as directed by the City
40 Engineer.
41
42 26. Public sidewalk improvements outside of the street right-of-way will require a sidewalk easement
43 dedicated to the City.
44
45 27. Standard street tree requirements include street trees spaced approximately every 30 feet along the
46 public street, within tree wells where feasible, otherwise within 5 feet of the back of sidewalk. Street
47 trees shall be in accordance with Standard Detail 602 — tree types to be approved by the City
48 Engineer.
49
50 28. All driveway and parking areas shall be paved with asphaltic concrete, concrete, or other alternative
51 surfacing, subject to approval by the City Engineer. If heavy truck traffic is anticipated from the solid
52 waste company, delivery trucks, or other heavy vehicles, the pavement section should be calculated
53 appropriately to ensure that it can withstand the loading.
54
55 29. Concentrated site run-off over the public sidewalk is not allowed. Under-sidewalk drains (Standard
56 Drawing 410)may be used where necessary.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 27
1
2 30. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured
3 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or otherwise
4 affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be$45 plus 3%of estimated construction costs.
5
6 31. The proposed development is located within the City of Ukiah sanitary sewer service area and subject
7 to applicable sewer connection fees.
8
9 32. Capital improvement fees for water services are based on the water meter size. A fee schedule for
10 water meter sizes is available upon request. Additional charges for water service construction are
11 also applicable.
12
13 33. All irrigation and fire services shall have approved backflow devices.
14
15 From the Electric Utility Department
16
17 34. Any fees associated with the removal of any existing 12kv primary electrical facilities (transformers,
18 vaults, junction boxes, primary and secondary conductors) or the addition of new 12kv electrical
19 facilities (transformers, vaults, junction pedestals/boxes, primary and secondary conductors)
20 extended to the new proposed building site(s) would be the responsibility of the
21 Developer/Contractor.
22
23 Standard Conditions of Approval
24
25 35. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of the
26 plants,shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means,but is not limited to the following:
27
28 A. Regular slow,deep watering when feasible.The amount of water used shall fluctuate according
29 to the season,i.e.,more water in summer,less in the winter.
30
31 B. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds,and reduced
32 watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather.
33
34 C. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic fertilizer
35 according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional.
36
37 D. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees.
38
39 E. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not constrict the
40 trunks and damage the trees.
41
42 F. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not damage the trunk
43 of the tree and its overall growth.
44
45 G. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests,disease or other factors,including vandalism,shall
46 be replaced with the same or similar tree species,or an alternative species approved by the
47 department of Planning and Community Development.
48
49 H. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be made.All pruning shall
50 follow standard industry methods and techniques to ensure the health and vitality of the tree.
51
52 36. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior to
53 building permit final.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 28
1 37. All construction activities shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
2 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and
3 issued.
4
5 38. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
6 specification, or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agency as
7 applicable.
8
9 39. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges applicable to
10 this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
11 �
12 40. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts related to
13 project construction:
14 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Rule 1-430,
15 Fugitive Dust Emissions.
16
17 B. All activities involving site preparation,excavation,filling,grading, road construction,and building
18 construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust,particularly
19 during windy days.
20
21 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive
22 dust.
23
24 D. All activities involving site preparation,excavation,filling,grading,and actual construction shall
25 include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of
26 mud and dust onto public streets.
27
28 E. Low emission mobile construction equipment,such as tractors,scrapers,and bulldozers shall be
29 used for earth moving operations.
30
31 F. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds(as instantaneous
32 gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour.
33
34 G. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust,dirt,or other soil particles by vehicles tires,poorly covered
35 truck loads,or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the end of
36 construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
37
38 41. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
39 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers,
40 attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim,action or proceeding brought against
41 any of the foregoing individuals or entities,the purpose of which is to attack, set aside,void or annul
42 the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages,
43 costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
44 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this application,
45 whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of the City. If, for any
46 reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of
47 competent jurisdiction,the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
48
49 42. Any Planned Development Combining Zone/District created after the effective date of Article 14 of the
50 zoning ordinance shall expire after three(3)years from its approved date by the City Council if actual
51 construction has not occurred. A one year extension of the three(3)year time period may be granted
52 by the Planning Director if substantial progress has been made towards securing a building permit.All
53 requests for an extension must be made in writing, and shall detail the progress made towards
54 implementing the project and securing a building permit. If any PD Combining Zone/District expires,
55 the zoning (or its current equivalent)which existed prior to the adoption of the PD District shall be in
56 full force and effect.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 29
1
2 _Mitiqation Measures/Conditions of Approval Formatted:Font:10 pt
3
4 Aesthetics
5
6 ' Formatted:Normal, No bullets or numbering
7 4-�1. All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, aimed, and shielded so as to minimize light� Formatted:space after: io pt,�ine spacing:
8 trespassing over property lines and avoid directing light towards motorists and pedestrians. Muitipie i.i5 ii,rvumbered+�evel:i+
9 Fixtures shall be full cutoff and nighttime friendly and shall be International Dark Sky Association rvumbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:1+
Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent
10 (IDA) approved or equivalent. Prior to installation of the exterior lighting and area subject to at: o.s��
11 review and approval at time of building permit.
12
13 Ir QU811t Formatted:Font:10 pt
14
15 44.2. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and� Formatted:List Paragraph,Numbered+Level:
16 building construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, 1+Numbering Style:1,z,s,...+start at:i+
1� BrtiCUlerl dUrin wind da S. Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent
P Y 9 Y Y at: 0.5"
18
19 4�3. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control� Formatted:Numbered+Level:1+
2� fugitive dust. Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:1+
21 Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent
22 4-�4. All activities involving site preparation,excavation,filling,grading,and actual construction� at: os"
23 shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport Formatted:rvumbered+�evel:i+
24 of mud and dust onto public streets. rvumbering style:i,2,3,...+start at:i+
25 Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent
at: 0.5"
26 4-�5. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers�
27 shall be used for earth moving operations. Forma�ted:rvumbered+�evei:i+
28 Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:1+
Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent
29 4�6. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as� at: 0.5"
30 instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour.
31 Formatted:Numbered+Level:1+
Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:1+
Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent
32 at: o.s"
33 Cultural
34
35 4�7. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural� Formatted:Numbered+Level:1+
36 resources are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the City shall Numbering Style:1,z,s,...+start at:i+
37 be notified of the discovery. The applicant shall be requi red to fund the hiring of a qualified Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+rndent
38 professional archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation at: o.s"
39 program if deemed necessary.
40
41 �8. If human remains are encountered during construction excavation and grading activities,� Formatted:rvumbered+�evel:1+
42 State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until Numbering Style:1,z,3,...+Start at:1+
43 the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+indent
44 PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are to be of Native American descent,the coroner has 24 ac: o.s��
45 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify
46 the person(s)thought to be the Most Likely Descendent,who will help determine what course of
47 action should be taken in dealing with the remains.
48
49
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 30
1 Noise
2
3 �9. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. and� Formatted:rvumbered+�evel:1+
4 from 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday Construction hours are prohibited on Sunday and all rvumbering style:i,z,3,...+start at:i+
5 holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah. Interior work that generates negligible or no noise at Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+indent
6 the property line is allowed outside of the construction hours noted above. ac: o.s��
7
8 Approval of additional construction hours may be requested in writing from the Planning and
9 Community Development Director and Public Works Director for extenuating circumstances. The
10 written request must be submitted a minimum of 14 days prior to the date for which the change in
11 construction hours/days is being requested and shall explain the need for the extended construction
12 hours, describe the extenuating circumstances, and identify the additional construction hours
13 requested, including the duration.
14
15 �?10. Signs shall be posted at the Project site prior to commencement of construction of the� Formatted:rvumbered+�evel:i+
16 proposed Project for the purpose of informing all contractors/subcontractors, their employees, rvumbering style:i,z,3,...+start at:i+
17 agents, material haulers, and all other persons at the construction site(s) of the basic Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent
18 requirements of mitigation measures for Noise. at: o.s"
19
20 �11. Signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include the permitted COnStrUCtiOn� Formatted:Numbered+Level:1+
21 days and hours, day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number in the Numbering Style:1,z,3,...+start at:i+
22 evellt Of p1'Oblems. Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25��+indent
23 at: 0.5"
24 �4.12. An onsite complaint and enforcement manager shall be designated for the Project and� Formatted:Numbered+Level:1+
25 shall respond to and track complaints and questions related to noise. rvumbering styie:i,z,3,...+start at:i+
26 Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent
27 �13. Equipment and trucks used for proposed Project construction shall use the best available� at: os"
28 noise control techniques (e.g. improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine Formatted:Numbered+Level:1+
29 enclosures,and acoustically-attenuated shields or shrouds,wherever feasible). Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+start at:i+
30 Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent
at: 0.5"
31 �14. Impact tools (e.g. jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for Project�
32 construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to av0id nOiSB Formatted:Numbered+Level:1+
33 associated with com ressed air exhaust from neumaticall Owered tOOIS. Numbering Style:1,z,3,...+start at:1+
p P Y p Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent
34 at: 0.5"
35 �15. Stationary construction noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as�- -- Formatted:rvumbered+�evel:i+
36 possible and they shall be muffled. rvumbering styie:i,z,3,...+start at:i+
37 Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent
38 �16. No outside amplified sources (e.g. stereo "boom boxes°) shall be used on site during� at: 0.5"
39 Project construction. Formatted:Numbered+Level:1+
4� Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:1+
41 Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent
42 at: o.s"
43
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 25,2013
Page 31
1 ITEM NO. 9A
2
Community Development and Planning Department
e�ty � ukah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq(a�citvofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
3
4 DATE: October 23, 2013
5
6 TO: Planning Commission
7
8 FROM: Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
9
10 SUBJECT: Request for approval of Major Use Permit to allow a Hertz Car Rental Facility to
11 operate at 724 South State Street, APN 003-031-19
12 File No. 13-20-UP-PC
13
14 RECOMMENDATION
15
16 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested Use Permit based on
17 the draft findings included in attachment 1 and subject to the draft conditions of approval
18 included in attachment 2.
19
20 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
21
22 An application has been received from Matthew Lundbeck on behalf of The Hertz Corporation
23 (Hertz) requesting Planning Commission approval of a Major Use Permit to allow the operation
24 of a 4,650 square foot car rental facility at 724 South State Street, APN 003-031-19 (see
25 attachment 3, Project Description). The facility would include 1,485 square feet of office space/
26 customer lobby area and 3,165 square feet of interior parking area. Hertz would have the
27 following operating characteristics:
28
29 • Days and hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday and
30 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturday, closed Sunday.
31 • Use of the rear portion of the building for interior parking of rental cars.
32 • Three full time employees and two part time employees.
33 • Ten rental cars on site at one time.
34
35 The project includes the following modifications to the building:
36
37 • Installation of garage door on side elevation to allow access to interior parking.
38 • Recover existing awnings with yellow vinyl covering (material and color sample will be
39 available at meeting).
40 • Reface existing wall sign.
41 • Three full time employees and two part time employees.
Hertz Rental Office
724 South State Street
APN 003-031-19
File No.13-20-UP-PC
1
1
2 No changes to the footprint of the building are proposed.
3
4 SETTING
5
6 The project site is located just north of the intersection of Gobbi and South State Streets. The
7 lot is developed with a 4,650 square foot building and five 90 degree parking spaces. The
8 parking spaces are located in front of the building. The project site is zoned Community
9 Commercial (C-1) and surrounded by the following:
10
11 ■ North: Retail, professional office and bank zoned Community Commercial ( C-1)
12 ■ South: Retail and restaurant zoned Community Commercial ( C-1)
13 ■ East: Professional Office, bank and retail zoned Community Commercial ( C-1)
14 ■ West: Multi-family residential zoned High Density Residential (R-3)
15
16 BACKGROUND
17
18 Previous Uses: The most recent business to occupy the subject property was the Hospice Gift
19 and Thrift. Hospice vacated the building in April of 2010 and building has remained vacant
20 since that time. Prior to the Hospice Thrift Store the site was used as a motorcycle sales and
21 repair shop.
22
23 Determination of Appropriate Use: A rental car facility is not an allowed or permitted use
24 within the Community Commercial (C-1) zoning district. Zoning Ordinance Section 9088 grants
25 the Planning Director the authority to make a "Determination of Appropriate Use" for uses that
26 are not listed as allowed or permitted. In this case the Planning Director made a determination
27 that the proposed car rental office would be an appropriate use with Planning Commission
28 approval of a Major Use Permit.
29
30 STAFF ANALYSIS
31
32 General Plan: The land use designation of the subject property is Commercial (C). This land
33 use designation identifies areas where commerce and business may occur. The proposed
34 commercial use is consistent with the General Plan designation of the subject property. The
35 actual uses allowed are determined by the zoning of the parcel (such as Neighborhood
36 Commercial, Community Commercial, or Heavy Commercial). Table 1 below provides an
37 analysis of the General Plan goals and policies that apply to the proposed project.
38
39
Table 1: General Plan Goals and Policies
General Plan Goal/Policy Staff Analysis
Economic Development
Goal ED-1. Support a strong local The project would allow the establishment of a new business that will
economy. contribute to the local economy.
Policy ED-1.1. Take steps to reinforce The new business will occupy a commercial building that has been
the Valley's economy. vacant for three years.
Hertz Rental Office
724 South State Street
APN 003-031-19
File No.13-20-UP-PC
2
Table 1: General Plan Goals and Policies
The project will provide up to five jobs for the local community.
The project would generate business license and sales tax revenue.
1
2
3 Ukiah Airport Master Plan. The project site is located within the C zone (Common Traffic
4 Pattern) on the Airport Compatibility Zone Map and is subject to limited risk and frequent noise
5 intrusions. The Ukiah Airport Master Plan includes Table 7A: Current Compatibility Criteria
6 which provides the compatibility criteria. The following table includes the Zone C compatibility
7 criteria from Table 7A that apply to the proposed Project and staff analysis.
8
Table 2: Summa of Zone C Com atibili Criteria
Compatibility Criteria Staff Analysis
Intensive retail uses,office uses, The proposed project would be a rental car facility. Intensive retail uses
residential subdivisions and are normally acceptable uses in the C zone. Given that the proposed
multifamily residential are normally project would be similar to a low intensity retail use the project would be
acceptable uses in the C allowed in the compatibility zone C.
compatibility zone.
The maximum density is 150 people Compatibility Zone C allows 150 people per acre for non-residential uses,
per acre. therefore given that the site is .22 of an acre the maximum density
cannot exceed 33 people(.22 acre site X 150 people/acre).
The applicant has indicated that the proposed rental car facility would
have approximately 3 employees on a daily basis and it is not anticipated
there would be more than 4 customers in the store at any one time.
Minimum 15% "Open Land" is The size of the parcel is 9,438 square feet(.22 acre).The footprint of the
recommended. building is 4,650 square feet which leaves 51%of open land for this
parcel exceeding the 15%minimum recommended for the C zone.
This is applied to the entire area with Based on a field survey it is staff's opinion that the proposed project is
a C designation not just the project similar to other existing development in the C zone.
site.
9
10 Zoning and Site Analysis: The zoning of the site is Community Commercial (C-1). Rental car
11 facilities are not listed as allowed or permitted in the C-1 zoning district. In the Zoning Ordinance
12 auto rental agencies are part of the definition of Transportation Services which is an allowed use
13 within the Heavy Commercial (C-2) zoning district. As noted above zoning ordinance section
14 9088 allows the Planning Director to make a Determination of Appropriate Use. The Planning
15 Director has determined that the use would be appropriate in the proposed location subject to
16 Planning Commission approval of a Major Use Permit. Table 2 below includes the applicable
17 requirements of the zoning ordinance with staff analysis.
18
19
20
21
22
Hertz Rental Office
724 South State Street
APN 003-031-19
File No.13-20-UP-PC
3
1
2
3
4
Table 3: Zoning Ordinance and Site Analysis
Zoning Ordinance Requirement Staff Analysis
Development Standards
The zoning ordinance includes The project site is already developed with a 4,650 square foot
development standards for setbacks, building no modifications to the building footprint are proposed as
building height,site area and yard setbacks. part of this application.
Uses
Car Rental Facility As allowed by the zoning ordinance,the Planning Director made a
Determination of Appropriate Use that the use would be
Determination of Appropriate Use appropriate in the proposed location subject to Planning
ZO Section 9088 Commission approval of a Major Use Permit.
The applicant has applied for a use permit to operate a thrift Shop.
See Use Permit analysis below in Table 3.
Vehicle Parking
The zoning code does not have parking The site currently has five(5) existing parking spaces in the front of
requirement for car rental facilities. the building. The plans submitted with the application show seven
Section 9198 of the ZO regulates parking for ��� new parking spaces within the rear of the building and one new
Motor Vehicles Sale. One parking space for space under the side canopy area. This gives the site 13 parking
each five hundred(500)square feet of floor spaces.
area plus one parking space for each two
thousand(2,000)square feet of outdoor Using the motor vehicle sales calculation for this project ten (10)
area. parking spaces are required (4,650 square feet of floor area/500=
Section 9086 of the ZO regulates parking for 9 required parking spaces+1 for outdoor area).
retail stores, professional offices and
business offices. One parking space for Using the retail sales, professional office and business office
each three hundred(300)square feet of calculation 15 parking spaces are required (4,650 square feet of
gross leasable floor area. leasable floor area/300= 15 required parking spaces).
The proposed new interior parking area would be used to park the
rental vehicles leaving the parking in the front of the parcel for
customer and employee parking. Based on the function of a car
rental facility most of the customers are dropped off at the site and
therefore customer parking is rarely needed. Furthermore if a
customer does drive to the site they would not be able to leave
their car at the Hertz location while they are renting a car from
Hertz. This is company policy.
Based on the project description submitted by the applicant
typically three employees are on site at a time.
Hertz Rental Office
724 South State Street
APN 003-031-19
File No.13-20-UP-PC
4
Table 3: Zoning Ordinance and Site Analysis
Staff feels that based on the function of rental car facility and the
limited number of employees the proposed parking would be
adequate.
A draft condition of approval has been added that requires a bike
rack to be installed. The installation of the bike rack may encourage
employees to ride to work.
In the effort to keep the access way to the interior parking clear a
draft condition of approval has been added that requires No Parking
to be stripped in this location.
Staff requests that the Commission determine if the five(5) parking
spaces at the front of the building along with the eight(8)interior
parking spaces provide adequate parking for the proposed project.
Section 9086(h)allows Planning Commission to provide relief from
the parking requirements through the discretionary review process
Bike Parkin
Bike Parking Based on the required vehicle parking,one bike parking space is
10%of the required vehicle parking required. A draft condition of approval has been added. It is
anticipated that employees may ride their bike to work and the
addition of the bike rack may encourage this.
Landscaping
Landscaping
Section 9087 of the ZO all projects that No new landscaping is proposed as part of this application.There is
require discretionary review within the C-1 currently one street tree in front of the project site and a draft
zone shall include a landscape plan. condition of approval has been added that an additional street tree
and grate shall be installed .
Based on the scope of the project and the fact that there are not
any additional opportunities for landscaping on the site, installation
of new landscaping on the site is not required.
Signs
Sign Ordinance Section 3225(J):Signing for The applicant proposes to use the existing wall sign structure that is
a project requiring a use permit shall be on the front elevation of the building. A new sign face would be
reviewed by the Planning Commission as installed as shown on the submitted plans. A draft condition of
part of the permit application process approval has been included that requires sign permit approval prior
to installation of the new sign face.
Sign Ordinance Section 3227(1):One and Based on 65 feet of linear frontage the allowed sign area for the
one-half(1%J square feet of sign are for subject parcel is 97.5 square feet.The applicant is proposing 48
every ground level linear foot of parcel square feet of sign area.This is consistent with the sign ordinance.
frontage.
1
Hertz Rental Office
724 South State Street
APN 003-031-19
File No.13-20-UP-PC
5
1 Use Permit. In order to approve a Use Permit, the findings included in Zoning Ordinance
2 section 9262(E) are required to be made. The required findings and staffs analysis are included
3 in the table below:
4
Table 3: Use Permit Anal sis
Use Permit Findings Staff Analysis
The proposed land use is consistent The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as described in
with the provisions of this Title as well Table 1 above.
as the goals and policies of the City
General Plan. The project is consistent with the Zoning Ordnance as described in Table
3 above.
The proposed land use is compatible The project approved with conditions is compatible with surrounding
with surrounding land uses and shall uses based on the following:
not be detrimental to the public's
health,safety and general welfare. • The project site is located within an existing commercial area
and is surrounded mainly by commercial uses.
• The parcel immediately adjacent to the west of the project site is
developed with a multifamily residential unit; however,the living
units are not located directly behind the project site.There is at
least 49 feet between the structure on the project site and the
nearest residential unit. Furthermore there is a detached carport
structure with no opening on the rear elevation between the
project site and the residential units.This would create a barrier
for the residential uses.
• The proposed project would occupy a building which was
previously used for retail sales. The proposed use is anticipated
to be less intensive then the past retail sales at this location
based on the fact that typically car rental facilities function more
like a professional office in terms of number of customers and
the fact that the majority of customers arrive by appointment.
• The hours of operation would be consistent with retail business
and professional offices in the area which normally operate 9:00
a.m.to 6:00 P.M.
• The proposed project would provide 13 parking spaces which
given the operating characteristics of a rental car facility would
be adequate.
• The proposed project would be similar in intensity to a light
retail business and/or a professional office.This is based on the
fact that customer arrival would be staggered throughout the
day and are typically set by appointment. Given the function of a
Hertz the average number of customers on the site at one time
is three and typically there are only two employees on a shift at
a time.
The project will not be detrimental to the public's health,safety and
general welfare based on the following:
Hertz Rental Office
724 South State Street
APN 003-031-19
File No.13-20-UP-PC
6
Table 3: Use Permit Anal sis
Use Permit Findings Staff Analysis
• The site was previously used for retail uses therefore based on
the fact that the previous retail use operated at this site without
issues and that the proposed retail car facility is similar in
intensity to retail the proposed project would not be
detrimental.
• There is typically no noise related to this type of business.
• The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, Police
Department, Building Official,and Public Works and any review
comments from these departments have been included as
conditions of approval.
• The project is required to comply with all federal,state and local
laws.
• The project is consistent with the Airport Master Plan C
compatibility zone requirements as noted in Table 2.
• There is adequate parking on the site for the proposed project.
Five parking spaces are provided at the front of the building and
eight spaces would be provided inside the building.The front
spaces would be available to customers and employees and the
parking within building would be used to park the rental cars.
See parking analysis in Table 3.
1
2
3 PROJECT REVIEW
4
5 The Project was referred to other city departments for review and comments. Comments and
6 recommended conditions of approval were received from the Fire Department, Building
7 Department, and Department of Public Works which have been included as conditions of
8 approval (see attachment 2). The Police Department and Electric Department provided no
9 comments on the Project.
10
11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
12
13 The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
14 (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3, conversion of small structures and Section 15301
15 Class 1, Existing Facilities based on the following:
16
17 • The total building square footage is 4,650 square feet.
18 • The project does not involve the use of hazardous materials.
19 • The location is not environmentally sensitive and with no drainage courses or bodies of
20 water (such as creeks or streams).
21 • The site is developed with an existing building and parking lot, utilities and services
22 already are available at the site and no expansion of the existing building footprint is
23 proposed as part of the project.
24
25
Hertz Rental Office
724 South State Street
APN 003-031-19
File No.13-20-UP-PC
7
1 PUBLIC NOTICE
2
3 A notice of public hearing was provided in the following manner:
4
5 ■ posted in three places on the project site on October 11, 2013 ;
6 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on October 11, 2013; and
7 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on October 13, 2013.
8
9 As of the writing of this staff report, no correspondence has been received in response to the
10 notice.
11
12 DECISION TIMELINE
13
14 The proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). The
15 PSA requires that a decision be made on the project within 60 days of the application being
16 deemed complete. This application was submitted to the Community Development and
17 Planning Department on August 23, 2013 and was deemed complete on September 22, 2013.
18 As such, a decision must be made on the project no later than November 21, 2013. The
19 applicant may request a onetime extension of the decision timeline. The next regularly
20 scheduled Planning Commission meeting is November 13, 2013.
21
22
23 ATTACHMENTS
24
25 1. Draft finding for Use Permit
26 2. Draft Use Permit Conditions of Approval
27 3. Project Description submitted by applicant date stamped October 10,2013
28 4. Plans submitted by applicant date stamped April 12, 2011
29
30
31
32
Hertz Rental Office
724 South State Street
APN 003-031-19
File No.13-20-UP-PC
S
1 ATTACHMENT 1
2
3
4 DRAFT USE PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW A
5 HERTZ CAR RENTAL FACILITY
6 TO OPERATE AT
7 724 SOUTH STATE STREET, APN 003-031-19
8 FILE NO: 13-20-UP-PC
9
10 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report,
11 the application materials and documentation, and the public record.
12
13 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the
14 General Plan as described in the staff report and Table 1.
15
16 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as
17 described in Table 2 of the staff report.
18
19 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Airport Compatibility
20 requirements for the C zone based on the following:
21
22 A. The proposed project would be a rental car facility. Intensive retail uses are normally
23 acceptable uses in the C zone. The proposed project would be similar to a low
24 intensity retail use and therefore the project would be allowed in the compatibility
25 zone C.
26 B. Compatibility Zone C allows 150 people per acre for non-residential uses, therefore
27 given that the site is .22 of an acre the maximum density cannot exceed 33 people
28 (.22 acre site X 150 people/acre). The applicant has indicated that the proposed
29 rental car facility would have approximately 3 employees on a daily basis and it is not
30 anticipated there would be more than 4 customers in the store at any one time
31 C. The size of the parcel is 9,438 square feet (.22 acre). The footprint of the building is
32 4,650 square feet which leaves 51 % of open land for this parcel exceeding the 15 %
33 minimum recommended for the C zone. Based on a field survey it is staff's opinion
34 that the proposed project is similar to other existing development in the C zone.
35
36 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to public health, safety and
37 general welfare based on the following:
38
39 A. The site was previously used for retail uses therefore based on the fact that the
40 previous retail use operated at this site without issues and that the proposed retail
41 car facility is similar in intensity to retail the proposed project would not be
42 detrimental.
43 B. There is typically no noise related to this type of business.
44 C. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, Police Department, Building
45 Official, and Public Works and any review comments from these departments have
46 been included as conditions of approval.
47 D. The project is required to comply with all federal, state and local laws.
48 E. The project is consistent with the Airport Master Plan C compatibility zone
49 requirements as noted in Table 2.
1 F. There is adequate parking on the site for the proposed project. Five parking spaces
2 are provided at the front of the building and eight spaces would be provided inside
3 the building. The front spaces would be available to customers and employees and
4 the parking within building would be used to park the rental cars. See parking
5 analysis in Table 3.
6
7 5. The project approved with conditions is compatible with surrounding uses based on
8 the following:
9
10 A. The project site is located within an existing commercial area and is surrounded
11 mainly by commercial uses.
12 B. The parcel immediately adjacent to the west of the project site is developed with
13 a multifamily residential unit; however, the living units are not located directly
14 behind the project site. There is at least 49 feet between the structure on the
15 project site and the nearest residential unit. Furthermore there is a detached
16 carport structure with no opening on the rear elevation between the project site
17 and the residential units. This would create a barrier for the residential uses.
18 C. The proposed project would occupy a building which was previously used for
19 retail sales. The proposed use is anticipated to be less intensive then the past
20 retail sales at this location based on the fact that typically car rental facilities
21 function more like a professional office in terms of number of customers and the
22 fact that the majority of customers arrive by appointment.
23 D. The hours of operation would be consistent with retail business and professional
24 offices in the area which normally operate 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 P.M.
25 E. The proposed project would provide 13 parking spaces which given the operating
26 characteristics of a rental car facility would be adequate.
27 F. The proposed project would be similar in intensity to a light retail business and
28 /or a professional office. This is based on the fact that customer arrival would be
29 staggered throughout the day and are typically set by appointment. Given the
3o function of a Hertz the average number of customers on the site at one time is
31 three and typically there are only two employees on a shift at a time.
32
33 6. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
34 Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3, conversion of small structures
35 and Section 15301 Class 1, Existing Facilities based on the following:
36
37 A. The total building square footage is 4,650 square feet.
38 B. The project does not involve the use of hazardous materials.
39 C. The location is not environmentally sensitive and with no drainage courses or
4o bodies of water (such as creeks or streams).
41 D. The site is developed with an existing building and parking lot, utilities and
42 services already are available at the site and no expansion of the existing
43 building footprint is proposed as part of the project.
44
45 7. Notice of the proposed project was provided in the following manner as required by the
46 Zoning Ordinance:
47
48 A. posted in three places on the project site on October 11, 2013 ;
49 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on October 11, 2013;
50 and
51 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on October 13, 2013
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1 ATTACHMENT 2
2
3
4 DRAFT USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW A
5 HERTZ CAR RENTAL FACILITY
6 TO OPERATE AT
7 724 SOUTH STATE STREET, APN 003-031-19
8 FILE NO: 13-20-UP-PC
9
10
11 1. Approval is granted for operation of Hertz Car Rental Facility at 724 South State Street,
12 APN 003-031-19 as described in the project descriptions dated October 10,2013 and
13 shown on the plans submitted to the Community Development and Planning
14 Department, date stamped August 15, 2013, except as modified by the following
15 conditions of approval.
16
17 2. The use permit is granted subject to the following operating characteristics:
18 A. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
19 through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturday and closed on Sunday.
20 B. The business shall have five employees with three per shift.
21 C. No rental of large equipment or trucks.
22 D. No auto repair shall be performed at this site.
23
24 3. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff
25 review and approval:
26
27 A. The location of the bike parking shall be shown on the site plan and a detail that
28 shows the type of bike rack shall be included. Inverted "U " style rack is
29 preferred.
30 B. Location of employee parking.
31 C. The area located in the front of the building directly in front of the access way to
32 the interior parking shall be marked with No Parking.
33 D. Location of new street tree.
34
35 4. The bike rack required by condition 3A shall be installed prior to occupancy and is
36 subject to staff approval.
37
38 5. Prior to installation of any signs, application for and approval of a sign permit from the
39 Planning and Community Development Department is required.
40
41 6. On plans submitted for building permit these conditions of approval shall be included as
42 notes on the first sheet.
43 From the Buildinq Official (David Willouqhbv)
44
45 7. A building permit is required with plans designed by a California licensed architect or
46 engineer.
47
1 From the Fire Department (Kevin Jenninqs)
2
3
4 8. Two Class 2-A fire extinguishers shall be provided, and shall not be obstructed or
5 obscured from view. Location shall be determined by the Fire Prevention Officer prior to
6 installation.
7
8 9. Exit signs shall be provided.
9
10 10. Exit signs shall be internally or externally illuminated at all times. Signs shall be
11 connected to an emergency power system that provides illumination for not less than 90
12 minutes in case of primary power loss.
13
14 11. Egress doors shall be readily openable from the egress side without the use of a key or
15 special knowledge or effect. Exception: The main exterior door or doors are permitted
16 to be equipped with key-operated locking devices from the egress side provided a sign is
17 posted on the egress side stating "This door to remain unlocked when building is
18 occupied ".
19
20 From the Department of Public Works ( Ben Kageyama)
21
22 12. A street tree with grate shall be added to the southeast corner of the property, subject to
23 staff review and approval.
24
25 13. If the building permit value of work exceeds $110,519 or the proposed improvements
26 create the net addition of two or more plumbing fixture units to the building, the existing
27 sanitary sewer lateral shall be tested in accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No.
28 1105, and repaired or replaced if required.
29
30 14. If a drain is installed for interior car washing, the drain shall include an oil water
31 separator and the car wash operation shall be fully contained. No wash water shall flow
32 into the street and no rainwater shall enter into the car wash drain. Sewer connection
33 fees would apply to the new sewer drain connection. At time of building permit a written
34 description shall be submitted that provides information on the frequency of car washing,
35 details of the location and the installation of the drain and oil water separator and detail
36 plan for maintaining the oil water separator and disposal of any solid waste.
37
38 15. If additional plumbing fixtures are proposed, City of Ukiah sewer connection fees shall
39 apply, and shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
40
41 16. If the building permit value is equal to or greater than one-third of the value of the
42 existing structure, the construction, repair or upgrade of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, along
43 the subject property frontages, may be required, pursuant to Section 9181 of the Ukiah
44 City Code.
45
46 Standard City Conditions of Approval
47
48 17. This approval is not effective until the 10 day appeal period applicable to this Use Permit
49 has expired without the filing of a timely appeal. If a timely appeal is filed, the project is
50 subject to the outcome of the appeal and shall be revised as necessary to comply with
51 any modifications, conditions, or requirements that were imposed as part of the appeal.
1
2 18. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
3 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have
4 been applied for and issued/finaled.
5
6 19. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
7 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
8
9 20. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
10 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or
11 Federal agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building,
12 electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect
13 at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued.
14
15 21. In addition to any other condition imposed, any construction shall comply with all
16 building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations and
17 ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued.
18
19 22. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit Amendment shall be provided to and be
20 binding upon any future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
21
22 23. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be
23 completed prior to commencement of services allowed by this use permit amenement.
24
25 24. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved
26 project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations
27 and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the
28 effective date of this approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted
29 has ceased or has been suspended for 24 consecutive months.
30
31 25. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and
32 their agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the
33 City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim,
34 action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the
35 purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application.
36 This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses,
37 attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
38 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this
39 application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part
40 of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be
41 void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the
42 agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
1
2
3
a�,�$���E`��Cl�' �`
�s=,� 1,���� ;x
,{� � ����
�����}���s,,
��������� ARCHITECTURAL CC?N�STRUCTION SERVICES, INC.
��������li'°��s��{ a�cr�i7�cr�K� i 's-r��a;���,�Nr���� I cc��sr�zucr�c�N�r��vn��M��r
October 10, 2013 �
City of Ukiah
Planning Department
Re: Project Description letter for 724 South State Street
APN#: 003-Q31-19
This letter is to request the use of an existing structure at 724 South State Street, Ukiah
California as a rental affice for Hertz Rent-a-Car.
The property is located within a Community Commercial District (C1) and is approximately
9,438 square feet with 4,650 square feet af one story building.
The site is surrounded by Residential on West and Commercial uses on North, South and
East sides and for several blocks.
The proposed use of the site is consistent with land use requirements of the City of Ukiah
and the neighborhood in general. Hertz will renovate and remodel the existing structure,
using the warehouse for parking and storage.
The new occupancy will provide a convenient rental car option for the City without
compromising zoning requirements or public safety. No modificatians are required to the
existing public right of way.
Operating hours for Hertz will be approximately from 8:00 arn to 6:00 pm Monday through
Friday and from 9:00 am to 12:OOpm on Saturday.
There will be 5 total (full time and part time) employees and 3 employees will be on site at
one time.
Hertz will have 10 rental cars at one time. C?ne af the employees will park in the garage and
the other two in the fcont parking lot.
Hertz anticipate having 10 to 15 customers each day.
Hertz will only rents cars at this location. No large equipment or large trucks.
No maintenance would be performed on site other than washing and general clearing of
ca rs.
Please contact our office at 714-436-9000 X 413 for any additianal information or
clarification.
Thank you, I
LC)���t'a6l.E5 i (122 Firistol Street(Costa Mesa,CA 926?6;�P:7l�#.�36.9000 I
,�TB.dbiN fd.&f 3tJC?Gc�Ilaria Farlcwc�y,S��ite 69Q C Atl�r�ia,t�A 30339'T:b7F3.27'�.2C)7Q
f�E�CI���I9"1'i Avenida lesus Del�M�nf�Nc�37€ Sac}vndo i�iso 8-03�CoI.Jesus k�el M�ante,f I�ixe�vii�cc�n(Mexico D.E CP 52Tfi�#;T:52(55)5246 0750
SITE SUMMARY KEYNOTES � �'
� -
SITE AREA 0 NEW PARKING STRIPPMG �
APN:�03-031-19 0 E%ISTING CURB TO REMNN E� � .
BUILDWG AREA 4,850.00'SQ.FT. 0, NEW ADA PARKMG 5TA11 , t� � �.Y�. �
OUTDOOR AREA 1,750.00'SQ.FT. � ExisTiNC carE io ciEUNN ��'`-�--...__ . � °` ' .
� EXiSTING TIRE 5TOPS TO REMhIN �� - ~ t .
_ 1
.. . � �.' __' . . . I � E o�n - .
PARKING REQUIRED --_ _ ( �.
�6 E%ISTING b'HT FENGE TO REMAIN
BUI�DING @ 1/500 9 STAILS � ur+E oF carvOPr neDVE � - ' - � �
7 -
�OUTDOOR @ 112000 1 STAILS . s�� ��SiiNG tftEE TO aeMaN � -��- � .
-_�__ w , � v . . a.
�°---._._l � . . �� .
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 10 STALLS '----_ �t � ° x�°-° �� r:„
PARKING PROVIDED 14 STALLS "'----�` '1 o x a�LL
"'--- -_____�_� � .
t
i` O O�
r � Q,z
+ �
r o �
� Qo
I � ���
� � .h ....� .. ...
EXISTING it * � >
UKIAH SAW SHOP � � N�w
BUILDING t � m
� y W �,
_---______ t
_._.____ -------_ J
_ �
� � ��__,_ � o �
____ � �
_.._.._"`__', �,..,-'.� t�i44'-3" �� : 3 �1
�`
i
—__.�.«r � � ..
��...�.� � ---___--______ . � �� , �
� _ � r�
________ _______--__--_—
�._______________ . �'� . .. . ____..__ �... . .. `�� '.� . ...
...� . l=1 .:�.
4 _�_ -r-sa .' � ;.
EXISTWG q j •o O �-i=1 � 'r� <
RESIDENTIAL � � o cnNOw,w�n � t < _ ���a �
BUILDWG �
----
^ '-�k �,/
� s �il R
' � �
; _`��
� �, � � � =o �
� ,
� , = � �� , � -
�, C tr���_,__� � _
� _ � , , �.
_ - :
. . � f �__-���__ � � . ..
��0�f � ` �
...._.__.__._. __ - F i � .. .. "+
0
o i f� J � O3 � . ro
* rf� rn CtRAGE OtFiCE AREA
�� �� o
/ ._._-_ ___ P `�
x i t
../ ���Q�������� �
ta9•_9° ' 6" ° 36'-2" 20'-0" :� 4'-0'� 18'-0':. � W
. _ ___ R �
� . o � .�3 . o ........
. � ' N
. '_'_"" _'__ � I� f � ' ^�� .� Q
o , i ! o
� o � i 1 m �
� a
I °_
----------- ----------- R`°�-- — — _
oa
�JF Y a.!- .............
(1 ¢ e a
C -
t93'-0" � r� � E N �
t N '
------ " t,�'-a• t� �IQ aQ a �
�
� ,
r '
r
r
� M
/ M
� �
t s J �
EXISTING � - � o �
BUIIDING W
EXISTING �� � ° � '
T-MOBILE � ~ r° ��
° mv
BUILDING t� " � � �°' �
a zs s�s io� is zo� ao� � z W�a(
�� V V � � Q `'W= o�U �'�.
I 2 °a�.ctn'c
.. t � SCALE:i"=10'-0 g a O Y N.�G
i a �<n���
� w
i h W
0
----------�----�-------------��-----------�----------------------�--...------�-------��-----..----------t� N $ � .
°z
. . � �HERTZ APPROVAL SIGNANRE a �
! - m
! ___ -
. SIGNATURE DATE - �
PftMTNAME � ��� "`
Nf--— s��.r v �
SITE PIAN A 1 .1
� ns = •�° �
��.n _ .,. . ve� a:.,_n a ,.._ .. � ._ � '�.
�wv......m,..�..�..r..�...:«......+..�m..»r.�.�: ,- .3 . . �.. o
.a ,.. �i� .�.,:� [ o s a _ .
d LL
� I�� �
� 4�� u_ � .
� � � � �:� �� � �r���
��
����
�a .�. � .�� E ���_;, �...; � �; �
� �«, „
�: � ,,�rE, .. ° . �-J
,: �� .
� ���� �. ��'' F���, ������ � �.��, t�.� � ��� �, �
. - .��;� �.:'- , C)
� ,� � �° ,
� � � �
t= ,, t��:, ;` �
� a' ,� � y
. . .. ... . .... . � ... .. .. . ....� �'.. ...
4+
... .. . � w . ....
� .. . . � �... � �, :
EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION(� PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION� �'
� NTS t NiS � ����
�
� ;���PftOPOSED NE44 SIGN
�EY.ISTING METAL RDOF �-E%4Si�NG CORRUGATED META� } 77'_g^-- EXISTING AVINING �:��� } �7'�g" ;�c..._... 72'0"_ _ ,�_ ,..E%ISTING�STOREFROI.`T ;-EXf$TING.CORRUGATEO METAC ��������
TYP. � . � � �P.
t i5' 6" ... t �i 15' Q" .�:��
t` f ! �
'` { . � ;.. t � t 12'-10", .......
... ...... . , . . . ,....EXISYING�GAiE . . .......
+_. �\ �,.� �� �, � 1 �� P . ..
� i 4 � � Ir j t �
i � 6 t,� ' (� r � I
=�r �,
; ' 'it �
; � ; �
� -
c
LEFTE�EVATION/� FRONTELEVATION(� ° ti
� r�8°_.r_p� at. :�/g"_��'-o' J '
z�
. A _ ...........
E G
d`�:
. . . ... � ���a �-
�
m
m
} 77' �^ - ,�-ExiSTI(vG METAL ROOf ;--EXISTING CORRUGATED MEl�AL t i7' 6' ;-EXISTING METAL ROOF ;-EXISTING COftRUGATEU MEtAL M�
. � t 15' �° _ `t 15,_0" �� J '' �' ..
L ` � �
' ,- �.._. �—- _._ . _._ .� Z O i
, � , � ,� .O o �
p l �.:. � � I ;( i � I I Z N .m�
,�I� � �: �.( � � i �'� � � i s�
t � � i � r I ( 'I � ' W°W ��
, � '�1 , = � �., �����
���'�N� , i � j �: 9 I � ( � .O•roNy
� � .; ( � � i ' j � � �, �2v�i�r.�
_ I- I u_
° w
s �
o z
RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION� � "<
.. . ... .. ... . .. . .. . . . ... . .. ..... . . . . . . .. ./$ _ 1' o' � t/8°_ �' 0' J. � :; >. .
a3.o
_ }�
- ;n
o �S a u, ta.�- . .
fl �i
�
��a
� ���
��a
� � n
��m
��N
�
�EXISTRJG GATE TO REMAM —EXISTING GATE i0 REMAIN �. =i �
,�""�� o ��
..��P "� 50-9" _ � ��
� J
��—
w �
__ __ _. .___""_"'_ ...._ — '_ ""'__ _"_'_'"" ' � ,
_' ' �..
i � .,
E � .4�.rc � .z. ........
� �
� � �¢
u . �
F
� ( � .;�..., _. ......
� E NEW
( i _ _ �
� { � OFFICE
! / I
� I
I � �
� � NEW
i �
� � STORA
I i
� ...... . � � .
� _
I �
I �
� � ' .. ......... (
I � i �I
I
� � NEW I
� EXISTWG . � EXISTING BREAK
I CANOPY I CANOPY ROOM i '
I I
� I I �
( LINE OF � LINE Of �
� j�CpNOPY ABQVEi � CANOPY ABOVE� . m
� ' � NEW C a
I ( j STORAGE - � ... . .
I I
i - I (
� EXISTING � NEW �
� OPEN � PARKING I °i '
� SPACE� � nEw 8'-0"x �2'-0"Ra��ua 000e GARAGE � �o p ,
��
� � � � ..............
� � E c�i
I I I
� �E � � Qa 4�
I �E I I
� RO � RESTi
I �
� � ROOM
I �
�-
I I
I I �
� � � m
I I
I � ( �
� � � � `- N
' I I o N
0
7 1 Z Z ��
I � � m m�1
I � ( a N ��
� I i � p mZJ�f,�� .
�----------- �— - ------ O �W o '
J ¢.K.-C�/J L
. . L� a O Y N;N .
1L
�C7�1��
°w
$ z
a
i; m
. ti
sreer�;,n,her.�
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN� PRQPOSED FLOOR PtAN� A�.O
i/8`= t'-o° G � �/$"_ �'-�" ( .
_rztn:, .a .a .,�� _ _ � e_ ... s. n,.k � � . . . ....
SITE SUMMARY KEYNOTES � �'
� -
SITE AREA 0 NEW PARKING STRIPPMG �
APN:�03-031-19 0 E%ISTING CURB TO REMNN E� � .
BUILDWG AREA 4,850.00'SQ.FT. 0, NEW ADA PARKMG 5TA11 , t� � �.Y�. �
OUTDOOR AREA 1,750.00'SQ.FT. � ExisTiNC carE io ciEUNN ��'`-�--...__ . � °` ' .
� EXiSTING TIRE 5TOPS TO REMhIN �� - ~ t .
_ 1
.. . � �.' __' . . . I � E o�n - .
PARKING REQUIRED --_ _ ( �.
�6 E%ISTING b'HT FENGE TO REMAIN
BUI�DING @ 1/500 9 STAILS � ur+E oF carvOPr neDVE � - ' - � �
7 -
�OUTDOOR @ 112000 1 STAILS . s�� ��SiiNG tftEE TO aeMaN � -��- � .
-_�__ w , � v . . a.
�°---._._l � . . �� .
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 10 STALLS '----_ �t � ° x�°-° �� r:„
PARKING PROVIDED 14 STALLS "'----�` '1 o x a�LL
"'--- -_____�_� � .
t
i` O O�
r � Q,z
+ �
r o �
� Qo
I � ���
� � .h ....� .. ...
EXISTING it * � >
UKIAH SAW SHOP � � N�w
BUILDING t � m
� y W �,
_---______ t
_._.____ -------_ J
_ �
� � ��__,_ � o �
____ � �
_.._.._"`__', �,..,-'.� t�i44'-3" �� : 3 �1
�`
i
—__.�.«r � � ..
��...�.� � ---___--______ . � �� , �
� _ � r�
________ _______--__--_—
�._______________ . �'� . .. . ____..__ �... . .. `�� '.� . ...
...� . l=1 .:�.
4 _�_ -r-sa .' � ;.
EXISTWG q j •o O �-i=1 � 'r� <
RESIDENTIAL � � o cnNOw,w�n � t < _ ���a �
BUILDWG �
----
^ '-�k �,/
� s �il R
' � �
; _`��
� �, � � � =o �
� ,
� , = � �� , � -
�, C tr���_,__� � _
� _ � , , �.
_ - :
. . � f �__-���__ � � . ..
��0�f � ` �
...._.__.__._. __ - F i � .. .. "+
0
o i f� J � O3 � . ro
* rf� rn CtRAGE OtFiCE AREA
�� �� o
/ ._._-_ ___ P `�
x i t
../ ���Q�������� �
ta9•_9° ' 6" ° 36'-2" 20'-0" :� 4'-0'� 18'-0':. � W
. _ ___ R �
� . o � .�3 . o ........
. � ' N
. '_'_"" _'__ � I� f � ' ^�� .� Q
o , i ! o
� o � i 1 m �
� a
I °_
----------- ----------- R`°�-- — — _
oa
�JF Y a.!- .............
(1 ¢ e a
C -
t93'-0" � r� � E N �
t N '
------ " t,�'-a• t� �IQ aQ a �
�
� ,
r '
r
r
� M
/ M
� �
t s J �
EXISTING � - � o �
BUIIDING W
EXISTING �� � ° � '
T-MOBILE � ~ r° ��
° mv
BUILDING t� " � � �°' �
a zs s�s io� is zo� ao� � z W�a(
�� V V � � Q `'W= o�U �'�.
I 2 °a�.ctn'c
.. t � SCALE:i"=10'-0 g a O Y N.�G
i a �<n���
� w
i h W
0
----------�----�-------------��-----------�----------------------�--...------�-------��-----..----------t� N $ � .
°z
. . � �HERTZ APPROVAL SIGNANRE a �
! - m
! ___ -
. SIGNATURE DATE - �
PftMTNAME � ��� "`
Nf--— s��.r v �
SITE PIAN A 1 .1
� ns = •�° �
��.n _ .,. . ve� a:.,_n a ,.._ .. � ._ � '�.
�wv......m,..�..�..r..�...:«......+..�m..»r.�.�: ,- .3 . . �.. o
.a ,.. �i� .�.,:� [ o s a _ .
d LL
� I�� �
� 4�� u_ � .
� � � � �:� �� � �r���
��
����
�a .�. � .�� E ���_;, �...; � �; �
� �«, „
�: � ,,�rE, .. ° . �-J
,: �� .
� ���� �. ��'' F���, ������ � �.��, t�.� � ��� �, �
. - .��;� �.:'- , C)
� ,� � �° ,
� � � �
t= ,, t��:, ;` �
� a' ,� � y
. . .. ... . .... . � ... .. .. . ....� �'.. ...
4+
... .. . � w . ....
� .. . . � �... � �, :
EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION(� PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION� �'
� NTS t NiS � ����
�
� ;���PftOPOSED NE44 SIGN
�EY.ISTING METAL RDOF �-E%4Si�NG CORRUGATED META� } 77'_g^-- EXISTING AVINING �:��� } �7'�g" ;�c..._... 72'0"_ _ ,�_ ,..E%ISTING�STOREFROI.`T ;-EXf$TING.CORRUGATEO METAC ��������
TYP. � . � � �P.
t i5' 6" ... t �i 15' Q" .�:��
t` f ! �
'` { . � ;.. t � t 12'-10", .......
... ...... . , . . . ,....EXISYING�GAiE . . .......
+_. �\ �,.� �� �, � 1 �� P . ..
� i 4 � � Ir j t �
i � 6 t,� ' (� r � I
=�r �,
; ' 'it �
; � ; �
� -
c
LEFTE�EVATION/� FRONTELEVATION(� ° ti
� r�8°_.r_p� at. :�/g"_��'-o' J '
z�
. A _ ...........
E G
d`�:
. . . ... � ���a �-
�
m
m
} 77' �^ - ,�-ExiSTI(vG METAL ROOf ;--EXISTING CORRUGATED MEl�AL t i7' 6' ;-EXISTING METAL ROOF ;-EXISTING COftRUGATEU MEtAL M�
. � t 15' �° _ `t 15,_0" �� J '' �' ..
L ` � �
' ,- �.._. �—- _._ . _._ .� Z O i
, � , � ,� .O o �
p l �.:. � � I ;( i � I I Z N .m�
,�I� � �: �.( � � i �'� � � i s�
t � � i � r I ( 'I � ' W°W ��
, � '�1 , = � �., �����
���'�N� , i � j �: 9 I � ( � .O•roNy
� � .; ( � � i ' j � � �, �2v�i�r.�
_ I- I u_
° w
s �
o z
RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION� � "<
.. . ... .. ... . .. . .. . . . ... . .. ..... . . . . . . .. ./$ _ 1' o' � t/8°_ �' 0' J. � :; >. .
a3.o
_ }�
- ;n
o �S a u, ta.�- . .
fl �i
�
��a
� ���
��a
� � n
��m
��N
�
�EXISTRJG GATE TO REMAM —EXISTING GATE i0 REMAIN �. =i �
,�""�� o ��
..��P "� 50-9" _ � ��
� J
��—
w �
__ __ _. .___""_"'_ ...._ — '_ ""'__ _"_'_'"" ' � ,
_' ' �..
i � .,
E � .4�.rc � .z. ........
� �
� � �¢
u . �
F
� ( � .;�..., _. ......
� E NEW
( i _ _ �
� { � OFFICE
! / I
� I
I � �
� � NEW
i �
� � STORA
I i
� ...... . � � .
� _
I �
I �
� � ' .. ......... (
I � i �I
I
� � NEW I
� EXISTWG . � EXISTING BREAK
I CANOPY I CANOPY ROOM i '
I I
� I I �
( LINE OF � LINE Of �
� j�CpNOPY ABQVEi � CANOPY ABOVE� . m
� ' � NEW C a
I ( j STORAGE - � ... . .
I I
i - I (
� EXISTING � NEW �
� OPEN � PARKING I °i '
� SPACE� � nEw 8'-0"x �2'-0"Ra��ua 000e GARAGE � �o p ,
��
� � � � ..............
� � E c�i
I I I
� �E � � Qa 4�
I �E I I
� RO � RESTi
I �
� � ROOM
I �
�-
I I
I I �
� � � m
I I
I � ( �
� � � � `- N
' I I o N
0
7 1 Z Z ��
I � � m m�1
I � ( a N ��
� I i � p mZJ�f,�� .
�----------- �— - ------ O �W o '
J ¢.K.-C�/J L
. . L� a O Y N;N .
1L
�C7�1��
°w
$ z
a
i; m
. ti
sreer�;,n,her.�
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN� PRQPOSED FLOOR PtAN� A�.O
i/8`= t'-o° G � �/$"_ �'-�" ( .
_rztn:, .a .a .,�� _ _ � e_ ... s. n,.k � � . . . ....
N H
w V
V w
— H
> -
oc =
w �
N �
Q
Z
O � �� Z
V U �
� Q
oe Z
H Q
� ` y F
— Z
� O I
v E o �n d �
— y� � V N N
' J w 0 0 .� ` �o
i ■ a O V O O w N
GC � O� O� �` +� O�
= 0 '� . . � N Q
H
� `n �O �O � � V
c� " m m ,., A
W ro N
J � � �
H � . . c, '- �
_ 0 . � � p m `L
_ ___ _ - 3 � � G- �
��� ��� �� � Q 3 n n o N o
i
— r a o 3 a � c� � c�
I __ �R� — ������.
� � � � 2-'•��1 ti . � -
I I ��' O O
� � � � �
I � Z
Ii I ��� O W
I (�
� _ , t�`' �L-- � ^ 0
I..L �
_ _ � �
Oa
�
U �
>
NJ
m
� m
W �
2 N
EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION w
NTS � NTS � _
� ~
O
Ww
W =
❑� J CO p ~W
wZ�n¢ J �wOO=J�Z
>��_ � W v� ��J�O
�UW❑ ��H W w O�=U�
�Z p� �Z U
�wL�W Q=Ow��O~� Q�
dQ Q�w�O=UZaOwa'M
cn�>O 2 a��Z a~a w w o
��Q m>F p m O��O U>�N
JZ��wa'W�'d'��JU�=U
Q-Z=d Q����w Q W J�Z
oQ(�~�av���Q�UJZ"(�
=o��w a O�o<n�a?p�Ow¢
�?w�Z=�c�o�ao� wv�
_
m m�W z��O a�a�Z�a�
aaui�ax��o�a=3inw>
�wQa�c�av��oc�¢zc�a
�����a�o��aao�a�
— PROPOSED NEW SIGN
— EXISTING METAL ROOF — EXISTING CORRUGATED METAL f �7'-6" EXISTING AWNING —. f �7'-6" �2 —� — EXISTING STOREFRONT — EXISTING CORRUGATED METAL
TYP. TYP.
f 15'-0" — t 15'-0" —
t 12'-10" — �
�
— EXISTING GATE `�
� i
-
00 00 �
�
M
� W
N Q
LEFT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION ° �
1/8" = 1'-0" T 1/8" = 1'-0" �
�
�
��' z
0 0
� �
� �
� �
E U
-� �
� o
aaaaaaa �
M
�
�
�
f 17'-6" — — EXISTING METAL ROOF — EXISTING CORRUGATED METAL f �7'-6" — EXISTING METAL ROOF — EXISTING CORRUGATED METAL �
f 15'-0" — f 15'-0" ^ � �
� �
z J �
� z O �
� � � �
Q W Z N pNp
�jU N � �
Z � �
w � � Z J � Q
� � � w = oU
� wa � � � �
� UO
W � °' � � N �
XQ � (n � l` �
w � �
�. o
� o
o �
0 0
� Z
RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION N Q
,,8�� _ ,�-o�� 6 ,�8�� _ ,�-o�� 5 � }
z � m
� U � m �
Z
~ � � � � U
� O Q O Q W
� � � � 0 U
Sheet Number:
A3 . 0
\\crosrv1\currentproj\Hertz\N00011_Ukiah, CA\07 Design\N00011_A3-O.dwg- Oct 22, 2013-2:16pm -ACS
SITE SUMMARY KEYNOTES � � � °
SITE AREA 0 NEW PARKING STRIPPING
� > -
1 °`
w �
I N Q
APN: 003-031-19 0 EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN � o �
~ ? �
TOTAL BUILDING AREA 4,650.00 'SQ.FT. 03 NEW ADA PARKING STALL � � �
I = _
OFFICE AREA 1,485.00 'SQ.FT. 04 EXISTING GATE TO REMAIN - - - - _ _ � � Q
' EXISTING TIRE STOPS TO REMAIN ' — Z F
OUTDOOR AREA 1,750.00 SQ.FT. — — _ �
05 _ o ,
— � � v E o �n d .o
06 EXISTING 6'-0" HT FENCE TO REMAIN - - - - _ � J " ° ° �' � � N
w ._ ` ,�
� � � � I Q � � O O � N
PARKING GARAGE AREA 3,150.00 'SQ.FT. 07 LINE OF CANOPY ABOVE — — — — _ _ °` ° �- °' °' `� �
- - _ � � ° - a
H � � � � y o V
PARKING REQUIRED Og LINE OF SIDEWALK — — — — — _ _ � " V "' " '" "" N
W ro
� J � � � � •y N
BUILDING AREA @ 1/500 9 STALLS 09 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN - - - - _ _ _ _ _ � � _ 3 ^ ^ °- N �
� Q � ^ o
OUTDOOR AREA @ 1/2000 1 STALLS �
a o 3 a � c� r. c�
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 10 STALLS �
I z
PARKING PROVIDED 14 STALLS � o Q O
>-
r
I � �
I � Q �
1 � � z
� w
I o � o
I � � �
I � � �
� � Q
EXISTING I � o
BUILDING � I�I w
1 � �
I 0°
W �
— _ — — — _ — — — _ — � � � � � � N
� � — � — — I w
t 144'-3" � �, _
� - - _ _ --0 I � �
- - - � o
Ww
� W =
❑� J CO p ~W
wZ�n¢ J �wOO=J�Z
>��_ � W v� ��J�O
I W U W❑ = H W Z O�=U�
N �Z ��O(n w fn Z U
r — — — — — — — — — — — �— — — — — — — — — — — —� — �— — — — — — — — — �
- - - - - - - - - - � w�wa=pu'��o~� wo�
I – �aaa'�woo=UZa�w�M
I ^ I �cn�>O 2 a��w a z a w w o
���� �U' a W a'F�W a'd'H��LL(nLLJ N
I - ° 7 I � az�WaQO�O�wQWJ=Z
�� �a �o °�Q�u�izov�
� � � � _-� � ���w�z w O��a>p�U w¢
+� I O CANOPY AREA I �w�,Z=~�omao~�,wZ=
m m�W z��O a�a�Z�a�
� a¢ui�ax��o�az3inw>
�wQa�c�av��oc�¢zc�a
O Oxwww�w`!�O–z��0U0
z���cc¢ccocn�¢¢oU¢U
�
' � 10a:
��
12'-6" 25'- '
� �
�i �
; _ 11 �
� __ ... � �
�
i -
;�, - � ..
� �✓ $ �a
� _ �i O O ,_� �
� � OFFICE AREA � � ° i �v
f 1,488 SQFT 12 0� � �
�
�
° ��� o �
I 0 ;' I � I �
��-I O� O O � Z O
� � I
� PARKING GARAGE - z Q �
_ f 3,165 SQFT � ' � �
- O� O � 13 , - i m
6, I � o �
f49'-6» _ » 24'-0" 19'-0" °O 30'-6" 4'-0"� 19'-p» r � �
� M
– � � w
N Q
� �
O O
I
O 6, O � 14 o t 12'- "
� �
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �
�
��' z
0 0
�- > „ __� � �
f93 -3 � -E �
- � w
o � � o
�
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N f134�_8�� � aaaaaaa �
I
I
1
I
1
I M
I �
� ,
I � �
I = �
I
1 � � �
EXISTING �
I o o �
BUILDING j �� z � �
� z m �
EXISTING I � � �! � �
B U I L D I N G � 0' 2.5' 5' 7.5' 10' 15' 20' 30' W � z J � U
� I�I I�I `� � =� w = o �
(� QO � (� �
� � (B � (6
� SCALE: 1"=10'-0" �o � 1 N `1
I � (n � l` �
I
I
�
0 0
I �
� w
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � g o
� Z
I m �
� HERTZ APPROVAL SIGNATURE N Q
I /� , z � �
I V m
� � U � m o
I SIGNATURE DATE ~ � J � Y
z
� U
� � � U � � 2
� PRINT NAME � � � � � v
� Sheet Number:
' A1 . 1
SITE PLAN ,�
� 1/16" = 1'-0"
\\crosrv1\currentproj\Hertz\N00011_Ukiah, CA\08 Construction Drawings\N00011_A1-1.dwg- Oct 22, 2013- 11:18am -ACS
1 ITEM 9B
Community Development and Planning Department
L�ity of Zlkah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq c(�.cityofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: October 23, 2013
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM: Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Request for review and comment on a Pre-Application Review to amend the
10 Myszka Place Planned Development Map
11 Myszka Place, Lot 2, APN 002-201-08
12 File No. 13-23-Prelim-PC
13
14 REQUEST
15
16 Staff has received a pre-application submittal request to amend the Planned Development map
17 for Myszka Place, Lot 2, APN 002-201-08. Staff therefore requests that Planning Commission
18 review and comment on this preliminary submittal.
19
20 BACKGROUND
21
22 In 1991 the Myszka Place subdivision, located on the corner of Myszka Place and Highland
23 Avenue was approved subject to specific Conditions of Approval and a Development Map (see
24 attachment 2). The map defined the building envelop for each lot and also indicated which trees
25 were required to remain.
26
27 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
28
29 The applicant, Mrs. Karen Keehn is currently in the process of purchasing Lot 2 and plans to
30 construct a new single family dwelling. Mrs. Keehn has tried to design the proposed residence
31 within the approved building envelope however two of the existing trees have presented a
32 challenge as noted in her submitted request letter(see attachment 1).
33
34 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
35
36 General Plan
37 The project site is designated Low Density Residential.
38
39 Zoninq Ordinance — Uses
40 The project site is Planned Development and as noted above is part of the Myszka Place
41 Planned Development. Single Family Residential uses are an allowed use.
42
43
Myszka Place/Lot 2
APN 001-201-08
Planning Commission Preliminary Review
File No.13-23-PRE-PC
1
1 Proiect Approvals
2
3 An amendment to the approved Planned Development map which would allow the removal of
4 the two trees would require Planning Commission approval.
5
6 Attachments:
7
8 1. Letter of request dated October 10, 2013
9 2. Approved Development plan dated October 1990
10 3. Proposed Plans
11
12
13
Myszka Place/Lot 2
APN 001-201-08
Planning Commission Preliminary Review
File No.13-23-PRE-PC
2
� ,� � . .._ � .
Y
�ECEIVED
October 12, 2013
� � DCT X p 2Q13
PLANNING C0IVIMISSION
City of Ukiah . �p� ��
' ltllfil�NG DF.1�
To Whom It May Concern :
My husband, Richard, and I would like to build a new home in Ukiah on the remaining vacant lot (#2) at
1210 Myszka Place . This property has changed owners several times since the development's final
approval in 1993 and is again for sale . It is the only lot that remains having no home . Since we opened
escrow a few weeks ago, we became aware of probiems posed by a few trees on the property. As yo�
can understand, we do not want to buy the property unless we are assured we can build which would
, require the removal of a couple of problem trees. Because these trees have more than doubled in size
during the last 20 years, they are now on or within the approved building envelope. We understand it is
the policy of the ciry to infill approved sites and believe we can work together to resolve any difficulty.
For me personally, building there means returning to my childhood neighborhood ( 1020 W. Perkins).
Wanda Myszka Mannon and I have been friends since early childhood and were little girls when her
father planted the above mentioned grove of trees. Although the trees are not indigenous or " heritage
trees", we the share neighborhood's appreciation of them and respect the ciry's desire to protect them
according to the development's guidelines and the General Plan .
To that end, I have drawn approximately 20 plans trying to fit the house footprint within the perimeters
drawn on the approved map, aligning the garage with the existing driveway and saving all trees in the
grove. No matter which plan, there remain two trees that would be against the garage wall, their roots
invading the foundation and their canopy's extending far over the building, posing a real fire danger. We
propose removing these trees (as marked ) and mitigating their removal by planting other trees (26"
boxes) farther west in the grove opening to include various dogwood, Chinese pistachios and Japanese
maples. The home is positioned to "face" the grove which is the focal point adding beaury, privacy and
shade. The remaining landscaping will feature draught tolerant plants.
In addition to meeting or exceeding a11 city codes, our home is designed for one level with the exception I
of a third bedroom/bath above the garage for a caregiver, guest or studio. The level portion will
accommodate anyone who is disabled including 3' doorways and bathrooms designed for wheel chairs.
My husband has advanced Parkinson's, dementia and is disabled . Bui�ding here will iocate us within
walking distance of town and closer to services and facilities. We also have two daughters who live
nearby, one on Clay and another on Oak Park Ave.
f2ichard will be having major spine surgery October 15 at the San Francisco VA; his recovery process is
unknown . Therefore we have asked our agent, Kerri Vau and one of our daughters, Julia Fetherston to
represent us at your hearing . Julia has a Masters degree from Cal in Environmental Biology/California
Oak Woodlands and ran the Master Gardener's program in Ukiah while working for U .C. Extension
Service; she should be able to address any questions you might have.
Respectfully,
%��Z��:�` � ��--
�/ �
K ren Schilder Keehn
7Caren 8� Richard�Keekn*P.O. Bax 7001 Boonvil�e Roac� `Ukia�i, CA. g5482 * 707 463 3460 * (zs�eehn@�ma.i�coni
Myszka Place Lot 2
General Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures
Pro�ided at places at 10/23/2013 meeting.
Goal OC-24:Replace aging trees with new trees.
Policy OC-24.1: Develop a program to ensure continued healthy tree propagation.
Implementation Implement the program to replace aging trees giving preference to native species.
Measure OC-
24.1(a):
Goal OC-25:Maintain and enhance the City's canopy of shade trees.
Policy OC-25.1: Protect existing healthy mature trees to maintain shade and area attractiveness.
Implementation During the short-term planning period, utilize the Land Development Code or enact an ordinance
Measure OC- identifying important shade tree areas and providing for their long-term management and
25.1(a): health.
Implementation Establish a requirement for public notice and hearing when trees are to be removed from
Measure OC- undeveloped public, private,and redeveloped property—except for recreational purposes or in
25.1(b): relation to agriculture—as part of the design review program.
Goal OC-29:Maintain and enhance the"urban forests"which create a sense of urban space.
Policy OC-29.1: The development review process shall incorporate measures to maintain and enhance the urban
tree canopy.
Implementation The Land Development Code shall incorporate measures to maintain and enhance the urban tree
Measure OC- canopy.
29.1(a):
Implementation Review construction and landscaping site plans to ensure that healthy trees are not removed
Measure OC- unnecessarily.
29.1(b):
Policy OC-29.2: Cultivate an understanding of and appreciation for the social,environment,and aesthetic values
of trees.
Implementation Make available information on sound urban forest management practices.
Measure OC-
29.2(a):
Goal EG-5:Site design shall incorporate shade trees for energy conservation.
Policy EG-5.1: Encourage minimum canopy coverage of all paved area on a lot.
Implementation The Land Development Code shall include in its design requirements the requirement that all
Measure EG- new development shall provide a canopy coverage of 50%at the maturity of all paved areas on
5.1(a): the lot.
Goal CD-4:Seek uniform,attractive landscaping standards for non-single family residential development
throughout the Valley.
Policy CD-4.1: Establish and enforce landscaping standards in all non-single family residential, multi-family
residential,commercial,and industrial development and all redevelopment projects.
Implementation Create a combined City-County landscape program to ensure uniform standards and
Measure CD- requirements for new non-single family residential, multi-family residential,commercial,
4.1(a): industrial development,and all redevelopment projects.
Policy CD-4.2: Encourage planting of native trees and plants.
Implementation The landscape standards in the land Development Code shall include provisions for street
Measure CD- canopies and streetscape enhancement.
4.2(a):
Policy CD-4.3: Require landscaping that will result in the creation of new street canopies.
Implementation The landscape standards in the Land Development Code shall include provisions for street
Measure CD- canopies and streetscape enhancement.
4.3(a):
Implementation The City and County shall cooperate to permit planting of canopy trees within the rights-of-way
Measure CD- to improve or enhance the streetscape.
4.3(b):
Goal CD-12:Conserve the character and architecture of Ukiah and Valley neighborhoods.
Policy CD-12.1: Maintain and improve Ukiah's streets, lighting,trees, landscaping,and parks in a manner that
enhances the City's beauty and historic fabric.
Implementation Establish public design standards for street furniture and landscaping that enhance the
Measure CD- streetscape and general fabric of the City.
12.1(a):
_
: tt . � , t �r � - - -
' ' : . , : �` . I ` f t i ::_ .1'i' , ' t `� .. .,.- � . : l ' _. i, _y _ � i £. �; ��� T . .. �� � � ��.... . . _ . . _ _ ' .. ii ' _ `
i � � % 1 � ,
� . . ..` . r' :..:: . � '� '...., ' . - . . � b S\� _ _,� S `r, `�..1 1 '.1 ti r t; v� V� •F � _ � �i � }i
t.� { �� F \ � � Yi'1 l `\ 4f.\ . ��f F ( ' . ' ' `''�-� 1 �` �� �� a .� . ` :
( , � r �) � / � -4l r�.r y .{ I 1 . O
_ � . . . . �.i � v I } ��t� ` ",:S_� ! f � "?--`'..:.'�- _. .(-� a0' . i _ j �''S ` f �p' ;"' t�„' � (Z � ! (s . " i' 1 Ift{." . ' ` • ` 'x „ k� .� �'~
. ._ . _ I C n a V � \ � � `��i. °",.,�...._ % ,- . '�z;i .. •a� % �'o, f r i I ' _� ] t.�` �.�}�.. .. \ z Fa.� f f. 'S � ;. 'r' i ..... r M1 . � � ' . f` , .' �r
. . � � J E �y : . l . / ' "_..- e // " f i'` 1V �� V ���h . i „��f vl .i. . �t � fFS�' � r �I• �+ �"f ; .
. . - . . . � ^-_S . �� . ��� ` ^ �., ti.'_'-,,. L,... , � J"a . < / ' � C� ,1, ...4 n 5..� �.... 1�' � ./ : I `x ' j,. . ri . . •1'Y� � C ) .
.. � . - ., ' � i_ i \, �`?�a � / '.% 1 -c. { 1� .3 i �� ', f� �:,Y W/� ,�`, � � \� � .
.. ; � - �.- 4 f� . " .���v._ _ ��-,.: i ��-' - .;-�/ ; (�:e _.. � f�. �� �- _ � ��. �� : � , _ , f � s , ;` ;:
.. " 1 ��-g \ � i .., r4 �' t / } irt'P ��e ` j 8 k�- � a �fe j
� � -...{ �.J "J' �„ _, � ` �i1,,,.� \ x '�•-'eq f . `'"�x�-�--•��•-i ' % ` j �t � � �'4. t •.� i s � ' L7� ' ' ' ' : _ �� 1 . ° . ( � ' �� t`�C ��
`�� % / j
•{ � � r . i_ �. � ry {� � `�: �_'�^--_.__��- ...-�,^�,- � i �� �� { � - 'i.� 1 �• -p {� .� �, , i . O ., � � n . x ��� i � I �� � � !
� . �� � � � .r.�.i S .�a � �-, V � `� ��' {`=7 S '�py' f,:� ����,, / � �� � \� � / eI `� [�+� tVrl ' i ' f � t� �
`� \ ,l' � 4 � Y �� � �� �° ° (�^ t�.y! . ' ���!��'� :. � }� / k { j� �•> . � ` nCs � ! �. p +� . . .
' � ' r ' F :` i - ti ! i � '+' ./ �r-. �_-�' �¢' ---""' . �i �! � V .� : i � � 7 1 ' +!- i ��e � �� `:
, � ' ' ' $i �_ � � '� . ��i , �, . � `§ t '�j: �� R 4 `y `
{ :y i /� � E 3- �
�j �= ` t�1^ .�' � �.� � e r.� �i '� `_ ��D�—_-'� --•--"'^'�t?�. .."�� � � T t � I @ � k f � ����. F( . �� .
4 � : ! ..1 1 \ 1 � '� w"� �,•---�1" � � � �. I � 1 /,� 4 ��'l k f X
{ `' r � \. ' ( p, .i" � � . � 1 " . � s, ' 1 44. , f °�a'�ssR� ' .
� V � I � ,� `'x, � �> r � ti � _ � T�-�'�._..—._ � . � / , /: C� �F+ yqp t' ?��z? ' * � D.
\ �q j � . . . ``�'p , f � �
� ��' ;' . �.e c ` '`i (1 l� � _�...�, , , . � /� ' �L � � � � �.� � �o g � \ O � . . ; .
� � ; �'�� } �.',ti ti-,,,,'� ' f ' n � � � � �( � � � Lr � � �� �\ ��. i �` ` i .�" S� :/�y ' § °""s �o- \ Y �
� �'� �� � . 1 �� S,�) = F `':� � � � � ` �.� ' � �,�• 'J+ ,. ^{�"7 � ± � ' `�:��,)J . f} � ' ' � A���` `� c '� � �} .
� ' _ , ., .) ;•:"?' ., +J � - � . �''� '�� , �' "— — ........ .� �� s,^J E �� . ; ' r` r�]"°t'4�� i
�' �', .. ' � ` , - � f � �j ' °° .' - � �—�,, , „� � ��_ , � i
�� , F 1 - , ! ,t ° v .
c' i� R 6 ,� ? � � .,: � S � C��+ : � . l y � . p.°,.,r. ,y xo�a.
� ' `� � � �.� � .�a.;' a ,y, . . !� -'j T� � �';''J . � t, aa i'' 1 � �. 4." `: ; � \ . � ����aea
. .J �. � l. .. �^ `� "� � � . ; � � :: f � `� . ; � � . 4 �� . frA� a
d \ � i 8
. `j � r l �� #a � r . ; I . V � j.. p fi. . � }l � : -�y }� . ; @q
... -� ~ �y� I'� T . � - v ..: � l '� / �, 3� � ` � ...��: � � ` � .
' �l t f: � i � t � . ----'�---� . . 1 � . . � ' ' + �
�1 .. t(� �t � � t�a a � �y � . . � � O . .. ' � . � � .
,i , s 7 . a� - • ... f� �', � �
, � '� . j ' „ � \ , ; I � �� � ve v �.; � � 'i.� ��.p ,� . � O .CS I t -� LtJ � � � .
� � •.� � --�= . '"'^ t� � �, �
, tf, S` . '� . �,.'`'• , t .l, ; 1 � ' .. .. . . °t. '#'?� ���� � �. � t_ �'iY� { ;'�'. 1 1 � � , � �.'� , � �§ . , )
�
Y . . .
` , �
.
1 `
� - �ti
'-"
� F � \ tt . . —� _ . . . . o .«- . ( . . �
� - . � .-._'... - .
�s r • . — —
=� r E'�� �� . f s i � ,.: � , - �.0 .
,� i ,
1
$ � . - 1 � 1 �+' t -a�� �" I �.' , r
-. t . _ _ (
� t S ?"�• `C },' .� � � �� •y � (' '4', . � . � 4 ". � ��s 1 �i � �� �� ' �' �. � �
i:: . ..� '� � Z"� £ fs �� . � � g� .!�'- +"4 � : r � { ' m� �� � �� { '
. 's°. '� � l�J �^S . i S ' ?�' �.. � �r. .r..-- ...""'.- i �r`..-'�, � )( � {� :� �. .
� ct �~' � /- � i �~7'� ` l ��` t�i � _ � �� / - � � �' 4 . � - ���� ,i „�' � (�U_ . - ti`` f, ;� T c.�Y SL . . i �� ryry�-{ � .
si \. 4't' ", a }u i - �k- . �yF' i ' \y ; `�/ ( �O ' C}� � � �. � ^ G s , . � �{ � �
f ' � '� � i�- �� ���2`e� �: a � . 7 � . . '!. .'�a ' � � ( � � � � ; +X. ,ue1 �,�j •� � . t�. �p � ; � �V � � + '�J_` � � � � f , I i .
� 'x��.` t .n: � .� :7 '.i "•�. �i `� •.�.. .d �� . 1 �"��IV�/�� > GrJ • � t � � " /1 � � � � �
'.-�-� ��t tt � 39 .x > fi � � . � Gb ' . � i � � I� � � � � . t� � � ' ;� . . , � , (� � .
-'J � �.. . � � ._�, I � I � j s „.p�,A. , t. t 4 �� .
� �' �.. j ``,� S . :i . �, I . � �„' � '• .. !t � " `r (. '� i ' 1,�..i (, . .
� � • �gl • ( v• �� � $ � � � i'
� Fj n. .�- � . . � � � aztr.aec "'4 � / 'aii � . �.. zC , ; � {� z t . : � � , � � t .
j ;. (-' �� i E1 T' � 7 : '•1 �+.,� . . }� $; �, . caaasmn.cnnea��ens�tfsv - s.a.eucn��nSaa !3ffi ;.�a � s,mR.�w� a� m;aF. �` {� " ' .. � • �}4i t � 3 .' � � r '
'�T �
.� a , �'
- � p ` � 'n 4i3 + ¢ �_ � - � y t A �. .,.� . � \ w(SS � -� � �� � �(j : . �g - .
� ''7 ��.1 4 k ' � � � rf f 4 - � I �� �` g �. \ 7 � '� Z�:.'. �� �' x 2 .:� �g� . C: . '.;a' � � � � i j �� Y.. Y J :� ! °' � - : i . .
.:i• . �.: � • � _ �'�. 4 1 � � H Si `,�i . ` y `,-, �i � f . �4 a } ! �:V � � E� r 9 �� � V �
( 1. . . k� n i "4 '.;: «x..,. '.°" 3 v � 1 � �8 ' N- M1 } � � . f . . -_ . ' • � I
f; } ° �rz x { . I �y ' f . . 1 ' � � �" j �. � , . , �
{ ' �i ` � '.� � I I . �' � q �� ` '� c � �1 . f � � �. 5 r �,A . �� T �" s t 1 �Y 7�$ '� 7 � � � r /^� �e �- ('� V . �� i � � , i �II
� f'; . ±ti � k � �. ��� ' � : t w ✓.. � n . t t FY.` ��� : iV iJ [ y �eir � � � � .
� 7 j . , . ..r„� `, } _ �� f 4..... i �� ,; �.4 . �- ,�.� �-- �. tti 1x ,�: 4:-'� a� ix �- v, � ' � p`{`�, .8� i , � ii
' � � ,� ' �.�,ry�f �.' ` ; ;. I � , :��-�. �...�. �} _v — �° � �Y �',#"�" 3t � � 4: � � �: � � � ''� �i� � y `9�� o } 4`i :�,`� e i � � 0 y .A � L . . . . ��� ' ' � '
y f}� se-r �r� j c� � � §� AF Y�j � v . px � T7 - ..�i � _ . �-t�^` ���� � �� � . .
t ." ': . t � �_ ��� (.� '� '� �,"� � � . �..9 � �. ";i' t E F'� �`} J ��fl �` 'r �y j'} ' � '
. v�Y `� , � ` � ` f �' Y� � � � � � �+ ^�il �� u � .m,�� _ t � t t�� F 4 � 4 W f A� ..K+ .1' . : Q % � � ' i
a
I ( " R` y, ) . j V � : Y ; � � 1 � � . I�� � � � �4 .! . .
,. � � `x �'. }� k, i as ., ( q" � � �# a ` 4 i �4,xY �� ....... � r =� . i � � . . '
. i .j� �"t-. . � �t r� � fr; � . � 1 I � � � �� y _ a 1 :, Gv � V�.3� k rr:.. � � � �„� R. ..._ . � �Q , "�� � �y '��. `(7 (� � f �:
� !
. , �
� eF} : . � "
, a � [� ,
_ � �. y , . � � 'p� � r i � � Y P . ' J .
' ia7� \.' -� f [..'� .• ��.. U.-..'"' ~� '�- a 1 . ..r,' r 41 i �� 2 ��`e,�' � x�Y: ::. '�f' £7�u, -,�,�,r S� � r " " . � r'� � . , i. . . i . i _
Y-� l , 1 ' � � � � � �; � � � ,�y,�y,, . ., , t ..�y . . � � � f � �r � �
� '•� � - � �� � � ': a .'�g r ' ' � �4{4�:., � r r; . fs . .. � ` G � � � i � i
� _ ��.; li� � L � ' � ��+ i .� � :._ e �,a,�P+ Sl y� 'i I �.� , �C �¢� 2�� . _^1• . � r:;�+ �� .� J'` �' �'-- - i , �,� ; +� . . , � ; �} .
� i > ' '�`� � � 1 r. "` - ;t 1 f .
�� ' t , .• � ��i I ;� � o �5� ��t(' '�` �q �• ' �`@•.� � � •' !^ ' • 7� � �'' , ,�5� t . �(y�• �
e -`' � �? ' � ' j� �� �c 7 �� � �' j� : ;� 1 . ���' 4 ; �'� Y� � , u - /� .. . 7 ��\ . ! At�' C�� � � � �i
, ' f� � ; c # .� i '�. � v . j . l� $ 1
� � 4 ¢.f � - . . d ¢ ` . . t � ; � �
r ' t. ` � ._ � . � � � �� ' '� �� � �� r f A � � .��� � i � � � . � � �' � +� �, f ' , ' i � , . ~ � � ' � � . .
� � � � {� � �
!A '�e %', � ' ` ' � t/ t�tc � . . ��i(,�l� ?� , 1
' � � � +.� 5 j �^—' 1 I(� ' +n r,,,�, � � � ' - r � ` �t �� \
� 1 — r. .� i . `-" . - � � � � ���� . !T �p F � �.� t � � S . . �'.� .. � :. y ��_�. ' � ` .
; � > �
ti .:
: n
� ° /�J V' . V' �l
� - � 1 'r � � i � � �, � r f ' . A y �• %` � j ,
( , , s _..� �...,,.,t,._-.. ,_, , � ; � � ' �� �tl $ � s. � 1 V k , 6 ' � , x _i ._O ' ,` _ � \ � �'\
. � � � { , �' j (C� , � � � ,r' � � '� � \
, � j , � '/J \
. 'p s < I � .n ! ��-'� /''� , ; . c�� X � � lA V ' .. � ,�- � \ ��;` �N � ` �
� � �� � �-y 3 i �. �� " � � ' i I -.. ', � ��¢ t � 4 ��r� V. {� f . i '�4{� , ,I r o ` �� . f� � � �' (�� ('C; � lJ� V
� � � E�
. . . , �� � . V. � �, , . e . rr' . �.s` _
.
.� r ry
� A • l , . 1
"J - i . . ', 1 .
i -�3 \ ` •;. °i �
`�F .
; t � # �:� � f � � � I i ��: � ' � �� �4 �:. �, °. .� , � , �; Y ; � - �b ��� \ -� �. . � ,
,�1 : �., r F �� =t3 � e � � i ' r=� �:`. f �r
� n � y.. t l r`f} ^ � I .o_ !,; • � � "� j t � � . , ...} t ! � � . . � �f �
: {� _,,, 1 f ( '� �; , " s � � _ � , ` i 5�'� � �'° I-s�
'. � i J � ,_� � � . ; � �. ' �`� � 0 y i �� *y y4Yv�K � ' '�' � � ,°. l r . . � t/-
, s
� f\ � ��. 1 v' I • � � . � .E F i : t '1 S _S .v 1 . _�.._ .. Y, _ ���°`
f r � r � ' �� f� 3� �� , t � �� •ir-:�" . s _.. _ �. _ � �,: � � tn
�:,. -{ 1 Y � i;'� � L � :R ''t ' �.�y Y �� j . k � r' :�l � laf�' .1 �� � lit�.. °� - �l }' . . ,✓�
. ! "' . 1 G� `] � J� . �{� �� 1 ' A 5 �Y � �$ ` 1 � � _ I R� 4 �� �� �� �� � _ ef . •'4�� � . .ii�aM"+ � ��
� . � � � . � ' - . � R . . '
3 � � 9 r Q ��i r s ��,. ivv � , �rs k . i� s � F� ' �. * � � _
- � � ' � t--� � ,f - Q a1 w ��� t s� i ' {��. r � � V �..i C � � �� F��Yr tf'�y � � � �/..a j� e.:
�� f, .r � , ,� � .r { � ( � v 0
; i , � � � R , ' � _'"�• J .; t �.. �''' ' > , �r � + f' x
; . ; i � I � �: ��� , �,��� .� �. s � Y , � _ , .� ,� _� a_ u► c� �'�
; � � _ �f�-;: � . . � . �.. � , y , � {��
) . .. } . i � . :t r , � ,.�.1� • ✓ 1r ' � •�. � � Cb � „� " �}
� � �' rt A, s =�' � y;, ,,_.,._�,- , ","# : M N t
, � ^- '% ;
` � c : � . . I� `j . I �."Q.-- ( z . \ t �� -•iA �._ r.�y�,,''f..' "y�i � '�. � �
y( �. . . � r . . 3 �1 � T^ J� �` �
j t , ' � ! ' �`'s " . ,y� � � 7 �' v �ca tir 4
� :: �� ' _ e ,�
� } � _. s `t `, i - � F� �t�a�R�,eoneoasncaazse a �r.enuoa aceca �nx�� ceaz�.uuzsruc� sa�,;zu�:ruam�'ce � ' i � �
' # . 7 � � � �` � . � ` .� _" � � _ :/' , _ - � ' . � :i
, n : ' / �
` I r ' � . 'r� . , t� /. �i
; ; �,�-.--�1 ��� ;---{ 1 ` — .�' � � �' ' r ,! ��X'` '. ' ; �', � � �
. + � k , r-'J ��.^ �y ,S t . _ • i#; .' ` t�-Q . =---.—�'' � � �n Q^
' t _ � c -, w 7f C � /r�°`« ...- �,..-�t...z,� ..-�-.._ �. .. . T:¢ -�"s e - , 2 � a m c a : s �. c re � � � � ' . _. .. � �b � � CnF .
t) \ �.J. :. . Si 'r. 3h 'F . fb �h80L1R :f'�fb�ile € t
I 5 � � (\ ^\ �.:� ,' . . � t !!� � ' f\ � K . . .S .+ CV 9 �"4�+lkLS `�i. � �rb°vLn . .iYV C �. � � � )
� I 5 �,,;� r n
-7 ;... . , �'5 �
, � � � ` 1 t. � ,G. ,�:� '� i�`4y���y� i �i t' � r � . `•�'A-.� G- V
� � 3 }� .i � k r ' {.n y . . �� I �I � � ��� v . •- . S . �J� :� . �
� �" � � i �' � 'E � � . � Q �
� i , ° �; f,. - . � • , s - _ -- � �``��� - � • . T U -;� �
I j O ' �'F I j � .�, t . �;. i • i ., . - I ��' ..d�l �� . "� L . ,. � � .§ � i� t'7 � � � " � " . l'
� .f�J `4 � � r C . . �i. ' �; � �
� - f r . ,� ��^�� I ; D n `� k ' I ` ` �
� � �, ,• -.. . E . x .. � i` � � 7 '�
i � 1 *u] � ! � '' , 1 �Y ,,� '`� �' i � � F „ � y . . � � (� �
� n
. _: 8 '
?� ' . I � . a . a .
t � ' 7�� [ . . . . 1 . . . C", V . {}
. . i � . . . . . � ?} .
• C � �� z � : . � i :.� � � �� x . . � s � � ". — � V
1 ` •
. _ i �"r7 • �--�t'. ' �� �� . . � � � e - . c . 4
C1` .
S I.AJ t
{ O � ` � j f � � : _'�_� e.. } * �_ `.' I ;, ` n Q
°:.^i- � I I_ ° �
( k `'.,� �i �
4 � 1 Ty� � - !; � I � � .. � � Q . � -' y , . � A �
i f f '
t { .:.s' q '� � [ I 1 n n '.. � � '. . � (y�
I � � .
� i
.
i � l
F C . @ . � _ , � ,�I , . , � � �_ , �' � �'° C): � � a �
Myszka Place
Supplemental Information
Ordinance 920: Planned Development Approval
■ Condition 7H: Tree removal only as shown on the Development Map
Resolution 91-55: Tentative Subdivision Map Approval
■ Condition 12: Setbacks as shown on the Development Map
■ Condition 23: Tree removal as shown on the Development Map
Resolution 93-54: Final Subdivision Map Approval
■ Condition 3: Tree removal as shown on the Development Map (environmental
mitigation measure)
■ Condition 6: Setbacks as shown on the Development Map (Planned Development
condition of approva�
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone: Myszka Place is not located in the Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone.
_ ,
l
October 11, 2013 ��
. ��,�
�cr ��
To Whom It May Concern : � 212�13
����
F�
RE: 1210 Myszka Place
It has been called to my attention there is interest in the purchase of the above listed property by
Rich and Karen Keehn . Since that property (on a larger scale) was purchased by my parents in the
1930's, you might be interested in some historical perspective.
When purchased, there existed a vineyard covering the property. This was replaced by the present
home now owned by Tom Hill . The redwoods in question for the lot the Keehns are purchasing were
among many trees planted in the 30's and 40's enhancing the property and helping with erosion control .
The redwoods are not native to that property.
The Keehns would build a nice home but there are too many trees to complete a plan for �
construction . Whereas I would hate seeing these trees cut down for sentimental reasons, to retain
them on a small lot is impractical . •
I hope you will consider their plan positively.
Sincerely,
�I"/�!L ��. <'_�9 � ' l�I�f�7L/'r. .
Wanda Myszka Mannon