HomeMy WebLinkAbout05252011 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Wednesday May 25, 2011
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 HELLAND, BRENNER, WHETZEL,
SANDERS AND CHAIRPERSON PRUDEN
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes from the April 13 and April 27, 2011 meetings are included for review and
approval.
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, an
appeal must be received by the City Clerk no later than Monday 7une 6, 2011 at 5:00
p.m.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. Guillon Sign Program: 09-31-UP-PC. Conduct a public hearing for the request
for approval of the sign program required as part of the Guillon Use Permit for new
commercial development at 1230 Airport Park Blvd., APN 180-080-78.
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Tasting Room Use Permit: 11-03-UP-PC. Conduct a public hearing for a
request for Planning Commission approval for a Major Use Permit for a Wine Tasting
Room at 106 West Church Street, APN 002-226-08.
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.
B. Ukiah Valley Medical Center Preliminary Review: 11-05-PRE-PC. Conduct a
preliminary review for an expansion to the Ukiah Valley Medical Center at 275
Hospital Drive, APN 002-193-23 and 002-160-08.
9. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
10. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
11. 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 April 13, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel Judy Pruden, Chair
7 Jason Brenner
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Charley Stump, Planning Director 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
17 Planning Director Stump at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary
18 Avenue, Ukiah, California.
19
20 2. ROLL CALL
21
22 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
23
24 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 9, 2011
25 M/S Sanders/Helland to approve March 9, 2011 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (3-0) with
26 Commissioner Whetzel abstaining.
27
28 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
29 None.
30
31 6. APPEAL PROCESS— N/A
32
33 7. NEW BUSINESS
34 7A. Election of Vice-Chairperson. Planning Commission election of vice-chairperson.
35 Swearing-in of Planning Commissioners.
36
37 Commissioner Sanders nominated Commissioner Whetzel to serve as Vice Chair, seconded by
38 Commissioner Helland. Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote. (4-0).
39
40 7B. Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP). Review and discussion of land use designations and alternative
41 growth scenarios.
42
43 Planning Director Stump gave a staff report:
44 • Mendocino County has released the Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP) and its associated
45 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for review that addresses the cumulative, area-wide
46 effects of build-out over the next 20-plus years in the Plan area.
47 • City Council reviewed the Draft EIR and submitted a comment letter to the County as provided in
48 attachment 1 of the staff report.
49 • City Council will review the Draft Plan at the regular April 20 meeting.
50 • UVAP contains an introduction and vision statements that include nine separate elements each of
51 which contains goals, policies and implementing programs as provided for in the 2010 UVAP
52 goals, policies and implementation measures provided for in attachment 2 of the staff report.
53 • Attachment 3 of the staff report includes a land use map that designates what types of land uses
54 are assigned to individual parcels in the Valley and constitutes for what is referred to as the
55 `preferred projecY tentatively adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in 2007.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 1
1 • The City objective was to review the DEIR, determine if future development according to the Plan
2 would adversely impact the City as to whether or not the DEIR captured all the potential impacts
3 to the City and determine if each impact to the City had been reduced or avoided.
4 • As proposed, the UVAP would result in construction of a maximum of 5,430 new dwelling units
5 and approximately seven million square feet of industrial and commercial development at build-
6 out in the unincorporated Ukiah Valley and represents the most intense land use scenario for the
7 Valley. The Plan provides that build-out would result in 60 potentially significant impacts of which
8 25 impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after recommended mitigation measures
9 are added to the Plan wherein these significant/unavoidable impacts include the loss of prime
10 agricultural land, unacceptable traffic and air pollution, unacceptable demands on public services,
11 growth inducement, and other related impacts. Most, if not all of these significant and unavoidable
12 impacts would impact the City.
13 • Specifically drew attention to the fact the DEIR is a General Plan level program EIR and not an
14 EIR on site-specific impacts that could result from development on particular properties in the
15 Plan area wherein site-specific analyses and associated impacts and mitigation measures would
16 be assessed at the time of actual development.
17 • The `project' analyzed in the DEIR and referred to as the `preferred project' in the Draft 2007
18 UVAP includes mixed-use land designations on the Lovers Lane parcels, Masonite parcels, and
19 the Brush Street Triangle. Each of these mixed-use areas permit residential, commercial, and
20 industrial land uses where the corresponding percentages for each are different as demonstrated
21 in attachments 6-1,6-2, 6-3 of the staff report.
22 • Accordingly, Table 1.6-4 (attachment 6-4 of the staff report) as part of the 2007 UVAP Draft
23 Program EIR provides the mixed use land use classifications for Lovers Lane, North State Street,
24 Brush Street Triangle, and Masonite site.
25 • The DEIR includes three alternative growth scenarios, each with less overall buildout and
26 reduced impacts (Attachment 4 of the staff report).
27 • Page 3 of Attachment 1 of the staff report addresses how mitigation measures are addressed for
28 the General Plan Program EIR.
29 • EIR's are required to include an evaluation of a range of reasonable alternatives to the `Project'
30 that would feasibly attain most of the project objectives while avoiding or substantially reducing
31 any of the identified significant impacts. The DEIR includes three alternatives in this regard and
32 Table 1.6.1 of the DEIR (attachment 4) is a summary of the maximum build-out potential under
33 each alternative. Alternatives A, B, and C would each lead to fewer impacts because they would
34 limit growth and development compared to the 'preferred projecY of the UVAP as written and
35 proposed. Alternative C is regarded as the environmentally superior alternative because there
36 would be no change to the current/existing land use designations on parcels in the Valley.
37 • Staff is asking the Commission to review the Land Use Map and descriptions of the land use
38 classifications for the major parcels in close proximity to the City limits and these include the
39 Brush Street Triangle mixed-use parcels, Masonite mixed use parcels, and Lovers Lane mixed-
40 use parcels as provided for on the Map of Attachment 5 of the staff report. These parcels are
41 classified as `mixed-use as the `Preferred Project' and/or`Preferred Alternative' with the exception
42 of a portion of the Masonite site that is classified as `Industrial' whereby each mixed-use site has
43 its own mix of uses and development standards.
44 • Staff is also requesting the Planning Commission provide recommendations to City Council
45 concerning the aforementioned land use designations proposed for mixed-use under the
46 'Preferred Alternative.'
47
48 LOVERSLANE
49
50 Planning Director Stump:
51 • This is an interesting parcel and recalls that in the early 1990s, there was a proposal with a
52 specific plan and EIR that called out for complete development of this area. At that time it was
53 essentially viewed as premature for intensive development so no project ever moved forward.
54 The land was sold and has been in agricultural production ever since. It is his understanding a
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 2
1 portion of the land is prime for agriculture and is currently in agriculture production. The UVAP
2 vision statement emphasizes the importance of protecting/preserving agriculture land.
3 • City Council adopted four strategic principles that are essentially adaptive to the UVAP
4 representative of a sound document having these same principles.
5 • Supports the concept that while intensive development belongs in the City, designating the
6 Lovers Lane property for intensive development is still premature and that a conversion of this
7 property for intensive use could be construed as being inconsistent with the UVAP vision
8 statement associated with the principle of preserving/maintaining `ag' land.
9
10 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:13 p.m.
11
12 Susan Knopf:
13 • Agricultural land designated as such should remain agricultural, particularly if the land is currently
14 in agricultural use. Accordingly, land that is designated for industrial use should remain as such. It
15 would not be prudent to change a land use designation to a use having the potential to
16 contaminate soil that is presently uncontaminated, such as the Lovers Lane parcels. Good
17 planning takes into consideration possible loss of prime agricultural land, traffic circulation and air
18 pollution impacts, demand on public services and other potential and significant impacts.
19
20 Stephen Scalmanini:
21 • Referred to attachment 5, requested clarification about the southern portion of this land as shown
22 on the map and whether this section of land belongs to `Pinoleville Indian Reservation' and if so,
23 this land should not likely be designated and/or considered as having plans for future
24 development.
25
26 Benj Thomas:
27 • Commented on the three areas being considered tonight, particularly Lovers Lane and
28 emphasized two important points that, in his opinion, are critical to the assessment of these land
29 use designations and future development with the first being the issue of whether 'water' is
30 available and the second issue pertains to `traffic' and how to adequately mitigate the traffic
31 impacts associated with proposed mixed-use development. It may be that some of the areas
32 being considered would have fewer impacts with regard to traffic issues than others, such as the
33 Masonite site.
34
35 Susan Baird:
36 • It could be that the Lovers Lane property could be turned into a conservancy managed by a Land
37 Trust preserving it such that it would remain undeveloped.
38
39 Diane Zucker:
40 • The Lovers Lane property appears to be healthy and is used primarily for vineyard purposes.
41 • Observed there is a small farm on the west side.
42 • Of all the land in and around the City limits, it appears to be the most productive.
43 • Supports allowing it to remain an agricultural use.
44
45 Kerry Vau:
46 • Supports the plan for mixed-use and/or for the preferred alternative.
47
48 Jackie Pomilia:
49 • Supports the mixed-use plan/preferred alternative for the Lovers Lane parcels.
50
51 Commissioner Sanders:
52 • Referred to page 74 of the 2007 UVAP and noted the County Agricultural Commissioner prefers
53 not see agricultural lands or soils converted to non-agricultural use. These types of soils are rare
54 in the County and once developed will never be available again.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 3
1 • Would not like to see productive land being taken out of production for what mix-uses are
2 proposed under the `preferred alternative.'
3 • The density is significant for Lovers Lane.
4 • Agrees that adequately mitigating traffic impacts would be problematic.
5 • With regard to attachment 6-3 and the different percentages designated for various uses within
6 the mixed-use classification compared to the number of acres for Lovers Lane would not be in
7 support of a mixed-use classification for this land.
8
9 Commissioner Brenner:
10 • Supports growth and development provided it is smartly done and near a city where it is possible
11 to service a development.
12 • The State mandates that cities provide for a certain amount of housing units.
13 • Is aware that when looking at the City limits for Ukiah and the Sphere of Influence, Ukiah has a
14 difficult enough time keeping up with service demands, traffic issues and other issues with the
15 County that there are essentially`too many cooks in the kitchen'whereby nothing is getting done.
16 • Many years have been spent developing the UVAP with the assistance of professional
17 consultants, decision makers, County staff, City, and the public. It is a very valuable document
18 and supports facilitating its adoption for the greater good and economic stability of the County
19 and City.
20 • Because the UVAP document has been stalled so long, developments have not been allowed to
21 occur and this document is important for development.
22 • From a potential Lovers Lane development perspective, if housing development is a mandate, it
23 is best such development occur close to the City limits relative to the services that can be
24 provided and the infrastructure that is already in place to support the development.
25 • Mitigation measures can be implemented to address significant impacts.
26 • Just because an area calls for a specific land use designation or there is the potential for what is
27 planned for an area does not mean such development will occur or even to buildout because of
28 the limitations and specific issues that must be addressed in order for a particular development to
29 be approved.
30 • Also, if a proposed development cannot comply with the zoning regulations, this limits what types
31 of development can occur for an area.
32 • The goals, policies and implementation measures are the driving force for what guides the UVAP
33 as a valuable working document. There are creative ways to successfully mitigate potentially
34 significant impacts and provide appropriate implementation measures.
35 • There are so many checks and balances in place to counterbalance developments having
36 significant impacts and/or areas that are problematic for development wherein the UVAP
37 document covers for worst case scenarios.
38 • Again, not just from an infrastructure or service demand standpoint, a development plan is very
39 necessary to promote economic growth by allowing development to occur.
40 • Supports the preferred alternative plan for Lovers Lane.
41
42 Commissioner Helland:
43 • Commended County staff and the public for formulating/presenting a very thorough, valuable and
44 comprehensive revised UVAP document.
45 • The document represents some highly visionary planning in response to the public's input.
46 • Is very impressed with the 'vision,' created for the UVAP and noted the goals and polices and
47 implementation measures included for the various land use classifications provided for in the
48 document are excellent.
49 • The task of the Planning Commission tonight is to represent the interests of the citizens of Ukiah.
50 • While the Planning Commission is not the decision making body for the Plan, it will review and
51 make recommendations to uphold that the Plan is based on sound planning principles.
52 • Is concerned about the 25 impacts according to the DEIP that would remain significant and
53 unavoidable after recommended mitigation measure are adopted and implemented.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 4
1 • Specific areas of concern are loss of prime agricultural land, unacceptable traffic and air pollution,
2 unacceptable demands on public services, water supply and water quality, potential urban decay,
3 and blight. In the case of Lovers Lane, the issue is the loss of agriculture, particularly with land
4 that is currently in agriculture production.
5 • There is no way to mitigate the loss of agriculture land.
6 • In terms of philosophy, is not opposed to mixed-use development or development per se. People
7 need housing and jobs to sustain households and keep the community economically viable. It is
8 unfair and unreasonable to presume that it is acceptable not to allow future development. It is
9 important to provide for housing and facilities while being ecologically and economically efficient
10 about how growth is approached.
11 • It is well-known that directing new development to areas that are already developed is a more
12 efficient approach in terms of infrastructure and associated cost and with preserving agriculture
13 land and open space not to mention the huge expense of having to provide access to freeways,
14 arterial thoroughfares, and/or interchanges.
15 • We are living in a whole different economic world today than in 2007 with the information in the
16 draft 2007 UVAP Draft Program EIR in terms of housing/household needs and consumer
17 economics.
18 • There has been a renewed interest in farming and with preserving agriculture land.
19 • The vision section of the Plan does talk about preservation of agriculture land as part of the
20 primary vision of the Plan so to not follow this expressed vision of the community would constitute
21 inconsistency with the Plan's goals and policies.
22 • While some development is necessary to address growth, decision makers must be mindful of the
23 inherent need to stay consistent with the figures set forth of what is acceptable growth so as not
24 to disrupt the ecological balance that leads to pollution and other undesirable impacts.
25 • It is important with good planning that resources are conserved, that economics are best served
26 by using infill areas when possible and/or existing developed areas, and that consideration be
27 given to density, which can have direct environmental effects.
28 • It would not be wise or consistent with the goals/policies of the UVAP to take Lovers Lane out of
29 agricultural production.
30 • Would like to discuss the Pinoleville area in terms of what is planned for this area and what is
31 currently existing.
32
33 Planning Director Stump:
34 • The proposal is to change the use designation for Lovers Lane from `agriculture' to `mixed-use.'
35 • The Pinoleville section of land designated within the proposed `mixed-use' for Lovers Lane is a
36 viewed differently having a separate mixed-use classification table.
37
38 Commission:
39 • How should `Rangeland' be viewed?
40
41 Planning Director Stump: `Rangeland' is not a consideration as part of a mixed-use land designation. It
42 is a large area of land and separate from the other mixed-uses proposed for Lovers Land, Masonite site,
43 and Brush Street Triangle.
44
45 Vice Chair Whetzel:
46 • Acknowledged UVAP is a very comprehensive document and in terms of`preferred projects' a lot
47 of thought and consideration was given to the tables relative to maximum buildout development
48 potential and the mixed-use classifications proposed.
49 • Is open to development on Lovers Lane provided it is well-planned and would not want to see
50 citizens impacted by development that live on the south side of Lovers Lane by some industrial
51 development that goes on across the street since it is his understanding small industrial uses can
52 be a mixed-use component.
53 • Residential and light industrial uses are components of mixed-use.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 5
1 It was noted according to attachment 6-3, single-use non-retail commercial and industrial uses are
2 prohibited in the proposed mix-use preferred alternative plan for Lovers Lane.
3
4 Vice Chair Whetzel: According to the table, mixed-use residential and commercial/retail are permitted
5 uses. Would the residents on the south side of Lovers Lane like to potentially see the back side of a
6 Target store, for instance?
7
8 Kerry Vau
9 • Owns agriculture land and is familiar with this land use designation.
10 • Understands the need to have land designated for agriculture.
11 • Does not support preservation of agriculture for land close to town and/or in close proximity to
12 services.
13 • The Lovers Lane property is close to town and existing infrastructure.
14 • Acknowledged mitigation measures would be required to mitigate traffic impacts in the event of
15 development.
16 • Does not view Lovers Lane property as prime agricultural land. Much of the existing vineyards are
17 not regularly pruned or adequately cared for.
18 • Supports mixed-use land designation as proposed for Lovers Lane.
19
20 Linda McClure:
21 • Mendocino County has a considerable amount of`ag' land.
22 • Understands that while investments in grape vineyards may not currently be economically
23 feasible, would like to see much of land having vineyards converted to land that grows food for
24 the community. Only a small portion of food is grown locally. As food prices increase, the ability to
25 grow food locally is an important concept that should be considered now rather than later.
26
27 Robin Collier:
28 • Does not disagree with any of the aforementioned comments made by staff or the public.
29 • Views UVAP as a 20-year visionary statement, particularly with many years having to make
30 planning decisions without it.
31 • It is a combination of a lot of hard work and good minds putting the document together.
32 • The public has been given ample time to provide the necessary input so as to meet the
33 community's expectations of what the people want to see in an area plan.
34 • The UVAP document should be construed as a grandiose' vision for Ukiah Valley because it
35 provides the necessary guidelines and principles to effectively plan for future development in the
36 County.
37 • Adoption of this document is vital in terms of encouraging/promoting growth while providing for
38 sound economic incentives necessary in order for this County to move forward and thrive.
39 • With this document, good planning decisions can be made based on the merit of each project
40 proposed because of the `checks and balance' provided for in the Plan.
41
42 Vice Chair Whetzel
43 • Understands the importance of having the UVAP in place and that it be crafted correctly.
44 • While the Planning Commission has a small role in the process, it does not matter how small the
45 role because every roll is important as long as the final product functions as a valuable working
46 document to effectively guide planning and development in the Ukiah Valley.
47
48 BRUSH STREET TRIANGLE
49
50 Commissioner Helland:
51 • There are appropriate areas for residential and commercial/retail development and the most
52 logical in this regard is the Brush Street Triangle because it is contiguous to the City of Ukiah.
53 • The Brush Street Triangle has infrastructure in place and there are plans for annexation by the
54 City.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 6
1 Planning Director Stump acknowledged the City has envisioned annexing all of the Brush Street
2 Triangle that is currently located in the County having a mixed-use, which is the use designation that has
3 been informally talked about. The parcels are privately owned.
4
5 Commissioner Brenner:
6 • It appears the intent of Mayor Rodin's letter to County Planning staff regarding the UVAP Draft
7 Program EIR (attachment 2)was to make certain mitigation measures are implemented as part of
8 the UVAP policies in order to protect City interests such as annexation of the Brush Street
9 Triangle, encourage a tax sharing agreement between the County and the City and other
10 important issues that support a healthy and safe environment while promoting positive urban
11 development and growth.
12
13 Planning Director Stump:
14 • The consultants who prepared the EIR for the UVAP suggested including another mitigation
15 measure that requires a specific plan for development as the `preferred alternative' of the Brush
16 Street Triangle and Lovers Lane parcels.
17 • If this EIR were certified and/or adopted a specific plan would be in place for development to
18 build-out together with classifying the Brush Street Triangle as mixed-use.
19 • It is important for the public to understand what mixed-use means for the 'Triangle.'
20 • The UVAP has a table that talks about mixed-uses.
21 • According to the table, the general intent for mixed-use classification in the Brush Street Triangle
22 is to allow two to three story mixed-use development with commercial uses encouraged at street
23 level at lower intensities than are allowed in mixed-use.
24 • If the UVAP is adopted with this mix, this will drive the preparation for a specific plan.
25 • The Brush Street Triangle consists of approximately 90 acres.
26
27 Commissioner Sanders:
28 • Would be helpful if the public has a clear understanding about what full build-out looks like for the
29 sites being discussed tonight.
30 • Referenced Table 4.4-1 of attachment 4 that demonstrates maximum build-out development
31 potential for the various discussion areas according to the draft 2007 UVAP as the preferred plan
32 followed by the other alternative plans specific to Lovers Lane and the impacts that would be
33 created as a result of the mixed-use development proposed at build-out.
34 • The Lovers Lane area does not have the proper infrastructure in place to accommodate
35 development of this magnitude to build-out.
36
37 Planning Director Stump:
38 • The UVAP does call for a growth management plan that functions as a tool to essentially 'meter-
39 ouY growth taking into consideration such factors as the ability to deliver service and
40 infrastructure capacity issues.
41 • The UVAP also says no development shall occur until water and sewer are confirmed for the
42 development.
43
44 Commissioner Brenner:
45 • How is viability at build-out determined? Is it based on square footage of the lot? How are the
46 numbers in the table calculated? To what degree do traffic and circulation, service delivery ability
47 and infrastructure capacity play a role?
48
49 Planning Director Stump:
50 • Is unsure about the methodology of how the figures in the table were determined, but recognized
51 the consultants and the Mendocino County Planning Team calculated the maximum mixed-use
52 development potential at build-out for the discussion areas based on information that makes the
53 most sense.
54
55 Commissioner Brenner:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 7
1 • The figures represent the ultimate possibilities for development that may not actually happen for a
2 lot of different reasons, such as availability of sewer hook-ups, water, infrastructure issues, traffic
3 and circulation and other types of issues.
4 • For instance, just because the table says 712 single family units can occur at build-out does not
5 mean this will happen.
6 • The concern is how to effectively address issues associated with development such as water and
7 sewer, infrastructure, traffic circulation, etc.
8
9 Commissioner Sanders:
10 • Important that development not create unnecessary impacts that realistically cannot be
11 successfully mitigated.
12
13 Diane Zucker:
14 • Resides in the Wagonseller Neighborhood which is adjacent to the Brush Street Triangle.
15 • Provided the Commission with a letter drafted by the residents and/or property owners of the
16 Wagonseller Neighborhood and addressed to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors and
17 County Building and Planning Department. The letter contains Wagonseller Neighborhood
18 comments concerning the Draft EIR for the UVAP and the proposed change of zoning for the
19 Brush Street Triangle. Other issues of concern include flooding, traffic impacts, need for
20 preservation of open space/parks/public facilities, concentrations of low-income housing with the
21 concern the area becomes blighted because such developments perpetuate low incomes and
22 economic disparities because the County is mandated to provide more low-income housing and
23 other concerns where development in the Brush Street Triangle would affect and/or impact the
24 Wagsonseller Neighborhood that already lacks the proper infrastructure to include
25 sidewalks/roads, has traffic problems, lacks a school, is without parks/open space/recreational
26 areas.
27 • It does not appear according to the table for mixed-uses in the Brush Street Triangle that there
28 would be a sufficient percentage (11%) allotted for parks/recreation facilities, schools, public
29 facilities, public services, public assemblies to serve two neighborhoods since the Wagonseller
30 Neighborhood is adjacent to the Brush Street Triangle and lacks all of these facilities.
31 • Comparatively, 14% of designated area is allotted for these same facilities for the Lovers Lane
32 mixed-use site and 15% for the Masonite mixed use site. Why only 11% for the Brush Street
33 Triangle?This percentage needs to be higher.
34 • Is concerned about more low-income housing in the area noting the new RCHDC project on Clara
35 Street in the Wagonseller Neighborhood is one of those projects and consists of approximately
36 120 low income housing units.
37 • Is concerned about having a greater percentage allotted for parks and recreation.
38 • Of the 10% of designated area as mixed-use that includes multi-family residential, mixed-use
39 residential and commercial, retail, light industrial, office, live/work is the multi-family residential
40 mixed-use targeted primarily for low income housing?
41
42 Planning Director Stump:
43 • Cannot answer the question about the potential for low income housing in the Brush Street
44 Triangle, but there has been discussion about changing the land use classification for the
45 RCHDC property in this location from `Industrial' to `R-3' as opposed to the mixed-use
46 classification. This is separate from the mixed-use designation proposed for the Brush Street
47 Triangle.
48
49 Diane Zucker:
50 • Was hoping the RCHDC property would count as part of the 10°/a
51 • If the City is able to annex the Brush Street Triangle would like to see the percentage changed
52 from 11% to 25% and clarified the 25%would be for parks.
53 • Understands RCHDC intends to give some land it owns in the Brush Street Triangle to the City.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 8
1 • Is hopeful the Brush Street Triangle will be annexed to the City because the Wagonseller
2 Neighborhood is an at-risk neighborhood and what would occur in the way of development in the
3 Brush Street Triangle would affect the Wagonseller Neighborhood.
4
5 Planning Director Stump:
6 • RCHDC potentially giving land to the City is also a separate matter and is still being talked about.
7
8 There was discussion about recommending the percentages for the mixed-use designated areas in the
9 Brush Street Triangle be modified to better meet needs, particularly 25% of designated area as circulation
10 and rights-of-way, 14% of designated are as commercial that may include retail, light industrial, office and
11 11% of designated area as other uses that may include parks and recreation facilities, schools, public
12 facilities, public services, public assemblies and utilities installations.
13
14 Kerry Vau:
15 • Brush Street Triangle is the perfect opportunity to infill as much as possible.
16 • Her family owns some land in the Brush Street Triangle.
17 • Does not envision that most of the land in the Triangle would be developed for low income
18 housing.
19 • The types of persons desiring to purchase property from her family have been a mix of uses, one
20 of which was a project for housing for low income seniors.
21 • There have been persons interested in developing her property for commercial purposes.
22 • Disagrees with the 11% allotted designated for parks and recreation.
23 • Just because a neighborhood is without a park facility is no reason to require the next
24 development have a park. Parks, pocket parks, and other types of parks are numerous in Ukiah
25 and underutilized.
26 • Supports mixed-use in the Brush Street Triangle with commercial/retail use on the bottom floor
27 and residential on the top floor.
28 • There are many development possibilities.
29 • No cause for concern that the Brush Street Triangle would be developed with primarily single
30 family dwellings.
31
32 Vice Chair Whetzel:
33 • The 11% of designated areas as other uses means that 11% is allotted to all the uses listed
34 rather than 11% allotted individually. Some of the uses listed may never get developed.
35 • The 11% is not a very high percentage given the breakdown of designated uses listed.
36 • In terms of low income housing possibilities, 10% divided between multi-family residential, mixed-
37 use residential and commercial, retail, light industrial, office live/work is not very high.
38 • It may be the percentages should be modified to realistically fit the need or what is more likely to
39 occur.
40 • Even though the Triangle is out of the City limits, the kinds of development would affect the City.
41
42 Diane Zucker:
43 • Adjacent neighborhoods do matter. The Wagonseller Neighborhood is a dense neighborhood and
44 has no schools, parks or recreational facilities. Mixed-use in the Brush Street Triangle is
45 acceptable and the corresponding percentages in the table are `not that bad' overall.
46 • Does support when the Brush Street Triangle is developed, the percentage allotted for parks and
47 recreation facilities and schools be adjusted to fit the need because the percentage as proposed
48 is low.
49
50 Planning Director Stump:
51 • Of the uses listed in the table the 11% classification does not necessarily imply these types of
52 uses will be developed. The percentage means 11% of the sum total of the gross acreage.
53
54 Commissioner Brenner:
55 • Will the zoning be changed if the Triangle is annexed by the City?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 9
1 Planning Director Stump:
2 • The City pre-zoned this property in 1986 to `Planned Development.'
3 • If the property were annexed, a plan for development at build-out would be established similar to
4 that of the `Planned DevelopmenY established for the Airport Industrial Park (AIP).
5 • City Council has had discussions about development possibilities or at least the concept for
6 development of the Triangle, including discussions about the preparation of a specific plan that
7 would address the concept of development.
8 • There are statutory requirements associated with a specific plan.
9 • If the Triangle were annexed, the City would be obligated to prepare a Planned Development
10 document that would address the composition of development at build-out.
11
12 Commissioner Helland:
13 • Supports the County implement the mitigation policy requiring the specific plan for the Brush
14 Street Triangle.
15 • Preference - Consider/apply good planning principles for developments that could occur and
16 would be appropriate in the Triangle, such as encourage community oriented cluster
17 developments and/or`village centers' that could include a community plaza and/or public meeting
18 space.
19 • Regarding the table (attachment 6-1) `10% of designated area as mixed-use' is too little. Mixed
20 uses `encourages community social capital, health, reduced vehicle usage, and improved
21 environmenY and would like to see more mixed-use encouraged in this use classification. Most of
22 the mixed-uses listed in this category could be next to residential.
23 • Supports a breakdown of the `11% of designated areas as other uses' because of the need for
24 space for parks and recreation facilities.
25 • Consider 16% of area designated for parks, recreation and open space and/or possibly consider
26 breaking down these components into individual classifications such as allotting 5% parks, 3°/a
27 recreation facilities, and 8%for open space.
28 • A school would be necessary if residential development is to occur and should not be optional.
29 • Likes the style of the DZC that provides for high development standards and development
30 options/flexibility while promoting livable, walkable communities and encouraging people to get
31 out of their vehicles by bringing development up to the street and modernizing development in
32 this sense. The DZC essentially focuses on community living by encouraging a mix of uses to get
33 people to interact more with one another. In this way grocery stores can be developed next to
34 housing and encourage live/work scenarios.
35 • In terms of residential density supports considering different densities rather than a one dwelling
36 unit per 6,000 square feet minimum, but rather consider a small urban residential category for
37 efficiency purposes.
38 • A transit facility cannot be supported until there is a minimum of seven dwelling units per acre.
39 • While 25% of designated area for circulation and rights-of-way is standard, consider a breakdown
40 of these components allowing for a maximum for motorized and non-motorized circulation.
41 • Overall, the percentages pertinent to mixed-use in the table could be modified in some instances
42 to more appropriately address need or how mixed-use concepts can be viewed.
43 • The current mixed-use proposal does not entirely reflect the UVAP vision of providing for
44 innovative, high quality, aesthetic pleasing products that promote community health and
45 ecologically efficiency. New development is the time to be creative in order to produce a highly
46 quality project imposing/applying the highest standards.
47 • Supports being very specific about what the public and decisions makers would want to see in
48 their community.
49
50 Planning Director Stump:
51 • Commented on Commissioner's Helland support of reducing residential density in connection
52 with the proposed one dwelling unit per 6,000 square feet minimum (single family residential)
53 having smaller homes on smaller lots and the concept of providing for homes in villages that are
54 more compact.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 10
1 • A great example of this type of development is the cottage development on Bush Street and Low
2 Gap Road having small homes that are clustered together into a village-like setting with shared
3 public spaces. This type of development is a fast growing trend that is received very well in
4 communities.
5 • Drew attention to the mixed-use tables represent the 'preferred alternative.'
6
7 There was discussion about the possible need for design review of developments in the Triangle that
8 would provide consideration for all facets of development to include parking/circulation, lighting,
9 landscaping, and other associated and necessary development characteristics/issues that must be
10 considered.
11
12 Commissioner Brenner:
13 • There is a need to facilitate development to happen.
14 • UVAP is a well thought out document.
15 • Does not support adding on another layer of review for a development project by including a
16 design review process.
17
18 Planning Director Stump:
19 • The design review process would be like adding another aspect of a project as opposed to adding
20 another layer to the process that would include landscaping, lighting, and possibly some building
21 design, etc.
22
23 Commissioner Brenner:
24 • Is the County process lacking in the planning process in terms of development and/or Planning
25 Commission review?
26
27 Planning Director Stump:
28 • When the Orr Creek Bridge project was being considered, there appeared to be lack of
29 discretionary review other than the required CEQA review with regard to the Brush Street
30 Triangle whereby the City expressed concern.
31 • A specific plan would require the application of strict standards for the purpose of development of
32 a quality product.
33
34 Benj Thomas:
35 • Supports the concept of moving the UVAP project forward.
36 • The concern is really about the level of detail for developments and how to effectively control
37 those details.
38 • Agrees that all type of developments in the Triangle would affect the City in some capacity.
39 • Does not agree with the thinking that it is unlikely all the mixed-use development would occur and
40 reach build-out capacity. The worst case scenario should always be a consideration and that
41 allowing for quality planning should be a primary objective in all cases.
42
43 Vice Chair Whetzel:
44 • How were the numbers in the mix-use tables formulated? Why is 40% the number of designated
45 areas as single-family residential. It could be some of the numbers for the various classifications
46 could be increased or lowered depending on what types of mixed-uses are encouraged. A
47 specific plan would be able to better access what types of developments would be most
48 appropriate and to what degree and/or percentage.
49
50 Planning Director Stump:
51 • The numbers were probably formulated on known and applicable resources for build-out of the
52 Triangle together with the notation/understanding of public uses based on certain needs,
53 expectations and Plan goals and objectives.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 11
1 There was discussion about possible changes to the figures by having a specific plan in place once the
2 UVAP is adopted to consider/address some of issues raised in the above discussions.
3
4 Commissioner Benner:
5 • Commented on percentages in the table with regard to parks, open space and planned
6 developments and noted it has been his experience with designing projects that open space is a
7 consideration so there is already a format in the process. It may be that such a policy should be
8 adopted for the three sites being discussed tonight.
9 • Open space, recreational facilities and parks are essentially amenities in neighborhoods.
10
11 Vice Chair Whetzel:
12 • It may be that with the 40% of designated area for single-family residential planned development
13 that parks, open space will be included as a part of these developments as opposed to having it
14 go toward the 11% of designated area for parks and recreation facilities, etc.
15 • The Commission supports mixed-use developments in the Triangle and is discussing whether the
16 associated percentages of designated areas for mixed-use are appropriate.
17
18 Public Citizen:
19 • Supports the Brush Street Triangle be developed as mixed-use.
20
21 Commissioner Helland:
22 • Supports 30°/o of designated area as single-family residential of different densities and lot sizes.
23 • 20% of designated area as motorized circulation and 5% non-motorized.
24 • Combine the 14% of designated areas as commercial with 10% of designated area as mixed-use
25 for a total of 24% mixed-use, leaving a remainder of 21% for the middle category of 11% of
26 designated area as other uses and divide some portion of this category required for parks,
27 recreation facilities, open space as a separate issue leaving a portion for schools, public
28 facilities, public service, public assemblies, utility installations.
29
30 Robin Collier:
31 • The UVAP document should be viewed with regard to the overall vision which is to promote
32 growth and economic feasibility rather than picking it apart according to percentages and saying
33 `no' to certain types of mixed-use developments for areas, which would be the same as
34 essentially saying `no' to more revenue,job creation, and growth in this County. These elements
35 are necessary in order for the City and County to survive.
36 • The UVAP is well written and thought out with checks and balances in place that appropriately
37 address development as it occurs.
38 • Supports adoption of the document, as written.
39
40 Commission consensus- Helland, Sanders;
41 • Recommends City Council review the percentages in the table, as written and consider the
42 alternative percentages:
43 ➢ 30% of designated area—Single-family residential of different densities and lot sizes.
44 ➢ 20% of designated area as motorized circulation with 5°/a non-motorized.
45 ➢ Combine the 14% commercial with 10°/a of designated area as mixed-use for a total of
46 24% mixed-use.
47 ➢ The remaining 21% would be divided such as 10% or 11% for parks, recreation, and
48 open space and 10% or 11% for schools, public facilities, public services, public
49 assemblies, utility installations.
50
51 Commission consensus—Whetzel:
52 • Supports changing 40% of designated area as single-family residential and adding to the 11% of
53 designated area as other uses for a total of 35%for residential and 16%for the other uses.
54
55 Commissioner consensus - Brenner:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 12
1 • Does not support modifying the percentages because they were formulated for a reason.
2 • Providing for parks and recreation areas are important and supports modifying the percentages to
3 allow for this.
4 • Development needs checks and balances and not left `alone'to see what occurs.
5 • Allowing the potential for development to occur is important.
6 • The review processes will fine-tune/shape projects.
7 • Important to uphold the City's level of design review standards.
8
9 Commissioner Helland: Does the UVAP document reflect the will of the people and the vision
10 expressed, as written?
11
12 Commissioner Brenner: Supports consideration be given for parks and calculate what that percentage
13 should be and subtract from the percentage proposed for this category. 'Parks' should have a separate
14 category.
15
16 MASONITE
17
18 Ernie Banks:
19 • Appears the UVAP is a done deal and the Commission's role tonight is to `rubber-stamp it.'
20 • It may be the discussion should be about whether or not anything should be done at all because
21 of development limitations, particularly with regard to the issue of water.
22 • It is very clear from the UVAP section on water that there is `no water.'
23 • If there is no water available, why are we talking about building more homes, more parks. These
24 developments would be fine if water was available.
25 • The entire discussion is somewhat absurd.
26
27 Commissioner Whetzel:
28 • It has taken years to formulate the numbers for the UVAP document.
29 • Understands UVAP contains stipulations in the event there is no water for development that
30 development cannot occur.
31 • The intent of the UVAP is to be able to control and effectively plan for future development.
32 • Attachment 5 demonstrates a designation for Masonite Mixed-Use and a designation for
33 Masonite Industrial.
34 • Approves of the mixed-use percentages for Masonite.
35
36 Planning Director Stump
37 • Masonite Mixed-Use and Masonite Industrial as shown on the map represent a different
38 composition of mixed uses.
39 • Council's Strategic Plan #4 provides that sound planning principles be applied for all
40 development. In the case of the Masonite property that is prime for industrial use, does it
41 represent sound planning principles for this property to be considered for any other type of use.
42 • The Masonite site is not adjacent to the City.
43 • The Masonite site is in a good location for industrial use.
44
45 Lynda McClure;
46 • In the context of the UVAP, the Masonite site is unique.
47 • Measure A proposed a rezone of the Masonite property from Industrial to Mixed-use
48 Commercial/retail/residential. The citizens of Ukiah voted to keep the Masonite property for
49 industrial use.
50 • While mixed-use is the wave of the future and a good concept, accomplishments in this regard
51 depend upon the property owner because it is the property owner that decides what he/she wants
52 to build.
53 • The owners of the Masonite property want to preliterate retail shopping for this community's
54 economic future. The citizens of this County made it very clear this is not what they want.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 13
1 • Recommends upholding citizen's opinion regarding the Masonite property.
2
3 Kim Vau:
4 • Supports mixed-use for the Masonite site.
5 • Masonite should not remain Industrial.
6 • Is it realistic to think that Ukiah will ever be industrial again.
7 • Is not aware of anyone wanting to come in and do an industrial development.
8 • Why allow valuable land to sit idle waiting for an expressed interest in an industrial development.
9 • Wants to see growth and development occur so this County can better prosper.
10 • Does not support modifying the numbers in the tables for the three areas being discussed tonight.
11 • Supports the adoption of UVAP, as written.
12
13 Vice Chair Whetzel:
14 • The numbers for development as provided for in the tables represent the 'preferred alternative'
15 and other alternatives are presented.
16 • Again, the intent of the Commission is to consider what is best for the City of Ukiah, not
17 necessarily the County.
18 • The properties being discussed tonight affect Ukiah.
19 • While the Commission may not have a final say in the outcome of the Plan, the intent of the
20 Commission is to review what was presented and make a recommendation as to what `we' as a
21 community would like to see occur with regard to these properties.
22 • The County may disregard the recommendations made by the Planning Commission to Council.
23 • Is familiar with the three sites being discussed and understands the kinds of development that
24 would best fit each of these sites. While there may be development potential for a particular area,
25 the best approach is to look at each parcel and determine what is the most reasonable, best and
26 highest use based on the resources available, infrastructure, services, and other issues
27 associated with good planning.
28 • Does question where the mixed-use percentages in the tables originated for the three areas.
29
30 Commissioner Helland:
31 • Looked at development plans in other communities and there appears to be no `perfecY template
32 in this regard.
33
34 Stephen Scalmanini:
35 • Has attended County meetings regarding the Masonite site and noted when EDR purchased the
36 property there was a backup buyer with a legitimate offer that wanted to spend several million
37 dollars for an industry operation. The property was purchased by EDR.
38 • EDR could have turned around and sold the property for a profit.
39 • The Masonite property is unique with rail and freeway access to name a few of the benefits.
40 • Masonite is not located near a residential area.
41 • The Masonite site is prime for `Industrial' and views this use as very viable to Ukiah in terms of
42 economic growth.
43 • Supports Masonite land be used for`Industry' because this is what makes the most sense.
44
45 Commissioner Sanders:
46 • Addressed the ballot for Measure A and noted the voters concerns about the EDR's proposed
47 Commercial/retail/residential rezone were associated with development issues, such as water.
48 • Has concern about developing the site with residential/retail because the site is likely
49 contaminated after being operated by Masonite for over 50 years.
50 • Has concern about health by allowing mixed-use of the Masonite property.
51 • While 'Industry' is not being exercised in this country, it may very well come back in the future.
52 • It may be biological changes will be made such that `Industrial uses' will again return to this
53 country or it may be that in future this site would be ready for mixed-use, but not at this time.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 14
1 Commissioner Helland:
2 • There is a mix of opinions about the properties being discussed.
3 • The Planning Commissioners are closely listening to everyone's concerns and opinions.
4 • It is important to listen to the citizens of this community who voiced their opinion about the
5 Masonite property.
6 • As a Commissioner making recommendations as a representative of the City of Ukiah, it is
7 important to consider the issues and alternatives, particularly with regard to the 25 significant and
8 unavoidable impacts after mitigation measures have been implemented that will adversely affect
9 the City of Ukiah with the biggest areas being loss of prime agricultural land, unacceptable traffic
10 and air pollution, unacceptable demands on public services and growth inducement as they
11 relates to water availability/quality, potential urban decay, and blight resulting from these adverse
12 effects.
13
14 Commissioner Brenner:
15 • Understands as a Planning Commissioner, he represents the body and thoughts of Ukiah and its
16 citizens.
17 • Inquired about the voting ratio for Measure A because having this information would help him
18 make an informed decision.
19
20 It was noted 63% voted against the rezone for Masonite. The voting ratio for the City on this measure is
21 unknown.
22
23 Vice Chair Whetzel:
24 • It may have been the citizens voted against Measure A because he heard people comment there
25 would be no environmental review for the EDR project rather than voting against the measure just
26 because the development would be mixed-use. There is no way to have this information.
27 • Agrees with the mix-use percentages in the table for Masonite
28 • Does not envision any more `Industry' coming to Ukiah in the future.
29 • No one will be pleased with any type of industry that comes.
30 • Masonite was probably the best industry use that could have operated in Ukiah for all those years
31 or anywhere for that matter as it provided revenue to the County and City, was a great job source,
32 had its own electricity, steam, water and was probably one of the most sustainable industries
33 found anywhere.
34 • It would be nice to have Masonite back.
35 • Does everyone want some kind of industry like Masonite?
36
37 Planning Director Stump:
38 • The citizens voiced their opinion concerning Measure A by voting against a rezone from Industrial
39 to mixed-use for reasons that will likely never be known.
40 • Interest has been expressed with regard to industry in Ukiah over the years.
41 • Masonite represents an ideal area for industry for a variety of reasons.
42
43 Commissioner Helland:
44 • From a Ukiah perspective, the property is not contiguous to the City of Ukiah.
45 • The City would have to bare significant and unavoidable impacts and costs relative to build-out
46 under the Plan that result in 60 potentially significant impacts, of which 25 impacts would remain
47 significant and unavoidable after recommended mitigation measures are added to the Plan.
48
49 Commission consensus—Helland, Sanders:
50 • Support Masonite remains industrial.
51
52 Commission consensus—Whetzel:
53 • Supports mixed—use for Masonite.
54
55 Commission consensus—Brenner:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 15
1 • Understands 63% of City/County voted against Measure A, but needs to know how the citizens of
2 Ukiah voted because this would have an effect on how he views the Masonite site.
3 • Has mixed opinions about how Masonite should be developed.
4
5 Lynda McClure:
6 • As far as Measure A, the voters were voting on the rezone from industrial to mixed-use.
7 • Thanked all persons who sit on commissions, committees, and boards, particularly the Planning
8 Commission for their time, energy in connection with the amount of reading/studying that must be
9 done. This is a great public service and appreciates each Commissioner.
10
11 Commissioner Sanders:
12 • The ballot regarding Measure A reads, `Measure A - Shall the ordinance title and initiative to
13 enact a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment and Mixed-Use Specific Plan for
14 the former site of the Masonite facility be approved: yes or no.'
15
16 There was discussion concerning the water wells on the Masonite site that are now owned by the State
17 and not the property owner. This information is available from the State Water Resources Board.
18
19 Public Citizen: The 'preferred alternative' represents the potential worst case scenario at build-out.
20
21 Planning Director Stump:
22 • The City is not the decision-making body for this document.
23 • While the City provided comments to the UVAP, it is the County's call how to proceed.
24
25 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:47 p.m.
26
27 8. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
28 • The Planning Commission joint meeting with City Council to discuss the DZC is April 27 at the
29 Ukiah Conference Center.
30 • There will be a Planning Commission meeting in May concerning a mural project.
31 • The Commission will have the opportunity to review the Walmart EIR tentatively at a regular
32 Planning Commission meeting in June.
33 • Planning staff has been in touch with Pacific Outfitters concerning completion of the mural
34 approved for the building.
35
36 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
37 None.
38
39 10. ADJOURNMENT
40 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
41
42
43 Mike Whetzel, Vice-Chair
44
45
46 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
47
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 2011
Page 16
MINUTES
UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
Joint Meeting
April 27, 2011
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT
Benj Thomas Doug Crane
Mary Anne Landis Phil Baldwin
Mari Rodin, Mayor
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Mike Whetzel Judy Pruden, Chair
Linda Helland
Jason Brenner
Linda Sanders
STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
The joint meeting of the Ukiah City Council and Planning Commission was called to order by
Mayor Rodin at 6:00 p.m. in the Ukiah Valley Conference Center, 200 South School Street, Ukiah,
California.
1. ROLL CALL
Roll was taken with the results listed above.
Councilmembers Crane and Baldwin were not present because both have a conflict of interest by
owing property within a 300 square feet radius of the DZC boundaries and cannot by law participate
in the discussion and/or vote on the matter.
Mayor Rodin owns property within a 300 square foot radius of the DZC, but since Council needed to
have a quorum, one member of the three with the conflict needed to participate, so there was a
selection process between these three Council members and Mayor Rodin was selected to
participate.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None.
4. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION
There are no appealable items on this agenda.
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
No one came forward.
6. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION
6A. Community Workshop for Discussion of the Downtown Zoning Code (DZC).
Planning Director Stump gave a brief overview of the DZC:
• The purpose of tonighYs joint meeting with City Council and the Planning Commission is to
conduct a public workshop to review and discuss the DZC relevant to the foundation that
came from the charrette and community input, vision of the Code, Code content and major
components, how to use the document, discuss Planning Commission `hot topics' identified
Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011
Page 1
as part of the Planning Commission workshop process, and introduce new topics included in
the DZC.
• Results of the charrette are shown on the boards in the rear of the room.
• Consultants Fisher and Hall helped the community through the vision and the
intenUapplication of the 'SmartCode' concept.
• Planning Commission reviewed the DZC from beginning to end in a workshop setting where
the public commented and provided input.
• The DZC was reviewed section by section as each section builds on the next providing the
necessary foundation for topics included in the final draft.
• The Planning Commission's thoroughness and familiarity with the foundation and purposes of
the Code together with public input raised issues and concerns during the Planning
Commission workshop process that allows the Council and public to review/discuss the final
draft of the DZC, ask questions, and make comments.
Senior Planner Jordan provided an introduction to the DZC with a guide on how to generally use the
Code, read the tables, commented briefly on some of the Code sections such as building and
development standards/level of review/exceptions and then specifically referred to the main
components of the Code:
• Table of contents (pages 3-4).
• Section 1: Purpose statement(page 5).
• Section 3: Zoning, Downtown Zoning Code Map (page 9).
• Table 3: Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements (pages 13-16)
• Section 6: Site and Building Development Standards, Table 4: Site Development Standards
(page 27)and Table 5: Building Types (page 28).
• Section 7: Architectural Standards, Table 11: Frontage Type and Storefront Standards (page
38) and Table 12: Architectural Elements and Materials (page 39).
• Section 10: Tree Preservation and Planting Requirements, Table 21: Required Street Trees
for Primary Streets, (page 56) and Table 22: Alternate Street Trees for Primary Streets (page
57).
• Section 11: Circulation Map (page 65).
• Section 11: Special Designations Map (page 66).
List of`Hot Topics'for discussion included:
• Boundaries
• Circulation related to Alleys
• Circulation related to Pedestrian and Bicycle
• Circulation—Street extensions
• Circulation related to Gibson Creek
• Formula Fast Food Restaurant
• Non-conforming Uses
• Street Trees
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:47 p.m.
Councilmember Landis:
• Reviewed the draft DZC from the eyes of a developer.
• Given that she has developed a subdivision in the past, expressed concerns with the use
table and noted there are 288 uses listed for the three zones of which only 112 are
administrative approval. The Code is not offering enough flexibility/certainty for the developer
and too much discretionary review.
• Size of buildings and uses should be looked at more carefully in the Code.
Planning Commissioner Brenner:
Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011
Page 2
• Is a new Planning Commissioner and was not a participant for most of the public workshops
concerning the DZC.
• The Site Development Permit Procedures section provided for in Table 27 of the DZC
document is very good.
• Views the UVAP document as more 'IenienY than the DZC in terms of the types of
development allowed particularly mixed-use and is concerned the City with regard to the DZC
may not be able to adequately `compete' with the County for development because certain
uses are not allowed.
• Is of the opinion the use table should be revisited and that more uses should be allowed by
right in order to provide a developer with more incentives and/or options.
• Supports revisiting the major/minor use requirements and possibly provide for more flexibility.
• A flexible zoning code document having the potential to more appropriately attract developers
would have a positive effect on the City's economic viability, as well as provide the necessary
stimulus for growth inducement.
Planning Director Stump:
• The proposed DZC offers more options than the current zoning code.
• The DZC provides certain threshold for standards and uses relative to the three existing
zoning districts. For instance with regard to the thresholds in the use table, the Planning
Commission determined a major use permit would be required if the use exceeds 5,000
square feet of floor area on the ground floor.
• Review of the use table is important. The Planning Commission together with public input
closely reviewed and discussed each use in conjunction with all types of development
scenarios before determining whether a particular use is allowed by right, allowed as
accessory to a principal use, allowed with a minor or major use permit or prohibited and
established the appropriate threshold for a use where applicable.
Senior Planner Jordan:
• The Planning Commission spent a lot of time reviewing the size of the use. 5,000 sq. ft. is
quite sizeable for Ukiah especially with respect to buildings located within the boundaries of
DZC.
• Cited an example of a use in Table 3 with a footnote that `Studio — art, dance, martial arts,
music' is allowed by right. A minor use permit is required if the use exceeds 5,000 square
feet of floor area or 100 lineal feet on the ground floor street level when a storefront frontage
type is required according to the Special Designations Map. The Planning Commission was
of the opinion the use should be allowed based on purpose and intent of the DZC. Once the
use exceeds 5,000 sq. ft, impacts such as traffic and parking should be reviewed by the
Zoning Administrator as a part of minor use permit.
• Whenever Planning Commission recommended a use permit, they discussed the use and
what impacts may be associated with the use that makes the use permit necessary. The
Commission also discussed at what size/threshold a use permit should be required.
• The footnotes in the use tables refer different thresholds for review depending on the type of
use, location, and square footage.
Councilmember Landis:
• Supports considering whether or not a 5,000 sq. ft. threshold is necessary if a project meets
the requirements as to form and design.
• There are alternatives rather than just 'saying no' to a project. A large building does not
necessarily mean there would be more noise and/or other type of impacts. If a 5,000 sq. ft.
were to occur in the Downtown and cited the Ukiah Natural Foods building as an example
that if such a building was nicely articulated with a nice presentation and design would look
nice in the Downtown because this is what form-based code is all about.
Senior Planner Jordan:
Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011
Page 3
• Each time the Planning Commission considered a use permit, it identified potential impacts of
the use, discussed compatibility with existing uses, and how the use could impact neighbors.
• The concern by the Planning Commission is when a use gets to 5,000 sq. ft. and the use is
not retail and the project does not really create any interest or walkability in a storefront and
while the business is viable, it actually presents a `hole' and would not be consistent with the
vision of the charrette or the purpose statements.
Planning Commissioner Helland:
• Addressed the 5,000 sq. ft. threshold, and confirmed a lot of time was spent taking public
testimony and discussing the particulars of each use, how the use would operate,
consideration potential impacts, and whether or not the use is appropriate. And, if
appropriate, what level of review would be required
• The review process of the DZC was very thorough and comprehensive with careful
consideration given to every section of standards/requirements in the document.
Planning Commissioner Brenner:
• The 5,000 sq. ft. threshold is just a number.
• Found some of uses in the table that would be great in the Downtown area were not allowed
and/or require a use permit, such as cannot have outdoor dining without a minor use permit.
• The DZC document is well-thought out in terms of clarity and is easy to understand.
Senior Planner Jordan:
• The 5,000 sq. ft. threshold came out of the first draft of the Code. The intent is that the use is
pedestrian oriented and has a storefront that provides some interest at the street level. This
threshold prevents a use from creating a large hole on the ground floor within the boundaries
of the Code which would be contrary to the vision from the charrette and the purpose
statements.
• Outdoor dining is a use that is allowed with a minor use permit accessory use to a restaurant
which is indicated by footnote (8). Outdoor dining requires a Minor Use Permit MIUP(8). The
use permit allows potential impacts to be evaluated, such as accessibility requirements,
walkability, need for additional parking due to additional seating.
Planning Commissioner Whetzel:
• Planning Commission's objective has been to provide for a DZC document that would
promote/encourage growth and development, walkability, and nicely articulated buildings
while providing for incentives to developers by taking considerable measures to make certain
the appropriate thresholds would be in place to address potential impacts associated with a
particular use.
Pinky Kushner:
• Confirmed the Planning Commission and public spent a lot of time reviewing the use table
and supports the use table as presented.
• Notes many of the uses are not prohibited and can be allowed with a use permit.
• Is of the opinion requiring a minor use permit is not a 'blockage' and/or deterrent for a
proposed development.
HOT TOPICS:
Boundaries: (DZC Map, page 9)
Planning Director Stump:
• Primary reason boundaries was a hot topic was because preliminary environmental analysis
revealed that due to the size of the area, potentially significant impacts could result with built-
out in terms of traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, etc.
Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011
Page 4
• Staff referred to the DZC Map for the three corresponding districts and discussed the
specifics concerning the boundaries and the reasons why they were formulated.
• Planning Commission is recommending that 262 Smith Street be included in the boundaries
and one parcel of railroad right-of-way is proposed to be removed. Including the railroad
parcel in the original boundaries was likely a mapping error.
Susan Knopf: Asked staff to address the CEQA issue and whether this has to do with not putting
Gibson Creek in the DZC boundaries?
Planning Director Stump:
• No correlation. In terms of the DZC boundaries, the larger the area, the more likely the
potential that development may have traffic and circulation issues where an EIR would be
required. In terms of Gibson Creek, the Code is suggesting the Creek be a creek again. The
intent is to avoid the very costly and in-depth CEQA review process.
• The boundaries were reduced because with a larger district there may be some difficulty
getting through the CEQA process.
Senior Planner Jordan:
• The intent of the boundaries is also to focus on a smaller area and develop a Code through
this public process. Once the Code is adopted and we are working with it, the community and
decision makers can see how it works and choose to expand it into other areas, modify it as
needed, etc.
No public comments on boundaries.
Circulation—Alleys (Circulation Map, page 65)
Senior Planner Jordan:
• The information shown on the original map Circulation Map included new streets and alleys
that did reflect development. Many of these went through existing buildings. The new streets
and alleys were likely included on the Circulation Map in order to meet the block perimeter
and access requirements included in the Code.
• There was a lot of comment received on the first draft Code regarding the alleys shown on
the map. Since we do not know where development will occur or what the project will look
like, the alleys were removed from the Circulation Map. It may be that in order to meet the
block perimeter, access, or other Code requirements, an alley will be require and this is
discussed in the text of the Code.
• The appropriate location for alleys will be reviewed as part of the development review
process.
No public comments on Circulation —Alleys.
Circulation—Pedestrian and Bicycle (Circulation Map, page 65)
Senior Planner Jordan:
• The pedestrian/bike paths included in the original Circulation Plan were removed.
• Specific areas such as the railroad right-of-way, Gibson Creek, Perkins Street area were
identified on the Circulation Map as `Required Paths' because it makes sense to provide this
circulation/connection in these areas should development occur.
• Paths are recommended as a possible method to comply with the block perimeter
requirement or may be necessary to comply with a DZC standard. In order to deviate from
the requirement an 'Exception' is required. This information is included in the text of the
Code.
No public comments on Circulation —Pedestrian and Bicycle.
Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011
Page 5
Circulation—Street Extensions
Senior Planner Jordan:
• New streets in the original Circulation Plan were removed.
• Street extensions are identified as 'Required or Recommended.' The street extension is not
required unless the parcels are consolidated and redeveloped.
• An applicant may request an Exception to the requirement for the street extension.
• Street extensions included in the Circulation Plan were based on the desired block perimeter
and consultation with City Public Works Department based on the locations where improved
circulation is needed.
• It is not known whether a project will come or what it will look like, so the street extensions
identified as `required or recommended' may never happen.
• Referenced the Circulation Map and noted Clay Street extended to Peach Street is included
in the General Plan as a "future road extension" so this aspect is already incorporated as a
City document and needs to be included.
• The Hospital Drive Extension is an important connection that would greatly improve
circulation. Hospital Drive would connect to the extension of Clay Street which would align
with Peach Street at Leslie Street. The Planning Commission/staff was supportive of this
concept. There was Planning Commission discussion and public comment about how the
Hospital Drive Extension would affect Gibson Creek.
• The thought behind the Church Street Extension and Stephensen Street Extension is they
would not be required unless all those parcels were acquired and redeveloped. The intent is
to let the developer know this is the City's preferred location for street extensions because
they provide the connection the development will need to help comply with the block
perimeter requirements. However, if an extension does not work for the project, there is still
language in the circulation section that allows a developer to request an Exception from the
requirement for the street extension.
Linda Malone:
• Owns property within the DZC boundaries and this property would be affected by the
Stephenson Street Extension of which she is opposed.
• Supports not showing the Stephenson Extension on the Circulation Map.
• Is of the opinion there is no justification for this extension.
• Recommends the Map be revised and corrected to accurately show the location of
Stephenson Street.
John Mayfield:
• Owns property in the area of the Clay Street Extension and Stephenson Street Extension and
is of the opinion that showing the street extensions on the Circulation Map will undermine the
value of his property.
• Would like to have the street extensions removed from the Map.
Councilmember Thomas requested clarification about the intent of the street extensions.
Senior Planner Jordan: The way the Code was formulated is if the associated parcels in the areas
of the proposed street extensions as shown on the Circulation map are assembled and redeveloped,
the street would be required. But if for some reason the applicant or developer did not want to put in
the street, he/she could ask for a Major Exception. This is not substantially any different than how it
is now under the existing Code because if someone wanted to develop the parcels in the area,
he/she would be responsible for providing the necessary access and circulation to accompany/serve
the development.
Planning Commissioner Brenner:
Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011
Page 6
• It is important to think about the Code standards, particularly if a recommended street
extension would decrease someone's value of land.
• No one really wants to go through the Site Development Permit process so this is a valid
concern where consideration should be given on how to better facilitate developments and
while a street extension may be a preference, it may actually constrict a development.
Mayor Rodin: It is not that there is a need for a street, but rather it is the public's preference and/or
vision in the charrettes to have a more walkability in the community.
Planning Commissioner Helland:
• In terms of the vision of having a more pedestrian friendly environment particularly in places
where the parcels are smaller, such as on School Street the intent is to provide a connection
to encourage walkability to maintain that same `feel' School Street has. Allowing for increased
connections in areas encourages walkability where the rationale is to get people out of
vehicles and walk to stores to do their shopping.
• It is likely the Downtown area and presentation will shift some to the east with the
development of the new courthouse so it becomes important this area look and feel more
vibrant and that can be accomplished by having street connections to promote walkability that
unify these areas in a way that people want to be there to dine, shop, and have an enjoyable
experience.
Sheraton Malone:
• Likes to walk and walk in neighborhoods and downtown areas and along storefronts.
• Supports that new development work with what is existing rather than trying to change what
is by expanding areas to include what is existing. Why not expand the Downtown area from
School Street to Mill Street to include Main Street or even Norton Street. There are
architecturally pleasing buildings in all of these areas. It is not necessary to carve up parcels
to provide for street extensions. Supports taking a bigger view of where the community wants
the town to be and work with what is existing and make these areas more walkable. Ukiah
has historical buildings with unique designs having their own style and flavor.
• Owns property on Main Street and is opposed to the Stephensen Street Extension as shown
on the Circulation Map.
Susan Knopf:
• Asked for clarification that the document relates to new construction and the street extension
would only be required if there was new construction.
• The DZC should be viewed as a planning document. Developments that are talked about in
the Code may not happen for a very long time or may be never. The document provides a
tool to guide/shape development in the future.
Senior Planner Jordan: Confirmed with regard to many situations the document guides planning for
future new development taking into consideration whether or not the rules apply relative to what is
existing and/or non-conforming.
Steve Scalmanini:
• Addressed the two proposed new courthouse sites and it is his understanding both locations
exist or partially exist in the Floodplain of Gibson Creek and in the vicinity of the proposed
street extensions as shown on the Circulation Map. The street extensions are not located in
the Floodplain of Gibson Creek.
• Relocation of the courthouse presents the concern of losing momentum with the close
proximity to other things in the Downtown area in which street extensions would provide a
connection even though the street extension concept is a long shot.
Gibson Creek
Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011
Page 7
Senior Planner Jordan: There was considerable Planning Commission and public discussion about
circulation related to Gibson Creek without a clear resolution. Page 63 of the DZC, section 11.080
provides specific direction as to how Gibson Creek should be treated should the area be developed
and acknowledges the creek as an amenity to the City and for the habitat it provides.
Councilmember Thomas asked about the definition of a Caltrans Class I path as provided for on
page 63 of the DZC relative to the 'Required Paths' section.
Senior Planner Jordan: A class I path represents a 10-foot wide Caltrans standard for a pathway.
No public comment on Gibson Street circulation.
Formula Fast Food Restaurant
Senior Planner Jordan:
• In the beginning there was a lot of discussion with Planning Commission and the public
whether or not to allow formula fast food restaurants in the Downtown.
• The Planning Commission formulated a definition of formula fast food restaurants that is
included in the Glossary section of the DZC. Originally, specific to the definition, an alternate
approach was considered by the Planning Commission and this was to prohibit formula fast
food restaurants with an exception for ice cream shops, coffeehouses, bakeries, hotdog
stands, or other businesses whose primary function is not the sale of full meals.
• When the Planning Commission made their final decision with a recommendation to Council
concerning fast food on a 3-2 split vote and the exclusions were not included.
• Most of the discussions about fast food focused around whether or not corporate fast food
establishments were a good idea in terms of health and economically supporting the local
economy.
Marvin Trotter:
• Supports a ban on fast food with the exception for some types of businesses.
• Given what he has seen in the emergency room over the past 30 years, is of the opinion that
a ban on fast food is good.
• Supports local business.
David Fisher—represents North Valley Bank Company:
• Does not favor any restriction on uses in the Code.
• Questions whether uses should be allowed through a use permit.
• Prohibition of some uses is discrimination.
Lisa Mammina:
• Expressed concern with prohibiting fast food in the Downtown area.
• Noted there is a low turnout of people at this meeting given the importance of the topic.
Tammy Eangle, local Quiznos franchise owner:
• Is concerned with the proposed exclusion on fast foods.
• Is of the opinion corporate fast food establishments would bring more people to the
Downtown and the increased traffic would help other businesses.
Mary McClan Calvert:
• Is of the opinion people should have good choices and supports the ban on fast food.
Mo Mulheren
• `Likes burgers' and does not want a ban on fast food.
• There are people in the community that do eat fast food.
Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011
Page 8
• Is of the opinion formula fast food establishments would bring more people to the Downtown
area and create the necessary traffic for other business.
• Asks that when considering prohibiting fast food "step outside your circle of friends" by
talking to others to find out their preference regarding allowing formula fast food businesses.
• Would like the decision makers to listen to business owners.
Brad Copper Ryder:
• Makes organic burgers at his restaurant in the Downtown. Would like to see Ukiah stay as
unique as possible.
• Supports a major exclusion for fast food.
Dennis Slota:
• Is supportive of fast food exclusion in the Downtown.
Steve Scalmanini:
• Supports keeping formula fast food establishments out of the Downtown.
• Concerned, however, there are too many use restrictions in the Code. For instance, would
Danny's Vacuum be allowed under the provisions of the Code?
• Are thrift stores allowed in the Downtown? Supports the concept of allowing for Thrift stores
in the Downtown area noting it has been his experiences such uses in other cities are a nice
fit.
Commissioner Helland:
• Thrift stores are allowed in the Downtown Core district with approval of a Major Use Permit.
Steve Scalmanini:
• Referred to the DZC Map and inquired why the different districts in these areas within the
blue lines in the Code were not extended to and/or viewed as whole blocks for consistency
purposes as opposed to individual parcels.
Senior Planner Jordan:
• In response to expanding the districts, Planning Commission has recommended expanding
the area proposed for the Downtown Core. Recommend focusing less on the particular
zoning district and more on what is trying to be accomplished by that zoning district in the
way type of development and the standards developed in the Code. The focus should be less
on the `color' and the name of the zoning district and more about what are the rules and what
is trying to be created.
• The concern with thrift stores is that they can have a blighting effect on an area depending on
the number and type of thrift store.
• Noted an error relative to use `maintenance/repair-equipment, large appliances.' The name of
the use the table does not match the name in the glossary and needs to be corrected. Any
existing business of this nature or similar such as Danny's Vacuum would not be impacted
with the new regulations because it is an existing and non-conforming use. One of the hot
topics is non-conforming uses that talks about how to address uses that would become non-
conforming as a result of the DZC.
Commissioner Whetzel:
• The Planning Commission recommendation to Council was not unanimous on a 3-2 vote
regarding whether or not to allow fast food establishments in the Downtown.
• While a definition of fast food establishments was formulated by the Planning Commission,
he was not supportive of prohibiting fast food in the Downtown because it was his
understanding the vision of the Code was to create a vibrant Downtown. If certain businesses
are excluded that could draw other businesses to the Downtown, what is essentially the
purpose of the DZC?
• The intent is to encourage development rather than discourage.
Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011
Page 9
• Discouraging businesses from coming to the Downtown is like catering to a certain clientele.
• Is of the opinion people should have a choice about what they want to eat.
Valerie King—Property owner in DZC:
• Is part owner of a building in the Downtown.
• While Ukiah has improved over the years, would like the decision makers to consider a
vehicle free zone in the Downtown area.
Kit Elliot—Property owner in the DZC:
• Would like to see information options from merchants not just from the property owners about
their opinion on fast food establishments.
• Would like to see Ukiah continue to be unique and does agree new businesses are needed in
the Downtown.
Pinky Kushner:
• Would not like to see fast food in the Downtown.
• Owns a building on Oak Street and supports thrift stores in the Downtown area because they
can be a good use and are a form of reuse/recycling.
Lisa Mammina:
• Likes food the concept of food carts.
• Is of the opinion formula stores are typically successful and could be used as a model of how
to attract other types of businesses.
Planning Commissioner Helland: Provided an overview and accompanying statistics that support a
ban on fast food establishments.
Councilmember Landis:
• Appreciates Commissioner Helland's research.
• Has not yet formulated an opinion on formula fast food and would like to hear more on this
subject from business owners and merchants.
• It may be formula fast food establishments will encourage people to the Downtown area.
Councilmember Thomas:
• It may have been the Ukiah Main Street Program was urging the exclusion of non-meal
providers from formula fast food establishments. It was his understanding the Downtown
merchants would accept coffee houses and the like, but not for full fast food meal exclusions.
• While fast food is essentially a public health matter is City planning the proper place to
address this problem and if not where else?
• Has some concern about the statistics concerning fast food provided by Commissioner
Helland because correlation is not always causation.
Mayor Rodin:
• No fast food restaurant sells full meals.
• Is undecided whether a bakery or Pete's coffee should be excluded from the Downtown.
• Understands that fast food establishments could increase traffic in the Downtown.
• Has no opinion at this point about whether or not formula fast food establishments should be
prohibited from the Downtown.
Non-conforming Uses - No discussion.
Trees—Street Tree List- No discussion
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:32 p.m.
Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011
Page 10
There was discussion concerning the next step and about scheduling another joint meeting with City
Council and Planning Commission.
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
Mari Rodin, Mayor
Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Minutes City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting April 27, 2011
Page 11
1 ITEM NO. 7A
2
���,.�` �����, Community Development and Planning Department
�� � ' � 300 Seminary Avenue
� �� ��,,�;� Uki�h, CA��95482 �
�M�� �lannin c�cit�c�fuki�h.com
(707) 463-6203
3
4 DATE: May 25, 2011
5
6 TO: Planning Commission
7
8 FR�M: Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
9
10 SUBJECT: Request for Approval of a Sign Program for 1230 as required by the Conditions
11 of Approval for 1230 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-080-78 '
12 File No. 09-31-UP-PC
13
14 RECOMMENDATION
15
16 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Sign Rrogram for 1230 '
17 Airport Park Boulevard based on the draft finding included in attachment 1 and subject to the !
18 draft conditions af approval included in attachment 2.
19
20 BACKGROUND
21
22 On February 10, 2010 the Planning Commission approved a use permit for a new 16,005
23 square foot retail building to be constructed at 1230 Airport Park Boulevard. The following
24 condition of approval was included requiring a Sign Program to be submitted to the Planning
25 Commission for review and approval.
26
27 Condition of Approval 7 Prior to buitding permit final, the applicant shall submit a Sign
28 Program for the building and site that is subject to review and approva/ of the Planning '
29 Gommission. The Sign Program shall include, but not be limifed to proposed design of
30 signs, location, dimensions, square footage altofted to each tenant, materiats, types of signs
31 allowed (such as building mounted, awnings, window), and sign lighting. The pracessing of
32 the Sign Pragram is subject to fu/l cost recovery as part af this Use Permif applicafion.
33 '
34 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
35
36 An application has been received from Butch Bainbridge of Paramount Sign Contractors on
37 behalf of Guillon Canstruction for review and approval of a Sign Program for 1230 Airport Park
38 Boulevard. The Sign Program includes one manument sign at the front of the site (northeast '
39 corner), signs on the east elevation of the building, one sign on the north elevation of the '
40 building, one sign on the south elevafion of the building, and other signs as described in the '
41 Sign Program. '
Sign Program
1230 Airport Park Boulevard
APN 180-080-78
1
1
2 The site is only partially develaped at this time. As such, the Sign Program addresses only the
3 develaped portion of the site. This approach was taken by the applicant at staff's
4 recommendation. Future development of Phase 2 would require Planning Commission review
5 and approval of an amendment to the praposed sign program as part of the required Use
6 Permit/Site Development Permit for develapment of phase 2. Staff recommended this approach
7 since the signage for Phase 2 should relate to the existing signage and develapment as well as
8 the phase 2 building location, orientation, design, etc.
9
10 STAFF ANALYSIS
11
12 GENERA� PLAN. The land use designation of the subject property is Mater Plan Area (MP). This
13 designation allows for a diversity of commercial land uses. The specific uses that may occur are
14 determined by the adopted Airpart Industrial Park Planned Development. The proposed sign
15 program will allow the installation of new signs that will be ancillary to the commerciaU retail use
16 of the site. The project is also consistent with Ecanomic Development Goal ED-1 to support a
17 strong local economy in that the project will continue to promote and support local business. '
18
19 Zoning. The subject property is zoned Planned Development (PD) and is part of#he Airport
2o Industrial Park Planned Development (AIP). The intent of this district is ta allow flexibility in
21 design and development in order to promote economical and efficient use of land. The proposed
22 sign program will allow the installation new sign that will be an ancillary to and compatible with
23 the approved commerciallretail use of the site.
24
25 Sign Regulations. As noted above the parcel is within the AIP which requires signs be '
26 reviewed as part of the Use Permit for the project. However, a detailed sign program was not
27 submitted with the Use permit application and therefore a condition of approval was included '
28 that required the sign program to be reviewed by Planning Commission prior to issuance of a
29 sign pragram. '
30 '
31 Since the project is zoned AIP PD, the AIP regulations apply to this sign program. The most !
32 relevant regulations af the AIP ordinance related to signs are the following since these sections
33 provide direction as to the regulations that apply, the process, and how to request relief from the
34 standards:
35 '
36 ■ The size and amount of signs shall generally comply with the requirements of the Ukiah
37 Municipal Code (UMC). The Planning Commission shaU have the discretion to reduce
38 the size and amount of signs to something less than permitted by the UMG if they make
39 a finding ttaat the proposed size and amount of signage is out of sca/e with the building '
4o and toa domination on the site. AIP (g3) '
41 '
42 ■ Relief from the sign standards may be granted through the discretionary review process
43 provided a finding can be made that the proposed sign is compatible with the scale and
44 character of the devetopment on adjacent and nearby parcels and would not have an
45 adverse impact on the health and safety of the genera/public. AIP (g5)
46 '
Sign Program
1230 Airport Park Boulevard
APN 180-080-78
2 '
1 The applicable sections of the Sign Ordinance are analyzed in the table below as well as the
2 sections from the AIP ordinance reiated to signs.
3
4
s 3���yr`�����i ������ v��t g� a� �z�'.i�S ����`�t��}���s� �� , ,. �,.,.. ��� ��'�� w j ,t� � {. � �,
,�.,�.,ti'.,'�� . t ,va�.�,,�sj;�'�&�a,�:w,�+� .....,,��.�,.�'��i�tt 4�.a� �.� .a�„ ..�„t�.�r�; x ' ,ttx �
,i n �
Si n Re ula��ions Pro osed�5i� r� Pro ram Staff Ana�l sis � ��
1%square feet of sign area for The propased sign program Based on the linear parce(frontage,this
every ground level linear foot of (Attachment 3, page 4)identifies a site is allowed 300 sf of sign area. The
parcel frontage. tenant sign band on east, north and sign area on the east elevation is
Sign Ordinance Section 3227 south elevations. necessary for identification of the
(A2) The sign area on the east elevation tenants. The signs on the east elevation
is 258 sf. (page 4). plus the monument sign(258+55=313)
The sign area on the north exceed the square footage allowed by ;
elevation is 63.6 sf.and the south the Sign Ordinance.
elevation is 63.6 sf. Staff requests direction from the
Commission as to allowing the signs on
the north and south elevations which
would exceed thesign area for the site
allowed by the Sign Ordinance.
The AIP Ordinance allows the
Commission to consider these additional
signs.
It is unlikely that any tenant would
utilize all of the sign area allotted by the
"sign band"identified in the Sign
Program.Also,based on staff research
to date,it appears that at similar
developments the focus was not on sign
area,but rather the location and quality '
of signage.
No more than 2/3 of this The Sign Program indicates that the The monument sign is consistent with '
allowed signage to be sign with base would not exceed 55 this requirement.
freestanding. square feet(page 1.0).
Sign Ordinance Section 3227
(A1)
Sign Ordinance regulatians shall Window signs for business and The Sign Ordinance requires window
apply only to those signs which product identification are allowed signs to be included in the amount of
are located outside of buiidings as part of the Sign Program(page sign area allowed for the site.
or which are directly affixed to 1.0). Staff requests that Planning Commission
or painted on a window,such Temparary promotional signs are determine if the approach proposed in
signs shall not exceed twenty also allowed(page 1.0). the sign program is acceptable.
five percent( 25%)of any Staff recommends that the percentage
window area,and such signs of the window that can be covered be
shail be counted as part ar all of limited, using the Sign Ordinance '
the permitted sign area. requirement of 25%coverage maximum
Sign Ordinance Section 3225(D) or some other percentage determined
by the Commission and exempt window
Sign Program
1230 Airport Park Boulevard
APN 1$0-080-78 '
3
signs from the sign area calculations.
The colors,materials,and The proposed Sign Program has These requirements for individual
ligfiting of every sign an a site Fabrication requirements that channel letters and specific types of
shall be restrained and require specific materials and lighting shauld ensure signs meet this
harmonious with the building quality workmanship(page 1.2). requirement.
and site. Individual channel letters are Staff recommends and has included as
AIP Ordinance(g2J required as well as specific Iighting draft eonditian of approval#4(f)that
types(page 1.0). examples of the various letter and
lighting types are included as part of the
Sign Program ta provide clarity to
tenants and staff.
Freestanding signs shall be One freestandingsign is proposed For previous projects,Planning ,
tastefully designed with an to be located at the front of the site Commission has limited the height of ;
interesting base,and shall not (northeast corner).The monument the monument to 8 feet.
exceed twelve feet in height measures more than 8-feet in Although the height is not noted on the
from finished grade. height. The sign portian of the plans, it appears that the monument is '
AIP Ordinance(g2J (tenant namesj is less than 8-feet in not significantly taller than 8 feet.The
height. sign itseif which is comprised only of the
tenant names is less than 8 feet in
height.
Staff requests the Commission
determine if the proposed height of the !
monument sign is appropriate. '
Staff has included draft condition of
approval#2 requiring a sign permit for
window signs to ensure that the sign is
cansistent with the sign program
requirements. !
Signs are not permitted on the No signs are propased for the roof Na sign would project above the roof.
roof or projection above the or ta project abave the roof. The sign program is consistent with
roof of any building. requirements.
AlP Ordinance(g4) '
Signs in commercial and The sign program includes specific
industrial zones, if illuminated, lighting types(page 1.0).
shall be indirectly illuminated,
i.e.shall not have indirectly
exposed bulbs, lamps,tubes, or
other illumination devices.
Sign Ordinance Section 3227(A8)
1
2 Staff recommends the following modifications to the Sign Program and has included draft '
3 conditions of approval for each item: '
4
5 ■ Phase 2. The site is not completely devsloped and at some future time the front portion
6 of the site will be developed. Since the building elevations and orientation are not known
7 at this time, it is not possible to knaw the amount of sign area, orientation or location of
8 signage, etc. As such, Phase 2 of the site has not been addressed as part of this sign
9 program. Staff has included a draft condition of approval #5 that requires this sign '
Sign Program '
1230 Airport Park-Boulevard '
APN 180-080-78 '
4
1 program to be amended and reviewed and approved by the Planning Commissian when
2 Phase 2 of the site is developed.
'; 3
4 ■ Temparary Signs. Some-types of temparary signs are noted under Window Graphics
5 (page 1.0). Ali temporary signs should be nated under"Temporary Signs" (page 1.1).
6 Also, this type of sign requires City approval af a banner permit.
7
8 ■ Prohibited Signs (page 1.0j. The Sign Program needs to reference the City's Sign
9 Qrdinance related to prohibited signs to prevent confusion.
10
11 ■ Gity af Ukiah Approval (page 1.1). The Sign Program refers to City of Ukiah ApprovaL
12 This section needs to be revised to also refer to the sign permit application process. ;
13
14 ■ SubstitutionNariance (page 1.1). This section should be removed in its entirety. It is
15 too subjective and open ta interpretation. If staff and a tenant disagree as to the
16 application of this section, there is no method to resolve the disa�reement and staff
17 would likely have to allow the "substitution." The term variance has a very specific and
18 legal meaning.-Should#he Commission chaose#o retain this section, staff recommends
19 deleting the word "variance."
20
21 Site Development Permit: Per Sign Ordinance Section 3227(11) a Site Development Permit is
22 required with review and approval by the Planning Commission for sign programs. The table
23 below outlines the specific required findings.
24
�1 t'w�.:��t'�i�`� `�u''tiy. t��F.�:3 ilC".�...,�a a��,�`�;�:-tii�k'���`"v t 4`�,l�w`a � .. , ir...- ;.. ...< „ .„�. , , , . v �'�;3 ��. �� 7 � � 4 � t :
. '..�� R \ ,'k.} `4�.��'.i u'} { �, l
.,t�,?..`[��„4.�,����3���'''a ���:������1��.�����,�5, .,< .,;„'� ., �. '� r.r �.ti ti „ `.�t�,�.�"��s"�i�i�,:���;�.�;� �,.*.��,',��r'i� S�, ,. "`�t£uz.�,'F,i i� i
.� , .. . ... . ,,; ,.t,..,�...��z*:.,,..
Site Development Permit Findin s Staff Anal sis
The proposed project is consistent with the The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as
goals and palicies of the City General Plan. described in the Generai Plan section above.
The location,size and intensity of the proposed A new commercial building is currently being constructed atthe
project will not create a hazardous or project site.The new wall signs would be located on the north,
inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic south and east elevations of 1230 Airport Park Blvd. '
pattern. The proposedsign program would not change the approved
footprint of the building.Therefore the project will not create a
hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic
pattern. The sign program would identify the tenants resulting
in convenience for vehicles and pedestrians looking far the
sto re.
The accessibility of aff-street parking areas and This finding is not applicable to the proposed sign program.
the relation of parking areas with respect to
traffic on adjacent street will not create a
hazardous or inconvenient condition to
adjacent or surrounding uses.
Sufficient7andscaped areas have been reserved The approved landscaping plan would not be changed as a result
for purposes of separating or screening the of the Sign Program. The monument sign would be located
proposed structure(s) from the street and within the landscaping area located at the front of the site
adjoining building sites, and breaking up and (northeast)resulting in the removal of a small amount of ground
screening large expanses nf paved areas. cover.However,the project is still required to comply with the
Sign Program
1230 Airport Park Boulevard ,
APN 180-080-78 '
5 '
i
approved landscaping plan and landscaping requirements,
� �
including the lot coverage requirement.
The prnposed develapment will not restrict or The proposed signs would be attached to the east, north and
cut out light and air on the property,or on the south buildings elevatians and the monument sign is located at
property in the neighborhood;nor will it hinder the front of the site and limited ta size and height.As such,there
the develapment or use of buUdings in the would be no change to the approved architecture/footprint of
neighborhood,or impair the value thereof. the building and the signs would not restrict or cut out light and
air on the property or on adjacent properties nor hinder the
development or future use of commercial buildings in the
neighborhoad.
The improvement of any commercial or The site is not located in or adjacent to a residential zoning
industrial structure will not have a substantial district.
detrimental impaet on the character or value of
an adjacent residentiat zoning district.
The proposed development will not excessivety The site is located in a commercial/retail area developed with a
damage or destroy natura!features, inc(uding commercial building, landscaping and parking area.
trees,shrubs,creeks,and the natural grade of No water courses,wildlife,wildlife habitat,floodway or flood
the site. plain or other environmentallysensitive areas are present. '
There is sufficient variety,creativity, and The proposed sign program would be compatible in design,
articulation to the architecture and design of scale,and proportion to the building,materials and architecture.
the structure(s)and grounds to avoid
manotony and/or a box-like uninteresting
external appearance.
1 !
2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW !
3
4 The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
5 15311 Class 11, which exempts construction of accessory structures to commercial structures,
6 such as on-premise signs based on the following:
7
8 ■ The proposed Sign Program will allow the installation of new signs that will be ancillary
9 to the commercial/retail use of the site.
10 ■ The location is not environmentally sensitive and there is no habitat on the site, no trees, '
11 and no drainage courses or bodies of water(such as creeks or streams).
12
13 PUBLIC NOTICE
14
15 A notice of public hearing was provided in the following manner:
16
17 • posted in three places on the project site on May 13, 2011;
18 • mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on May 13, 2011; and
19 • published in the Ukiah Daily Jaurnal on Sunday May 15, 2011.
20 '
21 As of the writing of this staff report, there has been no correspondence received as a result of '
22 the public notice. '
23
24
Sign Program
1230 Airport Park Boulevard
APN 180-080-78
6 '
1 Attachments
2
3 1. Draft Site Development Permit Findings
4 2. Draft Site Development Permit Conditions of Approvai
5 3. Sign Program
; 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 '
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 �
25
26
27
28
29
30 '
31
32 '
33
34
35 '
36 '
37
38
39
40 '
41
42
43
44 '
45
46
47
Sign Program '
1230 Airport Park Boulevard
APN 180-080-78
7 '
1
2 ATTACNMENT 1
3
4
5
6 DRAFT SITE DEVEL.OPEMNT PERMIT FINDINGS TO APPROVE A SIGN PROGRAM AS
7 REQUIRED BY THE CONDITIQNS OF APPRQVAL FOR
8 1230 AIPRQRT PARK BOULEVARD, APN 180-080-78
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 recard.
12
13 1. See "General Plan" under staff analysis above.
14 '
15 2. The proposed sign program will be ancillary to a commerciallretail use that is consistent
16 with the uses allowed in the Airport Park Industrial Planning Development.
17 '
18 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the follawing specific findings
19 required pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 9263(E) in order to approv� a site
20 development permit.
21
22 a. A new commercial building is currently being constructed at the project site. The
23 new wall signs would be located on the north, south and east elevatians of 1230
24 Airporf Park Blvd. The proposed sign program would not change the approved
25 footprint of the building. Therefore the project will not create a hazardous or
26 inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern. The sign program would '
27 identify the tenants resulting in convenience for vehicles and pedestrians looking
28 for the stare. '
29 b. The approved landscaping plan would not be changed as a result of the sign
30 program. The monument sign wauld be located within the landscaping area
31 located at the front af the site (northeast) resulting in the removal in a small
32 amount of ground cover. However, the project is still required to comply with the
33 approved landscaping plan and landscaping requirements, including the lot
34 coverage requirement.
35 c. The proposed signs would be attached to the east, north and south buildings
36 elevations and the manument sign is located at the front of the site and limited is '
37 size and height. As such, there would be no change to the appraved
38 architecture/footprint of the building and the sigs would not restrict or cut out light '
39 and air on the property or on adjacent properties nor hinder the development or
40 future use of commercial buildings in the neighborhood.
41 d. The site is nat located in or adjacent to a residential zoning district. '
42 e. The site is located in a commercial /retail area developed with a commercial '
43 building, landscaping and parking area. No water courses, wildlife, wildlife ',
44 habitat, floodway or flood plain or other environmentally sensitive areas are '
45 present.
Sign Program
1230 Airport Park Boulevard
APN 18d-Q80-78
8
t
R
1 f. The proposed sign program would be compatible in design, scale, and proportion
2 to the building, materials and architecture.
3
4 4. The proposed project is exempt fram the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA
5 Guidelines Section 15311, Class 11 Accessary Structures, which allows the construction
6 of minor structure accessory to existing commercial facilities this includes on-premise
7 signs based an the following
8 a. The proposed Sign Program is related ta a new signs on the site and will not
9 change the approved land use of the property.
10 b. The proposed Sign Program is ancilfary to the commercial /retail use of the
11 building.
12 c. The location is not environmentally sensitive and there is no habitat on the site,
13 no trees, and no drainage courses or bodies of water (such as creeks or
14 streams).
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 '
22
23
24
25 '
26 '
27
28
29
30
31 '
32
33
34
35
36 '
37
38
39
40 '
41 '
42 '
43
44
45
Sign Program ,
1230 Airport Park Boulevard
APN 180-080-78
9
i
1 ATTAGHMENT 2
2
3
4
5
6
7 DRAFT SITE �EVELQPEMNT PERMIT FINDINGS TO APPROVE A SIGN PROGRAM AS
8 REQUIRED BY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
9 123Q AIPRORT PARK BOULEVARD, APN 180-080-78
10
11 1. Approval is granted to approve a Sign Program for 1230 Airport Park Boulevard Ukiah
12 as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 26,
13 2011, except as modified by the following condition of approval.
14 '
15 From the Planning Department
16
17 2. Prior to installation of any sign (wall and/or window sign), application for and
18 approval of a sign permit from the Planning and Community Qevelopment '
19 Department is required.
20
21 3. The sign program shall be revised as follows and is subject to staff review and approvaL
22
23 a. Include a reference to the City of Ukiah Sign Ordinance section on prohibited signs.
24 b. Include a separate section on Temporary Signs and the requirement to obtain a
25 banner permit from the City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development '
26 department.
27 c. Include a reference to the requirement for a Sign Permit from the Planning and '
28 Community Development Department.
29 d. Delete the SubstitutionlVariance section.
30 e. Revise sign program to include landlord approval prior to city review of sign permit.
31 f. Include examples of the various letters and lighting types that are allawed by the sign '
32 program. This will provide clarity ta tenants and staff.
33
34 4. The Use Permit/Site Development Permit required for the development of Phase 2 of the
35 site shall include a revision to this sign program. The revised sign program shall include '
36 the signs for phase 2 of the project. '
37
38 5. The signs for phase 2 shall be compatible and consistent with the signage established
39 as part of this sign program (including but not limited to the amount of sign area, the
40 design of signs, etc.). The revised sign program is subject ta Planning Commission
41 review and approvaL
42
43
44
45
46
Sign Program
1230 Airport Park Boulevard '
APN 180-080-78
10 '
1
2 From the Building Official (David Willouqhby„�„
3
4 6. Sign Permit and Building Permit approval is required prior to sign installation.
5
6 Standard Reauirements
7
8 7. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
9 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or
10 Federal agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building,
11 electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect
12 at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued.
13
14 8. The approved Site Development Permit may be revoked through the Gity's revocatian
15 process if the approved praject related to the Site Development Permit is not being
16 conducted in compliance with the stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project
17 is not established within twa years of the efFective date of approval; or if the established '
18 land use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended far twenty
19 four (24) cansecutive months. '
20
21 9. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
22 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in fulL
23
24 10. This approval is contingent upon agreement af the applicant and property owner and '
25 their agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the '
26 City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any
27 claim, action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities,
28 the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this
29 application. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, '
30 expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or '
31 entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on
32 this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
33 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held
34 to be void ar unenforceable by a caurt of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the
35 agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
36
37 '
38
39
40
41
42 '
Sign Program
1230 Airport Park Boulevard
APN 180-080-78 i
11
�
��������1� � ..
��
��
,�, t'�,� �
���,�� r'��,�
�����
�
_
� � _ � � i
� a � Q � �
� Z - �
° o � N � „ � 7c
� �
�,�.t�n A o� Q W y �
P �'O �K � � Q_ � � �
A �
w� Nn°- > �` N t'S
° � � � o A �
V A O J �
v M
0
� '
� '
^
3- �. rm m �' ' '°°� � A c < '^. ➢ -m �• o `" Q o cr'v Q Q s -i o m o� cx.
Q �- p T �� � p � m n �� � _� � n `�t Q� o 'p C m � Q-.� tQ tD N
� O � _� f1 O �n O � � C fl �Q..� � @• _ .�N =Q,p.� m` N O N Q -i C i ro � 9 CQ -i
Ri.'O II._ C�`" T N Q T� � � ' � N �� 2. _.�' S'A .O `n :x �� SP � �' G � s
.@ �< 3 m.� °-3 . < -r�i.AG N� . ..� N �ro � o�� ��N: �Q � o �� j � ��
s� _ o ' ti
� `_' �- Q' m � � � m� 9 �Z � o' Q-O � p.°�o n�v m Q p�Q d ���� � o m �2.j C �
Q o_fl ro _ m '" � o � Z�n �n . -^. Q' ° a-_ o-o v �' ..,�fl�—°-" 12 _� � � � m o
�-Q� 2=� � N �S, p N m � ry� tP �-`D p n•� O � � ? �p`_.�. � ;, p'�' N ^� -�..
� n m 3 �. m�o `C '� Z N c� ° m Q �,a m c ' �,m � Q � m m � � �• � en
� < �. v D -� o � "'.m o . Q _ n.o � m eQ m co
Q�' m Q � o� ro s 3 � = G) ��� m a-o � Q� °' c'� o � s o �D T �
a, m m m m � �,• '" �, rn� a 3 m � ''o m D �o o� �, � Q� +� ro � �' � o �
F ��. o = cnQ� 3v � �' =O a o Qo .� 3 � N -�� �
m Q t7 p- O n p � O. m C o ��'n �p o 4' Q-�. -I� S� N < Q T�-N
�;, =Q m m � m 6.i'n a °>'�.Q � �' m o N. T� �o � �.4 0-� �. �D. Q � o '' .
� j. � (4 = N Q � �n � y > '� �Q OT.'� S J Q Q j Q � � � A fl C � fl
a'm' m N � 3 2� Q -� --�i o -o . 0 4.�y E Q °-s.., n � C4 � �S m '" �
�-� Q�. -: � ° m � � A ro .m m @ o s Q� `"•� .m � �� � � rz o N Q 3 'o �q .
�_� �o ° o-s o ° C � o ° 3. c fl ° �_ � fl .Q �� �r o'o n ° f v � '^ �a �. ° Ipqy .
[p m �� N 6' .�" O- c0... .�Q ��Ll.G� �� "O p (�� n' -O.,�' M
�. O w O cL m 7C � a-..a- Q..��n T O N � <p µ Q t�' N c4 O ?. p .
� � f 'm f °-s o D m�� �m � N•m � :o m � < 'r� '" °- C o
o . � . , ? = D m io N � m 'o T � ���� � ��� � n Q cQ o' 7C
s °-s °-' �° u' Z f ° ° °_� m � � c° � �� � � -i ° � � D �
lT 0 p ' Q t] p-: •� —, Q �' � � O � S
rn = ° �' tp . o' G� �' � �o o m m A o � _ � p v Q o c � �.
p ° ro m ro Z p o �n"s. ° n Q-�"'_ -i � m o -" 2 C'} .
^ � °-°- � D °- O �v �. m p T£ m n o �-"� �1 n � < m o N `° y �
� � � � Q fl m v 'S�a �• � n.,m°-m. T T.�o� cQ �'= T o' �;� . �3..� w� �..
�3 -�' � Q Z �n � N p,_ `-• � m m N o Q :Q m"' o m ° y tQ �
�-o m � o� F �' ~ �Q s en' �'v a E �m� ca�m tl �� ' `° `�° -° � �
s o �. n 3 � �- Cl .� �-:n' Q+� Q cQ v Q„.:3 w,v �.�.m � °-m o@ n.,o �
o ° � a' 3 � "' y � `° s.m� � °< o � m'ej '" Y-c �q Q �-� �. -o ° .
^ �. � c = z w o m � _Q �� �- Q Q ._ � _ tQ n n'
� T �c =N C) m ° �o � 'm - � v �c �D -m � °-o- °.o� i�'-�
�
`" - T
3'Q n� m � Q Q n .N 3 co _.-a � �.m .o_?r m ❑ - m .
.� v- u� _c _p y � �
.. ...� —-� � O 't .-. g ?' n �1 N -��
N � ^
�:j �Q � � 3 N C�O �c :(D �� O —�-:� (fl�t', 6-.�-�0 s�Q � n O ❑�.p .. .
° fD �� o p ^� 3.°-�� m a Q.s o p ° � 3 m ° ro p n o v = � eQ a �.
� . f � < - v w �
�fD �. fl' Q j t0 �� � -O Q'm �. m -,. m -^:�o c -�Q �j a_ o'� a'� � 2
x '" < _ � -i Q�S'O ^ `^ p O' �'� �' Q ry �'� N ry
❑ '� m' o: Q fD �o � m � �e m 's . m � - � o d = � .
� �, y c � �-� Z � s y p c 3 O�m � ' �-• ^ s� v� ' « Q Q a .
o Q. Q ° °_ o m m� n �Q ' Q Q o co � m Q� 3 � `f �m' �
m� �[� � D a. z Cl �' ° a ca ' 3 �-�°. p °�-m � �-o s ° ° Q Q �..
� _
a ` '� o °� £ m �m'v ° a-x p p o o m o °-< �° ?_-{ '"• m =. m� N �.
�'
�< O � p '. O O.� -•,K � Q o.' p p tD '� � ? �'+ �a-T ��.
T� N �� � �" O p � CD p 3 �T�n (l O O D (b
� � N � � /9 �. � "-O < �
m o °' o ' � o � �` o �. ro � v m o-
Q � .� � � Q � o �.
� a �
n m �� o Q O`S 6'�' q Q C' _-I y 2 0 � � m � Q s O Q 'p 3 y ��.
� 3 4 � N �, 2 3 ] C T `t N 3 O . O Q < (D O � '� iD
' _° ° `c ° °°�" . -• �' �°_-^. �. `° C '`t H �' cn > > � � �' �-� � � � �
m
¢�3 0-m Q�° � � � °-� o Q Q o Q• � -'`° m' a-� ° '� 3 Ot �. o� '� cn' -n. `° Q � ..
m � N ' �• s;�<p Q ry ?-6'N � ' -• eo � c Q m'� � G Q O-C C � 2= ..
O � » '6 � n n' � @ 3 O d 1D' � �.� " > O O _" O Q N T � N � 9 ��.
� ° m 3' �. ° m � ro � � � y �•� w N f. o y � Q o � � � a.`° °c � 3 . 3 �'�.
fD v .'° m m �n o��D � :�m�` � . Q � � � B Q Q m v? � e o !� p
. ' o ��Q ca � '- � � '� a-�Q � �. o ro o f. w� � 3. v� '° m 3 x• m'. -c
:^ D -. o N N' m ' m !^ ° � `s f � � o � o'a � � o �p � `C .
� 0 c' � � c' o ➢n -oH yxy �� -i � � :p n N o� DT� � m
3 � o n Q Q _,.,ro o o� � K �,° 4� � F < .p o _ �e 3 �
- : � s ' �. Q a �p . N y �p c� p � f N �p s Q .a. _-�», � _,.c' _. �.
Q'�",� C � p S m <� p`^. � C Q N � � � O �' O � �O O � -�.., (C � `n n' ��.
o . n. g. m' ro a-m m � 3 � m m 3' °-� 3 � � m � 3 3 � ti 3 ���.
cn - ... -, �o = � � `� - a- � Q Q- '" ta �.
-p �Q n O <p p' � � � O Q� ., Q.m o +f0 c Q '�O X � Q Q .
^ N c � o H Q o � �ry 3 3 ° � ��x � o ro ?,v � � o m `° m = p
c � Q-g -�'•_•' - m n :� d-a �S N �^p o ��, .� O `o '�c Q�� p,m � '..
� O
;° ?;cQ s m � m 3- s n � � s� co'-° ,� o' Q � F. �o � � f � [f
n -n 2.� 2(D G G T C Q .. J p� 0 � -0 .�. O �. tD . L1 Q 0 p .
O� � � p u. O � � Q� � �_Q �' y ry �..p T, p �O-_.. ap O., 'p '1 �.
n c0� ' � d'_".c0 �. = cD �' �"'.N - tfl `" �ti
O3. Q Q � � s c4 4 2 � O p S -�. Q � �p u � Q O (p'��' p (D C.
3 � d, p,� �' � fD _ �6 �' O S� T ID
�a °-in�' �° � ^;s< ' � � a v o o 's o ° --�m C � f m fl G.
m ��rQ �, (Q _' � n �-N _'p 'O. O � 3 Q <� � 3 � R.O =5 S � .�.
m Q-�n � �. ry N 2 m n fD S� m s i^ �C n fD 3 -p ct2 �o -« � � .
m' a. � � n •" � m s n o `° -o .
�O a..m m � o o c m� v o �' m� ' m � Q fl n o °n ' a o � ��.
0 o w < H o' ^.o fD �"� ° o � ca a. �� o-N " . m � � .�'m � .
3 o m' o �m �`° = m o v'. o �. 3 � g ro � o p n 3 �n �
0 o a,f m a.� � `" �e s�H ro � '". > > � o :�' � .
� � �-� � o -, . �-�, m £ � 'p_.Q -� � m �-�-io. 3 .
Q G -� `G 3 � O � N p -,. v� ' N S N -•4 2 H `C T� Q a-� + �
'O �.� _ 6'G -` Q' Q x � C p s W � f0 � N _ ro 2 N Q � fp �
S p-J. �ro �� � ~.� � (i X Q y� � S T Q � 'a C � Q�
^ � cn Q-,-.. 'o � N c ° v 7� o o m ° � .,� o o F -o o ro T
° 3 T° . o p m' o 0 0 °� ° � ro � T� �. s 3 � o' � � ° ..
. fl � �T� T n �, „� m o o Q <' ro o 3 v� °- ' �
� � o 0 o v m -,-.���-Q c � o"� � o ° �^@ °_-µ 3 ° �� � �- 'D :
0 o Q� o_3 � `D m � Q v o � ° m -a � � `D � ° 3' `"
� - < < c 2. � � m Q � ro T m o Q o 3 j-6 to. m fl
� 0 w � � � � d�n � � ,',T � �� � w `G � N � = n S � .
n T�p N p co tp O = m � Q Q Q � N Q � N � � -..� N. C. �.
X 2� "" �' N f0 O
� s�� O � 0 (Q C � I1'`G O'(fl N 'O � t�D � p� O n (f] Q..ro �� � .
0 O_l7 N s!t @ C} _O -� ' � ` � p 0 ry > > > 4 (0 �
. ro u� tR Q+ O Q'� � 0 � ' O' ➢ 7 Q �p 4 a �
� Q O CQ T-6 � � 3 3. �. ro � __ � � (A �
-• �
� �� C� � '^. tD'^ d Q .0 N Q c0 4• ~• cD � � ��.
Q N -. p
N � ��fL Q Q �rt � � p. Q w -Q ��.
O-ip �
c
' m -a° � ° �' @ Q �c s n ° � `_° m c cQ' o'°-� o"°'`D u'! a -° � Q-���° m ' _6 t�D
-O Q N o-� � ,,, s_' Q . p 4 � n p Q _ Yn p'
@ ' O N !t � - -1
a '
� M
� 3 p� ° m� T � � �o ^Q m °-n Q f. T 3 m D f n� ° m '�O
iD � _
�.' o � _ -� - T —�
o �`..�. z �.:ro .��ro n :^ � �.m....�.."' co�..y<n o�s:� � .tC �° " N 0 . � ° ._.._ Q � 3 O.
iZ .� ro ��� 3' ;�< -6 -e
� v a-� o.�� .� �°��.w C N` °'� o m _ p ro � � _. Q .� �@� ca� � v m m'� � ro o �
�m ��� � � _° � iC .ro c a iZ c ";. < Q � �_ �" m °� y� 0 3 @ � . � o �
o� �o .� �"_i-� � ��.°p -•� �-o � a-�s o :- - 'a � N � c -a o � ca' g �
� a m m N �� @ p} .�.. :c� 3 0 0 3 ro F `° � � 'C. o.�' o T m "` � s� � tn
�D � fl�� �,� �� m' a� [>v o -" m m -«''o a'3 � �O �� � O .. 3 � ^ 3 � �'� Q o N �cQ �
n �- ti - -•.� �n �- n o�; `" o� � o�'o � �. .� m �'� .. Q a,m Q o s
Q \' 2 "C Q � 4 y� ��H N G � 3 � � < '6 � N
� 0 � Q ���QT� �. '6 S C � C SN + fl-s Q � � Q Y �N � `6 2
-p =-6,.�� •tp � '6 4 S" � m N �p � �cQ fl N a-y � O O
m �a-c�n 3 � F�'�• c �' .< o —3 `-^� H o-v o ° 3 v A n 'm m �6 � "` @. Q �
'° m '�`° !� � � � �."— O o m' � �. o fl ° a � a > > � ''v � Q � .
�-o s 3 � "". �-c7 o Q c n .. s,. @. v .m` Q o .p,. N � 0 3 0 � s�.
c ��p T 0" N T m n o�� _ � < .. s�� c0 n p _� � �
�. �� 2 rc .� �p �' S O'a�p K �: � O :Q 0 .O .p @ �p � m — .
� � �Q �a s o s.yta n 3 fl Q q � o 0 o n � 'y o' sC° °�,m � ��• �w
❑ m — s�: _�° � -" N s m ' �� °-� r�
� �-a � �.�—��- v m �� _ � .y � N' � ° �" :�
a,�"� .'°—� —� m � ro � � �-� � � n_�' ro .� m m � a'�-a o� .
`° o- � Q o� o `^, _°' °< -°o m � o o s 3 � �� �/�
a = m o �-� �-.n y.� . �. ° c Q-o � ? � m o o � p m ma.� v m�n m fl — 7CC y�.
� N � � 3 s �
� °"'�m Q� c D 'mc'o °- c m 3 c � °--2 o m' � c p �- a-�?o am D !�
c o g ' — � � � ��a n a ��° — �-° �•;t � �.Q S .
@ n....,:-° <° _•3 ° �� m !� a.3 ..�-p� s S 3� Q n 3 3 0 ° ° `� o f'� � .
� fD-°� °s_° m a�a o � o' -' �, o � m � -O—O °— � .n' m �� �. �'f y �.
o-n °'o m c � m Ao .'� �, °-3-m o- H � ° `° Q c� � � m
�G �, O �p o ro II� R '" m. n C m s n � �p �• <p - ^ �"3 Q fl n.� fl � �. .
m-�.,m �Q. T :n. p�.f2. 3 �N Q = � T�'.O ry'� Q -0 •� Q !� 3'n _".�^ 0 .
� �j �p i] Q tn N d^Q 3 —2�Q n�� 3 � �� �p w S � ' � N � � �
Cl C�fpt� � � �• _ s p o'_ n Q cQ :�c. . ro m � s o 3 O � .
m' m
`� fl�Z'�° °.�-�tD Q o � �o-�• `D � -a o ct ° `� o� o Q � � � �•p� F� .
0 o m � 3 � 'ro N ,� 2.m' � � � _. o Q n .
_ . N . �O._.� T S Q Q �� Q - ' �-n � �'�� ���p' T� .
C N C � 3 w ' j- � 2._' 6`O N y a'O � O O 0 N ..e �.
�� �C � � 'v C ro Q lp j-ro � � 2�.�p Y` O a O-C4 � O� � � �.
- .. l -. -. m fn _.
_ —-� r -v -�.'� Q -..O � �
n Q.� � �.o. T Q �..o .m..6-� �....m°��O—"�ro N�� °��o � m.�.,�..m..� Q �.
s' '"m g < t4 < o-� o � +��c . o � "' R `° -o n n
.�'-o o-6 3:Q�� �o_� � < v � a � N a�_:@ o �` � o� o'�o Q ���
m
a,'�'• m �;. ' �.�o' 3 a-Q �6 0 .W `D ? c' T Q 3 °-3 -° -° ° o v�m o-r'r
. o � �-` n p 3 � m Q m _ c o�' m o �' m 1.�t
� � ip•m m �- �p �; Q � N � o =• -'". g o o.. < v �. `s< � n �
�°` � � � -o ro o z. � m f o o-m � m� - 'o'.� °—�. . o � �: Q Q .
� � Q. ' '^o p �� � o �� v -o � o
'�+ c o Q o o a — o' 3- '".-o �-_D o m
� � • ti .T �4 � � p � p �
Q d d.N n ft � � q s T� �a Q 0 � Lt—Q � � to c T � n Q ��.
j�' � p' O 2_� R' O O ,." � O m � Q� Q � �-� �n
'^ � � > > fl �� N N j-ry � S� 3 O tT p�. � N C1^in .
(Q' —� � � �. �� i � � �
� �T 3 O �J,.6'`G. Q� p' S Q H O �� .
.E _O —m s
+� 2
Q O -�'.O 3 � n X � � cD Q� 'O S 3 O 4 � tA O � Q N "Q n p N A
`C � C S p__. 3 @ 4 d.� P-tD � N � �� O- �. Q �.'�6 {x'p p j � N Q
�, 'a � .p la a 3 ' ro n� !l 3 O 3. v m a � p � Y. ' � n K
�p' . Q o-_Q _ c � 4 O t���o � -. m. � -p � < c p� -�'.'�� C �.
�. a sK O. � '^ C � m 's 0 O'`G O a n p � � �� C O 2 Q �p� -�., ' .O � 0 �M .
O'm s N �-2tQ� -�i, ° n � 3 3 �,f � � m .� �� .n m a-T.co� = o��� Q� � � C
�. � o W� _ � Q � 3 �• Q o c '� m��' ?' ° .� a o-'< Q�'° � "m � '°.� �' '.
O � r� -• � _" � _"[L, p .
�.>-?� D v � a � � p Q =' �Q �' o c S�o H �m m X. �m ? o � tn s �'�.
`C � ° v �� o a � 'm� �u a ° � � 2 's° �. p '" � �"Q m c' o°� �-o-:" o- y ��.
�o � a- .G �2� v .n - m �° �� o � m � �N � - . Q � 3 y .
� � �• „ �.,@ ro e 6 n p O Q c= O N xp 2 O' C Q �� . m y� =.a -^ �6
� O 0 -q �� � .S �f � < Q O 2 � m � 0_. Z 3 p n T ry p p .� p '1 �,
N �+ � (P � .N ZG (D Q '-r-O � n � Q S � A�N T -(�i �-Cw S C
j-v' �. x'O � CO� � (D �2.� .�' Q Q N � u 3 O —.�-O Q � .,` ry �
ro �°� tn �O m � �� �.� O° '6 O -.. O O�°p' �. Q o Q N �m � N Q� .Q
�' ° -i cQ � Q � ° f � f `� '". o m � 3 �'. a n `E N' Y 3-� m � - '
� � m' n • a d o -•.N.co < Q � .� o o-m o , Q` 'm n .�.
o � V, � � � p �- o Q �—T 5. s ro o �t —� � _� 3 O
3 �. o n a..� ro o c Q s� Q� �, « m m o � o. �' a �p 2„ � j �
"O.c � �� O Q n � 2� m �'(Q � < = m 3 s 9 O H 'P �.
. 2�m �� m �p o '"�..� p�� � � � Q a ? Q �o._n..�F � .� � ��.
� o..o "Q �'o -°_ � n a Q T �co' � .�^_. a.�e� <.� o Q �'" ' o c� m � �..
@ - 2 p Q Q-fl ■ � �O Q� m N m !^. �� p -^ :�� m ��° � o � - � p, .
o� a..Q� ° � � Q Q'� r, �- s� � -o o Q.� ° '^. p � �' 3 .� �.
� � Q N � �Q Q�o � o Q v 3 � . D 3 ca �o � Q � ,
�. m
�-° �^ c ' `� Q m� '�` °-� N'� � Q s ° T=°�-a:���D o n ��
< a �. �ti " � a p� �a• fl � �N 's�-V fl -' � � ' ry
s m p s D�� = o� o-Q �-Q co� o � �c �D � �^ � �n v �Q� '
�' N Q ti tA' �-3 =N �s Q �:�' � Q � s o �.co. � � Q c� Q �p N. � �..
fn'6
� W.N -p. N � ] tp� N p 2 cQ �p -^. fl m v� —� 4 � ..6 _' � � ry .
n Q'a 'O � Q n u -^. o. 4] • �<. d.Q 0' � n f0� � �-'Q tp Q o 2
D `° .o 'n � a m o'� n � � a ='' °'s' o'� �
� o � �
ro� - �-< c �.�-� '' T Q :� �� a. o o_0 O � . d.� . .a 2
'`. O � 2' �' � n O ��' � n� Q N D � O < p p� —S N p � ��
� Q � m p-Q N n �._y 2 Q � n -"� 2.�- 4"� � � c o r3n � �� Q
Q � •� o �o" �' p' o -• o fl �,� � �3 3, f N
o �u o � `° o w N �':�� �• ° H a. Q � . o�o �� .
Q-�° ro 3 � o- ° �• _Q N � 3 � ��� a-f 4 � a�Q � � � ��.
. o-
� " � � �m o 3 � -o �' o° �-��.,-� � Q _' 3 � o• 5- +.Q s .
o s a
N� � —� Q ~ Q �A t0 v � lD O � !t ?. T� � � � � Q�
� O`� �_s O.. T� n-� Q m m N h m' Q m c -� � Q;0 n
�. � T o� ' m � p'-o N �' 3 <n� ' °-"m � 3 3'T 3 fl
Q a o-c m ' (1 ,� m 3 o m
' � 'a. s -"Q Q 3
4 �s Q Q ro Q Q o m Q � n o �,�° � � ° -: m' �..� � f � � .
� � ° Q m � � � � m Q° v C S m � �� � (o �m '
p.inc'2.R O iD_•(d _ '^ C _ O, fl �Q ,pY p to � d � .�.
�- a � �� a � � o o- � <. � Q Q- `^ `" �< Q'n �.
�<`ca � @ � � o d 3 m':�D _' �"m �a � � c, N �m ��.
o n —'° w �. � 3 �^ = o H cQ ' ^ . �.
. T
� � � � 3 fl � Q O �, `� � s `� Q 4 � �..
O �,� O � ' � � �.
> > � �
5� Q `^ � p C - v. p y �� �v� in n c 'o y o 3 0 � Q (T�o m
`° o ° v m Q'°-Q-o-� � m �-� c'� =o . 3 � � ^. m"�° -'..a' °'H. 3 °-o n °- C"
`" ^-� _
�. � .� � �. m p � � f m �° �. n � � < `° - m --.: � „ � n y �.
- -• -
�
mQ�.`�. .�O m..o � .�..a a..+�:.ro,� °...�o�;� ° "-'...o� '^ m'.cFu....� o !^...$ � ..N m v...-. �'.
@ � S_. O � ' �. �T a w (II ¢-' 2.�-.. C T N Y� 0...:Q._ � .:� 4 R j-,�...b-p N �w G
� n O � O ' O � ro 'O <D � � z �Y,� p � O O R � ��s p n a a {p' '"
to 'O N n' � Q p -n« `� CLi � c c�D o p =�' � > > Q 3 .—m Q-O'� �� 0
-^� Q-co'�° _ ' �, i, p' 'o �- s�� -„-� .s�'�° °-° �o a tP �°-� ° ro�° a. .
� s f a m��o-� Q N �o �;��T� 3 � cQ �.°-x `° 'a � p m .�m Q �o Q Q-+ s°_ . N� .
> � 3� j . N N O m 7� �ry �'" '� �n C p ?. �� � 'a � N� �� �.s O-� Ct� �Q p 'n
° .D `° ro �m - :o � .`°-� . fl °.<n � o c <° j;�-° ° °-�o `� Q -� �o . �. c
> > N� s 3 �-� m^ c. a m a_v. n o N �-�• �t
o °< c � � � Q° �, o ro�f Q c o � �-:v m N ro �°Q �°. ��m - ¢ Q. � +o
�°-�..'�a o'�t �-m ^ ..f =� a ea -3 3' ° . Q o'm � o � <o ���3 °-.n � 3 .
� 3 � � ° � � �' =c d �o v. n .a K N ro❑ N m N CS..�'C^ a c o iD `
����..��' a �� �R' _. ^ � = 3 Q� � ; O e o 3 4 s � n N ���-. N � � � = I
. Q � �� . m O O_.[] T n O �' m �rv .� ¢ � ��' � q
m f °"°-^ � m � `° a-° Q o-Q T° f Q �-- ' �, °-a`° � Q <° m � m � Q —
� ° � 0 4 m �N �. � � � Q T� n �..m Q ro � "' � �.c 3 m `< -
� �n to � _. Q--•, .° a,�- . .��� � ❑ .. in � c o- a,..-p � � - p�
� : � 3 n �� O' 'O tu 'D U' N 0 � �� o � -« O .QN 2 N m �
� ' fl � o m�m.�..y�' 0 3 Q x 3 � m` a ° ° ��-�m"' = s..m �o s p � G �
• � � c �m. �� ".� .� 2� �a`t N o �-ro °-Q �m °-� ?C .
o �-T. '� Z � ° � . .� c p m o' o �Q f� �, p�, o o T c � n x D � �.
Q ° a o �-N Q°��. � ��v o� y g � o- �� #,d m�-a-.�-? .� fl o s�m S �. .
-. „
tD �6'Q � T O'O �O 3 S S n tD (a . � � T � p_� Q O .� � ry T T n .
S N 1D Q � 4 fp n� � � +n m p n � O � � j O O � O m �-^' � c O ^' � �.
O
_ ""'�-, —n O -., � O' fl
Q tQ � � a ry O �O �. fl s O_.Q �..�; ��-O � �-O�Q �; a-.O..�.� O � Y m N�� ��.
n o-",� 3 X � °'cQ � a `° o o � o o 'a � � o u ` � v __ n = o � .
° p fl O E .p m N N n � 3 �n� m m 3 c4 �� � � � N T � - 4i .
�s � o � o =:v x' o._3 Q- `� �
`� -. � ro � °'3 o-Q `D 3 0 � o a°�. m m s-o o �z s° s3 T� T
3 n fl'� 'm � o�� e�..�� "OC = �° �s�� o m Q o �: � Q ° o �'� Q � �°• ��.
Q lt �C fD � p -� C (1 �-' CD S 0 �� N S v � —+ 5� (C fD—� �-p.❑ � .
` � �-�..�. �'�a 3 v. o °_��, o 's a-a':m -C o�x n 's�� G N o� :3 °�v o .
� S m cQ c..W m � c �2.�'a ta ro �p�µ '" � =C Q p � > �� � N � Q. n� � �.
-' -• v� �` 'O S�' O'� .�@ _O 4 � N � X
6 — _
H
r. _.
�..._��.:o.�.. � -. :Q ro �Q.t�o�•.'m.-n �-.m...�...m H ,�..,� �...� .ro:'a � �.... . Q �.
'm . � �-� 4 Z n' �a-cs. �-� s:m S• ° � eo n�v 3 Q Q ��. � � o �.o•_o'3 �
'" p p fl n �,.�° o -o'�o `_°• �--� -•,�-k n.��,� � ° o-,_,'" c 4 � m N F �o T ��.
o � ;, � - � � 3 :'�� f � Q-m 3 �fD m �-�, a Q Q o v .
�p o a.6'� c � � -• � ' � O Q C �_ �-�q �o �.c� ?�Q ro � �� ����.
-p n �. m � m -'"« -.. � o �� :' � Q-p ro �, T'^ -,. � a n �3� Q 2-° D �..
�3 0' � � m aa-�� DQ3' p o � o = ' sQ'° N Q so -. o c � m � _
m ro m p o •" o m - �II e Q s�°- °-o :m Q � o s s� 3 `�.o ���
<' � _ � � Q � Q u ° ° O_Q" N '" N `^ _ ° c m {p�N ° '6 Q N p ..
� � � �
a- 3-� °- Q 3 fl Qv £ �,`° d.co c� m � o o Y � H �•
m �. m c o 'o N � =c: ° �- .
m � -. .`f ti; � o� T ry � � n - Q � I.
� 2 �" � [� iD @ � � @ 3 � Q. �_� .
� � � O � . m Q � N ���.
3 (� +n � � � �.
N
o f �
po �., ..q
e�n A � �
4 p O
'� �
—U,D°_
_ N p .�
— A rt
O
� D V
Z LOT
V n m
� �,o„ D2A
�a�� — � — — �
3 �D�
� o O
' °.r � ' � . • � � ' � � . �� � . � .�.� . � � ,
� 3
� z°
'z �
� 3
N �
N � y�
�D N Z
A�
S Q ,
�y
D
D
� �
�
V�
W
�
S�
� �
z
�
D :�. 6�.-ao .
0 ,
N � '� �.. 1
�
. , , ,a,� ��
,.
�,{.�- _
{ z!° - �
y � ��
,�
�, � ' � � ?t b �
� ' ;>:3 tt �
� . � , �,.�. � '.
O � Q �'��� � ,; � � � -_ ��
r'—
3 .�J � �,n���� - ��
..� `�� � e' v�
�,
Z .� y � � � �
o � �� � � �;�` � �' �� � ��
� rn � y ,. ��
� � � �� N � a,.=;� :,�{ %i �
m � ,� � ��
� � �
N c a R�
� � �S
V � +i
o m i �
� � o '�, R � ; -� _ � ��;
�
Z , : x 1 � .,a, � o !..
� 4 ,.. .. �,
C m 6 b;q ` __ __""' �- ,... {:'..t t ...., �; � � E�'�c � � ��,�� s >.,��� �.
D � �, _ ., � .� � � x ,.�
S �
O -�+�°
O
�
� $
m — — I
T q m � z ��., i
_< e D A� � D LOT B2
F o o i "
v 3 o O r = �
I
�.°Z v - y
S o -
¢d�
- _ E
3'n' pa. . .�.
b 9 �
$ "o_
T 3 m
,
�
4 'Q
�
i,. o�n o° � ���f�t Y� 'i.�e},� � x � '�,,
Y�y d � t t
���� �Q �C1 � 'i 1 S 4 �}`�" y,
o '
��
` w�.ci".�A ,�.' � .� G ,'
.
• a .
�v o . S� ,, .F . .
_ "' rt # � � �
0
��' �
= n' �
. �
� ��
:.��s �
_ b Q ry �� � � , �p�'.
i§.�y� t, # .., , �x.
p tl � 'x'E! i. 4 g,: �S � '9 n T s
.�y Q �� .d t f { � Y
p A �� � { �% ��y b � Ii��
A tiF Y
- p t�;t � � }s4� P.��% ?, �� �
� `�'` .$�� , ,y � 'fi 3
. , n. < < a . ; . .
y
t� r ^ � v.�. .k .� �. �s." Y
�, f �..... 1 . ,. , .� . . _��: � ;� r
� ` F^ Y
N
�`11 :....t.
w
C Q ��. .: � ..
� a � �,
n R
_
� .
n� a
a-� �
y r ► ► ► ►
�
�tie: �
�
� v • • • •
O ?
Z '
C
3
i '
y
N ' 431
Z� �4; R
`.
�,
�� ����'
° � a�� �;�,�,����s�r�� "�.
m � �. JS �,.'��`�1. § ,
� ��
� �kti ,y�'.e ;�ssa�i�i.Y}�1
'' " i,.
ww,
� t:�,. rv4� jj � �i �,.
1.3 p ,
Z �.,�. y ,�'�.� , \ 6
.-."i'*..-. Y : tt�i
,�,r J 4�ay�
� ?.�?.-�k{L �, t . ' ` .�
N . ZY� '�,�\ �S �(,; �., .., ;'..
II i������1���� 3 {
>�yt1 f
O : ��.1:�.�i�tR}�SJ`t i„z`�,
V���� Y
"� t
��}I '�'f "� �� �
�1
1 4
}Y�.
�f�� ,1 ;14;�.r, 4 �'��s:.��� � .."F '�. :� :a ; � `.
£ s o e � �a 6. 4 � S
3 N . �,.k�^�.
3 a - 6
p n n ,
� x m
=z� p
g .Ss, y'�,x ,��t ti:
4 �
�L �
a� tv' ��
O °- �; ;"�=� � d
3' °f' 4 ���
— t x��
it
12�t�
x ;� £
B � W �'����'
- a �� ����
f _ K�
T 3 m
i
v � � ❑ �
° � -
Q A\<o � G
P °"� a �
.,,r � �
_.�,�
- •� N
O
3 D� m P
Z- .� y
� O�m rtY
� \ � �
��°`; n
� °nz o o �m
�No z '
- °�
�
i--�
� Q � ' �o
p �mSf
= m�f
� i � y
( o � _ r
N :� I�. I_:"5.
'
w �: .. �... . � ��.. �
C Q � � —— !m-.�t -'
�s D �: (.. l��:f� A
D A -
S Q I t �
D� .: '.W.�. � w.J
D IZ� '
�
rnr� �a
rz� w
! �
Cn ��t N � �__.t
� 1 m� � � � � -+ 1
y o m
. C � S ---__" i � � �Z�
p .� � �..,.E i ' ! Z C �
p ( �y i OD
G �'^�'�`}I�
N . O i°= 1D ' A a N
� Z � t i
Z ``� o
� € _.i
O " i �A
n
A '
� 0 �
Z �
O
x �� I
�
o D t°'1
�3
n' � �Z � :i z i � ��: .
� Iz� � E �
� j�� N I
Z Ix€ '
� f m r
r � u .m�
_� Q � i
� � i
� � � Z �
�p, k D
_ � y � � N
�', z � w
� o � m p �
P � ' = f '
il a f
. �m �
O 1 �
�, ., "
� A
0 � o
�
0 9
o � � g�
c �
F n 3 N
3 � - �
s B °
¢O; -
ro 3 E
- - �
= A
£. 2° p. __- � :
��
�3 m
�
1
�
�
t
I
>
y £ �v
�� a�
; q�Q� �
; Q�,;� � a
, �,� - �
���Q ' .�
N, �
u b .� �`�"'Y.�i: 'ii�''SLK�' 1. �$
/y g tt
p : 11��jt 5; tz`l `' *�
� ��t', F��5�� �k� �.vS
3^nY{'"�s �4 i�'����''.'.Sa t ;
r,; �y���j�f�43�� , s
i , 4
, y � � �y��.t� ��. r
� � I� i � �,� > y'
� z= i� � !�'� � ���g��x�t �' �
u O� � �`\�£�� U.1.�
#,�t �p( �E } i�
�+P�➢ ' ��� � .`[`f ' t� IY i, }?,�4 5� .,t``;s°i
°�� ��� � ��y�`�� ���� � �'<���� ����i ��
�{� � � C �� �ti � �
_ A� � rF € �. ��I t �����k�$t k�z�}�
� t'�:�
� b�� 4�
j: .� . ut ?.Y�l v,;�`, .
��"t�13?.`u'."`��i
y?t
sv��~'
�a, �
�1
t � �'�����
i, � k
o tj p,�����
�`o' i�
�
� � �''
=p ���
a� �'`�,�'' �"�' �,.�;"
y : .. i . t r� ;,��'�,
� �� � �; ���
�:,� � � �
�
� ��
W lr� i
_ �.�..
v
�I,�
o ,� �� � �
� `��
� ��
� �
� �1
@°
'�
o v�
<
a � � �„'+)e ��� � q,M
�,.�
� I �l i I q� � �o �
z a; e�
��ti,
� �3
� :� �� �it� i�t} q I� .
o ��f(� ss� ���4p r I��t f' ���
: �� �' z � "
�: �� ", � � � �"��
- - a�
£ — N
— N
3 ' ti
3 a - ° O
T�
'� -
a O 3 '
£
0
� s� N
y° .
m m :o � � . . .. . .. .. � .. . . .
£ __ _ . . . . .. .
T 3 m
i
i
o � •p m. p o �,�, r� oa �: A .
"a° z m '� ao a -. � ? C?; p� O �`~"p`"�ip
� �
��-`�^�'�°`° � .-:� o c°�. 'm'� na r-� w °�' �'�p.
w�v,� c y 'F. Q. Q k? i� W � ('� ��'� A.
_'�.T°' C v o "° `�... � p 'Q; � _` � �.�"O'..
_"'c^ �r�h o� m � ��. .�-. � � c " � o . . ��
� � [n c v���. C � p r°O m � � �
- . c -�-� 4 .:,,- �
w � � �S � Q � ,�; z
. �-z' v�" -s �.+ _: V
m'� �' -v =. � r�.* �� � c .. . �.
�. � �: a �� y � T �,..�r��� '� � '
' . �
, ."C'�`'.''-_ _. . . �
�. `° r �: m -o � � ° �:v � ,_,.,-.----� ���_.�__� '.� �
o a
- D\ ' � C. � tD��.� O O: N � .�� ���.C
Z� _ � �: C v'C ��. I� ���.'{�
n �u —
w o D � �� p. — e�-r: m � L': �p .—� '�� �
v A`^ Q _. -s� .�o
�P O n � � ��. ¢ tD.' � -`w+ . ... ... . .. �� .
n ��� v �'.. � V
+.- �y
3 �D Z �� � �..: �
� �a�L � .. .. �
� .
� A K � . ... .... . .
�' �
�
o : ...... o': � -1 :'�vCi �.'�T! ��' '11
.r D.: � ����. �'
c Gr7.. m � �g� m>v�i ry`-��T1; �
� " ��� � �� � m:�c 7��: ffl
= L '1"�' ��.�W -':n � p y�.
1"�
�O ' �: C � ;�m �'N'*,��.�,n o r.
~ m. .m�c C3° S_....
D � o�.. r�r, ..�o sv+� "'J`���.
�; � �.-�y m� ���:
�' � .m O�W ��.
_' � � �;rn v;
�' �. �t4�n °::
�`�
a�i�� � �,4 a�i b::
� W �
N
C.��. �: � �m p�.: ::;�y...
� � �.� �.: .:�.
O �. . @ ���:� ��
2 . •: m: cn 4J
� � 4,
N r- �y
� m �,
Z V!
u, �. x� � ��o: .
( �
� o 0
� �i
o �
�. rn
o.l. . . .. . �:� o�:
O �. � �� 1K ���� !"! .p,.
o .k, p� ��. ��'' o o:n�i p � � ,v 0��..
"�' � � �:� C�'J ��. � � ro.m �i eo... °
� � � 6�io y c��i� `° � � � g
� ,� Qx �' � � v�'
m :m '`�°'� ��� �2 'a� •• � .._:
w � = m
� y rn o� � .a..
:� �y; �-" y. i �.
��m. w �- 'z� .
y �..�. t° ��: r�r,'. .oa '.
Io, p c°' o` o°.'
m o' � '
� �: �:y � m�.� o. p � �
�
� �. ���� � �� � . � �� . .
C
�
W
11}
�~..
�
� �
� �R��R�m� m p rn p�. �
-I �
F o ^ b' r O O�O n�:'N*1 �I � � �O'. �
''`-a 3 `� N �. � �� .b^^a-M�� � ..yi S�' I-� �Q'i
3 g n = o � 'i�' cn�c�s-���� �p o° � z.: -�1
rn� m
� �0�60C= '� S �.. '�'
° _.ei�_� m y,.
$ w
a � �, o C
h m rn
� � c�z
° � -�'n -�n':. -�
F � � �
CP V3 �
- �
F �R
�<
„3 m
1 ITEM NO . 8A
Community Development and Planning Department
C� � 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah , CA 95482
planninq (a�citvofukiah . com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE : May 25 , 2011
4
5 TO : Planning Commission
6
7 FROM : Jennifer Faso , Associate Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Request for an Approval of a Major Use Permit to allow a Wine Tasting Room
10 with outside seating and special events at 106 West Church Street,
11 APN 002-226-08File No . 11 -03-UP-PC
12
13 RECOMMENDATION
14
15 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the
16 draft findings included in attachment 1 and subject to the draft conditions of approval included in
17 attachment 2 .
18
19 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
20
21 An application has been received from Darcie Antle for approval of a Major Use Permit to allow
22 a wine tasting room with outside seating and special events at 106 West Church Street. The
23 tasting room would include the following (see attachment 3 , Project Description) :
24
25 ■ open daily 11 : 00 am to 9 : 00 pm with the exception of being closed Tuesday and
26 Wednesday;
27 ■ tasting of local Mendocino County wines ;
28 ■ sale of wines and other locally made products such as locally made coffee , teas, soaps,
29 lotions , note cards, jewelry, crafts and other small retail items ; and
30 ■ outside seating (see attachment 5 , photos) .
31
32 SETTING
33
34 The project site is located on a developed lot on the north side of Church Street between State
35 and School Streets . The site contains an existing commercial building with four store fronts.
36 The wine tasting room will occupy 106 West Church Street which is a 582 square foot space.
37 Encore ! is located in the same building immediately east of the project site. The two storefronts
38 on North State Street are occupied by a law office and a retail jewelry shop .
39
40 The property is zoned Community Commercial (C- 1 ) and is surrounded by the following all of
41 which are zoned C- 1 .
42
43 ■ North : Commercial /Retail
Enoteca Tasting Room Use Permit
106 West Church Street, APN 002-226-08
File No. 11-03-UP-PC
1
1 ■ South : Restaurant •
2 ■ East: Retail
3 ■ West: Offices
4
5 BACKGROUND
6
7 Determination of Appropriate Use. A Tasting Room is not an allowed or permitted use
8 (allowed with approval of a use permit) in the Community Commercial (C- 1 ) zoning district.
9 Zoning Ordinance Section 9088 grants the Planning Director the authority to make a
10 " Determination of Appropriate Use" for uses that are not listed as allowed or permitted . In this
11 case , the Planning Director made a determination that the proposed wine tasting room would be
12 an appropriate use with Planning Commission approval of a Major Use Permit (see attachment
13 4 , Determination of Appropriate Use) .
14
15 STAFF ANALYSIS
16
17 General Plan . The land use designation of the subject property is Commercial (C) . This land
18 use designation identifies areas where commerce and business may occur. The proposed
19 commercial use is consistent with the General Plan designation of the subject property. The
20 actual uses allowed are determined by the zoning of the parcel (such as Neighborhood
21 Commercial , Community Commercial , or Heavy Commercial) . Table 1 below provides an
22 analysis of the General Plan goals and policies that apply to the proposed project.
23
- t�i ,.� :;. : �
General Plan Goal/Polic Staff Anal sis
�.- . �
� � � > : � <.� � °�� � �� �
Goal ED-1 . Support a strong local The project would generate business license and sales tax revenue.
economy.
With the sale of locally made wines and items local revenues will be
increased .
The wine tasting room will employ 1 person and allow an existing
commercial building to be occupied .
24
25
26 Zoning and Site Analysis. The zoning of the site is Community Commercial (C- 1 ) . Tasting
27 Rooms are not listed as allowed or permitted in the C- 1 zoning district. However as noted
28 above , zoning ordinance section 9088 allows the Planning Director to make a Determination of
29 Appropriate Use . The Planning Director has determined that the use would be appropriate in the
30 proposed location subject to Planning Commission approval of a Major Use Permit.
31
32 The tasting room would include wine tasting , retail sales of various products , special events ,
33 and outdoor seating . Table 2 below includes the applicable requirements of the zoning
34 ordinance with staff analysis .
35
36
37
38
39
Enoteca Tasting Room Use Permit
106 West Church Street, APN 002-226-08
File No. 11-03-UP-PC �
2
_ '3 ,�`h� `,�R? F�-'� , �'�6' ..� �.:.'v��£7 ��4 . R �p. > . . fa�y��}'�"°u�i�T' {�f�3"���-r�ek.a ��-'�r,s"�'S"u�s<� � 7�5:+„u` ^F r� t ' 1 .4 -, ���R { .
� .6�� .; .F v�e'n.3`>i.'ba-� , ,tR. ��f� i� �'� > .x 'i.:�. ' � ' 1 " ��.��� _a4��R�.'.���:���S!�e'�n�lysr��.", M x..:�� ��i � �'.4� i:.' . ''p �3 �L�'� �<4���t \t .ci .:� ,< "'
Zoning Ordinance Requirement Staff Analysis
, _ �' �'�' � ; �a;�,� �°"��;� � ���n�'�:
ry � �: � . � �'�>�`����� ���»� �. ����;�= u,;
The zoning ordinance includes development The project site is already developed and no modifications to the
standards for setbacks, building height, site exterior of the building and no new structures are proposed as part of
area and yard setbacks. this project.
ZO Sections 9083, 9084, 9085 The existing site and buildings are consistent with the required
setbacks, buildin hei ht, and site area .
. .. _ . . .
� � .,:�F � � � ;� � � �; "c'`�s��:
� - x � � ,tir �. ���#..�s.�
Tasting Room As allowed by the zoning ordinance, the Planning Director made a
Determination of Appropriate Use Determination of Appropriate Use that the use would be appropriate
ZO Section 9088 in the proposed location subject to Planning Commission approval of
a Ma'or Use Permit.
Retail Sales Retail sales are an allowed use in the C-1 zoning district and
considered accesso to the rima use astin Room .
Special Events Special events can be allowed as part of this use permit. However,
the type, frequency, and characteristics of the special events have
not been identified as part of the application . Planning and Police
Department staff wants to ensure that any special events do not allow
the tasting room to operate as a bar or keep the tasting room from
operating as an attraction to downtown .
As such , staff has included draft condition of approval # 5 that limit
the frequency of the special events in order to ensure that the tasting
room remains open to the general public and does not operate as a
bar when available for s ecial events.
Outdoor Seating Outdoor seating can be allowed as part of this use permit. The
outdoor seating will require application for and approval of an
encroachment permit from the Public Works Department. Staff
including the Police Department and Public Works has some
concerns as to the proposed location of the outdoor seating since : 1 )
it is not located in an area that can be viewed from the tasting room
and 2) there may not be adequate space to provide the seating
envisioned by the applicant and the required ADA access.
Staff has included draft condition of approval #13 to address the
ADA access requirement and conditions of approval #8 , 9 and 10
have been added to address the concerns of the Police Department
related to alcohol and lack of visibility.
Staff requests direction from the Commission regarding the proposed
location of the outdoor seatin .
rfi� ... . �- - �u �:..- a ; w ana °�', tis,.r n -,r.
. � �. �
. _ . . . . .- , . . . . , . ..
. �. . . � � . . , . . . .,.
'�& '�� �kit��u�?
Section 9086 of the ZO regulates the The parcel is located within the Downtown parking district and is not
minimum number of parking spaces required subject to the C-1 parking standards.
in the C-1 district.
Per Section 9086 (H) all parcels within the
Downtown Parking District No. 1 are not
subject to the C- 1 zoning district parking
standards.
1
2
3 Use Permit. In order to approve a Use Permit , the findings included to Zoning Ordinance
4 section 9262 ( F1 ) are required to be made . The required findings and staffs analysis are
5 included in the table below:
6
Enoteca Tasting Room Use Permit
106 West Church Street, APN 002-226-08
File No. 11-03-UP-PC
3
iCt �,c<t � f c ,x-¢ : 4t t}� � � �i �S.-'�' FF y � �... 5'% .S j . , . _, � r'�..� .+ ,. d y..F ��.W..e< '� s� 3'• , f x �'Y' x :F ,�'m ,s / i
'� Ja- i� :�) „� �+ r - 5 r, e- � ,sa .r r �a�."c'�,'k�+ a�1 �X: n, rW 4?�. .�
�.zt.��. � .�cr+ei �y��rsnsrs;,Fi`�u���.tsL��ea '. ��'� � t r k Tabie $�,�S,�iSr�.����� a' ���frLv' ��L�1�����J .4'€�'.y�} � � �€. S.r..th'i���'.�T,4nRw�«'�'`n�'
. _ . .,... _. . . . .. . ,._. . . ._ ,.m. �: _ .
Use Permit Findin s Staff Anal sis
The proposed land use is consistent with the The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as
provisions of this Title as well as the goals and described under General Plan above .
policies of the City General Plan. The project is consistent with the Zoning Ordnance as described
in Table 2 above.
The proposed land use is compatible with The project is compatible with surrounding uses based on the
surrounding land uses and shall not be following :
detrimental to the public's health, safety and . The proposed tasting room is surrounded by other
general welfare. commercial uses that include restaurant and retail uses .
• The hours or operation and level of activity for
restaurants and retail stores are similar to the hours of
operation and activity level for tasting rooms.
• The tasting room will provide an attraction to the
downtown .
The Police Department has reviewed the project and draft
conditions of a roval have been included to address their
pp
concerns.
• Outside seating — No alcohol consumption shall be
permitted outside the tasting room , this is based on City
Ordinance that does not permit drinking in public (Draft
Condition of Approval number 8 ) .
• Special Events/ Live Entertainment - No live
entertainment. The Police Department is concerned that
special events will lead to the space being used for
special events that will function as a bar open to the
general public (Draft Conditions of Approval # 2, 3 and
6) .
The project will not be detrimental to the public's health , safety
and general welfare based on the following :
• The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal ,
Police Department, Building Official , and Public Works
and any requirements have been includes as conditions
of approval .
• The project is required to comply with all federal , state
and local laws.
• Applicant has applied for and is working with California
ABC for an alcohol license
• The wine tasting room will not function as a bar.
1
2
3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
4
5 The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
6 (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c) , Conversion of Small Structures , which allows structures
7 up to 10, 000 square feet to be converted from one use to another in urbanized areas when the
8 use does not involve significant amounts of hazardous materials , where all necessary public
9 services and facilities are available , and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive .
10
11 ■ The total building square footage is 582 square feet.
12 ■ The business does not use large amounts of hazardous materials .
Enoteca Tasting Room Use Permit
106 West Church Street, APN 002-226-08
File No. 11-03-UP-PC
4
1 ■ The location is not environmentally sensitive and no drainage courses or bodies of water
2 (such as creeks or streams) .
3 ■ The site is developed with an existing building which will be used as a wine tasting room
4 utilities and services already are available at the site and no expansion of the existing
5 buildings are proposed as part of the project.
6
7 PUBLIC NOTICE
8
9 A notice of public hearing was provided in the following manner:
10
11 • posted in three places on the project site on May 13 , 2011 ;
12 • mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on May 13 , 2011 ;
13 • published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on May 15 , 2011 ;
14
15 As of the writing of this staff report, no correspondence has been received in response to the
16 notice .
17
18 DECISION TIMELINE
19
20 The proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act ( PSA) . The
21 PSA requires that a decision be made on the project within 60 days of the application being
22 deemed complete . This application was submitted to the Community Development and
23 Planning Department on March 25 , 2011 and was deemed complete on April 24 , 2011 . As such ,
24 a decision must be made on the project no later than June 23 , 2011 . The applicant may request
25 a onetime extension of the decision timeline . The next regularly scheduled Planning
26 Commission meeting is June 8 , 2011 .
27
28
29 Attachments
30
31 1 . Draft finding for Use Permit
32 2 . Draft Use Permit Conditions of Approval
33 3 . Project Description submitted by applicant date stamped March 25, 2011
34 4 . Determination of Appropriate Use dated March 15 , 2011 .
35 5 . Photos submitted by applicant and date stamped March 25 , 2011
36 6 . Plans submitted by applicant date stamped March 25 , 2011
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Enoteca Tasting Room Use Permit
106 West Church Street, APN 002-226-08
File No. 11-03-UP-PC
S
1 ATTACHMENT 1
z
3
4
5
6
7 DRAFT USE PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW
8 A WINE TASTING ROOM
9 106 WEST CHURCH STREET, APN 002- 226-08
10 FILE NO : 11 -03- UP- PC
11
12 1 . The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff
13 report, the application materials and documentation , and the public record .
14
15 2 . The proposed project, as conditioned , is consistent with the goals and policies of the
16 General Plan as described in the staff report and Table 1 .
17
18 3 . The proposed project, as conditioned , is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as
19 described in Table 2 of the staff report.
20
21 4 . The proposed use is allowed with a use permit based on the Determination of
22 Appropriate Use made by the Planning Director as allowed by zoning ordinance section
23 9088 .
24
25 5 . The subject parcel is located within the Downtown Parking District No . 1 therefore is not
26 subject to the C- 1 zoning district parking standards .
27
28 6 . The project, as conditioned , is compatible with surrounding uses based on the following :
29
30 A. The proposed tasting room is surrounded by other commercial uses that include
31 restaurant and retail uses .
32 B . The hours or operation and level of activity for restaurants and retail stores are
33 similar to the hours of operation and activity level for tasting rooms .
34 C . The tasting room will provide an attraction to the downtown and promote local
35 business .
36
37 7 . The proposed project, as conditioned , will not be detrimental to public health , safety and
38 general welfare based on the following :
39
40 A. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal , Police Department , Building
41 Official , and Public Works any comments received have been included as
42 conditions of approval .
43 B . The project is required to comply with all federal , state and local laws . The
44 applicant has provided informatiorr as to compliance with applicable
45 requirements.
46 C . Applicant has applied for and is working with California ABC for an alcohol
47 license .
Enoteca Tasting Room Use Permit
106 West Church Street, APN 002-226-08
File No. 11-03-UP-PC
6
1
2 8 . The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
3 Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c) , New Construction and Conversion of
4 Small Structures , which allows structures up to 10 , 000 square feet in urbanized areas
5 when the use does not involve significant amounts of hazardous materials , where all
6 necessary public services and facilities are available , and the surrounding area is not
7 environmentally sensitive based on the following :
8
9 A. The total building square footage is 582 square feet .
10 B . The business does not use large amounts of hazardous materials .
11 C . The location is not environmentally sensitive and no drainage courses or bodies
12 of water (such as creeks or streams) .
13 D . The site is developed with an existing building which will be used as a wine
14 tasting room utilities and services already are available at the site and no
15 expansion of the existing buildings are proposed as part of the project.
16
17 9 . Notice of the proposed project was provided in the following manner as required by the
18 Zoning Ordinance :
19
2o A. posted in three places on the project site on May 13 , 2011 ;
21 B . mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on May 13 , 2011 ;
22 C . published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on May 15 , 2011 ;
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Enoteca Tasting Room Use Permit
106 West Church Street, APN 002-226-08
File No. 11-03-UP-PC
7
1 ATTACHMENT 2
z
3
4
5
6
7 DRAFI' USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW
8 A WINE TASTING ROOM
9 106 WEST CHURCH STREET, APN 002- 226-08
10 FILE NO : 11 -03- UP- PC
11
12 1 . Approval is granted for operation of a Wine Tasting Room at 106 West Church Street as
13 described in the project description and shown on the plans submitted to the Community
14 Development and Planning Department and date stamped March 25 , 2011 , except as
15 modified by the following conditions of approval . �
16
17 2 . This use permit is granted for the approval of a wine tasting room and at no time shall it
18 operate as a bar.
19
20 3 . No live entertainment is allowed .
21
22 4 . The hours of operation for the tasting room shall be Sunday through Thursday from
23 11 : 00 a . m . to 9: 00 p. m . and Friday and Saturday from 11 : 00 a . m . to 10: 00 p. m .
24
25 5 . The Planning Director may approve extended hours to coincide with special events that
26 occur in the downtown when requested in writing by the applicant at least 30 days prior
27 to the event. The Planning Director and Police Department have the authority to require
28 condition of approval for the extended hours if needed .
29
30 6 . Special events are limited to three times per month , live entertainment is not allowed .
31 Occupancy load shall not exceed 49 people as required by the Building Department
32
33 7 . Prior to installation of any sign , application for and approval of a sign permit from
34 the Planning and Community Development Department is required .
35
36 From the Police Department (Captain Trent Tavlor)
37
38 8 . Consumption of alcohol outside of the tasting room is not permitted .
39
40 9 . All ABC licenses must be applied for directly with ABC and issued and valid prior to
41 a business license being issued .
42
43 10 . No business may be conducted until a valid business license is issued and no
44 alcohol served until the ABC license is in place .
45
46 11 . Tasting shall be limited to 3oz. or 6 oz. as described in the project description dated
47 March 25 , 2011 . Bottles of wine shall not be sold for tasting or onsite consumption .
Enoteca Tasting Room Use Permit
106 West Church Street, APN 002-226-08
File No. 11-03-UP-PC
8
1
2 12 . Wine by the bottle may be purchased for onsite consumption in conjunction with a
3 wine pairing class or similar event.
4
5 From the Department of Public Works (Ben Kaqevama)
6
7 13 . Applicable Ukiah Valley Sanitation District sewer connection fees shall be paid at the
8 time of building permit issuance .
9
10 14. The existing sewer lateral shall be tested in accordance with the City of Ukiah Ordinance
11 No . 1105 and repaired or replaced if necessary .
12
13 15 . Outdoor seating will require application for and approval of an encroachment permit for
14 Temporary Accessory Objects from the Public Works Department.
15
16 From the Buildinq Official ( David Willouqhby�
17
18 16 . Building permits are required for tenant improvements and signs .
19
20 17 . A grease interceptor is required for this alteration .
21
22 18 . Since there in only one exit to the proposed wine tasting room , the occupant load of the
23 space is limited to 49 people . This includes business hours and special events that occur
24 here .
25
26 19 . When the total construction costs of the alteration does not exceed $ 132 , 536 . 28 then the
27 minimum of 20% of the cost of the construction shall be applied toward removing
28 barriers and increasing accessibility to the existing building and the removing of barriers
29 and increasing accessibility to the existing building and the facility. The order of
30 improvements to be made is as follows .
31
32 A. Accessible entrance
33 B . Accessible route to the altered area
34 C . Accessible restroom
35 D . Accessible telephones
36 E . Accessible drinking fountains
37 F . Accessible parking .
38
39 If the total construction cost of alterations exceeds the above thresholds then all
40 requirements of accessibility shall comply with the requirements of Division 1 for new
41 buildings .
42
43 Standard Citv Conditions of Approval
44
45 20 . Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use ,
46 including but not limited to business license , tenant improvement building permit , have
47 been applied for and issued/finaled .
48
Enoteca Tasting Room Use Permit
106 West Church Street, APN 002-226-08
File No. 11-03-UP-PC
9
1 21 . No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
2 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full .
3
4 22 The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
5 regulation , specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local , State , or
6 Federal agencies as applicable . All construction shall comply with all fire , building ,
7 electric, plumbing , occupancy, and structural laws , regulations , and ordinances in effect
8 at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued .
9
10 23 . A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon
11 any future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
12
13 24. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be
14 completed prior to building permit final .
15
16 25 . This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved
17 project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations
18 and conditions of approval ; or if the project is not established within two years of the
19 effective date of this approval ; or if the established use for which the permit was granted
20 has ceased or has been suspended for 24 consecutive months .
21
22 26 . This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and
23 their agents , successors and heirs to defend , indemnify, release and hold harmless the
24 City, its agents , officers , attorneys , employees , boards and commissions from any claim ,
25 action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities , the
26 purpose of which is to attack, set aside , void or annul the approval of this application .
27 This indemnification shall include , but not be limited to , damages , costs , expenses ,
28 attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
29 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this
30 application , whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part
31 of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be
32 void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction , the remainder of the
33 agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
34
35
36
37
38
Enoteca Tasting Room Use Permit
106 West Church Street, APN 002-226-08
File No. 11-03-UP-PC
10
�, � �
Attachm�nf #
Plan Description �
, ` Enoteca ��
(Wine Bar) �
���� .��
II Dolce Far Niente �fj,�y� ��I�
' (The sweetness of doing nothing) ���t�
March 23, 2011
�
Company Ownership
Solo Proprietor: Darcie Anne Antle
Home Address: 1070 Road M Redwood Valiey, Ca . 95470
Phone: 707 * 391 *7660
Business Address: 106 West Church St., Ukiah, Ca . 95482
Hours of operations: Sunday, Monday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday 11 :OOam to 9:OOpm
( Days may vary/increase depending on Special City of Ukiah Events)
_ _ __ _ . - - . __ _ .. _ _ . _ . _ _ __ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
Employees: Darcie Antle : Owner/IVlanager
A part time employee Server will be hired for approximately 30 hours per week, in addition to special
events.
Scope of Service: To feature local Mendocino County wines for tasting and off sale. Tastings will
include three types, by taste 3oz., by glass 6oz. and four options of f�ights wiil be offered, including three
wines to compare side by side . Bottles will be available for consumption on site or to take home . There
will be two cheese plates available for consumption with the wine, one wiii be cheese and bread the
other will include various cold cuts. ( No cooking) All food products will be pre-packaged . The serving
boards will be covered with wax paper. This paper will be disposed of after each serving to keep the
serving tray free of grease. The breads will be purchased daily from one of the local bakeries. There will
also be a small selection of local fresh pastries and cookies.
I am projecting an average of 44 customers per day. The Shop will be open 5 to 10 hours per day
depending on the day and event.
The space will be available for special events, private tastings, educational events (wine and food paring
classes, how to taste wine classes) fund raising, etc. (These events will require hiring part-time help)
The Shop will also be open for City of Ukiah community events.
Physical Space: The space wili have a 6 foot stand up bar area, and will offer 2, 3 foot low/regular '
seating bar area . There will be 4 tables for seating ranging from 2 to 6 chairs each . A 3 compartment
stainless steel sink, a floor sink and a hand washing sink will be installed on the east wall . One small
commercial grade self- contained refrigerator will be placed in the back north-west corner.
The work space will be a granite top rolling cabinet with locking wheels.
The bathroom door will be enlarged to 36 inches the swing will be changed from the right into the
bathroom to the left, handrails/grab bars wiil be installed next to a handicap toilet.
Other non-fixed items
Shelving
Book Case (wine case) '
Counter work space
4 to 6 bar chairs/stools
t
_ 1 love seat/bench type chair for window seating
y _ _ .
� '� 4 tables with 2 to 4 chairs
Smail desk, computer, phone ( business work area )
Merchandise: Two-thirds of the off-sale wine offered will be Mendocino County wines and one-third will
be Italian wine. Mendocino County wines will be featured by Winery, Grower, Varietal and Region .
There will be a small variety of locaily made coffee, teas, soaps, lotions, note cards, jewelry, crafts,
photos etc. for sale. This inventory will be relatively small as there is not much space .
Locally made breads/pastries for consumption on site and take out
Other beverage options bottled water, soda and Mendocino beer. (There will oniy be 1 or 2 varieties of
beer for sale. Beer is not the focus but there are a few companions that do not prefer wine so a limited
supply will be available for those that do not choose wine)
Outdoors: Outdoor seating weather permitting will be provided on the front sidewalk, a bench, chairs
and tables for 2, will be placed in front of the shop, as well as to the east toward State Street. The
maximum outside seating will be 8. My Landlord Katharine Elliott is in agreement. There is only one
shop to the direct east of my shop, which is retail/clothing. The outside furniture items wiil be removed
each evening and stored inside.
_ . . __
_ . _
A wine barrel will be placed outside fox advertisement stating OPEN .
I will not be changing the physical outside of the building.
Signage: I am going to just repaint the current "Cinnabar" sign that is hanging above the window now to
be "Enoteca" .
Window Display: The name will be on the front window up high ( Enoteca ) and down low ( II Dolce Far
Niente) as I do not want to obstruct the view out to the street. "Prego" (welcome) on the door with
hours etc.
;
,. ., Attachment # �
1
� Planning and Community Development Department
a 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah , CA 95482
planninp @citvofukiah .com
(707 463-6203
2
3 DATE: March 15, 2011
4
5 TO: File No: 11 -03-UP-PC
6
7 FROM : Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development� �
8
9 SUBJECT: Determination of Appropriate Use for a Wine Tasting Room at 106 West Church
10 Street, APN 002-226-08
11
12
13 Darcie Antle has inquired about operating a tasting room at 106 West Church Street. The
14 subject property is zoned Community Commercial (C- 1 ) . Tasting rooms are not an allowed by
15 right or permitted use (allowed with approval of a use permit) in the C- 1 zoning district or in any
16 other zoning district in the City. The zoning ordinance does not include a definition of tasting
1� room .
ss
19 Determination of Appropriate Use. Zoning ordinance section 9088, Determination of
2o Appropriate Use, allows the Planning Director to determine if #he use is appropriate for the
21 Zoning District, either as a right or subject to a use permit. In making the determination , the
22 Planning Director shall find as follows;
23
24 1. That the use would not be incompatible with other existing or allowed uses in the C- 1
25 Zoning District. �
26
27 2. That the use would not be detrimental to the continuing development of the area in
2s which the use would be located.
29
30 3. In the case of determining that a use not articulated as an allowed or permitted use
31 could be established wifh the securing of a use permit, the P/anning Director shall find
32 that the proposed use is similar in nature and intensity to the uses listed as permitted
33 uses. Al/ determinations of the Planning Director regarding whether a use can be
34 allowed or permitted in the Community Commercial (C- 1) Zoning District shall be final
35 unless a written appeal to the City Council, stating the reasons for the appeal, and the
36 appeal fee, if any, established from time to time by City Council resolution, is filed with
37 the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. Appeals may be
3s filed by an applicant or any interested party. The City Council shall conduct a duly
39 noticed public hearing on the appeal in accordance to the applicable procedures as set
40 forth in this Chapter. Af the close of the public hearing, the City Council may affirm,
41 reverse, revise or modify the appealed decision of the Planning Director. All City Council
Determination of Appropriate Use - Tasting Room
Community Commercial (G1) Zoning District
106 West Church Street, APN 002-226-08
1
,
_ :, �. :, . .
_ ,
1 decisions on appeals of the Planning Director's actions are final for the City. (Ord. 1006,
2 § 1, adopted 1998)
3
4 Findings for Determination of Appropriate Use. Operating a tasting room at 106 West
5 Church Street has been determined to be appropriate as a permitted use, based on the
� following.
s Background. As part of the Downtown Zoning Code workshop process, the Planning
9 Commission has recommended allowing tasting rooms with approval of a Major Use Permit.
so The subject property is located within the boundaries of the draft DZC and if adopted as
11 proposed a Major Use permit would be required to allow a wine tasting room . As part of the
13 Planning` Commission's disoussions, the following definition of tasting room was developed:
14 Tasting Room. An establishment that provides samples of wine, beer, or other '
15 alcoholic beverages as allowed by Alcoholic Beverage Control that are produced ofif site.
16 The establishment may provide tastings of one brand or several brands (a cooperative)
17 and may include the retail sales of alcohol for offsite consumption and special events.
18
19 The tasting room proposed at 106 West Church Street is consistent with this definition .
20
21 A tasting room is an appropriate use with approval of a Major Use Permit in the C-1 zoning
22 district at 106 West Church Street based on the following findings:
23
24 Finding 1 . As part of the DZC workshop discussions, the Planning Commission discussed
25 the compafibility of tasting rooms with existing uses in the downtown as well as uses
26 included in the DZC and determined tasting rooms would be consistent with the existing
27 uses in the area which are composed primarily of retail stores, restaurants, and offices. The
28 hours of operation and level of activity for restaurants and retail stores are similar to the
29 hours of operation for a tasting room, making the use compatible with existing uses in the
3o areas well as uses allowed in the C- 1 zoning district and uses proposed as part of the DZC.
31
32 Finding 2. Planning Commission determined tasting rooms: 1 ) would provide an attraction
33 in the downtown that would draw local residents and tourists to the area 2) would, provide a
34 showcase for local products 3) could include retail sales and encouragetl the items sold to
35 be locally made products 4) could include special events and 5) are a commercial use that is
36 appropriate for the downtown .
37
38 Planning Commission also determined tasting rooms were likely to encourage development
39 in the downtown (rather than being detrimental to the development of:the areas) 'since they
4o would create an attraction that would bring people to the downtown which would benefit
41 downtown businesses and the City in general . In order to address any impacts that may be
42 associated with the tasting room , the Commission required a Major Use Permit for tasting
43 rooms.
44
45 Finding 3, Bars are allowetl in the C-1 zoning disfrict with approval of a use permit. . A
46 tasting room is similar to a bar in that alcohol is served . However, a tasting room is less
47 intensive than a bar in terms of the hours of operation, number of patrons, and type of
48 alcohol served since the tasting rooms typically only serve one type of �alcohol . Nightclubs
Determination of Appropriate Use - Tasting Room
Community Commercial (G1) Zoning District
106 West Church Street, APN 002-226-08
2
, - ,< • .:
1 are also allowed in the C- 1 zoning district with approval of a use permit: A tasting room is
2 similar to a nightclub in that alcohol is served and special events/entertainment occurs .
3 However, a tasting room is less intensive than a night club in terms of the hours of operation
4 (not open as late) , number of patrons at any given time, number of employees , and type of
5 alcohol served since tasting rooms typically only serve one type of alcohol .
6
7 Conclusion. The Planning Commission's Downtown Zoning Code workshop process included
8 a discussion of allowing tasting rooms in the downtown . The proposed tasting room is
9 consistent with the direction provided by the Commission , the definition of tasting room included
10 in the draft DZC, and all of the required findings required for a Determination of Appropriate Use
11 can be made as described above; therefore, the proposed tasting room can be allowed with
12 Planning Commission approval of a Major Use Permit. .
13
14
15 S :planning/determinations-planning director/106 west church_tasting room
Determination of Appropriate Use - Tasting Room
Community Commercial (G1) Zoning District
10f West Church Street, APN 002-226-08
3
� ��:' �,
a ,�
�; .
`a � ;
�
i s� g � q
J . d..
E�: yp" � � =t
�l �.
� � � ; Q�, � ( p�s ,
S ;� i!.- , � f3 ' j '•�)h
�� 'CI
�,i' ��)j
a �� . -
�f:
�F a�
�.� � �,�
} k�
..,��-� _ _ ;. , :,
� �_ �. , � _ ��' �
���:.
�[�_
l
�k
�`' y�' �%;
�� ;;j;
,:,
� I
��
,! .. y�.�L .
�����ya�ij K��.S-���f4Y�f� tf.f ..
� '� r� A` < < Y
yt r [�T' e
���}�.�� y��-Y���t�Ey -���{'�t ., �
�3p�"; e w ��xkC�¢%Yr�
Y�-'kt����'���<`�`��y ( i� '[
1 �s � ' � � �e . @ �; t� �=
�'�����j� a s :�i � ' s , ; �". x�' 3
r '� .� � �'�:
� g9���3� . a � ��r{� E� I� ' ��� �� �
G , r 4 3;� �,:
iil��Bi9 ��i���i °; �' :,�8�l�1�;'&�', �� g < �; �, ��� ' ' �
s � � , ��
������e;���; �> •
3��� . ,.: � , .
1�.;. �
�0�: ��,.,�.>,�,...�..,.„�,-�,.,,
;� ��w
�d` _ `�,`
,, $ �
�
r' , .. . . . �,
'���' . .. . ':�;.
������� 4r f�� � _ _
��� ��'' . . ic*-•" .._—' "��
� (��e �
3����'�s ,.
�
�i� � i'p� ±�. _ ,
�i ,�� �� �
E�I���f; � .
a�l�l; " �
�
e �e� � .
���'�� ��. u,,�, .,
3��i0; _t:
1 — � ��
�����, i .� ' .
!'���! � � �' '
0 9�,��`;� `� ,
�;'�'_ -i�
s � r . .
��'��;p!? � pr�sr
e a������ ;. � � w��. _ . - ,
�y;i��:�`
r''tW �;� . ` .
�
mR� � � A°s3ir
p�,� �1'S,�
�. ; a w"
. _ . . . . . �� $+Yr,Ff >y�'". _
�
t�u��,�� I .
� t
,"� . y. .�. e:;.,.. � { � 4 .. .
.,+.;� ss� � � �- ':
�:
�
Y
{
�
f ' '�4t�c��hE-v��nt # � �
� ' 1 . � w 1 f �- �.;� � t� � ; ; � � � � � ' � ; , � ; '
.
, ;
,
; : ,
, , , .
; , ;
' ! � � , � ' '�i ' , � I I I � � ' , ; ;' �
' i i ' ' _�: �.t� ,. _ , � � _ . ,
, ; , � i i
� i ' �% � �., � � I �
' �'`� �L'`, , �..4,� - , � . °. . � ' ,
�
,� _ _ ,
� �
�►�1� � ,, �.�. '
' �' ( � �,a '.�..... �'�"�',:�!���� _ _ � � _ �"'1�'��► _ � �� ' i '.
i � �-� i �� � } ` ;
, i i � , �..� � i �
,
_..
i ! . ' � , , � , � � � ; ;
� , , I i
, . . .. { , I �. . t i .
. � . � . ' I . . . . �I . . . _.. � � �
I �
: i I I I
. I , , . .. . . . . . . f . ; . . ' . . . . . � .. . . ..
I � �' � • � { ; '� ' � : I ' � � A
�. i . . i, I i i I . � I .
� , �
i�
. . - . . � . �� I ' .. � .� . . � . . . I _ . 1 . . . J �,�. � � .
I _ , ; ' ; �"f 'n � , ; � fr ' ' , _ ' : ' _
,
!
. , � i � �
, , , � 1 �1�- . � .
.
� _ . . _ _ .
� � � , � � � ; , � ' - - � ' , � ' '
� � _
� �
; � I �
� � ��
, i � � � ! . 4
, : ..... . . �� �
, � � � �
;
� i I i i '
� . : , . i � t�, .; i � , I, . : �
� 7 . . .. . , � � I . . . . . � . . � . .j_ _. i . .. ' ; 1
. . . . . . � � � . _ .. . _ . _ . . _ . �
� �
� . . , ��� I . ; j I � j I I .. . � i .. . . _
1
; - ' ' . , . .., 1 , � � i '.
_
� , �. ,� , , �
, , � _ _ ,
,
, �1 �'fi�'� I� ,�� ! ' k�'� =
,
, ,
. .
, � , , , , �� � I � � '
,
' �``,
�
I ' � , �� � �� � ' I
, , ; _ , i
i ' ' 1 ) � � �
,
� i i
, ,
�
��.� � ; I � �, , _ , . � _ '
�, �, _ � u� �,.: �.� , , r , _ i � _ �. ;
, �a �e�� Y� q ; � , _ . �, - , ;
, ;
� 1 . ,.
awwl."'s„°.'°d d::... I i i 1 � I I � � �
i 1 '
. . . . . ; � . . . , . .
; I � i' ' 1 D�W � ,., I � i i , ,_
, ,
. �
; , ' ' I 'i i , � � ,
: , Gta ." _ � � ,
' � � t� i � � i � � ' ' � c � , , _ i ,
'; r�o.
�
� : _� . � ! � ; � - , � � �� ti }r"� � � � � ' _ ' _ 1 � �
' r � � ; ; i_ � i i_ ' , ' ;, . �, �
, /�1
; �. , � � ; - •� -�-. ' � � � �s' . - � � '; . � - �:�M,a�- �� �, �� _ i �. . `��.. �; . . .
�
, . i ' I .. � � ! � �
i ,
� � ��9�.
� ; ' ;- _ . ! ' ; �j.i ' � i �'�" i ,
• �` �}, �
_ .
, , ,
; �f , � �
i . �. � - � .� � � ; I. �; �. : : . . f � , I _' _ _ I_ w 'b`e» , . _ .
i ; � , � �
� �4✓
� ; ' , . '. i I � � . ' . � : � 1M� �� .
:,
I . .
. _ . '. . . . . . . . ._ . . .: . ._ ._'_c:=.__ ... y . u .. . . . . . . . �I. i� . .
, ��. � �,� � ���4 �" ��� �-
, ,,
; I I i I gi ; i ,
:
i � �
� . � � � � I . ... . � i � I . � I � '.
� ; . - . � ; . ' . . . j . '. . . . . , . . . . ._ ' � i . .� _ . )_.. . I. _ _ � . '. . . ._ .
. . . i . '. . . . . i . . .
, . I . I ; . ' .. . . _ _ . _ 1 . . '
i . I 1
.
'
� I . 1 : _ ' � I i.
� � � I � I �
, , � � ; � � i
, _ , 1 ,
. !. ,, ' '. _ ; ', , , ' i I _ . . . . .
, � � � � ' , r-^��_ . ( .. . . . Vt� . I. . .I . . I . ' . I !�`� �' � �4�� {�y! � . I. . � ! . I
�
__,
� j, 1 1�'. . I i
� � I I
� � � i
i � � 'I ��, I. . . . - ' . _ I . . . i.. i. � � � '+�^��� 1 I I
' (Ya � � .
. � . . . . . _ "\ . � �,��,
�/ '
I
I � �
I �
{� � �
�
' ' ' i' ' I , � _ _ � � ��..,,
_ ,� ` � ; ; � � �:�1 ; �1 1�i�'ti�
� .
.
' � 1 ' '
,
� , � r � � �-fi.: � , � � ! ,
, ; . � � : �
; , � , ��. , . _ ; I ! ; _ ' _ � _ i
i �� ; � i ; j ; , i _ , � . ; '
,
• . , , �
, , � _ ; '
���. ; j f �
. ; _ , � � i � I ,
;
, I ,
,
; ' , � � � � � � , ,
_ , . _ ,;:-- -,-- _ . , � : , , , � � ; !
_ , , __ _
� � , ; � ; ,
. : � �
,
� , i , i � ' i � �
:
� ; , ; , � . . � . , . � , . i. , i ; ; , , . i
i
. � � , � . � . . �. . . i �
, . . . : _ . _ . . . . . ' � i � , � , � � , . . . .
; . . . . .. _ . _ . . . _ ..._ . . . . . , . . _ �. . . . , . � ,
. : ; .. , i . . .. . . . . � -
. .. � . ��; � i , . I ..
, . . i , � ,. . :
i �
� � , I , : ; , . ', ,.
. �. . . � . . , I ! . . . . � _ ! . . i . . . . . � . � �' ) . , : I ,
� . � . . . . . . I . � . I � � . . i . �. . ! . . ,�R I . . . I �� . . I � � j � j � � �
. , �^ ! � I '� I i I � I i � � .' i
I � I
. . �I . _ . ;. /1-� . . � . . . . .' . . , ' ' . . � . �. . . .
+M�
; . I � i .. .".� � . � i I
. � . . i . . . . ' � �� � . �� . . . � ' ' . I . ; . . I . . . . . 1 �. _ . _ , ! . '
.. . . . . 1 . . . . . ,
; ' ' ' ' ' ' � a � . �J , �'1� ��.� �
: , ; ; U -�-i a � '
, ; ,_ , � ` , , ;
.
.
, , . , , �
. _ �� .
: -���'�,: ' � ' � � t �' ' , : Cno G�c�,c�, �
, .,. � � �
�.�,�,�-� `�,,�. �I� 1'�..�..- �",� �`°'
` ' � �� ����
� - - -._
. . , ;
,
: �1 ��� �� , � a «.,
. ' �' � � ... . . � ����� .
�
� ��. I j ;
�
1 ITEM N0. 8B
Community Development and Planning Department
a 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah , CA 95482
qlanninq @ citvofukiah .com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: May 25, 2011
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM : Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Request for Preliminary Review of a 25,260 square foot addition to the Ukiah
io Valley Medical Center at 275 Hospital Drive, APN 002- 193-23 and 002- 160-08
11
12 REQUEST
13
14 Staff requests the Planning Commission conduct a preliminary review of the project as
15 presented by the applicant in the Project Description and (see attachments) .
16
17 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
18
, 19 An application has been received from Rick Henderson of Hospital Designers Inc. requesting
2o Planning Commission review of preliminary plans for a 25,260 square foot addition that would
21 house a nineteen position emergency department and eight bed intensive care%ritical care unit
22 of the Ukiah Valley Medical Center (see attachment 1 , Project Description) . The proposed
23 project also would include the following :
24
25 ■ revisions to the ambulance entry and drives aisles;
26 ■ one (1 ) new emergency generator and transformer east of the new ambulance entry;
27 ■ relocation of the helipad to the roof of the addition ;
2s ■ modification of the parking and landscaping areas; and
29 ■ planting of additional trees.
30
31 Prior to preparing formal plans and submitting a formal application , the applicant is specifically
32 requesting direction on the following items (see project description) :
33 ■ adequacy of the proposed landscaping due to the constraints of the site; and
34 ■ adequacy of the proposed screening for the rooftop units and emergency generator.
35
36 STAFF ANALYSIS
37
3s The applicant has submitted this preliminary review application in order to receive Planning
39 Commission direction regarding the proposed project. Since this is not a formal application ,
40 staff has not reviewed the application for consistency with the general plan , zoning , or airport
41 requirements. Below is a description of the general plan , zoning , and airport designation for the
42 subject parcels.
43
Ukiah Valley Medical Center
275 Hospital Drive, APN 002-193-23 and 002-160-08
File No: 11-05-PRE-PC
1
1 General Plan. The General Plan land use designation of the parcels is Commercial. This land
2 use designation identifies lands where commerce and business may occur. Commercial lands
3 are more precisely defined through the uses allowed in the individual zoning districts.
4
5 Zoning. The zoning of the parcels is Heavy Commercial (C-2). In the C-2 zoning district,
6 Hospital/Hospital Services are not an allowed or permitted use (allowed with approval of a use
� permit) .
8 �
9 Parkina ' The zoning ordinance includes a parking requirement for Hospital, Convalescent,
10 Nursing Homes and Sanitariums of three (3) parking spaces for each permanent bed. The
11 adequacy of the proposed parking will be evaluated as part of a formal application .
12
13 Landscapina . The C-2 zoning district includes landscaping standards. New parking areas _. , , .
14 would be required to comply with the landscaping requirements unless granted relief by the �
15 Planning commission as allowed by the zoning ordinance based upon the size, scale,
16 intensity, and location of the development project. The landscaping requirements include the
17 following :
18
19 ■ landscaping coverage of twenty percent (20%) of the gross area of the parcel , unless
2o based upon the small size of a parcel , it would be unreasonable and illogical with a
21 minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the landscaped area shall be dedicated to live
22 plantings;
23
24 ■ landscaping proportional to the building elevations ; .
25
26 ■ One ( 1 ) tree placed between every four (4) parking stalls within a continuous linear
27 planting strip ;
28
29 ■ primarily deciduous species, designed to provide a. tree canopy coverage of fifty percent
30 (50%) over all paved areas within ten (10) years of planting ;
31
32 ■ perimeter planting strip with both trees and shrubs .
33
34 ■ defined pedestrian sidewalks or marked pedestrian facilities within landscaped areas
35 and/or separated from automobile travel lanes ; and
36
37 ■ one (1 ) street tree every 30 feet of parcel frontage.
38
39 Process. The C-2 zoning district does not allow hospitals or hospital services as allowed
40 or permitted uses (allowed with approval of a use permit) . However, in the past, use
41 permits have been required to allow the expansion of the hospital , including the birthing
42 center, heliport, and storage. As such , a Major Use Permit would be required to allow the
43 expansion of the hospital in this case as well . The expansion would also require Planning
44 Commission approval of a Major Site Development Permit. The use permit and site '
45 development permit applications would be processed concurrently.
46
47 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan. The project is subject to the requirements of the Ukiah :
48 Municipal Airport Maser Plan . The subject parcels are located in the B-2 zone . The prohibited
Ukiah Valley Medical Center
275 Hospital Drive, APN 002-193-23 and 002-160-08 ;
File No : 11-05-PRE-PC
2
1 uses in the B-2 zone include hospitals . The B-2 infill zone policy allows the expansion of
2 existing hospital facilities provided that the buildings are single story and the use does not
3 exceed an intensity of 60 people per acre. �
4
5 Design Guidelines. The project is subject to the Design Guidelines for Projects located Outside
6 of the Downtown Design District. Projects that are located outside of the Downtown Design
7 District are not required to be reviewed by the Design Review Board . If Planning Commission
8 would like the applicant to have the project reviewed by the Design Review Board , the
9 Commission should provide this direction to the applicant as part of the preliminary review.
10
11
12 1 . Project Description date stamped May 17, 2011
13 2 . Reduced 11 " x 17" Plans
14 3. Full Size Plans
15
16
17 S: Planning/Planning Commission/Memos/UVMC_Prelim
Ukiah Valley Medical Center
275 Hospital Drive, APN 002-193-23 and 002-160-08
File No: 11-05-PRE-PC
3
i
i
;
i '
Y �
qtfachment #
Proiect Descrintion
� UKIAH VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
Ukiah, California
The project site consists of 8. 8 acres along the east side of Hospital Drive, one block north of E.
Perkins Street. The site is currently occupied by the iJkiah Valley Medical Center campus.
Buildina Addition
The proposed project consists of a new 25,260 sq. ft. one level addition in front of the existing
68,700 sq. ft. hospital building. The new addition will house a nineteen position Emergency
Department and an eight bed ICU/CCU. A penthouse for HVAC equipment along with chillers
behi.nd stucco fuushed screens is on the roof. In addition, a Helipad will be constructed on the
roof to replace the existing pad on grade. Revisions to the drives and parking will be done to
accommodate the new addition. The Ambulance Entry canopy will be stucco finished to match
the adjacent building. The ED Wa1k-in Enhy canopy will be metal finished to match the
adjacent Outpatient Pavilion. A new Emergency Generator and transformer are proposed east of
the new Ambulance Entry with a buried fuel tank in the yard to the south. The area of the site
that will be disturbed by the proposed consiruction is 1 .33 acres.
The exterior of the building will be colored stucco with solar cool bronze glass windows with
clear anodized aluminum. frames to match the existing hospital and the adjacent Pavilion. The
new addition will be a three color scheme consisting of the Entry Area painted Leafy Lettuce and
the rest of the building and penthouse will be painted Hawaiian Luau on the bottom and Off
White on the top. The stucco finished screen on the roof will be pai.nted Hawauan Luau to match
the lower portion of the penthouse and the air handlers and chillers will be painted Off White to
match the upper portion of the penthouse. T'he two canopies are coordinated to match the colors
of the adjacent buildings. The emergency generator will be painted Off-White to match the
existing building color scheme.
LandscapinA
The existing hospital site has 97,360 sq. ft of landscaped area or 25 .4% of the site. The proposed
hospital site will have 80,580 sq. ft of landscaped area or 21 .0% of the site. The existing
landscaping that will be lost consists of 18, 136 sq. ft. of grass area around the existing at grade :
helipad that could not have any other kind of landscaping due to interference with the operation
of helicopters. Because of this, the site currently has few trees along the front. Two fmger
islands have been proposed in the new front parking lot, which with the end islands will allow
the addition of four tree islands along the street in front of the new addition. Although the
proposed area of landscaping is less than the existing condition, the rooftop helipad allows for ; ;
more trees than currently exists along Hospital Drive and the front of the site. In addition, we are
proposing to add 6 trees in diamond islands (sim.ilar to those in the North lot) in the existing
parking lot in front of the Ukiah Valley Medical Center Outpatient Pavilion to enhance and
upgrade the appearance from Hospital Drive.
RE� EIVED
MAY 17 � 2Q11 '
CIN OF UKIAH
PlANNING DEPI:
�,
N
a
Parkina Summarv
Existing Proposed
Spaces H/C Spaces H/C
North Lot 83 - 83 -
B ack Lot 44. - 44 -
Back/side Outpatient Lot 23 - 23 -
South Lot 89 15 SO 8
Emergency walk-in - - 13 6
Main Entry Lot 29 2 28 2
Tota1 268 17 271 16
Total incl. H/C 285 287
Plannina Commission Decisions Needed `
Landscaping proposed is acceptable.
Screening of rooftop units and emergency generator is acceptable.