HomeMy WebLinkAbout07132011 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Wed nesday �u ly 13, 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 June 8, 2011 and June 22, 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
party 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 )uly 25, 2011 at
5:00 p.m.
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approved Projects and Condition Compliance. Discussion and possible
direction regarding compliance with imposed conditions of approval.
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.
10. OLD BUSINESS
A. Workshop. Conduct a Public Workshop to review and make a possible
recommendation to City Council regarding the revisions proposed to the Ukiah
Municipal Airport Building and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines updated by
the Airport Commission. Continued from the lune 22, 2011 meeting,
11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
13. 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 June 8, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Mike Whetzel
8 Jason Brenner
9 Linda Helland
10 Linda Sanders
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
14 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
19 Chair Pruden at 6:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
20 Ukiah, California.
21
22 2. ROLL CALL
23
24 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
25
26 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 25, 2011
27 The minutes from the May 25, 2011 meeting will be available for review and approval at the June 22nd
28 meeting.
29
30 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
31
32 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
33 the final date to appeal is June 20, 2011.
34
35 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site visit for agenda item 9A was verified.
36
37 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Agenda item 9A was properly noticed in accordance with the
38 provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
39
40 9. PRESENSTATION
41 9A. Presentation by BEANS (Better Eating, Activity, and Nutrition for Students). A presentation by
42 local teen peer educators identifying access and barriers to health and nutrition in our community.
43
44 A presentation was given by local teen peer educators talking about good eating habits, ways to promote
45 health/nutrition and make better choices. The information provided was educational/useful and well
46 received.
47
48 10. NEW BUSINESS—PUBLIC HEARING
49 10A. Doggy Daycare Use Permit: 11-04-UP-PC. Conduct a public hearing for a request for Planning
50 Commission approval for a Major Use Permit for a Doggy Daycare at 884 South State Street,
51 APN 003-072-03.
52
53 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report and commented:
54 USES
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2011
Page 1
1 • Project is not an allowed or permitted use within the Community Commercial (C-1)zoning district.
2 • As allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Director made a `Determination of Appropriate
3 Use' by determining the proposed doggy day care would be an appropriate use subject to
4 Planning Commission approval of a Major Use Permit.
5 • The dog care facility as proposed by the applicant would include 24-hour a day dog day care,
6 retail sales, self-wash dog station, grooming services and dog training classes.
7 • When the determination of appropriate use was made the proposed hours of operation were 6
8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays.
9 • The applicant has requested approval of a 24-hour dog day care facility. Staff and the Police
10 Department have concerns with this request given the project site is located adjacent to
11 residential zoning and there may be noise associated with this use. Therefore, staff has included
12 draft condition of approval #3 that limits the hours for dog day care.
13 • Should the Commission be in a position to extend the hours of operation as requested by the
14 applicant, condition of approval#3 and the finding would need to be revised.
15
16
17 Commission:
18 Q1. What were the Police Department concerns with having a 24-hour doggy day care operation?
19 Q2. Is the intent for a 24-hour operation for kennel purposes?
20 Q3. Clarify location of employee parking.
21 Q4. Why was a Landscaping Plan not included?
22 Q5. Are four employees the maximum plan or will there be more employees?
23
24 Staff:
25 Q1. The concerns about a 24-hour operation include the possibility of noise coming from the doggy
26 day care operation that would turn into a code enforcement and security issues.
27 Q2. The purpose is to provide for overnight accommodations for when a person is working later
28 hours. Staff's concern about a 24-hour operation is the facility is adjacent to residential uses.
29 Q3. Employee parking is located to the rear of the site.
30 Q4. The project is not new development, but rather a reuse of an existing building whereby no
31 landscaping is required.
32 Q5. Applicant is hopeful the business will expand enough to include four employees.
33
34 Chair Pruden: The project is a Use Permit and not a Site Development Permit that requires landscaping
35 whereby the main concern is the use.
36
37 Commissioner Sanders referred to Article 7 of the Zoning Code for requirements in the C-1 zoning
38 district that states all development projects in the C-1 zoning district requiring discretionary review shall
39 include a proposed landscaping plan and noted the language does not state the project has to be new
40 development in order to require landscaping and the project is located in the C-1 zoning district.
41
42 Staff: Acknowledged that while the language states all development projects in the C-1 zoning district
43 requiring discretionary review shall include a proposed landscaping plan, it is required that the
44 landscaping plan be commensurate with the size and scale of the proposed development project. From
45 staff's perspective, given the reuse of the building, the lack of opportunity for landscaping since the site is
46 concrete/asphalt, the work involved to provide landscaping did not seem commensurate with the impact
47 of the project and staff did not require landscaping. Staff has required landscaping for other Use Permits
48 when the opportunity has presented itself and the impacts have warranted themselves.
49
50 Commissioner Sanders:
51 • No trees are located on the site except for the three street trees.
52 • There is no shade on the parcel.
53 • There will be a maximum of 60 dogs using the facility and there is no screening to allow for the
54 problems associated with barking.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2011
Page 2
1 • While the area associated with washing the dogs will go into the City sewer system, effluent and
2 solids from dogs outdoors will not. How will this be addressed?
3 • Effluent needs to be disposed of properly and fortunately there is no immediate City storm drain
4 system in the vicinity of the project for effluent to drain into. Landscaping and/or lawn area can
5 assist with absorbing effluent.
6 • Is concerned during storm weather how effluent on the site will be captured to prevent it from
7 ending up in the storm drain.
8 • Supports the project has landscaping.
9
10 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:34 p.m.
11
12 Commission:
13 Q1. Are there plans to paint the building?
14 Q2. Asked applicant to elaborate on the 24-hour dog day care service.
15 Q3. Is there some kind of treatment to sound proof the walls.
16
17
18 Linda Geurts, project applicant:
19 Q1. Will paint the building as opposed to having it commercially painted. No structural changes are
20 proposed to the exterior other than paint and the installation of new signs. Extra paint will be
21 saved to paint over the graffiti that is often displayed on this building.
22 Q2. A 24-hour dog day care operation would allow a person working later/extended hours to be able
23 to have his/her dog cared for overnight. The plan is to have dog day care indoors whereby areas
24 will be sectioned off so smaller dogs are not with bigger dogs. The dogs will be screened as to
25 behavioral characteristics, health, and other relative important social/medical/special needs
26 and/or issues.
27 Q3. It is possible to sound-proof the walls, but costly.
28
29 Linda Geurts:
30 • Dogs are less likely to bark when they are in a segregated group setting.
31 • The sectioned off areas will have amenities such as beds and/or other amenities related to dog
32 care.
33 • A trained staff member will be on-site 24-hours.
34 • The business will not operate 24-hours until a client base is established and 24-hour operation
35 becomes cost effective.
36 • Many of the clientele will come from the applicanYs former dog grooming business since many of
37 these clients expressed a need for having their dogs kenneled.
38 • Would like the opportunity to have indoor dog training classes in the evening and conduct
39 training and agility classes outdoors when the weather is nice.
40 • A 'powerloo' pet waste management system will be installed indoors in the cemented area at the
41 rear of the building to dispose of effluent and solid waste.
42 • Provided an explanation and specifications on how the `powerloo' pet waste management system
43 works that will trigger a new sewer hook-up.
44 • The outside solid waste will be picked up and disposed of in the `powerloo.'
45
46 Chair Pruden: Project would be a good candidate for the Fa�ade Improvement Program if the
47 boundaries were extended to this area of town.
48
49 There was Commission discussion how effluent will be treated when the dogs are outdoors.
50
51 Commissioner Sanders would like to see some vegetation such as a lawn area so when the yard is
52 hosed off will act as a filtration to capture runoff before it goes into the gutter and eventually into the City's
53 storm drain system.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2011
Page 3
1 Linda Geurts: The building is very old and there is concrete all the way to the entrance of the building.
2 There is no landscaping and there are no irrigation.
3
4 Commission:
5 • Suggested constructing a 'sandbox' outdoors to capture effluent and/or solids.
6 • Expressed concerned there is essentially no shade on the site. Observed there may be some
7 shade relief from trees along the western property line.
8
9 Linda Geurts: Dogs will be indoors during most of the day when it is hot. The building has a swamp
10 cooling system to cool the building.
11
12 Chair Pruden: It is likely the dogs attending the day care facility are probably pampered, well-cared for
13 and well-behaved. It is unlikely that 'ranch dogs'will be utilizing the dog day care facility.
14
15 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:44 p.m.
16
17 Chair Pruden: John Chan is the owner of the building and he may be willing after the building begins to
18 generate revenue to make outdoor improvements and provide for landscaping amenities.
19
20 PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: 6:46 p.m.
21
22 Commissioner Sanders: Would like to see some trees such as Redwoods for screening purposes along
23 the perimeter of the property to help screen potential noise impacts, such as barking.
24
25 John Chan: Would be amenable to making outdoor improvements to provide for some landscaping
26 amenities, including trees, with irrigation, along the rear property line to provide screening and shade.
27
28 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:54 p.m.
29
30 There was additional discussion and concern expressed about allowing for a 24-hour operation in terms
31 of potential noise impacts, security issues and other relative issues that would be associated with a 24-
32 hour dog day care operation and whether or not it is a good idea. There was further discussion about
33 discretionary review when and if the applicant is ready to expand her operation provided there have been
34 no neighborhood complaints about the operation and agreed the best approach would be to require an
35 amendment to the use permit that would be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator.
36
37 General Commission consensus:
38 • While the Commission supports landscaping, it would not be made a condition of the use permit.
39 Would like to see some planters and/or other landscaping features that can be done to improve
40 the appearance of the site.
41 • Add a condition that future expansion of the dog day care services to a 24-hour operation
42 requires an amendment to the use permit subject to review and approval of the Zoning
43 Administrator.
44 • Add a condition that prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a plan
45 that describes what measure will be taken to prevent dog effluent from draining into the storm
46 drain system, subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department.
47 • To address potential noise impacts, condition of approval #6 provides if complaints are received
48 related to noise the business owner shall take measures to install sound attenuation devices,
49 subject to staff review and approval.
50 • No change to Condition of Approval#3.
51 • Agrees with staff's analysis concerning the parking for the project.
52 • Approves of the project.
53
54 Commissioner Sanders: Is of the opinion a landscaping plan for the project should be required.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2011
Page 4
1 M/S Whetzel/Helland to approve Doggy Daycare Use Permit 11-04-UP-PC with Findings 1-7 and the
2 addition of two conditions as referenced above and Conditions of Approval 1-21 to be renumbered as
3 necessary. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
4
5 AYES: Commissioners Whetzel, Helland, Brenner and Chair Pruden
6 NOES: Commission Sanders
7
8 FINDINGS
9
10 USE PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW
11 A DOG DAY CARE FACILITY AT
12 884 SOUTH STREET, APN 003-072-03
13 FILE NO: 11-04-UP-PC
14
15 1. The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report,
16 the application materials and documentation, and the public record.
17
18 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
19 Plan as described in the staff report and Table 1.
20
21 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as described in
22 Table 2 of the staff report.
23
24 4. The proposed use is allowed with a use permit based on the Determination of Appropriate Use
25 made by the Planning Director as allowed by zoning ordinance section 9088.
26 a. The project, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding uses based on the following:
27 b. The project site is located within an existing commercial area and is surrounded mainly
28 by commercial uses.
29 c. The proposed project will occupy a building which is currently vacant and therefore use of
30 the building would be an asset to the neighborhood and will draw people to the area.
31 d. The hours of operation will be consistent with other business in the area.
32
33 5. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to public health, safety and general
34 welfare based on the following:
35
36 a. Through the use permit the hours of operation will be regulated, therefore the project will
37 not be detrimental to the surrounding residential uses.
38 b. There are ten parking spaces located on site in the front for customers and the
39 employees will be required to park in the rear of the site.
40 c. The dogs will only be permitted outside between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
41 therefore noise related to barking will not be detrimental to surrounding neighbors.
42 d. A condition of approval has been added that if the City receives complaints related to
43 noise the business owner must made provisions for noise attenuation.
44 e. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, Police Department, Building Official,
45 and Public Works and any requirements have been includes as conditions of approval.
46 f. The project is required to comply with all federal, state and local laws.
47
48 6. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
49 (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c), New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures,
50 which allows structures up to 10,000 square feet in urbanized areas when the use does not
51 involve significant amounts of hazardous materials, where all necessary public services and
52 facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive based on the
53 following:
54
55 a. The total building square footage is 4,450 square feet.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2011
Page 5
1 b. The business does not use hazardous materials.
2 c. The location is not environmentally sensitive and no drainage courses or bodies of water
3 (such as creeks or streams).
4 The site is developed with an existing building which already has utilities and services
5 available at the site and no expansion of the existing building footprint is proposed as part
6 of the project.
7
8 7. Notice of the proposed project was provided in the following manner as required by the Zoning
9 Ordinance:
10
11 a. posted in three places on the project site on May 27, 2011;
12 b. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on May 27, 2011;
13 c. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on May 29, 2011;
14
15 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
16
17
18 USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW
19 A DOG DAY CARE FACILITY AT
20 884 South State Street, APN 003-072-03
21 FILE NO: 11-04-UP-PC
22
23 1. Approval is granted for operation of a Dog Day Care Facility that includes retail sales, dog
24 grooming and dog training classes at 884 South State Street as described in the project
25 description and shown on the plans submitted to the Community Development and Planning
26 Department and date stamped April 12, 2011, except as modified by the following conditions of
27 approval.
28
29 2. The use permit is granted to operate a Dog Day Care Facility that includes the following uses:
30 a. Dog Day Care for a maximum of 60 dogs;
31 b. Dog Training Classes; and
32 c. Dog Grooming including one self-wash dog station.
33
34 3. The use permit is granted subject to the following operating characteristics:
35 a. The Doggy Day Care shall operate 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 10:00
36 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday;
37 b. Outside hours for the dogs shall only be between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
38 c. The facility shall have a maximum of four(4)employees.
39
40 4. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff review and
41 approval:
42
43 a. A site plan that shows the striped parking in the front of the building.
44 b. Notes on the plans that indicate that the parking spaces designate for the employees are
45 located at the rear of the site.
46 c. A new solid six foot fence located at the rear of the property, to further separate the
47 adjacent residential uses and the proposed project.
48
49 5. Prior to occupancy the following shall be completed and are subject to staff approval:
50
51 a. The broken slats in the existing chain link fence that surrounds the property shall be
52 replaced to provide solid screening, subject to staff review and approval.
53 b. The parking lot shall be striped for (10) ten parking spaces, subject to staff review and
54 approval.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2011
Page 6
1 c. The new six foot fence shown on the building permit plans shall be installed, subject to
2 staff review and approval.
3
4 6. If complaints are received related to noise the business owner shall take measures to install
5 sound attenuation devices, subject to staff review and approval.
6
7 7. Prior to installation of any signs, application for and approval of a sign permit from the
8 Planning and Community Development Department is required.
9
10 8. No outside display of items shall be permitted.
11
12 From the Planninq Commission
13
14 9. Future expansion of the dog day care services to a twenty four hour (24) operation requires
15 an amendment to the use permit and is subject to review and approval by the Zoning
16 Administrator.
17
18 10. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall submit a plan that describes what
19 measures will be taken to prevent dog effluent from draining into the storm drain system,
20 subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department
21
22 From the Building Official ( David Willoughby 467-5718)
23
24 11. The change of occupancy to retail will require an accessible entrance to the building, an
25 accessible bathroom and an accessible counter at the point of sale.
26
27 12. When the total construction cost of alterations does not exceed $132, 536.28, then the minimum
28 of 20% of the cost of construction shall be applied toward removing barrier and increasing
29 accessibility to the existing building and the facility The order of improvements to be made is as
30 follows:
31 1. accessible entrance
32 2. accessible route to the altered area
33 3. accessible restroom
34 4. accessible telephones
35 5. accessible drinking fountains
36 6. accessible parking
37
38 13. If the total construction cost of the alteration exceeds the above threshold then all requirements
39 for accessibility shall comply with the requirements of Division I for new buildings.
40
41 From the Public Works Department( Ben Kaqevama 463-6284)
42
43 14. The existing sanitary sewer lateral shall be tested in accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No.
44 1105, and repaired or replace if required. Applicable City of Ukiah sewer connection fees shall be
45 paid at the time of building permit issuance.
46
47 15. If the building permit value is equal to or greater than one-third of the value of the existing
48 structure, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees, along the subject property street frontage will
49 be evaluated, and may be required to be constructed upgraded pursuant to Section 9187 of
50 Ukiah City Code.
51
52 Standard Citv Conditions of Approval
53
54 16. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
55 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been
56 applied for and issued/finaled.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2011
Page 7
1
2 17. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
3 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
4
5 18. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
6 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal
7 agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing,
8 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building
9 Permit is approved and issued.
10
11 19. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any future
12 purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
13
14 20. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior
15 to building permit final.
16
17 21. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project
18 related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and conditions
19 of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of this
20 approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been
21 suspended for 24 consecutive months.
22
23 22. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
24 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
25 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
26 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack,
27 set aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not
28 be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be
29 asserted by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the
30 City's action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence
31 on the part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to
32 be void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement
33 shall remain in full force and effect.
34
35 11. NEW BUSINESS
36
37 11A. Election of Chairperson. Election of a Planning Commission chairperson as required by the
38 Planning Commission Procedures of Conduct.
39
40 M/S Commissioner Whetzel/Helland nominated Judy Pruden as Chair of the Planning Commission.
41 Motion was carried by an all aye voice vote. (5-0).
42
43 12. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
44 The Commission will have the opportunity to review the revised Airport Land Use Plan.
45 At the request of the Commission, the draft Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and Land Use Development
46 Plan Guidelines will be introduced for discussion at the regular June 22 Commission meeting.
47
48 The Commission will likely review the Walmart EIR at one of the regular July Commission meetings.
49
50 13. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
51 Commissioner Sanders inquired whether there will be a follow-up meeting/workshop with Council
52 concerning the DZC?
53
54 Staff noted the next step will be discussion of 'New Topics' that are included in the document and policy
55 decisions thereof.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2011
Page 8
1 Chair Pruden reported `Taste of the Downtown' will be this Friday from 5-8:00 p.m.
2
3 Commissioner Helland thanked Linda Sanders for her article concerning the DZC that was recently
4 featured in the Ukiah Daily Journal.
5
6 Mike Whetzel reported Airport Day is Saturday, June 10.
7
8 14. ADJOURNMENT
9 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m.
10
11
12
13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
14
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 2011
Page 9
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 June 22, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Jason Brenner
7 Mike Whetzel
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
13 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
14 Greg Owen, Airport Manager
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
19 Chair Pruden at 6:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
20 Ukiah, California.
21
22 2. ROLL CALL
23
24 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
25
26 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 25, 2011
27 Chair Pruden noted the correct spelling of Terry Brown is Terry Burns.
28
29 M/S Sanders/Helland to approve May 25, 2011 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (4-0).
30
31 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
32
33 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
34 the final date to appeal is July 5, 2011.
35
36 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site visit for agenda item 9A was verified.
37
38 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Agenda item 9A was properly noticed in accordance with the
39 provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
40
41 9. PUBLIC HEARING
42 9A. Amendment to Site Development Permit No: 07-23. Conduct a public hearing for a request for
43 Planning Commission approval for Amendment to an approved Site Development Permit to allow
44 the freestanding sign to exceed the height of the building at 615 Talmage Road, APN 180-070-
45 10. The building and freestanding sign were originally approved by Planning Commission on
46 December 9, 2009.
47
48 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report:
49 • Applicant is requesting approval to install a taller freestanding sign from what was originally
50 approved.
51 • The new sign would be 25 feet tall and include the company logos for Arco and am/pm signage
52 along with a digital price board.
53 • The City Sign Ordinance allows freestanding signs to exceed the roof height of the main building
54 provided the sign is 30 ft. or less and is subject to SDP approval.
55 • The Sign Ordinance allows for 441 square feet of sign area for the site.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 1
1
2 Commission Helland noted an error in the staff report with reference to `restaurant' which was corrected
3 to read, `gas station and mini-mart.'
4
5 Chair Pruden:
6 • The original sign proposal is 17 ft. by 51 inches or 4 feet 3 inches.
7 • Using attachment 3 pertinent to the sign plans in determining how the mathematical calculations
8 were formulated was very difficult because of the small plans.
9 • From her calculations, the original freestanding sign proposal was 72.25 sq. ft. Staff's original
10 calculation was 80 sq. ft.
11 • Questioned staff's calculation of 90 sq. ft. as the total square footage of sign area for the site for
12 the new freestanding sign.
13 • The new proposal is not 90 sq. ft, but rather 25 ft by 6 ft. 9 inches rounded off for a total square
14 footage of sign area of approximately 169 sq. ft, which is a more than a doubling of the mass.
15
16 Associate Planner Faso: Asked Chair Pruden if her calculations included counting the digital price
17 board because that part of the calculation is excluded from the Sign Ordinance City calculations.
18
19 Chair Pruden: Her calculations included the overall size of the sign and that is 25 ft in height by 6 ft. 9
20 inches in width.
21
22 Associate Planner Faso: Staff's calculations do not include the pricing elements on the sign and
23 included the Arco and am/pm portion of the signage and should have included the Arco on the bottom,
24 but did not.
25
26 Chair Pruden: The sign is much larger than the original proposed.
27
28 Senior Planner Jordan: Clarified the only part of the signage that can be counted is the box around
29 am/pm, the Arco logo and the ARCO bp at the bottom. The pricing cannot be counted since it is required
30 by law we are preempted from counting it as sign area.
31
32 Chair Pruden:
33 • The first set of calculations is clear whereby the second set is not because the plans are not
34 drawn to scale making it difficult to determine the total sign area for the site. Regardless, the new
35 freestanding sign is taller and wider than the original sign.
36 • It is difficult to a make a decision about the project without having the exact figures and how the
37 calculations were made.
38
39 Staff:
40 • Asked what information can be provided to the Commission in order to make a decision. The
41 new proposal is well below the allowable sign area for the site.
42 • The majority of the sign is exempt from the sign area calculations.
43 • Should distinguish between the area of the sign which is clearly complies with the sign area
44 allowed for the site and the mass of the structure which is a consideration of the sire
45 development permit.
46
47 Chair Pruden:
48 • Would like to know what the exact square footage for the proposed new sign whereby the
49 drawings for the sign do not adequately provide this information.
50 • Would like to see a breakdown of the signage that is required to be calculated. The drawing does
51 not show the footage for the bottom of the sign below the Arco pb.
52 • Was not aware that the pricing cannot be calculated into the signage for the site. This information
53 should have been provided as part of the staff report.
54 • How is the `massing' calculated for the new proposal? The `massing' for the original proposal
55 provides for a 4-foot width and a 17-foot height.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 2
1 • If the intent is to go to a larger sign, less the center pricing section, this issue still needs to be
2 addressed.
3 • While her concern essentially is not having an accurate measurement of exactly how much larger
4 the proposed new sign is, she does have an accurate sense of the total size.
5
6 Commissioner Sanders:
7 • Attachment 4, is dated November 19, 2008 and inquired why the Planning Commission did not
8 see this document when the project was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission in
9 December 2009.
10 • While aware of the receipt date of this document, it looks as though the applicant intended to
11 have a larger sign all along.
12
13 It was noted the document was revised May 5, 2010.
14
15 Associate Planner Faso:
16 • Staff received the document when the applicant submitted a request for a taller freestanding sign
17 a few weeks ago.
18 • Regardless of the date on the plans, staff received the document June 16, 2011.
19 • Clarified in response to the aforementioned concerns raised, there is 1)the size of the sign and 2)
20 the size of the sign structure and addressed how the zoning code calculates the total square
21 footage less the digital price board area.
22
23 Commissioner Helland: Is of the opinion there is sufficient information to make an informed decision.
24 This brings up a larger issue in that the sign ordinance may have to be revisited at some point,
25 particularly with regard to calculations.
26
27 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:23 p.m.
28
29 Bruni Kobbe:
30 • The applicant has been in violation of the project conditions that were approved for the initial
31 project with regard to the conditions for protection of the Oak tree canopy during construction.
32 Has learned of and observed negligent care of the tree during construction of the building and
33 questioned why the applicant is allowed to bring forth the sign project when he is not in
34 compliance with the original SDP.
35 • The proposed new sign is too tall and too big and is not appropriate.
36 • The applicant intended to have a taller sign all along and the City should not be drawn to this.
37 • Does not support the project.
38
39 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:25 p.m.
40
41 Commission asked staff to comment on the protection of the tree canopy condition.
42
43 Associate Planner Faso:
44 • Has been made aware the fence placed around the canopy of the tree for protection purposes
45 had to be temporarily removed for sidewalk and other types of improvements and was not put
46 back.
47 • Is also aware of equipment being parked and soil being placed under the canopy of the tree.
48 • Staff has made it clear to the applicant that he is in violation of the project conditions and must
49 comply with the project conditions concerning protection of the root area for the tree during
50 construction.
51
52 PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: 6:27 p.m.
53
54 Haji Alam, applicant:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 3
1 • Explained the fence around the canopy of the tree had to be removed to put in sidewalk curb and
2 gutter.
3 • Eventually when construction is completed the fence will have to be permanently removed.
4 • Is of the opinion the tree has been appropriately protected during construction of the project.
5
6 Commissioner Sanders:
7 • Noted this is the third time the applicant has been to the Planning Commission regarding his
8 project, with the first being approval of a SDP in 2009 and later to have the Oak Tree removed,
9 which was not approved.
10 • Further noted the fence around the tree for protection purposes did not occur until January 2011
11 after site preparations were being made.
12 • There have been subsequent complaints from members of the public regarding improper care
13 and protection of the tree.
14 • Understands the site has been under construction, but is of the opinion the tree and its root
15 system has been negligently cared for during the process. There is still excess soil from
16 bulldozing of the site under the tree.
17 • The applicant is now asking Commission approval for a significantly taller sign than what was
18 initially approved.
19 • It appears this project is getting `bigger and more brazen.' The project was already controversial
20 when it came before the Commission for approval of SDP for a gas station and mini-mart.
21 • Questioned why the schematics for the sign project came in so late for a taller and wider sign.
22 • Asked the applicant to respond to her comments.
23
24 Haji Alam:
25 • "BP' is going totally LED with their signage and requires him as a franchise owner to comply with
26 their signage regulations.
27 • The project is costly.
28 • The reason BP wants to change the height from 17 feet to 25 feet is because the numbers of
29 LED channel letters require more spacing and in order to accommodate a larger width, the sign
30 must be taller so the height and width of the sign are proportional. The added feature of the sign
31 is pricing changes that will be done digitally instead of manually which is the case with the
32 original 17-foot tall free-standing sign approved for the project.
33 • When the project was initially proposed and approved, he was not aware that BP wanted
34 specific schematics for signage that would incorporate the logos for Arco logo and am/pm with a
35 digital price board so in order to accommodate the need for the expanded width, the steel-based
36 supports at the bottom of the sign must be taller.
37
38 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:34 p.m.
39
40 Chair Pruden:
41 • Does not like to be pushed by `corporate America' and there have been other times when
42 corporate America has demanded very expensive signs from local owners.
43 • Is okay with the width on the sign up to 6 feet 9 inches and not okay with the increase in height.
44 • Is of the opinion the sign should be taller than the building.
45 • Supports retaining the signage portion of the sign but without the `tall' legs sustaining the sign.
46 • Does not care what BP wants.
47
48 Commissioner Sanders: Would support the amended sign of a width increase without the height
49 increase but does not see how this would really improve the project.
50
51 Commissioner Whetzel: Supports increasing the width, but not the height.
52
53 Commissioner Helland:
54 • Does not like the sign as large as proposed. However, Ukiah's Sign Ordinance does allow the
55 height with approval of a SDP.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 4
1 • While not sure of the intent, understands the lettering requires more space.
2 • Better care should be taken with regard to the Oak tree as conditioned.
3 • Would support increasing the width of the sign, but not the additional height.
4 • Does appreciate moving to LED lighting.
5
6 Chair Pruden:
7 • Is of the opinion if the sign is no taller than the height of the building it would be acceptable to
8 allow the additional height and shorten the legs to reduce the height.
9 • Would, however, support the original sign, but as an alternative would support keeping the height
10 of the sign commensurate with the building and allow for an increase in the width to
11 accommodate the lettering.
12 • The applicant has the option of telling BP that the width is acceptable but the height is not. The
13 Commission can either go with the original sign or the compromised sign.
14
15 Haji Alam:
16 • Does not want to spend $20,000 on the sign.
17 • BP has indicated the new sign will more than pay for itself overtime with energy cost savings.
18 • The lettering on the old sign is to too small to read from the street whereas lettering can be seen
19 with LED lighting from a greater distance. The sign width must be greater than the old sign to be
20 able to accompany the space the lettering for the sign.
21
22 Commissioner Sanders:
23 • The applicant does not want to pay the $20,000 cost of the sign.
24 • Inquired why LED lighting cannot be approved for the old sign approved in 2009.
25
26 Haji Alam:
27 • The signage has to be either the old or the new. LED cannot be applied to the old because the
28 letter structuring has to be larger than what is featured on the old sign to make it work.
29 • The mass of the sign that makes it looks so large is because of the structure.
30 • The height and the width for the new sign is the standard for BP.
31 • The reason he had to come before the Planning Commission is because the proposed height is
32 taller than the building and requires a SDP.
33 • Would like to have a tall sign so it can be seen from the freeway.
34
35 Chair Pruden:
36 • The intent of the Commission is not to make the sign smaller only shorter by reducing the height
37 of the legs.
38 • The project Findings and Conditions of Approval do need to be changed for not granting the
39 additional height with the exception of Condition of Approval No. 1 that would have to state
40 'approval is granted to allow a freestanding sign that is no higher than the roof of the building.'
41
42 Commissioner Helland:
43 • Inquired whether a SDP is necessary if the Commission is not granting the additional height.
44 • It is likely BP has other plans for signs that would work for the project.
45
46 Staff: If the Commission desires to reduce the height of the sign, a condition needs to be crafted that
47 allows this. Since the height will be reduced, by removing the poles and sight clearance, public works
48 must review the revised design to make certain the sign does not obstruct line of sight. This needs to be
49 included as a condition of approval.
50
51 Commission Helland: If public works reviews the sign and there is not adequate line of sight, does not
52 want the project to have to come back to the Planning Commission.
53
54 Staff:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 5
1 • To address possibly not having the applicant come back, recommended the Commission approve
2 the original sign as well as the amended new sign. In this way, the applicant has the choice of
3 installing either sign. If the applicant cannot make the revised sign work, he can install the original
4 sign.
5 • Amend Condition of Approval No. 1 to grant a 17-foot sign as originally approved.
6 • Add a condition from Planning Commission to reflect that the sign cannot exceed the height of the
7 roof as allowed by the Sign Ordinance.
8 • Add another condition that public works department will be required to approve the new sign.
9
10 M/S Helland/Whetzel to approve Amendment to SDP No. 07-23 with Findings 1-5 and Conditions of
11 Approval 1-8 with the addition of two conditions to reflect the applicant has a choice to go with the original
12 sign or go with modification to the new proposed sign that the sign cannot exceed the height of the
13 roofline and that the sign selected must be reviewed and approved by City staff.
14
15 Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
16
17 AYES: Commissioners Helland,Whetzel, Chair Pruden
18 NOES: Commissioner Sanders
19 ABSENT: Commissioner Brenner
20
21 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT TO SITE
22 DEVELOEOPMENT PERMIT N0.07-23 LOCATED AT 615 TALMAGE ROAD,
23 APN 180-070-10
24
25 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
26 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
27
28 1. The proposed sign is ancillary to the previously approved gas station and mini-market for the site.
29 This use of land is consistent with the commerce and business uses intended in this land use
30 designation. The project would enhance the previously approved restaurant use of the site which
31 is consistent with the General Plan Economic Development goal to support a strong local
32 economy.
33
34 2. The proposed project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic
35 pattern because of the following.
36
37 a. The proposed project is located on a site that is at the intersection of two arterial streets.
38 b. The proposed freestanding sign will not cause any modifications to site access or parking
39 areas and will not be located in a vehicular or pedestrian path.
40 c. On site improvements associated with the new gas station and mini-market include a defined
41 pedestrian path of travel along with a new driveway on Hastings and the relocation of the
42 existing driveway on Talmage Road. These improvements will not be modified by the
43 freestanding sign.
44
45 3. The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic
46 on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or
47 surrounding uses based on the following.
48
49 a. The proposed freestanding sign will not change the approved off-street parking and parking
50 area therefore a hazardous condition will be not be created for surrounding uses.
51
52 4. The approved landscaping plan will not change as a result of the proposed freestanding sign.
53
54 5. The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including
55 trees, shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the site.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 6
1
2
3 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW CHANGES
4 TO THE FREESTATNDING SIGN LOCATED AT 615 TALMAGE ROAD
5 APN 180-070-10
6
7 From the Planning Commission
8
9 1. Approval is granted for one freestanding sign to be located on the site in association with the
10 approved gas station and mini-market. The freestanding sign shall be the sign approved as part
11 of the original project approval dated December 9, 2009 or the freestanding sign with LED
12 numbers and lighting as shown on the plans date stamped June 16, 2011 with the height of the
13 sign lowered to be no taller than the height of the roof in order to comply with the requirements of
14 the Sign Ordinance.
15
16 2. The freestanding sign referred to in condition #1 shall be reviewed and approved by the Public
17 Works Department prior to installation to ensure that the sign provides adequate sight distance.
18
19 From the Planning Department
20
21 3. Prior to installation of any signs, application for and approval of a sign permit from the
22 Planning and Community Development Department is required.
23
24 4. No change to any other signs shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission on
25 December 9, 2009 is allowed by this amendment other than the freestanding sign.
26
27 5. All conditions of approval from Use Permit and Site Development Permit 07-23 remain in full force
28 and effect.
29
30 6. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
31 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been
32 applied for and issued/finaled.
33
34 7. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
35 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
36
37 8. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
38 specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as
39 applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
40 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved
41 and issued.
42
43 9. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
44 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
45 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
46 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
47 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
48 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
49 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
50 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
51 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
52 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
53 remain in full force and effect.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 7
1 10. NEW BUSINESS
2
3 10A. Workshop. Conduct a Public Workshop to introduce and discuss the draft Ukiah Municipal
4 Airport Building and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines updated by the Airport Commission.
5
6 Senior Planner Jordan provided an introduction to the workshop:
7 • The Ukiah Airport Commission has been revising the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and
8 Land Use Plan Development Guidelines for the past 18 months and has completed its revisions.
9 • One of the primary purposes of the revisions was to identify the type of permit required for the
10 uses allowed for the various areas identified on the Airport and to identify when and what level of
11 the SDP is required for development at the Airport.
12 • There has been some discussion regarding incorrect guidelines having been used by staff in the
13 processing applications and review of land uses at the Airport and while there are differences, the
14 differences are not substantive.
15 • The staff report for this agenda item provides a summary of the modifications made to the
16 Guidelines specifically related to:
17 o Purpose and Intent
18 o Relationship to Zoning
19 o Compatibility Criteria
20 o Planning Area Map
21 o Aviation-Related Uses
22 o Airport Support Uses
23 o Land Use Area Descriptions
24 o Land Uses
25 o Development Standards & Site Planning Considerations
26 o Planning Permits
27 o Determination of Appropriate Use
28 o Glossary of Terms
29
30 Commissioner Whetzel recused himself as a Commissioner from participating in the Guideline
31 discussions because he owns a business at the Airport.
32
33 Staff:
34 • The revised Guideline document is the Commission's recommendation to the Planning
35 Commission.
36 • The Planning Commission will review the document with a recommendation to Council for
37 adoption.
38 • The intent tonight is to introduce and provide for an overview of the document with the opportunity
39 for the public and Commission to ask questions and make comments.
40 • Most of the document remains unchanged as noted in the staff report for the various sections of
41 the Guidelines and the document format was retained.
42 • Most of the changes made to the Guideline sections pertain to land use area descriptions, land
43 uses, development standards/site planning consideration and planning permits.
44
45 Ukiah Municipal Airport Buildinq Area and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines
46
47 The Planning Commission was provided with a letter dated June 22, 2011 from Eric Crane, Chair of the
48 Airport Commission that addresses the Airport Commission's intent for revising the Ukiah Municipal
49 Airport Building Area and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines and added the process provided for an
50 in-depth orientation to Airport facilities and operations.
51
52 Chair Pruden:
53 Q1. Referred to page 15 of the Guidelines and the paragraphs related to determinations that can be
54 made by the Airport Manger pertinent to the development of structure or other permanent fixtures.
55 Should these determinations be made by the Airport Manager and/or Airport Commission? Would
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 8
1 like the Commission to comment on this process as to who is responsible for making the
2 determinations. It may not be good practice to have one person making determinations in this
3 regard.
4 Q2. What type of landscaping is appropriate including trees at the Airport and recommends
5 discussion thereof?
6
7 Staff:
8 Q1. The Guideline document has already been reviewed by the Airport Commissioners and they were
9 fine with the Airport Manager making the determinations about the development of structures or
10 other permanent fixtures in the area between the Airport Property Line and the Building
11 Restriction Line and whether or not such developments/fixtures could impede aircraft operations.
12 The Airport Manager has the expertise to make these kinds of decisions while other City staff
13 may not.
14
15 Chair Pruden:
16 • Her concern with giving the Airport Manager the sole responsibility for making determinations
17 about development and other kinds of structures is that not every Manager makes the same kinds
18 of decisions as to what is best for the Airport and airport operations.
19 • Commented on past Airport Manager decision making examples that may not have always been
20 in the best interests of the Airport.
21 • Noted in the past, the Airport Manager never sat on Project Review Committee meetings for
22 projects that involved the Airport. Also, it used to be that the Assistant City Manager signed
23 Airport leases as opposed to the Airport Manager. It is important for the Airport Manager to attend
24 PRC meetings along with the Fire Marshall, Planning Director and public works staff for decisions
25 about development at the Airport.
26
27 Staff:
28 • Page 24, Section 11, Determination of Appropriate Use, of guidelines provides that the Planning
29 Director and Airport Manager can make a `Determination of Appropriate Use' decision whenever
30 a use is not listed in the Guidelines as an allowed or permitted use.
31 • Having two staff members as opposed to one when it comes to making determinations about the
32 Airport may be the best approach and these could include the Airport Manager, City Building
33 Official, Public Works Director, and/or Planning Director.
34
35 Airport Manager Owen:
36 • Signs small hangar and/or month-to-month leases.
37 • City Council approves the large hangar leases.
38 • Would attend PRC meetings in the event these meetings are held if it is an Airport matter.
39
40 There was discussion about what trees would be appropriate for the parking lot and landside at the
41 Airport. Trees are problematic at airports because of the height restrictions and the likelihood of drawing
42 birds that are hazardous to aircraft.
43
44 Chair Pruden:
45 • Referred to page 21, Table 5, landscaping requirements that states `landscaping is discouraged'
46 and suggests the language concerning landscaping airside be modified to make it clear it is not
47 appropriate to have landscaping airside.
48 • Add `Compatibility Criteria' from page 2 of document to Section 11, Determination of Appropriate
49 Use for consistency purposes since the determination regarding uses and development must be
50 found to be compatible with Airport operations and security, including the compatibility criteria of
51 the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan so the criteria can become part of the findings that the
52 use is appropriate.
53
54 Commissioner Sanders: Inquired how the inherent conflicts between fixed-wing aircraft and rotocraft
55 have been worked out in the document.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 9
1
2 Airport Manager Owen:
3 • Referred to the use table for Eastside Uses and Westside Uses in the Guideline document and
4 noted the Airport Commission spent considerable time reviewing the uses for the various areas
5 and subareas and decided the best approach would be to separately categorize fixed wing uses
6 from rotocraft uses and place these uses in the appropriate zone.
7 • The aforementioned approach taken by the Commission is a workable solution for consistency
8 purposes with the Airport Master Plan and effective operations at the Airport.
9
10 Chair Pruden:
11 • Acknowledged compatibility issues have existed with rotocraft operating in close proximity to fixed
12 wing aircraft.
13 • Does not support the area where Calstar has relocated.
14
15 Commissioner Helland:
16 • General introduction to the document has allowed her to become much more informed about the
17 Airport, with Airport terminology and how the Airport' generally functions.
18 • Would like to see `community garden' use be allowed with approval of a UP for the eastside south
19 area.
20
21 Staff:
22 • Appreciates the work the Commissioners did on the land use document taking into consideration
23 what is existing and what they want to see for development in the future by identifying the
24 purpose for each individual area, looking at what uses would get them to that purpose and how
25 these uses can be implemented.
26 • Looking at the use tables, the Commission's intent was to evaluate each area as to what they
27 would like to see for development in the future. During this process, the Commission identified
28 uses that could perceivably generate revenue and/or correspond with long term goals/objectives,
29 but at the same wanted to control how and where the potential uses locate for a particular area so
30 it is for this reason some of the uses were allowed by right while others require approval of a use
31 permit, were prohibited or allowed as an accessory to a primary use.
32
33 Lucy Neely, The Garden Project of NCO Community Action:
34 • Has requested the creation of a new use category `Community Garden' for the Ukiah Airport's
35 Land Use and Development Plan Guidelines.
36 • The Airport Commission has recommended the creation of a community garden use for Eastside
37 South, subarea 1 with approval of a UP.
38 • The Gardens Project is grateful for this recommendation of a allowing for a community garden in
39 Eastside South, Subarea 1 so that people will have an opportunity to produce food for local
40 consumption that might not otherwise have this opportunity where they reside.
41 • The Project requests the community garden use category be allowed in the undeveloped northern
42 portion of Westside South. The reason the Commission did not recommend a community garden
43 use in this area is because the Airport hopes to develop this area.
44 • The Gardens Project is looking at long-term perspectives and does not want to invest in a
45 community garden space that has development plan. However, should the Commission at some
46 later date decide on not developing the area would like to have the flexibility to create a
47 community garden at this location. Allowing this use with a UP does not mean a garden can be
48 created, it just allows for the possibility in the future.
49 • The Project also requests the community garden use category be allowed in the northern portion
50 of Westside North. The reason the Airport Commission did not recommend this area is due to
51 emissions from planes doing `run-up' near this area and would not be safe for food to grown here.
52 • While the Project does not want to grow food in an unhealthy environment, would like to consider
53 growing non-edibles, such as flowers. The Project believes there is value to the community with
54 possibly being able to have a garden that grows flowers for possible retail purposes.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 10
1 Chair Pruden:
2 • Thanked Lucy Neely of the Gardens Project for thinking about the good of the community with a
3 request for community garden(s)at the Airport.
4 • Was not aware that water is available in Eastside South, Subarea 1.
5 • When the Planning Commission formally reviews the Guidelines, will rely on the Airport
6 Commission's recommendations in this regard.
7
8 Staff:
9 • Clarified the community garden requirements for the Guideline document were modified and
10 taken from requirements established for the DZC.
11 • A proposed community garden use would require approval of a UP and ground lease agreement.
12
13 Chair Pruden:
14 • The possibility exists that a community garden could be created at the Airport.
15 • It is important to have the land use guideline document in place to help plan and guide
16 development at the Airport.
17
18 Commissioner Helland: Requested staff address the idea of allowing for non-edibles to be grown on the
19 Airport.
20
21 Chair Pruden:
22 • One option to possibly consider is in places where landscaping once existed on the north end of
23 the Airport where the hangars are located and no longer maintained, but do have irrigation
24 facilities and other relevant amenities. These areas may be an opportunity to do some
25 landscaping.
26 • There are also FBOs on Westside North that could be landscaped landside.
27
28 Don Albright:
29 • Is Vice-Chair of the Airport Commission.
30 • The Guideline document represents the Airport Commission's recommendations.
31 • Appreciates the work done by Judy Pruden, other City staff members and other persons on the
32 original land use plan guidelines that were adopted by Council. This work created the foundation
33 from which the Airport Commission worked.
34 • Sees value in having landscaping strips and cited planter areas that were privately maintained in
35 the Downtown area.
36 • Would be open to landscaping areas on the Airport landside where feasible.
37 • The Commission considered allowing non-edibles on Westside North and the concern was how
38 one treats a use that produces something that could potentially generate revenue in connection
39 with a ground lease agreement. Another concern noted was this area serves as a `run-up' area
40 for aircraft and is not considered safe for people tending to a garden whether or not the garden is
41 edible or non-edible. Additionally, it would not be safe to grow vegetables at this location because
42 of the emissions from aircraft.
43
44 Reference was given to the Airport Layout Plan with regard to the `Westside Mix-use proposal' as a
45 possible area for a community garden use.
46
47 There was discussion about allowing for a community garden on a month-to-month ground lease and
48 potential economic impacts as an investment to the Project should a development be proposed that could
49 generate more income for the Airport, such as hangar development. The intent of the Airport is to
50 consider development according to the best and highest use in terms of determining what is good for the
51 Airport that operates as an Enterprise Fund.
52
53 It was noted a community garden use would not change the long-term goals for development at the
54 Airport.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 11
1 Mike Whetzel (as a member of the public):
2 • The use table in the Guidelines has some discrepancies.
3 • Referred to the Airport Layout Plan Map in connection with the original intent of the Guidelines
4 concerning rotocraft and noted Westside South provides buffering of noise from rotocraft
5 operations mitigating noise impacts in accordance with a `noise signature' study as opposed to
6 Westside North.
7 • The current use table allows rotocraft medical emergency flight services (e.g. Calstar, Reach) in
8 Westside North as allowed by right with a footnote that indicates when the east side of the
9 Airport is developed this use would be relocated to the east side of the Airport provided the
10 necessary infrastructure is available and a UP is required for Westside South. This represents
11 discrepancies with the original intent of the Guidelines with regard to the operation of rotocraft on
12 the Airport.
13 • Is of the opinion the use table concerning rotocraft operations does not properly address the
14 noise issue in keeping with the Airport's Good Neighbor Policy.
15
16 Staff:
17 • The process involves figuring out what the recommendation and/or proposal is before considering
18 what type of environmental review is required.
19 • In some cases, environmental review may be necessary for a UP and in other cases the project
20 may be exempt from environmental review. It may be that emergency responders such as Calstar
21 or Reach are exempt from environmental review. There are exemptions for some types of
22 emergency projects in CEQA.
23
24 Chair Pruden:
25 • Asked Mr. Whetzel to note his concerns for when the Commission formally reviews the Guideline
26 document.
27 • Recommended flagging for further discussion of the use table what zone(s) is appropriate for
28 rotocraft as an allowed or permitted use.
29 • Encourages the Commissioners to tour the Airport for the purpose of gaining a better
30 understanding of the layout, existing uses, and how it functions and to contact Airport staff to
31 arrange a tour.
32
33 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
34 There was general Discussion of agenda items for upcoming regular meetings.
35
36 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
37 Commissioner Sanders addressed the progress being made by the Tree Committee concerning a
38 Master Tree List for City use. She would like Senior Planner Jordan to attend a Tree Committee meeting
39 to assist with the process of formulating the Master Tree List.
40
41 Chair Pruden noted the family-oriented Friday movie night in Alex Thomas Jr. Plaza will begin this
42 Friday.
43
44 13. ADJOURNMENT
45 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
46
47
48 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
49
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 22, 2011
Page 12
ITEM NO. 9A
Community Development and Planning Department
e�ty � ukah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq(a�citvofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
DATE: July 13, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Charley Stump, Director of Planning & Community Development
SUBJECT: Discussion of Project Condition Compliance/Enforcement
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission recently requested that an item be placed on an
Agenda to discuss how imposed conditions of approval are implemented and what the
ramifications are if applicants fail to comply with the conditions. This Agenda item is intended to
provide information to the Commission and an opportunity to engage in a discussion about
project conditions of approval.
How Conditions are Implemented: The conditions of approval imposed by the Planning
Commission are implemented in a variety of ways:
1. The applicants for construction projects reviewed by the Planning Commission are
required to list all the imposed conditions on the front page of the construction drawings
submitted for a building permit. This requirement serves as a reminded to the applicant
of the conditions, and also places them in full view for the contractor and all
subcontractors.
2. Many conditions have different implementation timelines, i.e. prior to issuance of a
building permit, prior to final inspection and the grant of occupancy, etc. Additionally,
some conditions are ongoing and must be complied with on an ongoing basis.
Prior to Issuance of a Buildinq Permit: If a condition is required prior to the issuance of a
building permit, Planning Staff will not sign off on the issuance until evidence is
submitted confirming that the condition has been implemented. For example, a
condition may require the applicant to submit a final landscaping plan for review and
approval before the building permit is issued. If the final landscaping plan is not
submitted, Staff will not sign off on the building permit and will notify the applicant
accordingly.
Durinq Construction: A number of conditions are routinely imposed that require certain
measures or actions during site preparation and construction activities. These range
from measures designed to preclude dust generation to protecting existing trees on a
site. The responsibility for ensuring compliance with these conditions has typically been
accomplished by Staff from various departments, such as the Building Official, Public
Works Engineers, and the Planners. As Staff resources have been impacted, the
responsibility has fallen more directly on the Building Official, who makes routine visits to
perform inspections on the construction projects. While this places a heavier burden on
the Building Official who in many cases must perform detailed and complex building
code inspections, discussions are occurring regarding how to assist him with enforcing
conditions unrelated to the building code.
Prior to Final Inspection: If conditions are required to be implemented prior to final
inspection and the grant of occupancy, Planning Staff, when conducting its final
inspection, ensures compliance with all applicable conditions of approval. For example,
a typical required condition at final inspection is that all landscaping be successfully
planted according to the final landscaping plan. If the landscaping has not been planted,
Staff will not sign off on the final inspection and direct the applicant to plant the
landscaping consistent with the final landscaping plan.
Ongoing: If a condition of approval is an ongoing type condition, such as maintaining the
required landscaping, Staff only becomes aware of non-compliance if a complaint is filed
or if Staff observes it in the field. Due to the lack of a Code Compliance Coordinator,
Staff does not have the ability/capacity to conduct routine inspections to ensure ongoing
compliance of every condition of approval on every project approved by the Planning
Commission.
Substantial Compliance
In some cases, Staff must use its judgment as to whether or not compliance with a condition
has been fully achieved. For example, during the final inspection, Staff may discover that the
groundcover planted in an area of the project site was not the exact species called for in the
final landscaping plan. If what was planted was similar and achieved the same purpose as the
species in the final landscaping plan, Staff may determine that it is in substantial compliance
with the approved plan, and not require the applicant to return to the Planning Commission for
review and approval.
Similarly, minor architectural modifications may occur during construction because of building
code or other requirements. In these cases, Staff must make a judgment call as to whether or
not the minor modification is in substantial compliance with the approved plans.
Staff is cautious with the substantial compliance exercise, and strives to be reasonable and
practical.
Enforcement
If an applicant fails to comply with ongoing conditions of approval, Staff will alert the applicant of
the failure and attempt to gain voluntary compliance. If voluntary compliance is not achieved,
Staff will notify the applicant that the next step is to schedule an item before the Planning
Commission to consider revoking the permit. The Ukiah City Code contains the following
language regarding permit revocation:
H. Expiration and Revocation: The following provisions detail the use permit expiration and revocation
process:
1. Revocation: An approved use permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the
use for which the use permit was granted is not being conducted in compliance with the use permit as
conditioned, or:
a. If any land use for which a use permit has been granted and issued is not established within two
(2)years of the use permit's effective date; or
b. If the established land use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended
for twenty four(24) consecutive months.
2. Procedure: If a use permit is subject to revocation under subsection H1 of this Section, the City
shall follow the procedures set forth herein.
a. Notice: Notice of a hearing before the Planning Commission shall be provided in accordance
with subsection C of this Section.
b. Hearing: The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing to determine whether the
permit shall be revoked and shall make findings that comply with subsection E2 of this Section.
c. Appeal: The Planning Commission decision shall be subject to appeal in accordance with
Section 9266 of this Article.
Staff has followed this procedure with projects in the past. The result has ultimately been
compliance with the conditions of approval rather than revocation of the permits.
CONCLUSION: Staff is doing the best it can to ensure compliance with Planning Commission
required conditions of approval. Due to the loss of the Code Compliance Coordinator and other
positions, the current work load of the existing Staff has reduced its ability to constantly monitor
projects for compliance. However, measures are being explored that could improve monitoring.
These include:
1. A Checklist of During Construction Planning Commission conditions for the Building
Official to use on-site;
2. A routine email and/or verbal communication from the Building Official to the Planning
and Public Works Staffs alerting them of requested inspections and project status;
3. Site visit by appropriate Staff when alerted by the Building Official of project status to
assist with the monitoring of During Construction conditions of approval;
4. The creation of a Project Conditions Binder that would have a listing of all active projects
and the conditions that pertain to each. The binder would be available for public review
at the front counter.
ITEM NO. 10A
Community Development and Planning Department
� � � 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah , CA 95482
planninq @cityofukiah . com
� (707)463-6203
DATE : July 13, 2011
TO : Planning Commission
FROM : Kim Jordan , Senior Plann
SUBJECT: Draft Revised Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and Land Use Plan
Development Guidelines
Workshop #2
REQUEST
Staff requests that the Commission conduct a second public workshop to review the Guidelines, �
take public comment, and provide direction to staff. If time allows the Commission to complete
its review of the Guidelines and provide direction to staff, the Commission could make a
recommendation to City Council regarding the Guidelines .
If time does not allow the Commission to complete its review, staff requests that the
Commission continue the workshop to the regularly scheduled July 27, 2011 meeting .
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
On the June 22 , 2011 , Planning Commission conducted the first public workshop for the
proposed revisions to the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area Land Use Plan Development
Guidelines (see approval of minutes for June 22 , 2011 included for this agenda) . At the
workshop , staff introduced the revisions made to the Guidelines by the Airport Commission ,
explained the reasons for the revisions , and the Commission reviewed and discussed the
document, asked questions of staff and took public comment.
AIRPORT COMMISSION REVIEW
The Airport Commission has been revising the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and Land
Use Plan Development Guidelines ( Guidelines) for the past 18 months and completed its
revisions in April 2011 . One of the primary purposes of the revisions was to identify the type of
permit required for the uses allowed for the various areas identified on the Designated Planning
Areas for Land Use and Development Plan Guidelines and to identify when and what level of
site development permit is required for development at the airport.
As part of its review, the Commission made the following substantive revisions to the
Guidelines:
■ Revised uses based on the stated purpose of each area and created use tables .
■ Modified the square footage threshold for site development permits .
1
■ Customized the site development permit findings to be specific to the Airport.
■ Modified the landscaping standards to be compatible with the safety concerns of the
airport.
BACKGROUND
Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District. The Ukiah Municipal Airport is zoned Public Facility
( PF) . This zoning classification is applied to properties used for public , quasi-public, specified
public utility purposes , or to provide business opportunities on large public-serving land uses
such as the airport. This zoning designation is consistent with the Public (" P ") land use
designation of the General Plan . Allowed uses in the PF zoning district include :
■ airports and aviation- related functions and uses ;
■ civic centers and similar sites and uses ;
■ conservation and natural resource conservation areas ;
■ fairgrounds ;
■ parks and recreation areas and facilities ;
■ public schools ; and
■ public utility facilities and uses .
Uses allowed with a use permit include :
■ community concerts , farmers markets , craft bazaars , and flea markets ;
■ corporation yards ;
■ establishment, maintenance , operation and removal of circuses , carnivals , amusement
parks ;
■ light manufacturing and industrial uses;
■ public transportation facilities ;
■ refuse disposal/recycling areas, and refuse transfer stations ; and
■ storage facilities and bulk fuel storage .
Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan (Master Plan). The Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan
regulates development on the grounds of the Ukiah Municipal Airport and was adopted by the
City of Ukiah July 3 , 1996. The Master Plan provides the framework for the implementation of
individual development projects on the airport grounds .
The Master Plan includes several references to helicopters and staff has included these
excerpts for Planning Commission reference (see attachment 1 ) . The Master Plan did not
require helicopters to be located in any specific area on the airport grounds .
Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and Land Use Plan Development Guidelines
( Guidelines). The original Ukiah Municipal Building Area and Land Use P/an Development
Guidelines were adopted by the City Council on April 7, 2004 (see attachment 2) . They were
intended to further define the types of development allowed on and building standards for the
Airport.
The 2004 Guidelines were subject to environmental review. Staff prepared and City Council
adopted a Negative Declaration for the Guidelines (see attachment 2 and 3) . As part of the
environmental review process , the Guidelines were found to be consistent with the Master Plan
and no environmental studies were prepared as part of the environmental review for the
Guidelines .
2
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Excerpts — Helicopters .
2 . City Council Agenda Summary Report Adoption of Airport Guidelines April 7 , 2004
3. Negative Declaration for 2004 Building and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for
the Ukiah Municipal Airport
3
i
� Summary / hapter 2
�'��F��t��t�i� #
; . . ..___.
' of additional aircraft storage hangars and tiedown positions has been
� provided for in the Master Plan. Hangar space for approximately 10
; additional aircraft is depicted on the Airport Layout Plan and the
' 8uilding Area Plan . The existing tiedown aprons will be adequate to
accommodate anticipated decreasing future tiedown demand. Some
rearrangement of tiedown areas may prove advantageous in accom-
� modating increasing helicopter activity and development of new air-
,
craft storage hangars.
.
— t-rhe
existing public terminal building be renovated.
i
� • Fixed Base Operations — The existing fixed base operations facilities
,
are well located and configured, both the present and the future .
r �
�
i • Aviation Fueling Facilities — A new two -product aboveground avia-
. , tion fuel storage facility is being developed in the northeast portion of
` the Airport.
i
1 • Helicopter Operations — To better accommodate transient helicop-
; ter operations, the Master Plan recommends that at least two helicop -
� ter parking positions be designated on the concrete apron located di-
tectly to the east of the airport terminal building . Helicopters based
; _ at the Airport will continue to operate direcdy to/from their respec-
� tive on-airport facilities.
i • CDF Fire Attack Base — The future facility needs of the California
� Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) Ukiah Air Aktack
Base have yet to be formally addressed by the CDF and City. If CDF
; facilities are improved or expanded, three potential on-airport devel-
' opment scenarios are possible .
,
; — The CDF's existing site could be expanded to the west.
;
— An entirely new base could be developed in the southeast corner
;�
of the Airport.
j
� — An entirely new base could be developed in the northeast corner
of the Airport (at the present site of a wholesale lumber yard) .
�
'� Funding for the substantial redevelopment of the base would most
likely have to come from or through the City. The City is currendy
� evaluating its options with regard to the expansion or relocation of
' ' Ukiah's CDF facilities.
( • Other Building Area Facilities — The following facilities are identified
�
� as integral elements of the Building Area Plan:
�
' — Aircraft Washing Facrlity — The Master Plan suggests that an aircraft
� washing facility be provided at the site of the current fuel storage
2 - 9
i
�
t , Airport Ro/e and Activity / �hapter 4
, �
;
�
� - �� — High aircraft operational and maintenance costs.
� i . — Airspace and airport operational restrictions (primarily in metropol-
� itan areas) .
— The operational complexity of aircraft and of flight regulations.
, — The lack of simple, efficient, and comfortable new aircraft
; — The continuing availability of lower-priced used aircraft with per-
' formance characteristics that remain comparable to new higher-
, priced aircraft.
' — Termination of the C .I . Bill which encouraged flight training .
1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ - - - _ _
� FAA forecasts (1994) project that the nation 's active genera) aviation
! fleet is expected to decline slighdy (down 0.3% annually) over the next
!
12 years : Most of this decline is expected to occur in the early years of
the forecast period . The decline is driven primarily by reductions in the
� piston-powered aircraft fleet.
� .
• Single-Engine Airplanes — The number of active single-engine air-
� craft in the United States is projected to decline from 143 ,580 aircraft
� in 1993 to 131 ,100 aircraft in 1998 and to remain at that leve )
throughout the remainder of the forecast period. The decline is due
i in large part to the expected la�ge numbers of retirements arid/ or
shifts to nonactive status of many of the older aircraft in the fleet
The retirement of these older aircraft is expected to continue to oc-
1 ; - -� cur throughout the forecast period . However, after 1998, the gap
i j caused by these retirements is expected to be replaced by newer
� technology aircraft that are, in part, a result of the passage of product . ,
i liability legislation .
I
• Multi-Engine Airplanes — Multi-engine, piston -powered aircraft are
i also expected to decline in absolute numbers during the early years
j of the forecast period, from 18,536 in 1993 to 17,300 in 1998 . The
decline in these aircraft is also due to retirements of many of the
i older aircraft in the fleet. However, the multi-engine piston fleet is
� expected to increase somewhat during the latter years of the forecast
period. (to 17,600 in 2005) as purchases of new technology aircraft
� begin to outpace retirements .
i
I
• Turbine-Powered Airplanes — The segment of general aviation ex-
� periencing the area of strongest growth is business/ corporate aircraft,
� ' especially sophisticated turbine-powered aircraft. This � latter group is
� expected to grow throughout the forecast period (2 .4% annually), lar-
. gely the result of an expanding U .S . economy. The FAA projects the
number of turboprop aircraft to grow from 4,704 in 1993 to 6,500 in
' 2005. Turbojet aircraft will increase from 4,022 in 1993 to 5;100 in
� 2005 .
I
i
' • Helicopters — The rotorcraft (i .e ., helicopter) fleet is forecast to in -
_ � crease at an annual rate of 2 .3% over the forecast period. All of this
I growth, however, is projected to occur in the turbine fleet, which will
�
i
4 - 11
, . .o(
, f
6
Airporf Ro/e and Activify / Chapter 4 "
' �
i
�
increase from 3 ,541 in 1993 to 5 ,800 in 2005 . Piston-powered �
rotorcraft are expected to decline from 2,211 to 1 ,800 over the same
time period . � -
�
By all indices, the rate of growth of general aviation - both nationally ,
and locally - will be very modest in the years ahead . The obvious con - �
sequence of this situation is that for any particular airport to have a sig- `
nificant increase in based aircraft, it must attract more business/corpo-
rate aircraft via local economic growth, or it must gain additional person - �
'rer��t-f-rarrra�her are- ' . '�-iFl-�se�— '• -
aircraft can result from changes in the relative advantages of one airport �
over another (i .e., additional storage hangars, pricing incentives, ! FR ap - �
proach capability, etc.) , the closure/restriction of a nearby competitive -
airport, or major shifts in area population :
� ,
�
f
1
Demand Factors Speci�c to Ukiah Municipal Airport
�
�
The airport-specific demand influences partially overlap the above na- �
tional demand factors, but are more reflective of the conditions existing
at Ukiah Municipal Airport. �
,
• Airport Role — As noted above, the national growth potentia ) of one
of Ukiah Municipal Airport's primary user groups — personal and rec- �
reational use aircraft - is projected to be very limited . High aircraft �
operational costs and increasing system complexity may cause some
marginal personal and recreational aircraft users to sell or store their I
aircraft. On the other hand, the somewhat remote, rural location of ;
Ukiah Municipal AirporCenhances its attractiveness to users of small
personal and recreational aircraft. The lower operating costs and rel - �
atively simple airspace associated with the Airport may serve to at-
tract some aircraft users from congested metropolitan areas .
� �
• Facilities and . Services Available — Existing facilities and services at �
Ukiah Municipal Airport are somewhat less comprehensive than at
other public airports . This is judged to have negative implications ;
with respect to forecasting future demand potential . Because of i
physical limitations such as runway . length and approach instrumenta-
tion , there is only a modest opportunity to improve Ukiah Municipal I
Air port's relative attractiveness to users of sophisticated, high- per- �
formance business/corpo �ate aircraft. �
i
' • Demand for Hangar Space — Increasingly more sophisticated and �
expensive equipment is being added to aircraft. Thus , more owners '
are seeking hangar storage space for their aircraft. Ukiah Municipal
Airport currently. has the capability of storing approximately 65 air-
craft in various size hangars on the Airport. It is anticipated that any
increase in the number of based aircraft will be driven in large part �
by the availability of additional ai. rcraft storage hangars. �
1
4 - 12 � I
._ 5
�
Airtield Design 1 Chapter 5 �
�
�
greater wingspans, such as the S2 ( 70-foot wingspan) and Crumman IV `f
( 78-foot wingspan) , should be acceptable provided that the pilots of the
larger aircraft exercise appropriate care while maneuvering on the paral- �
lel taxiway and apron areas . �
The appropriate setback distance from a [axilane-to-fixed or movable ob- �
jects or to an APL for Ukiah's cridcal aircraft ( 6200) should be a mini- `
� mum of 40 feet. This dimension can be further reduced in areas where
only small airplanes operate . i
;
Holding Bays t
�
Also known as run-up areas, holding bays provide a standing. space for �
airplanes (1 ) to test their engine(s) and equipment immediately prior to i
takeoff, and (2) to wait for an opportunity to fit into the aircraft arrival/ °
departure stream . The approach end of Runway 33 is adequately served
by a large holding bay . The holding bay serving the approach end of i
Runway 15 is somewhat small and should be enlarged. Enlargement of �
this holding bay is recommended and is depicted �on the Airport Layout
P(an . . . '
1
1
... .�
OTHER AIRFIELD DESIGN ELEMENTS 1
t
Helicopter Operations �
Two turbine-powered helicopters (Jet Ranger and A-Star) are currendy � ;
based at Ukiah Municipal Airport. These helicopters are parked in the �
airport building area and are used for Flight training purposes and corpo-
rate Flight operations . These based helicopters access the runway area �
for takeoff/ landing by hover-taxiing through the aircraft parking aprons �
and taxilanes . While not necessarily a desirable routing, this procedure �
represents an operational compromise that reflects the Airport's con- �
strained .layout and available facilities . J
' Ukiah Municipal Airport also sees occasional operations by light-to- !
medium-sized transient helicopters (e .g ., Robinson R-22s, Bell ) et Rang- �
ers, etc.) . In addition, transient military helicopters (e .g ., CH-47 and UH-
1 ) occasionally utilize the Airport for refueling . Due to the relatively in - ?
frequent need to accommodate such helicopters, a formal helipad or ap- �
. � proach/departure target area has not been established on the Airport. '
Current practice is for transient helicopters to park on the concrete ap- �
ron located to the east of the airport terminal building . No formal heli- �
copter parking pads are currendy designated on the Airport.
l
5 - 18 i
1
� ,
;
. . . Airfield Design / Chapter 5
�
(
� _
� fdeally, helicopter and airplane operations should be conducted from
i their own dedicated facilities and areas on an airport. Due to Ukiah
i Municipal Airport's physical site constraints, there is currendy no area on
the Airport that would readily lend itself to development of such dedicat-
' ed helicopter operating areas . As a result, for the short-to-intermediate
I time frame, helicopter and airplane operakions at the Airport will of nec-
essity, continue to be interactive and dependent — as they are at pres-
� ent.
�
;
Neve e ess, to aci itate current an uture e icopter operations at the
Airport, particularly transient helicopter operations, it is recommended
� that a transient helicopter parking area (2-3 positions) be formally desig-
nated at the Airport. The concrete apron just east of the airport terminal
; building appears to be the best location for siting these parking posi-
� tions . This location site is depicted on the Airport Layout Plan .
I
i It is anticipated that the operators of small helicopters based at Ukiah
� Municipal Airport will continue to operate direcdy to/ from their respec-
tive on-airport facilities . Future decreases in demand for airplane tie-
i down facilities could result in more apron becoming available for devel-
( opment of a dedicated helicopter operations area on the Airport, In this
' event, a portion of an unused airplane tiedown area and/ or hangar ap-
� ron could be developed for dedicated helicopter operations . Due to the
� � � uncertainty of such a scenario , a specific layout for this area/ use has not
� � been identified on the Airport Layout Plan . Such an area, however,
should be located riear suitable helicopter-oriented hangar/ office facili-
� ties and should be located so as to minimize helicopter/ airplane opera-
� tional interaction .
i ,
;
� Runway Lighting, Visual Approach Aids, and Marking
'„
' Runway 15 -33 is equipped with Medium- Intensity . Runway Lights (MIRL)
�!, i
' � which are in good condition and are suitable for the Airport's existing
�
and future use .
A Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI-V4L) with an approach slope
angle of 3 .0° and a threshold crossing height of 27 feet serves the ap-
' � proach end of Runway 1 S . There is no visual glide slope indicator
i (VGSf) serving the approach end of Runway 33 . The presence of high
terrain to the south of the Airport makes it unlikely that a VGSl . could be
iestablished on this runway. �
�
Runway 15-33 is equipped at each approach end with Runway End
I Identification Lights ( REIIs> . These lights are useful in locating the run-
way threshold. during hours of darkness and periods of low visibility.
�,
� - Runway 15- 33 is marked as a nonprecision runway. Last painted .in
i 1984, these markings are in poor condition . It is recommended that
I 5 — 19
I
� BuiJding Area Development / Chapter 6A
! -
� � ��
; � 1
� Use ol 1 �1 ; �ong- term use ot
Airport __� � Lumber Yard Site
� Proper ty --
; i
; , i
�
� Additional �
i
ircra
Storage I a New Aviation
� Hangars p' � � Fuei Storage
' � Facility
i �
Helicopter 1
i Operating "
Area — ' � � Enhanced
� �• � Transient
i � :; �. �
, ` ' Facililies
i
! Enhanced ' "
` Terminal Area . , 11
i � •
I
; Site for Aircraft I � Potentiai Site tor
Washing Facility � � � � �°,� ' Expansion or
� i . � �; 1 Reiocation of CDF
� � Q Air Attack Facility
� �
� ` \
i Airfield 1 1 �
Security � , �
Enhancements � 1 \
\ 1
� � � ��
� �
I Land Acquisition � ,
I �
� �
, �
I �
� �
�
� N ,
� o ,000 ,'J
I FEET
I
�
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (July 1996)
IFi ure 6A
,�
9
, _ . l �
� � Building Area lssues
Ukiah Municipal Atrport
6 3
� F
�.
. �
a
Building Area Development / Chapter 6
,. �
z
,
<
.
The majority of transient aircraft will continue to utilize the transient �
parking apron located to the east of the Flight Service 5tation . A small �
number of transient aircraFt users will park, with permission , at the Air- �
port's various fixed base operator facilities .
Transient Helicopter Parking Positions �
As noted in Chapter 5 , Ukiah Municipal . Airport sees occasional transient �
nna:rafinns b;��aht- t� medium-size civil helicopters and I�ge mili�a�rv
helicopters . The Master Plan recommends that 2-3 parking positions for
transient helicopters be established on the concrete apron located east �
of the airport terminal building . It is anticipated that the operators of . ,
small helicopters based at Ukiah Municipal Airport will continue to op-
erate directly to/from their respective o.n -airport facilities . �
r
�
;
Future decreases in demand for airplane tiedown facilities could result in
more apron becoming available for development of a dedicated helicop- �
ter operations area on the Airport. In this event, a portion of an unused !
,
airplane tiedown area and/ or hangar apron could be developed for ded-
icated helicopter operations. Due to the uncertainty of such . a scenario, �
a specific layout for this area/ use has not been identified on ' the Airport �
Layout Plan. Such an area, however, should be located near suitable �
helicopter-oriented hangar/ office facilities and should be located so as to ,
minimize helicopter/ ai�plane operational interaction . ! �
�
Fixed Base Operations Areas �
. 1
As of mid-1995, there are six fixed �e Master Plan anticipates that the six conventional hangars currendy �
base operations (FBOs) located at being used for fixed base operations wiU continue to be used for this !
ukiah Muniapa� ,4irport. The Air- same purpose throughout the 20-year planning period. Little or no sig- '
port's FBO faci�ities and services nificant expansion of FBO-related facilities is anticipated . Reconstruction �
are briefly described in Appen- of deteriorating apron pavement and replacement of older hangars will I
dix A. be required, however, within the next few years. The cost of recon- '
structing airfield and apron pavements is identified in Table 2A as an �
airport capital improvement expense . For reasons outlined in Chapter 8, �
all new and replacement hangars are expected to be funded by the pri-
vate sector:
�
Should additional fixed based operations. facilities be desired, sufficient �
developable land exists within the building area to accommodate this
demand . Potentially developable sites are located in the northwest �
, corner of the Airport and northwest of the FAA Flight Service Station . �
Potential redevelopment sites include the Ace Aerial Service site and the
existing CDF site (if the CDF facilities are relocated) . i
,
�
;
� ,
I
s - s
i
.
i
Building Area Deve/opmer�t / Chapter 6
�
� � � '. Automobile Parking
;
�
; Two paved public-use automobile parking lots are located within the air-
port building area. These two lots should adequately serve the present
� and anticipated public parking needs of the present and future fixed
i base operators, the airport terminal building, Flight Service Station , and
transient aircraft users . To reduce demand upon this area, based aircraft
� operators are permitted to park their vehicles in their hangars or in the
! vicinity of their tiedown location . Additional unimproved facilities for the
par ing o emp oyee an customer ve ic es are ocate wit in or a ja-
; cent to the Airport tenants ' individu�l leaseholds .
�
�
� Fuel Storage/ Dispensing Facilities
;
Bulk aviation fuel ( 100 LL) is currendy stored in one 12,000 gallon
� aboveground steel tank located on the main apron to the southeast of
j the airport terminal building . This is an interim location pending the
planned development of a new 20,000 gallon two-product (100 LL and
I Jet A) aviation fuel storage facility on the Airport's east side . The new
storage facility is programmed for construction in 1995 . This new facility
� should prove adequate throughout the planning period . The existing
i , bulk aviation fuel storage and dispensing facilities are described in
� � Appendix A . �
� � �
I CDF Fire Attack Base
� .
� As noted in Chapter 4, Ukiah Municipal Airport serves as an important
j fire attack base for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Pro-
' tection 's (CDF) forest fire suppression operations. The CDF mission has
considerable local and regional significance and is a primary operational
; role of the Airport. �
, The existing CDF facilities at Ukiah Municipal Airport are marginal .
! There is insufficient apron area for the efficient loading and operation of
� CDF aircraft. In addition , the base 's existing structures and equipment
, are old and in poor physical condition . �
� ,
� Expansion or improvement of the Ukiah CDF base has been suggested
by local CDF personnel — either at the base 's existing location or at •
� another location on the Airport. Funding � for an improved facility is not
� currendy available through either the State or federal government. The
City of Ukiah has been mentioned as a possible source for funding the
proposed CDF facility improvements . This funding option is currendy
� being evaluated by the City. '
_
' - � If the CDF facilities are improved or expanded, three potential on-airport
� development scenarios are possible.
6 - 9
z
i
,
. �
Building Area Development / Chapter 6 -
. �
�
,
� Existing Site — The CDF's existing site could be expanded and . im-
�i
proved. The CDF apron area could be expanded by excavating and �
leveling the ground underlying the present CDF operations building � �
and parking area. By shifting the entire CDF operations compound
to the west, additiona! apron depth could be provided . A significant �
disadvantage of this scenario is that it maintains the CDF base loca- �
tion in the midst of the Airport's busy public-use operational area.
�
�
• Southeast Site — ThP CnF hase rnulri he relncare�l t� the 1 ? �a�p i
triangular segment of undeveloped land located in the southeast cor-
ner of the Airport. Development of this site would require the instal- ;
lation of all new facilities — utilities, access roads, apron, equipment, �
and structures . A key advantage to this site is that it is separate from
the Airport's busy public-use operational area. A significant disadvan- ' 4
tage would be that CDF aircraft would have to cross the approach !
end of the active runway to access the west side parallel taxiway.
�
,
• Northeast Site — In the event that the wholesale lumber supply yard �
located in the northeast corner of the Airport ceases operation , this
site could be developed as a . replacement CDF base . This location �
offers the same basic advantages and disadvantages as the southeast
site . In addition, this site offers the advantage of readily available
utilities and nearby access roads . The site offers approximately 2.8 �
acres of developable area. �
If the CDF base is developed at either of the east-side sites, the site of i
the current base could be developed for general aviation use (e .g ., fixed �
base operations, hangars, expanded apron , dedicated helicopter area,
etc.) .
�
�
In deciding the appropriate course of action for the City, it should be }
noted that a CDF air attack base has a relatively specialized physical �
plant. ln the event that Ukiah's CDF air attack mission is terminated !
(due to lack of State funding, change in aircraft type, or statewide base '
consolidation), the City could be left with a facility which has little, if
any, alternative commercia) use or economic value . �
" i
Because of the importance of the CDF mission to the Ukiah community, -
it is recommended that the City undertake an in -depth analysis of the �
issues, benefits, and costs of improving the Ukiah CDF base . It may be �
more practical and cost-effective to enhance the existing base than to
develop an entirely new dedicated facility. �
�
. ,
,
;
i
� l
. i
6 - 10 i
1
Land Use and Environmental Issues / Chapter 7
_l
'� �� a slightly higher altitude when overflying land uses to the north.
�-I Areas to the south would be adversely affected by the repositioning
of the runway protection zone and, unless the threshold were to be
displaced, by the lower altitude of landing aircraft.
� • Approach Slope Angle — Minor reductions in arrival noise impacts
� can sometimes be attained by installing visual glide slope indicators
-1 where they do not exist and setting them for steep approach angles.
JUkiah Municipal Airport currendy has a visual approach slope indica-
or a - e no en�f e runway. is se or a s n ar
glide slope. Because the straight-in instrument approach procedure is
1 for this end of the runway, an increase in the glide slope, while feasi-
ble, is not desirable. Installation of a visual glide slope indicator at
the south end of the runway would be desirable, but the FAA has de-
ltermined that it is not feasible because of the high terrain along the
approach course.
I . • Aircraft Run-Up Noise — Engine run -ups are an essential aviation
function both immediately prior to takeoff and as part of engine
maintenance work. This activity can produce significant noise im-
Ipacts if conducted in locations near residential or other noise-sensi-
tive land uses . A noise wall potentially could be of some benefit at
Ukiah Municipal Airport where the run-up area for Runway 15 is less
> than 1 ,000 feet from residential development. Intervening nonresi-
� J dential buildings could provide similar noise attenuation, however.
I . Operationa/ Policies
Policies regulating the procedures used for aircraft operadons often can
Iaccomplish even more than facility modifications to control airport im-
pacts. Airports which have compatibility problems — especially noise
I compatibility problems — have adopted a wide variety of operational
� • measures.
As described ear�ier in tr�is cnap- As listed below, several important compatibility-related aircraft opera-
I ter, theprojectedincreaseinUkiah tional procedures . have already been established at Ukiah Municipal Air-
Municipal Airport operations over port. Some of these can benefit from refinement. Among the other
the next 20 � years witl lead to a measures noted here, most do not appear to be necessary at the present
� slight expansion of the airport's time. They should be kept in mind, though, as steps which can be taken
noise corttours. This change is
anticipated to be so minor as to be if airport impacts begin to increase significantly.
I imperceptible to the local popu-
�aoe. • Aircraft Types — FAA regulations limit the extent to which airports
can restrict aircraft operations based upon aircraft type. However,
use of an airport by undesirable aircraft types often can be controlled
both by not providing facilities and services for these aircraft and
through voluntary measures. At Ukiah Municipal Airport, the vast
; majority of aircraft activity is by single-engine and light, twin-engine,
propeller airplanes . The Airport is well-suited for these aircraft types
,
I 7 - 25
, �
Land Use and Environmental /ssues / Chapter 7 '
�
� and, with rare exceptions, the noise impacts they create have not - . ,
created significant compatibility problems. �
(
The majority of comparatively loud aircraft now operating at Ukiah $
Municipal Airport are the fire attack airplanes . Because of the impor- _
tance of the fire attack mission , most airports which have fire attack �
bases exempt these aircraft from any operational restrictions that
might be established . Also, expected changes to the fire attack fleet
will result in replacement or re-engining of the existing pistQn-engine �
la�e�e—agw Ar modified aircraft wi11 have turboprop engines and }
will be much quieter than the currenC piston-engine flee�
; .
;
..,.-T. -s-z�-=--:��---� � rt (
:�B�is�s`s je�s� (particularly older models) �,�and#�fiefieopte sfare "Ftie;other�=�` �
r . � .. �;r�t �h.�3+yr�j�'K.'�iF1�u�za-u1�s�44-i x -^^-.-.� -`a
`,pe�;�.o��ai%c ��.�iich u�all�:praclu'�ce�r�m`�or�emn;ois'Qr� ``anrt}�`e�s 'mall����
,��.
� p�ro:pelle�xplanes:� As indicated in the Master Plan forecasts, use of ` �
Ukiah Municipal Airport by these aircraft types is expected to in- ;
crease more rapidly than other aircraft. The number of operations,
though, will remain a small proportion of the total. Also, unlike the ;
situation anticipated for light, propeller-driven airplanes, technology �
improvements over the next 20 years are expected to provide notice-
able reductions in the noise levels generated by new model business ` �
jets and helicopters. An additional, and effeetive, factor limiting the ,
noise impacts of business jet operations at Ukiah Municipal Airport is
� the established voluntary prohibition on operations betin�een 10 p.m. �
and 7 a.m. �
• Airport Tra�c Pattern Location — At some airports, impacts can be �
reduced by eliminating the traffic pattern on one side of the runway
or by defining where pilots should fly portions of the pattern. The
sole traffic pattern at Ukiah Municipal Airport is situated on the east i
side of the field because of the close-in high terrain to the west. For- �
tuitously, although new development is occurring close to the east '
side of the Airport, most of the land to the east is comparatively less
developed than on the west. An east-side � pattern is thua the best �
choice for bqth practical and compatibility reasons .
As an additional step to minimize overflight impacts, the City of �
Ukiah has established an airport operational policy requesting that
aircraft execute a 20° turn to the east when taking off toward either
the north or the south . This procedure routes aircraft roughly along �
the rail line and mostly nonresidential land uses to the north and over
the freeway to the south . Other, similar operational procedures :
might be worth formalizing, particularly for the sake of transient pilots j
(most locally based pilots tend to do these things already) . In addi- 1
tion to adoption by the City (with concurrence by the FAA) , these
procedures should be published and illustrated in pilots ' guides and j
posted at the Airport. 1
�
° �
7 - 26 (
� l
Land Use and Environmental Isscees / Chapter 7
^�
� ) — Fly downwind leg east of Highway 101 .
--� . This third procedure is particularly
appticable to the fire attack aircraft
(the airport noise coMours previ- — For landings on Runway 15 , Fly base leg over Gobbi Street (sec-
ously prepared for the City show ond interchange north of airport) ; avoid overflight of Oak Manor
- -� the fire attack aircraft flight track Elementary $chool.
� passing directly over the school).
— Similarly, for departures on Runway 33, make crosswind turn
- l either along Cobbi Street or continue northward along railroad
� tracks and turn over Ferkins Street (third interchange north of air-
_ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _
port) ; again, avoid ove ight of Oak Manor Elementary School.
I • Traffic Pattern Altitude — Some additional reduction in noise impacts
also could be atEained by raising the pattern altitude. Currendy, it is
- set at 800 feet; above fihe Airport. A 1 ,000-foot pattern altitude is
l more common today; especially at urban -area airports, and is gener-
ally the FAA-recommended altitude. The City should request FAA ap-
. proval for this change.
.l .
• Calm Wind Runway — Runway 15 has been established as the calm
wind runway at Ukiah Municipal Airport. Because aircraft make
� more noise on departure than while on approach, this southerly flow
of traffic is the best choice for impact reduction . Further usage of
Runway 15 should be encouraged, especially for takeoffs by nose air- .
I � craft. For example, Runway 15 could be designated as the preferred
runway even when its use would involve a tailwind of up to 3 or 4
knots.
• Touch-and-Co Restrictions - The touch-and-go operations which pi-
� lots do in order to practice takeoffs and landings are often found by
Iairport area residents to be particularly annoying . The amount of this
type of activity is quite low at Ukiah Municipal Airport, however, and
there is no indication that it causes significant problems . The traffic
I , pattern location re�nements described above will help minimize
touch-and-go impacts as well. If touch-and-go activity ever should
increase to the point where it warrants special controls, the following
Imeasures could be considered :
� — Require aircraft to exit the runway after landing and then taxi back
� for takeoff when the number of aircraft in the pattern exceeds a
certain number. The tendency for the pattern to become very
elongated would thus be reiiuced.
. I — Prohibit touch-and-go 's during specified busy periods or on week-
ends and at night (the times when area residents are more likely
� to be disturbed) .
; • Helicopter Flight Routes — Helicopter noise is a significant impact
� around many general aviation airports . Not only do helicopters usu-
ally fly lower than airplanes, but they often approach and depart air-
� ports over areas airplanes do not normally overfly. At Ukiah Munici-
7 - 27
_,�
Land llse and Environmental /ssues / Chapier 7 �
..._�
�
pal Airport; the volume of helicopter traffic has been low and prob- ��
lems have been correspondingly few. With projected inc�eases in �
helicopter activity, definition of noise abatement procedures may be-
come desirable. For safety reasons, the relationship of helicopter ;
flight routes to airplane traffic patterns also need to be taken into . -�
account. Helicopter routes which follow the freeway except for a �
short leg to and from the Airport would appear to be preferable .
• Pilot Techniques — Related to many of the above concerns is the � �
a a varia ions in pi o ec niques can ' d�if- �
ferent aircraft noise impacts. In addition to the routes and altitudes �
flown, differences in engine RPM, propeller blade controls, and wing �
flap settings can affect noise levels on the ground . In most cases, the
minimal-impact techniques are not difficult — pilots only need to be . �
aware of them and use them where appropriate . Continued efforts E
on the part of airport management and fixed base operators to edu- �
cate pilots regarding noise abatement techniques is thus essential to
airport/ land use compatibility. �
.
City Land Use Jurisdiction Actions � �
,
The principal measures available to the City of Ukiah in this category are
designation of appropriate land uses, adoption of an airport overlay ���
� zone, and establishment of a buyer awareness program . '
Land Use Designation �
The basic form of land use designation is that which is established by lo- �
cal general plans and zoning ordinances . In undeveloped or developing �
� areas, designation of compatible land uses is essential to airporf/ land use
compatibility planning. However, in built-up areas such as north of
Ukiah Municipal Airport, land use designations mosdy just reflect existing '
conditions. At most, designation of an area for a different use than one �
already existing may encourage market-based change over the long run, �
but it would not directly eliminate any incompatible uses . i
As noted on page 7-11 , the most significant concerns regarding land
use designations around Ukiah Municipal Airport involve land uses with- �
in the runway protection zones . Also of concern are the potential for �
more intensive development north of the Airport and for new urban uses
to the south . . �
_ I
� The adoption of an Airport Overlay Zone as proposed in the new Ukiah
Genera! Plan is capable of largely eliminating this latter concern. The un - �
derlying land use designations should nevertheless be modified in the �
� area bordering the north end of the Runway 15 Protection Zone. A '
commercial or industrial designation should be shown on the Ceneral j
Plan Land Use Map in place of the present medium- and high-density
7 - 28 I
,
Aitachment #
ITEM NO . : . 9 . a
DATE : April 7 , 2004
AGENDA SUMIVIARY REPORT
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BUILDING AND LAND USE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN GUIDELINES FOR THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
� SUMMARY: City staff has been working with the City Airport Commission and Planning Commission to
—P� � � i e ines or e ia urncipa irport. The proposed
Guidelines were prepared to more closely define the land use restrictions and standards outlined in Chapter 6
(Building Area Development) and Chapter 7 (Land Use & Environmental Issues) of the Ukiah Municiqal
Airport Master Plan . Specifically, the Guidelines were crafted' to provide definitions of individual planning
areas on the airport grounds and to list the allowed and permitted airport-related land uses and development
standards that apply in these areas. The Guidelines also include textual and flowchart descriptions of the
various permit processes required for development on airport property.
Background : In July of 1996, the Ukiah City Council adopted the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan to
serve as the framework for the implementation of individual development projects on the airport grounds.
This comprehensive plan , which was prepared by Schutt Moen Associates, provides extensive information
about the existing airport infrastructure and aeronautical functions, as well as discussions about proposed
•improvements to the ai�eld and surrounding airport property. It also contains detailed information about
allowed and permitted land uses at the airport and a comprehensive analysis of airport compatibility issues.
� (continued on Page 2)
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS :
1 . Adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for #he project; and
2. Adopt the Resolution approving the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and Land Use Development
Plan Guidelines.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION :
1 . Determine that revisions to the Negative Declaration or the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and
Land Use Development Plan Guidelines are necessary, identify required modifications, and �
approve as revised .
Citizen Advised :
Requested by: Ukiah Planning Department
Prepared by : Dave Lohse, Associate Planne� and Paul Richey, Interim Airport Director
Coordinated with : Candace Horsley, City Manager and Charley Stump, Director of Planning &
Community Development .
Attachments :
1 . Draft Resolution Adopting the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and Land Use Development Plan
Guidelines
2 . Negative Declaration for Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and Land Use Development Plan
Guidelines
3 . Draft Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines
4. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting held on February 25 , 2004
5. Staff Report to the Planning Commission
APPROVED : '
Candace Horsley, ity Manager
,
Continued from Page One
Unfortunately, the all-encompassing nature of the Master Plan and the sheer size of the document
require a comprehensive and extensive level of review to fully understand its intent, making the
effective implementation of its policies more difficult than intended . These same factors have also
caused members of the public and the Airport Commission to express frustration when considering
where hangars and other development projects should be situated , and how such buildings should
be designed to comply with the design and compatibility criteria outlined in the plan .
In order to address these concerns, the Airport Commission requested in late 2001 that staff fr.om
the airport and other relevant City agencies meet with the Commission to identify which projects will
�e#e�sible�er-devele��^+ �+n��RG-u��er�. T�—.-.-.s,�6rPa�6e�nmissien-alss-req���-t�ia+ ��rovide
clarification on the most effective means of processing applications for the ministerial and -- - - , � � � �-
discretionary permits required to develop such projects, and a better description of the stantiards ' �'� •'� Y' �' ' °�°� .
that would be applied during the permit process. Over the next year, the Airport Commission met
with staff and interested persons, including Judy Pruden , to assess different means to more �
effectively express the infent and development criteria of the master plan . Eventually, the ,
Commission agreed that guidelines would be the most effective way to alleviate the problem ,
particularly if the document was written in a more easily understood format. This work was done
through a series of workshops, with the Airport Commission voting in December of 2002 to send the
Guidelines to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations, and then to the City
Council for adoption . The Planning Commission reviewed the Guidelines on February 25, 2004, and
voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the Guidelines, as proposed .
Project Description : The Buildina Area & Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the Ukiah
Municipal Airport were specifically written to provide a more concise definition of the fand use
restrictions and development standards outlined in Chapters 6 (Building Area Development) and
Chapter 7 �(Land Use and Environmental Issues) of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan . In
order to do this, the guidelines divide the developable portions of the airpo�t grounds into specific
planning areas and list which airport-related land uses are allowed or permitted in these areas. The
guidelines also include more concisely defined development standards, such as minimum building
footprints, parking , and landscaping . They also include textual explanations and a flowchart
describing the processes required for discretionary permits, ministerial permits, and leasing
. requirements that would apply to the majority of potential development projects. These guidelines
do not add to or delete any of the allowed land uses or required compatibility criteria defined in. the
Airport Master Plan, and there are no amendments to the development standards now required in
the PF (Public Facility) Zoning District that applies to the airport property.
Planning staff also analyzed the potential for this project to cause adverse environmental impacts,
beginning with a comprehensive review of the Initial Study of Environmental Impacts that was
prepared fot the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan in 1996. This study concluded that the
adoption and implementation of the master plan for the airport would cause no potential significant
adverse environmental impacts and no mitigation measures were required . As a result of these
conclusions, the Ukiah City Council adopted a Negative Declaration for the Airport Master Plan .
While this analysis was helpful , the City Environmental Coordinator determined that a separate Initial
Study was required for the proposed Guidelines. This determination is based, in part, on the fact that
the guidelines would be a minor addendum to the approved airport master plan and that the
environmental analysis must be expanded to comply with CEQA requirements. In addition , the Initial
Study done for the Guidelines uses significance criteria that have changed since the previous
environmental analysis was completed . Specifically, this tnitial Study includes a listing of the
significance criteria applied to the analysis, an Environmental Checklist to determine whether the
criteria applied to specific environmental impacts, and staff's conclusions.
2
,
Based on its analysis, staff concluded that the adoption and implementation of the Building Area &
Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the Ukiah Municipal Airport would cause no adverse
environmental impacts and would , therefore, require no measures to mitigate such impacts.
CONCLUSIONS : City Staff, the City Airport Commission , and the Ukiah Planning Commission have
prepared more specific and comprehensive guidelines for airport-related projects developed on
airport property. The proposed Guidelines do not alter the existing land use requirements of the
airport's Master Plan or the means for reviewing and approving development projects. They will , in
fact, provide the Airport Commission , City staff, and the general public with a more readabte and
more easity understood blueprint for potential development projects on designated areas of the
airport, making the implementation of the Master Plan 's policies and compatibility criteria even more
__ _ effective.
RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Department recommends thaf the City Council :
1 . Adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the project; and
2 . Adopt the Resolution approving the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and Land Use Development
Plan Guidelines.
3
�
• Affiachment #
CITY OF UKIAH
NEGATlVE DECLARATtON
DATE : Februa� 3, 2004
APPUCANTS: Cify of Ukiah
PROJECT NAME: Buiiding & Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the Ukiah Municipal
Airport
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
LOCATION : Ukiah Municipal Airport, 14Q3 South State Street, , City of Ukiah , County of.
' • � - �� Mendocino� (Assessor Parcei Nos. 003-280-U1 ; 003=310-03, 04, 05, 06, �7; and
0�3-330-62 & 66)
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING : The project site consists of the lands cornprising the Ukiah �
Municipa( Airport, which is located in the southern portion of the city. This smaller airport contains
a single runway, taxiways, a terminal/office building, and other airport-related development, as
shown on Attachment A (Ukiah Municipal Airport Layout Plan) of the attached Initial Study. The
lands comprising this airport are relatively flat, with no major geological or geographical features .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION : In 1996, the Ukiah City Council adopted the Ukiah Municioal � Ai�port
Master Plan , which includes comprehensive descriptions of existing airport land uses and future
development that can occur at the airport. Approximately two years ago, the Ukiah Airport
Commission expressed concem that the land use critena in the Master Plan were difficuit to
understand due to the comprehensive nature of the information and it's less than concise presentation
in the Plan . The City Council concurred, and directed Planning Department staff to prepare guidelines
that would provide potential developers and other persons with a clearer idea of where and how futu�e
development on airport property could occur.
Based on these concerns, the proposed guidelines were written to concisely define the land use
restrictions and standards outlined in Chapters 6 (Building Area Development) and Chapter 7 (Land
Use and Environmental Issues) of the Airport Master Plan . In doing so, staff worked with the
Commission and interested members of the public to define specific ptanning areas and listed which
, ' , land uses are allowed or permitted in these areas. The guidelines also include recommended
development standards, such as minimum building footprints, parking, and landscaping , as well as
textual explanations and a flowchart that describes the discretionary, ministerial, and leasing
processes required for the majority of potential development projects.
In preparing these guidelines , staff did not add to or delete any of the allowed land uses or required �
compatibility criteria defined in Table 7A of the Airport Master Plan and there are no amendments to
the development standards required in the PF (Public Facility) Zoning District designated for the
airport property.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS : In preparing this analysis, Planning Department staff conducted a
comprehensive review of the Initial Study of Environmental Impacts prepared for the Ukiah Municipal
Airport Master �Plan in 1996. This previous analysis concluded that the adoption and implementation
of the maste� plan for the airport would cause no potential significant adve�se environmental impacts
and no mitigation measures were required . As a result of these conclusions, the Ukiah Gity Council
adopted a Negative Declaration for the Airport Master Plan .
Negative Dec(aratlon for 1
Building 8t Land llse Development Plan Guidelines for tt�e llklah Municipal Airport
d iTbr.tJM� r H- �
� � b
�Y
Pianning staff found this analysis to be helpful, but the City Environmental Coordinator determined
that a separate Initial Study was required for the proposed Building & Land Use Development Plan
, Guidelines. This determination is based , in pa�t, an the fact thafi the guidelines would essentially
serve as an amendment to the overall airport plan and would require that the environmental analysis
be expanded to comply with CEQA requirements. In addition, the significance criteria for
environmental analyses done within City limits have changed in since the previous analysis was
completed, and this study was also done to ensure that the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed guidelines are anaiyzed using current criteria . The Ini6al Study for this project consists of a
. listing of the Significance Criteria applied to the analysis, an Environmental Checklist to determine
whether the criferia applied to specific enyironmental impacts, and staff's conclusions.
n-t�is-�atqsis;-s#�ea�elade�-�fi�t th�ade��e�-afl�ptec�e�#a�ieA�f�k�e-�ildiR�--�c-L-aFl±
Use Development Plan Guidelines for the Ukiah Municipal Airport wou(d cause no adverse . . .. , �
environmental impacts and would� require no rrieasWres to #nitigate such impacts. This determination r� � � �• � z ��.
is based on the fact that the proposed project is an informational document that does not alter where
and how allowed or perrnitted development projects may occur at the airport. Furthermore, the
proposed guidelines in no way exempt future development projects from CEQA mandated reviews,
and should actually provide potential developers, City staff, and the hearing bodies responsible for
approving discretionary projects and leases with a clearer outline of which development projects will
require discretionary permit approval and/or environmenta! review.
FINDINGS SUPPORTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION :
1 . Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project does
not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional environment;
2 . Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will
not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term environmental goals;
3. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the lnitial Study, the project will
not result in impacts that are individually limited , but cumulatively considerable; and
4. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will
not �esult in environmental impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings ,
. ,
either directly or indirectly.
� STATEMENT OF DECLARATION : After appraisal of the possible impacts of this project, the
City of Ukiah has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and further, that this Negative Declaration constitutes campliance with the
requirements for environmental review and anatysis required by the California Environmental
Quality Act.
This document may be reviewed at the City of Ukiah Planning Depa�tment, Ukiah Civic Center, 300
Seminary Avenue , Ukiah, California .
Charles Stump, Planning DirectorlEnvironmental Coordinator Date
Negative Declaradon for 2
Building 8t Land llse Developme�t P(an Guidelines for the Ukiah Municipal Airport
� _7
.
INtTIAL STUDY
OF �
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS �
� CITY OF UKIAH
' I . BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1 . Name of Project: Building & Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the Ukiah
" � 2. Name of Project Proponent: City of�Uki�h ' ' � " � -
3. Address of Project Proponent: 300 SeminaryAvenue, Ukiah, CA 95482
4. Project Location : Ukiah Municipal Airport, 1403 South State Street, City of Ukiah, County of
Mendocino '
5. Assessors Parcel Number(s) : AssessorParcelNos. 003-280-01; 003-390-03, 04, 05, 06, 07;
and 003-330-62 & 66
6. Date of Initial Study Preparation : February 3, 2004
7. Name of Lead Agency: Cify of Ukiah �
8. Address and Phone Number of Lead Agency: 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482;
(707') 463-6200
9 . Project Description : The project consists of the adoption and impiementation of The Building &
� Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for fhe Ukiah Municipal Aimort. This document is intended
to provide potentiai developers, City staff, and the commissions �esponsible for the approval of
development projects at the airport with a clearer definition of the land use restrictions and
. , standards outlined in Chapters 6 (Building Area Development) and Chapter 7 (Land Use and
� � ° � Environmental Issues) of the Ukiah Municipal Aitport Master Plan. The guidelines do not contain
any revisions to the Airport Master Plan or any amendments to the land use and zoning standards
for the PF (Pubfic Facility) Zoning District that has been assigned to the airport qrounds .
10. Plans, Exhibits , and other Submitted Application Materials : All the� plans, exhibits,
technical reporfs, and ofher submifted appticafion maferials are available for review at the City
of Ukiah Planning Department, which is Iocafed af 300 Seminary Ave. , Ukiah.
11 . Initial Study Prepared by : Ukiah Planning Departmenf Staff
lnidal Study for 1
Building 8t Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the Uktah Municipal Airport
February, 2004
� -�
. �
' � ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEIN � �
INITIAL STUDY CHECKl.IST �
Potentiapy.
Sign�cant
` Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigatiort Significant No
Im act Inco rated Im act Im act
1. �AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a designated
scenic vista?
, . - , .b) .Substantially damage natural resources, . including, ., . , _ _ . . . ,_� : . .- , . . .. .. � ._, ... .: > , ..
� , �: s but .� not limited� to - t�ees, rock -outeroppings;- .�nd � ; ,., , " ;, � � , ; , , . , y� ; ,�� ::: � �
historic buiidings within a state scenic highway?
c) Conflict with the architecture of the surrounding / .
built environment? ��
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
with wou{d adversely affect day or nighttime views in /
the area? `�
11. AGRICULTURAL RES�URCES: Would �
the Pro'ect:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
� agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
l.and Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1977)
prepared by the Califomia Dept. of Conservation as
an optional mode{ to use in assessing impacts on �
agriculture and farmland . Would the project: �
a) Convert Prime Farmland , Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as �
� , shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the �
• � Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the �
Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use? �
b) Conflict.with existing zoning for agricultural use, or /
a Williamson Act contract? ��
111 A1R 4UALITY
Where available, the sign�cant criteria established .
by the applicable air quality management or air �
pollution control district may be relied upon to make
the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the � /
applicable air quality plan? ��al Stud for J
Building & Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the Ukiah MunicipaI Airport
February, 2004
� �
�• ,_�
• Potentially
, Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
. Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Incor orated im act im act
b) �olate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air qualify I
violation? � , ✓
c) . Result in a cumulatively considerable net
. increase of any criteria pollutant for whicti the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard (induding
releasin emissions which e d ualit ti e
threshoids for ozone precursors)?
' ' ct) Ezpose sensitive °receptors to, substantial - � ' ' � '
pollutant concentrations? ✓
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? � ✓
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status .
species in local or regional plans, policies, or /
regulations, or by the Ca(ifomia Department of Fish - /
and Game or U . S. Fish and Wildlife Service? �
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regionaf plans, policies, �
regulations or by the Califomia Department of Fish _ /
and Game or U . S. Fish and Wi(dlife Service? v
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally
� protected wetlands as defined by Section 4Q4 of the �
' � Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vemal pool, coastal, etc. ) through direct removal , �
filling , hydrological interruption , or other means?
d) InterFere substantially with the movement of any .
native resident or migratory fish or wi(dlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife /
corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? V
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources , such as tree �
preservation policy or ordinance?
. . . �
Building & Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the Ukiah Municipal Airport
February, 2004 ,
- � 3
�-� .
' ' � Pot�ntiaily
Sigr�ificant ,
Potentially Unl�ss Less Than
, Significant Nlitigation Significant No
(m act Incdr orated Im act (m act
fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, natural Community Conservafion
Pian, or the approved local, regional, or state habitat �
conservation plan?
V: CULTURAL RESOURCES .
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
sign�cance of a historical resource as defined in
� �s�iaa-1-59 . .
: �. , , : bj , Cause a substantiai � adverse ,;change ia ,:;:tt�e . - , . . .. � � ': : : ; ��: .
sign�cance of an archaeologicai resource pursuant /
to Section 15064. 5? �/
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic /
feature? �/
d) Disturb any human remains including those /
interred outside of formal cemeteries? �
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Woald the
Proj��
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including tfie risk of loss, � ,
injury, or death involving :
i.) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as �
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State
Geologist for the area, or based on the other /
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to . . /
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication �
� � 42. .
,' ,
ii. ) Strong seismic ground shaking? f
iii . ) Seismic-related ground failure, including /
liquefaction? " �/ :
iv. ) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of �
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ,
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potential result in on-site or off site / :
(andslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, �
- or collapse? .
Building & Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the LTkiah Municipal Airport ,
February, 2004 '
. � 4 '
2 -fa
' . �
Potentially
• Significant
' Potentially Unless Less Than
, � Signi�cant Mitigatian Signifcant No
Im act incor orated Im acE Im act
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1 -B �of the . Uniform Building Code (1994), creating - /
substantiai risks to life or propert� �/
e) . Have soiis incapable of adequately supporting the
� use of septic tanks or altemative �wastewater �
disposal systems. Where sewers are not available `
for fhe disposal of wastewater? �
VII. ,.. HAZARDS AND . HAZARpOUS , : :.
, : . . �.. . . , . _ . . .. , . . . . � ,
' �-('�4��� � ." y� ' . T'„ '- •' . . ���! ��y •G• i . tii ^,/ ��`� - ' r . „t>� I� f � l°� . ��., .. ._� . . .. . � i ,. :ir : i ' � .
''�1TEI�r�1LS �- YVould �the. pro�ect: -
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the .
environment through the routine transport, use, or /
disposal of hazardous materials? � �/
b} Create a significant hazard to the pubiic or the ,
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the likety release of . /
hazardous materials into the environment? �(
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or /
proposed school? v
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to �
Govemmenfi Code Section 65962.5 and , as a result
would it create a significant hazard to the public or J
the environment?
� � e) For a project located within an airport land use �
' ' ' � plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted ,
within two miles of a public airport or public use �
airpo�t, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area.
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people /
residing or working in the projected area? �/
fl Impair implementation of or physically interfere with �
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
. V
Initial Stud for
w �ng se eve opment an tu e �nes or e urucipa uport
February, 2004
. _ . 5
� .'7
� Potentially
Signifcant �
Potentially Unless Less Thah
. Significant Mitigation Significat�t No
Im act Incor orated Im act Im act
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, .
injury or death invoiving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or /
where residences are interrnixed with wildlands? �/
� � VIII. HYDROLOGY � AND WATER
QUALITY — Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standaGds or waste
� . dischargerequirements? ; . � . � , � f..{� �, ,.„L �:.� . . � . ',<� ; . > ::f, , .
b) :Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or .
� interFere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
lever (e.g ., the �production rate of pre-existing nearby � /
wells would drop to a level which would not support ��
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted )?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which . �
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site
or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of �
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantialiy �
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on-site or off-
� site? �
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned �
stoRnwater drainage systems or provide substantial -
additional sources of polluted runoff?
fi� Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g.) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or .
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
Building & Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the Ukiah Municipal Airport
February, 2004
. 6
7.Qt
x ,
Potentially
. Significant
� Potentially • Unless Less Than
-- { Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Inco orated lmpact Im act
fi) Piace within a 100-year flood hazard area
structuces which would impede or redirect flood /
flows? ' V
i) �xpose peopie or structures to a signficant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flaoding, including . �
. flooding as a resuit of the failure of a • levee or a /
dam? � v
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? . ✓
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would
; „ the ,pcoject: ' �� ; s- �«,: . :,, . ; . . ;.. . �, „ _ . , ,
a) Physicaily divide an established community?
• b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to generai plans , .
spec�c plans, � local coastal programs, or zoning f
ordinances) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmentai effect? �
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natucal community conservation plan? � �
X. MIIaERAL RESOURCES - Would the .
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a know mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the � �
residents of the state? �
b) Resutt in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
. , on a local general plan, specific plan o� other land . ✓
• � use plan?
� XI . NOISE - Would the projec� result
in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in .ttie local
genera! plan or noise ordinance, or applicable f
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of �
excessive groundborne vibration groundborne noise ✓
levels?
' c) A substantial pe�manent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels /
existing without the project? � �
Initial Stud for
Building & Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the Ukiah Municipak Airport
February, 2004
�- �
7-q'
� t�otentialiy
Significant �
Potentia(ly i)nfess Less Than
. Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Inco rated Im act Im act
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in #he project vicinity above /
ievels existing without the proje�t? v
e) . For a project located within an airport land use
� plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted ,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose peopie residing or working J
_ - _ . _ __ _ .
e pro . .
_ ,. . .
. . . ; . . . . , , : . . . , . :_.: �'
d , t..,�;. : ... . .. ,..
t� ' For a project` within the vic'inity of a�private� airsfnp, ' " � ` � � �
would the project expose peopfe residing or working ✓
in the project area to excessive noise levels? �.
. XI1. POPULATlON AND HOUSING -
Woutd the proJect�'
a) induce substantial population growth in an area,
either direct(y (for example, by proposing new homes �
and businesses) or indirectiy (for example; through
extension of roads or other infrastucture)? .
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing ,
necessitating the construction of replacement f
housing elsewhere? �
' c) Displace � substantiai numbers of peopie, .
necessitating the construction of replacement J
housing eisewhere?
Xlll . PUBLIC SERVICES
� � a) Wou1d the project result in substantia! adverse �
- � physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered govemmental facilities, the
need for new or physically aitered govemmental
facilities , the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to f
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the public
services?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational �
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment? f
Initial Stud for
ui utg se eve opmen an ui e uies or e i iuucipa u�po
February, 2004
� $
n �.�
l
Potentially
; Significant
� Potentialiy Unless Less Than
� . Significant Mitigatioh Significant No
Im act �Incor orated Im act Im act
XV. TRANSPORTATI4NA'RAFFIC -
Wouid the. pro�ect:
a) Cause an increase in traffc which is substantial in
reiation to the existing traffic load and capacity �of the
_ sfreet system (i.e. , result in a substantiai� increase in �
either the number of vehicie trips, the volume to . f
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
� .
_ : b); Exceed, eithe;r indivi�ualiy or cumulatively,, a I�vel ..s; ;,:, � ,k,.. �,, . ,. , .
? of service standard� established by fhe � caunfy �
congestion management agency for designated f
roads or highways?
c) Resutt in a change in air traffic pattems, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in /
location that results in substantial safety risks? �/
d) Substantialfy increase hazards to a design
feature (e.g. , sharp curves or dangerous �
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g . , farrn
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? f
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans , or programs
supporting altemative transportation (e.g . , bus �
turnouts , bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVlCE
�� � �� � SYSTEMS - Would the pro�ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water. Quality Control Board? � f
b) Require or result in the construction of new waste
o� wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of /
existing facilities , the construction of which could �
cause sign�cant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects.
_ . Y
Izutial Stu for
February, 2004 '
. 9
�.,.r �
,
Potentialiy
Significant ,
Potentialfy Unless Less Than
• Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Inco orated • Im act Im act
d) Have sufficient water suppiies availabie to serve
the project from existing entitlements and resources, f
or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) . Result in a determination by the wastewater �
� treatment provider which serves or rnay serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the �
project's projected demand in addiiion to the
. . . .
i _.
_.. _._ . ._ .- . : : . . : . . _ .. .. _.. _ _ _
_ . . . .. .. . _ _ _. _ .
,
� fl ` Be senred by a landfil( with sufficie�if �permitted ` ` � " " ' ' ' ` '
capacit�• ta accommodate the project's solid waste f
disposal needs? .
g), Comply with federal, state, and loca! statutes and /
regulations related to solid waste? ��
�
. � .
Initial Study for
Building & Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the Ukiah Municipal Airport
Februazy, 2004
1 �
2 - 12
, ,
i
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS �
The Buildinq & Land Use Develo�ment Plan Guidelines for the Ukiah Municipal Airport were written to
. concisely define the land use restrictions and standards outlined in Chapters 6 (Building Area
Development) and Chapter 7 (Land Use and Environmental Issues) of the Ukiah Municipal Aimort
Master Plan. In doing so, staff worked with the Ukiah Airport Commission and interested members of
the public to define specific planning a�eas and listed which land uses are allowed or permitted in these
areas. The guidelines also include recommended development standards, such as minimum building
. � , _ , ` ,.,footprints} par{cing, an� landscaping; as well as tei�ual �explanations and ,� flow�hart that describe the , � ,
processes required fo� discre6onary peRnits, ministerial permits, and leasing �equirements that would
apply to the majority of potential development projects.
�
In preparing these guidelines, staff did not add to or delete any of the allowed land uses or required
compatibility criteria de�ined in the Airport Master Plan and there are • no amendments to the
development standards required in the PF (Public Facility) Zoning District designated for the airport
property.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: In analyzing the Buildina & Land Use Development Plan Guidelines
for the Ukiah Municipal Aimort, Planning Department staff flrst conducted a comprehensive review of
the Initial Study that was prepared for the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan in 1996. This study
concluded that the adoption and implementation of the airpo�t's master plan would cause no substantial
adverse environmenta{ impacts, so no mitigation measures or conditions of approval were required . � '
The review of this previous environmental analysis was helpful, but the City Environmental Coordinator
determined that a separate Initial Study should be prepared for the design guideline project since
significance criteria have changed in the six years that have passed since the previous study. In
preparing this new analysis, staff first defined the significance criteria (isted below.
Siqnificance Criteria :
, Potential adverse environmental impacts would be significant ifthe adoption and implementation of the
• proposed guidelines substantially altered the development pattems outlined in Chapters 6 and 7 of the
master plan or caused a substantial increase in the number of potential development sites.
Significant adverse impacts would also be caused if the Compatibility Criteria ouf�ined in Table 7A of
the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan were deleted or substantially aftered . In this case, no deletions
or alterations are proposed , and the Guidelines clea�ly identify which compatibility zone applies to each
of the proposed planning areas. The guidelines also affirm that none of the proposed development
guidelines would supercede the approved compatibility criteria.
Finafly, staff dete�mined that the proposed design guideiines could cause significant adverse
environmental impacts if they amended the land use and deve(opment standards of the PF (Public
Facility) Zoning District, which applies to the entire airport property. These guidelines do not amend or
otherwise affect these standards. !n fact, it is staff's opinion that the guidelines provide a substantially
�� clearer outline of how the PF standards apply to individual development projects on airpo�t property.
Initial Study for 11
Building 8z Land llse Development Plan Guidelines for the llkiah Municipal Airport
February, 2004
2 - 13
.
Environmental Checklist: Planning staff also prepared the attached checkiist, in accordance with local
and state requirements for environmentai review. This checklist includes the following categories.
1 . AESTHETICS
Ii . AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
III . AIR QUALITY
, IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
V. ,CULTURAL RESOURCES
Vi . GEOLOGY AND SOILS
� V(! . HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
VIII . HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
X! . NOISE �� _. . ,
�
. __ : . .. ._ ; .. _ _
. :
.,� .;. �::. . . � :. , .,. • , , ; ' � : . .��c �, . , � . , . . .: � .:. :.: ;
� � XII . POPULATION AND HOUSING ' �
XIII . PUBLIC SERVICES
XIV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
XV. UTILlTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS �
Conctusions: After completing the checklist, Planning staff determined that no short-term, long-
term , or cumulative significant adverse impacts would be caused by tlie adoption and
implementation of the proposed BuildinQ & Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the Ukiah
Municipaf Airport and no measures to mitigate such impacts would be required. This determination is
based on the fact that the proposed document is intended to define and clarify existing land use and
buildiog development criteria contained in the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and the PF (Public
Facility) zoning standards of the Ukiah Municipal Code, and would not rest�lt in new sources or pattems
of development on airport properly that could cause significant environmental impacts.
22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE :
A. Potential to Degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish o� wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, ceduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal species , or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
, .
YES NO X
B . Shor� Term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term , to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
enviranments one which occurs in a relatively, brief, definitive period of time . Long-
term impacts will endure well into the future) .
YES NO X
Initlal Study for 12
Building 8t Land llse Development Plan Guidelines for the llkiah Municipal Airport
February, 2004
7 - ��l
;
� C. Cumulative: Does the project have impa�ts that are individually limited , but
cumulatively considerable? (A p�oject may imp�ct on two or more separate resources
where the impact on each resource is relatively smali, but where the effect on the total
� of those impacts on the environment is signific�nt).
� YES NO X ,�
D. SubstantiallyAdverse: Does the project hav� environmental effects that wilt cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
YES NO X
. NAT .
. _- . . , _ .: ;. _ ,... .. - . � . .. . . .. _. ___. .._._ .. . _ .
. , .
, � On �he basis of tiiis Initia! Study: ` . � . " , " �; ; ' � " ' "
X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described within the Initia! Study will be in�corporated into the design of the project
or required by the City of Ukiah . A MITIGATE(� NEGATIVE DECLARATION wil{ be
prepared .
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT sha11 be required .
Charles Stumo
Signature Print Name
Planning Director/ Environmentaf Coordinator
' Title Date
lnitial Study for 13
Building et Land Use Development Plan Guidelines for the llkiah Municipaf Airport
February, 2004
7- •I �;
4
RESOURCES USED T� PREPARE THIS INtTIAL STUDY
1 ) City of Ukiah General Plan , 1995 ,
2) Ukiah Municipal Code
3) Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report, Shuft Moen Associates, July, 1996
4) U. S. G.S. Topographical Map, Ukiah Quadrangle, 1958 (photo inspected 1975). Ukiah
Municipal Airport Master Plan Report, Shutt Moen Associates, July, 1996
5) The Linkaqe Between- Land Use, Transportation and;AirQualitv, StateAirResources Board , :�
• 1993 � °��� - o . � , _ . . � , . . _ . .
6) The Land Use - Air Quality Linkaqe: How Land Use and Transportation Affect Air Qualitv,
State Air Resources Board , 1997.
7) Transportation-Reiated Land Use Strateqies to Minimize Mobile Source Emissions: An
Indirect Source Research Projec#, State Air Resources Board, 1995 .
8 ) A Source of Air Qualitv Canditions { ncluding Emissions Inventorv. Ozone Formation . PM10
Generation , and Mitigation Measures for Mendocino Countv. CA, Sonoma Technologies,
Inc. , November, 1998
9) General Plan Revision and Growth Management Plan Technical Report: Natural Habitat
Section , Michael W. Skenfield , October, 1991
10 ) Soil Suniey of Mendocino Countv, Eastem Part, and Trinitv County. Southwestern Part.
Califomia , U . S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service , January, 1991 .
11 ) A Historv of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River, Steiner Environmental Consulting ,
August, 1996
,
12) Discussions with the following City staff and Agency representatives:
' ' � � a . Paul Richey, Airport Manager
b . Don Bua , former Airport Manager
c. � Tim Eriksen , City Civil Engineer
' �
I
Initial Study for 21 �''�
Building 8z Land Use Development Plan Gutdelines for the lIkiah Municlpal Airport '
- February, 2004
2 �f(n