HomeMy WebLinkAbout08242011 - packet CITY OF UKIAH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Wednesday August 24, 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 July 27, 2011 meeting are included for review and approval. The
minutes from the August 10, 2011 meeting will be available for review and approval at
the September 14, 2011 meeting.
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 Tuesday September 6, 2011
at 5:00 p.m.
7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Redevelopment Agency Plan Amendment - Eminent Domain. Conduct a
public hearing on the proposed redevelopment agency plan amendment to restore
eminent domain for a portion of the Redevelopment Plan Area (see map) and the
associated CEQA document and make a recommendation to the Redevelopment
Agency. This item is continued from the August 10, 2011 meeting.
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours
in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.
The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities
upon request. Please call (707)463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
B. Use Permit No: 11-08-UP-PC. Conduct a public hearing for a request for
Planning Commission approval for Major Use Permit to allow an automobile oil
change business to operate at 777 South State Street, APN 003-050-47.
10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
12. ADJOURNMENT
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations. Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours
in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.
The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities
upon request. Please call (707)463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 July 27, 2011
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Mike Whetzel
7 Jason Brenner
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 6:00 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 — The minutes from the July 13, 2011 meeting will be available for
27 review and approval at the August 10, 2011 meeting.
28
29 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
30
31 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
32 the final date to appeal is August 8, 2011.
33
34 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site visit for agenda item 9A was verified.
35
36 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Agenda item 9A was properly noticed in accordance with the
37 provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
38
39 9. PUBLIC HEARING
40 9A. Amendment to Site Development Permit No: 07-23. Conduct a public hearing for a request for
41 Planning Commission approval for an Amendment to an approved Site Development Permit to
42 allow the use of alternate accent materials for the building and for use on the base of the
43 freestanding sign at 615 Talmage Road, APN 180-070-10. The building and freestanding sign
44 were originally approved by Planning Commission on December 9, 2009.
45
46 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report:
47 • The applicant requests a materials change from slate (Onion Skin Tan)that was approved by the
48 Planning Commission as part of the 2009 SDP to Genuine stone Wainscot (Natural Ledger-
49 Golden White).
50 • Applicant further requests using Genuine Stone Wainscot (Natural Ledger—Golden White on the
51 base of the freestanding sign.
52 • In June 2011 Planning Commission approved a freestanding LED sign with a condition that the
53 sign not be taller than the building.
54 • The original request from the applicant included material changes to the awnings, wainscot, and
55 freestanding sign, but staff was informed by the applicant after the public noticing of the project,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 1
1 BP Arco did not approve the change to the awnings and is requiring the applicant to install the
2 originally approved awnings.
3 • When the gas station and mini-mart were initially reviewed by the Planning Commission, the
4 Commission was concerned about the aesthetics of the project given that the project is located
5 on a city gateway and was of the opinion that the architectural design of the project did not
6 represent the feel of Ukiah and furthermore that it had no connection to the community. After
7 much discussion, a condition of approval was agreed upon by the applicant and the Planning
8 Commission that required slate or tile wainscot treatment to be added to the am/pm building and
9 if feasible to the columns of the gas station canopy.
10 • A building permit was issued for construction of the project in November 2010 that included slate
11 wainscot on the am/pm building. Wainscot was not added to the gas canopy columns because of
12 any wrap material added to the gas canopy columns would impede the operation of the gas
13 dispensers.
14 • Given that the new wainscot material is smaller than the slate an opportunity may exist to add it to
15 the gas canopy columns.
16 • Staff is not making a recommendation on the proposed request and asked the Commission to
17 complete the required SDP Findings based on the Commission's decision; findings noted in bold
18 on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report need to be completed by Planning Commission.
19 Commissioner Sanders:
20 • Is concerned about the western side of building where a solid wall not shown on the approved
21 plans has been constructed. The wall appears to be seven feet tall.
22 • During the December 2009 Planning Commission review and approval of the SDP/UP concern
23 was expressed by the neighbors about safety and blind spots on the project site that may occur
24 as a result of the project.
25 • Asked for a response from staff about how safety concerns and blind spots have been
26 appropriately addressed, and what will happen with the wall.
27
28 Staff:
29 • Based on field observations by the City Building Official, planning staff was made aware of a solid
30 wall on the western elevation that was not shown on the approved plans.
31 • Since finding out about the wall, staff inet with the property owner who agreed to reduce the
32 height of the wall to 4 feet and put a chain link fence on top of it. In the effort not to create a blind
33 spot at the rear of the property.
34 • City Police Captain Taylor agreed with the aforementioned solution.
35 • The project will not be finaled for occupancy until the applicant reduces the wall height.
36
37 Commissioner Helland:
38 • Has City Public Works Department been consulted regarding the base of the sign and the issue
39 of visibility?
40 • Has the store management plan as part of the project conditions of approval been submitted for
41 review?
42
43 Staff: Public Works Department determined the sign is situated far enough back from the corner and
44 driveways that there will be no line of sight issues. Before the sign is approved for construction through
45 the sign permiUbuilding permit process. Staff will ensure that the sign meets all the conditions of project
46 approval.
47
48 Chair Pruden:
49 • The height of the sign is 18.8 feet not including the base. There is the sign, the legs and the base
50 above grade and questioned whether the overall height of the sign will exceed the height of the
51 building.
52 • Received a comment from the public whether or not the newly laid sod is within one foot of the
53 trunk of the native Oak Tree.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 2
1 • It appears the applicant was stopped in the process of installing a wainscot material that was not
2 approved by Planning Commission. Asked for clarification if the letter from the project manager
3 that addresses putting up the new material as an example was accurately presented or was the
4 project stopped by staff because it was not in conformance with the conditions of approval.
5 Staff:
6 • The project manager has assured staff the sign will not exceed the height of the building, but as
7 part of the building permit/sign permit review, details will be required to demonstrate to staff that
8 the sign will not be taller than the building.
9 • Acknowledged the new material being put up was not what the Planning Commission approved
10 and therefore that component of project construction was stopped until the new material could be
11 reviewed and approved by Planning Commission.
12 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:13 p.m.
13
14 John Ramos, Project Manager:
15 • Is the Project Manager and represented the project during the original Planning Commission.
16 • Acknowledged a mistake on his part when the project was originally approved whereby slate
17 and/or natural stone was specified that was inadvertently omitted on the final drawings.
18 • The natural stone will look much better than the slate tile and ties in nicely with the natural
19 surroundings.
20
21 Chair Pruden:
22 • Decisions made by the Planning Commission are a matter of official public record so with regard
23 to the materials aspect of the project, slate tile was what was approved by the Commission and
24 not stone.
25 • Asked if the project manager misspoke about the exterior material for the building.
26
27 John Ramos: Mistakenly did not advise the Commission that natural stone was the intended material.
28
29 Chair Pruden:
30 • Discretionary review of projects is a legal hearing with binding conditions of approval and that are
31 not subject to any change without prior approval by the Planning Commission.
32 • Regardless whether or not the materials change was a mistake or the Project Manager did not
33 get the intended materials correct, it appears the intent was to `back-door' the application without
34 Planning Commission approval.
35
36 John Ramos:
37 • There was really no attempt to `back door' the matter and was of the opinion that alternate use of
38 materials was not an issue and did not think it would require Planning Commission approval.
39 • Alternate use of materials was brought to the attention of planning staff and the applicant was
40 advised that any change would require Planning Commission approval.
41
42 Chair Pruden: How was the process stopped?
43
44 Staff: The installation of the new material for the wainscot could not move forward because it was not the
45 approved material. On this particular element of the project, the Building Official determined the material
46 was not incompliance with what was shown on the approved building permit plans and therefore stopped
47 this portion of the project.
48
49 Commissioner Brenner: At the last Commission meeting there was discussion about project oversights
50 and changes that are sometimes necessary in the field to make a project work, and the BP Arco project is
51 an example of an oversight that sometimes occurs.
52
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 3
1 Chair Pruden:
2 • The system worked because the Planning Commission is reviewing the project again.
3 • Commented on the change of materials and asked whether or not it would be feasible to add the
4 new stone treatment to the columns of the gas station canopy given that they are smaller in size.
5
6 John Ramos: Confirmed the application of stone on the columns of the gas station canopy would not be
7 feasible even with the change of material.
8
9 Chair Pruden: The stone material would likely be too thick for the columns. Is this the same material
10 intended for the bottom of the sign?
11
12 John Ramos:
13 • Genuine Stone Wainscot Natural Ledger—Golden White is planned for the base of the sign.
14 • Addressed the concern of the height for the monument sign and noted precautionary measures
15 have been taken to make certain the sign does not exceed the height of the building. Explained
16 how this will be accomplished. The site is sloped from the store to the street by three feet so it
17 looks like the sign is taller than the building, but the way in which the sign is situated taking into
18 consideration the base, the sign will not be taller than the building. The base will accommodate
19 the grade differential such that the sign will not exceed the height of the building. The base of the
20 sign will be 34" high and will have the same natural stone wrap that is on the store wainscot.
21 • His role is project manager and is not overseeing the construction part of the project.
22 • Apologizes for the problems that have occurred regarding the project whereby the Planning
23 Commission has had to revisit the project twice.
24 • Understands staff is not making a recommendation about the proposed new material.
25
26 Chair Pruden:
27 • The Building Official will inspect the sign for compliance with the building height requirement.
28 • Would like the store to be open and for everything to go well.
29
30 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:20 p.m.
31
32 Commission comments:
33 Commissioner Brenner: The solution to the problem turned out fine.
34
35 Chair Pruden: Likes the new material better than what the slate or tile that was originally approved.
36 However, does not approve of the process by which the applicant went about changing what was
37 originally approved whereby staff had to stop construction because of non-compliance with the conditions
38 originally agreed to.
39
40 Commissioner Helland: The process has been quite problematic.
41
42 Commissioner Sanders:
43 • Has concerns that the turf was placed too close to the trunks of the Oak trees and supports some
44 of the turf be removed. Oak trees do not do well in environments having a lot of irrigation.
45 • Likes the proposed new material and has no problem with the applicanYs request.
46 • Is concerned about the height of the wall in terms of addressing blind spots and maintaining
47 safety.
48 • Is pleased staff provided a very thorough and complete report of project issues for this meeting
49 and that staff will not sign off on the project until all project conditions have been appropriately
50 met.
51
52 Staff: Recommend asking the applicant if he is comfortable working with a landscaping professional to
53 address the tree protection issue.
54
55 PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: 6:26 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 4
1
2 John Ramos: Generally when a landscape plan is designed, there is a detail that shows sod should be
3 roughly two feet away from the trunk.
4
5 Chair Pruden: The sod is too close to the trees.
6
7 John Ramos: Noted the sod is a little too close, but because of the drainage in that area the water will
8 not stay at the base of the tree and will run off into the bioswale.
9
10 Chair Pruden: The problem that often occurs is the edging of the grass develops a root system and
11 encroaches onto the tree and its root system. The solution would be to cut the grass back a foot.
12
13 John Ramos: Cutting back the sod a foot should not be a problem.
14
15 Commissioner Sanders: Care should be given to the operation of the lawnmower and weed eater
16 around the trees also.
17
18 Chair Pruden:
19 • The project manager in his letter to staff indicated the 6' 0" wall adjacent to the motel and at the
20 rear of the property will be cut down and a 2'-0" chain link fence will be placed on top of the wall
21 and therefore this should no longer be an issue.
22 • The proposed material change to the awnings has been withdrawn by the applicant so this is not
23 an issue.
24 • Supports following best practices regarding proper care and maintenance of the existing native
25 Oak Tree and the three new Oak trees planted as part of the project. The sod shall be cut back
26 so the root systems will not be jeopardized and/or the overall health of the trees. No sod should
27 be touching any of the Oak trees. It may be that the applicanYs landscape architect can
28 determine how far the sod should be cut back. The project manager agreed cutting back the turf
29 would not be an issue.
30 • The only issue tonight is to make a decision concerning the proposed new material for the am/pm
31 building and base for the sign.
32
33 Staff:
34 • Referred to attachment 7 regarding the design of the legs for the freestanding sign and is of the
35 opinion the design is odd, in that that support columns are exposed and do not match the rest of
36 the sign. Asked the Commission to consider whether or not the stone treatment should wrap
37 around the legs of the sign for continuity.
38 • The height of the sign as shown on the signage details of attachment 7 is not what staff and/or
39 the Planning Commission approved. Staff will look at the Planning Commission conditions of
40 approval along with the sign ordinance in regards to height calculations. Planning staff will make
41 certain the sign complies with the height requirements as part of their review of the building
42 permit/sing permit application. The only element of the sign that the Planning Commission is
43 approving tonight is the type of material to be used on the base.
44
45 John Ramos: The reason the legs of the sign are showing and not covered with the same stone
46 treatment as the base is because this type of sign is generally designed without a base and there must be
47 sufficient space to access the cabinet underneath the sign for repair and maintenance purposes.
48
49 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:32 p.m.
50
51 Commission consensus:
52 • Supports approval of the proposed change in material from slate to stone as shown the submitted
53 plans and based on the material sample, for the am/pm building and base of the sign.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 5
1 • Okay with the design and materials for the freestanding sign and for not requiring the columns to
2 be covered with stone material; understands the need for sufficient space for sign maintenance;
3 provided it does not exceed the height of the building.
4
5 Staff asked the Commission to complete the language for the findings on page 2 and 3 of the staff report.
6
7 Commission provided language on page 2 of the staff report regarding staff's analysis of the Findings
8 that reads, `The project site is located at one of the City's identified gateways and provides a first
9 impression to visitors and residents to the City of Ukiah. The change in wainscot material will greatly
10 enhance the appearance of the gateway.'
11
12 Commission added language why the Finding on page 3 of the staff report is true that reads, `There is
13 sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the structure and grounds to avoid monotony and/or box-
14 like uninteresting external appearance because of the following:
15 a. The proposed wainscot material as compared to the originally approved slate is more attractive
16 and will add more interest and color to the building.
17 b. The texture of the new wainscot material will add articulation to the building elevations.
18
19 M/S Helland/Brenner to approve Amendment to SDP No. 07-23 with Findings 1-5 as noted in the staff
20 report and with completion of the finding to address the projecYs location in one of the City's identified
21 gateways in that it will provide a first impression to visitors and residents to the City of Ukiah.
22 Furthermore that the change in wainscot material will enhance the City's gateway. The findings will also
23 include the addition of language as referenced above that the change in wainscot material and texture of
24 the new wainscot will provide sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the structure and grounds to
25 avoid monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting external appearance subject to Conditions of Approval 1-
26 6. Motion carried (4-0).
27
28 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT TO SITE
29 DEVELOEOPMENT PERMIT N0.07-23 LOCATED AT 615 TALMAGE ROAD,
30 APN 180-070-10
31
32 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
33 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
34
35 1. The proposed change to construction materials for the wainscot which is part of the approved gas
36 station and mini-market will not change the use of the land. This use of land is consistent with the
37 commerce and business uses intended in this land use designation. The project would enhance
38 the previously approved restaurant use of the site which is consistent with the General Plan
39 Economic Development goal to support a strong local economy.
40
41 2. The project site is located at one of the City's identified gateways and provides a first impression
42 to visitors and residents to the City of Ukiah. The change in wainscot material will enhance the
43 gateway.
44
45 3. The proposed project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic
46 pattern because of the following.
47
48 a. The proposed material change to the wainscot will not change the approved footprint of the
49 building nor will it cause any modifications to the site access or parking area.
50 b. On site improvements associated with the new gas station and mini-market include a defined
51 pedestrian path of travel along with a new driveway on Hastings Road and the relocation of
52 the existing driveway on Talmage Road. These improvements will not be modified by the
53 proposed changes to the wainscot.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 6
1 4. The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic
2 on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or
3 surrounding uses based on the following.
4
5 a. The footprint of the building will not change as a result of the proposed material changes to
6 the wainscot and therefore will not affect off-street parking areas, create a hazardous
7 inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses.
8
9 5. There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the structure and grounds to avoid
10 monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting external appearance because of the following:
11
12 a. The proposed wainscot material as compared to the originally approved slate is more
13 attractive and will add more interest and color to the building.
14 b. The texture of the new wainscot material will add articulation to the building elevations.
15
16 6. The approved landscaping plan will not change as a result of the proposed changes to the
17 wainscot material.
18
19 7. The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including
20 trees, shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the site.
21
22
23 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW
24 CHANGES TO THE FREESTATNDING SIGN LOCATED AT 615 TALMAGE ROAD APN 180-070-10
25
26 1. Approval is granted to allow changes to the construction materials used for the wainscot as
27 shown on the plans submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department date
28 stamped July 14, 2011 except as modified by the following conditions of approval.
29
30 2. All conditions of approval from Use Permit and Site Development Permit 07-23 remain in full force
31 and effect.
32
33 3. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
34 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been
35 applied for and issued/finaled.
36
37 4. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
38 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
39
40 5. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation,
41 specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agencies as
42 applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and
43 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved
44 and issued.
45
46 6. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
47 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
48 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
49 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
50 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
51 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
52 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
53 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
54 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
55 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
56 remain in full force and effect.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 7
1
2 10. OLD BUSINESS
3
4 10A. Workshop for the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and Land Use Development Plan
5 Guidelines. Conduct a Public Workshop to review and discuss and make a possible
6 recommendation to City Council regarding the revisions proposed to the Ukiah Municipal Airport
7 Building and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines update by the Airport Commission.
8 Continued from the July 13, 2011 meeting.
9
10 Commissioner Brenner recused himself from participating in the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building and
11 Land Use Development Plan Guidelines workshop discussion.
12
13 Chair Pruden invited the public to participate in the workshop. She recommended review and discussion
14 page by page.
15
16 Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines
17
18 Commission:
19 Q1. Has the City Corporation Yard been relocated?
20 Q2. Request for clarification page 7, Purpose, lines 8-11, `The Development of private hangars is
21 consistent with this purpose so long as the lease will transfer to the City within a timeframe that
22 allows the use of the hangar for commercial activities.'
23 Q3. Would Westside South Planning Area be a good area for a community garden use?
24
25 Staff:
26 A1. The City Corporation Yard has not been relocated at this time. Future plans at the Airport do
27 include discussions about the corporation yard relocating.
28 A2. The Airport provides for long term ground leases whereby private development on this ground is
29 encouraged and allowed. For instance, a private hangar facility could be developed on Airport
30 grounds and when the lease expires and is not renewed or is terminated the hangar facility
31 becomes City-owned for the City to lease. It could be that a person owns a hangar facility for 40
32 years, depending upon the terms of the ground lease.
33
34 Chair Pruden: Good planning takes into consideration the best and highest use for a particular area.
35 The best and highest use for Westside South is development related to Airport operations and
36 corresponding fixed base operations (FBOs)as opposed to a community garden use.
37
38 Eric Crane, Airport Commission Chair:
39 A3. The Airport Commission did consider the possibility of allowing for a community garden use in
40 Westside South during discussion of the land use plan guidelines. However, it was determined
41 much of this land is potentially contaminated from the dumping over the years of paving and
42 asphalt debris and would not be a good place to grow food.
43
44 Commissioner Sanders: The purpose statements for the different land use areas and subareas do not
45 appear to be consistent with the use tables.
46
47 Chair Pruden: There are some inconsistencies with the use tables. She is okay with the narrative portion
48 of the document.
49
50 Paqes 10 & 11, Table 1: Eastside Uses and Permit Requirements
51
52 Commission:
53 Q1. Questioned why a UP for Airplane avionics as opposed to an allowed use since this use is
54 compatible with Airport operations.
55 Q2. Page 11, questioned use categories related to storage, when Airport policy has been that
56 hangars must be used for aviation-related purposes and not for storage.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 8
1
2 Staff:
3 A1. Airplane avionics is included along with Airplane painting, body work, machine shop as an
4 allowed use with approval of a use permit in correlation with the purpose statement for the
5 Eastside use areas where the intent is to possibly develop these areas as gateway properties. As
6 such, Airplane avionics and Airplane painting etc., uses would be allowed with a use permit since
7 there is no discretion as to how these uses locate or operate which is contrary to long term
8 development intended for Eastside areas. So the only way to control this is through the UP
9 process. The Airport Commission was very thorough when describing the existing uses and
10 considering potential new uses for each area and subarea as to how this can effectively be
11 achieved in the long term distinguishing between what type of uses should be allowed by right
12 versus those requiring approval of a UP in order to achieve the purpose and vision for the specific
13 area.
14 A2. With regard to allowing 'Storage (month-to-month) vehicle, equipment, material and Storage (up
15 to 1 year) —vehicle, equipment, material, the intent is to provide for an opportunity to generate
16 revenue since the Eastside area is relatively undeveloped whereby such uses are month-to-
17 month or allowed up to 1 year must be reviewed annually and are surface only, no permanent
18 structures.
19
20 Eric Crane:
21 • Commented on allowing storage uses and noted this allows someone the opportunity to park cars
22 possibly for overflow reasons or to store equipment, materials on the Eastside since this area is
23 undeveloped and space is available in the short term.
24 • The Airport does have a hangar policy that requires hangars be used for aviation-related
25 purposes and not for storage. All hangars are required to house aircraft, but other items are
26 allowed in the hangar in addition to aircraft. A hangar cannot be used only for non-aviation
27 related uses such as for storage.
28
29 Paqes 12, Table 2:Westside Uses and Permit Requirements, Fixed Winq Uses
30 Commission: Fixed wing table, distinguish between `Airplane—flight instruction classrooms' and
31 'Airplane—flight schools with classrooms and why do the specific use designations vary with regard to
32 AC, UP or Allowed.
33
34 Staff: The intent of an Airplane-flight instruction classroom use is it is typically located in a terminal
35 building where this use would function as an accessory use to the primary terminal building use. A flight
36 instruction classroom is just a classroom with just a classroom function. It may be in terms of use
37 designation, this is too confusing and could consider changing `AC' to 'A.'
38
39 Airplane — flight schools with classrooms would require a whole facility because the classroom and
40 equipment would function together as opposed to a single classroom function without the airplane.
41
42 Eric Crane:
43 • The reason for the proposed 'AC' designation has to do with the use of the existing structure.
44 • Flight instruction classroom is interpreted to mean classroom use only whereas flight schools with
45 classroom is interpreted to mean classroom and aircraft co-located to a hangar, for instance. A
46 plane and a classroom could not be located at a terminal building. The intent of the Airport
47 Commission was not to have hangars built at the terminal building but for the airplane to park or
48 tie-down as part of the classroom instruction whereas airplane-flight schools with classrooms
49 allows for a tie-down area near a hangar, for instance, to park planes used for instruction
50 purposes.
51 • Change category Airport-flight instruction classroom to read `Airplane-flight instruction only.'
52 • Change `Airplane-flight schools with classrooms' to read, `Airport—flight schools with classrooms
53 and hangars.'
54
55 Staff: Could consider `Airport—flight instruction classroom - change AC' designations to `A' and change
56 category to read, `Airplane-instruction classrooms only.'
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 9
1 Change `Airplane-flight schools with classrooms' to read, `Airport—flight schools with classrooms
2 co-located with hangar.'
3
4 Page 13, Table 2,Westside Uses and Permit Requirements, Rotorcraft and Other Uses
5 Chair Pruden:
6 • Allowing rotorcraft uses mixed with fixed-wing operation uses on the west side of the Airport has
7 been a controversial subject because of compatibility issues associated with safety and damage
8 to personal and private property.
9
10 It was noted with regard to table 2 on page 14 the attached `1' to 'A' or`UP' references a footnote.
11
12 John Eisenzopf, Airport Tenant
13 • Is opposed to allowing rotorcraft operating in close proximity to fixed-wing operations because of
14 incompatibility issues.
15 • Is of the opinion rotorcraft operations belong on the east side of the Airport and not the west side.
16 • While the Eastside remains undeveloped and particularly undeveloped in terms of the appropriate
17 accommodations for helicopter operations, thought should be given to providing the necessary
18 infrastructure for rotorcraft as part of the ongoing Airport planning process.
19 • The Eastside will never get developed to accommodate rotorcraft if rotorcraft is continually
20 allowed to operate on the Westside.
21 • Was opposed to the relocation of Calstar to Westside North.
22 • Cited problems with rotorcraft from CAMP operations when very large helicopters park in the
23 same area as fixed-wing aircraft and associated FBO operations creating a lot of dust and debris.
24 • Another problem associated with rotorcraft operations is that helicopters randomly park, often
25 next to fixed-wing aircraft, and throw dust and debris when they hover or take off.
26 • Supports helicopters having hangars, helipads, parking areas and other necessary infrastructure
27 separate from fixed-wing aircraft.
28 • It appears there are more rotorcraft operating at the Airport than in previous years.
29
30 Chair Pruden:
31 • Pilots have indicated they would like rotorcraft operations to have their own area to minimize the
32 conflict between rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft.
33 • Questioned the use designations for rotorcraft uses in Table 2 as to whether or not the uses
34 should be allowed by right whereby a compromise may be a solution by changing the allowed
35 uses to require a UP so that a determination can be made about the appropriateness of the use.
36 • Has had no complaints about Calstar, but has had numerous complaints about helicopters and
37 where they land and the problems caused thereof.
38 • The conflict between rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft has been going on for a long time.
39
40 Commissioner Sander: Is there more rotorcraft versus fixed-wing aircraft operating now than when the
41 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan was written?
42
43 Airport Manager Owen:
44 • At the time the Airport Master Plan written, there were two based helicopter operations at the
45 Airport.
46 • Currently Calstar is the only based helicopter operation at the Airport. However, seasonally
47 particularly during the summer months, there is a large amount of helicopter traffic. This year
48 there has been a large amount of helicopter activity because of the marijuana eradication
49 operations being conducted in the national forests.
50 • The large transient military helicopters typically park on the northern portion of the Airport, but
51 because rocks are being thrown at them from State Street causing damage, they are reluctant to
52 park on Westside North and instead must park in areas where feasible, such as where the
53 Calstar helicopter used to park adjacent to the terminal building in Westside Central.
54
55 Commissioner Sanders:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 10
1 • Questioned whether or not there is something affordable that can be done to make it work for
2 people who own fixed-wing airplanes and the need for emergency helicopter services at the
3 Airport.
4
5 Staff:
6 • Staff has received no comments from pilots or other concerned persons other than the comments
7 received as part of the Airport Commission's review and revision of the Guidelines.
8 • It would be helpful if people have concerns about rotorcraft operations to make these concerns
9 on the record by sending a letter or email to staff that would be forwarded to the Planning
10 Commission because staff does not have a public record of the concerns of pilots related to
11 rotorcraft operations as expressed by Chair Pruden.
12
13 Commissioner Sanders: There was an incredible public turn out when the Planning Commission
14 reviewed the Calstar relocation project.
15
16 Staff: While there was public testimony regarding the relocation of Calstar, the comments were basically
17 from the same people and not this `out-pooring' of frustration from pilots or other persons that was noted
18 above.
19
20 Commissioner Sanders: The table with regard to rotorcraft uses is not consistent with the Ukiah
21 Municipal Airport Master Plan and/or other relevant documents.
22
23 Staff: The table is consistent with the Airport Master Plan as far as being the current location for
24 helicopters at the Airport.
25
26 Airport Manager Owen:
27 • The Airport Master Plan does not speak about putting helicopters on the Eastside of the Airport.
28 • The Master Plan suggests two helicopter parking pads be located directly east of the terminal
29 building which used to be the building where the flight school currently operates. The flight school
30 currently parks in the area the Master Plan states should be the transient helicopter parking area.
31 • Referred to the Planning Commission agenda packet for section 6, page 3 of the Airport Master
32 Plan shows helicopter operating area is identified in Westside Central.
33 • According to the FAA, helicopters do have to be allowed to use the terminal area just like fixed-
34 wing aircraft and cannot be completely banned. It would not be a reasonable and/or good practice
35 to make people have to walk long distances to get to their helicopters.
36 • Section 5 pages 18 and 19 of the Airport Master Plan addresses helicopter operations and
37 provides that:
38
39 o Helicopters should operate in a facility that they are in. It is anticipated that the operators
40 of small helicopters based at the Airport will continue to operate directly to/from their
41 respective on-airport facilities. Future decreases in demand for airplane tie-down facilities
42 could result in more apron becoming available for development of a dedicated helicopter
43 operations area on the Airport whereby a portion of an unused airplane tie-down area
44 and/or hangar apron could be developed for dedicated helicopter operations. Due to
45 uncertainty in this regard, a specific layout for this area/use has not been identified on the
46 Airport Layout Plan. Furthermore, such an area should be located near suitable
47 helicopter-oriented hangar/office facilities and should be located so as to minimize
48 helicopter/airplane operational interaction.
49 o There is a need for transient military helicopters to occasionally utilize the Airport for
50 refueling or to park on a temporary basis because of some type of operation they are
51 conducting.
52 o Due to the relatively infrequent need to accommodate such helicopters, a formal helipad
53 or approach/departure target area has not been established at the Airport.
54 o Current practice is for transient helicopters to park on the concrete apron located to the
55 east of the Airport terminal building.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 11
1 o No formal helicopter parking pads are currently designated on the Airport. However, the
2 Master Plan recommends a transient helicopter parking area encompassing 2-3 positions
3 be formally designated at the Airport whereby the concrete apron just east of the airport
4 terminal building appears to be the best location for siting these parking positions as
5 depicted on the Airport Layout Plan.
6 • The way the Airport operates in terms of interface between rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft is just
7 how it is at the Airport at this time.
8
9 Chair Pruden:
10 • Referred to page 5 of the guidelines and noted the purpose for Eastside North Subarea 3, states
11 this subarea is intended for permanent (non-transient) rotorcraft uses and should remain vacant
12 until such time as the infrastructure (such as a taxiway, utilities, etc.) can be provided to support
13 these uses. Although this subarea is intended for rotorcraft related uses, fixed-wing aircraft may
14 locate in this area provided they are associated with a rotorcraft use. Fixed-wing aircraft as a
15 standalone use is prohibited in order to retain adequate land area for rotorcraft.
16 • This purpose statement calls forth for a distinct area for rotorcraft.
17
18 Staff:
19 • The purpose statement states `until such time as the infrastructure can be provided to support
20 rotorcraft uses.'
21 • While the Eastside of the Airport is the preferred location for rotorcraft, there is no plan at this
22 time to develop it for rotorcraft uses. The Airport Commission was very clear about this matter
23 because there is no money available at this time to develop the Eastside to accommodate
24 rotorcraft uses.
25 • It is staff's understanding in working with the Airport Manager that we do not have the ability to
26 just have no home for rotorcraft operations. The Airport Commission worked very hard to find a
27 home that is consistent with the Airport Master Plan so that in the interim until such time the
28 Eastside can be developed for rotorcraft, rotorcraft has a place to locate.
29
30 Chair Pruden:
31 • Understands staff's comments, but noted the use table for rotorcraft does not have to be allowed
32 in nearly every Westside area. The uses could require a UP. Those uses allowed include
33 'rotorcraft hangars, rotorcraft medical emergency flight services (e.g. Calstar, Reach), rotorcraft
34 maintenance/repair/service/painting/body work, rotorcraft parking —transient, rotorcraft parking &
35 tie-downs, rotorcraft rental, rotorcraft sales& leasing, and rotorcraft storage &support.'
36
37 Staff: Again, the Airport Commission worked very hard and closely looked at every use and Westside
38 area before making a decision about whether a particular use should be allowed or permitted
39 based on what is most feasible for a particular area/subarea.
40
41 Eric Crane:
42 • Noted many of the allowed uses have a footnote, A(1) that indicates while the use is allowed,
43 when the Eastside of the Airport is developed and leases expire, these uses shall be relocated to
44 the Eastside of the Airport to Eastside North Subarea 3 provided the necessary infrastructure is
45 available.
46 • It is going to take a major project to make a place for the helicopters on the Eastside.
47 • From his reading about what the FAA says about helicopters is any place that has a tie-down a
48 helicopter can go.
49 • We can come up with a rule that is contradictory to what the FAA says that would put the Airport
50 in jeopardy of being a grant funding recipient or we can accommodate rotorcraft.
51
52 Chair Pruden:
53 • Is okay with accommodating rotorcraft uses, but with a Use Permit which means there is a review
54 process.
55 • The fact cannot be denied that rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft conflict with one another.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 12
1 • Problems concerning rotorcraft have been expressed by some FBOs on the Westside North due
2 to dust and debris generated by Calstar.
3
4 Eric Crane:
5 • Agrees conflict exists between rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft and had concerns about the
6 relocation of Calstar. He advocated strongly concerning the relocation of Calstar to Westside
7 North where there would be a time limit on their current lease with a statement the lease can be
8 extended it this use could be accommodated on the Eastside of the Airport.
9 • Recalled that Caltrans Aeronautics determined the best location for Calstar at this time was to
10 relocate from Westside Central to Westside North and made a recommendation accordingly. It
11 was Caltrans Aeronautics that required Calstar to relocate citing the existing location in Westside
12 Central as being a safety hazard for the operation of rotorcraft.
13 • Does not see a way for 'rotorcraft parking —transient and rotorcraft parking &tie-downs' to not be
14 allowed because certain rotorcraft operations would not come to the Airport if theses uses
15 required a UP so rotorcraft can land. The Airport can either have an allowed use to deal with the
16 reality as to how this area will be used by persons `having bigger sticks' than we have or face the
17 potential of setting ourselves up for problems by making the uses require a Use Permit.
18 • His preference is to require Use Permit for rotorcraft uses and to encourage a helicopter use on
19 the Eastside.
20 • Is concerned with formulating a rule that ends up not being followed because of the concept of
21 the rule.
22
23 Chair Pruden:
24 • Mr. Crane makes a good argument in terms of `rotorcraft parking — transient' and `rotorcraft
25 parking &tie downs' and why it should be allowed as opposed to a UP.
26 • A UP would allow another review process to see where these uses d occur.
27
28 Eric Crane: Relative to the other rotorcraft uses in the Table, his preference is for a UP, but respects the
29 other members of the Airport Commission preferences that he may have disagreed with during plan
30 guidelines discussions of rotorcraft.
31
32 Commissioner Helland:
33 • Does not feel comfortable second guessing the document that has been revised by the Airport
34 Commission during the last year and a half.
35 • Problems with the document should have been brought to the Airport Commission since that
36 Commission is the expert.
37 • Would like to hear about the process and what the vote was in determining the different levels of
38 review for the zones/areas and the corresponding uses.
39
40 Staff:
41 • Recalled that Calstar was allowed to relocate to Westside North because a Determination of
42 Appropriate Use was made by the Airport Manager and City Planning Director.
43 • The process was quite interesting because there was only one Commissioner representing the
44 helicopter side of the discussion and he was very well-rounded.
45 • The Commission no matter what the individual preference concerning the elements of the
46 planning document worked together until the Commissioners came to some kind of consensus
47 or agreement about an issue.
48 • Recalled that Mr. Crane was not entirely comfortable with allowing rotorcraft uses by right on the
49 Westside of the Airport, but rather with approval of a UP. Part of the discussion was that the
50 Commission could require a UP when the truth of matter in some areas this is not consistent
51 with the Airport Master Plan so it will not matter what the table says as the table will have to be
52 changed to be consistent with the Airport Master Plan.
53 • Additionally, if the table is not consistent with the FAA requirements, the Guidelines would be
54 preempted by the FAA and the use would be allowed.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 13
1 • Is of the opinion the Airport Commission decisions concerning the rotorcraft use table
2 designations for the specific zones was not always their preference, but understood in what
3 circumstances they were preempted.
4
5 John Eisenzopf:
6 • Was present for most of the process concerning revisions to the guidelines.
7 • Referred to the use table for rotorcraft and while he understands the use designations for
8 rotorcraft parking questions some of the other uses that are allowed by right or allowed by right
9 with the footnote on the Westside and they include `rotorcraft hangars, rotorcraft medical
10 emergency services, rotorcraft maintenance etc., rotorcraft rental, rotorcraft sales & leasing and
11 rotorcraft storage & support equipment.' Does not support these allowed use designations for all
12 cases because consideration is not effectively given to impacts to neighbors, fixed-wing aircraft
13 and hangars. It also removes any incentive whatsoever for developing the Eastside of the Airport.
14 • Does not approve of the Use table for rotorcraft as drafted.
15
16 Chair Pruden:
17 • Recommends leaving the `rotorcraft parking — transienY and `rotorcraft parking & tie downs' as
18 allowed uses and changing all the other rotorcraft uses to a UP for `rotorcraft hangars,
19 maintenance, rental, sales & leasing and storage & support equipment.' Is of the opinion, with
20 these changes the Airport would not be in violation of any other requirements.
21
22 Eric Crane:
23 • Questioned whether rotorcraft maintenance, repair etc. should be changed to a UP which would
24 mean a business like T&A Aviation doing maintenance on a helicopter would require a UP.
25 • Further questioned what would occur for rotorcraft medical emergency flight services.
26
27 Chair Pruden:
28 • An existing business would be a legal non-conforming use and would not require a Use Permit.
29 • Medical emergency flight services would be allowed until the lease expires and then a Use Permit
30 would be required.
31
32 Staff: Clarified just because a tenant might be doing some type of use does not mean it is legal and non-
33 conforming, it just means he/she is doing something. There are times research is necessary to see if the
34 use was actually approved. There is a concern that just because someone is working on rotorcraft and
35 has rotorcraft in a hangar does not mean the use was approved. Does not want people to assume that a
36 particular use is non-conforming and allowed to continue because this may not be the case.
37
38 Chair Pruden: The uses would be looked at when a new business is proposed.
39
40 Eric Crane: Asked if at some future date if the Eastside of the Airport were developed to accommodate
41 rotorcraft, would T&A Aviation, for instance, be allowed to maintain helicopters in their hangar, which is
42 located in Westside North?
43
44 Chair Pruden: Would be allowed to maintain a helicopter in the hangar with approval of a Use Permit.
45
46 Eric Crane: Part of the rationale concerning rotorcraft maintenance and repair is as an allowed use is
47 when a helicopter needs repair, this space would be better utilized for this type of use rather than for
48 taking off or landing and cautioned modifying this use because it is necessary to have facilities that do
49 offer special services on the Westside.
50
51 Chair Pruden: How would a new rotorcraft maintenance/repair business be treated?
52
53 Eric Crane: Does not have a problem with allowing someone to maintain rotorcraft maintenance and
54 repair on Westside North because the space would not be used for rotorcraft taking off or landing many
55 times a day. The point being Calstar takes off and lands many times a day whereas a rotorcraft
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 14
1 maintenance/repair business would mean a rotorcraft would land once and be in the repair shop for
2 awhile and then leave. There is no rotorcraft traffic being generated on a regular basis.
3
4 Chair Pruden: How to treat rotorcraft hangars, A(1)or Use Permit once the lease expires.
5
6 Eric Crane: Could not speak for the Airport Commission and supports the recommendation of A(1).
7
8 Staff:
9 • Much of what the Airport Commission worked on during the process of reviewing the land use
10 plan was making sure not to discriminate against helicopters at the Airport and were highly
11 concerned about not having at least one location where rotorcraft use was allowed by right. This
12 was the issue and is the reason the rotorcraft uses in the table are allowed by right in Westside
13 North and Westside Central as opposed to a Use Permit.
14 • It appears the preference is to allow any airplane to locate anywhere on the Airport grounds and
15 for making sure there is no space for a helicopters to locate on the Westside may be
16 discriminatory.
17 • The Airport Commissioners are the airport experts and took great measures to be fair and
18 reasonable about what should occur.
19
20 Chair Pruden: Recommends: 'Rotorcraft rental', change all A(1) to UP, `Rotorcraft sales & leasing'
21 change all A(1)to UP and `Rotorcraft storage & support equipment,' change all A(1) to UP. In this way do
22 not have to wait for a lease to expire.
23
24 Eric Crane: While the aforementioned recommendation is appealing supports going with the use
25 designations in the table.
26
27 Staff: Westside Central is recognized in the Airport Master Plan as the location for helicopter operations
28 (see Building Area Issues, section 6 page 3) of the Plan. The uses in the table must be consistent with
29 the Airport Master Plan. The use designations recommended in the use table were crafted to give
30 helicopters a location at the Airport so by not having a home for rotorcraft uses on the Airport, a person is
31 suddenly required to always have a use permit for a rotorcraft use whereas if a person has a fixed-wing
32 operation or works on a fixed-wing aircraft he/she does not have this limitation.
33
34 Chair Pruden: Helicopter uses would be allowed by right on the Eastside of the Airport if the master plan
35 document was written correctly.
36
37 Airport Manager Owen: The intent of the table is to make the use designations fair to all users of the
38 Airport without discriminating between fixed-wing and rotorcraft by requiring a UP for a rotorcraft use and
39 allowing by right a same or similar uses for Fixed-Wing aircraft.
40
41 John Eisenzopf:
42 • Regarding the matter of discrimination, uses must be compatible with one another. In this case,
43 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter are not compatible with one another and should have separate
44 areas in which to operate.
45 • At the time the Airport Master Plan was written, there was no helicopter FBO like Calstar at the
46 Airport other than a few helicopters that were based for occasional use.
47 • The current Guidelines approved by Council about five years ago is the better document because
48 it spells out and added detail about what the Airport Master requires in the way of future
49 development and use.
50 • In his opinion, the existing Guidelines is the more appropriate document because potential and
51 future building area issues talked about in the Airport Master Plan were addressed by the Airport
52 Commission at that time in the Guidelines document. Westside North was not recognized as a
53 location for helicopter operations.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 15
1 Chair Pruden: According to page 5 of draft revised Guidelines rotorcraft uses are allowed in Westside
2 North.
3
4 Commissioner Helland: Requested clarification why the Land Use Plan allows rotorcraft in Westside
5 North when the Airport Master Plan does not recognize this location for helicopter operations.
6
7 Staff:
8 • The proposed revised Guidelines are not in conflict with the Airport Master Plan.
9 • The existing Guidelines were not written properly as a zoning document and do not properly
10 address use and the permit requirements.
11 • The document confuses conditional and allowed uses with site development permit and use
12 permit throughout the document.
13 • The intent of revising the Land Use Plan was to make it a proper planning document and to
14 address uses as would be done for any zoning document.
15
16 Eric Crane: Added it was later discovered the current Land Use Plan that was adopted was not the
17 version that should have been adopted.
18
19 Commissioner Helland: Would like to view the land use plan that was adopted and the one that should
20 have been adopted and would like both documents included as part of the information provided at the
21 next meeting for the Guidelines.
22
23 Page13
24
25 Chair Pruden: Inquired why the Picnic area/primitive parking area located in Westside Central is not
26 allowed in Westside North, Westside Central or Westside South.
27
28 Eric Crane: Clarified this area is an airside use with a grassy area where planes can park. Some airports
29 have an actual campground area where people can land a plane and taxi off and set up a tent and this is
30 what this use pertains to. It is not an area where people can go to have a picnic.
31
32 Chair Pruden:
33 • Recommended specifying the use to read, `Airside Picnic area/primitive parking' if this is just a
34 grassy area where people can park planes.
35 • Requested clarification that `pilot lounge' is an ancillary or accessory use to the airport terminal.
36
37 Staff: A Pilot lounge can be an accessory use in the terminal building or as part of a hangar.
38
39 Paqe 14. Table 2: Westside Uses and Permit Requirements
40
41 Chair Pruden: Requested clarification the `Storage (month-to-month) vehicle, equipment, material and
42 storage (up to 1 year)' can occur if space is available.
43
44 Staff:
45 • The uses represent the same scenario as these same uses in the Eastside. Whether or not the
46 uses are allowed for a particular area depends on whether such a use would be feasible if space
47 is available.
48 • Keep in mind there are the uses that are allowed by the Guidelines document and those uses that
49 are approved as part of the lease. A potential developer or tenant may begin the process by
50 looking at the Land Use Plan Guidelines document and then speak to the Airport Manager about
51 the likelihood of a project or use.
52
53 Airport Manager Owen: Leases are reviewed by the Airport Commission with a recommendation to
54 Council.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 16
1 Paqe 15
2
3 Chair Pruden: Referred to the narrative that reads, `The development of structures or other permanent
4 fixtures in the area between the Airport Property Line (APL) and the Building Restriction Line (BRL) are
5 prohibited if it is determined by the Airport Manager that they could impede aircraft operations' and asked
6 if the BRL area should also have Airport Commission review.
7
8 Airport Manager Owen: It may be important for the City Engineer to come and survey areas that involve
9 the BRL.
10
11 Commissioner Helland: Noted there was previous discussion that such a determination can be made by
12 the Airport Manager, City Engineer and/or Building Official.
13
14 Staff: Noted a determination would be made by a combination of City staff to include Airport Manager,
15 City Engineer, Building Official and Planning Director.
16
17 Pages 16 & 17.
18 Grammatical errors were recognized and changed.
19
20 Page18
21 Commission Helland: It appears the parking requirements were reversed for uses, `freighUshipping with
22 no customer counter service and with customer counter service.'
23
24 Paqe 19—no discussion
25
26 Paqe 20
27
28 Chair Pruden:
29 • Okay with language, `Tree species shall be primarily deciduous.'
30 • Small trees at maturity are considered to be 30 feet or less in height and medium trees 30-60 feet
31 in height.
32 • Does the Commission want to put in a height limit?
33 • Any existing trees over 30 feet in height should be referred to the Airport Manager in terms of
34 safety.
35
36 Airport Manager Owen:
37 • Prefers smaller trees for landscaping.
38 • Caltrans Aeronautics conducts tree inspections to ensure they meet safety requirements relative
39 to height. There are times when trees must be topped to stay within FAA height limitation
40 requirements.
41
42 Eric Crane: Areas where landscaping is required should be small.
43
44 Commissioner Sanders: Asked about Doolan Creek in the areas of Talmage and South State Street,
45 noting it to be `pretty denuded.' How is this section maintained? Is this section of the Creek located in the
46 Clear Zone? Would like to see a policy for the agency responsible for maintaining areas in the Runway
47 Protection Zone/Object Free Zone and how this works.
48
49 Chair Pruden:
50 • This area of the Creek is located in the Clear Zone and/or Object Free Zone.
51 • Areas in the Clear Zone must be kept free of tall weeds.
52 • The 'strip mall' that was allowed to be developed on Talmage Road within the departure and
53 approach pathway/Runway Protection Zone caused a tremendous amount of problems.
54
55 Staff:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 17
1 • Doolin Creek is not located within the boundaries of the Land Use Plan Guidelines.
2 • Will work on getting information regarding Doolin Creek and maintenance thereof.
3 • A plan for poolin Creek has been started but has not been completed. The hope is to complete
4 the Doolin Creek Plan at some time in the future.
5
6 Airport Manager Owen: The City Corporation Yard typically maintains that section of Doolin Creek by
7 mowing it a couple time of year.
8
9 Eric Crane:
10 • Certain areas on Talmage Road are located within the jurisdiction of the Runway Protection
11 Zone, which is an area designated by the FAA that must be clear of buildings and persons
12 because of approach and departure of aircraft from the runway.
13 • Caltrans Aeronautics reviews the Clear Zones to make certain areas are properly maintained in
14 accordance with FAA standards.
15
16 Page 21, Table: Landscaping Requirements
17
18 Chair Pruden:
19 • Questioned language, `Airside, Landscaping is discouraged' where it seems landscaping airside
20 should be prohibited.
21
22 Staff: This was the Commission's comment during the last discussion.
23
24 Chair Pruden: The exception would be landscaping in front of the terminal building in Westside Central
25 where some landscaping would be appropriate on the embankment.
26
27 Airport Manager Owen:
28 • Some type of landscaping would be acceptable on the front and backside of the terminal building
29 and commented where landscaping is being developed in and around the terminal building for
30 decorative purposes and as a picnic area.
31 • Cited the Don Albright hangar that is located airside as a site that has been very nicely
32 landscaped.
33
34 Chair Pruden:
35 • Agreed the renovation and landscaping completed by Don Albright to his hangar is an
36 aesthetically pleasing asset to the Airport.
37 • Looks at planning documents as to what is feasible at the Airport, moving forward with the
38 document. Landscaping airside is not feasible.
39 • Does not like the language, `landscaping is discouraged.' This language does not work as a
40 planning document.
41 • Recommends airside, language read, `Landscaping is prohibited except the Westside Central
42 area.' This would allow flexibility to landscape the embankments since this is a presentation area.
43 • Supports landscaping landside.
44
45 It was noted if landscaping exists, it is highly important it be properly maintained.
46
47 Commissioner Helland: Noted the table does require landscaping/irrigation plan.
48
49 Eric Crane: The intent of the language, `landscaping is discouraged,' is if the desire and ability is there
50 and it is feasible, that landscaping is an option that is available.
51
52 Staff: The way the table reads is standards are provided that shape and direct how landscaping should
53 occur. The language reads that while, `Landscaping is discouraged, when landscaping is provided, it shall
54 be consistent with the requirements of this table.'
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 18
1 Chair Pruden:
2 • With regard to the table concerning landscaping, how will landscaping be regulated if the
3 language reads, 'landscaping is discouraged.' The language is open-ended and needs to be
4 specific.
5 • This language leaves a loophole subject to interpretation with regard to what elements constitute
6 landscaping based on what is feasible, particularly airside.
7
8 Airport Manager Owen:
9 • Landscaping or the extent thereof would be left to the tenant.
10 • The intent is if a tenant proposes a nice landscaping plan, he/she has that opportunity.
11 • The language says `landscaping discouraged' not prohibited, airside.
12 • The table provides the corresponding standards that must be applied for landscaping.
13
14 Eric Crane: Invites the Planning Commission to take a tour of the Airport so as to better understand the
15 Airport Commission's reasoning for why the Plan was written as it is taking into issues airside, landside
16 and the uses recommended for the various areas and subareas.
17
18 Staff: If landscaping is proposed for a project airside that it be subject to the Airport Manager's approval.
19 If the landscaping is not part of the project, it is doubtful whether landscaping would be proposed.
20
21 Chair Pruden: Landscaping airside needs to have Airport Manager approval.
22
23 Paqe 22
24
25 Chair Pruden: Language should reflect that all permits must be secured before leases or agreements
26 are finalized. This allows that before leases are executed that `all entitlements' are in place. In other
27 words, it should be made clear that Use Permits and/or Sight Development Permits should be in place
28 before a lease agreement is signed to avoid problems that can occur with a lease being signed and a use
29 or development proposed that is not compatible with Airport land use documents.
30
31 Staff: Is unsure if such language is necessary in the guideline document, but can be added if this is the
32 direction from the Commission.
33
34 Airport Manager Owen: With the exception of month-to-month leases, City Council reviews and
35 approves all leases, including ground leases.
36
37 Eric Crane:
38 • In the case of a ground lease such as the Gregg Taylor hangars, this type of requirement is not
39 applicable. The City leased the ground to Mr. Taylor and he built the hangars. City Council has no
40 authority over leasing of the Taylor Hangars. It is Airport policy that hangars must be used for
41 aviation-related purposes whereby there have been policy violations associated with the Taylor
42 Hangars.
43 • Cannot speak for other Airport Commission, but Chair Pruden's recommendation to include
44 language that entitlements must be in place before a lease agreement is signed is a reasonable
45 check.
46
47 Paae 23, no discussion
48
49 Paae 24
50
51 Chair Pruden: Recommends adding the same language as written for `compatibility criteria' section on
52 page 2 of the land use plan document be included as section 4 on page 24.
53
54 Commission consensus:
55 • Pages 1, 2, 3: No change.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 19
1 • Page 4, line 13: Duplication, strike B-1 (Approach/Departure Zone &Adjacent to Runway).
2 • Page 5, line 13: Change land `are' to land `area.' Line 12, question spelling of`standalone.'
3 Standalone is one word.
4 • Pages 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: No change.
5 • Page, 12: Flag for more review, Airplane—flight instruction classrooms and Airplane—flight
6 instruction classrooms.
7 • Page 13: Change picnic/primitive parking to `Airside Picnic Area/Primitive Parking.'
8 • Page 14: No change.
9 • Page 15: Add language relevant that area between the APL and BRL concerning development of
10 structures of other permanent fixtures must be reviewed by a combination of the Airport Manager,
11 City Engineer, Building Official, or Planning Director.
12 • Page 16, line 16: Grammatical error, change to read, `which allows the development of certain
13 low-intensity land uses.'
14 • Page 17, Line 29: Grammatical error, change to read, `Premanufactured structures shall be large
15 enough to accommodate and provide access for aircraft.'
16 • Page 18: Reverse parking requirements for freight/shipping with no customer counter service and
17 with customer counter service.
18 • Page 19: No change.
19 • Page 20: Required landscaping for areas shall be small having a maximum 30-foot height at
20 maturity.
21 • Page 21: If the preference is not to have landscaping airside, language should reflect
22 `landscaping prohibited airside unless approved by the Airport Manager' but if someone is
23 interested and can create an appropriate plan, landscaping should be considered.
24 • Page 22: Add language that UP and/or SDP must be secured and/or in place before a lease
25 agreement is signed.
26 • Page 23: No change.
27 • Page 24: Add `Compatible Criteria' section same as written on page 2 of the land use plan to be
28 included in the Determination of Appropriate Use section.
29 • Pages 25, 26, 27: No change.
30
31 There was discussion about whether the issue of noise at the Airport should be a part of the document. It
32 was noted the Airport has a Neighborhood policy about quiet flying and this matter does not need to be
33 addressed in the guideline document.
34
35 Commissioner Helland appreciates Airport Chair Crane's comments about the document and document
36 process.
37
38 The Planning Commission will continue review of the document before making a recommendation to
39 Council concerning adoption.
40
41 There was discussion about how Determination of Appropriate Use works for projects, including the
42 Calstar relocation project.
43
44 There was also discussion about the Airport Commission's process for making decisions about the
45 Guidelines document and why.
46
47 John Eisenzopf: Further questioned table 2 with regard to helicopter uses and allowing such uses to
48 operate on the Westside and it being contradictory to the Airport Master Plan.
49
50 Commissioner Helland: Expressed concern about Mr. Eisenzopf's comments regarding rotorcraft
51 operations on the Westside being contradictory to the Airport Master Plan and desires to have more
52 information in this regard from other relevant Airport documents for the next Planning Commission
53 meeting on the Ukiah Municipal Airport Building Area and Land Use Development Plan Guidelines.
54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 20
1 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
2 The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be discussion about the DEIR for the Walmart
3 Expansion project.
4
5 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
6 Chair Pruden expressed how important the Airport is to her and that is why she had to be clear about
7 compatibility issues concerning the revised ALUP during the above discussion.
8
9 13. ADJOURNMENT
10 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
11
12
13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
14
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 27, 2011
Page 21
1 ITEM NO. 9A
2
Department of Planning and Community Development
L�lty of Zlkla�i 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq(a�citvofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
3
4 DATE: August 24, 2011
5
6 TO: Planning Commission
7
8 FROM: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development
9
10 SUBJECT: Redevelopment Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain
11
12
13 SUMMARY: The Ukiah City Council/Redevelopment Agency recently formed a subcommittee
14 to explore the concept of restoring the RDA's tool of eminent domain. The process was an out-
15 growth of community concerns about the Palace Hotel and other dilapidated properties. The
16 subcommittee conducted a series of public workshops with community stakeholders to discuss
17 the proposal to restore the Agency's ability to use eminent domain. The discussions included
18 whether or not the Agency should have the authority to use the eminent domain tool, and if so,
19 should it apply to the entire Ukiah redevelopment area. While complete consensus was not
20 reached, the majority of the participants agreed that the tool would be valuable for the Agency in
21 a limited area.
22
23 BACKGROUND: The Redevelopment Plan became effective in 1989 and the Agency's
24 eminent domain authority expired because the Agency never exercised its authority to use
25 eminent domain. The proposed project is an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to
26 reestablish the Agency's eminent domain authority in a small portion of the redevelopment area.
27 The eminent domain tool would not apply to residential property.
28
29 The Ukiah Redevelopment Agency has never used eminent domain to acquire any property, but
3o because of lingering dilapidated property in the redevelopment area, it may now be a useful tool
31 for eliminating blight. California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) presently provides that
32 the 12-year period for commencement of eminent domain proceedings may be extended only
33 by amendment of the Redevelopment Plan [CRL, Section 33333.2(a)(4)]. Based on the
34 potential future need for eminent domain authority, it is proposed that the Redevelopment Plan
35 be amended to extend the time period for exercising eminent domain by an additional 12 years
36 from the date of adoption of this Redevelopment Plan amendment to the year 2023.
37
38 What is Eminent Domain? Eminent domain is an action of the State or local government to
39 acquire a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or acquire a citizen's rights in property
40 with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. In the case of a
41 Redevelopment Agency using the eminent domain tool, property is acquired for the purpose of
42 eliminating blight and spawning economic development.
43
1
Ukiah Redevelopment Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain
Ukiah Planning Commission
August 24,2011
1 Project Location: The Project Area is located in a small portion of the City of Ukiah
2 Redevelopment Area. It includes the historic downtown and Perkins Street Corridor, as well as
3 a couple of larger parcels such as the railroad depot site and a portion of the Pear Tree
4 Shopping Center. It is generally bordered by Oak Street on the west, Highway 101 on the east,
5 West Clay Street on the south, and Smith Street on the north.
Eminent Domain Boundary
Ukiah Redevelopment Project Area
� C'�49LISUR �(uK� , �
?OK4Yfi'/E � . . . .
j�PF9'.i+. w
z j Z��3
a ��-i 1 a�
r] yi
"�4V.,�. � � i
'^Nu'� � n _ � L .
� USN @:
��4?t r G�SON�T.
��RiF �' � �OR6 L��ca'� r
.y _ AY. �.�—� _ �.
Q ��y cYPR` I CLA A�E. �+i .
�4=' '&;;, `�P
°j �'', ,no� �1 � W � �•�'' �s0
; -� �- 1 :S�0. �'Q� .
�p�R r'�i � � a ct
c�nenaat�E kR��?� ST.
. . �{c. - - '� SEMI T
- 5;:.41i?�- ' ^I lw __ �
u'Vrt ,.. KUR'�N' � � �� . � �o:
�f'I G
5
Nl_CLRti. ' � ci
�
r.a�lEa�t�0. .q,51L � B
>
o � �t't
�v«�r;n�'F . �a �
� � A
R1ENGd��NO �
��tiAV� �' x �
°aex� U� AvE � z
F �
� r Fitl T. i
z u � �s
7, m .�
� z g L• T9��Vln �
� `�r TINGSAVf, ��Eq a
rl � �.E � °
iv.a 5 AU@. _ ��
� � a �
6 , � 0 8. c
� 9Ca � g � � �
�b � o
� PDUL68CT I' d :�
Y
�n'eMSA�/ rtl
�EFFER50
;RtS`4VE'.N(�R. .��Q.�
�lR�`yyS . �.
� �.
Y�
N
^
0
r����NR�.- _ ti
6 0.5 1 1.5 2 O
Miles
� Eminent Domain Boundary
� Ukiah Redevelopment ProjectArea
� Ukiah Ciiy Limit
�
Ukiah RedevelopmentAgency June 2D11
6 Eminent damain RedevelopmeM Plan Amendment
2
Ukiah Redevelopment Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain
Ukiah Planning Commission
August 24,2011
1 PRIMARY ISSUES: The primary concern expressed during the workshop process was the
2 potential for abuse of the authority by the Agency. There was knowledge about cases in other
3 communities where Redevelopment Agencies were aggressive with the use of eminent domain,
4 and legal and ethical ramifications resulted. Those opposed to the use of eminent domain felt
5 that the market should dictate change or that the City should enforce existing regulations in the
6 Municipal Code to eliminate blight. Supporters of eminent domain felt that the existing
7 regulations were not robust enough to effectively confront and eliminate severe blight.
8
9 It was suggested by some that if the tool of eminent domain was to be restored, that it be limited
10 to a targeted property or two rather than be applicable to the entire Redevelopment Plan area.
11 After considerable discussion, the proposal to limit it to the area depicted on the map on page 2
12 was supported by the majority of workshop participants.
13
14 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: California State law requires the Planning Commission to
15 review the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment and associated environmental review
16 document, and prepare recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council.
17
18 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment is considered a
19 "project" by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, and therefore is subject to
20 environmental review. Staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study to determine if restoring
21 the tool of eminent domain would have significant adverse impacts on the environment.
22
23 Staff was able to conclude that restoring the tool of eminent domain to the Agency's tool box
24 would not in and of itself result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. There would
25 be no construction or development or any alterations to the existing physical environment. Staff
26 is therefore recommending the approval of a Negative Declaration for the project.
27
28 The Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration were sent to the State Clearinghouse
29 for distribution to, and review by State agencies. At the conclusion of the review period, no
3o State agencies responded and therefore no response to comments have been prepared. After
31 the close of the review period, the State Regional Water Quality Control Board sent a letter
32 agreeing with the finding that no environmental impacts would result because no construction or
33 development was proposed.
34
35 CONCLUSION: After a series of community stakeholder meetings, the City is pursuing an
36 amendment to its Redevelopment Plan to restore the use of eminent domain in a limited area.
37 As required by State law, Staff is seeking the Planning Commission's recommendations on the
38 proposal as well as on the suggested Negative Declaration.
39
40 RECOMMENDATION: 1) Discuss the proposed Redevelopment Plan amendment and
41 Negative Declaration; 2) Conduct a public hearing; and 3) Formulate recommendations to the
42 City Council and Redevelopment Agency.
43
44 ATTACHMENTS:
45
46 1. Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration
3
Ukiah Redevelopment Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain
Ukiah Planning Commission
August 24,2011
k
� .. . . � � ��� ��t Y .... ... .... .. � . .. .. � .
alifornia nvironmental uality ct
INITIAL ENVIRCJNMENTAL STUQY
AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATIGIN
Ukiah Redevelopment Area
P1an Amendment: Eminent Damain
Department
of
Planning and Community Development
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 1
Cit �C,iah
INITIAL ENVIR4NMENTAL STUDY
Department of
Planning and
c°"'mu"'�, Ukiah Redevelopment Area
Development
Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain
Project Title: Ukiah Redevelapment Area Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain
Project Proponent: City of Ukiah
Project Contact Person. Sage Sangiacomo, Assistant City Manager (707) 463-6213
CEQA Gontact Person: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development (707)
463=6219/300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482
Lead Agency: City of Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development— 300
Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 �
Project Description: The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment would authorize the Ukiah
Redevelopment Agencyto acquire certain properties by eminent domain within a limited partion of
the redevelopment project area. '
The City of Ukiah Redevelapment Agency is proposing to reestablish the time period in which the
Agency can exercise its authority#o acquire property in a small portion of the Redevelopment Area.
No other amendment or modification ta the Redevelapment Plan is proposed under this action.
The Redevelopment Plan became effective in 1989 and the Agency's eminent domain authority
expired because the Rgency never exercised its authority to use eminent domain. The project for
purposes of this analysis is an Amendment to the Redevelopment P1an to reestablish #he Agency's
eminent domain authority in a small portion of the redevelopment area. Hawever, the Agency will
not have the authority to acquire by eminent domain property upon which any persons reside. This
is a legal proceeding utilized to change ownership of privately-held property.
To date the Agency has not exercised its eminent domain authority to acquire any praperky in the
Project Area; however, in arder to successfully redevelop the Project Area the Agency believes that
it may be necessary to utilize eminent domain in the future. California Community Redevelopment
Law (CRL) presently ,provides that the 12-year period for commencement of eminent domain
proceedings may be extended only by amendment of the Redevelopment Plan [CRL, Section
33333.2(a)(4)]. Based on the potential future need for eminent domain authority, it is proposed that
the Redevelopment Plan be amended to extend the time periad for exercising eminent domain by
an additional 12 years from the date of adoption of"this Redevelopment Plan amendment to the
year 2Q23.
lnitial Environmental StudylNegative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 2
What is Eminent Domain ? Eminent domain is an action of the state or local government to
acquire a citizen ' s private property, expropriate property , or acquire a citizen 's rights in property with
due monetary compensation , but without the owner's consent. In the case of a Redevelopment
Agency using the eminent domain tool , property is acquired for the purpose of eliminating blight and
spawning economic development.
Project Location : The City of Ukiah , Mendocino County , California is located approximately 60
miles north of Santa Rosa , California . The Project Area is located in a small portion of the City of
Ukiah Redevelopment Area (see map on page 6) . It includes the historic downtown and Perkins
Street Corridor, as well as a couple of larger parcels such as the railroad depot site and a portion of
the Pear Tree Shopping Center. It is generally bordered by Oak Street on the west , Highway 101
on the east, Wesfi Clay Street on the south , and Smith Street on the nvrth .
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting : The City of Ukiah is located in Mendocino County , in
California 's north coast area , and is the county seat for Mendocino County . The City is surrounded
by forested hillsides , agricultural land , and urban development outside the City' s boundaries . The
Russian River lies along a portion of the City's eastern border (Riverside ParK) , and Gibson , Orrs ,
and Doolin Creeks pass though the City . Within the City limits is a mixture of residential ,
commercial , public and industrial land uses . The land uses bordering the small portion of the
redevelopment area where eminent domain would be reestablished include residential , commercial ,
and public.
General Plan Designations and Zoning Classifications : The Project Area is comprised of a
number of parcels containing three General Plan land use designations . These Land Use
Designations include :
• Commercial (C)
• Medium Density Residential ( MDR)
• High Density Residential ( HDR)
Zoning designations include the following :
• Community Commercial (C- 1 )
• Neighborhood Commercial (CN )
• Heavy Commercial (C-2)
• Medium Density Residential ( R-2)
• High Density Residential ( R-3)
Other agencies whose approval is required : In addition to the Redevelopment Agency approval ,
the Redevelopment Plan Amendment must also be approved by the City Council . No other public
agencies whose discretionary. approval is required have been identified .
Background : The first Redevelopment Plan for the City of Ukiah redevelopment area was adopted
in 1989 . At that time , it included a provision that provided the Agency the tool of eminent domain .
Because the Agency never utilized the tool , its authorization for its use subsequently expired . The
Agency now desires to reinstate the eminent domain tool in a limited portion of the redevelopment
project area .
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 3
In 2010 , a Redevelopment Agency Ad Hoc Committee invited key community stakeholders to a
series of roundtable meetings to discuss the possibility of reinstating the eminent domain tool in the
redevelopment project area . While complete consensus was not reached for reinstating the tool , a
majority of the participants favored a limited use of it in a small defined area .
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected :
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, as
indicated by the checklist and corresponding discussion on the following pages .
� Aesthetics � Agricultural Resources � Air Quality
� Biological Resources � Cultural Resources � Geology / Soils
� Hazards & Hazardous Materials � Hydrology / Water Quality � Land Use / Planning
� Mineral Resources � Noise � Population / Housing
� Public Services � Recreation � Transportation /
Traffic
� Utilities / Service Systems
DETERMINATION : On the basis of this initial evaluation :
� 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 effect on the environment there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required .
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a " potentially significant impacY' or " potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards , and 2 ) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required , but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed .
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards , and ( b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION , including revisions or
mitigatio ea ures that a imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required .
Signatur .
Char y um , Director
Pla i an Community Development Date : � � �� l
Initial nvironmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 4
PURPOSE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study has been prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 , to
determine if the project, as proposed , would have significant adverse impacts on the
environment.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Review of the proposed project to reinstate the eminent domain tool in a limited portion of the
redevelopment plan area would not adversely impact the environment because it does not
involve any construction or development and it would not change or alter in any way the
General Plan Land Use designations , zoning classifications and development opportunities on
the properties within the affected area . Moreover, all future development would be subject to
discretionary review and CEQA analysis to determine , based on the type, size and intensity of
individual projects whether or not they would have a significant adverse impact on the
environment.
PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD : June 13. 2011 throuah Julv 13. 2011
All written comments on the proposed Negative Declaration must be submitted no later than
5 : 00 pm on July 13, 2011 to Charley Stump , Director of Planning and Community Development,
300 Seminary Avenue , Ukiah . Failure to submit written comments by the July 13 , 2011 deadline
or to testify orally at the City Planning Commission hearing on August 10 , 2011 and future City
Council/Redevelopment Agency may preclude raising an issue in a subsequent legal action to
challenge the decision of the Agency or the City, if that issue was not raised and considered by
the City and the Agency during the hearing or in response to written comments .
The Ukiah City Planning Commission will discuss and consider making recommendations to the
City Council and Redevelopment Agency on the proposed Negative Declaration on August 10 ,
2011 at 6: 00 p. m . or soon thereafter as the matter can be heard . The discussion will include
public comment and will be conducted in the Ukiah City Council chambers, 300 Seminary
Avenue , Ukiah , CA.
Initial Environmental StudylNegative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 5
Eminent C��main Bouncfary '
Ukiah R�devetopment Prajec[Area
; � � 3_� .. � � l..�i._r-.
..�.� r � , . f
' 1 Y�1V����i� _ ttt?KI f _�
� . � ,,
.,..,
I?. �7
� ' ��� ,� �,�P��"�' � ��
�, � !
�., _ '
.w.�� � �.� �� " . �P
� �, �i
_.._� � �tk i, . .�e� [
..... _... ..... _._ _... .... ._.� ��..,.,_ �t ... � .._. :. F .._ ........ �°t .._ ... ..... ._.. .........
t CC�Cy � .,.� ��:: ,,;s.,
t �����i� ��+' � � P, � `
� w� ` USNST. � '�>.
?'��� et; � x��
-����� ,� ��"V��t� T
� �
„ �� �t
�� � GYPRE � �" �� � ��,
t` ,,`t� �" ����'^.�°�� � �
,'���...���� . � .,�� � � ��������e�:��.������ �+
�. ,a,;�,r _-�t� " �`�', �' �'
��o�,r�a�vc. ,��� �� ��r:' . i:
o �� �` ,
,�:�s�� .� ���� � `
�: ��� �� °�
� �xo�,.� ' f e� -� � `��
...� � � ��..{ � " vJ ' i .
�` x 1"�L�§��3`�` �� � �' ��* �' . ��,� .
`� �G�I.V�€{'C����t � !�
�.��
�5 � ��� -� � �� �� � � �
�_ ,, � � � <
' � ��.�:�� ��,��,�� ����� ��� : � ���
���C�tta �� � " �` ' �i�,
�-}
'', t'/'_ _.�.l�� ����,m w�M.. �� �.. ��`'i
A� ;�
�����`,k�� ua�,. � � � ���l�� t�r ����
_ y<r�� ��Y� �»€:� � , : �.�
���_�a ���;,,�` - �� �'
_,}i`:l. � � ,� � s�v� r�a a� �R����� ��
�� , � .., � � �I
��
� �����"� , � i- ��
, �� ` � � �� m E
����� '����..� � ��� ���� � l
� wa�is�cr. � �°: � ;
� �sA � j
-��.°� Q .._7
Gt2E5Ti+tEWf�� �,
_.�_y«—���G4��"'�,��"��
� �� �� ��� �
��,K. � ��,
� �,� � �..rv._.___�
Y rot�oM a ` _'��w �� .u.
a '"4.i�1 t�� rv��
Q 0.5 � 1.5 2
Miles
Eminent Damain Boundary
� Ukiah Redevelapmenf ProjectArea
Ul�ah Gity Limit
Ukiah RedevelopmentAgency �une 2011
Eminent Domain Redevelopment Plan Amendment
Initial Environmental StudylNegative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 6
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Following is the environmental checklist form which is generally modeled after the checklist
contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines . The checklist form identifies potential project
effects as follows : ( 1 ) potentially significant impacts 2) less than significant impacts with
mitigation measures (3) less than significant impacts and 4) no impacts . A discussion of each
item identified in the Checklist follows at the end of each individual topic Checklist .
For this overall Checklist , the following designations are used :
Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant , and for which no mitigation
has been identified . If any potentially significant impacts are identified , an EIR must be
prepared .
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated : An impact that requires mitigation to
reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level .
Less-Than -Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under
CEQA.
No Impact: The project would not have any impact .
I . AESTHETICS �ess Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Would the project: Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic � � � �
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources , including ,
but not limited to , trees, rock outcroppings, and ❑ ❑ ❑ �
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character � � � �
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d ) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ❑ �
views in the area?
Aesthetics Discussion
a . The project area is neither designated nor utilized as a scenic vista . There will be no
impact.
b and c. Ukiah has many significant historic buildings , districts , events and artifacts which
relate to the development of the community . A survey of historic resource inventory of
commercial and industrial structures within the redevelopment area has been completed .
Redevelopment and secondary development may result in the loss or alteration of such
structures . However, this project is the extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain and
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 7
does not include construction or development . Because this is a legal proceeding utilized to
change ownership of privately held property , it has no potential to directly damage any historic
resource . Any future development that may occur following eminent domain proceedings would
undergo additional environmental analysis specific to the development that is proposed and
would be subject to General plan policies and City Code statutes concerning historic resources .
Therefore no impact would occur.
d . As previously stated , this project is the extension of the Agency's power of eminent
domain over the redevelopment area within the Redevelopment Project Area . Because this is a
legal proceeding utilized to change ownership of privately held property , it has no potential to
directly create a new source of light or glare . Any future development that may occur following
eminent domain proceedings would undergo additional environmental analysis specific to the
development that is proposed and would be subject to General Plan policies concerning light
and glare . Any subsequent analysis would establish the project compliance with applicable
policies . No impact.
Mitigation Measures : None required .
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Would the project: Incorporated
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
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use , or � � � �
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which , due to their location or nature , could result � � � �
in conversion of Farmland , to non-agricultural
use?
Aqricultural Resources Discussion
a . The Redevelopment Project Area is not mapped as prime , unique , or important farmland
on the state Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps . The site lies within the dense
urbanized area of Ukiah and is mapped as such on the state farmland mapping system . There
is no impact .
b and c. The properties within the Redevelopment Project Area are not under Williamson
Act contract , nor zoned for agricultural use . All of the property in the Redevelopment Project
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 8
Area has been zoned by the City for commercial , public and residential uses . There is no
impact.
Mitigation Measures : None required .
3 . AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations .
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Significant No
With Mitigation Impact
Would the project: impact Incorporated Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the � � � �
applicable air quality plan ?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ �
violation ?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ �
standard ( including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial � � � �
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a � � � �
substantial number of people?
Air Quality Discussion
a . The properties within the project area have been designated for commercial , public or
residential development uses , and therefore , have been included in development build -out
scenarios for the City as a part of its adopted General Plan . These development scenarios
have been used for forecasting air quality impacts locally and regionally. The certified 1995
General Plan EIR also assumed future development of this area and is relied upon herein .
Therefore , no conflict with any air quality plan would result, and no impact would occur.
b . Air quality within the Ukiah Valley, of which Ukiah is a part , is considered non -attainment
for State standards for PM10 . As previously stated , this project is the extension of the Agency's
power of eminent domain over the redevelopment area . Because this is a legal proceeding
utilized to change ownership of privately held property , it has no potential to directly contribute
to this condition ; additionally , as noted above , the redevelopment of the Project Area has been
included in development build-out scenarios . The certified 1995 General Plan EIR assumed
redevelopment of certain properties within the redevelopment area under the existing land use
designations , which have not been changed or modified . The 1995 General Plan EIR
concluded that air quality impacts from build-out of the General Plan land uses would not be
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 9
significant given the policies and implementation measures contained in the plan (self-
mitigating ) . The General Plan EIR was certified by the City Council . No impact .
c and d . As previously stated , this project is the extension of the Agency's power of
eminent domain over the redevelopment area . Because this is a legal proceeding utilized to
change ownership of privately held property , it has no potential to directly cause a net increase
in pollutants or expose sensitive receptors to pollutants . Any future development that may occur
following eminent domain proceedings would undergo additional environmental analysis specific
to the development that is proposed and would be subject to General Plan policies concerning
air quality standards . No impact .
e . The purpose of redevelopment is the elimination of blighting influences within the Project
Area . Eminent domain could be used to acquire properties that may produce objectionable
odors with the intent of removing the source of odor. It would not be consistent with California
Community Redevelopment Law or the Redevelopment Plan to cause objectionable odors . No
impact.
Mitigation Measures : None required .
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially �ess Than �ess Than
Significant Significant Significant No
Im act W�th Mitigation Impact
Would the project: p Incorporated Impact
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 California Department of Fish
and Game or U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans , policies , or ❑ ❑ ❑ �
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act ( including , but not limited to , � � � �
marsh , vernal 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 wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory ❑ 0 ❑ �
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources , such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑ �
preservation policy or ordinance?
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 10
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially �ess Than �ess Than
Significant Significant Significant No
With Mitigation Impact
WOUId the projeCt: Impact Incorporated Impact
� Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan , Natural Community � � � �
Conservation Plan , or other approved local ,
regional , or state habitat conservation plan ?
Bioloqical resources Discussion
a and c. The Redevelopment Project Area is not a natural area , and has experienced a
high level of disturbance from previous intensive urban development and other urban activities
as well as surrounding urban development. Consequently , very few remnants of native
biological communities exist within the Redevelopment Project Area . The one notable
exception is Gibson Creek, which supports fish and other aquatic populations , as well as some
riparian vegetation . However, the General Plan calls for ensuring of the health and vitality of the
creeks that flow through the City . As previously noted , this project is the extension of the
Agency's power of eminent domain . Because this is a legal proceeding utilized to change
ownership of privately held property, it has no potential to directly damage any biological
resource . Any future development that may occur following eminent domain proceedings would
undergo additional environmental analysis specific to the development that is proposed and
would be subject to General plan policies concerning biological resources . Therefore no impact
would occur.
d . The Redevelopment Project Area is located in the center of the City of Ukiah and is
intensively developed and surrounded by urban development . Any applicable native resident or
migratory species , corridors , or nursery sites have not been identified other than Gibson Creek
(see above discussion ) . There is no impact.
e . As previously stated , this project is the extension of the Agency's power of eminent
domain over the redevelopment area within the Redevelopment Project Area . Because this is a
legal proceeding utilized to change ownership of privately-held property , it has no potential to
directly conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources , such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance . Any future development that may occur following eminent
domain proceedings would undergo additional environmental analysis specific to the
development that is proposed and would be subject to General Plan policies concerning
protection and preservation of biological resources . Therefore , no impact would occur.
f. There is no adopted HCP , NCCP , or other approved local , regional , or state habitat
conservation plan that applies to the Redevelopment Project Area . There is no impact.
Mitigation Measures : None required .
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 11
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES �ess Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Significant �mpact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Would the project: Incorporated
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in ❑ ❑ ❑ �
15064 . 5 ?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant ❑ ❑ ❑ �
to 15064 . 5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic ❑ ❑ ❑ �
featu re?
d ) Disturb any human remains, including those � � � �
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Cultural Resources Discussion
a . As previously noted , extending the power of eminent domain does not have potential to
directly affect the physical character of properties . Indirect impacts from redevelopment that
may follow use of eminent domain , however, may affect historical resources . However, it is too
speculative to guess or assume what type or intensity of redevelopment would occur in the
future . Moreover, Section 3016 of the Ukiah City Code requires City Council review and
approval of the proposed demolition of building over 50 years old . It also requires
environmental review and CEQA compliance for projects involving the demolition of buildings
over 50 years old . There is no impact.
b and d . This project is the extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain within the
Redevelopment Project Area . Because this is a legal proceeding utilized to change ownership
of privately-held property , it has no potential to directly impact cultural resources . The
Redevelopment Project Area has been previously disturbed and is entirely developed . The
Figure V. 3- DD contained in the Ukiah General Plan indicates that the Project Area does not
contain areas of high cultural/archaeological sensitivity. There is no impact.
Mitigation Measure : None required .
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 12
GEOLOGY AND SOILS �ess Tnan
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact
Would the project: impact Incorporated Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects , including the risk of loss, injury, or ❑ ❑ ❑ �
death involving :
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
defineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ ❑ �
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42 .
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking ? ❑ ❑ ❑ �
iii) Seismic-related ground failure , including � � � �
liquefaction ?
iv) �andslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ �
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 potentially result in on- or ❑ ❑ ❑ �
off-site landslide , lateral spreading , subsidence ,
liquefaction or collapse?
d ) Be located on expansive soil , as defined in Table
18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code ( 1994) , ❑ ❑ ❑ �
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater � � � �
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
Geoloqv Discussion
a , c, and d . There are no known faults within a one-mile radius of downtown Ukiah . The
Mayacamas Fault is located approximately one mile east of Ukiah , according to the California
Division of Mines and Geology.
The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 regulates development near active faults
to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture and prohibits the development of structures for
human occupancy across the traces of active faults . The Redevelopment Project Area is not
located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone . The City of Ukiah is located in an area of
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 13
relatively low seismic activity and no construction or development is proposed as part of this
project . . There is no impact.
e . The City of Ukiah is located on alluvium deposits , which can increase the potential for
ground-shaking damage . As a result, structures located on alluvium can experience more
earthquake damage than those located on solid rock. Structural damage can be caused by
ground shaking . In addition , liquefaction , settlement and earthquake-induced landslides can
result . The liquefaction potential exists in low-lying areas , which consist of unconsolidated ,
saturated , clay-free sand and silt materials . To date , there is no historic evidence suggesting
that ground shaking intensities are common in the area ; therefore , the risk of liquefaction is
considered low.
The Safety Element contained in the Ukiah General Plan requires geotechnical evaluations
prepared by licensed geologists for all development along or near potentially active faults . The
geotechnical evaluations contain an analysis of the soils and geology underlying building sites ,
and recommendations for site preparation and development .
This project is the extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain within the
Redevelopment Project Area . Because this is a legal proceeding utilized to change ownership
of privately-held property , it has no potential to directly impact geological resources .
As previously stated , this project is the extension of the Agency' s power of eminent domain over
the redevelopment area within the Redevelopment Project Area . Because this is a legal
proceeding utilized to change ownership of privately-held property , it has no potential to directly
conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources , such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance . Any future development that may occur following eminent
domain proceedings would undergo additional environmental analysis specific to the
development that is proposed . No impact.
Mitigation Measures : None required .
7 . HAZARDS 8� HAZARDOUS MATERIALS �ess Tnan
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact
Would the project: impact Incorporated Impact
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 public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset � � � �
and accident conditions involving the 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?
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 14
7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS �ess Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Mitigation Significant �mpact
Would the project: impact Incorporated Impact
d ) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962 . 5 and , as a ❑ ❑ ❑ �
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or 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 airport, ❑ ❑ ❑ �
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) 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 project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ �
emergency evacuation plan ?
h ) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires ,
including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ �
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Hazards Discussion
a-d . The project is an extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain and does not
involve any specific construction , business or development activity . Hazards that may occur in
the future on land involved in eminent domain are too speculative to assess at this stage and
would be reviewed during subsequent environmental analysis . The regulations of hazardous
materials by State and Federal agencies will not be altered in any manner by the project.
Further, the purpose of redevelopment is the elimination of blighting influences , including those
associated with hazards . No impact.
e . The Ukiah Regional Airport Master Plan and the Mendocino County Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Ukiah Regional Airport show that the Project Area falls within the
most northern portions of the " C" (Common Traffic Pattern) and " B2" ( Extended Approach and
Departure) compatibility zones for the airport. Development types , densities , and required open
spaces are regulated by standards contained in the two plans . This project would not change or
alter those adopted standards and regulations . There would be no impact .
f. There are no private airstrips in proximity of the Redevelopment Project Area . There
would be no impact .
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 15
g-h . The project would have no effect on any emergency plan . It occurs on private property
and would not impair any known emergency plans or activities . Nor does the area qualify as
"wildlands" where wildland fires are a risk. There would be no impact in these categories .
Mitigation Measures : None required .
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY �ess Tnan
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact
Would the project: impact Incorporated Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste � � � �
discharge requirements?
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 level (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 pattern 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- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area , including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially � � � �
increase the rate or amount of surFace runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned � � � �
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ �
g ) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary � � � �
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Source: FEMA)
h ) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
flows?
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 16
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY �ess Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Mitigation Significant �mpact
Would the project: impact Incorporated Impact
i ) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss , injury or death involving flooding , including � � � �
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam ?
j ) Inundation by seiche , tsunami , or mudf►ow? ❑ ❑ ❑ �
Hydroloqv Discussion
a , c, d ,f. The project is an extension of the Agency' s power of eminent domain and does not
involve any specific development/redevelopment activity . The future development in the
Redevelopment Project Area will be consistent with the planned development envisioned in the
Ukiah General Plan . As previously noted , the Ukiah General Plan requires the protection ,
conservation and enhancement of local creeks and water quality. No impact .
b . The City is the only purveyor of water in the area , and provides water for residential and
commercial domestic water usage . The provision of water service to properties within the
Redevelopment Project Area for eventual commercial/residential development has been
assumed . The City's water system has been constructed to accommodate redevelopment in
the Redevelopment Project Area . For future development , the Public Works Department will
confirm the availability of water to serve the project. No impact .
e . The project is an extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain and does not
involve any specific construction , or development/redevelopment activity. The future
development in the Redevelopment Project Area will undergo separate environmental review
and will be consistent with the planned development in the City's General Plan . The storm
drainage system has been constructed to accommodate redevelopment , and the Public Works
Department will be required to confirm the availability of capacity to serve the future proposed
projects . No impact .
g , h , i . The project is an extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain and does not
involve any specific development/redevelopment activity . Future developments that may occur
on land involved in eminent domain are too speculative to assess at this stage and would be
reviewed during subsequent environmental analysis . For projects within a 100-year flood area
based on the applicable Flood Insurance Rates Maps will require further environmental
assessment specific to the redevelopment project proposed . If proposed projects are within the
100-year flood area , they will , pursuant to the existing Ukiah City Code be constructed at or
above the base flood elevation . This will avoid impacts to the floodplain . No impact.
j . The area does not experience seiches , tsunamis , or mudflow events . There is no impact
in the category .
Mitigation Measures : None required .
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 17
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING �essThan
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Mitigation Significant �mpact
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact
a) Physically 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 the general � � � �
plan , specific plan , local coastal program , or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation � � � �
plan or natural community conservation plan ?
Land Use Planninq Discussion
a . The project is an extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain over properties in
the Redevelopment Project Area . All subsequent development would be consistent with the
adopted General Plan , which serves to protect established community form and physical
arrangement. No change to the General Plan would result from the proposed project. There is
no impact .
b . The project is an extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain over properties in
the Redevelopment Project Area . This is a legal proceeding utilized to change ownership of
privately-held property , and has no potential to directly conflict with environmental plans and
policies . Any significant development would also undergo additional environmental analysis
specific to the project that is proposed . All subsequent development would be consistent with
the adopted City General Plan and Ukiah City Code . The project would comply with applicable
regulations . There is no impact.
c. The project would not conflict with an adopted HCP or NCCP (see discussion of
Biological Resources) . There is no impact .
Mitigation Measures : None required .
10. MINERAL RESOURCES �essThan
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant No
Im act Mitigation Im act Impact
Would the project: p Incorporated p
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and ❑ ❑ ❑ �
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally � � � �
important mineral resource recovery site
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 18
10 . MINERAL RESOURCES �ess Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact
delineated on a local general plan , specific plan or
other land use plan ?
Mineral Resources Discussion
a and b. The Redevelopment Project Area is located in the center of the City of Ukiah and
is intensively developed and surrounded by urban development . The area has not been
designated as a mineral resource zone or locally important mineral resource recov� ry site .
There is no impact in these categories .
Mitigation Measures : None required .
11 . NOISE �ess Tnan
Potentially Significant With Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
Would the project result in :
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the � � � �
local general plan or noise ordinance , or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise ❑ ❑ ❑ �
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ ❑ �
existing without the project?
d ) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ ❑ �
levels existing without the project?
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 � � � �
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or � � � �
working in the project area to excessive noise
� levels?
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 19
Noise Discussion
a , c, d . The project is an extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain over properties in
the Redevelopment Project Area . This is a legal proceeding utilized to change ownership of
privately-held property ; therefore , it has no potential to directly increase noise levels . Any
significant future development would also undergo additional environmental analysis specific to
the project that is proposed and would be subject to the City's Noise Standards and General
Plan requirements . There is no impact.
b. There is no groundborne vibration or groundborne noise associated with construction or
operation of the proposed future development . There is no impact .
e . The Project Area is located within two miles of the Ukiah Regional Airport . However, the
adopted Ukiah Regional Airport Master Plan and Mendocino County Airports Comprehensive
Land Use Plan both regulate the types and densities of proposed development to eliminate or
limit safety and noise impacts . All future development must comply with these regulations , as
well as with the City noise ordinance . There is no impact .
f. There is no private airstrip in or near the Project Area . No impact.
Mitigation Measures : None required .
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially �ess Tnan �ess Than
Significant Significant With Significant No
Mitigation Impact
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area ,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example , ❑ ❑ � ❑
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing ,
necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ �
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people ,
necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ �
housing elsewhere?
Housinq / Population Discussion
a . The project is extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain , which has no
potential to affect population projections , directly or indirectly . Future proposed redevelopment
projects in this area shall be consistent with planned growth in accordance with the adopted
General Plan . There is no impact .
b , c . The project is an extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain over properties in
the Redevelopment Project Area . This is a legal proceeding utilized to change ownership of
privately-held property ; it has no potential to directly impact affordable housing . Subsequent
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 20
development proposals could pose such conflict; however, any development would also
undergo additional environmental analysis specific to the project that is proposed . Additionally,
the agency must set aside 20 percent of all taxes which are allocated to the Agency for the
purpose of improving , increasing and preserving the supply of low and moderate income
housing . Since no displacement of any low or moderate income households is anticipated , there
� would be no impact in these categories .
Mitigation Measures : none required .
13 . PUBLIC SERVICES �ess Tnan
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Mitigation Significant �mpact
Impact Incorporated Impact
Would the project result in :
Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities , need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities , the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts , in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios , response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services :
a) Fire protection ? ❑ ❑ � ❑
b) Police protection ? ❑ ❑ � ❑
c) Schools? ❑ ❑ � ❑
d ) Parks? ❑ ❑ � ❑
e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ � ❑
Public Services Discussion
a-e . City police and fire serve the Redevelopment Project Area now and would continue to do
so after any future development . Land use intensification due to increased future development
could create additional demands for telephone , gas and electricity services , fire protection ,
police services , water, sewer and drainage facilities and street maintenance . However, future
proposed development in the project area would be subject to environmental review which will
identify and mitigate any public service impacts . Less than significant impacts .
Mitigation Measures : None required .
14. RECREATION �ess Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
Would the project:
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 21
14. RECREATION �ess Tnan
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact
Would the project: impact Incorporated �mpact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such � � � �
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated ?
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?
Recreation Facilities Discussion
a , b . The project is an extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain over properties in
a small portion of the Redevelopment Project Area . This is a legal proceeding utilized to
change ownership of privately-held property, and therefore would not directly affect recreational
facilities . Subsequent development proposals could increase in the demand for additional
recreational facilities . Any future proposed development will undergo separate discretionary
review and environmental analysis specific to the project that is proposed . No impact.
Mitigation Measures : none required .
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC �ess Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact
Would the project: impact Incorporated Impact
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i . e . , result in a substantial � � � �
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads , or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed , either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county � � � �
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in ❑ ❑ ❑ �
location that result in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e. g . , sharp curves or dangerous � � � �
intersections) or incompatible uses (e. g . , farm
equipment)?
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 22
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC �ess Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
Would the project:
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ �
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ �
g ) Conflict with adopted policies, plans , or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e . g . , bus ❑ ❑ ❑ �
turnouts , bicycle racks)?
Traffic/Transportation Discussion
a and b. The project is an extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain over
properties in the Redevelopment Project Area . This is a legal proceeding utilized to change
ownership of privately-held property and therefore would not directly result in an increase in
traffic . Subsequent development proposals could increase traffic, but all future development in
the Project Area would undergo environmental analysis specific to the project that is proposed
to evaluate specific impacts and craft appropriate mitigation measures if necessary . In addition ,
Ukiah General Plan policies require traffic mitigation measures/improvements when congestion
exceeds specific thresholds/levels of service . No impacts .
c and e . The project would not have any effect on air traffic patterns (see discussion of the
Ukiah Regional Airport above) or emergency access . There would be no impact.
d . The purpose of the Redevelopment Plan is the elimination of blighting influences within
the Redevelopment Project Area . To assist in the process , the Agency can use eminent domain
to improve access to properties and the Redevelopment Project Area in general . Extension of
eminent domain to allow its continued use for such purposes is viewed as a beneficial impact .
There would be no impact .
f. Eminent domain has the potential beneficial effect of permitting the Agency to more
readily increase the supply of parking . Because the sites where eminent domain may
eventually be utilized have not yet been identified , any significant indirect impacts on parking
availability , temporarily or permanently, will be evaluated during subsequent environmental
review based on the specific of any future development. No impact .
g . The project would have no effect on policies , plans , and programs supporting alternative
commute modes . Accommodations for bicycle parking will be required per existing City
requirements for future redevelopment projects . Accommodations for bus service may be
required as part of future development proposals depending on the requests of the transit
service agency . There would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures : None required .
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 23
16 . UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS �ess rnan
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Mitigation Significant �mpact
Would the project: Impact Incorporated �mpact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the � � � �
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board ?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of � � � �
existing facilities , the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing � � � �
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and � � � �
resources , or are new or expanded entitlements
needed ?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ � ❑
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the projecYs solid waste ❑ ❑ ❑ �
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal , state , and local statutes and � � � �
regulations related to solid waste?
Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Discussion
a . The proposed future redevelopment projects must be consistent with the planned
development in the City's General Plan . The City sewage system has been constructed to
accommodate build-out of the City under its General Plan Land Use Designations . The Public
Works Department has confirmed the availability of capacity to serve future build-out , and will
continue to evaluate capacity as future development or redevelopment is proposed . There is
no impact .
b and e . Both water and sanitary sewer laterals are available within the Redevelopment
Project Area . In order for future proposed development to occur, onsite connection to the City
systems may be necessary . The Public Works Department will confirm that both systems have
existing capacity if and when future development is proposed . There is no impact.
c and d . The project would not result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities or result in the expansion of the water supply (see
discussion of public services) . There is no impact in this category .
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 24
f. Solid waste is collected by Solid Waste Systems , Inc. , and disposed of at the Ukiah
transfer Station . The waste is then transported to a regional land fill with the capacity and
commitment to serve the City . No solid waste would be generated as part of the proposed
project . Therefore , no impact will result .
g . Compliance with applicable laws and regulations for all issue areas is assumed
throughout this analysis . This impact is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures : none required .
17. CLIMATE CHANGE �ess Than
Potentially Significant Less Than No
Significant With Mitigation Significant Impact
Would the project: impact Incorporated �mpact
a) Directly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions? ❑ ❑ � ❑
b) Contribute cumulatively to greenhouse gas
emissions? ' � � � �
Discussion of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a and b . The use of eminent domain would not directly result in an increase in greenhouse gas
emissions because it would not change the existing General Plan designation or zoning
classification on the subject property and no construction or development is proposed . Future
development in the Project Area would be regarded as infill development and would be served
by alternative transportation systems , existing infrastructure , bicycle lanes , and sidewalks .
Additionally, a number of Energy related policies and programs are contained in the 1995
General Plan . These included requiring all future buildings to be constructed in compliance with
Title 24 regulations and encouraging future development to attempt to reduce heating and
cooling costs with building orientation and landscaping .
It is speculative to assume what type of development would be proposed in the future . All future
proposals for development would undergo separate environmental review to determine , based on
the specifics of each proposal , if they would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions .
Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed use of eminent domain in and of itself would not alter
the way future development would contribute or not contribute to climate change/global warming .
No impact.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING : AB 3180 requires all public agencies to adopt
a monitoring and reporting program whenever they adopt an EIR or "Mitigated Negative
Declaration . " This Initial Environmental Study concludes that a Negative Declaration is
appropriate for the project ; therefore no mitigation monitoring is required .
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 25
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Does the project:
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species , cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, ❑ ❑ ❑ �
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited , but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in ❑ ❑ ❑ �
connection with the effects of past projects , the
effects of other current projects , and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Have environmental effects which will cause �
substantial adverse effects on human beings , ❑ ❑ ❑ �
either directly or indirectly?
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 26
,
RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE THIS INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
1 . City of Ukiah General Plan and EIR , 1995 , 2011 ( Draft Housing Element Update)
2 . City of Ukiah Redevelopment Plan and EIR , 1989
3 . City of Ukiah Downtown Revitalization Master Plan , 1992
4 . City of Ukiah Draft Downtown Zoning Code, 2011
5 . Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report, 1996
6 . Downtown Ukiah Streetscape Improvement Plan , 2009
7. City of Ukiah Citywide Traffic Circulation Study, prepared by Omni Means Engineers and
Planners , February 27, 2007
8 . Soil Survey of Mendocino County, Eastern Part, and Trinity County, Southwestern Part,
California , U . S . Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service , January , 1991 .
9 . A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River, Steiner Environmental Consulting ,
August, 1996 .
10 . U . S . G . S . Topographical Map , Ukiah Quadrangle , 1958 ( photo inspected 1975) .
11 . City Air Photographs , 2006
12 . Greenhouse Gas , Climate Change, and Energy, National Energy Information Center ( NEIC) -
Energy Information Administration) .
13 . Ukiah Redevelopment Agency 5-year Implementation Plan 2007-2012
14 . City of Ukiah Housing Conditions Survey, 2008
15 . City of Ukiah Unreinforced Masonry Building List
16 . Palace Hotel Structural Assessment, Tuan & Robinson , 1999
17 . Palace Hotel Structural Assessment, Point 2 Structural Engineers , 2002
18 . Palace Hotel Structural Assessment, Duquette Engineers , 2008
19 . Palace Hotel Reuse Study/Market Demand Study, Applied Development Economics, 2001
20 . Mendocino County Economic and Demographic Profile , 2010
21 . City of Ukiah Historical and Architectural Resources Inventory Report, 1984-85 , 1999
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 27
;
�i :j N GATIV E�LA ATI N
Planning and
Community
Development
Ukiah Redevelopment Area Plan Amendment
Eminent Domain
PROJECT: Ukiah Redevelopment Area Plan Amendment EminentDomain
DATE: June 1, 2011
PRQJECT '
PROPONENT: City of Ukiah
PROJEGT LOCATION: The Gity of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California is located approximately 60 miles north of
Santa Rosa, California. The Project Area is located in a small portion of the City of Ukiah Redevelopment Area (see
map below). It includes the histaric downtown and Perkins Street Corridar,as well as a couple of larger parcels such '
as the railroad depot site and a portion of the Pear Tree Shopping Center. It is generally bordered by Oak Street on
the west, Highway 101 on the east,West Clay Street on the south, and Smith Street on the no�th.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment would authorize the Ukiah
Redevelopment Agency to acquire certain properties by eminent domain within a limited portion of the redevelapment
project area.
The City of Ukiah Redevelopment Agency is proposing to (reestablish) the time period in which the Agency can
exercise its authority to acquire property in a small portion of the Redevelopment Area. No other amendment or
modification to the Redevelopment Plan is proposed under this action.
The Redevelopment Plan became effective in 1989 and the Agency's eminent domain authority expired because the
Agency never exercised its authority to use eminent domain. Tne project for purposes of this analysis is an
Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to reastablish the Agency's eminent domain authority in a small portion of
th� redevelopment area. Nowever, the Agency will not have the authority to acquire by eminent domain property
upon which any persons reside. This is a legal proceeding utilized ta change ownership of privately-held property.
To date the Agency has not exercised its eminent domain authority to acquire any property in the Project Area;
however, in order to successfully redevelop the Project Areathe Agency believes that it may be necessary to utilize
eminent domain in the future. California Community Redevelopment Law(CRL) presently provides that the 12-year
period for commencement of eminent domain proceedings may be e�ctended only by amendment of the
Redevelopment Plan [CRL,Section 33333.2(a)(4)]. Based on the potentiai future need for eminent domain autharity,
it is proposed that the Redevelopment Plan be amended to e7ctend the time period for exercising eminent domain by
an additional 12 years from the date of adoption of this Redevelopment Plan amendment to the year 2023.
Eminent domain is an action of the state or lacal government to acquire a citizen's private property, expropriate
property,or acquire a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. In
the case of a Redevelopment-Agency using the eminent domain tool, property is taken for the purpose of eliminating
blight and spawning econamic development.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The City of Ukiah is located in Mendocina County, in California's north coast area,
and is the county seat#or Mendocino County. The Gity is surrounded by forested hillsides, agricultural land, and
urban development outside the City's boundaries. The Russian River lies approximately along a portion of the City's '
eastern border, and Gibson, Orrs, and Doolin Creeks pass though the City. Within the City limits is a mixture of '
residential, commercial, public and industrial land uses. The land uses bardering the small portion of the
redevelopment area where eminent domain would be reestablished include residential,commercial, and public.
Initial Environmental StudyJNegative Declaration '
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 28
FINDINGS SUPPORTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION :
1 . Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental 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 Environmental 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 Initial Environmental 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 Environmental Study, the project will not
result in environmental impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly. .
5. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts and based on the conclusions reached in
the Initial Environmental Study, it has been determined that the use of eminent domain by the Ukiah
Redevelopment Agency in and of itself would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment for the
following reasons:
a . The project is an extension of the Agency's power of eminent domain over properties in the Redevelopment
Project Area . This is a legal proceeding utilized to change ownership of privately-held property, and would
not directly involve site preparation or construction activities. Future development in the project area would
also undergo environmental analysis specific to the project that is proposed to analyze potential impacts and
craft mitigation measures as required .
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 compliance with the requirements for
environmental review and analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Initial Environmental Study and all resources information used to perform the initial environmental
analysis may be reviewed at the City of Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development, Ukiah
Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah , California.
v�-/O - ��
C rley ump, Directo Date
lanni g and Communi evelopment
City f Ukiah
Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration
RDA Plan Amendment: Eminent Domain Page 29
1 ITEM NO. 9B '
2 '
j�r� ¢k Comrnunity Development and Planning Deparkment
��;����;�����'
Ci��,�k �� 300 Seminary Avenue
�,��� �x �,�, � Ukiah, CA 95482
w�t„s lannin .cifivofukiah:cam
(707)463-6203
3
4 DATE: ' August 24, 2Q11
5
6 TO: Planning Commission
7
8 FROM: Jennifer Fasa, Assaciate Planner
9
10 SUBJECT: Request for an Appraval of a Major Use Permit to allow the operation of an oil
11 changing business at 777 South State Street, APN Q03-050-47
12 File No. 11-08-UP-PC
13
14
15 RECOMMENDATION
16
17 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed'project based on the
18 draft findings included in attachment 1 and subject to the draft conditians of approval included in
19 attachment 2.
20
21 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
22
23 An application has been received'from Sixto Morfin`for approval of a'Major Use Permit'to"
24 operate an automotive oil changing business at 777 South State Street (See attachmenf 3;
25 Project Description): The business would have the following operating characteristics:
26
27 • Provide automobile oil changing services and fluid level check;
28 • Qays and hours of operation would be seven days a week 8:00 am to 7:00 pm;
29 • The business would have a total of seven employees with three to four employees per
30 shift one of which will be the manager.
31
32 The applicant is proposing to add an auto lift to each of the two existing bays. No structural
33 ehanges to the exterior of the building are proposed. The existing freestanding sign will be
34 refaced to display the new business name. In 2000 a building permit (Permit Number 11343)
35 was issue to Mike's Unlimited to install the existing freestanding sign.
36
37 SETTING
38
39 The project site is located on a developed lot on the r�ortheast corner of South State Street and
40 Cherry Street. The 11,252 square foot lot includes an approximate 2,700 square foot
41 commercial building with two service bays and parking lot. The property is zoned Community
42 Commercial (C-1) and is surrounded by the following uses.
Pit Stop Use Permit
777 South State Street
. File No.11-08-UP-PG
1
1
2 • North: Nair Salon zoned C-1
3 � South: Former site af Ukiah Ualley Lumber and snaw cone business z�ned C-2
4 • West: Blu� Print and Gopies and restaurant zoned G-1
5 • East: Residential zoned C- 1 and`CN
6
7 BRCKGRQUND
8
9 The site was previausly occupied by Mike's Unlimited which received a use permit (File No: Q0- '
10 55) in 2001 to expand an existing automobile detail shop to include outdoor sales of truck racks
11 and bed-liners.
12
13 The property was recently sold. The new own�rs, with this applicatian,:are reguesting approval
14 to operate an automobile oil changing business at this location.
15 '
16 STAFF ANALYSIS '
17
18 General Plan. The land use designation of the subject property is Commercial (C). This land
19 use designation identifies areas where commerce and business may occur. The proposed
20 commercial use is consistent with the General Plan designation of the subject property. The
21 actual uses allowed are determined by the zaning of the parcel (such as Neighborhood
22 Commercial, Community Commercial, or Heavy Commercial). Table 1 below pravides an
23 analysis of the General Plan goals and policies that apply to the proposed project.
24
y �. � � , � , �
��
General Plan GoalJPolic StaffjAnal sis
� �
; �. � � �� � �
. . ..i.1 1 � � .�.. ,
5. . . . . � w ... , . , . ,.
Goal ED-1. Support a strong loca/ The project would allow the establishment of a new business that
; economy. would contribute to the local economy.
The project would provide up to seven jobs for the tocal community.
The project would generate businesslicense and sales tax revenue.
Goal GP-1. Promote,attract or assist in ` Approval of the request for a use permit would allow a new business to
develaping business,particularty thase operate within the Gity that will provide local services to the citizens of
that add value to resources already the City of Ukiah along with the Ukiah Valley.
found or processed in the Ukiah Valley.
Goal GP-2.Promote business The business owner is a resident of"the Ukiah Valley and the property
development,emphasizing local owner-is a resident ofxhe City of Ukiah.Approval of thisuse permit
ownership of business in order to keep would allow local community revenues to continue to grow while
capital and growth within the staying IocaL '
community.
25 '
Pit Stop Use Permit
777 South State Street
File No.11-08-UP-PC
2
1 Zaning and Site Analysis. The zoning of the site is Cammunity Commercial (C-1). In#he C-1 -
2 district auto services are listed as a permitted use {allowed with a use permit) per section 9082.
3 Table 2 below includes the applicable requirements af the zoning ordinance v�rith staff�nalysis.
4
., � n .... " �� � ����, 4,t�' ?�;`�t�� � , ���.�, � ,.-�� �,���, a �., .... r �,;�t�'�4�5.,.,i ;...t�, t 4'a ys #?:t�sz '"�, '���:.� �? � �����,
;„y y � ",� . y ��t.. "��L N''.� :3�..�.:s �t�; l� ��, �`, }
ro ,e c.� �... ,r,a 4 �� �i�.�°l�,'„1�°�t;��.i?i .-a�,�.'.��G.`.�.�at*<t�3t .,w xit�`;�'2"`,S�";.}-: .
. ... � .F. .� , ,�.. . , ,s. �
Zoning Ordinance Requirement Staff Analysis
�i';.,�«. ',�5��..'�;?.�Y$�'i�., ,'"�."i��aa`�� � ."'�'�',�„'`��} �+sw`'`�1�`?�ax� ',�,�; ^'���. � � �.�Sr�,��,�y:"�?gf� 'c°ai,�s3�.r `��� ti�.� �e�ku �.�. s`�.z� �
s _
� -� `: �.0 '�� .���z.�§'�N �: � .�M
��� " .t �,����.,� s�.��5�,c�*�;i.��.,��x�a���l�,`� , �.,,�Y,� �a�,���:1���:;'��,4��`�`�,��`��ai�=.�k,`�.��;s,e�`.`��S�t�..yv,�k�'�4�"i�'t,'z��X��,.:s���'��
,�� �"�� ��° '�a �,���"�x � �. � `, � l;�
The zoning ordinance-includes The project site is already developed and no modifications to the -
development standards for setbacks, exterior of the building or building footprint are proposed as part of
building height,site area and yard setbacks. this applicatian.
ZO Sections 9083, 9084,9085
Please note that this site has had numerous code enforcement '
issues one of which was the construction of an accessary structure
located at the northeast side of the property that was built without
permit and constructed over the property line. The applicant
removed this structure and has been working with the Building
Official to clear all outstanding violations.
�;,, �,,t'i.a;. '���wr'`..w^.�e :,i ..�aa a , 'tj �:',', n h.�x�ti.,� u,c, .�. `z.��"£�:;,`rs t i, .,,,.��. z a�., ?� yc.'�P V's '.i, . � .
..,5 ��`�`s� �..`°�,. '�... ��`3 '�4 w,�;':.�� :��; ��'�`�s,��'��v�"�'S`�^;�d �;;�`���.tr;'.
� , �
Automobile Oil Change Business The applicant has applied for a use permit.to allow the operation of
Allowed with appraval of a Use Permit the proposed auto oil change business.
ZO Section 9082
At this time the appCicant plans to install two vehicles lifts,;one in
each of the existing bays.The applicant has indicated that in the
future he may want ta add additional lifts depending on the future
demand. Staff would like Planning Gommission to provide direction
' as to whether or not the applicant would have to return to Planning
Commission(Major Use Permit)to amend the use permit or if the
Zoning Administrator(Minar Use Permit)could review expansion
requests. Staff has included draft condition of approval#7 that
- - - - indicates any request for future expansion be reviewed by the -
Zoning Administrator.
> �..��k"$�:e �. ���;�',x �s��"� '����'�;�t ...'C,'� '�,. * �..�. `����� �"V�,�"�#�5s,stig,����+�...?�rk� s� �i�a3`��,,a„`�� '��� `S�.z �n��'Y„
i� 1'�' ..,`����, � �yt,����� ,`�,�y,'S��``� ���,� � . ` `,+`���.a �;�.�i. ���'�'�k���'����>,a�Ss-��`�t s�4 b�"C�3���.,"�.c`�e �,�,-� �.��������
� �z � �� k�v � �t , "����.�S 3� � a � fk y"������ �r�t�z�'�ri•����"�������������������������?
, � � � �x r � � �. „ r�
Section 9198 of the ZO regulates the" Vehicle Parking The proposed business will have one auto lift
minimum number of parking spaces ' located within each of the two existing auto bays.Based on this six
required for automobile serviceJrepair.The parking spaces are required by the zaning ordinance.'
code requires three(3)parking spaces for
each of the first five(5)bays'and two(2)' The site shows ten'(10)parking spaces, however staff does not feel
parking spaces for eaeh additional bay. this is a realistic number given the size ofi the lot, minimum required
Anywhere work is done is counted as a bay. parking space dimensions'(9'X 19'),neededback up room and site
No work can be performed in designated circulation. Based on staff's site visit and the site plan submitted it
parking spaces. has been determined thatthesite can accommodate eight{8)
parking spaces(See attachment#6).
Section 9086 E requires that bicycle parking
shall be provided in all commercial projects. Eight(8)on-site parking spaces would allowfar the six{6) required
The number of bicycle parkingspaces shail by the code for the auto use and would allow for employee and
be not less than ten'percent( 10%)of the customer parking.
Pit Stop Use Permit !
777 SouthStateStreet
File No.11-08-UP-PG
3
: Y
: ��x���� ���t� ���� �����,�������,� � �� ' �
>,��,. 1�����;4�4�a�cf��������5v�+` .sx'�� 1�sY x: , '., , ���
�. $y
� ��, ., �. „. � .. ��w ,, � �
number of required af
" Bike Parking.Given that there are six parking spaces required the
Zoning Ordinance required one bicyde parking space,one bike-rack
is required to be installed,in a safe location.Staff has included draft '
; conditions of approval #3b and 4b '
� �
� ., � '.. • '..�� n �.. �.� �' � k� .
5
�'� ,,a i 1 � ��.
Section 9087 of the ZO all projects that There is currently landscaping and street trees within the strip
require discretionary review within the C-1 between the street and the sidewalk. No new landscaping is '
zone shall include a landscape plan. proposed as part of`this application however draft condition of '
approval#6 has been added to maintain the landscaping in a
healthy manner.
Based on the scope of the project and the fact that there are not
any additional opportunities forlandscaping on the site,installation
of new landscaping is not required.
1
2 UKIAH AIRPORT MASTER PLAN. The'project site is bcated in the B1 airport compatibility zone. `
3 Tha Ukiah Airport Master Plan includes Table 7A: Current Compatibility Criteria (see
4 attachment). The following table includes the 61 compatibility eriteria from Table 7A that apply
5 to the proposed project and staff's analysis:
6
��,�� � .o� � � . .� �, �ti
;
�
Low intensity retail and office usesare The oil changing businesswill be similar ta a low intensity retail business
normally acceptable uses in the B1 in that there will only be 3 to 4 employees on the site at a time and given
compatibility zone. that there are only two auto lifts the number of vehicles and customers
will also limited '
Many of the customers will drop off their vehiclesand return later
therefore the amount of,people of the site would beJimited. -
The maximum density is 60 people The anticipated maximum number of people on the site is 10. This
per acre.This is the maximum number includes four employees plus customers.
of people at any time.
Based on the size of thelot(11,252 square feet)the maximum allowable
density is 15 people,as noted it is anticipated that there will be 10 people
on the site,therefore the proposed project is consistenf with the
required 61 density.
Minimum 30%"Open Land"is The open land requirement is intended to apply to the wholeBl zone.
required. , The faotprint of the building and the site configuration will not change as
a result of this application,therefore the open land available in the B1
This is applied to the entire area with zone will not change.
a B1 designation not just the project
site. Based on the 11,252 square footiot and an approximate 2,700 square
existingfoot building the open land area for the project:site is 27%.
7
Pit Stop Use Permit '
777 South State Street
File No:11-08-UP-PC
4
1 Use Permit. ln arder to approve a Use Permit, the findings included in Zaning Ordinance
2 section 9262(F1) are required ta be made. The required findings and staffs.analysis are
3 included in the table belaw: '
4 �,��:��{��� r� .��..�.e � ',�^*�:�':��`�a�.,� `�.,�.�.,,���.��..�e'v'�'4�?"��`.��4,;.�� ..,. �� �'�:� ��`.'�i�� �.`��`�,,��'"?.���.."��3'�'�,�..`„ ����2��'�;.�?..`�;����, . . ..
aq.� ,�,-...�,
�� '
„. � `� �aun � a. � .
.. ,t,r. .t,w:,„��
���� ��°�� � _ � � � �� �� Staff Anal sis �
Use Permit Findin s
The proposed land use is consistent with the The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as
provisions of this Title as well as the goals and described under General Plan above.
policies of the City General Plan.
The project is consistent with the Zoning Ordnance as described
in Table 2 above.
The proposed land use is compatible with` The project approved with conditions 'is compatible with
surrounding land uses and shall not be surrounding uses based on the fallowing:
detrimental to the pubtic's health,safety and
general welfare. * The project site is located within an existing commercial
area and is surrounded mainly-by commercial uses.
• The proposed project will occupy a building which was
previously used for auto'related services. The proposed
use is anticipated to be less intensive given that no
outside sales or equipment storage is proposed.
• The hours of operation would be consistent with other-
business in the area and is consistent with the hours of
operation of the previous business.
The project will not be detrimental to the public's health,safety
and general welfare based on the following:
• Through the use permit the operational characteristics
will be regulated,therefore the project would not be
detrimental to the surrounding uses.
• The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal,
Police Department, Building Qfficial,and Public Works
and any review comments from these departments
have been included as conditions of approvaL
. The project is required to comply with all federal,state
and local laws.
• The project is consistent with the Airport Master Plan '
B1 compatibility zone requirements as noted in Table3.
5
6 ENVIRONMENTA� REVIEW
7
8 The proposed project is exempt from the provisians of the California Environmental Quality Act
g (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c), Conversion of Small Structures, which allows structures
10 up to 10,000 square feet to be converted from one use to another in urbanized areas when the
11 use does not involve significant amounts of hazardous materials, where all necessary public
12 services and facilities are available, and the surraunding area is not environmentally sensitive
13 based on the following:
14
Pit Stop Use Permit
777 South State Street
File No.11-08-UP-PC
5
1 • The total building square footage is 2,700 square feet.
2 • The Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed ail storage and disposal plan.
3 • The location is not environmentally sensitive and no drainage c�urses or bodies of water `
; 4 (such as creeks or streams).,
5 • The site is developed with an existing building and parking lot, utilities and services
6 already are available at the site and no expansion af the existing building'#ootprint is
� proposed as part of the project. '
8
9 PUBLIC NOTICE
10
11 A notice af public hearing was provided in the following manner.
12
13 • posted in three places on the project site on August 12, 2011;
14 • mailed to property owners within 30D feet of the project site on August 12, 2011;
15 • published in the:Ukiah Daily Journal on August 14, 2011;
16
17 As,of the writing;of this staff report; no correspondence has been received in response to the
18 notice.
19
20 DECISION TIMELINE
2S
22 The proposed praject is subject to the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). The
23 PSA requires that a decision be made on the project within 60 days of the application being
24 deemed complete. This application was submitted to the Community Development and
25 Planning Department on May 24, 2011 and w�s deemed complete on July 14, 2011. As such, a
26 decision must be made on the project no later than September 12, 2011. The applicant may
2� request a onetime e�ctension of the decision'timeline. The next regularly scheduled Planning
28 Commission meeting is September 14, 2011.
29
30
31 Attachments
32
33 1. Draft Use'Permit Findings
34 2. Draft Use Permit Conditions of Appraval
35 3. Project Description submitted by applicant date stamped May 24, 2011 and July 12,
36 2011.
37 4. Photos submitted by applicant and date stamped May 24, 2011.
38 5. Airport Master Plan, Table 7A '
39 6. Plans submitted by applicant date stamped July 12, 2011.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Pit Stop Use Permit
777 South 5tate Street
File No.11-08-UP-PC
6
1
2
3 �TTACHMENT 1
4
5
6
7
8
g QRAFT USE PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW
10 ANAUTOMC?BII.E OIL CHANGING BUSINESS TO OPERATE AT
11 777SOUTH STREET, APN 003-050-47
12 PILE NO: 11-08-UP-PG
13
14 The following findings are supported;by and based on information contained in this staff report,
15 the application materials and documentation, and the public record. ''
16
17 1. The propased project, as canditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the
18 General Plan as described in the staff report and'Table 1.
19 ,
2p 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as
21 described in Table 2 of the staff report.
22
23 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is cansistent with the purpose and applicable
24 requirements of the zoning district 'based on the following:
25
26 A. With an approved use permit the praposed project is a permitted use within the
27 C-1 zoning designation. ' `
28 B. The project meets the intent of this zoning district in that the automobile oil
29 changing business will provide commercial opportunities along South State
3p Street which is the primary North -South transportation corridor within the City.
31 C. The proposed project meets the parking requirements of the zoning code in that
32 the project will provide eight (8) vehicle parking spaces and one bicycle rack.
33
34 4. The proposed project, as conditianed, is consistent with the Airport Compatibility
35 requirements for the B1 zane based on the following:
36
37 A. The oil changing business will be similar ta a low intensity retail business in that
3g there will only be 3-4 employees on the site at a time and given that there are
39 only two auto lifts the number of vehicles and customers will also limited.
4o B. The anticipated number of people on the site is 10. This includes four emplayees
41 and customers. Based on the size of the lot (11,252 square feet} the maximum
42 allowable density is 15 people, as noted it is anticipated that there will be 10
43 people on the site, therefore the proposed project is consistent with the required
44 B1 density. '
45 C. The open land requirement is intended to apply to the whole B1 zone. The
46 foatprint of the building and the site configuration will not change as a result of
4� this application, therefore the open land available in the B1 zone will not change.
Pit Stop Use Permit
777 5auth State Street
File No.11-08-UP-PC
7
1
2 5. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to public heaith, safety and
3 general welfare based �n the f�llowing:
4
5 A. Through the use permit the operational characteristics will be regulated,#herefore
6 the project will nat be detrimental to the surrounding residential uses.
7 B. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, Police Department, Building
8 Official, and Public Works and any requirements have been includes as
9 conditians of approvaL
10 C. The projeet is required ta comply with all federal, state and local laws.
11 D. The project is consistent with the Airpork Master Plan'B1 compatibility zone
12 requirements as noted in Table 3. '
13
14 6. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
15 Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c), New Construction and Conversion of
16 Small Structures, which allaws structures up to 10,000 square feet in urbanized areas
17 when the use does ,not involve significant amounts of hazardous materials, where all
18 necessary public services and facilities are available; and the surrounding area is not
19 environmentally sensitive based on the follawing:
20
21 A. The total building square footage is 2,700 square feet.
2z B. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the oil storage and disposal plan and found the
23 materials not to be hazardous. '
24 C. The location is not environmentally sensitive and na drainage courses or bodies
25 af water(such as creeks or streams):
26 D. The site is developed with an existing building which already has utilities and
27 services available at the site"and no expansion of the existing building footprint is
28 proposed as part of the project.
29
30 7. Notice of the proposed project was provided in the following manner as required by the
31 Zoning Ordinance:
32
33 A. posted in three places an the project site on August 12, 20�1;
34 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on August 12, 2011;
35 and
36 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on August 14, 2011.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Pit Stop Use Permit '
777 South State Street
File No:11-08-UP-PG
8 '
1 ATTACHMENT 2
2
3
4
5
6 DRAFT USE PERMIT CONDITIQNS OE APPROVAL TO ALLQW
� THE OPERATION OP AN AUTQMQBILE OIL CHANGE BUSINESS AT
g ?77 SOUTH STATE STREET, APN 003-050-4?
g FILE NO: 11-08-UP-PC '
10 ,
11 1. Approval is granted for operation of an automabile ail change business to operate at
12 777 South State Street as described in the project descriptions dated May 24, 2011 and
13 July �2, 201� and shown on the plans submitted to the Gommunity Develapment and
14 Planning Department, date stamped July 12, 20�1, except as madified by the following
15 conditions af approval.
16
l7 2. The use permit is granted subject#a the following operating characteristics
18 A. Hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 pm. seven days a;week.;
1g B. The business will have seven employees with three to four'employees per shift.
20 C. The business shall provide automobile oil change services which'shall include oil
21 changes, fluid check and tire pressure checks.
22 D. No tires sales.
23 E. No outside storage of materials.
24 F. Vehicles ithat are waiting for service shall be turned off; there shall be no idling of
25 engines.
26 , ,
27 3. Plans submitted far building permit shall incfude the following and are subject to staff
2g review and approval: '
29
30 A. A site plan that shows the striped parking spaces.
31 B. The location of the bike rack shall be shown on the site plan and a detail that
32 shows#he type of bike rack shall b� ineluded. tnverted " U" style rack-is
33 preferred.
34
35 4. Priar to occupancy the following shall be completed and are subject to staff approvaL
36
3� A. The parking spaces required in 3A shall be stripped. '
3g B. The bike rack required by conditian 3B shall be installed.
39
40 5. Priar to installation of any signs, application for and approval of a sign permit from
41 the Planning �nd Community Development Department is`required.
42
43 6. The existing'landscaping shall be properly maintained.
44
Pit Stop Use Permit
777 South State Street
File No:11-08-UP-PC
9
i
1 7. Request for future business expansion including additional auto lifts shall be reviewed by
2 the Zoning Administrator; unlessthe Planning Director determines that Planning
3 Commission review and approval is necessary andlor required.
4
5 From the Buildinq Official ( David Willouqhby 467-5718)
6
7 8. Building permits are required for the installation of the auto lifts and any other tenant
8 improvements praposed for#he new business. `
9 '
10
11 From the Public Works Department( Ben Kaqeyama 463-6284)
12
13 9. If the building permit value of work'exceeds $104, 730 or the proposed improvements '
14 create the net addition of two or more plumbing fixture`units'#a the building, the existing
15 sanitary sewer lateral shall be tested in accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No. ,
16 1105, and repaired or replaced if required.
17
18 10. If the building permit value is equal to or greater than one—third of the value of the
19 existing structure the construction or repair of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street`trees,
20 along the subject property street frontage, may be required, pursuant to Section 9181 of
21 the Ukiah City,Code.
22
23 Standard Citv Conditions of Approval
24
25 11. This approval is not effective until the 10 day appeal period applicable to#his Use Permit
26 has expired without the filing of a timely appeal. If a timely appeal is filed, the project is
27 subject to the outcome af the appeal and shall be revised as necessary to comply with
28 any modificatians, conditions, or requirements that were imposed as part of the appeaL
29
30 12. 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
32 been applied for and issued/finaled;
33
34 13. 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 14. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
38 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City af Ukiah and other Local, State, or
39 Federal agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire,-building,
40 electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect
41 at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued.
42
43 15. In addition to any ,other candition imposed, any construction shall camply with all
44 building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations and
45 ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued:
46
47 16. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon
48 any future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
Pit Stop Use Permit
777 South 5tate Streef
File No:11-08-UP-PC
10
1
2 17. All conditiar�s of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be
3 completed prior to building permit final.
4
5 �8. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved
6 project related to this Permit is nat being conducted in compliance with these stipulatiQns
7 and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the
8 effective date of this approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted
g has ceased or has been suspended for 24 consecutive months.
SO
11 19. This appraval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and
12 their agents, suceessors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the
13 City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim,
14 action or proceeding braught against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the
15 purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application.
16 This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses,
17 attorney fees or expert witness#ees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
18 including the applicant, arising aut of or in connection with the City's action on this
1g application, whether ar not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part
20 of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be
21 void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the
22 agreement sha�l remain in full force and effect.
23
24 '
25 '
26
27
28
Pit Stop Use Permit
777 Sauth State Street
File No.11-08-UP-PC
11
�
A�'C��`�1871��}�' �`
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I Sixto Morfin am planning an opening an oil changing business for automobiles. The '
building that I will be working out of is approximately 2700 square feet and our business
hours will be 8:00 am to 7:00 pixl seven (7) days a week.
We will have approximately seven (7) employees, their job w'rll cansist of changing oil,
checking al� fluids and checicing tire pressure.
Oil disposal will be set up with the waste management:
Sign- we will replace the company sign that has the business name:
a
�ei �;'�-�Q;��P thPm th� mynn ti._ �.
.���.���nCq !
Changes to the building-NONE
Thank you,
Sixto Morfin
i
707-263-0841 ��-
�'
���y
�� _
� ��fy
��l��, -
��
�
.
��. � �� .
� °
�
,
�
Ta Whom It May Concern: '
The Planning Permit Application that I had previously submitted listed the
property owner as Angel Morfin however the property owner is Double M Properties
LLC.
The fenced area to the north and south wi11 be left vacant. The oil
containers for oil disposal will be placed inside the storage area of the building using '(.TL
Listed Double Steel tanks 480 L, two wi�l be used if necessary.
I have decided to not do tire changes at this point in time. '
Thank you,
Sixto Morfin '
707-263-0841
� �
�
,
J(�� �,�
��
�i�
�(J1�
�
`�`�'�ir���,
�
�
����v
� �-��_��.--�-'..
�Y�,�wr'^.+'�-w'"..,.✓^'M ..-^w.w.�m""",.«e^°'"" ��������J �'+„ 3 a
�e+�'" t 1 s R .1�'°�, ;', ..
, . „mmr.-+m'+.�'" . $ 4T. X� � Y e�.-"�y4�y}���� ��'+# .
y ''t�. ��. 'v�i2*��r"�* ,giE�
` �. %� _ - � t� � Q Lk� �SkP.�"�fu a' � £iY�'`u�l� b
�) ��
.:.. �t��� �t � i � � a�`�,'���.:���k3�������.."'� � ��9 ..
� �5��i51'� �, '� i t t�. � t � � ' x"�'{ '� '� �.si� `�` ��,ite^��,� . ' �4,
6
�'z" � y�r nU , t `s�k �'�1'�§ k��`� �'����"° �.'�3 ��';
� �� � � a �� i
c�: r : � r. � �,�,t��,�Bx''�`�3 ���� ��"� �
- .�'"" „z'�' ��'�h � z � � � ��� �s �� s'��'�u �
� ' "��`�s�3 k t.� :.2 x x 1 t t.> ' � {a i s��'���`�i�j��'S'`�.�����,
.$,�.? ��u'�a�'�s 7 '�,t els ��i-��"�*��,�* s��.�i`.,i`st.��' i 3?r�r �'�, � 4� t v� . � ��f`���'� $ ��
`�. �.rik��! fY��g.�t .,��4, v�i�1
y °y�,:. ttl tv,��J �sti�t,��f��1�a,.., ��y t.,s�
r .w�1�:�.F+l e 4r�.n.,.,,� ��.� � .
� y .ti,,.k �f i�.�„ �.';�. �4,�.�,�.71
�� � w"�`�'�2���t;�v� �" Sx w,l E� �1��.,�� .,t .�� .
4m✓ � �,+r�" '�4�4 �y � +�� f`., �? �. � 's . r rz }� t ��#� �a 5 �t . .�.., J�'� �t-.,�`� � ��tyt� � ,�.t..� i,�
,i,:. .. �� �y�°�l��t;x;'�?�,�����n2 s gatt �� t �s � i :w r�"y���:,�'i,'`'` � , ,��•���€,�r�"�� �(��",�e*�,,,�tty���,yv��r����uf�� ��r�4Y�, "
x„.:. �,��.y�-t a�� �$ �;���., L.i t`�s E. � a,v t��` !.�3 r'�t:,��'i?,^f ���y x y ,, �F"L Ftt����r"'�d �n.�,':-t,���' `'"� �t I �e .( � i tf,, ���r�fr Y.aV�iGr���,, .
{it���.� m.. �`���.�5"�:k�;i��Ctx� z�a'�:��;"� � ''�'*�t.��,+����`�y�� �4�'�"���`s��������' �`�,,.xt� .0 . �
�`�. 'i�=�"�a��c r ,������ ',�� �%'��a s� `�'�j� �,��, �
� � �� ..
e
�
�
;�
,�
e �
�-�g
�q�;�� . ��.
�
�
'x"`,-�-ca I '�.
�S
�.y°" ���� �� d .�'_ ,�-.�--"`"
!,,
r.
� .
� �� � �
��� _
��� � � � ' �,
�� ��_�������,�„
� �
� � ���
; ;r, ':, `:: . �- �.~ :���: �:. 's���
� �,
``� � t ��,�:
� � bt��ff
� . :� ", " .;' y��'�#�.'�'`�2�.�!
� � �. �. t t x � y� a
� �. �, a�,.zSE .�cac;G .l „�§ `�"' '' � ��. �� �,�
�' ,? '� � 4 4 � . i � �� .. � YS'Y � e \u�l+ b w
:�,wW.�.v.„;.4, �������`���€� ,i,$�� ��� ��,�,. �kkm, , � ti,{s� .'�
�
� ,,t�a�s,���r.�s `�^'�"
���
.;Y t�
v,�., ��
� ���
�.
. . � � .. .. � .. . :�.: .. � ... ���#���� ��� ' -.�'�"`_..... .r_r �F.— —
��
� �<.
_._ �
�__..�._-,:�, ..._w..�. ..,�,_. ,.,�. �. ...._�> .,-.,..��.-' --Af»_�_� �
�'�i
At��t
� � *� 2 r. K� `�`� �
..� � ��. . ., ; h}������p� .
" Y � ,. � 1{�., �` �-
, '.'>, s"' �.... p ��' .
_ . :i;",, . , "� {4Y, ?�^#� ",� � . .
� : p
: E ., � N��'��� ��, .
�
a . � di{� �,k
"v. �.. . ,. ..
l}� Y
' 1 . '�l>^��", .., �.--.r�— .
r ,_,,,,,p— . � _ .
�q i rw:]' . .y ..� , .
7��6 0a d?i�}{ �r � �yny. :
� ��
�R" �..-�x;e*^dS'^i^ ..
�'Sa ... ��- .
� 5,�,� '�pd��n ww�uaVN�A�
v, w�n w ayW�
'N+"r�W�",�,+.�s�+,.!�+. ��,�`
.�.� .. .`. .:.,, � . : .,,n„--_ �+��:�,�o.-- .
.. , _..�..w. .—:. ......
.:s ' ; na' .. -a
�� �
^.c� »+e '�'�b!'�.g�'�.• �.`�.�'..�^�----�w—�-.�, —*^��;-�n��'
` '. '..: �. .. �„
>}�
��� "T'�'v'�'>��r�3��°� ' . .
�.,;:..�ae �� � ',
�������< �
�..,, �; . ..
?S,x .
C"� �
�
�b�,rt z
1�
4�
i�������iY��r3i��t����l��'�� �.
Y {��������i
� v
� k �
j �P
Y
� �
„ ..' . . Epj$ ? `n �
� . .e'. ���q .t #? d$g1) y. k 3 Y _
� . I
��v.'�����,�P ���,sl��k��a3���;..r �
��� �
� � �. M _ —�-ry�
:,, ._.--,—u-.—�°--=
,
�� _w_._-.--
' �� �.�w�+���
. ,.,W,> �. M+�w^""""""°.rv°�"'".+�+.
"
.?""°^" r�±,,;�.,�,.;�..�
.».,.,c,w���-.w-� .
�
�� �,.'��"«. .
���v.��� y-. 33 .
��
,��
��x� ,�� .��� ..� � � � .. . ... � .. ...
� - a ����`��� ��� a
� �
���C��"f��Cl� �'
i.and Use and,Envfranmenfat /ssues /Chapfer 7 �
.::: ;
:.:..::::.....::::..,:........_...::.:::.................... ................. ....:
..Mauciinutn Densitl'es ,
.........:..�.:...........:...:.....................:•....................:•::.:::•.............::::::::�•:::;:.::.;:;;;:;:.::::::::::::.::...:...... ::::.:::
.. .............. _...._ ..
...:::::::;:::::::.: :::.: ;..:.:.;:::::::.::;::,�;;::,::;:.::;:;;:.:;..:.:�->.:::::s::>::>::
.. . •
..Vse$:;»::`<:<::':>:s>:=;::::.::...:::;«<::::::s::>;::<
2f
:::..:::::::::::.::::::.::::::::.:•.:::::::::::.:::,:::.::::::................................
.;:;:::i:;:.�:sk:.;:st::::::;`:isi;s:»r::::::.::::::::.::.:::::>:;»:::a::;:•r.�::.:re:::x:•z::::.::;::r rv:::�:�::::::::::.::::�:::.::.........,::::.:::::::::::::::.:._.....::.::::,:.:::::.:
....:::.:::.:...::.::.:::::.::.:.:::::::::;:::.a:�•r:S;`:<::::::..;s::::;:::::i:ris::;::;::':;::i::':�;::�'r,'::::Y�:;::ti;:::::i::`'::in:t:.'r.::::c:_:. r.:.::...:.:....:�:;r:`.:i:;:1;:;tz::;:::i•':;::':":vi;::r:::;::`.:i):r::::?�;'r.::F.";.;i:i��
...::::»:;:»::>::>::;;,::,:.::<::::»»::r :.;>:; ,::>s:::>:;;;r:::�< Impad Elemenis ........ .. . .. r:> ... � Land�
.. ,..:.�:.�:,.::::. :..�.::::::.::1.acattoec.:::::::::::.:.:::..::::::::::.:�:::::::::...:::;,::::.:::.:....::.:......... .,
.::..::::::::::.::..::...::::::... :.::.::,...:..:...:::::::::::....:.:.,:::::..:.:.......:::.::..�:.::..:._......:.:,.:. ... .>::::::Res+det�tfial.<:::: >: . z ,
Zcn�.:...................:.:.:....._........ ..:::,. .:..::,:.:::.....:..:
.... ..... ......... .....:::::.,:.::..:._...::::::::::,.::...:..,.:.::::::::...::..:..:.:::,:::..:.::.,... .:.::::::::.:.:........,:.:::: :::. . .......:,:.:.:::::..::. le c:.:<.::s;::::s:::..:r:::.:>;:;;::«:;:::»::;>:><>:
:::..:.::.:::::::::.::::::.::.:�:::..:.:�:.::;.::::::::.:::.�:,....;:::,:::::::.:::,::»::::::..::..:.:.;::::;;:..;:::_::.:.::,.:;;.::::.;::. . .-, ::.:�(P�P /a }..::.. .
>:::::<<.::>:;.;::s:::::>::::s>:::s»;: :::::::::::::.::..:..................... :;:: ;.,, ,..;..:.. .. ,. :.
,: �:
:> ::
• Hi h risk 0 10 All
p� Runway Protectran Zone or 9 Remaining
:.... witl�in Buitding Restricdon • High�oise feveis Required
�: Une '
• Substar�tial risk—aircraft 1�acres 60 3Q%
:.8t.,:,.; Approach/Departure Zone and �U Fiequired
�. Ad'acent to Runway cammonly below 400 it AG�
:;;;::;:;:s,> > or within 1,000 ft of runway
::
• Substar�tiai naise -
• gi rnficanf risk—aircraft com- 2 acres 60 3096
B�_: Eactended ApproachlDeparture 9 � Recommended
::::.::::::::::> Zone ' moniy below 800 ft,AGL
• Significant noise
� ;; Common Traffic Pattern � Limited risk—aircraft at ar 15 un'rts j 5� �596
below 1,OqQ ft AGL per acre Recommended
:::: . Frequertt noise intrusion
Other Airport Environs
• Negligible risk ° No No N�
�:;..: • Fotential for annoyance f�om Limit Limit Requirement
;:' overfiights '
_:.
:<:::»::.<:::;.;::::: :::,:>....:, ...................:.
::::::..:.:::::::. ;:;;:.�»::�;:s::'zr»:=<::%
<:�riteria< _ ` �.::..;:�:;>:>.;::,::>:<:>:Exampies
.Addi�iorraE.,C. _.... :.:... ;. ...:::..::...... . . .. ...
:.. . . .. ..:... . . . ..
::. :;:::�..::<.,;::::..•;::.::>�:.:;.:.:;�<;;:«<�:aii;:<;::::::;>
L
� ::::L:. .i:.....:. .. ...
::::;:::�::r:#>::::>:;>;•.>�:».::::;>.><::<:::::;�;<:.<:;>:<:;:><::;:.� ::N cm
.. €...... .... .. ��� Ctses:.:t�aE ..� .
�:::::..::.: .. .... ::::..:.::,;:;:;.:.::.::::.;:;,,.:::.:::::.:::;:�:�:_:::,.:;,:: .:.... :.. . : ._._.... . .IF;:�::<;. .
:..::::............:...::::::::::.:.......:::.::::.........:.::::::..::.........:.:::::.... ;::::;::<:::::>; � :Acce fabte:.;.>:<::�:::;::»:..::..:...........:,::::::..:......
.... . .::.:::.::::.:.......::::::::.::::::..:..::::�.::::::::..._..:....:::::::.,........ :.......:.. _:.Nacmalt . .... . P.........:.:::::::::::::.:....:.::::::::::::�:.::::......:...:.:,:.:..:. ::;;;:;:;:;:::;>::
::: ...::.:::.:.:��::::.....::::::::::::::.:......:.::::::::::: :.::::::::.:::::: c;Devefo ment.:.,::.,:_.........:_:::.,.:,�::Y ..._. .:::..:.-.:::::..........::::::::::::...........�: .: . ... s,:::::::::::::::.
.. :..........::::::::::::::......::...:..:::...:: ...........:..:.......:.:::::::Otf�e.:.__.. P....:::::.::::::.:_.._::... :::::::::..:.......::::.. ...,:.::::::.:::::::.......:::.:::::::::.::... . :::::::::::::::::
::Zo:c�e...-:<..:::::.. :....:..... :.... x:...::::::::.._:::::::::.:::::..:::...:::..::::... ....:...:::::::.::::::,:: ::-:.�::....,.:,:::::...::: a::..,::::::.::.�:.::::::.....�::.::::.:::::: ta te..._:.:::::::::::::
:.:...::::::.:::.:::�::.:::,::;: . ....... Accep..b.._:::..:..:...::.:..:
............ ..... .... :::;::;:,::;«::::.:::::;.::::::;:.::>:>�.. . ..:::.::::•:.:::::�.:: ;.:�:::.:.;::�:.::::;. es::.:..;:;.::;:.:.::::.::::::.::.�::::.:::::.;::;::;.;::::.::.:. . .
.<::;..:,;:.;::;::;,.:..:;::<..Froh�b�ec�;>t�ses.::::::::::::::.::«::;:;:.:::;::::. ittons::;::.:::,:::�:._...::-.,::;.::.::::.::::,:::.:Us :.....:.....,......,..: . :....
<:::><:::�..:;:.;::;<�::;:::::::.:;•.:;::::::;:.:;.:<:;;:;._ ::�ond . ........:
........ .::
.., :
. ::: • Hea les,si ns,
• Alt structures except • Detlicatian af av�ga• • Aircraft tiednwn apron �Y pa 9
R
. • PasWres,fieid crops, large trees,etc.
ones with l�cation set tion easement vineyards
:"::':: by aeronauticai func-
::::::;;: • Automabite parking
:.:::>::: tion '
............
�::::: • Assemblagas oP peo-
.::::.:::::.:.:.:...
ple
• f�bjects excseding
FAR Part 77 height
limits ,
• Hazards to flights '
+ Locate structures • Uses in Zone A • Residential subdivi-
g1 '• Schools,day care . Sin le-sta offices sions
and cerrters,li6raries ma�cimum distance � ry . 1�ensive rataii uses
g2:;:::::; + Hospifals,nursing fram extended runway • 5ingle-family homes an
cerrterline an existing lot + Irrtensive manufac-
" homes . L.ow-intensi retail,of- turing or food pra
• Hi hl noise-sensitive • Dedication of aviga- �Y
: 9 Y , 'fice�etc. cessing uses
" . ; `uses (e.g.amphi- tion easeme� . Low•intensity manufac- • Multiple story offices
theaters) ��i�g • Notels and motels
: • Storage af highl�r flam- . Food processing • Multi-familiy residan-
mable materials tial
� • Hazards to flights
• Oedication of over- • Uses in Zone B • Larga shopping
G . Sahools . Parks, playgrounds malls
• Hospitals, nursing flight easement#ar � Twasto motels • Theaters,audifori-
homes9 res�de�ial uses rY
+ Hatards to flightfi • Residential subdivsions �ms
• Intensive retail uses • Large sprarts
; + fntensive manufacturing stadiums
-°��` or food pracessing uses • Hi-rise affice bui(d-
;...
``:. ....: • Multi-f3mily resider�tial ings
� � • Deed notice required • All except ones hazard-
;p ; • Hazards to flight
for residar�ial devel- ous to flight
apment
Table lA
Current Compatibility Cci��ria
Mendocino County AI.UG
7 - 12
i
��,�
Land Use and Enviranmen#ai lssues /Chapfer 7
,
N47ES
1 Residential parcels shou(d not be smalfer than the indicated size nor have more than the indicated
'number of units per acre. Maximum densities expresse� in acres are grass acres; those expressed
in units per acre are net acres.
2 The land use shoutd not attract more than the iridicated number af people per acre at any time.
This�gure should include ati individuals who may be on the property (e.g., employees, cus-
tomers/visitors, etc.). These densities are intended as general planning guidelines to aid in
' determining the acceptability of propased land usas. Special short term events related to aviation
(e.g., air shows),-as welt as non-aviation special events, are exempt from the maximum density
criteria.
3 Open iand requirements are intended to be applied with`respect to the enti�e zone. This is,typically ';
accomplished as part of the community's master ptan or a specific plan.
4 These uses typicaily can be designed to meet the density requirements and other development '
conditions listed.
5 These uses typicalty do nat meet the density and other deveiopment contlifions listed. They shauld
be allowed oniy if a major cammunity objective,is'servetl �y their location in this zone and no feas-
ib(e alternative location exists. `�
6 See Poiicy Section 3.3.
7 May be modified by airport-specific polieias.
8 In those portions of the � Zones lacated lateral to the runway, no restrictions on the storage of
flammables apply. Within the balance of the B1 and B2 Zones,,up ta 2,000 gallons of fuel or ,
flarr�ma6les is allow�d per parcel. Mora than 2;000 gallons of fuel ar flammabl�s p�r parcel within
the bafance of the B1 and 62 Zones raquires the review and appraval by the ALUC. See Append�
G for a diagram af typical area laterat to the runway.
9 Refer to Policy 3.2.3: for definitians which distinguish befween hospita(s and medicaf clinics.
Source: Mendocino Caunfy Ai�part Land Use Compafibility Plan (Qctober 1993)
Nofe: The crrferia`Ilsted in fhis fable are the countywide policies adapted by the Mendocino County Airpart Land Use
Commission. Recommended modificafions speci�ca!!y applicabte to Ukiah Municipa!Airporf are discussed on page_7-32. '
. Ta#le-7A -Continued
' 7- 13 '
� � , � , ,, � I O ' rt t -t � �-r �-�°�- �� - :� . � � � , � o,��.:. ,. . .,..... . . , __-__�
. ---
o -�1 a ,o � _ . :. � . - _ _ -
: . . _ ._._,,..
�
_ _ . _ . . .
.— � � . �
,
I . �
� �. S��a` �. _ _ - �. .
� , = � - �- I
�. . _ _ . .
I � " . , Q �� : . .
� . . �h � I
�3� f-+� . , � _. ` . ; �3 .' . I
� '` �=� � �- : }- �
� ' -
( �
,
. � a-- � �� �-�
. �. � �- � � }_ - :
,_, . I
v� - �. : .
.� ' ._l � � �`� ;
� � I�- (� 1-� � �- ' .
, � _ � �k�
�..�� � F � E� ` , I .
. , ; . . ::; _ _ . _ . _ . . ._
----��- � : . �
. � . _ . �
. . ' _ - ✓�� �� �
� � � _ , .,_. _ . �" �2 �
-� ' � ' � _ _
� �r w- - _ . _. . . . .. � � � � � � • �� .. . . :. . . . .:� . .. ._ . . . , . . . . _ . �y/y_�� �0�� � -.+�
�' �' - _ �,�
, ; , � ,
�
�-. . C� . . . �F
, ; , , � . _ �� �`� �. �,.
�. ti , . : �
I . �
. � . �1�
� ar,l
. � � , (
. - ,�-1�1 � �{�,-- . :. .
� - � . � � -
S�,F� : �
_ �`- � � ,
� : .
I . � . , , . ,
�� , .
. - - -� ,
� . l�,ip 4�: � • , , �'� .
I -�.� �� t � � . , ;;
� � if:'
, ' ' � I �� . - . .
' `� ��� \ . � : . . ,
� -�� � .
' � � t
� � - . ;�� .
� ��
I �� � : . ���--1 � � ._
�� . �
, �
� . . . . -
.
. . .
. . ...._ , . ,. . . . _
. : . _ ,
�` +.� ,
J�, :
� - . � � 1�� , ` .
I Ci . �
. I . '. ` . . .� . . - . • . . � '
. i 1 . . ' . . - '
! ,� 1 c�v:' 'r� \ � �
; _ .
�