HomeMy WebLinkAbout11122014-packet zoning regulations. The Project includes the construction of one single-family home
with attached garage and landscaping on each of the four vacant parcels located at
123, 125, 127, and 129 Ford Street. Continued from the October 22, 2014
meeting
10. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Mendocino R/C Raceway Use Permit and Site Development Permit, 1147
North State Street (File No.: 163). Consideration and possible action on a
request for approval of a Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow a
raceway for electric radio controlled cars on the rear of the property located at 1147
North State Street, APN 001-360-24.
B. Burger King Renovation Site Development Permit, 711 East Perkins Street
(File No.: 422): Consideration and possible action on a request for approval of a
Site Development Permit to allow renovation of the building fa�ade, modifications
and new signage, parking lot maintenance, new landscaping, and replacement of
parking lot lighting with LED fixtures at the Burger King restaurant at 711 East
Perkins Street, APNs 179-061-34 and 179-061-04. The application also includes a
request for approval of modifications to the landscaping requirements.
11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
13. ADJOURNMENT
Americans with Disabilities Act Accommodations.Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a
meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend.The City complies with
ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call (707)
463-6752 or(707)463-6207 to arrange accommodations.
1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 October 22, 2014
3 M i n utes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair
7 Kevin Doble, Vice Chair
8 Linda Sanders
9 Judy Pruden
10 Laura Christensen
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Kim Jordan, Principal Planner Listed below, Respectively
14 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
19 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
20
21 2. ROLL CALL
22
23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the August 13, 2014 meeting are included for
26 review and approval.
27
28 M/S Doble/Christensen to approve August 13, 2014 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried with
29 Commissioner poble and Commissioner Pruden abstaining.
30
31 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
32
33 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters heard at this
34 meeting, the final date to appeal is November 4, 2014.
35
36 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
37
38 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff.
39
40 9. PUBLIC HEARING
41 9A. Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development Plan 123,
42 125, 127, and 129 Ford Street (File No.: Munis 258). Consideration and recommendation to
43 City Council to: 1) adopt a mitigated negative declaration; and 2) introduce an ordinance to
44 rezone the Project parcels to Planned Development / High Density Residential in order to
45 establish the Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development with precise development plan and
46 planned development zoning regulations. The Project includes the construction of one single-
47 family home attached garage and landscaping on each of the four vacant parcels located at 123,
48 125, 127, and 129 Ford Street.
49
50 Principal Planner Jordan presented the staff report:
51 � The Planning Commission must first consider the environmental document prior to a
52 recommendation to City Council for the rezone to allow the establishment of a new Precise
53 Development Plan for development of the four parcels.
54 • Staff recommends the Planning Commission make a recommendation to Council to adopt the
55 mitigation negative declaration and to introduce an ordinance to rezone the subject property to
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 1
1 the Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development with Precise Development Plan in conjunction with
2 the Planned Development regulations for the project as provided for in attachment 7 of the staff
3 report.
4
5 Commissioner Pruden:
6 • Requested clarification, Planning Commission is to make a recommendation to City Council
7 regarding adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission typically
8 approves this document for projects.
9 • Referenced page 3 of the staff report and asked for clarification regarding the language in lines
10 16 through 19 pertinent to the 2007 rezone and precise development plan. Acknowledged the
11 Planning Commission does approve projects that never come to fruition.
12 • Noted that the site was previously developed with a commercial shop.
13
14 Commissioner poble:
15 • Is the recommendation to be made by vote?
16 • Requested clarification the proposed project is a new project and not a revision.
17 • If the proposed project does not move forward can the 2007 approved project be built?
18
19 Chair Whetzel:
20 • Requested clarification the house located at 137 Ford Street will continue to be subject to the
21 conditions of approval for Ordinance 1092.
22
23 Principal Planner Jordan:
24 • Planning Commission approves Mitigated Negative Declaration when the Commission has
25 decision making authority over the project. In this case, City Council is the decision maker and
26 the Planning Commission is the recommending body because it is a rezone.
27 • Confirmed the recommendation is made by vote.
28 • Clarified:
29 ➢ City code allows approval of a PD rezoning to be extended for up to six years. The proposed
30 new application was submitted before this expiration date of the 2007 PD.
31 ➢ There were specific conditions of approval in ordinance 1092 that approved a previous
32 precise development plan that states the City is required to go through revocation
33 proceedings in order to expire the previous precise development plan. The City never
34 initiated this process. Because of this condition of approval the 2007 precise development
35 plan is the approved plan for those parcels. No one has been interested in moving forward
36 with the 2007 precise development plan.
37 ➢ The applicant does not want to build the project approved by the 2007 precise development
38 plan. The new owner of the property and applicant for the project being reviewed tonight
39 proposes a new precise development plan. The City process for amending a precise
40 development plan is to go back through the process that created the original precise
41 development plan.
42 • An unusual situation occurred for the four parcels and the parcel located immediate to the east
43 (137 Ford Street) that is developed with a single family home. 137 Ford Street will continue to be
44 part of the PD established in ordinance 1092 for the 2007 rezone. However, 137 Ford Street was
45 not part of the 2007 precise development plan, only the four vacant parcels were part of the
46 precise development plan.
47 • Confirmed the Project is a new project. Determined the Initial Environmental Study for the 2007
48 PD was not able to be used for the new project since there were so many differences in the two
49 projects. Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to adopt the new
50 Mitigated Negative Declaration.
51 • Confirmed the 2007 approved project could be built if someone wanted to do this since the initial
52 project has not expired because no revocation proceedings were made by the City as required by
53 the conditions of approval for revocation of the precise development plan.
54 • It is likely a condition of approval should be included for the new project that the new precise
55 development plan supersedes the 2007 precise development plan.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 2
1 • Confirmed the residential unit located at 137 Ford Street is required to comply with the conditions
2 of approval for Ordinance 1092. The house at 137 Ford Street was never a part of the initial
3 rezone and precise development plan proceedings. The precise development plan did not affect
4 that particular parcel. It was the larger parcel that was subdivided into the four vacant parcels
5 included in the precise development plan and one remainder located at 137 Ford Street that was
6 developed with one single-family residence. This is the only reason the house at 137 Ford Street
7 had a connection to the 2007 rezone and precise development plan.
8
9 Mitiqated Neqative Declaration
10
11 Commissioner Sanders:
12 • Referred to a section of email correspondence dated August 19 2014 to Planning staff from the
13 California Department of Fish and Wildlife incorporated as attachment 1 in the minutes that reads,
14 `a relatively narrow buffer of vegetation exists along Orr Creek in the area of the development.
15 Project documents describe Lot 1 as consisting of 34% natural vegetation. (The assessment from
16 Criss Tree Care identified many of the trees as Valley Oak with California Cottonwood on the
17 creek bank. The project description discusses additional riparian vegetation.) In addition to
18 protection of trees during construction as outlined in the document, native vegetation should be
19 retained after construction to the extent possible. The City of Ukiah should consider a deed
20 restriction or other enforceable instrument to ensure that riparian and other native vegetation
21 adjacent to the creek is retained,' and did not see this language in the environmental document
22 and/or any response from staff to this statement.
23 • Concerned was expressed about bare ground in the back yards where the recommendation
24 made by California Fish and Wildlife was that native plants be used for landscaping in the back
25 yard and to not use invasive plant species.
26 • Noted there is an extreme problem with invasive plants behind the house located to the east
27 where some of these same plants have Russian River protection agencies concerned. Has
28 concern if there is to be no landscaping in the back yards how are we going to prevent the new
29 owners of the housing project from planting whatever they want? Does not see how the Planning
30 Department will be able to encourage the planting of native plant species.
31 • Found the bare ground issue needs more environmental consideration so while waiting for the
32 lots to be tenanted does not understand why the developer is not looking at hydro-seeding or
33 some kind of native seeding at least to prevent any kind of sedimentation from getting into Orrs
34 Creek.
35 • Related to the swale design and since there will be no on-site property manager and/or someone
36 having authority for the swale as far as how it will be maintained questioned how this issue will be
37 addressed.
38 • Related to the bioswale design as shown on the site plans asked the Commissioners if the design
39 adequately addresses drainage?
40 • It is unclear in the environmental document how many trees will be removed for the Project. Has
41 knowledge six street trees will be planted and is unclear whether or not the planting of new trees
42 is a one to one replacement. The arborist report does not specify how many trees are to be
43 removed. Questioned why the number of trees being removed was not specified in the
44 environmental document.
45 • Received comments from Bruni Kobbe concerning the arborist report (See attachment 2 of the
46 minutes) and read it into the record. Bruni Kobbe advises in her correspondence she is not an
47 arborist.
48
49 Principal Planner Jordan:
50 • What staff did was discuss the project and the recommendations with CDFW staff. Staff then
51 sent draft mitigation measures for the proposed project to CDFW for review and approval. CDFW
52 approved the mitigation measures for the project and did not request any additional mitigation
53 measures. (See attachment 1 of the minutes).
54 • Referred to Attachment 7, Page 4, `Plant Species': These are the zoning regulations. They do
55 not require a deed restriction; however, the zoning regulations state `In order to protect Orrs
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 3
1 Creek and the habitat it provides, the planting of known invasive species and species identified in
2 the California lnvasive Plant Council's data base is prohibited on all lots.' This requirement is a
3 mitigation that was reviewed and approved by CDFW. The zoning regulations also include
4 language that that the zoning regulations include requirements for the protection of Orrs Creek
5 that were developed in consultation with CDFW.
6 • One of the items talked about was moving the fence for Lot 1 five feet back from the top of the
7 bank and having the fence run parallel to the top of bank. CDFW was okay with the fence in this
8 location since it would prevent people from entering the creek and disturbing the existing
9 vegetation and did not request additional mitigation measures.
10 • The intent with regard to the email correspondence between Planning and CDFW staff was to
11 write mitigation measures and have California Fish and Wildlife sign off on them and include them
12 in the Initial Study, which was done.
13 • One of the mitigation measures addresses how soil should be treated to make certain there is no
14 run-off while waiting for the backyards to be landscaped. It requires plans submitted for building
15 permit to show how the bare dirt will be covered prior to installation of landscaping by the home
16 buyer. Acknowledged that nothing will be planted initially in the backyards of the lots so there
17 should be no concern about the potential plantings of invasive plant species. The home buyers
18 for each of the four lots have to comply with the zoning regulations which do not allow for the
19 plantings of any invasive species.
20 • Referred to attachment 7 of the staff report, page 3, `Drainage/Bioswales' (Orr Creek Homes PD
21 zoning regulations that replace the R3 zoning regulations): This section requires home owners to
22 maintain the bioswales and prohibits removal or modification of the bioswales/drainage without
23 the review and approval of Public Works and Planning staff.
24 • It appears approximately five trees are to be removed along the western property line as a result
25 of the Project. The arborist report refers to the trees being removed as `Group D trees' and did
26 not specify a number. Accordingly, the environmental document references `Group D trees' as
27 those trees being removed.
28
29 Commissioner Pruden:
30 • Also questions the continuity of the bioswale and how these will be properly maintained if there
31 are no CC&Rs for the project.
32 • Questioned how easy is it to `ruin/damage'the drainage system?
33 • The landscaping plan indicates the removal of one tree on the west side of the property.
34 • There is no such thing as a perfect environmental document. The Mitigated Negative
35 Declaration/Initial Study appears to do what it should and has no issue with the check marks
36 associated with impact significance after mitigation to less than significant. The Commission may
37 want to add some mitigation measures that can probably be done as conditions of approval.
38 • Is okay with the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
39
40 Commissioner poble:
41 • Is of the opinion, the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the environmental document does
42 not adequately address how the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual
43 (LID Manual)adopted by City Council in June 2014 applies to the project.
44 • One issue with the Mitigated Negative Declaration is there is no mention of the LID Design
45 Manual being adopted by the City in June 2014 and how it applies to the project. The proposed
46 Project likely qualifies as a LID project which means the Project should conform to the LID
47 Manual design requirements.
48
49 Principal Planner Jordan:
50 • This project application was submitted in May 2014. The LID Manual was adopted on June 2014
51 by Council so the proposed Project is not subject to those requirements.
52 • City Public Works Department has been working with project civil engineer Ron Franz to include
53 LID measures for the project, so it is more compliant with the intention/requirements of the LID
54 Manual. However, the Project is not subject to those requirements.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 4
1 Commissioner poble:
2 • Acknowledged the aforementioned information and would like the facts checked. Does not see
3 anywhere in the City Code when Council adopted the LID Manual where `pipeline' projects were
4 exempt. The actual LID Manual gives an effective date of June 1, 2010 for new projects.
5 • With regard to the engineering report submitted, a comparison was made of pre and post-
6 development runoff scenarios based upon the previously approved development as to the
7 existing site conditions and finds the report rather weak. Is of the opinion clarification is necessary
8 for pipeline projects before the Commission recommends this project to Council. If the Project is
9 not a pipeline project, need to determine how it can be compared to the previously approved
10 project and not the existing site conditions and still achieve the level of treatment that is required
11 by the State Water Resources Control Board which the City agreed to participate in when it
12 adopted the LID manual.
13 • Has concern when there is no mention in the hydrology and water quality of the
14 application/implementation of the LID Design Manual for the proposed Project. Is of the opinion
15 there should be some discussion about City policy related to pipeline projects and LID
16 requirements. Is further of the opinion that the document being silent on this issue could
17 compromise the Mitigated Negative Declaration and project.
18
19 Principal Planner Jordan:
20 • Planning staff has been working with the Public Works Department since the Project first came in
21 and has been informed it is not subject to the LID Design Manual.
22 • Referred to attachment 3 of the minutes and clarified according to City Resolution 2014-27 on
23 June 10, 2013 the City of Ukiah submitted a Letter of Intent to the NCRWQCB to participate in the
24 regional storm water program. The Resolution authorizes the adoption and directing the
25 implementation of the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (LID
26 Manual) for storm water permit compliance to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control
27 Board as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Permit no.
28 CA0025054 for storm water discharges. The permit requires that permittees implement an LID
29 Manual for use by the project designers and review staff to promote effective LID design. The LID
30 Manual was formally adopted in June 2014 and Orrs Creek Homes Project was submitted in May
31 2014. Understands the City had an MS4 Permit with the State Water Resources Control Board
32 prior to when the actual resolution was adopted in June 2014.
33
34 Commissioner poble:
35 • During the adoption of Resolution 2014-27 according to the Agenda Summary Report dated June
36 18, 2014 states the City Attorney reviewed the draft LID Manual and pointed out the effective of
37 LID Manual was June 1, 2010. There was no discussion in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
38 about this information. Related to pipeline projects, his concern is the LID Manual should be
39 referenced in the Mitigation Negative Declaration for this project for informational purposes.
40 • It is not clear in the written documents that there is an exemption for pipeline projects.
41
42 Commissioner Pruden:
43 • Has knowledge of projects that were approved under old regulations before they were revised
44 and noted things like this happen.
45
46 Principle Planner Jordan:
47 • Understands Commissioner poble's concern related to LID design exemptions for pipeline
48 projects.
49 • It is my understanding that the informal practice by Public Works has been that projects submitted
50 prior to the adoption of LID Manual on June 18, 2014 has been to work with applicants to have
51 LID improvements in the project that meet the intent of the requirements. There is no formal
52 policy related to pipeline projects. This is likely the reason for not bringing up the issue of pipeline
53 projects in the Initial Environmental Study.
54 • Would like to have some direction from the Commission as to what you would like staff to do.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 5
1 Commissioner Sanders:
2 • Would like reference to the LID Manual document in the environmental document and make
3 certain the applicant or project designer abide by it.
4 • Related to page 31 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration emphasized the importance of
5 mitigation measure of subsection 2 that reads, `Plans submitted for building permit shall be
6 revised to extend the drainage swale located at the rear (south) boundary of the Project to the
7 east (rear of Lot 4) to discharge into a new drain inlet designed to maximize storm water
8 treatment and infiltration into the swale.'
9
10 Principal Planner Jordan:
11 • There was a drainage swale behind lots 2 and 3 that was `sheet flowing' to the drainage inlet on
12 lot 4. What Public Works worked out with the project civil engineer is for the swale to continue
13 behind Lot 4 and have a new drainage inlet before the water is discharged into Orrs Creek. The
14 project plans that Planning Commission is reviewing were revised to include this drainage swale
15 and inlet. Plans submitted for the building permit are required to include the extended drainage
16 swale and inlet.
17 • Public Works has continued to work with the project civil engineer to modify and improve the
18 drainage and LID components of the project. As such, the plans in the agenda packet differ from
19 the plans in the environmental document.
20
21 Commissioner poble:
22 • The question is to what standard is the drainage issue being held to?
23 • Recommends adding to the discussion related to the hydrology and water quality section of the
24 environmental document and corresponding mitigation measures that this project was submitted
25 in May 2014 and soon thereafter in June 2014, the City adopted the LID Manual and that the
26 proposed project is not subject to this drainage manual. Is of the opinion this information needs to
27 be disclosed in the environmental document and we should not be silent about this.
28
29 Chair Whetzel:
30 • Agrees if no standard is in place for the drainage for this project there should be some
31 documentation about this.
32 • It may be the applicant is willing to meet the LID Manual standards for drainage on the property.
33 • Supports documentation the proposed Project application was submitted before Council adopted
34 the LID Manual and that the applicant is not being held to the standards. It would be nice if the
35 applicant complied with the LID Manual standards.
36
37 Commissioner Pruden:
38 • The important point to remember is the intent is to maintain effective drainage for water quality
39 purposes and this needs to be achieved for this project. To exempt the project because it was
40 submitted before the formal adoption of the LID Manual is `counterintuitive'for what is trying to be
41 achieved. It could be without the standard in place a person could simply pave over their
42 backyard thus disrupting/breaking the bioswale connection.
43
44 Principal Planner Jordan:
45 • To clarify the bioswale is not located in the backyards of the homes, but rather behind the fence
46 on the south side of the property. The swales are intentionally behind the fence so people would
47 not break the bioswale connection.
48
49 Commissioner poble:
50 • If it is City staff's position the Project is not an applicable project under the LID Manual design
51 requirements, this information should be in the environmental document. The intent is to make
52 sure the information is documented such that if later it was determined the Planning Commission
53 approved a project that was not compliant with the regulations the City agreed with the State
54 pursuant to Resolution 2014-27 and therefore, having to make a change in this regard would be a
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 6
1 problem. It would cause a problem for the applicant as well as for the City. It is important to make
2 certain there is full disclosure.
3
4 Commissioner Christensen:
5 • Requested clarification the Commissioners are not advocating the Project be held to the LID
6 Manual standards, but rather it be stated in the environmental document the Project was
7 submitted prior to the adoption of LID Manual and therefore, is not being required.
8
9 Commissioner Sanders:
10 • Inquired what would be the process to be exempt from the LID Manual standards?
11 • Is of the opinion the applicant should be held to the standards adopted in June 2014. Is further of
12 the opinion there is no grandfather clause allowing the applicant to be exempt.
13
14 Principal Planner Jordan:
15 • Prior to adoption of the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual by
16 Council in June 2014, Public Works practice was to work with applicants to be as compliant as
17 possible with this manual, but has not required compliance. This is how the Orrs Creek Homes
18 Project was treated.
19 • It appears the Commission would like a more formal policy making it clear when and how LID
20 Design Manual applies to projects.
21
22 Chair Whetzel:
23 • Noted the application for the Project was submitted before the resolution was adopted.
24
25 Commissioner poble:
26 • There is some history associated with the progression of events leading to adoption of the LID
27 Manual:
28 ■ The initial request by staff to adopt the LID Manual came about in April 2014.
29 • City Council reviewed the resolution and was essentially in agreement and requested
30 the City Attorney review the draft LID Manual.
31 ■ City Council again reviewed the matter of the LID Manual as a consent item in June
32 2014 with the Agenda Summary Report stating the City Attorney had reviewed the draft
33 manual and that the effective date of the manual is June 1, 2010 for new projects.
34 • Is of the opinion there is still some question on how complete the Mitigated Negative Declaration
35 is for this project.
36
37 Chair Whetzel:
38 • The resolution was not signed until the LID Manual was adopted by Council on June 18, 2014 so
39 technically the LID Manual standards do not apply to the applicant.
40 • Agrees there should be some clarification in the environmental document concerning the
41 resolution and LID Manual as to how the project should be treated in this regard.
42
43 Commissioner poble:
44 • Understands while the LID Manual was not adopted until June 2014, the Agenda Summary
45 Report for this matter on the consent calendar gave an effective date for application of the LID
46 Manual as June 1, 2010 for new projects with no clarification how projects are to be treated prior
47 to the June 18, 2014 adoption date.
48 • His concern is about a potential `challenge' to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project
49 that would subject the document to a higher level of review, costing the applicant more money
50 and possibly creating an issue for the project.
51 • Supports `cleaning up'the Negative Declaration for clarification purposes.
52
53 Principal Planner Jordan:
54 • Related to Commissioner poble's comments, the negative declaration is about disclosure. Since
55 the City Council adopted a resolution in June 2014 to implement a document that includes an
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 7
1 implementation date of June 2010, in the interest of disclosure some language needs to be added
2 to the discussion.
3
4 Commissioner poble:
5 • Is not okay with approving the Project tonight. Preference would be to see written documentation
6 from Public Works Department and/or Council that states what the City policy is related to the
7 treatment of LID projects. Is of the opinion clarification and/or disclosure regarding LID practices
8 and corresponding City policy in the environmental document is necessary should the Project get
9 challenged for non-compliance.
10 • Would like to see clarification about how the City processes pipeline projects because this will
11 affect the rest of the Project and how it plays out.
12 • If it comes back to the Commission the Project is subject to the LID Manual requirements, then
13 there is a lot of information missing. There needs to be a quantitative analysis and a description
14 for how this Project is being treated as it relates to the LID design criteria. The basis for making a
15 finding that the Project complies with LID design requirements would mean making a change to
16 the environmental document since the engineering report submitted provided justification the new
17 project is better than the previously approved project. The LID Manual compares impacts from
18 the existing condition to the post-construction condition. There are also requirements in the LID
19 Manual that would require post-construction mitigations that are not currently in the environmental
20 document. What is included in the environmental document is information about during
21 construction. i.e., erosion and sediment control.
22
23 Principal Planner Jordan:
24 • Planning Commission could have the environmental document with the additional language
25 prepared by staff come back to the Commission for review and recommendation or the
26 environmental document with the additional language prepared by staff could go to City Council
27 for review and possible adoption with the comments and direction provided by the Planning
28 Commission.
29
30 Commissioner Sanders:
31 • Not ready to approve the Project tonight.
32
33 Commissioner Christensen:
34 • If the Commission recommends wording be added to the environmental document why make it a
35 cumbersome process and why not allow the Project to move forward to Council for approval.
36
37 Commissioner Pruden:
38 • Is of the opinion Council needs direction from the Planning Commission with regard to the Project
39 because Councilmembers are not planners.
40
41 Chair Whetzel:
42 • What if the Commission recommended staff add wording to the environmental document and
43 allowed the environmental document and project to move onto the Council with Council to
44 approve the additional language for the environmental document?
45
46 Commissioner Pruden:
47 • There are concerns about approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration if it is determined to be
48 inadequate because it has not effectively addressed the LID Design Manual.
49 • Questions how the bioswale located just outside the fence will be maintained?
50 • Is not happy the driveways would be accessed from Ford Street. The DRB also looked at this
51 issue and about possibly accessing the site from the rear of the property. If it is determined
52 parking should be at the rear of the property, it will be problematic to back out onto Ford Street,
53 particularly with tandem parking. Is of the opinion, it would be much easier to access the site
54 from the rear of the property. This would completely change the bioswale system and/or possibly
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 8
1 the location so there are a lot of things about this project that are tied together. The Planning
2 Commission has not even had this discussion.
3
4 Commissioner poble:
5 • Is of the opinion it is not more cumbersome to bring the environmental document back to the
6 Planning Commission with revised language because the Commission will know at that time
7 whether or not the Project does in fact have to comply with the LID Design Manual.
8 • The very next thing the Commission has to do depending how the Commission votes on the
9 Mitigation Negative Declaration document is to review the plans. If the Commission is reviewing
10 plans not knowing what drainage standards are applicable how is it possible for the Commission
11 to approve the plans for the Project?
12 • Understands that while the Project would experience a bit of a delay, is of the opinion the Project
13 can come back to the next regular meeting in November.
14 • Inquired if it were possible to send the Commission's recommendation to Council for the
15 environmental document and not the Project?
16
17 Principal Planner Jordan:
18 • Clarified the topic raised by Commissioner Pruden about drainage and access to the site from
19 the rear of the property is a completely different project. When the DRB looked at the Project
20 there were three different projects being reviewed. One of the projects did provide for
21 parking/access in the rear of the parcel. Fire, Planning, and Public Works staff all had concerns
22 related to the rear alleyway access for several reasons mostly related to drainage, impacts to
23 Orrs Creek, and emergency access. The emergency access would have to be much larger than
24 for the 2007 project due to changes in the Fire Code. The applicant/owner and DRB prefer the
25 proposed Project with access from Ford Street and tandem parking. The proposed Project is
26 what the environmental document is based on.
27 • Is of the opinion the applicant would likely want to wait and have the City Council consider the
28 environmental document and project together. Commission cannot review the project until it has
29 taken an action on the environmental document. The environmental document and project can
30 be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the regular November 12, 2014 Commissioner
31 meeting. Recommend the Planning Commission to wait and review the environment document
32 and project together.
33 • Understands the Commission does not want to act on the environmental document tonight. The
34 Commission may want to ask questions about the Project should there be any Project
35 questions/clarification that can be answered before the Orrs Creek Homes PD Project comes
36 back to the Commission. The Commission cannot consider the Project.
37 • Asked if the Commission was in agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Sanders
38 above concerning the environmental document.
39 • Requested comments received at the Commission meeting from Robin Sunbeam be
40 incorporated into the minutes as attachment 4.
41
42 Commissioner Sanders:
43 • Related to the riparian buffer zone, it appears staff in conjunction with Public Works determined a
44 five-foot buffer as a mitigation measure that would adequately address the biologist concern
45 about protection to Orr Creek and habitats. Asked where the five-foot number came from?Was it
46 strictly the design of the site or for some other reason?
47
48 Principal Planner Jordan:
49 • Originally the fence crisscrossed the top of bank. Public Works, Planning and CDFW staff
50 discussed how much of a setback was needed and requested the applicant setback the fence 5
51 feet from the top of bank. The 5-foot setback provides a buffer from development and the fence
52 keeps any damage from occurring to the existing vegetation in and along the top of back.
53 Attachment 7 includes the PD regulations for fencing and tree protection.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 9
1 • Several considerations were given related to the creek buffer and the buffer zone for the Oak
2 trees to ensure protection. The PD zoning regulations include quite a lot of limitations related to
3 construction on the site.
4
5 Commissioner Sanders:
6 • Is of the opinion no further documentation/information needs to be added about the five-foot
7 buffer set back since it is addressed in the environmental document. However, related to
8 protection of Orrs Creek and site construction, her concern is that because of site constraints the
9 applicant may not be able to take certain precautionary measures during construction and
10 questioned whether permits were required from California Fish and Wildlife.
11 • Does have concern about the tree removal.
12 • Would like to review attachment 11 of the staff report as part of negative declaration discussion
13 because it was referenced in the comment section.
14
15 Principal Planner Jordan:
16 • California Fish and Wildlife did not see anything related to the Project that would require a permit
17 from them. As the mitigation measures were being worked through, the intent related to the five-
18 foot setback buffer is to prevent anyone from doing anything in the creek bank and to maintain a
19 certain distance from the creek and a barrier for safety and security for Lot 1.
20
21 Commissioner Christensen:
22 • If there is not a compelling reason to remove trees for the Project and there is some support to
23 keep them, preference would be to leave them.
24
25 There was Commission discussion concerning the proposed tree removal for Group D trees with regard
26 to location and condition. Group D consists of five trees.
27
28 Commissioner poble:
29 • Expressed concern about the trees from a technical standpoint and noted the trees are not
30 mapped on the topographic and boundary survey in terms of knowing whether or not they are
31 actually on the property.
32 • Would like clarification on why the tree protection zones are not what is prescribed by the
33 arborist.
34 • Asked about the mitigation measure concerning the bare ground/soil issue and the need for
35 hydro-seeding measures for the four lots since the backyards will not be landscaped. Typically
36 straw mulch can be used to prevent runoff on bare ground/soil areas.
37 • Related to the parcels in their current configuration could someone purchase one lot and build on
3 8 it?
39 • Related to the comments from the Wagenseller Neighborhood (attachment 11 of the staff report)
40 regarding the Project and about planning and development and the creating of more housing and
41 increased density would this not have been covered under the original subdivision of the parcel
42 that created the four lots? Requested clarification cannot change the fact there are four legal
43 parcels that can be built on regardless of what is being considered tonight?
44 • Requested clarification how park fees work. Understands there is a need for a park in
45 Wagenseller Neighborhood but cannot hold the proposed Project responsible to see this occurs
46 now or later and that this is not really related to the Project.
47
48 Mary Ann Lance, Applicant:
49 • The Project civil engineer has indicated the trees are located on the property line.
50
51 Chair Whetzel:
52 • Is of the opinion the trees do not need to be there.
53 • Is necessary to have clarification whether the trees are actually located on the property. Should
54 be shown on the civil map.
55 • The previous project had much more development going on than the current project.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 10
1 • The Project is considered an `infill' development that highly complies with the goals/policies of
2 the general plan.
3
4 Commissioner Pruden:
5 • Would like to revisit the trees before making a decision about them. Would need clarification as
6 to location on the site plan.
7 • Asked if a blue tarp would be used to cover the bare ground as a measure to prevent runoff.
8 • Noted the proposed Project is a five-phased project and explained how far out the phases
9 extend should the lots sell. Historically speaking, the Project is actually a redevelopment project.
10
11 Principal Planner Jordan:
12 • Understands the trees are on the property; The Project civil engineer will confirm location and
13 show on civil plan.
14 • The arborist in her report has indicated the trees in Group D are not all healthy and would not
15 likely survive the construction impacts.
16 • The Commission can ask the applicant about the feasibility of keeping the trees.
17 • The arborist does specify tree protection zones in her report. A pre-construction meeting with
18 construction foreman, arborist and planning staff is required. The arborist is required to make site
19 visits.What can occur within the tree protection zone is limited.
20 • The applicant must indicate on the building permit plans how bare ground/soil will be covered.
21 This is subject to Public Works review and approval. The applicant would propose the material,
22 such as mulch or some type of seeding. The applicant has had discussions with Public Works
23 regarding materials that could be used. Public Works would not approve a blue tarp as meeting
24 the requirement of this condition.
25 • A person could purchase one of the lots and at some point build on it although it may require a
26 lot modification, such as a variance because of lot size for two of the lots. This scenario could not
27 occur unless the City initiates the revocation process for the 2007 rezone and precise
28 development plan in which case the property would revert back to the R3 zoning.
29 • The staff report explains the history of the property as to how and why the lots were created.
30 Confirmed cannot change the fact that there are four legal parcels that can be built on regardless
31 of what is being proposed tonight. The two larger parcels (Lots 1 and 4) could actually have
32 more development on them than what has been proposed.
33 • Park fees are not applied to a specific location. There is a parks fee fund and the money is
34 intended for new parks. The need for parks is an existing condition and the deficiency of parks in
35 City neighborhoods is not the result of the proposed Project. The Project is not responsible for
36 mitigating the park problem.
37
38 Commissioner Sanders:
39 • Would like to know much money is in the park fee fund, how it is accessed and the process
40 involved.
41
42 Chair Whetzel:
43 • Observed the Wagenseller Neighborhood has some large green open space areas that could be
44 converted to a park for the neighborhood.
45
46 Commissioner Pruden:
47 • The Wagenseller Neighborhood has checked out areas in the neighborhood that would support a
48 park. The area Chair Whetzel is referring to is privately owned and the area available is for tenant
49 use only. The property owner is concerned about liability issues allowing the public to access the
50 area for recreational/park use purposes.
51
52 Principal Planner Jordan:
53 • Will find out how much is in the park fee fund.
54 • The subdivision of property is the only project type subject to the park fee.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 11
1 Commission consensus:
2 • Staff `clean up' the environmental document to make certain there is full disclosure in the
3 Mitigated Negative Declaration concerning how the LID Technical Design Manual would or would
4 not apply to the Project and for Public Works to provide a written policy as to how the Manual
5 applies to projects submitted before and after adoption of the LID Design Manual by City
6 Council.
7 • Confirm location of Group D trees and have them shown on the civil plan.
8
9 M/S Doble/Christensen to continue Mitigated Negative Declaration discussion for the Orrs Creek Homes
10 Project to a date certain of November 12, 2014, as discussed above. Motion carried (5-0).
11
12 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:30 p.m.
13
14 Commission auestions related to the Proiect
15
16 Commissioner Pruden:
17 • Does not see any governing ordinances and/or CC&Rs for maintenance consistency/conformity
18 between the buildings on the property and/or for compliance with rules/regulations with particular
19 concern that with the size of the tandem garages some of the area could be converted into more
20 living space and how this can be prevented? Once a building is sold the owner loses control over
21 what occurs. There are a lot of unregulated townhouses in the Wagenseller Neighborhood that
22 have illegal building conversions.
23 • Who is the builder of the homes having control over the design and sale of the properties?
24 • Requested clarification as to the intent of the design component relative to the concrete pad in
25 the garage area.
26
27 Commissioner poble:
28 • Related to the site plans, indicated what Commissioner Pruden is asking about represents
29 information about elevation and not square footage.
30
31 Principal Planner Jordan:
32 • The zoning regulations for the parcels provided for in attachment 7 of the staff report has specific
33 requirements for what can occur and are more enforceable than CC&Rs since the City is not a
34 party to the CC&Rs.
35
36 Mary Ann Lance:
37 • No CC&Rs are planned so far.
38 • Is the builder of the homes.
39 • Understands in order for persons to legally convert garage space etc., to living space a building
40 permit is required.
41
42 Jim Bowen, Partner in the Development:
43 • Asked about the responsibilities of the Wagenseller Neighborhood Association.
44
45 Commissioner Pruden:
46 • The Wagenseller Neighborhood Association is an association and not an enforcement/policing
47 agency designed to take care of such issues as aesthetics, traffic and safety.
48
49 Chair Whetzel:
50 • Cannot assume garage conversions will occur for this project.
51
52 Principal Planner Jordan:
53 • Since the Commission did not recommend adoption of the environmental document, the
54 Commission cannot review the Project. If there are any questions regarding the Project or
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 12
1 something the Commission would like clarified regarding the Project, please ask this now so we
2 can have the information available for the next meeting.
3
4 Commissioner poble:
5 • Requested clarification Group D trees will be properly mapped?
6 • Is the applicant amenable to using alternative paving surfaces for the driveways like porous
7 concrete or pavers?
8 • Is street parking allowed?
9 • If there is a vehicle in the garage and a vehicle in the driveway does the vehicle in the driveway
10 have to back out completely into the street in order for the other car in the garage to get out?
11 • Has Public Works approved the driveway configuration?
12
13 Chair Whetzel:
14 • The Planning Commission has approved several projects in the Wagenseller Neighborhood and
15 understands it is a congested neighborhood. Acknowledged Ford Street is a busy street and to
16 add access onto Ford Street with four more driveways further adds to the congestion.
17 • Is it the intent to park two cars in the garages?
18
19 Jim Bowen:
20 • Would consider alternative paving surfaces.
21 • The construction of Orchard Bridge helps to alleviate some of the traffic on Ford Street.
22 • Has lived in a condominium in Santa Rosa that has tandem car garages where one car has to
23 back up onto the street to allow the second car to back up.
24
25 Commissioner Pruden:
26 • The Project presents a difficult situation with tandem parking where two cars must back out onto
27 Ford Street.
28
29 Mary Ann Lance:
30 • The City requires two parking spaces. The garage was designed as a tandem garage in order to
31 get those two spaces. The way this works is one car will be in the driveway and one will be in the
32 garage. The homeowners could park two cars in the garage if they want or use the remaining
33 space for storage.
34 • Confirmed the car in the driveway would have to back out onto Ford Street in order to allow the
35 car in the garage to back out.
36
37 Chair Whetzel:
38 • Essentially another bedroom could be constructed to replace the second car space in the garage.
39
40 Principal Planner Jordan:
41 • Confirmed the trees will be properly mapped.
42 • The PD regulations would allow the addition of a room in the garage space with approval of a
43 building permit provided the property owners retain the two required parking spaces.
44 • There are two parking spaces on the street and possibly a third space if the car is small/compact.
45 • Noted the City Traffic Engineering Committee recently approved the lifting of a `No Parking'
46 restriction zone along the project frontage and to the east of the project frontage.
47 • Public Works has reviewed the driveway configuration and is okay with it. Preference is the
48 proposed scenario as opposed to alleyway access in the rear of the property.
49 • Recommends the Planning Commission continue the entire item to a date certain of November
50 12 2014.
51
52 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:45 p.m.
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 13
1 M/S Pruden/Christensen to continue Orrs Creek Homes Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 and PD Rezone with Precise Development Plan and Planned Development Zoning Regulations to a date
3 certain of November 12, 2014. Motion carried (5-0).
4
5 10. NEW BUSINESS
6 10A. Holiday Meeting Schedule. Determine the November and December Planning Commission
7 meeting dates.
8
9 The Commission discussed the holiday meeting schedule with the following dates:
10
11 1. Regular November 12 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
12 2. Regular November 26, 2014 Planning Commission meeting - cancel.
13 3. Regular December 10, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
14 4. Regular December 24, 2014 Planning Commission meeting - cancel.
15
16 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
17 Introduced new Assistant Planner Michelle Johnson.
18
19 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
20 Commissioner Pruden:
21 • Welcomed Principal Planner Jordan back to work from medical leave.
22 • On Tuesday, October 28 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. a presentation will be given concerning the
23 Perkins Street gateway project and noted the City is in the process of undergrounding the utilities
24 on Perkins Street.
25 • Noted the Northwestern Pacific Rail Trail extending from Gobbi Street to Clara Street is
26 progressing.
27
28 Chair Whetzel:
29 • Commended Linda Sanders for her work on the clean-up day for Orrs Creek.
30
31 13. ADJOURNMENT
32 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
33
34
35 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
36
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 2014
Page 14
.. �,.��c��h ���i�$ �� ��
Cathy Elawadly
From : Kim Jordan
Sent : Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:08 AM
To : Kevin Doble (kdoble@doblethomas .com ); Laura Christensen; Linda Sanders ; Mike Whetzel
(tmaviation@pacific. net); Pruden , Judy
Cc: Cathy Elawadly
Subject: FW : Orr Creek Homes Project - comments .
, Commissioner Sanders requested the letter from California Department of Fish and Wildlife . The comments were sent
via email . Below are the email communications between Planning and CDFW regarding the Orrs Creek project and the
Initial Environmental Study that resulted in the mitigation measures for the project. Public Works was also involved in
the development of the mitigation measures. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me .
'K�iyn�'orc�a.vi
Principal Planner
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah , CA 95482
(707) 463-6207 (707) 463-6204 fax �
website: www.citvofukiah.com
. . _. _ . . _ ..
From : Liebenberg, Angela@Wildlife [mailto :Angela . Liebenberg@wildlife.ca .gov]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 11 : 36 AM
To : Kim Jordan
Subject: RE : Orr Creek Homes Project - comments �
Kim -
Yes, the mitigation measures you have designed do address my concerns . Thank you for your willingness to work with
me on the project's potential issues .
Have a great week,
Angela
Angela M. Liebenberg
Environmental Scientist
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Coastal Conservation Planning
32330 North Harbor Drive
_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
(707) 964-4830
angela.liebenberg_a(�,wildlife.ca.�ov ,
1
�
From : Kim Jordan [mailto : kjordanC«)cityofukiah . com]
� Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 9 : 25 AM
To : Liebenberg, Angela@Wildlife
Subject: RE : Orr Creek Homes Project - comments
I wanted to send you the proposed Biological Mitigation Measures for the Project for your review and comment prior to
publication of the IS/MND . Please let me know if these address your concerns .
1 . The following measures shall be taken to protect and preserve Orrs Creek and steelhead trout:
A. Prior to construction of site improvements, a final grading and drainage plan and an erosion and sediment
control plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of
Public Works. The plan shall specify all measures necessary to protect Orrs Creek from sediment, including the
permanent restoration or protection of all disturbed areas to prevent future erosion . The sediment and erosion
control plan shall utilize only native or non-invasive non- native plant materials to protect disturbed areas .
Erosion and sediment control products utilizing netting, such as straw wattles, shall be bio-degradable, and
designed to not entrap or harm wildlife, wherever such options are available . Erosion and sediment control
measures shall be maintained and re-applied as necessary by the applicant until undisturbed areas as fully
stabilized .
B . Plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to extend the drainage swale located at the rear (south )
,
boundary of the Project to the east ( rear of Lot 4) to discharge into a new drain inlet designed to maximize
storm water treatment and infiltration into the swale . Also a Hydrology and Water mitigation measure.
C. Plans submitted for building permit shall include revised drainage swales, a typical section, and proposed
landscaping/ground cover for the swale . The revised swales shall provide infiltration and treatment of
stormwater runoff. Also a Hydrology and Water mitigation measure.
D . Plans submitted for building permit shall demonstrate that roof drains are designed to maximize infiltration into
landscaped areas and not discharge directly into storm drains or into the street. Also a Hydrology pnd Water
mitigation measure.
E . Plans submitted for building permit shall how bare soil/exposed dirt in the rear yards of each home will be
covered until such time as the home buyers landscape the rear yard . Also a Hydrology and Water mitigption
measure.
F. Plans submitted for building permit shall show the fence on Lot 1 /123 Ford Street setback 5-feet from the Orrs
Creek top of bank. The fencing shall be an open style design with no barbs. The openings in the fencing shall
allow for small animals to pass through the fencing.
G . The Planned Development Zoning regulations for the Project shall prohibit the planting of known invasive
species and species identified in the California lnvasive Plant Council's data base ( http ://www .cal-ipc.or�/paf/) .
H . The Project Proponent shall verify whether a Stream Bed Alteration Permit from the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife is required for the Project. If a Stream Bed Alteration Permit is required, the Project Proponent
- - - - - shall be obtained the permit prior tothe commencement of any grading or construction activities on the Projecf
site and a copy of the permit shall be provided to the Planning and Community Development Department.
2 . The following mitigation measure shall be implemented in order to protect any nesting birds.
A. If site preparation and tree removal/trimming include the spring bird nesting season ( February through July), a
preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified professional within two weeks prior to
2
removing/trimming any trees. If active nests (with eggs or living young) are found, no activity shall be permitted
that might disturb or remove the active nests until the young birds are able to leave the nest and forage on their
own . Empty nests may be removed . If eggs or young are present, the nests shall be left until the young birds leave .
Setback buffers for the nests will vary depending on the species affected and the location of the nest. Buffer zones
shall be determined on a case by case basis in consultation with a California Department of Fish and Wildlife
biologist.
3 . The healthy native trees identified as #A, B, C, E, F, G, and H on the Criss Arborist Report dated August 13, 2014 shall
be preserved and protected .
4. In order to protect the trees to be preserved on Lot 1, the following shall be included on plans submitted for building
permit and are subject to staff review and approval :
A. Location of tree protection fencing and protective buffer (Trees #A, B, C, E, and F) consistent with the locations
recommended in the Criss Arborist Report dated August 13, 2014. The arborist report states that trees #G and H
would not be impacted by construction; therefore, protective fencing is not needed .
B. Name and contact information of the Project arborist (Criss) on the title page of the plans.
C. Notes on the plans that state that state "Construction materials, vehicles and equipment, and the cleaning of
equipment or materials is prohibited within the area of the protective fencing and under the driplines of the
trees to be protected and preserved .
D . A detail of the protective fencing and protective buffer recommended in the arborist report . The fencing shall be
5 to 6 feet in height, metal and secured with in-ground posts.
E . Tree/riparian vegetation protection notes :
■ Care shall be taken when digging under ground near the base of tree # C.
■ All digging within 6-feet of the base of tree #C shall be done by hand .
■ Care shall be taken when removing the garage in order to prevent mechanical damage to and soil
compaction under trees #E and F.
■ Dumping of chemical, washing equipment; and/or stacking of loose debris on or near root zones and
near the creek is prohibited .
■ Any work near the creek shall be performed consistent with industry and environmental standards in
order to prevent damage to vegetation on the creek bank. These standards include, but are not limited
to, prohibiting the dumping of chemicals, washing of equipment, and/or sacking of loose debris on or
near the root zones or near the top of bank of the creek.
5 . An on-site preconstruction meeting shall he held with the head contractor, Project arborist (Criss), and planning
staff.
6. The Project arborist (Criss) shall provide general supervision over construction of the Project that is proximate to the
trees to be protected and preserved . This supervision may include unscheduled visits to the site by the Project
arborist .
__ _ _ _ _ __ _- _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ . _ _
7 . The Planned Development regulations for tfie Orrs Creek Homes PD shall include the following in order to ensure
the protection of Orrs Creek and the threatened steelhead trout and the ensure the preservation and protection of
the trees identified for protection and preservation in the arborist report prepared by Criss and dated August 13,
2014.
3
A. Trees identified as #A, B, C, E, F, G, and H in the arborist shall be protected and preserved . Removal of these
trees is prohibited .
B. Any future development on the site shall be located outside of the dripline/canopy of the protected trees (Criss
Arborist Report dated August 13, 2014, #A, B, C, E, F, G, and H ) .
C. Rear yard fencing along Orrs Creek shall be located 5-feet from the top of the bank. The fencing shall be a
maximum of 6-feet in height, open style, designed to allow movement of wildlife and to prevent wildlife
entanglement, and shall not include barbs .
D . Prohibition of the planting of known invasive species and species identified in the California lnvasive Plant
Council's data base ( http ://www.cal-ipc.or�/paf/) .
Thanks again for your comments and assistance .
`K�iyn�'orr�an.
Principal Planner
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482
(707) 463-6207 (707) 463-6204 fax
website: www.cityofukiah .com
From : Liebenberg, Angela@Wildlife [mailto :Angela . LiebenbergCc�wildlife.ca .gov] _ �� �VF
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10 : 25 AM
To: Kim Jordan
Subject: RE : Orr Creek Homes Project - comments
Hi Kim —
Thanks for following up . I realize I misunderstood the purpose of the fence, which is not only to clearly mark the
property boundary but to actually exclude unauthorized people . For areas that must have exclusionary fencing using
woven wire, the wildlife-related recommendations I am able to find mostly focus on making the fence as visible as
possible to prevent animals (e .g. predatory birds diving for prey) from striking it. Some long- lasting suggestions include
using high-visibility (coated ) wire, a top rail, sections of small-diameter PVC to mark the top wire, and/or other visual
markers . ( Flagging could work, but would not last. ) Other ideas to increase visibility are available online, and though
most focus on livestock-related fences, any measure that will make the fence more visible to wildlife will reduce the
chance of wildlife impacts (and likely fence maintenance cost) .
I hope that helps,
Angela
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _
Angela M. Liebenberg
Environmental Scientist
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Coastal Conservation Planning
32330 North Harbor Drive
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
4
(707) 964-4830
angela.liebenberQ(a�wildlife.ca. o�v `
From : Kim Jordan [mailto : kjordanC�cityofukiah . com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9 : 39 AM
To: Liebenberg, Angela@Wildlife
Subject: RE : Orr Creek Homes Project - comments
I wanted to follow- up on the recommendations on fencing . I am not aware of deer in that area and the applicant is
concerned about safety and security for lot 1 if fence height is limited to 42 inches . I would like to allow 6-foot tall open
fencing with smaller openings . The site is located in area that is known for transients and there are services for the
homeless, drug and alcohol treatment facilities, and transitional housing located in the immediate area . The concern is
that with the fence height proposed at 42 inches people can climb over or through the fence . Thoughts?
`K�%Yn�'orc�a.H.
Principal Planner
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 '
(707) 463-6207 (707) 463-6204 fax
website: www.cityofukiah .com
_. .. . ._ _
From : Liebenberg, Angela@Wildlife [mailto :Angela . LiebenbergCa�wildlife.ca .gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 21 , 2014 10 : 20 AM
To: Kim Jordan
Cc: Macedo, Richard@Wildlife
Subject: RE : Orr Creek Homes Project - comments
Kim -
Thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations . I will address your follow- up questions in the order you
have them listed below .
1 . Thank you for considering wildlife in your fence design . Riparian areas provide important habitat and movement
corridors for wildlife . From project documents and your description when we spoke, installing the fence with a
minimum setback of five (5 ) feet from the top of the bank will place the fence in an area containing Valley Oak
trees, which indicate that the fence is outside of the riparian area . Considering the surrounding conditions, this
appears to be reasonable and appropriate .
Specifications for "wildlife-friendly" fences generally include :
a . construction using smooth ( barbless) wire
b . enough space ( minimum 12 inches ) between the top two wires to prevent wildlife (e,g. deer) _
__ _ _ _ _ _ __
entanglement
c. bottom wire at least 16 inches from the ground , and
d . a maximum height of 42 inches
2 . If the fence installation will create minimal ground disturbance, planting will likely not be necessary to prevent
er_osion_or_sedimentatioa ._If_mor_e-than-minimal-ground-distur-bance-and/or-bare�oil-will-be-generated,—then -- '
5
standard erosion control BMPs should be applied to prevent runoff or sediment delivery. If planting or seeding
is used for erosion control, species used should be native or non - invasive .
3 . I concur with the recommendation of Public Works and Planning, that retaining the native trees, maintaining a
setback of 5 feet from the fence, and restricting new development to areas outside the dripline of the trees is
adequate in this location .
4. The intentional planting of any invasive species is discouraged because these plants are often spread into
wildlands in ways that people may not expect ( e .g . seed spread by birds, stuck in shoe and tire treads, etc . ) . My
recommendation is to discourage the use of known invasive species in any development . However, the decision
is at the discretion of the lead agency. The California lnvasive Plant Council (Cal- IPC) maintains a list of known
invasive species at htt�//www.cal-ipc.or�/paf/. More information about invasive plant species and their
impacts are available at http ://www.cal-ipc.or�/ip/definitions/impact. php . Cal- IPC has published a series of
"don't plant a pest" brochures identifying common invasive plants, and highlighting non- invasive
alternatives . The brochure most applicable to our area can be found here : http ://www. cal-
ipc.org/landscaping/dpp/pdf/SFDPPPrintable . pdf with more information here : http ://www.cal-
ipc.or�/landscapin�/dpp/index. php .
5 . I agree with Planning and Public Works that bare mineral soil should not be left exposed for long periods of
time . For your consideration below are modified versions of some standard conditions we use for projects
either located near streams, or with the potential to create runoff and/or sediment :
a . Prior to project work, the Permittee shall stockpile erosion control materials at the site . All bare mineral
soil exposed in conjunction with the project shall be treated for erosion upon completion of work, and
prior to the onset of precipitation capable of generating runoff.
b . Adequate and effective erosion control and siltation control measures shall be used where necessary to
prevent sediment and turbid and/or silt- laden water from entering any stream . All bare mineral soil
within the stream zone that was created by the project shall be treated for erosion prior to the onset of
precipitation capable of generating runoff. Methods may include seeding and/or mulching of all bare
mineral soil exposed in conjunction with project work. No known invasive grass seed shall be used such
as annual or perennial ryegrass ( Lolium multiflorum or L. perenne, which are now referred to as Festuca
perennis) .
c . Only wildlife-friendly 100 percent biodegradable erosion control products that will not entrap or harm
wildlife shall be used . Erosion control products shall not contain synthetic (e .g., plastic or nylon )
netting. Photodegradable synthetic products are not considered biodegradable .
d . The Permittee shall provide site maintenance including, but not li.mited to, re-applying erosion control to
minimize surface erosion .
6 . My understanding is that the CEQA filing fee must be paid unless a project is statutorily or categorically exempt
from CEQA, or unless CDFW determines (through the process described at
https ://www.df�.ca .�ov/habcon/ceqa/nedprocess. html ) that a project will have no effect on fish and
wildlife . Although the filing fee was paid for the previously- proposed project, it appears that because a second
CEQA document will be prepared for the new projecf, fhe filing fee must be paid for the new project and
document. Below are links to information . If project proponents need additional information, they may start by
contacting the Habitat Conservation Planning Branch . Contact information is at the bottom of the left- hand
( blue ) panel on each of these pages :
https ://www. df�. ca .�ov/habcon/ceqa/ceqa chan�es . html
https ://nrm .df�.ca .�ov/FileHandler. ashx? DocumentlD=4009&inline= l (See pgs . 2-3 . )
6
`
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at ( 707 )
964-4830 or angela . liebenber� @wildlife .ca .�ov. ,
Angela
Angela M. Liebenberg
Environmental Scientist
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Coastal Conservation Planning
32330 North Harbor Drive
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
(707) 964-4830
anQela.liebenber�(c�wildlife.ca. o�v
__ _ . . _ . .
From : Kim Jordan [mailto : kjordanCa�cityofukiah .com ]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4 : 30 PM
To: Liebenberg, Angela@Wildlife
Subject: RE : Orr Creek Homes Project - comments
Thank you for your comments on the project and discussing the project and your comments earlier today . I have few
questions/comments as a follow-up .
■ The Project plans show an open fence close to the top of bank. Public Works and Planning are recommending
requiring the fence to be setback a minimum of 5-feet from the top of bank in order to prevent access to and
from the creek. The open fence would also allow migration of small animals that may be in the area . Would this
fence type and location be appropriate related to fish and wildlife .
■ Since the fence would be setback from the top of bank, does the applicant need to plant this area ?
■ Lot 1 includes native trees that are proposed to be retained . The Project would allow future development in the
rear yard of Lot 1 . In order to protect these trees and limit development proximate to the creek, Public Works
and Planning are recommending setting any future improvements/buildings be setback 5 feet from the fence
and located outside of the dripline of the trees to be protected . Is this setback adequate for fish and wildlife .
■ The recommendations from Fish and Wildlife include not planting invasive species, should a condition of project
approval/mitigation measure be included that the planting of invasive species is prohibited and a reference be
provided to the invasive species list? If yes, can this condition be limited to Lot 1 which is closest to Orrs Creek or
does it need to be applied to all of the lots.
■ The project does not include landscaping for the rear yards . The intent is to have the home buyer landscape the
rear yard . It is unknown how long this would leave the rear yards without landscaping/coverage . Planning and
Public Works have been discussing the need to ensure that there is some type of cover in these areas if
development of the project results in bare dirt/exposed soil . Does Fish and Wildlife have
any recommendations as to how the rear yards need to be treated prior to the installation of landscaping by the
home buyer?
A previous project was approved by the City of Ukiah for the four vacant parcels included in this project. That project
- included 4 townhomeswith attached second units for a total of units . That project was never construeted and the —
approval has expired . An initial study and MND was prepared for the expired project and the Fish and Wildlife fees
paid . Since fees have already been paid for a larger project on the same parcels, do the fees need to be paid again for
this project?
Thanks again for your assistance and comments .
7
.
,
�itn.jarc�ccn. i
Principal Planner j
City of Ukiah
Planning and Community Development Department
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah , CA 95482
(707) 463-6207 (707) 463-6204 fax
website ; www.cityofukiah .com
._ _
From : Liebenberg, Angela@Wildlife [mailto :Angela . LiebenbergCa�wildlife .ca .gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 4 : 37 PM
To: Kim Jordan
Cc: Macedo, Richard@Wildlife
Subject: Orr Creek Homes Project - comments
Dear Ms. Jordan —
This is in response to the Project Review Committee Referral for the Orr Creek Homes Project ( File # Munis 258) . The
project includes construction, landscaping, connection to utilities, installation of sidewalks, and associated development
related to single family residences on four (4) parcels (numbered Lot 1 - 4) on Ford Street in Ukiah . Orr Creek (also
referred to in the documents as Orrs Creek) is located to the southwest of the development.
Orr Creek provides habitat for steelhead trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), a species listed as threatened under the
federal endangered species act. Steelhead and other salmonids have been impacted by loss and degradation of habitat,
including high water temperatures due to a lack of streamside vegetation, siltation of spawning gravels, lack of adequate
in-stream flow, and lack of in-stream shelter and pools. Runoff, sedimentation, and vegetation should be considered
due to the development's proximity to Orr Creek.
Project plans include protections such as preparation of a final grading and drainage plan, and an erosion and sediment
control plan to be prepared by a Civil Engineer. However, under the Drainage heading, the project description proposes
directing storm water into a "dirt drainage swale ." The final drainage and erosion plans should consider incorporating
elements of Low Impact Development, such as utilizing appropriately vegetated swales and/or permeable paving
surfaces to reduce runoff and increase water infiltration .
The project description proposes use of straw wattles along the creek bank or construction fencing "if necessary." Straw
wattles should be required during grading work and other times when bare mineral soil is exposed . At a minimum,
conditions which would require installation of straw wattles should be clearly identified and adhered to .
A relatively narrow buffer of vegetation exists along Orr Creek in the area of tlie development. Project documents
describe Lot 1 as consisting of 34% "natural" vegetation . (The assessment from Criss Tree Care identifies many of the
trees as Valley Oak, with California Cottonwood on the creek bank. The project description discusses additional riparian
vegetation . ) In addition to protection of trees during construction as outlined in the document, native vegetation should
be retained after construction to the extent possible . The City of Ukiah should consider a deed restriction or other
enforceable instrument to ensure that riparian and other native vegetation adjacent to the creek is retained .
Landscaping plans include mostly drought-tolerant plants, and some native plants. Use of appropriate native plants is
encouraged . When non-native plants are used, they should not be invasive.
Recommendations
--- _--
1 . Final drainage and erosion plans should consider incorporating elements of Low Impact Development, including
but not limited to, vegetated swales, and permeable paving surfaces.
s
q � '
2 . Straw wattles should be in place along the creek bank during grading activity or any time bare mineral soil is
exposed . At a minimum, conditions which would require installation of straw wattles should be clearly
identified and adhered to .
3 . An enforceable condition should be included upon project approval requiring retention of native vegetation
along Orr Creek. A deed restriction or other instrument should be considered .
4. Species used for landscaping should preferably be native, or if non-native, should be non-invasive . Drought-
tolerant species are preferable . No known invasive species should be used . Exotic plant species to avoid include
those identified in the California lnvasive Plant Council 's database, which is accessible at : http ://www. cal-
ipc.or�/paf/
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (707) 964-4830
or angela . liebenber� @wildlife .ca .�ov.
Angela
Angela M. Liebenberg
Environmental Scientist
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Coastal Conservation Planning
32330 North Harbor Drive
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
(707) 964-4830
angela.lieb enberg�a,wildlife.ca.gov
<<
9
�'� � ��,��� ������h�'� ���� ._��,�,
�,�::�.,,
Kim Jordan
From : kaderli@juno .com
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:43 AM
To : Kim Jordan; Kim Jordan
Subject: Fw: oaks at Ford St
Kim,
Please forward to the other commissioners.
Thank you,
Linda
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From : bruni kobbe < brunik@mcn .or�>
To : Richard L Kaderli <kaderli@iuno .com >
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 201416: 27 :41 -0700
Subject: oaks at Ford St
Message-ID: <8BE5CF5E- BC67-4D29-9560-51677E0064B9@mcn .or�>
jRe : oaks affected by proposed subdivision, Ford Street
I read the arborist's report and visited the site . It is my opinion that the proposed protection for the oaks along Orr
Creek is insufficient and that the proposed removal of the oaks along the western property line is unwarranted .
The protective fencing for oaks A, B extents only 25 ft outward, while the arborist's report acknowledges that the root
zone extents 30 ft or more to and beyond the canopy edge . For oak C, fencing is deemed infeasible and only protective
wrapping of the trunk is proposed . For the biggest oak ( D) near the old garage, the report only suggests supervision
during the demolition as a protection .
These oaks sit right at the edge of the Creek bank; any soil compaction, digging, or other disturbance will impact the
tree 's health and stability. The report maintains that there are enough roots left (at the side of the steep bank) to
compensate for any damage to the half of the root system that anchors the trees to the flat, northern part of the creek
corridor. It seems to me that the "flat" part of the root system is the most important one . I have seen oaks show damage
years after the construction in those areas of the canopy that correspond to the damaged root area --in other words, the
tree cannot compensate for losses in one half of the root zone with the other half of the root zone .
The 6 young oaks along the western property line are deemed to be in " poor health " and "already impacted by the
adjacent parking lot" . '
These oaks have been damaged by unprofessional pruning and partial topping during the site preparation (when
apparently also 5 mature trees were cut down--with calipers of 1-2 ft, judging by the stumps left behind ) . These oaks
could still grow up to provide significant shade and habitat through corrective pruning and thinning and; most
importantly, giving the group enough root space to grow (yes, there has been some impact from the parking .lot, but the
trees are young and have likely adjusted ) .
-I-therefore-propose-that-a -30-40-fG. buffer-zone/green belt be incorporated-into the-projeet� extending-from-Ford-Street— -
along the western border and continuing along the Creek to the property line of the existing house/lot. This would allow
the young oaks and the mature oaks to thrive, and the addition of some understory native plants would make this an
attractive green belt that would add significantly to the property values of the two remaining new lots, compensating
for the loss of the proposed third lot. One or both of the remaining lots could also be enlarged, further increasing the
profit. The green belt would also mitigate for the loss of canopy due to the removal of five mature trees on the property
(the proposed planting of a few flowering pear along Ford Street can never mitigate for that loss) .
1
If the City is serious about enhancing the urban canopy, about creek protection and the proposed setbacks, then here it
has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment .
This is my opinion as a biologist; I am not a certified arborist, but I have worked for many years with the City's arborist
and the tree expert at the College .
Bruni Kobbe
Member, Tree Advisory Group
Map Your Flood Risk
Find Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs, Your Flood Risk Profile and More !
http ://thirdpartvoff� rs. luno .com/TGL3141/5449222e77d80222e1090st03vuc
2
l�f��c'°hm�tlt # �`
�� ,
ITEM NO. : 7e
MEETING DATE : � une 18 , 2014
`�'�t� �,� z�rc���z�i
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT '
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POS$ IBLE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE - STORM WATER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
TECHNICAL DE$ IGN MANUAL
Back� round : On June 10 , 2013, the City of Ukiah submitted a Letter oflntent to the North Coast Regional
WaEer Quality Control Board ( NCRWQCB) to participate in the implementation of the current National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit with the City of Santa Rosa , the !
County of $onoma,, and Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) . To date, every member agency of the ;
Russian RiVer Watershed Association with a small storm water system (also known as Phase I I agencies)
has submitted :a similar notification , ultimately creating a regional program for storm water permit
compliance . Implementation and adoption of'the Storm WaterLow Impact Development Technical Design
Manual (LID Manual� is required by Ukiah and each of these Phase II agencies for compliance with the
Permit. On April 2 , 2014 , this item was before the City CounciL The Council was supportive of #he item , but ;
directed staff to seek comments from the City Attorney, �
Discussion : The City Attorney has reviewed the draft LID Manual and noted the following : Chapter 2 of
the LID Manual gives an effective date of June 1 , 2010 for new projects ; a geographic area map as shown
in Chapter 2 does not include Ukiah ; and , a fact sheet to accompany the LID Manual may be helpful to '
� explain applicability to Ukiah . Also , the City Attorney noted the project triggers appear to be well defined ,
which the City :will use in determining when developments must meet the LID requirements. '
Engineering staff has considered these comments and concurs that a fact sheet or addendum to the LID
Manual may be useful if needed to modify or clarify the LID Manual as it applies to fhe City of Ukiah . Staff ;
has already begun implementing the requirements of,the LID Manual to new projects, informing all new and !
potential developments of the �ID Manual requirements . Engineering staff is of the opinion that Council can ;
adopt the LID Manual in its current fnrm , while an addendum may be developed by staff a� specific issues ;
c�r needs arise during it� implementation ,
Continued on Ra e 2 . '
Recommended Action(s) ; Adopt resolution directing the implementation of the Storm Water Low
ImpaCt Development Technical Design ManuaL
Alternative Council Option(s): N/A '
Citizens advised : None . '
Requested by ; Tim Eriksen , Director of Public Works / City Engineer
Prepared by: Ben Kageyama , Senior Civil Engineer
Coordinated with ; Jane Chambers , City Manager
Attachments: 1 . Resolution for Adoption ;
2 . Letter of Intent to Participate in Regional Phase I Program
3 . LID Manual available at: https://citvofukiah . box. com/s/vf2b14isr0uca68k471u
Approved :
Chambers, City Manager �
; ;
_
, _ _ .
i , . . .
1. � . � _
� � RESOLUTIOFV NO. 2014-27
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION AND DIRECTING
� THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STORM WATER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
� TECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL (LID MANUAL) FOR STORM WATER PERMIT
COMPLIANCE TO THE NORTH COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOqRD
AS REQUIRED BY THE � NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
(NPDES) PERMIT NO. CA0025054 FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGES
WHEREAS, on October 1 , 2009, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
(NCRWQCB) adopted Order No. R1 -2009-0050 NPDES Permit No. CA0025054 for storm water '
discharges for the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Water Agency, and County of Sonoma '
(CoPermittees) ; and
� WHEREAS, on June 10, ,
2013 the City of Ukiah submitted a Letter of Intent #o the
, NCRWQCB to participate in the regional storm water program as described in NPDES Permit
� No, CA0025054 with the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Water Agency, and the Counfiy of
Sonoma; and
WHEREAS, such permit requires that permittees impiement an LID Manual for use by
project designers and review staff to promote effective LID design; and
WHEREAS, the LID Manual was developed under the CoPermittees lead by the LID
Technical Advisory Committee, which was comprised of City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma,
Sonoma County Water Agency and Regional Board Staff as well as local civil engineers,
landscape architects, geotechnical engineers, and arborists; and
� � WHEREAS, the LID Manual will aid in reducing storm water pollution concerns as !
. � well
as alleviating the volume of storm water runoff from developed properties , reducing the impact '
on our waterways by promoting infiltration ; and � ;
i ,
WHEREAS, The LID Manual provides comprehensive technical guidance needed to '
design �storm water LID features and maintain their functionality for the long term . ,
;
, .
� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah
hereby authorizes the adoption of and directs staff to implement the Low Impact Development �
Technical Design Manual as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit No. CA0025054 for storm water discharges.
� ;
i PASSED AND ADOPTED on 18'h day of June , 2014, by the following Roll Call Vote :
,
� , .
� AYES: Councilmembers Scalmanini , Crane , Thomas , Landis , and Mayor Baldwin
I ' NOES: None �
' ABSENT: None !
,
ABSTAIN: None '
� � G/�� ,
( 4
2
Philip E. Ba win, Mayor , �
1 ATTEST:
_ ' /I/ v ���' �� f1 .�r1/��1/(/�✓�
Kristine-L-awler,-City Cterk � -- : --
-- - -- -.
I
! .
ITEM NO. : 13a
' MEETING DATE : April 2 , 2014
G1ttj af':�1�iifi � ;
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STORM WATER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
� TECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL
� Background : On June 10, 2013, the City of Ukiah submitted a Letter of Intent to the North Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) to participate in the implementation of the current Nationai
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit with the City of Santa Rosa , the
County of Sonoma , and Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). To date, every member agency af the '
Russian River Watershed Association with a small storm water system (also known as Phase 11 agencies)
has submitted a similar notification , ultimately creating a regional program for storm water permi# '
� compliance . Implementation and adoption of the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design ;
Manual (LID Manual) is required by Ukiah and each of these Phase II agencies for compliance wi#h the I
I Permit. ;
� � Local storm water regulations originate from fhe federal Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection
' Agency (EPA). Oversight authority has been delegated to the local Regional Water Quality Control Boards
who issue permits to municipalities and governing agencies within their region , These permits regulate
storm water discharges to local waterways.
i The NCRWQCB issued the current NPDES Storm Water Permit No. CA0025054 in common to the ;
; "CoPermittees" , the City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, and SCWA, in October 2009. These agencies
( , work cooperatively together to implement their respective storm water management programs.
,
i �
; The LID Manual was developed in Sonoma County through a collaborative effort of the regional large storm i
j water agencies (also knnwn as Phase I agencies) - the City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, SCWA, and
� NCRWQCB staff as well as local civil engineers , landscape architects , geotechnical engineers, and
arborists. The completed LID Manual has been in use since October 1 , 2011 by the City of Santa Rosa , ;
i County of Sonoma, and SCWA, and may potentially be used by many other public agencies in the Russian �
� River Watershed . A copy of the LID Manual is on file with the City Clerk and available to see at: ;
; ,
ihttps://cityofukiah . box. com/s/noaq49aa3tj4a186p2xh �
i ,
�
� Continued on Pa_ e 2 '
� —
; Recommended Action(s): Adopt resolution directing the implementation of the Storm Water Low
� Impact Development Technical Design Manual . '
' Alternative Council Option(s): N/A
;
j Citizens advised : None. �
Requested by: Tim Eriksen , Director of Public Works / City Engineer �
; Prepared by: Ben Kageyama , Senior Civil Engineer i
� Coordinated with : Jane Chambers, City Manager
� Attachments: 1 . Resolution for Adoption .
! 2 . Letter of Intent to Participate in Regional Phase I� Program '
,
� 3. LID Manual available at the above web link
;
, ;
,
; �r _ / ;
! Approved : �'I�- _..,��r�"J"W'��it.--L�__._._ .. . i
i J,a e Chambers, City Manager
- - _ , - - --
, /
�
i 1 �
; . ,
,
1 . . . ......�:.. . .... . _. .. _ _ ._._ .. .. ..., . . . .
. . __.._.. ....
�. . . ,. . .. .. .._ . .. . .. .. . . . _ . . . . . .... _.... ... _ .., . . ... . . . - .
� � _ _ . _ ... � Atfi chment 2 .
. . _. . . ., , a
; , �c a. . �,
. � i � , _ �t 5�I,''ll���r�.f��yty�� ,
. ii tA�� ��<<�� � i ,c• R S`�f t rf,�5�:
. f f L t r�%1 ��w��r` S � , .
� �'Ytw/ A tSZ���' ,r7�7 �
I ( ., yi <�Fn..L .P7 , ini �^� ,t �
i I �Y I ( .i�d. '�f�r � � �,� ��j`. v� �
?..�' +; �1` �N ' . � a� .
i ! , 5,1�;'i�y��, ',Y� ` :," '`;hh,�` � .
�; , �, :, :;�• , .�, �.
Y
i .�:lJ'Yl�t '.� Y f�.'.{�( � '<
Y��k �
, :�y;tii; . '`
�� ��
;'.,��:rr.k�r• . �,
•,r.>,�-�, ' • �.
''ti.
, ti
June 10, 2013 �''
',
Mr. Matt St. John , Executive Officer �
Regional Water Quality Control Board i
North Coast Region �
5550 SKYLANE BLVD STE A �
SANTA ROSA, CA 95403- 9072 ;
i
. !
RE : Storm Water Permifi Renewal — !
City of Ukiah intends to Participate in Regional Phase I Program I
,
� Dear Mr. St. John : i
On February 5, 2013 , the Statewide NPDES Small MS4 Phase II General Permit was
adopted by the State Water Resources Contro! Board , updating the requirements of the
2003 Statewide Generai Phase II permit, The City of Ukiah is currently designat�d as a �
"small" or Phase II Stormwater Permittee. Phase II permittees have the option to either �
enroll in the new Phase II General Permit, participate in an existing Phase I program ; or �
enter into a separate permit. � �
. ,
�
This letter is an official notification to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control '
� Board (NCRWQCB) regarding the City of Ukiah 's decision on stormwater p.ermit renewal , I
� On June 5 , 2013 , the Ukiah City Council reviewed their options for permit renewal , and �
i voted to participate in the Phase I program and implement the Phase I , permit, In i
� coordination with the Russian �iver Watershed Association (RRWA) , the City of Ukiah has
been meeting with NCRWQCB staff since November2012 fo discuss the logistics of Phase
II's participating in the Phase I program (with the City of Santa Rosa , the County of �
Sonoma , and the Sonoma County Water Agency) , By implementing the existing Phase I �
permit, the City of Ukiah will be able to expand on and �nhance a well-established regional j
program . Additionafly, the NCRWQCB has expressed preference for rEgional alignment . {
I and has noted that they�possess the legal authority to designate Phase ( Ps as copermitt�es I •
of a regional Phase I permit.
' The City of Ukiah is develo in � an im leme
p g p ntation pian that will be submitted to you by
' October 1 , 2013 . The City of Ukiah will continue to implement its current program and will
incorporate Phase I permit provisions in accordance with the implementation plan as
approved by the NCRWQCB. �
I
( Thank you for the support of your staff in evaluating our optians . In particular, thanks to
I Mona Dougherty and Colleen Hunt who were very instrumental in making this regional
� approach a success.
� _. .w.. .. .. , .... ... _._. . .._ ... .. _. .... _. .. .__.. _..... .. ...._,:. ,,_ _.. _. . _ ..._.... ....�._..._.. . ... . .. . . _... . .. .._ _.,__ . .. . ...._..._... . . .
... ... . .. . .
300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH , CA 95482-5400 � '
Phone# 707/463-6200 Fa� 7071463-6204 Web Address: www.cityofuklah .com
i i '
� , I' I " Pa e2
9
; I Mr, Mait St John
� ° June 10, 2013
�
If you have further questions , please contact Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Pubiic Works
at (707) �63-6296 .
Sincerely,
Tim Eriksen
� Director of Public Works / City Engineer
�
cc: Mona Dougherty, RWQCB
; Colleen Hunt, RWQCB
Virginia Porter, RRWA
' file
�
�
3
�
i
� .
�
�
i
�
,
�
�
�
�
� �
� - _ - 1----- -
�
I
I
�
; �
} � � . £
�� # `������.f� �°�t� ��.
t �� r>>. � � � � ��
e�.
,. .
; �
� � ..
�,� �
,
,�� `��..�� �' � ����'�c�r G'��ws �'4_ ��' �� ,�,t�
z � � . � � s_ �� �
��� �� _;,
��� � �
� ��� ,�
��° � � �
� �`
` �`�1, �''� � � �
.
-
� � � �:
�? L-������ � ����`"�� c� ��,
� �
;
�� �_.
t � �
: �
��° � _ � ����.����� ���:� �� ��� �� �-�-
��'��'� � ` � ���'��
4 �
� }
�
�� �'z :2: �t�� �c=�"�.wl f t f� + i ��� �� "�� � .
,�
4
�� i� t��'�i� , �
.. , . ., �. r ,
.. . ,.x ���� ., .. .. � . 1
t ; �� 4
4 S
.,� � :4.. ��t . ` .
�� � �' i`� � �� � ,..� ��' �'�
� � � �� � � � �
�
��
� � �, �
� � � � �� e��� ,�� � � �
s: t ��. ��—���� e�� ��
a
�
� i �t� . . . . ... .. � . � ... . �.
°..Y:�:. .1� � . . . .
� � . .j . . � .. . . .. .. .
I�� ��t✓''j ( e�}—j, /J (,y^` ��/",
"3 y'�. � 0e."°m/��� �/ !+�' {si�`4—"� " `im.::r�� . ��.
Zc�� . . . .... j .
�
� µ���y t w� � Y �f!�( y�� �^ /f[�j � � .
. .. . 4 � �8 Y����� . �
�� ��,.� .. � .. . . ;� :. .. .. . �. . ..
a ,
��1�� . ���:
, : :
� ��. ���� � �� �p� ��� ��-���� �
..� ,
. ,
� � -�� � � �,r� �����, �� �� ����������'��
� �
�°'�
�_:� ., �
��c��v�� �
; � , �.�-
OCT 2 � 2014 ,f 1 ,����%��,��.�-
� �
��
CTTY OF ITKIAH
BUILLITIVG!PLAIVNING I}EPAR1'NiEI+]'�"
,
� �„
. ,.
�
. � ��- < „ �
��:°� v'� � 3�� � -' ,��-`, ��" °� - �� -
.
:��>��"�,, ��-� � ,� �c d�7� �2 �� ��..�"� � }° �
= �
�
«�2� C�� ��.���� �� � ����;���,.�� ��. � .
��, t
�-���. � �,��� �����. �.����
Community Development and Planning Department
��ty � uk�h 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq(a�citvofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
1
2 DATE: November 12, 2014
3
4 TO: Planning Commission
5
6 FROM: Kim Jordan, Principal Planner
7
8 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council to: 1)Adopt a Mitigated
9 Negative Declaration and; 2) Introduce an Ordinance to Establish the Orr Creek
10 Homes Planned Development with Precise Development Plan and Planned
11 Development Zoning Regulations for Orrs Creek Homes
12 123, 125, 127, and 129 Ford Street (APNs 002-121-20, 20, 22 and 23)
13 File No.: Munis 258
14 Continued from the October 22, 2014 meeting
15
16
17 At its October 22, 2014 meeting, Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the Orrs
18 Creek Homes Rezoning and Precise Development Plan Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative
19 Declaration (see draft Minutes from the October 22, 2014 meeting included in this packet). The
20 Planning Commission considered the IS and MND and directed staff to provide additional
21 information as discussed below. The Commission also received public comment on the IS/MND
22 and asked questions of the project proponent. The Commission voted to continue the item to
23 the November 12, 2014 in order to allow staff and the project proponent time to provide the
24 additional information requested.
25
26 COMMISSION COMMENTS
27
28 Environmental Review: Planning Commission directed staff to include additional discussion in
29 the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the Initial Study regarding the Storm Water Low
30 Impact Development Technical Design Manual (LID Manual) adopted by City Council at its June
31 18, 2014 meeting and its applicability to the proposed project. Staff has prepared the
32 addendum to the IS/MND as requested by the Planning Commission which is included as
33 attachment 1. The Public Works Department also provided a determination of the applicability
34 of the LID Manual to the Project (see attachment 2).
35
36 Trees: At the meeting the Planning Commission requested the following additional information
37 regarding the trees included in the arborist report:
38
39 ■ Clarify if Group D trees are located on lot 1 of the project site or on the parcel to the east
40 (Aarons).
41
42 The trees are shown on revised sheet C1 and all of the trees are located on lot 1 (see
43 attachment 6). In addition, the project proponent contacted the owner of the property to
44 the east to inform him of the project and proposed tree removal. Subsequently, the
45 property owner contacted staff to discuss the project and tree removal. The owner
1
1 acknowledged that the trees are on lot 1 of the project site and did not express any
2 concerns over the removal of fhe trees or the project.
3
4 In addition to the above, the trees in Group D that are proposed to be removed have
5 been marked on the site in order to provide additional clarity.
6
7 ■ Clarify the number of trees in Group D that are proposed to be removed.
8
9 The arborist has clarified that Group D includes 4 trees (see attachment 3). Of the 4
10 trees, 3 of fhe trees have codominant x-stems. These are shown on the revised civil
11 plan (see attachment 6).
12
13 ■ Clarify the location of the Tree Protection Zone and show the location on the civil plan.
14
15 The civil plan (sheet C1) has been revised to show the root protection zone as described
16 in the arborist report. The landscaping plan for lot 1 has been revised to show the
17 location of the tree protection fencing (see attachment 6).
18
19 ■ Revise the civil plan to include the trees evaluated in the arborist report.
20
21 The civil plan (sheet C1) has been revised to include these trees (see attachment 6).
22
23 ■ Clarify if/how the loss of the Group D trees is being mitigated.
24
25 The Project includes the planting of street trees as part of the frontage improvements as
26 required by City Code. Due to the health of the trees proposed for removal and limited
27 planting area available, no replacement trees were proposed as part of the project or
28 required as conditions of approval.
29
3o The project arborist's response indicates that two oak trees could be planted to offset the
31 /oss of the Group D frees. The arborist recommends Valley Oak, Coasta/Live Oak, or
32 Black Oak, and a minimum planting area of 4 feet by 4 feet. Staff has recommended the
33 planting of these trees as an additional condition of approval for the project(see below).
34
35
36 General Comments: The Commission asked the project proponent questions, including
37 maintenance of the bio-swales, possibility of the creation of a home owners association (HOA)
38 or conditions, covenants, and restriction (CC&Rs) for ongoing maintenance of the biowales,
39 access to the site from a rear alley rather than Ford Street, and tandem parking. The project
4o proponent prepared a response to the questions which is included as attachment 4.
41
42 PUBLIC COMMENT
43
44 At the meeting, public comment was received from Bruni Kobbe and Robin Sunbeam (see
45 attachment 5). The project arborist and project proponent provided responses to the comments
46 received (see attachments 3 and 4).
47
48 The comments from Ms. Kobbe are summarized below along with a response from staff (in
49 italics):
50
2
1 ■ Retain Group D trees and provide a 30-40 foot buffer zone and greenbelt around the
2 trees.
3
4 The site is zoned for development. The general plan includes goals and policies that
5 support the retention of healthy trees in order to maintain the urban forest and provide
6 tree canopy. The City does not have goa/s, policies or requirements in place that require
7 the creation of the requested buffer zone/greenbelt.
8
9 A certified arborisf prepared an evaluation of the trees in Group D that indicated they
10 were structurally compromised and would be further affecfed by development of the site.
11 Due to the dimensions of the parcel and constraints created by the location of Orrs
12 Creek, it is likely that any development of the site would have required removal of these
13 trees or that developmenf of the site would have significantly compromised the health of
14 the trees.
15
16 ■ Reconfigure the parcels to create larger parcels after creating the buffer zone/greenbelt.
17
18 Reconfiguration of the parcels would require application for and approval of a lot line
19 adjustment and revisions to the proposed precise development plan since the location,
20 size, and dimensions of the lots and development on each lot would change.
21
22 ■ Creation of the greenbelt would compensate for the 5 trees previously removed from the
23 site.
24
25 The 5 trees previously removed from the site were not removed as part of the proposed
26 project; therefore, the project cannot be required to mitigate the loss of these trees.
27
28 ■ The planting of street trees cannot mitigate the loss of the Group D trees.
29
3o The planting of street trees is required by City Code as part of the required frontage
31 improvements. The street trees are not intended to mitigate the /oss of tree canopy.
32 The general plan includes goals and policies that support the retention of healthy trees.
33 Based on the information provided by the project arborist, the trees are structurally
34 compromised and would be further compromised by the proposed project.
35
36 ■ The tree protection zone recommended by the project arborist is inadequate.
37
38 The project arborist prepared a response to this comment. Mitigation measures have
39 been applied to the Project to protect the trees during project construction. Based on the
40 response provided the arborist, in order to avoid compaction and grade changes in the
41 tree protection zone, one additional condition of approval has been recommended(see
42 be/ow).
43
44 The tree Ms. Sunbeam requested be retained is Tree #A in the arborist report and on the civil
45 plan. This tree is shown on the revised sheet C1 and protection measures for this tree have
46 been included as mitigation measures and conditions of approval for the project.
47
48 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
49
50 Based on the additional information provided, staff recommends the following revised/additional
51 conditions of approval for the Project:
3
1
2 ■ Revised condition #1: Approval is granted for the Orrs Creek Homes Project as shown
3 on the approved Precise Development Plan (sheets A01 and A02 date stamped October
4 9, 2014, sheets A1.2 for 127 and 129 Ford Street date stamped October 9, 2014, sheet
5 C1 date stamped November 5, 2014, Lot 1 landscapinq plan with protective tree fencinq
6 date stamped November 3, 2014, and the remaining architectural and civil plans
7 included in the plan set date stamped September 25, 2014) and for the approved Orrs
8 Creek Homes Planned Development Zoning Regulations dated October 14, 2014,
9 except as modified by the following conditions of approval.
10
11 ■ Additional Condition: Plans submitted for building permit are subject to staff review
12 and approval and shall include the following:
13
14 ➢ Revised civil plan that addresses the comments from the Project Arborist date
15 stamped November 4, 2014 regarding the need to avoid compaction, grade changes,
16 and standing water in the root protection zone of tree #A.
17
18 ➢ Revised landscaping plan that shows the location of the planting of two oak trees
19 (Valley Oak, Black Oak, and/or Coastal Live Oak). The minimum size shall be #15
20 and the minimum planting area shall be 4-feet by 4- feet. The location of the tree
21 planting shall be recommended by the project arborist in consultation with the project
22 proponent and civil engineer in order to ensure the long-term health of the trees.
23
24 ■ Additional Condition: For the first year after construction of lot 1, trees identified as#A,
25 E, and F in the arborist report shall receive watering as described in the response to
26 comments date stamped November 4, 2014.
27
28 RECOMMENDATION
29
30 Staff recommends Planning Commission continue the public hearing for this item and:
31
32 1. Make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Orrs Creek Homes Initial
33 Environmental Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) with addendums 1
34 and 2 based on the findings included in attachment 2 of the October 22nd staff report;
35 and
36
37 2. Make a recommendation to the City Council to introduce an ordinance to establish the
38 Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development with Precise Development Plan and Planned
39 Development Zoning Regulations based on the findings in attachment 3 and subject to
4o the conditions of approval included in attachment 4 of the October 22nd staff report and
41 with the additional and revised conditions of approval above.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
4
1 Attachments:
2
3 1. Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development Plan IS
4 and MND Addendum #2 (Provided to Planning Commission on 10/30/2014)
5 2. Memo from the Public Works Department dated October 24, 2014
6 3. Response from Project Arborist date stamped November 4, 2014
7 4. Response from Project Proponent date stamped November 3, 2014
8 5. Public Comment from Bruni Kobbe and Robin Sunbeam from the October 22, 2014
9 meeting
10 6. Revised Sheet C1 date stamped November 5, 2014 and Lot 1 Landscaping Plan date
11 stamped November 3, 2014
12
5
ATTACHMENT 1
Addendum # 2 to the
� MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION /
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and
Ci o Ukiah Precise Development Plan
Project Title and File Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development Plan
Number: File No . : 258
Lead Agency Name and City of Ukiah Department of Planning & Community Development
Address: 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Project Location : 123 - 129 Ford Street (APNs 002- 121-20, 21, 22, and 23 )
Ukiah, Mendocino County, CA
Project Sponsor's Name Mary Ann Lance
and Address: 2659 Silver Stone Lane
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
General Plan Designation : HDR ( High Density Residential )
Zoning: Planned Development ( PD) / High Density Residential ( R3 )
Flood Zone : Flood Zone X : Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain
Contact Person : Kim Jordan
Phone Number / Email : (707 ) 463-6207 / kjordan@cityofukiah .com
Date Prepared : August — September 8, 2014
Public Review Period : September 15 through October 14, 2014
Addendum Date : October 30, 2014
Introduction
This document is an Addendum to the Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and Precise
Development Plan (" ProjecY') Mitigated Negative Declaration . This Addendum updates the Hydrology
and Water Quality section of the Initial Environmental Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) prepared for the Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development
Plan . No other changes to the IS or MND are included in this addendum . This addendum does not
change the analysis, thresholds of significance, impacts, or mitigation measures included in the IS/MND .
The purpose of this addendum is to clarify the applicability and implementation of the Storm Water Low
Impact Development Technical Design Manual as it relates to the proposed Project.
At the October 22 , 2014 , Planning Commission meeting , the Commission reviewed and considered the IS
prepared for the Project and requested that additional discussion be included in the Hydrology and Water
Quality section of the IS that explained how the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design
Manual applies to the Project.
As allowed by CEQA section 15164, an addendum to the IS/MND is the appropriate document since: 1 )
the changes to the IS/MND involve only minor technical changes and additions; 2) no substantial changes
have occurred in the proposed project; 3) no substantial changes have occurred in respect to the
Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development Plan
Addendum #2 to the Initial Environmental Study
• October 30, 2014 •
1
circumstances under which the project is andertaken ; and 4) there has been no new information of
substantial importance as described below.
1 ) The City Council adopted the City of Santa Rosa's Storm Water Low Impact Development
Technical Design Manual by resolution on June 18 , 2014. The manual became effective on that
date to projects submitted after that date . Since the Project application was submitted on May
27 , 2014, the Project is not subject to the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical
Design Manual.
2) The Planning Commission's request for additional information regarding the applicability of the
Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual does not require any changes
to the Project. Additionally, no substantial changes have been made to the Project since the
preparation of the Initial Study. The civil plans reviewed by the Planning Commission and date
stamped September 25 , 2014 were revised by the project proponent to incorporate some of the
mitigation measures included in the IS related to Hydrology and Water Quality and Biological
Resources.
3) The Initial Study was prepared from August 2014 through September 8, 2014 . The Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration were published with the State Clearinghouse and made
available for review by State agencies on September 11 , 2014 . A public notice for the IS and
MND was made available to the public for review and comment with a 30-day comment period of
September 15 through October 14, 2014 . The IS and MND were reviewed and considered by the
Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 22 , 2014 . This addendum includes the
additional information requested by the Planning Commission .
No changes have occurred in the Project setting , no new projects have been submitted to the City
that would affect the circumstances of the Project, cumulative conditions, or setting , and no
modifications have been made to the Project other than to modify the civil plans to incorporate
certain mitigation measures; therefore, there are no new environmental impacts that were not
discussed in the IS and MND and no change in the significance or severity of potential
environmental impacts.
4) The only new information related to the Project is the information requested by the Planning
Commission as described above under #1 . The information included in # 1 does not change the
type of water quality/storm drain improvements required for the Project but rather clarifies how the
City of Santa Rosa's Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual adopted
by the City of Ukiah City Council applies to the proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality Discussion
Below is a timeline for the City of Ukiah's adoption of the City of Santa Rosa's Storm Water Low Impact
Development Technical Design Manual . Rather than creating an LID manual for the City of Ukiah , the
City Council chose to adopt the City of Santa Rosa's LID manual which had been developed by the LID
Technical Advisory Group , which was comprised of City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, Sonoma
County Water Agency, and Regional Board staff, as well as local civil engineers, landscape architects,
geotechnical engineers, and arborists.
1990 : US Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued regulations for permitting storm water
discharge from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System's (MS4's) serving populations of 100, 000 _
people or more ( Phase I municipality) .
1999 : USEPA issued regulations for permitting storm water discharges from small MS4's defined as
serving populations of fewer than 100 , 000 people ( Phase II municipality) .
Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development Plan
Addendum #2 to the Initial Environmental Study
October 30, 2014
2
2003 : The Statewide General Storm Water Permit for small MS4's ( Phase II communities) was
adopted . With the adoption of the permit, the City of Ukiah become a "smalP'/Phase II community.
May 4, 2006 : North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board approves Ukiah 's Storm Water
Management Plan:
October 1 , 2009 : North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) adopted Order
No. R1 -2009-0050 NPDES Permit No. CA0025054 for storm water discharges for the City of Santa
Rosa, Sonoma County Water Agency, and County of Sonoma as co-permittees.
October 1 , 2011 : City of Santa Rosa's completed Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical
Design Manual has been in use by the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Water Agency, and
County of Sonoma since October 1 , 2011 . Tfie manual also may potentially be used by many other
public agencies of the Russian River Watershed .
February 5, 2013 : Statewide NPDES Small MS4 Phase II General Permit renewal adopted by the
State Water Resources Control Board , updating the 2003 Statewide General Phase II permit. Phase
II communities have the option to: 1 ) comply with the requirements of the new Phase II General
Permif; 2) become a co-permittee of an existing Phase 1 Permit; or 3) enter into a separate permit
with their Regional Water Quality Control Board . Phase II communities are required to notify the
State which option will be implemented by July 1 , 2013 . Additionally, the Board has the legal
authority to designate Phase II agencies as co-permittees of a regional Phase I permit, even if the
agency chooses to enroll in the new Phase II Statewide General Permit.
June 5, 2013 : At the June 5, 2013 City Council meeting , the City Council considered which option
should be taken relative to the renewal of the Phase II permit and the need to provide a letter of intent
to the NCRWQCB by July 1 , 2013 identifying the option to be implemented by the City. Public Works
staff analyzed the benefits and limitations of the various options of each approach and recommended
the City implement the existing Phase 1 permit (option 2 above) and noted the benefits of this
approach as the ability to reduce some costs by adopting program materials previously developed by
the local Phase I communities with modifications for Ukiah and the preference of the NCRWQCB for
storm water program alignment with Phase II 's joining the regional Phase I permit as co-permittees.
At the meeting , the City Council authorized the Public Works Director to submit a letter of intent to the
NCRWQCB stating that the City of Ukiah intends to implement the regional Phase I Storm Water
Permit (co-permittees City of Santa Rosa , Sonoma County Water Agency, and County of Sonoma) on
a schedule developed by NCRWQCB staff in consultation with City of Ukiah staff.
June 10, 2013 : City of Ukiah submitted a Letter of Intent to the NCRWQCB to participate in the
regional storm water program as described in NPDES Permit No. CA0025054 with the City of Santa
Rosa, Sonoma County Water Agency, and County of Sonoma. Such permit requires the permittee to
implement an LID Manual for use by project designers and review staff in order to promote effective
LID design . Rather than developing its own LID Manual, the City of Ukiah chose to adopt the City of
Santa Rosa's LID manual . '
September 30, 2013 : The City of Ukiah submitted its implementation plan to the NCRWQCB. Until
such time as an implementation plan is approved by the NCRWQCB and adopted by the City of
Ukiah , the City of Ukiah will continue to implement its current program and will incorporate Phase I
permit provisions in accordance with the implementation plan approved by the NCRWQCB.
March 6, 2014: The NCRWQCB approved the City of Ukiah 's schedule outlined in the
implementation plan . Compliance with the implementation plan is, required until the Phase I permit is
renewed . ,
April 2, 2014: As of April 2 , 2014 , every member agency of the Russian River Watershed Association I
with a small storm water system ( i . e. Phase II agencies) had submitfed notifications to the
NCRWQCB indicating their intent to participate in the regional storm water program as described in '
Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development Plan
Addendum #2 to the Initial Environmental Study,
� October 30, 2014 ,
3
'
NPDES Permit No. CA0025054 with the City of Santa Rosa , Sonoma County Water Agency, and
County of Sonoma. Effectively, this would result in a regional program for storm water permit
compliance.
April 2, 2014: At the April 2 , 2014 City Council meeting , the City Council considered the adoption of a
resolution directing the implementation of the City of Santa Rosa's Storm Water Low Impact
Development Technical Design Manual . The adoption of the resolution would make the City of Santa
Rosa's Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual applicable to projects in the
City of Ukiah . At the meeting , the City Council expressed support for the item but did not adopt the
resolution . Instead , the City Council directed staff to seek comments from the City Attorney.
June 18, 2014 : At the June 18 , 2014 City Council meeting , the City Council again considered the
adoption of a resolution directing the implementation of the City of Santa Rosa's Storm Water Low
Impact Development Technical Design Manual . The agenda summary report for this item included
the additional information from the City Attorney as requested by the City Council . The following
clarifications are provided related to the comments from the City Attorney, the timeline for adoption of
the City of Santa Rosa's Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual , and the
applicability of the LID Manual to projects located within the City of Ukiah and the Project.
■ The City of Santa Rosa's Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual
has an effective date of June 1 , 2010 for new projects ( LID Manual ,. page 16) . This date is
the effective date for projects located in the City of Santa Rosa and the co-permittees of the
Phase I permit (County of Sonoma and Sonoma County Water Agency) . Since the City of
Ukiah City Council did not adopt the Manual until June 18 , 2014, this date does not apply to
projects located in the City of Ukiah . In addition , the City of Ukiah had not sent the letter of
intent informing the NCRWQCB indicating the City would be pursuing option 2 — joining the
Phase I permit as a co-permittee until June 13 , 2013 .
■ The City of Santa Rosa's Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual
includes a geographic map area in Chapter 2 . This map does not include the City of Ukiah ,
which further illustrates that the Manual does not apply to the City of Ukiah . Additionally, the
text associated with the map states "The cities of Healdsburg , Windsor, Cotati , Cloverdale,
Ukiah , and Rohnert Park are regulated under their own ' Phase II ' NPDES MS4 permit with
the NCRWQCB and may have a different set of requirements. " ( LID Manual , page 16)
■ The LID Manual includes well defined projects triggers that identify when the LID Manual '
would apply to a project. '
■ A fact sheet could be helpful in explaining the applicability of the LID Manual to the City of
Ukiah .
At the meeting , the City Council voted (5-0) to adopt the resolution making the City of Santa Rosa's Storm
Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual applicable to projects within the City of Ukiah .
The resolution became effective upon adoption ; making projects submitted after adoption of the resolution
subject to the requirements of the Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual . Effectively,
projects that meet the triggers included in the Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual and
submitted on or after June 19 , 2014 are required to comply with the requirements of the Low Impact
Development Technical Design Manual .
;
The Project was submitted to the Planning Department on May 27 , 2014 ; therefore, the Project is not
subject to the requirements of the Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual .
Sources and Attachments :
1 . June 5 , 2013 City Council Agenda Summary Report
2 . Letter of Intent to the NCRWQCB dated June 10, 2013, from Tim Eriksen , Public Works Director
3 . April 2 , 2014 City Council Agenda Summary Report '
Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development Plan
Addendum #2 to the Initial Environmental Study
October 30, 2014 �
4
s
•
4 . June 18 , 2014 City Council Agenda Summary Report
5. City of Santa Rosa's Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual , Page 16
6 . Letter from NCRWQCB dated March 6 , 2014
7 . Memo from Tim Eriksen , Public Works Director, dated October 24 , 2014
8 . City Council Resolution 2014-27 adopting the City of Santa Rosa LID Technical Design Manual
i
Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development Plan
Addendum #2 to the Initial Environmental Study
� October 30, 2014 i
5
' ���c�� �t���� #� I
;
i
� ITEM NO. : � 3c
MEETING DATE : �une 5 , 2013
4
�i4•J nf 'Z-T�cT•Fi
� AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
� SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO SUBMIT A LETTER
� OF
INTENT REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF REGIONAL PHASE I STORM WATER PERMIT
� Background: A comprehensive two-phased national program for addressing the urban sources of storm
water discharges is mandafied by Congress under the Clean Water Act. The program uses the Nationa)
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting mechanism to implement controls designed to
prevent pollutants from being washed by storm water runoff into local water bodies. The United States
Envir.onmental Protection Agency (US EPA) authorizes most states to implement the NPDES permitting
program . Through this partnership, the State provides policy and regulatory oversight on behalf of the
federal government.
In 1990, the US EPA issued regulations for permitting storm water discharges from Municipal Separate
� Storm Sewer System's (MS4's) serving a population of 100,000 or more people. These permits are °Phase
, � I " permits. Currently, City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma and Sonoma County Water Agency are
� copermittees of a Phase I permit,
�
i In 1999, the lJS EPA issued regulations for permitting storm water discharges from "small MS4's. " These
are MS4's serving populations of fewer than 100, 000 people and designated by the permitting authority. In
2003, the Statewide General Storm Water Permit for small MS4's (Phase II Communities) was adopted. The
City of Ukiah is currently a "small" or Phase II permittee. Ukiah's Storm Water Management Plan was
� approved by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) on May 4, 2006 .
�
On February 5, 2013, the Statewide NPDES Small MS4 Phase II General Permit renewal was adopted by
the State Water Resources Control Board, updating the requirements of the 2003 Statewide General Phase
j II permit. Phase II communities have the option to either 1 ) comply with the requirements of the new Phase
� II General Permit; 2) become a copermittee of an existing Phase I Permit; or 3) enter into a separate permit
� with their Regional Water Quality Control Board.
�
� By July 1 , 2013 , Phase II communities must notify the State which permit requirements they will imptement.
�
� Recommended Action(s): 1 . Authorize the Director of Public Works to submit a letter of intent to the
� North Coast Regional Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) stating that the City of Ukiah intends to
imptement the regiona( Phase I Storm Water Permit (copermittees - the City of Santa Rosa, County of
� Sonoma and Sonoma County Water Agency) , on a schedule developed by NCRWQCB staff in
� consultation with City of Ukiah staff. '
! Alternat�ve Council Option�s): N/A
�
{
Citizens advised: N/A '
Requested by: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works / City Engineer
Prepared by: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works — Engineering & Streets
Coordinated with : Jane Chambers, City Manager
Attachments: None.
, ,.� ' / �--,� .
� Approved : c��r ,1,�,� . ,�
3 J Chambers, City Manager
�
�
j Subject: AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO SUBMIT A LETTER OF INTENT REGARDING
; IMPLEMENTATION OF REGIONAL PHASE I STORM WATER PERMIT
� ' Meeting Date: June 5 , 2013
Page 2 of 2
Discussion : Staff has determined that the City of Ukiah has three viable options for compliance with the
new NPDES regulations:
1) Enroli under the new Sfiatewide Small MS4 Phase II General Permit
2) Become copermittees of the existing City of Sanfa Rosa, County of Sonoma and Sonoma County
Water Agency Phase I Permit (P'hase I Permit)
3) Enter into a separate permit with the NCRWQCB
The NCRWQCB has expressed a preference for Russian River Watershed storm water program alignmenf
with Phase II's joining the regional Phase I Permit (option 2) . Additionally, the NCRWQCB has the legal
authority to designate Phase IPs as copermittees of a regional Phase I permit - even if they choose to enroll
in the new Phase ll Statewide .General Permit with a July 2013 Notice of Intent.
Phase II communities choosing option 2 would become Phase I copermittees upon renewal of the local
Phase I Permit in 2015. Until this formal Phase I renewal, the NCRWQCB will work with each Phase II '
agency to develop a plan to bring each agency closer to alignment with the Phase I permit.
Staff has determined that the City of Ukiah will be required to implement more stringent and more exfiensive
requirements whether implementing the renewed Phase II Permit or existing Phase I Permit, The
advantages of implementing fhe Phase I Permit appear to outweigh the advantages of implementing the
Phase II General Permit, particularly in fiscal terms. The renewed Phase II Permit requirements are more '
� onerous, and therefore more costly, than the Phase I Permit requirements. By implementing the existing
; Phase I permit, the Cify of Ukiah will be able to reduce some costs by adopting program materials
I previously developed by the local Phase I communities, with modifications for the City of Ukiah . Phase I
' agencies are willing to accept Phase IPs as copermittees and share program components. Phase II's, in
: coordination with RRWA, have been meeting with the NCRWQCB staff since November 2012 to discuss the
logistics of Phase IPs becoming Phase I copermittees .
If the City of Ukiah implements the Phase I Permit, in two years the NCRWQCB will require the City of
Ukiah to become a copermittee on the new Phase I Permit. As a Phase I copermittee, the City of Ukiah will
most likely need to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with all agencies implementing the Phase I
permit, with the City of Santa Rosa being the lead copermittee.
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Director of Public Works to submit a letter of intent to
; the North Coast Regional Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) stating that the City of Ukiah intends to
implement the regional Phase 1 Storm Water Permit (copermittees - the City of Santa Rosa, County of
Sonoma and Sonoma County Water Agency) , on a schedule developed by NCRWQCB staff in consultation '
with City of Ukiah staff. ;
Fiscal lmpact:
� Budgeted FY 12113 � New Appropr.iation � Not Applicable � Budget Amendment Required
Amount Budaeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addtl . Appropriation Reauested
i
; � , . _ �.�ac� �,nt # Z
) ; . �
� i �E. ��,t�`:f�`n�#��' ��';�;z ,,
� . ' 4 �1 �SM1={7� 'fS��e ���`C� "�.:
i i � ( �//
'. � � � ,i�`��t45,�t{ , � ;� Y - �
i � �3�t y��{ y� ; uiq�� . JL r � .
G��t: f � Y �
. , � ,r �},,
I ','�,`��%�""C1 �i r e^: o ` �' � . '
' ?i�m :.,:� .�q %�I� � � .•u . t f ;i .
_ . f�j�i . � Y. '
i � �,lp'• � r�� ,
t �'4
' � . . � I 'g:;/ ti.
f �' }`,�'
� � � ,. i i�fl•'Y' �T'`'� y ..,�� �
�, `
� June 10, 2013 ��� z
}
. ,
� Mr. Matt St. John , Executive Officer �
� Regional Water Quality Control Board
North Coast Region
5550 SKYLANE BLVD STE A i
SANTA ROSA, CA 95403-1072 i
�
�
RE: Storm Water Permit Renewal —
City of Ukiah intends to Participate in Regi�nal Phase I Program � '
Dear Mr. St. John :
On February 5, 2013 , the Statewide NPDES Small MS4 Phase II General Permit was
� adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board, updating the requirements of the
! ° 2003 Statewide Generat Phase II permit. The City of Ukiah is currently designated. as a
, "small" or Phase II Stormwater Permittee. Phase II permittees have the option to either �
; enroll in the new Phase II General Permit, participate in an existing Phase I program ; or
I enter into a separate permit. . � - . �
�
, This letter is an official notification .to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Contral �
. '
I Board (NCRWQCB) regarding the City of Ukiah 's decision on stormwater permit renewal. i
f On June 5 , � 2013, the Ukiah City Council reviewed their options for permit renewal , and �
voted to participafie in the Phase I program and implement the Phase I , permit. In +
coordination with the Russian �tiver Watershed Association (RRWA) , the City of Ukiah has i
� been meeting with NCRWQCB staff since November 2012 to discuss the logistics of Phase �
II's participating in the Phase I program(with the City of Santa Rosa, the County of
Sonoma , and the Sonoma County Water Agency). By implementing the existing �Phase I . f
permit, the City of Ukiah will be able to expand on and enhance a well-established regional
program. Additionally, the NCRWQCB has expressed preference for regional alignment � . .
and has noted that theypossess the legal authority to designate Phase IPs as copermittees �
of a regional Phase I permit. � . '
� The Cit of Ukia � �
� y h is developing an implementation plan that will be submitted to you by
� October 1 , 2013. The City of Ukiah will continue to implement its current program and will
incorporate Phase I permit provisions in accordance with the implementation plan as
� approved by the NCRWQCB. � '
Thank you for the support of your staff in evaluating our options. In particular, thanks to
! Mona Dougherty and Colleen Hunt who were very instrumental in making this regional
� approach a success.
_.._._.= s.=. ��._�.,�. ._.: _-�.�..____ ....,., :.._.... . .. .:. ...._��.z�,.,:...�..�,. .._ . .__..__.,�,n .,.... .w,a.u_�._.._....�. _.....�...��.,.... ..m.��.. ... . ,..�._......,:._._.... .,.....�_... .. .. ..... ..._._. .......�: .
300 SEMINARYAVENUE UKIAH , CA95482-5400 ��""��` � ��
Phone# 707/463•6200 Fax# 707/463-6204 WebAddress: www.cityofuklah.com
i
�
` Page 2
i � Mr. Malt St. John
; June 10, 2013
� If you have further questions, please contact Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works
� at (707) 463-6296.
�
; Sincerely,
( Tim Eriksen
I
' Director of Public Works ! City Engineer
I, cc: Mona Dougherty, RWQCB �
i Colleen Hunt, RWQCB
; Virginia Porter, RRWA
� file
;
;
. ;
;
' � ��,� ��..��, ����°��:�-� i ��
�
� ��� � �� ; 13a
� � MEETING DATE ; April 2 , 2014
Ci.iy a,�'-2Ik.,��
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STORM WATER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPIWENT
TECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL
, Backaround: On June 10, 2013, the City of Ukiah submitted a Letter of Intent to the North Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) to participate in the implementation of the current National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit with the City of Santa Rosa , the
County of Sonoma, and Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). To date, every member agency of the
Russian River Watershed Association with a small storm water system (also known as Phase II agencies)
has submitted a similar notification, ultimately creating a regional program for storm water permit
compliance. Implementation and adoption of the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design
Manual (LID Manual) is required by Ukiah and each of these Phase II agencies for compliance with the
Permit.
Local storm water regulations originate from the federal Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Oversight authority has been delegated to the local Regional Water Quality Control Boards
who issue permits to municipalities and governing agencies within their region . These permits regulate
storm water discharges to local waterways.
� The NCRWQCB issued the current NPDES Storm Water Permit No. CA0025054 in common to the
' "CoPermittees" , the City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, and SCWA, in October 2009. These agencies
work cooperatively together to implement their respective storm water management programs ,
The LID Manual was developed in Sonoma County through a collaborative effort of the regional large storm
water agencies (also known as Phase I agencies) - the City of Santa Rosa , County of Sonoma , SCWA, and
NCRWQCB staff as well as local civil engineers , landscape architects, geotechnical engineers, and
arborists. The completed LID Manual has been in use since October 1 , 2011 by the City of Santa Rosa,
County of Sonoma, and SCWA, and may potentially be used by many other public agencies in the Russian
River Watershed , A copy of the LID Manual is on file with the City Clerk and available to see at:
https://citvofukiah . box. com/s/noaq49aa3tj4a186p2xh
Continued on Pa e 2
Recommended Action(s): Adopt resolution directing the implementation of the Storm Water Low
Impact Development Technical Desiqn Manual.
,� Alternative Council Option(s): N/A
Citizens advised : None.
Requested by: Tim Eriksen , Director of Public Works / City Engineer
Prepared by: Ben Kageyama , Senior Civil Engineer
Coordinated with : Jane Chambers, City Manager
Attachments: 1 . Resolution for Adoption
� 2 . Letter of Intent to Participate in Regional Phase I� Program
3 , LID Manual available at the above web link
Approved :. � .,�I�- ���--���1�-�:—_..
Ja� e Chambers, City Manager
'J
� �
Aftachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AUTHORIZING 7HE ADOPTION OF AND
DIRECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STORM WATER LOW IMPACT
DEVELOPMENT. TECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL (LID MANUAL) FOR STORM WATER
PERMIT COMPLIANCE TO THE NORTH COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT NO. CA0025054 FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGES
WHEREAS, on October 1 , 2009, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Controi Board
(NCRWQCB) adopted Order No. R1 -2009-0050 NPDES Permit Na CA0025054 for storm water
discharges for the City of Santa Rosa , Sonoma County Water Agency, and County of Sonoma
(CoPermittees) ; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2013, the City of Ukiah submitted a Letter of Intent to the
NCRWQCB to participate in the regional storm water program as described in NPDES Permit
. No. CA0025054 with the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Water Agency, and the County of
Sonoma; and
WHEREAS, such permit requires that permittees implement an LID Manual for use by :
� project designers and review staff to promote effective LID design; and
WHEREAS, the LID Manual was developed under the CoPermittees lead by the LID
Technical Advisory Committee, which was. comprised of City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma ,
Sonoma County Water Agency and Regional Board Staff as well as local civil engineers ,
landscape architects, geotechnical engineers, and arborists; and
WHEREAS, the LID Manual will aid in reducing storm water pollution concerns as well
as alleviating the volume of storm water runoff from developed properties , reducing the impact '
on our waterways by promoting infiltration; and �
WHEREAS, The . LID Manual provides comprehensive technical guidance needed fio �
- design storm w.ater LID features and maintain their functionality for the long term .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah
hereby authorizes the adoption of and directs staff to implement the Low Impact Development
Technical Design Manual as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit No. CA0025054 for storm water discharges .
PASSED AND ADOPTED on 2"d day of April 2014 by the following Roll Call Vote: ',
�
AYES:
NOES: '
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
Philip E. Baldwin , Mayor
ATTEST: I
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
;
,
; . ... . . .. . .. . . . _ . .. ... ., . . . . . . . . . . , . , , Att chment 2
, . . . .... _ .. _ . _.. . .. , ... .. .
. . ._ . .. ... ..... . . .. .� .�;
; �Y�:'�t
i � ���,�it�ik.a�t�,�' �1 .
I v u '• `r�� l'� ��a+a'4r 1i ���'� ,\'
ti 3�`�y, J . . ; � � 7, y
� , ,�: ,, ,�5� y • • �.
I' �f� �,f �� ��� ;• � � � '1 � �
:�i�y�`��..�: �j_.��� ! ` , .
i ti1�iy�`.• � 1 ���! • ' .
. � , , ::?'e ;r ���, • ,�_ .
t M � '�
1F . � ^.'���`� ('; `\�"� .
I y � �.
� June 14, 2013 ''', .�
. ,
� Mr. Matt St. John, Executive Officer �I
� Regional Water Quality Control Board I
North Coast Region � I
5550 SKYLANE BLVD STE A
, SANTA ROSA, CA 95403-1072 !
�
RE: Storm Water Permit Renewal — ;
� City of Ukiah intends to Participate in Regional Phase I Program �
, �
Dear Mr. St. John : � .
On February 5, , 2013 , the Statewide NPDES Small MS4 Phase II General Permit was
adopted by the , State Water Resources Control Board , updating the requirements of the
� 2003 Statewide General Phase II permit. The City of Ukiah is currently designated. as a
� "smai!" or Phase 11 Stormwater Permittee. Phase II permittees have the option to either
� � enroll in the new Phase II General Permit, participate in an existing Phase I program ; or �
i � enter into .a separate permit. . � . !
I � !
This letter is an officiai nofiification to the North Coast Regional Water Quali#y Control �
� i Board (NCRWQCB) regarding the City of Ukiah's decision on stormwater permit renewai. �
i On June 5, � 2013, the Ukiah City Council reviewed their options for permit renewal, and j
i voted to participate in the Phase I program and implement the Phase I , permit. In �
. � coordination with the Russian �tiver Watershed Association (RRWA) , the City of Ukiah has
; � been meeting with NCRWQCB staff since November 2012 to discuss the logistics of Phase �
' ; II's participating in th� Phase I program(with the City of Santa Rosa, the County of "
' I . Sonoma, and the Sonoma . County Water Agency). By implementing the existing �Phase I �
� permit, the City of Ukiah will be able to expand on and enhance a well-established regional �
program. Additionally, the NCRWQCB has expressed preference for regional alignment �
and has hated that theypossess the legal authority to designate Phase I I's as capermittees �
of a regional Phase I permit.
� The City of Ukiah is developing� an implementation plan that will be submitted to you by
October 1 , 2013. The City of Ukiah will continue to implement its current program and will `
incorporate Phase I permit provisions in accordance with the implementation plan as
I � approved by the NCRWQCB. �
Thank you for the support of your staff in evaluating our options. In particuCar, thanks to
Mona Dougherty and Colleen Hunt who were very instrumental in making this regional
approach a success.
_..... ...�.........:. ,�..... ..... ......,...., .. .._ .. .... ..:...: .... .. ., ...,.:.. ... .,.,..:_...,._.....,.__. ..._.....�,_.,.,n..... ...�.,:. ........ __,.,_:... ... ,,., _ .,.:,..:.:.�... .........., �.,... .. ..... ... .. :.... _. ......... . .... ...._.... ..,. ..
� , ._ L. .....� .... .
300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH , CA 95482-5400
Phone# 707/463-6200 Fax# 7071463•6204 Web Address; www.cityofukiah.com
Page 2
� Mr. Mait St. John
; June 10, 2013 �
If you have further questions, please contact Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works
at (707) 463-6296 , . �
Sincerely,
Tim Eriksen
Director of Public Works / City Engineer
cc: Mona Dougherty, RWQCB �
Colleen Hunt, RWQCB ,
. Virginia Parter, RRWA
file
!
�����chrn�nfi �
11°EM NO . : �e . �
MEETING DATE : � une 1 S , 2014
�-xa� ��' �z��"c�c��
AGEND �► SUIVIMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STORM WATER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
TECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL _...
Backqround : On June 10, 2013, the City of Ukiah submitted a Letter of Intent to the North Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) to participate in the implementation of the current National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit with the City of Santa Rosa , the
County of Sonoma, and Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) . To date, every member agency of the
Russian River Watershed Association with a small storm water system (also known as Phase II agencies)
has submitted .a similar notification , ultimately creating a regional program for storm water permit '
compliance . Implementation and adoption of the Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design
Manual (LID Manual) is required by Ukiah and each of these Phase II agencies for compliance with the
Permit. On April 2 , 2014, this item was before the City Council. The Council was supportive of the item , but
directed staff to seek comments from the City Attorney,
Discussion : The City Attorney has reviewed the draft LID Manual and noted the following : Chapter 2 of
the LID Manual gives an effective date of June 1 , 2010 for new projects ; a geographic area map as shown
in Chapter 2 does not include Ukiah ; and , a fact sheet to accompany the LID Manual may be helpful to
explain applicability to Ukiah . Also , the City Attorney noted the project triggers appear to be well defined ,
which the City will use in determining when developments must meet the LID requirements.
Engineering staff has considered these comments and concurs that a fact sheet or addendum to the LID
Manual may be useful if needed to modify or clarify the LID Manual as it applies to the City of Ukiah . Staff
has already begun implementing the requirements of the LID Manual to new projects, informing all new and .
potential developments of the LID Manual requirements. Engineering staff is of the opinion that Council can
adopt the LID Manual in its current form , while an addendum may be developed by staff as specific issues
or needs arise during its implementation .
Continued on Page 2
Recommended Action(s) : Adopt resolution directing the implementation of the Storm Water Low
Impact Development Technical Design Manual .
Alternative Council Option(s): N/A :
r
Citizens advised : None ,
Requested by: Tim Eriksen , Director of Public Works / City Engineer
Prepared by: Ben Kageyama , Senior Civil Engineer
Coordinated with : Jane Chambers, City Manager ;
Attachments: 1 . Resolution for Adoption
2 . Letter of Intent to Participate in Regional Phase I Program
3 . LID Manual available at: https: //citvofukiah . box. com/s/vf2b14isr0uca68k471u
Approved :
Chambers , City Ma�ager �
Subjecf: Discussion and Possible Adoption of Resolution Directing fhe Implementation of the Storm Water Low Impact
Development Technical Design Manua!
Meeting Date: June 18, 2094
Page 2 of 2
Locai storm water regulations originate from the federal Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) . Oversight authority has been delegated to the local Regional Water Quality Control Boards
who issue permits to municipalities and governing agencies within their region . These permits regulate
storm water discharges to local waterways .
The NCRWQCB issued the current NPDES Storm Water Permit No . CA0025054 in common to the
"CoPermittees" , the City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, and SCWA, in October 2009. These agencies
work cooperatively together to implement their respective storm water management programs.
The LID Manual was developed in Sonoma County thr.ough a collaborative effort of the regional large storm
, water agencies (also known as Phase I agencies) - the City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, SCWA, and
NCRWQCB staff as well as local civil engineers, landscape architects , geotechnical engineers, and
arborists. The completed LID Manual has been in use since October 1 , 2011 by the City of Santa Rosa ,
County of Sonoma, and SCWA, and may potentially be used by many other public agencies in the Russian '
River Watershed. A copy of the LID Manual is on file with the City Clerk and available to see at: ,
https ://citvofukiah . box. com/s/vf2b14jsr0uca68k471u
The LID Manual will provide the technical guidance needed to design small scale landscape based storm
' water quality features . These types of features remove pollutants from runoff through a variety of natural ,
physical , biological , and chemical treatment processes before it is alfowed to infiltrate. LID features not only
remove pollutants, but also reduce the volume of storm water generated by developed properties and
minimize the impacts on our local waterways .
The LID Manual will be used by project designers and review staffto promote effective LID design , and is a
required component of the CoPermittees' Permit compliance.
The threshold for these requirements has been reduced to include most projects that create or replace
' 10 , 000 square feet or more of impervious surFace and all developments including 4 or more houses . Certain
municipal activities (such as public utility installation or replacement) and types of projects (such as
; pedestrian trails) are exempt. ,
Recommendation : Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution and implementation of the Storm
Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual in compliance with NPDES Storm Water Permit
' Requirements.
; Fiscallmpact:
� Budgeted FY 13/14 � New Appropriation � Not Applicable � Budget Amendment Required ,
; Amount Budqeted Source of Funds (title and #) Account Number Addtl . Appropriation Reauested '
Attachment 1
i
i
l RESOLUTION NO. 2014- .
. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION AND DIRECTING
7HE IMPLEMENTA710N OF THE STORM WATER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT '
TECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL (LID MANUAL) FOR STORM WATER PERMtT
COMPLIANCE TO THE NORTH COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
AS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
(NPDES) PERMIT NO. CA0025054 FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGES
WHEREAS, on October 1 , 2009, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
(NCRWQCB) adopted Order No. R1 -2009-0050 NPDES Permit No , CA0025054 for storm water
discharges for the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Water Agency, and County of Sonoma
(CoPermittees); and
WHEREAS, . on June 10, 2013, the City of Ukiah submitted a Letter of Intent to the
NCRWQCB to participate in the regional storm water program as described in NPDES Permit
No. CA0025054 with the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Water Agency, and the County of
Sonoma; and �
WHEREAS, such permit requires that permittees implement an LID Manual for use by
project designers and review staff to promote effective LID design; and
WHEREAS, the LID Manual was developed under the CoPermittees lead by the LID
Technical Advisory Committee, which was comprised of City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma ,
Sonoma County Water Agency and Regional Board Staff as well as local civil engineers ,
landscape. architects, geotechnical engineers, and arborists; and
WHEREAS, the LID Manual will aid in reducing storm water pollution concerns as well
as alleviating the volume of storm water runoff from developed properties , reducing the impact
on our waterways by promoting infiltration ; and
WHEREAS, The LID Manual provides comprehensive technical guidance needed to
design storm water LID features and maintain their functionality for the long term .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah '
hereby authorizes the adoption of and directs staff ta implement the Low Impact Development
Technical Design Manual as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
� Permit No. CA0025054 for storm water discharges.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on 18t" day of June, 2014, bythe foltowing Roll Call Vote: �
AYES :
NOES: '
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Philip E. Baldwin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
,
;
,
; ._ . .. .. . _ _ . . t chment 2
. _ . _ . . .. ... . . . . . . .. . ...... . .. , __ . ... ...
f T�
, ._ . . . . ....: . . .. ... �..... . ..,�
� i . . . 3s �` � t{�r��4� �N�ljh � . .
`X�A,}S�J . . `�• �
� � . ��� �
f , ' ,�i � � r /
� G'lt, � � -�� � ` ,�
► �:;X��#�� � ,�,. ,�;� :� � �
�
i� ,'F. n y .
fRS .
. Z ' - . ' . yi ,1y�1� • + • , �'\.� .
� . �;�,:..� .. -�,1
,.
� �' �` ��,,
June 10, 2013 ;�
. �
� Mr. Matt St. John, Executive Officer
� � Regional Water Quality Control Board
North Coast Region
5550 SKYLANE BI,VD STE A J
SANTA ROSA, CA 95403-107'2 �
, �
RE: Storm Water Permit Renewal — '
� City of Ukiah intends to Participate in Regional Phase I Program � �
! Dear Mr. St. John : � �
On February 5 , 2013, the Statewide NPDES Small MS4 Phase II Generai Permit was
adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board , .updating the requirements of the
i 2003 Statewide General Phase II permit. The City of Ukiah is currently designated. as a � �
� "smal!" or Phase II Stormwater Permittee. Phase II permittees have the option to either �
� enroll in the new Phase II General Permit, participate in an existing Phase I program ; or �
i enter into .a separate permit. . ,
i
� This letter is an officiat nofiification to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Contral �
i Board (NCRWQCB) regarding the City of Ukiah's decision an stormwater permit renewal. �
� On June 5, 2013, the Ukiah City Council reviewed their options for permit renewal, and �
� voted to participate in the Phase I program and ir�plement the Phase I , permit. In �
coordination with the Russian �tiver Watershed Association (RRWA) , the City of Ukiah has �
been meeting with NCRWQCB staff since November 2092 to discuss the logistics of Phase �
#� II's participating in the Phase I program(with the City of Santa Rosa, #he County of �
i Sonoma , and the Sonama .County Water Agency). By implementing the existing �Phase I
� permit, the City of Ukiah witl be able to expand on and enhance a well-esfablished regional i
program . Additionally, the NCRWQCB has expressed preference for regional alignment � .
and has hoted that theypossess the legal authority to designate Phase I I's as copermittees �
of a regional Phase I permit.
� The City of Ukiah is developing � an implementation plan that will be submitted to you by
October 1 , 2013. The City of Ukiah will continue to implement its current program and will
incorporate Phase I permit provisions in accordance with the implementation plan as
( � approved by the NCRWQCB. � �
Thank you for the support of your staff in evaluating our options. In particular, thanks to
Mona Dougherty and Colleen Hunt who were very instrumental in making this regional
� approach a success. �
_..... .....:......,.:�r�.... .... ..�..,...... .. .._ .. .... ..... . .... .. .. ....:........,.,.._...,._. .,.,.__. ..._._.._.. __...,.........,...,... ,.....,. ._ ....�.,.....,.,,, _ .,..,.�....... ,...�,.._..,.. .. .,_.. .... .., :.... ., ., ...... . .... ... _.... . .,.
300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH , CA 95482-5400 "` � '°"""
Phone# 707/A63-620D Fax# 707/463-6204 Web Address; www.cityofukiah.com `
� Page 2
� Mr. Matt St, John
' June 10, 2013
!f you have further questions, please contact Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works
at (707) 463-6296 . .
Sincerely,
Tim Eriksen
Director of Public Works / City Engineer
ec: Mona Dougherty, RWQCB �
Colleen Hunt, RWQCB
Virginia Parter, RRWA
file -
� ;
�
,
�
,
�
I -
{
�
�
,
�
�
� .
�
, .
,
�
�
�i
�
;
. �
' �f���ac;�,��ra� �` _��
----.____
CHAPTER 2
, PROJECTS THAT TRIGGER REQUIREMENTS
EFFECTIVE DATE
i These requirements apply to all new projects and redevelopment projects that have not completed
the discretionary review process, and projects requiring ministerial permits as of June 1, 2010.
GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
, The requirements set forth in this Storm Water Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual
apply to projects within the area covered by the storm water permit boundary as shown in Figure 1 .
' Figure 1
� Areas Where the Requirements of this LID Manual Apply
;
f 4 1 �..�� � .
i_� ^ �` � Legend
, � -
� � , �� (jj/(( . . Area where lhe requiremanls -
I � � �, � � of this LID Manual apply �
. \. �
�� �H Iclsburg � 1 � Phase I Permil8oundary
i \t\ � �.�' � j'`.''� Phase 1 CItY .
t
, � �_____;� Phese II Pertnll City
', � �z � Reglonal Waler 8oard Boundary
; ( � . ��= Highways
C�
— Wateiways
! Windsor
f
. It:�..r�lRir:` � ��•J
w�
� ::A
��" 1%
. -
�� Santa�Rosa � �
Ir
• (
9�+,�±Y,., Sobastop � �
a�9� ,
g° l .',•_ . .
)
. .. : ' R�nert Park � '� � � �%
� ,� � `',
=��; `
0
c taG. . �. o. �
` o
.i� ..,. '�^ 4� �..
��,
< l .1/�. �\� .
� y�, ,. ..vo � ' Sonoma
. . `oa� �,o�Ro . .. .
� dJ � \ . ��� �. .�
� � �.`�°'"`m�a °` � �� � �,v°"�°a ,.�=�"�.-.�;,
`OCC 0oa- t . - Pe�lunia� .._ . ... . . . .. _ s.� � �.
m� 03� } �`` � � � ..
67 ��a. oc� <� "'a.�� �
� 4 -�.
c` � .:� �-- ; yy
r � ..: p �
0 2.5 5 r _ � � - ��.
� Miles
1 :250,000 � � ��.,:,��?__ _
The cities of Healdsburg, Windsor, Cotati, Sebastopol, Cloverdale, Ukiah and Rohnert Park are
regulated under their own "Phase II" NPDES MS4 permit with the NCRWQCB and may have a
different set of requirements. Areas south of the Russian River/Laguna De Santa Rosa watershed
boundary, including portions of Petaluma, Sonoma, and the southern portion of the County of
Sonoma, are within San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction and have
different design requirements.
� 6 City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma
�1�ta�ht��nt # �
i i . . � .:�� �L tUi:i:. .
( = v . Sv�+tav J�.
3y!'�}�,',f O 'R:```<IS
� . �L�qiY(�.��:
CALiFORNt1 � . � MnTTH�§y (jUDniU6C2
T ���/// yyy 8`s'1i0'aYq�V' Ff)k
1� !(5��.�1 ��(1NN =j . � � LNViqCyAE;/Tit�PF�4PDilTSC71pry
vv��. ,. ��,i4��
� North �oast Regional �ilater Quality Co�ntrol Board
March 6, 2014 �
Tim Eriksen �
Director of Public Works
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Dear Mr. Eriksen:
- - -- - - --Sul�ject: � --Pliase I-ParCicipation Letter and-Implementation Plan --- - --- -� - -
File: City of Ukiah, Municipal Storm Water Permit, Phase II MS4
WDID No. 123M2000111 '
In a letter dated June 10, 2013 the City of Ukiah (City) provided the City's intention to
i participate in the Phase I MS4 Permit Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R1-2009-
� 0050. Participation in this program is a voluntary alternative to implementing the State
� Water Board's General MS4 Permit Water Quality Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ.
{ Subsequently, the City submitted an implementation plan providing a proposed schedule
� for implementing the requirements of the Phase I MS4 Permit. Regional Water Board staff
approves the schedule outlined in the implementation plan. � �
Compliance with the implementation plan is required until the Phase I MS4 Permit is
renewed. Once the Phase I MS4 Permit is renewed, the City will be required to comply with
the terms and conditions of the renewed permit. However, time frames contained in the
implemeritation plan will be considered in drafting of the renewal Phase I MS4 Permit.
� If you have any questions, please co�fiact me at colleen.huntCc�waterboards.ca.gov or 7p '7_
576-2831.
Sincerely,
j
� ,
Colleen Hunt
Environmental Scientist
140306_CHH ef ukiah_implementation_approval
cc: Mr. Rick Seanor, City of Ukiah, rseanor@cityofukiah.com
JI�HN W. CORBcTT, CHAiR � MATTHIAS ST. JOHN� EXECUiIVE UFFICER . ��
"................_._.......,.......__..........,...................._..._...._.............................._................_...__......._....._.._............_...................._....._...._...._......_...................,....................................._.._............__..._........_...._............_..............._....................................._..._........._._........__.........._....._................_._ .
5550 Skylane Blvd., SuRe A, Santa Rosa, CA 9G403 � www.waterboards.ca.r�ov/nnrthcoast . �
. �°� nrr,rct.eo rarr: s . � - ��
; �' /�fifiach�tent #
�
Gity ,�f ZZ;(�ic�li
� Interoff ce Memorandum
To : Kim Jordan , Principal Planner
; From : Tim Eriksen , Director of Public Works/City Engineer
CC : Ben Kageyama , Senior Civil Engineer
Date : October 24 , 2014
' Re : Low Impact Development Manual Implementation
i This memorandum is intended to clarify the Department of Public Works' policy on the
: implementation of the Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (LID Manual). On
June 18 , 2014 , the City Council adopted the LID Manual by Resolution No . 2014-27
which became effective on thafi date. Therefore , all new projects which had not already
begun the planning process prior to June 18 , 2014 , will be required to r�eet the
requirements of the LID Manual . It should be noted that typical LID measures must be
planned for and integrated early in the site design , and it may not be feasible to
implement into an existing site plan . Because the LID Manual has been adopted
directly from the City of Santa Rosa , County of Sonoma , and the Sonoma County Water
Agency, a fact sheet or addendum to the LID Manual may be developed by staff if
needed to modify or clarify the LID Manual as it applies to the City of Ukiah .
S:1Public WorkslKageyama, Ben1LID Implementation Memo.doc
1
�'��;�c°.�s� ������ f� �
�
I
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-27
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION AND DIRECTING �
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STORM WATER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
TECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL (LID MANUAL) FOR STORM WATER PERMIT
COMPLIANCE TO THE NORTH COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
AS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
( NPDES) PERMIT NO. CA0025054 FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGES
WHEREAS, on October 1 , 2009, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
(NCRWQCB) adopted Order No. R1 -2009-0050 NPDES Permit No. CA0025054 for storm water
discharges for the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County 1Nater Agency , and County of 8onoma
(CoPermittees) ; and
WHEREAS , on June 10, 2013 , the City of Ukiah �submitted a Letter of Intent to the
NCRWQCB to participate in the regional storm water program as described in NPDES Permit
No , CA0025054 with the City of Santa Rosa , Sonoma County Water Agency, and the County of
Sonoma; and
WHEREAS, such permit requires that permittees implement an LID Manual for use by
project designers and review staff to promote effective LID design; and '
WHEREAS, the LID Manual was developed under the CoPermittees lead by the LID
Technical Advisory Committee, which was comprised of City of Santa Rosa , County of Sonoma ,
Sonoma County Water Agency and Regional Board Staff as well as local civil engineers,
landscape architects, geotechnical engineers, and arborists; and
WHEREAS, the LID Manual will aid in reducing storm water pollution concerns as well
as alleviating the volume of storm water runoff from developed properties , reducing the impact
on our waterways by promoting infiltration; and
WHEREAS, The LID Manual provides comprehensive technical guidance needed to
design storm water LID features and maintain their functionality for the long term .
�
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah �
hereby authorizes the adoption of and directs staff to implement the Low Impact Development �
Technical Design Manual as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ,
Permit No. CA0025054 for storm water discharges . '
i
�
PASSED AND ADOPTED on 18th day of June , 2014, by the following Roll Call Vote: �
�
AYES : Councilmembers Scalmanini , Crane , Thomas , Landis , and Mayor Baldwin +
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN : None
P �-�- ' G� -----
,
�
Philip E. Ba win, Mayor
ATTEST:
�%�/�r� � � h �1/�(/�l/!�'` �
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
�
? � . . . . . . . �
x, . . .. . . . . . . . . . � . .. . . .. .
��°��:�'������ ��
i�� i
�11���'C� � �l��l�C1���C1C�L1111
Toa Kim Jordan, Principal Planner
Fronn. Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Warks/Cify Engineer
��e B�n K�geyama, Senior �ivil Engineer
D�t�eo (�ctober 24, 2014
R�: I�ow Impact Developmenfi Manu�l Implement�tion
This memorandum is intended to clarrfy�he Department of Public Warks' policy on the
implemer�tation of the I�ow lmpact Developmenf Technical Design Manual (�.ID Manual). flr�
June 18, 2014, the City Council adopted the LID Manual by Resoluti�n Na. 2014-27
which became �ffective on that d�te. Therefore; all new projects which had not already
begun the planning process prior ta June 18, 2014, will be required ta meet the
requirements of the LID Manual. It should be noted that typical Llb measures must be
planned for and integrated early in the site design, and it may not be feasible to
implement into an existing site plan. Because the LID Manual has been adopted
directly from the City of Sant� Rosa,'Cc�unty of Sonoma, and the Sonoma Caunty Water
Agency, a fact sheet or addendum to the LID Manual may be developed by staff if
needed to mc�dify or cl�rifiy the LID Manual �s it applies ta the City of Ukiah.
�:\Public W�rks\Kageyama;Ben\�ID Implementatian Memo:doc
1
� � c� iv� D �
NOV 04 2014 ��'�� �m�n4 #
Mary Ann , �ITYOFUKIAH
BUILDINGi PLAlVN11VG DEPARTMENT
After reading Bruni Kobbe ' s email I think that she has confused some of the
trees in the report and used descriptions for one tree to make an argument
for another .
I would agree that for the tree ' s health , not building on the first lot would
be ideal , but I believe that following the Plan I suggested before will
protect the larger oaks . If the city had zoned that for a green belt and not
residential property my suggestions might vary from the ones I am giving now .
I am an advocate for proper tree care and management , I do not think it is
best to take down a tree just because it is in the way or inconvenient for
the homeowner . I am looking at what we have now and how best to protect and
preserve what is of value , and to plan for having a future value as far as
the urban canopy is concerned .
As for making up for the loss of canopy from the trees that were previously
removed ; I do not know how long ago those trees were removed , nor would I
presume to know the health or condition of the trees by looking at their
stumps . I think that planting up to two new native oak trees on the lots
would be enough if proper care was taken to make sure that they had enough
root space , and that they were not over watered , or crowded in the landscape .
Over planting can cause issues not only in residential areas but also in
natural settings . I do agree that when urban tree canopy is lost it is a sad
thing , often the greatest loss in our community is due to poor landscape
management .
I would recommend planting either Valley Oak ( Quercus lobata ) , Black Oak
( Quercus kelloggii ) or Coastal Live Oak ( Quercus agrifolia ) . As Mary Ann and
I talked when we were onsite planting one or two native oak trees in the
patio area of one or two of the lots would be a valuable addition to the
environment . I would recommend a 4 ' x4 ' planting area . The area where the
shed is going to be torn down would be a great area for planting and the
trees would have a much larger area to support the roots .
The " extra " tree that is in Group D was indicating the co - dominant x - stem of
the one tree . These trees have had significant damage due to improper
pruning , as mentioned in my report as mechanical damage . She had mentioned
that the trees had been topped , that is a practice that is not up to industry
standards because of the long term damage and hazards it can create . The
building construction will shade the trunks of these trees and inhibit growth
of lateral branches that would help add girth to the trunk , and if they did
sprout shoots they would likely need to be pruned to keep clear of the
structure . With the decay that will occur and persist on the tree from the
broken limbs and the improper pruning , and the new growth at the top of the
trees , it is a recipe for a hazard . I stand by my recommendation to remove
the trees .
Properly planted trees will grow and make up for the loss of canopy from
those trees in a reasonable amount of time and not have the long term
structural and safety issues those trees will have , making the new tree ( s ) a
long term benefit . The plan also calls for the planting of Bradford pear
trees planted along the street .
In reference to Tree A ( this is the tree that Robin Sunbeam wants to keep ) , I
did mention that there would be some encroachment on the root zone , but there
is plenty of " flat " area for the root zone that is protected in my plan . A
very large percentage of the root zone is protected . I was looking at the
attachment you sent over and I am concerned that there is some sort of grade
change planned in the root zone of the large oak . For the Bio - swale in the
backyard of Lot 1 ; the majority of the feeder roots are in the top 18 - 24
inches of the soil . It is important that , in the root protection zone , this
soil is not disturbed . I understand the need to plan for water runoff , and
the tree would not benefit long term from lots of standing water on its
roots . I would need to have another site visit to assess the location of the
bio - swale and visually inspect the density of the roots in the top 4 - 5 inches
of soil in that area before I could make a recommendation . It is recommended
that in the root protection zone there be no change in the soil , including
grade and compaction . There should be no large roots of diameters over 2 - 3
inches in the area of the root zone allowed in the protection plan . The
construction damage that I witness in the years following construct is due to
compaction of the soil , grade changes , cutting large roots , or to improper
care after disturbing the feeding roots . Since we are in a drought , it would
be wise to give the large oak some water as we move into the dry months next
season . Giving a good monthly soaking in the outer root zone with a slow
drip system , to a depth of about two feet . I mean that there should be no
roots that large located in the area of the root zone that I am allowing
encroachment in the preservation plan . The feeding roots that are located in
that area are important and there will be loss . Because of the loss , it is
important to make sure to encourage root growth in the drip line on the rest
of the tree , which is where the watering will help . Depending on the weather
conditions and how much rain occurs this season and the temperatures heading
into the dry months next year the tree may need supplemental water . I would
not recommend an installed irrigation system . A soaker hose that can be left
on for a long enough duration to penetrate approximately two feet , once a
month for the first year after construction is sufficient . The installation
of an irrigation system would not be beneficial and be disturbing the roots
that we are trying to protect . Adding 2 - 4 inches of mulch to the root zone
would be beneficial in retaining soil moisture .
As far as Tree C mentioned in her email . The conditions with the
construction and the protection of this tree are not ideal . I do think that
because of the youth of this tree that there is a good chance that this tree
will recover if the precautions mentioned in the plan are taken and that the
tree is given some supplemental water after construction as noted above for
the larger oak . This tree has good structure and has not been exposed to
the pruning practices that were used on the other small trees on the property
line . Of the small trees on the property line I think this one has the
chance to grow into a good specimen and not into a hazard .
Oak tree near the old garage ( Tree F on the preservation plan ) , which she
mislabels D , to my understanding is not going to have any construction near
it , only the old garage taken down . It would be unrealistic to put a fence
around the root zone for protection on the outside of where you would be
taking the shed down after construction . It clearly states that during
construction that this area should be considered part of the tree protection
area . Proper care of the soil should be taken , no large equipment . The
deconstruction of the shed should be done manually and care should be taken
no to damage the trunk or limbs of the tree .
Thank you ,
Heather Criss
ISA Certified Arborist WE9592A
i � ;
, E„�� � �
• ' � ,
i 4
� � � � '��>;;`:,; ' ��
s-„r�s� � Sr.�u-n'a^'c �h -�� �.' �� �;4�..j
,, .
. ; ��
�i � I i
�` �; ,.._.t�� m"`ri�.r:`N' • I`
�. �. I
I
v �Jr/ - ' 'B` I� � — ' . — —� �
.. .:Y_, t. 1
-r,rE
\�
T
f'''
�� � ��
�S � t `'� "y:.-<:'T I - _ _ ' —_ — _ �� ,
� �,. . '
I � ..i�.:ts J
�� i � 1
S ��' `
� + F'� �•\ . � .
' ��' �. I � �
i �-�. ' --. �_- _ ____� I �
. \'� I
I i
� � ` '.
i G � � ;
fi 4 N `: �
i✓ ' . <��, t !
� . ,� ( �
� � =� � � � .
, �
�,.
r
,U ' ,
.� `\
�
\
� �. �'F}'Y':r.;.�:'7� -G i MJ"� � �/tZ�� • I
� �Ilii.}i N•f•t` :
� \� �
. . . . . . . . .. . .. . __ . _. . . . .
Criss Tree Care 3 � P a g e
� �;����t � f
�,�,� �
Date : Nov . 3 , 2014
To : Planning Commission
From : Mary Ann Lance , Applicant and Property Owner
Subject: Response to October 22 , 2014 Planning Commission meeting for Orrs
Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development
Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
123 , 125 , 127 , and 129 Ford Street
In response to the comments and requests from the Planning Commission , I have
provided the following :
• Provide updated Civil Plan C1 with location , type , letters , and size of all the
trees on Lot 1 . The trees are designated with the same letters as the Arborist
used in her report. The trees to be removed are noted , TBR . The trees (to be
removed ) are noted if they are co-dominant (or x-stem ) . The root protection
zones and the location of the construction fence are indicated on the plan .
• Marking trees to be removed . The trees to be removed are marked with ribbon
on Lot 1 .
• Preference from commissioner to enter properties from rear easement. The
current project is designed for cars to enter the property from Ford Street . City
staff prefers this design (for multiple reasons) . The current design provides a
larger backyard/recreation area and more permeable area .
• Concern about backing up from the tandem garage to Ford Street. Ford
Street is a busy street . Even with a two-car garage ( independently accessing
Ford Street) , backing up onto Ford Street will require caution . Tandem parking is
very common in the Ford , Joseph , and Clara Street neighborhoods .
• Concern over parking and congestion on Ford Street. The tandem garage
provides parking for two cars (within the garage) and the driveway provides
parking for an additional car - a total of three on-site parking spots . Many of the
single-family homes in the neighborhood do not have garages . Of those that have
single garages , some have converted them to other uses . I did not find any
homes on the streets on which I walked , that have two-car garages which can be
accessed independently . I have included some photos and addresses of
residences on Ford , Joseph , and Clara Streets that either have no garage or only
have a single-car garage .
See below for addresses :
REG� IVED
NOV 0 3 2014
CITY OF UK1Ag
BUILDING/ pI,ANNING DEPARTMEN'j�
Types of Garages and Parking in Wagenseller Neighborhood
Address Type of Garage
116 Clara Street No garage - two parking spots
118 Clara Street No garage
122 Clara Street No garage
126 Clara Street No garage
132 Clara Street Garage converted (tandem parking)
136 Clara Street No garage
140 Clara Street No garage
144 Clara Street No garage
150 Clara Street One car garage (tandem parking)
211 Clara Street No garage
210 Clara Street Single oversize garage (tandem parking)
212 Clara Street No garage or driveway off of Clara
214 Clara Street No garage or driveway off of Clara
218 Clara Street No garage
215 Clara Street One car garage (tandem parking)
219 Clara Street Single carport (tandem parking)
613 A & B Joseph Street Single garage for each unit (tandem parking)
616 Joseph Street No garage
617 Joseph Street No garage
619 Joseph Street No garage
625 Joseph Street No garage
624 Joseph Street No garage
626 Joseph Street One carport (tandem parking)
667 Joseph Street One car garage (tandem parking)
301 Ford Street One carport (tandem parking)
305 Ford Street No garage
224 Ford Street No garage
221 Ford Street One car garage ( not tandem )
217 Ford Street No garage
219 Ford Street Single oversize garage (tandem parking)
207 Ford Street No garage
204 Ford Street Single garage in back of house
144 Ford Street No garage
137 Ford Street No garage
136 Ford Street No garage
124 Ford Street No garage
120 Ford Street No garage
• Concern about the tandem garage being converted to additional living area .
The proposed zoning regulations state that the homeowner may convert the area ,
(that is not needed in order to comply with the parking requirement of two spaces)
to additional living space . This conversion would require an application and
approval of a building permit .
• Concern regarding the responsibility and maintenance of the bio-swales .
The proposed zoning regulations states that the maintenance of the drainage/bio-
swales is the responsibility of the property owner.
• Concern about the new LID requirements . City staff will clarify and document
the applicability of the new LID manual .
• Concern about what type of material will cover the bare soil . From the Draft
Conditions of Approval , I am required to show:
0 6 . K Exhibit and notes that demonstrate how the bare soil/exposed dirt
in the rear yards of each home will be covered until such time as the -
homebuyers landscape the rear yard .
• Concerns from Wagenseller Neighborhood Association . See Public Notice
and Comment section from Staff Report 9A, page 17& 18 . If the City of Ukiah
would like to purchase the four lots from me to provide a recreation/park/green
belt area for the residents of the Wagenseller Neighborhood , I would consider it .
• Request from Robin Sunbeam to save the tree in the photo . The tree to
which she is referring is Oak Tree A . This tree will not be removed . See Arborist
report .
• Request from Kim Jordan that I notify the owner of Aaron 's Furniture of my
intention to remove the Group D Trees along the western boundary of Lot 1 .
I have mailed a letter to the owner of the property . I also included a copy of the
Arborist' s Report and a plan showing the trees to be removed . A copy of the letter
was emailed to Kim Jordan .
• Regarding Bruni Kobbe's desire to provide a 30 - 40 ' buffer zone/green belt.
I would be willing to sell Lot 1 , 123 Ford Street, to the City of Ukiah for this
purpose . Forfeiting one (out of the four previously subdivided lots) to the City to
provide a buffer/green belt is not economically feasible . Without being
compensated for the cost of Lot 1 , as well as being compensated for 1 /4 of the
pre-development costs for this minor subdivision , the project would not be
profitable .
o Change Current Zoning . Ms . Kobbe would like a 30 — 40 ' buffer zone to
be designated on Lot 1 . Lot 1 is not currently zoned for a green belt . It is
zoned ( PD) for Planned Development. Creating a green belt would
require a zoning change .
o "an attractive green belt that would add significantly to the property
values of the two remaining new lots , compensating for the loss of
the proposed third lot. " There are a total of four lots . If Lot 1 were
converted to a green belt , there would be three remaining lots .
o " One or both of the remaining lots could also be enlarged , further
increasing the profit. " Enlarging any of the lots to compensate for the
loss of one lot (for a green belt) would result in a lot line adjustment -
which would add additional cost and delays to the project .
o Responsibility of maintaining the green belt? If a green belt were
created , who would be responsible for the maintenance? The City, the
Wagenseller Neighborhood Association , or the homeowners ?
• Ms . Kobbe states that five mature trees were cut down . Neither the Arborist
nor I can comment or have knowledge of when or why these trees were cut down .
• "The green belt would also mitigate for the loss of canopy due to the
removal of five mature trees on the property . " As stated above , I have no
knowledge of the removal of the five mature trees/stumps on the property.
• " The proposed planting of a few flowering pear along Ford Street can never
mitigate for that loss . " There will be six street trees planted along Ford Street at
30 ' intervals . I am open to changing the proposed street trees to another type of
tree (appropriate to the limited space) .
• Response to comments regarding tree and root protection . See Arborist' s
Report and additional email comments .
• The arborist recommends planting ( up to) two new oak trees on Lot 1 to
replace and compensate for the removal of the Group D trees . The arborist
suggests planting one additional oak tree on Lot 1 (where the garage currently
exists) .
x
���'��t��t3���i�' ��'
:: Kim Jvrdan
From: kaderli@juno.com
Sent: Thursday, October 23,2014 8:43 AM
To: Kim Jordan; Kim Jordan
Subject: Fw: oaks at Ford St
' Kim,
Please forward to the other commissioners.
Thank yau,
l:inda
�-------- Forwarded message----------
From: bruni kobbe<brunik"(„�c�' mcn.or�>
To: Richard �Kaderli<kader�i@�unc�.com>
Date: Wed,22 Oct"201416:27:41-0700
Subject:oaks at Ford St
Message-ID: <8BE5CF5E-BC67-4D29-9560-51B77E(10�4B9Cxmcn.or�>
jRe:aaks affected by proposed subdivision, Ford Street
I read the arborist's report and visited the site. It is my opinion that the proposed"protectian for the oaks alang Orr
Creek is insufficient and that the propased removal of the oaks along the western property line is unwarranted.
The protective fencing for oaks A,B extents only 25 ft outward,while the arborist's report acknowledges that the root
zone extents 30 ft or more to and beyond the canopy edge. For aak C,fencing is deemed infeasible and only pratective
wrapping of the trunk is proposed. For the biggest oak(D) near the oid garage,the report oniysuggests supervision
during the demolition as a protection.
These oaks sit right at the edge of the Creek bank;any soil compaction,digging,or other disturbance will impact the
tcee's health and stability.The report maintains that there are enough roots left(at the side of the steep bank} to
campensate for any damage to the half of the root system that anchors the trees to the#lat, northern part of the creek
corridor. It seems to me that the "flat"part of the root system is the most important one.l have seen oaks show damage
years after the construction in those areas of the canopy that correspond to the damaged root area --in ather words,the
tree cannot compensate for iosses in ane half of the root zone with the other half of the root zone.
The 6 young oaks along the westerrr property line are deemed to be in"poor health" and "already impacted by the
adjacent parking lat".
These oaks have been damaged by unprofessional pruning and partial topping duringthe site preparation(when
apparently also 5 mature trees were cut down--with calipers of 1-2 ft,judging by the stumps left behind).These oaks
could still grow up to provide significant shade and habitat through corrective pruning and thinning and, most
importantly,giving the group enaugh root space to grow{yes,there has been some impact from the parking lot, but the
trees are yaung and have likely adjusted).
I therefore propose that a 30-40 ft. buffer zoneJgreen belf be incorporated into the project,extending from Ford Street
along the western border and continuing along the Creek to the property line of the existing hause/lot.This would allow
the young oaks and the mature oaks to thrive, and the addition of some understory native plar�ts would make this an
attractive green belt that wauld add significantly to the property values of the two remaining new lots,compensating
for the loss af the proposed third lot.One or both of the remaining lots could also be enlarged,further increasing the
profit.The green belt would also mitigate for the loss of canopy due to the removal of five mature trees on the property
- (the proposed planting ofa few flowering pear along Ford Street can never mitigate for that loss).
i
: �
<< If the City is serious about enhancing the urban canopy, about creek protection and the proposed setbacks, then here it :
; �
' has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment.
This is my opinion as a biologist; l am not a certified arborist, but I have worked for many years with the City's arborist
and the tree expert at the College.
Bruni Kobbe
Member,Tree Advisary Group
Map Your Flood Risk
Find Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs,Your Flood Risk Prafile and More!
http'1/thirdpartyofif�rs.iuno.com TGL3�.41 j5449222e7?d�0222e1090st03vuc
2
t . ... . 3 �,..� .,. �. . �, � .,..t , .,.. .� .,..�x
�°;ya 7f"�'w��`�a '�l� Y;'�
- x , .
_.__..�.. _.....�:...�...._
�
� � � �� �� �� ���� �x� ��
/����i i`� �,::��'���?-�� ���."� ;'":�''�
� ' --.-,,
� � "µ��'
� �� �-�,� ��
�� � � � � � � � �
� ����. ���' ��� c j�`l.� '.�
� �� ����
�z �J
� � t,.�l'�)7.� �:�''��b�`�1 �� ..�,
� i ` �
� � i>.l
�p = . . .. . .. .. . .. .... `
� 'I ...�. . �. . .... � ..
�� .. � . . .•� ..
� ! �.,, �C�'G�'? ���t l .�' J�`��
' ` � � �
� �
��-`�� y „��, a �"a^�i���'s�7P�Y�s �' 't f m�;}a+r�i }� .? �.� `��`,�m�."u vc�.��} . � ��� � ( � �
s,;, q
� ��y ,;rk�. i`�'�`��t�t�,�,��� .�` 7tt�t�iq�g2y�z4�.��'`�;��'�"� � � , � ������'�—,^i ,.j�^�j�''1 ),��.+�� �
��� ',*`rti�.`t`�'�T,1�'�i's dak �:� �i'� `,�`.r.�.Rwi� z,��..&E..:�...,x_.ii.c*aG'2,�^,`�'4} �a�'s't�a�6 � � twu`.e: ,�.�' !a�,3.'� . . ' � . �.� J 7���dC,,,,f
' ,'�.':x �`+.µ
V
� � � � . . . .. �
� t ����5 �''I�'i 1 �r
� � 1 �
� �
. �
. , -
� � � �, ,
�
� �
� ������� ,1 �� 1 .�: �� � S�.. ��
,
,
.
� �
� j�� ����� {�a� �
� � � .,
� ���� �
�
��.p. ��xRi� . .
f
� . �.. �}1} . .. . .. .
!� ����� � . V� �4 �„+.r�+'.
j�# + � . . . �. . . . ..
�
4 1
� .� .. '�� � �. t � , ... .
� t � �� � � ����.(f�p�°`
. . �.. .� . . � �4 ���
, �.. . .. ..,4 . .
$
� ���� ���
} ��� ��- ��� ��-���,�
� . .� �:��
� �� i �
i . .
, ...,
� � �
� �� � �� � � �,r� -��u r� rn ����c��r���`�~
{ � � ,
� � �
� ; �
� � �
; RECEIVED
� � � � , �� ��;,, �
� QCT 2 2 2014 ��.� ;�.,��,;.
i CITY UF UKIAH
k ' � � � �� � � � BUILDINGJ PLANNING DEPART'MENY'� � � ��� �
�,��,; �
,. `� � �� � '
I f p �.. ��, � � .. � . . . � .
�'�j` ���'�' C-�1� � �'y��y'"���',�,d.. �����,�1 J� �
` �
;
«��.� G`�� ���c�� �`' � ������.� �� �.,
��, ,
�-���: �, ~��r� ��c.�r�-�. �.����,,,....�
Kim Jordan
From : bodhirobin@pacific . net
Sent: Tuesday, October 28 , 2014 2 :41 PM
To: Kim Jordan
Subject: The tree I want saved
Attachments : The tree across the street.jpg
Follow Up Flag : Follow up
Flag Status : Completed
1
�s.<� ,�
� `� , v' �e'� 7�� � .°+` � ' k �`co-"�6
1,'«� �
�� , • <
���� 4 � �� �a���� � ,.��� �""'` x r. , ,��i� �
� �� i �LL x
k��� t� ' ��� i ��;� � �
���`�l'\':,'�a , t >yyTp K . , � ` , � k � �` i
�� �� �' ���' �'� § ��' �' � k�r � ���s�t > y � �y', ��
" � 'a" 3 A'�� �Y .:c i: a. �
� S �;� 1��€�x � S'��' � �� � �#" ' �C�.
� °� �. � '� �r '�` a�'� �� �# �a:.c �,����:
�`�",r 4, 'c+�� � � 7'` �
"�µ . t7`a � ..# � � ;b� :x* r �'��.,�� . ! k'�. j�# a`
.s� ,��. ��'�"""� d �t� ��i� i �.� �
: r ��� �� a�"}��� L; f a
�'`"y�a ` cy?�iA ',�., �12+. 4i+ '�x�, ,E< t `�, i�,:�'jF k � `x..
• � .��" �'#y8�ir �°.c � ����A1r ��t$ k `�`� �.��:., `„ . � t� �:
i�:,' t�. �p� �'�", �wx;` �'- � , , ��;.
� '�S-�J' �f�' a`.v
�. ��A�, •��l . ,:k { , ��,v+�,� � tJT w'�'.S' 4'" �
� ."�' 4�h.. dd` ;�,�..
� 'Y� t a�'t�,� a y . \4"A �`, . �t� P +
L¢ 4{'` � f.%iM' � � r < �� 7 `°�_ ^k
'l{� �� �T� �� y � ��� �' ��'�� f 'F
� �
' ,
� ��,� $'�$.. �•+ ��a'�3r` 'A' �. :� �.�,
� +x� '�s n ° ,, .� �'�=' * u� `l '..
,e, i+' �`� �� ., '�• x`� ; � a.
: s " � " � � ,ri� ,�.� < ���i�m e. .
-`rv: � "� s � k� a � � � r
is'� d .:�' �K; � � ':�`
,k aY r,�., a} '��"� re fi �
..'�` 9t �?�; � a �'�' :. ao� . '�',,�a F $l r ,� rc
.,'�'� ��t�� �.: .:2i ��?tiX` ��� �� � ��,�� t' t aV
� a .k � �y ; �, � s n
•� ��{* ���y�y�MM,, � ����:�+ �l }'��` �r'a"'�'r+��� �� ,��, � �i�, �
'i.�:� �p ��4 ���i� r 'd$� `. �� � "' � ;
�� � � �� � 4
S� R"� ,y¢ � fl 1`� � ,T &�y.�S��'., n � 4 F
2.. +y� 4_+� i �r�h� ��2` � wz.� ��Y '��` � . , �'; 3�y�
G' } ; �Y-e�t p;�.R T � *`'*'�',�t d �.Ya}S :� r�. x 1� ',�
m ��k, �'�" \ #r.��" ��' t : � :.�
5`.v a
i
w . R�+ a`� 'k �vr•. .:,s . �.. � "yr� ''
�.�� ��� � �
�. ,��• � r�, � �.g.
�� f���;.������ � fc. .� .. '� "'ry
� �4�.fiR� A�tvR �{`"{y�3 � �I+ }
'k�.��y :1 f r �� i
.ak x
` �.i{f . � 1f'a° � • . .. � 1��. t` "�. '. �
�� �. .a*�'�� ,x� Sx fi• h,� �,„_Y '
� � � yA, � , � � �.:, .
��'�'4. �. . s ��.
� � � " *. � � : i`
�` � � '�a.�,� � �t
, ,. ..
. .
,� ' ' '
:� t��� � �, - a� "���a`
=s a ,7�'�Y � �` i � ,� f s ��y��:.
`rat'� �i'. s� �.���,,^�"+'_» . �.L �z�t:
v d 2�•
�' �, fi« ,s�i,, a=
� % N' e �
kr t
,�p .. ' �c., '"�
. . . ,. ..�..
. .E �„� �- , . _
r'* �,
s �� *" �
it ° ��g�. ��FS
°� �� '$� � ' ` ��»�
+�''r':..5 �� '�� Zc"�' `' . �
r�� �`+� �6 . :��:i` � � �� � +`�....
3�.�`� 1t�-�� �9�C ,f?�'R ;4�e � .. �.
*" ��.. �� t,�. . t+* r.�T �� �4Y r ����.
¢ b ���� L�r+y c�,t4 ? ¢`s�. i��� � •
� � ����x��� ;:� �gd�b�"�9 n r-��a � � �. ���. � €' �
t $,h j
{..� � . ��m�� ' 1£ �,
vrt. . x ' e'.
't�•� � » . ': �.. 3
�sg�tR+ , � t� �: �,
Mh , r � i �� t 3 �r e. , t .t,,:.
t"• �i' R b���� ��. `x �� �:4 � :�k
,. R ,y` : rt• .. y�.> ��. `�1
r s+' c � !
¢ '�. '�y'� r A S� y�..
+i� � � ��ri� F i+' �
..� � � . ; � �.
x,. ..� ���� �`�����.�.�'.V�a� j�„�� ?�i �"��ric
A4 � 4 .�F` � Xki .,r i ¢ �.
€j.gr �, ��y� a'�+ ��
i�i ��K � }�a?,� it
M1 � � k� = a
�'�-' 7" ��1°t r y%
�� �i' �a C�!*� r Sa !.. .�,i.,,
�' �° c .. 4� �, �.,.;y�g +a.: F��• V, � ,�
i'�
"'lt, �,.., � �tr�z#:*� 'fv�6� � ,��
r`$ #.� 4 .� fl . §' .k
� � ' �t Y
. .C�P �� � _ { IF� �: y�"�#�';"� y �:
}'� r � i� �i r1 � ��)� p ,.
w ❑� y1 . . :j.
� $ �,. i ,'�,tF M. � � � r , �
s ' t n r
�d c k k
a . �' �a�� ,� � ��i � ; � � y
`1 �,.`' r' '�"�a�, 1
�rm. � {�s��� l• .� �''� �.` �.�,.>�, � ,:
�3 � � G' ���a
"� 't � a4�.�h.=. ���a ,�'�, s,3,." e�t
"4� x . .�t.�.
Driveway
Utility _ _ _ — — —
Driveway ❑• Pole —
Curb, gutter and sidewalk
SSCO
���� � � Rim=618.9 — — � _ � —
ln v=612.7f _ �SSMH _
�� _ _ — Rim=618.30 — _ � � —
_ �- _ P/ace ring of drain �ock
lnstoll new valve and fire Existing fire hydront _ — — — _ _ - - around the drop inlet to
hyd�ant assembly per City and service to be removed _ _ — — Sewer mainline - - _ _ _ help filter water prior Finish grodes
� Woter to entering the inlet. to conform
requirements. Tap to main by City at owners expense. _ _ — _ � � - - volves
by City at owners expe=se. _ _ — — — — — _ _ _ � � —
— — — See sheet C2 for — � �Water mainllne New woter meters
Swa/e Top=617.0
— improvements within (typicol of 4) —� _ _ lnlet=616.8
— � _ _ � � the City right of way (see sheet C2) �"��
� — — WV LS = Landscoped a�eas
_ � - - - Utility boxes Existing driveway Existing sidewalk Hold flowline of new Existin
� � — at theddwo 1�lettso2� New 12x12 cu�b i�et
s �$ ❑ � 6�$'�, � - - wate� has�o stop ond d�op in/et
„��, �� '9 ""' � 61$ — � Property ��ne build up to get into the
p• � � � / — a drop inlet New 8" pipe
Existing 6'20 � _ — � / a
� � a d
Driveway Sidewalk 'SS FH _ �
slg6 _ -•- � 6'�� c 0�° LS �S LS ° a
. � — — � 6''� < `� a �sz e ° �.�' � 61 g•� a
0' n � a a
°� ^ ° a
3 Oak. - - LS ��g � a o a a a , ad o
12"Wolu f FH _ — 6+ o h LS � o � ' c�i � PorCh 4 ° v d
. _ �,�, ° ° � �� � �S °S a � � � � aa� a� a �,ob � 620.0o a � i ° Drop Inl e t De tail
� o O a O� �d �° o � a G° ° ° ° a n � (rtD a ° a
L$ LS 9 a X a�� a 3 a �° d a a a h Porch 3 a �a �° a� � a a 0�0 a d k � � a I a � lVO $COIB
Downspouts on north side o �S � < a a � Porch 29 �• a Slob, = 620.00 �, a a � LS �4 < � d
porch ond go�age shall be �+ �� a ., a a < a� � a � re , Slob � 621.00 a ca �' ° � , �• m �°
directed ln{'O the frOrlf L.S pc ZQ• o d o ° a rt �. N � v] �O a ° a } � ° a � 0 ad o d
area to encourage infiltrotion. 0' 6 � h Porch 1 a o � e � a N a < o a `S �a a va
0`�' I co a aS/a� a 621.00a a � � � LS �g <, �4 a d a 0 �
X-Stem D TBR * � ° a g � � � �
Dbl 10��-6�� �O�C o n�a a � d 4�� �•9 a ad a <h a 1g� a sp v
tg
a 6�(°� <`S� pS �� 6 ° o LS �
Gate a o ° ��� `` a 4s�, , 3 °Q
X-Stem D TBR : ° �
a a h0 d' a �'� a� �� �0• ° s� LS a }� DS � a � a
Dbl 9"-9" Dak ° � d
o a d
a �� `SO DS �a �'�0 ° ° e Ga es :a
a
�0� � °�� DS � ° a ° � 6�8'S ° a
D TBR 6" DOk • ° k ° ° °' � �
House 4 '-` °
o Gotes 3 a o Slob = 620.00 � d� � a 'Buddy" House
a c� a e c �o
\�� �� ° House 3 /° � 6�S•� ° a ° -o a AP 002-121-24
X-Stem D TBR 5�� Oak • ° � House 2 -° Slab = 620.00 a ° a o � � °
, a Slab = 621.00 � Q
a� �
3" Oak a , � a a a .c
Sal ° < Garage 4 a d ° a I a a
� Slab ous621.00 aa � Garage 3 ° ° Slab = 619.50 •m' a .� Where fence is along the
E x i s t i n g p a r k i n g N � c S la b = 6 1 9.5 0 °
o � o d � e dge o f t he swa/e, ho l d boar ds
lot (aspho/t) °' < "
O Q J �G
y Garage 1 ° a a Garaqe 2 °q�, a° ° up 2' to allow wate� to flow
Tree C 8"Oak � ° ° a a �
a c � unde� the fence.
o Slob = 620.50 Slab = 620.50 ° 3 ° a o
� y
m p" GOt@S � � k a o
a �
d
� ' y) �d � � Q a �
n d� 3 d � � 3 a d I a a
a
rt ° �a d U �a � a a 3' wide min.
rn ��O a a , 0 4„
a� a
U � � a m 91
a �
O' O Q 4 e ° a � ,POflO 4 ° '�k 61�•6 a d d — — � � �/ �/ � � —�
v • x a " ° Slab = 620.00° a ��� � ° ln the /andsco ed o�eas:
° e < a°
� aa , ° m a a , Patio 3 � 4� ° ° aa �O a P
� a Slab = 620.00� a a r�'��'' ° ° + ° a� a P
�p�` a a a a ° a a a° Patio 2 a New swale sholl be landsca ed
� 620 ° ° a ` ° ° pe n ` ° ° DS G tes DS �S a I 9 9 y plontings to provide filtering
p a with grasses and other small
� ° ° Slob = 621.00 ° a ° a � After radin of swales, scarif
� 2j , a Patio 1 �. , < aa + + a a 6"-12" of the upper soils to and infiltration of woters that
� Slab = 621.00 a ° r�`L ° DS �9 ps ° ° a loosen the soi/ so it will obsorb flow in the swale. See the
\ a a e a �°�es x 'oo a a more woter. Then p/oce topsoil landscope plans.
6 DS �S LS �•32 for plonting over loosened soil.
\ 2p + � ° Slope back yards to / d a ln un-landscaped areas:
��� 6� DS x sheetflow into the 0° / �' ° n a Seed and straw cover swoles
�,9 Direct downspouts awoy from � i d a — �
new bio-swole. _ � —
•,S o� �x c — to revegetate and place strow
building so runoff sheetflows o '( a
\ oc�oss back yard ond into swa/e. y o ��•�'S �� watt/es as necessary to prevent
\ Q c� O � a � $ a a erosion in the swa/es.
� `D x k � °�+„,��� a � swale�is completely revege/tated
o �% o New wood fence O � o BIO —SWc`tl e SeC tI0I1
�o�, s'yo�� � (typical) � ° ° a ��a s�io� a� � � D No Sca/e and stobilized.
6 �9 o x Fina/ grades in new bio swale X � x � ..� � , AP 002-121-19
\���F �' � cD to conform to existing and — — — — — — _ — � ° � ° \ I
\ to be fie/d dete�mined � _ � � � a \
+ X � X X + v Q Edge of existing ACa New 12x12 drop inlet ��� \�
6�8 5 —► �
\� 62�•2 Lonscoped bio swale 19-2q, x � � � I � a ° a a a a a and 8" pipe to the a
Tree B � _ _ — —� _�� � � Remove 4'x5' corner ° a g _ a
existin curb inlet.
19"Oak \ Tree A _ _ � See detoil ° a
\ � of AC fo� new swal� — a a _a
29.5"Ook X � Property line � —I _ a� _ � a � �
� a
o( Root safety zone and 3� � a ° a a
�� �h � � construction fence per ° d o a� ° a °
�0 �6�` \ landscape plons I a a , a a �° c a a
� �a� \ I ° ° a a a �,
�o \ \ f p � a This AC oll ° a °a a . NOTES•
A�eo in f�ont of � E � 1. All site re a�ation ond �adin wo�k shall be done
Qi n slopes to the v � P P 9 9
\ � � the house all slopes � � o ° a in conformance with the soils �e o�t fo� this �o ect.
curb inlet a P P J
Slope away f�om creek to the curb inlet I � vd , a a '�
� o bank and into new swole a a a N A p a r t m e n t 2• Utilities for these new buildings ore shown on sheet C3. Refer
I � � ,o f � n a � to the Architects p/ans for more details on utility locations including
� o
,�, �� ,.. � a ° a a a c sewer, wate� gas, e/ectric, phone, TV, etc..
a y
���3�`s \� �'��� g� ° a a � �x 3. lnterior property lines and easements are not shown, see Sheet C3.
���°\ o � �.� 61 Porch a a e a Fire �
-y �o � New wire fence to be � � � a . a h dran
�'o � � + setback 5 feet from the � � �, 6�� Existing aspha/t ° y 4. No work shall be done within the stream bank o� in the st�eam chonnel
N sc� `��Oo� \ f top of the creek bank � k� ' to remain
.L ^ a a 5. Easements for access, drainage and utilities along the south side of
� o �i o o Existing grades Util. a
06,�o, \ h s-�° �` (typical) ° � °aa a a a the lots shall be modified to occomodate the p�oposed development.
�O \
O
\ / Q
°� �,o ,� 0 18� ° �9 a 6'j�
�
1 •O
����� ��p�. 6 a a a 6 a +
-v � \ �I EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
I Best Management Practices shall be used to prevent erosion from the site
I / \ • during and after completion of all grading work. lnstall straw wattles in
j \ swa/es where necessary and seed and straw cover all disturbed soi/s prior
Tree E
, x to winter �ains in order to stabilize the site, encourage revegetation ond to
35'Oak House Existin arkin area
� � Remove Floo�=620.3 9 P 9 p�event e�osion from the site. Monitor and maintain the site during the fi�st
winter to ensure that all erosion control measures are working properly.
\ old b/dg
Tree G '`
Existing creek bonk is 15"Cotton �
covered with vegetation. • \ � I
Do not disturb the bank. \ ❑
0 • 6�
� -o Tree H ``�o
0 13.5��ook Gra din�° �c Drain a�°e PI an
n \
� �
\�� \ •Tree F}
RpFESS/p \ �
� �, �40"Ook �
��o � � FR N,� � � � Orr Cre ek Hom es, Ford Stre e t, Uki ah
1 AP 002-121 -20, 21, 22 & 23
/ AP 002-121-17 " '
Prepared By � �-� �� �m �� f � ——
Ron W. Franz RcE, PLS � � � � Novem ber 5, 2014 Scal e: 1 =10
2335 Appolinaris Drive * N0. 43938 yE
Ukiah, CA 95482 EXP. 6-30-15
707-462-1087 s�'q ���� ���P
0 10 20 30
'� oF cP'"�F° Sh e e t Cl
� 19 ' -0" '
�
� }
m
�
6��� � _ — — SEWER MAIN _ _ _ _ _ -- �
�
_ _ -- — — � � � ---- — o
�- —
___- —
_ 1 �
� � _ WATER MAIN _ _
� r COMPACT
35 ' -4`" PARKING
2 SPACE
� �� 36 ' -84. / �
z
� o
� � � �- � , - � �
1 � �� �
, � ; a � �. — �-
�,ll�'° ����,..
� , , — � �
° �. - ��, o �nt ��,
, ,,,
: _ _
-- �- � � � a _ _ _
_ _ , ,,
,
� � �1��,� �� �, ,� �- � '�� � � � � � � � : � i � � � _ _ �° � � � � � " �� �„"�' �Ae�� ����,� �
t . ,, ,-�' �� �. �� � a � � � �.� �. � t� � � � � ��
.. _ .. 1 ll . � . / � . �
3 - � o � � �-��:�� L� ��-�� � � ��T" �.b� 1
�° � , r . � ,. � �� , �
$ , � �� � _� .�� �.� '
. .—.. . � ' ' �1, �4 � O �u d � F ; .
. . � .. . � .� � .
� � -`�t�� ���� �� � � �
� � �
� ��,:� ` � ' - �° � , � ,, � , . 1 0 � � o �_ ��� � �� � �.�—� �� �--�.�`�`�
� � ,� � N �� �� � � c�a � ._.� . __ya___ ; ��� � � a �
a
� �t � �...,�.. i� � ��, _ .�� � �.3 �. � �_` � �-� �.� �. ,.,�i�
�.. � t°�n�tJR�� �°`1�.� ts�a �,1 t��� � � � � � � a �- _
�'l�-�1��_ .. .. � a ____ _ _; —'' �
� � � � � � � � � �,C�.� � � �` t��l V��-�� :� , , � u a � � _ � �
L O T I RU FF + ASSOCIATES
a
4 I SQ FT LOT- i
�� � �- ��.,._���- , � o o { � 2,911 rchitecture � Plannin • Deveio men
�N, Woop 7 0 4 LOT- I landscape Plan for 123 Ford Street - Lot 1
GATE _ __
,� r /'� �
� J w
� �
� � � �
; L.L.J �, � � �
� t �
� r $�_ N) WOOD • . � Q.. � O � va
i � � �� �ATE P l a n t l� s t f o r O r r s C r e e k P D . 1 2 3 F o r d S t r e e t - L o t 1 .� o° � o �.
I � � .._. � U � � v
�
w> w000 � l Water Drought � a� � o �, �
FENCE � �COAlC�2ETL� 11 � ('ll I N � ''� X V a
, ' PAD � Qua tity Common Name Bota ca ame S�ze Nat�ve Usage Tolerant � � � � � �
� �
� C,�
. � � +' � g
. . I � ` o� °� �'rees � � u, U "
► � � � o
N � N
� oo � ; � �j --� 2 Flowering Pear ' Chanticleer' Pyrus Calleryana # 15 no med yes Q `� � o �s Q
I I 1 a- a� � � �-.
�� �� � �'�' � ° � a '� i: '�. �
�� , ,
� .,
' C�, 1 �-�°1�` 4�_„� `,�� �5 � � a rv� w000 a a Q d SFtrubs �" � c� h - �
� ' j--� ��'�,, :�. �� ��,� �t ' c A T E a 3 ' Nort hern Lig hts' Coast Rosemary Westringia Fruticosa ' Nort hern Lig hts' #5 no me d yes (� � � ° � m
Existing Trees for 123 Ford Street - Lot 1 � � � �
, � o ___--- -- 2 ' Blue Spire 's Rosemary Rosmarinus Officinalis ' Blue Spires' #1 no low yes (..I,.� , _ � �, v �
� � o o =
Tree Botanica) Name Protect or Remove Diameter Notes ' � � 1 ' Howard McMinn ' Manzanita ,4rctostaphyios Dens. ' Howard McMinn ' #5 yes low yes � � o � �
� � 1 'Yankee Point' Ceanothus Ceanothus Griseus Hor. 'Yankee Pomt' #5 yes low yes Q `— °- �
�
' , O� 1 Flower Carpet Amber Rosa x ' NQA97400A' #2 no med yes o
� �_ _.—_,._ �..— --
A �. :�.� �- �� _.,�.;- =-- v
Quercus lobata - native oak Protect 29. 5 close to creek bank : - � �--, , _ Lv� � �.�1� c.�- c- � t� �
g �
Quercus lobata - native oak Protect 19 Not on property \ � �' iD �� ��� �'� Grasses cA L«e�s� # c� � �36 - Bs972� �
� Quercus lobata - native oak Keep s within 5 ' of construction are� � � i �� 1 � �
� I � � cN> w000 13 ' Elijah Blue ' Fescue Festuca Glauca ' Elijah Blue ' 4 inch no low yes ��� ARCy/
Group D Quercus lobata - native oak Remove 3-39.5 Within 5 ' of construction are� �� � , FErvcE
` , � {� t�� ( �,� Np,Rp R �
E \ \\ � � � G Ci,� �"
QuerCUS lobata - native oak Protect 35 Within creek area � � � , � � ..� � _____ X \ � � �
Vines � �
F � � � � � ��.� :.v. � �P ; _ _ _ �
��
Quercus �of�ata - native oak Protect 4o Has concrete around base \ � �\\ �f >n � � �� � � � _ � � �` . 4 Pink Jasmine Jasminum a ! anthum 4 inch no med no
\ � p Y �k *
G Populus fremont« - California Cottonwood Protect Within creek area �� ,� � � \ � ' � I I r .
H Quercus lobata - native oak Protect 13 . 5 Within creek area � � `� � � � I � � �� �
\ ! �� NO. C11736 �
, �)+� REN. 11 - 3Q-15 ��
� � \� \ I � � � � �- O
� walnut Keep Zo Not on property � � � � trri ation Schedule for Orrs Creek Develo ment
_ \ ��� \�\ ` \� �j � ; � g p °� cA�- � F
�____ _ „
.�: i� �
__ \ � � � .... �
\ � \ \ . � � . �. : s — _-- — TYPe Volume Quantity Size
. ` � � � \ � \ ,� � � � �
� � �\ . ,
� � - - � � U
6��`\ ' \ � �� _� ��� �° ���°�� Tree Emitters 2 GPH 3 per #15
� � \ � � � �
`� >
� � � 5� � � � � `�� ` � Shrub Emitters 1 GPH � 2 er # 5 • • z
t � �\ � ��4I:� � p Q
� \ �� 1 GPH 1 per # 1 � •
' �\ � `� � � �` �,�- �. G°-`� � �� � � � —� �---
� ,� \\ -�°. _� ��~�� 1 GPH 1 per # 2 � cl)
� � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � �� --� � � Grass Emit�ters 1 GPH 2 er # 5 �'�" �
� � � � � � � � � ► �A � � ��� � �,I � �.�� � ���� � 1�� �S �--�.-�� . p (�
' � � � � � \� � � 1GPH 1 per # 1 � � C� N�
� � � � � � � . 1 GPH 1 per 4° Q � d-
I � � � \ � + � u..
, �� �
� \ � � � \ � Ground Cover 1 GPH 1 per 4 �-- �
-- --�-.__.___ .. C�
�
� � �� � � \ � � � _ �_ . � ` Vines Emitters 1 GPH 1 per 4" � � �
� \ � ' �
� � � � `�
� \ � �� � � _ ___ = Q � U
� � � �� �� �
� � � � �
\ � � � � i � c�
\ \ � \ � \ \ � � W � N Q
�` \ \ � � \ � t 123 Ford Street - Lo# 1 - Square Footage for Landscaping W r"' �
� � �\ � - square feet � l.1�
` \ ' � �\ . �
` �� � � � \ � � � + Gross Area of Lot 7024 100% � LLl cy �
� � � \ \ , r-
\ \ \ �\ Total Site Coverage 1729 24 . 6% L� � �
� � � � Protected Area for Creek and Oaks ( no landscaping) 3136 44 .5% � �
O � . �y � � � (N) WIRE Available for Landsca in 2159 30 . 7% O � r'
1 ( \\\ � � FENCE @ P g p�/�
\ 6 ' HIGH 6.i.�
� � � \� � � \� � ' s�o.c. Actually Landscaped 220 3 . 1%
� � � � � Remaining Area to be Landscaped 1939 27 . 6% �
� \ '� \ � --
� \ �\ � � �
� .
\
' � ` \ \\ � � �� � � � - . SHEET TtTLE
�` \ � � � � � ��
� � � �� � \ � LANDSCAPE
� � � � �� �'� PLAN LOT 1
�` \ � \ \ \��,�
� " �� ``��
�
` � � \ \ \ \ �\ DRAWN BY �POBfO�f'
\`
` � \ \ ' � � CHECKED BY RPR
� ` � � \�\ �\ DATE
� SUSMtTTED
` � � \ \� DATE
� ` � \ \ � CREATED
, � � � LAI� DSCAPE PLA �! LOT #� I S�LE ASNOTED
\ ,
.
PAGE
� � SCALE : 3 / 32 ° - 1 � _� ��
� s
SHEET OF
1 ITEM NO. 10A
2
Community Development and Planning Department
��ty � uk�h 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq(c�citvofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
3
4 DATE: November 12, 2014
5
6 TO: Planning Commission
7
8 FROM: Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
9
10 SUBJECT: Request for Approval of Use Permit and a Site Development Permit to allow a
11 raceway for radio controlled cars with driver's stand and scorer's stand
12 1147 North State Street, APN 001-360-24
13 File No. Munis 163
14
15
16 RECOMMENDATION
17
18 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project based on the
19 draft findings included in attachment 1 and subject to the draft conditions of approval included in
20 attachment 2.
21
22 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
23
24 An application has been received from John Laberdie on behalf of Mendocino R/C Raceway
25 requesting Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit and Site Development permit to
26 allow a raceway for radio controlled electric cars at the rear of the parcel located at 1147 North
27 State Street, APN 001-360-24 (see attachment 3, Project Description and attachment 9 Plans).
28 The Project includes:
29
30 • 260 square foot wood Drivers Stand
31 • 32 square foot wood Scoring Booth
32 • new 3 foot tall chain link perimeter fence to enclose the proposed race track
33 • one handicap accessible porta-potty
34 • new 4-single inverted-U style bike racks
35 • 3 new signs
36 • 22 offsite shared parking spaces located on the parcel to the north (CJAA and Taco Bell)
37
38 The site is developed with a building, freestanding sign structure, and partially developed
39 parking area. The existing building on the site is currently vacant. The Project would not use the
40 existing building, parking area or freestanding sign structure.
41
42 As part of the application materials, the project applicant prepared a noise level exhibit (see
43 attachment 9, last sheet of project plans). The noise measurements were taken at the project
44 site using cars that would be run at the proposed raceway.
Mendocino R/C Raceway Site Development Permit
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.:Munis 163
1
1
2 The zoning ordinance requires a Site Development Permit for all construction over 150 square
3 feet; therefore, the Project requires approval of a Site Development Permit in addition to the Use
4 Permit required for the raceway use of the site.
5
6 SETTING
7
8 The project site is located on the east side of North State Street between CJAA and Kentucky
9 Fried Chicken. The front portion of the parcel is 10,120 square feet; it is comprised of an
10 existing 1,960 square foot vacant commercial building freestanding sign and gravel parking lot.
11 The Project is proposed for the vacant rear portion of remaining 15,640 square feet of the
12 parcel. The Project site is surrounded by the following uses:
13
14 • North: Retail stores, restaurants, Services, warehouse, professional offices and other
15 commercial uses zoned Heavy Commercial (C2)
16 • East: Undeveloped land in the County
17 • South: Fairgrounds, retail zoned and other commercial uses zoned Heavy Commercial
18 (C2) and Public Facilities (PF)
19 • West: Variety of retail, restaurants zoned Community Commercial (C1) and
20 mini/convenience storage located in the County
21
22 BACKGROUND
23
24 Determination of Appropriate Use: Racetracks for radio controlled cars are not specifically
25 listed as allowed or permitted uses within the C2 zoning district. Zoning ordinance section 9102,
26 Determination of Appropriate Use, allows the Planning Director to determine if the use is
27 appropriate for the Zoning District, either as a right or subject to a use permit. In making the
28 determination, the Planning Director is required to make specific findings. As required by
29 section 9102, the Planning Director made a determination and the required findings that the
30 proposed raceway use of the site would be appropriate as a permitted use (use permit required)
31 with Planning Commission approval of a use permit (see attachment 4, Determination of
32 Appropriate Use).
33
34 Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual: The Project is exempt from the Low
35 Impact Development Technical Design Manual (LID Manual) adopted by City Council on June
36 18, 2014. The Project was submitted prior to the effective date of the LID Manual and does not
37 include any improvements or work that trigger compliance with the LID Manual (see attachment
38 5).
39
4o Design Review Board: As required by the Ukiah City Code, the Project was reviewed by the
41 Design Review Board on October 9, 2014 (see attachment 6). The DRB had the following
42 comments, recommendations and conditions of approval for the Project:
43
44 • project must be ADA compliant;
45 • no landscaping needs to be provided; and
46 • the porta-potty be located so as not to be visible from North State Street.
47
48 In addition to the ADA related comments provided at the meeting, Chair Hise provided a list of
49 ADA requirements for the Project (see attachment 7). The Design Review Board voted
50 unanimously (4-0) to recommend that Planning Commission approve the Project with the
Mendocino R/C Raceway Site Development Permit
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.:Munis 163
2
1 conditions that the Project be ADA compliant and that the porta-potty be located such that it
2 would not be visible from North State Street. These conditions of approval have been applied to
3 the Project (see attachment 2).
4
5 As requested by the Design Review Board, the Building Official reviewed the Project plans and
6 provided a list of the ADA requirements for the Project (see attachment 8).
7
8 STAFF ANALYSIS
9
10 General Plan: The General Plan land use designation of the parcel is Commercial. This land
11 use designation identifies lands where commerce and business may occur. Commercial lands
12 are more precisely defined through the uses allowed in the individual zoning districts (see
13 Zoning below). State Street is identified as a gateway in the General Plan. The General Plan
14 includes the following goals and policies related to gateways:
15
16 • Goal CD-7: Improve the appearance of area gateways.
17 • Policy CD-7.1: Establish public policy to enhance and improve the appearance of area
18 gateways.
19
20 The proposed project site is located at the rear of the parcel; the drivers stand, scorer's
21 booth and porta-potty would be located behind the existing building making it unlikely
22 that they would be seen from the gateway. A condition of approval will be included
23 requiring the porta-potty be located so as not to be visible from the gateway (see
24 attachment 6).
25
26 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan: This project is located outside the boundaries of the
27 Ukiah Municipal Airport Plan and therefore is not subject to the compatibility zone requirements
28 of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan.
29
3o Zoning. The subject property is zoned Heavy Commercial (C2). The purpose of the Heavy
31 Commercial zoning district is to provide opportunities for commercial service, wholesale
32 activities, auto repair shops, agricultural supply stores, and other activities which are generally
33 inappropriate in areas developed with professional offices and retail stores. The C2 zoning
34 district is consistent with the commercial (C) general plan land use designation.
35
36 As noted above, the proposed raceway for electric radio controlled cars is not an allowed or
37 permitted use in the C2 zoning district. The Planning Director made a Determination of
38 Appropriate Use that found the use would be appropriate at the proposed location with Planning
39 Commission approval of a Use Permit. The applicant submitted the required application
40 requesting Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit and Site Development Permit.
41
42 Development Standards: Project complies with building, height and setback requirements.
43
44 Vehicle Parking: The zoning ordinance does not include a parking requirement for the
45 proposed use. The most similar parking requirements are provided below:
46
47 ■ Stadiums, Churches, School, College And Other Institutional Stadiums, Arenas Or
48 Auditoriums And Other Places Of Assembly Not Specified Above: Parking spaces
49 shall be provided equal in number to thirty three percent (33%) of the capacity in
Mendocino R/C Raceway Site Development Permit
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.:Munis 163
3
1 persons including related office space and classrooms plus a minimum of three (3)
2 parking spaces for buses.
3
4 Since there is not a parking requirement that adequately addresses the use, the number of
5 required vehicle parking spaces is determined through the review of the Use Permit. The
6 Project proposes sharing existing parking located on the parcel to the north that is
7 developed with CJAA and Taco Bell. The application materials include a lease agreement
8 with the owner of the parcel to the north to use 22 of the 42 parking spaces located on the
9 parcel to the north as parking for the raceway (see attachment 3).
10
11 The applicant has indicated up to 30 people use the raceway at a time and that many of
12 these people carpool. The Project will provide parking for 4 bikes. The hours for the
13 raceway are off-peak for CJAA which closes at 5 pm and is closed on Saturday and Sunday.
14 CJAA is primarily warehouse with a small amount of office space, so the parking demand for
15 this use is very low. The use is not off-peak from Taco Bell. Based on a total of 42 parking
16 spaces, at least 22 parking spaces would be available to Taco Bell customers and
17 employees when the raceway is in use. Based on the maximum number of people that use
18 the raceway, the provision of bike parking, the off-peak use of the CJAA parking, and the
19 low parking demand generated by CJAA, staff recommends 22 vehicle parking spaces be
20 required for the Project as proposed by the applicant.
21
22 Bike Parking:The zoning ordinance requires bike parking equal to 10% of the vehicle
23 parking spaces required. Based on 22 vehicle parking spaces, 2 bike parking spaces
24 would be required. The applicant has proposed 6 bike parking spaces. Staff agrees that
25 6 bike parking spaces should be adequate to serve the use and that the bike parking
26 demand for this use is likely to exceed 10% of the required vehicle parking spaces.
27
28 Landscaping: Staff has determined the Project is not subject to the landscaping
29 requirements based on the following: 1) the project involves the construction and
30 placement of only minor small structures on the project site which could be removed
31 from the site if needed; 2)the project does not include "permanent" improvements; 3)
32 most of the landscaping requirements are related to parking lots and the use would
33 share parking located on the existing parcel to the north; and 4)the landscaping
34 requirements are also intended to provide screening between properties and/or
35 structures and the use only involves the construction of minor structures and would be
36 located adjacent to parking lots on the north and south sides of the parcel. The DRB
37 agreed the Project did not need to provide landscaping.
38
39 Lighting: No lighting is proposed since the hours of operation would be one weekday
4o evening from 5:00 pm to dusk and Sundays 9:00 am to dusk and an occasional
41 Saturday.
42
43 Sign Ordinance: The signage proposed is consistent with the requirements of the Sign
44 Ordinance.
45
46 Noise Ordinance: The application materials included a noise level exhibit for the raceway.
47 The noise levels included in the exhibit are below the noise levels allowed in Commercial zoning
48 districts. The Project is required to comply with the Noise Ordinance and this has been included
49 as a condition of approval.
50
Mendocino R/C Raceway Site Development Permit
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.:Munis 163
4
1 Use Permit. The Planning Director made a Determination of Appropriate Use as allowed by
2 zoning ordinance section 9102. Table 1 below includes the findings required for approval of a
3 use permit along with staff analysis. Based on the analysis included in Table 1, the Project is
4 consistent with the findings required for approval of a Use Permit.
5
Table 1: Use Permit Analysis
Use Permit Findings Staff Analysis
The proposed land use is consistent with the The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as described
provisions of this Title as well as the goals and under General Plan above.
policies of the City General Plan.
The project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as described above.
The proposed land use is compatible with The project, as conditioned is compatible with surrounding uses based
surrounding land uses and shall not be detrimental on the following:
to the public's health,safety and general welfare.
The proposed raceway use is similar in nature to parks,playgrounds,
community gardens,outdoor sales establishments and other
recreational uses which are allowed uses in the C1,C2,and PF zoning
district with a use permit.
The proposed project would increase the number of community
facilities creating opportunities for community involvement for,
children,adults,and families.
Parking lots are located to the north and south of the proposed site are
and vacant land to the east.
The hours of operation are at a time when other businesses in the area
are closed;therefore it will not interrupt the existing business or
increase traffic.
The proposed project would not exceed the Noise level for Commercial
zoning districts established in the Noise Ordinance and is required to
comply with the Noise Ordinance.
The parking for the Project would be located on the parcel to the north.
The applicant has a lease agreement to use 22 vehicle parking spaces.
The Project would also provide 6 bike parking spaces. Based on a
maximum of 30 people,this would be adequate to serve the use.
Through the use permit the operational characteristics would be
regulated through the conditions of approval such as site maintenance,
procedures,signage,and parking;therefore the project would not be
detrimental to the surrounding uses.
The existing parking lot north of the proposed project on the adjacent
parcel is not currently striped to be compliant with ADA requirements
for the proposed raceway. Staff has included a condition of approval
that ADA compliant parking be provided.
The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal,Police Department,
Building Official,and Public Works and any review comments from
these departments have been included as conditions of approval.
The project is required to comply with all federal,state and local laws.
6
Mendocino R/C Raceway Site Development Permit
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.:Munis 163
5
1 Site Development Permit. In order to approve a Site Development Permit, the following
2 findings are required to be made and supported by information included as part of the
3 application and public record. The findings required for approval of a Site Development Permit
4 along with staff analysis is included in Table 4 below. Based on the analysis included in Table
5 2, the Project is consistent with the findings required for approval of a Site Development Permit.
6
Table 2: Summa of Pro'ect Consisten with Site Develo ment Permit Findin s
Zoning Code Site Development Permit Staff Analysis
Findin s
The proposal is consistent with the goals, The Project is consistent with the General Plan under General Plan
objectives,and policies of the City General Plan. above.
The location,size,and intensity of the proposed The Project would share the existing parking located on the adjacent
project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient parcel to the north as described above. No changes to the access to the
vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern. parking on this parcel would occur as a result of the Project. The Project
is required to provide accessible parking to serve the raceway use. Based
on the comments from the DRB and the Building Official,this parking
space would most likely be in the southeast corner of the parcel to the
north and would be created by modifying existing parking in this location.
Pedestrians would walk through the parking lot to the raceway and enter
through the gate located on the north side of the site. This area of the
parking lot is likely to be lightly used resulting in limited vehicle traffic in
this area.
The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the The Project would share existing parking located on the adjacent parcel
relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on to the north as described above. No changes to the access to the parking
adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or on this parcel would occur as a result of the Project.
inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding
uses.
Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for N/A
purposes of separating or screening the proposed The Project would be located at the rear of the site and would include 2
structure(s)from the street and adjoining building structures and one porta-potty. The Project would share the existing
sites,and breaking up and screening large parking located on the adjacent parcel to the north as described above.
expanses of paved areas. Most of the landscaping requirements apply to parking lots. There is a
partially improved parking area at the front of the site that would not be
used by the raceway. Due to the nature of the use(intermittent and
involving limited improvements which can be easily relocated),location
at the rear of site and adjacent to parking lots to the north and south and
vacant land to the east,no onsite parking,and conditions of approval
that require the porta-potty to be located so as not to be visible from
State Street,landscaping was not proposed as part of the Project. Staff
and the DRB agreed no landscaping needed to be provided for the
Project. Should Planning Commission determine that landscaping should
be provided in order for the Project to be consistent with this finding,
staff requests the Commission state the reason for the landscaping and
provide a condition of approval for the landscaping.
The proposed development will not restrict or cut The Project would be located at the rear of the site and includes the
out light and air on the property,or on the installation of 3 structures(drivers'stand,scorers'stand,and porta-
property in the neighborhood;nor will it hinder the potty)and the raceway. The location of the structures and raceway
development or use of buildings in the comply with the requirements for building height and setbacks and most
neighborhood,or impair the value thereof. of the site would remain devoid of buildings and structures. The raceway
would be adjacent to parking lots to the north and south and vacant land
topographically below the site to the east.
Mendocino R/C Raceway Site Development Permit
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.:Munis 163
6
The improvement of any commercial or industrial N/A
structure will not have a substantial detrimental There is no residential zoning district adjacent to the Project site.
impact on the character or value of an adjacent
residential zoning district.
The proposed development will not excessively Most of the site is undeveloped. The site includes 2 trees. One tree will
damage or destroy natural features,including be located within the fenced in area for the raceway. A condition of
trees,shrubs,creeks,and the natural grade of the approval has been applied to the Project that prohibits any structures or
site. intrusion into the dripline of this oak tree.
There is sufficient variety,creativity,and The Project would install 3 small structures and the raceway. All of these
articulation to the architecture and design of the structures are low in height and small. Only the porta-potty is boxlike;
structure(s)and grounds to avoid monotony however,it is not a permanent structure and would not be visible from
and/or a box-like uninteresting external North State Street.
appearance.
1
2 PUBLIC NOTICE
3
4 A notice of public hearing was provided in the following manner:
5
6 ■ posted in three places on the project site on October 30, 2014;
7 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on October 30, 2014; and
8 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 2, 2014.
9
10 As of the writing of this staff report, no correspondence has been received in regards to the
11 project.
12
13 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
14
15 Environmental Review (CEQA): The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the
16 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, New Construction,
17 Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land, and 15311, Accessory Structures.
18
19 A. The Project is consistent with the Commercial general plan designation and all
20 applicable general plan policies as well as with the Heavy Commercial zoning
21 designation and regulations based on the analysis in the staff report.
22
23 B. The Project consists of the construction of a 260 foot wood Drivers Stand; 32 square foot
24 wood Scoring Stand; and dirt racetrack.
25
26 C. The Project includes the installation of one new hanging sign and one portable sign.
27
28 D. The site and surrounding area are not environmentally sensitive. The Project does not
29 include the removal of any trees. There are no wetlands, creeks, or water bodies on the
30 site.
31
32 E. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects in relations to traffic,
33 noise, air quality, or water quality because the project site located within a developed
34 urban area that contains existing similar type uses. The Project was referred to Public
35 Works for review and comment. Public Works did not have any comments on the
36 Project and did not request a traffic study.
37
Mendocino R/C Raceway Site Development Permit
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.:Munis 163
7
1 F. Based on review of the project by Public Works, the Electric Department, Police
2 Department and Fire Marshal, the site can be adequately served by all required utilities
3 and public services.
4
5 DECISION TIMELINE
6
7 The proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). The
8 PSA requires that a decision be made on the project within 60 days of the application being
9 deemed complete. This application was submitted to the Community Development and Planning
10 Department on August 11, 2014 and was deemed complete on October 24, 2014. As such, a
11 decision must be made on the project no later than December 23, 2014. The applicant may
12 request a onetime extension of the decision timeline. The next regularly scheduled Planning
13 Commission meeting is December 10, 2014 (November 26, 2014 meeting cancelled due to
14 Thanksgiving holiday).
15
16
17 Attachments
18
19 1. Draft Use Permit and Site Development Permit Findings
20 2. Draft Use Permit and Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval
21 3. Project Description date stamped October 05, 2014
22 4. Determination of Appropriate Use
23 5. Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual Application Determination
24 6. Design Review Board Minutes Excerpt from October 9, 2014
25 7. Letter from Tom Hise dated stamped October 21, 2014
26 8. Building Official Memo dated October 17, 2014
27 9. Project Plans date stamped October 5, 2014
28
29
30
31
32
Mendocino R/C Raceway Site Development Permit
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.:Munis 163
8
1 ATTACHMENT 1
2
3 DRAFT USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS
4
5 MENDOCINO R/C RACEWAY
6 1147 NORTH STATE STREET, APN 001-360-24
7 CITY FILE NUMBER: 163
8
9 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff
10 report, the application materials and documentation, and the public record.
11
12 1. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the
13 General Plan as described in the staff report.
14
15 2. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the
16 zoning ordinance as described in the staff report.
17
18 3. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the Sign
19 Ordinance.
20
21 4. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for
22 approval of a Use Permit as described in Table 1 of the staff report.
23
24 5. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for
25 approval of a Site Development Permit as described in Table 2 of the staff report.
26
27 6. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
28 Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, New Construction, Section 15304,
29 Minor Alterations to Land, and 15311, Accessory Structures.
30
31 A. The Project is consistent with the Commercial general plan designation and all
32 applicable general plan policies as well as with the Heavy Commercial zoning
33 designation and regulations based on the analysis in the staff report.
34
35 B. The Project consists of the construction of a 260 foot wood Drivers Stand; 32
36 square foot wood Scoring Stand; and dirt racetrack.
37
38 C. The Project includes the installation of one new hanging sign and one portable
39 sign.
40
41 D. The site and surrounding area are not environmentally sensitive. The Project
42 does not include the removal of any trees. There are no wetlands, creeks, or
43 water bodies on the site.
44
Mendocino R/C Raceway Use
Use Permit and Site Development Permit Findings
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.163
1
1 E. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects in relations to
2 traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality because the project site located within a
3 developed urban area that contains existing similar type uses. The Project was
4 referred to Public Works for review and comment. Public Works did not have any
5 comments on the Project and did not request a traffic study.
6
7 F. Based on review of the project by Public Works, the Electric Department, Police
8 Department and Fire Marshal, the site can be adequately served by all required
9 utilities and public services.
10
11 7. A notice of public hearing was provided in the following manner:
12
13 A. posted in three places on the project site on October 30, 2014;
14 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on October 30, 2014;
15 and
16 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 2, 2014.
17
18
Mendocino R/C Raceway Use
Use Permit and Site Development Permit Findings
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.163
2
1 ATTACHMENT 2
2
3 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL— USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
4
5 MENDOCINO R/C RACEWAY
6 1147 NORTH STATE STREET, APN 001-360-24
7 CITY FILE NUMBER: 163
8
9 1. Approval is granted to allow installation and operation of a raceway for radio controlled
10 electric cars as described in the Project Description submitted to the Planning
11 Department and date stamped October 5, 2014 and as shown on the Project Plans
12 submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 5, 2014, except as
13 modified by the following conditions of approval.
14
15 2. This Use Permit is granted subject to the following operating characteristics:
16
17 A. Days and hours of operation are limited to one weekday night per week from 5:00
18 pm to dusk and Saturdays and Sundays 9:00 am to dusk.
19
20 B. Maximum of 30 people are allowed at the raceway at one time.
21
22 C. Use shall comply with the City of Ukiah Noise Ordinance.
23
24 D. Adequate dust control shall be provided.
25
26 E. Only electric cars shall be used at the raceway in order to limit noise from the use.
27
28 F. No structures shall be placed under and no encroachment shall occur into the
29 dripline of the oak tree located on the southeast corner of the site.
30
31 3. This use permit does not include special events that exceed the maximum number of
32 people allowed by condition of approval #2 above or that are outside of the approved
33 hours of operation allowed in #2 above.
34
35 4. In order to provide adequate parking, the Project shall provide 22 vehicle parking spaces
36 on the adjacent parcel to the north, 1199 North State Street, APN 001-360-37. The
37 Project shall also provide a minimum of 6 bike parking spaces on the Project site, 1147
38 North State Street.
39
40 5. The vehicle parking required by condition #4 above shall be maintained by the Project
41 Proponent. In the event any of these parking spaces are no longer available, the Project
42 Proponent shall notify the Planning Department and propose substitute parking for the
43 use. The substitute parking is subject to staff review and approval and may require
44 application for and approval of an amendment to this use permit.
45 6. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff
46 review and approval:
Mendocino R/C Raceway Use
Use Permit and Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.163
1
1
2 A. Location of the porta-potty in an area that is not visible from North State Street.
3
4 7. Prior to Building Permit Final, a "Trash Disposal Plan" shall be prepared by the applicant
5 and submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. The Plan shall address
6 litter control, trash collection, on-site storage, and pick-up on a regular basis. The Plan
7 shall include proof of a contract with the City disposal contractor, and specify that such a
8 contract shall be maintained as a requirement for the issuance and retention of the Use
9 and Site Development Permit.
10
11 8. Signs require application for and approval of a Sign Permit from the Community
12 Development Department.
13
14 9. Construction hours 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday 9:00 a.m.
15 to 4:00 p.m. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays recognized by the City
16 of Ukiah. Interior construction is exempt from these hours provided that construction
17 noise is not audible at the project property lines.
18
19 10. On plans submitted for building permit these conditions of approval shall be included as
20 notes on the first sheet.
21
22 From the Design Review Board
23
24 11. The Project shall be ADA compliant (see Building Official comments below).
25
26 12. The porta-potty shall be located such that it is not visible from North State Street.
27
28 From the Buildinq Official
29
30 The following comments are intended to aid the applicant in realizing some of the items required
31 to be incorporated in the building and plans when submitted for the building permit. This is not a
32 plan check for the permit.
33
34 13. The building site will need to be made accessible including a path of travel from the
35 public way to the site. This will include:
l36
37 ■ A hard surface walk (DG, concrete, asphalt, etc.)that is 4' wide with a max running
38 slope of 5% and max side slope of 2% which extends from the public sidewalk to
39 the drivers stand, the bathroom and any other areas where people need to access.
40 ■ A parking and offloading site will need to be striped and painted as close as
41 practical to the site.
42 ■ A site plan showing all of this is needed.
43
44 14. An accessible bathroom is required (if there is an occupant load of greater than 10 then
45 separate toilet facilities for both sexes is required).
46
Mendocino R/C Raceway Use
Use Permit and Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.163
2
1 15. If a door or gate is installed then it is required to be accessible (3' width, latch that is
2 operable with one hand movement that does not require grasping — lever or panic style
3 hardware— if greater than 49 occupants then panic hardware is required).
4
5 16. The ramp to the drivers stand shown in the attached plans will need to be modified to
6 meet accessibility requirements including a maximum slope of 1:12, an intermediate
7 landing 4' wide and 6' in length. The landing at the top of the ramp will need to be 6' in
8 length and 5' wide. The width of the stand will need to be 5' to enable a person in a
9 wheelchair the ability to access the stand as anyone else.
10
11 17. When you are ready to submit for a permit then please submit an application and 3 sets
12 of plans drawn by a licensed Architect or Engineer and 2 sets of structural calculations
13 for the stands.
14
15 From the Public Works Department
16
17 18. Project parking shall not be allowed on the existing parking lot on the subject property,
18 but shall instead utilize the paved parking area on the adjacent property to the north, as
19 shown on the submitted Parking Plan dated 7/23/14. Future parking may be allowed on-
20 site with appropriate improvements and re-paving or application of an all-weather
21 surface, subject to the requirements of the Planning Department and City Engineer.
22
23 Standard Conditions
24
25 19. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
26 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have
27 been applied for and issued/finaled.
28
29 20. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and
3o charges applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in
31 full.
32
33 21. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
34 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or
35 Federal agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building,
36 electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect
37 at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued.
38
39 22. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit and Site Development Permit shall be
40 provided to and be binding upon any future purchaser, tenant, or other party of
41 interest.
42
43 23. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be
44 completed prior to building permit final.
45
46 24. This Use Permit and Site Development Permit may be revoked through the City's
47 revocation process if the approved project related to this Permit is not being conducted
Mendocino R/C Raceway Use
Use Permit and Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.163
3
1 in compliance with these stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not
2 established within two years of the effective date of this approval; or if the established
3 use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for 24
4 consecutive months.
5
6 25. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Use Permit and Site Development Permit
7 shall be granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Use
8 Permit and Site Development Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or
9 modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except to such specific purposes.
10
11 26. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts
12 related to project construction:
13
14 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District
15 Rule 1-430, Fugitive Dust Emissions.
16
17 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction,
18 and building construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to
19 control dust, particularly during windy days.
20
21 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to
22 control fugitive dust.
23
24 D. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual
25 construction shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction
26 site to control the transport of mud and dust onto public streets.
27
28 E. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and
29 bulldozers shall be used for earth moving operations.
30
31 F. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as
32 instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
33
34 G. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires,
35 poorly covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day
36 prior to the end of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of
37 Public Works/City Engineer.
38
39 27. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and
4o their agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the
41 City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim,
42 action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the
43 purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application.
44 This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses,
45 attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
46 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this
47 application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part
Mendocino R/C Raceway Use
Use Permit and Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.163
4
1 of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be
2 void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the
3 agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Mendocino R/C Raceway Use
Use Permit and Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval
1147 North State Street/APN 001-360-24
File No.163
5
�������
;,,:
f�� ��,�ra� �;_<
� 4 �,�t
� `� �� � ''�s,`�`� ���,, �,� � � �a
t�� w�, ��� r�� �`
��?,414, '��`i�a�`�..��� 3�b�,
�.�' 1���`;��,�,�y ..
`.r°+�.�#s�'�`�?�, �v � 4�, `a,s, J:
3�� 1 � ?�- ' �t i+� �� ��Et y e t''
� �� q b+ '�.,z v i
i:� ,. �� �,�°�°������,�� �. ���`"t���`�
� "�t` � �� i. ' � `�, ' � `��`v��.��'�°���```t ���r ��'��
V� t �,'� s �' � �� k��,4k � 'i 4 � �,t� �,�, �. `„y,�n a
�°� ��
��� e��`'`iS�� l`14E�',\.�` �.,,�'.`\, �`\ t i}(�... � �-� � 5\c.'v `� 1\� �l l`�`5
� ���t�: �`c�`���i�`��t � � �'�. `�", � `. ��a"�S°��"*z4"`E��+q,"�'�g s�.sesa'o{ �Y . � �
��� 1`,�k +���, � �� ��f� � , ��
z �
�h s i ,��'ht \ �,. �� '� �� �, y��" z C
t\ +�,, `,L� �, ?�.1`�,� � �.�i+4,1 �.� -\'>5'' � � �'�` r'�"�'" °` `'�``` d} �.�t ��.
�` � 't�\���r''�,� ��'�� ����,�� �. � 7� � �' � ��,r,''�*,� �•.
l s � ���"� �!`��, � � a.,� if � ��' � ���.,,� ',a 3sG `��`.
��5 � � e�„�.���° � t� 1C�' �t�' �,, `�re�� ���, y �,���_:
N 4
a '�'`� , ��� ." �
�s� � r1 �c �� � � a ���� t�r `� � ������I
� �. ` P
"�� ' �` �, �` �, ���'n
;�� ���� •� '�,�$ �°
""'� `�. � � �w }� i �� Tk_Wf�,
��,, � 1�t �,,. �' ,1�:....�.�,� �
� �:_ � � � �� , r �
� { v�wti�
� � �4a=�Te*� �<=� g n�: ( .,��� ��.
�i9� � ��� � 4r ! x\�V bE' . ''�i k .13, `�.„, �� t
0
1(�: v- �rrrr ..�rz t)Ym . f
�..-. - r.'.�" .. � �.��..... . ��.��z...f . .
... '�:.�e�,..�
. m',.,�� ...n.n,.����t➢sis��Y�3T .�i�x
� �
� i 3�� t
"�:'y 29.,... . . 6 # 4 � #�l.'t �'��4 Y�itd1H,5�h \�.{ `...v' v�.y 4} 1 '„a`�
. : p�l� 3�'b �',t �� t 'T'� � �
r"
� S Y d x
s "°�^' �C� 4 S q t �.Y { 5 g�.. `it. r z � .,. 2�
? 1
' ,. � i"` :.�: �a �
int4r � tt�' 3 3 d �' 1„
t
�(-��J. � l• � : „ ' .
•� ;3�..w ,. � ,. ,. ., �, , ' ., � ,.
h t e,
t :y;'. . ., ., „ �. , .
`h�'�s a rr„�,.;
�: � �' �' � r d
� • � • ' � � . � • • i ' •
� • • � � � i •
�
� i � • �1 �
i 4' � '
�
; ►
t �� �
, °; �. + f.���i.
� ' , ��� ` ' i1.
', '��i�✓�a ti,
(
i
After reviewing this material we`hope that you will conclude, given the location(heavy cammercial
zoning, setback from State Street,fairgrounds to east,)'the minima� site work, the very limited hours of
operation&the community benefit,that the proposed track should be approved.
Attached you will find materials that describe Mendocino R/C Raceway and specifics about the site
and the operation of the race track. The first attachment is a flyer from 2010 when the track operated for -
a short period at South Ukiah Little'League complex. Our phi�osophy& commitment to the community
remains unchanged.
The site itself has been generously provided at no cost by the property owner. JA Sutherland ING.
recently;purchased this parcel which is immediately adjacent ta the other properties they own. t)ur lease
occupies the eastern 2/3 of the parcel &is set back over 100+' from State Street. The Vacant building
accupies the front portion of the parceL The existing paved parking&encroachment on the CJAA INC.
parcel will be utilized'when the track is in use. The hours of operation of the track will not conflict with
those of CJAA INC.,thus fu11y utilizing this existing paved parking area. The race track will be open
one weekday night per week,every Sunday and an occasional Saturday(If we have multiple races). We
are a na-profit origination. We have been looking for a new home for 3 years.
. • As mentioned above the existing paved parking lot on the parcel#37 (Attached assessors map)
immediately to the north will be utilized. 22 parking stalls are available,;one which is dedicated "'
for disability parking. No parking allowed in front of the track in the vacant building.
• Based upon our experience at the former track we are expecting to have up to 30
participants/spectators/parents on the site at any one time. Mix of people riding together.
+ The existing building (Vacant) is leased separately to an entity that is not related or cannected to
the track. Parking for the track will be provided on the adjacent parcel to the north.
• No buildings are anticipated or proposed other than a 10' x 26' driver's stand and 8' x 4'
scoring boath as shown on'the attached site p1an.
• Food and drink are available at KFC and Taco Be1L In the short term no items wi11 be sold at the
site, but we do plan on very limited sales of replacement parts,hats, shirts,ECT. In the future.
• Ingresslegress will occur over the existing paved encroachment for CLAA INC. It should be
noted that the track will operate during-non-peak traffic hours for North State Street. Cars
would enter south driveway (CJAA driveway),it will not impact the Taco Bell drive through.
• It`is assumed that some of the spectatorslparticipants will be riding bicycles to the facility and a
bike rack wi11 be provided.Hold 6 bikes.
• A handicap accessible port-potty will be located at the site.
+ No special events are anticipated at this time. -
+ Signage wi112'x b' Plywood hung on 4x4 in front of east fence, and a frame sidewalk board. No
other signage is proposed at this time.
• Hours of operation, Spm to dusk on Wednesdays, Sunday& Saturday 9am to dusk.
• Dust control will be done by keeping track damp, and is packed hard each week.
• Moved all existing structures from old site (being on city land).
• Electric cars have 0-10 db.
• Hours surrounding businesses are open,Taco Bell M-S 7am-10pm Drive thru 24 hours,CJAA
M-F 8am-4pm,KFC Sun-Thr. 10:30arn-9:30prn Fri=Sat 10:30-10:OOpm.
• Taco be112240 sq.ft,CJAA'Office 1470 Sq.ft,CJAA Warehouse 4900 Sq.ft.
• No Lighting Proposed
I hope this addresses your questions and concerns.
��
t
t
� .. . � � � � .. . . �� � . . - � .. . .
f
.... . �� � i �. � � . ,.....
:
� � � �, � i, F? '?; .�,,, . � . . �
. . . . . . .. ) `��..� �.,.. `�.N��.� .. . .. . � . . . .
�. ..�..R.�r � ��. ..� �� �� � ...�. ���� ��� .... . . . . . . .. ..... . .... . .. .
These businesses have supported us by donating material, money, and/or labor to help use build and
maintain our track.
Mendocino Hobbies Motospor�s
Pace Supply Jumperz
Homedepot 3 B"s Mendo Hot Dog
WIPF Construction Crawford"s Signs
Hertz Banner & Signs
Laberdie & Sons California Shingle & Shake
Busch Construction Northern Aggregates lnc.
RPP Habbies Sport Zone
' 707 Paint European Plumbing
Shermin Williams Rusty Bowl
LD Racing Products South Ukiah Little League
Mendo`Crawlers Club Mendo Racers Club
Weaver Painting Snyder Construction
i$�E'�d��sa��w-��i ��,q�`�4.�o y4`�"���tir�# � �S� , � qrN ti� �� � � � � �
w±�+
x �� �
Y �� 3� �
.
`� r�� t " � �
t � � . �
�� ;
I. � �
.; N
,
� : ° ,� � � �
�.
r r a ,:v.::,�,�
� "�� � � � � � �
�..p � �m�.
� �
0 ;
i
t p
It
,.�t .. . . . .
i vY
u
; �� .t: . .. � .. .. . � . . .. .
a.�
{. 4 ...�. !.. � . . � � ..
t
. t 4 � . . �� . .
� fr�
'\llu�° �I . . . . . . .... � . �. ..
�
. � .... . . . . . . . ... .
�P� � .. � . . � � .. . . . . .. .
�� �������i ������� �
3
� �:'
� r�q
�� �1 �� �" I�° ��SI �1�
i�l� � r� ��- �'i�� r��i �r��
I� F� r � Ir��c�r fi��� f�i��r
M�ndocino R/C Raceway
John Laberdie
Owner/President
1161 North Bush St.
Ukiah, CA-95482
Http:/iMendocinorcraceway.webs.com
E: grumpy2Q76�a yahoo.cam
P: 707-472-0869
C: 707-272-5650
b
i � �
- � ����� �� � ��� �� ��� �� �� ��6� ti
This Agreement is made� and entered in this �� I day of
� � , ZO � �
WHEREAS , Landlord desires to . fease to Tenant and Tenant desires to lease from Landlorc�
the premises generaily described as L' � (�I� 1 � C , it is herein agreed as
follows
1 . Landlord hereby leases to Tenant parking space locafied at the premises describecf
above and designated as space No . � ' 2 Z , fpr a term of
beginning 7 � Ib � 1 �( , 201 � and ending
� � � , 20j�.
2 . °fenant agrees to pay the stipulated rent in advance on the _�_ day of each
month to L� ndlord or his agent �y mail or in person to Landford or his agent at their
respective addresses as noted above .
� 3 . Upon receiving any payment of parking space rent in cash, Landlord agrees to issue
a receipt stating the name of Tenant, the amount of rent paid , the designation of the
parking space and the period for which said rent is paid ,
4 . Tenant affirms his understanding that Landlord does not furnish attendants for the
parking of automobiles, and if any employee of Landlord shafl , at the request of the Tenar� t,
handle, move, park or drive any v2hicie piaced in the park'ing area , then , and in every caGP,
such employee shall be deemed the agent of Tenant, and Tenant, not the Landlord , shall be
liable fior any loss, damage, injury or expense ihat may be suffered or sustained in
connection therewith or arising from the acts of Tenant or any employee who may be acting
as agent of Tenant.
5 . Landlord is not responsible for items left in any vehicle parked in the designated
space .
Landlord
/ �
, �
, �
r
i .
. �
Te nt �
- _ . - - - __ _ - _ ��,�' ��� �" �� �y � ���� _�� .
. ZZ ' ���
����
rt - - - - _ - �9
� " ' - - `' - _ __ _8//3-85 Ford
l Pel. ! 340:99' - -- - _
� �� � + 98@ &9 -_ _ Rood
' 0
I. 3A- a T��� '
} . . �
/?! '
� Z10'
0
o ,
��
,�� Iw C2 !!43 P3i
� -
1m
��
a
l5�4 _03� �� :°�� — — 2 � .- - �. 39
3— 0�1 � zz93zT— i
1.� io.�z a =
� � z3 0 . �
o ° a �-/
� � � ��
D � — — 2T9.72.'
�
,
. mt a ��' � o
` o �`J2T9.P2 • o
1 0 � �� �� �G ` o.
1 0 0: .
� 279:T2 �
w
� � 0 C2 D5S P36
� � o 0 24 � a � fl��?t�SC'c�
a o o Tf�� .
� _°- ��,-G ° -
1 0 25
� 279, 72 ` _ 750. � '
20.28' — —
�v �
Cff
_'4
. m� 36 � .
--�
�� .
-- -. . ., `
� �& � ,
�
� � � �t�,< , ,,',; s 'f ,� ��
; �
Planning �r�d �c�mmunity l��v�f�pm�r�f ��p�rkm�r�t
, � 300 Seminary Avenu� �
�ity �.r.��
Ukiah, CA 95482
' I��nnir� �i��_ki�h�.��m , '
{707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: 'Octaber 1, 2014
4
5 T0: 1147 North State Street IAPN 001-360-24 Determinations File
6 1147 Narth State Street Project File (Munis 163)
7
8 FR�M: Charley Sturnp, Director of Planning and Community Developrnent
9
10 SUBJECT: Determination of Appropriate Use for a Raceway for Radio Controlled Electric
11 Cars
12 1147 North Stafie Street!APN 001 360-24
13
14
15 The property located at 1147 North State Street is zoned Heavy Commercial {C2) and
16 developed with a small retail building and partially improved parking area. The building is
17 currently`vacant. Mendocino R/C Raceway is proposing to establish a raceway for radio
1s eontralled cars at the rear of the site with' scorer's stand and racer's stand as deseribed in=the
19 attached project descriptian. The days and haurs praposed for the raceway are one weekday
2U evening and weekends. Mendocino R/C Raceway would not u�e the existing building or
21 parking on the site. State Street is identified in the General Plan as a second level gateway.
22
23 The allowed uses {section 8096) and permitted uses (section 9097) do not �pecifically li�t
24 "raceway�" or "outdoor commercial recreation" as an allowed ar permitted use. Pursuant to
25 section 9097, the following uses are allowed with approval af a use permif: parks; playgrounds,
26 community gardens, and 'other` recreational u�es; outdoar sales establishment; and
27 establishm�r�t, mair�tenance, operation and removal of circuses, carnivals, amusement p�rk�,
2� open �ir theaters, or other similar temporary establishments involving large assemblages of
29 people.
30
31 The zoning ordinance includes the following definitions:
32
33 ■ COMMERCIAL'RECREATION (�utdaor): Establishmenfis primarily engaged in
34 provisions of sports, entertainment,amusement�or recreation; conducted in open or
35 partially enclosed facilities. Typical uses include'miniature galf, driving ranges, and golf'
36 courses,'swimming and tennis facilities, sports arenas, and similar outdoor!activities.
37
38 ■ OUTDO�R SALES ESTRBLISHMENT: Any business or portion of a business operated
39 to sell, display, barter or exchange any goods, foads, produce, or merchandise outside"`
40 of`a structure on private property, excluding plant nurseries. `
41
42 � PARK AND RECREATION S�RVICES: Publicly`owned and operated parks,
43 playgrounds, recreation facilities, and open spaces.
44
Mendacino RjC Raceway Determination of Appropriate Use
1147 North State Street,APN 001-360-24
October'1,2014
1'
1 Zoning ordinance section 9102 Determination of Appropriate Use , allows the Planning Director
2 to determine if the use is appropriate for the Zoning District, either as a right or subject to a use
3 permit. In making the determination, the Planning Director shall find as follows:
4
5 1 . That the use would not be incompatible with other existing or allowed uses in the C2
6 Zoning District.
7
8 2. That the use would not be detrimental to the continuing development of the area in
9 which the use would be located.
10
11 3. In the case of determining that a use not articulated as an allowed or permitted use
12 could be established with the securing of a use permit, the Planning Director shall find
13 that the proposed use is similar in nature and intensity to the uses listed as permitted
14 uses. All determinations of the Planning Director regarding whether a use can be
15 allowed or permitted in the Community Commercial (C2) Zoning District shall be final
16 unless a written appeal to the City Council, stating the reasons for the appeal, and the
17 appeal fee, if any, established from time to time by City Council resolution, is filed with
18 the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was made. Appeals may be
19 filed by an applicant or any interested party. The City Council shall conduct a duly
20 noticed public hearing on the appeal in accordance to the applicable procedures as set
21 forth in this Chapter. At the close of the public hearing, the City Council may affirm,
22 reverse, revise or modify the appealed decision of the Planning Director. All City Council
23 decisions on appeals of the Planning Director's actions are final for the City.
24
25 Findings for Determination of Appropriate Use : Operating a racetrack for radio controlled
26 cars at 1147 North State Street has been determined to be appropriate as a permitted use ,
27 subject to Planning Commission approval of a use permit, based on the following .
28
29 Finding 1 : To the north , there are retail stores , restaurants, services, warehouse , and
30 professional offices in the City zoned C2 and in the County. To the east is undeveloped
31 land in the County thaf is land topographically below the subject parcel . To the south are
32 the fairgrounds zoned Public Facilities (PF) and commercial uses, including retail and
33 restaurant, zoned Heavy Commercial (C2) . To the west is a variety of commercial uses
34 zoned Community Commercial (C1 ) , including restaurants, retail , mini-storage and vehicle
35 rental , and auto sales .
36
37 The racetrack would be located at the rear of the site . The parking lot for Kentucky Fried
38 Chicken is located immediately south , the parking lot for CJAA and Taco Bell immediately
39 north , undeveloped land topographically below the subject parcel in the County and the
40 fairgrounds to the east, and commercial properties on the opposite side of North State
41 Street. Since parking lots and undeveloped land topographically below the subject parcel
42 are located immediately adjacent to the proposed raceway location , the raceway would not
43 affect or be incompatible with the existing businesses on the adjacent sites. In the event
44 the parcel to the east is developed , it is likely that it would be separated from the raceway by
45 parking and landscaping . The raceway would not be detrimental to the existing businesses
46 on the west side of State Street due to distance between the raceway and these businesses
47 and the separation provided by State Street.
48
Mendocino R/C Raceway Determination of Appropriate Use
1147 North State Street, APN 001360-24
October 1, 2014
2
I
1 The weekday evening use of the raceway would be off peak from office uses and most retail
2 uses , which often close by 6 pm . The weekend use of the raceway would be off peak from
3 office uses , but not retail uses that are open on Saturday. The Sunday would be off peak
i 4 from some retail uses which are closed on Sunday. The use anticipates 30 people many of
, 5 whom travel to and from the raceway together. Carpooling to the raceway would limit any
' 6 increase in traffic and the demand for parking .
I 7
j 8 As part of the use permit process, conditions of approval can be applied to the project to
9 ensure any potential impacts are addressed .
; 10
11 Finding 2: The site is developed with a small , vacant retail building and partially improved
� 12 parking area. The raceway would be located at the rear of the parcel . The days and hours
13 of the raceway are limited and off peak of office and some retail uses in the immediate area
14 as described above . The raceway may act as an attraction to the area and users/visitors of
! 15 the raceway may choose to visit businesses in the area as part of their trip to the raceway .
16
17 The use of the rear portion of the site by the raceway does not preclude the tenanting of the
18 vacant building located at the front of the site by a different business . Although not
' 19 proposed as a temporary use , since the raceway includes limited improvements that could
' 20 be deconstructed and moved to a different location , the entire site could be redeveloped in
21 the future without the need to remove significant site improvements .
22
23 The location of the raceway at the rear of the site and proximate to parking lots and vacant
24 land make it unlikely that the use would disturb existing businesses . The operation of the
25 raceway should not affect the businesses located on the west side of State Street due to the
26 distance from the raceway . There would be limited visibility of the raceway from State
v Street, so the raceway would not affect the appearance of State Street, a second level
28 gateway in the general plan .
29
3o Since any impacts of the raceway can be dealt with through the use permit by including
31 conditions and/or changes to the project , any impacts of the project could be adequately
32 addressed .
33
34 Finding 3 : As noted above , parks , playgrounds , community gardens , and other recreational
35 uses ; outdoor sales establishment; and establishment, maintenance , operation and removal
36 of circuses, carnivals, amusement parks , open air theaters , or other similar temporary
37 establishments involving large assemblages of people are allowed as permitted uses in the
38 Heavy Commercial zoning district pursuant to section 9097 . Also , as noted above, the
39 zoning ordinance does not specifically identify " raceway" as a use .
40
41 The zoning ordinance includes a definition of "commercial recreation , outdoor; " however,
42 this use is not listed as allowed or permitted in any zoning district within the City.
43 Commercial recreation , outdoor is defined as establishments primarily engaged in provisions
44 of sports, entertainment, amusement, or recreation, conducted in open or partially enclosed
45 facilities. Typical uses include miniature golf, driving ranges, and golf courses, swimming
46 and tennis facilities, sports arenas, and similar outdoor activities. The raceway is similar in
47 nature to an outdoor sales establishment in that the use is outdoors and includes only two
48 small structures (scorer's stand and racer's stand) . The raceway is also similar in nature to
49 parks and playgrounds which are outdoor uses that provide a form of recreation for people
Mendocino R/C Raceway Determination of Appropriate Use
1147 North State Street, APN 001-360-24
October 1, 2014
3 �
1 of all ages . Special events held by the raceway would be similar in nature to establishment,
2 maintenance , operation and removal of circuses , carnivals , amusement parks , open air
3 theaters , or other similar temporary establishments involving large assemblages of people in
4 that any special events held by the raceway would likely attract larger numbers of people
5 than the regular use of the raceway for the duration of the special event. Special events
6 would be limited in number and controlled the use permit.
7
S Due to the small number of people that use the raceway and limited number of days and
9 hours per week the raceway is open , the use would likely be less intensive than the
10 permitted uses noted above for the C2 zoning district.
11
12 Conclusion : The proposed raceway use is similar in nature to parks , playgrounds , community
13 gardens , and other recreational uses; outdoor sales establishment; and establishment ,
14 maintenance, operation and removal of circuses , carnivals, amusement parks , open air theaters ,
15 or other similar temporary establishments involving large assemblages of people which are
16 allowed uses in the C2 zoning district with approval of a use permit. Through the use permit
17 process , Planning Commission has the authority to apply conditions to the project or require
18 changes in the project in order to ensure compatibility with adjacent and surrounding uses and
19 to address impacts related to the use. Therefore , the proposed racetrack for radio controlled
20 cars has been determined to be appropriate as a permitted use with Planning Commission
21 approval of a use permit.
22
23
24 Attachment:
25
26 Project Description date stamped April 1 , 2014
27
28
Mendocino R/C Raceway Determination of Appropriate Use
1147 North State Street, APN 001-360-24
October 1, 2014 .
4 �
i - �;�
� : � t •'� � 'v �� I
t ? t,C�: � � : ('f�•�:� � a .r
Pubiic Works Department
;j 300 Seminary Avenue
= j �`--` l ' Ukiah CA 95482
nj�t � � �� ,� y , �u'��� Email : bkageyama(a�citvofukiah .com .
���������� �Ileb : wwrw.citvofukiah .com
. ''t$'rR� .
�.. . ��+�if
�`� Phone: (707) 463 -6284
Fax: (707) 463-6204
' Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual Applicability Determination
; Project Information
' PROJECT N ME: APPLICATION NUMBER: SUBMITTAC DATE:
�r�o.��Cx�.�o R /G R.ac��a ( � � � � ��..
PROJECTADDRESS (STREET, CITY, STATE, ZIP� AP NUMBER(S�:
l � ��' f1��''11n �� 5'I`�-�' U� I� � � ' 3� � 2`F
APPLICANT (OWNER/DEVELOPE�t� NAME: PHONE N0: FAX N0: E-MAIL ADDRESS:
�. sl L����l¢� `� �-`�� ' �(p � 1��j ,
APPLICANTIAUTHORIZED AGENT ADDRESS: CITY: STATEIZIP:
: � 55 �2, C� �. ����x' C�i,�l^ G� `���r?r
, ENGINEER NAME: PHONE N0: FAX N0: E—MAIL ADDRESS:
� �
ENGINEER AILING ADDRESS: CITY: STATEIZIP:
TYPE Of PROJECT (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY�:
14 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT �SE PERMIT ❑ SUBDIVISION
❑ GRADING PERMIT ❑ BUILDING PERMIT ❑ OTHER
Staff Use Onl
Exem t Pro 'ects check all that a I
A licable Pro 'ect Tri er Notes
Effective Date: Projects submitted prior to June 19, City Council adopted resolution 2014-27 directing staff to
� 2014, implement the Low Impact Development Design Manual
as required by the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0025054 at its
meeting the night of June 18, 2014 with the resolution
effective upon adoption . Therefore, the resolution
applies to projects submitted on or after June 19, 2014.
Maintenance: Routine maintenance activities that are This exemption includes activities such as overlays
conducted to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic and/or resurfacing of existing roads or parking lots as
capacity, and original purpose of facility. well as trenching and patching activities.
Emergency: Emergency redevelopment activities The Regional Water Quality Control Board must agree
� required to protect public health and safety. that the activities are needed to protect public health
and safety to qualify for this exemption .
� Public Utilities: Projects undertaken to install or reinstall This exemption applies to public utilities, such as sewer
� public utilities and do not include any additional street and water, only.
' � or road development or redevelopment activities.
Reconstruction by Public Agencies: Reconstruction This exemption applies to public agency wok only.
projects, undertaken by a public agency, of street or "Reconstruction" is defined as work that replaces surface
' ' roads remaining within the original footprint and less down to subgrade. Street width is measured from face-
�
than 48 feet wide. of-curb to face-of-curb.
i Pedestrian and Bike Paths: Standalone pedestrian
pathways, trail, and off-street bicycle lanes.
I
, ; .
�
�
�
I
! �
� i - .
� Staff Use Onl. �
Pro 'ects that Tri er/ Non- Exem t Pro 'ects check all that a I
A � lieable . .;Pro ect Tri era Nofes _ . ;
Size: All development that creates or replaces a Reroofing of an existing building is considered a maintenance
combined total of 1 acre or more of impervious activity and is exempt.
surFacel.
Parking Lots: Parking lots with 25 or more
parking spaces or 10,000 sf of new or replaced
impervious surface.
Street, Road, Highway, Freeway: Street, road, Overlays, resurfacing, trenching, and patching is considered a
highway, or freeway construction or maintenance activity and is exempt.
reconstruction, creating or replacing than "Reconstruction" is defined as work that replaces the road surFace
10,000 square feet or more of impervious down to subgrade.
surface.
Number of Dwellings: All development that
includes four (4) or more dwelling units.
, � �� Impervious Surface : Industrial parks, , .
commercial strip malis, retail gasoline outlets, .
restaurants, ,or automotive service facilities . . ; � - - �
creating o� replacing 10,000 square feet or ' ' ' � � ' � � �
more of impervious surfacel. . ,
1, Impeniious surfiace is defined as anarea th�t has 6een modified in such a way as to reduce storm water runoff capture, treatment and • = �
percolation into underlying soiis. For example, such surfaces include rooftops, walkways, plastic liners, and parking areas. Permeable pavement
shall be considered impervio.us,if they have subdreins. Structural areas that are.covered under a green or eco-roof shall not be considered . . " .�
impervious suiiace. ' ' ' ' � ' a
�' ,�=-�a���'=z'��_.�{'�``7�'�',�'�' *3'`,� a asrs' n"�Ze _ - a �_ _ -,- ,n:r
�4»'� liX � 1�. � 'G 4�q� � '��,f �T: ' '4 .
3�'�'iV�S '�.C„�' Y�'<C�y�s9i4��3%��Slrt���
�.�_ .v...� _ .. . . -,�M ` � �
�ROJECT EXEMPT FROM LID DESIGN MANUAL � ❑ PROJECTTRIGGERS �IS NOT EXEMPT FROM� LID DESIGN A/1,4N.UAL
P C WORKS ST FF �SIGNATURE� : DATE OF DETE MINA ION :
;
� �i a �c � .
£� ' �L
. ..,, � ,`.^:r� i'� x� .�v��b -;�.
. � \✓ 9aP F :
�i 'ah City of Ukiah , CA
Design Review Board
1
2 DRAFT MINUTES EXCERPT
3
4 Regular Meeting October 9, 2014
5
6 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
7 1 . CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hise called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 3 : 03
8 p. m . in Conference Room #3 .
9
10 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Tom Hise, Vice Chair Tom Liden ,
11 Howie Hawkes, Alan Nicholson
12
13 Absent: Nick Thayer
14
15 Staff Present: Kim Jordan , Principal Planner
16 Michelle Johnson , Associate Planner
17 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
18
19 Others present: Leslie H. Smyth
20 Roger Schwartz
21 Matthew Gilbert
22 Julio Tinavero
23 Matthew Carfi
24 Scott Diseroon
25 John Laberdic
26 Rick Landon
27
28
29 6C . Mendocino Radio-Controlled Raceway Site Development Permit (File No. : 163) :
30 Review and recommendation to Planning Commission for a Site Development Permit for
31 a race and radio controlled cars with driver's stand and scorer's stand at the rear of the
32 parcel located at 1147 North State Street, APN 001 - 360-324 .
33
34 Assistant Planner Johnson :
35 • Related to providing parking for the Project, staff has been advised by the owner of the
36 building located at the front of the project site will remain vacant and does not foresee
37 renting the building any time soon .
38 • Gave a description of the Project as provided for on page 1 of the staff report and noted
39 the description was revised to provide an update concerning the noise levels . The revised
40 description related to noise is not a design related issue.
41 • The zoning ordinance requires a Site Development Permit for all construction over 150
42 square feet; therefore, the Project requires approval of a Site Development Permit in
43 addition to the Use Permit required for the raceway use of the site.
44 • The existing structures (drivers stand , scorer's booth) from the previous raceway were
45 relocated to the proposed location . �
46 • While the Project is located on one of the City's gateways, it is located at the rear of the
47 property, so it is less visible from the public right-of-way.
48 • No landscaping is proposed as part of the Project. Staff has no recommendations
49 regarding the landscaping based on the use of the Project and that it is not visible from
50 State Street.
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 1
1 • The proposed use is not specifically identified in the Zoning Ordinance . As such , a
2 Determination of Appropriate Use will have to be made for the raceway use by the
3 Planning Director.
4 • Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report address vehicle parking , bike parking , access to the site ,
5 lighting and signage.
6 • The Project is located outside of the boundaries of the Downtown Design District;
7 Therefore, the Project would be reviewed for compliance with the design guidelines that
8 apply to commercial project outside of this district. Due to the type of project, it appears
9 the guidelines do not apply.
10 • Pages 4 and 5 of the staff report address the required findings for approval of the Project.
11 Staff requests the DRB consider these findings .
12
13 John Laberdie :
14 • Confirmed the materials for the raceway were moved from the former site on Gobbi
15 Street to the new site .
16
17 DRB Questions :
1 S • What are the hours of operation?
19 • Are the racecars electric or gas?
20
21 John Laberdie:
22 • Hours of operation would be 5: 00 pm to dusk on Wednesdays, and 9 : 00 am to dusk
23 Saturdays & Sundays . Since racing ends at dusk no lighting is necessary.
24 • The cars are electric .
25
26 DRB comments :
27
28 Member Nicholson :
29 • Related to the viewing platform is there parking requirements?
30 • Asked about handicapped parking?
31 • As long as the Project meets ADA requirements with path of travel to the site is fine with
32 Project. Did not make the connection that the proposed use is associated with the use of
33 the adjacent commercial building .
34 • Is not certain whether a port-a-potty meets ADA standards and is acceptable.
35 • Asked about any complaints from neighbors. The site seems appropriate for the use.
36 • In terms of liability and safety, important to make certain the facility is ADA compliant.
37 • Allowing for more shade would be nice .
38 • Finds the Project somewhat odd in that the former smoke shop business is no longer in
39 existence and the property is slightly abandoned . There is no defined parking. There
40 should be defined parking but the proposed use is an after-hours recreational sport and
41 different from a business use.
42
43 Chair Hise :
44 • Noted bike parking is being provided .
45 • The Project would likely fit as an A-5 (public recreation) occupancy use type under `other
46 uses' that are uses similar to the A-5 classification in accordance with the California
47 Uniform Building Code regulations The racecar track use is considered a public
48 accommodation in this A-5 building code classification .
49 • Asked about landscaping and how this will be addressed .
50 • The Project is almost ADA non-compliant in every way. Does see ways to get around this
51 issue. ADA compliant regulations are written in a way that if the reviewing agency/body
52 allows a project to do something that is ADA non-compliant, agency is liable if something
53 is allowed that does not comply with the American Disabilities Act, which is part of the
54 civil rights code and not in any building code and is nationally enforced .
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
� Page 2
1 • Listed ways in which the project is not ADA compliant which was included as attachment
2 5 of the minutes. Would be willing to work `pro-bono' to assist with getting the Project
3 ADA compliant. The most critical components associated with ADA compliance are
4 parking spaces, path of travel to the entry and path of travel to a restroom .
5 • The one designated ADA parking space has to be van accessibie that is mostly signage
6 related . The accompanying load aisle is shown on the driver's side and has to be on the
7 passenger side. There are parking spaces between the accessible space and the
8 entrance where the rule is that a handicap person cannot be made to walk behind any
9 vehicle but his/her own . Also, the handicapped space must be the closest space to an
10 entrance; no other parking space can be closer. The way it is proposed requires a
11 handicapped person to walk by the other parking spaces to get to the entrance. Looking
12 at this issue, sees there are two parking spaces in the corner of the site to the north that
13 that could be designated handicapped parking and showed the location on the site plan .
14 This space measures exactly 17 feet curb to curb, which is what is necessary for an
15 accessible parking space. To make this the accessible space for the racetrack, the space
16 would need to be restriped and extend the striping to the entryway of the racetrack . The
17 existing handicapped space can be left as is because it works for the fast food
18 establishment.
19 • The entrance also has to be accessible. Will need to provide a 'person gate' having
20 hardware and/or latches that are ADA compliant. This is a reasonable request.
21 • Related to having an accessible path of travel to a restroom , having a port-a-potty may
22 work against the Project because access cannot be provided to this building for a
23 handicapped person .
24 . It appears all structural surfaces are okay.
25 • Related to handicap accessibility, the platform ramp is too steep. ADA code requires ' 1 in
26 12' so ror every inch of height there is 12 inches of length. The primary platForm is 5 ft 3
27 in and/or 63 inches and this calculates to 63 feet of ramp . ADA allows for 30 feet without
28 having a landing that is 5 ft x 6 in or for a `switchback' S ft x 8 in because the ramp has to
29 be 4 ft and while close is not 4 feet. To remedy, could cut the legs of the platForm and
30 drop it by 3 inches. Could get by with two 30-foot lengths and a switchback, which would
31 mean building a ramp. This is what prevents a handicapped person from using the facility
32 at all because a person has to be able to access the platform to see the cars .
33 • The guard rail is 36 inches and is required to be 42 inches. There may be special
34 circumstances whether or not this has to be higher or not. It is possible to add another
35 rail . The handrail going up the ramp is also not ADA compliant for a person in a walker or
36 wheelchair. These are easy fixes.
37 • As it is now, the Project is not ADA compliant and would happy to assist with getting the
38 Project compliant.
39 • Since the materials for the raceway track were relocated , a building permit may be
40 required at which time the City Building Official can look at the ADA compliance
41 requirements and necessary modifications to the project.
42
43 Member Liden :
44 • Are there plans to have tournaments or events that draw a larger group of people?
45 • Did not hear from staff that the Project has any issues and/or problems.
46 • Landscaping does not really pertain to the use.
47
48 Member Hawkes :
49 • Is okay with the port-a-potty as long as it is located off the street and in the rear of the
50 property since State Street is one of the City's gateway. North State Street is not really
51 attractive and would not want to add to this by adding a port-a-potty that is visible.
52 Recommends putting a fence around the port-a-potty for aesthetic purposes.
53 • Is fine with the Project as long as the port-a-potty is adequately screened from view.
54
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 3
1 Principal Planner Jordan :
2 • Racetracks for radio controlled cars are not specifically listed as allowed or permitted
3 uses within the C2 zoning district. The proposed use is similar to `parks , playgrounds ,
4 and other recreational uses and establishment, maintenance, operation , and removal of
5 circuses , carnivals, amusements parks, open air theaters or other similar temporary
6 establishments involving large assemblages of people which are allowed in the C2
7 zoning district with approval of a use permit. Through the discretionary review process,
8 Planning Commission will determine if the use is appropriate .
9 • Related to determining how much parking should be required , we asked the applicant
10 normally how many people attend events in a worse-case scenario . The project is
11 proposing to use 22 parking spaces on the site to the north . In order to see if the parking
12 can be shared , staff considers the number of parking spaces on the site, square footage
13 and type of uses, hours of operation for the businesses, and number of parking spaces
14 required . Then , determine if the hours of the track are "off hour" from the racetrack and if
15 there are an adequate number of spaces to seNe the track based on the number of
16 people anticipated for the racetrack.
17 • The C2 zoning district includes landscaping standards . No landscaping is proposed as
18 part of the Project. Most of the landscaping requirements apply to parking lots and
19 buildings and since the Project does not include the use of the on-site gravel parking area
20 or building , the landscaping requirements do not appear to apply to this Project. A dirt
21 racetrack located at the back of the site, with no substantial improvements, that is not
22 visible from State Street, and with no onsite parking does not seem to be subject to
23 landscaping requirements. Most of the landscaping requirements are meant for parking
24 areas but if the DRB views landscaping differently this is your puNiew and can make a
25 recommendation .
26 • The racecar track use must have restroom accommodations . It is highly unlikely that the
27 restrooms in the existing vacant building are ADA compliant. There are ADA compliant
28 port-a-potties, so this will likely be the solution and the Building Official has indicated that
29 this would be acceptable.
30
31 Associate Planner Johnson :
32 • The parking requirement for the most similar use is 33% of the capacity of persons
33 including related office space including classrooms plus a minimum of 3 parking spaces
34 for buses. Since the zoning ordinance does not include a parking requirement for the
35 proposed use, the number of parking spaces required will be determined by Planning
36 Commission through the use permit process. Staff does not have information about the
37 all the uses on the site to the north , so a determination about the parking could not be
38 made.
39
40 Principal Planner Jordan :
41 • Clarified the question being asked is how many parking spaces are required for the
42 racecar track use . The zoning ordinance includes parking requirements for a variety of
43 commercial recreation uses but none of them are appropriate for the Project. The zoning
44 ordinance includes parking requirements for places of public assembly that may be
45 appropriate for the Project such as stadiums, churches, school , college and other
46 institutional stadiums, arenas or auditoriums and other places of assembly where parking
47 spaces are provided equal in number to 33% of the capacity in persons including related
48 o�ce space. As part of the parking determination , have to know the hours of use so if
49 the racecar use is operating when the office space is closed then all of the parking
50 spaces are available. The owner of the property to the north has indicated that it is fine
51 for the raceway to use the parking . Staff is trying to verify that the parking will be
52 available to the racetrack and has requested information from the applicant. The 22
53 parking spaces the Project proposes on the parcel to the north that is developed with
54 CJAA and Taco Bell seem reasonable .
55
� Design Review Board October 9, 2014 �
Page 4
1 John Laberdie:
2 . Taco Bell has agreed to allow use of their bathroom facilities.
3 • Is trying to get access to the vacant building on the site for use of the bathroom facilities .
4 In the meanwhile, the applicant is proposing the use of a port-a-potty that is handicap
5 accessible .
6 • Confirmed there have been no complaints from neighbors. The owners of KFC and Taco
7 Bell have been very supportive of the Project.
8 • Has cleaned up the site and the neighbors are very pleased about this.
9 • Acknowledged that larger events such as tournaments are a possibility and will be
10 assessed.
11 • Acknowledged that some of the participants are handicapped and in wheelchairs . The
12 driver's stand is constructed such that handicapped persons can race.
13 • Providing shade might be a possibility in the future. Most people bring canopies for
14 shade.
15 • The port-a-potty would not be visible from State Street since the driver's stand will block
16 at least 90 percent of it.
17
18 Rick Landon :
19 • The owner of KFC has observed less transient activity as a result of clean up activity from
20 the applicant at the proposed site of the radio-controlled raceway.
21
22 DRB consensus :
23 • Become ADA compliant.
24 • Okay with no landscaping for the site.
25 • Make certain the port-a-potty is not visible on North State Street.
26
27 M/S Liden/Nicholson to recommend Planning Commission approve Mendocino Radio-
28 Controlled Raceway Site Development Permit with the recommendations that: 1 ) project must be
29 ADA compliant; 2) no landscaping needs to be provided; and 3) the porta-potty be located so as
30 not to be visible from North State Street. Motion carried (4-0) .
31
Design Review Board October 9, 2014 �
Page 5
, AtPca� hment # ��'
Kim Jordan
From : Nicholas Thayer <mail@lateafternoon .com>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:38 PM
To: Kim Jordan .
Subject: October 9th DRB meeting comments on project
Hello All,
Sorry I can not make today's meeting. Hopefully I will be at the next meeting if all goes well.
I do have a few comments on the project at hand today:
1 - BK remodel project
The planting palette is serviceable, tough enough for our climate and boring. I am surprised ta see no
new trees being add to the project. I would urge the board and the Planning Commission to make a condition of
approval that the applicant add more shade trees to the parking lot.
2 - RC race track proj ect
Landscape plan is inadequate and needs help. And more trees ! More screening from State Str,eet is
needed, the boxwood listed will not provide any cover.
Drought tolerant shade trees (away firom the track itself, of course) can be found on the City of Ukiah
recommended tree lists (parking or residential list). Maybe Staff can provide Applicant with these lists? �
I would sulistitute the "Jasmine" on the plan for something more robust, Gelsemium sempervirens,
or Clytostoma callistegioides.
3 - South Orchard project
Totally supportive of the venture, we need more local industry. �Jnsure about the food service and wool
processing together, but I assume Public Health will comment on that.
"Landscape plan" isn't really a landscape plan, it is an assessment of what is on site now. Would like to
see an actual plan with the proposed tree screening noted on plan. I am fine with the proposed Live Oak, but
the California Nutmeg (Torreya californica) is riot a good choice for the valley floor, if you could even find it in
a container in the first place. And the #5 containers being proposed are not suitable, #15 need to be
used. Others suitable trees can be found on the City of Ukiah recommended tree lists (parking or residential
list). Maybe Staff can provide Applicant with these lists?
I wonder if the Water Eff`icient Landscape Ordinance comes into play with this project. If is a
commercially zoned property applying for a remodel permit; it would be required to replace the expansive
lawn. Not sure how this plays out with the mixed use zoning. But either way, less lawn needs to a component
of approval. �
Kind Regards, Nick � '
1
r1 :.t�,. t� ����:��'�� 3l �T' �
�"liL .
�. . 5�� �iz, ' .il�- �i � �� �L3i�{, �S�S+ . "�6 'ric'��il � l:�J1�S�5lCS'. rl 'P�� i.Ni� � .S;1Y ' i'� 1Si, 1Jli' � � v7J'"`» F� n,�rYff f'ZYi a, t .- i���\�<� 1(I` 4 �- . '•*'?r.c.
hrlr'{ ' � ch•sS Ycj� t ��yi�\� �y` . 'y` i' ;��(�Ni ��J,.yQ�Fly� � � � S'�tf4y:j�� -t ��}�f* �et",� .F�k !�`�+ �-�t �i���'y'�n���tf(�S �G:,f\F i'1tyr �N}:Y 's!`It �-�.{+�.+Y:� V %�7�, S.w,'f
l� i I� y �0 / ��i }� l4 5 Y F .�A C{ R � h; ". � �� �
� � ��t �ti/T 4- 1)� �S . tiy' !t)n 5i,= � �i. . . ��4 . r �F+' { � lo.� 1}s;,s'. �� jlk+i" YAa �^ +s��+ ;{, r f ' "` 1 � .. �C.' � � '� �2 � .1:i l� q 1���}I,� .f.x'i��'
! - a' t�,�'{'TC}-?�n6 � �1��� �,�V. � . 7 � � �'� . p iY `4 r�'a � ' 1is 1�� � tiH' .Y{fF,� � �p� atr ' �' n ��.�"� ' �'(7:'�},"��.�v`,r�Y'�i A���+ �,.'y�
�Gi9� '��S2�y° ; r'�'� :;����' �s"y,� . '� e'. r . �J����* t � it�,�,. � �y. � � ,� �`f�ii •..,�� t����� �z�"„ti�
e
��p � 4 � �. wF - - . . � i $ ?� i s$•:
��'k^ 'S� �yr „� . . a. �, . � � �' r ' tsF�e ' J� V� �'!� ( �,� �i i��, k
�.y;yr�
I �'y�� �%� ,�1����n 1 6 • � � ' � � � 4 �. . � 4 � 4 � �� fF� h����
�rry��3��Se5 '�K�'ry� �I����,��¢ ' A � '' � � � � �r i�g'��i' ' r �,( I j �la. �{ � � f} V1f G' 7"�3'�1• �".�,!1��4b�_y1y�' ��^.+ f(}� `���{(^
� � .��.t O] `�K. .e / f i.F P1` .. ° YiY \�r � 11Xi 4F� � �l#1� .�. � n ..,:J�.fn'� �in �.i:.�lµ � ;�`+(l5; ,�' �S�raYn -i�
� •�.
I
I
I DATF.� c�cto,�er s, 20 �� RECEIVED
� TQ; eityofUkiah OCT 212014
i De�l�n Aaview Board
300 Seminary Ave. C[TY OF UKIAH
uhla�J, CA 95482 BUILDIlVG/ PLANNiNGDEPARTIV/�N•�.
ATTN; Mictrelle Johnson
PAOJECT.• Mendocino Aadio-Controll�d:Raee.way
Site Developmenf Permlt (applic��tion ffte #i63)
� 147 Norfh S#afe Sfreet
Uklah, CA 95482
APN;� QOi-380 24
SUBJECT: AflA �ommerats
PA�ES: Two (2)
Dear Michelle,
Nere are m� cotnments regardfn� the most.okviou� Acces�iblli#yissues 1 found while
revlewJng the abave mentloned pro]ect, and as 1 maa'e Ue�,bally fn t!� Sife Review meefing.
Thls Is nof an exhausflve analysis of fhe Ac�essl�6ltttyRequlremen.fs, and shauld be r�vlewed
carefulty by the appNcanf wlfh fhefr /Jestgn Professldn�l and/ar U�ve 4Nflloughky the CJfy
8uitding C1fflcfal. Mycomments generatly follow t�r� �rderot pria�lty as stated in the ADA, l�a
#hese comments, 1 otfen use "ADA " as s�nonym.ous with Accesslbility or Aece�sible.
!ra the meeting, ! also extended my assistance to the applicant ln #his ma�ter (prabono), and
1 restate that offer here agaln.
lTE1VE CODE ISSUE & PO�SlBLE �OARE�7T�NS
ttem #t; A�A "Use" 1?esignatlon Defined: Public Ascommoda�ion See AQA (36, �04 9 &
�2), an�! C8G (5eettun �02-g). The CBC "O�cuparrcy" Classiffcatlor� ls most closely
descr�bed as �ee 'Assembly" Group A-5 CBC (��etlon 303, f)
�, Item #2, Facflity AceessJblitty Required.� See A. DA {41. t(t) & �BC (1 ��i8: i), �BC
(�.9. 1, i.2, l, 2� 3, &4).
ttem #3 Site Accessibility Required: S�e ADp (4,�.2j & � �8� (� 1 i48. �,P� & ( f �2�8. �)
. It�m #4: Parklr�g AccesslbJtltyc See At�A 4: 1,2(3�(a & b) & CBC (f i298, �)
: The a�pllcar�# has propvs�d using an exisfing.nvn-�omplian# parking space in the
north-east corner of the exlsPing CJAA Buildtng. Tlaere.are a numbe�r Qf.problems '
with the prnposed space, no.pass .er�gec side: isle; haus# pass beh�rtal atfi�r cars to ge�
to entry, and must be as e/ase as �ny o#her space provld�d.
i have Suggested tiaat fHe two (2) exls#ing:parking .spaces !n fl�e south-e�sf corner of
the lot nearesf Yhe proposed entran�e. #a th� p.r. .oJe�t; be re=s�rl�ped per Al�A, and
that the /oading space be strip�d to:�f� proppsea► enfrat�ce. Curr�r�t ADA parking
signage shoutd b� addec�, botla pole mour�ted aria! an the p�rkfn,q surjase.
-+* U � �b � °Ar N � ! 3 U)^ �1 P� k, F � +li". �.v
, 6�;��i�vn "4' m, ;. � '� ���'�Yg h��� <����F �3`! � '5���'� i 7y �� 7�' �1a����y�, �
F������ p .Q�.vA�� �p � �„��
s 1n Jy� (�{r� § M. y
4 .iJ Js• J,.a�A S� � R� �{ {f ry � ��15�� T -�1 '�.A�+:sJ� �� � �T ���GV�+J
fA'.1Gn�.11?4 W1�5.+�'u� M_ ,v^ n v: . ,. � e v }�•{I:m.,fiF+� N��4d��::t +� �'�t�
, Als4, when only one 'accesslble Par�Crng Space" !s r�gulred, !t must be a "Van
,. Accessible Space': 5ee RDA (4. f.2(�(b) & (4,63-5� & CBC (� t29. 3, �-4) &
(i i�9B. 3.2�
�
✓ Item �3 En�rance Accessibility Required: See ADA(4, i:3(8) & CB� t f33B. i. 1. 1, 1
�
The appllcanf has propased �sing the ( �.4'�1 y car gate as fhe en�rartc�; Bu# as a
m�nlmum, there musf be an access/ble.person�a. te or door, wf1(a ADA approyed
latch ar operatJng hardware, �ee A�l1A (4, t9;�) � CEIC (i �338.2.2) & (i133B,2;5.2);
lt�m � Racer P/atform Accessibilliy Required; 7'hls:ls the pri�aary function and use of the
proposed facili.ty; ani! mt�st he m�de �cc.e.sslble b� ydefinitPorr. The proposed
i platform Ps (83� hlgh, and has a rat»p,aieces� and !s. called aut �s (2:i2� or �i��a
stope, liut the dlmens/ons show the-pro.pased. ramp to �e (22-0'�, 7°herefore
� (4.� 12t) or{$5%) slop�, 5ee ADA (4;A, � &. �j & C'BC ( � f33B.3: i)
The required ramp ler�gth ��:12) would requi�e a ramp .of (63 '-0'a. Aatding to the
, problem of pr,ovtdfng _the requlred ramp, ls that a (5'-U" x 5'-U`� Ianding is r�quirer� for
; every (30;0`� of ramp, requ�ring (3) landing� !t� �ddition #o the ram�a,
; 1 am suggesting cutt/ng the plafform down to (6!?'�. .hlgf�. thu� requlring (60"-�'� oframp .and
� only iwo (2) landing� witn a swlfch-b�c�: desfgn;. Ra!/ings: are also non-cdmp!lant as
proposed. 3ee aN of ADA (3;8) & G8C .(� i�3B:�:2),
ltem �7 Lastl�, . the app�icants are prr�posing. a.ApA Cqmpllant Porta-Patty, ! feeJ this mlggt
be a r.easpnable aJternatlUe, �onsl�erlt�g fhe t�mporar� r�aturE of tlre proposed use,
Hawever, CQC �202) requlres one (i� per e�ch s�� Titls 1� a f�afure fhat ca�
posslbly ,6e negotlated wflh the Bultding c7ffl�i�L Nowever, fh� ADA Pvrta-Potty
shQUld also be Uni�ex.
in conelusion, there are a number of �c�eessibility: rssu�s,with the pr.oposed projeci, onty the
most serious are addressed herefn. 1 feel fhe non profit�tatus of ihe.appll�ant, .and recen.t
hardshlp of having the Clty at Ukiait. force ther� �o move frotri the Gv;bbf �treet locatlorr, an
. effort slavuld be made fo accommodate �Jae more minor non-samplyfr►g rfetall�,
t
$In re1y,
r 1a 1 Is
�. ��,��T' � -. � ���Y�F`, �+�.lS �i�° , � �4� �y: . . d :r .' �n ' . Y,. •H 7 -�5' ( .W^ v � .
�
B 5 . . ' i . r ,�
nG.w✓Sr � � � . � 4 . v .. . .. .i , c . . ° ' y ��
. _ . I . _ .. _ .. 'l . 1 � nt��:tle�f,
i
i
�'�ii� '' 1. 1i�'t � �'1E 7i�' _ � _ _._._____ _
PRC COMMENTS
DATE : October 17, 2014
USE PERMIT # : 163
OWNER/APPLICANT : Mendocino R/C Raceway
PROPERTY ADDRESS : 1147 N , State St.
FROM : David Willoughby (Building ficial)
Building permits will be required for the proposed construction of the R/C raceway
driver' s and scorer' s stand and facility .
The following comments are intended to aid the applicant in realizing some of the items
required to be incorporated in the building and plans when submitted for the building
permit. This is not a plan check for the permit.
• The building site will need to be made accessible including a path of travel
from the public way to the site . This will include :
1 . A hard surface walk (DG, concrete, asphalt, etc. ) that is 4 ' wide
with a max running slope of 5% and max side slope of 2% which
extends from the public sidewalk to the drivers stand, the bathroom
and any other areas where people need to access .
2 . A parking and offloading site will need to be striped and painted as
close as practical to the site .
3 . A site plan showing all of this is needed .
• An accessible bathroom is required ( if there is an occupant load of greater
than 10 then separate toilet facilities for both sexes is required) .
• If a door or gate is installed then it is required to be accessible (3 ' width, latch
that is operable with one hand movement that does not require grasping —
lever or panic style hardware — if greater than 49 occupants then panic
hardware is required) .
• The ramp to the drivers stand shown in the attached plans will need to be
modified to meet accessibility requirements including a maximum slope of
1 : 12, an intermediate landing 4 ' wide and 6 ' in length. The landing at the top
' of the ramp will need to be 6 ' in length and 5 ' wide. The width of the stand
' will need to be 5 ' to enable a person in a wheelchair the ability to access the
stand as anyone else.
• When you are ready to submit for a permit then please submit an application
and 3 sets of plans drawn by a licensed Architect or Engineer and 2 sets of
structural calculations for the stands .
' f �
�.. �
,�,�r��;��r+��# #
�
� .
' 1
STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES- APPLICABLE TO ALL CONSTRUCTION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS
O. Site Devebpmerd
A. GENERAL REQUIREMENT: � - �• W��'^'S tsmrmwamr�trepe,a.�as.zc.c.c
1. Wfe�a mrsUWim d9ails a�e not shvim or nolei fat a af ihe xork, ssh delails sl�'I be the same as for smi�at wark shwm an the dm.vi I. Wrtdvx- in dneU'vg m he dt��, a)Re4inbasinsofsNficie�4s'veshalbeu6isdtnrabnsmrmxakronsi�s.
� � �' 2. All v.iMOxs In e�tisior walis b mmph/ x%�tl� �ation R327.8.2.1 CRC, �I tloors in e�ior xalls m complY x'tlh secOOn 6)VNerasbrmr��riscameyedbpi6icdrairegesys�mw�ectionpoirR, gut&rorsimlardsposalmatlade.wdiershalbafi�red6y�seoFe
' 2. The conhac4r �all mks r�essary precautions b mairdah anC ireue the m�giry of the ne.v aM ary ads4rg strucvrr, tlwing cansUUC6m. R327.83 CRC. all sliGng glass daas aM fiencfi Ooas ro be safty 9�. hartiersys�mwelGeora9errtethodappro�edbytlieetrforeinga�reeY'
3. Obmin P� writ�n ap,rtaval fot a�ry tl�m�ges to the tlraNin9s. c)COfryfancevFtliahwfiAye�ac�dsbtmwatermareeame�RortGtra�ce.
3. q� ��.p- ��y �q� �� py�j�. 2.SufawDrzirege. 4.708.3C.G.C.
4. The mnuaaor 5ia0 reNex aM camF� the swwral daxines witli all dha canstructlon dowmmb, � a NchuertaaS lAedwical aM Flectrid a. ai y� � u� eo• �re �. or n� roo� ro m �+N �re• P. Water E�cienc 8 COfIS2N8G0f1
drawings, spedfimtlas, ecG Do not sde 02wings, tllmmsbn bkes piefe'mea wa sale. The cantracmr shail vaify dmeisons, ele.aUOns and all 5. All 9� �� m � 1�60ed �d'nn 2110 CRC. y .
��� � 1. Indoorveterusasha0rreat20104.301 C.G.C. -
K. FOUNDATION: 2. oum,or�r��� ����zotoaaaac.c.c.
B. INSPECTION: l. sw� 9am avray rmm arilaug a mn. Sx ror io'. � Q. ConsWction Waste
' 1. All cosWCtlan shall be inspec� by tlie bul�ng affidals aaoidding to the abwe cotle. 2. Raof and area tlrairroge shall be tliectetl fixn fourdxrion:
�Y 7. Corrfic4on xas� reducUOn af atleast50%.
� z. a�i oo�wcvm m mmqy w�m wd wa�a� coa�: zoio cac, zow cac, zmo cMC, zow cEC. L CODE AND LOADS: 2r�o�;maoo�w�co��sm �re���eqa� as ���om <.aoe2c.c.c.
C. CONCRETE: a. Provi`k �"'°"e"bB°"be"(°"ng'ge"`y. �
i. ai mar�� ana mswaan wonc ra m�s Pmiea �wi �,rom� m ma cai�� a�m,n� coa�, cac, ia� ean«, �m q� R. Buil�i Mairrtance and O rffiion W
7. Minirtum �.;r�m w��a �,yn a m� zsoo asi @ ze mys. �9 Pe
2. Pcdrdadrg Sfeel: iha bcal Wiltling deparMerL
e> ai remr�re s� sau m asrrn naoa y�ae ao.
M. ABBREVIATIONS: �. aroui� rtaifeenanceaopeaeonrrem,ai�o�fl�irepeceona.atoc.c.c. O
b) Vei�l bars shall 6a Goxd� m siqporurg menbes with Iha same s'va arM spadng of ranfiHCCmu+ +t 5wxn in Ihe t4arrin9 a 9� ��. � /��OR BOLT EN EDGE NP1L . z
c) Spliws slWl ba 36 bar Cianefas ar 18 incle� wfuct�avx is 9�� UON. APA AMERICAN PLYWOOD OH OPP0.SfTE HANO
ASSOCIATION OSB ORIH4TED STRAND �JARD SPEC SPEqFICATION � Q �
3. Bdts b 6e 5/8x10' galarizel with 3'u3' xa^3er. ARCH ARCHffECNRAL 0.5V ON SRE VERIFY '� TG TONGUE & GROVE p!
4. FooUrgs wpporung xalls oF light-framng ca�..truc6on as per bul?ng aEe a�M as pa plan. OLKG BLOCWNG P� PRESSURE TREATm TN TOENAIL uJ
D. SLAB-ON-GR4DE: eN BWNDARY NNL SCHD SCHEDULE 7yp 7yp�CAL Z
i. Pmvide ewn flaor slab mntrde jdn[ whae �v.vn on plar�s. Where not shvxn, limit ma�dmum spazing beb:eem m�trd join6 b 15 fee[ fw iMoas BOF BOTTOM OF FOOTING SGN STRUCNRAL GENERAL UON UNLESS OTHER`MSE NOTm W� n
slab, 8 feet far an door divexay aM 5 faet for stle walks. CL CEM'ER LINE NOTES CBC GWFORNIA BUIIDING - . V
E, W��; E EXISTING SIM SIMILAR CODE � -. �
t. All waatl expos3tl b iha w�Uer ar im m�tact with mrcr� v masaiary slwll be pr�re trealed H.F. #2 or potec�d with a vrakrpfaof EL EIEVATON SN SHEAR NAIL - . . . J
memtrane. t�e�+�y e� s��tares resa�un¢ trom faw a�g, bomg a handlirg siell ba fieltl tlmtetl In acm�ean� wim nv�mn M-a. N. ADDITIONAL NOTES: ' �
2. All �dc fiaming stWl be ddx,J� fir #2 (DF #2 ) or betler uriess tlletwi� ro�d on the dmafrys. I. RHer b s1 fw stncWral rn�s and to dha sM1SeS for tle�ils. - . . F .
w
3. ParaDam heams m 6e Vuss joist MaaniDan 2.Oa vrs parallam Pg � �� m%�e vc�sa-lan. 2. Veify all 6mensas wi�h the ardti�cGUal d-awings, Da no[ scale tl2Kings s
� 4. GWam b�ms m ha 24f-v4 wiih sbrda�d ombef fa 5mple s�n ard 24f-v8 DF/OF witli no arnba fur mulriple � or �role.er. UNO. 3. BasanEnt antl/or gaage fioor :hall he 4' tlick m�eG3 5ab-m-grade wer4" of fiee drdiring 3/4' aush� mrk. Crushe0 . �
5. Mh. 6ea`ing hea&rs (U.N.O. ) mtic shail mntain ro fines m proviEe a mpillary motsWre bteac. Reinface 5ab �tith #4 bars a[ 18' o.c. bo�h vrays a[ slab � .
a)One story: 5' span'4z6, b' span'4x8, 7' span-4x10 8' span-4x12 mrl-Ceck-ness. }
b)Twv stay: 5' span'4�B w 6x6, 6' spar4x10 tt 6x8, 7' span'4xi2 or 5. Cen[er foofing. u�da xalk and pos[ iaiess otlietwise rrofed an plarts aM /a d�als. . . Q .
6x10, 8' �an-6x12 6. Ba�rtwn[ m�efe floor may hz re3uiretl B� he sbpei 1/8' /fooL Conhactor to deck w�h ihe wner. �
JOIST/RPFTERS: 7. Stds sFeO be 2' x 4' � Ifi' o.a wless alhe�wi� mtetl an plerrs. �
1. Wootl jois st�l be irsblled axordng to the manuFanured ranmmaidauris atl a �v+m on dranings• 8. It is remmmmtletl tlat naWaly tluaWe a P����e-�� w�d �all 6e usetl tar Mwtl members tlet are e�q�o� m W �""' N
2. All jdst, amlir� joise ard raRes sfell havz a minimwn af t-1/2 inchES 6mri�g at Fsch e`tl o( xood or mHal. x�tl�awiU�w[ P��cGOn fran maF sch az bakome;. Aerks a Pa� ect U � � � .
3. Daubie iust reqwreE urtler a'I pardid walls (not 5wnn m tlraxin�) 9. Pmiide sdil blWdng uMer pos5 antl mWtiple sWds m trarcfa loatls b posVsWtls b�aw. All tl�e vay m fowtlafim. � W �
TOP PLAiES AND/ OR CHORDS: 10. Lay floor ard mof shuctural p3rds wilh ihe b�g dmPnson a[ rigM arcJe to siqpoits aM mrNruous arr Mo a mae �ans. �� F- � �
i. roa Wa� a d,aas �n ea c«,e�a,s wx n�aes, uori. n. F�u yn,e noas ro a�i vpporC and t&9 � P�+ aP3, �9'01. Framirg sha0 be Gee of �+face �,o�,e �,d dems qnr ro q�ury. C� Q
2. Top plalg sFail he nw piecg, �ne s'¢e � shds. Sta[�r spfi�s 4'-0' minimun. Cert�x spiices wa sWds, UIXJ. 12. Pmritla sd'd bbddng h� jais[ a�d ref�is at all suppof5. � � Q
F. WOOD CANNECTIONS 13. .bi3 uder and p3raild fa nonbad b�ring parti6ar sFell 6e doudei afd �im mya� « bba�ea a� z'-o' a, omma,s. 0 U
i. Pll e�ed sted 6m6er IwtlKa2, f�knss ard wnner�as 4�all he plranaed. 14. jast and raRa frami�9 from apposi� sEg ava bea�in9 suPP� shall he ried 6y IaPP�9 �watl or mebl sqice.
2. CannECmr ha�Mra�a matld numbes a2 tlwse for Sinpson-Strong .Tie Com��ry. Size arid nunba of reils, saews a bd[s ro he �a.ified bY 15. Pm+itle bro addi6orei fioor joat uMFr ba�hdbs of 30'x60' dmenson. Sis�er tl�a ad7fianai lds[ v.i�h orifirei ldst For iarga H z = -
manufactwer, UNO. baUWbs/laa�, imaase Ihe atlQ4mal floor lds[ ahave by one jdst far mch i6' of incra3m in batlW� widih ar lefgh(h Lu�ontl ihe {� /s� ���� V � �.y
30'x60' dimensan. p,��' Z O � Y
3. t�a'Is stall be wmmm Ki2 Wess oM�vAse rped. 16. LimR live Iwd d�a'Hon b �an mer 600 for ldst, rdi�rs, b�ms, floor tru� aid alI �uaral manhers. Q �
4. Machirre teiling: The usa of machine naling is wbjec[ ro canrircied �risfacmry pvforrnarice. Pand �Is 5WI ba diven so tlroc ihe heaQs ae � rl
flush Kith tlre wrFa� of ihe panel arid ihe mirimum parid eCgs dis�anw of 1/2 in�h. 17. Wood Wr�s by otlias at spa�ing not m excaed 24" o.c.: � z
5. P'wlda aritliar ar maduna bd5 pa rypical tl�ils, P�� 1/4' NIm9c x 1/2' x 1/2' xa:Jxrs fa all hol�, anchor Dd6 aiE lags, UON. a) fabrimte, supqy aid cvectt xooA trusvs as shown on Ihe 4'awings and as specified. xark C� indutle antliaaga, bhUCing, 0CT O !��° ^ 01 ` �a �
6. Bdb: mainmin a tlistance noi les tlren 7 bdt 6ame�xs fiom Me aM aM 4 diame6�s fram Ihe eCge of ihe manby. Bate fdes 1/32 tri °Qb�' ��I� �I� � �0�. V � T w .
1/i6 indi laa�er Ciei the bdt d�amercr. All nuts shall be ogM�ared xfien insialled aM re-figMaied � oxnPletion d v.ark a hefore tlosngin. Tluead b) bussg �eli 6e d� 6y trws marufactu2. . �
prajecrion stWl 6e 1/2 inch mintmum beyond the nuc 1 ) adGtiwial bads a[ valle�s arcl hips. �
�. r�nmi�a a earea naa-aa.n �,� s,�n na inseVetl P� marn�Facwfes aPPmvatl Dcc a iwol w� �+���� a�e. iMwi naa- z � a�a �,� ae wai�s, a�ae�, �,a ��r �,���c �e an� i�u«�s ,g ��� �. CITY OF UKTAI� o
aa„„� a�a ��, m���m�, an�ve tlie phis ro aliow for u9h�nin9 a�a,« ew� ma haa-aw.,�, s,an � in5aled fight m tlis hdtl-0am o� �� 3 ) ectiPmerR vu�M as sham �, u,� �r �m�� ,�. BUILDING/ PI,A1V1V7NG DEPARTMEIVT' 6
fillers a daPP��9. Oo rwt he�d hdd-Ewm antlmrs. c) trus shall hate xeb r�mhers az a0 i�medate 6�ing poi� sXh as 5w+m m ihe truss pmfiks/loadirg diagram d�ails. ..
8. Connct.tions Sell hz as tletailed on the dranir�. If ro[ shonn, mirimum mnnac�ons shall he as foltr+.s: d) limi[ bas 6kal dc{IecCOn ouv peNOn vrals ro �an 480 « 3/4', xfiich ever is snalla. �.
a) Jois[ or rdier to sill v ryNa, me reil----------'-----"'-'-------3-i6d e) limk Mdg trus tdal dAlalWn wer non-Imd tsrirg siPar vall m �an o�er 480 or 1-t/4' vAiidi ever 's smalla.
6) BriE9n9 to Id=4 tcenal each end"'_____'________________'_"__'Z_gd f) Ne deslgn stell be in a�darts wRh local md�+ . .
c) Sill plate m joist ar d«king, rypical, tace nal [SN]'-'--'-'---'--"'-l6tl at 6' o.a ' .
d) �y� �yP ��: 9) insbllaUOn shall 6e in a¢ndance wilh handling, ins+a'firg and bradfg naoE wsres, Nb-97, up arq an5/op 1-1995. vusses �
lw.er Plam ro �ais__"___'__'__'___'__'_'____'______'___-;'�� 5all be se[ aM �reA levd and Wumb, and in carec[ Ixa6m. .
Top pl�e to Iw.er pla� (ace reil__"_"'_""_'__""_____'_-_16d @ 1Z' o.c h) antln9 ard almirg truses is not P�iGed inless spdfietl tY ww manufxare. N
Top pate to lava pla� at lap slice [4'-0' minimian]---------------20-16tl minimum UNOOn drawitgs. i) genaral oontracmr m pfwi0e xc-0 braang as mquired by Vusse manufacuue. � Q �
Top plate ro bne plam ac inter�,tion_"__________"'______"__'3-I6d 1J submit shoP d2wngs of vus�s for aPP�a'al b the mgNeer of recad befas fabnmuon. � z Ln �
e) StlA m all pate'-'-'----'-------------'-"'----'-----'-'--6-i6tl tmnals or 3-ibd mdnail. k) truw fatricaror is re�onsble far all 9uw to truss con�recnons, all cannecuons must 6e shown on his/F�a plans dearty Satlng W Q Q�
f) Dauble snqs, face nail_'___'___________'_'__"____""'___'_"16tl @ I2" o.c. rex6on. hangar aM harg� caP�b� arty aiumi nan Vuss wnecuon mus[ be Mw9M tr� tlre atlen6on af iha e�gi�r af recad in � �
9) sroaare een� �� « �rms m rov aiaie. ro�i------------------,sa @ ,r o.�. �inna. g Y U
h) CmtFa� headey Mo pie�'--'---------"'-"'----'--------I6d @ i6' o.c. abng � e�ge 18 All smirs m hava max 7-3/4' rise amd mirimum 10" run. ��
i) �ling jds6 b plate, loenail-"'-----------"'-'-"'--'-"-'-"4-I6tl 19. AJI reqwred guardrails m he mn. 42' F19h v.ith interm�ab ra!s spactid w tlat a sphse 4" in aam�r canrwt pass thmx�N- . z O = _
I ) Curonuos h�tler m snd, romail_"'____"___"'_"_"'__"'___'_4-8A 20. Grls for 2rr�e Moc� antl dc1F� dpas 5all he soilid m�al pipe and vmted ou6ide.
k) CNling jds[, Izps aa pa�o6ais. tace reil____""__"'_'__'__'_"_'3-16E 21. Pm+ide mn-removable Lack flaw Preve��r tlevices at ho:e 6ibbs. � O N Y -
I) Ceilirg joiSS to parallel yd�s, face rail""_______________"'__"'_3-I6d . 22. TTw way Gwrwut re9uirad at �Eance antl P�'itle uqafloor aaess vritFtin 20' af uppe� deanou[ or e�q uPPg dearou[ b m n � _
m ) Built-up comer sNtls_"__'_'__'_'__'_"'__"________"'_"___t6tl @ 12' o.c. aM1SMe oF fourdaoon. Lata� all d�nart above grdle. p �
9. Nailing �We to mmply w�h bWe 2304.9.1. CRC. PaW she3ting b be railed per taNe 2304.9.1, CRG 23. WaRx cicGes to be max 1.28 tpl. fish. p
�
G.. CRAWL SPACE ACCESS AND VENTILATION SHALL BE PER CODE 24. NI shw.ers arM tub/shovres ro ba fibef�aw urites min. 70' abwe train (uoN), any Ne in �wwa areas m be wx canent, o ri
i. Undsfloor a�s mus[ ba pmvitled x+ih an urobstructed crsN hde not len tl�en 18'x24". O:paYrigs must be d(ecUVely saeaietl, as requiretl fiba a�ent or �as ma[ gypsun badcer. � a �.
�r ven�, or oovaed. [izos.i cacl zs. sna<eiwt d�s ro na � ey nwse w�n� wim na�n �,a a�a ca ���wn�red. Mendocirro RC Race�ney ,�
AP # 1-360.24 ( Back Portion) �
H. ATTIC ACCESS AND VENTILATION SHALL BE PER CODE 26. Pll ins�la6on maa�ials 5iali have a rlama spraae anrg rat m ecwetl 25 and a smoka densry rwc ro Px�etl 450. .z+
'rne�oF co�urs 3
I. WALL, FLOOR AND ROOF SHEATING: 27. v.aadsmves e> mmqy vrith manufacwres spec. ard EPA �proveE antl m� me dean av act sraneams. qa
� 1. Minimum Aaor'�sf�Gn9 �II D4 �3/4' tlYdc APA piyv,mtl M OSB wlih 3/4' s,�an ra6ng. t/w 8tl @ 4` o.c. a[ e�la wal�s, ir�icr wall; 28. MenidecUnQ-frr�lacd to bo imtNlotl xa�d�g � m mamdac9aed- ryx.,- all v.catl Wmi'g fireqai.es to have �� EPA xH. NSPS GENERPLNOTES ai p ,
� . . ._ . .1 _ ..
and at pand e�ges. Use 9d @ 9" o.c. at iMxetliate s�pports. �nimun pen�anon is 1 5/8' irrco fiamirg. Um glue. appmva7 ai-Sgh[ fireplace in�t. �oofeptnw a2 �
2. rar��mun rwr �nne s,an i» vr wac aan qv� a oss vr w�+ �nny. u� sa �a a• o.c. a� e,aEnor Naiis, inre�� v�n�, �,a a� 29. Flie blodtin9 at calin9, n�, r�m awm carnas, swe�s a�d � �� a� ���s r�ar m erc�m io r� �x ELECtFiICALPIA!! �„ DATE:
pane� edy�. u� sa @ s� o.<. a� in�c� s��. r���mum �eneo-ana, �s 1 5/8" intri fiamirg. 30. P71 tleck framirg membss ro be P.T. PJI fa.,�ners far P.T. v.00d m 6a hot-6ppe4 a�c �� yaivan�zed, smtru� �i, sr�w, BUILDING IXISTING FLOOR: 0 SQ.FT.
PLUMBINGdMECHANICN.PI/W ^�+ AREA: ADDITION: 1824SQ.FT. � �
3. Minimiun wdll slwaG�g shall b0 7/16' tltick plywaad o! OSB. U58 Stl � 4� at ail pa�Bl Btlg05 dN Sd �d 70� a[ in�edab sUppu6. bfIXlZe of copper. � FOUNDATIONdR00RFRMIMGPUW A-s TOTAL: 1824SQ.FT. 10/5/2014 :
ROOFPUW M+ Ii
� SHENFWALIPLAN a� SCALE: !
ELEVATONPfAN A8
: LI VABLE AREA: 0 SQ.Ff. N .T.S.
SH EEf:
A- 1 '
�
�
m � a�
U —
�+ C� C� �C
_ -� {/� � � N C — �
U +' C '-
� N �� . � _ � '� V .
fl- Y 'C � c � W U �
� ^ O V � O � C
� l �- � > c- � W
�- 15, —rtv o_ � 5
55'-10" � j,_ , ,� � � 25' •�
� 10 .
� o �
� � � V rn � �
rn V � t Zric mo
� � , m_ � .� pue�gs�anua o a .� °� ��'c
_ � � 80 � o � pasodad �I QY o a° z
v � � O � M QY ` 0 C
� � •� ^ M O �� O C 0.. J �
� m � � '� p n- -� I W
� ¢ � � m — — — — — — — �G H
� V •X � — — — - - — — — —
�
t- x > W 40'-7" --*� ' w
(W W v � I I �
� 3 �4, ,� - - � �
W I { �. Y N N
I U �
la— � � ' � ' " F Q
� �� 47'-10" --- � a - _: .
_ „_, I ' - — w H cv
1- .-� ,y U (n CO
� J C � - — Q W L�A
� � * ~ �
Z � ,� O I O I ' -- - - - ' i - � � Q
� v �n � � �— cn U
ai � . _ _ O
�o �; a � •� - - a, � zz =
rnZ � m a�� c � - � � Q
cQ c U � ci � , :�. c •- V � F-+
�nQ '� o � � � I � -_ ` � 'm = .. � � Y
W > W o � W > W i � Wv � � z ,.�i =
N N I -
_ . . I � �•� . Q � .
- . ._ . __._ .. ._ . � . ;.• �
- ---- - - --- - - -- - � � � �
w
O
C
109'-6" 170' n
c
.�
� � U :
m=:.- - . n ",- -- _: :.' -.- � + Cfl � W � N
�; � � � > . � �,� a �-�a � � �� ~ Q d�"
' e .i: s : � � - . � � � � z Ln �
� =� � � �� ' � ': .:'� � � - -
� _'� --_ = .% � W Q �1
1 - C � '- y � LL1 � m � Q
� • � ; ��—� � Q U
fn � � =
-2 �. ��T�" , � � i n � =3, �, ,.� _
zo
� � , � �e � � �� � ���ITF � m ^ � Y
A � � _� ��� �: � o
� P y�.k �,s� �
� :. .� � ,� o � �
! Q �� � � ,�R � sae � �
� � ° '�' �' � ' - PROJECT DATA �
�:: _ s� � m� � :_ -- —
�aa, � �
� � _ � �
.� �Q � J �
_ , ,: . . .. � �.. , � : _ � � ', ; _. _ _ _ SITE DATA �
;iY��g 3 = �
'�z_ �. TOTAL SITE AREA: .35 ACRES (15640 SQ. FT.) DATE:
:�,_-
� '
T� �� { JURISDICTION: CITY OF UKIAH 10/5/2014
a = �¢. �3; z j
��Y 9 � j
C 1 s
_-.�a ��a;a � � � _�._ ZONING G2
�- � .. SCALE•
� . ._._s-- ._._ -_ __ „ ->-:_��_ . � , _ ' _
--_-- ---- . .. .. . __, _ _
�� «
N.T.S.
VICINITY MAP PLOT MAP
SHEET:
- A- 2
, B
6 �. 26� �i
,� , 6' Joist Blocking "
3�-8�� � E 2" X 6" Deck Joist @ 16" O.C. 4 x 6 Girder ' 'n Q
Z
� 66 6� �}E 6� 1 �
� NORTH ELEVATION �
�er NOT TO SCALE �
w
CV .A �
_ r. 0
CO
� _ � �
� i
� �
O
� P � a
M
� a `� �
1 '-8`� �- � ~ �
U Q
� , 4 x 6 Girder SOUTH ELEVATION � � U
4 � 2" X 6" Deck Joist @ 16" O.C. 2:12 Slope NOT TO SCALE Z Z =
DRIVERS STAND FRAMING � O � Y
SCALE 1 /4 = 1 '-0" ° � '-' _
� z
� w
w �
0
N G
�
a
LUMBER SPECIES:
A. POSTS, BEAMS, HEADERS, JOISTS, AND RAFTERS TO BE DF-#2 �
B. EXPOSED ARCH BEAMS TO BE DF-#1 OR BETTER U
C. SILLS, PLATES BLOCKING, AND BRIDGING TO BE DF�k2. N
`" O °o
D. ALL STUDS TO BE DF#2 OR BETTER. �
E. PLYWOOD SHEATHING SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
w Q �
ROOF SHEATHING SHALL BE 5/8" PLYWOOD OR 9/32 OSB.
WALL SHEATHING SHALL BE 1 /2" INT-APA RATED 32/16 OR 7/16" OSB. WEST ELEVATION m Q
EAST ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE g Y U
FLOOR SHEATHING SHALL BE 3/4" T & G INT-APA RATED OSB. NOT TO SCALE z p 2
} O N Y I
m ^ � �
2- 72 Lag bolis Through Post w � .
4'z 4' Redvrood Post nto Rim Joist 2' x 8" D.F. o �
P.T IPom
4' a G D.F. $2 P.T. Beam JpjS[ O �
2" x 6" Joist Solid blockirg in END OFBEPMfTPRTOF NEW BEAIv 2" x 6" Top Cap a
pistoversupport �
H1 SIMPSON CLIP
ON EVER JOIST � �
, . o . . , . 2" x 4" o
.. . . _ Simpson BC4jPC44-16 @. __ . . _ _ _ 4-x�6-girder. . . . . . . . . .. . °., .t _ . _. _ . _ . . . . _ . .. . . _ . . . . . . . . � . '�..
girderjoirrts) �
DATE:
� 4" x 4" Post Wire Mes
o s�m�on eca, sos 10/5/2014
_ 416d toenai�ed post to �p �ws so°zso s�aws DecWng
precast pier
m Min. 36"
0
- Do notinstall bot5into pilotholes SCALE :
o - Use all �edfied tasteners 2" X 4" M2x 4"
' , ' � 2"z8" D.F.
��> � t . .'�- #2P.T. Detk N.T.aS. �
Jdst
• 1 �_0�� • 4' xb' D.F. C2P.T. Past SHEEf:
8' Max
;., :. �-::::;; A- 3
g Typicaipierfoundationdetail _ .�\aieamare��a�nm DECKRAWNG
e N01B SO SC21e � precast pier
E POSTATTACHMEM ,�RAILPOSTATTACHMENT OTTOSCALE
g Ms NOT TO SCALE .
��
�� 8� _�� B 2" X 6" DECK JOIST @ 16" O.C.
s
' 4" X 4" POST �� �� T1- 11 SI ING
� 4" X 6" GIRDER 4 X 4 POST _
o�
�
0
�- p
Z
�N s T1- 11 SIDING �
� �
�
w
FRAMMING N >
NNOUNCERS STAND SCALE 1 /4 = 1 '-0" � Q
SCALE 1/4 = 1 '-0" w
J
SOUTH ELEVATION �AST ELEVATION �
x
�
Q
W f- N
Z � `� �
W ,�
� �,
� � a
O V
zz =
.. O � Y
� z '� _
� w
� W �
/ .,�.,4,,,,,,�.a,., Q
� LUMBER SPECIES: �,
� = A. POSTS, BEAMS, HEADERS, JOISTS, AND RAFTERS TO BE DF-#2 - "'
{ W M� B. EXPOSED ARCH BEAMS TO BE DF�1 OR BETTER N a
C. SILLS, PLATES BLOCKING, AND BRIDGING TO BE DF-#2. T1- 11 SIDING �
D. ALL STUDS TO BE DF#2 OR BETTER. �
' '���'� E. PLYWOOD SHEATHING SHALL BEAS FOLLOWS:
���_�";� ROOF SHEATHING SHALL BE 5/8" PLYWOOD OR 9l32 OSB. �
WALL SHEATHING SHALL BE 1 /2" INT-APA RATED 32/16 OR 7/16" OSB.
�,v�'�L�A��� FLOOR SHEATHING SHALL BE 3/4" T & G INT-APA RATED OSB. . � O � '
xrrvaw�rocecaxrtuaswu�mxos�muuuomeaos �
.E.�,Ea��AaPo��oF,�E�,�u.a,�,.,,�,�.µor WEST ELEVATION
`""°'°�g`"°"""°"""`"9"°°'"`"°°"°"w`"�. NOETH ELEVATION w Q rn
wwwwucxaeaxa rnou�ruu.muwvumicearrwrirss .
mw�amern.ewmewuwomexwowr.wxowiwnreaoren
xro m e�wn�rnvm sim mw emx�ur.s.
3Q �
zo =
; ONY
m � � �
w �
4° z E D.F. #2 P.T. Beam � � �
� END OF BEAM/START OF NEW BEAA . > �..-�.
2" x 6" Joist Solid blockirx,� in °�
joist over support N
H1 SIMPSON CLIP �
z
ON EVER JOIST o • , • • o • N ;
. r �
Simpson BC4 (PC44-16 @ 4 x 6 girder ' ' �
girderjoints) � L(')
'� Simpson BC4, SDS Simpson PC4a, DATE:
4 8-SD screws SDS '12SD Screwa
, 416d loenailed post to
�o �
precast pier 5 : 12 5 : 12 10/5/2014
O - Do not install bolb inta pibt holes I
- Use ell spedfiad fasteners '�
_ o N SCALE:
5 � ` ' � N.T.S.
4' x 4" D.F. #2 P.T. Posl ' '
.. . 1' On � � .
F: :. -� �-:; ;; DN SHEET:
4 i 6d toereiled postm �
g Tyqcalpierfoundationdetail pracastper
6 Note to scale A� 4
E POSTATTACHMEM'
B MS
--�, .�
N
N
C
N
� C '� U1
.N
� � � N
C
. �l O °�p fn p�j ln
�
� 3 � _ Y �
X � _ ..�. U � N Y O —
W ;oc U`� c � � m io �c ° � 3
a 'm � � = m� rn � � _
�' � LLI N C +: C C VJ N Y
d a VJ •� C •X a C
= v W Uw W 2n'
Z
g
� _
� '� a
�U � Q
C � U
m tLL �c (n
� Y c p
S � � z
� L J C
o > � pue}g saanua � � g
m o� m �j pasodo�d v �
ih
� � � T M — � — N
= c N .c
N � � o �- - - - - - - - - - - - - - �,
� L v ' � .� �
W W � � p C w Y Q
3 � I o
� X p � m rn W F- N
~ m m � I � X � W LA
Q I � W Q �
� ~
S
m � F- Q
... ^ '� �. p � U
Q -� L .� oX ZZ =
z c� c �o J I U � �-Qr
Y Y — � N Q � Y
� O C � � C N � � � �\ II_' CO Y O � �,.� �
� � U f6 rn � � �' � 'C / � � � � LLJ
c - �� � r. c � ,�
N Y � 0 � � C C � G I X L � p � .
W � � W > W _ � .` I W U V- G
Q 3 CA I �
n
� �
l0 N N C
U
>. � � = c � N
Q �
� � � � @ � � � z �
� Q rn
� 3 L m � Q
x X
o � Y U
m °3 C° ZO =
; ON Y
m � � �
IRRIGATION SYSTEM STATEMENT
0
o 'i
THE IRRIG4TION SYSTEM WILL BE WATER EFFICIENT LOW n
FLOW, POINT SOURCE SYSTEM DESIGNED TO PROVIDE �
� LAND5CAPE LEGEND ADWQUAiE WATERING TO SUPORT PUWT GROWrH AND z �
INSURE DEEPLY R007ED PLAN7 MATERIAL WHILE 3 �
AVOIDING EXCESS WATER APPLEICATION. iHE SYSTEM �
WILL BE PROGRAMMABLE, AI.LOWING OPERATION DURING �
�-{ L47E NIGHiAND OR EARLY MORNING HWRS, WfiH �
.wsnwehr�6a����'reb� MULTIPLE START TIMES AND CYCLES. THE SYSTEM W1LL
IMERFACE WITH A WEATHER BASED SENSOR THAT WILL
INTERFACE W1TH WEP.THER BASEO SENCER THAT WILL DATE:
� � ADJUST 7HE AMOUNT OF WA7ER APPLIED TO THE PLANT
sw�eozu.000ver+r�cee�attusrncao�run� MATERIAL BASED ON OPJLY WEATHER CONDfTIONS. lO�S�ZOl<}
IRRIG4TION MATERIALS SPECIFIED FOR THE SITE WILL BE
SELECTED ON THE &4SIS OF �URABILITYAND EASE OF
MAINTENANCE
SCALE:
' iass�uce'nEn a'xK+wai�weiscusRasssHwss�
N.T.S.
SH EET;
A- 5
.
,^ r - ,
'
❑
� Y
�C m
� U '.C—. C C
N t N 'R V
(� C @ X t C
� '(p C W w�- � .
r- W �
� 15' —» �
.., � r r � � � � � �
� � Z
c p
`6 U
_
� W
�' O '~-�
_ 3 M � �j (�
s ap 'N
F
c � W =
� V �
N
. �
LL� W ? }
� Q
�
Qo 0 o O o 0 0 � U (n 0�
W �
� � � Q �
_ .�. � U
� � � � � Q
Z c u� Y � O • U
� o � o Z Z =
a � � `n U � H
'm d-
rnt t .. 0 � Y
.w�-, mn ° � p ,-.{ �
N Y o io Z
w ?� � w
w �
0
�- r � � � � G
� o
�
a
170'
rn
c
�U
C
C �
C H � �
N Q
U � ZLn
io W a O�
m �
� Q U
Z O =
} � #� Y
m � �
w �
o Ln
� �--I
�
n
N
�
2
3
�
0
DATE :
10/5/2014
SCALE :
N.T.S.
SHEET:
A- 6
6 � • BLACK & WHITE •
�' Y LOW
'�- ORANGE
� . .
; . � � _ � _
_� � � _ - ` 1 y . ' �j • � .'- � _ . _ ci'1 � .x � ' xE � p �_
_ 't � z
.i ' _ �
.
I ' _ '
_ . . _ .- . _ ; . N � :
. . � . � � a
� . _ � � -
_ .: .
.
. __ , . , _ . --
_ _ _ , _
_4 _ __ �
� � , . ; _ , �, _ - — - - BwcK
-- :: ,
_ _ _ - _ _ . _ . _ , , _: _ _ ` � ,: : -
z
; _ - — ; _ c.�
r . � .' ; ' '. ' � � =9 w U�1
-- ; Jt
_ �� - .� . . ... � � F
� �
3/4 PLYWOOD BLUE �
>-
4" X 4" D. F. POST � -
W I- N
U cn t0
� w `�'
F- �
rn
� � ¢
O . U
ROPOSED SIGN z z = :
a
NOT TO SCALE o � Y
� z '� _
� W
� �
0
G
w
:�5��iaia .yv. a�!; ��� �
n
1 �
� �___.__=.._�_ _j_ —_ _�.___ � .
'' e �—.'°ma � — V
� ' N
c'4!Y `Cam � ' m Y m W �
- � � -.�T .29 ''f ,•, � � i0 c.-. � c H � .
j� p9''' v ia a� m � y�v q � � � c � -
�" 1 0 Y � � A � tm w/ � �
�j a''� 0 n '�' V r LL � O'
$ em � � w` W
. . I �--15'� aK _ m � .
_•'-� es-,r � i.-,u�..i = r-25� , t g a
Q t � Y V
,� a � � ^� 5 � PuqSVewO T $ � �z Z O = .
. .B. v x 80' a'$ c Pasodad ° o LL ° a = .
� ° s c > (mn, aLL 1 0� aa O (V Y -
�` �,4i+! � .-. °- O cs I ° c aI� � > '..� �
� �'aeu' si. LL a�d' W `�' m° IaJ - - _ — _ — l- - w � � .
- °£L S� �, __� m V Q � N � �
Ci 'uf Z 40�"T m � � .
K �} �
r 'Fq• I a
w W N l7
rn
?6ffi�9' SIfCI?'2i' y 5 4T-70'—� ~ � ,�.
`
y s
F �
.. ,u- 3=a i�.� � �.=3 e- o � T r�
. . . °�. _ _- . m c .
+ � � � �
L O O T O
u ip s DATE:
. � � . � � a ~ j ` � c � ���'
�. mz m A � m c �� c
3 6 � y .a�.�� '� �� i- Q- x < x N ° � `> w NI � � m 10/5/2014
��: , 'v wz w o 0
s� �,
-4�- �
,:� �,. - - ' SCALE :
"� �'_�° � �� �+� �os�� ��a
9�'E'Eft*�: ..
PROPOSED SIGN = N .T.S.
G
ROPOSED BICK RACK �m SHEET:
NOT TO SCALE w =
A- 7
/^^•. i._'�. .
.
`^ .�-xt: `�-.' � k- .
� ��
1i -
9 ' m��
,: w �
�i
�� �` � ; ,
_
_�COB@ � �
�._ � _ c
- -"�`=- ° a
� , __ �
c
�
L
i. �
a
�� - �,��F s -
��� , � ��� �{ x �
$X� � �s�� 9��Gr �� iA ��i ���� ��d-�"�.�.�,�'�£`k. �s�'<i' . " �
e' + t' � x.� t ��j a / �. a � rs.
� 'F° .;# ` s < �, » .r�-� �sae,� 'd,� -. x '�' � � e� . r .� �� x
'X3 �k.,.0.au�� x� :Z �rs'45���'`LA�v,i �j-vlYC� �r` ��� es�i�,"�'�"z�y �q`� 1�
� < �� S
;j�9 �'i & a� � (.� y � � � - � S r �:; ..
�� . ���jy�������� x �'I"'���[���f�,.� � t $p���� � ��y�.^'+�` � .
,*. �k _f- �.," �-t.Ll�-�. ��`��SVC�� ��� �.�� � Q
a e^ g 5 �l
��� � �.�+5�..� �i�'� �, �"6" Y � � tr. � �„� F s"�� �
.`�' ��� , .�' r -.� ,�.�,yj �,,,F a`� ft �m�� �,x. .s -�r ,z' ..� i"� `f�' W � N
,��i�=���,�.�� v�� � ��i����� ;�, �.� ��' �'�, � U (n GO
�- ��, �,����� ����"x'�t'3���.'�` � � U1
- O�
U Q
� � U
O
zz =
.. 0 �' Y
� op � �
i� �,s} � Z
_ Y� � �
- w
0
�.. G
w
4j �
n
1..°
_ �
�
U
N
:; j ', � � �
�" wQOI
�';�' C� � .
..: � g Q �
.�`-' z o =
j ' X
I O N Y
, mr' � �
,
w v�
�� � �
_ .� �
z
3
�
0
DATE:
Proposed parking 22 spots 15'x8' & 15'x13' handicap space �oisizo �a
SCALE:
N .T.S.
SHEEf:
A- 8
_ _ _ _ _ _
� � : ` . ::. - , `�
� �� ��., �.�_-� � � _ � ��.
_ �--°T �,- � ' � < � - ; � ;.
3'` , � ��� � zde � .� �`— � :
� , � - �
i :�� , � � � -
' � � Y �
�.s� ` r . �' 9, - � - t� > -�.� ' :`� -
�"3, T '� �� 'y` -ti i -�- ��r�� t i .. # s... : °. . -. .� r [t�' ' .
_ s . ; 3.- �a�s.,*�° �'-�-�--`7 � g� � t�� z� �?, � . •
.1� �f�i� _ _r1� {� Lsr . ik '� u; _
. �j .� _ Y�� .�� �� � ` . •� � � �� 1
� � � � � • � ` � n:�.'� �'�` �' � �� c�� ` � .3 i�_� -a3. . � � •
��
� � � .m�
s . aa . .. �� ��
� � � , , r � � � , � .: q� _S�'- . - _ '� ti,�- .: �.� _ _.ss.-- '�—� F T. __ ' I$�� _ . .
i�- � ,� � - _ __ -_ _ �4 �� R —
� � �;� .:�'S"� �`, � '� .� -- - ��, ��� � _ . F _ _
. . � .4: . � . .
.
� i , � �
- � s� _� +� � .� -, . i i ' �- o_ , ! _ . _ . . .
,�• ^ � ��,� � 3 t, � ---. . .- _ .
� � �� �' �' f .' ��
: i ➢ '`t � _. "-� _ �
3!' r r
-��y, �+�. E .�i - . ( _ i �' �:. I O � B ID - i . , . . '
� _ � � � � : m - _
� � � I •
. i _ -
�
' � s .� '� i S�+ .. _ _ .
'___"_—_—"-__ -_- - - _ . _ _-'_- ---- _'___ ..._. � � ..� l..ds � � . _
. __ �5 g � i � ` , s; � � � F�a e,
- -- _ _ _ � : _ _ �� -_-,:� � � ;.�. a� ' -- - � � � , -
�
_ - _
. .: . , .� J - ..
i
. .�_ ' . . : : . � _ . �-- .
� '� iss' ' . .. �L� .
� -.s. S `�� � � N,y . �_ � � � •�
_ . .� _ . . v;= . . � ., _., =; _.,� ,,� � _ - ,_ _ . a _ -- - .. . • � i • � . .
� , -�
I ' � � ' ... _ _
� _"' '_' � � i ' - ' , �'��_, �� t •
� ; - �� - _ r• i •
� -,. : ; . .. � > "2- r _ ! � - . . , , ..
� . , . _ _. . _ i . � : E �. .,. �; , . .
. . _ . tt � n - '� 4 •
i„ . �. . ...�� . -.; i .�__.;.�. . _ �• -. ;:� kw +}+����� ; �i� . _ ._ .. �
_ . .
': �
� . • ' ':_1a dF� ,�'�`'t�&C�� '� � - � � - . . . _ •
�
p` �
s . ,
- ;.: � .. . _ .
, _.- .. ._ . .�, I .. :. ,. _ . .. � - _ . . _
. _ . . _ . . . .-. ... . _. � a, "'k-�a - rc ,�y _
� i � � .� : . �� � '.� " � �1_.�,Y�9�c� � � ���` . "v Gr3 p d � ' - _ .
_ .,..� . : � � � us
�
: �. �- -�� _. .a..,.::. s . . : �,:v; �. .. � : `''d. ���y� ,y, � ;fi!'t � _ - .
�� : � � � F , < i
:: c � ,. r . p �. � x _ . � . �z' ` � ,
�'. -. �-�.�, .ti�� ' - � #' " " E --�'�. � � is - -
� � �
_ ,.J �. ",,� , ° �r�-" ;•s: ...�., c t � � � � i� ._ +sts,��.�``� � C ' " !�. I� -+ � _ .
.- � _ ._.:...� . . .,Y . � ( . . r .� a '�� � �.� ., ! . .
, �
� 1 G .
_ �� .. � '= t r' �� �c.?�.t� .� ! �� ,v ;J . .
��.. � s - . g.: . i b�s
' s i {` � t. f�_�_ -.� _ -_T � y,. -4 �,�'aF �. �� t . f - . � _
s _
_^ v �� �
E
_ _ - � ..... : � . ,. . _ . .. .
. . . .� __ . ..x.. _. � ,�, �I � -
_ . � -. , . J . _ . . . . .
.. . . __ _ . ...__ : _ _ "
`0.
C y.`
, - ... �r_' .-. .',� .. . �..,m-�� : ' ` . ..
i. �' "_, '- . ° ' ,�.;�f . .._ _ •
i . "
� , . .� . . . ._' .
.._ r- �kx.,. . : �`= . , � �-i �. _: :_.�� __ .. : . . _ . - . �
:' ..v ._ . _ „ - - . - .
�.. _
� � ,. * I : . ,x. ':` . — �. _ _ ___
� �.. �.�- _ _
� .
�
_a': _ - �^ ._ .__ . �,, . � _ �_� � . .: . . . - ' .: . . . _ ._. _ .
_ ... . _ • : ; : . f - - .�— .
._.: - _.�a.. .. . . . . — , _ .
,� � • __ __ I `, . - 1 " ' _ - _— ___ .
� ! � ` . . 3 _. t ��T�1- - _ ' .. . _ .,
I . . _ � a g _ e . E xa_ _ ' _ - .
. � ; , _ : i. , — - .. - .
_ 3
�.av - .a: � .:__� �__ ._ , _31 - F . . . . ' . .Q . _ .
.�
...� �
i t�-
. _
. .. - yaa. ._._. . . _ .
_ s t_ ' `�' i� i _._.��_ I i _ <k. _ _ '" .
�
i x " t .: ' " _ '_ - . . .
. '— � . , -, . � , t _ .-
"" '
. ,
>_. .
.
i � a ' . : - � _ _
�� -_�<.._: . _ _ . _. � � , f_ ' ; . . " �"' : . . i i� F �: . . ••
� � � � ,� •
� _.__ . : � ��.
"'_� . -. � t °:: ' :t 't^ :. . ` _ . ' _ . _ . - "_ � �
i — <<. ` �`' ' 'r.�-�. '��--- .. ' . -='i� ..
. : . �,. ,. ,< _ :� Y . � ' ' :S •
._
. -. . _
� � , <
_ .
� .�.: i . . . . � -�'-�� W i � _ ._ � . . . •
. " ' ._ _ . . -� '
..,.-_,-._ �, . ...._�_� " "�R� _ _. _ __ _
. � .� � . _ . . . _
, :N . _.. . r � ,�"�' -}p . . . . . _
� . . ._. . . . _ .
. .s - -:.x� � .3�Y'� _ _ . � . .
.. .. . a'. v ✓ � . :: :�a�r � § �t l ±- � . .
�,
�
�_.,
. . . _ > �yr .. . �-:- _
. . �� j . . '_ « . � � � _� �~ . .- ' . .
_��
� �� ._� .
�v .; . s.+ ;t„ ' . . _T � . �
. . _ : _ .__c . - . .
.._s ..��._.._ _.- 1��� . ...,- - 1���a,��"� `�,� . -����c_�.i _ . . - . �
�.�_ r_.���..����.� .
. ' -' ' g_i" � . -- ��.
= A ... : �I � - � . .. . . . .. _ — .
• '•� � � _ - � -
�- 1 w� ,�# ` � . i � —_�. _ _ .._., _ - ._ - � �
�� i s - _ _ . . . •
� - ,�
�. ' -1 ,_� — . � . :� � ��. ' . _ - _ '' ; � . . :
_ i, _, . �� w. .s.
^. ;s;.� -:_- - .-� . . .. .-
. _ , - } � . . . L � "- ,P.
,. �
- . . '�� - T S�, . _ . . .
, . � � ._ " r�_ �_ _
. . - . . - : _� . _ `�' " - .
. •, i : - . . _ - .: - � ..�`•��°°�- _ . i S � i .d 1., . � ' t - . �'� . '
a . . r � . ; - �-� ._ � - . . . .- . _ . .� � -
tk ;� '� a Cn R„-� ..�-, . �' -�� !,
«=
i. , N3 � . - c 7 � , � .k ."-�._. � �� .�s%F�� � - � � �
•
..
�
� , _. , �: : . _ . �
; �.e'- _' y .�_, �_._
� ' �,¢ � �fi,!� _ 6 � � �: , ,: � � � � �i. � 7 i, � �j ' � S � � . .. - .�- i � 7 � J , � 9 � .- � ' � `. .. c � .sF � � i_ ! � i� . `; :� 3i, � '� � . 53 � .- �ti � : i �
�
_ _ ..i _ �..-s - _ _ _ _ _ 1 1
�
�
�
� •
1 ITEM NO. 10B
Community Development and Planning Department
L�ity of Zlkah 300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
planninq c(�.cityofukiah.com
(707)463-6203
2
3 DATE: November 12, 2014
4
5 TO: Planning Commission
6
7 FROM: Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
8
9 SUBJECT: Request for approval of a Site Development Permit to allow the renovation of the
10 existing fa�ade, parking lot, landscaping, and signage for Burger King Restaurant
11 711 East Perkins Street, APN 179-061-34 and 179-061-04
12 File No.: Munis 422
13
14
15 RECOMMENDATION
16
17 Staff recommends Planning Commission approve the Site Development Permit based on the
18 findings included in attachment 1 and subject to the conditions of approval included in
19 attachment 2.
20
21 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
22
23 An application has been received from Milestone Associates on behalf of Josef C. Kruger for
24 approval of a Site Development Permit to allow the renovation of the existing 3,397 square foot
25 Burger King Restaurant located at 711 East Perkins Street, APNs 179-061-34 and 179-061-04
26 (see attachments 3, Project Description). The Project includes the following:
27
28 • upgrade of the existing fa�ade, including new metal window awnings, new 68 sf prepay
29 window on the eastside of the building (drive-thru);
30 • repair of the existing parking lot, including overlay and restriping;
31 • replacement of the existing wood fencing around the patio area with new material;
32 • replacement of the existing parking lot light fixtures with LED fixtures;
33 • refacing of existing the signage (Burger King Logo signs on west and north elevations);
34 • refacing of existing freestanding sign;
35 • installation of new signage on the west (parking lot fa�ade)— `Home of the Whopper'and
36 `Taste is King'; and
37 • upgrade menu boards, and directional signage.
38
39 BACKGROUND
40
41 Previous Approvals: In December 1978 the Planning Commission approved Architectural
42 Review Application No. 79-50 to allow construction of a 3,300 sq. ft. family restaurant (Burger
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
1
1 King), with seating capacity of approximately 100. The use required 33 parking spaces. The
2 approved plans included 10 RV parking spaces and 33 vehicle spaces for a total of 43 spaces
3 (see attachment 6, approved site plan). In July 1993, Planning Commission approved a
4 proposed play area and playground apparatus; the approved project was never constructed.
5 Since 1993 no further projects have been submitted. The parking lot is not currently striped in
6 accordance with the approved site plan and there is no evidence that the current striping was
7 permitted by the City.
8
9 Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual: The Project is exempt from the Low
10 Impact Development Technical Design Manual (LID Manual) adopted by City Council on June
11 18, 2014. The Project qualifies as "Maintenance" which is exempt from the LID Manual (see
12 attachment 8).
13
14 Design Review Board (DRB) Review: The City Code requires the Design Review Board to
15 review and make recommendations to the Planning Commission on all site development permit
16 applications. The DRB reviewed the Project at its October 9, 2014 meeting. At the meeting, the
17 DRB was supportive of the proposed exterior building facade modifications, new signage, and
18 fencing, repair/restriping of the existing parking lot, and new parking lot lighting. The DRB voted
19 unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval of the Project and provided the following comments
20 and recommendations (see attachment 7, DRB Minutes Excerpt):
21
22 • Design of the fa�ade is a substantial improvement over what is there now.
23 • Signage needs to be revised to not exceed the height of the roof. Make certain all
24 signage complies with City standards.
25 • Revise the landscaping plan to come closer to compliance with the City's landscaping
26 requirements.
27 • Consider the recommendations from members Liden and Nicholson and staff for
28 additional landscaping as shown on the marked-up landscaping plans provided at the
29 meeting to the applicant (see attachment 4 Revised Sign Program date stamped
30 October 24, 2014).
31
32 The DRB included the conditions that the landscaping plan for the Project be revised to be more
33 consistent with the City's landscaping requirements and the height of the logo signs be reduced
34 to not exceed the height of the main roof prior to Planning Commission consideration of the
35 Project. Based on the comments from the DRB, the applicant revised the Project to include the
36 following (see attachment 10, landscape plan, shade plan, and landscaping coverage):
37
38 • dropped the sign height to below the main roofline;
39 • added 4 trees (Purple Leaf Plum) Perkins Street frontage from the street tree list;
40 • added 2 trees (Red Maple) west facing building frontage from the parking lot tree list;
41 • added 3 trees (Red Maple) around trash enclosure from the parking lot tree list;
42 • added 5 trees (Red Maple) north parking lot perimeter from the parking lot tree list;
43 • added 1 tree (Red Maple) preview board planter from the parking lot tree list;
44 • added 3 trees (London Plane/Sycamore)west parking lot perimeter from the street tree list;
45 • added 4 trees (London Plane/Sycamore)south parking lot perimeter from the street tree list; and
46 • added 1 tree (London Plane/Sycamore)east parking lot perimeter from the street tree list.
47
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
2
1 Based on the revisions to the landscaping plan & sign program, the Project is consistent with
2 the recommendation & conditions of approval from the Design Review Board.
3
4 SETTING
5
6 The project site is located on the south side of East Perkins Street between Oak Manor Drive
7 and Orchard Avenue. The Project site is surrounded by the following uses:
8
9 ■ North: Retail, professional office, and other commercial uses zoned Community
10 Commercial (C1).
11 ■ East: Retail, residential uses zoned Medium Density Residential (R2)
12 ■ South: New Life Community Church, Residential, Oak Manor School, and Oak Manor
13 Park; zoned Medium Density Residential (R2), Single-Family Residential (R1) and Public
14 Facilities (PF).
15 ■ West: Highway 101 off ramp, and a variety of retail, restaurant, residential and service
16 uses zoned Community Commercial (C1) and Single-Family Residential (R1).
17
18 STAFF ANALYSIS
19
20 General Plan. The general plan land use designation of the parcels included in the Project is
21 Commercial (C). This land use designation is intended for a variety of commercial uses and
22 identifies areas where commerce and business may occur. The exact uses allowed are
23 determined by the zoning of the parcel (see Zoning analysis below).
24
25 The project site is located within an area identified in the Community Design element as a
26 second level gateway in the City's General Plan. Projects located on general plan gateways are
27 subject to a higher standard of design since the gateways provide the first impression of the
28 community as one enters and then travels through the main corridors of the City.
29
3o Table 1 below includes the General Plan goals and policies that apply to the Project along with
31 staff analysis. Based on the analysis, the Project is consistent with the General Plan.
32
Table i: General Plan Analysis
General Plan Goal/Polic Staff Anal sis
Open Space and Conservation
Goal OC-23:Native plant landscaping shall be Consistent
encouraged. The landscape plan for the Project includes native species. The C1
Policy OC-23.1:Define standards that include native zoning district requirements encourage the use of native species. The
plant landscaping. Planning Commission will review the landscaping plan as part of its
review of the Project and has the authority to require additional
native plant landscaping.
Circulation and Transportation
Partially Consistent
Goal CT3:Design new development and The Project would renovate an existing site and includes the
redevelopment projects to be as accessible by foot, installation of a new bike rack to accommodate 3 bikes on the north
bicycle,and transit as they are by auto. side of the entrance doors.A condition of approval has been included
Policy CT-3.1:New development and redevelopment requiring the installation of one additional bike parking space in order
projects shall specifically include plans for to comply with the C1 requirements for bike parking.
pedestrian facilities,bike lanes,bike racks,and
transit stops. The existing sidewalk along Perkins Street will remain and a
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
3
Table 1: General Plan Anal sis
General Plan Goal/Polic Staff Anal sis
connection from public sidewalk to the restaurant is provided. Four
street trees would be planted on Perkins Street in addition to the
existing four street trees.
The applicant is requesting approval of a modification to the
requirement to provide a pedestrian pathway through the parking lot
(see below).
Goal CT-13: Design attractive parking facilities. Consistent
The existing parking has 45 parking stalls,8 perimeter trees 4 street
Policy CT-13.1: Utilize landscaping and other trees no interior parking lot trees and minimal perimeter landscaping
amenities to improve the appearance and traffic (see attachment 9,Photos).The new parking lot would be reduced to
patterns of onsite parking facilities. 37 parking spaces in order to add 7 new perimeter trees,9 new street
trees,6 interior parking lot trees and increased perimeter
landscaping. The new parking lot includes landscape islands with
landscaping and trees and perimeter landscaping. The proposed
project includes restriping and repairing the existing parking lot and
changing the parking lot lighting to LED. A condition of approval has
been added that requires the lighting to be downcast,fully shielded
and International Dark Sky Association approved or equivalent(see
attachment 2 Condition of Approval).These modifications
substantially improve the appearance of the parking lot.
Community Design
Goal CD-7:Improve the appearance of area Consistent
gateways. The renovation of the building fa�ade modification includes new
windows,decorative metal window awnings,new doors,new paint
Policy CD-7.1: Establish public policy to enhance and exterior stucco siding.The Project also includes new fencing
and improve the appearance of area gateways material to replace the existing wooden fence around the patio area,
and replacement of all signage including menu boards,and directional
signage and freestanding highway sign.
The existing parking lot is over parked with minimal landscaping and
trees. The proposed project will reduce the parking spaces from 45
spaces to 37 spaces.An additional 23 trees will be added to the
existing 17 trees and the total landscaping will increase from 16.7%to
20.4%provided.These modifications will substantially improve the
appearance of the gateway.
Policy CD-4.2: Consistent
Encourage planting of native trees and plants. The C1 zoning district requires the planting of landscaping that is
known to grow well in Ukiah's climate and encourages the planting of
native species. The landscaping plan includes trees from the City's
Required Tree Lists.As required,the Project including the landscaping
plan was reviewed by the Design Review Board(see above).The DRB
found the landscaping appropriate for the Project and the planting
conditions.
The Planning Commission will review the landscaping plan as part of
its review of the Project and will determine as part of its review if the
Project should plant additional native species.
Policy CD-4.3: Consistent
Require landscaping that will result in the creation of The Project would add 4 additional street trees to the 3 existing street
new street canopies. trees along Perkins Street. The trees selected are from the City's
Required Street Tree List(see above).
Goal CD-10: Consistent
Preserve and enhance neighborhood character. The Project would improve an existing site and building with a new
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
4
Table 1: General Plan Anal sis
General Plan Goal/Polic Staff Anal sis
building fa�ade,new signage,LED parking lot lighting,and new
Policy CD-10.1: landscaping. These modifications are consistent and compatible with
Ensure that new construction in established the Starbucks/North American Title development located across the
neighborhoods maintains or enhances existing street from the Project and the and McDonalds project located on
neighborhood character. Perkins Street to the northwest of the Project.The Project was
reviewed by the DRB who found the building renovations to be a
substantial improvement over the existing building and recommended
approval of the Project with the conditions that the signage be revised
to comply with the Sign Ordinance and the landscaping plan be
revised to be more consistent with the requirements of the C1 zoning
district. The Project was revised as conditioned. With the revisions to
the Project,the Project is consistent.
Goal CD-17:Require commercial and industrial Consistent
parking lots to be designed and sited so as to The Project would improve the existing parking lot on the site by
increase the attractiveness of the areas in which planting new landscaping,including street trees,perimeter trees and
they are located. parking lot trees. The Project reduces the number of parking spaces
and increases the existing shade and landscaping coverage making the
Policy CD-17.1:Site commercial and industrial Project more consistent with this goal and policy than the existing
parking lots to be designed subservient to the development on the site.
structure it serves.
1
2 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan: Approximately '/4 of the parking lot on the west parcel is
3 located in the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan C Common Traffic Pattern Compatibility
4 Zone. The C Infill zone allows new development of a similar intensity to that of surrounding,
5 existing uses. A summary of the requirements applicable to the Project are provided below.
6
7 . Uses: Two story motels, high intensity retail and multi-family residential are allowed.
8 . Maximum Density: 150 people per acre maximum for non-residential uses.
9 • Minimum Open Land: 15% "open land" is recommended and includes parking lots and
10 landscaped areas.
11 . Deed Notice: Recordation of over-flight easement for residential use or deed notice is
12 required.
13
14 There are no proposed changes to the use or intensity of the site; therefore, the proposed
15 project is consistent with the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan C Common Traffic Pattern
16 Compatibility Zone.
17
18 Zoning. The parcel is located within the Community Commercial (C1) zoning district. In the C1
19 zone, restaurants are an allowed use however; a site development permit is required for
20 substantial exterior modification of existing commercial structures. Table 2 below includes the
21 applicable zoning requirements for the Project along with staff analysis.
22
Table 2: Zoning Ordinance and Site Analysis
Zoning Ordinance Requirement Staff Analysis
Setbacks,height(ZO.Section 9085) The Project complies with the building height and setback
requirements.
Parking
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
5
Table 2: Zoning Ordinance and Site Analysis
Zoning Ordinance Requirement Staff Analysis
Vehicle Parking:(ZO.Section 9086DJ(Z.O.Section Existing Parking. The Project approved in 1979 included 10 RV/bus
9198D2J parking spaces plus 33 vehicle parking spaces for a total of 43 parking
spaces. At some point,90 degree parking spaces were striped along
Restaurant:1 onsite parking space for each 3 seats the west property line. These parking spaces do not comply with the
plus 1 onsite space for each 2 employees on the City's requirements for stall size and backup distance and do not
maximum shift appear to have been permitted by the City(see attachment 6,1979
approved site plan). The plans for the Project include the removal of
Drive-Thru/Drive-Up/Take-Out:1 space for each 100 these parking spaces and a condition of approval has also been applied
sf of gross floor area plus queuing for at least 8 to the Project requiring the removal of these spaces.
vehicles for the drive-thru
Restaurant: Based on 104 seats(84 inside plus 20 patios)and 9
employees,39 parking spaces are required.
Drive-thru:Based on a 3,465 sf restaurant,35 parking spaces are
required plus stacking for a minimum of 8 vehicles in the drive-thru.
Proposed Parking. The proposed number of parking spaces is 23
vehicle parking spaces plus 14 RV/bus parking spaces for a total of
37(see attachment 9,Photos). Two RV/bus parking spaces were added
to the site plan after the DRB meeting and are immediately adjacent to
the perimeter landscaping and new and existing trees. Staff has
included a condition of approval that these two parking spaces be
removed in order to ensure adequate circulation for large vehicles and
ensure that the landscaping and trees are not damaged(see
attachment 10,shade and landscape coverage plan with large vehicle
circulation).
The removal of these parking spaces would reduce the parking to 35
spaces. Based on visits to the site at various times, 12 RV/bus parking
spaces plus 23 vehicle parking spaces would be adequate to serve the
parking needs of the use and stacking for 8 vehicles would be
adequate to serve the drive-thru demand.
Bike Parking: The number of bicycle parking spaces Based on a maximum parking requirement of 37 vehicle spaces,4 bike
required shall not be less than ten percent(10%)of parking spaces are required. The project provides three bike parking
the number of required off-street automobile parking spaces in inverted"U"bike rack which does not meet the number of
spaces. Such safe bicycle parking shall be located bike parking spaces required. A condition of approval has been
convenient to the entrance(s)to the use. (Z.O. applied to the Project requiring 4 bike parking spaces(see attachment
Section 9086(E)J 2,Conditions of Approval).
Landscaping
Landscaping shall be proportional to building The project would provide 1,942 more square feet of landscaping and
elevations.Z.O.Section Z0.Section 9087(D1aJ 23 more trees than the site as currently developed. The landscaping
plan includes street trees, perimeter and interior parking lot trees,as
well as shrubs,vines and groundcovers.
The revised landscaping plan is consistent with the condition of
approval from the DRB.
Landscape plantings shall be those which grow well in The landscape plans were developed by a landscape architect and
Ukiah's climate without excessive irrigation. Native reviewed by the DRB. The species proposed were selected for their
species are strongly encouraged. ZO.Section ZO. ability to be viable in their environment and to grow well in Ukiah's
Section 9087(D1b) climate. The plant palette also includes native species(noted in on the
landscaping plan).The project is subject to Planning Commission
review and approval.Planning Commission has the authority to modify
the proposed landscaping plan.
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
6
Table 2: Zoning Ordinance and Site Analysis
Zoning Ordinance Requirement Staff Analysis
All landscape plantings shall be of sufficient size, The landscape plan indicates the trees will be#15,the shrubs one,two
health,and intensity so that a viable and mature or five gallon depending on the species,and one gallon for the ground
appearance can be attained within a reasonable short cover. The size,location,and amount of landscaping provided are
amount of time. ZO.Section ZO.Section 9087(D1c) sufficient for the size of the project and consistent with is typically
required for development projects.
Deciduous trees shall constitute then majority of The trees proposed on the west and south building elevations are
trees proposed along the south and west building located on the Street Tree List and are deciduous.
exposures;non-deciduous tree species shall be
restricted to areas that do not inhibit solar access.
ZO.Section ZO.Section 9087(D1eJ
Parking lots shall have a perimeter planting strip with The landscaping plan includes trees,shrubs,and ground cover along
both trees and shrubs. the north,south,east and west sides of the parking lot.
A minimum of 50%of the landscaped area shall be The landscaping plan includes trees,shrubs,vines and groundcover
live plantings.ZO.Section 9087(D1i) planting which make up at least 50%of the landscaped area.
Landscaping plans shall include an automatic The plans include an irrigation plan(see attachment 10,Preliminary
irrigation plan and lighting plan.Z.O.Section Landscaping Plan).A condition of approval has been applied to the
9087(D1j) Project requiring plans submitted for building permit to demonstrate
compliance with the state's Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance and Cal Green.
The Project proposes replacing existing parking lot lighting with LED
fixtures. A condition of approval has been added that requires the
lighting to be downcast,fully shielded and International Dark Sky
Association approved or equivalent(see attachment 2 Conditions of
Approval).
All landscaping shall be adequately maintained in a The standard condition of approval for landscape maintenance has
viable condition.Z.O.Section 9087(D1kJ been applied to the Project(see attachment 2).
Parking lots with twelve(12)or more parking stalls A pedestrian walkway has not been proposed as part of the Project.
shall have defined pedestrian sidewalks or marked The applicant has indicated that due to the location of the RV/bus
pedestrian facilities within landscaped areas and/or parking and trash enclosure it is not feasible to provide a safe
separated from automobile travel lanes.Based upon pedestrian pathway through the parking lot;therefore,the applicant is
the design of the parking lot,and the use that it is requesting approval of a modification to the requirement to provide a
serving,relief from this requirement may be pedestrian pathway. The DRB discussed the possibility of a providing a
approved through the discretionary review process. pedestrian pathway during its review of the Project and did not
ZO.Section ZO.Section 9087(D1g) identify a location of a pedestrian pathway and did not include
providing a pedestrian pathway as a condition of approval. Staff and
Modification Request the DRB acknowledge that it would likely take significant modifications
As allowed by Zoning Ordinance section 9101(I),the to the design of the existing parking lot to provide the pedestrian
applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval pathway. Staff is not aware of any incidents in the existing parking lot
of a modification to this landscaping requirement. related to complaints from pedestrians.
The project would remove the existing parking spaces on the west side
of the parking lot that are non-compliant with requirements for
parking stall size and backup distance. This change would improve the
pedestrian circulation and onsite circulation by removing the parking
spaces that require pedestrians to walk through the parking area for
large vehicles and would reduce the distance pedestrians have to walk
from their vehicle to the building entry.
Staff requests the Commission determine whether or not the Project
should provide the pedestrian pathway. In the event Planning
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
7
Table 2: Zoning Ordinance and Site Analysis
Zoning Ordinance Requirement Staff Analysis
Commission supports the approval of the modification,staff has
included a draft finding in support of the modification(see attachment
1).
Parking lot trees shall primarily be deciduous species, The Zoning Ordinance requires a shade percentage to be achieved at
and shall be designed to provide tree canopy 10 years,however the code does not indicate how the shade coverage
coverage of fifty percent over all paved areas within should be calculated,provide the canopy size of various tree species
10 years of planting. Z.O.Section Z0.Section at 10 years,or define the parking area that is subject to this
9087(D1e) requirement. Based on staff research,communities that have a shade
ordinance most commonly use a 15 year tree canopy when calculating
shade coverage. In addition,tree canopy size can double between 10
and 15 years. Staff was unable to find another community that used a
10 year canopy for the purpose of calculating shade coverage.Staff
directed the applicant to use the information provided by the City of
Davis shade ordinance to calculate the shade coverage.
The landscape plan shows a total of 23 new trees will be added to the
existing 17 trees on the site.The landscape plan includes shade
calculations with the size of the tree canopy and square footage
calculation based on the City of Davis parking lot shade calculation
requirements. Based on this information,51.6%of the paved area
would be shaded within 15 years of planting.
Parking lots with 12 or more parking stalls shall have The landscaping plan includes landscape islands every 2 parking spaces
a tree placed between every 4 parking stalls within a along the Perkins Street frontage,2 landscape islands with a tree on
continuous planting strip,rather than individual the ends of the 8 spaces proposed in front of the building,2 landscape
planting wells unless clearly infeasible.Based on the planters with 2 new trees around the trash enclosure and 1 landscape
design of the parking lot,a reduced number of trees planter at the menu boards.The increase in landscaping,trees,and
may be approved through the discretionary review shade coverage is consistent with the condition approval from the
process. Z.O.Section 9087(D1eJ DRB. Staff and DRB support the requested modification since the
landscaping plan meets the intent of the requirement and it is not
Modification Request feasible to plant additional trees in the interior of the parking lot due
As allowed by Zoning Ordinance section 9101(I),the to the RV/bus parking spaces and the room needed for safe and
applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval adequate maneuvering room for these vehicles(see attachment 10,
of a modification to this landscaping requirement. shade and landscape calculations sheet with large vehicle circulation).
The 12 large vehicle parking spaces RV,buses and trucks generate 20%
of the total business volume;therefore,it is important to business
owners to retain these parking spaces.In addition,10 of the 12 spaces
were approved as part of the architectural review approval from 1979
(see above).
Based on the above and since the Project provides the required 20%
landscape coverage and 50%shade coverage in 15 years,staff
supports the requested modification.
All new developments shall include a landscaping The Project site is comprised of two separate parcels. The total square
coverage of 20%of the gross area of the parcel, feet for parcel 1 is 28,792;20°/a landscaping coverage would be 5,759
unless based on the small size of the parcel;it would square feet.The proposed landscaping would provide 6,856 square
be unreasonable and illogical. feet a total area of(23.8%)of landscaping coverage which exceeds the
required 20%. The total square feet for parcel 2 is 23,973;20%
Modification Request landscaping coverage would be 4,794 square feet.The proposed
As allowed by Zoning Ordinance section 9101(I),the landscaping would provide 3,920 square feet a total area of(16.4%)of
applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval landscaping coverage which does not meet the required 20%.
of a modification to this landscaping requirement.
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
8
Table 2: Zoning Ordinance and Site Analysis
Zoning Ordinance Requirement Staff Analysis
The total square feet for the total site(parcel 1 and parcel 2)is 52,765
the required 20%landscaping coverage would be 10,553 square feet.
The total proposed landscaping would provide 10,776 square feet
(20.4%)of landscaping coverage which exceeds the required 20%.
Since the Project will increase the amount of landscaping coverage,
the landscape coverage for both parcels exceeds the 20%requirement,
and the two parcels together comprise the"projecY',staff
recommends approval of the requested modification for Parcel 2.
1
2 Sign Ordinance: The Project includes the replacement of existing signs with new signage,
3 repair of existing signs and the installation of new signs as described above (Project
4 Description). The Project includes the following signage:
5
Logo Wall Sign"BURGER KING" North Elevation New 20 sq.ft.
Logo Wall Sign"BURGER KING" West Elevation Replace Letters"BURGER KING" 20 sq.ft.
Wall Sign"HOME OF THE WHOPPER" West Elevation New 30 sq.ft.
Wall Sign"TASTE IS KING" West Elevation New 44 sq.ft.
Clearance Board Drive-thru Remove -
Preview Board Drive-thru Reuse;no-upgrade 20 sq.ft.
Menu Board Drive-thru Reuse;no-upgrade 18 sq.ft.
Order Confirmation Unit W/Clearance Canopy Drive-thru New -
Free Standing Highway Sign North/West Corner Reuse;Repaint and Repair 107 sq.ft.
Total Project Sign Area 259 sq.ft.
6
7 Sign Area: The Project site is comprised of two parcels. Parcel 1 (Burger King building)
8 has frontage of 202 lineal feet. Based on this, a maximum of 303 square feet of sign area is
9 allowed for this parcel. The sign area for this parcel would be 157 square feet, which is
10 consistent with this requirement. The only sign that would be located on Parcel 2 is the
11 existing freestanding sign which would be painted and repaired. The Project would not
12 increase the sign area on this parcel.
13
14 Location of Signs: The revised sign program is consistent with the requirements for sign
15 location. The height of the building mounted logo signs on the west and north elevations
16 have been has been lowered in order to not exceed the height of the main roof. The
17 proposed building mounted signage is located on a street or business frontage (parking lot
18 elevation where main entry is located) as required.
19
2o Design Guidelines. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Design
21 District. Therefore, the project would be subject to the Design Guidelines for Projects located
22 within the Downtown Design District. Table 3 below includes the applicable Design Guidelines
23 for the Project along with staff analysis.
24
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
9
Table 3: Design Guidelines for Projects outside the Downtown Design District Consistency
Analysis
Site Plannin
Site Features
Site design is compatible with the natural There are no natural features on the site.The project involves a fa4ade
environment,and incorporates the major renovation,landscaping and parking lot modification and the addition of new
existing features. signage for Burger King restaurant. The Project would retain existing
landscaping on the site and plant new landscaping,including trees.
Coordination
Facilities are shared and coordinated with The project site is located within an established commercial corridor.The
adjacent properties. existing building will is located along the eastern portion of the site with the
drive-through wrapping around the building.There will be new landscape and
Setbacks are compatible with character of trees along the Perkins Street frontage.This proposal is consistent with the
adjacent frontages. character of the adjacent frontages and in fact will enhance the neighborhood.
Setbacks are minimized to enhance the
pedestrian environment.
Compatibilitv The proposed renovations and modifications to the Burger King restaurant and
Uses are functionally compatible. project site will continue the existing use on the site.The project site is located
within an established commercial corridor,including Starbucks,State Farm
Insurance and Quick Mart. Based on the above,the use will be functionally
compatible with the existing uses in the neighborhood.
Parkin�Lots The parking lot is located to the side(west)of the building(rather than in front
Decrease visual prominence and reduce of the building)and the existing site is overparked which increases the
heat island effect. prominence of the parking lot. The proposed project will reduce the parking
spaces from 45 spaces to 37.The landscaping plan includes the addition of 23
trees and live plantings within the parking lot and along the perimeters of the
parking lot and site. The landscape plan and rendering shows the addition of 4
new street trees and landscaping along Perkins Street that will screen portions
of the parking lot.Parking lot trees are proposed that will provide a shade
canopy over the paved areas,reducing the heat island effect.
The plans include provisions for three bike parking spaces in an inverted"U"bike
Bicycle parking close to building entries for rack. The bike rack is located north of the main entrance on the west building
security;covered if possible face,close to the west and north entries
Visual Appearance The existing brick will remain and the main exterior finish of the building will be
Site and building are visually attractive from replaced with stucco and painted.Metal awnings would be installed over the
neighboring properties,traffic and windows. The project includes new windows,and entry doors on the west
corridors,and public spaces. building elevation.
The Project also includes increased landscaping around the perimeter of the site
and perimeter of the parking lot,as well as street trees,parking lot trees and
perimeter trees from the using a variety of species(see attachment 10,
Preliminary Landscape Plan).
The Project was reviewed by the Design Review Board which found the fa�ade a
substantial improvement over the existing design. The Design Review Board
recommended approval of Project provided the signage was revised to comply
with the Sign Ordinance and the landscaping plan was revised to more
consistent with the C1 landscaping requirements. The signage was revised as
required and the landscaping plan has been revised to be more consistent with
the requirements of the C1 zoning district. Based on the revisions made to the
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
10
Table 3: Design Guidelines for Projects outside the Downtown Design District Consistency
Analysis
Project,the Project is consistent with this guideline and the conditions of
approval recommended by the DRB.
Walkable and Bikeable Communities The proposed project includes the installation of one bike rack with
The project provides connections for parking for three bikes(see attachment 3, Bike Data). Staff has included
walkers and bicyclists to the surrounding a condition of approval that requires the installation on one(1)
community. additional bike parking space in order to comply with C1 requirements
Sidewalks provide convenient and safe for bike parking.
access.
The existing sidewalk along Perkins Street will remain and a connection
Entrances provide convenient access. from public sidewalk to the restaurant is provided. Four street trees
would be planted on Perkins Street in addition to the existing four street
trees.
No pedestrian pathway is proposed.The applicant is requesting approval
of a modification to the requirement to provide a pedestrian pathway
through the parking lot(see above).
Maintenance The standard condition of approval for landscape maintenance has been applied
Demonstrate consideration of site and to the Project. The project would also be subject to the City's Commercial
building maintenance. Property Maintenance Ordinance. A condition of approval has been included
that requires the Project Proponent to prepare a"Trash Disposal Plan"(same as
required for the McDonald's site development permit)(see attachment 2).
Landscaping
Scale and nature of landscape materials is The landscaping plan was revised by the applicant in response to the conditions
appropriate to the site and structure. of approval and recommendations from the Design Review Board. The
landscaping plan includes a range of new trees and shrubs. The revised
Street trees selected from Ukiah Master landscaping plan is consistent with this guideline.
Tree List required.
The street trees and parking lot trees were selected from the City's Required
Tree lists.
See also"DRB Review"above.
Signs
Signs are compatible with architectural The signs proposed are the Burger Kings corporate design and logo and are
character of buildings. compatible with the proposed colors of the building and building architecture.
The Project including the proposed sign program was reviewed by the DR6. The
DRB found the signage appropriate for the building provided the height of the
building mounted signs were revised to comply with the Sign Ordinance.
Lighting
Lighting harmonizes with site,building Project lighting includes replacing parking lot light fixtures with LED fixtures(see
design,architecture,and landscaping. attachment 10,Site Plan).The standard condition of approval requiring lighting
to be downcast,fully shielded and International Dark Sky Association(IDA)
Lighting minimizes effects on adjacent approved or equivalent has been included(see attachment 2).
properties,auto and pedestrian movement
and night-time sky.
Visitability and Universal Design
The site and its elements are accessible to The proposed project would be subject to the accessibility requirements of the
people at differing stages,ages and building code and will include ADA parking and access pathways as required.
circumstances of life;accessible primary
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
11
Table 3: Design Guidelines for Projects outside the Downtown Design District Consistency
Analysis
and interior entrance and routes.
1
2 Site Development Permit: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 9261(b), a Site
3 Development Permit is required for all new commercial construction. Table 4 below shows the
4 specific findings that are required before the Site Development Permit can be approved along
5 with staff consistency analysis.
6
Table 4: Summary of Pro'ect Consistency with Site Development Permit Findin s
Zoning Code Site Development Permit Staff Analysis
Findin s
The proposal is consistent with the goals, The Project is consistent with the General Plan as described above in
objectives,and policies of the City General Plan. Table 1.
The location,size,and intensity of the proposed The proposed project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient
project will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern based on the following:
vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern.
• The proposed project would upgrade the existing development on
the site. No changes to pedestrian circulation are proposed as part
of the Project. The Project is required to comply with current ADA
accessibility requirements which would likely change the location
and configuration of existing accessible parking spaces and
pathways. This would improve the pedestrian traffic pattern for
some people.
• The project would remove the existing parking spaces on the west
side of the parking lot that are non-compliant with requirements for
parking stall size and backup distance. This change would improve
the pedestrian circulation and onsite circulation by removing the
parking spaces that require pedestrians to walk through the parking
area for large vehicles.
A pedestrian walkway has not been proposed as part of the Project.The
applicant has indicated that due to the location of the RV/bus parking
and trash enclosure is not feasible to provide a safe pedestrian pathway
through the parking lot;therefore,the applicant is requesting approval of
a modification to the requirement to provide a pedestrian pathway.
Should Planning Commission choose to approve the modification,the
Project would be consistent with this finding.
The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the The Project would not change the existing access and circulation to the
relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on site. The Project would remove the row of parking spaces along the west
adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or property line that were installed without approval from the City and that
inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding do not comply with City standards for parking stall size and backup
uses. distance. Staff is not aware with any issues related to the existing access
and the removal of the non-compliant parking stalls should improve site
circulation.
Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for Landscaping is proposed along all property lines of the project site and
purposes of separating or screening the proposed the project is required to comply with the landscaping requirements of
structure(s)from the street and adjoining building the C-1 zoning district. The project is generally consistent with these
sites,and breaking up and screening large requirements;however,the applicant has requested modifications to
expanses of paved areas. specific landscaping requirements(see above).Should the Planning
Commission choose to approve the modifications,the project would be
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
12
consistent with this finding.
The proposed development will not restrict or cut The project complies with the C1 height and setback requirements which
out light and air on the property,or on the are developed in order to ensure adequate light and air and separation
property in the neighborhood;nor will it hinder the of uses.The project would not cut out light or air or hinder the
development or use of buildings in the development or use of building in the neighborhood based on the
neighborhood,or impair the value thereof. following:
The project is appropriately designed as required by C1 zone
development standards.The project received preliminary review by the
Design Review Board and requires formal project approval by the
Planning Commission.This process ensures a quality project that would
not impair the value to properties or development.The Project has been
conditioned to provide a"Trash Disposal Plan"(as was the McDonald's
site development permit)in order to ensure that the site and area
remains well kept and free of debris and trash.
The improvement of any commercial or industrial Property zoned Medium Density Residential(R2)is located to the south
structure will not have a substantial detrimental of the project site. The Project includes the planting of additional
impact on the character or value of an adjacent landscaping,including perimeter trees. The Project would upgrade the
residential zoning district. building,site,and provide additional landscaping between the
commercial use and the residential zoning district to the south. The
Project has been conditioned to provide a"Trash Disposal Plan"(as was
the McDonald's site development permit)in order to ensure that the site
and area remains well kept and free of debris and trash. Based on the
above,the Project would not have a substantial detrimental impact on
the character or value of an adjacent residential zoning district.
The proposed development will not excessively The proposed project would renovate and upgrade an existing site. The
damage or destroy natural features,including site is comprised primarily of impervious surfaces(parking lot and
trees,shrubs,creeks,and the natural grade of the building)and does not include any water courses,wildlife,wildlife
site. habitat,or other environmentally sensitive areas. The Project includes
resurfacing the parking lot which would not change the grade. The
Project site includes existing landscaping and trees. The Project would
upgrade some of the existing landscaping and add new landscaping,
including trees.
There is sufficient variety,creativity,and The Project would upgrade the existing fa�ade,including adding metal
articulation to the architecture and design of the awnings,varied wall height,and base and access colors,as well as
structure(s)and grounds to avoid monotony updated signage. These features help to break up the existing building
and/or a box-like uninteresting external which is consistent with this finding.
appearance.
1
2 PUBLIC NOTICE
3
4 A notice of public hearing was provided in the following manner:
5
6 ■ posted in three places on the project site on October 30, 2014;
7 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on October 30, 2014; and
8 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 2, 2014.
9
10 As of the writing of this staff report, no correspondence has been received in regards to the
11 project.
12
13
14
15
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
13
1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
2
3 The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
4 Section 15301, Existing Facilities, which allows exterior modifications, additions to existing
5 building and installation of replacement signage, Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land,
6 which allows new landscaping, and Section 15311, Accessory Structures, which allows new
7 signs based on the following:
8
9 A. The Project includes exterior alterations to an existing building in order to upgrade the
10 fa�ade and a 68 square foot addition for a pre-pay window. The Project also includes
11 the refacing of two existing signs. These modifications do not result in an expansion of
12 the use or an increase in the number of seats or capacity of the drive-thru.
13
14 B. The Project is consistent with the Commercial general plan designation and all
15 applicable general plan policies as well as with the Community Commercial zoning
16 designation and regulations based on the analysis in the staff report.
17
18 C. Based on review of the project by Public Works, the Electric Department, Police
19 Department and Fire Marshal, the site can be adequately served by all required utilities
20 and public services.
21
22 D. The Project is a development site comprised primarily impervious surfaces (parking lot
23 and building). The site and surrounding area are not environmentally sensitive. The
24 Project does not include the removal of any trees. There are no wetlands, creeks, or
25 water bodies on the site.
26
27 E. The Project includes the planting of new trees and other landscaping around the
28 perimeter of and within the parking lot and along a portion of the street frontage.
29
30 F. The Project includes the installation of two (2) new signs on an existing building.
31
32
33 DECISION TIMELINE
34
35 The proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). The
36 PSA requires that a decision be made on the project within 60 days of the application being
37 deemed complete. This application was submitted to the Community Development and Planning
38 Department on August 11, 2014 and was deemed complete on October 24, 2014. As such, a
39 decision must be made on the project no later than December 23, 2014. The applicant may
4o request a onetime extension of the decision timeline. The next regularly scheduled Planning
41 Commission meeting is December 10, 2014 (November 26, 2014 meeting cancelled due to
42 Thanksgiving holiday).
43
44
45
46
47
48
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
14
1 ATTACHMENTS
2
3 1. Draft Use Permit and Site Development Permit Findings
4 2. Draft Use Permit and Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval
5 3. Project Description date stamped August 11, 2014 with Bike Data Sheet date stamped
6 September 30, 2014
7 4. Sign Program date stamped October 24, 2014
8 5. Request for Modification date stamped October 24, 2014
9 6. 1978 Architecture Review approved site plan
10 7. Design Review Board Minutes Excerpt from October 9, 2014
11 8. Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual Application Determination
12 9. Photos
13 10. Project Plans date stamped October 24, 2014
14
Burger King Fa�ade and Site Renovation Site Development Permit
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
15
1 ATTACHMENT 1
2
3 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS
4
5 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT PEMRIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW
6 BURGER KING FAC�ADE RENOVATION, LANDSCAPE AND
7 PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS AND NEW SIGNAGE
8 711 EAST PERKINS STREET, APN 179-061-34 & 179-061-24
9 CITY FILE NUMBER: 422
10
11 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff
12 report, the application materials and documentation, and the public record.
13
14 1. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the
15 General Plan as described in the staff report, including Table 1.
16
17
18 2. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Airport Compatibility
19 requirements for the C1 compatibility zone as described in the staff report.
20
21 3. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the
22 zoning ordinance as described in the staff report, including Table 2, and with the
23 approval of the requested modifications to the landscaping requirements for
24 landscape coverage, one tree before every 4 parking space, and providing a
25 pedestrian pathway.
26
27 4. Approval of the modifications to the landscaping requirements is based on the
28 following:
29
30 A. Landscape Coverage: The project site is comprised of 2 separate parcels.
31 The total square feet for parcel 1 is 28,792. The proposed landscaping would
32 provide 6,856 square feet a total area of(23.8%) of landscaping coverage which
33 exceeds the required 20 %. The total square feet for parcel 2 is 23,973. The
34 proposed landscaping would provide 3,920 square feet a total area of(16.4%) of
35 landscaping coverage which does not meet the required 20 %. The total square
36 feet for the total site (parcel 1 and parcel 2) is 52,765 the required 20%
37 landscaping coverage would be 10,553 square feet. The total proposed
38 landscaping would provide 10,776 square feet (20.4%) of landscaping coverage
39 which exceeds the required 20%. Overall, the Project increases the amount of
40 landscape coverage for the Project site.
41
42 B. One Tree Every 4 Parking Stalls: The landscaping plan includes landscape
43 islands every 2 parking spaces along the Perkins Street frontage, 2 landscape
44 islands with a tree on the ends of the 8 spaces proposed in front of the building, 2
45 landscape planters with 2 new trees around the trash enclosure and 1 landscape
Burger King Fa4ade and Site Renovation
Site Development Permit Findings
711 East Perkins Street
File No.422
1
1 planter at the menu boards. The increase in landscaping, trees, and shade
2 coverage is consistent with the condition approval from the DRB. Due to the
3 location of the RV/bus parking and the need to provide safe circulation that does
4 not damage trees, landscaping, or landscape planters, installing additional
5 landscape planters with trees in the interior of the site is not feasible. The Project
6 provides 20% landscape overage of the Project site, 50% shade coverage of
7 paved parking areas in 15 years, and increases the amount of landscaping and
8 number of trees on the site. All of which are a substantial improvement over the
9 existing development condition.
10
11 C. Pedestrian Pathway: The applicant has indicated that due to the location of the
12 RV/bus parking and trash enclosure it is not feasible to provide a safe pedestrian
13 pathway through the parking lot. The DRB discussed the possibility of a
14 providing a pedestrian pathway during its review of the Project and did not
15 identify a location of a pedestrian pathway and did not include providing a
16 pedestrian pathway as a condition of approval. Staff and the DRB acknowledge
17 that it would likely take significant modifications to the design of the existing
18 parking lot to provide the pedestrian pathway. Staff is not aware of any incidents
19 in the existing parking lot related to complaints from pedestrians.
20
21 The project would remove the existing parking spaces on the west side of the
22 parking lot that are non-compliant with requirements for parking stall size and
23 backup distance. This change would improve the pedestrian circulation and
24 onsite circulation by removing the parking spaces that require pedestrians to
25 walk through the parking area for large vehicles and would reduce the distance
26 pedestrians have to walk from their vehicle to the building entry.
27
28 5. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the Sign
29 Ordinance as described in the staff report.
30
31 6. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required by
32 Zoning Ordinance Section 9263(E) for approval of a Site Development Permit as
33 described in Table 4 of the staff report.
34
35 7. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA
36 Guidelines Section 15302(b) Class 2, Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing
37 Structures and Class 15303 Class 1(c), New Construction based on the following:
38
39 A. The Project is consistent with the Commercial general plan designation and all
40 applicable general plan policies as well as with the Community Commercial
41 zoning designation and regulations based on the analysis in the staff report.
42
43 B. The Project consists of the renovation of a commercial (restaurant building with
44 drive-thru) square footage of the building would increase by 68 square feet. The
45 use would be continued with the renovation of the building.
46
Burger King Fa4ade and Site Renovation
Site Development Permit Findings
711 East Perkins Street
File No.422
2
1 C. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects in relations to
2 traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality because the project site located within a
3 developed urban area that contains existing similar type uses. The Project was
4 referred to Public Works for review and comment. Public Works did not have any
5 comments on the Project and did not request a traffic study.
6
7 D. Based on review of the project by Public Works, the Electric Department, Police
8 Department and Fire Marshal, the site can be adequately served by all required
9 utilities and public services.
10
11 8. Notice of the proposed Project was provided in the following manner as required
12 by the Zoning Ordinance:
13
14 A. posted in three places on the project site on October 30, 2014;
15 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on October 30,
16 2014; and
17 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 2, 2014.
18
19
Burger King Fa4ade and Site Renovation
Site Development Permit Findings
711 East Perkins Street
File No.422
3
1 ATTACHMENT 2
2
3 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL— SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
4
5 DRAFT SITE DEVELOPMENT PEMRIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW
6 BURGER KING FAC�ADE RENOVATION, LANDSCAPE AND
7 PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS AND NEW SIGNAGE
8 711 EAST PERKINS STREET, APN 179-061-34 & 179-061-24
9 CITY FILE NUMBER: 422
10
11
12 1. Approval is granted to allow construction of a new restaurant building with drive-thru and
13 associated site improvements as shown on the plans date stamped October 24, 2014
14 and as described in the project description submitted to the Planning and Community
15 Development Department and date stamped August 11, 2014.
16
17 2. The existing parking stalls located along the west property line shall be removed as
18 shown on the approved site plan. These parking spaces do not comply with the City's
19 requirements for parking stall size and backup space and, therefore, create a hazardous
20 condition.
21
22 3. The RV/bus parking spaces shown along the south property line (identified as spaces#7
23 and #8 on the site plan) are not approved and shall be removed in order to ensure
24 adequate and safe maneuvering for large vehicles and to prevent damage to
25 landscaping and trees.
26
27 4. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff
28 review and approval:
29
3o A. Removal of the existing parking spaces located along the west property line (see#2
31 above).
32 B. Removal of RV/bus parking spaces along the south property line identified as spaces
33 #7 and 8 on the site plan (see #3 above).
34 C. Exterior lighting that is hooded and/or shielded to force light downward and to
35 prevent emission of light or glare beyond the property line. Fixtures shall be
36 International Dark Sky Association approved or equivalent.
37 D. Location of inverted "U" bike rack with four bike parking spaces located near the
38 main entrance on the west building face.
39 E. Landscaping and irrigation plans and documentation that demonstrate compliance
4o with the State Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance and Cal Green
41 requirements for landscaping and irrigation.
42 F. Plans that show the location of all rooftop equipment and demonstrate that the
43 equipment is screened from view from the public way(s). Compliance may require
Burger King Fa�ade Renovation Site Development Permit
Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
1
1 submittal of sight lines, building sections, and/or similar plans/exhibits to demonstrate
2 compliance.
3
4 5. Prior to Building Permit Final, a "Trash Disposal Plan" shall be prepared by the applicant
5 and submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. The Plan shall address
6 litter control, trash collection, on-site storage, and pick-up on a regular basis. The Plan
7 shall include proof of a contract with the City disposal contractor, and specify that such a
8 contract shall be maintained as a requirement for the issuance and retention of the Site
9 Development Permit.
10
11 6. New signs and refacing/modification/replacement of existing signs require application for
12 and approval of a Sign Permit from the Planning and Community Development
13 Department. The required Sign Permit shall include all new and
14 refacing/modification/replacement of existing signs, including but not limited to building
15 mounted signs and menu/confirmation boards.
16
17 7. Construction hours 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday 9:00 a.m.
18 to 4:00 p.m. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays recognized by the City
19 of Ukiah. Interior construction is exempt from these hours provided that construction
20 noise is not audible at the project property lines.
21
22 8. On plans submitted for building permit these conditions of approval shall be included as
23 notes on the first sheet.
24
25 From the Public Works Department
26
27 9. If the building permit value of work exceeds $113,206 or the proposed improvements
28 create the net addition of two or more plumbing fixture units to the building, the existing
29 sanitary sewer lateral shall be tested in accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No.
30 1105, and repaired or replaced if required.
31 10. If the building permit value is equal to or greater than one-third of the value of the
32 existing structure, the construction, repair or upgrade of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and
33 addition of street trees, along the subject property street frontage, may be required,
34 pursuant to Section 9181 of the Ukiah City Code.
35 Standard Conditions
36
37 11. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
38 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have
39 been applied for and issued/finaled.
40
41 12. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and
42 charges applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in
43 full.
Burger King Fa�ade Renovation Site Development Permit
Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
2
1
2 13. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
3 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or
4 Federal agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building,
5 electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect
6 at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued.
7
8 14. A copy of all conditions of this Site Development Permit shall be provided to and be
9 binding upon any future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
10
11 15. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be
12 completed prior to building permit final.
13
14 16. This Site Development Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if
15 the approved project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with
16 these stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within
17 two years of the effective date of this approval; or if the established use for which the
18 permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for 24 consecutive months.
19
20 17. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Site Development Permit shall be granted
21 only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Site Development
22 Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone
23 requirements except to such specific purposes.
24
25 18. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and
26 vitality of the plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited to
27 the following:
28
29 A. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall fluctuate
30 according to the season, i. e., more water in summer, less in the winter.
31
32 B. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds,
33 and reduced watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather.
34
35 C. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic
36 fertilizer according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional.
37
38 D. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees.
39
4o E. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not
41 constrict the trunks and damage the trees.
42
43 F. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not
44 damage the trunk of the tree and its overall growth.
45
Burger King Fa�ade Renovation Site Development Permit
Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
3
1 G. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests, disease or other factors, including
2 vandalism, shall be replaced with the same or similar tree species, or an alternative
3 species approved by the department of Planning and Community Development.
4
5 H. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be made. All
6 pruning shall follow standard industry methods and techniques to ensure the health
7 and vitality of the tree.
8
9 Failure to comply with the requirements listed above could result in revocation of the Use
10 Permit/Site Development Permit.
11
12 19. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts
13 related to project construction:
14
15 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District
16 Rule 1-430, Fugitive Dust Emissions.
17
18 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction,
19 and building construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to
20 control dust, particularly during windy days.
21
22 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to
23 control fugitive dust.
24
25 D. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual
26 construction shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction
27 site to control the transport of mud and dust onto public streets.
28
29 E. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and
3o bulldozers shall be used for earth moving operations.
31
32 F. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as
33 instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
34
35 G. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires,
36 poorly covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day
37 prior to the end of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of
38 Public Works/City Engineer.
39
40 20. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and
41 their agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the
42 City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim,
43 action or proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the
44 purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application.
45 This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses,
Burger King Fa�ade Renovation Site Development Permit
Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
4
1 attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
2 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this
3 application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part
4 of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be
5 void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the
6 agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Burger King Fa�ade Renovation Site Development Permit
Site Development Permit Conditions of Approval
711 East Perkins Street
File No.:Munis 422
5
' _. - . A 1 !l� .., ,7,., ".�n .'e�. A -Il.
f', . . ._-i .. � t e �. E �-r z . . . - _....... _.�.,_
Date : August 11 , 2014
M
To: Community Development Department
City of Ukiah
Milestone 300 Semir�ary Avenue
� ` � Ukiah , CA 95482
Associates
Imagineering From : JulioTinajero
Milestone Associates
- RE : Project Description for the proposed Exterior Fa�ade
Renovation of the existing Burger King Restaurant
located at 711 East Perkins Street
Proposed uses and improvements :
- - The existing restaurant square footage of 3 , 397 SF will be increase by
68 SF for new pre-pay window area . No other interior work is
proposed as part of this project.
- The proposed exterior fa�ade renovation will upgrade the existing
building to current Burger King Design Standards
- All signage, including menu boards and directional signage , will be
upgraded to current Burger King Design Standards .
- The site currently provides parking for 45 vehicies , including two
accessible parking spaces and 12 RV/Bus parking spaces .
Proiect qoal and obiective :
Our goal is to upgrade an outdated exterior fa�ade to current updated
exterior colors and materials .
RECEIVED
AUG 112014
�000 urrc�w Roau
: SU(fE H2O2 . CITY OF UK1AH
YUBA .G[il(, CA 95991 BUILDING/ PLANNING DEPARTMF�
iElc 530-755-4700
' ;: ":EAXs 530-755-4567
� � � � � � . . . � . . � . . �,,x t.:���t-#k.���t�;."a€� ��� ,w�................._....»..�,a... � .
j ' . . . . . . .. . �. . . . . . � . .. .. . . . � . .
� �` ''�" � Qata Sheet
�: # �r,
� �
� � � � �
_ �
� � � �� �� �� � I�� � �.+/� �� �1 \� �� � r� ��
: �
�
� � �� i �
w ' The Bike Rib 2.O fits where other racks won't.The Bike Rib's user
! friendly design allows easy lock-up ofithe bike frame and wheels
� while promoting organized and efficient bike parking.
„
� ;,�;� �a� � "�, �� ` � ���;$���� � � �
4 �''��',�`'P�. 'ix¢h'�'�, . .
+� �3� ''?a ���, 5.�`�'�`�''' � 'L��`�"�`y�'� �. �.��� .
�
'�, �° � �+,; �x��"�t,
.�� '� +�hq M. \.
� e�� ��'t� � !� .s U 4 '`'�:4,.�a�'�;� .
;w F�,���� Sa�� .. . .
�
y ^ ��`�S��ta . .
A� � � y�KKh^ � �s��� .
�� �v�,,,. � `"+�`s�+ `P E;. � ..
�r c t�...^ i s��" h:;s "`�',a<h �{,,;� �°^r �. � . . � .
. `�rc"`� � ���,""''�. . . . .
r �' u`
1 ,+ � }f �
� ��» i �
, ,P
d �`S, ' t ^.d� �� ,� `�.�t� .
. x : "u 'rv t ..
� ,� s�i
. . �j °', n�'}+',
�.g� a�e���4�. . ..
�,��t,
. .. � .� ..��... ,.
a
� ,..�., .., :„�. �:;- ` r. ��e„ �
. � . ��'IRw..'��5 �. 1 = ' .
}
0 0 . ' .: y'; 5
. . . , �. j ,' ti�
y.�
. . .. . . v:� {�?'�` � . .
�
� o . o�:� �YI X .1211�� �.,}'� ,� , .... .
� � , > �
� � �,
� � Steel Tubin�g � � �, P� � �� �, �
v� a-
n�s �
�Qn �^ ��� � �, � ��
q � '
� � , � „ �
� �
, �
� �'�,�� �i�'�\ ��
. 1 � �� F: `a � �
� � f .
. . �� � .�. .,. .
•E m �� � Yk�i
j' � s�r, �` +?
��� � ,z�, �;ws`��� ��� ����e
�
�, .„
. . � ,: ,�r ,..
a?�,'� � t:, �� ��
, E ..
�
, .
�.� �� ;.. ���: �'s . �,�� ��
Finish Options
34° `Galvanized '
Hot-dipped after fabrication
Powder Coat Paint '
With optianal zinc rich prime coat
Therma-plastic Co�ting
With optional zinc rich prime coat
Available in surface mounf{shown in photos)or in-ground mounting optio�s. '
See: Placement guidelines and mounting aptians detail sheet.
Functian First; Inc. 3935 N. Country Club Rd. #25 Tucson,AZ 85716
http://www.bikerack-.corr� - bikeribs@yahoo.com
1.888.B1KE.R16 1.888(245.3742} FAX �.520:844.11�0
► '���' � ecification Sheet
� �
. .
,
i ' Placement G � idelines
,
' � and I�lountin O ti � ns
g p
Suggested Sp � cing Mounting Options
(excludes Bil<e Rib 1.5)
4 "
a
Z" x . 120 "
3o�� fromperpendicular � 3�g �� Steel Tubing
wall or object
0
5 1�2�� z„ x . izo°
24" from wall Steel Tubing
Or parallel object Z4��-30" apart i-s/a^ X . izo^
- Steel Tubing
� Concrete la Sleeved into 2" tube
1/4" I
Concrete Footing
Concrete Anchor
Concrete Slab
� Surface Mourit In-Ground Mount
Suggest� d Fasteners
� ' �
a
L 5 � F
� �, �
Z �
L % " Droa-in wr/ �
' SS button head bolt E
� « •Use on solid concrete �
/ Nail drive
•Fast and easy � �� � •Removable installation % �� powers � 4 u 0
/ Powers S�ike
•Use on solid concrete / La� w/ Shield WeC��e �Olt� •Fastand easy
•Permanent installation •Use on asphalt •Fast and easy •Use on solid concrete
•Install w/ rack in place •Removable installation •Use on solid concrete •Permanent installation
•Removable installation °Install w/ rack in place
•Install w/ rack in place
Function First , Inc . 3935 N . Country Club Rd . #25 Tucson , AZ 85716
http ://www. bikerack. com - bikeribs@yahoo . c�m
1 . 888 . BIM<E . RIB 1 . 888(245 . 3742 ) FAX 1 . 520 . 844 . 1110
'
�
2 �.+s ..�.� .. .. . .. . . . .. . . � .. .
�
fl�
�
t� �5 �".y '. ? � i�§ #".
, : , r,c,v. .
k
4 a� � '� "`�.�. 1.
a
; �. � :, � � .� � 4 Y �
� � � �
�� ,� , � t ��;` � � � , , �
� T p� t Y� k '`§�.L� °hl� 'l °.. '.,4` i S
� .,...� E S � �S 'Y"
\�' S a � �* #� �,.� v� . .. 4`ry."'
�i�� q t : k� .:',s.� 1�`^ 3 LL� .4
� g i�� ��. k�k� �k �.; e �t � �� �� ,�5'��� $.�t
� �•:' � , t� ',, ahx' � °i�� � � £
4 � ±3 l,?� . 3 � 'g� 1� �F � �5�1 � � �
� �.. �>.. � 1 � z �,... a .� � �1
���. >;� j�. s, r 3$� ,� �� fi j�� �, ra � a
, rj r '3' v . x
�" p2, �1 t� E �L +y � Y
.. �} � 3^� � ., ', j �t'-:�. � � ;.� :'�� 5 1:
e y � � �� � �� �
�y. r �� ��.,. � �� � � ?C i��� � s'� ' � a� �� �;�
� fi y. � r�
�
��' �� � F � � � �
��.. �� 3s� ° a" ,; ��� �' k��� �' � �
��.� n � : �.� � �., ��� A >"�1 � `"� '���a''°�."�` �
, , � '..' 1, 3 �
".,�.
„
.., � . .,, ..,- � ,
�.. ..., � � ., '.: ;, � ��
� i �w
Ej y �
� .�.
� � r ;, �..� � � � r�t��t���� z�.
� �
�,
�, �; .
,
% ��" >
. ,"`' ' ``'�Ky`�c,��,7 ..��� � 3 ���4�,��.v ,,�,��1.��'�. s� �. ��,�����.,�,.,��7�.�k�
:, , ,,, ....�,� � � , ...
�; �` �>,�". i`�q � �
, �: �''� S`°� jw`',�' stt
: r � r ; �,� a ..
� � � � �^ i S 3 ���� ``
, ��? � �y? �`'�Y�`� � �'k
7" b �
} �. Y ' i�. ��� .� � }
,. E �w .: -•+ � f +.�t� ' #
t3�
nr� i t { a� �'3�a.�' '�� � ��i �. `' ° �r
�Y'� �� � q, �. ;� '�`d �� z ° � �t ��� �,Y�a� 1�
� � � t � � �
� � � � �s .. � k
, ���t �, � �.�i ;. �`
r. �:�� �k �y a � � �$ . '� ��
� �
x
� �i. e � . :r� � g .<
t4*d �.,� ' ! �. � ; �.
x�: r' agE, � � !��'�,° �� � ��„: ��'. 3� � �� sk��' S� �';
�Yt� r � � "�� � "'i � �� ,���� � �`� . « k�?� k
s � , �� �i � � °� � . � � ��� � .,
� � i,k. ,� t t �y � � �� , �,".
<
�y �� 4
�; � k �� 1 a,�, ��; a �1�° k � ��' w.�* a�� ;'�. -3��`�.�r -�r;. x s� s� � .�� �.� 3 a ¢ � t3�
: " . ' `5k �,'�.'��,°ta >��,,�# i .y.�. '.�� % � y k��;.
s
� .
3 + k r t �" y +•
t a�"a{ ': 'n� � , i��;� as h
,� . : 5 k S :L�4'���k���� � � � �� � ��� +�
' . , , , ,, u�, $ � ,�'�, �S,,ii�'� ,���u . ��'� � � ''� � 3 .
��'��*a�� ��r ,,�� � >�C? a � e� ����va��'aic� ��`
s,, w.S��k ntw+.s.�;°,� . :.�v�� �• �F � s., ;,x...�..:s +a v � :x�. Y�;,i
.
� �,��;�t� �s � �
, ; . c � -? i�; " �
r �. , . � �� '.
�. �. � � � `�,H. } ,. ` r 'ui 3, � ,
�� � � � �' " �c+ '�
�u s
� * � � � " �
S � '�'t ,. {4 � ..� �.
i
�� � r }
�} kN E . y3 , � � �t ,���, �� §.}:. � $4 i"� ? .
�q. r a. t �� � � d� r� $ a� „s '* s
��.'� �tr� - : � ` � q� °� - � �3 �
i � �: � �� 'k. � ,� �A. � � j 2 �t
i#� �� �i �� r � ��� � ,� �,+� � ��, ��� ��
� t � ` �� � � �� � ��# � "^
�`: � � t ��, * �t
;�`s t� �:�� �� � ri� t�� � t . � ' � n� �, ��
z; � v ,�� s'� � j�� �,''^ Fw
�'; ,�� sx z :��a � � � � �k � '� �
�,'�: a ��A s, i ..: .s x `x � �
�'
k `, � � �'+ »
� f u. t
. : � .�f y4 "' s^ .�.�� :;.a,.„ � ,�.�`�' 'tl4 .il�' k�"�, '�
�" = t,.
�
.
a ��: � ., �� ,��� . :'
, .�; >� .. , ..
'.'..� , � , � . � ,
�. ,�s �� �� '. ` . �.� t
;
�
�;: ,, a�'.:3x ,.a*d i�a . . .
.,3� � `�D' �, b..S..
y� C � )
5
A ` � ft $.
}.' � �V <� � = 3
a �
�5.: r Y ,t4 4 �, �i,,
' s f. ( �.a Sv 4
�� � � �� �Y ,,,i � � � � �
}�: z n�z a c � `�i �n
� � t �K
�
s I,
�` ' :�#��ia w '�,
' S
2 � "
COLOR ' RED'
MANUFACTURER COLOR.
FUNCTION FIRST BIKE �ECURITY
�
TUCSON , AZ 85733- 4137
r� Ph : (888 245 — 3742
Fax: (520� 844 — 1110
Model # Bikes Length
BR2(IG) FOUR 5' - 0"
00 ' . • < . . • . ' • . . .
( � ' •° I I • ° ' • Q 4 � � � . • a
e . � . a . •� : aa . v � , , .
O . • •� . a'�
ATTAC
�
0
/
LosAngeles • Knoxvi I le
�
• 800-42 3 -42 83
• ' - • - •
• ' • • '
� . . � .� . .�
O 60" FT LOGO WALL SIGN BKS60SFID02
Q 14 IN ILLUMINATED RED RACEWAY LETTERS BKSI4HOTWRIL—KP
Q "TASTE IS KING" LETTERS BKS22TIK
O 2'X10' BK CANOPY BKCCO210
Q 4'X10' BK CANOPY BKCC0410
O DRIVE THRU CLEARANCE BAR BKS0907DTCBAB
O DRIVE THRU OCU BKS1006DTOAB—KP
�
�
�
�
�
� EAST PERKINS STREET
� — — -- — — -- —
� � — — -- -- -- -- -- -- --
_ „ �_
' i _____ � a / I
� I
1 —�— —�— I
� �
I i
1 XISTING I
I BURGER KING � �
RESTAURANT �
,397 SF I
11 � 2 3
�
I " 5
I 2 3 1 �
� � I
� �
I 9 ' ��oM • � '
8 �-_-� �
, ---�--- __ _ _- -- --�
L-- -- -- -� -- -- -- -- -- -- -
N
�
I
s� ,,�._zo x
�
o io zo a
•
� SignResou�ce 800.423.4283•Fax 323.560 7143
� I I) EV 'f I �I� 1 (; RO l P �✓ebsite:wwwsignresource.com
rs ,r,y., e�r� ,.�,�.: .�d� "�� :
� �:..�.,..�w..�,
; � � �,
j
; � � � � ����' s"���I�.�IIl�� �`�'r"�E��! �
? � � � � � � � � � �k'�E�t��T�'��E�I;L��' �� � � � �
: �� � ; ,_ � � � � � �
� � � �C, � � _ � � v� 3P,���PE�s��g � � � � � WATER �
;, � __ _ '�-� �_'�,f , �� -�_ - --- ' � • ' i`, -- -- ABRV. 601ANICAL NAME �� �COMMON NAME SfZE USAGE �
� — -- -' -— --—
: � � .� , . � �, , .����----�°
; —, Q�����C'
.
_ ,-
' ; �_� �. � ^ ,' + ;'�
. . � .' � .r � r r_� , . . ..
, O �` - �r ,. a ,
. o f _. o
, , _.
; �°q° p. , f\ ` _ ' ! � _% �° � -,� , PL6;T:�R;US X. LOi�1DOi�i Pll�.i•]E 15 G1L ''���P�� � � d �2 �i
� �'=�U1 �•o �..� i � i . o� r � _ _ �_(�_�l-�.-� ❑ e .i .__ ,r ACERI�OLIA "
� I � � � o , —�� ___ �
z . �
� �� e ��
� ;� �� ° o �----�--� �� -� � , m
� � � � ;�_;� �� � ;��ppi i ;�� � � � � �� �� �� � �
� �� r � � �� � � � � � �� + ���� � '. '- � ACER RUSRUhA P,ED MAPLE � 15 GAI. � LOW �
. �b. EXISTINGTREE � � , � `OCTOBERGLORY' V
"'- '- TO REMAIN{I YP) { '
; I a ° '�.I r 53�e�.��'�GI�+S
' '�^ ` ^ _- � FlBP,V. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE
� �� � ° n I BE BEP.BEP,IS BUXIFOUA'NANA' DWARF MAGELLAN BAP.BERRY 5 GAL LOW m
�c-f. _ ' o �_ EXISTING t.11 �� �� � a�
� ° BURGEP.KING ; _. ,�
\{� _ x' ' RESIAURANT i HH O HEMEROCALLISX.'STAP.BURST' STARBURSTDAI'-LILY 1GAL MED °�
' �, � 3�397 SF � z
� , C O MYP.ICA CFlLIFORNICA PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE 5 GAL LOW
��� � �' I � ND O f�1ANDINA D:'FIAP.BOUR bWAP.F' DWAP,F HEAVENLY BAMB00 5 GAL LOW �
�i) �
��I �RASH-NCLOSUP.E ' �; i 'RC O RHAPHIOLEPIS i:'CLlaRA' CLAP.Ali9DIAN HAWTORN 5 GAL COW
�
��— ooao - � -
�� � � ° ' ;' i,'
r`� I `r ' O ° RI � ROSA'ICEBERG' ICEBEP.G ROSE 5 GAL MEQ
, , _, g s e: .
,.-. CXI TING SNRUB/HEDGE . �..e° I ,j GROTJI�3C��R�PEL�E3 °
..:�..I� TO P.EMFlIN('fYP) Q
' � �= SYM. BOiANIGAL NfiME COMMON NRME SIZE SPACING �
. . � ,f�_-° '— . W M . .
' _. ..., o ,°o a o o -__ °° � TEUCRIUM LUCIDRYS GERMANDEP.'LUGDRYS' 1 GAL 24"O.C. LOW � r. �
- " v -, �
,_._� O
� � � ���� �... �.—. , ... _ .. ,v, � J,^ `�_ � _�:/i/ � ... � . Z�:� � �i .
c
_.�- , , . .. .��.
_ .
. .. . _ j -. .�, :_. • .. U � -
.
/ �
. . � �., f. ,. ..�:f t, :� �� . � .. . _ � J :.,� I ' �� � O N
.� . `� �- I _ �' ..; ; ,.:�. � .:v. ,, ..� .� .�— � ...
.. .. ...� t . . . �Oya e . � U � .
. . . e....O- f ...�t ° e OO i. c�}... 0�':.'_.-F.', i- a O.�>.' ,* ,F ..� . �CJ,���� �_..__�__�4 } -k' .�__��_ 'Ji- . � .�.�„3 . J :O . O
f a�: c�;a�p�,�_a> c.� __ __ - ---- - - _ � `°� J z
„ (�§.'
. , . �..,-_� „ �. �. ,r '" d �J t�
� . ✓�� . � �� . . .. ... �. .. . .. .. — .
___ � _ ¢
,
,
:
�
� �[
. _ � ._. .. �"^. g
_ ._ , _ .� _
`
.. -,.. .; . __'. .. m ,. � �`.. ,�r� .. .. W z � o �
. .,. _..�_. �,�.y . .� �+
.. . . .,-;�� .... `-:�,;:' ... , ' ..�.- :., ( . g ���. .�p� � . � . . � .. . . W �� z �
�' o cn � a
. . �, . .. . ,, . ,,, r� . : � � �. �� . . � . .. � � �� � .�
. '--�----' .. � ., � � .`_:�� � �:� ,�a � . .. . .
. �,�_.�._:., .. ..
.� .. . .� .. `�, # � � .:� j�, . . <� � F ���[[ularM. .
1 [W.
. GENERALLANDSCAPESPECIFICATIONS � GENERALLANDSCAPE�PECIFICATIONS " �' " .. �� . �
. . -LAN�SCAPE PLANTING . .. .. " � �"LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION �� �,„, � 4 �� �'� . � � . �� �"�' �
� ..z rs �sc � m � y
. �� E�£d �v�aGU Fo(�s�� m
NtAlU t TFC£X_l NT S11AC;B£b� �
. � � A.GENERAI.REQUIREMENTS� � � � � A.GENERALP.E�UIREMEN7S �(� . . �� �- � . �� � �.��+� �y �.
� .�. � . . � PLANT MATERIALS TO BE USED SHALI.BE IN PERFEGT CONDI710N.;MA7ERIALS�SHALL BE .AL�MATERIALS SHALL BE NEW AN�IN PERFECT CONDI ON,.�NO DEVIAT�ONSt� 0 ..O F msn gradettopof mukn. � � .Qs�Ciass zo0,.3la^i.aterei p'yz. . � - � � .� ���� doo�c ra�nrsmrwaca � � �� "��� ��
M THE� � �:s�. ., �� ..
� . .. �ASSPEqFIED,:ANYDEVIATIONOR:SUBSTINTIONFROMTHESPECIFICATIONSANDDRAWWGS � 'SPECfFICATI0N5WIL�BEAL�OWEDWITHOUTPRIORAPPROVAL�BYTHELAN�SCAPE �'OO vamebas"vrithcovec �" � � � toMai�linepipe. - � � � � . � � � � sC�° '+ as
� . � MUST�FIRSTBEAPPROVEDBYTHELANOSCAPEARCHITECT. .ARCHITECT. � � � ���C�a3o°unearienmotvrire,coiietl: � � O . . . .. . . �a+�oe.rcdaro a�evee/ccxrn�,-. .
. 9 � �t13'mi(limumdepthol�/4inChWaShetlglaveL " CwSVatt::Al u.Sa.,�.B�YJ�6c2- � �•�. 0 >`
� . . . UTILITIES!7HE COIJTRACTOP.SHALL VEP.IFY LOCATIONS OF EXISTINC�U7ILITIES PP.IOR TO.. � -ALL LOCAL,MUNICIPAL AND STATE LAWS�RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING O .':(�a wate�p�mof conneclion:D spiicecon�eclorsthm� ��O � �� � a.�����zsac. . Ct]'��p N�d .
. .. . R � sealant.. ry 123/4°to518°Adapter. . � ... . ..lf� 3s"iviac��FOa oeriiruos�vux�R . �:� � iLL .
.. � �� .. EXCAVATION::THECONTRACTORSHALL�BERESPONSIBLEFOR�sHEPROTECTIONOFSUCH �REIATINGTOANYPORTION�OFTHISVJORKAR6HEREBYINCORPOR4TEDINTOANDMADEA�� . ,.�. ,.�, . . / _., „ o .
. .�UTIIITIESWITHW7HEC6NSTRUCTIONAREAANDSNALI.REPAIRANYDAMAGET0�171E �� ..PARTOFTHESE5PECIFICATIONSANDTHEIRPROVISO�S .�OOt°ballvaNe.- �- � . :�ta5BPolyethylenednpppeCOVeaw/3•sAw: � �� ... � . .�� sTniP, �s.3s Fo.o�rwcc�wcu. �:�� � o .
I N SHALLBECAP,RIED�OUTBYTHE .�.�:� . �. � � ' �C� a k'�
� . � - � UTILITIES Tt1AT OCCUftS AS.A RESULT 6�HIS OPERATIONS TO TNE SATISFACTION OF THE� � �� SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR,� . �� ��:Q ID fay�.� � : ..ib PVC Mainline.(Lengih asrequimd) � ``�� : > .. eaF»�e s ��raernccro � S '��,
...}� fiMa: Ica+Ofll.4lr �^
. � � . LANDSCAPEARCHITECT. � � B.�INSTALLATION.� � ;�i RemotecontrolvaNe. �� � �iStcPHXEaleucz&toPCEminec � � \ �.rH c. rt<snc wc+rasacn,`.,"rvn. �� "� °o
.. � ,tonroc,ass oa roc�nm,zxs a�+ �
� : . . �� . B.WSTALIATION�(APPUCABLEONI.YTOREVEGETATEDAREAS) � ;EXCAVATIONANDBACKFILL=CONTRACTOP.SHAL�VERIFY . ' � .. . �" � � � � � +.��a u�h��u rx�rxk�ssor ons. � � �
. EXACTLOCATIONOFALL ..:�e PressureregmaUnyqmckctieckbasketfiltec . . . . ��� t � �,�dii���. �. °..
� F P I�[ � 3%" Z W...
. . .. SOIL PREPARATION SOIL AREAS THAT ARE COMPAG�ED DUftING SI7E PREPARATION �� . � .EXIS7ING�SUBSURFACE UTILITIES(MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL)PRIOR TO E:CAVATION. ��� . .. �. � �� �� �� � . � � �-�++c a sco vcnr¢a�mes er+�KF . . :�
... . . � SHOULD BE TILLED TO A MINIMUM SIX(fi)INCHESPRIOR TO BEGINN WG SOILPP.EPARP.TION. . � �ANY UTILITIES;A.C:PAVING,�CONCRETE WORK�ETC.�DESTROYE�OR DAMAGED�BY� q - �� a .. . � ��:�f � e� sua er sracto rmr arore . � �� �"
. .. ANY 2��� 3 ���.n.<n ,.a <narrr, o
� . .� Al�PLANTING AREAS OTNER THAN HYDROSEEDED AREAS SHALC RECEIVE THE FOILOWING� � WORIS UNDER TNIS GON7RACT SNALL BE REPAIRED�dR REPLACED kT THE CONTR4C70RB���� . .� �g . . . �.�. .. . . . ° �
� . . AMENOMENTS PER ONE THOUSAND�(1000)SQUARE FEET. � . �EXPENSE. .. � � 6 . � � �n,r,a x.,RCS�.asa-�,,:v; �... . ..
. . 7 �or��a�n�,...,n — . .
� � �50LBS:OYSTERSHELL LIME � � � PLAS7IC PIPE LINES-PLASTIC PIPE SHALL BE RIGID,�UNPlASTIGIZED PVC,SCHEDULEAND . � � � � ' � � �� �
� � � � � 50LBS.HUMATE . � . � � ..� �.� . . � SIZE AS SPECIFIED�ON THE PLAN, . g . ..'.. .....^.. � p .. . .. . . �� .
. . . 50L6S.DR.EARTH SOIL FlMENDMENT � � . VALVES-WHERE REQUIRED BY�OCAL OR STATE CODE,AN ATMOSPHERIC OR�PRESSURE� ��� �� � � � �t"'''`�""'" . � "' � � � �
� �� _��� �mr r.m�z.�r e c,v.r_�.�,msv' . I .
��� � . 6YAt2DS�WELI ROTTED COMPOST � � � � i'YPE ANTISIPHOiJ OR BACICFLOW PREVENTION TYPE VALVEBHALL BE INSTALLED IN �� �;'��II- - = _ � �� � - �� � � �
.. . . . THE SOIL��PREPARATION MATERIALS SHOULD�BE BROADCAST Uh+IFORMLY OVER ALL .�qCCORDANCE WITN SAICI CODE AND MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS:.PROTECT FROM � �� :1 =� -I(I-I I I- ., . . . ..., .� .
i I_I I I I I1=1I h wA�SP�tNZivG�
� . .. LANDSCAPE�AREAS AND WORKED TO A DEP7H OF SIX(6)1NCHES BY USING A ROTOTILLEP. .��FREEZMG WHERE NECESSARY.�ALL QUICK-COUPLING VAIVES SHALI:BE INSTALLED WITH AN� .. _���� �1�=I�I .� . � � . � i � .. . "
�I � ) SEEf�0iE.5 'tl��SGl�g�
. � . : OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MECHANICAL PvtEANS TO 08TAIN A�UNIFORM BLEND WITH THE SOIL. ��. �ADJUSTABLE SWING JOWT RISER ASSEMBLY.ALL AUTOMATIC StlLEN01D TYPE VALVES ARE . � � � � � � � � I) . ; � . �� �� ..
� . WEEDCONTROL=TNECON'fRACTORSHALCGERMINATEAND�ESTROYEXISTINGWEE� TOBE�WSTALLEDINACCORDANCEWITH�MANUFACTURER'SSPEGFICATIONS . .. � .�-- I_ _ .��, :. . �CHP/'ECTT/RE �
� . .. � ..��SEEDSBEFOREPREPARMGAREASFORPLANTMG.SUFFIGIENTWATERSHALLBEAPPUED � �.CdNTROLLER-CONTRACTORSHALLSECURELYMOUNTGONIROLLERASDIRECTE66Y .. � � c' � �� ,.'1;�-�,.i . . , J i`�"��: � :� � .�OZ628.5326.. �
�� � � . � . � . 70CAUSEWEEDSEEDT08PROUT.YOUNGWEEDS�SHALLTHENBEDESTROYEDBYUSEOF ��� � MANUFACTURERANDSHAILCOMPLETEALLELECTRICALCONNEC��O S�O��� �- � ��� �� � ��A��� � � :�� '� � � .� �I �� �:�:' � � ��� "
TI N T CON�ROLLER. � . orao od'o a o �3 �� � ; .:�. ��,I � .�
.... � ARQTQTILLERBEFORE7HEYHAVETHEOPPORTUNITYTOSETSEED.�AFfERPLANTING,A ���CONTRACTORBNAL�SETTHEINITIAL:PROGRAM1AFORTHECONTROLCERAND�SHALI� � � � :� . � . � � :•- ,�� .- . I � ��� :- , � . �� � �AP �
/ t� �r.at sm.
. . � � PRE-EMERGENT�HERBICIDE SHALL 6E APPLIED AS PEft MANUFAETURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. ... ��INSTRUCT TNE�OINNER AS TO ITS OPERqTION. � . g�� � .. . . �',j.'7 /g, i•� �, �;; . � 549����rts�'� � �
� ��.PLANTMATERIALS-TNESESHpLL�CON5I5TOFALLTREES;SHRUBS,��GROUNDCOVERS�, � �VALVEBOXES-ALLREMOTECONTROL�VALVESSHALLBEIN5TALlEDINSUITABLE � ,. ��11�� � � ���I+ 'f� '���^� '�C1(1�`� '� �,: r���nk�>„s.. � � :�. �ro`'�.b°� �0•e��a��� ..
. . . � � �2 . . ti .._ . ��^� °� i .'. . � . � '-,.b � �. a� .
. . : .. � . ETC;�LISTED ON THE DRAWINGS:ALL PLANTS SHAII BE HEAITHY,SHAPEIY,WEII ROOTED, . THERMOPIAS�IC VALVE�AGGESS BOXES OF�PROPER�SIZE AS REQUIRED FOR EASY ACCESS � � � � �� � �� •� ' ' ,�"� � �� �
... : . _ ���i0 . . � � � . .�� , L •;.�_z.nrre,..v�.z�cN.;;N�.. � � � .
. ... �NbT ROOT BOUND;FREE FROM INSECT PESTS OR PIANT DISEASES,�AND PROPERLY .�. TO THE UALVE.��ALL�VALVEACCESS BOXES SHALL BE INSTAL�ED ON SUI�ABLEBASE O� � � � � � � � � � - �°�> � :�= �� . �• � ��
"n. . . I ' ��� .. ��iIN�GaAV<t PXKCt . �{
. . ��� . � ."HARDENEND pFF BEFORE PLANTING:-THE IAN�SCRPE ARCHITECT MAY REJECT PLANTS .� � :���GRAVEC FOP.PROPER FOUNDATION OF 80X AND EASY LEVECWGDF 80X TO PROPER GRADE� �. ��.DRIP ASSEMBLY AND��� � �� � �� � ��' �'� �`""��� � � � � � � ���� ��� �
f� EMII IERS-30PSI _} �_i_ _�i, t\u iireer,�acro�u:�ic P�fg � e
� BEFORE OR AFTER PLANTING. AND qLSO TO PROVIDE PRdPER DftAINAGE OF.THE ACCESS BOX.� . "
L_.J NOTTOSCALE �� hN�FPA�E�
PLANTIN�TIME�-�NO PLANTING SHALC7AI(E PLACE DURING EXTREMEIY HOT,ORY,WINDY .. DRIP IftRIGATIDN-.INSTALL XERIBUG EMIiTERS ON 5/8"DRIP TUBING AS PERDETAIL � .. . �..-�-�^--�.,.„,, �� � �� ; �� ..
� OR FftEE21NG WEATHER. �� � .5ECURE EMITfERS AT ROOTBALL OF EACH PLANL � . �j"""�"�`�.. §.�<'" �. . '`�.„� �� : .� � �.�--='-�a'- --�-� � . �
. �..�.��. .
. ..SPECIMENPLANTSLARGER7HAN15GALLONINSIZE.�� --.. �� . C.-GUARANTEE . � --���--^" � � � � � � �
� . . � � �STAIQNG-CITY OF UKIAH STANDARD TREE PLANTING/STAKING�DETAIL. � � ..:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM AGAINSTALL DEFECTS AND � � � " � � � � .. � �� . �
. .C.:MAINTENANCE PERIOD � � � .FAULTS OF MATERIALS ANb WORICMANSHIP.THE GONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE . �CA AEA iS81 UVA7ER.RE6,IUIREMEN7u: �:!'"""".� . . .
. � .. . � . THE CONTRACTOR SHAII MAINTAiN ALL NEWLY INSTALLED PLANTINGS POR A PERIOD OF���� � .��'SYSTEM IN PERFECT WORKING OR�ER FOR NINEiY(90)�AYS FROM THE DATE OF ?F ��� �"' �� 4`� � � � � �� . .
CITY CiF UK(AH
. � � � . � NINElY�(90)DAYS AFTER 7HE DATE OF COMPLETION OF AlL WORK.MAINTENANCE SNA�� � �COMPLETION,OF INSTALLA710�BY THE CONTRACTOR,WITHOUT COST TO THE OWNER.� � �PIAtJ'fiNGS HAVE WILI BE HYORO-ZONED IN GROUPS OF LIKE WATER USAGE FOR IMUM . �� . . . .
CONSI5TOFALLWEEDING,�MOWING,�PRUNING,ANDGENERALUPKEEPASNECESSARYTO�. AFfERTHE5Y5TEMHASBEENCOMPLETEDANDTHECONNECTIONSMADE,7HE � � � iRRicanoraeFFiciENCYaNOwnieRCONSeavqiroN. . � � ��
�
�....�,.:.,,, TREE PLMlTING DETdfI ��
� � .MAINTAIN A�NERT AND ATTRACTNE LANDSCAPE ATALI TIMES. � � CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTRUCT�THE OWNER OR THE OWNERBREPRESENTATIVE W THE :� �� . ��
� � .. .. . � �D..GUARANTEE�. .. .OPERATION AND�MANTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM.�THE CONTRACTOft 5 ALL � ��A�L LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IRRIGATED BYANAUTOMATICE DRIP IF2RIGA710N SYSTEM M�� ... ..��:wov� •-•o,.u. -.. �o;: � d...�.+_ � �
�� � �� N RED�LINEAN � �. COMPLIANCEWRHTHECI'fYOFUKIAH.REQUIREMENTSANDCALIFORN1AA61881. � � � � ��>..,:,,�,,.,wea....._��, � GOZ ��
.� � ALI.�SHRUBS SHALL 8E GUARANTEEO AS TO GRONIfH AND HEALTH FOR A PERIOD OF �"ORIGINAL PRINT TO SHOW ANY CHANGES,ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS.THIS"AS-BUILT" . -- �� �— . �� �
NINEtY(90)DAYS AFTER FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER.TREES SHAL�8E : ....ARAWING SNALL BE PRESENTE6 TO 7HE OWNER. ... . . ����toia��wosCAaea ssn sf:uNDSCFwE�xeraoF "�� ��� . � �� � �� -�
, ITTOCOMPLYWffH57ATE0WRMODEIWATER ���:�
� � GUARANTEED TOLNE AND GROW IN ACCEPTABLEUPRIGHT POSiTION FOR SIX(fi)MONTHS � . �� . � :eFpicreNCV�woscaaE oROiniaNCE: � � . � � � �. ��� o .
� . . � . AFfERFINALAGCEPTANCEBYTHEOWNER.OWNERMUSTPROVIDEADEQUATE � � � . " . � �� . ..� � � .. .�� ' . ��� .. ... � � � �.
�� MAWTENANCETOINSURETHEEXTENDEDGUARANTEEONTREES. � �� � � � { p���fwoscnPEMqreRU�msrnuaTioNTOCOMP�vwiiriUKwHnavaoveoPU�MrLists � � � � � � � .� 1
� � . . .. � } �.(STREETTREES,PARKINGTREES,EfCJ " . � � .
� TREE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS . � �� ' �� � � ..
� . � i.TREES MUST HAVE AN UNCUT LEADER THAT HAS AllNIFORM TAPER FROM BASE 70 TIP:TREES MUST tv1EET AT LEAST NORMAL CALIPER AND HEIGHT FOR CONTAMER SIZE. � � ����'��°`""��� ��� � � � � � �� �� � � � � ` " - � ��� � � ���
. � .OVERGROWNTREESARENOTACCEPTABLE.. . � � . �. � �� �..,,w �,.,;,,,; t;�ri°W�.:.:..--` . .�: � .. � . . . . �.. :�o.�.� � �y "�
.. .. 2.ROOTBARftiER-�PlASTIC,�BIQR00T$ARRIERORCOPPEP,IMPREGNATEDBARIERMUSTBEINSTALLEDIFTREEISTOBEPLANTEDWITHIN5'OF�CURB,SIDEWALKOROTHERRIGID ..�.� � ��� Y.-��"" '"v "� ��" � -.�^"`� . � �� � ��� � � � � ° R °o ���
.��+�.,,�»aN' y �
.. . � PAVEMENT..INSTALL BARRIER.�WEAR ALONGNARDSCAPE TO PROI ECT SOIL INTEP,FACE BETWEEPI SOIL AND PAVEMENT. � � �� � �""'�..�..�.:..f�'"'� �� ��..��''� � � � � � �� ' �� �� m � o���
.� � � � � 3.TREE PLANTING-HO�E SIZE SHAI�8E 2 TIMES THE WIDTN AND 1 TIME THE DEPTH OF P.00TBRLL.SCARIFY SIDES AND BOT(OM OF PIANTING HOLE�FIL�PLAN7ING NOLE WITH � � � ��� � � � � ..-�•° p��l. ..�� . .. � ����a �� � ���
.. : � ... WATERPRIORTOPLANTING,. .. . . � ... . . ' ,••°�.. ,� .. . SCALE:��.1" 20'. .-o o :�.w�o
. . . .... p" . ........ ��i � � amm
� � � . d..TP.EE PIANTING CLEAR-l"REES SHALL SE�I.OGATEQ SO 7NEY ARE 2'-0"(MItdIMUM)CLEAR QF ALL PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS AND RI61D PAVEfv1Et.T OR GP.OUND COVER LE.,CONCftETE . � � . . � . ' '" � ��� � rc ¢ � �
� . ( . . . ���4,�"��,t"�� .. �i-.p . :� yo�
. . SIDEWALKS,BRICI<PAVEftSSETIM1ltIdOP,TAR,ETC. .. .... .... . ...... . ... ... . . .. .. ... ... . .0 � 10 20 � 40 0� � .� �z
� �� 5.AL�TREEST06EPLRNTED6'ORGRE�TERFROivitlMDE�C^aP.OUNDUTfLITIE5.. �� � �" �� � �� � � �� �" � � � �� � � �� ��� �� ��� . �� � �
. . ... .. . . ... .. . . . ... ... .�.. . ... . .... ._ . . .. `. a`o ���i:,� ��¢ . .
. . .. .. .. � . .: . .. . . � F ; � . , . .
..... . . . . PIIji.lS."�PKI\CQh,4PL1ANCE�t4�ITNCiTI'S�I.�!DflRDS: �� � . . .. ... .. .. . . . . . .
. .. . � .. . .. � . .. . � . . " .... . . .. .. . . � .. .. . ..
; -____---_�
_w�.
� � � � � � �� �
, � � �
, .w.
_,��x:������� .�`
��1�� �'�1��l�l� �"I�� ��
; ,� ��l�i�t Q �°�`�1�,���`
a_ - - , � WATER
; _ "-� __ � _ _- _ �,/ __ � ,,' • , .�;`, T BR�I.�� QOTANICAGNAME COMMON PIAME SI2E USAGE
_ � � -- --- ---- ----- - --
_ o � �' �
- .- � � � Oa�
F � _ � _
,1 -�
- .., �._:._ .::� a�.: �' J��� �:,: . . .
� v ,' , r '� ; Z_;�G�� o {r + �'� o f�
rti „0 0: ,—
�
1 a , �, f y a . ; �, ' _�.-%l o° = -,� FLl:7,'-�PfUS J. LOi�!DOi�i pU,S�!E 15 G�tL �� , �r� A �T,� . �'E 'I�`
` �. �C°� o.; �� � s \ �n ;_ i �=1�`t ' a .� 'r �
".._.�'�I p"; "�— i i I i ° � � �� � , __W--,_�.-� 0�.. _ / AC�RI�OLIA y '
t �° � � I ��
.
, a o � -----� � - � m
� :;
�$ � : w
� ,, �
, ., _
i � ACEP.RUBRl1Ph P,ED(NAPLE 95 GAL LOW �
�
� �� + r � ,
' .`I � � � @� �� �-- II �� � 'OCTOBERGLORY' �
�b EXIS?ING TREE � ' �
� TO REMAIN(iYP) ° �� ' �
I . !� ' �� 5�.i7"�i 3T1�+.CZ��
r' ^ , AERV. BOTANICAL NaME COMMON NAM� SIZE y "
'.,�� Y� ,Q _ E);IS fING a '.'I -- �. ` BB � $ERBEP.IS BUXIFOLIA'NANF1' QWARF MAGELLAN BAR6EP.RY 5 GAL LOW ¢o
' 's'-� ° BURGEP.KING ' �
\, ° o° ( HH � HEMEROCALLIS X.'STARBURST' S7laR6URS7 DAY-LILY 1 GAL N1ED °o
� -- X. RESiAURANT � � _
} �- '.� c�,p � 3,397 SF � fihC O MYRICA CALIFORNICA f?ACIFIC WflX MYRTLE 5 GA� LOW
�' <Sb
��I -"'�� � � i; I ND O NANDINA D:'FIARBOUR DWAP.F' DWAP,F HEAVENLY BAN1600 5 GAL LOW 0
1 .- p�
��� �H-NCLQSUP.E o o � � -[� ��� I RC � RHAPHIOLEPIS 1.'CLAP.A' CLAP.A INDIAN HA1M'OP.N" 5 GAL LOW
/��_` - ,
/C-�.;� , o �� .
�i :._..,:— � ° , , 1,`*
�� , O ' ° ^ `r RI � ROSA'ICEBERG' ICEG'EP.G P,OSE 5 GAL MED
; (� •
��'>� � � EXI iINGSHRUE/HEDGE U 0 �•a I�', GR6vro3)cEDV�?2sPEL'�ES Z
. ;.,
��� iO REMAiN(iYP} �' �= SYM, BOTANiCAL Nfi�ME COMMO�!NANE SIZE SPACING �;
' a o 00 ,a o --- o e �° �` I � iEUCRIUM LUCIDRYS GERMANDER'LUCIDRYS' 1 GAL 24"O.C, LOW � M h
, o - i-
. .. ..�_. . ,-�, .. _ �,. O . � .� rn .
� ( ___ � � -, -° f'" - �`; _ _ W �
. . A ` . . . . . -. •, . . � M .
�. ? i
„ �. �. � � . ' >,.' � '
.
. .. . .� ,l\ �-- 'f� � � .:..� :. ��❑ �� ' ��c_ ., •f-.++'/ '_� � � . ��p. g h
. . �.� � .: , s__ � _..+� .__ M1 + . �� -_ .��� -__ _.,--�✓ . .... . . . . J � = I�
__ s' 1 _
e. . � .. .... ._—_�... ..
;. /
°O ', �,+ �C7� Q�O:—r.� + (�j0 - � _.——— J
-� ` + _ —— J �'
�. -. _; _ > _ — ..
- . �. :'-.. � ,�" �.=__� - _ . . . . . . a w z
, ,
c��, ..; .� , � � �c
� . ✓
'_ o
;� ,i � -
.. . _ ...� , _ .
.. . 'v„;- .. .. ;- �.� �.__� �. :� .. .... � � � . . . � . .. . . . . . �o .�u°�i � a
. . , �._.> . .` - -_.. ; . . ... . . . �
. . . .... . . . .. . � . .. .. . . . . . .. �� � � � � � .. . .. . � . . . .. . . r.xee>�n s �rao:;r<.r cci�a,m . . .
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . � .. - � ... . �� n��o iNas.Fr�� e rxc.iucr..mr. � � �
- GENERAL I.ANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS � . � �� GENERAL LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS� � � " . . � � m
� � �.� . I.ANDSCAPE PLAN7WG � � ��� LqNDSCAPE IP.RIGATION . . � . � � . � ... Y...r.P�.sc�c%rec ���crr..nr=FO.ro e,s:_�� � �
� . . . � .. .. . q� �
.� A.�GENERAL P.E4�UIREtv1ENT5�� � � � A..GENERAL f:EQUIREMENTS�� � � � " - . � �� �� � s �vir u.+r ratexriairrsxnee or s' Qel � p °� : .
�� � PLHNT MATEP.IAI.S TO BE USE�SHALC BE IN PERFECT CONDITION.MATER(AI.S SHALLBE �� � ALL MATERiRLS SHALLBE NEW AND IN PERFECT CONDITION.NO DEVIATIONS FROM THE�� ��iO F�n�sngraaeAop of mukh:� QQ Gass zoo,ala•i.aterai pipz � . .. . � :anovs rn.ersmc�t.+cu. ��.y .,, �^ . �
. . � � � ASSPE IFED- . D .. ..N �B� I � ONFROM ��P . ��.(�2 Varvebozvri�Acovec �:toMainlinepiae.. .. .. � . . . .. ..m�� ��o��z vari i� -� ���� � �° .
. C I ,ANY EVIATfO ORSU STTUTI THES EGFICATIONSANDDRAWINGS SPECIFICATIONSINILCBEALIOWEDWITHOUTPRIORAPPP.OVALBYTHE�IANDSCAPE . ��O . . . . .� s. �a+ eca w,c��.reaiccrorn<.� .� u ��. "
�� � .. . � �MUSTFIRST$E�APPROVEDBYTHELANDSGAPEARCHITECT. AP,CHITECT.. � �� . .����.03o'I'neaNengihoF�nre,-coiled �:t�3•minimumaepiM1Of3/4i�chwashedgiaveL � .. . � :� exrince.ao��sru:sa.,r-auo-ssz. '��.(, U >X�
� O .�..2a94. �. p oLL :
. .. .. � UTIGTIES-THEWNTRACTORBHALL�VERIFYLOCATIONSOF�EXISTINGUTI�ITIESPRIORTO � . �ALILOCAL;MUNICIPALANDSTATELAWS,RULES�ANDREGULATIONSGOVERNiNGOR��� :��OO Wateryroof�coonection:orysv��ceronnectorswim. , , � � � �.�„�r . .;�(� „�
�72 314 Io5l8 Adapter. � � '� ��� � �
� � � ��EXCAVATION.THE COtJ7RACTOR SHALC BE RESPONSIBLE FOR iHE PROTEC710N OF SUCH ��RELATING7Q ANY PORTION OF THIS WORiCARENEREBY INCORPORA7ED INTO AND MADE��� sealan� ' .� . � ,� s as"�wmc�F neuos vuxren � ,�;:U} ep ?o�.
. . A� � .13 5t8'Po eih Iene tln"�e COVER W/3'BAW:. � � � � � � � �: .l. �sin�r. 36:36 Fo.a TnEE�cLL. .{:. o .
� . � � � � ���UTILITIESWITHINTHECONSTRUCTIONAREAAND�SHALLREPAIRANYDpMAGETO�THE � � .�PARTOFTHESESPECIFICATIONS;ANDTNEIRPROVISIONS�SHALLBECARRIEDOUTBYTHE ��OO i'balivaive. � . �� .. . . . . O �' Y pPP . ;, .�.. . ..U(f1 °� y^ �
� � . ��'UTILITIES 7HAT OCCURS AS A RESULT OF�NIS�OPERATIONS TO 7NE SATISFACTION OF THE�"� ��SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR. � � �O 9� � � � . �� u a or�a ra w s r�se r�a»sarea � �+ o� .
. .�6 IDta �14 PVCM line.(LengNas�equiretl) � � ' � Fc� � ro oera r a.tio xeex �� ti pM1 .
c� x<sr .wc ar rn jo
.... . ��_ .. . . . .. �� . . ... . . ., � ... ... i ..�� . xa � .
LANDSCAPEARCHIIECT. B.INSTALLATION ��.QRemotemntroivaive. ���t51GPH..ERIBUG.,&toPCEm�ttan� . \ . � . �.�HHio OE,�n95.ttl w nm==n��. � �
� . $.INSTALIATION APPLICABLEONLYTOREVEGETATEDAREAS � � ���� �.�EXGAVATIONANDBACKFILI- AL�V � . �.�:e Preswrere�ulaun uickcheckbasketfilter.�� � .. �:S <AS�'�� . x�vssor oos o�.
( ) CONTRRGTORSH L ERIFYEXACTLOCATIONOFAL� . ..O 9 99 4; :nF ri c vw�i e�7z.� o.,
� �� � � •� � ��MG FSEO YfRTKAL.rt'BS 0.v TxE � �F
. . SOILPREPARATION-SOILAREASTHA7ARECOMPAC'lEDDUP.ING�SITEPftEPARAT10N �� EXISTWGSUBSURFACEUTILI71ES(MECHANICALANDELECTRICALjPR10RTOEXCAVATION. � � . . . � . � �� �� � � � . iHn�ea�sirracc sr<ceormr�nrore � � �
. . . .. . . � � �� ..��.. .- ' . ��.� ° .:�.
�� SHOULDBETILLEDTOAMINIMUMSIX(fi}INCHESPRIORTOBEGINNWGSOILPREPAF2ATIOM� �.�ANYUTII:ITIES,�A.G�PAVING,CONCRE7EWORf<,�ETC.�,DESTROYEDOP.�DAMAGEDBYANY . . .. .. �1 � 2 �3" 4 . � I. � ��r„�, o-e nP<ac o��
� . . ALL:PLANTINGAREASOTHEP.THANHYDP.OSEEDEDAP,EASSHALCRECEIVETNEFOLIOWIN���� 'WORKUNDERTHIS"CONTRAC't SHALL�BEREPAIREDORREPLACEDATTHE:CONTRACTOP.'S�� �� � ." 15 � .;���,. � �� � . � � . �
. . . � . AMENDMENTSPERONE7HOUSAND:(t00U)5QUAREFEEf. � .EXPENSE. � � 6 .. a s rr;:r. . . .. .
� o�tr_��„n.r�.,� — .
� .� - 50LBS.OYSTER SHELI LIME � � � PLASiIC PIPE LINES-PLASTIC PIPE SHALL BE RIGID,UNPLASTICIZED PVC,SCHEDULE AND� � " � ���
� �� . � 50LB5,HUMATE � "� �� � SIZE AS SPECIFIED ON THE PIAN. � 8 � � ���� ��- � x � �
� � � .�50LBS.DR.�EAftTH SOIL AMENOMENT �. . ... � � :� VAlVES-WHERE REQUIRED BY LOCAL OR STATE�CDDE AN ATMOSPHERIC OR PRESSUftE � � � � � ���
. . . . .. . . ` ��, . . .,,,,e�.:�x�.,Go,�_..�: 1, . � . . . . . ..
. . . � �8 YARDS WEIL�ROTTED COMPOST �� ��� � ��� � TYPE ANTI-SIPHON OR BACKFIOW PREVENTION TYPE VALVE SHALL BE INSTALLE�W . .. :�.'���I� =I I�I I I= ��� � ' � � � � � � � . �
� . THE�SOILPREPARATIONMATERIALSSHOULDBEBROADCASTUNIFORMLYOVER�ALL � :ACCORDANCEWITHSAIDCODEANDMANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONS.PROTECTPROM� . . ��.:-I��=�II ��III�I� � � � � � � � . � WATf�JSPLttMNGB::. �
� � � . ���LANDSCAPED AREAS AND WORKED TO A DEPTH OF SIX{6)INCHES BY USMG A ftOTOTIL�ER � ��rREEZING WHERE NECESSARY.ALC4UIGK-COUPLING VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED WI7H AN ���.=���� I1=111 . . ... :�I . �� � �� LAN➢SCAPfi� � � .
SCE tiOiC 5
. � �.�OROTHERACCEPTABLEMECHANICALMEANSTOOB7AINAUNIFORMBLENDWITHSHESOIL. �� ��.ADJUS7ABLE8WINGJOINTRISERASSEMBLY.�ALLAUTOMATIGSOLENOID"TYPEVALVESARE . � .. � � JII � � �_, . ���ARCHITECTUItE� ..
� � . ..�WEED CONTROL-THE CONTRACTOR SHALGGERMINATE AND DESTROY EXISTWG WEED � �TO BE INSTALLEDIN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUPACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS ..�� � �� � � .� ,:�.� � �'.�� �.� � � :�:70Z62S.5326
� � . � � ' ��SEEDSBEFOREPREPARWG�AREASFORPLANTING�.SUFFICIENTWATERSHFlLLBEAPPLIED �� .�:�CONTROLLER=CONTRACTORSHALLSECURELYMOUN7CONTROLIERASDIRECTEDBY �4 p �� � � � �.� ���� —�`" -r' ''. ' ' '� � -.I��a �- � �� � � � ��� � �
. . . i ....�.. . _. o �p� 00� � .,. . .: , i :� -..�t. ...:�..
.. TO CAUSE WEED SEED TO SPROUT.YOUNG WEEDS�SHALL THE�BE DESTROYED 6Y USE OF ���MANUFACNRER ANb SHALI.COMPLETE ALL ELEC'�RICAL CONNECTIONS TO�CON i ROLLER. :� . o�o �o o �o . I .,: . . �. _� ..:_. .::. ..
� " � . �A ROTOTILLER BEFORE THEY HAVETHE�OPPORTUNITY TO SET SEED.�AFfER PLANTING,A � .�CONTRACTOR SHALl5E5�THE�WITIAL PROGRAM FOR TNE CONTROLLER AND SHA�� �� ° ti3 �.. . .. :.. �. , �,� � ��,�p�i� �ygIDSCApg
� . � .PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE.SHALL BE APPLIED AS PER MANUF�GTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS� . � ...iNSTRUCT THE OWNER AS TO ITS OPERATION. . �� . �9 � � . .� � . �: � � I �. { ��i' �� ' `^ ��� :�``-'�g,ye�ffis F�qy*��
� .. ���� PLANT MATERIALS�-THESESHALL CON515T OF AL�TREES�SHRU85�GROUNDCOVERS :VALVE BOXES�• L �E�O�� D ���ABLE . � . 71 � � .��t :.� .` �� .y��: •nNC�,,, . ������ :��,J� .
. . , , , Fd. R M 7E CONTROL VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLE IN SUIT . . ��� q2 .. U � . � � 6
. . � . . .. . . . •:'. � . ... .. ...�. .
� ETG�IISTEDQN7HEDRAWI�G5.ALIPLANTSSHALL$ENEALTH � HAPELY<WEL�� ED � �' ��� � � . . . � ��. � � •'I ����.._ - .:�:.>- ,..� �'
. , N Y,S , l ROOT ,. THERMOPIAS�IG VALVE ACCESS BOXES OF PROPERSIZE A$REQUIRED FOR EASY ACCESS � .���p . . . .,. �,.. , -z ne.,`e.r,.v.,eeH.,,H
. . NOT ROOT-BOUND,FREE FROM INSECT PESTS OR PLANT DISEASES,AND PROPERLY TO THE VALVE.��ALL VALVE�ACCESS 80XES�SHAIL�BE�INSTALIED ON SUI7ABLE BASE OF � . �� � � � � � �. I'a' ���.,�E • " �v��rc�c.:,vn r�:r �� . :
" ��� . �� � . � �"HARDENENO OFF"BEFORE PLANTWG.:THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAY REJECT PLANTS ����GRAVEL FOP.�PROPERfOUNDATION OFBOX AND EASY LEVEIING OF BOX TO PROPER GRADE � �.:DRIP ASSEMBLY AND EMI I I�ERS�-�30PSI � � � �. � �:S � � .2 =..'r��. . ..���
� � � BEFORE OR AFTER PLANTING.: � �� �.AND�ALSO TOPROVIDE PROPER DRAINAC�E OF THE ACCESS BOX. � �������� � � ��� . —��-- �"--�•° � ��t-�+��"���n ca.us.E�Par ���'�" � `Z'
NOT"f0 SCALE , °"�^`""""v"`
. � �� ���� PLANTING TIME•NO p1ANTING SHALL�.TAI(E PLACE DURING EXTREMELY HOT,DRY,WINDY ���DRIP IRRIGAT�ON-INSTALL�XERIBUG EMITTERS ON 5/8"DP.IP TUBING AS PER DETAIL.. �� .. � � "�` �� � �...,.�; .. . .� �
. .. � . - OR FftEEZiNG WEATHER. .:. ...�� .��� SECURE EMITTERS AT ROO7BAll OF EACH PLANL�� . . . � - -- ..... ... . � . . ... .. ..-���—(-'0-� -� � � �
� . � SPECIMEN PLANTS LARGEP,THAN 15 GALLON IN S2E. � � � �� C.�GUARANTEE � � � � � � � � � " . �
��� � � � � � � ��STAKING-CITYOFllKIAHSTANDARDTP.EEPLANTING/STAKtNGDE7AIL. �� �� � . � . THECONTRACTORSHALLGUARANTEETHEENTIRESYSTEMAGAWSTALLDEFECTSAND� . � ;"�-� � �� � � .. .� � � � �"� � - �� �� � ��" � � � .
� � � .. � . C.�MAINTENANCE PERI00 � � � FAUCTS OF MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP.THE�CONTRACTOR�SHALL MAINTAIN THE � .Cfi&BA)S89 WA7EFt RE�UIREMEN7�: . . � . . �-
� �. .TNE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALI.NEWLY WSTALIED PLANTINGS FQR A PERIOD OF� � SYSTEM IN PERPECT WORKING OftDER FOft NtNE�Y(9Q).DRYS"FROM THE DATE OF �� � � .. .. � �G IT�t�� C}F �U K�AH I�
�. � � � � . � �.hIINETY(90}DAYSAF?ERTHEDATEOFCOMPLE710NOFALCWORK.MAINTENANCESHALL � COMP�ETION,OFINSTALLATIO�BYTHECONTRACTOR,WITHOUTCOSTTOTHEOWNER. � �� �.pu+nn�iNCSt�vewi��aeriroROZONEOiPoCROUasoFCn<ewn7eRUSacEFOananxiMUn�� . � .� : . � . � ��- �
� �� ��GONSISTOFALLWEEDING,�MOWMG,PRUNING,�AN�GENERAL-UPKEEPASNECESSARYTO �- ��AFTERTHESYSTEMHASBEENCOMPLETEDANDTHE:GONNECTIONS�MADE;TNE ..��iRRicnnoNeFFiaeNCVnNOwAleRCONSEavanoN. .� � � .. . �� .�. 7R�E awtrir+c oErai����� � ��� �� �
. � .��MAIUTAINANEATqNDATiRACTNELAN�SCAPEATALLTiMES.. � � . ��-0ONTRACTOftSHALLWSTRUGT7HE0WNERORTHEOWNER'SREPRESENTATIVEINTHE �� � � . � . ��� . �
�� . .��_� � . . �ALLIANOSCAPMGSHALL9EIRRIGATEDBYANAUTOMATICEORIPIRRIGATIONSYSTEMM . � ��s..,.�:„o,��� -a,.vi .. _.: a«�.a=�
. � 4�GUARAN i EE :�� ���OpEF3ATI0N AND MANTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RED LWE AN y(,7�, � 502 �
... � ����COMPIIANCE WITH THE CITY OF UKIAH REQUIREMENTSAND CALIFORNIAAB 1881. �.o.�.�nv.,uac....,.,,n,�
� � � � AL�SHRUBS SHFlLL BE GUARANTEED AS TO GROWTH AND HEALTH FORA PERIOD OF� � ��ORIGINAL�PRINT TO SHOW ANY GNANGES�,ADDITIONS ANDIOP.DELETIONS.THIS�°AS-BUILT'� � � �� � — '— - - ...�
� � �� �� �� NINET'(90)DAYSAFTERFINALACGEPTANCEBYTHEOWNER.�TREESSHALLBE�� �� . �DRAWIN6SHALI.�BEPRESENTEDTO�THEOWNER.� . � � � � � .. roTai.v,�DSCnPea,ssqsr.��iqNOSCaPea�iROFrriocor�a�vwnrHSlnre�owaMOOE�wa7eR "� . . � ... . . . � �� �� � � � �
�"� ... � ��� -�� �GUARRNTEED TO LNE AND"GROW IN ACCEPTABLE UPRIGHT POSITION FOR SIX(8)MONTHS�.� . . � � � . �. � . ��� �� �EFficlENCV wuoSCnpEOeoin�nncE. � �� �... � � � � � ��� � :�� �� �:�o� .
� � . � . . � .�AFfER FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNEP..�OWNER MUST PROVIDE ADEQUATE . � �� .. .. . �- . . ... . . � � �� � � � . � . - � �� ��C/,)� ���. �
� . .MAINTENANCETOINSURETHE�EXTENDEDGUARANTEEON�TREES,. � � -�AUV�oscnrer�ntiieaia�iNSrt��nnoNTOCOMa�vwiTxuKiaHrwpaoveoau,NTUSis �� .. . ��,s . :�
.. . � . . . .. . . . (STREET TREES.PARKING TREES.ETC.I .. � . ... � � � � �.N.id. �o
.. . .. .. TREE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS � .. .. � � ... . � .. .. .. . .. � .. . . . . ... . . . .. . g .. . w (� ��O1 .
� � � �� 1.TREES MUST HAVE AN UNCUT LEADER THA7 NAS A�UNIFORM TRPER�FRO�t BASE TO TIR'TREES MUST MEET AT LEAS7 NOftMAL CALIPEft RND HEIG`HT FOR CONTRINER SIZE;�.� ... .. . � �.� "�� ��" � � .. � . . � � ���� � w��.;y �
� . �� � � OVERGROWNTREESARENOTACCEPTABLE. � � . �� .. � . .. � . O9 w � �
�� � � . 2.ROOT�BARRIER=PIA5TIC,�BIO�ROOTBARP.�ERORCOPPERIMPREGNATEtiBARIERMUSTBEINSTALLEDIFTREElSTOBEPL4NTEDWITHIN�5'OFCUP,B,SIDEWALKOROTHERRIGID �� �� � � � � .. . t.�""�� � � � . ��� .�� �. z � � �° .
� � PAVEME�T.INSTALL$ARRIERLINEARALONGHAftDSCAPETOPROTECTSOILINTERFACEBETWEENSOILANDPAVEMENL. � � � � �� � � %" � ��� � � � � � --- m ��F `� --
�� � �� � 3.TREE�PLANTWG-�HOLE SIZE SHAL�$E 2 TIMES THH WIDTH AND 9 TIME TNE DEPTH OF ROOTBALL:�SCARIFY SIOES ANDBOTTOM OP PLANTING FIOLE���F�LL PLANTING NOIE WI7H � . " � �� ! „ � � `�� �
.. � �`�� ...i,*°''�[J������ . .. SCALE�: i"'=.20'. �� z :(�W$o .
� � . . �NlA7ERPRIORTOPLANTING. ... � . � . .. G° . � �N w � o, m � .
� � � 4.7P.EE PLANTING CLERR-TREES 5HAlL SE LOGATED SO TH�Y AF.0 2'-0".(MINItdUPvi}CLEAR OF ALL PEDESTRIAN PATHVJAYS AND RfGID PAVEMENT OR GP,OUN(J COVER(LE,CONCP.ETE � � � � � ��� � - � � � �o�� � �-c"�in �
... .... .... SIDEWALI:S,BRICit PAVERS SE7 W MORTAR,ETC.) .. . . . . ..... . .. . . . �. . ..... . .. .. .. � 0 10� ZO 46 �Q �..j z
� . � � � :5.ALL TREES TQ BE PL�NTED 8 OR GREATE�FROM UNDEftCROUf�lD UTIL171ES � . � �� �� � � � ���� � �� �� � �� � �� �� �� . ' '�� ���
..., . .. _� ., . . . : .�. . .� ao � .t1a �SEI
. �� .. ... :pLl;NS,'�RGINCOIviPL1aNCE4NIiIiCITYSiI,;�DAP.DS. .'� .. .. ... . � . .� . � .. � .... ` ' . ,-, j - , .... � . . .
. . . .... ...�� � .:�._. ..:.. .... ...�� .:'. ...::. . . � . - . .. . ..... . .: ..
< ---- --
`
' . . .. � . . 4� g/,5� y^vb p g ty �.
' . . .. .. t " ��.9'A�Tn.n§R�e��5 F E^k�x9 d. d.�
Public Works Department
� �` €} � 3d0 Seminary Avenue
��t � � ����,�}��� a,• _/ 'Ukiah,CA 95482
• � �, � �.��C.�/� Emaii: btcaaevama(cr�cityafutciah.com
��"����Y.�.������� ttVeb:wuvw.ci�rof�ekiah.cam
, ��
�
.-��� '�.� Phane: (707)463-6284
Fax: (707) 463-6204
Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual Applicability peterminatian
Project Information
�JECT NAME; ' APPLICATION NUMBER: SUBMI�AL DATE:
P,f' �tkCD�(�.�'�i�'L�, ��¢�xt'GL�Io �''�2,' ` r�j !!�
PROJECTADDRESS(STREE ITY,STATE,ZIP� I���
/'y�� rr^- �1 ���1-��� C�L AP NUMBER(S): �
�� ��. �Y X��;�"' �� f ; 1�'��� `� �
��PLI ANT(O�ER/DEVFLOPER�NAME: PHONE N0: FAX N0: E-MAIL ADDRESS: j
tt� �t,il� Q,,�''p `�'J�?''�'� "�i�0.�t`t1i� '�fM --
APPLICANTIAUTHORIZE ENT ADDRESS: G17Y; �"'"''�' �-+ ��++C.��
��'W 4��t�'I� �• U+�+���L'�Y �t.{i�t„ t.�4 S7ATE21P: �� 1 l(
{,�
ENGINEER NAME: PHONE N0: FAX N0; E-MAIL ApDRESS:
���, � °�'��
ENGINEER ILIN ADDRESS: CITY: STATEIZIP:
����,�`��, � � t,�
'k�-�t 2- 'il,.c.�jc�.G. C.� ��'i 1
TYPE OF PROJECT(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY�:
�SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ❑ USE PERMI7 ❑ SUBDIVISION
❑ GRADING PERMIT ❑ BUILDIN�PERMIT ❑ OTHER
Staff Use Onl
Exem t Pra'ects check all that a I
A licable Pro°ect Tri er Notes
Effective Date:Projects submitted prior to lune 19, City Council adopted resolution 2014-27 directing;staff to
2014. implement the Low Impact Development Design Manual
as required by the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System(NPDES)PecmitNo.GA0025054 at its- - E
meeting the night of lune 1&,2014 with the resolution ` '
effective upon adoption� Therefore,the resolution
' applies ta projects submitted on or after June 19,2014. f
_ / Maintenance:Routine maintenance activities that are This exemption includes activities such as overlays '
V conducted to maintain original line and grade,hydraulic and/or resurfacing of existing roads or parking lots as �
capacity,and original purpose of facility. well as trenching and patching activities. '
Emergenry: Emergency redevelopment activities The Regional Water Quality Control Board must agree
required to protect public health and safety. that the activities are needed to protect public health '
and safety to qualify for this exemption. �
Public Utilities:Projects undertaken to install or reinstall This exemption applies to public utilities,such as sewer
public utilitiesand do not include anyadditianal street and water,only.
or road development or redevelopmentactivities. �
Reconstruction by Public Agencies: Reconstruction This exemption appiies to public agency wok anly.
projects,undertaken by a public agency,of street or "Reconstruction"is defined as work that replaces surface � '
roads remaining within the original footprint and less down ta subgrade. Street width is measured from face-
than 48 feet wide. of-curb to face-of-curb. j
Pedestrian and Bike Paths: Standalone pedestrian
pathways,trail,and off-street bicycle lanes.
!
----- , -
,
; ;
� 5tafF Use tl�nl'
_ ,.
Pro'ects that Tri erJNan-Exem t Pro'ects check all that a 1
A licable.� Pro ectrTr�5.7,�:er�,,� .�,.,a�:,Y,��.;.. ��.���r,.�: ., �_.. . .Notes..:..: ? _. � .,. .� :: ,. �..; ;
S�ze:All development that creates ar replaces a Reroofing of an existing buiiding is considered a maintenance
combined totat of 1 acre or more of impervious activity and is exempt.
surface1.
Parking Lots: Parking lots with 25 or more
parking spaces or 10,000 sf af new or replaced
impervious surface.
Street,Road,Highway,Freeway:5treet,road, Qverlays,resurfacing,trenching,and patching is considered a
highway,or freeway construction or maintenance activity and is exempt.
reconstruction,creating,or replacing than "Reconstruction"is defined as work that replaces the raad surface
10,000`square feet or more of impervious down to subgrade.
surface.
Number of Dwellings:All development that
includes four(4)or more dwelling units: �
ImperviouSSurFace :In�tustrial'parks,
commercial strip malls,retail gasoline outlets,
.: restaurents,ar automotive serv�c�facilities - ` .
� . ' � ; � . - . , � .° • : • . �
� " creating or replacing 10,000 square feet or
rnore of impervious surface'. '
1. , ;Impervious surface is definetl as an area that Has been madified in such a way as to reduce,storm wateY runoff capture;treatment and• .
percolation into underlying soils. For ezample,such surfaces include rooftops,walkways,plastic liners,and parking areas. Permeable pavement
shail 6e considered:impervious if they have subdrains.5tructural areas that are covered under agreen or eco-roof shall not be consider�d
' impervious sur6ace. , , ��
�. �,�,`�r..",��;��.���`�, a��-...� �-��'.;�.L*xa"��z� � ��`�"`��"x'`.��� ,�.�� �`-r a�'�.�:;;`�':sw'�'°:�G�'��'�da:�a'^�x.,*`�'�,� `���-'�'` 'as'�'��.� �� .a �`� �'�''-'�'.'���� .
>����,:���� ����������� �� � ��`�'��'�, �::� St,a.�f�Determ��a��rm ����� ��-��n �<���������� ��
.��:�� �..,� ..p��������. R� .. . ,���. �._. __., _ __ _.. . r_.m � . �*>,e m�.�`� ..�,.,.
�PROJECT EXEMPT FROM LID DESIGN MANUAC ❑ PROJECTTRIC�GERSG�IS NOT EXEMPT FROM�LID�ESIGN IVIANUAI.
PUB WORKS STA �SIGNATURE�:' ' DATE Of DETE MI"�TION:• , � _ �
— � �i f 4�
,
��^ ,�;% y�' � � , e�`���r c +���'��i� �(t�4��! �i� �,���
�� �< �i f� i 1 f �
� A.
� �'�
's, t� i�
n�?�: �F#�y`Y
.. �:���; �S^.
'�. a��.
. �:.`��� �:
m,.
�, ^� $
'.�`2. .� � . ......
�• £t �
' �
. �
'� 4q�
��i}$r}k1�*, ���..� .
t
��}i� ': t��� r'
��'�� , � ;�
,�3����� ���
���� �:� ���
�,�� � „�C"
� ���it � � ��
� $,
,�� <�� „�� ��
� , � , ;
� � ;
��r{
.� �.
�
xjt� j
��
V,� l� t''
; R aS�
13;
. :,s��� �` yz�.
'`����h� �i
„ �
}� �� F �fi'�
� �i�H� �a � � �..i��,':� >
1
� �� ��� k � � ,� ���� �t
� � ,
k.� � y� �s �3 '���S�,�i ry������ g
4u �
.. z � .r,�1 x�
� "x�, � �j P€�� .
.� . . ��k" .. �+�` 'a� �.;ff��.
�
� � ,
� � �; ,.:a� '�
a
� .,��������a�3.
�,
r
. . Yi, �V�� � -
� J s
�� � � .�.
�4� �.
� �
.. �� I ��'J *�,a ;
��� I c
� .
>� ���
2 t'a} !
i
� � � `�� ��� ��
a3�� \
'�r��� �
,��,ti ��
i�;�{ ��'`�� `$
, ���
�,�,� n �, ;
hl\b � I @a
� ... 1`,1�t '*`� ''� . � 'g
�£� `c " 3
y�� ti� � �. "�G
�� ���'s ' I� �Ct� , �I
���, lu' i Il ill ��; ',
�� �
������ �
t
� � `�
,,y
„ ��� ;�.
��
1' '
��, '�X�a�� �, I �
�
. l;, �'�€� �:� ' I'�' . II �
� � � � I,�
�; � � ,
� � ' ' �' k
� � } �
�I�, t � , � , �
�
I��, 'i � (
, ��
�t ,
� ; �,�
.�
� d
I F
c q� �.
i�e
k� �
� �
�
t�
,'�, r, ��.
�h� � x; ;i
�� I� I
ti� ��
� � �� ��
� �s,`�w, `� �� °�.
,
� :l
, '� � � ��
... . .. .. ' ,, �`. ,
.. . .. .,, ����..�.�.,��. �"� �t$���, I I 3
� � '�
�< � � �,
� ,
' �i
... .. ..... . ' �� d. ;i4� .
}
:
,
�
? �
� � � ... � �� . .
S��
���
a� , �Y.�
� i
� � ,
�
� ��.. ,�� �
_ ,
� , ;
� �
�'
`� ;,
�
�� �� ��
� � r{F�
�
� ; �a�
�� � � r
f�� � t � ,
� s�, ��_��;
�
� Y �1 �
��+� �}� �� �
.. "°ka ... t ....
�
� � � �� �
r �
. (` ��.1 �;. � �� �
F � a I
�� �
� � ���
��� �. i� ��.
.i °���� ��� ��.
�� ��
� f` � � I
N
r �:�
1 �� � � '��
� �' `�a �
�' °°�
�` 1 �� � II I
�� � � '
, � . �
,�� � ������ ���
� ' ";,� �
�� � 'E �.�
�1 ���' i
� � ��,�: �
f /� ' ���
t t '�;��E
� � ��� �
����
� ,,, �
�i;
1 � ; {
� k E« � i
t$
,� ;
r '" �' ��
�� 2
t��� i �� '�
��
��r ��s
h �.
��
� ,
f � ���
�� ��
r
f � �'
r �
r� f ; v
r�irf� ��r
r� i' fr� �i�.
f;
��� � `
f f,� ,
� f � ry
z`��� ��
k 't
� ,y
f' .
i �
ssy
�y�,
\
� j ii.
� �� i tiv i
4 '
� ' # ?�..
�, �t�
. . , ��. . . ': .�.,; �� ��:. , b�,;..A:..,�.... ♦�' i .
k v� A
� � ''.;, � '' rtt't�Fl� �"� . iA'�� `s C�G
t % ; •,, �� ' 1}L � �� �
� � ��11
� s!�
f � 1fy
t�Y; f �t, ,/,� �1
Y
� t`
1 (��Y
�
��t\ �i������t.
�4'
� � V
�SY �
�) j '��� ' ,1�.���.��'
? { t�
�
i��"��i' ?(''
r�'s.�� �� , �'
i �
� . ,�.. ._.' ,�, ':.-
S t?�,�w�:y ...
tik 1 ' '$
�# � Y
t{�}�tY t , e, :
3m�� ���a .k �,�.; �...
���� t
d ���r b�
�4 Y���l��' t �: .
�.6Y�1�� � q .
ket�llk b i t ' £ �
������ttt ` � . �.,�Y
��������,''���is� Z" ...
"� r`�'
�'�������` t
� si � 1�.� �
�����j��?>; �1.
�a��� z i ��
��
'�i t �`�{�i44 _ $
��
.
3
}��� � ���� �{. } �.
'C�i���;��333������1�{ . l . � 1
��� �t����?}Cy.. SF
i„'�" ��1� �i 1 �.
'� �.� .j �„�� � ��1.
# ���tj,i :tq.
l�� 1��h� . �
��'"���4 �
���
��� ' �����{i'��� � .�;�°
�. �,�a�"��'i'��'�u' y �,'t, �
"� �..� tis.``�°�4`��L I ��
��' ��°�b' 74 4 1 t
Y k�tY.� "�`9 b""°.
S C 4�J Y
������,��i�`��� ��` � r k,, ,
}MY t ,{'{t tl��„ Y q; �
��q,1�5��'� ( � ; �
���'��}\�$c,
� ��;���� i P `
�����3�� ? � �. ��., �I
,t�. �s r t �t�,•5 t .
�?�� ���`Ya�;',� ,t{ { ��
?� �����fl� �Sk4 } � J ` �. �
{ S �3 {
�St�' �'������r t �' �E �� �}
b 1���� �} �
i°�°� �:l�y.�2 1 �:
�z,� �{
�`�'�i.. ����y'�kr,'c�{ '� F� � �
��" �����,� � 1 i ��
�£;i �.��,��� ' at i'" a,�,.�.
� �� v �
��`*� ���.a��,Y�t > � E �
* � � `",'+„���4t{3 {C � 'a.
�.�,,� ����� `�,.�.
'�� 2 1. ��rk�x h\ � ��, ��� ��.
i, y,
��fi� �� I� 4 ,• � y,.:
�.� �it�*'�s�"�t° � *"' �,e15�S,vS,.�auu."�aaGC:a�a:�r.�?t_,ud..��»:«�tic� 3
, � ,Y,�) .� �...� �
�. i�� �{8� ' . � -0
�� S� tf . d � t .�?� �
�� a'���3�t 4t'i Y" �i '"� � emca�..
;$ �, `�'��t.�g}t�.�.n. d i� �� � '�� a
r�Y 8 ,�
i �'����; �� �,
, ��t1 �
�� z � �
�Q ������� ��,� ��,
�`:
.�
.
�'`";
�
:t' ...w�SG��> 'rf_
iJi `k h ._{ �
�
�
� ���
S
`� �c: 3 $ ..�?}�d1\h'Y"�`�'.*�3�1�5h"4\ti"a`v',�+'L,4�,...wt v��u�.,.
�;�:�'F2;,L>�@, ? °-,m.,*,�*- �l'�..�
i �s p F
t t:°
fd 3
a A�, „ +�' }
t �* �',.� � ��,r. �� �� �
�.';..a+.::; `r� �.,�.��. �. �..n
PARKING DATA �
Q
0
� REQUIRED:
■ DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT: 35 SPACES
(84 SEATS) o
REQUIRED: 35 SPACES w
�
�
m
0
PROVIDED: Y
�
w
STANDARD (9'x20') 21 SPACES �
ACCESSIBLE SPACE (9'x20') 2 SPACES
RV/BUS SPACE (12'x47') 14 SPACES
PROVIDED: 37 SPACES
BIKE PARKING °° �,,
10% OF 35 SPACES 4 SPACES � a
Q o
�
0
0
z
LOT DATA �
W�
A.P.N.: 179-061-04-00 & 179-061-34-00 �
��
DEEP VALLEY ENTERPRISES ZONED: C-1 COMMERCIAL ��
11020 N . TATU M BLVD. , BLDG . E, STE. 100 LOT SIZE: 52,080 SF COMBINED (1.196 AC)
�
z
P H O E N IX AZ 85026 EXISTING USE: RESTAU(0.0 8 AC) w
� AREA: 3,397 SF � ,,r,
� �'
PROPOSED USE: RESTAURANT - EXTERIOR REMODEL � � "' i
AREA: 3,397 SF (0.078 AC) z � °; �
� P R E-P A Y W I N D O W A R E A: 6 8 S F (0.0 0 2 A C) 'J--' ° � N
■ NEW TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 3,465 SF (0.080 AC)
� o � o
� � _ �
711 EAST P E RKI N S STRE ET � = w z
. CODE INFORMATION o � � °
U KIAH , CA 95482 (A. P. N . 179-061 -34-00 , 179-061 -04-00)
BUILDING CODE: 2013 CBC •
PLUMBING CODE: 2013 CPC
ELECTRICAL CODE: 2013 CEC
MECHANICAL CODE: 2013 CMC
�
rn
GAS CODE: 2013 CMC °;
rn
�
FIRE CODE: 2013 CFC � (/� qA v�
�
OCCUPANCY GROUP: A-2 � � .� ��
� U
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V B O � ¢o
�--� ' V a ��
� � � o�
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
DESIGNERS PROJECT LOCATION MAP � �� _
� � � �°
� ��
CIVIL ENGINEERING • C O N T RACTO R N OT E S � ��
OF RECORD . � � �
�
C 1 r Y Jr J t� 1 r� �1 z°
C-1 SITE PLAN A. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO REVIEW ALL DRAWINGS AND pv
DESIGN CONSULTANT SPECIFICATIONS , INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIL,
STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL PRIOR TO � ��
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING NAME: JULIO TINAJERO SUBMITTING A BID. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO ARCHITECT OR o
MILESTONE ASSOCIATES ENGINEER PRIOR TO BID. o
PHONE NO.: 530-755-4700 B. BIDDERS ARE TO VISIT THE SITE AND FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH
S-1 FOUNDATION PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SATISFY THEMSELVES AS TO THE NATURE AND
CIVIL ENGINEER TH�TES�CHTAN E�AMINAT ONUHAS BI�EN�MADEBI�LATER CLAIMSIDFOR ELABOR,
ARCHITECTURAL NAME: CHRISTOPHER L. DAY EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS REQUIRED, OR FOR ANY DIFFICULTIES
LICENSE NO.: C 64309 E. PERK�NS S� BEE�UMADEE WIL/L INOTCBELALLOWEDBEEN FORESEEN HAD AN EXAMINATION
A-1 FLOOR PLAN & MISC. DETAILS PHONE NO.: 530-755-4700 PROJECT �• IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT,
A-1.1 ROOF PLAN AND NOTES STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING �' LANDLORD, OR TENANT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES ENCOUNTERED ON THE
� LOCATION PLANS OR IN EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF BID.
m D. CONTRACTOR, DURING PRE-BID SITE VISIT, SHALL TAKE NOTICE OF ANY
A-2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS NAME: CHRIS OLIVEIRA � VISUALLY APPARENT CODE VIOLATIONS AND ALLOW IN HIS/HER BID FOR
LICENSE NO.: C 33407 � � CORRECTING SUCH VIOLATIONS.
A-2.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PHONE NO.: 916-835-6073 m � E. CONTRACTORS ARE CAUTIONED TO COORDINATE ITEMS IN THEIR SCOPE OF
D WORK WITH OTHER TRADES.
A-2.2 EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE o pT F. THESE NOTES APPLY TO ALL SHEETS.
� N
A-3 WALL SECTIONS 8c DETAILS o
� •
E (30BB� ST
LANDSCAPING
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
SHADE & LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS
�
EXISTING CONDITIONS - SHADE & LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS �
m
� M o
= C4 �
N N o
SCOPE OF WORK � �
, � � o
� w � r
EXTERIOR FACADE RENOVATION INCLUDES THE DEMOLITION A PORTION OF m �
EXISTING MANSARD ROOF, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PARAPET WALLS AND NEW o z w �
ENTRY TOWERS. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PRE-PAY WINDOW ROOM. NEW PAINT ° Y � °
AND STONE VENEER PER NEW IMAGE STANDARDS.
rn O �N�
� � � � z �
� I p w � �co
SIGNAGE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. NOT PART OF THIS PERMIT. �'� w (� ��'° X
°' W
� o � � ���
O � (.aj � w Q Z �
� Q Q m � Y� Z
� o � ��Q
INDE�
PARKING
E A S T P E R K I N S S T R E E T 1. SURFACE SLOPES OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES
SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/4 INCH PER FOOT (2� GRADIENT) IN ANY DIRECTION. N
2. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED SO AS NOT TO REQUIRE � w w
USERS TO WHEEL OR WALK BEHIND ANY OTHER NON-ACCESSIBLE OR � -
� 3 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE. � o � °
- - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q a
� 150 n � � 202.11 � �
5 3. IN EACH PARKING AREA, A BUMPER OR CURB SHALL BE PROVIDED AND
� LOCATED TO PREVENT ENCROACHMENT OF CARS OVER THE REQUIRED z
I 4 0 4 4 I � �-(% � WIDTH OF WALKWAYS. o o °
� � �� � o :o 0 2 >
i 0 0 �
N � � 14 6 � 4. PARKING SPACES RESERVED FOR PERSONS WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES o�o�o -
O OO O �� � � � I 0 0 0 � 6 � SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY A REFLECTORIZED SIGN PERMANENTLY POSTED o o DowN q m
/
� IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM EACH STALL OR SPACE, TRUNCATED DOMES o SLOPE=1:50 � o
20.5 6.0 18.0 6.0 18.0 6.0 20.3 1 9 0 0 -HEAVY BROOM
� ° 4 1 1 CONSISTING OF A PROFILE VIEW OF A WHEELCHAIR WITH OCCUPANT, IN PER DETAIL 5/C-1 0000o F�NISH. �
I� � � WHITE ON DARK BLUE BACKGROUND. THE SIGN SHALL NOT BE SMALLER °o°o° _
� II o 7 16 � � 15 THAN 70 INCHES IN AREA AND, WHEN IN THE PATH OF TRAVEL, SHALL BE o 0 o c,
I li o � ; ;; `^ " �; ; `� ,-* �0 3 18 � POSTED A T A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 80 INCHES FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE
^ ;; ;� _ �'� �; � _ �'� ;+ _ � S I G N T O T H E P A R K I N G S P A C E F I N I S H E D G R A D E. S I G N S M A Y A L S O B E N
9.0 �8.0 24.1 20.o CENTERED ON THE WALL AT THE INTERIOR END OF THE PARKING SPACE z � o
�❑ �P� TYP. AT A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 36 INCHES FROM THE PARKING SPACE FINISHED � � �
� �II 1 6 � 14 � 2s 20 0 � EXISTING GRADE, GROUND, OR SIDEWALK. � ° Z �
w
I � 6 � o } � 6 a' ~ 0 B U R G E R K I N G � � � RAMP � � � �
I I
I I N � 3 4 R E S T A U R A N T °
� �
o II 3 0 3 397 SF �� 1. ALL RAMPS IN AREAS ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ON A , z
� II � � � � � PATH OF TRAVEL OR SERVING EXITS SHALL HAVE A 1:12 MAXIMUM SLOPE 12' GROOVED
II 36.0' 47.0 47.0 30.0' 2 3 BORDER. �
I II O�'� • � WITH CROSS SLOPES NO GREATER THAN 1:50. CONCRETE RAMP - PLAN
I I o I 5 SCALE: 1"=1'-0" � ��
N 19 17 � �
�
1 1 I` N � �
� � 2 3 � 1 „ �_
��
' O O O O 1/2 RAD S. RAMP FLARE OR
II 4 15 17
27.0 9.0
3 O O O O S/W OR RAMP CONC. CURB BEYOND ��
I I� 4 � 7 16 PER PLAN. - 1:12 MAX.
II C° � HEAVY BROOM FINISH c�
�X- z
I II I -
9 11 M T� 4 11 0 � w -1
'„ F�° ° O , M � O O O O > �'" a �� �' �
8 �___� 21 i �5 0 � � SCALE: � 12 1/4" GROOVES � ,.�
� w � � 3/4»=1'-0" � 3/4" O.C. � � �
� � �
- � w0 � rn
I � � $ I 16 15 � 10 16 ° o O A A O � p z � `� �
❑ ,�.��X=X.�Xy o
❑ _X .
� co � �x--X�-x-X�-X w U c�l
•..
I I I� I c� U _X• . x�x '::: ;_ : : ':•° ~ I
L - - - � ,' - _ _ -:I:I::I_i�l�- �,.I:.I.I�._I.i�.i:_I�I.I_� � � � �
1 1 _ _ - - - - - O O 0 _ - .I-I`I I:'�..I•I I i•I I I,I I I �-�i i-� I I-I I I-i i i- J O = o
� - - - - - - - - - - - - �_ _ _ - - 2 0 2.2' � -
z =1 � � I � i � Q � cn
� J
150' 0.45" � _ � z
1.67" TO 2.35" #4 CONT. Q � � �
N DOMES O/C 0.9" TRUNCATED DOMES, VINYL W/ CURB.
SHEET (FEDERAL COLOR N0. AC PAVING/BASE 4" CONC. SLAB �
TYPICAL PLAN 33538) PER APPLICABLE
0.20" T24/ADA REQT'S. ADHERE OVER 4" BASE.
PARKING DATA: HIGH TO PAVEMENT PER MFR.
REFER TO INDEX SHEET �,,,�� TAPERED EDGES REQT'S.
� � WHERE EXPOSED
TYPICAL SECTION A-A CONCRETE RAMP - SECTION �
M CONSTRUCTION KEYNOTES TRUNCATED DOMES SCALE: 1��=,�-o�� 2 � Q�
INSTALL THE FOLLOWING IF NOT ALREADY EXISTING, OR IF NON-COMPLIANT N.T.S. � Q� � U �
N � ��
O1 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN, SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET �j � '� V ti
�V �' Q�
2 O PARKING ACCESSIBILITY SYMBOL, SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET ENAMEL ON O � �� l y ��
3 TYPICAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING, SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET ALUMINUM SIGN �� = V� v � c�i�
Ov /�1 O o
SCALE 1 in. = 20 ft. c� u,� '"� N
4 O P A I N T E X I S T I N G T R A S H E N C L O S U R E & D O O R S C O L O R E P-2. ``' r� � b l� =o
70" SQ. MIN. LLj o
REFER TO EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE, SHEET A-2.2 I I � � (/� � ��
0 10 20 40 � 1"HIGH LETTERS 10" � � cn�
5O EXISTING ACCESSIBLE RAMP (VERIFY ACCESSIBLITY) w ° �
� 2"f�GALV.ST'L m � �^
C O N S T R U C T I O N N O T E S 6 O EXISTING P.C.C. SIDEWALK. PATCH & REPAIRAS REQUIRED. � WITH�TOP OFRSj�ALIGN o P I P E A F F I X S I G N S � o ~ JM
� I I o �o O�
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT SITE VISIT TO 6. RESURFACING OF EXISTING ASPHALT PARKING TO BE O � � TO POLES
7 EXISTING PARKING LOT AREA: w PIPE SLEEVE I � � z w
VERIFY EXISTING FEATURES WITHIN SITE. FLEXIBLE TYPE. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACE TO BE a. SEAL & RESTRIPE BORDER STRIPE OF ACCESS AISLE TO I I o � J�
A P P L I E D A S F O L L O W S: B E A 4" W I D E T R A F F I C B L U E S T R I P E o
b. REMOVE/REPAIR DETERIORATED AREAS. X „ I I o
EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT TO BE CLEANED. ALL c. OVERLAY WHERE REQUIRED. � w 4 WIDE WHITE STRIPE VAN o
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE HOLES TO BE CLEANED AND COMPACTED WITH CRUSHED � (� 36" O.C. MAX. ACCESSIBLE FIN GRADE �
FOR THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING ON SITE ROCK. CRUSHED ROCK TO BE PRIMED, SANDED, AND � � C° I:I::::
FACILITIES ABOVE AND UNDERGROUND. THE ROLLED PRIOR TO PLACING OF ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 8O EXISTING CLEARANCE SIGN TO BE REMOVED MAX.$250 FINE VAN ACCESSIBLE I:I::::
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL WEARING SURFACE. A TACK COAT SHALL BE APPLIED AT � OCCURS ON ONE SIGN
FROM THE SITE OF ALL DEMOLISHED MATERIALS, THE A RATE OF .05 GALLON PER SQ. YD. OVER ENTIRE AREA 9O EXISTING PREVIEW BOARD TO BE RE-USED. NO UPGRADE �6, I:I: :
TO BE RESURFACED. RESURFACING SHALL BE COMPLETE p � � I:I:::: o
F I L L I N G O F A L L D E P R E S S I O N S C A U S E D B Y o 0 0 �,,
WITHIN 24 HOURS OF TACK COAT APPLICATION. THICKNESS 10 EXISTING MENU BOARD TO BE RE-USED. NO UPGRADE. o 0 0 'C� z
OF SURFACE COURSE TO BE MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 1 . RELOCATE AS SHOWN ON SITE PLAN. ° ° � I I
DEMOLITION AND GRADING OF THESE AREAS SO AS �� o 0 0 0 �
NOT TO BE OBJECTIONABLE TO VIEW. THE o�k4� �� � o BLACK LETTERS ON
CONTRACTOR SHALL OBSERVE ALL REQUIRED �� 1 1 EXISTING LANDSCAPED AREAS: (REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN) °o'�'�"�° � Q °ro � WHITE BACKGROUND
7. ALL LOT STRIPING TO BE 4 WHITE PAINT, UNLESS NOTED O ooA�,�000 TRUNCATED DOMES PER DETAIL 5/C 1 � COMPLYw/CALTRANS 8��
SAFETY PRECAUTIONS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OTHERWISE. a. TRIM, REMOVE, & REPLACE OVERGROWN PLANTS. o '�5' o o �
WORK. b. REPLACE DEAD LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. o°o°o°o / CODE#R-100B
c. DRIVE THROUGH LANDSCAPING UPGRADE CONC. RAMP W/ �
3. REMOVE ALL VEGETATION, ROLL AND COMPACT 8• ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED THAT IS NOT COVERED BY HEAVY BROOM FINISH. � ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN
THESE PLANS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 12 PAINT CROSS-HATCH EXISTING SPACE WITH 4 WHITE / / 3
AREAS BEFORE REPLACING FILL. FILL SHALL BE APPLICABLE STATE, COUNTY, OR LOCAL CODES. ALL WORK IN � �
PLACED IN 12" LAYERS LOOSE MEASURE AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH � � � N.T.S.
o ALL STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS. 1 3 REMOVE EXISTING WOOD FENCE AND BENCH FROM PATIO AREA AND J
COMPACTED TO 90/a OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AS REPLACE WITH COMPOSITE MATERIAL. NEW FENCE DESIGN TO MATCH EXISTING FENCE. � � 6" CONC. CURB, ALIGN
DETERMINED BY ASTM D-1557- LATEST EDITION. FILL (SUBMIT COMPOSITE SAMPLE TO OWNER FOR APPROVAL). � WITH TOP OF S/W.
SHALL BE LOCALLY ACCEPTABLE AND SUITABLE FOR 9. HEIGHT AND SIZE OF ALL SIGNS TO BE DETERMINED BY BURGER KING ,� - ��
FILL PURPOSES. THE TOP 12" OF FILL OR CUT UNDER CORPORATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FRANCHISEE (IF APPROPRIATE) 1 4 OVERLAY EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB PATCHWORK AT PATIO TO � •
PAVEMENT BASE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF AND MUST CONFORM TO ALL LOCAL CODES AND REGULATIONS. HEIGHT PROVIDE SMOOTH FINISH. REFER TO CASP REPORT. 12" WIDE GROOVED BORDER w � "\
SHALL BE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY LOCAL CODES UNLESS OTHERWISE 5' 2' Q 3�8
MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D-1557 - 1 4" DEEPGROOVES � 3 4" O.C. w I
OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SIZE AND 15 CLEAN THE EXISTING DRIVE THRU LANE AND TRASH ENCLOSURE � �
LATEST EDITION. �'P. V � ,�,ENAMEL ON
LOCATION OF PROPOSED BURGER KING LOGO WITH BURGER KING SLAB BY SAND BLASTING. SEAL CRACKS AND POLISH TO ELIMINATE WHITE SYMBOL ON BLUE - � 5 8 I
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO CORPORATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE POROUS NATURE OF CONCRETE SLAB. � � ALUMINUM SIGN
BACKGROUND ' � /
STABILIZE SLOPED AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL 10. APPROVED ALTERNATE TO DETAILS ARE NOTED WITH INDIVIDUAL DETAILS. 1 6 EXISTING PARKING LOT LIGHTS ARE TO BE PAINTED/REPAIRED AS REQUIRED. ALL � � �
GRADE AND SEED OR SOD THE AREA WITH THE ANY OTHER MATERIALS THAT ARE TO BE SUBSTITUTED, OTHER THAN EXTERIOR LIGHTING NEEDS TO BE DOWNCAST, FULLY SHIELDED AND PREFERABLY Q � � �/ �
PROVISION THAT HE SHALL MAINTAIN THE SEEDED SPECIFIED, ARE TO BE SUBMITTED WITH SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS TO INTERNATIONAL DARK SKY ASSOCIATION APPROVED OR EQUIVALENT. � CONC. WHEEL STOP 18�� I 2"�GALV.ST'L �
OR SODDED AREA AS REQUIRED UNTIL SUCH TIME ENGINEER PRIOR TO FINAL BIDS. PIPE AFFIX SIGNS
THAT THERE IS SUITABLE GROWTH TO ADEQUATELY 1 7 PLACE BIRD SPIKES, OR SIMILAR BIRD ABATEMENT, ALONG TOP OF ' TO POLES �
PROTECT THE EMBANKMENT. THE MAXIMUM 11. ALL PAINT USED ON STUCCO FINISHES SHALL BE ELASTOMERIC. TRASH ENCLOSURE WALLS. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN, AS SHOWN OR � � � I � M o
ALLOWABLE SLOPE SHALL BE 2:1. CONTRACTOR O MOUNTED ON BUILDING UNAUTHORIZEDVE ICLES PIPE SLEEVE o
�g INSTALL"FUNCTION FIRST BIKE SECURITY" BIKE RACK. MODEL BR2.0, IN-GROUND, RED. � � _ (� i
NOT DISPLAYI G �
SHALL MATCH EXISTING GRADES AT ALL PROPERTY PROVIDE FOR A TOTAL OF 4 BIKES. � �� .. I Ln o
18-0 CLEAR DISTINGUISHING PL CARDS / N I
LINES AROUND SITE. GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS TO � ORLICENSEPLAT� / � N
GRADE ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS TO WITHIN 4" .33' 19 EXISTING OUTDOOR SEATING ISSUEDFORPHYSICALLY� FIN GRADE � � � o
OF FINISHED GRADES. ( ) CONC. CURB ACCESSIBLEPERSONS `v'
�p NEW CANOPY. REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS. ~ �'J �
� WILL BE TOWED AWAY AT i Z ^ O)
N ^ OWNERS EXPENSE.TOWED '''��:�: w V r
21 NEW ORDER CONFIRMATION UNIT (OCU)WITH CLEARANCE CANOPY. N VEHICLESMAYBE � � � z
5. DIMENSIONS BUILDING LOCATION AND GRADING NOTE: c� w �
e RECLAIMED AT
OF THIS SITE ARE BASED ON AVAILABLE � EXISTING HIGHWAY SIGN TO BE PAINTED AND REPAIRED AS 1 . ACCESS AISLE MUST BE IDENTIFIED WITH WORDS "NO PARKING" �K�A"P°`��E°EPARTME"T ° � NOTE: ° � � ° Z
» OR BY TELEPHONING Z � �
INFORMATION AT TIME OF LAYOUT. DEVIATIONS MAY REQUIRED TO BRING TO NEW CONDITION. IN WHITE 12 TALL LETTERS ON THE PAVEMENT WITHIN THE 5-FT ��o>>ass-szsz � �
BE NECESSARY IN THE FIELD. ANY SUCH CHANGES „ OR 8-FT WIDE PASSENGER LOADING AND UNLOADING ACCESS �,::; LETTERING TO BE 1" � ° �/ �N�
OR CONFLICTS BETWEEN THIS PLAN AND FIELD �3 CONSTRUCT NEW 6 HIGH CONCRETE CURB PLANTER FOR NEW � � Q z oo � J
AISLES ADJACENT TO ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES FOR HIGH,SPACED 1 7/16' � � > � �� �
LANDSCAPING. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN. .. " � � o w o
CONDITIONS ARE TO BE REPORTED TO THE AUTOMOBILES AND VANS PER CBC 1 129B.3 #1 & #2 � � � � '� w �1�1 ��' i
ENGINEER PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION. �4 REMOVE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AS REQUIRED FOR NEW � FILL IN SPACES w/ �o � ��J � ��
2. MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION WITHIN THE � � U, � W
IMPROVEMENTS, I.E.; CURBS, PAVEMENT, ETC. ACCESS AISLE & ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL SHALL � "U K I A H P O L I C E D E P A R T M E N T" � ,;; Q � w=z �
NOT EXCEED 2�. PER CBC 1 129B.3 � Q Q � Y� -
&TELEPHONE No,"(707)463-6262" � o � m ��Q (f�
TYPICAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING 6 TOW AWAY SIGN 4
N.T.S. N.T.S. � �
S ITE P LAN 1" = 20� 1
17'-0"
w
�
Q
1 �
S-1 4
ALIGN NEW FOUNDATION WITH
EXISTING FOUNDATION (FIELD VERIFY) Z
0
� � N
I � 2 3a—�� � �
I � 1 �
I 5 � o
I Y
� � � � �
w
_
I I �
5 I
� I
I I
I I
I m
� I z �
I I a o
I I �
I I °
I
I I
I I �
I I ��
W�
I I
I I ��
� � �Y
I U
I I z
I I
I I �
w �
I �
� �
I I � � � �
I I � � � �
I z o "�' �
I w U � N
�
�
I
I w o � o
I I
� � _ �
I > J �
I = w w
�
z
I � o � � �
I I
I I �
I I
I I
I
I I
� � � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � �
�
I I �
�
�
I I � � � U�
� •� ~�
I I � � � �
Qo
I I O • � � �v
� J U X
� O �" o�
� _
� � a� o
. �..� � � ��
� ��
� °ti
F NDATI N PLAN � � �--
, ou o � KEYED NOTES : �M
S-1 1/4"=1'-0" � ��
O 15" WIDE x DEPTH OF ADJACENT EXISTING FOOTING (12" MIN.) CONTINUOUS � z w
N o r t h CONCRETE FOOTING WITH (2) #5 BARS �~
O °
2 4" CONCRETE SLAB WITH 6x6—W1.4xW1.4 W.W.F. AT MID DEPTH OVER 6 MIL VAPOR o°
BARRIER OVER 4" GRANULAR FILL. �
3 CONTROL/CONSTRUCTION JOINTS, SEE DETAIL 3 THIS SHEET.
4 6"�x 8'-0" STEEL BOLLARD, FILL WITH CONCRETE, TOP OF BOLLARD AT 5'-0"
ABOVE SURFACE OF PAVING WITH 24"4 x 3'-0" DEEP CONCRETE FOOTING
O EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB TO REMAIN.
y����1EER * �j�
�' o
�� w� o �
� a� � o a a
� o � � � �
GENERAL NOTES : � �� " a ~
BRICK VENEER INSTALLED IN STRICT °P rx° � �
ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURERS � �'-� z �
SUBSTRATE PANELS RECOMMENDATIONS (REFERENCE A. FOUNDATION DESIGN WAS BASED ON AN ASSUMED ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY OF 1,000 PSF. `�� y �a`S�
(REF. SHEET A-1) EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE) IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THIS BEARING CAPACITY. ��SI��2I T
B. EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE FREE OF WATER AT ALL TIMES. •
MORTAR JOINT ��$» C. BACKFILLING:
2x4 (U.O.N.) WOOD STUD FRAMING TYVEK BUILDING WRAP O�_O» � 1. BOTH SIDES OF FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL BE BACKFILLED SIMULTANEOUSLY
BARRIER CuRB AT DRIVE— - - - , SO AS TO PREVENT OVERTURNING OR LATERAL MOVEMENT OF WALLS.
2x4 (U.O.N.) PRESSURE TREATED ° THROUGH LANE (REFERENCE T.O. SLAB � > ° , D °D ,
� D D ° 2. NO FILL OR BACKFILL SHALL BE SETTLED BY THE USE OF WATER.
SHEET A-1 —°� —d� � —°— —p�e � R>-— _
SILL PLATE a ) ,
� D. SEE SHEET S-1 FOR STRUCTURAL NOTES.
2x TREATED BASE PLATE °P � °
ON SILL SEALER �° • ° D E. CONTACT OWNER FOR INSTRUCTIONS PRIOR TO THE CONTINUATION OF WORK SHOULD ANY
CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB � � NOT�: CONT�O� JOINT SAWCUT JOINT UNUSUAL CONDITIONS BECOME APPARENT DURING GRADING OR FOUNDATION
�O�—O�� � e JOINTS TO BE PLACED AT COLUMN CENTERLINES AND AT INTERMEDIATE LOCATIONS TO CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING ELEVATIONS AND LOCATIONS TO BE JOINTED SHALL
T.O SLA$° — �— - - — a MAINTAIN A MAX. SPACING OF 16'-0" BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IF THEY DIFFER J
� Da ° D D � D ° -0 a � ae j i a, ° � ° �'_�" FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE C'7 a Q
� g �� '° � ed ° �� ` ° — - — — ° — — — — —°— - — — T.O. SLAB OWNER SO THAT MODIFICATIONS CAN BE MADE BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. C4 � w
�o 00 Oo Do oO ' R�� 00 00 a a � - �la� n. � . � . . a � . Q � .. .
_" RIGID INSULATION (TYP.) �° � ° o � �o 0 0 �o 0 0 � I I ° °° N o �
° D ,D° °° � �° °° � �° °° < I I � •, ' TURNED DOWN FOOTING � �n/ � � o
�o( �D o. . o0 oO o0 oO o .. a�� a . a � a ` � I �
° ° °� °� ° ° I°Io REFERENCE SHEET S-1) z � Z
COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL m a �� � ` a� a 6" 6" ? � � � Q
g NO��. CONS��UC�ION JOIN� z w � z
CONT. CONC. FOOTING o w o Q
WITH CONTINUOUS REINFORCING CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL POUR STOPS. ALL CONSTRUCTION o � �
AS SPECIFIED IN KEYED NOTE #1 JOINTS ARE TO BE KEYED. KEYWAYS SHALL BE 1 1/2" DEEP x 1/3 THE SLAB THICKNESS. z c~n �i �
SHEET S-1 STOP MESH AT THE CONSTRUCTION JOINT. ° � ° �—/ Z�� z
FOOT/NG DETA/L DR/VE-THRU W/NDOW WALL BASE CONSTRUCT/ON/CONTROL JO/NT � � o w ��o 0
° � � �Q,� Q
� � �
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" w ° wo � �v �
Q
o � � � wQZ �
� Q Q �y'► � Y� �
� o � I..I.J n �Q �
S 1
3
-2,
8�>, 98'-24„
41'-82" 16'-102" 17'-0" 22'-74"
w
�
Q
0
Og F 1 2
AF3 SIM. 1'-0" A-3 A-1 A-1 SIM. o
O11'-0" — 5'-0'= �
B � _ �
� �
� — � � � ALIGN NEW WALL WITH EXISTING
( ' PICK UP WINDOW WALL m
— — — — (FIELD VERIFY)
i �
AF3 PICK-UP ;�;�'„ �� � PRE-PAY �i w
„ ;; 0 WINDOW i �
2 WINDOW "'
��;�„ ��
�no� 6 U ��
■ ■ ■ ■ �
I �
2'-0" I I
� � II �
� II II Q o
- I- �
0
� i DINING ROOM �i �i �i `� �
� (84 SEATS - SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY) I I
� - � � �
1 � ,'�/' \\��� I I ��
A-3 � � � I I W
�
�� � I
O �
� �iP� ��i� � I
� � �� �� / I I
I I �/ _
\�� I i� � I I I ��
2 F ; '� i i KITCHEN
A-3
i i I I (EQUIPMENT NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY) z
L J I I
4 �
2 �� o � I I -2, � � �
A-2 � � I I � I� r�
� � M � � � �
I I � � rn �
I I � � z � � �
I I � w ° � c�
� I
�,� II �I � J o = o
�-----, I I � � cn
3 _ _ � � I I � _ _ 2 � � z
A-3 /,�' i \ I — O
� i � u i � A-3 w o0 = _
/ II I \ o � � �
I I i I� ��i � �� I •
I L�---�J � i �
I � / � � �
� , � I I �
o �
� � �` � � I I �
o \\��----�'�
� � �
� �
/ , � �
� / / �
4'-0" � � � / ��
��� � � � � U�
� ��
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ----- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ,.� �--� �� �ti
� � mM
F----- -----� O • � � LA
1 I � �•...
� , v � �
o � ,
, � � � � o�
� ` 8 ,' Q� � '" "_
� 5 5 �� � � °o
O O • � � ~�
1
� ��
� O � � ti ��
10'-0" ° z o
O � O �I �U�
N �
z�
J
O
O
O
�
11'-5" 20'-64" 10'-0" 55'-34"
113„ ��3„
4 4
98'-24"
� BATT INSULATION (R-13)
A-2 EXTERIOR GRADE
FL OOR PLAN � 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING EER
����� * �r
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" � �SUBSTRATE PANELS - REF. KEYED NOTES �,�' � a, � �'c��
BUILDING AREA = 3,3g� sQ.FT. GENERAL NOTES: � r�•Q � � � a
North ~ x� � \ f
2X4 WOOD STUD � o � � � �
A. EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF MASONRY. INTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO FINISH. o ��o � . �, o
DOOR FRAME B. OVERALL DIMENSIONS TO EXTERIOR WALLS ARE THE SAME AS TO THE OUTSIDE �o� �az �
FACE OF FOUNDATION WALL BELOW. P� ��
MATERIAL: ALUMINUM /XG ASS'x AD x AF MINISRIAFA TORYINFINISH TO MATCH DOORS C. ALL ANGLED WALLS ARE AT 90° UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ����,j��,� y ��
T
FINISH: FACTORY FINISH - REFER TO SHEET A-2
HARDWARE �
ENTRANCE DOOR HARDWARE SHALL CONSIST OF OFFSET EXTERIOR FINISH
PIVOTS, ADAMS RITE MS 1852S DEAD BOLT LOCK, PLYWOOD SHEATHING
NORTON 1605 SURFACE CLOSERS WITH BACK CHECK, AND FACE OF 1/2��
9" "CLASSIC" STRAIGHT DOOR PULLS IN POLISHED KEYED NOTES. FACE OF FOUNDATION WALL
STAINLESS OR CHROME, AND STANDARD O
THRESHOLDS. LOCKS, CYLINDERS, AND THRESHOLDS 5'-0"
SHALL BE OMITTED ON INTERIOR VESTIBULE DOORS. 2» 1'-3" 2» 1. LINE OF AWNING/CANOPY ABOVE. � PLAN DETA/L
(IF VESTIBULE IS PROVIDED) DUMMY CYLINDERS SHALL 3'_3" ��_�» Q
BE PROVIDED ON THE EXTERIOR OF ALL DOORS EXCEPT �, 2" 2. WIDEN FOUNDATION AT EXTERIOR FEATURE ELEMENTS. MATCH DEPTH OF
AT MAIN ENTRY. 2 * 2 *1 2* 2 EXISTING FOOTING. SCALE: 1 1�2'� = 1'-0" �
�2 6'-0" 2 - N � � 2„ 1'-10" 2„ 3. SUBSTRATE PANELS: LINE OF WALL BELOW �
��j cV N PICK UP WINDOW ROOM
5/8" TYPE USG "SHEETROCK" TYPE "X" GYPSUM WALL BOARD. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT � M o
/ o � � ��-6�� FINISH: CORONADO PAINT - LIGHT ORANGE PEEL APPLIED WITH SILL = � �
� � � � ° � N CORONADO AIR ASSIST TIP (Z-122KD) OR EQUAL. (V � o
/ � o
/ � � � � � i 4. REPLACE EXISTING PICK-UP WINDOW WITH "READY ACCESS" B010E WINDOW. SUBSTRATE PANELS - REF. KEYED NOTES � � �
� - _ "' PRE-PAY WINDOW TO BE A READY ACCESS 2755C WINDOW. 2x4 WOOD STUD � � °
a `V � ' SELF-CLOSING ' ' Z �
i i i N N N 5. REMOVE EXISTING DOOR AND REPLACE WITH NEW STOREFRONT WINDOW w � ,�
� ;� � DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW: (MATCH EXISTING). REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS. 1/2" EXTERIOR GRADE m �
0O READY ACCESS MODEL #275 PLYWOOD SHEATHING � Z w � Z
� � - (47 1/2" W x 43 1/2"H) - * DEPENDENT ON DRIVE-THROUGH - 6. REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW AND WALL AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CLEAR o w Q
� / o 0 o OPENING INTO NEW PRE-PAY WINDOW AREA. ° � °o
�T � T � -OR- � WINDOW SELECTED. VERIFY LATEST � �
� � QUIKSERV MODEL #SC4030 i� DIMENSIONAL INFORMATION WITH � 7. INSTALL NEW CONCRETE SLAB AND FOOTING FOR FRAMING OF NEW �, o �' � �
� � o � (48"W x 36"H) J THE MANUFACTURER. � PRE-PAY WINDOW AREA. MATCH FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION AND CEILING °0 � Q � z��'
` HEIGHT OF ADJACENT PICK-UP WINDOW AREA. NEW ROOF OVER PRE-PAY � i > �J.J � �� �/
�3'-0"�3'-0"� � MINIMUM W I N D O W A R E A T O D R A I N O N T O E X I S T I N G R O O F. S L O P E R O O F T O D R A I N. � o � rn � �° O
D 0 0 R O BOTTOM D 0 0 R F R A M E W I N D O W O W I N D 0 W 0 W I N D O W O 8. REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW AND INSTALL NEW STOREFRONT DOUBLE DOORS. E X T E R I O R F I N I S H �o � v ;��
R A I LR E F E R T O E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S. � w �
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" DIMENSION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PLYWOOD SHEATHING `�`' w Q � '-'-'a Z J
T - TEMPERED AND FACE OF 1/2" � o � m � �Q �
FACE OF FOUNDATION WALL
2 PLAN DETA/L
SCALE: 1 1 2" = 1'-0" A 1
�
w
�
Q
0
6 6
Z
� � � �
i i �
I I r
I I m
0
w
Y
C>
W
2
U
4
�
m
O w
4 a °
�
0
0
Z
��
6 W
Z
��
�Y
�
O 3 z
�
w ,�.,
�n ,�.,
5 � � �
� � � �
� � � ,
4 z � �" �
L'-� � N
� � ~ �
W � � �
� O O
� � = I�
Q J �
� � w
= w z
w ~ o
o � � �
O •
4
4 �
�
�
�
��
� � a� ��
3 3 � � .� ��
O2 � Q � �' m°
� . v �' }�
� � � O � o�
� _
� � � �°
5 � � 6 � � � ~
��
� � � � ��
� �
� ROOF PLAN � 2 ��
A-1.1 - O
ZW
1/4"-1'-0" � ��
0
0
North °
����1EER * r�
�' �`�o
�� x� ° � �
� aQ � � � �
� �' � � �
w°c�, �° d o- �' o
w � z � ��
P� ���
, , ��`�Sj��2i �
GENERAL ROOFING NOTES . 0 KEYED NOTES . �
1. ROOFING SUBCONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE LOCATION OF NEW PARAPET 1. TWO-PLY MODIFIED BITUMEN MEMBRANE W/GLASS FIBER
BRACING WITH EXISTING H.V.A.C. UNITS AND ROOF TOP ACCESSORIES. REINFORCEMENT. BOTTOM PLY SHALL BE UNSURFACED, TOP
2. ROOF SYSTEMS SPECIFIED SHALL BE APPLIED ONLY BY MANUFACTURER PLY SHALL HAVE WHITE MINERAL SURFACE. SLOPE NEW ROOF
APPROVED APPLICATOR IN ORDER TO MEET GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS. TO DRAIN ONTO EXISTING ROOF.
3. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2. PREFABRICATED METAL AWNING OR CANOPY.
4. PONDING WATER IS DEFINED AS WATER THAT DOES NOT DRAIN OR 3. ILLUMINATED PARAPET LIGHT BAND.
DISSIPATE FROM THE ROOF WITHIN 48 HOURS AFTER PRECIPITATION. 4. METAL COPING.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL "SUGAR-IN" ALL ASPHALT. BLEED-OUT ON PLIES WITH 5. REMOVE EXISTING TILE ROOF AND MANSARD ROOF. REFER TO
ADDITIONAL GRANULES TO MATCH EXISTING COLORATION OF THE MINERAL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.
SURFACE CAP SHEET. 6. REMOVE EXISTING ROOF TILE AND REPLACE WITH NEW METAL
6. ALL FLASHING CEMENTS, ASPHALTS, PRODUCTS AND ACCESSORIES SHALL BE ROOFING MATERIAL. REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.
APPROVED BY ROOFING MANUFACTURER WITH THE MANUFACTURES'S BRAND.
ALL ASPHALTS SHALL BE AMERICAN MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS.
M o
C4 °
� �
0
N ' cn
� w
� � ° �
GENERAL NOTES : � z w � �
A. THE ROOF STRUCTURE SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ° � � °o Z
STOCKPILING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS UNLESS z � I Q
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT, STRUCTURAL � � �/ cn N,�
ENGINEER AND THE JOIST MANUFACTURER. I � Q Z � I Z
B. THE ROOFING SYSTEM SHALL BE AS PER DRAWINGS � � o W Y �� Q
AND PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. o Z ��`' °`�'o J
w � � �
C. COORDINATE ROOF ELEVATIONS WITH STRUCTURAL �a, � � Q�
DRAWINGS. REFER TO SPECIFICATION SHEET FOR v ° w � ��� L�
ROOF RELATED ITEMS, INCLUDING GUARANTEES, � w °Q � w =Z O
CURBS, FLASHING, ETC. � Q Q � Y� O
� o � m � �Q �
A 1 . 1
2 2
w
�
Q
0
6 Z
0
D D in
D �
w
�
� � � B B m
� � � � � � � � � o
w
1 Y
�
w
% % i i % % � i % i i �
3
% % i i % % % i % i i
�
m
w
z �
� Q
Q o
�
0
CONSTRUCTION KEYNOTES °
EXISTING WEST ELEVATION O1 REMOVE EXISTING MANSARD ROOF
1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
O2 REMOVE EXISTING RED LIGHT BAND ��
�
O3 REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW/ DOOR AS REQUIRED FOR W�
NEW STOREFRONT WINDOW/ DOOR(WHERE APPLICABLE) �
O4 INSTALL STUCCO OVER EXISTING SURFACE
LIGHT FIXTURE PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. �Y
E F-2 M C-3
O5 EXISTING BRICK TO REMAIN. PAINT TO Lj
C S-2 EF-2 MC-2 MP-1 MC-1 12,_�„ NEW IMAGE (TYP.) z
4 EF-1 � S-1 ,_p„ ,_�, 5 EP-2 5 EP-2 5 EP-2 MP-1 5 EP-2 MC-1 5 EP-2 O REMOVE EXISTING ROOF SHINGLES. MANSARD TRUSS �
�-_i
C S-1 72�� � TO REMAIN, U. O. N. vwj �
60" f� _ _ MP-4 MC-2 � r j �
0 0 ' 7 S-3 O7 NEW SIGNAGE PER NEW IMAGE (SHOWN FOR REFERENCE � � � �
c:, c:i i� O N L Y). S I G N A G E I S N O T P A R T O F T H I S P E R M I T. � � � �
EXISTING BUIDLING HEI T Z
VERIFY IN FIELD �'-� � � N
�R � �
� � �
� o = o
M P-3 �� Q J c/�
� � — � w
G = wz
N � � �
I w o
4�� � 0 � � �
M P-3
T'as�e is �-i� � _ •
� � PE
� �
2�_���
rn
rn
�
��
: � � � "�
°° .,.� � •� ��
0 . � � ��
� v � }X
� 0 � o�
� +o�-o" r� '" _
T.O.SLAB � V1 � �o
V1
5 EP-4 5 EP-4 5 EP-4 1'-0" 5 EF-1 EP-4 1'-0" EP-4 5 5 EP-4 5 EP-4 5 EP-4 5 EP-4 5 EP-4 � Q�
� ti �ti
�
1" HORIZONTAL
zo
J M
REVEAL @ 18" O.C. �J
REMODELED WEST ELEVATION 5
1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" �-i Z~
J
O
O
O
�
DEPTH BASE ON
STUCCO SPECIFICATION
EF-2 S-1 7 EF-2 MC-3
60" Q1 MG3 MG2 MP-1 MC-1 ��
EF-1
� �" STUCCO REVEAL BY
VINYL CORP. (OR EQUAL)
0 o SECURED TO SUBSTRATE
� �
2 i� N N S_� PER MANUFACTURES
SPECIFICATIONS.
72" Q1 i
�� BU/LD/NG HOR/Z.
�� REVEALS - STUCCO
M P-4 �G 4,,
K� � _ A -
� MP 3 SCALE: 3" 1'-0" •
6 :
0
,
� � �
i % � � � � � � � \ � 2�_���
0
1 MATCH MC-3 LL (n
� � � � � � � � � � DEPTH BASE ON
� z
� � � � � � � � � �� STUCCO SPECIFICATION � C� oo O
/ , 1" HORIZONTAL I
REVEAL @ 18"O.C. � o �
% ° '/r '/r '/r '/r '/r '/r '/r ° \ ° � (V � Q
� � � � o w
� z r n o,
V
�
� CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM REVEAL � � z � W
� 18" 0.C. p � w �
+p�_p�� "FINAL FORMS II" BY GORDON ° � � °o
T.O.SLAB �
CEILINGS OR EQUAL. SECURED TO z cn I
3 SPEC F CATIONS MANUFACTURES � � � � � N� O
z
ECT-1 � i > w Y �`° n/
5 EP-4 1" HORIZONTAL � ° �I� � �o LL
REVEAL @ 18" o.�. TOWER HOR/Z, �i � V Q rn �J„�
EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION REMODELED NORTH ELEVATION REVEALS - STUCCO � � w � - .
~ o �+ � �� �
3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 B o � � � w Q� �
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" � o � � � �Q w
SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
A-2
2
w
�
Q
0
z
0
�
>
w
� � i � � � � � � � �
6 1 �
m
0
% % � % i i % % % i �
w
_
c�
% % i i % i i % % % i
�
m
w
� Q
Q o
�
0
0
z
EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
��
�
W�
��
M C-3 �Y
5 EP-2 EF-2 EP-2 MC-2 MP-1 MC-1 MC-2 MP-1 MC-1 MP-4
U
MP-4 MC_2 C EP-2 C EP-2 z
S-1 � w �
cn r,-�
° 60" �' � � �
� EXISTING BUIDLING HEIGHT N � � � �
VERIFY IN FIELD � � � �
z o ,.�
W N
� � ~ �
W � � �
M P-3 � O = o
Q J cn
� � w
= w z
w ~ o
o � � �
�
2'-0"
rn
rn
�
rn�
� � N � U�
� +, '�, ��
c� Q o
O M
�--� ' '"� � }�
+�
U X
T.O.SLAB /I� O � o�
3'-5„ ��,• 3,_5,. �V •� c�
_
EF-2 5 EP-4 5 EP-4 5 EP-4 5 EP-4 . p•� ti
5 EP-4 5 EP-4 1'-0" � � ui o
EF-2 1" HORIZONTAL 5 EP-4
EP-4 REVEAL @ 18" O.C. � ��
� ti �ti
"HIYW" FOUNDATION �
2 REMODELED EAST ELEVATION DONATIONBOXOPTIONAL. ��
SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0" CENTER ON PAY WINDOW.
� Z�
J
O
O
O
�
E F-2 M C-3
5 EP-2 MC-2 MP-1 MC-1 LINE OF PARAPET BEYOND
S-1
72" f�
0 0
� �
N N
2 6 � EXISTING BUIDLING HEIGHT
VERIFY IN FIELD
7 S-3
M P-4
M P-3 •
/ i % z'-o" �
MATCH MC-3 � (n
0 � � m z
% � `
�
3 0 � `. o � C'7 a �
� �, � � �
�
� o � �� N � o Q
� � � �n � o �
0 0 �
,��/ � z � W
rn
,
,' m � r J
, � w � W
,� +o�-o° �' � � � � �
T.O.SLAB Z c~i� o
rn o �
00 � � � Z N� O
1" HORIZONTAL 5 EP-4 MATCH 5 EP-4 � r o w w �o LL
EXISTI NG SOUTH ELEVATION R E V E A L @ 1 8��o.�. �; w (� � �
4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" � � w �/ � �� �
REMODELED SOUTH ELEVATION
wQ �/
4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" � Q Q � � Y� ^
� o � m � �Q w
A-2 . 1
BIIRGER I{ING- Z���O PROTOTYPE
EICTERIQR MATERIALS & FINISH SCHEDULE
3 12 2D14
CODE MATERIAL LQCATI�N MANLJFACTLIRER �E5CRIPTI�N ADDITIONAL INFaRMATION ,i;
PRODUCT C�LQR DIMENSIDN o
EB-1 EXTERIOR BRICK GENERAL OWENS80R0 BRICK M�❑ / QS TUMBLED OLDE HILL5BOR0 CONTACT: NEiL HARMS @ ALL FLORIaA BRICK &TILE {90�) 923-2898
(FLJLL BRICiC OR THIN BRICK MAY 8E lJSEO) NOTE: LJSE WITH EGR-1
EXTERIOR BRICK GENERAL PINE HALL BRICK FACE BRICK QL❑ IRVINGTQN �/S CQNT,4CT: MERRILL DIJRIG AT SNYQER 6RICK & 6LaCK (937} 299-73$8
N�TE: U5E WITH EGR-1 0
EB-1A
�
>
[ALTERNATE) ExTERIOR FINISH FIBER GENER,4L NICHIHA FIBER CEMEiVT NICHIHA CANYON BRICK PANE�S UNFINISH�D - MLJST BE PAINTED TO MATCH EP-4 18" X 6' PERMI55IBL� ON REM�DEL5 DNLY Con#a�t: �
CEMENT BRICK PANELS Chris Tate 77�-805-94fi5 or 404-538-12�1 Email: Ctate@nichiha.cam �
IN5TALL PER MANUFACTLIRER'S 5PECIFICATION5 m
E�.T-1 E7{TERI�R CERAMIC TILE ACCENT AT dALTI�E NATIJRAL HLJES #QH�7 SCARLET 6" K 12" CONTACT: NATIONAL ACCOl1hITS AT (877} 55C-5728 °
BUILQING FRONT STACKED BaN� PATTERN EMAiL: NATIONAL.ACCOUNTS@DALTILE.COM �
NOTE: U5E WITH EGR-2 =
EC?-� EXTERIOR CERAMIC TILE ACCENT AT QALTlLE NATl1RAL H11E5 #QH77 SCARLET 6" }C 6" "
BUILdIN� FRflNT Q1655 BLILLNOSE
ST� aR �PPRDVED STD POWERWALL STUCC� SYSTEM ��LQR T� MATCH CQhITACT: TIM SA�ERNO AT 5T0 CORP {4�7) 466-5371
E�L1AL TE?CTURE ;FIiVE SAIVD GLIDaEN PRDFESSI�NAL MASTER PALETTE #��YY 41/1fi5
E7CTERIflR FINISH - CAMEL TAN
EF-1 STLJCC4, STO, FIBER GENERAL NI�HIHA FIBER CEMEiVT �VICHIHA ARCHITECTURA�BLOCK - LARGE PREPAINTE� TO MATCH EP-2 "CAMEL TAN" 18" 5! 6' PERMISSIBLE ON REMDDELS ONLY m
CEMEfVT SI�IN� PANELS STACKED BOiV❑ PATTERN Conta�t: Z �
Chris Tate 77�-845-94fi5 or 404-538-1261 Email: Ctate@nichiha.cam Q o
IN5TALL RER MANUFACTLIRER'S SPECIFICATIONS o
EF-2 E7�TERIOR FIIVISH GENERAL ST� bR APPR�VED ST� POWERWALL STUCCO SYSTEM STUCCO nR STO MUST 8E PAINTE� TO MATCH COhITACT: TIM SALERNO AT ST� CORP {4Q7} 466-5371 0
STLJCC� E�LJAL TEXTURE ;FINE SANQ EP-5
EF-4 EXTERIQR FINISH GENERAL STO 4R ARPROVED 5T0 PQWERWALL STlJCCO SYSTEM C4LOR TQ MATCH
- STUCCO E�UAL TE�TURE :FIiVE SAND GLIDQEN PR4FESSIDNAL MASTER PALETTE #101'Y 14�D$0 ��
MQNTEREY CLIFFS �
EF 5 EXTERIOR FINISH GENERAL STO OR �PPRDVEb STa POWERWALL S7UCC0 SYSTEM COLOR TO MATCFi W�
STIJCCD EQLJAL TE7CTURE ;FIiVE SAND GL.I�DEN PROFE55IDNAL MASTER PALETTE #Q4YR �.1/537 �
AMA�ING _
NICHIHA FI6ER CEMENT NICHIHA BOARD NOT PERMI55IBLE DN "ENHANCED" ELEVATION DPTI�N ��
7-1/4" SMO�Thi FINI5H WITH fi-1J4" E�{P�SURE CQNTACf: Chris Tate 77�-8�5-9456 or 4[34-5�8-1261 EMAIL: CCate@nichiha.com
EXTERIOR FINISH FIBER TRIM IS 1 �C 3.5" NICHI7RTM IN5TALL PER MANU�AC7LIRER'S SPECYFYCATIDNS
��-7 C�M�NT 5IIJING �xT�RIflf2 5TGN ARCHONS �qM�S HARDIE HAR[7TPLANK LAW 5IDING PAINT WTTH S�MI-GLOSS PATN7 - COLaR TO MA?CH �P-5 1y0'T P�RMISSIBLE QN "�NHANC�D" �LEVATION OPTION
c�
7-1�4" SMOOTH FTNISH WIT�i 6-1/4" ExP05URE INSTALL ��R MANUFACTLIRER'S 5PECIPICATYONS z
TRIM IS 1 }{ 6 ❑IMENSIONAL HARQIPLAIVK LUMBER RIPPEQ IN HAL
EF-8 E7�TERI�R FINISH EXTERI�R SIGN BURAL ST�NE PR�QUCTS CUUNTRY LEQGESTONE BLACi� RUNDLE CQNTACT: GENE GIJETZOWV AT S�RAL ST�IUE (�6�] 994-��73 �
STDNE ARCHaNS cw '�
� � �
Ep-1 E7CTERIQR PATNT METAL PANEL P�G CQRAFLON AD5 FACTORY FINISH TO MATCH CONTACT: BOB SCHRDCK AT PPG IN�USTRTES (513] 543-2555 � � � �
MP-1 ** FACT�RY APPLiE� GLI�dEN PROFESSIONAL MASTER PALETTE #d4YR 11�537 z � � �
AMAZING w � N
EP-Z E}�TERIOR PAINT E7�TERIOR PRIMER: HY�ROSEALER MASTER PALETTE #��YY 41/155 B�JRGER KING Natianal 5ales Mgr/Spe�ificatian Contact: KEVIN LASTACY � U ~ I
GEIVERAL E�(TERIDR PRIMER SEALER 5�41-120� CAMEL TAN pf�one; 616-335-3259 �
� �
J O _ o
PAINT: FORTIS 350 EkTERI�R email: klastacy@ppg.cnm � � _ �
700°/a ACRYLIC SATIN FIhIISFi 2402V-XXiCJC a J �
>
EP-3 ExTERIOR PAINT EXTERIOR PRYMER: HY�ROSEALER MASTER �A�ETTE #44YR 11/537 � = w z
ACCENT E�(TERIDR PRIMER SEALER 5��1-120� AMA�ING w � ~ �
PAI NT: #3flfl2-(3500N LIFEMA�TEf�AC�ENTS
o � � �
INTERIaR EXTERIOR EGGSHELL SATIN
EP-4 E7CTERIOR PAINT EXTERIOR PRIMER: HYQRaSEALER MASTER PALETTE #10W 14/080 �
WAIIVSC�T �LI[7�EN PR�FESSIONAL E7CTERIOR PRIM�R SEALER 5001-1200 MONTEREY CLIFFS
PAINT: FORTIS 350 E7CTERIOR
1fl�°�o ACRYLIC SATIN FINISH �442V-7C7�X�C
EP-5 EXTERI�R PAINT EkTERIaR PRIMER: HYpROSEALER MASTER PALETTE #flONN �7J���
GENERAL E�(TERIQR PRIMER SEALER 5001-120� �EEP aNYX
PQINT: FORTIS 350 E7CTERI�R �
1fl�°/o ACRYLIC SATIN FINISi-i Z4�2V-?CXX7C �
EP-6 EXTERIOR PAINT EXTERIOR PRIMER: DEVOE COATINGS DEVGUARD GLIDQEN PROFESSIONAL PURE ALUMINUM NOT FOR USE �N RdOFS FdR REM�DELIIYG. Q�
ACCENT LflW VDC IJNIVERSAL PRIMER 436D-1��D�WHITE) 6URGER 14ING SILUER' SEE EP-6 BY SFiERWIN WILLIAMS BELOW ^l � b!� U�
(For Metal Substrates Only} PAINT: DEVOE �OATINGS DEVGIJAI�� �� � � �,
PURE ALUMINUM FINISH 43fl8-9420 � � '� v ti
EP-2 EXTERIOR PAINT EXTERIOR PRIMER: PITT-GLAZE IlVTERI�R/EKTERIOR ACT-15 B�JRGER KING Natianal Sales Mgr/Specifi�ation Contact: KEVIN LASTACY O � � Q o
GENERAL ACRYLIC BLOCK FILLER #16-90 ANTELOPE phane; 616-335-3259 � • rl � �v
PAINT: SPEEDHIDE EXTERIOR email: klastacy@ppg.com U � }
_ 10D°/a ACIZYLIC SATIN FIIVISH 6-2445 SERIES _ _ �j O �i o�
EP 3 EXTERIOR PAINT E�TERIDR PRIMER: PITT-GLA�E INTERIOf�/EXTERIQR VC 234 7 �� � �� _
ACCENT ACRYLIC BLOCK FILLER #15-9� RE❑ LICORICE � � � �°o
PAINT: SPEEDHIDE EXTERIOR CI�
�
10�°/o ACRYLIC SATIN FINISH �-2Q45 SERIES � �"i 0�
EP-4 E7CTERIQR PAINT EXTERIQR PRIMER: PITT-GLA�E IiVTERIOf�/EXTERIQR VC-521-6 � � �^
WAINSC�T P�G ACRYLIC BLOCK FILLER #16-9� GRANITE J M
PAINT: SPEEDHI�E EXT�RIOR O�
1�a°/❑ A�RYLIC SATIN FINISH 6-�045 SERIES z w
EP-5 EXTEf�IQft PAINT EXTERIQR PRIMER: PITT-GLAZE IIVTERI�R�EXTERIDR VC-51$-7 � ��
GENERAL ACRYLIC BLQCK FILLER #16-90 BLACIC MAGIC °o
PAINT: SPEEDHI�E ExTERIOR °
1�Q°/❑ ACRYLIC SATIN FINISH 6-20�F5 SERIES
EP-6 E7�TERIOR PAINT E7CTERIOR PRIMER: PITT-GLAZE �NTERIOR/E7{T�RI�R VC-518-4 NDT FOR USE ON ROOFS FOR REMODELING.
ACCENT ACRYLIC BLOCK FILLER #16-90 FLAG�TONE SEE �P-fi BY SHERWIN WILLIAMS BELOW
(Fa� Metal Su�strates ❑nly} PAINT: SPEEDHIDE �7CTERIOR
�.0�°/o ACRYL.JC SATIN FINISH 6-2U45 S�RI�S
EP-5 E7CTERIOR PRINT �7CISTING MANSARD SHERWIN WILLIAMS P1i�MER: B56-31� PRC]-CRYL UNIV�RSAL PRIM�R #SW 756$ P�RM�5SZBl,� UN R�MDaEI.ING [�3Nl.Y
ROOFING CDATING: B55-35{] SH�R-CRYI. NPA S�MIGL.�SS MAR�H WIN❑ CONTACT JDE BOOTH (4�7) 948--4571
����1EER * j�
EGR-1 �RC7UT BRICK fLAMINGO-BRIXMENT COLOR CEM�NT C-�44/8-12 CaNTACT: MIKE RDSE � E55RflC {5�2} 7�}1-3923 �
NOTE: USE WITH EB-1 & EB-1A � � � "' `�o
� w� o �
� aQ � ° � 6
EGR-� GR�IJT CERAMIC TILE CIJSTDM 6lJILDING PRC]DUCTS P�LYBLENa SANDE❑ #6U �HARCOAL N�TE: USE WITH CT-1 ON E7CTERIOR FINISH SCHEDLILE w ° � � �
*** FUR SETTIMG MATERIALS USE COMPLETE CONTACT RAPID S�T o �� " `� �; o
*** SEAL GRDUT WITH A UAMI]( SEALERS CHOICE GQLD o-� �a z � ,c�
MC-1 METAL C�PING TOP OF LIGHT BANQ W.P. HICFCMAN SYSTEMS, INC. PERMA SNAP PLlJS A-30 CONTACT: W.P. �1ICKMAN C�MPANY �828]676-17D0 P� ��`S
WALL CAP SILVERSMITH WWW.WP�i.COM `���LSj��� * S
MC-2 METAL C�PING BELOW LIGHT BANQ W.P. HICKMAN SYSTEMS, INC. PERMA SNAP PLUS FACTQRY FINISH TO MATC�i CQNTACT: W.P. HICKMAN COMPANY �828} 675-170Q •
ICI PAINT #2QYY 41/155
CAMEL TAN
MC-3 METAL CDPII�G TaP OF ARCHaN W.P. HICKMAN SYSTEMS, INC. PERMA SNAP PLUS FACTaRY FIIVISH Td MATC1i CONT,�CT: W.P. HICKMAN C�MPANY {828] 575-17��
ICI PAINT #OONN 47/Od0 w
QEEP QNYX J
MP-1 C�RRUGAT�❑ METAL RARAPET SAN� LEKTR�N LEO LIGHT BAN❑ FACTORY FINISH TD MATCH EP-1 *SEE PLANS PRO�IJCT INFORMATIQN: ]OHN FITZWILS�N AT LEKTR�N �
*SEE APPROVED SIGN SUPPLIERS �BQQ} 534-4QS9 OR (918) 522-�978 ExT 3�2 � Q
Email: Jfitzwilsor� lektroninc.com
MP-3 METAL CANQPY ABOVE Q04RS *SEE APPRdVED CUSTOM METAL CANOPY CQLOR: CLEAR ANODIZED *5EE PLANS � W
CANOPY SUPPLIERS � _
FIRESTONE STAN�ING SEAM M�TAL RO�F SILVER METALLIC SR *5EE PLANS COIVTACT: BRENNA ROh'IANI (317} $15-32a6 QR t763} 587-1$S2 = � °o �
UC-� PROFILE � �
METAL AWNING � S5M ABDVE WINDOWS / MANSAR� METAL PRODIJCTS N ° _
MP-4 ROOFING ROOFING BERRIDGE ROOFING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF PREMIUM METALLIC - ZIlVC COTE *SEE PLANS COIVTACT: iYLER HALL (21Q} b50-7a47 � N �
�
CEE-LOCK � � � ° Z
METAL PR�DUCTS w � �
CEIVTRIA CDiVCEPT SERIES 9946 PROdUCT INFORMATIQN: ]ON SCHLOSSER AT CENTRIA (S13} 793-916Q � � z w � �L
CS��DE SILVERSMITH T� PURC�IASE: ]IM A6NER AT METALWDRKS PLUSjBK ($59} 44�-556fi o w
BELdW �RIVE TNRdUGH ° � � o �
MP-5 METAL PANEL z � i
WINDOW MORIN METAL PANEL BRIGHT SILVER METALLIC COIVTACT: dAiVIEL ❑AVENPORT AT (804} 54�-9501 rn o � � � O
xC-12 Email: danield@marincarp.com o0 � Q Z � i
� � > w � �o �
° rn wrn
CENTRIA CONCEPT SERIES 9916 PRD�UCT INF�RMATION: ]4N SCHLOSSER AT CENTRIA (513} 793-916� �° Z v w
CS�SaE RICH BLACK T� PURC1iASE: ][M ABNER AT METRLW�RKS PLIJS/BIC (859} 44�-566fi v o w � ��� �
G O R R U G A T�❑ M E T A Lw o Q
MP-7 EXTERIflR SIGN ARCHONS � w Q � ``' Q Z X
P,4NELS MORIN METAL PANEL CS825�4 C0111TACT: DAIVIEL ❑AVENP�RT AT [804} 54a-9501 ° Q Q � Y�
x-1 2 R I C H B L A�K E m a i l: d a n i e l d@ m o r i n c a r p.c o m � ° '� � " �� w
A-2 . 2