HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_10222104Final 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 (WNA) is an association and not an enforcement/policing
47 agency. The WNA is 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
�-���. � �,��� �����. �.����