HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_10092014final ��ty � u�iah City of Ukiah, CA
Design Review Board
1
2 MINUTES
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 3. CORRESPONDENCE:
29 Principal Planner Jordan provided comments from Member Thayer dated October 09, 2014
30 concerning the projects reviewed today that are incorporated into the minutes as attachment 1.
31
32 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from September 18, 2014 meeting are included
33 for review and approval.
34
35 M/S Liden/Nicholson approved minutes from September 18, 2014 meeting, as submitted.
36 Motion carried by all AYE voice vote of the members present(4-0).
37
38 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
39
40 6. NEW BUSINESS:
41 6A. Gilbert Mixed Use Project, 676 South Orchard Avenue (File No.: 37): Review and
42 recommendation to Planning Commission on a Site Development Permit for a mixed use
43 development that would include the existing single-family home, modification and
44 expansion of the existing garage which would be used for the commercial processing of
45 wool, one food truck with outdoor seating, and modifications to the parking and
46 landscaping at 676 South Orchard, APN 002-320-53. The Project also requires Planning
47 Commission approval of a Major Use Permit to allow mixed residential and commercial
48 use of the parcel.
49
50 Principal Planner Jordan:
51 • Project is a Use Permit and Site Development Permit for a wool mill on Orchard Avenue
52 in the C-1 zoning district.
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 1
1 • The DRB has purview over the site development permit portion of the Project. Staff is
2 requesting the DRB provide a recommendation on the site layout, design, functionality of
3 the site, compatibility of uses of which there are many and details of the Project to the
4 Planning Commission particularly since the garage is being expanded upon,
5 modifications are proposed to the parking areas, and there is the addition of the food
6 truck that is potentially considered as an outdoor dining use.
7 • Gave a project description as provided for on pages 1 and 2 of the staff report.
8 • The C-1 zoning district has landscaping requirements and pages 4 and 5 of the staff
9 report do address those landscaping standards required for this project. Staff would like
10 direction from the DRB concerning landscaping for the Project.
11
12 DRB questions:
13 • Are there any zoning issues?
14 • Are most of properties in the vicinity zoned C-1?
15 • Is the applicant in the wool business?
16 • Does the applicant own the food truck?
17 • Does the wool mill operation generate noise?
18 • Would odor be an issue?
19 • Will the house be rented?
20 • What sort of food will be sold from the food truck?
21 • Will the food truck be mobile or permanently stationery?
22 • What are the hours of operation?
23 • Do you anticipate parking to be a problem when noon will likely be the busiest time for
24 the food truck?
25 • Referred to the site plans and asked about the location of the outdoor seating for the food
26 truck.
27 • In an industrial type area where on the site would the food truck be appropriate? Some
28 cities have designated lots for food trucks and somewhat concentrated in one area.
29 Parking the food truck in another location and/or re-orienting it in another direction would
30 not likely change the appearance aesthetically.
31 • Asked about what will be done with the vehicles on the site.
32 • Requested clarification a second shipping container will be added to the site during
33 phase 3.
34 • The subject property has some nice trees on it. Are there plans to enhance them? The
35 tree located in the front of the property will help screen the food truck. The Oak tree in the
36 rear of the property should help screen the existing shipping container.
37 • Are there plans to add a fence between the subject property and the neighbor to the
38 north? Are there plans to share parking for these two properties? Will buffers be used to
39 keep people from driving onto the neighbor's property to the north?
40
41 Principal Planner Jordan:
42 • Does not appear to be any zoning issues right now other than determining whether or not
43 the mix of uses proposed are compatible and appropriate for the site.
44 • Confirmed most of properties in the neighborhood are in the C-1 zoning. While the zoning
45 for the area is C-1, there are some residential units. There is a mobile home park located
46 directly behind the site. The C-1 zoning district allows mixed residential and commercial
47 uses on one parcel when they can be found to be compatible.
48 • For clarification purposes would have to assume the food truck will be permanent
49 because staff has not been advised differently. If the DRB has a preference that the truck
50 should not be there all the time, this aspect should be talked about and why.
51
52 Matthew Gilbert, Applicant:
53 • Provided an overview of the Project and noted: The three uses proposed include: 1) Food
54 truck to be located in front of the site; 2) Single-family residence; 3) Wool mill located in
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 2
1 the rear of the lot. Parking will be shared for the three uses. The plan is to eventually
2 employ two or three persons for the wool mill use.
3 • Has been in the wool business for a long time.
4 • The food truck is leased.
5 • Referred to attachment 1 of the staff report that provides a detailed description of the
6 Project and layout of the proposed uses. It also talks about the wool mill
7 operation/process and equipment used. Some of the equipment does generate some
8 noise, but would not negatively impact the neighborhood because of the location of the
9 mill and that the machinery will be enclosed, particularly with the building material used
10 and type of construction. The noise will not go outside of the property line.
11 • As part of the process, the wool is washed and dried appropriately so there would be no
12 noticeable odor outside.
13 • Owns the property and will reside in the house.
14 • Is unsure what kind of food will be sold from the food truck.
15 • It is likely the food truck will be moved off the site at night.
16 • Parking should not be an issue because people will probably walk to the food truck.
17 Acknowledged there will be some traffic.
18 • The hours of operation would likely be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
19 five days a week when businesses are typically open. There are many businesses that
20 operate on Orchard Avenue.
21 • Referred to site plan keynote#12 concerning the location of the picnic tables.
22 • The trees in the front of the lot would somewhat screen the food truck from view,
23 particularly for persons traveling north.
24 • Two of the vehicles on the site will be removed.
25 • Confirmed the plan is to add an approximate 160 sq ft shipping container in the far
26 northern portion of the site. Must comply with the 10-foot setback from the property line
27 for placement of this container.
28 • Confirmed there are two Valley Oak trees in the rear of the property. The tree in the front
29 of the property is a Liquid Amber.
30 • Confirmed there are no plans to add a fence between his property and the property
31 located to the north.
32 • Confirmed no plans to share parking with the property to the north.
33 • It may be that some type of buffer will be used to prevent people from encroaching on his
34 neighbor's property. Currently, the vehicles on his neighbor's property prevent people
35 from accessing his neighbor's property.
36
37 Chair Hise:
38 • Referred to attachment 1 (Member Thayer's) comments how landscaping applies to a
39 mixed use zoning project and noted with regard to the last paragraph concerning the
40 proposed project that for any remodel or addition landscaping may not be limited to the
41 building alone. The California Green Code is specific about the application of water
42 efficiency concerning landscaping for projects.
43
44 Principal Planner Jordan:
45 • Advised City Building Official Willoughby will address the remodel in his comments
46 regarding the Project including how this would apply to landscaping and compliance with
47 water efficiency regulations/rules and/or other possible building- related issues.
48 • Related to the subject property and accompanying violations on the site, the applicant
49 purchased the property with existing violations. The first violation and/or issue on the site
50 is the existing shipping/storage container that does not comply with the setbacks and
51 was not permitted. The applicant would like to continue to use the unpermitted shipping
52 container as storage for the wool mill. The question is whether this is appropriate in its
53 present location if it is not visible from the public right-of-way. In the future, the applicant
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 3
1 would like to add a second storage container should it be necessary in the location
2 shown on the site plans.
3 • Would like the DRB to discuss the issue concerning the storage containers.
4 • Would like the DRB to provide input regarding the landscaping.
5 • The Project has circulation and safety concerns about the mix of uses on the site that
6 need to be discussed.
7 • The applicant continues to work through some of the Project issues.
8 • Related to approval of the Site Development Permit where findings must be made such
9 that the vehicle and pedestrian circulation on the site must work in terms of safety and
10 related to approval of the Use Permit, the public health safety and welfare of citizens
11 cannot be compromised as part of the project so for both permits safety considerations
12 have to be made.
13 • Related to the food truck, staff has some concerns about its location relative to
14 appropriate pedestrian and vehicle circulation such that there is no potential for conflict
15 that would create an unsafe condition.
16 • Related to the mixed uses for the site, staff does not have particular concerns about the
17 residential use.
18 • For staff, most of the issues for the Project come about with the addition of the food
19 truck. The food truck must be situated such that it does not create safety concerns.
20 • Since the DRB makes recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding site
21 layout/design and issues, wants to make certain this is done adequately for the food
22 truck use.
23
24 Parkinq
25
26 Chair Hise:
27 • Related to parking, not readable on site plan. Requested clarification there are eight
28 parking spaces proposed.
29 • An option would be to use the lawn area for vehicle/bicycle parking to more effectively
30 comply with California Green Code and/or Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance where
31 less lawn needs would be a component of approval.
32 • Related to the required parking versus the proposed parking minus 1 for the bicycle
33 space could put personal parking in another location on the site.
34 • Related to placement of the food truck asked about the possibility of another curb cut?
35 • What about vehicle access to the wool mill building? What about if a truck needs to pull
36 up to the building to load or unload?
37 • Has concern about parking space#1 and with making it as visible as possible.
38 • The parking space closest to the wool mill building is not useable. People are likely to hit
39 the building with their vehicles as they back up and turn around. A scale is not indicated
40 on the site plans so it is difficult to determine if there is sufficient backup space. A
41 minimum of 25 feet of back up space is necessary. Is of the opinion, this is not a
42 workable space to operate a vehicle. An option would be to leave the space and utilize it
43 for bicycle parking.
44 • Relocating the bicycle parking would allow the access isle for handicap parking to move
45 into that space such that the parking would shift. By relocating the parking would allow for
46 a better functioning site, particularly with three different uses.
47 • Is of the opinion, garbage and recycling is not in a good location, could put bicycle
48 parking in this location and move the garbage/recycling to another location. Typically for
49 commercial projects, garbage/recycling are located within an enclosed structure so as not
50 to be visible. The site plans needs to show the location of the garbage/recycling for the
51 commercial use.
52 • Would Planning staff accept the parking, as proposed?
53 • Is there a location on the site where the shipping/storage containers would not be an
54 issue?
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 4
1 Member Nicholson:
2 • Are the parking calculations based on the wool mill use and the residence and not the
3 food service?
4
5 Member Hawkes:
6 • Can the DRB accept the proposed parking even though the parking accommodations
7 appear to be minimal?
8
9 Principal Planner Jordan:
10 • Referred to page 4 of the staff report concerning the parking requirements and noted the
11 required number of parking spaces is debatable because of the variable considerations
12 that come into play when calculating the parking for the different uses and explained how
13 this was done. For the Site Development Permit and Use Permit process, if it can be
14 determined not all the parking spaces calculated for the different uses are necessary,
15 parking can be reduced. An issue when having to calculate the required parking is that
16 there is no exact fit for parking requirements for a wool mill. The parking calculations
17 made for the Project was the result of planning staff's best guess at what the parking
18 requirements should be. Processing, treatment, assembly, packaging and distribution is
19 more for light industrial type use and larger buildings like what occurs on Mazzoni Street.
20 What the applicant desires to do is not an `exact fiY relative to determining the required
21 parking.
22 • As part of the discretionary review process, staff is asking the DRB to provide input as to
23 what is reasonable parking. Parking must be provided on the site.
24 • 2 spaces are required for the residence and 3 spaces for the outdoor sales
25 establishment. The number of parking spaces required for the wool mill is questionable.
26 City Code does not change the fact there is no resale occurring on site for the wool mill
27 when calculating the parking. Only the decision makers have the authority and/or
28 purview to make an exception to the parking.
29 • Even though staff calculated 4 parking spaces for the employees of the wool mill and 2
30 spaces for the customers of the wool mill, theses parking spaces would be for the food
31 truck and not the wool mill.
32 • The parking proposed as shown in the staff report is 9 spaces with 1 space counted for
33 bicycle parking for a total of 8 parking spaces proposed. 1 space is required for each 10
34 vehicle parking spaces. Based on 11 required vehicle parking spaces, 1 bike space is
35 required.
36 • Preference is for bicycle parking to be as close to the street as possible so it is visible.
37 the only persons that would use the bicycle parking would be potential employees of the
38 wool mill and people going to the food truck.
39 • If the travel trailer were to remain on the site, Planning staff would have to review this.
40 The applicant could move the travel trailer so it would no longer be a consideration.
41 • If it is the preference of the DRB for the applicant to clean up the sight in terms of
42 aesthetics, this is a recommendation the DRB can make.
43 • The Zoning Code explicitly allows for an exception to the parking requirements through
44 the discretionary review process and based upon what the applicant has explained about
45 the wool mill operation in which planning staff does not have a good fit for parking, the
46 applicant does not expect to start his business with 3 employees and 2 customers.
47 Related to the parking requirements for the uses, planning staff is just applying the
48 closest fit in this regard. If there is evidence on the record that the uses will not generate
49 a need for the required parking, the City can require less parking. While the DRB does
50 not have purview over the Use Permit, from a Site Development Permit perspective
51 based upon what the DRB has knowledge of in terms of whether or not the parking is
52 reasonable and whether the parking space works for what is being proposed, the DRB
53 has purview over this.
54 • Would be okay with the proposed parking as a start-up to what is proposed in the future.
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 5
1 • There is nowhere the shipping containers can be placed that would not be an issue for
2 staff where the preference is not to have them at all on the site. The preference for the
3 applicant is to leave the existing container where it is and adjust it to comply with the
4 setback requirements.
5
6 There was discussion concerning the location of accessible parking and bike parking as shown
7 on the site plans.
8
9 Member Liden:
10 • In terms of aesthetics and safety, it may be the food truck should be oriented north and
11 south rather than east and west.
12 • What is the plan for the travel trailer shown on the site plans? The site would look much
13 better if it were removed.
14
15 Matthew Gilbert:
16 • Confirmed eight parking spaces are proposed.
17 • Anticipates three or four employees for the wool mill. Related to parking required for the
18 wool mill noted staff in calculating the parking for the site, reserved 4 parking spaces for
19 employees on the max shift plus 2 for customers for a total of 6 parking spaces plus 2 for
20 the residence and 3 for the outdoor sales establishment for a total of 11 parking spaces
21 required.
22 • Clarified the lawn is not being watered.
23 • Would not be feasible to use the lawn area for parking without getting rid of the food
24 truck. It may be the parking has to be reconfigured for the site.
25 • Would not think another curb cut would benefit the parking situation. There is street side
26 parking available.
27 • Has considered orienting the food truck north and south. To make this work there would
28 have to be more accessible sidewalk for the handicap. The picnic table would have to be
29 moved to the south end and is a less enjoyable place to eat.
30 • Does not need vehicle access to the wool mill building and explained the function
31 regarding handling of the wool when it comes in for processing. There is no need for a
32 truck backup to a dock to unload the wool. There is space for a truck to come through to
33 the door of the wool mill if necessary.
34 • Referred to the site plans and indicated the green line represents 24 feet. If parking is
35 shifted easterly as far as possible, there is approximately 1 foot between parking lot 1
36 and the fence. This would allow the handicap parking space adequate space.
37 • Relocating the handicap space further east and removing the sign structure may be a
38 possibility.
39 • What looks like garbage/recycling is actually the container for people to throw away trash
40 from the food truck. Garbage/recycle for his residence could be located anywhere.
41 • The logical spot for the garbage/recycling for the commercial use would be on the north
42 side of the wool mill building.
43 • The travel trailer could be removed if this is the preference of the DRB. At present, the
44 travel trailer is being stored on the property.
45
46 DRB comments:
47
48 Member Nicholson:
49 • Does not have an issue with the proposed parking. Likes that the City supports less
50 parking for project whenever possible.
51 • Concurs with Member Hise and with making parking space#1 as visible as possible.
52 • Likes the concept of the wool mill and supports the overall project.
53 • Is of the opinion the shipping containers are really not a workable solution to storage in
54 the City limits. One way to address the shipping containers would be to increase the
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 6
1 screening between the parking lot and the storage area. Does not recommend a chain
2 link fence with integrated screening but rather a fence using aesthetically pleasing
3 materials that would sufficiently screen the storage containers. Is of the opinion there
4 needs to be some type of screening between the street and the storage area. Would like
5 to see the shipping containers built into the existing building.
6 • Related to landscaping, California Nutmeg is not a good choice for this type of
7 environment and does require a lot of moisture.
8 • It appears the setback from the property lines is not adequate for any type of structure
9 and asked about the setbacks.
10 • Again, has as a problem with the storage area. It requires some type of screening of nice
11 design.
12
13 Matthew Gilbert:
14 • The north side of the building gets a lot of shade it may be the California Nutmeg would
15 do fine.
16 • The landscaping should help screen the containers from view.
17 • Asked about the possibility of installing a six-foot high fence even though not supportive
18 of the concept.
19 • The storage facilities are presently on the ground but will be elevated.
20
21 Member Nicholson:
22 • The screening needs to be substantial and look appropriate. Is of the opinion an eight-
23 foot fence would be appropriate.
24 • Related to the building expansion, is of the opinion the facade of the wool mill building
25 would work well in Redwood Valley. It is not quite appropriate for the neighborhood and
26 finds it to be a conflict of styles and is an `insensitive' approach to an accessory building
27 in an essentially residential functioning property and inappropriate for this combination of
28 mixed uses on the site. Would like to hear about any alternative options concerning the
29 facade.
30 • Has a problem with the food truck with it being located one-half in the parking and
31 circulation area and one-half in the landscape area. While it is a logical location for the
32 food truck functionally, it really is a big visual conflict with the residential and
33 manufacturing uses. Would like to support the alternate plan of putting the food truck
34 parallel to the street. While situating the food truck parallel to the street may make it
35 awkward for pedestrian circulation to the site, it could be a very nice street frontage area
36 with some tables between the sidewalk and the food truck and hidden more in front of the
37 residential unit and behind the trees. The food truck should align appropriately with the
38 street and would be a fit better on the site because it would essentially create its own
39 space. It would be a nice addition for Orchard Avenue to have a food truck having a nice
40 visual presentation. The front of the food truck should face Orchard Avenue.
41 • The trees on the property are a great asset.
42
43 Principal Planner Jordan:
44 • Since the property is in a commercial zoning designation, there does not have to be any
45 setbacks. The rear of the property must comply with the 10-setback for fences, etc.,
46 because it is adjacent to an R-3 zoning district.
47 • Understand for what the Wool Mill is using shipping/storage container for, there is no
48 setback requirement. The shipping container does encroach into the 10-foot rear yard
49 setback area and zero side yard setback area where the applicant is showing the location
50 on the map. In talking with the Building and Fire Departments, there is no building or fire
51 code requirement because it is a metal shipping container and what is being stored is
52 non-flammable.
53
54 Member Liden:
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 7
1 • Is pleased with the wool mill concept and would greatly serve the community.
2 • The neighborhood is a diverse/eclectic mix of uses. Would like to see the site
3 environment changed so it is more organized and pleasing in appearance.
4 • Would like to see the travel trailer removed because it is an eyesore and only adds
5 another element to a site that already has a lot of uses going on.
6 • Related to the storage container finds it is sort of rusted and unnoticeable. May have an
7 issue if the container was new and shiny. May not be okay with a second storage
8 container on the site.
9 • Is okay with the proposed parking.
10 • Has an issue with the food truck. Understands why the applicant wants to have a food
11 truck. It would be great for the community to have a food truck. Does not approve of the
12 proposed orientation of the food truck. It is a separate element/entity and needs to be
13 presented as such. Would like to see the food truck located where the bike storage is and
14 separate it from all the other buildings/elements occurring on the site. Need to have a
15 separation from the residential unit and the space for the food truck. Need to show that
16 the food truck is a separate entity and business. As presented on the site plans, the food
17 truck draws from the eclectic chain of things going on at the site. We also have no idea
18 what the food truck will look like so it is difficult to make decisions in this regard.
19 • Recommends starting the project without the food truck and add it later after the business
20 is in operation and the site is cleaned up allowing time to assess how everything is
21 working.
22 • Related to landscaping, would like to see the existing trees on the site enhanced. The
23 food truck would de-enhance the tree located in the front of the site. Adding another
24 storage container would de-enhance the existing tree in this location. Would be nice to
25 have some landscaping on the site.
26 • Would like to see the site cleaned up. What is being proposed for the site could actually
27 enhance the neighborhood. The cleaner and less cluttered the site, the better it will look.
28 • Again, likes the concept of the wool mill. Is fine with the facade for the wool mill building.
29 • Is of the opinion visibility of the food truck is not the real issue, but rather aesthetics with
30 reorienting of the truck. It might be better if the truck were less visible.
31
32 Member Hawkes:
33 • Likes the live-work concept. The wool mill operation is likely a very viable business with
34 the potential to be highly successful.
35 • Would like to see the shipping containers screened.
36 • Is fine with the food truck and the proposed orientation. The truck can be seen when a
37 person is driving down the street. Likes that it would be under a tree on the site.
38 • Okay with not having the full number of 11 parking spaces. The business is just starting
39 up so parking should not be a problem. Is hopeful the parking needs will not change.
40 • Is fine with the project.
41
42 Chair Hise:
43 • Supports Member Thayer's recommendations regarding the landscaping for the site.
44 • Does have concerns about parking space #1. Accordingly, is unsure whether the number
45 of parking spaces planning staff has proposed is the appropriate number either.
46 • Would put the bicycle facility somewhere else on the site closer and/or related to the food
47 truck.
48 • Would not likely find a food vendor that would park the truck in the proposed orientation.
49 Is of the opinion the most successful food trucks face the street having the dining out
50 front. A person will essentially see the truck coming from one direction.
51 • There is space available in the front of the site that is not being utilizing to its best and
52 highest use. Reorienting the food truck to face the street would enhance the `whole
53 operation.' The manner in which the truck and dining scheme is situated will not work. Is
54 of the opinion the food truck operation is not laid out well enough to be successful.
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 8
1 Recommends the applicant and/or architect formulate a better plan for the food truck and
2 outdoor dining.
3 • Has no problem with the building that is being added except for looking at an alternate
4 facade design and materials to be more compatible with the residence along with
5 reorienting the outdoor dining area.
6 • The parking should be adequate, as proposed.
7 • Recommends cleaning up the lot. It is cluttered where the uses get lost in the mix of
8 things going on at the site.
9 • The installation of a fence was proposed for screening purposes, but the concept was not
10 something Mr. Gilbert wants to do. Adding a fence and some landscaping amenities are
11 rather simple solutions that would enhance/improve the appearance of the site such that
12 many of the aforementioned comments made would no longer be so relevant.
13 • The concept of expanding the wool mill building and bringing the industry here, the
14 addition of the food truck would not be successful the way the Project is designed.
15 Adding to the clutter and/or not removing the clutter or screening it properly cannot be
16 encouraged by the DRB.
17 • Recommends the applicant review his project and make modifications based on the
18 comments made by the DRB.
19
20 Matthew Gilbert:
21 • Would be open to reorienting the food truck.
22 • Would consider the installation of a fence for screening purposes.
23 • Turning the food truck around 90 degrees and creating a new entrance would work, but
24 is of the opinion the modification would not make the food truck more visible because of
25 the existing trees. However, will take a closer look at this consideration.
26 • The intent of the food truck is to generate income so it is important for it to be in
27 operation sooner rather than later is very important.
28 • Related to the facade of the wool mill building, a fire wall is required that extends 30
29 inches above the eve where some form of facade is necessary. The intent of the facade
30 is to make it look like the mill has been in existence for a long time by constructing it in a
31 style/design from a previous era. The wool mill building should complement the
32 residential unit somehow.
33
34 Member Nicholson:
35 • Will the building contain T1-11 siding, some vertical, some horizontal?
36 • Is of the opinion the material proposed is `confusing' and is not congruent/compatible with
37 the other structures on the site. Recommends even the use of recycled barn wood that
38 would resemble an old sheep barn. While it does not match the material on the house it
39 would provide character such that it would be completely different rather trying to use
40 material that fits partway so that which is visible looks authentic. Made some suggestions
41 about some materials that would be a good fit.
42 • Would like to see a fence on the north side of the property.
43 • Does the food truck have to comply with front yard setback requirements?
44
45 Chair Hise:
46 • The facade resembles that of a western storefront facade. Supports making the building
47 look like that of another era rather than a western storefront theme.
48 • Would like the applicant to take another look at the design.
49
50 Matthew Gilbert:
51 • The plan for the front facade is to try and recycle siding from the existing building to
52 match the house. T1-11 siding will be used for the new construction.
53 • Explained how recycling and/or reuse of siding on the buildings would work to make the
54 buildings more cohesive in appearance.
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 9
1 DRB consensus:
2 • Would like Mr. Gilbert to consider the comments/suggestions made by the DRB and
3 make revisions accordingly based on the input provided.
4 • Does not support moving the Project forward with a recommendation for approval to
5 Planning Commission without revised plans.
6 • Does not need to see the revised plans and is fine with Planning staff making certain
7 modifications to the Project that reflect the DRB's comments and proceed with moving
8 forward to the Planning Commission for review and approval provided the changes to the
9 site plan are adequate.
10
11 Principal Planner Jordan:
12 • There is no front yard setback requirements for the food truck. The setback is zero.
13 • The DRB is asking the applicant to consider the comments made above, make
14 modifications and revise the site plans.
15 • Is of the opinion with all the comments made by DRB, the Project is not ready for review
16 by the Planning Commission at this time.
17
18 6B. Burger King Site Development Permit, 711 East Perkins Street (File No.: 422):
19 Review and recommendation to Planning Commission on a Site Development Permit for
20 a renovation of the existing fa�ade, new signage, and modifications to the parking lot and
21 landscaping for Burger King at 711 East Perkins Street, APNs 179-061-04 and 179-061-
22 34.
23
24 Principal Planner Jordan:
25 • Gave a Project description as provided for on page 1 of the staff report.
26 • The applicant has provided a new landscaping plan. The Project is located in the C-1
27 zoning district that has very specific landscaping requirements. The Zoning Code does
28 not exempt projects for facade modifications from the landscaping requirements in the C-
29 1 zoning district.
30 • The parking lot is over-parked by zoning code standards and the landscaping plan does
31 not provide the shade coverage for the planter islands that are required. Staff is unsure
32 whether the Project provides the percentage of landscaping coverage required because
33 planning staff has not received all the information from the applicant.
34 • Related to the signage, signage is not allowed to exceed the height of the main roof. New
35 signage on west and north facades may exceed the height of the roof. Signage is
36 allowed to exceed the height of the main roof with approval of a site development permit.
37 The purview of the DRB is the site development permit, as part of its review of the site
38 development permit, the DRB also needs to review and make a recommendation on the
39 signage included in the sign program and landscaping.
40 • The zoning ordinance allows modifications to the landscaping requirements and with a
41 site development permit signage can exceed the height of the main roof height. The
42 issue is should the project have to be more in compliance with the landscaping and
43 signage requirements than proposed.
44 • The applicant is replacing and adding signage. The freestanding highway will remain
45 unchanged.
46
47 Julio Tinavero, Milestone Associates, Architect for applicant:
48 • His firm is doing the Project renovations as shown on the project plans.
49 • Has reviewed the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines for Projects located outside
50 the Downtown Design District.
51 • Acknowledged the Project has specific issues that need to be worked out related to
52 landscaping, signage, etc.
53 • The site contains a large open space for RV and bus parking. This type of parking
54 prevents the Project from complying with the parking lot shade coverage requirements.
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 10
1 • The applicant proposes landscaping improvements where feasible and explained how so.
2 What is not proposed are planter islands in the parking lot that were requested in order to
3 comply with the zoning ordinance because planters and trees in this location restricts
4 traffic circulation of the large vehicles - trucks, buses, and RVs. If trees were planted as
5 required, the trees and planters would be damaged since these vehicles have a tendency
6 to run over the planter islands. This increases costs due to the need to
7 repair/replacement.
8 • Reviewed the shade calculations requirements for the landscaping and revised the
9 landscaping plan based on staff's comments.
10
11 Assistant Planner Johnson:
12 • Related to the September 9, 2014 landscaping plan, clarified the most recent information
13 submitted did not include the required landscaping calculations for shade and coverage
14 but rather revised elevations. The landscaping plan dated September 9, 2014 is the most
15 recent.
16
17 Principal Planner Jordan:
18 • The September 9, 2014 landscaping plan does not include the shade calculations that
19 Architect Tinavero is referencing.
20 • Asked if more trees have been added to the revised landscaping plan Architect Tinavero
21 is referencing?
22
23 Julio Tinavero:
24 • Confirmed no trees were added to the revised plan. However, the landscape architect
25 added the 50% shade calculations based on the existing trees shown on the plan and the
26 revised plan meets the shading requirements for the perimeter parking areas. Shade
27 calculations were not done for the interior areas.
28
29 Principal Planner Jordan:
30 • To clarify, all the paved areas except for the drive-thru are required to have 50% shade
31 coverage.
32
33 Julio Tinavero:
34 • The focus regarding the landscaping was on the perimeter parking areas.
35 • No trees were added to the center of the parking area where the RVs and buses park
36 because trees in this location are not feasible as the RVs/buses hit them.
37 • To comply with the shade requirements of the zoning ordinance, the intent was to focus
38 on the perimeter areas rather than the interior areas by adding new trees around the
39 perimeter, replacing dead/dying landscaping and providing for drought resistant
40 landscaping.
41 • The applicant is proposing the RV/bus parking area remain the same and is not
42 proposing new landscaping in this area.
43 • The perimeter of the parking areas will be shaded in the compliance with the zoning
44 ordinance shade coverage requirements, but the RVs and bus parking areas will not.
45 • Referred to the September 9, 2014 landscaping plan and noted the darkened tree
46 symbols represent new trees. These trees are 15 gallon trees so they will be sizeable.
47
48 Member Hawkes:
49 • Asked about the location of the perimeter property lines. Related to the zoning ordinance
50 and shade calculations for parking lots requested clarification that if a tree is on the
51 property, only one-half credit is given.
52
53 Principal Planner Jordan:
54 • Correct. Credit is given for the fraction of the tree that shades the paved parking area.
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 11
1 Julio Tinavero:
2 • Related to the one-half credit for trees located on the property line and shade
3 calculations, typically what is done in this regard is count the parking stalls and
4 maneuvering space behind the stalls as part of the calculation.
5
6 Principal Planner Jordan:
7 • Confirmed all interior paved parking areas, except the drive-thru area, must have 50%
8 shade coverage.
9
10 DRB:
11 • Discussed the existing striped areas in terms of the parking delineations for the different
12 vehicles that park on the site. Asked if trees could be planted in these areas.
13 • Discussed the location on the landscaping plan where interior trees could be planted
14 without RVs and buses hitting them.
15 • In addition to parking space consideration, asked if the zoning ordinance includes a
16 clearance height for trees that is considered when calculating shade coverage for
17 parking lots?
18 • What is the reason Burger King wants RVs and buses parking on the site when these
19 take up so much space. Does Burger King really benefit economically from the clientele
20 that are traveling in these RVs/buses?
21 • Asked about sufficient backup spaces for buses and how this works?
22
23 Julio Tinavero:
24 • While making the striped areas planter areas by adding trees is possible, the height of
25 the trees in relation to the height of the RV or bus would not work because they would be
26 hit.
27
28 Principal Planner Jordan:
29 • For trees in the right-of-way, there would be a clearance height.
30 • The applicant wants the RV and bus parking; however, staff has no knowledge how many
31 parking spaces are actually needed for parking for these vehicles. Parking spaces for
32 RVs and buses should be counted as two vehicle parking spaces because they are twice
33 as long as a regular vehicle. The site is over-parked by 8 to 10 spaces counting the RV
34 and bus spaces as regular parking spaces. Since the parking spaces for RV and bus
35 parking are double the size of a regular space, what occurs is more asphalt and less
36 landscaping that is not close to the shade coverage requirement or the one planter island
37 with tree between every 4 parking spaces.
38 • According to the City of Ukiah Zoning Ordinance all paved areas even the drive-thru has
39 to be 50% shade coverage in 10 years. This shade coverage is not possible so the City
40 of Ukiah currently uses the City of Davis shade coverage standard which is all paved
41 parking areas, excluding the drive-thru, within 15 years. The other requirement is for a
42 planter island with tree between every 4 parking spaces. The Planning Commission tends
43 to prefer the fishbone type of planter island instead of the one tree for every 4 parking
44 spaces. The Planning Commission has the ability to approve modifications to the
45 landscaping requirements. The other requirement that the proposed landscaping plan
46 does not comply with is that there should be tree shading on the west and south side of
47 buildings. There may be arguable landscaping on the south side of the building, but
48 there is none on the west side. It is unclear if the project provides 20% lot coverage as
49 landscaping.
50
51 Scott Disheroon:
52 • Much of the business Burger King receives is from tour buses. Notes these days the
53 buses are getting higher and higher so it is difficult to shade parking areas because the
54 trees are hit and damaged. Allowing RVs and buses to park at Burger King benefits the
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 12
1 City in that these vehicles exit the freeway at the Perkins Street exit and park in the
2 Burger King parking lot rather traveling through town and taking up spaces on City
3 streets.
4 • Again the tour buses are very important to Burger King's business.
5 • There are more buses parking at Burger King than RVs.
6 • Explained how egress and ingress work for buses on the site in terms of the existing
7 striping and drive-thru capabilities.
8
9 Principal Planner Jordan:
10 • If buses are allowed to pull-thru the parking spaces do people park where the light pole is
11 located? Is there an opportunity to provide landscaping at this location?
12
13 Julio Tinavero:
14 • Demonstrated how parking works on the site including how access works for the drive-
15 thru and noted buses take up a lot of space for maneuverability.
16
17 Scott Disheroon:
18 • Has observed over the last 30 years that trucks and trailers pull into more than just the
19 one space that is provided for large vehicles. Large truck and trailers come to the
20 restaurant because of the space available to park. Such vehicles do not need to park on
21 Perkins Street and can take advantage of the large parking lot.
22
23 Assistant Planner Johnson:
24 • Perkins Street is considered a general plan `gateway' to the City where appearance and
25 aesthetics are very important so commercial applicants located outside of the Downtown
26 Design District are encouraged to consider the design guidelines for commercial
27 development.
28 • Related to landscaping, a pedestrian path is required through a parking lot if the lot has
29 more than 12 spaces. The project does not have the required pathway through the
30 parking lot to the entrance of the building.
31
32 Julio Tinavero:
33 • Acknowledged the existing orientation of the parking lot accommodates large vehicle
34 parking and circulation, providing safe pedestrian pathways is problematic.
35
36 DRB comments:
37
38 Member Nicholson:
39 • Related to the issue of building elevations and rule that signs cannot exceed the height of
40 the main roof, applicant should have a revised sign program that brings the signage down
41 below the roofline. Looking at the signage, the Project does not conform to City
42 standards.
43 • Finds it acceptable to allow a structure that holds a sign to exceed the roofline, but the
44 sign itself should conform to City sign standards.
45 • Related to the proposed Sign Program does not support a variance to allow the signage
46 to exceed the height of the roofline, particularly for a business in the City limits.
47 • The remainder of the facades look good. The proposed exterior building facade
48 modifications, new signage, fencing, repair/restriping of the existing parking lot, new
49 external light features, and the other proposed renovations are very much an
50 improvement.
51 • The only other project issue concerns the landscaping. Since this is the case where more
52 parking is available than required, provided a market landscaping plan that identified
53 locations for additional landscaping (see attachment 2). Noted it would be very easy to
54 remove some of the parking spaces and put in planters and trees to better comply with
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 13
1 the 50% shade coverage standard the City uses and still provide for one tree for every
2 four parking spaces. Finds there is a number of possibilities concerning parking for buses
3 and larger vehicles by considering elimination of two of the side parking spaces and plant
4 four trees or put trees in the middle of the parking lot that would still allow for pull-thru
5 areas for RVs/buses.
6 • Related to circulation and landscaping with the modifications to the parking lot as shown
7 on his proposed landscaping plan (attachment 2) would still have 4 pull-through lanes for
8 the larger vehicles.
9 • For the applicant to not make any proposal for improving the landscaping would be
10 `offensive' to the City. Unless the applicant makes a proposal to improve the landscaping
11 would not be supportive of the Project, as presented.
12 • His proposed landscaping plan offers solutions without much compromise.
13 • Would be fine with 40% shade coverage. His proposed plan did not remove many
14 parking spaces. Related to the landscaping plan, the red markings/drawings represent
15 the first proposal and the black markings shown taking out two of the outer lanes is the
16 second proposal.
17
18 Chair Hise:
19 • Looking at the Sign Program, drawing A.2.1 elevation #4 is drawn to the same height as
20 elevations#1 and 2. The sign on the back of the building is the only sign that is not taller.
21 • Looking at the Member Nicholson's landscaping proposal could take out a parking space
22 in the center of the parking lot and make it a planter area. Member Nicholson proposes
23 eliminating two parking spaces and planting both sides of the spaces. If one space is
24 eliminated in the middle and one truck/RV space eliminated would be another solution to
25 compliance with the landscaping standards for shade coverage in 15 years.
26 • The only persons using the far west parking spaces are the buses/large vehicles. These
27 are also the least popular parking spaces particularly in the summer time when people
28 would have to walk a considerable distance to access the restaurant.
29
30 Julio Tinavero:
31 • Referred to sheet A-2 relative to elevation #1 (west elevation that faces the parking lot)
32 concerning the tower that has the Burger King logo this parapet is 2 feet above the
33 roofline and the sign is 1 foot below the top of the parapet so the sign would basically be
34 1 foot above the roofline.Would be amenable to dropping the height.
35 • Related to elevation #3 (north elevation) would be amenable to dropping the height to
36 meet the roofline.
37 • Related to bus/RV parking want to make certain this is available and that there is space
38 to maneuver.
39
40 Scott Disheroon:
41 • Related to Member Nicholson's comment regarding the pull-thru for large vehicles and
42 providing landscaping, the turning islands that contain landscaping are consistently
43 damaged as these vehicles make the turn to access the drive-thru.
44 • The truck path is always wider than the radius for the turn so with the planter islands the
45 back trailers of the truck consistently hit them. This also becomes a liability issue as far
46 as people walking and tripping and other problems such as the asphalt breaking down.
47 This then becomes an eyesore. It appears no matter how much room is given to larger
48 vehicle they damage the planter islands in order to pull through the parking space and
49 exit the parking lot. Making the turn area narrower to provide for landscaping would
50 create more problems. Would like to protect the large parking spaces with regard to
51 adding landscaping that may not be feasible with the current function of the parking lot.
52 • Would like the Project to be done right particularly with regard to the parking lot and
53 landscaping.
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 14
1 • Would like to figure out a way for the beautification process and trees that would work on
2 the north side of the property where there is existing vehicle parking as opposed to where
3 the large vehicles park.
4 • Would probably be okay with losing one parking space, but does not understand which
5 one.
6
7 Principal Planner Jordan:
8 • Referred to staff's proposed landscaping plan that is incorporated into the minutes as
9 attachment 3 and explained how to allow for shading on the west side and still provide for
10 one tree every 4 parking spaces. Noted the handicapped space would have to be shifted.
11 The proposed plan would not necessarily comply with the shade percentage, but would
12 be a considerable improvement. Explained where to plant another tree. By providing
13 shade on the south and west sides much of the vehicle parking would be shaded. The
14 only other consideration is how to address shade coverage for the RV and large vehicle
15 parking and circulation area. With the proposed coverage, the Project would be more
16 code compliant than it is presently.
17 • Noted with regard to eliminating parking in favor of landscaping the Project must comply
18 with the number of parking spaces required.
19
20 Member Liden:
21 • Proposed modifications to the landscaping plan and are incorporated into the minutes as
22 attachment 4. Related to buses/large vehicles getting in and out, if they were parked on
23 the edge of the property along the west and south sides as shown on his proposed plan,
24 not much space would be necessary for them to maneuver without going over the curves,
25 etc. This would allow for the planting of trees and more parking all through the center of
26 the parking lot.
27 • Related to the elevations, is fine with the signage.
28
29 Member Hawkes:
30 • Is pleased to see proposed solutions to in order to comply with the shade coverage
31 requirements.
32 • Understands while it is important for the applicant to keep the bus/RV parking, it is
33 important to add trees for shade purposes.
34
35 Chair Hise:
36 • Asked if the parapet was being rebuilt or is it existing?
37 • Asked about the different doors to the building and corresponding signage. Noted the
38 building is close to Perkins Street such that any signage is clearly visible. In this location,
39 signage does not need to be too high.
40 • In terms of the shade issue, the Planning Commission will likely require the addition of
41 some trees in the parking lot. Would likely have to lose one bus/large vehicle space to
42 allow for some coverage in the middle of the parking lot. It may be that Member Liden's
43 proposal would be a good solution for compliance with the shade coverage requirement.
44 • Likes the Project. The proposed remodel will aesthetically improve the appearance of the
45 site as would the addition of landscaping to at least meet some of the shade coverage
46 requirements and still be able to provide parking for the larger vehicles.
47 • Restriping of the parking lot differently would improve traffic circulation. Understands
48 large vehicles are `hard' on parking lots particularly with curbs/planter areas and
49 problems with these vehicles running over them.
50
51 Matthew Carfi:
52 • Confirmed the parapet is existing. A New Burger King sign is being added as shown on
53 the proposed Sign Program (Sheet A-2.1), but the parapet is the same height.
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 15
1 • The west facing sign is 2 feet above the parapet ban and explained the tower was
2 dropped to be the same height.
3
4 DRB consensus:
5 • Fine with signage as revised to not exceed the height of the main roof. Make certain all
6 signage complies with City standards in accordance with the definition of what constitutes
7 a roofline.
8 • Recommends additional landscaping be added in order to comply City landscaping and
9 shade requirements.
10 • Consider the recommendations from members Liden and Nicholson and staff for
11 additional landscaping as shown on the landscaping plans provided.
12
13 M/S Liden/Nicholson to recommend Planning Commission approve Burger King Restaurant Site
14 Development Permit with: 1) building signage revised to not exceed the height of the roof as
15 demonstrated and agreed to at the meeting by the applicant; and 2) landscaping added to be
16 more compliant with the City's landscaping and shade requirements.
17
18 Principal Planner Jordan:
19 • Clarified the DRB is asking the applicant to make an attempt to improve shading for the
20 parking lot since the applicant has given some indication that this may not be possible.
21
22 DRB:
23 • Confirmed intent is for the project to be more compliant with landscaping and shade
24 requirements and acknowledged the project may not be able to be fully compliant.
25
26 Motion carried (4-0).
27
28 6C. Mendocino Radio-Controlled Raceway Site Development Permit (File No.: 163):
29 Review and recommendation to Planning Commission for a Site Development Permit for
30 a race and radio controlled cars with driver's stand and scorer's stand at the rear of the
31 parcel located at 1147 North State Street, APN 001-360-324.
32
33 Associate Planner Johnson:
34 • Related to providing parking for the Project, staff has been advised by the owner of the
35 building located at the front of the project site will remain vacant and does not foresee
36 renting the building any time soon.
37 • Gave a description of the Project as provided for on page 1 of the staff report and noted
38 the description was revised to provide an update concerning the noise levels. The revised
39 description related to noise is not a design related issue.
40 • The zoning ordinance requires a Site Development Permit for all construction over 150
41 square feet; therefore, the Project requires approval of a Site Development Permit in
42 addition to the Use Permit required for the raceway use of the site.
43 • The existing structures (drivers stand, scorer's booth)from the previous raceway were
44 relocated to the proposed location.
45 • While the Project is located on one of the City's gateways, it is located at the rear of the
46 property, so it is less visible from the public right-of-way.
47 • No landscaping is proposed as part of the Project. Staff has no recommendations
48 regarding the landscaping based on the use of the Project and that it is not visible from
49 State Street.
50 • The proposed use is not specifically identified in the Zoning Ordinance. As such, a
51 Determination of Appropriate Use will have to be made for the raceway use by the
52 Planning Director.
53 • Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report address vehicle parking, bike parking, access to the site,
54 lighting and signage.
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 16
1 • The Project is located outside of the boundaries of the Downtown Design District;
2 Therefore, the Project would be reviewed for compliance with the design guidelines that
3 apply to commercial project outside of this district. Due to the type of project, it appears
4 the guidelines do not apply.
5 • Pages 4 and 5 of the staff report address the required findings for approval of the Project.
6 Staff requests the DRB consider these findings.
7
8 John Laberdie:
9 • Confirmed the materials for the raceway were moved from the former site on Gobbi
10 Street to the new site.
11
12 DRB Questions:
13 • What are the hours of operation?
14 • Are the racecars electric or gas?
15
16 John Laberdie:
17 • Hours of operation would be 5:00 pm to dusk on Wednesdays, and 9:00 am to dusk
18 Saturdays & Sundays. Since racing ends at dusk no lighting is necessary.
19 • The cars are electric.
20
21 DRB comments:
22
23 Member Nicholson:
24 • Related to the viewing platform is there parking requirements?
25 • Asked about handicapped parking?
26 • As long as the Project meets ADA requirements with path of travel to the site is fine with
27 Project. Did not make the connection that the proposed use is associated with the use of
28 the adjacent commercial building.
29 • Is not certain whether a port-a-potty meets ADA standards and is acceptable.
30 • Asked about any complaints from neighbors. The site seems appropriate for the use.
31 • In terms of liability and safety, important to make certain the facility is ADA compliant.
32 • Allowing for more shade would be nice.
33 • Finds the Project somewhat odd in that the former smoke shop business is no longer in
34 existence and the property is slightly abandoned. There is no defined parking. There
35 should be defined parking but the proposed use is an after-hours recreational sport and
36 different from a business use.
37
38 Chair Hise:
39 • Noted bike parking is being provided.
40 • The Project would likely fit as an A-5 (public recreation) occupancy use type under `other
41 uses' that are uses similar to the A-5 classification in accordance with the California
42 Uniform Building Code regulations The racecar track use is considered a public
43 accommodation in this A-5 building code classification.
44 • Asked about landscaping and how this will be addressed.
45 • The Project is almost ADA non-compliant in every way. Does see ways to get around this
46 issue. ADA compliant regulations are written in a way that if the reviewing agency/body
47 allows a project to do something that is ADA non-compliant, agency is liable if something
48 is allowed that does not comply with the American Disabilities Act, which is part of the
49 civil rights code and not in any building code and is nationally enforced.
50 • Listed ways in which the project is not ADA compliant which was included as attachment
51 5 of the minutes. Would be willing to work `pro-bono' to assist with getting the Project
52 ADA compliant. The most critical components associated with ADA compliance are
53 parking spaces, path of travel to the entry and path of travel to a restroom.
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 17
1 • The one designated ADA parking space has to be van accessible that is mostly signage
2 related. The accompanying load aisle is shown on the driver's side and has to be on the
3 passenger side. There are parking spaces between the accessible space and the
4 entrance where the rule is that a handicap person cannot be made to walk behind any
5 vehicle but his/her own. Also, the handicapped space must be the closest space to an
6 entrance; no other parking space can be closer. The way it is proposed requires a
7 handicapped person to walk by the other parking spaces to get to the entrance. Looking
8 at this issue, sees there are two parking spaces in the corner of the site to the north that
9 that could be designated handicapped parking and showed the location on the site plan.
10 This space measures exactly 17 feet curb to curb, which is what is necessary for an
11 accessible parking space. To make this the accessible space for the racetrack, the space
12 would need to be restriped and extend the striping to the entryway of the racetrack. The
13 existing handicapped space can be left as is because it works for the fast food
14 establishment.
15 • The entrance also has to be accessible. Will need to provide a `person gate' having
16 hardware and/or latches that are ADA compliant. This is a reasonable request.
17 • Related to having an accessible path of travel to a restroom, having a port-a-potty may
18 work against the Project because access cannot be provided to this building for a
19 handicapped person.
20 • It appears all structural surfaces are okay.
21 • Related to handicap accessibility, the platform ramp is too steep. ADA code requires `1 in
22 12' so for every inch of height there is 12 inches of length. The primary platform is 5 ft 3
23 in and/or 63 inches and this calculates to 63 feet of ramp. ADA allows for 30 feet without
24 having a landing that is 5 ft x 6 in or for a `switchback' 5 ft x 8 in because the ramp has to
25 be 4 ft and while close is not 4 feet. To remedy, could cut the legs of the platform and
26 drop it by 3 inches. Could get by with two 30-foot lengths and a switchback, which would
27 mean building a ramp. This is what prevents a handicapped person from using the facility
28 at all because a person has to be able to access the platform to see the cars.
29 • The guard rail is 36 inches and is required to be 42 inches. There may be special
30 circumstances whether or not this has to be higher or not. It is possible to add another
31 rail. The handrail going up the ramp is also not ADA compliant for a person in a walker or
32 wheelchair. These are easy fixes.
33 • As it is now, the Project is not ADA compliant and would happy to assist with getting the
34 Project compliant.
35 • Since the materials for the raceway track were relocated, a building permit may be
36 required at which time the City Building Official can look at the ADA compliance
37 requirements and necessary modifications to the project.
38
39 Member Liden:
40 • Are there plans to have tournaments or events that draw a larger group of people?
41 • Did not hear from staff that the Project has any issues and/or problems.
42 • Landscaping does not really pertain to the use.
43
44 Member Hawkes:
45 • Is okay with the port-a-potty as long as it is located off the street and in the rear of the
46 property since State Street is one of the City's gateway. North State Street is not really
47 attractive and would not want to add to this by adding a port-a-potty that is visible.
48 Recommends putting a fence around the port-a-potty for aesthetic purposes.
49 • Is fine with the Project as long as the port-a-potty is adequately screened from view.
50
51 Principal Planner Jordan:
52 • Racetracks for radio controlled cars are not specifically listed as allowed or permitted
53 uses within the C2 zoning district. The proposed use is similar to `parks, playgrounds,
54 and other recreational uses and establishment, maintenance, operation, and removal of
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 18
1 circuses, carnivals, amusements parks, open air theaters or other similar temporary
2 establishments involving large assemblages of people which are allowed in the C2
3 zoning district with approval of a use permit. Through the discretionary review process,
4 Planning Commission will determine if the use is appropriate.
5 • Related to determining how much parking should be required, we asked the applicant
6 normally how many people attend events in a worse-case scenario. The project is
7 proposing to use 22 parking spaces on the site to the north. In order to see if the parking
8 can be shared, staff considers the number of parking spaces on the site, square footage
9 and type of uses, hours of operation for the businesses, and number of parking spaces
10 required. Then, determine if the hours of the track are "off hour"from the racetrack and if
11 there are an adequate number of spaces to serve the track based on the number of
12 people anticipated for the racetrack.
13 • The C2 zoning district includes landscaping standards. No landscaping is proposed as
14 part of the Project. Most of the landscaping requirements apply to parking lots and
15 buildings and since the Project does not include the use of the on-site gravel parking area
16 or building, the landscaping requirements do not appear to apply to this Project. A dirt
17 racetrack located at the back of the site, with no substantial improvements, that is not
18 visible from State Street, and with no onsite parking does not seem to be subject to
19 landscaping requirements. Most of the landscaping requirements are meant for parking
20 areas but if the DRB views landscaping differently this is your purview and can make a
21 recommendation.
22 • The racecar track use must have restroom accommodations. It is highly unlikely that the
23 restrooms in the existing vacant building are ADA compliant. There are ADA compliant
24 port-a-potties, so this will likely be the solution and the Building Official has indicated that
25 this would be acceptable.
26
27 Associate Planner Johnson:
28 • The parking requirement for the most similar use is 33% of the capacity of persons
29 including related office space including classrooms plus a minimum of 3 parking spaces
30 for buses. Since the zoning ordinance does not include a parking requirement for the
31 proposed use, the number of parking spaces required will be determined by Planning
32 Commission through the use permit process. Staff does not have information about the
33 all the uses on the site to the north, so a determination about the parking could not be
34 made.
35
36 Principal Planner Jordan:
37 • Clarified the question being asked is how many parking spaces are required for the
38 racecar track use. The zoning ordinance includes parking requirements for a variety of
39 commercial recreation uses but none of them are appropriate for the Project. The zoning
40 ordinance includes parking requirements for places of public assembly that may be
41 appropriate for the Project such as stadiums, churches, school, college and other
42 institutional stadiums, arenas or auditoriums and other places of assembly where parking
43 spaces are provided equal in number to 33% of the capacity in persons including related
44 office space. As part of the parking determination, have to know the hours of use so if
45 the racecar use is operating when the office space is closed then all of the parking
46 spaces are available. The owner of the property to the north has indicated that it is fine
47 for the raceway to use the parking. Staff is trying to verify that the parking will be
48 available to the racetrack and has requested information from the applicant. The 22
49 parking spaces the Project proposes on the parcel to the north that is developed with
50 CJAA and Taco Bell seem reasonable.
51
52 John Laberdie:
53 • Taco Bell has agreed to allow use of their bathroom facilities.
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 19
1 • Is trying to get access to the vacant building on the site for use of the bathroom facilities.
2 In the meanwhile, the applicant is proposing the use of a port-a-potty that is handicap
3 accessible.
4 • Confirmed there have been no complaints from neighbors. The owners of KFC and Taco
5 Bell have been very supportive of the Project.
6 • Has cleaned up the site and the neighbors are very pleased about this.
7 • Acknowledged that larger events such as tournaments are a possibility and will be
8 assessed.
9 • Acknowledged that some of the participants are handicapped and in wheelchairs. The
10 driver's stand is constructed such that handicapped persons can race.
11 • Providing shade might be a possibility in the future. Most people bring canopies for
12 shade.
13 • The port-a-potty would not be visible from State Street since the driver's stand will block
14 at least 90 percent of it.
15
16 Rick Landon:
17 • The owner of KFC has observed less transient activity as a result of clean up activity from
18 the applicant at the proposed site of the radio-controlled raceway.
19
20 DRB consensus:
21 • Become ADA compliant.
22 • Okay with no landscaping for the site.
23 • Make certain the port-a-potty is not visible on North State Street.
24
25 M/S Liden/Nicholson to recommend Planning Commission approve Mendocino Radio-
26 Controlled Raceway Site Development Permit with the recommendations that: 1) project must be
27 ADA compliant; 2) no landscaping needs to be provided; and 3) the porta-potty be located so as
28 not to be visible from North State Street. Motion carried (4-0).
29
30 7. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD:
31
32 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF:
33
34 9. SET NEXT MEETING
35 The next regular meeting will be Thursday November 13, 2014.
36
37 10. ADJOURNMENT
38 The meeting adjourned at 5:46 p.m.
39
40
41 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
42
Design Review Board October 9, 2014
Page 20
A1��cahm�nt � ____���
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 to 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 Street is
needed, the boxwood listed will not provide any cover.
Drought tolerant shade trees (away from 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 substitute 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. Unsure 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 tl�e proposed tree screening noted on plan. I am fine with the proposed Live Oak, but
the California Nutmeg (Torreya californica) is not 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 Efficient 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
j — � �
� ��
EAST PERKINS STREET
_�
PI.�t�'�AI.I,E'I'
�,_.._ r-�
� / t �'�.-.r_� l TREE SPECIE3
' - - > -> =;,�r r-:,4 S � — -- '- ` ' - s -_._ � ABRV. BOTANICALNAME COMMON NAME SIZE U AGE
; . . .,__.: - - ,. � �.- - .�, _,-} 4 - -
� - •�� - � � �
�._ � __ � ,. . � -
� � x� , , � --��,.� � . • > ; � °��� � � � � �
; � i �o � . � � � i ��� ,, �� . + � � �� o �
_-7 � � �1 , i PLt�TANUS X.' LONDON PLANE 15 GAL �����1 NG P A �T
^ f�� • • Q i__ J � ' � l� � ~ ACERIFOLIA � a
y
�' �� • F • • m
----
� ___` �— . � �y! . � .�� � ..
Y
:
f . . . r� ,� . .. .. . . . . .
' � ��.!� l� @e + ( ;�� x ACER RUBRUM RED MAPLE 15 GAL LOW �
C, EXISTING TREE �� , ,_� �� � 'OCTOBER GLpRY'
; , _.. r :p.> 1
( � Ta REMAIN(nP) . r,
��-� r �,„...- : ii , "� � SHRR SPECIES BOTANICALNAME COMMONNAME SIZE
' 1, .„, .� <<_ _ , vr' ,. .
� � i �j ' .� -'_ __.H... . � � � . . � .: .�� �. .
� ' " - � EXISTING `��'� 8g e BERBERIS BUXIFOLIA'NANA' DWARF MAGEL�AN BARBERRY 5 GAL LOW m�
�i=i , � - i � . _ __ ._ ., s�a
' BURGER KING �J'�
_• �'"' x' „�• RESTAURRNT - , � HH O -HEMEROCAL�IS X.'STARBURST' STA126URST DAY-LILY 1 GAL MED ��
� �-- , � 3,397 SF � �
,., '� ,,,�'
� t � MC O MYRICA CAIIFORNICA PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE 5 GAL �OW
� Y
�, � ' I ND � NANDINA D.'HARBOUR DWARF' ' DWARF HEAVENLY BAM800 5 GAl LOIN �
;:i, " TRASH NCLOSURE � , �
' � RC O RHAPHIOLEp15 I.'CLARA' CLARA WDtAN HAWTORN 5 GAL LOW
`S , �
.. ��, � . . � � � . ."
.. .. . � . ... � � ��:�. . . � . ... �. . � � . . � � .
� � � 0 � a ,, � `, RI � ROSA'ICEBERG 10EBERG ROSE 5 GAL MED
. . �,.,:' -j� .. � . . .
,��`�.�i EX TINGSH GE `' • r't,-" �•`" I� GROUNDCOVERSPECIES Z
�. �_.
E AW( ) r , °� SYM. BOTANIGAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING
_ : � .
�
� ti� : •�. •' • - " f � , ~,�,�'� � TEUCRIUM LUCIQRYS GERMANDER'LUCIDRYS' 9 GAL 24"0.0. LOW � �. "M�
� 5---- � � /,r,�-�-'., ''�! l�` f �! � � � ;
I /� �°~° ,f r �� ( � '-,� �
.� , > � � � _ .. � _ 4 _ �; z
: . � y... v �❑ .- �p � � � N
i ` 'J W
. . .� �. + � .�+ �+ �. �+ . ,. � � - `�:., }��C�'��� _��. 1� -- -� - ;L,a- . . . . . . W :a � �
�. . � .�. .�- � �. , \ � _ _ + .
� _
. . . . 1 -,�, : �„�*, :�O 'f't : :�Or-" t� + 'E' + ` �....: �.. ,...._ -.....::..:..:�'�.` �.� { +.�` . .. . . � . . . . . . J .� fl . .
�
. '- _���`_� _��3.� �.. .. � Y_.� _� . . ��J I- S h
�
�
. u �
...
� , ,
.-.J � _ —,ti� t `"�.'� '- . � � Q J (n
; J ` _
.�.J
.. . . =i �'�.. � {j _� ,..�.� ; °��,,, �..�.-� �w.,-� > =' � w
... �� . . .. � . `l_ ... � _ . . , ..� �`:X .."_� . .. . . ... ..\-�....1 � :" .. . . .... .. ..... W �S � o .
y �`/5-' 1 r
L.-�J �v ,� �� ��1 � o � � a
`" .
����r„-.«
. .. : . ... ' . . � � . .. . .... .. . . . .. ... � . . � EF f G E��/i h��f�[Ol A)!p .
� �Y�rOYnfES'Ptn «efiUIIFGf[O).
� � � . . GENERALLANOSCAPESPECIFICATIONS�, �� � � GENERALLANDSGAPESPECIPICATIONS �� � � � � �� �" "� �� � �� � ��
. . . .: .. .LANDSCAPE PLANTING .. � .. �.IANDSCAPE IRRIGATIdN : . . .. . : .. . � . .. .. � � .. . . z rnccs ud+ic rr r:mw�.0 n cnc�w�aiio� .. g �.. .:.
��� ��� � � �� �� � SCtF[>FO v CIJY aFnAp�tD Ll5). wti
��� . � � A.GENERALREQUIREMENTS �� � �� A.GENERAL�REQUIREMENTS� �� � � . �� � � � � � . � � .. .���� ��y� �� .
.. PLANT MATERIALS TO BE USED SHALL BE IN PERFECT�CONDITION�.�MATERIALS SHALI BE � AI_L MATERIALS SHALL BE � �t Flnish�raaelt� ovmukii. �� .. � � �� � � . � . . . 3.Mcvi,uu.v racexearrsxau ee s �...� - . .
� � � �ASSPECIFIED�ANYDEVIATIONORSU8ST1 � 1 �� NEWANDINPERFECTCONDI710N.NODEVIATIONSFROMTHE � �� 9 °�' 0���%�2a1.8�a•te�eraipipe.� . . � . . . . ,�eove-roPCSSroewa<u. -�p �� . ..
. , TUTONFROMTHESPECIFICATIONSANDDRAWINGS SPECIFIGATIONSWILIBEALIOWEDWiTHOUTPRIORAPPROVA�BYTHELANQSCAPE :OO Vametiozwimmvec � . � �.toMamiinepipe. � . . . .. � : y.. . `��� "M ¢g
d.PR�M O ExCAVqT/0.Y,OwNEF/CpYTF0.^_� ...�.�.,,{ U m��
� MUSTFIRSTBEAPPROVEDBY7HELfiNDSCAPEARCHITECT. ARCHITECT. �.. � ..:QQ a0lmearienguioFwire;coiled. . , . �� . � . . . � . . . �, .
� �173mmimumdeplliof3/4tnehwashedgravel. �w�s7+ae�nvnryu.sa.,.r-aoo-eez- 'N��. u .y
� .UTILfTIES-THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VEPoFY LOCATIONS OF EXIStWG UTILITIES PRIOR 70 � - ALL IOCAL;MUNICIPALAND STATE LAWS�RULES ANDRE � -��a wa '� � � ���•� � � � � �� . � �:.0 . '
GULATIONSGOVERNINGOR � .� temrooFCOnnecuoaoryspltceconnedorswm � . . zaoa V1:.. p �,�
- � . EXCAVATION.THE CdNTRACTOR SHALCBE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRQTECTIONOF SUCH �:RELATING TO ANY PORTION OFTHIS WORK ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED INTO AND MA�E�� - sea�ant. ..��.t2 3i4•Io5/e'Adaplec � . . _ . :..�, � � " �
a . ...:�.. ......�. . � 5 3fi WlOE��FOA COHilkU05 PLIkTER ��: Z
. � �UTILITIES WITHW THE CONSTRUGTION AREA AND SHALL REPAIR ANY DAMAGE TO THE �PART OP THESE SPECIFICATIONS,ANO THEIR PROVISIONS SHALL BE CARR ED ll "OO 1'bailvalve. .. � i3 5/8 Po em ene tln � � . ..Vl M . �
. . �.. ( 0 T BY THE � .� � N Y� P MPe..coVER w/3`aARK.� "Q R a�r. .as.ns von rxec wea. . .-.� m �u8 ..
� . � � � ��U7IUTIESTHATOCCURSASARESULTOFHISOPERATIONSTOTHESATISPACTIONOFTHE SPRINKLERCONTRACTOR.� ���� � �.�Os�D�ag � � � ���ta PVCMtinlfne.(La�gmasrequiretl) � � am ennx�ca swuc eeradn�ca>ea �{ ,
FMM A HIGH OEHATY Aryp HIGH
� � . . � �LANDSCAPEARCHITEC7. � � B.INSTALI.A710N � . .. . � ..�Q Remo�ecnnw�va�ve. � � � '��5 T�p� . . . . ..��MV<n a�snc wcw�.0 Pa.m ��4 � p�
� . Q HXERIBUGXB-tOPCEmiltec � cHtoaioc,aes oa�cr[remexe�a'•�� zo.
..... . . .. . . .. �M ..
. �B:INSTAIlATION(APPLiCABLEONLYTOREVEGEfATEDARFAS) �EXCAVATIONqNDBACKFILLCONTRACTORSHALLVERIFYEXACT�LOCATIONOFALL��� ��.��s P �� � � . � „u�� ��� � .�
� Q ressureregulaMgqukkcheck6askett�te�: � �'a wM rxic�xess oF ons. o�.
��rt�r w.nsr�c v�aii xnve i�z-�e^ ��.
��� � � . :SOII PREPARATION-SOILAREAS 7HAT ARE COMPACTED DURING SITE PREPARATION EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITIES(MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL)PRIOR TO EXCAVATION.�� . � � � . � � ..��� .. � Hrex asr .
.¢o�rtnrrca�mss ox�rc s zF
. . . . SHOULOBETILLEDTOAMINIMUMSIX{6)INCNESPRIORTOBEGINNINGSOILPREPARATION. �. AM'UTILITIES;�A.QPAVINCr,�CONCRETEWORK,ET0.��DE5TR0YEDORD� . � � � � . . � . ixr+ca SbHFaCF snncEOrro�MOr� .
� AMAGEDBYANY . .. ...1� 2 ��3� 4 .r�an s-e�<oexx "' ��� o
. . AlL PLANTING AREAS OTH@R THAN HYDROSEEOED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE THE FOLIOWING � WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALC BE REPAIREb�OR REPLACED ATTHE CONTRACTOR'S : � "� �� � � � � �� � � 8 "�
. 6 . � t5 z;z:a'�srexcssviwmlav�. ' �
. � . � AMENDMENTSPERONETHOUSAND(1000)SQUAREFEET. EXPENSE. � � . ..
. � �� �� .�50LBS.OYSTER SHELL�LIME � . �.. � . . PLASTIC PIPE GNES-PLASTIC PIPE SNAL�BE RIGID;�UNPLASTICIZED PVC,SCHEOULE AN6�� 7 � � °fA�`"""`""'^'' � � � � � �
.:� � � 50LBS.HUMATE. � � - - . � . SIZE AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN, . 8 . � � �� . , � . � - � � - � �
� � 50L9S,DR.EARTH SOILAMENDMENT � . - � VALVES-WHERE REQUIRED BY LOCALDR STATE CODE,AN ATMOSPHEftIC OR PRESSURE�� � '� '�'^t`���^=�''!�'+'�� � � � �� � ��
� - - -� � ,+rar.n�a c.um,,,ross..
� � ��� � � . 6 YARDS WEL�ROTTED COMPOST � � �� . �TYPE ANTISIPHON OR BACKFLOW PREVENTION TYPEVALVE SHALI BE INSTAIIED IN �� �!_ - _ � �� � � � . �.. � . . .�� . :
..��-��f� . -�) ���-
. . . THE SpIL PREPARATION MATERIALS SNOULD BE BROA6CAST UNIFORMLYOVER fiLL . qCCOR�ANCE WITH SAID CODE AND MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION5.�PROTECT FROM � � ���7 — � _ " � � . � . � .�� � �
I i-1I I i�C wATawSP�ax[NG&
. . . . LANDSGAPEDAREASANDWORKED70ADEPTHOFSIX(6)INCHESBYUSWGAROTOTILIER � FREEZINGWHERENECESSARY.�.ALLQUICK-COUPLINGVALVESSHALLBEINS7ALCEDWITHAN� � �-�.=��r IIt=111 � � � . � � ��� � �
. . . . . . 5EE 1�OYE 5 . . .. . ��S�Ar$
. . OR OTHERACCEPTABLE MECHANICAL�MEANS 70 OBTAM A UNIFORM BLEND W17H THE SOII.. : ADJUSTABLE SWING JOINT RISERASSEMBLY.ALL AUTOMATIC$OLENOID TYPE VALVES ARE � � � {' . � � � �
I Ag
. . . .t'-"' - - i � .. . CHITEGTt/RE .
. . WEED CONTROL=THE CONiRACTOft SHALI GERMINATE AND DESTROY EXISTMG WEED TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICAT10N5. � � � � . ,-+---� � �
.. b � . �.;...,. ..... .� . ��707.628.5326 �
. SEEDSBEfOREPREPARW�AREASFORPLANTING.�SUFPICIENTWATERSHALL�BEAPPLIED � CONTROLIER-CONTRACTORSHALlSECURELYMOUNTCON7ROL�ERASDIRECTEDBY � ..� �q . .� ..� � .. � . ... .,...::.�. � � . . • ._. .. �� � � �
.. .. . o O�A o�� . . � . . ..; , . . ,.: . . . .. . .
TO CAUSE WEED SEED TO SPROUT.YOUNG�WEEDS 5HALl.THENBE DESTROYED BY USE OF MANUFACTURER AND SHALI COMPLETE ALLELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS TO C4N7ROLLER. o � � ,: , �..,, �� �� �
0000 00' o 0 13� � . . p � � ` _.;:'r.�.:- ......��. .
� � . ��� � A ROTOTILLER BEFORE THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SET SEED.�AFfER PIANTM��,A CONIRACTOR SHALL8ET THE INITIAL PRO�RAM FOR THE CONTROLLER ANDSHAL� � � � � . � ��� � � �
• .,.� ., ...RS�1e�r mrz }�llID��.{p8
.: , ,,
. PRE-EMERGENTHER8ICIDESHALLBEAPPLIEDAS�PERMANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONS..� .1NSTRUCT7HEOWNERASTOITSOPERATION. �� ..: �g�� � � . �. � ; : �� . �
� ,G ' •; s� an��s��
. . PLANTMATERIALS=THESESHALLCONSI5TOFALLTI2EES,SHRUBS�,GROUNDCQVER$ �� - �.VALVEBOXES-N.LREMOTE�CONIROLVALVESS��� . � ���1 � � � � � ..+n '�, � .
� ETG LISTED� HAI.L BE INSTAL�ED IN SUITABLE . . .� . z�y .. � „ xaNr�nc x�x . :.�q�t.� .g�iA�
. . �2 �; � F , ., .:. r :� � .e � .��.
. . . . .. .. , ON THE-0RAWIN�S:ALL PLANTS SHAL�BE HEALTHY,SHAPELY,WELL ROOTED, .. THERMOPLASTIC VALVE ACGESS 80XE5 OF PROPER S2E AS REQUIRED FOR EASY ACGE55 � : � � � � �� � � , �. � . � ��p����p
. .. . . � NOT ROOT-BOUND;FREE FROM INSECT PESTS OR PLANT DISEASES,AND PROPERLY .TOTHEVALVE..ALI:VALVEACCESS BOXES�SHALL�BE. � � � �� � � �- � �.. . � ' . � .� •; `.., ', z nr��rr-.«w:rer.��x . E � � R �
INSTAI.LEDONSUITABLEBASEOF ..;.:�. " ,:. , ., -!.=e,�3i*
. .. .. : . � • > ., w,rx�ranvr<rtr.rer
. � - � � � "HARDENEN�OFF"BEFORE PLANTING:7HE LANDSCAPEARCHITEGT MAY REJECT PLANTS� GRAVEI FORPROPER FOUNDA�� ' � � .� � �� � � � ` ., . ,. , � . � .. �
TION OF BOX�AND EASY LEVELING OF BOX TO PROPER GRADE DRIP ASSEMBLY AND EMITfERS-30PSI ' ''� '='^'` ' � �•
. . 9EPOREORAF7ER�PLANTWC�.. � �� :ANDALSdTOPROVIDEPROPERDRAINAGEOFTHEACCESSBOX.- .. � � � � ��_t �:� � _'i �e '��;; �� �" � �
z�cm+tEV�ra+cto ta.urrc rivc� �j; � p
.. PLANTING TIME-:NO PLANTING SHALI TAKE PLACE DURING EhTREMELY HOT,DftY,WINDY DRIP IRRIGATION-INSTALIXERIBUG EMITTERS ON 5/8°DRIP TUBING AS�pER DETNI.. �.NOT TO SCALE , �� cv m�r nvrmvra
.�� . .. � OR FREEZING WEATHER. � .. .. .. SECURE EMITfERS AT ROOTBALL OF EACHPLANL �� � �� � " � . " ����� _�o:�� � � � . � � ��� .
. -� SPECIMEN PLANTS LARGER THAN 15 GALLON INSIZE.�� �" C.GUARANTEE � � � ��� � � � . �� : � � � � � �� � � � � .
� � � . .� . � STAKIN�-CITYOEUKIAHSTANDARDTREEPLANTING/STAKWGDETAIL. � � � .� �� . � THECONTftACTORSHALI.�GUARANTEETHEENTIRESYSTEMAGAINSTALLDEFECTSAND� � � � � � . . � � �� . � � � �� . � .. �
.. C.MAINTENANCE PERIOD � � FAULTS�OF MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP.�THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE . . � ��CA ABA 1881 WATER REQUIREMENTS: � . �� . � � .
. THE CONTRACTOR SHAI�MAINTqIN ALL NEWLY INSTALLEO PLANTINGS FOR A PERIOD OF . :SYSTEM 1N PERFECT WORKING OROER FOR NINETY(90)DAYS FROM THE DATE OF . �� � .. � � . � � �� . n . �
. NINETY(90)DAYSAFTEftTHEDATEOFCOMPLETIONOPAL�WORK.MAINTENANCESNALI . . COMPLETION;OFINSTALLATIONBYTHE�CONTRACTO � � �ai.ntariNCSwi"� �� � � � CITY vF UK�AH� �� �
R,WITHOUTCOS7TOTHE.OWNER. � �EWILLBEHYtJROZONEOMGROUPSOFLIKEWAtERUSAGEFORMAXIMUM
� . .. CONSISTOFALL�4VEEDIN�,�MOWING;PRUNING,ANDGENERALUPKEEPASNECES5ARYT0� ...� AFTERTHESYSTEMHASBEENCOMPLETEDANDTHE�CONNECTIONSMADE,�THE �� � � .-iRRicnrioNeFF�cieNCVqNOwnreacoNS�avnTioN. . . � � � �� � � � � � .. . F �
� � � . R ... . .. ... TREE 4Y.ANTING DETAIL . ��
��MAINTAIN A NEATAND ATTRAGTIVE LANDSCAPE ATALLTIMES � CONTRACTOR SHAI.L WSTRUC7 THE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATNE M THE
���b:GUARANTEE . .�OPERATIONAND�MANTENANCEOFTHESYSTEM.�THEC� �- . nu.�N�scnafN�sHn�[aEiaaicaTeoevnNauTOnwiioEOeipiRR�cqTioNSVS7eMiN . � . . . � .�-� �
ONTRAC70R SHALL�REDiWE AN .-�,.�...„,���;,-..,.„� �..y.,: . � e....,+.��
: � � �� . . :ALLSHRUBSSHALIBEGUARANTEE�AS70GROWTHANDHEAI.TH�FpRAPERiODOF � �' ORIGINALPRINTTOSHOWANYCHANGES,�ADDITIONSAND/ORDELETIONS.THIS" � COMRLIANCEWITHTHECITYOFUKIAHREQUIREMENTSAtJDCALIPORN1AA8188t .� �� � � w•.:,,�;n.a...,,,.m,„ + 602 � �.�
AS-BUILT" . � _ ��. .._ _ t�d� :_
. NINEfY(9D)DAYSAFTERFINALACCEPTANCEBYTHEOWNER.7REES�SHAi_LBE � DRAWINGSHALLBEPRESEMEDTOTHEOWNER. .TOTnLtarao5cnaea,s�a�f.�aNOSCnreaEiROFn7ocOMa�vvniti57nreowrzMObe�wai� �
. ... � GUARANTEEDTO.LIVEANDGROWINACCEPTABLEUPRIGHTPOSITIONFdRSIX(6)MON7H5� �..�� � � � � �� ���� ��eFFlaeNCVtnNOSCnveoROlrian�cE. � �' � �� � � . � "��F a � �
. AFfERFINALACCEPTANCE�BYTHEOWNER.AWNER�MUSTPROVIDEADEQUATE �� � - �
: � � MAINTENANCETOINSURETHEEXTENDE6GUARANTEEONTREES. � , � . � � �ALLLptJDSCAPEMA7EftIALMSTALLATItlNTOCOMPLYWITHUKIAHAPPROVEDPLANTLiSTS� � � ' � � :W d �
� � � � � � . � �� . . �(STREEf 7REE5;PARK�NG TREES,EI'CJ � �� � � � `
� . . . � TREE PLANTING 5PECIFICATIONS ��� . .� . . � � � .. . . ... ...' �n� �.LL� a
�.. . 1.�TREES MUST HAVE AN UNCUT LEADERTHA7 HAS A UNIFORM TAPER FROM�BASE TO TIP.�7REES MUST MEETA7 LEAST NORMAL CALIPER AND NEIGHT FOR CONTAINER SI2E. � � � � � � � .� � � ��� � � � � . �� � � .� � j :(7 . n
. � ��� � � �OVERGROWN TREES ARE NOTACCEPTABLE � � � � �" .�� � � ' " � �� � � o �� �
. � .� . 2:ROOT BARRIER-PLASTIC,SIO ROOT BARRIER OR COPPER IMPREGNATED BARIER MUST BE INSTALIEDiP TREE IS TO BE PLANTED WITHIN 5'OF CURB,�SIDEWALK OR OTNER RIGID � . . . ... � � . � . �.. � . � � �. .. � . o � a .
� �� a
�PAVEMENL�INSTALL BARftIER LINEAR ALONG HARDSCAPE TO PROTECT SOI�INTERFACE BETWEEN SOIL AND PAVEMEN7: . � . � � �� . � ^� � . .. � . . � m. ���z . ,n . �
� � . . 3.TREE PLANTMG-HOLE S2E SHALL BE 2 TIMES THE WIDTHAND 7 TIME THE DEPTH OF ROOTBALL.SCARIFY SIDES ANDBOTTOM OF PLANTING NOLE`FlLl PLANTING HOLE WITH� �� � ����w �.^� ..�. �a a �i�� �
.. . � . � . WATERPRIORTOPLRNTING. �4..�. � .. .. .. . � � � �� �.�� ..:� �,r� � SCAtE: ��i" - 20 .�o o...(/.Ip.J{ my�o
�.✓ �� .�� dE�j�W�.�{,,,/ dm I
. . . 4:TREE PLANTING CLEAR-TREES SHALI.BE LOCATED 50 7NEYARE 2-D(MINIMUM)CLEAR OF ALL PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS AND RIGID PAVEMENT OR�GROUND�COVER(I.E:,CO�CRETE � �� � �� �� .� � .F m � Un
� SIDEINALKS,�BRICK PAVERS SET IN�iORTAR,ETC.) � � � �o Q .�4 ^
..... ..... . 5..ALLTREESTOBEPLANTED6'ORGREATERFROM�UNDERGft0UND11TILITIES.. . .... ....... ....... ..... ..... ..... ....... � .... . ... ... .... ... .. . � . .. ... . �-0� 10 .....20 .. 40 . o���..� a? . ... .
.. .. ... :.. ..... ... ... . ... . ... . ..������������ �� �� ��� ����� . . .. . � � a0 4...� h.x'�.4 . .
�� ��� � .��PLANS�ARE IN CpMPLWNCE INITH CITY S7kNDARbS. � ' ��� �� � � �� �� � � � �� �� � ���� � �
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 - , .... � . . .
. . . .... ...�� � .:�._. ..:.. .... ...�� .:'. ...::. . . � . - . .. . ..... . .: ..
A����`hm�r�t # �
1� �u n4.�._i.`'�. �'4 ^}s � {��y1 ��. ��ta t� v' �y � 3 ie, �. _ *�� ... t ,� �� �� s� ,, Y° � ' � rev t 7x v� �. ,+F � -:r,� Vye " tirf - �+JRC � e '. etq � �
i SlM � '�i1�`��i n. i k�k S��S� � '2it`.,i P } �f 1,.. Y Nt �cT , � v s�. 'k u5� t j � a \� � � j� s ?i -� t � S� S [<7 )... '4b S '\ t'>' .� 3 4x �, --:- b '�.1als���.,1�
� j�,Sci�kiN°_ 2v'e�.[�sr. �$�.�:�v�, Kl� wy �a\ a��Xy'L.Sni �}n .M��. � �m.K� ���..i x �si'�v��'�Sd�r �2a�!M�'�'va+� f�XFxiq 'S��JX �>.Il � xh�. ,i ... � � �iav � f� tt�„° h°�:.4��-h._ '� �
t9 � �t � f J ., �. X .�, , v P : Y €r` p .� � � � �id x � � '� �
4� � e� 4 �'�4v i��y _� t � 5 v�N�d � F `i'� � v$X�'` i;?t[ �� r I� �' L�as § a � t. '„-r s�r'ti r +'� �r� "v'�4 t a � 5z ')ix s ''t"' } �
�S i . ' �I�ti ff � £ "` � � 1 "��i, L'/ Z � �3'�i 3 �'�S l�� �`Yi.�.t_.-`�3k��.� > ��z'v� ��?r"i� � P 4`4 'f)� ts`�t � ���l,zys�` y f �,� � 4>`� Y�
}� h�M1.��`n� ¢ ��'�i� k,:'�`'� x rt wx3di� r � � F d5n �-.� fkK,x J.� K; Y,.' s � ��.1 R �t� ?f 13�� k � � t �' }� l a T�. .� ��<
r F . r c u. r i � r3 r . !Y t tC�, - c �s �Y `� x�. ..l � '� �Sfui� ✓' °T' 2� i y� t ;nd e ;�T v} F t �- T yt 'f
� ez t ,a 'c�.�' 1Yn 1' L s �+ � ' 6 ��,.j � � i� .:� �41. A st 3, yl . k cs � ,.,., � y � tix�, yi � f . ��`� r �..
lt� 4"� w`` 5,j� `! t-(yky y.. �Tt'C'Yl� -F�.#L . . x+� � . 4 ��r� ��'� � ,iJ ��� {� � � � �ry" � _'�� '� �r '��, � ��j -�x � �'}Y�iS'> �a,� z � � 4 :�
.r�.) 4 !} { � i C � td> MF f 3es } a �fi��{',{ � � -t +� t { u � Y 'S �'^. y� T F t 5 #
� i 1 �`L��e �&��i 4' }P,f � t*u.2ty �3 �� �� � st`4 T,t �z� _ ��s {""� -5 ; Yts ,7"_f' �lF i� i3.: Y � S ,r, sFilyc lzV� � ( � � E ,Y � ti � C7t _ht1
Gf t 4 - d4 { . ''�t � u+ - i t � } �yi, 2 r. �+ t st \ x� U' �' �SP 2 � + r �` zS� { lt � r y!' " 't .
rin z t4S � {l � � r . �f 9a <y . Jrut r a Yi i f=L� ir }n� SL� ,h, a� �"tJ 4�� ,j'� uY< < 7 f'' �t � i �:< � f t,x 8 i , ``i
.. _ �..rC� . 1 .s a:4 � . .. ,�is.i..,, 2 ..z '� �. ._ .S`�� _ . , u�, . . .3s:. . �> s�, . . . ._ ,s� . :. .. .r,��,-. ..�. , �x.`� ,. ,:�e . . s . __. r . . � k,.-. .r.a�wn
DATE, (?ctober 9, 24 �4
T(7: City o# Ukiah
Design Review Board
300 Seminary Ave,
Ukiah, CA 95482
ATTN: Michelle Johnson
PROJECT.• Mendocino Radio-Controlled Raceway
Site Devetopment Permif (applieation file # iB3)
i i47 North State Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
APN' Otli-360-24
SUBJECT.� ADA Comments
PAGES: Two (2)
Dear Michelle,
Nere are my ,comments regardin� the most obvious Accessibility issues 1 found while
reviewing the above mentioned project, and as 1 made veYbally in the Site Review meeting.
This is npt a�r exh�ustive analysis of the Accessibility Requirements, and should be reviewed
carefully by the applicant witfa their Design Professiona! and/or Dav� Willoughby, the City
Building off�ctaL My comrrients generally follow the order of priority as stated in the ADA. !ra
these comments, 1 often use "ADA " as synonymous with Accessibility or Acce�sib/e,
In the meeting, 1 alsq extended my �ssistance to the applicant in this matter (pro-bono), and
1 restate that offer here again.
1 TEM CUDE 1SSUE & Pl3SSIBLE COR,�E� TIONS
ltem # i : ADA "Use" LSesignation Defined.• Public Accornmodation See �DA (36. iO4-9 &
�,�), and C$C (Sectian 202-9). The �BC "�ccupancy" C/assificafion is most closely
described as See 'i4ssembly" Group A-5 CBG (Section 3D3, i)
ltem #2: Facilify Accessibilfty Reguired: See' ADA (4, �, i( iJ & CBC ( � i0 �B. 1), CBC
( i . 9. � . � .2. i, 2, 3, & 4),
ltem #3 Site Accessibility Required: See ADA (4, 3,2) & CBC ( 1 i i4B, 1,,2) & ( 1 i27B. i)
lfem #4.� Parking Aceessibility, S�e ADA 4, i. 2(5)(a & b) & CBC ( i i29B, i)
The a�plicant has proposed usirrg an existing non-compliant parkrng space in the
north-east corner of the e�risting CJAA Buitding. There are a num6er of problems
with the proposed space, no passenger side isle, tnust pass behind other cars to get
to entry, and must f�e as close as any oth2r space provided,
1 have suggested that the two (2) exis#ir�g parking spaces in the south-e�st corner of
the lot nearest the proposeG( entrance to the project, be r�-sfri�ped per ADA, and
that the loading space be strip d to th� proposed entrance. Current ADA parking
signage should [�� added, bot� pole mounted and on th� parking sUrface,
� 1v' s : t �e' �t ; t'` a F - �O L � : t t 4 ?' /�p?� itp�'n /�.,i k3 f �yq 2'�.r ; yp '. ��,kt �x :/YY '*, 4 r . m , a
� �fJ � 8 - �,s�. � � y p �y � .� A.S�n'e ��ljM�Y �Y�Gt3 � � Y�T � �� ���1���� � )i^ `LS' h' J Iff : Y t �
K» Y- c F a �$'�z k�c i � �� w 'S y` z v x -a. l t
F���7� ��¢���� �$Y�871 �i�i�h�F�t�1� �i�ru�,� �Ik�ah ��J�4 �` � ���rh��e�t���a�i�r"�}net.�.... ` ` ., "_ `=.'�-- �-y - ? '}.. .'.'.
.m - 3: ..z ..,� > .,..i , x<...,,., ,. ,.+ ,. __. ., i.._,_.,�er �s. .. .� . � ._z�,- .� u,. � . i � � . . . . .. r r r
AIsQ, wh�h only one "Accessible Parking Space" is required, ft musf be a "Van
Accessible Space '; See ADA (4, i .2(5�(b) & (4. 6. 3-5� & CBC ( � i29. 3. �-4) &
( i ��9B, 3. 2)
ltem #5 �ntrance Accessib, ility Aequired; See ADA(4. 1 . 3(8) & CBC � i3�B. �, i. i. i
The applicant has proposed using the ( iD',0'� car gate as the entr�nce. But as a
minimum� there must be an accessible person-�ate or door, with ADA approved
latch or operating hardware. See ADA (4, i3, 9) & CB'C ( � �338, 2.2) & ( i � 338. 2. 5.2),
Item #6 Racer Platform Accessibility Reguired: 7'his is the primary function and use of the
proposed facility; and must be made accessible by definition. The proposed
platform is (63'� high, and has a ramp access and is called out �s (2� �2) or ( 97/)
slope, buf the dimensions show the proposed ramp t�o be (22'-0'�. Therefore
(4; i2+) or (35%) st�pe. See ADA (4, 8, � & 2) & CBC ( � �338. 3. i)
The reguired ramp length ( i : 12) would require a ,ramp of (63 'D'7. Addir�g to the
problem o� providing the required ramp, is that a (5'0" x 3'-0'� landing is required for
ever� (30'-0'� of ramp, requiring (3j landings in �ddition to the ramp,
1 am suggesting cutfing fhe platform dowrr to (60'� high, fhus requiring (60"0") of ramp and
only two (2) landing� vVith a switch-back design. Railings are also non-compliant as
proposed. See al! of ADA (3. 8) & CBC ( i i33B. 5. 2),
ltem #7 Lastly, the applicants are propos�rag a Al�A Compliant Porta-Potty. l feel this might
be a reasanable alternative, considering the temporary nature of the proposed use.
However, C�C (202) requires one ( �) per each sex This is a feature that carr
possibJy be negotiated with the Building Offi�ial. However, the ADA Porta-Potty
should also 6e Un�-Sex.
!n conclusion, there are a ►aumber of �4c,cessibility lssues with the proposed project, only the
most seriaus are addressed hereih. 1 feel the no►h profit status of the applican�, and recenf
hardship of having the City of Ukiah force them to move from the C�pbbi Street location, an
effort shoutd be made to accommodate the more minor ►aon�complying details,
t
�Sirr rely,
a is
r F t � '. � � "1.��$ � � r1 . i.C'v i :,iF 1 Y" ' t��zy � yI� c}x.S'(V g-}� '�h ) �. EfS't, Ei/4�3[)C� '�[i gi i ' p t' y i y �.
4 � - 3 `� � Fi` k UL� Kf ' � � �� .. 2� 'v W���li�ili���)L�1Q�"Y'�4����}�Ft �i ��V T� l��� y �it �5 � S J: : t%Y J3 S`�� f `> ✓x k � ii 1} .
x� mS tSKS � � h� A1 i � x r 1 4 �� � k i ti . Y t ' 'd €� �'` �Y '�v> � �''�
r f t w� 't� 4 � ..-s. r k
(�Q� ry�'44 ,��1fE� F��QRi/r�h� flrilsC�rru�rUk��h��A;��48�, � r� - >�rse�ta����ific �i�t � r �"� ` ��Y�=. , ��� ��� �
.� m _ .. . . , ��..�.�-_ _ v._ s .ur_ . _ , zr a.. w �r..a e _ .=t s ,_,. _,� , �. ... ..� �_-, ,,...�. _..0 _ ...,.. , ... _ � ,. _�_,!