The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpcm_11122014Final 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION 2 November 12, 2014 3 Minutes 4 5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT 6 Mike Whetzel, Chair 7 Kevin Doble, Vice Chair 8 Linda Sanders 9 Judy Pruden 10 Laura Christensen 11 12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT 13 Kim Jordan, Principal Planner Listed below, Respectively 14 Michelle Johnson, Associate Planner 15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 16 17 1. CALL TO ORDER 18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at 19 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. 20 21 2. ROLL CALL 22 23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited. 24 25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the October 22, 2014 meeting are included for 26 review and approval. 27 28 Commissioner Pruden made the following change to the October 22, 20114 minutes: 29 30 Page 12, lines 46 & 47 revise text to read, `The Wagenseller Neighborhood Association (WNA) is an 31 association and not an enforcement/policing agency. The WNA is designed to take care of such issues as 32 aesthetics, traffic and safety.' 33 34 M/S Sanders/Pruden to approve October 22, 2014 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (5-0). 35 36 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 37 38 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters heard at this 39 meeting, the final date to appeal is November 24, 2014. 40 41 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission. 42 43 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff. 44 45 9. PUBLIC HEARING 46 9A. Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development Plan 123, 47 125, 127, and 129 Ford Street (File No.: Munis 258). Consideration and recommendation to 48 City Council to: 1) adopt a mitigated negative declaration; and 2) introduce an ordinance to 49 rezone the Project parcels to Planned Development / High Density Residential in order to 50 establish the Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development with precise development plan and 51 planned development zoning regulations. The Project includes the construction of one single- 52 family home attached garage and landscaping on each of the four vacant parcels located at 123, 53 125, 127, and 129 Ford Street. Continued from the October 22, 2014 meeting. 54 55 Principal Planner Jordan gave a staff report. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 1 1 Commissioner poble: 2 • Is fine with the determination/explanation staff prepared to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative 3 Declaration (IS/MND) as provided for in attachment 1 (Addendum #2 to the Mitigated Negative 4 Declaration/Initial Environmental Study—Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and 5 Precise Development Plan, dated October 30, 2014) concerning the Hydrology and Water Quality 6 section of the IS for this project as it relates to the Storm Water Low Impact Development 7 Technical Design Manual (LID Manual) adopted by Council at its June 18, 2014 meeting and its 8 applicability to the proposed project. Is also fine with the Low Impact Development Technical 9 Design Manual Applicability Determination formulated by the Public Works Department as 10 provided for in attachment 2 of the aforementioned addendum. 11 • Acknowledged the updated information received from staff concerning LID requirements and 12 applicability for projects has prompted a process improvement and noted, for example, the 13 projects being reviewed tonight contain a LID applicability checklist. The checklist advises 14 whether or not the LID Manual adopted by Council is required to apply or not for a particular 15 project. Noted this to be a helpful tool and thanked staff in this regard. 16 17 Commissioner Sanders: 18 • Related to storm water discharge in conjunction with the North Coast Regional Water Quality 19 Control Board (NCRWQCB) and the City's 2013 intent to participate/comply with the Phase I MS4 20 Permit Waste Discharge requirements and how this environmental document works with the 21 current MS4 requirements? 22 • Since the October 22, 2014 meeting asked if there were any updates/new information to report 23 from Public Works and/or project civil engineer concerning functionality of the bioswale design. 24 • Asked about the Park Fee funds, i.e., the balance, where the money is kept, how funds are 25 accessed, how the money is spent and who decides on what and when? 26 • Inquired about the number of rezone revocations the City has had? 27 • Asked when the high density residential zoning (R3) designation was adopted for this particular 28 area on Ford Street? 29 30 Principal Planner Jordan: 31 • Associated with the current MS4 permit requirements, it is her understanding the City has no 32 formal LID requirements adopted so for projects Planning Department relies on the Public Works 33 Department to advise of whether or not a project is compliant with the current MS4 permit 34 requirements with the NCRWQCB and if not, address what needs to be done for compliance 35 whether this involves project revisions or additional conditions of approval. 36 • There is no new information to report/changes concerning the bioswale design since the October 37 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. As the project has been going through the development 38 process Public Works/project civil engineer/applicant have discussed the issue of drainage and 39 corresponding improvements including the swale design at great length. 40 • The Park Development Fund consists of a number of subaccounts that are project specific based 41 on Council approved priorities and identified capital improvement program projects. Most of the 42 money in the fund is dedicated to specific projects through competitive grant awards and 43 donations. All money is currently encumbered for specific projects. Very little money is collected 44 from development fees and is extremely sporadic. Past fees collected have been utilized on 45 regional park capital projects. The City Community Services Department oversees management 46 of the Park Development Fund. Funds are budgeted by Council on an annual basis. 47 Unencumbered funds are budgeted by Council for recommended projects during the annual 48 budget process. The Park, Recreation, and Golf Commission is the advisory commission for this 49 budget. 50 • While the City has never revoked a rezoning, there have been rezones that have expired. When 51 such projects expire a letter is sent to the project proponent advising of the expiration date asking 52 whether or not an extension is desired. No further action is taken by the City other than taking 53 note of the expiration date and advising the proponent. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 2 1 • High Density Residential zoning would have come shortly after the high density general plan 2 designations were formulated when the plan was adopted. After the general plan was adopted 3 there was a series of rezones for general plan zoning designation consistency purposes. 4 5 Commissioner Pruden: 6 • The Ukiah General Plan was adopted in December 1995 at which time the land use designations 7 were included for consistency purposes with City zoning maps. 8 9 Commissioner Christensen: 10 • Thanked staff for the environmental review report as provided in the staff report dated November 11 12, 2014 and corresponding addendum #2 in attachment 1 for this agenda item. 12 13 M/S Doble/Christensen to recommend City Council approve the Orrs Creek Homes Initial Environmental 14 Study (IS and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) with addendum 1 and 2 and based on the findings 15 included in attachment 2 of the October 22"d staff report. 16 17 Commissioner Sanders: 18 • Appreciates the Project coming back to the Planning Commission for further review of the LID 19 requirements and corresponding applicability and the clarifications made thereof as addressed in 20 the staff report dated November 12, 2014. The concept of LID is a 'new trend' and there are many 21 reasons for such review for projects. 22 • While she has some issues concerning the Project is of the opinion the environmental document 23 is strong and would support approval. 24 • Disagrees with staff's assessment of General Plan policy H-5.6 and H-5.7 as provided for on 25 page 7 of the staff report dated October 22, 2014 in that these policies adequately meet housing 26 needs in the project area. 27 28 Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote (5-0). 29 30 Orrs Creek PD with Precise Development Plan and PD Zoning Regulations 31 32 Commissioner Pruden: 33 • Expressed project concerns related to density on the particular lot, management and functionality 34 of the bioswales connected to the Project in side yards and behind the fence, having to back-up 35 onto Ford Street and the limited parking accommodations on that street, and back part of the 36 tandem garages in the way it appears to function having the potential for conversion into living 37 space possibly adding further density/congestion to the property. 38 • Finds the design of the houses aesthetically fit with the neighborhood character. 39 • The environmental document indicates the Project would have no impact on recreation, parks, 40 and schools and this is because there are no parks or schools in the neighborhood. 41 • The Wagenseller neighborhood (WN) is `packed full' and has concerns about continuing to add to 42 the impact of the neighborhood. 43 44 Commissioner poble: 45 • Has concern about the maintenance and designation of the swale as a functioning bioswale. 46 Preference would be to call it `a grass swale.' The bioswale is not quantified to function in this 47 realm/capacity nor can the Commission require it to function as such. The swale is a `swale' and 48 does not conform to any bioswale criteria. Does find, however, there is a component to a 49 bioswale where it `ponds up at the drainage inlet.' Is of the opinion there is no need to go further 50 with the swale plan because the Commission cannot require the swale function as a treatment 51 device. Would not want to set a precedence that the proposed configuration/shape/geometry of 52 the swale is what we accept as a bioswale and is fine with it being a simple swale. 53 • Of more concern is that the fence is on the north side of the swale where the maintenance 54 responsibility is separated. What is essentially occurring is that the property located to the south 55 is more likely to maintain the swale than property being developed. Suggests moving the fence MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 3 1 south of the swale so that the property owners clearly understand the swale is connected to the 2 development and that maintenance is their responsibility. The current design of the swale does 3 not allow future property owners to be cognizant that a swale exists. Would like to see the swale 4 on the north side of the fence so that the property owners can actually have access to maintain it. 5 6 Commissioner Sanders: 7 • Is of the opinion the Project site is way too constrained to accommodate four homes. 8 • Sees only one project benefit for the neighborhood and that is public sidewalks will be 9 constructed. 10 • The park fees to be paid by the applicant in the sum of$6,000 to the Park Development Fund will 11 not result in the eventual use of acquiring park land. Related to establishing a much-needed park 12 in the Wagenseller Neighborhood, Council asked the WN to find its own funding. Planning 13 Commission cannot hold up approval of the Project because no park exists in the WN. 14 • Is of the opinion the Project is not ideal because of the congestion on the site that would be 15 created as a result. 16 • The Project would be adding more people to an area that is without public facilities/green space. 17 • The Project would be `walling up more of the Creek.' Does not see how the Project would benefit 18 the neighborhood? 19 • No 1:1 ratio for replacement of trees being eliminated. 20 21 Commissioner Christensen: 22 • Acknowledged it is difficult to picture 4 houses on the lot. 23 • Project is an investment so the more homes that can be built, the better for the investor. 24 • Project approval for rezone would allow for increased density with the addition of up to 25 approximately 20 additional people to the neighborhood. Is of the opinion this does not represent 26 a significant number of persons and does not outweigh the filling in of a vacant lot that is 27 unsightly and a place people can litter and/or create problems. 28 • It is not the developer's responsibility to provide the neighborhood with a park. 29 • While the Project may not really benefit the neighborhood, does not see it is the Commission's 30 place to make it benefit the neighborhood. 31 • Related to the swale issue, is of the opinion Commissioner poble has the most expertise in this 32 regard and supports his proposal for the swale to be located on the north side of the fence. 33 34 Commissioner poble: 35 • The site contains four legal lots as the result of a subdivision in 2008. As such, there is nothing 36 that can be done tonight to change this fact. In terms of how many houses can be built on four 37 lots does not know how much control the Commission has. 38 • Understands approval of the Project would add more people to an already congested 39 neighborhood, but the decision has already been made with approval of the subdivision that 40 created the four legal lots where the owner by right can build a house on each one of these lots. 41 • Understands the concern on the part of the neighborhood about adding to the density with 42 approval of the Project, but does not see how the four lots created by the subdivision can be 43 retracted. The decision to potentially allow for increased density has already been made where 44 the Commission cannot really take away from the opportunity to develop the four legal lots. 45 46 Chair Whetzel: 47 • Agrees with Commissioner poble's comments in that four legal lots have been created for 48 potential development. 49 • The proposed project fulfills general plan goals for infill development and housing opportunities. 50 • Cited Cottage Lane project as an example of a successful infill development where it looks as 51 though all the homes have been sold. 52 • Acknowledges lack of parks in the WN. The neighborhood needs a benefactor and/or someone 53 willing to donate land for a park. 54 55 Commissioner Pruden: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 4 1 • If the proposed project is not approved, allow the property to revert to what it was previously and 2 revoke the 2007 zoning designation. The applicant would be willing to sell the property to the City 3 for open space/park purposes. 4 • Over the 20 years as a Planning Commissioner has voted down several projects in the WN 5 because of the problem of having no open space/parks where each time the argument was `it's 6 only 16 or 20 persons or`iYs only 10 cars,' etc., being added. 7 • She voted to approve the 2007 project proposed for the site because the City had made some 8 'overtures' and acknowledged lack of necessary infrastructure and/or recreational facilities in the 9 WN. In the seven years since, the City has done nothing to correct/remedy the situation. 10 • Finds it discouraging to continue to adversely `chipping away' at the WN that has many 11 dysfunctional counterparts such as high police volume callouts/safety issues and/or issues 12 preventing it from prospering. It is a complicated neighborhood that is basically ignored. The 13 Collage Lane homes are located in a nice area next to a school with large playing fields. 14 • Had the lot been developed properly and with no structures, it would have been a superb park 15 area and an amenity to the creek, but instead we are `walling off the creek' one more time. 16 • The property could be used for open space purposes and this would be very good for the 17 community and neighborhood. It is unfortunate City Council has not allowed this to happen. 18 • The property is located near several agencies that deal with a lot of inental health, alcohol, and 19 drug problems where these kinds of tranquil areas are very important to their treatment programs 20 and yet we take away the opportunity. 21 • Cannot support the Project and it is not the fault of the applicant. Again, each time the same 22 argument is used for projects proposed in the WN and that it is no big deal if `only 16 or 20 more 23 people' and/or 10 or more cars' are being added to the neighborhood. 24 • Do we just continue to 'cram'the neighborhood?We need to address the quality of life issue. 25 • City Council needs to recognize they have failed this neighborhood for 20 years and that it is time 26 to step up and do something. The general plan will be 20 years old next year. This document 27 contains an entire page about the WN and what this neighborhood needs in the way of 28 infrastructure, public facilities, open green space, etc., and not one of these issues has been 29 addressed during the last 20 years. 30 31 Commissioner poble: 32 • Asked about the tandem parking and the potential for the garage to become a living unit and if 33 this would be allowed? 34 35 Principal Planner Jordan: 36 • Related to the zoning regulations (attachment 7 of the staff reported dated October 22, 2014) 37 that will be adopted as part of the rezone for the Project, second units are prohibited. What is 38 allowed with a building permit is that the rear portion of the garage can be converted to living 39 space, office, etc. Essentially the conversion becomes part of the house and cannot be a 40 separate unit. 41 • If the Planning Commission does not want any part of the garage converted or used for anything 42 other than a garage and storage, the zoning regulations for this project can be written so that it 43 prohibits the conversion of the garage. 44 45 Commissioner poble: 46 • If the aforementioned is doable, this would then provide some certainty as to the occupancy of 47 the building. 48 • At the last meeting regarding this project, expressed some concern about the tandem parking 49 and supports this concept when it is in the right scenario. However, in this case, a person has to 50 back out onto the street in order to let a car out of the garage and is of the opinion this is not an 51 ideal situation. Preference would be to increase the width of the driveway with some 52 impermeable surfacing so that people do not have to back out onto Ford Street just to get a car 53 out of the garage. Would like to see some site plans improvements to this effect. Tandem 54 parking works better in a courtyard situation. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 5 1 • Likes the idea of not just leaving it open allowing for more occupants by converting the garage 2 to living space. 3 4 Commissioner Pruden: 5 • Asked about the curb cuts and sidewalk/driveway design such that there are two parking spaces 6 in front of four houses. 7 8 Commissioner poble: 9 • Related to the driveway, instead of splitting the driveway into four driveways, have one large 10 driveway cut allowing the opportunity for people not to have to back out onto the street and this 11 could occur if the Commission is amenable to considering some alternatives to the landscaping 12 in the front. Since the Project is not an LID project, do not necessarily have to quantify space 13 dedicated for treatment of runoff/drainage. 14 • Questions the design for treatment of roof runoff and explained what is proposed in this regard 15 noting along the way runoff from the roof outlets/downspouts would go onto concrete through 16 the landscaping to concrete again where pollutants are being picked up before going into the 17 City storm drain system. Disconnecting the downspouts in this situation really would not do 18 anything so if some landscaping has to be sacrificed to prevent people from pulling out into the 19 travel lane would not be hurting the water quality issue that is of concern. 20 21 Commissioner Pruden: 22 • The Planning Commission is making a recommendation to City Council tonight and noted from 23 past experience when projects move onto Council for approval even when the Commission does 24 not recommend approval and/or was the result of an appeal, the Commission loses the ability to 25 condition the project and cited the Freidman store development as an example. The Commission 26 did not want to amend the AIP PD Ordinance to allow development of the store and as such the 27 project moved onto Council for approval on an appeal. When this happened, the Planning 28 Commission never saw the site development permit and did not deal with the project conditions of 29 approval. Regardless of how a particular commissioner looks at a project, it is important the 30 Commission condition the project to get what we think will be a better project and/or get the best 31 we can because once the Commission turns the project over to Council the Commission loses 32 the ability to make the project better. 33 • The WN was subdivided in 1889 prior to the automobile. 34 • The Project is a large development in a small area. 35 36 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:03 p.m. 37 38 Principal Planner Jordan: 39 • Related to the location of the fence and swale, there was concern if the swale was in someone's 40 yard that he/she might not understand what is occurring and/or might inadvertently damage it or 41 fill it in. Staff specifically requested the fence be located on the north side of the swale as shown 42 on the site plans. Has concern about putting the fence on the south side of the swale. Want to 43 make sure the homeowners understand the intent/function of the swale so that nothing 44 unfortunate happens to it. 45 • Much consideration was given to the tandem parking issue. What we are looking at is one car 46 parked in the garage and one car parked in driveway scenario for each of the four homes. This 47 type of situation exists everywhere in the WN and in the City of Ukiah. Questions whether or not 48 this project should be treated differently because it is not a unique situation in the WN or in the 49 City of Ukiah, but noted it is the Commission's decision. Two parking spaces are required for the 50 Project, one space is the driveway and the other space is in the garage. The space in the 51 driveway just happens to be behind the garage space. 52 • It is not uncommon in Ukiah in the WN and in other places to have a tandem parking condition. 53 The Commission can require some other parking configuration. The zoning code does address 54 independent accessible parking spaces. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 6 1 Commissioner poble: 2 • Related to the fence, sees there are property lines and lines of occupation. A fence often times 3 becomes the line of occupation. A situation occurs where the front yard of the existing house on 4 APN #002-121-17 that is not associated with this project will end up having to maintain the swale 5 every year and likely complain to the neighbors if they talk at all. Is of the opinion moving the 6 fence is the right thing to do and is asking the Commission to consider this option. 7 • Would like to see some of the landscaping in the front reduced on either side of the driveway 8 such that more space is available for cars without having to back out onto Ford Street to get a car 9 out of the garage and is of the opinion this makes perfect sense. It is not necessary to have an 8 10 to 10 foot wide landscaping strip. Even if the space does not go all the way to the back of the 11 sidewalk there is still room for a car to get in or out without having to back out onto the street. If 12 the situation of parking in the driveway is more realistic, then make the driveway wider so as to 13 function better. 14 15 Mary Ann Lance: 16 • Referred to the site plans and it appears the width of the driveway is approximately 11.5 feet and 17 area of landscaping is approximately 3.5 feet. This amounts to 15 feet, which is approximately 18 the minimum necessary for two cars to be able to park side by side and still have room to open 19 the doors to the cars. Acknowledged the request is doable even though the parking would be 20 tight. Expressed concern that if one person parks out of the allotted square footage such as one 21 foot over, then the neighbor will complain. There will likely have to be some sort of division to 22 make certain people park correctly and not a foot or two over the line. In order to make this 23 parking modification the location for the two street trees would have to be reconfigured. 24 25 Commissioner poble: 26 • It appears all the units are pushed to the west leaving some space available on the east side of 27 the development and inquired whether or not it is possible to acquire some of the footage, say 28 five or six feet on the east side by shifting the houses over? Would like to shift all of the units 29 over to the east and reduce the setback provided there is adequate distance between the 30 buildings. 31 • Asked about the total widths of the driveways. 32 33 Mary Ann Lance: 34 • Questioned how the units can be shifted more to the east and still adhere to the property lines. 35 36 Chair Whetzel: 37 • To do this a variance would be required for the side yard setbacks. 38 39 Principal Planner Jordan: 40 • The setback requirements for planned developments differ from other zoning designations and 41 this is because the development standards for PDs are different. 42 • Acknowledged the units will contain sprinklers. 43 • Explained the units with the garages next to them are approximately 3.8 feet from each property 44 line so to move the buildings this is what space is available. 45 46 Mary Ann Lance: 47 • It is possible to move the house on Lot 4 to the east a few feet. It may be possible to move the 48 house on Lot 1 one foot. 49 50 There was Commission/applicant discussion: 51 • Feasibility of moving the units more to the east. 52 • Applicant does not own the property with the duplex. 53 • Maintenance of the swale and most feasible location thereof. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 7 1 • Feasibility of possibly reducing the setback so as not to back onto Ford Street and find a way to 2 modify the site plans thereof to make room for a person to back out without having the other car 3 back up onto the street to let the car in the garage out. 4 • Fencing on the site to see if there was a way to make the tandem parking situation work better. 5 • Referred to sheet C-1 of the site plans and talked about the driveways, planter areas for the 6 street trees, street parking, and possible elimination of the center landscaping planter area 7 between the driveways as a way to increase the width of the driveways. 8 • Minimum standard length/width required parking size. The driveway should have a sufficient 9 width of at least 18 feet to be able to take the car out of the garage and have a car in the 10 driveway. A parking space should be at least 9 feet long. 11 12 Chair Whetzel: 13 • Recommends paving over the center landscaping area with some kind of delineation. 14 • Could reduce the center planter strip width on either side by a couple of feet to widen the 15 driveway. 16 17 Commissioner poble: 18 • Again, tandem parking not an idea situation; Supports site plan improvements that would include 19 widening of the driveway. 20 • One idea may be to have the landscaping extend to the back of the sidewalk five or six feet with 21 the rest of the paved area being driveway where the landscaped area would essentially function 22 as a planter box. 23 • Could extend the landscaping to the north to create a planter box and still allow for a wider 24 driveway. Could also shorten the center planter strip from top to bottom. 25 • Is fine with the driveway extending from within 6 feet of the sidewalk to the garages and allow 25 26 sq. ft. for street trees/landscaping. 27 28 Commissioner Pruden: 29 • The aforementioned suggestion would be acceptable provided sufficient space is left for the 30 street trees. Confirmed 25 sq. ft. is the necessary space street trees need to remain healthy and 31 thrive. It is good to allow the landscaping to drain into the street tree planter areas provided the 32 area is not curbed to allow runoff into the tree wells. 33 • Asked about the feasibility of having the parking in the rear of the lot. 34 • Is supportive of reconfiguring the driveways provided 25 sq. ft. is reserved for the planter areas 35 for the street trees. 36 • The property owners are responsible to maintain the swale. 37 38 Principal Planner Jordan: 39 • Commission can reduce the setback requirement to something less taking into consideration the 40 property lines. 41 • City Planning and Public Works staff were not supportive of having parking in the rear of the lot. 42 • Noted the required parking size is nine feet wide by 19 feet deep and cannot be less. There are 43 compact spaces which can be 8 feet wide by 16 feet deep but cannot be used in this type of 44 setting. 45 • Related to parking size, the 18-foot width discussed above is to make certain there is sufficient 46 room to open a car door with the situation the Planning Commission is trying to create with regard 47 to tandem parking. 48 49 Commissioner Christensen: 50 • Related to an 18-foot wide driveway scenario, it may be a 15-foot width would be sufficient for a 51 normal sized car to open a door. 52 53 Mary Ann Lance: 54 • Explained the center planter strip dimensions as currently provided for on the site plans. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 8 1 There was more Commission discussion concerning drainage and the most feasible location concerning 2 the fence and swale for maintenance/functioning purposes. 3 4 Commissioner Pruden: 5 • Thanked the applicant for clarification of the property lines so as better understand the 6 development situation, particularly on the west side of the property with regard to the Oak trees. 7 The Oak trees are `volunteers' and located on the property line. They are not in good condition 8 and were not properly maintained. 9 • Property owners will have to be diligent about pulling up such `volunteers' or risk raising a new 10 crop of`volunteer'trees. 11 • Has no problem removing the marked trees in Group D. 12 • Talked about the trees on the property including tree stumps that may have been removed after 13 the property stopped functioning as a commercial use and was later scrapped clean. 14 15 Chair Whetzel: 16 • Is fine with removal of Group D trees. 17 18 Commissioner poble: 19 • Commission can recommend to the Council that a modification be made to the site plan to move 20 the southerly fence for Lots 2, and 3 to the south property line; continue with the condition 21 concerning easements affecting the subject property and adjoining parcels related to access, 22 drainage and utilities as necessary for development; and, reduce the landscaping for the front of 23 the property to allow for a minimum of 25 sq. ft. and contiguous to the back of the sidewalk. 24 25 There was staff/Commission discussion whether or not since a condition exists concerning the easement 26 that with relocation of the fence the easement would need to be moved and should there be separate 27 conditions in this regard. 28 29 Commissioner poble: 30 • Is of the opinion the easement does not need to be moved because it is `static' with the property 31 line and that just moving the fence to the south property line for Lots 2 and 3 would be sufficient. 32 33 Principal Planner Jordan: 34 • Have to make certain the language in the condition concerning the easement reflects moving the 35 fence to the south for Lots 2 and 3. 36 37 There was Commission discussion regarding the park fees that will be collected for this project and how 38 they should be applied with the understanding this can likely only be a recommendation as a matter of 39 record. 40 41 Commissioner Pruden: 42 • Supports and recommends the park fees collected for this project be retained in a Parks Fee 43 account for use to purchase land and/or for development of a park in the WN. 44 45 Commission added the following conditions of approval: 46 • Provide for a condition of approval requiring that the park fees collected for this project be 47 retained in a Parks Fee account to be used for the purchase of land for and development of a 48 park in the WN as indicated in the general plan. 49 • Review and approval of plans submitted for a building permit would include: 1) Relocation of the 50 rear yard fences for lots 2 and 3 to the south side of the swale located adjacent to the south 51 (rear) property line; 2) In order to provide more independently accessible parking in the driveway, 52 the driveways on all four lots shall be widened. The remaining landscaped are at the back of the 53 sidewalk shall be a minimum depth of six feet and minimum size of 25 square feet in order to 54 provide a viable planting area for street trees and landscaping. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 9 1 M/S Doble/Christensen to recommend City Council introduce an ordinance to establish the Orrs Creek 2 Homed Planned Development with Precise Development Plan and Planned Development Regulations 3 based on the Findings in attachment 3 of the staff report dated October 22, 2014 and Conditions of 4 Approval in attachment 4 of the staff report dated October 22, 2014 and with the additional conditions and 5 revised conditions of approval as provided for on the page 4 of the staff report dated November 12, 2014 6 and the new conditions of approval, as discussed above. Motion carried (3-0) with Commissioner 7 Sanders and Pruden voting 'NO.' 8 9 FINDINGS TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ORRS CREEK HOMES 10 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 11 123, 125, 127 AND 129 FORD STREET 12 FILE NO.: 258 13 PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 14 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") 15 16 1. The Project will approve a Rezoning to Planned DevelopmenUHigh Density Residential with Precise 17 Development Plan to allow the construction of one single family home on each of four vacant parcels 18 at 123 (APN 002-121-20), 125 (APN002-121-21), 127 (APN 002-121-22), and 129 Ford Street. 19 20 2. The City of Ukiah as lead agency has prepared an Initial Environmental Study and a Mitigated 21 Negative Declaration dated September 8, 2014 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the 22 Planned Development Rezoning, Precise Development Plan, and construction and operation of the 23 Project. 24 25 3. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts and based on the conclusions 26 reached in the Initial Environmental Study, it has been determined that the proposed project, as 27 mitigated, would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment for the following reasons: 28 29 A. A mitigation measure has been included to reduce any impacts related to light and glare to less 30 than significant. Impacts to visual quality were determined to be less than significant or no 31 impact. 32 33 B. The Project would not have an impact on any existing or future agriculture use. There are no 34 parcels within the City zoned Agriculture and no agricultural uses on or proximate to the Project 35 site. 36 37 C. Construction of the Project would result in an increase in PM10. Mitigation measures for 38 construction of the Project have been applied to the Project. Since the Project site is less than 39 one acre in size a permit from the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District 40 (MCAQMD) is not required. 41 42 D. The Project has the potential to impact Orrs Creek which is known to provide habitat for 43 steelhead trout which are federally listed as a threatened species. No work within the creek bank 44 is proposed as part of the Project. The Project was reviewed by the California Department of 45 Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The recommendations provided by CDFW have been included as 46 mitigation measures for the Project and the mitigation measures have been reviewed by CDFW. 47 Mitigation measures have been applied to the Project that would reduce these impacts to Orrs 48 Creek and steelhead trout to a less than significant level. 49 50 The City's general plan includes goals and policies related to the conservation and replenishment 51 of valley oaks, and the maintenance and enhancement of the urban forest and shade tree 52 canopy. A certified arborist prepared an arborist report for the project that identified the native 53 trees on the site and provided recommendations for the protection and preservation of the healthy 54 trees. These recommendations have been included as mitigation measures. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 10 1 2 In order to construct the Project, a group of valley oaks would be removed. The removal of these 3 trees has the potential to impact nesting birds. A mitigation measure has been included to protect 4 any birds that may be nesting in trees that would be removed or that are proximate to the trees to 5 be removed. This would reduce this impact to less than significant. 6 7 No wetlands are located on the Project site. Since the Project site is less than one acre in size, a 8 permit from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) is not required. 9 The Project is required to comply with the City of Ukiah's Storm Water Management Plan and the 10 Ukiah City Code requirements for erosion and sediment control and storm water. Compliance 11 with the requirements of the Ukiah City Code and mitigation measures would ensure that the 12 Project does not result in an adverse impact to Orrs Creek or the Russian River. 13 14 E. The Project area is not identified on the Area of High Archeological Sensitivity included in the City 15 of Ukiah General Plan. It is highly unlikely that there are archeological resources or human 16 remains on the parcels included in the Project. In the unlikely event that cultural resources or 17 human remains are discovered during grading operations for the Project, mitigation measures 18 have been included to reduce the impact to less than significant. 19 20 F. The Project site is not known to be in an area with unstable or expansive soil. The Project site 21 and surrounding area are relatively flat; therefore, there would be no impacts related to landslide. 22 The Project has the potential to result in erosion or the loss of top soil. Mitigation measures for 23 Air Quality and Biological Resources have also been applied to Geology and Soils. 24 Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the potential for the Project to impact 25 top soil and result in erosion. 26 27 G. The Project site is not located on any list of hazardous waste disposal sites compiled pursuant to 28 Government Code Section 65962.5. 29 30 H. The Project is not located within the boundaries of the compatibility zones for the Ukiah Municipal 31 Airport or within 2 miles of a private airstrip. 32 33 I. The Project would modify the drainage on the site which has the potential to result in erosion, 34 siltation, and/or to increase the rate or volume of runoff. The Biological Resource mitigation 35 measures intended to reduce impacts to Orrs Creek and steelhead trout have also been applied 36 to Hydrology and Water Quality and would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 37 38 J. The Project is located within Zone X (areas determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance 39 floodplain)on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map#06045C1512F, Panel #1512 of 2100, dated 40 June 2, 2011. A FEMA letter of map amendment(LOMA)was issued on April 4, 2006. The 41 LOMA relocated the 100 year floodplain to the within the channel of Orrs Creek. 42 43 K. The City's General Plan includes goals and policies related to the health and viability of tributaries 44 to the Russian River, the conservation of valley oaks, and the maintenance and enhancement of 45 the urban forest and shade tree canopies. The Project has the potential to impact Orrs Creek, 46 the urban forest and shade tree canopy, and valley oaks. The Project includes the planting of six 47 street trees. The mitigation measures for Biological Resources have been applied to the ProjecYs 48 consistency with general plan goals and policies. Implementation of these mitigation measures 49 would result in a less than significant impact. 50 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 11 1 L. The Project would infill four vacant parcels located in an urban area primarily developed with 2 single and multi-family housing to the south and east, a mix of residential and commercial uses 3 are located to the north, and commercial uses to the west. 4 5 M. No mineral resources are located within or proximate to the project area. 6 7 N. Construction of the Project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels in the Project 8 area. Residential uses are located proximate to the Project. Mitigation measures have been 9 included to limit the hours of construction and reduce noise from construction equipment. These 10 mitigation measures would reduce construction noise impacts to less than significant. 11 12 O. The Project would construct four(4) new single-family homes, which is estimated to increase the 13 population by 9 to 10 people. The Project would not eliminate any housing. 14 15 P. The Project would increase the population in the Orrs Creek/Wagonseller Neighborhood. An 16 area that has been identified in the General Plan as in need of recreational facilities. The 17 previous subdivision of the property was required to pay the City's adopted Park fee. The Project 18 will be required to pay the adjusted unpaid balance of the Park fee. The payment of this fee 19 reduces the impact to less than significant in that the fee is intended to be used for the 20 development of new parks and recreational facilities. 21 22 Q. There are adequate public services, facilities, and utilities to serve the Project. The State of 23 California is currently experiencing a drought. As of August 2014, Mendocino County is identified 24 as experiencing "Exceptional Drought."The City of Ukiah's wells which do not draw water from 25 the Russian River are performing normally. The City of Ukiah will implement mandatory water 26 conservation on August 29, 2014. The Project would also be subject to any water conservation 27 measures enacted by or applicable to the City of Ukiah. The Project is subject to the payment of 28 School fee which are intended to offset the impacts of development on school facilities. 29 30 R. The Project would result in the construction of four(4) new housing units, resulting in an 31 estimated population increase of 9 to 10 people. The closest intersections to the Project site are 32 North State Street/Ford Street and Orchard Avenue/Ford Street. These intersections currently 33 operate at acceptable levels of services and the Project would not generate enough trips to result 34 in a change in the level of service. Therefore, change in the level of service of intersections in 35 the Project area and existing capacity would not be affected. The Project includes the 36 construction of frontage improvements, including sidewalks, which will improve pedestrian 37 facilities in the neighborhood. 38 39 S. The Project would not result in climate change or greenhouse gas impacts. The Project does not 40 violate any plans or policies adopted to address climate change/GHG. The Project was referred 41 to and reviewed by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District and the District did 42 not identify any impacts related to climate change or GHG. 43 44 T. Reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would eliminate or reduce 45 significant impacts to levels of insignificance. 46 47 4. The Initial Environmental Study examined areas of potential impacts that may result from the 48 implementation of the Project. Based on the conclusions reached in the Initial Environmental Study, it 49 has been determined that the proposed Project has the potential to have significant environmental 50 impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology 51 and water quality, land use and planning, and noise without the implementation of mitigation 52 measures. The analysis and conclusion reached in the Initial Environmental Study identified 53 mitigation measures that would reduce the potential impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 12 1 resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and 2 noise to less than significant levels based on the following: 3 4 A. Aesthetics 5 6 1) Potential Impact: Lighting for the Project could result in a new source of light and glare. 7 8 Mitigation Measure: 9 10 a) All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, aimed, and shielded so as to minimize light 11 trespassing over property lines and avoid directing light towards motorists and 12 pedestrians. Fixtures shall be full cutoff and nighttime friendly and shall be International 13 Dark Sky Association (IDA) approved or equivalent. Prior to installation of the exterior 14 lighting, the applicant shall prepare a photometric plan for review and approval by the 15 Planning Department that demonstrates that the lighting will not spillover onto adjacent 16 properties and that all lighting is shielded and downcast. 17 18 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to Aesthetics to less 19 than significant levels. 20 21 B. Air Quality 22 23 1) Potential Impact: Construction of the Project would result in a temporary increase in increase 24 PM-10 levels. 25 26 Mitiqation Measures: 27 28 a) All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and 29 building construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control 30 dust, particularly during windy days. 31 32 b) All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction 33 shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the 34 transport of mud and dust onto public streets. 35 36 c) All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control 37 fugitive dust. 38 39 d) All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as 40 instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour. 41 42 e) The burning of construction debris is prohibited. Any disposal of vegetation removed as 43 a result of site preparation shall be lawfully disposed of, preferably by chipping and 44 composting, or as authorized by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. 45 46 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to Air Quality to less 47 than significant levels. 48 49 C. Bioloqical Resources 50 51 1) Potential Impact: Construction and operation of the Project has the potential to impact Orrs 52 Creek which provides habitat for steelhead trout, a species listed as threatened on pursuant 53 to the Federal Endangered Species Act. 54 55 Mitiqation Measures: 56 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 13 1 a) Prior to construction of site improvements, a final grading and drainage plan and an 2 erosion and sediment control plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer shall be submitted for 3 review and approval by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall specify all 4 measures necessary to protect Orrs Creek from sediment, including the permanent 5 restoration or protection of all disturbed areas to prevent future erosion. The sediment 6 and erosion control plan shall utilize only native or non-invasive non-native plant 7 materials to protect disturbed areas. Erosion and sediment control products utilizing 8 netting, such as straw wattles, shall be bio-degradable, and designed to not entrap or 9 harm wildlife, wherever such options are available. Erosion and sediment control 10 measures shall be maintained and re-applied as necessary by the applicant until 11 undisturbed areas as fully stabilized. 12 13 b) Plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to extend the drainage swale located 14 at the rear(south) boundary of the Project to the east(rear of Lot 4)to discharge into a 15 new drain inlet designed to maximize storm water treatment and infiltration into the swale. 16 17 c) Plans submitted for building permit shall include revised drainage swales, a typical 18 section, and proposed landscaping/ground cover for the swale. The revised swales shall 19 provide infiltration and treatment of stormwater runoff. 20 21 d) Plans submitted for building permit shall demonstrate that roof drains are designed to 22 maximize infiltration into landscaped areas and not discharge directly into storm drains or 23 into the street. 24 25 e) Plans submitted for building permit shall how bare soil/exposed dirt in the rear yards of 26 each home will be covered until such time as the home buyers landscape the rear yard. 27 28 f) The Planned Development Zoning regulations for the Project shall prohibit the planting of 29 known invasive species and species identified in the California lnvasive Plant Council's 30 data base (http://www.cal-ipc.orq/paf/). 31 32 g) Plans submitted for building permit shall show the fence on Lot 1 /123 Ford Street 33 setback 5-feet from the Orrs Creek top of bank. The fencing shall be an open style 34 design with no barbs. The openings in the fencing shall allow for small animals to pass 35 through the fencing. 36 37 h) The Project Proponent shall verify whether a Stream Bed Alteration Permit from the 38 California Department of Fish and Wildlife is required for the Project. If a Stream Bed 39 Alteration Permit is required, the Project Proponent shall be obtained the permit prior to 40 the commencement of any grading or construction activities on the Project site and a 41 copy of the permit shall be provided to the Planning and Community Development 42 Department. 43 44 2) Potential Impact: Construction and operation of the Project have the potential to impact native 45 trees on the site that are located proximate to Orrs Creek. 46 47 Mitiqation Measures: 48 49 a) The healthy native trees identified as#A, B, C, E, F, G, and H on the Criss Arborist 50 Report dated August 13, 2014 shall be preserved and protected. 51 52 b) In order to protect the trees to be preserved on Lot 1, the following shall be included on 53 plans submitted for building permit and are subject to staff review and approval: 54 55 ■ Location of tree protection fencing and protective buffer(Trees#A, B, C, E, and 56 F)consistent with the locations recommended in the Criss Arborist Report dated MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 14 1 August 13, 2014. The arborist report states that trees#G and H would not be 2 impacted by construction; therefore, protective fencing is not needed. 3 4 ■ Name and contact information of the Project arborist(Criss)on the title page of 5 the plans. 6 7 ■ Notes on the plans that state that state"Construction materials, vehicles and 8 equipment, and the cleaning of equipment or materials is prohibited within the 9 area of the protective fencing and under the driplines of the trees to be protected 10 and preserved. 11 12 ■ A detail of the protective fencing and protective buffer recommended in the 13 arborist report. The fencing shall be 5 to 6 feet in height, metal and secured with 14 in-ground posts. 15 16 • Tree/riparian vegetation protection notes: 17 18 ➢ Care shall be taken when digging under ground near the base of the trees to 19 be protected and preserved. 20 ➢ All digging within 6-feet of the base of the trees shall be done by hand. 21 ➢ Any holes dug for construction (such as foundations, fence posts, utilities) 22 shall avoid roots 4 inches or greater by relocating these holes to an area 23 where roots do not exceed 4 inches. 24 ➢ Care shall be taken when removing the garage in order to prevent 25 mechanical damage to and soil compaction under trees#E and F. 26 ➢ Dumping of chemical, washing equipment, and/or stacking of loose debris on 27 or near root zones and near the creek is prohibited. 28 ➢ Any work near the creek shall be performed consistent with industry and 29 environmental standards in order to prevent damage to vegetation on the 30 creek bank. These standards include, but are not limited to, prohibiting the 31 dumping of chemicals, washing of equipment, and/or sacking of loose debris 32 on or near the root zones or near the top of bank of the creek. 33 34 c) An on-site preconstruction meeting shall he held with the head contractor, Project arborist 35 (Criss), and planning staff. 36 37 d) The Project arborist(Criss)shall provide general supervision over construction of the 38 Project that is proximate to the trees to be protected and preserved. This supervision 39 may include unscheduled visits to the site by the Project arborist. 40 41 e) The Planned Development regulations for the Orrs Creek Homes PD shall include the 42 following in order to ensure the protection of Orrs Creek and the threatened steelhead 43 trout and the ensure the preservation and protection of the trees identified for protection 44 and preservation in the arborist report prepared by Criss and dated August 13, 2014. 45 46 f) Trees identified as#A, B, C, E, F, G, and H in the arborist shall be protected and 47 preserved. Removal of these trees is prohibited. 48 49 g) Any future development on the site shall be located outside of the dripline/canopy of the 50 protected trees (Criss Arborist Report dated August 13, 2014, #A, B, C, E, F, G, and H). 51 52 3) Potential Impact: Operation of the Project has the potential to impact wildlife corridors along 53 Orrs Creek. 54 55 Mitiqation Measure: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 15 1 2 a) Plans submitted for building permit shall show the fence on Lot 1 /123 Ford Street 3 setback 5-feet from the Orrs Creek top of bank. The fencing shall be an open style 4 design with no barbs. The openings in the fencing shall allow for small animals to pass 5 through the fencing. 6 7 4) Potential Impact: Construction of the Project has the potential to impact nesting birds due to 8 tree removal. 9 Mitigation Measure: 10 11 a) If site preparation and tree removal/trimming include the spring bird nesting season 12 (February through July), a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified 13 professional within two weeks prior to removing/trimming any trees. If active nests (with 14 eggs or living young)are found, no activity shall be permitted that might disturb or remove 15 the active nests until the young birds are able to leave the nest and forage on their own. 16 Empty nests may be removed. If eggs or young are present,the nests shall be left until the 17 young birds leave. Setback buffers for the nests will vary depending on the species affected 18 and the location of the nest. Buffer zones shall be determined on a case by case basis in 19 consultation with a California Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist. 20 21 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to Biological 22 Resources to less than significant levels. 23 24 D. Cultural Resources 25 26 1) Potential Impact: Construction of and grading for the Project could result in the discovery of 27 unknown historic, prehistoric, or cultural resources or the discovery of unknown human 28 remains. 29 30 Mitigation Measures: 31 32 a) If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural 33 resources are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the 34 City shall be notified of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of 35 a qualified professional archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a 36 precise mitigation program if deemed necessary. 37 38 b) If human remains are encountered during construction excavation and grading activities, 39 State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall 40 occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and 41 disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of 42 Native American Descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American 43 Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify the person(s)thought to be 44 the Most Likely Descendent, who will help determine what course of action should be 45 taken in dealing with the remains. 46 47 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to Cultural 48 Resources to less than significant levels. 49 50 E. Geoloqv and Soils 51 52 1) Potential Impact: Construction of the Project could result in erosion and/or the loss of top 53 soil. 54 55 Mitiqation Measures: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 16 1 2 a) All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and 3 building construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control 4 dust, particularly during windy days. 5 6 b) All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction 7 shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the 8 transport of mud and dust onto public streets. 9 c) All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control 10 fugitive dust. 11 12 d) All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as 13 instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 14 15 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to Geology and Soils 16 to less than significant levels. 17 18 F. Hydroloqy and Water Quality 19 20 1) Potential Impacts: Construction of the Project has the potential to modify drainage patterns in 21 a manner that could result in erosion and/or siltation which could impact Orrs Creek and to 22 increase the amount and rate of runoff. 23 24 Mitiqation Measures: 25 26 a) Prior to construction of site improvements, a final grading and drainage plan and an 27 erosion and sediment control plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer shall be submitted for 28 review and approval by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall specify all 29 measures necessary to protect Orrs Creek from sediment, including the permanent 30 restoration or protection of all disturbed areas to prevent future erosion. The sediment 31 and erosion control plan shall utilize only native or non-invasive non-native plant 32 materials to protect disturbed areas. Erosion and sediment control products utilizing 33 netting, such as straw wattles, shall be bio-degradable, and designed to not entrap or 34 harm wildlife, wherever such options are available. Erosion and sediment control 35 measures shall be maintained and re-applied as necessary by the applicant until 36 undisturbed areas as fully stabilized. 37 38 b) Plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to extend the drainage swale located 39 at the rear(south) boundary of the Project to the east(rear of Lot 4)to discharge into a 40 new drain inlet designed to maximize storm water treatment and infiltration into the swale. 41 42 c) Plans submitted for building permit shall include revised drainage swales, a typical 43 section, and proposed landscaping/ground cover for the swale. The revised swales shall 44 provide infiltration and treatment of stormwater runoff. 45 46 d) Plans submitted for building permit shall demonstrate that roof drains are designed to 47 maximize infiltration into landscaped areas and not discharge directly into storm drains or 48 into the street. 49 50 e) Plans submitted for building permit shall how bare soil/exposed dirt in the rear yards of 51 each home will be covered until such time as the home buyers landscape the rear yard. 52 53 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to Hydrology and 54 Water Quality to less than significant levels. 55 56 G. Land Use and Planninq MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 17 1 2 1) Potential Impacts: The Project has the potential to be inconsistent with General Plan goals 3 and policies related to the health and viability of tributaries to the Russian River, the 4 conservation of valley oaks, and the maintenance and enhancement of the urban forest and 5 shade tree canopies. 6 7 Mitigation Measures: 8 9 a) The healthy native trees identified as#A, B, C, E, F, G, and H on the Criss Arborist 10 Report dated August 13, 2014 shall be preserved and protected. 11 12 b) In order to protect the trees to be preserved on Lot 1, the following shall be included on 13 plans submitted for building permit and are subject to staff review and approval: 14 15 ■ Location of tree protection fencing and protective buffer(Trees#A, B, C, E, and F) 16 consistent with the locations recommended in the Criss Arborist Report dated August 17 13, 2014. The arborist report states that trees#G and H would not be impacted by 18 construction; therefore, protective fencing is not needed. 19 20 ■ Name and contact information of the Project arborist(Criss) on the title page of the 21 plans. 22 23 ■ Notes on the plans that state that state"Construction materials, vehicles and 24 equipment, and the cleaning of equipment or materials is prohibited within the area of 25 the protective fencing and under the driplines of the trees to be protected and 26 preserved. 27 28 • A detail of the protective fencing and protective buffer recommended in the arborist 29 report. The fencing shall be 5 to 6 feet in height, metal and secured with in-ground 30 posts. 31 32 ■ Tree/riparian vegetation protection notes: 33 34 o Care shall be taken when digging under ground near the base of the trees to be 35 protected and preserved. 36 o All digging within 6-feet of the base of the trees shall be done by hand. 37 o Any holes dug for construction (such as foundations, fence posts, utilities)shall 38 avoid roots 4 inches or greater by relocating these holes to an area where roots 39 do not exceed 4 inches. 40 o Care shall be taken when removing the garage in order to prevent mechanical 41 damage to and soil compaction under trees#E and F. 42 o Dumping of chemical, washing equipment, and/or stacking of loose debris on or 43 near root zones and near the creek is prohibited. 44 o Any work near the creek shall be performed consistent with industry and 45 environmental standards in order to prevent damage to vegetation on the creek 46 bank. These standards include, but are not limited to, prohibiting the dumping of 47 chemicals, washing of equipment, and/or stacking of loose debris on or near the 48 root zones or near the top of bank of the creek. 49 50 a) An on-site preconstruction meeting shall he held with the head contractor, Project arborist 51 (Criss), and planning staff. 52 53 b) The Project arborist(Criss)shall provide general supervision over construction of the 54 Project that is proximate to the trees to be protected and preserved. This supervision 55 may include unscheduled visits to the site by the Project arborist. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 18 1 2 c) The Planned Development regulations for the Orrs Creek Homes PD shall include the 3 following in order to ensure the protection of Orrs Creek and the threatened steelhead 4 trout and the ensure the preservation and protection of the trees identified for protection 5 and preservation in the arborist report prepared by Criss and dated August 13, 2014. 6 7 d) Trees identified as#A, B, C, E, F, G, and H in the arborist shall be protected and 8 preserved. Removal of these trees is prohibited. 9 10 e) Any future development on the site shall be located outside of the dripline/canopy of the 11 protected trees (Criss Arborist Report dated August 13, 2014, #A, B, C, E, F, G, and H). 12 13 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to Land Use and 14 Planning to less than significant levels. 15 16 17 H. Noise 18 19 1) Potential Impact: Construction of the Project would result in a short-term and temporary 20 increase in noise levels in the area that may affect sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the 21 Project and on the Project site. 22 23 Mitiqation Measures: 24 25 a) Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 26 Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. Construction hours are prohibited on Sunday and all 27 holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah. Interior work that generates negligible or no 28 noise at the property line is allowed outside of the construction hours noted above. 29 30 b) Approval of additional construction hours may be requested in writing from the Planning 31 and Community Development Director and Public Works Director for extenuating 32 circumstances. The written request must be submitted a minimum of 14 days prior to the 33 date for which the change in construction hours/days is being requested and shall explain 34 the need for the extended construction hours, describe the extenuating circumstances, 35 and identify the additional construction hours requested, including the duration. 36 37 c) Signs shall be posted at the Project site prior to commencement of construction of the 38 proposed Project for the purpose of informing all contractors/subcontractors, their 39 employees, agents, material haulers, and all other persons at the construction site(s)of 40 the basic requirements of mitigation measures for Noise. 41 42 d) Signs shall be posted at the construction site that include the permitted construction days 43 and hours, and day and evening contact name and phone number for the onsite 44 complaint and enforcement manager(see#4 below)to allow people to contact the 45 complaint and enforcement in the event of noise concerns related to the Project. 46 47 e) An onsite complaint and enforcement manager shall be designated for the Project and 48 shall respond to and track complaints and questions related to noise. The name and 49 contact information for the designated onsite complaint and enforcement manager shall 50 be included on the title sheet of the plans submitted for building permit. 51 52 f) Equipment and trucks used for proposed Project construction shall use the best available 53 noise control techniques (e.g. improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine 54 enclosures, and acoustically-attenuated shields or shrouds, wherever feasible). MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 19 1 2 g) Impact tools (e.g.jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) if used for Project 3 construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid 4 noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. 5 6 h) Stationary construction noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as 7 possible and they shall be muffled. 8 i) No outside amplified sources (e.g. stereo "boom boxes") shall be used on site during 9 Project construction. 10 11 The inclusion of mitigation measure above will reduce any potential impacts to Noise to less than 12 significant levels. 13 14 5. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Ukiah that the Project, 15 as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment. 16 17 6. The Initial Environmental Study was prepared and demonstrated there is no substantial evidence that 18 supports a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, would have a significant effect on the 19 environment. 20 21 7. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the 22 Project, as mitigated, does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional 23 environment. 24 25 8. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the 26 Project, as mitigated, will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term 27 environmental goals. 28 29 9. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the 30 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative 31 considerable. 32 33 10. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Environmental Study, the 34 Project, as mitigated, will not result in impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human 35 beings, either directly or indirectly. 36 37 11. The Initial Environmental Study(IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)were sent to the State 38 Clearinghouse for State Agency review and comment and publicly noticed and made available for 39 public review and written comment from September 15 through October 14, 2014. No comments 40 were received during the review and comment period for the IS and MND. 41 42 12. A Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available in the following 43 manner: posted with the State Clearinghouse on September 10, 2014; posted at the Mendocino 44 County Clerk on September 10, 2014; mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the parcels 45 included in the Project on September 10, 2014, 2014; published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on 46 September 14, 2014; and posted on the Project site on September 10, 2014. 47 48 13. A Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to ensure compliance with 49 the adopted mitigation measures and the project proponent has agreed to the mitigation measures 50 included in the MMRP. 51 52 14. The Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of proceedings of the 53 decision on the Project are available for public review at the City of Ukiah Planning Department, 54 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 20 1 15. On October 22, 2014, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the City 2 Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development 3 Rezoning and Precise Development Plan. 4 5 16. On November 5, 2014, the City Council voted to adopt the mitigated negative declaration for 6 the Orrs Creek Homes Rezoning and Precise Development Plan. 7 8 FINDINGS FOR THE 9 ORRS CREEK HOMES 10 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING WITH PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED 11 DEVELOPMENT ZONING REGULATIONS 12 123, 125, 127, AND 129 FORD STREET 13 FILE NO.: 258 14 15 The following Findings of Fact are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, 16 the application materials and documentation, Planning Commission review, and the public record. 17 18 FINDINGS 19 20 1. The proposed Planned Development Combing Zone with Precise Development Plan and PD Zoning 21 Regulations, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for adoption of an ordinance to 22 establish a Planned Development Combining zone required by zoning ordinance section 9168(C) as 23 described in the Table 4 of the staff report and below: 24 25 A. General Plan: The Project is consistent with general plan as described in the General Plan 26 section of the staff report, including Table 1. 27 28 B. Purpose and Intent of the Planned Development Combing Zone District: The previous PD 29 approved in 2007 included a precise development plan for the development of each of the four 30 parcels with one townhome with second unit and garage. This application would amend the 31 previous PD with a new precise development plan and PD zoning regulations specific to the 32 development. The proposed Project would increase the supply of housing in Ukiah by 33 constructing four(4) new single-family homes. The Project is required to construct frontage 34 improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees which provide an amenity to the 35 neighborhood. The Project through the precise development plan and PD zoning regulations 36 includes the preservation and protection of healthy, native trees located on Lot 1 and protection of 37 Orrs Creek which provides habitat for the threatened steelhead trout; thereby preserving the 38 natural environment. In addition, mitigation measures and conditions of approval were developed 39 in consultation with CDFW and Public Works in order to ensure protection of these resources. 40 The Project utilizes each parcel efficiently by constructing new 3-bedroom, 2 '/2- bath homes with 41 usable yard space, storage space in the garage, and onsite parking on smaller parcels. The 42 reduction in the front yard, side yard, and garage setbacks and use of tandem parking and use of 43 two-stories provides a reasonable house size and the smaller lots and may reduce the overall 44 cost to home buyers due to the smaller land area. Prior to the submittal of this application for the 45 establishment of a new precise development plan for the four vacant parcels, several parties had 46 contacted the planning department to determine the process and fees associated with 47 development of the precise development plan approved in 2007. None of these parties moved 48 forward with the 2007 precise development plan. The applicant for this project has determined 49 that the most marketable project for the parcels is development of the parcels with single-family 50 homes as shown in the proposed precise development plan and has estimated the sales price of 51 the homes at$285,000 to $300,000. Given that the 2007 approved precise development plan has 52 not been constructed in the 7 years since its approval, the proposed precise development plan 53 would allow economic use of the land by creating a new precise development plan for the land 54 that responds better to current market demand. The Project is consistent with the criteria for 55 evaluating the consistency of precise development plans with the purpose and intent of the MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 21 1 Planned Development combining district identified in zoning ordinance section 9167(F)as 2 described in #2 below. 3 4 C. Complements and Compatible with Existing and Potential Development: The Project would 5 develop four(4) single-family homes on existing parcels. Single-family and multi-family homes 6 are located in the immediate neighborhood on Ford Street and single-family homes are located to 7 the south on Clara Avenue. The Ford Street ProjecUBuddy Eller Center is located directly east of 8 the Project site and provides transitional housing in apartment buildings. The proposed PD 9 Regulations identify the uses and development standards for the parcels included in the PD. The 10 PD regulations are based on the uses and development standards of the R3 zoning district and 11 modified to address the specific parcels and use (single-family residential) included in the Project 12 and the environmental constraints of Lot 1 (Orrs Creek, steelhead trout, and native trees). The 13 size and design of the homes, density, and use are compatible with and complementary to other 14 development in the area. The Project was reviewed by the Design Review Board who found the 15 Project compatible with and complementary to other development in the area and appropriate for 16 the individual parcels on which the homes would be constructed. 17 18 2. The Orrs Creek Homes Precise Development Plan, as conditioned, is consistent with the criteria for 19 evaluating the consistency of precise development plans with the purpose and intent of the Planned 20 Development combining district identified in zoning ordinance section 9167(F) as described in the 21 Table 3 of the staff report and below: 22 23 A. Circulation Needs and Impacts: The Project would result in four(4)single-family homes. Each 24 residence would be accessed from a driveway with access to a public street, Ford Street. There 25 are existing easements on lot 4 for access to the apartments that are part of the Buddy Eller 26 Center and the residence at 131 Ford Street. The access easements related to access the 27 Buddy Eller apartments do not require modification. There are easements on the parcels for the 28 benefit of the parcel to the south (131 Ford Street). The owner of this parcel has provided a letter 29 that states he is aware of the project and that the modifications to the existing easements would 30 be necessary and the he is amenable to these modifications. Modifications to the easements are 31 included as a condition of approval. The Project would construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk and a 32 minimum of 2 on-street parking spaces would be available. The construction of the sidewalk 33 improves pedestrian circulation in the neighborhood. The Project was reviewed by the Public 34 Works Department. Public Works did not identify any traffic related issues related to construction 35 or operation of the Project. 36 37 B. Parking and Traffic Needs and Impacts: Two (2) onsite parking spaces would be provided for 38 each residence as required by the City Code. The parking would be provided in a tandem 39 configuration with one parking space in the driveway and one parking space behind in the 40 garage. Since the parking is for a single-family home, the residents have the ability to control the 41 parking and move vehicles as needed. 42 43 C. Utilities and Public Services Needs and Impacts: City services are available to serve the 44 Project. The City has enacted mandatory water conservation measures and the residents of the 45 Project would be required to comply with any water conservation measures in place. The Project 46 includes drought tolerant landscaping and water conserving irrigation. The Project has been 47 reviewed by Public Works Department, Electric Utility, Fire Marshal, and Building Official and 48 there are adequate services and utilities to serve the Project. 49 50 D. Noise Needs and Impacts: The proposed Project would be similar in use, intensity, and density 51 to the surrounding neighborhood. The City's noise ordinance would apply to this Project both 52 during construction and after occupancy. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval have 53 been applied to the Project to address construction related noise impacts. 54 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 22 1 E. Odor Needs and Impacts: The Project is a residential Planned Development; typically odors are 2 not associated with residential uses. 3 4 F. Private and Common Space Needs and Impacts: The Project does not include any common 5 space since it is a small single-family home development. Each parcel includes a front yard, 6 front porch, and rear yard which provide the private open space for each residence. The 7 subdivision of the property required the payment of the City's Parks Fee as discussed above 8 under General Plan, Recreation. The purpose of this fee is to mitigate impacts to parks and 9 recreational facilities and to provide funds for the construction of new facilities. 10 G. Trash Collection Needs and Impacts: The precise development plan identifies a location for the 11 trash/recycling containers in the side yard. Each resident would be responsible for placing 12 containers at and removing containers from the curb for trash and recycling collection. 13 14 H. Security and Crime Deterrence Needs and Impacts: Exterior lighting is proposed for each of 15 the homes. Each parcel includes fencing which will define the private space/parcel from the 16 public right-of-way; and in the case of Lot 1, will provide a barrier between Orrs Creek (which can 17 use as a pathway) and the usable backyard space for the parcel, which can be used as a 18 pathway for pedestrians. Development of the site as proposed could reduce the incidents of 19 loitering in the area since there would be fewer locations for loitering and more"eyes on the 20 street."The Project was reviewed by the Police Department and no concerns related to security 21 and crimes were identified. 22 23 I. Energy Consumption Needs and Impacts: The Project is subject to the requirements of the 24 California Green Building Code Standards which includes specific requirements (materials and 25 light fixtures)to reduce energy consumption. 26 27 J. Design Needs and Impacts: The Project would use one house plan for all four(4) parcels and 28 would vary the house plan by using different colors for each home, different garage doors, and 29 varied roofs. The design of the house plan is based in part on the historic homes located on Ford 30 Street and Clara Avenue. The Project was reviewed by the DRB who found the design of the 31 Project compatible with the neighborhood and made recommendations to differentiate the house 32 plan on each parcel. Some of the recommendations from the DRB have been incorporated into 33 the design of the house plan modified for each parcel. 34 35 K. Relationship to Physical Features: The Project includes four(4) parcels. Parcels 2, 3, and 4 36 include no trees, significant landscaping or other natural features. Parcel 1 includes a section of 37 Orrs Creek which includes native trees within and along the creek bank. The native trees that are 38 closest to construction areas were evaluated by a certified arborist. The arborist provided 39 recommendations for tree protection during construction. The recommendations were included 40 as mitigation measures and conditions of approval for the Project. Preservation and protection of 41 these trees has also been included in the proposed Orrs Creek Homes PD Regulations. A group 42 of valley oaks (Arborist Report, Group D)are located along the west property line of Lot 1 and 43 proposed for removal as part of the Project. The arborist report prepared for the Project identified 44 these trees as being unhealthy and having structural deficiencies and stated there was no value 45 in retaining these trees. The Project site is relatively flat and slopes generally away from Orrs 46 Creek. Minor grading would be required to provide adequate site drainage. The Project includes 47 LID improvements that would reduce the impacts related to drainage and help to infiltrate water 48 prior to release to Orrs Creek. 49 50 L. Consistency of Architectural Features: The Project would use one house plan for all four(4) 51 parcels and would vary the house plan by using different colors for each home, different garage 52 doors, and varied roofs. The Project was reviewed by the DRB who found the design of the 53 Project compatible with the neighborhood and made recommendations to differentiate the house 54 plan on each parcel. Some of the recommendations from the DRB have been incorporated into 55 the design of the house plan modified for each parcel. 56 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 23 1 M. Balance and Integration with Neighborhood: The proposed Project includes four(4) 1,536 sf 2 homes with one-story and two-story elements. The size and height of the homes is consistent 3 with other homes in the neighborhood; however, the lot sizes are smaller than other parcels on 4 Ford Street and Clara Avenue. The Project includes both front and rear yards, similar to other 5 homes in the neighborhood. The design of the house plan was based in part on the design of 6 historic homes on Ford Street and Clara Avenue. The Project was reviewed by the Design 7 Review Board who found the Project to be consistent and compatible with other residential 8 development in the neighborhood and appropriate for the individual parcels included in the 9 Project. 10 N. Building Design: The house plan for the Project includes one-story and two-story elements, 11 gable and hips roofs, front porches, and single-wide garages which minimizes the prominence of 12 the garage. The house plan for each parcel would be varied through the use of different colors, 13 garage doors, and roofs. The house plans also include a mix of materials. These features 14 provide articulation and variety in the building design. 15 16 O. Density: The parcels included in the Project have already been created and range in size from 17 2,911 sf to 7,084 sf. The underlying zoning district High Density Residential (R3) requires a 18 minimum lot area of 6,000 sf for"each building or group of buildings." Based on a minimum lot 19 size of 6,000 sf, the maximum density for the R3 zoning district would be 7.28 units per acre. The 20 density of the proposed Project is 9.73 units per acre due to the smaller lot size. The Project was 21 reviewed by the DRB who found the design and density of the Project compatible with the 22 neighborhood and appropriate for the parcels. 23 24 3. An Initial Environmental Study (IS) was prepared in order to evaluate the potential impacts that could 25 result from construction and implementation of the Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development 26 Rezoning, Precise Development Plan and PD Zoning Regulations. The IS identified potential impacts 27 to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology and water 28 quality, land use and planning, and noise. As part of the IS, mitigation measures were identified that 29 would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. A Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program 30 has been prepared for the Project and the project proponent has agreed to the mitigation measures. 31 32 4. On October 22, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and after 33 receiving public testimony and conducting due deliberations, voted to recommend the City 34 Council: 1)adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development 35 Rezoning and Precise Development Plan; and 2) introduce an ordinance to establish the Orrs Creek 36 Homes Planned Development with Precise Development Plan and Planned Development Zoning 37 Regulations. 38 39 5. On November 5, 2014, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and after receiving 40 public testimony and conducting due deliberations, voted to: 1) adopt the Mitigated Negative 41 Declaration for the Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Rezoning and Precise Development 42 Plan; and 2) introduce an ordinance to establish the Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development with 43 Precise Development Plan and Planned Development Zoning Regulations. 44 45 6. The Notice of Intent(NOI)to adopt a mitigated declaration and public notice for the Project was made 46 available in the following manner: 47 48 • posted at the State Clearinghouse for distribution to state agencies and departments on 49 September 10, 2014; 50 ■ posted at the County Clerk on September 10, 2014; 51 ■ mailed to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Mendocino County Water 52 Agency with a copy of the IS and MND on September 9, 2014; 53 ■ mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the parcels included in the Project on September 54 10, 2014; 55 ■ published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on September 14, 2014; MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 24 1 ■ posted on the Project site on September 10, 2014; and 2 ■ posted at the Civic Center(glass case)on September 11, 2014. 3 4 No comments on the mitigated negative declaration, initial environmental study, or Project were 5 received in response to the notice. 6 7 7. The NOI described in #6 above also included a notice of public hearing for Planning Commission 8 consideration and possible recommendation to the City Council on the Project and for City Council 9 consideration and possible action on the Project. The notice of public hearing for the Project was 10 provided as described above. No comments on the Project were received in response to the notice. 11 12 PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE 13 ORRS CREEK HOMES 14 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING WITH PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED 15 DEVELOPMENT ZONING REGULATIONS 16 123, 125, 127, AND 129 FORD STREET 17 FILE NO.: 258 18 19 1. Approval is granted for the Orrs Creek Homes Project as shown on the approved Precise 20 Development Plan (sheets A01 and A02 date stamped October 9, 2014, sheets A1.2 for 127 and 129 21 Ford Street date stamped October 9, 2014, sheet C1 date stamped November 5, 2014, Lot 1 22 landscaping plan date stamped November 3, 2014, and the remaining architectural and civil plans 23 included in the plan set date stamped September 25, 2014) and for the approved Orrs Creek Homes 24 Planned Development Zoning Regulations dated October 14, 2014, except as modified by the 25 following conditions of approval. 26 27 2. 137 Ford Street is not a part of the Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development and is not subject to the 28 mitigation measures or conditions approval for the Orrs Creek Homes Rezoning and Precise 29 Development Plan. 30 31 3. For the parcels included in this project, the approved Orrs Creek Homes Precise Development Plan 32 and associated Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Zoning Regulations shall supersede 33 Ordinance 1092 which approved a precise development plan for the parcels included in this project. 34 Ordinance 1092 and the applicable conditions of approval shall remain in full force and effect for 137 35 Ford Street (APN 002-121-24) which was part of the rezoning to Planned Development approved by 36 Ordinance 1092. 37 38 4. Development and operation of the Project shall comply with the approved Orrs Creek Homes Precise 39 Development Plan and associated Orrs Creek Homes Planned Development Zoning Regulations. 40 Any items not addressed by the approved precise development plan and zoning regulations shall 41 default to the zoning ordinance and city code. 42 43 5. The mitigation measures included in the Orrs Creek Homes Rezoning and Precise Development Plan 44 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan have been agreed to by the project proponent and are hereby 45 included by reference as conditions of approval. The mitigation measures also are provided below. 46 47 6. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff review and 48 approval: 49 50 A. Revised civil plan that addresses the comments from the Project Arborist date stamped 51 November 4, 2014 regarding the need to avoid compaction, grade changes and standing water in 52 the root protection zone of tree#A. 53 54 B. Revised landscaping plan that shows the location of the planting of two oak trees 55 (Valley Oak, Black Oak, and/or Coastal Live Oak). The minimum size shall be#15 56 and the minimum planting area shall be 4-feet by 4-feet. The location of the tree planting shall be MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 25 1 recommended by the project arborist in consultation with the project proponent and civil engineer 2 in order to ensure the long-term health of the trees. 3 4 C. Location of tree protection fencing and protective buffer(Trees#A, B, C, E, and F) consistent with 5 the locations recommended in the Criss Arborist Report dated August 13, 2014. The arborist 6 report states that trees#G and H would not be impacted by construction; therefore, protective 7 fencing is not needed. 8 D. Detail for the protective tree fencing. The fencing shall be metal with in-ground posts and a 9 minimum of 5 feet in height. 10 11 E. Name and contact information of the Project arborist(Criss)on the title page of the plans. 12 13 F. Notes on the plans that state that state"Construction materials, vehicles and equipment, and the 14 cleaning of equipment or materials is prohibited within the area of the protective fencing and 15 under the driplines of the trees to be protected and preserved. 16 17 G. A detail of the protective fencing and protective buffer recommended in the arborist report. The 18 fencing shall be 5 to 6 feet in height, metal and secured with in-ground posts. 19 20 H. Tree/riparian vegetation protection notes: 21 22 ■ Care shall be taken when digging under ground near the base of the trees to be 23 protected and preserved. 24 ■ All digging within 6-feet of the base of the trees shall be done by hand. 25 ■ Any holes dug for construction (such as foundations, fence posts, utilities)shall avoid 26 roots 4 inches or greater by relocating these holes to an area where roots do not exceed 27 4 inches. 28 • Care shall be taken when removing the garage in order to prevent mechanical damage to 29 and soil compaction under trees#E and F. The garage shall be removed manually; the 30 use of inechanical equipment is prohibited. 31 ■ Dumping of chemical, washing equipment, and/or stacking of loose debris on or near root 32 zones and near the creek is prohibited. 33 ■ Any work near the creek shall be performed consistent with industry and environmental 34 standards in order to prevent damage to vegetation on the creek bank. These standards 35 include, but are not limited to, prohibiting the dumping of chemicals, washing of 36 equipment, and/or sacking of loose debris on or near the root zones or near the top of 37 bank of the creek. 38 39 I. Fence location and detail for the fence on lot 1 along Orrs Creek. The fencing shall be setback 5 40 feet from the Orrs Creek top of bank and shall be an open style design with no barbs. The 41 openings in the fencing shall allow for small animals to pass through the fencing. 42 43 J. Extension of the drainage swale located at the rear(south) boundary of the Project to the east 44 (rear of Lot 4)to discharge into a new drain inlet designed to maximize storm water treatment and 45 infiltration into the swale. 46 47 K. Revised drainage swales, a typical section, and proposed landscaping/ground cover for the 48 swale. The revised swales shall provide infiltration and treatment of stormwater runoff. 49 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 26 1 L. Roof drains are designed to maximize infiltration into landscaped areas and not discharge directly 2 into storm drains or into the street. 3 4 M. Exhibit and notes that demonstrate how the bare soil/exposed dirt in the rear yards of each home 5 will be covered until such time as the home buyers landscape the rear yard. 6 7 N. Location and detail of the signs required by the mitigation measures for noise. The detail shall 8 include the proposed language and required contact information. 9 7. The protective tree fencing required by condition #6 above shall be installed and approved by 10 Planning Department staff prior to commencement of grading or construction activities and shall 11 remain in place until the completion of Project construction. 12 13 8. Prior to commencement of construction activities or site grading, an on-site preconstruction meeting 14 shall be held with the head contractor, Project arborist (Criss), and Planning Department staff. 15 16 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the regulations for the Orrs Creek Homes PD shall be 17 submitted to the Planning Department and shall include the following in order to ensure the protection 18 of Orrs Creek and the threatened steelhead trout and the ensure the preservation and protection of 19 the trees identified for protection and preservation in the arborist report prepared by Criss and dated 20 August 13, 2014. 21 22 A. Trees identified as#A, B, C, E, F, G, and H in the arborist shall be protected and preserved. 23 Removal of these trees is prohibited. 24 25 B. Any future development on the site shall be located outside of the dripline/canopy of the protected 26 trees (Criss Arborist Report dated August 13, 2014, #A, B, C, E, F, G, and H). 27 28 C. Rear yard fencing along Orrs Creek shall be located 5-feet from the top of the bank. The fencing 29 shall be a maximum of 6-feet in height, open style, designed to allow movement of wildlife and to 30 prevent wildlife entanglement, and shall not include barbs. 31 32 D. Prohibition of the planting of known invasive species and species identified in the California 33 Invasive Plant Council's data base (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/). 34 35 10. For the first year after construction of lot 1, trees identified as #A, E, and F in the arborist report shall 36 receive watering as described in the response to comments from the Project arborist date stamped 37 November 4, 2014. 38 39 11. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 40 from 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. Construction hours are prohibited on Sunday and all holidays recognized by 41 the City of Ukiah. Interior work that generates negligible or no noise at the property line is allowed 42 outside of the construction hours noted above. 43 44 12. On plans submitted for building permit, all mitigation measures and conditions of approval shall be 45 included as notes on the first sheet of the plans. 46 47 From the Planninq Commission 48 49 13. The Parks Fees required by condition of approval #19 below shall be retained in a Parks Fee account 50 to be used for the purchase of land for and development of a park in the Wagenseller Neighborhood 51 as indicated in the General Plan. 52 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 27 1 14. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff review and 2 approval: 3 4 A. Relocation of the rear yard fences for lots 2 and 3 to the south side of the swale located adjacent 5 to the south (rear) property line. 6 7 B. In order to provide more independently accessible parking in the driveway, the driveways on all 8 four lots shall be widened. The remaining landscaped area at the back of the sidewalk shall be a 9 minimum depth of 6 feet and minimum size of 25 square feet in order to provide a viable planting 10 area for street trees and landscaping. 11 12 From the Public Works Department(Ben Kagevama 707.463.6284) 13 15. Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided for all bio-swale areas located outside of the fenced lot 14 yards. A final landscape plan shall be prepared and approved the Planning Department and Public 15 Works Department. Plants shall be selected for qualities of drought tolerance, minimal maintenance 16 requirements, erosion protection of the swale, and must not impede surface drainage when grown to 17 maturity. 18 16. The project engineer shall provide oversight and inspection during project construction, with special 19 attention to: site grading; bio-swale installation and landscaping; downspout drainage; and the 20 installation of erosion control measures. Upon completion of the work, a report shall be submitted by 21 the project engineer to the Department of Public Works stating that the improvements have been 22 completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval, and all areas have 23 been permanently stabilized to prevent sediment and erosion. 24 17. The rear fence for Lot 1 shall have a minimum setback of 5 feet from the top of bank. 25 18. Roof drains shall be designed to maximize infiltration into landscaped areas, and not discharge 26 directly into storm drains or into the street. 27 19. Prior to project completion and sign-off of the building permit, applicant shall create and modify 28 easements affecting the subject property and adjoining parcels, including those for access, drainage 29 and utilities, as necessary for the proposed development, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 30 20. Park fees are due and payable to the City of Ukiah. The proposed reduction of single family units will 31 result in a reduction to the park fee. The amount due is $1,699.49 for each of four parcels, for a total 32 of$6,797.97 and must be fully paid prior to issuance of the building permit. 33 From the Buildinq Official (707.467.57181 34 35 21. Fire sprinklers are required for all buildings. 36 37 22. Provide 1 hour fire resistive wall and parapet construction at the garages where walls are parallel to 38 the property line and less than 5 feet from the exterior wall to the property line or provide that the 39 garages are sprinklered per NFPA 13D or the 2013 CRC Section R313. 40 41 23. If the building is sprinklered, then it is allowed to have exterior projections up to 3 feet from the 42 property line. If the projections have sheetrock on the underside, they can extend to within 2 feet of 43 the property line. 44 45 24. The California Green Building Standards Code applies to the buildings included in the Project. 46 47 25. The new 2013 California Energy requirements become effective July 1, 2014 and are applicable to 48 the Project. 49 50 From the Fire Marshal (Kevin Jenninqs 707.463.6271) MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 28 1 2 26. Each residence is required to provide a residential sprinkler system. 3 4 27. New and existing buildings shall have approved addresses and numbers placed in a position to be 5 plainly legible from the street or road fronting the property. CFC Section 505.1 6 7 28. It is recommended that each residence be supplied with one 2-A rated fire extinguisher. 8 9 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 10 1. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of the 11 plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited to the following: 12 13 A. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall fluctuate according 14 to the season, i. e., more water in summer, less in the winter. 15 16 B. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds, and reduced 17 watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather. 18 19 C. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic fertilizer 20 according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional. 21 22 D. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees. 23 24 E. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not constrict the 25 trunks and damage the trees. 26 27 F. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not damage the trunk 28 of the tree and its overall growth. 29 30 G. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests, disease or other factors, including vandalism, shall 31 be replaced with the same or similar tree species, or an alternative species approved by the 32 department of Planning and Community Development. 33 34 H. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be made. All pruning shall 35 follow standard industry methods and techniques to ensure the health and vitality of the tree. 36 37 2. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior to 38 building permit final. 39 40 3. All construction activities shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and 41 structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and 42 issued. 43 44 4. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, regulation, 45 specification, or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal agency as 46 applicable. 47 48 5. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges applicable to 49 this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full. 50 51 6. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts related to 52 project construction: 53 54 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Rule 1-430, 55 Fugitive Dust Emissions. 56 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 29 1 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and building 2 construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly 3 during windy days. 4 5 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive 6 dust. 7 8 D. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall 9 include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of 10 mud and dust onto public streets. 11 12 E. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be 13 used for earth moving operations. 14 15 F. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous 16 gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 17 18 G. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires, poorly covered 19 truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the end of 20 construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 21 22 7. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents, 23 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, 24 attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against 25 any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul 26 the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, 27 costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity, 28 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this application, 29 whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of the City. If, for any 30 reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of 31 competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 32 33 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS 34 35 From the Public Works Department(Ben Kaqevama 707.463.6284) 36 37 1. Street frontage improvements along Ford Street shall be constructed in accordance with improvement 38 plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. These 39 improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb, gutter, ADA compliant sidewalk, street trees, 40 and additional improvements as needed to conform to existing conditions. The applicant shall be 41 responsible for the relocation or replacement of utilities as necessary to accommodate the 42 construction of the street frontage improvements. 43 44 2. Prior to construction of site improvements, a final grading and drainage plan, and an erosion and 45 sediment control plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the 46 Department of Public Works. The plan shall specify all measures necessary to protect Orr Creek 47 from sediment, including the permanent restoration or protection of all disturbed areas to prevent 48 future erosion. 49 50 3. Standard street tree requirements include street trees spaced approximately every 30 feet along the 51 public street, within tree wells where feasible, otherwise within 5 feet of the back of sidewalk. Street 52 trees shall be in accordance with Standard Detail 602 — tree types to be approved by the City 53 Engineer. 54 55 4. All driveway and parking areas shall be paved with asphaltic concrete, concrete, or other alternative 56 surfacing, subject to approval by the City Engineer. If heavy truck traffic is anticipated from the solid MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 30 1 waste company, delivery trucks, or other heavy vehicles, the pavement section should be calculated 2 appropriately to ensure that it can withstand the loading. 3 4 5. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured 5 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or otherwise 6 affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated construction costs. 7 8 6. The proposed development is located within the City of Ukiah sanitary sewer service area and subject 9 to applicable sewer connection fees. 10 11 7. Capital improvement fees for water services are based on the water meter size. A fee schedule for 12 water meter sizes is available upon request. Additional charges for water service construction are 13 also applicable. 14 IS MITIGATION MEASURES 16 17 AESTHETICS Ig 19 1. All outdoor light fixtures shall be located, aimed, and shielded so as to minimize light 20 trespassing over property lines and avoid directing light towards motorists and pedestrians. 21 Fixtures shall be full cutoff and nighttime friendly and shall be International Dark Sky 22 Association (IDA) approved or equivalent. Prior to installation of the exterior lighting, the 23 applicant shall prepare a photometric plan for review and approval by the Planning Department 24 that demonstrates that the lighting will not spillover onto adjacent properties and that all lighting 25 is shielded and downcast. 26 Z7 AIR QUALITY 2g 29 1. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and building 30 construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, 31 particularly during windy days. 32 33 2. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall 34 include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of 35 mud and dust onto public streets. 36 37 3. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive 38 dust. 39 40 4. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous 41 gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour. 42 43 5. The burning of construction debris is prohibited. Any disposal of vegetation removed as a result 44 of site preparation shall be lawfully disposed of, preferably by chipping and composting, or as 45 authorized by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. 46 4� BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 48 49 1. The following measures shall be taken to protect and preserve Orrs Creek and steelhead trout: 50 51 A. Prior to construction of site improvements, a final grading and drainage plan and an erosion 52 and sediment control plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and 53 approval by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall specify all measures necessary 54 to protect Orrs Creek from sediment, including the permanent restoration or protection of all MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 31 1 disturbed areas to prevent future erosion. The sediment and erosion control plan shall 2 utilize only native or non-invasive non-native plant materials to protect disturbed areas. 3 Erosion and sediment control products utilizing netting, such as straw wattles, shall be bio- 4 degradable, and designed to not entrap or harm wildlife, wherever such options are 5 available. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be maintained and re-applied as 6 necessary by the applicant until undisturbed areas as fully stabilized. 7 8 B. Plans submitted for building permit shall be revised to extend the drainage swale located at 9 the rear(south) boundary of the Project to the east (rear of Lot 4)to discharge into a new 10 drain inlet designed to maximize storm water treatment and infiltration into the swale. Also a 11 � Hydrology and Water mitigation measure. 12 13 C. Plans submitted for building permit shall include revised drainage swales, a typical section, 14 and proposed landscaping/ground cover for the swale. The revised swales shall provide 15 infiltration and treatment of stormwater runoff. Also a Hydrology and Water mitigation 16 measure. 17 18 D. Plans submitted for building permit shall demonstrate that roof drains are designed to 19 maximize infiltration into landscaped areas and not discharge directly into storm drains or 20 into the street. Also a Hydrology and Water mitigation measure. 21 22 E. Plans submitted for building permit shall show bare soil/exposed dirt in the rear yards of 23 each home will be covered until such time as the home buyers landscape the rear yard. 24 Also a Hydrology and Water mitigation measure. 25 26 F. Plans submitted for building permit shall show the fence on Lot 1 /123 Ford Street setback 5- 27 feet from the Orrs Creek top of bank. The fencing shall be an open style design with no 28 barbs. The openings in the fencing shall allow for small animals to pass through the fencing. 29 30 G. The Planned Development Zoning regulations for the Project shall prohibit the planting of 31 known invasive species and species identified in the California lnvasive Plant Council's data 32 base (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/). 33 34 H. The Project Proponent shall verify whether a Stream Bed Alteration Permit from the 35 California Department of Fish and Wildlife is required for the Project. If a Stream Bed 36 Alteration Permit is required, the Project Proponent shall be obtained the permit prior to the 37 commencement of any grading or construction activities on the Project site and a copy of the 38 permit shall be provided to the Planning and Community Development Department. 39 40 2. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented in order to protect any nesting birds. 41 42 A. If site preparation and tree removal/trimming include the spring bird nesting season (February 43 through July), a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified professional within 44 two weeks prior to removing/trimming any trees. If active nests(with eggs or living young)are 45 found, no activity shall be permitted that might disturb or remove the active nests until the 46 young birds are able to leave the nest and forage on their own. Empty nests may be removed. 47 If eggs or young are present,the nests shall be left until the young birds leave. Setback buffers 48 for the nests will vary depending on the species affected and the location of the nest. Buffer 49 zones shall be determined on a case by case basis in consultation with a California 50 Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist. 51 52 3. The healthy native trees identified as#A, B, C, E, F, G, and H on the Criss Arborist Report dated 53 August 13, 2014 shall be preserved and protected. 54 55 4. In order to protect the trees to be preserved on Lot 1, the following shall be included on plans 56 submitted for building permit and are subject to staff review and approval: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 32 1 2 O. Location of tree protection fencing and protective buffer(Trees#A, B, C, E, and F) 3 consistent with the locations recommended in the Criss Arborist Report dated August 13, 4 2014. The arborist report states that trees#G and H would not be impacted by construction; 5 therefore, protective fencing is not needed. 6 7 P. Name and contact information of the Project arborist(Criss) on the title page of the plans. 8 9 Q. Notes on the plans that state that state"Construction materials, vehicles and equipment, and 10 the cleaning of equipment or materials is prohibited within the area of the protective fencing 11 and under the driplines of the trees to be protected and preserved. 12 13 R. A detail of the protective fencing and protective buffer recommended in the arborist report. 14 The fencing shall be 5 to 6 feet in height, metal and secured with in-ground posts. 15 16 S. Tree/riparian vegetation protection notes: 17 18 • Care shall be taken when digging under ground near the base of the trees to be 19 protected and preserved. 20 • All digging within 6-feet of the base of the trees shall be done by hand. 21 ■ Any holes dug for construction (such as foundations, fence posts, utilities) shall 22 avoid roots 4 inches or greater by relocating these holes to an area where roots do 23 not exceed 4 inches. 24 ■ Care shall be taken when removing the garage in order to prevent mechanical 25 damage to and soil compaction under trees#E and F. 26 ■ Dumping of chemical, washing equipment, and/or stacking of loose debris on or 27 near root zones and near the creek is prohibited. 28 ■ Any work near the creek shall be performed consistent with industry and 29 environmental standards in order to prevent damage to vegetation on the creek 30 bank. These standards include, but are not limited to, prohibiting the dumping of 31 chemicals, washing of equipment, and/or sacking of loose debris on or near the root 32 zones or near the top of bank of the creek. 33 34 5. An on-site preconstruction meeting shall be held with the head contractor, Project arborist 35 (Criss), and planning staff. 36 37 6. The Project arborist(Criss)shall provide general supervision over construction of the Project that 38 is proximate to the trees to be protected and preserved. This supervision may include 39 unscheduled visits to the site by the Project arborist. 40 41 7. The Planned Development regulations for the Orrs Creek Homes PD shall include the following 42 in order to ensure the protection of Orrs Creek and the threatened steelhead trout and the 43 ensure the preservation and protection of the trees identified for protection and preservation in 44 the arborist report prepared by Criss and dated August 13, 2014. 45 46 E. Trees identified as#A, B, C, E, F, G, and H in the arborist shall be protected and preserved. 47 Removal of these trees is prohibited. 48 49 F. Any future development on the site shall be located outside of the dripline/canopy of the 50 protected trees (Criss Arborist Report dated August 13, 2014, #A, B, C, E, F, G, and H). 51 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 33 1 G. Rear yard fencing along Orrs Creek shall be located 5-feet from the top of the bank. The 2 fencing shall be a maximum of 6-feet in height, open style, designed to allow movement of 3 wildlife and to prevent wildlife entanglement, and shall not include barbs. 4 5 H. Prohibition of the planting of known invasive species and species identified in the California 6 Invasive Plant Council's data base (http://www.cal-ipc.orq/paf/). 7 g CULTURAL RESOURCES 9 10 1. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources 11 are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the City shall be notified 12 of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional 13 archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation program if 14 deemed necessary. 15 16 2. If human remains are encountered during construction excavation and grading activities, State 17 Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the 18 County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to 19 PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American Descent, the 20 coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC 21 will then identify the person(s)thought to be the Most Likely descendent, who will help determine 22 what course of action should be taken in dealing with the remains. 23 Z4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 25 26 In order to reduce the potential for the Project to result in erosion or the loss of top soil, the following 27 mitigation measures shall be applied to the Project: 28 29 1. Air Quality mitigation measures 1, 2, 3, and 4. 30 31 2. Biological Resources mitigation measure#1A. 32 33 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 34 35 Biological Resources mitigation measures 1A through E. 36 3� LAND USE AND PLANNING 38 39 Biological Resources mitigation measures#3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 A and B. 40 41 Noise 42 43 1. Construction hours are limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 44 Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. Construction hours are prohibited on Sunday and all holidays 45 recognized by the City of Ukiah. Interior work that generates negligible or no noise at the 46 property line is allowed outside of the construction hours noted above. 47 48 Approval of additional construction hours may be requested in writing from the Planning and 49 Community Development Director and Public Works Director for extenuating circumstances. 50 The written request must be submitted a minimum of 14 days prior to the date for which the 51 change in construction hours/days is being requested and shall explain the need for the 52 extended construction hours, describe the extenuating circumstances, and identify the additional 53 construction hours requested, including the duration. 54 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 34 1 2. Signs shall be posted at the Project site prior to commencement of construction of the proposed 2 Project for the purpose of informing all contractors/subcontractors, their employees, agents, 3 material haulers, and all other persons at the construction site(s)of the basic requirements of 4 mitigation measures for Noise. 5 6 3. Signs shall be posted at the construction site that include the permitted construction days and 7 hours, and day and evening contact name and phone number for the onsite complaint and 8 enforcement manager(see#4 below)to allow people to contact the complaint and enforcement 9 in the event of noise concerns related to the Project. 10 11 4. An onsite complaint and enforcement manager shall be designated for the Project and shall 12 respond to and track complaints and questions related to noise. The name and contact 13 information for the designated onsite complaint and enforcement manager shall be included on 14 the title sheet of the plans submitted for building permit. 15 16 5. Equipment and trucks used for proposed Project construction shall use the best available noise 17 control techniques (e.g. improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, 18 and acoustically-attenuated shields or shrouds, wherever feasible). 19 20 6. Impact tools (e.g.jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) if used for Project 21 construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise 22 associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. 23 24 7. Stationary construction noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible 25 and they shall be muffled. 26 27 8. No outside amplified sources (e.g. stereo"boom boxes") shall be used on site during Project 28 construction. 29 30 10. NEW BUSINESS 31 10A. Mendocino R/C Raceway Use Permit and Site Development Permit, 1147 North State Street 32 (File No.: 163). Consideration and possible action on a request for approval of a Use Permit and 33 Site Development Permit to allow a raceway for electric radio controlled cars on the rear of the 34 property located at 1147 North State Street, APN 001-360-24. 35 36 Principal Planner Jordan reported the applicant has withdrawn the use permit and site development 37 permit application. 38 39 10B. Burger King Renovation Site Development Permit, 711 East Perkins Street (File No.: 433): 40 Consideration and possible action on a request for approval of a Site Development Permit to allow 41 renovation of the building facade, modifications and new signage, parking lot maintenance, new 42 landscaping, and replacement of parking lot lighting with LED fixtures at the Burger King restaurant at 711 43 East Perkins Street, APNs 179-061-04. The application also includes a request for approval of 44 modifications to the landscaping requirements. 45 46 Assistant Planner Johnson gave a staff report: 47 48 Commissioner Christensen: 49 • Referred to attachment 2, condition of approval #1 and noted the condition reads, `Approval is 50 granted to allow construction of a new restaurant building ........'. The restaurant is not a new 51 building. 52 53 Assistant Planner Johnson noted the language will be modified to reflect the project involves new 54 improvements to the facade and/or other new improvements such as the new prepay window as provided 55 for on page 1 of the staff report and attachment 3 of the same relevant to the project description. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 35 1 Principal Planner Jordan: 2 • Revise condition of approval #1 to read: `Approval is granted to allow facade modification to an 3 existing restaurant building with drive-thru and associated site improvements ..........' 4 5 Commissioner Pruden: 6 • Asked if staff has the conditions of approval for the original site development permit for Burger 7 King?Would like to know what the requirements were for landscaping and maintenance. 8 • Sees condition of approval #18 in attachment 2 of the staff report addresses the landscaping 9 requirements for the Project. 10 • Requested clarification most of the reduction to parking concerns the parking spaces in the far 11 west-end of the parking lot. Would like clarification if the intent was to `crack' the asphalt and 12 open this area back to soil because of the addition of new trees. Could not distinguish this aspect 13 on the landscaping plan. 14 • It may be more landscaping could be added at the far west end of the parking lot. 15 16 Commissioner poble: 17 • Referred to page 3 of the staff report and asked about lines 1 and 2 that state: `Based on the 18 revisions to the landscaping plan & sign program, the Project is consistent with the 19 recommendation & conditions of approval from the DRB' and he did not see any conditions of 20 approval from the DRB. 21 • Asked about whether the landscaping strip proposed for the middle of the westerly parking lot 22 was `waived' by the DRB or is this another exception request? 23 • Referred to a letter from the applicant dated October 23, 2014 (attachment 5) saying Burger King 24 complied with all of the DRB's recommendations with the exception of the planter strip in the 25 middle of the second parcel and questioned where this is addressed in the staff report. 26 Questioned that the staff report indicates we are not modifying what the DRB recommended, but 27 we actually are? 28 29 Assistant Planner Johnson: 30 • Related to the initial site development project, finds there were no requirements related to 31 landscaping and maintenance. All that was included in the Project conditions was the parking 32 plan. 33 • The striped parking spaces at the far west end of the parking lot were not approved as part of the 34 original site development permit. Part of the conditions of approval is to remove the existing 35 parking spaces located along the west property line. These parking spaces do not comply with 36 the City's requirements for parking stall size and backup space thus creating a hazardous 37 condition. Confirmed just the striping will be removed and not the asphalt. 38 • Requested clarification the most significant factor concerning the landscaping requirements was 39 shade. 40 41 Principal Planner Jordan: 42 • The DRB included conditions that the landscaping plan be revised to be more consistent with the 43 City's landscaping requirements and that the height of the logo signs be reduced to not exceed 44 the height of the main roof prior to Planning Commission consideration. Based on the comments 45 from the DRB the applicant revised the Sign Program to make certain the logo signs do not 46 exceed the height of the main roof as well as the landscaping plan to comply as much as is 47 possible with City landscaping code requirements. 48 • The DRB said it would be nice to have a landscaping strip where the RVs and large vehicles 49 park. The DRB understood why the applicant wants to retain this parking area and encouraged 50 the applicant to find a way to meet the shade requirements for the parking lot and 20°/o 51 landscaping coverage requirements and essentially do a better job with the landscaping but did 52 not require the applicant to meet these requirements in any specific way. The intent of the DRB 53 was to encourage the applicant to do a betterjob with the landscaping, but did not specify how. 54 • Shade and more landscaping coverage were the most significant factors cited by the DRB. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 36 1 • Noted the applicant is not requesting modification to anything the DRB asked for. They are 2 requesting modification to the zoning ordinance requirement related to providing a landscape 3 planter every four parking spaces. When looking at the landscaping plan and in order for Burger 4 King to keep that RV and large vehicle parking and circulation scenario having to provide one 5 planter every four parking spaces would not work for all areas of the parking lot. The DRB was 6 okay with this. 7 8 Commissioner poble: 9 • Related to the issue of shade referred to the shade and landscaping calculations plan. Requested 10 clarification the shade requirement pertains to the parking area and not the two parcels. Referred 11 to the Shade and Landscape Calculations (Sheet 12) in the site plans and noted an area adjacent 12 to the drive-thru is shown in the shade calculations and is not certain whether this is a parking lot 13 because the whole drive-thru that wraps around the building was not included in this calculation. 14 Questions whether the drive-thru is considered parking or is it `just drive-thru' and should not be 15 included in the shade calculations? 16 • Related to Sheet 12 of the site plans sees Burger King excludes the drive-thru in the shade 17 calculations. Sees from the drawings there are several trees in the drive-thru area that are 18 included in the calculations. Again, should the drive-thru area be included or not in the shade 19 calculations? 20 • There is a footnote on Sheet 12 at the bottom of the shade calculations table that states: `All 21 existing trees assumed to be the same type and have an estimated 35' diameter dripline or 22 provide 962 SF of shade. This is conservative # as it appears there are at least three existing 23 trees larger than that,' and is of the opinion after visiting the site this statement is not accurate 24 with regard to the 35 feet calculation. Noted the existing tree on the westerly parcel line to the 25 north has about a 10-foot diameter dripline. As such, is not convinced the Project meets the 26 shade requirements. 27 28 Principal Planner Jordan: 29 • City code requires that shade be provided for all paved areas so this would include the drive-thru. 30 However, we are not using the City's shade requirements of having to achieve the necessary 31 shade percentage at 10 years but rather requirements from the City of Davis that uses a 15-year 32 tree canopy when calculating shade coverage. Accordingly, the City of Davis standards does 33 provide that all paved parking areas must be shaded. Related to sheet 12 concerning the Shade 34 & Landscaping Calculations, this is the reason all the drives isles and circulation and parking 35 spaces are included in the shade calculations, but specifically excludes the drive-thru. 36 • Looking at Sheet 12 the drive-thru is not shown as being highlighted and is not included in the 37 calculations. Clarified the City is using the City of Davis shade coverage standards and not the 38 City's shade standards so the drive-thru should not be included in the calculations. 39 40 Assistant Planner Johnson: 41 • Referred to the applicanYs request for modification dated October 23, 2014 and confirmed this is 42 the most recent project modification request. 43 • The applicant submitted three site plans with suggestions. Based upon the landscaping 44 recommendation given to the applicant formulated by staff and DRB members, the modification 45 request of October 23, 2014 was based on these suggestions. 46 • Confirmed the shade requirement pertains to the parking lot. 47 48 Commissioner Sanders: 49 • Related to Commissioner poble's observation concerning the shade calculations for the Project 50 asked if he did his own calculations? 51 52 Commissioner poble: 53 • Went to the field and estimated the average tree has a 24-foot diameter as opposed to the 35- 54 foot diameter indicated on sheet 12. This discrepancy would affect the shade coverage 55 calculations. With this information, he scaled from the plans and determined the diameter for the MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 37 1 average existing tree on the site was 26 feet. This brings the total shade coverage of existing 2 trees down to 2700 sq. ft. rather than 4300 sq. ft. as calculated by Burger King. There may be a 3 solution to this discrepancy by adding more trees to the west. One solution would be to replace 4 some of the existing trees with species having a larger canopy. 5 6 Principal Planner Jordan: 7 • Staff agrees with Commissioner poble's assessment regarding the shade calculations. 8 9 Commissioner Pruden: 10 • Acknowledged tree species do affect the shade calculations. For example, a Liquid Amber puts 11 out virtually no shade as opposed to other tree types with a large canopy. 12 • Could add some tree species that provide more shade and/or add more trees to make the 13 necessary shade calculations. 14 15 Commissioner poble: 16 • Is not convinced the shade calculations shown on the plans as certified by the landscape 17 architect are accurate. Does not know how we can get the point of reassurance in this regard. 18 • His intent is to make certain it is clear to everyone what he has observed and understands. 19 20 Principal Planner Jordan: 21 • Recommends the Commission speak to the applicant about project constraints and limitations on 22 the site. Staff's opinion is that for this particular project given retention of the large parking area 23 and circulation type would not be feasible to add more trees to the interior of the site. Related to 24 shade and shade calculations, this may be a function of replacing trees with trees that provide 25 more appropriate canopy and would grow better. We did not want to create a situation where 26 trees were being planted for the sake of planting trees to make numbers only to have vehicles run 27 into the trees and damage them. Her point is that the Commission should be less concerned with 28 the overall shade percentage but rather how to create a functional landscaping plan that provides 29 shade and let go of the number in this particular situation because the proposed Project is much 30 better than what is existing in terms of landscaping. 31 32 Commissioner Sanders: 33 • The plan for the landscaping is definitely an improvement. 34 • Questioned whether or not the landscape architect that did the shade calculations was ever 35 actually on the site. 36 37 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:45 p.m. 38 39 Scott Disharoon, Applicant: 40 • Confirmed that a full length of asphalt in the parking to a radius of four feet will be removed on the 41 south westerly edge of the property line that will increase the total landscaping for the Project by 42 approximately 1900 sq. ft. and showed the location as well as the location of the planters on the 43 site plan. Has concerns about having any planter areas in the middle of the parking lot because 44 they will be `blown ouY by vehicles/buses. There is also a very important light fixture located in the 45 center of the parking lot that would not be feasible to relocate. Indicated on the site plans planter 46 areas where one tree will be planted every four parking stalls. 47 • The project site is comprised of two separate parcels in which complying with the 20% 48 landscaping coverage requirement would not work for the site and is not feasible given the site 49 constraints and limitations. However, with the existing and new landscaping proposed the total 50 landscaping for the both parcels combined would calculate overall to 20.4°/o, which exceeds the 51 20% requirement. As such, the intent was to add to the trees that are already existing. 52 Understands some of the existing trees have not grown well. 53 • Complied with the suggestions made by the DRB, but is open to more except for providing 54 landscaping in the middle of the parking lot. 55 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 38 1 Commissioner poble: 2 • His problem is that the landscaping plan being explained is not the one he was looking at. 3 • Likes the idea of widening the landscaping strip such that more trees can be planted. 4 • There is a shade calculation that is incorrect and asked how this can be resolved? 5 • In assessing the shade calculations, finds the shade calculations for the proposed new trees fine 6 on the landscape plans, but finds the existing trees that were used to calculate the existing shade 7 to be incorrect. 8 9 Scott Disharoon: 10 • Would not be able to answer the aforementioned question because the landscape architect is not 11 present. 12 • It is his understanding the 4-foot strip was taken into consideration because the intent was to 13 meet the 20% landscaping coverage requirements. 14 15 Chair Whetzel: 16 • Related to the shade calculation discrepancy, it may be the 4-foot strip that is to be removed is 17 shown but not taken into consideration. 18 19 Commissioner Pruden: 20 • Then the shade calculation discrepancy is essentially related to the shade calculations 21 concerning the Shade & Landscaping Calculations for the proposed new landscaping and the 22 Existing Conditions concerning the Shade & Landscape Calculations as shown on two different 23 sheets of the site plans. However, looking at the two sheets, the proposed new landscaping plan 24 is a definite improvement over the existing. 25 26 Principal Planner Jordan: 27 • Referred to sheet C1 of the site plan and noted one of the construction notes concerning the west 28 property line states: `construct new 6" high concrete curb planter for new landscaping, (See 29 Landscape Plan).' 30 31 Commissioner poble: 32 • It appears the landscape plan that is being reviewed is in fact reflective of what landscaping is 33 being proposed but does not meet the shade calculation requirements. The Commission has to 34 decide whether or not this is acceptable considering the fact the proposed landscaping plan is a 35 substantial improvement. 36 37 Chair Whetzel: 38 • Is of the opinion while accuracy concerning the shade calculations is important the fact Burger 39 King is highly improving the site more than compensates for the discrepancy. It is likely the shade 40 calculation figures are close. 41 42 Commissioner Pruden: 43 • Regardless, the shade calculation numbers need to be checked. 44 • Asked about the north side of the property and placement of one tree for every four parking space 45 and whether there are plans to curb the spaces or allow water to flow into the planting wells? 46 Recommends no restrictive curbing other than to protect the vegetation. 47 • Asked who does the landscaping maintenance for Burger King and whether or not the applicant 48 was happy with the work? Preference would be to find a professional landscaping company to 49 make certain trees are not trimmed too much, etc., since Burger King is spending a lot of money 50 on landscaping for the remodel improvements. 51 52 Chair Whetzel: 53 • It appears curbing is proposed on the site plans. If drainage cuts are made to the curb, this 54 technique should work fine. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 39 1 • Asked if the Commission was fine with the proposed facade improvement design, materials and 2 color? 3 • Asked if cars and/or pedestrians have ever been hit in the parking lot? 4 5 Commissioner Pruden: 6 • Noted the proposed paint scheme was used on the Burger King in Willits. Is of the opinion the 7 color scheme looks out of context with the agricultural venue across the street. Finds the 8 proposed color scheme 'dark and moody.' Understands corporate headquarters dictate color, 9 materials and design for Burger King franchise buildings. The proposed color scheme does not fit 10 well in the neighborhood. While she does not favor the color scheme would not turn down the 11 Project because of this. 12 13 Commissioner Sanders: 14 • Has no issue with the design or color scheme. 15 • Is pleased Burger King wants to retain the existing landscaping and reduce the number of parking 16 spaces and asphalt. 17 • Only comment is that the Plum trees are not likely the best species to plant on Perkins Street. 18 19 Commissioner Christensen: 20 • Is fine with the design of the building. It is a contemporary design. 21 • The proposed renovations to the building are an improvement over the current design. 22 • Appreciates the effort the applicant has made to improve the landscaping and provide shade in 23 the parking lot. 24 • Preference would be to dispose of the large mass of asphalt in the middle of the parking lot where 25 the big vehicles park. Has no knowledge how many of these vehicles park in this area at any 26 given one time, but has observed only one or two large vehicle parked in this area at a time. It 27 may be that something can be done to improve the aesthetics by way of landscaping for this 28 portion of the parking lot and still allow for adequate circulation. 29 • Would like to see a pedestrian pathway for the Project and recommends considering creating a 30 pathway that extends from the westernmost part of the parking area through to the front entry of 31 the building for safety purposes. 32 33 Scott Disharoon: 34 • Is not familiar with the techniques used for effectively allowing runoff from the parking lot to drain 35 into the landscaping planters, but preference would be to make sure runoff from the parking lot 36 does drain into the planter wells. 37 • Is fine with the landscaping maintenance company Burger King has been using, but because of 38 the remodel has not regularly done landscaping maintenance. 39 • Related to the shade calculation issue, the challenge with regard to the large vehicle parking area 40 and the potential to provide landscaping does not work because of the layout of the parking lot 41 and how these vehicles park and the existing light pole that cannot be relocated. 42 • Related to providing adequate shade of the parking lot Burger King has somewhat complied with 43 the shade requirement of providing one tree for every four parking spaces where feasible so a 44 modification to this requirement is being requested. 45 • Related to installing a pathway, because of the layout of the parking lot finds it difficult how to 46 provide some type of raised pedestrian walkway and this is the reason for requesting an 47 exception. Explained how the site limitations make providing for a pedestrian pathway infeasible. 48 • Acknowledged there are car accidents that occur in the parking lot. Has no knowledge about 49 whether or not a pedestrian has ever been hit in the parking lot. 50 51 Commissioner poble: 52 • It appears there is a striped pedestrian walkway on the north end of the large vehicle parking 53 area and will this be retained? If this is not the intended function, it could be. 54 55 Chair Whetzel: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 40 1 • Could just change the striping to function as a pedestrian walkway. Essentially a pathway can be 2 created with paint. 3 4 Commissioner Pruden: 5 • The pedestrian pathway does not need to be raised. 6 • Related to the need to have a pedestrian walkway, noted people in the neighborhood typically 7 cut through the adjacent church parking lot to come to Burger King. 8 9 Commissioner Christensen: 10 • Supports providing for some type of striped pedestrian pathway. Having a designated pathway 11 also is a way to alert drivers. 12 13 Scott Disharoon: 14 • Referred to the existing conditions on the site plans and confirmed the striped area is not a 15 pedestrian walkway. 16 • While providing for a pedestrian pathway was not a consideration for the Project would be open 17 to having a pedestrian pathway. 18 19 There was discussion about an appropriate location for a pedestrian pathway. 20 21 Commissioner poble: 22 • Referred to attachment 5 of the staff report (Letter from Burger King regarding Request for 23 Modification to Planter and Pedestrian Walkways for the existing Burger King Restaurant, dated 24 October 23, 2014) and requested clarification about the large vehicle parking element 25 representing 20% of the dine-in business and that there is no theoretical data to substantiate this 26 number. However, what the applicant observed for the Willits Burger King is when the parking lot 27 was closed for repairs 20% of the dine-in sales were lost such that those were reduced by 20% 28 and questions whether this essentially represents 4% of business rather than 20% of business? 29 As such, the issue about possibly eliminating one of the large vehicle spaces if the loss is 4°/o 30 rather than 20% could be a reality. 31 • The proposed project is much better than what is existing. Has a problem with the inaccuracies 32 made with regard to the shade calculations of the site plan documents. While the Commission 33 understands what is being proposed is better the public may not know this and this why it is 34 important and for good decision making purposes that the information regarding the description of 35 the project seeking approval be accurate. 36 • Referred to attachment 3 of the staff report, revise finding #3 to read: 'The propose Project, as 37 conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance as described in the staff 38 report, including Table 2, and with the approval of the requested modifications to the landscaping 39 requirement for landscape coverage, one tree between every 4 parking spaces, and providing a 40 pedestrian pathway through the parking lot. 41 42 Commissioner Pruden: 43 • A 4% loss may or may not be a true representation. 44 • Is of the opinion the Burger King parking lot is designed appropriately to handle large vehicles 45 whereas the JC Penney parking lot is not. The JC Penney parking lot is not a legal bus 46 designation area. 47 • The selection of tree species appears to be appropriate for the site. Has reservation about the 48 Red Plum tree on Perkins Street because such trees need to be properly staked. Red Plum trees 49 are particularly susceptible to leaning with the wind so they need to be properly staked early on. 50 • Can condition project to have shade calculations reexamined. 51 52 Chair Whetzel: 53 • Having dealt with large vehicles and buses, Burger King needs the large parking area for parking 54 and safe maneuvering. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 41 1 • Does not have a problem with Burger King keeping the large parking area particularly with 2 improvements being made and that the addition of new landscaping is sufficient. 3 • Without having the landscape architect present it is not possible to clarify the discrepancy with 4 regard to the shade calculations. 5 6 Commission consensus: 7 • Is fine with staff's analysis of the Project as provided for in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the staff report 8 and the landscaping modification requests except for removal of parking spaces#7 and 8 that are 9 not approved parking spaces as addressed below. 10 • Add Conditions of Approval: 11 ■ Reduce curbing between the parking area and landscaped areas to allow runoff to enter 12 the landscaping areas in order to provide opportunities for infiltration of runoff. 13 ■ Project proponent considers the use of a street tree other than Flowering Plum. Any 14 replacements tree shall be selected from the City's Required Street Tree List. A more 15 suitable street tree would be the Flowering Pear. Tree substitutions shall be shown on the 16 landscaping plan for review and approval by staff. 17 ■ Provide for a pedestrian pathway that extends from the westernmost part of the RV/bus 18 parking area through the parking lot to the front (west) entry of the building. This pathway 19 may be defined using paint or similar material and shall be reflective. 20 • Related to parking and striping, recommends conditioning the Project: 21 ■ The existing parking stalls located along the west property line shall be removed as 22 shown on the site plan. These parking spaces do not comply with the City's requirements 23 for parking stall size and backup and create a hazardous condition. 24 ■ The RV/bus parking spaces along the southern property line (spaces#7 and 8 on the site 25 plan) are not approved spaces and shall be removed in order to ensure adequate and 26 safe maneuvering for large vehicles and to prevent damage to landscaping and trees. 27 • Revise language for Finding#3 in attachment 1 of the staff report. 28 • Revise language for Condition of Approval #1 in attachment 2 of the staff report. 29 30 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:17 p.m. 31 32 M/S Doble/Pruden to approve Burger King Renovation Site Development Permit, 711 East Perkins 33 Street (File No.: 422) with Findings in attachment 1 of the staff report and Conditions of Approval in 34 attachment 2 of the staff report for this project, as amended in the discussion above for Finding #3 and 35 Condition of Approval #1 and the new and recommended conditions of approval made by the 36 Commission, as discussed above. Motion carried (5-0). 37 38 � SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS 39 40 BURGER KING FAC�ADE RENOVATION, LANDSCAPE AND 41 PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS AND NEW SIGNAGE 42 711 EAST PERKINS STREET, APN 179-061-34& 179-061-24 43 CITY FILE NUMBER: 422 44 45 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the 46 application materials and documentation, and the public record. 47 48 1. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan as 49 described in the staff report, including Table 1. 50 51 52 2. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Airport Compatibility requirements for the 53 C1 compatibility zone as described in the staff report. 54 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 42 1 3. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance as 2 described in the staff report, including Table 2, and with the approval of the requested modifications 3 to the landscaping requirements for landscape coverage, one tree between every 4 parking space, 4 and providing 50% shade coverage of all paved parking areas within 15 years of planting (City of 5 Davis standard). The conditions of approval from the Planning Commission require the Project to 6 provide a pedestrian pathway through the parking lot; and the project proponent and Planning 7 Commission discussed possible locations for the pedestrian pathway at the public hearing. 8 9 4. Approval of the modifications to the landscaping requirements is based on the following: 10 11 A. Landscape Coverage: The project site is comprised of 2 separate parcels. The total square 12 feet for parcel 1 is 28,792. The proposed landscaping would provide 6,856 square feet a total 13 area of(23.8%)of landscaping coverage which exceeds the required 20 %. The total square feet 14 for parcel 2 is 23,973. The proposed landscaping would provide 3,920 square feet a total area of 15 (16.4%)of landscaping coverage which does not meet the required 20 %. The total square feet 16 for the total site (parcel 1 and parcel 2) is 52,765 the required 20% landscaping coverage would 17 be 10,553 square feet. The total proposed landscaping would provide 10,776 square feet (20.4%) 18 of landscaping coverage which exceeds the required 20%. Overall, the Project increases the 19 amount of landscape coverage for the Project site. 20 21 B. One Tree Every 4 Parking Stalls: The landscaping plan includes landscape islands every 2 22 parking spaces along the Perkins Street frontage, 2 landscape islands with a tree on the ends of 23 the 8 spaces proposed in front of the building, 2 landscape planters with 2 new trees around the 24 trash enclosure and 1 landscape planter at the menu boards. The increase in landscaping, trees, 25 and shade coverage is consistent with the condition approval from the DRB. Due to the location 26 of the RV/bus parking and the need to provide safe circulation that does not damage trees, 27 landscaping, or landscape planters, installing additional landscape planters with trees in the 28 interior of the site is not feasible. The Project provides 20% landscape overage of the Project 29 site, 50% shade coverage of paved parking areas in 15 years, and increases the amount of 30 landscaping and number of trees on the site. All of which are a substantial improvement over the 31 existing development condition. 32 33 C. 50% Shade Coverage: The Project would retrofit an existing parking lot with no interior 34 landscaping with new landscaping. The project proponent has stated that the large vehicle 35 parking comprises an important part of the revenue for the business and, therefore, needs to 36 retain the parking for RVs, buses, and semi-trucks in the parking lot. Due to the maneuvering 37 room and turn radius required for these vehicles, it is not feasible to include landscaping islands 38 in the parking lot with trees. The planting of these trees would increase the percentage of shade 39 provided by the Project. The Project does include the planting of additional perimeter trees, 40 street trees, and landscape planters between every two parking spaces in the row of 90-degree 41 parking spaces located along the north property line, in the area of the trash enclosure, and at the 42 ends of the 90-degree parking stalls at the front of the building. Overall, the landscaping included 43 is a substantial improvement over the existing landscaping; and the Project would result in an 44 increase in shade coverage, landscape coverage, and trees within and around the perimeter of 45 the parking lot. 46 47 5. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance as 48 described in the staff report. 49 50 6. The proposed Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required by Zoning Ordinance 51 Section 9263(E)for approval of a Site Development Permit as described in Table 4 of the staff report. 52 53 7. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 54 15302(b) Class 2, Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures and Class 15303 Class 1(c), 55 New Construction based on the following: 56 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 43 1 A. The Project is consistent with the Commercial general plan designation and all applicable general 2 plan policies as well as with the Community Commercial zoning designation and regulations 3 based on the analysis in the staff report. 4 5 B. The Project consists of the renovation of a commercial (restaurant building with drive-thru) square 6 footage of the building would increase by 68 square feet. The use would be continued with the 7 renovation of the building. 8 9 C. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects in relations to traffic, noise, air 10 quality, or water quality because the project site located within a developed urban area that 11 contains existing similar type uses. The Project was referred to Public Works for review and 12 comment. Public Works did not have any comments on the Project and did not request a traffic 13 study. 14 15 D. Based on review of the project by Public Works, the Electric Department, Police Department and 16 Fire Marshal, the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. 17 18 8. Notice of the proposed Project was provided in the following manner as required by the Zoning 19 Ordinance: 20 21 A. posted in three places on the project site on October 30, 2014; 22 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on October 30, 2014; and 23 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 2, 2014. 24 25 � CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL— USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 26 27 BURGER KING FAC�ADE RENOVATION, LANDSCAPE AND 28 PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS AND NEW SIGNAGE 29 711 EAST PERKINS STREET, APN 179-061-34& 179-061-24 30 CITY FILE NUMBER: 422 31 32 1. Approval is granted to allow the modification of the fa�ade and small addition to an existing 33 restaurant building with drive-thru and associated site improvements as shown on the plans date 34 stamped October 24, 2014 and as described in the project description submitted to the Planning 35 and Community Development Department and date stamped August 11, 2014. 36 37 2. The existing parking stalls located along the west property line shall be removed as shown on the 38 approved site plan. These parking spaces do not comply with the City's requirements for parking 39 stall size and backup and, therefore, create a hazardous condition. 40 41 3. The RV/bus parking spaces shown along the south property line (identified as spaces #7 and #8 42 on the site plan) are not approve and shall be removed in order to ensure adequate and safe 43 maneuvering for large vehicles and to prevent damage to landscaping and trees. 44 45 4. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff review and 46 approval: 47 48 A. Removal of the existing parking spaces located along the west property line (see#2 above). 49 B. Removal of RV/bus parking spaces along the south property line identified as spaces#7 and 50 8 on the site plan (see#3 above). 51 C. Exterior lighting that is hooded and/or shielded to force light downward and to prevent 52 emission of light or glare beyond the property line. Fixtures shall be International Dark Sky 53 Association approved or equivalent. 54 D. Location of inverted "U" bike rack with four bike parking spaces located near the main 55 entrance on the west building face. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 44 1 E. Landscaping and irrigation plans and documentation that demonstrate compliance with the 2 State Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance and Cal Green requirements for 3 landscaping and irrigation. 4 F. Plans that show the location of all rooftop equipment and demonstrate that the equipment is 5 screened from view from the public way(s). Compliance may require submittal of sight lines, 6 building sections, and/or similar plans/exhibits to demonstrate compliance. 7 8 5. Prior to Building Permit Final, a "Trash Disposal Plan" shall be prepared by the applicant and 9 submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. The Plan shall address litter control, 10 trash collection, on-site storage, and pick-up on a regular basis. The Plan shall include proof of a 11 contract with the City disposal contractor, and specify that such a contract shall be maintained as 12 a requirement for the issuance and retention of the Site Development Permit. 13 14 6. New signs and refacing/modification/replacement of existing signs require application for and 15 approval of a Sign Permit from the Planning and Community Development Department. The 16 required Sign Permit shall include all new and refacing/modification/replacement of existing signs, 17 including but not limited to building mounted signs and menu/confirmation boards. 18 19 7. Construction hours 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 20 p.m. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays recognized by the City of Ukiah. 21 Interior construction is exempt from these hours provided that construction noise is not audible at 22 the project property lines. 23 24 8. On plans submitted for building permit these conditions of approval shall be included as notes on 25 the first sheet. 26 27 From the Planninq Commission 28 29 9. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff review and 30 approval: 31 32 A. A pedestrian pathway extending from the westernmost part of the RV/bus parking area 33 through the parking lot to the front (west)entry of the building and are subject to staff review 34 and approval. The pathway may be defined using paint or similar material and shall be 35 reflective. 36 37 B. Reduced curbing between the parking area and landscaped areas to allow runoff to enter the 38 landscaped areas in order to provide opportunities for infiltration of runoff. 39 40 10. The project proponent may consider the use of a street other than the Flowering Plum identified 41 on the landscaping plan as the street tree for the Project. Any replacement tree shall be selected 42 from the City's Required Street Tree List. A more suitable street tree for the Project site would be 43 the Flowering Pear (Pyrus calleryana). If the project proponent chooses to substitute a different 44 species for the Flowering Plum, the substitution shall be shown on the landscaping plan 45 submitted for building permit and is subject to staff review and approval. 46 47 From the Public Works Department 48 49 11. If the building permit value of work exceeds $113,206 or the proposed improvements create the 50 net addition of two or more plumbing fixture units to the building, the existing sanitary sewer 51 lateral shall be tested in accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No. 1105, and repaired or 52 replaced if needed. 53 54 12. If the building permit value is equal to or greater than one-third of the value of the existing 55 structure, the construction, repair, or upgrade of curb, gutter, and sidewalk and the addition of MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 45 1 street trees, along the subject property street frontage, may be required pursuant to section 9181 2 of the Ukiah City Code. 3 4 Standard Conditions 5 13. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use, including 6 but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been applied for 7 and issued/finaled. 8 9 14. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges 10 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full. 11 12 15. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law, 13 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal 14 agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, 15 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building 16 Permit is approved and issued. 17 18 16. A copy of all conditions of this Site Development Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon 19 any future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest. 20 21 17. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior 22 to building permit final. 23 24 18. This Site Development Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the 25 approved project related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these 26 stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the 27 effective date of this approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted has 28 ceased or has been suspended for 24 consecutive months. 29 30 19. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Site Development Permit shall be granted only for the 31 specific purposes stated in the action approving the Site Development Permit and shall not be 32 construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except to such 33 specific purposes. 34 35 20. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of 36 the plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited to the following: 37 38 A. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall fluctuate 39 according to the season, i. e., more water in summer, less in the winter. 40 41 B. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds, and 42 reduced watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather. 43 44 C. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic fertilizer 45 according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional. 46 47 D. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees. 48 49 E. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not constrict 50 the trunks and damage the trees. 51 52 F. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not damage the 53 trunk of the tree and its overall growth. 54 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 46 1 G. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests, disease or other factors, including vandalism, 2 shall be replaced with the same or similar tree species, or an alternative species approved by 3 the department of Planning and Community Development. 4 5 H. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be made. All pruning 6 shall follow standard industry methods and techniques to ensure the health and vitality of the 7 tree. 8 9 Failure to comply with the requirements listed above could result in revocation of the Use 10 Permit/Site Development Permit. 11 12 21. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts related to 13 project construction: 14 15 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Rule 1-430, 16 Fugitive Dust Emissions. 17 18 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and 19 building construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, 20 particularly during windy days. 21 22 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control 23 fugitive dust. 24 25 D. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction 26 shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the 27 transport of mud and dust onto public streets. 28 29 E. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall 30 be used for earth moving operations. 31 32 F. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous 33 gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour. 34 35 G. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires, poorly 36 covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the end 37 of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public Works/City 38 Engineer. 39 40 22. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents, 41 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, 42 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding 43 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set 44 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be 45 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted 46 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's 47 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the 48 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void 49 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall 50 remain in full force and effect. 51 52 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT 53 • Staff will be delivering Planning Commission package because the mail delivery is uncertain. 54 • Planning Commission moving forward will now see LID Manual applicability documentation for all 55 projects. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 47 1 • The Orrs Creek Homes Project will be reviewed for approval by Council at the regular December 2 3 meeting. 3 • Is not certain whether or not at this point if there are any projects ready for discretionary review. 4 5 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT 6 Commissioner Pruden attended the Perkins Street gateway improvement workshop that addressed only 7 the conceptual aspects of the Project and found it informative. 8 9 13. ADJOURNMENT 10 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. 11 12 13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary 14 15 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 2014 Page 48